DRAFT_St. Louis North Side/Downtown/Midtown/CWE Streetcar Feasibility Study 2013

7/29/2019 DRAFT_St. Louis North Side/Downtown/Midtown/CWE Streetcar Feasibility Study 2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/draftst-louis-north-sidedowntownmidtowncwe-streetcar-feasibility-study 1/104

ST. LOUIS STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY

The Partnership for Downtown St. LouisDraft Report

FEBRUARY 2013



St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

STUDY TEAM

THE PARTNERSHIP FOR DOWNTOWN ST.

LOUIS MAGGIE CAMPBELL, PRESIDENT AND CEO

MATT SCHINDLER, PROJECT MANAGER

URS TEAM URS

KENNETH KINNEY

RENEE DUCKER

RICK NANNENGA, PE

CH2MHILLJIM GRAEBNER

CRAWFORD BUNTE BRAMMEIER

CARRIE FALKENRATH, PE, PTOE, PTP

THE LAWRENCE GROUP

MONICA CARNEY HOLMES, AICP, CNU-A

CRAIG LEWIS, AICP, LEED AP, CNU-A

PATRICE GILLESPIE SMITH

RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.

WILLIAM WOODFORD

VECTOR COMMUNICATIONS

LAURNA GODWIN

STEERINGCOMMITTEE

BILL BAYER, US BANK CDC

JERRY BLAIR, EAST-WEST GATEWAY

ZACK BOYERS, US BANK CDC

MAGGIE CAMPBELL, PARTNERSHIP FOR

DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS

KIM CELLA, CITIZENS FOR MODERN TRANSIT

CLARK DAVIS

STEPHEN GREGALI, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MAYOR’S

OFFICE

CRAIG HELLER, LOFTWORKS TISHAURA JONES, TREASURER CITY OF ST. LOUIS

JOHN LANGA, METRO

JESSICA MEFFORD-MILLER, METRO

BRIAN PHILLIPS, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

DAVID RICHARDSON, HUSCH BLACKWELL

DON ROE, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, PLANNING AND

URBAN DESIGN AGENCY

MATT SCHINDLER, PARTNERSHIP FOR

DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS

VINCE SCHOEMEHL, GRAND CENTER

STEVE SMITH, LAWRENCE GROUP

MARK VOGL, HOK

OTIS WILLIAMS, ST. LOUIS DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION

ROSE WINDMILLER, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

FINANCECOMMITTEE

BILL BAYER, US BANK CDC

MAGGIE CAMPBELL, PARTNERSHIP FOR

DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS

KIM CELLA, CITIZENS FOR MODERN TRANSIT

CRAIG HELLER, LOFTWORKS

PAUL HUBBMAN, EAST-WEST GATEWAY

TISHAURA JONES, TREASURER CITY OF ST. LOUIS

BOB LEWIS, DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

LAURA RADCLIFF, STIFEL NICOLAUS

DAVID RICHARDSON, HUSCH BLACKWELL,LLP

STEVE SMITH, LAWRENCE GROUP

MATT SCHINDLER, PARTNERSHIP FOR

DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS

VINCE SCHOEMEHL, GRAND CENTER





TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

MARKET ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

ALIGNMENT.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13

TRAFFIC ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

ENVIRONMENTAL .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

OPERATIONS PLAN ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

COSTS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES......................................................................................................................................................................... 33

STREETSCAPING ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 52

GUIDEWAY................................................................................................................................................................................................... 65

STATIONS..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 67

VEHICLES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 68

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY .......................................................................................................................................................... 70

FINANCIAL PLAN ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 72

NEXT STEPS .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 78





FIGURES 1: ST. LOUIS STREETCAR STUDY CORRIDOR........................................ 9

2: EXISTING POPULATION DENSITY ................................................. 10

3: EXISTING EMPLOYMENT DENSITY ............................................... 12

4: PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OPTIONS ............................................... 15

5: CENTRAL WEST END ALIGNMENT OPTION 1 ................................ 16

6: CENTRAL WEST END ALIGHMENT OPTION 2 ................................. 16

7: DOWNTOWN ALIGNMENT......................................................... 17

8: PROPOSED CORRIDOR LANES AND EXISTING TRAFFIC ..................... 19

9: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME................................................... 23

10: DAILY RIDERSHIP ..................................................................... 26

11: STREETCAR DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR ........................................ 35

12: EXISTING HOT SPOTS................................................................ 36

13: POTENTIAL HOT SPOTS ............................................................. 40

14: DEVELOPMENT TYPES............................................................... 41

15: RENDERING, BIRD’S EYE, SECTION LOCATIONS............................. 55

16: OLIVE STREET AT 8TH

STREET – SECTION ...................................... 56


STREET – SECTION .................................... 57

18: BIRD’S EYE LOOKING NORTH ON 14TH

STREET: CURRENT................ 58

19: BIRD’S EYE LOOKING NORTH ON 14TH

STREET: WITH STREETCAR ..... 59

20: CHESTNUT STREET AT 7TH

STREET: CURRENT................................. 60

21: CHESTNUT STREET AT 7TH

STREET: WITH STREETCAR ...................... 60

22: OLIVE STREET AT 9TH STREET: CURRENT....................................... 61


STREET: WITH STREETCAR............................. 62

24: OLIVE STREET AT COMPTON STREET: CURRENT ............................. 63

25: OLIVE STREET AT COMPTON STREET: WITH STREETCAR .................. 64

TABLES 1: EXISTING POPULATION.................................................................. 8

2: EXISTING EMPLOYMENT.............................................................. 11

3: ALLOCATED CONTIGENCY PERCENTAGES FOR PLANNING ESTIMATE .... 30

4: UNALLOCATED CONTINGECY PERCENTAGES FOR ESTIMATES.............. 30

5: PROJECT COSTS WITH STREETSCAPING........................................... 31

6: PROJECT COSTS WITHOUT STREETSCAPING ..................................... 31

7: CENTERAL WEST END DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL............................ 46

8: GRAND CENTER DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.................................... 47

9: GRAND CENTER TO 18TH

STREET DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ............. 48

10: NORTHSIDE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ......................................... 49

11: DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ....................................... 50

12: STREETCAR ROUTE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL................................ 51

13: STREETCAR FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ................................................ 52

APPENDIX A: COST ESTIMATE CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS

STREETCAR COST ESTIMATEWITH STREETSCAPING

STREETCAR COST ESTIMATE WITHOUT SREETCAPING

B: PREVIOUS PLAN DESCRIPTIONS

DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS




Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Objectives. The streetcar is intended to provide convenient

connections to large numbers of jobs, residences and major

destinations. It is designed to be an important part of the region’soverall transit system. And, reflecting the impact of other modern

streetcars in the United States, it is designed to have a major impact

on economic development throughout the corridors.

Markets. Employment and residential concentrations are the keys

to transit success. The St. Louis Streetcar serves two of the greatest

employment concentrations in the St. Louis region, Downtown St.

Louis and the Central West End, and areas that are increasing in

residential density. It also serves numerous major destinations as

noted on the alignment map.

Alignment. As depicted on the map on the following page, the

streetcar has an east-west alignment and a north-south alignment.

The east-west alignment runs from a western terminus at the

Central West End MetroLink station, with double track in the center

of the Lindell-Olive corridor. In downtown, east of 14th Street, it issingle track on Olive, 6th, Chestnut, 7th and Locust Streets. The

north-south alignment’s northern terminus is on North Florissant

Avenue at St. Louis Avenue. The double-track route runs south on

North Florissant Avenue and 14th Streets, uses the single-track loop

through downtown, terminating on 14th Street at Metro’s Civic

Center station, which connects to the Saint Louis Gateway

Multimodal Transportation Center, including Amtrak train and

Greyhound bus terminals.

Vehicles. The streetcars will be modern vehicles intended to attract

high daily ridership and to provide the comfortable ride expected by

regular transit users. The vehicles are similar to light-rail vehicles,

as they have both overhead wires and same track gauge, and a

compatible look and feel. Modern streetcars are available in a

range of sizes. The vehicles selected for St. Louis would reflect

required passenger capacity for the initial line and potential system

expansion.

Service levels. Reflecting the objective of having the streetcar be a

key part of the overall transit system, service hours will be similar to

Metro’s, with weekday hours being 5:00 AM until midnight. Trains

would run every 10 minutes at peak periods and every 15 minutes

off-peak.

PROPOSED ST. LOUIS STREETCAR – DOWNTOWN









Capital cost. The total capital cost is estimated between $218

million and $271 million, depending on such elements as

streetscaping expectations. Given the alignment length, the

operating plan, and intention to serve serious transit markets, the

overall is cost is comparable with other streetcar projects aroundthe United States.

Operating cost. Assuming the aggressive operating plan noted

above and existing Metro compensation practices, the annual

operating cost is estimated at $9.7 million.

Ridership. Average weekday ridership for the streetcar is estimated

at 7,700. This is high by United States streetcar standards. It is

reflective of the strong markets served and its aggressive operating

plan. It is important to note that the streetcar is forecast to bring an

additional 2,700 riders to the overall transit system and to increase

existing MetroLink ridership. The streetcar will provide a

complementary service to the existing transit system and help to

serve the short-distance trips in the corridors.

Economic development. The streetcar, along with favorable market

conditions and a supportive policy environment, is expected to help

spur development throughout the corridors. This is consistent with

experience elsewhere in North America. Overall developmentimpact is estimated at $540 million in the first five years and $2.1

billion over 20 years. Given the development in certain areas along

the corridors, the estimate is considered to be conservative. For

example, in the last 10 years, downtown has experienced $5 billion

in investment.

Traffic impact. Although the streetcar will be operating in city

streets, and in most cases in mixed traffic (except for a separate

right-of-way on Olive Street between 14th Street and Grand

Boulevard), analysis completed for the streetcar study found that

the impact on vehicular flow will be minimal.

Environmental impact. There are no environment fatal flaws that

could prevent implementation of the streetcar project.

Funding. It is assumed that the project will require significant

federal financial support for capital costs, potentially up to 50

percent of the total. Based on current federal evaluation criteria,

the St. Louis Streetcar would be likely to score well in the

competitive funding process, especially given its strong ridership

and development performance. Given that the State of Missouri

has historically not provided funding for transit, this plan assumes

PROPOSED ST. LOUIS STREETCAR – CENTRAL WEST END





no funding at the state level. For the local match, a transportation

development district is recommended for the corridors, with a

tiered special assessment based on land use.

Conclusion: The study concluded that the streetcar would:

Serve strong transit corridors with residential density and

employment concentration,

Serve approximately 7,700 riders per weekday, a strong

performance for a new streetcar line,

Complement, not compete with, existing Metro service,

Spur an estimated $540 million in development in its first

five years of operation, and $2.1 billion over 20 years,

Have little impact on existing vehicular traffic and no serious

environmental impacts,

Have a strong likelihood of receiving federal capital funding,

and

Have strong support from stakeholders and local officials.

The benefits of the streetcar include:

Attracting new residents who want alternatives to the

automobile in the corridor,

Attracting new employers who value access to transit,

Connecting and building neighborhoods,

Creating new jobs in the city,

Providing access to jobs, institutions, schools, grocery stores

and medical services, and

Creating pedestrian-friendly urban environments.

Next steps. The next steps for the project are outlined in the

timeline below. To be eligible to secure federal funding, the

streetcar project needs to be adopted into East-West Gateway

Council of Government’s long-range transportation plan. An entity

will also need to be identified that can help facilitate the campaign

to establish the proposed transportation development district and

detailed financing plan. This entity can be managed by an existingorganization or a new one can be created specifically for this

project. After that, the next technical phase of project development

would be a federally- required environmental analysis led by East-

West Gateway. In parallel with that analysis, project sponsors

would need to finalize a financial plan and a project management

plan, both required to advance the project into engineering.





INTRODUCTION

The Downtown Next 2020 Vision established ambitious goals for

Downtown St. Louis to accomplish from 2010 through 2020. One of

the goals in the Downtown Next plan is “Making Downtown

Accessible and Easy to Get Around.” The Partnership for Downtown

St. Louis and other stakeholders saw how a downtown streetcar

improves accessibility. Discussions of a downtown streetcar became

more serious when St. Louis University announced their plans to

move their law school from midtown St. Louis to downtown. This

move presented an opportunity to link the two campuses with a

streetcar. The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis led the

discussions, raised the private funds for a study. An RFQ was issued

and a consultant was hired to perform the feasibility study. The

purpose of the study was to determine the feasibility of

implementing a modern streetcar linking downtown, the near

Northside, Midtown, and the Central West End. The study area is

shown in Figure 1.

Through a competitive selection process, the Partnership for

Downtown St. Louis selected URS to conduct the feasibility study.

URS was selected for their national modern streetcar and local

transit experience. URS has been involved in the planning anddesign of the all the modern streetcar lines in operation in the

United States to date including, Portland, Seattle, Tacoma and

Tucson.

Streetcars are gaining in popularity across the country. Modern

streetcars are in operation in the cities mentioned above and in the

final planning stages or under construction in Cincinnati, Kansas

City, Milwaukee, and Atlanta. Streetcars offer the speed,

technology, service, reliability and amenities of light rail systems at

a lower cost.

The URS Team presented the study findings to the SteeringCommittee on a monthly basis. With guidance from the Steering

Committee, the following goals and objectives were established for

the study of a modern streetcar:

Increase population and employment in the Corridors

- Attract new residents and employers

- Create new jobs

- Support neighborhoods and connect jobs

Catalyze and support future development

- Increase economic vitality of downtown and the

corridor

- Increase mixed-use, transit supportive development

- Improve the built environment

- Create walkable, sustainable neighborhoods

Integrate and complement the existing transit system

- Provide seamless connectivity

- Connect with existing transit, bicycle and pedestrian

facilities

Increase ridership within the corridors and system-wide

- Attract choice riders to the system

- Provide passenger amenities, technologies

- Increase visibility of the transit system

- Reduce auto traffic and improve air quality





WHY A STREETCAR?

An often asked question, is how are streetcars different from buses?

Buses generally operate in existing city streets in mixed traffic. This

allows routes to change due to modifications in demand or

schedule. It is important to have this flexibility in elements of the

transit system. However, bus systems do not provide the catalyst

for development that rail systems have been documented to do.

This is partly due to the fact that routes can and do change. There is

not a sense of permanence.

With fixed rail, such as streetcars or light rail, the alignment and

stations do not change. Existing and new riders feel comfortable

knowing where the route is and that the train will arrive as

expected. This permanence gives developers, planners and city

officials the certainty that the alignment will not move. As a result,

rail transit can be a catalyst for development.

Building a transit does not necessarily mean the development will

happen. Transit is a part of a larger picture. If combined with

connecting concentrations of employment and residential areas,

proper zoning, policy and incentives, streetcars can help to spur

development. This has been documented in Portland and Seattle.

Cities where streetcars have not seen the expected ridership or

development, typically have not provided serious transit with

frequent headways and connections to employment

concentrations.

The key to a successful transit system including streetcars is careful

planning. This includes identifying if there is a market, will there be

ridership, will development be attracted to the corridor, will there

be impacts and can the region afford the investment. These are

some of the issues that this study will examine.





PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Starting in August 2012, the Partnership began a comprehensive

public engagement program to garner feedback on the St. Louis

Streetcar concept. The multi-pronged strategy targeted the

neighborhoods surrounding the proposed alignment and involved

individual stakeholder meetings, monthly Steering Committee

meetings and a final public meeting.

The Partnership established a Steering Committee made up of

experts and community leaders to review the Feasibility Study

process and findings. The Steering Committee consisted of agency

partners, technical experts and representatives of organizations

who had expressed early interest in the project. This group of

individuals reviewed the Study Team’s findings as information was

collected. Within the Steering Committee, a sub-committee, the

Finance Committee, was created to specifically address the

financing piece of the Study to gain a better understanding of the

local financing environment. These committees ultimately helped

shape the Feasibility Study outcomes.

In addition to the Steering Committee, the Partnership and Study

Team held over 70 stakeholder meetings that included over 100

stakeholders. These stakeholders included politicians and their staff

at the national, state, and local levels. Governmental offices whose

departments may oversee parts of a streetcar project were

consulted regularly. Regional, civic, community, and private

organizations with projects or services in the impacted area of a

streetcar were also consulted. These meetings were held both to

inform those about the Feasibility Study and to receive feedback

and advice. In these informal discussions, the stakeholders

overwhelmingly expressed support for the concept and could

identify how the streetcar would specifically benefit their

community. Some questions focused on the logistics of getting the

project built, while other questions focused on how the projectwould impact or connect with existing MetroLink and MetroBus

service and the Loop Trolley project. In response, the Study Team

developed a list of Talking Points and Frequently Asked Questions

for distribution.

The public engagement process will culminate on March 7 with a

public open house where residents, employees and visitors will be

encouraged to offer feedback, ask questions and voice concerns.

Display boards depicting the study results, and members of theStudy Team will be available to answer questions. Comment cards

will be available. All comments will be collected and recorded.

A project website will contain the final report along with other

project materials.

ONGOING OUTREACH

In this preliminary phase, the Study Team took a targeted approach

to introduce the concept of a streetcar. As this project moves to the

environmental analysis, the team will conduct far more intense

outreach to all of the neighborhoods along and nearby the

proposed alignment.





M ARKET ANALYSIS

The measure of success for transit is connecting major destinations

and employment centers with residential neighborhoods. Density

drives transit ridership. The market analysis identified residential

and employment centers and destinations to determine if the

corridors had the density concentrations to support additional

transit.

The study area consists of two corridors, an east-west segment

along Olive/Lindell and north-south segment on 14th Street-North

Florissant Avenue. The north-south corridor is approximately

bounded by Civic Center Metro Station to the south, St. Louis

Avenue to the north, 18th Street to the west and 10th Street to the

east. The east-west corridor is bounded by the Memorial Drive to

the east, Kingshighway to the west, Forest Park Avenue to the south

and Delmar Boulevard to the north, as shown in Figure 1.

Population in the corridor is some of the region’s most dense, as

depicted in Figure 2. Downtown is one of the City’s fastest growing

and most dense neighborhoods. Since 2000, downtown residential

population has increased by 6,000 to 13,500 and in 2011 population

grew by 4 percent, according to the 2012 Downtown St. Louis

Progress Report .

Midtown is an emerging residential neighborhood, bounded by

Washington Avenue to the north, Forest Park Avenue to the south,

Spring Street to the west, and Jefferson Avenue to the east.

Population in Midtown is approximately 5,600. St. Louis University

is located in this area along with Grand Center, a major

entertainment and arts center. Housing is largely multifamily with a

few single family residences.

The Central West End is an established residential neighborhood at

the western terminus of the corridor with approximately 14,400

residents. Central West End has a mix of both single family residents

and multi-family apartments.

The Northside from Washington Avenue to St. Louis Avenue has a

mix of single, attached and multi-family residential units. The

corridor includes Carr Square, Old North St. Louis, an emerging

mixed use neighborhood with a small commercial center along 13 th

Street. This area has approximately 8,500 residents.

Table 1: Existing Population

Location Existing Population

Downtown 13,500

Midtown 5,600

Central West End 14,400

North St. Louis 8,500

Study Area 38,000

Source: 2010 Census





Figure 1 – St. Louis Streetcar Study Corridor





Figure 2 – Existing Population Density, 2010




Building Neighborhood, Connecting Jobs 11

The corridors connect some of the region’s most dense employment

centers, downtown and the Central West End, as shown in Figure 3.

Downtown has approximately 88,000 employees while the Central

West End has more than 30,000 employees with BJC/Washington

University Medical School located on the southern end of theneighborhood. Midtown is also an employment center with over

9,700 employees. Midtown’s largest employer is St. Louis

University, with other employment associated with the

entertainment district including the Fox Theater, Powell Hall and

Grand Center.

The Northside contains a few employers, especially closer to

downtown, where there is a small employment concentration along

Delmar and Washington Avenues.

Table 2: Existing Employment

Location Existing Employment

Downtown 88,000

Midtown 9,700

Central West End 32,000

North St. Louis 6,400

Study Area 136,000Source: 2010 Census

Also identified were corridor trip generators and destinations. In

downtown, special generators in the corridor include: Crown Candy,

the planned Great Rivers Greenway Trestle project, the Gateway

Arch, the Convention Center, the Old Courthouse, City Garden, City

Museum, Edward Jones Dome, Scottrade Center, Peabody Opera

House and Busch Stadium. These are local, regional and national

destinations. In Midtown, special trip generators include: Grand

Center, Powell Hall, the Fox Theatre, St. Louis University, Harris-

Stowe University, and Chaifetz Arena. The Central West End major

trip generators include the CWE business district, BJC/Washington

University Medical School, the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis and

Forest Park.




Building Neighborhood, Connecting Jobs 12

Figure 3 – Existing Employment Density, 2010





ALIGNMENT

As shown on Figures 4 through 7, the streetcar alignment will

include an east-west segment connecting Downtown St. Louis and

the Central West End, the region’s two largest employment centers,

and a north-south segment linking downtown with developing areason the near Northside and the Saint Louis Gateway Multimodal

Transportation Center including Amtrak train and Greyhound bus

terminals at Metro’s Civic Center. The two segments total seven

miles. The east-west segment is 5.0 miles and the north-south

segment is 1.9 miles.

The core of the east-west alignment is a double-track line running

on Olive Street and Lindell Boulevard between 14th Street and

Taylor Avenue. Both streets are wide enough to allow for fastoperation (by streetcar standards) and relatively short travel times,

with minimal impact on traffic and parking. East of Grand Boulevard

there is sufficient right-of-way width to allow the streetcars to

operate in a separate guideway, avoiding operation in mixed traffic.

West of Grand Boulevard streetcars would share street lanes with

vehicular traffic.

East of 14th

Street objectives that drove decisions regarding

downtown alignments included:

Get as close as possible to the center of the

employment concentration.

Minimize distance, physical and psychological, to major

attractions, including the Arch Grounds.

Reduce capital and operating costs.

Minimize the number of curves to reduce noise and

increase speed.

Minimize the distance between tracks on one-way

pairs. (The narrowness of the downtown streets

precludes double-track operation.)

Eliminate impacts to MetroLink from streetcar

construction.

Lessen traffic impacts.

Application of those principles resulted, first, in the elimination of

several options. Impacts to MetroLink during construction

eliminated 8th Street and Washington Avenue. Traffic impacts, as

cited by the City of St. Louis and the Missouri Department of

Transportation, caused Broadway and 4th Street to be dropped, and

the cost of extending the alignment from the downtown

employment core to Memorial Drive eliminated that option.

This screening process resulted in a set of east-west streets that

generally satisfied the evaluation criteria listed above. These

included Chestnut, Pine, Olive and Locust Streets. North-south

options were more limited and included 6th

-7th

Street and 9th

-10th

Street pairs. The former set was selected because it is closer to the

heart of the downtown employment concentration and provides

better proximity to major destinations. Olive Street is the logical

eastbound half of an east-west one-way pair as it is a no-turn

continuation of the alignment west of 14

th

Street. This results in adecision between Locust and Pine for the westbound segment.

Locust was selected because of its centrality to the employment

core, and because of its more pedestrian friendly first-floor uses,

i.e., retail. Finally, the alignment south to Kiener Plaza addressed

the strong desire from many stakeholders to provide direct and very

visible pedestrian access to the Arch Grounds. (The plaza also

provides a non-street layover point for streetcars.)





Alignment recommendations in the Central West End, west of

Taylor Avenue were driven by the goals of getting as close as

possible to the core of the medical complex and directly accessing

MetroLink’s Central West End station. This addresses a project

objective of providing an important addition to the region’s transit

network, and supporting the thriving commercial and

entertainment area centered on Euclid Avenue. Options included a

single-track one-way loop west on Lindell, south on Euclid Avenue,

east on Forest Park Avenue and north on Taylor Avenue.

Alternatively, the double track on Lindell Boulevard could continue

south on Taylor Avenue and west on Children’s Plaza, terminating at

the Central West End MetroLink station, where streetcars would

reverse direction. Further analysis in the next phase of project

development will include considerations of traffic impacts, safety

concerns, and extensive stakeholder and institutional input.

The north-south alignment, which could be a starter segment of a

longer line extending further north and south, would use the same

downtown alignment as the east-west route, thus doubling service

in the downtown. It would leave downtown heading north on 14th

Street, then northwest on North Florissant Avenue, terminating at

St. Louis Avenue. The 14th

Street-North Florissant Avenue

alignment would have double tracks running in the center of those

streets. The southern leg would be double-track on 14th

Streetbetween Olive Street and the Multi-Modal Center south of Clark

Street. Several considerations will be looked at in more detail in the

environmental analysis along 14th Street including the Great Rivers

Greenway bike path along 14th Street and the operations of the

Peabody/Scottrade Center south of Market Street along 14th Street.

The Northside-Southside Alternatives Analysis used a downtown

alignment on Convention Plaza, a 9 th Street-10th Street one-way

pair, and Clark Street to 14th Street. However, since north-south

trains can access the downtown core on the east-west alignment,

the north-south alignment has been modified to use a more direct

14th Street route, thus reducing capital cost.





Figure 4 – Proposed Alignment Options





Figure 5 – Central West End Alignment Option 1 Figure 6 – Central West End Alignment Option 2

LEGEND

Existing MetroLink

Proposed Streetcar alignment

LEGEND

Existing MetroLink






Figure 7 – Downtown Alignment

LEGEND

Existing MetroLink






TRAFFIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

A preliminary review of traffic and environmental impacts was

conducted. The purpose of the review was to determine any fatal

environmental or traffic impacts that would prevent the project from

moving forward. The results of the analysis indicate that impacts to

traffic and environmental considerations are not fatal. A fatal flaw was

considered anything that may trigger litigation.

TRAFFIC

A high level traffic impact analysis evaluated capacity, signalization and

circulation patterns. Figure 8 indicates the number of travel lanes and

the annual average daily traffic (AADT) on each on each segment of

roadway within the proposed corridor.

The AADT volumes are between 3,000 and 16,500 vehicles per day on

the study segments. These volumes fall within the capacity ranges for

the roadways, which have between two and seven lanes. Based on

these volumes, the existing street segments within the study corridors

have excess capacity. The area nearest capacity is Lindell Boulevard at

the west end of the study corridor.

The street network throughout the corridor is generally a grid network,

and the area is served by bus and light-rail transit. The east-west

portion of the corridor roughly parallels I-64 to its south. The north-

south portion roughly parallels I-70 to its east.

The general character of the major streets within the corridors is

discussed below:

Lindell Boulevard/Olive Street is a two-way, five-lane major arterial

east of Tucker Boulevard. (Olive Street becomes Lindell Boulevard east

of Grand Boulevard.) Parking is permitted on both sides of the road and

there are sidewalks (typically wide) on both sides. Although it is a major

east-west arterial in downtown, traffic volumes are lower than might be

expected because of its proximity to I-64 and Forest Park Parkway,

another major arterial that accommodates slightly higher speeds and

extends further west into St. Louis County.

The five-lane cross-section allows for turning lanes at all intersections,

and most of the major intersections are signalized and managed by the

City of St. Louis. Dedicated bike lanes are planned for Lindell/Olive east

of Grand Boulevard. This portion of Lindell/Olive is utilized by three

MetroBus routes: #10 connects the Central West End MetroLink Station

and the Civic Center MetroBus Center (at the Gateway Transportation

Center), #13 travels between the Central West End MetroLink Station

and North St. Louis County, and #4 links the Civic Center MetroBus

Center with the North Hanley MetroLink Station. The Gateway Bike

Plan incorporates dedicated bike lanes on Lindell/Olive from Grand

Boulevard east to 20th Street. Development along this arterial is

relatively dense mixed uses, including the Saint Louis University

Campus, Grand Center, and the western portion of the St. Louis Central

Business District (CBD).





Figure 8 – Proposed Corridor Lanes and Existing Traffic





Taylor Avenue is a two lane, two-way road with parking lanes on both

sides throughout most of the proposed alignment. There are sidewalks

on both sides of the road. MetroBus route #18 utilizes Taylor between

the Central West End MetroLink Station and O’Fallon Park in North St

Louis City. Taylor serves dense residential and some first-floorcommercial development. Most intersections on Taylor are all-way

stop-controlled with no turning lanes with the exception of its

intersection with Forest Park Parkway. The intersection is signalized

with turning lanes and Taylor transitions to a four-lane cross-section.

The Gateway Bike Plan incorporates shared bike lanes on Taylor

throughout this segment.

Children’s Place is a local two-lane, two-way, street serving the

BJC/Washington University Medical Campus. The street only extends

one block west of Taylor Avenue. There are sidewalks on both sides of

the street leading to the cul-de-sac at the west terminus with paths

leading into the campus and to the adjacent Central West End

MetroLink Station.

East of Tucker Boulevard, Olive Street becomes a one-way eastbound,

two lane road with parking permitted on at least one side. There are

wide sidewalks fronting urban multi-story buildings on either side. All of

the cross streets east of Tucker are one-way facilities as well; all

intersections are signalized and there are no turn lanes. No MetroBus

routes utilize Olive, although multiple routes cross the street at 9th

Street and 6th

Street.

6th Street, 7th Street, Chestnut Street, and Locust Street are generally

two-lane roadways with parking lanes and wide sidewalks on both sides.

6th Street is one-way southbound, 7th Street is one-way northbound, and

Chestnut is one-way eastbound. Locust Street is one-way westbound.

Parking is restricted on one or both sides of 7th

and Locust Streets for

portions of the proposed alignment. These streets are also within the

CBD and development is similar to Olive Street east of Tucker

Boulevard. Of these routes, only 6th Street is a corridor for MetroBus

Express routes 36X, 174X, 58X, 410X, and 40X. The Gateway Bike Planproposes shared bike lanes for all of these streets with the exception of

Chestnut.

14th Street is a two-way, four-lane road. There are parking lanes and

sidewalks on both sides throughout most of the proposed alignment

with the exception of the segment south of Clark Avenue where there

are no parking lanes. The major intersections are signalized and have

dedicated turn lanes, the minor intersections are stop-controlled on the

cross-road. Because 14th Street provides access to the Civic Center

MetroBus Center, multiple MetroBus utilize 14th

Street, especially in the

CBD (south of Washington Avenue). MetroBus routes #41 and #74

continue north to Carr Street and North Florissant Avenue on their way

to North County, and route #30 continues north to St. Louis Avenue

before turning west toward the Rock Road MetroLink Station. As part of

the Gateway Bike Plan, 14th

Street is proposed to have shared bike lanes

north of Clark Avenue, dedicated bike lanes north of Washington

Avenue to Cole Street. In addition, 14th

Street north of Washington is

proposed for a multi-use corridor.

North Florissant Avenue is a six-lane divided road north of 14th

Street

through Madison Street. At Madison, the median narrows and North

Florissant becomes a seven-lane road. Parking is prohibited on the

street. There are sidewalks on both sides through the majority of the

corridor. This area also has a strong grid network of streets. The

intersections at Madison Street, North Market Street, and St. Louis

Avenue are signalized, but the majority of intersections with cross





streets have only stop control on the minor (crossing) road. MetroBus

route #74 utilizes North Florissant between the Civic Center MetroBus

Center and North County. The Gateway Bike Plan identifies North

Florissant as a portion of the Route 66 Multi-State On-Street Bike Route.

Dedicated bike lanes are proposed between 14th

Street and Palm Street,with shared bike lanes north of that segment.

Traffic Signal System

The majority of the traffic signals within the study corridors are part of a

pre-timed coordinated system controlled by the City of St. Louis. The

exception is 14th

Street, although the City is steadily adding signals to

their system as conditions permit. Signals within the coordinated

system have upgraded equipment and are interconnected. The City

utilizes an ACTRA system and various portions of the corridors fall

within different management groups.

Anticip ated Streetca r Impacts

The proposed streetcar will utilize dedicated street lanes north of Locust

Street and west of 14th

Street, and shared traffic lanes within the core of

the CBD. The existing system has excess capacity. As shown in Figure

21, the existing network has excess capacity and can be expected to

accommodate both of those uses in their proposed segments.

Next StepsTo further refine the traffic analysis, detailed data collection is

necessary. This will be part of the next phase of the project. This data

would include current traffic volumes and turning movement counts at

all intersections and major access points within the study corridors.

Volume projections for the operating timeframe will need to

incorporate the network traffic shifts expected in 2015 due to the

opening of the New Mississippi River Bridge (NMRB) and CityArchRiver

2015 (CAR 2015) projects.

Using streetcar demand forecasts, impacts to the street and signal

control network directly resulting from the proposed system can be

defined. After impacts are determined, mitigation and enhancements

to the existing system will be investigated.

The additional data will also support a detailed study of potential

circulation impacts at the block, local, and regional levels. Block level

circulation includes pedestrian concerns such as street crossings,

security, and continuity and property concerns such as access, flow, and

parking. Local circulation would look further into aspects such as the

bicycle network and how to maintain and enhance that system.

Regional circulation would focus on the maintaining and enhancing

transit connectivity within the MetroLink and MetroBus systems as well

as for commuter systems from Illinois, for example Madison County

Transit.





ENVIRONMENTAL

A review of the environmental considerations associated with the

proposed alignment was conducted. The purpose of the review was to

determine if there were any fatal flaws.

For this type of project in an existing right-of-way and within an urban

area, impacts are mostly associated with social/economic

considerations. These include environmental justice, neighborhoods

and community facility, cultural resources, Title VI compliance, and

visual and aesthetic resources. Natural impacts such as biological

resources, endangered species, wetlands and flood plains tend to have

less impact. While the review indicated no fatal flaws, parkland, noise,

environmental justices, and visual and aesthetic resources will need

further analysis to determine potential impacts during the next phase of the project.

Parkland

The proposed alignment includes a station in Kiener Plaza park located

on Chestnut Street between 6th Street and 7th Street downtown. The

Department of Transportation (DOT) Action of 1966 includes a

provision, Section 4(f) that requires DOT agencies including the FTA,

“cannot approve the use of land from publicly owned parks,

recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and privatehistorical sites unless the following conditions apply:

• There is no feasible and prudent alternative to use of the land.

• The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to

the property resulting from use.”1

1U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

As Kiener Plaza is a public park, a Section 4(f) analysis would be required

in the next environmental phase. Noise

Streetcars have lower noise levels to city buses. Streetcar noise ismostly generated by curves in the alignment and the sound of the horn.

The alignment includes several turns in both the eastern and western

ends of the corridor. The downtown turns include:

• 14th Street and Olive Street

• Olive Street and 6th Street

• 6th Street and Chestnut Street

• Chestnut Street and 7th Street

• 7th Street and Locust Street

• Locust Street and 14th Street

The Central West End Option 1 turns include:

Lindell and Taylor Avenue

Taylor Avenue and Children’s Place

The Central West End Option 2 turns include:

Lindell and Euclid Avenue

Euclid Avenue and Forest Park Avenue

Forest Park Avenue and Taylor Avenue

Taylor Avenue and Lindell

During the next environmental phase of the project, these intersections

will be reviewed further for noise impacts.

Streetcars are only required to sound their horn in an emergency, not at

every grade crossing like MetroLink. This helps reduce to the noise level

as the alignment is street running with limited exclusive right-of-way.





During the next environment phase, a more detailed analysis of areas

sensitive to noise levels such as areas designated for serenity uses,

including parks, historic landmarks and concert pavilions, residential and

institutional areas will be conducted.

Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment and engagement of

the people regardless of race, income, or national origin in the

development or implementation of environmental regulations. The

alignment traverses through neighborhoods with disadvantaged

populations on the north-south alignment and the east-west alignment.

Figure 9 provides the median household incomes for the entire corridor.

The light blue areas indicate areas with disadvantaged populations. In

the next phase of the project, further analysis will determine whether ornot the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would disproportionately

burden these populations.

Figure 9- Median Household Income





Visual and Aesthetics

The proposed alignment of the streetcar would be within the existing

right-of-way and share existing traffic lanes throughout the corridor.

The corridor includes established neighborhoods including the CBD, the

near Northside, Midtown and the Central West End. Each of theseneighborhoods has distinctive characteristics and aesthetic qualities. It

will be important in the next phase to determine if the overhead wires,

stations and construction impact these neighborhoods.

Next Steps

The environmental considerations that will be analyzed in more detail

during the next phase include:

• Traffic

• Transit

• Land Use

• Economic

• Neighborhoods and Community Facilities

• Environmental Justice

• Title VI Compliance

• Visual and Aesthetic Resource

• Cultural Resources

• Noise and Vibration

• Air Quality

• Energy

• Parks and Recreation

• Section 4(f)

• Public Safety

• Biological Resources and Endangered Species

• Geology and Soils

• Wetlands, Water and Floodplains

• Hazardous Materials

• Utilities





RIDERSHIP FORECAST

The purpose of ridership projections is to provide a quick, order-of-

magnitude estimate of likely ridership for the proposed St. Louis

Streetcar. An approach was employed that makes extensive use of an

existing tool developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and

its contractors. This tool is known as the Aggregate Rail Ridership

Forecasting Model Version 2 (ARRF-2).

ARRF-2 was calibrated for existing light rail and commuter rail lines that

typically operate at higher speeds over longer distances than streetcar

systems. To confirm, its applicability to streetcars, the model was tested

and adjusted to be representative of streetcar ridership observed in

Portland, Oregon. It was also tested to confirm that it properly

represents current MetroLink ridership in St. Louis.

DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVE

The streetcar alternative consists of an east-west segment traveling

between the Central West End MetroLink station and Downtown St.

Louis and a north-south segment traveling between North Florissant/St.

Louis and 14th/Clark Streets. The east-west alignment generally follows

Lindell Boulevard and Olive Street. In Downtown St. Louis (east of 14th

Street), the eastbound track is located on Olive Street and thewestbound track is located on Locust Street. ARRF-2 requires that

paired stations (i.e., the stations on Olive and Locust Streets that

separately serve eastbound and westbound directions) be coded as a

single station. For this analysis, the Olive Street stations were coded

and assumed to be generally representative of the corresponding

stations on Locust Street.

Service frequencies on both lines are assumed as follows:

From 5 AM to 9 AM: 10 minute headways

From 9 AM to 3 PM, 15 minute headways

From 3 PM to 6 PM, 10 minute headways From 6 PM to 12 Midnight, 15 minute headways

ESTIMATES OF STREETCAR RIDERSHIP

The forecasting model was run using the same input travel demand data

used to validate current estimates of MetroLink ridership including 2000

Census, Journey to Work data. The results reported in this section do

not account for potential population and employment growth in the

corridor that may occur in the future. As such, the analysis represents

an initial order-of-magnitude estimate rather than the outcome of a full

forecasting assignment.

ARRF model results suggest that if the streetcar were operational today,

the east-west route would attract 5,900 daily riders and the north-south

route would attract 1,800 daily riders-for a total of 7,700 daily riders.

Station-by-station ridership is shown in Figure 10.





Figure 10 - Daily Ridership IMPACTS ON METROLINK

The impacts of the streetcar system on MetroLink and the Metro system

are positive although modest. The streetcar is expected to attract over

500 additional MetroLink riders and 2,700 new transit riders. Of the

7,700 total ridership, only 10 percent (750 trips) are traveling entirely

within the east-west corridor. The remaining trips are either traveling in

the north-south Corridor or are transferring from MetroLink to the east-

west streetcar line and are unlikely to have diverted from MetroLink.

The relatively low number of streetcar trips that could have been

diverted from MetroLink is probably due to the fact that the streetcar is

considerably slower than the competing MetroLink line. Central West

End to downtown is 40 minutes by streetcar and 13 minutes by

MetroLink resulting in relatively few line-haul trips diverting from

MetroLink to streetcar.

The trips that did divert were estimated by assuming that approximately

half of all streetcar trips in the competing markets were diverted from

MetroLink and the remaining half were either diverted from bus or are

new trips. This results in an estimate of 375 daily trips being diverted

from MetroLink. The streetcar is expected to attract approximately

2,700 new riders and 500 of these riders are expected to transfer to the

MetroLink system.

NEXT STEPS

It is important to note that this is a sketch-level assessment of potential

ridership. To meet the needs of the FTA New Starts process, a more

detailed assessment of ridership is required.

Station Daily Boardings

CENTRAL WEST END 1,345

Taylor/Scott 36 Taylor/Laclede 61

Taylor/Lindell 416

Lindell/Newstead 267

Lindell/Sarah 367

Lindell/Vandeventer 244

Lindell/Grand 173

Olive/Compton 280

Olive/Jefferson 635

Olive/20th Street 166 Olive/16th Street 216

Olive Transfer 120

Olive/10th 246

Olive/6th 24

8TH AND PINE 1,272

Sub-Total E-W 5,868

Florissant/St Louis 381

Florissant/Madison 114

14th/Biddle 121

14th/Delmar 260

Olive Transfer 111

Market/14th 13

CIVIC CENTER 801

Sub-Total N-S 1,801

Total Streetcar 7,669





OPERATIONS PLAN

Developing an operations plan for a streetcar line is a careful balance

between projected ridership and the service pattern to be provided.

Not only are the factors interrelated, they mutually impact one another;

better service increases ridership, and more ridership requires more

service. Ridership is sensitive to such factors as weather, time of day,

frequency, speed, economic development and the price of gas and

parking. Thus, it is important that the system be capable of adjusting

service levels to demand within a fairly broad range, in order to provide

good cost control.

In developing the operations plan, providing a seamless network to the

existing transit system is a priority. For example, it will be important

that hours of service and fare structure complement the existingsystem. While the operator of the streetcar will not be determined at

this phase of the project, the streetcar should be an integrated part of

the overall transit system, regardless of the operator.

RIDERSHIP The ridership estimate for the initial streetcar is 7,700 daily riders, the

number used for this operating plan. Likewise, the operating plan

described below has been used for ridership forecasting.

DETERMINANTS OF OPERATING PATTERN

Days of Service

Almost all rail transit lines provide service seven days per week, which is

the plan of the St. Louis Streetcar. However, as discussed below, this

does not mean that the hours of service do not vary somewhat,

depending on the day of the week.

Hours of Service

It is important that St. Louis Streetcar be an integrated part of the

existing transit system in the St. Louis area. It is recommended the

hours of operation be the same or similar to MetroLink and MetroBus.

For this study, the hours of service were assumed to be 5:00 a.m. tomidnight, Monday through Sunday.

Schedule Speed

The average schedule speed includes time at each stop, plus make-up

time and layover time at the end of each trip. The initial average

schedule speed has been set to be similar to that of MetroBus lines on

roadways similar to Olive, Lindell, the downtown area and the streets in

the vicinity of the BJC/Washington University Medical School.

Interconnections

The St. Louis Streetcar connects directly with MetroLink and MetroBus

services at the CWE Metro Station, and provides convenient transfer

with bus services along the route. It serves Civic Center station as well,

and is a short walk to the light rail station at 8th and Pine in downtown

and Convention Center Station at Washington Avenue and 6th

Street.

Frequency

Frequency of service (headway) is arguably the most important service

factor in maximizing ridership. The minimum safe headway isdetermined by schedule speed, distance between stops, and number of

vehicles. A typical headway is 10 minutes. This headway provides

service frequently enough that a printed schedule is not needed. This

service frequency range is common in peak hours in systems around the

country. A primary objective for the St. Louis Streetcar is to provide

serious and frequent service. It is recommended that peak period





service be every 10 minutes. This would provide a considerable

increase in service to the existing bus service in the corridors.

Off-peak-service for rail transit lines is generally in the 15 to 30 minute

range. For the St. Louis Streetcar, with its many connections to

MetroBus and MetroLink, a compatible headway to these lines of 15

minutes is suggested. For those times where service must be provided

as a system policy, even though ridership is minimal, headways may be

even longer.

PRELIMINARY OPERATIONS PLAN

Given the various factors that define a service level, and the desire to

provide a robust service at minimal operating cost, the following

operating plan has been developed for the east-west and north-southroutes of the St. Louis Streetcar:

Both routes operate seven days per week

Both routes operate the same headways:

- 5 AM to 9 AM – every 10 minutes

- 9 AM to 3 PM - every 15 minutes

- 3 PM to 6 PM – every 10 minutes

- 6 PM to 12 Midnight – every 15 minutes





COSTS

The methodology for developing the capital and operating costs are

detailed below. Estimates are based on FTA’s capital cost format and

used in New Starts projects. The cost estimate is designed to evolvethroughout project phases but be as accurate as possible at each stage.

CAPITAL COST METHODOLOGY

The approach used for the capital cost estimate is based on FTA’s capital

costing format, the Standard Cost Categories (SCC), established in 2005

to provide a consistent format for the reporting, estimating, and

managing of capital costs for New Starts projects. Cost estimates

produced under this methodology can be tracked and audited as the

project definition moves forward from conceptual design to final design

and construction.

Estimate Development

Conceptual alignments and typical sections formed the basis for

quantifying project improvements into units of work. Appropriate unit

pricing was developed from historical cost data, applied to the

quantities, and summed into cost categories to complete the cost

estimate.

Current Year Dollars

The capital costs were estimated in current year 2012 US dollars

(2012$).

Escalation

Escalation factors are sometimes necessary when using costs that are

older than the current year by one or more years. In this case, historical

construction cost index values can be used to calculate an escalation

factor for the period in question. Additionally, it may be necessary to

take the current year estimate and project it to a future base year or

year of expenditure. In this case, an escalation factor will be developed

using historical construction cost index values to calculate the mostrecent moving average for the time period between the current year

and the projected base year. This factor would be used to escalate cost

categories to the projected year of expenditure.

Unit Costs

Unit costs were developed from selected historical data including, 2011

contractor bid tabs for the Tucson, Portland, and Seattle Streetcar

projects currently under construction, engineers estimates, and

standard estimating practices. The unit cost prices include contractoroverhead and profit.

Contingencies

Contingency addresses the potential for quantity fluctuations and cost

variability when items of work are not readily apparent or unknown at

the current level of design. Contingency is assigned in two major

categories, allocated and unallocated.

Allocated contingency is used during the planning stages of a projectwhen the level of design development is usually below 30 percent

complete. Based on the level of design development a contingency

allowance of between 15 and 30 percent will be allocated by cost

categories. The percentage selected is based on professional

experience and judgment related to the potential variability of costs

within each of these cost categories. Table 3 lists the percentages that

are normally used for allocated contingencies.





Unallocated contingency is used for the same reasons described for

allocated contingency. When a project has entered the advanced design

phases and design development is 30 percent or more complete there is

generally more detail for unit price and quantity development. During

the planning stages, allocated and unallocated contingencies areapplied separately but the total contingency is the result of their

combined effect. Estimates prepared in the advanced design stages

would only include unallocated contingencies. Table 4 lists the

percentages that are normally used and when they would be applied.

Table 3: Allocated Contingency Percentages for Planning Estimate

SCC Description Percentage

10 Guideway and Track Elements 15

20Stations, Stops, Terminals,

Intermodals20

30Support Facilities: Yards, Shops,

Admin. Buildings25

40 Sitework and Special Conditions 25

50 Systems 20

60Right-of-Way, Land, Existing

Improvements

30

70 Vehicles 15

Table 4: Unallocated Contingency Percentages for Estimates

Estimate Type Description Percentage

PlanningSystem Planning 20

Alternatives Analysis 15

Design

Preliminary Engineering 20

Final Design 15

Construction 10

COST CATEGORIES

Cost categories were used to summarize the unit prices into a

comprehensive total estimate for each segment. The major cost

categories are listed and described in greater detail below:

Guideway and Track Elements

Stops

Support Facilities

Sitework and Special Conditions

Systems

Right-of-Way, Land, Existing Improvements

Vehicles

Professional Services Unallocated Contingency

Finance Charges

Capital costs for the first four categories were calculated using unit costs

and measured quantities for each sub-category. Systems costs were

calculated by either the alignment length or when possible a

measurable quantity. When a route-foot unit cost was used it was





developed using historical data that could be applied to the route

length.

The professional services categories are calculated as a percentage of

construction costs (excluding vehicle procurement). These percentagesare discussed in the Professional Services Section (Appendix A). The

sum of these ten cost categories is the total capital cost estimate. The

ten cost categories are described in detail in Appendix A.

CAPITAL COSTS

The estimate was prepared using a template organized into two levels.

The first level is the SCC primary category and the second is the SCC sub-

category. The estimate spreadsheets are in Appendix A.

The capital costs are estimated to range between $218 million and $271

million depending on the amount of streetscape implemented. The

$271 million estimate includes the rebuilding of the street, building face

to building face along with the construction of the streetcar and a 10 to

15 minute operation plan. Table 5 provides the cost breakdown for the

option that includes a full streetscaping plan.

Table 5: Project Costs with Streetscaping

Description Total Cost

Guideway and Track $37 million

Stations $4 million

Support Facilities $7 million

Sitework and Special Conditions $76 million

Systems $25 million

Right-of-Way $0 million

Vehicles $52 million

Professional Services $40 million

Unallocated Contingency $30 million

Total $271 million

This estimate was further divided into segments of the corridor: Downtown (east of 14

thStreet): $58 million

Grand to 14th Street: $76 million

14th Street, St. Louis Avenue to Civic Center: $67 million

Lindell Boulevard - Central West End To Grand Boulevard: $70

million

The $218 million cost estimate does not include streetscaping but does

assume the same operating plan. Table 6 provides the cost summary

for an option with a limited streetscaping plan.

Downtown (east of 14th

Street): $56 million

Grand to 14th Street: $68 million

14th Street, St. Louis Avenue to Civic Center: $55 million

Lindell Boulevard - Central West End To Grand Boulevard: $46

million

Table 6: Project Costs with Limited Streetscaping

Description Total Cost

Guideway and Track $32 million

Stations $4 million

Support Facilities $7 million

Sitework and Special Conditions $41 million

Systems $24 million

Right-of-Way $4 million

Vehicles $52 million





Professional Services $29 million

Unallocated Contingency $24 million

Total $218 million

OPERATING COSTS Methodology

Cost Elements

In approximating the cost of a streetcar line at the early planning stage,

one common method is to calculate the annual vehicle-hours by

multiplying the cost per hour actually experienced by similar operations,

adjusted if necessary to reflect unusual or location-specific variations.

Cost per hour is a reasonable surrogate for overall costs because the

bulk of the costs incurred in a streetcar operation are directly related to

this measure. For example, operator’s wages and fringes and power,

which make up the majority of system costs, are directly related to

hours. Similarly, although vehicle maintenance is also a function of

miles, if a fairly constant schedule speed is achieved, then mileage-

related costs can be related to hours. Fixed facility costs (track and OCS)

and administrative costs do not relate perfectly to vehicle-hours, yet

these form a minor percentage of overall costs for streetcars, and can

be approximated in the cost per vehicle-hour with sufficient accuracy

for typical feasibility studies.

Range of Unit Costs

A streetcar line in mixed traffic has operating characteristics very similar

in many ways to that of a bus route. Schedule speeds are comparable,

operators have similar concerns, stop spacing is roughly the same, and

the signal systems, train operations and high speeds that characterize

light rail systems are hardly ever present. Track is rigidly set in the

structure of the street, and OCS is simple when compared to light rail,

factors which also reduce maintenance costs. Further, as mentioned,

there is no complex signal system and passenger stops are not nearly as

elaborate as light rail stations.

Thus, a base unit cost for a streetcar line in St. Louis would consider the

actual cost per vehicle hour experienced by the local transit provider,

and adjust this upward to allow for the added cost of fixed plant

inspection and maintenance. In round numbers, this would be

approximately $140 per revenue vehicle-hour in 2013 dollars.

Opinion of Probable Annual Operating Costs

The annual vehicle hours of service can be derived from the proposed

operating pattern developed in Operations Plan section of this report.

Multiplying these vehicle hours by the unit cost per revenue hour gives

a probable annual cost of $9.7 million.

Adjusti ng Cos ts to Reflect the Market

As previously described, operating costs can be adjusted to match

market demand by service adjustments to headway, hours and days of

service, and other related techniques.





DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

The St. Louis Streetcar provides an opportunity to build investment and

capital in existing corridors and spur new private development.

Identifying development opportunities and qualitatively evaluating the

potential for growth along the corridor provides a framework to analyzethe viability of the streetcar line. The development opportunities were

guided by the existing plans including The Downtown Next 2020 Vision,

Gateway Mall Master Plan (2009), Northside Redevelopment Area

(2009), Central Business District Downtown Streetscape Design Manual

Update (2009), Grand Center Framework Plan (2012), and Cortex

Redevelopment Area (2012), which are summarized in Appendix B.

Figure 11 illustrates the development study area. The evaluation of

development opportunities in this report utilized the followingmethodology and process:

Examine development estimates from other comparable U.S.

cities that have built, or are considering building, a streetcar.

Identify previous plans that influence the St. Louis Streetcar

corridor and highlight development potential from adopted

plans.

Complete a ripe/firm analysis of development opportunitieswithin a ¼ mile of the corridor.

Identify appropriate development types for ripe parcels in the

corridor.

Apply rough estimates of building square footages and cost per

square foot to development types.

Add projected investment from approved projects.

Discuss limitations to estimates.

STREETCAR DEVELOPMENT IN OTHER CITIES

Several other cities in the United States are in the process of building

modern streetcar systems. These cities are experiencing new

investment and growth that can be attributed to their streetcar lines.

Seattle and Portland are the gold standard for illustrating development

potential along a streetcar route, having leveraged billions of dollars of

new investment along their systems. Other cities have completed

market studies to analyze and project investment along the proposed

routes. Below is a brief list of actual development investment along

existing routes and projected investments along proposed routes:

Portland (1997-2008): 4 mile route - $3.5 billion in investment,

10,000 housing units, 5.4 million square feet of commercial

space * (total new investment – “Streetcars and economic

development: The dynamic linkage between them”)

Seattle (2004-2010): 1.3 mile route - $2.4 billion in investment,

2,500 housing units, 12,500 jobs.* (total new investment -

http://downtownsac.org/streetcar/)

Tampa (2002-2011): 2.7 mile route - $1 billion in investment

(total new investment -http://www.tampasdowntown.com/the-

partnership/services-programs/urban-excellence.aspx)

Los Angeles (Projected - 2015): 4 mile route - $1.1 billion in

investment over 20 years (from 2012 Feasibility Study –





projection of incremental investment -

http://www.lastreetcar.org)

Charlotte (Projected 1.5 mile starter line - 2014): 10 mile route -

$3.5 billion in investment over 25 years* (from 2008 Feasibility

Study- projection of incremental investment –

www.charmeck.org)

• Atlanta (Projected - 2013): 10.7 mile route - $4.4 billion in

investment over 20 years* (from HDR – projection of

incremental investment - “Streetcars and economic

development: The dynamic linkage between them”)

• Cincinnati (Projected - 2013): 2 mile route - $1.9 billion in

investment over 10 years* (from 2007 Feasibility Study -http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov)

These baseline numbers serve as a guide or reference point for the

projections in St. Louis. Starred (*) streetcar lines above represent

modern streetcar systems similar to the proposal for the St. Louis

Streetcar project.

PORTLAND, OREGON – PEARL DISTRICT





Figure 11 – Streetcar Development Corridor

A ¼ MILE WALKING RADIUS ENCOMPASSES APPROXIMATELY 3 BLOCKS ON EITHER SIDE

OF THE STREETCAR LINE AND REPRESENTS THE TARGET AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT

POTENTIAL. ADDITIONAL PARCELS MAY BE INFLUENCED BY STREETCAR LINE,

INCLUDING LARGE PROPERTIES SUCH AS THE CORTEX SITE, DEPENDING ON THEIR

ACCESSIBILITY TO OTHER FORMS OF TRANSIT.





EXISTING HOT SPOTS AND DESTINATIONS

By mapping locations of existing activities, planners can determine

future areas of potential new private development and investment.

Existing Hot SpotsHot spots are current areas of activity that attract people at different

times of the day. Hot spots include various types of activity; centers of

retail, large places of employment, civic destinations, transportation

centers and cultural amenities. A hot spots diagram illustrates where

these nodes of activities take place. By overlaying several hot spot

types, patterns develop to help identify centers. The hot spots diagram

for the St. Louis Streetcar line, shown in Figure 12, identifies several

areas of activity including the Washington Avenue Loft District,

Laclede’s Landing, the Civic Center, Grand Center, Central West End and

in North St. Louis. The hot spots are color coded based on type, users

and frequency of use:

Orange: major campus/employment locations

Red: Civic centers

Purple: Centers – attractions and destinations

Yellow: Sports destinations

Blue: Tourist/entertainment

Purple: Transportation

Figure 12 – Existing Hot Spots, Areas with Strong Potential for Further Development





Campus

The orange districts are major campus/employment locations along the

streetcar route. The campus in the western portion of the map includes

Cortex, Washington University Medical Center, St. Louis Children’s

Hospital, Barnes Jewish Hospital, Siteman Cancer Center and theRehabilitation Institute of St. Louis. This biotechnical campus employs

over 32,000 people and would be an anchor for the western end of the

streetcar line.

Grand Center, the other main campus anchor on the streetcar line,

includes Saint Louis University and Harris-Stowe State University.

Between the two schools there are over 15,000 students and 3,300

faculty members. This does not include support employees at each

university.

The streetcar offers the opportunity to serve and connect these

campuses to new housing opportunities along the line by serving the

campuses with stop locations.

Civic

Civic Centers on the streetcar line provide a direct connection to

churches, parks, and services for residents and visitors. With the

addition of the streetcar, accessibility to these amenities broadens and

links civic amenities on the river with downtown and Central West End.These amenities include:

City Garden

Courthouses

City Hall

Public Libraries

Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis

Centers

The existing retail centers are attractions and destinations with

restaurants, retail and mixed use environments. These centers include a

variety of uses, with opportunities to live, work and play in close

proximity. Currently these centers range in vitality from a vibrant scene

on Washington Avenue and Euclid Avenue, to a center in its infancy on

CAMPUS

CIVIC





14th

Street in North St. Louis. Each of these centers includes the

opportunity for growth with the streetcar. The streetcar extends the

reach of these districts by expanding the distance that a user can live

without a car while maintaining access to activity centers and amenities.

Centers shown on the diagram include:

Old North St. Louis

Euclid Avenue at Central West End

Olive Street and Lindell Boulevard at Grand Center

14th Street at North St. Louis

Washington Avenue at the CBD/Loft District

Sports

Currently the downtown sports venues are accessible by MetroLink to

the St. Louis region. However, the venues are not well connected to the

other retail activity centers outside of downtown. The venues at Saint

Louis University are disconnected by the interstate and not connected

to MetroLink, making them auto-oriented destinations. Connectivity

with the streetcar increases the accessibility of SLU and Chaifetz Arena

to destinations. The streetcar also expands the possibility of connecting

housing and entertainment in Grand Center, Central West End,

Northside and downtown to the existing sports complexes, increasing

the economic impact and value along the streetcar line. Sports venues

that are affected include:

Chaifetz Arena

Scottrade Center

Busch Stadium

Edward Jones Dome

Tourist/Entertainment

Cultural destinations shown in light blue on the diagram on the

following page attract tourists and visitors to St. Louis. The streetcar

connects these areas and encourages the use of the transit from onedestination to another, adding a viable route between destinations at

Grand Center and the river for regional visitors. Additional connectivity

encourages visitors to expand their reach by creating opportunities to

visit other attractions in the area including:

Peabody Opera House

Gateway Arch

SPORTS

CENTERS





Grand Center

Lumiere Place

Laclede’s Landing

Convention Center

Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis Forest Park

Transportation

The Civic Center Station – St. Louis Gateway Multimodal Transportation

Center links MetroBus, Amtrak, MetroLink, Greyhound and streetcar,

providing multi-modal transportation options and connections for a

variety of users. The seamless connection between the streetcar and

the regional/national transportation network adds an additional layer of mobility options.

Following the evaluation of the existing hot spots, opportunities for

development and potential new hot spots were identified in Figure 13.

The pink nodes include hot spots of new residential development,

neighborhood and employment centers. Major opportunities for new

development exist on Olive Street between Grand Center and 14th

Street, near the Cortex site, in North St. Louis and in Grand Center.

TOURIST/ENTERTAINMENT

TRANSPORTATION





Figure 13 – Potential Hot Spots, Areas with Strong Potential forFurther Development





DEVELOPMENT TYPES

Areas were identified had a potential to change because of the number

of underutilized, or vacant properties or the current planned

development could be enhanced with a streetcar. These areas were

evaluated for development potential based on location, local

development trends and current centers. This bird’s eye analysis

provides a framework to estimate potential growth and development

accelerated by the streetcar. The different colors on Figure 14 represent

different building types, uses, construction costs, square footages and

the percentage of each parcel that is developed. A further discussion of

each development type is included in the following sections.

Figure 14 – Development Types





Employment Buildings

Employment buildings are dedicated to office/commercial uses and can

be occupied by a single company or leased by multiple tenants.

Currently Downtown St. Louis is the largest employment center in the

region with over 88,000 employees. As the eastern anchor of the

streetcar, Downtown St. Louis will be more accessible to employees and

other transit options along the new streetcar route. The streetcar will

also improve the connection between the downtown employment

center, Central West End, BJC/Washington University Medical Center

and Cortex. A potential area of employment expansion is in the

Downtown West area, transitioning to Northside. These sites are within

walking distance to downtown and are currently underutilized. As an

anchor to the Northside area of the streetcar route, this employment

center would create a campus setting, ideal for growth in targeted

sectors.

In the development-potential model, general assumptions were made

for employment buildings including estimated number of employees

(based on trends and forecasts) and overall building square footages

after accommodating parking, services and open space. It was

estimated that for each employment site 35 percent of the site would

be developed with an average six story building.

Employment Buildings Assumptions:

Six stories

35 percent of site developed

Approximately 200 square feet per employee

PORTLAND, OREGON – EMPLOYMENT BUIDLING

MADISON, WISCONSIN - EMPLOYMENT BUILDING





Mixed Use Building

Mixed use buildings provide an opportunity for ground floor

retail/commercial and upper story residential and/or office space. This

type of building is common in Downtown St. Louis, Central West End

and Grand Center. The scale (height and massing) of mixed use buildings

can vary based on location. For the development potential model two

different mixed use building types were used: a four-story

neighborhood mixed use building and a 12-story urban mixed use

building. Mixed use building types are typically in neighborhood centers,

urban centers and downtown environments. In the development type

potential map, mixed use buildings are located in Downtown St. Louis,

Grand Center, Central West End and the Northside.

Mixed Use Buildings Assumptions:

Ground floor commercial Housing/office upper floors

Four stories neighborhood scale

12 stories in Downtown/Midtown

35 percent of parcel developed

1,100 square foot for residential units on upper

floors

PORTLAND, OREGON - MIXED USE BUILDING ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI – MIXED USE BUILDING





High Rise Housing

The potential for new construction of high rise housing in St. Louis is

due to the large number of buildings available for rehabilitation. This

market limitation is reflected in the development potential model, as

only one major site is identified as a potential site for new high rise

housing. This site would serve as the western anchor for the Gateway

Mall. An assumption of 50 percent parcel development takes into

account garage parking, additional open space and service locations.

High Rise Housing Assumptions:

10 Stories

Residential units average at 1,100 sq. ft.

50 percent of parcel developed

Mid-Rise Housing

Mid-rise housing is a new building type in the St. Louis market that is

appealing to many users. Mid-rise housing can include urban

townhouses, apartments or a mix of both. This building type can also

provide small outdoor living space for residents and a pleasant street

frontage, while achieving a fairly dense urban environment (20 to 30

units per acre). Mid-rise housing is appropriate for the streetcar line

between current centers of activity, providing residential opportunities

for students, professors, downtown workers and those that are

generally attracted to urban living.

In the development-potential model, general assumptions were made

for mid-rise buildings including the estimated number of square feet per

unit (1,100 sq. ft., based on trends and forecasts) and overall buildingsquare footages after accommodating parking, services and open space.

It was estimated that for each mid-rise housing site 35% of the acreage

would be developed with an average building height of 4 stories.

Mid Rise Housing Assumptions:

4 Stories

Mixture of walk units and apartments

Units average at 1,100 sq. ft.

PORTLAND, OREGON – HIGH RISE

HOUSING





Att ached /De tached Singl e F ami ly

On the Northside of the proposed streetcar route there is an

opportunity for attached/detached urban single family housing as part

of an urban neighborhood with transit. This building type is preferred by

families, baby boomers and people who want to live in a walkable

neighborhood with access to transit. Single family housing, both

attached and detached, can be more urban in nature with densities

between 8 and 12 units per acre, while also providing a more spacious

living environment and dedicated private outdoor space.

In the development potential model, general assumptions were made

for single family buildings based on the total acreage of the

development type. These assumptions include a density of 10 units per

acre and an average of 2,000 sq. ft. per single family housing unit.

Attached Single Family Assumptions:

10 units per acre

Mixture of townhouses and houses (attached and detached)

Units average at 2,000 sq. ft.

PORTLAND, OREGON MID-RISE HOUSING

ST. CHARLES, MISSOURI – ATTACHED

HOUSING

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA MID-RISE HOUSING

ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI- SINGLE DETACHED





DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL – BY NEIGHBORHOOD

Each neighborhood along the proposed streetcar route provides

different opportunities for development. These opportunities are based

on building type, location and access to employment/amenities and are

projected at 5, 10 and 20 year growth potential.

Central West End

Central West End is a lively, vibrant neighborhood and employment

center that will increase in development potential with the addition of

the streetcar. Two announced projects could be enhanced by the

streetcar; the Cortex Phase II campus expansion (employment buildings)

and a new Whole Foods grocery store and luxury apartments (mixed-

use buildings). Additional opportunities in the area include BJC campus

expansion opportunities and small infill projects. These announced

project values have been added to the development potential at their

announced value and are projected to be completed within 10 years.

The development impact is shown in Table 7; assumptions per building

type were not used for this model, as the real value is known.

Table 7: Central West End – Development Potential DEVELOPMENT

POTENTIAL

(YEAR

REALIZED)

ABSORPTION

RATE

TOTAL NEW

INVESTMENT

HOUSING

UNITS

EMPLOYEES COMMERCIAL

SQ. FT.

2017 (5 YEAR) 50% $153,500,000 176

UNITS

750

EMPLOYEES

30,000 SQ. FT.

2022 (10 YEAR) 50% $93,500,000 750

EMPLOYEES

TOTAL 100% $247,000,000 176

UNITS

1,500

EMPLOYEES

30,000 SQ. FT.





Grand Center

Grand Center is a center for the arts and a growing destination for

entertainment with close proximity to Saint Louis University and a

growing daytime and nighttime population. Growth in Grand Center

can be attributed to the commitment by Saint Louis University and

several developers to revitalize the area. The Grand Center

Framework Plan takes into account both announced projects and

projected new investment in the next ten years. Based on these

estimates and project projections, a ten year realization of private

investment was estimated for the Grand Center area taking into

account available properties and new development sites. Table 8

shows averages of four story mixed use buildings for all new

development, with four story parking garages and estimated unit

counts and square footages based on existing averages.

Table 8: Grand Center – Development PotentialDEVELOPMENT

POTENTIAL

(YEAR

REALIZED)

ABSORPTION

RATE

TOTAL NEW

INVESTMENT

HOUSING

UNITS

EMPLOYEES COMMER-

CIAL SQ. FT.

2017 (5 YEAR) 50% $147,000,000 680

UNITS

N/A 41,000 SQ.

FT.

2022 (10 YEAR) 50% $147,000,000 680

UNITS

N/A 41,000 SQ.

FT.

TOTAL 100% $294,000,000 1,360

UNITS

82,000 SQ.

FT.

Grand Center to 18 th

Street

Development opportunities between the Grand Center district and

downtown are based on projections of residential growth in the

corridor. There are currently several vacant and underutilizedparcels in this corridor that are available for new development. The

streetcar would accelerate development in this area by linking the

major employment centers with transit. Young professionals and

baby boomers would both be attracted to new housing options.

Table 9 outlines the development potential based on

construction/acquisition costs ($120 per sq. ft.) from the Grand

Center Framework Plan and the building development types

described above. With the addition of the streetcar, development in





this area could be enhanced, taking 20 years to be fully realized in a

conservative model.

Table 9: Grand Center to 18th Street – Development PotentialDEVELOPMENT

POTENTIAL(YEAR

REALIZED)

ABSORPTION

RATE

TOTAL NEW

INVESTMENT

HOUSING

UNITS

EMPLOYEES COMMER-

CIAL SQ.FT.

2017 (5 YEAR) 25% $72,774,636 527

UNITS

N/A N/A

2022 (10 YEAR) 25% $145,549,272 528

UNITS

N/A N/A

2032 (20 YEAR) 50% $145,549,272 1,055

UNITS

N/A N/A

TOTAL 100% $291,098,544 2,110

UNITS

Northside

The streetcar can help to accelerate the redevelopment of this area,

as the only true residential streetcar neighborhood on the route.

The streetcar will be meaningful for the approximately 8,500

residents of the Northside with improved transit service and access

to jobs, schools, hospitals, and institutions in the region. The

streetcar will help to leverage existing investments by Great Rivers

Greenway Trestle, an elevated bike/walking path expected to open

in 2016/2017 and the development efforts by Old North St. Louis.

A mix of development types, including single family housing, is

viable in the 14th

Street/North Florissant Avenue corridor. With





stops along the north-south route, people have the opportunity to

live, work and play along the streetcar route. The line adds viability

to the redevelopment of the Northside, but it will take more time to

be realized than redevelopment along other areas of the streetcar

line. Table 10 outlines the development potential based on

construction/acquisition costs ($120 per square foot for mid-risehousing and employment buildings and $100 per square foot for 4-

story mixed use buildings and single family housing) from the Grand

Center Framework Plan, as estimated by Lawrence Group, and the

building development types described above. The development in

this area is projected to begin with incremental investment, with 5

percent taking place in the first five years, 35 percent taking place

by 2022 and the additional 60 percent of development taking place

by year 2032.

Table 10: Northside – Development PotentialDEVELOPMENT

POTENTIAL

(YEAR

REALIZED)

ABSORPTION

RATE

TOTAL NEW

INVESTMENT

HOUSING

UNITS

EMPLOYEES COMMER

CIAL SQ.

FT.

2017 (5 YEAR) 5% $31,724,942 153

UNITS

300 5,245 SQ.

FT.

2022 (10 YEAR) 35% $222,074,594 528

UNITS

2,100 36,716

SQ. FT.

2032 (20 YEAR) 60% $380,699,304 1,055

UNITS

3,600 62,942

SQ. FT.

TOTAL 100% $634,498,840 2,110

UNITS

6,000 104,903

SQ. FT.

S L i S F ibili S d





Downtown

Downtown St. Louis is primed for new investment and

development. While the City of St. Louis does not restrict the type

of land uses, the following provides illustrative examples of how

downtown could evolve. It is not intended to be prescriptive.

Conservative estimates of rehabilitation opportunities and new

development parcels have identified approximately 35 acres of

developable area in Downtown West, the Old Post Office District

and the CBD. These parcels would be targeted for mixed use

development with an average building height of 12 stories (taking

into account the existing historic buildings and approximate new

development). Downtown mixed-use buildings would include

ground level commercial/retail uses and upper story housing/office

uses. For estimation purposes in the development model, ground

floor use was considered retail/commercial, while 25 percent of

upper stories was calculated as office space and 75 percent as

residential units, as shown in Table 11. The exact square footage of

the Municipal Courts Building was also included in the calculation

since the redevelopment of that building is being pursued through a

Request for Qualifications. The costs were estimated at $140 per

square foot for the Municipal Courts Building and $120 per square

foot for other mixed use opportunities.

Table 11: Downtown – Development PotentialDEVELOPMENT

POTENTIAL

(YEAR

REALIZED)

ABSORPTION

RATE

TOTAL NEW

INVESTMENT

HOUSING

UNITS

EMPLOYEES COMMER-

CIAL SQ.

FT.

2017 (5 YEAR) 25% $172,641,980 985

UNITS

1,805 116,001

SQ. FT.

2022 (10 YEAR) 25% $172,641,980 984

UNITS

1,804 116,002

SQ. FT.

2032 (20 YEAR) 50% $345,283,960 1,969

UNITS

3,609 232,003

SQ. FT.

TOTAL 100% $690,567,920 3,938

UNITS

7,218 464,006

SQ. FT.

St L i St t F ibilit St d





CONCLUSIONS

New development could potentially spur $578 million in

development in the first five years, with an approximate total of

$2.16 billion over 20 years. These development numbers are broken

down by type in Table 12. Appendix B provides the development

potential calculations.

Table 12: Streetcar Route – Development PotentialDEVELOPMENT

POTENTIAL

(YEAR REALIZED)

TOTAL NEW

INVESTMENT

HOUSING

UNITS

EMPLOYEES COMMERCIAL

SQ. FT.

2017 (5 YEAR) $577,641,558.0 2,521 UNITS 2,855 192,246 SQ. FT.

2022 (10 YEAR) $1,081,265,846 2,720 UNITS 4,654 193,718 SQ. FT.

2032 (20 YEAR) $498,257,900 4,079 UNITS 7,209 294,945 SQ. FT.

TOTAL $2,157,165,305 9,320 UNITS 14,718

EMPLOYEES

680,909 SQ. FT.

As a conservative estimate, these development opportunities

project 20 years of development potential with parcels that have

been identified as ripe in 2012. This does not take into account

additional development and/or redevelopment opportunities or the

incremental value to existing development added by the streetcar.

NEXT STEPS

To validate and test these initial qualitative/estimated results a

complete and full market study is necessary. This market study

should:

Analyze baseline development potential vs. moderate

growth and accelerated growth scenarios as a result of the

streetcar. Several other cities have pursued this option to

conservatively estimate the development potential of a

streetcar route. While Portland has seen accelerated

growth, it is valuable to measure a moderate growth rate to

ensure the viability of the streetcar route.

Conduct a full cost-benefit analysis to look at othermonetary benefits of the streetcar. A full cost-benefit

analysis would study the financial impacts of reducing

greenhouse gas emissions through a reduction of vehicle

miles traveled, evaluate the safety savings based on

different forms of travel, project the cost and maintenance

of the streetcar and take into account revenues through

ticket sales, sponsorships and taxing options.

Measure incremental value added to existing

development. Building values and cost per square foot willhave an incremental value added from the amenity of the

streetcar. This value added would be directly beneficial to

building and business owners, as well as the city through

the projected increase in tax revenue on new and existing

development.

Identify absorption rate of real estate market along

streetcar route. By taking into account the absorption rate

of the Downtown St. Louis market, in conjunction with the

market demand and absorption rates of North St. Louis,Central West End and Grand Center, a clear estimate on the

value of total potential development leveraged through the

addition of the streetcar can be measured.

St L i St t F ibilit St d





STREETSCAPING

The St. Louis Streetcar provides an opportunity to invest in the two

corridors and spur new private development. The streetscaping

elements are complementary to the streetcar system. While the

benefits of streetscaping can be significant, particularly in areas of

disinvestment, they may or may not be directly part of the St. Louis

Streetcar project. The level of streetscaping implementation will be

directly impacted by the funding available for the project. Form

based code is being implemented in Central West End and being

considered in downtown. This will also impact streetscaping and

development potential.

COMPONENTS OF STREETSCAPING

On-Street ParkingOn-street parking is a vital component to a successful street. On-

street parking serves several functions in addition to parking for

shoppers, visitors, and residents of the adjacent development. It

provides a buffer for pedestrians and promotes walkability along

the corridor. On a streetcar corridor, on-street parking is a

component of transforming the character of the corridor and

connecting users to the streetcar. In St. Louis, on-street parking is a

necessary amenity at the mixed-use centers along the streetcar line:

downtown, Midtown, Northside, Grand Center and Central WestEnd.

Bike Facilities

Bike facilities on the streetcar corridor help to connect users to the

streetcar and encourage a diversity of transportation modes. With

modern streetcar routes, there are several conflicts between

streetcars and bikes that have made the integration complicated

with new streetcar systems. The type of bike facility must be

integrated into the design. Whether or not there is a parallel route

or specific bike facilities is a decision that should be made during

the design process through an evaluation of priorities and

development opportunities. There are several options for bike

facilities including options for a two-way cycle track, bike lanes orsharrow markings. Considerations must also be made for streetcar

track and bike facilities conflicts. Other cities have used an

informational campaign to build awareness for the streetcar -cyclist

conflicts. St. Louis should engage the local cycling community early

in the process to build support and design an integrated network.

Sidewalks

Sidewalks are an essential component of any streetscaping project.

Sidewalks on an urban, transit corridor should be as wide as

possible to provide opportunities for outdoor dining, high

pedestrian traffic and landscaping. Buildings should be built up to

the back of sidewalk in the mixed-use centers along the streetcar

corridor. Texture changes in pavement types on sidewalks add

aesthetic value to the streetscape, therefore improving the private

investment value. Along the St. Louis Streetcar route, sidewalks

should be 10 feet wide at a minimum, including landscaping. For

outdoor dining to be successful a sidewalk should be a minimum of

16 feet wide. The sidewalks can grow on the streetcar line through

changes in setbacks and build-to lines or in changes to on-street

parking.

Street Trees and Landscaping

Street trees and landscaping serve a variety of functions in the

streetscape. Landscaping provides an aesthetic to streets, as well as

a safety benefit to pedestrians to add separation between the travel

and parking lanes and the sidewalk. Street trees provide an

St Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study





environmental benefit also by reducing the carbon dioxide and heat

island effect found in urban environments. Essential to the life of

street trees is providing adequate infrastructure and space to

support the health of trees and landscaping. Tree selection and

planter type also adds to the urban character. A grated tree well

with a continuous sidewalk is typical of an urban environment andtransit corridor. This is most appropriate for the streetcar corridor.

Fixtures and Wayfinding

Additional amenities for pedestrians, including appropriately scaled

light fixtures, benches and wayfinding signs, add value to the

streetscape by improving safety, providing wayfinding information

and spots to enjoy the street. Selecting these amenities provides an

enhancement to the streetcar line; therefore specific care should be

taken when selecting the style of fixtures and street furniture. There

are two major options for street furniture selection that can be

explored as part of the streetcar process: one option is to create a

template for the entire streetcar corridor. Another option is to work

with each community along the route to create their own aesthetic

and palette unique to each neighborhood. Either option is viable

and can be an opportunity for creativity along the streetcar route.

Convention and Visitors Commission (CVC) has started a wayfinding

program for St. Louis. These street signs could be utilized for

streetcar wayfinding.

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Along the streetcar route, there is an opportunity for green

infrastructure improvements in the streetscape to enhance the

water quality in the region by increasing infiltration and incremental

remediation. Green infrastructure is simple to incorporate with

other streetscape improvements and can add additional value to

property on the streetcar line. Typical types of green infrastructure

are further discussed below. St. Louis is currently adopting a

Sustainability Plan that will be used as a guide in future phases of

the project.

Stormwater Improvements

Bioswales and Rain GardensBioswales and rain gardens can be incorporated at the block scale

and into the streetscape along the streetcar route. Typically a

bioswale is included as part of the landscaping. Native vegetation is

necessary in a bioswale, as rainwater is directed to the bioswale

with provisions provided for an overflow scenario. There are a

variety of types of bioswales ranging from urban to rural. Those

most appropriate for the St. Louis Streetcar route are more urban in

character and are typically found in tree wells. Rain gardens are

most typically block scale improvements that channel water into acentral location, allowing it to filter into the ground before entering

into the greater stormwater system.

Pervious Sidewalks and Parking

To provide additional filtration, cities are incorporating pervious

pavements and pavers into their sidewalks and parking areas. With

less constant load, parking areas and sidewalks provide additional

space for infiltration without the maintenance associated with

pervious materials on travel lanes with frequent truck traffic and

high load volumes.

Turf Streetcar Track

A turf streetcar track is the best way to provide additional filtration

opportunities for stormwater within the streetcar corridor.

Commonplace in Europe, a turf track adds environmental benefits,

as well as providing a dedicated lane to the streetcar, decreasing






the travel times along the route. Common misconceptions about

turf tracks are the maintenance requirements, which are often

incorporated into typical streetscape maintenance.

STREET SECTIONS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

The street sections and illustrations represent opportunities to

transform the corridor within the existing right-of-way and

pavement width. Figure 15 describes the sections and rendering

locations.

The street sections were developed for Olive Street and 8th

Street,

Olive and 18th Street, and Lindell and Sarah, as shown in Figures 16

and 17. The sections indicate how the streetcar would be integrated

into the existing right-of-way. Each section illustrates the variousright-of-way widths, traffic lane configuration, and station and track

location.

The renderings provide a vision of what selected sections of the

corridors could like with the streetcar and new development. The

renderings show the current view of the intersection and a vision of

that same intersection with a streetcar (Figures 18-25). During

future phases of the downtown streetcar more study should be

given to the specific amenities of the streetscape improvements.

KENOSHA WISCONSIN






Figure 15 – Rendering, Bird’s Eye and Section Locations






Figure 16 – Olive Street at 8th Street – Section






Figure 17 – Olive Street at 18th

Street – Section






Figure 18 –Bird’s Eye Looking North on 14th Street: Current View




y y


Figure 19 –Bird’s Eye Looking North on 14th Street: View with Streetcar and New Development




y y


Figure 21 –Chestnut Street at 7th Street: With Streetcar

Figure 20 –Chestnut Street at 7th

Street: Current View




y y


Figure 22 –Olive Street at 9th

Street: Current View





Figure 23 –Olive Street at 9th Street: With Streetcar





Figure 24 –Olive Street at Compton Street: Current View





Figure 25 –Olive Street at Compton Street: With Streetcar





GUIDEWAY

For the purposes of this study, only the general location of the streetcar

guideway within the street right-of-way was determined. More specific

alignment geometry will be developed in the environmental analysis

phase of the project. Described below are the typical guidewayelements considered during this feasibility phase.

The guideway consists of the physical track and systems elements

needed to guide and power the streetcar vehicle. Two types of

guideway are anticipated, non-exclusive and semi-exclusive. Non-

exclusive guideway is located in a shared traffic lane used by both

streetcars and motor vehicles. Semi-exclusive guideway is located in a

transit only lane which is not to be shared with motor vehicles. Most of

the proposed streetcar system will use non-exclusive guideways except

for the portion of Olive Street from 14th Street to Grand Boulevard,

where the existing right-of-way is wide enough for a semi-exclusive

right-of-way.

Non-exclusive guideway typically consists of two tracks embedded in an

eight-foot wide concrete track slab placed flush with the roadway. Semi-

exclusive guideway typically consists of two tracks embedded in

concrete and located in the center median of the roadway. This

guideway would be approximately 24-feet wide and separated from the

roadway by continuous raised trackway curbs except throughintersections. In both cases the rails are also encased in an elastomeric

material that provides electrical isolation and vibration dampening.

SPECIAL TRACKWORK

Special trackwork (turnouts and diamond crossings) will be required at

all terminal stations to allow vehicles to reverse direction and at the

track junctions on 14th Street to allow vehicles to make the required

movements in and out of the downtown loop. All turnouts would be

powered and signalized. Tracks for the streetcar are the same gauge as

light-rail. If in the future, the region wanted to use either or both

corridors for light-rail, the existing infrastructure may be able to be

utilized.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS

Streetcars will operate on both non-exclusive and semi-exclusive

guideways. Intersections with non-exclusive guideways will be

controlled primarily by traffic signals and in certain instances four-way

stops may be used. If the streetcar must turn at an intersection with a

transit only traffic signal phase, additional train control equipment may

be required. Intersections with semi-exclusive guideways will also

require additional traffic phases. If left turns by motor vehicles are

allowed, additional train control equipment will also be required to

control the streetcar movements. It has not been determined at this

time if the streetcar movement will be given priority at semi-exclusive

intersections to maintain headways and schedules during revenue

service. A detailed traffic analysis will be performed in the next phase of

the project to determine if priority is needed.

TRACTION POWER

The streetcar vehicle will be electrically powered with the necessary

current provided by an overhead contact system (OCS) that is fed by a

series of traction power substations (TPSS) located at intervals along the

alignment. It is proposed that the streetcar system use low-power

“feeder-less” substations which are smaller and easier to site than

conventional substations. The number and spacing of the substations





will be dependent on the headways, speed, grades, redundancy

requirements, and HVAC systems on the vehicles. Generally at least one

TPSS will be required every half mile.

OCS poles will be located along the guideway at an interval of 80-90

feet. The poles will have cantilever arms to support the contact wireover the centerline of the guideway at a minimum wire height of

approximately 18’-0” above the roadway. Non-exclusive guideways will

generally have the OCS poles set about two-feet behind the roadway

curb. Semi-exclusive guideway will have the OCS pole centered in the

roadway median between the two tracks.

STREET RECONSTRUCTION

Two approaches can be taken regarding street reconstruction to install

the guideway. The first and more expensive approach is to reconstruct

the entire streetscape from building face to building face, replacing

sidewalks, curbs, lighting, roadway pavements, and drainage structures.

The second and less expensive approach would be to maintain the

existing street grades, drainage, curb lines, and sidewalks to the

maximum extent possible. New curbs and sidewalks would be

reconstructed only where necessary to accommodate the guideway and

stop platforms. Existing street surfaces that remain would be overlaid

and new pavement markings installed. Existing street lights and trees

would also be maintained.

PORTLAND, OREGON – OVERHEAD WIRE SYTEM , SHARED TRAFFIC LANE





STATIONS

The stations for a streetcar system are typically simpler in design than

the more substantial and expensive stations associated with a light rail

system. Most often streetcar stations, or more appropriately stops,

resemble the type of improvements associated with bus systems.

A typical station stop would include a shelter for weather protection

with transparent walls for increased security. Lighting inside the shelter

or within the platform area would provide for nighttime orientation,

identification and security. A bench or other seating is usually provided.

Graphics that present the fare structure and system map are necessary

and need to be located within or in close proximity to the shelter. A

real-time display of the time of the next streetcar arrival is also a highly

desirable feature. Also, depending on the surrounding streetscape ateach platform, landscaping in the form of planters or street trees may

be a desirable design feature.

All station stops must be designed to be fully American Disabilities Act

(ADA) accessible. Since the streetcar route is shared with bus routes, the

platforms should also be designed to be compatible for use by the

buses.

TYPICAL STREETCAR STOP





V EHICLES

The St. Louis Streetcar will have modern vehicles intended to attract

high daily ridership and to provide a comfortable, reliable and smooth

ride. As portrayed in the photographs, the streetcars are powered by

overhead wires, similar to MetroLink and available in a range of sizes.The vehicles ultimately selected for St. Louis would reflect required

passenger capacity, including that resulting from potential system

expansion.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

A modern streetcar is electrically powered, and offers curb-level

boarding. It is air-conditioned and heated, and provides seating for 30-

50 people, plus space for standing passengers. The interior design also

provides space for mobility devices, as well as bicycles. The look is

streamlined, similar to light rail vehicles, and the operator sits in a cab

at either end of the car.

Urban Fit

Streetcar vehicles are flexible in design and size. Vehicles can be smaller

than light rail vehicles, about 60-65 feet in length (the size of anarticulated bus), and run as single units. However, vehicles can be as

large as light rail vehicles, such as Atlanta’s streetcar system, shown

below, which is approximately 90 feet long.

They operate in shared street lanes with other traffic, but can also

operate in a separate guideway. They can traverse sharper curves that

light rail trains, thus fitting the urban street pattern and intersections.

They are quiet and do not emit exhaust fumes. Thus, they fit well in

urban neighborhoods

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON – PACIFICA MARINE VEHICLE

ATLANTA, GEORGIA – SIEMENS VEHICLE





DALLAS, TEXAS – BROOKFIELD VEHICLE

Performance

Streetcars are designed to perform best on city streets and in urban

environments. Thus, their top speed is commonly in the 35-40 mph

range. They have the acceleration and braking performance which

allows them to easily keep up with traffic. Streetcar systems often have

special traffic signal treatments that allow the streetcar to have priority

when passing through a signalized intersection. Most designs have two

or more double-wide doors per side, allowing for quick exit and entry,

and boarding is at car floor level.

Recent Market Developments

Federal regulations require that cars purchased as part of a system

funded by federal dollars must meet the requirements of the Buy

America Act. As more and more streetcar lines have moved from the

planning stage into actual construction, the market has grown, and

more firms have entered the marketplace. This competition gives new

streetcar projects a choice of vehicles, and provides for competitive

procurements.

At the present time, there are five firms which have contracts to supply

streetcars for projects in the United States, Pacifica Marine, Brookfield,

United Streetcar, Siemens and CAF. The vehicles of some these firmsare illustrated on the pictures in this section. They show both the

general similarity of designs as well as the subtle differences that are

available in the marketplace.

Ame rican Public T ran spo rta tio n Ass oci at ion G uid eline

The Streetcar Subcommittee of the American Public Transportation

Association has been developing a Guideline document, which will be

extremely useful to agencies planning a new streetcar system. The

Guideline will be published in 2013, and will be available for the next

phase of the St. Louis Streetcar project.

PORTLAND, OREGON - UNITED STREETCAR





OPERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE F ACILITY The Operating and Maintenance Facility (OMF) is the functional hub of

the streetcar line. The OMF houses the day-to-day operations for the

system including:

OPERATIONS

Log in and log out vehicle operators, assign vehicles, dispatch

vehicles;

Training, both introductory and refresher;

Central location for posting notices and other system

communications; and

Control center for real-time system monitoring and response to

abnormal situations.

MAINTENANCE

Daily inspection of vehicles, and routine preventive inspections;

Diagnostics and testing;

Component removal and refitting, and some repair work;

Subsystem removal and refitting;

Cleaning;

Administrative functions related directly to daily maintenance;

and

Training, both introductory and refresher

The design of the facility will arise from the need to fulfill these

functions in a safe and efficient manner, as will the determination of the

exact location. There is fairly wide latitude in determining the site

location.

Facility Requirements

A streetcar OMF needs to perform the functions outlined above in an

efficient manner. At this phase of project development, only a few

basic parameters need to be known.

Location

Location should be directly on the line, or a very short distance from it,

in order to minimize extra track and OCS costs and operating costs for

empty vehicles. As part of this study, suitable areas for the O&M facility

were identified on the east-west corridor between Compton and

Jefferson Avenues and the north-south corridor between Biddle and

Madison Streets.

OMF IN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS





Urban Fit

Streetcars serve urban neighborhoods. A maintenance facility

needs to be carefully designed in order to respect that fact. This

means attention to issues such as noise, light spill, and run-off

from car washing.

Landscape buffering may be considered in some applications.

The facility may also become a part of the neighborhood by

incorporating some non-traditional functions. For example, it

may provide community meeting space or a transit information

center and pass sales outlet.

Land Required

Depending on the shape of the parcel, its topography, and the need for

buffering for urban fit reasons, a site suitable for the average 60 feet

long modern streetcars and associated inspection and preventive

maintenance work will require between four and seven acres.

Preparing for Growth

It is likely that, as the study area densifies and as the north –south

corridor develops, ridership will increase and service frequency may

increase. If the St. Louis Streetcar were to expand, there are several

options for meeting the needs of the operations and maintenance:

Redevelop the facility into another urban use

Enlarge the facility by adding land

Repurpose the facility to become a central streetcar shop,

while storing vehicles at a new location

Retain the facility to serve as a satellite for one or two lines

of the enlarged system

Implementation Schedule

During the next phase, a specific location will be identified, a

preliminary environmental analysis will be undertaken and a basic

design layout made. A more detailed functional description of the

facility and a preliminary cost estimate will also be prepared.





FINANCIAL PLAN

The URS Team reviewed the federal, state and local funding sources for

the St. Louis Streetcar as well as peer city reviews in Atlanta, Cincinnati,

Seattle and Kansas City. It is assumed that the project will require

significant federal financial support for capital costs, up to 50 percent of

the total. Based on current federal evaluation criteria, the St. Louis

Streetcar would most likely score well in the competitive funding

process, especially given its strong ridership and development

performance. On the state level, no funding is assumed, given that

Missouri has historically provided little support for transit. Fundamental

to the financial plan was developing a feasible local funding strategy

that could support the annual capital and operating costs. A number of

strategies are recommended, but the critical component is the

establishment of a transportation development district (TDD) with a

tiered special assessment on property and assessed value.

PEER CITY REVIEW

Atlanta, Cincinnati, Seattle and Kansas City are building or have

constructed a modern streetcar line. Each of the cities funded their

modern streetcar projects through a combination of federal, state and

local funding sources.

Atlanta is currently constructing the first 2.6-mile segment of a larger

10-mile streetcar system. This first phase has a total cost of $70 million.

Atlanta received a $48 million federal TIGER grant for capital costs.

Local funding for the capital costs came from the City of Atlanta, $16

million, and the Atlanta Downtown Improvement District (ADIA), $6

million. The operating expenses were funded through farebox revenue,

advertising funds, an Atlanta car rental and hotel/motel tax, and the

ADIA. The project assumed that at least 20 percent of the operating

costs would come from the farebox. Advertisements are expected to

cover 4 percent of the total expenses. The car rental and hotel/motel

tax is expected to generate approximately $1 million annually for

operations over a 20-year period. The ADIA established a tax district

that assessed $0.05 per $1,000 of assessed commercial value on 200

city blocks. The ADIA will provide $1 million of funding annually over a

20-year period. The ADIA was essential for federal funding as Atlanta’s

initial federal application was rejected due to insufficient local funding.

Cincinnati is building a 2-mile modern streetcar route with a total cost

of $125 million. The line is expected to open in 2014. Cincinnati

received a total of $40 million in federal funding in three different

grants, a $25 million Urban Circulator grant, $11 million TIGER grant and

$4 million Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant. Locally,the City funded the project through a bond package. A portion of

property taxes collected by the city funded $28 million of the bonds. A

Tax Increment Financing district funded $11 million of the project. An

additional $14 million came from the 762 Urban Redevelopment Tax

Increment Equivalent Fund. The sale of the Blue Ash Airport will

provide $11 million in construction and $15 million for utility relocation.

Duke Energy, the local energy company, has provided $6.5 million in

funding through streetlight sale proceeds and a donation.

Seattle began operating the South Lake Union 1.3-mile modern

streetcar line in 2007, with a total cost of $52.1 million. Seattle received

federal assistance totaling $14.9 million. The remaining capital

expenses were funded locally through a Local Improvement District, the

State of Washington, and a Surplus Property Fund. The Local

Improvement district created a special property tax on the property

owners within the district that reflected the benefits of the streetcar





investment. The district generated $26 million in funding. The state

contributed $3 million and the surplus property funds generated an

additional $8.5 million. The $2 million annual operating expenses were

funded through a sponsorship program, station sponsorship, farebox

recovery, bulk transit sales and existing transit funds.

Kansas City is in the final design of a 2-mile modern streetcar line

connecting Union Station to River Market. The total cost of the project

is $100 million and is expected to be complete in 2015. Kansas City

received two federal grants, a $16 million Surface Transportation

Program grant, and a $1.1 million CMAQ grant. A TDD was established

that created a $.01 sales tax within the district. There is also a special

assessment on real estate. The following assessments were applied

depending on property type:

$.48 per $100 of assessed value on commercial property

$.70 per $199 of assessed value on residential property

$1.04 per $100 of assessed value on property owned by the City

$.40 per $100 of assessed value on non-profits – (first $300,000

in value excluded)

Parking spaces in public parking lots within the district are also assessed

annually at $.15 per parking space. The TDD is expected to generate $10

million annually. Additional funds are expected from the City and utility

relocation contributions along with advertisement revenue.

FEDERAL FUNDING

There are several federal funding sources available for streetcar

funding. Federal funding may only be used for capital costs. It does not

fund the annual operation costs. Typically if a project receives federal

funding, a 50 percent local match is required to receive the federalassistance. All federal funds are administered through East-West

Gateway Council of Governments. The following federal sources have

funded streetcar projects and could be potential sources for the St.

Louis Streetcar:

New Starts – New Starts is a funding program through the FTA. New

Starts provides construction funding for new or extensions to fixed

guideway systems more than $250 million. It is a competitive funding

program with over 300 projects competing for funds under SAFETEA-LU,

the previous federal transportation act. A total of $8 billion in funding

was allocated to transit projects under SAFETEA-LU. Funding will be

available through the new federal transportation act, MAP-21.

Small Starts – This is part of the FTA funding program. The Small Starts

program funds capital projects that either a) meet the definition of a

fixed guideway for at least 50 percent of the project length in the peak

period or b) are corridor-based bus projects with 10 minute peak, 15

minute off peak headways while operating 14 hours per weekday. Total

Small Starts funding cannot exceed $75 million and the total cost of the

project must be less than $250 million.

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Investments (TIGER)

– These are competitive based grants that fund surface transportation

related projects that have significant impacts on the nation,

metropolitan area or region.





Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) - This federal program

funds projects in air quality, non-attainment areas and maintenance

areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and small particulate matter (PM2.5)

with the goal of reducing transportation-related emissions and helping

metropolitan areas comply with national ambient air quality standards.

Urban Circulator Grants – These are part of the Section 5309 funding

for exempt discretionary grants for Urban Circulator systems that

support the Department of Transportation’s Livability Initiative. Urban

Circulators include streetcars and rubber tire trolleys. Under SAFETEA-

LU, $130 million was available for streetcars nationwide. The maximum

grant was $25 million. It is not known if this funding will be available

under MAP-21.

STATE FUNDING

On the State level funding for transit is limited. The State of Missouri

has historically given a very small amount of funding for transit

operations. However, there are a few options on the state level being

considered that could provide additional funding for transit projects.

These include funding through Missouri Department of Transportation,

a Missouri Transportation Tax, a gas tax and infrastructure/education

bond package. Since all of these proposals are in the conceptual state,

no state funding was assumed for this project. However, this couldchange if some of these statewide transportation funding proposals

become a reality.

LOCAL FUNDING

Several funding options were considered on the local level, some new to

St. Louis and others that are more familiar. The sources that were

considered include:

Transportation Development Districts (TDD) – A TDD creates a new

taxing district that can have a sales or property tax or special

assessment. A vote of the registered voters within the district is

required to establish the district and a second vote is required to

approve the taxing mechanism. The Missouri Highways and

Transportation Commission reviews the TDD and it requires a circuit

court approval. Projects are funded through notes, bonds and other

debt securities. TDDs have been established in St. Louis. As mentioned

previously, a TDD was recently passed in Kansas City for their streetcarproject.

Tax Incremental Financing (TIFs) – TIFs capture net new or incremental

taxes created when vacant or underutilized property is redeveloped.

Revenues are used to finance the proposed project. The project area

must be designated as blighted, conservation or an economic

development area. Within the City of St. Louis, property taxes are

frozen up to 23 years. Property owners also have an option to make

payment in lieu of taxes to a special allocation fund. Fifty percent of activity taxes such as sales taxes are also captured. There are number

existing TIFs, mostly individual buildings directly on or near the

alignments including:

Old Post Office – 815 Olive Street

Grand Center – multi-block TIF district





Bell Lofts – 920 Olive Street

Louderman Lofts – 309 North 11th

Street

Paul Brown Building – 816 Olive Street

Printer’s Lofts – 1601 Locust Street

Security Building – 319 North 4th Street

Lindell Apartments – 3949 Lindell Blvd

MX/St. Louis Centre – 600 Washington Avenue

Park Pacific Apartments – 1226 Olive Street

Railway Exchange – 611 Olive Street

St. Louis Innovation District - Forest Park Avenue and Taylor

Avenue

100 North Euclid – Mixed Use/Whole Foods Development

Land Value Tax – This type of financing splits the tax on land and

building values. The tax rate on the land is increased while the tax rate

on the building is decreased. This creates an incentive to build on infill

lots at competitive prices and to build more densely. This requires

proper zoning and land use controls to be the most effective. This type

of tax has not been implemented widely.

Special Assessments – This type of financing is applied to commercial,

industrial or residential land uses within a defined district. There are a

variety of methodologies available for implementation.

Public Private Partnerships - Public Private Partnerships create a

contract between a public agency or agencies and a private sector

entity. This allows greater private sector participation in infrastructure

and transportation projects. Often it is used as a mechanism for

advancing a project more quickly. A public private partnership has

funded several transit projects nationwide including, the Metro Transit

Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the Air Train at JFK airport in

New York, the Portland Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) Airport

extension in Oregon, and the BART Oakland Airport Connector in

California.

New Market Tax Credits – These credits encourage investment in low-

income communities. Corporations/individuals receive a tax credit for

investing in community development entities. The available funding is

limited and very competitive. This is a source to help bridge a financing

gap, not as a significant funding source.

Parking Fees – A surcharge on parking fees at City-owned garages and

or meters. A certain percentage of the fee is allocated for the

infrastructure or transportation projects. This type of fee was recently

implemented for Kansas City streetcar project. A $.15 per space fee is

charged annually for city owned lots in the TDD. San Francisco also has a

parking fee program that helps to fund the operation of the MUNI

system. Their program has been very successful for over 20 years. This

has not been implemented in St. Louis.

Additional local funding sources could come from private donors,

sponsorships, media hub investors and advance ticket sales.

The goals of the local finance plan were:

to establish sufficient revenue to fund the annual operating and

capital costs of the project;

to be implementable;

to have support from stakeholders;

to meet federal expectations; and

to have no financial risk to Metro.





Recommendations

It is recommended that all federal sources be considered. The size and

scope of the final project will determine whether New Starts or Small

Starts funding is more appropriate. Other grant sources such as CMAQ,

Tiger and possibly Urban Circulator, if available, should be considered.Regardless the type of grant, it is important that project receive at least

50 percent in federal funding.

The Finance and Steering Committee recommended that a TDD be the

primary local funding source for the St. Louis Streetcar project. The TDD

would have a special assessment on land square footage and assessed

value. As the corridor has tremendous diversity in land uses, from

multi-story commercial, multi-and single-family residential, retail,

mixed-use, institutional, vacant land and parking lots, one type of assessment would unfairly burden certain land uses. This combined

assessment strategy will help boost the existing investment while

encourage future development in vacant and/or underutilized

properties.

A tiered assessment is also recommended. Properties directly along the

alignment would pay the highest rate, and properties on each block

beyond the alignment would pay a slightly lower rate up to four blocks

away. The rationale being properties that benefit the most from theproject should pay more for the benefit of the project.

Based on assessment data from the City of St. Louis, a TDD for the

corridor is expected to generate approximately $10 million annually.

The calculation did not include any non-profit and institutional

properties.

The alignment has the potential to eliminate one or two Metro bus

routes due to duplicative service. A certain percentage of the

operational savings from not providing these routes could be an annual

revenue source. This would have to be negotiated with Metro in future

phases of the project.

The farebox is expected to provide approximately $3.5 to $3.0 million

based on Metro’s current fare policies. Additional funding could come

from a new parking fee on meters and or garages. The details of this

plan including potential revenue estimates would have to be worked

out with City of St. Louis’ Treasurer’s office in future phases.

Table 13 provides a financial overview of the St. Louis Streetcar project.

The matrix assumes that the project receives federal funding for 50

percent of the total capital costs. The first two columns represent the

local financial share, $120 million and $100 million. The final column

represents the project overview if the east-west corridor terminated at

Grand Boulevard and included the entire north-south corridor. The

overview indicates that even without funding from the major

institutions in the corridor or parking fee revenues the project can pay

for itself, under two of the scenarios considered.





Table 13: Streetcar Financial Overview

Expenses and Revenues

$120 M

Local

Match

$100 M

Local

Match

Terminates

at Grand*

Expenses

Annual Capital $7.3 M $6.0 M $5.0 M

O&M $9.7 M $4.8 M $4.0 M

Total Expenses $17.0 M $10.8 M $9.0 M

Revenues

Farebox Recovery $3.5 M $3.0 M $1.5 M

TDD $10 M $10 M $7.0 M

Bus Reconfiguration $1.0 M $1.0 M $.7 M

Total Revenue $14.5M $14.0 M $9.2 M

Difference $-2.5M +$3.2 M +$0.2 M*includes north-south alignment and east-west alignment to Grand

NEXT STEPS

As part of the next phase, a more detailed financial and management

plan will be required that meets federal standards. During that phase,

the details of the proposed financial strategy will be further refined.





NEXT STEPS

As was noted in the financial plan, it is assumed in this point of project

development that substantial federal capital funding, as much as 50

percent, would be required, a very common assumption in early

planning phases of a transit project. To be eligible to seek federalfunding, the streetcar project needs to be adopted into East-West

Gateway Council of Government’s long-range transportation plan. An

entity will also need to be identified that can help facilitate the

campaign to establish the proposed transportation development district

and detailed financing plan. This entity can be an existing group or

organization or a new one can be created specifically for this project.

After that, the next technical phase of project development would be a

federally required environmental analysis led by East-West Gateway. In

parallel with that analysis project, sponsors would need to finalize a

financial plan and a project management plan, both required to advance

the project into engineering. After engineering and final design, the

streetcar project would be ready for construction and operation.




Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs Appendix - A

APPENDIXA




Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs A-1

Cost categories were used to summarize the unit prices into a

comprehensive total estimate for each segment. The major cost

categories are listed and described in greater detail below:


Stops

Support Facilities


Systems

Right-of-Way, Land, Existing Improvements

Vehicles

Professional Services

Unallocated Contingency

Finance Charges


This category includes capital costs for construction of the fixed

guideway and track elements including excavation, concrete work,

sub-grade preparation; procurement and installation of trackwork

including rail, fasteners, special trackwork, ties, welding, and

miscellaneous track items. Measurement may be by unit, route-

foot, or track-foot depending on the type of construction.

Stops

This category includes the capital costs for fixed facilities and

amenities for the streetcar stops including platforms, shelters,

lighting, signage, landscaping, furnishings, and sidewalks for

pedestrian access. Measurement will be by each stop.

Support Facilities

This category includes capital costs for facilities and equipment

needed to support operation and maintenance of the streetcar

system. This category includes administrative buildings,

maintenance shops, equipment, yard tracks, yard traction power,

yard signals, and civil construction as needed. Non-revenue and

maintenance vehicles are also included. Maintenance facility costs

will be built up in a separate estimate.


Sitework

This category includes the capital costs for demolition, clearing and

grading, and subgrade preparation, landscaping, sidewalks, fencing,

signage, and artwork. Measurement will be by unit or the route foot

depending on the type of civil construction.

Utility Relocation

This category includes the capital costs for the relocation, upgrade

or adjustment of all public or private utilities that may become the

responsibility of the Project during construction. Measurement is by

linear foot of utility or by allowance depending on how completely

the scope of work is defined.

Site UtilitiesThis category includes the capital costs for basic infrastructure

improvements including streetlights, storm drainage, or other new

utility service. Measurement is by unit or route-foot depending on

the type of construction





Parking

This category includes capital costs for the creation of parking

spaces including civil construction, lighting, striping, and

landscaping. Unit cost and measurement will be by the parking stall.

Roadways

This category includes capital costs for roadway improvements

including curbs and paving. Measurement will be by the unit or

route-foot depending on the type of construction.

Special Conditions

Environmental, other special mitigation measures, temporary

facilities, or special construction needs are included in this category.Measurement and costs for these items will be developed as

appropriate for the known need, type, and extent of mitigation.

Systems

Train Control and Signals

This category includes capital costs for train control and signal

systems including track switch control equipment, cables, train

detection equipment, and signal buildings. Measurement is by the

unit or route-foot.

Traffic Signals

This category includes capital costs for the traffic signal

improvements including traffic signal poles and heads, cabinets,

conduit, and controllers. Measurement is by each type of traffic

signal improvement.

Traction Power Supply

This category includes capital costs to supply traction power to the

system. This category includes traction power substations and

associated system equipment. Measurement is by the unit.

Traction Power Distribution

This category includes capital costs of the overhead contact system

(OCS) for distribution of traction power to vehicles including

furnishing and installation of catenary poles and foundations, guys,

anchors, contact wire, conduit, and cables. Measurement is by the

unit.

Communications

This category includes capital costs for the communication system.

This system consists of equipment for remote monitoring and

control of track switches and signals, traction power substations,

other systems equipment. It also includes radios and equipment for

operator communication and central control communication.

Measurement is by the unit or allowance depending on the level of

definition.

Fare Collection

This category includes capital costs for a self-service, proof-of-

payment fare collection system on-board each vehicle.

Measurement is by each unit.

Right-of-Way





This category includes the capital costs for securing and providing all

the real property rights required for the implementation of the

project including acquisition of property in fee or temporary

easements. Right-of-way costs will be built up in a separate

estimate.

Vehicles

This category includes capital costs for procuring vehicles including

spare parts, and manufacturing support costs. Measurement is by

each vehicle and the number of vehicles required is based on the

proposed operating plan.

Professional Services

This category includes the costs for engineering, administration and

construction management services. Costs for these services will be

based on a percentage of the total cost of all direct capital cost

categories except vehicles and right-of-way. The percentages are

applied individually and not cumulatively. The following

percentages were used for this estimate based on historical costs

associated with past projects, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Professional Services Percentages for Estimates

Description Percentage

Preliminary Engineering 5

Final Design 6

Project Management for Design and

Construction6

Construction Administration and Management 7

Insurance 1

Legal; Permits; Review Fees 2

Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3

Start-up Costs (Allowance is used) 2

Total 32

Finance Charges

This category includes finance charges expected to be incurred to

complete the project. Costs are derived from the Project’s financial

plan.





APPENDIX A- COST ESTIMATE WITH STREETSCAPING















APPENDIX A- COST ESTIMATE WITHOUT STREETSCAPING














Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs Appendix - B

APPENDIXB




Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs B-1

PREVIOUS PLANS ALONG THE ST. LOUIS STREETCAR ROUTE

Downtown Next Vision (2010-2020)

The Downtown Next 2020 Vision established ambitious goals for

Downtown St. Louis to accomplish from 2010 through 2020. ThePartnership for Downtown St. Louis is committed to advocating for

that vision and advancing the plan’s strategies through its staff,

board, committees, partners and numerous Downtown

stakeholders throughout the region. One of the goals in the

Downtown Next plan is “Making Downtown Accessible and Easy to

Get Around.” The St. Louis Streetcar will address a number of the

strategies and objectives under this goal: “Robust Transit System”,

“Viable alternatives to the automobile”, and “Develop and promote

a circulator that connect Downtown and links to nearby

neighborhoods.”

Gateway Mall Master Plan (2009)

Key implementation strategies of this plan include programming for

the various public spaces along the Gateway Mall and encouraging

redevelopment in downtown St. Louis to more effectively connect

the mall with the Gateway Arch and river. Three key themes of the

plan and vision for the Gateway Mall that tie into the streetcar

project are:

• Activation of the bordering buildings;

• Redevelopment of certain adjacent spaces into new

complementary uses; and

• Connections to the Larger City and the Region, using the

transportation network as a resource to encourage

development.

The redevelopment of Kiener Plaza, with a streetcar stop, couldfurther activate the plaza space and encourage redevelopment on

the edges. The Gateway Mall Master Plan highlights Kiener Plaza as

a focal point with a performance plaza, bike rental location and

pavilion/café that would be further enhanced by the streetcar stop.

Downtown Next Vision – 2010 -2020 Gatewa Mall Master Plan 2009





North Side Redevelopment Area (2009)

The North Side Redevelopment Area encompasses 1,500 acres and

envisions new mixed use destination and neighborhoods. The

transformation includes large employment centers, new housing,

retail and commercial development similar to the Stapleton

Redevelopment in Denver, Colorado. The streetcar would offer

support for this plan for the North Side by stimulating a portion of

the proposed $8 billion redevelopment to happen on a shorter

timeline. With or without the streetcar, there is an

acknowledgement that redevelopment in this area will occur due to

the large parcels available for redevelopment. Whether developed

by the North Side Regeneration group (Paul McKee’s development

team) or not, the area is ripe for development and in need of new

public infrastructure.

Central Business District Downtown Streetscape Design

Manual Update (2009)

The Central Business District Downtown Streetscape Design Manual

originated in 2004 with plans for streetscape improvements

throughout downtown St. Louis. One of the first projects to come to

fruition from the manual was improvements to Washington Avenue

which have subsequently spurred redevelopment. The next projects

to be completed through the Streetscape Manual are the 7 th and 8th

Street improvement projects. These streets will play an important

role in the development of the streetcar line and will influence the

economic development potential of the downtown district. There

might also be an opportunity to include the streetcar tracks as part

of the streetscape improvement project along 7 th Street. With the

introduction of the streetcar line, these streetscape projects could

be a catalyst similar to Washington Avenue.

CBD Downtown Streetsca e Desi n Manual U date 2009

North Side Redevelo ment Area 2009





Grand Center Framework Plan (2012)

The Grand Center Framework Plan identifies ten years of

development opportunities in the Grand Center district and defines

a TIF district to fund infrastructure improvements. The plan

identifies both five and ten year increments of development,

although these projections would likely be accelerated by the

introduction of the streetcar. The total future private development

represents:

• 1,010 Housing Units (does not include existing proposed

development)

• 72,000 sq. ft. Retail (ground floor – all buildings are mixed

use)

• $294 million in private development investment (Includes

$50 million in garages)

Cortex Redevelopment Area (2012)

The Cortex Redevelopment Area (Phase II) was announced in

October 2012 as part of a five year master plan for the site. The plan

reimagines the blocks east of the BJC/Washington University

Medical Campus, connecting Saint Louis University and BJC with

new biotechnical development. Already an announced investment,

this development could be enhanced or accelerated by the

streetcar. Currently the site is served by the MetroLink on the

western side at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Scott Avenue.

However, it is over a mile to the eastern side of the Cortex site from

the MetroLink-Central West End Station. The St. Louis Streetcar

improves transit accessibility to the remainder of the site, with

seven streetcar stops within ½ mile of the Cortex Redevelopment

Area and helps to support the proposed MetroLink station at the

Cortex site.

Proposes 384,000 sq. ft. of lab and office space in a

partnership between Cortex, Wexford Science and

Technology, BJC and Washington University in five years.

Grand Center Framework Plan 2012





Cortex Redevelopment Area - Phase II Plan (2012)

District

Total Area Ripe (sq.

ft.) Acres Developed/Ripe % of Ripe Developed

Employment (6

Stories)

Mixed Use (either 4 Stories in neighborhood

or 12 stories downtown/midtown)

High Rise Housing

(10 Stories)

Mid Rise Housing (4

Stories)

Attached Housing (2000 sq. ft. /unit @

10 units/acre) Price/Sq. Ft.

Total

Investment

Value

Development Opportunities



) p p p p ) ) ( ) ) ) q

Central West End

Whole Foods Development $60,000,000176 Units *From Whole Foods Announc

Cortex $187,000,000 *From Cortex Announcement

Grand Center

Framework Plan $294,000,000*From Framework Plan

Jefferson Street to Grand Center

Mid Rise Housing 895,733 35% 1,254,026 $120.00 $150,483,144 1045 Units

High Rise 234,359 50% 1,171,795 $120.00 $140,615,400 1065 Units

North SideSingle Family Attached 3,744,645 86 1,719,304 $100.00 $171,930,441 860 Units $3,068

Mid Rise Housing 1,514,176 35% 2,119,846 $120.00 $254,381,568 1930 Units

Mixed Use (4 Stories) 299,722 35% 419,611 $100.00 $41,961,080 286 Units

Employment 659,626 35% 1,385,215 $120.00 $166,225,752 6000 employeesDowntown

Municipal Courts Building 160,000 100% $140.00 $22,400,000 1050 $690,567,920

Additional Mixed Use 1,325,730 35% 5,568,066 $120.00 $ 668,167,920 4200 Units $172,641,980.00

$2,157,165,305Total Investment Potential - 20 Year

5-10 Year Potential $539,291,32625% First 5 Year Investment

5-20 Year Potential

1 0- 20 Y ea r P ot en ti al T ot al 5 Y ea rs 2 0 Y ea rs

Total Potential Total Housing Units Employment Numbers 5 Year Total 10 Year Total 20 Year Total Attached House 213 850

Central West End $247,000,000 176 1400 $153,500,000.0 $247,000,000 $247,000,000 Mid Rise 744 2,975

Grand Center $294,000,000 1360 $147,000,000.0 $294,000,000 $294,000,000 High Rise 1,050 4,200

Jefferson Street to Grand Center $291,098,544 2110 $72,774,636.00 $145,549,272.0 $291,098,544 Total Housing 2,006 8,025

North Side $634,498,841 3076 6000 $31,724,942.04 $222,074,594.27 $634,498,841 North Side Neighborhood Commercial/Retail/Offi ce 5,245 104,903

Downtown $690,567,920 3938 7218 $172,641,980.00 $172,641,980.00 $690,567,920 Downtown/Midtown D ow nt own /Mi dt ow n C ommer ci al /R etai l 11 6, 00 1 46 4,0 06

Total Development $577,641,558.0 $1,081,265,846 $2,157,165,305

Last 10 Years of Investment $498,257,900.46 Jefferson Total Potential Housing Development $72,774,636 $291,098,544

528 2110

5 Y ea r H ou sing 10 Y ea r H ou sing 20 Y ea r H ou sing 5 Y ea r E mp loyee 10 Y ea r E mp loyee 20 Y ea r E mp loyee 5 Y ea r Com merc ia l 10 Y ea r Com merc ia l 20 Y ea r Com merc ia l

Central West End 176 750 750 30000

Grand Center 680 680 41000 41000

Jefferson Street to Grand Center 527 528 1055

North Side 153 528 1055 300 2100 3600 5245 36716 62942Downtown 985 984 1969 1805 1804 3609 116001 116002 232003

Total Development 2521 2720 4079 2855 4654 7209 192246 193718 294945

Total by Type 9,320.00 14,718.00 680,909.00

Documents

DRAFT_St. Louis North Side/Downtown/Midtown/CWE Streetcar Feasibility Study 2013