# General plan documents — st_louis-missouri Assembled by OpenPublica from the documents it serves for this government. Each section below is a separate publication by the government; page anchors (``) refer to pages of that section's own source PDF, linked in its heading. **Contains 2 documents.** OpenPublica has pinned these slots for this government: circulation, climate_action_plan, land_use, land_use_plan_allied_strategies, land_use_plan_community_engagement, land_use_plan_existing_conditions, land_use_plan_introduction, land_use_plan_key_qualities. That is what we have looked for, not a statement that the government publishes nothing else — a plan element absent here may simply not have been reviewed yet. Last reviewed 2026-08-25. --- ## Land Use — Strategic Land Use Plan: Visions, Goals, and The Map - Source: https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/planning/planning/adopted-plans/strategic-land-use/documents/upload/SLUP-Vision-Goals-and-Map-REDUCED.pdf - Pages: 48 - Covers: land_use # Vision & Goals <
> | A St. Louis that is Thriving (2) | A St. Louis that is Community-Driven | A St. Louis that is Connected | A St. Louis that is Developing and Growing | A St. Louis that is Equitable and Reparative | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Being interconnected across St. Louis | Being an appealing place for visitors | Addressing disparities across different areas and groups of people | | | | Having safe, quality streets for biking and walking | Developing major corridors | Repairing past harms, including redlining, racial injustice, and other inequities | | | | Being walkable | Catching up to peer cities | Creating innovative approaches to land use | Not displacing current residents | | | | Having better access to transportation | Being proactive and forward-thinking | Increasing density | Seeing North St. Louis reflected in the vision | | | | | | Having affordable housing | Strategically giving Land Back to Indigenous people | | | | Enjoying getting around St. Louis | Connecting neighborhoods together across gaps and barriers | Increasing population by attracting new residents | Increasing diversity of our population | | | | Having less automobiles | Developing new destinations | Growing the financial resources of the City | Increasing diversity and interaction across demographics (in services, housing, businesses, etc) | | | | | Reducing vacancy and utilizing vacant property | Others? | Serving people with disabilities and who are aging | Others? | | | | Others? | | | | # Vision and Goals All that is certain about the future of St. Louis is that there will be change. The SLUP serves as a guide to help us respond to those changes. As the future arrives, this vision sets the intention for what St. Louis will be like in the future. This vision for land use was shaped by hundreds of St. Louis residents who weighed in about their priorities for the future of St. Louis. See Community Engagement (page 142) for more details about public input on the vision and goals. Through these efforts, the social, economic, and physical divides across St. Louis will be stitched back together, creating a city that feels whole, strong, and flourishing. This transformation will support St. Louis city to continue to be the heart of the region, building forward momentum and fostering a shared belief that together we can create positive change through intentional, thoughtful, and proactive efforts. Each of these themes and their associated goals (described on the following pages) helped shape the future land use map and land use designations. The Allied Strategy Recommendations, beginning on page 250, also offer detailed guidance on how to move this vision forward in ways that complement the future land use map. ## The Vision **St. Louis will be a city that is equitable,** **thriving, and growing, to the benefit of all** **current and future residents.** **By moving towards this vision, St. Louis will** **affirm its role as the economic and cultural** **heart of the region for generations to come.** *** ## The Goals The three elements of this vision are interconnected and dependent on each other — one cannot come without the others. While this vision is lofty, the SLUP has goals that are specific to land use: <
> An equitable St. Louis is one where there is intentional effort to improve conditions for people and places harmed and marginalized by past and current policies and practices. The SLUP has three goals for equity: 1. Offer housing options that meet the diverse needs of the community and support residents staying in their neighborhoods through change and growth. 2. Intentionally reflect the opportunities and needs of disinvested areas and people in the land use designations, map, and policies. 3. Expand opportunities for more people of St. Louis to build their wealth and stake in the city by increasing their understanding and facilitating them being part of development and change, particularly people from historically disinvested communities and groups (including small-scale developers). A growing St. Louis is one where a diversity of people, institutions, and businesses want to come to St. Louis and to stay here. The SLUP has three goals for growing: 1. Reimagine vacancy as an asset that can be activated to support, retain, and attract residents. 2. Encourage development that builds from, improves, and enhances assets like parks, cultural and educational institutions, and the Mississippi River. 3. Guide growth and change in a manner that will help St. Louis more readily adapt to a changing climate. A thriving St. Louis is one where all people, institutions, and businesses have what they need to flourish, succeed, and be part of a strong community. The SLUP has three goals for thriving: 1. Ensure that all residents have safe and convenient access to core services like food and healthcare and support people’s ability to thrive in St. Louis without a car. 2. Foster community and public spaces that feel family friendly, safe, and accessible to people of all ages and abilities. 3. Foster an environment that supports the growth of jobs at a wide variety of future-facing businesses and organizations across the city, particularly in nodes, corridors, central areas, campuses, and industrial centers. Vision Theme # Equitable An equitable St. Louis is one where there is intentional effort to improve conditions for people and places harmed and marginalized by past and current policies and practices. Residents of St. Louis noted that we need to reckon with and address historical racist policies and practices in order to move forward together as one city. This means seeing intentional investment, focus, and action in historically disinvested areas, which benefits the whole city by creating a more thriving place for all residents. Housing is particularly important to creating an equitable St. Louis, given the past and current harms and challenges with access to quality, affordable housing. See existing conditions (page 178) for more details about historic inequities and context for these goals. “Land use in St Louis needs to take a proactive role in providing sufficient housing for all groups, protect current residents, and uplift residents who continue to be harmed by racist practices.” -City Resident “I want to see all neighborhoods rise up together, instead of areas getting left behind” -City Resident # Equitable Goal 1: ## Offer housing options that meet the diverse needs of the community and support residents staying in their neighborhoods through change and growth. Quality housing that serves the needs of St. Louis residents is essential to retaining current residents and attracting new ones. Throughout our city’s history, federal, state, and local actions have inflicted great harm on individuals, families, and communities through discriminatory housing policies that demolished communities and drove disinvestment. Those harms have yet to be rectified; the City has ample opportunity to atone for past damages and avoid causing future harms to any vulnerable communities. # Equitable Goal 2: ## Intentionally reflect the opportunities and needs of disinvested areas and people in the land use designations, map, and policies. Across St. Louis, there are communities that have been heavily impacted by disinvestment. This disinvestment can be seen in the built environment through vacancy, aging infrastructure, and neglect. At the same time, this history is part of the histories of families across St. Louis — and shapes the hopes people hold for beloved places to come back to life. Investing in these places can improve the quality of life for people who live there currently, while also supporting opportunities for potential future residents, including those with ties to neighborhoods and who may want to return. Residents see that addressing disinvested communities benefits the whole city, increasing opportunities to thrive across St. Louis. # Equitable Goal 3: ## Expand opportunities for more people of St. Louis to build their wealth and stake in the city by increasing their understanding and facilitating them being part of development and change, particularly people from historically disinvested communities and groups (including small-scale developers). Given the current complexity of the development process, residents and small developers report that they struggle to understand and navigate the steps needed to be part of development and change in St. Louis. Yet, land use can be a significant part of building wealth and cultivating committed citizens who are invested in the future of the city — which St. Louis residents want to be. # Vision Theme # Growing # A growing St. Louis is one where a diversity of people, institutions, and businesses want to come to St. Louis and to stay here. Residents see refilling the city and growing population as a way to support and sustain a thriving and an equitable city. Having more people and more resources helps support walkable, connected communities. The first step in growth is addressing the factors causing people to leave; land use has an important role to play in supporting people to stay. Growth requires a careful balance of supporting and prioritizing the needs of current residents to keep them here as new people arrive. Growing can mean attracting new residents, including young families, immigrants, those who want a lower cost of living, and those who want a more climate-stable home. Critical to addressing a growing St. Louis is addressing vacancy, neglect, and other nuisance issues while building on the existing physical, cultural, and social assets of our community. “We need more people to solve so many issues including safety (more bystanders), revenue (larger tax base), and job growth (communities of talent).” -City Resident “I believe if we prioritize all residents and offer these baselines with dignity and opportunity, others will be drawn [here] because they would feel like they belong.” -City Resident # Growing Goal 1: # Reimagine vacancy as an asset that can be activated to support, retain, and attract residents. Vacancy, and other land use nuisances that arise from neglect and cause harm, are a physical and emotional burden on neighborhoods and residents of St. Louis, adding costs and tarnishing the experience people have in their own neighborhoods and as they travel across the city. Vacancy is unequally distributed across the city, with much higher vacancy rates on the north side of the city, reflecting the historic patterns of redlining, segregation, and disinvestment. Addressing vacancy, while also addressing land uses that are nuisances or cause harm, has the potential to change the day-to-day conditions for people across the city and is a top priority for residents. # Growing Goal 2: # Encourage development that builds from, improves, and enhances assets like parks, cultural and educational institutions, and the river. St. Louis is a city brimming with assets. For example, parks and community spaces are important neighborhood and regional destinations that draw people together and help shape the culture of St. Louis. Yet, many of St. Louis’s assets struggle with a similar set of challenges, including disconnection from each other and the rest of the city and challenges with maintenance and upkeep in the surrounding area. # Growing Goal 3: # Guide growth and change in a manner that will help St. Louis more readily adapt to a changing climate. St. Louis, like places around the world, is threatened by the changing climate, including intensification of storms, increased flooding, and increased heat. The increased risks from these threats are not equally distributed across the city — often, the areas with the highest heat, lowest tree cover, and least stormwater infrastructure reflect historic patterns of redlining and racial segregation. Some of these risks, like flooding, have long been part of the landscape in St. Louis, but in recent decades the city has seen flooding in locations that don’t follow the river-based patterns that St. Louisans have come to expect. # Vision Theme # Thriving A thriving St. Louis is one where all people, institutions, and businesses have what they need to flourish, succeed, and be part of a strong community. Residents see thriving as directly connected to improving the quality of life for current and future residents. A city that serves families, children, and people of all ages by providing access to housing and amenities and creating safe and walkable spaces is seen as a place that will both attract new people and support current residents. Walkability and safety allow people to access well-paying jobs and services, which allows people to rise out of and stay out of poverty. “Supporting families and children is the most important, because this is a population we are losing in droves.” - City Resident “Focus on current residents and how we can support each other… [then] more residents will come.” - City Resident “Putting people’s needs first is crucial, after that all other aspects will fall in place.” - City Resident ## Thriving Goal 1: Ensure that all residents have convenient access to the things they need to thrive, including food and healthcare, without relying on a car. Being able to thrive in St. Louis requires being able to access key amenities and needs, like groceries, employment, and healthcare. In many areas across St. Louis, residents feel that their current access is challenging and often too reliant on using a car. Many people want—and often need—to be able to get to the things they need by walking, biking, wheeling, or taking transit. ## Thriving Goal 2: Foster community and public spaces that feel family friendly, safe, and accessible to people of all ages and abilities. For St. Louis residents to feel connected and supported, a sense of safety for people of all ages and abilities is important. Safety comes in many forms, but many people share an understanding that spaces can support a sense of safety by feeling well cared for and accessible. This is particularly important in our shared areas, community areas, and public spaces, where we gather, interact, and ideally feel not just comfortable but proud to be in the city we share together. ## Thriving Goal 3: Foster an environment that supports the growth of jobs at a wide variety of future-facing businesses and organizations across the city, particularly in nodes, corridors, central areas, campuses, and industrial centers. For residents to thrive, there must be opportunities for well-paying jobs that are accessible and will be available long term. These opportunities are an important part of what residents identify as supporting people to rise out of and stay out of poverty, helping to strengthen the city. Businesses and organizations are also critical to attracting new residents, adding to the population, and sustaining the economic needs of the city and the region. # The Map # The plan supports an equitable St. Louis by: <
> ## 1 Connecting the northern, central, and southern parts of the city. The north-south disconnect in the city is a significant barrier to an equitable St. Louis. The SLUP proposes that the Central Areas, which include much of the city between the Arch and Forest Park, should serve as a bridge, a connector, and a gathering place to knit the city together, enhancing the connection across north and south. In addition, the plan envisions walkable, human-oriented corridors that run north and south, bridging the many neighborhoods that they serve. *Read more about Central Areas on page 102 and about Corridors on page 82.* <
> ## 2 Ensuring opportunities for investment that addresses economic inequity Some areas of St. Louis have experienced generations of disinvestment, leading to deeply inequitable outcomes across different geographies and racial groups in St. Louis. One measure of this is the city’s Economic Justice Index, which considers the history of an area, current residents, current conditions, and the kinds of opportunities available for development and growth. The SLUP advances this approach to economic justice by ensuring that higher-and medium-intensity nodes and corridors are located where it makes sense structurally in the city and that many of these areas are near places that are in high need of new services, amenities, and population regrowth. *For additional strategy recommendations related to economic justice and addressing inequities, see the Allied Strategy Recommendations, starting on page 250, including those in Equity Goal 2 on page 272.* <
> ## 3 Connecting areas of the city that have become disconnected Over time, many areas of the city have become disconnected from each other by barriers like highways, vacancy, and automobile-oriented development. The SLUP connects neighborhoods and assets by supporting active land uses and human-oriented (rather than automobile-oriented) development patterns along the areas in between. For example, many Corridors are located along streets that connect different neighborhoods and centers of activity. The SLUP calls for more active and complete uses along these Corridors, and a more careful handling of automobile-oriented uses, to help make these connections stronger. The Corridors themselves become activity centers, rather than just pathways through neighborhoods. *Read more about Corridors on page 82.* # The plan supports a growing St. Louis by: ## 4 Emphasizing assets like parks, campuses, and cultural anchors Across St. Louis, there are many strengths and assets, including parks, campuses, and cultural anchors. There are also recent and upcoming investments across the city that create positive momentum. Where appropriate, the SLUP supports a mix of more intense, complementary land uses around these assets (e.g., more housing), enhancing access for a wide range of residents. *See more examples on the Map on page 56.* <
> ## 5 Celebrating the urban form and shape of our historic city The basic form of the city of St. Louis is already established — like the size of lots, existing streets and alleyways, and mix of building types — and these historic decisions set us apart clearly as an urban center for the region. While there are many opportunities for change and growth in the future, the SLUP responds to and celebrates what’s already here — the history, physical attributes, and the experiences of generations of residents shaping our shared spaces and culture. The form of St. Louis also has the capacity to welcome new residents, which can help ensure businesses stay open and spaces feel full and vibrant for everyone, especially residents who stay. *See more about how the SLUP responds to the current form of St. Louis in the Land Use Designation Explainers on page 130.* <
> ## 6 Encouraging growth that can be resilient and responsive to our changing climate As the climate changes, St. Louis can expect to be hotter and have more extreme weather, with more extreme rains and stronger storms changing the experience for residents and visitors. The SLUP responds to these changing conditions by thoughtfully placing higher-intensity areas in places that are less likely to flood in heavy rain events. At the same time, lower-intensity development that is designed to absorb or retain stormwater is encouraged in areas where flooding is more likely. For example, some historic corridors in flood-prone areas are designated for lower-intensity development to better protect the existing residents and cultural assets for years to come. The plan also emphasizes the importance of integrating green infrastructure (e.g., a strong urban tree canopy, rain gardens, context-sensitive natural areas) that can help mitigate the impacts of flooding. *Read more about allied strategies related to climate change in Growing Goal 3 on page 322.* <
> ## 7 Connecting to the Mississippi River The Mississippi River is an essential part of St. Louis’s history, serving as a “working waterfront” with active industry for the last two centuries. For visitors and residents no longer working in industry, the unique connection of the city to the river at the Gateway Arch grounds still highlights its important role. This plan begins to image other locations along the riverfront that could serve as unique places for connecting city and river through views or points of recreation. The river remains a working waterfront, so these “waterfront windows” are imagined as human-oriented paths and visual connections through the industrial context, to connect with the river that gave us our start. In particular, the plan expands the highly mixed-use experience just north and south of the Arch grounds, supporting more people to live and visit along the riverfront. *Read more about Waterfront Windows in the allied strategies on page 313.* <
> # The plan supports a thriving St. Louis by: ## 8 Supporting greater walkability within neighborhoods to serve residents While many neighborhoods in St. Louis have a walkable historic fabric, residents frequently report not being able to access what they need within their own neighborhoods on foot. The SLUP calls for improved walkability throughout the places where people live and work in St. Louis and aims to bring people closer to the amenities they need to thrive. Neighborhood areas are encouraged to have small, neighborhood-serving businesses and other amenities like schools and churches mixed in, and areas where people live are located near nodes and corridors that concentrate amenities. *Read more about design recommendations for walkability in the Designations, starting on page 70.* <
> ## 9 Enabling and encouraging people to take transit, bike, and walk across the city In addition to supporting walkable neighborhoods, the SLUP encourages active transportation across the city and decreased dependence on automobiles by expanding opportunities for making it easier for people to live near existing and proposed transit, greenways, and other investments in pedestrian and bike infrastructure. For example, the SLUP proposes greater intensity of nodes and corridors along proposed transit lines and along corridors with regular transit service so people can take advantage of these new resources without driving, accessing more of the city and the things they need. *Read more about recommendations for allied strategies to improve walkability in Thriving Goal 1, page 346.* <
> ## 10 Allowing for a greater mix of uses across the whole city Historically, land use plans have determined which specific uses were allowed in specific areas of the city. This means places to live may be separated from places to work or places to shop. To support greater walkability and a more urban experience, the SLUP now allows and encourages a greater mix of uses across much of the city, including neighborhood-serving businesses within neighborhoods, housing within corridors and nodes, and flex industrial areas that can transition over time to a mix of uses. *Read more about the mix of uses encouraged in different designations in the Designations, starting on page 70.* <
> ## 11 Supporting and sustaining places for economic activity The SLUP supports opportunities for employment and economic growth in the city by maintaining locations that are core to the current economy, such as industrial areas along the riverfront and in locations with rail access. The SLUP also builds on existing assets and strengths to support economic growth, expanding spaces for businesses and organizations of all sizes in Nodes, Corridors, Neighborhoods, Campuses, and Central Areas. These designations also offer greater flexibility for new and emerging uses that may have less impact than historic manufacturing or production. *Read more about the mix of uses that support economic activity in Nodes, Corridors, Neighborhoods, Campuses, and Central Areas in different designations in the Designations, starting on page 70.* <
> # The Map The map assigns a specific land use designation to each parcel of land in St. Louis City based on the shape, size, and future aspiration for that location. The map may be updated from time to time to reflect changes to the aspiration for specific areas, which might be raised by newly-adopted neighborhood plans, major changes in ownership or use, or other relevant changes in conditions. The table below gives an at-a-glance explanation of each designation in the SLUP. These designations are defined by the form of the buildings — like how tall they are and where the parking is located. For each characteristic (including height, residential units per building, and parking locations), specific expectations and rules must be established through zoning. Maximums (for height and units per building) mean that there may be many smaller buildings in areas with this designation. | SLUP Designation Categories | Maximum Height (Stories) | Maximum Residential Units / Parcel | Parking Between the Building and the Street | Parking to the Side | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Neighborhoods** | | | | | | Higher-intensity | 5-8 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Medium-intensity | 3 | 4-8 + ADU | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Lower-intensity | 3 | 1-2 + ADU | Not Allowed (except where driveway connects to garage) | Not Allowed (except where driveway connects to garage) | | **Corridors** | | | | | | Higher-intensity | 8-10 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Not Allowed | | Medium-intensity | 3-5 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Lower-intensity | 3 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Allowed | | **Nodes** | | | | | | Higher-intensity | 8-15 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Not Allowed | | Medium-intensity | 3-5 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Lower-intensity | 3 | Unlimited | Allowed | Allowed | | **Central Areas** | | | | | | Central East | 30-Unlimited | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Central West / Midtown | 20-30 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | **Campuses** | | | | | | Campuses | Variable | Not Applicable | Not Allowed | Variable | | **Industrial Areas** | | | | | | Core | 5 | Not Applicable | Allowed | Allowed | | Flex | 3-8 | Varies | Allowed | Allowed | | **Open Spaces** | | | | | | Parks / Community Space | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | | Other | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | <
> Since the SLUP celebrates and builds on the current form of St. Louis, it can be challenging to see just how aspirational this vision is — particularly because many places that are nodes and corridors may already feel that way. Yet, the SLUP helps guide change that will create a high-quality, connected city by responding to and celebrating what’s already there. These tables show a few places where the SLUP aspires for change from the current conditions. Visit the designation pages to see aspirations for other designations. ### Higher-Intensity Node at Kingshighway and Natural Bridge | Current conditions | Aspirations encouraged by the updated SLUP | | :--- | :--- | | • Many nearby neighbors
• Many drive-thrus
• Few amenities that serve the neighborhood
• Not pedestrian friendly
• Intersecting transit lines | • More nearby neighbors, including within this corner
• More walkable conditions with less drive-thrus
• More amenities that serve neighbors
• Intersecting transit lines
• Resilience to flooding | ### Medium-Intensity Node at Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard and Grand Avenue | Current conditions | Aspirations encouraged by the updated SLUP | | :--- | :--- | | • Many auto-oriented businesses like drive-thrus and gas stations
• Some amenities that serve the neighbors
• Many nearby neighbors
• Not pedestrian friendly
• Nearby transit | • More nearby neighbors, including within this corner
• More walkable conditions with fewer drive-thrus
• More amenities that serve neighbors | ### Lower-Intensity Node at Loughborough Commons | Current conditions | Aspirations encouraged by the updated SLUP | | :--- | :--- | | • Shopping destination that serves nearby neighbors and people coming from other places
• Few pedestrian or bike routes to businesses
• Nearby transit | • Continued location for amenities that serve nearby neighbors and people coming from other places
• Safer and more accessible routes for people walking and biking to businesses
• Resilient to flooding | ### Central Areas East along Washington near Jefferson | Current conditions | Aspirations encouraged by the updated SLUP | | :--- | :--- | | • Some older, historic buildings with a mix of heights
• A mix of residential spaces and office spaces, as well as some institutions
• Some parking lots with limited driveway access onto Washington | • A wide mix of uses, including residential, commercial, and research and development in both old and new buildings
• Taller buildings, as well as smaller buildings
• A very walkable, bikeable environment with few surface parking lots and curb cuts | ### Central Areas West around Vandeventer | Current conditions | Aspirations encouraged by the updated SLUP | | :--- | :--- | | • Some larger parking lots with wide curb cuts
• Surface parking lots, including in front of some buildings
• Some taller residential and office buildings
• A mix of businesses and amenities | • A mix of older and new buildings, including new multi-unit residential buildings
• Few automobile-oriented uses such as gas stations
• More filled-in lots | ### Lower-Intensity Corridor along N. Broadway | Current conditions | Aspirations encouraged by the updated SLUP | | :--- | :--- | | • Strip malls with large parking lots and curb cuts
• Facilities with lots of truck traffic
• Historic buildings with businesses of a variety of sizes | • Shopping areas with parking lots to the side, with plenty of ways to walk to the shops safely
• Few facilities with trucks
• Resilient to flooding | ### Medium-Intensity Corridor along N. and W. Florissant Avenues | Current conditions | Aspirations encouraged by the updated SLUP | | :--- | :--- | | • Many auto-oriented businesses like drive-thrus and gas stations
• Facilities with trucks
• A mix of historic and newer homes | • More businesses that are easy to walk up to, with fewer curb cuts and fewer drive-thrus
• Fewer facilities with trucks
• A mix of historic and newer homes
• Resilient to flooding | ### Higher-Intensity Corridor along South Grand | Current conditions | Aspirations encouraged by the updated SLUP | | :--- | :--- | | • Some much taller buildings with residences and offices
• A few drive-thru restaurants
• Some historic homes and parks
• Many nearby residents
• Some vacant lots and parking lots
• Nearby transit | • More walkable buildings and businesses with fewer curb-cuts
• Greater connection between different neighborhood areas
• More amenities that serve neighbors | ### Flex Industrial along Branch Street in Hyde Park | Current conditions | Aspirations encouraged by the updated SLUP | | :--- | :--- | | • A mix of warehouse-style buildings and vacant lots, including several buildings with driveways and curbcuts
• Some older homes
• A public park | • Continued use of some industrial sites for businesses and jobs that have less impact on health
• Transition of some warehouses and industrial sites to other uses, commercial and some types of housing | ### Other Open Space along Odell Avenue in Ellendale | Current conditions | Aspirations encouraged by the updated SLUP | | :--- | :--- | | • Residential area that experienced River des Peres flooding in 2022 | • Open spaces that support flood resilience and absorb water | # SLUP Transportation Elements In addition to land use designations, the SLUP map also depicts certain important transportation elements. At their most basic level, the transportation elements depict how people access locations across the city. But the spatial location of transportation elements also largely define the very form and shape of the city itself. The location of many land use features are the result of past transportation infrastructure investments. The transportation elements shown have an important relationship with the adjacent land uses, and may directly influence land use designations. In some cases, the infrastructure associated with transportation elements may be the primary factor defining the way adjacent land can or should be used, in other cases it may be just one contributing aspect among many. The SLUP map shows the location of both currently existing and planned transportation elements to give the land use designations the ability to both acknowledge what exists today and to proactively anticipate significant planned additions or changes to the transportation elements. Because the SLUP is general in nature, not every transportation feature in the St. Louis landscape can be shown. What is shown are significant, lasting features which have long-term implications for the spaces they traverse. Just as specific land use designations can be updated over time, the transportation elements can also change to reflect planned or completed projects, new planning, or evolving best practices. <
> # Current Transportation Categories: **Highways** Beginning in the 1950’s, highways in St. Louis were constructed by overlaying their locations across the existing street and parcel fabric. This led to a connected limited access highway system which facilitated regional transportation, but often also created negative impacts or significant demolition in places where highways were built. There are no new planned highways in the City of St. Louis. To the contrary, most planning now focuses on ways to reduce the space occupied by existing highways, particularly ramp and interchange footprints. **MetroLink** There are currently two MetroLink routes and 13 MetroLink stations (of 38 total stations) in the City of St. Louis. The MetroLink light rail system is a regional system providing service to the City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and St. Clair County, IL. The City of St. Louis, in partnership with Bi-State Metro Transit, is currently planning a street running 10 station expansion known as the MetroLink Green Line. **Greenways** Greenways are high quality off-street bikeways and multi-use trails which serve multiple forms of non-motorized travel. Both the City of St. Louis and agency partners are engaged with significant expansions to the Greenway system. Originally envisioned as a means of linking parks, waterways, and natural spaces, many new greenways are being planned as an integrated component of reconstructed major streets, increasing their relationship to adjacent land use regulations. **Loop Trolley** The Loop Trolley is a street running heritage streetcar providing service from Forest Park to the Delmar Loop in both the City of St. Louis and neighboring University City. The Loop Trolley is operated by Bi-State Metro Transit. **Railroads** Often following convenient topography, many rail lines in St. Louis pre-date today’s street network. Prior to the interstate highway system, railroads were the primary means of travel between cities for both passengers and freight. St. Louis has a major rail yard immediately south of downtown St. Louis in the Mill Creek Valley. While passenger service is no longer a major function of the rail network, rail still provides the primary means of transporting many kinds of freight. Because rail lines often have limited crossing points and run in their own right of way, they have a significant impact on adjacent land use and transportation networks. **Waterfront Windows** Waterfront windows are places where people can access the Mississippi River, or may be able to the future. The SLUP map provides guidance on locations where access may be possible in the future, or current access could be enhanced. It is critical these locations are connected to quality cycling and pedestrian amenities. # The Land Use Designations | Categories | Max Res Units / Building | Front Yard Parking | Side Yard Parking | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Not Allowed | | | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Not Allowed | | | Unlimited | Allowed | Allowed | <
> A higher-intensity node would allow buildings with a maximum height of 8 to 15 stories, but would include buildings that are smaller. Parking would not be allowed in front or to the side of buildings. <
> # Land Use Designations Introduction The primary use of the Strategic Land Use Plan is in development and land use policy decisions. When someone wants to make a change to policies that shape how land can be used in St. Louis city, the SLUP serves as a legal guide for the Planning Office and other relevant departments to evaluate the idea and assist in the development process. City staff then make recommendations to groups like the resident-led Planning Commission and the Board of Aldermen. The land use designations are categories that are applied to each parcel of land in St. Louis. These designations help generally describe the future vision or aspiration for all of the types of areas within the city, describing what kinds of buildings, uses, and forms will be encouraged. Another way to put it is that the SLUP’s land use designations represent different “types of places” that we are trying to encourage throughout the city. The following pages provide the specifics for each designation, including encouraged uses, discouraged uses, and guidance on how land uses should connect to streets, sidewalks, and the public realm. ## How do neighborhood plans complement the SLUP’s land use designations? Neighborhood and district plans help communities imagine, create, and adopt a specific and fine-grained vision for the future of their neighborhood. The SLUP’s designations offer a general vision based on a city-wide view. But as communities create their own plans, they may build on the SLUP designations to envision more specific ideas (such as, “within this Node, we’d like to see a grocery store”), or they may update the SLUP designations (such as, “we’d like to see this Lower-Intensity Corridor become a Medium-Intensity Corridor”). Neighborhood plans are also more holistic in nature — addressing topics like youth, health, and culture alongside land use — and may make site-specific recommendations for development or preservation at key sites. The SLUP should not promote land use that is out of sync with what a neighborhood plan calls for; in the future, the SLUP may be updated because of decisions made in neighborhood plans. A requirement of the neighborhood plans is a proposed land use map for the neighborhood that shows the neighborhood plans’ vision and goals. The SLUP will be regularly updated based on recommendations from adopted neighborhood plans. When the SLUP is used to review proposals, formally adopted neighborhood and district plans are also consulted as supplements to the Comprehensive Plan. ## What do these designations mean for existing buildings and uses? The SLUP is a guide for future land use. Existing buildings and land uses may remain as they are, and as those sites change into the future, the SLUP will help set the guardrails for what can happen in those places. As the SLUP is implemented through zoning, the specific rules and regulations for future land use will better match what is called for in the plan. ## What is the difference between land use and zoning? Generally speaking, land use defines the vision and goals for land, while zoning is the legal mechanism that implements that vision by regulating what can actually be built or done on a specific plot of land. The overhaul of the City’s zoning code is therefore a key next step following the adoption of the SLUP. While the land use designations define a generalized, relative height range, it is the zoning code that will hone in and define a maximum height. For any one land use designation, there may be multiple zoning designations. Consider this table comparing land use and zoning. | | LAND USE | ZONING | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **PURPOSE** | Describes vision and goals for land | Legally regulates land development | | **SCOPE** | Broad, general categories | Detailed, parcel-specific rules | | **EXAMPLE** | Lower-Intensity Neighborhood | “A” single-family dwelling district | | **REGULATORY POWER** | Strategic / advisory | Legally binding: enforced by local government | | **ADOPTION** | Planning Commission | Initiated by the Planning Commission, adopted as ordinance by the Board of Aldermen | ### Transition Zones In creating and applying the designations to parcels across the city, one of the criteria considered was to ensure that there was not the potential for drastic height transition between areas of Higher-Intensity, like a Higher-Intensity Node, and adjacent areas, such as a Medium-Intensity Neighborhood. Factors such as existing neighborhood height, lot depth, and proximity were used to determine, in part, what intensity a parcel would receive. That said, in some cases, there is a potential for fairly severe transitions that may or may not be desirable to a given geography. As such, as part of the zoning overhaul, close attention must be paid to potential areas where there may be height transitions. A more thorough analysis of transitions should be completed as part of the forthcoming zoning overhaul. ## St. Louis Street Sections <
> # Neighborhoods Overview ### What are Neighborhoods? Neighborhoods are areas that are primarily residential but include other uses that serve people living in that area, including small parks, gardens, neighborhood shops, schools, and religious institutions, among other things. Neighborhoods make up much of the land across the city. ### Why are Neighborhoods important? Neighborhoods areas are important because these are the main places where people live. Neighborhoods need to support a wide range of people, cultures, and styles, but all neighborhoods include some of the everyday amenities that people want to live near. The Neighborhood designations also support the creation of more high-quality places for people to live. Currently, Neighborhoods in St. Louis have a wide range of conditions, including places that are very dense, places that have high vacancy, places that are more walkable, and places that are more automobile oriented. Some Neighborhoods have neighborhood-serving businesses and amenities, while others do not. Many Neighborhoods are not currently at the level of residential density that they were originally built to support. In addition, there are many institutional buildings throughout Neighborhoods, some occupied and some vacant or underutilized. The Neighborhood designations address some of these conditions by supporting different levels of residential density, allowing a variety of housing types, and establishing relative levels of height. Neighborhood designations also support a mix of uses to encourage businesses and amenities that serve the surrounding residents. ### What happens to institutional buildings within Neighborhoods? Many institutional buildings, like schools and religious buildings, are located within Neighborhoods. If these buildings are no longer in use as institutional spaces, they may be considered for reuse as community-serving amenities or as residential space with a larger scale than the surrounding area. If the building is demolished, new construction should align with the vision and level of density as described in the intensity level of a given Neighborhood designation. <
> **Existing Neighborhood Conditions** This drawing illustrates some of the common challenges that currently exist in Neighborhoods. *** | SLUD Designation: Neighborhoods | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | **Maximum Height (Stories)** | **Maximum Residential Units / Parcel** | **Parking Between the Building and the Street** | **Parking to the Side** | | Higher-Intensity | 5-8 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Medium-Intensity | 3 | 4-8 + ADU | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Lower-Intensity | 3 | 1-2 + ADU | Not Allowed (except where driveway connects to garage) | Discouraged (except where driveway connects to garage) | ### The Neighborhood designations support these goals of the SLUP: * Offer housing options * Reflect needs and opportunities of disinvested communities * Expand opportunities to build wealth through land use * Address vacancy * Build from and improve on assets * Adapt to changing climate * Foster more places for jobs <
> **Lower-Intensity Neighborhood in Ellendale** * Mostly residential area with housing that is similar in height and size to the historic buildings * Primarily buildings with driveways rather than alleys **Higher-Intensity Neighborhood in Columbus Square** * Mostly residential area with housing that is similar in height and size to the historic buildings * Potentially very dense housing, with many people living there * Shops, restaurants, and other commercial uses, especially at corners **Medium-Intensity Neighborhood in the Greater Ville** * Mostly residential area with housing that is similar in height and size to the historic buildings * Some neighborhood-serving businesses like shops **Legend** **Neighborhoods** Higher-Intensity Medium-Intensity Lower-Intensity **Transportation** Existing MetroLink Routes Planned MetroLink Route Existing Greenways Planned Greenways Interstate Highways Railways Loop Trolley Open Space Rivers # Medium-Intensity Neighborhoods ### What are Medium-Intensity Neighborhoods? A Medium-Intensity Neighborhood is an area that is primarily residential and will have buildings with a maximum height of 3 stories. Buildings in this area will have a maximum of between 4 and 8 units (depending on zoning for their specific location), with the possibility to include an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), which is a smaller, independent residence located on the same lot. Parking would be discouraged in front of or to the side of buildings, and there will be street parking in many Medium-Intensity Neighborhood areas. In some higher flood risk areas, Medium-Intensity Neighborhoods should consider building-based flood resilience strategies and additional civil infrastructure; see G3.1 on page 323 for more information. In other areas green infrastructure should be considered; see G3.2 on page 327 for more information. <
> Example in the Greater Ville <
> Example on Hickory Street in Lafayette Square <
> Example on Eiler Street in Carondelet <
> ### These areas will encourage and/or allow: * Many types of housing, ranging from small- and medium-scale multi-unit buildings to single-unit buildings * Limited types of commercial activities and uses, including smaller retail and offices in corner commercial spaces * Institutions like schools and religious buildings * Small parks and public open spaces, including community gardens * Urban agriculture in locations where it can be appropriately integrated into its surrounding neighborhood context * Limited utility installations, like substations or renewable energy generation, that are integrated into the surrounding context * Limited small-scale manufacturing and artisanal production, where integrated into the surrounding context ### In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * Multi-unit buildings that have more than 8 units (with the exception of existing multi-unit buildings that are more dense) * Most industrial uses * Automobile-related commercial activities, like gas stations and auto repair * Entertainment-related commercial activities * Hotels and other larger, collective commercial lodgings * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater detention areas <
> **New Medium-Intensity Neighborhoods** This drawing illustrates some of the conditions and types of uses that are generally encouraged in Medium-Intensity Neighborhoods. # Higher-Intensity Neighborhoods ### What are Higher-Intensity Neighborhoods? A Higher-Intensity Neighborhood is an area that is primarily residential and will have buildings with a maximum height of 5 to 8 stories. These areas might be very dense, with many units per building. Parking would be discouraged in front of or to the side of buildings. These areas will be very walkable, located in places where there is or will be access to transit and amenities. In some higher-flood-risk areas, Higher-Intensity Neighborhoods should consider building-based flood resilience strategies and additional civil and hybrid infrastructure; see G3.1 on page 323 for more information. <
> Example on Pershing <
> Example in Forest Park Southeast <
> Example in Columbus Square <
> **Legend** **Neighborhoods** Higher-Intensity *** **These areas will encourage and/or allow:** * Many types of housing, ranging from large multi-unit to single-unit buildings * Some types of commercial activities and uses, especially at corner locations, including mid-size retail and offices * Institutions like schools and religious buildings * Small parks and public open spaces, including community gardens * Urban agriculture in locations where it can be appropriately integrated into its surrounding neighborhood context * Limited utility installations, like substations or renewable energy generation, that are integrated into the surrounding context * Limited lodging opportunities, if their impacts on residential uses can be mitigated * Limited small-scale manufacturing and artisanal production, where integrated into the surrounding context **In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged:** * Any industrial uses * Automobile-related commercial activities, like gas stations and auto repair * Entertainment-related commercial activities * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater detention areas <
> **New Higher-Intensity Neighborhoods** This drawing illustrates some of the conditions and types of uses that are generally encouraged in Higher-Intensity Neighborhoods. # Lower-Intensity Neighborhoods ## What are Lower-Intensity Neighborhoods? A Lower-Intensity Neighborhood is an area that is primarily residential and will have buildings with a maximum height of 3 stories. Lower-Intensity Neighborhoods may have driveways leading from the street to a garage, in part because they often do not have alley access. Many Lower-Intensity Neighborhoods were developed after World War II, and are newer than other parts of St. Louis. In many of these areas, there will also be street parking. Buildings in Lower-Intensity Neighborhood areas may have one or two units, with the possibility in some places to include an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), which is a smaller, independent residence located on the same lot. In some higher flood risk areas, Lower-Intensity Neighborhoods should consider building-based strategies and green infrastructure to mitigate flood risk. See G3.2 on page 327 for more information. <
> Example on Kingston Court in Penrose <
> Example in North Pointe <
> Example in St. Louis Hills <
> **Legend** **Neighborhoods** Lower-Intensity ## These areas will encourage and/or allow: * Different types of smaller-scale housing, including single-unit and two-unit buildings, but also including existing multi-unit buildings * Smaller retail and offices * Institutions like schools and religious buildings * Small parks and public open spaces, including community gardens * Urban agriculture in locations where it can be appropriately integrated into its surrounding neighborhood context * Limited utility installations, like substations or renewable energy generation, that are integrated into the surrounding context * Limited small-scale lodging opportunities, if and where their impacts on residential uses can be mitigated ## In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * New multi-unit buildings that have 3 or more units * Any industrial uses * Most commercial uses especially automobile-related activities like gas stations and auto repair * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater detention areas <
> **New Lower-Intensity Neighborhoods** This drawing illustrates some of the conditions and types of uses that are generally encouraged in Lower-Intensity Neighborhoods. # Corridors Overview ## What are Corridors? Corridors are areas along key streets that focus commercial uses and amenities but also include residential uses. This designation is about the buildings and lots rather than the traffic or conditions on the street. The City’s Transportation and Mobility Plan provides additional guidance about context-appropriate street design and use. ## Why are Corridors important? Corridors help St. Louis improve walkability, increase access to amenities, strengthen connections between neighborhoods, make good use of transit routes, and add more vibrancy in strategic locations through new housing and jobs. In most instances, corridor designations are located in places that already are more commercial in character; however, the corridor designation, as drawn and described, aspires to a much more walkable and human-oriented built environment (rather than a built environment designed for cars). Corridors also do and should continue to include many types of housing. Currently, many areas like this in St. Louis have evolved to be too oriented toward automobiles. Buildings are set back from the street, and often there is no pedestrian access to buildings from the sidewalk. Parking lots and curb cuts hamper the experience and safety of walking. Areas of activity across St. Louis are disconnected from each other, and residents often don’t have walkable access to amenities or jobs near where they live. Areas that are or will be well served by transit don’t have destinations (like jobs, shopping, entertainment) all the way along them. The Corridor designations seek to improve some of these current conditions. All corridors will help cultivate a more walkable environment that is safe for pedestrians and all other users. Active land use along corridors also aims to create a continuous, connected experience between different areas of activity. Corridors will provide nearby residents with greater access to amenities, places to work, and housing. Finally, by preserving and adding housing and businesses in these areas that are or will be well served by transit, corridors will support more users of these assets. <
> **Existing Corridor Conditions** *** | SLUP Designation: Corridors | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | **Maximum Height (Stories)** | **Maximum Residential Units / Parcel** | **Parking Between the Building and the Street** | **Parking to the Side** | | Higher-Intensity | 8-10 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Not Allowed | | Medium-Intensity | 3-5 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Lower-Intensity | 3 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Allowed | **The corridors designations support these goals of the SLUP:** * Foster more places for jobs * Address vacancy * Reflect needs and opportunities of disinvested communities * Build from and improve on assets * Offer housing options <
> **Medium-Intensity Corridor along N. and W. Florissant Avenues** * More businesses that are easy to walk up to, with fewer curb cuts and fewer drive-thrus * Fewer facilities with trucks * A mix of historic and newer homes * Resilient to flooding **Higher-Intensity Corridor along South Grand** * More walkable buildings and businesses with fewer curbcuts * Greater connection between different neighborhood areas * More amenities that serve neighbors **Lower-Intensity Corridor along N. Broadway** * Shopping areas with parking lots to the side, with plenty of ways to walk to the shops safely * Few facilities with trucks * Resilient to flooding <
> # Medium-Intensity Corridors ## What are Medium-Intensity Corridors? A Medium-Intensity Corridor could have buildings with a maximum height of 3 to 5 stories, depending on the location, but will include buildings that are smaller. These corridors are pedestrian focused. Buildings will have entrances that lead directly to the sidewalk and will be designed to accommodate people arriving via foot, bus, and bicycle, not just by car. Parking is encouraged behind buildings or in district-serving parking structures or lots and discouraged in front of buildings. Pedestrian safety and activity is important in Medium-Intensity Corridors, so intact streetscapes with minimal or no curb cuts, an intact tree canopy, sufficient sidewalk space, and good lighting conditions are encouraged. Where appropriate, quality landscaping should be used to create a welcoming, pedestrian-oriented environment. In some higher-flood-risk areas, Medium-Intensity Corridors should consider building-based flood resilience strategies and additional civil infrastructure; see G3.1 on page 323 for more information. In other areas green infrastructure should be considered; see G3.2 on page 327 for more information. <
> Example in Old North St. Louis <
> Example in Gravois Park <
> Example on South Grand near Arsenal <
> **Legend** **Corridors** Medium-Intensity ## These areas will encourage and/or allow: * Active ground floors with a mix of uses, including retail and housing * A mix of newer and older buildings * Many types of housing, especially multi-unit buildings, and some single-unit or two-unit buildings * Many types of commercial activities and uses * Many types and sizes of retail * Community-serving institutions and amenities like health care and daycare * Research and development activities, including industrial activities focused on research and development, and small-scale manufacturing and artisanal production * Institutions like schools and religious buildings * Small parks and public open spaces * Limited utility installations, like substations or renewable energy generation, that are integrated into the surrounding context ## In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * Large-scale, suburban-style regional retail stores * Automobile-related commercial activities, like gas stations and auto repair * Uses with drive-thru windows * Most industrial uses * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater areas <
> New Medium-Intensity Corridor # Medium-Intensity Corridors This street—once occupied by vacant lots, surface parking, and abandoned storefronts—is now a bustling mixed-use corridor. The streets are lined with greenery, and the transit glides by as people bike or walk to work and errands. Fletcher’s day began with a trip to a local cafe (just steps from his apartment) that serves breakfast, complete with rooftop urban gardens where they grow their own herbs and produce. Fletcher finds himself at a pedestrian-centered plaza with extensive green spaces, food trucks, and local vendors. The plaza is filled with public art and designed to host community events. <
> It’s a beautiful day in St. Louis! Here is what St. Louisans are doing at 1:34 PM on Friday, June 16, 2050. # Higher-Intensity Corridors ### What are Higher-Intensity Corridors? A Higher-Intensity Corridor could have buildings with a maximum height of 8 to 10 stories, depending on the location, but will include buildings that are smaller. These corridors will be very pedestrian-focused. Buildings will have entrances that lead directly to the sidewalk and will be designed to accommodate people arriving via foot, bus, and bicycle, not just by car. Parking is discouraged in front or to the side of buildings. Instead, parking is encouraged to be behind, within, or under the building or offered in district-serving parking structures or lots (for more information, see T2.3 on page 368). Pedestrian safety and activity is especially important in Higher-Intensity Corridors, so intact streetscapes with minimal or no curb cuts, an intact tree canopy, sufficient sidewalk space, and good lighting conditions are encouraged. Where appropriate, quality landscaping should be used to create a welcoming, pedestrian-oriented environment. In some higher-flood-risk areas, Higher-Intensity Corridors should consider building-based flood resilience strategies and additional civil and hybrid infrastructure; see G3.1 on page 323 for more information. <
> Example on Grand Boulevard <
> Example of Woodward Ave Downtown Detroit <
> Example in Delmar in the Loop <
> Legend Corridors Higher-Intensity ### These areas will encourage and/or allow: * Active ground floors with a mix of uses, including retail and housing * A mix of newer and older buildings * Many types of housing, especially multi-unit buildings * Many types of commercial activities and uses * Community-serving institutions and amenities like health care and daycare * Many types and sizes of retail * Research and development activities, including industrial activities focused on research and development, including small-scale manufacturing and artisanal production * Institutions like schools and religious buildings * Small parks and public open spaces * Limited utility installations, like substations or renewable energy generation, that are integrated into the surrounding context ### In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * Large-scale, suburban-style regional retail stores * Automobile-related commercial activities, like gas stations and auto repair * Uses with drive-thru windows * Most industrial uses * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater areas <
> **New Higher-Intensity Corridor** # Lower-Intensity Corridors ## What are Lower-Intensity Corridors? A Lower-Intensity Corridor will have buildings with a maximum height of 3 stories but will include buildings that are smaller. Parking will be encouraged to the side of the building but discouraged in front of the building. These corridors are more automobile oriented than Higher-or Medium-Intensity Corridors, although buildings in these corridors will support people walking and taking the bus by including quality sidewalks and direct connections between buildings and sidewalks. Care should be taken to reduce curb cuts to minimize conflicts between pedestrians and automobiles. Where appropriate, landscaping can also be used to create an environment that is safe for pedestrians. In some higher-flood-risk areas, Lower-Intensity Corridors should consider building-based strategies and green infrastructure to mitigate flood risk. See G3.2 on page 327 for more information. <
> **Legend** **Corridors** Lower-Intensity <
> Example on Broadway in Baden <
> Example on Chippewa in Northampton <
> Example of Third Degree Glass Factory on Delmar ## These areas will encourage and/or allow: * Active ground floors with a mix of uses, including retail and housing * A mix of newer and older buildings * Many types of housing, especially multi-unit buildings, and some single-unit or two-unit buildings * Many types of commercial activities and uses, including automobile-related commercial activities, like gas stations or auto repair if they are appropriately integrated into their surrounding context and designed to support a human-oriented pedestrian environment * Many types and sizes of retail, including large-scale regional retail stores that might be discouraged in other districts * Community-serving institutions and amenities like health care and daycare * Research and development activities, including industrial activities focused on research and development, including small-scale manufacturing and artisanal production * Institutions like schools and religious buildings * Small parks and public open spaces * Limited utility installations, like substations or renewable energy generation, that are integrated into the surrounding context ## In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * Most industrial uses * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater areas <
> **New Lower-Intensity Corridor** # Nodes Overview ## What are Nodes? Nodes are strategic locations where housing, retail, offices, public spaces, services, and other community-serving amenities might be concentrated. Some nodes build off existing areas within St. Louis with this character and use, while others would be new. ## Why are Nodes important? Nodes are located to provide access to amenities to people across St. Louis and bring more people to strategic locations through new housing and jobs. Nodes help cultivate a more walkable environment that is safe for pedestrians and all users, particularly people using transit. Currently, many areas that could be nodes in St. Louis are designed for automobiles. There are large parking lots, with limited pedestrian access from the sidewalk and transit stops, and many curb cuts and driveways that make it difficult to walk. Some of these areas do not include a wide mix of uses but instead focus on only retail. In addition, many parts of St. Louis do not have amenities nearby that people can access by walking or taking transit. Nodes seek to improve some of these conditions. All nodes will help cultivate a more walkable environment that is safe for pedestrians and all users. Nodes also seek to provide residents, both those nearby and those coming from farther away, with amenities, places to work, and housing. Finally, by adding housing and businesses in areas that are or will be served by transit, nodes will support more users of these assets. <
> | SLUP Designation: Nodes | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | **Maximum Height (Stories)** | **Maximum Residential Units / Parcel** | **Parking Between the Building and the Street** | **Parking to the Side** | | Higher-Intensity | 8-15 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Not Allowed | | Medium-Intensity | 3-5 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Lower-Intensity | 3 | Unlimited | Allowed | Allowed | The nodes designations support these goals of the SLUP: * Foster more places for jobs * Address vacancy * Reflect needs and opportunities of disinvested communities * Build from and improve on assets * Offer housing options <
> Higher-Intensity Node at Kingshighway and Natural Bridge * More nearby neighbors, including within this corner * More walkable conditions with fewer drive-thrus * More amenities that serve neighbors * Intersecting transit lines * Resilience to flooding Medium-Intensity Node at Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard and Grand Avenue * More nearby neighbors, including within this corner * More walkable conditions with fewer drive-thrus * More amenities that serve neighbors Lower-Intensity Node at Loughborough Commons * Continued location for amenities that serve nearby neighbors and people coming from other places * Safer and more accessible routes for people walking and biking to businesses * Resilient to flooding **Legend** **Nodes** * Higher-Intensity * Medium-Intensity * Lower-Intensity **Transportation** * Existing MetroLink Routes * Planned MetroLink Route * Existing Greenways * Planned Greenways * Interstate Highways * Railways * Loop Trolley * Open Space * Rivers # Medium-Intensity Nodes ## What are Medium-Intensity Nodes? A Medium-Intensity Node is an urban, mixed-use place that will allow buildings with a maximum height of 3 to 5 stories, depending on the location, but will include buildings that are smaller. These nodes will be very pedestrian focused, with high-quality streetscapes (including minimal or no curb cuts, appropriate landscaping, wide sidewalks, and good lighting conditions) that supports people traveling by foot, transit, and bicycle, not just by car. Parking would be discouraged in front or to the side of buildings. Instead, parking instead should be encouraged to be behind, within, or under buildings or offered in district-serving parking structures or lots. In some higher-flood-risk areas, Medium-Intensity Nodes should consider building-based flood resilience strategies and additional civil infrastructure; see G3.1 on page 323 for more information. In other areas green infrastructure should be considered; see G3.2 on page 327 for more information. <
> Example on Jefferson and Gravois <
> Example in Hi-Pointe <
> Example in Southwest Garden <
> ## These areas will encourage and/or allow: * Active ground floors with a mix of uses, including retail and housing * A mix of newer and older buildings * Many types of housing, especially multi-unit buildings, and some single-unit or two-unit buildings * Many types of commercial activities and uses * Many types and sizes of retail * Research and development activities, including certain industrial activities focused on research and development (e.g., prototyping, small-scale manufacturing, artisanal production) * Institutions like schools and religious buildings * Small parks and public open spaces * Limited utility installations, like substations or renewable energy generation, that are integrated into the surrounding context ## In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * Large-scale, suburban-style regional retail stores * Automobile-related commercial activities, like gas stations and auto repair * Most industrial uses * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater detention areas * Uses with drive-thru windows <
> **New Medium-Intensity Node** This drawing illustrates some of the conditions and types of uses that are generally encouraged in Medium-Intensity Nodes. # Higher-Intensity Nodes ### What are Higher-Intensity Nodes? A Higher-Intensity Node is an urban, mixed-use place that will offer a lot of flexibility on height, generally with a maximum of 8 stories but even higher in strategic locations, but will include buildings that are smaller. These nodes will be very pedestrian focused, with high-quality streetscapes (including minimal or no curb cuts, appropriate landscaping, wide sidewalks, and good lighting conditions) that support people traveling by foot, transit, and bicycle, not just by car. Parking would be discouraged in front or to the side of buildings. Instead, parking will be encouraged behind, within, or under buildings or in district-serving parking structures or lots. Quality landscaping should be used to create a welcoming, pedestrian-oriented environment. In some higher-flood-risk areas, Higher-Intensity Nodes should consider building-based flood resilience strategies and additional civil and hybrid infrastructure; see G3.1 on page 323 for more information. <
> Example in Fountain Park <
> Example in the West End <
> Legend Nodes ● Higher-Intensity <
> Example on Grand and Gravois in Tower Grove South ### These areas will encourage and/or allow: * Active ground floors with a mix of uses, including retail and housing * High-transparency first floors * A mix of newer and older buildings * Many types of housing, especially multi-unit buildings * Many types of commercial activities and uses * Many types and sizes of retail * Research and development activities, including certain industrial activities focused on research and development (e.g., prototyping, small-scale manufacturing, artisanal production) * Institutions like schools and religious buildings * Small parks and public open spaces * Limited utility installations, like substations or renewable energy generation, that are integrated into the surrounding context ### In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * Large-scale, suburban-style regional retail stores * Automobile-related commercial activities, like gas stations and auto repair * Most industrial uses * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater detention areas * Uses with drive-thru windows <
> **New High-Intensity Node** # Higher-Intensity Nodes This intersection—once occupied by a carwash, a drive thru fast-food restaurant, a gas station, and an empty parking lot—has transformed into a bustling, high-intensity node: an entertainment district with theaters, music venues, and high-rise rooftop restaurants. Tabitha is enjoying lunch from one such restaurant that has a panoramic view of the Gateway Arch. <
> It’s a beautiful day in St. Louis! Here is what St. Louisans are doing at 1:34 PM on Friday, June 16, 2050. # Lower-Intensity Nodes ### What are Lower-Intensity Nodes? A Lower-Intensity Node is a more suburban-style mixed-use place that would allow buildings with a maximum height of 3 stories but include buildings that are smaller. Lower-intensity nodes are more automobile oriented than Higher-or Medium-Intensity Nodes, although buildings in these nodes will also support people walking, taking the bus, or biking, not just by car. Sidewalks, landscaping, trees, and other on-site improvements should ensure that pedestrians have safe, convenient, and accessible ways to move between the sidewalk and buildings. Parking would be supported in front and to the side of buildings in Lower-Intensity Nodes. In some higher-flood-risk-areas, Lower-Intensity Nodes should consider building-based strategies and green infrastructure to mitigate flood risk. See G3.2 on page 327 for more information. <
> Example in the Central West End <
> Example in St. Louis Hills <
> Example at Van Aken Center in Shaker Heights, OH <
> ### These areas will encourage and/or allow: * Many types of housing, especially multi-unit buildings, and some single-unit or two-unit buildings * Many types of commercial activities and uses, including automobile-related commercial activities, like gas stations or auto repair if they are appropriately integrated into their surrounding context and designed to support a human-oriented pedestrian environment * Many types and sizes of retail, including large-scale regional retail stores that might be discouraged in other districts * Research and development activities, including industrial activities focused on research and development, including small-scale manufacturing and artisanal production * Institutions like schools and religious buildings * Small parks and public open spaces * Limited utility installations, like substations or renewable energy generation, that are integrated into the surrounding context ### In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * Most industrial uses * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater detention areas <
> **New Lower-Intensity Node** # Central Areas Overview ## What are Central Areas? Central Areas are the parts of the city that have a strong urban character. These areas support larger buildings and utilize significant existing infrastructure. The Central Areas are very mixed-use, with housing, attractions, offices, businesses, parks, and more. In these areas, public space will foster gathering and interaction and walking, biking, and taking transit will all be well supported. ## Why are Central Areas important? The Central Areas designations recognize the regional and economic importance of these areas and emphasize the downtown character, where current or historic lot sizes allow buildings to be larger and there’s greater existing infrastructure. These areas are the most intense part of the city, where many streets could be corridors and many intersections could be nodes, so this designation supports that highly mixed-use and dense aspiration. Currently, the central parts of St. Louis face a variety of challenges, including vacancy and many buildings and lots designed for automobiles rather than all residents. There are gaps in quality pedestrian infrastructure, and areas of activity are separated from each other. While there are some views and connection to the Mississippi River, this access is limited. These are also areas where many visitors to St. Louis go, whether visiting an attraction or attending a convention, and there’s an opportunity to further enhance the walkability and connections that support economic and cultural activity. In addition, the nature of downtowns in almost every American city is changing. Remote work has cooled office demand, so traditional Central Business Districts must adapt to welcome and encourage a much broader range of uses and functions. The Central Areas designation seeks to encourage greater activation of these spaces, allowing them to continue to serve a regional role in the economic and cultural growth of St. Louis while also encouraging a broad mix of uses that serve the needs of residents and visitors from within the region and around the world. These areas are envisioned to support gathering and interaction between people, helping to bridge the divides across the city. The Central Areas are also envisioned as more pedestrian oriented, supporting use of existing and planned transit, greenways, and other bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Central Areas also support connection to the Mississippi River by preserving and expanding views of the river and expanding opportunities for connection north and south of the Arch grounds. <
> **Existing Central Areas Conditions** This drawing illustrates some of the common challenges that currently exist in central areas. *** ### SLUP Designation: Central Areas | | Maximum Height (Stories) | Maximum Residential Units / Parcel | Parking Between the Building and the Street | Parking to the Side | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Central East | 30-Unlimited | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Central West | 20-30 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | **The Central Areas designations support these goals of the SLUP:** * Create safe, accessible spaces * Build from and improve on assets * Foster more places for jobs * Offer housing options <
> **Central Areas East along Washington near Jefferson** * A wide mix of uses, including residential, commercial, and research and development in both old and new buildings * Taller buildings, as well as smaller buildings * A very walkable, bikeable environment with few surface parking lots and curb cuts **Central Areas West around Vandeventer** * A mix of older and new buildings, including new multi-unit residential buildings * Few automobile-oriented uses such as gas stations * More filled-in lots # Central Areas East ## What are Central Areas East? Central Areas East are areas that support buildings with a maximum height of 30 stories or even higher in strategic locations. Smaller buildings will also be allowed. In Central Areas East, parking is discouraged in the front or to the side of buildings. Central Areas East will be a very walkable, bikeable, and transit-friendly part of the city, with high-quality pedestrian infrastructure and good connections to new and planned transit, greenways, and bike paths. Quality transit facilities will be available in Central Areas East. Throughout Central Areas East, views of the Arch, civic spaces, and the Mississippi River will be preserved, enhanced, and created. Along the edge of the Mississippi River in Central Areas East, views and connection to the river will be enhanced through a mix of buildings and open space uses. <
> <
> <
> <
> Legend Central Areas Central East ## These areas will encourage and/or allow: * A mix of newer and older buildings * Many types of housing, especially multi-unit buildings * Many types of commercial activities and uses, including retail and offices that may be very large * Research and development activities, including certain industrial activities focused on research and development (e.g., prototyping, small-scale manufacturing, artisanal production) * Institutions like schools and religious buildings * Small parks and public open spaces * Limited utility installations, like substations or renewable energy generation, that are integrated into the surrounding context ## In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * Automobile-related commercial activities, like gas stations and auto repair * Most industrial uses, especially those that create divisions between neighborhoods * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater detention areas * Uses with drive-thru windows <
> # Central Areas East Economic decline, population loss, the shift of businesses to suburban areas, and the impact of remote work all contributed to what one unsympathetic newspaper infamously referred to as a “doom loop.” But downtowns are resilient; St. Louis managed to reinvent itself. Gone are the many surface parking lots, the elevated highways that hemmed downtown in and spewed air and noise pollution, and the auto-centric low-density development that once passed for progress. Today, Jiro can look out the window of his office on the 20th floor at a revitalized downtown, albeit one that bears little resemblance to the 9–5 single-use central business district of the 20th century. This downtown is more like a mixed-use, high-density residential neighborhood where offices, residential towers, and commercial corridors overlap. <
> It’s a beautiful day in St. Louis! Here is what St. Louisans are doing at 1:34 PM on Friday, June 16, 2050. # Central Areas West ## What are Central Areas West? Central Areas West are areas that support buildings up to a maximum height of 20 to 30 stories, depending on their specific location. Smaller buildings will also be allowed, and many parts of Central Areas West remain characterized by smaller historic buildings. Parking is discouraged in the front or to the side of buildings, and Central Areas West will be very walkable, bikeable, and transit friendly, with high-quality pedestrian infrastructure and good connections to new and planned transit, greenways, and bike paths. Quality transit facilities will be available in Central Areas West. <
> Example in the Central West End <
> Example on Pine Blvd in the Central West End <
> Covenant Blu-Grand Center <
> ## These areas will encourage and/or allow: * A mix of newer and older buildings * Many types of housing, especially multi-unit buildings * Many types of commercial activities and uses, including retail and offices that may be very large * Research and development activities, including certain industrial activities focused on research and development (e.g., prototyping, small-scale manufacturing, artisanal production, etc.) * Institutions like schools and religious buildings * Small parks and public open spaces * Limited utility installations, like substations and renewable energy generation, that are integrated into the surrounding context ## In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * Automobile-related commercial activities, like gas stations and auto repair * Most industrial uses, especially those that create divisions between neighborhoods * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater detention areas * Uses with drive-thru windows <
> # Campuses Overview ## What are Campuses? Campuses are locations of larger institutions that have a distinctly different character than the rest of the city. They are areas where there is a common, uniting mission and where institutions engage in their own long-term planning for the use and development of land. Many of these areas also have consolidated ownership that allows for coordinated, long-term planning. Some Campuses identified in the SLUP are locations that indicate a need or opportunity for a collective vision and plan in specific geographies. These aspirational Campuses offer flexibility for the City and encourage collaboration with institutions and property owners to meet the unique needs of the surrounding community. In contrast to campuses indicated with this designation, smaller institutions are designated as part of the surrounding fabric, whether that's a corridor, node, or neighborhood. ## Why are Campuses important? Larger institutions can be strong assets for St. Louis, providing jobs, economic activity, and public spaces and bringing people to the city. The designation for campuses supports the internal physical plans for each of these institutions, which may not fit within the existing zoning or more general land use plan framework. Currently, there’s a wide variety in the conditions for campuses. Some campuses have limited activity at the street level and limited connection for people in surrounding areas. Other campuses have their building systems and loading docks facing urban parts of the city. Many campuses have a mix of modern and historic buildings, as well as many well-maintained public spaces and open areas. The Campus designation seeks to improve on the existing strengths of campuses by supporting greater connections between campuses and the surrounding city, including improving pedestrian connections, while still supporting the internal plans of these areas. This designation will give institutions the flexibility to grow while continuing to promote human-oriented design and development. <
> | SLUP Designation: Campuses | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | **Maximum Height (Stories)** | **Maximum Residential Units / Parcel** | **Parking Between the Building and the Street** | **Parking to the Side** | | Campuses | Variable | Not Applicable | Not Allowed | Variable | **The Campus designation supports these goals of the SLUP:** * Build from and improve on assets * Foster more places for jobs * Create safe, accessible spaces <
> # Campuses ## What will Campuses be like? Campuses will still be highly varied across St. Louis, based on the needs and internal plans of each campus. The maximum building height will vary by campus. While parking will be discouraged in front of buildings in Campuses, side parking may be supported where appropriate. Campuses should be encouraged to connect to the street and the surrounding community at their edges, and when possible to include pedestrian pathways through campus that connect the surrounding communities, rather than sit within surface parking lots. Campuses should not feel like fortresses. <
> Example of Harris Stowe State University-St. Louis, MO <
> Example of Barnes-Jewish Hospital-St. Louis, MO <
> Example of Saint Louis University-St. Louis, MO <
> ## These areas will encourage and/or allow: * Offices, as well as other types of commercial activities as they are relevant * Smaller-and medium-sized retail that supports institutional needs * Research and development activities, including industrial activities focused on research and development * Community-serving institutions and amenities like health care, educational facilities, religious buildings, and daycares * Many types of housing, especially multi-unit buildings and group living (e.g., dormitories), and some single-unit or two-unit buildings * Small parks and public open spaces * Limited utility installations, like substations or renewable energy generation, that are integrated into the surrounding context ## In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * Automobile-related commercial activities, like gas stations and auto repair * Uses with drive-thru windows * Most industrial uses * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater areas <
> **New Campus** This drawing illustrates some of the conditions and types of uses that are generally encouraged in Campuses. # Industrial Areas Overview ## What are Industrial Areas? Industrial areas are spaces where manufacturing, shipping, research and development, and other types of production happen. Industrial areas often have different kinds of land and space needs than other parts of a city and may have an impact on the quality of the environment around them. Currently, there are some industrial areas in St. Louis that have high rates of vacancy, particularly those with older buildings that no longer suit the needs of current industry. Other areas struggle with poor quality infrastructure like roads to support their operations. There are some parts of St. Louis where industrial uses are mixed into neighborhoods, leading to concern about environmental and health impacts on the surrounding residential areas. ## Why are Industrial Areas important? Industry of all kinds is important to the economy and experience of the city of St. Louis. Industrial areas support jobs and economic growth, and growing industry can help make vacant land productive again. Industrial areas often attract users with specific transportation needs, so their location in proximity to highways, rail lines, and the river is important to their success. The two Industrial Area designations, Core and Flex, seek to address some of these conditions by acknowledging that different types of industry are important to the city but should have different expectations and locations. See the sections for Core and Flex for more details. <
> Existing Industrial Area Conditions This drawing illustrates some of the common challenges that currently exist in industrial areas. | SLUP Designation: Industrial | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | **Maximum Height (Stories)** | **Maximum Residential Units / Parcel** | **Parking Between the Building and the Street** | **Parking to the Side** | | Core | 5 | N/A | Allowed | Allowed | | Flex | 3-8 | Varies | Allowed | Allowed | **The Industrial Areas designations support these goals of the SLUP:** * Foster more places for jobs * Address vacancy * Reflect needs and opportunities of disinvested communities * Adapt to changing climate * Build from and improve on assets <
> These call-outs are examples of the aspirations supported by the updated SLUP. **Core Industrial along Hall Street in North Riverfront** * Continued use of sites for industrial uses, including logistics and manufacturing * Continued truck traffic and use of barges along the Mississippi River **Flex Industrial along Branch Street in Hyde Park** * Continued use of some industrial sites for businesses and jobs that have less impact on health * Transition of some warehouses and industrial sites to other uses, commercial and some types of housing **Legend** **Industrial Areas** Core Flex **Transportation** Existing MetroLink Routes Planned MetroLink Route Existing Greenways Planned Greenways Interstate Highways Railways Loop Trolley Open Space Rivers # Core Industrial ### What is Core Industrial? Core Industrial includes spaces for factories, logistics, trucking, and other heavier industrial uses, but may also include lighter uses. Buildings could have a maximum height of 5 stories and could include parking in the back, front, or to the side, depending on what is needed on the site. Core Industrial Areas support a wide range of industrial uses, including research and development, light industrial, logistics, and heavy industrial. Uses in Core Industrial Areas may be fairly intensive, and may involve increased truck traffic. <
> Example in Carondelet <
> Example on Natural Bridge in Mark Twain <
> Example in Near North Riverfront <
> ### These areas will encourage and/or allow: * Limited sidewalks and pedestrian infrastructure * All industrial uses, including research & development, light industrial, logistics, and heavy industry * Utility installations * Parks and public open spaces, particularly in specific locations to enhance Waterfront Windows (see page 313) ### In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * Places where people live * Commercial activities and uses * Institutional spaces like schools and religious buildings <
> **New Core Industrial Areas** This drawing illustrates some of the conditions and types of uses that are generally encouraged in Core Industrial. # Flex Industrial ## What is Flex Industrial? Flex Industrial allows for uses that are less intensive than Core Industrial and may include the possibility to transition to other mixes of use, including housing and commercial, in the future. Buildings may have a maximum height of 3 to 8 stories, depending on the surrounding conditions. Parking could be in the back, front, or to the side of buildings. Flex Industrial Areas will be more supportive of people walking nearby than Core Industrial Areas, with improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Flex Industrial Areas will support research and development uses, as well as light industrial uses. These uses will have less environmental impact than the full range of industrial uses permitted in Core Industrial Areas. The Flex Industrial designation recognizes that industry is varied and there is more compatibility between some types of industrial uses and housing and commercial. <
> Example in Forest Park Southeast <
> Example on Kemper Ave west of Tower Grove Park <
> Example in Near North Riverfront <
> **Legend** Industrial Areas Flex ## These areas will encourage and/or allow: * Industrial uses including research & development and light industrial * Many types of commercial activity and uses, including offices and automobile-related commercial uses * Smaller and mid-sized retail * Institutions like schools and religious buildings * Utility installations * Small parks and public open spaces * Some types of housing, including multi-unit, single-unit buildings, and group living where appropriate ## In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * More intensive industrial uses like logistics and heavy industry * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater detention areas <
> **New Flex Industrial Areas** # Flex Industrial & Waterfront Windows Once upon a time, getting to the Mississippi River was difficult and there wasn't much to do once you got there. Today, while the riverfront is still primarily industrial, bike and pedestrian paths lead you safely through industrial neighborhoods to the enhanced Mississippi riverfront greenway, which is fully integrated with parks, art installations, and wildlife habitat. Hafeez is picking up the waterfront bike path from downtown, where she'll pass through a revitalized Flex Industrial zone. <
> It's a beautiful day in St. Louis! Here is what St. Louisans are doing at 1:34 PM on Friday, June 16, 2050. # Open Space Overview ## What are Open Spaces? Open Spaces are the areas of the city that mostly do not have buildings on them but rather have outdoor areas that serve recreation, community, ecological, and economic functions. ## Why are Open Spaces important? Open Spaces create places for the public to connect with each other and also help address environmental conditions including heat, flooding, wildlife habitat, and more. Intentional, supported Open Spaces are also an important part of addressing vacancy. St. Louis has an amazing park system and incredible public open space across the city. However, many residents are concerned about the maintenance of public open space, as well as the walking and biking connections to these spaces. The city also includes areas with extensive vacancy and many pressures from the changing climate, including increasing heat and increasing severity of rain storms. The two Open Spaces designations, Parks & Community Spaces and Other Open Spaces, seek to improve some of these conditions by being more clear about what is expected for different types of open space and allowing for new and evolving needs in these types of spaces in St. Louis. <
> ### SLUP Designation: Open Space | | Maximum Height (Stories) | Maximum Residential Units / Parcel | Parking Between the Building and the Street | Parking to the Side | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Parks / Community Space | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | | Other Open Space | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ### The Open Space designation support these goals of the SLUP: * Create safe, accessible spaces * Build from and improve on assets * Adapt to changing climate * Address vacancy * Reflect needs and opportunities of disinvested communities * Expand opportunities to build wealth through land use <
> **Parks/Community Space at Carter Park Extension** * Spaces accessible to the public for recreation and other activities * Connections to and through the space for people walking and biking **Other Open Space at Bellefontaine Cemetery** * Continued use as a cemetery with limited public access **Other Open Space along Odell Avenue in Ellendale** * Open spaces that support flood resilience and absorb water # Parks & Community Space ### What is Parks & Community Space? Parks & Community Space are areas that are accessible to the public, whether for recreation, events, or other activities, regardless of whether they are owned by the city. These are spaces that are meant to be used in ways that the public can access into perpetuity. Parks & Community Space may include fields, buildings, recreation facilities, plazas, planted areas, natural areas, and more. Connections to and through parks should be safe and welcoming for people arriving by foot or bicycle. <
> O'Fallon Park next to the O'Fallon neighborhood <
> South St. Louis Square Park in the Patch <
> Chambers Park in Jeff Vanderlou <
> ### These areas will encourage and/or allow: * Limited commercial activities and uses, such as eating and drinking or entertainment establishments, including temporary uses * Limited utility installations, like substations or renewable energy generation, that are integrated into the surrounding context ### In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * Most commercial activities * Any industrial or residential uses * Any institutional uses * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater detention areas <
> New Parks & Community Space This drawing illustrates some of the conditions and types of uses that are generally encouraged in Parks & Community Space. # Other Open Space ### What is Other Open Space? Other Open Space includes areas with no or few buildings that are reserved for important social, ecological, and economic needs. These areas are less accessible to the public and may be fenced or enclosed. These sites might include areas that support stormwater detention or retention, renewable energy generation, urban farming or gardening, or habitat areas. Some open spaces that serve specific functions and have more limited access, like cemeteries and the water treatment plant, are also indicated with this designation. <
> Example in Baden <
> Example at Bellefontaine Cemetery <
> Example in Dutchtown <
> **Legend** **N** **Open Space** Other Open Space ### These areas will encourage and/or allow: * Open spaces that have limited access, like cemeteries and fenced-off stormwater detention areas * Public open spaces * Limited utility installations ### In these areas, the following uses will be discouraged: * Any commercial, industrial, or residential uses * Any institutional uses <
> **New Other Open Space** # Other Open Space Many flood-prone areas have reinvented themselves as green, cultivated hubs. Here, vacant lots have given way to thriving open spaces, community gardens, and urban farms. Homes are fewer and are spread out between lots where wildflowers, native grasses, and forested areas have been restored to their natural state. Neighborhoods like these feel more like small, self-sufficient villages, with rain gardens, natural ponds, and quiet footpaths that wind through the open spaces. Kesia is passing through one of the many community orchards that have been planted throughout St. Louis. <
> # It’s a beautiful day in St. Louis! # Here is what St. Louisans are doing at 1:34 PM on Friday, June 16, 2050. # Land Use Designation Explainers ## What makes something a Neighborhood? Neighborhood areas have different levels of intensity based on the sizes and features of the existing and historic buildings and lots. Lower-Intensity Neighborhoods have lower maximum building heights, fewer units, and may have driveways, while Higher-Intensity Neighborhoods have higher maximum building heights, encourage more units, and are less automobile oriented. Each Neighborhood designation is mapped to reflect the existing or historic character in different parts of the city. Each Neighborhood designation supports appropriate commercial activities. Zoning districts and regulations will provide much more detail on the specific location and nature of housing types, heights, and densities. See the description for each intensity level for more detail. <
> ## What makes something a Medium-Intensity Neighborhood? Medium-Intensity Neighborhoods are located throughout the city—most of the land in the city is assigned this designation because it matches the current use and historic city fabric. These areas are primarily residential and include a mix of different sizes of residential buildings, with buildings with a maximum height of three stories. ## What makes something a Higher-Intensity Neighborhood? Many Higher-Intensity Neighborhoods are located in areas that already support very dense housing and have transit access, including areas that border the Central Areas. Some Higher-Intensity Neighborhoods are located in appropriate places with access to assets such as parks or views of the Mississippi River. In addition, some locations that already have very dense housing are indicated as Higher-Intensity Neighborhoods, reflecting and expanding on the existing character. <
> ## What makes something a Lower-Intensity Neighborhood? Lower-Intensity Neighborhoods are primarily located in areas where there is no or very limited alley access, making it necessary for a driveway to reach a garage. These areas tend to be more automobile oriented but will still include sidewalks and pedestrian infrastructure. Many Lower-Intensity Neighborhoods deviate from the orthogonal grid pattern that characterizes most of St. Louis. <
> ## What is the difference between Corridors and Neighborhoods? Corridors are areas where the long-term, future vision is to have a wider mix of uses, including places to work, retail locations, and different types of housing. There are some areas within neighborhoods where there are a few neighborhood-serving businesses in a row, but the long-term vision is to maintain the primarily residential character of the area; these areas are still designated Neighborhoods, a designation that is also supportive of neighborhood-serving commercial uses in corner spaces and/or where they have historically existed. ## What makes something a Corridor? Corridors will have different levels of intensity, ranging from lower building heights and more auto-orientation to relatively taller building heights in areas that are human-oriented (with fewer curb cuts, drive-thrus, or uses that serve cars). See the descriptions of each intensity level for more detail. Lots that face the corridor (with the front entrance of the building or the address) are generally designated as corridors, including buildings that are currently residential or institutional, which are supported within Corridors. Lots that have an edge along a Corridor but face a side street are generally not included as part of the Corridor, unless those lots are currently vacant. <
> * This building is on Kingshighway; but because it faces Fountain Ave (a side street), it does not get the Corridor designation. + These buildings are on Kingshighway; because they face Kingshighway, they get a Corridor designation. ## What is the difference between Corridors and Nodes? Corridors, located along streets, tend to have lots that are a consistent depth in one area. Nodes tend to be at the intersections of streets where there are larger lots that can enable larger buildings and more complex uses. ### Example: Dr Martin Luther King intersection at Grand Blvd <
> * Medium-Intensity Corridor * Medium-Intensity Node ## What makes something a Lower-Intensity Corridor? Lower-Intensity Corridors are located in areas that can support a variety of uses yet are more automobile oriented in form. Many Lower-Intensity Corridors are located near the edges of the city, where they can serve not only surrounding city residents but also others traveling from elsewhere in the region by automobile. ## What makes something a Medium-Intensity Corridor? Medium-Intensity Corridors are located in areas where there is access to transit and places to walk. Some are located to encourage rebuilding of the historic fabric of streets that may currently have high vacancy rates. These Corridors indicate a place where the vision is to have a greater mix of uses in the long-term, as opposed to being primarily residential. ### Example: Grand Blvd intersection at St. Louis Ave <
> * Medium-Intensity Corridor * ★ Vacant lots with Mixed-use potential * ● Existing Businesses ## What makes something a Higher-Intensity Corridor? Higher-Intensity Corridors are located in areas where there are existing taller buildings and/or a historic fabric and lot sizes that can support taller buildings. These areas are also located in places that have or will have access to high-frequency transit, or near other amenities such as campuses or major parks. ### Example: Grand Blvd intersection at Russel Blvd <
> * ★ More than 15 stories *** ## What is the difference between Nodes and Corridors? Nodes tend to be at the intersections of streets where there are larger lots that can enable buildings that are bigger. Corridors, located along streets, tend to have lots that are a consistent depth in one area. ## What makes something a Node? Nodes have different levels of intensity, ranging from lower maximum building heights and more auto-oriented to taller maximum building heights and less auto-oriented (with fewer curb cuts, drive-thrus, or uses that serve cars). See the descriptions of each intensity level for more detail. Nodes typically include lots that have a different size or shape than the surrounding lots and tend to include some larger sites that can support larger buildings. Within Nodes, there could be larger buildings and/or several buildings that complement one another as part of a planned development. Within Nodes, the historic urban fabric may be reestablished. Nodes are generally located at highly-visible sites, near existing or planned transit, or at intersections of Corridors. ## What makes something a Medium-Intensity Node? Medium-Intensity Nodes are primarily located at the intersection of Corridors where the buildings have a range of maximum heights from 3 to 5 stories and are more pedestrian oriented, in order to align with and fill in the existing fabric of the city. ## What makes something a Higher-Intensity Node? Higher-Intensity Nodes are typically located in areas where there is or will be significant transit access via light rail or high-frequency buses. Higher-Intensity Nodes are also located at the intersections of Corridors, where there are sites that allow for larger buildings. ## What makes something a Lower-Intensity Node? Lower-Intensity Nodes are located in areas that can support concentrating amenities and uses and have the potential to support a more regional market area, including shoppers from outside of the city. While Lower-Intensity Nodes set higher standards for pedestrian access than exist at almost any Node in the city currently, they will remain somewhat more automobile-oriented in order to fulfill their potential. Many Lower-Intensity Nodes are typically located near the edges of the city or highway access points, where they can serve not only surrounding city residents but others traveling from elsewhere by automobile. Many also are located in places where they can serve as a buffer to industrial areas. ### Example: Hampton Ave intersection at Chippewa St <
> * Medium-Intensity Node * These parcels are located at a recognizable intersection and are larger and different in character than the surrounding parcels, leading to a Node designation. ### What makes something a Central Area? Central Areas will be very dense, with a wide mix of uses including housing, offices, businesses, retail, attractions, institutions, parks, and more. Central Areas will include many taller buildings, as well as smaller buildings. Central Areas will be less automobile oriented, with parking encouraged behind, within, or underneath buildings, rather than in surface lots. Access for cars that interrupt the sidewalk (e.g. driveways) will be discouraged, and pedestrian infrastructure will be high quality. ### Why aren't there Corridors or Nodes in Central Areas? Central Areas, as very intense parts of the city, can be thought of as a cluster of nodes and corridors. Rather than call out each corridor and node, the Central Areas designations support many of the same conditions that are supported in Higher-Intensity Nodes and Higher-Intensity Corridors but with taller building heights that match the existing conditions in these places. More specific neighborhood- or district-level plans may identify streets or intersections for future focus. <
> **Example: Natural Bridge Ave near Goodfellow Blvd** * Lower-Intensity Neighborhood * Lower-Intensity Node ### What makes something a Central Area East? Central Areas East covers the part of the city that includes Downtown, with much larger buildings and substantial infrastructure to support these buildings. It also includes areas that are currently used for things like logistics and industrial uses, as well as underutilized space that divides the neighborhoods of Downtown, Downtown West, and Midtown from the surrounding neighborhoods, which are smaller in scale. This designation is applied to these areas to support the vision of connections across the central section of the city by allowing a gradual transition away from land uses that contribute to disconnects. Central Areas East also includes areas just north and south of the Arch grounds. ### What makes something a Central Area West? Central Areas West includes the part of the city west of the Central Areas East designation and east of Forest Park. These areas are defined by a wide mix of types of buildings, including many taller buildings, and a high intensity of uses and activity. Central Areas West ends where the city's current fabric transitions to a primarily residential neighborhood, rather than a highly mixed-use space. ### What makes something a Campus? Campuses are located where there are larger institutional uses that share a common mission and internal plan for their land. As a rule of thumb, institutions that are smaller than 10 acres are considered part of their surrounding fabric while larger institutions with 10 or more contiguous acres receive a Campus designation. The SLUP also envisions a number of future Campuses in areas around major economic development initiatives and as a means of restoring anchors that once contributed deeply to their surrounding neighborhoods. These more aspirational Campuses have the potential to grow over time through further community-based planning and collective commitment. As smaller institutions grow and expand, additional Campus designations may be added, depending on the goals of the institution and the surrounding community. <
> **Example: Barnes Jewish Hospital and adjacent Campus** * Campus * Higher-Intensity Neighborhood * Central Areas West * Parks / Community Space ### What makes something a Core Industrial Area? Core Industrial Areas are located in places where they can use the critical transportation networks, including barge traffic on the Mississippi River, highways, and railroads. Core Industrial Areas typically have larger lots that can more easily serve logistics and modern manufacturing and, due to the potential of concern about noxious environments, are located farther away from residential areas. ### What makes something a Flex Industrial Area? Flex Industrial is located in areas where the urban form includes smaller, walkable-scale blocks or buildings that could be repurposed to be more mixed use, as well as in areas that abut or are surrounded by Neighborhoods, Corridors, Nodes, or Central areas. Flex Industrial often is located to serve a buffer between core industrial uses and other parts of the city. <
> **Example: KIPP Inspire Academy** * Kipp Inspire Academy is campus-like in many ways, but it does not get a Campus designation because it is less than 10 acres. <
> **Example: Interstate 55 intersection at 5 Broadway** * Flex Industrial Areas * Core Industrial Areas What makes something a Parks & Community Space? Parks & Community Space is located throughout the city, within primarily residential areas, along Corridors, and in other areas. As an asset, Parks & Community Space is meant to be accessed by people, so it should be located in places where they can be reached by walking, biking, transit, and automobile. What makes something an Other Open Space? Other Open Space is located throughout the city. Locations depend on conditions like the historic use of the site, if the location is strategic for stormwater management, and lot size and location. Outdoor utilities, such as water and sewage treatment and renewable energy generation, and community gardens and urban farm sites that are intended to continue as these uses into perpetuity (i.e., they are placed in a land trust for this purpose) are designated Other Open Space. Future Other Open Space areas may be designed through neighborhood planning processes. As neighborhood plans identify other desired open spaces — whether for ecological, recreational, or agricultural purposes — these could be added to the map in future SLUP amendments. Example: Calvary Cemetery and flood-prone lots along it <
> # SLUP Guidance for Updates The SLUP is a living document, used daily to help guide change in the city of St. Louis. While a complete overhaul like the one completed in 2025 happens only every 10 to 20 years, the SLUP should be regularly updated to capture how conditions and land use are changing across St. Louis. There are some things that will automatically trigger a review and update of the SLUP. Whenever a neighborhood or district plan is adopted by the Planning Commission, staff should review the SLUP to ensure that it is aligned with the new recommendations. This review should take place shortly following the adoption of the more targeted plan to ensure that the SLUP can support the goals developed by the community. In addition, on an annual basis, City staff should review the SLUP for other changes that might impact the future aspirations for land use across the city. During this review, the staff will check the SLUP parcel map for the following: 01 Any new green infrastructure or stormwater facilities that might impact Other Open Space. 02 Any new or additional gardens or farms that are intended as permanent installations that might impact Other Open Space. 03 Any changes to adopted flood or hazard maps that might impact Other Open Space. 04 Any new parks or community spaces over 1 acre. 05 Any land returned to use, such as highways that have been removed. 06 Any new Campuses over 10 acres, or any Campuses that are no longer being planned together. 07 In some instances, adopted Redevelopment Plans or Community Unit Plans may also require modification to the SLUP. This annual review is recommended to take place at a consistent time annually, scheduled to ensure that the SLUP is updated in a timeline that aligns with other work of the Planning Commission. While this update process is expected to be led by City staff, members of the Planning Commission should be involved in reviewing the list of considerations in advance of the staff review. The proposed updates should be shared via a public hearing process before their adoption by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may consider a proposed use to be in conformity with the Strategic Land Use Plan if the proposed use is allowed in an adjacent Strategic Land Use Category. <
> # SLUP Development Scenarios Because the SLUP is a policy guide, it can't force development to happen. Moreover, while the SLUP's designations define height ranges and offer design guidelines for massing, setbacks, and other physical characteristics, these things will be more strictly defined in the zoning code. And shifting demographics, national political trends, the whims of the market, and other unknowns make accurately predicting development anywhere difficult. These scenarios — which show how development might respond to the SLUP in a few Nodes, Corridors, and Neighborhoods — should not be taken too literally. But they do illustrate three potential scenarios: 1) a “business-as-usual,” pre-SLUP adoption scenario that is included for context; 2) a “less development” scenario that follows the SLUP’s designations; and 3) a “more development” scenario that also follows the SLUP’s designations. This drawing shows potential future development guided by the SLUP, indicated by the black buildings. On the next page, see examples of other scenarios. <
> # SLUP Development Scenarios **Existing Condition** **Business-as-Usual** **(pre SLUP adoption)** **SLUP-Informed Less** **Development** **SLUP-Informed More** **Development** **Jefferson & Gravois** <
> <
> <
> <
> **Kingshighway & MLK** <
> <
> <
> <
> **Legend** * **New Development** * **Corridors** * Higher-intensity * Medium-intensity * Lower-intensity * **Nodes** * Higher-intensity * Medium-intensity * Lower-intensity * **Neighborhoods** * Higher-intensity * Medium-intensity * Lower-intensity * **Industrial** * Core * Flex * **Open Space** * Parks/Community Space * Other * **Campuses** * **Central Areas** * Central Areas East * Central Areas West --- ## Circulation — City of St. Louis Transportation and Mobility Plan (2025) - Source: https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/planning/planning/documents/upload/STL-Transportation-and-Mobility-Plan-Adopted-12-2025-Compressed.pdf - Pages: 330 - Covers: circulation - **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source. City of St. Louis # Transportation & Mobility Plan ## of the Comprehensive Plan Adopted by the City of St. Louis Planning Commission as the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan on November 12, 2025. Planning & Urban Design Agency of St. Louis 2025 St. Louis, Missouri (blank page) # Table of Contents **Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 7** **01: Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9** Purpose of the Plan .......................................................................................................................... 10 Vision, Themes, and Goals .............................................................................................................. 18 Who Will Use the TMP and How Will They Use It?........................................................................... 32 How was the TMP Created?............................................................................................................. 37 Qualities of the TMP......................................................................................................................... 38 What the TMP Can and Can’t Do .................................................................................................... 50 **02: Engagement Summary.......................................................................................................... 55** Community Engagement Overview .................................................................................................. 57 Outreach Methods (Summer and Fall 2024) .................................................................................... 60 Outreach Feedback and Integration in the TMP (Summer and Fall 2024) ....................................... 71 Outreach Methods (Spring and Summer 2025)................................................................................ 75 Outreach Feedback (Spring and Summer 2025) .............................................................................. 76 **03: Safety Action Plan ................................................................................................................ 83** Fifty by Fifty - A Goal for Fatal and Serious Crash Reduction ......................................................... 85 Data-Driven Safety Analysis and Improvements.............................................................................. 86 Equity Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 101 Policy Initiatives................................................................................................................................ 101 Education, Programming, and Enforcement Initiatives.................................................................... 102 **04: Street Design Framework .................................................................................................... 109** What is a Street Design Framework (SDF)?.................................................................................... 110 Purpose - Why Does a Street Design Framework Matter? ............................................................. 111 How is the SDF Different from What Was Done in the Past?.......................................................... 111 How is the SDF Different from Street Design Guidelines ................................................................ 113 Street Transportation Function and Land Use Context ................................................................... 113 Who Should Use the SDF?.............................................................................................................. 116 # Table of Contents (continued) St. Louis Street Design Process ................................................................................... 117 Strategies and Design Elements.................................................................................. 124 Street Type Guidelines.................................................................................................. 154 Street Design Framework Implementation.................................................................. 228 Frequently Asked Questions......................................................................................... 230 **05: Connectivity and Mobility Framework............................................................... 233** Multi-Modal Integration................................................................................................ 234 Accessibility for All....................................................................................................... 252 Mobility as Service ....................................................................................................... 254 Regional Collaboration.................................................................................................. 254 **06: Policy and Ordinance Revisions........................................................................... 257** Peer Practices............................................................................................................... 259 Issues and Updates....................................................................................................... 260 Asset Management, Data Sharing, and Transparency ............................................... 288 Staffing .......................................................................................................................... 294 **07: Implemenation Plan.............................................................................................. 299** Funding Strategy........................................................................................................... 301 Performance Metrics and Annual Reporting ............................................................... 313 **08: Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 321** Reinforcing the Vision .................................................................................................. 323 Call to Action................................................................................................................. 323 **09: Acknowledgments ................................................................................................. 325** (blank page) (blank page) # Executive Summary <
> CITY OF ST. LOUIS TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of St. Louis has developed a forward-looking Transportation and Mobility Plan (TMP) to guide the evolution of its transportation network into a safer, more connected, and more equitable system. This plan reflects a shared vision shaped by community voices, agency collaboration, and commitment to multimodal access for all residents. At its core, the TMP sets out to unify transportation efforts across the City, ensuring that every project aligns with broader city goals. It emphasizes the importance of safety, connectivity, and maintenance and operations while also recognizing the need for flexibility and responsiveness to community needs. Safety is a foundational pillar of the TMP. Through the Safety Action Plan, the city adopts an approach that acknowledges shared responsibility among planners, engineers, and users. This approach is designed to proactively reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries, and it aligns with a growing national consensus in urban areas that safety must be centered in transportation planning, design, and operations. The Street Design Framework introduces a context-sensitive strategy for designing streets that serve their intended purpose while supporting surrounding land uses. It prioritizes safety and multimodal access, ensuring that people walking, riding bikes, taking transit, and driving cars can all navigate the city comfortably and efficiently. The framework offers a tiered system of design recommendations tailored to each street type’s function and modal priorities. Connectivity is another key focus. The TMP outlines a comprehensive framework for improving mobility across all modes of transportation. It calls for expanded pedestrian infrastructure, an intentional and continuous bike network, and better integration of transit facilities to support first-mile/last-mile connections. To support these goals, the plan recommends updates to city policies and ordinances. These revisions aim to institutionalize best practices, clarify engineering standards, and create dedicated roles to oversee signal timing, public engagement, and multimodal planning. Peer city comparisons help tailor these recommendations to St. Louis’s unique context. Implementation is addressed through a strategic roadmap that links vision to action. The TMP outlines steps for project delivery, funding alignment, and performance tracking. It encourages transparency and collaboration, recognizing that success depends on the collective efforts of city staff, elected officials, residents, and partner organizations. Ultimately, the TMP is a living document. One that will evolve as the city grows and as new challenges and opportunities emerge. It invites all stakeholders to participate in shaping a transportation system, where all residents, regardless of age, ability, or mode of travel, can move safely and confidently through St. Louis. # 01 Introduction “Streets are indispensable to the proper function of a City.” -City of St. Louis 1948 Major Streets Plan “There is a time for departure even when there’s no certain place to go.” - Tennessee Williams “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” - Yogi Berra “Home is everything you can walk to.” - Rebecca Solnit CITY OF ST. LOUIS TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY PLAN # Purpose of the Plan St. Louis is a city in motion—shaped by its history, defined by its neighborhoods, and driven by the aspirations of St. Louisans. As St. Louis strives to provide an excellent quality of life for all residents throughout its vibrant, unique, and diverse neighborhoods, it is important to increase efforts to enhance the city’s transportation network so that everyone in St. Louis can safely, comfortably, and conveniently travel throughout the city. The Transportation and Mobility Plan (TMP) is a guiding document for a comprehensive strategy to guide transportation investments and policies, ensuring that all residents, businesses, and visitors can benefit from investments in St. Louis’ mobility systems. The TMP asks not just how we move, but why—and toward what kind of future. The completion of the TMP gives the City of St. Louis a chance to embrace a new approach to how it thinks about transportation, by focusing on better designs for vulnerable road users, incorporating updated nationally recognized best practices, and utilizing new technologies. The TMP ensures the city remains competitive and responsive to evolving mobility needs, while meeting the needs of today’s residents. St. Louis has played a pivotal role in national transportation, from its origins as a river city and railroad hub to the development of the Interstate Highway System. These regional and national transportation patterns undoubtedly shaped the City’s local transportation network, which once was oriented to accessing bodies of water, then to railroads and streetcars, followed by serving cars and personal vehicles. More recently, a need to better serve people traveling outside of cars has been recognized. Many major streets in St. Louis were built or redesigned in the 20th century to accommodate higher volumes of cars and serve a larger population. As a result, many streets today are overbuilt for current traffic volumes and community context, and do not meet the needs and desires of today’s residents for safety and accessibility. There is a great opportunity to rebalance streetscapes and space in the public right-of-way to better fit community priorities and provide room for a wide array of amenities that contribute to a high quality of life. Transportation & Mobility Plan 11 <
> INTRODUCTION <
> <
> <
> (Top to Bottom) Two streetcars spotted on Olive and 17th streets in St. Louis, 1963, photo courtesy of Roger Puta. Grand Avenue (Circa 1950) Courtesy: russellwillsonjr https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis. St.Louis, Missouri, USA, 1974 Eads Bridge. # Centering Planning in Transportation Investments Past transportation planning and investment in St. Louis is the basis on which the fabric of the city has developed and evolved for more than two-hundred years. The 1948 Major Streets Plan contains many of the transportation elements by which we understand St. Louis today. That plan also anticipated the interstate highway system, which would begin development a decade later. However, it has been decades since the City of St. Louis has adopted a new, citywide transportation plan. The TMP marks a pivotal step in shaping the future of mobility for the heart of the region. For any city, a transportation plan should be a core element of a city’s comprehensive plan and decision-making process. In recent years, many peer cities have developed new transportation and mobility plans which are actively shaping their built environments. These plans are being used to drive investments in transit, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and roadway safety improvements. <
> St. Louis currently has approximately 1,100 centerline miles of public streets, around 2,000 miles of sidewalks and pathways, over 200 miles of various types of bike facilities, two light rail lines in the City of St. Louis with 13 of the 38 system stations, more than 30 bus routes which serve all portions of the City of St. Louis, and an additional four which provide service to Illinois, and 75 municipal bridges. On any given day hundreds of thousands of people travel millions of miles across this network contained within the 62 square mile footprint of the City of St. Louis. <
> <
> # INTRODUCTION Maintaining today’s system, and planning for its ongoing evolution, are core responsibilities of local government. Many departments and elected offices play varied roles in planning, funding, building, administering, and maintaining the City’s infrastructure. The Street Department largely focuses on maintenance and operations, dealing with everything from street repaving, traffic signal updates, winter storm preparation, and administering the 50/50 sidewalk program. The Board of Public Service oversees all capital projects and programs, ranging from ward capital funded spot repairs to major investments that replace bridges and require federal grant funding to complete. But these are not the only departments which have an influence on the system. Elected officials set budgets and are involved with approving funding and contracts. Alderpeople initiate many smaller investments. A medium-sized project may involve dozens of local staff and elected officials and the sign-off of a minimum of four departments and boards, while a major project will also involve state regulatory review. <
> * Streets * BPS * Elected Officials (Alderpeople) Compared to most transportation or public works agency approaches, St. Louis has been less programmatic in transportation maintenance and improvement programs, such as repaving or sidewalk reconstruction. Rather than consistent, annual programs for paving and other street improvements based on established priorities, an ad hoc approach to selecting locations for investment has prevailed. Additionally, revenue streams dedicated to system maintenance and improvements have often not been sufficient to maintain the existing system. While many investments have been made, they have not always been tied to established goals or outcomes. With this TMP, St. Louis is positioning itself to learn from typical best practices around the country while crafting a plan tailored to suit unique local needs and aspirations. All of the elements of the TMP combine to create a vision for enhanced mobility for years to come. Specific information related to capital budgeting and staffing is included in Chapter 6 - Policy and Ordinance revisions. <
> # Integrating Transportation and Land Use Planning & the City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP) The TMP is not a standalone effort, it is informed by the city’s recently re-imagined Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP), recognizing that transportation and land use are deeply interconnected. A city’s development patterns shape travel demand, while transportation infrastructure influences how and where development occurs. For example: * **Walkable neighborhoods and transit access reduce dependence on cars and encourage compact, mixed-use development.** * Compact and mixed-use development improves the fiscal health of a City, which in turn allows the City of St. Louis to provide more high-quality public services. * Strategic roadway investments can improve freight movement, supporting business growth and job access. * Bicycle and pedestrian networks enhance connectivity between residential areas, job centers, and public spaces, fostering economic activity and healthier communities. * A continuous and accessible sidewalk network allows all residents to access amenities and services regardless of ability or stage in life. <
> The City of St. Louis engaged in an 18-month process to re-imagine its Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP) while the TMP process was ongoing, and the SLUP was formally adopted by the City of St. Louis Planning Commission in February 2025 as the central component of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The SLUP represents a vision for the development patterns residents want in the future, laying the foundation for decisions the City will make about land use. Based on the input received from the public, as well as the vision for growth within the City, the SLUP was developed around five key qualities. These key qualities are: ### The SLUP is Yours The experiences, expertise and dreams of the people of St. Louis guided the SLUP in its creation and will continue to shape its impact for years to come. ### The SLUP is Urban People want to live in areas that are walkable and where they feel connected to neighbors and history; the SLUP calls to strengthen and rebuild those qualities across 62 square miles of the City. ### The SLUP is Optimistic (Yet Realistic) St. Louis faces many challenges, but overall residents are optimistic about its future. The SLUP takes the optimistic view that change is possible, including stabilizing or growing the city’s population ### The SLUP is Strategic The SLUP uses the wisdom of residents, data about the City and insights from other recent planning efforts to prioritize what should be built where. ### The SLUP is Implementable The SLUP sets a long term vision that is also a robust tool for helping catalyze change and development in St. Louis. In addition to these key qualities, the SLUP has three core elements. The core elements include: the vision and goals for land use; the land use designations and guidelines; and the future land use map. By aligning with the SLUP, the TMP ensures that transportation policies support broader urban development goals, including housing affordability, economic opportunity, access to amenities, connected neighborhoods, environmental sustainability, and neighborhood revitalization. This coordination allows for decision-making that supports a more livable and resilient St. Louis which better meets the desires expressed by residents. # 2025 Strategic Land Use Plan ## of the Comprehensive Plan The map assigns a specific land use designation to each parcel of land in St. Louis City based on the shape, size, and future aspiration for that location. The map may be updated from time to time to reflect changes to the aspiration for specific areas, which might be raised by newly-adopted neighborhood plans, major changes in ownership or use, or other relevant changes in conditions. The table below gives us a guidance explanation of each designation in the SLUP. Those designations are defined by the form of the buildings—the how tall they can be and where the parking is located for each of these areas (including height, setbacks, and parking location). In a number of instances, these should be viewed as general guidelines rather than strict maximums for height and units per building; more than there may be many smaller buildings in areas with this designation. **SLUP Designation Categories** | | Maximum Height (Stories) | Maximum Residential Units / Parcel | Parking Between the Building and the Street | Parking to the Side | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Neighborhoods** | | | | | | Higher-Intensity | 3-4 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Medium-Intensity | 3 | 4-6 + ADU | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Lower-Intensity | 2 | 1-2 + ADU | Not Allowed (except alley & driveway access to garage) | Not Allowed (except alley & driveway access to garage) | | **Corridors** | | | | | | Higher-Intensity | 4-10 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Not Allowed | | Medium-Intensity | 3-5 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Lower-Intensity | 3 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Allowed | | **Nodes** | | | | | | Higher-Intensity | 6-15 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Medium-Intensity | 3-6 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | Lower-Intensity | 3 | Unlimited | Allowed | Allowed | | **Central Areas** | | | | | | Central Core | 10-Unlimited | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Not Allowed | | Central View | 10-20 | Unlimited | Not Allowed | Discouraged | | **Campuses** | | | | | | Campuses | Variable | Not Applicable | Not Allowed | Variable | | **Industrial Areas** | | | | | | Heavy | 5 | Not Applicable | Allowed | Allowed | | Flex | 3-4 | Varies | Allowed | Allowed | | **Open Spaces** | | | | | | Parks/Community Space | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | | Other | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | <
> # Vision, Themes, and Goals The future of transportation is certain to bring change, new technologies and changing demands for how people want to move around their city. The future of mobility in St. Louis is rooted in the City’s evolving need for a transportation system that better reflects the values and desires of the residents. Central to this vision is the goal of creating a more connected city, where all neighborhoods—from the north to south, downtown to the west—benefit from cohesive and reliable transportation options. The future of St. Louis should feature integrated systems that reduce travel times and increase convenience, with multimodal connections that allow seamless transfers between walking, cycling, transit, and rideshare services. In particular, the expansion and modernization of public transit should play a vital role, helping to reduce car dependency while improving accessibility to jobs, healthcare, education, and recreation. Equity is another driving force behind this vision of a new era of mobility. Historically underserved communities must be prioritized in transportation planning and investment to ensure that everyone, regardless of income, age, or ability, has access to safe and affordable mobility options. From ADA-compliant sidewalks and crosswalks to bike lanes and frequent, reliable transit service, the city’s infrastructure must reflect the needs of all users. Meaningful community engagement and data-informed decision-making can help ensure that investments close mobility gaps rather than reinforce them. The vision for mobility was shaped by thousands of St. Louis residents who expressed their values and experiences related to infrastructure investment and transportation solutions as a part of the TMP planning process. For more information on the community engagement process which helped guide the development of the TMP, see Chapter 2. <
> <
> <
> Transportation & Mobility Plan 19 # The Vision “To create a safe, connected, and well-maintained transportation network that enhances quality of life, fosters equitable mobility options, and supports sustainable growth in the City of St. Louis.” <
> # The Themes The three themes which guide the TMP are safety, connectivity, and the maintenance and quality of the built environment. These themes can guide future decision making to bring St. Louis closer to realizing its potential. They were developed through an inclusive engagement plan, which sought input from all St. Louis residents. The TMP team particularly sought to engage with vulnerable road users and people who may not have the ability to own or operate a car, as groups who have frequently been under-represented in transportation planning historically. These themes shape a more proactive approach to transportation planning and design, which better reflects the needs and desires of today’s residents, as well as the vision for mobility in St. Louis. <
> **Safety** Prioritizing the safety of all transportation users, including pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and drivers. **The TMP is focused on safety for the following key reasons:** * **People should not risk death or life altering injury simply by navigating through their environment.** All humans are prone to make mistakes, but those mistakes in a travel context should not be deadly or life altering. Safety redundancies should be designed in streets and sidewalks to mitigate risk. * **Traffic violence disproportionately impacts BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) in the City of St. Louis.** Equitable transportation options must be rooted in Safety. * **Many residents are directly impacted by traffic violence.** Approximately 25% of people living in the City of St. Louis (see Chapter 2 - Engagement for more summarized input, and appendix summary for full survey results) reported they know a loved one either killed or seriously injured in a car crash. These crashes can leave life-long impacts not just on the victims, but also on their family members and friends. Investments in safety improvements have a direct correlation to avoiding the most devastating impacts of car crashes and other risks while using the street. # 2 Connectivity Enhancing seamless, multi-modal connections within neighborhoods and across the city. **The TMP is focused on connectivity for the following key reasons:** * **Connectivity creates a more complete transportation network where people can easily reach destinations by using one or multiple modes of transportation.** Nearly 30% of trips in the United States are less than one mile in length. These are trips that can easily be accomplished while walking or wheeling if safe, accessible, and connected facilities exist. * **Wide roadways create physical and psychological barriers to travel across them.** An overly wide roadway can separate neighborhoods and can be uncomfortable to travel along. * **Approximately 46% of households in the City of St. Louis own either one or zero vehicles.** These residents need transportation options to get to work, school and access other services and amenities. The city’s street and sidewalk network should facilitate travel for those who can’t drive or don’t own cars, including children. * **St. Louis has a strong grid network of relatively small blocks and multiple route options.** The grid network itself represents extensive past planning success and public investment to create. The grid is a public asset. However, over time, that grid network has been partially eroded through the implementation of street closures, right-of-way vacations, or infrastructure barriers. A focus on grid restoration and the future of street closures is important to better connectivity for all people. <
> ### 3 Maintenance and Quality Ensuring long-term infrastructure resilience, reliability, and aesthetic appeal. **The TMP is focused on maintenance and quality for the following key reasons:** * **Prioritizing maintenance ensures that transportation infrastructure—such as streets, bridges, sidewalks, and transit systems—remain safe and reliable for all users.** Degraded pavement, aging sidewalks, or malfunctioning traffic signals increase the risk of crashes for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Well-maintained infrastructure supports consistent and predictable travel conditions, reducing crashes, improving accessibility, and reducing the danger of infrastructure failure. * **Proactive maintenance is more cost-effective than delayed repairs or full system overhauls.** By investing in regular upkeep, cities can extend the life of infrastructure and avoid higher costs associated with emergency fixes or complete replacements. Thoughtful maintenance planning and consistent capital budgeting allows for better resource allocation, ultimately saving taxpayer dollars while preserving critical public assets. * **A smooth and well-functioning transportation network improves user satisfaction and builds trust in public agencies and investments.** It supports local economies by facilitating the efficient movement of people and goods. Well-maintained roads, sidewalks, and transit systems encourage business activity, reduce travel times, and help attract private investment, all of which contribute to the city’s long-term growth and competitiveness. <
> <
> # The Goals Safety, connectivity, and maintenance and quality as the three overarching themes all play an important role for improving mobility for all people in St. Louis. Each theme has tangible goals, which if implemented will result in a safer, better connected, and more mobile city. <
> ## THEME: Safety **A safe transportation system for St. Louis is one where people do not risk death or life altering injury by simply navigating the city’s streets and sidewalks.** Residents responded that traffic violence has had a profound impact on their life. One-quarter of people living in the City of St. Louis reported that a loved one had been killed or seriously injured while traveling. People think this is unacceptable. Furthermore, residents overwhelming agreed that in current conditions, the City of St. Louis is not meeting the mobility needs of children. People want a St. Louis where everyone can safely travel, which means identifying safe and protected for facilities for people navigating our city outside of a private vehicle. <
> *Percentages from the community-wide survey. Please see Chapter 2 for more information about the survey and other public engagement activites. # SAFETY GOAL 1 **Reduce deaths and serious injuries 50% due to traffic violence by 2050** In recent history, safety-based goal setting has not been an integral component of transportation planning in St. Louis. St. Louis is now committed to significantly improving traffic safety by setting a bold goal to reduce deaths and serious injuries from traffic violence by 50% by 2050. This will be achieved through a variety of strategies and investments, particularly along high-injury corridors. Safer street designs, which may include traffic calming, protected bike facilities, enhanced pedestrian crossings, and designs to improve driver safety can all reduce the number of injuries to people using the street. Even before the development of the TMP, many safety-oriented investments were already underway. The complete Safety Action Plan (located in the appendix) identifies corridors for future prioritization, and systematic safety and traffic calming treatments for city-wide deployment. The Safety Action Plan uses data-driven strategies and community input to identify the most effective interventions for saving lives and protecting vulnerable road users. # SAFETY GOAL 2 **Improve safety and access for children and those with limited mobility.** Safe streets are family friendly streets. St. Louis aims to create a network of low-stress, traffic-calmed streets that allow children to safely walk, bike, or roll between schools, parks, and their homes. By prioritizing infrastructure improvements such as speed humps, safer crossings, and designated school routes, the city can work to make neighborhoods more child-friendly, family-friendly, and supportive of independent mobility for all residents. <
> *Percentage from the community-wide survey. Please see Chapter 2 for more information about the survey and other public engagement activites. ## SAFETY GOAL 3 ### Design streets for their intended purpose St. Louis is committed to reimagining key corridors which can be re-designed to better align with current traffic volumes, land use goals outlined in the St. Louis Land Use Plan (SLUP), and the TMP Street Design Framework. This approach will support safer, more useful streets by reallocating excess roadway space for improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure while maintaining necessary vehicle capacity. <
> ## SAFETY GOAL 4 ### Curb reckless driving and create efficiencies for people traveling through modernized technologies St. Louis aims to invest in modern traffic technology, including smart traffic signals, speed cameras, and red light cameras, to enhance roadway safety by reducing reckless driving. Investments in technology can also reduce travel delays for all users by optimizing traffic flow and reducing crossing wait times. <
> *Percentage from the community-wide survey. Please see Chapter 2 for more information about the survey and other public engagement activites. # THEME: Connectivity A connected St. Louis is one where everyone in St. Louis can travel safely and comfortably between neighborhoods and across the City. <
> Residents overwhelmingly supported the idea that everyone should be able to travel safely and comfortably around the City of St. Louis. The opportunity exists to re-imagine how space is used on many streets in St. Louis. 76% of residents responded they are willing to add some level of travel delay to their drive if it meant that more people who do not own or have access to a vehicle could more safely travel around the City. Residents also noted that several neighborhoods have untapped potential due to a lack of connectivity to surrounding areas. A focus on interconnecting assets in St. Louis through enhanced mobility can help improve connectivity to these neighborhoods and help them reach their full potential. ## CONNECTIVITY GOAL 1 Prioritize ADA transition plan implementation and focus on accessible connections for all St. Louis residents Consistent, programmatic implementation of the ADA Transition Plan is a top priority to ensure that all residents with diverse mobility needs and experiences can navigate the city safely and independently. Over time, all rights of way should be accessible to all users. Accessibility can only be achieved with deliberate, proactive, and consistent investment in accessibility, both as a standalone activity and as a component of all project design. Every transportation project, program, and practice should be oriented to emphasize improvements to accessibility. ## CONNECTIVITY GOAL 2 Proactively build and maintain a continuous and accessible sidewalk network across St. Louis Most streets in St. Louis were originally constructed with sidewalks, and the framework for a continuous sidewalk network exists. However, over decades, the various sidewalk repair programs, which partially relied on resident initiation, have not created a consistent and equitable level of maintenance and accessibility. While continual investments have been made in the past, the goal has not been to achieve a complete, consistent, and predictable sidewalk network across the entire city within a defined period of time. Moving forward, this should be the goal that guides sidewalk investment into the future. # CONNECTIVITY GOAL 3 **Continue to expand the cycling and greenway network to safely connect destinations across the city** <
> While streets, sidewalks, and public transit all have histories dating back a century or more, bike facilities and trail networks are a more recent development. Little to no thought was given to these amenities prior to the 1990’s. In recent decades cities have made significant progress in building bike facilities, greenways, and multi-use trails, which give residents a safe way to travel through their cities and expand the public space available for active transportation and recreation. These facilities are not just for cycling, they are as likely to be used for walking, running, and rolling, and their construction often also creates safety benefits in the corridors they are built. Expanding and completing these networks can have enormous quality of life benefits for residents and have a major impact on community identity. # CONNECTIVITY GOAL 4 **Continue to support the delivery and expansion of quality transit and other mobility services** For many residents, transit service or on-demand public mobility services like Call-A-Ride, are a critical link to employment, education, and essential services. As the heart of the region, St. Louis is at the geographic center of existing transit services, including Metrolink and the extensive Metro Transit bus system. However, an emphasis on reliable, consistent service can improve ridership and rider satisfaction. Expanding high-frequency service in key corridors can alter travel habits and make transit an easy choice for residents. Permanent investment in high-capacity transit corridors can drive economic investment and population growth. Expanding Metrolink or comparable BRT service can dramatically enhance the convenience and usefulness of the existing light rail system for residents and visitors. # CONNECTIVITY GOAL 5 **Reduce or mitigate existing infrastructure barriers and avoid creating new barriers** Many types of necessary infrastructure can create barriers to connectivity. Infrastructure like highways, railroads, interchanges, and overpasses can prevent people and vehicles from crossing to reach neighborhoods, as well as land uses like large parcels or parks that do not have through access (a way to cross easily). Over time, the original connections of the street network have been partially eroded through the development of new highways, property consolidations, street and right-of-way vacations, and formal and informal street closures. An efficient street network has many intersections and options for connectivity for everyone, no matter the type of transportation they use. # THEME: Maintenance and Quality A transportation system built and maintained in a way that ensures long-term infrastructure resilience, reliability and aesthetic appeal will improve quality of life and resident satisfaction in St. Louis. Residents overwhelming responded that consistent maintenance is a top concern facing the City’s transportation network (73% of survey respondents), followed by construction impacts (torn up streets, poor state of repair) which 65% of respondents reported is an issue. Additionally, the public reported that improving major roadways and maintaining existing infrastructure are among the top priorities for transportation investment. Investment in infrastructure is a visible indicator of neighborhood vibrancy, and better maintained transportation facilities will lead to increased mobility and higher quality of life. <
> <
> <
> # MAINTENANCE & SAFETY GOAL 1 **Implement asset management for more proactive decision making about transportation infrastructure** Aside from bridges, St. Louis has typically not followed a programmatic, asset management-based approach to maintaining infrastructure. This type of approach treats asset management as a continuous, strategic program rather than a one-off project or event using data and performance metrics ultimately improving effeciency, transparency, and long-term asset sustainability. St. Louis should pivot to a programmatic maintenance and improvement program on a five- to ten-year timeframe, especially for major roadways. A clear and proactive approach to asset management will result in more consistently maintained infrastructure and a clearer picture of funding needs. An asset management plan also permits more proactive, long-range planning, and more reliable communication to residents about future projects. # MAINTENANCE & SAFETY GOAL 2 **Put major roadways on a repaving schedule and allocate citywide capital to this activity each year** The City of St. Louis has 180 miles of principal arterials and minor arterials, comprising about 15% of the City’s roadway network. By agreement, MoDOT maintains 38 miles of these roadways in six corridors. Roughly 31 miles of this network will be repaved in 2025 and 2026 through already committed ARPA funding. This leaves 109 miles of principal and minor arterials which should be put on an asset maintenance schedule over the next decade to twelve years. This schedule would aim to repave at least ten miles of arterial roadway each year, to establish a maintenance and improvement schedule. # MAINTENANCE & SAFETY GOAL 3 **Define parameters for durable pavement markings and other better-quality features** High quality, durable pavement markings like thermoplastic, MMA, and similar materials can have a usable lifespan close to that of the underlying paving. While these materials are significantly more expensive, they also significantly reduce maintenance costs over their lifetime. Additionally, they enhance safety by maintaining a much higher degree of visibility for key pavement marking elements like stop bars, crosswalks, yield indicators, bike lane symbols and conflict zones, bus lanes, merge arrows, speed hump chevrons, and other important features. Many cities have moved to these materials as trends in transportation engineering have led to more pavement markings in many roadway designs. St. Louis is already using these materials on many projects. These should become standard practice on arterials as arterials move to a planned repaving schedule. # MAINTENANCE & SAFETY GOAL 4 **Improve pavement and sidewalk restoration standards after utility and development work** Unplanned pavement cuts and excavation are an unavoidable fact of life in a city with thousands of miles of aging underground utility lines. However, too often the restoration work does not return the street or sidewalk to a satisfactory condition or destroys and does not replace existing pavement markings. Holding all contractors working in the street (be they utility or development related) to higher standards of repair will improve street and sidewalk conditions, create a sense of care for public spaces, and improve resident satisfaction. <
> <
> # Who Will Use the TMP and How Will They Use It? The TMP serves as a guiding framework for a wide range of users, ensuring that transportation investments and policies align with the city’s long-term goals for accessibility, connectivity, maintenance, and economic growth. By addressing mobility challenges, optimizing connectivity, and prioritizing safety, the TMP provides a shared vision and strategic direction for decision-makers, residents, and key stakeholders. The TMP is the vision for how people want to get around St. Louis now and in the future. Several stakeholders play an important role in implementation of the TMP. <
> # City Staff and Elected Officials City of St. Louis staff play a key role in using the TMP to help prioritize projects, guide infrastructure development, and ensure policy aligns with the TMP. There are several departments that will use this document on a regular basis. These include: 1. Elected Officials Participating in Capital Planning and Prioritization 2. City of St. Louis Board of Public Service 3. City of St. Louis Street Department 4. City of St. Louis Planning and Urban Design Agency 5. St. Louis Development Corporation 6. City of St. Louis Parks and Forestry Division The structure of city departments who design and deliver transportation projects is evolving. In November of 2024, city residents voted in favor of shifting some transportation responsibilities from the Board of Public Service to the Street Division, and re-naming it the Department of Transportation. This change will go into effect in 2029. Regardless of which department has jurisdiction for a particular responsibility, the vision, values, and goals identified in the TMP should continue to guide each department in its responsibilities. **City staff can use the TMP to assist with:** * Identify funding opportunities for transportation improvements. * Ensure new transportation projects align with the TMP, SLUP and community priorities. * Make data-driven decisions on street design, traffic management, and multimodal infrastructure. * Support policies that enhance equity, safety, and accessibility across the transportation network. * Maintaining information related to the High Injury Network and safety improvements. * Scoping projects that are in alignment with the Street Design Framework * Better communicating with the public about infrastructure projects in all phases (unfunded, planning, design, construction, post-construction. # Infrastructure Stakeholders and Partner Agencies Regional transportation partners, including the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), Great Rivers Greenway (GRG), Bi-State / Metro Transit, and East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWG), should look to the TMP to coordinate infrastructure investments and improve regional mobility. These agencies use the TMP to: * **Align regional and local transportation priorities.** * **Plan and fund multimodal projects, such as roadway improvements, coordinated transit improvements, and greenway connections.** * **Enhance mobility across municipal boundaries through collaborative transportation planning.** * **Coordinate future projects with goals identified in the TMP, specifically by street type as identified in the street design framework.** <
> # Residents For St. Louis residents, the TMP serves as a roadmap for a more connected, safe, and accessible city. Community members can use the TMP to: * Track planning level goals for streets across the city. * Understand feasible design elements and tradeoffs for different kinds of streets. * Engage with city officials and provide feedback on transportation priorities and needs. <
> <
> # Developers Private developers and businesses can use the TMP to plan projects that align with the city’s transportation vision. The TMP helps them: * Understand desirable streetscape elements which may be integrated into projects. * Ensure compliance with city transportation policies, the street design framework, and general conformity with long-term transportation and mobility goals. * Integrate mobility solutions, such as pedestrian-friendly streetscapes and bike infrastructure, into new developments. * Understand the planning level parameters for actions like right-of-way vacations or street closures. By providing a clear vision and strategic direction, the TMP ensures that all stakeholders—from government agencies to residents—are working toward a shared goal of a more accessible, connected, better maintained, and safer transportation system. <
> <
> # How was the TMP Created? The Transportation and Mobility Plan (TMP) was developed through a structured, multi-phase process to create a data-driven and community-informed vision for St. Louis’ transportation future. After a funding allocation to support the project, the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to select a consultant team through a competitive process to partner with on the project. Once chosen, the team reviewed existing plans, studies, and infrastructure conditions to identify key transportation challenges and opportunities. Extensive public and stakeholder engagement ensured the TMP reflected community needs. Residents, city officials, and key agencies—including MoDOT, Bi-State / Metro Transit, Great Rivers Greenway, and East-West Gateway—provided input through surveys, meetings, and workshops. Special attention was given to equity and accessibility to prioritize historically underserved communities. A data-driven analysis guided the TMP’s recommendations, identifying crash patterns, mobility trends, and land use connections. This work shaped key elements such as the High Injury Network, a Street Design Framework, a Safety Action Plan, and policy recommendations to improve mobility for all people. The final TMP forms an element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, providing a clear framework for transportation investments and policy changes. It includes mid-term project prioritization, funding strategies, and performance measures, ensuring St. Louis moves toward a safer, more connected, and accessible transportation network. <
> # Qualities of the TMP ## Multimodal Enhancing mobility means providing choice in how people travel around the city. The vision for transportation in St. Louis is one where people can safely and comfortably navigate streets and sidewalks by all modes of transportation. ● WHAT PEOPLE SHARED: **People want to feel safer biking:** “I wish Gravois was more bike and pedestrian friendly. It is a large street that disconnects the neighborhoods. In general, I don’t feel safe biking in the city. There are not enough protected bike lanes that actually separate cyclists from cars.” **People need more trip amenities:** “(There is a) lack of bike parking! I want to ride my bike to stores and other places, but often have to lock my bike up to road signs, it doesn’t feel welcoming or encouraging for more people to bike as transportation.” **People want to feel safer walking between neighborhoods:** “I generally only feel safe walking in my neighborhood.” **Encourage mode shift:** “Focus on reducing barriers to alternate modes of transit. Make streets easy to cross by foot or bike. Medians everywhere!” ● WHAT ANALYSIS SHOWED: - Major investments are being made in transforming corridors for people. - Future transit corridors are being identified. - The Brickline Greenway is set to re-imagine active transportation in the City of St. Louis. ● WHAT IS IN THE TMP: The Street Design Framework contains overlays that incorporate a modal hierarchy into the decision-making process around projects. These overlays can aide the City of St. Louis when making decisions about tradeoffs and benefits on what should be included in the public right-of-way. The overlays include: <
> Bike Facilities <
> Transit Emphasis <
> Park Connectivity & Pedestrian Access These overlays do not include specific engineering standards for each street type, but they do include illustrated elements of street features to prioritize when focusing on that modal hierarchy. # Context Sensitive The future of transportation planning and design extends beyond curb to curb thinking. St. Louis is reimagining how streets can better serve neighborhoods and adjacent economies, as opposed to focusing primarily on traffic capacity. ● WHAT PEOPLE SHARED: **Streets should be open to people periodically:** “Close main streets in destination neighborhoods to car traffic on Sunday afternoons” **People want a 15-minute city that better connects all land uses:** “I moved to the city to walk. I would like to see priority on infrastructure that supports businesses along walkable paths, protect bike lanes. Provide resources for food, stores, grocery shopping, schools, etc. Provide everything I need for basics within a 15-minute walk” **Reflect sensitivity to the social and historical context of neighborhoods:** “I think north city could be soooo amazing if it was redeveloped, but also I’m wary of gentrification.” **Advocate for street design that respects local context and character:** “Design first! Give street crossing at neighborhoods identity and quality through green and next-gen solutions.” ● WHAT ANALYSIS SHOWED: Different types of streets serve different purposes. These purposed are a fusion of adjacent land use, transportation needs, multi-modal connectivity, and property and amenity access. The street design framework illustrates different design strategies and elements that can be applied to different street contexts, creating a visual foundation for understanding the different features that streets can contain in different contexts. ● WHAT IS IN THE TMP: Roadway Functional Classification (RFC) is a term commonly used in transportation planning which defines a roadway based on its access relationship to the interstate highway system. RFC only considers a roadway with regards to its function as a conduit for vehicles into other higher capacity roadways. The TMP is moving beyond RFC to identify descriptions of street types that better serve all the ways a street is used and all the functions it performs. This illustrated guide is referred to as the Street Design Framework. <
> # Human Scale The TMP centers people and their lived experiences in this vision. It conveys a commitment to people by prioritizing safety and connectivity at the center of the infrastructure decision making process. ● WHAT PEOPLE SHARED: People should be centered in the transportation planning process: “Commit to making human-scale streets throughout the metro area” Accessibility for all: “Issues with accessibility for people with disabilities, including poorly maintained sidewalks and lack of accessible public transportation options.” Acknowledge comfort and human-centric amenities in the public realm: “Incorporate shade-creation as a key walker support/infrastructure.” <
> ● WHAT ANALYSIS SHOWED: Residents of St. Louis think the diverse mobility needs of all people across the city can be better met. Residents particularly noted that the mobility needs of children and those with disabilities could be better met. People also expressed a willingness to accept reduced travel speeds if it meant those who cannot drive can safely, comfortably, and conveniently travel throughout the city. This feedback is important to consider when making difficult decisions on design elements which may not have complete public consensus. <
> # TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY SURVEY SEPTEMBER 2024 To understand how residents view the tradeoffs between driving convenience, safety, and accessibility, the survey asked about their willingness to accept slightly slower travel speeds under certain conditions. What is your level of agreement with the following statement: I would be willing to experience slightly slower travel speeds when driving at certain times of day if overall reckless driving decreased. ### TOTAL | | | | :--- | :--- | | Base | 327 | | Agree | 242 | | Neutral | 31 | | Disagree | 54 | What is your level of agreement with the following statement: I would be willing to experience slightly slower travel speeds when driving at certain times of day if it meant more people could travel comfortably who do not have access to own or operate a car. ### TOTAL | | | | :--- | :--- | | Base | 327 | | Agree | 248 | | Neutral | 41 | | Disagree | 38 | # WHAT IS IN THE TMP: The TMP develops a methodology for identifying ways to incorporate safety and better humanize our street design. Specifically, the TMP has identified ways to plan for: Right sizing streets (road diet candidates) School Access & Calm Streets (moving children and pedestrians safely in neighborhoods) Daylighting (slowing down cars and prioritizing people at crossings) There are examples of all these approaches already in place in St. Louis. But they have yet to be deployed systematically throughout the City. Adopting these as typical approaches in appropriate contexts will help center the human experience of people in their neighborhoods. <
> # Optimistic St. Louisans are hopeful and optimistic that the TMP can enhance mobility for all people. ● **WHAT PEOPLE SHARED:** **Active infrastructure is working, wanted, and needed:** “The new protected bike lanes and greenways have been AMAZING.” “Protected bike lanes are well-received but need more connections.” **Enthusiastic support for transformative infrastructure:** “Put bike and pedestrian investments first. It’s a flat, small city – build a network of multifunctional nodes easily accessible without cars.” **Hopeful outlook toward the city’s potential for transformation:** “The footprint of the city is fairly small so with some key changes it would be a really pedestrian/bike/wheelchair-friendly city.” ● WHAT ANALYSIS SHOWED: There is already a lot of good work being done. Through the work of the City of St. Louis, partner agencies, local advocacy, and diverse funding partners, streets are set to be transformed in the coming years with many new projects completing construction. <
> ● WHAT ANALYSIS SHOWED: The TMP builds on the momentum and identifies new ways of thinking of street design through the Street Design Framework. Sixteen unique street types are identified and accompanied by a map of the city of St. Louis, as well as example illustrations for each street type. During the TMP planning process each street in the City of St. Louis was mapped and verified using a detailed field investigation. Considerable discussions were had with City staff on illustrative examples of street types for compliance with City standards and typical treatments. While grounded in reality, this new vision is an optimistic way to rethink street design moving forward. # Implementable The TMP has focused on consensus building and collaboration from the outset with City staff. After the TMP process, City staff and elected officials must have the agency to implement elements of the plan. * WHAT PEOPLE SHARED: Reaction from city staff: “Thank you for the workshop on safety. I did not know what to expect and I can honestly say this exceeded my expectations in every way.” A call for transparent and actionable planning processes: “Have a clear/communicated way of prioritizing what gets invested in and why, and share.” Suggests implementable tools for public accountability: “Map-based dashboard for residents to track projects.” Encourages practical, maintainable solutions: “Come up with a proactive plan for streets, sidewalks, and trees to coexist without ruining infrastructure.” Transportation & Mobility Plan 49 ● WHAT ANALYSIS SHOWED: Through a series of departmental interviews, the project team learned that departments are currently operating in a fragmented and siloed way for planning and designing in the public right-of-way. The project team learned that staff feel extremely reactive and desire to be more proactive in the approach to designing transportation systems. ● WHAT IS IN THE TMP: Through the Street Design Framework (CHAPTER 4) and the Policy and Ordinance Recommendations (CHAPTER 6), the TMP has identified new processes for project budgeting, scoping and post-construction inspection. The processes and policies are grounded in current operations but also take into account a forward-looking approach. <
> # What the TMP Can and Can’t Do The Transportation and Mobility Plan (TMP) is a strategic roadmap that guides the future of transportation in St. Louis. It establishes a vision, priorities, and policies to shape how people move through the city. However, while the TMP provides a critical framework for decision-making, as a guide, it will rely on human decision making in the future for implementation. Understanding what the TMP can and can’t do helps to manage expectations and clarify its role in shaping transportation improvements. <
> # What the TMP Can Do **01 Set a Vision & Priorities** The TMP outlines long-term transportation goals that align with community needs, sustainability, and economic development. **02 Guide Infrastructure Investments** The TMP helps guide the City and its partners as they prioritize funding for streets, sidewalks, bike facilities, public transit, and other mobility improvements. **03 Support Policy Development** The TMP provides a foundation for new policies that promote safety, equity, and multimodal transportation options and align practices with the goals envisioned in the TMP. **04 Coordinate with Regional and State Partners** The TMP aligns city efforts with agencies like MoDOT, Metro Transit, Great Rivers Greenway, and East-West Gateway to improve transportation across the region. **05 Inform Land Use & Development Decisions** The TMP helps ensure that future development supports walkability, transit access, and sustainable growth. **06 Provide a Framework for Grant Funding & Investments** The TMP strengthens the city’s ability to compete for federal, state, and regional transportation funding by demonstrating clear, community supported priorities. # What the TMP Can’t Do **01** **Fund Projects Directly** The TMP itself does not provide funding for new projects or ongoing maintenance, but serves as a guide for securing, prioritizing, and allocating transportation dollars. **02** **Immediately Fix Infrastructure Issues** While the TMP sets priorities, improvements still require project development, funding approval, and implementation over time. **03** **Supersede Individual Project Decisions** The TMP describes general guidance and goals. Each individual project still requires development and must be informed by public engagement, engineering design and decision making, technical or budgetary constraints, and applicable practice and law. **04** **Control Partner Agency Decisions** While the city collaborates with agencies like MoDOT, GRG, Metro Transit, and the USDOT, the TMP can provide a framework for design and collaboration, but external agencies must also follow their own decision-making and governance protocols. **05** **Guarantee Every Community Request is Funded** The TMP considers community input, but funding constraints and feasibility mean not every project can be implemented immediately. # Looking Ahead: A Foundation for Progress As St. Louis considers its transportation history and outlines its goals for the future, there is a growing sense of possibility. This plan reflects a shared interest in improving mobility across the city in ways that are thoughtful, inclusive, and responsive to community needs. With continued collaboration and steady progress, the city is positioned to take meaningful steps toward a more connected future. <
> INTRODUCTION # 02 Engagement Summary <
> CITY OF ST. LOUIS TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY PLAN ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY <
> <
> <
> # Community Engagement Overview The engagement strategy developed for the TMP was designed to ensure diverse and inclusive participation across neighborhoods, demographics, and transportation modes. The input from residents, stakeholders, and community partners has been instrumental in shaping a plan that reflects local needs, values, and aspirations. This chapter outlines the engagement strategy employed, the methods used to collect feedback, and a detailed summary of the input received through various channels. <
> # Engagement Strategy The core principles guiding the engagement strategy included inclusivity, transparency, accessibility, and responsiveness. The City and its planning partners prioritized connecting with and hearing from historically under-resourced populations to meaningfully involve people who are most affected by the current system. Engagement activities were strategically timed and geographically dispersed to maximize participation. ### Inclusivity Transportation impacts everyone in the City of St. Louis as people move where they need to go. The engagement strategy used a variety of methods to reach residents so they could participate how and when they were able and wanted to get involved. This included online engagement, dozens of in-person events, and pop-up opportunities throughout the city. ### Responsiveness With several ways to engage directly with the consulting team, the TMP process ensured that the project team delivered timely responses to questions. Additionally, the project team clearly identified the input being requested, and how that input would be used directly in the TMP process. ### Accessibility Nearly 1/3 of people living in the United States do not have a driver's license. This population includes people living with disabilities, elderly people, individuals that do not have a car, and children cannot drive. Too often, these voices are left out of the planning process. The TMP engagement process prioritized hearing from these City residents through a variety of means, from presentations to interviews and pop-up booths, with accessibility as a key component of our engagement process. ### Transparency The project team heard early on that deciphering transportation terminology and processes was challenging and hard to navigate. The TMP process focused on distilling complex information into an easy-to-understand format so people could best understand why the TMP is important and how it will impact their lives moving forward. This was accomplished via a glossary of terms used at engagement activities and events, a brochure and fact sheet, and other materials to provide education. # Engagement Objectives Five engagement objectives were identified for the process for gathering input for the TMP. To achieve these objectives, the project team deployed a multi-phased approach with distinct engagement rounds aligned with key project milestones. Each phase included tailored outreach and engagement opportunities designed to reach specific populations and address varying levels of interest and availability. Key objectives of the engagement strategy were: 1. Build awareness of the Transportation and Mobility Plan 2. Foster two-way communication between the project team and community members 3. Collect input on current transportation experiences and future priorities 4. Identify barriers to mobility and transportation access 5. Encourage community-led solutions and ideas These objectives were achieved through a multi-pronged approach to outreach, which is described in the next section. Outreach was structured in two distinct time periods. The initial period was during the early planning process during goal setting, visioning and opportunity identification. The subsequent period was during the draft plan phase for any final reactions and modifications to the TMP before plan adoption. ## PHASE 1 ENGAGEMENT * Visioning * Goal Setting * Opportunity Identification * Resident Experience ## PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT * Feedback on Draft * Near Final Plan <
> # Outreach Methods (Summer and Fall 2024) The TMP employed a comprehensive and inclusive set of engagement methods to reach residents and stakeholders across all neighborhoods and demographics. A diverse range of input opportunities allowed feedback in person, on-line, or at various community events and functions. Each outreach method is described below, along with a summary of what was heard. Within each of the following chapters, this feedback has been integrated into the final product and recommendations. Engagement efforts began with Stakeholder Interviews with leaders and community members who support the current mobility system or represent populations impacted by the system. These interviews were used to craft Focus Group questions. Four Focus Groups convened to discuss barriers to mobility when traversing the City and hopes for the future. The groups consisted of Youth, Seniors, New Americans (immigrants and refugees), and People of Color. The information gleaned from Stakeholder Interviews and Focus Groups was used to craft the Community-Wide Survey and Statistically Valid Survey questions. Public Open Houses offered in-person opportunities for meaningful dialogue through interactive displays and multilingual materials, while a Community-Wide Survey—available both online and in print—gathered structured input on transportation needs and priorities. The Community-Wide Survey was available at the Public Open Houses for attendees to fill out after viewing more information about the Plan. A Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was convened in the early stages of engagement. An application was open to anyone in the region, though City residents were prioritized in the selection process. A group of 17 members were asked to participate. These members reflected strong diversity across demographics and geography, including nearly half of members who have lived in the City for 21+ years (7) and newer residents for 0-5 years (5), 13+ neighborhoods, ages from 25 to 65+, people living with disabilities, multimodal transit users, and varied racial/ethnic and gender identities. <
> Pop-Up Tables at local libraries, parks, recreational centers, community events, and transit stops brought the TMP planning process into everyday spaces, encouraging casual yet impactful conversations, and Stakeholder Workshops engaged institutional partners and advocacy groups in deeper discussions on technical issues and collaborative strategies. These workshops also helped align goals and values around decision making and transportation projects. Presentations were also given at the Board of Alderman to the Public Infrastructure and Utilities Committee, as well as to community-led groups that focus on multimodal advocacy, local government and policy, and accessibility. Comment Cards and Interactive Posters, at open houses and pop-ups, captured spontaneous insights from community members in high-traffic areas. These activities complemented the feedback carried through a robust Online Engagement Platform. Finally, Youth Engagement efforts ensured that younger voices were heard through children’s focused feedback, reinforcing the TMP’s long-term vision by including the perspectives of future generations. Inclusive engagement with the City of St. Louis Universal Design Group on all plan elements ensured the TMP represents people living with disabilities in the City of St. Louis. ## Surveys ### Community-Wide Survey Online and paper surveys allowed City residents to provide structured feedback on transportation issues, project priorities, and personal travel behavior. The surveys were widely distributed through social media, community newsletters, and partner networks. The Community-Wide Survey had 1,241 participants, with 81% of respondents living in the City of St. Louis. These respondents represented 43 zip codes across the St. Louis region. <
> *Zip Codes most represented in the survey* # Statistically Significant Survey The purpose of administering a statistically significant survey, in addition to a survey open to the community, is to ensure that responses were representative of the population living in the City of St. Louis. Typically, people opting in to take a survey about a specific topic are already more informed or engaged in the subject matter and may or may not represent the average views of residents. A statistically significant survey recruits from databases of people willing to answer survey questions about a variety of topics. The survey respondents were incentivized with a gift card raffle; 10 gift cards for $100 were awarded. The survey was administered to 327 residents living in the City of St. Louis, which represents a 90% confidence level. <
> ### CONFIDENCE LEVEL Confidence = the probability that the survey is accurate to the population it’s measuring or, how confident the project team is that the results match typical St. Louis City residents. <
> # Stakeholder Workshops The project team hosted meetings with city staff, partner agencies and advocacy groups to take a deeper dive into technical elements of the TMP. These workshops helped align goals and values, foster partnerships and set the stage for ongoing collaboration, both during and after the TMP. The following is a list of specific workshops that were held as a part of the engagement strategy with the TMP. <
> <
> ### Goals and Values Workshops: Two workshops were held to align goals and values around transportation and infrastructure decision making. One workshop was specific to City staff, while the other workshop was for partner agencies that own or maintain infrastructure in the St. Louis. The result of these workshops was a deeper understanding of the TMP, as well as candid and honest discussion around the values for transportation project prioritization. ### Safety Action Plan Workshop: A key goal of the TMP is to center safety in decision-making, with the intent to reduce crashes and fatalities. An essential tool to achieve this is provided by the data and information in a Safety Action Plan (SAP). One City staff workshop focused on building knowledge of the components of a SAP. Detailed discussions were held regarding the High Injury Network (HIN), current programmed projects, and prospective future projects aimed at addressing safety concerns within the high injury network. Staff also provided input on systematic safety measures that should be implemented across the city to reduce fatal and serious-injury accidents. <
> #### WHAT IS A HIGH INJURY NETWORK? A High Injury Network (HIN) is a strategic tool used in safety action plans to identify and prioritize areas with the highest concentrations of traffic collisions resulting in fatalities or serious injuries. By analyzing crash data over time (typically 3-5 years), HINs help pinpoint specific corridors or segments with elevated crash rates within a transportation network where safety interventions can have the greatest impact. Key Components of a HIN Include: * **Data-driven analysis**: Using historical collision data to identify high-risk areas. * **Focus on severe outcomes**: Prioritizing locations with fatal or serious injuries. * **Equity considerations**: Addressing disparities in collision impacts on underserved communities. * **Resource allocation**: Guiding investments in safety improvements to maximize effectiveness. ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY **Systematic safety countermeasures** in traffic safety and roadway design refer to proactive measures and design approaches implemented across a transportation network to reduce the risk of severe crashes. These countermeasures are based on a systemic approach, which involves identifying high-risk locations and applying proven strategies to address safety concerns. These are important for achieving city-wide safety goals. Key aspects include: * Low-cost interventions: Examples include concrete bumpouts to reduce street width at intersections and crosswalks, as well as temporary speed bumps. * Data-driven decisions: Using crash data to identify patterns and prioritize areas for improvement. * Scalability: Countermeasures are applied broadly to maximize impact across the network. * Focus on prevention: Provide protected walking and biking infrastructure, and design streets that are built for lower traffic speeds. This can include a combination of narrower streets and lanes, vertical and horizontal deflection traffic calming techniques, a narrowed street sightline width on straight sections, and intersection daylighting and visibility. <
> <
> Transportation & Mobility Plan ## Street Design Framework – Bus Tour and Neighborhood Walking Tours In addition to classroom style learning and workshops, City staff and stakeholders completed field investigations as a part of the Street Design Framework. The first field investigation included classroom style training on “what is a street design framework?”, as well as a bus tour around the City. The purpose of the bus tour was to understand more about current street design, as well as considerations (land use, traffic needs, connectivity, etc.) that go into a street design framework. Participants included city staff as well as external stakeholder partner agencies. The bus tour occurred before development of the street design framework had been completed. The second street design framework tour was after the first iteration of the Street Design Framework had been completed. Participants included city staff and consulting team members who spent the day traveling in different geographic areas of St. Louis looking and different street types. In total the team walked through three geographically unique areas of St. Louis, witnessed nearly all street types and totaled nine miles of field investigations. The input was important for verifying the final street design types. <
> <
> <
> ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY **Policy Workshop:** City staff convened for a workshop on policy recommendations after the initial investigation to review existing policies and potential areas for change. A draft memo on current policies, issues, and potential benchmarks for future updates was delivered to city staff ahead of this meeting. City staff learned more about the existing research as well as future process for recommendations. Interactive discussions were also a part of the workshop where staff reviewed practices from other cities and provided feedback on how the solution could be applied in St. Louis. <
> <
> **Elected Officials Briefings** Elected officials received several briefings during the TMP. In the first phase these briefings were focused on education and understanding. The following methods were included to brief elected officials on the work being done in the TMP. **1 Public Infrastructure and Utilities Committee** – The team briefed the Board of Alderman at the Public Infrastructure and Utilities Committee on the TMP, including the process, engagement plan and proposed deliverables. **2 City Bike Ride** – The TMP completed a bike ride around the City to experience different street and bike facility types with elected officials and appointed cabinet members, as well as city staff from various departments. <
> <
> # Community Advisory Committee (CAC) A community advisory committee was convened of 17 members from St. Louis. The CAC was selected via a lottery of applicants (applications were submitted through the project website and distributed in-person during presentations and Pop-Ups). The lottery included a high-level screening to ensure a diverse sample of residents, as well as to ensure that participants represent different modes of transportation or interest groups. The CAC met four times throughout the process with the first two meetings occurring during the first phase of engagement. The CAC was an initial way to test materials as they were being developed, as well as get feedback for refinement before bringing materials to a wider public audience. Specific topics of the first two meeting included general feedback on the TMP and how to structure public meetings, and a review of the Street Design Framework and discussion on street types in St. Louis. <
> <
> <
> # Media (website, press releases, videos, yard signs, flyers) The TMP team deployed various forms of media to engage with people in the first round and raise awareness about the project. The methods for sharing about the TMP and recruit participation included: * **Flyers** * **Project Website** * **Yard Signs** * **An Educational video** In total, the use of this media resulted in the participation of nearly 3,000 people from around St. Louis in the first round of public engagement. <
> <
> <
> Transportation & Mobility Plan 69 ## Community Pop-Ups and Presentations The TMP engagement team appeared at 31 events and meetings in the community. These Pop-Ups were a mixture of tabling at community festivals/fairs; pop-up tables specific to the TMP at locations where an audience could be reached (such as a gym for people living with disabilities or resource point for unhoused individuals, for example); and presenting on the TMP at various community meetings. The strategy ensured that the TMP reached voices that may be less likely to attend a traditional public meeting, resulting in higher levels of input. <
> <
> <
> # Open Houses Four early open houses were conducted to ensure accessibility and proximity to different neighborhoods. The open houses featured nine topical stations of visual boards, including a comment station and kids’ station, with several interactive activities for participants to express their values, priorities, and hopes for the future of transportation and mobility in St. Louis. The community-wide survey was available at the comment station. 89 people total attended the Open Houses. The four open house locations included: 1. Forest Park (centrally located) on 9/24/2024 - 29 attendees 2. St. Louis Public Library Central Branch (downtown) on 9/26/2024 - 23 attendees 3. Neighborhood Innovation Center (south St. Louis) on 10/3/2024 - 31 attendees 4. Urban League of Metropolitan St. Louis (north St. Louis) on 10/10/2024 - 6 attendees <
> <
> # Outreach Feedback and Integration in the TMP (Summer and Fall 2024) Feedback received from all the outreach methods was used to guide the direction of the TMP planning process and set a vision for the future of transportation in St. Louis. Community input significantly shaped the TMP’s priorities and recommendations. The feedback gathered from the engagement activities emphasized the importance of safety, equity, accessibility, and user experiences from people who walk, bike and take public transit. The survey results and comments from the open houses highlighted key challenges such as legacy street design contributing to reckless driving, lack of pedestrian safety, inconsistent maintenance, and the absence of protected bike lanes. These insights were integrated into the TMP to prioritize improvements in bike facilities, roadway safety, major roadways, and city sidewalks. Specifically, the outreach feedback and summary finalized: **1. The top three themes of the TMP (Safety, Connectivity, and Maintenance and Quality)** **2. The Vision Statement for the TMP** **3. The Five Qualities of the TMP** **4. Goals associated with the themes of the TMP** In addition to the specific use of feedback for these four components of the TMP, the general feedback helped guide the iterations of various plan elements as well as fine tune messaging for all TMP activities. Summarized feedback is included here by outreach method. ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY # Surveys Through both the statistically significant survey and the community wide survey, 1,568 people completed this opportunity to provide input. The survey was one of the most substantial sources of input for the TMP. The data from the survey revealed the following: <
> **Desire for Safer Streets:** Respondents overwhelmingly supported enhanced pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and felt streets can and should be safer. Concerns about speeding, unsafe crossings, and lack of sidewalks were frequently noted. The result of this input is that safety is a top theme of the TMP. <
> **Better Transit Service:** Many expressed dissatisfaction with current transit reliability and coverage. There were repeated calls for expanded service hours, increased frequency, and cleaner, safer stops. It is important to note that as a City of St. Louis focused plan, the TMP does not directly address daily transit service (MetroLink and bus) currently provided by Metro Transit in the St. Louis region. Rather, the TMP addresses street design which can improve transit access, and identifies corridors for future transit emphasis. <
> **Connectivity and Access:** Participants highlighted the need for better connections between neighborhoods and across city borders. Physical and social barriers to mobility—such as inaccessible sidewalks, infrastructure barriers, and concerns about safety—were common. The result of this input is that connectivity is a top theme of the TMP. <
> **Equity and Inclusion:** Comments emphasized the importance of equitable investment, with specific mentions of historically underserved communities lacking necessary infrastructure, the current state of excessive deferred maintenance in some locations in St. Louis. <
> **Environmental Concerns:** A notable portion of respondents expressed support for sustainable transportation options, including electric buses, bike-share programs, and greenway expansions. It is important to note that the City of St. Louis currently allows micromobility devices to operate in the public right-of-way with an approved permit. St. Louis has allowed micromobility companies (including bikes and e-scooters) to operate in the right-of-way since 2018. St. Louis has also piloted free micro-transit in the downtown area. Transportation & Mobility Plan <
> # CITY OF ST. LOUIS TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY PLAN COMMUNITY-WIDE SURVEY FACT SHEET The City of St. Louis Transportation & Mobility Plan (TMP) is in the process of outlining a shared vision for the future of the city’s streets and sidewalks, shaped by community values. A citywide survey, conducted from July to October 2024, invited residents to share their priorities and help guide the plan’s development. Below is a summary of the survey results. # 1,241 people participated in the survey *Not all questions required an answer and as such, not all participants completed the survey.* ## About the Participants **81%** are St. Louis City residents **67%** have lived in the City for 1-15 years **43** Zip Codes represented by respondents *The survey gathered additional demographic data such as race and ethnicity, income, age, and disability status, which are included in survey analysis and the final TMP.* ## How We Reached Participants * 22 pop-ups and event tablings across the City * 10 presentations to groups and organizations * 4 Open Houses * 2 Community Advisory Committee meetings * Local news stories, social media, community partners, neighborhood associations, 50+ yard signs, flyers, and more! ## Top 3 Values *related to future transportation projects* * Safety * Connectivity * Maintenance & Quality Note: This Community Fact Sheet was created in January 2025 following summer and fall 2024 community engagement events including presentations, pop-ups, open houses, and a community-wide survey. ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY # How People Get Around **81%** always or frequently drive **45%** always or frequently walk **21%** always or frequently bike **17%** always or frequently take MetroLink or MetroBus # Resident Insights **80%** feel that the mobility needs of children in the City are unmet **51%** have been involved in a traffic crash in the City **21%** have personally or had a loved one experience a life-altering injury or death from a traffic crash **50%** do not feel comfortable navigating the City using their preferred method of transportation # Downtown & North St. Louis have the most untapped potential, according to survey participants # What’s Working Well **Top 5 Responses** * Supporting and implementing biking infrastructure * Supporting existing and future MetroLink * Supporting public transit improvements * Traveling by car * Supporting traffic calming # What Could Be Improved **Top 5 Responses** * Reckless driving * Street and sidewalk maintenance * Dedicated bike lanes and trails * Construction impacts on streets like utility plates * Connecting sidewalks <
> **90% of survey participants** support slower travel speeds when driving if it means overall reckless driving decreased **91% of survey participants** support slower travel speeds when driving if it means more people could travel comfortably who do not have access to own or operate a car # Improvements Participants Would Prioritize * Bike connections & trails * Roadway safety * Major roadways * City sidewalks * Use resources equitably to enhance all neighborhoods <
> For more info on the project go to TMP-STL.COM Note: This Community Fact Sheet was created in January 2025 following summer and fall 2024 community engagement events including presentations, pop-ups, open houses, and a community-wide survey. # Outreach Methods (Spring and Summer 2025) In Spring and Summer 2025, the TMP team continued engaging residents, stakeholders, and staff in shaping the Transportation & Mobility Plan (TMP). Community outreach focused on clarifying the TMP’s interconnected components, gathering input on the Safety Action Plan, and preparing for the implementation of design standards that support a safer, more accessible city. ## 2025 Engagement Goals * **Clarify Plan Integration:** Illustrated how the TMP’s elements work together—like puzzle pieces forming a comprehensive vision for transportation and mobility across the city. * **Increase Awareness:** Continued building public understanding of the TMP and the transformative impact it will have on daily travel and neighborhood connectivity. * **Highlight Priorities:** Communicated the TMP’s essential vision, values, and goals, including safety, equity, and multimodal access. * **Coordinate with Neighborhood Efforts:** Aligned engagement with ongoing neighborhood planning efforts, while highlighting how the TMP offers a citywide, systems-level framework that complements neighborhood-level initiatives. ## 2025 Engagement Priorities * **Engaging North St. Louis Voices:** Popped up along the high-injury corridor areas, many of which traverse neighborhoods across north St. Louis. Many future improvements are planned for these areas, which align with recommendations made by the Safety Action Plan. Safety Action Plan engagement efforts focused on meeting north St. Louis residents where they live, work, and play. * **Connecting with Cyclists:** Collaborated with cyclists, advocates, and recreational riders to gather ideas and feedback on the future citywide bike network. * **Supporting City Staff Transition:** Prepared City departments and consultants to adopt and implement the new Street Design Framework via a workshop with a partner agency that utilizes similar tools. # 2025 Engagement Activities * **Street Design Framework Toolkit:** Released a video and booklet explaining new street typologies and how they relate to St. Louis contexts, supporting City staff and partner orientation and public education. * **11 Pop-Up Events:** Conducted events across the city, with a focus on Safety Action Plan priority areas to engage residents where they live and travel. * **2 Workshops:** Facilitated a Bike Network Workshop for cyclists and recreational riders and a Street Design Framework workshop for City staff, in partnership with Great Rivers Greenway. * **5 Presentations:** Deliver targeted presentations to neighborhood planning groups, the Universal Design Group, and the North Newstead Active Older Adults group. * **2 Community Advisory Committee Meetings:** Continue collaboration with key stakeholders and community leaders. * **2 Open Houses:** Celebrate the community’s role in shaping the TMP and present the draft plan to the public. * **Total Community Touchpoints in 2025:** 22 # Outreach Feedback (Spring and Summer 2025) ## Safety Action Plan Input The Safety Action Plan pop-ups sought input on prioritizing high-injury corridors that do not currently have a programmed project for the future. The TMP Team identified 11 corridors without programmed projects that may cause safety concerns for City residents. To gather input, two visual boards were created with three maps: 1) the high-injury network 2) priority projects that are planned, ongoing, or being studied, and 3) the 11 priority areas requiring input. Participants were invited to draw on the third map with Expo markers to highlight their areas of concern and dot vote on the areas they would most like to see prioritized for programming. They could also leave a sticky note with their input. These activities were also available online in a similar format with a map, voting, and open-comment boxes for anyone to complete. Most online commenters live in South St. Louis City and the Central West End (19%). In-person participants did not provide their Zip Codes. As most participants voted for improvements to areas that they use frequently, often closest to where they live and work, results were broken down by area (including online input). Overall Safety Action Plan Input Results Among all the areas, Priority Area B (Lindell from Kingshighway Blvd. to Vandeventer) is the most popular for desired safety updates (16%). | All Outreach Results | Percent | Count | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | B: Lindell from Kingshighway to Vandeventer | 16% | 94 | | I: MLK from City Limits to Kingshighway | 12% | 72 | | F: Gravois from City Limits to Shenandoah | 12% | 72 | | H: Chippewa from Kingshighway to Gravois | 11% | 62 | | J: Natural Bridge from Goodfellow to Shreve | 10% | 59 | | A: Broadway from City Limits to Carrie | 10% | 57 | | C: Florissant from Palm to 14th St. | 7% | 43 | | D: Broadway & River City Casino Blvd. | 4% | 24 | | E: Hampton from Arsenal to Nottingham | 7% | 41 | | G: Chippewa from City Limits to Lindenwood | 4% | 24 | | K: Riverview Blvd. from W. Florissant to City Limits | 4% | 26 | North St. Louis Pop-Up Results Most residents of north St. Louis would like to see improvements to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. to Kingshighway Blvd. (20%), followed by Natural Bridge Blvd. from Goodfellow Blvd. to Shreve Ave. (17%). | Results by Area: North St. Louis Pop-Ups | Percent | Count | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | I: MLK from City Limits to Kingshighway | 20% | 49 | | J: Natural Bridge from Goodfellow to Shreve | 17% | 43 | | B: Lindell from Kingshighway to Vandeventer | 13% | 31 | | A: Broadway from City Limits to Carrie | 12% | 30 | | C: Florissant from Palm to 14th St. | 9% | 21 | | H: Chippewa from Kingshighway to Gravois | 9% | 21 | | D: Broadway & River City Casino Blvd. | 6% | 16 | | K: Riverview Blvd. from W. Florissant to City Limits | 6% | 14 | | F: Gravois from City Limits to Shenandoah | 5% | 12 | | E: Hampton from Arsenal to Nottingham | 2% | 5 | | G: Chippewa from City Limits to Lindenwood | 2% | 5 | ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY ### South St. Louis Pop-Up Results Most south St. Louis residents would like to see safety updates to Lindell from Kingshighway Blvd. to Vandeventer Ave. (18%), followed by Gravois Ave. from City Limits to Shenandoah Ave. (15%). | Results by Area: South St. Louis Pop-Ups | Percent | Count | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | B: Lindell from Kingshighway to Vandeventer | 18% | 21 | | F: Gravois from City Limits to Shenandoah | 15% | 18 | | I: MLK from City Limits to Kingshighway | 12% | 14 | | H: Chippewa from Kingshighway to Gravois | 11% | 13 | | A: Broadway from City Limits to Carrie | 10% | 12 | | E: Hampton from Arsenal to Nottingham | 10% | 12 | | J: Natural Bridge from Goodfellow to Shreve | 8% | 9 | | C: Florissant from Palm to 14th St. | 6% | 7 | | G: Chippewa from City Limits to Lindenwood | 4% | 5 | | D: Broadway & River City Casino Blvd. | 3% | 4 | | K: Riverview Blvd. from W. Florissant to City Limits | 3% | 3 | ### Online Participant Results Most online participants live in a south St. Louis or Central West End Zip Code (19%). Most online participants would like to see safety improvements to Lindell Blvd. from Kingshighway Blvd. to Vandeventer Ave. and Gravois Ave. from City Limits to Shenandoah Ave. (20%). | Online Participant Results | Percent | Count | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | B: Lindell from Kingshighway to Vandeventer | 20% | 42 | | F: Gravois from City Limits to Shenandoah | 20% | 42 | | H: Chippewa from Kingshighway to Gravois | 13% | 28 | | E: Hampton from Arsenal to Nottingham | 11% | 24 | | A: Broadway from City Limits to Carrie | 7% | 15 | | C: Florissant from Palm to 14th St. | 7% | 15 | | G: Chippewa from City Limits to Lindenwood | 7% | 14 | | I: MLK from City Limits to Kingshighway | 4% | 9 | | K: Riverview Blvd. from W. Florissant to City Limits | 4% | 9 | | J: Natural Bridge from Goodfellow to Shreve | 3% | 7 | | D: Broadway & River City Casino Blvd. | 2% | 4 | # Bike Network Workshop The Bike Network Workshop was held on July 14, 2025, from 5-7 p.m. at the Forest Park Visitor and Education Center Trolley Room. Around 96 people attended (excluding children). Out of those who provided their zip code (88 participants), the most common zip code was 63110 (15%). Multimodal advocacy groups organized bike buses of adults and adults with children to the event, and several local news outlets attended. The workshop opened at 5:30 p.m. with a presentation by Jacque Knight and Scott Ogilvie. The presentation provided an overview of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), the history of biking in both St. Louis and the U.S., and the City’s vision for a future bike network. Following this, participants were invited to explore activity stations that included maps of existing and planned networks, a comment area, a kids’ activity station, refreshments, and a budgeting exercise. In the budgeting activity, each participant allocated $100, divided into $10 bills, across four types of bike facilities: painted bike lanes ($10), calm streets ($20), protected bike lanes ($30), and cycling trails ($60). The uneven cost structure was designed to reflect relative expenses and encourage prioritization. Results indicated a strong preference for protected bike lanes. In addition to the interactive activities, 46 comments were submitted through paper forms or the workshop’s online comment form, which remained open for seven days after the event. Feedback emphasized the need for safe, protected cycling infrastructure and reflected declining support for traditional painted bike lanes. Many participants recommended physical barriers such as curbs or bollards, especially along high-traffic corridors. Calm streets and residential routes were favored as alternatives to busy arterials until major safety improvements are integrated. Participants also voiced interest in car-free corridors and bike-priority streets near schools and transit hubs. Some expressed desire for clear modal prioritization and called for a bold, citywide transportation hierarchy that places pedestrians and cyclists above cars. Additional priorities included safer intersection treatments, stronger route connectivity, and consistent maintenance, such as pavement repair and sweeping. The importance of street enhancements like trees, buffers, lighting, and wayfinding signage were also highlighted. Equity was a recurring theme, with requests to prioritize investment in under-resourced neighborhoods and ensure safer access for Black communities and families. Overall, participants conveyed both optimism and urgency to deliver a safe, citywide bike network. # 2025 Open Houses The TMP 2025 Open Houses were held on Wednesday, July 16, from 5–7 p.m. at the Piper Palm House in Tower Grove Park and on Saturday, July 19, from 11 a.m.–1 p.m. at St. Alphonsus Liguori “The Rock” Church, which served as a rescheduled venue following the May 19 tornado. Combined attendance totaled 143, with 106 participants at the first event and 37 at the second. Both Open Houses featured identical displays, including information boards, the Street Design Framework Toolkit, and a comment form. Each event also offered free shaved ice; lawn games were available at the first Open House, while the second featured free line dancing at noon. Among attendees who provided their Zip Code, the largest share (16%) came from 63110, the area nearest to the first venue. A total of 30 people submitted comments in response to the question, “What questions or comments do you have about the TMP Draft Plan?” Feedback emphasized the importance of citywide, systematic planning (rather than ward-by-ward decisions) and called for a cohesive Calm Streets network to connect neighborhoods. Consistent with prior input, participants stressed the need for protected bike lanes, traffic calming strategies, and improved pedestrian infrastructure, especially around destinations like schools, parks, and libraries. Transit also emerged as a significant priority. Participants urged stronger investment in bus-only lanes, expanded and more frequent routes, and consideration of car-free or car-light corridors. Street safety concerns remained central, with some comments referencing the City’s Vision Zero commitment and noting cultural and enforcement challenges related to reckless driving. Accessibility for people with disabilities and equitable access to safe transportation were recurring themes. Overall, participants expressed both enthusiasm and gratitude for the TMP process, while underscoring the importance of detailed implementation strategies, interagency collaboration, and sustainable funding to bring the plan to life. # Key Themes and Takeaways Community feedback played a central role in shaping the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), guiding both the overall vision and the specific priorities of the plan. Across all outreach activities, residents consistently emphasized the importance of safety, equity, accessibility, and connectivity in the future of the City of St. Louis’ transportation system. Throughout all engagement activities, equity emerged as the guiding theme that should underscore all values, with community members stressing the importance of addressing long-standing disinvestment in historically underserved neighborhoods. A strong desire for safer streets was also an overarching theme, with calls for protected bike lanes, calmer traffic, safer pedestrian crossings, and improved intersections. Concerns about reckless driving, unsafe walking conditions, and a lack of continuous sidewalks reinforced the need for safety as a core value. Connectivity was also highlighted as critical, with participants pointing to the need for stronger links between neighborhoods and the wider region. Residents expressed frustration with barriers to mobility and emphasized the value of a more connected and cohesive street network. At the same time, concerns about poor maintenance and inconsistent quality underscored the need for reliable, well-kept infrastructure, from sidewalks and bike lanes to roadways. Sustainability and environmental responsibility also factored into public feedback. Respondents expressed support for investments in electric buses, micromobility options, and expanded greenway networks, while also calling for a greener, more resilient transportation system overall. The outreach process itself demonstrated strong community interest and engagement. The surveys of more than 1,500 residents confirmed safety, connectivity, and maintenance & quality as the top themes of the TMP, while workshops and open houses gave participants opportunities to dive deeper into specific issues. At the Bike Network Workshop, participants overwhelmingly prioritized protected bike lanes and physically separated infrastructure over traditional painted lanes, while also voicing support for calm streets, car-free corridors, and safer routes near schools and transit hubs. The 2025 Open Houses reinforced many of these themes, with residents stressing the need for cohesive, citywide planning rather than fragmented, ward-by-ward decisions. Comments again emphasized protected bike lanes, safer pedestrian environments, and expanded transit access, alongside calls for implementation strategies, interagency collaboration, and sustainable funding to ensure the TMP’s vision becomes reality. Together, this feedback helped finalize the TMP’s vision statement, core themes, and goals, and ensured that community priorities are firmly embedded in both the process and the final recommendations. ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY <
> # 03 Safety Action Plan <
> CITY OF ST. LOUIS TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY PLAN SAFETY ACTION PLAN A key element of the TMP is the development of a Safety Action Plan (SAP). This standalone document serves as a comprehensive framework aimed at significantly reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries on St. Louis roadways over time. It aligns with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, which provides funding and guidance to improve roadway safety through data-driven strategies, and utilizes USDOT’s Safe System Approach framework. The SAP builds upon regional initiatives such as the East-West Gateway led “Gateway to Safer Roadways” project to identify and mitigate high-risk areas within the city’s transportation network. The entire Safety Action Plan is included as Appendix (A-1). This document should be updated over time as new data is available and as safety projects and policies are implemented. The City of St. Louis should monitor and track projects for safety improvements, as well as report successes to the public. Reporting on safety will benefit the new Complete Streets Policy (adopted July 2024 in conjunction with TMP work) that identifies a more formal process for reporting transportation projects and street design. Within the context of the TMP, safety plays a key role in the identification of future goals and of particular interventions that, when considered in a systematic and proactive manner, contribute to a data-driven approach that reduces fatal and serious injury crashes. Every major infrastructure project should begin with the question: <
> How do we fix a known safety issue through a better roadway design? # Fifty by Fifty – A Goal for Fatal and Serious Crash Reduction Referred to as the “Fifty by Fifty” goal, East-West Gateway has adopted the goal of reducing serious injuries and fatalities in the St. Louis region 50% from the 2022 baseline by 2050. East-West Gateway (EWG) is a regional council of governments and the metropolitan planning organization for the St. Louis region. EWG is a forum where local governments in the St. Louis bi-state region collaborate on issues like transportation, community development, and environmental planning. The City of St. Louis also adopts and affirms the “Fifty by Fifty” safety goal for crashes on surface streets within the City of St. Louis boundaries. Additionally, an interim target goal of a 30% reduction by 2035 on the city’s non-interstate roadways. This bold goal aligns with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) initiative and represents a critical component of the TMP. The City acknowledges that while comprising only 11% of the regional population, 20% of serious crashes and 33% of severe pedestrian crashes occur within our boundaries—demonstrating the urgent need for focused intervention. <
> The City of St. Louis represents 11% of the regional population, but accounts for 20% of the region’s serious crashes and 33% of severe pedestrian crashes. Through the lens of safety, traffic calming measures, road diets, signal timing adjustments, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure enhancements are identified as interventions that would aid in reaching the Fifty-by-Fifty safety goal. Information on specific elements and interventions is included in the full Safety Action Plan (included as an appendix to the TMP), though information on the various treatment types is also included below. These should be considered a holistic approach across the City of St. Louis. Individual interventions are mapped on specific streets for consideration. Two of these treatments are also identified in the street design framework as an overlay for future project planning. # Data-Driven Safety Analysis and Improvements The SAP emphasizes the importance of data-driven safety analysis and systematic improvements deployed citywide. It includes short- and long-term strategies for traffic calming, pedestrian crossings, and bike infrastructure. The plan also highlights arterial projects and programming, as well as the use of technology to enhance safety measures. St. Louis uses a robust, data-informed framework to prioritize safety improvements, focusing on its High Injury Network (HIN)—the top corridors and intersections with high concentrations of fatal and serious crashes. Shorter-term strategies include quick-build road diets, signal upgrades, daylighting, and pedestrian infrastructure enhancements. Long-term investments target systemic changes such as corridor redesigns, ARPA-funded upgrades, and new design standards. Addressing and prioritizing routes along the HIN requires a multifaceted approach. One way to begin is by aligning with already programmed projects, which can serve as a foundation to ensure consistency between existing investments and the recommendations identified through the HIN. Evaluating the HIN through multiple lenses, including bicycle and pedestrian perspectives in addition to a holistic consideration of all travel modes, offers a broader understanding of network needs and opportunities for multimodal safety improvements. ## WHAT IS A HIGH INYURY NETWORK? A High Injury Network (HIN) is a strategic tool used in safety action plans to identify and prioritize areas with the highest concentrations of traffic collisions resulting in fatalities or serious injuries. By analyzing crash data over time (typically 3-5 years), HINs help pinpoint specific corridors or segments with elevated crash rates within a transportation network where safety interventions can have the greatest impact. Key Components of a HIN Include: * **Data-driven analysis:** Using historical collision data to identify high-risk areas. * **Focus on severe outcomes:** Prioritizing locations with fatal or serious injuries. * **Equity considerations:** Addressing disparities in collision impacts on underserved communities. * **Resource allocation:** Guiding investments in safety improvements to maximize effectiveness. Transportation & Mobility Plan <
> # Priority Projects * Future Priority Corridors * Ongoing Traffic Studies * Planned/Ongoing Safety Projects * MetroLink Station * MetroLink Red and Blue Lines * Planned Transit Expansion * Existing Greenways & Major Trails * Streets * City Boundary * Open Space * Water # SAFETY ACTION PLAN <
> **Upcoming Major Street Projects** * ARPA Arterial Project * Bridge Replacement * Calm Street * Greenway * Other Arterial Project * Street Level Cycle Track * ○ MetroLink Station * --- MetroLink Red and Blue Lines * •••••• Planned Transit Expansion * — Existing Greenways & Major Trails * — Streets * ☐ City Boundary * [ ] Open Space * [ ] Water 0 0.5 1 2 Miles # Short-Term and Long-Term Strategies <
> Pedestrian Crossings <
> Daylighting <
> Bike Infrastructure <
> Calm Street Improvements <
> Updated Design Standards <
> Traffic Signal Upgrades <
> Corridor Redesigns SAFETY ACTION PLAN ### Pedestrian Crossings: Improvements to pedestrian crossings involve proven street design strategies aimed at improving visibility and safety at crossings, particularly in areas with high pedestrian activity. **Short-term:** Enhance visibility at intersections through daylighting, removing visual obstructions near intersections using paint, bollards, or concrete bump-outs. **Long-term:** Implement raised crossings. Consistently implement the ADA Transition Plan in tandem with a consistent and reliable funding source so as to achieve greater accessibility year over year and reduce pedestrian distances along streets. Using the Safety Action Plan and referencing the HIN found on the following map, priority routes can be identified to begin implementing short-term improvements and long-term planning solutions addressing pedestrian safety. Transportation & Mobility Plan <
> Data derived from East-West Gateway Council ‘Gateway to Safer Roadways’ Plan **Bike Infrastructure:** **Short-term:** Maintain existing bike infrastructure, including striping, pavement markings, and signage. Further protect and bring awareness to existing bike infrastructure with enhanced pavement markings, reflective delineators, and continued bike infrastructure through intersections. **Long-term:** Create a connected network of bike boulevards and low-stress bikeways, including trails, paths, and greenways connecting across the city, integrating bike networks with transit systems, and providing bike parking at transit stops. Increase protection and visibility in existing bike infrastructure with permanent, vehicular-resistant barrier separation between vehicular traffic. <
> <
> Transportation & Mobility Plan # Calm Street Improvements: Calm Streets are streets with low vehicular traffic, where traffic calming measures create an environment that is safe and attractive for people to walk and cycle in. Traffic circles, curb bump-outs and chokers, speed humps, and intersection markings may be applied. In some cases, the street is branded as a Calm Street, and special attention is given to decorative planting, landscape design, urban design, and other environmental upgrades. In 2023, St. Louis City added its first calm street on Louisiana Avenue; an extension south to Carondelet Park is planned. Calm Streets are an effective measure for reducing speeding-related crash risk and fostering pedestrian activity. They can also form an important part of a bikeway network. Calm Streets are most appropriate in contexts with low traffic volume and destination nodes. These streets are especially useful for: * Children traveling to school * Seniors navigating their neighborhoods * Connecting parks, schools, and civic spaces via safe, quieter routes. <
> ### Calm Streets: **Short-term:** Continue implementing speed humps, curb bump-outs, and traffic circles on residential streets to reduce vehicle speeds and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. **Long-term:** Develop Calm Streets with consistent traffic calming measures, including traffic circles, curb bump-outs, shorter pedestrian crossings, speed humps, high visibility intersection markings, and right-sizing streets to reduce roadway widths where appropriate. Development of Calm Streets Standards may be desirable. Based upon the goals as set in the Safety Action Plan, potential calm streets can be found on the Potential Calm Streets map on the next page (page 95). <
> <
> # Potential Calm Streets <
> Potential Calm Streets o MetroLink Station — MetroLink Red and Blue Lines •••••• Planned Transit Expansion — Existing Greenways & Major Trails — Streets □ City Boundary ■ Open Space ■ Water # Updated Design Standards **Traffic Signal Upgrades:** Traffic signals provide for traffic control and the safe crossing of roadway intersections when road rules are followed. Traditional signals govern travel for fixed intervals of time, while more advanced signals allow for traffic signals to be changed at varying intervals based on the detected presence of vehicles, the time of day, and in conjunction with other traffic signals. Traffic signals can also provide public transportation and cyclists with travel priority over vehicular traffic. **Short-term:** Conduct a signal warrant analysis to determine viability of signals at specific intersections. A signal warrant analysis is an engineering study that evaluates traffic conditions at an intersection to determine if a traffic signal is necessary. Update timing of existing signals to better fit current traffic patterns in locations where pre-timed signals are deployed. Implement protected left-turn phasing. Add reflective backplates. **Long-term:** Implement vehicle detection, signal coordination, red light running cameras, having signal heads for every lane to reduce confusion. Transportation & Mobility Plan <
> Intersections with High Rate of Red Light Violations * Signal Location o MetroLink Station = MetroLink Red and Blue Lines ...... Planned Transit Expansion — Existing Greenways & Major Trails — Streets — City Boundary [ ] Open Space [ ] Water SAFETY ACTION PLAN ### Corridor Redesigns: Corridor Redesigns entail the complete reconfiguration of roadways. In contemporary street engineering, a street redesign generally entails the reallocation of available space to better balance the needs of all modes of travel. St. Louis possesses a large number of wide corridors that prioritize car traffic. Corridor Redesign would make these corridors more attractive to non vehicular modes of transportation and safer through the implementation of infrastructure that better suits its level of usage. **Short-term:** Construct corridor redesigns during routine maintenance activities like resurfacing. Lane restriping, painted bike lanes, high-visibility crosswalk implementation, and tactical curb extension using low-cost materials can provide interim treatments. **Long-term:** Full depth pavement reconstruction, concrete curb extensions, landscaped or concrete medians, and pedestrian refuge islands. Painted bike lanes can be replaced with protected or raised facilities. <
> Transportation & Mobility Plan <
> Potential Road Diet Candidates — Potential Road Diet Candidates — Road Diets - Planned or In Construction o MetroLink Station — MetroLink Red and Blue Lines ...... Planned Transit Expansion — Existing Greenways & Major Trails — Streets □ City Boundary ■ Open Space ■ Water # Arterial Projects and Programming ## Arterial Projects: * Identify high-impact projects on arterial roads, such as road diets, intersection improvements, and enhanced pedestrian infrastructure. * Example: Potential road diet on North Broadway from Riverview to Carrie, reducing travel lanes, street width, and repurposing space for bike and pedestrian improvements, as well as improved transit and greenspace. ## Programming: * Emphasize data-driven safety analysis and systematic improvements deployed citywide. * Regularly monitor and update the High Injury Network (HIN) to prioritize interventions based on crash data. * Engage with the community and stakeholders to ensure effective implementation and continuous evaluation of safety measures. # Technology ## Traffic Signal Upgrades: * Install protected left turn phasing, flashing yellow arrows, and vehicle detection systems, to reduce red-light running and improve traffic flow. Evaluate corridors where interconnected signals would be beneficial to reduce wait times for secondary streets crossing the primary street, and also to reduce speed on primary streets with appropriate signal progression. Consider signal prioritization on busy public transportation routes. * Upgrade pedestrian detection and ADA-compliant signal equipment; improve signal coordination to reduce pedestrian wait times at intersections and supplementary signal heads to enhance visibility and safety at intersections. <
> ## Red Light Cameras: * Utilize red light cameras to supplement traditional enforcement methods, reducing red-light violations and improving overall intersection safety. # Equity Analysis Equity considerations are a fundamental aspect of the Safety Action Plan (SAP). The plan recognizes that majority-BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) and lower-income neighborhoods experience significantly higher rates of fatal and severe crashes. To address these disparities, the SAP prioritizes investments in these communities, ensuring that resources are allocated to the areas of greatest need. Engaging with underrepresented and historically marginalized communities and involving these communities in the decision-making process to ensure their needs and concerns are addressed was a vital component of the SAP. Implementing new policies and procedures, such as traffic signal adjustments, traffic calming and speed limit reductions, enhances safety and accessibility in vulnerable communities. Regular monitoring and transparency are essential for maintaining accountability, tracking crash data, evaluating the impact of interventions, and providing updates to the community. # Policy Initiatives Policy initiatives can address and improve roadway safety. The SAP examines and recommends some of these policy initiatives: **Speed limit setting:** Implementing policies to set appropriate speed limits based on road conditions and usage. **Sidewalk program:** Enhancing sidewalk infrastructure to improve pedestrian safety, through comprehensive sidewalk improvement and repair plans. **Street design framework:** Introducing a framework for street design that prioritizes safety and accessibility, with a recommended approach to identify and plan for design improvements in priority areas. **Capital needs to move towards goals:** Identifying and addressing capital needs to achieve safety goals. Safety improvements that support citywide and systematic approaches should be prioritized by referencing the city’s arterial roadways and that high injury network. # Education, Programming and Enforcement Initiatives Education, programming and enforcement initiatives are complements to engineering changes when pursuing safer streets. Enforcement initiatives can be largely centered around technological advancements, as identified earlier and within the full Safety Action Plan. Under a Safe System approach, where the system is designed to prevent fatal and serious crashes by anticipating human error and limiting crash energy, education, enforcement, and programming must be integrated into a coordinated, equitable strategy rather than treated as separate “add-ons.” The goal of this section is to identify evidence-based education and enforcement initiatives that support St. Louis’s safety goals, show examples from peer cities, and provide clear, practical implementation recommendations tied to measurable outcomes. ## Why education + programming + enforcement Traditional practice often treats engineering, education, and enforcement (the 3 Es) as separate pillars. The Safe System perspective recognizes that each is most effective when deployed together. A fourth E for equity has been added to this practice, advocating for safety initiatives to address and reduce health disparities and ensure equal benefit and safety for all communities. Engineering reduces the likelihood and severity of crashes, education builds public understanding and safer road-user behavior, and enforcement ensures compliance while supporting community trust and fairness. Wrapped together into an equitable programming strategy, St. Louis can focus on reducing fatal and serious injury crashes in neighborhoods facing a higher proportion of these. National guidance from FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures and Safe System materials emphasizes pairing infrastructure with complementary behavioral and operational strategies to accelerate safety results. Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) also supports behavioral and operational investments alongside infrastructure. # Evidence-based education initiatives (what works) Below are education programs that have demonstrated success or strong plausibility in producing safer road behavior and are adaptable to St. Louis. * **School-based walking and biking curriculum:** Multi-year, in-school programs that teach pedestrian and bicycle skills to elementary and middle school students help create lifelong safe road behaviors and increase walking and biking rates. For example, Seattle’s “Let’s Go” program delivers walking and biking safety curriculum to 3rd–5th graders in partnership with PE classes and community partners. Programs tied to Safe Routes approaches can be scaled citywide and targeted to schools in high-crash areas. * **Driver education modernization:** Integrate vulnerable-user safety (pedestrians, cyclists, micromobility) and speed management into high school and licensing curricula, with practical on-street modules where feasible. Minneapolis Vision Zero planning explicitly explores partnering with high schools and community partners to expand driver education access focused on local safety priorities. * **New-device public awareness campaigns:** When deploying new infrastructure such as protected bike lanes, raised crossings, or signal timing changes, run advance public information campaigns. These can include short videos, local media, community workshops, and on-site ambassadors that explain how the device works and how to use it safely. Messaging should be multilingual and culturally tailored. * **Community-based peer training:** Fund community organizations and bicycle coalitions to deliver youth and adult bike and traffic safety classes. These programs increase trust and reach communities historically underserved by city outreach. * **Employer and fleet training programs:** Partner with large local employers and transit or freight operators to deliver targeted training for professional drivers on vulnerable road user safety and speed risk management. # Evidence-based programming strategies Education and programming around active transportation initiatives are essential to fostering a strong and inclusive culture for active transportation in St. Louis. These programs help build awareness, skills, and community support that go beyond just infrastructure. Effective programming helps people of all ages and abilities connect and build social capital, all while learning safe practices for walking and biking on or next to city streets. Building social capital involves fostering trust, mutual respect, and meaningful relationships that stengthen collaboration. These programs help people make personal connections with friends and neighbors, and normalize active transportation as a regular mode of commute for every day. Additionally, community engagement and outreach efforts for these programs can address equity by reaching underserved populations who may face barriers to mobility. Together, these efforts promote safer streets, increase bicycle ridership, and cultivate public support for continued investment in active transportation, creating a positive feedback loop that strengthens the overall health, sustainability, and vibrancy of the City’s urban environment: * **Open Streets/Ciclovía Programs:** Evidence from cities such as Bogotá, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis shows that temporary street closures to cars—turning corridors into pedestrian- and bicycle-only spaces—significantly increase physical activity, create social connections, and encourage people who don’t typically bike or walk to try it. A similar, local initiative is Vehicle Free Days in Tower Grove Park and Carondelet Park, where on certain days each month the parks offer car-free access to provide safe, vehicle-free roadways for pedestrians, cyclists, and skaters. Research published in the Journal of Urban Health found that participants in Open Streets events had higher rates of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity compared to nonparticipants, and many reported intentions to continue biking or walking afterward. * **Community Group Rides and Walking Clubs:** Organized rides and walking groups provide safety in numbers, reduce perceived risk, and build skills and confidence for new users. The CDC’s Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends such social support programs because they consistently increase physical activity levels, particularly in communities new to active transportation. They also strengthen local advocacy networks, which can lead to sustained infrastructure and policy changes. St. Louis already benefits from such groups such as the Monthly Cycle, Black People Bike, Ghost Ride, and many other group rides led by bike shops in the community, as well as having organized events such as the Moonlight Ramble and others organized by Trailnet. * **Walk and Bike Audits Integrated into Planning Projects:** Conducting walkability and bikeability audits during corridor planning or redevelopment projects—especially when involving residents—has been shown to improve design outcomes and community buy-in. According to FHWA’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, these audits increase awareness of barriers to active transportation and lead to tangible infrastructure improvements. The process also empowers residents, who are more likely to use facilities they helped design and advocate for. ## Evidence-based enforcement strategies (what works and how to do it equitably) Enforcement can deter dangerous behaviors, but it must be data-driven, transparent, and equity-focused to avoid disproportionately burdening certain communities while building trust. A handful of programs are noted below; with additional research, data on the safety impacts of these projects can be found. * **Targeted, data-driven enforcement:** Use crash and enforcement data to focus short-term campaigns on the highest-risk locations and behaviors, such as speeding corridors or intersections with frequent pedestrian crashes. Combine enforcement blitzes with simultaneous community education and engineering responses such as signage or crosswalk enhancements so enforcement is part of a comprehensive fix. NYC Vision Zero and other city programs demonstrate combining data-driven enforcement with engineering and education. * **Warning-to-citation transition periods:** For new traffic devices or lower speed limits, implement a staged approach. This could begin with a publicized warning period where enforcement is present but only warnings are issued, followed by citations after a clear lead time. This balances compliance goals with fairness and public understanding. * **High-visibility enforcement tied to campaigns:** Pair high-visibility enforcement for speeding, impaired driving, or distracted driving with media, community outreach, and practical alternatives such as transit and micromobility options so behavioral change is supported and not just punished. * **Alternative enforcement outcomes:** Where appropriate, offer educational alternatives to fines, such as mandatory safe-driving classes, restorative justice meetings, or curbside community service focused on safety improvements. These are especially effective for first-time, low-risk infractions, helping to reduce financial burdens and build community goodwill. * **Use of automated enforcement paired with policy safeguards:** Automated speed and red-light enforcement can reduce severe crashes when implemented with clear policy protections, revenue transparency, and regular evaluation. Combining these efforts with engineering adjustments such as signage and adjusted signal timing helps ensure fairness. # Case studies and best practices to adapt * **Seattle – School and Community Safety Education** Seattle’s Let’s Go program integrates walking and bicycling safety education into physical education curricula for elementary students, including those with disabilities. The program is funded by the Seattle Department of Transportation in partnership with Cascade Bicycle Club and Outdoors for All. Participating schools can access small grants and Safe Routes to School educational kits. A similar initiative could be piloted in priority St. Louis schools, with support through partnerships with local nonprofit organizations. * **Springfield, Missouri – SGF Yields (SafeAcross Adaptation)** SGF Yields is a pedestrian safety campaign developed in partnership with the Missouri Department of Transportation and funded through the Blueprint for Safer Roadways grant program. The initiative focuses on improving pedestrian safety at crosswalks through a combination of education, engineering, and targeted enforcement. The program includes public awareness campaigns, high-visibility crosswalk markings, installation of pedestrian signage, and periodic enforcement events where drivers are reminded and, if necessary, cited for failing to yield combines high-visibility pedestrian statues (“Mr. Walker”), targeted enforcement, public outreach, and infrastructure improvements to increase driver yielding at crosswalks. Since its implementation, driver compliance rates have more than doubled. The program also informed the creation of the SafeAcross toolkit, now in use by other Missouri communities. A similar approach could be applied to high-priority crossings in St. Louis. * **Washington State – Statewide Bicycle Education** Cascade Bicycle Club’s Let’s Go Across State program delivers bicycle safety curriculum for students in grades 3–8 across Washington State. Funded through the state’s Climate Commitment Act, the program provides bicycles, adaptive cycles, trailers, and instructor training. Missouri could explore comparable statewide programming, supported through state safety funds, climate-related initiatives, or philanthropic contributions. * **New York City – Integrated Enforcement and Transparency** NYC Vision Zero employs a coordinated approach combining targeted enforcement, public transparency through online dashboards, legislative reform, and roadway redesign. Campaigns address key issues such as speeding and failure-to-yield, supported by public education efforts. St. Louis could adapt elements of this model, particularly the integration of enforcement data with public communications, to enhance transparency and support infrastructure-focused safety strategies. # Implementation recommendations for St. Louis * **Adopt an integrated program framework:** Create a single Education and Enforcement work program that coordinates with engineering teams and public safety agencies to align timing, messaging, and metrics consistent with FHWA proven practices and SS4A priorities. A communications team focused on public works and transportation initiatives is recommended. * **Pilot focused school and community education:** Launch a three-year pilot delivering structured bike and pedestrian safety curriculum in six to ten priority schools. Funding could be administered through a competitive application process, where individual schools apply directly or the City partners with local non-profits to lead implementation. When possible, co-locate these programs with infrastructure investments. Measure mode share, safety knowledge, and injury trends at pilot sites. * **Establish enforcement guidelines:** Create written guidelines for new infrastructure implementation (pedestrian hybrid beacons, high visibility crosswalks, bike lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, etc.) within projects, targeted data-driven enforcement campaigns, and equitable citation alternatives. Require public reporting and periodic independent review. * **Data and evaluation:** Track metrics tied to outcomes, such as crash counts and rates by severity, driver compliance rates, public awareness surveys, and equity indicators like the demographic distribution of stops and citations. Use results to adapt programs annually. * **Community engagement and equity safeguards:** Co-design outreach and enforcement approaches with community groups. Require implicit bias and procedural justice training for officers participating in traffic enforcement. Offer non-monetary education options to mitigate disproportionate financial impacts. * **Funding and grant alignment:** Leverage SS4A, FHWA safety program funds, and other federal and state resources to support combined infrastructure and behavioral investments. SS4A explicitly supports behavioral and operational strategies that complement capital projects. # Measurable outcomes and targets Propose short- and medium-term targets tied to existing city goals. These should be adapted to St. Louis’s baseline data. Examples include: * Reduce fatal and serious injury crashes (as outlined in the goals). * Increase driver yield at designated crosswalks from baseline to at least 85 percent during the first 12 months after combined engineering, education, and enforcement treatment. * Deliver biking and walking safety curriculum to 100 percent of students within the designated grade levels in pilot schools. # Moving Forward This chapter sets forth a clear and urgent goal: to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on St. Louis streets by 50% by 2050, with an interim target of 30% by 2035. This “Fifty by Fifty” goal is more than a metric, it is a commitment to saving lives and preventing life-altering injuries. It reflects a moral and civic responsibility to ensure every person, whether walking, biking, rolling, riding transit, or driving, can safely move through our city. Meeting these goals will mean fewer families devastated by loss and fewer people harmed while navigating their neighborhoods. It will mean a city where safety is not a privilege, but a right and where every street reflects our shared value for human life. This chapter outlined a range of interventions, from corridor redesigns and traffic signal upgrades to calm streets and pedestrian infrastructure enhancements. Program-oriented strategies, such as daylighting intersections, implementing speed humps, and expanding bike networks, are not ends in themselves, but tools to reach the broader vision of a safer St. Louis City. By focusing on high-impact corridors and deploying data-driven solutions, the City can prioritize the areas of greatest need. And by integrating education, programming, equity, and enforcement into every initiative, we ensure that safety improvements reach the communities most affected by traffic violence. Ultimately, these measurable outcomes are not just about numbers, they are about people. Every percentage point of progress represents lives protected, futures preserved, and a city transformed. This chapter serves a roadmap: that through the thoughtful design, strategic investment, and unwavering commitment, St. Louis will become a city where no one has to risk their life to get to where they’re going. # 04 Street Design Framework <
> CITY OF ST. LOUIS TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY PLAN # A | What is a Street Design Framework (SDF)? The Street Design Framework (SDF) is a guided vision and tool that outlines how every street in the city of St. Louis can be designed to support its adjacent land uses and serve multiple modes of transportation. It provides a consistent approach to creating streets that accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and drivers, while striking a balance between mobility, access, and the quality of the public realm. By aligning street design with the surrounding context, whether residential, commercial, industrial, or mixed-use, the framework supports a cohesive, functional, and inclusive urban environment. ## Street Design Framework Provides a vision for: * How every street in the city can be designed * The modes of transportation accommodated within the city * How streets can better fit within and support adjacent land uses This framework itself is in the form of a map that assigns a specific street type to every street along with a set of considerations for how each street type can be designed. The framework includes 16 different types of streets, formed by the intersection of different transportation factors like the size of the roadway and its importance within the street network, and the adjacent land use “context” that the street passes through. The details for each street type serve several important functions. First, they help street designers and engineers make informed decisions about how streets should be designed, including how different modes of transportation, such as walking, biking, driving, or riding transit, should be accommodated. Second, they provide direction on how to prioritize needs when space is limited, ensuring that the most critical functions of the street are supported. Finally, they outline strategies to improve safety, connectivity, and access, tailoring these approaches to the specific characteristics and context of each street type. The Street Design Framework (SDF) is a core component of the broader Transportation & Mobility Plan (TMP) for the City of St. Louis. While the SDF focuses specifically on how streets should be classified and designed based on context and multimodal needs, it is one element of the TMP. For a deeper understanding of the data, analysis, and policies that informed this framework, including the High Injury Network, the Safety Action Plan, and other citywide transportation policies and goals, the users should refer to the full TMP document. Together, all elements provide a comprehensive roadmap for achieving a safer, more equitable, and better-connected transportation system. # B | Purpose - Why does a Street Design Framework matter? Having a Street Design Framework is essential for a city as it ensures that streets are planned and built with a clear, consistent vision that aligns with broader community goals. It ensures that every street in the city of St. Louis, regardless of its location or size, is designed to serve its intended function, supports surrounding land uses, and accommodates all modes of transportation. The values developed through the St. Louis Transportation & Mobility Plan process, along with the city’s adopted Complete Streets Ordinance, emphasize the importance of a transportation system that promotes **safety, connectivity, equity, accessibility, maintenance, and healthy neighborhoods.** This Street Design framework provides the tools and insights necessary to translate those values into action, helping to design streets that are safe, inclusive, and supportive of vibrant, connected communities. Moreover, there are additional important aspects of implementing street projects that the framework supports. This includes: * Ensuring greater **consistency in decision-making and outcomes across the city**, and that the standards and applicable guidance for a given street type are applied equally wherever they occur. * Support **better capital planning for street projects** by giving city planners, engineers, and elected officials tools for comprehensively evaluating infrastructure needs and establishing project budgets, while also planning projects at a more impactful “corridor-wide” scale (as opposed to stopping projects at ward or neighborhood boundaries). * Taking **an aspirational approach** to the design of streets in St. Louis, completed through the Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP), which provides a vision for how areas of the city can grow and develop. Streets are a critical part of this vision, as public improvements on streets can often be a driving catalyst for economic investment and development. Streets can be designed to support both existing and anticipated land uses. # C | How is the SDF different from what was done in the past? The Street Design Framework significantly shifts from past street planning approaches, especially the National Functional Classification (NFC) system, traditionally used to manage and define a hierarchy of street types. In St. Louis, this shift in planning has largely already happened informally. The adoption of the SDF makes the process formal and more consistent. Here’s how it differs and why it matters for the future of St. Louis STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - INTRODUCTION <
> | TRADITIONAL APPROACH (NFC) | STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK | | :--- | :--- | | Focused primarily on moving cars efficiently based on traffic volumes and speed | Focuses on people-centered design, prioritizing safety, access, and comfort for all users, whether walking, biking, driving, or riding transit | | Streets are categorized mainly by their role in vehicle throughput (e.g., arterial, collector, local) | Streets categorized by both network function and surrounding land use context (e.g., commercial corridor, residential street) | | Often led to wider roads, higher speeds, and minimal infrastructure for non-drivers | Encourages balanced, multimodal design that supports vibrant, livable, and safe communities | | Limited consideration for pedestrian, cyclist, and transit needs | Integrates clear guidelines for all modes of travel and prioritizes these based on street type and available space | | Generic, one-size-fits-all guidance | Provides tailored street types (16 total) that reflect St. Louis’ unique land use patterns and transportation priorities | For decades, the auto-centric design of streets often came at the expense of safety, walkability, and neighborhood cohesion. The Street Design Framework helps correct this imbalance by putting people, not just cars, at the center of street planning. It’s a tool that makes it easier for the City of St. Louis to design streets that reflect community values, support economic development, improve health and equity outcomes, and make neighborhoods more connected and livable. # D | How is the SDF different from Street Design Guidelines? The Street Design Framework (SDF) differs from traditional design guidelines in that it does not serve as a technical or engineering manual. Unlike documents that provide detailed specifications, such as lane widths, corner radii, or construction standards, the SDF offers high-level guidance focused on how streets should function within their surrounding land use context and the broader transportation network. It outlines a vision for what each street should achieve in terms of safety, multimodal access, and neighborhood compatibility, rather than prescribing how to build individual elements. The framework does not assign roles, responsibilities, or maintenance standards, nor does it dictate engineering procedures. However, it may reference relevant design standards where appropriate. Its primary role is to guide decision-making and prioritize outcomes, allowing technical design guidelines and manuals to be used in alignment with the framework’s vision. # E | Street Transportation Function and Land Use Context Streets serve a wide range of transportation and infrastructure functions that extend beyond simply moving vehicles. A key principle of the Street Design Framework is recognizing streets as multimodal corridors, the spaces that support various modes of travel and services essential to daily life and urban function. Multimodal streets are designed to accommodate and serve as platforms for urban functions: * **Access:** including ADA accessibility, on-street parking, curbside loading, and drop-off zones that support local businesses and residences * **Pedestrians:** with safe and accessible sidewalks, crossings, and public realm features * **Bicyclists:** through dedicated lanes, shared-use paths, or comfortable shared street conditions * **Transit riders:** with bus stops, shelters, and safe access to transit services * **Motor vehicles:** including personal cars and service vehicles * **Trucks:** which are critical for goods movement and local deliveries * **Placemaking:** such as streetscapes, front yards, landscaping, and amenity zones that create a welcome, attractive, and comfortable environment * **Utilities:** serving as corridors for essential infrastructure like stormwater drainage, sanitary systems, gas, water, telecommunications, and electrical services STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - INTRODUCTION # Zones Of Streets <
> The framework integrates these diverse functions with the context of land use, recognizing that how a street should function depends not only on its role in the transportation network but also on the type of place it passes through. This approach ensures streets are designed to be safe, efficient, and supportive of the surrounding environment. # Land-Use Context: The Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP) was adopted by the City of St. Louis during the development of the Transportation & Mobility Plan (TMP) in 2025, as part of a broader effort to update the City's Comprehensive Plan. The SLUP provides an aspirational vision for how the city should grow and develop, guiding land use decisions that reflect the future needs and desires of St. Louis residents. In developing the Street Design Framework (SDF), careful consideration was given to both existing land use and the future land use designations outlined in the SLUP. This allowed the SDF to assign street types not just based on today's conditions, but also on how streets are expected to function and evolve over time. These street types, and how they were determined, are discussed in detail in Section 4 of this document. <
> Example - Delmar Blvd: The land use category is high-intensity corridor, which could allow denser future development # Land Use Categories from the SLUP (2025) * **Neighborhoods:** These areas are primarily residential, characterized by a mix of housing types and local amenities. Streets in these zones are designed to prioritize pedestrian safety, traffic calming, and connectivity to community resources, fostering a walkable and livable environment. * **Central Areas:** Encompassing downtown, midtown and other significant urban centers, these areas have the highest density and intensity of use. Street design in central areas, which are categorized as District streets in this document, emphasizes pedestrian priority, robust transit infrastructure, and streetscapes that support economic vitality and cultural identity. * **Mixed-Use Corridors:** Serving as major thoroughfares, these corridors accommodate higher traffic volumes and a mix of uses across their length, including commercial and residential. Street design here focuses on multimodal transportation options, balancing the needs of vehicles, transit, cyclists, and pedestrians to support economic activity and accessibility. * **Industrial Areas:** These zones are dedicated to manufacturing, logistics, and related activities. Streets are designed to accommodate heavy vehicles, ensure efficient goods movement, and maintain safety for all users. * **Open Spaces:** Parks and recreational areas fall under this category. Street design adjacent to open spaces prioritizes pedestrian and cyclist access, connectivity, and the enhancement of the public realm. ## 2025 Strategic Land Use Plan **of the Comprehensive Plan** <
> | SLUP Designation Categories | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | # STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - INTRODUCTION The Street Design Framework is also a tool for aspirational planning. It not only responds to existing land uses but also recognizes the capacity for street improvements to catalyze land use change. Streets can play a powerful role in sparking reinvestment, encouraging development, and enhancing neighborhood vitality. By aligning street types with the land use vision in the Strategic Land Use Plan, such as supporting walkable, mixed-use corridors or creating better access in industrial areas, the framework helps direct infrastructure investments that reinforce the city’s long-term goals. Importantly, this is a forward-looking approach. Rather than designing streets solely for current conditions, the framework envisions how streets can evolve to support the future we want to see. Whether that means adding transit emphasis in growing mixed-use areas, expanding low stress bicycle infrastructure into neighborhoods, or creating safer, more inviting spaces in underserved communities, the framework ensures streets are designed not just to serve present needs but to help realize a more equitable, connected, and vibrant St. Louis. # F | Who should use the SDF? The Street Design Framework is a citywide tool in the form of a living map, which can be updated to respond to changing conditions on the ground, completed projects, or new planning. These revisions are essential to keep the information as current and accurate as possible and are intended to guide decisions about how streets are planned, designed, and improved. The SDF serves as a shared reference for a wide range of users involved in shaping the built environment, including: **City staff and planners** – to align street design with long-term goals and coordinate across transportation, land use, and infrastructure projects **Engineers and designers** – to inform design decisions that balance multimodal needs, space constraints, and surrounding land uses **Developers** – to understand the city’s expectations for how streets should function and contribute to the public realm in new projects **Elected officials** – to support transparent and equitable decision-making about street investments and policy priorities **Partner agencies** – such as Metro Transit, utility providers, and regional transportation organizations that coordinate on shared infrastructure **Residents and community groups** – to help understand appropriate designs for different contexts, and to frame neighborhood desires within an overall planning context # ST. LOUIS STREET ## DESIGN PROCESS <
> STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - PROCESS FOR ST LOUIS Streets are one of the city’s most visible and valuable public assets. They shape how people move, connect, and experience their neighborhoods every day. As the city works to address historic disinvestment, improve safety, support economic development, and promote equitable access to opportunities, the way streets are designed plays a central role. A thoughtful and consistent street design process helps ensure that infrastructure investments align with community values, support multimodal transportation, and reflect the diverse needs of residents across all neighborhoods. It provides a foundation for building safer, more inclusive, and more resilient streets that serve current users and support St. Louis City’s vision for the future. # A | Who does the guidance apply to? The Street Design Framework and its associated process apply broadly to both public AND private sector projects, ensuring that all street-related improvements contribute to a unified and future-focused vision for St. Louis streets. ### CITY/PUBLIC PROJECTS The framework guides city- and agency-led capital projects such as street reconstructions, utility upgrades, and transit investments, ensuring that design decisions support multimodal travel, safety, and surrounding land use. It helps public agencies prioritize improvements, coordinate across departments, and deliver projects that reflect the community’s needs. The process should apply to all significant capital projects, whether a simple resurfacing project or a full roadway reconstruction. ### DEVELOPERS AND INSTITUTIONS Private developers, hospitals, universities, and other institutions play a significant role in shaping the public realm. The framework provides clear expectations for how streets adjacent to private development should function and look, helping integrate private investments into the broader street network. It guides new development, which supports walkability, connectivity, and access for all users, while aligning with the city’s long-term goals. ### PARTNER AGENCY STREETS AND PROJECTS The Street Design Framework (SDF) applies to projects led by the City of St. Louis, or partner agencies like the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) or Great Rivers Greenway (GRG). The SDF provides a context-sensitive framework that the City can use to coordinate with agencies during project planning, review, and implementation. Although final design decisions may rest with external jurisdictions, the SDF offers a clear vision and a set of priorities that can help ensure street projects align with local goals, including multimodal access, equitable transportation, and land use compatibility. # B | Overall Street Design Process and Checklists Today in St. Louis, street design decisions are typically made on a project-by-project and/or ward-level basis, which can lead to inconsistencies in multimodal access, safety, and alignment with long-term land use and transportation goals. The SDF helps address this gap by offering a structured, forward-looking approach to guide project identification, prioritization, and design, ensuring that there is continuity in the scope and priority of uses along a given corridor regardless of how improvements might be phased and implemented over time. The SDF ties directly into the broader street planning and implementation process by: * Defining clear street typologies and priorities based on existing and future land use; * Guiding transportation mode priorities and design element selection during project scoping * Supporting decision-making in cases where trade-offs must be made; and * Providing the foundation for the eventual development of detailed technical street design guidelines The Street Design Framework has an application for every major step in the process, from identifying, scoping, and prioritizing potential street projects through engineering, construction, and operations. The section below discusses key areas in the overall street design process where the SDF applies, across three phases: * **PHASE 1 – Project Identification, Scoping, and CIP Planning** * **PHASE 2 – Project Design and Engineering** * **PHASE 3 – Project Implementation and Operations** Each of these phases includes several steps detailed on the following pages. # PHASE 1 - Project Identification and CIP Planning/ Project Scoping The SDF is critical in strengthening the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) planning and project scoping process by providing a consistent, citywide vision for how streets should function and serve all users. The Complete Streets Committee or a similar leadership body at the City of St. Louis will have a critical role in overseeing the integration of the SDF into capital project planning. This committee can serve as a coordinating group, reviewing projects for consistency with the framework, resolving trade-offs when modal priorities compete for limited right-of-way space, and ensuring that the City’s transportation investments support equitable and sustainable outcomes. ### Step 1: Project Identification and Type Determination When a potential street project is first identified as an opportunity, either through staff review, community input, or coordination with external agencies, the first step is to understand what type of project is under consideration. This may include: * Spot improvements (e.g., traffic calming, accessibility improvements, sidewalk construction, spot intersection or safety enhancements); * Minor capital projects (e.g., roadway resurfacing, maintenance projects); * Major capital projects (e.g., full street reconstruction, corridor redesign, permanent transit infrastructure). This step ensures that available resources and the urgency of need are considered early. Specific resources needed relative to project type are further refined in the step below: ### Step 2: CIP Planning and Scoping Once a project is identified, the next step is to reference the Street Design Framework as follows: * Identify the street type(s) assigned to the project corridor and review any applicable overlays (transit, bike, calm streets, park access, road diet) * Determine the mode priority, meaning which users (pedestrians, cyclists, transit, vehicles) are prioritized for that specific street * Consult the street type matrix and design guidance (outlined in later sections of this document) to review the anticipated design elements, such as sidewalk enhancements, bike lanes, traffic calming features, or transit improvements. * Ensure that all identified elements for the street type are referenced by the project scope and aligned with funding resources. * Recommendations and documentation of scope should be applied with the Complete Streets Ordinance. # PHASE 2 – Street Project Design and Engineering Phase 2 encompasses the core of the design and engineering tasks. Having established a clear scope and budget through Phase 1, data collection, technical analyses, alternative exploration, and construction documentation work can proceed through the steps below: ### Step 3: Data Gathering and Analysis Gather appropriate existing conditions data based on the project type and context to help inform design decisions. Depending on the scope, this may or may not include field data collection. The goal is to collect the most relevant information needed to understand current performance and support thoughtful design. Types of data may include, but are not limited to: * Multi-modal traffic volumes * Crash data and locations (including High Injury Network references) * Pedestrian and bicycle counts (if necessary, based on project type) * Transit ridership and stop locations * Land use, zoning, and surrounding development patterns * Age and state of repair of current infrastructure * Function of segment within transportation network Assess how the current street performance aligns or misaligns with the modal priorities and future aspirations identified in the SDF and Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP). ### Step 4: Alternatives Development and Evaluation Depending on project scale and scope, develop design alternatives based on the street’s typology, overlays, and gathered data. This process may be formal or informal depending on the project scope and needs. Alternatives are evaluated based on: * Safety improvements * Equity impacts * Multimodal accessibility * Cost-effectiveness * Alignment with community and citywide goals * Community/public feedback Modal priorities and safety impacts identified in the SDF should serve as a core evaluation criterion when selecting preferred alternatives. STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - PROCESS FOR ST LOUIS **Step 5: Review Process and Approvals** Review concept plans through the City’s internal review process, ensuring that they meet modal priorities, street design framework requirements, and existing standards. * Coordinate with other agencies (e.g., MoDOT for state routes, Great Rivers Greenway for trail connections) where applicable. * Engage with public and stakeholder groups to communicate about the implementation timeline and set expectations. **Step 6: Construction Documents and Cost Estimates** Based on the preferred concept that was selected and reviewed concept plans, the project can move into the formal design and engineering phase, which can be up to and including full construction plans and bid documents for the project, including quantification of pay items, developing project specifications, and engineering-level cost estimates. * Align cost estimates with expected project scope (short-term or long-term). * Incorporate budgeting for special maintenance needs associated with new infrastructure (e.g., maintaining bike lanes, pedestrian crossings) * Publish citywide map with projects in various phases from planning through construction with project timelines. # PHASE 3 – Project Implementation and Operation **Step 7: Construction Phase** Once a project moves into the construction phase, it is critical to ensure that safety, access, coordination and communication are maintained for both construction workers and the public, including residents and adjacent businesses. Effective construction management helps build community trust, reduces disruptions, and ensures smooth delivery of the project. During construction the following practices should be followed: * Minimize disruptions to nearby businesses and homes through thoughtful staging, communication, and scheduling. * Implement proper safety precautions, including the use of clear signage, physical barriers, safety boards, and detour notifications for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. * Carefully manage construction staging to maintain as much access as possible to sidewalks, driveways, transit stops, and storefronts. * Inform the community in advance about the construction timeline, potential impacts, and available detour routes through flyers, signage, digital alerts, and neighborhood meetings. * Update the live SDF map to reflect any project-related changes to street typologies, modal overlays, or built conditions, ensuring the framework remains current and actionable. * Continue coordination with other city departments and partner agencies (e.g., utilities, transit providers, MoDOT) to streamline construction activities, avoid conflicts, and maintain timelines. **Step 8: Maintenance and Operations** After construction is complete, attention shifts to long-term maintenance and operations. Establish project metrics and tracking systems to verify that design goals are being met and that the new street design is properly maintained across all agencies involved. * The City should establish a live, publicly accessible online map where street improvements, overlays, and key infrastructure elements (such as bike lanes, curb extensions, transit stops) are tracked and regularly updated. * This system would allow for greater transparency, enable ongoing monitoring, and support consistency in maintenance activities. * Metrics could include pavement condition, maintenance of bike and pedestrian facilities, stormwater management performance, and signage or striping upkeep. By tying maintenance tracking back to the Street Design Framework, the City can ensure that streets continue to perform as intended over time, and that public investments in safer, more multimodal streets are preserved for the benefit of all users. # STRATEGIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS The Street Design Framework encompasses a diverse range of strategies and design elements that bring each street type to life. These elements are not one-size-fits-all; rather, they are selected and applied based on the unique characteristics and needs of each street. Street design elements play a critical role in shaping how people experience and move through public space and are essential to translating the vision of the Street Design Framework into real-world outcomes. Many of the strategies included in this framework are drawn from the City’s broader Transportation & Mobility Plan (TMP), such as improving pedestrian safety, enhancing transit access and connectivity, and supporting livable neighborhoods. Others reflect core best practices, including traffic calming, ADA-compliant crosswalks, curbside management, and multimodal intersection design. Within the Street Type Guidelines, these elements are not applied uniformly; rather, each street type includes specific design element recommendations that reflect its context, function, and modal priorities. The framework provides a tiered system of recommendations to help designers and planners prioritize investments based on available space, user needs, and long-term city goals. This structured, context-sensitive approach ensures that streets not only function well, but also contribute meaningfully to broader goals around equity, safety, sustainability, and neighborhood vitality. The strategies and design elements outlined in this section are informed by a variety of nationally recognized best practices and design standards. Key references used in the development of this framework include: * SLUP Land-use Strategic Plan 2025 * MoDOT Arterial Design Guide * City of St. Louis Gateway Bike Plan Update * National Association of City Transportation Officials(NACTO) Bikeway Design Guide * NACTO Urban Street Design Guide * NACTO - Don’t Give Up at the Intersection * Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD) * NACTO - Designing for All Ages and Abilities * AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities # A | Strategies and Elements The design process for complete streets must consider a broad range of improvements, configuration changes, and design elements in order to yield solutions that align with the goals and values of the Transportation & Mobility Plan. To provide consistency and streamline the decision-making process, a list of design strategies and elements can be followed to determine which features are necessary to include within the scope of a given street project. The following section introduces a number of street design strategies and elements under several categories. This list of elements appears within the descriptions and matrices for each street type, and relationship of that element to that specific street type is indicated in one of several ways: **STR = Strongly Recommended** This design strategy or element should always be incorporated into the given street type. If there are extenuating circumstances that prevent its inclusion, documentation should be included as an appendix to the project design documents. **REC = Recommended** This strategy should generally be incorporated into the given street type. If the element is not suitable or feasible in a particular project/ location, the reason for it not being included should be documented. This may be due to lack of project budget/ scope. Alternative solutions should be explored to the extent feasible. **OPT = Optional** This strategy should be utilized if the opportunity to incorporate it into the design exists, but it is not required. In some cases, the strategy may only have situational uses or applications within the street type. **LIM = Limited** This strategy has limited use or applicability within the indicated street type and/or may be wholly incompatible with other features of that street type and is thus not recommended for inclusion. The following list of strategies are briefly described, and where applicable, references to full design guidance in other approved documents will be indicated. # ROADWAY CONFIGURATION * **Design Speed Assessment** Design Speed Assessment refers to analyzing roadway conditions and travel speeds on a given street corridor, typically to determine how to reduce speeds relevant to the adjacent context. Reduced speeds can increase safety and comfort for all users, especially pedestrians and cyclists. By narrowing lanes, tightening curb radii, and incorporating physical features like chicanes or vertical elements, streets can encourage more cautious driving behavior. Lower design speeds help reinforce context-sensitive design and contribute to a more walkable and livable public realm. <
> * **Lane Reconfigurations** Lane Reconfigurations involve modifying the number, width, or function of travel lanes to better support a street’s multimodal goals. This may include converting a travel lane into a bike lane, transit lane, or parking lane, or reducing lane widths to recommended widths for a given street type to calm traffic and create space for pedestrian or landscape amenities. It could also include removing unnecessary dedicated right-turn lanes. Reconfiguring lanes can improve safety, balance competing demands, and make more efficient use of public right-of-way. <
> <
> * **Volume Controls** Volume control (also known as volume management) refers to techniques used to control the routing of vehicles, typically to discourage “cut-through” traffic on quieter streets where lower traffic volumes are desired. Specific volume management techniques, such as traffic diverters, right-in/right-out only turns, and other treatments can be used to prevent vehicles from continuing straight through an intersection or entering a particular street, thereby discouraging cut-through traffic and reducing overall vehicle volumes on certain local streets. Careful consideration of volume control should be taken, as reducing vehicle access on one street may end up pushing higher amounts of traffic to adjacent streets. <
> STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STRATEGIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS * **Speed Management** Speed management techniques are physical design methods used to reduce vehicle speeds, using either vertical or horizontal control devices to maintain traffic at or below the posted speed limit. Key approaches include: * **Speed Tables:** Raised areas of road that require vehicles to slow down with gradual ramps on both sides. * **Speed Humps:** Smaller, curving raised areas, typically for lower-speed roads, reducing speeds to 15-20 MPH. * **Lane Shifts (Chicanes):** Deliberate shifts in lane direction to slow vehicles as they navigate the roadway. * **Traffic Circles:** Small circular features at intersections that reduce speeds to 5-15 MPH * **Medians and Bump-outs:** Narrowing the roadway to calm traffic and reduce crossing distances for pedestrians. <
> <
> <
> * **Roundabouts/Traffic Circles** Roundabouts and traffic circles are circular intersection treatments that calm traffic and reduce vehicle speeds by requiring drivers to navigate a curved path around a central island. Smaller traffic circles, often used on neighborhood streets, help slow vehicles to 5-15 MPH, improving safety for all users. These features can also incorporate landscaping to enhance visual appeal and reinforce a sense of place. Traffic circles can add complexity for bicyclists traveling through the intersection, and standard and larger roundabouts increase the length of the travel path for pedestrians. During high traffic volumes, this can pose comfort challenges for pedestrians and bicyclists. <
> * **Enhanced Pavement Markings** Enhanced pavement markings refer to locations where pavement marking practices go beyond minimum requirements and use optional treatments to increase the performance, visibility, and durability of markings. This includes the use of enhanced bike lane markings, such as conflict or intersection through markings, and the use of supplemental green paint in conflict areas. These markings can be installed using thermoplastic and MMA materials, which have increase durability. For high-traffic areas, this can also include the use of pavement reflectors to improve the longevity of marking materials. <
> *Images above are from NACTO* Transportation & Mobility Plan * **Curbless/Shared Streets** <
> Curbless or Shared Streets are streets designed without a traditional curb-and-gutter edge, creating a flush, continuous surface across the entire right-of-way that allows for flexible configurations over time. This design encourages slow vehicle speeds and prioritizes pedestrians by removing the clear separation between sidewalk and street. Shared streets are especially effective in areas with high pedestrian activity, such as plazas, festival streets, or woonerven, where flexibility and multi-modal use are desired, or where vehicles are only permitted for limited hours each day. # PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS * **Bump-outs/Curb Extensions** <
> <
> Bump-outs, or curb extensions, enhance pedestrian safety and comfort by narrowing the street, reducing crossing distances, and increasing visibility at intersections and crossings (sometimes referred to as “daylighting” pedestrians at the corner). They can calm traffic, prevent parked cars from blocking curb ramps, provide space for landscape or stormwater features, and even create space for placemaking elements such as seating or public art. Different bump-out types - like corner, chicanes, and midblock bump-outs - serve unique purposes based on their location and intended function. Midblock bump-outs, for example, may be used in conjunction with midblock crosswalks and where on-street parking is present to increase visibility of pedestrians at the crosswalk waiting to cross. * **Raised Crosswalks/Intersections** <
> <
> Raised Crosswalks and Intersections are traffic calming treatments that elevate the crosswalk (or the entire intersection) to the level of the sidewalk, creating a vertical deflection for vehicles. These features slow traffic, increase pedestrian visibility, and reinforce pedestrian priority at crossings. Raised intersections can also improve accessibility and provide visual cues that the entire intersection is a shared, pedestrian-oriented space. Raised crosswalks are often deployed on side-street crosswalks within neighborhoods, parallel to the primary street flow of higher speed traffic, helping to raise visibility of pedestrians, slow turning vehicles, and differentiate local streets from primary main streets. These need to be carefully considered on streets that buses and large trucks frequently use. *Images above are from NACTO* # STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STRATEGIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS * **Enhanced Midblock Crossings** Midblock crossings provide pedestrians with a safe and visible way to cross streets away from intersections, particularly where a destination or a gap in the street network creates demand. By concentrating pedestrian activity in a designated location, they improve safety and predictability for everyone on the street. It is critical that midblock crossings provide adequate positive contrast lighting to ensure pedestrian visibility at all times of day. Midblock crossings can be enhanced through the use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), in-road pedestrian crossing markers, gateway marker treatments, midblock bump-outs, raised crosswalks, and other improvements that raise visibility of the crosswalk and slow vehicles. <
> * **Hardened Centerlines/Corners** Hardened Centerlines and Corners involve the use of physical barriers, such as surface mounted speed humps, bollards, and pavement markings. These treatments are designed to force vehicles to make slower and sharper turns and avoid making turning movements that cut corners or cut into opposing travel lanes during the turn. This slows vehicle turns and provides additional safety improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. Typical treatments include delineator posts on the centerline approaching and extending towards the intersection, concrete islands, zebra mounds, and paint-and-post constructed bump-outs at corners. <
> <
> * **Leading Pedestrian Intervals** Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) give pedestrians a 3-4 second head start into the crosswalk before vehicles receive a green signal, increasing their visibility and reinforcing their right-of-way. This simple signal timing adjustment has been shown to improve safety and reduce conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians. <
> * **Widened Sidewalks** Widened Sidewalks enhance pedestrian safety and comfort by providing more space for walking, especially in areas with high foot traffic. They allow for better accessibility, accommodate outdoor activities like dining or waiting for public transit, and can improve the overall pedestrian experience. Wider sidewalks also reduce conflicts between pedestrians and other street users, such as cyclists or vehicles. <
> *Images above are from NACTO* # BICYCLE ENHANCEMENTS * **Greenway/Shared-Use Side Path** Side paths are wider, paved shared-use facilities located within the street right-of-way but outside of the roadway, designed to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists in a lower-stress environment. By providing full separation from vehicle traffic, side paths are especially valuable for less confident riders, children, and seniors. While they serve as an alternative to both sidewalks and on-street bikeways, right-of-way space constraints present challenges for implementing in certain locations. <
> * **Separated/Protected Bikeways and Cycle Tracks with Barrier Enhancements** Separated bicycle lanes and cycle tracks are on-street bikeways that use physical barriers - such as curbs, posts, concrete islands, medians, or planter boxes, to create space between cyclists and motor vehicle traffic. This added protection significantly increases comfort and safety, encouraging use by a wider range of riders, including those who are more cautious or vulnerable. Separated bikeways can be configured as one-way lanes on either side of the street or as a two-way facility (cycle track) on one side, depending on context and space availability. Separation can also be achieved by raising the bikeway up to the sidewalk or an intermediate level, with curbing, buffers, and/or landscape to separate it from the roadway. Separated bikeways, depending on intersection conditions, may also require use of bicycle signals to provide phase-separated movements for bicycles. <
> <
> Separated bicycle facilities, especially two-way cycle tracks, may also necessitate the use of dedicated bicycle signals as an intersection control. Bicycle signals are separate traffic signals designed to guide cyclists at intersections, enabling more controlled timing and reducing conflicts with motor vehicles. They allow for dedicated turning phases or concurrent travel with other roadway users, improving safety and flow for cyclists. *Images above are from NACTO* # STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STRATEGIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS * **Normal/Buffered Lanes** Bicycle lanes - whether buffered or conventional - are dedicated on-street facilities that provide defined space for cyclists and improve predictability for all road users. Buffered bicycle lanes include a painted separation between bikes and vehicle lanes, offering greater comfort than conventional lanes, though without physical protection. Buffered lanes can increase safety and comfort, and buffers used between the bike lane and parking cars can reduce conflicts and risks of dooring. They are more cost-effective and less complex to maintain than fully separated facilities, however they not provide the same level of comfort on busier streets as fully separated lanes. <
> * **Bike Boulevards** Bike Boulevards, sometimes called Neighborhood Greenways or Calm Streets, are low-traffic streets designed to prioritize bicycle travel while still accommodating motor vehicles. This type of facility is especially appropriate for residential streets with limited space. These streets often feature traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps and signage, to slow down car traffic and create a safer environment for cyclists. These measures can also include volume management, such as traffic diverters that discourage through vehicle movements while still allowing access for bicycles. Bike boulevards offer a more comfortable and efficient route for cyclists, especially in urban areas, while maintaining local access for residents and businesses. <
> * **Shared Lanes/Sharrow** Shared lane markings, or “sharrows,” are pavement symbols used to indicate that a travel lane is intended to be shared by both drivers and cyclists. They help position cyclists within the lane and remind all road users to expect shared use, but they do not provide dedicated space for bicycling. As a result, not all cyclists may feel comfortable relying solely on sharrows, especially in higher-traffic environments. Sharrows are most suitable on lower-speed and lower-volume roadways to supplement the dedicated bicycle network. <
> * **Bike Amenities (lockers, repair, racks)** Bicycle parking is a vital amenity within a multi-modal transportation network, offering cyclists safe, convenient, and secure options for short- or long-term storage. Amenities can include standard racks, bike lockers, repair stations, and high-capacity bicycle corrals - compact installations often placed in the curbside zone that can serve 12 to 20 riders in the space of one car. These facilities not only support everyday cycling but also improve sidewalk access and are especially valued near commercial areas where demand is high. <
> * **High Visibility/Green Bike Markings** High Visibility/Green Bike Markings are pavement treatments designed to increase the visibility of bike lanes, especially at intersections and other conflict points. These markings, installed in a bright green color, help draw attention to the presence of cyclists and alert drivers to the need to yield or share the road. By enhancing the visibility of bike lanes, these markings improve safety for cyclists and make it clearer to all roadway users how to navigate shared spaces. Additional applications for green bike markings include two-stage turn queues and bike boxes, two approaches that can help facilitate left turns for bicyclists. <
> * **Protected/Enhanced Intersections** Protected intersections are designed with raised curb islands to create waiting and queuing space for cyclists, extending the protection of separated bike lanes into the intersection. These intersections provide more controlled and clearly marked crossing points for cyclists, improving safety and flow. The corner geometry can also be adjusted to reduce vehicle turning speeds while still accommodating designated design vehicles. <
> *Images above are from NACTO* # STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STRATEGIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS ## TRANSIT ENHANCEMENTS * **Transit Operational Enhancements** This strategy relates to the determination and coordination of enhanced transit infrastructure used to improve the operational performance of transit vehicles along designated corridors. Specific design elements may include dedicated transit lanes, transit queue jumps, and use of Transit Signal Priority (TSP) signal controls (these three elements are described below). City and transit agency partners should assess whether operational enhancements are needed on a particular corridor and what specific enhancements are needed. Enhancements may include the following: * **Dedicated Transit Lanes/Railway:** Transit can operate in lanes shared with general traffic or in dedicated lanes that prioritize bus service, particularly on busy streets with frequent transit routes. Dedicated bus lanes significantly increase the capacity of a street by allowing buses, capable of carrying 40 or more passengers, to bypass traffic, reducing delays and improving service reliability. These lanes, which can be curbside or offset depending on available space and service needs, are key to encouraging transit use by making the service faster, more reliable, and more enjoyable. <
> * **Transit Queue Jump:** A bus queue jump lane, or bus bypass lane, is a dedicated lane at the approach to a traffic signal that allows buses to bypass waiting traffic, improving transit travel time. Buses use this lane to proceed straight through from the turn lane to the bus lane, while other vehicles must turn right. These lanes are often paired with dedicated transit signals, such as advanced green lights, and merge lanes to facilitate the safe reentry of buses into general traffic after the intersection. <
> * **Transit Signal Priority (TSP):** Transit Signal Priority (TSP) is a system that adjusts traffic signal timings to prioritize the movement of transit vehicles, such as buses or trams, at intersections. By giving transit vehicles a longer green light or an early green phase, TSP helps reduce delays and improves the reliability of public transportation. This system encourages greater use of transit by making travel more efficient, and can be especially beneficial in busy urban areas with frequent transit service. <
> *Images above are from NACTO* • **In-Lane Boarding** In-Lane Boarding is a strategy that calls for buses to stop within the travel lane to load and unload passengers onto the sidewalk. While this may slow traffic for other vehicles on the road, it can improve transit performance by avoiding the need for buses to merge back into traffic. In-lane boarding is typically paired with bus bulbs (a type of bump-out). Bus bulbs extend the bus stop space into the roadway, providing a designated area for passengers to wait and board. This design offers additional space for waiting and queuing, enhancing comfort and access to transit amenities. By positioning passengers further from the adjacent travel lanes, bus bulbs improve visibility and safety for riders while helping to keep the flow of traffic uninterrupted. <
> • **Bus Boarding Islands** Bus boarding islands are extensions of the sidewalk area that provide wider raised spaces for riders to board and disembark from buses. These platforms typically work in conjunction with in-lane boarding (are similar to bus bulbs in that regard). Boarding islands are also often used when bike lanes are present on the street, as bike lanes can be routed behind the boarding island in a manner that allows bicycle traffic to continue to flow even when the roadway traffic is stopped for the bus. Bus boarding islands also enhance accessibility by offering a level platform for easier entry and exit, particularly for individuals with mobility challenges. <
> • **Enhanced Transit Stops/Stations** Enhanced transit stops/stations are upgraded transit facilities designed to provide a more comfortable, efficient, and accessible experience for riders. These stations often feature amenities such as shelter, seating, real-time arrival information, and improved lighting, making waiting areas more inviting and safer. They may also include accessibility features like ramps, better signage, and bike racks, helping to accommodate a wide range of passengers and encourage greater use of public transit. <
> *Images above are from NACTO* STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STRATEGIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS # CURBSIDE ZONE * **On-Street Parking** Curbside parking on local and neighborhood streets is primarily intended to serve adjacent or nearby residences, though it may be subject to additional regulations in areas with higher traffic volumes, such as downtown or commercial districts. In addition to providing parking spaces, neighborhood parking helps slow traffic by narrowing the perceived width of the roadway, encouraging drivers to proceed more cautiously. On narrower streets without centerline markings, on-street parking can create a shared-lane effect, further reducing travel speeds. <
> *Image from NACTO* * **On-Street Parking, Metered** Metered parking provides convenient access to storefronts and businesses, supporting commercial activity by offering proximity to key destinations. The availability and placement of these spaces significantly influence the balance of street uses, particularly in commercial or downtown areas. However, careful consideration is required to ensure that public street space is used in the most effective way to benefit both business and broader community needs. <
> * **Allow Dining Platforms/Parklets** Dining platforms/parklets are temporary or permanent extensions of the sidewalk or street that provide space for outdoor dining and social activities. These areas are typically created by converting on-street parking or underused roadway space into vibrant community spaces, often featuring seating, tables, and greenery. Dining platforms and parklets support local businesses, enhance the pedestrian environment, and create more inviting public spaces for relaxation and social interaction. <
> *Image from NACTO* * **Loading Zones** Commercial loading zones are designated curbside spaces intended for short-term use to facilitate deliveries to nearby businesses or properties, supporting the efficient movement of goods. When well-located and properly managed, loading zones enhance street safety, reduce double-parking, and contribute to a thriving retail environment. However, because they occupy valuable curb space, their placement and use should be carefully balanced with other demands such as parking, pedestrian movement, and transit access. <
> Transportation & Mobility Plan 137 * **Pick-up/Drop-off Zones/Valet** Pick-up/drop-off zones/valet are designated spaces on the street or at transit stations where vehicles can temporarily stop to allow passengers to enter or exit the vehicle. These zones are essential for managing traffic flow and ensuring safety, particularly in areas with high pedestrian activity or dense development. They may also include valet services, where attendants manage the parking of vehicles, helping to reduce congestion and enhance convenience for users while maintaining smooth traffic movement. <
> *Image from NACTO* # AMENITY ZONE * **Street Trees** Street trees are a vital part of the City’s green infrastructure, offering a wide range of benefits—from managing stormwater and reducing the urban heat island effect to providing shade, improving safety and walkability, and enhancing both aesthetics and property values. In dense urban areas it’s essential to design supportive growing conditions, plan for their eventual replacement, and proactively replant to sustain long-term canopy cover. Street tree planting should consider the available soil volume that can be achieved, water access, and conflicts with utilities such as overhead wires or underground utilities. <
> * **Roadway Lighting** Road lighting is a fundamental component of street design that supports safety, visibility, and street character, particularly at intersections, crosswalks, and along sidewalks and bike facilities. Effective street lighting should balance adequate illumination for comfort and visibility with energy efficiency and thoughtful design, as pole placement not only defines the curb line and street rhythm but also influences the layout of other elements like street trees. Roadway lighting is typically mounted higher, 30 to 40 feet above the street, with arms that extend the fixture over the roadway to ensure consistent coverage. Lighting at intersections is especially important to ensure that all travelers are visible when navigating the intersection. At signalized intersections, roadway lighting can be integrated into the design of street signals to provide proper illumination. At all-way stop-controlled intersections, adequate lighting at the intersection is required. At mid-block crossing locations, positive contrast lighting should be provided to allow pedestrians to be clearly seen by approaching vehicles. <
> *Image from NACTO* # STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STRATEGIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS * **Enhanced and Pedestrian Lighting** Pedestrian-scale lighting is typically mounted lower - about 12 to 20 feet above the sidewalk - and is designed to illuminate the pedestrian zone rather than the roadway. This type of lighting enhances safety, comfort, and visibility for people walking or biking, helping them clearly see others and navigate the space confidently. When well-integrated with street design, pedestrian lighting also contributes to the character of the street and supports a cohesive streetscape rhythm. Hybrid lighting approaches, with fixtures able to uniformly light both sidewalk and roadway spaces, is a typical approach in areas where enhanced lighting is desired, minimizing or eliminating the need for two separate lighting systems. <
> * **Seating and Site Furnishings** Street furnishings, such as benches, single seats, and seat- walls, provide comfortable places for pedestrians to rest, wait, or simply enjoy the street environment. These elements make public streets more accessible and inclusive, particularly for people with mobility challenges who benefit from regular opportunities to pause along their route. <
> * **Landscape Planting Beds** Planting areas for landscaping within the public right-of-way generally takes the form of either tree lawns or landscape planters. These two approaches are described below: <
> * Tree lawns are generally turf areas located between the sidewalk and street curb that serve as a buffer between pedestrians and vehicle traffic. Common in neighborhood settings with lower foot traffic, they offer flexible greenery that softens the streetscape, though they do require regular maintenance to remain healthy and attractive. <
> * Landscape planters are fixed, curbed or raised soil areas used to organize decorative plantings within the streetscape, softening the urban environment and adding visual interest for all users. Designed to contain durable perennials, street trees, or annuals with proper maintenance, planters also serve functional roles - deterring foot traffic, containing soil and mulch, and in some cases, offering informal seating along the street edge. Their placement within the amenity zone should be thoughtfully coordinated with other streetscape elements to balance aesthetics, accessibility, and overall functionality. * **Tree Wells** Tree Wells refer to areas of streetscape where curbed planters, tree grates, and other elements are used to create a hospitable environment for street trees to grow and thrive. Minimally, four key considerations must be balanced in the design of tree wells: adequate uncompacted soil volume based on the size and type of tree to allow for proper root growth, adequate exposed surface area to allow for air exchange with the soil, adequate moisture and water availability, and adequate structural support of adjacent paving areas to allow for tree growth without jeopardizing other infrastructure. <
> * Soil volume is a critical metric for planning for healthy trees in streetscape environments. Typically, trees desire a minimum of 2 cubic feet of soil volume for every square foot of desired canopy area, based on the anticipated size, growth, and habit of trees. This equates approximately to 150 cubic feet for smaller trees (10-foot diameter canopy or less), 350 cubic feet for medium street trees (15-foot diameter canopy or less), and 600 cubic feet for larger trees (20-foot diameter canopy). * Generally, the minimum size for newly constructed tree wells should be six feet long, five feet wide, and five feet deep, with a soil volume of at least 150 cubic feet. * **Sidewalk Dining and Retail** The pedestrian area of the street often supports commercial activity that brings vibrancy and energy to the public realm. Sidewalk occupancy refers to the permitted use of public right-of-way space, most commonly for outdoor dining or retail displays, which allows businesses to extend their presence into the streetscape. These uses typically occur in the amenity zone, but may also extend into the curbside zone depending on site conditions. <
> # Overall Traffic Operations * **Two-way Traffic Restoration** Two-way Traffic Restoration involves converting one-way streets back to two-way operation to improve circulation, reduce vehicle speeds, and support local businesses. Restoring two-way traffic can make streets more intuitive to navigate, increase visibility for storefronts, and reduce the need for circuitous travel routes. This strategy also tends to calm traffic and enhance the overall accessibility and vitality of a street. <
> # STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STRATEGIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS * **All-Way Stop Conversions** All-way Stop Conversions typically involve modifying an intersection to remove existing traffic signals and instead use stop signs on all approaches, ensuring that all users must come to a complete stop before proceeding. This conversion can be impactful in areas with higher pedestrian volumes to reduce pedestrian wait times at corners while creating a more pedestrian-oriented atmosphere. This treatment can also be used on lower-volume streets where one direction of travel has no stop controls, in which case it improves intersection safety by clarifying the right-of-way, reducing vehicle speeds, and increasing driver awareness of pedestrians and cyclists. All-way stops can be especially effective in managing traffic at low- to-moderate-volume intersections where signalization is not warranted , and in locations with no more than one travel lane in each direction. <
> * **Signal Vehicle Detection** Signal Vehicle Detection refers to technologies used to detect the presence of vehicles at signalized intersections, allowing traffic signals to respond dynamically to actual demand. These systems, which may include inductive loops, video detection, or radar, help optimize signal timing, reduce unnecessary delays, and improve intersection efficiency. Accurate vehicle detection is especially important for actuated or adaptive signals and can improve safety and operations across all travel modes. <
> * **Protected Left Turn Phasing** Protected left turn phasing provides dedicated signal time for left-turning vehicles, reducing conflicts with oncoming traffic and improving vehicular flow. These can be “leading lefts” at the start of the green phase or “lagging lefts” at the end. Protected left turn phases should not be concurrent with any pedestrian crossing indications in order to minimize potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. <
> • **Signal Progression** Signal Progression is a traffic signal timing strategy that coordinates multiple signals along a corridor to allow vehicles to travel through several intersections with minimal stopping. While this approach is typically used to improve traffic flow, reduce congestion, and decrease emissions by minimizing idling and stop-and-go conditions, it can also encourage faster driving behavior in order to “beat the light”. Signal progression can alternatively be deployed specifically to stop cars at selected intersections more consistently, ensuring that vehicles maintain appropriate speeds along a corridor. Progression is typically designed for a target travel speed and direction, and may be adjusted based on time of day or overall network priorities. <
> • **Pedestrian Signals + Countdown Timers** Pedestrian Signals and Countdown Timers improve safety and predictability for pedestrians at intersections. Pedestrian signals provide clear guidance for when it is safe to cross, while countdown timers display the remaining time for pedestrians to complete their crossing, helping to reduce accidents and confusion. These features promote more efficient pedestrian movement and enhance the visibility of walkers in busy traffic environments. <
> # B | Transportation Mode Priority and Overlays ## Overview A key concept in the Street Design Framework is the use of a transportation mode priority tool. This tool helps prioritize different types of street users based on the context and intended function of the street. Rather than treating all modes equally in every situation, mode priority recognizes that some streets should place greater emphasis on pedestrians, transit, or cyclists, depending on their role in the transportation network and surrounding land uses. When one mode of travel is prioritized, it does not mean that other modes are prohibited. Rather, it means that the prioritized mode should be given the most consideration in areas where trade-offs in space or design emphasis are necessary. The need to prioritize different modes is most often felt when there is limited right-of-way space to work with, and tough trade-off decisions concerning the allocation of street space must be made. The mode priority tool provides direction for designers and engineers in evaluating trade-offs and making a determination. # STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STRATEGIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS ## How to determine transportation mode priority for a street project? 1. **Start with the SDF Strategies and Tools Checklist (Section 3a):** The design team should review the checklist of strategies and tools and determine, based on the anticipated project scope what features or elements are required and desired. 2. **Identify the Street Type (Section 4):** Look up the assigned street typology and review the default mode priority table for that street type. 3. **Review Applicable Overlays:** Check for transportation mode overlays (e.g., bike, transit, calm street, park access, lane reduction) that may shift or elevate certain mode priorities (see below). 4. **Consider Community Context:** Identify adjacent land uses, nearby destinations (schools, parks, transit), and expected user groups (e.g., students, seniors, commuters). 5. **Engage Stakeholders:** Talk with residents, local businesses, and institutions along the corridor to understand local travel behavior and access needs. 6. **Cross-check with Citywide Plans:** Consult other adopted plans, such as Neighborhood Plans, park master plans, SLUP, GRG project corridors, and other relevant initiatives. 7. **Account for Future Land Use:** Align design decisions with SLUP future land use vision to ensure the street supports desired transformation and reinvestment. 8. **Determine Primary and Secondary Users:** Based on the above inputs, clearly define which modes (walking, biking, transit, vehicles) should be prioritized in the design. 9. **Document and Justify Decisions:** Summarize design choices and intent as part of project design. 10. **Use Priorities to Guide Design Elements:** Apply user priorities to inform the selection of infrastructure (e.g., protected bike lanes, transit stops, curb extensions, lane reductions). These support decision-making around user priorities and ensure that design decisions fully consider the guidance contained in the Street Design Framework. These overlays create a flexible but structured way to ensure that complete streets are tailored to local needs while staying aligned with the city’s broader transportation goals. # Street Overlays To further support mode priority decisions, the Street Design Framework includes five street overlays, including: * Bicycle Emphasis * Transit Emphasis * Park Access * Road Diet * Calm Streets These overlays reflect citywide priorities for specific modes or street functions along certain streets, with the goal of building complete bicycle, transit, and calm streets networks across the city. They help clarify how different design choices should be prioritized and assist in making trade-off decisions when space is limited or design conflicts arise. For example, a street with both a transit emphasis and future bike network designation may require more detailed analysis to determine how best to serve both users while maintaining safety and connectivity. Ultimately, a decision may be to prioritize one mode (i.e., transit) and the other mode (e.g., bikes) may need to shift to a parallel corridor. *Designations in the Overlay Maps can change over time. The curent, up to date map will be available on the City of St. Louis website.* * **Bicycle Emphasis** Bicycle Emphasis Overlay streets are those where bicycle facilities are given priority in the street design, with the overall intent to have the bicycle emphasis overlay by the backbone of an All Ages and Abilities (i.e., Low Stress) bicycle network. These streets are identified as critical connectors in the city’s bike network, serving local and regional destinations and are intended to be safe, comfortable, and accessible for riders of all ages and abilities. Streets with this overlay typically include shared-use side paths, dedicated bike infrastructure such as protected/separated bike lanes, buffered bike lanes on lower speed/volume streets, or neighborhood greenways/bike boulevards, depending on traffic speeds and volumes. In higher-traffic areas, more robust separation from motor vehicles may be required, while on calmer, lower-volume streets, shared or advisory lanes may be appropriate. The overlay is applied based on street usage and physical characteristics, such as connections to parks, schools, employment centers, or transit; gaps in the existing bike network; and opportunities to support mode shift through better infrastructure. When designing or upgrading a Bike Emphasis Overlay Street, the priority is to create continuous, visible, low-stress routes that encourage everyday cycling and improve safety for all street users. # Bicycle Emphasis National guidance provides the foundation for designing safe, connected, and comfortable bicycle facilities. These resources establish best practices for selecting the right facility type based on roadway conditions, safety needs, and user comfort. Within the TMP, the Future Bike Network map applies those principles locally, identifying where bicycle travel should take priority and ensuring projects are scoped with appropriate accommodations. The facility types tied to the overlay are described further in Chapter 5: Connectivity and Mobility Framework (page 231). ## RESOURCES: ### National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) NACTO’s framework guides city- and agency-led capital projects such as street reconstructions, utility upgrades, and transit investments, ensuring that design decisions support multimodal travel, safety, and surrounding land use. It helps public agencies prioritize improvements, coordinate across departments, and deliver projects that reflect the community’s needs. This process applies to all projects, from a simple resurfacing project to a full roadway reconstruction. ### AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities This guide establishes nationally recognized standards for bicycle facility design, offering technical detail on dimensions, alignment, and safety considerations. It helps agencies select context-sensitive treatments, integrate bicycle facilities into roadway projects of all scales, and ensure consistency with engineering practice and roadway operations. ### OTHER NATIONAL RESOURCES Guidance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and peer best practices provide additional direction on bicycle facility planning and design. These resources emphasize safety, connectivity, and accessibility while helping agencies comply with federal requirements and align projects with broader transportation goals. Transportation & Mobility Plan 145 # Future Bike Network * Existing Trails and Greenways * Planned Greenways * Future Bike Network (Bike Lanes and On-Street Facilities) * Future Local Signed Routes (Traffic Calming, Signage, and Striping) * Potential Calm Streets <
> * o MetroLink Station * MetroLink Red and Blue Lines * Planned Transit Expansion * Streets * City Boundary * Open Space * Water STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STRATEGIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS * **Transit Emphasis** Transit Emphasis Overlay streets are designed to prioritize public transit users and enhance transit services’ reliability, efficiency, and safety. These streets may serve as existing or future key corridors for high-ridership bus routes, enhanced transit amenities, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), or light rail lines, and often connect major destinations such as employment centers, schools, medical facilities, and commercial districts. Streets with this overlay could incorporate a range of transit-supportive infrastructure depending on context, including dedicated bus lanes, in-lane or curbside bus boarding areas, transit signal priority, and accommodations for light rail where applicable. Design elements also ensure safe pedestrian access to transit stops, including intersection safety, mid-block crosswalks near bus stops, ADA-compliant crosswalks, shelters, lighting, and wayfinding. The overlay is applied based on transit usage, service frequency, and regional connectivity needs. It supports a modal hierarchy that places transit near the top in these corridors, especially where ridership demand is high or where the city aims to increase access to equitable, sustainable transportation options. When implementing the Transit Emphasis Overlay, the goal is to create efficient, safe, and comfortable environments for transit users while improving system performance and supporting broader mobility goals. Transportation & Mobility Plan # Overlays: Transit Emphasis Transit Emphasis Overlay <
> * MetroLink Station * MetroLink Red and Blue Lines * Planned Transit Expansion * Existing Greenways & Major Trails * Streets * City Boundary * Open Space * Water STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STRATEGIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS * **Park Access** Park Access Overlay streets are designated to enhance access to parks, trails, and open spaces, serving as key connectors between neighborhoods and the city’s recreational and natural assets. These streets either border major parks and green spaces (and facilitate improved connectivity across them to the park spaces beyond) OR serve as vital corridor linking neighborhoods to park spaces. These streets align with regional trails such as those maintained by Great Rivers Greenway (GRG). The design of Park Access Overlay streets prioritizes pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, ensuring safe and comfortable routes for people of all ages and abilities. This can include shared-use paths, widened sidewalks, protected bike lanes, enhanced crosswalks, and traffic calming features to create a more inviting and accessible environment for non-motorized users. Where appropriate, designs also integrate green infrastructure and landscaping to reinforce the connection to nearby open spaces. Enhanced wayfinding and placemaking elements, like street art, upgraded lighting, and streetscape amenities, are also a key consideration. This overlay is applied based on a street’s proximity to parks, trails, waterfronts, or planned greenway connections. It emphasizes the role of streets not just as mobility corridors, but as extensions of the city’s public realm. These places encourage outdoor activity, support public health, and connect people to nature, taking advantage of St. Louis’s unique presence of open spaces throughout. Transportation & Mobility Plan 149 # Overlays: Park Access — Park Access Overlay <
> ○ MetroLink Station — MetroLink Red and Blue Lines ••••• Planned Transit Expansion — Existing Greenways & Major Trails — Streets ☐ City Boundary ■ Open Space ■ Water # STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STRATEGIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS * **Road Diet** The Road Diet Overlay identifies corridors where reconfiguring the existing roadway space can improve safety, mobility, and multimodal access. A road diet is typically applied to streets with excess space for cars or a history of safety concerns. The diet often involves reducing the number of general-purpose lanes, where use can be maintained at an appropriate level, to create space for other uses like bike lanes, wider sidewalks, turn lanes, or landscaped medians. Common applications of a road diet often include converting a four-lane road into a three-lane street with a center turn lane and bike lanes on each side. This treatment is not just about removing lanes; however, it is also about right-sizing streets, or making the street the “right size” for the amount and type of use, to serve everyone safely and efficiently. Road diet candidates are often arterial or collector roads that pass through urban neighborhoods, commercial corridors, or areas with increasing multimodal demand- places where people are walking, biking, using transit, and getting out of vehicles. By reallocating space, right-sized streets help lower vehicle speeds, reduce crash frequency and severity, and improve crossings for pedestrians and cyclists. The Road Diet Overlay is applied based on traffic volumes, safety data, and land use context, and is intended to make streets more efficient, predictable, and accessible for all users. When paired with transit stops, schools, or active commercial areas, right-sized streets can also support placemaking (creating welcoming public spaces for everyone to enjoy), economic development, and a more comfortable public realm. Transportation & Mobility Plan 151 # Overlays: Road Diet — Road Diet Overlay <
> ○ MetroLink Station — MetroLink Red and Blue Lines •••••• Planned Transit Expansion — Existing Greenways & Major Trails — Streets ☐ City Boundary ■ Open Space ■ Water STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STRATEGIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS * **Calm Streets** Calm Streets Overlay streets are designed to prioritize safety, comfort, and livability, especially for people walking and biking in residential areas. These streets are typically located in neighborhoods, near schools, parks, or other community destinations, where low speeds and reduced traffic volumes are essential to creating a safe and welcoming environment. This overlay emphasizes the use of traffic calming strategies, such as speed humps, raised crosswalks, curb extensions, mini-roundabouts, and street narrowing. The goal is to reduce vehicle speeds and discourage cut-through traffic, creating a more pedestrian- and bike-friendly environment that supports everyday neighborhood activity. Calm Streets overlays are driven by street context, safety concerns, and community need, often applied where there is a concentration of vulnerable road users like children and older adults, or where crash history indicates a need for intervention. These streets help foster a greater sense of community, encourage active transportation, and ensure that residential areas are designed for people, not just vehicles. # Overlays: Calm Streets — Calm Streets Overlay <
> * o MetroLink Station * — MetroLink Red and Blue Lines * …… Planned Transit Expansion * — Existing Greenways & Major Trails * — Streets * □ City Boundary * ■ Open Space * ■ Water # STREET TYPE GUIDELINES <
> The proposed Street Design Framework includes 16 different street types, formed by the unique intersection of differing transportation roles and adjacent land use contexts in St. Louis. Street types are organized into four categories based on the street’s land-use context, which aligns with the Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP). These four street type categories are Neighborhood, District, Mixed-Use, and Other. # A | Determining Street Types Streets stitch together the fabric of the city and are therefore defined by many variables, including function, size, adjacent land use, and even user behavior. The street types designated in this framework are based not only on existing conditions but also on current and future land use types, allowing the framework to reflect the city’s long-term vision for growth and development. A single street may even transition between different Street Design types along its length depending on geographical location, street character, and future land use aspirations. The street types were derived through a rigorous process that included analysis of existing street conditions, evaluation and consideration of the City’s Strategic Land Use Plan, on-site field reviews, and ultimately the development of a detailed matrix used to classify every city street according to its present role and potential future context. Streets in St. Louis vary widely in their physical and functional characteristics, including the number of travel lanes, traffic volumes, speed limits, and the presence of multimodal infrastructure. To better reflect this diversity, streets were first organized into three core scale categories based on Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT): * Local Streets (AADT less than 2,000) * Connector Streets (AADT between 2,000 and 15,000) * Primary Network Streets (AADT between 10,000 and 50,000) # STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES To refine this classification, additional criteria such as right-of-way width, number of lanes, speed limits, and presence of multimodal facilities (e.g., bike lanes, transit service, curbside access) were considered. These physical characteristics were analyzed alongside existing and future land use designations from the Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP) to create a context-sensitive typology of 16 distinct street types. These include Neighborhood Streets that serve residential areas with slower speeds, Main Streets that support vibrant commercial activity and prioritize walking, biking, and transit, and District Streets located in SLUP-designated central areas like Downtown and The Grove that attract regional users. <
> Additional types were developed for unique contexts: Park Interior Streets provide circulation within the city’s larger parks, while Industrial Streets are tailored to freight-heavy corridors adjacent to industrial land uses. Each of the 16 street types is described in detail in the following section, including typical characteristics, primary users, modal priorities, and design recommendations to guide context-sensitive improvements. | Typical Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) | Typical Transportation Network Role | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | <500 | Local | Neighborhood (1-2 lanes) | | 500- 2k | | | | 2k - 6k | Connector | Neighborhood Connector (2-3 lanes) | | 6k - 15k | | | | 10k - 21k | Primary Network | Neighborhood Network (4-5+ lanes) | | 21k - 50k | | | | | Typical Land Use Context | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | **Central Areas** | **Mixed-Use Corridors** | **Open Space** | **Industrial** | | | District Local
*(1-2 lanes)* | Mixed-Use
Local
*(1-2 lanes)* | Park Interior
*(1-2 lanes)* | Industrial
Service
*(1-2 lanes)* | | Neighborhood
Main Street
*(2-3 lanes)* | District
Main Street
*(2-3 lanes)* | District
Connector
*(2-3 lanes)* | Mixed-Use Connector
*(2-3 lanes)* | n/a | Industrial
Connector
*(2-5+ lanes)* | | n/a | n/a | District
Gateway
*(3+ lanes)* | Mixed-Use Arterial
*(4-5+ lanes)* | | | | **Limited Access** | | | **Interstate / Highway** | | | STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES A street type represents a classification that defines how a street functions within St. Louis’s transportation network and urban fabric. Each type reflects the relationship between a street’s mobility role, surrounding land use, and physical characteristics. Together, these street types capture both existing conditions and the city’s long term vision for growth. This framework for designing streets balances movement, access, and context across neighborhood, district, mixed-use and other areas. Designations in the Street Design Framework can change over time. The curent, up to date map will be available on the City of St. Louis website. Transportation & Mobility Plan 159 # All Street Types Street Types * Neighborhood Local * Neighborhood Connector * Neighborhood Main Street * Neighborhood Network * District Local * District Main Street * District Connector * District Gateway * Mixed-Use Local * Mixed-Use Connector * Mixed-Use Arterial * Industrial Connector * Industrial Service * Park Interior * Limited Access * Private Road * Interstate <
> * MetroLink Station * MetroLink Red and Blue Lines * Planned Transit Expansion * Existing Greenways & Major Trails * Streets * City Boundary * Open Space * Water STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # B | Neighborhood Streets These are streets from local residential streets to larger neighborhood connectors and network streets. These streets pass through “neighborhood” designated areas that are predominantly residential in character but may also have a mix of smaller-scale commercial uses scattered within. The “Neighborhood Main Street” type aligns with traditional mixed-use commercial areas that provide goods and services primarily to the surrounding neighborhood. Each neighborhood street type is briefly described below, followed by more detailed descriptions on the following pages. * **Neighborhood Local:** Calm, low volume streets within residential neighborhoods providing direct access to homes. Streets with the lowest posted speed limits, high intersection density, and prioritized for pedestrian use. * **Neighborhood Connector:** Collector streets within residential areas connecting to neighborhood destinations and higher volume streets. Streets with mostly residential land uses with occasional commercial/mixed use. * **Neighborhood Network:** Located predominantly within residential land uses while contributing to the major road network of the city. Streets with pedestrian-friendly environments, landscape buffers, and connections to streets with higher traffic volumes. * **Neighborhood Mainstreet:** Vibrant, pedestrian-friendly nodes of mixed use with neighborhoods. Medium traffic with lower speed limits fostering active commercial frontages. Transportation & Mobility Plan <
> # Neighborhood Streets Neighborhood Street Types - Neighborhood Local - Neighborhood Connector - Neighborhood Main Street - Neighborhood Network - o MetroLink Station - = MetroLink Red and Blue Lines - ...... Planned Transit Expansion - — Existing Greenways & Major Trails - — Streets - [ ] City Boundary - [ ] Open Space - [ ] Water # C | District Streets District Streets are referred to as central areas in the City’s Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP) and include parts of the city such as Downtown, Midtown, and The Grove, that draw a regional audience and constitute significant city-wide destination areas. There are four types of District Streets, detailed below, that vary in size and amount of use, from smaller district local streets to larger, regionally-significant district gateway streets. District Main Streets are the highest activity commercial streets in the district category with concentrations of retail, cultural, and/or entertainment destinations and accommodate the highest volumes of pedestrians. Each of the district street types are briefly described below followed by more detailed descriptions on the following pages. * **District Local:** Vital infrastructure providing access to district residential, institutional, commercial and recreational spaces. With moderate traffic and low speed limits, these streets foster a dynamic, accessible environment that encourages vibrant street life. * **District Connector:** Serving a wider variety of land uses, these streets serve as collectors to higher capacity roadways while still having speed limits and traffic volumes conducive of calm and shared use streets. * **District Main Street:** Positioned in the heart of these districts, these streets foster a concentration of active uses. These streets exhibit the character of the district through placemaking, experience, and accessibility. * **District Gateway:** Serving as vital entry points and key corridors, these streets connect districts to other parts of the city and region. These streets support the highest volume of vehicles and serve as primary network streets, while standing out by incorporating unique amenities or design features. # District Streets District Street Types — District Local — District Main Street — District Connector — District Gateway <
> * MetroLink Station — MetroLink Red and Blue Lines ⋯⋯ Planned Transit Expansion — Existing Greenways & Major Trails — Streets □ City Boundary ■ Open Space ■ Water # D | Mixed Use Streets Mixed-use refers to areas that, over the length of a corridor, contain a variety of uses from commercial, office, retail, different types of housing, and institutions. The land use may change block-by-block, but a variety of uses are present over a longer distance. Streets include smaller, mixed-use local streets, which provide parking, loading, and business access/circulation, up to the larger Mixed-use Arterials, which include some of the biggest, regionally important corridors traversing across the city. Each of the mixed-use street types is briefly described below, followed by more detailed descriptions on the following pages. * **Mixed-use Local:** Key routes linking residential areas to local amenities such as schools, parks, and small businesses. These streets support a balance of local traffic and non-motorized transportation, fostering accessibility and connectivity within the community. * **Mixed-use Connector:** Characterized by concentrated retail, office, and service-oriented businesses, these streets often serve as significant transportation corridors, accommodating heavier traffic flow linking users to neighborhoods, districts, and larger roadways. * **Mixed-use Arterial:** Primarily characterized by high-density commercial uses and wider rights of way, these streets offer multimodal connections, including parking, transit stops, and may include separated bike facilities With medium to high traffic volumes, they efficiently support access to businesses while balancing the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, and commuters. Transportation & Mobility Plan 165 # Mixed-Use Streets Mixed-Use Street Types - Mixed-Use Local - Mixed-Use Connector - Mixed-Use Arterial <
> ○ MetroLink Station — MetroLink Red and Blue Lines ⋯⋯⋯ Planned Transit Expansion — Existing Greenways & Major Trails — Streets □ City Boundary ■ Open Space ■ Water # E | Other Street Types Other street types capture unique street conditions requiring their own design considerations. Each of the other street types is briefly described below, followed by more detailed descriptions on the following pages. * **Park Interior:** Roadway infrastructure within some of the City’s 108 parks. These streets serve parks providing public access, parking, and/or maintenance. * **Industrial Service:** Predominantly lined with industrial land uses and experiencing a higher prevalence of truck and container traffic, these streets have low posted speeds, lower AADT, and wider lanes to provide trucks with local access to industrial properties. * **Industrial Connector:** Primary streets providing access to industrial areas where users are workers commuting to and from industrial areas. These streets also facilitate heavier truck traffic, requiring wider lanes and turning movements. * **Limited Access:** Not as restrictive as fully controlled-access highways (like interstates), these streets aim to manage access for better traffic efficiency. These streets have fewer entry and exit points, often only at designated intersections or ramps and provide limited or no direct access to adjacent properties. They often have restricted driveway access, and traffic control measures such as medians, barriers, or signage to prevent turns or crossings. These streets have an emphasis on through traffic rather than local or destination traffic. * **Interstates/Highways:** Highest capacity, high-speed corridors designed to provide access at a regional scale, these facilities are focused on moving vehicles within and through the City and region. These roadways are generally owned by the Missouri Dept. Of Transportation. # Park Interior Streets Park Interior Street Types — Park Interior <
> ○ MetroLink Station — MetroLink Red and Blue Lines •••••• Planned Transit Expansion — Existing Greenways & Major Trails — Streets □ City Boundary ■ Open Space ■ Water # Industrial Streets **Industrial Street Types** — Industrial Connector — Industrial Service <
> * MetroLink Station * MetroLink Red and Blue Lines * Planned Transit Expansion * Existing Greenways & Major Trails * Streets * City Boundary * Open Space * Water <
> The following section contains the main guidance for each street type in detail. # NEIGHBORHOOD LOCAL ## BASE CROSS-SECTION <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION These are calmer streets located within residential neighborhoods, designed primarily to provide direct access to homes. They feature low posted speed limits, minimal traffic, on-street parking, a high density of intersections, and stop controls, and prioritize pedestrian-friendly mobility through low traffic speeds and a continuous sidewalk network. ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | Network Function | Localized access | | :--- | :--- | | Adjacent Land use | Predominately residential; single and multi-family | | AADT | <2,000 | | ROW Width | 40’ - 60’ | | Travel Lanes | Unmarked - width for 2-vehicles to pass | | Speed Limits | Posted: 20 mph or not posted/Desired: 15 mph | | Pedestrian | Friendly Elements, 5’ minimum sidewalks, crosswalks/ bump-outs | | Bicycles | Shared lanes | | Transit | Limited/Optional - safe, comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present | | Vehicle | Low speed, on-street parking, some one-way configurations | ### MULTI-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | L | M | H | | Pedestrian | | | X | | Bicycle | | | X | | Transit | X | | | | Curbside | | X | | | Vehicle | | X | | | Truck | X | | | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * Medium-Intensity Neighborhood, some Low and High Intensity (as identified in City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Plan, 2025) * Primarily residential, including other uses that serve people living in the area (small parks, gardens, neighborhood shops, schools, and religious institutions, etc.) * Housing similar in height and size to the historic buildings, maximum 3 stories and 4-8 units, plus optional ADUs * Front and Side yard (space between building edge and ROW) parking is discouraged, street parking is common. # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | TOOLS & STRATEGIES | Neighborhood Local | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Opt | Rec | - | Str | Str | - | | Lane Reconfigurations | Opt | Rec | - | Str | Rec | - | | Volume Controls | Opt | Rec | - | Rec | - | - | | Speed Management | Rec | Rec | - | Str | Rec | - | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Rec | - | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Opt | Str | - | Str | Rec | - | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | - | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Rec | Str | - | Str | Rec | - | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersections | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | Rec | - | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Opt | - | - | Rec | Rec | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Opt | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Str | Rec | - | Str | Str | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Opt | - | - | Rec | Rec | - | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Lim | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | - | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Lim | Lim | - | - | Rec | - | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | - | | Bike Boulevards | Rec | Str | - | Str | Rec | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Opt | Str | - | Opt | - | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Opt | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Str | - | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Rec | - | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Opt | - | - | - | - | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Opt | - | - | - | - | - | | Bus Boarding Islands | Lim | - | - | - | - | - | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Opt | - | - | - | Rec | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Rec | Opt | - | Rec | Rec | - | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Lim | - | - | - | Opt | - | | Allow Dining Platforms / Parklets | Opt | - | - | - | - | - | | Loading Zones | Lim | - | - | - | - | - | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Lim | - | - | - | Opt | - | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Str | Str | - | Str | Str | - | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | - | Str | Str | - | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Rec | - | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Lim | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Opt | Rec | - | Rec | Rec | - | | Tree Wells | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Lim | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | Lim | - | - | - | - | - | **Str** Strongly Recommended **Rec** Recommended **Opt** Optional **Lim** Limited Refer to page 126 for additional category detail ### ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS * Low-volume, low-speed, unmarked lanes. * Minimum 16-feet clear for passing vehicles with space in parking lanes for yielding **CALM STREET OVERLAY:** High opportunity for calm street improvements, with speed management improvements taking priority. ### PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS * 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street * Crosswalks should be present at all legs of the intersection * Reconstructions are an opportunity for incorporating bump outs, raised crosswalks, and other enhancements. * When connecting to signalized intersections, use LPIs ### BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS * With low speeds and volumes, bicycling in the roadway should be comfortable for most users. * On higher volume local streets, consider sharrows, signed routes, and/or bike boulevard treatments. **FUTURE BIKE NETWORK:** Suitable low stress facility required, typically a bike boulevard in this context. ### TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS * Typically, do not have active transit routes. **TRANSIT OVERLAY:** Dedicated transit space likely not required due to low volumes. Consider signal improvements when connecting to larger streets. ### CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS * On-street parking desired on both sides of the street where space allows. ### PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS * Landscape treatments – Street Trees to provide character and comfortable environment * Lighting – focused primarily at crossings and intersections. Avoid spilling light directly into residences. * Consider banners, signs, and other enhancements at entrances into neighborhoods. **PARK ACCESS OVERLAY:** Additional accommodations for bikes, wider sidewalks, lighting, and signage enhancements. STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETS <
> MARGARETTA AVE <
> WELLS AVE <
> LANDSDOWNE AVE <
> MARYLAND AVE # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> <
> LOUISIANA AVE CALM STREET - ST. LOUIS, MO <
> <
> SAFE STREETS FOR ALL - KALAMAZOO, MI # NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTOR ## BASE CROSS-SECTION <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION These streets function as essential links, connecting quieter residential areas to mixed-uses. They are residential streets connecting neighborhood activity centers like recreational centers, parks, etc., to homes. These streets prioritize pedestrian connectivity, transit routes, and dedicated bike lanes, ensuring safe and efficient movement for all users. They can be considered for ‘calm streets’ improvements. ### MULTI-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | L | M | H | | Pedestrian | | | X | | Bicycle | | | X | | Transit | | | X | | Curbside | | X | | | Vehicle | | X | | | Truck | X | | | ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Network Function** | Connector/cross-neighborhood | | **Adjacent Land use** | Predominately residential, occasional commercial uses | | **AADT** | 2k - 10k - 15k | | **ROW Width** | 60' - 80' | | **Travel Lanes** | 2-3 lanes | | **Speed Limits** | Posted: 25 mph/Desired: 25 mph | | **Pedestrian** | Friendly elements, 5' min. sidewalks, crosswalks/bump-outs | | **Bicycles** | Priority, 8' min constrained, 10' min preferred with 1' min buffer | | **Transit** | Limited/Optional - safe, comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present | | **Vehicle** | Low speed, on-street parking | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * Medium-Intensity Neighborhood, some Low and High Intensity (as identified in City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Plan, 2025) * Primarily residential, including other uses that serve people living in the area (small parks, gardens, neighborhood shops, schools, and religious institutions, etc.) * Housing similar in height and size to the historic buildings, maximum 3 stories and 4-8 units, plus optional ADUs * Front and Side yard (space between building edge and ROW) parking is discouraged, street parking is common. # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | | Neighborhood Connector | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Rec | Rec | - | Str | Rec | Str | | Lane Reconfigurations | Rec | Rec | - | Str | Rec | Str | | Volume Controls | Lim | Rec | - | Rec | Lim | Lim | | Speed Management | Rec | Rec | - | Str | Rec | Opt | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Opt | Lim | - | Rec | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Rec | Str | - | Str | Rec | Opt | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Lim | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | Opt | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Rec | Rec | - | Str | Str | Opt | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersection | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | Rec | - | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Rec | - | - | Rec | Rec | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Opt | Rec | - | Rec | Opt | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Str | Str | - | Str | Str | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Rec | Rec | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Rec | Opt | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | Rec | Rec | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Opt | Str | - | Opt | - | Rec | | Bike Boulevards | Lim | Str | - | Rec | Rec | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Lim | Lim | - | Opt | Opt | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Rec | Str | - | Rec | Str | Opt | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Rec | Str | - | Rec | Rec | Opt | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Opt | - | - | - | - | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Bus Boarding Islands | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Opt | - | - | Opt | Rec | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Rec | Lim | - | Opt | Opt | Opt | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Opt | Lim | - | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Allow Dining Platforms / Parklets | Rec | Lim | - | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Loading Zones | Opt | Lim | - | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Opt | Lim | - | Opt | Opt | Opt | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Str | Str | - | Str | Str | Str | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | - | Str | Str | Str | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | Rec | - | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Rec | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Opt | Rec | - | Rec | Rec | - | | Tree Wells | Opt | Lim | - | Lim | Lim | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | - | **ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS** * Mid-volume, low-speed, 2-3 lanes. * Minimum 10-foot travel lanes with additional space for on-street parking **CALM STREET OVERLAY:** High opportunity for calm street improvements, with speed management improvements taking priority. **PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS** * 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street * Minimum 10-foot travel lanes with additional space of the intersection * Reconstructions are an opportunity for incorporating bump outs, raised crosswalks, and other enhancements. * When connecting to signalized intersections, use LPIs **BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS** * With low speeds and volumes, bicycling in the roadway should be comfortable for most users. * On higher volume connector streets, consider signed routes, protected bike lanes, and/or bike boulevard treatments. **FUTURE BIKE NETWORK:** Suitable low stress facility required, typically a bike boulevard or separated bikeway if there are concerns about parking conflicts. **TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS** * Occasionally have active transit routes. **TRANSIT OVERLAY:** Dedicated transit space likely not required due to low volumes. Consider signal improvements when connecting to larger streets. **CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS** * On-street parking desired on one or both sides of the street where space allows and does not conflict with bike treatment. **PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS** * Landscape treatments – Street Trees to provide character and comfortable environment * Lighting – focused primarily at crossings and intersections. Avoid spilling light directly into residences. * Consider banners, signs, and other enhancements at entrances into neighborhoods. **PARK ACCESS OVERLAY:** Additional accommodations for bikes, wider sidewalks, lighting, and signage enhancements. Str: Strongly Recommended Rec: Recommended Opt: Optional Lim: Limited # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETS <
> ARSENAL ST <
> BATES ST <
> SHENANDOAH AVE <
> ST. LOUIS AVE # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> TOWER GROVE CONNECTOR <
> <
> NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAYS - SEATTLE, WA STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # NEIGHBORHOOD MAIN STREET ## BASE CROSS-SECTION <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION These streets are typically located at key nodes or intersections, featuring a mix of residential and neighborhood commercial uses. They are designed to be vibrant and pedestrian-friendly, with inviting infrastructure encouraging walking and social interaction. With medium traffic flow and low posted speed limits, they provide supportive spaces for local businesses while incorporating transit routes and bike lane connectivity to enhance accessibility for all users. ### MULTI-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | L | M | H | | Pedestrian | | | X | | Bicycle | | | X | | Transit | | | X | | Curbside | | X | | | Vehicle | | X | | | Truck | | X | | ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Network Function** | Local access and connector | | **Adjacent Land use** | Mixed use, active ground floor uses, often multi-story | | **AADT** | 2k - 10k - 20k | | **ROW Width** | 40' - 80' | | **Travel Lanes** | 2-3 lanes | | **Speed Limits** | Posted: 25 mph or not posted/Desired: 15 - 25 mph | | **Pedestrian** | Friendly elements, 8' min sidewalks, crosswalks/bump-outs, vibrant amenities | | **Bicycles** | Shared street, bike parking encouraged | | **Transit** | Limited/Optional - safe, comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present | | **Vehicle** | Low-speed, on-street parking | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * Medium-Intensity Corridors (as identified in City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Plan, 2025) * Pedestrian focused, neighborhood commercial activity, adjacent to residential, including other uses that serve people living in the area (small parks, gardens, neighborhood shops, schools, and religious institutions, etc.) * Building similar in height and size to the historic buildings, typically 3-5 stories and no limits on residential units/buildings * Front and Side yard (space between building edge and ROW) parking is discouraged, street parking is common. * Minimal to no curb cuts. * Prioritize pedestrian arrival to businesses. # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | TOOLS & STRATEGIES | Neighborhood Main Street | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Rec | Rec | - | - | Str | Rec | | Lane Reconfigurations | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Rec | Str | | Volume Controls | Lim | Rec | - | - | Opt | Lim | | Speed Management | Rec | Rec | - | - | Rec | Opt | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Lim | Lim | - | - | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Rec | Opt | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Str | Rec | Rec | - | Str | Rec | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersections | Opt | Opt | Lim | - | Str | Opt | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Str | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Rec | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Str | Str | Rec | - | Str | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Str | Opt | Rec | - | Str | Rec | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Lim | Rec | - | - | Rec | Rec | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Opt | Str | - | - | Rec | Rec | | Bike Boulevards | Opt | Opt | - | - | Opt | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Str | Str | - | - | Str | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Rec | Str | - | - | Rec | - | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Opt | Opt | - | - | Opt | Opt | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Opt | - | - | - | - | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Rec | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Bus Boarding Islands | Rec | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Opt | - | Str | - | Rec | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | Opt | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Allow Dining Platforms / Parklets | Str | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | Opt | | Loading Zones | Rec | Lim | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Opt | Lim | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | Str | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | Str | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Tree Wells | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | Str: Strongly Recommended Rec: Recommended Opt: Optional Lim: Limited ### ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS * Low to mid-volume, low-speed, 2-3 lanes. * 10-foot travel lanes with additional space for on-street parking and amenity zone. ### PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS * 8-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street * Crosswalks should be present at all legs of the intersection * Reconstructions are an opportunity for incorporating bump outs, raised crosswalks, and other enhancements. * When connecting to signalized intersections, use LPIs. ### BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS * With low speeds and volumes, bicycling in the roadway should be comfortable for most users. * On higher volume main streets, consider sharrows, signed routes, and/or bike boulevard treatments. * Bike parking and other amenities should be provided near commercial activity. * **FUTURE BIKE NETWORK:** Suitable low stress facility required, typically a bike boulevard or separated bikeway if there are concerns about parking conflicts. ### TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS * Occasionally have active transit routes. * **TRANSIT OVERLAY:** Dedicated transit space likely not required due to low volumes. Consider signal improvements when connecting to larger streets. ### CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS * On-street parking desired on both sides of the street where space allows. * Priority amenity zone with space for outdoor dining/parklets/retail. Enhanced site planting and furnishing. ### PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS * Landscape treatments – Street Trees to provide character and comfortable environment * Lighting – focused primarily at crossings and intersections. Avoid spilling light directly into residences. * Consider banners, signs, and other enhancements at entrances into neighborhoods. * **PARK ACCESS OVERLAY:** Additional accommodations for bikes, wider sidewalks, lighting, and signage enhancements. # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETS <
> **MACKLIND AVE** <
> **N BROADWAY** <
> **CHEROKEE ST** <
> **TOWER GROVE AVE** Transportation & Mobility Plan 181 # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> SOUTH GRAND <
> <
> P STREET CORRIDOR - LINCOLN, NE <
> # NEIGHBORHOOD NETWORK ## BASE CROSS-SECTION <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION These streets act as key connectors between local neighborhoods and regional commercial or mixed-use destinations. With dedicated bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and safe crossings, they prioritize pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. They experience medium-high traffic volumes compared to Neighborhood Connectors. Neighborhood Network streets are essential for providing safe and accessible transit connections, supporting both local mobility and access to larger commercial areas. ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | Network Function | Primary network street | | :--- | :--- | | Adjacent Land use | Predominately residential, occasional commercial uses | | AADT | 10k - 15k - 20k | | ROW Width | 80' - 100' | | Travel Lanes | 4-5 lanes | | Speed Limits | Posted: 25 mph/Desired: 25-30 mph | | Pedestrian | Friendly elements, 5'-8' sidewalks, crosswalks/bump-outs, midblock crossings, buffer from traffic | | Bicycles | Priority in some areas, separated | | Transit | Safe, comfortable bust stops provided were transit stops are present. Can occupy curbside zone. Ensure safe crossing and transfer | | Vehicle | Low speed, on-street parking | ### MULT-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | L | M | H | | Pedestrian | | | X | | Bicycle | | | X | | Transit | | | X | | Curbside | X | | | | Vehicle | | X | | | Truck | X | | | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * Medium-Intensity Neighborhood, some Low and High Intensity (as identified in City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Plan, 2025) * Primarily residential, including other uses that serve people living in the area (small parks, gardens, neighborhood shops, schools, and religious institutions, etc.) * Housing similar in height and size to the historic buildings, maximum 3 stories and 4-8 units, plus optional ADUs * Front and Side yard (space between building edge and ROW) parking is discouraged, street parking is common. # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | TOOLS & STRATEGIES | Neighborhood Network | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Rec | Rec | - | Str | Rec | Str | | Lane Reconfigurations | Rec | Rec | Opt | Str | Rec | Str | | Volume Controls | Lim | Rec | - | Rec | Lim | Lim | | Speed Management | Rec | Str | - | Str | Str | Opt | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Opt | Lim | - | Rec | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Rec | Str | Rec | Str | Rec | Opt | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Lim | Lim | Opt | Lim | Lim | Lim | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Rec | Rec | Opt | Str | Str | Opt | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersections | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | Rec | - | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Rec | - | - | Rec | Rec | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Opt | Rec | Opt | Rec | Opt | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Str | Str | Str | Str | Str | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Opt | Opt | Rec | Opt | Rec | Rec | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Rec | Opt | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Rec | Str | Rec | Rec | Rec | Rec | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | - | Rec | | Bike Boulevards | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Lim | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Lim | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Rec | Rec | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Rec | Str | Rec | Rec | Rec | Opt | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Rec | Str | Rec | Rec | Rec | Opt | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Opt | - | Lim | - | - | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Rec | Opt | Rec | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Bus Boarding Islands | Opt | Opt | Rec | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Opt | - | Str | Opt | Rec | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Rec | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Allow Dining Platforms / Parklets | Rec | Lim | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Loading Zones | Opt | Lim | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Opt | Lim | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Str | Str | Str | Str | Str | Str | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | Str | Str | Str | Str | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Rec | Rec | Rec | Str | Str | - | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Opt | Opt | Str | Rec | Rec | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Opt | Opt | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | | Tree Wells | Lim | Lim | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | Rec | Rec | Rec | Rec | Rec | - |
**Str** Strongly Recommended **Rec** Recommended **Opt** Optional **Lim** Limited ### ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS * Higher-volume, low-speed, 3-4 lanes. * 10-foot travel lanes, designated turn lanes, additional space in some areas for on-street parking. **CALM STREET OVERLAY:** Opportunity for calm street improvements, with speed management improvements taking priority. ### PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS * 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street * Crosswalks should be present at all legs of the intersection * Enhanced midblock crossings recommended. * Reconstructions are an opportunity for incorporating bump outs, raised crosswalks, and other enhancements * When connecting to signalized intersections, use LPIs ### BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS * Bicycles are prioritized in some areas, typically with separated bike lanes. **FUTURE BIKE NETWORK:** Suitable facilities required, typically a bike boulevard or separated bikeway if there are concerns about parking conflicts. High visibility, protected intersections and bike amenities prioritized. ### TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS * Often have active transit routes. **TRANSIT OVERLAY:** Safe, comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present. Can occupy curbside zone. Ensure safe crossing and transfer. ### CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS * On-street parking desired on both sides of the street where space allows. ### PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS * Landscape treatments – Street Trees to provide character and comfortable environment * Lighting – focused primarily at crossings and intersections. Avoid spilling light directly into residences. * Consider banners, signs, and other enhancements at entrances into neighborhoods. **PARK ACCESS OVERLAY:** Additional accommodations for bikes, wider sidewalks, lighting, and signage enhancements. STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETTS <
> PAGE BLVD <
> MORGANFORD BLVD <
> JAMIESON AVE <
> RIVERVIEW BLVD # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> HEART OF PINE LAWN - PROJECT CLEAR STREETSCAPE REDEVELOPMENT <
> <
> BELMONT AVE, CHICAGO IL STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # DISTRICT LOCAL ## BASE CROSS-SECTION <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION These streets in core downtown and central areas of the city integrate residential, institutional, commercial, and recreational spaces. They prioritize pedestrian access with wide sidewalks, protected bike lanes, and transit stops, while also accommodating parking and loading zones. With low traffic and low-speed limits, these streets foster a dynamic, accessible environment that supports various uses and encourages vibrant street life. District Local Streets often connect to District Main Streets and District Connector Streets, enhancing the overall connectivity and flow of the urban core. ### MULTI-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | L | M | H | | Pedestrian | | | X | | Bicycle | | | X | | Transit | | | X | | Curbside | | | X | | Vehicle | | | X | | Truck | | | X | ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Network Function** | District-level streets | | **Adjacent Land use** | Mixed use, downtown and denser districts | | **AADT** | <2,000 | | **ROW Width** | 50’ - 100’ | | **Travel Lanes** | 2 lanes, some one-way configurations | | **Speed Limits** | Posted: 25 mph or not posted/Desired: 25 mph | | **Pedestrian** | Focused elements, 8’ min. sidewalks, crosswalks/bump-outs | | **Bicycles** | Optional bike lane, slow shared streets, 5’ min. | | **Transit** | Limited/Optional - safe, comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present | | **Vehicle** | Low speed, on-street parking, some commercial/truck loading zones | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * Central Areas (as identified in City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Plan, 2025) * Pedestrian focused, access to building entrances to be street facing, very mixed use, high density and strong urban character, prioritize public and social space * Building height varies, but aims for density. Maximum 20-30+ stories, and no limits on residential units/buildings * Front and Side yard (space between building edge and ROW) parking is discouraged, street parking is common. * Minimal to no curb cuts. * Prioritize pedestrian arrival to businesses. * Prioritize pedestrian/transit/bicycle # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | TOOLS & STRATEGIES | District Local | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Opt | Rec | - | - | Rec | Rec | | Lane Reconfigurations | Opt | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Str | | Volume Controls | Lim | Rec | - | - | - | Lim | | Speed Management | Rec | Rec | - | - | Rec | Opt | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Opt | Lim | - | - | Lim | Lim | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Opt | Str | Rec | - | Rec | Opt | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Lim | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | Opt | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersections | Opt | Lim | - | - | Opt | - | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Opt | Opt | - | - | Rec | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | Rec | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Opt | Opt | - | - | Opt | Opt | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Opt | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Opt | Str | Opt | - | - | - | | Bike Boulevards | Opt | Lim | - | Rec | - | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Opt | Lim | - | - | - | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Rec | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Opt | Str | Rec | - | Rec | - | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Opt | - | Opt | - | Opt | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Rec | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Bus Boarding Islands | Rec | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Rec | Opt | Str | - | Str | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | Opt | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Allow Dining Platforms / Parklets | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Loading Zones | Rec | Lim | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Opt | - | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Str | - | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Rec | Rec | Str | - | Str | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Tree Wells | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | - | **Str** Strongly Recommended **Rec** Recommended **Opt** Optional **Lim** Limited ### ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS * Low-volume, low-speed, 2 lanes, sometimes one-way. * 10-foot travel lanes with additional space for on-street parking ### PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS * 8-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street * Crosswalks should be present at all legs of the intersection * Reconstructions are an opportunity for incorporating bump outs, raised crosswalks, and other enhancements. * When connecting to signalized intersections, use LPIs ### BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS * With low speeds and volumes, bicycling in the roadway should be comfortable for most users. * On higher volume district local streets, consider 5’ minimum bike lanes. * Bike parking and other amenities should be provided where appropriate. **FUTURE BIKE NETWORK:** Suitable low stress facility required, typically a separated bikeway if there are concerns about parking conflicts. ### TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS * Typically, do not have active transit routes. **TRANSIT OVERLAY:** Dedicated transit space if appropriate for traffic volume. Consider signal improvements when connecting to larger streets. ### CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS * On-street parking desired on both sides of the street where space allows. * Some amenity zone with space for outdoor dining/parklets/retail where appropriate. ### PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS * Landscape treatments – Street Trees to provide character and comfortable environment. Enhanced site landscape recommended. * Lighting – roadway and pedestrian lighting recommended, unified design for vibrant District character. * Consider banners, wayfinding, and other enhancements at nodes to enhance District character. **PARK ACCESS OVERLAY:** Additional accommodations for bikes, wider sidewalks, lighting, and signage enhancements. # STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETS <
> LOCUST ST <
> CHESTNUT ST <
> 11TH ST <
> 22ND ST # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> CARDINAL WAY - BALLPARK VILLAGE <
> <
> JACKSON ST - ST PAUL, MN # DISTRICT CONNECTOR ## BASE CROSS-SECTION <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION These streets in core downtown areas of the city integrate residential, institutional, commercial, and recreational spaces. They prioritize pedestrian access with wide sidewalks, protected bike lanes, and transit stops, while also accommodating parking and loading zones. With moderate traffic and low-speed limits, these streets foster a dynamic, accessible environment that supports various uses and encourages vibrant street life. District Local Streets often connect to District Connector Streets, enhancing the overall connectivity and flow of the urban core. ### MULTI-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | L | M | H | | Pedestrian | | | X | | Bicycle | | | X | | Transit | | X | | | Curbside | | X | | | Vehicle | | X | | | Truck | | X | | ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Network Function** | Connector/cross-neighborhood | | **Adjacent Land use** | Mixed use, downtown and denser districts | | **AADT** | 2k - 10k - 20k | | **ROW Width** | 50’ - 100’ | | **Travel Lanes** | 2-3 lanes | | **Speed Limits** | Posted: 25 - 30 mph/Desired: 20 - 25 mph | | **Pedestrian** | Focused elements, 8’ min. sidewalks, crosswalks/bump-outs | | **Bicycles** | Priority in some areas, dedicated bike lane, 10’ minimum, 4’ buffer | | **Transit** | Safe, comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present. Can occupy curbside zone. Ensure safe crossing and transfer. | | **Vehicle** | Low speed, on-street parking, some commercial/truck loading zones | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * Central Areas (as identified in City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Plan, 2025) * Pedestrian focused, access to building entrances to be street facing, very mixed use, high density and strong urban character, prioritize public and social space * Building height varies, but aims for density. Maximum 20-30+ stories, and no limits on residential units/buildings * Front and Side yard (space between building edge and ROW) parking is discouraged, street parking is common. * Minimal to no curb cuts. * Prioritize pedestrian arrival to businesses. * Prioritize pedestrian/transit/bicycle # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | TOOLS & STRATEGIES | District Connector | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Rec | Rec | | Lane Reconfigurations | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Str | | Volume Controls | Lim | Opt | - | - | - | Lim | | Speed Management | Rec | Rec | - | - | Rec | Rec | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | Lim | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Str | Str | Str | - | Rec | Opt | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Opt | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Lim | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | Opt | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersections | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Opt | - | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Str | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Opt | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | Rec | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Opt | Opt | - | - | Opt | Opt | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Rec | Rec | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Opt | Str | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Bike Boulevards | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Opt | Str | Rec | - | Rec | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Rec | Opt | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Rec | - | Opt | - | Opt | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Rec | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Bus Boarding Islands | Rec | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Rec | Opt | Str | - | Str | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | Opt | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Allow Dining Platforms / Parklets | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Loading Zones | Opt | Lim | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Opt | Lim | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Rec | Rec | Str | - | Str | - | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Rec | Rec | Str | - | Str | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Tree Wells | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | - | Str: Strongly Recommended Rec: Recommended Opt: Optional Lim: Limited **ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS** * Mid-volume, low-speed, 2-3 lanes. * 10-foot travel lanes with additional space for on-street parking, dedicated turn lanes. **PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS** * 8-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street * Crosswalks should be present at all legs of the intersection * Reconstructions are an opportunity for incorporating bump outs, raised crosswalks, and other enhancements. * When connecting to signalized intersections, use LPIs **BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS** * On higher volume connector streets, consider dedicated bike lane (10’ minimum, 4’ buffer), and/or signed routes. * High visibility/green bike markings and enhanced intersections recommended. * Bike parking and other amenities should be provided where appropriate. * **FUTURE BIKE NETWORK:** Suitable low stress facility required, typically a separated bikeway. **TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS** * Occasionally have active transit routes. * Enhanced transit stops/stations to match District character. * **TRANSIT OVERLAY:** Safe, comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present. Can occupy curbside zone. Ensure safe crossing and connection. **CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS** * On-street parking desired on both sides of the street where space allows. * Some amenity zone with space for outdoor dining/parklets/retail where appropriate. **PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS** * Landscape treatments – Street Trees to provide character and comfortable environment. Enhanced site landscape recommended. * Lighting – roadway and pedestrian lighting recommended, unified design for vibrant District character. * Consider banners, wayfinding, and other enhancements at nodes to enhance District character. * **PARK ACCESS OVERLAY:** Additional accommodations for bikes, wider sidewalks, lighting, and signage enhancements. # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETS <
> OLIVE ST <
> N COMPTON AVE <
> 10TH ST <
> S 8TH ST # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> SARAH ST PROJECTS <
> NICOLLET MALL - MINNEAPOLIS, MN # DISTRICT MAIN STREET ## BASE CROSS-SECTION <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION Positioned in the districts throughout the City, these streets are designed as vibrant, pedestrian-oriented spaces that support local businesses. They feature welcoming streetscapes, parking and loading areas, bike lane connectivity, and transit stops. With low posted speed limits, these streets prioritize accessibility and ease of movement for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit users. Additionally, some Downtown Main Streets may occasionally be closed to vehicle traffic for community events, transforming into lively public spaces. ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | Network Function | District-level streets | | :--- | :--- | | Adjacent Land use | Concentration of active uses, mixed use, anchor use | | AADT | <10-20,000 | | ROW Width | 50' - 100' | | Travel Lanes | 2-3 lanes | | Speed Limits | Posted: 25 mph/Desired: 15 - 25 mph | | Pedestrian | Focused elements, 8' min. sidewalks, crosswalks/bump-outs | | Bicycles | Shared, sometimes optional dedicated bike lanes | | Transit | Limited/Optional - safe/comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present | | Vehicle | Low speed, on-street parking, some commercial/truck activity | ### MULTI-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | L | M | H | | Pedestrian | | | X | | Bicycle | | | X | | Transit | | | X | | Curbside | | | X | | Vehicle | | | X | | Truck | X | | | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * Central Areas, some Medium to High- Intensity (as identified in City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Plan, 2025) * Pedestrian focused, access to building entrances to be street facing, very mixed use, high density and strong urban character, prioritize public and social space * Building height varies, but aims for density. Maximum 20-30+ stories, and no limits on residential units/buildings * Front and Side yard (space between building edge and ROW) parking is discouraged, street parking is common. * Minimal to no curb cuts. * Prioritize pedestrian arrival to businesses. * Prioritize pedestrian/transit/bicycle # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | TOOLS & STRATEGIES | District Main Street | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | - | Rec | | Lane Reconfigurations | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | - | Str | | Volume Controls | Lim | Opt | - | - | - | Lim | | Speed Management | Rec | Rec | - | - | - | Rec | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Lim | Lim | - | - | - | Lim | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Rec | Str | Str | - | - | Opt | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | - | Opt | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Str | Rec | Str | - | - | Rec | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersections | Opt | Lim | Lim | - | - | - | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Str | Opt | Opt | - | - | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | - | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Str | Str | Str | - | - | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Str | Rec | Str | - | - | Str | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Lim | Opt | - | - | - | Opt | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Opt | Rec | Rec | - | - | Rec | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Opt | Str | Opt | - | - | Opt | | Bike Boulevards | Opt | Lim | Lim | - | - | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Opt | Lim | Lim | - | - | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Str | Str | Str | - | - | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Rec | Str | Rec | - | - | - | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Opt | Rec | Rec | - | - | Opt | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Opt | - | Opt | - | - | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Rec | Opt | Rec | - | - | Opt | | Bus Boarding Islands | Rec | Opt | Rec | - | - | Opt | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Str | Str | Str | - | - | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | - | Opt | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Str | Opt | Opt | - | - | Opt | | Allow Dining Platforms / Parklets | Str | Rec | Rec | - | - | Opt | | Loading Zones | Opt | Lim | Opt | - | - | Opt | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Opt | Lim | Opt | - | - | Opt | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Str | Str | Str | - | - | - | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | Str | - | - | - | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Str | Rec | Str | - | - | - | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Str | Rec | Str | - | - | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | - | - | | Tree Wells | Str | Rec | Rec | - | - | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | Str | Opt | Opt | - | - | - | Str: Strongly Recommended Rec: Recommended Opt: Optional Lim: Limited ### ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS * Low to mid-volume, low-speed, 2-3 lanes. * 10-foot travel lanes with additional space for on-street parking ### PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS * 8-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street * Crosswalks should be present at all legs of the intersection * Reconstructions are an opportunity for incorporating bump outs, raised crosswalks, and other enhancements. * When connecting to signalized intersections, use LPIs ### BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS * On higher volume connector streets, consider dedicated bike lane, and/or signed routes. * High visibility/green bike markings and enhanced intersections recommended. * Bike parking and other amenities should be provided where appropriate. **FUTURE BIKE NETWORK:** Suitable low stress facility required, typically a separated bikeway. ### TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS * Occasionally have active transit routes. * Enhanced transit stops/stations to match District character. **TRANSIT OVERLAY:** Dedicated transit space likely not required due to low volumes. Consider signal improvements when connecting to larger streets. ### CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS * On-street parking desired on both sides of the street where space allows. * Priority amenity zone with space for outdoor dining/parklets/retail. Enhanced site planting and furnishing. ### PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS * Landscape treatments – Street Trees to provide character and comfortable environment. Enhanced site landscape recommended. * Lighting – roadway and pedestrian lighting recommended, unified design for vibrant District character. * Consider banners, wayfinding, and other enhancements at nodes to enhance District character. **PARK ACCESS OVERLAY:** Additional accommodations for bikes, wider sidewalks, lighting, and signage enhancements. STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETS <
> DELMAR BLVD <
> MANCHESTER AVE <
> EUCLID AVE <
> WASHINGTON AVE # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> EAST LOOP DELMAR CID <
> <
> THE VILLAGE - WAUWATOSA, WI <
> STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # DISTRICT GATEWAY ## BASE CROSS-SECTION <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION These streets connect downtown to the rest of the city, serving as vital entry points and unique key corridors. Designed with dedicated transit and bike lanes, clear wayfinding, and low-speed limits, they facilitate commuter traffic while providing access to offices, residential areas, regional serving institutional and entertainment destinations, and commercial spaces. ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Network Function** | Primary network street | | **Adjacent Land use** | Mixed use, civic centers, institutions | | **AADT** | <10,000 | | **ROW Width** | 80’ - 100’+ | | **Travel Lanes** | 3-5 lanes | | **Speed Limits** | Posted: 25 - 30 mph/Desired: 25 - 30 mph | | **Pedestrian** | Focused elements, 8’ min. sidewalks, crosswalks/bump-outs | | **Bicycles** | Shared, sometimes optional dedicated bike lanes | | **Transit** | Limited/Optional - safe/comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present | | **Vehicle** | Low speed, on-street parking, some commercial/truck activity | ### MULTI-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | **L** | **M** | **H** | | Pedestrian | | | X | | Bicycle | | | X | | Transit | | X | | | Curbside | | X | | | Vehicle | | X | | | Truck | X | | | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * Central Areas, some Campus (as identified in City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Plan, 2025) * Pedestrian focused, access to building entrances to be street facing, very mixed use, high density and strong urban character, prioritize public and social space * Building height varies, but aims for density. Maximum 20-30+ stories, and no limits on residential units/buildings * Front and Side yard (space between building edge and ROW) parking is discouraged, street parking is common. * Minimal to no curb cuts. * Prioritize pedestrian arrival to businesses. * Prioritize pedestrian/transit/bicycle # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | TOOLS & STRATEGIES | District Gateway | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Rec | Rec | | Lane Reconfigurations | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Str | | Volume Controls | Lim | Opt | - | - | - | Lim | | Speed Management | Opt | Rec | - | - | Rec | Rec | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | Lim | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | Str | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Lim | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | Rec | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersections | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | - | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Str | Opt | Opt | - | Str | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Lim | Opt | Lim | - | Opt | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | Rec | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Opt | Opt | - | - | Opt | Opt | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | Str | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Rec | Str | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Bike Boulevards | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Rec | Opt | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Opt | - | Opt | - | Opt | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Opt | Rec | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Bus Boarding Islands | Rec | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Rec | Opt | Str | - | Str | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | Opt | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Loading Zones | Opt | Lim | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Opt | Lim | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Rec | Rec | Str | - | Str | - | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Rec | Rec | Str | - | Str | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Tree Wells | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | - | Str Strongly Recommended Rec Recommended Opt Optional Lim Limited **ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS** * Higher-volume, low-speed, 3-5+ lanes. * 10-foot travel lanes, designated turn lanes, additional space in some areas for on-street parking. **PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS** * 8-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street * Crosswalks should be present at all legs of the intersection * Midblock crossings strongly recommended to ensure safe crossing. * Reconstructions are an opportunity for incorporating bump outs, raised crosswalks, and other enhancements. * When connecting to signalized intersections, use LPIs **BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS** * On higher volume connector streets, consider dedicated bike lane, and/or signed routes. * High visibility/green bike markings and enhanced intersections recommended. * Bike parking and other amenities should be provided where appropriate. * **FUTURE BIKE NETWORK:** Suitable facilities required, typically dedicated bikeway. High visibility, protected intersections and bike amenities prioritized. **TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS** * Often have active transit routes. * Enhanced transit stops/stations to match District character. * **TRANSIT OVERLAY:** Safe, comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present. Can occupy curbside zone. Ensure safe crossing and transfer. **CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS** * On-street parking desired on both sides of the street where space allows. **PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS** * Landscape treatments – Street Trees to provide character and comfortable environment. Enhanced site landscape recommended. * Lighting – roadway and pedestrian lighting recommended, unified design for vibrant District character. * Consider banners, wayfinding, and other enhancements to enhance District character. * **PARK ACCESS OVERLAY:** Additional accommodations for bikes, wider sidewalks, lighting, and signage enhancements. STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETS <
> MARKET ST <
> 14TH ST <
> TUCKER BLVD <
> BROADWAY # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> BRICKLINE GREENWAY - MARKET ST <
> <
> WASHINGTON AVENUE CORRIDOR - MINNEAPOLIS, MN # MIXED USE LOCAL ## BASE CROSS-SECTION <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION These streets serve as key routes within neighborhoods, linking residential areas to local amenities such as schools, parks, and small businesses. They typically feature medium traffic volumes and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, including sidewalks, bike lanes, and safe crossings. Mixed Use Local streets support a balance of local traffic and non-motorized transportation, fostering accessibility and connectivity within the community. ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | Network Function | Localized Access | | :--- | :--- | | **Adjacent Land use** | Commercial, Mixed-Use | | **AADT** | < 2,000 | | **ROW Width** | 40’ - 60’ | | **Travel Lanes** | unmarked to 2 lanes | | **Speed Limits** | Posted: 25 mph or not posted/Desired: 15 - 20 mph | | **Pedestrian** | Friendly elements, 5’ min. sidewalks, crosswalks/bump-outs | | **Bicycles** | Shared lanes | | **Transit** | Limited/Optional - safe comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present. May require some dedicated transit infrastructure. | | **Vehicle** | Low speed, on-street parking, some one-way configurations | ### MULTI-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | **L** | **M** | **H** | | Pedestrian | | | X | | Bicycle | | | X | | Transit | | | X | | Curbside | | X | | | Vehicle | | X | | | Truck | X | | | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * High-Intensity Nodes and Campuses (as identified in City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Plan, 2025) * Pedestrian focused, high quality streetscape, sometimes distinct character * Building height variable, generally up to 8 stories, but could be higher in key locations. * Front and Side yard (space between building edge and ROW) parking is discouraged, street parking is common. * Minimal to no curb cuts. * Prioritize pedestrian/transit/bicycle # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | TOOLS & STRATEGIES | Mixed-Use Local | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Opt | Rec | - | Str | Rec | Str | | Lane Reconfigurations | Opt | Rec | Opt | Str | Rec | Rec | | Volume Controls | Opt | Rec | - | Rec | Lim | Lim | | Speed Management | Rec | Rec | - | Str | Rec | Opt | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Opt | Lim | Lim | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Opt | Str | Rec | Str | Rec | Opt | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Opt | Opt | Lim | Opt | Opt | Opt | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Rec | Opt | Opt | Str | Str | Opt | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersections | Opt | Opt | Lim | Rec | Rec | - | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Opt | - | Opt | Rec | Rec | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Rec | Rec | Opt | Rec | Opt | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Str | Str | Str | Rec | Str | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Opt | - | Rec | Opt | Rec | Rec | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Opt | Opt | Lim | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Opt | Rec | Opt | Opt | Rec | Rec | | Bike Boulevards | Opt | Opt | Lim | Opt | Opt | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Opt | Lim | - | Opt | Opt | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Opt | - | Opt | - | - | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Bus Boarding Islands | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Opt | - | Rec | - | Rec | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Rec | Lim | Opt | Rec | Rec | Rec | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Opt | Lim | Opt | Opt | Opt | Opt | | Allow Dining Platforms / Parklets | Rec | Opt | Opt | Rec | Opt | Opt | | Loading Zones | Rec | - | Opt | - | Opt | Rec | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Rec | - | Opt | - | Opt | Rec | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Str | Str | Str | Str | Str | Str | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | Str | Str | Str | Str | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Opt | Rec | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Opt | - | Str | - | Rec | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Opt | - | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Tree Wells | Lim | - | Opt | - | Lim | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | Rec | Opt | Opt | Rec | Rec | Opt | * **Str** Strongly Recommended * **Rec** Recommended * **Opt** Optional * **Lim** Limited **ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS** * Low-volume, low-speed, unmarked lanes. * 10-foot travel lanes with additional space for on-street parking **PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS** * 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street * Crosswalks should be present at all legs of the intersection * Reconstructions are an opportunity for incorporating bump outs, raised crosswalks, and other enhancements. * When connecting to signalized intersections, use LPIs **BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS** * With low speeds and volumes, bicycling in the roadway should be comfortable for most users. * On higher volume local streets, consider sharrows, signed routes, and/or bike boulevard treatments. * **FUTURE BIKE NETWORK:** Suitable low stress facility required, typically a normal/buffered lane. **TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS** * Occasionally have active transit routes. * **TRANSIT OVERLAY:** Dedicated transit space likely not required due to low volumes. Consider signal improvements when connecting to larger streets. **CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS** * On-street parking desired on both sides of the street where space allows. **PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS** * Landscape treatments – Street Trees to provide character and comfortable environment * Lighting – focused primarily at crossings and intersections. * Consider banners, signs, and other enhancements to enhance character. * **PARK ACCESS OVERLAY:** Additional accommodations for bikes, wider sidewalks, lighting, and signage enhancements. STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETTS <
> LASALLE ST <
> MIAMI ST <
> DUNCAN AVE <
> ENRIGHT AVE Transportation & Mobility Plan 205 # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> FOURTH AVE - ANN ARBOR, MI <
> <
> GREENE ST - ANN ARBOR, MI <
> # MIXED USE CONNECTOR <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION These streets form the core of high-intensity commercial areas, characterized by concentrated retail, office, and service-oriented businesses. They often serve as significant transportation corridors, accommodating heavy traffic flow and multiple transit routes. With wide sidewalks, transit stops, and parking facilities, they support high volumes of pedestrian, vehicular, and transit activity, ensuring accessibility for shoppers, commuters, and workers. ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Network Function** | Connector/cross-neighborhood | | **Adjacent Land use** | Commercial and Mixed-Use, multi-family residential | | **AADT** | 2k - 15k - 20k | | **ROW Width** | 60' - 80' | | **Travel Lanes** | 2 - 3 lanes | | **Speed Limits** | Posted: 25 - 30 mph/Desired: 25 mph | | **Pedestrian** | Friendly elements, 5' min. sidewalks, crosswalks/bump-outs | | **Bicycles** | High priority, 5' min. dedicated bike lanes | | **Transit** | High priority - shared transit lanes, safe comfortable bus stops & amenities provided where transit stops are present. | | **Vehicle** | Low speed, optional on-street parking | ### MULTI-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | **L** | **M** | **H** | | Pedestrian | | | X | | Bicycle | | | X | | Transit | | | X | | Curbside | | X | | | Vehicle | | X | | | Truck | | X | | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * Medium-Intensity Corridors (as identified in City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Plan, 2025) * Pedestrian focused, access to building entrances to be street facing * Building similar in height and size to the historic buildings, typically 3-5 stories and no limits on residential units/buildings * Front and Side yard (space between building edge and ROW) parking is discouraged, street parking is common. * Minimal to no curb cuts. * Prioritize pedestrian arrival to businesses. # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | TOOLS & STRATEGIES | Mixed-Use Connector | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Rec | Rec | | Lane Reconfigurations | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Str | | Volume Controls | Lim | Opt | - | - | - | Lim | | Speed Management | Opt | Rec | - | - | Rec | Rec | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | Lim | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Str | Str | Str | - | Rec | Opt | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Lim | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Rec | Opt | Rec | - | Rec | Rec | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersections | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Opt | - | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Rec | Opt | Rec | - | Str | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Opt | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Rec | Rec | Str | - | Rec | Str | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Opt | Rec | - | - | Rec | Opt | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Rec | Rec | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Opt | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Bike Boulevards | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Rec | Opt | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Opt | - | Opt | - | Opt | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Rec | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Bus Boarding Islands | Opt | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Rec | Opt | Str | - | Str | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | Opt | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Allow Dining Platforms / Parklets | Lim | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Loading Zones | Opt | Lim | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Opt | Lim | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Rec | Rec | Str | - | Str | - | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Opt | Opt | Str | - | Str | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | - | | Tree Wells | Opt | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | - | * Str: Strongly Recommended * Rec: Recommended * Opt: Optional * Lim: Limited --- ### ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS * Mid-volume, low-speed, 2-3 lanes. * 10-foot travel lanes with additional space for optional on-street parking. ### PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS * 6-foot minimum sidewalks on both sides of the street * Opportunity for wider 8- or 10-foot sidewalks to serve as multi-use paths * Crosswalks should be present at all legs of the intersection * Reconstructions are an opportunity for incorporating bump outs, raised crosswalks, and other enhancements. * When connecting to signalized intersections, use LPIs. ### BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS * On higher volume connector streets, consider dedicated bikeways, and/or signed routes. * High visibility/green bike markings and enhanced intersections recommended. * Bike parking and other amenities should be provided where appropriate. * **FUTURE BIKE NETWORK:** Suitable low stress facility required, typically a separated bikeway. ### TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS * Occasionally have active transit routes. * Enhanced transit stops/stations recommended. * **TRANSIT OVERLAY:** Safe, comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present. Can occupy curbside zone or bus boarding islands. Ensure safe crossing and connection. ### CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS * On-street parking optional on both sides of the street where space allows and does not conflict with bike priority. ### PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS * Landscape treatments – Street Trees to provide character and comfortable environment * Lighting – focused primarily at crossings and intersections. Enhanced pedestrian lighting where appropriate. * Consider banners, signs, and other enhancements to enhance character. * **PARK ACCESS OVERLAY:** Additional accommodations for bikes, wider sidewalks, lighting, and signage enhancements. STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETS <
> WATSON RD <
> CHOUTEAU AVE <
> S GRAND BLVD <
> N FLORISSANT AVE # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> BRICKLINE GREENWAY - NORTH CONNECTOR <
> <
> 28TH/31ST AVE CONNECTOR - NASHVILLE, TN <
> # MIXED USE ARTERIAL ## BASE CROSS-SECTION <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION Mixed Use Arterial streets typically carry the highest levels of vehicle traffic and transit service across the city, while also traversing through a range of land use conditions, including mixes of commercial and residential uses at varying levels of density. Suburban development patterns are typically evident today, but in some locations increased density and more urban land patterns are desired. These streets are critical transportation corridors connecting across the city, often connecting to interstates, but can also create challenging boundaries between neighborhoods. Rights-of-way are typically wide however, so ensuring that all travelers, regardless of their means of travel, are able to safely and comfortably move along and across these streets is essential. ### MULTI-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | **L** | **M** | **H** | | Pedestrian | | | X | | Bicycle | | X | | | Transit | | | X | | Curbside | | X | | | Vehicle | | | X | | Truck | | | X | ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Network Function** | Primary network street | | **Adjacent Land use** | Commercial and Mixed-Use, multi-family residential | | **AADT** | 15k - 20k + | | **ROW Width** | 80' - 100' | | **Travel Lanes** | 3 - 5 lanes | | **Speed Limits** | Posted: 25 - 35 mph/Desired: 25 - 30 mph | | **Pedestrian** | Friendly infrastructure, 5' min. sidewalks, crosswalks/bump-outs, midblock crossings, buffer from traffic | | **Bicycles** | Priority in some areas, 10' min. lanes with 2' buffer | | **Transit** | High priority - some dedicated transit lanes, mostly shared. Safe, comfortable bus stops where transit stops are present. Can occupy curbside zone. Ensure safe crossing and transfer | | **Vehicle** | Low speed, optional on-street parking, access management | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * Medium-intensity and High-intensity Corridor, some Industrial (as identified in City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Plan, 2025) * Pedestrian focused, access to building entrances to be street facing * Building similar in height and size to the historic buildings, typically 3-5 stories and no limits on residential units/buildings * Front and Side yard (space between building edge and ROW) parking is discouraged, street parking is common. * Prioritize pedestrian arrival to businesses. * Prioritize pedestrian/transit/bicycle # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | TOOLS & STRATEGIES | Mixed-Use Arterial | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Rec | Rec | | Lane Reconfigurations | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Str | | Volume Controls | Lim | Opt | - | - | - | Lim | | Speed Management | Lim | Rec | - | - | Rec | Rec | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | Lim | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Str | Str | Str | - | Rec | Opt | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Lim | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Opt | Opt | Rec | - | Rec | Rec | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersections | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | - | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Str | Opt | Str | - | Str | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Lim | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Rec | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Rec | Rec | Str | - | Str | Str | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Opt | Rec | - | - | Rec | Opt | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Str | Rec | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Opt | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Bike Boulevards | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Rec | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Str | - | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Str | Opt | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Opt | - | Rec | - | Opt | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Opt | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Bus Boarding Islands | Opt | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Rec | Opt | Str | - | Str | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | Opt | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Allow Dining Platforms / Parklets | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Loading Zones | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Opt | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Opt | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Opt | Rec | Str | - | Str | - | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Opt | Opt | Str | - | Str | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | - | | Tree Wells | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | - | Str Strongly Recommended Rec Recommended Opt Optional Lim Limited ### ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS * Higher-volume, low-speed, 3-5 lanes. * 10-foot travel lanes, designated turn lanes ### PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS * 6-foot minimum sidewalks on both sides of the street * Opportunity for wider 8- or 10-foot sidewalks to serve as multi-use paths * Crosswalks should be present at all legs of the intersection * Reconstructions are an opportunity for incorporating bump outs, raised crosswalks, midblock crossings, and other enhancements. * When connecting to signalized intersections, use LPIs. ### BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS * Bicycles are prioritized in some areas, typically with separated bicycle facilities. * **FUTURE BIKE NETWORK:** Suitable facilities required, typically a separated bikeway. High visibility, protected intersections and bike amenities prioritized. ### TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS * Often have active transit routes. * Enhanced transit stops/stations recommended. * **TRANSIT OVERLAY:** Safe, comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present. Can occupy curbside zone or bus boarding islands. Ensure safe crossing and connection. ### CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS * On-street parking optional. ### PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS * Landscape treatments – Street Trees to provide character and comfortable environment * Lighting – focused primarily at crossings and intersections. Enhanced pedestrian lighting where appropriate. * Consider banners, signs, and other enhancements to enhance character. * **PARK ACCESS OVERLAY:** Additional accommodations for bikes, wider sidewalks, lighting, and signage enhancements. STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETS <
> HAMPTON AVE <
> GRAVOIS AVE <
> KINGSHIGHWAY BLVD <
> DR MLK JR DR # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> 4TH AVE - MINNEAPOLIS, MN <
> FORD RD - CANTON, MI <
> 300 WEST RECONSTRUCTION - SALT LAKE CITY, UT <
> STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # PARK INTERIOR ## BASE CROSS-SECTION <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION These streets are major circulation routes within large parks, providing public access to amenities as well as space for maintenance purposes. Adjacent to multiuse paths or sometimes acting as trails, they often provide on-street parking for visitors and need to be designed in a way for cars to coincide with bike and pedestrian traffic. These streets are designed as slow streets for a wide mix of user types and to be compatible with park activities. Often near residential areas, they connect neighborhoods to recreational spaces, promoting active, healthy lifestyles. ### MULTI-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | L | M | H | | Pedestrian | | | X | | Bicycle | | | X | | Transit | | X | | | Curbside | X | | | | Vehicle | | X | | | Truck | X | | | ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Network Function** | Localized Access | | **Adjacent Land use** | Interior of parks, civic centers | | **AADT** | < 10,000 | | **ROW Width** | n/a | | **Travel Lanes** | unmarked to 2 lanes | | **Speed Limits** | Posted: 25 mph or not posted/Desired: 15 - 20 mph | | **Pedestrian** | Friendly elements, 5’ min. sidewalks, shared-use path, enhanced crossings | | **Bicycles** | Greenway/Shared-use side path | | **Transit** | Limited | | **Vehicle** | Low speed, may have on-street parking | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * Interior to parks, the adjacent land uses are largely recreational. Park Interior streets support the everyday uses of the park in addition to flexing to accommodate park events. * Open Space - Parks/Community Space (as identified in City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Plan, 2025) * Public outdoor areas serving recreation, community, ecological, or economical functions. * Limited buildings * Parking restrictions: n/a # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | TOOLS & STRATEGIES | Park Interior | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Opt | Rec | Opt | - | - | Str | | Lane Reconfigurations | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | - | Str | | Volume Controls | Lim | Opt | - | - | - | Lim | | Speed Management | Str | Str | Rec | - | - | Str | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Opt | Lim | Lim | - | - | Opt | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Str | Str | Str | - | - | Opt | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | - | Opt | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Str | Rec | Str | - | - | Str | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersections | Str | Opt | Lim | - | - | - | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | - | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | - | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Str | Str | Str | - | - | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Str | Rec | Str | - | - | Rec | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Str | Opt | Opt | - | - | Str | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | - | Rec | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Rec | Str | Opt | - | - | Rec | | Bike Boulevards | Opt | Opt | Lim | - | - | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Opt | Lim | Lim | - | - | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Str | Str | Str | - | - | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Rec | Str | Rec | - | - | Opt | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | - | Opt | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Lim | - | Opt | - | - | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Opt | Opt | Rec | - | - | Opt | | Bus Boarding Islands | Opt | Opt | Rec | - | - | Opt | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Rec | Str | Str | - | - | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Rec | Opt | Opt | - | - | Opt | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Lim | Opt | Opt | - | - | Opt | | Allow Dining Platforms / Parklets | Lim | Opt | Opt | - | - | Opt | | Loading Zones | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Opt | Lim | Opt | - | - | Opt | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Str | Str | Str | - | - | Str | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | Str | - | - | Str | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Str | Str | Str | - | - | Str | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Str | Str | Str | - | - | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | - | - | | Tree Wells | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | - | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | - | - | * Str: Strongly Recommended * Rec: Recommended * Opt: Optional * Lim: Limited ## ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS * 5-foot minimum, low-speed, unmarked lanes. * 10-foot minimum travel lanes, with space for parking lanes ## PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS * 5-foot minimum sidewalks (widened sidewalks desired), often have shared-use path to accommodate volume of pedestrians, cyclists, etc. * Crosswalks should be present at all legs of the intersection * Reconstructions are an opportunity for incorporating bump outs, raised crosswalks, and other enhancements. * When connecting to signalized intersections, use LPIs ## BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS * Greenway/Shared-use path strongly recommended. * With low speeds and volumes, bicycling in the roadway should be comfortable for most users. * These streets also offer opportunities for periodic closure to vehicles and enhanced bicycle use. ## TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS * Typically, do not have active transit routes. **TRANSIT OVERLAY:** Dedicated transit space likely not required due to low volumes. Consider signal improvements when connecting to larger streets. ## CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS * On-street parking desired on both sides of the street where space allows. ## PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS * Landscape treatments – Street Trees to provide character and comfortable environment. Enhanced site landscape planing recommended. * Lighting – strongly recommended roadway and pedestrian lighting. * Consider banners, signs, and other enhancements at entrances. # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETS <
> WELLS DR - FOREST PARK <
> LOUGHBOROUGH DR - CARONDELET PARK <
> PRAIRIE AVE - FAIRGROUND PARK <
> POPLAR ST - GATEWAY ARCH PARK # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> PALMER PARK - DETROIT, MI <
> CENTRAL PARK - MANHATTAN, NY # INDUSTRIAL SERVICE ## BASE CROSS-SECTION <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION These streets are predominantly lined with industrial land uses, such as warehouses and factories, and experience heavy truck traffic. These streets provide primary access to local industry sites and direct deliveries to businesses. Pedestrian safety is critical, with features like signalized crossings and sidewalks to ensure safe access for foot traffic in an otherwise vehicle-dominated environment. Active modes of transportation have to be carefully designed to function alongside truck traffic with infrastructure like protected bike lanes. These streets often do not have sidewalks and need to be made compatible with pedestrian and transit users. Clear delineation for each user type will greatly improve safety. ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | Network Function | Local Access, high % of trucks | | :--- | :--- | | Adjacent Land use | Industrial and commercial | | AADT | < 5,000 | | ROW Width | 40' - 80' | | Travel Lanes | unmarked to 2 lanes | | Speed Limits | Posted: 25 mph or not posted/Desired: 15 - 20 mph | | Pedestrian | 5' min sidewalks, safety-focused | | Bicycles | Shared lanes | | Transit | Limited/Optional - safe, comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present | | Vehicle | Low speed, on-street parking | ### MULTI-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | **L** | **M** | **H** | | Pedestrian | | X | | | Bicycle | | X | | | Transit | | X | | | Curbside | | X | | | Vehicle | | | X | | Truck | | | X | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * Leading to industrial areas, Industrial Connectors may coincide with a variety of land uses while the primary industrial use influences the design of the street. * Strategic Land Use Plan categories include Core and Flex Industrial. Core industrial areas intend to encourage all industrial uses from light to heavy, logistics, and research and development. Maintaining safe environments for multiple modes of transportation will be important in these areas. Flex Industrial areas encourage a variety of land uses. # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | TOOLS & STRATEGIES | Industrial Service | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Opt | Rec | - | - | Rec | Rec | | Lane Reconfigurations | Opt | Rec | - | - | Rec | Str | | Volume Controls | Lim | Opt | - | - | Lim | Lim | | Speed Management | Rec | Rec | - | - | Str | Opt | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Lim | Lim | - | - | Opt | Lim | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Opt | Str | - | - | Rec | Opt | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | Lim | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Opt | Opt | - | - | Str | Opt | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersections | Lim | Lim | - | - | Rec | - | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Opt | Opt | - | - | Rec | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Lim | Rec | - | - | Opt | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Rec | Str | - | - | Str | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Lim | Rec | - | - | Rec | Rec | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Lim | Rec | - | - | Rec | Opt | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Lim | Str | - | - | Rec | Rec | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Rec | Rec | - | - | Rec | Rec | | Bike Boulevards | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Opt | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Opt | Str | - | - | Rec | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Rec | Str | - | - | Rec | Opt | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Lim | Str | - | - | Rec | Opt | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Lim | - | - | - | - | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Lim | Opt | - | - | Opt | Opt | | Bus Boarding Islands | Lim | Opt | - | - | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Rec | Opt | - | - | Rec | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Rec | Opt | - | - | Opt | Opt | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Opt | Opt | - | - | Opt | Opt | | Allow Dining Platforms / Parklets | Lim | Lim | - | - | Opt | Lim | | Loading Zones | Rec | Lim | - | - | Opt | Rec | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Lim | Lim | - | - | Opt | Opt | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Rec | Str | - | - | Str | Rec | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | - | - | Str | Str | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Opt | Rec | - | - | Str | - | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Opt | Opt | - | - | Rec | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Lim | Opt | - | - | Rec | - | | Tree Wells | Rec | Rec | - | - | Rec | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | - | - | - | - | - | - | **Str** Strongly Recommended **Rec** Recommended **Opt** Optional **Lim** Limited ### ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS * 5-foot sidewalks on one or both sides of the street * 10-foot travel lanes, with space for parking lanes ### PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS * 5-foot sidewalks on one or both sides of the street * Crosswalks should be present at all legs of the intersection * Reconstructions are an opportunity for incorporating optional bump-outs/midblock crossings ### BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS * With low speeds and volumes, bicycling in the roadway should be comfortable for most users. ### TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS * Typically, do not have active transit routes. ### CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS * On-street parking desired on both sides of the street where space allows. * Priority loading zones for trucks ### PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS * Landscape treatments – Street trees are important for shading sidewalks and managing stormwater. Plant trees in curbed planting areas to provide a durable planting area. * Lighting – roadway lighting strongly recommended. **PARK ACCESS OVERLAY:** Additional accommodations for bikes, wider sidewalks, lighting, and signage enhancements. # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETS <
> CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL DR <
> S 1ST ST <
> BROWN AVE <
> FRISCO AVE # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> <
> COTTAGE GROVE - GRAND RAPIDS, MI # INDUSTRIAL CONNECTOR ## BASE CROSS-SECTION <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION These streets are connector streets that provide access to industrial areas. These streets experience heavy truck traffic and may be adjacent to a mix of both industrial and other land uses. The primary users are workers commuting to and from these sites as well as the movement of goods. Pedestrian safety is critical, with features like signalized crossings and sidewalks to ensure safe access for foot traffic in an otherwise vehicle-dominated environment. Active modes of transportation have to be carefully designed to function alongside truck traffic with infrastructure like protected bike lanes. These streets often do not have sidewalks and need to be made compatible with pedestrian and transit users. ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Network Function** | Local Access, high % of trucks | | **Adjacent Land use** | Industrial and commercial | | **AADT** | 5K - 20K | | **ROW Width** | 80' - 100' | | **Travel Lanes** | 2 - 5 lanes | | **Speed Limits** | Posted: 25 - 35 mph/Desired: 25 - 35 mph | | **Pedestrian** | 5' min sidewalks, safety-focused | | **Bicycles** | Bike Lanes | | **Transit** | Limited/Optional - safe, comfortable bus stops provided where transit stops are present | | **Vehicle** | Low speed, optional on-street parking | ### MULTI-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | **L** | **M** | **H** | | Pedestrian | | X | | | Bicycle | | X | | | Transit | | | X | | Curbside | X | | | | Vehicle | | | X | | Truck | | | X | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * Leading to industrial areas, Industrial Connectors may coincide with a variety of land uses while the primary industrial use influences the design of the street. * Strategic Land Use Plan categories include Core and Flex Industrial. Core industrial areas intend to encourage all industrial uses from light to heavy, logistics, and research and development. Maintaining safe environments for multiple modes of transportation will be important in these areas. Flex Industrial areas encourage a variety of land uses. # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | TOOLS & STRATEGIES | Industrial Connector | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Rec | Rec | | Lane Reconfigurations | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Str | | Volume Controls | Lim | Opt | - | - | - | Lim | | Speed Management | Lim | Rec | - | - | Rec | Rec | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | Lim | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Str | Str | Str | - | Rec | Opt | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Lim | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Opt | Opt | Rec | - | Rec | Rec | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersections | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | - | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Rec | Opt | Str | - | Str | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Lim | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Rec | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Lim | Opt | Str | - | Str | Opt | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Rec | Rec | - | - | Rec | Opt | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Str | Rec | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Opt | Rec | Opt | - | Rec | Opt | | Bike Boulevards | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Opt | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Str | - | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Str | Opt | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Opt | - | Rec | - | Opt | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Rec | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Bus Boarding Islands | Opt | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Rec | Opt | Str | - | Str | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Lim | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | Opt | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Allow Dining Platforms / Parklets | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Loading Zones | Rec | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Opt | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Opt | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Opt | Rec | Str | - | Str | - | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Opt | Opt | Str | - | Str | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Rec | - | | Tree Wells | Rec | Rec | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | - | - | - | - | - | - | Str: Strongly Recommended Rec: Recommended Opt: Optional Lim: Limited ### ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS * 5-foot sidewalks on one or both sides of the street * 10-foot travel lanes, with space for parking lanes ### PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS * 5-foot sidewalks on one or both sides of the street * Crosswalks should be present at all legs of the intersection * Reconstructions are an opportunity for incorporating optional bump-outs/midblock crossings ### BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS On higher volume connector streets, consider dedicated bikeways and/or signed routes. **FUTURE BIKE NETWORK:** Suitable facility required, typically a separated bikeway. ### TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS * Typically, do not have active transit routes. ### CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS * On-street parking desired on both sides of the street where space allows. * Priority loading zones for trucks ### PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS * Landscape treatments – Street trees are important for shading sidewalks and managing stormwater. Plant trees in curbed planting areas to provide a durable planting area. * Lighting – roadway lighting strongly recommended. **PARK ACCESS OVERLAY:** Additional accommodations for bikes, wider sidewalks, lighting, and signage enhancements. STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETS <
> HALL ST <
> GUSTINE AVE # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> GODFREY AVE - GRAND RAPIDS, MI <
> BAGLEY ST - DETROIT, MI # LIMITED ACCESS ## BASE CROSS-SECTION <
> ## KEY INFORMATION ### STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION Limited Access Streets are high-traffic roadways with multiple travel lanes that typically do not provide direct access to adjacent properties. These corridors are often buffered by open spaces, trails, utilities, or the adjacent to the rear of parcels, rather than front-facing buildings or active frontages. While vehicle movement is prioritized, these streets may include multi-use paths or sidepaths to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access, often set back from the roadway. Many Limited Access Streets also serve as transit corridors, supporting bus routes or express services while minimizing points of conflict with local traffic ### MULTI-MODAL PRIORITIES | User Type | Priority | | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | **L** | **M** | **H** | | Pedestrian | | X | | | Bicycle | | X | | | Transit | | | X | | Curbside | X | | | | Vehicle | | | X | | Truck | | | X | ### TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Network Function** | Connector/primary network street | | **Adjacent Land use** | varies | | **AADT** | > 50k | | **ROW Width** | 80' - 100' | | **Travel Lanes** | 4+ | | **Speed Limits** | Posted: 25 - 45 mph/Desired: 25 - 35 mph | | **Pedestrian** | Limited pedestrian infrastructure with refugee islands at intersection and utilizing side path/multi-use paths | | **Bicycles** | Bicycle infrastructure utilizing sidepaths, multi-use paths, and trails | | **Transit** | Opportunity for dedicated transit infrastructure | | **Vehicle** | High priority vehicle lanes, no on-street parking | ### LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS * SLUP – Low to Medium-Intensity Neighborhood, Open Space, Campuses * Front and Side yard (space between building edge and ROW) parking is discouraged. * Use available corridor space to buffer roadway noise # DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | TOOLS & STRATEGIES | Limited Access | Bike Priority | Transit Emphasis | Calm Streets | Park Access | Road Diet | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Roadway Configuration** | | | | | | | | Design Speed Assessment | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Rec | Rec | | Lane Reconfigurations | Rec | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Str | | Volume Controls | Lim | Opt | - | - | - | Lim | | Speed Management | Lim | Rec | - | - | Rec | Rec | | Roundabouts / Traffic Circles | Rec | Lim | Opt | - | Lim | Rec | | Enhanced Pavement Markings | Rec | Str | Str | - | Rec | Opt | | Curbless / Shared Strees | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Lim | | **Pedestrian Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Bumpouts / Curb Extensions | Lim | Opt | Rec | - | Rec | Rec | | Raised Crosswalks/Intersections | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Opt | - | | Enhanced Mid-Block Crossings | Lim | Lim | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Hardened Centerlines / Corners | Lim | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | - | | Leading Pedestrian Intervals | Rec | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Widened Sidewalks | Opt | Opt | Rec | - | Rec | Opt | | **Bicycle Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Greenway / Shared-Use Side Path | Str | Rec | Str | - | Str | Str | | Separated/Protected Bikeways | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Rec | Rec | | Normal/Buffered Lanes | Opt | Rec | Opt | - | Opt | Opt | | Bike Boulevards | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Shared Lanes / Sharrow | Lim | Lim | - | - | Lim | - | | Bike Amenities (repair, racks) | Lim | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | High Visibility / Green Bike Markings | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Rec | - | | Protected/Enhanced Intersections | Rec | Str | Rec | - | Rec | Opt | | **Transit Enhancements** | | | | | | | | Transit Operational Enhancements | Opt | - | Opt | - | Opt | - | | In-Lane Bus Boarding | Lim | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Bus Boarding Islands | Lim | Opt | Rec | - | Opt | Opt | | Enhanced Transit Stops / Stations | Opt | Opt | Str | - | Str | - | | **Curbside Zone** | | | | | | | | On-Street Parking | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Opt | Lim | | On-Street Parking, Metered | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Opt | Lim | | Allow Dining Platforms / Parklets | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Lim | | Loading Zones | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Lim | | Pick-up / Drop-off Zones / Valet | Lim | Lim | Lim | - | Lim | Lim | | **Amenity Zone** | | | | | | | | Street Trees | Rec | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Roadway Lighting | Str | Str | Str | - | Str | - | | Enhanced Lighting (Pedestrian) | Rec | Rec | Str | - | Str | - | | Seating & Site Furnishings | Lim | Opt | Str | - | Str | - | | Landscape Planting Beds | Opt | Opt | Opt | - | Rec | - | | Tree Wells | Lim | Opt | Opt | - | Opt | - | | Sidewalk Dining & Retail | - | - | - | - | - | - | Str Strongly Recommended Rec Recommended Opt Optional Lim Limited ### ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS * High-volume, 3+ lanes * 10-foot+ travel lanes ### PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS * Limited pedestrian infrastructure with refugee islands at intersection and utilizing side path/multi-use paths ### BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS * Utilize Shared-Use Sidepath where appropriate * If there is no room for dedicated space for bike and pedestrian facilities, look for parallel routes as alternative. ### TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS * Occasionally have active transit routes **TRANSIT OVERLAY:** Opportunity for dedicated transit infrastructure, enhanced transit stops. ### CURBSIDE CONSIDERATIONS * No active curbside, shoulder for emergency ### PLACEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS * Dense tree planting can serve as buffer for adjacent land-uses. Opportunity for storm water management in large open areas. * Consider banners, signs, and other enhancements. **PARK ACCESS OVERLAY:** Additional accommodations for bikes, wider sidewalks, lighting, and signage enhancements. **BIKE PRIORITY OVERLAY:** Recommended separated/shared-use path with high visibility green markings. STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - STREET TYPE GUIDELINES # LOCAL EXAMPLE STREETS <
> RIVER DES PERES BLVD <
> FOREST PARK PARKWAY Transportation & Mobility Plan 229 # BENCHMARK PROJECTS <
> <
> REDLAND ROAD CROSSING - PORTLAND, OR # STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK IMPLEMENTATION The Street Design Framework (SDF) is intended to be a living tool, one that evolves as the City of St. Louis grows, adapts, and responds to changing transportation needs, land use patterns, and community goals. As such, ongoing stewardship and implementation are critical to its success. Moving forward, the City will maintain and update the SDF document and the associated street framework map. This includes periodic review of modal overlays, such as bike, transit, calm streets, park access, and road diets, to ensure they reflect the most current plans and priorities. Other planning initiatives may lead to updates of the street framework map, including corridor or traffic studies, neighborhood planning, or partner agency initiatives. As these plans evolve, the overlays should be adjusted accordingly to stay aligned with long-term strategies. In addition to updates to overlays, the interactive street typology map will be updated on an as-needed basis in response to project demands, significant changes in land use, new infrastructure, or evolving mobility priorities. While there is no formal update cycle, the City will revisit the map when specific changes warrant adjustments, ensuring the framework remains responsive and relevant as both a planning and design tool. This demand-based approach allows the Street Design Framework to adapt efficiently to real-world conditions without requiring a full-scale reassessment at regular intervals. To further support implementation, the City should begin work on a companion Design Standards document, which builds on the principles of the SDF and translates them into technical guidance and more detailed engineering standards. This future set of standards would provide detailed information on street elements, cross-sections, and treatments for different contexts, serving as a bridge between conceptual vision and on-the-ground execution. The SDF document will also serve as a coordination and training resource for partner agencies, consultants, developers, and internal City departments. Training materials and user group guidance to educate stakeholders on how to use the SDF, who should use it, and when it should be applied throughout project planning and design are recommended. This ensures that the framework is consistently interpreted and effectively applied across all levels of street and infrastructure work. Finally, and most critically, the SDF must be fully integrated into the City’s Capital Implementation Program (CIP) process. Without being tied directly to how projects are scoped, prioritized, and funded, the framework’s potential to shape safer, more equitable and more functional streets will remain unrealized. Embedding the SDF into the CIP process ensures that all capital projects are aligned with the City’s broader transportation and land use goals and that every investment contributes to building a more connected and vibrant St. Louis. STREET DESIGN FRAMEWORK - IMPLEMENTATION # Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 1. **What is the Street Design Framework (SDF)?** The SDF is a citywide tool that assigns a street typology to every street in St. Louis based on its role in the transportation network and surrounding land use. It guides how streets should be designed to safely and equitably serve people walking, biking, driving, and taking transit. 2. **Can a single street type have multiple designated SDFs?** Yes! A single street can transition between different street types along its length depending on its location, adjacent land use, and modal priorities. For example, a street may function as a "Neighborhood Connector" in one area and shift to a "Mixed-use Local" as it enters a commercial center. 3. **How often is the Street Design Framework updated?** Modal overlays are reviewed and updated regularly to reflect evolving citywide priorities for walking, biking, transit, and other modes. The broader Street Design Framework, including the street typology map, is updated as needed in response to project completions, significant infrastructure changes, or other planning initiatives. This demand-based approach ensures the framework stays relevant and adaptable without requiring a fixed update cycle. 4. **How is this different from engineering design standards?** The SDF is a planning tool, not a technical design manual. It provides guidance on street priorities and design goals based on context. Detailed engineering standards and specifications will be outlined in a companion design guidelines document developed separately. 5. **Will the SDF affect planned or ongoing projects?** Yes. The SDF should be referenced during project identification, scoping, and design phases, especially for projects included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). It helps ensure that new or reconstructed streets reflect current goals for safety, equity, and multimodal access. 6. **Can community members or developers suggest changes to a street's designation?** Yes. As the SDF is a living document, input from community members and stakeholders is welcome. Any suggested changes should be brought to the City for review and consideration. # 05 Connectivity and Mobility Framework <
> CITY OF ST. LOUIS TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY PLAN # Multi-Modal Integration Expanding and connecting pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks is essential to achieving a truly accessible and resilient transportation system in the City of St. Louis. Multi-modal integration ensures that all users, regardless of mode choice, can safely, conveniently, and efficiently navigate the city. Multi-modal integration should be seamless and transition from one mode to the next to complete a trip versus being thought of as separate trips. Multi-modal can mean many different things. A person may ride their bike from their house to the bus stop to get to work. Someone else may drive their car to a parking garage and walk to the baseball game. Someone may use their wheelchair to access the MetroLink and travel to the grocery store. Regardless of the trip, everyone, at some point in their journey, experiences multi-modal integration. When traveling from point A to point B, safety, accessibility, and connectivity should not be a barrier to a person’s journey. The TMP has several key strategies for multi-modal integration, which include: ### Enhancing Pedestrian Infrastructure: Prioritize the expansion of sidewalks, crosswalks, and accessible curb ramps to ensure seamless pedestrian connections, particularly to transit stops and major destinations. Consistent maintenance and applications of crosswalks within neighborhoods, especially around schools and parks, bring awareness to vehicles that people will be present in this area. High visibility markings, corner bump-outs to increase sight lines and shorten crossing distance, and enhanced signage are essential to making an impact on pedestrian infrastructure. ### Expanding Bicycle Networks: Build on the existing system of greenways and bike lanes to create a continuous, citywide network. Emphasis should be placed on closing network gaps, improving wayfinding, and ensuring safe crossings at major intersections. Ensure every new or reconstructed bridge overpass or underpass is built from the start with a multi-use trail width facility to prevent bike network gaps or expensive retrofits in the future. ### Strengthening Transit Access: Coordinate pedestrian and bicycle facilities with Metro Transit services to improve first-mile/last-mile connectivity. Bicycle parking, sheltered bus stops, and safe walking routes to transit are critical elements to support transit ridership growth. The integration of these networks supports the TMP’s goals of safety, connectivity, and maintenance and operations. Traveling through a well-connected network means consistency in safety features, roadway maintenance, and traveling with ease. # Modal Hierarchy A well-defined modal hierarchy helps prioritize infrastructure investments and roadway design decisions to support TMP goals. This hierarchy will inform street design guidelines, project prioritization, and capital improvement planning. It ensures that streets are designed not just for moving vehicles, but for moving people safely and efficiently, regardless of how they travel. This hierarchy prioritizes acceptable operating conditions for everyone. ## Future Bike Network This map illustrates the existing and proposed bicycle infrastructure throughout the city, including shared use paths, protected bike lanes, bike lanes, calm streets, and connections to regional trails. The Bike Network identifies corridors that are critical for a safe, connected, and citywide bicycle network. These corridors are intended to support higher-quality bike infrastructure such as protected bike lanes, buffered lanes, and connections to greenways and regional trails. Emphasis is placed on: * **Filling network gaps,** * **Improving safety and comfort at intersections,** * **Expanding the overall bike network to reach more neighborhoods,** * **Enhancing wayfinding and signage,** * **Providing continuity for cross-town and neighborhood-scale trips.** This overlay supports St. Louis’ broader goal of encouraging cycling as a viable, safe, and comfortable daily travel mode. This future bike network takes an approach of focusing on all ages and abilities, which is aligned with the themes of connectivity and safety. Future corridor design will happen on a project basis, in alignment with the street design framework, but general information about each facility type is referenced here. For further design guidance during the project scoping phase, the City of St. Louis should refer to recently updated national and regional bike design guidance, including: * **The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) newly revised Urban Bikeway Design Guide (January 2025)** * **American Association of State Highway and Transportation Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 5th Edition (December 2024)** * **MoDOT Blueprint for Arterials (June 2024)** * **City of St. Louis Traffic Calming Guide (December 2023)** * **Great Rivers Greenway Trail Design Guidance (revised 2016)** # CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY FRAMEWORK In the map on the next page, three broad categories of bicycle facilities are shown, each containing several specific types of bicycle facilities. The Future Bike Network consists of bike lanes, protected bike lanes, and cycle tracks. The Future Calm Street Network consists of calm streets and local bike routes. The Existing/Planned Greenways category consists of trails, shared use paths, and separated cycle tracks. See the following pages for more information. <
> Transportation & Mobility Plan 237 # Future Bike Network * Existing Trails and Greenways * Planned Greenways * Future Bike Network (Bike Lanes and On-Street Facilities) * Future Local Signed Routes (Traffic Calming, Signage, and Striping) * Potential Calm Streets <
> * o MetroLink Station * MetroLink Red and Blue Lines * Planned Transit Expansion * Streets * City Boundary * Open Space * Water CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY FRAMEWORK Below, each map category is described along with the potential bicycle facility types that could be considered for that street type. Actual facility decisions will be made during the project scoping process: Future Bike Network: * Bike Lanes A bike lane, as defined by the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, is a portion of the roadway designated for the exclusive or preferential use of bicyclists, typically marked by pavement striping, signage, and sometimes colored surface treatments to enhance visibility. These lanes are usually placed on the right side of the street, adjacent to the curb or parking lane, and provide a dedicated operating space that reduces conflicts between bicycles and motor vehicles. Installing bike lanes often involves tradeoffs in roadway space—such as narrowing travel lanes, removing parking, or reallocating a vehicle lane—which require balancing the needs of all users. Despite these tradeoffs, bike lanes are a critical element of a connected bicycle network: they increase comfort and predictability for all road users, encourage more people to ride, and create direct, legible routes that link to other bikeways, transit stops, and destinations. Together, these benefits improve safety, promote mode shift, and support a more sustainable, multimodal transportation system. <
> <
> * Protected Bike Lanes and Cycle Tracks A protected bike lane or cycle track as described in the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, is a dedicated space for bicyclists that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by barriers such as curbs, planters, parked cars, or flexible posts. This physical separation increases comfort, safety, and predictability for people biking, making it an attractive option for a wider range of riders, including less experienced cyclists. Implementing protected bike lanes often requires reallocating roadway space—such as removing a travel lane, narrowing existing lanes, or reducing on-street parking—which can be challenging in constrained corridors. Protected bike lanes often require changes to traffic signals and can be challenging to build in locations with many intersections, curb cuts, or on bus routes. However, these tradeoffs are offset by the substantial benefits protected lanes bring to a bicycle network: they reduce crash risk, provide all-ages-and-abilities access, and create highly visible, connected corridors that strengthen the continuity and usability of the overall bikeway system. By offering a safe and comfortable riding environment, protected bike lanes encourage more people to choose cycling, supporting broader transportation, health, and climate goals. <
> <
> <
> CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY FRAMEWORK **Existing/Planned Greenways:** * **Trails and Shared Use Paths** A trail or shared-use path, as defined in the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, is an off-street facility physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and designed for use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized users. Typically paved and at least 10 to 14 feet wide, these paths provide a comfortable, low-stress environment that is especially appealing to recreational riders, families, and people seeking safe, direct routes away from busy streets. Because they are located outside the roadway, shared-use paths often require separate right-of-way, easements, or reallocation of public space such as parkland or riverfront, which can involve higher costs and longer implementation timelines compared to on-street facilities. Despite these challenges, trails and shared-use paths are essential components of a complete bicycle network: they offer critical long-distance connections, fill gaps where on-street space is limited, and create highly visible, accessible corridors that link neighborhoods, parks, schools, and transit. By providing safe, comfortable routes for a broad range of users, they help expand the reach and equity of the overall bikeway system. <
> <
> * Separated Cycle Tracks A separated cycle track, as described in the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, is an exclusive bicycle facility that is physically separated from both motor vehicle traffic and pedestrian areas, often through the use of curbs, medians, planters, or on-street parking as a buffer. For the purpose of separated cycle tracks that are on the Greenway network, these will be grade-separated facilities, meaning they will be at sidewalk level away from the roadway. Cycle tracks may be one-way on each side of the street or two-way on one side, and they provide a high level of comfort and safety for people of all ages and abilities by reducing conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians. Implementing a separated cycle track often requires significant reallocation of roadway space—such as narrowing travel lanes, removing a vehicle lane, or reducing on-street parking—which can be challenging in constrained corridors. However, these tradeoffs yield substantial network benefits: separated cycle tracks create highly visible, predictable, and comfortable routes that connect seamlessly with other bike facilities, encourage ridership among less experienced cyclists, and strengthen the overall connectivity and safety of the bicycle network. <
> <
> # Future Calm Street Network: * **Calm Streets** A bike boulevard (locally referred to as a Calm Street), as outlined in the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, is a low-speed, low-volume local street that has been optimized for bicycle travel through traffic calming, signage, pavement markings, and intersection treatments that prioritize people biking while still allowing local vehicle access. These streets typically use measures such as speed humps, curb extensions, mini traffic circles, or diverters to slow and limit through motor vehicle traffic, creating a safer, more comfortable environment for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. Because bike boulevards operate within existing street space, tradeoffs often involve adjusting traffic flow patterns, reallocating space at intersections, or reducing on-street parking in certain locations to improve visibility and safety. While they may not require the same physical separation as on-street bike lanes, bike boulevards are a cost-effective way to create continuous, connected routes through neighborhoods, filling network gaps and linking to higher-capacity bikeways. By enhancing comfort and reducing conflicts, they help expand the reach and usability of the overall bicycle network. While Calm Streets and local bike routes are all local routes with more systematic traffic calming, the Calm Streets overlay was developed in the Safety Action Plan of the TMP, with a specific focus on school and park access. This focus is grounded in the goal of enhancing mobility for children and people living with disabilities. <
> * **Local Bike Route** The concept between a Calm Street and a local bike route is very similar, and is largely focused on traffic calming of local roads to slow motorists to a 15 - 20 mph range. The biggest difference is that local bike routes are focused on connections to larger greenway and cycling routes, where as Calm Streets prioritize park and school access. <
> <
> # CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY FRAMEWORK ### Calm Street Map The Calm Street Overlay Map illustrates the roads where slower traffic speeds should be of high importance to accommodate for all modes of transportation on the roadway. Calm Streets are local roads prioritized for low-stress, multi-modal use. These routes are designed to slow vehicle speeds and enhance safety for people walking, biking, or using mobility devices. Tools such as speed humps, traffic diverters, narrower lanes, and landscaping are typically used. These streets are especially useful for: * Children traveling to school, * Seniors navigating their neighborhoods, * Connecting parks, schools, and civic spaces via safe, quieter routes. This overlay is an essential component in creating a low-stress biking and walking network throughout St. Louis neighborhoods. Transportation & Mobility Plan 245 <
> Potential Calm Streets — Potential Calm Streets ◦ MetroLink Station = MetroLink Red and Blue Lines •••••• Planned Transit Expansion — Existing Greenways & Major Trails — Streets — City Boundary ■ Open Space ■ Water CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY FRAMEWORK **Park Access Map** The Park Access Overlay highlights routes that provide direct and safe access to parks and open spaces. Given that over 90% of families in St. Louis live within a 10-minute walk of a park, this overlay reinforces the need to prioritize: * **Safe pedestrian crossings,** * **Slower vehicle speeds near park entrances,** * **Clear connections between parks and the broader mobility network.** This overlay supports physical activity, public health, and environmental goals by making parks more accessible for all users—especially those walking, rolling, or biking. <
> <
> # Overlays: Park Access — Park Access Overlay <
> * ⚪ MetroLink Station * ▬ MetroLink Red and Blue Lines * ⋯⋯ Planned Transit Expansion * — Existing Greenways & Major Trails * — Streets * □ City Boundary * ■ Open Space * ■ Water CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY FRAMEWORK ### Road Diet Map The Road Diet Overlay identifies corridors throughout the City of St. Louis where existing roadway space can be reallocated to improve safety, mobility, and comfort for all users. Road diets are typically applied to streets with excess vehicle capacity and involve strategies such as reducing the number of travel lanes, narrowing lane widths, and reallocating space for bike lanes, wider sidewalks, transit enhancements, or green infrastructure. The intent of this overlay is to: * Enhance safety by reducing vehicle speeds and conflict points, especially at intersections. * Reclaim space for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users through more balanced street design. * Improve multimodal connectivity by providing space for protected bike lanes, bus-only lanes, or curb extensions. * Support community vibrancy by calming traffic and creating space for streetscape improvements, outdoor dining, or placemaking features. Corridors identified in this overlay are ideal candidates for re-striping projects, complete streets upgrades, and grant-funded redesigns that help achieve the TMP’s people-first goals. <
> Transportation & Mobility Plan <
> **Potential Road Diet Candidates** * Potential Road Diet Candidates * Road Diets - Planned or In Construction * o MetroLink Station * MetroLink Red and Blue Lines * …… Planned Transit Expansion * — Existing Greenways & Major Trails * — Streets * [ ] City Boundary * [ ] Open Space * [ ] Water CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY FRAMEWORK # Transit Emphasis Map This map identifies corridors and areas with strong existing or potential transit demand where transit-supportive policies, street designs, and land use planning should be prioritized. The focus in these corridors should be enhancing service reliability, increasing frequency, improving passenger amenities, and integrating with pedestrian and bicycle networks. The Transit Emphasis map identifies key corridors across the City of St. Louis that currently support—or have strong potential to support—high-frequency, high-ridership public transportation. These corridors are vital to improving transit speed, reliability, and user experience, and they represent locations where targeted investments will have the greatest impact on system performance and equity. The map is designed to: * **Enhance service reliability by prioritizing transit in street design through dedicated lanes, queue jumps, and transit signal priority.** * **Support ridership growth by focusing resources on corridors with strong existing demand or high potential for new trips.** * **Improve the rider experience with better shelters, real-time information, seating, and lighting.** * **Encourage transit-oriented development (TOD) through land use coordination that supports walkability, density, and mixed-use activity near transit corridors.** * **Integrate first- and last-mile connections by aligning bicycle, pedestrian, and micromobility infrastructure with bus stops and MetroLink stations.** These transit emphasis corridors reflect a commitment to building a more equitable, sustainable, and convenient transit network—one that is central to achieving the City’s mobility, climate, and economic goals. # Overlays: Transit Emphasis <
> * Transit Emphasis Overlay * MetroLink Station * MetroLink Red and Blue Lines * Planned Transit Expansion * Existing Greenways & Major Trails * Streets * City Boundary * Open Space * Water # Accessibility for All **Addressing mobility challenges for individuals with disabilities, seniors, and low-income communities.** The City of St. Louis is committed to ensuring that all residents, regardless of age, ability, or income, have safe, reliable, and convenient access to transportation options. This is seen through an all ages and abilities lens. ### Why Transportation Equity Matters Equity in transportation seeks fairness in mobility and accessibility to meet the needs of all community members. In St. Louis, this is very important when we look at safety and where roadway fatalities and injuries are occurring, but also when we look at car ownership and where people across the City do not own a car or are a one-car household. The map included here outlines car ownership rates with fatal and serious injury crashes. Transportation projects should prioritize TMP goals and ensure accessibility for all. Some key goals to achieve accessibility for all include: **Barrier-Free Infrastructure:** Expand investments in ADA-compliant sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, bus stops, and transit vehicles to eliminate physical barriers and enhance independent mobility for people with disabilities and seniors. **Accessible Transit Services:** Support and improve paratransit services, while ensuring that fixed-route transit is fully accessible with features like low-floor buses, audible stop announcements, and real-time service information. **Affordable Mobility Options:** Promote affordable transit fares, shared micromobility programs, and carpooling initiatives to reduce the financial burden of transportation on low-income households. **Community-Centered Planning:** Engage directly with underrepresented and historically marginalized communities to better understand transportation needs and priorities. Inclusive public engagement ensures that the voices of seniors, individuals with disabilities, and low-income residents shape future investments and service improvements. *** **18.5% of households in the City of St. Louis do not have car access** **In neighborhoods with more zero-car households than average:** * People experience **2.7 times** more serious or fatal crashes per person * People **walking** are **3.6 times** more likely to be seriously injured or killed in crashes * People **biking** are **1.2 times** more likely to be seriously injured or killed in crashes Transportation & Mobility Plan 253 <
> Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes and Zero Car Households Crash Severity (Crash Data from 2018 - 2022) • Fatal • Serious Injury [ ] 0-10% Zero Car Households [ ] 11-20% Zero Car Households [ ] 21-30% Zero Car Households [ ] 31-40% Zero Car Households [ ] 40%+ Zero Car Households o MetroLink Station = MetroLink Red and Blue Lines ... Planned Transit Expansion — Existing Greenways & Major Trails — Streets [ ] City Boundary [ ] Open Space [ ] Water # Mobility as a Service Many residents in St. Louis who are homebound due to age, disability, or chronic health conditions depend on delivery services for essential items such as groceries and medications. For these individuals, reliable and efficient delivery is not just a convenience but a critical part of daily life. The TMP prioritizes improving last-mile connectivity (the final stage of delivering a service or good, connecting that service/good to the end user) and supporting infrastructure that enables timely and equitable delivery access. This includes ensuring accessible curb space, maintaining grid connectivity and implementing clear signage and designated loading zones, especially in dense residential areas, to facility safe and efficient deliveries. # Regional Collaboration Connectivity across a region depends not only on physical infrastructure but also on coordinated practices and policies. When roadway standards, maintenance protocols, and operational approaches differ between jurisdictions, travelers may encounter inconsistent experiences and reduced clarity. Regional collaboration helps ensure that travelways remain seamless and intuitive across boundaries. Key components of effective regional collaboration include: * Communicating regularly with agency partners to align priorities and share updates. * Ensuring systems are legible and navigable for visitors across jurisdictions. * Collaborating across agencies to align roadway standards and make project delivery smoother. * Establishing shared goals for corridor planning, fare integration, and open data sharing. * Coordinating joint infrastructure investments and aligning policies to reflect regional priorities. * Highlighting successful cross-jurisdictional projects as models for future collaboration and innovation. Transportation & Mobility Plan The items outlined in this chapter, when implemented and organized, will help the City of St. Louis work toward the theme of connectivity. Creating a city that is easy to get around for residents, visitors, and tourists alike. <
> CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY FRAMEWORK # 06 Policy and Ordinance Revisions CITY OF ST. LOUIS TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY PLAN # POLICY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS A city’s policies and ordinances are what allow staff to implement a city’s priorities. Alongside the adoption of the TMP, with its specific priorities for transportation and mobility, the City should update certain policies and practices to ensure that the goals of the Transportation and Mobility Plan (TMP) can be accomplished – and that informal practices support the vision of creating a safe, connected, and well-maintained transportation network. Key policies and practices impacting mobility were identified through preliminary research, public engagement at open houses, and interviews with 18 members of City of St. Louis staff representing a number of different departments. Recurring themes in these interviews included persistent staffing and capacity challenge, inadequate staff to monitor and enforce adopted plans and policies, and the need to update policies and ordinances to create uniform practices or definitions. Issues were identified in several key areas: <
> **Capital Budgeting and Planning** – The City’s methods for assessing and programming projects for funding, the funding available, and the prioritization of projects. <
> **Traffic Safety, Calming, and Enforcement** <
> **Requirements related to Development and Private Construction** <
> **Community Engagement** Additionally, throughout departmental interviews, the need for improved asset management practices and sharing of data between departments was evident. Finally, the need to fill unfilled positions and add key staff was identified as a long-term challenge impeding the successful implementation of the City’s current policies. This challenge also serves as a barrier to the implementation of new policies identified in this chapter and must be addressed. # Peer Practices To make recommendations for potential changes to practices, policy alternatives from other cities were researched and evaluated. Where possible, best practices from the Federal Highway Administration and organizations like the National Association of City Transportation Officials have been used to identify best practices for safety and mobility. However, not all policies are directly applicable to St. Louis’s needs. Every city is different and has its own unique factors that impact policy development and implementation. A policy that works in a city like Denver that is experiencing high rates of growth and development may not be appropriate for a city with aging infrastructure, and the country’s largest cities have more resources and larger staff organizations. For this reason, a number of “peer cities” were identified using factors like population, road miles, age of infrastructure, and maintenance needs. These cities can serve as a comparison due to their similarities to St. Louis in key areas related to the City’s mobility goals. <
> # POLICY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS These peer cities were used to examine possible policy recommendations and departmental staffing. Cities have a significant diversity of departmental organization, responsibilities, and budget allocations, making it difficult to draw direct comparisons between resources allocated to specific programs and mobility overall. However, data from the relevant cities is discussed in the Staffing section (page 292) in order to provide recommendations for necessary changes to fulfill the City’s goals. ## Issues and Updates The following analysis and recommendations reflect key issues in City policies and practices, as well as recommendations to meet the City’s goals in the areas of Safety, Connectivity, and Maintenance and Quality. ## Capital Budgeting and Planning St. Louis has an unusual capital structure ill-suited to consistently maintaining the existing street and sidewalk network. In general, most transportation assets (sidewalks, paving, traffic signals, pavement markings) are not on a routine maintenance or replacement cycle. Capital budgets and funding sources are not scaled to meet the long-term needs of maintaining the system in a reasonable state of repair, and transportation categories/ programs are not specifically identified in the capital budget (i.e., paving, sidewalk repair, etc.) The City’s transportation infrastructure requires a long-term, predictable, and sustainable funding model that prioritizes safety and mobility enhancements. To make system-wide improvements to safety, connectivity, and quality, St. Louis must improve its Capital Improvement Planning process and provide dedicated funding to priority categories like sidewalk maintenance, ADA compliance, and improvements to arterials. Capital investments should reflect the City’s long-term mobility goals and asset management responsibilities, ensuring equitable access to safe streets across all neighborhoods. ## Capital Improvements Plan Each year, the City’s Budget Division, departments, and Capital Committee work in concert to create a five-year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for the City. To develop the CIP and capital budget, departments submit capital project funding requests and the Board of Public Service updates the Capital Needs Inventory each year in January. Over the months that follow, the Capital Committee reviews department requests and long-term CIP project revisions and makes capital budget project recommendations. The Budget Division submits a draft capital improvement budget to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, which approves a capital improvement budget and submits it to the Board of Aldermen. At that time, alderpeople may request changes through the legislative process. From there, the Board of Aldermen approves the capital budget by July 1. Transportation & Mobility Plan In general, St. Louis’ CIP is more detailed regarding facilities and rolling stock needs than it is for transportation projects, and the current “established criteria” used by the Capital Committee (listed below) in the selection of prioritization may be weighted toward facilities rather than transportation: * Capital improvements that will foster preserving and improving municipal buildings and other assets * Capital improvements that will foster fiscal stability and soundness * Capital improvements that will preserve (the City’s) infrastructure and heritage * Projects that reduce the cost of operations or energy consumption * Projects that promote operational safety In most years, the CIP does not provide funding directly for improvements to the foundational elements of the transportation network which have predictable maintenance cycles. These are elements like street paving, traffic signals, sidewalk replacements, and signage. Instead, significant projects tend to be funded by transportation grants, while smaller projects, including most street paving, are left to the discretion of individual Ward Capital budgets. This system, as currently practiced, is an outlier compared to most other city transportation/public works department budgeting processes. Unless changed, it will not deliver consistent and predictable maintenance across the system. In part due to the reliance on Ward Capital for maintenance – discussed further below – St. Louis’s CIP process generally does not include budget line items for maintenance of streets and sidewalks outside of projects funded by grants, Ward Capital, or the St. Louis Works program. Therefore, while an amount of funding is allocated towards general right-of-way maintenance or improvements, it is undefined in the budget where that funding will be subsequently spent. Individual projects or expenditures are later authorized on a rolling basis as they are identified, primarily by alderpeople. This funding process bypasses an essential component of most capital budgeting: a predictable allocation of funding to the most essential, deficient, or aged infrastructure. This leaves much of the public right-of-way without a dedicated funding source for maintenance, creating dangerous and deficient infrastructure with no plan for future improvements. It also makes assessment of spending or projects difficult, as individual projects never appear in, and are never documented in an annual budget. Outside of the Ward Capital program, funding may be allocated towards individual projects through “Citywide” capital. A major variable in capital expenditure is the portion of Citywide Capital derived each year from the prior year’s operating budget surplus. By ordinance, half of the prior budget year’s operating surplus (if any) is allocated to Citywide capital, which is a source which can be used for all types of transportation and infrastructure improvements. Therefore, the availability of citywide capital to be allocated to transportation or infrastructure projects varies significantly from year to year based upon the availability of an operating surplus, leading to unpredictable budget allocations each year. The challenges of this approach are most evident when assessing the condition of major roadways. Arterial streets carry the majority of traffic across the city and frequently account for the majority of crashes and injuries. Arterial streets also require the highest # POLICY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS level of investment to properly maintain. However, without a programmatic approach, paving plans, or maintenance cycle to maintain arterials, the paving, sidewalk, and signal condition of several arterials have declined without a known date for when improvements will be made. While the FY25 CIP includes a modest amount of funding for the paving of arterial streets, it does not detail which streets or how they will be selected. ### Peer Practices Most local and state transportation programs more specifically identify capital needs for transportation and use the Capital Improvements Plan to rank and prioritize streets or areas for investment. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), an organization of state and local finance officers, recommends that CIP be based on “a complete inventory and periodic measurement of the physical condition and existence of all capital assets.”[^p262-1] The City does not currently have a full accounting of the condition of roadway pavement condition citywide, for example. This makes it difficult to identify and prioritize projects for funding outside the Ward Capital system, unless the asset deteriorates completely and requires emergency repair. GFOA also suggests that by identifying what investment is necessary to adequately maintain public infrastructure in a Capital Improvement Plan, a government can better assess the funding needed to maintain the City’s capital infrastructure and build support for those expenditures. Creating a program of periodic paving and reinvestment also allows a longer planning horizon to scope and appropriately budget for upcoming projects. ### Recommendations In order to improve maintenance and quality of infrastructure, the City of St. Louis should produce a Capital Improvements Plan with more detailed information on its transportation and mobility-related capital needs and planned improvements. To effectively develop this plan, the City should begin by developing an accurate inventory of key asset categories, and defining a typical replacement cycle for each category. In the future, the City could undertake systematic inventories of infrastructure condition in order to further refine a prioritization of needed improvements. However, “perfect should not be the enemy of good.” St. Louis does not need a perfect inventory of all street and sidewalk conditions before transitioning to a more programmatic approach. Enough information already exists to get started, and more data can be collected over time as initial projects are completed. St. Louis already carries out this type of inventory and prioritization program for city-owned bridges. This should be expanded to include additional categories like arterial paving, sidewalks, off-street trails and bikeways, traffic signals, ADA Transition Plan Priorities, and other categories as required. To produce a better CIP, St. Louis should develop defined funding categories for essential improvements which occur on an annual basis. For instance, in recent years, to address accessibility needs specifically, the City has included a dedicated subprogram or recurring budget item to fund implementation of the City’s ADA Transition Plan. In recent years, [^p262-1]: https://www.gfoa.org/materials/capital-asset-management $2 million has been appropriated annually for this purpose. Continued funding and documentation of which projects are planned for future years will help St. Louis continue addressing barriers to accessibility in the public right-of-way. Other programmatic categories are discussed further in the following sections. Finally, the City’s Capital Committee should update their criteria used to prioritize projects for inclusion in the CIP to ensure that projects improving safety, connectivity, and a state of good repair are among those listed. In short, the transportation network should be more formally acknowledged as both the asset and maintenance responsibility that it is. ### Ward Capital and St. Louis Works The City’s budgeting process provides each alderperson with two different accounts to program funding for infrastructure projects in their specific ward. Since the 1990s, the Ward Capital Improvements Account method has been used as St. Louis’s primary means of funding capital projects across the City’s 14 (previously 28) wards. The funding in this account is derived from the City’s 0.5% Capital Improvement Sales Tax. In July of each year, 50% of the total Capital Improvement Sales Tax net revenue is split into 14 equal parts. The other 50% is divided amongst several asset categories, including the Citywide Capital Improvements Account which receives 20% of the revenue from this sales tax. The revenue from the tax allocated to ward capital in FY25 was $11.1 million. When divided into 14 ward accounts, roughly $750,000 is allocated into each alderperson’s ward capital improvements account for FY25. Potential projects from this account may include projects like residential street and alley resurfacing, 50/50 sidewalk matching funds (discussed on page 12), other sidewalk improvements, lighting improvements, street tree planting, refuse container replacement, park improvements, security cameras, certain transportation planning and studies, and neighborhood improvement projects. The other account allocated by ward for programming by each alderperson is St. Louis Works. St. Louis Works is a citywide funding source for the construction and reconstruction of typical street elements like sidewalks, alleys, traffic controls, beautification, tree planting, resurfacing and related engineering. The program, created by Ordinance 58894 in 1983 (now chapter 5.50 of the St. Louis Code), allocates 0.75% of the gross tax on electric and natural gas utilities to the unimproved streets fund program also known as “St. Louis Works.” St. Louis Works is also allocated 1/3 of the original motor vehicle sales tax distribution received from the State of Missouri. In 2024, the Program was appropriated $5.2 million that is split evenly amongst the 14 Wards of St. Louis. POLICY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS There are several challenges with the approach of allocating funds by ward for spending at the discretion of each alderperson, including: **Emphasis on smaller projects.** The relatively small allocation per ward steers alderpeople towards smaller, spot fixes rather than systematic improvements. While arterial streets in St. Louis tend to have the most crashes and injuries and the most degraded pavement conditions, the Ward Capital program expenditures tend to be focused on lower-volume or residential streets. Larger capacity streets require higher levels of investment, more advanced project planning and engineering, and more systematic approaches. This makes them ill-suited for the levels of funding available to each alderperson. Even when there is consensus around needed improvements to arterial streets, the scale of the funding needed for a project typically exceeds the amount available per ward, creating a dynamic where higher impact, more costly projects are often “passed over” for more immediate lower cost spot fixes on neighborhood or local streets. **Differing priorities.** The preferences of individual alderpeople also naturally vary, leading to the emphasis of different project types and design choices for projects in different geographic areas without reference to overall goals or mobility approaches. The combination of this funding being spent largely at the discretion of alderpeople and the typical lack of citywide capital for programmatic arterial resurfacing has made citywide planning efforts to define, establish, and communicate priorities to the public based either on safety or state of repair very challenging. **Inequities.** The equal distribution of capital among wards means that funding is distributed based on population, rather than lane miles, total infrastructure, or need. As lower-income areas in St. Louis also tend to be less population dense and have higher levels of vacancy, the Ward Capital and St. Louis Works funding is spread across more geography and infrastructure to maintain. While this difference may not be large in a single year, over many years this has led to a tangible difference in the level of funding available for lower-income, less population dense areas, compared to higher-income, more population dense areas. Today, the largest ward in the City of St. Louis has more than twice the geographic area as the smallest ward. At current funding levels, that equates to a disparity of more than $5M in available infrastructure funding over the course of a decade, for the equivalent-sized geography. While individual projects initiated by alderpeople may all be warranted and valuable in their own right, centering the majority of the City’s neighborhood capital improvements around the Ward Capital program has resulted in unconnected projects, difficulty implementing the most important citywide priorities, and some instances of large balances carrying over from year to year rather than being spent in the wards they are allocated to. ## Peer Practices The City of Chicago is the only notable example of a major city that allocates capital funding by ward to be programmed at the discretion of individual alderpeople. Through its Aldermanic Menu Program, Chicago currently allocates $1.5 million to each of its 50 wards, totaling $75 million annually. Each alderperson is then responsible for choosing which projects to complete with those funds. The program is the primary source of capital funding for what the City of Chicago calls “residential infrastructure improvements,” including lighting, pedestrian safety improvements, traffic calming, sidewalk repairs, and street repaving. One major difference from the City of St. Louis is that Chicago provides its alderpeople a “menu” of local infrastructure items to choose to spend their funding on each year, guiding their project choices. Alderpeople may choose to go “off menu” with spending so long as it complies with program rules. Outside consultants are on-call to design projects selected from the menu. Chicago also publishes, on a quarterly basis, ward budget balances and current projects funded through the program. Chicago provides other funding sources in its CIP to handle key infrastructure improvements. The full “Neighborhood Infrastructure Program” – administered by the Chicago Department of Transportation – includes not only the Aldermanic Menu Program but also individual subprograms for Lighting, New Street Construction, Residential Street Surfacing, Sidewalk Construction, and Other Neighborhood Improvements. Whereas St. Louis’s 50/50 Sidewalk Program (discussed on page 12) is funded directly through Ward Capital funds, Chicago’s similar Shared Cost Sidewalk Program and its replacements of hazardous sidewalks are funded through the independent Sidewalk Construction Program. According to Chicago’s 2024-2028 Capital Improvement Program Report, only 25% of the $2 billion in planned Neighborhood Infrastructure improvements planned for that period will come from the Aldermanic Menu Program. Chicago also operates a separate Major Streets Program, which funds resurfacing, reconstruction, and modification of arterials throughout the city. Arterials are not considered “residential improvements” and are managed outside the Aldermanic Menu Program. In Chicago, little funding is carried over from year to year. In 2024, no ward carried a balance of more than 20% of the prior year’s funding allocation into 2025. The Aldermanic Menu Program is still not without its issues. A 2017 audit by the City of Chicago Office of Inspector General found that the flat allocation of funds to each ward bore “no relationship to the actual infrastructure needs of each ward” and that this allocation “resulted in significant ward-to-ward funding disparities, including a funding disparity relative to need of $9.3 million between the best- and worst-funded wards.” # Recommendations To improve safety and connectivity citywide, St. Louis should change its capital infrastructure programs to reduce the reliance on the Ward Capital Program going forward. While at times there has been political discussion about reprogramming current ward capital funding into a citywide capital program, in reality, the current funding levels of ward capital are not sufficient to meet the full transportation-related capital needs of the whole city. In lieu of that change, the best option is to fund other line items in the capital budget going forward that are directed at city mobility priorities across all wards. If the ward capital program is to remain, the scope of infrastructure elements funded from this program should be clearly defined. ## Arterial Street Maintenance Of the roughly 1,100 miles of streets owned by the City of St. Louis, about 180 miles – or roughly 16% – are classified by the East-West Gateway Council of Governments as principal or minor arterials. Of those, MoDOT maintains pavement and traffic signals (but not sidewalks) on 38 miles, leaving 142 miles of arterial roadway, which are the primary responsibility of the City of St. Louis. Arterial improvements are more resource intensive and often cross ward boundaries. There is currently no consistent program or funding source dedicated to proactively planning improvements and maintaining arterials. This network of major roads is the most logical to separate from the ward capital funding system and manage through a citywide capital planning and funding process. Simply “reallocating” existing Ward Capital to arterial streets will not be sufficient to adequately fund the existing needs of major streets across the city. A separate, independent, and ideally recurring source of revenue is needed. There are a number of potential funding sources that could be applied to an arterial street fund. These include the City’s allocation of the state-collected gas tax, citywide capital, recurring general revenue allocations, general obligation bond issues, a portion of the Ram’s settlement funding, a new revenue stream, or a combination of multiple sources. For estimating purposes, recent projects (ARPA Resurfacing and Safety Projects) suggest that around $1.5M per mile is a reasonable “ballpark” figure to resurface, install pavement markings, and make modest traffic calming and curb ramp improvements along an arterial roadway. This figure does not include full sidewalk replacements along a corridor, extensive traffic signal replacements, lighting changes, extensive curbline changes, street construction, or other upgrades. After the ARPA corridors are complete, St. Louis will have approximately 111 miles of arterial roadway to move to a predictable paving cycle. The typical pavement life cycle of asphalt paving on an arterial street is 12 to 15 years. This is the repaving cycle which MoDOT uses for arterial streets in the City of St. Louis and nearby jurisdictions. In order to move to a predictable paving cycle, the City of St. Louis should be resurfacing 8 to 12 miles of the 142 miles of arterial streets it maintains per year, every year. To do so, $10M to $16M should be allocated into a St. Louis “Major Streets Program” managed at the department level. If this approach is adopted, in only a decade the city could fully transition from the current ad hoc paving system to a planned, coordinated, and predictable system which addresses all arterial streets in the city. Transportation & Mobility Plan City of St. Louis Major Streets Program Primary Maintenance — City of St. Louis (142 Miles) — MoDOT (38 Miles) <
> o MetroLink Station = MetroLink Red and Blue Lines ••••• Planned Transit Expansion — Existing Greenways & Major Trails — Streets □ City Boundary ■ Open Space ■ Water # POLICY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS While much of this funding should be local, not all of it need be. Some projects will naturally lend themselves to programs like STP (the primary East-West Gateway-administered street construction funding source) or other funding opportunities. While this is a significant adjustment in policy and comes with upfront costs, the benefits of improved safety, fewer deaths and injuries, better accessibility, consistently maintained streets, potential reduced liability to the city, and improved resident satisfaction are all significant arguments for adopting this policy. ### 50/50 Sidewalk Program While the City of St. Louis owns and manages the right-of-way where sidewalks are located, the responsibility for the maintenance of existing sidewalks is effectively shared between the adjacent property owner and the City. To assist with this responsibility, the City operates the “50/50 Sidewalk Program,” under which the City will pay for roughly 50% of costs associated with sidewalk repairs or replacement when requested by the property owner. The adjacent property owner is responsible for the remaining 50%, unless sidewalk damage is due to tree roots from a City tree, in which case the City may cover the full cost of replacement. Under this program, property owners request to be added to the program, the sidewalk is inspected by the City, the owners are placed on a waitlist if needed, and the City bids out groups of project addresses as funding is allocated and available. The city-funded portion of the program is generally funded by Ward Capital and/or St. Louis Works fund allocations made by alderpeople. To participate in the program, property owners must have the appropriate zoning (currently “A” through “G” zoning) and be current on property taxes. If a property owner chooses to repair sidewalks on their own outside of the 50/50 program, a $25 residential or $50 commercial permit is required, and they are not eligible for reimbursement through the program. <
> The program, as implemented, has three main challenges: **Equity.** Areas of the city do not participate in the program at the same rate. Areas with more lower-income residents or more rental properties participate at significantly lower rates than higher-income and/or owner-occupied areas. The cost of sidewalk repairs are also disproportionately significant for low-income residents. While the program is making some repairs in all areas of the city, sidewalks in areas of lower-income residents or higher vacancy are much more likely to contain significant barriers to mobility because fewer requests for repair are initiated in these areas. For residents with limited mobility, the complete sidewalk on each block, from corner to corner, needs to be accessible in order to be useful. The current program design leaves many blocks functionally inaccessible, even if individual properties have had repairs. **Continuity.** The notion that the sidewalk is the responsibility of the owners of each individual adjacent property is inconsistent with the reality that sidewalks are necessary for pedestrians to travel around their neighborhoods safely. This is inconsistent with how other elements in the right-of-way are treated, like paving, pavement markings, lighting, signage, etc. Since the adoption by Congress of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, there has been an ongoing trend toward cities taking more affirmative responsibility for their sidewalk networks, rather than viewing it as a private-owner responsibility. As long as the primary responsibility is left to property owners, disparities in sidewalk conditions based on income, renter-vs. owner-occupied properties, and relative scale of neighborhood investment will persist. Anyone with limited mobility is likely to encounter barriers as they navigate sidewalks, and the City will not have focused tools to systematically improve sidewalk conditions and reduce barriers. **Efficiency and cost-effectiveness.** Processing individual property requests and inspecting individual sidewalks on-demand requires significant time and effort and is inefficient compared to the alternative of undertaking block-by-block repairs. Improving sidewalks lot-by-lot (rather than block-by-block) means contractors must return to a block multiple times over years in order to achieve substantial ADA compliance, and each frontage on a street will have a sidewalk built at a different time. A property-by-property approach can also leave sidewalks more vulnerable to slope and vertical compliance issues with slabs poured during different decades, at different times of the year, and potentially with different base materials. Even when repairing sidewalks due to tree root damage, the City must request that the property owner participate in the 50/50 program in any adjacent areas of sidewalk in order to make more complete repairs. POLICY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS In places where cities have not pursued a more proactive policy to improve sidewalk conditions and ADA compliance, there are instances in which the U.S. Department of Justice has required cities to improve sidewalks in their right-of-way and to come into more general ADA compliance through consent decrees or settlements. This happened in Kansas City, Missouri in 2012. Kansas City later undertook an extensive sidewalk repair program through a bond issue in 2017, which was a required action under a compliance settlement. ### Peer Practices After passing an ordinance accepting responsibility for sidewalk repairs on the roads it maintains in 2010, the Louisville Metro Government created a Sidewalk Repair Program with the goal of “ensuring that pedestrian facilities are safe and available to everyone.”[^p270-2] In 2018, Louisville Metro commissioned a survey of the sidewalks it then maintained to assess condition. The Louisville 3-Year Sidewalk Plan, managed by Metro Public Works (MPW), is updated annually and includes a detailed list of needed repairs and estimated costs for each fiscal year, called the “Proactive Sidewalk Repair Plan.” MPW takes citizen requests for repairs as well and evaluates all necessary repairs using a standardized scoring system. Projects are selected based on factors such as public ownership, cost-effectiveness, sidewalk connectivity, ADA compliance, and proximity to schools, parks, and transit. Funding for repairs may come from the MPW budget or the individual council office budgets. The plan was designed to ensure equitable investment across council districts, supported by detailed mapping, budgeting, and annual timelines. Both internal crews and contractors carry out the work included in the Proactive Sidewalk Repair Plan based on allocated funding for the fiscal year. The plan for FY25 assumed $2 million in improvements per year, but $4 million was allocated for improvements in FY24. ### Recommendation To achieve the goal of building and maintaining a continuous and accessible sidewalk network across St. Louis (Connectivity Goal #2), the City should take the lead role in proactively assessing areas which need sidewalk reconstruction, and should provide an annual funding allocation sufficient to replace the entire sidewalk network over a span of approximately 50 years – generally considered the functional lifespan of a concrete sidewalk. The foundation of such a program is already contained within the adopted ADA Transition Plan, which has already surveyed and identified locations for high priority sidewalk repair and replacements using detailed criteria. As sidewalks are repaired, new priorities can be identified moving forward, to continue a programmatic approach to improving sidewalk conditions. As a new program focused on block-by-block repairs is initiated, the 50/50 sidewalk program should be eventually phased out. All existing properties who have signed up should have repairs made, but at the appropriate time, new sign-ups should be closed. To build public confidence in the new program, the old and new programs may need to overlap for a period of time, and the new program should be showing visible progress before the existing 50/50 program is fully retired. [^p270-2]: https://louisvilleky.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Public%20Works%20-Year%20Sidewalk%20Plan%202023-21.pdf # Traffic Safety, Calming, and Enforcement ## The Relationship Between Street Design, Traffic Calming, and Traffic Controls Chapter 17.08 in the St. Louis Code of Ordinances, which regulates the establishment of various traffic control devices, controls, signal function, on-street parking, speed limit setting, and other operational parameters largely dates to 1979 and does not include many contemporary engineering practices for roadway design, traffic control, roadway elements and signal types, curb management, and safety. The guidance in this section does not conform to current MUTCD guidance, NACTO guidance, current transportation engineering practice, or typical contemporary planning practice, and contains references to outdated U.S. Department of Transportation standards. St. Louis should conduct a review of Chapter 17.08 and determine which sections are outdated and need either be changed, can be removed completely in favor of reference to more comprehensive national standards, such as the MUTCD, or can be left to the planning and engineering judgement of a responsible department. After years of reluctance to implement typical urban traffic calming features, in 2016 ordinance 70333 authorized the general installation of traffic calming on streets subject to Board of Public Service (BPS) oversight. Since then, BPS has created a handbook called the Traffic Calming Engineering Guidelines that explains what traffic calming is, its benefits, the funding and implementation process, and common traffic calming design strategies. In the years since the policy formation in 2016, nearly 2,000 speed humps have been installed across the city, mostly at the initiation of alderpeople. In addition, other traffic calming features, such as bump-outs, road diets, median islands, roundabouts, traffic circles, and many other features, have become increasingly common roadway design elements across both small and large capital projects. Rather than “standalone items,” traffic calming is now largely integrated into overall roadway design on major projects but is still often deployed as a “retro-fit” on a spot basis based on requests from alderpeople on a location-by-location basis. <
> # POLICY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS ### Traffic Calming In practice, some aspects of the City’s system for traffic calming and control remain fragmented. The current system to initiate stop sign installation can rely on requests from alderpeople or residents. While resident or elected official involvement can be valuable in raising areas of concern, decisions over traffic control placement should be left to standards and engineering judgement. Consistency of application also creates a more predictable roadway environment for all roadway users. In St. Louis alderpeople initiate most traffic calming, through requests to install speed humps or other traffic calming features or strategies. Streets considered eligible to have speed humps installed have criteria indicated in the Board of Public Service’s Traffic Calming Engineering Guidelines and generally include local streets and those with 25 mph or below speed limits. Major streets, thoroughfares, and bus routes are not eligible for speed humps. Unique to speed humps is the requirement to have an ordinance passed authorizing the placement of each location. Other traffic calming features do not require the passage of an ordinance, and instead are authorized administratively through a typical public works design process. Now that St. Louis has close to a decade of experience installing speed humps and adopted criteria for their placement, removing the requirement to pass an ordinance authorizing each location would streamline installation and eliminate the need for Board of Aldermen Committee hearings to authorize their installation. ### Peer Practices It is uncommon for alderpeople and elected officials to have such a direct role in the design and funding of traffic calming and traffic control devices. Traffic control and traffic calming are typically determined by a trained transportation professional who can account for mobility needs and local context. For stop signs specifically, cities typically adhere to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which provides guidelines on where and how to install traffic signs. Cities also frequently use other locally developed guidance for roadway design or national resources provided by organizations like the National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO) to supplement technical standards in the MUTCD. Pittsburgh’s traffic calming program has been identified by the Federal Highway Administration as a systemic noteworthy practice. Residents may submit requests for traffic calming improvements on collectors and local streets with a maximum of two travel lanes. The city evaluates speed and traffic volume and, if the 85th percentile speed at the site is at least 5 mph over posted speed limit, staff evaluate the street based on speed, volume, crash history, pedestrian generators, and presence of sidewalks for prioritization evaluation. If staff determine that the location is a good fit for traffic calming measures, it will then be put on the list for potential projects and may be selected for the final list of traffic calming projects based on funding allocated to the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. If it is not selected, it will remain on the potential projects list for the following year. # Recommendation To achieve the TMP’s safety goals, the City should establish one uniform process for traffic calming that relies on the expertise of City staff and a safe systems approach. This process should incorporate City staff review using the TMP’s Street Design Framework and data from the Safety Action Plan. When determining priority traffic calming projects, special consideration should be made in areas with high crash rates. If a more programmatic approach to arterial resurfacing can be achieved, a consistent approach to traffic calming and safety can be applied to arterial streets, while alderpeople may still make suggestions on neighborhood streets. Staff and elected officials should use the park access overlay and bike overlay maps as additional assets to assist in the planning, prioritization, and design process for traffic calming treatments. Utilizing resources provided by the TMP can ensure that all projects are systematically evaluated to ensure that investments in traffic calming and safety improvements are prioritized in areas that need them the most. Extensive research, community engagement, and analysis has already occurred to create these materials, and using these resources to help base prioritization and implementation decisions for traffic calming measures can ensure that each request and proposed project is objectively evaluated by trained City staff without political or other preferential influence for some areas over others. ## Quick-Build Projects Quick-build street projects are temporary changes a city can implement on its street network to examine how a change – like a protected bike lane, crosswalk, or traffic-calming feature – would impact users or implement a needed improvement in a shorter window of time. They can be implemented as a “pop-up” to test a feature in a specific location with a safety issue or as a demonstration project to test a treatment for broader use across the city. They are often implemented using paint or removable physical objects that are not only temporary but can be installed more quickly and less expensively than a traditional project. While these projects are considered temporary, care and design expertise are still necessary parts of their planning and installation. The City of St. Louis faces two main challenges in implementing quick-build projects: supply of materials and available staff. The City does not keep a ready supply of items like flex posts or zebras typically used for temporary/quick build projects. This can make it difficult to implement temporary or demonstration projects quickly, and to have the staff available to assess performance if a project is implemented. Currently, quick-build or demonstration projects are typically deployed as a component of a traffic study or project planning in the public engagement process with significant assistance from consultant team staffing. These demonstrations are usually less than a day in length and staffed for the duration of their deployment. However, the Street Department does on a semi-frequent basis place concrete barriers or pots to effect changes to lane configurations or traffic controls. These temporary barriers have in some cases led to permanent installations of bump-outs, median islands, and neighborhood traffic circles. # POLICY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS ## Peer Practices The City of Pittsburgh’s Department of Mobility and Infrastructure is the primary agency responsible for delivering its quick-build projects. The department was created in 2017 with funding for only four staff and a charge to support improved safety and mobility across the city. The next year, recognizing the breadth of that mission, the City moved its Bureau of Transportation and Engineering from the Department of Public Works into the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure (DOMI). This staff reallocation placed 70 people in DOMI, allowing planners to coordinate directly with traffic engineers on the city’s capital needs. Pittsburgh’s Complete Streets Advisory Group is also intimately involved in both the development of and the coordination around delivery on quick-build projects, providing a way for different departments to identify and team up on projects that will help the City reach its mobility goals more quickly. On neighborhood streets, Milwaukee has another tool in place. Working with local advocacy groups, the City created a “traffic-calming lending library” with temporary traffic calming tools available for residents to check out and install. Items like cones and looper tubes are available for short-term installations, such as a single day, in order to demonstrate how a curb bump-out or traffic circle might impact a neighborhood. If residents think the treatment has merit, they can request a more permanent change through the Department of Public Works. ## Recommendations To address documented safety issues more quickly, the City should improve staffing within the relevant City departments and agencies to make more professional engineers available to oversee the delivery of quick-build projects. As the City of St. Louis transitions the Street Department into the Department of Transportation, the opportunity exists to pair planning staff with operational staff within the department to begin the deployment of quick-build or pilot projects. Additionally, this same approach could be used to make spot improvements at locations identified by staff. This could include the addition of bike lanes or improved pavement markings outside of a capital project, or increased coordination with other city departments or community groups on landscaping or vegetation maintenance. The City should use the City’s Street Design Framework and the Safety Action Plan to identify locations that would benefit from quick-build improvements outside the standard project delivery process. The City’s updated Complete Streets Advisory Committee could also be consulted to help identify potential quick-build projects and coordinate on implementation. Transportation & Mobility Plan <
> # Speed Limit Setting Currently, City Code contains partially conflicting sections related to speed limits. Chapter 17.08.500 of the City Code establishes speed limits based on a limited set of roadway criteria that does not conform to current best practices. While engineering guidance once suggested using 85th percentile speeds as the primary basis for speed limit setting, the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and current Federal Highway Administration Guidance support more flexible, context-sensitive approaches. Setting speed limits based on how fast drivers are currently driving does not factor in roadway characteristics or context. If a road is overbuilt or wider than it needs to be, for example, this can encourage drivers to drive faster. The City’s default speed limit is 25 miles per hour (mph). However, a variety of existing posted speed limits across the city are not in accordance with Chapter 17.08.500. Changing the speed limit on a particular corridor currently typically requires passage of an ordinance, although in some cases speed limits have been changed in conjunction with capital projects and changes to the roadway. City Code also does not require speed limits of 25 mph and below to be posted, leaving many streets without visual guidance as to the speed limit. ## Peer Practices Using a safe systems approach is a more effective way to improve safety. This includes evaluating safer speed limits, but also the relationship between speed and roadway design and speed and vehicle design. Designing the built environment to discourage speeding along with reducing speed limits can be an effective combination to effectively reduce speed and improve safety. The Federal Highway Administration has a resource document titled Safe Systems Approach for Speed Management to help practitioners understand the impacts of speed on traffic safety. Analyses on statewide, citywide, corridor-based, speed zone, default speed limit reduction, and speed cameras with measured outcomes from different cities is also available in a report from the California Department of Transportation. Nationally, many major cities are also lowering default residential speed limits to 20 mph. Reducing speed limits not only improves safety for vulnerable road users, including those walking, biking, or wheeling, but also improves safety for drivers as all crash types are less severe at lower speeds. In the St. Louis area, cities like Clayton, Richmond Heights, and Creve Coeur have already adopted a default speed limit of 20 mph on local/residential streets. Minneapolis and St. Paul have reduced their default speed limits to 20 mph for local residential streets and 25 mph for arterial city-owned streets. Seattle reduced speed limits throughout the city through an iterative process beginning in 2015. As a result, most arterial street speed limits are set to 25 mph and non-arterial streets are 20 mph – down from 30 and 25 mph, respectively. The reduction was done as part of the implementation of Seattle’s Vision Zero Plan. Seattle saw a 22% decrease in crashes after lowering speed limits. <
> # Recommendations To reduce crashes and improve quality of life, the City should reduce the default speed limit on most local streets to 20 miles per hour. To effect this change will require a significant capital investment in replacing signage and educating drivers of the change. This is not a change which can happen overnight, and may need to be implemented on an area-by-area basis over a period of time. The City should also review anomalous speed limits that correspond with high crash corridors and intersections identified in the Safety Action Plan. This will help make the biggest impact in the shortest amount of time, as these are identified areas with known safety concerns. Further considering the types of crashes (such as the percentage of crashes involving bikes and pedestrians and differentiating fatal versus injury versus property damage crashes) can help indicate what type of safety improvements are needed most. For example, one corridor may need a lane reduction and added bike and pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety, whereas another corridor may need improved or connected sidewalks. The Safety Action Plan outlines recommended context-sensitive safety improvements for each identified corridor and intersection, and it is important to remember that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to improving safety. St. Louis can also work with MoDOT to reduce the default speed on MoDOT-maintained streets within St. Louis to 30 mph or less as needed. The Street Design Framework provides guidelines to design streets that support lower speeds. If done consistently, streets designed through the Street Design Framework can lead drivers to operate a vehicle at lower speeds, due to factors like narrowed lanes, reduced street widths, and other traffic calming measures like speed bumps where appropriate. Lowering speed limits will reinforce to drivers what the street design already signals to them – that drivers should travel at lower speeds. The overall goal of speed limit setting should be establishing a safe operational speed given the context of the street, and its purpose in the street network, while reducing negative impacts to quality of life and adjacent properties. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration points to a growing body of evidence that reducing speed limits can be one tool in improving overall safety. <
> # Requirements for Development and Private Construction ## Curb Cuts Curb cuts and street or right-of-way (ROW) vacations both impact the overall network of mobility in the City of St. Louis. Curb cuts provide direct property access for vehicles from the adjacent street, but break up the sidewalk network and create additional points of conflict for both vehicles and pedestrians. They also prevent flexible uses of curbside space, such as street parking. Right-of-way vacations generally permanently eliminate public access to a street and the space is combined with adjacent parcels. The process to construct a new curb cut across a sidewalk in the City of St. Louis is primarily permitted by the Street Department. This department is responsible for maintaining the public right-of-way and, as a result, governs this type of permitted construction activity. A permit for a new curb cut is submitted to the Street Department with a variety of components. This includes information about the new addition, whether it is a new driveway, widening or narrowing an existing curb cut, or relocating to another part of the property. The application can be submitted online through the Street Department. Review of these permits is handled internally by Street Department staff and issued at the department level. Poorly located or excessive curb cuts create unsafe traffic conditions and pose a risk to pedestrians. In particular, curb cuts near intersections, or multiple curb cuts along one property frontage present particular safety issues. St. Louis does not currently publish guidelines or rules for the location and dimensions of curb cuts. There is an urgent need to define the parameters where curb cuts are permitted. Even fairly simple regulations on the length of curb cuts, the number per property, and their proximity to intersections will make a significant difference over time in the safety and comfort of streets and sidewalks. Additionally, locations where curb cuts are not allowed from a primary street need to be mapped and made a part of the permitting process. Critical places where curb cuts should be completely restricted, or given a higher level of review, include across greenways and shared-use trails, in commercial districts, and in proximity to major intersections. <
> # Street or Right-of-Way Vacations A street or right-of-way vacation is the permanent relinquishment by the City of St. Louis of a street or other public right-of-way for public use. As St. Louis first developed, streets were platted to provide access to adjacent properties. Later, the same rights-of-way were generally used to extend utilities like water, sewer, electricity, gas, and other services to properties, either in ground or above ground. Right-of-way vacations are typically requested by property owners to consolidate property across streets or alleys in order to create larger, more flexible parcels. Right-of-way vacations may also be necessary to construct major new infrastructure, like highways or rail, or public amenities like parks or other public facilities. However, some street vacations are sought by applicants to respond to what may be temporary or owner-specific issues, like access control to a site, or cross access to a nearby property. Over decades, hundreds of street vacations have slowly eroded the integrity of the street grid in St. Louis. Each street vacation has its own justification, but the cumulative effect of hundreds of them over time can reduce the flexibility of the street grid and introduce new barriers to travel. While many street vacations may make sense based on individual development criteria, they may increasingly have negative external impacts that need to be carefully assessed on a planning, mobility, and property access basis. Right-of-way vacations have significantly different impacts based on context and scale. The vacation of an alley to consolidate parcels to construct a larger development will have a negligible external impact, while the vacation of a local street may, or may not, have significant transportation effects, pushing existing traffic to other streets or requiring extra travel for pedestrians. The vacation of higher-volume streets can create significant disruptions to travel patterns or access to properties near the vacation. The Planning Commission is responsible for assessing and either recommending or denying street vacations. This power can also be delegated to the Planning and Urban Design Agency’s Executive Director. Since right-of-way is effectively public property, the City of St. Louis does not have an obligation to vacate streets, even when requested. The purpose of a vacation should be to advance a public interest or adopted plan, rather than to advance a purely private interest. Under state law, municipalities cannot charge for or sell right-of-way. Once vacated, there is no mechanism to return a street to public use, other than a street dedication process initiated by a property owner. A shorthand for explaining the relationship between the Planning Commission, Board of Public Service (BPS), and the Street Department as it relates to the location and function of streets is: ➜ The Planning Commission determines the location of streets ➜ BPS manages the design and capital expenditures on streets ➜ The Street Dept. manages maintenance and operations of streets # POLICY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS The existing criteria for assessing a street vacation is based on its conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, or other plans adopted by the Planning Commission. Until the recent adoption of the new Strategic Land Use Plan (2025), there was limited criteria for review in areas which were not covered by another layer of adopted plan, such as a neighborhood plan. The new SLUP provides more guidance across the city related to urban form, which provides more material from which to review street vacations. St. Louis has historically been more permissive of developer-driven street vacations than is typical. The TMP recognizes the value of the street grid and the significant past work which went into creating it. While the street network can and should evolve over time, considerable care can and should be exercised prior to approving significant new vacations. Vacations should have some relationship to advancing a public purpose, and at minimum should avoid negative impacts to the public. Some vacations should also require more significant traffic analysis to ensure traffic impacts are not significant, and impacts to pedestrians are reduced. In some situation conditions should be placed on vacations to ensure public access to the previous right-of-way, even if a street is removed. The considerations involved with reviewing a street vacation should be summarized in a publicly available application to clarify the review process and criteria with potential applicants. Applicants should be aware that the Planning Commission and other agencies must consider a variety of planning, public access, safety, and mobility factors before recommending a street vacation. The City of St. Louis should also create a process to create an advisory opinion, which applicants can seek before they become the legal owner of all properties adjacent to a potential vacation. A potential street vacation begins with an application to the Street Department, which refers the application to a variety of departments for comment, including the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, an ordinance can be introduced to enact the vacation. The final step is that the applicant (the adjacent property owner) must satisfy any conditions of the vacation and submit a plat and an affidavit to both the Board of Public Service and the Recorder of Deeds to finalize the vacation and adjust the property boundaries. <
> ## Peer Practices In Richmond, Virginia, right-of-way (ROW) management is governed by the Right-of-Way Management Division of the Public Works Department. This department states clear objectives that should be considered when reviewing requests in the ROW, ensuring public safety and mobility. These include: * To ensure, through the proper management of programs and resources along with the coordination of internal City departments, the enhancement of the health, safety, and welfare of the residents, businesses, and visitors of the City of Richmond; * To ensure that all construction performed within the City right-of-way adheres to all local, state, and federal regulations; * To ensure that all permitted activity within the public right-of-way provides for safe and efficient movement of all road users (vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists) through or around temporary traffic control zones while protecting the public, workers, incident responders, public infrastructure and equipment; * To ensure that all permitted construction improvements (by private and public forces) within the public right-of-way are constructed to appropriate and accepted standards and requirements that they may be accepted into the City’s infrastructure. Right-of-way closure requests are handled by the same department, whether these are short-term requests related to construction or requests seeking to close streets permanently. The City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, has a similar process to that of St. Louis, except that these ROW closures are reviewed by the Planning Department. Once approval has been given, these requests are given final approval by the City Council. Similarly, Fort Wayne consults the Engineering and Planning departments when any permit is made to the Right-of-Way Department regarding a new curb cut. The Planning Department reviews the application for conformance with the Access Standards Manual, a guide to assist with review of traffic flow, safety, accessibility, and impact to public roadways. In Pittsburgh, ROW vacations and curb cuts are handled by the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure. This department receives applications and reviews street history, land use, transportation, and any other impacts which may result from proposed change. A recommendation for approval can then be provided to the City Council. Pittsburgh has significant regulations regarding curb cuts included in their municipal code and therefore, the departmental review is related to compliance with existing rules, rather than an independent opinion about need or impact. # POLICY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS ## Recommendation Street vacations need to be considered carefully, as generally there is no way to reverse them, and the access changes are permanent. These decisions should be based on advancing a long-term vision rather than responding to what may be shorter-term pressures. To center planning in the decision-making process, both right-of-way vacations and curb cut permitting should have clear guidance on the review criteria applied to each available to the public. Guidance for cut permitting should emphasize overall traffic safety, but especially pedestrian safety and sidewalk continuity. Some street types or contexts may restrict or prohibit curb cuts entirely in order to support transportation assets or adjacent land uses. This should include places like curb cuts across greenways, or within commercial districts. In these settings vehicular property access should be directed to the rear of the building or adjacent parcels wherever possible. An updated zoning code can provide additional support in regulating property access, but relatively simple guidelines can be developed and administered by the Street Department to improve the management of curb space, curb cut placement, and pedestrian safety. Permits issued for new curb cuts should specify that they may be removed or altered by the City if they create safety issues or if they are abandoned as an access point. Separately, St. Louis should clarify the circumstances in which a curb cut may be removed or altered so guidance is clear to developers. By their nature, right-of-way vacations are real-estate transactions, involving the transfer of public property to private ownership. As such, they require a multi-layer review and approval process to endure the public interest is served. The current process can be improved by developing a clear guide for the public which states the review criteria, including conformance to elements of the Comprehensive Plan including the SLUP, TMP, and other adopted plans, potential traffic and pedestrian access impacts, nearby property access, alternate routes, and potential alternatives. The primary goal should be to maintain a framework of route choices for most residents and travelers, understanding that there will still be locations where street vacations can make sense and advance development opportunities without significant mobility impacts. Since formal application for street vacations typically require consent from all adjacent property owners, a courtesy review process should also be established to allow potential applicants to understand likely considerations in advance of property acquisitions and prior to making an application. # Maintenance Agreement Standardization Maintenance Agreements are a useful tool that many cities utilize to outsource non-standard maintenance and associated costs to third parties. These third parties can be nonprofits, neighborhood associations, Community Improvement Districts, other governmental entities, or individuals. These groups often have an interest in the improvement of an area and believe that they are the best fit to carry out this maintenance. In other circumstances, maintenance agreements are required when an improvement requires a level of maintenance that is above and beyond the typical level of maintenance a city might be able to provide. Today, these requests are handled on a case-by-case basis. Some larger maintenance agreements such as the one between Forest Park Forever and the City of St. Louis, governing large maintenance responsibilities in Forest Park, come before the Board of Aldermen for approval by ordinance. Others are handled internally by departmental staff. Many different departments in the City of St. Louis have a history of maintenance agreements, but there is currently no standardization of the agreement itself or the process to obtain one. ## Peer Practices The St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District executes a Maintenance Agreement with property owners for all stormwater facilities not located in the public right-of-way. The organization offers a standard agreement including the following components: * List of items that the applicant is agreeing to do * Subject property drawing with survey or drawing of location * Timeline of agreement * Signature of applicant In addition, the agreement also notes the conditions required for the maintenance (i.e., maintain all pipes and drains in good working order, etc.). A fee of $36 is required by the applicant to execute the Maintenance Agreement. # POLICY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS ### Recommendation To more effectively use Maintenance Agreements, the City should standardize their use and centralize processing and tracking. Developing a standardized Maintenance Agreement for use across all City departments will improve clarity of roles and responsibilities between the City and third-parties. The Standard Maintenance Agreement should be produced by the City Counselor’s Office, ensuring liability is placed on the applicant and that all insurance requirements are in place to ensure safety. The Agreement should ensure that all applicants are aware of the level of maintenance required by the City. Any additional items related to the maintenance of the applicant’s location or conditions should be noted on the Agreement. Centralizing processing through one department – like the Board of Public Service – with the input of other relevant departments would help ensure that review is consistent and that expectations are similar across different kinds of projects and programs requiring Maintenance Agreements. Once executed, Maintenance Agreements should be tracked centrally alongside other City asset management data to provide a way of easily understanding what commitments third-parties have made throughout the city. The City should also consider making this information accessible to the public so that residents can see where maintenance responsibilities may lie outside the City’s direct responsibility. <
> Transportation & Mobility Plan ## Community Benefits Scorecard St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) is the economic and real estate development arm of St. Louis local government. SLDC began using a Community Benefits Scorecard in 2023 to help assess projects seeking tax incentives from the City of St. Louis. The scorecard assigns points to each project based on its contributions to the community and tax revenue across a variety of categories including affordable housing, environmental remediation, historic preservation, and public infrastructure. As higher levels of points are awarded, the project may become eligible for greater levels of incentives, such as longer terms of tax abatement. Only projects with expected costs greater than $1 million are required to be scored, and the scorecard only assigns a maximum amount, or ceiling, of incentive that may be available—but is not guaranteed. These point categories vary slightly based on type of project, but all have points available through Public Infrastructure Improvements. The project’s contribution to things like sidewalks, streetscape improvements, lighting, and transit amenities are all reviewed, and points are awarded (2 to 10) with larger dollar investment amounts receiving a greater number of points. <
> ## Peer Practices The City of Cleveland employs a Community Benefit Scorecard as a strategic tool to align public infrastructure investments with community priorities, helping ensure that developments receiving city incentives deliver tangible benefits to residents. The Scorecard is designed to evaluate development projects seeking city incentives, such as tax increment financing, commercial tax abatements, and grants or loans exceeding $250,000. The Scorecard assesses projects based on their alignment with the city’s goals, including sustainability, job creation, and affordable housing. Projects are scored across various categories, with higher scores indicating greater community benefits. This scoring influences the city’s decision on the type and amount of incentives awarded. The Scorecard awards up to 10 points – the highest of any category – for projects that include value-added public infrastructure improvements beyond standard requirements. To qualify, these features must enhance the surrounding neighborhood and benefit the broader community. Eligible enhancements include pedestrian-scale lighting, multi-purpose trails, public plazas, parks, public art, tree planting, landscaping, green infrastructure (such as bioswales or green roofs), stormwater improvements, and publicly accessible open space. These elements must be integrated into the project design to create shared, community-oriented value. ## Recommendation The SLDC Community Benefit Scorecard should be updated in the future to reference the TMP, in particular the Street Design Framework section, to reference that public infrastructure investments should align with the street category where a development is located. Given more time and experience with the Scorecard, the points awarded could also be updated to place greater emphasis on the inclusion of public infrastructure in development projects. By giving more weight to projects that include public infrastructure improvements, the SLDC can incentivize developers to improve public space and support mobility goals. ## Community Engagement The City of St. Louis uses a number of community engagement strategies related to transportation and mobility projects. These include in-person meetings and open houses specific to projects, coordination with alderpeople and stakeholders, posting project information on the City’s website, and using other media to inform residents of ways to engage with upcoming projects. Additionally, in the interest of creating a consistent place to seek feedback from residents on transportation projects and policy, the City formed the Community Mobility Committee (CMC) in 2020. The CMC is a citizen committee recognized by the Board of Aldermen, charged with advising City departments and other relevant agencies on mobility issues – and specifically non-vehicular transportation – in the City. The committee consists of City residents who have a connection or interest in active transportation, community planning, and community representation. Because the current CMC was created as a resolution by the Board of Alderman rather than by ordinance, the group’s charge, expectations, and the weight of its recommendations are not always clear. New members are appointed by the group itself, rather than by the Office of the Mayor or other elected officials as is typical for a formal, city-sponsored committee or advisory board. ### Peer Practices Overall, cities are increasingly recognizing that community engagement is essential to the development of quality transportation projects that better address the needs of users and stakeholders. In addition to traditional open houses and project-specific public engagement, cities are using a variety of tools to both update residents on the status of projects and get productive input on stakeholders’ needs. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s 2022 report titled “Promising Practices for Meaningful Public Involvement in Transportation Decision-Making” highlights a number of public engagement techniques currently in use by the City, including focus groups, surveys, site visits, and non-traditional events. The report also highlights the increasing use of websites and GIS mapping to provide more robust, ongoing updates on projects that are visually accessible to residents and stakeholders on their own time and when questions arise. With regard to the CMC, in other communities, similar committees can be established by ordinance to provide clarity of mission and role. Applicants or people chosen by the mayor or the full City Council/Board of Aldermen are officially appointed to a set term of service. Members are then incentivized to be accountable to the entire City and not just in areas that they care about. Reappointment can be recommended for members who wish to continue serving on the committee and have a record of positive contribution to the committee. ### Recommendation The City should continue its efforts to incorporate equity and accessibility into its community engagement efforts by meeting residents where they are and providing opportunities to review information and provide input through multiple avenues. As the City obtains or develops more specific information regarding asset management and capital planning, departments should consider expanding the use of online tools and maps like the existing “Federally Funded Projects” website to communicate ongoing updates to residents. While the use of consultants to provide public involvement materials and coordination on large projects is common, the City should also consider strengthening this capability within existing departments or the new Department of Transportation. Working alone or in tandem with consultants, staff can help maintain consistency from project to project and create more productive engagement overall. To provide more effective feedback and improve connectivity, the City should formalize the Community Mobility Committee by establishing it as an official board or commission. This should be done through an ordinance that establishes the group’s mission, operating structure, and the process for appointments. # Asset Management, Data Sharing and Transparency A modern asset management approach is essential to support more proactive planning and better transparency around transportation decisions and investments in the City of St. Louis. This can be achieved through a better infrastructure Asset Management Plan. The recommendations in this section aim to transition St. Louis from a reactive, ward-based maintenance model to one grounded in long-term, data-driven, lifecycle planning aligned with the city’s mobility, safety, connectivity, and maintenance. With better capital planning (as outlined previously for arterial maintenance and sidewalk repairs and updates), the City can advance the goals of the TMP. Asset management is more than infrastructure maintenance—it is a method for maximizing the value of public investment across the full lifecycle of assets. For St. Louis, this means planning not only for today’s needs but also for tomorrow’s opportunities, with a system that allows decision-makers to respond to changing conditions, align with long-range plans, and communicate clearly with residents and stakeholders. It also means tracking and documenting the construction and maintenance that has been done in order to allocate resources to maintenance before major issues occur. <
> # Strategic Asset Management Framework National guidance, such as the American Public Works Association (APWA) and the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM), provides tested models for evaluating and guiding public-sector asset management practices. These frameworks emphasize the integration of organizational goals, policies, financial forecasting, data systems, and maintenance protocols. For St. Louis, this framework should be tailored to address current challenges—including fragmented data, ward-based capital planning, and limited long-term forecasting. However, when developing this framework, policy recommendations related to capital planning should be included to respond to the future direction of transportation investment. The following principles should anchor the City’s asset management evolution: * Assign asset management program goals that align with TMP themes, associated goals, and policy recommendations. * Develop a Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) that defines long-range service and performance expectations. * Use the Asset Management Maturity Assessment (AMMA) framework to evaluate organizational readiness and track progress. * Leverage existing City platforms (e.g., CityWorks, GIS) to build a centralized asset inventory and performance dashboard to be used across departments, and ultimately within the Department of Transportation (DOT). * Provide training and cross departmental and staffing coordination. * Identify pilot projects, such as corridors or other asset types, to phase the program in a scalable way. <
> # POLICY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS ## Defining Asset Levels of Service (LOS) In addition to the Strategic Asset Management Plan, another critical component of the asset management program is to define Levels of Service (LOS) for each type of asset. LOS should be grounded in measurable and understandable performance standards that allow the City to monitor conditions and communicate expectations. For example, pavement LOS may focus on PCI (Pavement Condition Index), sidewalk LOS may center on ADA compliance and trip hazards, while signals and signage may consider response time and uptime reliability. Defining and publishing LOS targets creates a shared understanding between agencies, elected officials, and the public. LOS benchmarks also support accountability, clarify trade-offs, and guide capital improvement programming toward the highest benefit. For St. Louis, initial LOS assignments should be created for arterial maintenance and operations, as well as sidewalk connectivity. LOS assignments should be developed for assets that are based on both TMP themes (Safety and Connectivity), as well as associated goals within those themes. The third theme, Maintenance and Operations, is not necessarily for consideration in the LOS assignment, as the entire asset management recommendation is centered on that theme. Standardizing these benchmarks across departments and wards will help shift decision-making from reactive requests toward proactive planning for a safer and more connected city. ## Asset Criticality and Prioritization Not all assets carry equal weight in terms of risk, equity impact, or system function. Developing an asset criticality framework enables the City to evaluate and prioritize infrastructure investments based on local values. By categorizing assets based on failure consequence, population served, safety importance, and functional role, St. Louis can better allocate limited funding toward the most impactful needs. Assets could be grouped into categories. St. Louis can build a scoring framework that evaluates each asset or corridor on factors that are directly tied to the goals of the TMP. Example scoring factors include: * Equity and proximity to vulnerable populations (Theme: Connectivity – where EVERYONE in St. Louis can travel safely) * Access to transit, jobs, schools, and healthcare (Theme: Connectivity – Support the delivery of quality transit and other mobility services) * Safety impacts (Theme: Safety – Reduce death and serious injuries 50% by 2050) * Access to schools and parks (Theme: Safety – Improve mobility needs for children and those with limited mobility options) <
> # Build the Asset Operations and Management System (AOMS) An effective asset management system is not just a software tool—it is a living system of people, processes, and platforms. St. Louis can strengthen its existing systems by expanding the use of CityWorks or other tools to build a connected, transparent, and flexible Asset Operations and Management System (AOMS). The AOMS should include: * **Centralized digital inventory of all transportation assets** * **Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for inspection, reporting, and repair** * **Open work order tracking and dashboards for public reporting** * **Predictive analytics to flag upcoming maintenance or capital needs** * **Coordination across departments to reduce duplication and backlog** Even partial implementation of an AOMS can lead to improved resource allocation, reduced response times, and more responsive service delivery. ## Forecasting and Lifecycle Planning Long-term lifecycle planning allows St. Louis to look beyond annual budgets and focus on the full cost of ownership for its streets, sidewalks, bridges, and signals. Developing Strategic Asset Management Plans (SAMPs) for each asset category will allow the City to estimate needs over 5-, 10-, and 20-year horizons. GIS-based Maintenance Management Plans (MMPs) can support geographic planning and scenario testing. With these tools, the City can: * **Identify optimal maintenance windows to reduce long-term costs** * **Forecast asset deterioration based on usage and environment** * **Assess cost-benefit of reinvestment vs. replacement** * **Communicate with elected officials using clear charts and targets** * **Plan ahead to colloborate on and jointly fund projects with Metro Transit, Great Rivers Greenway, and the Metropolitan Sewer District** ## Pavement and Utility Standards Historically, the City has had challenges with the state of roadway repair after utility work. Ordinance 71943, passed in 2024, established a “Utility Coordination” policy for the City. This policy is designed to improve coordination between utility work and roadway maintenance – minimizing duplicative work and reducing disruption for road users – and to outline standards for repair to the right-of-way after excavation for utility work. Improved asset management and data sharing practices will facilitate improved coordination between the City and utility providers on projects. To address the City’s goal of improving pavement and sidewalk restoration standards after utility and development work, the City should enforce this ordinance and also ensure that City departments and contractors restore the right-of-way to the same standard. By modernizing its asset management systems, the City of St. Louis can significantly improve the performance, equity, and cost-effectiveness of its transportation investments. This transparent, policy-aligned framework—built on measurable service levels, criticality, forecasting, and community input—will help the City meet its mobility and infrastructure goals while addressing long-standing challenges. Over time, this approach will yield a more resilient and connected transportation network that serves all residents equitably. # POLICY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS ## Staffing Current staffing levels which support transportation planning, funding, design, maintenance, and operations at the City of St. Louis are inadequate. With an outdated organizational structure, difficult hiring constraints, vacant positions, and competition from the private sector, many city departments are understaffed and operate with a budget far below their peers in other cities. This has led to a lack of maintenance and staff capacity, even when capital funding is available. To execute the principles of the TMP, a significant staffing expansion and funding commitment will ultimately be necessary. <
> # Specific Staffing and Budget Needs to Support Policy and Program Realignment Moving the City toward its mobility goals – including safer streets and a better-maintained transportation system for all users – will require changes in department staffing. Some require a reallocation of existing staff time and resources. Others require significant shifts in what employees are needed to carry out the program or policy. * **Maintenance and paving:** To adequately maintain St. Louis’s street network, more maintenance and paving staff is needed in-house. Striping and street paving crews at the City are high-turnover roles, with challenges retaining staff often stemming from low compensation. Changes are needed in order to effectively turn the tide on roadway condition and maintain new complete streets infrastructure. In its new Transportation Department, the City of Louisville has more than 70 field roles for road maintenance staff, including crew leaders and equipment operators. At the time of publication, the City of St. Louis is not adequately staffed in these roles. <
> * **Special maintenance needs:** To maintain active transportation infrastructure and safety equipment, the City should consider establishing a dedicated “special maintenance” crew with the expertise to repair locations that need an enhanced level of maintenance. This may include thermoplastic or Methyl Methacrylate (MMA) pavement markings to delineate bicycle lanes. * **Thermoplastic installation capabilities:** Adopting in-house thermoplastic pavement marking operations should be a consideration for the City of St. Louis to improve the longevity, visibility, and durability of its street markings. Establishing in-house capabilities would require initial investment in specialized equipment such as walk-behind or truck-mounted thermoplastic applicators, hot-melt kettles, and bead dispensers as well as dedicated training for a crew of 3 to 6 public works personnel. An in-house program with a thermoplastic paint team could reduce long-term maintenance costs by decreasing the frequency of restriping compared to traditional paint and give the City more flexibility to schedule markings independently. POLICY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS * **Project management:** While managing capital needs – including arterials and sidewalks – as proactively planned programs rather than reactive improvements is expected to improve the condition of the City’s infrastructure, new or realigned staff resources will be needed to provide additional project management capacity. * **Arterial program management:** Creating a “Major Streets Program” that takes the responsibility for maintaining and improving the City’s arterials out of the Ward Capital program would require staff time to manage. A program manager at the City could coordinate and execute planning for a standardized cycle of paving and repair. Having a program manager leading this effort would provide a clear point of contact for alderpeople and the public, improving transparency around an effort that will impact all wards and neighborhoods of the City. * **Sidewalk program:** Shifting from a reactive approach to sidewalk repair upon request to a coordinated program of improvements will also require a dedicated program manager. One city employee is currently in charge of managing the 50/50 Sidewalk Program; this role could be shifted to management of a more proactive program. Using the inventory, the City can prioritize work to repair sidewalks where needed based on condition and mobility goals. The Sidewalk Program Manager, could oversee the inventory of sidewalk data, manage the budget, and facilitate repairs accordingly, using the same outside contractors used today. This person could also receive sidewalk requests from citizens through the Citizen Service Bureau, updating the sidewalk inventory of conditions accordingly. * **Capital projects:** With adequate funding, implementing the TMP will also lead to more capital projects, further taxing existing project managers at the City. More project management capability and staff is needed to oversee projects and ensure the City’s needs are met. ■ Engineering capacity * **In-house engineering standards:** Dedicated staff time and annual funding are needed to regularly update and align the City’s construction and design standards with evolving best practices, safety principles, and policy goals. Maintaining current standards ensures that infrastructure projects reflect the City’s commitment the TMP’s goals. * **Signal timing/management engineer:** A dedicated Transportation Management Center staff or staff member is needed to oversee signal timing and operations, supporting efficient and responsive traffic management. This role is critical to the effective functioning as the City implements new technology and seeks to prioritize transit, pedestrians, and cyclists in signal planning. ■ Public engagement, communications, and mapping * **Additional capacity:** Additional capacity is needed within the transportation-related departments at the City to effectively communicate with the public about ongoing and proposed projects. At least one position is needed to provide public engagement and communications support, in addition to any consultants retained for major projects. This will provide consistency in the City’s approach to public engagement and allow for increased coordination with the Complete Streets Advisory Committee. Additional staff with GIS capabilities are also needed, with a role focused on communicating planned projects and status updates to the public. Additionally, specific items and materials should be kept on hand to support improved mobility and new types of transportation improvements. Today’s safety standards and best practices involve new kinds of treatments – like flex posts and other tools for traffic calming and delineation of bike lanes. Keeping a supply of these tools on-hand, while requiring some upfront cost, will allow the City to respond more quickly to maintenance needs and implement spot improvements that can save lives. ## Moving Forward In late 2024, the voters of the City of St. Louis passed Proposition T, which transitions the Department of Streets into the Department of Transportation, with the authority to repair streets and sidewalks, handle waste management services, and plan and engineer transportation projects and programs. With the Department of Transportation change coming in July of 2029, the City of St. Louis should begin to contemplate what changes are required to reorient funding and staff allocation to implement the priorities of the TMP. The City of Louisville recently undertook a similar change. Louisville Metro – the consolidated government of the City of Louisville and Jefferson County – created its Department of Transportation in 2024 to have one department “dedicated to enhancing the safety, efficiency, and sustainability of (the) city’s transportation network.”³ Prior to the change, Louisville’s transportation staff were separated into a Public Works Department and an Office of Planning. Among Louisville’s goals in creating the new Department of Transportation were to “operationalize planning,” “streamline project delivery,” and “enhance operational efficiency.”⁴ St. Louis may take some lessons from the development of this new department at a peer city. The new department is broken up into units for Programming and Planning (43 positions), Engineering (78 positions), and Maintenance (106 positions). Detailed organizational charts developed for the new department are included in a report developed by Louisville Metro ahead of implementation. The division structure shows at least three engineers in the Programming and Planning division itself to streamline project implementation. [^p298-3]: https://louisvilleky.gov/news/metro-department-transportation-announcement [^p298-4]: https://louisvilleky.gov/public-works/document/metro-department-transportation-report # 07 Implementation Plan <
> CITY OF ST. LOUIS TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This chapter outlines how St. Louis will move the Transportation and Mobility Plan from vision to action and how to measure progress along the way. Implementing projects and programs on the ground is essential, but this plan also serves as a tool to update municipal policies, improve internal coordination, build and maintain strong partnerships, secure funding, and continue engaging the community. The strategies in this chapter are designed to align TMP priorities with the City’s funding strategies to make sure planning leads to tangible results. The implementation actions, performance measures, and annual reporting outlined in this chapter are dependent on available funding sources, including the City budget, grant programs, and other financial opportunities. Successful implementation will also require continued collaboration, and expanded partnerships, with public and private organizations that share aligned goals. <
> # Funding Strategy As do most cities, the city of St. Louis funds its transportation infrastructure through an array of revenue sources. This section outlines the types of funding sources that are available to the city. ## Local: | General Fund (Varies) | | :--- | | • Supports ongoing operating expenses related to transportation, including street maintenance, traffic signal operations, snow removal, street sweeping, and pavement striping. | | • Administered by the Budget Division and allocated to departments such as the Streets Division and Board of Public Service (BPS). | | • While not often allocated to capital expenditures, general revenue can be used and should be considered as an option for programmatic capital investments in key infrastructure. When budgeted general revenue is unexpended at the end of a budget year, half is transferred into funds for various capital improvements (including but not limited to transportation). Thus, general revenue makes its way to capital projects at the “back end” of the budget year, but could be allocated to capital categories at the “front end” for more proactive planning and more consistent budgets. | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN **½% Capital Improvement Sales Tax (In Fiscal Year 2025, $10.5M for wards, $4.5M for citywide capital)** * Instituted in 1993 to provide a new, consistent revenue steam for capital project across St. Louis. * Primary local source for capital transportation investments, including resurfacing, sidewalk improvements, streetscape projects, and safety upgrades. * Revenue is divided between ward-specific allocations and citywide capital improvements. * Frequently used as local match for state and federal grant programs. * Ward capital portion is often used for ‘small to medium’ sized projects. * Ward capital also funds traffic/corridor studies and planning. **“St. Louis Works” funding (In Fiscal Year 2025, $5.2M)** * This revenue stream, derived from the gross receipts tax on phone and wireless providers, is allocated primarily to the Street Department for both staffing and improvements like the 50/50 sidewalk program, paving, and other capital maintenance work performed by the Street Department. * Capital share of revenue is divided equally by ward. * By practice administration is similar to ward capital but led by the Street Department. Transportation & Mobility Plan ### The Economic Development Sales Tax (In Fiscal Year 2025, $2.4M) * Passed in 2017, voters authorized a new ½% sales tax for a variety of activities, including transit expansion, neighborhood revitalization, and infrastructure. * 10% of the Economic Development Sales Tax annual funding is allocated to capital projects related to infrastructure. ### Miscellaneous * There are other variable capital revenue sources that together account for a relatively small percentage of the typical capital budget. These includes sources like leases and rent revenue, gaming revenues, and municipal garage revenue. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ### Capital Fund (Annual Budget Surplus, varies) * If the City of St. Louis has unexpended funds at the end of a fiscal year (a budget surplus) by ordinance, half of the surplus is transferred to the city’s capital fund for allocation by the city’s capital committee. * This amount varies substantially year to year, from $0 in any year in which St. Louis does not run a budget surplus, to $21.2M in FY24 and $37.8M in FY23, both numbers much higher than what is typical historically. * Revenue deposited into the capital fund is available for all capital expenditures, including transportation and other categories like parks, buildings, rolling stock, etc. * Allocated among various capital priorities by the Capital Committee. ### General Obligation and Revenue Bonds * St. Louis has periodically issued general obligation bonds, including $25 million in 2016, $50 million in 2018, and up to $50 million in 2023, whose proceeds can fund significant infrastructure projects including roads and bridges, or the local funding match component of grant funded projects. * Debt service is supported by the General Fund or other dedicated revenues. <
> An extended explanation of capital budget sources and uses is available in the city’s Capital Improvement Plan Budget HERE *Other local sources:* ### Tax-Increment Financing (TIF) * A TIF district is enacted by ordinance and allows for a portion of local tax revenue to be used within the district to either pay down development related debt, or to build public infrastructure. * Once enacted, uses of TIF revenue are largely controlled by district TIF commissioners. * In St. Louis, most TIF districts have been development related, although some have also been used to improve physical infrastructure, including public streets. ### Special Taxing/Assessment Districts In Missouri, Community Improvement Districts (CIDs), Special Business Districts (SBDs), and Transportation Development Districts (TDDs) have distinct processes for establishment but generally allow a district to levy either a sales or property tax within the district, which can be used for various purposes, including infrastructure within the district boundaries. * Can be used to pay for, finance, or contribute to infrastructure and streetscape projects within a district. * Revenue can also be used for enhanced maintenance of improvements. * Local district examples which have focused on infrastructure include Soulard CID and SBD, South Grand CID, Holly Hills SBD, and the Loop Trolley SBD. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN State: ### Motor Fuel Tax (Missouri State Gas Tax) $5.3M FY26, $7.8M FY27 * A statewide Missouri gas tax increase passed in 2021, and was phased in over several years reaching its full rate in 2025. A portion of the state revenue is allocated directly to cities and counties. * This increase has become a significant new revenue source for capital transportation projects in recent years. Over the long term, this revenue source is expected to remain flat due to the gradual shift towards electric vehicles (EVs) and away from gas-powered vehicles, but will provide a substantial new revenue source for the foreseeable future. * Distributed to municipalities based on population; restricted to expenditures related to vehicular transportation infrastructure. * Since coming into effect, this revenue source has been used for capital projects, maintenance, and local funding match share in St. Louis. ### MoDOT maintained routes * MoDOT, by agreement, maintains the curb to curb surface and elements like traffic signals on 38 miles of roadway within the City of St. Louis. While not a revenue source for capital projects, MoDOT does invest a significant amount into roadway infrastructure and the City of St. Louis has increasingly partnered on jointly funded projects on routes they maintain. Regional: * East-West Gateway Administered Federal Transportation Grants. * Sources include STP-Urban, TAP, HSIP, CMAQ, BRO. * Competitive, typically on an annual application cycle; typically require at least a 20% local match. * Used for corridor improvements, multimodal infrastructure, and safety-focused projects. * Projects are coordinated through the East-West Gateway Council of Governments. * Projects in the City of St. Louis compete against other projects in the Missouri part of the East-West Gateway region. * These programs fund most major roadway, streetscape, and bridge projects in St. Louis and the region, and also contribute to many trail and greenway projects. ### MoDOT Cost Share Program * The purpose of the Cost Share Program is to build partnerships with local entities to pool efforts and resources to deliver state highway and bridge projects. MoDOT allocates Cost Share funds based on the Missouri Highway and Transportation Committee’s (MHTC) approved funding distribution formula. * MoDOT’s Cost Share Program was used for I-64 and a City of Jefferson streets project. # Great Rivers Greenway District (GRG) * GRG is a state created taxing district supported by two sales tax levies in St. Louis City and County, and one in St. Charles County. * GRG’s mission is to create a connected greenway network across the region. * Their projects in recent years involve more infrastructure within the right-of-way (as opposed to in parks or adjacent to rivers). * In corridors they have identified for greenways, GRG is also making significant investments in city infrastructure that improves safety. # Public-Private Partnerships * Engage nonprofits and civic groups to help fund and advocate for projects that benefit local neighborhoods. * Engage business groups to invest in and advocate for infrastructure projects. * Business and neighborhood districts can provide dedicated funding for streetscape and transportation improvements. * Collaborate on funding, land, or expertise to improve campus and community connectivity through university partnerships. Example: The Tower Grove Connector is a partnership between the City of St. Louis, Trailnet, Greater St. Louis Inc., and many other partners. # Federal: ### American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds * One-time federal pandemic recovery funding; St. Louis allocated approximately $45 million toward transportation and mobility-related priorities, primarily arterial resurfacing and safety and hotspot crash location safety. * Used to fund planning efforts (e.g., the Transportation and Mobility Plan) and targeted infrastructure improvements. ### U.S. Department of Transportation Grants * The USDOT administers many competitive transportation grant programs. * The programs can fund many types of projects, but tend to be very competitive, with project submissions from across the country. * Most USDOT grants are limited to a maximum of $25M a project. * While grants follow a defined scoring criteria, final decisions are made by USDOT staff and the USDOT Secretary. Final grant awards are therefore discretionary and somewhat unpredictable. * Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding programs can award much higher dollar amounts to transit projects, but have very involved criteria for review and compliance of potential projects. Funding applications involve an extended years-long dialogue with the FTA. * In the past, St. Louis has pursued USDOT’s BUILD grant and SS4A grants. The Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grant program provides grants for surface transportation infrastructure projects with significant local or regional impact. The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant program provides grants to prevent roadway fatalities and serious injuries. These revenue sources are filtered through several city departments for transportation-related projects. ### Board of Public Service (BPS) * Leads planning, design, and construction of capital infrastructure projects, including streets. * Determines project scopes and manages design and construction contracts. * Maintains the City’s engineering and construction standards. ### Street Division (under the Department of Streets) * Oversees maintenance operations such as pothole repair, snow removal, and some pavement resurfacing and striping. * Implements smaller-scale projects and preventive maintenance work. ### Office on the Disabled * Assists in the project design review to improve ADA compliance. * Helps determine project or program selection for ADA Transition Plan funding. ### Capital Committee * Reviews and prioritizes Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) proposals submitted by city departments. * Composed of representatives from the Mayor’s Office, Comptroller’s Office, and Board of Aldermen. * Makes recommendations on capital expenditures to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. ### Board of Aldermen * Approves the Annual Operating Plan and Budget, including street-related appropriations. * May also initiate and fund projects through ward-specific capital allocations, with implementation managed by BPS. ### Planning and Urban Design Agency * PDA sets vision and strategy for land use, zoning, transportation, and urban design in the City. * PDA does not fund or implement construction projects but may secure planning-level funds (e.g., ARPA, federal grants) and manage consultant-led studies to define project needs. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN While in recent years the funding allocated to transportation and infrastructure projects in St. Louis has trended significantly upward, allowing for a substantial increase in project delivery, there is a significant near-term risk that changes in federal policy and potential local budget headwinds could reduce infrastructure spending below the necessary level to maintain and enhance existing systems. St. Louis should proactively set budgets in upcoming years to maintain a level of investment that can continue to make safety, accessibility, and overall condition improvements in needed areas. In order to do so, St. Louis should explore additional funding streams to sustain a level of investment necessary to maintain its transportation networks in a state of good repair. These may include allocations of general revenue towards system improvements (paving, sidewalks, signals, and bike facility maintenance), a bond issue that focuses on streets and sidewalks, or the establishment of a local gas tax to provide a new revenue stream to projects. St. Louis should look past annual budgets and seek to provide predictable, consistent levels of funding in a five-year time horizon to improve project planning, prioritization, and delivery. This longer-term planning and funding horizon is much more consistent with the typical practice of most transportation and public works agencies, be they at the municipal or state level. Transportation & Mobility Plan 313 # Performance Metrics and Annual Reporting The following section outlines the core goals of the TMP and the specific actions needed to achieve them. These goals represent the City’s commitment to creating a safer, more connected, and more accessible transportation system. Each goal is paired with a set of actionable strategies that serve as the foundation for implementation, translating high-level vision into clear steps the City and its partners can take. Each year, the City should assess progress towards these goals and quantify what has been achieved, ensuring that implementation remains transparent, measurable, and aligned with community priorities. <
> # TMP GOALS * Safety * Connectivity * Maintenance and Quality IMPLEMENTATION PLAN **SAFETY GOAL 1:** Reduce deaths and serious injuries 50% due to traffic violence by 2050. <
> Implement High-Injury Network Safety Projects which reduce crashes and fatalities. Consistently allocate funding in the annual city budget to locations and corridors on the high-injury network (HIN). Use crash data to update and prioritize the HIN at routine intervals. Proactively plan and fund improvements to the high-injury network, looking multiple years into the future. Since complete reconstruction of any corridor can be cost prohibitive, utilize lower-cost strategies (such as those deployed in the ARPA corridor projects) to make improvements sooner. Decouple key safety improvements from reliance on ward capital allocations. **SAFETY GOAL 2:** Improve safety and access for children and those with limited mobility. <
> Implement infrastructure improvements near schools, parks, and childcare facilities. These infrastructure improvements may include small traffic calming measures such as curb extensions, speed humps, and improved signage. These tools serve to increase driver awareness and encourage slower, more attentive driving in areas where children and families are likely to be present. Identify and prioritize filling gaps in curb ramps, pedestrian crossings, and sidewalks. Coordinate with the Office on the Disabled to track and monitor sidewalk improvements and other ADA improvements identified in the ADA transition plan. Transition the parcel-based 50/50 sidewalk repair program to a block by block sidewalk repair and replacement program, which will more predictably improve accessibility and ADA compliance. Implement ADA Transition Plan priorities and monitor and report on progress annually. Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) and pedestrian refuge islands in areas with high foot traffic. **SAFETY GOAL 3:** Design streets for their intended purpose. <
> Use the Street Design Framework as the foundation for project scoping and design guidance. <
> Report on alignment with SDF in annual Complete Street Implementation Report. <
> Prioritize adapting streets without recent investment or streets where the land use context has significantly changed since the last design. <
> Develop an inventory of age of basic infrastructure, focused on construction year (pavement, traffic signals, sidewalks). **SAFETY GOAL 4:** Curb reckless driving and create efficiencies for people traveling through modernized technologies. <
> Deploy automated enforcement tools like red light and speed cameras in appropriate locations to improve safety. <
> Use smart signal technology to manage speeds and improve flow, speed up traffic signal cycles where appropriate. <
> Increase transparency around corridors with known safety issues. Using the City’s data dashboard, layers such as the High Injury Network can be shared to inform residents about locations with elevated rates of roadway fatalities and serious injuries. As safety projects are implemented and the Safety Action Plan is updated, the annual Complete Streets report should include a dedicated section highlighting interventions aimed at curbing reckless driving. <
> Launch targeted public awareness campaigns around speeding and aggressive driving with partners. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN <
> **CONNECTIVITY GOAL 1:** Prioritize ADA transition plan implementation and focus on accessible connections for all St. Louis residents. * Publish and fund a phased ADA Transition Plan schedule. * Track and publish completed work each year related to ADA Transition Plan Implementation. * Build capacity within City departments to implement accessibility improvements consistently. * Create an accessibility scorecard to track and communicate progress. **CONNECTIVITY GOAL 2:** Proactively build and maintain a continuous and accessible sidewalk network across St. Louis. * Transition to a block by block, rather than a parcel by parcel approach to sidewalk reconstruction. * Initiate a sidewalk construction item/category within the annual budget. * Develop a citywide inventory to monitor sidewalk locations, ADA compliance, and construction year. **CONNECTIVITY GOAL 3:** Continue to expand the cycling and greenway network to safely connect destinations across the city. * Partner with Great Rivers Greenway to deliver regional connections. * Use the Future Bike Network Map to continue to expand the local bike network. * Continue pursuing greenway, trail, and shared use path facilities which connect to greenways and parks, but are constructed by the City of St. Louis. * Integrate bike facilities into resurfacing and capital projects. * Provide end-of-trip amenities like racks and repair stations citywide. * Develop capacity for installation of more project features in-house. **CONNECTIVITY GOAL 4:** Continue to support the delivery and expansion of quality transit and other mobility services. Continue to pursue a high-capacity, north – south running transit corridor which functions as part of the MetroLink system with frequent, high-quality service. Collaborate with Metro Transit on bus emphasis corridors, queue jumps, and improved stop amenities. Develop a stronger partnership between St. Louis and Bi-State Development for shared jurisdiction areas, like bus stops and shelters, refuse service, and bus-related pavement markings. Ensure first-mile/last-mile infrastructure is in place to connect to key transit stops. Where possible, continue supporting demand responsive services, particularly for elderly or disabled residents. **CONNECTIVITY GOAL 5:** Reduce or mitigate existing infrastructure barriers and avoid creating new barriers. Map and prioritize existing physical barriers. Develop clear guidelines for when street vacations are in the public interest. Develop clear guidelines for where street closures or grid interruptions are allowed. Design overpasses, underpasses, bridges, or crossings to reconnect neighborhoods where feasible. Ensure all new bridges and bridge replacements have robust bike and pedestrian facilities, sufficient to facilitate future greenway connections without future modification. Review new development and infrastructure projects for potential to create new barriers. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN **MAINTENANCE AND QUALITY GOAL 1:** Implement asset management for more proactive decision making about transportation infrastructure. <
> Develop a centralized asset management system for essential street components like paving, striping, sidewalks, signals, and signage. <
> Use data to rank needs, align funding, and report to the public. <
> Link Capital Improvement Program (CIP) decisions to life-cycle cost analysis and performance outcomes. <
> Scale funding allocation to sustainably maintain transportation network in a state of good repair. **MAINTENANCE AND QUALITY GOAL 2:** Put major roadways on a repaving and improvement schedule and allocate citywide capital to this activity each year as part of a new ‘Major Streets Program.’ <
> Publish a multi-year repaving schedule that balances safety, condition, connectivity, and equity. <
> Dedicate a portion of general revenue specifically to the Major Street Program in each annual budget. <
> Coordinate pavement projects with water/sewer/utilities to reduce redundant costs when possible. <
> Include bikeways, sidewalk, accessibility, and safety improvements as part of Major Streets Program scope where feasible. Transportation & Mobility Plan MAINTENANCE AND QUALITY GOAL 3: Define parameters for durable pavement markings and other better- quality features. Update City standards to require thermoplastic or other durable materials in high-wear areas and on arterial streets. Set restriping frequency benchmarks and maintain a citywide schedule. Prioritize visibility upgrades near schools, transit stops, and high-crash corridors. Include markings and signage in maintenance budgets, not just capital. MAINTENANCE AND QUALITY GOAL 4: Improve pavement and sidewalk restoration standards after utility and development work. Establish clear pavement and sidewalk restoration requirements in right-of-way permits. Require full-lane width patches on arterials and commercial corridors. Track restoration compliance and develop enforcement or fee mechanisms for poor-quality work. Coordinate with utility providers in advance of major paving projects to minimize costs afterwards. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN <
> # 08 Conclusion <
> CITY OF ST. LOUIS TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY PLAN CONCLUSION # LET'S BUILD A BETTER # Connection <
> # Reinforcing the Vision The Transportation and Mobility Plan charts a path forward towards a transportation system in St. Louis that is safer, more connected, and better maintained for everyone who moves through St. Louis. By prioritizing safety improvements, expanding accessible connections, and investing in long-term infrastructure quality, the plan offers a comprehensive framework for transforming how people get around the city. These strategies are rooted in data, informed by community input, and designed to support a more equitable, reliable, and resilient transportation network. Together, these efforts reflect a shared vision: a city where all residents, regardless of age, ability, or mode of travel, can move safely and confidently. # Call to Action By its nature, infrastructure ages and wears out, and the need to continuously reinvest is a constant factor. As the owner of the majority of transportation infrastructure in St. Louis, local government must lead in this maintenance and reinvestment. Realizing the vision in the TMP will take collective effort and continued commitment. This plan is not just for City staff or transportation professionals, it is a tool for residents, elected officials, and partner organizations to shape the future of mobility in St. Louis. Everyone has a role to play in implementing this plan and holding each other accountable to its goals. Each year, the City should reflect on its progress, measure what has been achieved, and adjust as needed to stay on course. Ongoing community involvement will be essential to ensure that the plan remains responsive and relevant. <
> Let this plan be a starting point, and a shared responsibility, for building a better-connected, more inclusive, and more vibrant St. Louis. CONCLUSION <
> # 09 Acknowledgments CITY OF ST. LOUIS TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY PLAN # ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ## Mayor Cara Spencer ## Planning Commission Alderwoman Shameem Clark-Hubbard Alderwoman Anne Schweitzer Jake Banton Tracy Boaz Richard T. Bradley Stan Fowler Cristina Garmendia Paul Hubbman Sterling Miller Aaron Williams ## Project Management Scott Ogilvie, AICP, Complete Streets Program Manager, City of St. Louis Jacque Knight, AICP, Project Manager, Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, Inc. ## Advisory Committee Members Angela Stammerjohn Dan Doelling Danielle D’Onfro Elaine Jackson Emily Antrobus Gabrielle Meyer James Stringfellow Kassy Devine Marsha Nelson Melvin Latham Raul Gonzalez Ryan Danner Samuel Bendriem Stanley Fowler Stephanie Co Xandi Barrett Transportation & Mobility Plan # Core Team John Kohler, Planning & Programming Manager, Board of Public Service Len Efthim, Traffic Commissioner, Street Department David Newburger, Commissioner, Office on the Disabled Kyle Nelson, Bicycle & Pedestrian Coordinator, Street Department Grace Kyung, Planning Commission # Consultant Team Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, Inc. | CBB --- | --- Vector Communications | PGAV SmithGroup | CDI SWT Design | # Universal Design Group Sarahlena Banu | William (Bill) Sheldon --- | --- Colleen Burdiss | Naomi Soule Shannan Dunphy Lazo | Collen Starkloff Donna Gunning | Michelle Steger Gina Hilberry | Sherri Thompson Thy Huskey, M.D. | Devon Whitmore Tim Klaas | Rush Wilkerson Andrew Lackey | Kerri Morgan | David Newburger | Sheryl Rose | Jason Sengheiser | # City Staff **Board of Public Service** Rich Bradley, President Matt Barnes Andrew Riganti Eric Bothe Jarek Czerniewicz Kevin Trapp Matt Poirot **Street Department** Kent Flake Zach Fortune **Planning & Urban Design** Don Roe, Director Miriam Keller Jonathan Roper Tim Callahan Elysia Russell **Mayor’s Office** Casey Millburg Rasmus Jorgenson **Office on the Disabled** Andrew Lackey **Parks Department** Greg Hayes Kim Haegele # Stakeholder Agencies **East-West Gateway Council of Governments** Marcie Meystrik, Executive Director **Missouri Department of Transportation** Tom Blair, District Engineer Jen Wade, St. Louis City Area Engineer Eddie Watkins, Traffic Operations Shaun Tooley, Planner Alvin Nieves-Rosario Heather Copeland **Metro Transit** Jessica Gershman Lisa Cagle Bryan Rogers **Great Rivers Greenway** Todd Antoine Michael Steinlage Angelica Gutierrez Kuleya Bruce Transportation & Mobility Plan ## Interview Participants **Hillary Frey, STL Youth Jobs, Executive Director** **Jeremy Main, Mission: St. Louis, Director of Community Development** **Christine Davis, St. Louis Community College, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs** **Sam Murphey, Greater St. Louis INC., Chief Strategy Officers** **Christie Holland & Aubrey Bryon, Community Mobility Committee, Co-Chairs** **Evelyn Kumeh, International Institute of St. Louis, Job Developer – Workforce Solutions** **Mike Weiss, Big Shark Bicycle, Owner** **Aimee Wehmeier, Paraquad, President** **Jaenette Mott Oxford (J-MO), Paraquad, Public Policy & Advocacy Manager** **Mary Lamie, The Freightway Initiative, Executive Director** **Jonathan Belcher, St. Patrick Center, Senior Director of Programs, Long-Term Transformation** <
> CITY OF ST. LOUIS TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY PLAN