Wednesday, September 7, 20165:00 PM

Napa Valley Transportation Authority625 Burnell Street

Napa, CA 94559

NVTA Conference Room

Citizen Advisory Committee

All materials relating to an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting of the Citizen

Advisory Committee (CAC) which are provided to a majority or all of the members of the CAC by CAC

members, staff or the public within 72 hours of but prior to the meeting will be available for public

inspection, on and after at the time of such distribution, in the office of the Secretary of the CAC, 625

Burnell Street, Napa, California 94559, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and

5:00 p.m., except for NVTA holidays. Materials distributed to a majority or all of the members of the

CAC at the meeting will be available for public inspection at the public meeting if prepared by the

members of the CAC or staff and after the public meeting if prepared by some other person .

Availability of materials related to agenda items for public inspection does not include materials which

are exempt from public disclosure under Government Code sections 6253.5, 6254, 6254.3, 6254.7,

6254.15, 6254.16, or 6254.22.

Members of the public may speak to the CAC on any item at the time the CAC is considering the item .

Please complete a Speaker’s Slip, which is located on the table near the entryway, and then present

the slip to the CAC Secretary. Also, members of the public are invited to address the CAC on any

issue not on today’s agenda under Public Comment. Speakers are limited to three minutes.

This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternate formats to persons with a disability .

Persons requesting a disability-related modification or accommodation should contact the

Administrative Assistant, at (707) 259-8631 during regular business hours, at least 48 hours prior to

the time of the meeting.

This Agenda may also be viewed online by visiting https://nctpa.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx, click on

the Citizen Advisory Committee meeting date you wish to review.

Note: Where times are indicated for agenda items they are approximate and intended as estimates

only, and may be shorter or longer, as needed.

Agenda - Final

September 7, 2016Citizen Advisory Committee Agenda - Final

1. Call To Order

2. Introductions

3. Public Comment

4. Committee Member Comments

Note: Where times are indicated for the agenda items they are approximate and

intended as estimates only, and may be shorter or longer, as needed.

5. CONSENT AGENDA

5.1 Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2016 CAC Meeting (Danielle

Schmitz) (Pages 4-5)

ApprovalRecommendation:

5:10 p.m.Estimated Time:

Draft Minutes.pdfAttachments:

6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS

6.1 Executive Director's Report (Kate Miller) (Pages 6-8)

NVTA Executive Director, Kate Miller will provde an update on NVTA .

Information only

Recommendation:

5:10 p.m.Estimated Time:

Staff Report.pdfAttachments:

6.2 Technical Training:

6.2a Transit Presentation (Matthew Wilcox) (Pages 9-25)

6.2b Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

Pedestrian Crossing Warrant Presentation (Diana Meehan) (Pages 26-28)

Information only. 6.2a. Staff will provide a general transit overview. 6.2b.Staff

will provide an overview on traffic signal protocols.

Recommendation:

5:15 p.m.Estimated Time:

Staff Report.pdfAttachments:

Page 2 Napa Valley Transportation Authority Printed on 9/1/2016

September 7, 2016Citizen Advisory Committee Agenda - Final

6.3 State Route (SR) 29 Corridor Update (Danielle Schmitz) (Pages

29-51)

Information only. Staff will provide an update on the SR 29 Corridor.Recommendation:

5:45 p.m.Estimated Time:

Staff Report.pdfAttachments:

6.4 Travel Behavior Study (Danielle Schmitz) (Pages 52-72)

Information only. Staff will review the Travel Behavior Study.Recommendation:

5:55 p.m.Estimated Time:

Staff Report.pdfAttachments:

7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

8. ADJOURNMENT

8.1 Approval of Next Regular Meeting Date of November 2, 2016 and Adjournment

I, Kathy Alexander, hereby certify that the agenda for the above stated meeting was posted at a

location freely accessible to members of the public at the NVTA offices, 625 Burnell Street, Napa, CA

by 5:00 p.m., on Thursday, September 1, 2016.

Kathy Alexander (e-sign)

_____________________________________________________

Kathy Alexander, Deputy Board Secretary

Page 3 Napa Valley Transportation Authority Printed on 9/1/2016

Napa Valley Transportation Authority 625 Burnell Street Napa, CA 94559

Meeting Minutes

Citizen Advisory Committee Wednesday, July 13, 2016 5:00 PM 1. Call To Order Chair Baldini called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. Present: 12 - Michael Baldini Christina Benz Nicole Cummings Jean-Vincent Deale Paul Han Aly Hite Larry Kromann Aisha Nasir Matthew Schmitz Cass Walker Doug Weir Absent: 2 - Jesse Ramer Maria Zuniga 2. Introductions

Chair Baldini asked member Samantha Smith to introduce herself to the committee. 3. Public Comment

None

4. Committee Member and Staff Comments Transit Manager, Matthew Wilcox introduced himself to the committee and provided an overview of information he will be bring before the committee in future meetings.

September 7, 2016 CAC Agenda Item 5.1

Continued From: New Action Requested Action: APPROVE

4

5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 6.1 Executive Director’s Report. (Kate Miller)

Kate Miller provided a brief on agency business and an overview of the July Board Agenda.

• Channelization Ribbon Cutting event at tentatively scheduled for September 1 at 10:00 am at Martini Winery

• Ribbon Cutting for the Vine Trail Oak Knoll Segment postponed • Chair Baldini voiced concerns over sight lines at railroad crossing in regards to the

Vine Trail alignment

6.2a Technical Training (Danielle Schmitz)

Danielle Schmitz provided a presentation and overview of Transportation Funding received by the agency and passed through to local jurisdictions.

6.2b Technical Training: Presentation on Roundabouts (Diana Meehan) Diana Meehan provided a presentation on roundabouts specifically oriented toward safe use of roundabouts from an active transportation perspective. 6.3 Draft Countywide Pedestrian Plan Overview (Diana Meehan) Diana Meehan provided an overview on the Countywide Pedestrian Plan. The plan will go before the NVTA Board in July. Each jurisdiction will then take their individual pedestrian plans before their council/Board for approval. 6. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

• Transit Performance Measures • SR 29 Corridor Update • Travel Behavior Study • SR 37 Update (once there is something to report from financial analysis study)

7. ADJOURNMENT 10.1 Approval of Next Regular Meeting Date of September 7, 2016 and Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 6:22 p.m.

5

September 7, 2016 CAC Agenda Item 6.1 Continued From: New

Action Requested: INFORMATION

NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CAC Agenda Letter ______________________________________________________________________

TO: Citizens Advisory Committee

FROM: Kate Miller, Executive Director REPORT BY: Kate Miller, Executive Director

(707) 259-8634 / Email: kmiller@nvta.ca.gov

SUBJECT: Executive Director Report ______________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION Information only EXECUTIVE SUMMARY New Staff NVTA recently backfilled two vacant planning positions. Rebecca L. Schenck has over 10 years of planning and economic development experience. Most recently, Rebecca worked as the Senior Project Development Specialist for the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh. Rebecca has a Bachelor’s degree from the Denison University and a Master’s in Regional Planning form the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Shaveta Sharma has over 10 years of planning experience. Most recently, Shaveta was a senior planner at the County of Napa. She has a bachelor’s degree in Public Policy, Management, and Planning from the University of South California and a master’s degree in Public Policy and Administration from the London School of Economics. Project/Program Update The Oak Knoll Vine Trail project, which is the segment that links Yountville to north Napa, is expected to be completed within the next few months. Work to install the signals is the cause of the delay. We are working with the contractor and the City to complete the work on time. If the work is delayed beyond this point, temporary signage directed bike/pedestrians to safe crossing will be installed and the trail will be officially opened. The One Bay Area Grant II Program (OBAG 2) is a 5 year program (FY 2017-

6

ATAC Agenda Letter September 7, 2016 CAC Agenda Item 6.1

Page 2 of 3 ___________________________________________________________________________________ 18 through 2021-22) administered by MTC for transportation projects. The funds can be used for all modes of transportation but in Napa are primarily used for active transportation projects and/or road projects on the federal aid system. OBAG funds cannot be used for roadway expansion to increase vehicle capacity. Under the OBAG 2 call for projects there is a set aside for Safe Routes to School ($620,000) and for Priority Conservation Area projects ($2,050,000). Eligible recipients include the Cities, Town, County, and NVTA. Project sponsor’s such as non-profits and special districts, may be eligible for funding but would have to enter into an agreement with a public agency that had a Caltrans agreement in order to receive funds. The total amount of funding available for programming is $6,483,000. Upcoming Events The Oak Knoll Vine Trail ribbon cutting ceremony will be scheduled sometime for late October pending calendar coordination. Legislative/Funding Update State and federal funding for transportation has not experienced a meaningful increase since 1993 when Congress passed a gas tax increase. Since then, transportation construction and operating costs have increased and maintaining and improving transportation infrastructure has become a significant challenge for local governments. Senator Beall and Assemblyman Frazier have worked tirelessly over the past year to address this challenge. A recent funding package proposal introduced in special session, identical bills SBX 1 (Beall) and ABX 26 (Frazier), while optimistic is not likely to pass. Their joint proposal would generate $7.4 billion in revenue to repair and maintain our highways and local roads, invest in trade corridors, and support public transit and active transportation. If successful, this would result in significant annual increases in funding to Napa. A summary of the new revenues is in Table 1 below. Table 1: SBX1 and ABX 25 Proposed Estimated Annual Revenues for Napa Local Streets & Roads AMERICAN CANYON 763,495 CALISTOGA 207,074 NAPA 2,944,865 ST HELENA 236,827 YOUNTVILLE 122,209 COUNTY OF NAPA 5,834,890

LS&R Sub Total $10,109,360 NAPA STIP* 2,320,000 NVTA Transit 52,256

Grand Total $12,481,616 *STIP numbers annualized for clarity

7

ATAC Agenda Letter September 7, 2016 CAC Agenda Item 6.1

Page 3 of 3 ___________________________________________________________________________________ FISCAL IMPACT None SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachment(s): None

8

Citizen Advisory Committee September 7, 2016

September 7, 2016 CAC Agenda Item 6.2a Continued From: New

9

NVTA Services

Local Route Service

Regional Fixed Route Service

Regional Express Bus Service

ADA Paratransit

Community Shuttles

Taxi Scrip

Mileage Reimbursement

Shared Vehicle Program 2

10

Local Fixed Route Service Made up of Routes 1-8.

Service is provided within the city limits of Napa.

30 to 45 minute headways (period between buses)

“Loop style” service

3

11

Regional Fixed Route Service

Consists of Routes 10 and 11.

Route 10 serves stops between Calistoga and Napa Valley College.

Route 11 serves stops between Vallejo and the Redwood Park & Ride in the north Napa.

Both services operate on hourly headways but create more frequent service where they overlap between NVC and the Redwood Park & Ride Lot.

4

12

Regional Express Bus

Consists of Routes 21, 25, and 29. Non-standardized headways. Route 21 serves Napa, Fairfield,

and Suisun City. Route 25 serves Napa and

Sonoma. Route 29 serves Napa County,

Vallejo, and El Cerrito del Norte BART. 5

13

ADA Paratransit

Federally mandated to be available within ¾ mile of a fixed route bus system.

Designed to ensure equal transportation for individuals unable to use traditional fixed route.

Individuals wishing to use paratransit must first be deemed eligible by a screening process.

6

14

Calistoga Shuttle Operates door to door within the

City of Calistoga as well as serving several outlying wineries.

Operates Monday – Saturday, twelve months of the year. Sundays are operated between June and October

Partly subsidized by the Calistoga Chamber of Commerce 7

15

St. Helena Shuttle Operates door to door within the City

of St. Helena as well on a fixed route to better serve the schools within the city.

Operates seven days a week the whole year.

Partly subsidized by the City of St. Helena

8

16

Yountville Trolley Operates door to door within the

Town of Yountville. Operates seven days a week. The trolley is a completely free

service. Partly subsidized by the Town of

Yountville

9

17

American Canyon Transit

Operates door to door within the City of American Canyon as well as on a fixed route to better serve the schools during the mornings and afternoons.

The service was changed on demand/door to door in August 2015.

American Canyon subsidizes the difference between fares collected and 16% of the annual operational costs.

10

18

Taxi Scrip

This program allows qualifying individuals to purchase scrip 50 cents on the dollar.

The amount one can purchase is capped as well as the amount used on a trip.

Only available in the City of Napa. Trips should be limited to lifeline

services.

11

19

Mileage Reimbursement

Program is only available to eligible elderly and/or disabled Napa residents who live or wish to travel outside the paratransit service area and are unable to drive.

Qualified individuals select drivers who they then reimburse at the federal per mile rate.

Trips should be limited to lifeline services.

12

20

Shared Vehicle Program

Designed to help non-profit organizations serving elderly and/or disabled populations provide transportation for their clients.

Qualified organizations can borrow vehicles from NVTA by providing a driver and paying for fuel.

13

21

Vine Service Ridership

All Vine Services FY 15/16 – 1,215,687 (2%)

Vine Routes 1 – 8, 10 & 11 FY 15/16 – 1,013,818 (1%)

Vine Routes 21, 25, & 29 FY 15/16 – 99,215 (2%)

Community Shuttles & Paratransit FY 15/16 – 102,654 (8%)

14

22

What’s New?

New schedules were released August 14th.

The myStop app is available for download on Apple and Android devices.

Wi-Fi is available on all Vine buses

15

23

Transit Goals in the coming year?

Bus Stop Policy Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) Express Bus Study Investigating automated dispatch and

other technologies to improve efficiencies

16

24

Questions

17 25

September 7, 2016 CAC Agenda Item 6.2b

Continued From: New Action Requested: INFORMATION

NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CAC Agenda Letter ______________________________________________________________________

TO: Citizen Advisory Committee

FROM: Kate Miller, Executive Director REPORT BY: Diana Meehan, Associate Planner

(707) 259-8327 / Email: dmeehan@nvta.ca.gov

SUBJECT: Technical Training Presentation: MUTCD- Pedestrian Crossings at Intersections-Traffic Signal Warrants

______________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

Information only

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is a document published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) to specify the standards by which traffic signs, road surface markings, and signals are designed, installed, and used.

The California MUTCD 2014 edition provides uniform standards and specification for all traffic control devices in California. Two warrants in particular specifically apply to pedestrians; the Pedestrian Volume Warrant (Warrant 4) meaning there is a large number of pedestrians that would benefit from the installation of a traffic signal, and the School Crossing Warrant (Warrant 5), meaning there is a good opportunity to improve a crossing for children near school.

Staff will provide an overview of the MUTCD with a focus on the two pedestrian-specific traffic signal warrants.

FISCAL IMPACT

No

26

ATAC Agenda Letter September 7, 2016 Agenda Item 6.2b

Page 2 of 3 ___________________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Traffic signals are not placed at intersections nor are they altered for function without first considering a number of factors. Due to high cost and lower efficiency for moving high volumes of vehicles, signals are typically a last option considered. The California MUTCD Chapter 4C., Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies, provides guidance and standards for determining the need for signalization at intersections. Engineering studies of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics and physical characteristics of intersections are performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location. These studies include analysis of factors relative to the existing operation and safety of a particular location and the potential to improve the conditions using the following warrants:

• Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume • Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume • Warrant 3, Peak Hour • Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume • Warrant 5, School Crossing • Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System • Warrant 7, Crash Experience • Warrant 8, Roadway Network • Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing

Two warrants are specific to pedestrians; Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volumes, and Warrant 5, School Crossings. The MUTCD states that “A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors described are met.” Where warranted, traffic signals can benefit pedestrians in certain situations. In areas with high volumes of pedestrians and vehicles, particular consideration is made towards moving pedestrians safely and efficiently across intersections while maintaining traffic volumes. Traffic signals are expensive to build and have ongoing operation and maintenance costs. Sometimes, less expensive alternatives are sufficient in providing safer crossing for pedestrians while moving vehicle traffic. The City of Napa has recently installed Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB’s) which are a cost effective and efficient safety alternative for crossing pedestrians. At signalized intersections, the standard pedestrian crossing interval (clearance time) in California was recently changed from 4 feet per second to 3.5 feet per second. This interval allows adequate time for pedestrians walking at a slower pace, such as children or seniors. This clearance time may be reduced under certain conditions as stated in MUTCD Section 4E.6.10:

Where pedestrians who walk slower than 3.5 feet per second, or pedestrians who use wheelchairs, routinely use the crosswalk, a walking speed of less than 3.5 feet per second should be considered in determining the pedestrian clearance time.

27

ATAC Agenda Letter September 7, 2016 Agenda Item 6.2b

Page 3 of 3 ___________________________________________________________________________________

10a-Where older or disabled pedestrians routinely use the crosswalk, a walking speed of 2.8 feet per second should be considered in determining the pedestrian clearance time.

Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume is intended for application where traffic volume on a major street is so heavy, that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street (Attachment 1). MUTCD Chapter 4E describes pedestrian control features that are used at intersections to help pedestrians cross. Common pedestrian signal heads include:

• Steady Walking Person (symbolizing walk) permits pedestrian to proceed • Flashing Upraised Hand-(symbolizing Don’t Walk) pedestrian shall not proceed

into intersection, but pedestrians already within the intersection shall proceed to the far side of the intersection.

• Steady Upraised Hand(symbolizing Don’t Walk) pedestrian shall not enter the roadway

• Countdown Pedestrian Signals-Flashing number indicates time left to cross (displayed simultaneously with upraised flashing hand)

• Audible signals-For sight impaired pedestrians may include audible tones, speech messages and/or vibrating surfaces

• Pedestrian Detectors-May be pushbuttons or passive detection devices • Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)-Gives the pedestrian a 3 second advance,

allowing greater visibility of the pedestrian crossing for left or right turning vehicles

For more information on the California MUTCD including frequently asked questions: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/docs/CAMUTCD2014-faq.pdf SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachment(s): PowerPoint to be provided at meeting

28

September 7, 2016 CAC Agenda Item 6.3 Continued From: New

Action Requested: INFORMATION

NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CAC Agenda Letter ______________________________________________________________________

TO: Citizen Advisory Committee

FROM: Kate Miller, Executive Director REPORT BY: Danielle Schmitz, Planning Manager

(707) 259-5968 / Email: dschmitz@nvta.ca.gov

SUBJECT: Update on State Route 29 Corridor Projects ______________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

Information Only

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SR 29 is the major transportation backbone of Napa County, passing through all six jurisdictions. As a State Highway, SR 29 is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which owns the right-of-way and maintains the highway. SR 29 is often congested in several stretches especially during periods, and improvements to the corridor have been long sought. In 2014, NVTA completed a major planning effort, the SR 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan, focusing on the segments of SR 29 south of the Trancas St. interchange in the City of Napa, with a particular focus on the segment that passes through the City of American Canyon. The Study identifies a series of improvement projects along the corridor ranging from $200,000 to $75 million.

The portion of SR 29 through American Canyon was studied using a detailed computer model to examine the full picture of each of the intersections along SR 29 and demonstrate how two possible designs (“Boulevard” and “Modified Boulevard”) would perform, including pedestrian and bicycle movements. Following the completion of the additional data, a final version of the Plan was presented to the NVTA Board for adoption.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Staff Report2. Public Comment

29

NVTA Agenda Letter September 7, 2016 Agenda Item 6.2

Page 2 of 2

3. Motion, Second, Discussion and Vote FISCAL IMPACT None BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Since the completion of the SR 29 Gateway Corridor Study, American Canyon launched the Broadway Specific Plan. The Broadway Specific Plan further evaluates the Modified Boulevard concept along SR 29 to include reduced speed limits between American Canyon Road and Napa Junction. In addition, a staff-level working group was formed to discuss more cost effective measures for improving congestion and to identify project funding to implement the corridor improvements. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachments: (1) SR 29 Corridor Update

30

Citizen Advisory Committee September 7, 2016

Attachment 1 AC Agenda Item 6.3

September 7, 2016

31

State Highway Update -SR 29

The SR 29 Corridor study identified a $350 million dollar list of unfunded projects

Currently working on refining projects to mirror community values and look of Napa Valley.

Leverage Active Transportation and Transit grants/funding to help deliver the project.

2 32

State Highway Update – SR 29

3

33

SR 29 from Vallejo to American Canyon Road

4

34

5

SR 29 from Vallejo to American Canyon Road: Option 1

35

SR 29 from Vallejo to American Canyon Road: Option 2

6

36

American Canyon Rd. to Napa Junction - Modified Blvd.

7

37

Modified Blvd. cross-section

8

38

Modified Blvd. – Includes multi-modal infrastructure

9

39

Napa Junction to South Kelly Rd.

10

40

South Kelly Rd. to Jameson Canyon

11

41

Airport Blvd. Jameson Canyon/ SR 29 – Tight Diamond

12

42

Soscol Junction – SR 221 and SR 29

Draft environmental document in circulation

Working group looking into project efficiencies and a more aesthetically pleasing design and reduced cost

13 43

SR 29 and SR 12 – Carneros Interchange

14

44

What is currently being done? October 2015 – formed staff level SR 29

Corridor Working Group Draft Environmental Document for Soscol in

final stages Evaluating other alternatives to flyover structure

American Canyon PDA Specific Plan suggests reduced speed, narrowed lanes, intersection improvements, smart signals, and pedestrian crossings.

15 45

SR 29 – Additional Concepts

16

46

American Canyon “Modified-Modified Boulevard”

American Canyon has launched its Broadway Specific Plan and conducted numerous workshops to capture a community vision for Hwy 29 through American Canyon: The overarching goal for the Broadway District

Specific Plan is to enhance the Broadway District as a livable, small town, mixed use city center that is vibrant and thriving and alluring as the “Face of the City”.

17

47

Broadway District Specific Plan Area

18

48

“Modified-Modified Boulevard”

19

The main difference between the Gateway Corridor Modified Boulevard and the Broadway District Modified-Modified Boulevard is the speed limit through American Canyon. Proposed speeds would be 30 MPH which would allow for narrower lanes (11 ft.) and therefore less right-of-way to accommodate the third lane.

49

Next Steps

SR 29 working group to perform feasibility study on alternative project design for Soscol junction

Identify interest and convene SR 29 Policy Board

Refine project scopes and recirculate Environmental Document

Identify funding

20 50

Questions

21 51

September 7, 2016 CAC Agenda Item 6.4 Continued From: New

Action Requested: INFORMATION

NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CAC Agenda Letter ______________________________________________________________________

TO: Citizen Advisory Committee

FROM: Kate Miller, Executive Director REPORT BY: Danielle Schmitz, Planning Manager

(707) 259-5968 / Email: dschmitz@nvta.ca.gov

SUBJECT: Travel Behavior Study Overview ______________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

Information only

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In April 2013, the NVTA Board approved an agreement with Fehr & Peers to conduct the Napa County Travel Behavior Study. This study was a joint effort with the County of Napa and to inform the Countywide Transportation Plan in order to better understand travel behaviors and patterns throughout the county. Unlike the Napa-Solano Travel Demand Model, which solely looks at peak commute volumes Monday through Friday, the study looked at several different data sources to understand how, why, and where residents, workers, and visitors move throughout the county.

The Winegrowers of Napa County, in partnership with the Napa Valley Vintners, funded additional winery data collection which took place in October 2014 at selected wineries across the valley to collect information about the visitors including where they were traveling from and to as well as demographic information. NVTA also conducted additional vehicle counts at the south end of the county to understand whether the widening of Jameson Canyon influenced travel behavior.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Staff Report2. Public Comment3. Motion, Second, Discussion and Vote

FISCAL IMPACT

None

52

NVTA Agenda Letter September 7, 2016 Agenda Item 6.3

Page 2 of 3

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Napa Travel Behavior Study focuses on vehicle trips throughout Napa County. The study helped identify how many trips per day are associated with visitors, residents, and employees, where those trips start and end, the predominant modes of travel, vehicle occupancies, and times of day/week that have the heaviest traffic volumes. To better inform the study and validate the data, the consultants pulled from several different data sources. Data sources included, basic traffic counts at selected locations, mailed surveys based on the capture of license plate numbers, cell phone tracking data (information about where a sample of vehicles travel within Napa County without identifying the owner/driver), and finally, detailed intercept interviews at selected locations, including 12 wineries throughout the county. Also, included in the study was a detailed employee survey that resulted in over 1,400 responses. This survey, along with the mailed survey, provided information about how likely workers and visitors would use other modes of transportation to get to and from their destinations. The Napa County Travel Behavior Study provided NVTA with several quantitative and qualitative data sets. The resulting data has provided NVTA and its member jurisdictions the basis for future planning efforts. Such uses may include but are not limited to the refinement of the Napa-Solano Travel Demand Model (NSTDM) and the update of the Countywide Transportation Plan. The data collected in this study will also be used to inform future plans or projects requiring baseline data. NVTA plans on repeating the study again in the next few years as a predecessor to the next countywide plan. Data Highlights:

• License plate recognition (cameras) at 11 strategic locations over a 24-hour period (a Friday in October - to capture weekday commute trips along with winery and other visitor trips during peak winery visitation season). The locations include the seven major Napa County gateways to capture all inter-regional travel as well as four locations within Napa County to capture a sample of local trips. Infrared video cameras provided classification of the vehicles into passenger vehicle, medium truck, heavy truck, and bus. 154,389 license plate numbers were observed, which led to the following conclusions: • 9% of daily trips at Napa County external gateways are pass-through trips- the

majority of pass-through traffic travels between SR 121 at the Napa/Sonoma county line and SR 12 at the Napa/Solano county line.

• 25% are imported work trips i.e. from a license plate observed entering and exiting Napa County at same location in an approximately 8 hour window.

• 16% are exported work trips observed exiting and entering Napa County at the same location in an approximately 8 hour window.

53

NVTA Agenda Letter September 7, 2016 Agenda Item 6.3

Page 3 of 3

• The largest number of imported work trips from neighboring counties comes

from Solano County (35%), Sonoma County (22%), Contra Costa County (10%), and Alameda County (7%).

Surveys: To supplement previous surveys, three additional surveys were conducted:

1. Vehicle Intercept Mail Survey: Using the license plate data (above) 183 surveys provided the following results: • 52% of respondents are full-time residents of Napa County, 26% are non-

residents but employed in Napa County. • 66% of external trips were imported, consistent with license plate matching

data and mobile device data. 2. In-person winery Survey at 12 wineries around Napa:

• 92% of groups were visitors to Napa County; • 35% of patrons started their day in Napa County, 23% of patrons started their

day in San Francisco County; • 52% of groups traveled by rental car, 36% of groups by personal auto; • 58% said they would use transit if it was an option.

3. Online Major Employers Survey: 100 of Napa County’s major employers totaling approximately 20,000 employees in Napa County helped gather travel behavior and commute data for local employees. 1,444 responses reported: • 71% live in Napa County • 51% live in City of Napa • 97% commute using their personal automobile more than half the time • 43% said they would use public transit if service was expanded and it became

a reasonable option. Cell phones and GPS data: Anonymous reading of cell phone locations gathered over a two month period in September and October of 2013 was utilized to analyze traffic patterns within the county. Of the 206,152 data samples:

• 55% were internal trips • 45% were external trips (meaning passed through one or more external

gateways) o Approximately 9% of external trips were pass through

Travel Behavior Study Conclusions Data from all collection methods has been compiled in a format close to results derived from the Napa Solano Travel Demand Model (the principal computer model for transportation used by NVTA). Study results have provided a substantial amount of real-life origin and destination-level travel data to supplement the recent (2013) California Household Travel Survey for base year calibration and validation purposes. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachments: (1) Presentation on Jobs, Housing, and Travel Behavior

54

TRAVEL BEHAVIOR STUDY

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT

JOBS, HOUSING AND TRAVEL BEHAVIOR

Citizens Advisory Committee September 7, 2016

Attachment 1 CAC Agenda Item 6.4

September 7, 2016

55

Travel Behavior Study

2

Conducted In 2013/14 Partnership: County of Napa & Napa Valley Vintners

Objectives – the Why and the Where People Travel Gather work/non-work travel behavior data :

Visitors/employees/residents who make trips in/out/and around Napa County

Find how much congestion is from residents, imported workers, pass-through trips, winery patrons, etc.

Use data to inform future transportation investments 56

Study Approach

5 data collection methods 1. Vehicle Classification Counts 2. Winery Regression Analysis 3. License Plate Matching 4. In-Person Winery, Vehicles Intercept, and Online

Employer Surveys 5. Mobile Device Data

3

57

Mobile Source Results

4

55% Internal Trips Work Recreational or non-work based

45% External Trips 36% imported/exported 9% pass-through

58

License Plate Matching

5

Trip Type Daily Totals Inbound Trip 45% Outbound Trip 45% Pass-Through Trips 9%

Trip Type Daily Imported Work Trip 25% Imported Other Trip 16% Exported Work Trip 16% Exported Other Trips 11% One-way Total 23% Pass-Through 9%

59

County of Origin for Trips

6

per gateway

SR-29 North of American Canyon Road

60

Travel Behavior Study Results 25% of external trips are generated by workers commuting into

Napa County Approximately 20,000 imported work trips per day.

16% of external trips are outbound commuters — Napa County workers commuting to jobs outside the county.

The largest number of imported work trips from neighboring counties comes from Solano County (35%) Sonoma County (22%) Contra Costa County (10%) Alameda County (7%)

7

61

21.4% Goods Producing (includes beverage/ tobacco product manufacturing)

16.7% Leisure & Hospitality 14.3% Trade, Transportation & Utilities 14.1% Government 13.6% Educational & Health Services 9.1% Professional & Business Services 10.8% Other

8

Employment in Napa Largely dependent on the wine and tourism industry

40% of labor force

62

Jobs/Housing Balance Fastest-growing job sectors are hospitality & retail

Workers find housing outside the county—adds to commute pressure.

There are approximately 70,660 jobs in Napa County and 54,760 housing units.

9

$- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000

Napa Solano Yolo Lake Sonoma ContraCosta

Median Household Income

63

Median Home Price

Median home price in Napa County is $606,494 (2015).

Median rent is $1,588

44% of people who rent pay 35%+ gross income on their rent.

10

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Napa Solano ContraCosta

Lake Sonoma Marin

64

Median Income/ Median Housing Price

A person needs to earn $95,000/year to purchase a median-priced $606,000 home.

Napa County annual median income of Napa’s Work Force = $38,168

11 Napa home for sale as of Aug 2016

Zillow.com sale price: $600,000

65

The Housing/Income Mismatch

Effects More Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Inevitable congestion on Napa’s roads 2040 Projections: 30,000 workers commuting into Napa each day– 45% increase Additional 2,000 outbound-commuters

○ 16,000 daily trips leaving the county for work over this same time period.

12

66

Solutions

Build more housing. Build housing that meets the needs of

our existing work force. Build housing closer to jobs and

services. Create jobs that pay more. Improve transportation infrastructure to

make it easier for workers to access jobs.

13

67

Transportation Solutions Develop alternative transportation options for

commuters (Travel Demand Management) Improve highway and road infrastructure making it

more effective at reducing congestion and auto emissions.

Promote Priority Development Areas (PDAs) Planning efforts Developments that bring jobs closer to housing Infrastructure improvements that improve traffic flow and

encourage walking and biking

14

68

Opportunities: Technology

15

Extensions

69

Opportunities: Infrastructure Improvements

First/Second Street Roundabouts Vine Trail Expanded Express Bus Service Transit Operating Efficiencies Connecting Rail SR 29 Improvements

16

70

Near-term Opportunities Alternative Transportation

Encouraging walking/biking particularly for school trips during peak period

Partnering with Employers/Schools subsidized transit passes

Improve Transit and Active Transportation Infrastructure and Technologies

17

71

Questions

18 72