ARCH PARKING ALTERNATIVES STUDY FINAL REPORT ‐DRAFT‐

 

SUBMITTED BY:
Carl Walker, Inc. 1920 S. Highland Ave., Suite 210 Lombard, IL 60148 July 19, 2012

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

ii

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 1  Introduction and Study Purpose .................................................................................................. 1  Approach and Scope of Services ............................................................................................... 1 PHASE 1 – CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 4  1.0 Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 4  1.1 Occupancy Levels.................................................................................................................. 8  1.2 Operating Methodologies................................................................................................... 11  1.3 Facility Appearance............................................................................................................. 11  1.4 Parking Rates ......................................................................................................................... 13  1.5 Existing Facilities that Could Provide Off-Site Parking ..................................................... 15  1.6 Impacts of Future Developments on Existing Parking ..................................................... 17  1.7 Possible Locations for Future Parking Facilities ................................................................. 17  1.8 Conceptual Financial Performance for a Future Parking Facility ................................ 18  1.9 Summary of Phase 1 Findings and Observations ............................................................ 20 PHASE 2 – PARKING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 23  2.0 Alternatives for Addressing the Loss of the APG .............................................................. 23  2.1 Alternatives for Providing Bus and RV Parking ................................................................. 36  2.2 Recommended Parking Strategies for the JNEM ............................................................ 41  2.3 Preliminary Wayfinding for Recommended Parking....................................................... 45 PHASE 3 – PARKING-RELATED FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 52  3.0 Estimated Debt Service for the Option 1 Parking Structure ........................................... 52  3.1 Estimated Operating Expenses for the Option 1 Parking Structure .............................. 53  3.2 Estimated Parking Revenues for the Option 1 Parking Structure .................................. 54  3.3 Estimated 20-Year Pro Forma for the Option 1 Parking Structure ................................. 58  3.4 Projection of Continued Operation of the APG .............................................................. 60 APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................... 64 

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

1

INTRODUCTION
Introduction and Study Purpose In May 2012, Metro commissioned Carl Walker to provide a parking alternatives study for the proposed improvements of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (JNEM). Proposed improvements to the JNEM include removal of the existing Arch Parking Garage (APG) to create more green space and enhance the north gateway to the memorial, creating a 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 new facilities. Approach and Scope of Services The general approach for this study is to evaluate current parking conditions in a ½-mile radius around the JNEM, 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. 2. 3. 4. Current Parking Conditions Assessment Alternatives Analysis Financial Analysis Final Report and Presentation

Prior to the first site visit, information provided by Metro and various designated stakeholders was reviewed by Carl Walker to provide a foundation for the balance of the project. This information included a recently completed condition appraisal of the APG, background operational information for the APG, previous parking survey/study work, RV and bus utilization information, traffic planning and count information, JNEM planning documents, and APG financial performance data. After reviewing the information supplied in response to the initial request for information, a week-long site visit was

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  conducted to review existing parking conditions in the study area, review the APG, and meet with designated stakeholders. The scope of services for this project is summarized as follows: Phase One – Current Parking Conditions Assessment 1. Conduct an initial conference call with Metro to begin the study process. 2. Provide Metro with an initial Request for Information (RFI). 3. Review available information and reports concerning the physical condition assessment of the exiting parking structure. 4. Conduct a multi-day visit to St. Louis to assess current parking conditions within the study area. 5. Conduct a general survey of parking in the study area including current rates, operating methodologies, facility conditions, safety/security conditions, and occupancy levels of available off-street public parking. 6. Observe existing traffic flow patterns in the study area. 7. Identify existing parking facilities in the area near the JNEM with the potential for expansion or reconstruction as a larger facility. 8. Compile an updated inventory of parking facilities in the market area, including an assessment of the feasibility of using those facilities to accommodate parking demand generated by the JNEM. 9. Develop a conceptual general pro forma for a replacement parking facility as a basis for assessing priorities in providing the parking facility. 10. Prepare a draft report documenting the Phase One work and findings. Phase Two – Alternatives Analysis 1. Review potential sites for parking cars/trucks, buses, and recreational vehicles. 2. Review site conditions considering topography, adjacent buildings, traffic patterns on adjacent streets, parker destinations, pedestrian flows, ADA accessibility, mixed-use potential, and other features important to the viability of the facility. 3. Review building codes to identify issues that may affect construction and cost. 4. For the viable sites, develop alternative facility layouts, evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each, and recommend the location best meeting the

2

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  project criteria. Prepare and present concepts of the various options developed for the sites. 5. Develop an alternatives analysis report that summarizes design criteria, presents conceptual layouts, facility features, and estimates of probable cost. 6. Prepare a three-dimensional computer generated model of the selected option to 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 JNEM and the larger area. B. Estimate potential revenue for the proposed facility 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 of probable 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, development costs, and operating and maintenance costs including the anticipated structural repair and restoration projects for the new parking facility. F. Assess the viability of the continued operation of the existing parking structure. 2. Compare the financial performance of a new facility to the continued operation of 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 the combined 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 report. 3. Provide Metro with hard copies of the final report, electronic files, and a PowerPoint presentation.

3

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

4

PHASE 1 – CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT
Carl Walker staff conducted a multi-day visit to downtown St. Louis on May 29, 2012 through June 1, 2012 to confirm the inventory of off-street parking spaces near the JNEM 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 occupancy levels were assessed, and the overall condition of each parking facility was determined. Parking facilities restricted to a specific group such as employees, permit holders, etc. were not included in the survey. In general, only facilities that offer parking for a daily or hourly fee were surveyed. 1.0 Study Area Figure 1, below, shows the study area for this project. The study area was sub-divided into seven zones, A through G, for organizational purposes. Figures 2 through 8 detail each zone with block numbers added for reference to the tables in this report.
Figure 1 – Study Area

G F

E C

D

A B

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

5

Figure 2 – Area A

Figure 3 – Area B

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

6

Figure 4 – Area C

C-1

Figure 5 – Area D

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

7

Figure 6 – Area E

Figure 7 – Area F

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

8

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 than 9:00 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 veteran’s group event in the Convention Center on Thursday and Friday. Parking activity levels near the Convention Center were noticeably higher on Thursday and Friday. Exact occupancy counts were not made. Because general occupancy levels were assessed at different times of the day over the course of several days, the relative occupancy 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 facility 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. Many of the parking facilities surveyed had a significant number of available spaces. For example, the Stadium East Garage (Facility E15.1) and the Kiener East Garage (Facility D25.1) were only about 40% occupied at the time of the surveys. Many of the surface lots in the southern portion of the study area appear to be used primarily for event parking during Cardinals home games and were virtually empty. Likewise, some of the surface

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  lots north of the Laclede’s 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 for public 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 far removed from the JNEM, requiring walks that many JNEM visitors may find objectionable.

9

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

10

Table 1 – Observed Parking Occupancy

Block A A A A A A A 3 5 7 13 20 20 21

Facility Number A A A A A A A 3.1 5.1 7.1 13.1 20.1 20.2 21.1

Description C9 Garage Surface Lot America's Garage Surface Lot Surface Lot MAC Garage MAC Surface Lot Area A Subtotals Surface Lot - Lumiere Surface Lot Lumiere Place Garage Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot - Lumiere Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot - Lumiere Surface Lot Riverfront Garage Area B Subtotals Arch Garage Levee Parking Area C Subtotals SLCCH Garage 9th Street Garage Surface Lot US Bank Plaza Garage 705 Surface Lot 7th & Pine Garage Laclede Gas Building - V Peabody Plaza Garage Kiener Plaza West Macy's Garage Surface Lot St. Louis Center East Center Park Garage Metropolitan Square Kiener Plaza East St. Louis Place Quick Park Garage 500 Broadway Garage Mansion House Garage Hyatt Garage Area D Subtotals Surface Lot Surface Lot - Westin Hot Stadium West Garage Hilton Hotel Surface Lot Surface Lot Stadium East Garage Area E Subtotals Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Area G Subtotals

Capacity 818 216 913 137 90 423 154 2,751 88 60 1,121 252 64 136 379 62 62 370 320 236 3,150 1,143 600 1,743 829 1,062 106 364 54 760 90 450 1,233 730 48 745 1,505 920 1,132 320 361 375 1,600 287 12,971 85 179 2,321 150 500 324 2,776 6,335 1,638 275 67 177 87 34 32 120 183 20 2,633

Observed Occupancy 50% 60% 40% 3% 25% 30% 90%

Potential Available Spaces 409 86 548 133 68 296 15 1,555 57 60 504 50 13 68 265 62 62 333 320 189 1,984

B B B B B B B B B B B B

1 1 2 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 13 15

B B B B B B B B B B B B

1.1 1.2 2.1 5.1 6.1 8.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 13.2 15.1

35% 0% 55% 80% 80% 50% 30% 0% 0% 10% 0% 20%

C1 C1

C 1.1 C 1.2

40% 15% 95% 55% 40% 65% 40% 60% Not surveyed 95% 75% 75% 70% 75% 75% 85% 40% 40% 50% 60% 60% 30% 41 478 64 127 32 304 23 308 183 14 186 376 138 679 192 181 150 640 201 4,318 2 107 580 450 211 1,666 3,016 1,310 275 67 44 65 26 32 120 183 2 2,124

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

1 2 3 12 13 14 14 16 18 19 19 21 22 24 25 28 29 31 32 33

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

1.1 2.1 3.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 14.2 16.1 18.1 19.1 19.2 21.1 22.1 24.1 25.1 28.1 29.1 31.1 32.1 33.1

E E E E E E E

3 5 7 10 11 13 15

E E E E E E E

3.1 5.1 7.1 10.1 11.1 13.1 15.1

98% 40% 75% Not surveyed 10% 35% 40%

G G G G G G G G G G

1 3 7 11 19 19 19 20 21 28

G G G G G G G G G G

1.1 3.1 7.1 11.1 19.1 19.2 19.3 20.1 21.1 28.1

20% 0% 0% 75% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 90%

STUDY AREA TOTALS

28,440

12,996

(1)

Notes: (1) Existing Arch Garage and Cathedral Lot Not Included

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

11

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-anddisplay, 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 criteria 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 facility was also rated. Each facility 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 as poor.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

12

Table 2 – Parking Facility Operating Methodologies and General Conditions
Facility Block Number A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B B B B B 3 5 7 13 20 20 21 1 1 2 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 13 15 A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B B B B B 3.1 5.1 7.1 13.1 20.1 20.2 21.1 1.1 1.2 2.1 5.1 6.1 8.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 13.2 15.1 Operating Methodology Exit Lane Cashier Attendant Exit Lane Cashier Attendant Pay By Space Exit Lane Cashier Pay By Space Pay By Space Pay By Space Attendant Attendant Attendant Exit Lane Cashier Attendant None Visible None Visible Attendant Attendant Pay On Entry Exit Lane Cashier Pay On Entry Exit Lane Cashier Exit Lane Cashier Pay By Space Exit Lane Cashier Attendant Exit Lane Cashier Valet Exit Lane Cashier Exit Lane Automated Exit Lane Automated Pay By Space Exit Lane Cashier Exit Lane Cashier Pay On Foot Exit Lane Automated Pay On Foot Exit Lane Cashier Exit Lane Cashier Exit Lane Cashier Valet Pay By Space Exit Lane Cashier Exit Lane Cashier & Automated Exit Lane Cashier Pay By Space Pay By Space Exit Lane Cashier & Automated Pay And Display Event Event Pay By Space Pay By Space Pay By Space Event Pay By Space Event Pay By Space Subjective General Conditions Fair Good Fair Very Good Fair Good Fair Poor Poor Good Good Good Fair Very Good Fair Fair Good Poor Fair Very Good Poor Very Good Excellent Good Very Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Very Good Good Good Very Good Excellent Very Good Very Good Good Excellent Good Good Fair Good Good Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Good Good Fair Good Subjective Security / Safety Perception Good Good Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Very Good Good Good Fair Excellent Fair Fair Very Good Poor Fair Very Good Fair Very Good Excellent Very Good Very Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Very Good Good Good Very Good Excellent Very Good Good Good Excellent Very Good Good Fair Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Poor Fair

Description C9 Garage Surface Lot America's Garage Surface Lot Surface Lot MAC Garage MAC Surface Lot Surface Lot - Lumiere Surface Lot Lumiere Place Garage Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot - Lumiere Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot - Lumiere Surface Lot Riverfront Garage Arch Garage Levee Parking SLCCH Garage 9th Street Garage Surface Lot US Bank Plaza Garage 705 Surface Lot 7th & Pine Garage Laclede Gas Building - Valet Peabody Plaza Garage Kiener Plaza West Macy's Garage Surface Lot St. Louis Center East Center Park Garage Metropolitan Square Kiener Plaza East St. Louis Place Quick Park Garage 500 Broadway Garage Mansion House Garage Hyatt Garage Surface Lot Surface Lot - Westin Hotel Stadium West Garage Hilton Hotel Surface Lot Surface Lot Stadium East Garage Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot

C1 C1 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D E E E E E E E G G G G G G G G G G 1 2 3 12 13 14 14 16 18 19 19 21 22 24 25 28 29 31 32 33 3 5 7 10 11 13 15 1 3 7 11 19 19 19 20 21 28

C 1.1 C 1.2 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D E E E E E E E G G G G G G G G G G 1.1 2.1 3.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 14.2 16.1 18.1 19.1 19.2 21.1 22.1 24.1 25.1 28.1 29.1 31.1 32.1 33.1 3.1 5.1 7.1 10.1 11.1 13.1 15.1 1.1 3.1 7.1 11.1 19.1 19.2 19.3 20.1 21.1 28.1

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

13

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.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 
Table 3 – Current Posted Parking Rates in the Study Area
Rates Block A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B B B B B 3 5 7 13 20 20 21 1 1 2 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 13 15 Facility Number A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B B B B B 3.1 5.1 7.1 13.1 20.1 20.2 21.1 1.1 1.2 2.1 5.1 6.1 8.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 13.2 15.1 Description C9 Garage Surface Lot America's Garage Surface Lot Surface Lot MAC Garage MAC Surface Lot Surface Lot - Lumiere Surface Lot Lumiere Place Garage Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot - Lumiere Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot - Lumiere Surface Lot Riverfront Garage Arch Garage Levee Parking SLCCH Garage 9th Street Garage Surface Lot US Bank Plaza Garage 705 Surface Lot 7th & Pine Garage Laclede Gas Building - Valet Peabody Plaza Garage Kiener Plaza West Macy's Garage Surface Lot St. Louis Center East Center Park Garage Metropolitan Square Kiener Plaza East St. Louis Place Quick Park Garage 500 Broadway Garage Mansion House Garage Hyatt Garage Surface Lot Surface Lot - Westin Hotel Stadium West Garage Hilton Hotel Surface Lot Surface Lot Stadium East Garage Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Surface Lot Averages na = not available Daily 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 $3.00 $4.00 $1.00 $5.00 $5.00 $3.00 $5.00 $2.00 Not Posted $0.00 $5.00 $5.00 $1.00 $0.00 Not Posted Not Posted $0.00 Not Posted $5.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $4.00 $4.50 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $2.00 $3.00 $2.00 $13.00 $3.00 $5.00 $3.00 $13.00 $5.00 $2.50 $3.00 $2.00 Events Only Events Only $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 Not Posted $1.00 Events Only $2.00 $3.16 $5.00 $4.00 $2.00 $5.00 $5.00 $4.00 $5.00 $2.00 $0.00 $5.00 $5.00 $2.00 $0.00 $7.00 $4.00 $3.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $2.00 $0.00 $5.00 $5.00 $3.00 $0.00 $9.00 $4.00 $4.00 $5.00 $5.00 $6.00 $5.00 $2.00 $0.00 $5.00 $5.00 $4.00 $0.00 $10.00 $4.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $7.00 $5.00 $2.00 $0.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $0.00 $10.00 $4.00 $6.00 $5.00 $5.00 $8.00 $5.00 $2.00 $0.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $0.00 $10.00 $4.00 $7.00 $5.00 $5.00 $9.00 $5.00 $2.00 $0.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $0.00 $10.00 $4.00 $8.00 $5.00 $5.00 $9.00 $5.00 $2.00 $0.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $0.00 $10.00 $4.00 $8.00 $5.00 $5.00 $9.00 $5.00 $2.00 $0.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $0.00 $10.00 $4.00 $8.00 $5.00 $5.00 $9.00 $5.00 $2.00 $0.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $0.00

14

Early Bird $3.00 na $5.00 na na $4.50 na na $0.00 na na na na

$0.00 $5.00 $6.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $6.00 $6.00 $8.00 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $2.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $3.00 $5.00 $4.00 $13.00 $3.00 $6.00 $6.00 $13.00 $5.00 $2.50 $6.00 $2.00

$0.00 $5.00 $6.00 $4.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $9.00 $9.00 $12.00 $8.00 $9.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $3.00 $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 $4.00 $7.00 $6.00 $17.00 $3.00 $7.00 $9.00 $13.00 $5.00 $2.50 $9.00 $2.00

$0.00 $5.00 $6.00 $4.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $12.00 $12.00 $16.00 $12.00 $12.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $4.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $5.00 $9.00 $8.00 $17.00 $3.00 $8.00 $12.00 $13.00 $5.00 $2.50 $12.00 $2.00

$0.00 $5.00 $6.00 $4.00 $10.00 $10.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $12.00 $16.00 $15.00 $15.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $5.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $6.00 $11.00 $8.00 $21.00 $3.00 $9.00 $15.00 $17.00 $5.00 $2.50 $15.00 $2.00

$0.00 $5.00 $6.00 $4.00 $10.00 $12.00 $8.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $16.00 $15.00 $18.00 $10.00 $12.00 $12.00 $6.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $7.00 $12.00 $8.00 $21.00 $3.00 $10.00 $18.00 $17.00 $5.00 $2.50 $18.00 $2.00

$0.00 $5.00 $6.00 $4.00 $10.00 $14.00 $8.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $16.00 $20.00 $18.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $7.00 $21.00 $18.00 $18.00 $8.00 $12.00 $8.00 $26.00 $3.00 $11.00 $18.00 $17.00 $5.00 $2.50 $18.00 $2.00

$0.00 $5.00 $6.00 $4.00 $10.00 $16.00 $8.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $16.00 $20.00 $18.00 $10.00 $12.00 $16.00 $8.00 $24.00 $18.00 $18.00 $9.00 $12.00 $8.00 $26.00 $3.00 $12.00 $18.00 $17.00 $5.00 $2.50 $18.00 $2.00

$0.00 $5.00 $6.00 $4.00 $10.00 $16.00 $8.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $16.00 $20.00 $18.00 $10.00 $12.00 $16.00 $9.00 $27.00 $18.00 $18.00 $10.00 $12.00 $8.00 $26.00 $3.00 $13.00 $18.00 $17.00 $5.00 $2.50 $18.00 $2.00

$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $4.00 $10.00 $16.00 $8.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $16.00 $20.00 $18.00 $10.00 $12.00 $16.00 $12.00 $30.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $12.00 $8.00 $26.00 $3.00 $19.00 $18.00 $17.00 $5.00 $2.50 $18.00 $2.00

na $3.00 $4.00 na $6.00 na na na na na na na $6.00 $5.00 $7.00 $6.00 $5.00 na $6.00 na $6.00 $4.00 $5.00 na na na $5.00 na na na $5.00 na

C1 C1 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D E E E E E E E G G G G G G G G G G 1 2 3 12 13 14 14 16 18 19 19 21 22 24 25 28 29 31 32 33 3 5 7 10 11 13 15 1 3 7 11 19 19 19 20 21 28

C 1.1 C 1.2 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D E E E E E E E G G G G G G G G G G 1.1 2.1 3.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 14.2 16.1 18.1 19.1 19.2 21.1 22.1 24.1 25.1 28.1 29.1 31.1 32.1 33.1 3.1 5.1 7.1 10.1 11.1 13.1 15.1 1.1 3.1 7.1 11.1 19.1 19.2 19.3 20.1 21.1 28.1

$1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $4.31

$1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $5.47

$1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $6.63

$1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $7.63

$1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $8.27

$1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $8.71

$1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $8.93

$1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $9.05

$1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $9.53

na na na na na $4.75

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

15

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 clearly too far from the JNEM for day-to-day visitor parking. Figure 9 shows three existing parking structures with the potential of providing parking for JNEM 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

Kiener Plaza East Garage

Center Park Garage

Stadium East Garage

West Entry to JNEM

North Entry to JNEM

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  Based on the snapshot survey of existing conditions, two of the largest facilities, the Kiener East and the Stadium East Garages, have underutilized spaces that could be used by JNEM 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 JNEM is about two blocks. Presumably a cooperative agreement could be negotiated to rely on these garages for JNEM visitor parking. However, both garages also provide parking for Cardinal’s games. Most Cardinal games are played during evening hours (after 6:00 p.m.). Based on the current Cardinal’s 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 baseball parking (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 JNEM visitor parking for the following reasons:  Stadium East has a larger “flat” floor plate. People feel more secure with a large flat 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 circular 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 the structure away from the JNEM. The existing stairs on the east side of Kiener East are not suitable for a large volume of visitors headed for the JNEM. New stairs and elevators in the east end of the structure would be needed to provide a better JNEM visitor experience; however, new stairs and elevators are not necessarily required. Constructing a new stair and elevator tower could be costly. Easier access via either Walnut Street or Market Street and Broadway Avenue after the construction of the lid park.

16

A satellite JNEM visitor’s center would be recommended for private parking facilities that provide significant amounts of parking for JNEM visitors. The visitor’s center would provide maps, directions, and the perhaps the ability to purchase tickets to the Arch. The JNEM visitor experience would begin and end at the parking garage, so the experience should be as pleasant as possible. Some modifications to the structures would likely be necessary to accommodate the satellite visitor’s centers. A cosmetic refurbishment program including painting/staining ceilings, enhanced signage, general cleaning, possible lighting upgrades, façade improvements, etc. would also enhance the visitor’s experience.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  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 existing travel distance to the Arch. While there are other nearby facilities that could provide JNEM parking, we did not identify any other existing parking structures in close proximity to the JNEM that would be as well suited for designated JNEM 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 walking distance of the JNEM that could be expanded to provide additional parking. Preliminary options for new parking structures near the JNEM are provided in Section 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 projects 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

17

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 onsite 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 projects will significantly impact available parking supplies closer to the new western entrance to the JNEM (e.g., Stadium East and Kiener East). Only three of these projects are occurring south of Pine Street:  The recently completed Citygarden project (801 Market Street) consists of 145,000 square feet of open recreational space. As the primary destination of most visitors to Citygarden will be elsewhere and many people will walk to the park, it is unlikely

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  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 approximately 180,000 square feet of new commercial space with no new parking. Assuming a conservative 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 East Parking 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 selfcontained.

17

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 facilities and are located within a reasonable distance from the JNEM. Section 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.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 
Figure 10 – Potential Locations for New Parking Facilities

18

Automobile Parking Bus/RV Parking

1.8 Conceptual Financial Performance for a Future Parking Facility The cost of developing a new parking structure for the JNEM (either a new structure solely for JNEM or a joint use facility) 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 elements, the incorporation of other land uses, financing costs, etc. Section 3 of this project will include a financial assessment for a recommended new parking facility solution. However, a conceptual cost estimate for a future parking structure was

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  included in Phase 1 of the project to help assess priorities for addressing future parking needs. The costs to develop a new parking facility 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 Walker’s parking facility construction cost database, the following development costs are estimated for a replacement JNEM parking facility (assuming the full replacement of the APG with an aboveground parking facility):      Estimated Construction Costs: Estimated Development Costs: Estimated Financing Costs: Total Project Costs: Estimated Annual Debt Service: $17,500 per space (St. Louis market average – above grade) $2,100 per space (12% of construction costs) $3,838 per space (fees, reserves, and interest during construction) $23,438 per space ($26,789,250 total cost) $1,549,225 (4.0% for 30 years), $1,355 per space

19

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 provide basic 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 maintenance costs for the theoretical garage could be as much as $1,040 per space annually, or $1,188,720 per year. In order for the new parking structure to breakeven, the facility would need to generate approximately $2,395 per space, per year ($199.60 per space, per month). As the existing APG parking facility has generated an average of only $1,562 per space annually over

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  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 respect to rates, it does appear that current APG transient and monthly parking rates are somewhat below market – so, there may be room to increase parking fees. As a significant amount of underutilized parking appears to exist in the study area, and the day-to-day utilization of the JNEM 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 the expense estimates previously provided:      Estimated Total Project Costs: Estimated Annual Debt Service: Estimated Annual Operating Costs: Estimated Annual Revenues: Estimated Annual Net Income: $23,438 per space ($16,406,600 total cost) $948,782 (4.0% for 30 years) $728,000 ($1,040 per space) $1,093,400 ($1,562 per space) -$583,382 (-$833 per space)

20

Note: Facility revenues and expenses would likely be different in a smaller facility. However, insufficient data 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. Section 3 of this report provides a more precise estimation of future parking facility 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 of underutilized parking in the study area. Parking availability in two large parking facilities near the new western entrance to the JNEM could provide as many as 2,345 spaces. However, space availability will depend on special event needs and the cooperation of adjacent parking facility owners and operators. In order to maximize the efficiency of available parking supplies, there will need to be increased coordination and cooperation between the various parking facility owners/operators and major venues/developments. This could include the

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  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 and structures could result in various visitor parking challenges such as utilization difficulties, negative customer experiences, and safety/security concerns. Work will be needed to help improve nearby parking facilities that will be designated for JNEM visitor parking. This could include improved lighting, security patrols, directional 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 new western entrance design appears to provide a significant amount of space for bus and 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 JNEM. New RV/bus parking facilities should provide a sense of security by incorporating appropriate lighting, “Crime 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, water fountains, benches, vending machines, and visitor information kiosks. The best possible parking experience should be provided to JNEM visitors. This should 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 for JNEM visitors, the loss of the APG will result in challenges for current APG monthly parkers, Laclede’s Landing visitors/employees, and nearby special event venues (e.g., Edward Jones Dome). The APG currently provides parking for approximately 450 monthly parkers (Metro employees, NPS employees, Laclede’s Landing employees, etc.). Therefore, a new smaller parking structure in or near Laclede’s Landing could be needed if suitable existing parking is not available. Designated JNEM parking facilities (on-site and/or off-site) should be appropriately communicated to visitors including (but not limited to) locations, hours of operation, operating methodologies, rates, methods of payment, real-time occupancy information (if possible), contact information, pedestrian routes, safety/security information, general visitor information, and adequate signage. Adequate parking should be available near the new western JNEM entrance and the northern JNEM entrance. This will provide people with a choice of parking options depending on the direction they enter the area from and other

21

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  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 JNEM.  Future parking demand strategies should include appropriate transportation demand 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 could make finding parking difficult for visitors. Future parking alternatives must take into account 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. The facility currently generates a positive operating income (approximately $707,000 in 2011) 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 facility may not be able to generate that level of net income without significantly decreasing expenses, increasing rates, and/or increasing facility utilization.

22

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

23

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 JNEM visitors and result in the need to relocate approximately 450 monthly parkers (JNEM employees, Metro employees, and other monthly customers). Four primary alternatives are typically available to help address a destination’s parking demands: 1. The JNEM could decide to improve the utilization of existing nearby parking supplies. This would include working with parking facility owners near the JNEM to better utilize existing private parking supplies. 2. The JNEM could construct a new parking facility (or multiple parking facilities) to provide 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 the implementation 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 JNEM would attempt to better utilize available parking supplies in the area surrounding the Arch. This would mitigate the need to construct additional parking. As sufficient parking is available in some parking facilities near the JNEM (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 JNEM parking responsibilities (e.g., operations, maintenance, and financing). The improved utilization of existing parking spaces is substantially less costly than creating new 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 guaranteed even during daytime St. Louis Cardinals games. The owner/operator of these garages stated that the Stadium East Garage rarely exceeds 50% occupancy, even during baseball games. While the available public parking located on the west side of the Arch could support visitor and employee parking demands, monthly customers that work in Laclede’s Landing or other developments on the north side of the Arch would likely feel that the

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  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 Laclede’s Landing). While nearly all of the facilities 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 JNEM 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 meet all 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 JNEM. 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 JNEM 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 older facilities. 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 JNEM 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 costs in the market could be between $450 and $900 (based on available information for the market). Another potential challenge to building new parking is that the anticipated parking demands for Arch customers may not be sufficient to warrant new structured parking supplies if other parking resources could be better utilized. This assumes the JNEM or NPS works with private parking owners to improve the overall utilization of nearby facilities. As

24

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  the redesign of the Arch grounds will focus 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 construction of 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 in Figure 10 (page 18) were eliminated from further consideration.
Figure 11 – Recommended Locations for Future Parking Structures

25

Op. 2

Op. 1 & 1.A Op. 3

Preliminary facility concepts and massing diagrams are provided in Appendix A of this report.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

26

Options 1 and 1.A are located on the southeast corner of 3rd Street and Morgan Street in Laclede’s Landing. This property is currently a surface parking lot providing monthly and transient parking for Laclede’s Landing and other nearby properties. These options are designed 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 surface parking lost. This preliminary concept is intended to show only the construction cost impact to the JNEM, NPS, or other designated agency for necessary parking. 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 is available 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.
Description 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Base Parking Structure Base Cost Premium: Retaining Wall Premium: Retail/Office Shell Construction Cost Subtotal Estimating Contingency Construction Total Parking Structure Area No. Cars Efficiency, SF/Car Cost / SF Cost / Car 226,000 710 318 w/o cont $53.97 $17,180 w/ cont $56.64 $18,028 5% Unit Quantity Unit Cost Cost

SF SF SF

226,000 3,600 500

$53.00 $50.00 $80

$11,978,000 $180,000 $40,000 $12,198,000 $600,000 $12,800,000

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

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  Positive aspects of this option include: o Parking capacity of 700+ spaces can be achieved on this site without excessive building height. The design can fit within the context of the site. The location is ideal for a structure and can provide convenient parking less than one block away from the JNEM property. The site can provide a satellite welcome center for the JNEM. The elevator and stair core is conveniently located where pedestrians can exit the structure at grade and head south towards the JNEM. The design can provide horizontal architectural features on at least three exterior elevations. The eastern half of the site can be preserved for future Laclede’s Landing development(s). The majority of the parking stalls are on flat levels. This site can also help provide parking for other developments located west of Memorial Drive (e.g., buildings on Washington Avenue and the Edward Jones Stadium). The design provides a very high level of parking efficiency. This option provides the lowest estimated construction cost.

27

o

o

o o

o

o

o o

o o

Challenges to this site include: o Pedestrians that may want to exit the site from the southwest elevator/stair tower and head south towards the JNEM may have issues crossing the intersection at Memorial Drive, Laclede’s Landing Blvd and adjacent streets. This site is located a fair distance from the new western entry to the JNEM. Future development plans for this site could limit the amount of parking available for JNEM visitors and employees (and other current APG customers). According to the latest development concept provided by Drury Development Corporation, much of the anticipated parking supply is

o o

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  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 JNEM, parking structure heights could increase significantly. o Access to this site may be challenging in the future due to potential street/traffic changes.

28

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 and existing 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 heading south 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 Cost

Description 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Base Parking Structure Base Cost Premium: Retaining Wall Premium: Retail/Office Shell Construction Cost Subtotal Estimating Contingency Construction Total Parking Structure Area No. Cars Efficiency, SF/Car Cost / SF Cost / Car

Unit Quantity

Cost

SF SF SF

252,000 5,800 6,300

$53.00 $50.00 $80

$13,356,000 $290,000 $504,000 $14,150,000

5%

$700,000 $14,850,000 252,000 728 346 w/o cont $56.15 $19,437 w/ cont $58.93 $20,398

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

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  Positive aspects of this option include: o Parking capacity of 700+ spaces can be achieved on this site. The concept design fits within the context of the site. The site can provide a satellite welcome center. The elevator and stair core is conveniently located where pedestrians can exit the structure at grade and head south towards JNEM from two different entry/exit points. The design can provide horizontal architectural features on at least three exterior elevations. The site can accommodate some retail/lease space for Laclede’s Landing. The site can provide two means of vehicular ingress and egress from two different streets. This site can also help provide parking for other developments located west of Memorial Drive (e.g., buildings on Washington Avenue and the Edward Jones Stadium). This option has an overall lower height than any other alternative.

29

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

Challenges to this site include: o Pedestrians that may want to exit the site from the southwest elevator/stair tower and head south towards the JNEM may have some issues crossing the intersection at Memorial Drive, Laclede’s Landing Boulevard, and adjacent streets. The majority of the parking stalls are on sloped floors. Two vehicular ramping systems may be construed as confusing by some visitors. Retail/leased area impacts the overall parking efficiency. Future development plans for this site could limit the amount of parking available for JNEM visitors and employees (and other current APG

o o

o o

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  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 future developments and the JNEM, parking structure heights could increase significantly. o By using the whole site, this option could limit further development. While additional developments could occur above the parking structure, necessary structural support elements for buildings above the parking structure would negatively impact parking efficiencies. Some of the streets around Laclede’s Landing are not conducive to large amounts of traffic related to a parking structure. Street repairs will be necessary to ensure easy ingress and egress. This site is located a fair distance from the new western entry to the JNEM. Access to this site may be challenging in the future due to potential street/traffic changes.

30

o

o o

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 physically-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.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

31

Description 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Base Parking Structure Base Cost Premium: Retaining Wall Premium: Retail/Office Shell Construction Cost Subtotal Estimating Contingency Construction Total

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Cost

SF SF SF

187,000 0 500

$53.00 $50.00 $80

$9,911,000 $0 $40,000 $9,951,000

5%

$500,000 $10,450,000

Parking Structure Area No. Cars Efficiency, SF/Car

187,000 549 341 w/o cont $53.21 $18,126 w/ cont $55.88 $19,035

Cost / SF Cost / Car

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

Positive aspects of this option include: o o o o o The site can provide parking for the JNEM within two blocks of the park. The site can provide a satellite welcome center. Inbound vehicular traffic is from Washington Avenue, an easy to locate location. Parking efficiency is better than concept 1.A. This site can also help provide parking for other developments located west of Memorial Drive (e.g., buildings on Washington Avenue and the Edward Jones Stadium). The streets surrounding this site are in better condition than those in Laclede’s Landing.

o

Challenges to this site include: o o This structure is significantly taller than Options 1 and 1.A. A parking capacity of 700+ spaces is not achievable on the site without adding levels or increasing the garage footprint. If possible, the goal of 700+ spaces could

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  be reasonably achieved by incorporating the land immediately north of Lucas Avenue. o o A majority of the parking stalls are located on sloped floors. All ingress and egress traffic is from Washington Avenue, which can be a busier street than some of the other options. This site is further away from the JNEM than Options 1 and 1.A. It is not clear if the owner of this site intends to allow the construction of a parking structure on the property.

32

o o

The Option 3 concept looks at a garage site that is bordered by North 1st Street, Laclede’s 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 garage footprint 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.

Description 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Base Parking Structure Base Cost Premium: Retaining Wall Premium: Retail/Office Shell Construction Cost Subtotal Estimating Contingency Construction Total

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Cost

SF SF SF

242,000 1,900 500

$53.00 $50.00 $80

$12,826,000 $95,000 $40,000 $12,961,000

5%

$600,000 $13,560,000

Parking Structure Area No. Cars Efficiency, SF/Car

242,000 719 337 w/o cont $53.56 $18,026 w/ cont $56.03 $18,860

Cost / SF Cost / Car

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

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  Positive aspects of this option include: o Parking capacity of 700+ spaces can be achieved on this site. The site can provide parking within two blocks of the JNEM. The site can provide a satellite welcome center. This site can also provide parking for Laclede’s Landing employees and visitors. The site can provide two means of vehicular ingress and egress conditions from two different streets. Parking efficiency is better than concepts 1.A and 2.

33

o

o

o

o

o

Challenges to this site include: o Parking location may be perceived to be inconvenient by some JNEM visitors and employees. Wayfinding to direct patrons to this parking facility may be more difficult. The height to the parking structure may not fit the context of Laclede’s landing. The structure would need to be even taller to offset the loss of the existing surface parking lot. Some of the streets around Laclede’s Landing are not conducive to large amounts of traffic related to a parking structure. Street repairs will be necessary to ensure easy ingress and egress. It is not clear if the owner of this site intends to allow the construction of a parking structure on the property. This site is further away from the JNEM than Options 1 and 1.A.

o o

o

o

o

In addition to the four preliminary options developed for this project, Carl Walker also reviewed preliminary concepts for a future parking garage on the northwest corner of Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard and Lucas Street in Laclede’s Landing. This conceptual garage would provide approximately 952 spaces that could be used by Laclede’s Landing visitors and employees, as well as JNEM visitors and employees.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  Positive aspects of this site include the following: o The land is currently either vacant or used for parking. The current owner of the property is anticipating the use of the site for parking, not necessarily other development projects. The site would be capable of provide sufficient parking to displaced APG monthly parkers, as well as provide parking for JNEM visitors. The parking is also reasonably convenient. The site is well located for shared parking between the JNEM and Laclede’s Landing (as are Options 1 and 1.A.)

34

o

o

o

Challenges to this site include: o Due to the topography of the site, the majority of parking is located on sloped floors. In order to provide the number of parking spaces identified in the concept, the parking structure is ten levels high. This may not fit into the context of Laclede’s Landing. Due to the proximity of the site to the Mississippi River, it could be subject to periodic flooding (as the existing Riverfront Garage is today). According to information provided by Metro, flooding could occur approximately 20-40 days per year. The entry/exit point located on Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard would not be available during periods of flooding. The parking structure located further away from the JNEM than Options 1 or 1.A. After parking, visitors would be required to walk up hill to reach the Arch grounds, unlike Options 1 and 1.A. Property located directly on a riverfront is often used for other purposes instead of parking. For example, residential space is often desired on riverfronts to take advantage of available views and generate higher land values. A parking structure on this site would preclude higher land uses for 50 or more years.

o

o

o

o o

o

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  The Third Alternative involves encouraging the use of alternative 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.

35

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. This alternative would involve the JNEM 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 with future demands and should limit future parking expenses. Also, this approach will allow the JNEM to show the community that all options were explored prior to expending any funds for constructing parking facilities. The goal is to provide the “right” amount of parking; not too much and not too little. While it appears that there is a significant opportunity to improve the utilization of available parking supplies before adding any parking facilities, it is important to note that the JNEM may not be able to improve the utilization of some available private parking facilities. As stated previously, some private parking lot owners may not cooperate.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  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 directed to park on Leonor K. Sullivan (approximately 1,100 feet of on-street parallel parking between the Poplar 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 to provide 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 JNEM 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 project team 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 costs). 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 locations 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).

36

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 
Figure 12 – Potential Locations for Future Bus/RV Parking Lots

37

Op. 1

Op. 3

Op. 2

Option 1 would involve a redesign of an existing surface parking lot located on the southeast corner of Spruce Street and Broadway. 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, buses/RVs would travel north on 4th Street to the pick-up zone. Positive aspects of this bus/RV parking concept include the following: o The land is currently used for parking.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  The location provides a relatively easy route to/from the new western dropoff/pick-up point. The location provides a relatively short walking distance to/from the Arch grounds (compared to other northern alternatives). The functional design could be altered to provide more bus/RV parking if needed. The regular parking spaces could be used for oversized vehicle parking. This concept provides space for basic amenities, such as vending machines, restrooms, and/or visitor information. This location is close to the Stadium East Parking Garage (a possible parking facility for future JNEM visitors). The design of the lot would include a security fence around the perimeter of the facility. The costs to redesign an existing parking lot are likely much less than constructing a new lot.

38

o

o

o o o

o

o

o

Challenges to this site include: o As this site is an existing surface parking lot, the lot owner may not agree to redesign the lot to provide bus/RV parking. 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 JNEM, NPS, and/or Metro and the parking lot owner. The proximity of this lot to the baseball stadium could result in availability issues – depending on possible use agreements between JNEM, NPS, and/or Metro and the lot owner. Baseball parking revenue streams for this lot may make providing Arch bus/RV parking at a reasonable price difficult. Additional safety and security measures may be needed to provide a suitable location for parking.

o

o

o

o

The Option 2 concept involves a new surface parking lot located east of 1st Street, between Cerre Street and Cedar Street. This location could be configured to accommodate 69 buses/RVs (see the Cedar and S. 1st Street concept drawing in Appendix A). This concept provides a combination of one-way bus/RV traffic flow directions from 1st Street.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  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 and does not appear to be used for parking on a regular basis. The location provides a relatively easy route to/from the new western drop-off/pick-up point (although more circuitous than Option 1). The location provides a relatively short walking distance to/from the Arch grounds. However, the distance to the new western entry is longer than Option 1. The functional design could be adjusted to provide oversized vehicle parking if needed (e.g., vehicles too tall to fit in a parking garage). This concept provides space for basic amenities, such as vending machines, restrooms, and/or visitor information. The design of the lot would include a security fence around the perimeter of the facility. The costs to redesign an existing parking lot are likely much less than constructing a new lot. The location of this lot could mean lower parking fees than Option 1.

39

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

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

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  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 JNEM, NPS, and/or Metro and the parking lot owner. Additional safety and security measures may be needed to provide a suitable location for parking.

40

o

o

The Option 3 involves a new surface parking lot located underneath the Poplar Street Bridge (south of the JNEM). This location could be configured to accommodate approximately 73 buses/RVs (see the Poplar to Cerre 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 a regular basis (just construction staging). The location provides a relatively easy route to/from the new western dropoff/pick-up point (although more circuitous than Option 1). 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. The functional design could be adjusted to provide oversized vehicle parking if needed (e.g., vehicles too tall to fit in a parking garage). This concept provides space for basic amenities, such as vending machines, restrooms, and/or visitor information.

o

o

o

o

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  The design of the lot would include a security fence around the perimeter of the facility. The costs to redesign an existing parking lot are likely much less than constructing a new lot. The location of this lot could mean lower parking fees than Option 1. This location can provide at least some covered parking.

41

o

o

o o

Challenges to this site include: o The current owner of the site may not agree to the development of bus/RV parking on the site. Due to the structural supports for the Poplar Street Bridge and adjacent ramps, this site 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. Additional safety and security measures may be needed to provide a suitable location for parking.

o

o

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 dropoff/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. JNEM 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 a new parking structure, the JNEM should first investigate opportunities to utilize existing parking spaces in the study area for Arch visitor parking. Specifically, this would involve using existing parking in the Stadium East and Kiener East Parking Garages. This would provide the following benefits: o Improving the utilization of existing parking spaces would reduce or eliminate the need for the construction of visitor parking spaces. Given the

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  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 to the new western entrance of the JNEM. These facilities provide close parking to the new museum, the Old Courthouse, the future Ballpark Village, and other downtown buildings. Encouraging parking west of the JNEM would encourage more people to visit other downtown venues/attractions and restaurants. 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 direction 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 directly 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. Access to the Kiener East Garage is somewhat more circuitous, but still relatively 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).

42

o

o

o

In addition to investigating opportunities to use underutilized parking spaces on the west side of the JNEM for visitor parking, it is also recommended to investigate opportunities to relocate current APG monthly parking customers to other existing facilities on the north side of the JNEM. 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 blocks of Laclede’s Landing). While the distances between the parking facilities and the JNEM and/or Laclede’s Landing would be greater, they would still be within generally accepted walking tolerances for a downtown environment. The use of private parking facilities will likely require detailed use agreements between the JNEM, the NPS, or another agency and the facility owner(s). This agreement would establish the following parking allocation and operational details (including, but not limited to):

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

43

o

Define the number of parking spaces allocated to JNEM visitors and/or monthly parking customers. Determine parking fees and validation options, as well as periodic fee increases. Describe parking facility maintenance requirements (day-to-day and capital maintenance). Define customer service expectations. Explain parking revenue and expense allocations (if any). Provide remedies if agreement requirements are not met.

o

o

o o o 

Both the Stadium East and Kiener East Parking Garages were built in the 1960’s. 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 facility (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 facilities are able to support continued JNEM 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, several facility upgrades for the Stadium East and Kiener East Parking Garages may be needed. This would include (but would not be limited to): locating a JNEM 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 “preferred” Arch parking); upgraded stair tower and elevator lobby finishes; enhanced security; and possibly exterior façade improvements. The costs for these improvements may be paid for by the facility owner (assuming increased revenues due to increased facility utilization), funded by the JNEM (or another agency), or some combination of the two.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)   While parking will be provided off-site in private parking facilities and day-to-day parking operations for the JNEM, 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 respect to bus and RV parking, it is recommended to consider all of the options simultaneously in order to determine which lot owner shows interest and can provide the best accommodations for the JNEM (both functionally and financially). The bus/RV alternatives are provided in a recommended order of priority (Option 1, Option 2, and then Option 3). This is due primarily to location, vehicle routing, and usability concerns. However, Option 1 may be the most difficult location in which to secure a suitable use agreement. For bus/RV parking Options 2 and 3, it is recommended that the southern entrance to the Arch grounds be improved to create a more substantial entry point (e.g., improved signage, landscaping, etc.). In addition, the pedestrian paths from the Option 2 and Option 3 sites to the Arch grounds would need to be improved to provide a safe path. This could include improved lighting, a better designated pathway, signage, landscaping, and increased security. The recommended bus/RV locations would likely require a fee for parking. This is typical of downtown parking facilities and should not necessarily remove any option from consideration – assuming the parking fee is consistent with market rates. The revenues generated would likely go toward necessary lot improvements, functional design changes, increased operating costs (e.g., increase security), etc. The existing free bus/RV parking on Leonor K. Sullivan could be used until future improvements on the street are realized. If a new parking structure is warranted, New Structure Option 1 is the recommended first choice. This location provides the best location for parking to support all nearby destinations – thereby providing the best shared use and potentially the best revenue potential. This site is well-located for Arch-related parking, Laclede’s Landing, and possibly destinations on the east portion of Washington Avenue. In addition, this location could also provide the lowest construction costs. In order to accommodate new parking spaces for APG monthly customers and a portion of JNEM visitors, up to 700 parking spaces could be needed (up to 450 spaces for monthly customers and 250 for JNEM visitors or visitors to other nearby

44

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  destinations that currently use the APG). The potential impact on visitor parking due to the new programming space that will replace the APG is not currently known. Potential attendance level changes, special event sizes, or special event frequencies were not available for this report. It is possible that parking demands on the north side of the Arch grounds could be greater than current levels (especially during summer months).  As stated previously, the final development of the Option 1 new structure site will depend heavily on the plans of Drury Development. The current Drury development plan for the site includes two parking structures and 1,100 parking spaces. As many of the parking spaces are preliminarily allocated elsewhere, there may only be approximately 350 spaces available for former APG customer and JNEM parking. This would mean that up to 350 additional spaces would be needed. This could be accomplished by either increasing the size of one or both of the garages or by relocating some parkers to other adjacent parking locations with underutilized parking supplies. In order to develop a new parking structure, it is recommended that the JNEM consider paying for the construction, development, and financing costs for only the portion of the structure used by JNEM visitors and former APG customers. For example, if 1,450 spaces could be constructed on the Option 1 site (the spaces noted in the latest Drury development plan, plus 350 spaces for additional JNEM parkers), JNEM (or another agency) would provide funding for 700 spaces and the private developer would fund 750 spaces. An agreement could be developed that would appropriately allocate on-going parking facility revenues, expenses, and debt services between the two parties. The success of any parking management strategies will depend on clearly communicating and marketing parking options to JNEM visitors and monthly parking customers. Parking information (including locations, rates, hours of operation, payment methods, etc.) should be readily available via printed materials, the JNEM website, other downtown business/association websites, and over the phone. In the future, additional parking information could be provided, such as real-time occupancy information provided over the Internet and/or on variable message signs located on primary traffic routes.

45

2.3 Preliminary Wayfinding for Recommended Parking Easily finding available parking will be important to all JNEM visitors. The recommended JNEM parking locations should provide reasonably easy access to available supplies, as well as relatively short walking distances to the new western entrance and/or the Arch grounds. The following figures (Figures 13 through 17) illustrate possible routes to each recommended parking location. Signage would be placed at all major decision points (e.g., freeway off-ramps, intersections where turning movements are required, and at final destination points). DRAFT NOTE: Recommended signage placements will be provided once alternatives are confirmed.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 
Figure 13 – Possible Vehicle Routes to Stadium East Parking Garage

46

X Stadium East Garage

Possible Routes to Stadium East Parking Garage 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 direction 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 directly 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. This assumes proposed street changes are approved.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 
Figure 14 – Possible Vehicle Routes to Kiener East Parking Garage

47

Kiener East Garage

X

Possible Routes to Kiener East Parking Garage 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). This assumes proposed street changes are approved.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 
Figure 15 – Possible Vehicle Routes to New Parking Structure (Option 1)

48

New Parking Structure (Option 1)

X

Possible Routes to New Parking Structure (Option 1) 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 Washington Avenue. At Washington Avenue they would turn right onto 3rd Street. Visitors traveling south on I-70 could use Broadway to Washington Avenue. People traveling from the west could use Washington Avenue to 3rd Street. Visitors from the east could use Poplar Street Bridge to Memorial Drive (then Walnut Street to 4th Street, and 4th Street to Washington Avenue) or the Eads Bridge to 3rd Street. Another access option from I-70 (northbound) would be the new Washington Avenue exit. This assumes proposed street changes are approved.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 
Figure 16 – Possible Vehicle Routes to New Bus/RV Parking (Option 1)

49

Bus/RV Parking Lot (Option 1)

X

Possible Routes to Bus/RV Parking Lot (Option 1) After dropping off passengers at the new western drop-off zone, buses and RVs could travel north to Pine Street (on Memorial Drive) and then south on Broadway to the parking lot. When leaving, buses/RVs would travel north on 4th Street to the pick-up zone. Some buses and RV could go directly to the lot (as shown in Figure 16).

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 
Figure 17 – Possible Vehicle Routes to New Bus/RV Parking (Option 2)

50

Bus/RV Parking Lot (Option 2)

X

Possible Routes to Bus/RV Parking Lot (Option 2) 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.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 
Figure 18 – Possible Vehicle Routes to New Bus/RV Parking (Option 3)

51

X X

Bus/RV Parking Lot (Option 3)

Possible Routes to Bus/RV Parking Lot (Option 3) 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.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

52

PHASE 3 – PARKING-RELATED FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT
This section of the report provides a preliminary estimate of possible revenues and expenses for a new parking structure (Option 1), a financial projection of the continued operation of the APG, and a comparison of the two. As stated previously, this initial assessment of Option 1 was completed prior to receiving updated development information for the site from Drury Development. However, the assessment does provide a preliminary estimate of potential revenues and expenses for the JNEM portion of the parking. Carl Walker cannot guarantee that the financial projections developed for this report will be realized, as actual financial performance will be determined by many factors including: the final land uses included in the proposed parking development, JNEM attendance levels, special events, price and demand fluctuations in the market, development timetables and occupancies, utilization of validations for reduced fee or complimentary parking programs, managerial decisions made by the project developer, and other decisions made by municipal, county, state, and federal government officials. 3.0 Estimated Debt Service for the Option 1 Parking Structure As stated in Section 2, the estimated construction cost for the Option 1 parking structure is $12,800,000 ($18,028 per space). In order to estimate the debt service for the structure, additional expenses for soft costs must be added. Soft costs can include development costs (e.g., design services, surveys, soil testing, inspections, and legal services) and financing costs (e.g., issue fees, other fees, and debt service reserves). Additional development costs are estimated at 12% of construction costs. Financing costs are estimated 4% of project costs for fees, 10% of project costs for reserves, and net interest during construction. The following outlines estimated costs for the Option 1 parking structure and estimated debt service (assuming a 5.0% interest rate for 30 years):

Option 1 - Drury Lot (North Portion of Lot Only) Number of Spaces: Construction Cost: Development Cost: Financing Costs: Total Project Costs: Debt Service Calculation Principal: Interest Rate: Term (Years): Annual Debt Service: 710 $12,800,000 $1,536,000 $2,956,301 $17,292,301 ($18,028 per space) ($2,163 per space) ($4,164 per space) ($24,355 per space)

$ 17,292,301 5.0% 30 $ 1,124,889

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

53

The estimated annual debt service for the Option 1 parking structure is $1,124,889. The Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) required for the new parking structure will depend on the financing secured and the credit worthiness of the agency obtaining the financing. For parking structures, a DSCR of 1.35 to 1.5 is common as parking is often viewed as a more risky investment than other types of development. Assuming a DSCR requirement of 1.5, the facility would need to generate a net operating income of at least $1.69 million (or approximately $2,380 per space). The debt service estimate does not include land costs, which may or may not be applicable. 3.1 Estimated Operating Expenses for the Option 1 Parking Structure Based on input from Metro, it is anticipated that any new parking would be operated in a similar fashion to the APG. This would include a pay-on-exit methodology with cashiers stationed in exit lanes and prepay parking for large special events (Metro might also explore the possibility of pay on entry at all times in the future). Parking facility operations would also include enhanced security during business hours and after hours (e.g., regular security patrols). The use of automated pay equipment (either pay-in-lane or pay-on-foot) is becoming more common in the parking industry. This operating methodology can help lower operating expenses and increase exit lane throughput capacities. Most of the parking structures in St. Louis still use the exit lane cashier methodology, but some do provide automated payment technologies. It is recommended that an automated operating methodology be considered in the design of any new parking (or at least the capacity to convert to automated payment technologies). However, an exit lane cashiering methodology is used to estimate parking structure operating expenses for Option 1 in this report. The parking spaces provided by the Option 1 parking structure will most likely be in one or more shared parking facilities (based on recent development information provided by Drury Development). Consequently, it may be impractical to determine overall costs and then calculate appropriate allocations without knowing exactly what those allocations are and the level of service provided to each allocation. Therefore, based on operating expenses for parking structures throughout North America, Carl Walker has developed preliminary expense projections for similarly situated cashiered parking facilities that will be used to estimate probable operating costs. Typical operating costs for a parking facility like the Option 1 garage, using an operating methodology similar to the APG, are as follows:

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

54

Typical Annual Expenses per Space (710 spaces) Liability Insurance Utilities Elevator Maintenance Equipment Maintenance General Maintenance Parking Supplies Legal & Accounting Loss & Damage Maintenance Supplies Snow Removal Miscellaneous Sweeping Office Supplies Postage Security Staffing (Cashiers, Supervisors, Porters, Office, Management) Structural Repair Reserve Fund Estimated Annual O & M Costs and Reserve Fund Cost per Space

Per Space $ 15.00 $ 75.00 $ 12.00 $ 4.00 $ 10.00 $ 15.00 $ 7.00 $ 8.00 $ 6.00 $ 8.00 $ 7.00 $ 9.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 125.00 $ 450.00 $ 75.00

Annual Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 10,700 53,300 8,500 2,800 7,100 10,700 5,000 5,700 4,300 5,700 5,000 6,400 1,400 1,400 88,800 319,500 53,300 589,600 830.42

Estimated operating costs are $536,300 ($755.35 per space) and total facility expenses are $589,600 (inclusive of a $75.00 per space, per year repair reserve). The projected facility expenses for the Option 1 facility are approximately 14% higher than typical parking facilities reviewed by Carl Walker. The expense projections do not include property taxes or management fees. The estimated annual parking operating costs of $755.35 per space is approximately $185 less per space than current APG operating expenses. This is due primarily to reduced security costs, assuming security is outsourced to a private security firm. If an automated methodology was used to operate the parking facility (excluding event days when prepay operations are needed), annual operating costs would be estimated at approximately $425 per space. Actual parking facility expenses will depend on numerous variables such as prevailing market wages, level of service provided, final operating methodologies, etc. 3.2 Estimated Parking Revenues for the Option 1 Parking Structure In 2011, the APG generated a total income of $1,781,967 (or $1,560 per space). The two largest revenue categories were “Daily Revenue” ($1,471,250) and “Monthly Revenue” ($216,315). The remaining portion of annual revenue was generated by “Passenger Revenue” (internal sales to Metro departments), “Service Fee Revenue” (Internet sales), and “Other Operating Income” – a total of $94,402 or 5.3% of overall income. The

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  financial information provided by Metro did not provide further detail concerning “Daily Revenue” such as daily transient versus special event revenues. Assuming the 710 parking spaces in Option 1 are first used to address lost APG monthly parking spaces, approximately 405 spaces would be allocated to monthly customers (assuming a 10% no-show reduction based on 450 permits). The remaining 305 spaces would be available for transient parking (e.g., Arch visitors and visitors to other nearby destinations). As the primary entrance to the Arch grounds will shift to the west in the future, providing only a small number of transient parking spaces on the north side should be sufficient on all but the busiest event days (sufficient for 85% of the year – or approximately 310 days per year). Projections for Arch ground attendance changes and/or increased special event loads due to the new programming space are not yet available for inclusion in parking demand or parking revenue estimates. Of the 450 monthly customers currently parking in the APG, approximately 180 are JNEM and Metro employees that are provided at a reduced rate ($40 per month). The remaining monthly parking spaces could be provided at rates closer to market. Parking rates for transient parkers should initially maintain similar rates to the current APG rates for parking durations of 4 hours or less ($6.00). However, it is recommended to increase parking rates for durations over 4 hours to better match market rates. The following parking rates are recommended for the first year of operations in the Option 1 parking structure. These rates should increase periodically to keep pace with increases in expenses and to ensure the highest level of expense and debt coverage possible. The rates will be increased 3% per year after Year 1 in the Option 1 pro forma, but may not necessarily be increased every year (e.g., rate increases could be enacted every third year).  Monthly Parking: o o  JNEM and Metro Parkers: $50.00 per month Other Monthly Parkers: $70.00 per month

55

Transient Parking: o o o o First 4 Hours of Parking: $6.00 Each Additional Hour: $1.00 Daily Maximum Rate: $12.00 Early Bird Rate: $5.00

Estimated first year annual monthly parking revenue for the Option 1 parking structure is $334,800 ($108,000 from JNEM/Metro parkers and $226,800 from other monthly parkers). This assumes 180 JNEM/Metro monthly parkers purchase monthly parking at $50.00 per month and 270 other individual purchase monthly parking at $70.00 per month. Calculating estimated transient parking revenue is somewhat more complex. According to parking duration data provided by Metro for the APG, approximately 81.65% of APG parkers park for 4 hours or less. After that, the following percentages park over 4 hours:

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

56

     

7.28% park for between 4 to 5 hours 3.81% park for between 5 to 6 hours 2.01% park for between 6 to 7 hours 1.17% park for between 7 to 8 hours 1.46% park for between 8 to 9 hours 2.62% park over 9 hours

With new rates for parking durations greater than 4 hours, up to 18.35% of transient parking customers could pay over $6.00 for parking. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine which durations include people paying the Early Bird parking rate or a special event parking rate. In order to estimate the potential revenue uplift related to an increase in parking rates for longer parking durations, a weighted average for each duration between 4 hours and 8 hours will be used. This results in an average additional fee of $1.79 per vehicle above the 81.65% parking for a $6.00 flat fee. Using the duration and seasonal data provided by Metro for the APG, preliminary parking revenues for the Option 1 Garage are projected below. The estimate assumes that a significant amount of the JNEM parking demand will shift to the west after the completion of the new western entry.  Average Number of Daily Transient Vehicles in the APG: o o o o  December through February: 372 vehicles (27.5% of the peak quarter) March through May: 762 vehicles (56.4% of the peak quarter) June through August: 1,352 (peak quarter) September through November: 708 vehicles (52.4% of the peak quarter)

Estimated Number of Daily Transient Vehicles in the Option 1 Garage based on APG Seasonal Ratios: o o o o December through February: 164 vehicles (27.5% of peak quarter) March through May: 336 vehicles (56.4% of peak quarter) June through August: 595 vehicles (1.95 vehicles per space) September through November: 312 vehicles (52.4% of peak quarter)

Estimated Daily Transient Revenue in the Option 1 Garage: o December through February: 134 vehicles @ $6 and 30 vehicles @ $7.79

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)   o Total Daily Transient Revenue for Quarter of $93,393.

57

March through May: 274 vehicles @ $6 and 62 vehicles @ $7.79  Total Daily Transient Revenue for Quarter of $195,682.

o

June through August: 486 vehicles @ $6 and 109 vehicles @ $7.79  Total Daily Transient Revenue for Quarter of $346,390.

o

September through November: 255 vehicles @ $6 and 57 vehicles @ $7.79  Total Daily Transient Revenue for Quarter of $179,637.

The total annual daily transient revenue for the first full year of operation is estimated at $815,102. In addition to monthly and transient parking revenues, the APG currently generates approximately $83 per space in other revenue. Assuming these revenue streams are still available to the Option 1 garage, the facility would generate approximately $58,640 annually in other revenue. Based on the historical financial performance of the APG garage, the combined monthly, transient, and other annual revenue for the Option 1 parking structure is estimated at $1,208,542 (approximately $1,702 per space). This is slightly higher than the current overall annual revenue per space for the APG. However, due to the location of the Option 1 parking structure, it is likely that it could generate additional revenue from people visiting Laclede’s Landing (perhaps more than the APG gets today), St. Louis Rams games, and other nearby events. Unfortunately, the amount of parking for these venues is not tracked separately for the APG and comprehensive parking occupancy data for each user group is not available. However, potential parking demands for these user groups can be conservatively estimated based on Carl Walker’s experience with similar facilities. The following provides a breakdown of possible additional revenues for these venues/events. The actual amount of revenue generated for these user groups will depend on market rates, building occupancies/vacancies, football team success, and marketing strategies.  Laclede’s Landing o According to information provided by Laclede’s Landing and a local parking operator, the amount of parking currently provided in the area is well-utilized – but not necessarily overly utilized. Also, other parking areas in the Landing provide lower priced parking. Therefore, the estimated daily parking demand for Laclede’s Landing customers is an additional 20 vehicles per day on average. Assuming all of the vehicles stay less than 4

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  hours, the average daily revenue would be $120. The estimated annual revenue for Laclede’s parking would be $43,800 (assuming no validations or discounts are provided).  St. Louis Rams Games o There are typically 10 home games each season (2 preseason games and 8 regular season games). As most games occur on weekends, a large number of parking spaces can be made available to game attendees. Given the close proximity of the Option 1 garage to the Edward Jones Stadium, a significant number of football game attendees should find the facility a reasonable location for game parking. Assuming 50% of the facility could be used for football parking on game days, and the event parking rate is $10, the facility could generate $35,500 per football season in event parking revenues. The actual event parking rate could be more than $10 based on the existing market (with rates of $20 or more possible).

58

Other Events o According to information provided by Metro, there are approximately 12 special events per year that use at least a portion of the APG. Assuming that these events continue into the future, and approximately 25% of the facility capacity is used by event patrons at the $10 event rate, the facility could generate approximately $21,360 each year.

The total estimated annual revenue for the Option 1 parking facility, including historical APG parking demands and nearby venues/events, is approximately $1,309,202. This equates to approximately $1,844 per space annually. This is approximately $284 more per space annually than the existing APG. The estimated revenue is relatively conservative given the likely shift of parking demand for the Arch to the west, higher short-term parking rates in the Option 1 garage than other Laclede’s Landing parking areas, and a larger percentage of monthly parking than in the current APG. As stated previously, projections for JNEM attendance changes and/or increased special event loads due to the new programming space are not yet available for inclusion in parking demand or parking revenue estimates. 3.3 Estimated 20-Year Pro Forma for the Option 1 Parking Structure Using the previously described facility revenues and expenses, the following provides a projection of revenues and expenses for the first full year of operation of the Option 1 garage.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

59

Year 1 Operating Revenue Parking - Daily Revenue Parking - Monthly Revenue Other Revenue Event Revenue Total Operating Revenue Operating Expenses Wages and Benefits Security Utilities Maintenance Insurance and Loss Parking and Office Supplies Legal and Accounting Miscellaneous Postage Total Operating Expenses Net Operating Income Maintenance Reserve Income Before Debt Service Debt Service Total Income (Loss) $858,902 $334,800 $58,640 $56,860 $1,309,202

$319,500 $88,800 $53,300 $34,800 $16,400 $12,100 $5,000 $5,000 $1,400 $536,300 $772,902 $53,250 $719,652 $1,124,889 ($405,237)

As with most new parking structures, the Option 1 garage generates a positive net operating income. However, the operating income is not sufficient to fully cover debt service. In order to fully cover debt service and break even, the facility would need to generate approximately $1.7 million in annual gross revenue (over $2,400 per space). This is approximately 58% more income than the APG has generated historically. In order to provide a 1.5 DSCR, the Option 1 facility would need to generate annual gross revenue of approximately $2.3 million (over $3,200 per space – or over 105% more revenue than the APG). In order to improve the financial performance of the Option 1 garage, parking rates would need to be increased, average daily occupancy rates would need to be improved, and/or operating expenses would need to be reduced. The following pro forma illustrates potential revenues and expenses for the Option 1 parking structure based on the first full year of operation estimate. Parking revenues and expenses are increased 3% per year (excluding the maintenance reserve and debt service).

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 
Year 1 Parking Revenues Parking Expenses Net Operating Income Maintenance Reserve Income Before Debt Service Debt Service Total Income (Loss) Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9

60
Year 10

$1,309,202 $1,348,478 $1,388,932 $1,430,600 $1,473,518 $1,517,724 $1,563,256 $1,610,153 $1,658,458 $1,708,212 $536,300 $552,389 $568,961 $586,029 $603,610 $621,719 $640,370 $659,581 $679,369 $699,750 $772,902 $796,089 $819,972 $844,571 $869,908 $896,005 $922,885 $950,572 $979,089 $1,008,462 $53,250 $719,652 $53,250 $742,839 $53,250 $766,722 $53,250 $791,321 $53,250 $816,658 $53,250 $842,755 $53,250 $869,635 $53,250 $897,322 $53,250 $925,839 $53,250 $955,212

$1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 ($405,237) ($382,050) ($358,167) ($333,568) ($308,231) ($282,134) ($255,254) ($227,567) ($199,050) ($169,677) Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20

Parking Revenues Parking Expenses Net Operating Income Maintenance Reserve Income Before Debt Service Debt Service Total Income (Loss)

$1,759,458 $1,812,242 $1,866,609 $1,922,607 $1,980,285 $2,039,694 $2,100,885 $2,163,911 $2,228,829 $2,295,694 $720,742 $742,365 $764,636 $787,575 $811,202 $835,538 $860,604 $886,422 $913,015 $940,405 $1,038,716 $1,069,877 $1,101,973 $1,135,033 $1,169,084 $1,204,156 $1,240,281 $1,277,489 $1,315,814 $1,355,288 $53,250 $53,250 $53,250 $53,250 $53,250 $53,250 $53,250 $53,250 $53,250 $53,250

$985,466 $1,016,627 $1,048,723 $1,081,783 $1,115,834 $1,150,906 $1,187,031 $1,224,239 $1,262,564 $1,302,038 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 $1,124,889 ($139,423) ($108,262) ($76,166) ($43,106) ($9,055) $26,017 $62,142 $99,350 $137,675 $177,149

Without significant changes in parking rates, levels of utilization, and/or operating expenses, the Option 1 parking structure is not projected to generate a positive total income until Year 16. 3.4 Projection of Continued Operation of the APG Over the past three years, the APG has generated a positive net operating income. In addition, the APG has recently generated a positive income after debt service ($46,893 in 2011). The following illustrates the financial performance of the APG over the past three years (information provided by Metro).

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

61

2009 Operating Revenue Passenger Revenue Parking - Daily Revenue Parking - Monthly Revenue Service Fee Revenue Other Operating Revenue Total Operating Revenue Operating Expenses Wages and Benefits OPEB Services Fuel and Lube Materials and Supplies Utilities Casualty and Liability Lease and Other Expenses Total Operating Expenses Operating Income Non-Operating Revenue (Expense) Interest Revenue Interest Expense Contributions to Outside Ent. Other Non-Operating Rev. (Exp.) $34,200 $1,424,460 $217,045 $3,286 $701 $1,679,692

2010 $35,980 $1,497,182 $221,944 $32,972 $1,923 $1,790,001

2011 $34,440 $1,471,250 $216,315 $58,163 $1,799 $1,781,967

$345,461 $25,799 $464,761 $27 $17,856 $68,432 $24,942 $136,028 $1,083,306 $596,386

$359,951 $25,959 $465,255 $125 $24,396 $67,851 $30,502 $145,486 $1,119,525 $670,476

$345,618 $24,785 $422,812 $198 $29,392 $79,933 $28,403 $144,298 $1,075,439 $706,528

$24,552 ($192,163) ($205,000) $0 ($372,611) $223,775 $585,000 ($361,225) $417,153 ($778,378)

$711 ($155,948) $0 $0 ($155,237) $515,239 $615,000 ($99,761) $411,411 ($511,172)

$2,244 ($114,093) $97,214 $0 ($14,635) $691,893 $645,000 $46,893 $365,282 ($318,389)

Income (Loss) Before Depreciation Principal Payment on Bonds Subtotal Income (Loss) Depreciation (Non-Cash) Total Income (Loss)

Parking revenues have increased each year since 2009, as have net operating incomes. As the outstanding debt for the APG is set to be retired in December 2012, the financial performance should improve significantly in the coming years (if the facility is not demolished). In April 2012, David Mason and Associates completed a “Visual Structural Inspection” of the APG for Metro. The report stated that the APG was “in overall good condition for its age” and “the operable remaining fully functional lifespan of the existing garage is

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT)  approximately +/- 20 years.” The report also provided a number of repair recommendations, including:    Patching existing spalled concrete on slabs, walls, and columns. Replace damaged expansion joints on all levels. Apply waterproofing sealer to all levels of the parking garage deck slabs after concrete repairs have been completed.

62

In addition to the recommended repairs, additional testing was recommended (chloride ion penetration tests). It was recommended that all repairs be completed within one year of the date of the report. The visual inspection also included an estimate of on-going future repair/restoration costs. The following on-going repair/restoration costs were estimated (no cost estimate was provided for Year 20):     Year 0: $674,800 Year 5: $375,410 Year 10: $982,800 Year 15: $545,300

The estimated repair/restoration costs included a 40% markup factor and were increased 3% per year for inflation. The following illustrates the estimated financial performance of the APG over the next 20 years (starting in 2012), based on average revenues and expenses over the past three years. Both revenues and expenses have been increase 3% per year. The financial projection includes a recommended maintenance reserve of $75 per space.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 
Year 1 Parking Revenues Parking Expenses Net Operating Income Maintenance Reserve Income Before Repairs Repairs/Restoration Debt Service Total Income (Loss) $1,750,553 $1,092,757 $657,797 $85,725 $572,072 $674,800 $762,400 ($865,128) Year 11 Parking Revenues Parking Expenses Net Operating Income Maintenance Reserve Income Before Repairs Repairs/Restoration Debt Service Total Income (Loss) $2,352,597 $1,468,574 $884,024 $85,725 $798,299 $0 $0 $798,299 Year 2 $1,803,070 $1,125,539 $677,531 $85,725 $591,806 $0 $0 $591,806 Year 12 $2,423,175 $1,512,631 $910,544 $85,725 $824,819 $0 $0 $824,819 Year 3 $1,857,162 $1,159,306 $697,856 $85,725 $612,131 $0 $0 $612,131 Year 13 $2,495,870 $1,558,010 $937,861 $85,725 $852,136 $0 $0 $852,136 Year 4 $1,912,877 $1,194,085 $718,792 $85,725 $633,067 $0 $0 $633,067 Year 14 $2,570,747 $1,604,750 $965,997 $85,725 $880,272 $0 $0 $880,272 Year 5 $1,970,263 $1,229,907 $740,356 $85,725 $654,631 $375,410 $0 $279,221 Year 15 Year 6 $2,029,371 $1,266,804 $762,567 $85,725 $676,842 $0 $0 $676,842 Year 16 Year 7 $2,090,252 $1,304,809 $785,444 $85,725 $699,719 $0 $0 $699,719 Year 17 Year 8 $2,152,960 $1,343,953 $809,007 $85,725 $723,282 $0 $0 $723,282 Year 18 Year 9 $2,217,549 $1,384,271 $833,277 $85,725 $747,552 $0 $0 $747,552 Year 19

63
Year 10 $2,284,075 $1,425,800 $858,275 $85,725 $772,550 $982,800 $0 ($210,250) Year 20

$2,647,869 $2,727,305 $2,809,124 $2,893,398 $2,980,200 $3,069,606 $1,652,893 $1,702,479 $1,753,554 $1,806,160 $1,860,345 $1,916,155 $994,976 $1,024,826 $1,055,571 $1,087,238 $1,119,855 $1,153,450 $85,725 $909,251 $545,300 $0 $363,951 $85,725 $939,101 $0 $0 $939,101 $85,725 $969,846 $0 $0 $969,846 $85,725 $1,001,513 $0 $0 $85,725 $1,034,130 $0 $0 $85,725 $1,067,725 $0 $0

$1,001,513 $1,034,130 $1,067,725

Assuming periodic increases in parking fees and/or increases in parking demand (to achieve a 3% increase in revenue each year), the APG could generate a significant amount of income over the next 20 years. The cumulative income generated by the APG could reach approximately $12.6 million over 20 years (in 2012 dollars). The level of revenue that would be generated by the continued operation of the APG is considerable, especially compared to the revenue generated by the Option 1 garage. The cumulative income generated by the Option 1 garage over the first 20 years of its operation are projected to be approximately -$2.8 million (in 2012 dollars). It is important to note that increased visitor activity at the JNEM and more special events due to the new programming space could more than offset the losses of the Option 1 garage. However, economic impact projections due to the new programming space are not yet available.

Arch Parking Alternatives Study Final Report (DRAFT) 

64

APPENDIX A

ISOMETRIC

LEVEL 1 PLAN

Option 1
Parking
Planning Engineering Restoration
ATLANTA CHARLOTTE CHICAGO CLEVELAND DALLAS DENVER INDIANAPOLIS KALAMAZOO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX

Carl Walker, Inc. 1920 S. Highland Ave., Suite 210 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel. 630.307.3800 Fax 630.396.3431

St. Louis Arch Parking Structure

www.carlwalker.com

Proposed Parking Structure St. Louis, Missouri

TYPICAL LEVEL PLAN

Option 1
Parking
Planning Engineering Restoration
ATLANTA CHARLOTTE CHICAGO CLEVELAND DALLAS DENVER INDIANAPOLIS KALAMAZOO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX

Carl Walker, Inc. 1920 S. Highland Ave., Suite 210 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel. 630.307.3800 Fax 630.396.3431

St. Louis Arch Parking Structure

www.carlwalker.com

Proposed Parking Structure St. Louis, Missouri

LEVEL 5 PLAN

Option 1
Parking
Planning Engineering Restoration
ATLANTA CHARLOTTE CHICAGO CLEVELAND DALLAS DENVER INDIANAPOLIS KALAMAZOO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX

Carl Walker, Inc. 1920 S. Highland Ave., Suite 210 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel. 630.307.3800 Fax 630.396.3431

St. Louis Arch Parking Structure

www.carlwalker.com

Proposed Parking Structure St. Louis, Missouri

ISOMETRIC

LEVEL 1 PLAN

Option 1.A
Parking
Planning Engineering Restoration
ATLANTA CHARLOTTE CHICAGO CLEVELAND DALLAS DENVER INDIANAPOLIS KALAMAZOO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX

Carl Walker, Inc. 1920 S. Highland Ave., Suite 210 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel. 630.307.3800 Fax 630.396.3431

St. Louis Arch Parking Structure

www.carlwalker.com

Proposed Parking Structure St. Louis, Missouri

LEVEL 3 PLAN

Option 1.A
Parking
Planning Engineering Restoration
ATLANTA CHARLOTTE CHICAGO CLEVELAND DALLAS DENVER INDIANAPOLIS KALAMAZOO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX

Carl Walker, Inc. 1920 S. Highland Ave., Suite 210 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel. 630.307.3800 Fax 630.396.3431

St. Louis Arch Parking Structure

www.carlwalker.com

Proposed Parking Structure St. Louis, Missouri

LEVEL 4 PLAN

Option 1.A
Parking
Planning Engineering Restoration
ATLANTA CHARLOTTE CHICAGO CLEVELAND DALLAS DENVER INDIANAPOLIS KALAMAZOO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX

Carl Walker, Inc. 1920 S. Highland Ave., Suite 210 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel. 630.307.3800 Fax 630.396.3431

St. Louis Arch Parking Structure

www.carlwalker.com

Proposed Parking Structure St. Louis, Missouri

LEVEL 5 PLAN

Option 1.A
Parking
Planning Engineering Restoration
ATLANTA CHARLOTTE CHICAGO CLEVELAND DALLAS DENVER INDIANAPOLIS KALAMAZOO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX

Carl Walker, Inc. 1920 S. Highland Ave., Suite 210 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel. 630.307.3800 Fax 630.396.3431

St. Louis Arch Parking Structure

www.carlwalker.com

Proposed Parking Structure St. Louis, Missouri

LEVEL 1 PLAN

ISOMETRIC

LEVEL 2 PLAN

Option 2 St. Louis Arch Parking Structure
Proposed Parking Structure St. Louis, Missouri

Parking
Planning Engineering Restoration

ATLANTA CHARLOTTE CHICAGO CLEVELAND DALLAS DENVER INDIANAPOLIS KALAMAZOO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX

Carl Walker, Inc. 1920 S. Highland Ave., Suite 210 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel. 630.307.3800 Fax 630.396.3431

www.carlwalker.com

LEVEL 6 PLAN

LEVEL 7 PLAN

Option 2
Parking
Planning Engineering Restoration
ATLANTA CHARLOTTE CHICAGO CLEVELAND DALLAS DENVER INDIANAPOLIS KALAMAZOO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX

Carl Walker, Inc. 1920 S. Highland Ave., Suite 210 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel. 630.307.3800 Fax 630.396.3431

St. Louis Arch Parking Structure

www.carlwalker.com

Proposed Parking Structure St. Louis, Missouri

Parking
Planning Engineering Restoration

ATLANTA CHARLOTTE CHICAGO CLEVELAND DALLAS DENVER INDIANAPOLIS KALAMAZOO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX

Carl Walker, Inc. 1920 S. Highland Ave., Suite 210 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel. 630.307.3800 Fax 630.396.3431

St. Louis Arch Parking Structure
Proposed RV/Bus Lot @ Poplar St. and Cerre St. St. Louis, Missouri

www.carlwalker.com

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times