Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
By
In consultation with:
Nelson Nygaard
BAE Urban Economics
Hudson Associates
In partnership with:
St. Louis County Department of Planning
St. Louis County Economic Development Department
TOD Advisory Committee
Paul Hubbman, East West Gateway Council of Governments
Mary Grace Lewandowski, East West Gateway Council of Governments
Jessica Mefford-Miller, Metro St. Louis
John Langa, Metro St. Louis
Mark Phillips, Metro St. Louis
Kim Cella, Citizens for Modern Transit
Lonnie Boring, Great Rivers Greenway
Nancy Thompson, Great Rivers Greenway
Marielle Brown, Trailnet
Glenn Powers, St. Louis County Department of Planning
Bill Grogan, St. Clair County Transportation District
Don Roe, City of St. Louis Planning Department
Amy Lampe, St. Louis Development Corporation
Mark Vogl, HOK St. Louis
Contents
PROJECT BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................1
STATION AREA ANALYSIS/ EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................5
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS AND RESULTS ..........................................................19
STATION AREA PLAN.............................................................................................................21
Development Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Phasing Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Street Sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Building Heights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Parks and Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Bike and Pedestrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Walk Score. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Landscape Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Parking and Replacement Parking Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Stormwater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Form Based Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
A, B and C Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
ZONING/ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATION.........................................................................71
BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY...................................................73
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Strategies to Create an Inviting Walking Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Strategies to Welcome Bikes to the Station Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Pedestrian Access Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Specific Bicycle Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................91
APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................A-1
LEED ND Scorecard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3
Public Survey Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7
Records of Public Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-21
Online Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-27
| i
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Project Background | 1
Over the last several decades, growth in the St. Louis metropolitan area has traditionally
followed lower density suburban patterns. Leaders from throughout the region, however,
have continued to search for appropriate strategies to promote transit-oriented development
(TOD), or mixed-use development designed to maximize access to, and promote use of,
public transportation. As the St. Louis MetroLink system marks over two decades in service,
these leaders have engaged in the study of how to maximize the investment made in light
rail for the region and its various jurisdictions and how also to increase the overall ridership
rate metro-wide.
East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWG), in conjunction with Metro and a host
of regional stakeholder organizations, completed a TOD Framework Master Plan as part of
the Regional TOD Study for the St. Louis region in 2013. This study included the following
components:
Completion of a regional market study documenting the potential for various forms of
TOD at each station area between 2012 and 2040, based upon demographic and market data and analysis and input from local stakeholders and real estate experts.
Completion of site analysis and development feasibility analysis for each of the 37
existing MetroLink stations outlining the key issues that have an impact on development
viability and providing recommendations and action steps for local jurisdictions, Metro,
and other stakeholders to promote TOD at each station area.
Completion of detailed station area plans for five of the existing MetroLink station areas,
or combinations of stations, including North Hanley, Rock Road, Union Station / Civic
Center, Emerson Park / Jackie Joyner-Kersee, and Fairview Heights.
The intent of EWG, Metro, and its project partners is to outline a set of implementation tools
and recommendations for all 37 MetroLink stations that respond to market realities and provide specific guidance to each jurisdiction within the system that will move TOD forward over
the next few years. Rather than outlining general principles applicable to TOD, these plans
aim to tie specific site analysis and feasibility with appropriate tools and strategies to move
development efforts along.
The specific station area plans for North Hanley, Rock Road, Union Station / Civic Center,
Emerson Park / Jackie Joyner-Kersee, and Fairview Heights are intended to serve as detailed models of TOD, adhering to a range of station typology classifications. These classifications acknowledge that stations in urban downtown centers may serve different uses
and transit riders than perhaps those in neighborhood or suburban contexts. The station
area plans will provide momentum to implement TOD in the St. Louis region over the next
few years, establishing precedents for best practices and standards of development that all
communities along the MetroLink can emulate.
The five selected station areas were selected according to their regional location in the Metropolitan Area, the support of local leaders and citizens for further study of the stations, and
their varying representation of different station area typologies. In addition, these stations
ranked high for market viability; transit supportive potential and existing ridership; proximity
to services, civic amenities, and recreational opportunities; proximity to housing and jobs;
walkability and bikeability; existing supportive zoning; and available developable lands.
2 | Project Background
North Hanley was selected for detailed study because it is one of Metros most heavily
used stations on the Missouri side, averaging 88,000 monthly boardings. As the first parkride station along the Red Line and its adjacency to Interstate 70, the North Hanley station
captures a large volume of suburban commuters heading into the city. The North Hanley
station is also adjacent to the Express Scripts Campus, a major employer in the region, and
the rapidly developing NorthPark business park. The stations close proximity to Lambert
International Airport and the University of Missouri- St. Louis help contribute to overall transit ridership numbers at this location. There is also surrounding residential neighborhoods
providing a local base of users.
The station contains approximately 20 acres owned by Metro. Much of the site is used as
a surface park and ride lot, providing future opportunities for higher yielding uses in denser
development patterns. A parking structure is also found at this station location. In addition,
there is a lot of vacant land, (approximately 218.5 acres in one half mile radius), surrounding
the station, and development momentum at NorthPark is generating interest in this area.
The adjacency to I-70 and relationship of the station to Lambert International also make this
MetroLink station appealing to industries and businesses that can benefit from those additional connections to the larger region and even international business.
The station area plan will be used by local leaders, both as a visioning document and as a
guide with tools that enable the station areas to develop according to TOD principles. The
station area plan outlines the form-giving networks for roads, parks and open space, bike
and pedestrian connections, and transit services. Comprehensive plans, zoning codes, and
ordinances can be revised and adopted immediately, ensuring that the sites are designated
for TOD development patterns when investors are ready to move forward with development.
Localities can also pursue short-term steps such as establishing tax incentives to facilitate
private sector development, purchasing or assembling land around MetroLink stations for
development, and investing in civic infrastructure.
Metro will use this plan as a guide to consider the future of their land holdings. In addition, they can also consider any enhancements to the transit offered at these select station
areas in planning for future development, including parking replacement strategies and any
expanded transit services.
Various components of this station area plan provide guidance to the county, Metro and
other partners in implementing TOD. The market study completed as part of this process
provides a greater degree of specific guidance concerning near-term opportunities (within
the next five to ten years) and provides a more general, order of magnitude forecast of development potential for the next ten to twenty years. While the development strategy identified in this station area plan identifies opportunities for short-term real estate development,
a good deal of the future development outlined in this plan represents a longer term vision
for the development potential around the North Hanley station over the next twenty years,
or more. Local officials will need to work with Metro and other partners to update this station
area plan periodically as demographic and market changes unfold in the local area.
Project Background | 3
The North Hanley MetroLink station area is in the jurisdictions of St. Louis County and the
City of Berkeley. Currently, the station is characterized as an automobile dominant landscape with expansive surface parking lots, Interstate 70 running directly to the north, and a
four-lane road along Hanley Road. Recent development patterns around the North Hanley
station reflect the completion of suburban business park projects and corporate campus
expansions. Express Scripts, the areas major employer, holds a large amount of land north
of the interstate and on the western-most part of the UMSL campus. In addition, the existing Metro station occupies a 20-acre site, providing parking for 1,705 surface spaces and a
three-story garage. Some existing single-family housing remains to the south of the station
and University Place Drive, and multifamily units and a continued care center lie just to the
west of Hanley Road along with a gas station and a small commercial farm. In general,
distances between the station platform and local destinations such as employment centers
or the University of Missouri St. Louis campus are unpleasant environments to commute
through as a pedestrian or bicyclist. Much of the detached single-family housing to the
south of University Place Drive is boarded up and vacant. Given the suburban nature, the
North Hanley station area lacks any defining grid patterns. Much of the surrounding residential development orients around cul-de-sac or dead end streets.
Topography
The study area, within one-fourth mile of the
station platform, features grade changes
along the west and south sides of the immediate station area, along Hanley Road and
to the south of University Drive. While the
overall parking area at Hanley is fairly level,
these grade changes impede connectivity to
surrounding land uses and nearby destinations in the local community, and planning
for future TOD in the overall station area
should consider how to mitigate or plan for
this grade change in order to enhance the
overall viability of TOD at this location.
Transportation Network
The North Hanley station area enjoys very good transportation connectivity due to its
adjacency to Interstate 70 and to Hanley Road, a major north-south thoroughfare. It is also
located relatively close to Interstate 170. Traffic counts for the major roads surrounding the
North Hanley area reflect the stations location at a key transportation connection point in
the northern suburbs of St. Louis. The I-70 freeway carries over 120,000 vehicles per day.
Hanley Road carries upwards of 15,000 vehicles per day south of the interstate and adjacent to the station, and around 42,000 trips per day north of the interstate in the NorthPark
area.
The creation of a multimodal transportation environment requires the development of facilities for pedestrian, bicycles, transit, and automobiles. One way of determining the success
of these improvements is a level of service analysis (LOS). As it relates to the pedestrian
environment, LOS only considers such issues as physical improvements to sidewalks and
pedestrian safety. A LOS analysis typically does not consider land uses. As a response
to the need to consider land use in measuring walkability, Walk Score was created. Walk
Score rates urban environments based upon a sites proximity to a variety of land uses.
Sites are ranked in the following categories:
90100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Walkers Paradise
Daily errands do not require a car.
7089 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Very Walkable
Most errands can be accomplished on foot.
5069 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Somewhat Walkable
Some errands can be accomplished on foot.
2549 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Car-Dependent
Most errands require a car.
024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Car-Dependent
Almost all errands require a car.
By large measure, the greater the variety of land uses within close proximity of a given location, the higher the walk score. Used in combination with a level of service analysis, Walk
Score can provide a good understanding of current pedestrian conditions in the vicinity of
an existing light rail station.
As part of this planning effort, each of the stations within was evaluated using the Walk
Score service. Walk Score calculates a continuous score for any site from 0-100 based
upon its proximity to thirteen categories of amenities. Walk Score should not be confused
as a total measure of neighborhood walkability. It does not consider such factors as street
width, sidewalk width, block length, street design, safety from crime and traffic, topography,
or natural walking barriers such as freeway, natural barriers to walking such as freeways
and bodies of water, and/or weather. Nonetheless, Walk Score does provide one way of
measuring an areas walkability. Researchers are increasingly testing Walk Score as a
means of measuring public health. Results
suggest a positive relationship between a
high Walk Score and public health.
The area around the North Hanley station
currently registers a Walk Score of 50 (or,
somewhat walkable as defined by Walk
Score methodology), given the lack of
proximity from the station area to retail and
residential uses and a variety of other community uses. Interstate 70 poses a significant
barrier for people biking and walking, and
the grade changes to the south of the staThe St. Vincent Greenway along University Place
tion area limit connectivity from the Hanley
Drive, to the south of the station platform area.
Station Area Analysis/Existing Conditions | 7
station to areas to the south. The following details observations concerning the bike and
pedestrian environment in the North Hanley station area:
Some of the streets in the station area lack accommodations for pedestrians in line with
ADA standards.
Hanley Road is relatively wide with a width of six lanes, and University Place is similarly
large with three-lanes. This scale, combined with traffic speed and lack of pedestrian
crossings, creates an uncomfortable environment for people biking and walking.
The street network lacks connectivity from the station area to the surroundings neighborhoods to the south, forcing pedestrians and bicyclists to use Hanley Road with
relatively limited accommodations to travel to destinations.
The connectivity from the Express Scripts campus to the MetroLink station is uncomfortable due to the large expanse of bridge over I-70, limited pedestrian facilities, and
high traffic speeds. Crosswalks are absent at the I-70 on and off ramps. In addition, a
gate that surrounds Express Scripts forces employees to walk further distances than
perhaps necessary.
The grade change to the west of the station area, coupled with the width of North Hanley Road, discourages pedestrian and bicycle connectivity from the station area to uses
along the west side of Hanley Road, including a local gas station, a small commercial
farm, and apartment complexes.
While bicyclists may access the station area via roadways, the area around the Hanley station does not feature any dedicated bike lanes, and bicycle parking is relatively
limited at the station platform area.
The construction of the St. Vincent Greenway from the North Hanley area to the south
and east along the MetroLink line to the Delmar Loop area will help enhance the degree
of bike and pedestrian connectivity in the station area going forward.
Transit Supportive
From the North Hanley MetroLink station area, MetroBus lines provide connections to
surrounding destinations in addition to the Red MetroLink Line. This station acts as a real
transit hub.
#04 Natural Bridge MetroBus connects to:
Express Scripts
Downtown St. Louis
University of Missouri-St. Louis
#34 Earth City MetroBus connects to:
Express Scripts
Verizon Riverport Amphitheater
#35 Rock Road MetroBus connects to:
DePaul Medical Center
Northwest Plaza
St. Louis Mills
#36 Spanish Lake MetroBus connects to:
Express Scripts
Vatterott College
St. Louis Community College-Florissant Valley
8 | Station Area Analysis/Existing Conditions
Typology
The North Hanley station is most representative of a Suburban Town Center typology. This
station provides access to a mix of uses, including employment and residential, and has the
potential to support other uses, including retail, in the future. Suburban Town Centers can
serve as both origins and destinations for commuters. The North Hanley station area has
significant potential to evolve into a Suburban Town Center for this part of the northern St.
Louis metro area, including employment uses, residential, and retail. The stations location along I-70 and proximity to the airport and UMSL contribute to significant potential to
develop retail and office uses in particular, and the overall North Hanley station area could
evolve to represent one of the best examples of TOD in the region going forward.
Market
According to the regional TOD market study, between 2010 and 2040 the station area
around the North Hanley station is likely to experience an increase in demand for an additional 240 residential units and additional commercial space totaling around 257,700 square
feet. Given the station areas growth in employment and the potential future expansion of
NorthPark, the station area will likely absorb all of this projected demand within the next 30
years (if not much sooner). NorthPark is currently developing as a business and research
park, with infrastructure in place to support large campuses. Its location relative to interstates 70 and 170 and Lambert International Airport make development of corporate headquarter facilities, distribution centers, and manufacturing uses appealing at this location.
Given the high potential demand for new development over the next few decades, the strategy for the North Hanley area calls for the community to work with potential developers and
property owners to focus redevelopment energy near the station area. In addition, development activity aimed at making North Hanley a true TOD must focus on creating compact,
walkable development opportunities, while limiting the auto-centric patterns, including the
presence of lower density and sprawled development and large surface parking lots, that
currently dominate the station area. Furthermore, connections over Interstate 70 should be
improved, as the existing traffic volumes along North Hanley and the barriers posed by the
I-70 interchange crossing currently pose significant barriers for people walking and biking.
Site Aerial
north park
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
heritage care
center
north hanley
metrolink
HA
NL
EY
RD
express
scripts
UNIVERSITY PL
ACE DR.
university district university of
missouri - st. louis
100
200
400
1 in = 200 feet
northpark
properties
620
520
21 ACRES
500
north park
properties
properties
600
20 ACRES
north park
540
north park
partners llc
hilton
garden
inn
AVE.
Station
Configuration | The station includes a Park-Ride lot of 20-acres
50
0
that
contains 1,705 surface parking spaces and a three-story garage that
holds 780 spaces.
500
9.3 ACRES
EVANS
vatteroft
college
I - 70
500
I - 70
coo
(123000-135000 ADT)
500
DT)
berkeley
12 ACRES
N. HANLEY
RD.
(6365 A
0
54
city of
500
properties
27 ACRES
500
lle
l va
540
E.
YK AV
520
Nw
RAgO
620
600
north park
16 ACRES
580
Site Analysis
express
600
scripts
Development Opportunity
uNIVERSITY PL
ACE DR.
Pros
0
58
580
Cons
MISS
IS
SIPP
I RIV
ER
620
640
56
0
muni corp
va
l
ol
village of a
co
560
bellerive
22.7 ACRES
N. HANLEY RD.
(15300 ADT)
le
58
0
*Dataand
andinformation
Information
provided
Design
Workshop,
East West
Gateway
and Metro.
See
*Data
provided
by by
Design
Workshop,
East-West
Gateway,
and Metro.
See the
the
MetroLink Station Area Profile Catalog for additional information. All extracted data is
MetroLink Station Area Profile Catalog for additional information. All extracted data is clipped
clipped and calculated to a one-half mile radius by Design Workshop.
and calculated to a one-half mile radius by Design Workshop.
0.18
0.36
Miles
etroLink
north park
1/2
M
IL
E
AVE.
EVANS
W
A
L
K
G
IN
RA
US
DI
1/4
MI
LE
W
AL
NG
KI
D
RA
IUS
express
scripts
campus
C
C
HAN
LEY
RD.
IT
ERS
UNIV
E DR
AC
Y pL
UNIVERSITY BLVD./
FLORISSANT RD.
north
hanley
metrolink
umsl
north
metrolink
road network
regional (50,000+ adt)
arterial (30,000-49,999 adt)
collector (10,000-29,999 adt)
local (>10,000 adt)
parking lot
T
C
tenant parking
commuter parking
grade change
residential
historic district
corridor revitalization
200
400
800
1 in = 200 feet
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
PROCESS AND RESULTS
The project team conducted a series of three public meetings in the North Hanley station
area to gain input from interested community members, business owners, and other stakeholders concerning the potential for transit oriented development at this station.
The first public meeting on December 13, 2012, discussed the publics broad goals for the
station planning effort and the types of development and features that they would prefer to
see at the station area. In general, the public was in favor of developing a mixture of uses
and in creating a neighborhood oriented center at the North Hanley station including retail,
office, and residential land uses. Members of the public in particular expressed a desire for
more business park land and additional places for shopping.
At the second public meeting that was held February 19, 2013, the public provided additional detail concerning the preferred look and feel of development in the station area.
Participants supported residential densities of around twenty units per acre, and buildings
of four to five stories. Members of the public at the second public meeting also provided
input concerning preliminary station area plans that depict the potential locations for streets,
building locations, open space connections, and related amenities. The project team used
input from the public at the second meeting in order to formulate a final plan recommendation for the North Hanley station.
At the third and final public meeting on April 16, 2013, members of the public provided input
concerning the phasing and prioritization of improvements and development in the station
area and a range of implementation issues. Specifically, participants expressed support for
the overall land use and development concepts illustrated in the plans, as well as St. Louis
County adopting the station area plan for North Hanley as part of the countys overall comprehensive plan. The public favored using incentives to stimulate new development in the
station area, as well as the rezoning of the area for higher density development and the use
of public-private partnerships. Finally, participants strongly favored the Metro board endorsing the station area plan and making development of this and other TOD locations a priority.
The full set of results from online and in-person surveys for this project are available in the
Appendix to this document along with the records of the public meetings.
Development Strategy
Given the high potential demand for new development over the next few decades, the
strategy for the North Hanley area calls for the community to work with potential developers
and property owners to focus redevelopment energy near the station. In addition, development activity aimed at making North Hanley a true TOD must focus on creating compact,
walkable development opportunities, while limiting the auto-centric patterns, including the
presence of lower density and sprawled development and large surface parking lots that
currently dominate the station area. Furthermore, connections over Interstate 70 should be
improved, as the existing traffic volumes along North Hanley and the barriers posed by the
I-70 interchange crossing currently pose significant barriers for people walking and biking.
University Place Drive and Hanley Road serve as the two main axes in the new east-west
grid. Development is encouraged to front both of these streets to maximize visibility to commercial uses. In addition, new TOD on the station side begins to provide opportunities for
small businesses to serve the daily needs and convenience of the stations workers, commuters, and residents.
The most straightforward and perhaps most realistic development strategy for North Hanley
would involve Metro moving forward, either as the owner of the property or in joint venture
with other entities in the public or private sector, with developing part of the parking lot at
the North Hanley station into the core of the station area development. Metro could, for
example, convert part of the parking lot near the station platform into a location for convenience retail or a small residential project. In the near term, parking would shift to normally
underutilized spaces on the south and west sides of the parking lot. Then, following the
completion of this initial stage of development, Metro could work with St. Louis County to
help coordinate with private sector property owners to the south and west of the agencys
property to ensure that ongoing developments meet the standards of TOD articulated in
the station area plan. St. Louis County, as the official jurisdiction covering the station area,
would ensure throughout the process that proper entitlement frameworks help to govern the
creation of development in the entire station area.
1/4
MI
LE
north park
Illustrative Plan
WA
LK
I
NG
RA
DI
US
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
north hanley
metrolink
heritage care
center
LEY
RD.
metro parking
structure
HAN
express scripts
UNIV
ERS
ITY P
LAC
E DR
urban farm
METROLINK STATION
METROBUS STOP
PROPOSED BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
50
100
200
1 in = 100 feet
North Hanley
Perspective View
This perspective provides a depiction of the
potential development of a core Main Street
running north from University Place toward the
MetroLink platform. The perspective illustrates
how potential buildings in the station area would
align along the street in order to enourage increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic and overall retail viability. The buildings depicted here
would include a mixture of land uses, including
retail and office on the ground floors and primarily residential on the upper floors.
HAN
LEY
RD.
north hanley
MetroLink
UNIVE
NORTH HANLEY
PERSPECTIVE VIEW
RSITY
PLACE
DR.
Phasing Strategy
1/4
MI
LE
north park
Phase 1
WA
LK
I
NG
RA
DI
US
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
north hanley
metrolink
heritage care
center
LEY
RD.
metro parking
structure
HAN
express scripts
UNIV
ERS
ITY P
LAC
E DR
urban farm
METROLINK STATION
METROBUS STOP
PROPOSED BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
50
100
200
1 in = 100 feet
1/4
MI
LE
north park
Phase 2
WA
LK
I
NG
In Phase 2, the station development plan develops the block directly to the south of the Phase
1 area and to the south-west of the existing
parking structure. In addition, development that
closes the gap between the station area and the
UMSL campus is foreseen, as well as a development block along North Hanley. This second
phase still maintains a significant portion of the
surface park and ride lot in close proximity to
the station platform.
RA
DI
US
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
north hanley
metrolink
heritage care
center
LEY
RD.
metro parking
structure
HAN
express scripts
UNIV
ERS
ITY P
LAC
E DR
urban farm
METROLINK STATION
METROBUS STOP
PROPOSED BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
50
100
200
1 in = 100 feet
1/4
MI
LE
north park
Phase 3
WA
LK
I
NG
RA
DI
US
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
north hanley
metrolink
heritage care
center
LEY
RD.
metro parking
structure
HAN
express scripts
UNIV
ERS
ITY P
LAC
E DR
urban farm
METROLINK STATION
METROBUS STOP
PROPOSED BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
50
100
200
1 in = 100 feet
1/4
MI
LE
north park
Phase 4
WA
LK
I
NG
RA
DI
US
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
north hanley
metrolink
heritage care
center
LEY
RD.
metro parking
structure
HAN
express scripts
UNIV
ERS
ITY P
LAC
E DR
urban farm
METROLINK STATION
METROBUS STOP
PROPOSED BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
50
100
200
1 in = 100 feet
1/4
MI
LE
north park
Phase 5
WA
LK
I
NG
Phase 5 considers the long-term potential redevelopment of existing structures in the area and
to the west of Hanley Road.
RA
DI
US
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
north hanley
metrolink
heritage care
center
LEY
RD.
metro parking
structure
HAN
express scripts
UNIV
ERS
ITY P
LAC
E DR
urban farm
METROLINK STATION
METROBUS STOP
PROPOSED BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
50
100
200
1 in = 100 feet
Street Sections
Keymap
Refer to the following pages for each of these
section renderings. The purpose of these street
sections is to provide depictions of the layout of
potential types of streets within the station area
going forward, including the number of lanes,
the layout of sidewalks and bicycle facilities, and
the overall relationships between the streets
and nearby buildings. While the exact design
of streets within the station area may of course
vary over time, these street sections should
provide planners guidance going forward.
north hanley
MetroLink
5
5
3
2
HAN
LEY
RD.
Street Sections
SECTION 1: Existing
SECTION 1: Proposed
SECTION 2: Existing
Street Sections
Section 2: University Place Drive
SECTION 3: Proposed
SECTION 4: Proposed
SECTION 5: Proposed
Building Heights
north park
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
north hanley
metrolink
heritage care
center
metro parking
structure
LEY
Rd.
HAN
express scripts
uNIV
ERS
ITY p
LAC
E dR
urban farm
ONE STORY
TWO STORIES
THREE STORIES
FOuR STORIES
SIX STORIES
EIGHT STORIES
50
100
200
1 in = 100 feet
north park
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
north hanley
metrolink
heritage care
center
LEY
RD.
metro parking
structure
HAN
express scripts
UNIV
ERS
ITY P
LAC
E DR
urban farm
50
100
200
1 in = 100 feet
Metrolink station
north park
Metrobus stop
sidewalk
crosswalk
Major intersection access
cross street access
t street access
proposed curb-cut access
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
existing signal
The North Hanley station area requires wellconnected pedestrian facilities, including crosswalks, refuges for crossing large expanses of
road, and well-signaled crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists, alike. Much of the development plan concentrates uses within mile of
the station, or a comfortable five-minute walking
distance. Medians are used on Hanley Road,
providing traffic calming and refuge islands for
crossing pedestrians that is greatly desirable
against todays conditions. In addition, small
block sizes combined with the reduction and
consolidation of driveway entrances helps to
establish a pedestrian-friendly environment.
Other provisions, such as street furniture, lighting, landscaping, and wayfinding and signage
also contribute to a comfortable and pleasant
pedestrian environment. Future improvements to
businesses to the north should consider the various means of commuting their employees will
use in efforts to make large campuses efficient
to access by foot or bike. Secured businesses
should plan access points that are convenient to
walk or bike.
north hanley
metrolink
heritage care
center
LEY
RD.
metro parking
structure
HAN
express scripts
uNIV
ERS
ITY p
LAC
E DR
urban farm
35 mph
150
The North Hanley station area is currently benefitting from the addition of the St. Vincent Greenway, which runs to the south and east along
the MetroLink line to the Delmar Loop area. This
trail system should be well-connected to existing and new neighborhoods. In addition, larger
regional connections should be considered to
conveniently tie into this asset.
not to scale
220
1540
Median spacing
35 Mph
460
driveway
proposed traffic signal
crosswalk and
pedestrian signal
50
100
200
1 in = 100 feet
Walk Score
LEGEND
LAMBERT
NORTH
HANLEY
UMSL NORTH
UMSL SOUTH
ROCK ROAD
POPULATION
WALK SCORE
Walker's Paradise
1000+
Very Walkable
500-1000
Somewhat Walkable
126-500
Car-Dependent
0-125
WELLSTON
UNIVERSITY
CITY
DELMAR
FORSYTH
FOREST PARK
CLAYTON
SKINKER
RICHMOND HEIGHTS
BRENTWOOD
SUNNEN
CONVENTION
EAST
CENTER
RIVERFRONT
8th & PINE
ARCH
CENTRAL GRAND
EMERSON
WEST END
JJK
UNION
STADIUM 5th &
MAPLEWOOD/
MISSOURI
STATION
CIVIC
MANCHESTER
CENTER
SHREWSBURY
WASHINGTON
PARK
FAIRVIEW
HEIGHTS
MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL
SHILOH-SCOTT
SWANSEA
BELLEVILLE
COLLEGE
Landscape Criteria
north park
Often local governments seek to manage street tree plantings by implementing ordinances. Such
ordinances typically provide a list of acceptable street trees, a minimum size at installation, and
minimum tree spacing. However, such an approach does not insure a consistent and quality street
tree planting along any given street because of the random selection of street trees by each property owners. In addition, the street tree diversity of a given area may be reduced if all property owners select a limited variety of species. Clear and consistent street tree planting can give character
to local streets and assist in wayfinding. To address these issues, each station area plan includes
a street tree diagram, which defines the specific species to the planted on each street. All trees
should be planted 36-40 feet on center. All trees should be provided with at least 1000 cubic feet of
planting soil and a minimum tree opening of 100 square feet. By defining the desired tree species
from the outset the administration of the street tree requirement is simplified. The developer of a
particular land parcel simply needs to consult this diagram and meet the spacing, soil, and opening
requirements to insure conformance with the planting standards.
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
north hanley
metrolink
heritage care
center
PARKWAY
LEY
Rd.
metro parking
structure
HAN
express scripts
uNIV
PARKING LOT
ERS
ITY P
LAC
A street tree planting scheme has been developed based on varying aesthetic characteristics different types of streets and neighborhoods have. Within the North Hanley station area, the street tree
road type classifications include Parkway, Green Connector, Station Area Gateway, Residential,
Office/Light Industrial, Special Character, and Parking Lots. Each street type has been assigned a
range of native tree species appropriate to achieve a given visual characteristic.
E dR
urban farm
50
100
200
1 in = 100 feet
PARKWAY
BOULEVARD
GREEN CONNECTOR
RESIDENTIAL
SPECIAL CHARACTER
SPECIAL CHARACTER
PARKING LOT
AMERICAN LINDEN
AMERICAN SYCAMORE
EASTERN REDBUD
MOUNTAIN ASH
TULIP TREE
PIN OAK
SWAMPWHITE OAK
FLOWERING DOGWOOD
RED MAPLE
INTERSTATE BUFFER
#ofSpaces
1705
24hour
884
Longterm
0
TotalUsed
884
%Used
51.8%
%Unused
48.2%
Date
6/2/2011
The parking strategy at North Hanley works with phasing to gradually reduce the number of
surface parking spaces in close proximity to the station platform and replace them within the
framework of the new development. Many of the blocks are designed to wrap buildings with
mixed uses around surface parking lots in the center. Over time, as development gains momentum, the surface lots can evolve into structured lots, within the footprint and parameters
of the wrapped buildings. The parking strategy within North Hanley also maximizes curb
parking, providing flexibility and short-term access to businesses located within the station
area. Finally, bus bays and drop-offs should remain located in close proximity to the MetroLink platform and development core, promoting arrival from other regional destinations by
other means than just personal automobile.
A number of appropriate parking strategies can be considered with transit oriented developments. For example, some of the site parking can be provided for a fee, for example for
structured parking. In addition, zoning ordinances can be changed with lower or flexible
minimum parking threshold requirements, or conversely set maximum parking standards
rather than minimum. Since TOD inherently supports alternative modes of transportation,
including light rail, bus, pedestrian, and bicycle, the promotion of these other modes helps
the station to meet lower parking requirements.
TOD parking strategies can also include the establishment of a parking district, whereby
a managing entity gives developers the option of paying an in lieu fee for parking, rather
than constructing it themselves. This provides a buy-in at a rate that is less expensive than
the actual cost of constructing the parking space. The managing entity then constructs the
Station Area Plan | 55
pooled parking for the entire district, likely in the form of a parking structure. Parking districts work best when a station has an existing supply of parking to fill parking needs while
the overall parking fund is growing. The phasing strategy of North Hanley supports this
parking replacement strategy.
Stormwater Management
north park
The stormwater management strategy at North Hanley incorporates a range of detention, retention,
and infiltration methods in an effort to capture 100% of stormwater on site. The main goals in
stormwater management are to reduce quantity and increase quality of stormwater runoff, which
can be achieved by incorporating open space and landscaped areas and reducing hardscape.
The site currently contains two significant paved parking lots which do not provide a means for
infiltration. The proposed plan looks at various ways to incorporate stormwater interventions in a
series of smaller devices used throughout the plan. These infiltration and storage devices include
detention ponds, infiltration basins, rain gardens, bioswales, permeable paving, and increased
canopy cover.
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
Detention Ponds
Detention Ponds are used to store and slow runoff in large storm events before it leaves the site.
While detention ponds create a delay that allows sediments to settle before leaving the site, they do
not necessarily provide any other means to improve the water quality before exiting.
north hanley
metrolink
heritage care
center
metro parking
structure
LEY
RD.
Integrating smaller scale biofiltration systems, such as infiltration basins, rain gardens, and vegetated bioswales throughout development is often a better strategy than providing one or more large
detention or retention pond. The smaller infiltration systems disperse water treatment throughout
the site, while simultaneously creating opportunities for enhanced planting, traffic calming, and even
pedestrian safety.
HAN
express scripts
UNIV
ERS
ITY P
LAC
E DR
urban farm
Rain Gardens
A rain garden is defined as a planted depression that allows rainwater runoff from impervious urban
areas to be absorbed into the ground. Studies have shown that effective rain gardens can reduce
the amount of stormwater and pollution reaching creeks by as much as 30 percent. Rain gardens
should incorporate native plantings because these varieties typically do not require irrigation and
maintenance, and they are more hardy and adaptable to the local conditions. Examples of plants to
include in rain gardens to absorb the greatest amount of runoff include wildflowers, rushes, ferns,
shrubs and small trees.
GENERAL WATERFLOW
MAIN RAIN COLLECTOR
SECONDARY RAIN COLLECTOR
PROPOSED STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
DETENTION POND
LINEAR INFILTRATION BASIN
Vegetated Bioswales
POROUS PAVEMENT
50
1 in = 100 feet
100
200
Vegetated Bioswales are similar to rain gardens in that they absorb and filter runoff before the
stormwater exits the site. In general, native plants such as perennials and grasses do more to slow
down and infiltrate stormwater than mowed turf grass.
Canopy Coverage
Typical street trees intercept water in their leaves and crowns, ranging from 760 gallons per tree per
year to 4000 gallons per tree per year, depending on their species and location. In addition, the soil
layer below also serves to filter water and slow down the pace at which it leaves the site. This station area plan calls for a goal of 30% urban tree cover to realistically maximize the amount of water
intercepted by tree canopies.
Permeable Paving
Permeable paving systems should be utilized in parking lots, for on street parking spaces, and even
for sidewalks. Permeable paving allows water to infiltrate into the ground, rather than channeling it
directly into a surface stormwater system. Permeable pavers slow the velocity of the water moving
across a site during a storm event.
Station Area Plan | 57
Central Bioswale
Porous Pavement
Bioswale
Rain Gardens
Porous Pavement
in Parking Bays
Green Area
Permeable Pavers
in Sidewalks
Small Bioswale
or Linear
Infiltration Trench
PorousPavement
in Parking Bays
Permeable Pavers
in Sidewalks
Rain Gardens
in Corners
50
100
200
1 in = 100 feet
A, B and C Streets
north park
St. Louis County recently retained a consultant, Clarion Associates, to prepare a model form based
code for the county. The plans for each of the five stations have been reviewed in the context of
this draft plan. It is anticipated that North Hanley will be the first application of the county form
based code. Similarly, the Beyond Housing has retained Development Strategies has retained
Rock Road to prepare a form based code for that site. Although Union Station, Fairview Heights,
Jackie Joyner-Kersee, and Emerson Park are not in St. Louis County, these principles have been
applied to the stations as a means to test Form Based Code.
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
In anticipation of the creation of these codes, this station area plans define A, B, and C streets.
Street character under form based codes is often defined by a system and hierarchy of streets. Not
all buildings can front and put their best face to the street, not all streets are Main Streets, and
buildings require service entries and access. Buildings need locations for loading docks, transformers, and other utility infrastructure. The designation of A, B, and C streets, is a means of suggesting which streets should be the primary focus of new architecture and which can be the focus of
service entries and less attractive portions of new development. Service uses are intended to go
on C Streets, and to a lesser degree, B Streets. Conversely, A streets should receive the greatest
emphasis in terms of streetscape improvements. Major building entries and lobbies should also
be oriented toward the A Streets. While the footprint of buildings may vary along the B Streets in
response to functional requirements, along A Streets, buildings should be pulled forward to the right
of way.
north hanley
metrolink
heritage care
center
LEY
RD.
metro parking
structure
HAN
express scripts
UNIV
ERS
ITY P
LAC
E DR
urban farm
METROLINK STATION
METROBUS STOP
A STREET
B STREET
C STREET
50
100
200
1 in = 100 feet
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
B GRID STREETS
B Grid Streets
Thoroughfares that by virtue of their use, location, or absence of pre-existing pedestriansupportive qualities, may meet a standard lower
than that of the a-grid streets and are more
readily considered for warrants allowing automobile-oriented standards.
PROPERTY LINE
C GRID STREETS
C Grid Streets
In order to minimize traffic congestion, noise,
and pedestrian conflicts, a defined service route
has been identified for service and back street
movement.
Land Use
north park
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
north hanley
metrolink
heritage care
center
LEY
RD.
metro parking
structure
HAN
express scripts
UNIV
ERS
ITY P
LAC
E DR
urban farm
METROLINK STATION
METROBUS STOP
RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL/STUDENT HOUSING
HOTEL SUBDISRICT
FESTIVAL/RETAIL SUBDISTRICT
MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
CONVENIENCE RETAIL SUBDISTRICT
OFFICE SUBDISTRICT
CIVIC/COMMUNITY SERVICES
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SUBDISTRICT
50
100
200
1 in = 100 feet
ZONING/ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION
Zoning/Ordinance Recommendation | 71
72 | Zoning/Ordinance Recommendation
Introduction
The station area plans are intended to provide for multi-modal transportation. It is not sufficient, therefore, to simply provide for a quality light rail experience for users. Patrons of
the Metro system must be able to access the station on foot, by bicycle, by bus, or by car.
The level of service for each of these modes of transportation must be balanced and high.
For this reason, all streets within the station area should meet the principles of Complete
Streets. Complete streets are designed to offer safe access for all users, of all ages and
abilities.
Many communities have adopted a Complete Streets Policy in order to direct their transportation planners and engineers to design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe
access for all users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation.
Although each complete street is unique and responds to its community context, suggested
street sections have been provided for all streets within the station area. As illustrated,
these streets include such features as: sidewalks, bike lanes or sharrows, special bus lanes
where appropriate, bus stops, frequent and safe crossing opportunities, median islands,
accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, and narrower travel lanes.
Community Values
Designing streets for bicycling and walking provides numerous direct and indirect benefits.
Direct benefits can include safer travel choices for all road users, including those desiring
to walk, bicycle, drive, or take transit. Improved signage, signal timing and other treatments
can provide clarity and ease for drivers navigating city streets and a reduction in potential
crash points. More people may walk or bicycle in their daily lives, because the street networks provides more, and safer, facilities for active transportation. Vulnerable populations,
such as the young, elderly and disabled, may benefit from a transportation network that
supports their independent mobility. Walkable communities located goods and services
(such as housing, offices, retail, transportation, schools and libraries) so that they are easily
and safely accessible by foot.
Economics
Indirect benefits include placemaking opportunities on residential and retail corridors, increased retail spending, and stronger local economies as a result of improved accessibility.
Shoppers who arrive on foot, bicycle or transit are found to visit more frequently and spend
more money in some multimodal shopping corridors. Providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as safe, direct connections between commercial areas and nearby neighborhoods and patrons, can encourage these shopping trips, as well as contribute to improved
air quality and healthier communities.
Walkable communities provide safe and convenient transportation choices when streets
support a variety of users, not just drivers. Doing so allows municipalities to meet the needs
of different types of users and provide alternatives to traffic congestion and auto-dependency. Complete Streets support this goal by ensuring the transportation network can accommodate a wide variety of users including cars, transit vehicles, bicycles, and those who want
to walk from point A to point B.
Providing choice also spans across age groups and abilities. Many older Americans today
are faced with mobility challenges that are a result of losing the ability to drive. This popu74 | Bike and Pedestrian Implementation Strategy
lation can stay independent and age in place through different transportation options.
Multiple options create redundancy and resilience through market changes.
Even when pedestrian and bicycle facilities are missing or incomplete, users are still often
present and being underserved. Complete Streets ensure that all users are considered
whenever roads are constructed, reconstructed, or repaved. All types of projects can be opportunities to improve safety and provide facilities that support bicycling and walking.
Each street and its environs are unique. Complete Streets is a process whereby design
interventions support and balance mobility for all users and provide appropriate provision
for the safe and convenient travel of transit riders, pedestrians, bicyclists, and personal motor vehicle drivers. Complete Streets result in better connections between street users and
desirable places to live, work, learn, and play around the MetroLink network. The process
of improving streets for walking and biking should be an ongoing effort which reflects the
needs of current and future street users.
Site-specific, Human-scale
Pedestrians and bicyclists rely on site-specific and human-scale elements to facilitate trips
and the safety thereof.
Streets can be narrowed via curb extensions and medians to reduce crossing distances
and time.
Bicycle facilities can be design to spatially or temporally segregate cyclists from drivers,
thus protecting them from errancy.
Desire lines can inform design by revealing where people walk along and cross the
street.
Traffic signals can be timed and phased to reduce delay, prioritize pedestrian movements, and protect crossings.
Traffic calming can create slower speed streets which can be shared by all users.
Paths, small streets, and crosswalks can be coordinated to form a convenient and interconnected network for walking and cycling.
Barriers created by large roads, railroads, rivers, and walls can be bridged.
Prioritize Improvements
While creating and improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities is a priority on all corridors
and routes, the reality is that there are real constraints in implementing improvements,
including physical, financial and political constraints. The challenge is determining where to
begin.
Solve the most dangerous problems first. Mapping crashes is an important step in
project selection and development to address crash locations which involve high numbers of people, high injury severity, and/or high volume of near-misses.
Improve what already works. Completing streets does not mean that all streets in the
St. Louis region will need to be modified or changed. Many streets function well for all
users presently or with small interventions, with no need for extensive modifications.
Improving facilities and the streetscape where people are already walking and bicycling
will unleash latent demand for these transportation modes and attract more people,
benefiting the vitality of the street and community.
Work where there is support. Prioritize improvements in areas, such as schools, hospitals and parks, that attract high numbers of people, including vulnerable populations,
such as children, the elderly and disabled. Improve connections to transit for pedestriBike and Pedestrian Implementation Strategy | 75
ans and bicyclists, as well as commercial corridors and retail districts, as these support
increased ridership and sales.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are a key feature in any successful development. These separated pedestrian
lanes allow people walking along the streets to feel safe and out of the way of traffic.
A complete sidewalk network will allow residents and visitors to comfortably walk to their
destinations and encourage people to move around the station area on foot. Sidewalks
should be provided on both sides of the roadway throughout the station area.
Connectivity
A successful network is well-connected for pedestrians. Sidewalks should link with other
modes of travel including MetroLink to increase the opportunities for mixing travel modes.
Internal connectivity addresses the circulation within the station area, whereas external
connectivity looks at the connections to adjacent neighborhoods and minimizing existing
barriers, such as busy or intimidating intersections, to ensure that residents and visitors can
access the station area.
Curb cuts increase the danger to pedestrians using the sidewalks because of the inherent
conflict between vehicles entering and exiting the driveways and pedestrians crossing. In
general, driveways and curb cuts should be consolidated to create a safer and more enjoyable pedestrian experience, however, where curb cuts are necessary they should be well
marked.
Buffered Sidewalks
Sidewalks that include a landscaped buffer from the street enhance the feeling of safety and
comfort as well as improve the overall aesthetic appearance of local streets. Buffers can
help to provide a sense of enclosure for the pedestrian with space for seating or bike racks
to create a social space for pedestrians. On the local streets throughout the station area a
buffer of two to four feet is ideal.
Sidewalk Width
Sidewalks within the station area on busy retail streets with pedestrian activity would ideally
be 16 to 20 feet in width, allowing for a minimum four foot wide pedestrian clear zone and
a pedestrian amenity zone or places where restaurants can host sidewalk sales or outdoor
dining. Where space is constrained in the area sidewalks of 10 feet are desirable on streets
with more pedestrian activity. In areas where pedestrian activity is not as prevalent sidewalks should be a minimum of eight to 10 feet in width where they come right up to the street
and six to eight feet if they are separated from the street by a planting strip or buffer.
Sidewalk Condition
76 | Bike and Pedestrian Implementation Strategy
Sidewalks should have a smooth surface to ensure safety and comfort for walkers as well
as wheelchairs or strollers. Paths should be maintained to be cleared of snow and encroaching plants or other impediments to sidewalk users. Wherever it is feasible, street
lights, utility poles, sign posts, fire hydrants, benches and other street furniture should be
located so they do not obstruct the pedestrian clear zone; ideally they should be located in
the amenity zone or grouped out of the way of pedestrians.
Pedestrian Amenities
The context of the built environment includes the elements that make a place visually interesting including the design and scale of buildings, the transparency of ground floor uses, as
well as the amenities that are provided including lighting, street trees and
seating.
Lighting
Pedestrian scale lighting is an amenity that can enhance the physical safety of people
traveling at night, as well as safety from crime. Walkers are most comfortable with street
level lighting that is bright enough to illuminate faces, pavement obstacles and changes in
sidewalk levels. Lighting features are also used to provide visual cues that define the retail
and pedestrian core of the station area.
Street Trees
Street trees can provide economic, environmental, physical, and financial benefits to a
community. In hot summer months, a consistent tree canopy provides a shaded respite
from the sun, areas of visual interest, and seasonal change as well as positive impacts on
perceived pedestrian safety. Urban street trees reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff and
in the air, mitigate stormwater runoff, sequester carbon, raise property values, and reduce
energy costs. Each station area should strive to reach a minimum of 15 percent tree canopy
coverage within the study area as recommended by the Davey Resource Group.
Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle lanes serve an important function in the transportation network for several reasons:
they define a space dedicated to the preferential use by bicyclists and they help heighten
the awareness of motorists to the presence of bicyclists on the roadway. Properly designed
bicycle lanes encourage bicyclists to operate in a manner that is consistent with the legal
operation of all vehicles. The AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities recommends bicycle
lanes be at least five feet wide; however, in extremely constrained circumstances, bicycle
lanes can be four feet wide. When possible, drive lanes can be narrowed to 10 to 11 feet in
order to provide a buffer space between cyclists and vehicular traffic. In cases where the
bicycle lane is adjacent to parking, the bicycle lane should be striped to identify the separation from the parking and travel lanes.
A shared lane marking is generally used when there is not enough room in the roadway for
a separate bicycle lane. Shared lane markings were developed primarily for local streets
and work best on low-traffic and low-volume streets. Shared markings can also be used on
a wider roadway where the traffic volume may not justify a bicycle lane. The marking helps
Bike and Pedestrian Implementation Strategy | 77
to encourage safe lane positioning and operation for bicyclists as well as to remind motorists about the presence of bicyclists. Bike lanes are much more likely to increase safety,
increase predictable riding, and attract users. Advisory bike lanes can be a good treatment
for narrow streets without room for an official bike lane.
Neighborhood Greenways
Neighborhood greenways are typically low-speed, low-volume streets that have been designated as priority bikeways. These streets include both identifying and route signage and
they may include traffic calming devices such as speed tables and roundabouts. These boulevards are effective because they provide a higher level of comfort for many users.
Wayfinding/Route Signage
Developing and installing wayfinding signage can go a long way to creating the feeling of a
bicycle-welcoming place. This wayfinding signage can also assist pedestrians and drivers. The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices describes signage protocol that can
be incorporated into any signage that the city may develop for the station area. Important
features of a wayfinding sign include a directional arrow, the destination name and a mileage distance numeral. Time is also helpful information to include on signage for cyclists, as
many people do not understand how long it takes to bike to various destinations.
Bicycle Parking
The availability of bicycle parking in the form of bike racks, bike share facilities, and bike
lockers is important to encourage people to ride to particular destinations. Without a secure
place to lock a bicycle, the potential bicycle rider may choose to make his or her trip by vehicle. The installation of sufficient bike racks is important to encourage and increase bicycle
usage to particular destinations. The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals
has published a best practices guide and recommendations about the types of racks to be
installed. Standard options include the inverted U design and the post and ring. An inverted
U-rack, either singularly or in a series, is space-efficient and allows bicycles to be secured
to the racks in two places, supporting the frame. A single U-rack can park two bicycles.
A post and ring rack may be useful in locations where space is tight. This rack allows two
bicycles to be parked at a time and encourages proper use with its intuitive design.
On street parking must be planned in accordance with bicycle facilities. In some instances,
front-in angled parking can be dangerous for cyclists passing behind due to limited sight
lines. Back-in angled parking can reduce this conflict where such a traffic configuration is
appropriate.
Nelson\Nygaard, 2013
Bike and Pedestrian Implementation Strategy | 79
Recommendations:
Add zebra crosswalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian signals on all legs of intersection to
improve visibility to motorists.
Construct medians at North Hanley Road and I-70 service roads (east-bound and westbound).
Install a pedestrian crossing with zebra crosswalk, protected pedestrian median and curb
ramps on across North Hanley Road on south side of Dragonwyk Drive.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The addition of crosswalks and protected pedestrian medians at intersections with I-70 ramps, as
well as Dragonwyck Avenue, improves pedestrian access to the station.
Nelson\Nygaard, 2013
Bike and Pedestrian Implementation Strategy | 81
north park
hilton
garden inn
express scripts
heritage care
center
north hanley
metrolink
E.
WYCK AV
DRAGON DR.
WYCK
DRAGON
express
scripts
HA
NL
EY
RD
.
TORII DR
UNIVERSITY PLA
CE DR.
university district university of
missouri - st. louis
The suburban residential area located to the west of North Hanley Road is difficult to access
on foot due to the grade change, the width of North Hanley Road and the lack of street connectivity offering a direct route.
0
100
200
400
1 in = 200 feet
EXISTING
Recommendations:
Create an informal path, using signage or markings but no pavement, connecting Dragonwyk Drive and Loganberry Lane.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations:
Open an entrance to the Express Scripts property at the existing gate on the south side
of the property to allow employees and visitors a shorter walk to and from the MetroLink
station.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Nelson\Nygaard, 2013
Bike and Pedestrian Implementation Strategy | 83
Recommendations
Recommendations:
Extend the St. Vincent Greenway along the south side of University Place Drive to
North Hanley Street, where it can connect with future pathways to the south and north.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Nelson\Nygaard, 2013
Bike and Pedestrian Implementation Strategy | 85
Specific
Bicycle Strategies
Specific Bicycle Strategies
The following section explores possibilities to increase bicycle access to the five stations. It is based on a
four step process:
Prioritization of routes
The scope of this exercise includes only the first two steps. The latter two will involve a more extensive
analysis of the routes, selecting preferred routes, then designing facilities accordingly. Ideally it would
include a more robust stakeholder outreach effort, field observations of existing conditions and
possibilities for interventions, and cost calculations. It is also effective to integrate the work as much as
possible within other efforts (roadway construction and maintenance, bridge rehabilitations, sewer and
stormwater work, park design and maintenance).
Step 2: Routes
With the origins and destinations mapped, the next step is to identify potential routes. Every attempt was
made to create the shortest and most direct route between origins, destinations, and the station. They
were adjusted based on factors including:
Directness: Routes are prioritized which follow a linked chain of the shortest links between
origins and destinations, while providing access to secondary destinations along the way.
Bicyclists are unlikely to use facilities which greatly increase the travel distance or trip time over
that provided other transportation options, so it is important that routes are reasonably direct.
Continuity: Routes connect to existing, planned and proposed bicycle routes to create a dense
network of continuous bicycle routes. The bicycle route network should have as few gaps as
possible. A key focus is missing links missing links in the network - gaps that if bridged can have
a tremendous impact in terms of connectivity. These can be a simple as providing a safe crossing
of a busy street to building an actual bridge over a creek or railroad tracks.
Obstacles: Routes are selected which minimize conflicts between motor vehicles and bicyclists,
and limit exposure to obstacles and barriers, such as highways, on-ramps, high-speed traffic,
bridges, and tunnels. Conversely, alternate direct routes do not exist in many areas, requiring that
bicycle routes provide links across these barriers and through large blocks or parcels of land.
Street networks which rely on a high number of discontinuous minor roads limit bicyclists ability
to travel to transit.
In addition, potential routes are evaluated on the basis of the number of residents and commuting
workers who live within a half-mile of the route. While the bicycle facility type and design is not considered
at this stage, it is important that route is accessible to users as people living within a half-mile of a bike
path are at least 20% more likely to bicycle at least once a week, compared to people living slightly
1
farther away from the path.
Vernez-Moudon, A.V., Lee, C., Cheadle, A.D., et al., 2005. Cycling and the built environment, a US perspective. Transp. Res. Part
D 10, 245261.
North Hanley
The map below shows the 3 mile radius station area with desire lines between the station and various
origins and destinations, including:
Schools, residential areas and shopping centers in Dellwood, Ferguson, Endicott, Park, Woodson
Terrace
UMSL
The map following shows the recommended bicycle routes linking the station area and various origins and
destinations in a 3 mile radius. The table indicates the existing population of potential bicycle users along
each route or segment.
Nelson\Nygaard, 2013
88 | Bike and Pedestrian Implementation Strategy
Nelson\Nygaard, 2013
IDRoute
Population
within .5
Length
miles
(mi.)
Per
Total
Mile
Commuting
Workforce
within .5 miles
Total
Per Mile
Selected
Destinations
Major
Obstacles
1 Ferguson Ave
2,018
2,732
2 Florissant Rd
8,520
1,923
I-70
intersection
3 Hanley Rd
5,132
1,051
I-70
intersection
7,792
1,125
I-170
underpass
5 Natural Bridge Rd
6,068
1,732
I-170
underpass
3,808
2,579
7,596
1,433
4,320
2,187
9 Woodstock Rd
2,360
1,653
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATIONS
The development strategy pairs concepts of phasing of development with a toolbox of implementation ideas in order to outline a roadmap for ongoing development in the Hanley station
area over the near term and the long term.
In terms of phasing, the initial development plan would likely involve developing a part of the
parking lot near the Hanley platform into a mix of local serving retail and office uses. Then
over time the area to the south would be developed into retail or employment center uses.
The following development strategy tools will assist the county, Metro, and other partners in
moving development forward at the station area:
Issuance of Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for development: Unless Metro or the
county wish to enter the development business, these two parties should use the tenets and
vision outlined in this station area plan to develop RFPs to solicit developer involvement.
The RFP should articulate the development and design standards required for a development deal and should outline other requirements expected of developers. This process
should help to attract interest from St. Louis and beyond for parties interested in developing
at the station area.
Rezoning of the station area: The county should proactively rezone the station area to
densities sufficient to provide transit supportive development. In the case of Hanley, the
county should zone for at least 20 dwelling units per acre. The zoning should allow for a
variety of land uses and therefore should constitute mixed use zoning.
Adoption into comprehensive plan: The county should work to adopt the station area
plan into its Comprehensive Plan in order to ensure that the vision and goals articulated by
the community are memorialized and recognized by the governing body as a whole.
Adoption of Form Based Code: The county should work to institute a form based code for
the station area in keeping with the goals and guidelines outlined in this station area plan.
This strategy will help to maintain the levels of quality and design expected by the community for the station area.
Explore Potential for PPP (Private Public Partnership): The county should explore opportunities to participate in potential development deals either by providing equity, loans and
related financing, or other financial incentives in order to constitute a public private partnership.
APPENDIX
Appendix | A-1
LEED ND Scorecard
LEED 2009 for Neighborhood and Development
Project Checklist
Updated 04/22/2013
Assigned
Notes:
11
d/C
Possible Points: 27
Assigned
Notes:
Prereq 1
Smart Location
Prereq 2
Prereq 3
Prereq 4
Prereq 5
Floodplain Avoidance
Credit 1
Preferred Locations
10
Credit 2
Brownfield redevelopment
Credit 3
Credit 4
Credit 5
Credit 6
Credit 7
2
2
7
1
2
Credit 8
Credit 9
14
21
Possible Points: 44
Assigned
Notes:
Prereq 1
Walkable Streets
Prereq 2
Compact Development
Determine base line and calculated design case. Will be doing same for WE 3. Architect
Prereq 3
Credit 1
Walkable Streets
12
Facades and Entries (a,b,c,d) / Ground-Level Use and Parking (f,g, i, j, l ) (2 possible: h, m) / Design Speeds for Safe Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel (2 possible: n, o) / Sidewalk Intrusions (1 pos
Credit 2
Compact Development
Depends on Density, we can probablly get between 4-6 points (4 points: 25-38 DU/acre ; 6 points +63 DU/acre)
Credit 3
We need more than 19 diverse uses within 1/4 mile walk distance of 50% of dwelling units
Credit 4
Points depend on Simpson Diversity Index for Housing Types and/or Affordable Housing
Credit 5
Credit 6
Street Network
Don't think we have enough intersections either within the project or in 1/4 mile distance from Project Boundary
Credit 7
Transit Facilities
Credit 8
Credit 9
Credit 10
Credit 11
Credit 12
Credit 13
Credit 14
Credit 15
Neighborhood Schools
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
6
13
Possible Points: 29
Not attainable - Closer schools (middle and elementary) more than 1/2 mile away
Assigned
Notes:
Prereq 1
Prereq 2
Prereq 3
Prereq 4
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Credit 4
Water-Efficient Landscaping
Credit 5
Credit 6
Credit 7
Not attainable - There are areas in the site that are nor previously developed and we are not setting any land aside to be preserved
Credit 8
Stormwater Management
2 points for 85% Percentile Rainfall Event (20-40 years) / 4 points for 95% Percentile Rainfall Event
Credit 9
Credit 10
Solar orientation
Credit 11
1
1
1
Not attainable
1 of 2
Appendix | A-3
Credit 13
Credit 14
Wastewater Management
Credit 15
Credit 16
Credit 17
1
1
1
Possible Points: 6
Notes:
Credit 1.3
d/C Credit 2
1
4
Possible Points: 3
1
1
1
31
50
14
Yes
Assigned
Notes: 1-4 Points Possible. A project that earns a Regional Priority credit automatically earns one point in addition to any points awarded for that credit.
Assigned
Total
Silver 50 to 59 points
LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Project Checklist
Gold 60 to 79 points
Platinum 80 + points
2 of 2
Appendix | A-5
20
18
13
9
9
8
8
6
4
2
2.WhatIdislikethemostaboutthisMetroLinkstationisthefollowing:(chooseall
thatapply)
Therearenostoresorservicesnearby
Thereisnoplacetoeatordrinknearby
Icantwalkthereeasily
Ifeelunsafe
Icantbikethere
IttakestoolongtogetanywhereonMetroLinkfromthisstation
Busconnectionstothestationarepoor
Thisstationishardtofind
Drivingthereisdifficult
UsingMetroLinkistooexpensive
28
25
19
12
6
5
3
3
2
1
3.ThetopthreethingsiwanttoseeatthisMetroLinkstationare:(choosethree)
Forthisstationareatofeelmorelikepartoftheneighborhood
49
Tohavebettershopsandrestaurants
43
Forittofeelsafer
24
Betterpedestrianconnections
22
Toconnecttomorejobs
21
Tohavemorekindsofhousingaroundit
19
Toprojectabetterimageofthecommunity
17
Betterbikeconnections
Betterbusconnections
Other
8
0
Appendix | A-7
4.RegardingparkingspacesatthisMetroLinkstation,thereare:(chooseone)
Idontknow
35%
Justenough
32%
Toomany
18%
Sometimesnotenough
Usuallynotenough
15%
0%
5.Regardingeconomicgrowth,planningforthisstationareashouldfocuson:
(chooseone)
Usingtransittoattractcompaniesfromoutsidetheregion
50%
Supportingorencouraginggrowthofmomandpopbusinesses
26%
Noneoftheabove
15%
Supportingvisitationtotheregion(includingtourism)
9%
6.Themostimportantenvironmentalissuesforthisstationareaare:(chooseyour
topthree)
Shadeandtrees
24%
Renewableenergy
17%
Noise
17%
Stormwaterrunoff
16%
Airquality
14%
Waterquality/waterpollution
Idontknow
Other
8%
3%
1%
7.Regardingaestheticissues,planningforthisstationareashouldfocuson:(choose
one)
Improvingthequalityofstreetscapesaroundthestationarea
69%
Improvingtheappearanceofbuildingsaroundthestationarea
17%
Idontknow,Iwouldliketolearnmore
6%
Improvingtheappearanceofparkamenitiesorconnections
6%
Providingpublicartaroundthestationarea
3%
Other
0%
Improvingtheappearanceofparkingareasinthestationarea
0%
A-8 | Appendix
8.IwouldbeinfavorofthefollowingtypesoflandusesaroundthisMetroLink
station:(selectallthatapply)
Restaurants
29
Retail
27
Offices
23
Entertainment
22
Hotel/lodging
17
Civicbuildings(libraries,communitycenters,etc.)
17
Lightindustrialuses
11
Educationalfacilities(K12,College,technicalschool,etc.)
10
Placesofworship
Other
5
4
9.Iwouldbeinfavorofthefollowingtypesofresidentialusesaroundthis
MetroLinkstation:(selectallthatapply)
Townhomes
23
Multistorycondominiums(forsale)
21
Apartments(forrent)
18
Duplexes
13
Singlefamilydetachedhomes
Other
Iamnotinfavorofhavingresidentialusesaroundthisstation
10.Iwouldbeinfavorofthefollowingtypesofretailaroundthisstationarea:
(selectallthatapply)
Convenienceretail(sandwichshops,drycleaners,bank,etc.)
30
Neighborhoodretail(florists,bookstores,giftshops,etc.)
28
Grocerystores
23
Bigboxretailers(Walmart,Target,Kohls,etc.)
Other
12
5
Appendix | A-9
11.Iwouldbeinfavorofthefollowingtypeofentertainmentusesaroundthis
stationarea:(selectallthatapply)
Movietheaters
21
Bars/taverns
16
Familyentertainmentcenters(arcades,gamecenters,etc.)
12
Amphitheaters
10
Comedyclubs
Other
Iamnotinfavorofentertainmentusesnearthisstation
Dancehalls/nightclubs
Sportsvenues/sportsarenas
12.Iwouldbeinfavorofthefollowingtypeofdevelopmentaroundthisstation
area:(chooseone)
MixedusedevelopmentorientedaroundaMainStreet
Largeformat,regionaluses(retail,orbusinessparks)
78%
11%
Conventionalsuburbandevelopment
7%
Noneoftheabove
4%
Idontknow,Iwouldliketolearnmore
0%
13.Iwouldbeinfavorofexploringthefollowing"CompleteStreets"strategiesfor
HanleyRoadnearthestationarea:(chooseallthatapply)
Installingbikelanesorpathsalongthesideoftheroad
22
Installingbenches,trashcans,andotherstreetscapeelements
21
Installingimprovedsignageandwayfinding
19
Conversionoftrafficlanestoaccommodatebikefacilities
17
Usingatravellane,ortheshoulder,forexpressbusservice
15
Installingpublicarttoimprovethecorridorsappearance
Noneoftheabove
A-10 | Appendix
12
2
14.Ienvisionthisstationareaevolvingtorepresentthefollowing:(chooseone)
Aneighborhoodcenterwithretail/officeuses
56%
AregionalcenterservingtheNorthCountyarea
37%
Continued,existingpatternsofdevelopmentandlanduses
Noneoftheabove
7%
0%
15.Iwouldbeinfavorofthefollowingdevelopmentstrategyforthisstationarea:
(chooseallthatapply)
Useguidelinestocreateadesiredlook/feelfornewdevelopment
23
Revisezoningtoallowhigherdensitydevelopment
23
Revisezoningtoallowawiderrangeoflanduses
23
Don'talterexistingregulations;focusonimprovingbiking/walking
Allowcurrentlanduseplanstoguidedevelopment
Noneoftheabove
16.Iwouldbeinfavorofthefollowingtypesofpublicinvestmentindevelopment
aroundthisstationarea:(chooseallthatapply)
Purchasingorassemblinglandtofacilitatenewdevelopment
19
Investmentinparks,openspace,andtrails
18
Subsidies(suchastaxincentives)tosupportprivatedevelopment
15
Investmentincivicfacilities(libraries,communitycenters,etc.)
15
Investmentinroadsservicingthestationarea
14
Investmentinutilitiesservicingthestationarea
11
Investmentinparkinglotsaroundthestationarea
Idontknow
Noneoftheabove
17.Iwouldbeinfavoroflocaljurisdictionsalteringtheirregulationstoallow
greaterlevelsatthisstationarea:(chooseone)
Yes
89%
No
7%
Idontknow
4%
Appendix | A-11
18.Howdidyoulearnaboutthismeeting?(chooseallthatapply)
Other
Poster
TVinterview
Anotherwebsite
Announcementatanothermeeting
Projectwebsite(www.stlouistod.com)
Mailing
Radio
19.Wheredoyoulive?(chooseone)
St.LouisCity
43%
ElsewhereinStLouisCounty
36%
Normandy
11%
ElsewhereintheStLouisregion
7%
Bellerive
4%
Other
0%
Berkeley
0%
20.Thefollowingindicatesmycurrentage:(chooseone)
5064
37%
3549
A-12 | Appendix
26%
6579
19%
2534
19%
80+
0%
1824
0%
Under18
0%
February 2013
1.Inordertoencouragethecreationofnewdevelopmentaroundthis
station,Iwouldbeinfavorofbuildingheightsofupto:(chooseone)
10ormorestories
23%
4stories
23%
5stories
15%
3stories
12%
8stories
8%
6stories
8%
2stories
8%
9stories
4%
7stories
0%
1story
0%
2.InordertoencouragedevelopmentaroundthisstationareaIwouldbein
favorofresidentialdensitiesofthefollowing:(chooseone)
8 12
26%
20 30
22%
3 5
15%
30 50
11%
50+dwellingunitsperacre
7%
12 20
7%
5 8
7%
1 3
Idontknow,Iwouldliketolearnmore
4%
0%
Appendix | A-13
3.Iwouldbemostinterestedinpursuingthefollowingasaninitialdevelopment
projectaroundtheHanleystation:(chooseallthatapply)
Smallprojectcombiningretailandresidential
11
Corporatecampusormajoremploymentcenter
11
Coffeeshop/retailorientedtotransitriders
Smallneighborhoodretailcenter(drycleaner,bank,etc.)
Smallprojectcombiningofficeandresidential
Residentialuses(apartmentorcondominium)
Ahoteldevelopment
Noneoftheabove
4.IwouldliketoseeMetro,overtime,convertsomeoftheexistingsurface
parkingatNorthHanleytodevelopment,whileprovidingforreplacementparking
facilities:(chooseone)
Stronglyfavor
54%
Somewhatfavor
21%
Stronglyoppose
13%
Neutral
13%
Somewhatoppose
0%
5.Iwouldbeinfavorofhavingmoreparkinggaragesandfewersurfaceparking
spotsinordertoencouragemoredevelopmentatthisstation:(chooseone)
Stronglyfavor
65%
Somewhatfavor
15%
Somewhatoppose
8%
Neutral
8%
Stronglyoppose
4%
6.Iwouldbeinfavorofthefollowingstyleofstreetscapedesignforthestreetsin
thestationarea:(chooseone)
Traditional
54%
Contemporary
Artistic
A-14 | Appendix
31%
15%
7.Iwouldpreferthefollowingtypesofbikeaccommodationsinthestation
area:(chooseallthatapply)
Bikelockers
16
Bikesharingfacilities(Bcycle)
14
Acommercialbicycleshopwithbikerentals.
Noneoftheabove
8.Iwouldmostbeinfavorofthefollowingkindofcivicamenityaround
thisstationarea:(chooseone)
Policestation
42%
Recreationcenter
19%
Communityservicescenter
12%
Smallcommunitycenter(withactivityrooms,etc.)
12%
Branchlibrary
12%
School(elementary,middle,orhighschool)
4%
9.Iwouldmostbeinfavorofthefollowingkindofparks/openspace/
greenspaceamenitiesaroundthisstationarea:(chooseallthatapply)
Jogging/walkingtrailconnections
14
Openspaceforgreenstormwatermanagement
13
Naturalopenspaceareanear/atthestationarea
10
Parknearthestationareawithgrass&seating
Playgroundwithequipmentforkids
9
8
Appendix | A-15
10.Iwouldpreferthefollowingkindsofpublicartinandaroundthis
stationarea:(chooseone)
OptionC
32%
OptionD
28%
OptionB
20%
OptionE
12%
OptionA
8%
11.Iwouldbeinfavorofthefollowingideasforprovidingasaferpedestrian
crossingacrossHanleytothewestfromthestationarea:(chooseallthat
apply)
Betterlightingandsignage
15
BridgeortunneloverHanley
11
Bulboutorcurbextension
10
Trafficsignalforpedestrians
10
12.IwouldbeinfavorofchangingMetropolicytoallowfoodanddrinktobe
transportedonthetrain:(chooseone)
Stronglyagree
35%
Stronglyoppose
27%
Somewhatagree
27%
Neutral
Somewhatoppose
8%
4%
13.Whatkindsofconnectionswouldyouliketoseeimprovedfrom
NorthHanleytotheUMSLcampus:(chooseone)?
Linearparkconnection
35%
Bike/trailconnections
27%
Improvedsidewalkconnections
Noneoftheabove
A-16 | Appendix
23%
15%
April 2013
1.-12.) To prioritize streetscape improvements on the pedestrian priority streets identified for downtown, participants
were asked to rate the IMPACT of each element and the URGENCY of implementing them on a scale from 1 to 5
where 1 = lowest and 5 = highest.
Public Meeting Results
3
6
1
4
Lighting Enhancements
Improved Signage
urgency
impact
Appendix | A-17
13.Doyousupporttheproposedtreeplantingstrategy?(chooseone)
Yes
78%
Idontknow
11%
No
11%
14.Iwouldbeinfavorofdevelopingpartsoftheneighborhoodsouthof
UniversityPlaceintoamixtureofdifferentlanduses.(chooseone)
StronglyAgree
60%
Neutral
20%
Agree
20%
StronglyDisagree
0%
Disagree
0%
15.Whatisyourpreferredgatewaymarkingstyleforkeylocations
approachingthisdevelopmentdistrict?(chooseone)
Archwayorelementthatspansthestreet
30%
Gatewayentryplaque
30%
Publicartelement
20%
Verticalelementonbothsidesofthestreet
20%
A-18 | Appendix
Noneoftheabove
0%
Other
0%
16.IwouldbeinfavorofStLouisCountyadoptingthisplanforthe
MetroLinkstationareaaspartofthecomprehensiveplanforthe
community.(chooseone)
Stronglyagree
78%
Agree
22%
Stronglydisagree
0%
Disagree
0%
Neutral
0%
17.IwouldbeinfavorofStLouisCountyimplementingadevelopment
incentivesinthestationareainordertomoreformallypromote
developmentofthisstationarea.(chooseone)
Agree
33%
Stronglyagree
33%
Neutral
22%
Disagree
Stronglydisagree
11%
0%
18.Iaminfavorofthedevelopmentandlanduseconceptsdepicted
forthisstationarea.(chooseone)
Stronglyagree
60%
Agree
40%
Stronglydisagree
0%
Disagree
0%
Neutral
0%
Appendix | A-19
19.IaminfavoroftheMetroboardendorsingthisstationareaplanand
promotingitsdevelopmentaspartofacoremissionoftheagency.
(chooseone)
Stronglyagree
56%
Agree
44%
Stronglydisagree
0%
Disagree
0%
Neutral
0%
20.Iwouldbeinfavorofthefollowingstrategiestopromotethe
developmentofthisstationarea:(chooseallthatapply)
Updatezoningtoencourageflexibility,buildingsup
to4stories,andmixeduses
Public/Privatepartnershipsforissuingofdeveloper
RFP(s)
Countytocoordinatestreetscapeimprovementstied
toredevelopmentefforts
5
2
1
Countypurchasingland
A-20 | Appendix
Noneoftheabove
Other
Countyofferingtargetedtaxincentives
The three public meetings were also listed in the calendar section of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. A press
release was also carried in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch online version stltoday.com. The following Study
partners also blogged about the meetings, placed information on their websites, placed variable message
boards on major county roads, Twitter feed or distributed the eBlast/eNewsletter to their mailing list: East
West Gateway Council of Governments (EWG), Metro, Citizens for Modern Transit (CMT), St. Louis
County, St. Louis County Economic Council, St. Clair County Transit District, City of Fairview Heights,
St. Clair County Board Chairman, East St. Louis Mayor, Jackie Joyner-Kersee Foundation, East St. Louis
Parks District and Heartland Conservancy.
2. Was the public hearing/public meeting held at an accessible place and at a time convenient to the
participating community? Identify the specific building and room where the meeting was held. Provide the
meeting times.
The meeting location was on the second floor of University of Missouri-St. Louis, J C Penney Conference
Center, accessible by elevator directly next to the Summit Room location.. The meeting location was
disability accessible and within close proximity to the UMSL-South station on MetroLink. Meeting times
were 4-7 PM.
3. Were any requests for special accommodation received prior to or at the meeting?
No requests for special accommodation were submitted.
4. During the public hearing/public meeting, were all concerns heard without regard to race, sex, color,
familial status, LEP, age, disability, or national origin?
Yes, all comments were address as questions were asked without regard to race, sex, color, familial status,
LEP, age, disability or national origin.
Appendix | A-21
5. Describe how persons in attendance were advised of the complaint procedures in the event they felt
discriminated against because of race, color, LEP, familial status, sex, disability, age, or national origin.
We did not receive any requests or complaints regarding discrimination issues. However, the consultant
team had the necessary complaint procedures and language available in the event any complaints were
raised.
6. Describe efforts to ensure citizen participation in the hearings, particularly by minorities and women.
Media interviews were conducted prior to the meeting to encourage participation. In addition to print
publications notices, EWG and Study team members were interviewed by the following media:
KWMU News interview
KMOX radio interview (Study team)
KSDK Channel 5On-air mention and website posting
Shine 690 AM (Minority radio station- Public Service Announcement)
Metrorider alerts on MetroLink trains
7. What was the total attendance at the meeting? How many minorities and women were represented at
the meeting? This should be based on staff observation.
A total of 46 attendees signed in at the meeting. Of the 46, 19 were women and approximately 12
minorities were in attendance.
A-22 | Appendix
The five public meetings were also listed in the calendar and press release section of the St. Louis PostDispatch. The following Study partners also blogged about the meetings, placed information on their
websites, placed variable message boards on Hanley Road near Evans Ave and Hanley Road near Natural
Bridge, Twitter feed, Facebook page or distributed their mailing list: East West Gateway Council of
Governments (EWG), Hudson and Associates, Metro, Citizens for Modern Transit (CMT), St. Louis
County, St. Louis City, East St. Louis Mayor, City of Fairview Heights.
2. Was the public hearing/public meeting held at an accessible place and at a time convenient to the
participating community? Identify the specific building and room where the meeting was held. Provide the
meeting times.
The meeting location was held at the Hilton Garden Inn. The meeting location was disability accessible.
Meeting times were 5:30-7:30 PM.
3. Were any requests for special accommodation received prior to or at the meeting?
No requests for special accommodation were submitted.
4. During the public hearing/public meeting, were all concerns heard without regard to race, sex, color,
familial status, LEP, age, disability, or national origin?
Yes, all comments were address as questions were asked without regard to race, sex, color, familial status,
LEP, age, disability or national origin.
5. Describe how persons in attendance were advised of the complaint procedures in the event they felt
discriminated against because of race, color, LEP, familial status, sex, disability, age, or national origin.
Appendix | A-23
We did not receive any requests or complaints concerning discrimination issues. However, the consultant
team had the necessary complaint procedures and language available in the event any complaints were
raised.
6. Describe efforts to ensure citizen participation in the hearings, particularly by minorities and women.
Media interviews were conducted prior to the meeting to encourage participation. In addition to print
publications notices, EWG and Study team members were interviewed by the following media:
KWMU News interview
KMOX radio interview
St. Louis Post-Dispatch calendar announcements and press release section
7. What was the total attendance at the meeting? How many minorities and women were represented at
the meeting? This should be based on staff observation.
A total of 31 attendees signed in at the meeting. Of the 31, 15 were women and approximately 9 minorities
were in attendance.
A-24 | Appendix
The five public meetings were also listed in the calendar and press release section of the St. Louis PostDispatch. The following Study partners also blogged about the meetings, placed information on their
websites, placed variable message boards on Hanley Road near Evans Ave and Hanley Road near Natural
Bridge, Twitter feed, Facebook page or distributed their mailing list: East West Gateway Council of
Governments (EWG), Hudson and Associates, Metro, Citizens for Modern Transit (CMT), St. Louis
County, St. Louis City, Village of Shiloh, East St. Louis Mayor, City of Fairview Heights.
2. Was the public hearing/public meeting held at an accessible place and at a time convenient to the
participating community? Identify the specific building and room where the meeting was held. Provide the
meeting times.
The meeting location was held at the Hilton Garden Inn. The meeting location was disability accessible.
Meeting times were 5:30-7:30 PM.
3. Were any requests for special accommodation received prior to or at the meeting?
No requests for special accommodation were submitted.
4. During the public hearing/public meeting, were all concerns heard without regard to race, sex, color,
familial status, LEP, age, disability, or national origin?
Yes, all comments were address as questions were asked without regard to race, sex, color, familial status,
LEP, age, disability or national origin.
5. Describe how persons in attendance were advised of the complaint procedures in the event they felt
discriminated against because of race, color, LEP, familial status, sex, disability, age, or national origin.
Appendix | A-25
We did not receive any requests or complaints concerning discrimination issues. However, the consultant
team had the necessary complaint procedures and language available in the event any complaints were
raised.
6. Describe efforts to ensure citizen participation in the hearings, particularly by minorities and women.
Media interviews were conducted prior to the meeting to encourage participation. In addition to print
publications notices, EWG and Study team members were interviewed by the following media:
KWMU News interview
KMOX radio interview
St. Louis Post-Dispatch calendar announcements and press release section
Belleville-News Democrat
7. What was the total attendance at the meeting? How many minorities and women were represented at
the meeting? This should be based on staff observation.
A total of 13 attendees signed in at the meeting. Of the 13, 6 were women and approximately 4 minorities
were in attendance.
A-26 | Appendix
Choice 1
Choice 2
Choice 3
37.5% (3)
12.5% (1)
50.0% (4)
100.0% (3)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
50.0% (1)
50.0% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
50.0% (2)
50.0% (2)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
33.3% (2)
33.3% (2)
33.3% (2)
0.0% (0)
80.0% (4)
20.0% (1)
0.0% (0)
50.0% (1)
50.0% (1)
More housing
66.7% (2)
0.0% (0)
33.3% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
1 of 17
Count
answered question
11
skipped question
Appendix | A-27
2. What I dislike most about this MetroLink station is the following (choose all that apply)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
20.0%
I feel unsafe
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
80.0%
60.0%
10.0%
30.0%
answered question
10
skipped question
A-28 | Appendix
2 of 17
3. The top three things I want to see at this MetroLink station are (rank your top three)
Rating
Choice 1
Choice 2
Choice 3
50.0% (2)
25.0% (1)
25.0% (1)
25.0% (1)
50.0% (2)
25.0% (1)
50.0% (3)
33.3% (2)
16.7% (1)
20.0% (1)
40.0% (2)
40.0% (2)
0.0% (0)
100.0% (2)
0.0% (0)
33.3% (1)
66.7% (2)
0.0% (0)
66.7% (2)
0.0% (0)
33.3% (1)
16.7% (1)
0.0% (0)
83.3% (5)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
Count
answered question
11
skipped question
Appendix | A-29
3 of 17
4. Regarding parking spaces at this MetroLink station, there are (choose one)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Too many
27.3%
Just enough
36.4%
9.1%
0.0%
I don't know
27.3%
answered question
11
skipped question
5. Regarding economic growth, planning for this station area should focus on (choose one)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
45.5%
0.0%
54.5%
0.0%
answered question
11
skipped question
A-30 | Appendix
4 of 17
6. The most environmental issues for this station area are (rank your top three)
Rating
Choice 1
Choice 2
Choice 3
Noise
50.0% (1)
0.0% (0)
50.0% (1)
Air quality
25.0% (1)
25.0% (1)
50.0% (2)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
Renewable energy
0.0% (0)
40.0% (2)
60.0% (3)
Stormwater runoff
20.0% (1)
80.0% (4)
0.0% (0)
71.4% (5)
14.3% (1)
14.3% (1)
I don't know
50.0% (2)
0.0% (0)
50.0% (2)
answered question
11
skipped question
Count
Appendix | A-31
5 of 17
7. Regarding aesthetic issues, planning for this station area should focus on (choose one)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
0.0%
63.6%
0.0%
27.3%
0.0%
9.1%
answered question
11
skipped question
A-32 | Appendix
6 of 17
8. I would be in favor of the following types of land uses around this MetroLink station
(choose all that apply)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Offices
72.7%
Entertainment
54.5%
Restaurants
90.9%
10
Retail
81.8%
27.3%
45.5%
81.8%
Hotel / lodging
36.4%
9.1%
answered question
11
skipped question
Appendix | A-33
7 of 17
9. I would be in favor of the following types of residential uses around this MetroLink station
(select all that apply)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
11.1%
Duplexes
33.3%
Townhomes
44.4%
66.7%
77.8%
11.1%
answered question
skipped question
10. I would be in favor of the following types of retail around this station area (select all that
apply)
Grocery stores
Big box retailers (Walmart, Target,
Kohls, etc.)
Convenience retail (sandwich
shops, dry cleaners, bank, etc.)
Neighborhood retail (florists, book
stores, gift shops, etc.)
A-34 | Appendix
Response
Response
Percent
Count
72.7%
27.3%
90.9%
10
72.7%
answered question
11
skipped question
8 of 17
11. I would be in favor of the following type of entertainment uses around this station area
(select all that apply)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Movie theaters
81.8%
Comedy clubs
54.5%
Bars / taverns
36.4%
45.5%
Amphitheaters
27.3%
18.2%
0.0%
answered question
11
skipped question
9 of 17
Appendix | A-35
12. I would be in favor of the following type of development around this station area (choose
one)
Conventional suburban
development
Mixed-use development oriented
around a "Main Street"
Large format, regional uses (retail
or business parks)
None of the above
I don't know, I would like to learn
more
A-36 | Appendix
Response
Response
Percent
Count
0.0%
81.8%
0.0%
0.0%
18.2%
answered question
11
skipped question
10 of 17
13. I would be in favor of exploring the following "Complete Streets" strategies for North
Hanley Road near the station area (choose all that apply)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
45.5%
72.7%
72.7%
36.4%
63.6%
54.5%
9.1%
answered question
11
skipped question
Appendix | A-37
11 of 17
14. I envision this station area evolving to represent the following (choose one)
A-38 | Appendix
Response
Response
Percent
Count
0.0%
27.3%
72.7%
0.0%
answered question
11
skipped question
12 of 17
15. I would be in favor of the following development strategy around this station area
(choose all that apply)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
36.4%
27.3%
45.5%
63.6%
63.6%
0.0%
answered question
11
skipped question
development
Do not alter existing regulations,
but focus on improving biking and
walking here
Revise zoning to allow a wider
range of land uses
Revise zoning to allow higher
density development
Implement design guidelines to
create a desired look or feel for
new development
None of the above
Appendix | A-39
13 of 17
16. I would be in favor of the following types of public investment in development around
this station area (choose all that apply)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
27.3%
9.1%
0.0%
54.5%
54.5%
27.3%
54.5%
0.0%
I don't know
18.2%
answered question
11
skipped question
station area
Investment in utilities servicing the
station area
Investment in parking lots around
the station area
Investment in civic facilities
(libraries, community centers,
etc.)
Investment in parks, open space,
and trails
Subsidies (such as tax incentives)
to support private development
Purchasing or assembling land
to facilitate new development
A-40 | Appendix
14 of 17
17. I would be in favor of local jurisdictions altering their regulations to allow greater levels
of density at this station area (choose one)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Yes
54.5%
No
9.1%
I don't know
36.4%
answered question
11
skipped question
18. How did you learn about this survey / planning process (select all that apply)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
TV interview
0.0%
Radio
0.0%
Mailing
0.0%
33.3%
33.3%
Another website
33.3%
Poster
0.0%
0.0%
Project website
(www.stlouistod.com)
answered question
skipped question
Appendix | A-41
15 of 17
Response
Percent
Count
Normandy
9.1%
Berkeley
9.1%
Bellerive
0.0%
45.5%
36.4%
0.0%
Other
0.0%
answered question
11
skipped question
Response
Response
Percent
Count
A-42 | Appendix
Under 18
0.0%
18 - 24
9.1%
25 - 34
27.3%
35 - 49
9.1%
50 - 64
54.5%
65 - 79
0.0%
80+
0.0%
answered question
11
skipped question
16 of 17
Q3. The top three things I want to see at this MetroLink station are (rank your top three)
Q8. I would be in favor of the following types of land uses around this MetroLink station (choose all that apply)
Residential
Q18. How did you learn about this survey / planning process (select all that apply)
signage
Appendix | A-43
17 of 17
Survey #2
North Hanley Survey #2
1. In order to encourage the creation of new development around this station, I would be in
favor of building heights of up to (choose one):
A-44 | Appendix
Response
Response
Percent
Count
1 story
0.0%
2 stories
16.7%
3 stories
8.3%
4 stories
8.3%
5 stories
16.7%
6 stories
16.7%
7 stories
0.0%
8 stories
8.3%
9 stories
0.0%
10 or more stories
25.0%
answered question
12
skipped question
1 of 26
Response
Percent
Count
13
0.0%
35
0.0%
58
0.0%
8 12
0.0%
12 20
9.1%
20 30
27.3%
30 50
27.3%
27.3%
9.1%
answered question
11
skipped question
Appendix | A-45
2 of 26
Response
Percent
Count
66.7%
50.0%
75.0%
41.7%
33.3%
A hotel development
50.0%
0.0%
answered question
12
skipped question
A-46 | Appendix
3 of 26
4. I would like to see Metro, over time, convert some of the existing surface parking at
North Hanley to development, while providing for replacement parking facilities (choose
one).
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Strongly favor
75.0%
Somewhat favor
8.3%
Neutral
16.7%
Somewhat oppose
0.0%
Strongly oppose
0.0%
answered question
12
skipped question
5. I would be in favor of having more parking garages and fewer surface parking spots in
order to encourage more development at this station (choose one).
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Strongly favor
75.0%
Somewhat favor
16.7%
Neutral
8.3%
Somewhat oppose
0.0%
Strongly oppose
0.0%
answered question
12
skipped question
Appendix | A-47
4 of 26
6. I would be in favor of the following style of streetscape design for the streets in the
station area (choose one):
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Contemporary
25.0%
Artistic
16.7%
Traditional
58.3%
answered question
12
skipped question
7. I would prefer the following types of bike accommodations in the station area (choose all
that apply):
Response
Response
Percent
Count
91.7%
11
Bike lockers
50.0%
33.3%
0.0%
answered question
12
skipped question
A-48 | Appendix
5 of 26
8. I would be in favor of the following option for University Place in the station area (choose
one):
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Existing section
8.3%
Option A
83.3%
10
Option B
8.3%
answered question
12
skipped question
9. I would most be in favor of the following kind of civic amenity around this station area
(choose one):
Branch library
Response
Response
Percent
Count
16.7%
25.0%
Recreation center
8.3%
Police station
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
answered question
12
skipped question
Appendix | A-49
6 of 26
10. I would most be in favor of the following kind of parks / open space / green space
amenities around this station area (choose all that apply):
Response
Response
Percent
Count
41.7%
75.0%
25.0%
50.0%
66.7%
answered question
12
skipped question
11. I would prefer the following kinds of public art in and around this station area (choose
one):
A-50 | Appendix
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Option A
8.3%
Option B
16.7%
Option C
16.7%
Option D
16.7%
Option E
41.7%
answered question
12
skipped question
7 of 26
12. I would be in favor of the following ideas for providing a safer pedestrian crossing
across Hanley to the west from the station area (choose all that apply):
Response
Response
Percent
Count
75.0%
75.0%
33.3%
83.3%
10
answered question
12
skipped question
13. I would be in favor of changing Metro policy to allow food and drink to be transported on
the train (choose one):
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Strongly agree
9.1%
Somewhat agree
27.3%
Neutral
9.1%
Somewhat oppose
54.5%
Strongly oppose
0.0%
answered question
11
skipped question
Appendix | A-51
8 of 26
14. What kinds of connections would you like to see improved from North Hanley to the
UMSL campus (choose one)?
Response
Response
Percent
Count
36.4%
45.5%
9.1%
9.1%
answered question
11
skipped question
15. How would you rate (on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 as the lowest ranking and 10 as the highest) the
services and conveniences around the MetroLink station you typically use to get on the MetroLink syste
(including the selection of stores, restaurants, offices, gathering places, etc.)
I do not
know
enough
about
1
the
stations
Average
in to
answer
this
question
18.2%
45.5%
18.2%
18.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
(2)
(5)
(2)
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
0.0% (0)
answered question
skipped question
A-52 | Appendix
9 of 26
16. When I am using MetroLink stations, the following concerns me the most: (choose one)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Personal security
18.2%
0.0%
0.0%
18.2%
9.1%
0.0%
18.2%
0.0%
9.1%
answered question
11
skipped question
Appendix | A-53
10 of 26
17. The following reflects my thoughts concerning the current supply of parking at the
MetroLink stations I typically use to get on the train: (choose one)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
45.5%
9.1%
27.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
9.1%
0.0%
answered question
11
skipped question
significant
amount of parking not being used.
The amount of parking provided is
adequate. There is a small
amount of parking that is not being
used.
The amount of parking provided is
inadequate. The shortage of
parking is small, or limited to only
peak travel times.
The amount of parking provided is
inadequate. The shortage of
parking is substantial.
I do not know what to think of the
supply of parking near my most
frequent MetroLink station of origin.
I would like to learn more.
A-54 | Appendix
11 of 26
18. The most important community issues to address in planning for MetroLink station
areas (existing stations, or future stations) are as follows: (choose your top three)
Rating
Rating
Average
Count
First Choice
Second Choice
Third Choice
50.0% (1)
50.0% (1)
0.0% (0)
1.50
33.3% (1)
0.0% (0)
66.7% (2)
2.33
50.0% (2)
25.0% (1)
25.0% (1)
1.75
40.0% (2)
40.0% (2)
20.0% (1)
1.80
50.0% (1)
0.0% (0)
50.0% (1)
2.00
0.0% (0)
50.0% (1)
50.0% (1)
2.50
50.0% (3)
50.0% (3)
0.0% (0)
1.50
20.0% (1)
40.0% (2)
40.0% (2)
2.20
0.0% (0)
25.0% (1)
75.0% (3)
2.75
answered question
11
skipped question
Appendix | A-55
12 of 26
19. The most important economics issues to address in planning for MetroLink station
areas (existing stations, or future stations) are as follows: (choose your top three)
A-56 | Appendix
Rating
Rating
Average
Count
First Choice
Second Choice
Third Choice
66.7% (2)
0.0% (0)
33.3% (1)
1.67
100.0% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
1.00
0.0% (0)
100.0% (4)
0.0% (0)
2.00
50.0% (1)
50.0% (1)
0.0% (0)
1.50
0.0% (0)
25.0% (1)
75.0% (3)
2.75
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0.00
50.0% (2)
50.0% (2)
0.0% (0)
1.50
0.0% (0)
50.0% (1)
50.0% (1)
2.50
42.9% (3)
0.0% (0)
57.1% (4)
2.14
50.0% (1)
50.0% (1)
0.0% (0)
1.50
answered question
10
skipped question
13 of 26
20. The most important environmental issues to address in planning for MetroLink station
areas (existing stations, or future stations) are as follows: (choose your top three)
Rating
Rating
Average
Count
First Choice
Second Choice
Third Choice
33.3% (1)
66.7% (2)
0.0% (0)
1.67
100.0% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
1.00
25.0% (1)
50.0% (2)
25.0% (1)
2.00
50.0% (2)
50.0% (2)
0.0% (0)
1.50
66.7% (2)
0.0% (0)
33.3% (1)
1.67
50.0% (1)
50.0% (1)
0.0% (0)
1.50
40.0% (2)
0.0% (0)
60.0% (3)
2.20
0.0% (0)
50.0% (2)
50.0% (2)
2.50
0.0% (0)
33.3% (1)
66.7% (2)
2.67
answered question
10
skipped question
Appendix | A-57
14 of 26
21. The most important aesthetic issues to address in planning for MetroLink station areas
(existing stations, or future stations) are as follows: (choose your top three)
Rating
Rating
Average
Count
First Choice
Second Choice
Third Choice
0.0% (0)
12.5% (1)
87.5% (7)
2.88
50.0% (5)
40.0% (4)
10.0% (1)
1.60
10
50.0% (5)
50.0% (5)
0.0% (0)
1.50
10
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
100.0% (2)
3.00
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0.00
answered question
10
skipped question
A-58 | Appendix
15 of 26
22. I would be in favor of designing existing or future MetroLink station areas to include the
following services or amenities: (choose all that apply)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Public restrooms
81.8%
Bike racks
54.5%
54.5%
Lockers
36.4%
54.5%
63.6%
63.6%
81.8%
18.2%
answered question
11
skipped question
Appendix | A-59
16 of 26
23. I would be in favor of the following types of land uses around (within one-half mile) of
MetroLink stations (either new or existing): (choose all that apply)
Response
Percent
Count
Offices
90.9%
10
Entertainment
81.8%
Restaurants
100.0%
11
Retail
90.9%
10
54.5%
63.6%
81.8%
Hotel / lodging
72.7%
Industrial uses
45.5%
Other
9.1%
answered question
11
skipped question
A-60 | Appendix
Response
17 of 26
24. I would be in favor of the following types of residential uses around (within one-half
mile) of MetroLink stations: (choose all that apply)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
18.2%
Duplexes
45.5%
Townhomes
81.8%
100.0%
11
81.8%
Other
0.0%
0.0%
answered question
11
skipped question
Appendix | A-61
18 of 26
25. I would be in favor of the following types of retail uses around (within one-half mile) of
MetroLink stations: (choose all that apply)
Grocery stores
Response
Percent
Count
100.0%
11
36.4%
Coffee shops
90.9%
10
Dry cleaners
81.8%
Clothing stores
81.8%
Florists
72.7%
Book stores
90.9%
10
Gift shops
72.7%
Bakery
100.0%
11
Other
27.3%
answered question
11
skipped question
A-62 | Appendix
Response
19 of 26
26. I would be in favor of the following types of entertainment uses around (within one-half
mile) of MetroLink stations: (choose all that apply)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Movie theaters
81.8%
Comedy clubs
72.7%
63.6%
Bars / taverns
72.7%
81.8%
Amphitheaters
63.6%
54.5%
Other
27.3%
0.0%
answered question
11
skipped question
Appendix | A-63
20 of 26
Percent
Count
Yes
100.0%
11
No
0.0%
0.0%
answered question
11
skipped question
A-64 | Appendix
Response
21 of 26
28. In general, I believe the following factors should most strongly influence the selection of
the five stations for further station area planning as part of this project: (choose your top
three selections)
Rating
Rating
Average
Count
First Choice
Second Choice
Third Choice
12.5% (1)
50.0% (4)
37.5% (3)
2.25
42.9% (3)
42.9% (3)
14.3% (1)
1.71
50.0% (1)
0.0% (0)
50.0% (1)
2.00
100.0% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
1.00
75.0% (3)
0.0% (0)
25.0% (1)
1.50
0.0% (0)
33.3% (1)
66.7% (2)
2.67
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0.00
answered question
skipped question
Appendix | A-65
22 of 26
29. I would be in favor of the following types of public investment in development around
MetroLink stations: (choose all that apply)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
66.7%
22.2%
77.8%
100.0%
55.6%
66.7%
0.0%
I dont know
0.0%
answered question
skipped question
A-66 | Appendix
23 of 26
30. I would be in favor of local communities altering their zoning and development
regulations to help facilitate Transit Oriented Development. (select one)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Yes
100.0%
No
0.0%
I don't know
0.0%
answered question
skipped question
Response
Response
Percent
Count
31. How did you learn about this meeting? (choose all that apply)
TV Interview
0.0%
Radio
0.0%
Mailing
0.0%
25.0%
50.0%
50.0%
Poster
0.0%
0.0%
Other
12.5%
answered question
skipped question
Project Website
(www.stlouistod.com)
Another website (East West
Gateway, Citizens for Modern
Transit, etc.)
Appendix | A-67
24 of 26
32. Where do you live in the St. Louis metropolitan region? (choose one)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
22.2%
0.0%
0.0%
22.2%
55.6%
0.0%
0.0%
Madison County, IL
0.0%
0.0%
Other
0.0%
answered question
skipped question
A-68 | Appendix
25 of 26
Response
Percent
Count
Bellerive
0.0%
Normandy
50.0%
Cool Valley
0.0%
12.5%
25.0%
12.5%
answered question
skipped question
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Under 18
0.0%
24
11.1%
25 34
55.6%
35
49
11.1%
50
64
22.2%
65
79
0.0%
80+
0.0%
answered question
skipped question
18
Appendix | A-69
26 of 26