The Future of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in the St. Louis Region
Local transit booster group Citizens for Modern Transit (CMT) sponsored a program earlier today called, The Future of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in the St. Louis Region. This invitation only event included representatives from throughout the region including, Donna Day from East-West Gateway Council of Governments; Rollin Stanley, St. Louis’ Director of Urban Planning & Design (and CMT board member); a number of local architects and developers, etc…
The guest speakers brought in by CMT were pretty impressive.
First up was Ken Kinney, the project director on the Northside/Southside Light Rail Study. Mr. Kinney is with the firm of HNTB out of their Chicago office. He talked about the current study which is building upon prior work done in 1998-2000. Specifically he mentioned the current study area is focusing solely on the City of St. Louis with the northside route ending near I-70 (close to Goodfellow) and the southside route ending at I-55 & Loughborough (yes, the site of “Loughborough Commons” sprawl center, still under construction)
Kinney indicated they are doing a “Transit/Development – Supportive Policy Analysis” as part of both study areas. From his comments I took this to mean two things. First he mentioned looking at other cities to see how their transit policies might help development. Second was to look at the municipal policies to see how that might affect (pro or con) development along proposed routes.
He admitted the most controversial part of the northside and southside routes are that they both include running at street level, especially downtown. He showed an example of a high-floor vehicle like our MetroLink vehicles in a center median situation (Manchester, England). As you can imagine this requires large platforms. As others in the process have previously indicated, they will most likely use what is referred to as a “low-floor” vehicle. These have a low center section that is seldom more than a foot above grade so stops are much easier to design and build. Meeting ADA (American’s with Disability Act) requirements are also much easier going this route.
For the low-floor light rail he showed a suburban Portland example in the center of Interstate Avenue. In this case the center of the road is consumed with the poles in the center and a line going in each direction. Traffic is kept to the outside and away from the tracks. The example at right is actually a computer mock up for Interstate Ave in Portland (source).
But next he showed his “favorite” example: the newish Portland Streetcar (a modern line, not vintage). His image shows new condo buildings being constructed next to the line. Below is an image from the same general area.
[Portland thumbnail by milantram, click image for full sized version.]
This streetcar line was not finished on my last visit to Portland. Time for another visit!
Next up to speak was Robert Cervero from the University of California at Berkeley. I see in the program that his “participation has been made possible through East-West Gateway Council of Governments.” Mr. Cervero is a subconsultant on the northside & southside study areas.
Most of are probably familiar with the term TOD (Transit Oriented Development) but he mentioned a couple of others. TOD’s step-brother, TAD (Transit Adjacent Development). A good example of TAD is say the suburban stuff in Richmond Heights off Eager road. This development is adjacent to transit but it not oriented to transit. Another is AOD, or Auto Oriented Development. This is suburbia or the proposed Grand McDonald’s. He used another phrase I really liked, “walk-n-ride” to describe just walking from your development to the transit train. This is a contrast to the common park-n-ride lot we see near most of our suburban MetroLink stations.
Cervero stressed “balanced corridor planning” when evaluating various criteria such as speed and development potential. He showed how New Jersey had a number of older commuter rail lines that were not encouraging new TOD’s around stations. After decreasing travel times to Manhattan from 45 minutes to 30 minutes suddenly everyone was interested in riding the lines and they began to see increased TODs and stations.
Cervero indicated he felt our MetroLink light rail system has been hugely successful from a ridership standpoint but not so much so from a TOD perspective. I’d certainly agree. St. Louis, he argues, took the path of least resistance when building our system by using existing tunnels and rail corridors. This path didn’t require expensive land purchases or the taking of homes (although it did require moving some graves near the airport). The problem with the existing route(s) is by using rail lines the transit wasn’t necessarily placed in areas where we might have seen increased development around a stop.
He concluded his time with a picture of the Grand South Grand area at Arsenal and Grand. He described the wonderful building fabric and said, “You almost want a Portland-style streetcar.” Not almost, I do want a streetcar line down Grand (among others)! I’ve made my preference for streetcars quite clear to CMT Executive Director Tom Shrout so when Cervero made this comment I looked over to see Tom’s reaction, he was looking back to see my reaction.
Last up was Jack Wierzenski from Dallas’ transit system, DART. [Side note: I took my driver’s test in my mom’s Dodge Dart] DART was established in 1983 with the system opening 13 years later in 1996. Since then they’ve managed to build considerable more total lines than us with far more coming on line in the next 10 years. After touring St. Louis today he said they are behind us with respect to retail & loft development downtown.
He showed some great examples of previous park-n-ride lots from the original system that are now TOD projects. The end of one line is in Plano, TX where their downtown was a bit tired. A new TOD has helped improve the area. The made a number of comments about their engineers, how their only focus was moving the transit vehicles as quickly as possible or having parking and bus lines right next to the stations. His job is balance the engineers against the need for creating quality pedestrian environments at the stations. Are you listening Metro?
Following the presentations was a frank discussion about where we are now. One participant didn’t think the images of dense new development would fly in north St. Louis because most residents would fear being displaced by eminent domain. Public approval is certainly needed so community concerns need to be addressed. The issue of ‘density’ as a dirty word came up and got a good chuckle from the entire room. One speaker, I think Jack Wierzenski from Dallas, indicated they do “visual surveys” where they use pictures/images to gauge people’s interest in various types of projects. Visually people will most often chose the dense and connected example but if given a written choice of low-density or high-density projects they’d chose the low-density. Visual surveys, are all you PR types listening?
I’ve got many more thoughts on encouraging TOD in the St. Louis region but I’l have to share those another day. What are your thoughts?
– Steve
Great topic, Steve. It’s interesting that the idea of a Grand streetcar came up, since you and many others have been contributing to a current thread over at Urban St. Louis that addresses just this topic. (My post here is largely taken from my post there; hope you don’t mind.)
Like you, I’d love to see a streetcar on Grand. But I’d like to ask you to set aside your own views for a moment and take a more critical look at the issue of TOD.
Getting concrete figures on TOD in St. Louis is difficult. CMT has a lot of useful information on their site, but they’re cagey about how much development has been spurred specifically by the original MetroLink line, despite the fact that construction on it started 15 years ago.
Obviously, these things are difficult to quantify. But if we’re going to pitch fixed-rail transit as a spur for economic development, shouldn’t we have reasonably solid figures to help us quantify the development impact such transit projects have?
As an example, some people point out that property developers advertise the fact that their new condos are close to a MetroLink station. That’s cool, but the same developer might also say their condos are close to the Galleria, or Highway 64/40. So we’re left to assume that uninspired projects like shopping malls and highways are spurring development, too.
One other point: St. Louis Centre has a MetroLink station ten yards away from the front door. Has that fact done anything to halt the mall’s decline?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a big fan of MetroLink and I also like streetcars, but I’m skeptical about the “economic development” claims that boosters of such projects are fond of making. (South Grand is already coming on strong without streetcars.) And I worry that when it comes to touting the benefits of fixed-rail transit, we are inflating people’s expectations unjustifiably.
Does anyone know of any development projects in ST. LOUIS CITY (other than the multimodal transit center) where MetroLink has been THE MAIN REASON for going ahead?
If not, maybe some of the blame is due to the “path of least resistance” that the original line followed. But not all the blame, surely.
I’d like to see an independent study on TOD spurred by MetroLink. Ideally, such a study would be free from the influence of Metro or CMT. This might help us better judge whether streetcars and future MetroLink lines would indeed be worthwhile tools for economic development.
[REPLY – The next comment from Jim does an excellent job at addressing my post and your thoughts on TOD. Don’t look for CMT to come out and say “we’ve failed at TOD” but there is a reason they were getting developers and civic leaders from the entire region (including Illinois) together in one room — to push TOD. Again, read Jim’s comments next because he does a great job at indicating what must be done to make it happen. – SLP]
TOD requires more than transit, it requires buy-in by the planners, the legislators and the residents/voters in the jurisdictions where stations are located or planned. A common mindset around here, especially in the suburbs, is that density in and of itself is bad. For both TOD and transit to succeed, density is critical, yet there’s a fear in many quarters that denisty will allow “those people” to move into “our” neighborhood, and the result will be more traffic and declining property values, when the opposite is happening all around the country. Perhaps, it’s those memories of Pruitt-Igoe, when the reality should be what’s happening in Portland, Dallas, Denver, Chicago and even Los Angeles.
The other development challenge around here is the perception that commercial development, especially retail, is preferable to residential. TOD should be about mixed-use projects, allowing people to live close to transit, as well as being able to work and shop at the stations. I see some great opportunities along the Cross-County Extension, yet I haer very little TOD being discussed, either in the development community or among government planners. Hopefully, both groups were included in yesterday’s efforts. Without their buy-in, TOD will continue to be a challenge here . . .
Yes, accurate studies on TOD related development would be useful. But, please consider this important point:
Most of today’s proposed transit is replacing what was destroyed. We are rebuilding transit, not building new.
The entire City of St. Louis and many of its suburbs in St. Louis County and Metro East were originally developed as transit oriented commmunities. Unfortunately, an important piece of the development was removed, the transit.
If we built a new commuter rail line into the cornfields of Illinois and 10,000 people clustered around each stop, we could easily identify it as new TOD. But, since we are rebuilding a system that was either destroyed or starved to near extinction, it is nearly impossible to identify TOD development in a fair way.
Also, while the existing Metrolink line is useful and successful in many ways, it isn’t enough to change our lifestyles. The new line to Clayton/Brentwood will help. Serving North & South City will make huge strides in making a lifestyle change. Steve Patterson’s plea for neighborhood based transit, as opposed to commuter based rail lines to the suburbs relates to this lifestyle change. But even then, if everyone is using light rail, streetcars, buses, etc., will we give Metro any credit for the development in nearby neighborhoods? Maybe not, because the city predates. But, would this widespread transit availability raise the value of St. Louis. I say yes, and in a big way. Also ignoring transit has a cost. For instance, would rebuilding an aging sewer system in and old city neigborhood add value to the nearby houses, maybe not. But ignoring a sewer problem would certainly lower the values.
Perhaps we must find a way to prove the value of transit without pointing to value of new development. We can point to the billions of dollars being invested in Downtown, within steps of several Metro stations, but will anyone ever, now or in the future, allow us to claim that as Metro driven?
Realtors & landlords will know first when people begin asking for houses, condos, and apartments near a Metro station. Is that happening now Steve? Also, when a company chooses a location due to Metro access, we can claim success. It will happen, and I will wager it has already happened with some small companies downtown.
By the way, a Metrolink stop didn’t help St. Louis Centre, but neither did a huge attached parking garage. That failure has nothing to do with transportation.
There’s another very interesting concept taking hold places call Bus Rapid Transit. I read about it in Sierra Magazine. The article can be found here:
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200601/interview.asp
Essentially, BRT functions like a train system on street level but at a fraction of the cost.
Funny, I was gonna type something about where I live, Arlington County, when I got a call from Steve telling me that the county came up as a good example of TOD. Many years ago some crazy forward thinking County officials insisted that the orange line of Washington’s metro system be built to go underground through a portion of North Arlington rather than just go out the interstate to the suburbs. Since then a significant portion of development in Arlington has happened around the metro stops. It’s been a moderately paced process but as one who lives in the Clarendon neighborhood, 3 blocks from the metro, I’m glad they pace out development so we aren’t overwhelmed with construction traffic. As it is we have 3 major projects underway in a 1/4 mile radius. People are flocking to this area because they can have one car per couple/family, walk to grocery, restaurants or metro. And with the advent of zip car, some are even opting not to have a car at all!
Great post. You would be proud. Christy and I did a park n’ ride to take the metrolink at UMSL North to CWE. We walked about a mile to Karen’s house (stlbikefed chair). We turned down a ride to the CWE Metro stop. We we sorta did a half walk / drive thing. It is about 4 miles from our house to the UMSL Metrolink. I have walked it and it isn’t that bad during the day. During the night when it is cold I didn’t think it would be worth it plus timewise that would have added about two hours to our commute. If we were within a mile I would have had us walk. Look forward to changes in transit. I wish they would just get rid of the stupid “suicide lanes” and just put in a nice street car line on Olive Blvd. At least they will be redoing the Olive / 170 interchange area. I look forward to that since Olive has pretty crappy roads when I try to ride on them with my bike. I have to dodge holes and cracks. I know that the EW Gateway group that is working on the Centinnial Greenway is possibly going to use that area.
Change is coming to St. Louis… slowly but surely … We are all making a contribution by walking, riding (bus / mass transit) and my favorite, Cycling!
Keep Cycling!
Brad Mello’s comments about zip car are very good. I have been reading about zip car and wish sooooo much for it to get to St. Louis. Since we could just put them in the many Car Dealorships that are sprawled out everywere (or some of the empty dealorships). It would reduce the amount of multi-car families. Take the really crappy cars off the roads (I see some that have parts hanging off of them like they are limping along plus many have only one headlight!). Get people walking and biking. Of course better roads and facilties for walking and biking (cycling) need to be built and more mass transit. I believe that if we start with a small pilot of zip cars they will eventually catch on. Especially if they have a cool “zip car” logo. People would start to rethink car ownership and do I really need to have a car sitting in my garage for the few times I use it (shopping, errands). They should be placed in more transit friendly areas like U. City. The more options people have the better the chance of reducing the total amount of cars that are destroying our city and future.
It is intersting that the talk brought up the use of a visual survey. This technique is called VPS or the Visual Prefernce Survey, pionierd by Anton Nelessen and his ANA firm in New Jersey.
The funny part is that ANA did a visioning process about a decade ago with Metro to help get an idea for how the public would want Metro stations designed. As you can imagine and I know, having talked to Nelessen about it, ANA found people wanted the walkable stuff. Whats sad is that Metro has had this info for a decade and simply didn’t do much with it.
Maybe a good start would be to look at Kansas City’s new rapid transit (express bus service) http://www.kcata.org/media/MAXFacts.htm . This looks like an attractive, efficient system that takes advantage of technology to offer a higher level of service and give the busses (with more people per vehicle) priority over single-occupancy vehicles. I have no idea if it is successful. I just saw it in KC last fall and was intrigued.
If anything, I am sure it changes the hipness factor of riding a bus — a huge hurdle in St. Louis. Another thing it has going for it is that it ties together the downtown employment center with some of the most fashionable (and urban) residential areas.
Given St. Louis’s wide streets, BRT is certainly an option. LA’s Rapid is another great example, where buses have the ability to override signals:
http://www.mta.net/projects_programs/rapid/rapid.htm
http://www.metro-magazine.com/t_feat_pick.cfm?id=90507156
http://www.metro-magazine.com/t_feat_pick.cfm?id=90507324
Wouldn’t downtown have enough open tunnels to accomodate an underground loop to feed the current line, and the north/south extensions?
I looked at CMTÂ’s map of the north and south legs of the proposed new line, and from a planning standpoint, it seems the two legs are looking at concepts in totally different ways. The north leg is mostly street running up 12th/W. Florissant then out Natural Bridge, one of the main streets of the north side. This seems loaded with opportunities for new development as well as walkability from existing neighborhoods. The south side leg on the other hand runs west on Chouteau, which is largely industrial, then jumps onto a railroad ROW which snakes south to Carondelet. The locations that it crosses major streets just donÂ’t seem like very ideal station locations. Again, while there are a lot of houses not to far away, the areas along this ROW are mostly industrial with much less walkability to stations. It would seem far more logical in terms of promoting better redevelopment (TOD) and serving existing neighborhoods to run straight down Grand, Gravois or Kingshighway.
Paul,
I see your points but would like to suggest that if we are using mass transit to spur development that Jefferson would be a better choice. The areas that it crosses through need the development more. Grand and Kingshighway are doing pretty well as is.
I think the following point in Scott’s post is extremely important.
“Perhaps we must find a way to prove the value of transit without pointing to value of new development.”
I’m glad someone said this!
With all due respect, Steve, I think you’re trying to dodge my main question: What proof have we got that fixed-rail transit actually spurs development?
A sales pitch for rail transit as an economic development tool strikes me as intellectually dishonest. I’m happy to buy a ticket for MetroLink, but until someone convinces me otherwise, I won’t buy the hype that goes along with it.
[REPLY – I’m not trying to dodge anything. The fact is if we look strictly at St. Louis we have zero proof that transit spurs development. Nada. Zip. Nothing. But looking at other cities we see very clear evidence that, if done right, high density TOD is possible around fixed rail transit. – SLP]
As a daily transit rider, I’m big on SPEED. Buses are S-L-O-W. Bus-rapid transit might be a good, cost-effective alternative to MetroLink if done right.
I love the idea of TOD, but have yet to see it really happen much (if at all) in StL.
I just wish I could grab a sandwich somewhere within a few steps of the Civic Center MetroLink station. That would be great. As of now, I don’t think there’s anything like that nearby. It’s such a major transfer location, I’d think somebody could really make some money there.
Yes! Someone finally mentioned the impractical southside line that makes commuting from Carondelet worthless when taking the Grand bus is faster! If the southside line is going to head west then it needs to continue so maybe to the Strewsberry station. A REAL southside line that promotes infill development and rehab (note not destruction of) of historic buildings along Jefferson as the best alternative southside line. Jefferson appropriately matches the northside line with Florissant and Natural Bridge. Why hasn’t East-West Gateway seen that?
NOTICE: A small but fierce coalition is holding pro-density, pro-city meeting in support of a controversial condo tower that is proposed for the corner of Lindell & Euclid in the CWE.
WHEN: Sunday, Feb. 26, 1:00pm
WHERE: The Grind Coffeehouse, 56 Maryland Plz.
WHO: Anyone who is sick of seeing underutilized land sit and wither in high-profile sections of our grand city. The West End Word will be there to cover the meeting, as well as Alderwoman Lyda Krewson. Be there!
As to the “visual surveys,” undoubtedly many dense projects look very appealing to people on paper. They look exotic first of all–in an appealing way. They look vaguely cosmopolitan and modern, very up-to-date. People say, “Wow! That Home Depot in Chicago looks different than the three I drive by on my way to work every day. It must be special!”
Of course, just reading the word “dense” makes any development sound automatically unappealing to most folks.
But cute looking Home Depots won’t lure people into a high density lifestyle. As soon as people find out that they will have little to no parking options, that they can no longer have a private yard, that they have to share walls with other people, that they will have to give up price per square foot, they will bail. That has been proven in real life in almost every city and town in the last 60 years. Let the volk have their way.
Steve, thanks for the reply. No hard feelings, I hope, and rest assured next time you see me on the sidewalk it will be because I am WALKING to the nearest MetroLink station.
Thanks again for giving me a chance to vent on this very important issue.
As mentioned above, in an urban fabric that grew up around transit, adapted to cars, and now perhaps adapting back slightly to transit, it’s difficult if not impossible to tell what development is expressly the result of transit. I would feel comfortable labeling any mixed-use development that springs up within a 1/4 mile of a transit stop at the very least transit influenced development.
I share some people’s discomfort with any rosy projections of TOD around transit stops in the St. Louis market as of now. However, I think metrolinkÂ’s use of an industrial and existing rail right of way corridor, coupled with the fact that dense mixed-use development has just not been part of the St. Louis development culture until very recently, have been two of the major factors holding these types of projects back. I would predict that with the cross-county extension and the publicÂ’s changing views on mixed-use projects (Boulevard St. Louis, Ballpark Village, etc.) youÂ’ll see more development spring up that, while no one can ever say was a direct result of transit, we can feel more comfortable calling TOD or TID.
Craig, if wise you might want to have taken one of these surveys before spouting off. The idea behind such surveys is notion of creating emersive enviroments for people to live in, meeting the needs for transportaion, jobs, retail, and over all urban design.
Therefore, such surveys don’t practice the need for density always and in all places. Less dense development in needed in rural or more suburban settings. On the other hand, highly dense development makes more sense in urban cores. The key is matching the aproptriate type of develoment to the area being planned.
As such, I think you will find that there is plenty of space for a yard, or car, or shopping center in many zones, but perhaps not in the way you think of them now.
If you want an example of such a survey for those who want to get a better idea here is a link to one done for Ash Grove, MO (down in the southwest part of the state).
http://thelibrary.springfield.missouri.org/matters/reports/VPSFinalfull_files/frame.htm
Thanks, Jon. You point out the obvious when you point out that planners won’t be turning places like farming communities into dense environments.
But the point is that new urban planners are trying to convince people in suburban places that they want and need urban development. Does Richmond Heights need urban planning? The new urbanists would answer in the affirmative. But Richmond Heights is a suburb. Same with south City. Yet new urbanists want to totally change the character of these neighborhoods, against the wishes of the majority of residents.
The visual survey seems to be a prized tool of the new urban planner because they depict very nice looking, new, new places. No one will react negatively to something that looks clean and new. It’s when the true costs of new urban development become clear that people reject such development.
I think the success of projects like Boulevard St. Louis show that at least some in Richmond Heights are enthusiastic about a denser development. Even if an area starts out with suburban development thereÂ’s nothing to keep it from densifying over time.
Visual surveys or artistÂ’s renderings are also good at getting people to go for more suburban style development. New Urbanists arenÂ’t the only ones utilizing it.