DRAFT - St. Louis North Side/Downtown/Midtown/CWE Streetcar Feasibility Study 2013

ST.
LOUIS STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY

The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis Draft Report FEBRUARY 2013
AF
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study
STUDY TEAM
THE PARTNERSHIP FOR DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS
MAGGIE CAMPBELL, PRESIDENT AND CEO MATT SCHINDLER, PROJECT MANAGER
STEERING COMMITTEE
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
OTIS WILLIAMS, ST. LOUIS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ROSE WINDMILLER, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
FINANCE COMMITTEE
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
URS TEAM
URS 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
CRAIG HELLER, LOFTWORKS
TISHAURA JONES, TREASURER CITY OF ST. LOUIS JOHN LANGA, METRO
JESSICA MEFFORD-MILLER, METRO
Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs
R
MARK VOGL, HOK
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
AF
STEPHEN GREGALI, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MAYORS OFFICE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 MARKET ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 ALIGNMENT .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 TRAFFIC ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
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
AF
ENVIRONMENTAL .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
FIGURES
1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19: 20: 21: 22: 23: 24: 25: ST. LOUIS STREETCAR STUDY CORRIDOR ........................................ 9 EXISTING POPULATION DENSITY ................................................. 10 EXISTING EMPLOYMENT DENSITY ............................................... 12 PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OPTIONS ............................................... 15 CENTRAL WEST END ALIGNMENT OPTION 1 ................................ 16 CENTRAL WEST END ALIGHMENT OPTION 2................................. 16 DOWNTOWN ALIGNMENT ......................................................... 17 PROPOSED CORRIDOR LANES AND EXISTING TRAFFIC ..................... 19 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME................................................... 23 DAILY RIDERSHIP ..................................................................... 26 STREETCAR DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR ........................................ 35 EXISTING HOT SPOTS................................................................ 36 POTENTIAL HOT SPOTS ............................................................. 40 DEVELOPMENT TYPES ............................................................... 41 RENDERING, BIRDS EYE, SECTION LOCATIONS ............................. 55 OLIVE STREET AT 8TH STREET SECTION ...................................... 56 OLIVE STREET AT 18TH STREET SECTION .................................... 57 BIRDS EYE LOOKING NORTH ON 14TH STREET: CURRENT ................ 58 BIRDS EYE LOOKING NORTH ON 14TH STREET: WITH STREETCAR ..... 59 CHESTNUT STREET AT 7TH STREET: CURRENT................................. 60 CHESTNUT STREET AT 7TH STREET: WITH STREETCAR ...................... 60 OLIVE STREET AT 9TH STREET: CURRENT ....................................... 61 OLIVE STREET AT 9TH STREET: WITH STREETCAR............................. 62 OLIVE STREET AT COMPTON STREET: CURRENT............................. 63 OLIVE STREET AT COMPTON STREET: WITH STREETCAR .................. 64
TABLES
1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 13: EXISTING POPULATION.................................................................. 8 EXISTING EMPLOYMENT .............................................................. 11 ALLOCATED CONTIGENCY PERCENTAGES FOR PLANNING ESTIMATE .... 30 UNALLOCATED CONTINGECY PERCENTAGES FOR ESTIMATES.............. 30 PROJECT COSTS WITH STREETSCAPING ........................................... 31 PROJECT COSTS WITHOUT STREETSCAPING ..................................... 31 CENTERAL WEST END DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL............................ 46 GRAND CENTER DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.................................... 47 GRAND CENTER TO 18TH STREET DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ............. 48 NORTHSIDE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ......................................... 49 DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ....................................... 50 STREETCAR ROUTE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL................................ 51 STREETCAR FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ................................................ 52
AF
A: B:
APPENDIX
COST ESTIMATE CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS STREETCAR COST ESTIMATEWITH STREETSCAPING STREETCAR COST ESTIMATE WITHOUT SREETCAPING PREVIOUS PLAN DESCRIPTIONS DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS
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 regions overall 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.
PROPOSED ST. LOUIS STREETCAR DOWNTOWN
R
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. Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs
AF
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 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, terminating on 14th Street at Metros 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 Metros, with weekday hours being 5:00 AM until midnight. Trains would run every 10 minutes at peak periods and every 15 minutes off-peak.
AF
2
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 around the 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. 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.
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 development impact 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.
AF
PROPOSED ST. LOUIS STREETCAR CENTRAL WEST END
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 3
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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. 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.
The benefits of the streetcar include:
Attracting new residents who want alternatives to the automobile in the corridor,
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 Governments 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 existing 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 EastWest 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.
AF
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 Steering Committee 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
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 and design 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 Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs
AF

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.
be impacts and can the region afford the investment. These are some of the issues that this study will examine.
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 Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs 6
AF
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 Teams 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.
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 project would 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 the Study 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.
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
AF
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.
MARKET 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 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 13th 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
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 the corridor is some of the regions most dense, as depicted in Figure 2. Downtown is one of the Citys 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.
AF
Figure 1 St. Louis Streetcar Study Corridor
AF
9
Figure 2 Existing Population Density, 2010
AF
10
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study The corridors connect some of the regions 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 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 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 136,000 Center, Powell Hall, the Fox Theatre, St. Louis University, HarrisStowe 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.
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 Building Neighborhood, Connecting Jobs 11
Source: 2010 Census
AF
Figure 3 Existing Employment Density, 2010
Building Neighborhood, Connecting Jobs
AF
12
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 regions two largest employment centers, and a north-south segment linking downtown with developing areas on the near Northside and the Saint Louis Gateway Multimodal Transportation 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 operation (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.
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.
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.
East of 14th Street objectives that drove decisions regarding downtown alignments included:
AF
Application of those principles resulted, first, in the elimination of several options. Impacts to MetroLink during construction th eliminated 8 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 14th Street. This results in a decision 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.)
13
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 MetroLinks Central West End station. This addresses a project objective of providing an important addition to the regions 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 Childrens 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 Street between 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 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 modified to use a more direct 14th Street route, thus reducing capital cost.
AF
14
Figure 4 Proposed Alignment Options
AF
15
LEGEND
Existing MetroLink Proposed Streetcar alignment
R
LEGEND
Figure 5 Central West End Alignment Option 1
AF
Figure 6 Central West End Alignment Option 2 16
D
LEGEND
Figure 7 Downtown Alignment Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs 17
AF
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.
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).
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 northsouth portion roughly parallels I-70 to its east.
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.
AF
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.
TRAFFIC
18
Figure 8 Proposed Corridor Lanes and Existing Traffic
AF
T
19
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 OFallon Park in North St Louis City. Taylor serves dense residential and some first-floor commercial 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. 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 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. 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 Plan proposes 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 20
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.
AF
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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. 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.
Next Steps To 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
Anticipated Streetcar 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.
AF
21
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 private historical 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
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 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 Option 1 turns include: Lindell and Taylor Avenue Taylor Avenue and Childrens Place
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
AF
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. 22
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 or not the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would disproportionately burden these populations.
Figure 9- Median Household Income
AF
23
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 these neighborhoods 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.
Hazardous Materials Utilities
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
AF
24
Next Steps
RIDERSHIP FORECAST
The purpose of ridership projections is to provide a quick, order-ofmagnitude 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.
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.
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 the westbound 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.
AF
25
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Figure 10 - Daily Ridership
IMPACTS ON METROLINK
Daily Boardings 1,345 36 61 416 267 367 244 173 280 635 166 216 120 246 24 1,272 5,868 381 114 121 260 111 13 801 1,801 7,669
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 eastwest 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.
Station CENTRAL WEST END Taylor/Scott Taylor/Laclede Taylor/Lindell Lindell/Newstead Lindell/Sarah Lindell/Vandeventer Lindell/Grand Olive/Compton Olive/Jefferson Olive/20th Street Olive/16th Street Olive Transfer Olive/10th Olive/6th 8TH AND PINE Sub-Total E-W Florissant/St Louis Florissant/Madison 14th/Biddle 14th/Delmar Olive Transfer Market/14th CIVIC CENTER Sub-Total N-S Total Streetcar
AF
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.
26
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 existing 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.
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. to midnight, 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 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 objective for the St. Louis Streetcar is to provide serious and frequent service. It is recommended that peak period
RIDERSHIP
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. Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs
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.
AF
27
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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-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
AF
28
COSTS
The methodology for developing the capital and operating costs are detailed below. Estimates are based on FTAs capital cost format and used in New Starts projects. The cost estimate 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 estimate is based on FTAs 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 quantifying project improvements into units of pricing was developed from historical cost quantities, and summed into cost categories estimate.
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 most recent 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 contractor overhead 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 project when 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.
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
formed the basis for work. Appropriate unit data, applied to the to complete the cost
AF
29
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 are applied 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 Table 4: Unallocated Contingency Percentages for Estimates
Estimate Type Planning
Description System Planning Alternatives Analysis Preliminary Engineering Final Design Construction
Percentage 20 15 20 15 10
Design
COST CATEGORIES
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Guideway and Track Elements Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodals Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Admin. Buildings Sitework and Special Conditions Systems Right-of-Way, Land, Existing Improvements Vehicles
15 20 25 25 20 30 15
AF

SCC
Description
Percentage
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
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 30
Unallocated Contingency Finance Charges
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 percentages are 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.
Vehicles Professional Services Unallocated Contingency Total $52 million $40 million $30 million $271 million
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
AF

Stations Systems Vehicles
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 subcategory. The estimate spreadsheets are in Appendix A.
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
Guideway and Track Support Facilities Sitework and Special Conditions Right-of-Way
CAPITAL COSTS
This estimate 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
Total Cost
$32 million $4 million $7 million $41 million $24 million $4 million $52 million
Description
Guideway and Track Stations Support Facilities Sitework and Special Conditions Systems Right-of-Way
Total Cost
$37 million $4 million $7 million $76 million $25 million $0 million
31

Professional Services Unallocated Contingency Total $29 million $24 million $218 million
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.
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, 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 function of miles, if a fairly constant schedule speed is achieved, then mileagerelated 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.
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. Adjusting Costs 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.
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,
AF
32
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 analyze the 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 following methodology and process: Examine development estimates from other comparable U.S. cities that have built, or are considering building, a streetcar.
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:
Complete a ripe/firm analysis of development opportunities within a mile of the corridor. Identify appropriate development types for ripe parcels in the corridor.
Identify previous plans that influence the St. Louis Streetcar corridor and highlight development potential from adopted plans.
Apply rough estimates of building square footages and cost per square foot to development types.
AF

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/thepartnership/services-programs/urban-excellence.aspx) Los Angeles (Projected - 2015): 4 mile route - $1.1 billion in investment over 20 years (from 2012 Feasibility Study
33
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study projection of incremental http://www.lastreetcar.org) investment -
Charlotte (Projected 1.5 mile starter line - 2014): 10 mile route $3.5 billion in investment over 25 years* (from 2008 Feasibility Studyprojection 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)
PORTLAND, OREGON PEARL DISTRICT
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.
AF
34
Figure 11 Streetcar Development Corridor
A 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.
AF
T
35
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 Spots Hot 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, Lacledes 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
AF
36
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 Childrens Hospital, Barnes Jewish Hospital, Siteman Cancer Center and the Rehabilitation 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
D
CAMPUS
R
CIVIC
AF
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
37
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 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
R D
CENTERS
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
AF
SPORTS
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 one destination 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
T
38
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Grand Center Lumiere Place Lacledes Landing Convention Center Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis Forest Park
TOURIST/ENTERTAINMENT
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.
AF
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.
T
39
TRANSPORTATION
Figure 13 Potential Hot Spots, Areas with Strong Potential for Further Development
AF
T
40
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 birds 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 Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs 41
AF
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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:
AF
Six stories 35 percent of site developed Approximately 200 square feet per employee
T
PORTLAND, OREGON EMPLOYMENT BUIDLING MADISON, WISCONSIN - EMPLOYMENT BUILDING
42
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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
R
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI MIXED USE BUILDING
AF
43
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 building square 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, HOUSING
OREGON
D
HIGH RISE
AF
44
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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:
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA MID-RISE HOUSING
R
PORTLAND, OREGON MID-RISE HOUSING
AF
Attached/Detached Single Family 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
10 units per acre Mixture of townhouses and houses (attached and detached) Units average at 2,000 sq. ft.
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI- SINGLE DETACHED
ST. CHARLES, MISSOURI ATTACHED HOUSING
45
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 (mixeduse 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.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (YEAR REALIZED) 2017 (5 YEAR)
ABSORPTION RATE
TOTAL NEW INVESTMENT
HOUSING UNITS
EMPLOYEES
50%
$153,500,000
176 UNITS
750 EMPLOYEES 750 EMPLOYEES 1,500 EMPLOYEES
2022 (10 YEAR)
50%
$93,500,000
TOTAL
100%
$247,000,000
176 UNITS
AF
COMMERCIAL SQ. FT. 30,000 SQ. FT. 30,000 SQ. FT.
Table 7: Central West End Development Potential
T
46
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 Potential
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (YEAR REALIZED) 2017 (5 YEAR) ABSORPTION RATE TOTAL NEW INVESTMENT HOUSING UNITS EMPLOYEES
R
N/A N/A
50%
$147,000,000
680 UNITS 680 UNITS 1,360 UNITS
2022 (10 YEAR)
50%
$147,000,000
TOTAL
100%
$294,000,000
AF
COMMERCIAL SQ. FT. 41,000 FT. 41,000 FT. 82,000 FT. SQ.
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 underutilized parcels 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 47
SQ.
SQ.
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study this area could be enhanced, taking 20 years to be fully realized in a conservative model.
Table 9: Grand Center to 18th Street Development Potential

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (YEAR REALIZED) 2017 (5 YEAR) ABSORPTION RATE TOTAL NEW INVESTMENT HOUSING UNITS EMPLOYEES COMMERCIAL SQ. FT.
25%
$72,774,636
527 UNITS 528 UNITS 1,055 UNITS 2,110 UNITS
N/A
N/A
2022 (10 YEAR)
25%
$145,549,272
N/A
N/A
TOTAL
100%
$291,098,544
R D
AF
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 48
2032 (20 YEAR)
50%
$145,549,272
N/A
N/A
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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-rise housing and employment buildings and $100 per square foot for 4story 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 Potential

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (YEAR REALIZED) 2017 (5 YEAR) ABSORPTION RATE TOTAL NEW INVESTMENT HOUSING UNITS
EMPLOYEES
5%
$31,724,942
2022 (10 YEAR)
35%
$222,074,594
2032 (20 YEAR)
60%
$380,699,304
TOTAL
100%
$634,498,840
R
300 2,100 3,600 6,000
AF
COMMER CIAL SQ. FT. 5,245 SQ. FT. 36,716 SQ. FT. 62,942 SQ. FT. 104,903 SQ. FT.
T
49
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 Potential
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (YEAR REALIZED) 2017 (5 YEAR) ABSORPTION RATE TOTAL NEW INVESTMENT HOUSING UNITS EMPLOYEES COMMERCIAL SQ. FT.
25%
$172,641,980
1,805
116,001 SQ. FT. 116,002 SQ. FT. 232,003 SQ. FT. 464,006 SQ. FT.
2022 (10 YEAR)
25%
$172,641,980
1,804
2032 (20 YEAR)
50%
$345,283,960
3,609
TOTAL
T
100%
$690,567,920
7,218
AF
50
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 Potential
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (YEAR REALIZED) 2017 (5 YEAR) 2022 (10 YEAR) 2032 (20 YEAR) TOTAL TOTAL NEW INVESTMENT HOUSING UNITS EMPLOYEES COMMERCIAL SQ. FT.
$577,641,558.0 $1,081,265,846 $498,257,900 $2,157,165,305
2,521 UNITS 2,720 UNITS 4,079 UNITS 9,320 UNITS
2,855 4,654 7,209 14,718 EMPLOYEES
192,246 SQ. FT. 193,718 SQ. FT. 294,945 SQ. FT. 680,909 SQ. FT.
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
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.
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 other monetary 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 will have 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.
AF
51
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 Parking On-street parking is a vital component to a successful street. Onstreet 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 West End. 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 Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs
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 52
AF
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 or sharrow 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.
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 and transit 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. 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 Gardens Bioswales 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 a central 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.
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 Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs
AF
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 53
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study the travel times along the route. Common misconceptions about turf tracks are the maintenance requirements, which are often incorporated into typical streetscape maintenance. future phases of the downtown streetcar more study should be given to the specific amenities of the streetscape improvements.
STREET SECTIONS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
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 various right-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
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.
AF
54
KENOSHA, WISCONSIN WWW.THESTEELRAILADVOCATE.COM
Figure 15 Rendering, Birds Eye and Section Locations
AF
55
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Figure 16 Olive Street at 8th Street Section
AF
T
56
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Figure 17 Olive Street at 18th Street Section
AF
T
57
Figure 18 Birds Eye Looking North on 14th Street: Current View
AF
T
58
Figure 19 Birds Eye Looking North on 14th Street: View with Streetcar and New Development
AF
T
59
D
Figure 21 Chestnut Street at 7th Street: With Streetcar
AF
Figure 20 Chestnut Street at 7th Street: Current View
60
Figure 22 Olive Street at 9th Street: Current View
AF
T
61
Figure 23 Olive Street at 9th Street: With Streetcar
AF
T
62
Figure 24 Olive Street at Compton Street: Current View
AF
T
63
Figure 25 Olive Street at Compton Street: With Streetcar
AF
T
64
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 guideway elements 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. Nonexclusive 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. Semiexclusive 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 through intersections. In both cases the rails are also encased in an elastomeric material that provides electrical isolation and vibration dampening.
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.
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
Special trackwork (turnouts and diamond crossings) will be required at all terminal stations to allow vehicles to reverse direction and at the
AF
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
65
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 wire over 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.
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.
AF
STREET RECONSTRUCTION
T
PORTLAND, OREGON OVERHEAD WIRE SYTEM , SHARED TRAFFIC LANE
66
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 at each 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.
AF
TYPICAL STREETCAR STOP
T
67
VEHICLES
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.
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 an articulated bus), and run as single units. However, vehicles can be as large as light rail vehicles, such as Atlantas streetcar system, shown below, which is approximately 90 feet long.
R
ATLANTA, GEORGIA SIEMENS VEHICLE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON PACIFICA MARINE VEHICLE
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
A modern streetcar is electrically powered, and offers curb-level boarding. It is air-conditioned and heated, and provides seating for 3050 people, plus space for standing passengers. The interior design also provides space for mobility devices, as well as bicycles. The look is
AF
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
T
68
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 firms are 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. American Public Transportation Association Guideline 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.
DALLAS, TEXAS BROOKFIELD VEHICLE
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
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.
AF
PORTLAND, OREGON - UNITED STREETCAR
69
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY

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.
AF
OMF IN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
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.
T
70
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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. 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.
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.
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
Preparing for Growth It is likely that, as the study area densifies and as the northsouth 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:
AF
71
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.
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 Atlantas 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 72
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
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.
PEER CITY REVIEW
AF
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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)
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 federal assistance. 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.
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.
AF
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.
73
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 Transportations Livability Initiative. Urban Circulators include streetcars and rubber tire trolleys. Under SAFETEALU, $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.
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 streetcar project.
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 could change if some of these statewide transportation funding proposals become a reality.
AF

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
74
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Bell Lofts 920 Olive Street Louderman Lofts 309 North 11th Street Paul Brown Building 816 Olive Street Printers 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 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 lowincome 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.
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
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.
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.
AF
75
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 the project 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 Metros 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 Treasurers 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.
AF
76
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Table 13: Streetcar Financial Overview $120 M Expenses and Revenues
Expenses Annual Capital O&M Total Expenses Revenues Farebox Recovery TDD Bus Reconfiguration Total Revenue Difference $3.5 M $10 M $1.0 M $14.5M $-2.5M $3.0 M $10 M $1.0 M $14.0 M +$3.2 M $1.5 M $7.0 M $.7 M $9.2 M $7.3 M $9.7 M $17.0 M $6.0 M $4.8 M $10.8 M $5.0 M $4.0 M $9.0 M
$100 M Local Match
Local Match
Terminates at Grand*
*includes north-south alignment and east-west alignment to Grand
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
AF
+$0.2 M
T
77
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 federal funding, the streetcar project needs to be adopted into East-West Gateway Council of Governments 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.
AF
T
78
AF
APPENDIX A
Appendix - A
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
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 and Special Conditions
Sitework
Unallocated Contingency Finance Charges
Guideway and Track Elements 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, routefoot, 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.
AF
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 Utilities
This 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
A-1
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. 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-ofpayment fare collection system on-board each vehicle. Measurement is by each unit. Right-of-Way
Roadways
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. Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs
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.
AF
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.
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.
A-2
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
Legal; Permits; Review Fees Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection Start-up Costs (Allowance is used) Total
2 3 2 32
Finance Charges
This category includes finance charges expected to be incurred to complete the project. Costs are derived from the Projects financial plan.
construction management services. Costs for these services will be
based on a percentage of the total cost of all direct capital cost applied individually and not cumulatively.
categories except vehicles and right-of-way. The percentages are 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
Preliminary Engineering Final Design
Project Management for Design and Construction Construction Administration and Management Insurance
R
The
Percentage
5 6 6 7 1
AF
following A-3
APPENDIX A- COST ESTIMATE WITH STREETSCAPING
AF
T
Appendix - A
St. Louis Streetcar

Sta
Summary
Sta
Route Length
36,895
FWN 7.0 Mi Allocated Contingency % Total

15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 20% 20% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% $493,799 $3,715,875 $168,750 $337,500 $49,875 $45,000 $250,000 $450,000 $1,250,000 $43,750 $100,000 $138,356 $1,256,125 $2,551,938 $37,500 $37,500 $156,250 $1,152,969 $2,305,938 $1,912,500 $239,090 $553,425 $3,121,219 $353,684
SCC SCC
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 10 10 12 12 12 12 01 01 01 02 03 04
Description
GUIDEWAY AND TRACK Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Procure Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Install Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Install Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Procure Track: Special: Track Drain Track: Special: Noise & Vibration Dampening STATIONS Streetcar Stop - Side Streetcar Stop - Center SUPPORT FACILITIES Operations & Maintenance Facility Yard Track Yard Special Trackwork SITEWORK AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS Demolition (Sidewalk, Curb, & Misc Concrete) Utilities: Level 1 Utilities: Level 2 Utilities: Corrosion Testing Utilities: Cathodic Protection Streetcar Stop Landscaping and Irrigation Landscaping Sidewalk Construction Intersection Rebuild Street Lighting Public Artwork (1% of Construction) Roadway: Curb & Gutter Roadway: Pavement (6" AC/12" AB) Roadway: Signing & Stripping Temporary Facilities (5% of Construction) SYSTEMS Signal System: Power Turnouts Signal System: TWC Traffic Signal Modification Traction Power: TPSS Units Traction Power: TPSS Screenwalls Traction Power: OCS (Foundations, Poles, and Wire) Communications: Streetcar Stops Communications: TPSS Communications: Vehicle Fare Collection Control Center Equipment & Software Allowance
Quantity
2,532 66,060 15 15 95 4 10 15 1 1,000 8 36,895 7,730 29,165 3 3 25 36,895 922,375 51 7 1 73,790 277,442 7 1
Unit
TN TF EA EA EA LS EA EA LS TF EA LS TF RF LS LS EA RF SF EA MI LS LF SY MI LS
Unit Cost
$1,300 $375 $75,000 $150,000 $3,500 $75,000 $125,000 $150,000 $5,000,000 $175 $50,000 $15 $650 $350 $50,000 $50,000 $25,000 $125 $10 $150,000 $135,200 $1,171,667 $30 $45 $200,000 $5,858,336 $75,000 $13,000 $150,000 $550,000 $75,000 $12,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $50,000 $50,000
Extension
$3,291,990 $24,772,500 $1,125,000 $2,250,000 $332,500 $300,000 $1,250,000 $2,250,000 $5,000,000 $175,000 $400,000 $553,425 $5,024,500 $10,207,750 $150,000 $150,000 $625,000 $4,611,875 $9,223,750 $7,650,000 $956,361 $1,171,667 $2,213,700 $12,484,875 $1,414,735 $5,858,336
Detail Total
$3,785,789 $28,488,375 $1,293,750 $2,587,500 $382,375 $345,000
11/26/2012 2012$ Summary Total

$36,882,789
$4,200,000 $1,500,000 $2,700,000 $6,968,750 $6,250,000 $218,750 $500,000 $76,112,466 $691,781 $6,280,625 $12,759,688 $187,500 $187,500 $781,250 $5,764,844 $11,529,688 $9,562,500 $1,195,451 $1,171,667 $2,767,125 $15,606,094 $1,768,419 $5,858,336 $24,904,500 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% $210,000 $36,400 $1,530,000 $880,000 $120,000 $1,111,350 $125,000 $24,000 $24,000 $80,000 $10,000 $1,260,000 $218,400 $9,180,000 $5,280,000 $720,000 $6,668,100 $750,000 $144,000 $144,000 $480,000 $60,000 $149,068,504
01 01 01 02 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 08 01 01 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 06 01 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 04 01 02 03 01 01 02 01 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 01
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 60 60 70 70 70 70 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 90 90 RIGHT-OF-WAY 01 01 Partial Takes VEHICLES 01 01 Vehicles 04 01 Spare Parts 05 01 Manufacturing Oversight PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 01 01 Preliminary Engineering 02 01 Final Design 03 01 Project Management for Design & Construction 04 01 Construction Administration & Management 05 01 Insurance 06 01 Legal; Permits; Agency Review Fees 07 01 Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 08 01 Start-up Costs & Agency Force Account Work UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 01 01 Unallocated Contingency
R
11 11 11
AF
14 14 51 8 8 463 25 8 8 8 1 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA LS LS EA EA EA 5.0% 6.0% 6.0% 7.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 15.0% $4,000,000 $100,000 $40,000 1 of 5
T
$1,050,000 $182,000 $7,650,000 $4,400,000 $600,000 $5,556,750 $625,000 $120,000 $120,000 $400,000 $50,000 $124,196,713 $44,000,000 $1,100,000 $440,000 $6,209,836 $7,451,803 $7,451,803 $8,693,770 $1,241,967 $2,483,934 $3,725,901 $2,483,934
30% $52,371,000 15% 15% 15% $6,600,000 $165,000 $66,000 $50,600,000 $1,265,000 $506,000 $39,742,948 $6,209,836 $7,451,803 $7,451,803 $8,693,770 $1,241,967 $2,483,934 $3,725,901 $2,483,934 $30,215,926
Total
$271,398,378 38.8 M/Mi
Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 Sheet Summary
1/31/2013
St. Louis Streetcar

Olive Street - Central West End to Grand
Summary
Sta
Sta
Route Length 10,425 FT Extension

$1,039,025 $7,818,750 $300,000 $600,000 $91,000 $75,000 $500,000 $750,000

15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 20% 20% 25% 25% 25% $155,854 $1,172,813 $45,000 $90,000 $13,650 $11,250 $100,000 $150,000
SCC SCC
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 10 10 12 12 12 12 01 01 01 02 03 04
Description
Quantity
799 20,850 4 4 26 1 4 5
Unit
TN TF EA EA EA LS EA EA LS TF EA
Unit Cost
$1,300 $375 $75,000 $150,000 $3,500 $75,000 $125,000 $150,000 $5,000,000 $175 $50,000 $15 $650 $350 $25,000 $50,000 $25,000 $125 $10 $150,000 $135,200 $305,607 $30 $45 $200,000 $3,056,073 $75,000 $13,000 $150,000 $550,000 $75,000 $12,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $50,000 $50,000
Detail Total
$1,194,879 $8,991,563 $345,000 $690,000 $104,650 $86,250

$11,412,341
$1,500,000 $600,000 $900,000
01 01 01 02 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 08 01 01 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 06 01 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 04 01 02 03 01 01 02 01 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 01
$21,469,436 10,425 10,425 RF TF RF LS LS EA RF SF EA MI LS LF SY MI LS $156,375 $3,648,750 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% $39,094 $912,188 $195,469 $4,560,938
AF
4 4 9 2 2 130 9 2 2 2 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA LS LS EA EA EA 5.0% 6.0% 6.0% 7.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 15.0% $4,000,000 $100,000 $40,000 3 3 3 2 of 5
9 10,425 260,625 9 2 1 20,850 86,875 2 1
$225,000 $1,303,125 $2,606,250 $1,350,000 $266,943 $305,607 $625,500 $3,909,375 $394,886 $3,056,073 $300,000 $52,000 $1,350,000 $1,100,000 $150,000 $1,563,750 $225,000 $30,000 $30,000 $100,000
T
$33,922,410 $12,000,000 $300,000 $120,000 $1,696,120 $2,035,345 $2,035,345 $2,374,569 $339,224 $678,448 $1,017,672 $678,448
$56,250 $325,781 $651,563 $337,500 $66,736 $156,375 $977,344 $98,722
$281,250 $1,628,906 $3,257,813 $1,687,500 $333,679 $305,607 $781,875 $4,886,719 $493,608 $3,056,073 $5,880,900 $360,000 $62,400 $1,620,000 $1,320,000 $180,000 $1,876,500 $270,000 $36,000 $36,000 $120,000
20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
$60,000 $10,400 $270,000 $220,000 $30,000 $312,750 $45,000 $6,000 $6,000 $20,000
$40,262,677
30% $14,283,000 15% 15% 15% $1,800,000 $45,000 $18,000 $13,800,000 $345,000 $138,000 $10,855,171 $1,696,120 $2,035,345 $2,035,345 $2,374,569 $339,224 $678,448 $1,017,672 $678,448 $8,181,852
Total
$73,582,700 37.3 M/Mi
Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 Sheet Olive - Seg 2
1/31/2013
St. Louis Streetcar

Olive Street (Grand to 14th Street)
Summary
Sta
Sta

$946,833 $7,125,000 $300,000 $600,000 $84,000 $75,000

15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 20% 20% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% $142,025 $1,068,750 $45,000 $90,000 $12,600 $11,250
SCC SCC
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 10 10 12 12 12 12 01 01 01 02 03 04
Description
Quantity
728 19,000 4 4 24 1
Unit
TN TF EA EA EA LS EA EA LS TF EA RF TF RF LS LS EA RF SF EA MI LS LF SY MI LS
Unit Cost
$1,300 $375 $75,000 $150,000 $3,500 $75,000 $125,000 $150,000 $5,000,000 $175 $50,000 $15 $650 $350 $25,000 $50,000 $25,000 $125 $10 $150,000 $135,200 $334,834 $30 $45 $200,000 $3,348,344 $75,000 $13,000 $150,000 $550,000 $75,000 $12,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $50,000 $50,000
Detail Total
$1,088,858 $8,193,750 $345,000 $690,000 $96,600 $86,250

$10,500,458
$900,000 5 1 1,000 8 9,500 9,500 1 1 5 9,500 237,500 9 2 1 19,000 79,167 2 1 $750,000 $5,000,000 $175,000 $400,000 $142,500 $3,325,000 $25,000 $50,000 $125,000 $1,187,500 $2,375,000 $1,350,000 $243,258 $334,834 $570,000 $3,562,500 $359,848 $3,348,344 $300,000 $52,000 $1,350,000 $1,100,000 $150,000 $1,425,000 $125,000 $30,000 $30,000 $100,000 $50,000 $150,000 $1,250,000 $43,750 $100,000 $35,625 $831,250 $6,250 $12,500 $31,250 $296,875 $593,750 $337,500 $60,814 $142,500 $890,625 $89,962 $900,000 $6,968,750 $6,250,000 $218,750 $500,000 $20,327,686 $178,125 $4,156,250 $31,250 $62,500 $156,250 $1,484,375 $2,968,750 $1,687,500 $304,072 $334,834 $712,500 $4,453,125 $449,811 $3,348,344 $5,654,400 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% $60,000 $10,400 $270,000 $220,000 $30,000 $285,000 $25,000 $6,000 $6,000 $20,000 $10,000 $360,000 $62,400 $1,620,000 $1,320,000 $180,000 $1,710,000 $150,000 $36,000 $36,000 $120,000 $60,000 $44,351,294
01 01 01 02 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 08 01 01 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 06 01 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 04 01 02 03 01 01 02 01 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 01
R
3 3 3
AF
4 4 9 2 2 119 5 2 2 2 1 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA LS LS EA EA EA 5.0% 6.0% 6.0% 7.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 15.0% $4,000,000 $100,000 $40,000 3 of 5
T
$37,166,618 $12,000,000 $300,000 $120,000 $1,858,331 $2,229,997 $2,229,997 $2,601,663 $371,666 $743,332 $1,114,999 $743,332
25% 25% 25%
30% $14,283,000 15% 15% 15% $1,800,000 $45,000 $18,000 $13,800,000 $345,000 $138,000 $11,893,318 $1,858,331 $2,229,997 $2,229,997 $2,601,663 $371,666 $743,332 $1,114,999 $743,332 $8,795,144
Total
$79,322,756 44.1 M/Mi
Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 Sheet Olive - Seg 1
1/31/2013
St. Louis Streetcar

14th Street (St. Louis Ave to Civic Center MetroLink Station)
Summary
Sta
Sta

$920,920 $6,930,000 $300,000 $600,000 $87,500 $75,000

15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 20% 20% 25% 25% 25% $138,138 $1,039,500 $45,000 $90,000 $13,125 $11,250
SCC SCC
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 10 10 12 12 12 12 01 01 01 02 03 04
Description
Quantity
708 18,480 4 4 25 1
Unit
Unit Cost
$1,300 $375 $75,000 $150,000 $3,500 $75,000 $125,000 $150,000 $5,000,000 $175 $50,000 $15 $650 $350 $25,000 $50,000 $25,000 $125 $10 $150,000 $135,200 $289,028 $30 $45 $200,000 $2,890,278 $75,000 $13,000 $150,000 $550,000 $75,000 $12,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $50,000 $50,000
Detail Total
$1,059,058 $7,969,500 $345,000 $690,000 $100,625 $86,250

$10,250,433
$720,000 4 $600,000 $120,000 $720,000
01 01 01 02 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 08 01 01 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 06 01 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 04 01 02 03 01 01 02 01 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 01
$20,536,006 9,240 9,240 1 1 4 9,240 231,000 15 2 1 18,480 77,000 2 1 RF TF RF LS LS EA RF SF EA MI LS LF SY MI LS $138,600 $3,234,000 $25,000 $50,000 $100,000 $1,155,000 $2,310,000 $2,250,000 $243,360 $289,028 $554,400 $3,465,000 $360,000 $2,890,278 $300,000 $52,000 $2,250,000 $1,100,000 $150,000 $1,392,000 $100,000 $30,000 $30,000 $100,000 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% $34,650 $808,500 $6,250 $12,500 $25,000 $288,750 $577,500 $562,500 $60,840 $138,600 $866,250 $90,000 $173,250 $4,042,500 $31,250 $62,500 $125,000 $1,443,750 $2,887,500 $2,812,500 $304,200 $289,028 $693,000 $4,331,250 $450,000 $2,890,278 $6,604,800 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% $60,000 $10,400 $450,000 $220,000 $30,000 $278,400 $20,000 $6,000 $6,000 $20,000 $360,000 $62,400 $2,700,000 $1,320,000 $180,000 $1,670,400 $120,000 $36,000 $36,000 $120,000
R
3 3 3
AF
4 4 15 2 2 116 4 2 2 2 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA LS LS EA EA EA 5.0% 6.0% 6.0% 7.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 15.0% $4,000,000 $100,000 $40,000 4 of 5
T
$32,082,086 $12,000,000 $300,000 $120,000 $1,604,104 $1,924,925 $1,924,925 $2,245,746 $320,821 $641,642 $962,463 $641,642
25% 25% 25%
$38,111,239
30% $14,283,000 15% 15% 15% $1,800,000 $45,000 $18,000 $13,800,000 $345,000 $138,000 $10,266,267 $1,604,104 $1,924,925 $1,924,925 $2,245,746 $320,821 $641,642 $962,463 $641,642 $7,859,136
Total
$70,519,642 40.3 M/Mi
Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 Sheet 14th
1/31/2013
St. Louis Streetcar

Downtown (East of 14th street)
Summary
Sta
Sta

$385,212 $2,898,750 $225,000 $450,000 $70,000 $75,000 $750,000 $150,000

15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 20% 20% 25% 25% 25% $57,782 $434,813 $33,750 $67,500 $10,500 $11,250 $150,000 $30,000
SCC SCC
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 10 10 12 12 12 12 01 01 01 02 03 04
Description
Quantity
296 7,730 3 3 20 1 6 1
Unit
Unit Cost
$1,300 $375 $75,000 $150,000 $3,500 $75,000 $125,000 $150,000 $5,000,000 $175 $50,000 $15 $650 $350 $25,000 $50,000 $25,000 $125 $10 $150,000 $135,200 $241,448 $30 $45 $200,000 $2,414,476 $75,000 $13,000 $150,000 $550,000 $75,000 $12,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $50,000 $50,000
Detail Total
$442,993 $3,333,563 $258,750 $517,500 $80,500 $86,250

$4,719,556
$1,080,000 $900,000 $180,000
01 01 01 02 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 08 01 01 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 06 01 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 04 01 02 03 01 01 02 01 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 01
$19,535,674 7,730 7,730 1 1 7 7,730 193,250 18 2 1 15,460 34,400 2 1 RF TF RF LS LS EA RF SF EA MI LS LF SY MI LS $115,950 $5,024,500 $25,000 $50,000 $175,000 $966,250 $1,932,500 $2,700,000 $202,800 $241,448 $463,800 $1,548,000 $300,000 $2,414,476 $150,000 $26,000 $2,700,000 $1,100,000 $150,000 $1,176,000 $175,000 $30,000 $30,000 $100,000 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% $28,988 $1,256,125 $6,250 $12,500 $43,750 $241,563 $483,125 $675,000 $50,700 $115,950 $387,000 $75,000 $144,938 $6,280,625 $31,250 $62,500 $218,750 $1,207,813 $2,415,625 $3,375,000 $253,500 $241,448 $579,750 $1,935,000 $375,000 $2,414,476 $6,764,400 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% $30,000 $5,200 $540,000 $220,000 $30,000 $235,200 $35,000 $6,000 $6,000 $20,000 $180,000 $31,200 $3,240,000 $1,320,000 $180,000 $1,411,200 $210,000 $36,000 $36,000 $120,000
R
2 2 2
AF
2 2 18 2 2 98 7 2 2 2 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA LS LS EA EA EA 5.0% 6.0% 6.0% 7.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 15.0% $4,000,000 $100,000 $40,000 5 of 5
T
$26,800,685 $8,000,000 $200,000 $80,000 $1,340,034 $1,608,041 $1,608,041 $1,876,048 $268,007 $536,014 $804,021 $536,014
25% 25% 25%
$32,099,630
30% $9,522,000 15% 15% 15% $1,200,000 $30,000 $12,000 $9,200,000 $230,000 $92,000 $8,576,219 $1,340,034 $1,608,041 $1,608,041 $1,876,048 $268,007 $536,014 $804,021 $536,014 $6,243,244
Total
$56,441,093 38.6 M/Mi
Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 Sheet Dwtn
1/31/2013
APPENDIX A- COST ESTIMATE WITHOUT STREETSCAPING
AF
T
Appendix - A
St. Louis Streetcar

Sta
Summary
Sta
Route Length
36,895

15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 20% 20% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% $493,799 $3,220,425 $112,500 $337,500 $49,875
SCC SCC
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 10 10 12 12 12 12 01 01 01 02 03 04
Description
Quantity
2,532 66,060 15 15 95
Unit
TN TF EA EA EA LS EA EA LS TF EA LS TF RF LS LS EA RF SF EA MI LS LF SY MI LS
Unit Cost
$1,300 $325 $50,000 $150,000 $3,500 $75,000 $125,000 $150,000 $5,000,000 $175 $50,000 $15 $650 $350 $50,000 $50,000 $25,000 $125 $10 $150,000 $135,200 $860,096 $30 $45 $200,000 $4,300,480 $50,000 $13,000 $150,000 $550,000 $75,000 $12,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $50,000 $50,000
Extension
$3,291,990 $21,469,500 $750,000 $2,250,000 $332,500
Detail Total
$3,785,789 $24,689,925 $862,500 $2,587,500 $382,375

$32,308,089
$4,200,000 10 15 1 1,000 8 18,448 7,730 29,165 3 3 25 $1,250,000 $2,250,000 $5,000,000 $175,000 $400,000 $276,713 $5,024,500 $10,207,750 $150,000 $150,000 $625,000 $250,000 $450,000 $1,250,000 $43,750 $100,000 $69,178 $1,256,125 $2,551,938 $37,500 $37,500 $156,250 $1,500,000 $2,700,000 $6,968,750 $6,250,000 $218,750 $500,000 $40,706,649 $345,891 $6,280,625 $12,759,688 $187,500 $187,500 $781,250
01 01 01 02 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 08 01 01 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 06 01 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 04 01 02 03 01 01 02 01 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 01
51 7 1 44,040 7 1
T
$7,650,000 $956,361 $860,096 $1,981,800 $1,414,735 $4,300,480 $700,000 $182,000 $7,650,000 $4,400,000 $600,000 $5,556,750 $625,000 $120,000 $120,000 $400,000 $50,000 $91,170,174 $3,267,000 $44,000,000 $1,100,000 $440,000 $4,558,509 $5,470,210 $5,470,210 $6,381,912 $911,702 $1,823,403 $2,735,105 $1,823,403
$1,912,500 $239,090
$9,562,500 $1,195,451 $860,096 $2,477,250 $1,768,419 $4,300,480 $24,484,500 $840,000 $218,400 $9,180,000 $5,280,000 $720,000 $6,668,100 $750,000 $144,000 $144,000 $480,000 $60,000 $108,667,987 $4,247,100
AF
14 14 51 8 8 463 25 8 8 8 1 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA LS 1 LS EA EA EA 5.0% 6.0% 6.0% 7.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 15.0% $3,267,000 $4,000,000 $100,000 $40,000 11 11 11 1 of 5
$495,450 $353,684
20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
$140,000 $36,400 $1,530,000 $880,000 $120,000 $1,111,350 $125,000 $24,000 $24,000 $80,000 $10,000
30% 15% 15% 15%
$980,100 $6,600,000 $165,000 $66,000
$4,247,100 $52,371,000 $50,600,000 $1,265,000 $506,000 $29,174,456 $4,558,509 $5,470,210 $5,470,210 $6,381,912 $911,702 $1,823,403 $2,735,105 $1,823,403 $24,155,848
Total
$218,616,391 31.3 M/Mi
Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 nostreet Sheet Summary
1/31/2013
St. Louis Streetcar

Olive Street - Central West End to Grand
Summary
Sta
Sta

$1,039,025 $6,776,250 $200,000 $600,000 $91,000

15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 20% 20% 25% 25% 25% $155,854 $1,016,438 $30,000 $90,000 $13,650
SCC SCC
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 10 10 12 12 12 12 01 01 01 02 03 04
Description
Quantity
799 20,850 4 4 26
Unit
Unit Cost
$1,300 $325 $50,000 $150,000 $3,500 $75,000 $125,000 $150,000 $5,000,000 $175 $50,000 $15 $650 $350 $25,000 $50,000 $25,000 $125 $10 $150,000 $135,200 $213,463 $30 $45 $200,000 $2,134,629 $50,000 $13,000 $150,000 $550,000 $75,000 $12,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $50,000 $50,000
Detail Total
$1,194,879 $7,792,688 $230,000 $690,000 $104,650

$10,012,216
$1,500,000 4 5 $500,000 $750,000 $100,000 $150,000 $600,000 $900,000
01 01 01 02 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 08 01 01 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 06 01 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 04 01 02 03 01 01 02 01 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 01
$10,584,676 5,213 10,425 RF TF RF LS LS EA RF SF EA MI LS LF SY MI LS $78,188 $3,648,750 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% $19,547 $912,188 $97,734 $4,560,938
9 2 1 13,900 2 1
T
$1,350,000 $266,943 $213,463 $625,500 $394,886 $2,134,629 $200,000 $52,000 $1,350,000 $1,100,000 $150,000 $1,563,750 $225,000 $30,000 $30,000 $100,000 $23,694,384 $12,000,000 $300,000 $120,000 $1,184,719 $1,421,663 $1,421,663 $1,658,607 $236,944 $473,888 $710,832 $473,888
$225,000
$56,250
$281,250
$337,500 $66,736
$1,687,500 $333,679 $213,463 $781,875 $493,608 $2,134,629 $5,760,900 $240,000 $62,400 $1,620,000 $1,320,000 $180,000 $1,876,500 $270,000 $36,000 $36,000 $120,000
AF
25% 25% 25%
$156,375 $98,722
20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
$40,000 $10,400 $270,000 $220,000 $30,000 $312,750 $45,000 $6,000 $6,000 $20,000
$27,857,792
30% $14,283,000 15% 15% 15% $1,800,000 $45,000 $18,000 $13,800,000 $345,000 $138,000 $7,582,203 $1,184,719 $1,421,663 $1,421,663 $1,658,607 $236,944 $473,888 $710,832 $473,888 $6,321,119
Total
$56,044,114 28.4 M/Mi
Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 nostreet Sheet Olive - Seg 2
1/31/2013
St. Louis Streetcar

Olive Street (Grand to 14th Street)
Summary
Sta
Sta

$946,833 $6,175,000 $200,000 $600,000 $84,000

15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 20% 20% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% $142,025 $926,250 $30,000 $90,000 $12,600
SCC SCC
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 10 10 12 12 12 12 01 01 01 02 03 04
Description
Quantity
728 19,000 4 4 24
Unit
TN TF EA EA EA LS EA EA LS TF EA RF TF RF LS LS EA RF SF EA MI LS LF SY MI LS
Unit Cost
$1,300 $325 $50,000 $150,000 $3,500 $75,000 $125,000 $150,000 $5,000,000 $175 $50,000 $15 $650 $350 $25,000 $50,000 $25,000 $125 $10 $150,000 $135,200 $250,622 $30 $45 $200,000 $2,506,219 $50,000 $13,000 $150,000 $550,000 $75,000 $12,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $50,000 $50,000
Detail Total
$1,088,858 $7,101,250 $230,000 $690,000 $96,600

$9,206,708
$900,000 5 1 1,000 8 4,750 9,500 1 1 5 $750,000 $5,000,000 $175,000 $400,000 $71,250 $3,325,000 $25,000 $50,000 $125,000 $150,000 $1,250,000 $43,750 $100,000 $17,813 $831,250 $6,250 $12,500 $31,250 $900,000 $6,968,750 $6,250,000 $218,750 $500,000 $10,406,036 $89,063 $4,156,250 $31,250 $62,500 $156,250
01 01 01 02 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 08 01 01 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 06 01 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 04 01 02 03 01 01 02 01 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 01
9 2 1 12,667 2 1
T
$1,350,000 $243,258 $250,622 $570,000 $359,848 $2,506,219 $200,000 $52,000 $1,350,000 $1,100,000 $150,000 $1,425,000 $125,000 $30,000 $30,000 $100,000 $50,000 $27,819,030 $3,267,000 $12,000,000 $300,000 $120,000 $1,390,952 $1,669,142 $1,669,142 $1,947,332 $278,190 $556,381 $834,571 $556,381
$337,500 $60,814
$1,687,500 $304,072 $250,622 $712,500 $449,811 $2,506,219 $5,534,400 $240,000 $62,400 $1,620,000 $1,320,000 $180,000 $1,710,000 $150,000 $36,000 $36,000 $120,000 $60,000 $33,015,894 $4,247,100
AF
4 4 9 2 2 119 5 2 2 2 1 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA LS 1 LS EA EA EA 5.0% 6.0% 6.0% 7.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 15.0% $3,267,000 $4,000,000 $100,000 $40,000 3 3 3 3 of 5
25% 25% 25%
$142,500 $89,962
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 60 60 70 70 70 70 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 90 90 RIGHT-OF-WAY 01 01 MSF Site VEHICLES 01 01 Vehicles 04 01 Spare Parts 05 01 Manufacturing Oversight PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 01 01 Preliminary Engineering 02 01 Final Design 03 01 Project Management for Design & Construction 04 01 Construction Administration & Management 05 01 Insurance 06 01 Legal; Permits; Agency Review Fees 07 01 Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 08 01 Start-up Costs & Agency Force Account Work UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 01 01 Unallocated Contingency
20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
$40,000 $10,400 $270,000 $220,000 $30,000 $285,000 $25,000 $6,000 $6,000 $20,000 $10,000
30% 15% 15% 15%
$980,100 $1,800,000 $45,000 $18,000
$4,247,100 $14,283,000 $13,800,000 $345,000 $138,000 $8,902,090 $1,390,952 $1,669,142 $1,669,142 $1,947,332 $278,190 $556,381 $834,571 $556,381 $7,094,834
Total
$67,542,918 37.5 M/Mi
Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 nostreet Sheet Olive - Seg 1
1/31/2013
St. Louis Streetcar

14th Street (St. Louis Ave to Civic Center MetroLink Station)
Summary
Sta
Sta

$920,920 $6,006,000 $200,000 $600,000 $87,500

15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 20% 20% 25% 25% 25% $138,138 $900,900 $30,000 $90,000 $13,125
SCC SCC
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 10 10 12 12 12 12 01 01 01 02 03 04
Description
Quantity
708 18,480 4 4 25
Unit
Unit Cost
$1,300 $325 $50,000 $150,000 $3,500 $75,000 $125,000 $150,000 $5,000,000 $175 $50,000 $15 $650 $350 $25,000 $50,000 $25,000 $125 $10 $150,000 $135,200 $207,045 $30 $45 $200,000 $2,070,448 $50,000 $13,000 $150,000 $550,000 $75,000 $12,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $50,000 $50,000
Detail Total
$1,059,058 $6,906,900 $230,000 $690,000 $100,625

$8,986,583
$720,000 4 $600,000 $120,000 $720,000
01 01 01 02 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 08 01 01 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 06 01 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 04 01 02 03 01 01 02 01 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 01
$10,885,068 4,620 9,240 1 1 4 RF TF RF LS LS EA RF SF EA MI LS LF SY MI LS $69,300 $3,234,000 $25,000 $50,000 $100,000 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% $17,325 $808,500 $6,250 $12,500 $25,000 $86,625 $4,042,500 $31,250 $62,500 $125,000
15 2 1 12,320 2 1
T
$2,250,000 $243,360 $207,045 $554,400 $360,000 $2,070,448 $200,000 $52,000 $2,250,000 $1,100,000 $150,000 $1,392,000 $100,000 $30,000 $30,000 $100,000 $22,981,973 $12,000,000 $300,000 $120,000 $1,149,099 $1,378,918 $1,378,918 $1,608,738 $229,820 $459,639 $689,459 $459,639
$562,500 $60,840
$2,812,500 $304,200 $207,045 $693,000 $450,000 $2,070,448 $6,484,800 $240,000 $62,400 $2,700,000 $1,320,000 $180,000 $1,670,400 $120,000 $36,000 $36,000 $120,000
AF
25% 25% 25%
$138,600 $90,000
20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
$40,000 $10,400 $450,000 $220,000 $30,000 $278,400 $20,000 $6,000 $6,000 $20,000
$27,076,451
30% $14,283,000 15% 15% 15% $1,800,000 $45,000 $18,000 $13,800,000 $345,000 $138,000 $7,354,231 $1,149,099 $1,378,918 $1,378,918 $1,608,738 $229,820 $459,639 $689,459 $459,639 $6,203,918
Total
$54,917,600 31.4 M/Mi
Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 nostreet Sheet 14th
1/31/2013
St. Louis Streetcar

Downtown (East of 14th street)
Summary
Sta
Sta

$385,212 $2,512,250 $150,000 $450,000 $70,000

15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 20% 20% 25% 25% 25% $57,782 $376,838 $22,500 $67,500 $10,500
SCC SCC
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 10 10 12 12 12 12 01 01 01 02 03 04
Description
Quantity
296 7,730 3 3 20
Unit
Unit Cost
$1,300 $325 $50,000 $150,000 $3,500 $75,000 $125,000 $150,000 $5,000,000 $175 $50,000 $15 $650 $350 $25,000 $50,000 $25,000 $125 $10 $150,000 $135,200 $188,216 $30 $45 $200,000 $1,882,164 $50,000 $13,000 $150,000 $550,000 $75,000 $12,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $50,000 $50,000
Detail Total
$442,993 $2,889,088 $172,500 $517,500 $80,500

$4,102,581
$1,080,000 6 1 $750,000 $150,000 $150,000 $30,000 $900,000 $180,000
01 01 01 02 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 08 01 01 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 06 01 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 04 01 02 03 01 01 02 01 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 01
$13,029,349 3,865 7,730 1 1 7 RF TF RF LS LS EA RF SF EA MI LS LF SY MI LS $57,975 $5,024,500 $25,000 $50,000 $175,000 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% $14,494 $1,256,125 $6,250 $12,500 $43,750 $72,469 $6,280,625 $31,250 $62,500 $218,750
18 2 1 5,153 2 1
T
$2,700,000 $202,800 $188,216 $231,900 $300,000 $1,882,164 $100,000 $26,000 $2,700,000 $1,100,000 $150,000 $1,176,000 $175,000 $30,000 $30,000 $100,000 $20,892,017 $8,000,000 $200,000 $80,000 $1,044,601 $1,253,521 $1,253,521 $1,462,441 $208,920 $417,840 $626,761 $417,840
$675,000 $50,700
$3,375,000 $253,500 $188,216 $289,875 $375,000 $1,882,164 $6,704,400 $120,000 $31,200 $3,240,000 $1,320,000 $180,000 $1,411,200 $210,000 $36,000 $36,000 $120,000
AF
25% 25% 25%
$57,975 $75,000
20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
$20,000 $5,200 $540,000 $220,000 $30,000 $235,200 $35,000 $6,000 $6,000 $20,000
$24,916,330
30% $9,522,000 15% 15% 15% $1,200,000 $30,000 $12,000 $9,200,000 $230,000 $92,000 $6,685,445 $1,044,601 $1,253,521 $1,253,521 $1,462,441 $208,920 $417,840 $626,761 $417,840 $5,165,749
Total
$46,289,524 31.6 M/Mi
Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 nostreet Sheet Dwtn
1/31/2013
AF
APPENDIX B
Appendix - B
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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, could further 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/caf that would be further enhanced by the streetcar stop.
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. The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis is committed to advocating for that vision and advancing the plans 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.
Downtown Next Vision 2010 -2020
D
Gateway Mall Master Plan (2009)
AF
B-1
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 McKees 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 7th 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 7th Street. With the introduction of the streetcar line, these streetscape projects could be a catalyst similar to Washington Avenue.
D
CBD Downtown Streetscape Design Manual Update (2009) North Side Redevelopment Area (2009)
AF
B-2
St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study 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 mile of the Cortex Redevelopment Area and helps to support the proposed MetroLink station at the Cortex site.
Grand Center Framework Plan (2012)
AF
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.
B-3
Cortex Redevelopment Area - Phase II Plan (2012)
AF
B-4
Development Opportunities
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 Mid Rise Housing (4 (10 Stories) Stories) Attached Housing (2000 sq. ft. /unit @ 10 units/acre) Price/Sq. Ft. Total Investment Value $60,000,000 176 Units *From Whole Foods Announcement $187,000,000 *From Cortex Announcement $294,000,000 *From Framework Plan 895,733 234,359 3,744,645 1,514,176 299,722 659,626 160,000 1,325,730 86 35% 35% 35% 100% 35% 2,119,846 419,611 1,385,215 35% 50% 1,254,026 1,171,795 1,719,304 $120.00 $120.00 $100.00 $120.00 $100.00 $120.00 $140.00 $120.00 $150,483,144 1045 Units $140,615,400 1065 Units $171,930,441 $254,381,568 $41,961,080 $166,225,752 860 Units 1930 Units 286 Units 6000 employees $3,068
Central West End

Whole Foods Development Cortex
Grand Center
Framework Plan
Jefferson Street to Grand Center

Mid Rise Housing High Rise
North Side
Single Family Attached Mid Rise Housing Mixed Use (4 Stories) Employment
Downtown
Municipal Courts Building Additional Mixed Use 5,568,066 $22,400,000 1050 $690,567,920 $668,167,920 4200 Units $172,641,980.00 $2,157,165,305 Total Investment Potential - 20 Year $539,291,326 25% First 5 Year Investment Total 5 Years Attached House Mid Rise High Rise Total Housing North Side Neighborhood Commercial/Retail/Office Downtown/Midtown Downtown/Midtown Commercial/Retail Total Potential Housing Development 10 Year Commercial 30000 41000 5245 116001 192246 41000 36716 116002 193718 62942 232003 294945 680,909.00 20 Years 213 744 1,050 2,006 5,245 116,001 850 2,975 4,200 8,025 104,903 464,006 $291,098,544 2110
Central West End Grand Center Jefferson Street to Grand Center North Side Downtown Total Development
5 Year Housing Central West End Grand Center Jefferson Street to Grand Center North Side Downtown Total Development Total by Type 176 680 527 153 985 2521
10 Year Housing 680 528 528 984 2720
20 Year Housing
5 Year Employee
1055 1055 1969 4079 9,320.00
R AF
10 Year Employee 750 750 300 1805 2855 2100 1804 4654 3600 3609 7209 14,718.00
5-10 Year Potential 5-20 Year Potential 10-20 Year Potential Total Potential Total Housing Units Employment Numbers 5 Year Total 10 Year Total $247,000,000 176 1400 $153,500,000.0 $294,000,000 1360 $147,000,000.0 $291,098,544 2110 $72,774,636.00 $634,498,841 3076 6000 $31,724,942.04 $690,567,920 3938 7218 $172,641,980.00 $577,641,558.0 Last 10 Years of Investment
$247,000,000 $294,000,000 $145,549,272.0 $222,074,594.27 $172,641,980.00 $1,081,265,846
20 Year Total $247,000,000 $294,000,000 $291,098,544 $634,498,841 $690,567,920 $2,157,165,305 $498,257,900.46 Jefferson
20 Year Employee 5 Year Commercial
$72,774,636 528 20 Year Commercial

DRAFT - St. Louis North Side/Downtown/Midtown/CWE Streetcar Feasibility Study 2013

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DRAFT - St. Louis North Side/Downtown/Midtown/CWE Streetcar Feasibility Study 2013

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ST.

LOUIS STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

CRAIG HELLER, LOFTWORKS

TISHAURA JONES, TREASURER CITY OF ST. LOUIS JOHN LANGA, METRO

JESSICA MEFFORD-MILLER, METRO

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

STEPHEN GREGALI, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MAYORS OFFICE

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

PROPOSED ST. LOUIS STREETCAR DOWNTOWN

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

The benefits of the streetcar include:

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Figure 1 St. Louis Streetcar Study Corridor

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Figure 2 Existing Population Density, 2010

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

Source: 2010 Census

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Figure 3 Existing Employment Density, 2010

Building Neighborhood, Connecting Jobs

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Figure 4 Proposed Alignment Options

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Figure 5 Central West End Alignment Option 1

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Figure 7 Downtown Alignment Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs 17

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

TRAFFIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Figure 8 Proposed Corridor Lanes and Existing Traffic

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

Figure 9- Median Household Income

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Visual and Aesthetics

Hazardous Materials Utilities

Building Neighborhoods, Connecting Jobs

St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

ESTIMATES OF STREETCAR RIDERSHIP