Legacy 2035: St. Louis Regional Transportation Plan by East-West Gateway

8/6/2019 Legacy 2035: St. Louis Regional Transportation Plan by East-West Gateway

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/legacy-2035-st-louis-regional-transportation-plan-by-east-west-gateway 1/122

Legacy 2035

The preparation of this document was financed in part by theUnited States Department of Transportation through the FederalTransit Administration, the Missouri Department ofTransportation, and the Illinois Department of Transportation.The contents of this report reflect the opinions, findings andconclusions of the author. The contents do not necessarilyreflect the official views or policies of the funding agencies.









Legacy 2035 Background 3

Figure 1-1Transportation Planning Process







6 Background Legacy 2035

adults, and persons with disabilities. In 2004, the Council con-tracted with the Starkloff Disability Institute to lead a series ofactivities to see that the needs and perspectives of individualswith disabilities are reflected in regional policies and actions

identified in the plan. The Council is currently taking the leadon developing a Coordinated Human Services Public TransitPlan. This plan will build upon the 2004 Starkloff study, broad-ening its focus to identify the region’s public transportationneeds relative to transit dependent low-income households, aswell as the disabled and mobility challenged.

A Legacy for the Future

The primary goal of Legacy 2035, as the name implies, is to cre-ate a legacy for the St. Louis region that provides future genera-tions with the foundation they need to sustain economicgrowth, increase social equity, preserve valuable environmentalresources, and improve quality of life.







Legacy 2035 Transportation Challenges and Trends 9

The average age for a St. Louisan in 2035 will be higher than itis today. The aging of the post World War II generation willtransform the region and the nation from a perceived “youthculture” to a “silver culture.”

Source: East-West Gateway Council of Governments

Although the following trends may not be precisely quantified,they need to be considered as 2035 approaches:

• Those between 65 and 79 will continue to be part of the laborforce in some capacity longer than their counterparts today. In

addition, many of the region’s older citizens live alone. OfSt. Louis’ population over the age of 65, 31 percent live alone.If that reality persists, these seniors will need a transportationsystem that supports continuing mobility and flexible work schedules, without compromising safety and privacy.

• At the other end of the age spectrum, young adults will makeup a larger segment of the region’s population in 2035 than

they do today. Almost one in three drivers on St. Louis roadsin 2035 will either be at the beginning (age 16-24) or near theend (age 70-79) of his driving career.

Figure 2-1

Figure 2-2Population 2000-2035



10 Transportation Challenges and Trends Legacy 2035

• The segment of our population over 80 will be the fastestgrowing between now and 2035. Those who turn 80 in 2035would have been born in 1955, just as America plunged intoits serious love affair with the automobile. How intelligent

transportation technologies might keep these drivers on theroad longer is unknown. Other alternative forms of trans-portation undoubtedly will be needed.

• With ever-improving medical and assistive technologies cou-pled with an aging population, there will be a larger portionof the population with a physical or mental disability. In 2005,more than 15 percent of the population fit that definition.

Better educated and capable than ever before, the disabled ofthe future will expect to participate fully in community andeconomic life, and the transportation system will have toaccommodate those expectations.

Figure 2-3Population Age Structure 2000 and 2035 St. Louis Region









Click on the link below to display Figure 2-4

Figure 2-4

Map

Population Growth Forecast

2000-2035

http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles/library/trans/legacy2035/legacy2035-fig2-4.pdf











Figure 2-6

Map

Employment Growth Forecast

2000-2035











• With increasing demand for more sophisticated and accessibletransportation alternatives, state and local governments willbe challenged to fund these improvements. Current projec-

tions suggest that the region will need to seek new revenuesources in order to establish adequate streams of transporta-tion funding. Compared to peer regions, St. Louis nears thebottom in local government revenue, local government spend-ing and local government debt. Will current funding struc-tures be sufficient to meet future transportation needs?

How will we support it all?

Remember the energy crisis of the 1970s and the long lines ofcars at filling stations when the talk of energy conservation wasa national pastime? It is all but a fading memory. In fact, weare finding ways to extract more fossil fuel from existing fields.But amid this national complacency, leading geologists and oilconsultants are telling us a different story and that is globalproduction of cheap crude oil could peak between 2010 and2020. This event will be an historic crossroads for human civi-lization. Adding to this turning point is an ever-rising demandfor oil, in the industrialized world as well as developing coun-tries. The prospect of a truly global energy crisis is real, but thesolution grows right here in our own backyard.

Alternative transportation fuels hold significant promise in lead-ing us to an energy efficient future. By supporting the growthand development of homegrown American fuels like ethanol,

biodiesel, propane, compressed natural gas, and hybrid tech-nologies, we can improve air quality, create domestic jobs inMissouri, Illinois and the nation, and reduce our dependence onimported fossil fuels, thus insuring our nation’s energy security.Ethanol is produced from corn by fermenting crop starches andsugars. Biodiesel is an organic fuel made primarily from cropslike soy, peanut, and sunflower canola. Infrastructure thataccommodates these home grown fuels will also help build the

Source: Madison County Transit and Metro

Source: Madison County Transit, Metro and American Public Transit Association

Figure 2-8Bus and Light Rail Ridership

Figure 2-9Trends in Transit Ridership



18 Transportation Challenges and Trends Legacy 2035

bridge to an energy future based on hydrogen. Hydrogen is themost abundant element on earth and can be derived from avariety of feedstocks including water and biomass. This diversi-ty of supply is key to helping us eliminate our dependence on a

dwindling supply of fossil fuels.

Elaborating on a vision for a hydrogen future, President GeorgeW. Bush has noted, “By being bold and innovative...we canchange our dependence on foreign sources of energy...Let uspromote hydrogen fuel cells as a way to advance into the 21stCentury.”

2035: It’s Not a Done Deal

The pages that follow in Legacy 2035 identify the goals, priori-ties, strategies and major transportation projects for the St.Louis region for the next 28 years. This chapter was intended toraise general awareness about a variety of complex and largelyunpredictable trends and challenges that will evolve during that

time period. These forces will require us to continuously refineand adjust our long-term investment plan. Toward that end, weencourage communities to keep these potential trends and chal-lenges in mind as projects are developed. Further, we urge thateach and every project idea and design be held up against eachcommunity’s understanding and desires for future economic,cultural and environmental growth—in complement to regionalconsiderations.

2035 can be what we make it.

Legacy 2035 Focus Areas for Problem Solving 19




SECTION III FOCUS AREAS FORPROBLEM SOLVING

Legacy 2035 carries forward a planning and decision-makingstructure centered on the needs of the customer and theregion’s social, economic, and environmental aspirations.Recognizing the difficulty of associating specific decisions withspecific outcomes, a series of focus areas have been utilizedover time to organize transportation system evaluation anddecision-making. The implicit assumption in using the focusareas is that progress in these areas will contribute to attaining

regional goals.

The focus areas have guided planning and programming fornearly 15 years. They serve as the evaluative framework foridentifying and defining problems and regional needs, develop-ing and evaluating options, and selecting preferred alternativesand strategies in long- and short-range planning studies. Theyare used to establish priorities in selecting projects for the

Transportation Improvement Program and the metropolitantransportation plan. They provide a reference point to ensureconsistency in the Council’s various planning programs andtracking progress in meeting regional goals. The six focus areasare:

• Preservation of existing infrastructure. Maintaining the cur-rent road, bridge, transit and intermodal assets in good condi-

tion.

• Safety and security in travel. Decreasing the risk of personalinjury and property damage on, in, and around transportationfacilities.

• Congestion Management. Ensuring that congestion on theregion’s roadways does not reach levels that compromise pro-ductivity and quality of life.

• Access to opportunity. Addressing the complex mobilityneeds of persons living in low-income communities, the elder-ly, and persons with disabilities.

• Sustainable development. Coordinating land use, trans-portation, economic development, environmental quality,energy conservation, and community aesthetics.

• Efficient movement of goods. Improving the movement offreight within and through the region by rail, water, air, andsurface transportation modes.

A discussion of the primary issues and needs associated witheach focus area continues through this chapter. Long-rangestrategies for addressing those needs are identified for eachfocus area.







Figure 3-2

Map

Pavement Conditions










g y g

of region. In 1995, only 21 percent of the Interstate roads, and28 percent of principal arterial roads were classified as being ingood condition in Missouri counties. By 2006, 80 percent ofInterstates and 69 percent of arterials were rated as being in

good condition.

Conditions vary a great deal by county, as well. Investmentsfocused on the Interstate system in Jefferson and St. Louis coun-ties have paid off for travelers in those areas. The percentage ofInterstates in good condition in both counties rose considerablysince 1995, with 85 and 72 percent respectively, of pavementsnow rates as good. There is still much work to be done onimproving the condition of the region’s arterial system. In theCity of St. Louis, 62 percent of state maintained arterial roadsare in poor condition.

Although the conditions do vary among state and roadway sys-tem, most drivers are minimally impacted by poor pavementconditions. Only about 2 percent of travel in Illinois, and 10percent of travel in Missouri occurs on roads with poor pave-ment conditions, although conditions do vary of course bycounty and roadway system. Due to the poor condition of arte-rials in the City of St. Louis, travelers there are experiencing thehighest level of poor pavements.

Even with the great strides made towards improving roadwaysurface conditions, the demand for investment in this focus areais still high. Highway preservation needs are a moving targetthat require constant attention. As improvements are made in

one portion of the system, another area is falling into disrepair.

The states do have responsibility over a small number of minorarterials, collectors, and other minor roads that certainly needsome attention, but it is a very small percentage of the localroadway system. Local governments are responsible for main-taining a majority of local roads, which is a huge responsibilitygiven that portion of the system consists of approximately

15,000 miles roadway. Currently, a regional database of localroad conditions does not exist to track the level of need on this

Source: IDOT, based on mileage

Source: MoDOT, based on lane miles

Figure 3-4Illinois Pavement Conditions, 1995-2005

Figure 3-5Missouri Pavement Conditions, 1995-2005





26 F A f P bl S l i L 2035



26 Focus Areas for Problem Solving Legacy 2035


Figure 3-6

Map

Bridge Conditions








Similar progress has been made to reduce the number of defi-cient bridges on the local system as well. Thirty percent oflocally maintained bridges are deficient in Missouri counties.St. Louis City has the highest concentration, with 51 percent

of its locally maintained bridges rated deficient. This is downfrom 67 percent in 1995, but is still 15 percent higher than inSt. Louis County. Preservation of the local system is a particu-lar challenge in today’s fiscal environment, where many localgovernments are faced with extremely tight budgets, an agingsystem, and growing investment needs. Many older commu-nities are experiencing a loss in tax base as developmentmoves further away from the central core of the region. A

limited amount of federal funds are made available throughthe Transportation Improvement Program. Local governmentsmust compete against one another, however, for a relativelysmall amount of funds. Given the great level of investmentneeds throughout local communities in the region, competi-tion for the funding is intense.

Transit

The highway system and transit system are distinct, but integralto providing a system that serves all of the region’s transporta-tion needs. Improving the condition of highways and bridgesalso benefits the transit system. Managing the transit system,however, includes managing and maintaining its buses, para-transit vans, light rail cars, and other supporting infrastructure.Just as private cars deteriorate under heavy wear and tear andmany miles of service, so do transit vehicles and fixed assets.The condition of transit assets, however, can have a great dealof influence over the potential success of the system.

Metro has been proactive in managing their capital assets overtime. As shown in Table 3-4, less than 5 percent of Metro’sbuses, vans and light rail are beyond their useful life. On aver-age, the age of Metro’s current fleet is less than 50 percent of

Source: MoDOT, IDOT

Source: MoDOT, IDOT

Figure 3-7 2005 Bridge Conditions: State and Locally Maintained Structures

Figure 3-8Percent Change in Deficient Bridges, 1995-2005




its useful life. Metro has retired aging vehicles, and hasdecreased the overall size of their fleet in recent years. At thesame time, they have been proactively replacing buses and vansat the end of their life cycle with new vehicles with upgraded

technologies to meet today’s service needs. This has reducedcosts and improved service.

Madison County Transit (MCT) has also had a proactive bus andvan replacement program to maintain high service quality.None of MCT’s transit vehicles are currently beyond their usefullife. Overall, MCT vehicles average almost 75 percent of theiruseful life. The asset management programs that MCT and

Metro have in place are critical to creating an attractive andcomfortable transit system. Up-to-date technologies, that runefficiently and breakdown less, make service more attractive tocurrent and potential riders. Continuing to support the region’stransit asset management programs is critical to the region.

Past Actions and Future Directions

The Council has emphasized preservation needs in the program-ming of federal funds, encouraging MoDOT to commit more

funding to road and bridge rehabilitation, and using preserva-tion as the top priority in the selection of local projects usingsuballocated Surface Transportation Program funds since 1994.MoDOT has dedicated a set amount of funds annually forbridge and pavement preservation. Targets were initially set for$35 million for bridges and for pavement each year; in 2002 thetargets were raised to $50 million for bridges and $70 millioneach year for pavement and roadway preservation. From 2007

to 2010, the end of the current Transportation ImprovementProgram, $1.2 billion has been programmed in federal, state,and local funds for road, bridge, and transit preservation needs,representing 43 percent of the total program.

Table 3-4Transit Fleet Condition: 2007

Vehicle Type Number of Useful Life Actual Percent of NumberVehicles (Years) Average Age Useful Life Beyond Useful Life

Metro30-40’ Bus 389 15 6.91 46.1% 0Van 124 5 4.14 82.7% 29Light Rail 87 20 8.95 44.8% 0Total 600 — 6.63 48.6% 29

Madison County Transit30’ Buses 22 10 8.92 89.2% 040’ Buses 41 12 9.59 79.9% 0Cutaway, Light Duty 48 5 2.46 49.3% 0Total 111 — 6.38 74.3% 0

Source: Metro and Madison County Transit




Preserving the system now and in the future will require contin-uing the region’s dedication to this goal. Regional collaborationwill be key, particularly as the needs arise to undertake majorreconstruction efforts. Major reconstruction projects willrequire significant coordination and costly mitigation to miti-gate impacts for travelers. This year, MoDOT began the recon-struction of I-64 between Spoede Road and KingshighwayBoulevard, which traverses the heart of the St. Louis region.The I-64 reconstruction project is the largest reconstruction proj-ect, in both scope and cost, in St. Louis history. It is the firsttime a design-build approach has been implemented inMissouri. The goal for the project is to complete the projectwithin a four-year timeframe within a $535 million budget.Many of the lessons learned through the implementation of theI-64 reconstruction project will set precedent for future projectsof similar size that will inevitably arise as the system ages overtime.

Nearly 70 percent or X Dollars of the investments identified inLegacy 2035 are dedicated to maintenance, rehabilitation, andreconstruction of existing highways, bridges, and transit assets.

Maintaining a progressive approach to management of theregion’s transportation system is critical to continue improvingtheir condition. Deferring this responsibility due to the increas-ingly tight fiscal environment is not a feasible option.Preservation of the existing system is fiscally responsible, andwill remain the basic tenet of the transportation planning andprogramming process now, and in years to come.

The following strategies will guide future Council efforts inthe area of preservation:

• Invest what is needed to continuously improve the conditionof pavements and bridges on the state highway systems andto adequately maintain regional transit assets

• Give priority to preservation in the programming ofSuballocated STP funds to encourage the consistent improve-ment of locally-owned roads and bridges

• Accelerate the rehabilitation of the arterial road system

• Encourage local governments to develop comprehensive assetmanagement program to track conditions of transportationassets maintained by local entities




Intentionally blank






Analysis

Highway Safety Crashes are one of the many risks associated with motor vehicle

use. Every time someone takes a seat behind the wheel, theyare at risk of being involved in a motor vehicle crash that couldseriously harm themselves or others. Most people do not think twice about it, because driving is such a large part of every daylife, until it affects them. An average of 86,400 crashes occuron highways each year throughout the St. Louis region. Mostof these crashes are fairly minor involving only property dam-ages, yet many result in injury or even death. Each year theregion loses 329 lives due to motor vehicle crashes. For eachperson tragically killed, another 92 are injured. The real tragedyis that a motor vehicle crashes are the number one killer amongyoung people in the region, and the third top cause of prema-ture loss of life.5

Recent trends show traffic safety is improving in the region.The number of fatalities and injuries associated with crashes hasfallen appreciably over the last decade, both in real terms and inrates. In 2005, the region’s fatality rate per 100,000 populationwas 12.6, and the rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveledwas 1.28, both well below national rates of 14.6 and 1.45.6 Onboth measures, fatality rates improved by approximately 10 per-cent since 1995. Similar improvements were observed for injuryrates during that period. The rate of injury for 2005 was1,113.3 injuries per 100,000 population and 114.2 per injuriesper 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Although regional injury

rates are higher than national averages, both rates dropped byapproximately 25 percent since 1995.

5 Rajesh Subramanian, Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes as a Leading Cause of Death in the United

States, 2003.;Traffic Safety Facts, NHTSA, March 2006.

6 2005 Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 2004.

Source: Missouri Highway Patrol, IDOT

Figure 3-9Fatality Trends 1995-2005

Source: Missouri Highway Patrol, IDOT

Figure 3-10Injury Trends 1995-2005







Figure 3-12

Map

Fatal Crashes - 2000-2005








D it i d i f t liti d i j i ti Figure 3 14



Despite progress in reducing fatalities and injuries over time,improving safety outcomes will always remain an arduous chal-lenge for the region. Continuing to reduce the number of fatal-ities and disabling injuries associated with motor vehicle crashes

will depend on how well drivers respond to education andenforcement efforts. Two factors that may impede progressrelate to demographic trends—aging baby boomers and agrowing number of young people reaching driving age.

In 2000, 14 percent of drivers were 65 and older, by 2035 thatproportion will grow to at least 23 percent. As drivers age, theirmental and physical abilities diminish, and driving behavior andcrash risks change. Older Americans are increasingly dependentupon driving to maintain their mobility, life-styles, and health.The challenge will be to balance mobility for older drivers withsafety for all drivers on the road.

Young drivers also have unique needs for two primary rea-sons. First, young drivers lack experience necessary torespond to unknown circumstances that will inevitablyoccur. Second, they are immature, often engaging in risky

behaviors, without the ability or willingness to think aheadabout the potential consequences of those risky behav-iors.10

Source: Missouri Highway Patrol and IDOT * Based on annual average injuries 2000-2005.

Figure 3-14Injury Rates

Table 3-5Disabling Injuries by County

County Disabling Non-Disabling Percent of Injuries asInjuries Injuries Disabling

St. Louis City 860 18,203 4.5%St. Louis 2,415 28,971 7.7St. Charles 922 7,376 11.1%St. Clair 909 4,482 16.9

Madison 920 4,063 18.5Jefferson 1,457 5,994 19.6Monroe 102 361 22.0%Franklin 850 2,855 22.9%Region 8,435 72,305 11.7

Source: MoDot (Average 2003-2005), IDOT (Average 2004-2005), US Census

10 Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 810 710, January 2007












The following strategies will guide future Council efforts in



the area of regional safety and security:

• Work with partners to implement a systematic plan toimprove regional transportation safety, focusing on engineer-ing, education, enforcement and emergency response whileintegrating the IDOT and MoDOT comprehensive safety plans

• Promote education and advertising strategies to changeunsafe driving behavior

• Invest in cost-effective safety improvements to eliminate sub-standard conditions in high crash locations and corridors

• Develop a training program to assist communities in solvinglocal transportation safety problems

• Develop a Regional Emergency Coordination Plan that articu-lates policies and procedures for resource sharing and cooper-ative response to large scale multi-jurisdictional emergencyincidents, including evacuation plans

• Maintain a medical communications center to support andcoordinate communications among hospitals, EMS, publichealth and emergency managers as needed

• Support emergency patient tracking system to identify andtrack patients from the field to the hospital, permitting moreefficient use of EMS resources, and balancing patient loads at

area hospitals

• Support a Terrorist Early Warning Center to coordinate detec-tion and prevention of intentional criminal acts and to main-tain inventory and plan for protection of critical infrastructure






In the evening the worst congestion was found to be in manyFigure 3-15



In the evening, the worst congestion was found to be in manyof the same areas. Congestion was worse than in the morningperiod along the I-64 corridor in the Chesterfield valley, at theMissouri River Bridge, and at the I-170 interchange, where

severe congestion persists in both directions. Severe congestionexisted on MO 141, MO 340, MO 100, and a northbound sec-tion of US 67 at I-270. Congestion was a bit heavier on theIllinois side of the region in the evening peak period. Heavy tomoderate congestion emerged in the evening peak period alongRoute 159 at I-64 and north of I-70. The only severe congestionin Illinois was on southbound IL Route 3, but that congestionwas related to a construction project at the time, as opposed to

traffic demand.

g

Source: Texas Transportation Institute, 2005

Figure 3-16Travel Time Index 1982-2003





Figure 3-17

Map

Highway Congestion

Morning Peak Period

Legacy 2035 Transportation Investment Plan 47









Figure 3-18

Map

Highway Congestion

Evening Peak Period












Figure 3-19

Map

Peak Hour Highway Travel Dela y

By Trip Origin










Figure 3-20

Map

Peak Hour Highway Travel Dela y

By Trip Destination


Areas with relatively low delays at the origin end of their triptend to be either within the most urbanized areas where tripl th t d t b h t d lti l ll l t il

Even in the absence of river crossings, longer trips originatingfrom southwestern portions of St. Louis, Franklin, and northernJ ff ti i i d l i i 20 30








lengths tend to be shorter and multiple parallel routes are avail-able, or in outlying areas of the region where commuter trips tothe urban core are minimal.

St. Charles County also has areas where delay at the origin endof the trip can be attributed to river crossings, although to alesser degree than those crossing the Mississippi River fromIllinois. Recent extensions to Page Avenue (MO 364 Bridge)have reduced much of the delay previously experienced by trav-elers coming from that area.

Jefferson counties are experiencing delays comprising 20-30 per-cent of their travel time. Many of these travelers depend uponI-44, MO 100, and MO 30 to reach I-270, where congestion is

severe during the peak period, particularly at the I-44 / I-270interchange.

The Council has been working closely with MoDOT and IDOTover the last decade to improve collection of information aboutregional traffic conditions using new technologies such as GPSand intelligent transportation systems (ITS) infrastructure. Onenew element of the region’s ITS is a new traffic surveillance

system, which collects data on traffic conditions, such asvolumes, speeds, construction, and incidents, on minute-by-minute basis, twenty-four hours a day. The data is collectedFigure 3-21

Delay as Percent of Total Travel Time

Source: Traffic.com


and managed by Traffic.com, which also integrates the informa-tion into a website that travelers can use to plan their trips and

Hourly speed data for the segments with highest delay along I-64corridor are shown over a 24-hour period in Figures 3-22 and 3-



which planners can access to gather detailed traffic data. TheTraffic.com infrastructure continues to be under development,and currently covers portions I-64, I-55, I-44, and I-170. When

complete, the system will be expanded to cover all major corri-dors in both the Missouri and Illinois portions of the region.The information collected by Traffic.com will provide a rich setof data to enhance the analysis of traffic conditions, to identifythe extent of non-recurring congestion and to identify hot spotsof recurring congestion, and to evaluate the system-wideimpacts and effectiveness of various transportation improve-ments over time.

Traffic analysts are using the Traffic.com data to examine condi-tions along corridors where data is collected. The fol-lowing figures show an example of the data evaluatedfor I-64 between I-270 and the Poplar Street Bridge.Figure 3-21 shows delay along the corridor for bothmorning and evening peak periods. Delay is measuredas the difference in the amount of time it takes to travel

a given distance during off-peak hours of operation ascompared to peak hours.15 Information used to calcu-late delay was taken from observed data on a typicalday, Wednesday, September 27, 2006. During themorning peak period, the highest delays were observedtraveling eastbound -64 between I-270 and I-170.During the evening period the highest delays wereobserved traveling westbound between Vandeventer

Ave. and I-170. The cause of delay was in part recurringcongestion but also morning traffic incidents between I-270 and I-170. A log of incident data is also availableshowing time, location, and severity.

23. The data show the magnitude and duration of speed reduc-tion as a result of congestion and incidents. This type of detaileddata will greatly improve our region’s ability to analyze traffic

conditions and be more strategic about transportation invest-ments.

Source: Traffic.com

Figure 3-22I-64 Average Hourly SpeedsEastbound Between I-270 and I-170

15 The hours of 6:30 - 8:00 am were used for the morning peak hours of operation,4:30 - 6:00 pm for the evening peak hours of operation, and 9:30-11:00 pm for theoff-peak hours of operation





















Figure 3-24

Map

Employment Change

1990-2000


















Click on the link below to display Figure 3 27

Figure 3-27

Map

Job Accessibility:

Peak Hour Transit










Figure 3-28

Map

Job Accessibility:

Off Peak Hour Transit









• Encourage compacts between agencies that allow paratransitproviders to offer service across jurisdictional lines or programcategories and provide reciprocal funding mechanisms toensure that all such agencies are properly compensated;



• Support programs to increase transit/paratransit operatingand capital funding;

• Encourage development of appropriate transit/paratransitservices in counties without adequate fixed-route service;

• Support initiatives and policies that encourage job creation inlow-income and minority communities;

• Monitor equity in the regional distribution of transportationcosts and benefits;

• Ensure that low-income and minority populations have equalaccess to the metropolitan planning and decision-makingprocess through proactive outreach programs;

• Support efforts to improve workforce preparedness and jobaccess strategies developed under the Regional Jobs Initiative,the Regional Access to Jobs Plan, the Workforce DevelopmentPlan, and the Bridges to Work program;

• Promote changes in public incentives for development andredevelopment that will encourage employers to locate closerto labor markets.




Intentionally blank





http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles/library/trans/legacy2035/Legacy2035-Fig3-29.pdf



Figure 3-29 Map

Change in Urbanized Area

1950-2000















Figure 3-31 Map

Population Change

1990-2000












Figure 3-32

Map

Percentage of Workers Employed

Outside County of Residence














Figure 3-33

Map

Land Use Change 2040

‘Legacy 2035 Focus Areas for Problem Solving 81









Figure 3-34 Map

Development Difference 2040

No Build versus Full Build Scenarios











Figure 3-35

Map

Development Difference 2040

Financially Constrained versus Full Build Scenarios























to be a major player in national and international freight move-ment. In addition to location, St. Louis’ workforce and qualityof life are drawing factors for businesses to the region who inturn create further demands for the movement of goods andservices.31 When compared to the region’s peers, St. Louisranked 19th in total freight flow by value and 11th by weight.According to the 2006 estimates St Louis shipped approxi-

Figure 3-38



According to the 2006 estimates, St. Louis shipped approximately 85 million tons of freight valued at $62 billion andreceived about 124 million tons valued at $84 billion. Another133 million tons of freight valued at $75 billion flowed internal-ly within the St. Louis Region.32 Shipments came by roadways,air, pipeline, water and rail. A majority of the freight, however,was moved by truck.

National Truck Freight Flow map, Figure 3-39, illustrates theflow of goods traveling by truck on highways across the coun-try. In 2006, 62 percent of the total freight by weight in the St.Louis Region was moved by truck. Thirty-four percent of thefreight imported, 62 percent of the freight exported, and 89percent of the freight shipped internally made it to its destina-tion via truck. It is important to note that for imports, pipeline(39.8 percent) was the most prevalent method of transport,

supplying various fuels to maintain the region as a whole. Eventhough pipelines were the most popular method of importinggoods, pipelines account for only about 15 percent of the over-all freight movement. Trucks offer great flexibility in route time,location and distance. Also, trucks allow for convenient local-ized distribution of products and save purchasers time and has-sle from having to pickup merchandise from centralized distri-bution centers.

The growth in truck usage has lead to increased need for infra-structure accommodation. Because of trucks’ weight and size,local roads and ramps must be constructed with those largevehicles in mind. This may include wider turning angles, higherclearances, and wider lanes. Also, large trucks cause a

31 Fleishman-Hillard Research and Wilson Research Strategies, Summary of Greater St. Louis Brand Development Research, Summer 2005.

32 DOT, Federal Highway Administration, Freight Analysis Framework, 2006 estimates based on 2002Commodity Flow Survey.


Figure 3-39







Figure 3-40





Figure 3 40 Map

Density of Tractor Trailer Trucks

per Lane Mile

Morning Peak Period



Figure 3-41










Figure 3 41

Map

Density of Tractor Trailer Trucks

per Lane Mile

Evening Peak Period



Figure 3-42M












g Map

Primary Goods Movement Network

shippers and receivers


In 2006, the Council also began a process to develop aMetropolitan Area Aviation System Plan. This is a cooperativeeffort among the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), IDOT,MoDOT, and the Council. The purpose of the plan is to developstrategies for greater coordination and integration of theregion’s major aviation assets including Lambert-St. LouisInternational, Mid-America St. Louis, Spirit of St. Louis, St. LouisD t P k d St L i R i l I f ti l d








Downtown Parks, and St. Louis Regional. Information gleanedfrom this process will also serve to inform the development ofstrategies to better integrate of various modes of transportationto improve the movement of goods and people to and from theregion and improve economic viability over the long-term.

The following strategies will guide future Council efforts in

the area of efficient movement of goods:

• Develop a strategic regional intermodal freight investmentplan, in cooperation with the states and industry representa-tives, by evaluating the efficiency of existing freight facilities,identifying problems and opportunities, analyzing potentialsolutions, and setting priorities

• Identify critical deficiencies affecting the efficient flow ofgoods and develop projects for consideration in theTransportation Improvement Program

• Support the Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition and otherregional efforts to improve cooperation in the planning, oper-ation, preservation, and improvement of key transportationinfrastructure for improving efficiency of goods movement

across nationally














construction costs, Metro could build and operate twoMetroLink extensions in St. Louis City and County over the next28 years.

Transportation Investment Plan

The accompanying tables list the projects compris-ing the priority transportation investment plan forthe region The tables show the projects that fit

this plan, consistent with recent action of the Council’s Board ofDirectors and with deliberations taking place between the twostate departments of transportation.

This plan assumes a new four-lane bridge, costing approximate-ly $550 million. This proposal is consistent with the MLK

Table 4-5



the region. The tables show the projects that fitwithin the region’s financialconstraint and are, thereby, recommended for pri-ority implementation; the illustrative projects thatwill advance to the priority list if additional fund-ing becomes available; and the corridors that are

recommended for further study. Project prioritieswere established through a two-step process.First, East-West Gateway staff analyzed each proj-ect within a quantitative evaluation framework.That framework consists of performance measuresbased on the six focus areas used by the Councilto guide decision-making: preservation, safety,congestion, access to opportunity, goods move-

ment, and sustainable development. After proj-ects were evaluated, a priority ranking was estab-lished. These rankings were then shared with andcompared to priorities of the implementing agen-cies, and discussions between East-West Gatewayand the implementing agencies produced the finallist.

A special note is in order concerning the newMississippi River Bridge. For the last decade, con-struction of a new downtown bridge across theMississippi River has been a top regional priority.It became evident, however, that the cost of thenew signature bridge, which approached $2 billionfor the span and connecting roadways, wasbeyond the region’s financial capacity. Thus, ascaled-back version of the bridge is proposed in

Metro Financial Capacity: 2011-2035(year of expenditure dollars, millions)

Add¼%Baseline Prop.

Expense Revenue Balance M Balance

MaintainExisting System

Capital $2,623 $2,833 $210 $2,859 $236

Operating $9,594 $7,649 ($1,945) $9,389 ($206)

Total $12,217 $10,482 ($1,735) $12,247 $30

New ½ %Expense Equiv. Balance

MaintainExisting System

Capital $2,623 $4,419 $1,796

Operating $9,594 $9.594 $0

Total $12,217 $14,013 $1,796

MetroLinkExpansion

Capital $4,693 $4,938 $245)

Operating $10,545 $10,545 $0

Total $15,238 $15,483 $245


104 Transportation Investment Plan Legacy 2035

Coupler concept or with a new four-lane structure on the samealignment as the original bridge plan. Currently, there is a $239million federal earmark set aside for a new bridge, and IDOT hascommitted another $210 million, with prospects for additionalspecial funding from Illinois to finance the span. If a four-lanebridge proceeds, Missouri’s relatively minor contribution would

fit within the region’s financial constraint with minimal effecton other projects. Depending on the specific bridge proposedth h th i d lib ti b t th t t d



through the on-going deliberations between the states andregional leaders, some rearranging of Illinois investment priori-ties might be required.

The priority investment plan costs nearly $24 billion dollars. Thegreat majority of costs—86 percent—are associated with high-

way and transit preservation/operation needs. Along with thosemajor expenditure categories, for which no specific projects areidentified, the plan contains 18 highway improvement projectscosting $3.3 billion. Almost three-quarters of the major projectsinvolve upgrading Interstates and freeways.

Table 4-6Priority Project Cost by Improvement Type: 2011-2035

(year of expenditure, millions)

Major Improvement Category Number Cost

Existing TIP Commitments — $47

Preservation/Operation:

Highways — $11,068

Transit — $10,482

Total Preservation $21,550

Major Projects:

Interstate/Freeway Upgrade 13 $2,497

Major Arterial Relocation 2 $525

Major Arterial Upgrade 3 $236

Total Major Projects 18 $3,258

Total Plan 18 $24,855


Table 4-7 Investment Priorities—Projects funded within the region’s financial constraint (year of expenditure dollars, millions)

Investment/Period Sponsor Description County Location Cost (YOE)

Period: 2011-2020

Preservation/Operations IDOT/MoDOT Rehabilitation/operational improvements MultiCounty Regionwide $2 991



Preservation/Operations IDOT/MoDOT Rehabilitation/operational improvements MultiCounty Regionwide $2,991

Transit Operations Metro Maintain existing transit system MultiCounty St. Louis City/Co./St. Clair $3,404

New Miss. River Bridge IDOT/MoDOT Construct new bridge and connections St. Clair/St. Louis City Mississippi River $550

IL 159 IDOT Widen, revise intersections Madison/St. Clair South Morrison to Belt Line $60

IL 3 partial IDOT Relocate, four lane Madison/St. Clair Venice to Cahokia $173

I-64 partial IDOT Construct tri-level interchange St. Clair I-64 and I-55/70 interchange $78

US 40 MoDOT Construct new bridge St. Charles/St. Louis Missouri River $222

MO 364 (Phase 2) MoDOT Upgrade to freeway (MO 94) St. Charles w/o Harvester to MO N $137

MO 141 MoDOT Relocate, four lane St. Louis I-64 to MO 340 $164

Period: 2021-2030


Transit Operations Metro Maintain existing transit system MultiCounty St. Louis City/Co. and St. Clair $4,388

IL 3 partial IDOT Relocate, four lane Madison/St. Clair Venice to Cahokia $188


I-44 MoDOT Revise interchange Franklin North Pacific interchange $16

I-55 MoDOT Revise interchange Jefferson MO M interchange $51

I-55 MoDOT Add lanes, revise interchanges Jefferson MO M to US 67 $178

I-70 MoDOT Add lanes St. Charles MO Z to Pearce $71

I-70 MoDOT Revise interchange St. Charles MO K interchange $69

I-170 MoDOT Interchange/mainline improvements St. Louis MO D to I-64 $301

I-270 MoDOT Revise interchange St. Louis I-270/Page – south to east flyover $38

Riverview Dr (Route H) MoDOT Upgrade to parkway St. Louis City Hall St to I-270 $69


Table 4-7 (continued)

Investment Priorities – Projects funded within the region’s financial constraint (year of expenditure dollars, millions)

Investment/Period Sponsor Description County Location Cost (YOE)

Period: 2031-2035




/ p / / p p y g $ ,

Transit Operations Metro Maintain existing transit system MultiCounty St. Louis City/Co. and St. Clair Co. $2,690


I-64 Connector partial IDOT Construct roadway connector St. Clair I-64 to New Miss. River Bridge $282

MO MM MoDOT Realign, upgrade existing Jefferson MO 21 to MO 30 $107

I-44 MoDOT Revise interchange St. Louis Shrewsbury interchange $72



Figure 4-1 Map






Legacy 2035 Investment Plan

Draft Priority Projects


Table 4-8Illustrative Projects – Projects that will move onto the priority list as financing becomes available(year of expenditure dollars, millions)

Route/Corridor Sponsor Description County Location Cost (YOE)

I-44 MoDOT Add lanes Franklin Pacific to MO 100 $51

I-44 MoDOT Revise interchange Franklin MO 185 interchange $61






US 50 MoDOT Realign, add lanes Franklin MO EE to I-44 $294

US 50 MoDOT Realign, four lane Franklin MO EE to Gasconade County $144

US 50 MoDOT Widen Franklin Denmark to I-44 $26

MO 47 MoDOT New bridge Franklin Missouri River $215

MO 47 MoDOT Add lanes Franklin US 50 to I-44 $49

MO 47 MoDOT Add lanes Franklin Washington to US 50 $49

MO 100 MoDOT Realign, construct interchange Franklin e/o Gray Summit (MO 100) $184

MO 100 MoDOT Add lanes Franklin/St. Louis MO T to MO OO $53

MO 100 MoDOT Add lanes Franklin MO 47 to Pottery $26

MO 100 MoDOT Widen shoulders Franklin MO E to Gasconade County $14

MO F MoDOT Realign, construct RR overpass Franklin RR overpass $24

MO 21 MoDOT Relocate, four lane Jefferson MO B to MO N & H $166

MO W MoDOT Upgrade Jefferson MO 30 to Eureka $43I-70 MoDOT Add lanes St. Charles Wentzville Pkway to Foristell $47

I-70 MoDOT Construct interchange St. Charles MO W & MO T $75

I-70 MoDOT Revise interchanges St. Charles 5th to Mid Rivers Mall $203

US 61 MoDOT Upgrade to Interstate St. Charles MO A to Lincoln Co. $140

MO 94 MoDOT Reconstruct two lane St. Charles MO 370 to MO B $12

MO 364 (Phase 3) MoDOT Construct new six lane roadway St. Charles MO 94 to US 40 $284

MO N MoDOT Reconstruct to three lane St. Charles US 40 to MO Z $45MO Z MoDOT Reconstruct to three lane St. Charles I-70 to MO N $24


Table 4-8 continued Illustrative Projects—Projects that will move onto the priority list as financing becomes available(millions of $2007)

Route/Corridor Sponsor Description County Location Cost (YOE)

I-44 MoDOT Revise interchange St. Louis MO 109 interchange $128

I-64 MoDOT Add collector/distributor lanes St. Louis Boone’s Crossing to Spirit Blvd $59



I-64 MoDOT Construct interchanges St. Louis Spirit Blvd & Long Rd $162

I-170 MoDOT Interchange/mainline improvements St. Louis I-270 to Scudder $97

I-270 MoDOT Revise Interchange St. Louis US 67 (Lindbergh) $43

MO 109 MoDOT Construct four lane parkway St. Louis MO BA to s/o Westridge Oaks $65

MO 340 MoDOT Construct interchange St. Louis Baxter Rd interchange $67

MO 367 MoDOT Upgrade to parkway St. Louis I-270 to Halls Ferry Circle $115

MO D MoDOT Upgrade to expressway St. Louis Schuetz to Lindbergh $115

MD. Hgts. Express. TBA Construct new road St. Louis MO 340 to Creve Coeur Mill $101

MetroSouth LRT Metro Construct new light rail route St. Louis Shrewsbury to south St. Louis Co $1,134

MetroNorth LRT Metro Construct new light rail route St. Louis Clayton to I-270/Florissant $1,033

Daniel Boone LRT Metro Construct new light rail route St. Louis Clayton/MetroLink to Westport $1,074

NSide/SSide LRT Metro Construct new light rail route St. Louis City/Co. StL CBD to north St. Louis Co $1,823



Figure 4-2 Map






p

Legacy 2035 Investment Plan

Draft Illustrative Projects


Table 4-9Recommended Future Corridor Studies

Route/Corridor Sponsor Description County Location

I-44 MoDOT Corridor Study Franklin Crawford Co. to MO 100

MO 100 MoDOT Corridor Study Franklin Gasconade Co. to MO 47

MO 30 MoDOT Corridor Study Franklin Jefferson Co. to I-44







US 61/67 MoDOT Corridor Study Jefferson McNutt Rd. to MO A

US 67 MoDOT Corridor Study Jefferson I-55 to St. Francois Co.

MO 30 MoDOT Corridor Study Jefferson Franklin Co. to end of 4-lane section

MO 30 MoDOT Corridor Study Jefferson St. Louis Co. to MO MM

MO Z MoDOT Corridor Study Jefferson I-55 to US 61/67

I-270 IDOT/MoDOT Corridor Study Madison/St. Louis City/Co. IL 111 to Jefferson Barracks Bridge

MetroLink Extension MCT Corridor Study Madison/St. Clair Existing MetroLink to Tri-Cities

MO 79 MoDOT Corridor Study St. Charles I-70 to Lincoln Co.

MO 370 MoDOT Corridor Study St. Charles MO 370 to MO 79

MO K MoDOT Operational Study St. Charles US 40 to I-70MO M MoDOT Corridor Study St. Charles I-70 to MO 79

MO P MoDOT Corridor Study St. Charles MO M to US 61

MO Z MoDOT Corridor Study St. Charles I-70 to MO N

US 50 IDOT Corridor Study St. Clair Lebanon to Clinton Co.

Gateway Connector IDOT Corridor Study (IL 158) St. Clair/Madison/Monroe Troy to Columbia

I-44 MoDOT Interchange Study St. Louis MO 141 interchange

I-70 MoDOT Interchange Study St. Louis I-70/I-270 interchange


Table 4-9 continued Recommended Future Corridor Studies

Route/Corridor Sponsor Description County Location

US 67 MoDOT Corridor Study St. Louis I-270 to MO AC

MO 100 MoDOT Intersection/Interchange Study St. Louis MO 340 intersection

MO 141 MoDOT Corridor Study St. Louis/Jefferson MO 30 to I-55

MO 340 MoDOT Ope ational St d St Lo i US 67 to St Lo i Cit li it



MO 340 MoDOT Operational Study St. Louis US 67 to St. Louis City limits

MO D MoDOT Corridor Study St. Louis US 67 to St. Louis City limits

I-44 MoDOT Corridor/Interchange Study St. Louis City I-55 to St. Louis City Limits

I-55 MoDOT Corridor/Interchange Study St. Louis City Poplar Street Bridge to St. Louis City limits



Figure 4-3Legacy 2035 Investment P lan











Intentionally blank





Legacy 2035 Air Quality Conformity 117

PM 2.5

Federal and State regulations require that projects included inLegacy 2035 (including the FY 2008-2011 TIP) must pass the fol-lowing emissions test for each of the four analysis years, 2010,2020, 2030 and 2035:

• Emissions of direct PM2.5 resulting from the plan’s 2010, 2020,2030 and 2035 implementation will be less than the 2002baseline emissions inventory for the entire non-attainment

Table 5-1Regional Emissions Analysis:Conformity Tests for Volatile Organic Compounds(tons per day)

Tests

2007 Analysis Year Action / 2007 BudgetMissouri 53.863 / 74.460

Result Pass

Illinois 12.697 / 16.310



yarea, i.e. 1,696.584 tons per year (see Table 5-3).

• Emissions of NOx (as a precursor) resulting from the plan’s2010, 2020, 2030 and 2035 implementation will be less than

the 2002 baseline emissions inventory for the entire non-attainment area, 84,246.749 tons per year (see Table 5-4).

Based on the conformity analysis conducted for PM2.5 as part ofthe long-range plan development, as shown in the followingtables, the projects and programs included in the Legacy 2035(including the FY 2008-2011 TIP) are found to be in conformitywith the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990, the relevant sections of the Final Conformity Rule 40 CFRPart 93 and the Missouri State Conformity Regulations 10 CSR10-5.480. This finding is documented in companion report, Air Quality Conformity Determination and Documentation.

Baldwin Township in Randolph County in Illinois is not includedin the East-West Gateway region but is included in the PM2.5non-attainment area for St. Louis. IDOT is the lead agency inoverseeing the conformity determination process for BaldwinTownship. The mobile source emissions estimates for theTownship which have been included in the overall emissionsanalysis and resulting test can be found in Appendix I of thecompanion report, Air Quality Conformity Determination and Documentation.

Illinois 12.697 / 16.310

Result Pass

2010 Analysis Year Action / 2007 Budget

Missouri 44.953 / 74.460

Result Pass

Illinois 7.740 / 16.310Result Pass


Missouri 30.903 / 47.140

Result Pass

Illinois 4.564 / 10.130

Result Pass


Missouri 20.317 / 47.140

Result Pass

Illinois 2.441 / 10.130

Result Pass


Missouri 16.173 / 47.140

Result Pass


2035 Horizon Year Action / 2014 Budget

Missouri 16.704 / 47.140

Result Pass

Illinois 2.278 / 10.130

Result Pass

118 Air Quality Conformity Legacy 2035

Table 5-2Regional Emissions Analysis:Conformity Tests for Oxides of Nitrogen(tons per day)

Tests


Result Pass

Illinois 27 669 / 36 870

Table 5-3Regional Emissions Analysis:Conformity Test for Direct PM 2.5 (tons per year)

Test

2010 Analysis Year Action / 2002 Inventory

Missouri 645.356 / 1,371.824

Illinois 184.760 / 324.760

Non-Attainment Area 830.116 / 1,696.584



Illinois 27.669 / 36.870

Result Pass


Missouri 81.873 / 130.550

Result Pass



Missouri 50.380 / 68.590

Result Pass

Illinois 9.509 / 18.720

Result Pass


Result Pass

Illinois 3.271 / 18.720

Result Pass


Missouri 14.031 / 68.590

Result Pass


2035 Horizon Year Action / 2014 Budget

Missouri 13.501 / 68.590

Result Pass

Illinois 0.591 / 18.720

Result Pass

Non Attainment Area 830.116 / 1,696.584

Result Pass


Missouri 376.830 / 1,371.824

Illinois 111.671 / 324.760Non-Attainment Area 488.501 / 1,696.584

Result Pass


Missouri 358.438 / 1,371.824

Illinois 108.911 / 324.760


Result Pass2035 Horizon Year Action / 2002 Inventory

Missouri 363.775 / 1,371.824

Illinois 111.167 / 324.760


Result Pass

Legacy 2035 Air Quality Conformity 119

Table 5-4Regional Emissions Analysis:Conformity Test for Oxides of Nitrogen (tons per year)

Test


Missouri 34,412.500 / 67,877.515

Illinois 8,939.242 / 16,368.749

Non-Attainment Area 43,351.742 / 84,246.264



Result Pass


Missouri 12,840.034 / 67,877.515

Illinois 3,063.503 / 16,368.749


Result Pass

2030 Analysis Year Test

Action / 2002 Inventory

Missouri 8,338.066 / 67,877.515

Illinois 2,082.847 / 16,368.749

Non-Attainment Area 10,420.913 / 84,246.264Result Pass

2035 Horizon Year Action / 2002 Inventory

Missouri 8,157.997 / 67,877.515

Illinois 2,059.823 / 16,368.749


Result Pass

120 Air Quality Conformity Legacy 2035



Intentionally blank

Legacy 2035: St. Louis Regional Transportation Plan by East-West Gateway

Documents