arch parking alternatives study

7/29/2019 Arch Parking Alternatives Study

1/92

ARCHPARKINGALTERNATIVESSTUDYFINALREPORT

DRAFT


2/92

iiArchParkingAlternativesStudyFinalReport(DRAFT)

Table of ContentsINTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction and Study Purpose .................................................................................................. 1Approach and Scope of Services ............................................................................................... 1

PHASE 1 CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 41.0 Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 41.1 Occupancy Levels.................................................................................................................. 81.2 Operating Methodologies ................................................................................................... 111.3 Facility Appearance ............................................................................................................. 111.4 Parking Rates ......................................................................................................................... 131.5 Existing Facilities that Could Provide Off-Site Parking ..................................................... 151.6 Impacts of Future Developments on Existing Parking ..................................................... 171.7 Possible Locations for Future Parking Facilities ................................................................. 171.8 Conceptual Financial Performance for a Future Parking Facility ................................ 181.9 Summary of Phase 1 Findings and Observations ............................................................ 20

PHASE 2 PARKING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 232.0 Alternatives for Addressing the Loss of the APG .............................................................. 232.1 Alternatives for Providing Bus and RV Parking ................................................................. 362.2 Recommended Parking Strategies for the J NEM ............................................................ 412.3 Preliminary Wayfinding for Recommended Parking ....................................................... 45

PHASE 3 PARKING-RELATED FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 523.0 Estimated Debt Service for the Option 1 Parking Structure ........................................... 523.1 Estimated Operating Expenses for the Option 1 Parking Structure .............................. 533.2 Estimated Parking Revenues for the Option 1 Parking Structure .................................. 543.3 Estimated 20-Year Pro Forma for the Option 1 Parking Structure ................................. 583 4 P j ti f C ti d O ti f th APG 60


3/92

1ArchParkingAlternativesStudyFinalReport(DRAFT)

INTRODUCTION

Introduction and Study Purpose

In May 2012, Metro commissioned Carl Walker to

provide a parking alternatives study for the proposed

improvements of the J efferson National Expansion

Memorial (J NEM). Proposed improvements to the

J NEM include removal of the existing Arch Parking

Garage (APG) to c reate more green space and

enhance the north gateway to the memorial, creatinga park space over the adjacent highway to provide a

better connection with the Gateway Mall and the rest

of downtown St. Louis, a new memorial museum, and

numerous roadway adjustments. The primary purpose

of this project is to determine potential alternatives to

address the proposed removal of the 1,143-space

APG located on the north side of the memorial.

The principal objectives of this project are to

determine the need for replacing area visitor parking,

evaluating proposed locations for replacement parking, identifying parking facility

locations to accommodate large vehicles such as group buses and recreational

vehicles, and determine signage and wayfinding needs. The study considers broad

categories of replacement alternatives, alone or in combination, including the following:

utilizing excess capacity in other existing public parking facilities, expanding other existing

parking facilities, refurbishment of existing parking facilities, and constructing newfacilities.

Approach and Scope of Services

The general approach for this study is to evaluate current parking conditions in a -mile

radius around the J NEM, meet with primary stakeholders to review existing and future

conditions, develop potential parking alternatives, and evaluate the financial feasibility

of recommended options. The study process was divided into four phases as follows:

1. Current Parking C onditions Assessment2. Alternatives Analysis3. Financial Analysis4. Final Report and Presentation


4/92


5/92


project criteria. Prepare and present concepts of the various options developed

for the sites.

5. Develop an alternatives analysis report that summarizes design criteria, presentsconceptual layouts, fac ility features, and estimates of probable cost.

6. Prepare a three-dimensional computer generated model of the selected optionto help define potential architectural appearance and massing.

Phase Three Financial Analysis

1. Develop a general 20-year financial pro forma for the potential new facility.A. Identify the primary parking demand patterns generated by visitors to the

J NEM and the larger area.

B. Estimate potential revenue for the proposed fac ility by user group.C. Develop an estimate of on-going operating costs based on the base

operating plan determined during discussions with Metro staff.

D. Calculate annual debt service requirements based upon the estimate ofprobable construction costs, soft costs, land acquisition costs (provided by

Metro), and likely debt service reserve requirements.

E. Prepare a summary 20-year pro forma of annual revenues, developmentcosts, and operating and maintenance costs including the anticipated

structural repair and restoration projec ts for the new parking facility.

F. Assess the viability of the continued operation of the existing parkingstructure.

2. Compare the financial performance of a new facility to the continued operationof the APG.

3. Develop a draft report summarizing Phase Three.Phase Four Reports and Presentation

1. Consolidate the individual phase reports into a single document. Submit thecombined final report, integrating the interim report with subsequent review

comments and changes that may have developed during the course of the study.

2 Meet with Metro and designated stakeholders to present and discuss the final


6/92


PHASE 1 CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT

Carl Walker staff conducted a multi-day visit to downtown St. Louis on May 29, 2012

through J une 1, 2012 to confirm the inventory of off-street parking spaces near the J NEM

and to identify locations for alternatives to the existing APG. During the site visits, each

off-street parking facility open to the general public was reviewed, the posted rates were

recorded, the general method of operation was noted, general oc cupancy levels were

assessed, and the overall condition of each parking fac ility was determined. Parking

facilities restricted to a specific group such as employees, permit holders, etc. were not

included in the survey. In general, only fac ilities that offer parking for a daily or hourly fee

were surveyed.

1.0 Study Area

Figure 1, below, shows the study area for this projec t. The study area was sub-divided into

seven zones, A through G, for organizational purposes. Figures 2 through 8 detail each

zone with bloc k numbers added for reference to the tables in this report.

Figure 1 Study Area

A

BC

D

E

F

G


7/92


Figure 2 Area A

Figure 3 Area B


8/92


Figure 4 Area C

Figure 5 Area D

C-1


9/92


Figure 6 Area E

Figure 7 Area F


10/92


Figure 8 Area G

1.1 Occupancy Levels

Table 1, on page 10, shows the general occupancy levels that were observed during the

site visits. The site visits were conducted Tuesday through Friday starting no earlier than9:00 a.m. and ending no later than 4:00 p.m. to coincide with typical weekday

occupancy levels. There were no St. Louis Cardinals home games that occurred during

the survey periods. The only known event of size was a veterans group event in the

Convention Center on Thursday and Friday. Parking activity levels near the Convention

Center were noticeably higher on Thursday and Friday.

Exac t occupancy counts were not made. Because general occupancy levels were

assessed at different times of the day over the course of several days, the relativeoc cupancy levels in a given facility should not be compared with other facilities. The

walkthrough for a facility may have occurred in the morning before the peak occupancy

period while the walkthrough at another fac ility may have occurred during peak

occupancy. However, the general occupancy levels can be used to identify potential

alternative parking locations to replace the Arch Parking Garage.


11/92


lots north of the Lacledes Landing area appear to be used primarily during St. Louis Rams

football games or other nearby events.

The overall study area has approximately 28,440 off-street parking spaces available forpublic parking. However, many of these spaces are currently being used by other visitors

to downtown, downtown employees, etc . Assuming that the survey days represent

typical conditions, the number of available spaces is estimated at about 13,000 spaces

(approximately 46% of the overall parking supply). This level of utilization appears to be

consistent with occupancies observed in 2010 for a smaller portion of the downtown

area.

It is important to note that many of these empty spaces are in parking facilities farremoved from the J NEM, requiring walks that many JNEM visitors may find objectionable.


12/92


Potential

Ob served Avai labl e

Description Capacity Occupancy Spaces

A 3 A 3.1 C9 Garage 818 50% 409A 5 A 5.1 Surface Lot 216 60% 86

A 7 A 7.1 America's Garage 913 40% 548

A 13 A 13.1 Surface Lot 137 3% 133

A 20 A 20.1 Surface Lot 90 25% 68

A 20 A 20.2 MAC Garage 423 30% 296

A 21 A 21.1 MAC Surface Lot 154 90% 15Area A Su btotals 2,751 1,555

B 1 B 1.1 Surface Lot - Lumiere 88 35% 57

B 1 B 1.2 Surface Lot 60 0% 60

B 2 B 2.1 Lumiere Place Garage 1,121 55% 504

B 5 B 5.1 Surface Lot 252 80% 50

B 6 B 6.1 Surface Lot 64 80% 13B 8 B 8.1 Surface Lot 136 50% 68


B 11 B 11.1 Surface Lot 62 0% 62

B 12 B 12.1 Surface Lot 62 0% 62


B 13 B 13.2 Surface Lot 320 0% 320

B 15 B 15.1 Riverfront Garage 236 20% 189

Area B Sub total s 3,150 1,984

C 1 C 1.1 Arch Garage 1,143 40%

C 1 C 1.2 Levee Parking 600 15%

Area C Subtotals 1,743 -

D 1 D 1.1 SLCCH Garage 829 95% 41

D 2 D 2.1 9th Street Garage 1,062 55% 478

D 3 D 3.1 Surface Lot 106 40% 64

D 12 D 12.1 US Bank Plaza Garage 364 65% 127

D 13 D 13.1 705 Surface Lot 54 40% 32

D 14 D 14.1 7th & Pine Garage 760 60% 304

D 14 D 14.2 Laclede Gas Building - V 90 Not surveyed

D 16 D 16.1 Peabody Plaza Garage 450 95% 23

D 18 D 18.1 Kiener Plaza West 1,233 75% 308

D 19 D 19.1 Macy's Garage 730 75% 183

D 19 D 19.2 Surface Lot 48 70% 14

D 21 D 21.1 St. Louis Center East 745 75% 186

D 22 D 22.1 Center Park Garage 1,505 75% 376

D 24 D 24.1 Metropolitan Square 920 85% 138

D 25 D 25.1 Kiener Plaza East 1,132 40% 679

D 28 D 28.1 St. Louis Place 320 40% 192

D 29 D 29.1 Quick Park Garage 361 50% 181

D 31 D 31.1 500 Broadway Garage 375 60% 150

D 32 D 32.1 Mansion House Garage 1,600 60% 640

D 33 D 33.1 Hyatt Garage 287 30% 201Area D Subtotals 12,971 4,318

E 3 E 3.1 Surface Lot 85 98% 2

E 5 E 5.1 Surface Lot - Westin Ho 179 40% 107E 7 E 7.1 Stadium West Garage 2,321 75% 580

E 10 E 10.1 Hilton Hotel 150 Not surveyed

E 11 E 11.1 Surface Lot 500 10% 450

E 13 E 13.1 Surface Lot 324 35% 211

E 15 E 15.1 Stadium East Garage 2,776 40% 1,666

Area E Subtotals 6,335 3,016

G 1 G 1.1 Surface Lot 1,638 20% 1,310

Facility

B lo ck Nu mb er

Table 1 Observed Parking Occupancy


13/92


1.2 Operating Methodologies

Table 2, on the next page, presents the primary operating methodology for the parking

facilities located in the study area. All of the parking structures use a gated operations

scenario with barrier gates at the entry and exit lanes. Exit lane cashiering is the most

used operating scenario in the parking structures in the study area. A few of the parking

structures utilize automated pay-in-lane devices to collect revenue. Nationwide, the use

of Pay-On-Foot (POF) operating scenarios is increasing. However, it appears that POF is

not widely used in downtown St. Louis. In a POF operation, cashiers are not located at

the exit lanes. Instead parkers pay their parking fee before returning to their vehicle.

Payments can be made to either an automated machine or at a staffed central cashier

station. Parkers then have a set amount of time to drive to the exit lanes and insert their

paid ticket into a machine in the exit lane.

Most of the surface lots use an un-gated operating scenario. Pay-by-space, pay-and-

display, and payment to a lot attendant operating methodologies are seen throughout

the study area. During large events, it is assumed that pay-on-entry operations are

common.

1.3 Facility Appearance

During the survey we subjectively rated the overall interior appearance of each facility.

The ratings are summarized in Table 2. The appearance c riteria included: lighting,

general cleanliness, signage and graphics, condition of stairs and elevators, geometrics

of parking spaces and drive aisles, internal visibility. The perceived level of safety and

security of each fac ility was also rated. Each fac ility was rated using the following scale:

Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent

Most of the parking structures in the study area were rated between good to excellent.

Only a few parking structures in the study area were rated fair. Some of the surface

parking lots, particularly at the far north and south ends of the study area were rated aspoor.


14/92


Table 2 Parking Facility Operating Methodologies and General Conditions

Subjective Subjective

Operating General Security / Safety Description Methodology Conditions Perception

A 3 A 3.1 C9 Garage Exit Lane Cashier Fair Good

A 5 A 5.1 Surface Lot Attendant Good Good

A 7 A 7.1 America's Garage Exit Lane Cashier Fair Fair

A 13 A 13.1 Surface Lot Attendant Very Good Good

A 20 A 20.1 Surface Lot Pay By Space Fair Fair

A 20 A 20.2 MAC Garage Exit Lane Cashier Good Fair

A 21 A 21.1 MAC Surface Lot Pay By Space Fair Fair

B 1 B 1.1 Surface Lot - Lumiere Pay By Space Poor Poor

B 1 B 1.2 Surface Lot Pay By Space Poor Poor

B 2 B 2.1 Lumiere Place Garage Attendant Good Very Good

B 5 B 5.1 Surface Lot Attendant Good Good

B 6 B 6.1 Surface Lot Attendant Good Good

B 8 B 8.1 Surface Lot Exit Lane Cashier Fair Fair

B 10 B 10.1 Surface Lot - Lumiere Attendant Very Good Excellent

B 11 B 11.1 Surface Lot None Visible Fair Fair

B 12 B 12.1 Surface Lot None Visible Fair Fair

B 13 B 13.1 Surface Lot - Lumiere Attendant Good Very Good

B 13 B 13.2 Surface Lot Attendant Poor Poor

B 15 B 15.1 Riverfront Garage Pay On Entry Fair Fair

C 1 C 1.1 Arch Garage Exit Lane Cashier Very Good Very Good

C 1 C 1.2 Levee Parking Pay On Entry Poor Fair

D 1 D 1.1 SLCCH Garage Exit Lane Cashier Very Good Very Good

D 2 D 2.1 9th Street Garage Exit Lane Cashier Excellent Excellent

D 3 D 3.1 Surface Lot Pay By Space Good Very Good

D 12 D 12.1 US Bank Plaza Garage Exit Lane Cashier Very Good Very Good

D 13 D 13.1 705 Surface Lot Attendant Excellent Excellent

D 14 D 14.1 7th & Pine Garage Exit Lane Cashier Excellent Excellent

D 14 D 14.2 Laclede Gas Building - Valet Valet Excellent Excellent

D 16 D 16.1 Peabody Plaza Garage Exit Lane Cashier Very Good Very GoodD 18 D 18.1 Kiener Plaza West Exit Lane Automated Good Good

D 19 D 19.1 Macy's Garage Exit Lane Automated Good Good

D 19 D 19.2 Surface Lot Pay By Space Very Good Very Good

D 21 D 21.1 St. Louis Center East Exit Lane Cashier Excellent Excellent

D 22 D 22.1 Center Park Garage Exit Lane Cashier Very Good Very Good

D 24 D 24.1 Metropolitan Square Pay On Foot Very Good Good

D 25 D 25.1 Kiener Plaza East Exit Lane Automated Good Good

D 28 D 28.1 St. Louis Place Pay On Foot Excellent Excellent

D 29 D 29.1 Quick Park Garage Exit Lane Cashier Good Very Good

D 31 D 31.1 500 Broadway Garage Exit Lane Cashier Good Good

D 32 D 32.1 Mansion House Garage Exit Lane Cashier Fair Fair

D 33 D 33.1 Hyatt Garage Valet Good Good

E 3 E 3.1 Surface Lot Pay By Space Good Good

E 5 E 5.1 Surface Lot - Westin Hotel Exit Lane Cashier Good Good

E 7 E 7.1 Stadium West Garage Exit Lane Cashier & Automated Good Fair

E 10 E 10.1 Hilton Hotel Exit Lane Cashier Fair Fair

E 11 E 11.1 Surface Lot Pay By Space Good Fair

E 13 E 13.1 Surface Lot PayBySpace Fair Poor

FacilityB lock Number


15/92


1.4 Parking Rates

Table 3, on the next page, shows the posted rates for public parking at each of the

surveyed facilities. Many of the parking facility operators offer an early bird rate to

attract repeat users, primarily downtown employees, to their facilities. The average fee

for the first hour of parking in the study area is about $3.16. The existing rate for the first

hour of parking in the Arch Garage is $6.00, which is significantly higher than other

parking facilities in the study area.

For parking durations of less than three hours, current APG transient parking rates are

higher than overall average market rates. However, APG rates are generally consistent

with rates in other downtown parking structures and in some cases lower. Many of the

surface lots, particularly in the south end of the study area, have very low rates

suppressing the overall average.

According to parking duration data provided by Metro for the month of May 2012,

approximately 82% of APG customers park for four hours or less per stay. The average

downtown rate for durations of three to four hours is $6.63 slightly higher than current

APG rates. APG parking rates are significantly lower than many similarly situated parking

structures for parking durations of between three to four hours (e.g., the Stadium East

Garage and the Kiener East Garage).

The current rate structure in the APG remains flat at $6.00 for up to a nine hour stay. The

overall average for a nine hour stay in the study area is about $9.05. In similarly situated

parking structures, typical parking rates for nine hours of parking are between $8.00 and

$18.00.


16/92


Table 3 Current Posted Parking Rates in the Study Area

Daily Early

Description 0 to 1 Hr. 1 to 2 Hr. 2 to 3 Hr. 3 to 4 Hr. 4 to 5 Hr. 5 to 6 Hr. 6 to 7 Hr. 7 to 8 Hr. 8 to 9 Hr. Maximum Bird

A 3 A 3.1 C9 Garage $3.00 $5.00 $7.00 $9.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $3.00

A 5 A 5.1 Surface Lot $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 na

A 7 A 7.1 America's Garage $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $5.00

A 13 A 13.1 Surface Lot $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 na

A 20 A 20.1 Surface Lot $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 na

A 20 A 20.2 MAC Garage $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 $4.50

A 21 A 21.1 MAC Surface Lot $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 na

B 1 B 1.1 Surface Lot - Lumiere $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 na

B 1 B 1.2 Surface Lot Not Posted

B 2 B 2.1 Lumiere Place Garage $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

B 5 B 5.1 Surface Lot $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 naB 6 B 6.1 Surface Lot $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 na

B 8 B 8.1 Surface Lot $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 na






B 15 B 15.1 Riverfront Garage $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $3.00

C 1 C 1.1 Arch Garage $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $10.00 $4.00

C 1 C 1.2 Levee Parking $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 na

D 1 D 1.1 SLCCH Garage $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $6.00

D 2 D 2.1 9th Street Garage $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $16.00 $16.00 $16.00 na

D 3 D 3.1 Surface Lot $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 na

D 12 D 12.1 US Bank Plaza Garage $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 na

D 13 D 13.1 705 Surface Lot $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 na

D 14 D 14.1 7th & Pine Garage $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 na

D 14 D 14.2 Laclede Gas Building - Valet $4.00 $8.00 $12.00 $16.00 $16.00 $16.00 $16.00 $16.00 $16.00 $16.00 na

D 16 D 16.1 Peabody Plaza Garage $4.50 $8.00 $8.00 $12.00 $15.00 $15.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 na

D 18 D 18.1 Kiener Plaza West $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 $15.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $6.00

D 19 D 19.1 Macy's Garage $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $5.00

D 19 D 19.2 Surface Lot $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $7.00

D 21 D 21.1 St. Louis Center East $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $16.00 $16.00 $16.00 $6.00D 22 D 22.1 Center Park Garage $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $12.00 $5.00

D 24 D 24.1 Metropolitan Square $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 $15.00 $18.00 $21.00 $24.00 $27.00 $30.00 na

D 25 D 25.1 Kiener Plaza East $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 $15.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $6.00

D 28 D 28.1 St. Louis Place $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 $15.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 na

D 29 D 29.1 Quick Park Garage $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00 $18.00 $6.00

D 31 D 31.1 500 Broadway Garage $3.00 $5.00 $7.00 $9.00 $11.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $4.00

D 32 D 32.1 Mansion House Garage $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $5.00

D 33 D 33.1 Hyatt Garage $13.00 $13.00 $17.00 $17.00 $21.00 $21.00 $26.00 $26.00 $26.00 $26.00 na

E 3 E 3.1 Surface Lot $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 na

E 5 E 5.1 Surface Lot - Westin Hotel $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00 $11.00 $12.00 $13.00 $19.00 na

E 7 E 7.1 Stadium West Garage $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 $15.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $5.00E 10 E 10.1 Hilton Hotel $13.00 $13.00 $13.00 $13.00 $17.00 $17.00 $17.00 $17.00 $17.00 $17.00 na

E 11 E 11.1 Surface Lot $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 na

E 13 E 13.1 Surface Lot $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 na

E 15 E 15.1 Stadium East Garage $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 $15.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $5.00

G 1 G 1.1 Surface Lot $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 na

G 3 G 3.1 Surface Lot Events Only

G 7 G 7.1 Surface Lot Events Only

Facility

Block Number

Rates


17/92


1.5 Existing Facilities that Could Provide Off-Site Parking

The study area is quite large and does not necessarily

represent a typical acceptable walking distance to a

venue such as the JNEM. According to surveys by

the National Park Service, the distance from the

existing APG to the Arch is judged by many visitors as

excessive. In order to enhance the visitor

experience, parking must be available within a

reasonable walking distance. Some of the outlying

parking facilities in the study area are c learly too far

from the J NEM for day-to-day visitor parking.

Figure 9 shows three existing parking structures with the potential of providing parking for

J NEM visitors. The two primary facilities shown in green are the Stadium East Garage and

the Kiener Plaza East Garage. The Center Park Garage, shown in yellow, is judged to be

somewhat less desirable.

Figure 9 Potential Off-Site Parking Facilities

Center Park Garage

Stadium East Garage

Kiener Plaza East Garage


18/92


Based on the snapshot survey of existing conditions, two of the largest fac ilities, the Kiener

East and the Stadium East Garages, have underutilized spaces that could be used by

J NEM visitors. Combined, these facilities could provide as many as 2,345 spaces. The

walking distance from these garages to the new west entry to the J NEM is about twoblocks. Presumably a cooperative agreement could be negotiated to rely on these

garages for J NEM visitor parking. However, both garages also provide parking for

Cardinals games.

Most Cardinal games are played during evening hours (after 6:00 p.m.). Based on the

current Cardinals schedule, there is an average of 4.7 daytime games per month

(games before 6:00 p.m.). Therefore, parking for the JNEM could be available over 90%

of the year in one or both of these facilities without significant concerns about baseballparking (not including any non-baseball events that might be held in the stadium).

The Stadium East Garage appears somewhat more suitable than Kiener East for J NEM

visitor parking for the following reasons:

Stadium East has a larger flat floor plate. People feel more secure with a largeflat floor plate because they can see and be seen. Likewise, wayfinding is easier

when you can see the stairs/elevators to exit the facility. The large flat floor plates,combined with the c ircular helices, also provides a more visitor friendly vehicular

circulation pattern.

The existing elevators in the Kiener East Garage are located on the west side of thestructure away from the J NEM. The existing stairs on the east side of Kiener East are

not suitable for a large volume of visitors headed for the J NEM. New stairs and

elevators in the east end of the structure would be needed to provide a better

J NEM visitor experience; however, new stairs and elevators are not necessarilyrequired. Constructing a new stair and elevator tower could be costly.

Easier access via either Walnut Street or Market Street and Broadway Avenue afterthe construction of the lid park.

A satellite J NEM visitors center would be

recommended for private parking facilities that

provide significant amounts of parking for J NEMvisitors. The visitors center would provide maps,

directions, and the perhaps the ability to purchase

tickets to the Arch. The J NEM visitor experience

would begin and end at the parking garage, so the

experience should be as pleasant as possible


19/92


The Center Park Garage has a more limited number of spaces available (as many as 376

spaces). However, the available spaces could be useful during daytime and early

evening Cardinals games. The Center Park Garage is located about four blocks from the

northwest corner of the park. Visitors would be walking the four blocks plus the existingtravel distance to the Arch.

While there are other nearby facilities that could provide J NEM parking, we did not

identify any other existing parking structures in close proximity to the J NEM that would be

as well suited for designated J NEM visitor parking on a regular basis. Other facilities in the

area are either too small, more fully occupied, in poor physical condition, or have a

circulation pattern (vehicular and/ or pedestrian) not recommended for visitor parking.

Likewise, we did not identify any existing parking structures within a reasonable walkingdistance of the J NEM that could be expanded to provide additional parking. Preliminary

options for new parking structures near the J NEM are provided in Sec tion 2 of this report.

1.6 Impacts of Future Developments on Existing Parking

Future and recently completed development projects in the study area could negatively

impact available parking supplies in the study area. These development projec ts could

include:

Citygarden Unisys Expansion WS Building St. Louis Centre Restructuring T-REx Business Incubator and

Accelerator

Ralcorp Corporate Expansion St. Louis University Law School Stifel Headquarters Arcade Building Ballpark Village Gateway EDI Corporate Expansion

Many of these developments do not

include new parking spaces. For example,

the Unisys Expansion, the T-Rex Business

Incubator, the Ralcorp Corporate

Expansion, and the St. Louis University Law

School projects do not include any new on-

site parking spaces. However, most of

these developments are occurring in the

northern portion of the study area (on or

north of Olive Street) with five occurring

on Washington Avenue. It is unlikely that

these projec ts will significantly impact

available parking supplies closer to the new

t t t th J NEM (

17h k l d l ( )


20/92


that parking demands for the area will significantly impact nearby parking facilities

(except perhaps during special events).

The Ralcorp Corporate Expansion (800 Market Street) will add approximately180,000 square feet of new commercial space with no new parking. Assuming aconservative parking demand of 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet, the

development could generate the need for approximately 540 parking spaces. As

the Bank of America Plaza is currently connected to the Stadium West Parking

Garage, it is anticipated that most of that demand would be directed there. The

Stadium West Parking Garage had an observed availability of approximately 580

parking spaces during the field reviews in May.

The Ballpark Village development will occur directly west of the Stadium EastParking Garage (329 S. Broadway). This development will include approximately

100,000 square feet of commercial and entertainment land uses. Assuming a

parking demand of approximately 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet, the

development could generate a demand for approximately 400 parking spaces.

As the development is currently anticipated to include approximately 425 new

parking spaces, it appears that the parking for the development will be self-

contained.

1.7 Possible Locations for Future Parking Facilities

In addition to reviewing existing parking facilities, Carl Walker staff also reviewed potential

locations for future parking structures. Based on discussions with designated community

stakeholders and staff field reviews, Figure 10 (next page) illustrates potential locations for

future parking facilities. These locations provide reasonable footprints for efficient parking

fac ilities and are located within a reasonable distance from the J NEM. Sec tion 2 of this

report will include a more detailed review of each recommended location, a discussion

of the possible strengths and weaknesses of each alternative, and a recommendation for

a preferred parking facility site.

18A h P ki Alt ti St d Fi l R t (DRAFT)


21/92


Figure 10 Potential Locations for New Parking Facilities

1.8 Conceptual Financial Performance for a Future Parking Facility

The cost of developing a new parking

structure for the J NEM (either a new

structure solely for JNEM or a joint usefac ility) will depend on a significant

number of issues such as the cost of

materials, design fees, providing necessary

retention/detention, the size and height of

the parking structure architectural design

AutomobileParking

Bus/RV

Parking

19Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)


22/92


included in Phase 1 of the project to help assess priorities for addressing future parking

needs.

The costs to develop a new parking fac ility include construction costs, development costs(design, legal, testing, surveys, etc.), and financing costs. Using typical average costs

information collected by Carl Walker throughout the United States, these costs can be

roughly projected. Based on Carl Walkers parking fac ility construction cost database,

the following development costs are estimated for a replacement J NEM parking facility

(assuming the full replacement of the APG with an aboveground parking facility):

Estimated Construction Costs: $17,500 per space (St. Louis market average above grade)

Estimated Development Costs: $2,100 per space (12% of construction costs) Estimated Financing Costs: $3,838 per space (fees, reserves, and interest

during construction)

Total Project Costs: $23,438 per space ($26,789,250 total cost) Estimated Annual Debt Service: $1,549,225 (4.0% for 30 years), $1,355 per space

In addition to debt service, there will be annual expenses to operate and maintain the

new parking structure. The cost to operate the new structure will depend on the

operating methodologies employed, technologies utilized, insurance costs, maintenance

needs, and staffing necessary. Average annual operating and maintenance costs in the

United States range from $300 to $750 per space, per year depending on the operating

methodology employed and the level of facility maintenance provided. Average

annual operating costs for the APG over the last four years are approximately $965 per

space. Of the total average APG operating costs over the last four years, approximately$238 per space, per year is for reimbursements for National Parking Service (NPS) law

enforcement.

Assuming a new facility is operated in a

fashion similar to the existing APG, and costs

remain consistent with four-year averages, it

could cost approximately $1,103,000 per year

to operate the parking garage and providebasic maintenance. Carl Walker would

recommend adding at least $75 per space,

per year to fund a maintenance reserve to

cover capital maintenance expenses.

Therefore, the total operating and



23/92


the last four years, a new parking facility may not be financially feasible without

significantly reducing operating expenses, increasing parking rates, and/or increasing

utilization. With respec t to rates, it does appear that current APG transient and monthly

parking rates are somewhat below market so, there may be room to increase parkingfees.

As a significant amount of underutilized parking appears to exist in the study area, and

the day-to-day utilization of the J NEM appears to be relatively low from September

through May each year (based on average utilization information provided by Metro), it

is unlikely that a future parking structure would be the same size as the APG without

significant increases in parking demand. However, the following provides the

conceptual financial performance of a future 700-space parking structure using theexpense estimates previously provided:

Estimated Total Project Costs: $23,438 per space ($16,406,600 total cost) Estimated Annual Debt Service: $948,782 (4.0% for 30 years) Estimated Annual Operating Costs: $728,000 ($1,040 per space) Estimated Annual Revenues: $1,093,400 ($1,562 per space) Estimated Annual Net Income: -$583,382 (-$833 per space)Note: Facility revenues and expenses would likely be different in a smaller fac ility. However, insufficientdata is available to project revenues and expenses for a smaller facility using APG 4-year averages.

As stated previously, the financial performance of a future parking structure will depend

heavily on a number of variables. The projections provided in this report are conceptual

in nature and may not accurately depict the financial feasibility of a future parking

garage. Sec tion 3 of this report provides a more prec ise estimation of future parkingfacility financial performance for the preferred site.

1.9 Summary of Phase 1 Findings and Observations

The following is a summary of significant findings and

observations from Phase 1 that will help determine

recommended parking strategies and refine available

parking alternatives.

There appears to be a significant amount ofunderutilized parking in the study area . Parking

availability in two large parking facilities near the new

western entrance to the J NEM could provide as

many as2 345spaces However space availability



24/92


creation of a parking management collaborative to help encourage

communication and cooperation among the various parking stakeholders.

The condition and operational standards of several nearby parking lots andstructures could result in various visitor parking challenges such as utilizationdifficulties, negative customer experiences, and safety/security concerns. Work

will be needed to help improve nearby parking facilities that will be designated for

J NEM visitor parking. This could include improved lighting, security patrols,

direc tional signage (both external and inside facilities), pedestrian improvements,

new technologies, and customer service training programs.

Finding parking for RVs and buses can be difficult for JNEM visitors. The newwestern entrance design appears to provide a significant amount of space for busand RV loading/unloading. However, current RV/bus parking accommodations

can be difficult for some to find and can feel less than secure. There are a number

of possible locations for off-street RV/bus parking near the J NEM. New RV/bus

parking facilities should provide a sense of security by incorporating appropriate

lighting, C rime Prevention through Environmental Design elements, emergency

call boxes, secure perimeters, controlled entry/exit, and frequent security patrols).

These facilities should also provide basic amenities such as restrooms, waterfountains, benches, vending machines, and visitor information kiosks.

The best possible parking experience should be provided to JNEM visitors. Thisshould include (but not be limited to) affordable rates, adequate safety/security,

reasonable walking distances, easy to understand functional designs, easy access,

flexible parking technologies, and a high level of customer service.

While there are options for improving the utilization of off-site parking facilities forJ NEM visitors, the loss of the APG will result in challenges for current APG monthlyparkers, Lacledes Landing visitors/employees, and nearby special event venues

(e.g., Edward J ones Dome). The APG c urrently provides parking for approximately

450 monthly parkers (Metro employees, NPS employees, Lacledes Landing

employees, etc.). Therefore, a new smaller parking structure in or near Lacledes

Landing could be needed if suitable existing parking is not available.

Designated J NEM parking facilities (on-site and/ or off-site) should be appropriatelycommunicated to visitors including (but not limited to) locations, hours ofoperation, operating methodologies, rates, methods of payment, real-time

occupancy information (if possible), contact

information, pedestrian routes, safety/sec urity

information general visitor information and



25/92

22g y p ( )

points of interest they may be visiting (e.g., downtown, Busch Stadium, Washington

Avenue, the convention center, and the casino). This could be accomplished

with a combination of existing parking facilities, such as those near the new

western entrance, and new parking structures on the north side of the J NEM.

Future parking demand strategies should include appropriate transportationdemand management (TDM) strategies as well. Marketing efforts should include

information to help encourage visitors to use Metro and other alternative forms of

transportation. Existing TDM investments should be leveraged to help reduce

parking demands.

The current system of one-way streets and confusing freeway off ramps couldmake finding parking difficult for visitors. Future parking alternatives must take intoaccount street conditions and traffic flows. Strategies to improve conditions and

assist visitors should include (but not be limited to) adequate wayfinding signage,

advance parking location information (e.g., website, brochures, information

provided with tickets, and maps), and real-time occupancy information.

The potential financial impact of eliminating the existing APG is significant. Thefacility currently generates a positive operating income (approximately $707,000 in2011) and a small net income after debt service (approximately $47,000 in 2011).

As the APG is scheduled to be paid off at the end of 2012, the facility could

generate over $700,000 per year in net income (no debt service, before

depreciation). Given the high cost of building a new parking structure, a new

fac ility may not be able to generate that level of net income without significantly

dec reasing expenses, increasing rates, and/ or increasing facility utilization.



26/92

PHASE 2 PARKING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT

2.0 Alternatives for Addressing the Loss of the APG

The loss of the APG would eliminate dedicated parking for J NEM visitors and result in the

need to relocate approximately 450 monthly parkers (J NEM employees, Metro

employees, and other monthly customers). Four primary alternatives are typically

available to help address a destinations parking demands:

1. The JNEM could decide to improve the utilization of existing nearby parkingsupplies. This would include working with parking facility owners near the J NEM to

better utilize existing private parking supplies.

2. The JNEM could construct a new parking fac ility (or multiple parking facilities) toprovide the necessary parking. This would likely be in conjunction with nearby

private property owners. The cost for providing parking could be covered through

parking user fees or other sources of funding.

3. The JNEM could work to reduce parking needs for the Arch through theimplementation of various transportation demand management and parking

demand management strategies. These strategies would be geared toward

reducing parking demands by encouraging the use of alternative modes of

transportation and improving parking resource management.

4. The JNEM could utilize a combination of alternatives.In the First Alternative, the J NEM would attempt to better utilize available parking supplies

in the area surrounding the Arch. This would mitigate the need to construct additionalparking. As sufficient parking is available in some parking facilities near the J NEM (based

on parking facility reviews and discussions with nearby parking operators), this alternative

may have merit. Better utilization of the available supply would eliminate the need for

near-term parking supply additions, maintain existing green space or future development

space, encourage pedestrian movement through the area, and reduce J NEM parking

responsibilities (e.g., operations, maintenance, and financing).

The improved utilization of existing parking spaces is substantially less costly than creatingnew spaces. For example, the amount of currently underutilized parking observed in the

Stadium East and Kiener East Parking Garages could potentially replace all of the

necessary parking for the Arch. As stated previously, these two garages could provide

up to 2,345 parking spaces at least 90% of the year. In fact, according to the

owner/operator of these two facilities, it is possible that sufficient parking could be



27/92

Stadium East and Kiener East Parking Garages are too far away. In this case,

underutilized parking in Areas A and/or B could be used. Based on field observations,

there may be up to 3,539 parking spaces available (approximately 1,468 spaces in within

two blocks of Lacledes Landing).

While nearly all of the fac ilities reviewed for this report provide general public parking and

Arch visitors can use them today, a facility use agreement between the owner(s) of

designated private parking facilities and the J NEM and/or the NPS would likely be

needed. The facility use agreement would help secure sufficient parking, set appropriate

parking rates, and ensure adequate customer service is provided.

However, this approach to dealing with future parking needs may not adequately meetall anticipated parking needs. First, the number of private parking facility owners willing

to cooperate may not be sufficient to provide the necessary parking. Second, the

location of available parking supplies may not provide acceptable parking to all

current APG customers (e.g., parking is too far away or facility conditions are not

acceptable). Third, private parking facility owners may not be willing to negotiate

parking rates that are acceptable to the J NEM. Finally, some of the underutilized parking

areas may be lost to future developments or increases in area parking demands.

Therefore, additional measures may be necessary to address future needs.

The Second Alternative available to the J NEM is to create additional parking spaces.

Currently, there are several locations within the study area that could support new

parking facilities for the Arch. New parking facility opportunities would only include

parking structures, as insufficient land is available for substantial surface parking lots within

reasonable walking distances.

The construction of new parking structures can provide several advantages over olderfacilities. First, a new parking structure could provide a more modern facility with better

design features. This could include better ingress/egress, improved lighting, better

security, and more efficient functional designs. Second, a new parking structure could

consolidate Arch parking into one dedicated location. This could ensure sufficient

capacity is provided for all user groups. Finally, the J NEM would likely be able to better

control parking rates and operational conditions in a new dedicated parking structure.

However, it is important to note the disadvantages to new parking facility construction.The JNEM, NPS or another agency, such as Metro, may have to pay for the construction

and/or financing of any new parking facilities, as well as some portion of annual

maintenance and operating costs. The current industry average construction cost per

space for structured parking in St. Louis is approximately $17,500 and typical annual

operating and maintenance c ostsin the market could be between $450 and $900



28/92

the redesign of the Arch grounds will foc us visitors to the western side of the park, more

people may decide to park near the west side of the park instead of the north.

A final challenge to the development of a new parking structure is that the constructionof a public parking facility will necessitate generating enough revenue from parking

(and/or any other dedicated revenues) to financially justify the expense of building and

financing the parking. This could necessitate increasing parking rates to provide for a

sufficient debt service coverage ratio.

The following graphic (Figure 11) illustrates recommended locations for future parking

structures. The highlighted areas shown in Figure 11 do not illustrate the size of each

parking structure, only the approximately location. Other potential sites identified inFigure 10 (page 18) were eliminated from further consideration.

Figure 11 Recommended Locations for Future Parking Structures

Op. 1 & 1.A

Op. 2

Op. 3



29/92

Options 1 and 1.A are located on the southeast corner of 3rd Street and Morgan Street in

Lacledes Landing. This property is currently a surface parking lot providing monthly and

transient parking for Lacledes Landing and other nearby properties. These options aredesigned to provide approximately 700 parking spaces for current APG user groups

(specifically monthly customers and Arch visitors).

These preliminary concepts were developed prior to receiving updated future

development information for the site from Drury Development Corporation. Any future

parking constructed on this site will have to account for desired development goals and

replace surfac e parking lost. This preliminary concept is intended to show only the

construction cost impact to the J NEM, NPS, or other designated agency for necessaryparking.

The following further describes each preliminary alternative for this site:

Option 1

This concept is a two-bay, single helix ramp design with a grade level and four

supported levels. Parking capacity is approximately 710 spaces of which 15

spaces are reserved for physically-challenged customers. Vehicular access isavailable from North 3rd Street. A satellite welcome center is located near the

elevator lobby area on Level 1. The garage footprint is based on 124-0 x 380-0.

Parking efficiency is estimated at 318 square feet per space. The construction cost

for this option, with a contingency of 5%, is estimated at $12,800,000 or $18,028 per

space as shown in the following table.

Unit

Description Unit Quantity Cost Cost

1 Base Parking Structure

1.1 Base Cost SF 226,000 $53.00 $11,978,000

1.2 Premium: Retaining Wall SF 3,600 $50.00 $180,000

1.3 Premium: Retail/Office Shell SF 500 $80 $40,000

Construction Cost Subtotal $12,198,000

Estimating Contingency 5% $600,000

Construction Total $12,800,000

Parking Structure Area 226,000

No. Cars 710

Efficiency SF/Car 318



30/92

Positive aspects of this option include:

o Parking capacity of 700+ spacescan be achieved on this sitewithout excessive building height.

o The design can fit within thecontext of the site.

o The location is ideal for a structureand can provide convenient

parking less than one block awayfrom the J NEM property.

o The site can provide a satellite welcome center for the J NEM.o The elevator and stair core is conveniently located where pedestrians can

exit the structure at grade and head south towards the J NEM.

o The design can provide horizontal architectural features on at least threeexterior elevations.o The eastern half of the site can be preserved for future Lacledes Landing

development(s).

o The majority of the parking stalls are on flat levels.o This site can also help provide parking for other developments located westof Memorial Drive (e.g., buildings on Washington Avenue and the Edward

J ones Stadium).

o The design provides a very high level of parking efficiency.o This option provides the lowest estimated construction cost.

Challenges to this site include:

o Pedestrians that may want to exit the site from the southwest elevator/stairtower and head south towards the J NEM may have issues crossing the

intersection at Memorial Drive, Lacledes Landing Blvd and adjacent

streets



31/92

allocated to other user groups. As few as 350 spaces could be available for

current APG customers. In order to provide sufficient parking to future

developments and the J NEM, parking structure heights could increase

significantly.

o Access to this site may be challenging in the future due to potentialstreet/traffic changes.

Option 1.A

This concept looks at the entire site bordered by Eads Bridge/Metro, North 2nd

Street, North 3rd Street and adjacent structures. This is a four-bay concept with two

single helix ramps that are located side by side. Based on the footprint andexisting topography, this concept is considered a split-level-design with three and

five levels. Parking capacity is approximately 728 spaces, of which 15 spaces are

reserved for physically-challenged customers. Vehicular access is available from

North 2nd and North 3rd Streets. A satellite welcome center is located near the

main elevator lobby area on Level 3. This concept also provides approximately

6,300 square feet of commercial space along North 2nd Street. Because of the

topography and design, two separate elevator/stair towers are recommended.

Pedestrians that use the southeast elevator/stair can exit the structure by headingsouth of the structure on Level 1. The overall garage footprint is based on 248-2 x

380-0. Parking efficiency is estimated at 346 square feet per space. The

construction cost for this option, with a contingency of 5%, is estimated at

$14,850,000 or $20,398 per space as shown in the following table.

Unit


1 Base Parking Structure

1.1 Base Cost SF 252,000 $53.00 $13,356,000


1.3 Premium: Retail/Office Shell SF 6,300 $80 $504,000





No. Cars 728

Efficiency, SF/Car 346



32/92


o Parking capacity of 700+spaces can be achieved onthis site.

o The concept design fits withinthe context of the site.

o The site can provide a satellitewelcome center.

o The elevator and stair core isconveniently located where

pedestrians can exit the

structure at grade and head south towards JNEM from two different

entry/exit points.

o The design can provide horizontal architectural features on at least threeexterior elevations.

o The site can ac commodate some retail/lease space for Lac ledes Landing.o The site can provide two means of vehicular ingress and egress from two

different streets.

o This site can also help provide parking for other developments located westof Memorial Drive (e.g., buildings on Washington Avenue and the EdwardJ ones Stadium).

o This option has an overall lower height than any other alternative.Challenges to this site include:

o Pedestrians that may want to exit the site from the southwest elevator/stairtower and head south towards the J NEM may have some issues crossingthe intersection at Memorial Drive, Lacledes Landing Boulevard, and

adjacent streets.

o The majority of the parking stalls are on sloped floors.



33/92

customers). According to the latest development concept provided by

Drury Development Corporation, much of the anticipated parking supply is

allocated to other user groups. As few as 350 spaces could be available for

current APG customers. In order to provide sufficient parking to futuredevelopments and the J NEM, parking structure heights could increase

significantly.

o By using the whole site, this option could limit further development. Whileadditional developments could occur above the parking structure,

necessary structural support elements for buildings above the parking

structure would negatively impact parking efficiencies.

o Some of the streets around Lacledes Landing are not conducive to largeamounts of traffic related to a parking structure. Street repairs will be

necessary to ensure easy ingress and egress.

o This site is located a fair distance from the new western entry to the JNEM.o Access to this site may be challenging in the future due to potential

street/traffic changes.

Option 2 looks at a garage site that is bordered by Washington Avenue, North Broadway,

and Lucas Avenue. This is a two-bay, single helix ramp design with a grade level and six

supported levels. The parking capacity is approximately 549 spaces, of which 12 spaces

are reserved for physica lly-challenged customers. Vehicular access is available from

Washington Avenue. A satellite welcome center is located near the elevator and stair

lobby area on Level 1. The garage footprint is based on 124-0 x 222-0. Parking

efficiency is estimated at 341 square feet per space. The construction cost for this option,with a contingency of 5%, is estimated at $10,450,000 or $19,035 per space as shown in

the following table.



34/92

Unit


1 Base Parking Structu re1.1 Base Cost SF 187,000 $53.00 $9,911,000

1.2 Premium: Retaining Wall SF 0 $50.00 $0






No. Cars 549


w/o cont w/ cont

Cost / SF $53.21 $55.88

Cost / Car $18,126 $19,035

1. Construction cost does not include land acquisition, administration costs, environmental remediation, or utility relocation.

2. Costs/SF & Costs/Car do not include AE fees or Testing Costs (typically budget approximately 12% of construction costs).

3. Construction costs assume construction beginning in 2013.

4. Construction cost assumes open parking structure


o The site can provide parking for the J NEM within two blocks of the park.o The site can provide a satellite welcome center.o Inbound vehicular traffic is from Washington Avenue, an easy to locate location.o Parking efficiency is better than concept 1.A.o This site can also help provide parking for other developments located west of

Memorial Drive (e.g., buildings on Washington Avenue and the Edward J ones

Stadium).

o The streets surrounding this site are in better condition than those in LacledesL di



35/92

be reasonably achieved by incorporating the land immediately north of Lucas

Avenue.

oA majority of the parking stalls are located on sloped floors.

o All ingress and egress traffic is from Washington Avenue, which can be a busierstreet than some of the other options.

o This site is further away from the JNEM than Options 1 and 1.A.o It is not c lear if the owner of this site intends to a llow the construction of a parking

structure on the property.

The Option 3 concept looks at a garage site that is bordered by North 1st Street,

Lacledes Landing Blvd., North 2nd Street, and Morgan Street. This is a two-bay, single

helix ramp design with a grade level and 7 supported levels. The parking capacity is

approximately 719 spaces, of which 15 spaces are reserved for physically-challenged

customers. Vehicular access is available from North 1st and 2nd Streets. The entry and exit

portals are located on two different levels due to the topography of the existing site. A

satellite welcome center is located on the east side of the site on Level 1. The garagefootprint is based on 124-0 x 250-0. Parking efficiency is estimated at 337 square feet

per space. The construction cost for this option, with a contingency of 5%, is estimated at

$13,560,000 or $18,860 per space as shown in the following table.

Unit


1 Base Parking Structu re1.1 Base Cost SF 242,000 $53.00 $12,826,000







No. Cars 719




36/92


o Parking capacity of 700+ spaces canbe achieved on this site.

o The site can provide parking within twoblocks of the J NEM.

o The site can provide a satellitewelcome center.

oThis site can also provide parking forLacledes Landing employees and

visitors.

o The site can provide two means of vehicular ingress and egress conditions fromtwo different streets.

o Parking efficiency is better than c oncepts 1.A and 2.Challenges to this site include:

o Parking location may be perceived to be inconvenient by some J NEM visitors andemployees.

o Wayfinding to direc t patrons to this parking facility may be more difficult.o

The height to the parking structure may not fit the context of Lac ledes landing.The structure would need to be even taller to offset the loss of the existing surface

parking lot.

o Some of the streets around Lac ledes Landing are not conducive to large amountsof traffic related to a parking structure. Street repairs will be necessary to ensure

easy ingress and egress.

oIt is not c lear if the owner of this site intends to a llow the construction of a parkingstructure on the property.

o This site is further away from the JNEM than Options 1 and 1.A.In addition to the four preliminaryoptions developed for thisproject Carl Walker also



37/92

Positive aspects of this site include the following:

o The land is currently either vacant or usedfor parking.

o The current owner of the property isanticipating the use of the site for parking,

not necessarily other development

projects.

o The site would be capable of providesufficient parking to displaced APGmonthly parkers, as well as provide parking

for J NEM visitors. The parking is also

reasonably convenient.

o The site is well located for shared parkingbetween the J NEM and Lac ledes Landing

(as are Options 1 and 1.A.)


o Due to the topography of the site, the majority of parking is located on slopedfloors.

o In order to provide the number of parking spaces identified in the concept, theparking structure is ten levels high. This may not fit into the context of Lacledes

Landing.

o Due to the proximity of the site to the Mississippi River, it could be subject toperiodic flooding (as the existing Riverfront Garage is today). Ac cording to

information provided by Metro, flooding could occur approximately 20-40 days

per year.

o The entry/exit point located on Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard would not beavailable during periods of flooding.

o The parking structure located further away from the JNEM than Options 1 or 1.A.o After parking, visitors would be required to wa lk up hill to reach the Arch grounds,

unlike Options 1 and 1 A



38/92

The Third Alternative involves

encouraging the use of a lternative

modes of transportation and using

parking demand management

strategies to reduce parking demands.

Encouraging the use of alternative

modes of transportation could include

providing adequate pedestrian and

bicycle linkages, providing sufficient

mass transit alternatives, encouraging

the use of carpools/vanpools,

encouraging the use of the Downtown

Trolley, guaranteed ride home programs,

telecommuting, parking cash-out programs (in future), etc . Many of these transportation

options are already available in downtown St. Louis. Parking/ transportation demand

management strategies could include any of the following options (but not limited to):

using shared parking concepts;

improved parking system information and marketing; and,

charging market rates for parking.The goal of each of the aforementioned strategies is to spread parking demands to

appropriate locations, improve the utilization of parking supplies, and/or reduce overall

parking demand.

The Final Alternative is actually a combination of the previous three alternatives. Thisalternative would involve the J NEM working with private parking lot owners to better

utilize the existing parking surplus before adding additional parking supplies. If sufficient

parking could not be secured using this approach, JNEM, NPS, or another designated

agency would consider adding new supplies as appropriate. Finally, the JNEM would

continue encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation, as well as other

parking demand management strategies, to reduce overall parking demands.

This alternative is recommended as it provides a reasonable approach to dealing withfuture demands and should limit future parking expenses. Also, this approach will allow

the J NEM to show the community that all options were explored prior to expending any

funds for constructing parking facilities. The goa l is to provide the right amount of

parking; not too much and not too little.



39/92

2.1 Alternatives for Providing Bus and RV Parking

In addition to providing parking for visitor and monthly customer vehicles, there is a need

to provide parking for buses and RVs. Currently, buses and RVs are direc ted to park on

Leonor K. Sullivan (approximately 1,100 feet of on-street parallel parking between thePoplar Street Bridge and the MacArthur Bridge). This provides enough space for

approximately 30 buses and/or RVs (depending on the individual sizes of each bus or RV).

The designated parking location is identified with large signs mounted on adjacent light

poles. In addition, a designated passenger drop-off zone for buses and RVs is provided

on Memorial Drive.

As part of this project, Carl Walker was asked to review possible alternatives for providing

bus and RV parking in a single location. The project team reviewed opportunities toprovide parking in nearby existing surface parking lots (both north and west of the Arch),

parking areas east of the Mississippi River in Illinois (assuming drivers and/or passengers

could use the light rail to travel to/from the Arch), and alternatives for constructing new

parking lots.

The redesign of the western portion of the J NEM will include a new park lid over I-70. The

associated reconfiguration of adjacent streets will make it possible to provide a new

bus/RV passenger drop-off and pick-up area on the northern edge of Market Street(between Memorial Drive and 4th Street), the eastern edge of 4th Street (between Market

Street and Chestnut Street), and the southern edge of Chestnut Street (between 4th Street

and Memorial Drive). These new bus/RV drop-off/pick-up zones should be able to

accommodate approximately 550 feet of space (enough for approximately 15 buses

and/or RVs at any one time - depending on the individual sizes of each vehicle).

After dropping passengers off at the new western entry to the Arch grounds, drivers will

need to park their buses or RVs. After reviewing the available alternatives, the projec tteam eliminated existing areas to the north of the Arch (too far away to provide a

recommended level of convenience) and parking east of the Mississippi River in Illinois

(concerns about distance, operations, and c osts). There are existing areas west of the

Arch grounds in downtown St. Louis that could provide reasonable alternatives such as

the Ballpark Village site. However, some of these loc ations may not be available in the

future due to development projects or they would result in significant changes to existing

functional designs to which lot owners may object.

Two surface parking lot concepts were developed for the Arch grounds. The two

potential locations are shown in the following figure (Figure 12).



40/92

Figure 12 Potential Locations for Future Bus/RV Parking Lots

Option 1 would involve a redesign of an

existing surface parking lot located on the

southeast corner of Spruce Street andBroadway. This location could be

redesigned to accommodate 28 buses/RVs

and still provide 141 regular parking spaces

(see the Spruce and S. 4th Street concept

drawing in Appendix A). This concept

provides a one-way bus/RV traffic flow from

Spruce Street (entry) to Poplar Street (exit).

After dropping off passengers at the new

western drop-off zone, buses and RVs would

travel north to Pine Street and then south on

Broadway to the parking lot. When leaving,

b /RV ld t l th 4th St t t

Op. 2

Op. 1

Op. 3



41/92

o The location provides a relatively easy route to/ from the new western drop-off/pick-up point.

o The location provides a relatively short walking distance to/from the Arch grounds(compared to other northern alternatives).

o The functional design could be altered to provide more bus/RV parking if needed.o The regular parking spaces could be used for oversized vehicle parking.o This concept provides space for basic amenities, such as vending machines,

restrooms, and/or visitor information.

o This location is close to the Stadium East Parking Garage (a possible parking fac ilityfor future J NEM visitors).

o The design of the lot would include a security fence around the perimeter of thefacility.

o The costs to redesign an existing parking lot are likely much less than constructinga new lot.


o As this site is an existing surface parking lot, the lot owner may not agree toredesign the lot to provide bus/RV parking.

o As this lot is a private parking lot, there would likely be a fee for bus/RV parking(which would not necessarily be unusual for a downtown environment). The fee

would have to the negotiated between J NEM, NPS, and/or Metro and the parking

lot owner.

o The proximity of this lot to the baseball stadium could result in availability issues depending on possible use agreements between J NEM, NPS, and/or Metro and

the lot owner.

o Baseball parking revenue streams for this lot may make providing Arch bus/RVparking at a reasonable price difficult.

o Additional safety and security measures may be needed to provide a suitablelocation for parking



42/92

After dropping off passengers at the new western drop-off zone, buses and RVs would

travel north to Pine Street and then south on Broadway to Lombard Street. At Lombard

Street, buses and RVs would travel north on 1st Street to the lot. Buses/RVs could also

access the location from the I-70. When leaving, buses/RVs would travel south on 1st

Street to Lombard Street, and then Lombard to 4th Street. At 4th Street, buses/RVs would

travel north to the pick-up zone.

Positive aspects of this bus/RV parking concept include the following:

o The land is currently vacant anddoes not appear to be used for

parking on a regular basis.

o The location provides a relativelyeasy route to/from the new

western drop-off/pick-up point

(although more circuitous than

Option 1).

o The location provides a relativelyshort walking distance to/from the

Arch grounds. However, the

distance to the new western entry

is longer than Option 1.

o The functional design could beadjusted to provide oversized

vehicle parking if needed (e.g.,

vehicles too tall to fit in a parking

garage).

o This concept provides space for basic amenities, such as vending machines,restrooms, and/or visitor information.



o The location of this lot could mean lower parking feesthan Option 1



43/92

o As this lot is a private parking lot, there would likely be a fee for bus/RV parking(which would not necessarily be unusual for a downtown environment). The fee

would have to the negotiated between J NEM, NPS, and/or Metro and the parking

lot owner.

o Additional safety and security measures may be needed to provide a suitablelocation for parking.

The Option 3 involves a new surface

parking lot located underneath the

Poplar Street Bridge (south of the J NEM).

This location could be configured to

ac commodate approximately 73

buses/RVs (see the Poplar to C erre

Street concept drawing in Appendix A).

It appears that this site provided parking

in the past, and may have even

provided parking for large vehicles.

After dropping off passengers at the

new western drop-off zone, buses and

RVs would travel north to Pine Street and

then south on Broadway to Lombard

Street. At Lombard Street, buses and

RVs would travel north on 2nd Street to

the lot. Buses/RVs could also access the location from the I-70. When leaving, buses/RVs

would travel south on 2nd Street to Lombard Street, and then Lombard to 4th Street. At 4th

Street, buses/RVs would travel north to the pick-up zone.

Positive aspects of this bus/RV parking concept include the following:

o The land is currently vacant and does not appear to be used for parking on aregular basis (just construction staging).

o The location provides a relatively easy route to/ from the new western drop-off/pick-up point (although more circuitous than Option 1).

o The location provides a relatively short walking distance to/from the Arch grounds(compared to all other alternatives). However, the distance to the new western

entry is longer than Option 1.



44/92



o The location of this lot could mean lower parking fees than Option 1.o This location can provide at least some covered parking.


o The current owner of the site may not agree to the development of bus/RVparking on the site.

o Due to the structural supports for the Poplar Street Bridge and adjacent ramps, thissite provides some challenges to vehicle circulation that the other sites do not.

Traffic flow will need to be planned so that buses/RVs do not hit the structural

columns. While professional bus drivers may be able to navigate the columns

without hitting them, non-professional RV drivers may not. Columns also limit the

ability to accommodate vehicles that are larger than typical buses or RVs.

o Additional safety and security measures may be needed to provide a suitablelocation for parking.

After reviewing the pros and cons for each option, it appears that Option 1 could provide

the closest parking to the western entrance and the easiest route to/from the new drop-

off/pick-up zone. However, Options 2 and 3 could be more flexible in terms of cost and

availability than Option 1, and may also provide more bus and/or RV parking spaces.

J NEM may need to further evaluate both options (e.g., contacting each site/lot owner to

review possible options and discuss preliminary use agreement terms) prior to selecting a

preferred site.

2.2 Recommended Parking Strategies for the JNEM

The following alternatives are recommended for

addressing the anticipated loss of the APG:

Prior to considering the construction of anew parking structure, the J NEM should first

investigate opportunities to utilize existing

ki i th t d f A h


t f t ti d ti ki t t ll th d i


45/92

cost of constructing and operating parking structures, as well as the desire

to keep visitor parking fees as low as possible, this would likely be the lowest

cost solution.

o The Stadium East and Kiener East Parking Garages are located very close tothe new western entrance of the J NEM. These facilities provide c lose

parking to the new museum, the Old Courthouse, the future Ballpark

Village, and other downtown buildings.

o Encouraging parking west of the J NEM would encourage more people tovisit other downtown venues/attractions and restaurants.

o Access to the Stadium East Garage would be relatively simple for visitors.People traveling north on I-70 would use the same Memorial Drive exit they

use today, turn left onto Walnut Street, and then finally right onto Broadway

(after traffic direc tion changes are instituted). The entrance to the garage

would be the next left. If the Broadway entrance is missed, visitors would be

able to use Spruce Street and 4th Street to enter the garage from the east.

Visitors from the north would be able to use the Broadway exit from I-70 and

drive direc tly to the garage. People arriving from the west could use

Walnut Street to Broadway and people from the east could use Poplar

Street Bridge to Memorial Drive (then Walnut) or Eads Bridge to Broadway.

o Access to the Kiener East Garage is somewhat more circuitous, but stillrelatively simple. People traveling north on I-70 would use the Memorial

Drive exit then turn left on either Walnut Street or Market Street. At 4th Street,

they would turn right to Pine Street. At Pine Street they would turn left and

the entrance to the garage would be the first left after Broadway. Visitors

traveling south on I-70 could use Broadway to Pine Street. People traveling

from the west could use Market Street or Walnut Street to 4th Street, then 4th

Street to Pine Street. Visitors from the east could use Poplar Street Bridge to

Memorial Drive (then Walnut Street to 4th Street, and 4th Street to Pine Street)

or Eads Bridge to Broadway (then Pine Street).

In addition to investigating opportunities to use underutilized parking spaces onthe west side of the J NEM for visitor parking, it is also recommended to investigate

opportunities to relocate c urrent APG monthly parking customers to other existing

facilities on the north side of the J NEM. As previously mentioned, underutilized

parking in Areas A and/or B could be used. Based on field observations, there

may be up to 3,539 parking spaces available (approximately 1,468 spaces in

within two blocksof Lacledes Landing) While the distances between the parking



46/92

o Define the number of parking spaces allocated to J NEM visitors and/ormonthly parking customers.

o Determine parking fees and validation options, as well as periodic feeincreases.

o Describe parking fac ility maintenance requirements (day-to-day andcapital maintenance).

o Define customer service expectations.o Explain parking revenue and expense alloc ations (if any).o Provide remedies if agreement requirements are not met.

Both the Stadium East and Kiener EastParking Garages were built in the

1960s. This may mean that one or both

of the garages may need a significant

amount of maintenance to ensure safe

parking for the foreseeable future. Prior

to enacting a parking use agreement

with the owner of these facilities, it is

recommended that a condition

appraisal be completed for each

fac ility (if one has not been completed

in the last three years). A thorough

condition appraisal will confirm all

major maintenance items are identified

and repair costs are estimated to ensure the fac ilities are able to support

continued J NEM parking. The owner of both parking facilities is currently in the

process of completing major repairs/restorations in both structures.

In order to provide the best possible parking experience for JNEM visitors, severalfacility upgrades for the Stadium East and Kiener East Parking Garages may be

needed. This would include (but would not be limited to): locating a J NEM visitor

center somewhere in or near each facility; upgrading lighting as needed to ensure

generally accepted lighting levels are maintained; signage and wayfinding

upgrades to help visitors find destinations and remember where they parked;

exterior signage to denote the availability of Arch parking (and possibly


While parking will be provided off site in private parking facilities and day to day


47/92

While parking will be provided off-site in private parking facilities and day-to-dayparking operations for the J NEM, NPS, and Metro will be reduced, it is still important

to have a small parking staff to oversee the various parking use agreements,

coordinate with private parking facility owners as needed, organize special event

parking when needed, provide on-going parking management and planning

support, and conduct parking-related marketing.

With respec t to bus and RV parking, it isrecommended to consider all of the

options simultaneously in order to

determine which

arch parking alternatives study

Documents