Economic Ecosystems - Mass Transit In The North Bay

Economic Ecosystems – Mass Transit

Leadership North Bay

Sonoma State EMBA Cohort 5

By

Team 3 -‐ The Fireballers

Hilton DePaoli

Joshua Dopkowski

Gustavo Martinez

ECONOMIC ECOSYSTEMS -‐ MASS TRANSIT, TEAM 3 2

PREFACE

As the San Francisco Bay Area has grown and evolved, the demands for commuter

rail transit and freight transportation has increased significantly in the North Bay

counties of Marin, Sonoma and Napa. We address the needs and propose a solution

to the current problems stemming from a lack of adequate rail transportation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Executive Summary

Pg. 3

II. Analysis

Pg. 4

III. Evaluation of Solutions

Pg. 5

IV. Proposed Solutions

Pg. 7

V. Next Steps and Conclusion

Pg. 9

VI. Bibliography

Pg. 10

VII. Appendix

Pg. 11


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There are six active different commuter rail agencies in the San Francisco

Bay Area, and currently there is not one providing functioning rail transit in the

North Bay. Sonoma Marin Area Rapid Transit (SMART) is projected to begin

operations in late 2016, however it provides only partial service in Marin and

Sonoma counties, while providing no service to Napa County. The SMART project

roughly parallels the highly congested US Highway 101, and is being built to serve

the commuters and tourists within the North Bay that travel between Marin and

Sonoma Counties. SMART operates along the southern portion of the regional

Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWP). NWP further provides freight services from

Sonoma county, through Marin and as far north as Humboldt County

(Implementation of Bus Rapid Transit, n.d.). Freight rail has proven to be vital for

economic development and the continued health of local economic ecosystems. No

other form of ground transportation can move the sheer volume of goods and

products to the global marketplace like freight rail does. Rail fuels economic growth

safely and efficiently, while having far less of an environmental impact than other

transportation methods (Vidal, 2012). If the economy in the United States grows,

then demand for freight transportation will increase as well. The U.S. Department of

Transportation forecasts national rail demand will rise 88% by 2035 from 2002

levels. This will inevitably create a strain on all of the nation’s rail corridors, which

could cascade into other forms of freight transportation. As demand for rail

increases, the cost will increase, which could fuel a demand spike in other freight

methods such as trucking and shipping. Therefore it is imperative that a reliable

and effective infrastructure for freight is in place in the North Bay. It is further vital

that commuter transit be provided in the North Bay as the major thoroughfare

roadways are already over capacity, and individual auto transportation is not

environmentally or financially sustainable (Vidal, 2012). In the North Bay, the

demand for mass transit exists, and has been answered by the creation of the

SMART train. While this train will mitigate the need for mass transit in the North

Bay, it is far from being comprehensive (Kneckow, 2013). The purpose of this

report is to identify solutions for the lack of commuter and interstate freight rail.


It is not a coincidence that the cities with the strongest economic engines

also have some of the most expansive mass-‐transit systems with access to multiple

channels of freight delivery, which always includes freight. On the other hand, cities

with little to no mass transit functions and restricted freight access are often

economically weak. This is seen by comparing cities with high volume mass transit

ridership to those with low ridership, such as New York City to Buffalo, San

Francisco to Cleveland, and Chicago to Detroit. In each instance, the city with the

greater economic engine also has a far superior mass-‐transit system and better

access to multiple channels of freight. While this is far from scientific, it does

illustrate a general trend in cities and regions with good access to mass-‐transit and

multiple channels of freight versus those without.

ANALYSIS

Major policy drivers fueling the demand for increased rail in the North Bay is

in response to congestion and climate change (Sonoma-‐Marin Area Rail Transit

Project Overview, n.d.). Congestion is a concern because many people do not want

to live in areas with a high concentration of people, and they also do not want long

commutes that are exasperated by heavy traffic. Mass-‐transit offers relief from

carbon emissions and congestion. Demand for access to freight is a further driver of

the demand for rail, as currently only regional rail and trucking is immediately

accessible. Despite the fact that the major international ports of Oakland and San

Francisco are neighbors, the only to way to deliver any kind of freight is to use a

truck to deliver shipments some distance to the nearest ports. Rail access to ports is

desirable as it decreases the cost of shipping.

A more efficient commuter transit system would allow for employees and

customers to easily flow in and out of the North Bay, and connect to the rest of the

Bay Area. In this scenario, talent that lives and works in San Francisco or other

areas of the Bay Area could live in the North Bay and commute. This same principle

could be applied the other way, which would allow more businesses to operate in

the North Bay. Perhaps more importantly is the ease of commuting within the North

Bay, which would allow for residents and workers in Napa, Sonoma and Marin to


move around the North Bay in a reasonable amount of time. Furthermore, a transit

system can also be constructed to serve the dual purpose of accommodating freight

shipments. As long as a North Bay mass transit system has a feasible connection to

interstate rail and major ports such as San Francisco International Airport and the

shipyards, then it can solve the demand for freight.

Historically, the North Bay has rejected mass transit, as was seen in the

1960’s with Marin County denying the expansion of BART into the North Bay. This

was as much of a financial decision as it was driven by bigotry, and the

shortsightedness of the policy leaders in the past has left us with a transit dilemma

in the present. The current leadership should look upon this lesson from the past, in

order to avoid making the same poor decisions. Leaders in the North Bay such as

Valerie Brown of SMART should perform an in-‐depth analysis of what the future

needs of the North Bay will be.

EVALUATIONS OF SOLUTIONS

We have identified three possible solutions to the need for commuter rail and

increased freight access in the North Bay:

I. Bus Rapid Transit

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is the use of buses with specific infrastructure and

management that allow for the vehicles to travel on separate routes from all other

vehicular traffic. Simply put, BRT is the concept of the bus and the train combined,

with rail tracks being replaced by paved lanes upon which busses, or other mass

transit automobiles, can travel independent of the public roadways. Compared to

regular bus service, BRT is faster and more reliable, resulting in busses covering

more distance in a given time period. This efficiency creates lower operating costs

than either traditional bus or rail systems, and therefore BRT is one of the most cost

effective methods of mass transportation currently available (James, 2008). BRT

systems are also flexible, allowing for a variety of vehicle selection and system

construction. Since BRT systems do not require any specialized vehicles, bus sizes

can easily be changed, and direction and traffic flow quickly re-‐routed. BRT


systems can also serve multiple purposes, with the system functioning as a BRT

during some hours, and HOV lanes during others.

Disadvantages to BRT systems are primarily found in cost and efficiency

when compared to light rail. The amount of passengers that can be transported

using light rail is exponentially higher than that in BRT systems, and while the initial

cost of construction of a BRT is far lower than light rail, the cost of upkeep of a BRT

system capable of transporting the same amount of passengers of a light-‐rail system

is significantly higher (James, 2008). The pollution emissions from a BRT system

will be substantially higher than that of a light rail system capable of moving the

same number of passengers, with expensive electric or other alternative engines

being the only solution to that problem.

Ultimately the BRT is a far less expensive solution to mass-‐transit needs and

requires little commitment. Once a BRT system is designed and constructed, it can

easily be converted into some other form of mass-‐transit, including light rail.

II. Expand SMART to include multiple transit methods and include Napa County.

Currently SMART will only run along rail that roughly parallels US Highway

101, and therefore access to SMART will be difficult for most residents of Sonoma

and Marin. (See Appendix B) Furthermore, Napa County has no access to SMART,

and therefore an entire vital region of the North Bay is inaccessible via rail transit.

Should SMART expand its services to include these cities and towns currently left

out, then the North Bay will have an effective transit system. We suggest utilizing

the rail through Napa Valley that connects to Santa Rosa which is currently only

utilized by the Wine Train, and using shuttle busses for areas that are not within a

one mile distance from the rail. Through these measures, SMART could connect

American Canyon, Napa, Yountville, Saint Helena, Calistoga, Sebastopol, Sonoma

Valley, Occidental, Bodega and Guerneville, as well as other areas not currently in

the plan to be serviced. A comprehensive SMART rail system would further provide

the opportunity to link up with other Bay Area Transit systems in the future.


III. Combine all transit agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Placing the authority of all mass transit under one overarching authority has

worked well for cities such as New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. These agencies

operate successfully across multiple counties, and in some instances, across state

lines. Applying this model to the San Francisco Bay Area would create many

opportunities for growth of the mass-‐transit system (see Appendix A). The major

risk here for the North Bay however is that the rest of the Bay Area could vote to

ignore the North Bay entirely.

Examples of effective commuter rail and large metropolitan transit agencies

are plentiful around the world. New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority

which provides multiple forms of transit to 12 counties across two states, and BART,

which services parts of the San Francisco Bay Area are prime examples and

applicable to the North Bay. BRT on the other hand is somewhat new on the transit

scene, being only 40 years old versus traditional bus and rail systems, which were

already commonplace in the early twentieth century. While there are more than

160 cities around the world with BRT systems, two examples of effective BRT

systems alleviating congestion can be seen in Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

Los Angeles is home to the Metro Liner BRT system, which opened in 2005.

The system now consists of two lines comprising of more than 40 miles of dedicated

bus lanes. The newest line, the Silver Line, increased ridership by 70% between

2009 and 2014. The Metro Line BRT was initially designed to be an expansion of the

light rail system in Los Angeles, and the resulting BRT has worked well in the place

of what was oppressively expensive rail construction. Las Vegas Metropolitan Area

Express (MAX) is another highly successful example of implemented BRT. The daily

ridership for MAX exceeds 200,000, and the system has worked well as a solution to

mass-‐transportation needs.

PROPOSED SOLUTION

We have identified the Bus Rapid Transit system as the best solution to the

North Bay’s mass-‐transit and freight needs. This is primarily since the initial costs


and risks associated with implementing the BRT system are the lowest of any of the

alternative solutions. Furthermore, we contend that it is neither politically nor

financially feasible to expand SMART or establish a centralized Bay Area transit

agency to the level of scope that we identify as required. Conversely, the existing

infrastructure and availability of land in the North Bay makes an extensive BRT

system very feasible. This proposal is based on the assumption that federal and

state funding would be available for a BRT system. In some instances public funding

comes as conditional to one mode of transportation, and therefore funding for the

BRT system may not be available to the extent we assume it is. Other important

assumptions are as follows:

• Marin County, Sonoma County, Napa County and all the municipalities

within those three counties would all agree to jointly operate an inter-‐

county and inter-‐city BRT system.

• BRT infrastructure would also support freight trucks.

• The volume of passengers that would use a BRT would be sufficient

enough to keep the fare of a ride affordable for riders, while offsetting the

expenses of operating a BRT.

• The vehicles used in the BRT would be low-‐emission vehicles such as

electric-‐hybrid, electrically powered or diesel.

• New lanes designated exclusively to the BRT system could be constructed.

Financially the BRT is advantageous in that it minimizes opportunity costs

and is much faster to implement than rail. The opportunity costs are minimal as the

BRT system could be designed specifically for upgrading to light rail in the future,

given demand and funding. BRT systems can easily be implemented within a 1-‐3

year period, as where rail systems can take decades to complete. While a transit

agency would need to be developed in order to manage the BRT system, it is

possible that SMART could expand its role as the dominant transit agency in the

North Bay. Vine Transit based in Napa County could also potentially take on the role

of managing the North Bay BRT system.


NEXT STEPS

The best solution for the North Bay’s current transportation needs is to

implement an extensive inter-‐county BRT system. The BRT system will also serve to

mitigate future demand, and provide a strong freight transportation network, while

further creating an upgradable transit network. A BRT system is clearly the best

option in terms of cost and feasibility as it is far less expensive than light-‐rail and

easily implemented and modified. The next critical steps for implementing this

project are as follows:

1. Develop a comprehensive route system plan based on a deep analysis of

demand of passenger and freight services. This plan should include effective

integration with the existing mass-‐transit systems in the North Bay such as

SMART and Vine Transit.

2. Perform a financial analysis and funding strategy that includes an in-‐depth

analysis of construction costs, vehicle procurement and operation, wages,

fares and other required overhead.

3. Perform a comparative analysis of existing BRT systems around the world

and identify which aspects of existing systems would be best implemented

and avoided by the North Bay.

4. Submit a final plan to Marin, Sonoma and Napa Counties and request the

creation of a BRT system management agency.

5. Develop and identify actual project scope, required resources and schedule

for construction and launch.

Maintenance and monitoring of the project will begin once the project has been

successfully executed, and will include in-‐depth tracking of ridership and costs so

that inefficiencies can be identified and improved upon. We further recommend

that the BRT system be developed with the vision for a light-‐rail system or other hi-‐

tech transit system in the future, thus preparing for routes that may not be currently

required, however likely will be in the future.


REFERENCES

Implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation_of_bus_rapid_transit_by_country#United_States Northwestern Pacific Railroad (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Pacific_Railroad Metro Liner (Los Angeles County) (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Liner_(Los_Angeles_County) Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Transportation_Authority_(New_York) Galunic, C., Sutton, R. (1995). Consequences Of Public Scrutiny For Leaders And Their Organizations. INSEAD, Retrieved from http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?did=47168 James, D. Ottawa’s Transitway: From Busway to Light Rail (2008). In The University of Calgary. Retrieved from http://david.jamesnet.ca/MDP/node4.html Bus Rapid Transit North(n.d.). In South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Website. Retrieved from http://www.sypte.co.uk/brtnorth/ Vidal, J. (2012). Civilization Faces ‘Perfect Storm of Ecological and Social Problems. The Guardian, Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/20/climate-‐change-‐overconsumption Sonoma-‐Marin Area Rail Transit Project Overview (n.d.). In SMART Website. Retrieved from http://main.sonomamarintrain.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2013/05/Project-‐Overview.pdf Kneckow, E. Funds OK’d for SMART Airport Station (2013). In North Bay Business Journal Website. Retrieved from http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/85016/funds-‐okd-‐for-‐smart-‐airport-‐station/


APPENDIX A


APPENDIX B

PHASE�1�SUMMARY�

Project�ƒ! Passenger�rail�service�scheduled�to�begin�in�2016�and�will�serve�70Ͳ80%�

of�esƟmated�ridership�for�full�system�ƒ! ConstrucƟon�started�May�2012�ƒ! 42�miles—Downtown�San�Rafael�to�North�Santa�Rosa��ƒ! Total�projected�cost�for�Phase�1�is�esƟmated�at�$360�million�

SMART�Pathway�System�ƒ! Links�segments�constructed�by�SMART�with�exisƟng�segments�and�other�

planned�projects�to�create�one�of�the�longest�conƟnuous�bicycleͲpedestrian�pathways�in�the�country�

ƒ! Phase�1�Pathway�segments�are�focused�on�access�to�staƟons,�high�potenƟal�use�and�bridging�gaps�between�exisƟng�segments�

ƒ! “Rail�with�trail”�allows�longer,�mulƟͲmodal�trips��

StaƟons�ƒ! 10�staƟons:�Santa�Rosa�(Airport�Blvd.,�Guerneville�Rd.�&�Railroad�Square)�

Rohnert�Park�(Rohnert�Park�Expressway),�CotaƟ�(East�CotaƟ�Ave.),��Petaluma�(Downtown),�Novato�(San�Marin/Atherton�&�Hamilton),�and�San�Rafael�(Marin�Civic�Center�&�Downtown)�

ƒ! Level�boarding�and�Americans�with�DisabiliƟes�Act�(ADA)�compliant�ƒ! Express�Connector�bus�service�between�Santa�Rosa�and�future�staƟon�

locaƟons�in�Windsor,�Healdsburg�and�Cloverdale,�and�between�Downtown�San�Rafael�and�Larkspur�

Passenger�Cars�ƒ! 7�twoͲcar�train�sets�ƒ! SelfͲpropelled�Diesel�MulƟple�Units�(DMUs)�are�comfortable�and�reliable��ƒ! Environmentally�friendly�engines�meet�stringent�“Tier�4”�EPA�

requirements;�economical�to�operate�ƒ! “BuyͲAmerica”�compliant�and�manufactured�in�Rochelle,�IL�ƒ! Each�train�set�has�capacity�for�up�to�158�seated�passengers,�160�standing�

passengers�and�24�bicycles�—�depending�on�mix�of�bikes,�wheelchairs,�strollers�and�use�of�flip�seats�

Schedule�ƒ! Trains�will�operate�in�both�direcƟons�every�30�minutes�during�peak�

commute�hours,�with�a�midͲday�trip�and�weekend�service�planned�as�well�

Fare�ƒ! Fares�will�be�comparable�with�other�transit�opƟons�

Speed�ƒ! Top�speed�of�79�mph;�average�speed�(including�stops)�of�40�mph�ƒ! Strategically�placed�sidings�allow�trains�to�operate�and�pass�in�both�

direcƟons�at�standard�speeds�ƒ! A�train�ride�from�Santa�Rosa�to�San�Rafael�will�take�about�an�hour�

Economic Ecosystems - Mass Transit In The North Bay

Economy & Finance

Transcript of Economic Ecosystems - Mass Transit In The North Bay