St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study - Final (2013)


2/101

FINANCE COMMITTEEBILL BAYER, US BANK CDC

MAGGIE CAMPBELL, THE 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, THE LAWRENCE GROUP

MATT SCHINDLER, THE PARTNERSHIP FOR

DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS

VINCE SCHOEMEHL, GRAND CENTER

STEERING COMMITTEEBILL BAYER, US BANK CDC

JERRY BLAIR, EAST-WEST GATEWAY

ZACK BOYERS, US BANK CDC

MAGGIE CAMPBELL, THE PARTNERSHIP FOR

DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS

KIM CELLA, CITIZENS FOR MODERN TRANSIT

CLARK DAVIS, THE PARTNERSHIP FOR

DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS, BOARD MEMBER

STEPHEN GREGALI, CITY OF ST. LOUIS,

MAYORS 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, LLP

DON ROE, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, PLANNING AND

URBAN DESIGN AGENCY

MATT SCHINDLER, THE PARTNERSHIP FOR

DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS

VINCE SCHOEMEHL, GRAND CENTER

STEVE SMITH, THE LAWRENCE GROUP

MARK VOGL, HOK

OTIS WILLIAMS, ST. LOUIS DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION

ROSE WINDMILLER, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

STUDY TEAMTHE PARTNERSHIP FOR

DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS

MAGGIE CAMPBELL, PRESIDENT AND CEO

MATT SCHINDLER, PROJECT MANAGER

URS TEAM

URS CORPORATION

KENNETH KINNEY

RENEE DUCKER

RICK NANNENGA, PE

CH2MHILL

JIM 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

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study| | | | |

|

|

|

|

|

Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | |

|

|

|

|

|


3/101

3Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | |

|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................................................................................6

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................................................................8

MARKET ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................11

ALIGNMENT.................................................................................................................................................................................................................16

TRAFFIC IMPACTS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................................................................................25

RIDERSHIP FORECAST .................................................................................................................................................................................................27

OPERATIONS PLAN ......................................................................................................................................................................................................29

COSTS............................................................................................................................................................................................................................31

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ...............................................................................................................................................................................35

STREETSCAPING ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................53

GUIDEWAY ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................62

STATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................64

VEHICLES ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................65

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY ............................................................................................................................................................67

FINANCIAL PLAN..........................................................................................................................................................................................................69

NEXT STEPS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................74


4/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

FIGURES, TABLES AND APPENDICESFIGURES

1: ST. LOUIS STREETCAR STUDY CORRIDOR .............................................13

2: EXISTING POPULATION DENSITY, 2010.................................................14

3: EXISTING EMPLOYMENT DENSITY, 2010...............................................15

4: PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OPTIONS .......................................................18

5: CENTRAL WEST END ALIGNMENT OPTION 1 .......................................19

6: CENTRAL WEST END ALIGNMENT OPTION 2 .......................................19

7: DOWNTOWN ALIGNMENT ....................................................................20

8: PROPOSED CORRIDOR LANES AND EXISTING TRAFFIC ......................22

9: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME ............................................................26

10: STREETCAR DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR ...............................................37

11: EXISTING HOT SPOTS .............................................................................38

12: POTENTIAL HOT SPOTS..........................................................................42

13: DEVELOPMENT TYPES............................................................................43

14: RENDERING, BIRDS EYE, SECTION LOCATIONS ..................................55

15: OLIVESTREETAT8THSTREETSECTION.............................................56

16: OLIVESTREETAT18THSTREETSECTION ...........................................57

17: BIRDS EYE LOOKING NORTH ON 14TH STREET: CURRENT VIEW.......58

18: BIRDS EYE LOOKING NORTH ON 14TH STREET: WITH STREETCAR ... 58

19: CHESTNUT STREET AT 7TH STREET: CURRENT VIEW...........................59

20: CHESTNUT STREET AT 7TH STREET: WITH STREETCAR........................59

21: OLIVE STREET AT 9TH STREET: CURRENT VIEW ...................................60

22: OLIVE STREET AT 9TH STREET: WITH STREETCAR ................................60

23: OLIVE STREET AT COMPTON STREET: CURRENT VIEW........................61

24: OLIVE STREET AT COMPTON STREET: WITH STREETCAR ....................61

TABLES

1: EXISTING POPULATION..........................................................................11

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

3: DAILY RIDERSHIP ....................................................................................27

4: ALLOCATED CONTINGENCY PERCENTAGES FOR PLANNING ESTIMATE.. 31

5: UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY PERCENTAGES FOR ESTIMATES ........32

6: PROJECT COSTS WITH STREETSCAPING ...............................................32

7: PROJECT COSTS WITHOUT STREETSCAPING........................................33

8: CENTRAL WEST END DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ...............................48

9: GRAND CENTER DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.......................................48

10: GRAND CENTER TO 18TH STREET DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ..........49

11: NORTHSIDE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL .............................................50

12: DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL........................................... 5113: STREETCAR ROUTE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL .................................51

14: STREETCAR FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ......................................................73

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

COMMENTS ..................................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B

COST ESTIMATE CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS ............................................ B-1

STREETCAR COST ESTIMATE WITH STREETSCAPING ............................ B-4

STREETCAR COST ESTIMATE WITHOUT STREETSCAPING ................... B-9

APPENDIX C

PREVIOUS PLAN DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................ C-1

DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS................................................................. C-4


5/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

he Partnership for Downtown St. Louis sponsored the St. Louis Streetcar

Feasibility Study, a six-month study to determine the feasibility of modern

streetcars linking Downtown St. Louis, the near Northside, Midtown, and the

Central West End. The purpose of the study was to:

support the goals established in TheDowntownNext2020Visionto

improve Downtowns accessibility;

create a catalyst for connued economic development;

provide addional opportunies for alternave transportaon;

support the regions and Citys sustainability iniaves; and

promote an environment that will retain and aract new jobs and

residents to the City.

When St. Louis University announced plans to move their law school from

midtown St. Louis to downtown, the Partnership for Downtown St. Louis once

again began the discussion of a streetcar for downtown. This move presented

an opportunity to link the two campuses with a streetcar and fulll the goals

of the DowntownNext Plan. The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis raised

the private funds for the study and through a compeve selecon process,

selected URS Corporaon to conduct the feasibility study because of the rms

naonal modern streetcar and local transit experience.

OBJECTIVES. The streetcar is intended to provide convenient connecons

to large numbers of jobs, residences and major desnaons. It is designed to

be an important part of the regions overall transit system. And, reecng 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 residenal concentraons are the keys to

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

concentraons in the St. Louis region, Downtown St. Louis and the Central

West End, and areas that are increasing in residenal density. It also serves

numerous major desnaons 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

staon, with double track in the center of the Lindell-Olive corridor. In

downtown, east of 14th Street, it is single track on Olive, 6th, Chestnut, 7th

and Locust Streets. The north-south alignments 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, terminang on 14th Street at Metros Civic Center staon,

which connects to the St. Louis Gateway Mulmodal Transportaon Center,

including Amtrak train and Greyhound bus terminals.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYT

PROPOSED ST. LOUIS STREETCAR - DOWNTOWN


6/101


7/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

VEHICLES. The streetcars will be modern vehicles intended to aract 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 comparable look and feel. Modern streetcars

are available in a range of sizes. The vehicles selected for St. Louis would reect

required passenger capacity for the inial line and potenal system expansion.

SERVICE LEVELS. Reecng the objecve of having the streetcar be a

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

with weekday hours being 5:00 AM unl midnight. Trains would run every 10

minutes at peak periods and every 15 minutes o-peak.

CAPITAL COST. The total capital cost is esmated between $218 million

and $271 million, depending on such elements as streetscaping. Given the

alignment length, the operang plan, and intenon to serve serious transit

markets, the overall is cost is comparable with other streetcar projects around

the United States.

OPERATING COST. Assuming the aggressive operang plan noted above

and exisng Metro compensaon pracces, the annual operang cost is

esmated at $9.7 million.

RIDERSHIP. Average weekday ridership for the streetcar is esmated

at 7,700. This is high by United States streetcar standards. This is similar tothe esmated streetcar ridership for the rst line in Portland, which is now

operang their fourth expansion of the system. It is reecve of the strong

markets served and its aggressive operang plan. It is important to note that

the streetcar is forecast to bring an addional 2,700 riders to the overall transit

system and to increase exisng MetroLink ridership. The streetcar will provide

a complementary service to the exisng transit system and help to serve the

short-distance trips in the corridors.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. The streetcar, along with favorable

market condions and a supporve policy environment, is expected to

help spur development throughout the corridors. This is consistent with

experience elsewhere in North America. Overall development impact is

esmated at $540 million in the rst ve years and $2.1 billion over 20 years.

Given the development in certain areas along the corridors, the esmate is

considered to be conservave. For example, in the last 10 years, downtown

has experienced $5 billion in investment.

TRAFFIC IMPACT. Although the streetcar will be operang in city streets,

and in most cases in mixed trac (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 ow will be minimal.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. There are no environment fatal aws thatcould prevent implementaon of the streetcar project.

FUNDING. It is assumed that the project will require signicant federal

nancial support for capital costs, potenally up to 50 percent of the total.

Based on current federal evaluaon criteria, the St. Louis Streetcar would be

likely to score well in the compeve 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 no funding

at the state level. For the local match, a transportaon development district(TDD) is recommended for the corridors, with a ered special assessment

based on land use. Based on preliminary analysis, the TDD is expected to

generate $10 million annually. This TDD combined with the farebox revenues,

and potenal saving from duplicave bus route operaons could support the

annual operaons and debt service for the project.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. The Partnership established a Steering

Commiee made up of experts and community leaders to review the Feasibility


8/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

Study process and ndings. The Steering Commiee consisted of agency part-

ners, technical experts and representaves of organizaons who had expressed

early interest in the project. In addion to the Steering Commiee, the Part-

nership and Study Team held over 70 stakeholder meengs that included over

100 stakeholders. These stakeholders included policians and their sta at the

naonal, state, and local levels. Governmental oces whose departments may

oversee parts of a streetcar project were consulted regularly. Regional, civic,

community, and private organizaons with projects or services in the impact-

ed area of a streetcar were also consulted. These meengs 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 idenfy how the streetcar would speci -

cally benet their community. At the stakeholder Breakfast and public Open

House, over 270 people aended and provided 141comments on the project.

CONCLUSION

THE STUDY CONCLUDED THAT THE STREETCAR WOULD:

Serve strong transit corridors with residenal density and employment

concentraon,

Serve approximately 7,700 riders per weekday, a strong performance for

a new streetcar line,

Complement, not compete with, exisng Metro service,

Spur an esmated $540 million in development in its rst ve years of

operaon, and $2.1 billion over 20 years,

Have lile impact on exisng vehicular trac and no serious

environmental impacts,

Have a strong likelihood of receiving federal capital funding, and

Have strong support from stakeholders and local ocials.

THE BENEFITS OF THE STREETCAR INCLUDE:

Aracng new residents who want alternaves to the automobile in the

corridors,

Aracng new employers who value access to transit,

Connecng and building neighborhoods,

Creang new jobs in the city,

Providing access to jobs, instuons, schools, grocery stores and

medical services, and

Creang pedestrian-friendly urban environments.

NEXT STEPS

The next steps for the project are outlined in the meline below. To be eligible

to secure federal funding, the streetcar project needs to be adopted into

East-West Gateway Council of Governments long-range transportaon plan.

An enty will also need to be idened that can help facilitate the campaignto establish the proposed transportaon development district and detailed

nancing plan. This enty can be managed by an exisng organizaon or a new

one can be created specically for this project. Aer 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 nalize a nancial plan and a project management

plan, both required to advance the project into engineering.

In addion to compleng the rst modern streetcar line in St. Louis, it is

intended that this inial line can serve as the spine for a larger streetcar

network that links addional desnaon and jobs throughout the region.

Adoption in East-WestGateway Long RangeTransportation Plan

Spring 2013

EnvironmentalAssessment

Fall 2013 - 2014

Financial andManagement

Plans

Fall 2013-2014

Engineering andDesign

2015

Construction

2016 - 2017

Opening

2017-2018


9/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

TheDowntownNext2020Vision established ambious 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 l ink the two campuses with a streetcar.

The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis led the discussions, and 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 implemenng a modern streetcar linking downtown, the nearNorthside, Midtown, and the Central West End. The study area is shown in

Figure 1.

Through a compeve selecon process, the Partnership for Downtown St.

Louis selected URS to conduct the feasibility study. URS was selected for their

naonal modern streetcar and local transit experience. URS has been involved

in the planning and design of the all the modern streetcar lines in operaon

in the United States to date including, Portland, Seale, Tacoma and Tucson.

Streetcars are gaining in popularity across the country. Modern streetcars are

in operaon in the cies menoned above and in the nal planning stages

or under construcon in Cincinna, Kansas City, Milwaukee, and Atlanta.

Streetcars oer the speed, modern technology, service, reliability and

amenies of light rail systems at a lower cost.

The URS Team presented the study ndings to the Steering Commiee on a

monthly basis. With guidance from the Steering Commiee, the following

goals and objecves were established for the study of a modern streetcar:

INTRODUCTION Increase populaon and employment in the corridors Aract new residents and employers

Create new jobs

Support neighborhoods and connect jobs

Catalyze and support future development

Increase economic vitality of downtown and the corridors

Increase mixed-use, transit supporve development

Improve the built environment

Create walkable, sustainable neighborhoods

Integrate and complement the exisng transit system

Provide seamless connecvity

Connect with exisng transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilies

Increase ridership within the corridors and system-wide

Aract choice riders to the system

Provide passenger amenies, technologies Increase visibility of the transit system

Reduce auto trac and improve air quality

WHY A STREETCAR?

An oen asked queson, is how are streetcars dierent from buses? Buses

generally operate in exisng city streets in mixed trac. This allows routes to

change due to modicaons in demand or schedule. It is important to have

this exibili ty 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 xed rail, such as streetcars or light rail, the alignment and staons do not

change. Exisng 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 ocials the certainty that the alignment will not move. As a

result, rail transit can be a catalyst for development.


10/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

Building a transit does not necessarily mean the development will happen.

Transit is a part of a larger picture. If combined with connecng concentraons

of employment and residenal areas, proper zoning, policy and incenves,

streetcars can help to spur development. This has been documented in

Portland and Seale. Cies where streetcars have not seen the expected

ridership or development, typically have not provided serious transit with

frequent headways and connecons to employment concentraons.

The key to a successful transit system including streetcars is careful planning.

This includes idenfying if there is a market, will there be ridership, will

development be aracted to the corridor, will there be impacts and can the

region aord the investment. These are some of the issues that this study will

examine.


11/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

Starng in August 2012, the Partnership for Downtown St. Louis began a

comprehensive public engagement program to garner feedback on the S t. Louis

Streetcar concept. The mul-pronged strategy targeted the neighborhoods

surrounding the proposed alignment and involved individual stakeholder

meengs, monthly Steering Commiee meengs and a nal public meeng.

The Partnership established a Steering Commiee made up of experts and

community leaders to review the Feasibility Study process and ndings.

The Steering Commiee consisted of agency partners, technical experts

and representaves of organizaons who had expressed early interest in

the project. This group of individuals reviewed the Study Teams ndings as

informaon was collected. A sub-commiee, the Finance Commiee, was

created to specically address the nancing piece of the Study and gain abeer understanding of the local nancing environment. These commiees

ulmately helped shape the Feasibility Study outcomes. (List of commiee

members can be found on the inside f ront cover.)

In addion to the Steering Commiee, the Partnership and Study Team held

over 100 dierent meengs that included over 130 stakeholders. These

stakeholders included elected ocials and their sta at the naonal, state, and

local levels; governmental oces whose departments may oversee parts of

a streetcar project; and regional, civic, community, and private organizaons

with projects or services in the impacted area of the streetcar. These

meengs 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 idenfy how

the streetcar would specically benet their community. Some quesons

focused on the logiscs of geng the project built, while other quesons

focused on how the project would impact or connect with exisng MetroLink

and MetroBus service, the Loop Trolley project, and who would operate the

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

system. In response, the Study Team developed a Factsheet for stakeholders

and a list of Talking Points used by the Study Team and Steering Commiee.

The public engagement process culminated on March 7, 2013 with a

stakeholder breakfast and public open house at the Moto Museum.

Forty-three stakeholders aended the breakfast which included business

owners, community development leaders, developers, transit ocials, elected

ocials and residents. The study team presented a brief presentaon and

answered quesons from aendees. Comments forms were also available and

13 were completed.

For the public open house at the Moto Museum, a total of 228 cizens

aended. Residents, employees and visitors were encouraged to oer

feedback, ask quesons and voice concerns. Graphic boards depicng the

study results were displayed, and members of the Study Team and Steering

Commiee were available to answer quesons.

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE | MARCH 7, 2013


12/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

Comment forms were available and 128 were completed. Parcipants were

asked to select the three most important benets they thought the streetcar

would bring to St. Louis. The top four responses were:

Spur new development

Create a pedestrian friendly urban environment

Provide alternaves to driving

Aract new residents

Parcipants were also asked if they would support a Transportaon

Development District (TDD) to help fund the St. Louis Streetcar Project.

Overwhelming aendees responded in favor of the TDD with 98 respondents

(73 percent) selecng yes. Ten respondents selected no to indicate, they

would not support the establishment of a TDD (7 percent) and 27 needed

more informaon to make a decision (20 percent).

Parcipants were also given the opportunity to provide addional comments.

Comments covered a variety of topics including:

In support of the streetcar project 27

Funding/Cost/TDD 18

Connecvity 12 Adding a south connecon 11

Development 9

Open House and public parcipaon - 5

Ridership 5

Security and safety 4

Lane usage 4

WOULD YOU SUPPORT A TDD TO HELP FUNDA ST. LOUIS STREETCAR SYSTEM?


13/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

At least 27 people commented in favor of the proposed St. Louis streetcar

project. Many comments referenced what a great opportunity this is for St.

Louis and how excited people are to ulize the streetcar.

Respondents (18) also discussed concern over the cost, the benets and

disadvantages of a TDD, and potenal funding opons for the streetcar

including partnerships with local corporaons. Since the TDD analysis did not

include parcipaon from the non-prot instuons (hospitals, schools, and

other instuons) along the routes, aendees and stakeholders expressed a

concern over these instuons receiving the benet of a streetcar without

providing nancial support.

Respondents also supported the connecvity a streetcar would oer and

suggested it connect to MetroLink, MetroBus and specic streets and

desnaons (12). Eleven respondents supported a connecon south toSouth City and Soulard neighborhood. A number of stakeholders viewed

the streetcar in compeon with parallel MetroLink service. Throughout the

Study, the service level of a streetcar compared to MetroLink/light-rail had to

be dened.

Other comments referenced potenal development along the corridor, the

need for public parcipaon, feedback on the open house, possibilies and

concerns about ridership, the importance of safety and security, and land

usage for buses, cars and bicycles. A complete record of the comments and

comment form are included inAppendix A.

The majority of parcipants indicated they were residents (83 people) and/or

commuters (46 people), in relaon to the study area. Addionally, 21 people

indicated they were business owners and 24 people idened themselves as

other category.

A project webpage hp://www.downtownstl.org/stlstreetcar contains

the nal report along with other project materials. During the nal stages

of the Study, the project received signicant media aenon. The media

included television, radio, print, and online. The comments above from the

public engagement largely reect the comments in the media, which were

mainly posive. Links to the media coverage can also be found on the project

webpage.

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 robust outreach to all of the neighborhoods

along and near the proposed alignments.


14/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

MARKET ANALYSISTransit systems are most successful when they connect major desnaons and

employment centers with residenal neighborhoods. Density drives transit

ridership. The market analysis idened residenal and employment centers

and desnaons to determine if the corridors had the density concentraons

to support addional 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 Staon

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.

Populaon in the corridor is some of

the regions most dense, as indicated in

Table 1 and depicted in Figure 2.

Downtown is one of the Citys fastest

growing and most dense neighborhoods.

Since 2000, downtown residenal

populaon has increased by 6,000 to

13,500 and in 2011 populaon grew

by 4 percent, according to the 2012

Downtown St. Louis Progress Report.

Midtown is an emerging residenal neighborhood, bounded by Washington

Avenue to the north, Forest Park Avenue to the south, Spring Street to the west,

and Jeerson Avenue to the east. Populaon in Midtown is approximately

5,600. St. Louis University is located in this area along with Grand Center, a

TABLE 1: EXISTING POPULATION

LocaonExisng

Populaon

Downtown 13,500

Midtown 5,600

Central West End 14,400

Near North St. Louis 8,500Study Area 38,000

Source:2010Census

major entertainment and arts center. Housing is largely mulfamily with a few

single family residences.

The Central West End is an established residenal neighborhood at the western

terminus of the corridor with approximately 14,400 residents. Central West

End has a mix of single family residents, condos and mul-family apartments.

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

of single, aached and mul-family residenal units. The corridor includes

Carr Square, Old North St. Louis, an emerging mixed use neighborhood with a

small commercial center along 13th Street. This area has approximately 8,500

residents.

The corridors connect some of the regions most dense employment centers,

downtown and the Central West End,as shown in as indicated in Table 2 and

depicted 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 the neighborhood. Midtown is

also an employment center with over

9,700 employees. Midtowns largest

employer is St. Louis University, with

other employment associated with the entertainment district including the

Fox Theater, Powell Hall and Grand Center.

The Near Northside contains a few employers, especially closer to downtown,

TABLE 2: EXISTING EMPLOYMENT

LocaonExisng

Employment

Downtown 13,500

Midtown 5,600

Central West End 14,400

Near North St. Louis 8,500

Study Area 38,000

Source:2010Census


15/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

where there is a small employment concentraon along Delmar and

Washington Avenues.

Also idened were corridor trip generators and desnaons. In downtown,

special generators in the corridor include: Crown Candy, the planned Great

Rivers Greenway Trestle project, the Gateway Arch, the Convenon Center, the

Old Courthouse, City Garden, City Museum, Edward Jones Dome, Scorade

Center, Peabody Opera House and Busch Stadium. These are local, regional

and naonal desnaons. 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.


16/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

FIGURE 1 - ST. LOUIS STREETCAR STUDY CORRIDOR

LEGEND

EXISTING METROLINK

EXISTING METROLINK STATION

PROPOSED STREETCAR CORRIDOR


17/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

FIGURE 2 - EXISTING POPULATION DENSITY, 2010Source:East-WestGatewayCouncilofGovernments


18/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

FIGURE 3 - EXISTING EMPLOYMENT DENSITY, 2010Source:East-WestGatewayCouncilofGovernments


19/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

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

east-west segment connecng Downtown St. Louis and the Central West End,

the regions two largest employment centers, and a north-south segment

linking downtown with developing areas on the near Northside and the Saint

Louis Gateway Mulmodal Transportaon Center including Amtrak train and

Greyhound bus terminals at Metros 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 fast operaon (by streetcar standards) and

relavely short travel mes, with minimal impact on trac and parking. East ofGrand Boulevard there is sucient right-of-way width to allow the streetcars

to operate in a separate guideway, avoiding operaon in mixed trac. West

of Grand Boulevard streetcars would share street lanes with vehicular trac.

East of 14th Street objecves that drove decisions regarding downtown

alignments included:

Get as close as possible to the center of the employment concentraon.

Minimize distance, physical and psychological, to major aracons,

including the Arch Grounds.

Reduce capital and operang 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 operaon.)

Eliminate impacts to MetroLink from streetcar construcon.

Lessen trac impacts.

ALIGNMENT Applicaon of those principles resulted, rst, in the eliminaon of severalopons. Impacts to MetroLink during construcon eliminated 8th Street and

Washington Avenue. Trac impacts, as cited by the City of St. Louis and the

Missouri Department of Transportaon, 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 opon.

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

sased the evaluaon criteria listed above. These included Chestnut, Pine,

Olive and Locust Streets. North-south opons 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 concentraon and

provides beer proximity to major desnaons. Olive Street is the logical

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

of the alignment west of 14th Street. This results in a decision betweenLocust and Pine for the westbound segment. Locust was selected because

of its centrality to the employment core, and because of its more pedestrian

friendly rst-oor 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.) In the next phase future coordinaon

with the CityArchRiver 2015 project Gateway Mall Master Plan, and the Central

Business District Downtown Streetscape Design Manual Update.

Alignment recommendaons in the Central West End, west of Taylor Avenue

were driven by the goals of geng as close as possible to the core of the

medical complex and directly accessing MetroLinks Central West End staon.

This addresses a project objecve of providing an important addion to

the regions transit network, and supporng the thriving commercial and

entertainment area centered on Euclid Avenue. Opons included a single-

track one-way loop west on Lindell, south on Euclid Avenue, east on Forest Park

Avenue and north on Taylor Avenue. Alternavely, the double track on Lindell


20/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

Boulevard could connue south on Taylor Avenue and west on Childrens Plaza,

terminang at the Central West End MetroLink staon, where streetcars would

reverse direcon. Further analysis in the next phase of project development

will include consideraons of trac impacts, safety concerns, and extensive

stakeholder and instuonal input. Addional coordinaon will be required

with the Cortex Redevelopment Area project.

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, terminang 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 Street between

Olive Street and the Mul-Modal Center south of Clark Street. Severalconsideraons will be looked at in more detail in the environmental analysis

along 14th Street including the Great Rivers Greenway proposed bike path

along 14th Street, the operaons of the Peabody/Scorade Center south of

Market Street along 14th Street and the proposed North Side Redevelopment

Area project.

The Northside-Southside Alternaves Analysis used a downtown alignment on

Convenon Plaza, a 9th 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 modied to

use a more direct 14th Street route, thus reducing capital cost.


21/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

FIGURE 4 - PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OPTIONS

LEGEND

EXISTING METROLINK

EXISTING METROLINK STATION

PROPOSED NORTHSIDE/SOUTHSIDE STREETCAR ALIGNMENT

PROPOSED DOWNTOWN STREETCAR ALIGNMENTS


22/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

FIGURE 5 - CENTRAL WEST END ALIGNMENT OPTION 1 FIGURE 6 - CENTRAL WEST END ALIGNMENT OPTION 2LEGEND

EXISTING METROLINK

PROPOSED STREETCAR ALIGNMENT


23/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

FIGURE 7 - DOWNTOWN ALIGNMENTLEGEND

EXISTING METROLINK

PROPOSED STREETCAR ALIGNMENT


24/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

A preliminary review of trac and environmental impacts was conducted.

The purpose of the review was to determine any fatal environmental or trac

impacts that would prevent the project from moving forward. The results of

the analysis indicate that impacts to trac and environmental consideraonsare not fatal. A fatal aw was considered anything that may trigger ligaon.

TRAFFIC

A high level trac impact analysis evaluated capacity, signalizaon and

circulaon paerns. Figure 8 indicates the number of travel lanes and the

annual average daily trac (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 exisng 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 poron of the

corridor roughly parallels I-64 to its south. The north-south poron 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, ve-lane major

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

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

TRAFFIC IMPACTS there are sidewalks (typically wide) on both sides. Although it is a major east-west arterial in downtown, trac 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 ve-lane cross-secon allows for turning lanes at all intersecons, and

most of the major intersecons are signalized and managed by the City of

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

Boulevard. This poron of Lindell/Olive is ulized by three MetroBus routes:

#10 connects the Central West End MetroLink Staon and the Civic Center

MetroBus Center (at the Gateway Transportaon Center), #13 travels between

the Central West End MetroLink Staon and North St. Louis County, and #4

links the Civic Center MetroBus Center with the North Hanley MetroLink

Staon.

The Bike St. Louis/Gateway Bike Plan incorporates dedicated bike lanes on

Lindell/Olive from Grand Boulevard east to 20th Street. Development along

this arterial is relavely dense mixed uses, including the Saint Louis University

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

Business District (CBD).

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 ulizes Taylor between the Central

West End MetroLink Staon and OFallon Park in North St Louis City. Taylor

serves dense residenal and some rst-oor commercial development. Most

intersecons on Taylor are all-way stop-controlled with no turning lanes with

the excepon of its intersecon with Forest Park Parkway. The intersecon is

signalized with turning lanes and Taylor transions to a four-lane cross-secon.

The Gateway Bike Plan incorporates shared bike lanes on Taylor throughout

this segment.


25/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

st. Louis streetcar

FeasibiLity study

LeGeNd

ProPosed st. Louisstreetcar aLiGNmeNts- FrequeNt statioNs

streetcar termiNustobe determiNed

existiNGmetroLiNk LiNe WitH statioNs

ProPosed metroLiNk statioN

ProPosed GraNd busraPid traNsit

ProPosed NortHside/soutHside Lrt aLiGNmeNt

General Annual Average Daily Trafc (aadt)Capacity for Urban Arterial Segments

Number ofLanes ApproximateCapacity

(vehicles/day)

7................................ 47,000

5 ............................... 30,000

4 ............................... 25,000

3 ............................... 17,000

2 ............................... 15,000

LeGeNd

Number ofdriving lanes

AverageDaily Trafc (AADT), vehicles/dayxx,xxx

x

10,000

5

7 6,000

23,000

2

8,500

2

8,500

5

11,5005

4,0002

7,500

5

10,000

7

11,5007

7,000

5

11,000

5

11,500

5

14,000

5

14,000

5

16,000

5

16,500

5

6,000

2

8,500

4

FIGURE 8 - PROPOSED CORRIDOR LANES AND EXISTING TRAFFIC


26/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

CHILDRENS 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 Staon. This cul-de-sac also

serves at the terminus for the BJC/Washington University Medical School

shule buses.

East of Tucker Boulevard, OLIVE STREET becomes a one-way eastbound, two

lane road with parking permied on at least one side. There are wide sidewalks

fronng urban mul-story buildings on either side. All of the cross streets

east of Tucker are one-way facilies as well; all intersecons are signalized and

there are no turn lanes. No MetroBus routes ulize Olive, although mulple

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 porons 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 Bike St. Louis/Gateway Bike Plan Route proposes

shared bike lanes for all of these streets.

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

excepon of the segment south of Clark Avenue where there are no parking

lanes. The major intersecons are signalized and have dedicated turn lanes,

the minor intersecons are stop-controlled on the cross-road.

Because 14th Street provides access to the Civic Center MetroBus Center,

mulple MetroBus ulize 14th Street, especially in the CBD (south of

Washington Avenue). MetroBus routes #41 and #74 connue north to Carr

Street and North Florissant Avenue on their way to North County, and route

#30 connues north to St. Louis Avenue before turning west toward the Rock

Road MetroLink Staon. As part of the Bike St. Louis/Gateway Bike Plan, 14thStreet is proposed to have shared bike lanes north of Clark Avenue, dedicated

bike lanes north of Washington Avenue to Cole Street. In addion, 14th Street

north of Washington is proposed for a urban greenway 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 intersecons at Madison

Street, North Market Street, and St. Louis Avenue are signalized, but the

majority of intersecons with cross streets have only stop control on the minor

(crossing) road. MetroBus route #74 ulizes North Florissant between the

Civic Center MetroBus Center and North County. The Bike St. Louis/Gateway

Bike Plan idenes North Florissant as a poron of the Route 66 Mul-State

On-Street Bike Route. Dedicated bike lanes are proposed between 14th Street

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

Trac Signal System

The majority of the trac signals wi thin the study corridors are part of a pre-

med coordinated system controlled by the City of St. Louis. The excepon

is 14th Street, although the City is steadily adding signals to its system as

condions permit. Signals within the coordinated system have upgraded

equipment and are interconnected. The City ulizes an ACTRA system and

various porons of the corridors fall within dierent management groups.


27/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

Ancipated Streetcar Impacts

The proposed streetcar will ulize dedicated street lanes north of Locust Street

and west of 14th Street, and shared trac lanes within the core of the CBD.

The exisng system has excess capacity. As shown in Figure 21, the exisng

network has excess capacity and can be expected to accommodate both of

those uses in their proposed segments.

NEXT STEPS

To further rene the trac analysis, detailed data collecon is necessary. This

will be part of the next phase of the project. This data would include current

trac volumes and turning movement counts at all intersecons and major

access points within the study corridors. Volume projecons for the operang

meframe will need to incorporate the network trac shis 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 resulng from the proposed system can be dened. Aer

impacts are determined, migaon and enhancements to the exisng system

will be invesgated.

The addional data will also support a detailed study of potenal circulaon

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

pedestrian concerns such as street crossings, security, and connuity and

property concerns such as access, ow, and parking. Local circulaon would

look further into aspects such as the bicycle network and how to maintain and

enhance that system. Regional circulaon would focus on the maintaining and

enhancing transit connecvity within the MetroLink and MetroBus systems

as well as for commuter systems from Illinois, for example Madison County

Transit.


28/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

A review of the environmental consideraons associated with the proposed

alignment was conducted. The purpose of the review was to determine if

there were any fatal aws.

For this type of project in an exisng right-of-way and within an urban area,

impacts are mostly associated with social/economic consideraons. These

include environmental jusce, neighborhoods and community facility, cultural

resources, Title VI compliance, and visual and aesthec resources. Natural

impacts such as biological resources, endangered species, wetlands and ood

plains tend to have less impact. While the review indicated no fatal aws,

parkland, noise, environmental jusces, and visual and aesthec resources will

need further analysis to determine potenal impacts during the next phase of

the project.

Parkland

The proposed alignment includes a staon in Kiener Plaza park located

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

Department of Transportaon (DOT) Acon of 1966 includes a provision,

Secon 4(f) that requires DOT agencies including the FTA, cannot approve

the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreaonal areas, wildlife and

waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites unless the following

condions apply:

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

The acon includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the

property resulng from use.1

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

next environmental phase.

Noise

Streetcars have lower noise levels than city buses. Streetcar noise is mostly

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 Opon 1 turns include:

Lindell and Taylor Avenue

Taylor Avenue and Childrens Place

The Central West End Opon 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 intersecons will be

reviewed further for noise impacts.

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

every grade crossing like MetroLink. This helps reduce 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 sensive to noise levels

such as areas designated for serenity uses, including parks, historic landmarks

and concert pavilions, residenal and instuonal areas will be conducted.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1U.S. Department of Transportaon

Federal Highway Administraon


29/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

Environmental Jusce

Environmental jusce

refers to the fair treatment

and engagement of the

people regardless of

race, income, or naonalorigin in the development

or implementaon of

environmental regulaons.

The alignment traverses

through neighborhoods with

disadvantaged populaons

on the north-south

alignment and the east-

west alignment. Figure 9 at

right provides the median

household incomes for the

enre corridor. The light blue

areas indicate areas with

disadvantaged populaons. In the next phase of the project, further analysis

will determine whether or not the direct, indirect, and cumulave eects

would disproporonately burden these populaons.

Visual and Aesthecs

The proposed alignment of the streetcar would be within the exisng right-

of-way and share exisng trac lanes throughout the corridor. The corridor

includes established neighborhoods including the CBD, the near Northside,

Midtown and the Central West End. Each of these neighborhoods has

disncve characteriscs and aesthec qualies. It will be important in the

next phase to determine if the overhead wires, staons and construcon

impact these neighborhoods.

NEXT STEPS

The environmental consideraons that will be analyzed in more detail during

the next phase include:

Trac

Transit

Land Use

Economic

Neighborhoods and

Community Facilies

Environmental Jusce

Title VI Compliance

Visual and Aesthec Resource

Cultural Resources

Noise and Vibraon

Air Quality

Energy

Parks and Recreaon

Secon 4(f)

Public Safety

Biological Resources and

Endangered Species

Geology and Soils

Wetlands, Water and Floodplains

FIGURE 9 - MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMESource:East-WestGatewayCouncilofGovernments


30/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

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

esmate of likely ridership for the proposed St. Louis Streetcar. An approach

was employed that makes extensive use of an exisng tool developed by the

Federal Transit Administraon (FTA) and its contractors. This tool is known asthe Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasng Model Version 2 (ARRF-2).

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

operate at higher speeds over longer distances than streetcar systems. To

conrm, its applicability to streetcars, the model was tested and adjusted to

be representave of streetcar ridership observed in Portland, Oregon. It was

also tested to conrm that it properly represents current MetroLink ridership

in St. Louis.

DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVE

The streetcar alternave consists of an east-west segment traveling between

the Central West End MetroLink staon 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 the westbound track is located on Locust Street.

ARRF-2 requires that paired staons (i.e., the staons on Olive and Locust

Streets that separately serve eastbound and westbound direcons) be coded

as a single staon. For this analysis, the Olive Street staons were coded and

assumed to be generally representave of the corresponding staons on

Locust Street.

RIDERSHIP FORECAST 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 minuteheadways

From 6 PM to 12 Midnight, 15

minute headways

ESTIMATES OF

STREETCAR RIDERSHIP

The forecasng model was run using the

same input travel demand data used to

validate current esmates of MetroLink

ridership including 2000 Census, Journey

to Work data. The results reported in

this secon do not account for potenal

populaon and employment growth in

the corridor that may occur in the future.

As such, the analysis represents an inial

order-of-magnitude esmate rather

than the outcome of a full forecasng

assignment.

ARRF model results suggest that if the

streetcar were operaonal today, the east-

west route would aract 5,900 daily riders

and the north-south route would aract

1,800 daily riders-for a total of 7,700

daily riders. Staon-by-staon ridership is

shown in Table 3 at right.

TABLE 3: DAILY RIDERSHIP

StaonDaily

Boardings

CENTRAL WEST END 1,345

Taylor/Sco 36

Taylor/Laclede 61

Taylor/Lindell 416

Lindell/Newstead 267

Lindell/Sarah 367

Lindell/Vandeventer 244

Lindell/Grand 173

Olive/Compton 280

Olive/Jeerson 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 to 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 to S 1,801

TOTAL STREETCAR 7,669


31/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

IMPACTS ON METROLINK

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

are posive although modest. The streetcar is expected to aract over 500

addional MetroLink riders and 2,700 new transit riders. Of the 7,700 total

ridership, only 10 percent (750 trips) are traveling enrely 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.

Having an integrated transit system with several types of rail is not unique.

Various rail types such as light-rail and streetcar have dierent trip purposes.

Light-rail serves the longer distance trip, while streetcars serve the shorter

distance trip. The systems complement each other and generally do not

compete for riders. Portland Oregon has successfully implemented light-

rail and streetcar. Seale is another example of a city with both light-rail andstreetcar. Atlanta is currently building a streetcar system that will integrate

with the exisng heavy rail system. Minneapolis is studying streetcars to

connect downtown to surrounding neighborhoods that would integrate with

the exisng light rail and commuter rail system.

The relavely 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 compeng MetroLink line. Central West End to downtown is

40 minutes by streetcar and 13 minutes by MetroLink resulng in relavely

few line-haul trips diverng from MetroLink to streetcar.

The trips that did divert were esmated by assuming that approximately half

of all streetcar trips in the compeng markets were diverted from MetroLink

and the remaining half were either diverted from bus or are new trips. This

results in an esmate of 375 daily trips being diverted from MetroLink. The

streetcar is expected to aract 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 potenal

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

assessment of ridership is required.


32/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

OPERATIONS PLANDeveloping an operaons plan for a streetcar line is a careful balance between

projected ridership and the service paern to be provided. Not only are

the factors interrelated, they mutually impact one another; beer service

increases ridership, and more ridership requires more service. Ridership issensive to such factors as weather, me of day, frequency, speed, economic

development and the price of gas and parking. Thus, it is important that the

system be capable of adjusng service levels to demand within a fairly broad

range, in order to provide good cost control.

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

exisng transit system is a priority. For example, it will be important that hours

of service and fare structure complement the exisng system. 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 esmate for the inial streetcar is 7,700 daily riders, the number

used for this operang plan. Likewise, the operang plan described below has

been used for ridership forecasng.

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 exisng

transit system in the St. Louis area. It is recommended the hours of operaon

be the same or similar to MetroLink and MetroBus. For this study, the hours of

service were assumed to be 5:00 a.m. to midnight, Monday through Sunday.

SCHEDULE SPEED

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

and layover me at the end of each trip. The inial 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 Staon, and provides convenient transfer with bus services

along the route. It serves Civic Center staon as well, and is a short walk to the

light rail staon at 8th and Pine in downtown and Convenon Center Staon 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 is determined 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 objecve 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 exisng bus service in the corridors.


33/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

O-peak-service for rail transit lines is generally in the 15 to 30 minute range.

For the St. Louis Streetcar, with its many connecons to MetroBus and

MetroLink, a compable headway to these lines of 15 minutes is suggested.

For those mes 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 dene a service level, and the desire to provide

a robust service at minimal operang cost, the following operang plan has

been developed for the east-west and north-south routes 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


34/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

COSTSThe methodology for developing the capital and operang costs are detailed

below. Esmates are based on FTAs capital cost format and used in New Starts

projects. The cost esmate is designed to evolve throughout project phases

but be as accurate as possible at each stage.

CAPITAL COST METHODOLOGY

The approach used for the capital cost esmate is based on FTAs capital cosng

format, the Standard Cost Categories (SCC), established in 2005 to provide a

consistent format for the reporng, esmang, and managing of capital costs

for New Starts projects. Cost esmates produced under this methodology

can be tracked and audited as the project denion moves forward from

conceptual design to nal design and construcon.

ESTIMATE DEVELOPMENT

Conceptual alignments and typical secons formed the basis for quanfying

project improvements into units of work. Appropriate unit pricing was

developed from historical cost data, applied to the quanes, and summed

into cost categories to complete the cost esmate.

Current Year Dollars

The capital costs were esmated in current year 2012 US dollars (2012$).

Escalaon

Escalaon factors are somemes necessary when using costs that are

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

construcon cost index values can be used to calculate an escalaon factor for

the period in queson. Addionally, it may be necessary to take the current

year esmate and project it to a future base year or year of expenditure. In this

case, an escalaon factor will be developed using historical construcon cost

index values to calculate the most recent moving average for the me 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 Seale Streetcar projectscurrently under construcon, engineers esmates, and standard esmang

pracces. The unit cost prices include contractor overhead and prot.

Conngencies

Conngency addresses the potenal for quanty uctuaons and cost

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

current level of design. Conngency is assigned in two major categories,

allocated and unallocated.

Allocated conngency is used during the planning stages of a project when

the level of design development is usually below 30 percent complete. Based

on the level of design development a conngency 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 potenal

variability of costs within each of these cost categories. Table 4 above lists the

percentages that are normally used for allocated conngencies.

TABLE 4: ALLOCATED CONTINGE NCY PERCENTAGESFOR PLANNING ESTIMATE

SCC Descripon Percentage

10 Guideway and Track Elements 15

20 Staons, Stops, Terminals, Intermodals 20

30 Support Facilies: Yards, Shops, Administraon Bldgs 25

40 Sitework and Special Condions 25

50 Systems 20

60 Right-of-Way, Land, Exisng Improvements 30

70 Vehicles 15


35/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

Unallocated conngency is used for the same reasons described for allocated

conngency. 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 quanty development.

During the planning stages, allocated and unallocated conngencies are appliedseparately but the total conngency is the result of their combined eect.

Esmates prepared in the advanced design stages would only include unallocated

conngencies. Table

5 at le lists the

percentages that are

normally used and

when they would be

applied.

COST CATEGORIES

Cost categories were used to summarize the unit prices into a comprehensive

total esmate for each segment. The major cost categories are listed and

described in greater detail below:

Guideway and Track Elements

Stops

Support Facilies

Sitework and Special Condions

Systems

Right-of-Way, Land, Exisng Improvements

Vehicles

Professional Services

Unallocated Conngency

Finance Charges

Capital costs for the rst four categories were calculated using unit costs and

measured quanes for each sub-category. Systems costs were calculated by

either the alignment length or when possible a measurable quanty. 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

construcon costs (excluding vehicle procurement). These percentages are

discussed in the Professional Services Secon (Appendix B). The sum of these

ten cost categories is the total capital cost esmate. The ten cost categories

are described in detail inAppendix B.

CAPITAL COSTS

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

rst level is the SCC primary category and the second is the SCC sub-category.

The esmate spreadsheets are inAppendix B.

The capital costs are

esmated to range

between $218 million and

$271 million depending on

the amount of streetscape

implemented. The $271

million esmate includes

the rebuilding of the

street, building face to

building face along with

the construcon of the

streetcar and a 10 to 15

minute operaon plan.

Table 6 at right provides

the cost breakdown for the opon that includes a full streetscaping plan.

TABLE 5: UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY

PERCENTAGES FOR ESTIMATES

EsmateType Descripon Percentage

PlanningSystem Planning 20

Alternaves Analysis 15

Design

Preliminary Engineering 20

Final Design 15

Construcon 10

TABLE 6: PROJECT COSTS WITH

STREETSCAPING

Descripon Total Cost

Guideway and Track $37 million

Staons $4 million

Support Facilies $7 million

Sitework and Special Condions $76 million

Systems $25 million

Right-of-Way $0 million

Vehicles $52 million

Professional Services $40 million

Unallocated Conngency $30 million

Total $271million


36/101


|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|

This esmate was further divided into segments of the corridor:

Downtown (east of 14th Street): $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 esmate does not include streetscaping but does

assume the same operang plan. Table 7below provides the cost summary

for an opon 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

OPERATING COSTS

METHODOLOGY

Cost Elements

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

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

cost per hour actually experienced by similar operaons, adjusted if necessaryto reect unusual or locaon-specic variaons. Cost per hour is a reasonable

surrogate for overall costs because the bulk of the costs incurred in a streetcar

operaon are directly related to this measure. For example, operators

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

funcon 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

administrave 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 sucient accuracy for typical feasibility studies.

Range of Unit Costs

A streetcar line in mixed trac has operang characteriscs 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 operaons and

Documents

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study - Final (2013)