NVR Logo
Rail system for Napa?
Napa Pipe developers propose mass transit for Napa
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Save and Share Share
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.
41 comment(s)

comment wrote on Sep 17, 2008 1:04 AM:

" While rail would be great, it needs to be extended further than American Canyon and it would be better if it could be extended further north. Few people would ride the system currently being proposed. "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Sep 17, 2008 1:14 AM:

" I believe that a rail system is the only solution to increasing auto traffic. It just isn't possible to build any more roads from Imola Ave. to the south. This is the best idea I've heard to support the Napa Pipe project, although they still have to deal with utilities and schools. "

ADark1 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 1:27 AM:

" Makes too much sense so of course they WONT let it happen! "

maya wrote on Sep 17, 2008 6:53 AM:

" Rail transportation is awesome. I hope this comes to fruition. "

tinkerbell2112 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 7:01 AM:

" To me this sounds like alot of waste of time. I would say go for it if we where SF but this is Napa. I can walk almost anywhere I need to be in Napa in 15 mintues. Why would I pay money to get on a train - wait for stops it makes - then walk to where it drops me off.. It would take me more time to take the train!!! Makes no sencse. And it wont cost taxpapers money - YEA right anything and everything that has to do with city change cost us money..Plus I feel there is alot going on with this than we are hearing - this Train will then be used for other things in the future- this is just a start to get people to use it - I feel ROGAL has higher thoughts than just NAPA in this dream of his. THIS IS A WASTE OF TIME,MONEY,AND THOUGHT IN NAPA! "

nwnapan wrote on Sep 17, 2008 7:36 AM:

" Absolutely!!! This could be a great start to a rail line strectching from Calistoga to the Vallejo Ferry terminal. This is a good way to take cars/people off the roads thereby reducing congestion and the degradation of our roads. Kudos! "

4gnapan wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:07 AM:

" can you say "Carrot in front of the Donkey" ? ...

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:

" This is scary...the last couple of blurbs I've read from Rogal have me nodding in agreement. I just hope that my cynicism is off-base in thinking this may be a bait-n-switch in order to get Napa Pipe pushed through; once they get the OK for Napa Pipe, they'd say "Oh, we did the feasibility studies, and light rail just wouldn't have the ridership needed."

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:

" First, uncouple this rail concept from any proposal for mitigating traffic issues that Napa Pipe development will cause.

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:

" monorail! monorail! monorail! "

bennyd wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:40 AM:

" This is the best news I've heard in a long time! A light rail system will benefit locals, commuters, and tourists get off the road. Lots of NVC students would also benefit. This is a win-win plan! "

napamomma wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:52 AM:

" How about BART ???!!!!???!!! Hellooooooooo!! "

MP wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:52 AM:

" I'd love to take the train to Vallejo and then the ferry to SF! I hope the rail system could be extended to St. Helena -- I'd take it to work at least a few times a week. "

1napanow wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:52 AM:

" Great idea, but beware of a Trojan horse! The Napa pipe developers are looking for ways to make their development project more palatable to the voters. Remember that they just squeezed by in the last election by buying the votes of Napans with an outrageous quantity of money and misinformation. I am all for the commuter train idea, but only if the Napa Pipe development is made dependent on completing the train.
What do you have to say to this Mr. Rogal? "

sammy wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:09 AM:

" this would sure be nice for our family, especially my highschool/college kids still at home. And as Dark said,... sounds good, so probably won't happen. "

kkjp wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:16 AM:

" An impractical, illogical proposal that sounds good on the surface, but wouldn't work in practice. Mass transit is only a workable solution when it moves people quickly and efficiently. A train that must travel at 15 mph due to countless cross-streets, driveways, right of ways and other obstructions, while making multiple stops along the way, is not practical and won't be used.

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:

" Tinkerbell2112, I think you may have missed the point on this train. YOU may very well be able to walk anywhere YOU want, but I doubt someone who lives in American Canyon can walk to work in Napa in 15 minutes. Nwnapan, though I think that this plan needs to be explained in further detail I also think it could be a great start to a rail line that extends from Calistoga to the Vallejo Ferry. "

aroseisarose wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:34 AM:

" I'm glad tinkerbell2112 that you can get anywhere you need to go in Napa by walking in 15 minutes. However, we live in north Napa, work by the airport, attend NVC and those areas are way further away than the average human can walk in 15 minutes. There's a bond issue on the November ballot before SF voters (SF Chron 9/10/08) to raise money to construct a hi speed rail line from SF to LA, eventually connecting with Sacto via the North bay (Vallejo). Why not be proactive, Napa, and jump on this bandwagon? We gotta get out of our cars! "

NAPGRL55 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:47 AM:

" I completely agree with Comment. If would be worth it if it went further south to maybe Vallejo, and further North to Calistoga. The proposed plan doesn't make much sense. At the most it would be a 5 mile stretch. Come on. "

msetty wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:00 AM:

" Napamomma:

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:

" while we are at it, we should extend the bart line to downtown napa from richmond... non-stop service! also, a connector to the high speed rail line to LA would be nice. napa is the center of the world!!! "

reason-ator wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:05 AM:

" Next, they're gonna promise us free food.

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:

" Whatever happens the Wine Train should not be associated with this "trolley". The Wine Train is a poorly run business that has some very old run down equipment. Have you ever been on that train? The tracks are in horrible shape which cause the cars to rock and roll at a mere 15mph.

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:

" Why are they asking Bill Dodd? He pulled the rail service from Measure H in 2006 because he didn't like it then. "

anewcommenter wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:35 AM:

" What a waste of taspeyer money this would be. We already have a failing bus system why do we need a failed raily system as well? No Thanks! "

B-Side wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:49 AM:

" I love trains but I wonder.....
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:

" This is much ado about nothing. We already have a bus service that could handle the needs very adequately on existing roads. Just expand the bus service and make it responsive to the changing needs of the users. The problem is that the elites don't think riding a bus is up their level of sophistication. "

Jenn wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:55 AM:

" While I do like the concept of a light rail transit here in the valley, I dont think its going to work very well. Look at our trolly and how that one worked as planned. If we did have the train, it should go from Vallejo, all the way up valley. Like go up 29 and come back Silverado trail. That way people can use it completley for going to work, not just the small handful from Am Cam to Napa. We already have busses that do that run. Ive ridden on the one that comes from Vallejo itself adn that one is pretty crowded at times. I would like to hear more on what it would be like, routes, that sorta thing before I would give my approval. "

Native74 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 11:43 AM:

" Trojan Horse indeed! Take a double take before you jump over the fence. Yikes. I'm more excited about Rogal turning the Mervyn's site into something fitting for downtown Napa including residential then proposing a rail concept to bring in 3,200 homes. It does not negate the Flood Control or displacement of over 250,000 yards of landfill to raise their site elevation (where does the flood water then go?) as well as all the services: schools, water, sewer, Fire and Police. The is still pretty high even with a great idea as waving rail in front of our eyes. Transit is a given, but most likely a bus stop in and out of town.

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:

" "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"

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:

" If sea level rises six feet, as forecast as a result of global warming, the Napa Pipe site will be under water. "

Paddy wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:55 PM:

" This is another smoke screen by Napa Redevelopment Partners to impose their will on Napa. I'm surprised at the gullibility of some of the comments here. "

y2kcbr wrote on Sep 17, 2008 1:14 PM:

" Awesome idea. Let's hope it sees our ballot boxes soon! Id pay a slight tax increase for this. Maybe get some federal fundage to help 'go green' "

aroseisarose wrote on Sep 17, 2008 1:47 PM:

" Actually, Native74, I believe the VINE does have a route to Santa Rosa. Notwithstanding Mr. Rogal/Napa Pipe site development's level of sincerity regarding public transit, it's nice to see dialogue rather than diatribe in these postings. "

LMW wrote on Sep 17, 2008 4:05 PM:

" No, rail for all:))))K "

John Richards wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:51 PM:

" This is a pipe dream. The costs will be much higher that what the article states. The population density of this county is not high enough to make mass transit cost-effective. "

Native74 wrote on Sep 18, 2008 11:05 AM:

" aroseisarose - nice that the Vine has a route to Santa Rosa, but if you live in South Napa it would be wonderful to commute to Sonoma, Petaluma, Marin, and/or the City via another route directly instead of going through Napa and then up and over to Santa Rose...

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:

" Finally someone's taking the initiative to make rail travel in Napa a reality! And I have no problem with some federal and state funding for such a worthwhile project. That the developer is intending to put money into it at all is pretty unique if it comes to pass.

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:

" a light rail system, even a single route between Napa and Vallejo, or maybe a dual route connecting to the Fairfield area along the model used by a number of cities like San Jose, Sacramento, Portland would be a boon to the city, easing the traffic load that everyone complains about as well easing the load of crap we put into the air each day. "

Bill wrote on Sep 23, 2008 3:35 PM:

" Existing tracks are commercial it would also make sense to continue it up valley.

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:

" The developer of the 3200 homes,Rogal knows the impact of automobiles it will create. He's trying to fight off criticism from us by making this proposal. Actually,he could care less about the traffic ! All he wants to do is get those houses in there with as little noise as possible from us. We don't want anymore houses,especially when they're next to prime land for recreation. "

Comment Guidelines
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.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy