Issuu

VINE TRANSIT EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY F INAL REPORT - DECEMBER 2017

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION TABLE OF TITLE CONTENTS Header 1 SUMMARY............................................................ ES-1 EXECUTIVE Body Copy...ES.1 VitatIntroduction........................................................................................................ quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient ES-1iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin ES.2 Current Express Busdolenima Service........................................................................... ES-1 porendam doluptas ma pra ES.3 Project Need...................................................................................................... ES-1

Header ES.42Project Objectives........................................................................................... ES-2 â€¢ Bullets

ES.5 Project Process................................................................................................. ES-2

Header 3

ES.6 Summary of Recommendations..................................................................... ES-4

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................... 1 1.1 Current Express Bus Service..................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Need............................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Objectives..................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Project Process.......................................................................................................... 2

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................ 3 2.1 Service Levels............................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Ridership.................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Travel Time and On-Time Performance................................................................. 8 2.4 Park-and-Ride Locations.........................................................................................11 2.5 Service Standards and Performance Measures................................................... 13 2.6 Existing Travel Demand.......................................................................................... 18

3. IDENTIFIED NEEDS.................................................................30 3.1 Needs Identified by Online Survey Respondents...............................................30 3.2 On-Time Performance and Service Reliability................................................... 32 3.3 Travel Speeds.......................................................................................................... 36 3.4 Network Connectivity............................................................................................ 37 3.5 Summary of Identified Needs............................................................................... 39

4. POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS.................................41 i

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

4.1 Technologies Considered........................................................................................41 SECTION TITLE 4.2 Description of Improvement Options................................................................. 48

Header 1 4.3 Operating Plan...................................................................................................... 102 Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate 5. EVALUATION OPTIONS . 106 mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia OF veliaePOTENTIAL arum vendam, to et IMPROVEMENT untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis..re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin 5.1 Evaluation Criteria................................................................................................. 106 porendam doluptas ma pra 5.2 Evaluation Results................................................................................................ 106

Header 2 â€¢ Bullets

5.3 Financial Analysis.................................................................................................. 110

6. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS.........................................122 Header 3 6.1 Recommendations and Phasing...........................................................................122 6.2 Implementation and Next Steps.........................................................................122

7 APPENDICES............................................................................123

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION LIST OF TITLE FIGURES Figure ES-1: Project Flow Chart.............................................................................. ES-2 Header 1 ES-2: Regional Transit Map .nonsequi .................................................................... ES-3iataectur? Ovitate Body Copy...Figure Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, Figure ersperibusda ES-3: Short-Term namende rrumqua nis minisRecommendations dolenima nam venimus ...................................................ES-10 aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra Figure ES-4: Medium-Term Recommendations ...............................................ES-11 Figure Header 2 ES-5: Long-Term Recommendations .................................................... ES-12 • Bullets Figure ES-6: Short-Term Service Plan ............................................................. ES-66

HeaderFigure 3 ES-7: Long-Term Service Plan ............................................................... ES-67 Figure 1-1: Project Flow Chart....................................................................................... 2 Figure 2-1: City of Napa Transit Map............................................................................ 3 Figure 2-2: Regional Transit Map ............................................................................. 4 Figure 2-3: Systemwide Ridership Statistics.............................................................. 6 Figure 2-4: Ridership by Stop....................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-5: Park & Ride Locations............................................................................... 12 Figure 2-6: Transit Travel Times from Napa............................................................... 15 Figure 2-7: Transit Travel Times from Calistoga........................................................16 Figure 2-8: Transit Travel Times from American Canyon......................................... 17 Figure 2-9: Population Density....................................................................................19 Figure 2-10: Employment Density..............................................................................20 Figure 2-11: Workplaces of Napa County Residents................................................. 21 Figure 2-12: Residences of Napa County Workers................................................... 22 Figure 2-13: Minority Population................................................................................ 23 Figure 2-14: Households Below the Poverty Line.................................................... 24 Figure 2-15: Auto Ownership....................................................................................... 25 Figure 2-16: Origin/Destination - Home-Based Work Trips by County................ 27 Figure 2-17: Origin/Destination - Home-Based Work Trip Density....................... 28 Figure 3-1: Summary of Public Survey Responses................................................... 29 Figure 3-2: Areas of Significant Traffic Congestion................................................ 34

iii

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure 3-3: SR-29 Improvements from Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan.... 35 SECTION TITLE Figure 4-1: Short-Term Service Plan ...................................................................... 49

Header 1 4-2: Long-Term Service Plan .......................................................................50 Figure Body Copy...Figure Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut Comparison volori nonsequi from dolest,Soscol tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate 4-3: Transit Travel Time Gateway Transit Center mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin .................................................................................................................................... 103 porendam doluptas ma pra Figure 4-4: Transit Travel Time Comparison from Calistoga ............................ 104

Header 2 4-5: Transit Travel Time Comparison from American Canyon ............. 105 Figure • Bullets

Header 3

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION LIST OF TITLE TABLES Table ES-1: Summary of Improvement Needs....................................................... ES-5 Header 1 ES-2: Summary of sedi Recommended Improvements. .................................... ES-6iataectur? Ovitate Body Copy...Table Vitat quas cusam seque sus, aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, Table 2-1: Service nis Levels................................................................................................ 5 namende rrumqua ersperibusda minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra Table 2-2: Maximum Load.............................................................................................. 8 Table Header 2 2-3: On-Time Performance.................................................................................. 8 â€˘ Bullets Table 2-4: Route 21 Trip Times...................................................................................... 9

HeaderTable 3 2-5: Route 25 Trip Times..................................................................................... 9 Table 2-6: Route 29 Trip Times....................................................................................10 Table 2-7: Transit Facility Spaces.................................................................................11 Table 2-8: Transit Facility Parking Occupancy...........................................................11 Table 2-9: Performance Measures............................................................................... 13 Table 2-10: Travel Time Comparison between Auto Trips and Transit (Express Bus) Trips 78 Table 3-1: Survey Improvement Priorities.................................................................30 Table 3-2: Summary of Improvement Needs............................................................ 39 Table 4-1: Infrastructure & Technology Solutions Matrix........................................ 42 Table 4-2: Short-Term and Long-Term Bus Requirements.................................... 102 Table 5-1: Evaluation Criteria.................................................................................... 107 Table 5-2: Evaluation Results.................................................................................... 108 Table 5-3: Potential Funding Sources....................................................................... 115

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION EXECUTIVE TITLE SUMMARY Header 1 ES.1 Introduction

BodyVine Copy... Transit Vitatoperates quas cusam eightseque local routes sus, sedi within aut volori the City nonsequi of Napadolest, and five tem regional facculproutes arciliqthat uamenda extendvenient to and iataectur? across County Ovitate mposanda boundaries. nus, siThree ullictotas of the escia regional veliaeroutes arum vendam, are designated to et untur? as express Ihit eatquaes routes with et labor connections rem rem toquis Solano re pererion County Transit, et dolore, namende Sonoma rrumqua Countyersperibusda Transit, Capital nis Corridor/Amtrak, minis dolenima nam Bayvenimus Area Rapid alitiTransit denitissi (BART), cusaeand ditathe quiaecatus San Francisco re verspercipit Bay Ferry.ressin A regional porendam map showing doluptas allma Vine praTransit express routes and connections to other regional transit service is shown in Figure ES-2. The Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) conducts multi-modal planning, oversees funding, and manages Vine Header 2 Vine Transit is the designated transit service provider for Napa County, providing a suite of local and Transit operations.

â€˘ Bullets regional services within and extending beyond the county. NVTA also operates community shuttle and paratransit services within the County. NVTA is conducting an Express Bus corridor study to determine if utilization of Vine Transit express bus Header 3 be improved by providing faster, more efficient transit to key regional destinations on the county's main travel service could corridors, particularly for the growing number of workers that commute into and out of Napa County. Half of all Napa County residents work outside of the county, and half of all Napa County workers live outside of the county, highlighting the need for improved transportation connections across county lines. The study identifies solutions to optimize the express bus system, including route alignments and destinations, stop locations, infrastructure and technology enhancements to improve travel times, and fare structure. The goal of the Vine Transit Express Bus Corridor Study is to identify strategic investments that will improve the Vine Transit express bus system, encourage new ridership, and reduce overall highway congestion in Napa County. This report summarizes the recommended improvements and their benefits to regional mobility for the residents and workers of Napa County.

ES.2 Current Express Bus Service

Vine Transit currently operates eight local routes (Routes 1 through 8) and five regional routes (Routes 10, 11, 21, 25, 29). The eight local routes provide service within the City of Napa. Routes 10 and 11 cover a larger service area than the local routes, but still provide frequent stops. Routes 21, 25, and 29 are express buses which serve a limited number of stops and provide access to regional destinations. The express bus system provides connections to the regional transit network, including Sonoma County Transit, Solano County Transit, Capital Corridor/Amtrak, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and the San Francisco Bay Ferry. Routes 21, 25, and 29 are the focus of this study. Routes 10 and 11 were considered in portions of the studyâ€™s existing conditions analysis and needs assessment due to their overlap in service area with Route 29. A regional map showing all Vine Transit express routes and connections to other regional transit service is shown in Figure ES-2.

ES.3 Project Need

The existing Vine Transit express bus routes were implemented without a significant study of where the needs for express bus service were and how resources should be best allocated to improve service. This study serves to address some of the challenges with the existing system as well as identifies potential new markets. Route 29 experiences the strongest ridership demand among the express bus routes, but it experiences significant delay due to traffic congestion, causing the route to frequently run late. The length of the route combined with congestion also leads to greater overall variance in travel times and a decrease in reliability. Routes 21 and 25 are not as well utilized as Route 29, but face similar challenges. Route 21 experiences significant congestion on segments of the route but still serves a number of riders, particularly accessing employment in Napa County from residences in Solano County. Ridership on Route 25 is the lowest of the express routes, serving a small number of people commuting between Sonoma and Napa Counties. Funding for Route 25 is anticipated to be eliminated in 2017. In addition to seeking out improvements to existing routes, this study also examined geographic areas that are not currently served by Vine express bus routes and assessed the potential need for serving those areas.

ES-1

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

ES.4 Project Objectives SECTION TITLE The objectives of this study are:

Header 1 • Identify needed improvements to existing express bus service

Body• Copy... Vitat cusam sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Examine thequas demand forseque expanded express bus service mposanda nus,operational si ullictotasand esciacapital veliaeimprovements arum vendam,which to et untur? ettravel labor time, rem rem re pererion etchallenges dolore, • Identify addressIhit theeatquaes reliability, andquis competitiveness namende ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin of therrumqua existing express bus service porendam doluptas pra • Evaluate thesema improvements and present the results to enable decision makers to strategically select and implement them

Header 2

ES.5 Project Process

• Bullets

Figure ES-1: Project Flow Chart

The project Header 3 was completed following the general

process shown in Figure ES-1. Technical analysis and community input were used to identify the greatest needs and then identify a recommended set of improvements. The project team analyzed the existing conditions of the Vine express bus service to determine needs and potential areas of improvement. This analysis was based on information provided by NVTA. The project team conducted an online survey of Napa County residents and workers to inform the study on ways to improve express bus service and ridership. The survey targeted both existing bus riders as well as potential riders, including questions on existing commute characteristics. The survey was administered using the MetroQuest public engagement platform and open between September 19th and November 8th, 2016. The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish and the results were aggregated after the completion of the survey. A total of 760 survey responses were received. The results of the existing conditions analysis and public survey were used to develop a list of needs for Vine express bus service. After analyzing the needs of the express bus system, a list of possible infrastructure and technology solutions was developed. For major capital improvements, conceptual layouts drawn over aerial imagery were prepared to assess right-of-way needs and develop cost estimates. The project team developed a set of evaluation criteria, which were used to evaluate the developed improvement recommendations.

ES-2

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure ES-2: Regional Transit Map â€ƒ SECTION TITLE

Header 1 Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

ES-3

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

ES.6 Summary of Recommendations SECTION TITLE Based on a combination of existing conditions analysis, the results of the public survey, and stakeholder input, the project

team identified a list of primary improvement needs to increase ridership on the Vine Transit express bus system, shown in

Header Table ES-1. 1

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate These needs were used as a basis to develop evaluate potential solutions. Improvements which complemented each other mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, or would be required to be implemented in combination with other improvements were grouped into “projects.” Note that namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin in some cases, particularly with regards to the queue jump improvements, improvements within a single “project” could be porendam doluptas ma pra implemented independently but were grouped for the purpose of this analysis. These projects are detailed in the following section.

Header 2

The recommended improvements are summarized in Table ES-2. An implementation time frame was identified for each • Bullets project based on funding requirements and availability, barriers to implementation, and current need for the improvement. The timeframe Header 3 to implementation and the estimated project capital cost are also identified in Table ES-2. Projects were considered short-term if their implementation is considered feasible within 0-2 years; medium-term projects could be implemented within 3-5 years; and long-term projects would require more than five years for implementation. Project costs are estimates only and will require further refinement along with preliminary engineering and final design. Locations of the recommended short-term, medium-term, and long-term improvements are shown in Figures ES-3 through ES-5. These projects were then evaluated based on a set of evaluation criteria agreed upon by the project team. Projects were graded on a high-medium-low scale against each criterion. These projects can be carried forward and implemented separately. Projects B.1.A through B.1.D represent a set of four different improvement options for the Napa Valley College stop; it is recommended that one of these four be selected as the preferred improvement at NVC. Additionally, projects I.1 and I.2 both represent expansions of the parking capacity at Soscol Gateway Transit Center. In the short-term, it is recommended that only one of the projects be implemented until demand warrants further expansion of the park & ride. It is noted that service on Route 25 is being considered for elimination as a result of significant federal funding reductions. Therefore, any improvements to Route 25 should be considered for the long-term, once alternative funding sources become available.

ES-4

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Table ES-1: Summary of Improvement Needs SECTION TITLE # Need

Recommended Solution

Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and Header 1 variability on Route 29. Average transit speeds

Signal technology and runningway improvements on SR-29, 1 SR-221, and SR-12,arciliq such as transit signal priority and queue Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam sedi low aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate between Vallejo andseque Napa sus, are very due primarily jumps mposanda nus, si ullictotas veliae on arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, to escia congestion SR-29. namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Make transit travel times more competitive with auto Eliminate route deviations through in-line stops at American 2 doluptas ma pra porendam travel times on Route 29 Canyon Post Office and Napa Valley College Increase Header 2 ridership by increasing service on high 3 â€˘ Bullets

ridership corridors

More directly provide convenient express bus service Header 3 4 for western Napa

Increase service frequency on Route 29 between Redwood Park & Ride and El Cerrito del Norte BART Station during peak commute hours Utilize the Imola Park & Ride for service on the SR-29 corridor.

Expand park and ride opportunities

Identify opportunities to expand parking near the Soscol Gateway Transit Center or north of the transit center along Soscol Avenue, in St Helena, and American Canyon

Reduce travel time and variability on Route 29 north of Napa

Place in-line stops in Yountville on SR-29

Reduce travel time on Route 29 in Vallejo

Modify Route 29 alignment between Interstate 80 and the Vallejo Ferry Terminal

Improve connectivity with Solano County, a major potential ridership generator

Improve connections with SolTrans and FAST routes, including service Sereno Transit Center, Curtola Park & Ride, and the planned SR-37/Fairgrounds Park & Ride. Serve additional destinations from American Canyon and Napa to the I-80 corridor in Solano County (Fairfield/Vacaville)

Improve transit connections to employment areas

Provide direct express bus service to downtown Napa.

Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times on Route 25

Construct an in-line stop on SR-29 at Imola Park & Ride

Improve the customer experience and system connectivity

Through a comprehensive operations anlaysis, evaluate feasibility of a pulse-type operation for key transfer pairs out of the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, including the express buses with Routes 8, 10, and 11

Increased reliability on Route 29

Splitting the route in Napa to avoid delays north of Napa from impacting service south of Napa. Time transfers at Soscol Gateway Transit Center to maintain connectivity.

Improved stop facilities at express bus stops

Provide pedestrian and bicycle access pathways, shelters, benches, lighting, wayfinding signage, route information signage, and NextBus signage or text-based real-time bus arrival information where warranted by ridership and access patterns

Expand regional connectivity and transit integration

Provide service to Curtola Park & Ride and to Downtown Petaluma SMART Station

ES-5

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Table ES-2: Summary of Recommended Improvements SECTION TITLE Project Header 1Name

Description

Need Addressed

Timeframe

Costs

Savings

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate A. Route Changes mposanda nus,21 si Service ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Elimination of the porendam doluptas ma pra Corporate Drive stop and Make transit $5,000 modification of the route Minor cost Route travel times more Short-Term in annual A.1 alignment between Napa associated with Optimization competitive with (0-2 Years) operating Valley College and the stop removal cost savings auto travel times â€˘ Bullets Devlin Road/Airport Blvd stop. Header 3

Header 2

A.2

Long-Term (6+ Years)

Operating cost dependent on future service plan and terminus in Vacaville.

Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

$1,791,500 estimated total capital cost

$13,000 in annual operating cost savings

Napa Valley College Stop Option B

In-line, midblock stop for Routes 10X, 11X, 21 A/B and 29 is created for the southbound direction at Napa Valley College. In the northbound direction, two in-line stops are created on SR-221 at Streblow and Magnolia Drives. Includes pedestrian improvements.

Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

$3,689,500 estimated total capital cost

$16,000 in annual operating cost savings

Napa Valley College Stop Option C

Both northbound and southbound stops at Napa Valley College are converted to in-line, midblock stops on SR-221 for Routes 10X, 11X, 21 A/B and 29. Northbound stop connected to college via a grade-separated crossing of SR-221.

Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times

Long-Term (6+ Years)

$9,499,200 estimated total capital cost

$17,000 in annual operating cost savings

Long-term, split route 21 into two separate routes and expand service to Red Top Road Park & Ride (after construction of the Red Top Road flyover) and Vacaville.

Improve connectivity to Solano County

Napa Valley College Stop Option A

Southbound stop for Routes 10X, 11X, 21 A/B and 29 at Napa Valley College is made in-line on SR-221, and the alignment for serving the northbound stop is shortened.

Expansion of Service Area

B. Route 21 Stop Changes

B.1.a

B.1.b

B.1.c

ES-6

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Table ES-2: Summary of Recommended Improvements (Continued) SECTION TITLE Project Header 1Name

Description

Need Addressed

Timeframe

Costs

Savings

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Northbound and to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, southbound stops for venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam Routes 10X, 11X, 21 A/B porendam doluptas ma pra Make transit $13,000 Napa Valley and 29 would both be $733,800 travel times more Short-Term in annual B.1.d College Stop relocated to Magnolia estimated total competitive with (0-2 Years) operating Option D Drive, with buses using capital cost auto travel times cost savings â€˘ Bullets the existing roundabout to turn around and return to Header 3 SR-221.

Header 2

B.2

Stop Improvements at Devlin & Airport

Upgrade facilities at and near the Devlin Road/ Airport Blvd stop for Routes 11X and 25.

Improve stop facilities at express bus stops

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

$1,323,800 estimated total capital cost

Long-Term (6+ Years)

Operating cost dependent on route alignment, to be determined in coordination with Sonoma County Transit

C. Route 25 Service Changes

C.1

Addition of Downtown Petaluma and Sonoma Stops

Restoration of Route 25, extending current route to Petaluma to connect to SMART Station

Expand regional connectivity and transit integration

D. Route 25 Stop Changes

D.1

D.2

Downtown Napa Stop

Imola Park & Ride Improvements

Create new stop in Downtown Napa for Routes 10X, 11X, 25, and 29 (short-term)

Better connect transit service to employment areas

Convert existing Imola stop to in-line stops on SR-29 ramps and improve P&R facilities.

Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times

$31,000 in increased annual Short-Term operating costs (0-2 Years) $663,900

estimated total capital cost

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

$4,379,600 estimated total capital cost

$31,000 in annual operating cost savings

E. Route 29 Service Changes

E.1

Split Route 29 into 29/10X/11X

Route 29 will be split into Route 10 Express, Route 11 Express, and Route 29.

Increase reliability on Route 29

ES-7

Short-Term Operating costs (0-2 Years)/ vary with service Long-Term frequency (6+ Years)

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Table ES-2: Summary of Recommended Improvements (Continued) SECTION TITLE Project Header 1Name

Description

Need Addressed

Timeframe

Costs

Savings

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate F. Route Changes mposanda nus,29siStop ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda minis dolenima nam venimus ditastop quiaecatus re verspercipit See Downtown Napa, Napanis Valley College, Imola Park & Ride,aliti anddenitissi Devlin &cusae Airport improvements above ressin porendam doluptas ma pra $2,000 Convert the existing Reduce travel time Medium$1,046,200 in annual Yountville Stop Yountville stop to in-line and variability on estimated total F.1 Term (3-5 operating Modifications stop on SR-29 and provide Route 29 north of capital cost Years) â€˘ Bullets cost savings new facilities. Napa

Header 2

American Header 3 Canyon Post F.2

Office Stop Modifications

Convert American Canyon Post Office stop to in-line stop on SR-29 and provide new stop facilities.

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

$1,953,600 estimated total capital cost

$28,000 in annual operating cost savings

Expand park and ride opportunities

Long-Term (6+ Years)

Costs dependent on location, to be determined in coordination with City of American Canyon

Minimal operating cost change associated with re-routing

Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times

F.3

American Canyon Park & Ride

Add a new Park & Ride in American Canyon, location TBD.

F.4

SR-37/ Fairgrounds Park & Ride

Add a stop for Route 29 at SR-37/Fairgrounds Park & Ride once constructed by Solano Transportation Authority.

Expand park and ride opportunities

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

Short-Term (0-2 Years)

$16,000 increase in annual operating costs

F.5

Curtola Park & Ride

Add a stop at the existing Soltrans Curtola Park & Ride for Route 11X.

Expand regional transit connectivity and transit integration, and expand park and ride opportunities

F.6

Redwood Park & Ride Stop Modifications

Improve stop facilities and provide shade structure at Redwood Park & Ride.

Improve stop facilities at express bus stops

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

$2,199,500 estimated total capital cost

F.7

St. Helena Post Office Stop Modifications

Improve stop facilities and provide bus bulb-outs at the St Helena Post Office Stop.

Improve stop facilities at express bus stops

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

$871,500 estimated total capital cost

Minor operating savings associated with bulb-out

F.8

St Helena Park & Ride

Add a park & ride on SR-29 at St. Helena High School.

Expand park and ride opportunities

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

$434,900 estimated total capital cost

ES-8

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Table ES-2: Summary of Recommended Improvements (Continued) SECTION TITLE Project Header 1Name

Description

Need Addressed

Timeframe

Costs

Savings

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate G. Transit Priority mposanda nus, Signal si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin $537,300 porendam doluptas ma pra estimated total

Header 2

capital cost

Note: for all TSP improvements, installation of TSP equipment on buses will require an estimated $110,000 in the short-term (assumes 11 buses) and $230,000 in the long term (assumes 23 buses)

TSP - SR-29 3North of Napa

Implement transit signal priority at 11 signalized intersections on SR-29 from north of Napa to Calistoga.

Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

G.2

TSP - Route 29 South of Napa

Implement transit signal priority at 9 signalized intersections on SR-29 south of Napa.

Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

$488,700 estimated total capital cost

$11,000 in annual operating cost savings

G.3

TSP - SR-12, 121, 221

Implement transit signal priority at 10 signalized intersections on SR-12, SR121, and SR-221.

Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

$537,300 estimated total capital cost

$12,000 in annual operating cost savings

H.1

American Implement queue jumps at Canyon Queue three locations in American Jumps on State Canyon. Routes

Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

$2,117,700 estimated total capital cost

$5,000 in annual operating cost savings

H.2

Napa Queue Jumps on State Routes

Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

$1,681,800 estimated total capital cost

$4,000 in annual operating cost savings

I.1

Provide additional parking Wine Train for Soscol Gateway Transit Parcel West of Center at the existing Wine Soscol Gateway Train parking lot.

Expand park and ride opportunities

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

$1,395,700 estimated total capital cost

I.2

Provide additional parking for Soscol Gateway Transit City-Owned Lot Center at the City-owned in Downtown lot located at the northeast Napa corner of 3rd Street and the Wine Train tracks.

Expand park and ride opportunities

MediumTerm (3-5 Years)

$836,200 estimated total capital cost

â€˘ Bullets G.1

Header

$3,000 in annual operating cost savings

H. Queue Jumps

Implement queue jumps at two locations in Napa.

I. Parking Near Soscol Gateway Transit Center

ES-9

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure ES-3: Short-Term Recommendations â€ƒ Figure 2 - Key Map of Express Bus System Needs SECTION TITLE Calistoga

Inset Map of City of Napa

Header 1

Yolo

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Napa mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra D.1 Saint Helena

Header 2

B.1C

â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

A.1 Yountville Vacaville

Sonoma Napa D.1

B.1C

Sonoma

Fairfield

A.1

See Inset Map

Novato

American Canyon

Vallejo

Solano

F.5

Marin Martinez

Legend Route 10X

Contra Costa

San Rafael Richmond

Route 11X Route 25

Albany

Route 29

Short-Term Projects

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

ES-10

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure ES-4: Medium-Term Recommendations Figure 2 - Key Map of Express Bus System Needsâ€ƒ SECTION TITLE Calistoga

Inset Map of City of Napa

Header 1

Yolo

F.6

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Napa mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda F.7 nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin F.8 porendam doluptas ma pra Saint Helena

D.2

Header 2

B.1

â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

I.1 I.2

F.1 Yountville

H.2

Vacaville

B.2 F.6

Sonoma

Napa

D.2 B.1

Sonoma

Fairfield

I.1 I.2 H.2 See Inset Map

B.2

H.1

American Canyon

F.2

Novato

Vallejo

Solano

F.4

Note: Projects G.1, G.2, and G.3 not shown on map. Projects propose TSP at various locations.

Marin Martinez

Legend Route 10X

Contra Costa

San Rafael Richmond

Route 11X Route 25

Albany

Route 29

Medium-Term Projects

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

ES-11

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure ES-5: Long-Term Recommendations â€ƒ Figure 2 - Key Map of Express Bus System Needs SECTION TITLE Calistoga

Inset Map of City of Napa

Header 1

Yolo

Header 2

B.1

â€˘ Bullets

Header 3 Yountville Vacaville

Sonoma

C.1

Napa

Sonoma

A.2

B.1

Fairfield

See Inset Map F.3

Novato

American Canyon

Vallejo

Solano

Legend Route 10X

Marin

Route 11X

Martinez

Route 21A Route 21B

Contra Costa

San Rafael Richmond

Route 29

Albany

Long-Term Projects Long-Term Projects

Note: Project E.1 not shown on map. Project E.1 proposes to split Route 29 into 29/10X/11X. Route 25 not shown due to unspecified alignment.

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

ES-12

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION A. RouteTITLE 21 Service Changes A.1 Route Header 1 Optimization

Project Location

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Description: Elimination of thearum Corporate Legendet dolore, mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae vendam,Drive to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion Napa stop and modification of the route alignment namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Proposed Alignment porendam doluptas maValley pra College and the Devlin between Napa Removed Stop

Road/Airport Blvd stop.

Header 2 • Bullets

Napa Valley College

Capital Infrastructure Improvements

Header 3 Minimal; removal of stop signage Operating Changes

• Eliminate Corporate Drive Stop • Between Napa Valley College and Devlin Road/Airport Boulevard stop, change route alignment to use SR-221 & Soscol Ferry Road instead of Vista Point Drive/Napa Valley Corporate Drive/Kaiser Road.

Corporate Drive & Corporate Way

Legend Ridership Route 21 Route 25

Highway 12 & Highway 29

American Canyon

ES-13

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

A.1 Route Optimization (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header Need 1

Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times

Body Copy...Benefit Vitat quas cusam sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest,between tem facculp arciliq venient iataectur? Ovitate fromseque sus, Reduces travel time and distance Napa Valleyuamenda College and Devlin Road/Airport mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliaeBoulevard arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, Improvement namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Change inpra Travel porendam doluptas ma -1 minute (both directions)

Time

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Cost

Barriers to Header 3

Implementation Time-frame

$5,000 in annual operating cost savings None Short-Term (0-2 Years)

Existing stop facilities at Corporate Drive stop

ES-14

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

A.2 Expansion of Service Area SECTION TITLE

Description: Split route 21 into two separate routes and expand service to Red Top Road Park & Ride (after construction of the Red Top Road flyover) and Vacaville. Header 1 Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Project Location mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Redwood Park & Ride porendam doluptas ma pra

VACAVILLE

Vacaville Transportation Center or Davis Street Park & Ride Soscol Gateway Transit Center

Header 2 • Bullets

Header 3

NAPA

Imola Park & Ride 25

Gasser & Hartle

LEGEND: Existing Express Bus Route 21 - A Route 21 - B BART Capitol Corridor SMART

American Canyon

Napa Valley College Devlin/Airport Blvd 21

Red Top Road Park & Ride

Transit Center

FAIRFIELD Suisun City Train Depot

SUISUN

AMERICAN CANYON Capital Infrastructure Improvements

Operating Changes • Add stop at Red Top Road Park & Ride in Vacaville (after construction of the Red Top Road flyover). • Add stop at Vacaville Transportation Center OR Davis Street Park & Ride in Vacaville. • Split 21 service between Routes 21A (serves Suisun City Train Depot) and 21 B (serves Fairfield Transit Center & Vacaville)

ES-15

Minimal; signage at Davis Street Park & Ride and Red Top Road Park & Ride

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

A.2 Expansion of Service Area (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Need

Improve connectivity to Solano County

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas esciafrom veliae arumExpands vendam,service to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re splitting pererionof et dolore, Benefit to a previously unserved market (Vacaville); namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin routes reduces travel times Improvement porendam doluptas ma pra

in Travel Header 2Change Time

Route split reduces travel time between Suisun City and Soscol Gateway Transit Center by 7 minutes

Header 3

Operating cost dependent on future service plan and terminus in Vacaville

â€˘ Bullets

Cost Barriers to Implementation Time-frame

Sufficient transit demand between Vacaville and Napa County, funding, coordination with Fast and City Coach Long-Term (6+ Years)

Existing Station Facilities at Fairfield Transportation Center

Existing Station Facilities at Suisun City Train Depot

ES-16

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION B. Route TITLE 21 Stop Changes Header 1 Valley College Stop Option A B.1.A Napa

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae vendam,10X, to et11X, untur? eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, Description: Southbound stoparum for Routes 21IhitA/B and 29 at Napa Valley namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin College is made in-line on SR-221, and the alignment for serving the northbound stop is porendam doluptas ma pra

shortened.

Header 2 • Bullets

Capital Infrastructure Improvements

Operating Changes

• New Header 3 stop facilities along the west side

of SR-221 in the shoulder on the opposite side of James Diemer Drive from the existing stop. Facilities would include a bench and shelter, real-time arrival information, wayfinding and transit route information Existing

• Southbound buses will serve the new stop on SR-221. Northbound buses will be re-routed to turn left at Streblow Drive to James Diemer Drive to serve the new stop. Northbound buses will then return to SR-221 via Magnolia Drive.

Proposed Legend

Legend Northbound AlignmentRoute: 29 Southbound AlignmentRoute: 21 Existing Stop

Imola Ave

Imola AveNapa

Magnolia D

es D iem

r Dr iem e

Ridership

Jam

es D

Route 21 Route 25

er D

Legend

Streblow D

ES-17

Northbound AlignmentRoutes: 29, 21 A/B Southbound AlignmentRoutes: 10X, 11X Proposed Stop

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

B.1.A Napa Valley College Stop Option A (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel Need Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori times nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma praBenefit from Reduces travel time and distance for buses arriving and departing Napa Valley College Improvement

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

Change in Travel -4 minutes (northbound) Time -1 minute (southbound) Cost Barriers to Implementation Time-frame

$1,791,500 estimated total capital cost $13,000 in annual operating cost savings Coordination with Napa Valley College, encroachment permit from Caltrans, use of college right-of-way

Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

Existing Napa Valley College Stop

Potential location for southbound in-line stop at Napa Valley College

ES-18

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

B.1.B Napa Valley SECTION TITLE College Stop Option B

Operating Changes

• Southbound route alignment changes so that buses will serve the in-line stop 11X, 21quas A/Bcusam and 29 is created for volori the nonsequi dolest,on Body10X, Copy... Vitat seque sus, sedi aut temSR-221. facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia vendam, to etIn untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem remalignment quis re pererion et dolore, southbound direction atveliae Napaarum Valley College. route changes • Northbound namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin the northbound direction, two in-line stops are so that buses turn left buses will serve porendam doluptas ma pra created on SR-221 at Streblow and Magnolia the two stops at Streblow and Magnolia. Drives. Includes pedestrian improvements.

Header Description:1In-line, midblock stop for Routes

Header 2 • Bullets

Proposed Stops & Alignment

Header Capital 3 Infrastructure Improvements • Implement mid-block southbound stop as in Option A • For the northbound direction, construct new stop facilities at SR-221 & Magnolia Drive and SR-221 & Streblow Drive. Facilities would include a bench and shelter, real-time arrival information, wayfinding and transit route information • Streblow Drive Stop:

Legend Northbound Alignment Southbound Alignment Proposed Sidewalk

Imola Ave

Proposed Stop

agnolia Dr

er D

»» Near-side stop location with bus shelter and pedestrian infrastructure »» Construct new west leg crosswalk »» Construct new sidewalk on north side of Streblow Drive to James Diemer Drive and along James Diemer Road into the College OR construct new sidewalk between SR-221 and the vineyard and connect to James Diemer Drive Legend

ES-19

es D Jam

»» Far-side stop location with bus shelter and Route 21 pedestrian infrastructure Route 25 »» Construct new west leg crosswalk. »» Construct new sidewalk to connect southwest corner of SR-221 & Magnolia Drive with James Diemer Drive OR construct new sidewalk on west side of SR-221 from Magnolia Drive to mid-block southbound stop and campus

iem

• Magnolia Drive Stop: Ridership

Streblow D

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

B.1.B Napa Valley College Stop Option B (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Make transit travel times Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus,competitive sedi aut volori dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate more withnonsequi auto Need mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae travelarum timesvendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

Header 2 from Benefit â€˘ Bullets

Improvement

Header 3 Change in Travel Time

Cost

Barriers to Implementation

Time-frame

Reduces travel time and distance for buses arriving and departing Napa Valley College

-5 minutes (northbound)

Potential location for northbound stop at Streblow Drive

-1 minute (southbound)

$3,689,500 estimated total capital cost $16,000 in annual operating cost savings Coordination with Napa Valley College, encroachment permit from Caltrans, use of college right-of-way, use of Napa County right-of-way at Streblow Stop

West leg of SR-221 and Magnolia Drive intersection - recommended location for new crosswalk

Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

West leg of SR-221 and Streblow Drive intersection recommended location for new crosswalk

ES-20

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

B.1.C Napa Valley College SECTION TITLE Stop Option C

Proposed Stops & Alignment

Description:1Both northbound and southbound Header

Napa aresedi converted Bodystops Copy...atVitat quasValley cusamCollege seque sus, aut volori to nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venientLegend iataectur? Ovitate Northbound in-line, mid-block stops SR-221 for Routes mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia on veliae arum vendam, to et10X, untur? Ihit eatquaes etIm labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, Alignment ola Ave Southbound namende ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus ressin 11X, rrumqua 21 A/B and 29. Northbound stop connected to aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit Alignment porendam doluptas ma pra college via a grade-separated crossing of SR-221. Proposed Stop

Header 2 • Bullets

Grade-Separated Crossing

Capital Infrastructure Improvements

Magnolia D

• Place a southbound stop on the west

Header 3 of SR-221 in the shoulder on the side

es D

iem

er D

opposite side of James Diemer Drive from the existing stop. • Place a northbound stop on the east side of SR-221 in the shoulder across from the proposed southbound stop. • Construct a grade separated pedestrian crossing across SR-221 between northbound stop and Napa Valley College campus. • New stops would include a bench and Legend shelter, real-time arrival information, wayfinding and transit route information. Ridership Route 25

Jam

Route 21

Operating Changes

• Southbound route alignment changes so that buses will serve the in-line stop on SR-221. • Northbound route alignment changes so that buses will serve the in-line stop on SR-221.

Streblow D

ES-21

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

B.1.C Napa Valley College Stop Option C (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenimaReduces nam venimus aliti denitissi cusaefor dita quiaecatus verspercipit ressin Benefit from travel time and distance buses arrivingre and porendam doluptas ma pra departing Napa Valley College Improvement

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

Need

Change in Travel -5.5 minutes (northbound) Time -1 minute (southbound) Cost Barriers to Implementation Time-frame

$9,499,200 estimated total capital cost $17,000 in annual operating cost savings Coordination with Napa Valley College, encroachment permit from Caltrans, use of college right-of-way, potentially significant construction impacts to SR-221, high cost Long-Term (6+ Years)

Potential location for southbound in-line stop at Napa Valley College Route 21 bus headed northbound on SR-221 at potential northbound in-line stop location

ES-22

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

B.1.D Napa Valley College SECTION TITLE Stop Option D

Proposed Stops & Alignment

Header Description:1Northbound and southbound stops

Legend

Routes A/Bsus, andsedi 29aut would Northbound Bodyfor Copy... Vitat10X, quas 11X, cusam21 seque voloriboth nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Imetolabor Alignment la Arem mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, et untur? Ihit eatquaes et dolore, be relocated to Magnolia Drive, with busestousing verem quis re pererion Southbound namende rrumquaroundabout ersperibusda nis nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin the existing to minis turn dolenima around and Alignment porendam doluptas ma pra return to SR-221. Proposed Stop

Header 2 • Bullets

Magnolia D

Capital Infrastructure Improvements

Header 3

• Place a stop on the north side of Magnolia Drive west of SR-221 that serves both northbound and southbound directions. Buses can use the roundabout on Magnolia Drive to immediately turn around back towards SR-221 after serving the stop. • Stop infrastructure would include bus pullout, platform, waiting area, shelter, lighting, connection to nearby path, wayfinding materials, real-time transit information, and Wi-Fi.

er D

Operating Changes

Jam

es D

iem

• Southbound route alignment changes so that buses turn right into Magnolia, serve the bus stop, turn around at the roundabout and return to SR-221. • Northbound route alignment changes so that buses turn left into Magnolia, serve the bus stop, turn around at the roundabout and return to SR-221.

Streblow D

ES-23

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

B.1.D Napa Valley College Stop Option D (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, travel time and distance buses arrivingre and namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenimaReduces nam venimus aliti denitissi cusaefor dita quiaecatus verspercipit ressin Benefit from departing Napa Valley College (but does increase walking porendam doluptas ma pra Improvement distance between stop and NVC).

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

Need

Change in Travel -4.5 minutes (northbound) Time -15 seconds (southbound) Cost Barriers to Implementation Time-frame

$733,800 estimated total capital cost $13,000 in annual operating cost savings Coordination with Napa Valley College, encroachment permit from Caltrans, use of college right-of-way

Short-Term (0-2 Years)

Potential stop location on north side of Magnolia Drive

ES-24

Roundabout at intersection of Magnolia Drive and James Diemer Drive to be used as a turnaround point for northbound and southbound buses

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

B.2 Stop Improvements SECTION TITLEat Devlin & Airport Description: Upgrade facilities (Route 21 and 29) at and near the Devlin Road/Airport Blvd stop.

Header 1

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Operating Changes Capital Infrastructure mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quisImprovements re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis southbound/ minis dolenima nam venimus aliti• Remove denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Relocate the existing southbound/ facilities at the existing porendam eastbound doluptas ma pra stop to the south side of

eastbound stop and construct new stop facilities on the south side of Airport Boulevard, east of Devlin Road • Implement improved stop facilities including sidewalks and concrete waiting area with lighting, wayfinding, shelter, seating, Wi-Fi, bike storage, and real-time transit information. Provide crosswalks and pedestrian infrastructure at signalized intersection.

Airport Boulevard, east of Devlin Road

Header 2 • Bullets

Header 3

Project Location Legend Proposed Route 21 Proposed Route 29 Existing Stop to be Removed Proposed Stop

De vlin

Existing Stop to Remain

Airport Blvd

hip

ES-25

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

B.2 Stop Improvements at Devlin & Airport (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Improve stop facilities at express bus stops Need Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Improves amenities, safety, and access to the Devlin Road/ porendam doluptas ma praBenefit from Airport Blvd Stop Improvement

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

Change in Travel N/A Time Cost

$1,323,800 estimated total capital cost

Barriers to Implementation Time-frame

Requires acquisition of right-of-way

Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

Existing northbound stop at Devlin Road - Airport Boulevard

ES-26

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION C. RouteTITLE 25 Service Changes Header 1 C.1 Addition of Downtown Petaluma and Sonoma Stops

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum25, vendam, to et untur? Ihit route eatquaes labor rem to rem quis re pererion et dolore, Description: Restoration of Route extending current to et Petaluma connect to SMART Station. namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

Operating Changes

Capital Infrastructure Improvements

Header 2 signage at future stop locations Minimal; â€˘ Bullets

â€˘ New long-term route alignment which serves a new stop in the City of Sonoma (exact location TBD, would coincide with an existing Sonoma County Transit Stop) and at the Downtown Petaluma SMART Station

in Petaluma and Sonoma

Header 3

Project Location

Redwood Park & Ride

NAPA

PETALUMA

Imola Park & Ride Petaluma Downtown SMART Station

Sonoma Plaza

Proposed Downtown Stop Soscol Gateway Transit Center Gasser & Hartle

Napa Valley College

Sonoma Stop (To Be Determined)

Devlin/Airport Blvd 21

LEGEND: Route 25 (Proposed) BART Capitol Corridor SMART

American Canyon

ES-27

AMERICAN CANYON

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

C.1 Addition of Downtown Petaluma and Sonoma Stops (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Expand regionaldolest, connectivity and transit Need Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi tem facculp arciliqintegration uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma praBenefit from Provides an additional connection to regional transit services (SMART) Improvement

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

Estimated travel time between Soscol Gateway Transit

Change in Travel Center & Petaluma SMART: 56 min (does not account for any deviation to a Sonoma stop, as that location has not yet Time been determined)

Cost

Operating cost dependent on route alignment, to be determined in coordination with Sonoma County Transit

Barriers to Implementation

Operational funding, coordination with Sonoma County Transit

Time-frame

Long-Term (6+ Years)

ES-28

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION D. RouteTITLE 25 Stop Changes Header 1 D.1 Downtown Napa Stop

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas arum vendam, toNapa et untur? eatquaes laborand rem25. rem quis re pererion et dolore, Description: Create escia new veliae stop in Downtown for Ihit Routes 10X,et11X, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

Operating Changes

Capital Infrastructure Improvements

Header 2 stop amenities: bench and shelter, • New • Bullets

real-time arrival information, wayfinding and transit route information.

Header 3

Project Location Legend Express Bus AlignmentRoutes: 10X, 11X, 25 Proposed Stop

Jeﬀerso

St t

S 3rd

ES-29

d 2n

olp nd

n St

1st

• Create new stop in Downtown Napa for Routes 10X, 11X, 25, and 29 (short-term) • Re-align routes to use 1st/2nd Street couplet, Jefferson Street, 3rd Street through downtown to Soscol Gateway Transit Center instead of Lincoln Avenue and Soscol Avenue • Proposed stop location is at 3rd Street & Randolph St; coordinate with the City of Napa to finalize a stop location on 3rd Street and consider consolidating other Vine Transit stops in Downtown Napa at this location

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

D.1 Downtown TITLE Napa Stop (Continued) SECTION

Header 1

Betternonsequi connect transit to employment areas venient iataectur? Ovitate Need Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori dolest,service tem facculp arciliq uamenda mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma praBenefit from Provides direct access to downtown Napa destinations

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

Improvement

Change in Travel +1 minutes (both directions) Time Cost Barriers to Implementation Time-frame

$31,000 in increased annual operating costs $663,900 estimated total capital cost Coordination with City of Napa on stop location and onstreet parking removal; use of sidewalks requires route re-alignment Short-Term (0-2 Years)

Location for potential westbound/southbound stop in Downtown Napa at the intersection of 3rd and Randolph

ES-30

Location for potential eastbound/northbound stop in Downtown Napa at the intersection of 3rd and Randolph

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

D.2 Imola Park & Ride Improvements SECTION TITLE Description: Convert existing Imola stop to in-line stops on SR-29 ramps and improve P&R facilities.

Header 1

Project Location

Capital Body Copy... Vitat quasInfrastructure cusam seque sus,Improvements sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, • Implement pedestrian infrastructure namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin lighting between park & ride lot, porendam and doluptas ma pra southbound stop, and northbound stop, including Header 2 new sidewalk under SR-29 on south side of Imola Avenue • Bullets • Provide improved stop facilities at Header 3 northbound and southbound both stop locations, including sidewalks and concrete waiting area with lighting, wayfinding, shelter, seating, Wi-Fi, additional bike storage (in the park & ride lot), and real-time transit information. • Improve park & ride with new paving, lighting, and bike parking • Add new in-line stops on SR-29 southbound on ramp and SR-29 northbound off-ramp Operating Changes

ES-31

Legend ǆŝƐƟŶŐ ůŝŐŶŵĞŶƚͲ Route: 25 Proposed AlignmentRoute: 25, 29 Proposed Stop Removed Stop

te Dr Golden Ga

• Eliminate Gasser Drive & Hartle Court Legend stops Route 25 alignment to use Route• Change 21 3rd Street, Jefferson Street, 2nd Street, Route 29 California Boulevard, 1st Street and SR-29 between Soscol Gateway Transit Center and Imola Park & Ride. • Between Imola Park & Ride and SR-12, change Route 25 alignment to use SR-29 instead of Golden Gate Drive.

Imola Ave

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

D.2 Imola ParkTITLE & Ride Improvements (Continued) SECTION

Header 1

Need

Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Reduces travel Ihit timeeatquaes and distance for rem busesrem arriving and departing mposandaBenefit nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? et labor quis re pererion et dolore, from Improvement Imola Park & Ride namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra -3 minutes (southbound)

Change in Travel Time

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

Cost

Barriers to Implementation Time-frame

-5 minutes (northbound) $4,379,600 estimated total capital cost $31,000 in annual operating cost savings Funding; coordination with Caltrans on park & ride lot, in-line stops on SR-29, and ramp and signal modifications; coordination with City of Napa on sidewalk improvements Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

Location for proposed northbound in-line stop on SR-29 southbound on-ramp

Location for proposed sidewalk on south side of Imola Ave

Location for proposed southbound in-line stop on SR-29 southbound on-ramp

ES-32

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

D.2 Imola ParkTITLE & Ride Improvements SECTION

Header 1

Existing

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

Header 2 • Bullets

Header 3

Proposed Imola Avenue Park & Ride Bird’s Eye View (Existing) DRAFT July 27, 2017

North

Imola Avenue Park & Ride Bird’s Eye View (Proposed) DRAFT July 27, 2017

ES-33

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

D.2 Imola ParkTITLE & Ride Improvements (Continued) SECTION Existing

Header 1

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

Proposed

Imola Avenue Park & Ride Street View (Existing) DRAFT July 27, 2017

Proposed (Night)

Imola Avenue Park & Ride Street View (Proposed Day) DRAFT July 27, 2017

Imola Avenue Park & Ride Street View (Proposed Night) DRAFT July 27, 2017

ES-34

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION E. Route TITLE 29 Service Changes Header 1

E.1 Split Route 29 into 29/10X/11X

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Description: Route 29 will be split Route 10untur? Express, Route 11 Route 29. mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum into vendam, to et Ihit eatquaes et Express, labor rem and rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

Operating Changes

Header• Split 2 the existing Route 29 into three separate routes which serve the stops listed below. • Bullets

• Between Napa Valley College and Devlin Road/Airport Boulevard stop, change route to use SR-221 & Soscol Ferry Road instead of Vista Point Drive/Napa Valley Header alignment 3 Corporate Drive/Kaiser Road. • Route 11 Express (Long-Term Configuration)

• Route 10 Express

»» Napa Valley College »» Soscol Gateway Transit Center »» Downtown Napa »» Redwood Park & Ride »» Yountville at California Drive »» St Helena Park & Ride »» St Helena Post Office »» Calistoga Lincoln Bridge

»» Redwood Park & Ride »» Downtown Napa »» Soscol Gateway Transit Center »» Napa Valley College »» Devlin Road/Airport Boulevard »» Future American Canyon Park & Ride »» American Canyon Post Office »» Vallejo Ferry Terminal »» Curtola Park & Ride »» El Cerrito del Norte BART

• Route 11 Express (Short-Term Configuration) »» Redwood Park & Ride »» Downtown Napa »» Soscol Gateway Transit Center »» Napa Valley College »» Devlin Road/Airport Boulevard »» American Canyon Post Office »» Vallejo Ferry Terminal »» Curtola Park & Ride

• Route 29 (Short-Term Configuration) »» Redwood Park & Ride »» Downtown Napa »» Soscol Gateway Transit Center »» American Canyon Post Office »» El Cerrito del Norte BART

• Route 29 (Long-Term Configuration) »» Redwood Park & Ride »» Imola Avenue Park & Ride »» American Canyon Post Office »» SR-37/Fairgrounds Park & Ride »» El Cerrito del Norte BART

Capital Infrastructure Improvements Capital improvements identified in other projects: Napa Valley College stop (pg. 17-24), Downtown Napa stop (pg. 29), Imola Park & Ride (pg. 31), Yountville (pg. 39)

ES-35

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

E.1 Split Route 29 into 29/10X/11X (Continued) SECTION TITLE Description: Route 29 will be split into Route 10 Express, Route 11 Express, and Route 29.

Header 1 Body Copy... Vitat quas3cusam sequeStops sus, sedi aut voloriService nonsequiMap dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient Figure - Short-Term and Alignments Improvement Recommendations (With Existing Express Bus)iataectur? Ovitate Proposed - Short-Term mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, CALISTOGA namende rrumqua ersperibusda nisCalistoga minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Lincoln Bridge porendam doluptas ma pra

ST HELENA

Header 2 • Bullets

St. Helena Post Ofﬁce

Header 3

YOUNTVILLE Yountville 29

Redwood Park & Ride

Imola Park & Ride

PETALUMA Sonoma Plaza

VACAVILLE

Proposed Downtown Stop

NAPA

Soscol Gateway Transit Center Gasser & Hartle

FAIRFIELD

Napa Valley College

Devlin/Airport Blvd

SONOMA

Fairﬁeld Transit Center

21 29

Suisun City Train Depot

SUISUN AMERICAN CANYON

American Canyon Post Ofﬁce

VALLEJO Note: Existing Route 29 only stops at the Ferry Terminal in the southbound direction upon request

LEGEND: Existing Express Bus Route 10 Express Route 11 Express Route 21 Route 29 BART Capitol Corridor SMART

Vallejo Ferry Terminal Curtola Park & Ride

EL CERRITO El Cerrito del Norte BART Station

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study ES-36

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

E.1 Split Route 29 into 29/10X/11X (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1 Body Copy... Vitat quas3cusam sequeStops sus, and sedi aut voloriImprovement nonsequiMap dolest, tem facculp (With arciliqExisting uamenda venient Figure - Long-Term Alignments Recommendations Express Bus)iataectur? Ovitate Proposed Service - Long-Term mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, CALISTOGA namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Calistoga Lincoln Bridge porendam doluptas ma pra

ST HELENA

Header 2 • Bullets

St. Helena Post Ofﬁce

Header 3

YOUNTVILLE

St. Helena Park & Ride 29

Yountville

VACAVILLE Redwood Park & Ride Proposed Downtown Stop

NAPA

PETALUMA

Imola Park & Ride Sonoma Plaza

Soscol Gateway Transit Center Gasser & Hartle

Napa Valley College

Devlin/Airport Blvd 21

Future American Canyon Park & Ride

Fairﬁeld Transit Center

FAIRFIELD Suisun City Train Depot

SUISUN

AMERICAN CANYON

American Canyon Post Ofﬁce

VALLEJO Note: Existing southbound Route 29 only stops at the Ferry Terminal upon request

Vacaville Transportation Center or Davis Street Park & Ride

Proposed SR-37/Fairgrounds Park & Ride

Vallejo Ferry Terminal

LEGEND: Existing Express Bus Curtola Park & Ride Route 10 Express Route 11 Express Route 21 - A 29 Route 21 - B Route 25 EL CERRITO Route 29 BART El Cerrito del Norte BART Station Capitol Corridor SMART Note: Routes 10 and 11 will continue to operate at normal service levels

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study ES-37

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

E.1 Split Route 29 into 29/10X/11X (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Increase reliability on Route 29 Need Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Splitting of routes shortens trip distances and thus increases porendam doluptas ma praBenefit from reliability of bus travel times Improvement

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

Change in Travel Varies based on trip origin and destination Time Cost

Barriers to Implementation

Time-frame

Operating costs vary with service frequency Short-Term: Coordination with Soltrans on use of Curtola Park & Ride Long-Term: Increased demand at El Cerrito del Norte, coordination with SolTrans on SR-37/Fairgrounds Park & Ride Both Short-Term (0-2 Years) and Long-Term (6+ Years) Route Modifications

ES-38

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION F. Route TITLE 29 Stop Changes Header 1 F.1 Yountville Stop Modifications

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Description: Convert the existing Yountville stop to in-line stop on SR-29 ramps and provide new mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, facilities. namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

Capital Infrastructure Improvements

Operating Changes

Header 2

• New stop facilities at northbound and southbound stops, including sidewalks Header 3 concrete waiting area with lighting, and wayfinding, shelter, seating, Wi-Fi, additional bike storage, and real-time transit information. • Convert existing Yountville stop to inline stop on SR-29 at California drive.

• Northbound Stop - Bus will exit SR-29 northbound using the California Drive off-ramp, cross California Drive, serve the new stop at the SR-29 northbound onramp, and re-enter SR-29 northbound. • Southbound Stop - Bus will exit SR-29 southbound using the California Drive off-ramp, serve the new stop at the SR-29 southbound off-ramp, cross California Drive, and re-enter SR-29 southbound using the on-ramp.

• Bullets

Project Location

ia orn f i l a

Legend ǆŝƐƟŶŐ ůŝŐŶŵĞŶƚ Proposed Alignment Proposed Stop Removed Stop

ES-39

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

F.1 Yountville Stop Modifications (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Reduce travel time and variability on Route 29 north of Napa Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, Benefit from Reduces travel time and distance buses arriving re and namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusaefordita quiaecatus verspercipit ressin departing from Yountville porendam doluptas ma pra Improvement

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Need

Change in Travel -1 minute (both directions) Time

Header 3 Cost Barriers to Implementation Time-frame

$1,046,200 estimated total capital cost $2,000 in annual operating cost savings Encroachment permit from Caltrans, acquisition of right-ofway

Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

Location of proposed northbound stop on SR-29 northbound off-ramp

Location of proposed southbound stop on SR-29 southbound off-ramp

ES-40

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

F.2 American Canyon Post Office Stop Modifications SECTION TITLE Description: Convert American Canyon Post Office stop to in-line stop on SR-29 and provide new stop facilities. 1 Header

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Capital et Infrastructure Improvements Operating Changes mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit Change alignment for Routes 11X and • New stop facilities at northbound andressin porendam doluptas ma pra

29 to stay on SR-29 through American Canyon and serve the proposed in-line Header 2 stops.

southbound stops, including sidewalks and concrete waiting area with lighting, wayfinding, shelter, seating, Wi-Fi, additional bike storage, and real-time transit information. • Relocate existing stops at American Canyon Post Office to in-line stops on SR-29.

• Bullets

Header 3

Project Location

ay Donaldson W

Legend Proposed AlignmentRoutes: 29, 11x ǆŝƐƟŶŐ ůŝŐŶŵĞŶƚͲ Route: 29 Proposed Stop Removed Stop

James Rd

ay Crawford W

( ! ( ! Crawford Way

American Canyon Rd

Legend

Existing park & ride location NOT TO SCALE

( Existing transit stop !

ES-41

Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

F.2 American Canyon Post Office Stop Modifications (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Need

Header 2

Change in Travel Time

Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to etReduces untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor remfor rem quisarriving re pererion et dolore, travel time and distance buses Benefit namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minisfrom dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re ressin and departing from the American Canyon Postverspercipit Office porendam doluptas ma pra Improvement stop

â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

-2 minutes (northbound) -1.5 minutes (southbound) $1,953,600 estimated total capital cost

Cost

$28,000 in annual operating cost savings

Barriers to Implementation Time-frame

Caltrans coordination and encroachment permit for new stops on SR-29. Coordination with American Canyon on additional pedestrian infrastructure. Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

Existing American Canyon park & ride location

ES-42

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

F.3 American Canyon Park & Ride SECTION TITLE

Description: Add a new Park & Ride in American Canyon, location TBD.

Header 1

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, Capital Infrastructure Improvements Operating Changes namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam • Construct doluptas ma pra park & ride lot (location TBD) • Add new stop at new American Canyon

• Provide stop facilities, including

Header 2 and concrete waiting area with sidewalks lighting, wayfinding, shelter, seating, Wi-Fi, Header 3 bike storage, and real-time transit information. • Bullets

Need Benefit from Improvement Change in Travel Time

Park & Ride (specific location TBD) for Routes 29 and 11X and adjust route alignments to access the stop.

Expand park and ride opportunities

Provides new park & ride access to express bus service

N/A

Cost

Costs dependent on location, to be determined in coordination with City of American Canyon

Barriers to Implementation

Generating increased demand for park & ride, coordination with American Canyon on park & ride locations, acquisition of right-of-way for park & ride.

Time-frame

Long-Term (6+ Years)

ES-43

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

F.4 SR-37/Fairgrounds Park & Ride SECTION TITLE Description: Add a stop for Route 29 at SR-37/Fairgrounds Park & Ride once constructed by Solano Header 1 Transportation Authority.

Minimal; signage at new park & ride. This is a location being considered by STA and Header 2 SolTrans; infrastructure improvements â€˘ Bullets would not be done by NVTA.

â€˘ Add new stop for Route 29 at new SR37 / Fairgrounds Park & Ride. Re-route Route 29 to serve this location via SR-37.

Header 3

Need Benefit from Improvement Change in Travel Time Cost Barriers to Implementation Time-frame

Expand park and ride opportunities

Provides new park & ride access to express bus service

N/A

Minimal operating cost change associated with re-routing

Construction of park & ride by others

Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

ES-44

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

F.5 Curtola Park & Ride SECTION TITLE

Description: Add a stop at the existing Soltrans Curtola Park & Ride for Route 11X.

Header 1

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Operating Changes Capital Infrastructure Improvements mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit â€˘ Add new stop for Route 11X at theressin Minimal; signage at new park & ride porendam doluptas ma pra

existing Curtola Park & Ride. Adjust Route 11X alignment to serve this stop. This is a location being considered by STA and SolTrans; infrastructure improvements would not be done by NVTA.

â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

Need

Benefit from Improvement

Expand regional transit connectivity and transit integration, and expand park and ride opportunities Provides new park & ride access to express bus service

Project Location

Legend

Existing park & ride location ( Existing transit stop !

la Par Curto

( !

Barriers to Coordination with Soltrans Implementation on use of the park & ride

Time-frame

Short-Term (0-2 Years) NOT TO SCALE

ES-45

$16,000 increase in annual operating costs

Cost

Change in Travel +2 minutes (both directions) Time

kway

Header 2

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

F.5 Curtola Park & Ride (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Proposed Stops & Alignment

Header 1

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas Curt escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, ola Pnis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin namende rrumqua ersperibusda kwy t porendam doluptas ma pra nS

Header 2 • Bullets

Header 3

Legend ǆŝƐƟŶŐ ůŝŐŶŵĞŶƚͲ Route: 29 Proposed AlignmentRoute: 11x Proposed Stop

ES-46

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

F.6 Redwood Park & Ride Stop Modifications SECTION TITLE

Description: Improve stop facilities and provide shade structure at Redwood Park & Ride.

Header 1

Capital Improve stop facilities Ovitate at Body Copy... Vitat quasInfrastructure cusam seque sus,Improvements sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp venient iataectur? Needarciliq uamenda express bus stops mposanda• Implement nus, si ullictotasimproved escia veliaestop arumfacilities vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin including wayfinding, Wi-Fi, additional Improves amenities, safety, porendam doluptas ma pra Benefit from bike storage, and real-time transit and access to the Redwood Improvement Park & Ride information.

Header 2 • Bullets

• Construct new canopy over customer waiting area, creating shade

Change in Travel Time

Header 3

Operating Changes

Cost

None Barriers to Implementation Time-frame

Existing Redwood park & ride location

ES-47

N/A $2,199,500 estimated total capital cost Funding

Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

F.7 St. Helena Post Office Stop Modifications SECTION TITLE

Description: Improve stop facilities and provide bus bulb-outs at the St Helena Post Office Stop.

Header 1

Body Copy... Vitat quasInfrastructure cusam seque sus,Improvements sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Capital Operating Changes mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, bulb-outs on the northbound â€˘ Installersperibusda None re verspercipit ressin namende rrumqua nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus southbound side of SR-29. The porendam and doluptas ma pra

bulb-outs would extend into the existing roadway Header 2 so that buses can make in-line stops on SR-29. â€˘ Bullets

Header 3 Project Location Need Benefit from Improvement Change in Travel Time

( !

NOT TO SCALE

ES-48

Improves amenities, safety, and access to the St. Helena Post Office stop

N/A

Cost

$871,500 estimated total capital cost

Barriers to Implementation

Coordination with City of St. Helena on sidewalk and street modifications.

Time-frame

Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

Legend

Existing St. Helena Post ( ! Office transit stops

Improve stop facilities at express bus stops

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

F.8 St. Helena Park & Ride SECTION TITLE

Description: Add a park & ride on SR-29 at St. Helena High School.

Header 1

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Capital Infrastructure Improvements Operating Changes mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re • Install signage designating park & ride • Add a new stop for Routeverspercipit 10X in St.ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

spots in school lot fronting SR-29 • Provide pedestrian infrastructure and Header 2 crosswalk.

Helena in front of St. Helena High school on SR-29.

• Bullets

Header 3

Project Location Need Legend ǆŝƐƟŶŐ ůŝŐŶŵĞŶƚͲ Route: 29 Proposed AlignmentRoute: 10X Proposed Stop

Benefit from Improvement

e Av n o

Expand park and ride opportunities Provides new park & ride access to express bus service

Change in Travel N/A Time

s ray

St Helena High School

Cost

$434,900 estimated total capital cost Coordinate with high

to arrange for use Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors,school and the GIS user community

Barriers to a portion of parking lot as Implementation a park & ride, coordinate

with City of St. Helena on pedestrian improvements.

Time-frame

ES-49

Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION G. TransitTITLE Signal Priority Header 1 Signal Priority - SR-29 North of Napa G.1 Transit

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Description: Implement transitarum signal priority 11 signalized intersections on SR-29 north of Napa mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae vendam, to etat untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re from pererion et dolore, to Calistoga. namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

HeaderCapital 2 Infrastructure Improvements

Need

• Install TSP systems at the following intersections: Header »3» SR-29/Washington St (Calistoga) »» SR-29/Foothill Blvd (Calistoga) »» SR-29/Fulton Ln (St Helena) »» SR-29/Adams St (St Helena) »» SR-29/Pope St (St Helena) »» SR-29/Mitchell Dr (St Helena) »» SR-29/Madison St (Yountville) »» SR-29/Oak Knoll Ave (Napa) »» SR-29/Salvador Ave (Napa) »» SR-29/Wine Country Ave (Napa) »» SR-29/Trower Ave (Napa) • Bullets

Benefit from Improvement Change in Travel Time

Cost

Operating Changes None

Note: for all TSP improvements, installation of TSP equipment on buses will required an estimated $110,000 in the short-term (assumes 11 buses) and $230,000 in the long term (assumes 23 buses) Identify TSP system and

Barriers to procure technology, coordinate Implementation with Caltrans to implement on SR-29

Time-frame

ES-50

Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

G.1 Transit Signal Priority - SR-29 North of Napa (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1 Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, t t namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin nSnS isodiso d a a porendam doluptas ma pra M M ( ! ! (

Header 2 â€˘

Yountville Yountville

( W! (asWhianshin FooFoo ! Bullets gto gto thil t! ( ( hill ! n Sn S l Blv Blv t t d d

Header 3

e e Av Av oll noll n kKkK Oa Oa ve ve ( ! ! ( rA rA do ado a lv lv Sa Sa ( ! ! ( (ve ! ( ve ! y A ry A ( ( ntr untA ve A! ve ! u Co Co er er ine ineTrowTrow W W

A Mi dam tcAh s S Mi deallmD t Fu tch sr S lto ell Dr t P Fu n Ln op lton Po e S Ln pe t St

Calistoga Calistoga

(! (( ! St.St. Helena Helena ! (! (! ( !

Legend Legend Intersection Intersection for TSP for TSP ( Proposed ! ! Proposed ( NOT TONOT SCALE TO SCALE

Napa Napa Legend Legend Intersection Intersection for TSP for TSP ( Proposed ! ! Proposed ( NOT TONOT SCALE TO SCALE

ES-51

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

G.2 Transit Signal Priority - Route 29 South of Napa SECTION TITLE Description: Implement transit signal priority at 9 signalized intersections on SR-29 south of Napa. Header 1

Body Copy... Vitat quasInfrastructure cusam seque sus,Improvements sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Operating Changes Capital mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, None re verspercipit ressin • Installersperibusda TSP systems thedolenima following namende rrumqua nisat minis nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus porendam intersections: doluptas ma pra »» SR-29/SR-12 Sonoma Hwy (Napa) »» SR-29/CA-12/SR-221 (Napa) »» SR-29/Airport Blvd-SR-12 (Napa) • Bullets »» SR-29/S Kelly Rd (American Canyon) » SR-29/Napa Junction Rd (American Canyon) Header »»3 » SR-29/Eucalyptus Dr (American Canyon) »» SR-29/Rio Del Mar (American Canyon) »» SR-29/Donaldson Way W (American Canyon) »» SR-29/W American Canyon Rd (American Canyon)

Header 2

Napa

( !

Airport Blv

( !

( S Kelly Rd !

tion Rd ! (

Napa Junc

l Mar Rio De

n Way! (

Donaldso

Legend ( !

Proposed Intersection for TSP

( !

NOT TO SCALE

ES-52

yptus Dr

! Eucal ( ( !

American Canyon American Ca

nyon Rd

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

G.2 Transit Signal Priority - Route 29 South of Napa (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability Need Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Benefit from Reduces delay for buses caused by intersections, reducing travel porendam doluptas ma pra time and variability Improvement

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Change in Travel Time

Header 3 Cost Barriers to Implementation Time-frame

-1 minute per direction (approximately) $488,700 estimated total capital cost $11,000 in annual operating cost savings Identify TSP system and procure technology, coordinate with Caltrans to implement on SR-29 Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

ES-53

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

G.3 Transit Signal Priority - Route 12, 121, 221 SECTION TITLE Description: Implement transit signal priority at 10 signalized intersections on SR-12, SR-121, and SR-221.

Header 1 Infrastructure Improvements Capital

Operating Changes

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate • Install TSP systems at the following None mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, intersections: namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin »» SR-121 porendam doluptas ma(Soscol pra Ave)/Silverado Trail (Napa) »» SR-121 (Soscol Ave)/Kansas Ave (Napa) »» SR-121 (Soscol Ave)/Shetler Ave (Napa) »» SR-221 (Napa Vallejo Hwy)/Imola Ave (Napa) »» SR-221 (Napa Vallejo Hwy)/Magnolia Dr • Bullets (Napa) Header »3 » SR-221 (Napa Vallejo Hwy)/Streblow Dr (Napa) »» SR-221 (Napa Vallejo Hwy)/Kaiser Rd (Napa) »» SR-221 (Napa Vallejo Hwy)/Napa Valley Corporate Way (American Canyon) »» SR-12/S Kelly Rd (American Canyon) »» SR-12/Kirkland Ranch Rd (American Canyon)

Header 2

Need Benefit from Improvement Change in Travel Time Cost Barriers to Implementation Time-frame

Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability Reduces delay for buses caused by intersections, reducing travel time and variability -1.5 minutes per direction (approximately) $537,300 estimated total capital cost $12,000 in annual operating cost savings Identify TSP system and procure technology, coordinate with Caltrans to implement on SR-29 Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

ES-54

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

G.3 Transit Signal Priority - Route 12, 121, 221 (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Trail

Silverado Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, Napa sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate ( ! Ave as Kans mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, ( untur? ! Shetler Ave namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin ( ! Imola Ave ( ! porendam doluptas ma pra

( !

Header 2

Magnolia Dr

w Dr ! (

Streblo

â€˘ Bullets

Header 3 Kaiser Rd

( !

S Kelly Rd

( Valley ! Napa te Way a r o p Cor

Legend ( !

Proposed Intersection for TSP

Kirkland Ranch Rd

( !

NOT TO SCALE

( !

ES-55

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION H. QueueTITLE Jumps Header H.11American Canyon Queue Jumps on State Routes Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Description: Implement queue jumpsnonsequi at three locations in American Canyon. mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, Capitalnam Infrastructure Improvements namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

• Implement queue jumps at the following locations:

»» SR-29 Header 2 & Napa Junction Road (American Canyon) • Bullets

Header

»» Northbound Direction (Route Express, Route 29): Im311 plement advanced right-turn phase and utilize the right-turn lane as a queue jump. »» Southbound Direction (Route 11 Express, Route 29): Use existing right-turn lane for queue jump lane and construct new right-turn lane.

»» SR-29 & Donaldson Way (American Canyon) »» Northbound Direction (Route 11 Express, Route 29): Convert shoulder to shared right-turn queue jump lane. Implement a bus-only phase. »» Southbound Direction (Route 11 Express, Route 29): Convert shared through/right-turn lane into a right-only lane and use as queue jump.

Operating Changes None

( !

Napa Junction Rd

Eucalyptus

Rio

r Del Ma

y son Wa ! (

Donald

Legend ( ! NOT TO SCALE

( !

Proposed Intersection for Queue Jumps

ES-56

American Canyon Rd

»» SR-29 & American Canyon Road (American Canyon) »» Northbound Direction (Route 11 Express, Route 29): Convert right-turn only lane into a dedicated queue jump lane and construct new right-turn only lane. »» Southbound Direction (Route 11 Express, Route 29): Convert right-turn only lane into a dedicated queue jump lane and construct new right-turn only lane.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

H.1 American Canyon Queue Jumps on State Routes (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1 Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus,the sedi aut volori Reduce impact of nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus,Need si ullictotas esciacongestion veliae arum onvendam, trip timeto et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusdaand nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin variability porendam doluptas ma pra American Canyon Road

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Benefit Header 3 from Improvement

Change in Travel Time

Reduces delay for buses caused by intersections, reducing travel time and variability

Legend

NOT TO SCALE

Proposed lane for Queue Jumps

American Canyon Road

-30 to -45 seconds per direction (approximately) Donaldson Way

Cost

Barriers to Implementation

Time-frame

$2,117,700 estimated total capital cost

Legend

Proposed lane for Queue Jumps

$5,000 in annual operating cost savings

NOT TO SCALE

Donaldson Way

Coordination with Caltrans on signal modifications, acquisition of right-of-way at American Canyon Road

Napa Junction Rd

Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

Legend

NOT TO SCALE

Proposed lane for Queue Jumps

Napa Junction Road

ES-57

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

H.2 Napa Queue Jumps on State Routes SECTION TITLE

Description: Implement queue jumps at SR-29 & SR-12/Airport Boulevard in Napa.

Header 1

Operating Changes

Capital Body Copy... Vitat quasInfrastructure cusam seque sus,Improvements sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda • Implement nus, si ullictotasqueue escia veliae arum et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, None jumps atvendam, SR-29 &toSRnamende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin 12/Airport Boulevard (Napa): porendam doluptas ma pra »» Northbound Direction (Route 29): Implement queue jump lane in right hand through lane. » » Southbound Direction (Route 29): Con• Bullets struct a dedicated queue jump lane acHeader 3 cessed from the right turn lane. This would require modifying the signal pole location. »» Install equipment on express buses to initiate TSP needed to utilize queue jumps

Header 2

levard

Airport Bou

NOT TO SCALE

S Kelly Rd

Legend ( !

( !

Proposed Intersection for Queue Jumps

ES-58

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

H.2 Napa Queue Jumps on State Routes (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Need

Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, Benefitnisfrom delay aliti for buses caused bydita intersections, travel ressin namende rrumqua ersperibusda minis dolenimaReduces nam venimus denitissi cusae quiaecatusreducing re verspercipit time and variability Improvement porendam doluptas ma pra

Header 2 Change in Travel Time

-10 to -15 seconds per direction (approximately)

Header 3

$1,681,800 estimated total capital cost

â€˘ Bullets

Cost

$4,000 in annual operating cost savings

Barriers to Implementation

Coordination with Caltrans on signal modifications

Time-frame

Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

Airport Boulevard

Legend

NOT TO SCALE

Proposed lane for Queue Jumps

Airport Boulevard

ES-59

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION I. ParkingTITLE Near Soscol Gateway Transit Center Header I.1 Wine1Train Parcel West of Soscol Gateway

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Description: Partner with Wine Train to provide additional parking for Soscol Gateway Transit Center at mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, the existing Train parking lot. namende rrumquaWine ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

Project Location

Capital Infrastructure Improvements

Header 2 • Bullets

• Resurface the existing lot on the Wine Train parcel at 760-766 Soscol Ave.

Header 3

Operating Changes 3rd St

None

4th St

col

Sos

Burnell

Ave col

Sos

3rd St

PARCELS_PUBLIC

Ave

egend

4th St

6th St

Ridership

Legend Soscol Gateway Transit Center and Esd KĸĐĞƐ Wine Train Lot

Route 21 Route 25 Route 29

7th St

City-Owned Lot

Legend NOT TO SCALE

8th St

Existing Wine Train parking lot

ES-60

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

I.1 Wine Train Parcel West of Soscol Gateway (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Expand park and ride opportunities Need Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Benefitnisfrom Increased park & ride capacity at Soscol Gateway Transit Center porendam doluptas ma pra

Improvement

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Change in Travel Time

Header 3

N/A $1,395,700 estimated total capital cost

Cost Barriers to Implementation Time-frame

Note: An agreement may be reached with the Wine Train for shared use of the parking lot, which may greatly reduce the cost of this improvement Coordination with Wine Train on use of parcel for public park & ride Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

ES-61

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

I.2 City-Owned Lot in Downtown Napa SECTION TITLE Description: Partner with the City of Napa to provide additional parking for Soscol Gateway Transit

Header 1 City-owned lot located at the northeast corner of 3rd Street and the Wine Train tracks. Center at the Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, Project Location namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Capital Infrastructure Improvements porendam doluptas ma pra

• Pave parking lot on City of Napa parcel at 726-738 3rd Street. Header 2 • Explore future options for expanded • Bullets parking capacity at this location (e.g. Header 3 garage) to share between NVTA parking and City of Napa

3rd St

Operating Changes None

4th St

Burnell

Ave col

Sos St

_PUBLIC

6th St

3rd St

Sos

Legend Soscol Gateway Transit Center and Esd KĸĐĞƐ Wine Train Lot

col Ave

City-Owned Lot

4th St

8th St

Legend NOT TO SCALE

7th St

Existing city-owned lot

ES-62

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

I.2 City-Owned Lot in Downtown Napa (Continued) SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Change in Travel Time

Header 3

N/A $836,200 estimated total capital cost

Cost

Note: An agreement may be reached with the City of Napa for shared use of the parking lot, which may greatly reduce the cost of this improvement

Barriers to Implementation

Coordination with City of Napa on improvements to parcel, use as a park & ride, and pedestrian improvements

Time-frame

Medium-Term (3-5 Years)

ES-63

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

ES.6.1 Operating Plan SECTION TITLE A summary of the recommended short-term and long-term express bus routing is provided in Figures ES-6 and ES-7,

respectively. Since various recommended stop and routing changes could be implemented separately, the estimated Header 1 of individual improvement projects assumed that the existing routes remained the same as they are operating costs

except forcusam the recommended improvement being assessed. Bodycurrently, Copy... Vitat quas seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, In therrumqua short-term, it is recommended Routes 29 venimus and 11X run, at a minimum, everyquiaecatus hour throughout the day.ressin In the namende ersperibusda nis minis that dolenima nam aliti denitissi cusae dita re verspercipit long-term, it is recommended that Routes 11X and 29 run every half-hour during peak periods, if demand warrants, and porendam doluptas ma pra hourly throughout the day. In both the short and long-term, it is recommended that Route 10X provide only peak period service (it serves as an overlay to Route 10), with one to two trips being provided during each peak. It is recommended that Route 21 maintain its existing frequency in the short-term. In the long-term, it is recommended that Routes 21A and 21B each run with the same frequency as the existing route 21, essentially doubling the number of trips into Solano County. â€˘ Bullets Route 25 is being considered for elimination in the short-term; the long-term frequency will be dependent on funding Header 3and ridership demand generated in Sonoma County. availability

Header 2

ES.6.2 Selection of Improvements For improvements related to the Napa Valley College stop and the expansion of parking at Soscol Gateway Transit Center, only one of the many recommended projects should be selected, at least in the short-term. Among the available choices for improvements at Napa Valley College (projects B.1.a through B.1.d), it is recommended that Project B.1.d be implemented. It provides significant travel time reductions (approximately 4.5 minutes saved for northbound trips and 15 seconds saved for southbound trips) while having the lowest estimated total capital cost among the four recommended options. Between the two recommended options for expanding parking near Soscol Gateway Transit Center (projects I.1 and I.2), it is recommended that project I.1, which utilizes the Wine Train parcel west of the transit center to provide additional parking, be implemented. The primary reason for this recommendation is that the Wine Train parcel is located closer to the transit center and thus provides better access to transit.

ES.6.3 Summary The estimated total capital cost of all five recommended short-term improvements is $1.4 million. Short-term improvements include streamlining routes to reduce travel time and variability and expanding express bus service to additional access points. The estimated total capital cost of all 16 medium-term improvements is $19-$23 million, depending on which improvements are selected for implementation at Napa Valley College and for expanded parking at Soscol Gateway Transit Center. Medium-term improvements include a variety of measures to reduce travel time, increase bus reliability, and expand service accessibility through additional park & rides, route optimization, and priority roadway treatments. The only recommended long-term capital improvement is project B.1.c at Napa Valley College, which costs an estimated $9.5 million. Note that this improvement would be duplicative with other improvements at the College included in the short-term and medium-term improvements list. The total cost of all improvements, assuming the Napa Valley College and Soscol Gateway Park & Ride options noted in ES 6.2 is $20.6 million. The recommended improvements provide a number of benefits which achieve the objectives of this study. The provision of in-line stops and the removal of low-ridership stops reduces travel times and distances for express buses and ultimately reduce operating costs. Transit signal priority and queue jump improvements reduce travel time and increase bus reliability. The addition of new stops and stop amenities will increase the accessibility of transit to potential riders and improve the overall quality of service experienced by transit riders. Collectively, the improvements are anticipated to generate ridership growth by making the bus more competitive with the automobile and making it more convenient for users to access and utilize.

ES-64

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Given the large number of survey respondents who indicated they were unaware of the express bus service, it is SECTION TITLE recommended that the improvements be accompanied by an extensive marketing and informational campaign to inform

both residents and workers in Napa County about the express bus system and the benefits of taking the express bus compared to driving alone. With the implementation of priority treatments such as TSP and queue jumps, the bus may be perceived as being faster than the automobile for some trips, providing an ideal marketing opportunity. The combination of Bodyan Copy... Vitateducational/outreach quas cusam seque sus, sedi autservice volori expansion, nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate effective program, and improved reliability/travel times will serve to enhance mposanda nus, si ullictotas esciaof veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, the long-term effectiveness the express bus system. namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

Header 1

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

ES-65

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure 3 - Short-Term Stops and Alignments Figure ES-6: Short-Term Service Plan Improvement Recommendations (With Existing Express Bus) SECTION TITLE CALISTOGA

Header 1

Calistoga Lincoln Bridge

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate ST HELENA mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusdaSt. nisHelena minisPost dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Ofﬁce porendam doluptas ma pra

Header 2

YOUNTVILLE

• Bullets

Yountville

Header 3

Redwood Park & Ride

PETALUMA

Imola Park & Ride Sonoma Plaza

VACAVILLE

Proposed Downtown Stop

NAPA

Soscol Gateway Transit Center Gasser & Hartle

FAIRFIELD

Napa Valley College

Devlin/Airport Blvd

SONOMA

Fairﬁeld Transit Center

21 29

Suisun City Train Depot

SUISUN AMERICAN CANYON

American Canyon Post Ofﬁce

VALLEJO Note: Existing Route 29 only stops at the Ferry Terminal in the southbound direction upon request

LEGEND: Existing Express Bus Route 10 Express Route 11 Express Route 21 Route 29 BART Capitol Corridor SMART

Vallejo Ferry Terminal Curtola Park & Ride

EL CERRITO El Cerrito del Norte BART Station

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study ES-66

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure ES-7: Long-TermStops Service Figure 3 - Long-Term and Plan Alignments Improvement Recommendations (With Existing Express Bus) SECTION TITLE

CALISTOGA

Header 1

Calistoga Lincoln Bridge

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate STveliae HELENA mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin St. Helena Post Ofﬁce porendam doluptas ma pra

Header 2

YOUNTVILLE

• Bullets

St. Helena Park & Ride 29

Yountville

Header 3

VACAVILLE Redwood Park & Ride Proposed Downtown Stop

SONOMA PETALUMA Petaluma Downtown SMART Station

NAPA Imola Park & Ride

Sonoma Plaza

Soscol Gateway Transit Center Gasser & Hartle

Napa Valley College

Sonoma Stop (To Be Determined)

Devlin/Airport Blvd 21

Red Top Road Park & Ride Future American Canyon Park & Ride

Note: Existing southbound Route 29 only stops at the Ferry Terminal upon request

Fairﬁeld Transit Center

FAIRFIELD Suisun City Train Depot

SUISUN

AMERICAN CANYON

American Canyon Post Ofﬁce

VALLEJO

Vacaville Transportation Center or Davis Street Park & Ride

Proposed SR-37/Fairgrounds Park & Ride

Vallejo Ferry Terminal

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study ES-67

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION TITLE The Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) conducts multi-modal planning, oversees funding, and manages Vine

Header 1 Vine Transit is the designated transit service provider for Napa County, providing a suite of local and Transit operations.

services within and extending beyond the county. NVTA also tem operates community shuttle venient and paratransit services Bodyregional Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, facculp arciliq uamenda iataectur? Ovitate within the County. NVTA is conducted an Express Bus corridor study to determine if utilization of Vine Transit express bus mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, service could be improved by providing faster, more efficient transit to key regional destinations on the county's main namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressintravel corridors, particularly porendam doluptas ma prafor the growing number of workers that commute into and out of Napa County. Half of all Napa County residents work outside of the county, and half of all Napa County workers live outside of the county, highlighting the need for improved transportation connections across county lines.

Header 2

The study identifies solutions to optimize the express bus system, including route alignments and destinations, stop â€˘ Bullets locations, infrastructure and technology enhancements to improve travel times, and fare structure. The goal of the Vine Header 3 Bus Corridor Study is to identify strategic investments that will improve the Vine Transit express bus system, Transit Express encourage new ridership, and reduce overall highway congestion in Napa County. This report summarizes the recommended improvements and their benefits to regional mobility for the residents and workers of Napa County.

1.1 Current Express Bus Service

1.2 Project Need

The existing Vine Transit express bus routes were implemented without a significant study of where the needs for express bus service were and how resources should be best allocated to improve service. This study serves to address some of the challenges with the existing system as well as identifies potential new markets. Route 29 experiences the strongest ridership demand among the express bus routes, but it experiences significant delay due to traffic congestion, causing the route to frequently run late. The length of the route combined with congestion also leads to greater overall variance in travel times and a decrease in reliability. Routes 21 and 25 are not as well utilized as Route 29, but face similar challenges. Route 21 experiences significant congestion on segments of the route but still serves a number of riders, particularly accessing employment in Napa County from residences in Solano County. Ridership on Route 25 is the lowest of the express routes, serving a small number of people commuting between Sonoma and Napa Counties. Funding for Route 25 is anticipated to be reduced later in 2017, raising questions about the short-term and long-term viability and objectives of the route. In addition to seeking out improvements to existing routes, this study also examined geographic areas that are not currently served by Vine express bus routes and assessed the potential need for serving those areas.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

1.3 Project Objectives SECTION TITLE The objectives of this study are:

Header 1 • Identify needed improvements to existing express bus service

Body• Copy... Vitat cusam sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Examine thequas demand forseque expanded express bus service mposanda nus,operational si ullictotasand esciacapital veliaeimprovements arum vendam,which to et untur? et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, • Identify addressIhit theeatquaes above needs namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima venimus aliti denitissi quiaecatus reselect verspercipit ressin • Evaluate these improvements and present thenam results to enable decision cusae makersdita to strategically and implement porendam them doluptas ma pra

Header 2

1.4 Project Process

Figure 1-1: Project Flow Chart

• Bullets The project was completed following the general process shown Header 3 in Figure 1-1. Technical analysis and community input were used to identify the greatest needs and then identify a recommended set of improvements. The project team analyzed the existing conditions of the Vine express bus service to determine needs and potential areas of improvement. This analysis was based on information provided by NVTA. The project team conducted an online survey of Napa County residents and workers to inform the study on ways to improve express bus service and ridership. The survey targeted both existing bus riders as well as potential riders, including questions on existing commute characteristics. The survey was administered using the MetroQuest public engagement platform and open between September 19th and November 8th, 2016. The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish and the results were aggregated after the completion of the survey. A total of 760 survey responses were received. The results of the existing conditions analysis and public survey were used to develop a list of needs for Vine express bus service. After analyzing the needs of the express bus system, a list of possible infrastructure and technology solutions was developed. For major capital improvements, conceptual layouts drawn over aerial imagery were prepared to assess right-of-way needs and develop cost estimates. The project team developed a set of evaluation criteria, which were used to evaluate the developed improvement recommendations.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION 2. EXISTING TITLE CONDITIONS Vine Transit operates eight local routes within the City of Napa and five regional routes that extend across County

Header 1 of the regional routes are designated as express routes with connections to Solano County Transit, boundaries. Three

County Transit, Bay Area Rapid Transit theuamenda San Francisco Bayiataectur? Ferry. A map of BodySonoma Copy... Vitat quas cusamCapital sequeCorridor/Amtrak, sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem(BART), facculpand arciliq venient Ovitate Vine Transit routes in the City of Napa is shown in Figure 2-1. A regional map showing all Vine Transit express routes and mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, connections to ersperibusda other regionalnistransit is shown in Figurealiti 2-2.denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin namende rrumqua minisservice dolenima nam venimus porendam doluptas ma pra

Figure 2-1: City of Napa Transit Map

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure 2-2: Regional Transit Map â€ƒ SECTION TITLE

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

This study focuses on the three express routes, Route 21, 25, and 29. Additionally, local Routes 10 and 11 are considered for a subset of the analysis due to their overlap with Route 29.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

2.1 Service TITLE Levels SECTION Vine Transit Routes 21, 25, and 29 operate exclusively Monday through Friday. All three routes operate in both directions allday, albeit with limited mid-day frequency. Table 2-1 summarizes the service levels of each of the three routes.

Header 1

Levels BodyTable Copy...2-1: VitatService quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis reRound pererion dolore, TripetPeak Round Trips Revenue Revenue Round Tripre verspercipit ressin namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus Route Span Scheduled Run per Day Miles per Day Hours per Day Length porendam doluptas ma pra Time Route 21

Header 2 Route 25 • Bullets Route 29

5:33 AM – 7:31 PM

299 mi

16.4 hr

50.1 mi

125 min

6:25 AM – 7:08 PM

213

10.0

35.6

82 min

4:33 AM – 8:45 PM

1,128

39.8

137.6

165 min1

Source: August Header 3 2016 schedule. Revenue miles per day and revenue hours per day represent average for FY15-16

1. Peak scheduled run time shown for Soscal Gateway Transit Center to El Cerrito del Norte BART and back. Four trips per day extend to/from Calistoga

2.2 Ridership

Express bus ridership statistics are summarized in Figure 2-3. This information is useful when evaluating potential route changes, transfer points, and infrastructure improvements. A map summary of ridership by stop is shown for Vine Transit Routes 10, 11, 21, 25, and 29 in Figure 2-4. Further analysis of route ridership is provided in the analysis in Appendix A.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure 2-3: Systemwide Ridership Statistics SECTION TITLE Route 21

Header 1

Route 25

Route 29

78 Riders 40 Riders 267 Riders per Day per Day Day Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliqper uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor6.7 rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, 4.8 Boardings 4.0 Boardings Boardings namende rrumqua ersperibusdaper nis Revenue minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Hour per Revenue Hour per Revenue Hour porendam doluptas ma pra 0.3 Boardings 0.2 Boardings 0.2 Boardings per Revenue Mile per Revenue Mile per Revenue Mile

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

Boardings per Day

Ridership by Month 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Month (FY 15/16)

Ridership by Hour 60 50

Boardings

40 30 20 10 0

Hour

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridor Study Figure 2-4: Ridership by Stop

Petaluma Santa Rosa

Calistoga

St. Helena Deer Park

Sonoma

Angwin Oakville

Rutherford

Yountville

Napa

Vallejo

Legend

Silverado Resort

American Canyon

Daily Activity 0-2

Moskowite Corner

3-5

Green Valley

6-8 9 - 32 33 - 48 49 - 160 Route 21

Fairfield

Route 25 Route 29

Suisun City

Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, Â© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 3

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

2.2.1 Vehicle TITLE Load SECTION Vehicle load quantifies the number of people on board a bus at a given time. It reflects the balance of operational efficiency with customer comfort and safety. The maximum load for each route is indicated in Table 2-2, along with the trip with the Header 1 Detailed analysis of vehicle loads is provided in the existing conditions analysis in Appendix A. maximum load.

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Table nus, 2-2:siMaximum Load mposanda ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Trip with Maximum porendamRoute doluptas ma pra Direction Maximum Load Maximum Load Point Load

Header 2 Route 21 • Bullets Route Header 325 Route 29

Westbound

8.6

6:25 AM

Fairfield Transportation Center

Eastbound

8.9

5:18 PM

Napa Valley College

Westbound

2.7

2:30 PM

Imola PNR

Eastbound

2.6

12:45 PM

Sonoma Plaza

Northbound

21.5

4:15 PM

Vallejo Ferry Terminal

Southbound

14.1

6:47 AM

American Canyon Post Office

Data from October 2015

2.3 Travel Time and On-Time Performance

On-time performance measures how consistently a bus completes its scheduled route on time. “On-time” is defined as a trip that is completed between zero and five minutes after the scheduled time. “Early” is defined as a trip that is completed prior to its scheduled time. “Late” is defined as a trip that is completed five minutes or later than its scheduled time. Ontime performance is shown for each express route in Table 2-3. Note that for express routes, an early arrival may not be undesirable for the customer, as most of the boardings occur at the initial segments of the route.

Table 2-3: On-Time Performance Route

Direction

On-time Performance

% Late

% Early

Avg Variance (min)

Avg Variance if Late (min)

Eastbound

69%

18%

12%

1.0

8.8

Westbound

47%

44%

-1.1

8.6

Eastbound

54%

40%

-0.1

7.8

Westbound

72%

18%

10%

2.0

9.2

Northbound

68%

14%

18%

1.3

8.4

Southbound

59%

22%

20%

1.9

8.1

Data from August 2015

Although travel times by trip remain relatively consistent for Route 25, Route 21 and Route 29 travel times by trip vary greatly due to traffic conditions along the route. Table 2-4, Table 2-5, and Table 2-6 indicate the actual trip time for Routes 21, 25, and 29, respectively.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Table 2-4: Route 21 Trip Times SECTION TITLE Westbound Trip Start Time Header 1

Trip Duration

Eastbound % Early

Trip Start Time

Trip Duration

06:25 60 05:33 42 Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate 73 veliae arum vendam, 06:37 to et untur?43Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, mposanda 07:50 nus, si ullictotas escia namende rrumqua aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin 11:20 ersperibusda 59 nis minis dolenima 10:08 nam venimus59 porendam 13:19 doluptas ma pra 58 12:11 59 15:52 Header 2 17:32 â€˘ Bullets

61 68

18:35

N/A

Header 3 Data from August 2015

14:37

16:08

17:18

Note: 1. Insufficient data was available for indicated trip. Trip start times do not match current schedules.â€ƒ

Table 2-5: Route 25 Trip Times Westbound

Eastbound % Early

Trip Start Time

Trip Duration

Trip Start Time

Trip Duration

06:25

07:10

07:15

08:00

N/A1

09:41

10:30

11:56

12:45

14:30

15:15

16:15

17:07

17:40

18:35

Data from August 2015 Note: 1. Insufficient data was available for indicated trip. Trip start times do not match current schedules.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Table 2-6: Route 29 Trip Times SECTION TITLE Northbound

Southbound

Header 1 Trip Start Time

Trip Duration Trip Duration Trip Duration Trip Duration (El Cerrito (Napa Trip Start Time (Calistoga (Napa â€“ El Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Napa) Calistoga) Napa) Cerrito) mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, 05:55 63 49 04:44 46 namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin 59 55 57 05:18 porendam 06:55 doluptas ma pra 78 07:24 73 05:37 57 -

Header 08:212

06:47

â€˘ Bullets 10:41

07:55

12:16 Header 3

09:09

14:19

09:14

N/A

16:15

10:44

17:14

13:04

18:07

14:31

19:23

15:40

16:37

16:48

N/A

19:00 19:50

70 N/A

N/A1

Data from August 2015 Notes: 1. Insufficient data was available for indicated trip. Trip start times do not match current schedules. Data not available for all northbound trips. Not all trips extend to Calistoga.

As shown in the tables, travel time takes substantially longer during the peak periods than the off-peak periods for Routes 21 and 29. Travel on Route 21 takes approximately 60 percent longer during the peak periods (westbound in the morning and eastbound in the evening). Travel on Route 29 to Calistoga takes approximately 25 percent longer during the peak periods than the off-peak periods. Travel on Route 25 is approximately 14 percent greater during peak periods in the eastbound direction and approximately 11 percent greater during peak periods in the westbound direction.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

2.4 Park-and-Ride SECTION TITLELocations Vine express buses stop at four park & ride facilities, plus the system hub in Napa. Park & ride locations are shown in Figure 2-5. Yountville Park & Ride is owned and operated by NVTA. Redwood Park & Ride is operated by NVTA and owned by

Header 1 Park & Ride is owned and operated by Caltrans. American Canyon Park & Ride is owned and operated by the Caltrans. Imola

of American Canyon. addition, all express routes pass through the Soscol Transit Center, is owned and BodyCity Copy... Vitat quas cusam In seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculpGateway arciliq uamenda venientwhich iataectur? Ovitate operated by NVTA. Parking spaces provided at the park-and-rides and transit centers within Napa County are summarized mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, in Table rrumqua 2-7. namende ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

Table 2-7: Transit Facility Spaces

Header 2

Number of Spaces Provided

â€˘ Bullets Location

Transit served

# of Bus Bays

Standard

ADA

Electric Vehicle

Motorcycle

Compact

Yountville

NVTA Bus Routes: 10, 29, Yountville Trolley

Redwood

NVTA Bus Routes: 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 29

Soscol

NVTA Bus Routes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 21, 25, 29

Imola

NVTA Route 25

American Canyon

NVTA Bus Routes: 29

Header 3

Total Bicycle Bicycle (Vehicles) (Racks) (Lockers)

On July 20, 2016, Kimley-Horn staff visited each of these facilities to observe their utilization. Utilization information is summarized in Table 2-8.

Table 2-8: Transit Facility Parking Occupancy Location

Number of Vehicle Parking Spaces Occupied

% Occupancy

Standard

ADA

Electric Vehicle

Motorcycle

Compact

Total

Yountville

Redwood

31%

Soscol

55%

Imola

36%

American Canyon

26%

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure 2-5: & Ride Locations Figure 2 -Park Key Map of Express Bus System Needs SECTION TITLE Calistoga

Header 1

Yolo

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3 Yountville Yountville

Vacaville

Redwood Sonoma

Imola

Napa

Soscol Gateway Transit Center

Sonoma

Fairfield

American Canyon

Novato

Vallejo

Solano

Marin Martinez

Legend

Contra Costa

San Rafael Richmond

Route 21

Albany

Route 25 Route 29 Park & Ride Location

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

2.5 ServiceTITLE Standards & Performance Measures SECTION 2.5.1 Performance Measures

Header 1 set various performance benchmarks to help determine where service changes should be made. Table Transit agencies

shows current for volori Vine express buses in comparison typical minimum serviceiataectur? standardsOvitate for Body2-9 Copy... Vitat quasperformance cusam sequemeasures sus, sedi aut nonsequi dolest, tem facculptoarciliq uamenda venient express buses used by other transit agencies. The data shows that on-time performance, passengers per revenue hour, mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, and passengers per revenue nis mileminis are well belownam typical express bus performance standards and established Vineressin Transit namende rrumqua ersperibusda dolenima venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit performance standards. The level of service provided (characterized by frequency of service and span), however, meet Vine porendam doluptas ma pra Transit performance standards for each express bus route.

Header Table 2-9:2Performance Measures • Bullets

Header 3

Metric

Passengers/Revenue Hour

Passengers/Revenue Mile

On-Time Performance %

Route

Vine Transit Performance

4.8

4.0

6.7

0.3

0.2

62%

64%

29 21 Frequency of Service

Service Span

Vine Transit Performance Standard

Typical Express Bus Service Standards

16 Passengers/Revenue Hour for Regional Fixed Routes1

12-15 Passengers/Revenue Hour2

N/A

1-2 Passengers/Revenue Mile3

90%

85-90%4

Minimum of once every 2 hours for Regional Fixed Routes during peaks

3-4 trips per peak period5

6 AM – 7 PM (Monday to Friday)

Tailor peak trips to demand patterns6

66% 80 min (AM); 70 min (PM) 70 min (AM) 90 min (PM)

30-60 minutes

5:33 AM – 7:31 PM

6:25 AM – 7:08 PM

4:33 AM – 8:45 PM

Notes: Sources for service standards: 1. The 16 passenger/hour goal is identified in Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 of the SRTP. However, Table 5-7 indicates a passenger activity standard of 7 passengers per hour for regional (urban) and 5 passengers per hour for regional (rural) service. 2. Santa Clara VTA, Minnesota DOT, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, Denton County Transportation Authority 3. Minnesota DOT, Sarasota County Transit, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus 4. Minnesota DOT, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Sound Transit, Washington County Transit 5. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, Sarasota County Transit, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 6. Numerous agencies exclude their commuter/express routes from their performance standards for service span, since these routes typically operate on irregular schedules. Sources include Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, and Valley Metro (AZ)

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Table 2-10 compares existing travel times between autos and transit for major commuting origin-destination pairs observed SECTION TITLE in the online survey performed for this project. The origin-destination travel time pairs that remain relatively consistent

between autos and transit are Napa to American Canyon (transit is four minutes slower on average across all peak time periods), American Canyon to Napa (transit is nine minutes slower on average), Napa to Vallejo (transit is six minutes slower on average), and Napa to Fairfield (transit is ten minutes slower on average). The origin-destination pairs with the greatest Bodyaverage Copy... travel Vitat quas seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem arciliqisuamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate timecusam difference between autos and transit are El Cerrito to facculp Napa (transit 22 minutes slower on average), mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arumslower vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes labor rem quis reslower pererion et dolore,and Napa to Calistoga (transit is 21 minutes on average), Calistoga to Napaet(transit is 21rem minutes on average), namende rrumqua ersperibusda minis dolenima venimus alitilarge denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin Fairfield to Napa (transit is 20nis minutes slower onnam average). These variations in travel times are most likely due to the porendam ma pra deviating from the major travel route, with secondary effects associated with dwell time at stops and transitdoluptas route alignment vehicle acceleration or speed profiles. Trip pairs along Route 29 appear have the highest difference in travel time between autos and transit.

Header 1

Header 2

â€˘ Bullets Table 2-10: Travel Time Comparison between Auto Trips and Transit (Express Bus) Trips

Header 3

Trip Origin

Travel Time Trip Destination

Mid-Day

Auto

Transit

Auto

Transit

Auto

Transit

American Canyon

0:14

0:18

0:25

0:24

0:25

American Canyon

Napa

0:29

0:33

0:16

0:27

0:16

0:28

Napa

Vallejo

0:24

0:32

0:27

0:35

0:39

Vallejo

Napa

0:26

0:49

0:26

0:42

0:28

0:44

Napa

Fairfield

0:22

0:31

0:26

0:39

0:42

0:52

Fairfield

Napa

0:28

0:50

0:25

0:47

0:25

0:43

Napa

Calistoga

0:35

0:57

0:41

1:02

Calistoga

Napa

0:40

0:55

0:40

0:43

1:10

Napa

El Cerrito del Norte

0:45

1:03

0:44

0:56

0:54

1:15

El Cerrito del Norte

Napa

0:50

1:18

0:42

1:07

0:58

1:11

Napa

Notes: *No mid-day transit trip available Data given in hours:minutes format Vehicle travel times estimated using Google Maps travel time information Transit travel times estimated using FY â€˜15-â€™16 on-time performance data AM Peak: 7-8 AM; Mid-Day Peak: 12-1PM; PM Peak: 5-6PM

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridor Study Figure 2-6: Transit Travel Times from Napa

Woodland

Healdsburg Calistoga Davis

Windsor

West Sacramento

Sacramento

St. Helena

Dixon

Santa Rosa

Laguna Yountville Vacaville

Rohnert Park Napa Fairfield

Petaluma

Galt

Suisun City

American Canyon Lodi

Vallejo

Novato

Bay Point

LEGEND Travel Time Starting Point (Soscol Gateway Transit Center) Transit Travel Times:

Martinez

Pinole

San Anselmo San Rafael Larkspur

Richmond El Cerrito

Mill Valley

Albany Berkeley

30 Minutes

Orinda

Piedmont Oakland

Non-NVTA Transit San Francisco

Alameda

Brentwood

Alamo Lathrop

Danville Blackhawk-Camino Tassajara San Ramon

San Leandro Daly City

Clayton

Stockton

Walnut Creek Lafayette

Moraga

60 Minutes 90 Minutes

Antioch Oakley

Concord Pleasant Hill

San Pablo

Pittsburg

Dublin

Tracy

Manteca

Ripon NOT TO SCALE

Salida

Livermore Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

FIGURE 15 Transit Travel Times from Soscol Gateway Transit Center

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridor Study Figure 2-7: Transit Travel Times from Calistoga

Woodland

Healdsburg

Davis

Windsor

West Sacramento

Sacramento

Dixon

Santa Rosa

Laguna

Vacaville

Rohnert Park Napa Fairfield

Petaluma

Galt

Suisun City

Lodi

Vallejo Novato

Bay Point

LEGEND Travel Time Starting Point (Calistoga)

Martinez

Pinole

San Anselmo San Rafael Larkspur

Richmond El Cerrito

Mill Valley

Albany Berkeley

Transit Travel Times:

Orinda

30 Minutes Piedmont Oakland

90 Minutes Non-NVTA Transit

San Francisco

Alameda

Brentwood

Alamo Lathrop

Danville Blackhawk-Camino Tassajara San Ramon

San Leandro Daly City

Clayton

Stockton

Walnut Creek Lafayette

Moraga

60 Minutes

Antioch Oakley

Concord Pleasant Hill

San Pablo

Pittsburg

Dublin

Tracy

Manteca

Ripon NOT TO SCALE

Salida

Livermore Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ÂŠ OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

FIGURE 16 Transit Travel Times from Calistoga

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridor Study Figure 2-8: Transit Travel Times from American Canyon

Woodland

Healdsburg West Sacramento

Davis

Windsor

Sacramento

Dixon

Santa Rosa

Laguna

Vacaville

Rohnert Park Napa Fairfield

Petaluma

Galt

Suisun City

Lodi

Vallejo Novato

Bay Point

LEGEND Travel Time Starting Point (American Canyon)

Martinez

Pinole

San Anselmo San Rafael Larkspur

Richmond El Cerrito

Mill Valley

Albany Berkeley

Transit Travel Times:

Orinda

30 Minutes Piedmont Oakland

90 Minutes Non-NVTA Transit

San Francisco

Alameda

Brentwood

Alamo Lathrop

Danville Blackhawk-Camino Tassajara San Ramon

San Leandro Daly City

Clayton

Stockton

Walnut Creek Lafayette

Moraga

60 Minutes

Antioch Oakley

Concord Pleasant Hill

San Pablo

Pittsburg

Dublin

Tracy

Manteca

Ripon NOT TO SCALE

Salida

Livermore Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ÂŠ OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

FIGURE 17 Transit Travel Times from American Canyon

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

2.6 ExistingTITLE Travel Demand SECTION 2.6.1 Demographics

Header Napa County 1 has a population of 139,253 (ACS). The most densely populated area in the county is the City of Napa. A

density map ofseque the region including Napanonsequi County, Sonoma County, Marin County, Solano County, and Contra Bodypopulation Copy... Vitat quas cusam sus, sedi aut volori dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Costa County is shown in Figure 2-9. The labor force in Napa County consists of 77,400 persons. mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda dolenima nam Napa venimus aliti denitissi dita quiaecatus verspercipit An employment density mapnis of minis the region including County, Sonoma cusae County, Marin County,reSolano County,ressin and porendam doluptas ma pra Contra Costa County is shown in Figure 2-10. Napa had a2 jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.056 in 2011 (ABAG); however, the nature of the population and employment is Header

misaligned. 50.5 percent of all Napa County workers reside outside the county, and 47.2 percent of Napa County residents â€˘ Bullets work outside of the county (LEHD employment statistics). This results in large demand for commutes both into and out of the county. Header 3 This is caused by a disparity between housing costs and income in Napa County. While the median annual income of the county workforce is $38,168, the median income of county residents is $70,925 (US Census). Residents of Napa County have to earn $95,000 per year to afford a median-priced home (Countywide Transportation Plan, 2015). This disparity results in a greater number of vehicle miles traveled in Napa County and increased roadway congestion. A travel behavior study conducted by NVTA in 2014 found that of all vehicle trips in Napa County, 45 percent were trips that originated, terminated, or merely passed through the county. Of these external trips, 25 percent are workers commuting into Napa County, and 16 percent are Napa County residents commuting out of the county. Approximately half of Napa County residents work within Napa County, with the rest working in the surrounding Bay Area or further afield. Other counties that employ a significant number of Napa residents includes Sonoma County (7.8 percent of Napa County residents), Solano County (7.6 percent), Contra Costa County (5.1 percent), San Francisco County (4.1 percent), Alameda County (4.0 percent), and Marin County (3.5 percent) (LODES). Figure 2-11 shows where Napa County residents are employed in the region. Figure 2-12 shows where Napa County workers live in the region. Approximately 20,000 work trips per day come from outside the county. Napa County has a minority population of 45 percent (ACS). The racial breakdown is 55 percent White (Non-Hispanic), 2 percent African American, 7 percent Asian, 33 percent Hispanic, and 3 percent other. Figure 2-13 shows the distribution of minority populations in Napa County. Approximately 9 percent of households in Napa County are living below the poverty line (ACS). Figure 2-14 shows the concentration of households living below the poverty line in Napa County. The ACS indicated that approximately 5 percent of households in Napa County do not have a vehicle. A significant portion of these housing units are concentrated in Napa with a smaller percentage located in cities north of Napa along SR-29. Figure 2-15 shows the areas in Napa County with the highest total of zero auto ownership.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure 8 - Population Density Figure 2-9: Population Density

Yuba

Clearlake

Colusa

Mendocino

Sutter

Lower Lake

Lake

Placer Rocklin

Middletown Woodland Healdsburg

Yolo Calistoga Angwin

El Dorado

Sacramento

Angwin

Napa

Windsor

Sonoma

Orangevale

Saint Helena

Davis

Napa

Sacramento

Santa Rosa Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Amador

Santa Rosa Cotati

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

Solano

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Marin

Concord Greenbrae

Martinez Richmond

Albany Berkeley

NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND NVTA Bus Route 21

Oakley

Oakland

San Joaquin

Brentwood

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA Bus Route 25 NVTA Bus Route 29

Low 0

Population Density

San Francisco

Med

High

7,500

67,700

(Population Per Square Mile)

Alameda

San Mateo

Stanislaus NOT TO SCALE

Source: 2014 American Community Survey Data 19

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure 9 - Employment Density

Figure 2-10: Employment Density

Yuba

Clearlake

Colusa

Mendocino

Sutter

Lower Lake

Lake

Placer Rocklin

Middletown Woodland Healdsburg

Yolo Calistoga Angwin

El Dorado

Sacramento

Angwin

Napa

Windsor

Sonoma

Orangevale

Saint Helena

Davis

Napa

Sacramento

Santa Rosa Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Amador

Santa Rosa Cotati

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

Solano

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Marin

Concord Greenbrae

Martinez Richmond

Albany Berkeley

NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND NVTA Bus Route 21

Oakley

Oakland

San Joaquin

Brentwood

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA Bus Route 25 NVTA Bus Route 29

Low 0

Employment Density Med

San Francisco High

930 12,700 (Employment Per Square Mile)

Alameda

San Mateo

Stanislaus NOT TO SCALE

Source: 2014 LO DES Employment Data 20

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure 10 - Workplaces of Napa NapaCounty CountyResidents Residents Figure 2-11: Workplaces of Yuba

Clearlake

Colusa

Mendocino

Sutter

Lower Lake

Lake

Placer Rocklin

Middletown Woodland Healdsburg

Yolo Calistoga Angwin

El Dorado

Sacramento

Angwin

Napa

Windsor

Sonoma

Orangevale

Saint Helena

Davis

Napa

Sacramento

Santa Rosa Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Amador

Santa Rosa Cotati

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

Solano

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Marin

Concord Greenbrae

Martinez Richmond

Albany Berkeley

NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND LEGEND NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 21 21

Oakley

Oakland

San Joaquin

Brentwood

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 25 25

Low Low

NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 29 29 Number of Workers Who Are Vehicle Density NapaOwnership County Residents Med Med

San Francisco

High High

Alameda

San Mateo

Stanislaus NOT TO SCALE

Source: 2014 LODES Employment Data 21

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure - Residences ofNapa NapaCounty CountyWorkers Workers Figure 11 2-12: Residences of Yuba

Clearlake

Colusa

Mendocino

Sutter

Lower Lake

Lake

Placer Rocklin

Middletown Woodland Healdsburg

Yolo Calistoga Angwin

El Dorado

Sacramento

Angwin

Napa

Windsor

Sonoma

Orangevale

Saint Helena

Davis

Napa

Sacramento

Santa Rosa Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Amador

Santa Rosa Cotati

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

Solano

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Marin

Concord Greenbrae

Martinez Richmond

Albany Berkeley

NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND LEGEND NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 21 21

Oakley

Oakland

San Joaquin

Brentwood

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 25 25

Low Low

NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 29 29 Number of Residents Who Vehicle Ownership Density Work in Napa County Med Med

San Francisco

High High

Alameda

San Mateo

Stanislaus NOT TO SCALE

Source: 2014 LODES Employment Data 22

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure 12 - Distribution of Minority Populations Figure 2-13: Minority Population Yuba

Clearlake

Colusa

Mendocino

Sutter

Lower Lake

Lake

Placer Rocklin

Middletown Woodland Healdsburg

Yolo Calistoga Angwin

Napa

Saint Helena

Davis

Napa

Sacramento

Santa Rosa Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Amador

Santa Rosa Cotati

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

Solano

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Marin

Concord Greenbrae

NOT TO SCALE

El Dorado

Sacramento

Angwin

Windsor

Sonoma

Orangevale

Martinez Richmond

Albany Berkeley

LEGEND NVTA Bus Route 21 LEGEND NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 21 25

Oakley

Oakland

San Joaquin

Brentwood

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 25 29

Low Low

NVTA % BusMinority Route 29 Med

High

Vehicle Ownership Density

Med

High

50%

100%

San Francisco Alameda

San Mateo

Stanislaus NOT TO SCALE

Source: 2014 American Community Survey 23

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure 13 - Households Belowthe thePoverty Poverty Line Figure 2-14: Households Below Line Yuba

Clearlake

Colusa

Mendocino

Sutter

Lower Lake

Lake

Placer Rocklin

Middletown Woodland Healdsburg

Yolo Calistoga Angwin

El Dorado

Sacramento

Angwin

Napa

Windsor

Sonoma

Orangevale

Saint Helena

Davis

Napa

Sacramento

Santa Rosa Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Amador

Santa Rosa Cotati

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

Solano

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Marin

Concord Greenbrae

Martinez Richmond

Albany Berkeley

NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND NVTA Bus Route 21

Oakley

Oakland

San Joaquin

Brentwood

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA Bus Route 25 NVTA Bus Route 29

% Households Below Poverty Line Low

Med

22%

San Francisco

High 58%

Alameda

San Mateo

Stanislaus NOT TO SCALE

Source: 2014 American Community Survey 24

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure 14 - Zero-Auto Vehicle Ownership Figure 2-15: Auto Ownership

Yuba

Clearlake

Colusa

Mendocino

Sutter

Lower Lake

Lake

Placer Rocklin

Middletown Woodland Healdsburg

Yolo Calistoga Angwin

El Dorado

Sacramento

Angwin

Napa

Windsor

Sonoma

Orangevale

Saint Helena

Davis

Napa

Sacramento

Santa Rosa Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Amador

Santa Rosa Cotati

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

Solano

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Marin

Concord Greenbrae

Martinez Richmond

Albany Berkeley

NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND NVTA Bus Route 21

Oakley

Oakland

San Joaquin

Brentwood

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA Bus Route 25 NVTA Bus Route 29

% Housing Units with No Vehicle Low

Med

High

18%

100%

San Francisco Alameda

San Mateo

Stanislaus NOT TO SCALE

Source: 2014 American Community Survey 25

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

2.6.2 MetroQuest Survey Data SECTION TITLE Origin Destination Pairs

Header 1 as part of this studyâ€™s public survey was used to examine origin-destination pairs based on trip purpose. The data collected

were aggregated census tract level for tem mapping andarciliq analysis purposes. BodyOrigin-destination Copy... Vitat quas pairs cusam seque sus, sedi at autthe volori nonsequi dolest, facculp uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, Home-to-work trips were the most frequent of the trip types identified. Of all home-to-work origin-destination pairs namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin indicated in the survey, 65 percent were intra-county pairs in Napa County. The next 3 highest origin-destination pairs were porendam doluptas ma pra Solano County to Napa County (14 percent), Sonoma County to Napa County (6 percent), and Napa County to Alameda County (3 percent). Refer to Figure 2-16 for full results.

Header 2

Considering home-to-work origin-destination pairs that originate in the City of Napa, the most common city pairs include â€˘ Bullets intra-city City of Napa pairs (69 percent), City of Napa to St. Helena (13 percent), and City of Napa to San Francisco (10 percent).3 When considering home-to-work origin-destination pairs that terminate in the City of Napa, the most common Header city pairs are intra-city City of Napa pairs (59 percent), American Canyon to City of Napa (8 percent), Fairfield to City of Napa (7 percent), and Vallejo to City of Napa (6 percent). A trip density map of home-to-work trips is shown in Figure 2-17.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure 17 - Origin/Destination Home-BasedWork Work Trips by County Figure 2-16: Origin/Destination --Home-Based Trips by County

Lake Yolo

Napa Sonoma

65%

14%

Solano

Calaveras

Marin

1% 2%

1% 1%

Contra Costa San Francisco Alameda NOT TO SCALE

San Mateo

Note: Origin-Destination representing lessPublic than 1% of respondents are not shown Source: 2010 Vine Transitpairs Express Bus Study Survey

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure 11 - Origin/Destination - Home-Based Work Trip Density Figure 2-17: Origin/Destination - Home-Based Work Trip Density

Nevada

Yuba Colusa Clearlake !

Mendocino

Sutter

Lake

Placer

Lower Lake !

Rocklin

Middletown

El Dorado

Yolo Calistoga Healdsburg

Orangevale

Woodland

Angwin

Windsor

Davis

Deer Park

Sonoma

! !

Napa

Saint Helena

! !

Sacramento

! !

Napa

! !

Santa Rosa

! !

Yountville

! !

Sebastopol

Vacaville

! !

Cotati

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Penngrove

! !

Napa

! ! !

Sonoma

Fairfield

American Canyon !

! !

Calaveras

Suisun City

! !

Vallejo

Novato

! !

Richmond

Oakley

Berkeley Greenbrae

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Solano

Rio Vista

! !

Marin

! !

Petaluma

Amador

! !

Concord

Martinez

Brentwood

San Joaquin

! ! !

! !

Contra Costa

!! ! !

Albany

! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

San Francisco !

Home-Based Work Trip Origin-Destination Density

Danville

! ! !! ! !

Oakland

LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

Stanislaus

Alameda

San Mateo !

NOT TO SCALE

4-5

6-7

Source: 2010 Vine Transit Express Bus Study Public Survey 28

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Commute Characteristics SECTION TITLE Survey respondents were asked about their transit usage and frequency of use. Key information found from these questions is summarized in Figure 2-18. Header 1

Commute Characteristics from nonsequi Public Survey BodyFigure Copy... 2-18: Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, MODE OF ACCESS MODE OF EGRESS MODE CHOICE namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra ALL RESPONDENTS

Header 2

ALL RESPONDENTS

MODE CHOICE TO WORK

BART (1%)

â€¢ Bullets

BIKE/SCOOTER(9%)

Header 3 WALK (59%)

BICYCLE (3%) WALK (2%)

WALK (71%)

CARPOOL (1%)

TRANSIT (9%)

DRIVE ALONE (17%) DROP-OFF (10%)

SHUTTLE (1%) OTHER TRANSIT (1%)

DRIVE ALONE (79%)

OTHER (>1%) CARPOOL (6%)

OTHER TRANSIT (1%) FERRY (1%) DROP-OFF (3%)

BART (12%) BIKE/SCOOTER (7%) CARPOOL (1%)

FERRY (1%)

EXPRESS BUS USERS ONLY

WALK (43%)

EXPRESS BUS USERS ONLY

SHUTTLE (2%) WALK (58%) DROP-OFF (14%)

BIKE/ SCOOTER(9%)

MODE CHOICE TO SCHOOL

DRIVE ALONE (30%)

DRIVE ALONE (47%)

BART (27%)

OTHER TRANSIT (1%) FERRY (2%)

BIKE/ SCOOTER(9%)

BICYCLE (4%) WALK (3%) TRANSIT (11%)

AFTERNOON COMMUTE

SOSCOL GATEWAY TRANSIT CENTER

12%

REDWOOD (NAPA)

VALLEJO

6AM-7AM 21%

BEFORE 6AM (9%) AFTER 10AM (5%) 9AM-10AM (5%)

7AM-8AM 40%

8AM-9AM 20%

OTHER (1%)

PARK AND RIDE USE (ONCE A MONTH OR MORE)

COMMUTE START TIMES MORNING COMMUTE

CARPOOL (33%)

4PM-5PM 21%

5PM-6PM 48%

AMERICAN CANYON

3PM-4PM (8%) BEFORE 3PM (4%) AFTER 7PM (6%)

IMOLA (NAPA)

6PM-7PM (21%)

OTHER

YOUNTVILLE

14%

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION 3. IDENTIFIED TITLE NEEDS Header 1 3.1 Needs Identified by Online Survey Respondents

BodyThe Copy... online Vitat survey quasasked cusamnon-transit seque sus,riders sedi aut to indicate volori nonsequi why theydolest, were not temusing facculp express arciliqbus uamenda servicevenient (if they iataectur? were not already Ovitate mposanda using it) nus, andsitransit ullictotas riders escia to veliae identify arum priorities vendam, for improving to et untur? transit Ihit eatquaes service. Key et labor points rem from remthe quis survey re pererion are summarized et dolore,in namende Figurerrumqua 3-1. ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra Almost 30 percent of non-transit riders indicated that they did not know about express bus service. This may indicate the need for additional advertising/promotion for the express bus service. A similar number indicated that they needed their car during the day. Enhancing the local transit network may allow for some workers to complete mid-day trips without the need â€˘ Bullets for an automobile. These two areas are outside the scope of this study. The third highest ranking category is that the service does not go near their destination. As noted above, while there are a lot of employment locations of survey respondents Header outside of3the survey area, there was no major destination not currently served by express buses. Almost 20 percent of respondents indicated that the service takes too long. Improvements targeting this group of respondents may help drive ridership gains.

Header 2

Table 3-1 summarizes the responses received related to improvement priorities. Since respondents could rank priorities, responses were weighted so that priorities ranked higher received more weight. The improvement priority most identified by non-transit riders was improved frequency and coordinated transfers, closely followed by shorter trip times. A bigger service area was ranked third by non-transit riders. The focus on enhancing the existing service as opposed to expanding to new destinations is consistent with the trip patterns of survey respondents. Improving route frequency and transfer coordination was identified as the top priority for riders on Routes 10, 11, and 29. Riders on Route 21 placed the highest priority on improved reliability, although shorter trip time and improved frequency and transfer coordination were very close behind. Route 25 riders placed the highest priority on shorter trip time, although improved frequency and transfer coordination were very close behind. Enhanced amenities ranked sixth on the priority list and were ranked by 40 percent of respondents. Of note is that it did rank fourth for Route 25 users, while ranking sixth or lower for users of the other routes. Field observations identified opportunities to enhance existing stop facilities, particularly on Route 25. The stops at Devlin Road and Corporate Drive (Route 21), Gasser Drive (Route 25), and Imola Park & Ride (Route 25) did not have one or all of shelters, benches, pedestrian waiting areas, or sidewalk access. Additionally, these stops and others on Routes 21 and 25 did not have bus arrival information like many of the stops on Route 29. Improvements to these stops may reduce perceived waiting time and encourage additional ridership.

Table 3-1: Survey Improvement Priorities Rank

Improvement

Score

% Ranked

Frequency and Transfers

1,082

74%

Shorter Trip Time

1,005

69%

Bigger Service Area

804

59%

Improve Reliability

650

55%

Lower Fares

465

41%

Enhance Amenities

405

40%

More Park & Rides

362

32%

Greater Safety

275

27%

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure 3-1: Summary of Public Survey Responses

VINE TRANSIT EXPRESS BUS CORRIDOR STUDY Online Survey Findings

TOP FIVE

1. FREQUENCY AND RANKED TRANSFERS BY 1,082 74% SCORE OF RESPONDENTS

TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES TIME RANKED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS 2. SHORTER TRIP RANKED BY Respondents ranked 5 categories from a list of 8. Scoring based on rank. 1,005 69% 1st = 5 pts 2nd = 4 pts 3rd = 3 pts 4th = 2 pts 5th = 1 pt SCORE OF RESPONDENTS

3. BIGGER SERVICE AREA RANKED BY 804 59% SCORE OF RESPONDENTS

11%

13%

1 day per week

About once a month

2-4 days per week

5-7 days per week

65% Very rarely or never

USED AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH

Survey respondents selected all transit routes they use at least once a month. Percentage shown represents the percent of respondents that use the route. Respondents that indicated they did not use transit once a month were excluded.

48% 40% 31% EXPRESS BUS IN NAPA COUNTY 4. IMPROVE RELIABILITY 5. LOWER FARES 21% RANKED BY RANKED BY 17% Note: Percentages do 650 465 41% not total 100% SCORE OF55% SCORE RESPONDENTS OF RESPONDENTS 7% LOCAL BUS ROUTES IN NAPA COUNTY BART

FERRY SERVICE

OTHER TRANSIT OUTSIDE NAPA COUNTY LOCAL SHUTTLES IN NAPA COUNTY

How often do you use transit? Why don’t you use express bus service? 3%

MOST COMMON TRANSIT ROUTES

Survey respondents could select multiple options. Percentage reflects the percent of total respondents that checked the given option. Percentages do not total 100%.

28% 26% 21% 20% 20% It takes My commute 15% 12% 11% 9% Too far too long is short I do use Other reason My work hours

I did not know I need my car go near about express during the day Doesn’t my destination buses

from home

Where Do Napa Residents Work?

The diagram below depicts the most common cities that Napa residents travel to for work outside of Napa. Percentages based on survey data. Napa residents who work in Napa are not included in calculation.

Calistoga Yountville

10% San Francisco

43%

Napa 3%

Saint Helena Note: 17 other cities make up the remaining 21%

Who works in Napa?

The diagram below depicts the most common cities that non-Napa residents travel from to work in Napa. Percentages based on survey data. Napa residents who work in Napa are not included in calculation. Saint Helena

Santa Rosa

Note: 24 other cities make up 5% the remaining 26% Sonoma

6% 7%

Napa 19%

Berkeley

Oakland

do not allow it Too expensive

express bus

American Canyon

Vacaville

17%

Fairfield

14%

Vallejo

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

3.2 On-TimeTITLE Performance and Service Reliability SECTION 3.2.1 Route 21

Header Route 21 was1late a limited amount of time (9 percent westbound and 18 percent eastbound). However, westbound service

often quite early (44 percent of the and the service dolest, was latetem in leaving bothuamenda directionsvenient (31 percent of theOvitate time Bodywas Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, seditime) aut volori nonsequi facculp in arciliq iataectur? when leaving the Soscol Gateway Transit Center and 24 percent of the time when leaving the Suisun Train Depot). mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

3.2.2 Route 25

Route 25 also was late only a limited amount of time (18 percent westbound and 6 percent eastbound). It also was

Header 2 particularly in the eastbound direction (40 percent of the time). Similar to Route 21, it has challenges in frequently early,

leaving the Soscol Gateway Transit Center on-time, with 25 percent of departures greater than 5 minutes late. Route 25 â€˘ Bullets left the Sonoma Plaza relatively on-time (5 percent lane, 7 percent early), but then arrived early for much of the rest of the route (403 percent or greater early at all other stops). While an early arrival in some cases is good, for boardings at stops Header where the bus departs early, the passenger may miss the bus. With very low frequency on Route 25, that could significantly impact the passengerâ€™s trip.

3.2.3 Route 29 Unlike Route 21 and Route 25 where the on-time performance issues appear to be primarily associated with early arrivals and scheduling, Route 29 is clearly impacted by traffic congestion along its route. Late arrivals are 22 percent in the southbound direction and 14 percent in the northbound direction. Early arrivals are similar in both directions (20 percent and 18 percent, respectively). The route frequently does not begin its trip on-time, with late departure from Calistoga 30 percent of the time, Soscol Gateway Transit Center 34 percent of the time, and El Cerrito del Norte BART station 22 percent of the time. Schedule deviation is most significant between Redwood Park & Ride and Vallejo Ferry Terminal, where in the southbound direction average variance increases from 0.9 minutes to 4.3 minutes (and late percentage increases from 21 percent to 43 percent). Splitting Route 29 at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center may improve on-time performance of the route south of Napa. Maintaining timed-transfers at the Transit Center would be critical to preserving north-south connectivity. Maintaining frequent service to the Redwood Park & Ride would likely be beneficial for a partitioned route. The online survey and Census data indicates strong relationship between Napa and the SR-29 corridor to the north, notably the St. Helena area. The survey indicated that 57 percent of Napa residents that work outside of Napa work in St. Helena, Calistoga, or Yountville. Therefore, increasing service on the northern portion of Route 29 along with this splitting of the route may benefit ridership.

3.2.4 Additional Field Observations Additional field observations of Route 21 showed potential opportunities to improve on-time performance and operations. The intersection of Devlin Road & Soscol Ferry Road currently has no stop control and presents a difficult left-turn for a bus to make. Signalization or other improvements at this location may reduce variability. In the westbound direction, a bus waited a lengthy amount of time for another bus to pass before making a left-turn onto Burnell Street from 7th St Street. This may show that Burnell Street is too narrow to comfortably accommodate two buses traveling in opposite directions. Additional field observations of Route 29 showed potential opportunities to improve on-time performance and operations. In the northbound direction, there is a long delay while making a left-turn at two intersections: American Canyon Road & SR-29 and Donaldson Way & SR-29. Left-turns at these intersections are necessary due to the stop at the American Canyon Post Office.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Alternative alignments for Route 29 between Socol Gateway Transit Center and Redwood Park & Ride and between Vallejo SECTION TITLE Ferry terminal and Interstate 80 may reduce travel times and travel time variability. Route 29 currently uses Trancas Street

when traveling between Redwood Park & Ride and Soscol Gateway Transit Center. Google Maps shows 3rd Street to be the optimal path at all times of day rather than Trancas Street. Route 29 between the Vallejo Ferry Terminal and Interstate 80 uses Curtola Parkway. Google Maps shows Sonoma Boulevard as the optimal path at all times of day rather than Curtola BodyParkway. Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra Poor on-time performance in most cases can be attributed to heavy traffic conditions. For Route 21 and Route 25, delay occurs along SR-12 during the AM and PM commute period. For Route 29, delay occurs consistently throughout the day on SR-29 and Interstate 80. Google Maps was used to map traffic congestion for each route by time of day. While detailed â€˘ Bullets traffic analysis would be required to identify specific choke points, Google Maps allows for a simple identification of congested areas. Figure 3-2 shows the route segments that were observed to experience high traffic delay during the AM, Header Mid-Day,3 or PM Peak periods.

Header 1

3.2.5 Heavily Congested Segments

Header 2

3.2.6 SR-29 Improvement Plan To address the noted congested issues on SR-29, NVTA completed the State Route 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan in October 2014. That plan includes improvements such as lane modifications, bicycle facilities, intersection improvements, and interchange improvements. Figure 3-3 shows a summary of the proposed improvements from the State Route 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan. Further concept and design development is currently underway that may change the specific improvements recommended. Of note is that major infrastructure enhancements are in the planning stages that could significantly reduce traffic delays for buses on SR-29. However, these improvements will not be implemented in the near term as design and environmental work has not yet been completed and funding secured.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Figure Areas of Significant Congestion Figure 33-2: - Areas of Significant TrafficTraffic Congestion SECTION TITLE Calistoga

Calistoga @ Lincoln Bridge

Header 1 ( !

Yolo

Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Napa mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, Hwy 29 between Madrona Ave and namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima Pope St (Route 29 Southboundnam Mid-Day) venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin St Helena ! ( Post Office porendam doluptas ma pra Hwy 29 between Grayson Ave and Saint Helena

Mitchell Dr (Route 29 Northbound Mid-Day)

Header 2

Hwy 29 between Vintage Ave and Mitchell Dr (Route 29 Northbound PM) Hwy 29 between Zinfandel Ln and Walnut Ave (Route 29 Southbound PM)

â€˘ Bullets

Header 3 Yountville California Dr

! & Solano Ave (

Yountville

Vacaville Hwy 29 between Salvador Ave and Trower Ave (Route 29 Southbound Mid-Day)

( !

Redwood Park & Ride

Sonoma Sonoma Plaza

Soscol Gateway

Napa

( !

Imola Park and Ride

( !

Sonoma

!Transit Center ( Gasser Dr & Ct ( Hartle ! Valley ( Napa ! College

Hwy 12 between Beck Ave and Pennsylvania Ave (Route 21 Eastbound PM)

Fairfield

Fairfield Transit Center

Corporate Dr

( !

Hwy 12 between Napa Rd and Old Sonoma Rd (Route 25 Eastbound PM) Hwy 12 at Stanley Ln (Route 25 Westbound AM)

( !

Suisun City Train Depot

( ! Hwy 12/29 Junction American Canyon

Hwy 29 between Donaldson Way and Hwy 221 (Route 29 Northbound AM) American Canyon Post Office

Hwy 12 between I-680 and Red Top Rd (Route 21 Westbound AM)

( !

Hwy 12 between Spurs Trail and Red Top Rd (Route 21 Eastbound PM) Hwy 29 between Hwy 12 and Hwy 37 (Route 29 Southbound PM)

Novato

Solano

Vallejo

( !

Vallejo Ferry Terminal

Legend

I-80 between Willow Ave and Cutting Blvd (Route 29 Southbound AM)

Marin

Vine Transit Route 21 Vine Transit Route 25

Martinez

Greenbrae

Contra Costa Richmond

( ! I-80 between Cutting Blvd and San Pablo Ave (Route 29 Northbound PM)

El Cerrito Del Norte BART

Albany

Vine Transit Route 29

( !

High Ridership Stops (40 or More Daily Boardings/Alightings)

( !

Medium Ridership Stops (Between 8-40 Daily Boardings/Alightings)

( !

Low Ridership Stops (8 or Fewer Daily Boardings/Alightings) Segments Prone to Traffic Congestion

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study 34

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY Figure 4 - SR-29 Improvements from Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan

Figure 3-3: SR-29 Improvements from Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan SECTION TITLE

Header 1

Figure 4-2: Summary of Proposed Improvements

Summary of Proposed Improvements

AVE

1121 12 211

NC ANC TRAN

ASS ST A

OLLN CO L NC LI

Header 2

No significant roadway improvements proposed (4 lane freeway with median).

1ST S ST ST

I10

29 29 IMO A

• Bullets

Header 3

VE VE AV A

City of Napa

AVE

122 121

Unincorporated Napa County 12 1211

No significant roadway improvements proposed (4 lane rural highway with median).

S4-b

Parkway Concept - 6 lanes with median and shared use paths.

S4-a

1 12 County Airport

American Canyon

29 29

Solano County

OU ND

S DR

377

Two alternatives proposed: a partial and a fully grade-separated interchange. Fully grade separated is recommended.

Two alternatives proposed: a “tight diamond” interchange and a Single-Point Urban Interchange. Tight diamond is recommended.

Bicycle network transition zone: access via future Vine Trail alignment.

No improvements proposed beyond lane widening.

No improvements proposed beyond lane widening and potential signal synchronization.

No improvements proposed beyond lane widening and potential signal synchronization. Additional improvements may be needed if Boulevard option is chosen.

No improvements proposed beyond lane widening and potential signal synchronization.

Vallejo 80

VD BLVD

377

A N MA SONO

No significant roadway improvements proposed (4 lanes with median north of Valle Vista Avenue).

AMERIC A N CANYO N RD

Napa County GR FAIR

N a p

R i v e r

OPTION 1 (RECOMMENDED): Parkway Concept - 4 lanes with medians and shared use paths. OPTION 2: SB Parkway/NB Boulevard Concept - 4 lanes, northbound-only frontage road with Class II bicycle lane, and southbound-only Class I shared use path.

2299

ELL DR NEW

Rural Highway Concept 6 lanes with median.

OPTION 1: Boulevard Concept - 4 lanes with median plus frontage roads with Class II bicycle lanes. OPTION 2 (RECOMMENDED): Modified Boulevard Concept - 6 lanes with median and Class I shared use paths.

22221

Proposed channelization of northbound through movement and free right from SR 121/SR 12

TENNESSEE TE TTEN EN NNESSSEEE EE STT

Mare Island

Vaallllllee o Va Valle Fer y Ferr Term rmin minall

E AV NO LA SO RTO LA PKW Y

GEO G OR IA ST ST EEO

29 29

NE ZIIN GA MA ST

MILES

STATE ROUTE 29 GATEWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN

4-3

Source: State Route 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan (October 2014)

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study 35

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

3.3 Travel Speeds SECTION TITLE

3.3.1 Comparison against Auto Travel

Header 1 priority at congestion points, it is expected that express bus travel times and average speeds would be Without any special

than that of private autos due dwell route deviations tofacculp serve stops of the main roadway. ThereOvitate are a Bodylower Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, to sedi aut time voloriand nonsequi dolest, tem arciliqoffuamenda venient iataectur? few particularly noteworthy locations where the average travel speed variance between express bus travel and auto travel mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, is relatively large ersperibusda (15 miles per nis hour or more). In order identifyaliti disparity between transit and autoretravel time, actual namende rrumqua minis dolenima nam to venimus denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus verspercipit ressintransit trip times were compared against auto travel times identified using Google Maps. porendam doluptas ma pra • During the AM peak hour (7:00 AM-8:00 AM), personal automobile travel speeds exceed transit speeds by more than 15

Header 2 between: miles per hour

»» Vallejo to Napa; and • Bullets »» Fairfield to Napa. • During 3 the mid-day peak (12:00 PM-1:00 PM), personal automobile travel speeds exceed transit speeds by more than 15 Header miles per hour between: »» 19 miles per hour greater from Fairfield to Napa; and »» 17 miles per hour greater from El Cerrito to Napa. • During the PM peak (5:00 PM-6:00 PM), personal automobile travel speeds exceed transit speeds by more than 15 miles per hour between: »» 15 miles per hour greater from American Canyon to Napa; »» 17 miles per hour greater from Fairfield to Napa; and »» 15 miles per hour greater from Calistoga to Napa. Transit priority or routing improvements may be required at these locations to improve transit desirability and competitiveness.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

3.4 Network Connectivity SECTION TITLE 3.4.1 Bus-to-bus Transfers

Header 1 of transfer tickets revealed that the most frequent bus-to-bus transfers that involve an express route are Ridership analysis

10Vitat to Route Route 11 to Route Route 29 to Route BodyRoute Copy... quas 25, cusam seque sus, sedi21, autand volori nonsequi dolest,8.tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, Route 10ersperibusda to Route namende rrumqua nis 25 minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma25pra The Route 10 and transfer relationship was also identified in the online survey. Approximately half of Route 25 users indicated that they also used Route 10 or 11 on their regular commute.

Header 2 The Route 10 to Route 25 transfer occurs at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center. This transfer can be made from both

â€˘ Bullets directions of Route 10 to Route 25 westbound. Route 25 westbound makes seven daily departures from the Soscol Gateway Transit Center. The average transfer wait time from Route 10 northbound to Route 25 westbound is approximately 37 Header 3 minutes. The average transfer wait time from Route 10 southbound to Route 25 westbound is approximately 28 minutes. Reducing transfer time between these routes at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, through schedule coordination or pulse service, will greatly benefit the passengers currently transferring between these services.

Route 11 to Route 21 The Route 11 to Route 21 transfer occurs at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center. This transfer can be made from both directions of Route 11 to Route 21 eastbound. Route 21 eastbound makes seven daily departures from the Soscol Gateway Transit Center. When calculating average transfer wait time, only the immediate Route 11 arrival time was considered for each Route 21 departure time. The average transfer wait time from Route 11 northbound to Route 21 eastbound is approximately 30 minutes. The average transfer wait time from Route 11 northbound to Route 21 eastbound is approximately 19 minutes. Reducing transfer time between these routes at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, through schedule coordination or pulse service, will greatly benefit the passengers currently transferring between these services.

Route 29 to Route 8 The Route 29 to Route 8 transfer occurs at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center. This transfer can be made from both directions of Route 29 to Route 8 northbound. The average transfer wait time from Route 29 northbound to Route 8 northbound is approximately 16 minutes assuming precise schedule adherence when Route 29 arrival time is identical to the Route 8 departure time. The average transfer wait time from Route 29 southbound to Route 8 northbound is approximately 14 minutes assuming precise schedule adherence when Route 29 arrival time is identical to the Route 8 departure time. Reducing transfer time between these routes at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, through schedule coordination or pulse service, will greatly benefit the passengers currently transferring between these services.

Transfers to Other Transit Services Based on the online survey completed for this project, approximately 53 percent of all current express bus riders use BART at least once a month and 28 percent of express bus riders use the San Francisco Bay Ferry at least once a month.

Route 29 at El Cerrito del Norte BART BART provides service every 15 minutes on each of two lines that service the Richmond BART station (only one line operates past 8 PM). During the AM period, the average transfer time from Route 29 to BART is nine minutes. When transferring from BART to Route 29, the average transfer wait time for trips on the Millbrae line is 11 minutes, assuming the rider selects the

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

optimal BART train to complete the transfer. The wait time for transfers from the Fremont line is 7.5 minutes. SECTION TITLE

Route 29 at Vallejo Ferry Building

Header 1 Ferry modifies its schedule by season. Transfer times were analyzed for the new schedule to be The San Francisco

in early January 2017. peakdolest, periodstem from Routearciliq 29 southbound to the ferry is 17 minutes Bodyimplemented Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus,Transfer sedi auttime voloriduring nonsequi facculp uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate (transfer times are much longer in the mid-day). The last southbound Route 29 bus arrives after the last ferry has departed mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, for therrumqua day. Transfer time during peak dolenima periods from ferry toaliti Route 29 northbound is 28 minutes times are namende ersperibusda nis minis namthe venimus denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re (transfer verspercipit ressin longer during the mid-day). The last two ferries arrive after the last Route 29 bus has departed. porendam doluptas ma pra While there may be some benefit to riders to provide service to meet one or both of the last two ferries, the number of

Header 2northbound Route 29 peak on the 4:15 PM trip and drop significantly for the last two northbound trips. Thus, boardings on

there is not clear evidence of a need to extend the service span of Route 29. There may be a benefit to better time Route 29 â€˘ Bullets to the ferry, although the transfer relationship between BART and Route 29 appears much stronger than between the ferry and Route Header 329. Thus, coordinating schedules with BART may be more beneficial than coordinating with the ferry.

3.4.2 Service Areas The online survey and demographic data was reviewed to identify potential areas not well served by existing express bus routes.

External Destinations The online survey found that the strongest home-work origin-destination patterns were along the SR-29 corridor, currently served by Route 29. Additional areas with high origin-destination patterns were between Napa/American Canyon and the Cordelia/Fairfield areas. Additional, more distributed demand was found between Napa and Vacaville. The survey found moderate demand between Napa and San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley. There was some distributed demand to the US-101 corridor in Sonoma County, although without any predominate destinations. The survey found extremely little demand between Napa County and the I-680 corridor in Contra-Costa and Alameda Counties. The survey results may not be statistically significant and thus are utilized in conjunction with Census data. Census data indicated that Sonoma County and Solano County were the most common workplaces of Napa residents (both just under 8 percent). Other nearby counties (Contra Costa, San Francisco, and Alameda) are workplaces for approximately 5 percent or less of Napa residents. Napa workers living outside the County are almost exclusively living in Solano and Sonoma Counties. As noted above in the survey, concentrations of trip ends in Sonoma County appear to be much more widely distributed around the County than in Solano County, making them more difficult to efficiently serve with express bus service. Therefore, additional external destinations or service area enhancements are suggested to focus on Solano County.

Napa Population Density City of Napa population density was evaluated to identify potential additional service areas or areas in need of a park & ride. Population density is generally distributed around Napa, with the densest areas west of SR-29 near 1st Street and along Soscol Avenue near Pueblo Avenue. The Imola, Redwood, and Soscol Park & Rides can capture most of the residential population; however, the Imola and Redwood Park & Rides are only served by one express bus route each. Providing additional service to these park & rides may increase their effectiveness. The online survey indicated that 30 percent of express bus riders drove alone to access the express bus, indicating the value of park & rides in generating express bus ridership.

Napa Job Density In order to serve employment areas, express buses must provide service within a reasonable walk/bike radius or provide connection to local service. This is supported by the online survey, which indicated that 71 percent of existing Napa bus riders walk to their destination. Napa employment is densest in the downtown area, primarily west of the river. There are

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

currently no express bus stops in downtown Napa, although the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, served by all express buses, SECTION TITLE is on the outskirts of downtown. The river may create a perceived barrier between the Transit Center and downtown. It is a

greater than Â˝ mile walk (approximately 11 minutes) from the Soscol Gateway Transit Center to Napa Town Center, located roughly in the middle of downtown Napa. Providing express bus service into downtown Napa may increase utilization of transit for the commute trips of downtown Napa workers. Alternatively, NVTA may consider implementing a flex service or Bodysubsidized Copy... Vitat sequerideshare sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi tem express facculp bus arciliq iataectur? Ovitate lastquas milecusam on-demand service designed to dolest, meet each at uamenda the Soscolvenient Gateway Transit Center mposanda nus, si ullictotas arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, and distribute riders to escia their veliae destination. namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

Header 1

3.5 Summary of Identified Needs

Table 3-2 summarizes the most critical needs identified for the express bus service. A key map depicting these needs is Header 2 provided in Figure 3-4. â€˘ Bullets

Table 3-2: Summary of Improvement Needs Header 3 #

Need

Category

Existing and potential transit demand

Transportation Network

Consistency with regional and local plans

Environmental considerations

Cost and Implementation

Safety

Timeframe to Implementation

Moderate assessed value of required land acquisition. High assessed value of required land acquisition. High Medium acquisition risk due to a moderate number of acquisition risk due to a high number of parcels or property property owners or parcels. owners involved.

107

Total land area; number of properties and property owners

Qualitative assessment of implementation timeframe based on cost, construction timeline, and other risk factors

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

◑= High ●= Medium ○ = Low

Table 5-2: Evaluation Results Project Number

Existing and potential transit demand Name

Transportation Network

Ridership

Access to Transit

Travel Times

Transit Reliability

Traffic Impacts

Transit Operations & Maintenance

City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance

Environmental considerations

Cost and Implementation

Consistency with regional and local plans

Environmental Risks

Communities of Concern

Right-of-way Impacts

Operating & Maintenance Costs

Safety

Capital Costs

Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety

Vehicular Safety

Timeframe to Implementation

A. Route 21 Service Changes A.1

Route 21 ShortTerm Service Changes

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

Short-Term

A.2

Route 21 LongTerm Service Changes

●

◑

●

○

●

◑

●

◑

●

○

●

◑

Long-Term

◑ ○

● ●

◑ ●

● ●

● ◑

◑ ●

● ●

● ◑

◑ ◑

● ●

○ ○

● ●

◑ ○

◑ ◑

B. Route 21 Stop Changes B.1.A

Napa Valley College Stop Option A

B.1.B

Napa Valley College Stop Option B

◑ ◑

B.1.C

Napa Valley College Stop Option C

◑

●

◑

●

◑

○

●

○

◑

B.1.D

Napa Valley College Stop Option D

B.2

Stop Improvements at Devlin & Airport

◑ ●

○ ●

● ◑

◑ ◑

● ●

● ◑

● ●

◑ ◑

● ●

◑ ○

● ●

◑ ●

●

◑

●

○

●

◑

●

◑

●

○

●

◑

● ◑

● ●

◑ ◑

◑ ●

● ◑

◑ ◑

● ◑

◑ ●

● ●

● ◑

● ●

◑ ◑

◑ ○

● ●

◑ ◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

○

◑

●

◑

Medium-Term Medium-Term Long-Term Short-Term Medium-Term

C. Route 25 Service Changes C.1

Addition of Downtown Petaluma and Sonoma Stops

Long-Term

D. Route 25 Stop Changes D.1

Downtown Napa Stop

D.2

Imola Park & Ride Improvements

Short-Term Medium-Term

E. Route 29 Service Changes E.1

Split Route 29 into 29/10X/11X

Short-Term Long-Term

F. Route 29 Stop Changes F.1

Yountville Stop Modifications

108

Medium-Term

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

◑= High ●= Medium ○ = Low

Table 5-2: Evaluation Results (Continued) Existing and potential transit demand

Project Number

Name

F.2

American Canyon Post Office Stop Modifications

F.3

American Canyon Park & Ride

F.4

SR-37/Fairgrounds Park & Ride

F.5

Curtola Park & Ride

F.6

Transportation Network City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance

Environmental considerations

Consistency with regional and local plans

Environmental Risks

Communities of Concern

Cost and Implementation Right-of-way Impacts

Operating & Maintenance Costs

Capital Costs

Safety Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety

Vehicular Safety

Timeframe to Implementation

Ridership

Access to Transit

Travel Times

Transit Reliability

Traffic Impacts

Transit Operations & Maintenance

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

○

◑

●

● ● ●

◑ ◑ ◑

◑ ◑ ●

◑ ● ●

● ● ◑

◑ ● ●

◑ ◑ ●

◑ ◑ ◑

◑ ● ●

● ● ●

◑ ◑ ◑

Medium-Term

Redwood Park & Ride Stop Modifications

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

○

◑

Medium-Term

F.7

St. Helena Post Office Stop Modifications

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

Medium--Term

F.8

St Helena Park & Ride

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

Medium-Term

● ● ●

◑ ◑ ◑

● ● ●

◑ ◑ ◑

● ◑ ●

● ● ●

◑ ◑ ◑

● ● ●

◑ ◑ ◑

● ● ●

◑ ◑ ◑

● ●

◑ ◑

● ●

◑ ◑

● ●

◑ ◑

● ●

◑ ◑

◑ ●

◑ ◑

○ ○

◑ ●

◑ ◑

Medium-Term Long-Term

Short-Term

G. Transit Signal Priority G.1

TSP - SR-29 North of Napa

G.2

TSP - Route 29 South of Napa

G.3

TSP - Route 12, 121, 221

Medium-Term Medium-Term Medium-Term

H. Queue Jumps H.1

American Canyon Queue Jumps

H.2

Napa Queue Jumps

Medium-Term Medium-Term

I. Parking Near Soscol Gateway Transit Center I.1

Wine Train Parcel West of Soscol Gateway

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

○

●

○

●

◑

Medium-Term

I.2

City-Owned Lot in Downtown Napa

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

●

◑

Medium-Term

109

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

5.3 Financial Analysis SECTION TITLE As part of this study, the project team has identified potential funding opportunities for the improvements recommended in

this study. This section provides a list of potential funding sources. To develop this list, a range of federal, state, regional, and

Header local funding 1 sources were reviewed, focusing on the types of funds that are most likely to be appropriate within the Napa

Bodycontext. Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas pra Study identifies a range of improvements for Vine Transit’s Express Bus service. At this time, The Express Busma Corridor

5.3.1 Project Needs Summary

improvement costs are only estimates and will require adjustment as preliminary engineering and final design occur. The

Header selection of2 specific alternatives and phasing for the improvements must also occur before total costs are determined; however, many of the projects can be implemented separately as priorities and available funding permit. • Bullets

The Express Header 3 Bus Corridor Study has identified short-term capital needs for streamlining routes and expanding express bus

service to additional access points at an estimated $1.4 million. Medium-term capital needs are estimated at $19 to $23 million, depending on which Napa Valley College and Soscol Gateway Transit Center parking improvements are selected. Although total changes to operating costs are not known at this time, many of the medium-term improvements – such as measures to reduce travel time, increase bus reliability, and expand service accessibility through additional park & rides, route optimization, and priority roadway treatments – are also associated with annual operating cost savings. Such savings in operating costs may allow for reallocation of funds to pay for other priorities. The only recommended long-term capital improvement, at Napa Valley College, would cost an estimated $9.5 million. However, this improvement would be duplicative with other improvements at the College included in the short-term and medium-term improvements list. The following section provides an evaluation framework for transit funding sources for the Express Bus Corridor Study improvements.

5.3.2 Evaluating Transit Funding Sources Due to diminished and limited funding, transit typically requires a patchwork of federal, regional, and local funding sources in addition to farebox revenues. In many cases, transit projects must receive local match funding in order to compete for state and federal sources. Transportation agencies must cobble multiple funding grants or sources to be able to cover capital and operating costs and improvements. To enable an effective funding strategy for a new or expanded service or program, funding sources should be evaluated based on criteria that allow for prioritization and identification of preferred sources. Evaluation criteria include the following: • Source of funds: »» Is the source local, state, or federal? Who is the administering agency? »» Do all users pay or only new development or visitors? • Use of funds/eligible expenses: »» Can the source of revenue be used only for capital costs, ongoing (operating) costs, or both? »» Can the revenues be used to pay back debt financing? • Revenue characteristics: »» Is the revenue source stable? »» Is the amount of funds available enough to cover a significant portion of costs? • Timing and distribution: »» Is the source competitive or distributed by formula allocation? »» How difficult is it to obtain approval? What type of application is required? • Legal and political considerations:

110

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

»» Are there potential legal challenges to using the revenue source? SECTION TITLE »» Are there political hurdles to the use of the revenue source? The relative weight of the above criteria will depend on factors such as policy priorities, the type of project being funded,

Header 1 of funding needed. Although there is not a universal formula for which criteria are most important, some and the magnitude criteria take precedence. if theredolest, are significant legalarciliq challenges for using a revenue source, it Bodyevaluation Copy... Vitat quas may cusam seque sus, sedi For autexample, volori nonsequi tem facculp uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate may be eliminated from consideration before other criteria are evaluated. mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, namende rrumqua ersperibusda nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin porendam doluptas ma pra

5.3.3 Transit Funding Sources Descriptions

This section provides descriptions of a range of funding sources that may be used to implement the types of bus

Header 2 included in the Vine Transit Express Bus Corridor Study. VTA already receives funding from many of the improvements

following sources. Table 5-1 provides a more detailed evaluation of each source’s eligibility for the proposed improvements, • Bullets including whether NVTA is a current recipient of these funds, and whether further action is required.

Header 3 Federal Sources

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Programs and Sources • FTA 5307 Urbanized Area – The Urbanized Area Formula Funding program provides grants for operations, capital improvements, and transit planning in urbanized areas. • FTA 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors & Individuals with Disabilities – Section 5310 provides competitive funding to improve mobility for seniors and individuals with disabilities. • FTA 5311 Rural Areas – The formula funding program for rural areas provides grants to states for operations, capital improvements, and transit planning in rural areas with populations of less than 50,000. • FTA 5311 (f) Intercity Bus Program – FTA requires that each state use 15 percent of FTA 5311 apportionment on intercity bus transportation. • FTA 5339 Buses and Bus Facilities Program – The Bus program provides competitive grants for capital improvements for expanding transportation access to employment, education, and healthcare, and improving transportation and accessibility. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) CMAQ provides funding to states and local governments for transportation projects and programs that contribute to air quality improvements and reduce congestion. This funding is distributed to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), which in the San Francisco Bay Area is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). MTC allocates CMAQ funding through a complex funding framework entitled the One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG), which is described more fully below. Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) STBG provides funding to states and local governments for a wide variety of transportation projects, including transit capital projects such as intercity bus terminals. Like CMAQ funding described above, STBG is distributed to MTC, which allocates the funds through OBAG, as is described more fully below. Federal Funding Looking Forward As NVTA considers the use of federal dollars for Vine Transit Express Bus improvements, the present uncertainty around federal funding for transportation must be acknowledged. The most recent presidential administration budget blueprint, published in March 2017, has proposed significant cuts to the Department of Transportation’s budget. A large share of these cuts would result from the elimination of major transit programs; namely, the Capital Investment Program (which includes New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity grants) and Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER, grants. Federal sources typically relied on by NVTA (FTA 5307, 5310, 5311, and 5339) have apparently not been specifically identified for elimination at this time. However, there remains much uncertainty around these potential changes and no decisions have been reached. NVTA

111

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

should continue to monitor these federal sources as it moves forward with the Express Bus improvement strategy. SECTION TITLE

State of California Sources

Header 1 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) BodyThe Copy... Vitat Transportation quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi tem facculptransportation arciliq uamenda venientplan iataectur? Ovitate Regional Improvement Program (RTIP) is adolest, five-year regional spending prepared by mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et (RTPA), untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem quis re pererion et dolore, each region’s Regional Transportation Planning Agency which in the Bay Area rem is the Metropolitan Transportation namende rrumqua ersperibusda minis dolenima nam venimus alitimodes denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus verspercipit ressin Commission (MTC). The RTIPnis compiles capital projects across all of transportation that arere expecting funding from porendam doluptasState ma pra the California Highway Account – which relies primarily on the state excise tax on fuel – as well as from other federal and local sources.

Header 2 RTIP are short-term plans, and are usually a subset of the region’s long-term Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which

• Bullets covers a 25 to 30-year period. In the Bay Area, the RTIP must be updated every two years, and once approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC), RTIPs are included in California’s official State Transportation Improvement Header Program 3 (STIP). The most recent STIP was adopted in 2015, with amendments in 2016. The next RTIP/STIP round is to begin in the Fall of 2017. Due to overall state funding shortfalls, the 2015 RTIP initially submitted by MTC was amended with project cuts. This affected NVTA, as several highway improvement projects in Napa County were deferred. Therefore, in the new 2017 RTIP, the NVTA Board is prioritizing funding for these deferred projects. The NVTA Board is also dedicating any new potential additional funding to other highway projects (such as the Soscol Junction). Although the exact RTIP funding plan is dependent on the passage of Regional Measure 3 and Senate Bill 1 (described below), there is likely limited funding available for Vine Transit Express Bus improvement projects. Transportation Development Act Local Transportation Fund (TDA LTF) TDA is a major component of transit funding in California. The TDA authorized the Local Transportation Fund, which is generated from a quarter-cent portion of the general sales tax collected by individual counties across the state. Transportation Development Act State Transit Assistance (TDA STA) State Transit Assistance is a major funding source for transit in California. It is generated from the statewide sales tax on diesel fuel. Funds are distributed using both a revenue-based formula – these funds are distributed directly to transit operators – and a population-based formula – these funds are apportioned to MTC based on the Bay Area’s population. MTC determines how to use these funds. NVTA should monitor discussions happening with MTC in the Fall of 2017 regarding changes in the formula allocation for this funding source. Senate Bill No. 1 Recently passed by the California Legislature in April 2017, Senate Bill No. 1 (SB 1) authorizes new funding for transportation statewide. This represents a much-anticipated new pool of revenue for designated transportation improvements. In contrast to other new transportation funding passed in the last decade (Cap and Trade in 2008; Proposition 1B in 2006), SB 1 raises new funding by relying on transportation-related user fees. Projections estimate that SB 1 will raise $52.4 billion over 10 years, generated from the following sources: (a) 12-cent increase in the gasoline excise tax, bringing the total state gas tax to 30 cents per gallon; (b) 20-cent increase in the diesel excise tax; (c) 5.75 percent increase in the diesel sales tax, which feeds into STA funding; (d) a new vehicle registration surcharge fee; and (e) a $100 annual fee on zero-emission vehicles beginning in 2020. A wide range of transportation projects will be eligible for SB 1 funding, of which a significant share will include public transit operations and capital funding. it is expected that $7.5 billion will be dedicated to transit, statewide, over 10 years. The STA program, one of California’s primary transit funding sources, will benefit from a significant boost in potential total revenue because of its reliance on the diesel sales tax. As described above, the STA program is distributed based on revenue-based and population-based formulas. MTC predicts $250 million in additional funding for the STA statewide, which for the Bay Area would translate into an additional $70 million per year for transit from revenue-based STA formula and $24

112

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

million per year from population-based formulas. A separate capital-only fund dedicated to modernizing transit vehicles and SECTION TITLE facilities would also be distributed using STA formulas. MTC projects $105 million per year for this specific fund, of which about $39 million per year would be granted to the Bay Area.

Header 1 used, the share allocated to Napa County is likely to be relatively small – approximately $41,000 per Given the formulas

in additional Somesus, of the mightnonsequi be available for improvements to the State Route 29 corridor, including Bodyyear Copy... Vitat quasrevenue. cusam seque sedifunds aut volori dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate improved transit access. However, NVTA should monitor discussions happening with MTC in the Fall of 2017 regarding mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, changes in the ersperibusda formula allocation for this funding source. Changes in the population-based STA formula could increase namende rrumqua nis minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus re verspercipit ressin the amount of transit funding allocated to Napa County – and potentially be used for Express Bus needs. porendam doluptas ma pra Cap and Trade Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP)

Header 2 Established in 2014 as part of the Cap and Trade Transit, Affordable Housing, and Sustainable Communities Program, LCTOP • Bullets provides operating and capital assistance to transit agencies for reducing greenhouse gas emission and improving mobility, with a specific focus on serving disadvantaged communities. Transit agencies are eligible for funds based on a formula Header 3 allocation, as long as allocation requests fulfill the program’s requirements.

Bay Area Regional Sources One Bay Area Grant 2 County Program The One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program is a funding and policy framework for the allocation of federal dollars (including CMAQ and STP, described above) to counties and various agencies across the San Francisco Bay Area. Adopted in 2015, OBAG 2 is the second round of the One Bay Area Grant program and will fund projects from FY 2017-2018 to FY 2021-2022. It has two components: a Regional Program, which funds a variety of regional level projects; and a County Program. Under the OBAG 2 County Program, Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) are allocated discretionary funding that can be used for transit improvements. In the case of Napa County, NVTA administers OBAG 2 County Program funds (approximately $8 million). NVTA has already put out a draft list of recommended projects that, for the most part, do not include Vine Transit Express Bus improvements. One Bay Area Grant 2 Transit Performance Initiative (TPI) Program As described above, OBAG 2 has a Regional Program and a County Program. The Transit Performance Initiative (TPI) falls within the Regional Program, and is therefore administered directly by MTC. In the past, the TPI has offered grants for improving transit along major corridors and trunk lines in the Bay Area. Eligible improvements have included transit signal prioritization, passenger circulation improvements, and boarding/stop improvements – which are highly suitable for Vine Transit’s needs. NVTA recently received a TPI grant for electric bus improvements. However, based on recent conversations with MTC staff, the future inclusion of the TPI program in the OBAG funding framework remains uncertain. Regional Measure 3 Regional Measure 3 (RM 3) is a proposed regional measure to increase bridge tolls for the Bay Area's seven toll bridges. The availability of these funds is fully contingent on the passage of California Senate Bill 595, which would allow Regional Measure 3 to be placed on the 2018 or 2020 ballot, after which the measure would require a simple majority of voters to pass. Previous bridge toll increases occurred in 1998 (Regional Measure 1) and in 2004 (Regional Measure 2). These previous measures have been successful in supporting major transportation projects for the region. RM 2, in particular, invested $1.5 billion towards key transit projects to alleviate bridge congestion. These measures are intended primarily to fund transportation projects that benefit toll bridge corridors and fulfill other goals, such as regional prosperity, sustainability, and resiliency. In the case of RM 3, it has not yet been decided if the proposed increase will be $1, $2, or $3. The total amount of new funding raised would range from $1.7 to $5 billion over 25 years, depending on the toll amount. NVTA has identified a list of prioritized projects in preparation for the possible success of RM 3. This would include approximately $20 million for various multi-modal operational improvements on SR 29 between Carneros Highway and American Canyon Road, including Vine Transit Express Bus facilities, among other needs. Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA)

113

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) collects a $4 surcharge on cars and trucks registered within its SECTION jurisdiction and allocatesTITLE the revenue to the TFCA program. The program provides funding to projects that result in trip-

reduction and motor vehicle emission reductions. The TFCA has two components: a Regional Program, for which funds are distributed on a competitive basis by the BAAQMD, and a County Program, for which funds are distributed to CMAs by formula allocation. In the case of Napa County, NVTA administers these funds on a first-come, first-serve basis. Body Copy... Vitat quas cusam seque sus, sedi aut volori nonsequi dolest, tem facculp arciliq uamenda venient iataectur? Ovitate Lifeline Transportation Program mposanda nus, si ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam, to et untur? Ihit eatquaes et labor rem rem quis re pererion et dolore, The Lifeline Program supports transportation projects that result inquiaecatus improved mobility for low-income namende rrumqua ersperibusda niscommunity-based minis dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita re verspercipit ressin residents of the nine counties in the San Francisco Bay Area. This program’s funds originate from other sources like the STA, porendam doluptas ma pra FTA 5307, and Proposition 1B. This apportionment is carved out and distributed to CMAs based on a formula allocation. In Napa County, NVTA then administers these funds on a competitive basis.

Header 1

Header 2 Local • Bullets

Sources

Advertising Header 3

Revenue from shelter and bus advertisements represents an additional source of funding, but it is limited and uncertain. Fare-Box Revenues Fare-box revenues include fares paid by Vine Transit riders for service provision through cash and pass sales, and revenue collected from partners and local jurisdictions for Vine Transit and other services, including multiple community shuttles, the Yountville trolley, the Taxi Scrip, and the VineGo paratransit service. Revenues vary based on fare amounts and ridership levels. Partnerships Beyond direct governmental funding sources, transit improvements can be enabled by funding provided under agreements with non-profit, for-profit/corporate, institutional, local government, and transit agency partners. For example, NVTA and Vine Transit have leveraged partnerships with other transit agencies in Solano County and Sonoma County to strengthen their shared inter-city bus networks.

5.3.4 Potential Funding Strategies Table 5-3 evaluates potential funding strategies for the Vine Transit Express Bus Corridor Study and the eligibility of the recommended improvements. The matrix includes a description of each source’s administering agency, eligible expenses, funding timelines, approval requirements, and current use by NVTA (if applicable). The table also indicates which funding sources could be pursued for Vine Transit Express Bus improvements, specifying at a broad level whether these improvements would be eligible for funding under each source’s requirements.

114

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Table 5-3: Potential Funding Sources Source

Administering Agency

Eligible Expenses

Funding Timing and Distribution

NVTA Status and/or Eligibility of Proposed Improvements

Federal

FTA 5307 Urbanized Area

U.S. DOT FTA; administered by MTC

Capital, operations, planning

Formula funding received on a regular basis for NVTAâ€™s existing services. Since funding is formulaAuthorized through FY 2020 under the FAST based and already allocated to existing services, Act. Recurring funding is available through does not provide opportunity for additional formula allocation. revenue to allocate towards express bus capital improvements.

FTA 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors & Individuals with Disabilities

U.S. DOT FTA; administered by MTC

Capital and operations for paratransit/ transit for seniors and individuals with disabilities

Authorized through FY 2020 under the FAST Act. Funding is competitive on a multi-year cycle. Deadlines for FY 2015-2017 funding have passed.

FTA 5311 Rural Areas

U.S. DOT FTA; administered by MTC

Formula funding received on a regular basis by Capital, operations, and Authorized through FY 2020 under the FAST NVTA. Restricted to "Up Valley" non-urbanized areas. Does not provide opportunity for additional technical assistance Act. Recurring funding is available through revenue to allocate towards express bus capital projects for rural areas formula allocation. improvements.

FTA 5311 (f) NonUrbanized Area for Intercity Operations

U.S. DOT FTA; administered by MTC

Capital and operations for rural intercity bus service

Formula funding received on a regular basis by Authorized through FY 2020 under the FAST NVTA. However, formula funding has recently been reduced resulting in reassessment of funding Act. Recurring funding is available through priorities and not likely to be available for new formula allocation. capital and operating needs in near future.

U.S. DOT FTA

Capital, including rolling stock, busrelated facilities, and technology to modify low or no emission vehicles or facilities.

Authorized through FY 2020 under the FAST Act. Funding is available through both recurring formula allocations and competitive grants. FTA just released new call for projects for grant funding (2017) for the discretionary grant program.

FTA 5339 Buses and Bus Facilities Program

115

Competitive funding could be pursued in the next cycle. Vine Transit Express Bus improvements eligibility: low to medium, given the grant's specific target population.

Formula funding received on a regular basis by NVTA. Competitive funding should be pursued in current or future cycles, as Vine Transit Express Bus improvement eligibility: high (if program is renewed).

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Table 5-3: Potential Funding Sources (Continued) Source

Administering Agency

Eligible Expenses

Funding Timing and Distribution

NVTA Status and/or Eligibility of Proposed Improvements

Federal

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ)

U.S. DOT FHWA; administered by MTC

Surface Transportation U.S. DOT FHWA; Block Grant Program administered by (STBG) MTC

Capital and operations

Authorized through FY 2020 under the FAST Act. Funding is available to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) through Funds are distributed by MTC. See OBAG 2 formula allocation. This funding is Regional and County Programs, below. then distributed through both formula allocations and competitive grants via the OBAG 2 Regional and County Programs.

Capital, including busrelated facilities

Authorized through FY 2020 under the FAST Act. Funding is available to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) through Funds are distributed by MTC. See OBAG 2 formula allocation. This funding is then Regional and County Programs, below. distributed through formula allocations and competitive grants via the OBAG 2 Regional and County Programs. State of California

Prepared by MTC and Regional approved by Transportation the California Improvement Program Transportation (RTIP) spending plan Commission (CTC).

Capital, including busrelated facilities

Five-year regional transportation spending plan prepared by MTC, which compiles capital projects across all modes of transportation that are expecting funding from the California State Highway Account (state excise gas and diesel tax). Discussions within NVTA are underway regarding the 2017 RTIP update.

116

The NVTA Board is prioritizing 2017 RTIP funds to highway improvement projects. The availability of funding for Vine Transit Express Bus improvements are unlikely for the next one or two cycles.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Table 5-3: Potential Funding Sources (Continued) Source

Administering Agency

Eligible Expenses

Funding Timing and Distribution

NVTA Status and/or Eligibility of Proposed Improvements

State of California Approved by the California Legislature in April 2017. Of the $52.4 billion expected to be raised over the next 10 years, $7.5 billion is currently dedicated to local agencies for transit operations and capital improvements. Most funding for public transportation will be available through formula allocation, similar to those used for STA funding.

New funding source. Formula funding will be received by VTA. However, given the formulas used, the share allocated to Napa County is likely to be relatively small. Some of the funds might be available for improvements to the SR 29 corridor, including improved transit access. Vine Transit Express Bus improvement eligibility: high. NVTA should monitor discussions happening with MTC in the Fall of 2017 regarding changes in the formula allocation, which could provide additional funding to Napa County.

Cap and Trade Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP)

Capital, operations: new or expanded bus services and transit facilities. At Caltrans and least 50 percent of California Air Resources Board funds must be spent on projects that benefit disadvantaged communities (DACs).

Established in 2014. Funds are distributed directly to transit agencies using a formula allocation, as long as agencies submit appropriate Allocation Requests. FY 20162017 funding was recently awarded to NVTA for procurement of zero-emission buses.

Formula funding received on a regular basis by the NVTA. NVTA should continue to submit annual Allocation Requests, as Vine Transit Express Bus improvements display high eligibility. Napa County does not have any EPA defined DACs. As such, the rules regarding DAC-specific allocation do not apply to NVTA.

Transportation Development Act Local Transportation Fund (TDA LTF)

State of California; administered by counties

Capital and operations

Established in 1971. Funds are collected by counties based on their general sales tax.

Funding received on a regular basis by NVTA. Vine Transit Express Bus improvements eligibility: high.

Transportation Development Act /State Transit Assistance (TDA STA)

State of California; administered by MTC and transit operators

Capital and operations

Established in 1971. Funding is available through formula allocation. NVTA should monitor discussions happening with MTC in the Fall of 2017 regarding changes in the formula allocation.

Funding received on a regular basis by NVTA. Vine Transit Express Bus improvements eligibility: high.

State of Senate Bill No. 1 (SB 1) California; Capital and operations Various agencies

117

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Table 5-3: Potential Funding Sources (Continued) Source

Administering Agency

Eligible Expenses

Funding Timing and Distribution

NVTA Status and/or Eligibility of Proposed Improvements

Bay Area Regional

One Bay Area Grant 2 County Program

One Bay Area Grant 2 Regional Program: Transit Performance Initiative (TPI).

Regional Measure 3

MTC; administered by CMAs

MTC

Capital

OBAG is a funding and policy framework for the allocation of federal dollars to counties and various agencies across the San Francisco Bay Area. OBAG 2 was adopted in 2015 and will allocate funding from FY 2017-2018 to FY 2021-2022. The OBAG 2 County Program funding is distributed to CMAs through formula allocation. NVTA was awarded approximately $8 million, which will be distributed on a competitive basis.

Funding received on a regular basis by NVTA. NVTA has discretion over the distribution of these funds and has released a draft list of recommended projects, of which Vine Transit Express Bus improvements are not included. Competitive grants should be pursued in future rounds. Vine Transit Express Bus improvements eligibility: medium to high.

Capital and operations for significant transit trunk lines.

OBAG is a funding and policy framework for the allocation of federal dollars to counties and various agencies across the San Francisco Bay Area OBAG 2 was adopted in 2015 and will allocate funding from FY 2017-2018 to FY 2021-2022. The TPI Program is a subset of the OBAG 2 Regional Program, which is administered directly by MTC. NVTA was recently awarded a grant for electric bus improvements.

Funding has been received by NVTA in the past for bus-related improvements. However, future inclusion of the TPI program in OBAGâ€™s framework remains uncertain, and therefore, should not be relied upon for Vine Transit Express Bus improvements for the time being.

Capital and operations

Vote expected in 2018 Primary or General Election. Funding would be allocated based on formula. Under RM 2, Napa received 2% of the total amount of funding; funding from RM 2 was used for Vine Transit capital and operations.

Potential new funding source. If passed by voters, formula funding would be received by NVTA. NVTA has already prepared a list of projects for eventual RM 3 dollars, some of which include Vine Transit Express Bus improvements.

118

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Table 5-3: Potential Funding Sources (Continued) Source

Administering Agency

Eligible Expenses

Funding Timing and Distribution

NVTA Status and/or Eligibility of Proposed Improvements

Bay Area Regional Transportation for Clean Air (TFCA) Regional Program

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Capital and operations that maximize air quality benefits and achieve emission reductions from motor vehicles.

60% of total TFCA funds are dedicated to the Regional Program competitive grants. Applications for Regional TFCA FY 2018 grants recently closed.

Competitive funding should be pursued in future cycles. Vine Transit Express Bus improvements eligibility: medium, given the focus on emission reductions.

Transportation for Clean Air (TFCA) County Program

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, administered by CMAs

Capital and operations that maximize air quality benefits and achieve emission reductions from motor vehicles.

40% of total TFCA funds are dedicated to the County Program and distributed to CMAs through formula allocation. Funding is then distributed by VTA on a first-come, first-serve basis. Applications for FY 2018 are underway (deadline September 2017).

Funding received on a regular basis by NVTA. Firstcome first-serve funding should be pursued in this cycle or future cycles. Vine Transit Express Bus improvements eligibility: medium.

MTC; administered by CMAs

Capital and operations for projects benefitting low-income communities (i.e. listed in Community-Based Transportation Plans).

Funding (which originates from STA, 5307â€Ś) is distributed to CMAs by formula allocation. CMAs then administer these funds through competitive grants. The last funding round, Lifeline Transportation Program Cycle 4, has expired (FY 20142016).

Lifeline Transportation funding has been received by VTA in the past. Future opportunities should be pursued. Vine Transit Express Bus improvements eligibility: medium, given the grant's specific target population.

Lifeline Transportation Program

119

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

Table 5-3: Potential Funding Sources (Continued) Source

Administering Agency

Eligible Expenses

Funding Timing and Distribution

NVTA Status and/or Eligibility of Proposed Improvements

Local Fare-box revenues

NVTA

Capital, Operations, Planning

Ongoing, varies with fare levels , ridership and partnership with local jurisdictions.

Funding received on a regular basis by NVTA. May be used to cover a portion of annual operating costs.

Advertising

NVTA

Capital, Operations, Planning

Ongoing contract for advertising.

Funding received on a regular basis by NVTA.

Ongoing.

Partnerships are an important component of NVTAâ€™s funding strategy. Future partnership opportunities should be pursued. Existing and potential partners include cities within the service area, Napa Valley College, Solano County Transit, Sonoma County Transit, Capital Corridor/ Amtrak, BART, and the San Francisco Bay Ferry.

Partnerships

NVTA

Capital, Operations, Planning

120

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

5.3.5 Recommended Next Steps SECTION TITLE The funding strategies included in Table 5-3 are intended as a menu of options for implementation of the improvements

under consideration in the Vine Transit Express Bus Corridor Study. The ability of NVTA to utilize any specific source or tool Header 1 will vary depending on policy priorities, funding availability, project competitiveness, phasing, and other described here

arrive atcusam the appropriate NVTAnonsequi will havedolest, to make a series of arciliq decisions about venient the implementation Bodyfactors. Copy... To Vitat quas seque sus,strategies, sedi aut volori tem facculp uamenda iataectur? Ovitate processnus, for si the improvement projects, including for theet improvements. specific alternatives are mposanda ullictotas escia veliae arum vendam,determining to et untur?phasing Ihit eatquaes labor rem remAs quis re pererion et dolore, selected, improvement costsnis areminis refined, and phasing for the improvements is determined, NVTAre will need to prepare namende rrumqua ersperibusda dolenima nam venimus aliti denitissi cusae dita quiaecatus verspercipit ressin to pursuedoluptas competitive funding sources. To do that NVTA will need to work with funding partners to position the Vine Transit porendam ma pra Express bus service improvements to receive state and federal funds.

Header 2 The implementation of the Vine Transit Express Bus service is categorized into three phases: short-term (0 to 2 years),

medium-term (3 to 5 years) and long-term improvements (6 or more years). Several of the most significant funding sources, â€˘ Bullets such as regional and federal grant programs, are competitive and/or programs with multi-year funding cycles and because Header of timing3 are not likely to work for short-term project needs. However medium to long-term project needs could be eligible for future cycles of listed funding sources and NVTA should continue to closely track and pursue funding from these programs. Similarly, RM3, if eventually passed, is an appropriate match for many of the medium to long-term improvements recommended in the Vine Transit Express Bus Corridor Study. It is also recommended that NVTA closely monitor discussions happening with MTC in the Fall of 2017 regarding changes in the formula allocation for the State Transit Assistance program, which could affect STA and SB 1 funding allocation. For short-term project needs, NVTA may need to consider reallocation of existing funding sources and discussions with existing and potential partners to identify additional funding sources. In addition, savings in operating costs may allow for reallocation of existing funding sources to pay for other priorities, including some capital expenditures.

121

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION 6. CONCLUSION TITLE AND NEXT STEPS Header 1 6.1 Recommendations and Phasing

BodyFor Copy... improvements Vitat quas related cusam seque to thesus, Napa sedi Valley aut College volori nonsequi stop anddolest, the expansion tem facculp of parking arciliq uamenda at Soscol Gateway venient iataectur? Transit Center, Ovitate mposanda only one nus, ofsithe ullictotas many recommended escia veliae arum projects vendam, should to et beuntur? selected, Ihitateatquaes least in the et labor short-term. rem rem Among quis rethe pererion available et choices dolore, for namende improvements rrumqua ersperibusda at Napa Valleynis College minis dolenima (projects B.1.a nam venimus through B.1.d), aliti denitissi it is recommended cusae dita quiaecatus that Project re verspercipit B.1.d be implemented. ressin porendam It provides doluptas significant ma pratravel time reductions (approximately 4.5 minutes saved for northbound trips and 15 seconds saved for southbound trips) while having the lowest estimated total capital cost among the four recommended options.

Header 2two recommended options for expanding parking near Soscol Gateway Transit Center (projects I.1 and I.2), Between the

â€˘ Bullets it is recommended that project I.1, which utilizes the Wine Train parcel west of the transit center to provide additional parking, be implemented. The primary reason for this recommendation is that the Wine Train parcel is located closer to the Header 3 and thus provides better access to transit. During the review process for this study, the City of Napa provided transit center comments on the proposed improvements. The City's comments and NVTA responses are provided in Appendix F. The estimated total capital cost of all five recommended short-term improvements is $1.4 million. Short-term improvements include streamlining routes to reduce travel time and variability and expanding express bus service to additional access points. The estimated total capital cost of all 16 medium-term improvements is $19-$23 million, depending on which improvements are selected for implementation at Napa Valley College and for expanded parking at Soscol Gateway Transit Center. Medium-term improvements include a variety of measures to reduce travel time, increase bus reliability, and expand service accessibility through additional park & rides, route optimization, and priority roadway treatments. The only recommended long-term capital improvement is project B.1.c at Napa Valley College, which costs an estimated $9.5 million. Note that this improvement would be duplicative with other improvements at the College included in the short-term and medium-term improvements list. The total cost of all improvements, assuming the Napa Valley College and Soscol Gateway Park & Ride options noted above is $20.6 million.

6.2 Implementation and Next Steps

The recommended improvements provide a number of benefits which achieve the objectives of this study. The provision of in-line stops and the removal of low-ridership stops reduces travel times and distances for express buses and ultimately reduce operating costs. Transit signal priority and queue jump improvements reduce travel time and increase bus reliability. The addition of new stops and stop amenities will increase the accessibility of transit to potential riders and improve the overall quality of service experienced by transit riders. Collectively, the improvements are anticipated to generate ridership growth by making the bus more competitive with the automobile and making it more convenient for users to access and utilize. The proposed projects may require different processes and may be implemented on different time frames. Once projects are selected for implementation, next steps will include the securing of funding, possible further stakeholder and public outreach, further design development, possible environmental clearance, and ultimately construction. For transit signal priority and queue jump improvements, next steps will also require coordination and possibly formal agreements with Caltrans regarding the modification and maintenance of traffic signals within their jurisdiction. Improvements which require the acquisition of right-of-way will require coordination with the property owners involved.

122

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION 7. APPENDICES TITLE Appendix Header 1 A: Existing Conditions Memorandum Appendix Appendix Appendix Header mates2 â€˘ Bullets Appendix Header 3 Appendix

B: Survey Summary Memorandum C: Needs Assessment Memorandum D: Improvement Concept Layouts and Cost Esti-

E: Evaluation Worksheets F: City of Napa Comments & Responses

123

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION TITLE

Appendix A: Existing Conditions Memorandum

Header 1

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

124

MEMORANDUM â€“ DRAFT To:

Alberto Esqueda Napa Valley Transportation Authority

From:

Adam Dankberg, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Date:

January 6, 2016

Subject:

Existing Conditions Summary, Vine Transit Express Bus Corridor Study

Introduction

Vine Transit operates eight local routes within the City of Napa and five regional routes that extend across County boundaries. Three of the regional routes are designated as express routes with connections to Solano County Transit, Sonoma County Transit, Capital Corridor/Amtrak, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and the San Francisco Bay Ferry. A map of Vine Transit routes in the City of Napa is shown in Figure 1. A regional map showing all Vine Transit express routes and connections to other regional transit service is shown in Figure 2. The Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) conducts multi-modal planning, oversees funding, and manages Vine Transit operations. NVTA is conducting a study to determine if upgrading and expanding Vine Transit express bus service could be improved by providing faster, more efficient transit to key regional destinations on the county's main travel corridors, particularly for the growing number of workers that commute into and out of Napa County. Half of all Napa County residents work outside of the county, and half of all Napa County workers live outside of the county, highlighting the need for improved transportation connections across county lines. The study will identify solutions to optimize the express bus system, including route alignments and destinations, stop locations, infrastructure and technology enhancements to improve travel times, and fare structure. The goal of the Vine Transit Express Bus Corridor Study is to identify strategic investments that will improve the Vine Transit express bus system, encourage new ridership, and reduce overall highway congestion in Napa County. The objective of this memorandum is to summarize the existing operations of Vine Transitâ€™s express bus service and to provide demographic information that will support the identification of potential express service changes. This memorandum includes documentation of route characteristics, an analysis of route performance, and a summary of Napa County trip characteristics and demographics.

Page 2

Figure 1 â€“ City of Napa Transit Map

Page 3

Figure 2 â€“ Regional Transit Map

Page 4

This memorandum focuses on the three express routes, Route 21, 25, and 29. Additionally, local Routes 10 and 11 are considered for a subset of the analysis due to their overlap with Route 29.

Service Standards

The Napa County Short Range Transit Plan FY 2013-2022 (June 2013) (SRTP) identified four high level goals for transit service operated by NVTA (at that time known as the Napa County Transportation & Planning Agency). The goals include:    

Goal 1 – Serve the Public’s Mobility Needs Goal 2 – Operate Safe and Efficient Service Goal 3 – Use Agency Resources Effectively Goal 4 – Support the County’s Sustainability Goals

A set of measures and performance standards were identified for each goal. The measures and performance standards applicable to route-level evaluation of express bus routes are listed in Table 1 from Tables 5-1 through 5-4 of the SRTP).

Page 5

Table 1 – Service Measures and Performance Standards Measure Percentage of bus stops with real time passenger information Percentage of trips operating on time (between 0 minutes early and 5 minutes late) Load factor Frequency of service Passengers per revenue vehicle hour Wait times between local buses and regional buses Farebox recovery ratio

Stop spacing

Scheduled miles per hour Service span Persons per square mile

Performance Standard 100% of major transfer points shall be equipped with real time passenger information Greater than 90% for local and regional fixed route service 1.00 (no standees)1 Regional: minimum shall be once every 2 hours2 Regional Fixed Route: 16 pax/hour3 Wait times between regional and local route should be 30 minutes or less in peak direction Fixed Route: 17%4 Regional (Urban): 1/2 to 1 mile depending on density or trip generators and attractors (such as school, shopping, medical) Regional (Rural): 1 to 2 mile depending on density or trip generators and attractors (such as school, shopping, medical) Should not drop below the current (spring 2013) average scheduled speed for the system as a whole and for local fixed route, regional fixed route and other service categories 6 AM to 7 PM (Monday to Friday) 3,000 – 4,000

Notes: Route 20 (no longer in service) and 29 was classified as Regional (Urban) and Route 25 was classified as Regional (Rural). Route 21 was planned but not in operation at the time of the SRTP. 1For purposes of measuring the Vehicle Load Factor for Regional Service, the Vehicle Load Factor shall be measured as the route enters the “non‐revenue area” and is operating closed‐door, which is generally on the freeway or highway. 2 This requirement is refined in Tables 5-5 and 5-9 to indicate that there is no mid-day service standard 3 The 16 passenger/hour goal is identified in Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 of the SRTP. However, Table 5-7 indicates a passenger activity standard of 7 passengers per hour for regional (urban) and 5 passengers per hour for regional (rural) service. 4 The 17% farebox recovery goal is identified in Tables 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 of the SRTP. However, Table 5-8 indicates a 17% standard for regional (urban) service and a 15% standard for regional (rural) service.

The SRTP notes that service falling below the standard for all routes within its category will be analyzed for the following:   

Schedule adjustments, if service frequencies exceed the standards provided in this policy. Running time adjustments or minor route changes to improve efficiency or improve route performance. Route improvements, including route consolidation or through‐routing to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

Page 6

 

Route discontinuance, should there be no other means to improve efficiency or provide a well-used transit product. Other actions, such as grant funded opportunities or targeted marketing, to improve route performance.

Service Levels

Vine Transit Routes 21, 25, and 29 operate exclusively Monday through Friday. All three routes operate in both directions all-day, albeit with limited mid-day frequency. Table 2 summarizes the service levels of each of the three routes. Table 2 – Service Levels Route Route 21 Route 25 Route 29

Span 5:33 AM – 7:31 PM 6:25 AM – 7:08 PM 4:33 AM – 8:45 PM

Round Trips per Day

Revenue Miles per Day

Revenue Hours per Day

Round Trip Length

Peak Scheduled Run Time

299 mi

16.4 hr

50.1 mi

125 min

213

10.0

35.6

82 min

1,128

39.8

137.6

165 min1

Source: August 2016 schedule. Revenue miles per day and revenue hours per day represent average for FY15-16 Note: 1 Peak scheduled run time shown for Transit Center to Transit Center. Four trips per day extend to/from Calistoga

Ridership

Express bus ridership by route is shown in Table 3. This information is useful when evaluating potential route changes, transfer points, and infrastructure improvements. A map summary of ridership by stop is shown for Vine Transit Routes 10, 11, 21, 25, and 29 in Figure 3. Table 3 – Ridership Route Route 21 Route 25 Route 29 Total

Riders per Day 78 40 267 386

Boardings/ Rev-Hr 4.8 4.0 6.7 5.8

Data represents average for FY15-16

Boardings/ Rev-Mi 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

Figure 3 - Express Bus System Ridership by Stop Calistoga Calistoga @ Lincoln Bridge

( !

Yolo Napa St Helena Post Office

( !

Saint Helena

Yountville California Dr

! & Solano Ave (

Yountville

Vacaville

( !

Redwood Park & Ride

Sonoma Sonoma Plaza

Soscol Gateway

Napa

( !

Imola Park and Ride

( !

Sonoma

!Transit Center ( Gasser Dr & Ct ( Hartle ! Valley ( Napa ! College

Fairfield

Fairfield Transit Center

Corporate Dr

( !

Suisun City Train Depot

( ! Hwy 12/29 Junction American Canyon

American Canyon Post Office

( !

Novato

Solano

Vallejo

( !

Vallejo Ferry Terminal

Legend Vine Transit Route 21

Marin

Vine Transit Route 25

Martinez

Greenbrae

Contra Costa Richmond

( !

El Cerrito Del Norte BART

Albany

Vine Transit Route 29

( !

High Ridership Stops (40 or More Daily Boardings/Alightings)

( !

Medium Ridership Stops (Between 8-40 Daily Boardings/Alightings)

( !

Low Ridership Stops (8 or Fewer Daily Boardings/Alightings)

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Page 8

Boardings by stop by route are shown in the Route Profiles included in Appendix A. The number of boardings by trip are included in Appendix B. The system experiences some seasonality, possibly due to school schedules and summer vacations. Average daily boardings for each month for the express bus system as a whole from July 2015 to June 2016 are shown in Figure 4.

Boardings per Day

Figure 4 â€“ Boardings per Day by Month 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Month (FY 15/16)

Ridership on the express bus network is focused in the morning and evening peak commute hours. Figure 5 depicts ridership by hour on the three express routes.

Page 9

Figure 5 â€“ Express Bus Boardings by Hour 60

Boardings

50 40 30 20 10 0 04

Hour

Boardings by hour on Routes 10 and 11 are shown in Appendix C.

Revenue and Fares

Table 4 summarizes the revenue received on each of the express routes. Table 4 â€“ Total Monthly Revenue (Clipper + Cash Fares) Route Route 21 Route 25 Route 29 Total

Monthly Revenue $ 1,358.16 $ 581.93 $ 11,169.31 $ 13,109.40

Boardings 958 591 3,651 5,200

Revenue per Boarding $ 1.42 $ 0.98 $ 3.06 $ 2.52

Data from September 2015

Riders of the Vine Express bus network have a variety of fare payment options. Payment options include single-ride fares, 20-ride packs, and monthly passes. Reduced fares are available for senior, disabled, and youth riders. The Vine Transit network is included in the Bay Area Clipper system, although Clipper use is fairly low. Clipper use is shown in Table 5.

Page 10

Table 5 – Clipper Use Route Route 21 Route 25 Route 29 Total

% of Boardings 2% 0% 17% 12%

Data from September 2015

Distribution of fares by rider type is shown in Figure 6. Distribution of fares by fare type is shown in Figure 7; all daily and monthly passes were grouped under the “period” fare type (includes clipper period passes). The “other” category includes fare types such as employee passes, Medicare passes, and free rides. A breakdown of these distributions by express route is included in Appendix D. Figure 6 – Boardings by Rider Type Youth 7% Senior 15%

Adult 78%

Page 11

Figure 7 – Boardings by Fare Type Transfer Other 4% 4% 20-Ride 11%

Cash 52% Period 29%

Travel Time and On-time Performance

On-time performance measures how consistently a bus completes its scheduled route on time. “Ontime” is defined as a trip that is completed between zero and five minutes of the scheduled time. “Early” is defined as a trip that is completed prior to its scheduled time. “Late” is defined as a trip that is completed five minutes or later than its scheduled time. On-time performance is shown for each express route in Table 6 through Table 11. Note that for express routes, an early arrival may not be undesirable for the customer, as most of the boardings occur at the initial segments of the route. Table 6 – Route 21 Eastbound

Timepoint Soscol Gateway Transit Center Napa Valley College Fairfield Transportation Center Suisun Train Depot Average Data from August 2015

On-time Performance 65% 56% 77% 79% 69%

% Late 31% 9% 14% 20% 18%

% Early 4% 36% 9% 1% 12%

Avg Variance (min) 1.1 -1.7 1.4 3.1 1.0

Avg Variance if Late (min) 10.3 8.6 8.2 7.9 8.8

Page 12

Table 7 – Route 21 Westbound

Timepoint Suisun Train Depot Fairfield Transportation Center Highway 12 & Highway 29 Napa Valley College Soscol Gateway Transit Center Average

On-time Performance 67% 81% 32% 16% 38% 47%

% Late 24% 4% 8% 4% 5% 9%

% Early 8% 15% 60% 80% 57% 44%

Avg Variance (min) 3.5 -0.7 -0.6 -3.9 -3.9 -1.1

Avg Variance if Late (min) 9.1 7.4 8.2 9.0 9.5 8.6

Avg Variance (min) 3.7 1.9 2.3 0.1 2.0

Avg Variance if Late (min) 9.0 8.6 9.1 10.1 9.2

Avg Variance (min) 1.6 0.3 0.7 -3.0 -0.1

Avg Variance if Late (min) 8.0 7.2 7.4 8.6 7.8

Data from August 2015

Table 8 – Route 25 Westbound

Timepoint Soscol Gateway Transit Center Gasser Dr & Hartle Ct Imola P&R Sonoma Plaza Average

On-time Performance 73% 67% 67% 81% 72%

% Late 25% 14% 16% 17% 18%

% Early 2% 19% 17% 2% 10%

Data from August 2015

Table 9 – Route 25 Eastbound

Timepoint Sonoma Plaza Imola P&R Gasser Dr & Hartle Ct Soscol Gateway Transit Center Average Data from August 2015

On-time Performance 89% 47% 51% 30% 54%

% Late 5% 7% 7% 4% 6%

% Early 7% 46% 42% 66% 40%

Page 13

Table 10 â€“ Route 29 Southbound

Timepoint Downtown Calistoga St. Helena City Hall Yountville Napa Valley College Redwood Park & Ride Soscol Gateway Transit Center American Canyon Post Office Vallejo Ferry Terminal El Cerrito del Norte BART Average

On-time Performance 69% 70% 60% 44% 52% 46% 41% 37% 60% 59%

% Late 30% 17% 20% 20% 21% 34% 46% 43% 22% 22%

% Early 2% 13% 20% 36% 27% 21% 13% 19% 18% 20%

Avg Variance (min) 3.4 1.7 1.9 1.5 0.9 2.9 4.7 4.3 0.9 1.9

Avg Variance if Late (min) 6.9 8.0 8.5 8.6 8.5 8.8 9.1 9.7 9.9 8.1

Avg Variance (min) 2.2 0.1 0.9 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.8 -0.2 -0.9 1.3

Avg Variance if Late (min) 9.0 8.6 8.1 8.3 8.1 8.3 8.4 8.0 9.4 8.4

Data from August 2015

Table 11 â€“ Route 29 Northbound

Timepoint El Cerrito del Norte BART Vallejo Ferry Terminal American Canyon Post Office Napa Valley College Soscol Gateway Transit Center Redwood Park & Ride Yountville St. Helena City Hall Downtown Calistoga Average Data from August 2015

On-time Performance 60% 61% 65% 74% 80% 69% 68% 40% 83% 68%

% Late 22% 12% 13% 12% 12% 19% 17% 8% 17% 14%

% Early 18% 27% 22% 13% 8% 13% 15% 52% 0% 18%

Page 14

Average time late for late buses is shown in Table 12. Table 12 â€“ Average Minutes Late Route Route 21 Route 25 Route 29

Westbound

Average Minutes Late 9.5 min

Eastbound

10.3

Westbound

10.1

Eastbound

8.6

Northbound

9.1

Southbound

9.4

Direction

Data from August 2015 Only trips that arrive at their terminus late (five minutes or later than scheduled) are included in the calculation.

Although travel times by trip remain relatively consistent for Route 25, Route 21 and Route 29 travel times by trip vary greatly due to traffic conditions along the route. Table 13, Table 14, and Table 15 indicate the actual trip time for Routes 21, 25, and 29, respectively. Table 13 â€“ Route 21 Trip Times

Westbound Trip Start Time Trip Duration 06:25 60 07:50 73 11:20 59 13:19 58 15:52 61 17:32 68 18:35 N/A1

Eastbound Trip Start Time Trip Duration 05:33 42 06:37 43 10:08 59 12:11 59 14:37 68 16:08 70 17:18 68

Data from August 2015 Note: 1 Insufficient data was available for indicated trip. Trip start times do not match current schedules.

Page 15

Table 14 – Route 25 Trip Times Westbound Trip Start Time Trip Duration 06:25 34 07:15 33 09:41 33 11:56 34 14:30 33 16:15 37 17:40 33

Eastbound Trip Start Time Trip Duration 07:10 36 08:00 N/A1 10:30 33 12:45 35 15:15 36 17:07 38 18:35 33

Data from August 2015 Note: 1 Insufficient data was available for indicated trip. Trip start times do not match current schedules.

Table 15 – Route 29 Trip Times Trip Start Time 05:55 06:55 07:24 08:21 10:41 12:16 14:19 16:15 17:14 18:07 19:23

Northbound Trip Duration (El Cerrito Napa) 63 78 73 71 69 67 72 75 71 63 56

Trip Duration (Napa Calistoga) 49 57 64 62 58 -

Trip Start Time 04:44 05:18 05:37 06:47 07:55 09:09 09:14 10:44 13:04 14:31 15:40 16:37 16:48 19:00 19:50

Southbound Trip Duration Trip Duration (Calistoga (Napa – El Napa) Cerrito) 46 59 55 57 63 N/A1 61 N/A1 48 56 63 70 72 75 66 70 N/A1 N/A1 54

Data from August 2015 Notes: 1 Insufficient data was available for indicated trip. Trip start times do not match current schedules. Data not available for all northbound trips. Not all trips extend to Calistoga.

Page 16

As shown in the tables, travel time takes substantially longer during the peak periods than the offpeak periods for Routes 21 and 29. Travel on Route 21 takes approximately 60 percent longer during the peak periods (westbound in the morning and eastbound in the evening). Travel on Route 29 to Calistoga takes approximately 25 percent longer during the peak periods than the off-peak periods. Travel on Route 25 is approximately 14 percent greater during peak periods in the eastbound direction and approximately 11 percent greater during peak periods in the westbound direction.

Vehicle Load

Vehicle load quantifies the number of people on board a bus at a given time. It reflects the balance of operational efficiency with customer comfort and safety. The maximum load for each route is indicated in Table 16, along with the trip with the maximum load. Load graphs by route are included in Appendix E. Table 16 – Maximum Load Route Route 21 Route 25 Route 29

Direction

Maximum Load

Trip with Maximum Load

Westbound

8.6

6:25 AM

Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Northbound

8.9 2.7 2.6 21.5

5:18 PM 2:30 PM 12:45 PM 4:15 PM

Southbound

14.1

6:47 AM

Maximum Load Point Fairfield Transportation Center Napa Valley College Imola PNR Sonoma Plaza Vallejo Ferry Terminal American Canyon Post Office

Data from October 2015

Transfers

A matrix depicting monthly transfers involving express bus routes is included in Table 17. Transfers between local routes are not shown. The following transfer points are available for express bus routes: 



Soscol Transit Center o Transfers are available between the five regional routes and six of the eight Vine Transit local routes Redwood Park-and-Ride o Transfers are available between regional Routes 10, 11, and 29 and local Routes 6, 7, and 8.

Page 17

Table 17 â€“ Transfers Route Issued From 1

Route 1

Route 2

Route 3

Route 4

Route 5

Route Issued To Route Route Route 6 7 8

Route 10 1

Route 11 11

Route 21 0

Route 25 0

Route 29 0

Total Transfers Issued

106

151

257

913

153

203

141

159

964

29 Total Transfers Received

102

Data from October 2015

Page 18

   



Downtown Calistoga o Transfers are available between Route 10, Route 29, and the Calistoga Shuttle St. Helena City Hall o Transfers are available between Route 10, Route 29, and the St. Helena Shuttle Yountville Park-and-Ride o Transfers are available between Route 10, Route 29, and the Yountville Trolley Vallejo Ferry Terminal o Transfers are available between Route 11, Route 29, several SolTrans routes (Routes 5, 6, 80S, 85), and the San Francisco Bay Ferry (San Francisco Ferry and Bus Route 200). o Additional transfers are available a short walk away at the Vallejo Transit Center Bus Terminal to the following SolTrans routes: Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 78, 80, 80S, 85. Note that Vine Route 11 serves both the Ferry Terminal and the Transit Center Bus Terminal. El Cerrito del Norte BART o Transfers are available between Route 29, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), several AC Transit routes (Routes 7, 72, 72M, 72R, 76, L), WestCAT (Routes JL, JPX, JR, JX), Golden Gate Transit Route 40, SolTrans Route 80, and FAST Route 90. Fairfield Transportation Center o Transfers are available between Route 21, several FAST routes (Routes 1, 3, 5, 7, 20, 30, 40, 90), SolTrans Route 85, and Delta Breeze Route 50. Suisun City Train Depot o Transfers are available between Route 21, FAST Route 5 and Route 90, Delta Breeze Route 50, Greyhound, and Capitol Corridor. Sonoma Plaza o Transfers are available between Route 25 and several Sonoma County Transit routes (Routes 30, 30X, 32, 34, 38, 40).

Route maps for the El Cerrito del Norte BART Station, Vallejo Ferry Terminal, and Fairfield Transportation Center/Suisun City Train Depot are included in Appendix F. Table 18 shows the average scheduled time that passengers must wait to transfer between Vine express buses and other key transit services. Wait times were determined based on scheduled arrivals and departures that occur during peak hours. Late buses may result in shorter or longer wait times, or missed connections. Wait times were the highest for transfers to and from Sonoma County Transit buses at Sonoma Plaza; wait times transfers from FAST bus routes to Vine express buses were also high. The current Vine Transit standard for wait times between local and regional routes is 30 minutes.

Page 19

Table 18 â€“ Average Transfer Wait Times for Transfers between Vine Transit and Other Services Transfer Wait Time (Minutes) Transfer from Vine Transfer to Vine (Inbound (Outbound Trips) Trips)

Vine Express Bus Route

Other Route and Location

7-8 AM

5-6 PM

7-8 AM

5-6 PM

BART at El Cerrito del Norte

29 29

SF Bay Ferry at Vallejo Ferry Building SolTrans Route 78 at Vallejo Ferry Building (Requires 4 min walk to Vallejo Transit Center)

Sonoma County Route 30 at Sonoma Plaza

5/821

Sonoma County Route 40 at Sonoma Plaza

0/302

21 21 21 21

FAST Route 1 at Fairfield Transportation Center FAST Route 3 at Fairfield Transportation Center FAST Route 7 at Fairfield Transportation Center Capitol Corridor Train at Suisun City Station

Notes: Data based on published schedules as of October 2016 Highlighted transfer times are in excess of NVTA 30-minute standard 1. There are two separate arrivals of Route 25 buses within the peak hour. 2. Express bus arrival and transfer route departure scheduled at the same time. Ability for seamless transfer depends on on-time performance

Napa County Population and Demographics

NVTA recently completed several studies that document travel behavior for Napa County residents and employees. This information is summarized below. Past studies were supplemented with demographic analysis using 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) data and 2014 LEHD OriginDestination Employment Statistics (LODES) Workplace Area Characteristic data.

Page 20

NAPA COUNTY TRAVEL BEHAVIOR STUDY

The Napa County Travel Behavior Study Draft Survey Results and Data Analysis Report was completed in December 2014 by Fehr & Peers. That study assembled a variety of information including: vehicle counts, employer surveys, mobile data usage, vehicle intercept survey, and a license plate matching survey. Information relevant to this express bus study is summarized below. 



Vehicle Counts o Of the 181,330 total observed vehicles approximately 23 percent and 28 percent were counted during the 4 hour AM and PM peak periods, respectively, while approximately 6 percent and 7 percent were counted during the AM (7 to 8 AM) and PM (5 to 6 PM) peak hours, respectively. o In the AM peak period (6 to 10 AM) 58 percent of total trips are inbound (including pass-through trips). o In the PM peak period (3 to 7 PM) 56 percent of total trips are outbound (including pass-through trips). Mobile Data o 55 percent of trips had both their origin and their destination within Napa County. Employer Survey o The average home departure time was 7:50 AM o The average travel time to work was 31 minutes (estimated by respondents) o 34 percent make at least 1 intermediate stop on the way to work o The average work departure time was 4:00 PM o 30 percent make at least 1 intermediate stop on the way home o 97 percent commute using their personal automobile more than half the time o 20 percent carpool in one form or another o 43 percent said they would use public transit if service was expanded and it became a reasonable option

Table 19 and Table 20, sourced from the Napa County Travel Behavior Study, identify the total number of daily weekday trips between Napa County cities and into Napa County, respectively.

Page 21

Table 19 – Daily Average Weekday Vehicle Trips (Napa County Travel Behavior Survey) Destination Location St. Calistoga Helena Yountville 2,062 444 47

Total: 356,424 Calistoga Origin Location

St. Helena

655

6,450

Napa 360

American Canyon 95

Uninc. County 1,586

1,896

125

3,948

External Winery Gateway 544 780 1,616

801

Yountville

246

870

905

1,332

475

303

Napa American Canyon Uninc. County

397

1,793

1,018

63,359

2,766

19,801

3,099

17,329

256

118

3,320

6,316

3,814

333

11,367

1,381

4,474

1,106

18,514

3,267

40,469

12,053

21,083

665

2,111

497

3,376

962

11,041

3,646

3,993

1,723

841

270

17,464

12,780

18,803

3,902

11,203

Winery External Gateway

Table 20 – Daily Average Weekday Vehicle Trips into Napa County from External Gateways (Napa County Travel Behavior Survey)

Origin Location

Destination Location

Total: 66,986 1-SR 29 North of AC 2-SR 12 at Solano CL 7-SR 121 at Sonoma CL 8-SR 128 east of SR 121 6-SR 128 at the Sonoma CL

St. American Uninc. External Calistoga Helena Yountville Napa Canyon County Winery Gateway

5-SR 29 at Lake CL Total

POPULATION

Total

429

241

4,396

8,924

5,391

340

2,526

22,314

1,055

283

5,312

1,572

5,078

612

3,947

17,937

260

112

7,517

2,206

7,453

2,215

4,379

24,188

140

103

300

135

185

337

624

1,424

404

292

824

1,723

841

270

17,464

12,780

18,803

3,902

11,203

66,986

Napa County has a population of 139,253 (ACS). The most densely populated area in the county is the City of Napa. A population density map of the region including Napa County, Sonoma County, Marin County, Solano County, and Contra Costa County is shown in Figure 8. The labor force in Napa County consists of 77,400 persons.

Figure 8 - Population Density Yuba

Clearlake

Colusa

Mendocino

Sutter

Lower Lake

Lake

Placer Rocklin

Middletown Woodland Healdsburg

Yolo Calistoga Angwin

El Dorado

Sacramento

Angwin

Napa

Windsor

Sonoma

Orangevale

Saint Helena

Davis

Napa

Sacramento

Santa Rosa Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Amador

Santa Rosa Cotati

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

Solano

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Marin

Concord Greenbrae

Martinez Richmond

Albany Berkeley

NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND NVTA Bus Route 21

Oakley

Oakland

San Joaquin

Brentwood

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA Bus Route 25 NVTA Bus Route 29

Low 0

Population Density

San Francisco

Med

High

7,500

67,700

(Population Per Square Mile)

San Mateo

Alameda

Stanislaus NOT TO SCALE

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Page 23

EMPLOYMENT DENSITY

An employment density map of the region including Napa County, Sonoma County, Marin County, Solano County, and Contra Costa County is shown in Figure 9.

REGIONAL COMMUTE PAT TERNS

Napa had a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.056 in 2011 (ABAG); however, the nature of the population and employment is misaligned. 50.5 percent of all Napa County workers reside outside the county, and 47.2 percent of Napa County residents work outside of the county (LEHD employment statistics). This results in large demand for commutes both into and out of the county. This is caused by a disparity between housing costs and income in Napa County. While the median annual income of the county workforce is $38,168, the median income of county residents is $70,925 (US Census). Residents of Napa County have to earn $95,000 per year to afford a median-priced home (Countywide Transportation Plan, 2015). This disparity results in a greater number of vehicle miles traveled in Napa County and increased roadway congestion. A travel behavior study conducted by NVTA in 2014 found that of all vehicle trips in Napa County, 45 percent were trips that originated, terminated, or merely passed through the county. Of these external trips, 25 percent are workers commuting into Napa County, and 16 percent are Napa County residents commuting out of the county.

DISTRIBUTION OF NAPA COUNTY RESIDENTS AN D WORKERS

Approximately half of Napa County residents work within Napa County, with the rest working in the surrounding Bay Area or further afield. Other counties that employ a significant number of Napa residents includes Sonoma County (7.8 percent of Napa County residents), Solano County (7.6 percent), Contra Costa County (5.1 percent), San Francisco County (4.1 percent), Alameda County (4.0 percent), and Marin County (3.5 percent) (LODES). Figure 10 shows where Napa County residents are employed in the region. Figure 11 shows where Napa County workers live in the region. Approximately 20,000 work trips per day come from outside the county.

MINORITY POPULATION

Napa County has a minority population of 45 percent (ACS). The racial breakdown is 55 percent White (Non-Hispanic), 2 percent African American, 7 percent Asian, 33 percent Hispanic, and 3 percent other. Figure 12 shows the distribution of minority populations in Napa County.

HOUSEHOLDS BELOW THE POVERTY LINE

Approximately 9 percent of households in Napa County are living below the poverty line (ACS). Figure 13 shows the concentration of households living below the poverty line in Napa County.

Figure 9 - Employment Density Yuba

Clearlake

Colusa

Mendocino

Sutter

Lower Lake

Lake

Placer Rocklin

Middletown Woodland Healdsburg

Yolo Calistoga Angwin

El Dorado

Sacramento

Angwin

Napa

Windsor

Sonoma

Orangevale

Saint Helena

Davis

Napa

Sacramento

Santa Rosa Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Amador

Santa Rosa Cotati

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

Solano

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Marin

Concord Greenbrae

Martinez Richmond

Albany Berkeley

NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND NVTA Bus Route 21

Oakley

Oakland

San Joaquin

Brentwood

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA Bus Route 25 NVTA Bus Route 29

Low 0

Employment Density Med

San Francisco High

930 12,700 (Employment Per Square Mile)

San Mateo

Alameda

Stanislaus NOT TO SCALE

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Figure 10 - Workplaces of Napa County Residents Yuba

Clearlake

Colusa

Mendocino

Sutter

Lower Lake

Lake

Placer Rocklin

Middletown Woodland Healdsburg

Yolo Calistoga Angwin

El Dorado

Sacramento

Angwin

Napa

Windsor

Sonoma

Orangevale

Saint Helena

Davis

Napa

Sacramento

Santa Rosa Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Amador

Santa Rosa Cotati

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

Solano

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Marin

Concord Greenbrae

Martinez Richmond

Albany Berkeley

NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 21 21

Oakley

Oakland

San Joaquin

Brentwood

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 25 25

Low Low

NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 29 29 Number of Workers Who Are Vehicle Density NapaOwnership County Residents Med Med

San Francisco

High High

San Mateo

Alameda

Stanislaus NOT TO SCALE

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Figure 11 - Residences of Napa County Workers Yuba

Clearlake

Colusa

Mendocino

Sutter

Lower Lake

Lake

Placer Rocklin

Middletown Woodland Healdsburg

Yolo Calistoga Angwin

El Dorado

Sacramento

Angwin

Napa

Windsor

Sonoma

Orangevale

Saint Helena

Davis

Napa

Sacramento

Santa Rosa Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Amador

Santa Rosa Cotati

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

Solano

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Marin

Concord Greenbrae

Martinez Richmond

Albany Berkeley

NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 21 21

Oakley

Oakland

San Joaquin

Brentwood

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 25 25

Low Low

NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 29 29 Number of Residents Who Vehicle Ownership Density Work in Napa County Med Med

San Francisco

High High

San Mateo

Alameda

Stanislaus NOT TO SCALE

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Figure 12 - Distribution of Minority Populations Yuba

Clearlake

Colusa

Mendocino

Sutter

Lower Lake

Lake

Placer Rocklin

Middletown Woodland Healdsburg

Yolo Calistoga Angwin

Napa

Saint Helena

Davis

Napa

Sacramento

Santa Rosa Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Amador

Santa Rosa Cotati

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

Solano

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Marin

Concord Greenbrae

NOT TO SCALE

El Dorado

Sacramento

Angwin

Windsor

Sonoma

Orangevale

Martinez Richmond

Albany Berkeley

LEGEND NVTA Bus Route 21 LEGEND NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 21 25

Oakley

Oakland

San Joaquin

Brentwood

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA NVTA Bus Bus Route Route 25 29

Low Low

NVTA % BusMinority Route 29 Med

High

Vehicle Ownership Density

Med

High

50%

100%

San Francisco

San Mateo

Alameda

Stanislaus NOT TO SCALE

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Figure 13 - Households Below the Poverty Line Yuba

Clearlake

Colusa

Mendocino

Sutter

Lower Lake

Lake

Placer Rocklin

Middletown Woodland Healdsburg

Yolo Calistoga Angwin

El Dorado

Sacramento

Angwin

Napa

Windsor

Sonoma

Orangevale

Saint Helena

Davis

Napa

Sacramento

Santa Rosa Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Amador

Santa Rosa Cotati

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

Solano

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Marin

Concord Greenbrae

Martinez Richmond

Albany Berkeley

NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND NVTA Bus Route 21

Oakley

Oakland

San Joaquin

Brentwood

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA Bus Route 25 NVTA Bus Route 29

% Households Below Poverty Line Low

Med

22%

San Francisco

High 58%

San Mateo

Alameda

Stanislaus NOT TO SCALE

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Page 29

AUTO OWNERSHIP

The ACS indicated that approximately 5 percent of households in Napa County do not have a vehicle. A significant portion of these housing units are concentrated in Napa with a smaller percentage located in cities north of Napa along SR-29. Figure 14 shows the areas in Napa County with the highest total of zero auto ownership.

Park-and-Ride Locations

Vine express buses stop at four park-and-ride facilities, plus the system hub in Napa. Yountville Park & Ride is owned and operated by NVTA. Redwood Park & Ride is operated by NVTA and owned by Caltrans. Imola Park & Ride is owned and operated by Caltrans. American Canyon Park & Ride is owned and operated by the City of American Canyon. In addition, all express routes pass through the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, which is owned and operated by NVTA. Parking spaces provided at the park-and-rides and transit centers within Napa County are summarized in Table 21. Table 21 â€“ Transit Facility Spaces Location Yountville

Redwood

Soscol Imola American Canyon

Transit served NVTA Bus Routes: 10, 29, Yountville Trolley NVTA Bus Routes: 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 29 NVTA Bus Routes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 21, 25, 29 NVTA Route 25 NVTA Bus Routes: 29

# of Bus Bays

Number of Spaces Provided Standard

ADA

Electric Vehicle

Motorcycle

Compact

Total (Vehicles)

Bicycle (Racks)

Bicycle (Lockers)

On July 20, 2016, Kimley-Horn staff visited each of these facilities to observe their utilization. Utilization information is summarized in Table 22.

Figure 14 - Zero-Auto Vehicle Ownership Yuba

Clearlake

Colusa

Mendocino

Sutter

Lower Lake

Lake

Placer Rocklin

Middletown Woodland Healdsburg

Yolo Calistoga Angwin

El Dorado

Sacramento

Angwin

Napa

Windsor

Sonoma

Orangevale

Saint Helena

Davis

Napa

Sacramento

Santa Rosa Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Amador

Santa Rosa Cotati

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

Solano

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Marin

Concord Greenbrae

Martinez Richmond

Albany Berkeley

NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND NVTA Bus Route 21

Oakley

Oakland

San Joaquin

Brentwood

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA Bus Route 25 NVTA Bus Route 29

% Housing Units with No Vehicle Low

Med

18%

San Francisco

High

100%

San Mateo

Alameda

Stanislaus NOT TO SCALE

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Page 31

Table 22 â€“ Transit Facility Parking Occupancy Location Yountville Redwood Soscol Imola American Canyon

Number of Vehicle Parking Spaces Occupied Electric Standard ADA Vehicle Motorcycle Compact 0 20 1 0 0 7 22 1 27 0 10

Performance Measures

Total 0 28 23 27

% Occupancy 0% 31% 55% 36%

26%

Transit agencies set various performance benchmarks to help determine where service changes should be made. Table 23 shows current performance measures for Vine express buses in comparison to typical minimum service standards for express buses used by other transit agencies. The data shows that on-time performance, passengers per revenue hour, and passengers per revenue mile are well below typical express bus performance standards and established Vine Transit performance standards. The level of service provided (characterized by frequency of service and span), however, meet Vine Transit performance standards for each express bus route.

Page 32

Table 23 - Performance Measures Metric

Passengers/Revenue Hour Passengers/Revenue Mile On-Time Performance %

Route

Vine Transit Performance

21 25

4.8 4.0

6.7

21 25 29 21 25 29

0.3 0.2 0.2 62% 64% 66% 80 min (AM); 70 min (PM) 70 min (AM); 90 mi (PM) 30-60 minutes 5:33 AM – 7:31 PM 6:25 AM – 7:08 PM 4:33 AM – 8:45 PM

21 Frequency of Service

Service Span

25 29 21 25 29

Vine Transit Performance Standard 16 Passengers/Revenue Hour for Regional Fixed Routes1

Typical Express Bus Service Standards 12-15 Passengers/Revenue Hour2

N/A

1-2 Passengers/Revenue Mile3

90%

85-90%4

Minimum of once every 2 hours for Regional Fixed Routes during peaks

3-4 trips per peak period5

6 AM – 7 PM (Monday to Friday)

Tailor peak trips to demand patterns6

Evaluation of the design and performance of park-and-ride facilities is largely dependent on the specific characteristics of the transit service provided and the market that is being served. Table 24 below shows example performance measures for park-and-ride lots used by other transportation agencies.

Page 33

Table 24 – Park-and-Ride Facilities Measure Unsatisfactory Utilization Marginal Utilization Satisfactory Utilization Over-utilization

Florida DOT < 10 Vehicles <10% Utilization 10-20 Vehicles 10%-60% Utilization > 20 Vehicles 60%-80% Utilization >80% Utilization >30 Spaces

Vermont DOT

Boston Region MPO

< 50% Utilization

50%-75% Utilization

50% - 85% Utilization

>75% Utilization

> 85%

Referring back to Table 22, parking utilization data shows that all transit facility parking locations, aside from Yountville, meet marginal utilization standards per Florida DOT standards. The Soscol Gateway Transit Center facility is the only location that also meets the satisfactory utilization standard per Vermont DOT and Boston Region MPO standards. Chapter 3 of TCRP Report 95 reviewed various park-and-ride evaluations, literature, monitoring programs, and user surveys to determine factors which positively impact the performance (i.e. ridership and utilization) of park-and-ride facilities. These include:       

Frequent bus service Reasonably competitive travel times between bus and automobile trips High parking costs at passengers’ destinations Highway congestion Long travel distances Proximity to riders’ residences Direct service to the area central business district

Users of park-and-ride facilities are typically choice riders. Per the TCRP report, in the view of these users, safety and service quality are the highest priority; however, the report finds that safety largely impacts ridership only if there is an apparent lack of it. Thus, improvements to park-and-ride lots which improve bus service (such as increased frequency or reduced travel times) would have the most positive impact on ridership. The report also noted that typical users of park-and-ride facilities learned about the facilities by seeing them; improving the visibility of some facilities could doubly serve to increase both safety and ridership at park-and-ride facilities. Table 25 compares existing travel times between autos and transit for major commuting origindestination pairs observed in the online survey performed for this project. The origin-destination travel time pairs that remain relatively consistent between autos and transit are Napa to American Canyon (transit is four minutes slower on average across all peak time periods), American Canyon to

Page 34

Napa (transit is nine minutes slower on average), Napa to Vallejo (transit is six minutes slower on average), and Napa to Fairfield (transit is ten minutes slower on average). The origin-destination pairs with the greatest average travel time difference between autos and transit are El Cerrito to Napa (transit is 22 minutes slower on average), Napa to Calistoga (transit is 21 minutes slower on average), Calistoga to Napa (transit is 21 minutes slower on average), and Fairfield to Napa (transit is 20 minutes slower on average). These large variations in travel times are most likely due to the transit route alignment deviating from the major travel route, with secondary effects associated with dwell time at stops and vehicle acceleration or speed profiles. Trip pairs along Route 29 appear have the highest difference in travel time between autos and transit. Table 26 shows a comparison between average speeds for autos and express bus service for those same pairs. Both tables provide comparisons for AM, Mid-day, and PM peak hours. Table 25 â€“ Travel Time Comparison between Auto Trips and Transit (Express Bus) Trips Travel Time AM

Mid-Day

Trip Origin Napa

Trip Destination American Canyon

Auto

Transit

Auto

Transit

Auto

Transit

0:14

0:18

0:25

0:24

0:25

American Canyon

Napa

0:29

0:33

0:16

0:27

0:16

0:28

Napa

Vallejo

0:24

0:32

0:27

0:35

0:39

Vallejo

Napa

0:26

0:49

0:26

0:42

0:28

0:44

Napa

Fairfield

0:22

0:31

0:26

0:39

0:42

0:52

Fairfield

Napa

0:28

0:50

0:25

0:47

0:25

0:43

Napa

Calistoga

0:35

0:57

0:41

1:02

Calistoga

Napa El Cerrito del Norte Napa

0:40

0:55

0:40

0:43

1:10

0:45

1:03

0:44

0:56

0:54

1:15

0:50

1:18

0:42

1:07

0:58

1:11

Napa El Cerrito del Norte

Page 35

Table 26 â€“ Average Speed Comparison between Auto Trips and Transit (Express Bus) Trips Average Speed (mph) AM

Mid-Day

Auto 40 mph

Transit

Auto

Transit

Auto

Transit

31 mph

23 mph

24 mph

23 mph

Napa

Vallejo

Napa

Fairfield

Napa

Calistoga

Napa El Cerrito del Norte Napa

Trip Origin

Trip Destination

Napa

American Canyon

Napa El Cerrito del Note

Notes: *No mid-day transit trip available AM Peak: 7-8 AM; Mid-Day Peak: 12-1 PM; PM Peak: 5-6 PM

Figure 15, Figure 16, and Figure 17 illustrate the travel distances that can be covered in 30, 60, and 90 minute periods for transit trips starting at Soscol Gateway Transit Center, Calistoga, and American Canyon, respectively. Travel distances were estimated based on travel times and average transfer times for trips occurring during the AM peak hour (7-8AM).

Figure 15 - Transit Travel Times from Soscol Gateway Transit Center

Woodland

Healdsburg Calistoga Davis

Windsor

West Sacramento

Sacramento

St. Helena

Dixon

Santa Rosa

Laguna Yountville Vacaville

Rohnert Park Napa Fairfield

Petaluma

Galt

Suisun City

American Canyon Lodi

Vallejo Novato

Bay Point

LEGEND Travel Time Starting Point (Soscol Gateway Transit Center) Transit Travel Times:

San Anselmo San Rafael Larkspur

Martinez

Pinole

Richmond El Cerrito

Mill Valley

Albany Berkeley

30 Minutes

Orinda

Piedmont Oakland

Non-NVTA Transit San Francisco

Alameda

Brentwood

Alamo Lathrop

Danville Blackhawk-Camino Tassajara San Ramon

San Leandro Daly City

Clayton

Stockton

Walnut Creek Lafayette

Moraga

60 Minutes 90 Minutes

Antioch Oakley

Concord Pleasant Hill

San Pablo

Pittsburg

Dublin

Tracy

Manteca

Ripon NOT TO SCALE

Salida

Livermore Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ÂŠ OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Figure 16 - Travel Times from Calistoga

Woodland

Healdsburg

Davis

Windsor

West Sacramento

Sacramento

Dixon

Santa Rosa

Laguna

Vacaville

Rohnert Park Napa Fairfield

Petaluma

Galt

Suisun City

Lodi

Vallejo Novato

Bay Point

LEGEND Travel Time Starting Point (Calistoga)

San Anselmo San Rafael Larkspur

Martinez

Pinole

Richmond El Cerrito

Mill Valley

Albany Berkeley

Transit Travel Times:

Orinda

30 Minutes Piedmont Oakland

90 Minutes Non-NVTA Transit

San Francisco

Alameda

Brentwood

Alamo Lathrop

Danville Blackhawk-Camino Tassajara San Ramon

San Leandro Daly City

Clayton

Stockton

Walnut Creek Lafayette

Moraga

60 Minutes

Antioch Oakley

Concord Pleasant Hill

San Pablo

Pittsburg

Dublin

Tracy

Manteca

Ripon NOT TO SCALE

Salida

Livermore Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ÂŠ OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Figure 17 - Transit Travel Times from American Canyon

Woodland

Healdsburg

Davis

Windsor

West Sacramento

Sacramento

Dixon

Santa Rosa

Laguna

Vacaville

Rohnert Park Napa Fairfield

Petaluma

Galt

Suisun City

Lodi

Vallejo Novato

Bay Point

LEGEND Travel Time Starting Point (American Canyon)

San Anselmo San Rafael Larkspur

Martinez

Pinole

Richmond El Cerrito

Mill Valley

Albany Berkeley

Transit Travel Times:

Orinda

30 Minutes Piedmont Oakland

90 Minutes Non-NVTA Transit

San Francisco

Alameda

Brentwood

Alamo Lathrop

Danville Blackhawk-Camino Tassajara San Ramon

San Leandro Daly City

Clayton

Stockton

Walnut Creek Lafayette

Moraga

60 Minutes

Antioch Oakley

Concord Pleasant Hill

San Pablo

Pittsburg

Dublin

Tracy

Manteca

Ripon NOT TO SCALE

Salida

Livermore Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ÂŠ OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Appendix A â€“ Route Profiles

Route Profile - NVTA Route 21

Vacaville

Soscol Gateway Transit Center

Napa

Napa Valley College

Route Metrics Round Trips Per Day Revenue Miles per Day Revenue Hours per Day Round Trip Length Westbound Off-Peak/Peak Actual Running Time Eastbound Off-Peak/Peak Actual Running Time Average Weekday Boardings Late (%) Average Minutes Late Pax/Revenue Mile Pax/Revenue Hour

7 299 mi 16.4 hr 50.1 mi 58 mins/73 mins 42 mins/70 mins 78 9% 9.9 min 0.3 4.8

Stop Metrics - Westbound Stop Green Valley Corporate Drive & Corporate Way (NB)

Fairfield Transportation Center

Corporate Drive & Corporate Way (SB)

Fairfield

Legend

Suisun City Train Depot

Route 21 Napa/ Fairfield/Suisun City

21 On

Suisun City

21 Off Route 21 Timed Stop

Route 21

Highway 12 & Highway 29

Route 25

Suisin City Train Depot Fairfield Transit Center Hwy 12/29 Gateway Junction Corporate Drive Napa Valley College Soscol Gateway Transit Center

12 19 <1 <1 1 -

3 5 1 7 9

4% 8% N/A 4% 5%

Stop Metrics - Eastbound

Route 21 Bus Stop

Stop Soscol Gateway Transit Center Napa Valley College Corporate Drive Fairfield Transit Center Suisin City Train Depot

121

Route 29

Daily Boardings Daily Alightings % Late

Daily Boardings Daily Alightings % Late 26 7 <1 14% 1 <1 N/A 5 22 9% 11 31%

121

NA PA

American Canyon

Soscol Transit Center

e scol Av So

Napa Valley College

FAIR FIE LD

Fairfield Transportation Center

Beck

29 12

Lin

S UIS UN CIT Y

CORDELIA

c o ln Hwy 12

Fairfield Transportation Center (eastbound)

Napa Valley College and Hwy 12/29 Gateway Junction (westbound)

AMERICAN CANYON

Soscol Transit Center 5:33 6:45 10:08 12:11 2:37 4:08 5:18

Napa Valley College _ _ 10:16 12:20 2:46 4:17 5:28

Suisun City Train Depot

Hwy 12/29 Gateway Junction

Time point is not held Punto de tiempo no se sostiene.

Suisin City Train Depot 6:30 7:50 11:20 1:19 3:52 5:32 6:35

Westbound Weekday Schedule Fairfield Transit Hwy 12/29 Gateway Napa Valley Center Junction College 6:38 7:06 7:18 8:00 8:28 8:40 11:30 11:51 12:03 1:31 1:52 2:04 4:05 4:26 4:38 5:45 6:06 6:18 6:49 7:10 7:22

Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ÂŠ OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

680

Time point is not held Punto de tiempo no se sostiene.

Eastbound Weekday Schedule Hwy 12/29 Gateway Fairfield Transit Junction Center 5:53 6:18 7:05 7:30 10:26 10:51 12:30 12:55 2:56 3:21 4:27 4:52 5:38 6:03

Soscol Transit Center 7:27 8:50 12:14 2:15 4:49 6:27 7:31

Suisin City Train Depot 6:27 7:41 11:02 1:06 3:33 5:03 6:14

Route Profile - NVTA Route 25

Sonoma Plaza

Soscol Gateway Transit Center

Imola Park & Ride Imola Park & Ride (Golden Gate Drive)Gasser Drive & Hartle Court (SW)

7 213 mi 10.0 hr 35.6 mi 33 mins/37 mins 33 mins/38 mins 40 10% Si lve ra do 9.4 min Tr ail 0.1 2.4

Gasser Drive & Hartle Court

121

Legend

Imola Park & Ride and Gasser & Hartle Riders must request these stops upon boarding, if none are requested the driver will go straight to transit center.

25 On Sonoma Plaza

Route 21 Route 29

SO N O M A

Transit Center

Imola Park & Ride

Imola Ave

Foster Rd

Broadway

Route 25

NAPA 29

ve ol A sc So

Los pasajeros deben solicitar estas paradas al momento de subir al autobús, si no se solicita ninguna el conductor irá directamente al centro de tránsito.

25 Off

Napa Rd 25 12

Gasser & Hartle

121

25 116

12 121

SCHELLVILLE 121

Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

Route 25 Napa/Sonoma Route 25 Timed Stop Route 25 Bus Stop

Soscol Transit Center 6:25 7:15 9:41 11:56 2:30 4:15 5:40 Sonoma Plaza 7:10 8:00 10:30 12:45 3:15 5:07 6:35

Westbound Weekday Schedule Gasser & Hartle Imola Park & Ride 6:31 6:35 7:15 7:25 9:47 9:51 12:02 12:06 2:36 2:40 4:22 4:26 5:46 5:50 Eastbound Weekday Schedule Imola Park & Ride Gasser & Hartle 7:35 7:40 8:25 8:30 10:53 10:58 1:08 1:13 3:40 3:45 5:33 5:38 6:58 7:02

Sonoma Plaza 7:00 7:48 10:14 12:29 3:05 4:49 6:12 Soscol Transit Center 7:47 8:36 11:04 1:19 3:51 5:45 7:08

Stop Metrics - Westbound Stop Daily Boardings Daily Alightings Soscol Gateway Transit Center 12 Gasser & Hartle 1 1 Imola Park & Ride 2 <1 Sonoma Plaza 16

% Late 14% 16% 17%

Stop Metrics - Eastbound Stop Daily Boardings Daily Alightings Sonoma Plaza 17 Imola Park & Ride <1 3 Gasser & Hartle 1 1 Soscol Gateway Transit Center 8

% Late 7% 7% 4%

Gasser & Hartle Pick-ups do not occur at these locations in the Eastbound direction. No se recogen pasajeros en la dirección hacia el este.

Route Profile - NVTA Route 29 Downtown Calistoga Calistoga

Legend Ridership 29 On 29 Off

St. Helena St. Helena Post OfficeSt. Helena City Hall

Route 21

Deer Park

Route 25

Sonoma

Route 29

Angwin Oakville

Rutherford

Yountville Yountville California Dr. & Solano Ave

El Cerrito del norte

Downtown Calistoga

CALISTOGA

xRedwood Park & Ride Napa Vallejo Ferry Terminal American Canyon Post Office (NW)American Canyon Post Office

Route 29 Redwood Park & Ride/ El Cerrito del Norte BART

Route 29 Timed Stop Route 29 Bus Stop

ST. HELENA

Soscol Gateway Transit Center

Napa Valley College

St. Helena City Hall

SANTA ROSA

RUTHERFORD KENWOOD

Vallejo American Canyon

OAKVILLE

Yountville@California & Solano

YOUNTVILLE

Northbound Routes After 3:00PM most stops are not held for passengers boarding. If the bus arrives early it will drop off passengers and depart.

Después de las 3:00 PM el autobús no esperará a pasajeros en estas paradas. Si el autobús llega temprano bajará a los pasajeros y se irá.

Route Metrics Round Trips Per Day Revenue Miles per Day Revenue Hours per Day Round Trip Length Average Weekday Boardings Northbound Off-Peak/Peak Actual Running Time (El Cerrito BART - Napa)

121

Redwood Park & Ride

NAPA

Soscol Transit Center

SONOMA Napa Valley College

15 1,128 mi 39.8 hr 137.6 mi 267 56 mins/78 mins

Southbound Off-Peak/Peak Actual Running Time (El Cerrito BART - Napa)

46 mins/75 mins

Northbound Off-Peak/Peak Actual Running Time (Napa - Calistoga)

49 mins/64 mins

Southbound Off-Peak/Peak Actual Running Time (Napa - Calistoga) Late (%) Average Minutes Late Pax/Revenue Mile Pax/Revenue Hour

48 mins/70 mins 16% 9.3 min 0.2 6.7

CORDELIA

Stop Metrics - Northbound Daily Daily Stop % Late Boardings Alightings El Cerrito BART Station 67 Vallejo Ferry Terminal 22 2 17% American Canyon Post Office 7 16 20% Napa Valley College 1 10 20% Soscol Gateway Transit Center 6 37 21% Redwood Park & Ride 4 8 34% Yountville 1 2 46% St. Helena City Hall 1 3 44% Downtown Calistoga 10 23%

29 Stop Metrics - Southbound Daily Daily American Canyon Post Office Stop % Late AMERICAN Boardings Alightings CANYON Downtown Calistoga 13 VALLEJO St. Helena City Hall 5 2 12% Vallejo Ferry Terminal Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community BENECIA Yountville 3 2 13% Redwood Park & Ride 10 2 12% Soscol Gateway Transit Center 56 6 12% PINOLE MARTINEZ Napa Valley College 6 1 19% 29 American Canyon Post Office 21 5 18% EL SOBRANTE Vallejo Ferry Terminal 1 19 8% RICHMOND El Cerrito BART Station 81 17% 80

Vallejo Ferry Terminal (Southbound) Riders must request to stop at the ferry upon boarding. If no requests are made the driver will go straight to BART after American Canyon.

680

Los pasajeros deben solicitar parar en el ferry al momento de subir al autobús. Si no se hacen peticiones el conductor irá directamente a BART después de American Canyon.

El Cerrito del Norte BART

Arrival time is based on a stop at the ferry terminal, if stop is not made at the ferry passengers may arrive earlier than indicated. La hora de llegada está basada en una parada en la terminal del ferry, si la parada en el ferry no se hace pasajeros pueden llegar antes de lo indicado.

EL CERRITO

El Cerrito del Norte BART 80

Route Profile - NVTA Route 29

El Cerrito Del Norte BART 5:45 6:00 7:00 7:30 8:30 9:30 10:20 11:35 13:05 14:35 16:00 17:15 18:05 19:10 19:40

Calistoga @ Lincoln Bridge

5:26

9:06

17:10 18:20

Northbound Weekday Schedule American Canyon Post Redwood Park & Ride Yountville @ California Vallejo Ferry Terminal Napa Valley College* Transit Center* St. Helena Post Office* Office* Lot* & Solano* 6:08 6:21 --6:36 6:46 6:56 7:12 6:23 6:36 6:58 7:09 7:23 7:36 7:58 8:09 8:19 8:29 8:45 7:55 8:11 8:33 8:44 8:57 9:12 9:34 9:45 9:55 10:10 10:28 10:38 10:45 11:00 11:18 11:28 12:00 12:15 12:33 12:43 13:30 13:45 14:03 14:13 15:05 15:20 15:38 15:48 16:00 16:10 16:30 16:30 16:47 17:05 17:15 17:27 17:37 17:57 17:45 18:02 --18:30 18:42 18:32 18:49 --19:17 19:35 19:50 --20:15 20:05 20:20 --20:45

Southbound Weekday Schedule Yountville @ California Redwood Park & Ride St. Helena Post Office Transit Center Napa Valley College & Solano Lot 4:33 4:45 --5:33 5:45 --5:38 5:53 6:03 6:15 --7:11 --8:15 --8:40 --9:20 9:38 9:52 10:04 10:13 11:45 11:54 13:00 13:09 14:30 14:39 15:45 15:54 16:30 16:41 17:30 17:41 17:24 17:50 18:05 18:20 18:27 18:34 19:00 19:15 19:30

American Canyon Post Office 5:00 6:03 6:32 7:30 8:34 8:59 10:29 12:10 13:29 15:02 16:17 17:07 18:07 18:45

Vallejo Ferry Terminal*â€ 5:11 6:16 6:45 7:44 8:48 9:13 10:43 12:24 13:44 15:17 16:37 17:27 18:27 19:01

Calistoga @ Lincoln Bridge 7:23 8:56

16:43 18:10

El Cerrito Del Norte BART** 5:33 6:46 7:15 8:17 9:21 9:46 11:16 12:57 14:17 15:50 17:04 17:57 19:00 19:27

Appendix B â€“ Express Bus Boardings by Trip

Data from October 2015

Route 21 Eastbound - Boardings and Max Load by Trip 12 10 8 6

Boardings Max Load

4 2 0 0533

0637

1008

1211

1437

1608

1718

Trip Start Time

Route 21 Westbound - Boardings and Max Load by Trip 10 9 8 7 6 5

Boardings

Max Load

3 2 1 0 0625

0750

1120

1319

1552

Trip Start Time

1732

1835

Route 25 Eastbound - Boardings and Max Load by Trip 4

Boardings Max Load

0 0710

0800

1030

1245

1515

1707

1835

Trip Start Time

Route 25 Westbound - Boardings and Max Load by Trip 4

Boardings Max Load

0 0625

0715

0941

1156

1430

Trip Start Time

1615

1740

Route 29 Northbound - Boardings and Max Load by Trip 30 25 20 15

Boardings Max Load

10 5 0 0555 0655 0724 0821 1041 1216 1419 1615 1807 1923

Trip Start Time

Route 29 Southbound - Boardings and Max Load by Trip 18 16 14 12 10 8

Boardings

Max Load

4 2 0

Trip Start Time

Appendix C â€“ Routes 10 and 11 Boardings by Hour

Data from October 2015

Routes 10 and 11 - Number of Boardings per Hour 140

Northbound Southbound

Number of Boardings per Hour

120

100

0 04

Hour

Appendix D â€“ Fare Utilization by Route

Data from September 2015

Fare Category by Route

Route 10 Youth 15%

Senior 29%

Adult 56%

Route 11 Youth 19%

Senior 29%

Adult 52%

Youth 4%

Route 21

Senior 17%

Adult 79%

Route 25 Youth 16% Senior 18% Adult 66%

Youth 7%

Route 29

Senior 14%

Adult 79%

Fare Type by Route

Transfer 7%

Route 10

Other 4% 20-Ride 8%

Period 17%

Cash 64%

Route 11

Other 4% Transfer 8% 20-Ride 8%

Period 17%

Cash 63%

Other 3%

Route 21

Transfer 10% 20-Ride 10%

Cash 43% Period 34%

Other 3%

Route 25

Transfer 16%

20-Ride 8% Period 18%

Cash 55%

Route 29

Other 4% 20-Ride 13%

Transfer 0%

Period 29%

Cash 54%

Appendix E â€“ Vehicle Loads by Route

Data from October 2015

Route 10 Average Weekday Load by Stop - Northbound 12.0 10.0

Load

8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0

Stop Name

Route 10 Average Weekday Load by Stop - Southbound 10.0

Load

8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0

Stop Name

Route 11 Average Weekday Load by Stop - Northbound 12.0 10.0

Load

8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0

Stop Name

Route 11 Average Weekday Load by Stop - Southbound 14.0 12.0

Load

10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0

Stop Name

Route 21 Average Load by Stop - Westbound 5.0

4.0

Load

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 SUISUN CITY TRAIN DEPOT

FAIRFIELD TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY 12 & HIGHWAY 29 GATE CEN

CORPORATE DRIVE & CORPORATE

NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE

SOSCOL GATEWAY TRANSIT C

Stop Name

Route 21 Average Load by Stop - Eastbound 6.0

5.0

Load

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 SOSCOL GATEWAY TRANSIT CENTE

NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE

CORPORATE DRIVE & CORPORATE

Stop Name

FAIRFIELD TRANSPORTATION CEN

SUISUN CITY TRAIN DEPOT

Route 25 Average Load by Stop - Westbound 3.0

Load

2.0

1.0

0.0 SOSCOL GATEWAY TRANSIT CENTE

GASSER DRIVE & HARTLE COURT

IMOLA PARK & RIDE

SONOMA PLAZA

Stop Name

Route 25 Average Load by Stop - Eastbound 3.0

Load

2.0

1.0

0.0 SONOMA PLAZA

IMOLA PARK & RIDE

GASSER DRIVE & HARTLE COURT

Stop Name

SOSCOL GATEWAY TRANSIT C

Route 29 Average Load by Stop - Northbound 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0

Load

6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 EL CERRITO BART STATION

VALLEJO FERRY TERMINAL

AMERICAN CANYON POST OFFICE

NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE

SOSCOL GATEWAY TRANSIT CENTE

REDWOOD PARK & RIDE

YOUNTVILLE CALIFORNIA DRIVE

ST. HELENA CITY HALL

DOWNTOWN CALISTOGA

AMERICAN CANYON POST OFFICE

VALLEJO FERRY TERMINAL

EL CERRITO BART STATION

Stop Name

Route 29 Average Load by Stop - Southbound 9.0 8.0 7.0

Load

6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 DOWNTOWN CALISTOGA

ST. HELENA POST OFFICE

YOUNTVILLE CALIFORNIA DRIVE

REDWOOD PARK & RIDE

SOSCOL GATEWAY TRANSIT CENTE

Stop Name

NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE

Appendix F â€“ Transit Center Route Maps

Source: AC Transit (2016)

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION TITLE

Appendix B: Survey Summary Memorandum

Header 1

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

125

MEMORANDUM - DRAFT To:

Alberto Esqueda Napa Valley Transportation Authority

From:

Adam Dankberg, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Date:

January 9th, 2016

Subject:

Summary of Express Bus Study Online Survey Results

As part of the Vine Express Bus Corridor Study, Kimley-Horn conducted an online survey of Napa County residents and workers to inform the study on ways to improve express bus service and ridership. The survey targeted both existing bus riders as well as potential riders. The survey included questions on existing commute characteristics, priorities for improvement of the existing system, user interaction with the existing transit network, and basic demographic questions. The survey was administered using the MetroQuest public engagement platform and open between September 19th and November 8th, 2016. The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish and the results were aggregated after the completion of the survey.

Survey Methodology

The survey was conducted using the MetroQuest public engagement platform. The platform allowed for dynamic input via priorities-setting, map-based feedback, and a variety of survey questions. The survey was advertised via the NVTA website, e-mail, social media, advertising at bus stops, advertising on board Vine Transit buses, and via print media. Survey respondents were rewarded with entry into a drawing for one of ten $25 Visa gift cards.

SURVEY DISTRIBUTION

E-mail distribution of the survey was carried out using NVTA e-mail distribution lists, which included the NVTA board member distribution lists, Napa County employee lists, the Citizenâ€™s Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, Paratransit Coordinating Council, large employers in Napa County, and multiple community and non-profit organizations. The survey was also hosted on the NVTA website and a link was provided on the project web page to the survey. Other online resources used to distribute the survey included The Vine Online and advertisements on the Napa Valley Register Online. A copy of the email blast can be found in Appendix A.

Page 2

Social media distribution consisted of a mix of sponsored posts and newsfeed ads that promoted the survey. These ads were posted from the Vine Transit Facebook page. Paid ads allowed the posts to reach an audience outside of those who follow the Vine Transit Facebook page. Facebook users that were targeted by the ad included anyone between the ages of 18-65+ who lived or worked in Napa County. The ad included a picture with a short caption and link to the survey. Screenshots of all ads that were used for this survey can be found in Appendix B. Rider alert posters were placed on-board all Vine Transit buses and at Vine Transit bus stops. Postcards were printed and distributed to bus riders, visitors to NVTA, and placed at other locations around downtown Napa and the County. Samples of these postcards and posters can be found in Appendix C. Print media distribution was carried out through Napa Valley Register and affiliates. All print material was provided in both English and Spanish

SURVEY CONTENT

See Appendix D for screenshots of the survey. The survey was available in both English and Spanish languages.

SURVEY RESPONSE

A total of 760 responses were received having at least one question answered. Spanish respondents made up 2.1 percent of the total survey population. A total of 704 respondents answered most or all questions. A mobile device was used for 19.6 percent of the responses.

Express Bus Service Awareness and Use

The survey asked about the awareness and use of the express bus system. 41 percent of respondents answered that they were not aware of Napaâ€™s express bus service. Of those respondents that indicated that they knew about the express bus service, the majority of respondents indicated other (37 percent) or word of mouth (31 percent) as the means by which they became familiar with the service. See Figure 1.

Page 3

Figure 1 â€“ How Respondents First Heard about Napa Vine Express Bus Service Word of mouth 31%

Email 7%

Radio 1%

Facebook 1% Napa Valley Register 8% NVTA Website 16%

Other 37%

9 percent of respondents indicated that they use express bus service in Napa County at least once a month. Transit modes used by a larger percent of the survey population were local routes in Napa County (20 percent), BART (17 percent), and ferry (13 percent). See Figure 2. Of express bus users, 53 percent also use BART at least once a month, 42 percent also use local Napa County routes at least once a month, and 28 percent also use the ferry at least once a month. See Figure 3. Almost onequarter of respondents indicated that they used transit more than one day per week. See Figure 4. Figure 2 â€“ Transit Services Used at Least Once a Month

I don't use transit at least once a month Local routes in Napa County BART Ferry Service Express bus service in Napa County Other transit outside of Napa Local shuttles in Napa County ADA Paratransit Service 0%

20%

40%

60%

Page 4

Figure 3 – Other Transit Modes Used at Least Once a Month Among Express Bus Riders BART Local routes in Napa County Ferry Service Other transit outside of Napa Local shuttles in Napa County ADA Paratransit Service 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 4 – Frequency of Transit Use 1 day per week 3% 2-4 days per week 11%

Very rarely or never 65%

5-7 days per week 13%

Approximately once a month 8%

58 percent of respondents indicated that they don’t use transit at least once a month. The top three most popular answers for not using Napa’s express bus service were “I don’t know about express buses” (28 percent of respondents), “I need my car during the day” (26 percent of respondents), and “Doesn’t go near my destination” (21 percent of respondents). See Figure 5.

Page 5

Figure 5 – Reasons for Not Using Express Bus Service I don't know about express buses I need my car during the day Doesn't go near my destination My commute is short It takes too long Too far from my home Other My work hours do not allow me to It's too expensive 0%

10%

20%

30%

Note that although 41 percent of respondents answered “No” when asked, “Are you aware of Express Bus Service?”, only 28 percent of respondents selected “I don’t know about express bus service” as their reason for not using express bus. There are two ways this response can be interpreted. One possibility is that 13 percent of respondents didn’t know about express bus service, but would not have used it even if they did, implying that 28 percent of respondents didn’t know about express bus and that’s why they don’t use it. The second possibility is that some respondents simply selected the option that is most representative of them instead of selecting all reasons for not using the service.

Mapping of Destinations

The map-based survey questions allowed survey respondents to pinpoint on an interactive map one or more of their location of home, work, school, medical facility, and other frequented destinations. 692 respondents added at least one marker to the map. Respondents provided the following locational information:     

671 provided their home location (97 percent) 571 provided a current place of employment (83 percent) 114 provided a current place of education (16 percent) 91 provided a current place of regular medical visits (13 percent) 130 provided an other location (19 percent).

Many of the “other” locations were associated with grocery stores, other shopping, and the gym. This data was utilized to create a heat map of the responses. Figures 6 to 10 depict a heat map of locations for each location type.

Figure 6 - Home Location of Survey Respondents Clearlake

Mendocino

Yuba

Colusa Sutter

Lake

Rocklin

Middletown

El Dorado Woodland

Yolo Healdsburg

Calistoga Angwin Windsor

Orangevale

Napa

Davis

Deer Park Saint Helena

Sonoma

Sacramento

Napa

Santa Rosa

Vacaville

Yountville

Sebastopol

Placer

Lower Lake

Amador

Cotati

Solano

Penngrove Petaluma

Sonoma

Fairfield

Napa

Rio Vista

Calaveras

Suisun City

Marin

Novato

Vallejo

Oakley

Concord Martinez Greenbrae

Richmond Berkeley

Brentwood Albany

LEGEND NVTA Bus Route 21

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA Bus Route 25

Oakland

San Francisco

NVTA Bus Route 29

Number of Survey Respondents that Live in this Area

Low

Med

San Joaquin

High NOT TO SCALE

Alameda

Stanislaus

San Mateo

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Figure 7 - Work Location of Survey Respondents Clearlake

Mendocino

Yuba

Colusa Sutter

Lake

Placer

Lower Lake Rocklin

Middletown

El Dorado Woodland

Yolo Healdsburg

Calistoga Angwin Windsor

Orangevale

Napa

Davis

Deer Park Saint Helena

Sonoma

Sacramento

Napa

Santa Rosa

Vacaville

Yountville

Sebastopol

Amador

Cotati

Solano

Penngrove Petaluma

Sonoma

Fairfield

Napa

Rio Vista

Calaveras

Suisun City

Marin

Novato

Vallejo

Oakley

Concord Martinez Greenbrae

Richmond Berkeley

Brentwood Albany

LEGEND

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA Bus Route 21 NVTA Bus Route 25

Oakland

San Francisco

NVTA Bus Route 29

Number of Survey Respondents that Travel to this Area for Work

Low

Med

San Joaquin

High NOT TO SCALE

Alameda

Stanislaus

San Mateo

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Figure 8 - School Location of Survey Respondents Clearlake

Mendocino

Lake

Yuba

Colusa Sutter

Lower Lake

Placer Rocklin

El Dorado

Middletown Woodland

Yolo Healdsburg

Calistoga Angwin

Davis

Deer Park

Windsor

Sonoma

Saint Helena Napa

Santa Rosa Sebastopol

Napa

Orangevale

Sacramento Vacaville

Yountville

Amador

Cotati

Solano

Penngrove Petaluma Sonoma

Fairfield

Napa

Rio Vista

Calaveras

Suisun City

Marin

Novato

Vallejo

Oakley

Concord Berkeley

Richmond

Martinez

Brentwood

Greenbrae

San Joaquin Albany

LEGEND

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA Bus Route 21 NVTA Bus Route 25

San Francisco

Oakland

NVTA Bus Route 29

Number of Survey Respondents that Travel to this Area for School

Low

Med

High NOT TO SCALE

Alameda

Stanislaus

San Mateo

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Figure 9 - Medical Facility Location of Survey Respondents Clearlake

Mendocino

Lake

Yuba

Colusa Sutter

Lower Lake

Placer Rocklin

El Dorado

Middletown Woodland

Yolo Healdsburg

Calistoga Angwin

Davis

Deer Park

Windsor

Sonoma

Saint Helena Napa

Santa Rosa Sebastopol

Napa

Orangevale

Sacramento Vacaville

Yountville

Amador

Cotati

Solano

Penngrove Petaluma Sonoma

Fairfield

Napa

Rio Vista

Calaveras

Suisun City

Marin

Novato

Vallejo

Oakley

Concord Berkeley

Richmond

Martinez

Brentwood

Greenbrae

San Joaquin Albany

LEGEND

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA Bus Route 21

San Francisco

NVTA Bus Route 25

Oakland

NVTA Bus Route 29 Number of Survey Respondents that Travel to this Area for Medical Purposes Low

Med

High

Alameda NOT TO SCALE

Stanislaus

San Mateo

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Figure 10 - Other Destinations of Survey Respondents Clearlake

Mendocino

Lake

Yuba

Colusa Sutter

Lower Lake

Placer Rocklin

El Dorado

Middletown Woodland

Yolo Healdsburg

Calistoga Angwin

Davis

Deer Park

Windsor

Sonoma

Saint Helena Napa

Santa Rosa Sebastopol

Napa

Orangevale

Sacramento Vacaville

Yountville

Amador

Cotati

Solano

Penngrove Petaluma Sonoma

Fairfield

Napa

Rio Vista

Calaveras

Suisun City

Marin

Novato

Vallejo

Oakley

Concord Berkeley

Richmond

Martinez

Brentwood

Greenbrae

San Joaquin Albany

LEGEND

Contra Costa Danville

NVTA Bus Route 21

San Francisco

NVTA Bus Route 25

Oakland

NVTA Bus Route 29 Number of Survey Respondents that Travel to this Area for Other Purposes Low

Med

High NOT TO SCALE

Alameda

Stanislaus

San Mateo

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Page 11

Origin Destination Pairs

The data was also utilized to examine origin-destination pairs based on trip purpose. Origindestination pairs were aggregated at the census tract level for mapping and analysis purposes. Home-to-work trips were the most frequent of the trip types identified. Of all home-to-work origindestination pairs indicated in the survey, 65 percent were intra-county pairs in Napa County. The next 3 highest origin-destination pairs were Solano County to Napa County (14 percent), Sonoma County to Napa County (6 percent), and Napa County to Alameda County (3 percent). Refer to Figure 11 and Table 1 for full results. Considering home-to-work origin-destination pairs that originate in the City of Napa, the most common city pairs include intra-city City of Napa pairs (69 percent), City of Napa to St. Helena (13 percent), and City of Napa to San Francisco (10 percent). When considering home-to-work origindestination pairs that terminate in the City of Napa, the most common city pairs are intra-city City of Napa pairs (59 percent), American Canyon to City of Napa (8 percent), Fairfield to City of Napa (7 percent), and Vallejo to City of Napa (6 percent). A trip density map of home-to-work trips is shown in Figure 12. The home-to-school trip density map showed that most home-to-school trips stay within Napa County (84 percent). The map also showed that 8 percent of trips originated or terminated in Solano County. A trip density map of home-to-school trips is shown in Figure 13. The home-to-other-destination trip density map showed that the highest density of trips were intracity trips occurring in the City of Napa (70 percent). This map also showed that 16 percent of trips originate or terminate in Solano County, 6 percent of trips originate or terminate in Sonoma County, and 3 percent of trips originate or terminate in San Francisco County. A trip density map of home-toother-destination trips is shown in Figure 14.

Figure 11 - Origin/Destination - Home-Based Work Trips by County

Lake Yolo

Napa Sonoma

65%

14%

Solano

Calaveras

Marin

1% 2%

1% 1%

Contra Costa San Francisco Alameda NOT TO SCALE

San Mateo

Note: Origin-Destination pairs representing less than 1% of respondents are not shown

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Page 13

Table 1 Home-Based Work Trip Origin-Destination Matrix Work County Home County

Alameda

Contra Costa

Marin

Napa

San Francisco

San Mateo

Solano

Sonoma

Alameda

Contra Costa

Lake

Marin

Napa

65%

Placer

Sacramento

San Francisco

Solano

14%

Sonoma

Yolo

Note: Origin-destination pairs without any activity indicated in the survey are shown with a dash

Figure 12 - Origin/Destination - Home-Based Work Trip Density Nevada

Yuba Colusa Clearlake !

Mendocino

Sutter

Lake

Placer

Lower Lake !

Rocklin

Middletown

El Dorado

Yolo Calistoga Healdsburg

Orangevale

Woodland

Angwin

Windsor

Davis

Deer Park

Sonoma

! !

Napa

Saint Helena

! !

Sacramento

! !

Napa

! !

Santa Rosa

! !

Yountville

! !

Sebastopol

Vacaville

! !

Cotati

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Penngrove

! !

! ! !

Sonoma

! !

Napa

American Canyon !

! !

Calaveras

Suisun City

! !

Vallejo

Novato

! !

Richmond

Oakley

Berkeley Greenbrae

Fairfield

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Solano

Rio Vista

! !

Marin

! !

Petaluma

Amador

! !

Concord

Martinez

Brentwood

San Joaquin

! ! !

! !

Contra Costa

!! ! !

Albany

! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

San Francisco !

Home-Based Work Trip Origin-Destination Density

Danville

! ! !! ! !

Oakland

LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

Stanislaus

Alameda

San Mateo !

NOT TO SCALE

4-5

6-7

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Mendocino

Sutter

Lake

Figure 13 - Origin/Destination - Home-Based School Trip Density

Placer

Lower Lake Rocklin Middletown

Yolo Healdsburg

Orangevale

Woodland

Calistoga !

Angwin !

Windsor !

Sonoma

Davis

Deer Park

Saint Helena

Sacramento

Napa

! ! Santa Rosa

Napa

Yountville

Vacaville

! !

Sebastopol

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Cotati

Penngrove

Solano

! !

Petaluma

Napa

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista !

! !

Marin

Suisun City American Canyon !

! !

Vallejo

Novato

Oakley Berkeley

Richmond

Concord Martinez

Brentwood

Greenbrae

San Joaquin

Contra Costa

Albany Danville !

San Francisco

Oakland

Home-Based School Trip Origin-Destination Density LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

Sta

Alameda San Mateo

NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE

4-5

6-7

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Figure 14 - Origin/Destination - Home-Based Other Trip Density Nevada

Yuba

El Dorado

Colusa Clearlake !

Mendocino

Sutter

Lake

Placer

Lower Lake !

Rocklin

Middletown

El Dorado Yolo

Amador

Healdsburg

Angwin

Davis

Deer Park

Windsor

Sonoma

! !

Yountville

Sebastopol

Vacaville

Sacramento

Napa

Santa Rosa

Napa

Saint Helena

Amador

! ! !

Cotati

Calaveras

slaus

Orangevale

Woodland

Calistoga

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

Penngrove

Solano

Petaluma

Napa

! ! !

Sonoma

! !

Rio Vista

! !

Fairfield

Calaveras

! !

Marin

! ! ! ! ! ! !

American Canyon !

Suisun City

! !

Vallejo

Novato

Berkeley

Richmond

Oakley Concord

Martinez

Brentwood

Greenbrae !

Contra Costa

! ! !

! !

San Francisco

San Joaquin

Albany

Home-Based Other Trip Origin-Destination Density

Danville Oakland

LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

San Mateo

Stanislaus

Alameda NOT TO SCALE

4-5

6-7

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Page 17

This same data was utilized to examine origin-destination pairs of existing transit users (those that use transit once a month or more). Origin-destination pairs were based on the same trip purposes that were previously used. Consistent with the findings for all respondents, the home-to-work trip density map for transit riders showed longer distance travel out of the three trip types analyzed, extending to 11 counties. Of home-to-work trips for existing transit riders, 51 percent are intra-county Napa County trips. The next three most significant origin-destination pairs were Solano County to Napa County (13 percent), Napa County to Alameda County (10 percent), and Napa County to San Francisco (8 percent). Refer to Figure 15 and Table 2 for full results. A trip density map of home-to-work trips of existing transit users is shown in Figure 16. Most home-to-school trips stay entirely within Napa County (77 percent). Napa County-Solano County is the next most common origin-destination pair (15 percent). The remaining 8 percent of origin-destination pairs are made up of Napa County-Contra Costa County, Napa County-San Francisco County, and Napa County-Alameda County pairs. A trip density map of home-to-school trips of existing transit users is shown in Figure 17. Intra-county Napa County trips account for 65 percent of home-to-other-destination trips. Napa County-Solano County accounts for 18 percent of origin-destination pairs and Napa County-San Francisco County account for 6 percent of origin-destination pairs. The remaining 11 percent of origin-destination pairs are made up of Napa County-San Mateo County, Napa County-Alameda County, Napa County-Contra Costa County, Napa County-Sonoma County, and intra-county Sonoma County pairs. A trip density map of home-to-other-destination of existing transit users is shown in Figure 18.

Figure 15 - Origin/Destination - Home-Based Work Trips by County of Existing Transit Users

Lake Yolo

Napa Sonoma

51% 13%

Solano 1%

Calaveras

Marin

1% 8%

1% 1%

10%

Contra Costa

San Francisco Alameda NOT TO SCALE

San Mateo

Note: Origin-Destination pairs representing less than 1% of respondents are not shown

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Page 19

Table 2 Home-Based Work Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Existing Transit Users) Work County San San Mateo Francisco -

Home County

Alameda

Contra Costa -

Contra Costa

Lake

Marin

Napa

10%

San Francisco

Napa

Solano

Sonoma

51%

Solano

13%

Sonoma

Yolo

Note: Origin-destination pairs without any activity indicated in the survey are shown with a dash

Sutter

Lake

Placer

Lower Lake

Figure 16 - Origin/Destination - Home-Based Work Trip Density of Existing Transit Users

Rock Middletown !

Yolo Calistoga Healdsburg

Orang

Woodland

Angwin

Davis

Deer Park

Windsor

Sonoma

Napa

Saint Helena

Sacramento

Napa

! !

Santa Rosa

Yountville !

Vacaville

Sebastopol

! ! !

Cotati

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Solano

Penngrove

Petaluma

Napa

! ! !

Sonoma

! !

Fairfield

Rio Vista !

Suisun City

! !

! ! !

Marin

American Canyon

Vallejo

Novato

Oakley

Berkeley Greenbrae

Richmond

Concord Martinez

Brentwood

Contra Costa

! ! !

Albany

!! ! !

! ! !

! !! ! !

San Francisco

San Joaquin

Danville

! ! !! ! !

Oakland

Home-Based Work Trip Origin-Destination Density LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

Alameda

San Mateo

NOT TO SCALE

4-5

6-7

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Sutter

Lake

Placer

Lower Lake

Figure 17 - Origin/Destination - Home-Based School Trip Density of Existing Transit Users

Rock Middletown

El Dorado

Yolo

le Calistoga Healdsburg

Angwin

Davis

Deer Park

Windsor

Sonoma

Santa Rosa

Napa

Saint Helena

Amador

Orang

Woodland

Sacramento

Napa Vacaville

Yountville !

Sebastopol

Cotati

! ! ! ! ! !

Penngrove

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Solano

! !

Petaluma

Napa

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista !

Suisun City ! !

Marin

American Canyon

Vallejo

Novato

Oakley Berkeley

Richmond

Concord Martinez

Brentwood

Greenbrae

San Joaquin

Contra Costa

Albany Danville

Home-Based School Trip Origin-Destination Density

San Francisco

Oakland

LOW

Stanislaus

MEDIUM

HIGH

Alameda San Mateo

NOT TO SCALE

4-5

6-7

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Sutter

Lake

Placer

Lower Lake

Figure 18 - Origin/Destination - Home-Based Other Trip Density of Existing Transit Users

Rockl Middletown

El Dorado

Yolo

Healdsburg

Angwin

Davis

Deer Park

Windsor

Sonoma

Stanislaus

Santa Rosa

Napa

Saint Helena

! !

Amador

Orang

Woodland

Calistoga

Vacaville

Yountville !

Sebastopol

Sacramento

Napa ! ! !

Cotati

Penngrove

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Solano

! !

Petaluma

Napa

Fairfield

Sonoma

Rio Vista

American Canyon ! ! !

Marin

Suisun City

Vallejo

Novato

Berkeley

Richmond

Oakley Concord

Martinez

Brentwood

Greenbrae !

San Joaquin

Contra Costa

! !

Albany Danville

San Francisco

Home-Based Other Trip Origin-Destination Density

Oakland

LOW

HIGH

Alameda

San Mateo

MEDIUM

NOT TO SCALE

4-5

6-7

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Page 23

Route and Transfer Activity

The survey asked questions about the routes utilized on each respondentâ€™s regular commute. 65 percent of respondents indicated that they did not use transit on their regular commute. The most regularly used transit service for commutes amongst respondents was Route 10 (13 percent), followed by Route 11 (10 percent). See Figure 19. Figure 19 â€“ Transit Routes Utilized

Other Golden Gate Transit BART SolTrans and FAST Yountville Trolley St. Helena Trolley Calistoga Shuttle American Canyon Transit Route 29 Route 25 Route 21 Route 11 Route 10 Route 8 Route 7 Route 6 Route 5 Route 4 Route 3 Route 2 Route 1 0%

10%

15%

20%

Routes 21, 25, and 29 were utilized by 2, 2, and 8 percent of respondents, respectfully. The relationship between each of those three express routes and other transit routes is shown in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5.

Page 24

Table 3 â€“ Other Transit Routes Used on Regular Commute by Route 21 Riders Route Route 1

% of Respondents Using Route 20%

Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 10 Route 11 Route 25 Route 29 American Canyon Transit Calistoga Shuttle St. Helena Trolley Yountville Trolley SolTrans and FAST BART Golden Gate Transit Other

20% 27% 7% 13% 7% 7% 33% 27% 27% 13% 13% 7% 7% 7% 7% 33% 20% 7% 7%

Note: Small sample size

Page 25

Table 4 â€“ Other Transit Routes Used on Regular Commute by Route 25 Riders Route Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 10 Route 11 Route 21 Route 29 American Canyon Transit Calistoga Shuttle St. Helena Trolley Yountville Trolley SolTrans and FAST BART Golden Gate Transit Other Note: Small sample size

% of Respondents Using Route 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 45% 55% 18% 27% 9% 9% 9% 9% 18% 27% 9% 27%

Page 26

Table 5 â€“ Other Transit Routes Used on Regular Commute by Route 29 Riders Route Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 10 Route 11 Route 21 Route 25 American Canyon Transit Calistoga Shuttle St. Helena Trolley Yountville Trolley SolTrans and FAST BART Golden Gate Transit Other

% of Respondents Using Route 4% 4% 9% 4% 7% 4% 4% 9% 19% 26% 4% 6% 2% 2% 4% 6% 11% 50% 4% 9%

Routes 10 and 11, while not express routes, operate in the primary express route corridor. These routes were utilized for regular commute by 13 and 10 percent of respondents, respectively. The relationship between these local routes and other transit routes is shown in Tables 6 and 7.

Page 27

Table 6 â€“ Other Transit Routes Used on Regular Commute by Route 10 Riders Route Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 11 Route 21 Route 25 Route 29 American Canyon Transit Calistoga Shuttle St. Helena Trolley Yountville Trolley SolTrans and FAST BART Golden Gate Transit Other

% of Respondents Using Route 6% 9% 10% 7% 9% 5% 2% 17% 35% 5% 12% 4% 7% 5% 5% 6% 6% 11% 2% 5%

Page 28

Table 7 – Other Transit Routes Used on Regular Commute by Route 11 Riders Route Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 10 Route 21 Route 25 Route 29 American Canyon Transit Calistoga Shuttle St. Helena Trolley Yountville Trolley SolTrans and FAST BART Golden Gate Transit Other

% of Respondents Using Route 9% 14% 18% 11% 17% 8% 6% 18% 42% 6% 21% 3% 3% 3% 5% 9% 15% 12% 5% 8%

Commute Characteristics

Survey respondents were asked about their transit usage and frequency of use. Key information found from these questions includes the following: 



The top three most popular park-and-rides used at least once a month are: Soscol Gateway Transit Center (14 percent of all respondents), Redwood (Napa) (12 percent), and Vallejo (7 percent). See Figure 20. Results showed that 70 percent of respondents indicated that they do not use a park-and-ride at least once a month. A majority of respondents (59 percent) walk to get to the bus stop from their home. The next highest mode of access is drive alone. See Figure 21. Mode of access was also analyzed for those respondents that indicated that they used the express bus at least once a month. Of those respondents, walk was still the predominate mode of access, although 30 percent indicated that they drove alone. See Figure 22. Note that the stated mode of access represents the start of the regular commute bus trip, not necessarily the mode of access to the express bus itself.

Page 29

Figure 20 – Park-and-Ride Use (Once a Month or More) Soscol Gateway Transit Center Redwood (Napa) Vallejo Imola (Napa) American Canyon Other Yountville 0%

10%

15%

20%

Figure 21 – Mode of Access BART Bike/Scooter 1% 9% Carpool 1% Drive alone 17%

Walk 59%

Drop-off 10% Ferry 1% Other Transit Shuttle 1% 1%

Page 30

Figure 22 – Express Bus User Mode of Access Bike/Scooter 11%

Walk 43% Drive alone 30%

Shuttle 2%



Drop-off 14%

An even larger majority of respondents (71 percent) walk to get to their destination from the bus. The next highest mode of egress is BART (12 percent) See Figure 23. Mode of egress was also analyzed for those respondents that indicated that they used the express bus at least once a month. Of those respondents, walk was still the predominate mode of egress, although 27 percent indicated that they used BART. See Figure 24. Note that the stated mode of access represents the end of the regular commute bus trip, not necessarily the mode of egress from the express bus itself. Nearly all respondents start their commute between 6 AM and 9 AM (81 percent), with the peak hour between 7 AM and 8 AM (40 percent). See Figure 25. Almost half of respondents start their return commute between 5 PM and 6 PM (48 percent). See Figure 26. The vast majority of respondents indicated that they travel to work most frequently as the lone occupant in an automobile (79 percent). Transit is utilized as the most frequent means of getting to work by 9 percent of respondents. See Figure 27. While drive alone is also the most frequent means of getting to school (47 percent), 33 percent of respondents indicated that they are dropped off or carpooled. Transit mode share for trips to school is 11 percent for respondents. See Figure 28. The mode choice for getting to medical appointments is overwhelmingly drive alone (over 80 percent).

Page 31

Figure 23 – Mode of Egress BART 12%

Bike/Scooter 7% Carpool 1% Drop-off 3% Ferry 1% Other Transit 4%

Walk 71%

Figure 24 – Express Bus User Mode of Egress

BART 27%

Walk 58%

Bike/Scooter 9% Ferry 2% Other Transit 4%

Page 32

Figure 25 – Morning Commute Start Time After 10 AM 9 AM - 10 AM 5% 5%

Before 6 AM 9%

6 AM - 7 AM 21%

8 AM - 9 AM 20%

7 AM - 8 AM 40%

Figure 26 – Afternoon Commute Start Time

6 PM - 7 PM 14%

After 7 PM 6%

Before 3 PM 3 PM - 4 PM 4% 8%

4 PM - 5 PM 21%

5 PM - 6 PM 48%

Page 33

Figure 27 – Mode Choice to Work Transit Other 9%

Walk Bicycle 2% 3%

<1%

Carpool/Dropped off 6%

Car by myself 79%

Figure 28 – Mode Choice to School

Transit 11%

Walk Bicycle 3% 4%

Other 1%

Car by myself 47%

Carpool/Dropped off 33%

Page 34

Prioritization of Improvements to the Express Bus

Survey respondents were asked to select up to 5 improvements from a list of 8 and rank them in order of importance. The 8 improvements listed were lower fares, improved reliability, frequency and transfers, greater safety, enhanced amenities, bigger service area, shorter trip time, and more parkand-rides. Two methods were used in quantifying these results. One was to consider the frequency with which each priority was ranked. The second was to assign a value to each ranking and sum the total, which indicates the relative importance of each priority. If a survey respondent listed an improvement as the most important improvement, that improvement was awarded 5 points. Improvements listed 2 nd received 4 points, improvements listed 3rd received 3 points, improvements listed 4th received 2 points, and improvements listed 5th received 1 point. If an item was not ranked in the top 5, it received no points. The top three highest scoring improvements under this scoring system are (in order) frequency and transfers, shorter trip time, and bigger service area. The full results are shown in Table 8. Table 8 - Improvement Priority Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Improvement Frequency and Transfers Shorter Trip Time Bigger Service Area Improve Reliability Lower Fares Enhance Amenities More Park & Rides Greater Safety

PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS BY ROUTE

Score 1,082 1,005 804 650 465 405 362 275

% Ranked 74% 69% 59% 55% 41% 40% 32% 27%

By cross-tabulating the survey results we can see the highest priority improvements based on route used on respondentsâ€™ regular commute. The following results analyzed the improvement priorities of those who use Route 10, 11, 21, 25, or 29 on their regular commute. The same methods used to quantify the results above were used for each route. The full results are shown in Tables 9 to 13.

Page 35

Table 9 - Route 10 Improvement Priorities Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Improvement Frequency and Transfers Shorter Trip Time Improve Reliability Bigger Service Area Lower Fares Enhance Amenities More Park & Rides Greater Safety

Score 116 100 90 61 54 50 47 44

% Ranked 66% 64% 61% 55% 41% 48% 25% 36%

Table 10 - Route 11 Improvement Priorities Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Improvement Frequency and Transfers Improve Reliability Shorter Trip Time Bigger Service Area Lower Fares Enhance Amenities Greater Safety More Park & Rides

Score 108 89 89 81 81 41 36 35

% Ranked 70% 65% 65% 63% 58% 35% 35% 28%

Table 11 - Route 21 Improvement Priorities Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Improvement Improve Reliability Shorter Trip Time Frequency and Transfers Bigger Service Area Lower Fares Greater Safety Enhance Amenities More Park & Rides

Score 38 37 36 25 22 12 8 4

% Ranked 85% 69% 92% 69% 54% 38% 23% 15%

Page 36

Table 12 - Route 25 Improvement Priorities Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Improvement Shorter Trip Time Frequency and Transfers Bigger Service Area Enhance Amenities Improve Reliability More Park & Rides Greater Safety Lower Fares

Score 21 20 13 13 9 9 2 1

% Ranked 71% 71% 57% 57% 43% 43% 14% 14%

Table 13 - Route 29 Improvement Priorities Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Improvement Frequency and Transfers Improve Reliability Shorter Trip Time Lower Fares Bigger Service Area Enhance Amenities Greater Safety More Park & Rides

Score 132 113 96 55 50 48 31 16

% Ranked 74% 72% 65% 44% 47% 53% 28% 16%

Survey Respondent Comments

Survey respondents had the opportunity to suggest their own improvements for express bus. Most of these comments were specific to the respondent and could be categorized and ranked as one of the eight improvement options. However, there were a few specific comments that were reoccurring. 4 percent of comments indicated that express bus riders were often unaware of when their bus would arrive and suggested improving the “Where’s My Bus” online feature or offering a reliable alternative. Some of these respondents went on to say that if reliability improved they would be more likely to use express bus to get to work or school. Another 4 percent of comments indicated that they would like express bus service to San Francisco. 2 percent of comments suggested service expansion along Silverado Trail.

Page 37

Demographics of Respondents and Transit Users

Survey respondents were asked for demographic information. The questions include age, ethnicity, and household income level. The distribution of responses is provided for all respondents, all transit users (approximately once a month or more frequent), and all express bus users (at least once a month). Survey results showed the three most common ethnicities among Express Bus riders are White Non-Hispanic (43%), Hispanic (24%), and Asian (17%). This represents a higher minority usage of the express bus system than the full respondent pool, where minorities comprise a combined 34 percent of respondents. See Table 14 and Figure 29 for the complete results of survey respondent ethnicity. Table 14 - Ethnicity Category American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic, Latino or Spanish Origin Pacific Islander Some other race or origin White, Non Hispanic

All Respondents 0% 5% 2% 20% 1% 5% 66%

Transit Users 0% 9% 3% 26% 1% 5% 56%

Express Bus Users 0% 17% 4% 24% 2% 9% 43%

Figure 29 â€“ Ethnicity

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% American Asian Black or Hispanic, Indian or African Latino or Alaska American All Respondents TransitSpanish Users Native Origin

Pacific Some White, Non Islander other race Hispanic or Users origin Express Bus

Page 38

Survey results showed the three most common age groups among express bus riders are 51-65 (31 percent), 23-35 (29 percent), and 36-50 (20 percent). Age representation amongst express bus riders are similar to the full respondent pool, with a somewhat higher percentage of college-age riders (14 percent vs. 8 percent) and a somewhat lower percentage of middle-age adults (20 percent vs. 29 percent in the 36-50 bracket). See Table 15 and Figure 30 for complete results of survey respondent age. Table 15 - Age Category 16 and below 17-22 23-35 36-50 51-65 66 and above

All Respondents 1% 8% 26% 29% 32% 5%

Transit Users 2% 17% 24% 23% 29% 5%

Express Bus Users 0% 14% 29% 20% 31% 6%

Figure 30 â€“ Age 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 16 and below

17-22

All Respondents

23-35

36-50

Transit Users

51-65

66 and above

Express Bus Users

Survey results showed the three most common household incomes among express bus riders are $100,000+ (30 percent), $70,000-$99,000 (20 percent), and less than $25,000 (20 percent). Express bus riders generally had a lower income than the full respondent pool, with incomes under $50,000 accounting for 42 percent of express bus riders and only 25 percent of the full respondent pool. See Table 16 and Figure 31 for complete results of survey respondent household income.

Page 39

Table 16 â€“ Household Income Category Less Than $25,000 $25,000 - $34,000 $35,000 - $49,000 $50,000 - $69,000 $70,000 - $99,000 $100,000+

All Respondents 11% 6% 8% 14% 21% 40%

Transit Users 27% 8% 10% 9% 15% 31%

Express Bus Users 20% 9% 13% 9% 20% 30%

Figure 31 â€“ Household Income 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Less Than $25,000

$25,000 $34,000

All Respondents

$35,000 $49,000

$50,000 $69,000

Transit Users

$70,000 $99,000

$100,000+

Express Bus Users

Summary

A total of 760 respondents replied to the express bus survey. The set of respondents included express bus users (9 percent), other transit users (an additional 33 percent, and non-transit users (58 percent). Respondents included people who lived, worked, or otherwise traveled into or out of Napa County. As documented in this memorandum, the survey provided a number of key takeaways, several of which are listed below, that can be utilized to identify and prioritize the most beneficial express bus system improvements.

Page 40



The top five highest priority improvements for the express bus system are (in order) “frequency and transfers”, “shorter trip time”, “bigger service area”, “improved reliability”, and “lower fares”. The primary service-related reasons for respondents to not currently use the express bus were “it doesn’t go near my destination” (21 percent), “it takes too long” (20 percent), and “it’s too far from home” (15 percent). 41 percent of respondents indicated that they were unaware of the express bus service operated by Vine Transit. Taken in contexts with the priority improvements identified, these results show that there may be potential to capture additional ridership by improving the speed, reliability, and accessibility of express bus and increasing its visibility. The survey showed that only 21 percent of respondents use express bus at least once a month while nearly half (48 percent) use local bus routes in Napa, 40 percent use BART, and 31 percent use ferry service. Considering transfer relationships for existing express bus users, 27 percent use express bus to access BART, four percent use express bus to access other transit services, and two percent use express bus to access the San Francisco Bay Ferry. “Frequency and transfers” was identified as the highest priority improvement, and improving express bus transfers to other transit services with high existing ridership may boost express bus commuter ridership. Of City of Napa residents that work outside of the City of Napa, 43 percent work in St. Helena, by far the most common place of employment outside of the City of Napa. The survey also found that the most common places of residence for workers employed in the City of Napa who do not live in the City of Napa are American Canyon (19 percent), Fairfield (17 percent), and Vallejo (14 percent). There was no concentrated pattern of trip demand for destinations beyond the existing express bus service network (or otherwise served through BART and ferry connections). Current express bus users access the service by a variety of modes, predominately walk (43 percent), drive (30 percent), drop-off (14 percent), and bike/scooter (11 percent), emphasizing the need for both park-and-ride facilities and connectivity between the bus stops and the bicycle/pedestrian network. Similarly, by far the highest mode of egress when alighting from the express bus is walk (58 percent). Respondents who indicated they used the express bus were more likely to be minorities and lower-income than respondents who indicated they did not use the express bus. This indicates equity and environmental justice benefits associated with enhancing the express bus service.

Appendix A â€“ Email Blast

Revised Draft Email

Napa County residents and commuters - we need your help! The Napa Valley Transportation Authority is currently conducting a study to determine how to enhance and upgrade the Vine Transit Express Bus service to better serve all Napa County residents and commuters.

Whether you drive, carpool, ride the bus, bike, walk or use any other mode of travel - we want to hear from you! Share your commuting experiences with us by completing our survey at NapaExpressBusStudy.com.

When you complete the survey, you’re helping to make Napa County more transit-friendly. With more transit options, we’re less reliant on cars, which helps to reduce traffic congestion and improve the air quality locally. That’s something we can all enjoy!

Complete the survey and provide your email address. You’ll be entered into a drawing to win one of ten a $25 Visa gift cards! Each time we receive a completed survey, we’re closer to our vision of developing a transportation system that enhances the quality of life of our residents and visitors, fosters community livability, and protects the unique character of Napa Valley.

Take the survey today, and help make Napa County more sustainable! NapaExpressBusStudy.com.

Appendix B â€“ Facebook Ad Campaign

Facebook Ads These Facebook ads will target users in Napa County who are not fans of the Vine Transit Facebook Page and will complement organic content that will be posted to the Vine Transit Facebook page. The ads will encourage residents and commuters in Napa County to complete the survey and will link directly to the survey.

Ad Set

Boosted Post

Appendix C â€“ Posters and Postcards

RA O F Y D A E? E T R U M M O BETTER C

How would you make

EXPRESS BUS SERVICE in Napa County better? Complete our survey for a chance to win a

$25 VISA GIFT CARD!

COUNTY! A P A N N I IT VE TRANS O @VineTransit R P M I P L Facebook.com/VineTransit

www.VineExpressBusStudy.com

N U A R A P ¿LISTO OR VIAJE? MEJ

¿Cómo mejoraría

EL SERVICIO DE AUTOBÚS EXPRESS en el condado de Napa? Complete nuestra encuesta para tener la oportunidad de ganar una

TARJETA DE REGALO VISA DE $25!

AYUDE

E NAPA! NDADO D O C L E N SITO E R EL TRÁN @VineTransit A MEJORA Facebook.com/VineTransit

www.VineExpressBusStudy.com

A R O F Y D ? E T REA U M M O C R E T T E B

How would you make

EXPRESS BUS SERVICE in Napa County better? Complete our survey for a chance to win a

$25 VISA GIFT CARD!

www.VineExpressBusStudy.com Facebook.com/VineTransit @VineTransit

HELP

S N A R T E IMPROV

! Y T N U O C A P A N IT IN

N U A R A P O T S I ? L E ¿ J A I V R O J E M ¿Cómo mejoraría

EL SERVICIO DE AUTOBÚS EXPRESS en el condado de Napa? Complete nuestra encuesta para tener la oportunidad de ganar una

TARJETA DE REGALO VISA DE $25!

O T I S N Á R T L E R A R O J ! E A P M A A N E E D O AYUD D A D N O C L E EN www.VineExpressBusStudy.com Facebook.com/VineTransit @VineTransit

CALLING ALL NAPA COUNTY RESIDENTS AND COMMUTERS! How would you make express bus service in Napa County better? Complete our survey for a chance to win a $25 Visa gift card!

HELP IMPROVE TRANSIT IN NAPA COUNTY! www.VineExpressBusStudy.com Facebook.com/VineTransit @VineTransit

Appendix D â€“ Survey Screenshots

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION TITLE

Appendix C: Needs Assessment Memorandum

Header 1

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

126

Page 1

MEMORANDUM - DRAFT To:

Alberto Esqueda Napa Valley Transportation Authority

From:

Adam Dankberg, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Date:

December 29, 2016

Subject:

Draft Express Bus Needs Assessment Summary

As part of the Vine Express Bus Corridor Study, Kimley-Horn has developed a draft needs assessment for express bus transit service. The needs assessment relies on the detailed operational analysis of the existing Vine express bus service completed in a previous task, survey responses from the online Metroquest survey of trip characteristics, and the previously completed Napa County Travel Behavior Study. In conjunction with the technology matrix, this document provides the basis for development of service enhancement recommendations. This memo relies on the Existing Conditions Summary (November 14, 2016) and the Summary of Express Bus Study Online Survey Results (November 17, 2016) for supporting data and information. A summary map of the existing express bus system is provided as Figure 1.

Summary of Identified Needs

Table 1 summarizes the most critical needs identified for the express bus service.

Figure 1 - Express Bus System Calistoga Calistoga @ Lincoln Bridge

( !

Yolo Napa St Helena Post Office

( !

Saint Helena

Yountville California Dr

! & Solano Ave (

Yountville

Vacaville

( !

Redwood Park & Ride

Sonoma Sonoma Plaza

Soscol Gateway

Napa

( !

Imola Park and Ride

( !

Sonoma

!Transit Center ( Gasser Dr & Ct ( Hartle ! Valley ( Napa ! College

Fairfield

Fairfield Transit Center

Corporate Dr

( !

Suisun City Train Depot

( ! Hwy 12/29 Junction American Canyon

American Canyon Post Office

( !

Novato

Solano

Vallejo

( !

Vallejo Ferry Terminal

Legend Vine Transit Route 21

Marin

Vine Transit Route 25

Martinez

Greenbrae

Contra Costa Richmond

( !

El Cerrito Del Norte BART

Albany

Vine Transit Route 29

( !

High Ridership Stops (40 or More Daily Boardings/Alightings)

( !

Medium Ridership Stops (Between 8-40 Daily Boardings/Alightings)

( !

Low Ridership Stops (8 or Fewer Daily Boardings/Alightings)

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Page 3

Table 1 â€“ Summary of Improvement Needs # 1

Need Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability on Route 29. Average transit speeds between Vallejo and Napa are very low due primarily to congestion on SR-29. Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times on Route 29

Increase ridership by increasing service on high ridership corridors

More directly provide convenient express bus service for western Napa

Reduce travel time and travel time variability on Route 29 through Napa

More directly provide convenient express bus service for higher-density areas of Napa

Expand park and ride opportunities

Reduce travel time and variability on Route 29 north of Napa

Reduce the impact of congestion on SR-29 north of Napa Reduce travel time on Route 29 in Vallejo

Potential Solution Evaluate signal technology and runningway improvements on SR-29 and Soscol Avenue.

Eliminate route deviations through in-line stops and/or identify ways to reduce impact from signal delay for route deviations at American Canyon Post Office and Napa Valley College Increase service frequency on Route 29 between Redwood Park & Ride and El Cerrito del Norte BART Station during peak commute hours Explore the viability of utilizing the Imola Park & Ride for service on the SR-29 corridor. Similarly, evaluate the opportunity to provide a stop near 1 st Street and SR-29. Modify routing for Route 29 between Soscol Gateway Transit Center and the Redwood Park & Ride to avoid congestion on Trancas Street and Soscol Avenue. Provide a new express bus stop at Trancas Street & Jefferson Street (high ridership on Route 10) and at Lincoln Avenue & Soscol Avenue. (would conflict with Need #6 above) Identify opportunities to expand parking near the Soscol Gateway Transit Center or north of the transit center along Soscol Avenue Eliminating the Yountville stop on Route 29 due to low ridership or alternatively place in-line stops in Yountville on SR-29 Modify routing for Route 29 immediately north of Redwood Park & Ride Modify Route 29 alignment between Interstate 80 and the Vallejo Ferry Terminal

Page 4

# 11

Need Improve connectivity with Solano County, a major potential ridership generator

Better connect transit service to employment areas

Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times on Route 25 Better leverage existing park and ride facilities and increase ridership Improve service reliability and on-time performance

14 15

Improve service reliability and on-time performance

Improve service reliability and safety

Improve the customer experience and system connectivity

Improve the customer experience and system connectivity Increased reliability on Route 29

Potential Solution Improve service coordination with SolTrans, including loosening passenger pick-up/drop-off restrictions in Solano County. Additionally, evaluate opportunities to improve connections with SolTrans and FAST routes, including service to other major transit hubs in Vallejo, such as the Valley Transit Center, Sereno Transit Center, and the Curtola Park & Ride. Serve additional destinations from American Canyon and Napa to the I80 corridor in Solano County (Fairfield/Vacaville) Provide direct express bus service to downtown Napa. Alternatively (or in addition), consider an on-demand service to provide front door connections from the Soscol Gateway Transit Center. Construct an in-line stop on SR-29 at Imola Park & Ride Extending Route 21 and/or 25 to the Redwood Park & Ride Adjust schedules systemwide to match travel times, notably on Route 21 (both directions) and Route 25 (eastbound) Evaluate scheduled layover times at route termini. Consider, scheduling, contractual, and educational options to increase the number of on-time trip starts Improve intersections where buses must make unprotected left-turns (i.e., at Devlin Road & Soscol Ferry Rd) Evaluate feasibility of a pulse-type operation for key transfer pairs out of the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, including the express buses with Routes 8, 10, and 11 Slight schedule adjustments to reduce wait time for transfers between BART and Route 29 Consider splitting the route at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center to avoid delays north of Napa from impacting service south of Napa. Time transfers at Soscol Gateway Transit Center to maintain travel times. Increase the number of trips between Napa and SR-29 cities to the north.

Page 5

# 21

Need Improved stop facilities at some stops, particularly on Routes 21 and 25

Potential Solution Provide pedestrian and bicycle access pathways, shelters, benches, lighting, wayfinding signage, route information signage, and NextBus signage or textbased real-time bus arrival information where warranted by ridership and access patterns

A key map depicting the above-identified needs is provided in Figure 2.

Analysis of Existing Ridership Patterns ROUT E 21

Route 21 is most heavily used for commutes into Napa County westbound from Fairfield and Suisun City. In the westbound direction, Route 21 boarding activity peaks during the 6:30 AM and 7:30 AM trips with nearly all boarding activity occurring at Suisun City Train Depot and Fairfield Transportation Center. In the eastbound direction, Route 21 boarding activity peaks on the 5:18 PM trip with approximately 75 percent of boarding activity occurring at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center. Route 21 has minimal ridership on its two outbound (to Fairfield/Suisun) morning trips. However, these trips position the bus for the westbound trip and thus elimination of the trips would likely achieve minimal cost savings. Similarly, there is minimal ridership on the last two inbound evening trips (from Fairfield/Suisun). These trips are used to return the buses to Napa. Two buses are utilized to provide service on Route 21 during the morning and afternoon peaks. Maximum loads experienced are much less than the seating capacity of the vehicle. Increased frequency would require the use of an additional bus on this route. Increasing frequency is not recommended at this time, although alternative connections in Solano County are explored in a separate section of this report.

ROUT E 25

Route 25 does not exhibit any strong ridership patterns by time of day. Ridership per trip is generally low, but consistent throughout the day in both directions. The Sonoma Plaza and Soscol Gateway Center stops account for over 80 percent of the total daily ridership. Two buses are utilized to provide service on Route 25 during the morning and afternoon peaks. Maximum loads experienced are much less than the seating capacity of the vehicle. Increasing frequency is not recommended. Modification or elimination of the route can be considered if resources are identified to be better used for other services.

Figure 2 - Key Map of Express Bus System Needs Calistoga

Inset Map of City of Napa Yolo Napa

9 14 5

6 7

Saint Helena

4 13

18 21

8 Yountville

Vacaville

5 6 7 Napa 18 12 4 21 13 1

Sonoma

21 Sonoma

Fairfield

17 21 See Inset Map

American Canyon

2 3 Novato

Vallejo

Solano

Marin Martinez

Legend

Contra Costa

San Rafael Richmond

Note: Needs 15, 16, and 20 relate to schedules and are thus not shown on map

Vine Transit Route 21 Vine Transit Route 25

Albany

Vine Transit Route 29

Need Identified in Table 1

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Page 7

ROUT E 29

Route 29 exhibits significantly higher ridership than Route 21 and Route 25. Ridership patterns for Route 29 are consistent with typical commute hours. Route 29 experiences strong demand in both directions, with outbound commute trips (to Vallejo/El Cerrito del Norte) experiencing somewhat higher demand in the morning. Ridership is highest at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center and at El Cerrito del Norte. There is limited ridership in Yountville and St Helena, with the two stops accounting for two and three percent of total daily ridership activity, respectively. Calistoga experiences somewhat higher ridership, accounting for five percent of total daily ridership activity on the route. Only four the 15 daily Route 29 trips extend north of Napa. Expanding service on the most heavily used portion of the route (south of Redwood Park & Ride) would be most efficient at increasing ridership.

ROUT E 10 AND ROUT E 11

Ridership for Routes 10 and 11 were also analyzed to find if there are any stops with high ridership that are not currently served by express bus routes. Route 10 northbound has its highest boarding activity at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, Napa Valley College, the Redwood Park & Ride, and downtown Calistoga, all served by Route 29. Other stops with relatively higher ridership not served by Route 29 include Trancas Street & Jefferson Street (Napa), Soscol Avenue & Lincoln Avenue (Napa), Main Street (SR-29) & Pope Street (St. Helena), and Washington Street & Mulberry Street (Yountville). Route 11 had its highest boarding activity at the Vallejo Ferry Terminal, Napa Valley College, and the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, all served by Route 29. Only slightly less ridership was experienced at the Sereno Transit Center (Vallejo), the Vallejo Transit Center, and Elliott Drive & Severus Drive (Vallejo).

ADDIT ION AL F IELD O BSERV AT IO NS

Route 25 field observations showed that the Imola Park & Ride lacks any bus stop signage and a clearly defined stop location for both directions. Improving this stop would be beneficial to riders and make it clear that the location is served by express bus. Park & Ride space along Route 29 is available at the Vallejo Ferry Terminal (for a fee), the American Canyon Post Office, the Redwood Park & Ride, and a limited number of spaces in Yountville. However, several communities along Route 29 have limited or no park & ride opportunities: Soscol Gateway Transit Center has limited parking; parking at Napa Valley College parking is limited to permit or paid parking only; and parking at the El Cerrito del Norte BART station is limited to BART users. It was noted that Route 29 is adjacent to the Curtola Park & Ride hub, but does not stop, and

Page 8

does not serve the Imola Park & Ride. Redwood Park & Ride and Soscol Gateway Transit Center parking facilities were observed to be well utilized. There was less use observed at the American Canyon Post Office Park & Ride and no observed vehicles at the Yountville Park & Ride. Providing additional parking in the City of Napa area, notably around the Soscol Gateway Transit Center and in the SR-29 corridor could increase transit service accessibility for the residential neighborhoods in the City of Napa.

On-Time Performance and Service Reliability ROUT E 21

Route 21 was late a limited amount of time (9 percent westbound and 18 percent eastbound). However, westbound service was often quite early (44 percent of the time) and the service was late in leaving in both directions (31 percent of the time when leaving the Soscol Gateway Transit Center and 24 percent of the time when leaving the Suisun Train Depot).

ROUT E 25

Route 25 also was late only a limited amount of time (18 percent westbound and 6 percent eastbound). It also was frequently early, particularly in the eastbound direction (40 percent of the time). Similar to Route 21, it has challenges in leaving the Soscol Gateway Transit Center on-time, with 25 percent of departures greater than 5 minutes late. Route 25 left the Sonoma Plaza relatively on-time (5 percent lane, 7 percent early), but then arrived early for much of the rest of the route (40 percent or greater early at all other stops). While an early arrival in some cases is good, for boardings at stops where the bus departs early, the passenger may miss the bus. With very low frequency on Route 25, that could significantly impact the passengerâ€™s trip.

ROUT E 29

Unlike Route 21 and Route 25 where the on-time performance issues appear to be primarily associated with early arrivals and scheduling, Route 29 is clearly impacted by traffic congestion along its route. Late arrivals are 22 percent in the southbound direction and 14 percent in the northbound direction. Early arrivals are similar in both directions (20 percent and 18 percent, respectively). The route frequently does not begin its trip on-time, with late departure from Calistoga 30 percent of the time, Soscol Gateway Transit Center 34 percent of the time, and El Cerrito del Norte BART station 22 percent of the time. Schedule deviation is most significant between Redwood Park & Ride and Vallejo Ferry Terminal, where in the southbound direction average variance increases from 0.9 minutes to 4.3 minutes (and late percentage increases from 21 percent to 43 percent). Splitting Route 29 at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center may improve on-time performance of the route south of Napa. Maintaining timed-transfers at the Transit Center would be critical to preserving north-south connectivity. Maintaining frequent service to the Redwood Park & Ride would likely be

Page 9

beneficial for a partitioned route. The online survey and Census data indicates strong relationship between Napa and the SR-29 corridor to the north, notably the St. Helena area. The survey indicated that 57 percent of Napa residents that work outside of Napa work in St. Helena, Calistoga, or Yountville. Therefore, increasing service on the northern portion of Route 29 along with this splitting of the route may benefit ridership.

ADDIT ION AL F IELD O BSERV AT IO NS

Additional field observations of Route 21 showed potential opportunities to improve on-time performance and operations. The intersection of Devlin Road & Soscol Ferry Road currently has no stop control and presents a difficult left-turn for a bus to make. Signalization or other improvements at this location may reduce variability. In the westbound direction, a bus waited a lengthy amount of time for another bus to pass before making a left-turn onto Burnell Street from 7 th St Street. This may show that Burnell Street is too narrow to comfortably accommodate two buses traveling in opposite directions. Additional field observations of Route 29 showed potential opportunities to improve on-time performance and operations. In the northbound direction, there is a long delay while making a leftturn at two intersections: American Canyon Road & SR-29 and Donaldson Way & SR-29. Left-turns at these intersections are necessary due to the stop at the American Canyon Post Office. Alternative alignments for Route 29 between Socol Gateway Transit Center and Redwood Park & Ride and between Vallejo Ferry terminal and Interstate 80 may reduce travel times and travel time variability. Route 29 currently uses Trancas Street when traveling between Redwood Park & Ride and Soscol Gateway Transit Center. Google Maps shows 3 rd Street to be the optimal path at all times of day rather than Trancas Street. Route 29 between the Vallejo Ferry Terminal and Interstate 80 uses Curtola Parkway. Google Maps shows Sonoma Boulevard as the optimal path at all times of day rather than Curtola Parkway.

HEAVILY CON GEST ED SEGMENT S

Poor on-time performance in most cases can be attributed to heavy traffic conditions. For Route 21 and Route 25, delay occurs along SR-12 during the AM and PM commute period. For Route 29, delay occurs consistently throughout the day on SR-29 and Interstate 80. Google Maps was used to map traffic congestion for each route by time of day. While detailed traffic analysis would be required to identify specific choke points, Google Maps allows for a simple identification of congested areas. Figure 3 shows the route segments that were observed to experience high traffic delay during the AM, Mid-Day, or PM Peak periods. Table 1 summarizes these locations for each route by time of day.

Figure 3 - Areas of Significant Traffic Congestion Calistoga Calistoga @ Lincoln Bridge

( !

Yolo Napa Hwy 29 between Madrona Ave and Pope St (Route 29 Southbound Mid-Day)

St Helena Post Office

( !

Hwy 29 between Grayson Ave and Mitchell Dr (Route 29 Northbound Mid-Day)

Saint Helena

Hwy 29 between Vintage Ave and Mitchell Dr (Route 29 Northbound PM) Hwy 29 between Zinfandel Ln and Walnut Ave (Route 29 Southbound PM)

Yountville California Dr

! & Solano Ave (

Yountville

Vacaville Hwy 29 between Salvador Ave and Trower Ave (Route 29 Southbound Mid-Day)

( !

Redwood Park & Ride

Sonoma Sonoma Plaza

Soscol Gateway

Napa

( !

Imola Park and Ride

( !

Sonoma

!Transit Center ( Gasser Dr & Ct ( Hartle ! Valley ( Napa ! College

Hwy 12 between Beck Ave and Pennsylvania Ave (Route 21 Eastbound PM)

Fairfield

Fairfield Transit Center

Corporate Dr

( !

Hwy 12 between Napa Rd and Old Sonoma Rd (Route 25 Eastbound PM)

( !

Hwy 12 at Stanley Ln (Route 25 Westbound AM)

( !

Suisun City Train Depot

Hwy 12/29 Junction American Canyon

Hwy 29 between Donaldson Way and Hwy 221 (Route 29 Northbound AM) American Canyon Post Office

Hwy 12 between I-680 and Red Top Rd (Route 21 Westbound AM)

( !

Hwy 12 between Spurs Trail and Red Top Rd (Route 21 Eastbound PM) Hwy 29 between Hwy 12 and Hwy 37 (Route 29 Southbound PM)

Novato

Solano

Vallejo

( !

Vallejo Ferry Terminal

Legend

I-80 between Willow Ave and Cutting Blvd (Route 29 Southbound AM)

Marin

Vine Transit Route 21 Vine Transit Route 25

Martinez

Greenbrae

Contra Costa Richmond

( ! I-80 between Cutting Blvd and San Pablo Ave (Route 29 Northbound PM)

El Cerrito Del Norte BART

Albany

Vine Transit Route 29

( !

High Ridership Stops (40 or More Daily Boardings/Alightings)

( !

Medium Ridership Stops (Between 8-40 Daily Boardings/Alightings)

( !

Low Ridership Stops (8 or Fewer Daily Boardings/Alightings) Segments Prone to Traffic Congestion

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Page 11

Table 2 - Locations with Heavy Traffic by Time of Day Route

Route 21

Route 25

Time of Day

Location(s) with Congestion

Hwy 12 between Spurs Trail and Red Top Trail

Hwy 12 between Beck Ave and Pennsylvania Ave

Suisun City to Napa (WB)

Hwy 12 between I-680 and Red Top Rd

Napa to Sonoma (WB)

Hwy 12 at Stanley Ln

Sonoma to Napa (EB)

Hwy 12 between Napa Rd and Old Sonoma Rd

Napa to Calistoga (NB)

Mid-Day

Hwy 29 between Grayson Ave and Mitchell Dr

Napa to Calistoga (NB)

Hwy 29 between Vintage Ave and Mitchell Drive

Mid-Day

Hwy 29 between Madrona Ave and Pope St

Mid-Day

Hwy 29 between Salvador Ave and Trower Ave

Hwy 29 between Zinfandel Ln and Walnut Ave

I-80 between Willow Ave and Cutting Blvd

Hwy 29 between Hwy 12 and Hwy 37

Hwy 29 between Donaldson Way and Hwy 221

I-80 between Cutting Blvd and San Pablo Ave

Origin-Destination Napa to Suisun City (EB)

Calistoga to Napa (SB) Route 29 Napa to El Cerrito (SB)

El Cerrito to Napa (NB)

SR-29 IMPRO VEMENT PLAN

To address the noted congested issues on SR-29, NVTA completed the State Route 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan in October 2014. That plan includes improvements such as lane modifications, bicycle facilities, intersection improvements, and interchange improvements. Figure 4 shows a summary of the proposed improvements from the State Route 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan. Further concept and design development is currently underway that may change the specific improvements recommended. Of note is that major infrastructure enhancements are in the planning stages that could significantly reduce traffic delays for buses on SR-29. However, these

Figure 4 - SR-29 Improvements from Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan

Figure 4-2: Summary of Proposed Improvements

Summary of Proposed Improvements OW TR

AVE

1121 12 211 NC ANC TRAN

ASS ST A

OLLN CO LLINC

No significant roadway improvements proposed (4 lane freeway with median).

VE VE AV A

City of Napa

1ST S ST ST

I10

29 29 IMO A

AVE

122 121

Unincorporated Napa County 12 1211

No significant roadway improvements proposed (4 lane rural highway with median).

S4-b

Parkway Concept - 6 lanes with median and shared use paths.

S4-a

1 12 County Airport

American Canyon

29 29

Solano County

OU ND

S DR

377

Two alternatives proposed: a partial and a fully grade-separated interchange. Fully grade separated is recommended.

Two alternatives proposed: a â€œtight diamondâ€? interchange and a Single-Point Urban Interchange. Tight diamond is recommended.

Bicycle network transition zone: access via future Vine Trail alignment.

No improvements proposed beyond lane widening.

No improvements proposed beyond lane widening and potential signal synchronization.

No improvements proposed beyond lane widening and potential signal synchronization. Additional improvements may be needed if Boulevard option is chosen.

No improvements proposed beyond lane widening and potential signal synchronization.

Vallejo 80

VD BLVD

377

A N MA SONO

No significant roadway improvements proposed (4 lanes with median north of Valle Vista Avenue).

AMERIC A N CANYO N RD

Napa County GR FAIR

N a p

R i v e r

2299

R ELL D NEW

Rural Highway Concept 6 lanes with median.

22221

Proposed channelization of northbound through movement and free right from SR 121/SR 12

TENNESSEE TE TTEN EN NNESSSEEE EE STT

Mare Island

Vaallllllee o Va Valle Fer y Ferr Term rmin minall

E AV NO LA SO RTO LA PKW Y

GEO G ST OR IA ST EEO

29 29

NE ZIIN GA MA ST

MILES

STATE ROUTE 29 GATEWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN

4-3

Source: State Route 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan (October 2014)

Vine Express Bus Corridor Study

Page 13

improvements will not be implemented in the near term as design and environmental work has not yet been completed and funding secured.

T RAVEL SPEEDS Comparison against Auto Travel Without any special priority at congestion points, it is expected that express bus travel times and average speeds would be lower than that of private autos due to dwell time and route deviations to serve stops off of the main roadway. There are a few particularly noteworthy locations where the average travel speed variance between express bus travel and auto travel is relatively large (15 miles per hour or more). In order to identify disparity between transit and auto travel time, actual transit trip times were compared against auto travel times identified using Google Maps. Âˇ

Âˇ

During the AM peak hour (7:00 AM-8:00 AM), the difference between personal automobile travel speeds and transit speeds are: o 17 miles per hour from Vallejo to Napa; and o 16 miles per hour from Fairfield to Napa. During the mid-day peak (12:00 PM-1:00 PM), the difference between personal automobile travel speeds are: o 19 miles per hour greater from Fairfield to Napa; and o 17 miles per hour greater from El Cerrito to Napa. During the PM peak (5:00 PM-6:00 PM), the difference between personal automobile travel speeds and transit speeds are: o 15 miles per hour greater from American Canyon to Napa; o 17 miles per hour greater from Fairfield to Napa; and o 15 miles per hour greater from Calistoga to Napa.

Transit priority or routing improvements may be required at these locations to improve transit desirability and competitiveness. Average Transit Speeds Travel speed data shows four origin-destination pairs where average transit speed is 20 miles per hour or less. Several representative transit agencies (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Denton County Transportation Authority), establish a speed standard of 25 to 35 miles per hour or greater for their express bus service. Speeds under 20 miles per hour are considered slow and likely discourage transit use. Service segments with speeds under 20 miles per hour are shown in Table 2 along with the designated speed limit for the roadways connecting these origin-destination pairs. The free-flow speed limit is noteworthy because runningway and signal technology improvements may allow transit vehicles to more closely reach free flow speeds.

Page 14

Table 3 â€“ Average Transit Speed and Free Flow Speed Comparison Time Period

Segment Start

Segment End

American Canyon

Napa

Vallejo

Fairfield

American Canyon

Vallejo

Napa

Fairfield

Notes: AM Peak: 7-8 AM; PM Peak: 5-6 PM

Average Transit Speed 17 miles per hour

18 miles per hour

20 miles per hour

Sub-Segment SR-29 between American Canyon and SR-12

Speed Limit (mph) 60

SR-221 Between SR-12 and Napa Valley College SR-221 Between Napa Valley College and Sosocol Gateway Transit Center SR-29 between Vallejo and American Canyon

40-50

SR-29 between American Canyon and SR-12

SR-221 Between SR-12 and Napa Valley College SR-221 Between Napa Valley College and Sosocol Gateway Transit Center SR-12 between Fairfield Transportation Center and I-80

55 40

I-80 between SR-12 and SR-12

SR-12 between I-80 and SR-221

SR-221 Between SR-12 and Napa Valley College SR-221 Between Napa Valley College and Sosocol Gateway Transit Center SR-29 between American Canyon and SR-12

40 60

SR-221 Between SR-12 and Napa Valley College SR-221 Between Napa Valley College and Sosocol Gateway Transit Center SR-29 between Vallejo and American Canyon

40-50

SR-29 between American Canyon and SR-12

SR-221 Between SR-12 and Napa Valley College SR-221 Between Napa Valley College and Sosocol Gateway Transit Center SR-221 Between Napa Valley College and Sosocol Gateway Transit Center SR-221 Between SR-12 and Napa Valley College

40 40 55

SR-12 between I-80 and SR-221

I-80 between SR-12 and SR-12

SR-12 between Fairfield Transportation Center and I-80

Page 15

Transfers BUS-T O-BUS T RANSFER S

Ridership analysis of transfer tickets revealed that the most frequent bus-to-bus transfers that involve an express route are Route 10 to Route 25, Route 11 to Route 21, and Route 29 to Route 8. Route 10 to Route 25 The Route 10 and 25 transfer relationship was also identified in the online survey. Approximately half of Route 25 users indicated that they also used Route 10 or 11 on their regular commute. The Route 10 to Route 25 transfer occurs at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center. This transfer can be made from both directions of Route 10 to Route 25 westbound. Route 25 westbound makes seven daily departures from the Soscol Gateway Transit Center. The average transfer wait time from Route 10 northbound to Route 25 westbound is approximately 37 minutes. The average transfer wait time from Route 10 southbound to Route 25 westbound is approximately 28 minutes. Reducing transfer time between these routes at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, through schedule coordination or pulse service, will greatly benefit the passengers currently transferring between these services. Route 11 to Route 21 The Route 11 to Route 21 transfer occurs at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center. This transfer can be made from both directions of Route 11 to Route 21 eastbound. Route 21 eastbound makes seven daily departures from the Soscol Gateway Transit Center. When calculating average transfer wait time, only the immediate Route 11 arrival time was considered for each Route 21 departure time. The average transfer wait time from Route 11 northbound to Route 21 eastbound is approximately 30 minutes. The average transfer wait time from Route 11 northbound to Route 21 eastbound is approximately 19 minutes. Reducing transfer time between these routes at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, through schedule coordination or pulse service, will greatly benefit the passengers currently transferring between these services. Route 29 to Route 8 The Route 29 to Route 8 transfer occurs at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center. This transfer can be made from both directions of Route 29 to Route 8 northbound. The average transfer wait time from Route 29 northbound to Route 8 northbound is approximately 16 minutes assuming precise schedule adherence when Route 29 arrival time is identical to the Route 8 departure time. The average transfer

Page 16

wait time from Route 29 southbound to Route 8 northbound is approximately 14 minutes assuming precise schedule adherence when Route 29 arrival time is identical to the Route 8 departure time. Reducing transfer time between these routes at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, through schedule coordination or pulse service, will greatly benefit the passengers currently transferring between these services.

T RANSFE RS T O OT HER TRANSIT SERVICES

Based on the online survey completed for this project, approximately 53 percent of all current express bus riders use BART at least once a month and 28 percent of express bus riders use the San Francisco Bay Ferry at least once a month. Route 29 at El Cerrito del Norte BART BART provides service every 15 minutes on each of two lines that service the Richmond BART station (only one line operates past 8 PM). During the AM period, the average transfer time from Route 29 to BART is nine minutes. When transferring from BART to Route 29, the average transfer wait time for trips on the Millbrae line is 11 minutes, assuming the rider selects the optimal BART train to complete the transfer. The wait time for transfers from the Fremont line is 7.5 minutes. Route 29 at Vallejo Ferry Building The San Francisco Ferry modifies its schedule by season. Transfer times were analyzed for the new schedule to be implemented in early January 2017. Transfer time during peak periods from Route 29 southbound to the ferry is 17 minutes (transfer times are much longer in the mid-day). The last southbound Route 29 bus arrives after the last ferry has departed for the day. Transfer time during peak periods from the ferry to Route 29 northbound is 28 minutes (transfer times are longer during the mid-day). The last two ferries arrive after the last Route 29 bus has departed. While there may be some benefit to riders to provide service to meet one or both of the last two ferries, the number of boardings on northbound Route 29 peak on the 4:15 PM trip and drop significantly for the last two northbound trips. Thus, there is not clear evidence of a need to extend the service span of Route 29. There may be a benefit to better time Route 29 to the ferry, although the transfer relationship between BART and Route 29 appears much stronger than between the ferry and Route 29. Thus, coordinating schedules with BART may be more beneficial than coordinating with the ferry.

Areas Not Currently Served by Vine Express Bus Routes

The online survey and demographic data was reviewed to identify potential areas not well served by existing express bus routes.

Page 17

EXT ERN AL DEST INAT IONS

The online survey found that the strongest home-work origin-destination patterns were along the SR29 corridor, currently served by Route 29. Additional areas with high origin-destination patterns were between Napa/American Canyon and the Cordelia/Fairfield areas. Additional, more distributed demand was found between Napa and Vacaville. The survey found moderate demand between Napa and San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley. There was some distributed demand to the US-101 corridor in Sonoma County, although without any predominate destinations. The survey found extremely little demand between Napa County and the I-680 corridor in Contra-Costa and Alameda Counties. The survey results may not be statistically significant and thus are utilized in conjunction with Census data. Census data indicated that Sonoma County and Solano County were the most common workplaces of Napa residents (both just under 8 percent). Other nearby counties (Contra Costa, San Francisco, and Alameda) are workplaces for approximately 5 percent or less of Napa residents. Napa workers living outside the County are almost exclusively living in Solano and Sonoma Counties. As noted above in the survey, concentrations of trip ends in Sonoma County appear to be much more widely distributed around the County than in Solano County, making them more difficult to efficiently serve with express bus service. Therefore, additional external destinations or service area enhancements are suggested to focus on Solano County.

N APA POPUL AT ION D ENSIT Y

City of Napa population density was evaluated to identify potential additional service areas or areas in need of a park & ride. Population density is generally distributed around Napa, with the densest areas west of SR-29 near 1st Street and along Soscol Avenue near Pueblo Avenue. The Imola, Redwood, and Soscol Park & Rides can capture most of the residential population; however, the Imola and Redwood Park & Rides are only served by one express bus route each. Providing additional service to these park & rides may increase their effectiveness. The online survey indicated that 30 percent of express bus riders drove alone to access the express bus, indicating the value of park & rides in generating express bus ridership.

NAPA JOB DENSIT Y

In order to serve employment areas, express buses must provide service within a reasonable walk/bike radius or provide connection to local service. This is supported by the online survey, which indicated that 71 percent of existing Napa bus riders walk to their destination. Napa employment is densest in the downtown area, primarily west of the river. There are currently no express bus stops in downtown Napa, although the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, served by all express buses, is on the outskirts of downtown. The river may create a perceived barrier between the Transit Center and downtown. It is a greater than Â˝ mile walk (approximately 11 minutes) from the Soscol Gateway Transit Center to Napa Town Center, located roughly in the middle of downtown Napa. Providing express bus service

Page 18

into downtown Napa may increase utilization of transit for the commute trips of downtown Napa workers. Alternatively, NVTA may consider implementing a flex service or subsidized last mile ondemand rideshare service designed to meet each express bus at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center and distribute riders to their destination.

Needs Identified by Online Survey Respondents

The online survey asked non-transit riders to indicate why they were not using express bus service (if they were not already using it) and transit riders to identify priorities for improving transit service. Almost 30 percent of non-transit riders indicated that they did not know about express bus service. This may indicate the need for additional advertising/promotion for the express bus service. A similar number indicated that they needed their car during the day. Enhancing the local transit network may allow for some workers to complete mid-day trips without the need for an automobile. These two areas are outside the scope of this study. The third highest ranking category is that the service does not go near their destination. As noted above, while there are a lot of employment locations of survey respondents outside of the survey area, there was no major destination not currently served by express buses. Almost 20 percent of respondents indicated that the service takes too long. Improvements targeting this group of respondents may help drive ridership gains. The improvement priority most identified by non-transit riders was shorter trip time, closely followed by improved frequency and coordinated transfers. A bigger service area was ranked third by nontransit riders. The focus on enhancing the existing service as opposed to expanding to new destinations is consistent with the trip patterns of survey respondents. Improving route frequency and transfer coordination was identified as the top priority for riders on Routes 10, 11, and 29. Riders on Route 21 placed the highest priority on improved reliability, although shorter trip time and improved frequency and transfer coordination were very close behind. Route 25 riders placed the highest priority on shorter trip time, although improved frequency and transfer coordination were very close behind. Enhanced amenities ranked sixth on the priority list and were ranked by 40 percent of respondents. Of note is that it did rank fourth for Route 25 users, while ranking sixth or lower for users of the other routes. Field observations identified opportunities to enhance existing stop facilities, particularly on Route 25. The stops at Devlin Road and Corporate Drive (Route 21), Gasser Drive (Route 25), and Imola Park & Ride (Route 25) did not have one or all of shelters, benches, pedestrian waiting areas, or sidewalk access. Additionally, these stops and others on Routes 21 and 25 did not have bus arrival information like many of the stops on Route 29. Improvements to these stops may reduce perceived waiting time and encourage additional ridership.

Page 19

Devlin Road Stop on Route 21

Gasser Drive Stop on Route 25

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION TITLE

Appendix D: Improvement Concept Layouts and Cost EstiHeader mates 1

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

127

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs June 2017

Project Number

Name

A. Route 21 Service Changes A.1 Route 21 Short-Term Service Changes A.2 Route 21 Long-Term Service Changes B. Route 21 Stop Changes B.1.a Napa Valley College Stop Option A* B.1.b Napa Valley College Stop Option B* B.1.c Napa Valley College Stop Option C* B.1.d Napa Valley College Stop Option D* B.2 Stop Improvements at Devlin & Airport C. Route 25 Service Changes C.1 Addition of Downtown Petaluma and Sonoma Stops D. Route 25 Stop Changes D.1 Downtown Napa D.2 Imola Park & Ride E. Route 29 Service Changes E.1 Split Route 29 into 29/10X/11X F. Route 29 Stop Changes F.1 Yountville Stop Modifications F.2 American Canyon Post Office F.4 SR-37/Fairgrounds Park & Ride F.5 Curtola Park & Ride F.6 Redwood Park & Ride F.7 St Helena Post Office F.8 St Helena Park & Ride G. Transit Signal Priority G.1 TSP - SR-29 North of Napa G.2 TSP - Route 29 South of Napa G.3 TSP - Route 12, 121, 221 Short-Term: TSP Equipment on Buses (assume 11) Long-Term: TSP Equipment on Buses (assume 23) H. Queue Jumps American Canyon Queue Jump - SR-29/Napa Junction Rd H.1 American Canyon Queue Jump - SR-29/Donaldson Way American Canyon Queue Jump - American Canyon Rd Napa Queue Jump - SR-29/SR-221/Soscol Ferry Rd H.2 Napa Queue Jump - SR-29/SR-12/Airport Blvd I. Parking Near Soscol Gateway Transit Center I.1 Wine Train Parcel West of Soscol Gateway I.2 City Parking Lot North of 3rd

Estimated Construction Cost

Estimated Soft Costs (45% of Construction Cost) (Engineering, environmental, permitting, construction management)

Estimated Right of Way Cost

Estimated Total Project Cost

NA NA

$1,235,500 $2,544,500 $6,551,200 $506,100 $742,300

$556,000 $1,145,000 $2,948,000 $227,700 $334,000

$0 $0 $0 $0 $247,500

$1,791,500 $3,689,500 $9,499,200 $733,800 $1,323,800

$474,200 $3,020,400

$189,700 $1,359,200

$0 $0

$663,900 $4,379,600

$688,900 $1,347,300 NA NA $1,516,900 $601,000 $294,500

$310,050 $606,300 NA NA $682,600 $270,500 $132,525

$47,250 $0 NA NA $0 $0 $7,875

$1,046,200 $1,953,600 NA NA $2,199,500 $871,500 $434,900

$398,000 $362,000 $398,000 $110,000 $230,000

$139,300 $126,700 $139,300 NA NA

$0 $0 $0 NA NA

$537,300 $488,700 $537,300 $110,000 $230,000

$503,000 $53,900 $735,000 $1,064,300 $95,600

$226,400 $24,300 $330,750 $478,900 $43,000

$0 $0 $244,350 $0 $0

$729,400 $78,200 $1,310,100 $1,543,200 $138,600

$60,500 $619,400

$21,200 $216,800

$1,314,000 $0

$1,395,700 $836,200

* These project improvements assume ROW will be required, but will be obtained at no cost to the project.

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Napa Valley College - Option A (B.1.a) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Remove Existing Stop and Amenities Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Curb and Gutter Sidewalk/Driveway Retaining Wall ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Relocate Existing Communications Equipment Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity 1 1 1 1 1 15,200 2,660 175 450 200 1 1 1 640 1 1 1 1 1 1

Unit LS LS LS LS LS SF SF LF SF LF EA SF SF LS EA LS SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $30,000 $10,000 $5,000 $30,000 $90,000 $15 $25 $35 $15 $200 $5,000 $15 $45 $10,000 $15,000 $10,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $30,000 $10,000 $5,000 $30,000 $90,000 $228,000 $66,500 $6,125 $6,750 $40,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $16,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Utilities (5% of project items)

$33,500

Drainage (7% of project items)

$46,800

Lighting and Electrical (10% of project items)

$66,900

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$66,900

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$882,475 $352,990 $1,235,500

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION*

23,900

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$222,390

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$123,550

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$185,325

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$24,710

Other Project Costs Total =

$556,000

GRAND TOTAL =

$1,791,500

* Assumes that ROW needed from Napa Valley College to construct the new stop and bus ramp will be obtained at no cost to the project. Area approximated from GIS ROW information and includes bus ramp and new stop.

The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known at the time of the opinion.

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Napa Valley College - Option B (B.1.b) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Remove Existing Stop and Amenities Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Curb and Gutter Sidewalk/Driveway ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping Signal Modification/Relocation (includes TSP) RRFB Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity 1 1 1 1 1 16,000 4,390 140 22,410 5 1 1 1,240 3 3 3 3 3 3

Unit LS LS LS LS LS SF SF LF SF EA SF SF LS LS EA SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $60,000 $25,000 $15,000 $20,000 $100,000 $15 $25 $35 $15 $5,000 $15 $45 $15,000 $50,000 $15,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $60,000 $25,000 $15,000 $20,000 $100,000 $240,000 $109,750 $4,900 $336,150 $25,000 $0 $0 $15,000 $50,000 $0 $31,000 $15,000 $15,000 $45,000 $30,000 $15,000 $225,000

Utilities (5% of project items)

$68,900

Drainage (7% of project items)

$96,400

Lighting and Electrical (10% of project items)

$137,700

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$137,700

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$1,817,500 $727,000 $2,544,500

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION*

25,500

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$458,010

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$254,450

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$381,675

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$50,890

Other Project Costs Total =

$1,145,000

GRAND TOTAL = * Assumes that ROW needed from Napa County at Streblow to construct the new stop and Napa Valley College to construct the new stop and bus ramp will be obtained at no cost to the project. Area approximated from GIS ROW information and includes new stop.

$3,689,500

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Napa Valley College - Option C (B.1.c) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Remove Existing Stop and Amenities Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Curb and Gutter Sidewalk/Driveway Pedestrian Undercrossing (L=140') Retaining Wall ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Relocate Existing Communications Equipment Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity 1 1 1 1 1 30,320 3,780 12,190 1 1,430 2 1 1 1,275 2 2 2 2 2 2

Unit LS LS LS LS LS SF SF LF SF LS LF EA SF SF LS EA LS SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $100,000 $30,000 $15,000 $30,000 $150,000 $15 $25 $35 $15 $2,240,000 $200 $5,000 $15 $45 $2,000 $15,000 $10,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $100,000 $30,000 $15,000 $30,000 $150,000 $454,800 $94,500 $0 $182,850 $2,240,000 $286,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $10,000 $31,875 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $150,000

Utilities (3% of project items)

$116,100

Drainage (5% of project items)

$193,400

Lighting and Electrical (3% of project items)

$116,100

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$386,800

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$4,679,425 $1,871,770 $6,551,200

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION (Napa Valley College)*

23,900

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION (State of California)*

36,000

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$1,179,216

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$655,120

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$982,680

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$131,024

Other Project Costs Total =

$2,948,000

GRAND TOTAL =

$9,499,200

* Assumes that ROW needed from Napa Valley College to construct the new stop and bus ramp will be obtained at no cost to the project. Assumes that ROW to the east needed from the State of California to construct the new stop and bus ramp will be obtained at no cost to the project. Area approximated from GIS ROW information and includes bus ramp and new stop.

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Napa Valley College - Option D (B.1.d) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Retaining Wall Curb and Gutter Sidewalk/Driveway ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity 1 1 1 1 300 1,400 265 155 790 1 600 1 1 1 1 1 1

Unit LS LS LS LS SF SF LF LF SF EA SF SF LS EA SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $5,000 $5,000 $3,000 $20,000 $15 $25 $200 $35 $15 $5,000 $15 $45 $1,000 $15,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $5,000 $5,000 $3,000 $20,000 $4,500 $35,000 $53,000 $5,425 $11,850 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $15,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Utilities (5% of project items)

$13,700

Drainage (7% of project items)

$19,200

Lighting and Electrical (10% of project items)

$27,400

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$27,400

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$361,475 $144,590 $506,100

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

$45

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$91,098

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$50,610

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$75,915

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$10,122

Other Project Costs Total =

$227,700

GRAND TOTAL =

$733,800

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Stop Improvements at Devlin Rd & Airport Blvd (B.2) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Curb and Gutter Sidewalk/Driveway ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity

2 2 2 2 2

Unit LS LS LS LS SF SF LF SF EA SF SF LS EA SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

1 1 1 1 440 2,100 220 4,110 3 1 -

Unit Cost $10,000 $5,000 $3,000 $10,000 $15 $25 $35 $15 $5,000 $15 $45 $10,000 $15,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $10,000 $5,000 $3,000 $10,000 $6,600 $52,500 $7,700 $61,650 $15,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $150,000

Utilities (5% of project items)

$20,100

Drainage (7% of project items)

$28,200

Lighting and Electrical (10% of project items)

$40,200

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$40,200

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$530,150 $212,060 $742,300

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

5,500

$45

$247,500

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$133,614

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$74,230

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$111,345

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$14,846

Other Project Costs Total =

$581,500

GRAND TOTAL =

$1,323,800

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs New Downtown Napa Stop at 3rd St & Randolph St (D.1) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Curb and Gutter Sidewalk/Driveway ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity 1 1 180 90 700 1 2 2 2 2 2

Unit LS LS LS LS SF SF LF SF EA SF SF LS EA SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $10,000 $15 $25 $35 $15 $5,000 $15 $45 $5,000 $15,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $2,700 $0 $3,150 $10,500 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $150,000

Utilities (5% of project items)

$12,900

Drainage (7% of project items)

$18,000

Lighting and Electrical (10% of project items)

$25,700

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$25,700

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$338,650 $135,460 $474,200

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

$45

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$85,356

ENVIRONMENTAL (5% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$23,710

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$71,130

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$9,484

Other Project Costs Total =

$189,700

GRAND TOTAL =

$663,900

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Imola Park and Ride (D.2) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Resurface Pavement (Slurry Seal) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) (Includes reconstruction of 50% of Parking Lot Pavement) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Curb and Gutter Sidewalk/Driveway Chain Link Fence (6') ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Signal Modification/Relocation (NB Ramps - Includes TSP) Signal Modification/Relocation (SB Ramps) EV Charging Stations Station Platform Relocate Existing Bike Lockers Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Utilities (5% of project items)

$76,000

Drainage (7% of project items)

$106,400

Lighting and Electrical (20% of project items)

$303,900

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$152,000

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$2,157,400 $862,960 $3,020,400

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

Quantity 1 1 1 1 34,200

Unit LS LS LS LS SF

Unit Cost $50,000 $15,000 $10,000 $110,000 $1

Total $50,000 $15,000 $10,000 $110,000 $34,200

28,290 3,695 1,175 4,820 225 3 1 1 1 2 1,200 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

SF SF LF SF LF EA SF SF LS EA LS LS EA SF EA EA EA EA EA EA EA

$15 $25 $35 $15 $30 $5,000 $15 $45 $15,000 $15,000 $210,000 $95,000 $35,000 $25 $3,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

$424,350 $92,375 $41,125 $72,300 $6,750 $15,000 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $210,000 $95,000 $70,000 $30,000 $3,000 $5,000 $10,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $150,000

$45

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$543,672

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$302,040

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$453,060

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$60,408

Other Project Costs Total =

$1,359,200

GRAND TOTAL =

$4,379,600

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Yountville Stop Modifications at California Dr (F.1) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Sidewalk/Driveway ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity 1 1 1 1 2,770 740 1 1,200 2 2 2 2 2

Unit LS LS LS LS SF SF SF EA SF SF LS EA SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $25,000 $10,000 $5,000 $20,000 $15 $25 $15 $5,000 $15 $45 $10,000 $15,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $25,000 $10,000 $5,000 $20,000 $41,550 $0 $11,100 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $30,000 $0 $10,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $150,000

Utilities (5% of project items)

$18,700

Drainage (7% of project items)

$26,100

Lighting and Electrical (10% of project items)

$37,300

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$37,300

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$492,050 $196,820 $688,900

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION (Napa Valley Wine)

1,050

$45

$47,250

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$124,002

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$68,890

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$103,335

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$13,778

Other Project Costs Total =

$357,300

GRAND TOTAL =

$1,046,200

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs American Canyon Post Office (F.2) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Salvage and Relocate Existing Stop and Amenities Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Sidewalk/Driveway Curb and Gutter ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Signal Installation Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity 1 1 1 1 1 2,340 1,425 1,505 160 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

Unit LS LS LS LS LS SF SF SF LF EA SF SF LS EA LS SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $30,000 $10,000 $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 $15 $25 $15 $35 $5,000 $15 $45 $10,000 $15,000 $300,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $15,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $30,000 $10,000 $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 $35,100 $35,625 $22,575 $5,600 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $300,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 $30,000 $10,000 $150,000

Utilities (5% of project items)

$36,500

Drainage (7% of project items)

$51,100

Lighting and Electrical (10% of project items)

$72,900

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$72,900

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$962,300 $384,920 $1,347,300

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

$45

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$242,514

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$134,730

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$202,095

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$26,946

Other Project Costs Total =

$606,300

GRAND TOTAL =

$1,953,600

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Redwood Rd Park and Ride (F.6) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Sidewalk/Driveway ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Canopy Shelter

Quantity 6 2 2 1 1

Unit LS LS LS LS SF SF SF EA SF SF LS EA SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $20,000 $10,000 $5,000 $30,000 $15 $25 $15 $5,000 $15 $45 $10,000 $15,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $900,000

Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $5,000 $900,000

Utilities (5% of project items)

$49,300

Drainage (7% of project items)

$69,000

Lighting and Electrical (10% of project items)

$98,500

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$98,500

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$1,083,500 $433,400 $1,516,900

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

$45

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$273,042

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$151,690

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$227,535

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$30,338

Other Project Costs Total =

$682,600

GRAND TOTAL =

$2,199,500

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs St Helena Post Office (F.7) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Curb and Gutter Sidewalk/Driveway Decorative Sidewalk ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity 1 1 1 1 330 165 1,450 1,340 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

Unit LS LS LS LS SF SF LF SF SF EA SF SF LS EA SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $20,000 $10,000 $5,000 $10,000 $15 $25 $35 $15 $25 $5,000 $15 $45 $2,000 $15,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $20,000 $10,000 $5,000 $10,000 $4,950 $0 $5,775 $21,750 $33,500 $5,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $150,000

Utilities (5% of project items)

$16,900

Drainage (7% of project items)

$23,700

Lighting and Electrical (5% of project items)

$16,900

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$33,800

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$429,275 $171,710 $601,000

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

$45

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$108,180

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$60,100

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$90,150

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$12,020

Other Project Costs Total =

$270,500

GRAND TOTAL =

$871,500

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs St Helena Park & Ride (F.8) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Curb and Gutter Sidewalk/Driveway Decorative Sidewalk ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping Signal Modification (Push Buttons and Pedestrian Heads) RRFB Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity 1 1 1 1 500 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Unit LS LS LS LS SF SF LF SF SF EA SF SF LS LS EA SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $15 $25 $35 $15 $25 $5,000 $15 $45 $5,000 $8,000 $15,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,500 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Utilities (5% of project items)

$8,300

Drainage (7% of project items)

$11,600

Lighting and Electrical (5% of project items)

$8,300

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$16,600

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$210,300 $84,120 $294,500

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

175

$45

$7,875

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$53,010

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$29,450

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$44,175

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$5,890

Other Project Costs Total =

$140,400

GRAND TOTAL =

$434,900

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs American Canyon Queue Jump - SR-29/Napa Junction Rd (H.1) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Sidewalk/Driveway ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Signal Modification/Relocation (Includes TSP) Metal Beam Guardrail Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity 1 1 1 9,700 400 1 1 1 285 -

Unit LS LS LS LS SF SF SF EA SF SF LS EA LS LF SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $20,000 $10,000 $5,000 $40,000 $15 $25 $15 $5,000 $15 $45 $5,000 $15,000 $50,000 $35 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $20,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $145,500 $0 $6,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $50,000 $9,975 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Utilities (5% of project items)

$12,900

Drainage (15% of project items)

$38,500

Lighting and Electrical (10% of project items)

$25,700

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$25,700

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$359,275 $143,710 $503,000

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

$45

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$90,540

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$50,300

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$75,450

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$10,060

Other Project Costs Total =

$226,400

GRAND TOTAL =

$729,400

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs American Canyon Queue Jump - SR-29/Donaldson Way (H.1) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Sidewalk/Driveway ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Signal Modification/Relocation (Includes TSP) Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity

Unit LS LS LS LS SF SF SF EA SF SF LS EA LS SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

1 1 1

Unit Cost $10,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $15 $25 $15 $5,000 $15 $45 $5,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Utilities (5% of project items)

$1,800

Drainage (7% of project items)

$2,500

Lighting and Electrical (10% of project items)

$3,500

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$3,500

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$38,500 $15,400 $53,900

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

$45

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$9,702

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$5,390

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$8,085

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$1,078

Other Project Costs Total =

$24,300

GRAND TOTAL =

$78,200

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs American Canyon Queue Jump - SR-29/American Canyon Rd (H.1) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Curb and Gutter Sidewalk/Driveway ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Signal Modification/Relocation (Includes TSP) Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity 1 1 1 1 12,350 550 4,580 2 1 1 -

Unit LS LS LS LS SF SF LF SF EA SF SF LS EA LS SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $40,000 $10,000 $5,000 $50,000 $15 $25 $35 $15 $5,000 $15 $45 $5,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $40,000 $10,000 $5,000 $50,000 $185,250 $0 $19,250 $68,700 $10,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Utilities (5% of project items)

$20,700

Drainage (7% of project items)

$29,000

Lighting and Electrical (5% of project items)

$20,700

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$41,400

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$525,000 $210,000 $735,000

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

5,430

$45

$244,350

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$132,300

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$73,500

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$110,250

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$14,700

Other Project Costs Total =

$575,100

GRAND TOTAL =

$1,310,100

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Napa Queue Jump - SR-29/SR-221/Soscol Ferry Rd (H.2) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Sidewalk/Driveway ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Signal Modification/Relocation (Includes TSP) Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity 1 1 1 24,050 1 1 -

Unit LS LS LS LS SF SF SF EA SF SF LS EA LS SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $60,000 $15,000 $10,000 $90,000 $15 $25 $15 $5,000 $15 $45 $20,000 $15,000 $110,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000

Total $60,000 $15,000 $10,000 $0 $360,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $110,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Utilities (5% of project items)

$28,800

Drainage (7% of project items)

$40,400

Lighting and Electrical (10% of project items)

$57,600

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$57,600

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$760,150 $304,060 $1,064,300

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

$45

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$191,574

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$106,430

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$159,645

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$21,286

Other Project Costs Total =

$478,900

GRAND TOTAL =

$1,543,200

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Napa Queue Jump - SR-29/SR-12/Airport Blvd (H.2) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Curb and Gutter Sidewalk/Driveway ADA Curb Ramp Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Signal Modification/Relocation (Includes TSP) Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity 1 1 1 1 250 25

1 1 -

Unit LS LS LS LS SF SF LF SF EA SF LS EA LS SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $10,000 $5,000 $1,000 $10,000 $15 $25 $35 $15 $5,000 $45 $3,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $10,000 $5,000 $1,000 $10,000 $3,750 $0 $875 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Utilities (5% of project items)

$2,700

Drainage (7% of project items)

$3,800

Lighting and Electrical (5% of project items)

$2,700

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$5,400

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$68,225 $27,290 $95,600

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

$45

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$17,208

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$9,560

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$14,340

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$1,912

Other Project Costs Total =

$43,000

GRAND TOTAL =

$138,600

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Wine Train Parcel West of Soscol Gateway (I.1) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Resurface Pavement (Slurry Seal) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Sidewalk/Driveway ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-Fi Shelter

Quantity

29,200

Unit LS LS LS LS SF SF SF SF EA SF SF LS EA SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

Unit Cost $30,000 $10,000 $5,000 $30,000 $1 $15 $25 $15 $5,000 $15 $45 $10,000 $15,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Utilities (5% of project items)

$2,000

Drainage (7% of project items)

$2,800

Lighting and Electrical (10% of project items)

$4,000

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$4,000

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$43,200 $17,280 $60,500

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

29,200

$45

$1,314,000

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$10,890

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$6,050

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$9,075

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$1,210

Other Project Costs Total =

$1,335,200

GRAND TOTAL =

$1,395,700

6/28/2017

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Vine Transit Express Bus Corridors Study Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs City Parking Lot North of 3rd (I.2) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost June 2017 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Description Traffic Control Erosion Control Clearing and Grubbing Roadway Excavation (Includes removal of sidewalk, curb/gutter, etc.) Resurface Pavement (Slurry Seal) Roadway Pavement (HMA/AB) Roadway Pavement (Concrete/AB) Sidewalk/Driveway ADA Curb Ramp Hardscaping Landscaping/Clean water features Signing and Striping RRFB Station Platform Bike Racks/Lockers Bench Real-Time Arrival Signs Wayfinding Signs Wi-FI Shelter

Utilities (5% of project items)

Drainage (7% of project items)

23 24

Quantity 1 1 33,400

Unit Cost $30,000 $15,000 $5,000 $56,000 $1 $8 $25 $15 $5,000 $15 $45 $10,000 $15,000 $25 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $75,000

Total $0 $15,000 $0 $56,000 $0 $267,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$17,500

$24,400

Lighting and Electrical (10% of project items)

$34,900

Mobilization (10% of project items)

$34,900

Construction Sub-Total 40% Contingency Construction Total

$442,400 $176,960 $619,400

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION

Unit LS LS LS LS SF SF SF SF EA SF SF LS EA SF EA EA EA EA EA EA

$45

ENGINEERING/DESIGN (18% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$111,492

ENVIRONMENTAL (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$61,940

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$92,910

PERMITTING (2% OF CONSTRUCTION COST)

$12,388

Other Project Costs Total =

$216,800

GRAND TOTAL =

$836,200

6/28/2017

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION TITLE

Appendix E: Evaluation Worksheets

Header 1

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

128

A. Route 21 Service Changes Project # A.1

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Description

Name Route Optimization

Elimination of the Corporate Drive stop and modification of the route alignment between Napa Valley College and the Devlin Road/Airport Blvd stop.

Project Considerations Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times Reduces travel time and distance between Napa Valley College and Devlin Road/Airport Blvd $5,000 in annual operating cost savings None Minimal; removal of stop signage

Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • Eliminate Corporate Drive Stop • Between Napa Valley College and Devlin Road/Airport Boulevard stop, change route alignment to use SR‐221 & Soscol Ferry Road instead of Vista Point Drive/Napa Valley Corporate Drive/Kaiser Road.

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Short‐Term Explanation Criteria Rating Existing and potential transit demand Corporate drive stop currently has minimal ridership (only 1 average boarding & alighting Ridership per day), thus no impact, while reducing travel time for majority of riders. Elimination of Corporate Drive stop would not have significant impacts on access, as that Access to Transit stop was underutilized. Transportation Network

◑ ◑

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

● ● ● ● ●

Reduces travel time by approximately 1 minute in both directions. Elimination of Corporate Drive stop and change of route alignment will reduce variability in travel times. No impact on traffic. Slightly reduces total service miles; otherwise, no impact to operations & maintenance.

No additional operations or maintenance effor required by local cities or Caltrans. Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

◑ ● ◑ ● ● ● ● ◑ ●

No impact related to planning goals. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation No right‐of‐way impacts. Slightly reduces service miles. Minimal capital costs. No impacts. Safety No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. Elimination of uncontrolled bus left‐turn improves roadway safety

A. Route 21 Service Changes Description

Project #

Name

A.2

Expansion of Service Area

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Long‐term, split route 21 into two separate routes and expand service to Red Top Road Park & Ride and Vacaville.

Project Considerations Improve connectivity to Solano County Expands service to a previously unserved market (Vacaville); splitting of routes reduces travel times Operating cost dependent on future service plan and terminus in Vacaville Sufficient transit demand between Vacaville and Napa County, funding, coordination with Fast and City Coach Minimal; signage at Davis Street Park & Ride and Red Top Road Park & Ride

Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • Add stop at Red Top Road Park & Ride in Vacaville. • Add stop at Vacaville Transportation Center OR Davis Street Park & Ride in Vacaville. • Split 21 service between Routes 21A (serves Suisun City Train Depot) and 21 B (serves Fairfield Transit Center & Vacaville)

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Long‐Term Explanation Criteria Rating Existing and potential transit demand Addition of new stop in Vacaville provides opportunities for new riders to access Vine Ridership Transit Access to Transit

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

● ● ◑ ◑ ● ○ ●

Addition of new stops improves access to Vine Transit service. Transportation Network No significant change in travel times No significant change in reliability

May slightly reduce traffic congestion on I‐80 and SR‐12 with additional transit service Long‐term, providing service to Vacaville would increase service hours and service miles and thus increase operating costs. The infrastructure at the new stops would likely not be Since these improvements would use existing infrastructure, no new operations or maintenance effor required by local cities or Caltrans. Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

◑ ● ◑ ● ○ ● ● ◑ ◑

No impact related to planning goals. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation No right‐of‐way impacts. Increases service miles and hours. No capital costs (infrastructure is existing) No impacts. Safety No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

B. Route 21 Stop Changes Name

Description

Napa Valley College Stop Option A

Southbound stop for Routes 10X, 11X, 21 A/B and 29 at Napa Valley College is made in‐line on SR‐221, and the alignment for serving the northbound stop is shortened.

Project # B.1.a

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Project Considerations Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times Reduces travel time and distance for buses arriving and departing Napa Valley College $1,791,500 estimated total capital cost Coordination with Napa Valley College, encroachment permit from Caltrans, use of college right‐of‐way • New stop facilities along the west side of SR‐221 in the shoulder on the opposite side of James Diemer Drive from the existing stop. Facilities would include a bench and shelter, real‐time arrival information, wayfinding and transit route information

Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • Southbound buses will serve the new stop on SR‐221. Northbound buses will be re‐routed to turn left at Streblow Drive to James Diemer Drive to serve the new stop. Northbound buses will then return to SR‐221 via Magnolia Drive.

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Medium‐Term Criteria Ridership Access to Transit

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

Rating Existing and potential transit demand

◑ ◑ ● ◑ ● ● ◑

Explanation

Reduction in travel time may moderately increase ridership Stop improvements would have limited positive or negative impact on transit accessibility. Transportation Network Reduces travel time in northbound direction by approximately 4 minutes, and 1 minute in the southbound direction. Provision of SB in‐line stop and a more streamlined route alignment will reduce variability in travel times. Of all the timepoints in the express bus system, NVC has some of the worst on‐ Improvement may slightly reduce traffic congestion by reducing number of bus turns. Reduces service hours.

Slight increase to maintenace for SB pullout Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

● ● ◑ ◑ ● ○ ● ◑ ◑

Consistent with Vision2040 plans for rapid bus improvements. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation 23,900 SF of ROW needed from NVC Reduces service hours, providing operational cost savings. $1,791,500 Minimal impacts to roadway and transit operations. Safety No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

B. Route 21 Stop Changes Project # B.1.b

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Capital Infrastructure Improvements:

Description In‐line, midblock stop for Routes 10X, 11X, 21 A/B and 29 is created for the southbound direction at Napa Valley College. In the northbound direction, two in‐line stops are created Napa Valley College Stop Option B on SR‐221 at Streblow and Magnolia Drives. Includes pedestrian improvements. Project Considerations Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times Reduces travel time and distance for buses arriving and departing Napa Valley College $3,689,500 estimated total capital cost Coordination with Napa Valley College, encroachment permit from Caltrans, use of college right‐of‐way, use of Napa County right‐of‐ • Implement mid‐block southbound stop as in Option A • For the northbound direction, construct new stop facilities at SR‐221 & Magnolia Drive and SR‐221 & Streblow Drive. Facilities would include a bench and shelter, real‐time arrival information, wayfinding and transit route information Name

• Southbound route alignment changes so that buses will serve an in‐line stop on SR‐221 • Northbound route alignment changes so that buses turn left buses will serve the two stops at Streblow and Magnolia

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Medium‐Term Criteria Ridership Access to Transit

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

Rating Existing and potential transit demand

◑ ○ ● ● ● ◑ ●

Explanation

Reduction in travel time may moderately increase ridership NB top would be relocated further from main attraction areas of NVC Campus Transportation Network Reduces northbound travel time by approximately 5 minutes, and southbound travel time by 1 minute. Provision of in‐line stops and a more streamlined route alignment will reduce variability in travel times. Of all the timepoints in the express bus system, NVC has some of the ○er on‐ Improvement may slightly reduce traffic congestion by reducing number of bus turns. Reduces service hours. Slight increase in maintenance due to additional stop.

No change in City/Caltrans maintenance Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

● ◑ ◑ ◑ ● ○ ● ○ ◑

Consistent with Vision2040 plans for rapid bus improvements. Environmental Considerations Additional space needed at Streblow for bus pullout could potentially impact adjacent trail No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation 23,900 SF of ROW needed from NVC and 1,600 SF of ROW needed from Caltrans Reduces service hours, providing operational cost savings. $3,689,500 Temporary closures required for construction of crosswalk. Safety Requires crossing SR‐221 to access NB stops No change in vehicular safety.

B. Route 21 Stop Changes Project # B.1.c

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Capital Infrastructure Improvements:

Description Both northbound and southbound stops at Napa Valley College are converted to in‐line, mid‐ block stops on SR‐221 for Routes 10X, 11X, 21 A/B and 29. Northbound stop connected to Napa Valley College Stop Option C college via a grade‐separated crossing of SR‐221. Project Considerations Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times Reduces travel time and distance for buses arriving and departing Napa Valley College $9,499,200 estimated total capital cost Coordination with Napa Valley College, encroachment permit from Caltrans, use of college right‐of‐way, potentially significant • Place a southbound stop on the west side of SR‐221 in the shoulder on the opposite side of James Diemer Drive from the existing stop. • Place a northbound stop on the east side of SR‐221 in the shoulder across from the proposed southbound stop. • Construct a grade separated pedestrian crossing across SR‐221 between northbound stop and Napa Valley College campus Name

• Southbound route alignment changes so that buses will serve the in‐line stop on SR‐221 • Northbound route alignment changes so that buses will serve the in‐line stop on SR‐221

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Long‐Term Criteria Ridership Access to Transit

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

Rating Existing and potential transit demand

◑ ◑ ● ● ● ◑ ●

Explanation

Reduction in travel time may moderately increase ridership Stop improvements would have limited positive or negative impact on transit accessibility. Transportation Network Reduces northbound travel time by 5.5 minutes and southbound travel time by 1 minute. Provision of in‐line stops and a more streamlined route alignment will reduce variability in travel times. Of all the timepoints in the express bus system, NVC has some of the ○er on‐ Improvement may slightly reduce traffic congestion by reducing number of bus turns. Reduces service hours, but grade‐separated crossing will require maintenance and safety solutions.

No change in City/Caltrans maintenance Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

● ◑ ◑ ○ ● ○ ○ ◑ ◑

Consistent with Vision2040 plans for rapid bus improvements. Environmental Considerations Grade‐separated crossing has potential for environmental impacts No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation 23,900 SF of ROW needed from NVC and 36,000 SF of ROW needed from Caltrans Reduces service hours, providing operational cost savings. $9,499,200 Construction of grade‐separated crossing would likely requrie road closures. Safety No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

B. Route 21 Stop Changes Project # B.1.d

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Capital Infrastructure Improvements:

Description Northbound and southbound stops for Routes 10X, 11X, 21 A/B and 29 would both be relocated to Magnolia Drive, with buses using the existing roundabout to turn around and Napa Valley College Stop Option D return to SR‐221. Project Considerations Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times Reduces travel time and distance for buses arriving and departing Napa Valley College $733,800 estimated total capital cost Coordination with Napa Valley College, encroachment permit from Caltrans, use of college right‐of‐way • Place a stop on the north side of Magnolia Drive west of SR‐221 that serves both northbound and southbound directions. Buses can use the roundabout on Magnolia Drive to immediately turn around back towards SR‐221 after serving the stop. • Stop infrastructure would include platform, waiting area, shelter, lighting, connection to nearby path, wayfinding materials, real‐time Name

• Southbound route alignment changes so that buses turn right to Magnolia Drive, serve the bus stop, turn around at the roundabout and return to SR‐221 • Northbound route alignment changes so that buses turn left to Magnolia Drive, serve the bus stop, turn around at the roundabout and return to SR‐221. Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Short‐Term Criteria Ridership Access to Transit

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

Rating Existing and potential transit demand

◑ ○ ● ◑ ● ● ●

Explanation

Reduction in travel time may moderately increase ridership Stops would be relocated further from main attraction areas of NVC Campus Transportation Network Reduces northbound travel time by 4.5 minutes. Reduces southbound travel time by 15 seconds. Not in‐line stops, but reduced turning movements allow a more streamlined route alignment to reduce variability in travel times. Of all the timepoints in the express bus system, NVC has Improvement may slightly reduce traffic congestion by reducing number of bus turns. Reduces service hours.

No change in City/Caltrans maintenance Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

● ● ◑ ● ● ◑ ● ◑ ◑

Consistent with Vision2040 plans for rapid bus improvements. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation Assumed to make improvement within NVC ROW Reduces service hours, providing operational cost savings. $733,800 Minimal impacts to roadway and transit operations. Safety No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

B. Route 21 Stop Changes Description

Project #

Name

B.2

Stop Improvements at Devlin & Airport

Upgrade facilities at and near the Devlin Road/Airport Blvd stop for Routes 11X and 25.

Project Considerations Improve stop facilities at express bus stops Improves amenities, safety, and access to the Devlin Road/Airport Blvd Stop $1,323,800 estimated total capital cost Requires acquisition of right‐of‐way • Remove facilities at the existing southbound/eastbound stop and construct new stop facilities on the south side of Airport Boulevard, east of Devlin Road Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • Implement improved stop facilities including sidewalks and concrete waiting area with lighting, wayfinding, shelter, seating, Wi‐Fi, bike • Relocate the existing southbound/eastbound stop to the south side of Airport Boulevard, east of Devlin Road Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Medium‐Term Criteria Ridership Access to Transit

Rating Existing and potential transit demand

● ●

City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance

◑ ◑ ● ● ◑

‐

◑

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance

Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

Explanation

Stop improvements may make stop more desirable and increase ridership Pedestrian improvements will improve accessibility to transit. Transportation Network No impact on travel time. Improvements to stop facilities will have no impact on transit reliability Improvement has no impact on traffic. Stop relocation will improve bus operations

New bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures will need to be maintained by local cities. Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

● ◑ ● ● ○ ● ● ●

No impact related to planning goals. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation No right‐of‐way impacts. Minor additional maintenance costs. $1,107,100 Minimal impacts to roadway and transit operations Safety Upgraded facilities improve pedestrian safety with increased lighting and added crosswalks Relocation of stop will improve bus safety

C. Route 25 Service Changes Project #

Name

Description

C.1

Addition of Downtown Petaluma and Sonoma Stops

Restoration of Route 25, extending current route to Petaluma to connect to SMART Station

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Project Considerations Expand regional connectivity and transit integration Provides an additional connection to regional transit services (SMART) Operating cost dependent on route alignment, to be determined in coordination with Sonoma County Transit Operational funding, coordination with Sonoma County Transit Minimal; signage at future stop locations in Petaluma and Sonoma

Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • New long‐term route alignment which serves a new stop in the City of Sonoma (exact location TBD, would coincide with an existing Sonoma County Transit Stop) and at the Downtown Petaluma SMART Station

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Long‐Term Criteria Ridership Access to Transit Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Explanation Rating Existing and potential transit demand Addition of service to Downtown Petaluma SMART station provides opportunities to increase the number of riders coming from Sonoma County

● ●

Enlargement of service area improves access to Vine Transit service. Transportation Network

◑ ◑ ● ○ ●

Exact alignment in undetermined; travel time impacts unknown. Elimination of Sonoma Plaza stop may decrease the variability in travel times. Extension of the route to Downtown Petaluma would result in a much longer distance and thus more Improvement has no impact on traffic.

Increase of service miles outside of County may introduce operational challenges. The infrastructure used for these improvements would likely be existing; these improvements would thus not require additional operations & maintenance efforts. Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

◑ ● ◑

No impact related to planning goals. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation

● ○ ● ●

No right‐of‐way impacts. Added service to Petaluma would increase service miles and thus operational costs. Minimal capital costs ‐ would use existing infrastructure. No impacts. Safety

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

◑ ◑

No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

D. Route 25 Stop Changes Description

Project #

Name

D.1

Downtown Napa Stop

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Create new stop in Downtown Napa for Routes 10X, 11X, and 25.

Project Considerations Better connect transit service to employment areas Provides direct access to downtown Napa destinations $663,900 estimated total capital cost Coordination with City of Napa on on‐street parking removal, and use of sidewalks requires route re‐alignment • New stops on 3rd Street: bench and shelter, real‐time arrival information, wayfinding and transit route information.

Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • Add a new stop for routes 10X, 11X, and 25 in Downtown Napa at 3rd Street & Randolph Street.

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Short‐Term Explanation Criteria Rating Existing and potential transit demand Addition of Downtown Napa stop provides an opportunity to increase ridership by picking up Ridership and dropping off riders closer to downtown destinations. Express bus service would be significantly more accessible for downtown Napa employees Access to Transit and residents Transportation Network Combination of added Downtown Napa stop and modified routing results in an increase in Travel Times travel time by 1 minute in both directions. Providing service through downtown Napa may increase potential for congestion, although Transit Reliability current route is already unreliable.

● ●

Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

◑ ◑ ● ◑ ●

Improvement is anticipated to have no significnat impact on traffic. Creates additional stop to maintain

No new maintenance needs for City/Caltrans Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

◑ ● ● ● ◑ ◑ ● ● ◑

No impact related to planning goals. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. Provides increased access to transit within the South Downtown Napa COC, per Vision 2040. Cost and Implementation No right‐of‐way impacts, but requires coordination with City of Napa for sidewalk use and parking removal Downtown stop slightly increases service hours and thus costs. $663,900 Sidewalk may be slightly impacted during construction Safety May reduce walking distance to transit for downtown users No change in vehicular safety.

D. Route 25 Stop Changes Description

Project #

Name

D.2

Imola Park & Ride Improvements

Convert existing Imola stop to in‐line stops on SR‐29 ramps and improve P&R facilities.

Project Considerations Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times Reduces travel time and distance for buses arriving and departing Imola Park & Ride $4,379,600 estimated total capital cost Funding; coordination with Caltrans on park & ride lot, in‐line stops on SR‐29, and ramp and signal modifications; coordination with • Implement pedestrian infrastructure and lighting between park & ride lot, southbound stop, and northbound stop, including new sidewalk under SR‐29 on south side of Imola Avenue Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • Provide improved stop facilities at both northbound and southbound stop locations, including sidewalks and concrete waiting area • Southbound Stop ‐ Located on the SR‐29 southbound on‐ramp adjacent to the park & ride lot. • Eliminate Gasser Drive & Hartle Court stops • Change Route 25 alignment to use 3rd Street, Jefferson Street, 2nd Street, California Boulevard, 1st Street and SR‐29 between Soscol Gateway Transit Center and Imola Park & Ride. • Between Imola Park & Ride and SR‐12, change Route 25 alignment to use SR‐29 instead of Golden Gate Drive. Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Medium‐Term Explanation Criteria Rating Existing and potential transit demand Improvements would reduce travel time to increase ridership. Elimination of Gasser Ridership Drive/Hartle Court stop would have limited impact due to ○ ridership (~5 Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Access to Transit

◑ ●

City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance

◑ ● ◑ ◑ ◑

‐

●

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance

Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

Pedestrian facility improvements will improve accessibility to the Imola park & ride stop. Transportation Network Results in 3 to 5 minute reduction in travel time in either direction Provision of in‐line stops and a more streamlined route alignment will reduce variability in travel times. Improvement may have moderate impact on traffic associated with bus‐only phase at NB on‐ ramp

Increased maintenance of Imola PNR facilities Ramp modifications and improvements to PNR may require some additional maintenance for Caltrans Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

● ◑ ● ◑ ○ ● ● ◑

Consistent with Vision 2040's call for rapid bus improvements on SR‐29. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation No right‐of‐way impacts. Reduction in travel times may be offset by increased maintenance costs at PNR $4,050,100 Minimal impacts to roadway and transit operations as most work can occur outside of the existing travelway. Safety Provide new sidewalk on south side of Imola Drive and new connections to PNR. No change in vehicular safety.

E. Route 29 Service Changes Description

Project #

Name

E.1

Split Route 29 into 29/10X/11X

Route 29 will be split into Route 10 Express, Route 11 Express, and Route 29.

Project Considerations Need Addressed: Increase reliability on Route 29 Benefits: Splitting of routes shortens trip distances and thus increases reliability of bus travel times Costs/Savings: Operating costs vary with service frequency Barriers to Implementation: Short‐Term: Coordination with Soltrans on use of Curtola Park & Ride • Capital improvements identified in other improvements (Napa Valley College stop, Downtown Napa stop, Imola Park & Ride, Yountville, etc.) Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • Split the existing Route 29 into three separate routes which serve the stops listed below. • Between Napa Valley College and Devlin Road/Airport Boulevard stop, change route alignment to use SR‐221 & Soscol Ferry Road instead of Vista Point Drive/Napa Valley Corporate Drive/Kaiser Road. Route 10 Express • Napa Valley College Operating Changes: • Soscol Gateway Transit Center Timeframe to Implementation: Both Short‐Term and Long‐Term Route Modificaitons Explanation Criteria Rating Existing and potential transit demand Splitting of route would reduce travel time and increase reliability. Also provides additional Ridership connections to Solano County transit services. Access to Transit Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Transit access increased at Solano County locations (Curtola and SR‐37/Fairgrounds PNR) Transportation Network Reduces travel times by reducing out‐of‐direction travel for riders Splitting Route 29 service into different routes will decrease the total trip time, thus significantly improving the reliability of all three routes. The initial timepoints of the Improvement has no impact on traffic. Route split enables more efficient distribution of operating time and resources in higher ridership areas.

No additional operations or maintenance effort required by local cities or Caltrans. Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

● ● ◑ ● ◑ ● ● ◑ ◑

Consistent with Vision 2040's call for rapid bus improvements on SR‐29. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation No right‐of‐way impacts. Operating & maintenance costs dependent on service levels of respective routes. More efficient service may be achieved. Service change; no capital costs. No impacts. Safety No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

F. Route 29 Stop Changes Description

Project #

Name

F.1

Yountville Stop Modifications

Convert the existing Yountville stop to in‐line stop on SR‐29 and provide new facilities.

Project Considerations Need Addressed: Reduce travel time and variability on Route 29 north of Napa Benefits: Reduces travel time and distance for buses arriving and departing from Yountville Costs/Savings: $1,046,200 estimated total capital cost Barriers to Implementation: Encroachment permit from Caltrans, acquisition of right‐of‐way • New stop facilities at northbound and southbound stops, including sidewalks and concrete waiting area with lighting, wayfinding, shelter, seating, Wi‐Fi, additional bike storage, and real‐time transit information. Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • Convert existing Yountville stop to in‐line stop on SR‐29 at California drive. • Northbound Stop ‐ Bus will exit SR‐29 northbound using the California Drive off‐ramp, cross California Drive, serve the new stop at the SR‐29 northbound on‐ramp, and re‐enter SR‐29 northbound. • Southbound Stop ‐ Bus will exit SR‐29 southbound using the California Drive off‐ramp, serve the new stop at the SR‐29 southbound off‐ramp, cross California Drive, and re‐enter SR‐29 southbound using the on‐ramp.

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Medium‐Term Criteria Rating Existing and potential transit demand Ridership Access to Transit

◑ ●

City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance

● ◑ ● ◑ ◑

‐

●

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance

Environmental Risks Communities of Concern Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

Explanation

Would result in decrease in travel time, potentially increasing ridership. Stops relocated slightly closer to Yountville, improving accessibility Transportation Network Reduces travel time by approximately 1 minute in either direction. Streamlined alignment, although reliability benefits anticipated to be minimal Minor reduction in bus traffic through SB ramps intersection Separating existing one stop into directional stops may increase maintenance requirements slightly

Additional facility in Caltrans ROW Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

● ◑ ◑ ● ○ ◑ ● ◑

Consistent with Vision 2040's call for rapid bus improvements on SR‐29. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation Needs approximattely 1,050 SF of ROW on SB ramp More efficient routing reduces operating costs. $1,046,200 May be minor impacts to ramps during construction Safety Improved stop access from Yountville No change in vehicular safety.

F. Route 29 Stop Changes Project # F.2

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Name

Description

American Canyon Post Office Stop Modifications

Convert American Canyon Post Office stop to in‐line stop on SR‐29 and provide new stop facilities.

Project Considerations Make transit travel times more competitive with auto travel times Reduces travel time and distance for buses arriving and departing from the American Canyon Post Office stop $1,953,600 estimated total capital cost Caltrans coordination and encroachment permit for new stops on SR‐29 and new traffic signal. Coordination with American Canyon on additional • New stop facilities at northbound and southbound stops, including sidewalks and concrete waiting area with lighting, wayfinding, shelter, seating, Wi‐ Fi, additional bike storage, and real‐time transit information.

Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • Change alignment for Routes 11X and 29 to stay on SR‐29 through American Canyon and serve the proposed in‐line stops.

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Medium‐Term Criteria Ridership Access to Transit

Rating Existing and potential transit demand

◑ ◑

Explanation

Would result in decrease in travel time, potentially increasing ridership. Stop improvements would have limited positive or negative impact on transit accessibility. Transportation Network

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance

◑ ● ◑ ◑ ◑

Reduces travel time by approximately X minutes in either direction Provision of in‐line stops and reduction in left‐turns to/from the SR‐29 corridor will improve reliability. Minor reduction in turning volumes on SR‐29. Relocating stop further from American Canyon PNR may increase maintenance load Additional facility in Caltrans ROW

Consistency with Regional and Local Plans ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

● ◑ ◑

Consistent with Vision 2040's call for rapid bus improvements on SR‐29. Environmental Considerations Will need to examine traffic impacts assocaited with new signal No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation

● ● ○ ◑

No right‐of‐way impacts. More efficient routing reduces operating costs. $1,686,500 Construction of stops may have minor effects on traffic during construciton Safety

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

● ●

Upgraded facilities improve pedestrian safety with increased lighting Reduction of bus left-turns on SR‐29 may improve vehicle safety

F. Route 29 Stop Changes Description

Project #

Name

F.3

American Canyon Park & Ride

Add a new Park & Ride in American Canyon, location TBD.

Project Considerations Need Addressed: Expand park and ride opportunities Benefits: Provides new park & ride access to express bus service Costs/Savings: Costs dependent on location, to be determined in coordination with City of American Canyon Barriers to Implementation: Generating increased demand for park & ride, coordination with American Canyon on park & ride locations, acquisition of right‐ • Construct park & ride lot (location TBD) • Provide stop facilities, including sidewalks and concrete waiting area with lighting, wayfinding, shelter, seating, Wi‐Fi, bike Capital Infrastructure Improvements: storage, and real‐time transit information. • Add new stop at new American Canyon Park & Ride (specific location TBD) for Routes 29 and 11X and adjust route alignments to access the stop.

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Long‐Term Criteria Ridership Access to Transit

Explanation Rating Existing and potential transit demand Addition of new PNR in American Canyon provides opportunities for new riders to access Vine Transit

● ●

City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance

◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑

‐

●

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance

Environmental Risks Communities of Concern Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

Addition of PNR improves access to Vine Transit service. Transportation Network Exact alignment in undetermined; travel time impacts unknown. Addition of a stop increases potential for variability in travel times Access to PNR is unknown Addition of new PNR may increase maintenance burden

Addition of new PNR may increase maintenance burden Consistency with Regional and Local Plans Consistent with Vision 2040's call for rapid bus improvements on SR‐29 and for expansion of the park & ride network. Environmental Considerations

◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ● ◑ ◑

Environmental effect unknown until site selected No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation Right‐of‐way effect unknown Additional facility to operate and maintain Unknown who would fund new PNR Likely to be minimal for an off‐street facility Safety No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

F. Route 29 Stop Changes Project # F.4

Description

Name SR‐37/Fairgrounds Park & Ride

Add a stop for Route 29 at SR‐37/Fairgrounds Park & Ride once constructed by Solano Transportation Authority.

Project Considerations Need Addressed: Expand park and ride opportunities Benefits: Provides new park & ride access to express bus service Costs/Savings: Minimal operating cost change associated with re‐routing Barriers to Implementation: Construction of park & ride by others • Minimal; signage at new park & ride. This is a location being considered by STA and SolTrans; infrastructure improvements would not be done by NVTA. Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • Add new stop for Route 29 at new SR‐37 / Fairgrounds Park & Ride. Re‐route Route 29 to serve this location via SR‐37.

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Medium‐Term Criteria Rating Existing and potential transit demand Ridership Access to Transit Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

● ● ◑ ◑ ◑ ● ●

Explanation

May enhance connectivity to Solano County transit users Addition of new stops improves access to Vine Transit service. Transportation Network Likely to have minimal impact on travel time due to realignment of route Addition of a stop increases potential for variability in travel times Access to PNR is unknown Facility to be maintained by others

Unknown ownership for facility Consistency with Regional and Local Plans Consistent with Vision 2040's call for rapid bus improvements on SR‐29 and for expansion of the park & ride network. Environmental Considerations

● ● ● ◑ ◑ ● ● ◑ ◑

Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. New stop is located within an MTC COC. Cost and Implementation Right‐of‐way effect unknown Slight increase in travel times would result in minor increase in bus operating costs. Capital costs would not be incurred by NVTA. Construction would likely not impact roadways. Safety No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

F. Route 29 Stop Changes Description

Project #

Name

F.5

Curtola Park & Ride

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Add a stop at the existing Soltrans Curtola Park & Ride for Route 11X.

Project Considerations Expand regional transit connectivity and transit integration, and expand park and ride opportunities Provides new park & ride access to express bus service $16,000 increase in annual operating costs Coordination with Soltrans on use of the park & ride • Minimal; signage at new park & ride

Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • Add new stop for Route 11X at the existing Curtola Park & Ride. Adjust Route 11X alignment to serve this stop. This is a location being considered by STA and SolTrans; infrastructure improvements would not be done by NVTA.

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Short‐Term Criteria Rating Existing and potential transit demand Ridership Access to Transit

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

● ● ◑ ◑ ● ● ●

Explanation

May enhance connectivity to Solano County transit users Addition of new stops improves access to Vine Transit service. Transportation Network Does not require modification of route alignment, but travel time would be slightly increased by the addition of a new stop and the time to circulate in and out of the park & ride Addition of a stop increases potential for variability in travel times No impact on traffic. Facility to be maintained by others

No change in City/Caltrans maintenance Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

◑ ● ● ● ◑ ● ● ◑ ◑

No impact related to planning goals. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. New stop is located within an MTC COC. Cost and Implementation No right‐of‐way impacts. Slight increase in travel times would result in minor increase in bus operating costs. No capital costs ‐ would use existing infrastructure. No impacts. Safety No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

F. Route 29 Stop Changes Description

Project #

Name

F.6

Redwood Park & Ride Stop Modifications

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Improve stop facilities and provide shade structure at Redwood Park & Ride.

Project Considerations Improve stop facilities at express bus stops Improves amenities, safety, and access to the Redwood Park & Ride $2,199,500 estimated total capital cost Funding • Implement improved stop facilities including wayfinding, Wi‐Fi, additional bike storage, and real‐time transit information. • Construct new canopy over customer waiting area, creating shade

Capital Infrastructure Improvements: ‐

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Medium‐Term Criteria Ridership Access to Transit Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Rating Existing and potential transit demand

◑ ◑

Explanation

Increased amenities may result in minor ridership increase Increased amenities may result in minor transit access improvements Transportation Network

◑ ◑ ● ◑ ●

No change in travel time No impact on transit reliability. No impact on traffic. New stop amenities may require small increase in operations & maintenance efforts by NVTA.

No additional cost to City/Caltrans Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

◑ ● ◑

No impact related to planning goals. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation

● ◑ ○ ◑

No right‐of‐way impacts. May be additional cost for enhanced facilities $2,199,500 Transit operations could be impacted during construction Safety

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

◑ ◑

No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

F. Route 29 Stop Changes Description

Project #

Name

F.7

St. Helena Post Office Stop Modifications

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Improve stop facilities and provide bus bulb‐outs at the St Helena Post Office Stop.

Project Considerations Improve stop facilities at express bus stops Improves amenities, safety, and access to the St. Helena Post Office stop $871,500 estimated total capital cost Coordination with City of St. Helena on sidewalk and street modifications. • Install bulb‐outs on the northbound and southbound side of SR‐29. The bulb‐outs would extend into the existing roadway so that buses can make in‐line stops on SR‐29.

Capital Infrastructure Improvements: ‐

Rating Existing and potential transit demand

◑ ●

Explanation

New express bus stop in St. Helena may increase ridership Addition of new stops improves access to Vine Transit service. Transportation Network

◑ ◑ ◑ ● ●

Could be small increase in travel time due to additional stop, lessened due to bulbouts Provision of bulb‐outs would reduce impacts to reliability Buses would temporarily back up traffic while at stop New stop amenities may require small increase in operations & maintenance

Negligible additional maintenance effort required. Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

◑ ● ●

No impact related to planning goals. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. Stop improvement located near COC in south St. Helena, per Vision 2040. Cost and Implementation

● ● ◑ ◑

No right‐of‐way impacts. No major additional operating costs. $871,500 Construction of bulb‐outs may require some road impacts. Safety

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

◑ ◑

Bulbouts would improve pedestrian circulation and safety No change in vehicular safety.

F. Route 29 Stop Changes Description

Project #

Name

F.8

St Helena Park & Ride

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Add a park & ride on SR‐29 at St. Helena High School.

Project Considerations Expand park and ride opportunities Provides new park & ride access to express bus service $434,900 estimated total capital cost Coordinate with high school to arrange for use of a portion of parking lot as a park & ride, coordinate with City of St. • Install signage designating park & ride spots in school lot fronting SR‐29 • Provide pedestrian infrastructure and crosswalk.

Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • Add a new stop for Route 10X in St. Helena in front of St. Helena High school on SR‐29.

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Medium‐Term Criteria Rating Existing and potential transit demand Ridership Access to Transit

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

● ● ◑ ◑ ● ◑ ●

Explanation

Addition of a new PNR in St. Helena provides opportunities to capture more riders Addition of PNR improves access to Vine Transit service. Transportation Network Stop would be on SR‐29. Travel time would be slightly increased due to the addition of a stop. Addition of a stop increases potential for variability in travel times No impact on traffic. Addition of new PNR may increase maintenance burden

Improvement utilizes existing infrastructure; added maintenance costs are negligible. Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

◑ ● ● ◑ ◑ ◑ ● ● ◑

No impact related to planning goals. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. Stop improvement located within COC in south St. Helena, per Vision 2040. Cost and Implementation No acquisition required, but would require parking agreement with St. Helena High School Additional facility to operate and maintain $449,500 No impacts. Safety Upgraded facilities improve pedestrian safety with increased lighting and added crosswalks. No change in vehicular safety.

G. Transit Signal Priority Description

Project #

Name

G.1

TSP ‐ SR‐29 North of Napa

Implement transit signal priority at 11 signalized intersections on SR‐29 north of Napa.

Project Considerations Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability Reduces delay for buses caused by intersections, reducing travel time and variability $537,300 estimated total capital cost Identify TSP system and procure technology, coordinate with Caltrans to implement on SR‐29 • Install TSP systems at the following intersections: SR‐29/Washington St (Calistoga) Capital Infrastructure Improvements: SR‐29/Foothill Blvd (Calistoga) ‐ Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Medium‐Term Explanation Criteria Rating Existing and potential transit demand Results in travel time reductions, particularly when compared to autos, increasing the Ridership desirability of transit and attracting new riders. Access to Transit

● ◑

City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance

● ● ◑ ◑ ◑

‐

●

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance

Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

TSP would have limited to no impact on accessibility. Transportation Network Delay reduction per intersection is estimated at 5 sec/intersection, or 55 seconds total. Improves reliability by reducing the delay caused by intersections, which is typically the greatest contributor to variability in travel times. Increases in general traffic delay anticipated to be negligible. Research shows delay increases of 0.3 to 2.5% NVTA must operate and maintain TSP equipment on the buses. Some increased operations & maintenance effort would be required to keep these systems functioning.

TSP equipment at controller requires maintenace by Caltrans. Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

● ◑ ● ◑ ◑ ● ◑ ◑

Consistent with Vision2040 plans for rapid bus improvements. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation No right‐of‐way impacts. Some maintenance effort would be required for TSP equipment. $591,300 Minimal construction impact associated with controller/timing upgrades Safety No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

G. Transit Signal Priority Description

Project #

Name

G.2

TSP ‐ Route 29 South of Napa

Implement transit signal priority at 9 signalized intersections on SR‐29 south of Napa.

Project Considerations Need Addressed: Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability Benefits: Reduces delay for buses caused by intersections, reducing travel time and variability Costs/Savings: $488,700 estimated total capital cost Barriers to Implementation: Identify TSP system and procure technology, coordinate with Caltrans to implement on SR‐29 • Install TSP systems at the following intersections: SR‐29/SR‐12 Sonoma Hwy (Napa) Capital Infrastructure Improvements: SR‐29/CA‐12/SR‐221 (Napa) ‐

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Medium‐Term Explanation Criteria Rating Existing and potential transit demand Results in travel time reductions, increasing the desirability of transit and attracting new Ridership riders. Access to Transit

● ◑

City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance

● ● ◑ ◑ ◑

‐

◑

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance

Environmental Risks Communities of Concern Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

TSP would have limited to no impact on accessibility. Transportation Network Delay reduction per intersection is estimated at 5 sec/intersection, or 45 seconds total. Improves reliability by reducing the delay caused by intersections, which is typically the greatest contributor to variability in travel times. Increases in general traffic delay anticipated to be negligible. Research shows delay increases of 0.3 to 2.5% NVTA must operate and maintain TSP equipment on the buses. Some increased operations & maintenance effort would be required to keep these systems functioning.

TSP equipment at controller requires maintenace by Caltrans. Consistency with Regional and Local Plans SR‐29 Improvement Plan calls for signal cordination at some of these intersections. Signal coordination can co‐exist with TSP. Environmental Considerations

● ◑ ● ◑ ◑ ● ◑ ◑

Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation No right‐of‐way impacts. Some maintenance effort would be required for TSP equipment. $542,700 Minimal construction impact associated with controller/timing upgrades Safety No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

G. Transit Signal Priority Description

Project #

Name

G.3

TSP ‐ SR‐12, 121, 221

Implement transit signal priority at 10 signalized intersections on SR‐12, SR‐121, and SR‐221.

Project Considerations Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability Reduces delay for buses caused by intersections, reducing travel time and variability $537,300 estimated total capital cost Identify TSP system and procure technology, coordinate with Caltrans to implement on SR‐29 • Install TSP systems at the following intersections: SR‐121 (Soscol Ave)/Silverado Trail (Napa) Capital Infrastructure Improvements: SR‐121 (Soscol Ave)/Kansas Ave (Napa) ‐ Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance ‐ Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

● ◑ ● ● ◑ ◑ ◑

TSP equipment at controller requires maintenace by Caltrans. Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

● ● ◑ ● ◑ ◑ ● ◑ ◑

Consistent with Vision2040 plans for rapid bus improvements. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation No right‐of‐way impacts. Some maintenance effort would be required for TSP equipment. $591,300 Minimal construction impact associated with controller/timing upgrades Safety No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

H. Queue Jumps Project # H.1

Description

Name

American Canyon Queue Jumps on Implement queue jumps at three locations in American Canyon. State Routes

Project Considerations Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability Reduces delay for buses caused by intersections, reducing travel time and variability $2,117,700 estimated total capital cost Coordination with Caltrans on signal modifications, acquisition of right‐of‐way at American Canyon Road Implement queue jumps at the following locations: SR‐29 & Napa Junction Road (American Canyon) Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • Northbound Direction (Route 11 Express, Route 29): Implement advanced right‐turn phase and utilize the right‐turn lane as a ‐ Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

● ◑ ● ● ◑

Transit Operations & Maintenance

●

City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance

◑

‐

◑

Environmental Risks Communities of Concern Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

Queue jumps would have no impact on accessibility. Transportation Network 3 NB and 3 SB queue jumps: total delay reductions of approximately 15‐30 seconds for routes 11X and 29 Improves reliability by reducing delay caused by intersections, which is typically the greatest contributor to variability in travel times. May cause minor increase delay for vehicles at improved intersections. NVTA must operate and maintain TSP equipment on the buses. Some increased operations & maintenance effort would be required to keep these systems functioning.

Queue jump equipment at controller and signal heads require maintenace by Caltrans. Consistency with Regional and Local Plans SR‐29 Improvement Plan calls for signal cordination at some of these intersections. Signal coordination can co‐exist with TSP. Environmental Considerations

● ◑ ◑ ◑ ○ ◑ ◑ ◑

Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation 5,430 SF of ROW needed at American Canyon Rd Some maintenance effort would be required for TSP equipment. $2,117,700 Signal modifications and road widening may result in occasional lane clsoures. Safety No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

H. Queue Jumps Description

Project #

Name

H.2

Napa Queue Jumps on State Routes

Implement queue jumps at two locations in Napa.

Project Considerations Reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability Reduces delay for buses caused by intersections, reducing travel time and variability $1,681,800 estimated total capital cost Coordination with Caltrans on signal modifications Implement Queue Jumps at the following locations: SR‐29 & SR‐221/Soscol Ferry Road (Napa) Capital Infrastructure Improvements: • From Soscol Ferry Road (Route 11 Express, Route 21): Construct dedicated right‐turn lane and use as queue jump lane ‐ Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

● ◑

City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance

● ● ◑ ● ◑

‐

◑

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance

Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

Queue jumps would have no impact on accessibility. Transportation Network Route 11X and Route 21 ‐ one new intersection with queue jumps, 5‐10 seconds of delay reduction. Long‐term, Route 29 sees a 10‐20 second delay reduction in the southbound Improves reliability by reducing delay caused by intersections, which is typically the greatest contributor to variability in travel times. May cause minor increase delay for vehicles at improved intersections. NVTA must operate and maintain TSP equipment on the buses. Some increased operations & maintenance effort would be required to keep these systems functioning.

Queue jump equipment at controller and signal heads require maintenace by Caltrans. Consistency with Regional and Local Plans SR‐29 Improvement Plan calls for a partial or full grade separation at some of these intersections. Grade separation may address need for improvement Environmental Considerations

● ◑ ● ◑ ○ ● ◑ ◑

Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation No right‐of‐way impacts. Some maintenance effort would be required for TSP equipment. $1,681,800 Minor effect for signal modifications Safety No change in bicycle or pedestrian safety. No change in vehicular safety.

I. Parking Near Soscol Gateway Transit Center Project # I.1

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Description

Name Wine Train Parcel West of Soscol Gateway

Provide additional parking for Soscol Gateway Transit Center at the existing Wine Train parking lot.

Project Considerations Expand park and ride opportunities Increased park & ride capacity at Soscol Gateway Transit Center $1,395,700 estimated total capital cost Coordination with Wine Train on use of parcel for public park & ride Resurface the existing lot on the Wine Train parcel at 760‐766 Soscol Ave.

Capital Infrastructure Improvements: ‐

Rating Existing and potential transit demand

● ●

Explanation

Enables additional capacity for park & ride access at Soscol Gateway Transit Center. Increased park & ride capacity enables improved access to Soscol Gateway Transit Center. Transportation Network

◑ ◑ ● ● ●

No impact on bus travel times. Changes to parking facilities would have no impact on reliability. Improvement has no impact on traffic. Minimal additional effort required for maintenance of parking lot.

Would not require City/Caltrans maintenance. Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

◑ ● ◑

No impact related to planning goals. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation

○ ● ○ ●

Requires coordination with Wine Train for access to parcel Could require NVTA maintenance of facility $1,395,700 No impacts to transit or roadway operations. Safety

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

◑ ◑

Would require crossing of railroad tracks to access Transit Center No change in vehicular safety.

I. Parking Near Soscol Gateway Transit Center Name

Description

City‐Owned Lot in Downtown Napa

Provide additional parking for Soscol Gateway Transit Center at the City‐owned lot located at the northeast corner of 3rd Street and the Wine Train Tracks.

Project # I.2

Need Addressed: Benefits: Costs/Savings: Barriers to Implementation:

Project Considerations Expand park and ride opportunities Increased park & ride capacity at Soscol Gateway Transit Center $836,200 estimated total capital cost Coordination with City of Napa on improvements to parcel, use as a park & ride, and pedestrian improvements Pave parking lot on City of Napa parcel at 726‐738 3rd Street.

Capital Infrastructure Improvements: ‐

Operating Changes: Timeframe to Implementation: Medium‐Term Criteria Ridership Access to Transit

Rating Existing and potential transit demand

● ◑

City/Caltrans Operations & Maintenance

◑ ◑ ● ● ◑

‐

◑

Travel Times Transit Reliability Traffic Impacts Transit Operations & Maintenance

Environmental Risks Communities of Concern

Right‐of‐way Impacts Operating & Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Construction Impacts

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Vehicular Safety

Explanation

Enables additional capacity for park & ride access at Soscol Gateway Transit Center. Increased park & ride capacity, but further from Soscol Gateway Transit Center than I.1 Transportation Network No impact on bus travel times. Changes to parking facilities would have no impact on reliability. Improvement has no impact on traffic. Minimal additional effort required for maintenance of parking lot.

Assumed to be a City‐maintained lot Consistency with Regional and Local Plans

● ◑ ● ● ◑ ● ◑ ◑

No impact related to planning goals. Environmental Considerations Unlikely to cause environmental impacts. No positive or negative impact to communities of concern. Cost and Implementation No right‐of‐way acquisition required. Could require NVTA maintenance of facility $836,200 No impacts to transit or roadway operations. Safety Would require crossing 3rd St to access Transit Center No change in vehicular safety.

EXPRESS BUS C O R R I D O R S T U DY

SECTION TITLE

Appendix F: City of Napa Comments & Responses

Header 1

Header 2 â€˘ Bullets

Header 3

129

Express Bus Corridor Study: Comments Responses by the City of Napa and NVTA

No.

City of Napa Comment

1. Page 5, Need #1 : The City of Napa does not support transit signal priority, bus pre‐emption or any other technology that will alter signal timing on corridors within the City of Napa. City staff would be in favor of any technology that helps/improves signal timing along corridors.

1 2 2. 3 3. 4 4.

Page 5, Need #5 : Coordinate with City staff. Page 5, Need #9 : Coordinate with City staff. Page 5, Need #10 : Coordinate with City and Caltrans staff.

5. Page 13, A.1 Route Optimization : Hold off on the elimination of the Corporate Drive stop. The Corporate Park is currently undergoing an expansion of hotel and winery land uses and increasing pedestrian connections throughout the Park, which could increase the transit demand at this stop.

5 6. Page 15, A.2 Expansion of Service Area : Is there sufficient demand between Napa and Solano Counties to 6 support splitting these routes?

7. Page 19, B.1.B Napa Valley College Stop Option B : This option requires users of the stops on the northbound line to cross State Route 221. Increased pedestrian crossings at the signals along State Route 221 could cause increased delay along the State Route 221 corridor. 7

NVTA Response

City Response to Comments (10‐26‐17)

TSP is proposed only at signals operated by Caltrans on state routes. A concept of operations report and As previously stated, the City of Napa supporting traffic analysis will be prepared prior to TSP does not support Transit Signal Priority implementation to identify modifications to signal (TSP) within the City of Napa. TSP or any operations during a transit priority request and assess the other technology that will alter signal impacts on traffic flow. Previous analyses of traffic timing can impact a corridor's signal conditions in other similar TSP implementations have timing coordination which can include found negligible impact to traffic operations, and in some both Caltrans signals and City signals. cases, reduction in overall delay by providing additional Coordinate with City staff and Caltrans time to the most heavily‐used movements. TSP will only staff. be triggered on bus arrival and would only result in a limited shift of green time (10 seconds or less) between vehicle phases. NVTA will coordinate with City of Napa staff NVTA will coordinate with City of Napa staff NVTA will coordinate with City of Napa staff

NVTA Response (11‐08‐2017)

NVTA reiterates that TSP is proposed only at signals operated by Caltrans on state routes. NVTA will coordinate with stakeholder staff if it is determined that TSP is a viable option for a particular intersection.

The physical stop would not be eliminated, the stop would be served by Route 11, which runs from downtown As previously stated, hold off on the Napa (Soscol Gateway Transit Center), elimination of the Corporate Drive stop throuth the Napa Valley College to the due to the increase in hotel and winery Vallejo Ferry Terminal. Pedestrian uses in the Corporate Park and the infrastructure is needed for passengers potential for increased ridership demand. to navigate and reach their destination Retention of this stop allows for workers from the bus stop. NVTA offers a menu and visitors from the Fairfield and Suisun of commuter services through the Solano areas of Solano County the option of Napa Commuter Information office commuting/traveling to this area via a including the Napa Valley Vanpool direct transit route. Program which could be an option for This stop elimination would only be for the Route 21 that employees coming from Solano. serves Solano and not for Route 11 which is currently used by a lot of HHS clients. This is a longterm option; it would be dependent on future transit demand NVTA has noted the City of Napa's point. This proposed option would add an Discussions with stakeholders including additional stop on the east side of SR221, the Napa Valley College and Caltrans thus increasing the number of pedestrians There is currently a bus stop at Magnolia Drive and have yet to transpire; NVTA has yet to crossing SR221, adding additional delay to crosswalks across SR 221 at Streblow and Magnolia; it define a preferred alternative. SR221. Other Napa Valley College Stop would be expected that pedestrians could cross with Options are prefered to the City of Napa crosstraffic on Magnolia and Streblow which currently over Option B. delays SR 221.

8. Page 29, D.1 Downtown Napa Stop : Coordinate with City staff to identify optimal Downtown stop location NVTA will coordinate with City of Napa staff 8 and improvements. These are the improvements that NVTA has been Page 31, D.2 Imola Park & Ride Improvements : Is this the same improvements as what was recently funded? displaying as part of the Express Bus and are partially 9 funded. Page 48, G.1 TSP – SR29 North of Napa : Three of the signals on the proposed list for installation of Transit Signal Priority are in the City of Napa. The City of Napa does not support transit signal priority, bus pre‐emption or any other technology that will alter signal timing on corridors within the City of Napa. City staff would be in favor of any technology that helps/improves signal timing along corridors. 10

See previous response on TSP (No. 1)

See previous response on TSP

1 of 4

Express Bus Corridor Study: Comments Responses by the City of Napa and NVTA

No.

City of Napa Comment

NVTA Response

11. Page 50, G.2 TSP – Route 29 South of Napa : The City of Napa does not support transit signal priority, bus pre‐ emption or any other technology that will alter signal timing on corridors within the City of Napa. City staff would be in favor of any technology that helps/improves signal timing along corridors.

City Response to Comments (10‐26‐17)

See previous response on TSP (No. 1)

See previous response on TSP

11 12. Page 52, G.3 TSP – Route 12, 121, 221 : Eight of the signals on the proposed list for installation of Transit Signal Priority are in the City of Napa. The City of Napa does not support transit signal priority, bus pre‐emption or any other technology that will alter signal timing on corridors within the City of Napa. City staff would be in favor of any technology that helps/improves signal timing along corridors. Additionally, the intersection of SR221/Napa Valley Corporate Way is incorrectly labeled as being in American Canyon.

See previous response on TSP Each intersection with proposed queue jumps will 13. Page 56, H.2 Napa Queue Jumps on State Routes : Concerned about queue jump lanes causing disruptions to undergo a traffic analysis and be included in NVTA's overall signal coordination and creating excessive right turn lanes. upcoming SR 29 Smart Corridor Plan 13

NVTA Response (11‐08‐2017) NVTA reiterates that TSP is proposed only at signals operated by Caltrans on state routes. NVTA will coordinate with stakeholder staff if it is determined that TSP is a viable option for a particular intersection.

14. Page 60, I.2 City‐Owned Lot in Downtown Napa : The City owned lot on 3rd Street is intended for use as time‐ NVTA will have further discussions with the City on the limited public parking to serve businesses in the vicinity, not as all‐day parking for a park and ride. potential to use part of the parking lot as a park and ride.

NVTA currently coordinates with the jurisdictional staff 15. Page 97, Paragraph 5 : Any proposed improvements to the Devlin Road/Soscol Ferry Road intersection needs on proposed improvements throughout the SR 29 to analyze potential impacts to the intersection of SR29/SR221/SR12 and be coordinated with jurisdiction staff. corridor. Proposed changes will also be included in 15 NVTA's upcoming SR 29 Smart Corridor Plan

16. Page 104, Need #1 : The City of Napa does not support transit signal priority, bus pre‐emption or any other technology that will alter signal timing on corridors within the City of Napa. City staff would be in favor of any technology that helps/improves signal timing along corridors. 16 17 17. Page 104, Need #5 : Coordinate with City staff. 18 18. Page 104, Need #9 : Coordinate with City staff. 19 19. Page 104, Need #10 : Coordinate with City and Caltrans staff.

See previous response on TSP NVTA will coordinate with City of Napa staff NVTA will coordinate with City of Napa staff NVTA will coordinate with agencies

20. Page 107, Table 4‐1: Transit Signal Priority : The City of Napa does not support transit signal priority, bus pre‐ emption or any other technology that will alter signal timing on corridors within the City of Napa. City staff would be in favor of any technology that helps/improves signal timing along corridors. 20

See previous response on TSP 21. Page 107, Table 4‐1: Queue Jump Lanes : Concerned about queue jump lanes causing disruptions to overall See previous response on queue jumps 21 signal coordination and excessive right turn lanes at intersections. Safe pedestrian access to bus stops will always be 22. Page 107, Table 4‐1: In‐Line Major Roadway Stops: Does this pose any danger for pedestrians crossing considered in the design of said stops, in‐line roadway roadways to get to a stop? 22 stops are no different NVTA will coordinate with jurisdictional staff 23 23. Page 109, Pedestrian Paths : Requires coordination with local jurisdiction staff. NVTA will coordinate with jurisdictional staff 24 24. Page 109, Bicycle Access : Requires coordination with local jurisdiction staff.

25. Page 109, Far‐Side Stop Placement : Requires coordination with local jurisdiction staff. The City of Napa does not support transit signal priority with the City of Napa. 25

See previous response on TSP

2 of 4

Express Bus Corridor Study: Comments Responses by the City of Napa and NVTA

No.

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

City of Napa Comment

NVTA Response

City Response to Comments (10‐26‐17)

Bus bulbouts are a safety measure; they provide a safe 26. Page 109, Bus Bulbout : Depending on the location, this has the potential to back‐up traffic in the travel way, passenger boarding and alighting area and provide less of Coordinate with jurisdiction staff causing delay for public and increasing safety concerns. Requires coordination with local jurisdiction staff. a chance for bus‐vehicle conflict because the bus does not have to exit and re‐enter traffic flow NVTA will coordinate with jurisdictional staff when 27. Page 110, Wayfinding/System Maps/Community Maps: Requires coordination with local jurisdiction staff. appropiate NVTA will coordinate with jurisdictional staff when 28. Page 110, Shelters : Requires coordination with local jurisdiction staff. appropiate NVTA will coordinate with jurisidcitonal staff when 29. Page 111, Pedestrian Waiting Areas : Requires coordination with local jurisdiction staff. appropiate NVTA will coordinate with jurisdicional staff when 30. Page 111, Bicycle Facilities : Requires coordination with local jurisdiction staff. appropiate NVTA will coordinate with jurisidcitons staff when 31. Page 111, Lighting : Requires coordination with local jurisdiction staff. apprpiate NVTA will coordinate with jurisdicitonal staff when 32. Page 111, ADA Improvements : Requires coordination with local jurisdiction staff. appropiate

NVTA Response (11‐08‐2017)

NVTA will coordinate jurisdiction staff.

NVTA has noted the City of Napa's point. Discussions with stakeholders including See previous response on Corporate Drive the Napa Valley College and Caltrans stop (No. 5) have yet to transpire; NVTA has yet to The elimination of this stop is only for Route 21 not Route define a preferred alternative. 11 34. Page 118, A.2 Expansion of Service Area : Is there sufficient demand between Napa and Solano Counties to This is a longterm option; it would be dependent on support splitting these routes? future transit demand NVTA has noted the City of Napa's point. There is currently a bus stop at Magnolia Drive and Discussions with stakeholders including 35. Page 122, B.1.B Napa Valley College Stop Option B : This option requires users of the stops on the crosswalks across SR 221 at Streblow and Magnolia; it See previous response on Napa Valey the Napa Valley College and Caltrans northbound line to cross State Route 221. Increased pedestrian crossings at the signals along State Route 221 would be expected that pedestrians could cross with College stop (No. 7) have yet to transpire; NVTA has yet to could cause increased delay along the State Route 221 corridor. crosstraffic on Magnolia and Streblow which currently define a preferred alternative. delays SR 221. 36. Page 132, D.1 Downtown Napa Stop : Coordinate with City staff to identify optimal Downtown stop location and improvements. NVTA will coordinate with City of Napa staff These are the improvements that NVTA has been 37. Page 134, D.2 Imola Park & Ride Improvements : Is this the same improvements as what was recently displaying as part of the Express Bus Study and are funded? partially funded.

33. Page 116, A.1 Route Optimization : Hold off on the elimination of the Corporate Drive stop. The Corporate Park is currently undergoing an expansion of hotel and winery land uses and increasing pedestrian connections throughout the Park, which could increase the transit demand at this stop. 33 34

35 36

38. Page 151, G.1 TSP – SR29 North of Napa : Three of the signals on the proposed list for installation of Transit Signal Priority are in the City of Napa. The City of Napa does not support transit signal priority, bus pre‐emption or any other technology that will alter signal timing on corridors within the City of Napa. City staff would be in favor of any technology that helps/improves signal timing along corridors.

See previous response on TSP (No. 1)

See previous response on TSP

39. Page 153, G.2 TSP – Route 29 South of Napa : The City of Napa does not support transit signal priority, bus pre‐emption or any other technology that will alter signal timing on corridors within the City of Napa. City staff would be in favor of any technology that helps/improves signal timing along corridors. See previous response on TSP

39 40. Page 155, G.3 TSP – Route 12, 121, 221 : Eight of the signals on the proposed list for installation of Transit Signal Priority are in the City of Napa. The City of Napa does not support transit signal priority, bus pre‐emption or any other technology that will alter signal timing on corridors within the City of Napa. City staff would be in favor of any technology that helps/improves signal timing along corridors. Additionally, the intersection of SR221/Napa Valley Corporate Way is incorrectly labeled as being in American Canyon. 40

See previous response on TSP (No. 1)

See previous response on TSP

3 of 4

Express Bus Corridor Study: Comments Responses by the City of Napa and NVTA

No.

NVTA Response Each intersection with proposed queue jumps will 41. Page 159, H.2 Napa Queue Jumps on State Routes: Concerned about queue jump lanes causing disruptions undergo a traffic analysis as part of the design phase. to overall signal coordination and creating excessive right turn lanes. Proposed changes will also be included in NVTA's 41 upcoming SR 29 Smart Corridor Plan.

City of Napa Comment

42. Page 163, I.2 City‐Owned Lot in Downtown Napa : The City owned lot on 3rd Street is intended for use as time‐limited public parking to serve businesses in the vicinity, not as all‐day parking for a park and ride.

NVTA will have further discussions with the City on the potential to use part of the parking lot as a park and ride.

4 of 4

City Response to Comments (10‐26‐17)

NVTA Response (11‐08‐2017)