CROSS-COUNTY CORRIDOR - MTIA
 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

The purpose of this Major Transportation Investment Analysis (MTIA) Report for the St. Louis Cross-County Corridor is to summarize the MTIA study process and the principal findings of that study. These findings were provided to the Study Management Group (SMG) to allow them to recommend the preferred major transportation improvements within the study area. The SMG's recommendation was subsequently presented to the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council Board of Directors for their approval and incorporation into the official Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for the St. Louis region.

1.2 STUDY OVERVIEW

1.2.1 Study Purpose

As defined in Transportation Redefined, the St. Louis region's long range transportation plan, a Major Transportation Investment Analysis (MTIA) is a type of evaluation and decision-making process for highway and/or transit improvements which have the potential for incurring substantial costs or causing significant alteration of travel patterns. The principal aim of the study is to define the general scope and design concept of the preferred transportation solution within a particular corridor.

1.2.2 Study Area

The study area of the St. Louis Cross-County Corridor actually consists of two linear corridors that intersect to form a general cross-shaped study area. A north-south corridor extends southward from the vicinity of the I-270 / I-170 interchange on the north to the general vicinity of the I-270 / I-55 interchange on the south. An east-west corridor extends from east of the

I-64 / I-270 interchange in St. Louis County eastward to the general vicinity of the I-64 / Grand Boulevard interchange in the city of St. Louis. These two corridors are not only the most significant in the eastern portion of St. Louis County and the west/central portion of the city of St. Louis, but are also of great importance regionally, providing the principal access to a number of major activity centers, including the St. Louis CBD, the Clayton CBD, the Airport, Forest Park, and the Barnes-Jewish-Children's hospital complex, among others. The relationship of these two corridors to the rest of the St. Louis region is shown in Figure 1-1 on the following page, and Figure 1-2 shows the study area in more detail.

1.2.3 Sponsoring Agencies

This study was a cooperative effort of the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council (EWGCC), and the Bi-State Development Agency (BSDA). Day-to-day management and review of the technical aspects of the study were provided jointly by project managers from MoDOT and EWGCC.

1.2.4 Study Management Group

At a policy level, the study was performed under the direction of the Study Management Group. This group was formed by the three sponsoring agencies at the outset of the study, and it was their responsibility to review the major findings of the study and make recommendations to the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council Board of Directors for their implementation. The Study Management Group met at critical decision points throughout the course of the study and reviewed and approved the major study products.

The Study Management Group agencies and their official representatives for this study are presented in the following table:

1.2.5 Study Process

The MTIA study process has been structured in two phases. The initial phase consists of five principal tasks: Task 1, Public Involvement Plan; Task 2, Problem Definition; Task 3, Project Scoping; Task 4, Detailed Definition of Alternatives; and Task 5, Development of Evaluation Methodologies. Phase 2 of the study consists of two tasks: Task 6, Evaluation and Comparison of Alternatives; and Task 7, Major Transportation Investment Analysis Report. Phase 2 also includes continuation of Task 1, On-going Public Involvement. Upon completion of the MTIA, a detailed environmental analysis to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act will be prepared, where applicable, for those alternatives which proceed to the next phase of project development.

The public involvement plan developed for Phase I was intended to outline a general approach for the active solicitation of public input on identifying transportation and transportation-related problems, and possible solutions to those problems. The plan, developed by the Public Involvement Management Committee (PIMC) outlined the goals and objectives of the public involvement program. The PIMC was established to direct the day-to-day activities of the program and included representatives of EWGCC, MoDOT and the Consultant. Public involvement tools which could be used to reach the goals and objectives of the program were suggested, although the intent was to execute a program which could be flexible and adjusted if needed.

Public scoping meetings, complemented by targeted outreach meetings with key elected officials and their staffs, major institutions and employment centers, and other stakeholders in the study area provided the study team with a broad sense of the problems and issues which needed to be addressed.

The purpose of the problem identification and public scoping tasks was to identify, document, and obtain the consensus of local decision-makers on the major problems to be addressed and the important public issues relating to those problems.  The problem identification task was particularly important, as it was used as the focus for development of both the conceptual solutions and the methodologies for evaluating the effectiveness of those alternative solutions.

In the definition of alternatives, a broad range of conceptual transportation alternatives was first developed to address the identified problems and issues. This universe of alternatives - covering a wide variety of modal options - was then tailored to the specific conditions within each of the four subcorridors - north, south, east and west - of the overall study area. These potential alternatives were then screened, and only those best addressing the transportation problems in the particular subcorridor were advanced to the next level of analysis. This next step consisted of grouping the discrete strategies into single- and multi-modal combinations that most logically addressed the particular conditions and problems in the respective subcorridors. These resulting combinations of strategies, referred to as strategy sets, were then evaluated against criteria reflecting the identified problems in each subcorridor. Those best addressing the evaluation criteria were then recommended to the Study Management Group for advancement to Phase 2 of the study.

The final task of Phase 1 of the study consisted of developing the methodologies for evaluating social, economic, and environmental impacts, for developing travel demand forecasts and evaluating transportation impacts, for preparing cost estimates, for financial feasibility analysis, and for the comparative evaluation of alternatives.  These methodology reports are discussed in more detail in Section 2 of this document.

Phase 2 of the MTIA was initiated upon Study Management Group (SMG) approval of a set of transportation strategies in each of the four subcorridors following an SMG meeting at the end of May, 1996. Phase 2 consisted of two tasks, Task 6 - Evaluation and Comparison of Alternatives, and Task 7 - MTIA Report. In Task 6, conceptual alternatives for each strategy set were developed in sufficient detail to allow quantification of costs, transportation effects and significant environmental impacts. Task 7 involved preparation of a summary of the public involvement program and the preparation of this document, the MTIA Report. Further details of the Phase 2 tasks are contained in Sections 3 through 7 of this report.

The MTIA study concluded with SMG recommendations to the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council Board of Directors of the scope and design concept of transportation strategies to be advanced to the next phase of project development.

2.0 SUMMARY OF PHASE 1

2.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

By design, the problem identification stage was the most important element of the Cross-County Corridor study. Only in light of the identified problems were the conceptual solutions developed, and the evaluation and screening of those conceptual strategies were performed using criteria based on those problems.

2.1.1 Process

To identify transportation problems in the Cross-County Corridor, three primary approaches were pursued. These were: technical analyses of existing data by the consultant team; interviews and meetings with key government agencies, institutions, local officials, and public groups; and an extensive public scoping process, including a meeting for all elected officials in the study area, a meeting with technical representatives of local communities, agencies, and institutions, and three open-house meetings for the general public. Over three hundred persons took part in this public scoping process. Combined, these findings present an overall profile of the corridor and provide a basis for developing solutions to its transportation problems and issues.

2.1.2 Specific Problems Identified

Major areas of concern or problems fit into four categories: community viability, congestion, access and mobility. In addition, there are numerous issues which surfaced that cut across the four problem categories and need to be given careful consideration; these are: neighborhoods, equity, financial capacity, safety and security, air quality, and other environmental issues. These major problems areas and the associated issues/considerations are summarized below.

• Community Viability

Much of the study area consists of the older, inner ring of suburbs. The general trend of suburbanization throughout this multi-county region over the past fifty years has resulted in a decrease in population and businesses in many of these close-in communities. These decreases have a dramatic impact on the tax base of these older neighborhoods which ultimately results in a general decline of their economic vitality, particularly in the eastern and northern portions of the study area. While there certainly are exceptions to this out-migration phenomenon on the business side (e.g. the Galleria, South County Center and immediate environs, Clayton, and shopping plazas such as at Deer Creek), the "mom & pop" stores, chain grocery stores, and professional businesses historically found in the older communities are becoming scarcer. Although some of this business economy decline within these communities can be traced to evolving business economics that have fostered super stores, multi-anchor store malls, and the like, there is also a direct connection to changing spatial distribution and demographics of the population.

The rationale of historically residential suburbs such as Brentwood to seek redevelopment opportunities is applicable across the majority of the municipalities in the corridor. As indicated earlier, these types of communities have and continue to experience declining tax bases, and increasing costs to provide basic services. In the absence of existing undeveloped land to attract investors with higher tax generating land uses, many communities will find it difficult to resist redeveloping older, residential and/or storefront commercial tracts.

Investment or reinvestment in transportation facilities should then take into consideration their ability to induce new development in the inner, older suburbs, as investments in these facilities can strongly affect land use patterns, population and/or business densities, and building prices. Accessibility is certainly key to both residential and commercial interests in determining a viable location for development. For example, at least five major developments are proposed near the Hwy. 40/I-170 interchange by the cities of Clayton, Richmond Heights, and Brentwood along Brentwood Boulevard from Clayton Road to just south of Eager Road. These developments alone would add well in excess of a million square feet of new retail, hotel, and entertainment uses.

Planning for each of the projects mentioned above, however, is proceeding independently within the three municipalities, with no jurisdiction having the overall authority to coordinate the planning or oversee the development approval process. In terms of transportation demands, local streets and arterials that generally satisfied the previous low-density development will now be called upon to handle greater traffic demands; so too may other public services be overburdened (e.g., water, sewer, fire and police protection). The combined traffic effects of these projects have not been analyzed by any jurisdiction, but could certainly exacerbate the currently congested conditions.

• Congestion

Another effect of the urban and suburban sprawl that has resulted from the migration to newer and more distant, lower density of development suburbs has been a broad dispersal of the origins and destinations of trips, leading to much longer average trip lengths and difficulty of serving those trips with conventional fixed route bus transit. The increased availability of autos and increases in the number of two-worker and single-adult households have also contributed to significant increases in the number of single-occupant-vehicle auto trips throughout the region. Longer trip lengths lead drivers to favor the higher-speed principal arterials and interstate highways, thereby creating demands in excess of the design capacities of these existing roadways during peak periods.

Congestion on interstates, principal arterials, and collector roads can contribute to increased travel times, worsening air pollution, higher accident rates with corresponding increased property damages and bodily injury incidents, and psychological impacts on commuters that researchers indicate negatively impacts upon worker productivity. The freight hauling industry, and the smaller parcel service in particular, can be severely impacted by congested roadways that make truck movements difficult and delivery/hauling times hard to predict or schedule.

Significant congestion occurs along the entire length of Hwy. 40 (I-64) in the study area, along the southern portions of I-170, at the northern I-170 interchange with I-270, and at most of the major intersections along the principal arterials in the southern leg of the corridor - Brentwood Boulevard, Elm Avenue, Laclede Station Road, and McCausland, for example.

The single location cited most frequently as a congestion problem is the interchange of Hwy. 40 (I-64) and I-170. The lack of direct connections for all interstate-to-interstate movements and the proximity of adjacent interchanges (that were not designed for the current traffic volumes) create major impediments to smooth traffic flow.

In Forest Park, all of the major institutions (Art Museum, Science Center, Muny Opera, Museum of History, and the Zoo) identified significant access, congestion, and traffic and pedestrian safety problems. The Hampton Avenue interchange with Hwy. 40 (I-64) has been identified as the greatest congestion problem, followed by the Kingshighway interchange, the intersection of Wells and Skinker, and the McCausland interchange with Hwy. 40 (I-64) at the southwest corner of the Park. Potential park-related developments at the Arena site on the south side of Oakland Avenue will add to the existing congestion. Growth in employment and visitation at the adjacent Barnes-Jewish-Children's (BJC) hospital complex have resulted in complete saturation of the Kingshighway/Hwy. 40 (I-64) interchange during peak periods. And while congestion was identified as a specific problem area in its own right, congestion along Interstates and major arterials is seen as a detriment to the viability of the city of St. Louis and many of the municipalities within the corridor. There is widespread concern - and evidence from around the country to validate such concern - that congestion may cause employment to follow the suburbanization trends.

• Access

The central east-west corridor of both this study area and of the St. Louis region contains a major concentration of key metropolitan activity centers and employment centers. The County Government Center and Clayton central business district, the Barnes/Jewish/Children's hospital complex, Forest Park and its major institutions, Washington University, St. Louis University, Forest Park Community College, and the Galleria and Plaza Frontenac shopping centers all lie within this central corridor, and all are facing access and parking problems.

The great majority of visitors access Forest Park by auto. The recently-approved Forest Park Master Plan seeks to reduce the area of the park devoted to the automobile, better manage auto access and parking, and allows for the expansion of the major institutions, provided there is no net loss of open, green space. Meeting these goals while accommodating the increasing usage predicted by all of the Park's major institutions is problematic for the existing transportation system. In this regard, the Master Plan endorses increased service on an expansion of rail transit.

Increased traffic to the BJC hospital complex has necessitated the construction of several major parking structures along the eastern side of the complex, thereby inducing traffic on local streets through the complex, as well as requiring conversion of a portion of the moderate-income housing in that neighborhood. A significant number of employees and visitors to the hospital complex are using the eastern end of Forest Park for parking. The hospital complex is also served by the existing Central West End MetroLink station, but the significant amount of bus traffic generated at the station for patron access/egress causes severe congestion on Euclid Avenue in the heart of the hospital complex.

The three campuses of Washington University (Medical Center, Hilltop, and Clayton) have problems providing parking for all persons attempting to access the facilities by auto, and in providing convenient transportation from off-campus housing, and for students and staff traveling between the campuses for the hundreds of trips that occur each day. The university is landlocked, with very little space available for their future expansion plans. Students seeking to avoid on-campus parking fees are using the west end of Forest Park for parking for several hundred autos each day, creating parking conflicts with Park users; implementation of the Park Master Plan may effectively eliminate even the possible use of this area for parking in the future.

In the south County portion of the study area, local officials, planners, and the general public have noted that the area suffers from a lack of freeway-type service providing a north-south connection to the center of the study area and destinations north of Hwy. 40 (I-64). Total north-south travel demand in this part of the corridor - estimated at some 200,000 trips per day - is currently carried on several principal arterials. Travel time studies show that north-south travel in this leg of the corridor is significantly slower than comparable trips in other legs of the study area. Here again, while accessibility is seen as a specific problem, it is also believed to be directly related to community viability. Sustaining current development as well as attracting new development - particularly residential development - is thought to be closely linked to an area's accessibility to the widest array of travel desires.

• Mobility

Throughout the entire study area there is a perceived lack of viable alternatives to the private automobile. This limits the choices for those with access to an auto, and is a very significant adverse impact on those for whom the automobile may not be a viable option, such as the elderly, the disabled, youths, and low-income persons. For those reliant on public transportation, travel times are some two to three times longer than for comparable trips by auto. In many of the outlying segments of the study area, a significant number of the households are not located within convenient walking distance of regularly-scheduled transit service.

In the center of the study area, public officials and major institutions have cited the need for a high-level-of-service alternative to the automobile to connect major activity centers. Both the mayor's office of the city of St. Louis and the city of Clayton have emphasized the need for a direct high-speed transit link between downtown St. Louis and the Clayton, and Clayton has also indicated a similar need for a direct connection to Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

• Issues/Considerations

In the course of identifying these transportation problems in the Cross-County Corridor, a number of issues of major concern to the public, government and institutional officials were brought to the attention of the study team. Resolution of these issues will greatly enhance the acceptability of any conceptual strategies developed to address the problems. The principal concerns identified in the scoping process are discussed below:

Neighborhoods - The public throughout the entire study area is very concerned about any potential impacts to neighborhoods, communities, and parks, particularly Forest Park. There will be strong public opposition to any strategies that sever existing neighborhoods or disrupt communities or parks through extensive right-of-way acquisitions. Communities and school districts were also concerned about any losses of residents or students due to required relocations. The effect on the real estate values of properties adjacent to new transportation facilities was also a concern expressed frequently.

Equity - A consideration in evaluation of the conceptual transportation solution strategies will be how the costs or impacts and the benefits of each alternative are distributed among the various socio-demographic groups within the study area, and between groups within and without the study area. Affordable housing for displaced residents will also be a consideration.

Financial Capacity - Great concern was expressed over the ability of the region to fund any proposed transportation solutions in this corridor, and what effect that commitment of public funding would have on the ability of the region to pay for transportation projects elsewhere in the region, as well as pay for other critical infrastructure needs.  The uncertainties associated with future federal and state funding, both in absolute terms and relative to the different transportation modes, must be considered in the decision-making process.

Safety and Security - Each of the solution strategies will have to be responsive to the existing traffic safety problems perceived in the corridor. Security issues affect the travel choices for some of the populace and will need to be a consideration in the design of transportation solutions.

Air Quality - Concern about the quality of the region's air was identified through the scoping process as one of the most widely held values. Since only strategies that conform to the State Implementation Plan for achieving the region's air quality goals can be adopted, these concerns should be accommodated.

Noise - Consideration of the direct noise impacts on adjacent neighborhoods from various transportation strategies should be a priority.

Detailed descriptions of each of the above problem areas and issues were presented in TM- 2, Problem Definition.

2.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Phase 1 public involvement activities were aimed at providing avenues by which the study team could gain a better understanding of the problems within the Cross-County Corridor, and to gain this information from the perspective of the many publics which have an interest in this corridor. Public involvement activities during Phase 1 included: developing a broad-based database; set-up and administration of a study "hotline"; execution of five scoping meetings; and implementation of a corridor outreach program to supplement the scoping meetings.

2.2.1 Public Scoping Meetings

As indicated above, five scoping meetings were conducted to receive input and to begin the discussion of the problems and issues in the Cross-County Corridor. The first was held for elected officials, the second was to receive input from governmental, organizational, and business interests, and three open house meetings were held for the general public. More than three hundred individuals participated in this process. A video was prepared and shown at each of the meetings outlining how a Major Transportation Investment Analysis is conducted, specifics on the Cross-County Corridor MTIA, and direction on how individuals could be involved in the process. While some technical information was presented (travel times within the corridor, accident rates, employment trends), the displays were focused on engaging the public into discussion about what values are important to them and what was the root of the problems they discussed, and how transportation issues impact their lives.

A questionnaire was developed for those attending the scoping meetings to elicit information about respondents' perceptions of transportation problems in the Cross-County area, as well as to identify some underlying values of the respondents and how they perceive transportation and its place in the community. One-hundred ninety-seven people completed the surveys including nine (9) at the elected officials meeting, seven (7) at the key governmental, institutional and technical meeting, and 181 at the general scoping meetings. Major findings of the survey and more detailed information on the scoping meetings can be found in two documents: Technical Memorandum No. 3C -Scoping Report, and the Public Involvement Summary Report.

2.2.2 Community Outreach Meetings

A corridor outreach program was implemented to complement the scoping process. The study team targeted key transportation generators within the corridor in order to get a broad sense of the problems and needs within the Cross-County Corridor. From August 1995 through June 1996, study team members met with nearly 700 individuals representing major employers, educational institutions, governmental agencies, citizen's groups, developers and municipalities, each of whom has a vested interest in the results of this study.

As with the larger scoping meetings, these meetings were intended to solicit specific information from these representatives about the transportation problems that may exist for their particular agency/institution/organization. Information gathered from these meetings included origin-destination statistics from major employers and attractions, current and proposed development plans with relevance to the study, planned expansion of facilities, environmental concerns, and individual municipality master plans.

Beyond statistical information being brought to the study, these meetings provided a unique look into the future transportation needs in these corridors and afforded the study team a larger picture of problems within the Cross-County Corridor.

2.2.3 Newsletters

Since the beginning of the study over 1,300 people and organizations have been added to the study mailing list database. Many on the list represent organizations, such as chambers of commerce, which then pass the information along to their members. Information disseminated by the study team, including newsletter updates, provided information about the study "hotline" as an avenue for the public to provide comments to the study team or request to be added to the mailing list. Updates were distributed at key times throughout the process, and at the end of the MTIA, the database was provided to the client for issuance of future updates by MoDOT, relative to roadway improvements and, BSDA for transit projects.

2.3 DEVELOPMENT OF STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDA

2.3.1 Purpose

Concurrent with the problem identification and public involvement processes, the study team developed a series of technical memoranda to define in more detail the conduct of the later stages of the study, technical criteria relating to the specific solution strategies, and the various methodologies that would be employed to evaluate those solution strategies.

2.3.2 Specific Topics Addressed

The first of these was the Detailed Work Plan, TM-3B, which detailed the specific steps to be carried out in developing and evaluating the conceptual strategies. The key physical parameters necessary to adequately define the conceptual strategies under consideration were identified in TM-4A, Physical Design Standards. This document defined the specific design criteria and standards that would be used in the development of the various modal strategies to be developed, which included highway, busway, light rail transit, and TSM strategies. The particular major policy, institutional, and financial factors that could affect the implementation of any of the conceptual strategies were identified in TM-4C, Policy, Institutional, and Financial Framework.

A variety of technical memoranda were also developed to define the methodologies that would be employed in the later stages of the study to evaluate the alternative strategies under consideration. These methodologies have been based on previous FTA and FHWA guidance for the preparation of transit Alternatives Analysis/DEIS and highway corridor studies/EIS, but have been specifically tailored for this study to reflect the multi-modal nature of the alternatives and the reduced level of detail necessary to support a major investment study decision. The methodology reports prepared included:

• TM-5A Social, Economic, and Environmental Assessment Methods
• TM-5B,C, D Capital, Operating and Maintenance, and Life Cycle Cost Estimation Methods
• TM-5E Travel Demand Forecasting and Transportation Impact Methods
• TM-5F Financial Analysis Methods

These methodology reports were reviewed and approved by the client study managers. A complete listing of all Technical Memoranda prepared as a part of this study is contained in Appendix A at the rear of this document.

2.4 STRATEGIES RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDY IN PHASE II

2.4.1 Strategy Development

Through the process of identification and analysis of the transportation-related problems in the Cross-County Corridor study area, it was determined that a subdivision of the study area into four subcorridors would facilitate the development and evaluation of solutions. North, South, East, and West subcorridors were delineated, each sharing a common terminus at the junction of I-170 with I-64. (Although common to all four subcorridors, this interchange was classified to the East subcorridor for purposes of evaluation.)

To address the problems in the four subcorridors, a broad range of transportation solutions was identified. This array of alternatives was selected to address the specific problems and conditions extant in the study area. These conceptual transportation strategies consisted of the following measures:

• Transportation System Management
• Reconstruct Interstate Highway Interchanges
• New Highways on New Alignment
• Add Highway Lanes
• Add High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
• Add Arterial Street Lanes
• Rail Transit
• Busway

There was also significant public interest expressed in improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities. For each of the above strategies that involve linear corridor improvements, efforts will be devoted to incorporating facilities for pedestrian and bicycle movement in the actual design of the preferred alternative to be approved by the East-West Gateway Board of Directors. These may include paved trails along new rights of way or in widened existing rights of way, and provisions for pedestrian and bicycle access across any new corridors.

The next steps in the process were to review these conceptual strategies for applicability within the specific subcorridors, combine the strategies - where appropriate - into multimodal solution sets, and tailor these single-mode or multimodal strategies to accommodate the particular conditions within each of the specific subcorridors.  Descriptions of the location and physical characteristics, operating characteristics, service parameters, and potential impacts associated with these strategy sets within each of the four subcorridors were presented in Technical Memorandum No. 3A,Conceptual Definition of Alternatives.

2.4.2 Evaluation Process

A comprehensive set of evaluation criteria were developed to assess how each of the conceptual transportation strategies addressed the identified problems and issues within each subcorridor. A qualitative, graduated rating system was prepared for each evaluation criterion that measured how well (or poorly) an individual strategy set addressed or resolved a subcorridor issue or problem. The evaluation criteria associated with each of the major identified problem areas and issues are as follows:

• Community Viability
• Supports existing or planned land uses
• Reduces through-traffic in residential areas
• Supports pedestrian/bicycle-friendly environment
• Enhances existing and planned business centers
• Fosters redevelopment of underutilized areas
• Increases existing community tax base
• Requires little or no business and residential displacements
• Traffic Congestion
• Improves the efficiency of traffic operations
• Reduces single-occupancy vehicle trips
• Increases corridor capacity
• Accessibility
• Improves connectivity to major destinations
• Provides enhanced access to regional transportation network
• Improves travel times
• Mobility
• Offers more transportation options to major destinations
• Improves availability of services for the transportation disadvantaged
• Neighborhood Concerns
• Avoids residential neighborhood encroachment
• Does not create barriers within or between neighborhoods
• Reduces traffic through residential neighborhoods
• Consistent with neighborhood aesthetics
• Equity
• Equitably distributes costs and benefits
• Places fewer impacts on disadvantaged groups
• Safety and Security
• Reduces the number of accidents
• Improves travelers' sense of security
• Noise
• Minimizes effects of noise in sensitive areas
• Regional Viability
• Enhances viability of core business areas
• Improves regional air quality
• Transportation System Development
• Ability to pay for implementation
• Produces system-wide travel benefits

Application of the above evaluation criteria to the list of conceptual transportation strategies within each of the four subcorridors indicated that a number of the strategies were generally inferior in a majority of the individual criteria categories. These conceptual strategies were therefore recommended to be dropped from further consideration within the specific subcorridor, while those found to generally be more effective in addressing the identified problems were recommended to the Study Management Group to be carried into Phase II of the study for further analysis.

2.4.3 Study Management Group Review and Approval

Preliminary strategy recommendations for Phase II analysis were contained in the document Transportation Strategy Recommendations, which was presented to the Study Management Group on May 30, 1996, for their review and comment. As a result of the meeting, some strategy set additions and deletions were made, and the revisedTransportation Strategy Recommendations (June 5, 1996) incorporated these changes. The strategies advanced to Phase II are presented in the next section, and were described in detail in TM-4D, Detailed Definition of Alternatives.

Among the strategies not recommended for more detailed study at this time was rail transit in the West subcorridor. The East-West Gateway Coordinating Council and the Missouri Department of Transportation intend to initiate a Major Transportation Investment Analysis in the short-term future to investigate multimodal transportation solutions in the longer I-64 corridor from I-170 westward to the vicinity of MO 340 in Chesterfield. It was determined that this future study should be the one to address the full range of modal options and combinations to improve transportation service in this corridor. For this reason, and with the concurrence of the Cross-County Corridor Study Management Group, the scope of the Cross-County Corridor MTIA was limited to only highway mode solutions in the West subcorridor, with the understanding that any highway solutions recommended for implementation will allow future development of alignments for fixed-guideway transit modes within the I-64 corridor without the need for significant reconstruction.

2.4.4 Phase 1 Strategies Advanced for Further Study

A total of 19 strategies, seven in the North subcorridor, six in the South subcorridor, and three each in the East and West subcorridors, were recommended for more detailed analysis in Phase 2 of the study. These strategies are:

North Subcorridor

TSM
Reconstruct Interstate Interchanges
Add Interstate Highway Lanes
Add Interstate HOV Lanes
Rail Transit Extension
Add Interstate Highway Lanes and Rail Transit Extension
Add Interstate HOV Lanes and Rail Transit Extension

South Subcorridor

TSM
Add New Interstate Highway or Parkway
Rail Transit Extension
Add New Highway and Rail Transit Extension
Add New Highway and HOV Lanes
Add New Highway with HOV Lanes and Rail Transit Extension

East Subcorridor

TSM
Reconstruct Interstate Interchanges
Rail Transit Extension

West Subcorridor

TSM
Reconstruct Interstate Interchanges
Add New Interstate Highway Lanes

3.0 PHASE 2 CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING

3.1 SPECIFIC STRATEGIES

The Study Management Group, through their action on the consultant's Transportation Strategy Recommendations of May 30, 1996, determined the specific transportation strategies to be advanced into the Phase 2 analysis. These specific strategies were listed at the end of the preceding section. Conceptual engineering for each of these individual strategies was then initiated to develop details necessary for further analysis of the strategies.

3.2 LEVEL OF DETAIL

As applied in this study, the Major Transportation Investment Analysis (MTIA) is a new planning and analysis tool that precedes preliminary engineering and NEPA environmental impact statement preparation in the project development process. The MTIA is intended to provide regional leaders with sufficient information to allow them to decide on the scope of major transportation investments and general design/service concepts within the corridor. The MTIA is not intended to provide the basis for precise location decisions among a variety of alternative alignments within the same corridor, nor about exact design or operational details of a particular concept. The conceptual engineering for each of the above specific transportation strategies was developed in sufficient detail for representative alignments to allow order-of-magnitude estimates of cost, transportation, economic and environmental impacts.

3.2.1 Mapping

Base mapping for this study consisted of controlled aerial photography of the study area and vicinity flown in March, 1994. In specific areas where significant new development has occurred since the photography was obtained, more recent aerial photography (March, 1996) was obtained and merged into the existing base photograph. These updated areas included the I-170 Business Park north of St. Charles Rock Road, the Sunnen Business Park along Big Bend, the I-270 / I-55 interchange, and the area immediately east of the Barnes-Jewish-Children's Hospital Complex.

3.2.2 Profile/Grade Information

Detailed topographic information was not obtained specifically for this study, and precise profiles of all of the alternative alignments have not been developed. Sufficient topographic information was obtained to allow a general determination of whether the representative alignment was at-, below-, or above-grade. In particular areas where more precise information was needed to more fully assess and represent the viability of a specific alignment, or to identify significant cost elements, detailed topographic mapping from the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District or other sources was consulted.

3.2.3 Exhibits

Mapping of each of the discrete and the multi modal strategies developed for the Cross-County Corridor MTIA is presented in the MTIA Report Exhibits document, bound separately, and accompanying this document. These exhibits present the strategies by subcorridor, in the order north, south, east, and west. Within the subcorridors, they are presented in the order shown in the listing above, generally beginning with highway strategies, then rail strategies, and finally multi-modal strategies. The exhibits are presented at a scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet.

In all cases, the precise alignment shown is meant only to be representative of a general concept, and serves only as the basis for estimates of cost and environmental impact. A wide variety of location alternatives may be investigated in much greater detail for any of the strategies recommended for further investigation in the next phase of project.

Each of the discrete strategies is intended to incorporate a significant emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle access. Because of the scale of the mapping and the generally limited "footprint" of such facilities, details of those facilities are not included in these exhibits. The level of detail to be presented in the future Phase III of the study will allow such facilities to be shown in the plans. Note also that all new transit centers and rail transit stations are intended to provide a significantly enhanced level of information services for travelers. Again, the physical impact of such facilities is not major, and is not evident at the scale of these exhibits. Capital cost estimates have included provision for their inclusion wherever appropriate.

4.0 PHASE 2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

From July, 1996 through December, 1996 the public involvement activities were focused on continuing the "corridor outreach" program in conjunction with the study team developing conceptual designs, updating the "publics" on these conceptual designs, gaining feedback, and testing the reaction of the general public to these concepts.

Public involvement tools used in this phase focused on the general strategies and providing this information via a comprehensive newsletter and obtaining feedback; the development and analysis of a survey which was placed at locations throughout the study area to gain reaction on how well the strategies responded to the problems and issues identified; corridor outreach continued, and based on comments from the various publics, adjustments were made to strategies if appropriate; work with elected officials was heightened during this time in order to receive feedback on how they felt their constituencies would react to the strategies under consideration; and finally, after a great deal of public discussion and news coverage on the various strategies, a public open house meeting was held to provide information and to receive comments on the strategy sets to be recommended for further study in Phase 3.

While the following sections provide an overview of some of these activities, more detailed information on public involvement during Phase 2 is contained in the document Public Involvement Summary Report.

4.1 COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETINGS

Corridor outreach meetings continued into Phase 2 from July, 1996 through January, 1997. The role of public involvement during this time was to not only provide the information to the public about specific strategies under consideration, but to make them aware of who would be making the decisions and how the public could get their views heard.

With this in mind, an important public involvement activity during Phase 2 focused on reviewing the strategies with various stakeholders through corridor outreach meetings, refining them where appropriate, and informing the public of the process to move the Cross-County Corridor into Phase 3. The study team met with many of those individuals and/or representatives who identified specific problems during the first Phase in order to get a sense of whether or not it was felt the problems were addressed. As the conceptual solutions were developed, additional potentially affected parties were identified and consulted. These meetings provided a vehicle by which to raise concerns or issues relating to the conceptual designs for any of the modes or combinations. Conceptual designs were revisited to determine if adjustments could be made without compromising the overall intent of the overall design.

Approximately 500 individual stakeholders participated in corridor outreach meetings during Phase 2 including environmental representatives, key institutions and employers, hospitals, shopping malls, and neighborhood organizations. During this time frame, the study team also spent a great deal of time meeting and working with elected officials and their staffs as the representatives of the many neighborhoods and communities in the corridor. Special attention was placed on coordination with the seven municipalities most likely affected by the study results: Brentwood, Richmond Heights, Clayton, University City, Maplewood, Shrewsbury and Webster Groves.  Several meetings were held with this group of municipalities both as a whole, and individually.

4.2 NEWSLETTERS

At the beginning of Phase 2 (July, 1996) over 1,000 newsletters were mailed which: presented the problems and issues identified in Phase 2; outlined in great detail the activities of Phase 1 with particular focus being placed on the screening process; discussed the general strategies developed to address the problems identified; explained what strategies had been determined to be carried forward for further evaluation, which were eliminated by the Study Management Group from further consideration, and why. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch also placed this newsletter on their web site, POSTnet, for access on the Internet.

A second update was distributed in November, 1996, explaining the decision-making process for determining which of the strategies would be carried into Phase 3 for more detailed analysis. A news release was also sent to the entire mailing list in December, 1996, announcing a public open house scheduled for January whereby stakeholders could review the strategies under consideration by the decision-makers.

4.3 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY

In August, 1996, a survey was conducted on behalf of the study to obtain further input from the public. Specifically, the study team was interested in obtaining information on what issues relating to transportation solutions in this corridor are important to residents and travelers throughout this corridor, and to get a sense of how the public feels about the conceptual strategies now under consideration. It was not intended to be a "vote" on the strategies under consideration. Rather, it was aimed at soliciting better insight into the public's attitude about issues relating to those strategies and what role transportation plays in their everyday life. The survey was conducted on behalf of the study by the Dohring Company of Glendale, California, and administered by the Orca Partnership of St. Louis. The questionnaire, raw data and a more detailed analysis is provided in the document Public Involvement Summary Report. An overview of the results is contained in the following sections.

4.3.1Administration of Survey

 The survey was administered throughout the St. Louis Cross-County Corridor using TRENDTRAK, an electronic intercept survey system. Survey devices were placed at 25 locations throughout the corridor, and passers-by were invited to answer questions about transportation issues and solutions. There was an average of 49.44 completed surveys at each site.

 The study area was divided into four subcorridors -- north, south, east and west--and the devices were placed in locations to insure a representative sample in each of the four subcorridors. The types of locations chosen were grocery stores, educational institutions, pharmacies, major employment centers, hospitals, shopping malls, discount stores and fast food establishments.

4.3.2 Respondent Profile

 Respondents generally presented a reasonable distribution of the corridor population on the demographics collected, namely -- gender, age, home ownership, subcorridor of residence, subcorridor in which the respondent most frequently traveled, mode of transportation primarily used, and average commuting time.

Key elements of the sample include:

• The subcorridor most frequently traveled by the respondents is: north, 23%; south, 23%; east, 27%; west, 23%; other, 3%.
• The respondents are residents of the subcorridors as follows: north, 19%; south, 31%; east, 25%; west, 14%; non-residents of the corridor (some commuters and visitors) represent 12% of the sample.
• 74% of respondents drive alone to work; 6% participate in a car pool; 6% travel by bus and 5% use MetroLink. There were few significant differences among residents or travelers in the four subcorridors with regard to mode of travel.
• Twenty minutes is the average travel time of 70% of the respondents; over 90% commute an average of 40 minutes or less. Respondents who drive alone have the shortest one-way commuting time. 75% of those who drive alone commute 20 minutes or less compared to 57% of car-poolers, 40% of MetroLink riders, and 39% of bus riders. 9% of all respondents commute one hour or more.
• The average age of respondents is 42.6 years. In general, the older the respondent, the more likely he/she is to drive alone. 81% of those 65 or older drive alone, while only 64% of respondents in the 18 to 24 age category do so.

4.3.3 Overall Summary: Key Values

Several key findings which held among all groups are of particular interest:

• Transportation is an important issue to travelers within the Cross-County Corridor. Over 78% of respondents indicated that compared to other issues, transportation is very important (53%) or important(25%) to them.
• Air quality is a critical issue to cross-county travelers in forging any solution to transportation problems. An overwhelming majority of respondents (85%) strongly agreed (59%) or agreed (26%) with the statement, "Transportation solutions must contribute to air quality."
• A majority of the sample (54%) said that some residential displacements would be acceptable. Generally speaking, these percentages were similar for all groups in the survey.
• Openness to the possibility of business displacements followed a generally similar pattern to attitudes on residential displacements, with business displacements being generally more acceptable across the board. 59% of those surveyed said that some displacement of businesses would be acceptable.  When these respondents were questioned about how strongly they agreed with this position, a full 80% strongly agreed or agreed that some displacement of businesses would be acceptable.
• Preservation of park land is an important issue. 50% of those sampled strongly agreed, agreed or somewhat agreed that some reduction of park land would be acceptable. There were some differences in their percentages by subcorridor. In the north, 56% agreed; south, 49%; east, 42%; west 58%.
• Neighborhood integrity is also important, though not as strongly held a value. 58% of respondents found transportation projects that limit access within communities acceptable; 15% of respondents strongly agreed, 19% agreed and 24% only somewhat agreed with that position.
• Noise reduction was the least supported value tested. 68% of respondents were willing to accept some increase in noise levels.

4.3.4 Evaluating Solutions

Respondents were asked to rank how significant seven factors were in assessing solutions to transportation problems. They were permitted to check three of the seven.  Respondents chose the following as the top four: significantly improves alternatives to driving (with 66% of respondents indicating this was an important factor), significantly reduces accidents (58%), significantly improves travel time (57%), and reduces auto congestion (53%). Those responses suggest that while safety and congestion are important to cross-county residents, the development of transportation options remains a strongly held goal for many residents.

While these four choices were clearly the most significant factors for all groups, there are several things worth noting about variation in solution preference among groups.

• Significant improvements in travel time was especially important to those who estimated their commute to be one hour. 72% of this group chose that factor as important, as compared with 57% overall. Older respondents found this less important with only 43% choosing it as significant.
• Safety was also an important factor for all groups (58%), but especially important to those who had long commutes of one hour to one and one half hours (70%) and those under 18 (72%)
• Significantly improves alternatives to driving was also important to all groups (66%), but especially important to those in the 45 to 54 age group (73%).
• There was little difference across subcorridors in the significance of access to the airport. It was, however, much more important to those over 65 (33%) than the general population (16%).
• Easier to walk or bike was more important to those under 18 (34%) than the general respondent (23%).

4.3.5 Choosing Solutions

Respondents were presented with a list of solutions being considered for the subcorridor in which they most frequently traveled and asked to react to them. In the three areas where "improving interchanges" was offered as an option (along Highway 40 in the east and west, and along I-170 in the north) it was considered important by the highest number of respondents.

Results are displayed for all subcorridor respondents as well as for respondents who are both travelers and residents within a subcorridor. Some differences are noted.

While all groups strongly supported improvement of interchanges along I-170, car-poolers were especially supportive; car-poolers also supported the addition of car pool lanes along I-170 at a higher level than the general population.

Rail service is a popular option for all groups in this subcorridor, but especially among walkers, MetroLink users, those with a one hour commute, renters and commuters in the corridor. MetroLink and Bi-State bus users were also more likely to support financial incentives for public transit than were the general population.

The East subcorridor showed the strongest differences between resident and non-resident travelers. For example, rail service was more strongly favored by east residents (65%) than by all east travelers (57.3%).

Interchange improvements were especially important to car-poolers; it was least popular for MetroLink riders. Generally speaking, support for this option increases with average commute time.

Financial incentives for public transit is a solution that is the most popular for MetroLink users. MetroLink users also found additional rail service appealing compared to all respondents. Bi-State bus riders also supported this option more strongly than the general population.

 Interchange improvement options were most strongly supported by bs users, car-poolers and drive alone respondents in that order. Car-poolers and bus users were also strong supporters of the addition of lanes, as were respondents who commuted one hour or more.

5.0 PHASE 2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY SETS

5.1 DISCRETE STRATEGIES

Section 3 of this report presented the 19 specific strategies by subcorridor which were developed in Phase 1 for detailed analysis. Through the conceptual engineering process, it became clear that some reorganization of these strategies would simplify the comparative analysis process. While none of the specific strategies were eliminated in this process, and no new ones added, they were grouped to allow more efficient evaluation. The following paragraphs discuss the reorganization of these strategies.

Because many of the major components of the TSM strategy could only be implemented on a regional basis, it was determined to identify it as a single, region-wide strategy, rather than as four strategies that could be implemented in selected subcorridors of the study area.

Within the South subcorridor, it was determined that the differences in capital costs and potential impacts of the several identified options was sufficiently great that these should be identified as separate strategies rather than remaining within the original category of "new highway". The three major options identified as separate strategies were: 1) new parkway from I-64 to I-44; 2) new freeway from I-64 to I-55; and 3) new parkway extension from River Des Peres Parkway to Big Bend. It was also determined that the multimodal combination of rail transit and new freeway or parkway would have different impacts than the simple sum of the separate strategies of rail transit and new highway. A separate multimodal strategy was therefore identified for this unique option.

 Further development of the strategies indicated that the costs and impacts of new HOV lanes did not differ significantly from those of adding new general purpose lanes. It was also recognized that HOV lanes would only be effective when implemented in sufficient length to provide substantial time savings to motorists. This strategy was therefore presumed to occur only when a complete north-south highway HOV system could be implemented. For those strategy sets that did not include new highway lanes in both the north and south subcorridors, the new lanes were assumed to be general purpose lanes. Because a sufficient length of new lanes would not be available in the east-west corridors, HOV lanes were not considered there.

 With these changes, a new listing of strategies was developed that would comprise the basic elements of the Phase 2 evaluation. For purposes of this evaluation, these strategies are identified as "Discrete Strategies" from this point forward. The 16 Discrete Strategies evaluated are presented below.

A. TSM (regional)

North Subcorridor
B. Reconstruct Interchanges
C. Add Highway Lanes
D. Rail Transit Extension
E. Add Highway Lanes and Rail Transit Extension

South Subcorridor
F. Add New Parkway, I-64 to I-44
G. Add New Freeway, I-64 to I-55
H. Add Parkway Extension, River Des Peres Parkway to Big Bend
I. Rail Transit Extension, Clayton to I-44
J. Rail Transit Extension, I-44 to Butler Hill Rd.
K. Add New Parkway and Rail Transit Extension, I-64 to I-44
L. Add New Freeway and Rail Transit Extension, I-64 to I-55

East Subcorridor
M. Reconstruct Interchanges
N. Rail Transit Extension

West Subcorridor
O. Reconstruct Interchanges
P. Add Highway Lanes

Detailed mapping of each of the Discrete Strategies (including the major options) is presented in Section A of the MTIA Report Exhibits document, bound separately, and accompanying this report.
 

5.2 RATIONALE FOR STRATEGY SETS

 As one or several of the strategies could be developed in each subcorridor, and as the combination of strategies implemented in any one subcorridor could have significant effects in the other subcorridors, the number of distinct alternative scenarios that could result from all possible combinations is quite large, and is beyond the ability to clearly differentiate in this study. In order to reduce these numerous possible combinations to a manageable number, the Study Team has developed an array of ten alternative Strategy Sets.

 These Strategy Sets include all four subcorridors, cover a full range of investment levels, and include a range of reasonable modal combinations. The Strategy Sets were reviewed and approved by the Study Managers. All of the comparative analyses presented in the later sections of this report are structured to address these ten Strategy Sets.

5.2.1 Range of Investment Levels

 The ten Strategy Sets cover a full range of investment levels, from a Transportation System Management (TSM) strategy, Strategy Set #1, which is considered the base case, to a full-build scenario, Strategy Set #10, which includes all considered improvements. Between these endpoints, the Study Team developed eight additional Strategy Sets. These included the following:

 * A "Minimum Build" option, Strategy Set #2
 * A "Low Capital Investment" option, Strategy Set #3
 * Three "Moderate Capital Investment" options, Strategy Sets #4, #5, and #6
 * Three "High Capital Investment" options, Strategy Sets #7, #8, and #9.

 The estimated capital cost for the Minimum Build option is approximately $600 million. The Low Capital Investment option is estimated to cost approximately $750 million. The Moderate Capital Investment options are estimated to cost approximately $1 billion each, and the High Capital Investment options are estimated to have a capital cost of approximately $1.5 billion each. The full-build scenario would have a first cost of approximately $2.0 billion. For the three "Moderate" and "High" investment options, a range of modal combinations was considered.

5.2.2 Modal Combinations

 The three Moderate and the three High Capital Investment Strategy Sets were structured to cover a range of modal options. One of the Moderate and one of the High Capital Investment Strategy Sets included some major highway elements, but with a predominant portion of the investment going to transit improvements. Each category of investment level also included a relatively balanced highway/transit program, and each included Strategy Sets with some major transit elements, but with an emphasis on highway improvements. The single Strategy Sets at the Minimum Build and Low Capital Investment levels also included both highway and transit elements.

5.2.3 Options Within Strategy Sets

 For several of the specific strategies within each of the Strategy Sets, optional design concepts or optional alignments were developed during the conceptual engineering process. In certain instances, the differences in impacts of the several options appear to be significant, and it was felt they should be considered in the decision-making process.

 This situation occurs for the rail transit strategy in the East Subcorridor, where four optional alignments have been presented. While some differences among these four options are significant, the level of detail in many aspects of the evaluation has not been sufficient to properly distinguish among the options in all areas. A second instance where design concept options have been presented is for the new highway strategy in the South Subcorridor. For this strategy, both Interstate highway and parkway options have been evaluated. Alignment options, termed the "western" and "eastern" corridors, have also been evaluated within the South subcorridor new highway strategy.

5.3 Phase 2 STRATEGY SETS

 The ten Strategy Sets for which the Phase 2 comparative analyses was conducted are listed on the following pages, and shown in the graphic exhibits immediately following.

Strategy Set #1: Transportation System Management - No Major Capital Investment

Transportation System Management in all subcorridors
South - River Des Peres Parkway Extension to Big Bend

Strategy Set #2: Minimum Build

North - I-170 Interchange Reconstruction
South - River Des Peres Parkway Extension to Big Bend
East - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction
East - Rail Transit Extension to Clayton
West - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction

Strategy Set #3: Low Capital Investment

North - I-170 Interchange Reconstruction
South - River Des Peres Parkway Extension to Big Bend
South - Rail Transit Extension, Clayton south to I-44
East - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction
East - Rail Transit Extension to Clayton
West - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction

Strategy Set #4: Moderate Capital Investment - Highway Emphasis

North - I-170 Interchange Reconstruction
South - I-170 Extension to I-44
East - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction
East - Rail Transit Extension to Clayton
West - I-64 Lane Addition
West - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction

Strategy Set #5: Moderate Capital Investment - Balanced Highway/Transit

North - I-170 Interchange Reconstruction
South - I-170 Extension to I-44
South - Rail Transit Extension, Clayton south to I-44
East - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction
East - Rail Transit Extension to Clayton
West - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction

Strategy Set #6: Moderate Capital Investment - Transit Emphasis

North - I-170 Interchange Reconstruction
South - River Des Peres Parkway Extension to Big Bend
South - Rail Transit Extension, Clayton south to I-55 @ Butler Hill
East - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction
East - Rail Transit Extension to Clayton
West - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction

Strategy Set #7: High Capital Investment - Highway Emphasis

North - I-170 Interchange Reconstruction
North - I-170 Lane Addition (HOV Facility)
South - I-170 Extension to I-55 (HOV Facility)
South - Rail Transit Extension, Clayton south to I-44
East - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction
East - Rail Transit Extension to Clayton
West - I-64 Lane Addition
West - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction

Strategy Set #8: High Capital Investment - Balanced Highway/Transit

North - I-170 Interchange Reconstruction
North - I-170 Lane Addition (HOV Facility)
South - I-170 Extension to I-44 (HOV Facility)
South - Rail Transit Extension, Clayton south to I-55 @ Butler Hill
East - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction
East - Rail Transit Extension to Clayton
West - I-64 Lane Addition
West - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction

Strategy Set #9: High Capital Investment - Transit Emphasis

North - I-170 Interchange Reconstruction
North - Rail Transit Extension, Clayton north to I-270
South - I-170 Extension to I-44
South - Rail Transit Extension, Clayton south to I-55 @ Butler Hill
East - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction
East - Rail Transit Extension to Clayton
West - I-64 Lane Addition
West - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction

Strategy Set #10: Full Build

North - I-170 Interchange Reconstruction
North - I-170 Lane Addition (HOV Facility)
North - Rail Transit Extension, Clayton north to I-270
South - I-170 Extension to I-55 (HOV Facility)
South - Rail Transit Extension, Clayton south to I-55 @ Butler Hill
East - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction
East - Rail Transit Extension to Clayton
West - I-64 Lane Addition
West - I-64 Interchange Reconstruction