Rail system for Napa?
Napa Pipe developers propose mass transit for Napa
By JILLIAN JONES
Register Staff Writer
November 23rd, 2009
November 22nd, 2009
November 21st, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
Developers at Napa Pipe proposed a major new mode of transportation Tuesday as part of their efforts to promote a new kind of urban planning in south Napa County.
Under the proposed vision, Napa County residents could hop a shuttle as far south as American Canyon and ride the rail to work in north Napa.
Napa Pipe would serve as the central station along the route, allowing residents of the proposed 3,200-townhome development an alternative method of transportation and theoretically mitigating traffic concerns tied up in the project.
Developer Keith Rogal of Napa Redevelopment Partners said the shuttle would drop passengers off in one of six highly concentrated job areas. The route would follow an already existing railway from Green Island Road in American Canyon to Redwood and Trancas in Napa. Proposed stops include Green Island Road, Airport Boulevard, Napa Pipe, South Napa Marketplace, downtown Napa, and the intersection of Redwood and Trancas in north Napa.
Each of the proposed stops is located within 15 minutes walking distance from 50 percent of Napa County jobs, Rogal said.
“We’re going to need to make investments in infrastructure related to traffic” at Napa Pipe, he said.
Rogal suggests the rail will also benefit the community at large.
“A project wil be approved if the benefits to the community are significant and broad,” he added.
Rogal said he envisions two three-car shuttles leaving every 20-30 minutes. The shuttles could seat up to 245, he said, with room for standing passengers and bicycles. Tickets, he said, would cost “a modest fee.” Rogal likened the shuttle to a streetcar, “only more comfortable and faster.”
Rogal stresses that the proposed shuttle would be a private venture and would not require local taxpayer money. Napa Redevelopment Partners would serve as a “catalyst and funding source” for the shuttle, Rogal said. He added that he would also seek funding from the state and federal government, businesses, and possibly homeowners associations.
Napa Redevelopment Partners is already in discussion with representatives from the Wine Train, owner of the northernmost half of the railway; as well as Union Pacific Freight, owner of the southernmost stretch.
Wine Train CEO Greg McManus said discussions are preliminary, but that he is open to exploring a partnership with Napa Redevelopment Partners. The Wine Train’s cooperation could entail day-to-day operation of the shuttle, McManus said, as well as the obvious use of the rail.
Rogal acknowledges that the feasibility of the project could hinge on Union Pacific’s willingness to lease or sell their portion of the rail, which it rents to CalNorthern for use. Rogal expressed optimism over those negotiations, citing diminished freight traffic along the route since Napa Pipe moved its operations to Oregon.
Representatives from Union Pacific did not return calls for comment.
Specific costs of operating a passenger shuttle are still unclear, Rogal said. While Rogal did not speculate about the cost of leasing or purchasing the rail, nor the cost of operation, he did say that he estimates the cost of improvements to the tracks and the purchase of shuttles and platforms at $40 to $50 million.
Rogal has not yet discussed the proposal with surrounding business owners, he said, but he stressed that community cooperation would be vital to the success of the plans.
“If some substantial business park owner doesn’t want that there, it doesn’t make any sense to push it,” he said.
“We would also need to know from the county that they would want that looked into,” Rogal said. Responding to Rogal’s announcement at the Napa County Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday, Supervisor Bill Dodd said he not only supports the idea of maintaining the existing rail but added that one day he would like to see it extend all the way to the ferry terminal in Vallejo.
Rogal has not formally announced the proposal to city officials, but said he is engaged in discussions with the cities in an “informal capacity.”
“We will test whether people are interested,” Rogal said.
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our
virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact
online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
comment wrote on Sep 17, 2008 1:04 AM:
MarshaMarsha wrote on Sep 17, 2008 1:14 AM:
ADark1 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 1:27 AM:
maya wrote on Sep 17, 2008 6:53 AM:
tinkerbell2112 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 7:01 AM:
nwnapan wrote on Sep 17, 2008 7:36 AM:
4gnapan wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:07 AM:
I dont trust Rogal at all. Im sure they will say and do anything to get project approval. "
selim wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:08 AM:
It's clear that rail is a solution to help reduce traffic in the valley, and it's also clear that it'll have to be a private enterprise in the embryonic phase because the short-sighted voters in Napa Valley scream bloody murder at any mention of a tax. How do people expect progress to be made if money isn't spent?
And in terms of future expansion, we already have the rail infrastructure built all the way upvalley, so adding the stations & ticketing machines are a slam-dunk. Print up a couple of maps, have the wineries in close proximity to these stations contribute to the operational costs (since customers are being dumped off at their door with no regard for their sobriety), and there you go- a reduction in DUIs, a reduction in traffic, a reduction in general traffic incidents.
And while eventual connectivity to the Vallejo Ferry Terminal would be good, the ideal would be to transfer to BART. Talk about reducing traffic! "
Paddy wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:31 AM:
If you want to claim this will solve traffic problems, allow only an emergency access road into the development and insist all traffic in and out will be done via rail or boat.
Not practical? Either is the notion that even 10% of these tens of thousands of new residents won't jump into a car and drive to where they need to go. We're not that gullible.
I think we also need to start reestimating how many people will reside in all of these new homes being proposed. We're finding that 7 people are now living in one bedroom units and many think that's a smart way to extend a budget. This potentially increases the population of Napa Pipe by 100% or what's been projected.
If speculation is used in place of reality than nothing is off the table. The NP transit hub will be used only by those going where the train can take them while our roads and schools and infrastructure get hammered.
Nice try Keith. "
wined0wnnapa wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:34 AM:
bennyd wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:40 AM:
napamomma wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:52 AM:
MP wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:52 AM:
1napanow wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:52 AM:
What do you have to say to this Mr. Rogal? "
sammy wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:09 AM:
kkjp wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:16 AM:
Imagine boarding a train in AmCan and arriving in north Napa, after multiple stops for drop-offs, an hour later, only to have to walk 15 minutes to your job. And then once you arrive at work, getting a call from the school telling you to come pick up your sick child.
Prohibitive start-up and operational costs with no ongoing funding sources, track infrastructure ill- suited to efficient passenger transit, and lack of connections with other public transit makes this proposal just another "pipe dream". "
indian_pride wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:31 AM:
aroseisarose wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:34 AM:
NAPGRL55 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:47 AM:
msetty wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:00 AM:
I understand your sentiments about being able to get to most of the rest of the Bay Area via BART. But BART to Napa is not practical at $100 million per mile+. For that price, Rogal's proposal could be extended to the Vallejo Ferry Terminal. "
boomtho707 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:03 AM:
reason-ator wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:05 AM:
I resent it when people treat us as if we're stupid enough to believe in their con jobs. "
jeepracer10 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:07 AM:
This is a good idea, but it must connect to BART to make it more realistic. There is no way that it can connect to Calistoga because St Helena stands in the way and wont allow it. "
musikluvr wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:31 AM:
anewcommenter wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:35 AM:
B-Side wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:49 AM:
When they say $40 to $50 million do they really mean $80 to $100 million?
These things seem to always cost way more than they originally state. "
musikluvr wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:54 AM:
Jenn wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:55 AM:
Native74 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 11:43 AM:
Someone should ask Mr. Dodd (and the new leader chosen for NCTPA) why there still isn't a transit connection between Napa and Sonoma County...the concept that tourists will leave Napa has been over used. How I would love to ride the bus in either direction! And it would be eligible for grant funding. No more excuses! "
scully wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:27 PM:
So this is private funding? Since when is money from state and federal gov't not taxpayer funding? Just because it's not a local tax doesn't mean it's not coming out of my pocket. "
Grommitt wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:54 PM:
Paddy wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:55 PM:
y2kcbr wrote on Sep 17, 2008 1:14 PM:
aroseisarose wrote on Sep 17, 2008 1:47 PM:
LMW wrote on Sep 17, 2008 4:05 PM:
John Richards wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:51 PM:
Native74 wrote on Sep 18, 2008 11:05 AM:
Notice that NTCPA/Vine doesn't show any other routes coming IN to Napa. Don't you find that disheartening in this day and age?
Not being diatribe - just pointing out the facts of our lack of transit. Wonder if Rogal could work out a deal with SCTA as there WAS funding for those kind of routes a few years ago. "
dellasumbrella wrote on Sep 18, 2008 11:44 AM:
Scully: Now that we have socialized economics (where taxpayers shell out money to support privatized money institutions that can't make it on their own), how can we resent putting state & federal transportation funds into the kind of transportation that reduces our dependency on oil. "
Raven wrote on Sep 20, 2008 10:50 AM:
Bill wrote on Sep 23, 2008 3:35 PM:
Can anyone say wine train. Open tracks spell noise and danger with increased rail traffic there are a multitude of trade offs but the bottom line this guy is still selling you 3200 residences schools, police, fire, water and traffic.
The taxpayers will have to pick up the major part of this tab. It is Bait for fish under water. the grand plan will end up costing more than the promised returns. It must be scaled back to become believable.
Does any one pay attention to the amount of semi traffic on the roads entering Napa. How about a distribution center for goods along with public transportation taking some of those semis off part of the roads.
Getting people out of their cars between American Canyon and Napa or Napa Pipe and any place in Napa is another pipe dream. You have a better chance building bike lanes and parking public share bikes every where, it might even be cheaper, probably more effective and go over big with green health nuts. "
14obama wrote on Sep 27, 2008 1:55 PM: