Update 01/27/2023:
Good news! Kirkwood will, in fact, be pursuing Phase 1B in this year’s call for STP grant proposals according to next week’s City Council agenda. The proposal matches that which I outlined below, running from Fillmore to Leffingwell. The city is asking for $1,731,310 in Federal funding and will match that share, should the project be chosen, with $346,262 of its own money accounting for 20% of the total cost. Nice work to everyone involved, I’m really excited about this.
Original Story:
In case you missed it, East-West Gateway’s Missouri Transportation Planning Committee announced a couple of weeks ago that they were recommending approval of Kirkwood’s grant proposal for the first half of the first phase of the Grant’s Trail Extension to Downtown Kirkwood. The public comment period on that recommendation opens January 27th and runs until February 15th. Final approvals are expected on March 29th.
When the recommendation was first made a couple of weeks ago, I tweeted out a brief write-up of what this grant means for the project in the short term and the long term, but because a lot of you guys read primarily on email and maybe didn’t see it, I wanted to start this piece off by fleshing out that initial update, and then move on to why I think it’s critical Kirkwood submit a STP grant proposal by the February 9th deadline to try to get the second half of Phase 1 funded as well, something that it seems the city is not currently planning on doing (I did not hear back on my FOIA request before getting this piece out).
Where We Stand
Okay, on with the show! First, the good-ish news: What’s pictured below is getting built.
Though limited, getting this section of the project funded —running from Argonne to Fillmore, essentially one-fourth of our initial proposal— is really good in and of itself. A raised intersection at Fillmore & Monroe, a raised crosswalks on both Taylor and Argonne, new bicycle parking around the Farmer’s Market, and the 10-foot wide mixed-use path itself are all included. I want to emphasize, tese are improvements to the heart of Downtown, the most densely populated, densely trafficked part of Kirkwood. The walk or bike from The James and Kirkwood Apartments to the Performing Arts Center will be made comfortable and more popular (thus reducing demand for parking). In fact, when this small section of the trail is completed, four out of the six Taylor intersections from Washington to Monroe will feature significant pedestrian improvements and traffic calming infrastructure (further bolstering the case for a lane reduction on North Kirkwood Road). This is all really really good.
What Happened to the Other 3/4ths?
Still, failing to secure funding for the other three-fourths more than a year after we first started to pursue this project is disappointing. To recap how we got here, Kirkwood initially split the full length of the extension in half for the last year’s STP grant proposal, with Phase 1 running from Argonne to Leffingwell and Phase 2 running from Leffingwell to the existing trailhead (mostly using an abandoned rail spur). We were encouraged to split that proposal into two phases by EWG because they informed us that the cost of the full project (both phases combined) essentially insured that it would not be chosen. Then both phases of that proposal failed to gain approval from EWG anyway and Kirkwood was forced to apply, instead, to the less well funded Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) later in the year, opting to only submit a proposal for Phase 1. That brings us to this most recent news that East-West Gateway has recomended funding for just half of that first phase (which I’ll refer to as Phase 1A), with the federal government funding 80% ($1,745,560) of the project and Kirkwood kicking in the remaining 20% ($436,390):
The TAP Project Development Workbook indicated that sponsors that requested in excess of $2 million in federal funding for a project should indicate if the project could be broken down into constructible segments. Due to the volume of applications that were received, the number of projects with higher performance scores, and the need for multimodal improvements throughout the region, EWG is recommending that one segment of the Kirkwood Grant’s Trail project be funded at $1.8 million in TAP funds. Kirkwood requested $3 million in TAP funding. In addition, to ensure equity amongst municipalities, EWG recommends that a municipality cannot receive more than one project for this round of TAP.
-EWG MISSOURI TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEMO
Obviously, getting just 1/4th of the project funded is not ideal, especially given that it means our application for a separate Argonne pedestrian improvement project was denied on a one-project-per-municipality prioritization rule, but there are reasons to think this was as good an outcome as we could’ve hoped for up to this point.
Last year, annoyed that we failed to submit a winning bid for what is clearly a good project, I took a very close look at our original STP grant application. I was ready to raise hell about the whole failure, but when I looked at the rubric we were graded on, it turned out that it is just really hard to find the Performance points needed to get a project that was going to cost as much as ours was over the line no matter what tweaks we would’ve made to our application (projects are graded on three criteria, with Performance accounting for 100 points, Usage accounting for 5 and Cost accounting for 20. The more costly the project, the fewer “cost” points you get).
I’m less familiar with the TAP rubric, but I would imagine it’s fairly similar, just with even an even smaller pot of total money, so we scoped our proposal down even further and at least got some money. That was a good, practical short-term step, but it still leaves us with more work left to do.
More Work To Do
The EWG application window for this year’s STP and QMAC grants, the two other opportunities to seek funding for portions of the project besides TAP, closes on February 9th. It does not seem that Kirkwood has any plans to submit proposals for this round of applications.
I think that’s a mistake. We could submit a fairly low-cost project, extending this initial phase 1A into a Phase 1B running from the corner of the KPAC parking lot (where Phase 1A is planned to end) to Leffingwell, where the rail spur that connects to the existing Grant’s Trail first comes into play.
Though the significance of such a proposal would be limited, I still think pursuing it is smart for several reasons:
1. I Think We Could Get The Grant!
First, I want to say that submitting this grant should require very little actual work. We wrote up our proposal last year, and the plan hasn’t changed much since then. The fact that we received the TAP grant means we’d have to delete the parts that refer to Phase 1A and maybe do some light editing based on the feedback we got on our failed application, maybe get some new letters of support from the relevant players, etc., but besides that, it’s essentially a copy-and-paste job. You might be asking why, then, would I be expecting a different result? Well I’ll tell you why!
Remember, the cheaper the project, the more points you get. When we originally applied for STP grant funding last year, the 20 point section associated with cost on the 125-point rubric was our biggest downfall. Of those 20 potential points, one of our phases scored a 9.02 and the other a 5.98. leaving a combined 25 points on the table. Losing 10% of the total points available before EWG even starts looking at the design/performance component is a really tough way to get funding. But! with the TAP funding of Phase 1A, we’ve already eliminated about 20% of the total estimated cost. The other good news is that, since Congress passed the Infrastructure bill, there’s a lot more money on the table this year so high cost is less of a hinderance in gaining approval.
And the Phase 1B I’m proposing probably won’t cost that much either. If we subtract the funding we just got for Phase 1A from last year’s cost for all of Phase 1 we can estimate that the funding required for the proposed Phase 1B is approximately $1,560,000. Now there’s obviously been a decent amount of inflation this year, and Phase 1B might be a little more expensive them Phase 1A since it’s running in between property lines rather than along streets so let’s round that estimate up to $2,000,000. The Federal government then covers 80% of that which brings us to around $1,600,000 in requested Federal funding.
We look down to our handy-dandy Cost score chart provided by EWG for this year’s request for proposals, and it seems reasonable to conclude that such a Phase 1B would score somewhere around an 18 out of 20 on the Cost portion of the rubric. That’s really, really good! Especially compared to last time.
I think that the project can score in the 72-74 range of the Performance portion of the rubric, bringing our total score estimate of Phase 1B to the 90-92 range. Last year, the highest-scoring rejected proposal received a 91.4, which means we should be in the game before you even factor in the bigger pot of money that should lead to a higher percentage of projects receiving funding this year anyway.
2. This Project Would Set Us Up to Score More Points for Phase 2
Completing this segment should also set us up to score higher on future grant proposals. First, completing Phase 1 via 1B means that we chip away at our total outstanding price tag, which means better cost scores in the Phase 2 portions of the project. We know Phase 2 will be more expensive than Phase 1 based on last year’s proposal, so the more money we can siphon off now, the better.
Second, completing this Phase 1B should improve the 25-point “System Connectivity” subsection of our Performance score on future applications. System Connectivity rewards projects that are integrated with other pedestrian/cycling infrastructure (consider it a a “bridge to nowhere” clause). Phase 1A, I assume recieved very few of these points because it will not connect to any existing multi-use path. Phase 1B should get a few more point because it will at least connect to Phase 1A, and then any potential Phase 2 that connects the existing Grant’s Trail to the existing Phase 1 should get ALL the points:
25 points Constructing a new facility that provides a high level of pedestrian/bicycle connectivity (e.g., sidewalk is connected to continuous sidewalks where there are significant opportunities for pedestrians to reach destination(s), bike facility closes a gap between two existing bicycle facilities, project provides a large coverage area for pedestrian/bicycle travel).
23 points Upgrading an existing facility that provides a high level of pedestrian/bicycle connectivity (e.g., sidewalk is connected to continuous sidewalks where there are significant opportunities for pedestrians to reach destination(s), bike facility closes a gap between two existing bicycle facilities, project provides a large coverage area for pedestrian/bicycle travel).
20 points Constructing a new facility that provides a medium level of pedestrian/bicycle connectivity (e.g., project connects on one end to an existing bicycle facility, sidewalk provides some opportunities for pedestrians, but adjacent physical gaps are still present where pedestrian travel is reasonably expected).
EWG, System Connectivity Description, Active Transport Type, STP funding rubric
Speaking of setting us up nicely for Phase 2…
3. It Gives Us Flexibility for Phase 2
I also hope that moving forward with Phase 1B of the project will give Kirkwood the time and space to do Phase 2 right. Lat year, Phase 2 wasn’t quite where it needed to be on a couple of levels. Most notably, our plans for Phase 2 called for the path to circumnavigate the final stretch of the rail spur that directly connects to the existing trailhead and instead use Holmes and Elliot, apparently because the owner of that stretch of rail was unwilling to negotiate.
Obviously, it’s preferable to have as direct and as traffic-separated of a route as possible, so I would love for us to work out that kink ahead of our next submission. But even if that never comes to fruition, funding for this short remaining section of Phase 1 leaves all our options open for Phase 2, allowing us to kick the can down the road until we figure out how to do it best. Which I think is important because it might take some creative thinking to get the project done given how much I expect this Phase 2 to cost.
If we get the trail all the way to Leffingwell, we basically have three options for completing the final stretch. Ideally, we’d just go straight down the stretch of abandoned railroad tracks that directly connect the existing trail to Leffingwell, but life isn’t always easy, and I do think the yellow and red routes offer viable alternatives, especially on an interim basis. The one knock against these non-rail spur alternatives is that they may constrain car capacity on the streets they run down. I’m not big on worrying about traffic in general, but I think ensuring this portion of road has sufficient capacity is particularly important, because ideally, I’d like for a lot more people to live around here…
4. We could get started on some re-zonings
As I’ve written before, I would love for Kirkwood to use the Grant’s Trail extension project as an opportunity to reimagine how the industrial land around the Phase 2 portion of the route is used. I don’t want to scare the shit out of people, but if you take a look, if we can get Phase 1B (the first stretch of trail running through industrial land) built, we can actually start leveraging our investment to bring more development, and especially housing, near Downtown even earlier than that. The land that surrounds Phase 1B is underutilized and provides tremendous opportunity:
The argument for how is fairly simple:
- Kirkwood has an acute housing shortage and very little need for industrial land
- Grant’s Trail is a really nice amenity, and people are going to want to live beside it
- Allowing people to do that via re-zonings would be a huge boon to Kirkwood
Let’s break that down in a little more detail. First, and you might’ve heard this before, but lots of people want to live in Kirkwood but the supply is staying roughly the same so the price of our existing homes keeps getting bid higher and Kirkwood keeps getting more expensive. Increasing the supply of homes in Kirkwood (especially by building places like townhomes and apartments that are naturally more affordable than single family homes), will help reverse (or at least slow) that trend of decreasing attainability.
Second, allowing people to live next to a mixed-use path like Grant’s Trail in particular will mean we can increase the supply of homes in our community without proportionally increasing traffic. The people who live in these hypothetical apartments could replace a good portion of their trips with biking and walking. They could walk to work at Kaldi’s or PJ’s, bike to the Farmer’s Market for some fresh produce, walk to the bars or the Performing Arts Center on Friday nights, and step outside of their door and bike or run eleven miles of a beautiful trail for exercise. These use cases start to add up and make reliance on cars go down. With reduced reliance on cars anticipated, the developers of these homes would be free to incorporate less parking into their plans for these lots and offer even more homes or cheaper homes as a result. We could even make a special zoning designation with no minimum parking requirements for these lots along the trail and attract people who are especially bought in the idea of walkability.
Finally, these new relatively affordable homes would provide significant upside to Kirkwood as a whole:
-Affordable homes add service workers for our businesses that are having difficulty attracting service workers
-Added density also means that landing future grant funding will be made easier. (We currently score 9 points on “density,” so there’s not that much juice left to squeeze here, but still, every point counts)
-More productive land uses means more property tax revenue which means better services for Kirkwood residents
Then, if these developments were mixed-use projects that say included a nice restaurant like Olive + Oak, or a beer garden like the popular Katy Trail Ice House in Dallas (also along a trail) on the ground floor, you could also get a decent clip of people from, say, Crestwood taking the trail to get to dinner or for a Summer Saturday beer garden excursion and spending their money in Kirkwood, thus generating additional sales tax revenue, without clogging our streets or taking up parking spots.
And those are just the advantages that would flow from Phase 1B. They would multiply and synergize if we then followed through and did the same thing with the land surrounding Phase 2.
That’s a lot of upside for a rezoning that would likely see relatively little local opposition given the current industrial use of the area. And that’s not to say that we would force any of the industrial uses out, we’d just add mixed use development as a permitted use and if the owners of the property decided it was in their own financial best to interest to sell the property to a developer and pack up shop and move to Fenton, then great! And if not, that’s great too! Letting the Market be more efficient will just leave everyone better off.
What We Have to Lose
I hope I’ve made a compelling case for this “Phase 1B” so I’m left a little confused as to why it seems that we are not planning to submit anything here. The only reason why you wouldn’t do it is if you thought that the expected value of applying for these grants was less than the ~$8,000 application fee we’d have to pay to EWG (0.5% of the Federal funds being requested, which I’ve estimated to be about $1,600,000). The math here is pretty simple: Using the expected value formula, the only reason we shouldn’t apply is if we think there’s more than a 99.5% probability that our proposal gets rejected. I’m not that confident, and I see no reason why Kirkwood Planning should be that confident either.
Thanks for reading.