As the San Francisco Bay Area has grown and evolved, the demands for commuter rail transit and freight transportation has increased significantly in the North Bay counties of Marin, Sonoma and Napa. We address the needs and propose a solution to the current problems stemming from a lack of adequate rail transportation.

1.
Economic
Ecosystems
–
Mass
Transit
Leadership
North
Bay
Sonoma
State
EMBA
Cohort
5
By
Team
3
-­‐
The
Fireballers
Hilton
DePaoli
Joshua
Dopkowski
Gustavo
Martinez

2. ECONOMIC
ECOSYSTEMS
-­‐
MASS
TRANSIT,
TEAM
3
2
PREFACE
As
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area
has
grown
and
evolved,
the
demands
for
commuter
rail
transit
and
freight
transportation
has
increased
significantly
in
the
North
Bay
counties
of
Marin,
Sonoma
and
Napa.
We
address
the
needs
and
propose
a
solution
to
the
current
problems
stemming
from
a
lack
of
adequate
rail
transportation.
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
I. Executive
Summary
Pg.
3
II. Analysis
Pg.
4
III. Evaluation
of
Solutions
Pg.
5
IV. Proposed
Solutions
Pg.
7
V. Next
Steps
and
Conclusion
Pg.
9
VI. Bibliography
Pg.
10
VII.Appendix
Pg.
11

3. ECONOMIC
ECOSYSTEMS
-­‐
MASS
TRANSIT,
TEAM
3
3
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
There
are
six
active
different
commuter
rail
agencies
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area,
and
currently
there
is
not
one
providing
functioning
rail
transit
in
the
North
Bay.
Sonoma
Marin
Area
Rapid
Transit
(SMART)
is
projected
to
begin
operations
in
late
2016,
however
it
provides
only
partial
service
in
Marin
and
Sonoma
counties,
while
providing
no
service
to
Napa
County.
The
SMART
project
roughly
parallels
the
highly
congested
US
Highway
101,
and
is
being
built
to
serve
the
commuters
and
tourists
within
the
North
Bay
that
travel
between
Marin
and
Sonoma
Counties.
SMART
operates
along
the
southern
portion
of
the
regional
Northwestern
Pacific
Railroad
(NWP).
NWP
further
provides
freight
services
from
Sonoma
county,
through
Marin
and
as
far
north
as
Humboldt
County
(Implementation
of
Bus
Rapid
Transit,
n.d.).
Freight
rail
has
proven
to
be
vital
for
economic
development
and
the
continued
health
of
local
economic
ecosystems.
No
other
form
of
ground
transportation
can
move
the
sheer
volume
of
goods
and
products
to
the
global
marketplace
like
freight
rail
does.
Rail
fuels
economic
growth
safely
and
efficiently,
while
having
far
less
of
an
environmental
impact
than
other
transportation
methods
(Vidal,
2012).
If
the
economy
in
the
United
States
grows,
then
demand
for
freight
transportation
will
increase
as
well.
The
U.S.
Department
of
Transportation
forecasts
national
rail
demand
will
rise
88%
by
2035
from
2002
levels.
This
will
inevitably
create
a
strain
on
all
of
the
nation’s
rail
corridors,
which
could
cascade
into
other
forms
of
freight
transportation.
As
demand
for
rail
increases,
the
cost
will
increase,
which
could
fuel
a
demand
spike
in
other
freight
methods
such
as
trucking
and
shipping.
Therefore
it
is
imperative
that
a
reliable
and
effective
infrastructure
for
freight
is
in
place
in
the
North
Bay.
It
is
further
vital
that
commuter
transit
be
provided
in
the
North
Bay
as
the
major
thoroughfare
roadways
are
already
over
capacity,
and
individual
auto
transportation
is
not
environmentally
or
financially
sustainable
(Vidal,
2012).
In
the
North
Bay,
the
demand
for
mass
transit
exists,
and
has
been
answered
by
the
creation
of
the
SMART
train.
While
this
train
will
mitigate
the
need
for
mass
transit
in
the
North
Bay,
it
is
far
from
being
comprehensive
(Kneckow,
2013).
The
purpose
of
this
report
is
to
identify
solutions
for
the
lack
of
commuter
and
interstate
freight
rail.

4. ECONOMIC
ECOSYSTEMS
-­‐
MASS
TRANSIT,
TEAM
3
4
It
is
not
a
coincidence
that
the
cities
with
the
strongest
economic
engines
also
have
some
of
the
most
expansive
mass-­‐transit
systems
with
access
to
multiple
channels
of
freight
delivery,
which
always
includes
freight.
On
the
other
hand,
cities
with
little
to
no
mass
transit
functions
and
restricted
freight
access
are
often
economically
weak.
This
is
seen
by
comparing
cities
with
high
volume
mass
transit
ridership
to
those
with
low
ridership,
such
as
New
York
City
to
Buffalo,
San
Francisco
to
Cleveland,
and
Chicago
to
Detroit.
In
each
instance,
the
city
with
the
greater
economic
engine
also
has
a
far
superior
mass-­‐transit
system
and
better
access
to
multiple
channels
of
freight.
While
this
is
far
from
scientific,
it
does
illustrate
a
general
trend
in
cities
and
regions
with
good
access
to
mass-­‐transit
and
multiple
channels
of
freight
versus
those
without.
ANALYSIS
Major
policy
drivers
fueling
the
demand
for
increased
rail
in
the
North
Bay
is
in
response
to
congestion
and
climate
change
(Sonoma-­‐Marin
Area
Rail
Transit
Project
Overview,
n.d.).
Congestion
is
a
concern
because
many
people
do
not
want
to
live
in
areas
with
a
high
concentration
of
people,
and
they
also
do
not
want
long
commutes
that
are
exasperated
by
heavy
traffic.
Mass-­‐transit
offers
relief
from
carbon
emissions
and
congestion.
Demand
for
access
to
freight
is
a
further
driver
of
the
demand
for
rail,
as
currently
only
regional
rail
and
trucking
is
immediately
accessible.
Despite
the
fact
that
the
major
international
ports
of
Oakland
and
San
Francisco
are
neighbors,
the
only
to
way
to
deliver
any
kind
of
freight
is
to
use
a
truck
to
deliver
shipments
some
distance
to
the
nearest
ports.
Rail
access
to
ports
is
desirable
as
it
decreases
the
cost
of
shipping.
A
more
efficient
commuter
transit
system
would
allow
for
employees
and
customers
to
easily
flow
in
and
out
of
the
North
Bay,
and
connect
to
the
rest
of
the
Bay
Area.
In
this
scenario,
talent
that
lives
and
works
in
San
Francisco
or
other
areas
of
the
Bay
Area
could
live
in
the
North
Bay
and
commute.
This
same
principle
could
be
applied
the
other
way,
which
would
allow
more
businesses
to
operate
in
the
North
Bay.
Perhaps
more
importantly
is
the
ease
of
commuting
within
the
North
Bay,
which
would
allow
for
residents
and
workers
in
Napa,
Sonoma
and
Marin
to

5. ECONOMIC
ECOSYSTEMS
-­‐
MASS
TRANSIT,
TEAM
3
5
move
around
the
North
Bay
in
a
reasonable
amount
of
time.
Furthermore,
a
transit
system
can
also
be
constructed
to
serve
the
dual
purpose
of
accommodating
freight
shipments.
As
long
as
a
North
Bay
mass
transit
system
has
a
feasible
connection
to
interstate
rail
and
major
ports
such
as
San
Francisco
International
Airport
and
the
shipyards,
then
it
can
solve
the
demand
for
freight.
Historically,
the
North
Bay
has
rejected
mass
transit,
as
was
seen
in
the
1960’s
with
Marin
County
denying
the
expansion
of
BART
into
the
North
Bay.
This
was
as
much
of
a
financial
decision
as
it
was
driven
by
bigotry,
and
the
shortsightedness
of
the
policy
leaders
in
the
past
has
left
us
with
a
transit
dilemma
in
the
present.
The
current
leadership
should
look
upon
this
lesson
from
the
past,
in
order
to
avoid
making
the
same
poor
decisions.
Leaders
in
the
North
Bay
such
as
Valerie
Brown
of
SMART
should
perform
an
in-­‐depth
analysis
of
what
the
future
needs
of
the
North
Bay
will
be.
EVALUATIONS
OF
SOLUTIONS
We
have
identified
three
possible
solutions
to
the
need
for
commuter
rail
and
increased
freight
access
in
the
North
Bay:
I. Bus
Rapid
Transit
Bus
Rapid
Transit
(BRT)
is
the
use
of
buses
with
specific
infrastructure
and
management
that
allow
for
the
vehicles
to
travel
on
separate
routes
from
all
other
vehicular
traffic.
Simply
put,
BRT
is
the
concept
of
the
bus
and
the
train
combined,
with
rail
tracks
being
replaced
by
paved
lanes
upon
which
busses,
or
other
mass
transit
automobiles,
can
travel
independent
of
the
public
roadways.
Compared
to
regular
bus
service,
BRT
is
faster
and
more
reliable,
resulting
in
busses
covering
more
distance
in
a
given
time
period.
This
efficiency
creates
lower
operating
costs
than
either
traditional
bus
or
rail
systems,
and
therefore
BRT
is
one
of
the
most
cost
effective
methods
of
mass
transportation
currently
available
(James,
2008).
BRT
systems
are
also
flexible,
allowing
for
a
variety
of
vehicle
selection
and
system
construction.
Since
BRT
systems
do
not
require
any
specialized
vehicles,
bus
sizes
can
easily
be
changed,
and
direction
and
traffic
flow
quickly
re-­‐routed.
BRT

6. ECONOMIC
ECOSYSTEMS
-­‐
MASS
TRANSIT,
TEAM
3
6
systems
can
also
serve
multiple
purposes,
with
the
system
functioning
as
a
BRT
during
some
hours,
and
HOV
lanes
during
others.
Disadvantages
to
BRT
systems
are
primarily
found
in
cost
and
efficiency
when
compared
to
light
rail.
The
amount
of
passengers
that
can
be
transported
using
light
rail
is
exponentially
higher
than
that
in
BRT
systems,
and
while
the
initial
cost
of
construction
of
a
BRT
is
far
lower
than
light
rail,
the
cost
of
upkeep
of
a
BRT
system
capable
of
transporting
the
same
amount
of
passengers
of
a
light-­‐rail
system
is
significantly
higher
(James,
2008).
The
pollution
emissions
from
a
BRT
system
will
be
substantially
higher
than
that
of
a
light
rail
system
capable
of
moving
the
same
number
of
passengers,
with
expensive
electric
or
other
alternative
engines
being
the
only
solution
to
that
problem.
Ultimately
the
BRT
is
a
far
less
expensive
solution
to
mass-­‐transit
needs
and
requires
little
commitment.
Once
a
BRT
system
is
designed
and
constructed,
it
can
easily
be
converted
into
some
other
form
of
mass-­‐transit,
including
light
rail.
II. Expand
SMART
to
include
multiple
transit
methods
and
include
Napa
County.
Currently
SMART
will
only
run
along
rail
that
roughly
parallels
US
Highway
101,
and
therefore
access
to
SMART
will
be
difficult
for
most
residents
of
Sonoma
and
Marin.
(See
Appendix
B)
Furthermore,
Napa
County
has
no
access
to
SMART,
and
therefore
an
entire
vital
region
of
the
North
Bay
is
inaccessible
via
rail
transit.
Should
SMART
expand
its
services
to
include
these
cities
and
towns
currently
left
out,
then
the
North
Bay
will
have
an
effective
transit
system.
We
suggest
utilizing
the
rail
through
Napa
Valley
that
connects
to
Santa
Rosa
which
is
currently
only
utilized
by
the
Wine
Train,
and
using
shuttle
busses
for
areas
that
are
not
within
a
one
mile
distance
from
the
rail.
Through
these
measures,
SMART
could
connect
American
Canyon,
Napa,
Yountville,
Saint
Helena,
Calistoga,
Sebastopol,
Sonoma
Valley,
Occidental,
Bodega
and
Guerneville,
as
well
as
other
areas
not
currently
in
the
plan
to
be
serviced.
A
comprehensive
SMART
rail
system
would
further
provide
the
opportunity
to
link
up
with
other
Bay
Area
Transit
systems
in
the
future.

7. ECONOMIC
ECOSYSTEMS
-­‐
MASS
TRANSIT,
TEAM
3
7
III. Combine
all
transit
agencies
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area.
Placing
the
authority
of
all
mass
transit
under
one
overarching
authority
has
worked
well
for
cities
such
as
New
York,
Chicago
and
Los
Angeles.
These
agencies
operate
successfully
across
multiple
counties,
and
in
some
instances,
across
state
lines.
Applying
this
model
to
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area
would
create
many
opportunities
for
growth
of
the
mass-­‐transit
system
(see
Appendix
A).
The
major
risk
here
for
the
North
Bay
however
is
that
the
rest
of
the
Bay
Area
could
vote
to
ignore
the
North
Bay
entirely.
Examples
of
effective
commuter
rail
and
large
metropolitan
transit
agencies
are
plentiful
around
the
world.
New
York’s
Metropolitan
Transportation
Authority
which
provides
multiple
forms
of
transit
to
12
counties
across
two
states,
and
BART,
which
services
parts
of
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area
are
prime
examples
and
applicable
to
the
North
Bay.
BRT
on
the
other
hand
is
somewhat
new
on
the
transit
scene,
being
only
40
years
old
versus
traditional
bus
and
rail
systems,
which
were
already
commonplace
in
the
early
twentieth
century.
While
there
are
more
than
160
cities
around
the
world
with
BRT
systems,
two
examples
of
effective
BRT
systems
alleviating
congestion
can
be
seen
in
Los
Angeles
and
Las
Vegas.
Los
Angeles
is
home
to
the
Metro
Liner
BRT
system,
which
opened
in
2005.
The
system
now
consists
of
two
lines
comprising
of
more
than
40
miles
of
dedicated
bus
lanes.
The
newest
line,
the
Silver
Line,
increased
ridership
by
70%
between
2009
and
2014.
The
Metro
Line
BRT
was
initially
designed
to
be
an
expansion
of
the
light
rail
system
in
Los
Angeles,
and
the
resulting
BRT
has
worked
well
in
the
place
of
what
was
oppressively
expensive
rail
construction.
Las
Vegas
Metropolitan
Area
Express
(MAX)
is
another
highly
successful
example
of
implemented
BRT.
The
daily
ridership
for
MAX
exceeds
200,000,
and
the
system
has
worked
well
as
a
solution
to
mass-­‐transportation
needs.
PROPOSED
SOLUTION
We
have
identified
the
Bus
Rapid
Transit
system
as
the
best
solution
to
the
North
Bay’s
mass-­‐transit
and
freight
needs.
This
is
primarily
since
the
initial
costs

8. ECONOMIC
ECOSYSTEMS
-­‐
MASS
TRANSIT,
TEAM
3
8
and
risks
associated
with
implementing
the
BRT
system
are
the
lowest
of
any
of
the
alternative
solutions.
Furthermore,
we
contend
that
it
is
neither
politically
nor
financially
feasible
to
expand
SMART
or
establish
a
centralized
Bay
Area
transit
agency
to
the
level
of
scope
that
we
identify
as
required.
Conversely,
the
existing
infrastructure
and
availability
of
land
in
the
North
Bay
makes
an
extensive
BRT
system
very
feasible.
This
proposal
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
federal
and
state
funding
would
be
available
for
a
BRT
system.
In
some
instances
public
funding
comes
as
conditional
to
one
mode
of
transportation,
and
therefore
funding
for
the
BRT
system
may
not
be
available
to
the
extent
we
assume
it
is.
Other
important
assumptions
are
as
follows:
• Marin
County,
Sonoma
County,
Napa
County
and
all
the
municipalities
within
those
three
counties
would
all
agree
to
jointly
operate
an
inter-­‐
county
and
inter-­‐city
BRT
system.
• BRT
infrastructure
would
also
support
freight
trucks.
• The
volume
of
passengers
that
would
use
a
BRT
would
be
sufficient
enough
to
keep
the
fare
of
a
ride
affordable
for
riders,
while
offsetting
the
expenses
of
operating
a
BRT.
• The
vehicles
used
in
the
BRT
would
be
low-­‐emission
vehicles
such
as
electric-­‐hybrid,
electrically
powered
or
diesel.
• New
lanes
designated
exclusively
to
the
BRT
system
could
be
constructed.
Financially
the
BRT
is
advantageous
in
that
it
minimizes
opportunity
costs
and
is
much
faster
to
implement
than
rail.
The
opportunity
costs
are
minimal
as
the
BRT
system
could
be
designed
specifically
for
upgrading
to
light
rail
in
the
future,
given
demand
and
funding.
BRT
systems
can
easily
be
implemented
within
a
1-­‐3
year
period,
as
where
rail
systems
can
take
decades
to
complete.
While
a
transit
agency
would
need
to
be
developed
in
order
to
manage
the
BRT
system,
it
is
possible
that
SMART
could
expand
its
role
as
the
dominant
transit
agency
in
the
North
Bay.
Vine
Transit
based
in
Napa
County
could
also
potentially
take
on
the
role
of
managing
the
North
Bay
BRT
system.

9. ECONOMIC
ECOSYSTEMS
-­‐
MASS
TRANSIT,
TEAM
3
9
NEXT
STEPS
The
best
solution
for
the
North
Bay’s
current
transportation
needs
is
to
implement
an
extensive
inter-­‐county
BRT
system.
The
BRT
system
will
also
serve
to
mitigate
future
demand,
and
provide
a
strong
freight
transportation
network,
while
further
creating
an
upgradable
transit
network.
A
BRT
system
is
clearly
the
best
option
in
terms
of
cost
and
feasibility
as
it
is
far
less
expensive
than
light-­‐rail
and
easily
implemented
and
modified.
The
next
critical
steps
for
implementing
this
project
are
as
follows:
1. Develop
a
comprehensive
route
system
plan
based
on
a
deep
analysis
of
demand
of
passenger
and
freight
services.
This
plan
should
include
effective
integration
with
the
existing
mass-­‐transit
systems
in
the
North
Bay
such
as
SMART
and
Vine
Transit.
2. Perform
a
financial
analysis
and
funding
strategy
that
includes
an
in-­‐depth
analysis
of
construction
costs,
vehicle
procurement
and
operation,
wages,
fares
and
other
required
overhead.
3. Perform
a
comparative
analysis
of
existing
BRT
systems
around
the
world
and
identify
which
aspects
of
existing
systems
would
be
best
implemented
and
avoided
by
the
North
Bay.
4. Submit
a
final
plan
to
Marin,
Sonoma
and
Napa
Counties
and
request
the
creation
of
a
BRT
system
management
agency.
5. Develop
and
identify
actual
project
scope,
required
resources
and
schedule
for
construction
and
launch.
Maintenance
and
monitoring
of
the
project
will
begin
once
the
project
has
been
successfully
executed,
and
will
include
in-­‐depth
tracking
of
ridership
and
costs
so
that
inefficiencies
can
be
identified
and
improved
upon.
We
further
recommend
that
the
BRT
system
be
developed
with
the
vision
for
a
light-­‐rail
system
or
other
hi-­‐
tech
transit
system
in
the
future,
thus
preparing
for
routes
that
may
not
be
currently
required,
however
likely
will
be
in
the
future.

10. ECONOMIC
ECOSYSTEMS
-­‐
MASS
TRANSIT,
TEAM
3
10
REFERENCES
Implementation
of
Bus
Rapid
Transit
(n.d.).
In
Wikipedia.
Retrieved
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation_of_bus_rapid_transit_by_country#Un
ited_States
Northwestern
Pacific
Railroad
(n.d.).
In
Wikipedia.
Retrieved
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Pacific_Railroad
Metro
Liner
(Los
Angeles
County)
(n.d.).
In
Wikipedia.
Retrieved
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Liner_(Los_Angeles_County)
Metropolitan
Transportation
Authority
(New
York)
(n.d.).
In
Wikipedia.
Retrieved
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Transportation_Authority_(New_York)
Galunic,
C.,
Sutton,
R.
(1995).
Consequences
Of
Public
Scrutiny
For
Leaders
And
Their
Organizations.
INSEAD,
Retrieved
from
http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?did=47168
James,
D.
Ottawa’s
Transitway:
From
Busway
to
Light
Rail
(2008).
In
The
University
of
Calgary.
Retrieved
from
http://david.jamesnet.ca/MDP/node4.html
Bus
Rapid
Transit
North(n.d.).
In
South
Yorkshire
Passenger
Transport
Website.
Retrieved
from
http://www.sypte.co.uk/brtnorth/
Vidal,
J.
(2012).
Civilization
Faces
‘Perfect
Storm
of
Ecological
and
Social
Problems.
The
Guardian,
Retrieved
from
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/20/climate-­‐change-­‐
overconsumption
Sonoma-­‐Marin
Area
Rail
Transit
Project
Overview
(n.d.).
In
SMART
Website.
Retrieved
from
http://main.sonomamarintrain.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/2013/05/Project-­‐
Overview.pdf
Kneckow,
E.
Funds
OK’d
for
SMART
Airport
Station
(2013).
In
North
Bay
Business
Journal
Website.
Retrieved
from
http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/85016/funds-­‐okd-­‐for-­‐smart-­‐airport-­‐
station/

11. ECONOMIC
ECOSYSTEMS
-­‐
MASS
TRANSIT,
TEAM
3
11
APPENDIX
A

12. ECONOMIC
ECOSYSTEMS
-­‐
MASS
TRANSIT,
TEAM
3
12
APPENDIX
B
PHASE 1 SUMMARY
Project
! Passenger rail service scheduled to begin in 2016 and will serve 70 80%
of es mated ridership for full system
! Construc on started May 2012
! 42 miles—Downtown San Rafael to North Santa Rosa
! Total projected cost for Phase 1 is es mated at $360 million
SMART Pathway System
! Links segments constructed by SMART with exis ng segments and other
planned projects to create one of the longest con nuous bicycle
pedestrian pathways in the country
! Phase 1 Pathway segments are focused on access to sta ons, high
poten al use and bridging gaps between exis ng segments
! “Rail with trail” allows longer, mul modal trips
Sta ons
! 10 sta ons: Santa Rosa (Airport Blvd., Guerneville Rd. & Railroad Square)
Rohnert Park (Rohnert Park Expressway), Cota (East Cota Ave.),
Petaluma (Downtown), Novato (San Marin/Atherton & Hamilton), and
San Rafael (Marin Civic Center & Downtown)
! Level boarding and Americans with Disabili es Act (ADA) compliant
! Express Connector bus service between Santa Rosa and future sta on
loca ons in Windsor, Healdsburg and Cloverdale, and between
Downtown San Rafael and Larkspur
Passenger Cars
! 7 two car train sets
! Self propelled Diesel Mul ple Units (DMUs) are comfortable and reliable
! Environmentally friendly engines meet stringent “Tier 4” EPA
requirements; economical to operate
! “Buy America” compliant and manufactured in Rochelle, IL
! Each train set has capacity for up to 158 seated passengers, 160 standing
passengers and 24 bicycles — depending on mix of bikes, wheelchairs,
strollers and use of flip seats
Schedule
! Trains will operate in both direc ons every 30 minutes during peak
commute hours, with a mid day trip and weekend service planned as well
Fare
! Fares will be comparable with other transit op ons
Speed
! Top speed of 79 mph; average speed (including stops) of 40 mph
! Strategically placed sidings allow trains to operate and pass in both
direc ons at standard speeds
! A train ride from Santa Rosa to San Rafael will take about an hour