To Unlock Promise of MetroLink, TOD is Key

Now that the dust has (finally) settled on the first round of voting in the St. Louis aldermanic primary, I want to take some time to advocate for a policy change that the City should implement but which the entire region would benefit from. That policy is the legalization of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) through the rezoning of land around our existing transit. Let me make the case.

In MetroLink, St. Louis probably has the best transit system out of any of our peer cities in the Midwest. But so much of the MetroLink oxygen gets sucked up by questions of crime, debates about turnstiles, and the details of the N-S extension that I think many people ignore the significance of what we currently have. St. Louis’s existing system has higher annual ridership than Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis, Kansas City and Detroit. In fact, the only non-Chicago midwestern city that we trail in terms of ridership is Minneapolis, a city that has 130% of our population and which is rapidly growing.

A rail system of that magnitude is a tremendous asset for a shrinking rustbelt city to have, and I think we should be putting a lot more effort into thinking of ways we can leverage it, because doing so would allow us to make the system even better. The more people you can get to ride your train, the more revenue you have to pay bus drivers, increase frequency, extend hours, and open new lines. These improvements then, in turn, make the transit even better, attract even more riders, raise even more revenue, and on and on. But you still have to figure out how to kick that virtuous cycle off. And in St. Louis, you have to think of ways to kick that cycle off that don’t require much financial or regional political support.¹ But if you can find something that’s cheap and that’s within the City’s purview though, the only other thing you really have to do is prove it’s progressive.

A Progressive Policy for a Progressive City

With Megan Green as the President of the Board of Alderman, Tishaura Jones as Mayor, and Cori Bush as the city’s Rep in D.C., the voters of St. Louis City have provided their elected officials with a mandate to pursue progressive policy whenever or wherever possible. As Blake Strode’s popular Riverfront Times piece recent alleged, “Gone, at least temporarily, are the days of the proudly “moderate” corporate-centric neoliberals who have dominated local political circles for generations.” That mandate effectively diminishes rich NIMBYs’ ability to block things that would contribute to progressive outcomes.² And while all improvements to transit can be considered broadly progressive (since lower-income households use transit at the highest rates), TOD in particular makes that connection most explicit on multiple different fronts:

• Housing – We know increasing the supply of housing in general reduces its costs, but doing so near high quality transit then has the added benefit of reducing transportation costs for residents too. If you can get around without needing a car (or, more realistically for St. Louisans, needing fewer cars), then households free up the money that they otherwise would have spent on car payments, insurance, and gas. And, as we’re about to see, the neighborhoods that are the best candidates for TOD upzoning are some of the richest in the city, which means you’re increasing affordability places where the amenities are the greatest but which have historically been closed off
• Public Health – The reduction in air pollution that comes with replacing cars with transit makes the air safer to breathe. taking cars off the street also means improved pedestrian safety, which is obviously an issue that has gained a lot of attention recently
• Climate Change – Less driving also means fewer carbon emissions, both from gasoline-powered cars more directly and from the power plants that fuel electric vehicles more indirectly

And it does all this for free. That means no politically toxic tax increases and no loss of funding to any other budget priorities that people might care about. Then, as that transit-oriented development gets built out, it begins to actually generate tax revenue for the city while reducing its per-capita expenses, thanks to the fact that people who take transit more and drive less put less wear and tear on the roads. And this leveling up of the city’s finances is an important feature of the proposal because the current arrangement is not very sustainable:

We have about 1600 miles of pavement between streets & alleys in the city.This morning the Streets Commissioner said our capacity for repaving is 32 miles a year or about 50 years to make one pass through out the city. repaving means just a thin overlay,not rebuilding from base/1

— Denis Beganovic (@Beganovic2022) February 8, 2023

operated on a tax base of 300,000. Idk what the solution is but it probably involves getting rid of excess capacity on roadways and getting help via paving contracts

— Denis Beganovic (@Beganovic2022) February 8, 2023

Okay, I tried my best to sell you on the idea, now here’s how and where we do it.

Our TOD-able Transit Assets

If we want to see real TOD in the city we need to look for places that: 1) have frequent enough transit that it serves as a practical option; and 2) currently don’t allow dense development and thus could really benefit from up-zoning.

On the frequent transit front, obviously, the two MetroLink lines are our greatest assets. The portions of the MetroLink system that are only served by either the Red or the Blue line get a train every 20 minutes, whereas the 16-station middle portion served by both the Red and the Blue lines (Forest Park-DeBaliviere to Fairview Heights) has on-peak frequencies of between 9 and 11 minutes.

And amongst these MetroLink stations for which the City controls land use, four stand out as most significantly in need of up-zoning: Shrewsbury-Lansdowne at the end of the Blue Line and then the three-station cluster of Skinker, Delmar, and Forest Park-DeBaliviere, where the Red and Blue lines converge just to the North of Forest Park.

We Should TOD the 70 and 11 Bus Routes Too

And because three of those stations are only seeing 20-minute frequencies, I think it also makes sense to look at implementing TOD along any bus routes that can hit that mark as well. It turns out there are only two: The 70 (the system’s busiest) which runs straight down Grand and the 11-Chippewa, which runs from the Landsdowne MetroLink station in the southwestern corner of the city, down Chippewa, and then North on Jefferson until it hits downtown.³

Now MetroLink still has other advantages over busses (it’s faster, more reliable, and has a higher average capacity than a standard 40-ft bus), but by and large, I think that up-zoning around these two bus routes still makes sense for a couple of reasons. First, because these bus routes have lots of stops and because they run though heart of South City where zoned capacity is relatively low and demand for housing is relatively high, including them in the proposal greatly increases its impact. Second, because the North-South portion of the 11 route runs down the same portion of Jefferson that the N-S MetroLink extension is supposed to run down, up-zoning the area now will help grow that project’s economic potential (and improve it’s prospects for receiving funding).

What Zoning Changes We Need

And what do we mean by “legalize”? Well, I think it makes sense that all residentially-zoned land within 1/2 a mile (~10 minute walk) of MetroLink stations and within 1/4 mile (~5 minute walk) of the two Metro Bus lines should be zoned to the density of the city’s “E-Multiple Family Dwelling Unit” code (or higher). E-Multi Fam allows residential buildings up to eight stories tall, (but I think it’s pretty unlikely we’d see many developers actually pursue the maximum height here). I also think it would make sense to eliminate the parking requirement in these zones (as the city has done with their “I-Central Business District” zone downtown) given, you know, their transit oriented nature and all. So combine the density of “E” and the parking requirements of “I” and make a new “M-Transit Oriented Development District”.

Mapping the Impact

The map below shows the MetroLink Red and Blue lines as well as the 70-Grand (green) and 11-Chippewa (yellow) bus routes. The higher-frequency portion of the MetroLink serviced by both the red AND blue line is depicted in purple. The 1/2 mile radius around the four TOD MetroLink stations, as well as the 1/4 mile buffer surrounding those two high-frequency TOD bus routes, are outlined and shaded. (I have also depicted the 1/4 mile radius around MetroLink stations that are only served by one of the two lines, since these stops see more limited 20-minute service, on par with the two bus routes, as I previously mentioned).

Let’s take a deep dive on each of these examples to see what we’re working with.

Shrewsbury-Lansdowne I-44

Shrewsbury-Lansdowne is the southwestern most station of the MetroLink system and is the final stop on the Blue line. The station falls right on the border between the City of St. Louis and Shrewsbury, and is surrounded almost entirely by single-family exclusive zoning in both jurisdictions. Obviously, it’d be really nice if Shrewsbury wanted to follow the city’s lead and up-zone the land that they control around the station, but even increasing capacity on just the city-controlled portion of the walkshed would have an impact:

And when you look at the bus routes that also run through Shrewsbury-Lansdowne, the case for allowing more density here gets even stronger. In addition to being the final stops on both the MetroLink Blue line and the high(er)-frequency 11-Chippewa bus route, the 9, the 16, the 21, the 30, and Kirkwood’s very own 56 bus routes run through here as well. That makes this one of the most transit-rich areas in the whole region, and yet the city currently allows just a few dozen homes within a 10-minute walk of it.

The one real constraint here is the flooding threat posed by the River Des Peres. Some people might have qualms about more intensely developing the land along the River Des Peres, especially after the flooding last July, but the land actually has a relatively moderate 4/10 flooding risk-factor, MSD has made and continues to make massive investments in River Des Peres flooding mitigation, and multi-family homes are often more easy to flood-proof than the single family ones. The River Des Peres, in so much as it can be controlled, might even act as an additional amenity for the area given the money that has been poured into the greenway that lines its banks. Obviously kick the tires with MSD on this, but I think the environmental benefits of transit oriented development here far outweigh the risks.

Skinker, Delmar, & Forest Park-DeBaliviere

Speaking of transit hubs, the area surrounding the northwestern corner of Forest Park has three MetroLink Stations within a stone’s throw of one another: Skinker (serviced by the Blue Line); Delmar (serviced by the Red Line); and Forest Park-DeBaliviere (which is serviced by both). The 1, 2, 5, 16, 90, 91, and 97 bus routes all also run through here, and then obviously (notoriously) you have the Loop Trolley which has stops at both the Delmar and DeBaliviere MetroLink stations.⁴

But despite being so rich in transit options AND right across the street from Forest Park (and the numerous free attractions it contains), the land around these three sites is mostly set aside for a few incredibly wealthy local magnates via single-family zoning. Now, obviously the incredibly rich residents of Lindell, Portland and Westmoreland Place aren’t all going to jump to tear down their palazzos as soon as the city allows them to, but it makes no sense for the city to be running cover for them either. If someone wanted to build an apartment building along Lindell, by transit and next to the park, it’s pretty insane that technically the most immediate reason that they couldn’t is that St. Louis (Cori Bush’s St. Louis!) has those lots reserved for mansions. In a city as progressive as St. Louis, that doesn’t make any sense.

I think it’s instructive that some of the only empty lots in the small multifamily zone (in brown) immediately next to the DeBaliviere station have seen 442 new units built in the past year. To me, that shows pretty unambiguously that there’s tremendous demand for more housing here if we’d only allow it and turn the yellow parts of the map inside the circles into brown multifamily too.

Now I think the main pushback at this cluster is going to come from preservationists. And many of these buildings and streets really do have some architecture of historical merit. But the good news for the preservationists is that these properties would still be significantly protected by the status derived from their being in local and national historic districts.

That means that multi-family development projects (especially those involving the demolition of existing structures) would still be subject to significant oversight and review, it’s just that those reviews will be properly categorized as being about historical and architectural considerations rather than as being about whether the neighborhood is suitable for denser housing, as the answer to that question is clearly yes.

The 70-Grand and the 11-Chippewa

Finally, and perhaps most substantially, we’ll look at the land that surrounds the city’s two highest-frequency bus routes. The 70-Grand route runs from Carondelet Park in deep South City all the way to O’Fallon Park in the far North, but it’s pretty clear that the portion of the city where demand would be most likely support private investment in new housing is the portion that runs through South City, which also happens to be where the 11-Chippewa runs:

And if you look at South City on a satellite map, its breadth is incredibly impressive. Hundreds upon hundreds of blocks filled with small homes lined up one right after the other, that don’t look all that different than broad stretches of Chicago or Philadelphia do from the air. That’s because it’s an incredibly popular place to live, to buy a first home, to raise a family. But there’s also a zoning-imposed cap on how many people can afford to do that.

The South City neighborhoods that the 70 bus cuts through surrounding Tower Grove Park —Shaw, Tower Grove Heights, and Tower Grove East— have especially felt the repercussions of that zoning-imposed capacity limit. As their popularity has grown in recent years and their capacity has stagnated (or declined as the rich combine multiple units into one larger one), home prices have skyrocketed and the Black population has been rapidly displaced. Then a few blocks to the East, where the 11 runs, the neighborhoods of Benton and Fox Park have shown substantial signs of trending in the same direction.

As mentioned in the thread, 4 of these 5 census tracts were recently Low to Moderate Income. But what about Black-White racial change in those tracts? Between the 2016 & 2021 5 yr. ACS periods, white pop increased 9% while Black pop decreased 53%. 1/ https://t.co/KCm4CgI62r

— STLrainbow (@stlrainbow) January 10, 2023

Largest decline in Black pop in STL City's gentrification zone (b/w 2016 & 2021 5 yr. ACS):
1. 1163.01 (mostly TG Hts.): 68%
2. 1124 (in CWE): 62%
3. 1171 (SW Gardens by Bot. Garden): 60%
4. 1051.98 (Skinker-Wydown/west Skinker-D): 57%
5. 1172 (most of Shaw, part Bot. Hts.): 54%

— STLrainbow (@stlrainbow) January 14, 2023

Mix in the fact that this portion of the 11 route is the exact route of the proposed N-S MetroLink line, as I mentioned earlier, and the case for adding density to the area gets even stronger. The area is resource and transit-rich as-is and soon could become even more so. With those amenities will come additional demand, and if we don’t increase capacity, increasing exclusivity. Instead, I think it’s pretty obvious that we should just add flexibility and allow some multi-family here.

Even in the not-quite as popular portions of the 11 & 70 walksheds, intentionally limiting multi-family development to the single row of buildings that face Jefferson or Grand or Chippewa makes very little sense. The difference between being a 30 seconds walk from the bus and being a two-minute walk to the bus the next block over just isn’t all that significant. And yet if you looked at the zoning map, we treat those two types of places entirely differently.

For example, the transit-rich land near the intersection of Grand and Chippewa (where the two most frequent bus routes in the city intersect) has a single row of lots that allow multifamily development and then it immediately reverts back to exclusive single-family:

TOD Means Just Getting Out of the Way

And the fact that this proposal would increase allowable TOD in places both obvious and less obvious is sort of the beauty of the whole thing. We don’t have to know which of these areas developers will or won’t be likely to develop in. We just have to say that these areas have really good transit so we’re going to allow people to develop more intensely here if they want, and then get out of the way. If nothing happens, then nothing changes and no one will know the difference. If something does happen, we unlock growth and productivity for a city that could do a lot of good with it.

---

Footnotes

¹ Bi-State is the organization charged with making the region’s transit better, so ideally they’d be the ones implementing the changes, but Bi-State is actually incredibly insulated against change. It has to consider the interests of two different states, four different counties, and hundreds of politicians of all different political stripes, just to maintain its operating budget, let alone fund big capital projects.

If ridership is low on a West St. Louis County bus line, for example, and Metro wanted to cut service there and redirect those resources to the City where ridership is higher, then that would make sense from a ridership/revenue maximization stand point, but it also might lead Mark Harder who represents St. Louis County’s 7th district, to throw a fit and cut funding to Metro. That would leave everyone worse off rather than better as Metro had originally intended when they set out to make the change.

² That’s not to say I wouldn’t be happy to see other municipalities up-zone around stations (Shrewsbury around the Lansdowne Station as we’re about to see, or Kirkwood for example), it’s just to say that their political incentives are complicated. For Clayton, for example, MetroLink is a nice asset, but its land owning citizenry that rarely use the system are also probably able to flex their political influence enough to kill any sort of change that they don’t like even as it would benefit the region as a whole. For the City though, the incentives and politics are clear. A stronger MetroLink is a stronger more progressive St. Louis.

³ MetroLink has reduced the frequency several times in recent years. The latest cuts, implemented just this week that brought the 70’s frequency from 15 minutes to 20 minutes, and the 15 minute headways were themselves a reduction in service from 10 minutes just a few years prior. The most recent reason given for service cuts is that Metro is having a hard time hiring enough drivers to maintain current service levels. Given the hotness of the current labor market, there are just better employment opportunities for people out there than bus driver and unfortunately Metro doesn’t have much room in its operating budget to boost pay and make the job more attractive. But to tie this back to TOD, increasing the number of natural transit riders by increasing the allowed density around stops would mean higher revenue for Metro. They could then reinvest those revenues into higher pay that would, in theory, attract more drivers and allow Metro to once again increase service levels.

⁴ I know the trolley isn’t the most practical transit in the world, but it does seem like its on the right track since Bi-State brought it into their fold this summer, and I think probably does speed up trips from the neighborhood into the Loop during its (for now incredibly limited) hours. As the service is improved via the inclusion of an additional trolley car, the extension of operating hours, and additional infill along the route, I imagine it will grow into a more useful (although still limited) mode of transport.