St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Final Report | March 2013 | | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | | | | | | St

STUDY TEAM STEERING COMMITTEE FINANCE COMMITTEE | THE PARTNERSHIP FOR BILL BAYER, US BANK CDC BILL BAYER, US BANK CDC DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS JERRY BLAIR, EAST-WEST GATEWAY MAGGIE CAMPBELL, THE PARTNERSHIP FOR MAGGIE CAMPBELL, PRESIDENT AND CEO DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS ZACK BOYERS, US BANK CDC MATT SCHINDLER, PROJECT MANAGER KIM CELLA, CITIZENS FOR MODERN TRANSIT MAGGIE CAMPBELL, THE PARTNERSHIP FOR DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS CRAIG HELLER, LOFTWORKS URS TEAM KIM CELLA, CITIZENS FOR MODERN TRANSIT PAUL HUBBMAN, EAST-WEST GATEWAY URS CORPORATION KENNETH KINNEY CLARK DAVIS, THE PARTNERSHIP FOR TISHAURA JONES, TREASURER, CITY OF ST. LOUIS DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS, BOARD MEMBER RENEE DUCKER BOB LEWIS, DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES STEPHEN GREGALI, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, RICK NANNENGA, PE LAURA RADCLIFF, STIFEL NICOLAUS MAYOR’S OFFICE DAVID RICHARDSON, HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP CH2MHILL CRAIG HELLER, LOFTWORKS STEVE SMITH, THE LAWRENCE GROUP JIM GRAEBNER TISHAURA JONES, TREASURER, CITY OF ST. LOUIS MATT SCHINDLER, THE PARTNERSHIP FOR JOHN LANGA, METRO DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS CRAWFORD BUNTE BRAMMEIER JESSICA MEFFORD-MILLER, METRO VINCE SCHOEMEHL, GRAND CENTER CARRIE FALKENRATH, PE, PTOE, PTP BRIAN PHILLIPS, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE THE LAWRENCE GROUP DAVID RICHARDSON, HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP MONICA CARNEY HOLMES, AICP, CNU-A DON ROE, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, PLANNING AND CRAIG LEWIS, AICP, LEED AP, CNU-A URBAN DESIGN AGENCY

MATT SCHINDLER, THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PATRICE GILLESPIE SMITH DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS

VINCE SCHOEMEHL, GRAND CENTER RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, INC. WILLIAM WOODFORD STEVE SMITH, THE LAWRENCE GROUP MARK VOGL, HOK

VECTOR COMMUNICATIONS OTIS WILLIAMS, ST. LOUIS DEVELOPMENT LAURNA GODWIN CORPORATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 2

INTRODUCTION...... 6

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ...... 8

MARKET ANALYSIS...... 11

ALIGNMENT...... 16

TRAFFIC IMPACTS...... 21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS...... 25

RIDERSHIP FORECAST...... 27

OPERATIONS PLAN...... 29

COSTS...... 31

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES...... 35

STREETSCAPING...... 53

GUIDEWAY...... 62

STATIONS...... 64

VEHICLES...... 65

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY...... 67

FINANCIAL PLAN...... 69

FIGURES, TABLES AND APPENDICES | FIGURES TABLES 1: ST. LOUIS STREETCAR STUDY CORRIDOR...... 13 1: EXISTING POPULATION...... 11 2: EXISTING POPULATION DENSITY, 2010...... 14 2: EXISTING EMPLOYMENT...... 11 3: EXISTING EMPLOYMENT DENSITY, 2010...... 15 3: DAILY RIDERSHIP...... 27 4: PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OPTIONS...... 18 4: ALLOCATED CONTINGENCY PERCENTAGES FOR PLANNING ESTIMATE... 31 5: CENTRAL WEST END ALIGNMENT OPTION 1...... 19 5: UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY PERCENTAGES FOR ESTIMATES...... 32 6: CENTRAL WEST END ALIGNMENT OPTION 2...... 19 6: PROJECT COSTS WITH STREETSCAPING...... 32 7: DOWNTOWN ALIGNMENT...... 20 7: PROJECT COSTS WITHOUT STREETSCAPING...... 33 8: PROPOSED CORRIDOR LANES AND EXISTING TRAFFIC...... 22 8: CENTRAL WEST END DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL...... 48 9: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME...... 26 9: GRAND CENTER DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL...... 48 10: STREETCAR DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR...... 37 10: GRAND CENTER TO 18TH STREET DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL...... 49 11: EXISTING HOT SPOTS...... 38 11: NORTHSIDE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL...... 50 12: POTENTIAL HOT SPOTS...... 42 12: DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL...... 51 13: DEVELOPMENT TYPES...... 43 13: STREETCAR ROUTE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL...... 51 14: RENDERING, BIRD’S EYE, SECTION LOCATIONS...... 55 14: STREETCAR FINANCIAL OVERVIEW...... 73 15: OLIVE STREET AT 8TH STREET – SECTION...... 56 16: OLIVE STREET AT 18TH STREET – SECTION...... 57 APPENDICES APPENDIX A 17: BIRD’S EYE LOOKING NORTH ON 14TH STREET: CURRENT VIEW...... 58 COMMENTS...... A-1 18: BIRD’S EYE LOOKING NORTH ON 14TH STREET: WITH STREETCAR.... 58 19: CHESTNUT STREET AT 7TH STREET: CURRENT VIEW...... 59 APPENDIX B 20: CHESTNUT STREET AT 7TH STREET: WITH STREETCAR...... 59 COST ESTIMATE CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS...... B-1. 21: OLIVE STREET AT 9TH STREET: CURRENT VIEW...... 60 STREETCAR COST ESTIMATE WITH STREETSCAPING...... B-4. 22: OLIVE STREET AT 9TH STREET: WITH STREETCAR...... 60 STREETCAR COST ESTIMATE WITHOUT STREETSCAPING...... B-9. 23: OLIVE STREET AT COMPTON STREET: CURRENT VIEW...... 61 24: OLIVE STREET AT COMPTON STREET: WITH STREETCAR...... 61 APPENDIX C PREVIOUS PLAN DESCRIPTIONS...... C-1. DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS...... C-4. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 1 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROPOSED ST. LOUIS STREETCAR - DOWNTOWN T he Partnership for Downtown St. Louis sponsored the St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study, a six-month study to determine the feasibility of modern streetcars linking Downtown St. Louis, the near Northside, Midtown, and the Central West End. The purpose of the study was to:

support the goals established in The Downtown Next 2020 Vision to improve Downtown’s accessibility; create a catalyst for continued economic development; provide additional opportunities for alternative transportation; support the region’s and City’s sustainability initiatives; and promote an environment that will retain and attract new jobs and residents to the City.

When St. Louis University announced plans to move their law school from midtown St. Louis to downtown, the Partnership for Downtown St. Louis once again began the discussion of a streetcar for downtown. This move presented concentrations in the St. Louis region, Downtown St. Louis and the Central an opportunity to link the two campuses with a streetcar and fulfill the goals West End, and areas that are increasing in residential density. It also serves of the Downtown Next Plan. The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis raised numerous major destinations as noted on the alignment map. the private funds for the study and through a competitive selection process, selected URS Corporation to conduct the feasibility study because of the firm’s ALIGNMENT. As depicted on the map on the following page, the streetcar national modern streetcar and local transit experience. 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 OBJECTIVES. The streetcar is intended to provide convenient connections station, with double track in the center of the Lindell-Olive corridor. In to large numbers of jobs, residences and major destinations. It is designed to downtown, east of 14th Street, it is single track on Olive, 6th, Chestnut, 7th be an important part of the region’s overall transit system. And, reflecting the and Locust Streets. The north-south alignment’s northern terminus is on impact of other modern streetcars in the United States, it is designed to have North Florissant Avenue at St. Louis Avenue. The double-track route runs a major impact on economic development throughout the corridors. south on North Florissant Avenue and 14th Streets, uses the single-track loop through downtown, terminating on 14th Street at Metro’s Civic Center station, MARKETS. Employment and residential concentrations are the keys to which connects to the St. Louis Gateway Multimodal Transportation Center, transit success. The St. Louis Streetcar serves two of the greatest employment including Amtrak train and Greyhound bus terminals. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 2 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study |

3 4 5 2 26 6 22 24 23 20 25 21 7 1 17 14 8 12 10 16 15 13 11

9 18

Points of interest LeGend 1 GateWay arcH 8 oLd courtHouse 15 Harris-stoWe state uniVersity 22 sHeLdon concert HaLL ProPosed st. Louis streetcar aLiGnMents - frequent stations st. Louis streetcar 2 LacLede’s LandinG 9 buscH stadiuM 16 cHaifetZ arena 23 fabuLous fox tHeatre streetcar terMinus to be deterMined feasibiLity study 3 LuMiere PLace 10 city HaLL 17 saint Louis uniVersity 24 PoWeLL syMPHony HaLL existinG MetroLinK Line WitH stations 4 edWard Jones doMe 11 scottrade center 18 cortex 25 st. Louis city Library ProPosed MetroLinK station 5 conVention center 12 Peabody oPera House 19 bJc/WasHinGton u MedicaL center 26 city MuseuM ProPosed Grand bus raPid transit 6 WasHinGton aVe business district 13 union station 20 centraL West end 27 oLd nortH st. Louis ProPosed nortHside/soutHside Lrt aLiGnMent 7 cityGarden 14 WeLLs farGo adVisors 21 catHedraL basiLica 28 croWn candy KitcHen | | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 3 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

VEHICLES. The streetcars will be modern vehicles intended to attract high ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. The streetcar, along with favorable | daily ridership and to provide the comfortable ride expected by regular transit market conditions and a supportive policy environment, is expected to users. The vehicles are similar to light-rail vehicles, as they have both overhead help spur development throughout the corridors. This is consistent with wires and same track gauge, and a comparable look and feel. Modern streetcars experience elsewhere in North America. Overall development impact is are available in a range of sizes. The vehicles selected for St. Louis would reflect estimated at $540 million in the first five years and $2.1 billion over 20 years. required passenger capacity for the initial line and potential system expansion. Given the development in certain areas along the corridors, the estimate is considered to be conservative. For example, in the last 10 years, downtown SERVICE LEVELS. Reflecting the objective of having the streetcar be a has experienced $5 billion in investment. key part of the overall transit system, service hours will be similar to Metro’s, with weekday hours being 5:00 AM until midnight. Trains would run every 10 TRAFFIC IMPACT. Although the streetcar will be operating in city streets, minutes at peak periods and every 15 minutes off-peak. 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 CAPITAL COST. The total capital cost is estimated between $218 million streetcar study found that the impact on vehicular flow will be minimal. and $271 million, depending on such elements as streetscaping. Given the alignment length, the operating plan, and intention to serve serious transit ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. There are no environment fatal flaws that markets, the overall is cost is comparable with other streetcar projects around could prevent implementation of the streetcar project. the United States. FUNDING. It is assumed that the project will require significant federal OPERATING COST. Assuming the aggressive operating plan noted above financial support for capital costs, potentially up to 50 percent of the total. and existing Metro compensation practices, the annual operating costis Based on current federal evaluation criteria, the St. Louis Streetcar would be estimated at $9.7 million. likely to score well in the competitive funding process, especially given its strong ridership and development performance. Given that the State of Missouri RIDERSHIP. Average weekday ridership for the streetcar is estimated has historically not provided funding for transit, this plan assumes no funding at 7,700. This is high by United States streetcar standards. This is similar to at the state level. For the local match, a transportation development district the estimated streetcar ridership for the first line in Portland, which is now (TDD) is recommended for the corridors, with a tiered special assessment operating their fourth expansion of the system. It is reflective of the strong based on land use. Based on preliminary analysis, the TDD is expected to markets served and its aggressive operating plan. It is important to note that generate $10 million annually. This TDD combined with the farebox revenues, the streetcar is forecast to bring an additional 2,700 riders to the overall transit and potential saving from duplicative bus route operations could support the system and to increase existing MetroLink ridership. The streetcar will provide annual operations and debt service for the project. a complementary service to the existing transit system and help to serve the short-distance trips in the corridors. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. The Partnership established a Steering Committee made up of experts and community leaders to review the Feasibility | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 4 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Study process and findings. The Steering Committee consisted of agency part- THE BENEFITS OF THE STREETCAR INCLUDE: | ners, technical experts and representatives of organizations who had expressed Attracting new residents who want alternatives to the automobile in the early interest in the project. In addition to the Steering Committee, the Part- corridors, nership and Study Team held over 70 stakeholder meetings that included over Attracting new employers who value access to transit, 100 stakeholders. These stakeholders included politicians and their staff at the Connecting and building neighborhoods, national, state, and local levels. Governmental offices whose departments may Creating new jobs in the city, oversee parts of a streetcar project were consulted regularly. Regional, civic, Providing access to jobs, institutions, schools, grocery stores and community, and private organizations with projects or services in the impact- medical services, and ed area of a streetcar were also consulted. These meetings were held both to Creating pedestrian-friendly urban environments. inform those about the Feasibility Study and to receive feedback and advice. In these informal discussions, the stakeholders overwhelmingly expressed NEXT STEPS support for the concept and could identify how the streetcar would specifi- The next steps for the project are outlined in the timeline below. To be eligible cally benefit their community. At the stakeholder Breakfast and public Open to secure federal funding, the streetcar project needs to be adopted into House, over 270 people attended and provided 141 comments on the project. East-West Gateway Council of Government’s long-range transportation plan. An entity will also need to be identified that can help facilitate the campaign CONCLUSION to establish the proposed transportation development district and detailed THE STUDY CONCLUDED THAT THE STREETCAR WOULD: financing plan. This entity can be managed by an existing organization or a new Serve strong transit corridors with residential density and employment one can be created specifically for this project. After that, the next technical concentration, phase of project development would be a federally-required environmental Serve approximately 7,700 riders per weekday, a strong performance for analysis led by East-West Gateway. In parallel with that analysis, project a new streetcar line, sponsors would need to finalize a financial plan and a project management Complement, not compete with, existing Metro service, plan, both required to advance the project into engineering. Spur an estimated $540 million in development in its first five years of operation, and $2.1 billion over 20 years, In addition to completing the first modern streetcar line in St. Louis, itis Have little impact on existing vehicular traffic and no serious intended that this initial line can serve as the spine for a larger streetcar environmental impacts, network that links additional destination and jobs throughout the region. Have a strong likelihood of receiving federal capital funding, and Have strong support from stakeholders and local officials.

Adoption in East-West Environmental Financial and Engineering and Gateway Long Range Assessment Management Design Construction Opening Transportation Plan Plans 2016 - 2017 2017-2018 Spring 2013 Fall 2013 - 2014 Fall 2013-2014 2015 | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 5 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Increase population and employment in the corridors | INTRODUCTION –– Attract new residents and employers The Downtown Next 2020 Vision established ambitious goals for Downtown –– Create new jobs St. Louis to accomplish from 2010 through 2020. One of the goals in the –– Support neighborhoods and connect jobs Downtown Next plan is “Making Downtown Accessible and Easy to Get Catalyze and support future development Around.” The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis and other stakeholders saw –– Increase economic vitality of downtown and the corridors how a downtown streetcar improves accessibility. Discussions of a downtown –– Increase mixed-use, transit supportive development streetcar became more serious when St. Louis University announced their –– Improve the built environment plans to move their law school from midtown St. Louis to downtown. This –– Create walkable, sustainable neighborhoods move presented an opportunity to link the two campuses with a streetcar. Integrate and complement the existing transit system –– Provide seamless connectivity The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis led the discussions, and raised the –– Connect with existing transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities private funds for a study. An RFQ was issued and a consultant was hired to Increase ridership within the corridors and system-wide perform the feasibility study. The purpose of the study was to determine the –– Attract choice riders to the system feasibility of implementing a modern streetcar linking downtown, the near –– Provide passenger amenities, technologies Northside, Midtown, and the Central West End. The study area is shown in –– Increase visibility of the transit system Figure 1. –– Reduce auto traffic and improve air quality

Through a competitive selection process, the Partnership for Downtown St. WHY A STREETCAR? Louis selected URS to conduct the feasibility study. URS was selected for their An often asked question, is how are streetcars different from buses? Buses national modern streetcar and local transit experience. URS has been involved generally operate in existing city streets in mixed traffic. This allows routes to in the planning and design of the all the modern streetcar lines in operation change due to modifications in demand or schedule. It is important to have in the United States to date including, Portland, Seattle, Tacoma and Tucson. this flexibility in elements of the transit system. However, bus systems do not Streetcars are gaining in popularity across the country. Modern streetcars are provide the catalyst for development that rail systems have been documented in operation in the cities mentioned above and in the final planning stages to do. This is partly due to the fact that routes can and do change. There is not or under construction in Cincinnati, Kansas City, Milwaukee, and Atlanta. a sense of permanence. Streetcars offer the speed, modern technology, service, reliability and amenities of light rail systems at a lower cost. 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 The URS Team presented the study findings to the Steering Committee on a and that the train will arrive as expected. This permanence gives developers, monthly basis. With guidance from the Steering Committee, the following planners and city officials the certainty that the alignment will not move. As a goals and objectives were established for the study of a modern streetcar: result, rail transit can be a catalyst for development. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 6 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Building a transit does not necessarily mean the development will happen. | Transit is a part of a larger picture. If combined with connecting concentrations of employment and residential areas, proper zoning, policy and incentives, streetcars can help to spur development. This has been documented in Portland and Seattle. Cities where streetcars have not seen the expected ridership or development, typically have not provided serious transit with frequent headways and connections to employment concentrations.

The key to a successful transit system including streetcars is careful planning. This includes identifying if there is a market, will there be ridership, will development be attracted to the corridor, will there be impacts and can the region afford the investment. These are some of the issues that this study will examine. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 7 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study | PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE | MARCH 7, 2013

Starting in August 2012, the Partnership for Downtown St. Louis begana comprehensive public engagement program to garner feedback on the St. Louis Streetcar concept. The multi-pronged strategy targeted the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed alignment and involved individual stakeholder meetings, monthly Steering Committee meetings and a final public meeting.

The Partnership established a Steering Committee made up of experts and community leaders to review the Feasibility Study process and findings. The Steering Committee consisted of agency partners, technical experts and representatives of organizations who had expressed early interest in the project. This group of individuals reviewed the Study Team’s findings as information was collected. A sub-committee, the Finance Committee, was created to specifically address the financing piece of the Study and gaina better understanding of the local financing environment. These committees system. In response, the Study Team developed a Factsheet for stakeholders ultimately helped shape the Feasibility Study outcomes. (List of committee and a list of Talking Points used by the Study Team and Steering Committee. members can be found on the inside front cover.) The public engagement process culminated on March 7, 2013 with a In addition to the Steering Committee, the Partnership and Study Team held stakeholder breakfast and public open house at the Moto Museum. over 100 different meetings that included over 130 stakeholders. These stakeholders included elected officials and their staff at the national, state, and Forty-three stakeholders attended the breakfast which included business local levels; governmental offices whose departments may oversee parts of owners, community development leaders, developers, transit officials, elected a streetcar project; and regional, civic, community, and private organizations officials and residents. The study team presented a brief presentation and with projects or services in the impacted area of the streetcar. These answered questions from attendees. Comments forms were also available and meetings were held both to inform those about the Feasibility Study and to 13 were completed. receive feedback and advice. In these informal discussions, the stakeholders overwhelmingly expressed support for the concept and could identify how For the public open house at the Moto Museum, a total of 228 citizens the streetcar would specifically benefit their community. Some questions attended. Residents, employees and visitors were encouraged to offer focused on the logistics of getting the project built, while other questions feedback, ask questions and voice concerns. Graphic boards depicting the focused on how the project would impact or connect with existing MetroLink study results were displayed, and members of the Study Team and Steering and MetroBus service, the Loop Trolley project, and who would operate the Committee were available to answer questions. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 8 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Comment forms were available and 128 were completed. Participants were | asked to select the three most important benefits they thought the streetcar would bring to St. Louis. The top four responses were: WOULD YOU SUPPORT A TDD TO HELP FUND A ST. LOUIS STREETCAR SYSTEM?

Spur new development Create a pedestrian friendly urban environment Provide alternatives to driving Attract new residents

Participants were also given the opportunity to provide additional comments. Comments covered a variety of topics including: In support of the streetcar project – 27 Funding/Cost/TDD – 18 Participants were also asked if they would support a Transportation Connectivity – 12 Development District (TDD) to help fund the St. Louis Streetcar Project. Adding a south connection – 11 Overwhelming attendees responded in favor of the TDD with 98 respondents Development – 9 (73 percent) selecting “yes”. Ten respondents selected “no” to indicate, they Open House and public participation - 5 would not support the establishment of a TDD (7 percent) and 27 needed Ridership – 5 more information to make a decision (20 percent). Security and safety – 4 Lane usage – 4 | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 9 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

At least 27 people commented in favor of the proposed St. Louis streetcar A project webpage http://www.downtownstl.org/stlstreetcar contains | project. Many comments referenced what a great opportunity this is for St. the final report along with other project materials. During the final stages Louis and how excited people are to utilize the streetcar. of the Study, the project received significant media attention. The media included television, radio, print, and online. The comments above from the Respondents (18) also discussed concern over the cost, the benefits and public engagement largely reflect the comments in the media, which were disadvantages of a TDD, and potential funding options for the streetcar mainly positive. Links to the media coverage can also be found on the project including partnerships with local corporations. Since the TDD analysis did not webpage. include participation from the non-profit institutions (hospitals, schools, and other institutions) along the routes, attendees and stakeholders expressed a ONGOING OUTREACH concern over these institutions receiving the benefit of a streetcar without In this preliminary phase, the Study Team took a targeted approach to introduce providing financial support. the concept of a streetcar. As this project moves to the environmental analysis, the team will conduct far more robust outreach to all of the neighborhoods Respondents also supported the connectivity a streetcar would offer and along and near the proposed alignments. suggested it connect to MetroLink, MetroBus and specific streets and destinations (12). Eleven respondents supported a connection southto South City and Soulard neighborhood. A number of stakeholders viewed the streetcar in competition with parallel MetroLink service. Throughout the Study, the service level of a streetcar compared to MetroLink/light-rail had to be defined.

Other comments referenced potential development along the corridor, the need for public participation, feedback on the open house, possibilities and concerns about ridership, the importance of safety and security, and land usage for buses, cars and bicycles. A complete record of the comments and comment form are included in Appendix A.

The majority of participants indicated they were residents (83 people) and/or commuters (46 people), in relation to the study area. Additionally, 21 people indicated they were business owners and 24 people identified themselves as “other” category. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 10 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

major entertainment and arts center. Housing is largely multifamily with a few | MARKET ANALYSIS single family residences. Transit systems are most successful when they connect major destinations and employment centers with residential neighborhoods. Density drives transit The Central West End is an established residential neighborhood at the western ridership. The market analysis identified residential and employment centers terminus of the corridor with approximately 14,400 residents. Central West and destinations to determine if the corridors had the density concentrations End has a mix of single family residents, condos and multi-family apartments. to support additional transit. The Near Northside from Washington Avenue to St. Louis Avenue has a mix The study area consists of two corridors, an east-west segment along Olive- of single, attached and multi-family residential units. The corridor includes Lindell and north-south segment on 14th Street-North Florissant Avenue. The Carr Square, Old North St. Louis, an emerging mixed use neighborhood with a north-south corridor is approximately bounded by Civic Center Metro Station small commercial center along 13th Street. This area has approximately 8,500 to the south, St. Louis Avenue to the north, 18th Street to the west and 10th residents. 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 The corridors connect some of the region’s most dense employment centers, Delmar Boulevard to the north, as shown in Figure 1. downtown and the Central West End, as shown in as indicated in Table 2 and Population in the corridor is some of depicted in Figure 3. TABLE 2: EXISTING EMPLOYMENT Existing the region’s most dense, as indicated in Location TABLE 1: EXISTING POPULATION Employment Table 1 and depicted in Figure 2. Downtown has approximately 88,000 Existing Downtown 13,500 Location Population employees while the Central West End Midtown 5,600 Downtown 13,500 Downtown is one of the City’s fastest has more than 30,000 employees with Central West End 14,400 Midtown 5,600 growing and most dense neighborhoods. BJC/Washington University Medical Near North St. Louis 8,500 Central West End 14,400 Since 2000, downtown residential School located on the southern end population has increased by 6,000 to of the neighborhood. Midtown is Study Area 38,000 Near North St. Louis 8,500 13,500 and in 2011 population grew also an employment center with over Source: 2010 Census Study Area 38,000 by 4 percent, according to the 2012 9,700 employees. Midtown’s largest Source: 2010 Census Downtown St. Louis Progress Report. employer is St. Louis University, with other employment associated with the entertainment district including the Midtown is an emerging residential neighborhood, bounded by Washington Fox Theater, Powell Hall and Grand Center. Avenue to the north, Forest Park Avenue to the south, Spring Street to the west, and Jefferson Avenue to the east. Population in Midtown is approximately The Near Northside contains a few employers, especially closer to downtown, 5,600. St. Louis University is located in this area along with Grand Center, a | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 11 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

where there is a small employment concentration along Delmar and | Washington Avenues.

Also identified were corridor trip generators and destinations. In downtown, special generators in the corridor include: Crown Candy, the planned Great Rivers Greenway Trestle project, the Gateway Arch, the Convention Center, the Old Courthouse, City Garden, City Museum, Edward Jones Dome, Scottrade Center, Peabody Opera House and Busch Stadium. These are local, regional and national destinations. In Midtown, special trip generators include: Grand Center, Powell Hall, the Fox Theatre, St. Louis University, Harris-Stowe University, and Chaifetz Arena. The Central West End major trip generators include the CWE business district, BJC/Washington University Medical School, the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis and Forest Park. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 12 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study |

LEGEND

EXISTING METROLINK FIGURE 1 - ST. LOUIS STREETCAR STUDY CORRIDOR EXISTING METROLINK STATION PROPOSED STREETCAR CORRIDOR | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 13 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study |

Application of those principles resulted, first, in the elimination of several | ALIGNMENT options. Impacts to MetroLink during construction eliminated 8th Street and As shown on Figures 4 through 7, the streetcar alignment will include an Washington Avenue. Traffic impacts, as cited by the City of St. Louis and the east-west segment connecting Downtown St. Louis and the Central West End, Missouri Department of Transportation, caused Broadway and 4th Street to the region’s two largest employment centers, and a north-south segment be dropped, and the cost of extending the alignment from the downtown linking downtown with developing areas on the near Northside and the Saint employment core to Memorial Drive eliminated that option. Louis Gateway Multimodal Transportation Center including Amtrak train and Greyhound bus terminals at Metro’s Civic Center. The two segments total This screening process resulted in a set of east-west streets that generally seven miles. The east-west segment is 5.0 miles and the north-south segment satisfied the evaluation criteria listed above. These included Chestnut, Pine, is 1.9 miles. 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 The core of the east-west alignment is a double-track line running on Olive it is closer to the heart of the downtown employment concentration and Street and Lindell Boulevard between 14th Street and Taylor Avenue. Both provides better proximity to major destinations. Olive Street is the logical streets are wide enough to allow for fast operation (by streetcar standards) and eastbound half of an east-west one-way pair as it is a no-turn continuation relatively short travel times, with minimal impact on traffic and parking. East of of the alignment west of 14th Street. This results in a decision between Grand Boulevard there is sufficient right-of-way width to allow the streetcars Locust and Pine for the westbound segment. Locust was selected because to operate in a separate guideway, avoiding operation in mixed traffic. West of its centrality to the employment core, and because of its more pedestrian of Grand Boulevard streetcars would share street lanes with vehicular traffic. 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 East of 14th Street objectives that drove decisions regarding downtown very visible pedestrian access to the Arch Grounds. (The plaza also provides a alignments included: non-street layover point for streetcars.) In the next phase future coordination with the CityArchRiver 2015 project Gateway Mall Master Plan, and the Central Get as close as possible to the center of the employment concentration. Business District Downtown Streetscape Design Manual Update. Minimize distance, physical and psychological, to major attractions, including the Arch Grounds. Alignment recommendations in the Central West End, west of Taylor Avenue Reduce capital and operating costs. were driven by the goals of getting as close as possible to the core ofthe Minimize the number of curves to reduce noise and increase speed. medical complex and directly accessing MetroLink’s Central West End station. Minimize the distance between tracks on one-way pairs. (The This addresses a project objective of providing an important addition to narrowness of the downtown streets precludes double-track operation.) the region’s transit network, and supporting the thriving commercial and Eliminate impacts to MetroLink from streetcar construction. entertainment area centered on Euclid Avenue. Options included a single- Lessen traffic impacts. 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 | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 16 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Boulevard could continue south on Taylor Avenue and west on Children’s Plaza, | terminating at the Central West End MetroLink station, where streetcars would reverse direction. Further analysis in the next phase of project development will include considerations of traffic impacts, safety concerns, and extensive stakeholder and institutional input. Additional coordination will be required with the Cortex Redevelopment Area project.

The north-south alignment, which could be a starter segment of a longer line extending further north and south, would use the same downtown alignment as the east-west route, thus doubling service in the downtown. It would leave downtown heading north on 14th Street, then northwest on North Florissant Avenue, 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 proposed bike path along 14th Street, the operations of the Peabody/Scottrade Center south of Market Street along 14th Street and the proposed North Side Redevelopment Area project.

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. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 17 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study |

LEGEND

EXISTING METROLINK FIGURE 4 - PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OPTIONS EXISTING METROLINK STATION PROPOSED NORTHSIDE/SOUTHSIDE STREETCAR ALIGNMENT

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

EXISTING METROLINK

FIGURE 7 - DOWNTOWN ALIGNMENT LEGEND

EXISTING METROLINK

there are sidewalks (typically wide) on both sides. Although it is a major east- | TRAFFIC IMPACTS west arterial in downtown, traffic volumes are lower than might be expected A preliminary review of traffic and environmental impacts was conducted. because of its proximity to I-64 and Forest Park Parkway, another major The purpose of the review was to determine any fatal environmental or traffic arterial that accommodates slightly higher speeds and extends further west impacts that would prevent the project from moving forward. The results of into St. Louis County. the analysis indicate that impacts to traffic and environmental considerations are not fatal. A fatal flaw was considered anything that may trigger litigation. 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 TRAFFIC St. Louis. Dedicated bike lanes are planned for Lindell/Olive east of Grand A high level traffic impact analysis evaluated capacity, signalization and Boulevard. This portion of Lindell/Olive is utilized by three MetroBus routes: circulation patterns. Figure 8 indicates the number of travel lanes andthe #10 connects the Central West End MetroLink Station and the Civic Center annual average daily traffic (AADT) on each on each segment of roadway MetroBus Center (at the Gateway Transportation Center), #13 travels between within the proposed corridor. the Central West End MetroLink Station and North St. Louis County, and #4 links the Civic Center MetroBus Center with the North Hanley MetroLink The AADT volumes are between 3,000 and 16,500 vehicles per day on the Station. study segments. These volumes fall within the capacity ranges for the roadways, which have between two and seven lanes. Based on these volumes, The Bike St. Louis/Gateway Bike Plan incorporates dedicated bike lanes on the existing street segments within the study corridors have excess capacity. Lindell/Olive from Grand Boulevard east to 20th Street. Development along The area nearest capacity is Lindell Boulevard at the west end of the study this arterial is relatively dense mixed uses, including the Saint Louis University corridor. 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 TAYLOR AVENUE is a two lane, two-way road with parking lanes on both corridor roughly parallels I-64 to its south. The north-south portion roughly sides throughout most of the proposed alignment. There are sidewalks on parallels I-70 to its east. both sides of the road. MetroBus route #18 utilizes Taylor between the Central West End MetroLink Station and O’Fallon Park in North St Louis City. Taylor The general character of the major streets within the corridors is discussed serves dense residential and some first-floor commercial development. Most below: 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 LINDELL BOULEVARD/OLIVE STREET is a two-way, five-lane major signalized with turning lanes and Taylor transitions to a four-lane cross-section. arterial east of Tucker Boulevard. (Olive Street becomes Lindell Boulevard The Gateway Bike Plan incorporates shared bike lanes on Taylor throughout east of Grand Boulevard.) Parking is permitted on both sides of the road and this segment. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 21 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study |

General Annual Average Daily Traffic (aadt) 7 Capacity for Urban Arterial Segments 11,500 Number of Lanes Approximate Capacity 7 (vehicles/day) 10,000 7 ...... 47,000 5 ...... 30,000 4 ...... 25,000 3 ...... 17,000 2 ...... 15,000

LeGeNd 5 x Number of driving lanes 7,500 xx,xxx Average Daily Traffic (AADT), vehicles/day

5 2 4,000 5 5 5 11,500 5 5 5 5 5 10,000 7,000 14,000 11,500 11,000 16,500 16,000 14,000 2 2 5 2 7 6,000 3,000 8,500 8,500 2 6,000

4 8,500

LeGeNd

ProPosed st. Louis streetcar aLiGNmeNts - FrequeNt statioNs st. Louis streetcar

streetcar termiNus to be determiNed FeasibiLity study FIGURE 8 - PROPOSED CORRIDOR LANES AND EXISTING TRAFFIC existiNG metroLiNk LiNe WitH statioNs ProPosed metroLiNk statioN

ProPosed GraNd bus raPid traNsit

CHILDREN’S PLACE is a local two-lane, two-way, street serving the BJC/ Because 14th Street provides access to the Civic Center MetroBus Center, | Washington University Medical Campus. The street only extends one block multiple MetroBus utilize 14th Street, especially in the CBD (south of west of Taylor Avenue. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street leading Washington Avenue). MetroBus routes #41 and #74 continue north to Carr to the cul-de-sac at the west terminus with paths leading into the campus Street and North Florissant Avenue on their way to North County, and route and to the adjacent Central West End MetroLink Station. This cul-de-sac also #30 continues north to St. Louis Avenue before turning west toward the Rock serves at the terminus for the BJC/Washington University Medical School Road MetroLink Station. As part of the Bike St. Louis/Gateway Bike Plan, 14th shuttle buses. 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 East of Tucker Boulevard, OLIVE STREET becomes a one-way eastbound, two north of Washington is proposed for a urban greenway corridor. 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 NORTH FLORISSANT AVENUE is a six-lane divided road north of 14th east of Tucker are one-way facilities as well; all intersections are signalized and Street through Madison Street. At Madison, the median narrows and North there are no turn lanes. No MetroBus routes utilize Olive, although multiple Florissant becomes a seven-lane road. Parking is prohibited on the street. routes cross the street at 9th Street and 6th 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 6TH STREET, 7TH STREET, CHESTNUT STREET, and LOCUST STREET Street, North Market Street, and St. Louis Avenue are signalized, but the are generally two-lane roadways with parking lanes and wide sidewalks majority of intersections with cross streets have only stop control on the minor on both sides. 6th Street is one-way southbound, 7th Street is one-way (crossing) road. MetroBus route #74 utilizes North Florissant between the northbound, and Chestnut is one-way eastbound. Locust Street is one-way Civic Center MetroBus Center and North County. The Bike St. Louis/Gateway westbound. Parking is restricted on one or both sides of 7th and Locust Streets Bike Plan identifies North Florissant as a portion of the Route 66 Multi-State for portions of the proposed alignment. These streets are also within the CBD On-Street Bike Route. Dedicated bike lanes are proposed between 14th Street and development is similar to Olive Street east of Tucker Boulevard. Of these and Palm Street, with shared bike lanes north of that segment. routes, only 6th Street is a corridor for MetroBus Express routes 36X, 174X, 58X, 410X, and 40X. The Bike St. Louis/Gateway Bike Plan Route proposes Traffic Signal System shared bike lanes for all of these streets. 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 14TH STREET is a two-way, four-lane road. There are parking lanes and is 14th Street, although the City is steadily adding signals to its system as sidewalks on both sides throughout most of the proposed alignment with the conditions permit. Signals within the coordinated system have upgraded exception of the segment south of Clark Avenue where there are no parking equipment and are interconnected. The City utilizes an ACTRA system and lanes. The major intersections are signalized and have dedicated turn lanes, various portions of the corridors fall within different management groups. the minor intersections are stop-controlled on the cross-road. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 23 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

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.

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 opening of the New Mississippi River Bridge (NMRB) and CityArchRiver 2015 (CAR 2015) projects.

Using streetcar demand forecasts, impacts to the street and signal control network directly resulting from the proposed system can be defined. After impacts are determined, mitigation and enhancements to the existing system will be investigated.

The additional data will also support a detailed study of potential circulation impacts at the block, local, and regional levels. Block level circulation includes pedestrian concerns such as street crossings, security, and continuity and property concerns such as access, flow, and parking. Local circulation would look further into aspects such as the bicycle network and how to maintain and enhance that system. Regional circulation would focus on the maintaining and enhancing transit connectivity within the MetroLink and MetroBus systems as well as for commuter systems from Illinois, for example Madison County Transit.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Noise | Streetcars have lower noise levels than city buses. Streetcar noise is mostly A review of the environmental considerations associated with the proposed generated by curves in the alignment and the sound of the horn. The alignment was conducted. The purpose of the review was to determine if alignment includes several turns in both the eastern and western ends of the there were any fatal flaws. corridor. The downtown turns include: 14th Street and Olive Street For this type of project in an existing right-of-way and within an urban area, Olive Street and 6th Street impacts are mostly associated with social/economic considerations. These 6th Street and Chestnut Street include environmental justice, neighborhoods and community facility, cultural Chestnut Street and 7th Street resources, Title VI compliance, and visual and aesthetic resources. Natural 7th Street and Locust Street impacts such as biological resources, endangered species, wetlands and flood Locust Street and 14th Street plains tend to have less impact. While the review indicated no fatal flaws, parkland, noise, environmental justices, and visual and aesthetic resources will The Central West End Option 1 turns include: need further analysis to determine potential impacts during the next phase of Lindell and Taylor Avenue the project. Taylor Avenue and Children’s Place

Parkland The Central West End Option 2 turns include: The proposed alignment includes a station in Kiener Plaza park located Lindell and Euclid Avenue on Chestnut Street between 6th Street and 7th Street downtown. The Euclid Avenue and Forest Park Avenue Department of Transportation (DOT) Action of 1966 includes a provision, Forest Park Avenue and Taylor Avenue Section 4(f) that requires DOT agencies including the FTA, “cannot approve Taylor Avenue and Lindell the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites unless the following During the next environmental phase of the project, these intersections will be conditions apply: reviewed further for noise impacts.

There is no feasible and prudent alternative to use of the land. Streetcars are only required to sound their horns in an emergency, not at The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the every grade crossing like MetroLink. This helps reduce the noise level as the property resulting from use.”1 alignment is street running with limited exclusive right-of-way. During the next environment phase, a more detailed analysis of areas sensitive to noise levels As Kiener Plaza is a public park, a Section 4(f) analysis would be required in the such as areas designated for serenity uses, including parks, historic landmarks next environmental phase. and concert pavilions, residential and institutional areas will be conducted.

Environmental Justice | Environmental justice FIGURE 9 - MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME Source: East-West Gateway Council of Governments 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 at right 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 NEXT STEPS will determine whether or not the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects The environmental considerations that will be analyzed in more detail during would disproportionately burden these populations. the next phase include: Traffic Noise and Vibration Visual and Aesthetics Transit Air Quality The proposed alignment of the streetcar would be within the existing right- Land Use Energy of-way and share existing traffic lanes throughout the corridor. The corridor Economic Parks and Recreation includes established neighborhoods including the CBD, the near Northside, Neighborhoods and Section 4(f) Midtown and the Central West End. Each of these neighborhoods has Community Facilities Public Safety distinctive characteristics and aesthetic qualities. It will be important in the Environmental Justice Biological Resources and next phase to determine if the overhead wires, stations and construction Title VI Compliance Endangered Species impact these neighborhoods. Visual and Aesthetic Resource Geology and Soils Cultural Resources Wetlands, Water and Floodplains | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 26 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Service frequencies on both lines are assumed as follows: | RIDERSHIP FORECAST From 5 AM to 9 AM, 10 minute The purpose of ridership projections is to provide a quick, order-of-magnitude headways TABLE 3: DAILY RIDERSHIP estimate of likely ridership for the proposed St. Louis Streetcar. An approach From 9 AM to 3 PM, 15 minute Daily Station Boardings was employed that makes extensive use of an existing tool developed by the headways CENTRAL WEST END 1,345 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and its contractors. This tool is known as From 3 PM to 6 PM, 10 minute Taylor/Scott 36 the Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model Version 2 (ARRF-2). headways Taylor/Laclede 61 From 6 PM to 12 Midnight, 15 ARRF-2 was calibrated for existing light rail and commuter rail lines that typically minute headways Taylor/Lindell 416 operate at higher speeds over longer distances than streetcar systems. To Lindell/Newstead 267 confirm, its applicability to streetcars, the model was tested and adjusted to ESTIMATES OF Lindell/Sarah 367 be representative of streetcar ridership observed in Portland, Oregon. It was STREETCAR RIDERSHIP Lindell/Vandeventer 244 also tested to confirm that it properly represents current MetroLink ridership The forecasting model was run using the Lindell/Grand 173 in St. Louis. same input travel demand data used to Olive/Compton 280 validate current estimates of MetroLink Olive/Jefferson 635 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVE ridership including 2000 Census, Journey Olive/20th Street 166 The streetcar alternative consists of an east-west segment traveling between to Work data. The results reported in Olive/16th Street 216 the Central West End MetroLink station and Downtown St. Louis and a north- this section do not account for potential Olive Transfer 120 south segment traveling between North Florissant/St. Louis and 14th/Clark population and employment growth in Olive/10th 246 Streets. The east-west alignment generally follows Lindell Boulevard and Olive the corridor that may occur in the future. Olive/6th 24 Street. In Downtown St. Louis (east of 14th Street), the eastbound track is As such, the analysis represents an initial 8TH AND PINE 1,272 located on Olive Street and the westbound track is located on Locust Street. order-of-magnitude estimate rather Sub-Total E to W 5,868 than the outcome of a full forecasting Florissant/St. Louis 381 ARRF-2 requires that paired stations (i.e., the stations on Olive and Locust assignment. Florissant/Madison 114 Streets that separately serve eastbound and westbound directions) be coded 14th/Biddle 121 as a single station. For this analysis, the Olive Street stations were coded and ARRF model results suggest that if the 14th/Delmar 260 assumed to be generally representative of the corresponding stations on streetcar were operational today, the east- Locust Street. west route would attract 5,900 daily riders Olive Transfer 111 and the north-south route would attract Market/14th 13 1,800 daily riders-for a total of 7,700 CIVIC CENTER 801 daily riders. Station-by-station ridership is Sub-Total N to S 1,801 shown in Table 3 at right. TOTAL STREETCAR 7,669 | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 27 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

IMPACTS ON METROLINK NEXT STEPS | The impacts of the streetcar system on MetroLink and the Metro system It is important to note that this is a sketch-level assessment of potential are positive although modest. The streetcar is expected to attract over 500 ridership. To meet the needs of the FTA New Starts process, a more detailed additional MetroLink riders and 2,700 new transit riders. Of the 7,700 total assessment of ridership is required. ridership, only 10 percent (750 trips) are traveling entirely within the east-west corridor. The remaining trips are either traveling in the north-south Corridor or are transferring from MetroLink to the east-west streetcar line and are unlikely to have diverted from MetroLink.

Having an integrated transit system with several types of rail is not unique. Various rail types such as light-rail and streetcar have different trip purposes. Light-rail serves the longer distance trip, while streetcars serve the shorter distance trip. The systems complement each other and generally do not compete for riders. Portland Oregon has successfully implemented light- rail and streetcar. Seattle is another example of a city with both light-rail and streetcar. Atlanta is currently building a streetcar system that will integrate with the existing heavy rail system. Minneapolis is studying streetcars to connect downtown to surrounding neighborhoods that would integrate with the existing light rail and commuter rail system.

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. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 28 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

OPERATIONS PLAN HOURS OF SERVICE | It is important that St. Louis Streetcar be an integrated part of the existing Developing an operations plan for a streetcar line is a careful balance between transit system in the St. Louis area. It is recommended the hours of operation projected ridership and the service pattern to be provided. Not only are be the same or similar to MetroLink and MetroBus. For this study, the hours of the factors interrelated, they mutually impact one another; better service service were assumed to be 5:00 a.m. to midnight, Monday through Sunday. increases ridership, and more ridership requires more service. Ridership is sensitive to such factors as weather, time of day, frequency, speed, economic SCHEDULE SPEED development and the price of gas and parking. Thus, it is important that the The average schedule speed includes time at each stop, plus make-up time system be capable of adjusting service levels to demand within a fairly broad and layover time at the end of each trip. The initial average schedule speed range, in order to provide good cost control. 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/ In developing the operations plan, providing a seamless network to the Washington University Medical School. 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 INTERCONNECTIONS operator of the streetcar will not be determined at this phase of the project, The St. Louis Streetcar connects directly with MetroLink and MetroBus services the streetcar should be an integrated part of the overall transit system, at the CWE Metro Station, and provides convenient transfer with bus services regardless of the operator. 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 RIDERSHIP Washington Avenue and 6th Street. 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 FREQUENCY been used for ridership forecasting. Frequency of service (headway) is arguably the most important service factor in maximizing ridership. The minimum safe headway is determined by DETERMINANTS OF OPERATING PATTERN schedule speed, distance between stops, and number of vehicles. A typical DAYS OF SERVICE headway is 10 minutes. This headway provides service frequently enough that Almost all rail transit lines provide service seven days per week, which is the a printed schedule is not needed. This service frequency range is common in plan of the St. Louis Streetcar. However, as discussed below, this does not peak hours in systems around the country. A primary objective for the St. Louis mean that the hours of service do not vary somewhat, depending on the day Streetcar is to provide serious and frequent service. It is recommended that of the week. peak period service be every 10 minutes. This would provide a considerable increase in service to the existing bus service in the corridors. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 29 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

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 | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 30 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

between the current year and the projected base year. This factor would be | COSTS used to escalate cost categories to the projected year of expenditure. The methodology for developing the capital and operating costs are detailed below. Estimates are based on FTA’s capital cost format and used in New Starts Unit Costs projects. The cost estimate is designed to evolve throughout project phases Unit costs were developed from selected historical data including, 2011 but be as accurate as possible at each stage. contractor bid tabs for the Tucson, Portland, and Seattle Streetcar projects currently under construction, engineers estimates, and standard estimating CAPITAL COST METHODOLOGY practices. The unit cost prices include contractor overhead and profit. The approach used for the capital cost estimate is based on FTA’s capital costing format, the Standard Cost Categories (SCC), established in 2005 to provide a Contingencies consistent format for the reporting, estimating, and managing of capital costs Contingency addresses the potential for quantity fluctuations and cost for New Starts projects. Cost estimates produced under this methodology variability when items of work are not readily apparent or unknown at the can be tracked and audited as the project definition moves forward from current level of design. Contingency is assigned in two major categories, conceptual design to final design and construction. allocated and unallocated.

TABLE 4: ALLOCATED CONTINGENCY PERCENTAGES ESTIMATE DEVELOPMENT FOR PLANNING ESTIMATE Conceptual alignments and typical sections formed the basis for quantifying SCC Description Percentage project improvements into units of work. Appropriate unit pricing was 10 Guideway and Track Elements 15 developed from historical cost data, applied to the quantities, and summed 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodals 20 into cost categories to complete the cost estimate. 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administration Bldgs 25 40 Sitework and Special Conditions 25 Current Year Dollars 50 Systems 20 The capital costs were estimated in current year 2012 US dollars (2012$). 60 Right-of-Way, Land, Existing Improvements 30 70 Vehicles 15 Escalation Escalation factors are sometimes necessary when using costs that are Allocated contingency is used during the planning stages of a project when older than the current year by one or more years. In this case, historical the level of design development is usually below 30 percent complete. Based construction cost index values can be used to calculate an escalation factor for on the level of design development a contingency allowance of between 15 the period in question. Additionally, it may be necessary to take the current and 30 percent will be allocated by cost categories. The percentage selected year estimate and project it to a future base year or year of expenditure. In this is based on professional experience and judgment related to the potential case, an escalation factor will be developed using historical construction cost variability of costs within each of these cost categories. Table 4 above lists the index values to calculate the most recent moving average for the time period percentages that are normally used for allocated contingencies. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 31 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Unallocated contingency is used for the same reasons described for allocated Capital costs for the first four categories were calculated using unit costs and | contingency. When a project has entered the advanced design phases and measured quantities for each sub-category. Systems costs were calculated by design development is 30 percent or more complete there is generally more either the alignment length or when possible a measurable quantity. When a detail for unit price and quantity development. route-foot unit cost was used it was developed using historical data that could be applied to the route length. During the planning stages, allocated and unallocated contingencies are applied separately but the total contingency is the result of their combined effect. The professional services categories are calculated as a percentage of Estimates prepared in the advanced design stages would only include unallocated construction costs (excluding vehicle procurement). These percentages are contingencies. Table discussed in the Professional Services Section Appendix( B). The sum of these TABLE 5: UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 5 at left lists the ten cost categories is the total capital cost estimate. The ten cost categories PERCENTAGES FOR ESTIMATES percentages that are are described in detail in Appendix B. Estimate Type Description Percentage normally used and System Planning 20 when they would be Planning CAPITAL COSTS Alternatives Analysis 15 applied. The estimate was prepared using a template organized into two levels. The Preliminary Engineering 20 first level is the SCC primary category and the second is the SCC sub-category. Design Final Design 15 The estimate spreadsheets are inAppendix B. Construction 10 The capital costs are TABLE 6: PROJECT COSTS WITH COST CATEGORIES estimated to range STREETSCAPING Cost categories were used to summarize the unit prices into a comprehensive between $218 million and Description Total Cost total estimate for each segment. The major cost categories are listed and $271 million depending on Guideway and Track $37 million described in greater detail below: the amount of streetscape Stations $4 million Guideway and Track Elements implemented. The $271 Support Facilities $7 million Stops million estimate includes Sitework and Special Conditions $76 million Support Facilities the rebuilding of the Systems $25 million Sitework and Special Conditions street, building face to Right-of-Way $0 million Systems building face along with Vehicles $52 million Right-of-Way, Land, Existing Improvements the construction of the Professional Services $40 million Vehicles streetcar and a 10 to 15 Unallocated Contingency $30 million Professional Services minute operation plan. Total $271 million Unallocated Contingency Table 6 at right provides Finance Charges the cost breakdown for the option that includes a full streetscaping plan. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 32 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

This estimate was further divided into segments of the corridor: OPERATING COSTS | METHODOLOGY Downtown (east of 14th Street): $58 million Cost Elements Grand to 14th Street: $76 million In approximating the cost of a streetcar line at the early planning stage, one 14th Street, St. Louis Avenue to Civic Center: $67 million common method is to calculate the annual vehicle-hours by multiplying the Lindell Boulevard - Central West End To Grand Boulevard: $70 million cost per hour actually experienced by similar operations, adjusted if necessary to reflect unusual or location-specific variations. Cost per hour is a reasonable The $218 million cost estimate does not include streetscaping but does surrogate for overall costs because the bulk of the costs incurred in a streetcar assume the same operating plan. Table 7 below provides the cost summary operation are directly related to this measure. For example, operator’s for an option with a limited streetscaping plan. 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 Downtown (east of 14th Street): $56 million function of miles, if a fairly constant schedule speed is achieved, then mileage- Grand to 14th Street: $68 million related costs can be related to hours. Fixed facility costs (track and OCS) and 14th Street, St. Louis Avenue to Civic Center: $55 million administrative costs do not relate perfectly to vehicle-hours, yet these form a Lindell Boulevard - Central West End To Grand Boulevard: $46 million minor percentage of overall costs for streetcars, and can be approximated in the cost per vehicle-hour with sufficient accuracy for typical feasibility studies. TABLE 7: PROJECT COSTS WITH LIMITED STREETSCAPING Range of Unit Costs Description Total Cost A streetcar line in mixed traffic has operating characteristics very similar in Guideway and Track $32 million many ways to that of a bus route. Schedule speeds are comparable, operators Stations $4 million have similar concerns, stop spacing is roughly the same, and the signal systems, Support Facilities $7 million train operations and high speeds that characterize light rail systems are hardly Sitework and Special Conditions $41 million ever present. Track is rigidly set in the structure of the street, and OCS is Systems $24 million simple when compared to light rail, factors which also reduce maintenance Right-of-Way $4 million costs. Further, as mentioned, there is no complex signal system and passenger Vehicles $52 million stops are not nearly as elaborate as light rail stations. Professional Services $29 million Unallocated Contingency $24 million Thus, a base unit cost for a streetcar line in St. Louis would consider the actual Total $218 million 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. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 33 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

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. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 34 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES STREETCAR DEVELOPMENT IN OTHER CITIES | Other peer cities in the United States are in the process of building or planning The St. Louis Streetcar provides an opportunity to build investment and modern streetcar systems, such as Cincinnati, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Atlanta, capital in existing corridors and spur new private development. Identifying Minneapolis, Dallas, Columbus, and Tucson to name a few. These cities are development opportunities and qualitatively evaluating the potential for experiencing new investment and growth that can be attributed to their growth along the corridor provides a framework to analyze the viability of the streetcar lines. Seattle and Portland are the gold standard for illustrating streetcar line. development potential along a streetcar route, having leveraged billions of dollars of new investment along their systems. Other cities have completed The development opportunities were guided by the existing plans including market studies to analyze and project investment along the proposed routes. The Downtown Next 2020 Vision, Gateway Mall Master Plan (2009), Northside Below is a brief list of actual development investment along existing routes Redevelopment Area (2009), Central Business District Downtown Streetscape and projected investments along proposed routes: Design Manual Update (2009), Grand Center Framework Plan (2012), and Cortex Redevelopment Area (2012), which are summarized in Appendix C. PORTLAND, OR (1997-2008): 4 mile route - $3.5 billion in investment, 10,000 housing units, 5.4 million square feet of commercial space * Figure 11 illustrates the development study area. The evaluation of (total new investment – “Streetcars and economic development: The development opportunities in this report utilized the following methodology dynamic linkage between them”) and process: TAMPA, FL (2002-2011): 2.7 mile route - $1 billion in investment (total Examine development estimates from other comparable U.S. cities that new investment -http://www.tampasdowntown.com/the-partnership/ have built, or are considering building, a streetcar. services-programs/urban-excellence.aspx) Identify previous plans that influence the St. Louis Streetcar corridor PORTLAND, OR - PEARL DISTRICT and highlight development potential from adopted plans. Complete a ripe/firm analysis of development opportunities within a ¼ mile of the corridor. Identify appropriate development types for ripe parcels in the corridor. Apply rough estimates of building square footages and cost per square foot to development types. Add projected investment from approved projects. Discuss limitations to estimates. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 35 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

SEATTLE, WA CINCINNATI, OH (Projected - 2013): 2 mile route - $1.9 billion in | investment over 10 years* (from 2007 Feasibility Study - http://www. cincinnati-oh.gov)

These baseline numbers serve as a guide or reference point for the projections in St. Louis. Starred (*) streetcar lines above represent modern streetcar systems similar to the proposal for the St. Louis Streetcar project.

SEATTLE, WA (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/) ONE OF FOUR STREETCARS EN ROUTE TO ATLANTA, GA - PROJECTED TO OPEN 2013

LOS ANGELES, CA (Projected - 2015): 4 mile route - $1.1 billion in investment over 20 years (from 2012 Feasibility Study – projection of incremental investment - http://www.lastreetcar.org)

CHARLOTTE, NC (Projected 1.5 mile starter line - 2014): 10 mile route - $3.5 billion in investment over 25 years* (from 2008 Feasibility Study- projection of incremental investment – www.charmeck.org)

ATLANTA, GA (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”) | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 36 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study |

A ¼ MILE WALKING RADIUS ENCOMPASSES APPROXIMATELY 3 BLOCKS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE STREETCAR LINE AND REPRESENTS THE TARGET AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL. ADDITIONAL PARCELS MAY BE INFLUENCED BY STREETCAR LINE, INCLUDING LARGE PROPERTIES SUCH AS THE CORTEX SITE, DEPENDING ON THEIR ACCESSIBILITY TO FIGURE 10 - STREETCAR DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR OTHER FORMS OF TRANSIT. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 37 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

EXISTING HOT SPOTS AND DESTINATIONS The hot spots diagram for the St. Louis Streetcar line, shown in Figure 11 | By mapping locations of existing activities, planners can determine future below, identifies several areas of activity including the Washington Avenue areas of potential new private development and investment. Loft District, Laclede’s Landing, the Civic Center, Grand Center, Central West End and in North St. Louis. The hot spots are color coded based on type, users EXISTING HOT SPOTS and frequency of use: Hot spots are current areas of activity that attract people at different times of the ORANGE: major campus/employment locations day. Hot spots include various types of activity; centers of retail, large places of RED: Civic centers employment, civic destinations, transportation centers and cultural amenities. PURPLE: Centers – attractions and destinations A hot spots diagram illustrates where these nodes of activities take place. By YELLOW: Sports destinations overlaying several hot spot types, patterns develop to help identify centers. BLUE: Tourist/entertainment LILAC: Transportation

MAJOR CAMPUS/EMPLOYMENT LOCATIONS the streetcar, accessibility to these amenities broadens and links civic amenities | The orange districts are major campus/employment locations along on the river with downtown and Central West End. Amenities include: the streetcar route. The campus in the western portion of the map includes Cortex, Washington University Medical Center, St. Louis Children’s Hospital, City Garden Barnes Jewish Hospital, Siteman Cancer Center and the Rehabilitation Institute Courthouses of St. Louis. This biotechnical campus employs over 32,000 people and would City Hall be an anchor for the western end of the streetcar line. Public Libraries Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis 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.

CIVIL CENTERS

CENTERS: ATTRACTIONS AND DESTINATIONS 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 CAMPUS/EMPLOYMENT Avenue and Euclid Avenue, to a center in its infancy on 14th Street in North St. Louis.

CIVIC CENTERS Each of these centers includes the opportunity for growth with the streetcar. Civic Centers on the streetcar line provide a direct connection to The streetcar extends the reach of these districts by expanding the distance churches, parks, and services for residents and visitors. With the addition of that a user can live without a car while maintaining access to activity centers and amenities. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 39 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Centers shown on the diagram below include: Chaifetz Arena | Scottrade Center Old North St. Louis Busch Stadium Euclid Avenue at Central West End Edward Jones Dome Olive Street and Lindell Boulevard at Grand Center 14th Street at North St. Louis Washington Avenue at the CBD/Loft District

SPORTS

ATTRACTIONS AND DESTINATIONS 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 SPORTS areas and encourages the use of the transit from one destination to another, Currently the downtown sports venues are accessible by MetroLink adding a viable route between destinations at Grand Center and the river for to the St. Louis region. However, the venues are not well connected to the regional visitors. Additional connectivity encourages visitors to expand their other retail activity centers outside of downtown. The venues at Saint Louis reach by creating opportunities to visit other attractions in the area including: University are disconnected by the interstate and not connected to MetroLink, making them auto-oriented destinations. Connectivity with the streetcar Peabody Opera House increases the accessibility of SLU and Chaifetz Arena to destinations. Gateway Arch Grand Center The streetcar also expands the possibility of connecting housing and Lumiere Place entertainment in Grand Center, Central West End, Northside and downtown Laclede’s Landing to the existing sports complexes, increasing the economic impact and value Convention Center along the streetcar line. Sports venues that are affected include: Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis Forest Park | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 40 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study |

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.

Following the evaluation of the existing hot spots, opportunities for | development and potential new hot spots were identified in Figure 12. 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.

DEVELOPMENT TYPES This bird’s eye analysis provides a framework to estimate potential growth and | Areas were identified had a potential to change because of the number of development accelerated by the streetcar. The different colors on Figure 13 underutilized, or vacant properties or the current planned development could represent different building types, uses, construction costs, square footages be enhanced with a streetcar. These areas were evaluated for development and the percentage of each parcel that is developed. A further discussion of potential based on location, local development trends and current centers. each development type is included in the following sections.

EMPLOYMENT BUILDINGS (based on trends and forecasts) and overall building square footages after | Employment buildings are dedicated to office/commercial uses and can accommodating parking, services and open space. It was estimated that for be occupied by a single company or leased by multiple tenants. Currently each employment site 35 percent of the site would be developed with an Downtown St. Louis is the largest employment center in the region with over average six story building. 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 Employment Buildings Assumptions: streetcar route. The streetcar will also improve the connection between the Six stories downtown employment center, Central West End, BJC/Washington University 35 percent of site developed Medical Center and Cortex. A potential area of employment expansion is in Approximately 200 square feet per employee 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

MIXED USE BUILDING Mixed Use Buildings Assumptions: | Mixed use buildings provide an opportunity for ground floor retail/commercial Ground floor commercial and upper story residential and/or office space. This type of building is Housing/office upper floors common in Downtown St. Louis, Central West End and Grand Center. The Four stories neighborhood scale scale (height and massing) of mixed use buildings can vary based on location. 12 stories in Downtown/Midtown For the development potential model two different mixed use building types 35 percent of parcel developed were used: a four-story neighborhood mixed use building and a 12-story urban 1,100 square foot for residential units on upper floors 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.

HIGH RISE HOUSING MID-RISE HOUSING | The potential for new construction of high rise housing in St. Louis is due to the Mid-rise housing is a new building type in the St. Louis market that is appealing large number of buildings available for rehabilitation. This market limitation to many users. Mid-rise housing can include urban townhouses, apartments is reflected in the development potential model, as only one major siteis or a mix of both. This building type can also provide small outdoor living space identified as a potential site for new high rise housing. This site would serve as for residents and a pleasant street frontage, while achieving a fairly dense the western anchor for the Gateway Mall. An assumption of 50 percent parcel urban environment (20 to 30 units per acre). Mid-rise housing is appropriate development takes into account garage parking, additional open space and for the streetcar line between current centers of activity, providing residential service locations. opportunities for students, professors, downtown workers and those that are generally attracted to urban living. High Rise Housing Assumptions: 10 Stories In the development-potential model, general assumptions were made for mid- Residential units average at 1,100 square feet rise buildings including the estimated number of square feet per unit (1,100 50 percent of parcel developed 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: ATTACHED/DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY | 4 Stories On the Northside of the proposed streetcar route there is an opportunity Mixture of walk units and apartments for attached/detached urban single family housing as part of an urban Units average at 1,100 square feet neighborhood with transit. This building type is preferred by families, baby boomers and people who want to live in a walkable neighborhood with access to transit. Single family housing, both attached and detached, can be more urban in nature with densities between 8 and 12 units per acre, while also providing a more spacious living environment and dedicated private outdoor space.

In the development potential model, general assumptions were made for single family buildings based on the total acreage of the development type. These assumptions include a density of 10 units per acre and an average of 2,000 sq. ft. per single family housing unit.

Attached Single Family Assumptions: 10 units per acre Mixture of townhouses and houses (attached and detached) PORTLAND, OR - MID RISE HOUSING Units average at 2,000 square feet

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL – BY NEIGHBORHOOD 10 years. The development impact is shown in Table 8; assumptions per | Each neighborhood along the proposed streetcar route provides different building type were not used for this model, as the real value is known. opportunities for development. These opportunities are based on building type, location and access to employment/amenities and are projected at 5, 10 TABLE: 8 CENTRAL WEST END - DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL and 20 year growth potential. Development Potential Absorption Total New Housing Employees Commercial (Year Realized) Rate Investment Units SQ FT CENTRAL WEST END 2017 (5 Yr) 50% $153,500,000 176 750 30,000 Central West End is a lively, vibrant neighborhood and employment center that will increase in development potential with the addition of the streetcar. 2022 (10 Yr) 50% $93,500,000 750 Two announced projects could be enhanced by the streetcar; the Cortex Phase TOTAL 100% $247,000,000 176 1,500 30,000 II campus expansion (employment buildings) and a new Whole Foods grocery store and luxury apartments (mixed-use buildings). Additional opportunities in the area include BJC campus expansion opportunities and small infill projects. GRAND CENTER These announced project values have been added to the development Grand Center is a center for the arts and a growing destination for entertainment potential at their announced value and are projected to be completed within with close proximity to Saint Louis University and a growing daytime and nighttime population. Growth in Grand Center can be attributed tothe MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT commitment by Saint Louis University and several developers to revitalize the HIGH RISE HOUSING area. The Grand Center Framework Plan takes into account both announced MID RISE HOUSING ATTACHED/SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING 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 9 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: 9 GRAND CENTER - DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

Development Potential Absorption Total New Housing Employees Commercial (Year Realized) Rate Investment Units SQ FT

2017 (5 Yr) 50% $147,000,000 680 N/A 41,000 2022 (10 Yr) 50% $147,000,000 680 N/A 41,000 CENTRAL WEST END TOTAL 100% $294,000,000 1,360 82,000 | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 48 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

MIXED USE | EMPLOYMENT HIGH RISE HOUSING MID RISE HOUSING ATTACHED/SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING

GRAND CENTER GRAND CENTER TO 18TH STREET

GRAND CENTER TO 18TH STREET Table 10 below outlines the development potential based on construction/ Development opportunities between the Grand Center district and downtown acquisition costs ($120 per square feet) from the Grand Center Framework are based on projections of residential growth in the corridor. There are Plan and the building development types described above. With the addition currently several vacant and underutilized parcels in this corridor that are of the streetcar, development in this area could be enhanced, taking 20 years available for new development. to be fully realized in a conservative model.

The streetcar would accelerate development in this area by linking the major TABLE 10: GRAND CENTER TO 18TH STREET - DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL employment centers with transit. Young professionals and baby boomers Development Absorption Total New Housing Commercial would both be attracted to new housing options. Potential Employees (Year Realized) Rate Investment Units SQ FT

2017 (5 Yr) 25% $72,774,636 527 N/A N/A

2022 (10 Yr) 25% $145,549,272 528 N/A N/A 2032 (20 Yr) 50% $145,549,272 1,055 N/A N/A

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.

TABLE 11: NORTHSIDE - DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

Development Potential Absorption Total New Housing Employees Commercial (Year Realized) Rate Investment Units SQ FT

2017 (5 Yr) 5% $31,724,942 153 300 5,245 2022 (10 Yr) 35% $222,074,594 528 2,100 36,716 2032 (20 Yr) 60% $380,699,304 1,055 3,600 62,942

TOTAL 100% $634,498,840 2,110 6,000 104,903

A mix of development types, including single family housing, is viable in the 14th Street/North Florissant Avenue corridor. With stops along the north- MIXED USE south route, people have the opportunity to live, work and play along the EMPLOYMENT HIGH RISE HOUSING streetcar route. The line adds viability to the redevelopment of the Northside, MID RISE HOUSING but it will take more time to be realized than redevelopment along other areas ATTACHED/SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING of the streetcar line. Table 11 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 4-story mixed use buildings and single family housing) from the Grand Center Framework Plan, as estimated by Lawrence Group, and the building development types described above.

The development in this area is projected to begin with incremental investment, with 5 percent taking place in the first five years, 35 percent taking place by 2022 and the additional 60 percent of development taking place by year 2032. NORTHSIDE | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 50 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

DOWNTOWN | Downtown St. Louis is primed for new investment and development. While the existing zoning in Downtown has limited land use restrictions, 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 MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT stories was calculated as office space and 75 percent as residential units, as HIGH RISE HOUSING MID RISE HOUSING shown in Table 12. DOWNTOWN ATTACHED/SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING

The exact square footage of the Municipal Courts Building was also included in the calculation since the redevelopment of that building is being pursued CONCLUSIONS through a Request for Qualifications. The costs were estimated at $140 per New development could potentially spur $578 million in development in the square foot for the Municipal Courts Building and $120 per square foot for first five years, with an approximate total of $2.16 billion over 20 years. These other mixed use opportunities. development numbers are broken down by type in Table 12. Appendix C provides the development potential calculations.

TABLE 12: DOWNTOWN - DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL TABLE 13: STREETCAR ROUTE - DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

Development Development Potential Absorption Total New Housing Employees Commercial Potential Total New Housing Employees Commercial (Year Realized) Rate Investment Units SQ FT (Year Realized) Investment Units SQ FT

2017 (5 Yr) 25% $172,641,980 985 1,805 116,001 2017 (5 Yr) $577,641,558.0 2,521 2,855 192,246 2022 (10 Yr) 25% $172,641,980 984 1,804 116,002 2022 (10 Yr) $1,081,265,846 2,720 4,654 193,718

2032 (20 Yr) 50% $345,283,960 1,969 3,609 232,003 2032 (20 Yr) $498,257,900 4,079 7,209 294,945 TOTAL 100% $690,567,920 3,938 7,218 464,006 TOTAL $2,157,165,305 9,320 14,718 680,909 | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 51 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

As a conservative estimate, these development opportunities project 20 years Identify absorption rate of real estate market along streetcar route. | of development potential with parcels that have been identified as ripe in 2012. By taking into account the absorption rate of the Downtown St. Louis This does not take into account additional development and/or redevelopment market, in conjunction with the market demand and absorption rates of opportunities or the incremental value to existing development added by the North St. Louis, Central West End and Grand Center, a clear estimate on streetcar. the value of total potential development leveraged through the addition of the streetcar can be measured. NEXT STEPS To validate and test these initial qualitative/estimated results a complete and full market study is necessary. This market study should:

Analyze baseline development potential vs. moderate growth and accelerated growth scenarios as a result of the streetcar. Several other cities have pursued this option to conservatively estimate the development potential of a streetcar route. While Portland has seen accelerated growth, it is valuable to measure a moderate growth rate to ensure the viability of the streetcar route.

Conduct a full cost-benefit analysis to look at 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. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 52 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

a two-way cycle track, bike lanes or sharrow markings. Considerations must | STREETSCAPING also be made for streetcar track and bike facilities conflicts. Other cities have The St. Louis Streetcar provides an opportunity to invest in the two corridors used an informational campaign to build awareness for the streetcar -cyclist and spur new private development. The streetscaping elements are conflicts. St. Louis should engage the local cycling community early inthe complementary to the streetcar system. While the benefits of streetscaping process to build support and design an integrated network. 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 SIDEWALKS implementation will be directly impacted by the funding available forthe Sidewalks are an essential component of any streetscaping project. Sidewalks project. Form based code is being implemented in Central West End and being on an urban, transit corridor should be as wide as possible to provide considered in downtown. This will also impact streetscaping and development opportunities for outdoor dining, high pedestrian traffic and landscaping. potential. 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 COMPONENTS OF STREETSCAPING add aesthetic value to the streetscape, therefore improving the private ON-STREET PARKING investment value. Along the St. Louis Streetcar route, sidewalks should be On-street parking is a vital component to a successful street. On-street parking 10 feet wide at a minimum, including landscaping. For outdoor dining to be serves several functions in addition to parking for shoppers, visitors, and successful a sidewalk should be a minimum of 16 feet wide. The sidewalks can residents of the adjacent development. It provides a buffer for pedestrians grow on the streetcar line through changes in setbacks and build-to lines or in and promotes walkability along the corridor. On a streetcar corridor, on-street changes to on-street parking. 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 STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPING amenity at the mixed-use centers along the streetcar line: downtown, Street trees and landscaping serve a variety of functions in the streetscape. Midtown, Northside, Grand Center and Central West End. 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 BIKE FACILITIES sidewalk. Street trees provide an environmental benefit also by reducing the Bike facilities on the streetcar corridor help to connect users to the streetcar carbon dioxide and heat island effect found in urban environments. Essential and encourage a diversity of transportation modes. With modern streetcar to the life of street trees is providing adequate infrastructure and space to routes, there are several conflicts between streetcars and bikes that have support the health of trees and landscaping. Tree selection and planter type made the integration complicated with new streetcar systems. The type also adds to the urban character. A grated tree well with a continuous sidewalk of bike facility must be integrated into the design. Whether or not there is is typical of an urban environment and transit corridor. This is most appropriate a parallel route or specific bike facilities is a decision that should bemade for the streetcar corridor. during the design process through an evaluation of priorities and development opportunities. There are several options for bike facilities including options for | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 53 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

FIXTURES AND WAYFINDING and are typically found in tree wells. Rain gardens are most typically block | Additional amenities for pedestrians, including appropriately scaled light scale improvements that channel water into a central location, allowing it to fixtures, benches and wayfinding signs, add value to the streetscape by filter into the ground before entering into the greater stormwater system. improving safety, providing wayfinding information and spots to enjoy the street. Selecting these amenities provides an enhancement to the streetcar Pervious Sidewalks and Parking line; therefore specific care should be taken when selecting the style of To provide additional filtration, cities are incorporating pervious pavements fixtures and street furniture. There are two major options for street furniture and pavers into their sidewalks and parking areas. With less constant load, selection that can be explored as part of the streetcar process: one option parking areas and sidewalks provide additional space for infiltration without is to create a template for the entire streetcar corridor. Another option is to the maintenance associated with pervious materials on travel lanes with work with each community along the route to create their own aesthetic and frequent truck traffic and high load volumes. palette unique to each neighborhood. Either option is viable and can be an opportunity for creativity along the streetcar route. Convention and Visitors Turf Streetcar Track Commission (CVC) has started a wayfinding program for St. Louis. These street A turf streetcar track is the best way to provide additional filtration signs could be utilized for streetcar wayfinding. opportunities for stormwater within the streetcar corridor. Commonplace in Europe, a turf track adds environmental benefits, as well as providing a GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE dedicated lane to the streetcar, decreasing the travel times along the route. Along the streetcar route, there is an opportunity for green infrastructure Common misconceptions about turf tracks are the maintenance requirements, improvements in the streetscape to enhance the water quality in the region which are often incorporated into typical streetscape maintenance. by increasing infiltration and incremental remediation. Green infrastructure is simple to incorporate with other streetscape improvements and can add additional value to property on the streetcar line. Typical types of green infrastructure are further discussed below. St. Louis is currently adopting a Sustainability Plan that will be used as a guide in future phases of the project.

STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS Bioswales and Rain 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 KENOSHA, WI - TURF TRACK | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 54 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

STREET SECTIONS AND ILLUSTRATIONS | The street sections and illustrations represent opportunities to transform the corridor within the existing right-of-way and pavement width. Figure 14 below describes the sections and rendering locations.

The street sections were developed for Olive Street and 8th Street, Olive | and 18th Street, and Lindell and Sarah, as shown in Figures 15 and 16. 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 17-24). During future phases of the downtown streetcar more study should be given to the specific amenities of the streetscape improvements.

FIGURE 17 - BIRD’S EYE LOOKING NORTH ON 14TH STREET: CURRENT VIEW

FIGURE 19 - CHESTNUT STREET AT 7TH STREET: CURRENT VIEW

FIGURE 21 - OLIVE STREET AT 9TH STREET: CURRENT VIEW

FIGURE 23 - OLIVE STREET AT COMPTON STREET: CURRENT VIEW

for the streetcar are the same gauge as light-rail. If in the future, the region | GUIDEWAY wanted to use either or both corridors for light-rail, the existing infrastructure For the purposes of this study, only the general location of the streetcar may be able to be utilized. guideway within the street right-of-way was determined. More specific alignment geometry will be developed in the environmental analysis phase of TRAFFIC SIGNALS the project. Described below are the typical guideway elements considered Streetcars will operate on both non-exclusive and semi-exclusive guideways. during this feasibility phase. Intersections with non-exclusive guideways will be controlled primarily by traffic signals and in certain instances four-way stops may be used. Ifthe The guideway consists of the physical track and systems elements needed to streetcar must turn at an intersection with a transit only traffic signal phase, guide and power the streetcar vehicle. Two types of guideway are anticipated, additional train control equipment may be required. Intersections with semi- non-exclusive and semi-exclusive. Non-exclusive guideway is located in a exclusive guideways will also require additional traffic phases. If left turns by shared traffic lane used by both streetcars and motor vehicles. Semi-exclusive motor vehicles are allowed, additional train control equipment will also be guideway is located in a transit only lane which is not to be shared with required to control the streetcar movements. It has not been determined at motor vehicles. Most of the proposed streetcar system will use non-exclusive this time if the streetcar movement will be given priority at semi-exclusive guideways except for the portion of Olive Street from 14th Street to Grand intersections to maintain headways and schedules during revenue service. A Boulevard, where the existing right-of-way is wide enough for a semi-exclusive detailed traffic analysis will be performed in the next phase of the project to right-of-way. determine if priority is needed.

Non-exclusive guideway typically consists of two tracks embedded in an eight- TRACTION POWER foot wide concrete track slab placed flush with the roadway. Semi-exclusive The streetcar vehicle will be electrically powered with the necessary current guideway typically consists of two tracks embedded in concrete and located provided by an overhead contact system (OCS) that is fed by a series of in the center median of the roadway. This guideway would be approximately traction power substations (TPSS) located at intervals along the alignment. It 24-feet wide and separated from the roadway by continuous raised trackway is proposed that the streetcar system use low-power “feeder-less” substations curbs except through intersections. In both cases the rails are also encased which are smaller and easier to site than conventional substations. The in an elastomeric material that provides electrical isolation and vibration number and spacing of the substations will be dependent on the headways, dampening. speed, grades, redundancy requirements, and HVAC systems on the vehicles. Generally at least one TPSS will be required every half mile. SPECIAL TRACKWORK Special trackwork (turnouts and diamond crossings) will be required at all OCS poles will be located along the guideway at an interval of 80-90 feet. The terminal stations to allow vehicles to reverse direction and at the track junctions poles will have cantilever arms to support the contact wire over the centerline on 14th Street to allow vehicles to make the required movements in and out of the guideway at a minimum wire height of approximately 18’-0” above the of the downtown loop. All turnouts would be powered and signalized. Tracks roadway. Non-exclusive guideways will generally have the OCS poles set about | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 62 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

two-feet behind the roadway curb. Semi-exclusive guideway will have the OCS | pole centered in the roadway median between the two tracks.

STREET RECONSTRUCTION Two approaches can be taken regarding street reconstruction to install the guideway. The first and more expensive approach is to reconstruct the entire streetscape from building face to building face, replacing sidewalks, curbs, lighting, roadway pavements, and drainage structures. The second and less expensive approach would be to maintain the existing street grades, drainage, curb lines, and sidewalks to the maximum extent possible. New curbs and sidewalks would be reconstructed only where necessary to accommodate the guideway and stop platforms. Existing street surfaces that remain would be overlaid and new pavement markings installed. Existing street lights and trees would also be maintained.

Also, depending on the surrounding streetscape at each platform, landscaping | STATIONS in the form of planters or street trees may be a desirable design feature. The stations for a streetcar system are typically simpler in design than the more substantial and expensive stations associated with a light rail system. All station stops must be designed to be fully American Disabilities Act (ADA) Most often streetcar stations, or more appropriately stops, resemble the type accessible. Since the streetcar route is shared with bus routes, the platforms of improvements associated with bus systems. should also be designed to be compatible for use by the buses.

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.

VEHICLES URBAN FIT | Streetcar vehicles are flexible in design and size. Vehicles can be smaller than The St. Louis Streetcar will have modern vehicles intended to attract high daily light rail vehicles, about 60-65 feet in length (the size of an articulated bus), ridership and to provide a comfortable, reliable and smooth ride. As portrayed and run as single units. However, vehicles can be as large as light rail vehicles, in the photographs, the streetcars are powered by overhead wires, similar to such as Atlanta’s streetcar system, shown below, which is approximately 90 MetroLink and available in a range of sizes. The vehicles ultimately selected feet long. for St. Louis would reflect required passenger capacity, including that resulting from potential system expansion. They operate in shared street lanes with other traffic, but can also operate in a separate guideway. They can traverse sharper curves than light rail trains, thus GENERAL DESCRIPTION fitting the urban street pattern and intersections. They are quiet and do not A modern streetcar is electrically powered, and offers curb-level boarding. emit exhaust fumes. Thus, they fit well in urban neighborhoods It is air-conditioned and heated, and provides seating for 30-50 people, plus space for standing passengers. The interior design also provides space for PERFORMANCE mobility devices, as well as bicycles. The look is streamlined, similar to light Streetcars are designed to perform best on city streets and in urban rail vehicles, and the operator sits in a cab at either end of the car. 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 AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION GUIDELINE | treatments that allow the streetcar to have priority when passing through a The Streetcar Subcommittee of the American Public Transportation Association signalized intersection. Most designs have two or more double-wide doors has been developing a Guideline document, which will be extremely useful to per side, allowing for quick exit and entry, and boarding is at car floor level. 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. RECENT MARKET DEVELOPMENTS Federal regulations require that cars purchased as part of a system funded by federal dollars must meet the requirements of the Buy America Act. As more and more streetcar lines have moved from the planning stage into actual construction, the market has grown, and more firms have entered the marketplace. This competition gives new streetcar projects a choice of vehicles, and provides for competitive procurements.

At the present time, there are five firms which have contracts to supply streetcars for projects in the United States, Pacifica Marine, Brookfield, United Streetcar, Siemens and CAF. The vehicles of some these 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.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY LOCATION | Location should be directly on the line, or a very short distance from it, in order The Operating and Maintenance Facility (OMF) is the functional hub of the to minimize extra track and OCS costs and operating costs for empty vehicles. streetcar line. The OMF houses the day-to-day operations for the system As part of this study, suitable areas for the O&M facility were identified on the including: east-west corridor between Compton and Jefferson Avenues and the north- south corridor between Biddle and Madison Streets. OPERATIONS Log in and log out vehicle operators, assign vehicles, dispatch vehicles; URBAN FIT Training, both introductory and refresher; Streetcars serve urban neighborhoods. A maintenance facility needs to Central location for posting notices and other system communications; be carefully designed in order to respect that fact. This means attention and to issues such as noise, light spill, and run-off from car washing. Control center for real-time system monitoring and response to Landscape buffering may be considered in some applications. abnormal situations. The facility may also become a part of the neighborhood by incorporating some non-traditional functions. For example, it may MAINTENANCE provide community meeting space or a transit information center and Daily inspection of vehicles, and routine preventive inspections; pass sales outlet.

Diagnostics and testing; LITTLE ROCK, AR - OMF Component removal and refitting, and some repair work; Subsystem removal and refitting; Cleaning; Administrative functions related directly to daily maintenance; and Training, both introductory and refresher

The design of the facility will arise from the need to fulfill these functions in a safe and efficient manner, as will the determination of the exact location. There is fairly wide latitude in determining the site location.

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS A streetcar OMF needs to perform the functions outlined above in an efficient manner. At this phase of project development, only a few basic parameters need to be known. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 67 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

LAND REQUIRED | Depending on the shape of the parcel, its topography, and the need for buffering for urban fit reasons, a site suitable for the average 60 feet long modern streetcars and associated inspection and preventive maintenance work will require between four and seven acres.

PREPARING FOR GROWTH It is likely that, as the study area densifies and as the north–south corridor develops, ridership will increase and service frequency may increase. If the St. Louis Streetcar were to expand, there are several options for meeting the needs of the operations and maintenance: Redevelop the facility into another urban use Enlarge the facility by adding land Repurpose the facility to become a central streetcar shop, while storing vehicles at a new location Retain the facility to serve as a satellite for one or two lines of the enlarged system

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE During the next phase, a specific location will be identified, a preliminary environmental analysis will be undertaken and a basic design layout made. A more detailed functional description of the facility and a preliminary cost estimate will also be prepared.

annually for operations over a 20-year period. The ADIA established atax | FINANCIAL PLAN district that assessed $0.05 per $1,000 of assessed commercial value on 200 The URS Team reviewed the federal, state and local funding sources for the city blocks. The ADIA will provide $1 million of funding annually over a 20-year St. Louis Streetcar as well as peer city reviews in Atlanta, Cincinnati, Seattle period. The ADIA was essential for federal funding as Atlanta’s initial federal and Kansas City. It is assumed that the project will require significant federal application was rejected due to insufficient local funding. 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 CINCINNATI, OH is building a 2-mile modern streetcar route with a total score well in the competitive funding process, especially given its strong cost of $125 million. The line is expected to open in 2014. Cincinnati received ridership and development performance. 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 On the state level, no funding is assumed, given that Missouri has historically Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant. Locally, the City funded the project provided little support for transit. Fundamental to the financial planwas through a bond package. A portion of property taxes collected by the city developing a feasible local funding strategy that could support the annual funded $28 million of the bonds. A Tax Increment Financing district funded capital and operating costs. A number of strategies are recommended, but $11 million of the project. An additional $14 million came from the 762 the critical component is the establishment of a transportation development Urban Redevelopment Tax Increment Equivalent Fund. The sale of the Blue district (TDD) with a tiered special assessment on property and assessed value. 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 PEER CITY REVIEW in funding through streetlight sale proceeds and a donation. Atlanta, Cincinnati, Seattle and Kansas City are building or have constructed a modern streetcar line. Each of the cities funded their modern streetcar SEATTLE, WA began operating the South Lake Union 1.3-mile modern projects through a combination of federal, state and local funding sources. streetcar line in 2007, with a total cost of $52.1 million. Seattle received federal assistance totaling $14.9 million. The remaining capital expenses ATLANTA, GA is currently constructing the first 2.6-mile segment of a larger were funded locally through a Local Improvement District, the State of 10-mile streetcar system. This first phase has a total cost of $70 million. Washington, and a Surplus Property Fund. The Local Improvement district Atlanta received a $48 million federal TIGER grant for capital costs. Local created a special property tax on the property owners within the district that funding for the capital costs came from the City of Atlanta, $16 million, and reflected the benefits of the streetcar investment. The district generated $26 the Atlanta Downtown Improvement District (ADIA), $6 million. The operating million in funding. The state contributed $3 million and the surplus property expenses were funded through farebox revenue, advertising funds, an funds generated an additional $8.5 million. The $2 million annual operating Atlanta car rental and hotel/motel tax, and the ADIA. The project assumed expenses were funded through a sponsorship program, station sponsorship, that at least 20 percent of the operating costs would come from the farebox. farebox recovery, bulk transit sales and existing transit funds. 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 | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 69 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

KANSAS CITY, MO is in the final design of a 2-mile modern streetcar line transportation act. A total of $8 billion in funding was allocated to transit | connecting Union Station to River Market. The total cost of the project is projects under SAFETEA-LU. Funding will be available through the new federal $100 million and is expected to be complete in 2015. Kansas City received transportation act, MAP-21. 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 SMALL STARTS – This is part of the FTA funding program. The Small Starts tax within the district. There is also a special assessment on real estate. The program funds capital projects that either a) meet the definition of a fixed following assessments were applied depending on property type: 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 $.48 per $100 of assessed value on commercial property headways while operating 14 hours per weekday. Total Small Starts funding $.70 per $199 of assessed value on residential property cannot exceed $75 million and the total cost of the project must be less than $1.04 per $100 of assessed value on property owned by the City $250 million. $.40 per $100 of assessed value on non-profits – (assessment is capped at $250,000) TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT GENERATING ECONOMIC INVESTMENTS (TIGER) – These are competitive based grants that fund Parking spaces in public surface parking lots within the district are also surface transportation related projects that have significant impacts on the assessed annually at $.15 per parking space. The TDD is expected to generate nation, metropolitan area or region. $10 million annually. Additional funds are expected from the City and utility relocation contributions along with advertisement revenue. CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) - This federal program funds projects in air quality, non-attainment areas and maintenance FEDERAL FUNDING areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and small particulate matter (PM2.5) There are several federal funding sources available for streetcar funding. with the goal of reducing transportation-related emissions and helping Federal funding may only be used for capital costs. It does not fund the metropolitan areas comply with national ambient air quality standards. annual operation costs. Typically if a project receives federal funding, a 50 percent local match is required to receive the federal assistance. All federal URBAN CIRCULATOR GRANTS – These are part of the Section 5309 funding funds are administered through East-West Gateway Council of Governments. for exempt discretionary grants for Urban Circulator systems that support the The following federal sources have funded streetcar projects and could be Department of Transportation’s Livability Initiative. Urban Circulators include potential sources for the St. Louis Streetcar: streetcars and rubber tire trolleys. Under SAFETEA-LU, $130 million was available for streetcars nationwide. The maximum grant was $25 million. It is NEW STARTS – New Starts is a funding program through the FTA. New not known if this funding will be available under MAP-21. 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 | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 70 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

STATE FUNDING be designated as blighted, conservation or an economic development area. | On the State level funding for transit is limited. The State of Missouri has Within the City of St. Louis, property assessed values are frozen for 23 years historically given a very small amount of funding for transit operations. and property owners must make payment in lieu of taxes to a special allocation However, there are a few options on the state level being considered that fund equal to the amount the property taxes would have been but for the TIF. could provide additional funding for transit projects. These include funding Fifty percent of economic activity taxes such as sales taxes are also captured. through Missouri Department of Transportation, a Missouri Transportation There are number of existing TIFs, mostly individual buildings directly on or Tax, a gas tax and infrastructure/education bond package. Since all of these near the alignments including: proposals are in the conceptual state, no state funding was assumed for this project. However, this could change if some of these statewide transportation Old Post Office – 815 Olive Street funding proposals become a reality. Grand Center – multi-block TIF district Bell Lofts – 920 Olive Street LOCAL FUNDING Louderman Lofts – 309 North 11th Street Several funding options were considered on the local level, some new to St. Paul Brown Building – 816 Olive Street Louis and others that are more familiar. The sources that were considered Printer’s Lofts – 1601 Locust Street include: Security Building – 319 North 4th Street Lindell Apartments – 3949 Lindell Boulevard TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS (TDD) – A TDD creates MX/St. Louis Centre – 600 Washington Avenue a new funding district that can have a sales or property tax or special Park Pacific Apartments – 1226 Olive Street assessment. A vote of the registered voters within the district is required Railway Exchange – 611 Olive Street to establish the district and a second vote is required to approve the taxing St. Louis Innovation District - Forest Park Avenue and Taylor Avenue mechanism. The Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission and all 100 North Euclid – Mixed Use/Whole Foods Development location transportation authorities review the petition to create a TDD, and it requires a circuit court approval. Projects can be funded through notes, LAND VALUE TAX – This type of financing splits the tax on land and building bonds or other debt securities. TDD revenues may also be used for operating values. The tax rate on the land is increased while the tax rate on the building costs of public mass transportation systems. TDDs have been established in is decreased. This creates an incentive to build on infill lots at competitive St. Louis including a TDD to assist with operating costs of the Loop Trolley. prices and to build more densely. This requires proper zoning and land use As mentioned previously, a TDD was recently passed in Kansas City for their controls to be the most effective. This type of tax has not been implemented streetcar project. widely.

TAX INCREMENTAL FINANCING (TIFS) – TIFs capture incremental SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS – This type of financing is applied to commercial, tax revenues from increases in local property and economic activity taxes. industrial or residential land uses within a defined district. There are a variety Revenues are used to finance the proposed project. The project area must of methodologies available for implementation. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 71 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS - Public Private Partnerships create a The goals of the local finance plan were to: | contract between a public agency or agencies and a private sector entity. This allows greater private sector participation in infrastructure and transportation establish sufficient revenue to fund the annual operating and capital projects. Often it is used as a mechanism for advancing a project more quickly. costs of the project; A public private partnership has funded several transit projects nationwide be implementable; including, the Metro Transit Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the have support from stakeholders; Air Train at JFK airport in New York, the Portland Metropolitan Area Express meet federal expectations; and (MAX) Airport extension in Oregon, and the BART Oakland Airport Connector have no financial risk to Metro. in California. RECOMMENDATIONS NEW MARKETS TAX CREDITS – These credits encourage investment in It is recommended that all federal sources be considered. The size and scope low-income communities. Corporations/individuals receive a tax credit for of the final project will determine whether New Starts or Small Starts funding investing in community development entities. The community development is more appropriate. Other grant sources such as CMAQ, Tiger and possibly entity then uses this investment to make investment or loans into qualified Urban Circulator, if available, should be considered. Regardless the type of active low income community businesses. Political subdivisions and local grant, it is important that project receive at least 50 percent in federal funding. governments do not quality as community development entities, but not- for-profit organizations may quality. The available funding is limited and very The Finance and Steering Committee recommended that a TDD be the primary competitive. This is a source to help bridge a financing gap, not as a significant local funding source for the St. Louis Streetcar project. The TDD would have a funding source. special assessment on land square footage and assessed value.

PARKING FEES – A surcharge on parking fees at City-owned garages and or As the corridor has tremendous diversity in land uses, from multi-story meters. A certain percentage of the fee is allocated for the infrastructure or commercial, multi-and single-family residential, retail, mixed-use, institutional, transportation projects. This type of fee was recently implemented for Kansas vacant land and parking lots, one type of assessment would unfairly burden City streetcar project. A $.15 per space fee is charged annually for city owned certain land uses. This combined assessment strategy will help boost the lots in the TDD. San Francisco also has a parking fee program that helps to fund existing investment while encourage future development in vacant and/or the operation of the MUNI system. Their program has been very successful for underutilized properties. over 20 years. This has not been implemented in St. Louis. A tiered assessment is also recommended. Properties directly along the Additional local funding sources could come from private donors, sponsorships, alignment would pay the highest rate, and properties on each block beyond media hub investors and advance ticket sales. 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. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 72 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Based on assessment data from the City of St. Louis, a TDD for the corridor is Table 14 provides a financial overview of the St. Louis Streetcar project. The | expected to generate approximately $10 million annually. The calculation did matrix assumes that the project receives federal funding for 50 percent of not include any non-profit and institutional properties. the total capital costs. The first two columns represent the local financial share, $120 million and $100 million. The final column represents the project The alignment has the potential to eliminate one or two Metro bus routes due overview if the east-west corridor terminated at Grand Boulevard and included to duplicative service. A certain percentage of the operational savings from the entire north-south corridor. The overview indicates that even without not providing these routes could be an annual revenue source. This would funding from the major institutions in the corridor or parking fee revenues the have to be negotiated with Metro in future phases of the project. project can pay for itself, under two of the scenarios considered.

The farebox is expected to provide approximately $3.5 to $3.0 million based NEXT STEPS on Metro’s current fare policies. Additional funding could come from a new As part of the next phase, a more detailed financial and management plan will parking fee on meters and or garages. The details of this plan including be required that meets federal standards. During that phase, the details of the potential revenue estimates would have to be worked out with City ofSt. proposed financial strategy will be further refined. Louis’ Treasurer’s office in future phases.

TABLE 14: STREETCAR FINANCIAL OVERVIEW

$120 M $100 M Terminates at Expenses and Revenues Local Match Local Match Grand*

EXPENSES Annual Capital $7.3 M $6.0 M $5.0 M O&M $9.7 M $4.8 M $4.0 M Total Expenses $17.0 M $10.8 M $9.0 M

REVENUES Farebox Recovery $3.5 M $3.0 M $1.5 M TDD $10 M $10 M $7.0 M Bus Reconfiguration $1.0 M $1.0 M $.7 M Total Revenue $14.5M $14.0 M $9.2 M Difference $-2.5M +$3.2 M +$0.2 M *includes north-south alignment and east-west alignment to Grand | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | 73 | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

An entity will also need to be identified that can help facilitate the campaign | NEXT STEPS to establish the proposed transportation development district and detailed As was noted in the financial plan, it is assumed in this point of project financing plan. development that substantial federal capital funding, as much as 50 percent, would be required, a very common assumption in early planning phases of a This entity can be an existing group or organization or a new onecanbe transit project. To be eligible to seek federal funding, the streetcar project created specifically for this project. After that, the next technical phase of needs to be adopted into East-West Gateway Council of Government’s long- project development would be a federally required environmental analysis led range transportation plan. 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.

QUESTION #1: SELECT THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT I would move to this TDD. BENEFITS YOU THINK A STREETCAR SYSTEM WOULD BRING TO THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS. If this is being modeled after other cities I think the differences of the cultures All along Lindell are a series of successful nodes, but they are effectively need to be considered. stripped of cohesion by dead space between. St. Louis is a decentralized city Increase population density in urban core while not increasing other expensive - we need to think of “downtown” as a continuous strip running down Lindell, infrastructure. these pieces cannot survive independent of each other. It is a step in the direction of a more civilized city. This is a nationwide trend. All of the above. Necessary to attract talent and resources here. All of those! It’s hard to decide, all about equally important in forming the downtown we Anything that benefits pedestrians will lead to improvements in all the areas really need and deserve. listed. If you check one you’re checking them all. It’s hard to pick only three - some are overlapping. Several happening Attract Tourists simultaneously would enhance the quality, which would attract new residents.

Clean up the air Not sure, need to see impact of before and after from other cities.

Connect Neighborhoods Please consider extending north to south in city of St. Louis (i.e. connection to south side neighborhoods) Environmentally friendly Provide destinations for world tourists who enjoy seeing new streetcar Excellent way to add life (people) to areas. operations. Go to Portland to see what streetcars can do for a city. Retain graduating residents. I believe this system will make our city’s great cultural institutions much more Retain graduating residents. I Support this project! It worked in Portland, accessible to visitors and make STL a true “Green City,” Emphasizing our Seattle, Charlotte, and it will work in LA. I cannot wait to cheerlead for this strengths. project. I suspect your ridership estimates are on the low side. This will become “the” Streetcar network would help increase population density in the central place to live, work, or play in the region. corridor. I truly do not think the above benefits will be affected by a streetcar. The focus should still be on transit/commute, not the “novelty” of the streetcar. I wish I could check all of these options because they all sound great. Make sure is marketed as a “Job/economy creator.” | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | A-1 APPENDIX A | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study | The streetcar plan should be able to pay for itself over 20 years. Otherwise, Any plans to do a second phase serving the near south side? citizens will be less receptive to other STL improvement projects. Build it and they will come! Look at west end - south on Taylor one block past The Streetcar would conserve energy because one short acceleration of 10-15 Forest Park - West on Street next to garage - North through plaza into Euclid yards will keep it going up to 2 blocks because it runs on rails. to Lindell

This should prove to be quite the incentive to spur jobs, development, and Concerned about the disconnect in how service would coordinated with growth - make it a go! Metro.

We need new development and infill! This will make that possible. Displays very helpful in describing route, etc.

We need to do this! Doubt that 2,700 new riders are there. Prefer “Boyle” to Taylor being used. Consider that security would need to increase. That would increase % of what Welcome to the 21st Century. we already pay as owners. Concerned about high usage of Taylor for emergency Would attract more students to the universities St. Louis has to offer. vehicles and number of car accidents already at stoplights on Talyor.

Excellent work. Don’t listen to folks worried about stealing from Metro. More transit options only increase the size of the pie. QUESTION #6: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 1) Is there a way to take the line down Euclid and also reach the CWE Metro Exciting idea - will be very interested in getting more info and watching plan station? Euclid and Lindell is the hottest intersection in St. Louis and has three develop. developable corners. Also, a Whole Foods stop. 2) I’d love to see a later phase Frequent visitor to Central west end. Church and entertainment, cultural. that connects to the loop line - streetcars once ran down Waterman and Pershing to DeBalliviere. Very high residential density along those blocks - all Good Work! young professionals, many without cars. 3) This is very exciting. Great Work. Great work all of you on the committee! Thank you. Great work! This project will be incredible for the entire city and provide a A North - South streetcar system should be considered before the current starting point for good transit and connectivity! We need to weave our study. First, this would provide much needed rail public transit to areas outside neighborhoods back together and this is the way to do it! the central corridor. Second, this would likely bring new batch of commuters downtown that do not need to park, freeing up development in places Has to be reliable, clean, and safe to encourage. currently used for parking. Have you considered the establishment of an STL Sovern Wealth Fund i.e. Been more effective if each poster or at least two had a URS staff member to moving money from Wall Street to main street as a way to finance this an answer questions/comments. other local projects? | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | A-2 APPENDIX A | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

I am a motorman. I currently run streetcars at the museum of transport. People I returned to live in St. Louis after 15 years living in Chicago. Transit in some | are welcome to come out and ride from April - October. We run Thursday, ways is better here than I remember it. This Streetcar, while aesthetically Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. People can learn firsthand what streetcar is like. appealing, needs to be certain to integrate with existing transit to create a greater network. I am very concerned by the congestion streetcars would cause, and the cost benefit ratio that can reasonably be expected here. How many of the people I would like to see dedicated lanes for streetcars wherever possible. I know that promoting this were alive when streetcars roamed St. Louis streets (pre-1950) there’d be dedicated lanes on Olive between Grand and 14th but N. Florissant and use Lindell/Olive/Forest park/Taylor/Downtown streets on a regular (more is very wide and underused and I would suggest dedicated lanes there are than 3 times a week) basis? well. Love the plan though! Also as a regular bus rider I would like to say that my support is full behind this, streetcars should be as important as buses! I am VERY for this idea, but I think it needs to be explicit on how this serves a different purpose from the Metrolink and how it will not take away from that I’m a Central West End resident and I work for the project management service. Big organizations such as BJL, SLU, etc. need to be invested in this. department of Wells Fargo Advisors. I feel positive about this endeavor and hope to support this. Please keep me in the loop. I feel there should be significant effort to include AB Brewery/Soulard/ Lafayette Square in this plan. This would connect most key city attractions I’m very much in favor of the proposed streetcar in theory, although I have close to center core and make our city highly attractive to love, work, or hold criticisms about the route at both ends, as well as questions about the route a convention. Why not incorporate Union Station into the route? Seems that chosen east of 14th St. I spoke to Mr. Kinney briefly at the open-house, and asset could greatly benefit from the route and become a destination/starting he assured me that the line will be compatible with Metro’s engineering, as point. Guess OLNE is not too far but a circulator to connect to rest of route well as with Metro’s fare system (as in: I will be able to use my Metro pass would seem helpful from Union Station. on the Olive-Lindell line). I still am vague about whether the east-west line will actually just be another part of Metro’s system, as it should be. I must I have read CATO reports and spoken with families and friends who have emphasize that this compatibility is a must; I will not support the line without streetcar and am not so sure will provide a significant impact or necessary. it. You folks need to emphasize that the north-south segment, at least, is My daughter works for RAND Corporation in DC and is also providing me with nothing more than the first phase of what Metro decided on several years additional studies. ago. People who have not been following Metro’s planning might have a hard I have visited Portland, Oregon many times. To be able to get off the plane, time knowing that from your presentation so far. step on a train to downtown and switch to a streetcar to get where I want. - Let me give you one reason why I support this connectivity so much (and I fail Great system. to see why Ed Goltermann doesn’t get this). Grand Center and the CWE have I hope it gets funded / goes through! certain things that downtown doesn’t have, namely a performing arts district (the Peabody is fine but doesn’t constitute a district) and a compact restaurant I work as a sales manager at Crowne Plaza in downtown St. Louis and our district. Art galleries are spread out among the three areas. In fact, it is only guests would love a streetcar system in St. Louis! by connecting up the three districts that you have a complete downtown. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | A-3 APPENDIX A | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

I would hope this project would have open/public and financial support from I really liked the loops previously proposed for downtown (first 6th? and | Wash U/SLU, Metro, and other area entities like churches and non-profits 7th? and then 9th and 10th) because they would bring people to the heart before there is a public drive for tax dollars. This should be seen as a broad of downtown as well as considerably north and south of Olive, especially the partnership and not a taxpayer only effort. area north and west of the Convention Center that needs development, and the Cupples Station area. I’m unsure now if they were closed loops where I belong to an organization, the Gateway Men’s Chorus, that is part of a choral streetcars from both the south and north made a complete 360-degree loop. festival, called GALA, every four years. Last year they were in Denver, and are The only advantage your proposal has is if the previous plans did not make seriously considering Denver again in four years instead of always going to a complete loop, and your plan allows for that, halving the headway at least a new city, and possibly considering it for a permanent meeting place. This east of 14th. If you really want to get the line closer to the Arch and riverfront is because, in addition to having an unequalled performing arts center with areas, take it all the way to the Mansion House development and have it end three major concert halls we can use simultaneously, restaurants and hotels even east of 4th, or take it through Mansion House and across the highway to were just blocks away and served by their free 20-block long transit mall. I end at or inside the Arch grounds. Or, better yet, have a t-shaped route that have always thought Grand Center could host this event (we hosted a smaller uses Broadway and 4th as far north as Cass, and another branch south that director’s conference here for GALA several years ago that was well received). goes as far as far as Chouteau. But we will never have the restaurants and hotels we need in Grand Center alone for such a large event as GALA. When we met in Tampa several years As far as the west end of the line, I think it’s pointless to take the line all the ago, the Tampa folks told us we were the largest meeting of any type they way to the CWE and not actually go to Euclid. Either take it down Euclid AND had ever had, and they have a pretty large convention center. So it’s not just then make a jog on Forest Park and Taylor to go to the Metro bus transfer AND conventions or sports events downtown that can bring tens of thousands the Metrolink station at the Euclid stairs (and have it return exactly the same of room-nights at a time. It could be Grand Center, too, that has this effect, way, not on Taylor) or have it actually cross Euclid, turn on Kingshighway, turn but only if a streetcar goes fin a straight shot from downtown to the CWE. on Barnes Hospital Plaza, and then turn north on the stub end of Euclid that Metrolink (fine as it is) doesn’t cut it for this purpose; it doesn’t go right to remains from Barnes’ closing off the street, and end directly at the top of the Grand Center, and its stops downtown are too widely spaced and leave large stairs. This will give direct access to Forest Park, as well as provide several parts of downtown unserved. stops at the hospital complex, including directly at Children’s Hospital. Or you could even turn south on Euclid, west on Forest Park, south on Kingshighway, Going on Kingshighway for a few blocks might be complicated, but Metro east on Barnes. Or maybe you could loop around the Institute for the Deaf, like worked out other problems that were initially more challenging. You could the Kingshighway bus does, but this might be too complicated. put the streetcar on the islands that currently only define left turn lanes. Or you might see the need to clip the SE corner of Lindell and Kingshighway in Some people will tell you to use Forest Park Blvd. instead of Euclid. I’m sure a dedicated right-of-way. Or go a short block west of Kingshighway to the it would be easier in certain respects, but the usefulness (and the beauty) of curved cut-off street through the park that Metro used for a while for the bus this line is that it is a straight line from (hopefully) the Arch grounds to Forest that turned from Lindell to Kingshighway. There are problems, but I’m sure Park, exactly on the center line of the Central Corridor, making increased there are solutions. development possible equally on both sides of it. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | A-4 APPENDIX A | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

As for the north and south branches, I can see reasons why you might want to Please make/take this opportunity to allow for citizen buy-in, instead of a top- | take it further at first to the north. Politically and economically it makes sense down project to serve as someone’s crown jewel or foisted upon the public. to take it a stone’s throw from the rehabbed 14th Street development and The same people what you allow to be a part of this project will be your future to generally jump-start the North Side. I’m not so interested at this point of fares. whether it helps the McKee plan right at the beginning. Some folks I’ve heard Project pivots on future real estate development projections. Don’t do think southward is more important, but I think you made the right choice. If streetcar just to change modes of transit. City needs - and has capacity for - you feel pressed to treat the north and south equally, running the south leg growth. Growth pays for infrastructure. We need more net regional growth, down Chouteau to Jefferson would approximately equal the north leg to St. too, in order to garner support of EWG board. Don’t just move suburbs to city; Louis Avenue. suburbs won’t support that. IS there also plans to update zoning code along the streetcar line in order to Project would benefit from collaborating with Ballpark Village / Union Station - enhance ridership along the corridor? area development projects. If funding is not available for entire route, why not It would be more informative if each display board had an informed person to create a dual mode system? Designated bus lane out Lindell, connecting to the explain and answer questions. downtown streetcar circulator at Civic Center (or Union Station).

Let me know how I can help. Really exciting ideas - my hope would be that it does go down North Florissant.

Looks great! Get the funding and everything will follow. Convince the NIMBYS. Region and state should support project not just local homeowners.

Make it Happen! City really needs this - both to CWE and Old North. Check Should go for the south to serve population of south city. things out in Portland! Southside connection! My wife and I were part of the team that promoted the Memphis trolley - It has St. Louis needs to provide amenities that separate it from its suburbs and been a great success. Hope this succeeds. Would eventually like to see single other cities. trolley line connecting loop/CWE/WASH ave. with space to grow. Streetcar system should loop through BSC on vacated Euclid avenue - North/South is not strong. We never got North/South Metro. Concern of take people straight to jobs and doctors. Is this system the state of the art sustainable ridership if the speed is marginally faster than the bus. technology? We should invest only in the best possible system. Other positive developments that are “pieces of the puzzle” include re-opening Support TDD if businesses along the corridor are the only ones to be taxed. of central library, movie theatre and bookstore downtown, Peabody Opera When I visit certain European cities and see their streetcars, I think how House, Loop Trolley, arch grounds and more. Lots of good stuff happening. friendly and convenient and modern the city centers are! Our business does not derive a benefit from a streetcar. We do not want to be This is a very well thought out plan. Will use the excess capacity on Olive Blvd. taxed for a service we would not use. to amazing potential. | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | A-5 APPENDIX A | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

The Streetcar study will need to leverage all the various developments both in Very exiting - even if it requires some (small) assessment. | development as well as proposed projects. Also make sure the various users What about safety? Especially in Downtown St. Louis for people that including on-street bicycle lanes can be included within the street right-of-way. would have to walk from station to neighborhood? Traffic flow plan during This is a great opportunity for the city! construction? Can you find a way to connect to highway 40 too please?

This is by far the most substantial plan for St. Louis regeneration I have ever What are the possibilities of extending a south line down Broadway or 7th? seen. The longsighted, careful preparing of these places for further investment Would go past Busch stadium, South Broadway clubs, Soulard market, Soulard is crucial, and this solves that along with encouraging pedestrian, unplanned neighborhood, and end at AB brewery. interaction with others. Further study should be done on expansion of this Why isn’t a South City line being considered? system down the major N/S corridors to truly create a strong infrastructure for full-on regeneration in St. Louis. Why not connect this at DeBaliviere with the Loop Trolley? I do not like having an overhead wire. This is really expensive. It would be really great if the Partnership would next put energy behind raising funds for several bus rapid transit lines into Will future study be done on a connection to Soulard? downtown and improving downtown bus service in general. Lindell/Olive Would like more info about property tax increase. needs enhanced bicycle facilities that provide a high degree of comfort - buffered bike lanes, cycle tracks. This is a huge opportunity! Would be great if Would TDD be for all of St. Louis or just serviced areas? you could leave space for bikes on Lindell/Olive. Yes Please. ASAP. This looks like a wonderful idea! I live in the CWE very close to the proposed You need to secure a federal full funding grant agreement in order to sell route, and I think this would be a great step towards making St. Louis a more bonds. vibrant, attractive urban environment where people would be less dependent upon cars. The only drawback I see is that it can’t be built sooner!

This looks promising and should help develop the vacant spaces between downtown and grand center and the central west end. Should encourage higher density development creating an active urban corridor from downtown to the CWE connecting everything.

This project has a huge hill to climb, both politically and funding-wise but it can be done with a LOT of community buy-in!

This project is long overdue. Strongly support.

yard traction power, yard signals, and civil construction as needed. Non- | Cost Estimate Category Descriptions revenue and maintenance vehicles are also included. Maintenance facility Cost categories were used to summarize the unit prices into a comprehensive costs will be built up in a separate estimate. total estimate for each segment. The major cost categories are listed and described in greater detail below: SITEWORK AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS Guideway and Track Elements SITEWORK Stops This category includes the capital costs for demolition, clearing and grading, Support Facilities and subgrade preparation, landscaping, sidewalks, fencing, signage, and Sitework and Special Conditions artwork. Measurement will be by unit or the route foot depending on the type Systems of civil construction. Right-of-Way, Land, Existing Improvements Vehicles UTILITY RELOCATION Professional Services This category includes the capital costs for the relocation, upgrade or Finance Charges 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 GUIDEWAY AND TRACK ELEMENTS by allowance depending on how completely the scope of work is defined. This category includes capital costs for construction of the fixed guideway and track elements including excavation, concrete work, sub-grade preparation; SITE UTILITIES procurement and installation of trackwork including rail, fasteners, special This category includes the capital costs for basic infrastructure improvements trackwork, ties, welding, and miscellaneous track items. Measurement may including streetlights, storm drainage, or other new utility service. be by unit, route-foot, or track-foot depending on the type of construction. Measurement is by unit or route-foot depending on the type of construction

STOPS PARKING This category includes the capital costs for fixed facilities and amenities for the This category includes capital costs for the creation of parking spaces streetcar stops including platforms, shelters, lighting, signage, landscaping, including civil construction, lighting, striping, and landscaping. Unit cost and furnishings, and sidewalks for pedestrian access. Measurement will be by measurement will be by the parking stall. each stop. ROADWAYS SUPPORT FACILITIES This category includes capital costs for roadway improvements including curbs This category includes capital costs for facilities and equipment needed to and paving. Measurement will be by the unit or route-foot depending on the support operation and maintenance of the streetcar system. This category type of construction. includes administrative buildings, maintenance shops, equipment, yard tracks, SPECIAL CONDITIONS | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | B-1 APPENDIX B | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study

Environmental, other special mitigation measures, temporary facilities, or control communication. Measurement is by the unit or allowance depending | special construction needs are included in this category. Measurement and on the level of definition. costs for these items will be developed as appropriate for the known need, type, and extent of mitigation. FARE COLLECTION This category includes capital costs for a self-service, proof-of-payment fare SYSTEMS collection system on-board each vehicle. Measurement is by each unit. TRAIN CONTROL AND SIGNALS This category includes capital costs for train control and signal systems RIGHT-OF-WAY, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS including track switch control equipment, cables, train detection equipment, This category includes the capital costs for securing and providing all the and signal buildings. Measurement is by the unit or route-foot. real property rights required for the implementation of the project including acquisition of property in fee or temporary easements. Right-of-way costs will TRAFFIC SIGNALS be built up in a separate estimate. This category includes capital costs for the traffic signal improvements including traffic signal poles and heads, cabinets, conduit, and controllers. VEHICLES Measurement is by each type of traffic signal improvement. This category includes capital costs for procuring vehicles including spare parts, and manufacturing support costs. Measurement is by each vehicle and TRACTION POWER SUPPLY the number of vehicles required is based on the proposed operating plan. This category includes capital costs to supply traction power to the system. This category includes traction power substations and associated system PROFESSIONAL SERVICES equipment. Measurement is by the unit. This category includes the costs for engineering, administration and construction management services. Costs for these services will be based on a TRACTION POWER DISTRIBUTION percentage of the total cost of all direct capital cost categories except vehicles This category includes capital costs of the overhead contact system (OCS) for and right-of-way. distribution of traction power to vehicles including furnishing and installation of catenary poles and foundations, guys, anchors, contact wire, conduit, and The percentages are applied individually and not cumulatively. The following cables. Measurement is by the unit. percentages were used for this estimate based on historical costs associated with past projects, as shown in Table A1. COMMUNICATIONS This category includes capital costs for the communication system. This FINANCE CHARGES system consists of equipment for remote monitoring and control of track This category includes finance charges expected to be incurred to complete switches and signals, traction power substations, other systems equipment. It the project. Costs are derived from the Project’s financial plan. also includes radios and equipment for operator communication and central | Urban Rail Building Neighborhoods | Connecting Jobs | | | | | B-2 APPENDIX B | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study | TABLE A1: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PERCENTAGES FOR ESTIMATES Description Percentage Preliminary Engineering 5 Final Design 6 Project Management for Design and Construction 6 Construction Administration and Management 7 Insurance 1 Legal; Permits; Review Fees 2 Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3 Start-up Costs (Allowance is used) 2

St. Louis Streetcar Sta Sta Route Length FWN 11/26/2012 36,895 7.0 Mi 2012$ Summary Allocated Contingency Detail Summary SCSCCC Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extension % Total Total Total 10 GUIDEWAY AND TRACK $36,882,789 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Procure 2,532 TN $1,300 $3,291,990 15% $493,799 $3,785,789 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Install 66,060 TF $375 $24,772,500 15% $3,715,875 $28,488,375 10 12 01 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Install 15 EA $75,000 $1,125,000 15% $168,750 $1,293,750 10 12 02 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Procure 15 EA $150,000 $2,250,000 15% $337,500 $2,587,500 10 12 03 Track: Special: Track Drain 95 EA $3,500 $332,500 15% $49,875 $382,375 10 12 04 Track: Special: Noise & Vibration Dampening 4 LS $75,000 $300,000 15% $45,000 $345,000 20 STATIONS $4,200,000 20 01 01 Streetcar Stop - Side 10 EA $125,000 $1,250,000 20% $250,000 $1,500,000 20 01 02 Streetcar Stop - Center 15 EA $150,000 $2,250,000 20% $450,000 $2,700,000 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES $6,968,750 30 01 01 Operations & Maintenance Facility 1 LS $5,000,000 $5,000,000 25% $1,250,000 $6,250,000 30 01 01 Yard Track 1,000 TF $175 $175,000 25% $43,750 $218,750 30 01 01 Yard Special Trackwork 8 EA $50,000 $400,000 25% $100,000 $500,000 40 SITEWORK AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS $76,112,466 40 01 01 Demolition (Sidewalk, Curb, & Misc Concrete) 36,895 LS $15 $553,425 25% $138,356 $691,781 40 02 01 Utilities: Level 1 7,730 TF $650 $5,024,500 25% $1,256,125 $6,280,625 40 02 02 Utilities: Level 2 29,165 RF $350 $10,207,750 25% $2,551,938 $12,759,688 40 02 03 Utilities: Corrosion Testing 3 LS $50,000 $150,000 25% $37,500 $187,500 40 02 04 Utilities: Cathodic Protection 3 LS $50,000 $150,000 25% $37,500 $187,500 40 06 01 Streetcar Stop Landscaping and Irrigation 25 EA $25,000 $625,000 25% $156,250 $781,250 40 06 02 Landscaping 36,895 RF $125 $4,611,875 25% $1,152,969 $5,764,844 40 06 02 Sidewalk Construction 922,375 SF $10 $9,223,750 25% $2,305,938 $11,529,688 40 06 02 Intersection Rebuild 51 EA $150,000 $7,650,000 25% $1,912,500 $9,562,500 40 06 03 Street Lighting 7 MI $135,200 $956,361 25% $239,090 $1,195,451 40 06 04 Public Artwork (1% of Construction) 1 LS $1,171,667 $1,171,667 $1,171,667 40 07 01 Roadway: Curb & Gutter 73,790 LF $30 $2,213,700 25% $553,425 $2,767,125 40 07 02 Roadway: Pavement (6" AC/12" AB) 277,442 SY $45 $12,484,875 25% $3,121,219 $15,606,094 40 07 03 Roadway: Signing & Stripping 7 MI $200,000 $1,414,735 25% $353,684 $1,768,419 40 08 01 Temporary Facilities (5% of Construction) 1 LS $5,858,336 $5,858,336 $5,858,336 50 SYSTEMS $24,904,500 50 01 01 Signal System: Power Turnouts 14 EA $75,000 $1,050,000 20% $210,000 $1,260,000 50 01 02 Signal System: TWC 14 EA $13,000 $182,000 20% $36,400 $218,400 50 02 01 Traffic Signal Modification 51 EA $150,000 $7,650,000 20% $1,530,000 $9,180,000 50 03 01 Traction Power: TPSS Units 8 EA $550,000 $4,400,000 20% $880,000 $5,280,000 50 03 02 Traction Power: TPSS Screenwalls 8 EA $75,000 $600,000 20% $120,000 $720,000 50 03 03 Traction Power: OCS (Foundations, Poles, and Wire) 463 EA $12,000 $5,556,750 20% $1,111,350 $6,668,100 50 04 01 Communications: Streetcar Stops 25 EA $25,000 $625,000 20% $125,000 $750,000 50 04 02 Communications: TPSS 8 EA $15,000 $120,000 20% $24,000 $144,000 50 04 03 Communications: Vehicle 8 EA $15,000 $120,000 20% $24,000 $144,000 50 05 01 Fare Collection 8 EA $50,000 $400,000 20% $80,000 $480,000 50 06 01 Control Center Equipment & Software Allowance 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 20% $10,000 $60,000

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $124,196,713 $149,068,504

60 RIGHT-OF-WAY 60 01 01 Partial Takes LS 30% 70 VEHICLES $52,371,000 70 01 01 Vehicles 11 EA $4,000,000 $44,000,000 15% $6,600,000 $50,600,000 70 04 01 Spare Parts 11 EA $100,000 $1,100,000 15% $165,000 $1,265,000 70 05 01 Manufacturing Oversight 11 EA $40,000 $440,000 15% $66,000 $506,000 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $39,742,948 80 01 01 Preliminary Engineering 5.0% $6,209,836 $6,209,836 80 02 01 Final Design 6.0% $7,451,803 $7,451,803 80 03 01 Project Management for Design & Construction 6.0% $7,451,803 $7,451,803 80 04 01 Construction Administration & Management 7.0% $8,693,770 $8,693,770 80 05 01 Insurance 1.0% $1,241,967 $1,241,967 80 06 01 Legal; Permits; Agency Review Fees 2.0% $2,483,934 $2,483,934 80 07 01 Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3.0% $3,725,901 $3,725,901 80 08 01 Start-up Costs & Agency Force Account Work 2.0% $2,483,934 $2,483,934 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $30,215,926 90 01 01 Unallocated Contingency 15.0%

Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 Sheet Summary 1 of 5 1/31/2013 APPENDIX B | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Streetcar Cost Estimate with Streetscaping continued |

St. Louis Streetcar Olive Street - Central West End to Grand Sta Sta Route Length FWN 11/26/2012 10,425 FT 2.0 Mi 2012$ Summary Allocated Contingency Detail Summary SCSCCC Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extension % Total Total Total 10 GUIDEWAY AND TRACK $11,412,341 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Procure 799 TN $1,300 $1,039,025 15% $155,854 $1,194,879 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Install 20,850 TF $375 $7,818,750 15% $1,172,813 $8,991,563 10 12 01 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Install 4 EA $75,000 $300,000 15% $45,000 $345,000 10 12 02 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Procure 4 EA $150,000 $600,000 15% $90,000 $690,000 10 12 03 Track: Special: Track Drain 26 EA $3,500 $91,000 15% $13,650 $104,650 10 12 04 Track: Special: Noise & Vibration Dampening 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 15% $11,250 $86,250 20 STATIONS $1,500,000 20 01 01 Streetcar Stop - Side 4 EA $125,000 $500,000 20% $100,000 $600,000 20 01 02 Streetcar Stop - Center 5 EA $150,000 $750,000 20% $150,000 $900,000 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES 30 01 01 Operations & Maintenance Facility LS $5,000,000 25% 30 01 01 Yard Track TF $175 25% 30 01 01 Yard Special Trackwork EA $50,000 25% 40 SITEWORK AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS $21,469,436 40 01 01 Demolition (Sidewalk, Curb, & Misc Concrete) 10,425 RF $15 $156,375 25% $39,094 $195,469 40 02 01 Utilities: Level 1 TF $650 25% 40 02 02 Utilities: Level 2 10,425 RF $350 $3,648,750 25% $912,188 $4,560,938 40 02 03 Utilities: Corrosion Testing LS $25,000 25% 40 02 04 Utilities: Cathodic Protection LS $50,000 25% 40 06 01 Streetcar Stop Landscaping and Irrigation 9 EA $25,000 $225,000 25% $56,250 $281,250 40 06 02 Landscaping 10,425 RF $125 $1,303,125 25% $325,781 $1,628,906 40 06 02 Sidewalk Construction 260,625 SF $10 $2,606,250 25% $651,563 $3,257,813 40 06 02 Intersection Rebuild 9 EA $150,000 $1,350,000 25% $337,500 $1,687,500 40 06 03 Street Lighting 2 MI $135,200 $266,943 25% $66,736 $333,679 40 06 04 Public Artwork (1% of Construction) 1 LS $305,607 $305,607 $305,607 40 07 01 Roadway: Curb & Gutter 20,850 LF $30 $625,500 25% $156,375 $781,875 40 07 02 Roadway: Pavement (6" AC/12" AB) 86,875 SY $45 $3,909,375 25% $977,344 $4,886,719 40 07 03 Roadway: Signing & Stripping 2 MI $200,000 $394,886 25% $98,722 $493,608 40 08 01 Temporary Facilities (10% of Construction) 1 LS $3,056,073 $3,056,073 $3,056,073 50 SYSTEMS $5,880,900 50 01 01 Signal System: Power Turnouts 4 EA $75,000 $300,000 20% $60,000 $360,000 50 01 02 Signal System: TWC 4 EA $13,000 $52,000 20% $10,400 $62,400 50 02 01 Traffic Signal Modification 9 EA $150,000 $1,350,000 20% $270,000 $1,620,000 50 03 01 Traction Power: TPSS Units 2 EA $550,000 $1,100,000 20% $220,000 $1,320,000 50 03 02 Traction Power: TPSS Screenwalls 2 EA $75,000 $150,000 20% $30,000 $180,000 50 03 03 Traction Power: OCS (Foundations, Poles, and Wire) 130 EA $12,000 $1,563,750 20% $312,750 $1,876,500 50 04 01 Communications: Streetcar Stops 9 EA $25,000 $225,000 20% $45,000 $270,000 50 04 02 Communications: TPSS 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 04 03 Communications: Vehicle 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 05 01 Fare Collection 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 20% $20,000 $120,000 50 06 01 Control Center Equipment & Software Allowance LS $50,000 20%

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $33,922,410 $40,262,677

60 RIGHT-OF-WAY 60 01 01 Partial Takes LS 30% 70 VEHICLES $14,283,000 70 01 01 Vehicles 3 EA $4,000,000 $12,000,000 15% $1,800,000 $13,800,000 70 04 01 Spare Parts 3 EA $100,000 $300,000 15% $45,000 $345,000 70 05 01 Manufacturing Oversight 3 EA $40,000 $120,000 15% $18,000 $138,000 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $10,855,171 80 01 01 Preliminary Engineering 5.0% $1,696,120 $1,696,120 80 02 01 Final Design 6.0% $2,035,345 $2,035,345 80 03 01 Project Management for Design & Construction 6.0% $2,035,345 $2,035,345 80 04 01 Construction Administration & Management 7.0% $2,374,569 $2,374,569 80 05 01 Insurance 1.0% $339,224 $339,224 80 06 01 Legal; Permits; Agency Review Fees 2.0% $678,448 $678,448 80 07 01 Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3.0% $1,017,672 $1,017,672 80 08 01 Start-up Costs & Agency Force Account Work 2.0% $678,448 $678,448 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $8,181,852 90 01 01 Unallocated Contingency 15.0%

Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 Sheet Olive - Seg 2 2 of 5 1/31/2013 APPENDIX B | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Streetcar Cost Estimate with Streetscaping continued |

St. Louis Streetcar Olive Street (Grand to 14th Street) Sta Sta Route Length FWN 11/26/2012 9,500 FT 1.8 Mi 2012$ Summary Allocated Contingency Detail Summary SCSCCC Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extension % Total Total Total 10 GUIDEWAY AND TRACK $10,500,458 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Procure 728 TN $1,300 $946,833 15% $142,025 $1,088,858 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Install 19,000 TF $375 $7,125,000 15% $1,068,750 $8,193,750 10 12 01 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Install 4 EA $75,000 $300,000 15% $45,000 $345,000 10 12 02 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Procure 4 EA $150,000 $600,000 15% $90,000 $690,000 10 12 03 Track: Special: Track Drain 24 EA $3,500 $84,000 15% $12,600 $96,600 10 12 04 Track: Special: Noise & Vibration Dampening 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 15% $11,250 $86,250 20 STATIONS $900,000 20 01 01 Streetcar Stop - Side EA $125,000 20% 20 01 02 Streetcar Stop - Center 5 EA $150,000 $750,000 20% $150,000 $900,000 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES $6,968,750 30 01 01 Operations & Maintenance Facility 1 LS $5,000,000 $5,000,000 25% $1,250,000 $6,250,000 30 01 01 Yard Track 1,000 TF $175 $175,000 25% $43,750 $218,750 30 01 01 Yard Special Trackwork 8 EA $50,000 $400,000 25% $100,000 $500,000 40 SITEWORK AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS $20,327,686 40 01 01 Demolition (Sidewalk, Curb, & Misc Concrete) 9,500 RF $15 $142,500 25% $35,625 $178,125 40 02 01 Utilities: Level 1 TF $650 25% 40 02 02 Utilities: Level 2 9,500 RF $350 $3,325,000 25% $831,250 $4,156,250 40 02 03 Utilities: Corrosion Testing 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 25% $6,250 $31,250 40 02 04 Utilities: Cathodic Protection 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 25% $12,500 $62,500 40 06 01 Streetcar Stop Landscaping and Irrigation 5 EA $25,000 $125,000 25% $31,250 $156,250 40 06 02 Landscaping 9,500 RF $125 $1,187,500 25% $296,875 $1,484,375 40 06 02 Sidewalk Construction 237,500 SF $10 $2,375,000 25% $593,750 $2,968,750 40 06 02 Intersection Rebuild 9 EA $150,000 $1,350,000 25% $337,500 $1,687,500 40 06 03 Street Lighting 2 MI $135,200 $243,258 25% $60,814 $304,072 40 06 04 Public Artwork (1% of Construction) 1 LS $334,834 $334,834 $334,834 40 07 01 Roadway: Curb & Gutter 19,000 LF $30 $570,000 25% $142,500 $712,500 40 07 02 Roadway: Pavement (6" AC/12" AB) 79,167 SY $45 $3,562,500 25% $890,625 $4,453,125 40 07 03 Roadway: Signing & Stripping 2 MI $200,000 $359,848 25% $89,962 $449,811 40 08 01 Temporary Facilities (10% of Construction) 1 LS $3,348,344 $3,348,344 $3,348,344 50 SYSTEMS $5,654,400 50 01 01 Signal System: Power Turnouts 4 EA $75,000 $300,000 20% $60,000 $360,000 50 01 02 Signal System: TWC 4 EA $13,000 $52,000 20% $10,400 $62,400 50 02 01 Traffic Signal Modification 9 EA $150,000 $1,350,000 20% $270,000 $1,620,000 50 03 01 Traction Power: TPSS Units 2 EA $550,000 $1,100,000 20% $220,000 $1,320,000 50 03 02 Traction Power: TPSS Screenwalls 2 EA $75,000 $150,000 20% $30,000 $180,000 50 03 03 Traction Power: OCS (Foundations, Poles, and Wire) 119 EA $12,000 $1,425,000 20% $285,000 $1,710,000 50 04 01 Communications: Streetcar Stops 5 EA $25,000 $125,000 20% $25,000 $150,000 50 04 02 Communications: TPSS 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 04 03 Communications: Vehicle 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 05 01 Fare Collection 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 20% $20,000 $120,000 50 06 01 Control Center Equipment & Software Allowance 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 20% $10,000 $60,000

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $37,166,618 $44,351,294

60 RIGHT-OF-WAY 60 01 01 Partial Takes LS 30% 70 VEHICLES $14,283,000 70 01 01 Vehicles 3 EA $4,000,000 $12,000,000 15% $1,800,000 $13,800,000 70 04 01 Spare Parts 3 EA $100,000 $300,000 15% $45,000 $345,000 70 05 01 Manufacturing Oversight 3 EA $40,000 $120,000 15% $18,000 $138,000 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $11,893,318 80 01 01 Preliminary Engineering 5.0% $1,858,331 $1,858,331 80 02 01 Final Design 6.0% $2,229,997 $2,229,997 80 03 01 Project Management for Design & Construction 6.0% $2,229,997 $2,229,997 80 04 01 Construction Administration & Management 7.0% $2,601,663 $2,601,663 80 05 01 Insurance 1.0% $371,666 $371,666 80 06 01 Legal; Permits; Agency Review Fees 2.0% $743,332 $743,332 80 07 01 Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3.0% $1,114,999 $1,114,999 80 08 01 Start-up Costs & Agency Force Account Work 2.0% $743,332 $743,332 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $8,795,144 90 01 01 Unallocated Contingency 15.0%

Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 Sheet Olive - Seg 1 3 of 5 1/31/2013 APPENDIX B | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Streetcar Cost Estimate with Streetscaping continued |

St. Louis Streetcar 14th Street (St. Louis Ave to Civic Center MetroLink Station) Sta Sta Route Length FWN 11/26/2012 9,240 FT 1.8 Mi 2012$ Summary Allocated Contingency Detail Summary SCSCCC Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extension % Total Total Total 10 GUIDEWAY AND TRACK $10,250,433 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Procure 708 TN $1,300 $920,920 15% $138,138 $1,059,058 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Install 18,480 TF $375 $6,930,000 15% $1,039,500 $7,969,500 10 12 01 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Install 4 EA $75,000 $300,000 15% $45,000 $345,000 10 12 02 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Procure 4 EA $150,000 $600,000 15% $90,000 $690,000 10 12 03 Track: Special: Track Drain 25 EA $3,500 $87,500 15% $13,125 $100,625 10 12 04 Track: Special: Noise & Vibration Dampening 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 15% $11,250 $86,250 20 STATIONS $720,000 20 01 01 Streetcar Stop - Side EA $125,000 20% 20 01 02 Streetcar Stop - Center 4 EA $150,000 $600,000 20% $120,000 $720,000 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES 30 01 01 Operations & Maintenance Facility LS $5,000,000 25% 30 01 01 Yard Track TF $175 25% 30 01 01 Yard Special Trackwork EA $50,000 25% 40 SITEWORK AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS $20,536,006 40 01 01 Demolition (Sidewalk, Curb, & Misc Concrete) 9,240 RF $15 $138,600 25% $34,650 $173,250 40 02 01 Utilities: Level 1 TF $650 25% 40 02 02 Utilities: Level 2 9,240 RF $350 $3,234,000 25% $808,500 $4,042,500 40 02 03 Utilities: Corrosion Testing 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 25% $6,250 $31,250 40 02 04 Utilities: Cathodic Protection 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 25% $12,500 $62,500 40 06 01 Streetcar Stop Landscaping and Irrigation 4 EA $25,000 $100,000 25% $25,000 $125,000 40 06 02 Landscaping 9,240 RF $125 $1,155,000 25% $288,750 $1,443,750 40 06 02 Sidewalk Construction 231,000 SF $10 $2,310,000 25% $577,500 $2,887,500 40 06 02 Intersection Rebuild 15 EA $150,000 $2,250,000 25% $562,500 $2,812,500 40 06 03 Street Lighting 2 MI $135,200 $243,360 25% $60,840 $304,200 40 06 04 Public Artwork (1% of Construction) 1 LS $289,028 $289,028 $289,028 40 07 01 Roadway: Curb & Gutter 18,480 LF $30 $554,400 25% $138,600 $693,000 40 07 02 Roadway: Pavement (6" AC/12" AB) 77,000 SY $45 $3,465,000 25% $866,250 $4,331,250 40 07 03 Roadway: Signing & Stripping 2 MI $200,000 $360,000 25% $90,000 $450,000 40 08 01 Temporary Facilities (10% of Construction) 1 LS $2,890,278 $2,890,278 $2,890,278 50 SYSTEMS $6,604,800 50 01 01 Signal System: Power Turnouts 4 EA $75,000 $300,000 20% $60,000 $360,000 50 01 02 Signal System: TWC 4 EA $13,000 $52,000 20% $10,400 $62,400 50 02 01 Traffic Signal Modification 15 EA $150,000 $2,250,000 20% $450,000 $2,700,000 50 03 01 Traction Power: TPSS Units 2 EA $550,000 $1,100,000 20% $220,000 $1,320,000 50 03 02 Traction Power: TPSS Screenwalls 2 EA $75,000 $150,000 20% $30,000 $180,000 50 03 03 Traction Power: OCS (Foundations, Poles, and Wire) 116 EA $12,000 $1,392,000 20% $278,400 $1,670,400 50 04 01 Communications: Streetcar Stops 4 EA $25,000 $100,000 20% $20,000 $120,000 50 04 02 Communications: TPSS 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 04 03 Communications: Vehicle 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 05 01 Fare Collection 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 20% $20,000 $120,000 50 06 01 Control Center Equipment & Software Allowance LS $50,000 20%

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $32,082,086 $38,111,239

60 RIGHT-OF-WAY 60 01 01 Partial Takes LS 30% 70 VEHICLES $14,283,000 70 01 01 Vehicles 3 EA $4,000,000 $12,000,000 15% $1,800,000 $13,800,000 70 04 01 Spare Parts 3 EA $100,000 $300,000 15% $45,000 $345,000 70 05 01 Manufacturing Oversight 3 EA $40,000 $120,000 15% $18,000 $138,000 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $10,266,267 80 01 01 Preliminary Engineering 5.0% $1,604,104 $1,604,104 80 02 01 Final Design 6.0% $1,924,925 $1,924,925 80 03 01 Project Management for Design & Construction 6.0% $1,924,925 $1,924,925 80 04 01 Construction Administration & Management 7.0% $2,245,746 $2,245,746 80 05 01 Insurance 1.0% $320,821 $320,821 80 06 01 Legal; Permits; Agency Review Fees 2.0% $641,642 $641,642 80 07 01 Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3.0% $962,463 $962,463 80 08 01 Start-up Costs & Agency Force Account Work 2.0% $641,642 $641,642 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $7,859,136 90 01 01 Unallocated Contingency 15.0%

Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 Sheet 14th 4 of 5 1/31/2013 APPENDIX B | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Streetcar Cost Estimate with Streetscaping continued |

St. Louis Streetcar Downtown (East of 14th street) Sta Sta Route Length FWN 11/26/2012 7,730 FT 1.5 Mi 2012$ Summary Allocated Contingency Detail Summary SCSCCC Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extension % Total Total Total 10 GUIDEWAY AND TRACK $4,719,556 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Procure 296 TN $1,300 $385,212 15% $57,782 $442,993 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Install 7,730 TF $375 $2,898,750 15% $434,813 $3,333,563 10 12 01 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Install 3 EA $75,000 $225,000 15% $33,750 $258,750 10 12 02 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Procure 3 EA $150,000 $450,000 15% $67,500 $517,500 10 12 03 Track: Special: Track Drain 20 EA $3,500 $70,000 15% $10,500 $80,500 10 12 04 Track: Special: Noise & Vibration Dampening 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 15% $11,250 $86,250 20 STATIONS $1,080,000 20 01 01 Streetcar Stop - Side 6 EA $125,000 $750,000 20% $150,000 $900,000 20 01 02 Streetcar Stop - Center 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 20% $30,000 $180,000 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES 30 01 01 Operations & Maintenance Facility LS $5,000,000 25% 30 01 01 Yard Track TF $175 25% 30 01 01 Yard Special Trackwork EA $50,000 25% 40 SITEWORK AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS $19,535,674 40 01 01 Demolition (Sidewalk, Curb, & Misc Concrete) 7,730 RF $15 $115,950 25% $28,988 $144,938 40 02 01 Utilities: Level 1 7,730 TF $650 $5,024,500 25% $1,256,125 $6,280,625 40 02 02 Utilities: Level 2 RF $350 25% 40 02 03 Utilities: Corrosion Testing 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 25% $6,250 $31,250 40 02 04 Utilities: Cathodic Protection 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 25% $12,500 $62,500 40 06 01 Streetcar Stop Landscaping and Irrigation 7 EA $25,000 $175,000 25% $43,750 $218,750 40 06 02 Landscaping 7,730 RF $125 $966,250 25% $241,563 $1,207,813 40 06 02 Sidewalk Construction 193,250 SF $10 $1,932,500 25% $483,125 $2,415,625 40 06 02 Intersection Rebuild 18 EA $150,000 $2,700,000 25% $675,000 $3,375,000 40 06 03 Street Lighting 2 MI $135,200 $202,800 25% $50,700 $253,500 40 06 04 Public Artwork (1% of Construction) 1 LS $241,448 $241,448 $241,448 40 07 01 Roadway: Curb & Gutter 15,460 LF $30 $463,800 25% $115,950 $579,750 40 07 02 Roadway: Pavement (6" AC/12" AB) 34,400 SY $45 $1,548,000 25% $387,000 $1,935,000 40 07 03 Roadway: Signing & Stripping 2 MI $200,000 $300,000 25% $75,000 $375,000 40 08 01 Temporary Facilities (10% of Construction) 1 LS $2,414,476 $2,414,476 $2,414,476 50 SYSTEMS $6,764,400 50 01 01 Signal System: Power Turnouts 2 EA $75,000 $150,000 20% $30,000 $180,000 50 01 02 Signal System: TWC 2 EA $13,000 $26,000 20% $5,200 $31,200 50 02 01 Traffic Signal Modification 18 EA $150,000 $2,700,000 20% $540,000 $3,240,000 50 03 01 Traction Power: TPSS Units 2 EA $550,000 $1,100,000 20% $220,000 $1,320,000 50 03 02 Traction Power: TPSS Screenwalls 2 EA $75,000 $150,000 20% $30,000 $180,000 50 03 03 Traction Power: OCS (Foundations, Poles, and Wire) 98 EA $12,000 $1,176,000 20% $235,200 $1,411,200 50 04 01 Communications: Streetcar Stops 7 EA $25,000 $175,000 20% $35,000 $210,000 50 04 02 Communications: TPSS 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 04 03 Communications: Vehicle 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 05 01 Fare Collection 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 20% $20,000 $120,000 50 06 01 Control Center Equipment & Software Allowance LS $50,000 20%

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $26,800,685 $32,099,630

60 RIGHT-OF-WAY 60 01 01 Partial Takes LS 30% 70 VEHICLES $9,522,000 70 01 01 Vehicles 2 EA $4,000,000 $8,000,000 15% $1,200,000 $9,200,000 70 04 01 Spare Parts 2 EA $100,000 $200,000 15% $30,000 $230,000 70 05 01 Manufacturing Oversight 2 EA $40,000 $80,000 15% $12,000 $92,000 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $8,576,219 80 01 01 Preliminary Engineering 5.0% $1,340,034 $1,340,034 80 02 01 Final Design 6.0% $1,608,041 $1,608,041 80 03 01 Project Management for Design & Construction 6.0% $1,608,041 $1,608,041 80 04 01 Construction Administration & Management 7.0% $1,876,048 $1,876,048 80 05 01 Insurance 1.0% $268,007 $268,007 80 06 01 Legal; Permits; Agency Review Fees 2.0% $536,014 $536,014 80 07 01 Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3.0% $804,021 $804,021 80 08 01 Start-up Costs & Agency Force Account Work 2.0% $536,014 $536,014 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $6,243,244 90 01 01 Unallocated Contingency 15.0%

Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 Sheet Dwtn 5 of 5 1/31/2013 APPENDIX B | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Streetcar Cost Estimate without Streetscaping |

St. Louis Streetcar Sta Sta Route Length FWN 11/26/2012 36,895 7.0 Mi 2012$ Summary Allocated Contingency Detail Summary SCSCCC Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extension % Total Total Total 10 GUIDEWAY AND TRACK $32,308,089 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Procure 2,532 TN $1,300 $3,291,990 15% $493,799 $3,785,789 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Install 66,060 TF $325 $21,469,500 15% $3,220,425 $24,689,925 10 12 01 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Install 15 EA $50,000 $750,000 15% $112,500 $862,500 10 12 02 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Procure 15 EA $150,000 $2,250,000 15% $337,500 $2,587,500 10 12 03 Track: Special: Track Drain 95 EA $3,500 $332,500 15% $49,875 $382,375 10 12 04 Track: Special: Noise & Vibration Dampening LS $75,000 15% 20 STATIONS $4,200,000 20 01 01 Streetcar Stop - Side 10 EA $125,000 $1,250,000 20% $250,000 $1,500,000 20 01 02 Streetcar Stop - Center 15 EA $150,000 $2,250,000 20% $450,000 $2,700,000 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES $6,968,750 30 01 01 Operations & Maintenance Facility 1 LS $5,000,000 $5,000,000 25% $1,250,000 $6,250,000 30 01 01 Yard Track 1,000 TF $175 $175,000 25% $43,750 $218,750 30 01 01 Yard Special Trackwork 8 EA $50,000 $400,000 25% $100,000 $500,000 40 SITEWORK AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS $40,706,649 40 01 01 Demolition (Sidewalk, Curb, & Misc Concrete) 18,448 LS $15 $276,713 25% $69,178 $345,891 40 02 01 Utilities: Level 1 7,730 TF $650 $5,024,500 25% $1,256,125 $6,280,625 40 02 02 Utilities: Level 2 29,165 RF $350 $10,207,750 25% $2,551,938 $12,759,688 40 02 03 Utilities: Corrosion Testing 3 LS $50,000 $150,000 25% $37,500 $187,500 40 02 04 Utilities: Cathodic Protection 3 LS $50,000 $150,000 25% $37,500 $187,500 40 06 01 Streetcar Stop Landscaping and Irrigation 25 EA $25,000 $625,000 25% $156,250 $781,250 40 06 02 Landscaping RF $125 25% 40 06 02 Sidewalk Construction SF $10 25% 40 06 02 Intersection Rebuild 51 EA $150,000 $7,650,000 25% $1,912,500 $9,562,500 40 06 03 Street Lighting 7 MI $135,200 $956,361 25% $239,090 $1,195,451 40 06 04 Public Artwork (1% of Construction) 1 LS $860,096 $860,096 $860,096 40 07 01 Roadway: Curb & Gutter LF $30 25% 40 07 02 Roadway: Pavement (6" AC/12" AB) 44,040 SY $45 $1,981,800 25% $495,450 $2,477,250 40 07 03 Roadway: Signing & Stripping 7 MI $200,000 $1,414,735 25% $353,684 $1,768,419 40 08 01 Temporary Facilities (5% of Construction) 1 LS $4,300,480 $4,300,480 $4,300,480 50 SYSTEMS $24,484,500 50 01 01 Signal System: Power Turnouts 14 EA $50,000 $700,000 20% $140,000 $840,000 50 01 02 Signal System: TWC 14 EA $13,000 $182,000 20% $36,400 $218,400 50 02 01 Traffic Signal Modification 51 EA $150,000 $7,650,000 20% $1,530,000 $9,180,000 50 03 01 Traction Power: TPSS Units 8 EA $550,000 $4,400,000 20% $880,000 $5,280,000 50 03 02 Traction Power: TPSS Screenwalls 8 EA $75,000 $600,000 20% $120,000 $720,000 50 03 03 Traction Power: OCS (Foundations, Poles, and Wire) 463 EA $12,000 $5,556,750 20% $1,111,350 $6,668,100 50 04 01 Communications: Streetcar Stops 25 EA $25,000 $625,000 20% $125,000 $750,000 50 04 02 Communications: TPSS 8 EA $15,000 $120,000 20% $24,000 $144,000 50 04 03 Communications: Vehicle 8 EA $15,000 $120,000 20% $24,000 $144,000 50 05 01 Fare Collection 8 EA $50,000 $400,000 20% $80,000 $480,000 50 06 01 Control Center Equipment & Software Allowance 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 20% $10,000 $60,000

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $91,170,174 $108,667,987

60 RIGHT-OF-WAY $4,247,100 60 01 01 Partial Takes 1 LS $3,267,000 $3,267,000 30% $980,100 $4,247,100 70 VEHICLES $52,371,000 70 01 01 Vehicles 11 EA $4,000,000 $44,000,000 15% $6,600,000 $50,600,000 70 04 01 Spare Parts 11 EA $100,000 $1,100,000 15% $165,000 $1,265,000 70 05 01 Manufacturing Oversight 11 EA $40,000 $440,000 15% $66,000 $506,000 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $29,174,456 80 01 01 Preliminary Engineering 5.0% $4,558,509 $4,558,509 80 02 01 Final Design 6.0% $5,470,210 $5,470,210 80 03 01 Project Management for Design & Construction 6.0% $5,470,210 $5,470,210 80 04 01 Construction Administration & Management 7.0% $6,381,912 $6,381,912 80 05 01 Insurance 1.0% $911,702 $911,702 80 06 01 Legal; Permits; Agency Review Fees 2.0% $1,823,403 $1,823,403 80 07 01 Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3.0% $2,735,105 $2,735,105 80 08 01 Start-up Costs & Agency Force Account Work 2.0% $1,823,403 $1,823,403 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $24,155,848 90 01 01 Unallocated Contingency 15.0%

Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 nostreet Sheet Summary 1 of 5 1/31/2013 APPENDIX B | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Streetcar Cost Estimate without Streetscaping continued |

St. Louis Streetcar Olive Street - Central West End to Grand Sta Sta Route Length FWN 11/26/2012 10,425 FT 2.0 Mi 2012$ Summary Allocated Contingency Detail Summary SCSCCC Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extension % Total Total Total 10 GUIDEWAY AND TRACK $10,012,216 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Procure 799 TN $1,300 $1,039,025 15% $155,854 $1,194,879 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Install 20,850 TF $325 $6,776,250 15% $1,016,438 $7,792,688 10 12 01 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Install 4 EA $50,000 $200,000 15% $30,000 $230,000 10 12 02 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Procure 4 EA $150,000 $600,000 15% $90,000 $690,000 10 12 03 Track: Special: Track Drain 26 EA $3,500 $91,000 15% $13,650 $104,650 10 12 04 Track: Special: Noise & Vibration Dampening LS $75,000 15% 20 STATIONS $1,500,000 20 01 01 Streetcar Stop - Side 4 EA $125,000 $500,000 20% $100,000 $600,000 20 01 02 Streetcar Stop - Center 5 EA $150,000 $750,000 20% $150,000 $900,000 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES 30 01 01 Operations & Maintenance Facility LS $5,000,000 25% 30 01 01 Yard Track TF $175 25% 30 01 01 Yard Special Trackwork EA $50,000 25% 40 SITEWORK AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS $10,584,676 40 01 01 Demolition (Sidewalk, Curb, & Misc Concrete) 5,213 RF $15 $78,188 25% $19,547 $97,734 40 02 01 Utilities: Level 1 TF $650 25% 40 02 02 Utilities: Level 2 10,425 RF $350 $3,648,750 25% $912,188 $4,560,938 40 02 03 Utilities: Corrosion Testing LS $25,000 25% 40 02 04 Utilities: Cathodic Protection LS $50,000 25% 40 06 01 Streetcar Stop Landscaping and Irrigation 9 EA $25,000 $225,000 25% $56,250 $281,250 40 06 02 Landscaping RF $125 25% 40 06 02 Sidewalk Construction SF $10 25% 40 06 02 Intersection Rebuild 9 EA $150,000 $1,350,000 25% $337,500 $1,687,500 40 06 03 Street Lighting 2 MI $135,200 $266,943 25% $66,736 $333,679 40 06 04 Public Artwork (1% of Construction) 1 LS $213,463 $213,463 $213,463 40 07 01 Roadway: Curb & Gutter LF $30 25% 40 07 02 Roadway: Pavement (6" AC/12" AB) 13,900 SY $45 $625,500 25% $156,375 $781,875 40 07 03 Roadway: Signing & Stripping 2 MI $200,000 $394,886 25% $98,722 $493,608 40 08 01 Temporary Facilities (10% of Construction) 1 LS $2,134,629 $2,134,629 $2,134,629 50 SYSTEMS $5,760,900 50 01 01 Signal System: Power Turnouts 4 EA $50,000 $200,000 20% $40,000 $240,000 50 01 02 Signal System: TWC 4 EA $13,000 $52,000 20% $10,400 $62,400 50 02 01 Traffic Signal Modification 9 EA $150,000 $1,350,000 20% $270,000 $1,620,000 50 03 01 Traction Power: TPSS Units 2 EA $550,000 $1,100,000 20% $220,000 $1,320,000 50 03 02 Traction Power: TPSS Screenwalls 2 EA $75,000 $150,000 20% $30,000 $180,000 50 03 03 Traction Power: OCS (Foundations, Poles, and Wire) 130 EA $12,000 $1,563,750 20% $312,750 $1,876,500 50 04 01 Communications: Streetcar Stops 9 EA $25,000 $225,000 20% $45,000 $270,000 50 04 02 Communications: TPSS 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 04 03 Communications: Vehicle 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 05 01 Fare Collection 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 20% $20,000 $120,000 50 06 01 Control Center Equipment & Software Allowance LS $50,000 20%

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $23,694,384 $27,857,792

60 RIGHT-OF-WAY 60 01 01 Partial Takes LS 30% 70 VEHICLES $14,283,000 70 01 01 Vehicles 3 EA $4,000,000 $12,000,000 15% $1,800,000 $13,800,000 70 04 01 Spare Parts 3 EA $100,000 $300,000 15% $45,000 $345,000 70 05 01 Manufacturing Oversight 3 EA $40,000 $120,000 15% $18,000 $138,000 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $7,582,203 80 01 01 Preliminary Engineering 5.0% $1,184,719 $1,184,719 80 02 01 Final Design 6.0% $1,421,663 $1,421,663 80 03 01 Project Management for Design & Construction 6.0% $1,421,663 $1,421,663 80 04 01 Construction Administration & Management 7.0% $1,658,607 $1,658,607 80 05 01 Insurance 1.0% $236,944 $236,944 80 06 01 Legal; Permits; Agency Review Fees 2.0% $473,888 $473,888 80 07 01 Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3.0% $710,832 $710,832 80 08 01 Start-up Costs & Agency Force Account Work 2.0% $473,888 $473,888 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $6,321,119 90 01 01 Unallocated Contingency 15.0%

Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 nostreet Sheet Olive - Seg 2 2 of 5 1/31/2013 APPENDIX B | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Streetcar Cost Estimate without Streetscaping continued |

St. Louis Streetcar Olive Street (Grand to 14th Street) Sta Sta Route Length FWN 11/26/2012 9,500 FT 1.8 Mi 2012$ Summary Allocated Contingency Detail Summary SCSCCC Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extension % Total Total Total 10 GUIDEWAY AND TRACK $9,206,708 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Procure 728 TN $1,300 $946,833 15% $142,025 $1,088,858 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Install 19,000 TF $325 $6,175,000 15% $926,250 $7,101,250 10 12 01 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Install 4 EA $50,000 $200,000 15% $30,000 $230,000 10 12 02 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Procure 4 EA $150,000 $600,000 15% $90,000 $690,000 10 12 03 Track: Special: Track Drain 24 EA $3,500 $84,000 15% $12,600 $96,600 10 12 04 Track: Special: Noise & Vibration Dampening LS $75,000 15% 20 STATIONS $900,000 20 01 01 Streetcar Stop - Side EA $125,000 20% 20 01 02 Streetcar Stop - Center 5 EA $150,000 $750,000 20% $150,000 $900,000 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES $6,968,750 30 01 01 Operations & Maintenance Facility 1 LS $5,000,000 $5,000,000 25% $1,250,000 $6,250,000 30 01 01 Yard Track 1,000 TF $175 $175,000 25% $43,750 $218,750 30 01 01 Yard Special Trackwork 8 EA $50,000 $400,000 25% $100,000 $500,000 40 SITEWORK AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS $10,406,036 40 01 01 Demolition (Sidewalk, Curb, & Misc Concrete) 4,750 RF $15 $71,250 25% $17,813 $89,063 40 02 01 Utilities: Level 1 TF $650 25% 40 02 02 Utilities: Level 2 9,500 RF $350 $3,325,000 25% $831,250 $4,156,250 40 02 03 Utilities: Corrosion Testing 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 25% $6,250 $31,250 40 02 04 Utilities: Cathodic Protection 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 25% $12,500 $62,500 40 06 01 Streetcar Stop Landscaping and Irrigation 5 EA $25,000 $125,000 25% $31,250 $156,250 40 06 02 Landscaping RF $125 25% 40 06 02 Sidewalk Construction SF $10 25% 40 06 02 Intersection Rebuild 9 EA $150,000 $1,350,000 25% $337,500 $1,687,500 40 06 03 Street Lighting 2 MI $135,200 $243,258 25% $60,814 $304,072 40 06 04 Public Artwork (1% of Construction) 1 LS $250,622 $250,622 $250,622 40 07 01 Roadway: Curb & Gutter LF $30 25% 40 07 02 Roadway: Pavement (6" AC/12" AB) 12,667 SY $45 $570,000 25% $142,500 $712,500 40 07 03 Roadway: Signing & Stripping 2 MI $200,000 $359,848 25% $89,962 $449,811 40 08 01 Temporary Facilities (10% of Construction) 1 LS $2,506,219 $2,506,219 $2,506,219 50 SYSTEMS $5,534,400 50 01 01 Signal System: Power Turnouts 4 EA $50,000 $200,000 20% $40,000 $240,000 50 01 02 Signal System: TWC 4 EA $13,000 $52,000 20% $10,400 $62,400 50 02 01 Traffic Signal Modification 9 EA $150,000 $1,350,000 20% $270,000 $1,620,000 50 03 01 Traction Power: TPSS Units 2 EA $550,000 $1,100,000 20% $220,000 $1,320,000 50 03 02 Traction Power: TPSS Screenwalls 2 EA $75,000 $150,000 20% $30,000 $180,000 50 03 03 Traction Power: OCS (Foundations, Poles, and Wire) 119 EA $12,000 $1,425,000 20% $285,000 $1,710,000 50 04 01 Communications: Streetcar Stops 5 EA $25,000 $125,000 20% $25,000 $150,000 50 04 02 Communications: TPSS 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 04 03 Communications: Vehicle 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 05 01 Fare Collection 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 20% $20,000 $120,000 50 06 01 Control Center Equipment & Software Allowance 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 20% $10,000 $60,000

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $27,819,030 $33,015,894

60 RIGHT-OF-WAY $4,247,100 60 01 01 MSF Site 1 LS $3,267,000 $3,267,000 30% $980,100 $4,247,100 70 VEHICLES $14,283,000 70 01 01 Vehicles 3 EA $4,000,000 $12,000,000 15% $1,800,000 $13,800,000 70 04 01 Spare Parts 3 EA $100,000 $300,000 15% $45,000 $345,000 70 05 01 Manufacturing Oversight 3 EA $40,000 $120,000 15% $18,000 $138,000 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $8,902,090 80 01 01 Preliminary Engineering 5.0% $1,390,952 $1,390,952 80 02 01 Final Design 6.0% $1,669,142 $1,669,142 80 03 01 Project Management for Design & Construction 6.0% $1,669,142 $1,669,142 80 04 01 Construction Administration & Management 7.0% $1,947,332 $1,947,332 80 05 01 Insurance 1.0% $278,190 $278,190 80 06 01 Legal; Permits; Agency Review Fees 2.0% $556,381 $556,381 80 07 01 Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3.0% $834,571 $834,571 80 08 01 Start-up Costs & Agency Force Account Work 2.0% $556,381 $556,381 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $7,094,834 90 01 01 Unallocated Contingency 15.0%

Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 nostreet Sheet Olive - Seg 1 3 of 5 1/31/2013 APPENDIX B | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Streetcar Cost Estimate without Streetscaping continued |

St. Louis Streetcar 14th Street (St. Louis Ave to Civic Center MetroLink Station) Sta Sta Route Length FWN 11/26/2012 9,240 FT 1.8 Mi 2012$ Summary Allocated Contingency Detail Summary SCSCCC Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extension % Total Total Total 10 GUIDEWAY AND TRACK $8,986,583 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Procure 708 TN $1,300 $920,920 15% $138,138 $1,059,058 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Install 18,480 TF $325 $6,006,000 15% $900,900 $6,906,900 10 12 01 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Install 4 EA $50,000 $200,000 15% $30,000 $230,000 10 12 02 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Procure 4 EA $150,000 $600,000 15% $90,000 $690,000 10 12 03 Track: Special: Track Drain 25 EA $3,500 $87,500 15% $13,125 $100,625 10 12 04 Track: Special: Noise & Vibration Dampening LS $75,000 15% 20 STATIONS $720,000 20 01 01 Streetcar Stop - Side EA $125,000 20% 20 01 02 Streetcar Stop - Center 4 EA $150,000 $600,000 20% $120,000 $720,000 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES 30 01 01 Operations & Maintenance Facility LS $5,000,000 25% 30 01 01 Yard Track TF $175 25% 30 01 01 Yard Special Trackwork EA $50,000 25% 40 SITEWORK AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS $10,885,068 40 01 01 Demolition (Sidewalk, Curb, & Misc Concrete) 4,620 RF $15 $69,300 25% $17,325 $86,625 40 02 01 Utilities: Level 1 TF $650 25% 40 02 02 Utilities: Level 2 9,240 RF $350 $3,234,000 25% $808,500 $4,042,500 40 02 03 Utilities: Corrosion Testing 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 25% $6,250 $31,250 40 02 04 Utilities: Cathodic Protection 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 25% $12,500 $62,500 40 06 01 Streetcar Stop Landscaping and Irrigation 4 EA $25,000 $100,000 25% $25,000 $125,000 40 06 02 Landscaping RF $125 25% 40 06 02 Sidewalk Construction SF $10 25% 40 06 02 Intersection Rebuild 15 EA $150,000 $2,250,000 25% $562,500 $2,812,500 40 06 03 Street Lighting 2 MI $135,200 $243,360 25% $60,840 $304,200 40 06 04 Public Artwork (1% of Construction) 1 LS $207,045 $207,045 $207,045 40 07 01 Roadway: Curb & Gutter LF $30 25% 40 07 02 Roadway: Pavement (6" AC/12" AB) 12,320 SY $45 $554,400 25% $138,600 $693,000 40 07 03 Roadway: Signing & Stripping 2 MI $200,000 $360,000 25% $90,000 $450,000 40 08 01 Temporary Facilities (10% of Construction) 1 LS $2,070,448 $2,070,448 $2,070,448 50 SYSTEMS $6,484,800 50 01 01 Signal System: Power Turnouts 4 EA $50,000 $200,000 20% $40,000 $240,000 50 01 02 Signal System: TWC 4 EA $13,000 $52,000 20% $10,400 $62,400 50 02 01 Traffic Signal Modification 15 EA $150,000 $2,250,000 20% $450,000 $2,700,000 50 03 01 Traction Power: TPSS Units 2 EA $550,000 $1,100,000 20% $220,000 $1,320,000 50 03 02 Traction Power: TPSS Screenwalls 2 EA $75,000 $150,000 20% $30,000 $180,000 50 03 03 Traction Power: OCS (Foundations, Poles, and Wire) 116 EA $12,000 $1,392,000 20% $278,400 $1,670,400 50 04 01 Communications: Streetcar Stops 4 EA $25,000 $100,000 20% $20,000 $120,000 50 04 02 Communications: TPSS 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 04 03 Communications: Vehicle 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 05 01 Fare Collection 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 20% $20,000 $120,000 50 06 01 Control Center Equipment & Software Allowance LS $50,000 20%

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $22,981,973 $27,076,451

60 RIGHT-OF-WAY 60 01 01 Partial Takes LS 30% 70 VEHICLES $14,283,000 70 01 01 Vehicles 3 EA $4,000,000 $12,000,000 15% $1,800,000 $13,800,000 70 04 01 Spare Parts 3 EA $100,000 $300,000 15% $45,000 $345,000 70 05 01 Manufacturing Oversight 3 EA $40,000 $120,000 15% $18,000 $138,000 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $7,354,231 80 01 01 Preliminary Engineering 5.0% $1,149,099 $1,149,099 80 02 01 Final Design 6.0% $1,378,918 $1,378,918 80 03 01 Project Management for Design & Construction 6.0% $1,378,918 $1,378,918 80 04 01 Construction Administration & Management 7.0% $1,608,738 $1,608,738 80 05 01 Insurance 1.0% $229,820 $229,820 80 06 01 Legal; Permits; Agency Review Fees 2.0% $459,639 $459,639 80 07 01 Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3.0% $689,459 $689,459 80 08 01 Start-up Costs & Agency Force Account Work 2.0% $459,639 $459,639 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $6,203,918 90 01 01 Unallocated Contingency 15.0%

Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 nostreet Sheet 14th 4 of 5 1/31/2013 APPENDIX B | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Streetcar Cost Estimate without Streetscaping continued |

St. Louis Streetcar Downtown (East of 14th street) Sta Sta Route Length FWN 11/26/2012 7,730 FT 1.5 Mi 2012$ Summary Allocated Contingency Detail Summary SCSCCC Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extension % Total Total Total 10 GUIDEWAY AND TRACK $4,102,581 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Procure 296 TN $1,300 $385,212 15% $57,782 $442,993 10 10 01 Track: Embedded (115 RE Rail - Standard) - Install 7,730 TF $325 $2,512,250 15% $376,838 $2,889,088 10 12 01 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Install 3 EA $50,000 $150,000 15% $22,500 $172,500 10 12 02 Track: Special: 115RE Turnout (25m) - Procure 3 EA $150,000 $450,000 15% $67,500 $517,500 10 12 03 Track: Special: Track Drain 20 EA $3,500 $70,000 15% $10,500 $80,500 10 12 04 Track: Special: Noise & Vibration Dampening LS $75,000 15% 20 STATIONS $1,080,000 20 01 01 Streetcar Stop - Side 6 EA $125,000 $750,000 20% $150,000 $900,000 20 01 02 Streetcar Stop - Center 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 20% $30,000 $180,000 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES 30 01 01 Operations & Maintenance Facility LS $5,000,000 25% 30 01 01 Yard Track TF $175 25% 30 01 01 Yard Special Trackwork EA $50,000 25% 40 SITEWORK AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS $13,029,349 40 01 01 Demolition (Sidewalk, Curb, & Misc Concrete) 3,865 RF $15 $57,975 25% $14,494 $72,469 40 02 01 Utilities: Level 1 7,730 TF $650 $5,024,500 25% $1,256,125 $6,280,625 40 02 02 Utilities: Level 2 RF $350 25% 40 02 03 Utilities: Corrosion Testing 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 25% $6,250 $31,250 40 02 04 Utilities: Cathodic Protection 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 25% $12,500 $62,500 40 06 01 Streetcar Stop Landscaping and Irrigation 7 EA $25,000 $175,000 25% $43,750 $218,750 40 06 02 Landscaping RF $125 25% 40 06 02 Sidewalk Construction SF $10 25% 40 06 02 Intersection Rebuild 18 EA $150,000 $2,700,000 25% $675,000 $3,375,000 40 06 03 Street Lighting 2 MI $135,200 $202,800 25% $50,700 $253,500 40 06 04 Public Artwork (1% of Construction) 1 LS $188,216 $188,216 $188,216 40 07 01 Roadway: Curb & Gutter LF $30 25% 40 07 02 Roadway: Pavement (6" AC/12" AB) 5,153 SY $45 $231,900 25% $57,975 $289,875 40 07 03 Roadway: Signing & Stripping 2 MI $200,000 $300,000 25% $75,000 $375,000 40 08 01 Temporary Facilities (10% of Construction) 1 LS $1,882,164 $1,882,164 $1,882,164 50 SYSTEMS $6,704,400 50 01 01 Signal System: Power Turnouts 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 20% $20,000 $120,000 50 01 02 Signal System: TWC 2 EA $13,000 $26,000 20% $5,200 $31,200 50 02 01 Traffic Signal Modification 18 EA $150,000 $2,700,000 20% $540,000 $3,240,000 50 03 01 Traction Power: TPSS Units 2 EA $550,000 $1,100,000 20% $220,000 $1,320,000 50 03 02 Traction Power: TPSS Screenwalls 2 EA $75,000 $150,000 20% $30,000 $180,000 50 03 03 Traction Power: OCS (Foundations, Poles, and Wire) 98 EA $12,000 $1,176,000 20% $235,200 $1,411,200 50 04 01 Communications: Streetcar Stops 7 EA $25,000 $175,000 20% $35,000 $210,000 50 04 02 Communications: TPSS 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 04 03 Communications: Vehicle 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 20% $6,000 $36,000 50 05 01 Fare Collection 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 20% $20,000 $120,000 50 06 01 Control Center Equipment & Software Allowance LS $50,000 20%

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $20,892,017 $24,916,330

60 RIGHT-OF-WAY 60 01 01 Partial Takes LS 30% 70 VEHICLES $9,522,000 70 01 01 Vehicles 2 EA $4,000,000 $8,000,000 15% $1,200,000 $9,200,000 70 04 01 Spare Parts 2 EA $100,000 $200,000 15% $30,000 $230,000 70 05 01 Manufacturing Oversight 2 EA $40,000 $80,000 15% $12,000 $92,000 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $6,685,445 80 01 01 Preliminary Engineering 5.0% $1,044,601 $1,044,601 80 02 01 Final Design 6.0% $1,253,521 $1,253,521 80 03 01 Project Management for Design & Construction 6.0% $1,253,521 $1,253,521 80 04 01 Construction Administration & Management 7.0% $1,462,441 $1,462,441 80 05 01 Insurance 1.0% $208,920 $208,920 80 06 01 Legal; Permits; Agency Review Fees 2.0% $417,840 $417,840 80 07 01 Survey, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3.0% $626,761 $626,761 80 08 01 Start-up Costs & Agency Force Account Work 2.0% $417,840 $417,840 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $5,165,749 90 01 01 Unallocated Contingency 15.0%

Copy of Cost Estimate 2012 1126 R4 nostreet Sheet Dwtn 5 of 5 1/31/2013 APPENDIX C | | | | | St. Louis Streetcar Feasibility Study Previous Plan Descriptions GATEWAY MALL MASTER PLAN (2009) | Key implementation strategies of this plan include programming for the EXISTING PLANS ALONG THE ST. LOUIS STREETCAR ROUTE various public spaces along the Gateway Mall and encouraging redevelopment DOWNTOWN NEXT VISION (2010-2020) in downtown St. Louis to more effectively connect the mall with the Gateway The Downtown Next 2020 Vision established ambitious goals for Downtown Arch and river. Three key themes of the plan and vision for the Gateway Mall St. Louis to accomplish from 2010 through 2020. The Partnership for that tie into the streetcar project are: Downtown St. Louis is committed to advocating for that vision and advancing the plan’s strategies through its staff, board, committees, partners and Activation of the bordering buildings; numerous Downtown stakeholders throughout the region. One of the goals Redevelopment of certain adjacent spaces into new complementary in the Downtown Next plan is “Making Downtown Accessible and Easy to Get uses, and Around.” The St. Louis Streetcar will address a number of the strategies and Connections to the Larger City and the Region, using the transportation objectives under this goal: “Robust Transit System,” “Viable alternatives to the network as a resource to encourage development. automobile,” and “Develop and promote a circulator that connect Downtown and links to nearby neighborhoods.” 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/café that would be further enhanced by the streetcar stop.

NORTH SIDE REDEVELOPMENT AREA (2009) CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE | The North Side Redevelopment Area encompasses 1,500 acres and envisions DESIGN MANUAL UPDATE (2009) new mixed use destination and neighborhoods. The transformation includes The Central Business District Downtown Streetscape Design Manual originated large employment centers, new housing, retail and commercial development in 2004 with plans for streetscape improvements throughout downtown similar to the Stapleton Redevelopment in Denver, Colorado. The streetcar St. Louis. One of the first projects to come to fruition from the manual was would offer support for this plan for the North Side by stimulating a portion of improvements to Washington Avenue which have subsequently spurred the proposed $8 billion redevelopment to happen on a shorter timeline. With redevelopment. The next projects to be completed through the Streetscape or without the streetcar, there is an acknowledgement that redevelopment Manual are the 7th and 8th Street improvement projects. These streets in this area will occur due to the large parcels available for redevelopment. will play an important role in the development of the streetcar line and will Whether developed by the North Side Regeneration group (Paul McKee’s influence the economic development potential of the downtown district. development team) or not, the area is ripe for development and in need of There might also be an opportunity to include the streetcar tracks as part of new public infrastructure. 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.

GRAND CENTER FRAMEWORK PLAN (2012) CORTEX REDEVELOPMENT AREA (2012) | The Grand Center Framework Plan identifies ten years of development The Cortex Redevelopment Area (Phase II) was announced in October 2012 opportunities in the Grand Center district and defines a TIF district to fund as part of a five year master plan for the site. The plan reimagines the blocks infrastructure improvements. The plan identifies both five and ten year east of the BJC/Washington University Medical Campus, connecting Saint increments of development, although these projections would likely be Louis University and BJC with new biotechnical development. Already an accelerated by the introduction of the streetcar. The total future private announced investment, this development could be enhanced or accelerated development represents: by the streetcar. Currently the site is served by the MetroLink on the western 1,010 Housing Units (does not include existing proposed development) side at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Scott Avenue. However, itis 72,000 sq. ft. Retail (ground floor – all buildings are mixed use) over a mile to the eastern side of the Cortex site from the MetroLink-Central $294 million in private development investment (Includes $50 million in West End Station. The St. Louis Streetcar improves transit accessibility to the garages) remainder of the site, with seven streetcar stops within ½ mile of the Cortex Redevelopment Area and helps to support the proposed MetroLink station at the Cortex site. Proposes 384,000 sq. ft. of lab and office space in a partnership between Cortex, Wexford Science and Technology, BJC and Washington University in five years.

Development Opportunities Total Total Area Ripe (sq. Employment (6 Mixed Use (either 4 Stories in neighborhood High Rise Housing Mid Rise Housing (4 Attached Housing (2000 sq. ft. /unit @ Investment District ft.) Acres Developed/Ripe % of Ripe Developed Stories) or 12 stories downtown/midtown) (10 Stories) Stories) 10 units/acre) Price/Sq. Ft. Value Central West End Whole Foods Development $60,000,000 176 Units *From*From Whole Whole Foods Foods Announcement Announcement Cortex $187,000,000 *From*From Cortex Cortex Announcement Announcement Grand Center Framework Plan $294,000,000 *From Framework Plan Jefferson Street to Grand Center Mid Rise Housing 895,733 35% 1,254,026 $120.00 $150,483,144 1045 Units High Rise 234,359 50% 1,171,795 $120.00 $140,615,400 1065 Units North Side Single Family Attached 3,744,645 86 1,719,304 $100.00 $171,930,441 860 Units $3,068 Mid Rise Housing 1,514,176 35% 2,119,846 $120.00 $254,381,568 1930 Units Mixed Use (4 Stories) 299,722 35% 419,611 $100.00 $41,961,080 286 Units Employment 659,626 35% 1,385,215 $120.00 $166,225,752 6000 employees Downtown Municipal Courts Building 160,000 100% $140.00 $22,400,000 1050 $690,567,920 Additional Mixed Use 1,325,730 35% 5,568,066 $120.00 $668,167,920 4200 Units $172,641,980.00

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

The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis 720 Olive Street | Suite 450 St. Louis, MO 63101 | | | | | |