When City Hall Being For Sale Is A Good Thing

The right buyer can buy city hall — O’Fallon Illinois’ former city hall.

From their request for proposals:

The City of O’Fallon is soliciting proposals from qualified developers and/or organizations willing to invest funds to purchase and improve Old City Hall and bring it back to a productive use that will integrate well into the neighborhood. Old City Hall is an approximately 4,500 square foot GFA, two-story brick building originally constructed in 1890. It is a locally designated landmark which requires review of changes to the exterior of the building, but does not affect remodeling of the interior of the structure. All proposals should seek to preserve and enhance the architectural character of the building. Proposals that involve demolition will not be considered. The building is located inside the Central City TIF district, created in June 2015 (more information available at www.ofallon.org/economic-development-division). As publicly-owned property, the site has no Equalized Assessed Value, which allows all property taxes to be considered increment.

Currently, Old City Hall and O’Fallon Fire Station #1 are together on one parcel (PARCEL ID 04-29.0-120- 008). All proposals should note how much of the adjacent land and parking area, if any, is desired as part of the proposed redevelopment project. The City anticipates that the resulting lot would likely be no more than 0.27 acres (see attached map). The City also expects that the property will have to be rezoned from the current SR-3

(Single Family Residence District) to another appropriate district to accommodate the types of uses likely to be proposed as a part of this RFP process. It will be the responsibility of the selected developer to obtain any and all necessary zoning changes, variances, building permits, and other approvals to facilitate the development of this property.

Old City Hall most recently housed the O’Fallon Fire Department administrative offices, but has only been used for storage since 2009. As the property has been out of use for many years, the City does not have much definitive information about the current condition of the property. As mentioned in the Environmental Conditions section below, the City is aware of the presence of asbestos and mold. The building also has other issues including: degrading/rotting wooden windows, tuckpointing and masonry repair, necessary repairs and upgrades to bathrooms, HVAC, plumbing, and electrical systems. The property will be sold “as is.”

I’m glad demolition will not be considered!  Hopefully they’ll get some creative proposals.

— Steve Patterson

Special Taxing Districts in St. Louis

Recent curiosity about special taxing districts has been a can of worms — the number of them just within the City of St. Louis is overwhelming. Plus, they’re not all alike. Some are Community Improvement Districts (CIDs) based on Missouri law, others are special business districts established by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen.  Another type is transportation development districts (TDDs).  Some collect sales taxes, others property taxes, possibly some collect both. Some collect money from business licenses.

These are different than Tax Increment Financing (TIF). From a 2012 Post-Dispatch story:

Local governments and school districts worried about a cash crunch have put extra scrutiny on the use of TIF, which uses future tax revenue generated by a project to help fund its construction. That can sap money from other needs down the road. CIDs and TDDs, on the other hand, don’t touch the tax base. They simply add a new tax on property owners, shoppers or both extra for an extra layer of service.

They are also popular because they’re flexible. Developers and neighborhood groups say CIDs are a way to raise money for things that cash-strapped city governments can’t afford. Many point to the Times Square Business Improvement District, created in the early 1990s by business owners to help clean up the New York City landmark, as an example of their potential. And similar examples exist in St. Louis. Like in The Grove. (Pennies add up as special taxing districts proliferate)

As an 8+ year property owner in the Downtown St. Louis Community Improvement District I’ve voted on the ongoing management — a state requirement to get approval by a percentage of registered voters. However, the accountably and transparency of these vary greatly.

In 2016 I’ll look into the differences between these districts.

— Steve Patterson

Readers Strongly Disapprove of Stadium Financing Plan

I watched quite a bit of the live stream of the Board of Aldermen special session yesterday as they debated a floor substitute version of Bill 219. Yes, the bill changed after the Sunday Poll was conducted and the BoA began yesterday morning.

More than 75% of those who voted in the non-scientific poll selected a disapprove answer. Conversely, just over 21% approve. Those who “strongly disapprove” accounted for a majority of the votes!

Q: Approve or disapprove of financing plan for a new stadium up for final vote by the Board of Aldermen on Tuesday?

1. Strongly disapprove 37 [56.06%]
2. Disapprove 11 [16.67%]
3. TIE  5 [7.58%]
   1. Strongly approve
   2. Approve
4. TIE 4 [6.06%]
   1. Somewhat approve
   2. Somewhat disapprove
5. TIE 0 [0%]
   1. Neither approve or disapprove
   2. Unsure/No Answer

Despite opposition, the Board of Aldermen advanced the bill:

St. Louis aldermen met in a special session to consider approving the city’s share of funding for a new NFL stadium – $150 million.

The aldermen approved the bill, which will come to a final vote on Friday. (KSDK)

The 2nd special session this week will start at 3pm.

— Steve Patterson

St. Louis Shouldn’t Build Light Rail, Modern Streetcar, or Bus Rapid Transit; Rapid Streetcar May Be The Answer

There are several camps in the transit world:

• Light rail advocates
• Bus rapid transit advocates
• Streetcar advocates

These don’t mix — build their classic model or nothing. However, in the last decade a new group has emerged advocating a hybrid of these: The Rapid Streetcar. For example, Portland is looking at Rapid Streetcar for future expansion of its streetcar line.

The rapid streetcar concept aims to combine the best features of streetcars and light rail transit (LRT) to achieve faster commute/travel times than streetcars and lower system costs than light rail. Streetcars are typically designed to go shorter distances in central cities, densely populated mixed-use centers and neighborhoods. Streetcars are also typically designed to operate in mixed traffic, preserving street traffic patterns.

LRT typically functions as regional high-capacity transit (HCT), generally traveling in a separated right-of-way with relatively fast-moving, larger-capacity vehicles designed to rapidly transport large numbers of people between suburban and urban centers.

The rapid streetcar concept would apply some of the LRT features to streetcars to improve travel times while keeping capital costs lower. It would combine features of a semi-exclusive transitway and transit priority features within the street right- of-way to achieve faster travel times and maintain lower system capital costs. This could introduce two new levels of service to Portland’s system.

Several corridors under consideration for the Streetcar System Concept Plan are prime candidates to introduce Enhanced Local Service. These corridors are major arterials with 4 to 5 lanes and on-street parking such as NE Sandy Boulevard and SE Foster Road.

In Portland there are potential corridors for introducing priority service. Currently, the region is undertaking a study to extend the existing streetcar system along a former railroad right-of-way from the South Waterfront District, through Johns Landing and south to Lake Oswego. SE Foster Road and 122nd Avenue are also candidates where there may be sufficient right-of-way width to introduce streetcar priority lanes.

Drawing from the experiences from other cities around the world, enhancements to the streetcar operations can significantly increase average speeds:

Service/average Speeds

• Urban Circulator Service:10 to 15 mph
• Enhanced Local Service:  15 to 25 mph
• Rapid Streetcar: 20 to 35 mph

(City of Portland, p14)

According to Wikipedia, our light rail has an average speed of 24.7 mph — within the same range as a rapid streetcar.

Streetcars are cheaper [than light rail] because of their lower infrastructure requirements. Often there is no need to relocat[e] utilities, right of way does not need to be purchased and the stops are smaller and the vehicles more pedestrian oriented. Streetcar stops are also closely spaced if the goal is to be a circulator or short line transport mode. However if a longer distance transit mode that mimics light rail is what you’re looking for, but your city is on a budget, the rapid streetcar might be your choice.

Many cities have taken up the mantle of the rapid bus to be their cost effective alternative to light rail, but only do this based on cost, not because its what the citizenry wants. Recent Rapid Bus movements in Oakland, San Francisco, and Charlotte have shown that people really want light rail on a budget but haven’t been able to engineer their systems to reduce costs and are therefore left with an inferior transit mode for their stated goals.

But by using streetcars in center lanes with single tracking and passing sidings at stations you can get the same performance as light rail on 10 minute headways. Streetcars aren’t single vehicles either. Skoda streetcars have couplers on them as well that would make them multiple car consists. The lighter vehicles are about 66 feet long as opposed to 90 foot LRVs yet you can still get increased passenger capacity and lower infrastructure needs. (The Overhead Wire)

Typically streetcars & light rail have double track — one per direction. But like BRT, if passing is done at stops, money can be saved by using single track in between.

From the person who presented this idea in 2004, Lyndon Henry:

North American planners only thought of streetcars as a slow, circulatory mode competing with pedestrians. Meanwhile, de facto high-performance streetcars were taking Europe by storm, and it was clear that streetcar technology could approach the service capabilities of “full” light rail transit (LRT) — in fact, streetcars could be deployed as a kind of “junior LRT”.

Another factor was the “gold-plating” disease—over-design—with each new LRT startup trying to “one-up” the last new start in another city. LRT railcars were getting bigger and beefier, and station designs were escalating from originally simple shelters into “palaces.”

This led me to recall the original inspiration of LRT—Europe’s invention of a rather bare-bones upgrade of ordinary mixed-traffic streetcars into a faster mode with lots of dedicated lanes, reservations, and exclusive alignments, only occasionally running in street traffic. This notion was expounded in the 1960s and early 1970s by transit visionaries like H. Dean Quinby and Stewart F. Taylor; interestingly, Taylor branded his version of the concept a “Rapid Tramway.” (Railway Age)

We shouldn’t cling to a mode from the past, we need to build a north-south transit line by establishing goals then designing a line to meet those goals. At the same time I’d look at doing what Houston did — redesign all transit routes & schedules from scratch.

— Steve Patterson

Three Track Types For Street-Running Transit

Many of us agree we should invest in better North-South transit, most likely rail-based. But details such as route, track type, speed, spacing of stops, etc is where there’s disagreement. Today I want to review three track options for street-running rail transit:

1. Ballasted track
2. Embedded track, shared lane
3. Embedded track, protected lane

I’m going to use photos from Dallas to demonstrate these.

Ballasted track

This is the traditional type of railroad track.

Track ballast forms the trackbed upon which railway sleepers (UK) or railroad ties (US) are laid. It is packed between, below, and around the ties. It is used to bear the load from the railroad ties, to facilitate drainage of water, and also to keep down vegetation that might interfere with the track structure. This also serves to hold the track in place as the trains roll by. It is typically made of crushed stone, although ballast has sometimes consisted of other, less suitable materials. The term “ballast” comes from a nautical term for the stones used to stabilize a ship. (Wikipedia)

Our light rail uses this type of track in its exclusive right-of-way, with wood ties in the original 1993 line and concrete ties in later extensions. Obviously, this is not used in places where cars drive in the same space. With railroads they are completely separate but when used in the public right-of-way (streets) it requires physical barriers to keep cars off the track.

This is the least costly and fasted type of track. To achieve the highest speeds it’s important to have few conflict points (crossings) and greater distances between stops.

Embedded track

Embedded track is more costly to install than ballasted track, and vehicles operate at slower speeds.

Where a rail is laid in a Road surface (pavement) or within grassed surfaces, there has to be accommodation for the flange. This is provided by a slot called the flangeway. The rail is then known as grooved rail, groove rail, or girder rail. The flangeway has the railhead on one side and the guard on the other. The guard carries no weight, but may act as a checkrail.

Grooved rail was invented in 1852 by Alphonse Loubat, a French inventor who developed improvements in tram and rail equipment, and helped develop tram lines in New York City and Paris. The invention of grooved rail enabled tramways to be laid without causing a nuisance to other road users, except unsuspecting cyclists, who could get their wheels caught in the groove. The grooves may become filled with gravel and dirt (particularly if infrequently used or after a period of idleness) and need clearing from time to time, this being done by a “scrubber” tram. Failure to clear the grooves can lead to a bumpy ride for the passengers, damage to either wheel or rail and possibly derailing. (Wikipedia)

This type of track is more common where vehicles & pedestrians are in the same space as the track.

Embedded track, shared lane

Dallas’ light rail doesn’t share lanes with vehicles, where it uses streets not in a median cars are banned.

This is common for light rail. However, Dallas does have embedded track with shared lanes — their new tramway (aka streetcar).

Embedded track, separate lane

With a separate lane the transit vehicle can move slightly faster than it can when sharing a lane.

Each of these has their place, depending upon the situation and desired speed. I can see using ballasted track in auto-centric suburban medians, but not within the City of St. Louis or even inner-ring suburbs. The more separate ballasted track you have, combined with fewer stops, the faster the transit vehicle will get from A to B.

Those advocating more rail transit in St. Louis need to think about these track types and the implications of each.

— Steve Patterson