Loop Trolley Draft EA and Appendicies

DRAFT
ST. LOUIS LOOP TROLLEY

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
March 2011
Prepared by the Federal Transit Administration and the

East-West Gateway Council of Governments
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Project Purpose and Need ............................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Description of the Project...................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Background and Purpose of the Environmental Assessment ......................... 1-3
1.3 Context and Study Area........................................................................................ 1-3
1.4 Previous Coordination and Community Involvement .................................... 1-5
1.5 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................. 1-6
2. Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Alignment Screening and Selection Process ...................................................... 2-1
2.2 Mode Screening and Selection Process ............................................................... 2-2
2.3 Vehicle and Technology Screening and Selection Process ............................... 2-3
2.4 Maintenance Facility Screening and Selection Process .................................... 2-4
2.5 Selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative ................................................... 2-7
2.6 Description of the No-Build Alternative ............................................................ 2-7
2.6.1 Capital Improvements ............................................................................. 2-7
2.6.2 Projects included in the Transportation Improvement Program ....... 2-7
2.6.3 Cost and Performance of the Transit No-Build Alternative ............... 2-8
2.7 Description of the Build Alternative ................................................................... 2-8
2.7.1 DeBaliviere Avenue Segment ................................................................. 2-9
2.7.2 Delmar Boulevard East Segment .......................................................... 2-12
2.7.3 Delmar Avenue West Segment ............................................................. 2-15
2.8 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed (see Appendix 2.8 for relevant
figures)................................................................................................................... 2-18
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.................................... 3-1
3.1 Transportation ........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.1 Transit ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Traffic.......................................................................................................... 3-5
3.1.3 Safety .......................................................................................................... 3-7
3.1.4 Parking ....................................................................................................... 3-7
3.1.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................... 3-10
3.1.6 Summary of Mitigation Measures for Transportation Impacts during
Construction ............................................................................................ 3-15
3.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 3-16
3.2.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-16
3.2.2 Environmental Consequences............................................................... 3-25
3.2.3 Farmland Conversion............................................................................. 3-26
3.2.4 Compliance with Plans and Policies .................................................... 3-27
3.2.5 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................... 3-28
3.3 Land Acquisitions and Relocations ................................................................... 3-29
DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.3.3 Mitigation................................................................................................. 3-30
3.4 Economics ............................................................................................................. 3-31
3.5 Neighborhoods and Community Facilities ...................................................... 3-34
3.6 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................... 3-39
3.6.4 Outreach Specific to Minority and Low-Income Populations .......... 3-49
3.7 Title VI Compliance ............................................................................................. 3-50
3.8 Visual and Aesthetic Resources ......................................................................... 3-54
3.8.3 Visual Mitigation .................................................................................... 3-64
3.9 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 3-64
3.9.3 Mitigation................................................................................................. 3-72
3.10 Noise and Vibration ............................................................................................ 3-72
3.10.1 Noise Terminology ................................................................................. 3-72
3.10.3 Noise Evaluation Methodology ............................................................ 3-77
3.10.4 Vibration Evaluation Methodology ..................................................... 3-78
3.11 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 3-85
3.11.1 Air Quality Regulations ......................................................................... 3-85
3.11.4 Mitigation for Temporary Construction Effects ................................. 3-88
3.12 Energy.................................................................................................................... 3-88
3.12.2 Methodology ........................................................................................... 3-89
3.12.3 Findings 3-90
3.12.4 Mitigation 3-90
3.13 Parks and Recreation ........................................................................................... 3-91
3.13.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ........................ 3-96
iv DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.14 Section 4(f) Analysis ............................................................................................ 3-97

3.14.1 Parks and Recreational Resources ........................................................ 3-97
3.14.2 Cultural Resources.................................................................................. 3-98
3.15 Public Safety and Security ................................................................................ 3-100
3.15.1 Police…………… ................................................................................... 3-100
3.15.2 Fire and Ambulance Services .............................................................. 3-100
3.15.3 Safety and Security during Construction .......................................... 3-100
3.16 Biological Resources and Endangered Species .............................................. 3-101
3.16.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................. 3-101
3.16.2 Migratory Birds ..................................................................................... 3-101
3.16.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .............................................. 3-101
3.16.4 Environmental Consequences............................................................. 3-102
3.16.5 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 3-102
3.17 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................. 3-102
3.17.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................... 3-102
3.17.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................. 3-104
3.18 Wetlands, Waters, and Floodplains ................................................................ 3-104
3.18.1 Wetlands 3-104
3.18.2 Waters of the U.S................................................................................... 3-105
3.18.3 Floodplains ............................................................................................ 3-106
3.18.4 Mitigation 3-106
3.19 Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................... 3-106
3.20 Utilities ................................................................................................................ 3-109
3.20.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 3-111
3.21 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 3-111
3.22 Summary of Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 3-114
4. Finance ............................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Capital Finance Plan for the St. Louis Loop Trolley ......................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Firm Commitments .................................................................................. 4-2
4.1.2 Commitments in Process ......................................................................... 4-2
4.1.3 Schedule ..................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2 Operations and Maintenance Finance Plan........................................................ 4-4
4.2.1 Description of Operating Plan ................................................................ 4-5
4.2.2 Proposed Funding Sources ...................................................................... 4-5
5. Public and Agency Involvement ................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Loop Trolley Advisory Committee ..................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Coordination with Local Agencies ...................................................................... 5-3
5.3 Coordination with Community Representatives .............................................. 5-4
5.4 Coordination with Neighborhood Associations ............................................... 5-6
5.5 Project Website ....................................................................................................... 5-6
5.6 Project Newsletters ................................................................................................ 5-7
DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.7 Additional Public Involvement Activities .......................................................... 5-7

5.8 General Public Meetings and Forums................................................................. 5-8
5.9 Public Comments ................................................................................................... 5-8
5.9.1 Key Themes of General Comments ........................................................ 5-9
5.9.2 Other Public Comment Threads ............................................................. 5-9
6. Draft EA Distribution List ........................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Federal Agencies .................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 State Agencies......................................................................................................... 6-2
6.3 Local Government Agencies ................................................................................ 6-2
6.4 Copies Available for Public Viewing .................................................................. 6-3
7. References………………………………………………………………………………6-1
Appendixes
1.1 LPA Selection
2.1 Delmar Wabash Trolley Service Restoration Project

2.2 Delmar Boulevard Trolley Feasibility Study
2.3 Vehicle Comparison
2.4 Station Platforms and Maintenance Facility Information
2.5 Preliminary Plans – DeBaliviere Avenue
2.6 Feasibility Study for the DeBaliviere Avenue Bridge over Metro to Support Live Loads
2.7 Preliminary Plans – Delmar Boulevard
2.8 Options Considered But Dismissed
2.9 City and Metro Letters
3.1 Agency Letters

3.2 Environmental Site Assessments
3.3 SHPO and Cultural Resource Documentation
3.4 Minutes from Forest Park Advisory Board Meeting Adopting the LPA
3.5 FEMA Extents
4.1 Cost Estimates

4.2 Letters of Commitment
4.3 Operations and Maintenance Analyses
4.4 Ridership Analyses
5.1 Public Feedback

5.2 Draft Letter Announcing EA Publication
6.1 List of Preparers
vi DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables
TABLE 2.2-1. Benefits to Investment of Fixed-Guideway Streetcars ........................................2-3
TABLE 2.2-2. Rubber Tire vs. Fixed Guideway from 2000 Feasibility Study ..........................2-3
TABLE 2.4-1. Maintenance Facility Functional and Spatial Requirements (see Appendix 4.1
for additional details) .......................................................................................................................2-5
TABLE 2.8-1. Summary of Alternatives Considered .................................................................2-19
TABLE 3.1-1. Existing Transit Service in the Project Study Area ..............................................3-2
TABLE 3.1-2. Opening and Future Year Ridership Forecasts for the Build Alternative ........3-4
TABLE 3.1-3. Level of Service Thresholds for Signalized Intersections ...................................3-5
TABLE 3.1-4. Existing and Projected Intersection Level of Service (LOS) ...............................3-6
TABLE 3.1-5. Existing Parking and Changes to Parking Anticipated from the Build
Alternative .........................................................................................................................................3-8
TABLE 3.6-1. Racial and Ethnic Demographics in the Project Study Area, St. Louis City,
University City, and the state of Missouri...................................................................................3-42
TABLE 3.6-2. Low-Income Populations in the Project Study Area .........................................3-44
TABLE 3.7-1. Title VI Populations in the Project Study Area ..................................................3-51
TABLE 3.8-1. Existing Visual Quality ..........................................................................................3-59
TABLE 3.8-2. Analysis of Impacts to Key Views .......................................................................3-63
TABLE 3.9-1. Summary of Cultural Resources Determinations of Effect ..............................3-66
TABLE 3.10-1. Summary of Noise Impact Assessment for Loop Trolley Operations without
Mitigation .........................................................................................................................................3-80
TABLE 3.12-1. Operational Energy Consumption Summary ..................................................3-90
TABLE 3.13-1. Summary Information about Parks and Recreation Resources in the Study
Area ...................................................................................................................................................3-93
TABLE 3.14-1. Summary of Cultural Resources within the APE ............................................3-99
TABLE 3.21-1. Summary of Impacts ..........................................................................................3-112
TABLE 4.1-1. Capital Cost Estimate...............................................................................................4-1
TABLE 4.1-2. Schedule of Funding Commitments ......................................................................4-4
TABLE 5.1-1. Loop Trolley Advisory Committee Membership (as of June 2009) ..................5-2
TABLE 5.1-2. Loop Trolley Technical Advisory Committee Membership (as of January 2010)
.............................................................................................................................................................5-3

Figures
FIGURE 1.3-1. Broader Project Study Area ..................................................................................1-4
FIGURE 2.7-1. DeBaliviere Avenue Segment .............................................................................2-10
FIGURE 2.7-2. Typical Station Layout.........................................................................................2-11
FIGURE 2.7-3. Delmar East Segment...........................................................................................2-14
FIGURE 2.7-4. Maintenance Facility: First Floor Layout ..........................................................2-15
FIGURE 2.7-5. Maintenance Facility: Second Floor Layout .....................................................2-15
FIGURE 2.7-6. Delmar West Segment .........................................................................................2-17
FIGURE 3.1-1. Existing Transit Service in the Project Area .......................................................3-3
DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURE 3.1-2. Existing Conditions and Changes to Parking from the Build Alternative.....3-9
FIGURE 3.1-3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in the Project Area.......................................3-12
FIGURE 3.2-1. Existing Land Uses...............................................................................................3-19
FIGURE 3.2-2. Future Land Use ...................................................................................................3-20
FIGURE 3.5-1. Project Area Neighborhoods ..............................................................................3-36
FIGURE 3.5-2. Community Cultural Facilities ...........................................................................3-37
FIGURE 3.6-1. Minority Populations ...........................................................................................3-41
FIGURE 3.6-2. Low-Income Populations ....................................................................................3-45
FIGURE 3.7-1. Elderly Populations .............................................................................................3-52
FIGURE 3.7-2. Limited English Proficiency Populations .........................................................3-53
FIGURE 3.8-1. Landscape Units ...................................................................................................3-55
FIGURE 3.9-1. Cultural Resource Map .......................................................................................3-71
FIGURE 3.10-1. Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ..................................................................3-73
FIGURE 3.10-2. Examples of Typical Outdoor Noise Exposure ..............................................3-74
FIGURE 3.10-3. Noise Receptor Locations..................................................................................3-75
FIGURE 3.10-4. Diagram of Maintenance Facility and Retaining Wall ..................................3-83
FIGURE 3.10-5. Locations of Potential Noise and Vibration Impacts.....................................3-84
FIGURE 3.13-1. Parks and Recreation Resources in the Project Area .....................................3-92
FIGURE 3.13-2. Forest Park Structure .........................................................................................3-94
FIGURE 3.19-1. Hazardous Materials Sites in the Project Corridor ......................................3-107
FIGURE 4.1-1. Sources of Funds ....................................................................................................4-2

viii DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations
AC alternative current
ACP Access, Circulation, and Parking
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APE Area of Potential Effect
ASLA American Society of Landscape Architects
BIDA Business/Industrial Development Area
BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Btu British thermal unit
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments
CC Core Commercial
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMAQ Congestion Management Air Quality
CO carbon monoxide
COCA St. Louis Center of Creative Arts
dBA A-weighted sound level
DNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources
DOT Department of Transportation
EA Environmental Assessment
EIA Energy Information Association
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EWGCOG East-West Gateway Council of Governments
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
HR High Density Residential
DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
HRO High Density Residential/Office District

Hz Hertz
IC Industrial Commercial
IPDA Industrial Preservation and Development Area
Ldn day-night sound level
Leq equivalent sound level
LOS Level of Service
LPA Locally Preferred Alternative
LRTP long-range transportation plan
LTC Loop Trolley Company
LTK LTK Engineering Services
LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund
MDC Missouri Department of Conservation
MO Missouri
MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics
MSD Metropolitan St. Louis Water District
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NCA Neighborhood Commerce Area
NDA Neighborhood Development Area
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMTC New Markets Tax Credit
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPA Neighborhood Preservation Area
NPS National Park Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OA Opportunity Area
OCS Overhead Contact System
x DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

PA Public Activity
PD Planned Development
PM2.5 particles with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less
PM10 particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less
Pub. L. Public Law
RAC St. Louis Regional Arts Commission
ROSPDA Recreational and Open Space Preservation and Development Area
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLDC St. Louis Development Corporation
SMUA Specialty Mixed Use Area
sq ft square foot (feet)
STP Surface Transportation Program
STP-E Surface Transportation Program-Enhancement
TAC Loop Trolley Technical Advisory Committee
TDD Transportation Development District
TIF Delmar East Loop Tax Increment Financing District
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TRB Transportation Research Board
U.S.C. U.S. Code
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VOC volatile organic compound
VMT vehicle miles traveled
DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT xi

CHAPTER 1
Project Purpose and Need
1.1 Description of the Project

The Loop Trolley Transportation Development District (TDD) proposes to build a modern
streetcar connecting Forest Park in the City of St. Louis to the Delmar Loop in the City of
University City. The proposed Loop Trolley route runs between Trinity Avenue and
DeBaliviere Avenue on Delmar Boulevard. Then from Delmar Boulevard, the route turns
south onto DeBaliviere Avenue and continues southward to a loop around the Missouri
History Museum in Forest Park, south of Lindell Boulevard. The route would be constructed
entirely within existing public right-of-way and would be approximately two miles long.
The project includes nine proposed stations, spaced approximately one-quarter mile apart.
All stations would be located within public right-of-way. Stations would be placed at the
following approximate locations:
1. On the south side of the Missouri History Museum
2. On the east and west sides of DeBaliviere Avenue between Forest Park Parkway and
Pershing/DeGiverville Streets
3. On the east side of DeBaliviere Avenue, north of the Kingsbury Street intersection
4. In the median of Delmar Boulevard, at Laurel Road
5. In the median of Delmar Boulevard at the Delmar MetroLink station
6. On the north and south sides of Delmar Boulevard between Rosedale and Skinker
Avenues
7. On the north and south sides of Delmar Boulevard between Eastgate and Westgate
Avenues
8. On the north and south sides of Delmar Boulevard between Melville and Kingsland
Avenues
9. On the south side of Delmar Boulevard, east of Trinity Avenue
Each station would provide improved pedestrian facilities to promote safe and comfortable
environments for transit users. These improvements include pedestrian-scale lighting, high-
visibility pavement marking, street signage and wayfinding signage, context-appropriate
site furnishings, and an opportunity for inclusion of public art (art would be funded by
others).
The streetcar vehicle type selected for the Loop Trolley is a replica heritage vehicle. This
type of vehicle is similar in mechanical and electrical characteristics to most modern
streetcars, yet retains the historic appearance of older trolleys, which is the preference for
the historic Delmar Loop and Forest Park areas of St. Louis. The selected vehicle has
DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1-1

CHAPTER 1: PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
performance characteristics which provide safe and dependable service, air conditioning
and heating for passenger comfort, and ADA compliant accommodations.
The trolley would operate on a combination of battery and direct current power, converted
from commercial alternating current (AC) at substations placed at intervals along the line,
and supplied to the cars from an overhead wire mounted above and centered between the
running rail. The overhead wire is referred to in this document as the overhead contact
system (OCS). While the vehicle operates on the OCS, the battery would be charged
sufficiently to power the vehicle on the route without OCS. Approximately 4,900 feet of OCS
would be in place along the route and would be located on Delmar Boulevard between Des
Peres Avenue and DeBaliviere Avenue, and on DeBaliviere Avenue between Delmar
Boulevard and Pershing Avenue. The sections south and west of this area would operate on
battery power.
The project would also include a 26,000 square-foot maintenance facility located at 5875-
5893 Delmar Boulevard. The facility would store six vehicles, house administrative offices,
and repair/maintenance facilities. The building that would be repurposed for this function
is an existing building that is currently vacant, and it is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. It would be rehabilitated to provide the necessary trolley maintenance
functions as well as space for relevant administrative services.
This project would include rehabilitation of a bridge crossing the MetroLink tracks on
DeBaliviere Avenue. The existing bridge on DeBaliviere Avenue was originally built in 1937,
and is on the list of bridges to be rehabilitated by the City of St. Louis. In 2005, two parallel
transit access structures were built alongside this existing bridge to provide access to the
Forest Park MetroLink station platform below DeBaliviere Avenue; these bridges would not
be affected as part of this project. Rehabilitation of the DeBaliviere bridge would include
reconstruction of the superstructure, reconstruction of the north abutment, and a seismic
retrofit. The seismic retrofit would include construction of a new south abutment,
construction of intermediate wingwalls in front of the north abutment, and a fiberglass or
carbon fiber wrap of the columns and bent caps of both intermediate bents. This project
would include construction of a roundabout at the west terminus of the project, at the
intersection of Trinity Avenue and Delmar Boulevard. It would be a single-lane roundabout
that would allow the trolley to change directions. The existing intersection has six legs and is
stop-controlled on the minor legs. Motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists have difficulty
navigating the existing intersection. The proposed roundabout would offer improved access,
safety, and mobility for all users.
For the purposes of electrical power, this project would include an electrical substation at
the corner of Delmar Boulevard and Hamilton Street. The substation would be housed
within the maintenance facility and would not be visible from surrounding residences and
businesses.
The Loop Trolley system would be owned by the Loop Transportation Development District
(TDD). This entity would be responsible for the design, construction, operations, and
maintenance of the system. TDD would also be responsible for all mitigation referenced in
this Environmental Assessment (EA) unless otherwise noted.
1-2 DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1.2 Background and Purpose of the Environmental

Assessment
During the past two decades, citizens and other stakeholders within the City of St. Louis
and University City organized several efforts to plan for trolley service on DeBaliviere
Avenue and Delmar Boulevard. These efforts have focused on how to best align a trolley
system within the two streets so that it both maximizes economic development potential
within the area and provides the best transit access to Forest Park and the Delmar Loop. The
following sections of this chapter provide descriptions of the context for the project, and the
formal purpose and need statement. A full project description, including alignment and
station locations, is located in Chapter 2.
The purpose of this EA is to document the project’s compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Under the requirements of NEPA, federal
agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), are required to analyze a
proposed project’s potential impacts to the natural environment, the built environment, and
the social environment. The draft EA has been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of Title 23 CFR Parts 771 and 774, relating to the implementation of NEPA and
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966. . These analyses are
documented in Chapter 3.
This document begins by laying out the purpose and need of this project in Chapter 1. It
then describes the proposed Build Alternative in detail in Chapter 2, along with other
alternatives considered for this project. Chapter 3 documents the assessment of impacts
from the No-Build and the Build Alternatives to the natural, built, and social environments.
Chapter 4 lays out the proposed funding plan for the capital and operating costs associated
with this project, and Chapter 5 documents public outreach that has occurred during the
preparation of this EA.
1.3 Context and Study Area

The St. Louis Loop Trolley Project study area resides within several inner neighborhoods on
the west side of the City of St. Louis. These neighborhoods include the West End
Neighborhood, Skinker-DeBaliviere, DeBaliviere Place, and Visitation Park. The study area
also extends into the City of University City, located in St. Louis County. The broader study
area encompasses a mile-wide corridor along an approximately 1-½-mile section of Delmar
Boulevard and an approximately ½-mile section of DeBaliviere Avenue, extending into
Forest Park to the Missouri History Museum. For the purposes of detailed impact analyses,
a corridor width of 1/2 mile was used. The broader study area is illustrated as Figure 1.3-1.
The study area follows the former Delmar Loop streetcar route, includes two MetroLink
light rail stations and would connect two regional destinations/activity centers -- the
Delmar Loop and Forest Park. The Delmar Loop, or simply “The Loop,” now refers to a
vibrant six‐block entertainment and shopping district that anchors the west end of the
corridor and was recently named one of the “10 Great Streets in America” by the American

CONTEXT AND STUDY AREA
FIGURE 1.3-1. Broader Project Study Area

PREVIOUS COORDINATION AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Planning Association. On the southeast end of the corridor is Forest Park, one of the largest
urban parks in the United States. It attracts 13 million visitors each year and is home to the
Missouri History Museum, the St. Louis Zoo, the St. Louis Art Museum, Steinberg Skating
Rink, two golf courses, miles of multiuse trails, and many natural and man-made features.
The Loop has experienced a substantial amount of revitalization over the past four decades.
The area is a national symbol of urban revitalization and rehabilitation. The Loop recovered
from disinvestment and decline to become a thriving mixed-use activity center with a
diverse mix of office and commercial space, residential units, restaurants and live music
venues. Over the years the revitalization has progressed to the east along Delmar. The
construction of the Loop Trolley project would help the revitalization continue to spread
eastward along Delmar Boulevard into an area that currently has many vacant parcels and
light industrial uses, and is an environment not conducive to pedestrian activity.
In addition to furthering economic development in the region, this project would improve
transit access to Forest Park and the Delmar Loop, and would enhance connections between
these destinations and MetroLink. Although there are several bus routes that travel between
St. Louis and University City, there are no routes that directly connect Forest Park and the
Delmar Loop; therefore, this project would directly increase transit service in the corridor.
Similarly, it would connect directly to the MetroLink system, allowing riders of the light rail
system to more directly reach Forest Park and the Delmar Loop.
1.4 Previous Coordination and Community Involvement

The community coordination and local agency cooperation that has been ongoing on the
Loop Trolley project since the 1990’s has developed the purpose and need for the project.
The paragraphs below depict the evolution of the project from the 1990s to today. These
activities solidified local interest in and support for the project.
Local and regional planning for transit improvements in the study area has been taking
place since the late 1990s. The idea of a new type of transit service in this corridor first
emerged in the “Delmar Wabash Trolley Service Restoration Project Concept Paper,”
prepared by the Bi-State Development Agency (now known as Metro) and Arts in Transit in
19971. The concept paper looked at ways to better connect the Delmar MetroLink Station to
the Loop businesses and the adjacent neighborhoods, spur transit‐oriented development
along Delmar, and enhance the visual appearance and pedestrian friendliness of the area.
The Cities of St. Louis and University City, Metro, Arts in Transit, the Skinker‐DeBaliviere
Community Council, and local businesses participated in the study.
In 2000, Metro conducted the Delmar Boulevard Feasibility Study. This feasibility study
examined various trolley alternatives in the Delmar/DeBaliviere corridor. Three community
workshops were held during the study to present the various alternatives to the community
and to obtain input. Participants included Metro, merchants, community leaders, and
neighborhood organizations. Interest in the reintroduction of trolley service in the corridor
was taken up by the Loop Trolley Company. The Loop Trolley Company is a non-profit
organization formed to further the development of the Loop Trolley. Its Board of Directors
includes local leaders and representatives of businesses and government agencies.
1 Metro and Arts in Transit. 1997. Delmar Wabash Trolley Service Restoration Project Concept Paper.

PURPOSE AND NEED
East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGCOG), the St. Louis region’s

metropolitan planning organization, on behalf of the Loop Trolley Company in 2008 and
2009, conducted a more detailed $1.5M planning and design study. This study built on the
results of the previous analysis and substantial community input. All of the work to date has
focused on the important connection between transportation and land use planning. The
recent planning and design study examined different trolley concept designs, operating
plans and a recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The LPA for the Loop
Trolley Project was selected by the EWGCOG Board of Directors in July 2009. The minutes
of this meeting are provided in Appendix 1.1.
As a part of the planning and design project, a substantial number of community meetings
were conducted. Close coordination with community leaders, government agencies,
institutions, local neighborhoods, and the general public played an integral role in forming
the basic elements for the preferred trolley concept in the corridor.
1.5 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Loop Trolley Project is to provide a direct transit connection between the
Delmar Loop and Forest Park that would encourage greater usage of transit for residents,
employees, and visitors and promote economic development and neighborhood
revitalization in the study area, while improving the environmental sustainability of the St.
Louis region.
The need for the Loop Trolley Project arises from:
 The Need for Improved Transit Accessibility. Currently, there is no direct transit link
between major attractions in this corridor. Visitors to the area and residents that arrive
via transit must make several connections to move between destinations including
Forest Park and the Delmar Loop, and the majority of trips to these destinations are
currently made using personal vehicles. In order to travel from Forest Park to the
Delmar Loop, the best option currently available is to board MetroLink at the Forest
Park station, ride to the Delmar Station, and then transfer to #97 Delmar MetroBus route.
A direct transit connection between these destinations would improve travel options,
reduce transit travel times for visitors to the area and improve accessibility for transit-
dependent residents and others in the surrounding neighborhoods. The Loop Trolley
would provide that direct connection. In addition, a direct transit connection would
provide better access to the following destinations that provide important services to
local residents and regional visitors alike:
 Crossroads College Prep School – students and teachers would have more choices
and a more efficient option for travelling to and from school
 Metro Bus Garage – Metro employees (bus operators, maintenance staff, and others)
who commute to work at the Metro garage via MetroLink currently walk the full
length of DeBaliviere before and after shifts; they would now have a transit
connection to more efficiently access their place of work
 Federal Social Security Building and People’s Clinic – this facility serves many low-
income and minority residents, who would have a new way to travel along this
corridor without a personal automobile

PURPOSE AND NEED
 Washington University School of Music – students and concert-goers would be able

to access the facility without personal automobiles, alleviating the congested parking
demand that exists in that location currently
 St. Louis Center of Creative Arts (COCA) - students and concert-goers would be able
to access the facility without personal automobiles, alleviating the congested parking
that exists in that location currently
 St. Louis Regional Arts Commission (RAC) – while access to this venue is available
from the Delmar MetroLink station, patrons would have more choices of how to
connect to other destinations in the corridor from this facility, e.g., attending a
function at St. Louis COCA after a meeting at RAC
 Forest Park Attractions – the proposed route would connect with the Metro # 3
Forest Park Shuttle, which operates between Memorial Day and Labor Day thereby
providing better access to the many other destinations of the park beyond the
Missouri History Museum.
The Loop Trolley system would be separate from existing MetroLink and MetroBus
services. Through coordination with Metro, it has been determined that fares would be
collected separately and that there would be no fare transfer between the Loop Trolley
system and the Metro systems.
 The Need for Improved Utilization of Existing Transportation Facilities. Visitors to

this corridor currently experience a substantial need for improved vehicular and
pedestrian circulation throughout the corridor and distribution of trips more efficiently.
For example, on evenings and weekends in the Loop, parking is in high demand and
results in roadway congestion as patrons arriving by automobile try to locate a parking
space near their specific destination. This activity occurs while other parking facilities in
the corridor remain underutilized. Likewise, at times the parking lots in Forest Park are
over capacity while lots in other parts of the corridor are underutilized. Additionally, on
weekdays, the parking lots at the two MetroLink stations in the corridor are at capacity,
while the other lots in the corridor are underutilized. A local circulation system could
balance out the parking needs, maximizing the use of the existing spaces. Most of the
existing traffic volume is local, with origins and/or destinations in the corridor.
Providing a dedicated transit circulator would encourage more trips to these
destinations to be taken via transit, and would have the potential to both reduce the
demand for parking and reduce emissions from single-occupant vehicle trips. Vehicle-
miles traveled (VMT) is projected to decrease as part of the Loop Trolley
implementation, as described in Chapter 3.
 The Opportunity for Economic Redevelopment and Neighborhood Revitalization.

The Loop area has been undergoing substantial positive change over the past 20 - 30
years. While the commercial and residential areas adjacent to and surrounding some
portions of the corridor are now stable and vibrant, including the west end of the Loop
and parts of DeBaliviere, there are sections in the center portion that are still somewhat
distressed and in need of further economic redevelopment and neighborhood
revitalization. The distressed area is approximately located one mile to the north and one
mile to the south of Delmar Avenue between Skinker Avenue and DeBaliviere Avenue.

PURPOSE AND NEED
In this section of the corridor, more than 25% of households were low-income in 1999.
This project would catalyze economic development in this area. A new circulation
system would help to catalyze redevelopment opportunities in the corridor and would
bring tourists, conventioneers and other visitors to the St. Louis region and the study
area. Such an attraction would increase patronage at the businesses and venues and
increase property values in the corridor.
 The Opportunity to Increase Sustainability. The St. Louis region’s auto-oriented

development patterns have a negative impact on its environmental sustainability. These
development patterns increase the consumption of fossil fuels, promote urban sprawl,
reduce the amount of permeable land surfaces, increase urban noise, and degrade air
quality. The St. Louis region has been designated by the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) as moderate nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter. By
introducing a new type of transit services such as a trolley, livability can be improved by
reducing travel by single-occupancy vehicles, and encouraging further economic
development in the study area that is consistent with local planning goals. The project
would provide additional connectivity between the regional transit and bicycle and
pedestrian network.

CHAPTER 2
Alternatives Considered
This chapter describes the process for selecting the alignment, mode, vehicle technology,
and maintenance facility location that led to the adoption of the locally preferred alternative.
It also describes the principal features of the Build and No-Build Alternatives, as well as
design options that were considered but dismissed.
2.1 Alignment Screening and Selection Process

As noted in Chapter 1, a key purpose of the Loop Trolley Project is to better connect two
destinations: the Delmar Loop and Forest Park. The planning work done in the mid-1990s
established this as a primary purpose, with the intent to both stabilize these two attractions
and revitalize the commercially tired areas between them. The Delmar Loop, which is
described in greater detail in Chapter 3, is an eclectic commercial and entertainment district
along Delmar Boulevard between Trinity Avenue in University City and Des Peres Avenue
in the City of St. Louis. Early planning work recognized the importance of the Loop Trolley
operating on Delmar Boulevard, since stabilizing and strengthening the Delmar Loop is
such an important objective of the project. As a result, the use of routes other than Delmar
was never considered. A trolley off of Delmar simply did not meet the need or aspirations
for the project.
With Delmar Boulevard entrenched as the linchpin for the Loop Trolley corridor, the
question of how to connect with Forest Park to the south of Delmar Boulevard became a
fairly simple decision. Since the Delmar Loop extends all the way to Des Peres Avenue on
Delmar Boulevard, the new trolley would need to extend along Delmar Boulevard at least
that far to the east. The next possible connection to Forest Park is at DeBaliviere Avenue.
DeBaliviere Avenue connects to Forest Park at the Missouri History Museum, an important
destination within the park that offers a grand entrance facing the Jefferson Memorial. The
Missouri History Museum has voiced strong support for the Loop Trolley connection to
Forest Park via DeBaliviere. Doing so would strengthen the gateway nature of the park’s
north entrance. It would also provide a historically relevant mode of transportation into the
park.
For these reasons, both the 1997 Concept Paper, Delmar Wabash Trolley Service Restoration
Project (see Appendix 2.1), prepared by Metro and Arts in Transit, and the Delmar Boulevard
Trolley Feasibility Study (see Appendix 2.2), prepared in 2000 by Metro, established the
Delmar-DeBaliviere corridor as the only reasonable corridor to consider for the Loop Trolley
project. Both of these planning efforts emerged out of community-driven, transit-oriented
interests in the local area.
The Delmar Boulevard Trolley Feasibility Study further explored the ability to provide trolley
service on Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue. It presented an analysis of the
potential environmental impacts and operating scenarios of both a fixed-guideway trolley
and a rubber-tire trolley. It ultimately recommended the fixed-guideway option as the
preferred option for the project.

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
MODE SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS
The East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGCOG), on behalf of the Loop Trolley
Company (LTC), initiated the most recent St. Louis Loop Trolley Project in 2007. This
project, built on the work done in 1997 and 2000, studied the potential benefits and impacts
of providing trolley service on Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue.
Given the interest in connecting Forest Park and the Delmar Loop and stimulating economic
development between these two regional destinations, the project’s advisory committee and
stakeholders determined that the previously-studied corridor along DeBaliviere Avenue
and Delmar Boulevard was the only route that would fully meet the purpose and need of
the project. Other potential routes between the Delmar Loop and Forest Park are either out-
of-direction, do not connect the activity centers, or are residential streets with minimal
economic development potential and limited right-of-way available.
2.2 Mode Screening and Selection Process

For the purposes of connecting the Delmar Loop to Forest Park, and of further revitalizing
and stabilizing the local economy in the project area, local leaders and planners continued to
consider the merits of rebuilding a streetcar along Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere
Avenue. This group advanced the two aforementioned studies (see Appendixes 2.1 and 2.2)
as a means of weighing the merits of modal choices along Delmar Boulevard and
DeBaliviere Avenue. In these studies, planners and engineers considered two basic mode
options for the corridor: a fixed-guideway streetcar system and a rubber-tire trolley. Based
on the estimates developed in the 2000 Feasibility Study for the trolley, the capital costs for
the rubber-tire trolley were estimated at approximately $4.5 million. Both modes achieve the
objective of improving the connection between the Delmar Loop and Forest Park. The fixed-
guideway option, however, would attract higher ridership and create more opportunities
for economic development. Considering other examples around the country, as shown in
Table 2.2-1, it is clear that a fixed-guideway streetcar would provide the greatest potential
for economic development in the corridor. A comparison summary of the findings from the
2000 feasibility report is provided in Table 2.2-2.
Fixed-guideway streetcars create a permanent system of transportation that cannot be
removed without substantial expense and time. Rubber-tire options, conversely, can be
cancelled or rerouted with little expense or effort to do so. As a result, fixed-guideway
systems present a stronger commitment to the growth and stability of the local economy.
Demonstrable proofs of the powerful economic benefits provided by fixed-guideway
streetcars exist across the United States, as indicated in Table 2.2-1. It was therefore
concluded that rubber-tire options would not enhance economic development opportunities
in the project area. As a result, the project team and advisory committee dismissed the
rubber tire alternative, leaving the fixed-guideway option as the only Build Alternative for
further study. Community engagement activities, as described in Chapter 5 of this
Environmental Assessment, helped validate that decision.

VEHICLE AND TECHNOLOGY SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS
TABLE 2.2-1. Benefits to Investment of Fixed-Guideway Streetcars

Initial Cost Per Initial System Development Return on
Start of Track Track Mile Cost Investment Investment
Service Miles (Millions) (Millions)^ (Millions)* (%)
Kenosha 2000 2.0 3.00 6.00 150 2400.00
Little Rock 2004 2.5 7.84 19.60 200 920.41
Tampa 2003 2.3 21.00 48.30 1000 1970.39
Portland(1) 2001 4.8 11.50 55.20 1046 1794.93
Portland(Ext) 2005 1.2 14.83 17.80 1353 7501.12
^ This represents the total costs of the project including maintenance facilities. Tampa total cost is $63.5 million
because of a multimodal transportation plaza but was omitted due to the fact that it’s an extra feature
* This represents planned and existing development investment directly related to the lines. Numbers were
through interviews in Little Rock and Kenosha, a development study in Portland, and calculations of new
planned development located three blocks or less from the streetcar in Tampa.
Source: Reconnecting America
TABLE 2.2-2. Rubber Tire vs. Fixed Guideway from 2000 Feasibility Study
Category Comparison
Ridership* The fixed-guideway alternative would generate approximately 70% higher ridership
than the rubber tire alternative (454,000 annual riders compared to 264,000)
Economic Fixed-guideway alternatives are proven to have substantial economic benefits (see
Development Table 2.2-1), whereas rubber tire solutions have demonstrated no such benefit.
Environmental Neither option would create any adverse impacts on the natural or human
(overall) environment
Air Quality The fixed-guideway alternative would have zero direct emissions, whereas the rubber
tire would have emissions equivalent to a Metro bus
Transportation The fixed-guideway is “fixed” and represents a permanent commitment of transit to

the corridor
Capital Cost The fixed-guideway alternative would require approximately four times as much
money to construct ($20.4 million compared to $4.5 million)
O/M Cost The fixed guideway alternative would cost roughly 15% more to operate and maintain
on an annual basis ($1.17 million compared to $1.01 million)
Qualitative comparisons are approximations based on analyses from 2000 Feasibility report; see Appendix 2.2
* The ridership estimate from the 2000 Feasibility Study is for a set of operating assumptions that are different
than those that would be true of the recommended operating plan. The recommended operating plan is
estimated to generate approximately 400,000 riders per year, based on the assumptions established in
Appendices 4.3 and 4.4.
2.3 Vehicle and Technology Screening and Selection Process

After determining fixed-guideway to be the best option for achieving the project purpose
and need, the Loop Trolley Company and local stakeholders originally intended to utilize

MAINTENANCE FACILITY SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS
vintage Peter Wit trolley vehicles for the project. In the most recent planning study,
however, the project team worked with the Loop Trolley Company and project Advisory
committee to compare other technology options for the vehicle choice. The team considered
three vehicle types:
1. Vintage Peter Wit vehicle – utilizing restored Peter Wit cars on overhead contact system
(OCS)
2. New replica heritage vehicle with electric power only – utilizing replica cars that look
like “vintage” cars but have modern amenities (heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning, Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] accessibility, etc.); all on OCS
3. New replica heritage vehicle with electric and battery power– replica vehicles similar to
option two above, but with the ability to run without OCS for portions of the corridor
The project team presented an in-depth comparison of these choices to the advisory
committee (see Appendix 2.3). As part of the presentation, the life cycle costs of the three
options were shown to be comparable (within five percent of one another over the life of the
vehicles). The advisory committee elected to eliminate the vintage Peter Wit car due to its
inability to effectively accommodate ADA provisions. Between the remaining two vehicles,
the Advisory committee elected to choose the replica heritage vehicle with electric and
battery power because its life cycle cost was shown to be slightly lower than the electric
power only vehicles. The battery/electric vehicle is not an unproven technology. Although
this type of power unit has generally been used for electric buses in this country (San
Francisco, Vancouver, Dayton, etc.), it has had a wider application in Europe and will be
used in the trolley system being built in Washington, DC. Its application in the Loop Trolley
project, therefore, is thoroughly consistent with the state of the technology. Employing this
type of vehicle would allow the project to avoid having to locate OCS in Forest Park. The
Forest Park Advisory Board made it clear that while they support the trolley in general, they
felt that OCS in the park would have an unacceptable impact on the visual environment of
this Section 4(f) resource. See Chapter 3 for a discussion of environmental justice and visual
environment related to the OCS, as well as for description of where the OCS would be
located.
The vehicle is fully ADA compliant, and uses a wheelchair lift which is identical to that of a
high-floor bus to achieve that part of the ADA requirement. This item is included in the cost
of the car. Because of the use of a lift, there is no special impact on the passenger stop
design, nor any additional cost to handle ADA requirements.
2.4 Maintenance Facility Screening and Selection Process

Functional and Spatial Requirements. A maintenance facility is a critical component of a
streetcar system, and must be able to accommodate the following functions: vehicle
inspection, maintenance, and storage; dispatch; training for mechanics and operators; record
storage; provision of employee break areas; distribution of public information; and
provision of offices for the organization operating the system. Table 2.4-1 describes the
specific spatial requirements for each maintenance facility function.

TABLE 2.4-1. Maintenance Facility Functional and Spatial Requirements (see Appendix 4.1 for additional details)
Required
Square
Basic Function Footage Description of Spatial Need
Vehicle 19,400  Space to conduct inspection activities (3,000 square feet [sq ft]),
maintenance, including:
inspection, and
storage - Inspection of undercarriage components, including wheels, axles,
and motors
- Space to access the roof of the car
 Space to conduct maintenance (10,500 sq ft), including:
- Performance of unit maintenance (often requires pulling a unit of
the vehicle off of the vehicle and working on it separately)
- Adequate space to walk around the cars and perform interior
cleaning
 Storage space needs (5,900 sq ft):
- Indoor storage for six streetcars (requires four spaces
approximately 25 feet wide and 75 feet long, two located on each
side of the tracks)
- Storage space for spare parts
- Lockable storage space for valuable parts, such as circuit boards
and other electronic components
- Storage space for lubricants
- Storage space for spare battery packs
- Storage space for tools
- Substation (trolley)
- Substation (VMF)
- Records storage
Dispatch 300 sq ft  Offices, telephones
Training for 800 sq ft  Computer training room for operators

mechanics and
 Mechanics’ training room
operators
Provision of 900 sq ft  Lunch room

employee break
 Lockers
areas
 Shower
 Restrooms
Administration 6,400 sq ft  TDD Offices (3,000 sq ft)

 Administrative offices (1,600 sq ft)
 Shop Manager office (200 sq ft)
 Operations Manager office (200 sq ft)
 Public meeting space (800 sq ft)
 Reception area (600 sq ft)

Location Options Considered. The project team considered three potential sites for the
maintenance facility. The sites were considered because of their size and proximity to the
project alignment. All other parcels along Delmar Boulevard or DeBaliviere Avenue would
not be sufficiently large enough to accommodate the maintenance facility’s functions.
Potential maintenance facility locations considered were:
 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard (Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School): Converting an

existing vacant building on Delmar Boulevard, between Hamilton Street and
Goodfellow Avenue. This property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places
(see Chapter 3 for detailed discussion of determination). The footprint is sized and
arranged appropriately to be used for the maintenance facility. Required rehabilitation
would include raising a portion of the roof and structural modifications to the two-story
space.
 5809 Delmar Boulevard (Goodfellow Site): Constructing a new building on an existing

vacant parcel at the northwest corner of Goodfellow and Delmar. This parcel would
require the tear-down of a vacant building and construction of a new building.
 Metro Bus Garage: Jointly using the existing Metro Bus garage on the southwest corner
of DeBaliviere Avenue and Delmar Boulevard.
Evaluation Criteria. The Metro Bus Garage was eliminated from consideration because Metro
stated that it would not contain sufficient space to meet the needs of the trolley, and because
the trolley movements would conflict with existing bus operations at that site. Appendix 2.9
contains a letter from Metro expressing their concerns with this option and calling for its
dismissal.
Both 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard (Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School) and 5809
Delmar Boulevard (Goodfellow Site) would provide adequate space for the functions
described in Table 2.4-1. Because both sites were determined adequate, further criteria were
developed to evaluate each site and identify a preferred location. These criteria included the
following:
 Operations. During the working day, streetcars must be shifted from one service track to
another in order to perform scheduled inspections and preventative maintenance work.
This car shifting is best accomplished without having to go outside of the limits of the
facility or enter the revenue trackage. The Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School
building at 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard could be designed to permit all such
movements to be handled within the site boundaries, without entering any public street
right-of-way. A new building at the Goodfellow Site (5809 Delmar Boulevard), because it
would sit on a more constrained parcel configuration, would need to use a section of
Goodfellow Boulevard to handle those maneuvers.
 Capital cost. The capital cost for the site includes renovation or construction of the
building as well as acquisition of the right-of-way. Conceptual estimates, based on
square-footage values and approximations for property acquisition, show that 5875-5893
Delmar Boulevard (Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School) would cost approximately
$5.4 million. 5809 Delmar Boulevard (Goodfellow Site) would cost approximately $6.6
million. See Appendix 4.1 for a summary of these conceptual cost estimates.

SELECTION OF THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
 Sustainability. Each site was evaluated on its ability to repurpose older structures and
recycle building materials. 5985-5893 Delmar Boulevard contains an existing building
that can be rehabilitated. 5809 Delmar Boulevard (Goodfellow Site) does not currently
contain a usable structure. Therefore, 5985-5893 was considered to be a more sustainable
choice than 5809 Delmar Boulevard.
 Visual benefits. Each site was evaluated on its ability to improve the visual character of
Delmar Boulevard. The restoration of the Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School
building at 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard would visually improve the section of Delmar
Boulevard through the restoration of the historic façade of the building. Construction of
a new building at 5809 Delmar Boulevard would not improve the visual appearance of
the streetscape to the same degree, because it would not be built to the same standards
of historic building rehabilitation.
Preferred Location. 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard was determined to be more operationally

efficient, more sustainable, and more visually beneficial to Delmar Boulevard. It was also
determined to require a lower capital cost than 5809 Delmar Boulevard. Because of its
performance under these four evaluation criteria, 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard was selected
to be the preferred location for the maintenance facility.
2.5 Selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative

The East-West Gateway Council of Governments Board of Directors formally adopted the
Locally Preferred Alternative on July 29, 2009 in St. Louis, MO. The minutes of that meeting
are given in Appendix 1.1. The Build Alternative, as described in Section 2.7, is the Locally
Preferred Alternative.
2.6 Description of the No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative consists solely of existing Metro transit services in the study area.
(The study area is described in further detail in Section 2.7, Description of the Build
Alternative.)
2.6.1 Capital Improvements

Under the No-Build Alternative, no capital improvements beyond the maintenance of
existing infrastructure would be provided, except for three discrete projects related to the
trolley’s construction: the Delmar Boulevard roundabout, the St. Vincent’s Greenway, and
the rehabilitation of the DeBaliviere bridge. Aside from those projects, there are no
programmed or committed highway projects or transit service enhancements anticipated in
the corridor. Existing MetroBus and MetroLink transit services would remain as they are
today, and the nature of those services would be unaffected by the trolley’s implementation.
See Table 3.1-1 in Chapter 3 for more information on existing transit service in the corridor.
2.6.2 Projects included in the Transportation Improvement Program

The No-Build Alternative assumes that Metro bus replacements, identified in the East-West
Gateway Council of Governments’ 2011-2014 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
(EWGCOG, 2010), will be implemented for bus lines within the project study area. The TIP

DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE
lists three separate line items for bus replacements in the Metro system; the project numbers
and total amounts are as follows:
 Project #4917-09, Metro Vehicle Acquisition: $51.1 million

These vehicles are for the entire Metro system; they include the project study area as well as
the entirety of the St. Louis metropolitan region. There are no other highway or transit
projects within the TIP that are in the immediate project area.
2.6.3 Cost and Performance of the Transit No-Build Alternative

With no capital improvements anticipated in the corridor under a No-Build scenario, the
cost of the No-Build Alternative simply reflects the amounts required to maintain and
operate existing transit services (see Table 3.1-1). Sections of six MetroBus routes operate in
revenue service in the corridor, although all six routes begin and end outside the study area.
There also are two MetroLink stations within in the corridor. The combined annual
operating cost for these six MetroBus routes is $10.4 million. With the Loop Trolley having
no appreciable impact on bus operations in the corridor, that cost, accounting for inflation,
should remain relatively constant into the future.
As stated above, there are three line items within the 2011-2014 TIP for MetroBus vehicle
acquisitions that total to $69.3 million. The bus lines that intersect the trolley project study
area, as listed in section 3.1, account for approximately 11% of the total vehicle operating
hours of the MetroBus system. Therefore, the cost of providing bus replacements for service
within the project study area can be calculated as approximately 11% of $69.3 million, or
$7.6 million. This figure represents an approximate capital cost for the No-Build Alternative.
Because Metro recently completed a major service restoration program, there are no
consistent annual ridership data for the bus routes operating in the corridor. Consequently,
ridership data for a single month were used. The six bus routes carried 301,061 passengers
during October 2010, with ridership ranging from just over 5,000 on the Green Line to over
105,000 on the # 90 Hampton route. Given the configurations of the routes, it is likely that
the majority of those passengers boarding or alighting at stops outside the study area.
During the same month, 177,669 transit riders boarded MetroLink at the two stops within
the corridor. Nearly two-thirds of those boardings occurred at the Forest Park station.
2.7 Description of the Build Alternative

The Build Alternative consists of a fixed-guideway trolley that would run partially in
existing lanes of traffic and partially in the median of the street. The trolley would circle the
Missouri History Museum within Forest Park, travel north along DeBaliviere Avenue, turn
to the west at Delmar Boulevard, and travel along Delmar Boulevard until Trinity Street,
with a loop to turn around at Trinity Street. The following sections describe the three major
geographic segments of this project in detail. Appendix 2.4 provides further detail on the
design of the platforms and maintenance facility. Figure 1.3-1 of Chapter 1 provides an
overall view of the project area; segment-specific maps are provided below.

2.7.1 DeBaliviere Avenue Segment

The DeBaliviere Avenue segment runs from the Missouri History Museum in Forest Park
north to the intersection with Delmar Boulevard. It would be primarily single-track with a
small double-track section between Forest Park Parkway and Lindell Boulevard.
Track Alignment and Stations. This section of the alignment would be a combination of
double-track (between the History Museum and Pershing Avenue) and single-track between
Pershing Avenue and Delmar Boulevard. Traveling southbound from Delmar Boulevard,
the trolley would travel along a single-track section aligned roughly in the middle of
existing DeBaliviere Avenue. Vehicular traffic would be reconfigured to operate on the west
side of the street, and a greenway would be located on the east side. At Pershing Avenue,
the single-track section would transition to double-track via an actuated traffic signal. In the
double-track section, the southbound track would share a lane with mixed traffic along the
west curb line of DeBaliviere. A separate northbound track would share a lane with mixed
traffic along the new east curbline (west of the new greenway). A trolley travelling south
from Pershing would share a lane with mixed traffic across Forest Park Parkway and
around the Missouri History Museum. Using the traffic circle at the History Museum, the
trolley would loop back into the northbound travel lane on DeBaliviere Avenue to Pershing
Avenue, at which point it would transition back to a single-track section northward to
Delmar.
There would be two stations within this segment. One would be located in the median of
DeBaliviere between Forest Park Parkway and Pershing/DeGiverville Streets. The other
station would be located north of Kingsbury Street, in the median of DeBaliviere. Both
stations would serve the trolley in both the northbound and southbound directions. The
typical cross-section anticipated for DeBaliviere Avenue is shown in Figure 2.7-1.
Figure 2.7-2 shows the typical layout of a station for the Loop Trolley. Stations would be
approximately 10 feet wide and would include an approximately 46 foot boarding curb. All
stations and vehicles would be ADA-compliant and would include pedestrian-scale lighting.
The specific amenities at each station would be determined in coordination with adjacent
property owners during the design phase of the project, but could include benches, shelters,
other specific types of lighting, landscaping, and signage.
Overhead Contact System (OCS). Although the trolley would operate off of battery power for
part of the alignment, the battery power would not sustain the trolley operations for the
entirety of the route. OCS would be needed to recharge the battery during all hours of
operation. The optimal location for OCS recharging purposes is in the central area of the
project corridor because it minimizes the amount of time that the trolley is running solely on
battery power. On this segment of the corridor, the OCS is proposed to begin at Pershing
Avenue and extend to Delmar Boulevard. Pershing is the point at which the single-track
section begins. This single-track section would serve both directions of trolley movement
and therefore maximizes the utility of the OCS system at this location.

FIGURE 2.7-1. DeBaliviere Avenue Segment

FIGURE 2.7-2. Typical Station Layout
Proposed High Visibility

Crosswalk
Roadway and Intersection Improvements. Along with construction of the tracks, the trolley
would change the configuration of intersections and roadway segments along DeBaliviere
Avenue. These would include a reduction in the number of through lanes on DeBaliviere
from two in each direction to one in each direction. Cross street dimensions for Lindell,
Forest Park Parkway, Pershing, Waterman, Kingsbury and Delmar would remain the same
as they are today. Radii at intersection corners would be adjusted to allow for safe and
efficient mobility for all turning movements. Appendix 2.5 provides preliminary drawings
for the proposed route.
Improvements to Pedestrian Facilities. Construction of the trolley would not impact existing
sidewalks or bicycle lanes along DeBaliviere Avenue. Each station along DeBaliviere would
include construction of pedestrian facilities, including:
 Crosswalks across DeBaliviere Avenue

 Pedestrian platforms with waiting areas
 Wayfinding signage
 Pedestrian-scale lighting
All pedestrian facilities and roadway crossings would be compliant with ADA
requirements. The Great Rivers Greenway project, shown in Figure 2.7-1 as “PROP.
Greenway,” would create a multi-use path parallel to DeBaliviere Avenue. This project is
described in further detail in Section 3.1, Transportation. This is an independent project that
has been coordinated with the planning of the Loop Trolley. Appendix 2.5 provides concept
drawings for the proposed Greenway project.
The project would not include construction of new bicycle facilities.
DeBaliviere Bridge. This segment of the project would cross MetroLink via a bridge on
DeBaliviere Avenue. This project would rehabilitate the existing street bridge (originally

built in 1937), in coordination with the City of St. Louis, as part of trolley project’s
construction. The existing bridge is located between two parallel transit access bridges that
connect to the Forest Park Station MetroLink platform. These transit access bridges would
remain in place. The schedule for rehabilitation of the existing street bridge would be
coordinated with Metro, the City of St. Louis and would be part of the overall Loop Trolley
project schedule. Once the bridge rehabilitation is completed, it would have an extended
useful life of 40 years.
Appendix 2.6 contains the “Feasibility Study for the DeBaliviere Avenue Bridge over Metro to
Support Trolley Live Loads.” This is the analysis that was completed to determine whether or
not the bridge would need rehabilitation or replacement. The study concludes that the
bridge is not structurally sufficient in its existing condition to support the trolley, and
recommends that it be rehabilitated in order to allow safe trolley operations. Chapter 4
contains a discussion of the costs associated with the rehabilitation of the DeBaliviere
Avenue Bridge. A letter from the City of St. Louis noting their commitment to this bridge
rehabilitation is included in this document as Appendix 2.9.
Costs for the DeBaliviere Bridge rehabilitation would include seismic retrofitting of the
bridge. The total cost for the rehabilitation and seismic retrofitting would be $3.4 million
($400k for seismic retrofitting), plus a 20 percent contingency, for a total approximate cost
estimate of $4.1 million. See Appendix 2.6 for additional details related to the DeBaliviere
Bridge.
2.7.2 Delmar Boulevard East Segment

The Delmar Boulevard East segment runs west from the intersection of Delmar and
DeBaliviere Avenue to the intersection with the MetroLink tracks.
Track Alignment and Stations. The Trolley would turn from the center lane of DeBaliviere
Avenue into the center lane of Delmar Boulevard. It would continue west along Delmar on a
single track, with a small double-track section between DeBaliviere and Goodfellow. This
section would be used as a pull-out waiting area for the trolley.
There would be two stations in this section. One station would be located at Laurel Road in
the median of Delmar Boulevard. The other station would be located at the MetroLink
tracks. Both would serve eastbound and westbound trolleys. The typical cross-section
anticipated for the Delmar Boulevard East section is shown in Figure 2.7-3.
Overhead Contact System. Although the trolley would operate off of battery power for part
of the alignment, the battery power would not sustain the trolley operations for the entirety
of the route. OCS would be needed to recharge the battery during all hours of operation.
The optimal location for OCS recharging purposes is in the central area of the project
corridor because it minimizes the amount of time that the trolley is running solely on battery
power. On this segment of the corridor, the OCS is proposed to begin at DeBaliviere Avenue
and extend to Des Peres Avenue. Des Peres is the point at which the single-track section
begins. This single-track section would serve both directions of trolley movement and
therefore maximizes the utility of the OCS system at this location.
Roadway and Intersection Improvements. Along with construction of the tracks, the trolley
would change the configuration of roadway segments along Delmar Boulevard. These

would include minor lane shifts at station areas and turn lane tapers to provide enough
channelization for safe transitions. The number of through lanes on Delmar would remain
unchanged from the existing condition. All cross street dimensions along this section of the
corridor would remain the same as they are today. Appendix 2.7 provides preliminary
drawings along the proposed route.
sidewalks or bicycle lanes along Delmar Boulevard. Each station along Delmar Boulevard
would include construction of pedestrian facilities, including:
 Crosswalks across Delmar Boulevard

 Pedestrian station stops with waiting areas Wayfinding signage
All pedestrian facilities and roadway crossings would be compliant with ADA
requirements. The project would not include construction of new bicycle facilities.
Maintenance Facility. The construction of the trolley project would include construction of a
streetcar maintenance facility in this segment. The maintenance facility is proposed to be
located at 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard, in the old Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School
building. This building would be rehabilitated to accommodate trolley tracks going into the
building and space for the following functions: vehicle inspection, maintenance, and
storage; dispatch; training for mechanics and operators; record storage; provision of
employee break areas; distribution of public information; and provision of offices for the
organization operating the system. Figures 2.7-4 and 2.7-5 provide schematic diagrams of
the anticipated layout for the facility. All activities that would be anticipated to occur at this
site are specifically transit-related.
While many employees of the Loop Trolley might travel to work via transit, some may need
to drive and park their cars near the maintenance facility. Depending on the work schedule
ultimately determined for the trolley mechanics and operators, the facility may need
between 7-10 parking spaces for employees. The facility would include four indoor parking
spaces. The remaining six spaces would be located on-street, in front of the maintenance
facility. In the event that the on-street parking in directly in front of the maintenance facility
is full, employees would easily be able to find available parking spaces within a two-block
radius of the facility. There are approximately 150 parking spaces within a two-block radius
of the maintenance facility.

FIGURE 2.7-3. Delmar East Segment

FIGURE 2.7-4. Maintenance Facility: First Floor Layout
FIGURE 2.7-5. Maintenance Facility: Second Floor Layout
2.7.3 Delmar Avenue West Segment

The Delmar Boulevard West section runs in mixed traffic from the intersection of Des Peres
Avenue, just west of the Delmar MetroLink station, west to the loop at Trinity Avenue.

Track Alignment and Stations. East of the MetroLink tracks, the trolley would run on a
double-track alignment. The eastbound track would run in the eastbound left through lane
of Delmar Boulevard, and the westbound track would run in the westbound left through
lane of Delmar Boulevard. The trolley would turn and change directions at Trinity Avenue
using the planned roundabout.
The stations within this section would include:
 Westbound and an eastbound platforms between Rosedale and Skinker Avenues,

located on the north and south sides of Delmar Boulevard, respectively.
 Westbound and an eastbound platforms between Eastgate and Westgate Avenues,

 Westbound and an eastbound platforms between Melville and Kingsland Avenues,

 An eastbound platform on the south side of Delmar Boulevard east of Trinity Avenue.
The typical cross-section anticipated for Delmar Boulevard West segment is shown in
Figure 2.7-6.
Roadway and Intersection Improvements. With the exception of construction of the embedded
slab (typically 12-18 inches in depth) and tracks, the existing street would remain as it is
today. Intersection features would not change, and the number of lanes would remain the
same. Appendix 2.7 provides preliminary drawings for the proposed route.
sidewalks or bicycle lanes along Delmar Boulevard. Each station along Delmar Boulevard
would be designed to maximize pedestrian safety. Specific pedestrian-oriented facilities to
be constructed include:
 Crosswalks across Delmar Boulevard

 Pedestrian station stops with waiting areas
 Wayfinding signage
The project would not include construction of new bicycle facilities. All pedestrian facilities
and roadway crossings would be compliant with ADA requirements.

FIGURE 2.7-6. Delmar West Segment

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED (SEE APPENDIX 2.8 FOR RELEVANT FIGURES)
2.8 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed (see Appendix 2.8

for relevant figures)
Terminus Options. Options considered but dismissed for the two termini of the Loop Trolley
included:
 South Terminus:
 Terminating short (north) of Forest Park near the intersection of DeBaliviere Avenue
and Forest Park Parkway. This option was eliminated since it failed to connect to
Forest Park, a primary purpose of the project.
 Changes to the track alignment near the Missouri History Museum. This change was
eliminated when the double track transition point moved further north to Pershing.
 North/West Terminus:
 Changes to the track alignment near Trinity Avenue. Various options at Trinity were
considered but ultimately eliminated due to neighborhood opposition.
 Loop terminus north of Delmar at Kingsland. This option failed to connect the key
destinations COCA and the Washington University Music School, and therefore was
eliminated.
 Stub terminus north of Delmar at Kingsland. This option failed to connect the key
destinations of COCA and the Washington University Music School, and therefore
was eliminated.
 Stub terminus south of Delmar at Kingsland. This option failed to connect the key
destinations of COCA and the Washington University Music School, and therefore
was eliminated.
 Stub terminus south of Delmar at Trinity. This option further complicated the
existing six-legged intersection, and therefore was eliminated.
 Loop terminus south of Delmar at Trinity. This option came too close to the south
neighborhoods, and therefore was eliminated.
Track Alignment Options. Options considered for changes in the track alignment included:
 Double-track along DeBaliviere Avenue. The additional cost (approximately $5 million)
to achieve this was more than the project could reasonably consider.
 Double-track along Delmar Boulevard East segment. The additional cost (approximately
$4 million) to achieve this was more than the project could reasonably consider.
 Single-track along Delmar Avenue West segment. The narrower width of right-of-way in
this segment made this concept virtually impossible to coordinate with existing traffic
patterns.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED (SEE APPENDIX 2.8 FOR RELEVANT FIGURES)
TABLE 2.8-1. Summary of Alternatives Considered

Alternative Description Result
Locally Preferred Described above in section 2.7 Included in the EA as the Build
Alternative Alternative
Terminus Options Terminating short (north) of Forest Park near Dismissed from consideration
the intersection of DeBaliviere Avenue and
Forest Park Parkway
Changes to the track alignment near the Dismissed from consideration
Missouri History Museum
Changes to the track alignment near Trinity Dismissed from consideration
Avenue
Loop terminus north of Delmar at Kingsland Dismissed from consideration
Stub terminus south of Delmar at Kingsland Dismissed from consideration
Stub terminus south of Delmar at Trinity Dismissed from consideration
Loop terminus south of Delmar at Trinity Dismissed from consideration
Track Alignment Double-track along DeBaliviere Avenue Dismissed from consideration
Options
Double-track along Delmar Boulevard East Dismissed from consideration
segment
Single-track along Delmar Avenue West Dismissed from consideration
segment
Maintenance Facility Option 1: Conversion of an existing vacant Included in the EA as part of the Build
Options building on Delmar Boulevard between Alternative
Hamilton Street and Goodfellow Avenue
(5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard)
Option 2: Construction of a new building on Dismissed from consideration
an existing vacant parcel at the northwest
corner of Goodfellow Avenue and Delmar
Boulevard
Option 3: Jointly using the existing MetroBus Dismissed from consideration
garage on the southwest corner of
DeBaliviere Avenue and Delmar Boulevard

CHAPTER 3
Affected Environment and Environmental

Consequences
This chapter describes the affected environment and

What are direct, indirect, and
environmental consequences of the locally preferred cumulative effects?
trolley service along DeBaliviere Avenue and Delmar
 Direct effects are impacts caused
Boulevard, and the no action alternative (No-Build
by the proposed action and occur
Alternative). This section describes the direct, indirect, at the same time and location.
and cumulative effects of the alternatives for the
 Indirect effects are impacts
environmental discipline areas covered under the caused by the proposed action
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. that occur later in time and/or
farther away, but are still
3.1 Transportation foreseeable. Indirect impacts may
include growth inducing effects
This section describes the existing transportation and associated impacts on the
conditions within the project study area, including natural environment.
traffic and safety conditions, transit service, parking  Cumulative effects are impacts of
facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It the project added to other current
and future projects and action in
provides a summary of the direct, indirect, and the area regardless of what entity
cumulative effects anticipated from the No-Build and undertakes those other actions.
Build Alternatives. Cumulative impacts can result
from individually minor but
3.1.1 Transit collectively significant actions
taking place over time.
3.1.1.1 Affected Environment
Metro Transit – St. Louis provides both light rail and
bus service to residents of the greater St. Louis region. Table 3.1-1 summarizes the existing
transit service in the area, and Figure 3.1-1 depicts the location of these routes.
The MetroBus system serves both commuter and non-commuter trips, and serves the
greater St. Louis region. There are seven bus routes that cross through the project study area.
These are: Bus Line 01, Gold Line; Bus Line 02, Red Line; Bus Line 03, Forest Park Shuttle;
Bus Line 16, City Limits; Bus Line 90, Hampton; Bus Line 97, Delmar; and Bus Line GL,
Green Line.
The MetroLink light rail system operates regionally and connects downtown St. Louis to
several key destinations: the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, to the northwest of
downtown; University of Missouri-St. Louis, northwest of downtown; Forest Park, west of
downtown; Washington University, west of downtown; and the cities of Clayton, Richmond
Heights and Shrewsbury, to the west/southwest of downtown. MetroLink also operates
across the Mississippi River, connecting St. Louis with a host of nearby cities in
southwestern Illinois. There are two MetroLink stations in the project area: the Forest Park-
DeBaliviere station and the Delmar Station. The Delmar station is located on the branch of
the system that goes northwest to the airport.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
TRANSPORTATION
TABLE 3.1-1. Existing Transit Service in the Project Study Area

Name of Service Overall Route Service within Project Area Approximate Headways
# 01: Gold Line Connects the Central West Runs along Waterman Place Runs every 15 minutes
End station to the MetroLink and DeBaliviere within the during peak hours
Clayton Station project study area (approximately 7 am – 6 pm);
30 minutes during off-peak
(weekdays)
30 minutes on Saturdays
1 hour on Sundays
# 02: Red Line Connects inner North County Runs on a short section of Runs every 10 minutes
St. Louis to near South Delmar near the west project during peak hours; 20
County terminus minutes during off-peak
# 03: Forest Park Connects the Forest Park Runs along DeBaliviere to Runs every 10 minutes
Shuttle MetroLink platform to Forest Forest Park between 10am and 6pm,
Park destinations 7 days a week
Service only between
Memorial Day and Labor Day
# 16: City Limits Connects the Shrewsbury In project area, runs north on 30-minute headways all day
Metro Station to the Skinker and then east on on weekdays; 40 minutes on
Riverview Transfer Center Delmar Saturdays
1 hour on Sundays
# 90: Hampton Connects the Catlan Loop to Runs north on DeBaliviere 20-minute headways all day
Forest Park, to the Riverview until Delmar, then turns west on weekdays
Transfer Center on Delmar, then continues 30 minutes on Saturdays
north on Goodfellow
40 minutes on Sundays
# 97: Delmar Connects MetroLink Civic Travels along Delmar in the 30-minute headways all day
Center Station to the Clayton project area on weekdays; 30-minute
MetroBus Center headways on Saturdays; 40
minute headways on
Sundays
GL: Green Line A circulator route that Runs along Delmar between 20-minute headways during
connects Washington Skinker and Big Bend weekday peak hours; 30 and
University and Fontbonne 40-minute headways offpeak
University to housing in the 60-minute headways on
University City area weekends from noon until
midnight
MetroLink Light Connects to downtown St. Tracks are at-grade, and run 10-minute headways on
Rail: Forest Park- Louis, north to Lambert/STL in their own right-of-way from weekdays; 10 to 15 minute
DeBaliviere Airport, and south to Forest Park Parkway headways on Saturdays and
Station Shrewsbury; also connects northwest to the crossing at Sundays
east to Illinois Delmar Boulevard.
MetroLink Light Connects to downtown St. Tracks are at-grade, and run Weekdays: 12-minute
Rail: Delmar Louis, north to Lambert/STL in their own right-of-way from headways in peak period
Loop Station Airport, and east to Illinois Forest Park Parkway (approximately 5 am – 7 pm),
northwest to the crossing at 20 minute in the off-peak
Delmar Boulevard.
Source: Metro Transit – St. Louis, 2010 (www.metrostlouis.org).

TRANSPORTATION
FIGURE 3.1-1. Existing Transit Service in the Project Area

TRANSPORTATION
3.1.1.2 Environmental Consequences

No-Build Alternative
There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to transit facilities under the No-
Build Alternative. The bus lines and MetroLink services would continue to function as they
do today.
Build Alternative
Direct Effects. The Build Alternative would increase the amount of transit service in the
project study area. This would be a substantial positive effect to the community by
improving access to Forest Park and the Delmar Loop. Coordination with Metro Bus lines
Bus Line 01, Gold Line; Bus Line 02, Red Line; Bus Line 03, Forest Park Shuttle; Bus Line 16,
City Limits; Bus Line 90, Hampton; Bus Line 97, Delmar; and Bus Line GL, Green Line
would be undertaken to ensure that there are no movement conflicts. Wherever possible,
Loop Trolley station stops would be combined with Metro Bus stops to maximize efficiency
between systems. Table 3.1-2 details anticipated opening year and future year ridership
forecasts.
TABLE 3.1-2. Opening and Future Year Ridership Forecasts for the Build Alternative
Ridership Weekday Weekend Annual
Opening Year (2012) 800/day 2,000/day 400,000/year
Future Year (2030) 2,600/day 4,000/day 1,100,000/year
Opening Year Assumptions: Headway = 20, Boarding Fare = $2, Competing Bus Service, Service Hours = 11
am – 6pm weekdays; 11am – 12 am weekends
Future Year Assumptions: Headway = 10 Min, Boarding Fare = $2, Competing Bus Service, Service Hours =
7 am - 1 am
Traveling by existing transit within the project corridor is inefficient. The proposed trolley
would provide a new and more efficient way to access the entire corridor via transit. Travel
time on the proposed trolley is anticipated to be approximately 20 to 22 minutes one-way.
This is a slight reduction in travel time from the existing transit trip, which takes
approximately 25 minutes during busier periods (weekends, evenings). The anticipated
reduction in travel is 3 to 5 minutes. Although the reduction in travel time is not substantial,
the trolley would add transit options in the corridor and would allow access to the full
corridor without requiring a transfer.
The operating plan for the trolley proposes approximately 20 minute headways on a seven
day per week schedule. This is anticipated to complement the existing MetroBus service and
MetroLink service in the project area. Passengers would be able to utilize regionally-
connected buses and MetroLink to arrive in the project area, and utilize the trolley to
circulate among destinations within the project area. Existing transit routes would remain as
they are today. Wherever possible, MetroBus stops would be co-located with trolley stations
in order to enhance operational efficiency of both MetroBus and the trolley in the corridor
and to provide convenient transfer locations for passengers on both systems.
Indirect and Cumulative Effects.
There are no anticipated substantial indirect or cumulative effects to transit facilities in the
project area due to construction of the Build Alternative.

TRANSPORTATION
3.1.1.3 Mitigation
Mitigation for transit service during rehabilitation of the DeBaliviere bridge would include
close coordination with Metro and the City of St. Louis to plan effective detour routes and
temporary schedules for both MetroBus and MetroLink. Letters from Metro and the City of
St. Louis committing to working closely with the TDD during this rehabilitation are
included in Appendix 2.9. These detour routes and schedule modifications, along with
vehicular traffic detour information, would be communicated to the public as part of the
construction mitigation plan, discussed in greater detail in section 3.1.6 below.
3.1.2 Traffic
The following sections describe the existing conditions of vehicle traffic in the project study
area, including intersection level of service, queueing, and safety based on analysis
conducted by the study team (see List of Preparers in Appendix 7.1; also see list of Technical
Advisory Committee members in Chapter 5). As described in Chapter 2, the trolley would
run in mixed-traffic on a portion of DeBaliviere Avenue and a portion of Delmar Boulevard.
3.1.2.1 Level of Service

Level of Service (LOS) is a typical measure used to rate the effectiveness of traffic operations
on a given roadway or intersection. Table 3.1-3 describes the LOS classifications for
signalized intersections based on the Highway Capacity Manual published by the
Transportation Research Board (TRB; 2000) and used in this analysis.
TABLE 3.1-3. Level of Service Thresholds for Signalized Intersections

Level of Control Delay per vehicle
Service (seconds) Definition
A 10 or less Very low average delay per vehicle, occurs when progression is
extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green
phase, most vehicles do not stop, cycle lengths are generally
short.
B >10 to 20 Low average delay per vehicle, occurs with good progression
and/or short cycle lengths, more vehicles stop than LOS A.
C >20 to 35 Moderate average delay per vehicle, occurs with fair progression
and/or longer cycle lengths, the number of vehicles stopping is
significant although many still pass through the intersection without
stopping.
D >35 to 55 Fairly high average delay per vehicle, congestion becomes more
noticeable, occurs with unfavorable progression, long cycle
lengths, and/or high traffic volumes for roadway capacity, many
vehicles are required to stop.
E >55 to 80 High average delay per vehicle, occurs with poor progression, long
cycle lengths, and high traffic volumes, individual cycles that do
not clear all waiting vehicles are fairly frequent.
F >80 Very high average delay per vehicle, generally occurs when traffic
flow exceeds the capacity of the intersection, cycles that do not
clear all waiting vehicles are typical.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (TRB, 2000).

TRANSPORTATION
Table 3.1-4 shows existing LOS and projected LOS for 2012 and 2035 at roadway
intersections in the study area. All intersections function at LOS C or better, indicating that
there are no major existing or future congestion problems.
TABLE 3.1-4. Existing and Projected Intersection Level of Service (LOS)

Intersection Existing (2010) Opening Year (2012) 2035
LOS LOS LOS
DeBaliviere and Forest Park B B C
Parkway
DeBaliviere and Pershing A A B
DeBaliviere and Waterman B B B
DeBaliviere and Delmar B B B
Delmar and Hamilton A A B
Delmar and MetroLink tracks
Delmar and Skinker B B B
Delmar and Kingsland B B C
Delmar and Trinity B B C
Note: LOS based on 2010 traffic data provided by City of St. Louis Board of Public Service , University City
Department of Public Works, and St. Louis County Traffic Division
3.1.2.2 Queuing
As a result of the Loop Trolley project, queueing of vehicular traffic would be unaffected
under normal conditions. Table 3.1-4 shows that every intersection in the corridor would
operate at LOS C or better in 2035. The LOS values in Table 3.1-4 were developed based on
2010 traffic counts provided by the City of St. Louis Board of Public Service, University City
Department of Public Works, and the St. Louis County Traffic Division. For an urban
environment such as this area, these results are excellent. They demonstrate that congestion
is simply not an issue in the corridor. This is true primarily because there is a strong parallel
network of arterial streets around Delmar. Routes such as Forest Park Parkway to the south
and Olive Boulevard to the north are mobility-focused corridors that allow local and
regional traffic to move efficiently through this section of the St. Louis region. These
mobility corridors offer motorists choices to avoid the Delmar Loop area if their destination
is not in fact the Loop. Consequently, traffic operations are actually quite good along the
project corridor. Delays are short and queuing is generally not a problem. HCM analyses
indicate that all queue lengths (95th percentile) in the corridor during year 2035 would be
easily accommodated by existing turn lane storage lengths. During special events, queuing
may actually be reduced due to the access provided by the new transit mode. The higher
occupancy provided by the trolley would help to reduce the number of personal
automobiles on the street.
3.1.2.3 Mitigation
Mitigation for impacts to traffic during bridge rehabilitation would rely on the surrounding
street network. DeBaliviere Avenue carries approximately 9,000 vehicles per day. This
volume of traffic is low enough that it would be readily accommodated by the existing local
road network. This network provides for effective alternate routes for traffic flowing within
the project area. Effective parallel routes are available via Union Boulevard to the east and

TRANSPORTATION
Skinker Boulevard to the west. Use of Waterman Boulevard and Des Peres Avenue would
also support north-south detour traffic. Lindell Boulevard and Delmar Boulevard would
provide effective east-west detour routes. This mitigation would be coordinated with the
City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, University City, Metro, and the local business
community. It would be communicated to the public through the project communication
plan during design and construction. Mitigation for traffic impacts during the construction
phase would be detailed in project’s construction mitigation plan, described in greater detail
below in section 3.1.6.
3.1.3 Safety
None of the intersections along Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue within the
project study area have been identified as areas of particular concern for safety. One
intersection along the corridor, Delmar Boulevard and Trinity Avenue, has an atypical
configuration in its existing state. While not statistically identified as unsafe, local residents
have voiced concern about their ability to safely access Delmar Boulevard from the north or
south at Trinity. This condition is due to two factors: 1) the existing intersection has six
different legs that are very close to one another, creating confusion amongst drivers
attempting to access Delmar Boulevard from Trinity; and 2) the speed at which eastbound
traffic on Delmar Boulevard enters the Delmar Boulevard Loop area at Trinity. The Loop
Trolley project would actually improve both of these existing conditions by implementing a
roundabout at Trinity and Delmar Boulevard. The roundabout would both slow eastbound
traffic on Delmar Boulevard and also consolidate the six legs into four.
At the nine station locations, the project team has worked closely with the City of St. Louis,
University City, and St. Louis County in recent planning and design study to maximize
pedestrian safety and ADA accommodations at each station. Consideration has been given
to minimizing length of crossing distances for pedestrians, to maximizing pedestrian
visibility, and to minimizing speed of motorist travel on Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere
Avenue. This collaboration would continue in subsequent design phases leading up to
project construction.
3.1.4 Parking
There is currently on-street parking on Delmar Boulevard. DeBaliviere Avenue does not
have on-street parking. There are several off-street parking lots adjacent to DeBaliviere
Avenue and Delmar Boulevard. Table 3.1-5 summarizes existing parking conditions and
anticipated changes to parking resulting from the Build Alternative. Sections 3.1.4.1 through
3.1.4.3 describe these changes in greater detail. Overall, the change to parking in the project
study area would be minimal. Figure 3.1-2 provides a graphic overview of parking changes
anticipated from the Build Alternative.
3.1.4.1 Segment 1 – Delmar Blvd between Trinity Ave and Des Peres Ave
Existing On-Street and Off-Street Parking Conditions
The West Loop segment of the project, located north of Delmar Boulevard, has street
parking available on both the north and south sides of the street through the majority of the
segment. However, there is no on-street parking on the north side of Delmar Blvd between
Harvard Kingsland Avenues or between Eastgate Avenue and Skinker Boulevard. With the

TRANSPORTATION
exception of the far west end of the segment, west of Sgt. Mike King Drive, all on-street
parking is metered.
TABLE 3.1-5. Existing Parking and Changes to Parking Anticipated from the Build Alternative
Number and Percentage Number of Parking
of Spaces Impacted from Spaces Gained from
Existing Parking Spaces the Build Alternative the Build Alternative
Total On-
On- Off- and Off-
Street Street* Street On-Street Off-Street On-Street Off-Street
Segment 1: Delmar
Boulevard between
380 800 1180 26 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 0
Trinity Ave and Des
Peres Ave
Segment 2: Delmar
Boulevard between
Des Peres Avenue 200 200 400 19 (10%) 0 (0%) 0 0
and DeBaliviere
Avenue
Segment 3:
DeBaliviere Avenue
between Delmar
0 500 500 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 50 0
Boulevard and the
Missouri History
Museum
Total/ Percent of
580 1,500 2,080 45 (8%) 0 (0%) 50 0
Total
* Off-Street parking supply numbers do not include MetroLink Park-n-Ride facilities.
Off-street parking in the West Loop segment includes a combination of public,

commercial/business, and private/residence parking facilities. It is estimated that the public
and commercial/business off-street parking facilities account for 800 parking spaces. During
peak times, approximately 80% of the off-street parking facilities are utilized.
Summary of Potential On-Street Parking Impacts

The station stops along the West Loop segment would impact an estimated 18 on-street
parking spaces. It is estimated that 8 additional spaces would be impacted by the
roundabout terminus at Trinity. The trolley provides convenient access to parking
throughout the corridor, minimizing the direct impact of removing spaces in given
locations.
3.1.4.2 Segment 2: Delmar Blvd between Des Peres Ave and DeBaliviere Ave
The East Loop segment of the project has street parking available on both the north and
south sides of the street through the majority of the segment. However, there is no on-street
parking on the south side of Delmar Blvd between Laurel St and DeBaliviere Ave or on
either side of the street along the bridge over MetroLink between Des Peres and Hodiamont
Avenues. All on-street parking within this segment is metered.

TRANSPORTATION
FIGURE 3.1-2. Existing Conditions and Changes to Parking from the Build Alternative

TRANSPORTATION
Off-street parking in the East Loop segment includes a combination of public,

commercial/business, and private/residence parking facilities. It is estimated that the public
and commercial/business off-street parking facilities account for 200 parking spaces.

The East Loop segment is estimated to impact 19 on-street parking spaces with its design,
due to the geometry of its station stops. The trolley provides convenient access to parking
throughout the corridor, minimizing the direct impact of removing spaces in given
locations.
3.1.4.3 Segment 3: DeBaliviere Ave between Delmar Blvd and History Museum
The DeBaliviere segment of the project has no existing on-street parking. Off-street parking
in this segment includes a combination of public, commercial/business, private/residence,
and private /institutional parking facilities. It is estimated that the public and
commercial/business off-street parking facilities account for 500 parking spaces.

Given that the DeBaliviere segment of the project has no permanent existing on-street
parking, there are no on-street parking impacts for the project in this segment.
Reconstruction of DeBaliviere Avenue to include the Loop Trolley would create an
additional 50 on-street parking spaces on DeBaliviere Avenue.
3.1.4.4 Mitigation
The amount of on-street parking that currently exists within the corridor surpasses the
existing need, and this project would result in a net gain of 5 spaces. Therefore, the nominal
amount of on-street parking loss expected within Segments 1 and 2 (26 and 19 spaces,
respectively, or 3% and 10%, respectively, of the total parking supply) from this project
would not need to be mitigated, because the remaining supply of on-street parking would
still be adequate to serve trips to the project study area. Mitigation for on-street parking
impacts during construction would be addressed in the project’s construction mitigation
plan, which is discussed in greater detail below in section 3.1.6.
3.1.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

3.1.5.1 Affected Environment
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities exist throughout the study area connecting to other
transportation facilities including transit, non-motorized trails, recreation facilities, and
vehicular roadways. At the regional level, Great Rivers Greenway is leading an effort to
prepare a Bicycle Master Plan for the City of St. Louis, St. Louis County and St. Charles
County. The Bicycle Master Plan will be an implementable plan for on-road and multi-use
trails to increase use of bicycles as a mode of transportation. The Delmar Loop area provides
an undefined network of bike and pedestrian amenities outside of Forest Park. While many
facilities are not officially designated for bicycles and pedestrians, the area has many wide
shoulders, multi-use pathways, and sidewalks available. The St. Vincent Greenway will
soon (2011-2012) extend from Ruth Porter Park to Forest Park along DeBaliviere Avenue,

TRANSPORTATION
creating a dedicated multi-use path between these two important recreational areas. Non-
motorized activities are greater in this area because of the Forest Park MetroLink Station.
Bike racks are available on all bus lines operating in the study area. Figure 3.1-3 shows the
location of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as future and planned
improvements within the project area.
There is ample existing bicycle parking along Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue in
the project area. As of February 2011, there were a total of 16 bicycle racks, providing
capacity for a total of 72 bicycles.
Bicycle racks on DeBaliviere Avenue are currently provided at the following locations:
 2 Racks with 2 bicycle capacity each – Near Metro Ticket Vender
 1 Rack with 12 bicycle capacity – North of Bus Stop on east side of DeBaliviere by Forest
Park Metro Stop
 3 Racks with 2 bicycle capacity each – In front of Sip n Savor near corner of Pershing &
DeBaliviere
 2 Racks with 5 bicycle capacity each – In front of Crossroads School

Bicycle racks on Delmar Boulevard are currently provided at the following locations:
 1 Rack with 10 bicycle capacity – In front of RAC
 2 Racks with 4 & 5 bicycle capacity, respectively – In front of Big Shark on North side of
Delmar
 3 Racks with 3 bicycle capacity each – In front of Pi Restaurant
 1 Rack with 5 bicycle capacity – In front of Big Shark South side of Delmar
 1 Rack with 5 bicycle capacity – At intersection of Trinity & Delmar
Forest Park
Park transportation and circulation routes, including transit, are planned and identified in
the Forest Park Access, Circulation, and Parking (ACP) Study. The dual path ‘loop’ around
the park is widely used and is the longest specific bicycle and pedestrian facility in the city
of St. Louis. The Dual Path offers a vehicle-free route for cyclists and walkers in both paved
and unimproved pathways. The dual path crosses the study area at the intersection of
DeBaliviere Avenue and Washington Drive. The crossing area is currently curb-protected
from vehicles, as well as multiple signs, crosswalks, and signals at these intersections,
providing for pedestrian and bicycle signal requests. Forest Park ACP Study also has
identified creating 5-foot bike lanes throughout the park to separate cyclists from the
recreational non-motorist and to reduce user conflicts with vehicles. Because the dual path
connects to all of the major institutions within Forest Park (Zoo, Art Museum, Planetarium /
Science Center) recreational pedestrian links between the trolley stop at the History
Museum and other institutions within the park will exist. Likewise, the Forest Park shuttle,
operated by Metro and connecting all of the public institutions within Forest Park, would be
an effective intermodal link between the trolley stop at the History Museum and the other
institutions within the park.

TRANSPORTATION
FIGURE 3.1-3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in the Project Area

TRANSPORTATION
Ruth Porter Mall (also known as Porter Park)

Active planning, design and reinvestment in DeBaliviere Avenue and the Ruth Porter Mall
are ongoing as a part of the Great River Greenway planning. Currently an approximate ten-
foot sidewalk connects Etzel Boulevard to DeBaliviere Avenue through Ruth Porter Mall.
The walkway connection is proposed to become a multipurpose trail in cooperation with
park improvements, screening, and maintenance to improve user conditions.
Forest Park Station

The Forest Park MetroLink Station platform is located below street level and can be accessed
from DeBaliviere Avenue by a bank of stairs and an elevator. Bicyclists desiring to board
MetroLink with their bicycle can access the platform by use of the elevator. Stationary bike
racks are located at the top of the stairs leading to the platform. Wide sidewalks above the
MetroLink station provide access to both Forest Park Parkway and DeBaliviere Avenue.
Delmar Loop Station

The Delmar Loop MetroLink Station platform is located below street level and is equipped
with a series of stairs and ramps, making it accessible for all pedestrians as well as cyclists.
The co-located MetroBus stop provides bus services to connecting locations and includes
bike racks and shelter from the elements for pedestrians. Like the Forest Park station, the
Delmar station is situated on a wide sidewalk, making it easy for pedestrians with and
without bicycles to stand while waiting for the bus. This station provides walking access to
the Delmar Loop neighborhood and the entertainment, cultural and restaurant attractions,
which are located just west of Skinker Boulevard at Delmar Boulevard.
The Great Rivers Greenway

The Great Rivers Greenway District was established in 2000 to develop an interconnected
system of parks, greenways and trails throughout the greater St. Louis area. It is funded
through a one-tenth of one-cent sales tax authorized by passage in 1999 of a proposition in
St. Louis City, St. Louis County and St. Charles County. The District collaborates with
municipalities, public agencies and non-profit organizations to fund the trail and greenway
system. The St. Vincent Greenway is a greenway system that begins in North County St.
Louis County and terminates in Forest Park where other Greenway connections exist.
Funding is available for planning, design, property acquisition and construction of the
Greenway portion within the Trolley study area.
3.1.5.2 Environmental Consequences

Direct Effects
The No-Build Alternative would have no affect on bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the
Delmar Loop area or in Forest Park. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements at DeBaliviere
Avenue and within the Forest Park ACP Study would continue as planned.
Build Alternative
The Loop Trolley would have no adverse effect on pedestrian facilities and, in many areas
the project would improve pedestrian facilities with improved sidewalks and other
amenities at trolley stations. These improvements would include approximately nine
additional crosswalks within the project study area, crossing either Delmar Boulevard or
DeBaliviere Avenue. Each of the nine proposed stations would include a pedestrian waiting

TRANSPORTATION
area, wayfinding signage, and pedestrian-scale lighting. The Loop Trolley would affect
bicycle and pedestrian activities by placing trolley tracks embedded into the existing streets.
Adding the trolley tracks is not likely to change the existing crosswalks and bicycle
crossings as these are planned to have perpendicular crossings only.
Only one designated bicycle facility, the Forest Park Dual Paths would be affected by the
Loop Trolley tracks. At the Forest Park Dual Paths, the pathway crossings at Washington
Drive are sign-controlled for trail users and signal-controlled for cars, buses, and the future
trolley. This means the trolley would act as another vehicle. Because bicycles and
pedestrians would cross perpendicular to the trolley tracks, no interference with the Dual
Paths would occur from operation of the Loop Trolley.
The trolley alignment would be located parallel to proposed improvements on DeBaliviere
Avenue and include a curb separation from the tracks (Great Rivers Greenway, 2010). The
street design would reduce any chances of trolley/cyclist encounters, as these facilities
would be physically separated. At Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue intersections,
pedestrians and cyclists would have perpendicular crossings to the trolley tracks. These
crossings would be designed and signed to ensure safe crossings. Intersections would have
either bicycle and pedestrian activated signals or signal cycles for appropriate crossings
installed. Through guidance from local agencies and community input, the recommended
alternative has been developed to minimize conflicts between the proposed trolley and
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Future design efforts would continue coordination with
agencies and the public to make further modifications as necessary.
Although the Loop Trolley would not include
construction of any new bicycle parking, the existing Summary of impacts to transportation
bicycle parking facilities described above would not facilities from the Build Alternative:
be impacted and would be sufficient to accommodate  Transit: The Build Alternative
bicyclists who wish to ride the Trolley. would provide an improvement of
transit service in the project study
Construction Effects area. There would be no change
to existing bus or MetroLink
In addition to general construction, activities that service.
would affect bicycle and pedestrian access, some
 Traffic: The Build Alternative
local bicycle and pedestrian routes would be closed
would not result in any direct
during construction. Construction may restrict congestion or safety impacts.
bicycle and pedestrian access to one side of
 Parking: The Build Alternative
DeBaliviere Avenue, which would impact pedestrian would not result in a substantial
traffic from the Forest Park MetroLink Station during reduction in parking facilities.
construction. Pedestrian crossings would be  Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities:
provided at intersections. Bicycle users along Lindell The Build Alternative would result
Boulevard and Washington Drive (within Forest in positive cumulative impacts to
Park) connecting to the Dual Paths may be rerouted bicycle and pedestrian facilities in
through or around the construction zone to another combination with the St. Vincent
Greenway Project.
access point. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be
maintained at all times throughout the duration of
construction.

TRANSPORTATION
Indirect Effects
No additional, quantifiable, indirect effects were identified for the Bicycle and Pedestrian
facilities.
Cumulative Effects
Generally, transportation improvements provide a beneficial effect by increasing roadway
capacity and the efficiency of operations, reducing congestion, enhancing safety, and
improving access. The Loop Trolley project would provide these benefits, as well as
improving connections to transit and non-motorized facilities and reducing transit travel
times. This project, in combination with the St. Vincent Greenway Project, would improve
bicycle and pedestrian access within the corridor. The St. Vincent Greenway Project would
result in a reduction in vehicle capacity on DeBaliviere Avenue with only one lane in each
direction. However, the existing and future projected traffic volumes on DeBaliviere Avenue
would not result in traffic congestion. The reduction of vehicle capacity on DeBaliviere
Avenue due to construction of the St. Vincent Greenway would not result in a cumulative
traffic impact to the corridor because DeBaliviere Avenue would still have adequate
capacity to handle projected traffic volumes.
3.1.5.3 Mitigation
Mitigation for closures of bicycle and pedestrian facilities during construction of the Loop
Trolley would be provided by installing signs depicting bicycle and pedestrian detour
routes, and through coordination with the community to advertise closures throughout the
construction period. Detour routes and signage would become part of the project’s
construction mitigation plan, which is discussed further in section 3.1.6 below.
The existing Metro transit access bridges (the parallel structures flanking the existing
DeBaliviere Bridge to be rehabilitated) would remain open throughout construction. No
pedestrian or bicycle mitigation would be required.
3.1.6 Summary of Mitigation Measures for Transportation Impacts

during Construction
Mitigation for impacts to traffic, parking, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be
addressed during the design phase of the project and implemented during the construction
phase. During design, TDD would develop and submit the construction mitigation plan to
FTA for review and approval. The construction mitigation plan would include, but would
not be limited to measures to address temporary impacts to air quality, noise, vibration,
erosion/sediment runoff, safety, and access. The construction mitigation plan would include
the following:
 A traffic control strategy, including a detour plan for any affected MetroBus routes
 A detour plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities
 An access management plan to maintain access to adjacent businesses and residences

during construction
 A plan for identifying alternative parking spaces, should any be impacted during the
construction phase

LAND USE
Mitigation measures during the construction phase of the project would include, but are not
limited to, the following:
 TDD would notify the public 60 days in advance of any changes to access/detours.
 Access to adjacent properties would be maintained throughout construction.
 Per city ordinance, construction within the City of St. Louis that is within 1000 feet of a
residential property would only take place between 6:00 am and dusk, Monday through
Saturday.2 Construction in University City would only take place between 7 am and
5 pm, Monday through Friday.3
Construction of the St. Vincent Greenway Project would occur simultaneously to
construction of the Loop Trolley on DeBaliviere Avenue. Construction of the St. Vincent
Greenway Project would not require any road closures; traffic on DeBaliviere Avenue
would be diverted to one lane in each direction and re-routed to the existing lanes on the
west side of the roadway. Construction of the St. Vincent Greenway in coordination with the
Loop Trolley would represent a lesser burden to the transportation system and the
surrounding neighborhoods than it would represent if it were constructed separately. The
construction mitigation plan for the St. Vincent Greenway Project would be coordinated
with the construction mitigation plan for the Loop Trolley project. Construction for the two
projects is anticipated to last approximately 11 months.
3.2 Land Use

This section summarizes the affected land use environment in the vicinity of the proposed
Loop Trolley project. It addresses direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, and consistency of
the alternatives with applicable land use plans and policies. The majority of the direct effects
result from access changes to existing land uses (no property, other than one parcel to be
used as a maintenance facility, is expected to be impacted by the trolley project as it would
be accommodated within the existing street right of way). Indirect effects are defined as land
use changes in the vicinity of the project that are not directly caused by the project.
Cumulative effects are defined as changes in land use to the project that may occur over
time, due to the construction of this project in combination with other projects.
3.2.1 Affected Environment

The affected environment for the Loop Trolley is approximately one-quarter mile in all
directions of the proposed alignment along Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue. For
the land use assessment, the project study area has been divided into three areas: the vibrant
entertainment and shopping area on the west side of the alignment near the Delmar Loop
area, the section between the two termini along Delmar Boulevard towards the east of the
alignment, and the section near Forest Park.
 Delmar Loop Area. The Delmar Loop stretches from Trinity Avenue to the Delmar
MetroLink Station. It is a vibrant entertainment and shopping district at the west end of
the proposed corridor, between University City and the western edge of St. Louis City.
2 St. Louis City Revised Code 15.50.081

3 University City Municipal Code, 15.04.

LAND USE
The area has recently been revitalized after disinvestment and decline at the second half
of the last century. Land uses adjacent to this area are predominantly commercial and
institutional, with a substantial amount of land devoted to parking. There is one City
owned garage with commercial on the ground floor. Some parcels have mixed use with
commercial on the ground floor and residential above. Washington University is located
just south of the project area at the far west side.
 Central Section. The section between the Delmar MetroLink Station and DeBaliviere
Avenue to the east is economically depressed and contains vacant lots and storefronts.
There is less commercial and residential stability in this section, and there is high
business turnover in this section, with a number of underutilized properties. There are
some vacant lots and vacant buildings, including the old Delmar High School. Land
uses, when not vacant, consist of mostly commercial, with some institutional,
industrial/utility, and small pockets of multi-family residential and mixed use.
 Forest Park. The third section is along DeBaliviere Avenue south to Forest Park, which
attracts 13 million visitors each year, and is a regional tourist attraction. It is one of the
largest urban parks in the United States, and is the cultural epicenter of the St. Louis
region. It is home to the Saint Louis Zoo, the outdoor Municipal Theatre, the Science
Center, the St. Louis Art Museum, the Missouri History Museum, two golf courses,
miles of multiuse trails, a skating rink, and a host of other natural and built features. It is
also the former site of the 1904 World’s Fair, and is adjacent to well-established
neighborhoods. Development along DeBaliviere is slow without new investment, and
appraised values tend to be lower than those at the west end of the alignment. The
corridor is a diverse mix of institutional, high-density residential and commercial uses.
3.2.1.1 Existing Land Use

Most of the land use directly adjacent to the proposed trolley is commercial, but there are a
variety of other existing land uses within the quarter mile study area for the Loop Trolley.
Figure 3.2-1 depicts existing land uses in the area. Land uses include:
 Single-family residential
 Multi-family residential (includes duplexes)
 Commercial (offices, retail, and entertainment)
 Institutional
 Parks and recreational (includes common ground)
 Industry/Utility (includes right-of-way)
 Vacant Land
The character of the area reflects a rich history of turn of the century development.
Residential housing in the study area is primarily retrofitted historic structures used as
multi-family residential units, with some newer development on the west side of the study
area. While Delmar Boulevard west of Skinker Boulevard has well established buildings,
east of Skinker Boulevard the area is in transition. New development is peppered
throughout this area and DeBaliviere Avenue particularly has growing residential infill
development.
Commercial development consists of low rise buildings ranging from historic brick
structures to retail buildings constructed in the 1970s and retrofitted buildings. These low-

LAND USE
rise, commercial structures are well built and positioned close to the road with little set back.
Buildings in the study area are an inviting pedestrian scale of three- to five-story building
heights. The scale and architecture of the area provide visual cues that the proposed corridor
is a commercial neighborhood as opposed to a central business district. Currently, many
structures are occupied throughout the corridor although there are some vacancies, mostly
on Delmar Boulevard, east of Des Peres Avenue.
There are infill opportunities within the study area that, when considered with the
applicable comprehensive plans, have the potential to create larger parceled building sites
that may allow for parking structures and dense urban development patterns.
3.2.1.2 Comprehensive Plan Designations

University City
University City Comprehensive Plan designations adjacent to the Loop Trolley alignment in
University City are primarily Mixed-Use/Transit Oriented Development, and Institution
designations along Delmar Boulevard west of Kingsland Avenue. North and south from
Delmar Boulevard, the Comprehensive Plan designations are multi-family and single-
family, with scattered areas of park, recreation, and open space. West of Kingsland Avenue,
designations include Institution and single-family. Within a quarter mile of the alignment
north along Kingsland Avenue, there are a few areas of Industrial/Utility designations.
Figure 3.2-2 depicts comprehensive plan designations in the project area. Both University
City and St. Louis City define comprehensive plan designations as “future land uses.”
Following is a general description of comprehensive plan designations adjacent to the Loop
Trolley recommended alignment.
Single-Family
This designation includes current and future single-family residential areas, and the
principle land use activities include housing units.
Multi-Family
The multi-family designation includes current and future multi-family residential areas, and
the principle land use activities include apartments, two and four family dwellings.
Commercial
Commercial designations include where general commercial activities should occur and be
maintained. Principle uses include sales, retail, restaurants, personal services, and parks.
Institution
Institutional uses should be maintained in these areas, and principle uses are government,
schools, churches and other religious uses.
Industrial/Utility
Industrial/utility uses should occur and be maintained in these areas. Principle uses include
manufacturing, warehousing and distribution facilities. Utility uses include transmission
stations, sanitary and storm sewers, drinking water, cable.
Park, Recreation and Open Space
This designation occurs where park and recreational uses should be maintained. Land use
activities include open space, City-owned parks, ball fields, playgrounds, golf courses,
fitness clubs and private sports/athletic facilities.

LAND USE
FIGURE 3.2-1. Existing Land Uses

LAND USE
FIGURE 3.2-2. Future Land Use

LAND USE
Mixed-Use/Transit Oriented Development

The transit oriented development and mixed use designation is applied to areas where a
combination of commercial, professional and/or residential uses should occur or be
encouraged, and in areas where employment, retail and services support and are integrated
into the transit system. Land use activities serve the neighborhood or community,
depending on the location and intensity of adjacent land uses and include retail, service,
commercial, professional, entertainment, and other uses. Mixed uses may be a single
building, a group of buildings or a multiple block district.
City of St. Louis

The City of St. Louis Comprehensive Plan has not been updated since 1975, and the original
document was written in 1947. The City of St. Louis created a strategic land use plan in 2005
to give a general guideline for the future land uses in the area.
Below is a general description of land uses outlined in the 2005 Strategic Land Use Plan and
the locations of the areas in relation to the proposed alignment.
Neighborhood Preservation Areas (NPAs)
NPAs are areas where the existing housing and corner commercial building stock would be
preserved and augmented with new infill residential and corner commercial development
physically integrated with, and primarily serving the immediate neighborhood. There are
no NPA areas directly adjacent to the proposed Loop Trolley Alignment as the corridor is
mainly commercially focused, however, there are neighborhoods both north and south of
Delmar Boulevard and East and West of DeBaliviere Avenue within the loop trolley study
area that are classified as NPAs.
These areas are generally stable residential, including but not limited to historic districts,
where the character of the neighborhood is currently well preserved with relatively few
vacant lots and abandoned buildings. The plan encourages continued preservation and
improvement, with quality rehabilitation and infill new construction that is sensitive to the
character of existing residences. Commercial and institutional uses catering to the
immediate needs of the neighborhood are acceptable and reflect the traditional role such
activity has played in the history of the City.
Neighborhood Development Areas (NDAs)
NDAs are areas where new types of residential are both permitted and encouraged. Many
blocks north of Delmar Boulevard and east of Goodfellow Boulevard are identified as
NDAs, though no areas are located directly adjacent to the proposed Loop Trolley
alignment. NDAs are characterized by areas of residential and non-residential development
with substantial amounts of vacant land and abandoned buildings suitable for new
residential and associated neighborhood services construction, respecting stable properties
that may be considered part of any new development. Opportunities for new housing
construction or replatting at critical mass scale would define a new neighborhood character
over time.
There are no NDAs directly adjacent the alignment, but within the quarter mile study area,
north of where the trolley turns onto DeBaliviere Avenue, there are a couple of areas
designated as NDAs.

LAND USE
Neighborhood Commerce Areas (NCAs)

NCAs are areas where new and the rehabilitated existing commercial uses serving adjacent
neighborhoods are encouraged. These areas include traditional commercial streets at
relatively major intersections and along major roadways where commercial uses serve
multiple neighborhoods or where new development of commercial uses serves adjacent
neighborhoods. Mixed use buildings with commercial on the ground floor and a mix of uses
on upper floors are ideal. These areas may include higher density mixed use residential and
commercial and may initially include flexibility in design to allow ground floor uses to
change over time e.g., ground floor space that can transition from residential to commercial
use as the local demand for retail goods and services strengthens in the area.
Within the study area, NCAs are located on the east end of the alignment, east of Hamilton
Avenue on the north side of Delmar Boulevard, and south along DeBaliviere Avenue from
Delmar Boulevard.
Recreational & Open Space Preservation & Development Areas (ROSPDAs)
These areas include the existing park network, open space and recreational facilities within
the City that should be preserved and enhanced, and locations for new permanent green
space, including planned new greenways and permanent locations for some community
gardens. The City’s Department of Parks, Recreation and Forestry is currently at work on a
city-wide parks and recreation plan that will be overlaid on the strategic land use plan when
complete.
Forest Park and the two parcels immediately north of the park have this designation.
Business/Industrial Development Areas (BIDAs)
Areas where new business/industrial uses or campuses would be encouraged. New
business activity may range from larger business parks to smaller scale development. BIDA
areas shown on the plan typically consist of underutilized buildings and land adjacent to
major roadways, railroads or the river, providing local or regional access. These areas have
experienced a drop in the level of economic activity from its earlier peak. A change of use on
such lands is usually not appropriate due to environmental concerns, and the opportunity
exists to rejuvenate these locations to create new employment opportunities.
The only BIDA designated land is adjacent to the Delmar MetroLink station along
Hodiamont Avenue north of Delmar Boulevard.
Opportunity Areas (OAs)
OAs are key underutilized locations where land use is in transition. Location and site
characteristics of these areas offer particular challenges and opportunities that could be
advantageous to a range of development activity. This designation is intended to be flexible
and specific development proposals would be entertained as they present themselves.
The only OA in the study area for the Loop Trolley is to the west of the MetroLink
alignment north of Delmar Boulevard and Rosedale Avenue.
Specialty Mixed Use Areas (SMUAs)
These are areas similar to downtown St. Louis where a unique mix of uses should be
preserved and developed. This designation is most prevalent directly adjacent to the
proposed alignment west of Hamilton Avenue, both north and south of Delmar Boulevard.

LAND USE
Institutional Preservation & Development Areas (IPDAs)

The IPDAs are where major educational, medical, religious, or other institutional uses
currently exist and are appropriately situated, and areas for expansion of such institutional
uses. These large-scale institutional centers are intended to positively influence the
enhancement of surrounding areas.
Most of the IPDAs in the study area are near where the proposed alignment turns south
onto DeBaliviere Avenue, and along the eastern portion of Delmar Boulevard. There are a
number of school properties, and the Bus facility south of Delmar Boulevard is considered
an Institutional Preservation and Development area.
3.2.1.3 Zoning
Zoning – University City
University City near the Delmar Loop includes mainly Core Commercial, High Density
Residential, High Density Residential/Commercial, Public Activity, Single Family
Residential, Planned Development, and Industrial Commercial Districts.
Immediately adjacent to the proposed Loop Trolley, the designation is Core Commercial
between the City Limits and Kingsland Avenue. The area north of Delmar Boulevard is a
mixture of High Density Residential and Public Activity Districts, and the area immediately
west of the loop is designated Public Activity, while further from the loop is solidly single-
family residential. South of Delmar Boulevard, there is a mixture of single- and multi-
family residential.
The district north of Delmar Boulevard along the west side of Kingsland Avenue is
designated High Density Residential/Office. Further north of Delmar Boulevard, there is an
area designated Industrial Commercial north and south of Vernon Avenue near Kingsland
Avenue.
Core Commercial (CC)
This district encompasses the Loop area of University City, and the intent of the CC
designation is to accommodate a wide variety of retail commercial uses, with an emphasis
on retail goods sales, dining, and entertainment. All ground floor building space with
frontage on Delmar Boulevard is limited to retail trade. The district requires height limits,
density targets, and building setbacks to ensure that CC areas are vibrant commercial
districts.
High Density Residential (HR)
This district protects and conserves areas of predominantly multifamily apartments, built at
relatively high densities, and provides for new high density residential construction.
Allowed development includes townhouse apartments, garden apartments, and elevator
apartment buildings.
High Density Residential/Office District (HRO)
This district provides for mixed-use, high density residential and office development where
these uses share the same building. The district also encourages appropriate reuse of
existing buildings for mixed residential and office use to encourage high quality renovation
compatible with surrounding properties.

LAND USE
Public Activity (PA)

This district accommodates uses and groupings of uses which have a distinctly public
character, and encourage retention of relatively undeveloped properties such as public
recreation sues or semi-public cemeteries. Most lots are larger than 2 acres, but may be
smaller if used for public utility facilities or single-family detached homes.
Single Family Residential
There is no description in the Zoning Code for Single Family residential.
Planned Development (PD)
This district is provided to achieve greater flexibility in land development that is not always
possible with traditional zoning districts. The PD district allows for site planning to adapt to
site conditions and the surrounding properties, creates opportunities for open space areas,
preserves natural features of a development site, creates a unified building and site
development program, connects the development rationally and economically to public
utilities and services, and allows for efficient and effective traffic circulation within and
adjacent to the development site.
Industrial Commercial (IC)
This district is intended to accommodate light industrial, light manufacturing, warehousing,
office, and retail development. The scale and intensity of development in the IC district
should not be detrimental to the rest of the community with noise, vibration, smoke, dust,
toxic or noxious emissions or byproducts, explosive hazard or excessive truck traffic. No
heavy industrial operations are allowed.
Zoning – City of St. Louis

A. Single-Family Dwelling District
Permitted uses include: single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, conversion town
houses, home occupations, publicly owned parks, playgrounds, libraries, and privately
owned parks and playgrounds. Building heights are limited to two and a half stories or 35
feet.
B. Two-Family Dwelling District
Permitted uses include: any use allowed in the Single-Family Dwelling District, two-family
dwellings, semi-detached two-family dwellings or multiple-family dwellings limited to four
families, conversion town houses, accessory structures, and temporary buildings for use
incident to construction work. Building heights are limited to two and a half stories or 35
feet.
C, D & E. Multiple-Family Dwelling District
Any use permitted in the Two-Family Dwelling District is allowed in the multi-family
dwelling district. Other allowed uses include: townhouses that front directly onto a public
street, multiple-family dwellings, parks or playgrounds, hotels, accessory structures, and
temporary buildings for use incident to construction work. Dwelling and accessory
structures are limited to three stories and 45 feet in height.
F. Neighborhood Commercial District
Permitted uses include: any permitted use in the Multiple-Family Dwelling District, art
galleries and studios, a variety of retail shops, bed and breakfast businesses, dry cleaning
stations, financial institutions, general offices, professional offices, and mixed uses which

LAND USE
include any of the permitted residential and commercial uses. Dwelling and accessory
structures are limited to three stories and 50 feet in height.
G. Local Commercial and Office District
Permitted uses include: any use permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial District, bars
and taverns, dyeing and cleaning works, laundries, livery stables and riding academies,
milk distributing and bottling plants, package liquor stores, printing shops, restaurants
other than carry-out restaurants, telephone, outdoor pay, tinsmith or sheet metal shops,
wholesale business, and accessory structures. Building heights are limited to three stories or
50 feet.
H. Area Commercial District
Permitted uses are similar to those in the Local Commercial and Office District. Structure
heights are limited to three stories and 45 feet.
J. Industrial District
Permitted uses include any use except those designated as a nuisance except motor fuel
pumping stations; carry-out restaurants; and a building or premises may be used for an
automobile body, fender repair shop, used car lot, or car leasing or rental lot; and provided
that no building be converted, reconstructed or structurally altered for dwelling purposes
except where forty percent or more of the frontage is occupied by dwellings. Structure
heights are limited to three stories and 45 feet.
3.2.2 Environmental Consequences

3.2.2.1 No Build Alternative
There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to land uses in the project study
area resulting from the No-Build Alternative.
3.2.2.2 Build Alternative

Direct Effects
Direct land use effects would be the conversion of land from its current use to another use
by the project. There would be no direct effects on land use, as the Loop Trolley would not
convert any land from its existing use. The trolley tracks and stops would be constructed
within existing street right-of-way. The only potential impact would result from the location
of a maintenance facility, which would require land to be used for trolley maintenance,
resulting in a change of use. Currently, there are two possible options being reviewed for
maintenance facility location as shown in the central section of the project area map. Both
are currently designated Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Construction of the
maintenance facility in either location would require approval by the local Aldermen and a
zoning change by the City.
Indirect Effects
Indirect land use effects are defined as changes in the use of land that a project may cause or
contribute to causing. Redevelopment of land in the project area would likely occur under
the Build Alternative. It is expected that providing increased transportation in the corridor,
and the attractiveness of the trolley for visitors and residents would induce additional
development along the corridor, particularly in areas that are currently underdeveloped or
vacant. Land prices are likely to increase, the development community to build dense

LAND USE
mixed-use developments, similar to and consistent with the future land use plans for both
St. Louis City and University City along the alignment. This potential redevelopment is not
considered an impact of this project because it is consistent with the land use goals that are
outlined in the University City Comprehensive Plan and the St. Louis County Strategic Plan.
These goals are described in further detail in section 3.2.4 below.
Cumulative Effects
According to adopted land use plans, the Loop area and the rest of the alignment is
expected to continue to develop and development is expected to trend towards mixed use
and dense development. The Loop Trolley is expected to induce commercial development
and support economic development, consistent with the Strategic Plan and Comprehensive
Plans.
The St. Vincent Greenway Project would not require any direct conversion of land in the
project area. The Greenway Project would result in the conversion of an existing lane of
traffic to a bicycle path, but this conversion would remain within the public right-of-way.
The Greenway Project, in combination with the Loop Trolley project, would help to enhance
the value of the land uses in the neighborhood. Because these effects are consistent with the
adopted planning documents for the project study area, they are not considered negative
impacts and do not require mitigation.
Construction Impacts
Construction of the Build Alternative would not result in changes to land use during the
construction period. Although trolley construction may temporarily affect the ease of access
to properties during the construction period, access would not be not completely eliminated
for any mode or any property. The project team would work to keep pedestrian and
bicyclist disruptions to a minimum. Phasing and construction schedules would be organized
to limit impacts during construction of the trolley loop. The project would employ typical
construction management practices to avoid or minimize adverse economic consequences to
occupants, such as avoiding full access closures, providing temporary alternate access and
signage, and timely communications with business owners. A temporary detour plan would
be created during the final design phase of the project to account for unavoidable access
closures during construction. Most businesses, especially vibrant businesses in a commercial
center may be able to withstand disruptions described above without having to move or go
out of business. As the adjacent land use is mainly commercial, the use would not likely
change if a business were to relocate from the alignment, any new use would likely remain
commercial, ensuring that land use impacts are minimal.
3.2.3 Farmland Conversion

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 restricts the conversion of agricultural land to
non-agricultural purposes. The Loop Trolley project study area is located entirely within an
urban area with no land designated for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the Farmland
Protection Policy Act does not apply to this project, and a Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating was not prepared.

LAND USE
3.2.4 Compliance with Plans and Policies

3.2.4.1 St. Louis City Comprehensive Plan
The 1947 Comprehensive Plan is the last formally adopted general plan for the City of St.
Louis. An interim plan was adopted in 1975; however no new plan has been prepared or
adopted. Due to the dated nature of the plan, it has not been analyzed for compliance.
3.2.4.2 University City Comprehensive Plan

University City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for renewal of the eastern and Loop portions of
the City, adjacent to the proposed alignment. It also calls for the maintenance and
improvement of the special character of the University City Loop.
The Delmar Business District was established in 1980 to help the Loop area revitalize from
the decline in the 1950s. The merchants in the district agreed to an additional tax on
commercial property and business licenses. Now that the loop is a thriving commercial and
entertainment district, the Business District Funds continue to be used for promotion and
physical improvements. While concerns are minimal, key issues continue to be parking and
balancing vehicular and pedestrian traffic interests and needs.
Implementing action C-3 calls for improving the entranceways and edges along major
corridors, including Delmar Boulevard. Delmar Boulevard captures a substantial amount of
vehicle traffic and is a primary image corridor for the City.
Implementing action C-5 calls for enhancing the bicycle and pedestrian environment of the
commercial district, including Delmar Boulevard.
Policies in the Comprehensive Plan include preserving, maintaining, and renewing existing
successful business districts such as the Loop. The City is committed to ensuring that new
in-fill development is compatible with the existing character of the Loop.
The Loop Trolley, with its emphasis on economic development and supporting dense,
mixed-use land uses is in compliance with the University City Comprehensive Plan.
3.2.4.3 St. Louis County Strategic Plan Update 2008

The St. Louis County Strategic Plan Update 2008 lays out some implementation and priority
outcomes for the region, including increasing mobility of transit riders to access more jobs
and services, planning for more mixed-use and transit-oriented style development, and
transitioning commercial and residential areas by planning for more mixed use and transit-
oriented development. While the Loop Trolley project plans are not explicitly consistent
with the strategic plan proposals for the site, they do share the same goals defined in the St.
Louis County Strategic Plan.
3.2.4.4 City of St. Louis 2005 Strategic Land Use Plan

The City of St. Louis also conducted a 5-year development strategy and plan in 2005. The
Delmar Loop is one of nine areas where the city is undertaking a comprehensive
commercial-area strategy study. These studies plan to move past urban design into
implementation recommendations, financing, and overall improvement strategies.

LAND USE
The trolley up DeBaliviere Avenue west to the Delmar Loop was listed as an example of
transportation opportunities that could be implemented in the short term. The Loop Trolley
is in compliance with the City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Plan.
3.2.4.5 University City Loop Special Business District

This district serves as a mechanism for local merchants and property owners to collectively
enhance the surroundings and promote retail trade activities in the area. The boundaries of
the district are the retail commercial zone on both sides of Delmar Boulevard between
Kingsland and the eastern city limits including retail establishments located along
Kingsland, New Enright, Leland, Melville, Westgate, and Delmar Boulevard.
The district establishes an additional business license tax and the property in the district has
additional tax, and the funds raised are used for improvements and activities as approved
by the city council. Activities and projects include street improvements, pedestrian
improvements, landscaping, alternate modes of transportation, business activity promotion,
and infrastructure repairs. The Loop Trolley is in compliance with the Business District
goals, and would provide increased and improved access to businesses within the study
area
3.2.4.6 Legacy 2035 (EWGCOG, 2007a)

Legacy 2035 is the transportation plan for East-West Gateway Council of Governments. The
document cites population growth, access to jobs, reduced congestion, and efficient patterns
of growth and development as goals for the regional transportation system. The Loop
Trolley is in compliance with Legacy 2035 by providing access to jobs, and encouraging
transit-oriented development and mixed use along the project corridor. Legacy 2035's local
project listing is the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which includes the Loop
Trolley project, see section 3.2.4.7. Action to amend the TIP constitutes an update to
Legacy 2035.
3.2.4.7 Fiscal Year 2011-2014 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP;

EWGCOG, 2010)
The 2011-2014 TIP includes projects that are likely to be funded in the program years, with
identified funding and timing of projects. The TIP guides investment in the region. The
Loop Trolley project was amended into the TIP on September 29, 2010 as project 2946B-11.
3.2.5 Mitigation Measures

The project would have no adverse effects on land use, so there would be no need for
mitigation measures to address effects. Both sites currently under consideration for the
maintenance facility are designated Neighborhood Commercial Area (NCA). This
designation does not specifically allow transit maintenance facilities as allowed or
conditionally permitted uses. Therefore, a zoning variance must be obtained from the St.
Louis Board of Zoning Adjustment prior to construction of the project.
In order to obtain a variance to the NCA zone for the maintenance facility, TDD would
submit an application for a building permit approximately 6-8 months prior to beginning
construction of the building. The City of St. Louis Zoning Department would review that
building permit and make a determination at that time about the need for a variance to the

LAND ACQUISITIONS AND RELOCATIONS
zone. If a variance is needed, the City of St. Louis would submit the application to the Board
of Zoning Adjustment. The Board of Zoning Adjustment meets monthly. It would take
approximately two months to receive approval of the variance. FTA would be copied on all
correspondence regarding the variance. The procedure for obtaining a variance has been
documented in an email from the City of St. Louis Zoning Department, and is included in
Appendix 3.1.
Mitigation for construction impacts to adjacent businesses and residents would be
addressed during the design phase of the project and implemented during the construction
phase. During design, TDD would develop and submit the construction mitigation plan to
FTA for review and comment. The construction mitigation plan would include, but would
not be limited to measures to address temporary impacts to air quality, noise, vibration,
erosion/sediment runoff, safety, and access.
Mitigation measures during the construction phase of the project would include the
following:
3.3 Land Acquisitions and Relocations

Land in the project study area is both publicly and privately owned. Approximately 11.5%
of the parcels along the corridor are currently vacant. Figure 3.2-1, Existing Land Use, shows
the locations of these parcels.

3.3.2.1 No-Build Alternative
There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to right-of-way resulting from the
No-Build Alternative.

Direct Effects
The Build Alternative would not require permanent acquisition of right-of-way or
easements for installation of the track. Construction of the trolley maintenance facility
would impact one parcel of land. Two options were considered in detail for the maintenance
facility location:
 5809 Delmar Boulevard

 5875 – 5895 Delmar Boulevard (Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School)
The maintenance facility would be purchased or leased for the project’s use. TDD would
comply with the Uniform Acquisition and Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, as amended, in
addition to the FTA regulations related to the purchase or lease and rehabilitation of a
maintenance facility..

LAND ACQUISITIONS AND RELOCATIONS
Permanent Easements. The Build Alternative would require permanent easements from the
City of St. Louis and the City of University City for ongoing operation of the trolley within
the city street. The City of St. Louis Board of Public Service, the University City Department
of Public Works, and St. Louis County have provided letters documenting each agency’s
approval of the use of city right-of-way for construction and operation of the trolley; these
are included in Appendix 2.8. Any utility relocations required for the Loop Trolley project
would be coordinated with the appropriate public entities. If necessary, temporary
easements would be negotiated through the public entities with the utility companies. See
section 3.20 for details on potential utility relocations.
Indirect and Cumulative Effects

There are no anticipated indirect or cumulative effects related to land acquisition or
relocation anticipated from the Build Alternative.
The St. Vincent Greenway Project would not require acquisition of land in the project study
area, and therefore would not result in a cumulative effect to land acquisitions and
relocations in the project study area.
3.3.2.3 Construction Impacts

The constructing staging area for the Loop Trolley project would occur within existing
public right-of-way and the proposed maintenance facility site property. No additional
right-of-way or easements (permanent or temporary) would be required. Coordination with
owners of the public right-of-way would be ongoing through design and construction. All
necessary agreements would be in place prior to construction.
3.3.3 Mitigation
Prior to construction, any transfer of deed or capital lease for the acquisition of 5875-5895
Delmar (the Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School) would contain a deed restriction
limiting the use of the property to non-residential use. Mitigation for construction impacts to
adjacent businesses and residents would be addressed during the design phase of the
project and implemented during the construction phase. During design, the TDD would
develop and submit the construction mitigation plan to FTA
for review and comment. The construction mitigation plan
would include, but would not be limited to measures to Summary of economic effects:
address temporary impacts to air quality, noise, vibration,  Direct Effects: The Build
erosion/sediment runoff, safety, and access. Alternative would not displace any
existing businesses.
Mitigation measures during the construction phase of the  Indirect and Cumulative Impacts:
project would include the following: The Build Alternative would likely
result in redevelopment in the
 TDD would notify the public 60 days in advance of any area, which would change the mix
changes to access/detours. of business types, particularly
 Access to adjacent properties would be maintained along DeBaliviere and the eastern
section of Delmar.
throughout construction.

ECONOMICS
3.4 Economics
This section addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects expected to occur to
businesses districts along the Project Study Area as a result of implementing the Build or

The Loop Trolley is designed to support economic development in St. Louis and University
City. Existing businesses along DeBaliviere Avenue include restaurants and a small mixed-
use retail/medical facility. There are few existing businesses along Delmar Boulevard
between DeBaliviere Avenue and the MetroLink tracks. Businesses within the Delmar Loop
primarily include restaurants and bars.
3.4.1.1 Population
Population forecasts are available from the East-West Gateway Council of Government data
center (EWGCOG, 2007b) which compiles US Census data for the City of St. Louis, St. Louis
County (including University City) and the entire Missouri metro region. According to these
data, the 2030 forecast population for the City of St. Louis is 327,000 and St. Louis County is
1,004,000. Forecasts show a 6% reduction in population within the City of St. Louis,
including within the study area, although the Missouri metro regional population continues
to increase. Between the year 2000 and the forecast year of 2030 the regional population is
anticipated to increase by 9.6% (City of St. Louis, 2010). These data indicate that a re-
distribution of population is occurring within the vicinity of St. Louis.
3.4.1.2 Employment
According to the Missouri Department of Economic Development (2010), there were
approximately 140,000 jobs within St. Louis city in 2009, and approximately 470,000 jobs in
St. Louis County in 2009.
The following sectors provided the majority of jobs within St Louis City in 2009:
 Accommodation and Food Services (approximately 19,000 jobs)

 Educational services (approximately 17,000 jobs)
 Administrative and Waste Services (approximately 12,000 jobs)
 Wholesale Trade (approximately 10,000 jobs)
 Retail Trade (approximately 9,000 jobs)
 Finance and Insurance (approximately 9,000 jobs)
The following sectors provided the majority of jobs within St. Louis County in 2009:
 Manufacturing (approximately 65,000 jobs)

 Health care and social assistance (approximately 61,000 jobs)
 Retail trade (approximately 57,000 jobs)
 Educational services (approximately 48,000 jobs)
 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (approximately 45,000 jobs)
 Professional, scientific, and technical services (approximately 40,000 jobs)

ECONOMICS
3.4.1.3 Development Potential

Several development plans have been conducted and implemented in and around the study
area. The Loop Trolley Project is consistent with and has the potential to complement these
plans by providing connections from MetroLink Stations to activity centers without
displacing existing residents or businesses. Projects have been completed near Union
Boulevard on Delmar Boulevard, others are under construction, and others are planned
(Fister, 2007).
Approximately 11.5% of properties within the study area are vacant or occupied by parking
lots along the proposed trolley alignment (City of St. Louis, 2010). Portions of Delmar
Boulevard between DeBaliviere Avenue and the Delmar MetroLink Station have more
vacant land and opportunities for redevelopment than at the ends of the project lines near
Skinker Boulevard and at Forest Park.

The route for the St. Louis Loop Trolley was selected, in part, to serve planned
redevelopment areas and stimulate reinvestment in those areas. The Delmar Boulevard Trolley
Feasibility Study (Metro, 2000), and studies in other cities with trolley service, found potential
economic benefits that include increased development density, stimulation of housing
demand near stations, and increases in property value.
3.4.2.1 Direct Effects

The No-Build Alternative would not result in construction or operational effects on
economic development. The No-Build Alternative assumes that existing infrastructure
would remain the same as it is today.
Build Alternative
The trolley project is anticipated to help bring economic development to St. Louis and
University City, especially along Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue. Other cities
with recently opened trolley lines have shown development and redevelopment
investments occurring within three blocks of their trolley projects. The amount of
development anticipated to occur because of the Loop Trolley cannot be certain, but other
examples have shown positive effects to economic resources. Based on these other examples,
positive effects to the Loop Trolley project area might include:
 Increased market interest;
 Increased property values;
 Extension of the Loop entertainment district to further draw regional economic activity;
 Increased positive use of existing available land (reduction in vacant land)
3.4.2.2 Indirect Effects

Indirect effects on economic development occur when there are changes in access,
surrounding land use, noise levels, or visual intrusion that affect the value and integrity of
the existing resources to attract (or detract) targeted development. No negative indirect

ECONOMICS
effects are anticipated to occur from the project. Indirect effects on economic development
would be positive by encouraging greater use of recreational resources and improving
connectivity and linkages between Forest Park and the Delmar and DeBaliviere
neighborhoods.
3.4.2.3 Cumulative Effects

The Loop Trolley is anticipated to produce beneficial cumulative effects to economics as a
compatible transportation use within the DeBaliviere Avenue non-motorized Greenway
project (Great Rivers Greenway, 2010) and with the planned Forest Park circulation routes
(City of St. Louis, 2008). The trolley would also provide positive economic benefits to
commuter traffic, as travelers from the MetroLink Stations would have non-vehicular access
to their destinations.

Construction impacts are impacts that may temporarily impact economic activity in the
project area during construction of the project, but are not expected to last beyond the
construction phase. Project construction would require the closure of certain lanes at
different times across the life of the project, limiting the access to certain businesses for short
periods. The project would result in the brief, temporary disruption to customers and
deliveries of businesses along Delmar Boulevard, visitors to Forest Park, and commuting
traffic at the MetroLink Stations. Due to the proximity of the surrounding neighborhoods, it
is anticipated that most construction would occur during normal weekday business hours,
not evening and weekend hours. Both the City of St. Louis and University City have
ordinances restricting construction hours near residential properties. These are listed above
in section 3.1.6.
There may be limited sidewalk usage and access limitations in the section affected by
construction. Some restaurants that currently have outdoor dining areas might be affected
due to sidewalk closures. Every attempt would be made to keep the access to businesses
open during construction.
Employment opportunities are anticipated to increase as a result of the trolley project.
Preliminary estimates indicate that up to 350 jobs would be created by the project during the
construction phase.4 New development would promote new jobs in the study area and
neighborhoods. Residents would have additional transportation options to access current
employment opportunities near the project area and the central business district. The trolley
project is anticipated to result in fifteen permanent jobs, primarily from the maintenance and
operational requirements of the system and vehicles.

In order to minimize effects to businesses during construction, an access and
communication plan would be developed and implemented by the design team and
construction contractor, in coordination with the TDD and as part of the overall construction
mitigation plan. The TDD would work closely with Citizens for Modern Transit to deploy a
4 Based on the estimated cost of construction. More information on the development of this figure can be found in the Loop Trolley Urban
Circulator Grant Application.

NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
range of communications, which may include but are not limited to social media, project
website updates, media alerts, newspaper notices, direct mailings, and “Drop In” sessions.
Mitigation for impacts to adjacent businesses and residents would be addressed during the
design phase of the project and implemented during the construction phase. The project
team would meet with each individual business during the design phase in order to ensure
that the maintenance of traffic plan maximizes access to the extent practicable. The plan
would be designed to publicize to customers that businesses and facilities are open and
describe how to reach them, direct traffic to nearby parking should on-street parking be
disrupted, and direct delivery vehicles to alternative loading zones during construction.
During design, the TDD would develop and submit the construction mitigation plan to FTA
for review and comment. The construction mitigation plan would include, but would not be
limited to measures to address temporary impacts to air quality, noise, vibration,
erosion/sediment runoff, safety, and access.
following:
3.5 Neighborhoods and Community Facilities

This section addresses potential effects to neighborhoods and community facilities within
the Project Study Area from the Build and No-Build Alternatives. There are a variety of
neighborhood and community facilities within a quarter mile of the proposed Loop Trolley
alignment. There are public institutions including a library, schools, a police station, a post
office, the Center of Creative Arts, Washington University Music Center, University City
City Hall, MetroLink stations, parks, and a variety of religious institutions. These facilities
are discussed below.

3.5.1.1 Neighborhoods
Adjacent neighborhoods include the following:
 West End Neighborhood – located north of Delmar Boulevard, east of the City Limits,
south of Page Boulevard, and west of Belt Avenue and Union Boulevard via Maple
Avenue.
 Skinker/DeBaliviere – located south of Delmar Boulevard east of the City Limits, north
of Forest Park, and west of DeBaliviere Avenue.
 DeBaliviere Place – located east of DeBaliviere Avenue, south of Delmar Boulevard, east
of Union Boulevard, and north of Lindell Boulevard.
 Visitation Park – located north of Delmar Boulevard, west of Union Boulevard, east of
Belt and south of Maple Ave.

 The proposed Loop Trolley alignment is generally on the edge of neighborhoods, as

Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue serve as the border of all three adjacent
neighborhoods.
Figure 3.5-1 depicts these neighborhoods. The Skinker-DeBaliviere neighborhood has no
planned projects. Between 1990 and 2000, the neighborhood lost approximately 5 percent of
its population.
DeBaliviere Place neighborhood does not have planned projects. Between 1990 and 2000, the
neighborhood lost approximately 17 percent of its population.
Visitation Park is the only neighborhood in the project area that gained population between
1990 and 2000, adding approximately 2 percent.
3.5.1.2 Community Facilities

Figure 3.5-2 depicts community cultural facilities in the project study area. There are several
religious institutions near the Delmar Loop at the west end of the alignment, including the
Church of Scientology of Missouri, the Bais Abraham Congregation, and the University
United Methodist Church. The Trinity Presbyterian Church is located south of Delmar
Boulevard on Kingsland Avenue within the project study area. Community facilities in the
West Loop located north of Delmar Boulevard include the University City’s City Hall, Police
and Fire Station and Library.
Near the intersection of Washington Boulevard and Skinker Boulevard a block and a half
south of Delmar Boulevard is the New Cote Brilliante Church of God, which also serves as
the community center of the Skinker-DeBaliviere Neighborhood Association.
South of Delmar Boulevard along Rosedale Avenue and one block north of Forest Park
Parkway is the St. Roch Catholic Church. Two blocks east of where the trolley would turn to
the west from DeBaliviere Avenue to Delmar Boulevard, the Grace and Peace Fellowship is
located at the corner of Clara Avenue and Delmar Boulevard.
Other facilities within the project study area include Ruth Porter Park, north of Delmar
Boulevard at DeBaliviere Avenue and Forest Park. According to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, less than a quarter mile north of Delmar Boulevard on
Westgate Avenue, there is a housing development that provides affordable apartments to
elderly renters. No other housing was identified for affordable apartments within a half mile
of the proposed alignment.
There are a number of schools within the study area: Julia Goldstein Early Childhood
Development Center and Delmar-Harvard Elementary School are located near the Loop
section near the west end of the alignment. The Hamilton Community Education Center is
located on Westminster Place south of Delmar Boulevard. Saint Roch’s School is located
south of the alignment, north of Forest Park along Waterman Boulevard, and the private
Crossroads School is located on the east side of DeBaliviere Avenue just north of Kingsbury
Place.
Other facilities within the project study area include City Hall, Police and fire station east of
Trinity Ave and a library west of Kingsland Ave. Porter Park, north of Delmar Blvd and
DeBaliviere Ave intersection and Forest Park are other amenities in the project area.

FIGURE 3.5-1. Project Area Neighborhoods

FIGURE 3.5-2. Community Cultural Facilities


3.5.2.1 Direct Effects Summary of effects to
neighborhoods and community
No-Build Alternative facilities:
The No-Build Alternative would not alter  There would be no direct effects
neighborhoods or community facilities. It would be to neighborhoods or community
expected that some development would occur facilities resulting from
consistent with the adopted land use plans and construction of the Build
Alternative.
existing zoning.
 Indirect effects include
Build Alternative redevelopment within all
There would be no direct conversion of land within neighborhoods in the project area,
but this is consistent with adopted
neighborhoods, with the exception of renovation for
community plans, and therefore is
the maintenance facility. This would not represent an not considered an adverse
impact to the West End Neighborhood. impact.
3.5.2.2 Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Indirect effects of the No-Build would include a continuing difficulty in attracting customers
to the central commercial area, and the existing parking imbalance at Forest Park would be
expected to continue. This would limit visitors to nearby neighborhood and community
facilities, and limit the transportation options for visitors and residents in the area.
Build Alternative
Indirect effects on community facilities from the build alternative include increased access
and visibility from the trolley, the ability for visitors to park in one location and take the
trolley to neighborhood and community facilities. This would allow more people to visit the
community and neighborhood facilities without having to drive and park a vehicle.
Cumulative effects resulting from the St. Vincent Greenway project, in combination with the
trolley, would include increased multi-modal accessibility to community facilities in the
project study area. This would be considered a positive impact and would not require
mitigation. Access to businesses and residences would remain open at all times during
construction.

Adjacent neighborhoods would be temporarily affected by increased noise, construction
dust, construction zones and signage, altered or reduced access and established detours, and
temporarily disrupted utilities as they are relocated or reinforced.

Mitigation measures are limited to construction management practices to minimize impacts
during construction, including dust control, limiting construction hours to be the least
disruptive as possible, and providing temporary accesses when permanent ones are closed.
Construction management practices would be detailed in the construction mitigation plan
prepared for the project during the design phase.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
3.6 Environmental Justice

This section describes the project’s compliance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-income Populations. This order requires that
federal agencies identify whether or not minority and low-income persons are present
within a project’s study area, and determine whether or not the direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects would disproportionately burden those populations.
Demographic data for this analysis of the population was obtained through the 2000 U.S.
Census. The analysis units are the affected Census Block Groups within one-quarter mile of
the proposed alignment.

3.6.1.1 Minority Populations in the Project Study Area
Minority populations are defined by the U.S. Census as a member of one or multiple of the
following groups.
 Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa
 American Indian or Alaska Native – A person having origins in any of the original
peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintain
tribal affiliation or community attachment
 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander – A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people
who indicate their race as “Native Hawaiian” “Guamanian or Chamorro,” “Samoan,”
and “Other Pacific Islander.
 Asian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast
Asia, or the Includes “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Filipino,” “Korean,” “Japanese,”
“Vietnamese,” and “Other Asian.”
 Hispanic or Latino – Considered an ethnicity, not a race. Hispanic and Latino persons
may be of any race. All people who identify themselves as Hispanic are considered a
minority, independent of their race. Those who fall into this category have indicated that
they are “Mexican,” “Puerto Rican” or “Cuban” along with those who indicate they are
“other Spanish, Hispanic or Latino.”
There are high concentrations of persons of a racial or ethnic minority in the Loop Trolley
project study area (Figure 3.6-1). Within all of the block groups immediately adjacent to the
proposed alignment, at least 50% or more of the residents are of a minority race or ethnicity.
In addition, over 90% of the residents in the block groups in the East Delmar section of the
project area, between the Metro Link tracks and DeBaliviere Avenue, are of a minority race
or ethnicity. The most dominant racial group within block groups in the project study area,
other than White, is African American. A few of the block groups have a higher percentage
of Asian residents than the average for either the city of St. Louis or University City. There
was not a high concentration of people with Hispanic ethnicity in the project study area in
2000; all block groups in the project study area had fewer than 3% Hispanic residents.
Table 3.6-1 provides detail on racial and ethnic population percentages within the project
study area by block group.

According to the 2000 census, minority groups make up 57 percent of St. Louis and
52 percent of University City. These are substantially higher percentages than in the state of
Missouri, of which only 16% of its residents are of a minority race or ethnicity. There are
several block groups in the project study area in which the percentage of minority residents
is higher than the averages for the two cities. Therefore, this area does contain
environmental justice-protected minority populations.
3.6.1.2 Low-Income Populations in the Project Study Area

Low-income populations are defined as persons with income that was less than two times
the poverty threshold established by the U.S. Census for the year 2000. US Census poverty
thresholds vary by size of the family unit, number of related children under age 18, and
number of persons over the age of 65.
There is variation in income levels within the project study area. Several block groups
within the project study have substantial concentrations of low-income residents. The
percentage of low-income residents within block groups in the project study area ranges
from 6% to 77%. In comparison, the percentage of low-income residents within the cities of
St. Louis and University City is 48% and 29%, respectively. The percentage of low-income
residents in the state of Missouri is also 29%. As depicted on Figure 3.6-2, nearly all of the
project study area contains enough low-income residents to be considered protected by
environmental justice regulations. Table 3.6-2 provides detail on the numbers of low-income
residents within each block group in the project study area.

FIGURE 3.6-1. Minority Populations

TABLE 3.6-1. Racial and Ethnic Demographics in the Project Study Area, St. Louis City, University City, and the state of Missouri
Native
American Hawaiian
Black or Indian Other
Census Block Total African /Alaska Pacific Some Two or Hispanic or
Tract Group Population White American Native Asian Islander other race more races Latino Minority**
2161 1 949 873 (92%) 31 (3%) 2 (0%) 23 (2%) 0 (0%) 4 (0%) 16 (2%) 13 (1%) 84 (9%)
2 2,589 1,642 (63%) 586 (23%) 6 (0%) 261 (10%) 2 (0%) 26 (1%) 66 (3%) 74 (3%) 981 (38%)
3 1,140 218 (19%) 858 (75%) 2 (0%) 19 (2%) 2 (0%) 14 (1%) 27 (2%) 24 (2%) 931 (82%)
4 1,464 1,026 (70%) 265 (18%) 3 (0%) 107 (7%) 0 (0%) 16 (1%) 47 (3%) 50 (3%) 469 (32%)
2162 1 1,476 934 (63%) 480 (33%) 1 (0%) 26 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 35 (2%) 21 (1%) 557 (38%)
2 762 708 (93%) 25 (3%) 1 (0%) 13 (2%) 0 (0%) 6 (1%) 9 (1%) 15 (2%) 67 (9%)
1051.98 1 659 315 (48%) 298 (45%) 2 (0%) 24 (4%) 0 (0%) 2 (0%) 18 (3%) 14 (2%) 355 (54%)
2 694 387 (56%) 211 (30%) 2 (0%) 57 (8%) 0 (0%) 8 (1%) 29 (4%) 12 (2%) 313 (45%)
3 953 636 (67%) 207 (22%) 3 (0%) 83 (9%) 0 (0%) 9 (1%) 15 (2%) 20 (2%) 328 (34%)
4 800 702 (88%) 36 (5%) 1 (0%) 47 (6%) 0 (0%) 5 (1%) 9 (1%) 15 (2%) 106 (13%)
1052 1 1,350 604 (45%) 622 (46%) 4 (0%) 74 (5%) 1 (0%) 10 (1%) 35 (3%) 11 (1%) 753 (56%)
2 1,068 275 (26%) 692 (65%) 9 (1%) 43 (4%) 1 (0%) 19 (2%) 29 (3%) 31 (3%) 807 (76%)
3 422 4 (1%) 418 (99%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0%) 418 (99%)
1053 1 685 28 (4%) 637 (93%) 0 (0%) 4 (1%) 0 (0%) 3 (0%) 13 (3%) 14 (2%) 657 (96%)
2 847 11 (1%) 806 (95%) 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (0%) 25 (3%) 5 (1%) 836 (99%)
3 834 10 (1%) 809 (97%) 0 (0%) 4 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (0%) 7 (1%) 5 (1%) 824 (99%)
1121 2 0 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
3 2,751 1,623 (59%) 865 (31%) 6 (0%) 179 (7%) 2 (0%) 16 (1%) 60 (2%) 43 (2%) 1,155 (42%)
1122 3 654 71 (11%) 555 (85%) 0 (0%) 5 (1%) 0 (0%) 5 (1%) 18 (3%) 9 (1%) 587 (90%)

TABLE 3.6-1. Racial and Ethnic Demographics in the Project Study Area, St. Louis City, University City, and the state of Missouri
Native
American Hawaiian
Black or Indian Other
Census Block Total African /Alaska Pacific Some Two or Hispanic or
Tract Group Population White American Native Asian Islander other race more races Latino Minority**
Project Study 20,097 10,067 (50%) 8,401 (42%) 43 (0%) 969 (5%) 8 (0%) 151 (1%) 458 (2%) 377 (2%) 10,228 (51%)
Area*
St. Louis City 348,189 152,666 178,266 950 (0%) 6,891 (2%) 94 (0%) 2,783 (1%) 6,539 (2%) 7,022 (2%) 198,860 (57%)
(44%) (51%)
University City 37,428 18,437 (49%) 16,974 61 (0%) 1,065 (3%) 11 (0%) 208 (1%) 672 (2%) 583 (2%) 19,316 (52%)
(45%)
State of Missouri 5,595,211 4,748,083 629,391 25,076 61,595 (1%) 3,178 (0%) 45,827 (1%) 82,061 (1%) 118,592 908,737 (16%)
(85%) (11%) (0%) (2%)
* The project study area, in this case, is defined as the outside boundaries of all of the block groups listed in this table.
** Minority is defined as all individuals that are either Hispanic or Latino or are not White.
Bold highlighted = block group percentage is equal to or higher than St. Louis City or University City percentage
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 1 P1, P7, P8, and P12 as well as Summary File 3 P19, P42, and P88

VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCESENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICEENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
TABLE 3.6-2. Low-Income Populations in the Project Study Area

Census Tract Block Group Total Population Low-Income Population*
2161 1 949 93 (10%)
2 2,589 1,534 (61%)
3 1,140 716 (60%)
4 1,464 412 (30%)
2162 1 1,476 291 (19%)
2 762 50 (6%)
1051.98 1 659 234 (37%)
2 694 448 (63%)
3 953 469 (49%)
4 800 132 (17%)
1052 1 1,350 562 (42%)
2 1,068 476 (45%)
3 422 158 (37%)
1053 1 685 386 (56%)
2 847 615 (77%)
3 834 445 (50%)
1121 2 0 0 (0%)
3 2,751 1,013 (39%)
1122 3 654 403 (71%)
Project Study Area* 20,097 8,437 (43%)
St. Louis City 348,189 161,471 (48%)
University City 37,428 1,808 (29%)
State of Missouri 5,433,293 1,627,593 (29%)
* Low-income is defined as an individual whose income in 1999 is less than 2 times the poverty level
Bold highlighted = low-income population in the block group is greater than either the University City average
or the St. Louis city average
Source: U.S. Census 2000, Summary File 3, Table P88

FIGURE 3.6-2. Low-Income Populations


Because there would be no significant impacts to the natural, cultural, or built environment
under the No-Build Alternative, the No-Build Alternative would not result in any direct,
indirect, or cumulative effects to environmental justice populations.

Direct Effects
The benefits provided by the Build Alternative primarily include improved transit mobility
in the project study area. This benefit would extend to all populations and potential users of
the trolley, including low-income and minority populations. Residents of adjacent
neighborhoods would be able to travel directly from the Delmar Loop to Forest Park on
transit, which is currently not possible. Existing paratransit service in the corridor would not
be impacted by the Loop Trolley project. All vehicles and stations would be ADA compliant.
The Build Alternative uses consistent physical elements throughout the entire project
corridor: a fixed-guideway trolley on the existing street. One distinct variation of the Build
Alternative is that the trolley would operate on an overhead contact system (OCS) along a
segment of the corridor and elsewhere via battery power without OCS. As discussed in
Chapter 2, the Build Alternative would require OCS on Delmar Boulevard between Des
Peres Avenue and DeBaliviere Avenue. It would also require OCS on DeBaliviere Avenue
between Delmar Boulevard and Pershing Avenue. This represents a continuous distance of
roughly 4,900 feet, or a little less than half of the length of the entire project corridor. The
determination of where to install the OCS was a technical decision. OCS would be located in
these segments because they would be single-track segments of the corridor; and therefore,
trolleys going in both directions would be able to utilize them. Although the visual analysis
conducted for this project determined that the OCS would not result in a significant visual
impact (described in section 3.8 below), it can still be perceived as a visual impact by
residents of the area and others familiar with its existing visual character. However, as
shown in the photos that follow, the OCS used for the trolley would be less visually
substantial than the catenary system currently in place for MetroLink. Photos 1 and 2 depict
an example of what the trolley’s OCS would look like, and Photo 3 depicts the existing
MetroLink catenary system. MetroLink’s catenary includes three wires, whereas the trolley
would only utilize one wire. Additionally, the OCS for the trolley would be approximately
300 feet from the nearest residences north of Delmar Boulevard; residences are not likely to
be able to view the OCS from their homes. Photo 2 below depicts the example OCS in
context, and shows that it is unobtrusive to the adjacent landscape.

Photo 1: Example OCS. This photo depicts the existing Overhead Contact
System used for the Portland Streetcar system. The Loop Trolley would use
a similar, one-wire OCS.
Photo 2: Example OCS in context. This photo shows the OCS used in
the Portland Streetcar in context of the larger landscape. As shown, the
OCS is not very visible from an adjacent platform, and would be even less
visible from residences several hundred feet away.

A wide range of neighborhoods and

populations reside behind the
commercial and institutional properties
located along this section where OCS
would be required. Income levels along
this nearly mile-long section range from
very high to very low. Along sections of
DeBaliviere Avenue near Delmar
Boulevard where OCS would be
required, for example, there are gated
streets with numerous residential
homes valued in excess of one million
dollars. North of Delmar Boulevard
where OCS would be required there are
substantial percentages of the
population below the poverty level. The
economic and racial diversity of this
section of the corridor where OCS
would be required are such that there
are no disproportionate impacts
associated with the OCS to minority or
low-income populations. The
demographics along this section are
Photo 3: Existing MetroLink Catenary System. This
diverse, including substantial numbers
photo depicts the existing MetroLink catenary system in
the vicinity of the Loop Trolley project. The MetroLink
of non-minority and minority
catenary is a much more substantial system than the populations.
Loop Trolley OCS would be.
As shown in the photos above, the OCS
would not result in a significant visual
impact to residences and businesses along the route. Because of this, the OCS would not
represent a disproportionately high or adverse impact to environmental justice
communities.
Additionally, the Build Alternative would not result Summary of effects to community
facilities and environmental justice
in any adverse effects to transportation facilities, air
and Title VI effects:
quality, or community facilities. There would be a
 Direct Effects: The Build
potential moderate noise impact to an apartment
Alternative would not directly
building along Delmar Boulevard, and a potential affect any community facilities or
vibration impact to the People’s Health Center. These disproportionately affect
impacts are described in further detail in section 3.9, environmental justice or Title VI-
Noise and Vibration. As described in that section, protected populations.
both of these impacts can be minimized through the  Indirect and Cumulative Effects:
project design. There would be no adverse
indirect or cumulative effects to
Therefore, because there are no adverse impacts from community facilities or
the project there would be no disproportionately environmental justice or Title VI-
protected populations.
high and adverse impacts to environmental justice
populations.


As described above in section 3.2, Land Use, the Build Alternative may contribute to the
occurrence of redevelopment in the project area. This may ultimately lead to a rise in
housing prices, and may affect the ability of low-income individuals to remain residents of
the area. However, redevelopment of this area is consistent with locally-adopted planning
goals. Therefore, because the elected officials from the cities of University City and St. Louis
have already targeted this area for redevelopment, it is not considered a significant impact
to environmental justice populations.
Cumulative impacts to environmental justice communities from the Loop Trolley project, in
combination with the St. Vincent Greenway Project, would include increased multi-modal
accessibility in the project study area. Construction of the Greenway is not anticipated to
represent a disproportionately high or adverse effect on environmental justice communities,
and by constructing the two projects simultaneously, the overall disruption to the
neighborhoods in the project study area would be minimized over constructing them
separately.

The fare structure used for the trolley would include a provision for low-income riders
during all operating hours. The standard fare for the trolley would be $2 per ride. However,
elderly, disabled, and low-income riders would qualify for a $1 fare. This reduced fare is
half of the normal fare expected for the trolley, which is $2 per ride.
3.6.4 Outreach Specific to Minority and Low-Income Populations

There are substantial concentrations of minority and low-income persons in the project
study area. The project team has conducted outreach to specifically involve and solicit input
from minority and low-income residents of the study area. This outreach has taken the
following forms:
 The alderman of the 26th Ward in the City of St. Louis represents the vast majority of
low-income populations within and near the project area. As such, he served as a
primary conduit of information to these groups. He used his “Ward Update Meetings”
to keep local residents informed about the project and about opportunities to provide
comments. He also invited project team members to several “Ward Update Meetings” to
provide additional information about the project.
 Direct mailing of project newsletters to residents within ¼ mile of the proposed

alignment.
 Advertisement of project open house and project forum in community newspapers and
at local Aldermanic Ward meetings in low-income and minority areas
 Flyers posted in key neighborhood gathering places announcing the project and ways to
get involved. The Office of Better Family Life, an advocacy group for the low-income
neighborhoods of the project area, provided a conduit for the dissemination of both
posted and live-update information.
Members of the public were invited to comment on the proposed project at many milestones
throughout the project’s development. Public comments were accepted via postal mail or e-

TITLE VI COMPLIANCE
mail to the Loop Trolley Company or at public meetings. Meetings were held in locations
within central St. Louis and in ADA-accessible buildings.
Members of environmental justice communities would be informed of the publication of the
Draft EA through a display advertisement in the St. Louis American (a newspaper serving the
African-American community) and St. Louis Post-Dispatch and through a direct mailing to all
properties within 500 feet of the project alignment.
3.7 Title VI Compliance

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes assure that individuals are not
excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under
any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color,
national origin, age, sex, and disability. Table 3.7-1 provides details of the existence of these
populations within the project study area, within census block groups that are within ¼ mile
of the proposed alignment.
Overall, the project study area contains a lower concentration of children, elderly persons,
and female-headed families than in either St. Louis city, University City, or the state of
Missouri overall. However, there are concentrations of children, elderly persons, and
female-headed families within specific block groups that are higher than the average of
either city. Figure 3.7-1 depicts elderly populations in the study area.
The concentration of people with limited or no ability to speak English is similar within the
project area overall as it is within St. Louis City, University City, or the state. There are a few
block groups within the project study area in which the concentration is higher than the two
cities or the state. Figure 3.7-2 depicts limited English proficiency populations in the study
area.
The concentration of disabled individuals, overall, is lower in the project area than in St.
Louis city or University City, but is not as low as the statewide average (see Table 3.7-1).
There are some block groups within the project study area that contain a higher
concentration of disabled individuals than in any of the comparative geographies.

Because there would be no significant impacts to the natural, cultural, or built environment
under the No-Build Alternative, the No-Build Alternative would not result in any direct,
indirect, or cumulative effects to elderly people, children, female-headed households,
disabled persons, or limited English proficiency populations.

Direct Effects
The Build Alternative would not result in any direct impacts to air quality, noise, parks and
recreational resources, cultural resources, or neighborhood facilities in the project area.
Therefore, there would be no disproportionately high or adverse effects to Title VI
populations.

TITLE VI COMPLIANCE
TABLE 3.7-1. Title VI Populations in the Project Study Area

Population
Total with limited
number Children Elderly or no ability Individuals Female-
Census Block Total of (under 18 (over 65 to speak with a headed
Tract Group Population families years old) years old) English disability families
2161 1 949 181 238 (25%) 61 (6%) 25 (3%) 52 (6%) 25 (14%)
2 2,589 405 232 (9%) 334 (13%) 94 (4%) 458 (19%) 111
(27%)
3 1,140 251 396 (35%) 37 (3%) 8 (1%) 246 (22%) 133

(53%)
4 1,464 304 270 (18%) 98 (7%) 10 (1%) 130 (10%) 62 (20%)
2162 1 1,476 417 323 (22%) 126 (9%) 0 (0%) 195 (14%) 127
(30%)
2 762 219 179 (23%) 76 (10%) 6 (1%) 77 (10%) 11 (5%)
1052 1 659 174 157 (24%) 36 (5%) 25 (4%) 96 (15%) 58 (33%)
2 694 139 68 (10%) 75 (11%) 46 (7%) 115 (17%) 58 (42%)
3 953 156 121 (13%) 64 (7%) 9 (1%) 89 (10%) 32 (21%)
4 800 155 124 (16%) 169 (21%) 5 (1%) 100 (13%) 17 (11%)
1052 1 1,350 230 179 (13%) 174 (13%) 51 (4%) 245 (19%) 82 (36%)
2 1,068 212 188 (18%) 130 (12%) 23 (2%) 286 (28%) 97 (46%)
3 422 109 110 (26%) 72 (17%) 0 (0%) 156 (38%) 61 (56%)
1053.2 1 685 104 129 (19%) 58 (8%) 0 (0%) 168 (25%) 63 (61%)
2 847 193 279 (33%) 106 (13%) 0 (0%) 186 (27%) 141
(73%)
3 834 188 244 (29%) 123 (15%) 16 (2%) 182 (23%) 81 (43%)
1121 2 0 0 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
3 2,751 436 277 (10%) 375 (14%) 69 (3%) 370 (15%) 101
(23%)
1122 3 654 122 150 (23%) 61 (9%) 8 (1%) 192 (36%) 81 (66%)
Project Study Area* 20,097 3,995 3,664 2,175 395 (2%) 3,343 (18%) 1,341
(18%) (11%) (34%)
St. Louis City 348,189 77,784 89,657 47,842 7665 (2%) 79,457 (25%) 31,621
(26%) (14%) (41%)
University City 37,428 9,165 8,174 4,987 518 (1%) 6,586 (19%) 2,747
(22%) (13%) (30%)
State of Missouri 5,226,022 1,486,546 1,427,692 755,379 48,470 911,116 247,883

(27%) (14%) (0.1%) (17%) (17%)
Bold highlighted = population in the block group is greater than the concentration within St. Louis city or
University City
Source: Census 2000, Summary File 1, Table P12, and Summary File 3, Table P15, P19, P42

TITLE VI COMPLIANCE
FIGURE 3.7-1. Elderly Populations

TITLE VI COMPLIANCE
FIGURE 3.7-2. Limited English Proficiency Populations

VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES

The Build Alternative would not result in any indirect or cumulative effects to Title VI
populations. Any Title VI persons that are also low-income may be affected by
redevelopment in the area ultimately leading to higher housing prices. However, because
this area has already been adopted by the local elected officials as a targeted area for
redevelopment, this is not considered a significant negative impact that would result from
this project.

The fare structure used for the trolley would include a special provision for disabled and
elderly riders. The standard fare for the trolley would be $2 per ride. However, elderly,
disabled, and low-income riders would qualify for a $1 fare. This reduced fare is half of the
normal fare expected for the trolley, which is $2 per ride. This reduced fare, combined with
the increased transit access in the corridor provided by the trolley, and the frequent, 20-
minute headways, would ensure that the project would comply with all Title VI
requirements.
3.8 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

This section addresses potential effects to visual resources within the project study area from
the Build and No-Build Alternative. The analysis conducted conformed to visual assessment
guidelines detailed in "Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects" published by the
American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) (Contract No. DOT-FH-11-9694). The Federal Transit Administration has not to
date published visual assessment guidelines specific to transit projects, so the FHWA
guidelines have been used. The cities of St. Louis and University City currently do not have
any design restrictions, height limitations, or other limiting factors that apply to the
construction of transit projects within their jurisdictions. Field investigations and
photographic analysis were the primary techniques used to assess visual resources and the
visual character of the project corridor. The analysis focused on viewers and the visual
resources that appear within their viewshed or angle of view. The views documented in this
section are those that would be seen from the proposed project by travelers (those using the
existing roadway and the trolley) and those of the trolley as seen by neighbors (those who
own or use property adjacent to the trolley).

3.8.1.1 Landscape Units
A landscape unit is a portion of the regional landscape and can
be thought of as an outdoor room that exhibits a distinct visual
character. A landscape unit will often correspond to a place or
district that is commonly known among local viewers. A total of
six landscape units have been identified within the project study
area. Figure 3.8-1 depicts the landscape units within the project
study area.
University City Hall

FIGURE 3.8-1. Landscape Units

The University City Loop is a component of The Loop (Trinity

Avenue to Vineland Avenue) with large institutional building
alongside a stable mix of high density residential mixed in with
street-front commercial/retail. The most visually distinctive
element is the Trinity Avenue turn-around. Surrounding the
Trinity Avenue turn-around are institutions including a library,
an elementary school, a police station, a post office, the Center of
Creative Arts, Washington University Music Center, City Hall,
and churches. There are many public parking spots North of
Delmar Boulevard behind a commercial development as well as
additional parking, in small lots, and in parking garages.
The Delmar Loop is St. Louis City’s end of The Loop. It is Moonrise Hotel
currently witnessing a surge of development from the city limits
to the Delmar MetroLink Station. A new hotel (the Moonrise) next to the Pageant Theater is
a rehabilitation of the mixed-use commercial/residential building on the northeast corner of
Skinker and Delmar Boulevard. Many newer dining and boutique shopping establishments
have also opened within the last few years. There is some room for new development in the
vicinity of the Delmar MetroLink Station. Otherwise, most of the corridor is fully developed
with businesses, residences and commercial operations. Parking is available in a large park
and ride lot next to the Metro Station, a large parking lot north of commercial development
on Delmar Boulevard, on a few small retail lots and on the street.
Outside of The Loop there is less commercial stability. Occupying
the area between the Delmar MetroLink Station and DeBaliviere
Avenue, the Delmar Design District is generally considered
underutilized. However, there is new commercial and office
development on the south side of Delmar between Hamilton and
Laurel intersections. Four vacant lots and four vacant buildings,
including the old Delmar High School, line this section. Many
existing businesses underutilize their properties and business
turnover is high. Anchored along this strip are the People’s
Health Clinic, Federal Social Security Building, Metro’s bus
facility, BP Gas Station, Family Dollar, and Delmar Express
Market anchor this section. Metro’s bus facility uses more than Delmar Design District
1,100 linear feet of street front on the south side of Delmar
Boulevard. Parking is predominately on street with a few small
retail lots.
The trolley corridor turns off of Delmar Boulevard at
DeBaliviere Avenue. The northern terminus of DeBaliviere is
Delmar Boulevard, with Porter Park starting at that point. The
southern terminus of DeBaliviere is Forest Park. Waterman
Avenue is roughly at the mid-point. Land use from Delmar
Boulevard to
Waterman along DeBaliviere is a mix of institutions and high-
DeBaliviere Place
density residential. A large bus garage (owned by Metro)
occupies the southwestern quadrant of the Delmar

Boulevard/ DeBaliviere Avenue intersection. Crossroads College Prep School is currently

working on an addition to their facility. The vacant hardware store parking lot is currently
used by the school. Development options are generally limited to a few small properties.
The majority of current land uses appear stable for the foreseeable future. Off-street parking
is available for nearly all properties. Street parking is not available. South of Waterman on
the west side of DeBaliviere is an underutilized strip of commercial property that does not
fit the character of the rest of the neighborhood. Across from it is Talayna’s restaurant.
The trolley corridor ends at the Missouri History Museum. A park-and-ride MetroLink
transfer station is located immediately north of Forest Park Parkway, a major east/west
arterial. The remainder of the corridor south of Forest Park Parkway is Forest Park itself,
though the trolley would be built on public right-of-way within the park. Most properties
have parking lots and street parking is only available on
side streets. The trolley route circles the Missouri History
Museum, which is a part of Forest Park. At 1,371 acres,
Forest Park is one of the largest urban parks in the
United States. In 1904, the Louisiana Purchase
Exposition, the greatest of the World’s Fairs, drew more
than 19 million visitors from around the world.
3.8.1.2 Project Viewsheds

A viewshed is a subset of a landscape unit and is
comprised of all the surface areas visible from an
observer’s viewpoint. The limits of a viewshed are defined
as the visual limits of the views located from the proposed
project. The viewshed also includes the locations of
viewers likely to be affected by visual changes brought
about by project features.
For the most part, the viewshed is tightly constrained
around Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue. The
trolley would be visible from very few vantage points not Delmar Loop
immediately on the street or from the windows facing the
street.
The exception would be around the Missouri History
Museum. From this part of Forest Park, the museum is
visible without obstruction, across the lawn/lightly treed
park. However, since the topography along most vantage
points is very flat, distances that constitute the viewsheds
are still limited.
3.8.1.3 Visual Character

Visual character is descriptive/non-evaluative
characterization of a landscape unit. The visual character associated with the project’s
landscape units can be summarized as follows:

 University City Loop – The visual character of this unit is a mix of traditional university
setting with large buildings interspersed with lawns and monuments and vibrant urban
streetscapes. The buildings at the west end are large unconnected blocks. Stone, brick
and concrete is used extensively. Many of the buildings are multi-story and used for
administrative or artistic purposes. The remainder of this area consists mostly of
continuous three-story, mostly brick structures. Spaces between the buildings are limited
to street openings. The street-level is commercial/retail. The many restaurants spill into
the street as small patios. The sidewalks are wide enough to permit pedestrian traffic.
Second and third floors are residential and commercial. Although open to vehicular
traffic, pedestrian traffic is high, as the supply of parking is exceeded by demand.
 Delmar Loop – The character of this unit is a vibrant urban streetscape. The buildings in
this area are continuous typically two or three story, mostly brick structures. Spaces
between the buildings are limited to street openings. The street-level is
commercial/retail. The many restaurants spill into the street as small patios. The
sidewalks are wide enough to permit pedestrian traffic. Second and third floors are
residential and commercial. Although open to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic is high,
as the supply of parking is exceeded by demand.
 Delmar Design District – The character of this unit is

open and more auto-oriented than the adjacent Delmar
Loop. There are numerous vacant lots between the
mostly street-front structures. This creates more
opportunities for views of the trolley from second row
users. The types of structures along Delmar Boulevard
are variable. Many single-story commercial units are
present as well as several warehouse-type buildings.
These large structures are often being reused and East Delmar
occupied by down-scale uses. Parking is plentiful.
Many uses are transitional and re-development efforts are underway.
 DeBaliviere Avenue - Although there are numerous

other uses along DeBaliviere Avenue, the character of
this unit is predominantly residential. Apartments are
first and second row uses. Second row views of
DeBaliviere Avenue are limited by intervening
buildings. Residential views along the first row are
also limited; the apartments are internally oriented,
focusing on views within the complexes. The non-
residential uses are equally internally focused.
DeBaliviere Avenue

 Missouri History Museum – The character of this unit is defined by its transition from
dense urban setting to open park space. A light rail line
(MetroLink), parking lots, roadways and bike paths
converge at the edge of Forest park, just north of the
Missouri History Museum. The park is the dominant
element of this area.
All materials, fits, and finishes are of the highest quality
and are well maintained.
3.8.1.4 Visual Quality

Lindell Boulevard
Visual quality is evaluated by identifying the vividness,
intactness and unity present in the viewshed. Vividness is the visual power or memorability
of landscape components as they combine in distinctive visual patterns. Intactness is the
visual integrity of the natural and man-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching
elements. Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape
considered as a whole. Visual quality was graded on a High, Moderate and Low basis, as
follows. Table 3.8-1 summarizes existing visual quality for landscape units within the project
study area.
 High denotes qualities of superior quality; views that would be difficult to improve.
 Moderate denotes typical qualities; improvements would require costly landscape

alterations that would mostly have only aesthetic benefits.
 Low denotes below average qualities; views that can clearly be improved by typical
landscape improvements.
TABLE 3.8-1. Existing Visual Quality

Landscape Unit Rating Justification
University City Loop High Views are interesting and of high quality
Delmar Loop Moderate/High Views are high quality, intactness is high quality, but
vividness is moderate
Delmar Design District Low Views are fragmentary; juxtaposition of views is not
generally visible due to spaces between buildings
DeBaliviere Avenue Moderate/Low Views are moderate in vividness and unity but low in
intactness
Missouri History Museum Moderate Views are well maintained but are not particularly
memorable
3.8.1.5 Predict Viewer Response

Viewer response is composed of two elements: viewer sensitivity (concern) and viewer
exposure (the degree to which viewers are exposed to a view by their location). These
elements combine to form a method of predicting how the public might react to visual
changes brought about by a transportation project.

In short, viewer response has been to see the trolley project as a benefit, both operationally
and visually. Viewers can be described as involved and concerned about any alterations to
their surroundings. Their visual exposure to the trolley is limited, and considered no greater
than other mass transit options in the area. The viewer-defined exposure seems to be most
comparable to that of the bus system.
3.8.1.6 Viewer Groups

Viewer groups are the distinct types of people affected by the visual components of a
project. A total of five viewer groups have been identified and are described below.
 Residents/Property Owners – This group is composed of people immediately

living/working within the corridor. They have the apartments along
Delmar/DeBaliviere. They own/operate the businesses. As mentioned previously,
views of the trolley from the adjacent buildings are limited. There are few balconies. In
general, the windows on the second/third floors are the same facing the corridor as not
facing the corridor. Street-side windows are designed to provide street maximum views
for commercial purposes.
 Transit Users – This group is composed of commuters moving through the area. This
primarily includes pedestrians going to the metro stations and bus stops throughout the
corridor. It also includes those transferring between modes. Ultimately, the trolley might
also be a destination for this group.
 Drivers – This group is composed of people in vehicles. Many of the people in vehicles
may also be included in some of the other groups. The views from vehicles would be
unique.
 Neighborhood Visitors – This group is composed of people coming to the

neighborhood for the services provided within the corridor. This would include post
office patrons, diners, people attending city hall events, etc. Visual aesthetics may play
an important role in drawing some of these users to the Loop.
 Trolley Users – This group is composed of the people on the trolley itself. Their views
would be decidedly different from those of the other groups.

3.8.2.1 Method of Assessing Project Effects
The visual effects of the project were determined by assessing the visual resource change
due to the project and predicting viewer response to that change. Visual impact levels are
defined as follows:
 Low - Minor adverse change to the existing visual resource, with low viewer response to
change in the visual environment. May or may not require mitigation.
 Moderate - Moderate adverse change to the visual resource with moderate viewer
response. Impact can be mitigated within five years using conventional practices.
 Moderately High - Moderate adverse visual resource change with high viewer response
or high adverse visual resource change with moderate viewer response. Extraordinary

mitigation practices may be required. Landscape treatment required will generally take
longer than five years to mitigate.
 High - A high level of adverse change to the resource or a high level of viewer response
to visual change such that architectural design and landscape treatment cannot mitigate
the impacts. Viewer response level is high. An alternative project design may be
required to avoid highly adverse impacts.
3.8.2.2 Analysis of Key Views

Three key views have been analyzed for potential visual impacts. Photographs of these
views are provided below, and the analysis of impacts to these views is provided in
Table 3.8-2.
View 1: The View of an Approaching Trolley from the Missouri History Museum

View 2: The View from the Vineland Avenue Pocket Park (Kingsland and Delmar)
View 3: Aerial View in University City

TABLE 3.8-2. Analysis of Impacts to Key Views

View 1 View 2 View 3
Proposed Project Trolley cars Trolley cars Trolley cars

Features within the Overhead contact system
view
Visual Impact Low Moderate Moderate
Justification No substantial new OCS would reduce the quality Project would improve
infrastructure in the of the view; but this can be vividness of the view and
view mitigate through utilizing result in a moderate positive
attractive materials impact
3.8.2.3 Summary of Effects to Visual Resources

The No-Build Alternative would not result in an effect to visual resources in the project
study area.
Build Alternative
Direct Effects
The Build Alternative would not be out of proportion with the cars and trucks that already
use the roadways within the trolley corridor. It would not obstruct existing views. Trolleys
have been an historic part of life in urban St. Louis. The overall impact on visual quality is
expected to be positive.
There are two components of the proposed project that may result in impacts to the visual
quality of the landscape units in the project study area. The first is the overhead contact
system; this has the potential to degrade the quality of
Summary of effects to visual
views in the area. However, depending upon design and
resources:
material, the overhead wire system elements can be
Some views may be degraded by
attractive, and this impact can be mitigated. The OCS would
use of overhead wires, but this
not be a traditional 3-wire catenary system. Rather, it would can be mitigated by the project
be a single-wire suspension system to minimize the visual design and through use of
impact. visually attractive material.
The visual
impact
would be less intrusive than most
overhead utility lines (see photo). The
second component with the potential for
visual impacts is the installation of
electrical substations along the alignment.
However, these could be mitigated by
installing substations in existing publicly-
owned structures.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

It is not expected that the trolley project would have an indirect or cumulative effect when
combined with all existing and all reasonably foreseeable transportation projects within the
project corridor.
3.8.3 Visual Mitigation

An environmental commitment specifically targeted at visual resources is not required for
this project. However, decision-making for the trolley system should be mindful of the
aesthetic impact of the elements that are visible to the public. Potential visual impacts due to
the installation of electrical substations may be reduced by housing substations in existing
structures along the proposed route or in separate buildings about the size of a small garage.
Materials selection and design for the OCS components would minimize the negative
impact of the installed OCS system for the trolley. Additionally, standard practices utilizing
directional lighting would help to minimize any lighting impacts to adjacent residences.
Directional lighting is focused on the specific area that should be lit and minimizes spillover
into adjacent areas.
3.9 Cultural Resources

This section addresses potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to cultural resources
from the Build and No-Build Alternatives. The cultural resource assessment included an
archival review, field reconnaissance in the project area, coordination with the Missouri
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and completion of the Archival Search and
Architectural Survey for the St. Louis Loop Trolley. The Archival Search and Architectural Survey
for the St. Louis Loop Trolley meets state and federal requirements for compliance with
historic preservation laws and guidelines, including Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and Executive Order 11593. The Archival Search and Architectural
Survey for the St. Louis Loop Trolley and correspondence from the Missouri SHPO regarding
consultation on this project are included in Appendix 3.3.

The following sections describe historic districts in the project study area, or Area of
Potential Effect (APE) as well as the five individual sites that are currently listed on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). There are also several historic sites within the
area that are recommended for inclusion on the NRHP. These are listed below in Table 3.9-2.
3.9.1.1 National Register Historic Districts

University Heights Subdivision Number One Historic District
The University Heights Subdivision Number One Historic District is located at the western
terminus of the trolley route, adjacent to the triangular loop along Trinity Avenue. Many of
the buildings are considered of local, state, and/or national historic significance. Several of
these are located along the route. The subdivision was founded in 1905 with the purchase
and development of 85 acres of land by Edgar Gardner Lewis, a prominent magazine
publisher of the time. In 1902, Lewis purchased the property to expand his publishing
business. He built a new publishing house (now City Hall located in the University City
Plaza) and a home for himself. A few years later, he began developing the rest of the land as
a subdivision for the middle to upper-class. His residential plans, designed by Julius

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Pitzman, are easily distinguished from the surrounding area by their curvilinear streets. The
subdivision consists of 258 houses and three other buildings of historic significance. The
character of the subdivision has been well preserved and as of 1977 all but one of the
original buildings remain intact.
City Hall Plaza Historic District

The City Hall Plaza Historic District is located around the triangular loop formed by Trinity
Avenue and Delmar Boulevard and is made up of the City Hall (historically the Women’s
Magazine building), the police station and firehouse (historically the magazine press
building), the Ward Building (historically the Art Institute of the People’s University) and
the Lion Gates entrance pylons. These structures were the conception of Edgar G. Lewis. In
1910, the first convention of the American Woman’s League was held at the publishing
building. Later in the same year, Lewis’ publishing company went bankrupt and the
Woman’s League disbanded. The buildings were vacant for twenty years. In 1930,
University City began using the area as the government seat, converting the old publishing
building into the present day City Hall.
Delmar Loop-Parkview Gardens Historic District

Also known as North Parkview, the Delmar Loop-Parkview Historic District is located a few
blocks east of the western terminus of the trolley route. Commercial properties and
apartment buildings line Delmar Boulevard while residential units extend northward. This
is another subdivision designed by Julius Pitzman featuring curvilinear streets and limited
access points that help maintain the private nature of the communities. The residential units
in this subdivision are high-density units ranging from single-family to six-family buildings.
From the early 1900s to the 1930s, the Delmar Loop-Parkview Gardens were largely Jewish
neighborhoods and are now locally recognized as an area of Jewish heritage.
Hamilton Place Historic District

Hamilton Place Historic District is located on the north side of Delmar Boulevard between
the MetroLink rail line on the west, Hamilton Boulevard on the east and Cabanne Place on
the north. Of the 173 structures in the historic district, 160 of them are contributing. This
residential area was developed from the late 1800s through the mid-1900s. Contributing
buildings within the district boundaries were built between 1888 and 1937 and are related
through the use of similar materials and quality of construction, scale, set-back and
architectural styles. Virtually all of the properties are residential and the district is
substantially intact from the period of significance. This area experienced rapid
development in the decade of the World’s Fair (1904) held at the nearby Forest Park.
3.9.1.2 Locally Certified Historic Districts

Skinker-DeBaliviere/Catlin Tract/Parkview Historic District
The Skinker-DeBaliviere/Catlin Tract/Parkview Historic District is bounded by Delmar
Boulevard, DeBaliviere Avenue, Lindell Boulevard and Skinker Avenue. It was approved as
a City Historic District in 1978. This area was developed in the early 1900s after the World’s
Fair, later than surrounding neighborhoods. The River des Peres was straightened in the
1910s to facilitate residential construction, but periodic flooding prevented complete
development. In the 1930s, the river was channelized and placed in an underground conduit
allowing the subdivision to fully develop (River des Peres Watershed Coalition, 2010). The
area is characterized by a mixture of single-family units to multi-story apartment buildings.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
The properties lining Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere are typically light commercial
buildings. The Catlin Tract has its own ordinances and design standards to maintain the
historic integrity of the area.
Central West End Historic District

The Central West End Historic District is at the eastern end of the project corridor, east of
DeBaliviere Boulevard between Delmar Boulevard and Forest Park. This subdivision began
development in the 1890s. The Central West End is primarily a residential area with an
intermittent mixture of commercial, industrial and institutional uses. With the exception of
large single-family homes on private streets and along the main boulevards, the residential
buildings are principally apartments, flats, and rooming houses.
3.9.1.3 Individual Properties on the NRHP and Eligible to be listed on the NRHP
There are five existing properties within the project study area that are currently listed on
the NRHP. In addition, there are twenty-four properties and two landscaped areas within
the APE that are eligible to be listed on the NRHP. These properties are listed in Table 3.9-1.
TABLE 3.9-1. Summary of Cultural Resources Determinations of Effect

Section 106
Determination of
Name/Description Location NRHP Criteria* Effect
Individual Properties
Assumption Greek Orthodox Church 6900 Delmar Blvd Criterion C, No Adverse

Architecture Effect
B’Nai Amoona Synagogue 524 Trinity Ave Criterion C, No Adverse

Architecture Effect
Donaldson Court Apartments 601-615 Westgate Criterion C, No Adverse

Architecture Effect
A & P Food Stores Building 6014-6018 (5010-6016) Criteria A & C, No Adverse

Delmar Blvd. Commerce & Effect
Architecture
Roberts Chevrolet (Delmar School) 5875-91 Delmar Blvd. Criteria A & C, No Adverse
Commerce & Effect
Architecture
Historic Districts
University Heights Subdivision NRHP Designated Criteria A (community No Adverse

Number One Historic District planning) & C Effect
(architecture)
City Hall Plaza Historic District NRHP Designated Criteria A (art, No Adverse
commerce, Effect
communication,
education, politics,
and associations with
social sciences and
humanities) & C
(architecture)

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Section 106
Determination of
Delmar Loop-Parkview Gardens NRHP Designated Criteria A (social No Adverse

Historic District history), & C Effect
(architecture and
community planning)
Hamilton Place Historic District NRHP Designated Criteria A (community No Adverse

planning and Effect
development), & C
(architecture)
Parkview Historic District NRHP Designated Criteria A (community No Adverse

planning and Effect
landscape
architecture), & C
(architecture)
Skinker-DeBaliviere/Catlin Locally Certified Criterion C No Adverse

Tract/Parkview Historic District (architecture) Effect
University City Civic Complex Historic Locally Certified Criterion C No Adverse

District (architecture) Effect
Central West End Historic District Locally Certified N/A No Adverse

Effect
Properties Eligible for the NRHP
Jefferson Memorial Building/Missouri 5700 Lindell Blvd Criteria A (social No Adverse

History Museum history) & C Effect
(architecture)
DeBaliviere Power House 5700 Delmar Boulevard Criteria A No Adverse

(transportation) & C Effect
(architecture)
One-part commercial block building 5917 Delmar Boulevard Criterion C No Adverse

(architecture) Effect
Two-part commercial block building 6640-6648 Delmar Criterion C No Adverse

Boulevard (architecture) Effect
Delmar-DeBaliviere Building 5654 Delmar Blvd (566- Criterion C No Adverse

586 DeBaliviere) (architecture) Effect
Pulaski Bank 415 DeBaliviere (5706- Criterion C No Adverse

5722 McPherson) (architecture) Effect

Two-part commercial block building 5874 Delmar Boulevard Criterion C No Adverse


Delmar Boulevard Station 6005 Delmar Boulevard Criteria A No Adverse

(transportation) & C Effect
(architecture)

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Section 106
Determination of



Enframed block building 6136 Delmar Boulevard Criterion C No Adverse




One-part commercial block building 6183-6187 Delmar Criterion C No Adverse



Two-part commercial block building 6687-6693 Delmar Criteria A (community No Adverse

Boulevard planning) & C Effect
(architecture)
U.S. Post Office, University City 561 Kingsland Criteria A No Adverse

Branch (government and Effect
community planning)
& C (architecture)
Castlereagh Apartments 6820 Delmar Boulevard Criterion C No Adverse

Shaare Emeth – 560 Music Center 560 Trinity Avenue Criterion C No Adverse
Landscapes Eligible for the NRHP
Harriet Woods Civic Plaza Adjacent to University City Criterion A (civic and No Adverse
City Hall community planning) Effect
Landscape area next to Harriet Adjacent to University City Criterion A (civic and No Adverse
Woods Civic Plaza City Hall community planning) Effect
Total Numbers of Historic Resources in APE
Individual Properties on the NRHP or Eligible for the NRHP 29
Landscapes Eligible for the NRHP 2
Historic Districts 8

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Section 106
Determination of
Total Number of Historic Resources in APE 39
*NRHP eligibility criteria are defined as follows: A) “Event” – the property must make a broad contribution to the
patterns of American history. C) “Design/Construction” – the property must include distinctive characteristics
through its architecture or construction that have high artistic value or are the work of a master. (NRHP, 2007)
Source: Archival Search and Architectural Survey for the St. Louis Loop Trolley (ARC, 2010).
Figure 3.9-1 depicts both individual properties and historic districts within the project study
area.

There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to cultural resources resulting from
the No-Build Alternative.
3.9.2.2 Build Alternative Summary of effects to cultural

Direct Effects resources:
The Build Alternative would result in the The Build Alternative would not result
rehabilitation of a historic property at 5875-5893 in any adverse effects to historic
districts or historic properties in the
Delmar Blvd (Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High
project area.
School). However, important features identified on
the National Register nomination form that were
believed to be original to the 1947 remodel of the
building would be preserved. These features included architectural details, such as the
exterior façade and windows, that were significant in the style of the original architect,
Preston J. Bradshaw. SHPO concurred on December 9, 2010 that there would be no adverse
effect to this building, provided that the rehabilitation of the building follows the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation, and that the SHPO is given the
opportunity to review the plans for construction at the 15%, 35%, and 80% stages of
completion. Redevelopment plans for this facility would comply with this requirement. See
Appendix 3.3 for the concurrence letter from SHPO and respective cultural resource
documentation.
The Build Alternative would not result in any noise, air quality, traffic, right-of-way, or
other impacts to either National Register or Locally Certified historic districts in the project
area. Additionally, there would be no displacements of properties within any of the historic
districts. Therefore, there would be no adverse effects to cultural resources resulting from
the Build Alternative. Table 3.9-1 summarizes the Section 106 determinations of effect for
historic districts and individual properties on the NRHP. More detail on this analysis is
available in the Archival Search and Architectural Survey for the St. Louis Loop Trolley (see
Appendix 3.3). The SHPO concurred on December 9, 2010 with the determination that there
would be no adverse effect any eligible or listed property located within the APE.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Build Alternative would likely promote redevelopment in the project study area.
However, because the area already contains several historic designations, any new
construction or rehabilitation of existing buildings would need to conform to strict
guidelines that are intended to retain the historic character of the area. Therefore, any
redevelopment in the area would not be expected to impact historic properties or historic
districts, there are no indirect or cumulative impacts to cultural resources that would result
from the Build Alternative

CULTURAL RESOURCES
FIGURE 3.9-1. Cultural Resource Map

NOISE AND VIBRATION
Because the Build Alternative would not result in any effects to cultural resources, no
mitigation measures are needed.
3.9.3 Mitigation
Although the SHPO concurred with the determination that there would be no adverse effect
on the building at 5875-93 Delmar Boulevard (Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School) from
construction of the maintenance facility, the following measures are required to satisfy their
no adverse effect determination:
 Conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for
Rehabilitation
 Provision of design plans at the 15%, 35%, and 80% stages of completion for SHPO
review and approval
Mitigation for any temporary effects to cultural resources would be addressed through
completion of a construction mitigation plan, which would be developed during the design
phase of the project and implemented during construction. The construction mitigation plan
would include, but would not be limited to measures to address temporary impacts to air
quality, noise, vibration, erosion/sediment runoff, safety, and access.
3.10 Noise and Vibration

This section addresses potential noise effects that may result from construction of the Loop
Trolley Project. It begins by defining key terms used in the noise analysis, then describes the
existing noise-sensitive locations in the project area and existing noise levels.
3.10.1 Noise Terminology

Noise is typically defined as unwanted or undesirable sound, where sound is characterized
by small air pressure fluctuations above and below the atmospheric pressure. The basic
parameters of environmental noise that affect human subjective response are (1) intensity or
level, (2) frequency content, and (3) variation with time. The first parameter is determined
by how greatly the sound pressure fluctuates above and below the atmospheric pressure,
and is expressed on a compressed scale in units of decibels. By using this scale, the range of
normally encountered sound can be expressed by values between zero and 120 decibels. On
a relative basis, a three-decibel change in sound level generally represents a barely-
noticeable change outside the laboratory, whereas a 10-decibel change in sound level would
typically be perceived as a doubling (or halving) in the loudness of a sound.
The frequency content of noise is related to the tone or pitch of the sound, and is expressed
based on the rate of the air pressure fluctuation in terms of cycles per second (called Hertz
and abbreviated as Hz). The human ear can detect a wide range of frequencies from about
20 Hz to 17,000 Hz. However, because the sensitivity of human hearing varies with
frequency, the A-weighting system is commonly used when measuring environmental noise
to provide a single number descriptor that correlates with human subjective response.
Sound levels measured using this weighting system are called “A-weighted” sound levels,
and are expressed in decibel notation as “dBA.” The A-weighted sound level is widely
accepted by acousticians as a proper unit for describing environmental noise. To indicate

NOISE AND VIBRATION
what various noise levels represent, Figure 3.10-1 shows some typical A-weighted sound
levels for both transit and non-transit sources. As indicated in this figure, most commonly
encountered outdoor noise sources generate sound levels within the range of 60 dBA to
90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.
Because environmental noise fluctuates from moment to moment, it is common practice to
condense all of this information into a single number, called the “equivalent” sound level
(Leq). Leq can be thought of as the steady sound level that represents the same sound
energy as the varying sound levels over a specified time period (typically one hour or 24
hours). Often the Leq values over a 24-hour period are used to calculate cumulative noise
exposure in terms of the day-night sound level (Ldn). Ldn is the A-weighed Leq for a 24-
hour period with an added 10-decibel penalty imposed on noise that occurs during the
nighttime hours (between 10 P.M. and 7 A.M.). Many surveys have shown that Ldn is well
correlated with human annoyance, and therefore this descriptor is widely used for
environmental noise impact assessment. Figure 3.10-2 provides examples of typical noise
environments and criteria in terms of Ldn. While the extremes of Ldn are shown to range
from 35 dBA in a wilderness environment to 85 dBA in noisy urban environments, Ldn is
generally found to range between 55 dBA and 75 dBA in most communities. As shown in
Figure 3.10-1, this spans the range between an ideal residential environment and the
threshold for an unacceptable residential environment according to U.S. federal agency
criteria.
FIGURE 3.10-1. Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels

NOISE AND VIBRATION
FIGURE 3.10-2. Examples of Typical Outdoor Noise Exposure

An overview of the noise-sensitive land use and existing noise conditions along the trolley
route is provided below for each corridor section. Details of the existing noise measurements
are available in the Loop Trolley Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum. Figure 3.10-3
depicts the locations of noise receptors utilized for this analysis. The vibration-sensitive
receptors along the Loop Trolley route are essentially the same as the noise-sensitive
receptors except that parks are not considered to be vibration sensitive. There are no
substantial existing sources of vibration along the proposed project corridor. Since FTA
vibration criteria are not based on existing levels, as the noise criteria are, no existing
vibration measurements were conducted.
Delmar Boulevard: Trinity Avenue – Kingsland Avenue

Noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the proposed north end-of-the-line trolley loop at
Trinity Avenue include the University City City Hall, Church of Scientology, Epworth
Youth Center, Washington University Music Center and University Methodist Church, all
housed within major building structures. Further to the east along Delmar Boulevard,
sensitive receptors include a six-story apartment building and a park (Epstein Plaza) on the
south side of the alignment and the University City Public Library on the north side of the
alignment. The existing noise levels in this area are dominated by motor vehicle traffic on
Delmar Boulevard.

NOISE AND VIBRATION
FIGURE 3.10-3. Noise Receptor Locations

NOISE AND VIBRATION
Delmar Boulevard: Kingsland Avenue – Melville Avenue

This section of the corridor is at the west end of the Delmar Loop district and the land uses
in this area are primarily commercial. Noise-sensitive receptors are limited to one seven-
story apartment building (University Square) at Leland Avenue and upper-floor residences
in a four-story building at Kingsland Avenue, both on the north side of the alignment. The
existing noise levels at these locations are dominated by motor vehicle traffic on Delmar
Boulevard.
Delmar Boulevard: Melville Avenue – Skinker Boulevard

This section of the corridor is at the heart of the Delmar Loop district and includes a mix of
commercial and residential land uses. Many of the buildings along this section have
commercial establishments on the first floor and residences on the second and third floors;
there are also two three-story apartment buildings in this area. The only other potentially
noise-sensitive receptor along this corridor section is the Tivoli Theater, located on the south
side of Delmar Boulevard. The existing noise levels at these locations are dominated by
motor vehicle traffic on Delmar Boulevard.
Delmar Boulevard: Skinker Boulevard – Des Peres Avenue

This section of the corridor is at the east end of the Delmar Loop district and includes a mix
of land uses. Noise-sensitive receptors on the south side of the alignment include a three-
story apartment building as well as the site of the future African American Cultural Center.
On the north side of the alignment, potentially noise-sensitive receptors include the seven-
story Moonrise Hotel and the Pageant Theater. The existing noise levels at these locations
are dominated by motor vehicle traffic on Delmar Boulevard.
Delmar Boulevard: Des Peres Avenue – Hamilton Avenue

This section of Delmar Boulevard is primarily commercial, and noise-sensitive land uses are
limited to a day care center (Sunshine Academy Infant and Toddler Center) and a church
(Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witness). The existing noise levels at these locations are
dominated by motor vehicle traffic on Delmar Boulevard.
Delmar Boulevard: Hamilton Avenue – DeBaliviere Avenue

This section of the corridor is primarily commercial and industrial. Noise-sensitive receptors
along Delmar Boulevard are limited to a building with second and third floor residences
near Hamilton Avenue on the south side of the alignment and some medical offices and a
park (Porter Park) near DeBaliviere Avenue on the north side of the alignment. The existing
noise levels at these locations are dominated by motor vehicle traffic on Delmar Boulevard.
Enright Avenue: Hamilton Avenue – Goodfellow Boulevard

There are a number of noise-sensitive receptors along Enright Avenue, to the north of
Delmar Boulevard between Hamilton Avenue and Goodfellow Boulevard, that may be
affected by noise from the proposed trolley maintenance facility. These include a seven-
story apartment building near Hamilton Avenue, the Christ Deliverance Ministry Church
near Goodfellow Boulevard and a number of single-family and duplex residences in
between. Because these locations are further removed and partially shielded from traffic on
Delmar Boulevard, the existing noise levels at these locations are lower than those along the
trolley route itself.

NOISE AND VIBRATION
DeBaliviere Avenue: Delmar Boulevard – Waterman Boulevard

This section of the corridor includes a mix of commercial, residential and institutional land
uses. Residential land uses include a building at the southeast corner of Delmar Boulevard
and DeBaliviere Avenue with second and third floor residences, three-story to six-story
condominiums on the east side of the alignment between Kingsbury Avenue and Waterman
Boulevard as well as six-story to eight-story apartment buildings on the west side of the
alignment. Other noise-sensitive receptors along this section of the corridor include the
Crossroads College Prep School and the Pattison Mission Baptist Church. The existing noise
levels at these locations are dominated by motor vehicle traffic on DeBaliviere Avenue.
DeBaliviere Avenue: Waterman Boulevard – Forest Park Parkway

This section of the corridor is entirely commercial with no noise-sensitive land use, and the
existing noise levels are dominated by motor vehicle traffic on DeBaliviere Avenue.
DeBaliviere Avenue: Forest Park Parkway – Forest Park

Noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the proposed south end-of-the-line trolley loop
include single-family residences north of Lindell Boulevard on the east and west sides of
DeBaliviere Avenue and the Missouri History Museum located inside the proposed trolley
loop. The existing noise levels at these locations are dominated by motor vehicle traffic on
DeBaliviere Avenue, Lindell Boulevard and the museum loop road.
Summary
The results of the existing noise measurements indicate Ldn values in the range of 62-69
dBA along the project corridor, typical of an urban area. One-hour Leq values were
measured to be in the range of 57-65 dBA at specific noise-sensitive sites along the trolley
route. These results, obtained at representative measurement locations, were used to
characterize the existing noise environment at all noise-sensitive locations along the project
corridor and considered all categories relevant to the project area land uses as well as the
maximum operating hours (7am to 1am).
3.10.3 Noise Evaluation Methodology

Noise impacts for the Loop Trolley Project are based on the criteria as defined in the FTA
guidance manual “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (Report FTA-VA-90-
1003-06, May 2006). The FTA noise impact criteria are founded on well-documented
research on community reaction to noise and are based on change in noise exposure using a
sliding scale. Although higher levels of transit noise are allowed in neighborhoods with high
levels of existing noise, smaller increases in total noise exposure are allowed with increasing
levels of existing noise.
The FTA Noise Impact Criteria group noise sensitive land uses into the following three
categories:
 Category 1: Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose.
This category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land uses as
outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks
with substantial outdoor use. Also included are recording studios and concert halls.

NOISE AND VIBRATION
 Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category
includes homes, hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of
utmost importance.
 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This
category includes schools, libraries, theaters and churches where it is important to avoid
interference with such activities as speech, meditation and concentration on reading
material. Places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments,
museums, campgrounds and recreational facilities can also be considered to be in this
category. Certain historical sites and parks are also included.
Ldn is used to characterize noise exposure for residential areas (Category 2). For other noise
sensitive land uses, such as parks and school buildings (Categories 1 and 3), the maximum
1-hour Leq during the facility’s operating period is used.
There are two levels of impact included in the FTA criteria. The interpretation of these two
levels of impact is summarized below:
 Severe Impact: Project-generated noise in the severe impact range can be expected to
cause a substantial percentage of people to be highly annoyed by the new noise and
represents the most compelling need for mitigation. Noise mitigation would normally be
specified for severe impact areas unless there are truly extenuating circumstances that
prevent it.
 Moderate Impact: In this range of noise impact, the change in the cumulative noise level
is noticeable to most people but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions
from the community. In this transitional area, other project-specific factors must be
considered to determine the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation. These
factors include the existing noise level, the predicted level of increase over existing noise
levels, the types and numbers of noise-sensitive land uses affected, the noise sensitivity
of the properties, the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, community views and the
cost of mitigating noise to more acceptable levels.
3.10.4 Vibration Evaluation Methodology

The potential vibration impact from Loop Trolley operation was assessed on an absolute
basis using the FTA criteria for general assessments. Except for two parks, the same
representative sensitive receptors identified for the noise analysis were considered for the
vibration impact assessment. The following factors were used in determining potential
vibration impacts along the project corridor:
 Vibration impacts are based on the FTA criteria for frequent events (>70 trains per day).
 Ground-borne vibration from trolley operations was projected based on the generalized
ground surface vibration curves that are included in the FTA guidance manual. It is
assumed that the proposed replica heritage vehicles have vibration source characteristics
similar to light rail vehicles.
 The projections assume a maximum trolley operating speed of 25 mph at all locations.
This is a conservative assumption as the average operating speeds are expected to be in
the range of 10-15 mph.

NOISE AND VIBRATION
 Wheel impacts at turnouts are assumed to cause localized vibration increases of 10 VdB
at locations within 200 feet of the turnouts and vibration increases of 5 VdB at locations
200 to 300 feet from the turnouts.
 The vibration projections assume ground-to-building coupling losses of 5-10 VdB, floor-
to-floor attenuation values of 0-2 VdB, and a resonance amplification of 6 VdB based on
building construction type using FTA guidance.
 A conversion factor of -50 dB was applied to the vibration projections to predict the A-
weighted ground-borne noise level based on FTA guidance for surface track systems.

There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on noise or vibration resulting from the
3.10.5.2 Direct Noise Impacts

Table 3.10-1 summarizes the potential noise impacts for the Build Alternative at residential
and institutional land uses along the Loop Trolley corridor without mitigation. In this table,
noise impacts are categorized as either severe or moderate based on the FTA criteria. The
results indicate that there is the potential for moderate noise impact at eight residential units
at the Alanson Apartments. This receptor is located at the intersection of Delmar Boulevard
and Hamilton Avenue and the projected impact at these locations is due to the increased
noise from a track turnout into the proposed maintenance facility near this location. Because
these impacts are categorized as moderate, noise mitigation warrants are not met.

NOISE AND VIBRATION
TABLE 3.10-1. Summary of Noise Impact Assessment for Loop Trolley Operations without Mitigation
Ldn (for Cat. 2) or 1-Hr. Leq (for Cat. 1 &3) [dBA]
Land Side Distance Noise Criteria # of Impacts

Use of to Near Exist. Trolley Future Noise
Receiver Location Cat. Track Track (ft) Noise Mod. Sev. Noise Noise Incr. Mod. Sev.
University City Hall Delmar Blvd. & Trinity Av. 3 North 35 65 66 71 54 65 0 0 0
Wash. U. Music Center Delmar Blvd. & Trinity Av. 3 South 130 59 62 68 49 60 1 0 0
Apartment Bldg. Delmar (Trinity-Kingsland) 2 South 70 67 62 68 55 67 0 0 0
Univ. City Pub. Library Delmar Blvd. @ Kingsland 3 North 45 65 66 71 54 65 0 0 0
Epstein Plaza (Park) Delmar Blvd. @ Kingsland 3 South 25 65 66 71 56 66 1 0 0
Upper Fl. Residences Delmar Blvd. @ Kingsland 2 North 15 67 62 68 60 68 1 0 0
University Sq. Apts. Delmar @ Washington 2 North 15 67 62 68 61 68 1 0 0
Future Condominiums Delmar Blvd. @ Westgate 2 North 15 67 62 68 61 68 1 0 0
Upper Fl. Residences Delmar Blvd. @ Westgate 2 South 35 67 62 68 58 68 1 0 0
Tivoli Theater Delmar (E. of Westgate) 1 South 40 65 61 66 54 65 0 0 0
Upper Fl. Residences Delmar (E. of Westgate) 2 North 20 67 62 68 60 68 1 0 0
Upper Fl. Residences Delmar (Westgate-Skinker) 2 North 25 67 62 68 59 68 1 0 0
Residential Apartments Delmar (Westgate-Skinker) 2 North 20 67 62 68 60 68 1 0 0
Upper Fl. Residences Delmar (Westgate-Skinker) 2 South 35 67 62 68 57 68 1 0 0
Upper Fl. Residences Delmar (W. of Skinker) 2 North 15 67 62 68 60 68 1 0 0
N.C. Brilliante Church Delmar Blvd. @ Skinker 3 South 170 59 62 68 49 59 0 0 0
Moonrise Hotel Delmar (E. of Skinker) 2 North 20 65 60 65 57 66 1 0 0
Afr. Am. Cultural Ctr. Delmar (Skinker-Rosedale) 3 South 40 65 66 71 54 65 0 0 0
Pageant Theater Delmar (Skinker-Rosedale) 1 North 25 65 61 66 56 66 1 0 0
Albert Hall Apartments Delmar (Skinker-Rosedale) 2 South 50 67 62 68 56 67 0 0 0
Single-Family Res. Washington @ Des Peres 2 South 220 57 56 62 54 59 2 0 0

NOISE AND VIBRATION
TABLE 3.10-1. Summary of Noise Impact Assessment for Loop Trolley Operations without Mitigation
Ldn (for Cat. 2) or 1-Hr. Leq (for Cat. 1 &3) [dBA]
Land Side Distance Noise Criteria # of Impacts

Use of to Near Exist. Trolley Future Noise
Receiver Location Cat. Track Track (ft) Noise Mod. Sev. Noise Noise Incr. Mod. Sev.
Sunshine Academy Delmar @ Degiverville 3 North 40 65 66 71 55 65 0 0 0
Jehovah’s Witness Delmar (E. of Degiverville) 3 South 50 65 66 71 54 65 0 0 0
Future Mixed Use Dev. Delmar Blvd. @ Hamilton 2 North 55 67 62 68 63 68 1 1-Bldg. 0
The Alanson Apts. Delmar Blvd. @ Hamilton 2 South 55 67 62 68 63 68 1 8-Res. 0
People’s Health Ctrs. Delmar (E. of Goodfellow) 3 North 45 64 65 71 61 66 2 0 0
Upper Fl. Residences DeBaliviere & Delmar 2 East 35 69 64 69 59 69 0 0 0
Pattison M.B. Church DeBaliviere (S. of Delmar) 3 West 50 62 64 70 54 63 1 0 0
Crossroads School DeBaliviere (S. of Delmar) 3 East 55 62 64 70 54 63 1 0 0
Winter Garden Apts. DeBaliviere @ Kingsbury 2 West 30 69 64 69 59 69 0 0 0
Residential Apartments DeBaliviere @ Kingsbury 2 West 40 69 64 69 58 69 0 0 0
Condominiums DeBaliviere @ Kingsbury 2 East 45 69 64 69 57 69 0 0 0
Condominiums/Apts. DeBaliviere & Waterman 2 East 45 69 64 69 57 69 0 0 0
Single-Family Res. LIndell (W. of DeBaliviere) 2 West 190 62 59 65 51 62 0 0 0
Single-Family Res. LIndell (E. of DeBaliviere) 2 East 180 62 59 65 51 62 0 0 0
Missouri Hist. Museum DeBaliviere (S. of Lindell) 3 Cntr. 50 58 62 67 52 59 1 0 0

NOISE AND VIBRATION
Although difficult to predict and quantify, there is also the potential for noise impact from
trolley wheel squeal in curved track areas. These areas include the north and south end
loops, the curve between Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue and the maintenance
facility curves.
Maintenance Facility Noise Impact Assessment

There is also a potential noise impact at two receptors from trolley operations along Delmar
Boulevard related to a turnout for a maintenance facility site near Hamilton Avenue. In
addition to this effect, the potential for noise impact from activity at the Hamilton Avenue
site as well as at another potential site near Goodfellow Boulevard was also evaluated using
the FTA General Noise Assessment procedures. The results of this assessment indicated the
potential for noise impact from activities at the latter site at the Christ Deliverance Ministry
Church, located adjacent to the site along Goodfellow Boulevard. The existing one-hour Leq
at the church was measured to be 57 dBA, resulting in project noise impact criteria of 61
dBA for Moderate Impact and 67 dBA for Severe Impact. Based on a predicted Leq of 65
dBA from the maintenance facility, there is the potential for moderate noise impact at the
church, assuming that facility activities coincide with periods when the church is in use.
The maintenance facility option at 5875-5893 Delmar (Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High
School) would not result in an impact of adjacent residential properties, because the
combination of existing retaining wall and floor elevation adjustments on the maintenance
facility site would combine to minimize the noise heard by adjacent residents. The
maintenance facility would be approximately 80 feet from the nearest adjacent residence.
Figure 3.10-4 depicts a diagram of this building. The dimension “x” represents the elevation
difference between track height and alley height. While that dimension is not yet precisely
defined yet, it would be between five feet and seven feet. This elevation change would be
supported by a retaining wall as depicted in Figure 3.10-4.
3.10.5.3 Direct Vibration Impacts

The results of the vibration impact assessment indicate that there is the potential for
vibration impact at one receptor, the People’s Health Center Building, located on the north
side of Delmar Boulevard between Goodfellow Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue. The
projected impact at this building is due to the increased vibration from track turnouts for a
proposed siding near this location. Locations of potential direct noise or vibration impacts
are shown on Figure 3.10-5.
3.10.5.4 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

There would be no significant indirect or cumulative effects to noise or vibration within the
project study area. Redevelopment within the project study area could lead to an overall
increase in noise levels, but such an increase would not be considered significant.

Construction activities associated with constructing the Loop Trolley would generally be
contained within the project boundary and adjacent right-of-way.

NOISE AND VIBRATION
FIGURE 3.10-4. Diagram of Maintenance Facility and Retaining Wall
Construction would include rehabilitation of the maintenance facility building, installation

of tracks and OCS wire along Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue, and installation
of station platforms and associated facilities. Any noise impacts would be temporary and
would not be considered significant.

During design, TDD would re-evaluate potential noise/vibration impacts to nearby
residential units (Alanson Apartments) and the People’s Health Center and any single
family house abutting the maintenance facility. TDD would consider the location of turnout
or using flange-bearing frogs (connecting joints) and other design features to minimize noise
and vibration impacts to the maximum extent possible. Mitigation for potential noise
impacts from curve squeal would be accomplished through utilization of standard
maintenance practices and the application of rail lubrication systems.

NOISE AND VIBRATION
FIGURE 3.10-5. Locations of Potential Noise and Vibration Impacts

AIR QUALITY
Mitigation for potential noise impacts from curve squeal can be accomplished through
utilization of standard maintenance practices and the application of rail lubrication systems.
Standard maintenance practices for the track include lubricating the curves approximately
once per week. Over time, the application of this lubricant leads to a substantial decrease in
curve squeal. Mitigation measures for lighting impacts at the maintenance facility are
discussed in section 3.8.3.Options for mitigating the vibration impact to the People’s Health
Center Building include (1) relocating the turnouts away from the building or (2) using
flange-bearing frogs in place of standard frogs for the turnouts to minimize wheel impacts.
Mitigation for potential noise impacts during construction would be addressed during the
design phase of the project and implemented during the construction phase. During design,
the TDD would develop and submit the construction mitigation plan to FTA for review and
comment. The construction mitigation plan would include, but would not be limited to
measures to address temporary impacts to air quality, noise, vibration, erosion/sediment
runoff, safety, and access.
following:
3.11 Air Quality

Over the past ten years, air quality in the St. Louis area has steadily improved due in large
part to the implementation of the following control programs: the installation of gasoline
vapor recovery systems at service stations in Missouri; additional controls on industry;
centralized inspection of car emissions; the use of cleaner fuels throughout the region; and a
range of transportation control measures (i.e., traffic flow improvement projects, intelligent
transportation system and regional ridesharing program).
3.11.1 Air Quality Regulations

In addition to NEPA, the following laws govern air quality standards in the project study
area.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The EPA is responsible for the establishment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), national guidance, and guidelines for the uniform and scientifically reliable study
of air pollutants. Missouri is subject to air quality regulations issued by EPA. EPA’s NAAQS
set limits on concentration levels of criteria pollutants. Concentration levels of the criteria
pollutants must not exceed the NAAQS over specified time periods. Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) monitors air quality throughout the state to compare the levels of
criteria pollutants found in the atmosphere with the NAAQS. One of the following three
EPA designations indicates compliance with the NAAQS for specific areas and specific
pollutants:
 Attainment areas are those with measured concentrations that, in general, are below the
standards.

AIR QUALITY
 Nonattainment areas are those designated as not meeting the standards. These areas
must take actions within a specific timeframe to reduce emissions and attain the
NAAQS.
 Maintenance areas are those that were previously designated nonattainment for a
specific pollutant, but have consistently shown improvement with several years of
concentrations below the standards. However, these areas are subject to maintenance
plans for ensuring that measures are in place for continued compliance.
Specific areas can be designated as attainment for one pollutant and nonattainment or
maintenance for another pollutant.
State and Federal Transportation Conformity Rule

The federal Transportation Conformity Rule, 40 CFR 93, establishes criteria and procedures
for determining conformity with State Implementation Plans (SIPs) of transportation plans,
programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved by the U.S. Department of
Transportation and by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) or other recipients of
funds under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws. The conformity regulations are
applicable to projects within nonattainment or maintenance areas.
The requirements to demonstrate conformity for a project are twofold. Regional conformity
is demonstrated by confirming that a project is included in a conforming Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and long-range transportation plan (LRTP). Project level
conformity must be established for projects located in a CO (carbon monoxide), PM10
(particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less), or PM2.5 (particles with a diameter of
2.5 micrometers or less) maintenance or nonattainment area. To meet project level
conformity, a local hot spot analysis is required to analyze potential air pollutant
concentrations to demonstrate that the project would not cause or contribute to a violation
of the NAAQS, if certain conditions of the existing transportation environment are met.
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air
Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment.
Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel
evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the
incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products.
Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air
Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the EPA regulate 188
air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. Most air toxics originate from human-
made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes),
area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). The EPA
has identified seven compounds with substantial contributions from mobile sources that are
among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air
Toxics Assessment (NATA) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/). These are acrolein,
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel
PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. FHWA and FTA consider
these the priority mobile source air toxics. To date, there are no NAAQS for MSATs, and

AIR QUALITY
there are no established criteria for determining when MSAT emissions should be
considered a significant issue.

The project is located within the city of St. Louis, within St. Louis County. The project area is
designated as CO maintenance, ozone nonattainment, and PM2.5 nonattainment. These
designations are based on a history of exceeding ambient air quality standards. The area is
in attainment of all other NAAQS.

The No-Build Alternative would not result in any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to air
quality in the project area.

The Build Alternative would not result in any adverse local impacts or project area impacts
to air quality. No hot spot analyses were performed for CO, PM2.5, or PM10 because
intersections in the project area do not perform below LOS C. LOS C is defined as an
intersection that typically experiences a stable flow of traffic, but is not overly congested
with more than a 35-second delay for a signalized intersection (TRB, 2000). Additionally, the
Build Alternative would result in a reduction in vehicle miles traveled in the area, compared
to the No-Build Alternative (Kaskaskia Engineering Group and CH2M HILL, 2009).
Therefore, it would not cause an increase in vehicle emissions, and a reduction in air quality
in the project study area, and is considered to be a project with no potential for meaningful
MSAT effects.
Conformity with Regional Air Quality Model

The Loop Trolley Project is included in the Air Quality Conformity Determination and
Documentation (EWGCOG, 2009). The project was determined to not have a regional air
quality effect and was found to have no adverse impact on regional emissions. This report
describes the air quality Conformity Determination based on
the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard and the annual PM2.5
Summary of effects to air quality:
standard conducted as part of the development of the
Amendment to the FY 2010-2013 TIP and related The Build Alternative would not have
an adverse direct, indirect, or
amendments to Legacy 2035, Metropolitan Transportation
cumulative impact to air quality in the
Plan for the St. Louis Region. The Amendment to the FY project study area. Temporary air
2011-2014 TIP has been prepared by the EWGCOG, which is quality effects due to construction may
the designated MPO for the St. Louis region. In accordance occur, but can be mitigated through
with CAAA and related Federal regulations, the proper construction techniques.
Transportation Plan, TIP or project must be found to be in
conformity with all applicable SIPs and with the motor
vehicle emissions budgets as established by the SIPs before
the project may be approved by the MPO and FTA/FHWA.
Temporary Construction Effects

Typical sources of emissions during construction of transportation projects include the
following:

ENERGY
 Fugitive dust generated during excavation, grading, loading, and unloading activities.
 Dust generated during demolition of structures and pavement.
 Engine exhaust emissions from construction vehicles, worker vehicles, and diesel fuel-
fired construction equipment.
 Increased motor vehicle emissions associated with increased traffic congestion during
construction.
 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and odorous compounds emitted during asphalt
paving.
The regulated pollutants of concern for the first two source types are PM2.5 and PM10.
Engine and motor vehicle exhaust would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, nitrogen oxides
(NOx), PM10, PM2.5, and MSATs.
3.11.4 Mitigation for Temporary Construction Effects

Temporary effects during construction would be minimized by taking reasonable
precautions to prevent fugitive dust from becoming airborne. Controlling fugitive dust
emissions may require some of the following actions. The specific actions required would be
clarified in the construction mitigation plan developed during the design phase of the
project. Examples of mitigation for temporary air quality effects include:
 Spraying exposed soil with water or other suppressant to reduce emissions of PM10 and
increase deposition of particulate matter.
 Using phased development to keep disturbed areas to a minimum.
 Using wind fencing to reduce disturbance to soils.
 Minimizing dust emissions during transport of fill material or soil by wetting down or
by ensuring adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the
truck bed) on trucks.
 Promptly cleaning up spills of transported material on public roads.
 Scheduling work tasks to minimize disruption of the existing vehicle traffic on streets.
 Restricting traffic onsite to reduce soil upheaval and the transport of material to
roadways.
 Locating construction equipment and truck staging areas away from sensitive receptors,
as practical, and in consideration of potential effects on other resources.
 Providing wheel washers to remove particulate matter that would otherwise be carried
offsite by vehicles to decrease deposition of particulate matter on area roadways.
3.12 Energy
This section evaluates and assesses the effects of the project alternatives on the
transportation-related energy consumption in the study corridor. This section is prepared in

ENERGY
accordance with 23 CFR §§771.119 and 771.121 (FHWA and FTA, 2009), which governs the
preparation of environmental assessments for transit projects (FTA, 2007). No specific
guidance is provided for the preparation of energy analyses at the EA level. However,
FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.8A, provides that detailed energy studies, including
computations, are only required for large-scale EIS projects that are expected to incur
substantial energy impacts. The Build Alternative is expected to have a positive impact on
energy consumption, therefore the energy impacts of the project alternatives are assessed
briefly in this analysis, for vehicle operations only. Strategies for energy consumption at the
vehicle maintenance facility, such as LEED certification, would be considered.

In 2007, the Missouri transportation sector consumed 607.3 trillion British thermal units
(Btus) of energy, or 31% of the energy consumed throughout the state (Bureau of
Transportation Statistics [BTS], 2010a). Over 90% of this energy was consumed in the form
of motor gasoline (64%) and diesel fuel (27%). Electricity represented just 0.05% of
transportation fuels consumed in 2007 (BTS, 2010b).
Coal is the dominant fuel for electricity production in Missouri and typically supplies more
than 83% of the electricity market. Fuel sources that make up the remaining portion of the
electricity market include natural gas (8%), nuclear (6%), hydroelectric (2%), other
renewable (1%), and petroleum (<1%) power plants. In November 2008, Missouri adopted a
renewable portfolio standard that requires investor-owned utilities to increase their use of
renewable sources to 15 percent by 2021 (Energy Information Association [EIA], 2010).
3.12.2 Methodology
This energy analysis addresses long-term energy consumption from vehicle operations.
Vehicle operations refer to the fuel consumed by vehicles during the operation of the project
alternatives. Long-term energy consumption is measured in Btus. Energy consumption is
evaluated for the opening year (2012) and the planning horizon year (2030) for each
alternative. The alternatives analyzed include the No-Build Alternative and the Build
Alternative. Short-term energy consumption from construction of the Build Alternative is
not included in this analysis.
For this project, operational energy impacts would be related to the consumption of
gasoline, diesel, and electricity during the operation of automobiles, trucks, and the trolley
within the study area. The operations energy analysis was completed by entering vehicle
operations data for each mode into the general formula for calculating vehicle operations
energy shown below (Oregon Department of Transportation [ODOT], 2006):
E = VMT x FCR x CF, where:
E = annual energy consumed (Btu)
VMT = Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled in the study area
FCR = fuel consumption rate
CF = Btu conversion factor based on fuel type
Operational energy consumption was calculated using annual auto VMT estimates provided
by HDR Engineering (HDR Engineering, 2010), fuel efficiency forecasts provided by the
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT, 1988), mode split estimates provided by

ENERGY
CH2M HILL (CH2M HILL, 2010), and annual trolley vehicle operating hours and an
average trolley fuel consumption rate provided by LTK Engineering Services (LTK, 2010).
3.12.3 Findings
Table 3.12-1 provides a summary of the anticipated annual energy consumption from auto,
truck, and trolley operations within the study corridor.
The operations energy analysis findings show that vehicle operations under the 2030 Build
Alternative would consume approximately 4% less energy
than they would under the 2030 No-Build Alternative.
This is primarily due to the forecasted increases in auto Summary of effects to energy:
and truck VMT within the study area under the No-Build Vehicle operations under the Build
Alternative. The energy savings would be the greatest in Alternative in 2030 would consume
2012, and would be somewhat offset by the anticipated approximately 4% less energy than
increases in auto and truck fuel efficiency expected to they would in 2030 under the No-Build
Alternative.
occur by 2030. The energy savings under the 2030 Build
Alternative would represent
TABLE 3.12-1. Operational Energy Consumption Summary

Annual Annual Annual Percent
Auto1,2,3 Truck1, 3, 4 Trolley5,6 Total Total Change
Study Year and (Million (Million (Million (Million Gasoline Compared to
Alternative Btus) Btus) Btus) Btus) (gallons) No-Build
Opening Year (2012)
No-Build 23,800 3,800 0 27,600 242,600
Build 20,800 3,300 2,300 26,400 233,000 -4%
Design Year (2030)
No-Build 22,400 3,500 0 25,900 228,100
Build 19,600 3,000 2,300 25,000 219,900 -4%

1
Based on a free-flow speed assumption of 25 mph (No intersections are forecasted to be below LOS C in 2030)
2
Assumes an average auto fuel consumption rate of 24.4 in 2012 and 26.5 in 2030
3
Assumes an average truck fuel consumption rate of 6.8 in 2012 and 7.6 in 2030
4
Assumes a mode split of 3.5% for heavy vehicles and 96.5% for autos
5
Assumes an energy consumption rate of 7kwh per vehicle operating hour
6
Assumes 95,000 annual trolley vehicle operating hours for both 2012 and 2030
approximately 8,185 gallons of gasoline, or the equivalent of the amount of energy needed to
power ten US households for one year. Since the Build Alternative represents a savings in
energy over the No-Build Alternative, no mitigation would be necessary to reduce energy
consumption.
3.12.4 Mitigation
Pursuant to 49 CFR 622, subpart C, an energy assessment would be conducted at the
maintenance facility prior to construction. The assessment would consider the following:

PARKS AND RECREATION
(1) Overall design of the facility or modification, and alternative designs;

(2) Materials and techniques used in construction or rehabilitation;
(3) Special or innovative conservation features that may be used;
(4) Fuel requirements for heating, cooling, and operations essential to the function of the
structure, projected over the life of the facility and including projected costs of this fuel;
and
(5) Type of energy to be used, including:
(i) Consideration of opportunities for using fuels other than petroleum and natural gas,
and
(ii) Consideration of using alternative, renewable energy sources.
The maintenance facility would need to comply with the 2009 International Energy
Conservation Code, adopted by the City of St. Louis as Revised Code Chapter 25.13.
3.13 Parks and Recreation

The Parks Division of the City of St Louis Department of Parks, Recreation, and Forestry
operates and manages more than 3,000 acres encompassing more than 105 parks and open
spaces. The recreational resources within the study area (within 500 feet of the proposed
trolley line) include three public parks containing multi-use trails, and recreational facilities,
museums, and a zoo. This section of the EA describes and discusses the parks and recreation
facilities as land uses. The separate Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation (see Section 3.14) discusses
the relationship of the project to properties, including parks and recreation areas, wildlife
and waterfowl refuges, and historic properties, that are covered by Section 4(f) of the
Transportation Act of 1966.
State and local governments often obtain grants through the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) Act to acquire or make improvements to parks and recreation areas. Section
6(f) of the Act prohibits the conversion of property acquired or developed with these grants
to non-recreational purpose without the approval of the U.S. Department of the Interior who
typically require replacement land. Section 6(f) of the LWCF directs DOI to ensure that the
replacement lands are of equal value, location, and usefulness as conditions to such
conversions. Consequently, where transit projects propose conversions of Section 6(f) lands,
replacement lands are necessary (National Park Service [NPS], 2008).

Parks, parkways, and recreation facilities in the City of St. Louis are owned and maintained
by St. Louis Department of Parks, Recreation, and Forestry, Division of Parks. Three parks
are located within the study area of the project. These include a major regional park, a linear
neighborhood park with a greenway connection, and neighborhood park.
The parks and recreation resources are shown on Figure 3.13-1 and listed with supplemental
information in Table 3.13-1. One of these parks, Forest Park is of regional or even national
significance because of its size, the public institutions within its boundary, the fact that it
dates back to 1876, and because it was the site of the 1904 World’s Fair. Forest Park has
undergone a 100-million dollar reconstruction as outlined in the Forest Park Master Plan
(City of St. Louis, 2004) to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 1904 World's Fair.

FIGURE 3.13-1. Parks and Recreation Resources in the Project Area

3.13.1.1 Forest Park

The primary function of Forest Park is for active recreational, educational, and interpretive
uses. The Forest Park Master Plan (City of St. Louis, 2004) identifies several recently
completed projects and features, including additional water features, tennis court
rehabilitation, golf course modifications, a softball/baseball complex, and active and passive
natural areas. The park contains multiple museums and gathering locations, including the
Missouri History Museum, St. Louis Art Museum, the Muny (outdoor opera house), and the
St. Louis Zoological Park.
TABLE 3.13-1. Summary Information about Parks and Recreation Resources in the Study Area
Facility Type
Name and Size or Distance to and/or Ownership and Site Features and
Location Length Project Function Management Characteristics
Forest Park 1293 Project is within Regional City of St. Louis Recreational Trails,
Lindell & acres Forest Park at Urban Park Parks Division ball fields,
Kingshighway DeBaliviere Ave Museums, Zoo Golf
Course
Ruth Porter Mall 8.1 acres Project is Neighborhood City of St. Louis Trail, picnic
DeBaliviere & immediately north Park and Parks Division facilities, plaza
Delmar of Delmar Blvd greenway spaces
Phillip Lucier 3.0 acres 180 feet south of Neighborhood City of St. Louis Softball fields,
Park Delmar Blvd Park Parks Division passive
Hamilton & recreational uses
Westminster
Forest Park is owned by the City of St. Louis, and it

is managed by the Parks and Recreation
Department. Forest Park Forever is a nonprofit
organization that oversees strategic planning for
Forest Park, in cooperation with the City of St.
Louis. There are two main entities that oversee the
functions of Forest Park: the Forest Park Advisory
Board and the Forest Park Steering Committee.
Both the City of St. Louis and Forest Park Forever
are involved with those two groups. Details about Forest Park Pagoda Circle, Photo
each group are below. Figure 3.13-2 graphically courtesy of the Forest Park Master Plan
illustrates the decision making structure.

 The Forest Park Steering Committee FIGURE 3.13-2. Forest Park Structure
functions as the technical working
group for the park. It is comprised of
technical staff from the City of St. Louis
Parks and Recreation Department, the
City of St. Louis Board of Public Service,
and representatives from the Missouri
History Museum. It also includes
representatives from Forest Park
Forever. This group is responsible for
reviewing all potential improvements
and impacts that would affect the park.
It makes recommendations to the larger
Advisory Board.
 The Forest Park Advisory Board is

comprised of high-level decision makers
from the City of St. Louis Parks and
Recreation Department, Forest Park
Forever, local civic leaders, local
residents, and business leaders. This
group is responsible for reviewing the
work of the Steering Committee and
making formal recommendations to the
City of St. Louis Director of Parks and
Recreation.
 The Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of St. Louis (Gary Bess) is ultimately
responsible for approving and implementing recommendations put forth by the Forest
Park Advisory Board.
Additional park transportation and circulation routes, including transit, are planned and
identified in the Forest Park Access, Circulation, and Parking (ACP) Study (City of St. Louis,
2008). The ACP Study includes extending trolley and transit services to provide access to the
park and within the park. The ACP study identifies future connections to the existing
Delmar Loop to improve transit to the light rail station. The ACP Study also includes
converting existing, worn, earthen trails to mulch or paved trails and completing unfinished
portions of the Dual Path to enhance pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the park. The
Dual Path is a bicycle and pedestrian loop around the park, which has both a designated
bicycle path and a walking path.
Forest Park has received LWCF grants for the Dwight Davis Memorial Tennis Center and
the City of St. Louis Parks Division has received LWCF funds for general park
improvements. Forest Park is protected under Section 6(f) of the LWCF Act (NPS, 2010). As
there are no impacts to Forest Park, there are no resultant Section 6(f) impacts.

3.13.1.2 Other Parks

The Ruth Porter Mall (also known as Porter Park) is an 8.1-acre City of St. Louis
neighborhood park and greenway (future) located north of Delmar Boulevard and
DeBaliviere Avenue. The Greenway is a part of the larger Great Rivers trail system that
connects through to Forest Park. In addition to providing trail connections, the park is used
for community gatherings and is a cultural remembrance of Ruth Porter, a local historic
figure. Active planning, design, and reinvestment in DeBaliviere Avenue and the Ruth
Porter Mall are ongoing as a part of the Great River Greenway planning (Great Rivers
Greenway, 2010) including park facilities rehabilitation. No Section 6(f) funds are associated
with the Ruth Porter Mall (NPS, 2010).
Phillip Lucier Park is a 3.0-acre City of St. Louis Neighborhood Park located 180-feet south
of Delmar Boulevard, at Westminster Street. The park has multi-use fields for softball and
soccer along with a playground. No Section 6(f) funds are associated with the Phillip Lucier
Park (NPS, 2010).

This section describes potential effects to the parks and recreation resources in the study
area.
3.13.2.1 Direct Effects

The No-Build Alternative would not result in construction or operational effects on parks
and recreation resources, as the project would not be built under this alternative. The No-
Build Alternative assumes that existing infrastructure would remain the same as it is today.
Build Alternative
The St. Louis Loop Trolley would not require acquisition of any property from any park or
recreation area. The trolley would add a transit element to the existing roadways in Forest
Park, reconstruct pedestrian walkways to access the trolley, and place embedded tracks in
the existing right of way. A trolley stop would be located on the south side of the Missouri
History Museum. Coordination with the Museum and with the Forest Park Advisory Board
led to the decision to keep the station as simple as possible. It would not have a shelter or
platform. It would be located in existing public right of way. The trolley would increase
transit accessibility to the park, which is considered a benefit and is consistent with the goals
of the park.
The trolley tracks would introduce elements to Forest Park that are currently absent;
however, the trolley is a planned addition to Forest
Park (City of St. Louis, 2008). Even in Forest Park, the Summary of effects to parks and
recreational resources:
project would remain within the existing street right of
way and would not change any features or affect The Build Alternative would not
directly impact parks or recreational
functions of the parks. Noise, vibration, and visual resources. Construction of the trolley
intrusion from the trolley is not anticipated to exceed would increase access to Forest Park,
FTA standards for urban transit or increase providing a benefit to users.
substantially over existing conditions). No conversion
of Section 6(f) property would occur. As documented in

the meeting summary of the January 21, 2010 Forest Park Advisory Board meeting, Forest
Park endorsed the proposed Loop Trolley project to be built as proposed within Forest Park.
The meeting summary is included as Appendix 3.4.
3.13.2.2 Indirect Effects

Indirect effects on recreational resources occur when there are changes in access,
surrounding land use, noise levels, or visual intrusion that affect the value and integrity of
the resource for park users. No negative indirect effects would occur from the project.
Indirect effects on park and recreational resources would be positive by encouraging greater
use of recreational resources and improving connectivity and linkages between parks.
3.13.2.3 Cumulative Effects

The Loop Trolley would not produce cumulative effects to parks and recreation resources as
no parklands would be converted to transportation use. Improvements to the Ruth Porter
Mall as part of the Great Rivers Greenway planning process are likely; these would provide
benefits to the surrounding community and would enhance the network of recreational
facilities within the region overall.

Construction impacts are impacts that would not permanently convert parks or recreational
facilities to another use, but may temporarily impact function of the facility (such as
closures, detours, noise impacts, or air quality impacts). Project construction would require
the closure and demolition, and reconstruction of Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere
Avenue, and the construction of maintenance facilities along Delmar Boulevard, away from
any parks. Construction-related noise and air pollution, traffic detours and closures that
change access, and visual clutter would be temporary inconveniences within Forest Park
and adjacent to the Ruth Porter Mall.
During construction, noise, vibration, dust, and clutter would reduce the user experience at
Ruth Porter Mall, but the Loop Trolley would provide positive benefit to pedestrians and
visitors during operation. The Loop Trolley is included in planned improvements to
DeBaliviere Avenue as a part of the St. Vincent Greenway extension through the Ruth Porter
Mall. The Greenway Extension is depicted on Figure 3.1-3, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.
These cooperative projects would improve the recreation user conditions, and provide on-
street linkages between Forest Park and the Ruth Porter Mall.
During construction of trolley tracks at Washington Drive, portions of the Forest Park Dual
Path and vehicular traffic from DeBaliviere would be detoured temporarily during
construction. This would occur where access across Washington Drive intersects the trolley
loop. The project would provide temporary construction detours for motorists, bicyclists,
and pedestrians accessing Forest Park from Lindell Street.
3.13.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures

During project planning, extensive work was done to minimize the track footprint. Multiple
options including adding fixed track in both directions and several types of trolley were
considered during the feasibility study (Metro, 2000). Through these studies and with public

SECTION 4(F) ANALYSIS
involvement all possible measures have been taken to avoid the impacts to parks. No
additional or specific mitigation is required for impacts to parks and recreation resources.
3.14 Section 4(f) Analysis

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified in federal law in 49
U.S.C. 303, declares that “it is the policy of the United States Government that special effort
should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.”
Section 4(f) specifies that the Secretary [of Transportation] may approve a transportation
program or project requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation
area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an
historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the federal, state, or
local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if:
 There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and
 The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park,
recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.
Section 4(f) further requires consultation with the Department of the Interior and, as
appropriate, the involved offices of the Departments of Agriculture and Housing and Urban
Development in developing transportation projects and programs that use lands protected
by Section 4(f). If historic sites are involved, then coordination with the State Historic
Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer is also needed.
“Use” of a Section 4(f) resource, defined in Section 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
774.17, occurs in the following circumstances:
1. When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility;
2. When there is a temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) property that is adverse in terms of
the statute’s preservationist purpose; or
3. When there is a constructive use of land, which occurs when the transportation project
does not incorporate land, but its proximity substantially impairs the activities, features,
or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f). A determination of
constructive use is based on the criteria in 23 CFR 774.15.
The sections below describe the analysis conducted to determine that the Loop Trolley
project would not result in a 4(f) use to parks and recreational resources or cultural
resources.
3.14.1 Parks and Recreational Resources

As described in Section 3.13, Parks and Recreation, there are three parks in the project study
area: Forest Park, Ruth Porter Mall, and Philip Lucier Park. The analysis of 4(f) impacts to
each park is described below.

3.14.1.1 Forest Park

The Build Alternative would not require any acquisition of property from Forest Park. The
construction of the trolley would be contained within the existing public right-of-way and
would not change any visual features and functions of the park. During project construction,
access to the Park would be maintained at all times; therefore, there would be no Section 4(f)
"use" as the result of this project.
3.14.1.2 Ruth Porter Mall

The Build Alternative would not require any acquisition of property from Ruth Porter Mall
Park. The construction of the trolley would be contained within the existing public right-of-
way and would not change any visual features and functions of the park. During project
construction, access to the Park would be maintained at all times; therefore, there would be
no Section 4(f) "use" as the result of this project.
3.14.1.3 Philip Lucier Park

The Build Alternative would not require any acquisition of property from Philip Lucier
Park. The construction of the trolley would be contained within the existing public right-of-
way and would not change any visual features and functions of the park. During project
construction, access to the Park would be maintained at all times; therefore, there would be
no Section 4(f) "use" as the result of this project.
3.14.2 Cultural Resources

Properties afforded Section 4(f) protection include the sites listed below in Table 3.14-1.
The Build Alternative would not result in a direct conversion of land from any of the
properties or landscapes listed in Table 3.14-1, with the exception of the Roberts
Chevrolet/Delmar School building at 5875-5983 Delmar Boulevard. The Build Alternative
would not impair the use of those properties, and would not result in any noise or visual
impacts to those properties, and the SHPO concurred with a determination of no adverse
effect. Therefore, there would be no 4(f) use associated with these properties as a result of
the Build Alternative. The Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar School property at 5875-5893 Delmar
Boulevard is discussed below.
3.14.2.1 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard

As described in Section 3.9, Cultural Resources, the Section 106 analysis conducted for the
property at 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard resulted in a finding of no adverse effect. However,
because this project would permanently incorporate property from this historic site into a
transportation facility, if chosen as the site for the maintenance facility, a determination
regarding whether a Section 4(f) use is occurring at this site is necessary.
The U.S. Department of Transportation can determine that certain uses of Section 4(f) have a
de minimis impact after consideration of any impact avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation. In this case, an analysis of avoidance alternatives is not required and the
Section 4(f) evaluation process is complete. De minimis impacts related to historic sites are

TABLE 3.14-1. Summary of Cultural Resources within the APE

Name/Description Location
Individual Properties on the NRHP
Assumption Greek Orthodox Church 6900 Delmar Blvd
B’Nai Amoona Synagogue 524 Trinity Ave
Donaldson Court Apartments 601-615 Westgate
A & P Food Stores Building 6014-6018 (5010-6016) Delmar Blvd.
Roberts Chevrolet (Delmar School) 5875-91 Delmar Blvd.
Properties Eligible for the NRHP
Jefferson Memorial Building/Missouri History 5700 Lindell Blvd
Museum
DeBaliviere Power House 5700 Delmar Boulevard
One-part commercial block building 5917 Delmar Boulevard
Two-part commercial block building 6640-6648 Delmar Boulevard
Delmar-DeBaliviere Building 5654 Delmar Blvd (566-586 DeBaliviere)
Pulaski Bank 415 DeBaliviere (5706-5722 McPherson)
Two-part commercial block building 5874 Delmar Boulevard
Delmar Boulevard Station 6005 Delmar Boulevard
Enframed block building 6136 Delmar Boulevard
One-part commercial block building 6183-6187 Delmar Boulevard
U.S. Post Office, University City Branch 561 Kingsland
Castlereagh Apartments 6820 Delmar Boulevard
Shaare Emeth – 560 Music Center 560 Trinity Avenue
Landscapes Eligible for the NRHP
Harriet Woods Civic Plaza Adjacent to University City City Hall
Landscape area next to Harriet Woods Civic Adjacent to University City City Hall
Plaza

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY
defined as the determination of either "no adverse effect" or "no historic properties affected"
in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.5
FTA, with SHPO concurrence on December 9, 2010, determined that the rehabilitation of the
historic building would result in a no adverse effect. As a result, FTA intends to make a de
minimis impact finding for the Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School building.
3.15 Public Safety and Security

3.15.1 Police
The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department currently provides police protection within
the City of St. Louis, including the portion of the project area that is within the St. Louis City
Limits. The University City Police Department provides police protection for the portion of
the project area within the University City limits. Installation of the Loop Trolley would not
affect police operations in either St. Louis or University City.
3.15.2 Fire and Ambulance Services

The St. Louis Fire Department provides fire
protection within the St. Louis city boundaries. The
St. Louis Emergency Medical Service Unit is a Summary of public safety and
security effects:
division of the fire department, and provides service
within the project study area. The University City Fire Construction of the Build Alternative
would not impact the provision of
Department provides fire protection and ambulance
police, fire, and emergency medical
services within University City. The nearest fire services in the project study area.
station to the project area is located in the Delmar Precautions would be taken during
Loop, at 6801 Delmar Boulevard. Because construction to ensure the safety of
construction of the Loop Trolley would not cause both the project workers and the
general public.
significant impacts to traffic operations, it would not
impact provision of fire protection or ambulance
services on either DeBaliviere Avenue or Delmar
Boulevard.
3.15.3 Safety and Security during Construction

In order to ensure safety of workers and of the general public during the construction of this
project, coordination with the Missouri Department of Transportation State Safety Oversight
Officer would occur. Workers would utilize standard personal protective equipment and
conform to job safety guidelines. Safety of the general public would be ensured through
traffic controls, reduced speed zones, and appropriate signage.
523 CFR 774, and U.S. Department of Transportation. “Questions and Answers on the Application of the Section 4(f) De
Minimis Impact Criteria.” 2011. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/qasdeminimus.htm

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
3.16 Biological Resources and Endangered Species

3.16.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has
primary responsibility in the protection of federally endangered and threatened species and
designation of critical habitat areas for these species. All federally endangered and
threatened plants and animals are protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).
The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) determines species’ state status in
Missouri under constitutional authority (3CSR10-4.111 Endangered Species). Species that are
listed in the Wildlife Code under 3CSR10-4.111 are protected by State Endangered Species
Law 252.240 (MO ST 252.240, 1990).
The USFWS identifies 2 bats, 1 reptile, 1 fish, 4 mussels, and 3 plants listed as threatened or
endangered or candidates for listing potentially occurring in St. Louis County (USFWS,
2009). The MDC identifies an additional 2 fish, 1 amphibian, 2 mussels, 1 plant, and 1 snail
as state listed threatened or endangered (MDC, 2010).
The MDC also maintains records of unlisted species and habitats of conservation concern. The
Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) considers these species and natural
communities during the project planning process (MoDOT, 2010). A brief explanation of
each ranking is as follows:
 S1—Critically imperiled (typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining

individuals)
 S2—Imperiled (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres)
 S3—Rare or uncommon (21 to 100 occurrences)

The MDC identifies a variety of plants, birds, fish, mussels, amphibians, crustaceans, and
snails as species of conservation concern potentially occurring in St. Louis County.
However, because the project area lies entirely within existing pavement or area covered
with built structures no suitable habitat is present to support any of these species.
3.16.2 Migratory Birds

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] Title 16, Chapter 7, Subchapter
II) makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill or sell birds listed therein
("migratory birds"). The statute does not discriminate between live or dead birds and also
grants full protection to any bird parts including feathers, eggs and nests. Over 800 species
are currently on the list. Birds protected under the act include all common songbirds,
waterfowl, shorebirds, hawks, owls, eagles, ravens, crows, native doves and pigeons, swifts,
martins, swallows and others, including their body parts (feathers, plumes, etc.), nests, and
eggs. A complete list of protected species is found at 50 CFR 10.13.
3.16.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

The bald eagle is protected under federal law by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(16 U.S.C. 668-668c) even though it has been de-listed and is no longer protected under the
Endangered Species Act. This law, originally passed in 1940, provides for the protection of

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
the bald eagle and the golden eagle (as amended in 1962) by prohibiting the take,
possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or
import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless
allowed by permit (16 U.S.C. 668[a]; 50 CFR 22). "Take" includes pursue, shoot, shoot at,
poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668c; 50 CFR 22.3).
Bald and Golden Eagles may winter in the St. Louis area; however no suitable nesting or
foraging habitat is present in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would result
in no direct or indirect effects to bald or golden eagles.

Because the project area lies entirely within existing pavement or area covered with built
structures, no suitable habitat is present to support any of the listed threatened and
endangered species or species of conservation concern. Therefore, no direct, indirect, or
cumulative effects to state or federally threatened, endangered, or candidate species are
anticipated as a result of construction of this project.
Because there is no suitable nesting or foraging Summary of effects to biological
habitat for Bald and Golden Eagles in the project resources:
area, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to The Build Alternative would not
those birds or migratory birds would occur. directly impact threatened or
endangered species, species of
3.16.5 Mitigation Measures conservation concern, or bald and
golden eagles. In order to avoid
In order to prevent construction effects to nesting impacts to migratory birds, any tree
habitat for migratory birds, any tree removal removal necessary for construction
required for the project would occur between must be done between September 1
and March 1, which is outside of the
September 1 and March 1, which is outside of the
nesting period.
typical nesting period. Tree removals, estimated to
be a total of 30 trees, are only anticipated in the
medians at select locations along Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue. Tree removal
would be minimized to the greatest extent possible. They would be replaced at a ratio
greater than 1:1. See Appendix 3.1 for agency coordination letters.
3.17 Geology and Soils

3.17.1.1 Surface Information
St. Louis County is on the eastern border of Missouri, at the confluence of the Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers. The project area consists of rolling uplands, which covers about 50% of
the county and is formed by loess deposits that cover the bedrock topography. The area is
characterized by slopes of from 2 to 5%, however this has been modified substantially due to
construction activities in this area. The bedrock geology in the project area consists of
essentially flat-lying sedimentary formations, mostly limestone and dolomite of the Ste.
Genevieve and St. Louis Limestone of the Mississippi System. A residuum derived from
weathering of the bedrock comprising mostly clay and more resistant materials of the
weathered bedrock (mostly quartz sand and chert) is likely to be encountered at the soil
bedrock interface (Association of Missouri Geologists, 1977). The bedrock is likely to be

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
encountered within 50 to 100 feet below ground surface based on previous subsurface
explorations in the nearby vicinity.
3.17.1.2 Subsurface Information

In the City of St. Louis, soils consist mainly of two soil associations: the Urban Land-
Harvester-Fishpot Association and the Menfro-Winfield-Urban land association. These soils
consist of urban land that is nearly level to moderately steep, moderately well drained and
somewhat poorly drained deep soils formed in silty fill material, loess and alluvium. The
soils are located on uplands, terraces and bottomlands. Limestone sinks are in some areas.
Slope ranges from zero to 20 percent. This association makes up about 41 percent of the
survey area. It is about 64 percent Urban land, 22 percent Harvester, six percent Fishpot soils
and eight percent soils of minor extent. Urban lands consist of areas that are occupied by
structures and pavements. The Harvester Soils were formed by cutting, filling and
reworking deep silty upland soils during urban development. Fishpot soils occupied
landscape positions that were formerly bottomlands and terraces. Goss soils make up the
minor portion of the soil association. They typically have cherty or stony limestone
residuum on or near the surface. The Menfro-Winfield-Urban association consists of gently
sloping to very steep, well-drained and moderately well drained, deep soils formed in loess
and Urban land. These soils are located on uplands. This association consists of narrow
drainage-ways and dissected, loess capped ridges and side slopes on uplands in the western
edge of the city limits. Limestone sinks are located in some areas, slopes ranging from two to
45 percent. This association makes up about 29 percent of the survey area. It is about 64
percent Menfro soils, 24 percent Winfield soils, eight percent Urban and four percent soils of
minor extent. The urban land is occupied by structures and pavements and is in complexes
with Menfro, Winfield or Iva soils and makes up about 35 percent of the complexes. Of
minor extent in this association are moderately well drained Iva soils on the broad divides,
the well-drained Menfro, karst, and the manmade Harvester soils in the Urban land areas.
The Dumps-Orthents complex areas are active landfill sites. About 100 percent of the
acreage of this association has been cleared and is used for urban development. (Adapted
from Regional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan [EWGCOG, 2004].)
Groundwater in the project area is impacted by the proximity of the Mississippi River and
seasonal variations should be expected. Groundwater is likely to be encountered within 20
feet below ground surface. In some cases, presence of water within the fractures and joints
of the limestone bedrock is also possible.

The proposed trolley line would be constructed at the existing pavement grade within the
existing pavement area. One maintenance structure would be provided along the corridor.
The anticipated site (5875–5895 Delmar) would utilize an existing building, making
modifications only as required to convert the facility to its intended use with no additions to
or significant subtractions from the existing building footprint. The other site that has been
considered would require new single-story construction with a base slab commensurate
with the existing ground surface. As mentioned elsewhere, the site requiring new
construction has been effectively eliminated from consideration.

WETLANDS, WATERS, AND FLOODPLAINS
Based on the literature survey conducted, there are

no known adverse geologic conditions in the Summary of effects to geology and
soils:
project vicinity. The surficial soils comprising of
fine-grained materials are likely to be compressible Construction of the Build Alternative
would not result in any adverse effects
and a subsurface exploration program should to geology and soils in the project
include sufficient testing to determine study area. The project study area is
compressibility and any impact of settlement to the within a seismic zone, so the final
project. Saint Louis County in relatively close design of the project would need to
proximity to the New Madrid and Wabash Valley incorporate seismic design standards.
Seismic zones is classified as Zone VIII (moderate
damage likely) per the DNR survey. Accordingly, site-specific geotechnical investigation
and dynamic site response analyses should be performed and seismic forces would need to
be incorporated into structural design of or modifications to any proposed structures. Karst
formations, while not specifically identified within the project area, have been encountered
throughout Saint Louis County. Karst formations may be present within the project site; and
the identification and possible impacts of any karst features in the project footprint should
also be an objective of the site-specific geotechnical exploration.
3.17.3 Mitigation
Because there are no anticipated impacts to geology and soils from the Build Alternative, no
mitigation measures are required.
3.18 Wetlands, Waters, and Floodplains

3.18.1 Wetlands
Wetlands are a transitional type of habitat between terrestrial and aquatic systems
(Cowardin et al., 1979). The water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is
covered by shallow water in areas designated as wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulate wetlands under the
authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act or FWPCA) (Public Law [Pub. L.] 92–500, as amended by Pub. L. 95–217, 33
U.S.C. 1251, et seq.).
Wetlands contribute to sediment retention and removal, water quality protection, wildlife
habitat and biodiversity. Wetlands may also provide shoreline protection, flood/storm
water attenuation, groundwater recharge and discharge. For example, the water quality
protection functions, such as sediment retention and nutrient removal, are important in
agricultural areas where nutrient levels and
sediment in runoffs may be high. Forested and Summary of effects to wetlands,
waters, and floodplains:
nonforested wetlands along drainageways also
provide important wildlife habitat in areas where There are no wetlands or waters of
the U.S. within the project study area.
agricultural land use is predominant. A wetland The project study area is not within a
may serve one or more than one function FEMA-regulated floodplain. Therefore,
depending on such factors as landscape position, the project would not result in any
plant community composition and hydrologic effects to wetlands, waters, or
regime. floodplains.

WETLANDS, WATERS, AND FLOODPLAINS
The National Wetlands Inventory Map (USFWS, 1980s) identifies no wetlands and site visits
conducted between May and December 2000 (STV Incorporated, 2000) as part of the
feasibility study for the project identified no potential wetlands or waters within the project
area. Additionally, the project area is entirely within the boundaries of existing paved streets
or other built surfaces. Therefore, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to wetlands are
anticipated as a result of construction of the Build Alternative.
3.18.2 Waters of the U.S.

Waters of the U.S. are generally defined as waters used for interstate commerce or trade.
They can also include tributaries or other adjacent features of major waterways used for
commerce or trade. The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly define and
regulate Waters of the U.S. The definition of Waters of the U.S. is as follows:
1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to
use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb
and flow of the tide;
2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams),
mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or
natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or
foreign commerce including any such waters:
(i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other
purposes; or
(ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign
commerce; or
(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate
commerce;
4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this
definition;
5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section;
6. The territorial sea;
7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified
in paragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment systems, including
treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than
cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this
definition) are not waters of the United States.6
The study area is in the Lower Mississippi Watershed System (Hydrologic Unit # 10300200).
Site visits during the feasibility study described above confirmed that no waters of the U.S.
are located within the project area (STV Incorporated, 2000). Therefore, no direct, indirect, or
cumulative effects to Waters of the U.S. are anticipated as a result of construction of the
Build Alternative. Appendix 3.1 contains a letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St.
6 40 CFR 230.3(s)

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Louis District, stating that this project does not impact wetlands or waters of the U.S. and
would not require a section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act.
3.18.3 Floodplains
Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency show
that the project area is outside the limits of the 100-year floodplain (Appendix 3.5). There are
no floodplains or regulatory floodways within the project area. Therefore, there are no
anticipated direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to floodplains from the Build or No-Build
Alternatives.
3.18.4 Mitigation
Because there are no anticipated impacts to wetlands, Waters of the U.S., or floodplains from
the Build Alternative, no mitigation measures are needed.
3.19 Hazardous Materials

This section summarizes the findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
conducted for this project that included the Build Alternative right-of-way and the
properties at 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard (Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School) and
5809 Delmar Boulevard. The full Phase I ESA is provided as Appendix 3.2. Additionally, a
Phase II ESA was completed for the property at 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard (Roberts
Chevrolet/Delmar High School) in 2004 and updated in 2010; this is also included in
Appendix 3.2 A hazardous material site is a location or facility that reportedly contains one
or more hazardous substances or that has released a hazardous substance into the
environment.
The ESA is based on a review of applicable regulatory databases of known or potential
hazardous wastes sites, and properties or facilities currently under investigation for
potential environmental violations, including but not limited to Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System ; State Coalition
for Remediation of Drycleaners; Leaking Underground Storage Tank ; and Underground
Storage Tank . The review identified properties or facilities that may have the potential to
adversely affect environmental conditions along the trolley alignment. Based on findings
from these lists, project staff identified properties along the proposed trolley alignment for
which spills or releases were reported, but where clean-up is not specified to be complete.
The Phase I ESA also included field reconnaissance of the project right-of-way and the
properties at 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard (Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School) and
5809 Delmar Boulevard.

A hazardous materials site assessment was conducted within a one-quarter mile radius
around the proposed Loop Trolley alignment. Forty-seven sites were found to be located
within this radius (see Figure 3.19-1). Of those 47 sites, 24 of them are located on either
Delmar Blvd or DeBaliviere Ave. The 24 sites along the trolley corridor include two

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FIGURE 3.19-1. Hazardous Materials Sites in the Project Corridor

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Brownfield sites, 18 drycleaner sites, and 4 other sites. Twenty of the sites are listed as
underground storage tanks sites, while seven of these sites also were listed as leaking
underground storage sites. No water wells were found in the one-quarter mile radius
around the Loop Trolley corridor.
The Phase I ESA was conducted for the project area to identify potential hazardous
materials concerns associated with the Build Alternative. The assessment assumes that the
construction of the Build Alternative would occur generally through the center of Delmar
Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue. Also, the site assessment assumes that construction
activities would involve shallow excavations generally two feet or less.
Loop Trolley corridor construction also would include building a maintenance facility at
5975-5893 Delmar Boulevard (Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School).
The 1909 parcel at 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard (Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School)
indicates there were no buildings on these properties. The 1951 Sanborn map shows an
automobile sales and service facility present on this parcel as well as two small unidentified
stores. There is an oil tank identified on the 5887 parcel. The 1989 Sanborn map now
identifies the same building as the location of the vacant Delmar High School. The oil tank is
no longer present. In addition, the two small stores previously located on this parcel are
gone. No further changes are seen in the remaining Sanborn map years.
A review of the regulatory databases shows that 5895 Delmar, one of the two small stores
seen in the 1951 Sanborn map, was the former location of the Peerless Hat Shop. The site is
identified as Drycleaner ID number S106876412. The limited information in the database
states that the facility is abandoned and that it was a drycleaner. No other information is
available.
See Appendix 3.2 for Phase 1 report of this parcel and for the public right of way.

The No-Build Alternative would not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively impact any
hazardous materials.

Direct Effects
There are no hazardous materials concerns Summary of hazardous materials
associated with the Build Alternative project right- effects:
of-way or the DeBaliviere Bridge. However, The site under consideration for a
hazardous materials were used in certain areas of the maintenance facility along Delmar
property at 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard (Roberts Boulevard contains hazardous
Chevrolet/Delmar High School). Both the Phase I materials. Construction of the
maintenance facility would need to
ESA conducted in 2011 and the Phase II ESA include proper techniques for handling
conducted in 2004 for this property indicate that hazardous materials.
there is contamination associated with the
underground storage tank onsite, and there are
asbestos containing materials within the building.

UTILITIES
Although the trolley would require batteries to operate, the number of batteries stored in the
maintenance facility would be minimal. Storage would be in accordance with
manufacturers’ recommendations and local code and municipality requirements, and they
would be disposed of using manufacturer’s direction. Therefore, there would be no hazmat
concerns relating to batteries used in operation of the trolley.
Indirect Effects
In general, redevelopment in the area might require remediation or clean up because, as
described above, many of the properties along Delmar Boulevard are listed on at least one
regulatory database. The voluntary cleanup database indicates three properties within the
one-quarter mile search radius (two of these on Delmar Boulevard) are currently underway.
As redevelopment occurs, the vacant parcels in the area would need to undergo voluntary
cleanups coordinated by the state or federal agencies in order to ensure proper
environmental cleanup of those sites.
Cumulative Effects
There would not be any cumulative effects associated with hazardous materials concerns
resulting from the Build Alternative.
There would be no construction impacts to hazardous materials in the streets of Delmar
Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue. As described in the Phase I ESA, rehabilitation of the
DeBaliviere Bridge is not expected to pose hazardous materials concerns. Construction of
the maintenance facility on the Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School site would require
remediation for known hazardous materials contamination; this is discussed further in
section 3.19.2.3 below.
3.19.2.3 Mitigation Measures

Prior to construction of the maintenance facility at 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard (Roberts
Chevrolet/Delmar High School), the TDD would conduct a detailed building inspection for
asbestos-containing materials and other potentially hazardous materials such as LUST and
volatile organic compounds . Sampling of asbestos-containing materials would be taken
before definitively identifying the scope of remedial action on this property. The remedial
action identified would take place prior to construction of the maintenance facility on this
property. Remediation is anticipated to cost approximately $123,000. This cost is listed as
part of the contingency costs for the maintenance facility (listed as line item 30 in Appendix
4.1) Appendix 3.2 provides detail on the analysis completed to arrive at the $123,000
remediation cost estimate.
3.20 Utilities
There are several utility systems located along Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue.
These are as follows:
 Electricity: AmerenUE
 Gas: Laclede

UTILITIES
 Sewer: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD)
 Water: City of St. Louis Water Division provides the water to customer’s located in the
City of St. Louis. Missouri American Water Company provides water to customer’s
located in University City.
 Traffic Signals and Lighting: City of St. Louis Department of Streets Traffic and Lighting
owns the signals and lighting within the limits of the City of St. Louis. St. Louis County
Highways and Traffic owns the signals within the University City side of the project.
 Cable: Charter Communications
 Phone: AT&T Summary of utilities effects:
3.20.2 Environmental Consequences Construction of the Build Alternative

would require relocation of Laclede’s
3.20.2.1 No-Build Alternative pipe main in four places, relocations
or adjustments to manholes owned by
The No-Build Alternative would not have any direct, the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
indirect, or cumulative effects on utilities in the project District, relocation of water mains
study area. owned by the City of St. Louis Water
Division and the Missouri American
3.20.2.2 Build Alternative Water Company in several places,
relocation/adjustment of traffic arms
Direct Effects and poles owned by the City of St.
The Build Alternative would impact utilities in the Louis, and relocation of manholes
project area in the following ways: owned by Charter Communications
and AT&T.
 Gas:
 4000’ of Laclede’s 10” cast iron lined pipe main would have to be relocated due to
the location of the main near the eastbound track.
 500’ of Laclede’s 6” cast iron lined pipe main would have to be relocated due to the
location of the main near the westbound track.
 200’ of Laclede’s 2” plastic pipe in 6” cast iron pipe main would have to be relocated
due to the location of the main near the westbound track.
 700’ of Laclede’s 20” cast iron lined pipe main would have to be relocated due to the
location of the main near the DeBaliviere track.
 Sewer:
 2 MSD manholes would need to be reconstructed.

 2 MSD manholes would need to be relocated.
 1 MSD manhole would be to be readjusted to grade.
 Water:
 2600’ of Missouri American’s Water Company’s 12” cast in place water main would
have to be relocated due to the location of the main near the westbound track.

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
 2000’ of the City of St. Louis Water Division’s 12” cast iron place water main would
have to be relocated due to the location of the main near the westbound track.
 19’ of the City of St. Louis Water Division’s 8” cast iron place water main would have
to be relocated due to the location of the main near the eastbound track.
have to be relocated due to the location of the main near the Delmar bypass track.
have to be relocated due to the location of the main near the Delmar bypass track.
have to be relocated due to the location of the main on the DeBaliviere track.
 Due to the installation of lead service lines in older areas 8 services would have to be
replaced per the City’s standard due to the relocation of the water mains.
 Traffic:
 Some traffic arms may need to be raised to allow clearance.

 Several poles would be relocated and the signals would be changed to allot for new
traffic flows affected by the trolley.
 Phone/Cable:
 6 manholes would be relocated.

 10 manholes would be readjusted to the new grade.

There would be no indirect or cumulative effects to utilities in the project study area
resulting from this project.
Temporary impacts may include short-term disruption of utility provisions. As part of the
project communication plan, all disruptions would be communicated well to affected
customers well in advance of the disruption.

Utility disruption during the construction phase of the project would be mitigated through
communication with affected customers well in advance of the disruption. This
communication plan would be developed as part of the overall construction mitigation plan
for the project. The TDD would develop this plan and obtain FTA’s review and approval on
this plan prior to beginning construction on the project.
3.21 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Table 3.21-1 provides a summary of all anticipated impacts from the Build Alternative as
well as proposed mitigation measures. Coordination of all mitigations defined in
Table 3.21-1 would be the sole responsibility of the TDD as the grantee for the Loop Trolley
project.

TABLE 3.21-1. Summary of Impacts

No-Build Alternative Impacts Build Alternative Impacts
Transit No impacts Improvement of transit service

No change to bus or MetroLink service, except for
during rehabilitation of DeBaliviere Bridge
Bicycle and Beneficial cumulative impact from the Beneficial cumulative impact in conjunction with
pedestrian St. Vincent Greenway Project the St. Vincent Greenway Project
facilities
Traffic No impacts No significant impact, but rehabilitation of

DeBaliviere bridge would impede local access
temporarily
Parking No impacts No substantial reduction in parking facilities
Land use No impacts Conversion of land is limited to the maintenance

facility only
Right-of-way No impacts Only acquisition is related to the maintenance

facility
No permanent easements
Economics No impacts Likely indirect impact of redevelopment in the area
Neighborhoods No impacts No impacts to neighborhoods or community

and Community facilities
Facilities
Environmental No impacts No disproportionate impact to minority or low-

justice/Title VI income populations or Title VI populations
Visual and No impacts No significant adverse impact. Any potential

aesthetic lighting impacts from the maintenance facility
resources could be mitigated through use of standard
directional lighting.
Cultural resources No impacts No adverse effect to historic districts or individual

properties listed or eligible for the NRHP
The maintenance facility site is a historic building,
but this use would not be considered an adverse
effect
Air quality No impacts No impact to regional air quality
Biology No impacts No impact to biology or endangered species in the

area
Noise and No impacts Potential for moderate noise impacts at 8 existing

vibration residential units along Delmar Boulevard
Potential vibration impact at the People’s Health
Center
Potential noise impacts due to curve squeak at the
turnout near the maintenance facility located at
5985-5893 Delmar Boulevard (Roberts
Chevrolet/Delmar High School)
Energy No impacts Energy consumption would be less in the Build

Alternative than in the No-Build Alternative

TABLE 3.21-1. Summary of Impacts

No-Build Alternative Impacts Build Alternative Impacts
Parks and No impacts No impacts to parks or recreational facilities

Recreation
Section 4(f) and No impacts No use of section 4(f) resources or section 6(f)
6(f) land; de minimis impact to the Roberts
Chevrolet/Delmar High School property
Public Safety and No impacts No effects to provision of emergency services in

Security the area
Geology and Soils No impacts No impacts to soils or geological conditions in the

area
Wetlands, Waters, No impacts No impacts to wetlands or waters of the U.S.

and Floodplains No work within a FEMA-designated floodplain
Hazardous No impacts There is a potential for hazardous materials

materials concerns during construction of the maintenance
facility
Utilities No impacts Construction of the Build Alternative would require

relocation of Laclede’s pipe main in four places,
relocations or adjustments to manholes owned by
the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District,
relocation of water mains owned by the City of St.
Louis Water Division and the Missouri American
Water Company in several places,
relocation/adjustment of traffic arms and poles
owned by the City of St. Louis, and relocation of
manholes owned by Charter Communications and
AT&T.

3.22 Summary of Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would be implemented by the TDD in the design and
construction phase of the project. References that follow each measure indicate where the
measure is first described within this chapter.
Design mitigation measures:
 During design, TDD would develop and submit the construction mitigation plan
to FTA for approval. The construction mitigation plan would include but not be
limited to the following measures:
 A traffic control strategy, including a detour plan for any affected MetroBus
routes (section 3.1.6, page 3-15)
 A detour plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, (section 3.1.6, page 3-15)
 Access management plan to maintain access to adjacent businesses and

residences during construction, (section 3.1.6, page 3-15)
 Development of state safety oversight plan in coordination with the Missouri

Department of Transportation State Safety Oversight Officer (section 3.15.3,
page 3-100)
 Plan for identifying alternative parking spaces, should any be impacted during
the construction phase, (section 3.1.6, page 3-15)
 Tree removal and replacement plan (section 3.16.5, page 3-102)
 Communications plan for any disruptions in utility provisions (section 3.20.3,

page 3-111)
 Plan for providing signage for any affected businesses during construction
(section 3.4.3, page 3-33).
 Communications plan for public outreach during the construction phase

(section 3.1.6, page 3-15, and section 3.4.3, page 3-33).
 During design, TDD would submit an application for a building permit to the
City of St. Louis to construct the maintenance facility. The City of St. Louis would
determine at that time whether or not a variance to the Neighborhood Commercial
Area zoning designation is needed. If it is needed, the TDD would obtain the
variance. FTA should be copied on all correspondence regarding the variance.
(section 3.2.5, page 3-28).
 During design, TDD would conduct a detailed property inspection for asbestos-
containing materials and any other potentially hazardous materials such as LUST
and volatile organic compounds at 5875-5895 Delmar Boulevard (Roberts

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Chevrolet/Delmar High School) to determine the full course of remediation

necessary. (section 3.19.2.3, page 3-109)
 Prior to construction, any transfer of deed or capital lease for the acquisition of
5875-5895 Delmar (the Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School) would contain a
deed restriction limiting the use of the property to non-residential use. (section
3.3.3, page 3-30)
 During design, The TDD would provide design plans at the 15%, 35%, and 80%
stages of completion to the SHPO for review and approval. Rehabilitation of the
maintenance facility would conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. (section 3.9.3, page 3-72)
 Prior to construction, the TDD would conduct an energy assessment of the

maintenance facility and incorporate all feasible, sustainable elements.(section
3.12.4, page 3-90)
 Mitigation for any lighting impacts from the maintenance facility would be
accomplished through use of standard directional lighting. (section 3.8.3, page 3-
64).
 The TDD would ensure that low-income, elderly, and disabled riders are eligible
for reduced half-fare during all operating hours. (section 3.6.3, page 3-49).
 During design, TDD would re-evaluate potential noise/vibration impacts to

nearby residential units (Alanson Apartments) and the People's Health Center and
any single family house abutting the maintenance facility. TDD would consider
the location of turnout or using flange-bearing frogs (connecting joints) and other
design features to minimize noise and vibration impacts to the maximum extent
possible. (section 3.10.6, page 3-83)
 Mitigation for potential noise impacts from curve squeal would be accomplished
through utilization of standard maintenance practices and the application of rail
lubrication systems. (section 3.10.6, page 3-83)
Construction Mitigation Measures:
 No tree or vegetation removal would occur during the typical migratory bird
nesting period (between March 1 and September 1). Any loss of tree or vegetation
would be replaced at 1:1 ratio using plant species compatible to the project
vicinity. (section 3.16.5, page 3-102)
 TDD would notify the public in advance of any changes to access/detours. (section
3.1.6, page 3-15)

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES

(section 3.1.6, page 3-15)

CHAPTER 4
Finance
This chapter describes the capital and operating financing plans for the Loop Trolley project.
Funding for the construction and operation of the line would involve participation from the
federal government, local special purpose taxing districts, local non-profits sources, private
sector entities, and philanthropic contributors.
4.1 Capital Finance Plan for the St. Louis Loop Trolley
Capital Cost Estimate. The estimated capital costs of the project are $43 million. Table 4.1-1
provides a breakdown of costs by major categories, and Appendix 4.1 provides additional
cost details. Appendix 4.1 also provides additional information regarding contingency
allocations and per annum increases. As Table 4.1-1 shows, the project would require a
nominal amount of right-of-way, land, or improvement costs, and is anticipated to be built
within existing public right-of-way. The only exception to this is the maintenance facility.
The ROW, land, and improvements costs shown in Table 4.1-1 include the cost for that
specific parcel acquisition. Embedded within the “Sitework” category are costs for the
DeBaliviere Bridge rehabilitation, which would include seismic retrofitting of the bridge.
The total cost for the rehabilitation and seismic retrofitting would be $3.4 million ($400k for
seismic retrofitting), plus a 20 percent contingency for a total approximate cost estimate of
$4.1 million. See Appendix 2.6 for additional details related to the DeBaliviere Bridge.
FTA Funding. Approximately $25 million for

TABLE 4.1-1. Capital Cost Estimate
design, construction, and equipment
procurement of the Loop Trolley would be Estimated Cost
Project Element (in millions of $)
provided by the FTA’s Urban Circulator
grant. While the grant has yet to be Guideway and Track $9.54
awarded and is pending FTA review, last Stations $0.44
summer the US DOT announced the Loop
Support Facility $5.59
Trolley project as one of five streetcar
projects across the country that would be Sitework $13.44
eligible to receive a $25 million dollar grant. Systems $3.47
This announcement came as the result of a
competitive national application process. ROW, Land, Improvements * $0.45
Vehicles $6.27
Non-FTA Funding (see Figure 4.1-1). The
federal grant award would only be a Professional Services $3.80
portion of the total $43 million required to Total Estimated Capital Cost $43.00
deliver the Loop Trolley as proposed in the
* While no ROW is anticipated to be required, this line
application for the Urban Circulator Grant. item accounts for the possibility that a cost for some
The remaining $18 million would be funded nominal easements (temporary or permanent) may be
through a variety of sources. Specifically, required based on future detailed design analyses.
the project intends to receive funding from
special taxation districts, allocation of new markets tax credits, federal Surface

CHAPTER 4: FINANCE
CAPITAL FINANCE PLAN FOR THE ST. LOUIS LOOP TROLLEY
Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) funds,
and private philanthropic contributions. The next section provides details on each expected
funding source.
4.1.1 Firm Commitments

Special Taxation Districts, $3.5 Million FIGURE 4.1-1. Sources of Funds
In 2005, the City of St. Louis, pursuant to
Ordinance No. 66969 created the Delmar
East Loop Tax Increment Financing
District (TIF). The TIF encompasses
property within a portion of the proposed
alignment of the Loop Trolley from the
city limits of the City of St. Louis on the
east to DeBaliviere Avenue on the west.
The District captures the incremental
growth in property taxes and local
economic activity taxes, such as sales and
earning taxes. Pursuant to a
Redevelopment Agreement dated June 22,
2010 by and between the City of St. Louis
and the designated TIF developer, Loop
TIF, Inc., the City of St. Louis has agreed to
issue a TIF Note to Loop TIF, Inc. in
the maximum principal amount of
$6,000,000 plus interest to reimburse Loop
TIF, Inc, for transportation development
and infrastructure costs. It is anticipated
that Loop TIF, Inc. would either sell the
TIF Note for $3.5 million or would pledge this Note as security for a $3.5 million loan it
would get from a third party financial institution. Loop TIF, Inc. would in turn contribute
the $3.5 million loan proceeds to the project prior to the commencement of construction in
the Spring or Summer of 2011. (See Appendix 4.2 for a letter of commitment from the
President of the Loop TIF, Inc.)
4.1.2 Commitments in Process

New Markets Tax Credit Proceeds, $3.5 Million
In 2010, St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) awarded a $5 million New Markets Tax
Credit (NMTC) allocation to the Loop Trolley project. (See Appendix 4.2 for the letter of
commitment from SLDC). Also in 2010, McCormack Baron Salazar, through its Urban
Initiatives CDE, agreed to use $10 million of its NMTC allocation to support the project.
Pursuant to the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act
of 2010, Congress and the President have extended the federal NMTC Program for 2011 and
2012 at a level of $3.5 billion each year, and SLDC has agreed to award additional NMTC
allocations to the project if SLDC receives an allocation. Assuming $20 million in total

CHAPTER 4: FINANCE
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FINANCE PLAN
4.2.1 Description of Operating Plan

The minimum operating plan represents the plan that would be utilized at the opening of
service. Additional service could be provided if additional funding is available at that time.
A summary of that plan and its evolution follows below. More information is provided in
Appendix 4.3.
The flexibility of the system design for the Loop Trolley project allows a large number of
operating schemes, which can be tailored to meet ridership demand in a number of efficient
and effective service plans. The component methodology for developing these plans is
described in Appendix 4.3, where eight distinct examples of possible operating plans are
developed and costed. These plans, or variants, can meet the anticipated demands of a
system that has been in revenue service for some time, and show that the physical plant can
handle the growing ridership for many years into the future without additional capital
expense.
It is also recognized that the initial ridership of the Loop Trolley, like all other streetcar and
light rail projects, would be less than the ridership expected to be experienced two, three,
five or ten years after opening day. Therefore, the initial operating plan to be inaugurated
represents a more basic level of service, upon which ridership can be built. Even at the
beginning of service, the importance of the regional transit connections with Metro is
recognized by comporting the Loop Trolley headways to those currently operated by the
light rail MetroLink (whose Forest Park and Delmar stations are expected to provide the
majority of transit transfer passengers). The several Metro bus lines which connect with the
Loop Trolley follow headways also consistent with MetroLink, and thus also feature close
connectivity with the Loop Trolley. Therefore, from the start of service, the Loop Trolley
would operate on a base headway of 20 minutes.
Although potential usage would initially be higher during non-winter months, there is a
need to develop circulation and local ridership by offering service throughout the week and
for the entire year. This regularity in service enables users to be able to depend on the
frequent and reliable schedules. Accordingly, the initial level of service would be offered
7 days per week, 52 weeks a year. From Sunday through Thursday, service would be run
from 11:00AM until 6:00PM at a 20-minute frequency. On Fridays and Saturdays, service
would run from 11:00AM until midnight at a base frequency of 20 minutes.
This service package requires three vehicles. Two spare vehicles are recommended, yielding
a fleet size of five cars. Annual vehicle –hours for this operating plan total 10,336. This
equates to an annual cost of $1.34 million.
4.2.2 Proposed Funding Sources

The operation and maintenance of the Loop Trolley would be funded in the following way:
 Assuming that 70 percent of riders will pay full fare, fares are projected to cover
approximately $680,000/year. While the project team considered several fare scenarios,
it is likely that the fare will match the existing MetroLink and MetroBus fares at the time
the Loop Trolley opens for service. See Appendix 4.3 for operating plan analyses and
Appendix 4.4 for ridership information. The opening year fare for the trolley project
would be $2 per ride. This fare would apply to all users except for those who are 65

CHAPTER 4: FINANCE
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FINANCE PLAN
years of age or older, disabled, or low-income. The fare for those users would be $1 per
ride.TDD revenues currently generate approximately $500,000/year and are expected to
grow due to new development within the TDD.
The combination of these two sources would leave a remaining gap of approximately
$160,000. Other sources of revenue to account for that shortfall could include advertising,
sponsorships and institutional annual subsidies.

CHAPTER 4: FINANCE
CHAPTER 5
Public and Agency Involvement
Coordination with local public agencies, associations, and the general public has been
ongoing since the Loop Trolley project’s inception. Community and agency involvement
dates back to the late 1990’s when initial community meetings were held and to the studies
conducted in 1997 and 2000.7 The resulting support for the project led to the planning and
design effort that began in 2008. Input from local partners and members of the public played
an integral role in forming the basic elements for the preferred trolley concept in the
corridor. The project team undertook an extensive public information program, including
bi-monthly Advisory Committee meetings, coordination with representative agencies of
community resources and neighborhood associations, general public meetings and forums,
stakeholder interviews, and an active website. Details of the program as well as meetings
conducted with local agencies and community representatives are below.
5.1 Loop Trolley Advisory Committee

The representative body providing general oversight for the project is the Loop Trolley
Advisory Committee. East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGCOG), as liaison
for the Loop Trolley Company, formed this group by bringing together the jurisdictions that
maintain the public right-of-way in the trolley project area (City of St. Louis, University
City, and St. Louis County). In addition, they included key stakeholders interested in
supporting the project (Washington University and the Loop Trolley Company). Since the
trolley would interface with MetroLink and MetroBus, the group also invited Metro to
participate on the Advisory Committee. This group has met bi‐monthly since October of -
2008, and includes representatives of several local and regional agencies. Table 5.1-1 lists the
members of this committee.
7 Delmar Boulevard Trolley Feasibility Study, 2000 (Delmar, 2000), page 3.

CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
LOOP TROLLEY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TABLE 5.1-1. Loop Trolley Advisory Committee Membership (as of June 2009)
Agency Representative
St. Louis City, Office of the Mayor Tim Embree/Helen Yane
St. Louis City, Board of Public Services John Kohler
St. Louis County, Department of Public Works Glenn Henninger
Citizens for Modern Transit Tom Shrout/Kim Cella
Metro Jessica Mefford-Miller
The Loop Trolley Company J. Kim Tucci

Ben Uchitelle
Joe Edwards
Bob Archibald
Joe Adams
Don Musick
Washington University Cheryl Adelstein
University City Mayor Joe Adams

Julie Feier
University City, Department of Public Works Evelyn Shields-Benford
East-West Gateway Council of Governments Jerry Blair

Terry Freeland
MaryGrace Lewandowski
Maggie Hales
Loop Trolley Advisory Committee meetings have been facilitated by the EWGCOG with
assistance from the consultant team. The Advisory Committee would continue to meet
throughout the design and construction process of the Loop Trolley project and would add
members to its body if needed during future phases of the project.
The representative body providing technical oversight for the project is the Loop Trolley
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). This group met monthly between July 2009 and
January 2010 as the project team developed detailed analyses for the various alternatives.
The TAC formed in October of 2008, and includes representatives of several local and
regional agencies. Table 5.1-2 lists the members of this committee. The focus of the technical
advisory committee is on design details for the project. The TAC collectively advised
EWGCOG and the project design team on matters concerning members’ respective
jurisdictions. For example, Metro helped the project design team understand the operating
characteristics at key locations along the trolley route. This allowed the design team to make
smart choices that complimented the Metro system in the preliminary engineering process.

TABLE 5.1-2. Loop Trolley Technical Advisory Committee Membership (as of January 2010)
Agency Representative
St. Louis City, Streets Department Todd Waeltermann
St. Louis City, Board of Public Services John Kohler

Bill Early (Bridge Department)
St. Louis County, Department of Public Works Glenn Henninger
Citizens for Modern Transit Tom Shrout
Metro Jessica Mefford-Miller

Chris Poehler, Engineering
The Loop Trolley Company Don Musick
University City, Department of Public Works Evelyn Shields-Benford

Andrea Rigante, Planning
East-West Gateway Council of Governments Jerry Blair
5.2 Coordination with Local Agencies

The core project team was composed of the following entities: EWGCOG, the Loop Trolley
Company, Citizens for Modern Transit, and the consultant technical team. The project team
formed in 2008. In addition to coordination on the Advisory Committee, the project team
has coordinated closely with local jurisdictions since its inception. The coordination
meetings were held in order to ensure that the project team was fully aware of the needs and
concerns of St. Louis City, University City, and St. Louis County during the planning and
environmental analysis phases. Specifically, this coordination included:
 Coordination with City of St. Louis administration staff. Coordination was in the form of
meetings, emails and phone calls at key milestones in the project.
 Coordination meetings with City of St. Louis public works staff (Board of Public Service
and Streets Department). Coordination was in the form of meetings, emails and phone
calls at key milestones in the project.
 Coordination meetings with St. Louis County’s planning and design divisions.
Coordination was in the form of emails and phone calls at key milestones in the project.
 Coordination with St. Louis County Traffic Division in response to concerns about how
future trolley would integrate with existing traffic on Delmar Boulevard. The project
team recommended that the trolley would not deteriorate traffic along Delmar
Boulevard. All supporting data and analyses were provided to St. Louis County traffic
engineers for review. No further concerns have been raised at this time.
 Coordination with St. Louis City aldermen. Project team members met with both
Alderman Frank Williamson (26th Ward) and Alderwoman Lyda Krewson (28th Ward)
multiple times across the life of the project. Through these meetings, the Alderpersons

COORDINATION WITH COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES
provided important insights into the best ways to present information to their
jurisdictions. They also provided invaluable input into alternatives development and
evaluation. The majority of the low-income neighborhoods in the project area fall in the
26th Ward, and Alderman Williamson helped disseminate timely information to these
neighborhoods throughout the life of the project.
 Coordination with elected officials from University City. Project team members met with
Mayor Joe Adams regularly throughout the life of the project. As a champion for
African-American rights and opportunity in the St. Louis region, Mayor Adams helped
the project team to understand the diverse interests of the University City business
owners, local minority populations, and other relevant demographic details. His
involvement insured strong minority participation in the public process.
 A stakeholder briefing session with Metro on January 26, 2009, at the Metro offices. The
purpose of this meeting was to review the alternatives that had been developed at that
point through the planning study.
5.3 Coordination with Community Representatives

The project team met with representatives of community facilities throughout the life of the
project, in order to facilitate conversation about how the Loop Trolley project could meet the
needs of the surrounding communities and any concerns specific to the community
resources along the project alignment. Topics of discussion during these meetings included
potential impacts to community resources, mitigation for impacts to the surrounding
communities, and community desires for station placement and alignment. Specifically, this
coordination included:
 Five coordination meetings with the Forest Park Steering Committee (see Chapter 3,
Figure 3.13-2, for explanation of the Forest Park organization)
 Meeting 1 was held on August 29, 2009 at Forest Park Forever offices in the Dennis &
Judith Jones Visitor and Education Center in Forest Park. The purpose of this
meeting was to introduce the locally preferred alternative, as approved by the
EWGCOG Board of Director, and to solicit initial feedback on that alternative as it
related to the Forest Park Master Plan.
 Meeting 2 was held on September 30, 2009 at Forest Park Forever offices in the
Dennis & Judith Jones Visitor and Education Center in Forest Park. The purpose of
this meeting was to respond to comments and concerns regarding the locally
preferred alternative near Forest Park at the south end of the project area. The project
team presented a new solution for the committee to review and consider.
 Meeting 3 was held on November 7, 2009 at Forest Park Forever offices in the Dennis
& Judith Jones Visitor and Education Center in Forest Park. The purpose of this
meeting was to present refinements to the newly developed ideas at the south end of
the project near Forest Park, based on feedback provided at the previous meeting
 Meeting 4 was held on December 9, 2009 at Forest Park Forever offices in the Dennis
& Judith Jones Visitor and Education Center in Forest Park. The purpose of this
meeting was to develop a strategy for presenting information to the Forest Park

COORDINATION WITH COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES
Advisory Board regarding the new solution that resulted from Forest Park Steering
Committee input.
 Meeting 5 was held on January 9, 2010 at Forest Park Forever offices in the Dennis &
Judith Jones Visitor and Education Center in Forest Park. The purpose of this
meeting was to finalize presentation materials for the Forest Park Advisory Board.
 Two coordination meetings the with Forest Park Advisory Board (see Chapter 3,
Figure 3.13-2, for explanation of the Forest Park organization)
 Meeting 1 was held on March 19, 2009 at the Dennis & Judith Jones Visitor and
Education Center in Forest Park. The purpose of this meeting was to provide a
project update, present the reasonable range of alternatives, and solicit feedback.
 Meeting 2 was held on January 21, 2010 at Dennis & Judith Jones Visitor and
Education Center in Forest Park. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss
integration of the Loop Trolley locally preferred alternative with the Forest Park
Master Plan. The project team presented details developed in conjunction with the
Forest Park Steering Committee. As a result of the information presented, the Forest
Park Advisory Board voted unanimously to approve the Loop Trolley improvements
as being in concert with the Forest Park Master Plan, yielding no negative impacts to
Forest Park or its operations.
 Two coordination meetings with Washington University
 Meeting 1 was held on June 22, 2009 at the University’s north campus location. The
purpose of this meeting was to present the range of alternatives and to discuss
economic development opportunities/ideas in and around the project area.
 Meeting 2 was held on August 14, 2009 by conference call. The purpose of this
meeting was to discuss how the University might participate in the development of
solutions at the west terminus, about which concerns had been expressed at the July
2009 public meeting.
 Coordination meeting with Headmaster of Crossroads College Prep School on May 7 at

Velocity Café and Cyclery (two blocks south of the school). The purpose of this meeting
was to provide an update of possible alternatives along DeBaliviere, and to solicit input
and questions from the Headmaster. The Headmaster noted that the school supported
the Trolley and is excited about the possibility of an alternate mode of transportation in
the corridor. He stressed safety as an important matter where the Trolley crosses in front
of the school, particularly at the beginning and end of the school day. To address this
concern, the preliminary engineering efforts included a signing plan that would require
trolleys to stop at the school’s ingress and egress points throughout daily service, not
just during peak times. Stakeholder interviews with St. Louis Convention and Visitors
Bureau, Missouri History Museum, and Metro during the winter and spring of 2009. The
purpose of these meetings was to introduce the project and solicit general feedback.

COORDINATION WITH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS
5.4 Coordination with Neighborhood Associations

The project team has coordinated with the four neighborhood associations that are directly
adjacent to the project alignment. The purposes of these meetings were to both inform the
associations of the project’s progress and to solicit feedback regarding any community
concerns. Specifically, these meetings included:
The project team conducted one coordination meeting with the Skinker- DeBaliviere
Association on October 14, 2009 at the Skinker-DeBaliviere Place office on Des Peres
Avenue. The purpose of this meeting was to present an overview of the Loop Trolley project
to the Association, and to answer any questions or concerns. The association did not express
any concerns as it pertained to the Loop Trolley project, and expressed their general
enthusiasm and support for the project as a tool to stabilize and enhance their community.
The project team conducted one coordination meeting with the DeBaliviere Place
Association on November 14, 2009 at Pulaski Bank office on DeBaliviere Avenue in the
project corridor. The purpose of this meeting was to present an overview of the Loop Trolley
project to the Association, and to answer any questions or concerns. The association
inquired about whether the future solution on DeBaliviere Avenue might also include on-
street parking. As a result, the project team adjusted the alignment of the trolley further east.
Doing so increased the cost of the trolley project by nearly $500,000, but the team thought it
worthwhile in order to accommodate the neighborhood desire for some parking along
DeBaliviere Avenue. This alignment adjustment required that GRG adjust their greenway
plans, but they also were willing to do so in order to accommodate the neighborhood’s
desire for some space for parking along DeBaliviere Avenue. As a result of these two
projects being willing to compromise, the design team was able to provide a parallel parking
lane for the entire western side of DeBaliviere Avenue between Pershing Avenue and
Delmar Boulevard. See Appendix 2.5 for design drawings depicting the improvements
along DeBaliviere Avenue.
Three coordination meetings were held with the western terminus neighborhoods
(University Heights 1, University Heights 2, and Ames Place Neighborhood Associations)
on September 15, 2009 at the University City library; on October 29, 2009 at the University
City library; and on November 8, 2009, at the University City Methodist Church. The project
team conducted the first meeting as a listening session to better understand the concerns
raised at the July 2009 public open house. With that data, the project team developed new
ideas on how to design the west terminus. The team brought those ideas back to the
neighborhood groups on two separate occasions. The communities welcomed the new idea
developed by the project team and applauded the public process as a mechanism that
allowed for a better solution to evolve.
In advance of the public hearing for this EA, specific outreach (door-to-door drop ins) to the
residents immediately north of the maintenance facility location will be made to encourage
their participation in the public hearing.
5.5 Project Website

The project’s website, www.looptrolley.org, has been active since January 2008. It serves as a
central information source for interested stakeholders and provides an efficient way to

PROJECT NEWSLETTERS
distribute project announcements. The website is maintained by Citizens for Modern Transit
and would be maintained through the project’s construction. The website has been
advertised at community meetings and forums, and has been announced in local
newspapers. It is used as a central repository for meeting documents and information, and
as a way for all stakeholders to keep abreast of upcoming meetings and project updates.
This website would continue to be a central communication portal throughout the design
and construction process. Through email, social media, blogging, construction webcams,
and a range of other tools, it would be a single point of information for local residents,
businesses, and other interested parties.
5.6 Project Newsletters

Citizens for Modern Transit, supported by the consultant team, developed and distributed
four newsletters across the life of the previous planning study. These newsletters informed
the public of upcoming events, new ideas and solutions for the Loop Trolley, and funding
strategies.
5.7 Additional Public Involvement Activities

Members of the public will be invited to comment on the text of the Draft Environmental
Assessment during the 30-day public comment period following its publication. In addition,
the project team will hold a public hearing during comment period to ensure that members
of the public are fully aware of the project and have as many opportunities as possible to
comment on it. The purpose of the public hearing is to allow the public and respective
agencies comments on the Preferred Alternative and finding of the Draft Environmental
Assessment.
Members of the public will be made aware of the publication of the draft EA in the
following ways:
 Display advertisement in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
 Display advertisement in the St. Louis American, a newspaper that serves the African-
American community.
 Announcement on the project website (www.looptrolley.org).
 Announcement on website for the East-West Gateway Council of Governments

(www.ewgateway.org).
 Small posters at project area businesses.
 Announcement to the project’s email list, which includes local elected officials.
 Direct mailing to all residents and businesses within 500 feet of the project alignment.
The draft text for this mailing is listed as Appendix 5.2.
Members of environmental justice communities will be reached through the announcement
in the St. Louis American and through the direct mailing to residents and businesses within
500 feet of the project alignment.

GENERAL PUBLIC MEETINGS AND FORUMS
5.8 General Public Meetings and Forums

The project team convened one public open house and one public forum during the
planning phase of this project.
 The public open house was held on July 9, 2009 at the Regional
Arts Commission in the Delmar Loop (along the proposed
alignment for the Loop Trolley). It included a presentation and a
formal solicitation of comments. The purpose of the open house
was to introduce the project to the community and solicit
feedback on the proposed alignment. Feedback was also solicited
on the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Loop Trolley Open
House (July 9, 2009)
meeting was advertised through press releases in local
newspapers, an announcement on the project website, email
distributions, and direct mailings to residents within ¼ mile of the project.
Approximately 250 people attended this meeting. Public comments received at this
meeting included 122 comment forms and 65 additional comments written on flat maps
provided at the public meeting. The comments strongly agreed that bringing the trolley
back to the St. Louis region is a great idea; that the trolley would catalyze economic
development and reinvestment; and that the trolley should expand beyond the proposed
corridor to other areas of the St. Louis region. On July 29, 2009, the EWGCOG adopted
the Locally Preferred Alternative for the project.
 A public forum for the St. Vincent Greenway and Trolley was
held on June 15, 2009 at the Mount Carmel Community Center
off of Etzel Avenue in north St. Louis. The purpose of this forum
was to present the range of alternatives proposed for the St.
Vincent Greenway in the City of St. Louis. The St. Vincent
Greenway parallels the Loop Trolley along DeBaliviere, so the
St. Vincent Public
project team also provided information regarding the Loop
Forum (July 15, 2009)
Trolley at this meeting. Nearly 100 people attended this Forum.
For the portion of the St. Vincent Greenway along DeBaliviere, public comments were
largely favorable and in strong support of the Greenway and the Trolley.
5.9 Public Comments

The primary opportunity for public comment to this point in the project came at the July 9,
2009 public open house. In total, 122 comment forms were collected along with 65 comments
received from map notations made by some of the attendees.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
5.9.1 Key Themes of General Comments

Respondents were asked to submit general comments/issues/concerns that they wanted to
express to the project team. There were 5 common general sentiments; 2 strong oppositional
and 3 strong favorable sentiments.
The three strong favorable sentiments are:
 Strong agreement to the trolley service expanding into other areas i.e., Central West End,
Grand Avenue, and the Zoo;
 Strong agreement that the trolley would increase the growth of economic development;
and
 Strong agreement that bringing trolley service back to the St. Louis region is a great idea.
The two strong oppositional sentiments are:
 Strong opposition to south loop terminus at Trinity;
 Strong opposition to trolley service riders parking at Trinity possibly disturbing the
residents that live in adjacent neighborhoods;
These oppositional sentiments both focused on the western terminus at Trinity. As a result,
the project team conducted a series of engagement activities with the adjacent
neighborhoods, ultimately resulting in a new terminus option more favorable to the
neighborhoods. See Section 5.5 above for additional detail.
5.9.2 Other Public Comment Threads

A survey conducted at the public meeting revealed a variety of other preferences amongst
respondents. A few other relevant categories included parking, bicycling, and appearance of
overhead wires.
 Parking – the preference survey found that in general, respondents supported the
preservation of as much existing parking supply as possible. As discussed in Chapter 3,
the only parking impacts in the project corridor are at the station locations along the
West Delmar Loop section. In total, only 45 spots on-street spots would be lost. Along
DeBaliviere, approximately 50 new on-street spots would be gained. This creates a net
gain of 5 on-street spots for the project as a whole. Perhaps most importantly, the trolley
would provide a new mode of access to the corridor. It would create new and more
efficient connections between existing and future off-street parking supply to all
destinations along the corridor. For example, a person wishing to dine at a restaurant in
the West Loop is no longer limited to vehicular access near the respective restaurant. The
trolley would make it possible for said persons to park at any number of locations along
the corridor and visit various destinations without the need for a personal automobile
and the resultant parking access.
 Bicycling – respondents to the preference survey expressed that bicycling is an

important mode of travel in and around the corridor. While the Loop Trolley project
would not in and of itself be providing specific bicycle improvements, it would relate
well to the existing and future bicycle facilities along the project corridor described in

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chapter 3. By nature, the implementation of a trolley along Delmar and DeBaliviere

would work to further calm traffic. This is good for both bicyclists and pedestrians, as
slower driving speeds are safer for both of those non-motorized modes. Where trail
crossings of the Centennial Greenway and St. Vincent Greenway are required, the track
for the trolley would be designed to be safe and attractive for the bicycle and pedestrian
environment. There are several existing bicycle racks on both DeBaliviere Avenue and
Delmar Boulevard, and at both the Forest Park and the Delmar MetroLink station; these
would not be affected by the project and would be sufficient to accommodate bicycle
traffic once the project is constructed. Section 3.1.5 describes the locations of existing
bicycle racks in more detail.
 Appearance of Overhead Wires – some respondents (about a third of the 122 persons
who submitted surveys) stated that the appearance of overhead wires is important. The
overhead contact system (OCS) for this project would be located between the Delmar
MetroLink Station and the Forest Park MetroLink Station. It would not be a traditional 3-
wire catenary system. Rather, it would be a single-wire suspension system to minimize
the visual impact. The visual impact would be less intrusive than most overhead utility
lines. See Chapter 3 for additional details.
In addition to these trends, Appendix 5.1 includes documentation that highlights the
preferences expressed by those who chose to fill out comment forms for the various issues
related to the Loop Trolley Project.

CHAPTER 6
Draft EA Distribution List
6.1 Federal Agencies

Mr. Joe Cothern
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Director
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
U.S. Department of Interior
Room MS-2340-MIB
1849 “C” Street, N.W., Room 2340
Washington, D.C.
Environmental Review
Great Plains Support Office
National Park Service
1709 Jackson Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2571
Ms. Macie Houston

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
400 State Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Mr. Harold Deckerd

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
601 Business Loop 70 West
Parkade Center, Suite 250
Columbia, Missouri 65203-2546
Ms. Kay Carder

Federal Emergency Management Agency
2323 Grand Avenue, Suite 900
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Mr. Charlie Scott

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
101 Park De Ville Dr.
Columbia, Missouri 65203-0007

CHAPTER 7: DRAFT EA DISTRIBUTION LIST
DRAFT EA DISTRIBUTION LIST
Mr. Danny McClendon

Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1222 Spruce Street
St. Louis, MO 63103-2833
6.2 State Agencies

Mr. Shannon Cave
Missouri Department of Conservation
PO Box 180
2901 W. Truman Road
Jefferson City, Missouri 65109
Ms. Jane Beetem

Missouri Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 176
205 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
Missouri Department of Economic Development

301 High Street
P.O. Box 1157
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
William Bryan
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Grants Management Section, LWCF Coordination
PO Box 176
205 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
6.3 Local Government Agencies

Mr. Rich Bradley
City of St. Louis
Board of Public Service
1200 Market Street
St. Louis, MO 63103
Mr. Lehman Walker

City Manager
City of University City
6801 Delmar Blvd
University City, MO 63130
Mr. Glenn Henninger

St. Louis County
415 South Central Avenue
Clayton, MO 63105

DRAFT EA DISTRIBUTION LIST
Ms. Jessica Mefford-Miller

Metro Transit St. Louis
707 North First Street
St. Louis, MO 63102
Mr. Dan Skillman

City of St. Louis, Department of Parks, Recreation and Forestry
5600 Clayton Road
St. Louis, MO 63110
Mr. Don Roe

St. Louis Development Corporation
1015 Locust Street, Suite 1200
St. Louis, MO 63101
6.4 Copies Available for Public Viewing

1 S. Memorial Dr # 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Great Rivers Greenway

6174 Delmar Blvd # 2
St. Louis, MO 63112

5700 Lindell Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63112
People’s Clinic
5701 Delmar Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63112
University City Hall

University City Public Library


CHAPTER 7
References
ARC. 2010. Archival Search and Architectural Survey for the St. Louis Loop Trolley.
Association of Missouri Geologists. 1977. Geology in the Area of the Eureka–House Springs
Anticline with Emphasis on Stratigraphy, Structure, and Economics.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). 2010a. State Transportation Statistics 2009.
“Table 7-2: Transportation Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector: 2007.” April 15,
2010.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/state_transportati
on_statistics _2009/html/table_07_02.html. Accessed October 2010.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). 2010b. State Transportation Statistics 2009.
“Table 7-1: Transportation Energy Consumption by Energy Source: 2007.” April 15,
2010.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/state_transportati
on_statistics _2009/html/table_07_01.html. Accessed October 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2010. Personal communication from Tim Page related to Traffic Model Mode
Split. October 12, 2010.
Citizens for Modern Transit. 2009. Citizens for a Modern Transit, The Loop Trolley Meetings July
2009. http://www.looptrolley.org/trolleymeetings.html. Accessed September 2010.
East-West Gateway Council of Governments. 2004. Regional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
City of St. Louis. 2004. Forest Park Master Plan.
http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/parks/forestpark/fpmasterplan.html. Accessed
September 2010.
City of St. Louis. 2008. Forest Park Access, Circulation, and Parking Study.
http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/parks/forestpark/ParkingReport.pdf. Accessed
September 2010.
City of St. Louis. 2010. City of St. Louis Community Information Network. Neighborhood
Information data. http://stlouis.missouri.org/neighborhoods/neighmap.html.
Accessed September 2010.
Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, & E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Del Mar. 2000. Delmar Boulevard Trolley Feasibility Study.
East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGCOG). 2007a. Legacy 2035: The Long Range
Transportation Plan for the St. Louis Region.
http://www.ewgateway.org/trans/LongRgPlan/longrgplan.htm. Accessed
December 17, 2010.

CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES
REFERENCES
East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGCOG). 2007b. East-West Gateway Council

of Governments Datacenter. Population and Employment Estimates.
http://www.ewgateway.org/datacenter/datacenter.htm. Accessed September 2010.
East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGCOG). 2009. Air Quality Conformity
Determination and Documentation, 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5. October 21, 2009.
East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGCOG). 2010. Transportation Improvement
Program, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2014, St. Louis Metropolitan Area. October 1, 2010.
Energy Information Association (EIA). 2010. State Energy Profiles: Missouri. October 14, 2010.
http://www.eia.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=MO.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2009.
Environmental Assessments and Findings of no significant impact. 23 CFR §§771.119 and
771.121.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May 2006.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2007. Guidance for Preparing an Environmental Analysis.
Fister, Jeff. 2007. Eroding the Delmar Divide, West End Word, St. Louis Mo. September 2007.
Great Rivers Greenway. 2010. DeBaliviere/Porter Park/Etzel Project. DeBaliviere Avenue
Concept. June 2010.
http://www.greatrivers.info/Projects/GreenwayProjects.aspx?ProjectId=96&Green
wayId=10. Accessed September 2010.
HDR Engineering Inc. 2010. Personal communication from Santanu Roy related to Loop
Trolley Ridership: Environmental Benefits Worksheet. September 20, 2010.
Kaskaskia Engineering Group and CH2M HILL, 2009. Loop Trolley Existing and Future
Conditions, 2009.
LTK Engineering Services (LTK). 2010. Personal communication from John Schumann to
Tim Page/CH2M HILL related to Streetcar Energy Consumption. October 11, 2010.
Metro Transit – St. Louis. 2010. Metro Transit – St. Louis. http://www.metrostlouis.org.
Missouri Department of Conservation. 2010. Heritage Results for St. Louis County.
http://mdc.mo.gov/landwater-care/heritage-
program/results/county/St%20Louis. Accessed September 9, 2010.
Missouri Department of Economic Development. 2010. Missouri Economic Research and
Information Center. Regional Information.
http://www.ded.mo.gov/Economic/EconomicResearch.aspx. Accessed
December 17, 2010.
Missouri Department of Transportation Services (MoDOT). 2010. Threatened & Endangered
Species and Unique Communities.
http://www.modot.mo.gov/ehp/ThreatenedSpecies.htm. Accessed September 10,
2010.

REFERENCES
National Park Service (NPS). 2008. National Park Service Land and Water Conservation Fund
State Assistance Program Federal Financial Assistance Manual. Volume 69. October 1,
2008.
National Park Service (NPS). 2010. National Park Service Land and Water Conservation Funds,
Detailed Listings of Grants. http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm.
Accessed September 2010.
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 2007. 30 CFR 60, Section 60.4.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 1988. Fuel Consumption Rate Estimates
Obtained by Using Revised Fuel Correction Factors from Caltrans as Predicted by the Motor
Fuel Consumption Model. December 1988.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2006. Draft Environmental Procedures Manual.
Volume II. January 2006.
River des Peres Watershed Coalition. 2010. River des Peres Watershed Coalition Timeline.
http://www.thegreencenter.org/rdp/introduction/timeline.asp. Accessed
September 10, 2010.
Sanborn Map Company. Various. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps.
STV Incorporated. 2000. Delmar Boulevard Trolley Feasibility Study. St. Louis, Missouri:
Prepared for Bi-State Development Agency.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (TRB). 2000. Highway Capacity
Manual 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000. Summary File 1, Tables P1, P7, P8, and P12, and Summary
File 3, Tables P15, P19, P42, and P88.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1980s. National Wetlands Inventory.
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed September 10, 2010.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Missouri's Federally-listed Threatened,
Endangered, and Candidate Species’ County Distribution.

Appendix 1.1
LPA Selection
DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AGENDA
EAST-WEST GATEWAY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 - 10:00 AM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 29, 2009
3. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Flood Map Modernization Update
B. Status of Stimulus Projects
C. Federal Transportation Authorization
D. H1N1 Influenza Update
4. ACTION ITEMS
A. Modification of the FY 2010-2013 TIP to add six projects and modify six projects
- requested by MoDOT
B. Modification of the FY 2010-2013 TIP to add six projects - requested by IDOT
C. Modification of the FY 2010-2013 TIP and Air Quality Conformity

Determination to add three projects - requested by Staff
D. Microwave Consultant Selection
E. Amendment to the Unified Planning Work Program to Add the Interoperable

Emergency Communications Grant Program
F. Regional Security Expenditures
G. Executive Director Search Consultant Selection
5. OTHER BUSINESS
6. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Memo to: Board of Directors
Alan Dunstan
Chairman, Madison County Board
Vice Chair
Ed Hillhouse
From: Staff
Presiding Commissioner
Franklin County
2nd Vice Chair Subject: Project Notifications
Steve Ehlmann
County Executive
St. Charles County
Date: September 14, 2009
Executive Committee
Chuck Banks
Presiding Commissioner
Jefferson County
Charlie A. Dooley Attached is the Project Notification list for September, 2009. The compiled list is a
County Executive, St. Louis County
Mark A. Kern result of the weekly list of projects from the Missouri State Clearinghouse for
Chairman, St. Clair County Board
comments. The listing contains a summary table which includes grant applications,
Francis G. Slay
Mayor, City of St. Louis announcements, and public notices. If you have any questions regarding this
Delbert Wittenauer
Chairman, Board of Commissioners attachment, please contact Gary Pondrom in the Community Planning department.
Monroe County
Members
Joe Adams
St. Louis County Municipal League
John Hamm III
President, Southwestern Illinois
Metropolitan & Regional
Planning Commission
Kevin Hutchinson
President, Southwestern Illinois
Council of Mayors
Matt Melucci
Madison County
Roy Mosley
St. Clair County
Ray Muniz
Vice President, Southwestern Illinois
Council of Mayors
John Nations
St. Louis County
Alvin L. Parks, Jr.
Mayor, City of East St. Louis
Lewis Reed
President, Board of Aldermen
City of St. Louis
Werner Stichling
Jefferson County
John White
St. Charles County
Regional Citizens
Richard Kellett
John A. Laker
Brandon Perry
James A. Pulley
Robert Wetzel
Non-voting Members
Edie Koch
Illinois Department of Commerce
and Economic Opportunity
Richard LaBore
Metro
Pete Rahn
Missouri Department of
Transportation
Kelvin Simmons
Missouri Office of Administration Gateway Tower
One Memorial Drive, Suite 1600
Dick Smith
Illinois Department of
St. Louis, MO 63102-2451
Transportation
314-421-4220
Interim Executive Director 618-274-2750
Maggie Hales Fax 314-231-6120
webmaster@ewgateway.org
www.ewgateway.org
MINUTES
EAST-WEST GATEWAY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
JULY 29, 2009
The regular meeting of the Board of Directors was held in the Council’s office at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday,
July 29, 2009.
Members in Attendance
Alan Dunstan, Chair; Chairman, Madison County Board
Ed Hillhouse, Vice Chair; Commissioner, Franklin County
Steve Ehlmann, 2nd Vice Chair; County Executive, St. Charles County
Joe Adams, Mayor, City of University City; President, St. Louis County Municipal League
Chuck Banks, County Executive, Jefferson County
Charlie Dooley, County Executive, St. Louis County
Ed Hassinger, MoDOT
Kevin Hutchinson, Mayor, City of Columbia; Vice-President, SW IL Council of Mayors
Richard Kellett, Regional Citizen, St. Louis County
Mark Kern, Chairman, St. Clair County Board
Edie Koch, Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
Richard LaBore, Metro
John A. Laker, Regional Citizen, St. Clair County
Matt Melucci, Circuit Clerk, Madison County
Roy Mosley, Board Member, St. Clair County
Ray Muniz, President, Village of St. Jacob; Vice-President, SW IL Council of Mayors
John Nations, Mayor, City of Chesterfield
Alvin Parks, Jr., Mayor, City of East St. Louis
James Pulley, Regional Citizen, St. Clair County
Francis Slay, Mayor, City of St. Louis
Jim Stack, IDOT
Werner Stichling, Jefferson County
John White, Councilman, St. Charles County
Delbert Wittenauer, Chairman, Monroe County Board
Members Absent
John Hamm, Mayor, City of Madison; President, Southwestern Illinois Planning Commission
Brandon Perry, Regional Citizen, City of St. Louis
Lewis Reed, President, Board of Aldermen, City of St. Louis
Kelvin Simmons, Missouri Office of Administration
Robert Wetzel, Regional Citizen, Madison County
Others in Attendance
Mary Ellen Ponder, City of St. Louis
Gary Elmestad, St. Charles County
Tim Fischesser, St. Louis County Municipal League
Stephanie Leon Streeter, St. Louis County
Susan Stauder, RCGA
Bob Baer, Metro
Others in Attendance, contd.
Jessica Mefford-Miller, Metro
Tracy Beidleman, Metro
Les Sterman, SW IL Flood Prevention District Council
Gene Baker, IDOT
Jim Terry, Highway W-MM Citizen Task Force
James Michaels
Council Staff: Nick Gragnani, Lance Huntley, Royce Bauer, Steve Nagle, Julie Stone, Marty Altman, Mark
Fogal, Ross Friedman, Caroline Twenter, Hilary Perkins, Wayne Flesch, Rachael Pawlak,
Warren Sallade, DJ Wilson, Anna Musial, Abby Benz, Bernard Powderly, Himmer
Soberanis, Karen Kunkel
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair Alan Dunstan.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2009

Motion was made by Mr. Mosley, seconded by Mr. Melucci, to approve the minutes of the June 24, 2009
meeting. Motion carried, all voting aye.
RECOGNITION OF LES STERMAN’S SERVICE AT EAST-WEST GATEWAY

Mr. Dunstan read aloud a resolution honoring Les Sterman for his 26 years of service to the Council as its
Executive Director, and presented him with a plaque. Mr. Dunstan reminded Board members that a
reception in Les’ honor was being held that evening at the Moonlight Hotel.
Motion to adopt the resolution was made by Mr. Melucci, seconded by Mr. White. Motion carried, all voting
aye.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Update on the Federal Transportation Reauthorization
Ms. Hales explained that Congress is currently addressing the anticipated shortfalls in the highway trust fund
and reauthorization of the federal transportation program that is due to expire on September 30, 2009. Jerry
Blair, EWG, provided an update on the legislative progress toward reauthorization. He explained that the
House Transportation Infrastructure Committee has prepared a draft bill with a funding level of $500 billion.
He summarized some of the programs contained in the proposed bill, noting that provisions were included
that would hold metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to higher standards in justifying projects. He
reported that although the proposed bill is currently stalled pending consensus on funding measures, work is
underway to extend the current bill by 18 months. Mr. Blair also reported on the American Clean Energy
and Security Act of 2009, advising that the Act most notably sets targets for greenhouse gas emission
reductions.
Mr. Blair explained that upon expiration of the current transportation bill, the federal government is expected
to rescind approximately $8 billion in unobligated Federal-aid highway funds, as required by SAFETEA LU.
Under the requirement, Missouri will return approximately $201 million and Illinois approximately $289
million. He advised that staff has written letters to local Senators expressing concern about the issue, and he
encouraged Board members to contact Senator Bond to support the Senator’s amendment that would
eliminate the rescissions.
2
Metro’s Long Range Transit Plan
Jessica Mefford-Miller, Acting Director of Planning for Metro, advised that temporary funds from MO and
CMAQ grants have allowed Metro to restore service to nearly half of its transit and call-a-ride service routes
that were eliminated on March 30. She advised, however, that this funding is short-term, and long range
planning is essential to move the system beyond its current status. She summarized the goals of Metro’s
short and long-range planning strategies, including preserving and restoring service, adding capital projects
and enhancements, addressing major system expansions, and providing a vision for Metro for the next 10 to
30 years. She summarized the aggressive timeline of the project, advising that a draft plan will be completed
by April 2010.
Additional discussion followed in which Ms. Mefford-Miller responded to comments and questions from the
Board regarding operating costs. Board members also commented on the importance of mass transit to the
region. Mr. Slay thanked Bob Baer, Interim Executive Director of Metro, for taking on this important role in
the region.
All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

Ms. Hales reported that the draft All-Hazard Mitigation Plan is now complete and has been posted on the
Council’s website. The plan addresses pre-disaster plans and mitigation measures for disaster preparation.
She noted that the Illinois portion of the region is not included as its hazard mitigation plan(s) are prepared
independently, on a county-by-county basis. She also explained that any local government, school district,
college/university, or any public entity must formally adopt the plan in order to obtain hazard mitigation
funding. She advised that the final plan would come before the Board in September or October for approval
and adoption.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Flood Information Campaign

Ms. Hales explained that the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) is working on a new public
information campaign to alert the public about flooding that will continue to occur on interior streams and
tributaries. She introduced Jeff Theerman, Executive Director of MSD, who described the coordinated
efforts underway by MSD, EWG, St. Louis City and County, the Corps of Engineers, and MoDNR to inform
people of the inherent risks of living in a flood plain and the need for national flood insurance, to assist
municipalities in creating good policy for flood plain management, and to obtain federal and state funding
for necessary buyouts. He advised that, by including flood prevention issues in the hazard mitigation plan,
the region would qualify to receive federal funding to assist in flood mitigation efforts.
Additional discussion followed in which staff responded to questions and comments from Board members
regarding poor lending practices in overlooking flood insurance requirements, and the benefit of good
watershed management and stormwater design plans to mitigate flooding.
Renewing the Region

Ms. Hales explained that the goals of the project are to help inform the long-range transportation plan and to
develop a stronger voice for the region at state and federal levels. She advised that the first meeting held at
UMSL on June 19th was a success, and a report, prepared by the meeting facilitator, Les Landes, was
included in the Board materials. She advised that periodic updates would be presented to the Board in the
future. She also noted that a Board committee, chaired by Mr. Slay, would convene immediately following
the Board meeting.
3
Additional discussion followed in which Mr. Slay commented on the challenges facing the region and the
necessity to develop a framework and vision to accomplish goals. He encouraged involvement from other
members on this project.
ACTION ITEMS
Preferred Alternative for the Loop Trolley Project
Ms. Hales explained that the Loop Trolley project advisory committee has completed its evaluation and is
recommending a preferred alternative. Terry Freeland, EWG, explained that that the advisory committee is
recommending that the DeBaliviere Concept 1, Delmar Concept 2 and the Delmar West Concept be
approved as the preferred alignment for the Loop Trolley. He also summarized proposed station stop
locations, the vehicle types, and capital and operating costs.
Motion was made by Mr. Slay, seconded by Mr. Adams. Motion carried, all voting aye.
Consultant Selection for St. Louis Regional Microwave Project

Nick Gragnani, STARRS, explained that RCC Consultants of Woodbridge, NJ has been chosen to provide
coordination and technical advice in developing the region’s interoperable communications and microwave
connectivity network. The cost of the contract will not exceed $1,013,881 and will be funded from UASI
grants.
Motion was made by Mr. Hillhouse, seconded by Mr. Nations. Motion carried, all voting aye.
Selection of a Search Committee for the Hiring of Executive Director

Mr. Dunstan explained that the Executive Director Search Committee would be comprised of the eight
executive members of the Board, along with Mr. Mosley and Mr. Melucci.
Motion to approve the selection committee was made by Mr. Hutchinson, seconded by Mr. Parks. Motion
carried, all voting aye.
CLOSED MEETING TO SELECT INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Mr. Dunstan announced that, pursuant to RSMo Section 610.021, (3) and 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (1), the Board
would be entering into closed session to select an interim executive director, and that non-voting members
and all other attendees, with the exception of Karen Kunkel, were required to leave the Boardroom.
Motion to enter closed session was made by Mr. Parks, seconded by Mr. Kellett. Motion carried
unanimously by roll call vote.
Consideration of the Appointment of an Interim Executive Director

Mr. Dunstan reported that Maggie Hales has been chosen as Interim Executive Director with an annual
salary equivalent to that of the departing Executive Director.
Motion was made by Mr. Hillhouse, seconded by Mr. Nations. Motion carried, all voting aye.
Authorization to Issue Request for Proposals for Search Consultant

Ms. Hales advised that Les Sterman has offered to assist staff with the preparation of a Request for Proposal
seeking a consultant to conduct the search for a permanent executive director. She explained that the
consultant chosen would require full Board approval if the cost exceeds $10,000.
4
Motion was made by Mr. Kern, seconded by Mr. Banks. Motion carried, all voting aye.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Dunstan advised that the Executive Director Selection Committee would be meeting briefly following
the Board meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Melucci, seconded by Mr. Nations. Motion carried, all
voting aye.
Respectfully submitted,
Maggie Hales
Interim Secretary, Board of Directors
5

Appendix 2.1
Delmar Wabash Trolley Service
Restoration Project

Appendix 2.2
Delmar Boulevard Trolley Feasibility Study

Appendix 2.3
Vehicle Comparison

The Loop Trolley Project
Welcome & Introductions
• Introductions
• Meeting Purpose
• Review of Agenda
Task 5/6 – Vehicle Types
Loop Trolley Peter Witt Car
VehTyp CatW Access DLS DBS1 DBS2 DLDW DLDE CatP Eval Cat$s Sub$s ADA$s Car$s
Task 5/6 – Vehicle Types/Accessibility
Ramp for Vintage Trolley
Replica Car in Tampa, FL
Lift on Replica
Boarding Curb (Replica Both Types)
Battery Powered in Glendale, CA
Task 5/6 - Alignments
• Single Track Entire Corridor

• Double Track on Delmar/Single Track on
DeBaliviere
Task 5/6 – Vehicle Type Relation to
Alignments/Vintage - Single Track
Delmar – Trinity to Des Peres
Alignments/Replica – Single Track
Delmar – Trinity to Des Peres (Both Replica Types)
Alignments/Vintage – Single Track
Delmar – Des Peres to DeBaliviere
DeBaliviere – Option 1
DeBaliviere – Option 1 (Both Replica Types)
DeBaliviere – Option 2
DeBaliviere – Option 2 (Both Replica Types)
Alignments/Vintage & Replica – Double Track
Delmar – Trinity to Skinker
Alignment/Vintage & Replica – Double Track
Delmar – Skinker to Des Peres
Alignments/Vintage – Double Track
Alignments/Replica – Double Track
Delmar – Des Peres to DeBaliviere (Both Replica Types)
Alignments/Aesthetics
Catenary on the Curb
Task 5/6 – Vehicle Type Relation
to Alignments/Aesthetics
Catenary Poles in Center of Street
Task 5/6 – Vehicle Types/Aesthetics
• (Image of History Museum)
Catenary Poles on Curve
Catenary Web on Curve
Catenary Web on Curve
Battery Powered in Glendale, CA
Alignments
EVALUATIONOFVEHICLETYPESRELATIVETOEACHOTHER
Vintage Vehicle ReplicaVehicle HybridElectricPoweredReplica Vehicle
BridgeImpactsfromCatenary Medium Medium Low
Catenary Cost Impacts High High Medium
ConstructionImpacts High Medium Low
CorrosionControl Impacts High High Low
Platform/Accessibility Impacts High Low Low
SubstationsRequirements High High Low
TrafficSignal Impacts High High Low
UtilityImpacts High Medium Low
VehicleCost Low Medium High
VehicleMaintenanceCost High Low Low
FutureExpansion
Convert SingleTracktoDoubleTrackonDelmar Blvd Least Feasible MoreFeasible MoreFeasible
Convert Single Track toDoubleTrackonDeBaliviereAvenue Least Feasible MoreFeasible MoreFeasible
Task 5/6 – Specific Cost Impacts
• Linear Catenary Costs (Approx $300/tf):

– Vintage: catenary required for 100% of
corridor
– Replica: catenary required for 100% of

corridor (alignment variables could lessen
this)
– Hybrid: catenary required for approx 50% of

corridor
• Approximate Substation Implications

($500,000/substation):
– Single Track Vintage: 6 substations
– Single Track Replica: 6 substations
– Single Track Hybrid: 4 substations
– Double Track Vintage: 8 substations

– Double Track Replica: 8 substations
– Double Track Hybrid: 6 substations
• ADA Accessibility Impacts:

– Vintage: long ramps, high platforms, more
area required
– Replica: low platforms, smaller area required
– Hybrid: low platforms, smaller area required
• Approximate Car Costs:

– Vintage: $250,000 - $400,000
– Replica: $800,000 - $1,000,000
– Hybrid: $1,000,000 - $1,400,000
Task 5/6 – Relative Total Project
Costs by Vehicle Type
Vehicle Type Single Track Double/Single Track

Vintage 1.00 1.42
Replica 1.04 1.42
Replica/Hybrid 1.00 1.35
Appendix 2.4
Station Platforms and
Maintenance Facility Information

Roundabout at Delmar/Trinity Intersection
Looking South
Delmar West Loop Alignment
Station Stop on Metro Bridge in front of
Wabash Station
Looking North
Delmar East Loop Alignment
Proposed Porter Park Plaza at
Delmar/DeBaliviere Intersection
Looking South Plaza by Others

Street View of Trolley Station & Plaza in
Front of Crossroads School
Looking North Greenway by Others

Forest Park Metro Bridge
Looking North Greenway by Others

PRELIMINARY
PLANS
8’-0"
B
FOR
36" 4’-11"
INFORMATION
ONLY
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
ROUTE STATE
MO
18"
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
6
COUNTY
6’-0"
ST. LOUIS
JOB NO.
6’-0"
CONTRACT ID.
A A
PROJECT NO.
---------
BRIDGE NO.
42"
DESCRIPTION
4’-10"
B
8’-0"
PLAN
8’-0"
DATE
43" 16"
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

29"
One Memorial Dr., Ste 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102

PROFILE AT B-B
8’-0"
SHEET 05 OF 05
SPECIAL SHEET
29"
NOTE:
SOURCE FOR TRANSIT SEATING BENCH IS FROM FORMS AND SURFACES, PRODUCT NUMBER:SBTRA-1BH
SOURCE FOR SHELTER IS FROM DAYTECH LIMITED, PRODUCT NAME:VISTA

36" 4’-11"
ELEVATION ON A-A
REV.
\\laclede\proj\EastWestGateway\381403LoopTrolley\Cad\Drawings\DETAILS5.dgn 9:48:18 AM 12/9/2009
P
D
GENERAL NOTE: PLANS
I
REFER TO SPECIAL SHEET XX FOR OTHER
CROSSWALK OPTIONS. FOR
1
ONLY
C
ROUTE STATE
MO
B
ST. LOUIS
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
P
P
6
PL
COUNTY
PL
PL
JOB NO.
-
115
SIGN PL
SIGN
20’-50’
2’-6"
(TYP.)
2’-6"
CROSSWALK
(TYP.)
20’-50’
ZEBRA PATERN
6"
3’-0"
(TYP.)
(TYP.)
\
2’-0"
(TYP.)
0
115
YIELD LINE (TYP.)
¸ WB TRACK
¸ EB TRACK
10
SCALE
20 30
DESCRIPTION
DATE
9:48:12 AM
SPECIAL SHEET

SHEET XX OF XX
12/9/2009
St. Louis, MO 63102
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750
REV.
PRELIMINARY
PLANS
L
1 LANDING
W L H
2 FOR
H
NOTE D 12 6’ 4.08’ 4-1/8"
2 :1 INFORMATION
:1
6.5’ 3.70’ 3-3/4"
0
8 ONLY
5
STANDARD CURB 1 12:1
3 7’ 3.32’ 3-5/16" 1
’
4
AND GUTTER
7.5’ 2.94’ 2-15/16"
(TYP)
W
6’ 50:1
4 RETAINING CURB 8’ 2.56’ 2-9/16" 20:1 12:1
1
VARIES
5’
8.5’ 2.18’ 2-3/16"
VARIES
DATE PREPARED
5 (TYP)
LANDING 6’
9’ 1.80’ 1-13/16" 12/9/2009
4
9
’
M
9.5’ 1.42’ 1-3/8" 6 ROUTE STATE
MIN 4" BASE
IN
6
COURSE 10’ 1.04’ 1-1/16" MO
6’MIN
3 TYPICAL SECTION
CURB RAMP (TYPE 3) 10.5’ 0.66’ 0-5/8"
VARIES
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
7 3 THROUGH RAMP
6’MIN
NO LIP 7
7 2 6
2 3
(TYP) COUNTY
4
S
ST. LOUIS
IE
S
R
3 JOB NO.
RIE
5
A
2’ 4’ MIN 4
"
V
6
1 3
VA
MIN CONTRACT ID.
12 2
3
IN
7 NOTE :1
’
1
M
IN
:1
D
PROJECT NO.
M
0
5
’
6
5
7
50:1 12:1 RI
ES 1’ MIN
ES ---------
20:1 12:1
VA RI
A
5 6’MIN V BRIDGE NO.
6’ 6 1 6
5’ (TYP) (TYP) VARIES

6
6’
CURB RAMP (TYPE 1) CURB RAMP (TYPE 2)
TYPICAL SECTION
THROUGH CURB RAMP CURB RAMP (TYPE 4)
NOTES: KEYED NOTES:
DESCRIPTION
A. EXCEPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS DRAWING MUST BE
APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER AND MUST COMPLY WITH THE "AMERICANS 1 WING 1:10 7 SEE NOTE D
NOTES:
WITH DIABILITIES ACT" (ADA). SLOPE MAX
A. EXCEPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS DRAWING MUST BE NO LIP
B. LANDINGS SHALL BE PLACED AT THE TOP OF EACH RAMP. 8
APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER AND MUST COMPLY WITH THE "AMERICANS 2 LANDING
LANDING SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 50:1 IN ANY DIRECTION. THE
WITH DIABILITIES ACT" (ADA). MIN 4" BASE
SLOPE OF THE SURFACING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE RAMP SHALL NOT 9
B. LANDINGS SHALL BE PLACED AT THE TOP OF EACH RAMP. 3 RAMP COURSE
EXCEED 20:1 FOR A DISTANCE OF 2’ (SEE TYPICAL SECTION
LANDING SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 50:1 IN ANY DIRECTION. THE
ABOVE).
SLOPE OF THE SURFACING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE RAMP SHALL NOT SETBACK AS
C. MINIMUM LANDING DIMENSIONS SHALL BE 4’X4’. 4
EXCEED 20:1 FOR A DISTANCE OF 2’ (SEE TYPICAL SECTION SPECIFIED
D. PLACE TRUNCATED DOME DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE IN THE
ABOVE).
LOWER 2’ ADJACENT TO TRAFFIC OF THROAT OF RAMP ONLY UNLESS
STANDARD CURB
C. MINIMUM LANDING DIMENSIONS SHALL BE 4’X4’. 5
OTHERWISE SHOWN. SEE TRUNCATED DOME DETECTABLE WARNING AND GUTTER
D. PLACE TRUNCATED DOME DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE IN THE
DATE
SURFACE DETAIL.
LOWER 2’ ADJACENT TO TRAFFIC OF THROAT OF RAMP ONLY UNLESS
CROSSWALK
OTHERWISE SHOWN. SEE TRUNCATED DOME DETECTABLE WARNING 6
STRIPE (TYP)
SURFACE DETAIL.
SIDEWALK ACCESS RAMP
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

SIDEWALK ACCESS RAMP MID-BLOCK NTS
NTS

CENTER TO
St. Louis, MO 63102

SEE DETAIL FOR 5
1 CENTER SPACING
INDIVIDUAL
1.6" MIN 2.4" NEW CONSTRUCTION
TRUNCATED DOME
MAX
2 CURB
BASE TO BASE
6 SPACING 0.65"
TOP DIAMETER
3 MIN
50% TO 65% OF
BASE DIAMETER
BASE DIAMETER
4
0.9" MIN 1.4"
MILL
MAX
(TYP)
5 6
0.2"
3 1 EXISTING CURB
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
(TYP)
2’
5 6
10’ 10’
PLAN
2
SHEET XX OF XX
SPECIAL SHEET
EXISTING PAVEMENT
(TYP)
RAMP WIDTH VARIES SAWCUT
4 HOT MIX ASPHALT
PLANT MIX
SEAL COAT
TRUNCATED DOME DETAIL TRUNCATED DOME PATTERN
NOTES:
A. TRUNCATED DOME DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE DETAILS AND UNTREATED BASE COURSE
LOCATIONS ARE BASED ON UNITED STATES ACCESS BOARD STANDARDS.
B. PLACE TRUNCATED DOME DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE IN THE
LOWER 2’ ADJACENT TO TRAFFIC OF THROAT OF RAMP ONLY, UNLESS
OTHERWISE SHOWN. ARRANGE DOMES USING SQUARE IN LINE PATTERN EXISTING PAVEMENT
(TYP)
ONLY. COLOR TO BE SAFETY YELLOW. ALL PRODUCTS ON AN SECTION
INSTALLATION TO BE IDENTICAL.
TRUNCATED DOME DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE PAVEMENT TIE-IN

NTS
NTS
REV.
\\laclede\proj\EastWestGateway\381403LoopTrolley\Cad\Drawings\DETAILS1.dgn 9:47:57 AM 12/9/2009
EXPANSION JOINT (TYP) PRELIMINARY
PLANS
FOR
10’ MIN
TRACK CURB
VARIES
INFORMATION
ONLY
N
IO
IT
7" S
N
A
R
T
"R 3" ’
.5 CONTRACTION JOINT (TYP)
DATE PREPARED
7
VARIES 12/9/2009
NOTE:
2"-9"
TRACK
6"
ROUTE STATE
USE EXPANSION JOINT WHERE SIDEWALK ABUTS CURB OR OTHER PAVEMENT.
9"
INFILL
TRACK MO
1’-6"
SLAB 1"R
INFILL DISTRICT SHEET NO.
PLANT MIX SLAB TYPICAL SIDEWALK PLAN 6

SEAL COAT NTS COUNTY
HOT MIX ST. LOUIS
10"
TOP OF PLANT MIX SEAL COAT
ASPHALT JOB NO.
3"
UNTREATED
CONTRACT ID.
BASE COURSE 10"
40’-0"
PROJECT NO.
TRACK CURB TRACK CURB TRANSITION 8’-0" ---------

NTS NTS BRIDGE NO.
OC
6"
1/2 " WIDE ASPHALT IMPREGNANTED 1/4" WIDE SCORE
FIBER EXPANSION JOINT. USE BOND SIDEWALK REINFORCED EXPANSION JOINT (TYP)
(1" DEEP)
BREAKER TAPE AT JOINT WITH P.R.C. WITH POLYPROPYLENE
DESCRIPTION
POLYURETHANE SEALANT. DEPTH OF MULTIFILAMENT FIBERS COMPACTION JOINT (TYP)
1-1/2 LBS PER CY
SEALANT TO BE 3/8".
SIDEWALK SECTION
NTS
DATE
SIDEWALK EXPANSION JOINT SIDEWALK CONTRACTION JOINT
NTS NTS
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

St. Louis, MO 63102

SIGN, REFER TO PLANS
FOR TYPE
7’-0" MIN
2"X2" OD 14 GAUGE WITH
7/16" DIA. DIE-PUNCHED
KNOWCKOUTS ON 1" CENTERS
FULL-LENGTH ON FOUR SIDES
36" FLEXIBLE TUBULAR

SIDEWALK
DELINEATOR WITH REACTIVE
SPRING UNIT FIXED BASE. 2’-0"
WHERE APPLICABLE,
PLACE CONCRETE TO MIN. W/ CURB
MATCH THICKNESS OF
SHEET XX OF XX
PAVEMENT
SPECIAL SHEET
EXISTING SIDEWALK
OR PAVEMENT
4"
3"X12" FLEXIBLE HIGH INTENSITY

REFLECTIVE SHEETING
30"
NOTES:
1. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE FACED WITH HIGH INTENSITY SHEETING MATERIAL OR BETTER.
2. SIGNS SHALL BE MANUFACTURED WITH 0.080" ALUMINUM BLANK.
3. POSTS SHALL BE GALVANIZED CHANNEL AT 2 LBS/LF.
4. USE SHALL FOLLOW THE MUTCD AND MODOT STANDARD DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS.
5. REFLECTIVE POSTS MAY BE USED IF MUTCD STANDARD IS FOLLOWED.
STEEL POST WITH ANCHOR DELINEATOR TYPICAL SIGN DETAIL

NTS NTS NTS
REV.
\\laclede\proj\EastWestGateway\381403LoopTrolley\Cad\Drawings\DETAILS.dgn 9:47:54 AM 12/9/2009
PRELIMINARY
PLANS
FOR
INFORMATION
ONLY
FUTURE BIKE PATH
DATE PREPARED
FUTURE BIKE PATH FUTURE BIKE PATH
12/9/2009
ROUTE STATE
W10-3L W10-3L MO
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
6
COUNTY
ST. LOUIS
SIGN SIGN JOB NO.
R1-1b
R1-1b
CONTRACT ID.
PROJECT NO.
---------
DO NOT DO NOT
BRIDGE NO.
STOP
STOP
ON ON
TRACKS TRACKS
SIGN SIGN
R8-8
R8-8
DESCRIPTION
SIGN
SIGN
LOOK
LOOK
R15-8
R15-8
R1-1b R1-1b
DATE
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

SIGN SIGN
St. Louis, MO 63102

SIGN SIGN
INTERSECTION DETAILS
W10-3R W10-3R
BIKE PATH OPTION B

BIKE PATH OPTION A
LEGEND
SCALE
GREENWAY
0 10 20 30
POTENTIAL ON-STREET PARKING
REV.
\\laclede\proj\EastWestGateway\381403LoopTrolley\Cad\Drawings\Details3.dgn 9:48:15 AM 12/9/2009
PRELIMINARY
PLANS
EXIST. SIDEWALK EXIST. R/W
14" 6" FOR

18" INFORMATION
ONLY
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
ROUTE STATE
MO
CURB RAMP (TYP.)
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
(SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX

6
FOR DETAILS)
COUNTY
ST. LOUIS
JOB NO.
CONTRACT ID.
PROJECT NO.
50’-0"
---------
BRIDGE NO.
¸ NB/SB TRACK
BOARDING CURB
SHELTER
FOR DETAILS)
STATION SIGN
(TYP.)
DESCRIPTION
13’-0"
DATE
TRASH 6"
ZEBRA PATTERN CROSSWALK

FOR DETAILS)
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

STATION STOP NO.8
(R)
EXIST. MEDIAN(R)
St. Louis, MO 63102

DEBALIVIERE AVE.
TRUNCATED DOME (TYP.)
FOR DETAILS)
STATION STOP DETAIL

GENERAL NOTE:
SHEET 8 OF 9
REFER TO SIGNING/MARKING PLAN
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

18"
(U.I.P.)
EXIST. SIDEWALK
EXIST. R/W
5 0 5 10
REV.
SCALE IN FEET
4"
\\laclede\proj\EastWestGateway\381403LoopTrolley\Cad\Drawings\XXX_SS_16_I05.dgn
4" 9:44:19 AM 12/9/2009
PRELIMINARY
GENERAL NOTE:
PLANS
EXIST. R/W FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
FOR
INFORMATION
14"
ONLY
EXIST. SIDEWALK
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
ROUTE STATE
MO
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
6
COUNTY
ST. LOUIS
CURB RAMP (TYP.) JOB NO.
TRUNCATED DOME (TYP.) (SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX

(SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX FOR DETAILS) CONTRACT ID.
FOR DETAILS)
PROJECT NO.
---------
BRIDGE NO.
¸ EB/WB TRACK
50’-0"
SHELTER
DESCRIPTION
(SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX BOARDING CURB
FOR DETAILS) STATION SIGN
4" 3"
(TYP)
8’-6"
EXIST. MEDIAN(R)
(R) (R)
DATE
TRASH
STATION STOP NO.7
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

DEBALIVIERE AVE.
St. Louis, MO 63102

EXIST. MEDIAN(R)
FOR DETAILS)
STATION STOP DETAIL

SHEET 7 OF 9
8"
(R)
EXIST. SIDEWALK
5 0 5 10
EXIST. R/W
SCALE IN FEET
REV.
\\laclede\proj\EastWestGateway\381403LoopTrolley\Cad\Drawings\XXX_SS_14_I05.dgn 9:44:06 AM 12/9/2009
PRELIMINARY
PLANS
EXIST. R/W FOR

TRUNCATED DOME (TYP.) INFORMATION
(SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX ONLY
FOR DETAILS)
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
ROUTE STATE
CURB RAMP (TYP.)
EXIST. SIDEWALK (U.I.P.) PEDESTRAIN
(SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX MO
LIGHT(TYP.)
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
FOR DETAILS)
6
COUNTY
ST. LOUIS
JOB NO.
CONTRACT ID.
PROJECT NO.

---------
(SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX BRIDGE NO.
FOR DETAILS)
50’-0"
SHELTER
STATION
TRASH SIGN (TYP.)
FOR DETAILS)
DESCRIPTION
8’-6"
¸ EB/WB TRACK
BOARDING CURB
DATE
EXIST. MEDIAN(R)
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

St. Louis, MO 63102

YIELD LINE
(TYP.)
DELMAR BLVD.
GENERAL NOTE:
STATION STOP DETAIL

SHEET 06 OF 09
EXIST. SIDEWALK
EXIST. R/W
STATION STOP NO.6 5 0 5 10
SCALE IN FEET
REV.
PRELIMINARY
PLANS
EXIST. R/W
FOR
INFORMATION
ONLY
EXIST. SIDEWALK GENERAL NOTE: DATE PREPARED
CURB RAMP (TYP.) 12/9/2009

(SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX ROUTE STATE
FOR DETAILS)
MO
DISTRICT SHEET NO.

6
COUNTY
FOR DETAILS)
ST. LOUIS
JOB NO.
CONTRACT ID.
PROJECT NO.
TRUNCATED DOME (TYP.) ---------

140
(SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX BRIDGE NO.
SHELTER FOR DETAILS)

CURB RAMP (TYP.)
FOR DETAILS)
STATION SIGN TRASH FOR DETAILS)

140
DESCRIPTION
DELMAR BLVD.
DATE
¸ EB/WB TRACK
BOARDING CURB

BOARDING CURB
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

STATION SIGN
St. Louis, MO 63102

TRASH
CURB RAMP (TYP.)

SHELTER
FOR DETAILS)
FOR DETAILS)
FOR DETAILS)
STATION STOP NO.5
STATION STOP DETAIL

SHEET 5 OF 9
EXIST. SIDEWALK
5 0 5 10
EXIST. R/W
SCALE IN FEET
REV.
E \\laclede\proj\EastWestGateway\381403LoopTrolley\Cad\Drawings\XXX_SS_10_I05.dgn 9:43:39 AM 12/9/2009
PRELIMINARY
PLANS
EXIST. R/W
FOR
INFORMATION
(
ONLY
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
ROUTE STATE
MO
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
130
COUNTY
72’-5" ST. LOUIS

SHELTER JOB NO.

JOINT PATTERN (TYP.)
FOR DETAILS) CONTRACT ID.
TRASH
1
PROJECT NO.
---------
BRIDGE NO.
R
6’-7"
1’ EXIST. SIDEWALK
2’-0" (TY
P.)
9’-2"
CURB (TYP.)
DESCRIPTION
(T
R
Y
4
’
P
.)
BOARDING CURB
130
¸ WB TRACK
DATE
DELMAR BLVD.
(
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

¸ EB TRACK
St. Louis, MO 63102

BOARDING CURB
’
4
.)
P
R
Y
(T
STATION SIGN CURB(TYP.)
(TYP.)
9’-6"
JOINT PATTERN
5’-9"
2’-0"
(TYP.)
R
EXIST. SIDEWALK
TRASH
STATION STOP DETAIL

SHELTER
FOR DETAILS)
SHEET 4 OF 9
73’-3"
EXIST. R/W
STATION STOP NO.4 5 0 5 10

GENERAL NOTE:

SCALE IN FEET
REV.
PRELIMINARY
GENERAL NOTE:
PLANS
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. EXIST. R/W

FOR
INFORMATION
EXIST. SIDEWALK
ONLY
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
78’-7"
ROUTE STATE
(U.I.P.)TREE MO
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
(U.I.P.)PEDESTRIAN LIGHT GRATE (TYP.)
(TYP.) 6
COUNTY
(
TRUNCATED DOME (TYP.) ST. LOUIS
TRASH (SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX JOB NO.
STATION SIGN
FOR DETAILS)
(TYP.)
CONTRACT ID.
PROJECT NO.
R
1
---------
6’-9"
4’-11" BRIDGE NO.
9’-3"
JOINT PATTERN
(TYP.)
R
CURB (TYP.)
1
SHELTER
DESCRIPTION
0
.)
’
(SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX BOARDING CURB
P
4’
Y
FOR DETAILS)
R
(T
¸ WB TRACK
DATE
YIELD LINE
DELMAR BLVD. FOR DETAILS)
(TYP.)
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

¸ EB TRACK
St. Louis, MO 63102

’
4
BOARDING CURB
.)
P
Y
(T
FOR DETAILS)
STATION SIGN
(TYP.) CURB (TYP.)

9’-0"
7’-0"
(U.I.P.) PEDESTRIAN LIGHT
(TYP.)
5’-0"
R 1’ EXIST.CURB RAMP
(TYP.)
JOINT PATTERN
(TYP.) SHELTER
TRASH
FOR DETAILS)
STATION STOP DETAIL

CURB RAMP
FOR DETAILS)
SHEET 3 OF 9
(U.I.P.)TREE GRATE
81’-3"
(TYP.)
EXIST. SIDEWALK
EXIST. R/W
5 0 5 10
MH
STATION STOP NO.3
T
SCALE IN FEET
REV.
PRELIMINARY
PLANS
GENERAL NOTE:
HEMAN AVE.
FOR
REFER TO SIGNING/MARKING PLAN FOR
INFORMATION
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. EXIST. R/W
ONLY
EXIST. SIDEWALK
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
86’-9" ROUTE STATE
MO
(U.I.P) TREE
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
GRATE (TYP.) TRUNCATED DOME (TYP)
105
SHELTER (U.I.P.) LIGHT 6
(U.I.P) PEDESTRIAN (SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX
(SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX COUNTY
LIGHT (TYP.) FOR DETAILS)
FOR DETAILS) ST. LOUIS
JOB NO.
CURB RAMP
TRASH (SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX
CONTRACT ID.
FOR DETAILS)
PROJECT NO.
---------
(T
EXIST. SIDEWALK
6’-3"
R
4’-0"
4
Y
BRIDGE NO.
9’-7"
’
P
5’-0"
.)
CURB(TYP.)
R
(
T
4
¸ WB TRACK
’
JOINT PATTERN
DESCRIPTION
STATION SIGN
P
.)
(TYP.) (TYP.)
BOARDING CURB
FOR DETAILS)
100
105
DATE
YIELD LINE YIELD LINE
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

DELMAR BLVD.
St. Louis, MO 63102

¸ EB TRACK
SHELTER
FOR DETAILS)
BOARDING CURB
TRUNCATED DOME (TYP)
STATION SIGN (SEE SPECIAL SHEET XX
’
4
.)
(TYP.) FOR DETAILS)
P
Y
T
(
CURB
(TYP.)
9’-4"
6’-1"
5’-0"
’
4
.)
P
R
Y
(T
STATION STOP DETAIL

EXIST. SIDEWALK
SHEET 2 OF 9
CURB RAMP

(U.I.P.)PEDESTRIAN TRASH
FOR DETAILS)
JOINT PATTERN
LIGHT (TYP.) (U.I.P.) LIGHT
(TYP.)
(U.I.P.)TREE
GRATE (TYP.)
95’ 0"
5 0 5 10
STATION STOP NO. 2

EXIST. R/W SCALE IN FEET
REV.
PRELIMINARY
PLANS
FOR
GENERAL NOTE:

INFORMATION
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ONLY
EXIST. R/W
EXIST. SIDEWALK
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
ROUTE STATE
MO
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
6
COUNTY
ST. LOUIS
JOB NO.
CONTRACT ID.
PROJECT NO.
---------
BRIDGE NO.
¸ WB TRACK
DESCRIPTION
95
DATE

DELMAR BLVD.
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

St. Louis, MO 63102

¸ EB TRACK

CURB RAMP (TYP.)
FOR DETAILS)
FOR DETAILS)
BOARDING CURB
STATION SIGN
’
4
(TYP.)
R
CURB
10’-1"
5’-0"
6’-0"
’
4
R
STATION STOP DETAIL

JOINT
SHEET 1 OF 9
TRASH PATTERN
SHELTER (TYP.)
FOR DETAILS)
74’-6"
STATION STOP NO. 1 EXIST. SIDEWALK
EXIST. R/W 5 0 5 10
SCALE IN FEET
REV.

Proposed Layout for a Vehicle Maintenance Facility at the Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High
School Site (5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard)
1,700 SF
TRACK & OCS PART STORAGE
7,500 SF
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
& 2,400 SF VEHICLE STORAGE
1,200 SF
164 SF SUB- STATION
HALLWAY
580 SF
150 SF DRIVING
4 PARKING
360 SF
JANITOR SURFACE
112 SF BAYS
BREAKROOM 140 SF
RESTROOM ELEVATOR
RESTROOM
1,900 SF 600 SF
120 SF
STORAGE HALLWAY 3,000 SF
LOCKABLE
SHOP AREA STORAGE
720 SF 200 SF
OFFICE
STORAGE
700 SF 150 SF LOCKABLE
ENTRY/ PARTS STORAGE
VESTIBULE
STORAGE
STORAGE
ROOM
REST
90 SF
ELEVATOR
600 SF 360 SF
OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
300 SF
80 SF
STORAGE
STORAGE
160 SF 300 SF 100 SF

RESTROOM 220 SF
TRAINING STORAGE
800 SF OFFICE
OFFICE
PUBLIC
130 SF
MEETING STORAGE 800 SF
450 SF 600 SF 650 SF
SPACE TRAINING 400 SF
240 SF 500 SF
OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE ROOM
Proposed Layout for a Vehicle Maintenance Facility at the Goodfellow Site
(5809 Delmar Boulevard)
150’
9,200 SF
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
60’
& VEHICLE STORAGE
AREA
100 SF
RESTROOM
3,000 SF
155’
SHOP AREA
200 SF
OFFICE
800 SF
TOOL
1,800 SF 1,800 SF
STORAGE
TRACK & PARTS 600 SF
LOCKABLE
OCS PARTS STORAGE
PARTS
STORAGE
540 SF
ELEVATOR
4 - PARKING
1,200 SF STALLS
SUB-STATION ENTRY
100’
400 SF STORAGE/FILES 400 SF
HALLWAY RESTROOM
300 SF
BREAK
ROOM 800 SF 680 SF
TRAINING LOCKER
ROOM ROOM
2,100 SF
HALLWAY
1,600 SF
LOOP
95’
ADMIN, DISP,
TROLLEY CO.
& OPS
1,600 600 SF OFFICES
OFFICES
TDD ADMIN
OFFICES SUPPORT
120 SF
JANITOR
800 SF
PUBLIC MTG
SPACE
200 SF
ELEVATOR
RECEPTION
100’
Appendix 2.5
Preliminary Plans – DeBaliviere Avenue

1
PRELIMINARY
PLANS
FOR
INFORMATION
ONLY
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
ROUTE STATE
MO
SCALE DISTRICT SHEET NO.
6 13
COUNTY
0 30 60 90 ST. LOUIS
JOB NO.
CONTRACT ID.
PROJECT NO.
---------
BRIDGE NO.
S
O
165
DESCRIPTION
MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET 9)
PL
PL
PL
P
EXIST.SIDEWALK EXIST. R/W
DATE
DELMAR BLVD.
EXIST. MEDIAN(R) EXIST. MEDIAN(R)
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

¸ EB/WB TRACK
St. Louis, MO 63102

EXIST.SIDEWALK
18" PROPOSED GREENWAY
EXIST. R/W BY OTHERS

(U.I.P)
170
L
PL
1" P
L
P
EXIST.SIDEWALK
POTENTIAL FUTURE
PL
PARALLEL PARKING LANE
EXIST. R/W
(U.I.P)
(U.I.P)
20"
(U.I.P)
10"
(U.I.P)
12"
(R)
DEBALIVIERE
AVE.
(R)
12"
(R)
10"
5"
EXIST. MEDIAN(R)
20"
PL
EXIST.SIDEWALK
EXIST. R/W
\\laclede\proj\EastWestGateway\381403LoopTrolley\Cad\Drawings\013_CV_PL_10_I30.dgn 9:42:18 AM
CIVIL
CONSTRUCTION PLAN
12/9/2009
SHEET 10 OF 14
PRELIMINARY
PLANS
FOR
INFORMATION
ONLY
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
ROUTE STATE
MO
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
6 15
COUNTY
ST. LOUIS
JOB NO.
CONTRACT ID.
180
185
WATERMAN BVLD.
PROJECT NO.
---------
BRIDGE NO.

PL
EXIST.SIDEWALK
DESCRIPTION
PROPOSED GREENWAY EXIST. R/W
BY OTHERS 5"
8" 4"
3" 4" 18" 18" 6"
18"
12" 14"
12"
18"
5" 4" 12" (R) (R)
(R) 18" 4"
15"
(R) (R) (R)
(R) (R)
DATE
(R) (R) (R) (R) (R) (R) (R) (R) (R)
DEBALIVIERE AVE.
¸ NB/SB TRACK
(R) (R) (R) (R)
20" 10" 6" 2"
(U.I.P.) 15"

(U.I.P.) 12"
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

4" 15" 2" (R)
(U.I.P.) (U.I.P.) (U.I.P.) (U.I.P.) (U.I.P.)
(U.I.P.) 18" 12" 14"

POTENTIAL FUTURE
EXIST.SIDEWALK PARALLEL PARKING LANE
WATERMAN BVLD.
St. Louis, MO 63102

EXIST. R/W
MCPHERSON AVE.
L
PL
P L
P
CONSTRUCTION PLAN
SHEET 12 OF 14
CIVIL
SCALE
0 30 60 90
\\laclede\proj\EastWestGateway\381403LoopTrolley\Cad\Drawings\015_CV_PL_12_I30.dgn 9:42:25 AM 12/9/2009

PRELIMINARY
PLANS
C
SCHOOL
FOR
INFORMATION
ONLY
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
ROUTE STATE
MO
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
6 14
COUNTY
ST. LOUIS
JOB NO.
175
PLMATCH LINE (SEE SHEET 10)
DEBALIVIERE
4"
AVE.
(U.I.P.) (U.I.P.)
L
EXIST.SIDEWALK
¸ NB/SB
TRACK
PL
6"
EXIST. R/W
(R)
12"
(U.I.P.)
PL
(R)
10"
L
(R)
L
2"
EXIST. MEDIAN(R)
(U.I.P.)
EXIST. R/W
PL
EXIST.SIDEWALK
PROPOSED GREENWAY
BY OTHERS
(R)
15"
4"
(R)
5"
STATION STOP NO.7
(SHARED W/METRO BUS)
4"
(R)
(R)
8"
(R)
(R)
POTENTIAL FUTURE PARALLEL
PARKING LANE
KINGSBURY PL.
6"
(R)
6"
(R)
EXIST.MEDIAN(R)
8"
(R)
(U.I.P.)
12"
(R)
(U.I.P.)
3"
180
DESCRIPTION
DATE
CONTRACT ID.
PROJECT NO.
---------
BRIDGE NO.
St. Louis, MO 63102
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750
F
STATION
CONSTRUCTION PLAN
SHEET 11 OF 14
CIVIL
SCALE
0 30 60 90
\\laclede\proj\EastWestGateway\381403LoopTrolley\Cad\Drawings\014_CV_PL_11_I30.dgn 9:42:21 AM 12/9/2009

Appendix 2.6
Feasibility Study for the DeBaliviere Avenue
Bridge over Metro to Support Trolley Live Loads

February 28, 2011
Feasibility Study for Repairing the DeBaliviere Avenue Bridge over

Metro to Support Trolley Live Loads
For East-West Gateway Council of Governments
Aerial View of the DeBaliviere Bridge over Metro and Adjacent Intersection with Forest
Park Parkway
Introduction
The following report addresses the study of repairing the DeBaliviere Bridge over Metro to support
Trolley Live Loads.
The intent of the study is to determine the feasibility, cost, and impacts to repair the bridge.
The report addresses and investigates the following areas:

 General Bridge Description
 Analysis of the Existing Bridge Structure to Support Trolley Live Loads
 Existing Condition of the DeBaliviere Avenue Bridge
 Additional Items Unique to the DeBaliviere Bridge
– Metro’s Forest Park Station
– Utilities Supported by the Bridge
– Proximity to Forest Park Parkway
 Repair Recommendations
DEBALIVIERE AVENUE BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Page 2 of 6
General Bridge Description:

The existing DeBaliviere Avenue Bridge was
originally constructed in 1937 and currently spans
over Metro’s alignment and Forest Park Station
platform. This bridge is a three-span structure
approximately 93-ft long and 100-ft wide that
currently carries 2 traffic lanes northbound, 3 traffic
lanes southbound, a raised landscaped median, and
raised sidewalks on both the east and west sides of
the bridge. The superstructure of the bridge consists
of a solid cast-in-place reinforced concrete slab of
varying depth (15-inch min., 28.25-inch max.) with a
±4-inch asphalt overlay. The substructure consists of
two multiple-column concrete intermediate bents
supported on concrete piles. Additionally, the south
abutment is supported by multiple columns, similar to the intermediate bents, whereas the north
abutment is a vertical walled abutment. Both abutments are supported by concrete piles. Per the
original plans, the vertical clearance under the bridge structure varies, with a minimum of 18’-1¼”
in the center span.
In 2003, Metro constructed additional independent

bridge structures on the east and west sides of the
DeBaliviere Bridge to provide access to the Forest Park
Station platform below. The added bridge structure on
each side accommodates an elevator, staircase, and
additional sidewalk area adjacent to DeBaliviere Ave.
The superstructure of both access bridges consist of
painted steel beams and a reinforced concrete deck
utilizing stay-in-place corrugated metal decking. The
intermediate bents consist of hollow structural steel tube
columns supported by a concrete wall and steel piles. All
four abutments are concrete stub abutments on steel piles.
Multiple existing utilities are supported by or are situated

under the DeBaliviere Bridge. Due to the location of Metro’s
station platform and alignment, three visible conduit banks
provide power to the station, lighting, security cameras,
signage, and elevators. One conduit bank is attached to the
front face of the north abutment for its entire length. The
other two conduit banks are visible starting at the north
abutments of Metro’s access bridge structures, are supported
by the DeBaliviere bridge under each sidewalk, and are
attached to the exterior columns of the south intermediate
bent of the DeBaliviere Bridge. For Metro’s traction power
system, 2 catenary poles carrying the 860-volt DC wires are
positioned approximately midway under the bridge in the
south and center spans. These catenary poles are
supported by independent foundations and not attached to
the bridge. Two additional track signal poles are also located
under the bridge in these same spans on independent
foundations.
Page 3 of 6
Also supported by the DeBaliviere Bridge under the east sidewalk is a City-owned 12-inch
diameter water main and under the west sidewalk is a 12-inch diameter gas main. Per the original
DeBaliviere Bridge plans, other miscellaneous conduits are located within the concrete slab. Also
shown in the original plans is an 11′-6″ diameter concrete sewer running parallel to DeBaliviere
Avenue that is positioned between the concrete pile caps of each substructure unit. In addition, a
36-inch diameter water main and 20-inch diameter gas main are also shown below grade running
parallel with DeBaliviere Avenue.
Analysis of the DeBaliviere Avenue Bridge to Support Trolley Live Loads:
Recently, the St. Louis Loop Trolley Project was awarded a $25 million Urban Circulator Grant
from the Federal Transit Authority. This project includes constructing a new trolley alignment along
Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue to Forest Park. Therefore, one of the proposed design
criteria for the existing DeBaliviere Avenue Bridge is that it shall support a Trolley Live Load. The
original DeBaliviere Bridge was designed for the H20 Truck live load vehicle; therefore, Juneau
first analyzed the bridge’s superstructure to determine if the bridge, even in its original, or new,
condition, could support a trolley live load. The trolley live load used for the analysis was a vehicle
with four (4) 25-kip axles spaced at 5-ft, 20-ft, and 5-ft intervals. This trolley load configuration is
the same loading used to design the recently completed Delmar Boulevard Bridge over Metro,
another bridge on the Loop Trolley’s proposed alignment. Below is a comparison of the H20 Truck
Live Load and the Trolley Live Load.
The results of the live load analysis indicate the existing superstructure is overstressed by 42%
in the positive moment regions and 36% in the negative moment regions under the trolley live load
configuration. This analysis confirms the existing DeBaliviere Bridge superstructure cannot
support the design trolley live load, even in new condition. Given the bridge’s age, its condition,
and that the superstructure is a reinforced solid concrete slab of varying depth, the superstructure
cannot be repaired cost effectively and must be replaced in order to achieve an additional 15 years
of useful life under the proposed trolley live load conditions. Calculations and results of this Live
Load Analysis are included in Exhibit A.
It should also be noted that according to the latest MoDOT Inspection Report dated April 2009,
the deck currently rates 5, the superstructure rates 6, and the substructure rates 5 per the National
Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) Rating System. This report also states that trucks over 19-
tons are limited to 15-mph on the bridge, except single unit trucks (H20) are limited to 37-tons, and
all other trucks are limited to 42-tons.
Page 4 of 6
Existing Condition of the DeBaliviere Avenue Bridge:
Because the results of the Live Load Analysis determined that the superstructure should be
replaced, Juneau performed a visual inspection of the substructure units only on February 17,
2011. From this inspection, the following deficiencies were identified and also provided in Exhibit
B:
 Abutment B1 (South Abutment) – Only approximately 6 inches of the very top of this
abutment is visible due to a new soil nail wall constructed just north of this abutment.
Based on this limited visible access, various horizontal cracks, spalls, and delamination of
the top 6 inches of the beam seat were noted.
 Intermediate Bent B2 (South Bent) – Metro’s Forest Park Station platform is built
adjacent to and covers the majority of the north face of this bent’s crash wall. Based on our
inspection of the visible components of this bent, hairline cracks, small spalls, spalls with
exposed rebar, and some ¼ inch cracks were observed.
 Intermediate Bent B3 (North Bent) – The earth spill slope covers the north face of this
bent’s crash wall. Based on our inspection of the visible components of this bent, hairline
cracks, spalls, spalls with exposed rebar, and some ¼ inch cracks were observed.
 Abutment B4 (North Abutment) – Metro has attached 6 – 2-inch round electrical conduits
on the front face of this abutment. These conduits run the entire length of this abutment.
Approximately 3 feet of the abutment’s vertical face is visible behind the conduit bank.
Numerous horizontal cracks ¼ to ½ inch in width, as well as large spalls with exposed
rebar were observed behind the existing conduits.
In addition to the visual inspection of the substructure units, the pile capacities for each bent
were calculated based on vertical loads only. The allowable capacity of 30 tons per pile is given in
the original “as-built” drawings of the bridge. This vertical load analysis determined that the
existing piles could support the additional trolley live load. This substructure analysis was limited
to pile capacity analysis only per the scope of this study. If any additional strengthening of the
bents is deemed necessary in final design to support the trolley live load, fiber wrapping may be
utilized. Costs for substructure strengthening would be within the contingency amount assumed in
the cost estimate.
Based on the conditions noted above, Juneau believes the substructure units can be repaired
cost effectively. More specifically, as shown in Exhibit B, we estimate that 56-sq.ft. of formed
concrete repair and 23 linear feet of epoxy crack injection would be needed to repair the
intermediate bents. For the North Abutment B4, it was determined that removing and relocating
Metro’s conduits currently attached to the front face of the abutment in order to repair the
deficiencies would cost significantly more than constructing a new abutment. For the South
Abutment B1, it is assumed that the backwall and a portion of the beam seat could be removed
and replaced to effectively repair its deficiencies without requiring the construction of an entire new
south abutment.
Additional Items Unique to this Bridge:
Metro’s Forest Park Station:

Metro’s Forest Park Station is located under this bridge structure. This station serves as the
link between two of Metro’s alignments, the Cross County Alignment and their Main Alignment and
because of this link between alignments, single tracking will not be allowed during bridge repairs to
the DeBaliviere Bridge. Demolition of the existing superstructure will require full closure of Metro’s
alignment at the bridge. According to Metro, full closure of Metro’s alignment, other than brief
Page 5 of 6
closures allowed during After-Revenue-Service hours, could be allowed over multiple weekends.
However, to accommodate the closure, “bus bridges” would be required at an estimated cost of
$150,000 per closure weekend. Additional costs associated with demolition and working in Metro’s
right-of-way in general include Catenary Lowering and Raising, Protective Shield, Temporary
Conduit Supports, Flagging, Insurance, and Permits.
Metro has multiple 2 to 4 inch diameter electrical conduits supported from the DeBaliviere
Bridge’s existing superstructure. These conduits supply power to the Forest Park Station,
elevators, security cameras, lighting, and signage as well as supply power for their overhead
electrical catenary lines. Construction cost to remove and relocate these conduits, according to
Metro, will cost between $2,000,000 and $4,000,000.
Utilities Supported by the Bridge:

In addition to the Metro’s electrical conduit, a 12-inch diameter water line was noted on the east
side of the bridge, and a 12-inch diameter gas line was observed on the west side of the bridge.
An additional 12-inch abandoned pipe was also noted on the west side of the bridge.
The above utilities were noted during our visual inspection of the bridge on February 17, 2011
and on the as-built bridge drawings. Due to the limited time allowed for producing this feasibility
report, utility locates were not possible; therefore, other utilities shown on the drawings in Exhibit B
are based on supplemental information provided by CH2M Hill, the engineers preparing the Trolley
Plans for the Loop Trolley Transportation Development
District (LTTDD).
Proximity to Forest Park Parkway:

The intersection with Forest Park Parkway is located
directly behind the South Abutment. Therefore, any repair
work performed on the South Abutment will likely affect
pedestrian traffic, traffic signals, curbs, ramps, and other
miscellaneous roadway appurtenances associated with the
intersection with Forest Park Parkway.
Repair Recommendations:
From our live load analysis of the bridge structure, visual inspection of the bridge, and other
noteworthy features of the bridge described above, Juneau has made the following conclusions:
 The existing superstructure of the bridge is not capable of supporting a trolley live load and
would not have been capable of supporting this live load condition even in its original (new)
condition.
 Due to the significant costs to relocate Metro’s conduits currently attached to the bridge, the
bridge repairs should be designed to allow the conduits to remain in their present location.
 The substructure has additional vertical capacity and could support the trolley live load,
based on the pile information given in the original “as-built” drawings of the bridge.
 It is more cost effective to construct a new North Abutment B4 than to remove and relocate
Metro’s conduits currently attached to the existing North Abutment.
 The need for seismic retrofit of the DeBaliviere Bridge should be considered collaboratively
between the LTTDD, City of St. Louis, MoDOT, and FHWA due to the vital transportation
link Metro provides adjacent to and below the bridge, and while the bridge is being
rehabilitated to support the proposed live loads.
Page 6 of 6
Based on the above criteria, Juneau evaluated two repair options, one without seismic retrofit
and one that considered seismic.
Bridge Repairs (Without Seismic Retrofits):

Based on these conclusions, Juneau recommends the following bridge repairs be made to the
DeBaliviere Avenue Bridge in order to support the proposed Trolley Live Load and extend the life
of the bridge 15 years:
1. Remove and replace the entire concrete superstructure with shallow prestressed
precast concrete (PPC) solid slab beams and a minimum 6-inch composite reinforced
concrete overlay. It is assumed that the demolition of the existing superstructure will
require complete Metro closure at the bridge for 2 weekends.
2. Remove and replace the backwall and a portion of the beam seat on the South
Abutment B1.
3. Repair Intermediate Bents B2 and B3 using formed concrete repair and epoxy crack
injection methods. Precast concrete bent extensions can be utilized to make up the
elevation difference between the existing and proposed superstructure.
4. Remove the backwall of the North Abutment B4 and construct a new North Abutment
behind the existing abutment.
5. Apply Protective Coating to the beam seats of all the Bents.
6. Replace the longitudinal joint material between the DeBaliviere Bridge and the adjacent
Metro Access Bridges.
7. Provide bridge approach slabs at each end of the bridge.
Drawings showing the existing and proposed plan and elevation views of the bridge are
provided in Exhibit B. The Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Cost is provided in
Exhibit C. Note that architectural enhancement items such as landscaping, lighting, planter beds,
planter curbs, irrigation, etc. are not included. It is assumed that the bridge will be closed to
vehicular traffic during all construction activities. A 15% contingency and 4% inflation per year for
two years has been included, resulting in an overall estimated bridge repair cost of $3,675,595.66.
Bridge Repairs (With Seismic Retrofits):

In addition to the Bridge Repairs above, if seismic retrofit of the DeBaliviere Bridge is desired,
Juneau recommends the following bridge retrofit items be added to the bridge in order to carry
seismic design loads:
1. Construct a new South Abutment B1 behind the existing South Abutment with
intermediate wingwalls. This will require closing one westbound lane of Forest Park
Parkway for this construction. This construction would also require pre-boring and
accurate pile driving operations to avoid damaging the soil nails used to support
Metro’s retaining wall in front of the existing abutment.
2. Construct intermediate wingwalls as part of the new North Abutment B4.
3. Wrap the columns and bent cap of both Intermediate Bents with fiberglass and/or
carbon fiber.
The estimated construction costs for these items are also included in Exhibit C. It is assumed
that these seismic retrofit items would be constructed at the same time as the bridge repair items
listed previously. A 15% contingency and 4% inflation per year for two years has been included,
resulting in an overall estimated bridge repair and seismic retrofit cost of $4,164,660.33. If these
seismic retrofits are implemented in conjunction with the bridge repair items listed above, in our
opinion, the useful life of the DeBaliviere Bridge could be extended 30 to 45 years.
EXHIBIT A
Live Load Analysis Calculations

EXHIBIT B
Drawings
20’-0" 100’-0" Existing DeBaliviere Avenue Bridge 20’-0"
Federal Project Number
Metro Access Bridge Metro Access Bridge
12’-0" 76’-0" Roadway 12’-0"
Sidewalk Sidewalk
¸ 36" Water ¸ DeBaliviere ¸ 11’-6" Sewer

Main (Per As Avenue (Per As Built Plans)
Built Plans)
North Abutment (B4)
Chief of Bridge Division
DEBALIVIERE AVENUE OVER METROLINK

¸ 20" Gas Main
29’-6"
(Per As Built
Plans)
Construction
STRUCTURE NUMBER: 250.010

Joint
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
EXISTING PLAN
¸ Track 1 3 Conduits
(Embedded) (Per 7 Conduits
¸ Intermediate
As Built Plans) (Embedded) (Per
Bent B3
As Built Plans) ¸ Track 1
34’-0"
93’-0"
7 Metro Conduits
6 Metro Conduits
¸ Metrolink Platform
¸ Track CC1 Elevator
12" Water Main
12" Gas Main
(Per As Built
Elevator
Plans)
¸ Track 2
12" Abandoned
Pipe (Per As ¸ Intermediate
Built Plans) Bent B2
¸ Track 2
Juneau Associates, Inc. P.C.
29’-6"
330 North Fourth Street, Suite 200
St, Louis Missouri 63102
Phone: 314-241-4444
Fax: 314-909-1331
Soil
Nail Wall
SHEET 1 OF 9
¸ Track CC2
Revision No. Date
The professional whose personal seal and/or

signature appears on this sheet assumes
responsibility only for what appears on this
sheet and disclaims (Pursuant to Section
327.411 RSMo) any responsibilities for all
other drawings, supplemental drawings, plats,
surveys, revisions, specifications, estimates,
reports or other documents or instruments not
15 sealed by the undersigned professional relating

to or intended to be used for any part or
parts of the project to which this sheet refers.
South Abutment (B1)
Soil Nails (Typ.)

(¨18’-0" Long)
Forest Park Parkway
MSD Reference Number

EXISTING PLAN
(Showing Existing DeBaliviere Bridge & Adjacent Metro Access Bridges)
MSD Basemap Number
Note: This drawing is not to scale. Follow dimensions BPS Project Number
100’-0" Existing DeBaliviere Avenue Bridge

12’-0" 17’-0" 21’-0" 21’-0" 17’-0" 12’-0"

Sidewalk Sidewalk
Construction Joint Construction Joint ¸ DeBaliviere Avenue Construction Joint

12" Water Main 12" Gas Main
SOUTH ABUTMENT (B1)

Approximate Existing Grade
Soil Nail Wall

36" Water Main Phone: 314-241-4444
Fax: 314-909-1331
SHEET 2 OF 9
11’-6" Sewer
Revision No. Date

SOUTH ABUTMENT (B1) surveys, revisions, specifications, estimates,

sealed by the undersigned professional relating
(Looking South) to or intended to be used for any part or
Note: Deficiencies are not visible due to Soil Nail Wall
MSD Basemap Number

12’-0" 17’-0" 21’-0" 21’-0" 17’-0" 12’-0"

Sidewalk Sidewalk
2’-0" 7’-0" 3’-0" 3’-0" 7’-0" 2’-0"

Construction Joint
¸ DeBaliviere
Delaminated
Avenue
Delaminated Concrete Concrete
12" Water Main 6"x6" Spall 12" Gas Main
1’x2’ Spall with

Exposed Rebar

Hairline Hairline (Bottom Face)
Cracks Crack Top
6"x8" Spall
(Top Face) 1’x2’ of Wall
Spall Top of Metrolink
Station Platform

2’-4"

3’x1’ Delamination 1/8 " Crack Top & Approximate Hairline
with Hairline Cracks Vertical Face of Wall Existing Grade Crack
(Inside Face)
INTERMEDIATE BENT (B2)

36" Water Main
11’-6" Sewer

(Looking South)

12’-0" 17’-0" 21’-0" 21’-0" 17’-0" 12’-0"

Sidewalk
2’-0" 7’-0" 3’-0" 3’-0" 7’-0" 2’-0"

Construction Joint
¸ DeBaliviere
Delaminated
Avenue
12" Gas Main 12" Water Main

3"x3"
Spall
Hairline St, Louis Missouri 63102
(Bottom Phone: 314-241-4444
Crack Fax: 314-909-1331
Face) 1’x2’
Delaminated
1’x6" 3"x3"
Concrete SHEET
Spall Spall 3 OF 9
Top of Metrolink
Station Platform
Approximate Hairline 1/8 " Crack Revision No. Date
Existing Grade Crack 3"x3" Spall

36" Water Main
11’-6" Sewer

(Looking North) MSD Reference Number
MSD Basemap Number

12’-0" 17’-0" 21’-0" 21’-0" 17’-0" 12’-0"

Sidewalk Sidewalk
2’-0" 7’-0" 3’-0" 3’-0" 7’-0" 2’-0"

Construction Joint
¸ DeBaliviere
Avenue Delaminated
1’x3’ Spall Concrete
12" Water Main 12" Gas Main
6"x6" Map
2’x2’ Cracking (Outside
2’x2’ Map 2’x3’ Map 6"x6" Spall

Delaminated 2’x6" Face)
Cracking Cracking with Delaminated
Concrete 1’x1’ Spall
(Outside Face) (Inside Hairline Concrete Approximate
Face) Cracks (Inside
(Inside Face) Existing Grade
(Inside Face) Face)


36" Water Main
11’-6" Sewer

(Looking South)

12’-0" 17’-0" 21’-0" 21’-0" 17’-0" 12’-0"

Sidewalk Sidewalk
2’-0" 7’-0" 3’-0" 3’-0" 7’-0" 2’-0"

Construction Joint
¸ DeBaliviere
Avenue Delaminated
12" Gas Main 12" Water Main
6"x6" Juneau Associates, Inc. P.C.

1’x1’ 5’ Hairline 3’x2’
Spall 330 North Fourth Street, Suite 200
Spall Crack Delaminated St, Louis Missouri 63102
Concrete 1’x1’ Phone: 314-241-4444
Fax: 314-909-1331
Delaminated
1’x1’
1’x1’ Delaminated Concrete
Spall with 6"x6"
Spall Top of Wall
Exposed Spall
Concrete SHEET 4 OF 9
Rebar
1/8 " Crack

1’x2’ 1/8 " Crack 3"x6" Approximate 1/8 " Crack Hairline 1’x1’ Spall Revision No. Date
Spall Spall Existing Grade Crack with Exposed

Rebar signature appears on this sheet assumes
36" Water Main
11’-6" Sewer

(Looking North) MSD Reference Number
MSD Basemap Number
¸ DeBaliviere Avenue

1/4 " Crack Delaminated 1/4 " Cracks
Concrete

NORTH ABUTMENT (B4)

NORTH ABUTMENT (B4) PLAN
12’-0" 17’-0" 21’-0" 21’-0" 17’-0" 12’-0"

Sidewalk Sidewalk
Construction Joint Construction Joint ¸ DeBaliviere Avenue Construction Joint

12" Water Main
6-2" Conduits
1/2 " Crack 1/4 " Crack 1/4 " Crack 1/2 " Crack

Phone: 314-241-4444
Fax: 314-909-1331
Spalls and Spall with Delaminated SHEET 5 OF 9

Delaminated Exposed Rebar Concrete
Concrete Approximate Existing Grade
Revision No. Date

NORTH ABUTMENT (B4)

(Looking North)
MSD Basemap Number
20’-0" 100’-0" Match Existing DeBaliviere Avenue Bridge 20’-0"
Metro Access Bridge Metro Access Bridge Federal Project Number
12’-0" 11’-0" 11’-0" 5’-0" 14’-0" to 17’-0" 10’-0" to 13’-0" 14’-0" 8’-0" 12’-0"
(Existing) (Existing)
Sidewalk Trolley Lane Lane Conc. Trolley Lane Planter Multi Purpose Planter Sidewalk
Median Path
Approach
¸ 36" Water ¸ 11’-6"
25’-0"
Main (Per As Sewer (Per As
Slab
Built Plans) Built Plans) New North Abutment
(B4)
6’-0"
Existing North
Abutment (B4)

¸ 20" Gas Main
29’-6"
(Per As Built
Plans)
PROPOSED PLAN
¸ Track 1
7 Conduits
¸ Intermediate
(Embedded) (Per
Bent B3
As Built Plans) ¸ Track 1
99’-0"
34’-0"
7 Metro Conduits
6 Metro Conduits
¸ Metrolink Platform
¸ Track CC1 Elevator
12" Water Main
12" Gas Main
(Per As Built
Elevator
Plans)
¸ Track 2
12" Abandoned
Pipe (Per As ¸ Intermediate
Bent B2 330 North Fourth Street, Suite 200
Built Plans)
¸ Track 2
Phone: 314-241-4444
Fax: 314-909-1331
SHEET 6 OF 9
29’-6"
Soil
Nail
Wall Revision No. Date

¸ Track CC2 sheet and disclaims (Pursuant to Section
Approach
15
15’-0"
Slab
South Abutment (B1)
Soil Nails (Typ.) Forest Park Parkway MSD Reference Number

(¨18’-0" Long)
PROPOSED PLAN MSD Basemap Number
(Showing Proposed DeBaliviere Bridge & Existing Metro Access Bridges)
12’-0" 76’-0" Roadway 12’-0"
Sidewalk Sidewalk
2’-0" 7’-0" 3’-0" 17’-0" 21’-0" 21’-0" 17’-0" 3’-0" 7’-0" 2’-0"
¨2’-6" ¨4’-6" 3’-6" 3’-6"

Abandon Pipe (TBR) Construction Joint Construction Joint Construction Joint

¸ 12" Gas Main Embedded Conduits (TBR & Reinstalled) Embedded Conduits (TBR & Reinstalled) ¸ 12" Water Main

(TBR & Reinstalled) (TBR & Reinstalled)

Metro Conduits (U.I.P.) Metro Conduits (U.I.P.)
EXISTING BRIDGE SECTION
BRIDGE CROSS SECTIONS

(Looking North)
12’-0" 41’-0" Roadway 10’-0" to 13’-0" 14’-0" 8’-0" 12’-0"
Sidewalk Multi Purpose Path Sidewalk
22’-0" 5’-0" 14’-0" 9’-6" to 2’-3" 6’-8"
Concrete Trolley Lane Planter Planter

Median
11’-0" 11’-0" 1’-0" 8" 8" 8" 8"

Trolley Lane Lane Reinforced
Concrete Slab
Overlay
¸ DeBaliviere
6" Min.
See Detail "A" Avenue
This Sheet
9"
9"
11"
3’-0" 7’-3 1/2 " 1’-8 1/2 " 1’-8 1/2 " 1’-8 1/2 " 1’-8 1/2 " 6’-10 1/2 " 3’-0" 15" P/S Concrete
Voided Slab Beam
(Typ. Ea. Side)
10’-3 1/2 " 4’-0" 3’-0" 6 Solid Slab Beams @ 4’-0" = 24’-0" 3’-0" 9 Solid Slab Beams @ 4’-0" = 36’-0" 3’-0" 9’-10 1/2 "
For New 12" Gas Line, For New 12" Water Line,
Metro Conduits, and 11" P/S Concrete Solid Metro Conduits, and
Telephone Conduits Slab Beams (Typ.) Telephone Conduits

PROPOSED BRIDGE SECTION
(Looking North) St, Louis Missouri 63102
Phone: 314-241-4444
Fax: 314-909-1331
Concrete Slab Overlay
6" Min. Reinforced
SHEET 7 OF 9
Revision No. Date
Trolley Rail (115 RE Rail in Rubber Rail Boot) The professional whose personal seal and/or
6" 9 3/4 " 6" other drawings, supplemental drawings, plats,
Fiber Reinforced Concrete surveys, revisions, specifications, estimates,
11" P/S
Solid
Beam
Slab
Elevation Varies
Enclosed Drainage System Drain

1’-8 1/2 " MSD Reference Number
DETAIL A MSD Basemap Number

15’-0" 99’-0" 25’-0"
Approach Approach Slab

Slab
29’-6" 34’-0" 29’-6" 6’-0"

LONGITUDINAL BRIDGE SECTION

Remove Existing Superstructure
Back Face of Existing ¸ Intermediate Bent B2 ¸ Intermediate Bent B3 Back Face of Existing
South Abutment (B1) North Abutment (B4)
6" Min. Reinforced Concrete Overlay
New North
Remove Existing Backwall Abutment (B4)
11" P/S Concrete Solid Slab Beams
Remove & Replace
¨18’-0" Min. Vertical Clearance

Existing Backwall 3’-6"
Precast Concrete Bent Extension
Metro Conduits (U.I.P.) HP Pile (Typ.)
Existing Soil Nail Wall
¸ Forest Park Station Platform
Soil Nails
(Typ.)
(¨18’-0" Long)
¸ Track CC2 ¸ Track CC1
11’-6" Concrete Sewer

Phone: 314-241-4444
Fax: 314-909-1331
SHEET 8 OF 9
Revision No. Date

LONGITUDINAL SECTION THRU BRIDGE (WITHOUT SEISMIC RETROFITS)

(Looking West)
MSD Basemap Number

9’-0" 105’-0" 25’-0"
Approach Approach
Slab Slab
6’-0" 29’-6" 34’-0" 29’-6" 6’-0"

LONGITUDINAL BRIDGE SECTION

Remove Existing Superstructure
Back Face of Existing ¸ Intermediate Bent B2 ¸ Intermediate Bent B3 Back Face of Existing
South Abutment (B1) North Abutment (B4)
6" Min. Reinforced Concrete Overlay
New South New North

Abutment Remove Existing Backwall Abutment
11" P/S Concrete Solid Slab Beams
(B1) Remove Existing (B4)

3’-6" Cap & Backwall 3’-6"
HP Pile Metro Conduits (U.I.P.) HP Pile

(Typ.) (Typ.)
Fiber Wrap Fiber Wrap

(Columns & Cap) (Columns & Cap)
Existing Soil Nail Wall
¸ Forest Park Station Platform
Soil Nails
(Typ.)
(¨18’-0" Long)
¸ Track CC2 ¸ Track CC1
11’-6" Concrete Sewer

Phone: 314-241-4444
Fax: 314-909-1331
SHEET 9 OF 9
Revision No. Date

LONGITUDINAL SECTION THRU BRIDGE (WITH SEISMIC RETROFITS)

(Looking West)
MSD Basemap Number

EXHIBIT C
Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Cost

Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
East-West Gateway
DeBaliviere Avenue Bridge over Metro
February 24, 2011
3-span Bridge Superstructure Replacement - PPC Solid Slab Beams with Reinforced Concrete Overlay
Assumptions:
1. Bridge will be closed to traffic during all construction activities.
2. Additional coordination with Metro and all other utilities is required to determine actual utility relocation costs.
3. Costs for architectural enhancements such as lighting, landscaping, planter beds, planter curbs, irrigation, etc. are not included.
4. New abutments are founded on steel end bearing piles 52-ft in length.
Total Unit Total Cost

Item Unit Quantity Cost (2011 $)
Roadway Items:
Traffic Control Lump Sum 1 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00
Contractor Surveying Lump Sum 2 $ 20,000.00 $ 40,000.00
Mobilization Lump Sum 1 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00
Full Depth Saw Cut Lin. Ft. 300 $ 12.00 $ 3,600.00
Polyurea Pavement Marking, 6 in, White Lin. Ft. 625 $ 6.00 $ 3,750.00
Polyurea Pavement Marking, 6 in, Yellow Lin. Ft. 250 $ 6.00 $ 1,500.00
Raised Median Barrier Sq. Ft. 625 $ 20.00 $ 12,500.00
Traffic Signals Lump Sum 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00
Curb Ramp Removal & Replacement (SW & SE corners of bridge) Lump Sum 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
Silt Fence Lin. Ft. 200 $ 4.00 $ 800.00
Subtotal Roadway Items = $ 302,150.00
Bridge Items:
Removal of Asphalt Wearing Surface Lump Sum 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00
* Partial Removal of Bridge Lump Sum 1 $ 700,000.00 $ 700,000.00
Partial Removal of Substructure (South Abutment) Cu. Yd. 19 $ 500.00 $ 9,500.00
Bridge Approach Slab Sq. Yd. 556 $ 220.00 $ 122,320.00
Class 1 Excavation Cu. Yd. 180 $ 45.00 $ 8,100.00
Select Granular Backfill for Structural System Cu. Yd. 91 $ 45.00 $ 4,095.00
Structural Steel Piles (12 in) Lin. Ft. 832 $ 75.00 $ 62,400.00
Pile Point Reinforcing Each 16 $ 500.00 $ 8,000.00
Class B Concrete (Substructure) Cu. Yd. 63 $ 600.00 $ 37,800.00
11" P/S Concrete Solid Slab Beams Each 57 $ 9,100.00 $ 518,700.00
15" P/S Concrete Voided Slab Beams Each 6 $ 10,000.00 $ 60,000.00
Reinforced Concrete Slab Overlay Sq. Yd. 1100 $ 200.00 $ 220,000.00
Reinforcing Steel (Bridges) Pound 11340 $ 1.80 $ 20,412.00
Vertical Drain at End Bents Each 1 $ 700.00 $ 700.00
Plain Neoprene Bearing Pad Each 126 $ 155.00 $ 19,530.00
Silicone Expansion Joint Sealant Lin. Ft. 200 $ 80.00 $ 16,000.00
Protective Coating - Concrete Bents and Piers (Epoxy) Sq. Ft. 1600 $ 3.00 $ 4,800.00
Substructure Repair (Formed) Sq. Ft. 56 $ 200.00 $ 11,200.00
Epoxy Pressure Injecting Lin Ft
Lin. Ft. 23 $ 100 00
100.00 $ 2 300 00
2,300.00
Precast Concrete Bent Extensions Each 2 $ 30,000.00 $ 60,000.00
Resin Anchor System Lump Sum 1 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00
Enclosed Drainage System Lump Sum 1 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00
Subtotal Bridge Items = $ 1,840,857.00
Utility Items:
Relocate Gas Main (located on West side of bridge) Lump Sum 1 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00
Relocate Water Main (located on East side of bridge) Lump Sum 1 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00
Relocate Telephone Conduit Lump Sum 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
Metro Bus Bridge (During Superstructure Removal) Weekend 2 $ 150,000.00 $ 300,000.00
Protective Shield (Metro Protection) Sq. Yd. 689 $ 100.00 $ 68,900.00
Catenary Lowering & Raising Lump Sum 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
Temporary Conduit Supports (Metro) Lump Sum 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
Railroad Flagger Days 45 $ 500.00 $ 22,500.00
Railroad Insurance and Permits Lump Sum 1 $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00
Subtotal Utility Items = $ 841,400.00
SUBTOTAL (All Items Above) = $ 2,984,407.00

15% Contingency = $ 447,661.05
Inflation for 2013 Construction Year (4% of Subtotal per Year) = $ 243,527.61
TOTAL = $ 3,675,595.66
Seismic Retrofit Items (Optional):

Includes: New South Abutment with Intermediate Wingwalls, Intermediate Wingwalls at North Abutment, Fiber Wrap B2 & B3 Columns
Class 1 Excavation Cu. Yd. 228 $ 45.00 $ 10,260.00
Select Granular Backfill for Structural System Cu. Yd. 91 $ 45.00 $ 4,095.00
Pre-bore for Piling Lin. Ft. 320 $ 50.00 $ 16,000.00
Structural Steel Piles (12 in) Lin. Ft. 832 $ 75.00 $ 62,400.00
Pile Point Reinforcing Each 16 $ 500.00 $ 8,000.00
Class B Concrete (Substructure) Cu. Yd. 58 $ 600.00 $ 34,800.00
Reinforcing Steel (Bridges) Pound 10440 $ 1.80 $ 18,792.00
Vertical Drain at End Bents Each 1 $ 700.00 $ 700.00
Additional Traffic Control (Forest Park Pkwy. Lane Drop) Lump Sum 1 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00
Fiber Wrap Sq. Ft. 3610 $ 65.00 $ 234,650.00
DEDUCT for Class B Concrete (Substructure) Cu. Yd. -21 $ 600.00 $ (12,600.00)
Subtotal Seismic Retrofit Items = $ 397,097.00
SUBTOTAL (All Items) = $ 3,381,504.00

15% Contingency = $ 507,225.60
Inflation for 2013 Construction Year (4% of Subtotal per Year) = $ 275,930.73
TOTAL (Including Seismic Retrofit) = $ 4,164,660.33
* Cost includes: Equipment & labor associated with Full-depth sawcutting, Removal, and Disposal of Solid Slab Superstructure
Appendix 2.7
Preliminary Plans – Delmar Boulevard

Curve = RT-1100
MATCHLINES.98+0(TX) Curve = RT-1200

PI Station = 100+82.40
Dc = 173%%d43’ 35.44" (LT)
D = 116%%d55’ 48.58"
R = 49.00’
Ls1=Ls2 = 40.00’
Ds1= Ds2 = 23%%d23’ 09.72"
Lc = 148.57’
Ea = 1.25"
Eu = 4.44"
V = 8 MPH
Dc = 9%%d 55’ 09.18" (RT)
D = 28%%d 38’ 52.40"
R = 200.00’
Ls1=Ls2 = 40.00’
Ds1= Ds2 = 5%%d 43’ 46.48"
Lc = 34.62’
Ea = 1.25"
Eu = 0.15"
V = 8 MPH
95
HARVARD AVE.
C TROLLEY
L
LEFT TRACK
PRELIMINARY
INFORMATION
PLANS
FOR
ONLY
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
ROUTE
DISTRICT
6
COUNTY
ST. LOUIS
JOB NO.
CONTRACT ID.
PROJECT NO.
SHEET NO.
STATE
MO
XX
D
---------
BRIDGE NO.
DESCRIPTION
C TROLLEY
L
L
RIGHT TRACK
LP P
Curve = RT-1300
Dc = 7%%d 39’ 39.77" (RT)
D = 28%%d 38’ 52.40"
R = 200.00’
Ls1=Ls2 = 40.00’
Ds1= Ds2 = 5%%d 43’ 46.48"
SCALE Lc = 26.74’
Ea = 1.25"
Eu = 0.15"
DATE
V = 8 MPH
0 30 60 90
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

VPI 92+87.39

EL 550.61
St. Louis, MO 63102

555 555
-5
550 .33% .1
6% 150.00’ V.C. 550
+4
VPC 94+82.08
VPT 96+32.08
VPC 92+12.39
545 VPT 93+62.39 545
540 540
200.00’ V.C.
150.00’ V.C.
-5
.1
TRACK PLAN AND PROFILE

6%
VPC 97+47.96
-3.8
7%
535 535
VPI 95+57.08
EL 536.69
SHEET 1 OF 15
530 530
525 525
542.50
542.50
544.80
531.16
531.16
546.84
546.83
548.48
548.73
544.84
539.54
539.65
535.18
535.07
527.41
520 520
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
REV.
\\laclede\proj\EastWestGateway\381403LoopTrolley\Cad\Drawings\xxx_TK_PL_01.dgn 10:01:27 AM 12/9/2009
IP
MATCH LINE STA. 121+00.00 (SEE SHEET XX)
Curve = LT-2002 Curve = LT-2003
PRELIMINARY
PI Station = 117+79.94 PI Station = 119+69.82
Dc = 0%%d 11’ 43.33" (LT) Dc = 0%%d 10’ 44.16" (RT) PLANS
D = 0%%d 38’ 11.83" D = 0%%d 38’ 11.83"
R = 9,000.00’ R = 9,000.00’
Ls1=Ls2 = 60.00’ Ls1=Ls2 = 60.00’
FOR
Ds1= Ds2 = 0%%d 11’ 27.55" Ds1= Ds2 = 0%%d 11’ 27.55" INFORMATION
115
120
Lc = 30.69’ Lc = 32.16’
ONLY
Ea = 1.25" Ea = -1.25"
Eu = 0.81" Eu = 1.69"
V = 30 MPH V = 30 MPH
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
STATION STOP ROUTE STATE
C TROLLEY
L
P
LEFT TRACK NO. 3
MO
PL
L
L
LP
530
525
520
515
510
505
500
495
113
510.94
510.89
0
P
30
SCALE
60 90
C TROLLEY
L
RIGHT TRACK
510.36
114
510.31
STATION STOP
NO. 3
SS
RIGHT TRACK
-0.58%
509.46
509.73
115
SS
P
SS
EXISTING GROUND
116
509.17
509.15
PL
SS
508.64
117
508.57
PL
Curve = RT-1002
V = 30 MPH
508.04
507.98
118
SS
Dc = 0%%d 28’ 08.59" (RT)
D = 1%%d 16’ 23.66"
R = 4,500.00’
Ls1=Ls2 = 60.00’
Ds1= Ds2 = 0%%d 22’ 55.10"
Lc = 36.84’
Ea = 1.25"
Eu = 0.38"
LIMIT AVE.
LIMIT AVE.
507.40
507.46
119
SS
Eu = 2.12"
V = 30 MPH
PL
SS
Curve = RT-1003
Dc = 0%%d 29’ 07.76" (LT)
D = 1%%d 16’ 23.66"
R = 4,500.00’
Ls1=Ls2 = 60.00’
Ds1= Ds2 = 0%%d 22’ 55.10"
Lc = 38.13’
Ea = -1.25"
506.58
120
506.82
P
PL
506.16
121
\\laclede\proj\EastWestGateway\381403LoopTrolley\Cad\Drawings\xxx_TK_PL_04.dgn
530
525
520
515
510
505
500
495
DESCRIPTION
DATE
10:01:38 AM
DISTRICT
6
COUNTY
ST. LOUIS
JOB NO.
CONTRACT ID.
PROJECT NO.
---------
BRIDGE NO.

SHEET NO.
12/9/2009

SHEET 4 OF 15
XX
St. Louis, MO 63102
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750
REV.
T
D
Curve = LT-2004 Curve = LT-2005
PRELIMINARY
PI Station = 124+34.85 PI Station = 126+14.88
SKINKER BLVD.
Dc = 0%%d 24’ 33.97" (RT) Dc = 0%%d 20’ 58.95" (LT) PLANS
D = 1%%d 16’ 23.66" D = 1%%d 16’ 23.66"
R = 4,500.00’ R = 4,500.00’
Ls1=Ls2 = 60.00’ Ls1=Ls2 = 60.00’
FOR
Ds1= Ds2 = 0%%d 22’ 55.10" Ds1= Ds2 = 0%%d 22’ 55.10" INFORMATION
EASTGATE AVE.
125
Lc = 32.16’ Lc = 27.47’
ONLY
Ea = -1.25" Ea = 1.25"
Eu = 2.12" Eu = 0.38"
V = 30 MPH V = 30 MPH
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
P
L
PL
PL
ROUTE STATE
MO
P
C TROLLEY
LP
SKINERBLVD.
525
520
515
510
505
500
495
490
121
506.16
506.24
0 30
EASTGATE AVE.
P
SCALE
VPC 121+48.62
60
100.00’
-0.58%
122
90
VPI 121+98.62
505.62
505.68
C TROLLEY
L
RIGHT TRACK
-0.39%
EL 505.66
L
LEFT TRACK
V.C.
SS
VPT 122+48.62
Curve = RT-1004
Dc = 0%%d 16’ 41.15" (LT)
D =01%%d 45’ 50.20"
R = 7,500.00’
Ls1=Ls2 = 60.00’
Ds1= Ds2 = 0%%d 13’ 45.06"
Lc = 36.40’
Ea = -1.25"
Eu = 1.77"
V = 30 MPH
EXISTING GROUND
505.37
505.27
123
L
T/R TROLLEY
RIGHT TRACK
504.92
504.88
124
VPC 124+85.68
SKINKER BLVD.
504.46
125
504.49
VPI 125+85.68
200.00’
EL 504.16
-1.41%
V.C.
503.69
503.77
126
VPT 126+85.68
502.56
502.42
127
PL
Curve = RT-1005
Dc = 0%%d 20’ 16.17" (RT)
D = 0%%d 45’ 50.20"
R = 7,500.00’
Ls1=Ls2 = 60.00’
Ds1= Ds2 = 0%%d 13’ 45.06"
Lc = 44.22’
Ea = 1.25"
Eu = 0.73"
V = 30 MPH
501.14
128
P
129
525
520
515
510
505
500
495
490
DESCRIPTION
DATE
10:01:41 AM
DISTRICT
6
COUNTY
ST. LOUIS
JOB NO.
CONTRACT ID.
PROJECT NO.
---------
BRIDGE NO.

SHEET NO.

SHEET 5 OF 15
12/9/2009
XX
St. Louis, MO 63102
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750
REV.
-
D
P
L

Curve = RT-1007 Curve = LT-2006
PRELIMINARY
PI Station = 136+69.72 PI Station = 138+95.09 PLANS
Dc = 0%%d 38’ 57.67" (RT) Dc = 2%%d 00’ 28.73" (RT)
D
D = 1%%d 25’ 56.62" D = 6%%d 21’ 58.31"
H
O
R = 4,000.00’ R = 900.00’ FOR
D
E
Ls1=Ls2 = 60.00’ Ls1=Ls2 = 60.00’
IA
R
INFORMATION
140
E
Ds1= Ds2 = 0%%d 25’ 46.99" Ds1= Ds2 = 1%%d 54’ 35.49"
M
S
ONLY
O
Lc = 45.33’ Lc = 31.54’
N
Ea = -1.25" Ea = -1.25"
T
E
A
Eu = 2.23" Eu = 3.19"
V
V = 30 MPH V = 20 MPH
E.
DATE PREPARED
12/9/2009
ROUTE STATE
M
P
MO
PL
R
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
6 XX
COUNTY
ST. LOUIS
C
L TROLLEY JOB NO.
LEFT TRACK
CONTRACT ID.
PROJECT NO.
---------
BRIDGE NO.
D
C
L TROLLEY
RIGHT TRACK STATION STOP
NO. 5
DESCRIPTION
RIGHT-OF-WAY
M
Curve = RT-1009
PL
L
LP P
Curve = RT-1008
Dc = 1%%d 07’ 13.12" (RT)
D
D = 3%%d 34’ 51.55"
E
Dc = 1%%d 06’ 17.90" (LT)
P
R = 1,600.00’
E
D = 3%%d 34’ 51.55"
Ls1=Ls2 = 60.00’
R
R = 1,600.00’
E
Ds1= Ds2 = 1%%d 04’ 27.47"
S
Ls1=Ls2 = 60.00’
Lc = 31.29’
A
Ds1= Ds2 = 1%%d 04’ 27.47"
V
SCALE Ea = 1.25"
Lc = 30.86’
E
Eu = 0.64"
.
Ea = -1.25"
V = 15 MPH
DATE
Eu = 2.34"
V = 20 MPH
0 30 60 90
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

VPI 140+89.80

DE PERES AVE. HODIAMONT AVE.
EL 511.30
St. Louis, MO 63102

515 515
T/R TROLLEY
8% -2.48
MATCHLINES.14+0
510
505
500
495
490
485
480
0 5
501.59
501.64
137
SCALE
10 15
504.12
504.01
138
EXISTING GROUND
506.40
139
506.60
140
509.16
509.08
VPC 140+59.80
+2.4
60.00’ V.C.
141
514.14
510.89
%
VPT 141+19.80
508.66
142
508.57
RIGHT TRACK
506.06
506.09
143
503.60
503.27
144
(SEE SHEET XX)

510
505
500
495
490
485
480
10:01:47 AM

SHEET 7 OF 15
12/9/2009
REV.
480
485
490
495
500
505
510
515
0
30
SCALE
60
90
(SEE SHEET XX)
503.27
503.60
144
PL
DE GIVERVILLE AVE.
501.12
501.12
145
DE GIVERVILLE AVE.
P
499.21
498.64
146
PL
L
496.16
496.16
EXISTING GROUND
147
L
VPC 147+27.80
L
-2.48
C TROLLEY TRACK
494.54
VPI 148+02.80
494.24
150.00’
148
EL 493.61
V.C.
+0.72%
VPT 148+77.80
494.04
494.31
149
L
T/R TROLLEY TRACK
494.96 P
495.03 150
150
(SEE SHEET XX)

480
485
490
495
500
505
510
515
DATE DESCRIPTION
6
10:01:50 AM
ROUTE
DISTRICT

FOR
COUNTY
JOB NO.
SHEET 8 OF 15
ONLY

PLANS
BRIDGE NO.
PROJECT NO.
DATE PREPARED
CONTRACT ID.

12/9/2009
ST. LOUIS
---------
XX
MO
STATE
St. Louis, MO 63102

SHEET NO.
INFORMATION
PRELIMINARY
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750

12/9/2009
REV.
MMAATTCCHHLLIINNEESS..11450++0 MATCHLINESTA.150+.0((SEHTXX))
S
D
1PL45
PL

PRELIMINARY
PLANS
FOR
INFORMATION
ONLY
Curve = S-3001 Curve = S-3002

PI Station = 164+43.35 PI Station = 165+35.28 DATE PREPARED
GOODFELLOW AVE.
Dc = 19%%d 08’ 53.43" (LT) Dc = 19%%d 08’ 53.43" (LT) 12/9/2009
D = 87%%d 18’ 52.23" D = 87%%d 18’ 52.23"
160
ROUTE STATE
R = 65.62’ R = 65.62’
Lc = 21.93’ Lc = 21.93’ MO
165
Ea = 0.00" Ea = 0.00" DISTRICT SHEET NO.
Eu = 4.25" Eu = 4.25" 6 XX
V = 8 MPH V = 8 MPH
COUNTY
ST. LOUIS
JOB NO.
PL
L
PL
C
L TROLLEY TRACK
PL
CONTRACT ID.
PROJECT NO.
---------
SS
BRIDGE NO.
DESCRIPTION
D
SCALE
DATE
P
PL
0 30 60 90
PL
510
505
500
495
490
485
480
475
158
495.04
VPI 158+05.00
495.01
EL 495.01
-0.74%
100.00’ V.C.
VPT 158+55.00
494.30
494.03
159
EXISTING GROUND
493.56
493.78
160
493.16
492.82
161
T/R TROLLEY TRACK
492.29
162
492.08
GOODFELLOW AVE.
491.48
491.34
163
C
L SIDING TRACK
490.60
490.73
164
VPC 164+43.47
PL
80.00’
-0.74%
VPI 164+83.47
V.C.
+0.41%
EL 489.98
490.68
165
490.09
VPT 165+23.47
490.46
489.95
166
510
505
500
495
490
485
480
475
10:01:56 AM

12/9/2009

SHEET 10 OF 15
St. Louis, MO 63102
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750
REV.
Curve = T-1010 PRELIMINARY
PI Station = 169+36.91 PLANS
Dc = 37%%d 55’ 01.03" (RT)
D = 87%%d 18’ 52.23"
R = 65.62’ FOR
Ls1=Ls2 = 60.00’
INFORMATION
Ds1= Ds2 = 26%%d 11’ 39.67"
Lc = 43.43’ ONLY
Ea = 1.25"
Eu = 5.39"
V = 10 MPH
PL
C
L TROLLEY TRACK
P
DATE PREPARED
PL
12/9/2009
ROUTE STATE
MO
DISTRICT SHEET NO.
6 XX
COUNTY
SS
ST. LOUIS
JOB NO.
CONTRACT ID.
PROJECT NO.
---------
BRIDGE NO.
D
DE BALIVIER AVE.
SS
DESCRIPTION
Curve = T-1011
Dc = 0%%d 50’ 38.59" (RT)
170 D = 2%%d 36’ 15.67"

R = 2,200.00’
PL 510
MATCHLINES.170+5
505
500
495
490
485
480
475
166
490.46
489.95
0 30
SCALE
60 90
490.86
489.98
167
VPC 167+33.46
EXISTING GROUND
100.00’
+0.41%
VPI 167+83.46
+1.52%
EL 491.20
V.C.
491.54
491.51
168
VPT 168+33.46
T/R TROLLEY TRACK

VPC 168+86.15
20"
169
492.99
492.95
+1.52%
100.00’
5"
VPI 169+36.15
EL 493.52
-1.15%
V.C.
20"
VPT 169+86.15
492.79
492.81
170
(SEE SHEET XX)
Ls1=Ls2 = 60.00’
Ds1= Ds2 = 0%%d 46’ 52.70"
Lc = 32.41’
Ea = 1.00"
Eu = 0.78"
V = 30 MPH
510
505
500
495
490
485
480
475
DATE
10:01:59 AM

SHEET 11 OF 15
12/9/2009
St. Louis, MO 63102
phone: (314) 421-4220 or (618) 274-2750
REV.
M

Appendix 2.8
Options Considered But Dismissed

Design Update
to
Forest Park Steering Committee
September 30, 2009

Delmar Blvd Alternative 1
• Overall Plan View
Still No Clear Way Forward
• Areas north pose safety, maintenance,

and utility problems
• Last time we chatted, sliding through

the median south of FPP was
undesirable
Let’s work together to figure this out

Delmar Blvd Alternative 1
• Overall Plan View
Can We Reconsider South of FPP?
• We think there are several benefits:

– increased green space for the park
– minimally-invasive median cut
– simple signal to control traffic
Let’s take a look...

Yes, but what will it look like?
• We’ll work together to do it “right”
• For now, here is a vision of what is

possible...
Your Thoughts
West Terminus Dialogue

with
University Heights 2
October 12, 2009

General Project Update
• Preliminary engineering just starting

• Preferred alignment is confirmed, but...
– Two options still on the table at the West

Terminus
Loop Option at Trinity
Traffic signal to protect

left turning streetcar
How does streetcar

merge back in?
Parking Impacts
Stub Option at Kingsland
Existing traffic signal protects

trolley to and from Kingsland
University Hts 2 and Ames Place
• Met with these 2 neighborhoods on 9/15
• Key pieces of feedback:

– IF trolley were to turn around at Trinity, it
would need to solve existing traffic
problems
– Hours of operation need to be scaled back
in the evenings
– Please reconsider other options, too
Follow Up
with the
West Terminus Neighborhoods
October 29, 2009

Agenda
I. What We Heard Last Time
II. What We’

We’ve Done Since
III. Our Recommendation
IV. Your Thoughts

What We Heard Last Time
We Heard Several Key Themes
• Loop at Trinity comes too close to
neighborhoods south and west
• Loop at Trinity has too many parking
impacts
• IF you do something at Trinity, it needs

to fix the existing traffic problem
• Do not detract from the historic character

• Stub at Kingsland further complicates an

already busy location
• Reconsider options to the north of Delmar

• Late night crowd is already a problem

and a late night station will not help
Lots of Constraints!
What We’ve Done Since
Identification of Key Measures
• What must we do to create a “ win – win”

win”?
– minimize neighborhood impacts
– minimize architectural/historic impacts
– improve safety for all modes
• trolley
• automobiles
• pedestrians
– preserve existing parking
– maximize ridership opportunities
How Do We Strike the Right Balance?
Safety Ridership
Parking
Neighborhoods
Aesthetics
Original Options:
- Trinity Loop
- Kingsland Stub (north and south)
- North Loop variations
What other options are there?
Traditional Signal Solutions
• Full traffic signal at Trinity

– Pros
• Protected left turns for trolley and
automobiles
– Cons
• Detracts from existing aesthetics and
historical context
• Poor sight lines from eastbound vehicles
west of Lion’
Lion’s Gate and signal heads
• Mike King signal in close proximity
What other options are there?
Myth Busting...
• What is a “roundabout”
roundabout”?
– it is NOT a traffic circle
– it is NOT New Halls Ferry Circle
– when designed correctly, it IS

• a traffic calming tool
• a safety enhancement
• an aesthetic opportunity
• a good way to turn around!
Single lane, low speed
“modern roundabout”
Roundabouts Reduce Vehicular
Conflict Points
Roundabouts Improve Safety
at Intersections Like Trinity
• Before-
Before -after studies at 24 intersections
– 39% overall decrease in crashes
– 76% decrease in injury crashes
– 90% decrease in fatal/incapacitating crashes
– 75% reduction in traffic delays
Source: Insurance Institute of Highway Safety

Roundabouts Reduce
Vehicular/Ped Conflict Points
Roundabouts Reduce
Multimodal Crashes
Mode All Crashes Injury Crashes

Passenger car -63% -95%
Moped -34% -63%
Bicycle -8% -30%
Pedestrian -73% -89%
Total -51% -72%
Roundabouts Offer
Aesthetic Opportunities
Roundabout Offers
Aesthetic Opportunities
What Would it Really Look Like?
What Would it Really Look Like?
Station stop located at Sgt.
Mike King Drive signal
Net Parking Loss of 5 - 6 spots
= parking gained
= parking lost
How Does it Stack Up?
Review of Key Measures
• What must we do to create a “ win – win”

win”?
– minimize neighborhood impacts
– minimize architectural/historic impacts
– improve safety for all modes
• trolley
• automobiles
• pedestrians
– preserve existing parking
– maximize ridership opportunities
+ = positive
- = negative
o = neutral
Our Recommendation
From this...
...to this...
...really seems to make sense
Your Thoughts?

Appendix 2.9
City and Metro Letters

Appendix 3.1
Agency Letters

Lyman, Kate/PDX
From: Bob Lordi [LordiB@stlouiscity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 1:53 PM
To: Lyman, Kate/PDX
Cc: Desai, Buddy/STL; Page, Tim/STL
Subject: Re: Request for information on variance procedures
Kate‐ You actually summed it up pretty well ("submit application for a building permit, city
staff review, review by Board of Zoning Adjustment"). Here's the details.

In order to obtain a variance, we'll need you to start by applying for either a building
permit or an occupancy permit; which one will depend primarily on where you are at this point
with your architectural/engineering permit drawings.

With no drawings, you could apply for an occupancy permit. This would send the Building
Inspector out to make sure the property is code compliant for the proposed use, and would
also come to us for Zoning review. We could use this to set you up for a variance hearing.
The occupancy permit application fee is either $80 (for buildings less than 3,500 s.f.) or
$160 (if more). There is an additional $145 fee required (as well as additional paperwork
which we would generate) before you could be scheduled for a variance hearing.

If you only have some preliminary drawings, you could make an application for a "Zoning Only"
building permit, whereby we only need two sets of a site plan, floor plan, and elevations.
This application would be used only by us to set you up for a variance hearing, and we would
not need any construction details. If the hearing were to go well, this permit would
eventually be turned into a full building permit upon submittal and approval of a complete
set of sealed construction documents. The application fee for a "Zoning Only" building permit
is a flat $25, and the fee for the variance would still be $145.

With a complete set of construction documents, you could apply for a full building permit
(again, $25 application fee). We would use this to set you up for the variance hearing ($145
fee). If the total cost of the project is greater than $30,000, then you would be issued your
occupancy permit for free at the completion of the project. Be aware that in addition to
paying the initial $25 application fee, the fee for the building permit itself, upon
issuance, will be based on the cost of construction (at a rate of 1/10th of 1 percent of that
cost).

FYI, please be aware that once you have compiled a partial set of construction drawings
(let's say 50% complete or thereabouts) you schedule a preliminary design review meeting.
This will bring in all the review agencies so you can get an idea up front what details
you'll need to include in your final permit drawings, as well as the full range of procedures
you'll need to follow and any other requirements you might be faced with. This would very
much facilitate the permitting process in the long run. I can give you more information on
this when you're ready. However, such a meeting does not negate the need to obtain a variance
pursuant to the procedures outlined above.

Finally, any questions as to the details of the permit application process can be answered by
our Permits Section, at phone number 314‐622‐3313. They do require certain paperwork before
you can apply for any permits, so it would be helpful to call them before coming in.

Hope this helps.

>>>Bob

1
>>> <Kate.Lyman@ch2m.com> 2/2/2011 3:09 PM >>>
Bob,

I received your fax today with the zoning letter for the properties at 5985‐89 and 5893
Delmar Boulevard; thank you very much! Your cover letter stated that you would be willing to
explain the procedure for obtaining a variance in greater detail. I would really appreciate
it if you are willing to do so in an email that we can append to our documentation. A basic
summary of the steps involved (submit application for a building permit, city staff review,
review by Board of Zoning Adjustment, etc), would be most helpful.

Thank you very much!

Kate Lyman, AICP
Transportation Planner
CH2M HILL
2020 SW Fourth Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
503‐872‐4766

2

Appendix 3.2
Environmental Site Assessments

DRAFT
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
Trolley Corridor Right‐of‐Way, 5875‐5887 Delmar Boulevard,
and 5809 Delmar Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63112

Prepared for
Loop Trolley Company
East‐West Gateway Council of Governments

January 2011
1034 South Brentwood Boulevard

St. Louis, Missouri 53117314-3335-3000

DRAFT
Contents
CHAPTER 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1‐1
1.1 Detailed Scope of Services ............................................................................................... 1‐1
1.2 Significant Assumptions ................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.3 Limitations and Exceptions .............................................................................................. 1‐1
1.4 Special Terms and Conditions .......................................................................................... 1‐2
1.5 User/Subconsultant Reliance ........................................................................................... 1‐2
CHAPTER 2 Trolley Corridor Right‐Of‐Way .................................................................................. 2‐1
2.1 Site Description ................................................................................................................ 2‐1
2.1.1 Location and Legal Description ........................................................................... 2‐1
2.1.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics ............................................................ 2‐1
2.1.3 Current Use of the Site ....................................................................................... 2‐1
2.1.4 Descriptions of Structures, Roads, Other Improvements on the Site ................ 2‐1
2.2 User/Subconsultant Provided Information ...................................................................... 2‐2
2.2.1 Title Records ....................................................................................................... 2‐2
2.2.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations ......................................... 2‐2
2.2.3 Specialized Knowledge ........................................................................................ 2‐2
2.2.4 Other ................................................................................................................... 2‐2
2.3 Records Review ................................................................................................................ 2‐3
2.3.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources ........................................................... 2‐3
2.3.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources ....................................................... 2‐10
2.3.3 Physical Setting Sources .................................................................................... 2‐10
2.4 Historical Use Information on the Subject Corridor ...................................................... 2‐11
2.5 Historical Use Information on the Adjoining Properties................................................ 2‐11
2.6 Site Reconnaissance ....................................................................................................... 2‐11
2.6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions ............................................................. 2‐11
2.6.2 General Site Setting .......................................................................................... 2‐12
2.6.3 Exterior Observations ....................................................................................... 2‐12
2.7 Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 2‐12
2.8 Findings .......................................................................................................................... 2‐12
2.9 Opinion .......................................................................................................................... 2‐12
CHAPTER 3 5875‐5887 Delmar Boulevard ................................................................................... 3‐1
3.1.5 Current Use of the Adjoining Properties ............................................................ 3‐3
3.2.1 Title Records ....................................................................................................... 3‐4
3.2.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues .................................................. 3‐5
3.2.5 Other ................................................................................................................... 3‐5
3.3 Records Review ................................................................................................................ 3‐5
ES010411111716STL II
DRAFT PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
DRAFT
3.3.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources ....................................................... 3‐10
3.3.3 Physical Setting Sources .................................................................................... 3‐11
3.4 Historical Use Information on the Property .................................................................. 3‐11
3.4.1 Fire Insurance Maps .......................................................................................... 3‐12
3.4.2 USGS Photograph .............................................................................................. 3‐12
3.6.4 Interior Observations ........................................................................................ 3‐16
The interior observations discussed below are included in this Phase I ESA by
reference of the 2004 Phase I ESA (Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004a) ............................ 3‐16
3.7 Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 3‐17
3.7.1 Interview with Owner ....................................................................................... 3‐17
3.7.2 Interview with Site Manager ............................................................................ 3‐17
3.7.3 Interview with Occupants ................................................................................. 3‐17
3.7.4 Interviews with Local Government Officials ..................................................... 3‐17
3.7.5 Interviews with Others ..................................................................................... 3‐17
3.8 Findings .......................................................................................................................... 3‐17
3.9 Opinion .......................................................................................................................... 3‐18
CHAPTER 4 5809 Delmar Boulevard ............................................................................................ 4‐1
4.1.5 Current Use of the Adjoining Facilities ............................................................... 4‐2
4.2.1 Title Records ....................................................................................................... 4‐3
4.2.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues .................................................. 4‐3
4.2.5 Other ................................................................................................................... 4‐3
4.3 Records Review ................................................................................................................ 4‐3
4.3.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources ......................................................... 4‐8
4.3.3 Physical Setting Sources ...................................................................................... 4‐8
4.4 Historical Use Information of the Property ..................................................................... 4‐9
4.4.1 Fire Insurance Maps ............................................................................................ 4‐9
4.4.2 USGS Photograph .............................................................................................. 4‐10
4.6.4 Interior Observations ........................................................................................ 4‐12
4.7 Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 4‐12
ES010411111716STL III
DRAFT
4.7.1 Interview with Owner ....................................................................................... 4‐12
4.7.2 Interview with Site Manager ............................................................................ 4‐12
4.7.3 Interview with Occupants ................................................................................. 4‐12
4.7.4 Interviews with Local Government Officials ..................................................... 4‐12
4.7.5 Interviews with Others ..................................................................................... 4‐12
4.8 Findings .......................................................................................................................... 4‐12
4.9 Opinion .......................................................................................................................... 4‐12
CHAPTER 5 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 5‐1
CHAPTER 6 Deviations ................................................................................................................ 6‐1
CHAPTER 7 Additional Services ................................................................................................... 7‐1
7.1 Trolley Corridor Right‐Of‐Way ......................................................................................... 7‐1
7.2 5875 – 5887 Delmar Boulevard ....................................................................................... 7‐1
7.2.1 Asbestos Containing Material ............................................................................. 7‐1
7.2.2 Radon .................................................................................................................. 7‐2
7.2.3 Lead Based Paint ................................................................................................. 7‐2
7.3 5809 Delmar Boulevard ................................................................................................... 7‐3
7.3.1 Radon .................................................................................................................. 7‐3
CHAPTER 8 References ............................................................................................................... 8‐1
CHAPTER 9 Signatures ................................................................................................................ 9‐1
CHAPTER 10 Qualifications of Environmental Professional ......................................................... 10‐1

Appendices
A Maps
B Environmental Data Resources Corridor Study
C Site Reconnaissance Photographs
D UST Documentation
E Title Search Records
F Qualifications of Environmental Professional
Tables
1 Listed Sites Identified Adjacent to the Loop Trolley Corridor
2 Listed Sites Identified within a One‐Quarter Mile Radius of 5875‐5887 Delmar Boulevard
3 Listed Sites Identified within a One‐Quarter Mile Radius of 5809 Delmar Boulevard

ES010411111716STL IV
DRAFT
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAI all appropriate inquiry
ACM asbestos containing material
amsl above mean sea level
AST aboveground storage tank
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CESQG conditionally exempt small quantity generator
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
EER Environmental Emergency Response
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right‐to Know Act
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act
FINDS Facility Index System
HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources
MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System
MSD Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned
NOV notice of violation
NPL National Priority List
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
ES010411111716STL V
DRAFT
RCRA‐TSDF Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – Treatment Storage and Disposal
RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
REC recognized environmental condition
ROD record of decision
ROM rough order of magnitude
SCS Soil Conservation Services
SQG small quantity generator
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSD treatment, storage and/or disposal
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
ES010411111716STL VI
DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CH2M HILL performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in January 2011 for the Trolley
Corridor Right‐of‐way, 5875‐5887 Delmar Boulevard, and 5809 Delmar Boulevard. The subject corridor
and properties are located in a densely developed residential and commercial area in the City of St.
Louis, Missouri. The subject corridor includes the centerline of the public right‐of‐way beginning at the
intersection of Trinity Avenue and Delmar Boulevard and ending at the Missouri History Museum. The
subject property at 5875‐5887 Delmar Boulevard is located on the north side of Delmar Boulevard,
approximately one hundred (100) feet east of Hamilton Boulevard and includes two (2), abutting, 2‐
story, masonry structures that are “inter‐connected”. The subject property at 5809 Delmar Boulevard is
located on the north side of Delmar Boulevard, in the northwest corner of the intersection of Delmar
Boulevard and Goodfellow Boulevard and includes two (2) building structures. The subject properties
are commercial real estate and do not appear to currently be in use.
The Phase I ESA was conducted for the purpose of identifying potential recognized environmental
conditions (RECs) associated with the site to identify potential liability associated with the property
transfer of this commercial real estate. The Phase I ESA meets the standards presented in American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527‐05 and the standards for an “all appropriate inquiry” to
the extent practicable.
The Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) database search did not identify any potential RECs
associated with the Trolley Corridor Right‐of‐way or 5809 Delmar Boulevard property. The EDR search
results for properties surrounding the Trolley Corridor Right‐of‐way and subject properties are typical
and expected for a densely developed residential and commercial area. The EDR database search
identified a former dry cleaning operation owned by four (4) owners at different times adjacent to the
5875‐5887 Delmar Boulevard property to the west. This was identified as a potential REC in the 2004
Phase I ESA (Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004a) but was dismissed as a REC in this Phase I ESA based on the
results of the limited subsurface investigation performed during the 2004 Phase II ESA (Shifrin &
Associates, Inc 2004b). Underground storage tanks (USTs) have been documented as being closed in
place on the 5809 Delmar Boulevard property. A No Further Action Letter is not available for these USTs.
However, no documentation was found to indicate a past release from these USTs based on the records
received from Missouri Department of Natural Resources as a result of a Sunshine Request made.
ES010411111716STL 1‐1
DRAFT
Therefore, these USTs are identified as potential RECs. The possible aboveground storage tank (AST)
identified during the 2011 site reconnaissance is also identified as a potential REC.
The additional services performed by Shifrin & Associates, Inc during the 2004 Phase I ESA for the 5875‐
5887 Delmar Boulevard property and limited subsurface investigation of the unregistered UST on this
property identified asbestos containing material (ACM) inside the building and known contamination
from the UST as RECs associated with this property. The basis for assuming these RECs are still
associated with the property is from correspondence with the property owner that confirmed remedial
action has not been taken since the 2004 Phase I and II ESAs to mitigate the RECs. It is our opinion that a
detailed building inspection for ACM and other potentially hazardous materials observed during the
2004 building inspection (i.e. lighting, refrigerators/freezers, computer equipment, etc.) and ACM
sampling is needed before definitively identifying the scope of remedial action on this property.
There is a high level of uncertainty with identifying RECs for the 5809 Delmar Boulevard property. It is
our opinion that a site reconnaissance on the property (rather than from the right‐of‐way) and inside
the building structures as well as potentially a building inspection for potentially hazardous materials is
needed before determining the only RECs associated with this property are the USTs and possible AST
onsite if this property is going to continue to be considered as a viable option for use as the trolley
maintenance building.
ES010411111716STL 1‐2
DRAFT
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was to review past usage of the subject
corridor and adjoining properties as well as subject properties for potential use as a trolley maintenance
facility and their adjoining properties; identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs); and assess
environmental impacts if a REC was identified. RECs are defined in American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) E 1527‐05 as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or
petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a
material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on the property or into
the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property.”
1.1 DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
A due diligence report was the deliverable of the scope of services. A Phase I ESA was completed,
including an opinion for the Client regarding any environmental concerns associated with the use of the
existing public right‐of‐way and the transfer of property. The Phase I ESA meets the standards presented
in ASTM E 1527‐05 and the interim standards for an “all appropriate inquiry” (AAI) to the extent
practicable.
1.2 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS
No significant assumptions were made in preparations of this assessment.
1.3 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the Client, solely for use in an
environmental assessment of the subject corridor as well as subject properties for potential use as a
trolley maintenance facility. This report and the findings contained herein were prepared for the Client
expressly for its intended use of the property.
The findings and conclusions stated herein must be considered not as scientific certainties, but rather as
professional opinions concerning the significance of the limited data gathered during the course of the
ESA. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Specifically, CH2M HILL does not and cannot
represent that the site contains no hazardous waste or material, oil (including petroleum products), or
other latent condition beyond that observed during site reconnaissance.
ES010411111716STL 1‐1
DRAFT
The observations described in this report were made under the conditions stated herein. The
conclusions presented in the report were based solely upon the services described therein and not on
scientific tasks or procedures beyond the scope of described services. Furthermore, such conclusions are
based solely on site conditions and rules and regulations which were in effect at the time of the study.
In preparing this report, CH2M HILL has relied on information provided by current property owners and
other parties referenced herein. Although there may have been some degree of overlap in the
information provided by these various sources, an attempt to independently verify the accuracy or
completeness of all information reviewed or received during the course of this assessment was not
made.
Observations were made of the subject corridor, properties, and of structures on the properties as
indicated within the report. The opinions made based on previous investigations and inspections is
solely based on the information stated in available documentation. Where access to portions of the
properties or to structures on the properties was unavailable or limited, no opinion is rendered as to the
presence of hazardous waste or material, oil or other petroleum products, or to the presence of indirect
evidence relating to hazardous waste or material, oil, or other petroleum products in that portion of the
property or structure. No opinion is rendered as to the presence of hazardous waste or material, oil, or
other petroleum products or to the presence of indirect evidence relating to hazardous material, oil, or
other petroleum products where direct observation of the interior walls, floor, roof, or ceiling of a
structure on a site was obstructed by objects or coverings on or over these surfaces.
Unless otherwise specified in the report, testing or analyses were not performed to determine the
presence or concentrations of asbestos, radon, formaldehyde, lead‐based paint, lead in drinking water,
electromagnetic fields EMFs, methane gas, or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at the subject corridor or
properties, or in the environment.
1.4 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
No special terms and conditions apply to this Phase I ESA.
1.5 USER/SUBCONSULTANT RELIANCE
The findings presented herein are those found at the time of our inspection of the corridor and
properties, are for the sole use of the Client and their authorized representatives. CH2M HILL did not
ES010411111716STL 1‐2
DRAFT
verify independently the information provided and relied on information provided in the 2004 Phase I
ESA (Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004) and by the User and Subconsultants to construct this Phase I ESA.
ES010411111716STL 1‐3
DRAFT
CHAPTER 2 TROLLEY CORRIDOR RIGHT‐OF‐WAY
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1.1 Location and Legal Description
The subject corridor is located in a densely developed residential and commercial area in the City of St.
Louis, Missouri. The subject corridor begins at the intersection of Trinity Avenue and Delmar Boulevard.
From this intersection it continues seventy‐six hundred feet (7600) east on Delmar Boulevard. The
corridor then turns south onto DeBaliviere Avenue and continues south for thirty‐two hundred (3200)
feet. The corridor ends in the cul‐de‐sac that surrounds the Missouri History Museum. The subject
corridor is within the Clayton Missouri 7.5 minute quadrangle map published by the USGS (Appendix A).
This quadrangle sheet was published in 1954, utilizing aerial photography taken in 1952, and last revised
in 1993, based upon aerial photography taken between 1988‐90. The EDR Corridor Study map (Appendix
B) includes the location of the subject corridor in relation to surrounding physical features.
A legal description of the subject site has not been provided and therefore has not been included as part
of this corridor right‐of‐way study. According to the USGS map, the subject property is located in the
Township 45 North, Range 6 East in St. Louis, Missouri. The property lies in City Block No. 4543 of the
City of St. Louis.
2.1.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics
The most recent revision of the USGS topographic map (Appendix A) does not show site specific detail
for the subject corridor; only that it is part of a densely developed urban area.
A review of the USGS map indicates that the ground surface in the area of the subject corridor slopes
gently toward the River des Peres, which is enclosed in Des Peres Boulevard. The mapping shows Forest
Park located at the southern most point of the corridor.
2.1.3 Current Use of the Site
At the time of the January 2011 site reconnaissance, the subject corridor was being utilized as Delmar
Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue as the public right‐of‐way.
2.1.4 Descriptions of Structures, Roads, Other Improvements on the Site
Delmar Boulevard from Trinity Avenue to Kingsland Avenue is a four lane roadway paved with asphalt.
From Kingsland Avenue to Skinker Boulevard, Delmar Boulevard is a two lane roadway with a two way
ES010411111716STL 2‐1
DRAFT
left turn lane as the center lane, and parallel parking available on both sides of the road way. From
Skinker Boulevard to Des Peres Avenue the roadway becomes two lanes with parallel parking available
on each side. From Des Peres Avenue to the end of the eastward bound direction at DeBaliviere the
roadway becomes four lanes with traffic calming landscaped dividers between each intersection. Once
the Corridor turns to the south and enters onto DeBaliviere Avenue the roadway stays consistent with
four lanes, and landscaped traffic calming dividers in between the intersections. The DeBaliviere Bridge,
an existing concrete street bridge (originally built in 1937) is within the right‐of‐way along DeBaliviere
Avenue, immediately north of the DeBaliviere Avenue and Forest Park Parkway intersection. The
existing street bridge would be reconstructed as part of trolley project’s construction. The bridge is
located between two parallel transit access bridges that connect to the Forest Park Station MetroLink
platform. These transit access bridges would remain in place. Photographs of the subject property and
the improvements thereon, taken during our reconnaissance, are attached as Appendix C.
The subject corridor is located within the service area of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District.
Wastewater in the area flows through a combined sanitary/stormwater sewer system to the District’s
Lemay Wastewater Treatment Plant located on S. Broadway near the mouth of the River des Peres. The
wastewater is given secondary treatment at this facility prior to discharge to the Mississippi River.
2.2 USER/SUBCONSULTANT PROVIDED INFORMATION
2.2.1 Title Records
According to St. Louis County and St. Louis City records, the corridor is in the public right‐of‐way.
2.2.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations
No information was provided which indicated that there are any environmental liens, activities or use
limitations on the property.
2.2.3 Specialized Knowledge
No specialized knowledge was provided by the user.
2.2.4 Other
No other information pertinent to this assessment was provided by the user.
ES010411111716STL 2‐2
DRAFT
2.3 RECORDS REVIEW
2.3.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources
A commercial database, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) of Milford, Connecticut, was used to
access available government records (federal, state, local, tribal, and EDR proprietary records) to
determine whether or not there were any existing or past environmental compliance problems with the
study area or adjoining properties. The records also were checked to determine if any abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste disposal sites are on or adjacent to the study area. A copy of the report
prepared by EDR is provided in Appendix B. The screening of records was conducted in accordance with
the guidelines in ASTM E 1527‐05 – Standard Practices for Environmental Site Assessment Process.
As stated in ASTM E 1527‐05, while approximate minimum search distances are defined in the
guidelines the search distance may be reduced, pursuant to paragraph 8.1.2.1 for any of the standard
environmental record sources except the Federal National Priority List (NPL) and Federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) – Treatment Storage and Disposal (RCRA‐TSDF) list. The search
radius for the corridor study was one‐quarter mile around the centerline of the future trolley (with the
exception of the Federal NPL and RCRA‐TSDF list). The distance was chosen because the development of
the Loop Trolley line requires only a minimal excavation depth (less than two feet). As a result, only
contamination from surficial environmental spills would be encountered to install the Loop Trolley line
while excavating to the minimal depth required in the center of the right‐of‐way. At the time the EDR
search was requested, it was determined that environmental impacts greater than one‐quarter mile
would not impact the future development. In addition to the one‐quarter mile radius search provided in
the corridor study EDR report for the Federal NPL and RCRA‐TSDF list, the EDR report provided in the
Phase 1 ESA for 5875‐5887 Delmar Boulevard (Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004a) was referenced to search
the Federal NPL within approximately a one (1) mile radius of the subject study area and the RCRA‐TSDF
list (the RCRA‐TSDF list was previously called RCRIS‐TSD) for sites within approximately a one‐half (1/2)
mile radius of the subject study area.
There are 47 listed sites within the corridor study area (see EDR DataMap provided in Appendix B). The
investigation of the subject study area was further refined to only evaluate the24 listed sites within the
corridor study area adjacent to the proposed Loop Trolley line (listed sites 9, 10, 12‐17, 20‐23, 25‐32, 36,
39, 43, and 45). The refinement step was taken since migration of surficial contamination from
properties adjacent to the right‐of‐way to the proposed Loop Trolley line (center of the right‐of‐way)
would be minimal since the right‐of‐way is covered with impervious surfaces.
ES010411111716STL 2‐3
DRAFT
The executive summary of the EDR report lists the government records that were searched for which no
mapped sites were found (Appendix B). In addition the government records listed, no mapped sites
were found within the refined search area in the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) sites designated “No Further Remedial Action
Planned” (NFRAP) (CERC‐NFRAP) records, Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) records, or
Material Licensing Tracking System (MLTS) records. In addition to no NPL or de‐listed NPL sites and no
hazardous treatment, storage and disposal (TSD) facilities found within the one‐quarter (1/4) mile
search radius used in the corridor study EDR report (Appendix B), no NPL or de‐listed NPL sites were
found to be located within one (1) mile of the subject property and no hazardous TSD facilities were
found to be located within one‐half (1/2) mile of the subject site when the previous EDR search was
conducted in 2004 (Shifrin & Associates, Inc. 2004a).
The 24 listed sites within the search radius that were identified in one or more databases as a result of
the EDR search are defined in the Table 1 (in some cases, a site is listed in more than one database).
Table 1
Listed Sites Identified Adjacent to the Loop Trolley Corridor Right‐of‐way
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Database Number Listed Site Map ID Site Name Listed in Database
of Listed
Sites
RCRA‐SQG 1 27 Amoco 5017

RCRA‐CESQG 2 20 St. Louis Formal Wear Inc
23 Boulevard Cleaners
RCRA‐NonGen 8 13 Mathis Cleaners, Tivoli Bldg LLC
15 Service Station
20 One Story LLC Vacant Bldg, Delmar Cleaners,
Leader Ford
22 Yellow Cab Co Former
23 James Kang, Goodyear Auto Svc Ctr
28 Saint Louis Public Schools
31 Jan Properties Inc
39 Bi State Development Agency
FTTS & 1 20 Gloria Montano
HIST FTTS
FINDS 11 13 Mathis Cleaners, Tivoli Bldg
14 Pest Control Products
15 Service Stations
20 One Story LLC Vacant Bldg, Delmar Cleaners,
Leader Ford, Montano Gloria M, Loop Hotels
LLC, St Louis Formalwear Inc,
22 Yellow Cab Co Former
ES010411111716STL 2‐4
DRAFT
Table 1
of Listed
Sites
23 James Kang, Boulevard Cleaners, Goodyear
Auto Svc Ctr
25 Waddells 45 Minute Cleaners
27 Amoco 5017
UST 15 13 Tivoli Theater
15 Sunoco Station
17 Parkview Central Office, Circle K #1619,
Meineke Muffler
20 Vacant Lot
21 Former Yellow Cab Co
22 Former Yellow Cab Company
23 Kang Property, Goodyear Auto Svc Ctr

26 London and Son
27 BP #9042
32 Kwiki Car Wash
36 Debalviere Service Garage
39 Crossroads School
43 Abbott Ambulance, Shell Oil Co – Former,
Vacant
45 Amoco
LUST 5 13 Tivoli Theater
15 Sunoco Station
17 Circle K #1619, Meineke Muffler
27 BP #9042
43 Abbott Ambulance, Vacant
AST 2 17 Circle K #1619
27 Westside Amoco
SPILLS 3 16 Not reported (6241 Delmar)
21 Not reported (6120 Delmar)
43 Not reported (324 Debaliviere)
VCP 2 22 Loop Center North
23 Delmar Boulevard Revitalization Project
DRYCLEANERS 10 12 Delmar Loop Laundry
13 Mathis Cleaners
20 Delmar Cleaners Inc, Ginguss Formal Wear

25 Waddell 45 Minute Cleaners
28 American Cleaners & Hatters CL, Forty Five
ES010411111716STL 2‐5
DRAFT
Table 1
of Listed
Sites
Minute Cleaners, American Hat Works,
Peerless Hat Shop
29 Unique Art Lace Cleaners
30 Dodson Cleaning/Careful Cleaner
39 Frontenac West End Clnrs
43 DB Cleaners & Laudromat, Frontenac
Cleaners, Nuvo Cleaners
BROWNSFIELD 2 22 Loop Center North
23 Delmar Boulevard Revitalization
NPDES 1 20 Moonrise Hotel
AIRS 2 20 Delmar Cleaners

2.3.1.1 RCRAInfo Database (RCRA‐SQG, RCRA‐CESQG, RCRA‐NonGen)
RCRAInfo is U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) comprehensive information system,
providing access to data supporting and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.
RCRAInfo replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Information System (RCRIS). The database includes selective information on sites which generate,
transport, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by RCRA.
Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate between 100 and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month.
The Amoco station listed as a SQG of hazardous waste is located at the intersection of Goodfellow and
Delmar. It should be recognized that hazardous waste generators are not permitted to permanently
store or dispose hazardous waste on their properties. They must have a licensed waste handler
transport the substances off‐site for disposal. The EDR report indicated that no notices of violation
under RCRA have been issued to this generator. In addition, no corrective actions have been required at
this facility. The lack of any violations or required corrective action suggests that it is unlikely that the
handling of hazardous waste at this facility has adversely impacted the subject site from an
environmental viewpoint.
Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) generate less than 100 kilograms (kg) of
hazardous waste or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. St. Louis Formal Wear Inc is
ES010411111716STL 2‐6
DRAFT
listed as a CESQG and has no reported violations. Boulevard Cleaners is also listed as a CESQG and
received four (4) informal written enforcement actions, none of which included a penalty. Four follow‐
up inspections were conducted and the facility achieved compliance following each of them.
Non‐Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. Eight (8) sites adjacent to the right‐of‐way
are listed as Non‐Generators, two (2) of which have reported violations and the remaining six (6) have
no reported violations. Saint Louis Public Schools is currently listed as a non‐generator but was a SQG
and large quantity generator in the past. They have received a notice of violation (NOV) and four (4)
informal written enforcement actions. Four follow‐up inspections were conducted and the facility
achieved compliance following each of them. Bi State Development Agency is currently listed as a non‐
generator but was a SQG in the past. They have received one (1) informal written enforcement action.
Three compliance evaluation actions were conducted following the enforcement action and the facility
achieved compliance.
2.3.1.2 FTTS and HIST FTTS Databases
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act / Toxic Substances Control Act (FIFRA/TSCA) Tracking
System (FTTS) tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities
related to FIFRA, TSCA, and Emergency Planning and Community Right‐to Know Act (EPCRA). HIST FTTS
includes a complete administrative case listing from the FTTS for all ten USEPA Regions since some
USEPA regions are now closing out records and because of that, it was created to include records that
may not be included in the new FTTS database updates. However, this database is no longer updated.
Listed Site 20 (Gloria Montano) was included in both the FTTS and HIST FTTS database as having been
inspected for lead and a violation was noted as having occurred.
2.3.1.3 FINDS Database
The Facility Index System (FINDS) contains both facility information and ‘pointer’ to other sources that
contain more detail. EDR included the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance
System), AIRS (Aerometric Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage
and track information on civil and judicial enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS
(Federal Underground Injection Control), C‐DOCKET (Criminal Docket System used to track criminal
enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities Information System), STATE
(State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System). The only listed site
included in this database that is not included in one or more of the other databases that provide specific
ES010411111716STL 2‐7
DRAFT
information is Pest Control Products. The only information for this site in the FINDS database is the
location and Registry ID. There is no documentation that suggests a spill or release occurred at this site.
2.3.1.4 UST and LUST Databases
The underground storage tank (UST) records contain an inventory of registered USTs in the State of
Missouri. The leaking underground storage tank (LUST) records contain an inventory of reported LUST
incidents. Fifteen (15) UST sites were found by EDR adjacent to the right‐of‐way. Five (5) of those sites
are LUST sites. The EDR shows that all of the LUST sites have been remediated. Two of the sites (one of
which had two tanks that were remediated at different times) have No Further Action letters that
document MNDR’s concurrence with the closure of these tanks. A No Further Action letter was not
documented for the other three (3) LUST sites.
2.3.1.5 AST Database
The aboveground storage tank (AST) records contain an inventory of registered ASTs in the State of
Missouri. Two (2) AST sites were found by EDR adjacent to the right‐of‐way. No reported spills or
releases are documented.
2.3.1.6 SPILLS Database
The SPILLS database is an environmental response tracking database that tracks releases of hazardous
substances reported to the department’s Environmental Emergency Response (EER) section. Three (3)
spill sites were found adjacent to the right‐of‐way. A spill is documented as having occurred from a
leaking tank system at a Convenience Store/Gas Station at 6241 Delmar. This spill was reported on
January 9, 2001. The spill summary indicates that contaminated soil was found with gasoline while
removing USTs. No free product or groundwater contamination was found. The EER referred
appropriate follow‐up to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) hazardous waste
program tanks section. The cleanup date for the release that occurred at Meineke Muffler which is
associated with the same address was on January 8, 2001. Therefore, it is very likely that the spill
reported in the SPILLS database is the same spill that was cleaned up for Meineke Muffler. A No Further
Action letter was issued for the USTs at Meineke Muffler. A spill is documented as having occurred from
a heating oil tank at a manufacturing facility at 6120 Delmar. The UST had not been used for at least 20
years and had only recently been discovered. The UST and 22 tons of contaminated soil were removed
and the UST closure paperwork was completed. The EER was contacted about the discovery of
contaminated soil at 324 Debaliviere during a tank removal action. EER referred the information to the
ES010411111716STL 2‐8
DRAFT
MDNR hazardous waste program, LUST unit for further investigation. The site was remediated by
removing fifty (50) cubic yards of contaminated soil and disposing of it at a landfill.
2.3.1.7 VCP Database
The VCP database includes sites currently participating in the Missouri Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP)
or sites that have been investigated and/or remediated under the VCP. Two (2) sites were found
adjacent to the right‐of‐way. The Loop Center North received state funding to address petroleum
contamination onsite and received a certificate of completion on October 31, 2006. The Delmar
Boulevard Revitalization Project received is state funded to address lead, PCB, and petroleum
contamination. The facility status is active/idle and a certificate of completion is not documented as
being issued to date in the EDR.
2.3.1.8 DRYCLEANERS Database
The DRYCLEANERS database is a listing of drycleaner facilities that are potentially eligible for
reimbursement of department approved cleanup costs under the Drycleaning Environmental Response
Trust Fund. Ten (10) active or abandoned dry cleaning sites were found adjacent to the right‐of‐way.
None of the sites have documentation that would suggest a spill or release occurred from dry cleaning
operations.
2.3.1.9 BROWNFIELDS Database
The BROWNFIELDS database includes Brownsfields sites which are sites where redevelopment and
reuse is hampered by known or suspected contamination with hazardous substances. Both Brownfields
sites adjacent to the right‐of‐way either have been or are being addressed under the VCP.
2.3.1.10 NPDES Database
The NPDES database includes a listing of permitted facilities from the Water Pollution Branch. The
Moonrise Hotel has an NPDES permit that was issued on November 2, 2007. The permit expires on
February 7, 2012. No violations or enforcement actions related to this permit are documented in the
EDR.
2.3.1.11 AIRS Database
The AIRS database includes a listing of Air Pollution Control Program permits. Two (2) sites were found
adjacent to the right‐of‐way. Delmar Cleaners had an air operating permit that was issued on March 3,
1999. The permit expired on March 3, 2004. No violations or enforcement actions related to this permit
are documented in the EDR. Boulevard Cleaners had an air operating permit that was issued on March
ES010411111716STL 2‐9
DRAFT
11, 1999. The permit expired on March 11, 2004. No violations or enforcement actions related to this
permit are documented in the EDR.
2.3.1.12 Unmappable (Orphan) Sites
The unmapped orphan sites summarized in the corridor study EDR are sites that had poor or inadequate
addressed information. These sites were included at the end of the findings report in the EDR. No sites
were found in the various databases with inadequate address information to locate for the subject
corridor.
2.3.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources
Based on review of the existing underground utility maps, it appears that there are currently no
potential environmental hazards in the public right‐of‐way. According to the fire insurance (Sanborn)
maps (Appendix A), the public right‐of‐way has been in the same location since 1909. This suggests that
there have not been major removals of utilities containing hazardous substances since the public right‐
of‐way was put in place. Based on historical and present data, it is in our opinion that there are no
potential underground hazardous substances that would affect the right‐of‐way from an environmental
stand point.
Under Missouri’s Superfund law, MDNR is directed to prepare a registry of confirmed abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste disposal sites and to publish a report each January evaluating sites on the
Registry. The Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report, entitled Confirmed Abandoned or Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Disposal Sites in Missouri and the Registry Log dated June 2010 were reviewed. Of the nine (9)
and eight (8) sites listed in each of these respective documents for the City of St. Louis, none were found
by EDR within a one‐quarter (¼) mile of the subject study area (MDNR 2010).
2.3.3 Physical Setting Sources
2.3.3.1 USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
A copy of a portion of this map showing the location of the subject corridor is attached In Appendix A.
See Section 2.1.2 for a discussion of the physical setting.
2.3.3.2 Regional Geology
The subject corridor is situated above Mississippian Limestones of the Meramecian Series. The
Meramecian Series consists of four formations; the Warsaw, Salem, St. Louis and Ste. Genevieve; which
are presented in descending order of age (oldest to youngest). These formations are mainly comprised
ES010411111716STL 2‐10
DRAFT
of limestone with dolomite. The maximum thickness of the series in east‐central Missouri is 300 to 450
feet.
2.3.3.3 Local Geology
The Soil Survey of St. Louis County and St. Louis City, Missouri issued by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) – Soil Conservation Services (SCS) in April 1982, indicates the predominant soil
mapping unit present on the subject corridor in urban land, upland, 0 to 5 percent slopes. This map unit
consists of areas in which more than 85 percent of the surface is covered by asphalt, concrete, buildings,
or other impervious materials. Parking lots, shopping and business centers, railroad yards, and industrial
parks are examples. They occur throughout the survey area, except the western part. The largest areas
are the central business districts of the cities of St. Louis and Clayton, and the smaller areas are
industrial parks and shopping malls. These areas are on the uplands. Most of them are on land that has
been extensively reshaped by cutting or filling to achieve a nearly level surface over the whole area, or
to produce several elevation levels within an area. Identification of soils and soil‐like materials is
impractical because of variability.
2.4 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT CORRIDOR
Review of fire insurance maps and historic aerial photographs provided in Appendix B show that the
subject corridor intended for the Loop Trolley line (the public right‐of‐way) has been in the same
location since 1909.
2.5 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES
In addition to the review of the EDR to evaluate properties adjacent to the right‐of‐way, fire insurance
maps and historic aerial photographs provided in Appendix B were reviewed to evaluate the similarities
and differences of the subject corridor over time. While the EDR includes documentation that indicates
adjoining properties with listed sites have changed over time, fire insurance maps and historic aerial
photographs show this has been a densely developed residential and commercial area since the early
1900s.
2.6 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
2.6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
The site reconnaissance was performed in January 2011 by Ms. Jessica Hoffman and Ms. Monica Martin
of CH2M HILL. The site reconnaissance included walking down and inspecting the right‐of‐way, making
ES010411111716STL 2‐11
DRAFT
visual observations, and collecting photographic documentation. Photographs taken during the site
reconnaissance are provided in Appendix C.
2.6.2 General Site Setting
As defined above, the subject corridor begins at the intersection of Trinity Avenue and Delmar
Boulevard. From this intersection it continues seventy‐six hundred feet (7600) east on Delmar
Boulevard. The corridor then turns south onto DeBaliviere Avenue and continues south for thirty‐two
hundred (3200) feet. The corridor ends in the cul‐de‐sac that surrounds the Missouri History Museum.
2.6.3 Exterior Observations
There were no hazardous substances visually observed. No staining or other evidence of contamination
was observed within the right‐of‐way and no overhead utilities connected to transformers within or
adjacent to the right‐of‐way were observed during the site reconnaissance. There was no evidence of
contamination observed related to the the DeBaliviere Bridge structure, which is an existing concrete
street bridge (originally built in 1937 and modified in 2005 to remove balustrades). Based on the visual
inspection of the bridge materials and that contaminated material was not known to be found when the
bridge was modified in 2005, contaminated materials are not expected to be encountered during the
demolition of the bridge.
2.7 INTERVIEWS
No interviews were conducted. This is the public right‐of‐way, and the EDR, USGS maps, and site visits
provided the information needed for the Phase I ESA.
2.8 FINDINGS
The subject corridor intended for the Loop Trolley line (the public right‐of‐way) has been in the same
location since 1909. This suggests that there have not been major removals of utilities containing
hazardous substances since the public right‐of‐way was put in place. Based on review of the existing
underground utility maps and visual observations during the site reconnaissance (i.e. absence of
overhead utilities connected to transformers within or adjacent to the right‐of‐way), it appears that
there are currently no potential environmental hazards in the public right‐of‐way.
2.9 OPINION
This site assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection
with the subject corridor.
ES010411111716STL 2‐12
DRAFT
CHAPTER 3 5875‐5887 DELMAR BOULEVARD
The subject property is located in a densely developed residential and commercial area in the City of St.
Louis, Missouri. The subject site is located on the north side of Delmar Boulevard, approximately one
hundred (100) feet east of Hamilton Boulevard. The intersection of Delmar and Hamilton is located
approximately twenty‐three hundred (2,300) feet east of the Delmar and N. Skinker Boulevard
intersection. The site is within the Clayton Missouri 7.5 minute quadrangle map published by the USGS
(Appendix A). This quadrangle sheet was published in 1954, utilizing aerial photography taken in 1952,
and last revised in 1993, based upon aerial photography taken between 1988‐90. The EDR Corridor
Study map (Appendix B) includes the location of the property in relation to surrounding physical
features.
The following legal description was obtained from the title search conducted for the subject property on
January 7, 2011 (Appendix E):
A tract of land in Block 4543 of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, and comprising all of Lots 13 through 16
and the Eastern part of Lot 17 of the Clemens Place Addition, being more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the North line of Delmar Blvd. (100 feet wide) and the East line
of Parcel 275, owned or formerly owned by McDonald’s Corporation doing business as Delaware
McDonald’s Corporation; thence Northwardly along said East line 157 feet 5 inches, more or less, to the
South line of an alley (15 feet wide); thence Westerly along said South line 235 feet 8‐1/2 inches to the
East line of Parcel 350 now or formerly owned by Peter Sarandoz; thence Southwardly 150 feet, more or
less, to the North line of Delmar Blvd. (100 feet wide); thence East from said North line 235 feet 8‐1/2
inches to the point of beginning.
for the subject property; only that it is part of a densely developed urban area.
ES010411111716STL 3‐1
DRAFT
A review of the USGS map indicates that the subject property is at an elevation of about 495 feet amsl.
The mapping shows Forest Park located just over one‐half (½) mile south of the subject property. It
appears from the mapping that, although primarily level, the ground surface in the area of the subject
property slopes gently south/southwesterly toward the River des Peres. Based upon the USGS map and
or site inspection, it does not appear that there have been major fills on the subject site, a possible
indicator of waste disposal.
At the time of the 2004 inspection, the subject property was improved with two (2), abutting, 2‐story,
masonry structures that are “inter‐connected”. The building, which had been utilized as a storage space
for St. Louis Public Schools, was in the process of being vacated.
At the time of the January 2011 site reconnaissance, the subject property did not appear to be currently
in use. The building appeared to be vacant and the exterior of the property did not appear to have been
frequented in the recent past. A site reconnaissance of the interior of the building was not conducted in
January 2011, the observations of the building exterior were made based on visual observations from
the parking lot on the property. The interior of the building is described throughout this section based
on the observations and inspections performed during the 2004 Phase I ESA (Shifrin & Associates, Inc
2004).
The subject property is improved with two (2), abutting, 2‐story, masonry structures that are “inter‐
connected”. The subject building occupies the majority of the property. There is a small asphalt paved
surface parking lot on the northwestern corner of the property.
The eastern of these two (2) structures comprising the subject building is known as the garage building.
The garage portion of this building is a large open space with approximately 16‐foot ceilings. Steel posts
wand joists are visible throughout the garage area. The floor is concrete with trench floor drains
throughout the garage. The second story of this building is improved as office space.
The western structure comprising the subject building is known as the classroom/office building. The
front of southern portion of this structure, which fronts Delmar Boulevard, has two (2) stories while the
rear is single story. This building has been utilized for storage of computer equipment, school furniture,
etc. Some areas within the building were not accessible due to the presence of the stored furniture.
ES010411111716STL 3‐2
DRAFT
It appears that the facilities are in good condition. Photographs of the subject property, taken during the
2004 and 2011 reconnaissance are attached as Appendix C.
The subject site is located within the service area of the MSD. Wastewater in the area flows through a
combined sanitary/stormwater sewer system to MSD’s Lemay Wastewater Treatment Plant located on
S. Broadway near the mouth of the River des Peres. The wastewater is given secondary treatment at this
facility prior to discharge to the Mississippi River.
Potable water is provided to the site by the Water Division of the City of St. Louis. The sources of supply
for the Water Division are the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Water is treated and distributed from
their Howard Bend treatment and filtration facility, which is located on the south bank of the Missouri
River in the west St. Louis County, and their Chain of Rocks treatment and filtration facility located on
the west bank of the Mississippi River in the northern part of the City, near the Interstate‐270 bridge
over the river. There was no evidence of private water wells located on the subject property or in the
surrounding area. (Improperly maintained or abandoned wells can pose a threat to groundwater quality
because they are open conduits to the underlying groundwater aquifer.)
3.1.5 Current Use of the Adjoining Properties
As mentioned above, the subject site is located in a densely developed residential and commercial area
in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The immediately adjacent properties are occupied by the following:
 North Public Alley
Residential Development
 East Vacant Lot with Building Excavated
 South Delmar Boulevard
5896 Vacant
5894 Galaxy Nails
5892 Vacant
5890 Cherrett Community Management/Akanson Apartments
5888 Taylor Made Barber Shop
5886‐84 Vacant
5882 Vacant
5880‐78 Steph Brown SalonSpa
5876 Palomino Lounge
5874 Under Rennovation
5860 Ste. 108‐110 Nubia Café
Ste. 106 Flavor
Ste. 104 Delmar Doggie Design
Ste. 102 De’Lore Hair Studio
ES010411111716STL 3‐3
DRAFT
Ste. 100 Polish Me Hair Care Salon
 West Hamilton Boulevard
Delmar Express Market
3.2.1 Title Records
A 30‐year title search was performed by the property title search company, ProTitleUSA for the subject
property (Appendix E). According to the title search (Appendix E) and St. Louis City Assessor records, the
property are currently owned by Delmar School LLC (City of St. Louis Assessor’s Office 2011).
The title search shows that there are any environmental liens, activities or use limitations on the
property.
A Phase I ESA report of the subject property, prepared by REACT Environmental Engineers in February
2004, was reviewed by Shifrin & Associates, Inc in order to provide background for 2004 Phase I ESA
conducted by Shifrin & Associates, Inc (Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004a). This assessment identified the
following concerns:
 The possible presence of an unregistered UST and associated piping
 The former presence of a dry cleaning and/or dyeing operation on the adjacent (west) property
 The possible presence of petroleum and/or solvent residue in the floor drains in the garage
 The possible presence of an in‐ground oil/water separator on the property
 The presence of confirmed and suspected asbestos containing material (ACM) installed in the
subject building
 Suspect PCB containing fluorescent light ballasts and mercury containing light tubes
 Suspect PCB containing pole mounted transformer
 The presence of lead‐based paint
 The presence of stored window air conditioners and refrigerators/freezers which may contain Freon
ES010411111716STL 3‐4
DRAFT
 Exterior suspect high intensity discharge lights which may contain heavy metals
 The presence of a large amount of stored computer equipment which may contain heavy metals
 The presence of a small quantity of cleaning and maintenance products and paint
Shifrin & Associates, Inc performed additional services during the 2004 Phase I ESA (Shifrin & Associates,
Inc 2004a) and conducted a Phase II ESA (Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004b) to determine whether there
may be ACM and lead‐based paint inside the building, contamination from the UST and/or oil water
separator adjacent to the building, contamination near the floor drain identified inside the building, and
contamination from dry cleaning operations adjacent to the property to the west. As reported in the
Phase II ESA, analytical results of paint samples, samples collected near the former dry cleaning
operations, and near the floor drain provided evidence that contamination is not present above
acceptable levels. A limited ACM inspection and limited subsurface investigation associated with the UST
showed that these are likely RECs to be addressed prior to use of the building as a trolley maintenance
facility.
3.2.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
The appraised total property value is $300,000. There is no tax balance due for the subject property.
3.2.5 Other
No other information pertinent to this assessment was provided by the user.
3.3 RECORDS REVIEW
The EDR database was used to access available government records to determine whether or not there
were any existing or past environmental compliance problems with the property or adjoining properties.
The records also were checked to determine if any abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste disposal
sites are on or adjacent to the property. The corridor study EDR report (Appendix B) was used to identify
environmental compliance and/or hazardous waste disposal sites within one‐quarter mile radius of the
subject property since the subject property and a one‐quarter mile radius around it are encompassed
within the corridor study area for which the EDR search was completed. The screening of records was
conducted in accordance with the guidelines in ASTM E 1527‐05 – Standard Practices for Environmental
Site Assessment Process.
ES010411111716STL 3‐5
DRAFT
environmental record sources except the Federal NPL and RCRA‐TSDF list. The search radius was chosen
because the subject property is located in an urban area that has been developed for 50 years or more
and is well characterized and understood with respect to environmental issues. Therefore,
environmental impacts great than one‐quarter mile would not have the potential to impact soil or
groundwater at the subject property. In addition to the one‐quarter mile radius search provided in the
corridor study EDR report for the Federal NPL and RCRA‐TSDF list, the EDR report provided in the Phase
1 ESA for 5875‐5887 Delmar Boulevard (Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004a) was referenced to search the
Federal NPL within approximately a one (1) mile radius of the subject property and the RCRA‐TSDF list
(the RCRA‐TSDF list was previously called RCRIS‐TSD) for sites within approximately a one‐half (1/2) mile
radius of the subject property.
investigation of the subject property was further refined to only evaluate the 10 listed sites associated
with the subject property and a one‐quarter mile radius around it (listed sites 23, 25‐32, and 38). The
refinement step was taken for the reasons described above.
were found within the refined search area in the following records; CERC‐NFRAP, ICIS, MLTS, FTTS, HIST
FTTS, SPILLS, or NPDES. In addition to no NPL or de‐listed NPL sites and no hazardous TSD facilities found
within the one‐quarter (1/4) mile search radius used in the corridor study EDR report (Appendix B), no
NPL or de‐listed NPL sites were found to be located within one (1) mile of the subject property and no
hazardous TSD facilities were found to be located within one‐half (1/2) mile of the subject site when the
previous EDR search was conducted in 2004 (Shifrin & Associates, Inc. 2004a).
Table 2
Listed Sites Identified within a One‐Quarter Mile Radius of 5875‐5887 Delmar Boulevard
ES010411111716STL 3‐6
DRAFT

of Listed
Sites

RCRA‐CESQG 1 23 Boulevard Cleaners
RCRA‐NonGen 5 23 James Kang, Goodyear Auto Svc Ctr
38 St Louis Public Schools
FINDS 6 23 James Kang, Boulevard Cleaners, Goodyear
Auto Svc Ctr
27 Amoco 5017
UST 5 23 James Kang, Boulevard Cleaners, Goodyear
Auto Svc Ctr
26 London and Son
27 Amoco 5017
32 Kwiki Car Wash
LUST 1 27 BP #9042
AST 1 27 Westside Amoco
VCP 1 23 Delmar Boulevard Revitalization
DRYCLEANERS 5 23 Boulevard Cleaners
25 Waddell 45 Minute Cleaners
28 American Cleaners & Hatters CL, Forty Five
Peerless Hat Shop
BROWNSFIELDS 1 23 Delmar Boulevard Revitalization
AIRS 1 23 Boulevard Cleaners

3.3.1.1 Subject Property Listing (Listed Site Map ID 28) – Saint Louis Public Schools (5875‐5887
Delmar)
Three listings for the subject property address were found in the various databases searched by EDR.
Saint Louis Public Schools (Delmar School LLC) is reported by EDR as being listed in the FINDS, RCRA‐
NonGen, and DRYCLEANERS databases.
The FINDS listing summarizes all environmental listings. No additional information for the subject
property is provided in this database aside from its property listing.
ES010411111716STL 3‐7
DRAFT
Non‐Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. Saint Louis Public Schools (listed site 28) is
currently listed as a non‐generator but was a SQG and large quantity generator in the past. They have
received an NOV and four (4) informal written enforcement actions. Four follow‐up inspections were
conducted and the facility achieved compliance following each of them.
Four (4) abandoned drycleaners are associated with this site; American Cleaners & Hatters CL, Forty Five
Minute Cleaners, American Hat Works, and Peerless Hat Shop. None of the sites have documentation
that would suggest a spill or release occurred from dry cleaning operations. As described in this section,
a limited subsurface investigation was performed as part of the Phase II ESA for the subject property and
showed that all analytical results tested for VOCs were not detected in soil.
RCRAInfo is USEPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting and the
HSWA of 1984. RCRAInfo replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of RCRIS. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat, and/or dispose of
hazardous waste as defined by RCRA.
SQGs generate between 100 and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. The Amoco station listed as a
SQG of hazardous waste within the specified one‐quarter (¼) mile search radius is located at the
intersection of Goodfellow and Delmar, approximately nine hundred (900) feet east of the property. It
should be recognized that hazardous waste generators are not permitted to permanently store or
dispose hazardous waste on their properties. They must have a licensed waste handler transport the
substances off‐site for disposal. The EDR report indicated that no notices of violation under RCRA have
been issued to this generator. In addition, no corrective actions have been required at this facility. The
lack of any violations or required corrective action suggests that it is unlikely that the handling of
hazardous waste at this facility has adversely impacted the subject site from an environmental
viewpoint.
CESQGs generate less than 100 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous
waste per month. Boulevard Cleaners is listed as a CESQG and received four (4) informal written
enforcement actions, none of which included a penalty. Four follow‐up inspections were conducted and
the facility achieved compliance following each of them.
Non‐Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. Five (5) sites within the one‐quarter (1/4)
mile search radius are listed as Non‐Generators, one (1) of which have reported violations and the
ES010411111716STL 3‐8
DRAFT
remaining four (4) have no reported violations. Saint Louis Public Schools (listed site 28) is currently
listed as a non‐generator but was a SQG and large quantity generator in the past. They have received an
NOV and four (4) informal written enforcement actions. Four follow‐up inspections were conducted and
The FINDS database contains both facility information and ‘pointer’ to other sources that contain more
detail. EDR included the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS
(Aerometric Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track
information on civil and judicial enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal
Underground Injection Control), C‐DOCKET (Criminal Docket System used to track criminal enforcement
actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities Information System), STATE (State
Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System). There are no listed sites within
the one‐quarter (1/4) search radius that are not included in one or more of the other databases that
provide specific information.
The UST records contain an inventory of registered USTs in the State of Missouri. The LUST records
contain an inventory of reported LUST incidents. Five (5) UST sites were found by EDR within the one‐
quarter (1/4) mile search radius. One (1) of those sites is a LUST site which is located at the intersection
of Goodfellow and Delmar, approximately nine hundred (900) feet east of the property. The EDR shows
that the LUST site has been remediated. A No Further Action letter was not documented for this LUST
site.
The AST records contain an inventory of registered ASTs in the State of Missouri. One (1) AST site was
found by EDR within the one‐quarter (1/4) mile search radius. No reported spills or releases are
documented.
3.3.1.6 VCP Database
The VCP database includes sites currently participating in the Missouri VCP or sites that have been
investigated and/or remediated under the VCP. One (1) site was found within the one‐quarter (1/4) mile
search radius. The Delmar Boulevard Revitalization Project received is state funded to address lead, PCB,
and petroleum contamination. The facility status is active/idle and a certificate of completion is not
documented as being issued to date in the EDR.
ES010411111716STL 3‐9
DRAFT
Trust Fund. Five (5) active or abandoned dry cleaning sites were found within the one‐quarter (1/4) mile
search radius. None of the sites have documentation that would suggest a spill or release occurred from
dry cleaning operations.
3.3.1.8 BROWNFIELDS Database
The BROWNFIELDS database includes Brownsfields sites which are sites where redevelopment and
reuse is hampered by known or suspsected contamination with hazardous substances. The Brownfields
site (Delmar Boulevard Revitalization Project) within the one‐quarter (1/4) mile search radius is being
addressed under the VCP.
3.3.1.9 AIRS Database
The AIRS database includes a listing of Air Pollution Control Program permits. Two (2) sites were found
within the one‐quarter (1/4) mile search radius. Boulevard Cleaners had an air operating permit that
was issued on March 11, 1999. The permit expired on March 11, 2004. No violations or enforcement
actions related to this permit are documented in the EDR.
addressed information. These sites were included at the end of the findings report in the EDR. No sites
were found in the various databases with inadequate address information to locate for the subject site.
A request for records related to the UST documented by REACT Environmental Engineers and Shifrin &
Associates, Inc as existing on the subject property was made under the Missouri Sunshine Law. The
subject property address was provided to MDNR to perform the search since a Facility ID could not be
located. MDNR confirmed that this UST must be unregistered since no documentation was available for
the UST on this property.
ES010411111716STL 3‐10
DRAFT
by EDR within a one‐quarter (¼) mile of the subject property (MDNR 2010).
A copy of a portion of this map showing the location of the subject property is attached In Appendix A.
feet.
The Soil Survey of St. Louis County and St. Louis City, Missouri issued by the USDA – SCS in April 1982,
indicates the predominant soil mapping unit present on the subject corridor in urban land, upland, 0 to
5 percent slopes. This map unit consists of areas in which more than 85 percent of the surface is covered
by asphalt, concrete, buildings, or other impervious materials. Parking lots, shopping and business
centers, railroad yards, and industrial parks are examples. They occur throughout the survey area,
except the western part. The largest areas are the central business districts of the cities of St. Louis and
Clayton, and the smaller areas are industrial parks and shopping malls. These areas are on the uplands.
Most of them are on land that has been extensively reshaped by cutting or filling to achieve a nearly
level surface over the whole area, or to produce several elevation levels within an area. Identification of
soils and soil‐like materials is impractical because of variability.
3.4 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ON THE PROPERTY
In order to obtain information relative to the prior use of this site we obtained and examined historical
fire insurance maps available from EDR and reviewed a United States Geological Survey aerial
photograph.
ES010411111716STL 3‐11
DRAFT
3.4.1 Fire Insurance Maps
Maps prepared in 1909, 1951, 1989, 1993, and 1998 were obtained from EDR. Reduced portions of the
maps obtained, showing the subject property, are provided in Appendix A. The information derived from
these maps is as follows:
 1909 ‐ The map published in 1909 shows the subject property to be a vacant, undeveloped parcel in
a residential and commercial area. The properties immediately east are also undeveloped. The
properties to the north are improved with residencies. Commercial or retail buildings are shown on
the north side of Delmar, west of the subject site. The properties on the south side of Delmar are
not shown.
 1951 ‐ Although the map published in 1951 is not completely legible, it indicates, at that time, the
property was improved with current improvements. Notations on the map indicate that the western
half of the improvements was constructed in 1911 and the eastern half added in 1951. The
notations also indicate that, at that time, the property was in use as an auto sales and service
facility. The map shows the property surrounded by commercial development to the east and west,
fronting Delmar, and residential development to the north.
 1989 ‐ The map published in 1989 shows the subject property occupied by the current
improvements. Notations on the map indicate that the improvements were occupied by the Board
of Special Education and the Delmar High School. Residential development is shown to the north, a
commercial structure (restaurant) to the east and a retail type building is shown to the east. The
properties to the south, across Delmar, are not shown.
 1993 ‐ No significant changes to the improvements on the subject property or the surrounding
properties, from those observed on the previous maps, are shown on the map published in 1993.
 1998 ‐ No significant changes to the subject property or the surrounding properties, from those
observed on the previous maps, are shown on the map published in 1998.
3.4.2 USGS Photograph
An aerial photograph, taken in March 2009, provided by the USGS is available on the TerraServer web
site. The photograph shows the subject property to be occupied by the current improvements.
Based upon these sources, it appears that the current improvements were constructed, in two (2)
stages, on the subject property in 1911 and 1951. The improvements were initially in use as an
ES010411111716STL 3‐12
DRAFT
automotive sales and service facility. The building was subsequently renovated for use as a high school.
Currently, the property is vacant.
No observations were made during our reconnaissance which indicated that any of the activities of the
occupants on the adjacent properties have had an adverse environmental impact on the subject site.
However, review of the EDR indicated the former use of an adjacent (west) property as the dry cleaning
facility. Based upon the former presence of a dry cleaning facility, it was determined during the 2004
Phase I ESA that there was the possibility of subsurface contamination and migration of solvents from
these operations onto the subject property. Therefore, the Phase II ESA addressed this by conducting a
limited subsurface investigation and determined that the subject property has not been impacted.
Based on review of the Phase II ESA data collected, CH2M HILL’s opinion is that it is unlikely that the
former dry cleaning operations have adversely impacted the subject site from an environmental
viewpoint.
A site reconnaissance was performed by Shifrin & Associates, Inc as part of the 2004 Phase I ESA. The
2004 Phase I ESA report documented that the interior of the building on the site was inspected and that
they systematically walked the remainder of the property. Mr. Peter Pfeifer, Hilliker Corporation, was
present during the 2004 reconnaissance. Photographs taken during the 2004 site reconnaissance and
documented in the 2004 Phase I ESA report are provided in Appendix C.
A site reconnaissance was performed in January 2011 by Ms. Jessica Hoffman and Ms. Monica Martin of
CH2M HILL. The site reconnaissance included systematically walking the remainder of the property and
inspecting the right‐of‐way, making visual observations, and collecting photographic documentation.
The interior of the building was not inspected. The property owner confirmed that no modifications
related to potentially hazardous materials had been made since 2004. Therefore, the conclusions of the
Phase I ESA related to the building are based on the conclusions and opinions provided in the 2004
Phase I ESA report. Photographs taken during the 2011 site reconnaissance are provided in Appendix C.
ES010411111716STL 3‐13
DRAFT
As indicated above, this site is located on the north side of Delmar Boulevard, approximately one
hundred (100) feet east of Hamilton Boulevard. A current site plan of the subject site was not provided
and preparation of one is beyond the scope of this investigation (See 1998 Sanborn map included in
Appendix A)
The current and past uses of the property and adjoining properties are described above, as are the
geologic, hydrogeologic and topographic conditions on the site. Further, the structure on the site,
adjoining roads, the potable water supply and the sewage disposal system serving the property are
discussed in Section 3.4.
3.6.2.1 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products in Connection with Identified Uses
Hazardous substances, as defined by the USEPA in regulations promulgated under CERCLA and RCRA,
include elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions and substances, which, when released into the
environment, may present substantial danger to the public health or welfare of the environment.
Typical hazardous substances are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive or chemically reactive materials.
Poisonous materials may also be considered hazardous. Petroleum products may include new and used
materials.
The only potential substances in connection with the present use of the property defined during the
2004 inspection of the building were the presence of the following:
 stored window air conditioners and refrigerators/freezers (may contain Freon),
 exterior suspect high intensity discharge (“HID”) lights (may contain heavy metals)
 a large amount of stored computer equipment (may contain heavy metals)
 the presence of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system thermostats (may contain
small amounts of mercury)
 a small quantity of cleaning and maintenance products and paint
No sign of spillage, leakage or improper disposal of any of these materials was observed during the 2004
reconnaissance inside the building. It was reported to Shifrin & Associates, Inc that the air conditioners,
refrigerators/freezers and computer equipment were in the process of being removed in order to be
stored in another location. The 2004 Phase I ESA also indicated that thermostats which contain mercury
ES010411111716STL 3‐14
DRAFT
should be collected and properly disposed of off‐site. The cleaning and maintenance chemicals and paint
should be removed and properly disposed. It is CH2M HILL’s understanding that none of these materials
have been removed to date.
3.6.3.1 Hazardous Substance Containers and Unidentified Substance Containers
No hazardous substance containers were identified on the site, nor were unidentified containers
observed during January 2011 site reconnaissance.
3.6.3.2 Storage Tanks
Based upon our site observations, no indication of the presence of USTs, such as vent or fill pipes or
product dispensers were observed during CH2M HILL site reconnaissance. No tanks are registered with
the MDNR for the subject property address. However, drawings of the building included in the Phase I
ESA prepared by REACT Environmental Engineers dated February 10, 2004 indicate the presence of an
underground heating oil tank and an oil/water separator installed on the site. It appears that the tank is
installed in the northwestern most portion of the property, just outside the footprint of the building.
The trap is in the same general area, but appears to be beneath the footprint of the building. Based on
this information, a limited sub‐surface investigation (Phase II ESA) was conducted on the subject
property in June 2004 (Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004b).
No aboveground storage tanks were observed on the property during the CH2M HILL site
reconnaissance.
3.6.3.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
The facilities on the subject property are served by a pole mounted transformer located to the rear of
the building, in the public alley. This transformer is the property of AmerenUE , the utility which serves
the area. No indication of current or past leakage from this transformer was noted during the 2004 or
2011 site reconnaissance.
Shifrin & Associates Inc documented in the 2004 Phase I ESA report that they made an inquiry to
Ameren in 2004 to determine the PCB status of the pole mounted transformers. Ameren has issued a
general letter to cover their response to PCB status requests. Although the 2004 Phase I ESA report
documents the lack of “blue non‐PCB stickers” on the transformers at this property which would
indicate the transformers have not had their dielectric fluids analyzed for the presence of PCBs,
ES010411111716STL 3‐15
DRAFT
CH2M HILL obtained photographic documentation during the 2011 site reconnaissance to show that
there is a “blue non‐PCB sticker” on the transformer (Appendix C; 2011 Photograph 9).
There are a number of fluorescent fixtures that were documented during the June 2004 building
inspection as being installed for lighting in the building on the subject property. The ballasts in these
fixtures reportedly may contain small quantities of PCBs. Newer ballasts are labeled “no‐PCB”. It is
CH2M HILL’s opinion that the ballasts be inspected, when the fixtures are removed, and appropriately
disposed. In conjunction with the disposal of the ballasts, the MDNR policy regarding the disposal of
fluorescent tubes (they contain mercury) also should be followed.
3.6.3.4 Indications of Solid Waste
No indications of the disposal of solid waste on the property were observed during the January 2011 site
reconnaissance. No indications of land disposal of solid and/or hazardous wastes on the property such
as stressed or discolored vegetation, discolored soil, waste ponds, lagoons or unusual fills were
observed.
3.6.3.5 Physical Setting Analysis (if migrating Hazardous Substances are an issue)
The June 2004 report stated that based upon the nature of the uses of the adjacent properties,
migration of hazardous substances and/or petroleum onto the site from these properties is not a
potential concern, with the exception of the previously discussed former dry cleaning facility from the
subject property to adjacent properties. Based on this information, a limited sub‐surface investigation
(Phase II ESA) was conducted on the subject property in June 2004 (Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004b).
CH2M HILL has reviewed the analytical data and noted that investigation results show that no VOCs
were present at concentrations greater than laboratory reporting limits in either of the samples (Shifrin
& Associates, Inc 2004). Therefore, the 2004 Phase II ESA concluded that there has been no adverse
impact to the property by these operations.
3.6.4 Interior Observations
The interior observations discussed below are included in this Phase I ESA by reference of the 2004
Phase I ESA (Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004a)
3.6.4.1 Heating/Cooling
A complete assessment of the HVAC system serving the subject building was not made. However, a large
portion of the system, including the boiler room and the air handling equipment, was inspected during
the 2004 Phase I ESA. The presence of asbestos containing materials installed in connection with the
HVAC systems is discussed in detail below.
ES010411111716STL 3‐16
DRAFT
3.6.4.2 Stains or Corrosion
Other than the minor staining of the concrete floors in the garage portion of the building, no abnormal
stains or corrosion were observed on the floors, walls or ceilings of the building.
3.6.4.3 Drains and Sumps
The garage floors are concrete with trench floor drains throughout. These drains appear to be filled with
dirt/debris in many areas. Petroleum and/or solvent residue may be present in these floor drains.
3.7 INTERVIEWS
3.7.1 Interview with Owner
CH2M HILL corresponded with the property owner during the preparation of this report to confirm that
site conditions (interior and exterior) related to potentially hazardous materials have not been altered
since the 2004 Phase I ESA conducted by Shifrin & Associates, Inc. The property owner (Delmar School
LLC) confirmed this.
3.7.2 Interview with Site Manager
Since there is no full time on‐site manager of the building, an interview of a site manager was not
conducted.
3.7.3 Interview with Occupants
Since there are no current occupants of the building, none were interviewed. At the time of the 2004
inspection, the building was being used for storage and was in the process of being emptied.
3.7.4 Interviews with Local Government Officials
Shifrin & Associates, Inc contacted the City of St. Louis Fire Department in 2004 regarding their
knowledge of any information relating to the storage of spillage of toxic, petroleum or hazardous
substances in connection with the subject property. As of the date of the 2004 report, no response has
been received from the fire department.
3.7.5 Interviews with Others
No additional interviews were conducted or deemed to be necessary.
3.8 FINDINGS
The current improvements have been in place on the subject property since 1951, with the original
portion being constructed in 1911. The property was formally in use as an automotive sales and service
ES010411111716STL 3‐17
DRAFT
facility prior to being converted into use as a high school. Most recently, the building on the site is said
to be vacant.
3.9 OPINION
The 2004 and 2011 Phase I ESAs and the 2004 Phase II ESA revealed the following RECs:
 Contamination associated with the UST onsite
 The presence of asbestos containing materials installed in the subject building.
ES010411111716STL 3‐18
DRAFT
CHAPTER 4 5809 DELMAR BOULEVARD
The subject property is located in a densely developed residential and commercial area in the City of St.
Louis, Missouri. The subject site is located on the north side of Delmar Boulevard, in the northwest
corner of the intersection of Delmar Boulevard and Goodfellow Boulevard. The intersection of Delmar
and Goodfellow is located approximately thirty‐seven hundred (3,700) feet east of the Delmar and N.
Skinker Boulevard intersection. The site is within the Clayton Missouri 7.5 minute quadrangle map
published by the USGS (Appendix A). This quadrangle sheet was published in 1954, utilizing aerial
photography taken in 1952, and last revised in 1993, based upon aerial photography taken between
1988‐90. The EDR Corridor Study map (Appendix B) includes the location of the property in relation to
surrounding physical features.
The following legal description was obtained from the title search conducted for the subject property on
January 7, 2011 (Appendix E):
All of Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Clemens Place, less that portion taken for widening of Delmar Boulevard and an
alley 15’ wide, and in Block 4543 of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, more particularly described as:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the north R.O.W. line of Delmar 100’ W. Blvd. and the west
R.O.W. line of Goodfellow 60’ W. Blvd.; thence westerly along the said north line of Delmar Blvd. as
widened a distance of 166’ 10 3/8” to a point in the west line of Lot 2; thence in a northerly direction a
distance of 157’ 6” to a point in the west line of Lot 2, said point being also in the south R.O.W. line of an
alley 15’ W.; thence easterly along the south line of alley a distance of 166’ 51/4” to a point in the said
west line of Goodfellow Blvd.; thence in a southerly direction along the west line of Goodfellow Blvd. a
distance of 157’ 6” to the point of beginning.
Subject to all covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements and provisions.
for the subject property; only that it is part of a densely developed urban area.
ES010411111716STL 4‐1
DRAFT
A review of the USGS map indicates that the subject property is at an elevation of about 495 feet amsl.
The mapping shows Forest Park located just over one‐half (½) mile south of the subject property. It
appears from the mapping that, although primarily level, the ground surface in the area of the subject
property slopes gently south/southwesterly toward the River des Peres, which is enclosed in Des Peres
Boulevard. Based upon the USGS map and or site inspection, it does not appear that there have been
major fills on the subject site, a possible indicator of waste disposal.
At the time of the January 2011 site reconnaissance, the subject property did not appear to be currently
in use. The building appeared to be vacant and the exterior of the property did not appear to have been
frequented in the recent past.
The subject property is a single level structure formerly operating as a car wash facility. There is a small
structure located on the south side of the property and paving all around the structures. It appears that
the facilities are in good condition. Photographs of the subject property, taken during the January 2011
reconnaissance, are attached as Appendix C.
The subject site is located within the service area of the MSD. Wastewater in the area flows through a
combined sanitary/stormwater sewer system to MSD’s Lemay Wastewater Treatment Plant located on
S. Broadway near the mouth of the River des Peres. The wastewater is given secondary treatment at this
facility prior to discharge to the Mississippi River.
Potable water is provided to the site by the Water Division of the City of St. Louis. The sources of supply
for the Water Division are the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Water is treated and distributed from
their Howard Bend treatment and filtration facility, which is located on the south bank of the Missouri
River in the west St. Louis County, and their Chain of Rocks treatment and filtration facility located on
the west bank of the Mississippi River in the northern part of the City, near the Interstate‐270 bridge
over the river. There was no evidence of private water wells located on the subject property or in the
surrounding area. (Improperly maintained or abandoned wells can pose a threat to groundwater quality
because they are open conduits to the underlying groundwater aquifer.)
4.1.5 Current Use of the Adjoining Facilities
As mentioned above, the subject site is located in a densely developed residential and commercial area
in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The immediately adjacent properties are occupied by the following:
ES010411111716STL 4‐2
DRAFT
 North ‐ Public Alley
Residential Development
 East ‐ Goodfellow Boulevard
West Side Amoco
 South ‐ Metro – Debaliviere Garage

 West ‐ Hair City
4.2.1 Title Records
A 30‐year title search was performed by the property title search company, ProTitleUSA for the subject
property (Appendix E). According to the title search (Appendix E) and St. Louis City Assessor records, the
property is currently owned by Lydia Williams and Jo Cawthon (City of St. Louis Assessor’s Office2011).
The title search shows that there liens on the property with Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District in
excess of $42,000.
No specialized knowledge was provided by the user/owner.
4.2.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
The appraised total (without consideration of liens) is $180,300. The total tax amount balance due for
the subject property is $15,937.07.
4.2.5 Other
No other information pertinent to this assessment was provided by the user/owner.
4.3 RECORDS REVIEW
The EDR database was used to access available government records to determine whether or not there
were any existing or past environmental compliance problems with the property or adjoining properties.
The records also were checked to determine if any abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste disposal
sites are on or adjacent to the property. The corridor study EDR report (Appendix B) was used to identify
environmental compliance and/or hazardous waste disposal sites within one‐quarter mile radius of the
subject property since the subject property and a one‐quarter mile radius around it are encompassed
ES010411111716STL 4‐3
DRAFT
within the corridor study area for which the EDR search was completed. The screening of records was
conducted in accordance with the guidelines in ASTM E 1527‐05 – Standard Practices for Environmental
Site Assessment Process.
environmental record sources except the Federal NPL and RCRA‐TSDF list. The search radius was chosen
because the subject property is located in an urban area that has been developed for 50 years or more
and is well characterized and understood with respect to environmental issues. Therefore,
environmental impacts great than one‐quarter mile would not have the potential to impact soil or
groundwater at the subject property. In addition to the one‐quarter mile radius search provided in the
corridor study EDR report for the Federal NPL and RCRA‐TSDF list, the EDR report provided in the Phase
1 ESA for 5875‐5887 Delmar Boulevard (Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004a) was referenced to search the
Federal NPL within approximately a one (1) mile radius of the subject property and the RCRA‐TSDF list
(the RCRA‐TSDF list was previously called RCRIS‐TSD) for sites within approximately a one‐half (1/2) mile
radius of the subject property.
investigation of the subject property was further refined to only evaluate the 9 listed sites associated
with the subject property and a one‐quarter mile radius around it (listed sites 27‐32, 36, 39, and 40). The
refinement step was taken for the reasons described above.
were found within the refined search area in the following records; CERC‐NFRAP, ICIS, MLTS, RCRA‐
CESQG, FTTS, HIST FTTS, SPILLS, VCP, Brownfield, NPDES, or AIRS. In addition to no NPL or de‐listed NPL
sites and no hazardous TSD facilities found within the one‐quarter (1/4) mile search radius used in the
corridor study EDR report (Appendix B), no NPL or de‐listed NPL sites were found to be located within
one (1) mile of the subject property and no hazardous TSD facilities were found to be located within
one‐half (1/2) mile of the subject site when the previous EDR search was conducted in 2004 (Shifrin &
Associates, Inc. 2004a).
ES010411111716STL 4‐4
DRAFT
Table 3
Listed Sites Identified within a One‐Quarter Mile Radius of 5809 Delmar Boulevard

of Listed
Sites
RCRA‐NonGen 3 28 Saint Louis Public Schools
FINDS 5 27 Amoco 5017
40 Johnson, Herbert A and Ruth B
UST 5 27 BP #9042
32 Kwiki Car Wash
36 Debalviere Service Garage
39 Crossroads School
LUST 1 27 BP #9042
AST 1 27 Westside Amoco
DRYCLEANERS 4 28 American Cleaners & Hatters CL, Forty Five
Peerless Hat Shop
39 Frontenac West End Clnrs
Unmappable 1 NA Peoples Health Clinic

(Orphan) Sites

4.3.1.1 Subject Property Listing (Listed Site Map ID 32) – Kwiki Car Wash (5809 Delmar)
One (1) listing for the subject property address was found in the various databases searched by EDR.
Kwiki Car Wash is reported as being on the UST list. The UST list is an inventory of registered USTs. The
information obtained from the EDR database indicates that the UST(s) installed on this site has been
ES010411111716STL 4‐5
DRAFT
permanently closed in place. A request for records related to the UST(s) on the subject property (Facility
ID: ST0009600) was made under the Missouri Sunshine Law. The complete file was obtained from
Sunshine Request OR16634 and included the notification of the existence of three USTs at 5809 Delmar
(Appendix D‐1). The notification records confirmed that the USTs have been permanently closed in
place. A closure letter was not included in the file records. There was no information in the EDR report
that indicated there was a release from that the tank formerly in use on the subject property (the
subject property does not appear on the LUST list). No additional documentation other than the
notification of existence of the three (3) USTs was found through the Sunshine Request. The information
available suggests that these USTs may be RECs.
RCRAInfo is USEPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting and the
HSWA of 1984. RCRAInfo replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of RCRIS. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat, and/or dispose of
hazardous waste as defined by RCRA.
SQGs generate between 100 and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. The Amoco station listed as a
SQG of hazardous waste within the specified one‐quarter (¼) mile search radius is located at the
intersection of Goodfellow and Delmar, approximately two hundred (200) feet east of the property. It
should be recognized that hazardous waste generators are not permitted to permanently store or
dispose hazardous waste on their properties. They must have a licensed waste handler transport the
substances off‐site for disposal. The EDR report indicated that no notices of violation under RCRA have
been issued to this generator. In addition, no corrective actions have been required at this facility. The
lack of any violations or required corrective action suggests that it is unlikely that the handling of
hazardous waste at this facility has adversely impacted the subject site from an environmental
viewpoint.
Non‐Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. Three (3) sites within the one‐quarter (1/4)
mile search radius are listed as Non‐Generators, one (1) of which have reported violations and the
remaining four (4) have no reported violations. Saint Louis Public Schools (listed site 28) is currently
listed as a non‐generator but was a SQG and large quantity generator in the past. They have received an
NOV and four (4) informal written enforcement actions. Four follow‐up inspections were conducted and
ES010411111716STL 4‐6
DRAFT
The FINDS database contains both facility information and ‘pointer’ to other sources that contain more
detail. EDR included the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS
(Aerometric Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track
information on civil and judicial enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal
Underground Injection Control), C‐DOCKET (Criminal Docket System used to track criminal enforcement
actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities Information System), STATE (State
Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System). The only listed site included in
this database that is not included in one or more of the other databases that provide specific
information is Johnson, Herbert A and Ruth B at 5733 Westminster Place. The only information for this
site in the FINDS database is the location and Registry ID. There is no documentation that suggests a spill
or release occurred at this site.
The UST records contain an inventory of registered USTs in the State of Missouri. The LUST records
contain an inventory of reported LUST incidents. Five (5) UST sites were found by EDR within the one‐
quarter (1/4) mile search radius. One (1) of those sites is a LUST site which is located at the intersection
of Goodfellow and Delmar, approximately two hundred (200) feet east of the property. The EDR shows
that this LUST site has been remediated. A No Further Action letter was not documented for this LUST
site.
The AST records contain an inventory of registered ASTs in the State of Missouri. One (1) AST site was
found by EDR within the one‐quarter (1/4) mile search radius. No reported spills or releases are
documented.
Trust Fund. Four (4) active or abandoned dry cleaning sites were found within the one‐quarter (1/4) mile
search radius. None of the sites have documentation that would suggest a spill or release occurred from
dry cleaning operations.
ES010411111716STL 4‐7
DRAFT
addressed information. These sites were included at the end of the findings report in the EDR. Upon
review of all the sites on this list, it was determined that one (1) site was within the specified one‐
quarter (¼) mile search radius of the subject property.
The Peoples Health Clinic site is located on Delmar Boulevard, approximately five hundred (500) feet
east of the subject property. The information obtained from the database by EDR indicates that the
property was discovered on both the LUST and UST lists. The UST at 5701 Delmar was closed in place. A
closure letter was signed by Jim Growney in 2001. (The closer letter is attached in Appendix D‐2).
Therefore, based upon the closure letter and the distance between this site and the subject site, it is
CH2M HILL ‘s opinion that it is unlikely that the tanks in use on this site, have adversely affected the
subject property.
As described in the section above, a request for records related to the USTs on the subject property
(Facility ID: ST0009600) was made under the Missouri Sunshine Law and the records available for the
USTs were obtained and documented in this Phase I ESA (Appendix D‐1).
by EDR within a one‐quarter (¼) mile of the subject property (MDNR 2010).
A copy of a portion of this map showing the location of the subject property is attached In Appendix A.
ES010411111716STL 4‐8
DRAFT
feet.
The Soil Survey of St. Louis County and St. Louis City, Missouri issued by the USDA – SCS in April 1982,
indicates the predominant soil mapping unit present on the subject corridor in urban land, upland, 0 to
5 percent slopes. This map unit consists of areas in which more than 85 percent of the surface is covered
by asphalt, concrete, buildings, or other impervious materials. Parking lots, shopping and business
centers, railroad yards, and industrial parks are examples. They occur throughout the survey area,
except the western part. The largest areas are the central business districts of the cities of St. Louis and
Clayton, and the smaller areas are industrial parks and shopping malls. These areas are on the uplands.
Most of them are on land that has been extensively reshaped by cutting or filling to achieve a nearly
level surface over the whole area, or to produce several elevation levels within an area. Identification of
soils and soil‐like materials is impractical because of variability.
4.4 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION OF THE PROPERTY
In order to obtain information relative to the prior use of this site we obtained and examined historical
fire insurance maps available from EDR, and reviewed a United States Geological Survey aerial
photograph.
4.4.1 Fire Insurance Maps
Maps prepared in 1909, 1951, 1993, and 1998 were obtained from EDR. Reduced portions of the maps
obtained, showing the subject property, are included as Appendix A. The information derived from these
maps is as follows:
 1909 ‐ The map published in 1909 shows the subject Property to be a carpenter shop in a residential
and commercial area. The properties immediately east are commercial; one is labeled as a drug
store.
 1951 ‐ Although the map published in 1950 is not completely legible, it indicates, at the time, the
property was converted into apartments or rental properties. There is no sign of commercial
business on the maps. The properties directly east show the same design.
 1993 ‐ The map published in 1993 shows the subject site as a parking area with a commercial
building on the north side of the property. There is an auto repair center directly west and a filling
station to the east across Goodfellow.
ES010411111716STL 4‐9
DRAFT
 1998 ‐ No significant changes to the subject property or the surrounding properties, from those
observed on the previous maps, are shown on the map published in 1998.
4.4.2 USGS Photograph
An aerial photograph, taken in June 2009, provided by the USGS is available on the TerraServer web site.
The photograph shows the subject property to be occupied by the Kwiki Car Wash structure.
In conclusion, based upon these sources, it appears that the current improvements were constructed
between 1951‐1993. The property originally contained five (5) properties addressed on Delmar, and
three (3) properties addressed on Goodfellow. Another addition to the site appeared between 1909
and 1951, it appears to be a garage or storage structure. The eight (8) properties were then merged into
one between 1951 – 1993 and the site became 5809 Delmar Boulevard. It was also in this time frame
that the Kwiki Car Wash structure was built and still resides on this property currently.
No observations were made during our reconnaissance which indicated that any of the activities of the
occupants on the adjacent properties have had an adverse environmental impact on the subject site.
A site reconnaissance was performed in January 2011 by Ms. Jessica Hoffman and Ms. Monica Martin
of CH2M HILL. Access to the property (exterior and building interior) was denied by the property owner
at the time of request. The site reconnaissance was performed by inspecting the exterior of the building
off the site in the public right‐of‐way. The interior of the building was not inspected.
As indicated above, this site is located on the north side of Delmar Boulevard, in the northwest corner of
the intersection of Delmar Boulevard and Goodfellow Boulevard. A current site plan of the subject site
was not provided and preparation of one is beyond the scope of this investigation (See 1998 Sanborn
map included in Appendix B)
The current and past uses of the property and adjoining properties are described above, as are the
geologic, hydrogeologic and topographic conditions on the site. Further, the structure on the sire,
adjoining roads, the potable water supply and the sewage disposal system serving the property are
discussed in Section 4.1.4.
ES010411111716STL 4‐10
DRAFT
4.6.2.1 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products in Connection with Identified Uses
Hazardous substances, as defined by the USEPA in regulations promulgated under CERCLA and RCRA,
include elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions and substances, which, when released into the
environment, may present substantial danger to the public health or welfare of the environment.
Typical hazardous substances are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive or chemically reactive materials.
Poisonous materials may also be considered hazardous. Petroleum products may include new and used
materials.
No potential substances were observed from the site reconnaissance that was performed from the
right‐of‐way. The property was not accessed during the reconnaissance, and an interior inspection was
not performed.
4.6.3.1 Hazardous Substance Containers and Unidentified Substance Containers
No hazardous substance containers were identified on the site, nor were unidentified containers
observed.
4.6.3.2 Storage Tanks
Based upon our site observations, there was one above ground structure that was a possible indication
of an AST. There are three (3) USTs containing gasoline registered with the MDNR for the subject
property. There is no indication in the EDR of the specific use of the USTs or where they are located on
the property. However, the EDR does specify that the USTs have been permanently closed in place.
4.6.3.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
The facilities on the subject property are served by a pole mounted transformer located to the rear of
the building, in the public alley. This transformer is the property of AmerenUE, the utility which serves
the area. No indication of current or past leakage from this transformer was noted during our
reconnaissance and no blue “non‐PCB” sticker was viewed during the site reconnaissance.
4.6.3.4 Indications of Solid Waste
No indications of land disposal of solid and/or hazardous wastes on the property such as stressed or
discolored vegetation, discolored soil, waste ponds, lagoons or unusual fills were observed on the
property from the right‐of‐way where the site reconnaissance was conducted.
ES010411111716STL 4‐11
DRAFT
4.6.3.5 Physical Setting Analysis
Based upon the nature of the uses of the adjacent properties, migration of hazardous substances and/or
petroleum onto the site from these properties is not a potential concern.
4.6.4 Interior Observations
The site reconnaissance did not include an interior investigation due to the denial of entry onto the
property. Therefore, no interior hazards were identified during the site reconnaissance.
4.7 INTERVIEWS
4.7.1 Interview with Owner
Correspondence with the property owner occurred when access to the property was requested.
4.7.2 Interview with Site Manager
Since there is no full time on‐site manager of the building, an interview of a site manager was not
conducted.
4.7.3 Interview with Occupants
Since there are no current occupants of the building, none were interviewed.
4.7.4 Interviews with Local Government Officials
No interviews were conducted with local government officials.
4.7.5 Interviews with Others
No additional interviews were conducted or deemed to be necessary.
4.8 FINDINGS
The property of interest was historically developed as several different properties that served as both
commercial and residential space. The current state of the property and the structure that exists
currently came about between 1951 and 1993 when the property was converted from
apartments/rental properties to a commercial building and parking area. The most recent business to
occupy the property was the Kwiki Car Wash. Currently the structure still stands on the property but the
business is not in operation.
4.9 OPINION
The 2011 Phase I ESA revealed the following RECs:
ES010411111716STL 4‐12
DRAFT
 Three (3) gasoline USTs onsite documented in the EDR
 One (1) possible AST onsite visual observed during the 2011 site reconnaissance
needed before determining the only RECs associated with this property are the USTs and possible AST
onsite if this property is going to continue to be considered as a viable option for use as the trolley
ES010411111716STL 4‐13
DRAFT
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS
The Phase I ESA was conducted for the purpose of identifying potential RECs associated with the site to
identify potential liability associated with the property transfer of this commercial real estate. The Phase
I ESA meets the standards presented in ASTM E 1527‐05 and the standards for an “all appropriate
inquiry” to the extent practicable.
We have performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E
1527 for the Trolley Corridor Right‐Of‐Way. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are
described in Section 6 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs in connection
with the property.
1527 for 5875‐5887 Delmar Boulevard. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described
in Section 6 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the
property except for the following:
 Contamination associated with the UST onsite
 The presence of asbestos containing materials installed in the subject building.
1527 for 5875‐5887 Delmar Boulevard. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described
in Section 6 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the
property except for the following:
 Three (3) gasoline USTs onsite documented in the EDR
 One (1) possible AST onsite visual observed during the 2011 site reconnaissance
needed before determining the only RECs associated with this property are the USTs and possible onsite
ES010411111716STL 5‐1
DRAFT
if this property is going to continue to be considered as a viable option for use as the trolley
ES010411111716STL 5‐2
DRAFT
CHAPTER 6 DEVIATIONS
Deviations from the ASTM Practice E 1527‐05 are as follows:
 No interviews with the exception of confirming with the property owner of 5875‐5887 Delmar
Boulevard that changes have not been made to the building (such as remediation) that would cause
the conclusions of the 2004 site reconnaissance, inspections, and Phase II sampling to no longer be
valid.

ES010411111716STL 6‐1
DRAFT
CHAPTER 7 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
7.1 TROLLEY CORRIDOR RIGHT‐OF‐WAY
There were no additional services performed on the right‐of‐way.
7.2 5875 – 5887 DELMAR BOULEVARD
7.2.1 Asbestos Containing Material
As part of the 2004 Phase I ESA, a limited asbestos inspection, to identify the presence of suspected
ACM, was performed. Materials which might be suspected to be ACM [containing one percent (1%) or
more asbestos fibers] include pipe insulation, floor covering, ceiling tile and other materials
manufactured and installed primarily in the period from about 1940 to the mid‐1970’s. Accessible areas
of the building, excluding the roof, were inspected for suspect ACM. Any materials not amenable to
visual inspection, such as materials behind walls or paneling or beneath false floors, were not evaluated.
The limited inspection of ACM focused on the identification of surfacing materials (e.g., floor coverings
and ceiling tile) and thermal system insulation (pipe wrap), both of which have been typically known to
contain asbestos.
A complete assessment of the HVAC system serving the subject building was not made. However, a large
portion of the system, including the boiler room and the air handling equipment, was inspected. The
following suspect ACMs were observed in the building:
 Pipe thermal system insulation and mudded joints, fittings, etc. This material was observed to be in
average to poor condition and would be considered friable in several areas where damaged.
 Floor coverings (9‐inch square vinyl floor tile, 12‐ince square vinyl floor tile, sheet linoleum and
mastic) were observed. These materials ranged from good to poor condition with water damage in
several areas.
 Acoustical ceiling tiles (1’ x 1’ tongue and groove tiles with mastic and 2’ x 4’ grid laid tiles). These
materials ranged from good to poor condition with water damage in several areas and would be
considered friable.
 Asphalt and/or built‐up roofing materials
ES010411111716STL 7‐1
DRAFT
 Vibration dampers or gaskets in the air handling system.
 Gypsum (drywall) partitions and joint compound. This material observed to be in fair to poor
condition.
No samples of any of these suspect materials, required to confirm the presence of asbestos, were
obtained. There are currently no regulations which require the removal of these materials, even if
tested and proved to be ACM. Shifrin & Associates, Inc. documented in the 2004 Phase I ESA report
(Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004a) that they did not intend for this limited asbestos survey to be used as a
basis for any asbestos abatement or removal project. However, based upon the damaged condition of
these materials, the report recommended that a complete asbestos inspection be performed and all
indentified materials determined to be in poor condition be abated. It was also documented that if
ACMs in good condition are to be left in place, it was recommended that an operations and
maintenance program be written and implemented to care for and maintain the ACMs until such a time
as they are all removed from the building.
CH2M HILL has prepared an addendum to the 2004 Phase II Report has been completed to provide an
update to the report based on current site conditions and to provide a rough order of magnitude (ROM)
cost estimate for removal of ACM and other hazardous materials from the subject property (CH2M HILL
2011). The findings of the limited ACM inspection was used to develop the ROM cost estimate. The ROM
cost estimate was completed solely to provide a cost for the Environmental Assessment portion of the
Environmental Impact Statement with the understanding that a complete asbestos inspection would be
performed prior to abatement efforts.
7.2.2 Radon
The Federal USEPA Radon Zone for St. Louis and St. Louis County is Zone 2 based on a search of USEPA
data; i.e., the indoor average level of radon is greater than 2 pCi/L and less than 4 pCi/L, which is the
level of concern. Based upon being located in Zone 2 and the nature of the development on the
property, it is our opinion that the presence of radon is unlikely to be a concern for this site. However, if
a specific determination for the level of radon in the building is required, testing would need to be
conducted.
7.2.3 Lead Based Paint
Due to the age of the building, the painted surfaces, including walls, stairs, windows, doors and trim may
have been painted with lead‐based paint. Since there is a large amount of peeling paint in the building,
ES010411111716STL 7‐2
DRAFT
the 2004 Phase I ESA report recommended that samples of the paint be obtained and analyzed for the
presence of lead (Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004a). Paint samples were collected from three (3) areas of
peeling paint within the building as part of the 2004 Phase II ESA (Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004b). The
samples were submitted to a laboratory for total lead analysis. The data indicate that the lead
concentrations in the samples were 3,120 mg/kg or parts per million (ppm), 837 ppm, and 675 ppm. On
a dry weight basis, these values are equivalent to 0.312 percent, 0.0837 percent, and 0.0675 percent.
Lead‐based paint is defined as that containing 0.5 percent lead by weight. Therefore, none of the
samples collected are considered to be lead‐based paint (Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004b).
7.3 5809 DELMAR BOULEVARD
CH2M HILL did not have access to the inside of this property. Therefore, CH2M HILL cannot assess
whether asbestos or lead based paint are potential RECs at this site.
7.3.1 Radon
The Federal USEPA Radon Zone for St. Louis and St. Louis County is Zone 2 based on a search of USEPA
data; i.e., the indoor average level of radon is greater than 2 pCi/L and less than 4 pCi/L, which is the
level of concern. Based upon being located in Zone 2 and the nature of the development on the sire, it is
our opinion that the presence of radon is unlikely to be a concern for this site. However, if a specific
determination for the level of radon in the building is required, testing would need to be conducted.
ES010411111716STL 7‐3
DRAFT
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527‐05 Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.
CH2M HILL. 2011. Addendum to the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Limited Subsurface
Investigation, 5883 Delmar Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63112.
City of St. Louis Assessor’s Office. Property Database Search performed January 2011.
http://stlcin.missouri.org/assessor/lookup.cfm.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources Division of Environmental Quality Hazardous Waste Program.
2010 (MDNR). Missouri Registry Annual Report, Registry of Confirmed Abandoned or Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in Missouri, Fiscal Year 2010 – July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010.
Shifrin & Associates, Inc. 2004a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 5875 – 5887 Delmar Boulevard,
St. Louis, Missouri 63112.
Shifrin & Associates, Inc 2004b. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Limited Subsurface
Investigation, 5883 Delmar Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63112.
ES010411111716STL 8‐1
DRAFT
CHAPTER 9 SIGNATURES
I certify that this document was prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted.
Michael DeRosa
CH2M HILL
__________________________
Name
Company
__________________________
Date
ES010411111716STL 9‐1
DRAFT
CHAPTER 10 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROFESSIONAL
A resume providing the qualifications based upon education and experience of each environmental
professional who has participated in the preparation of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is
attached as Appendix F.
ES010411111716STL 10‐1

APPENDIX A: MAPS

APPENDIX B: ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES CORRIDOR
STUDY

INQUIRY #: 2873644.5
YEAR: 1991
= 833'
INQUIRY #: 2873644.5
YEAR: 1991
= 833'
INQUIRY #: 2873644.5
YEAR: 1986
= 750'
INQUIRY #: 2873644.5
YEAR: 1986
= 750'
INQUIRY #: 2873644.5
YEAR: 1971
= 750'
INQUIRY #: 2873644.5
YEAR: 1971
= 750'
INQUIRY #: 2873644.5
YEAR: 1965
= 750'
INQUIRY #: 2873644.5
YEAR: 1965
= 750'
INQUIRY #: 2873644.5
YEAR: 1958
= 750'
INQUIRY #: 2873644.5
YEAR: 1958
= 750'
90 18 00 90 17 00
EDR DataMap
Corridor Study
520
38 39 00
38 39 00
0
90 18 00 90 17 00

Loop Trolley Draft EA and Appendicies

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Loop Trolley Draft EA and Appendicies

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

DRAFT

ST. LOUIS LOOP TROLLEY

Prepared by the Federal Transit Administration and the

DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT iii

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences............................................................... 3-29

iv DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

3.14 Section 4(f) Analysis ............................................................................................ 3-97

DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT v

5.7 Additional Public Involvement Activities .......................................................... 5-7

2.1 Delmar Wabash Trolley Service Restoration Project

3.1 Agency Letters

4.1 Cost Estimates

5.1 Public Feedback

6.1 List of Preparers

vi DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT vii

viii DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ix

HRO High Density Residential/Office District

x DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT xi

Project Purpose and Need

1.1 Description of the Project

DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1-1

1-2 DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

1.2 Background and Purpose of the Environmental

1.3 Context and Study Area

DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1-3

FIGURE 1.3-1. Broader Project Study Area

1-4 DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

1.4 Previous Coordination and Community Involvement

DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1-5

East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGCOG), the St. Louis region’s

1.5 Purpose and Need

1-6 DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 Washington University School of Music – students and concert-goers would be able

 The Need for Improved Utilization of Existing Transportation Facilities. Visitors to

 The Opportunity for Economic Redevelopment and Neighborhood Revitalization.

DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1-7

 The Opportunity to Increase Sustainability. The St. Louis region’s auto-oriented

1-8 DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

2.1 Alignment Screening and Selection Process

DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2-1

2.2 Mode Screening and Selection Process

2-2 DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TABLE 2.2-1. Benefits to Investment of Fixed-Guideway Streetcars

Kenosha 2000 2.0 3.00 6.00 150 2400.00

Little Rock 2004 2.5 7.84 19.60 200 920.41

Tampa 2003 2.3 21.00 48.30 1000 1970.39

Portland(1) 2001 4.8 11.50 55.20 1046 1794.93

Portland(Ext) 2005 1.2 14.83 17.80 1353 7501.12

Transportation The fixed-guideway is “fixed” and represents a permanent commitment of transit to

2.3 Vehicle and Technology Screening and Selection Process

DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2-3

2.4 Maintenance Facility Screening and Selection Process

2-4 DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Dispatch 300 sq ft  Offices, telephones

Training for 800 sq ft  Computer training room for operators

Provision of 900 sq ft  Lunch room

Administration 6,400 sq ft  TDD Offices (3,000 sq ft)

DRAFT LOOP TROLLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2-5

 5875-5893 Delmar Boulevard (Roberts Chevrolet/Delmar High School): Converting an