American Canyon City Council
June 16, 2026

REFERENCES
311
11NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

SHARED-USE PATHS (CLASS I)
+ Consider providing amenities such as restrooms, bike
racks, and portable water at trailheads, and covered rest stops along the trail to ensure that paths are welcoming to a variety of user types, including families with children and seniors.
+ Consider providing maps and signs to improve wayfinding for users, such as signs that show trail names, connections to nearby trails, and/or nearby destinations.
+ Bollards within the clear width of shared-use paths are generally discouraged due to increased crash risk and
potential delays to emergency response. Instead, prioritize regulatory signage, clear visual cues indicating the facility is not intended for motor vehicle use, and entry designs that discourage vehicle access without introducing fixed obstacles. Where physical measures are necessary,
use markings and geometric design elements, such as
narrowed or split path entries, to deter vehicle intrusion while maintaining a clear, predictable path for shared-use path users.
+ Center line striping is optional on shared-use paths and should be applied strategically based on context and
safety needs. When used, center lines help separate
opposing travel directions and may be applied continuously or at targeted locations, such as curves with limited
sight distance, unlit segments where nighttime use is
expected, approaches to intersections, or near centerline obstructions like bollards.
312
12NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. DIB 89-02: Class IV Bikeway Guidance (Separated Bikeways/ Cycle Tracks). 2022.

Caltrans. DIB-94: Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance. 2024.

FHWA. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

SEPARATED BIKE LANES (CLASS IV)
Separated bike lanes are a dedicated bikeway facility type that combines the user experience of a shared-use path with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. They are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by a vertical element and are distinct from the sidewalk. Separated bike lanes can be constructed at sidewalk grade, roadway grade, or an intermediate grade between the sidewalk and street. Separated bike lanes can be designed to serve one-way bicyclist traffic or two-way bicyclist traffic. + Separated bike lanes are preferred over shared-use
paths in higher density areas, commercial and mixed-use development, and near major transit stations or locations where peak pedestrian volumes are anticipated to exceed 200 people per hour on a shared use path.
+ Separated bike lanes are more attractive to a wider range of bicyclists than striped bikeways on higher volume and higher speed roads since they are designed to prevent
motor vehicles from driving or waiting in the bikeway. They also provide greater comfort to pedestrians by separating them from bicyclists operating at higher speeds.
+ Choice of one- or two-way facility should be based on connectivity, bicyclist desire lines, roadway configuration, and potential intersection conflicts. Generally, one-way facilities are preferred.
+ The allocation of space can vary from midblock locations to intersection approaches. Providing a larger street buffer at intersections can be achieved by tapering the bike lane toward the sidewalk as it approaches the intersection and narrowing or eliminating the sidewalk buffer.
+ See Driveways section in Chapter 5 for details on how to address driveway crossings.
+ Separated bike lanes are a dedicated bike-only facility type and should be considered on any road with one or more of the following characteristics:
+ Traffic lanes: 3 lanes or greater.
+ Posted speed limit: 30 mph or more.
+ Traffic: 6,000 vehicles per day or greater.
+ On-Street parking turnover: frequent.
+ Streets that are designated as truck or bus routes.
+ One-way separated bike lanes should be 5’ wide minimum but widths of 7’ are preferred to allow for passing.
+ Buffer width may vary depending on type of vertical
separation used, but typically is 3’ wide. If adjacent to onstreet parking, a minimum 3’-wide buffer is required.

One-way sidewalk-level separated
bike lane
One-way intermediate-level
separated bike lane
One-way, street-level
separated bike lane with bollards

REFERENCES

SIDEWALK

BIKE LANE

BUFFER W/ STAKES

PARKING

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK

BIKE LANE
BUFFER

PARKING
313
13NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. DIB-94: Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance. 2024.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

Buffered bike lanes are created by painting a buffer zone between the bike lane and the adjacent travel lane. While buffers are typically used between bike lanes and motor vehicle travel lanes to increase bicyclists’ comfort, they can also be provided between bike lanes and parking lanes in locations with high parking turnover to discourage bicyclists from riding too close to parked vehicles.
+ Can be used on one-way or two-way streets.
+ Consider placing buffer next to parking lane where there is commercial or metered parking.
+ When 7’ of pavement width is available, consider providing a 5-foot bike lane with a 2-foot buffer.
+ Buffered bike lanes allow bicyclists to ride side by side or to pass slower moving bicyclists. A larger buffer and/or bike lane is acceptable in cases where sufficient/excess pavement width is available.
+ Preferable to a conventional bike lanes when used as a contra-flow bike lane on one-way streets.
+ As noted in the Bicycle Facility Selection section earlier in this chapter, Where the preferred bikeway facility may not be feasible (such as a street with a posted speed greater than 30 mph and existing Class II bike lanes that cannot accommodate Class IV separated bike lanes), consider
reducing the posted speed limit, consistent with state
law, and/or installing traffic calming features to reduce roadway speed or volumes in order match the bicycle
facility to road conditions. In this example, enhancing the existing bike lanes to Class II buffered bike lanes can be paired with reducing the posted speed limit to 30 mph.
+ Place buffered or unbuffered bike lanes next to travel lane where speeds are 30 mph or slower and when traffic volume are fewer than 6,000 vehicles per day.
+ Bike lanes must be a minimum of 4 feet wide and ideally 5–6 feet wide, with an additional painted buffer of at least 2 feet (or 3 feet when adjacent to parking). Consistent with AASHTO guidance, where bike lanes are located adjacent
to a gutter or pan that is less than 5 feet wide, the gutter area should not be counted toward the effective bike lane width, as it does not provide usable operating space for bicyclists.

BUFFERED BIKE LANES (CLASS II)
Buffered bike lane adjacent to a curb Buffered bike lane adjacent to parking

REFERENCES
314
14NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. DIB-94: Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance. 2024.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

Bike lanes provide an exclusive space for bicyclists in the roadway. Bike lanes are established through the use of lines and symbols on the roadway surface. Bike lanes are for one-way travel and are normally provided in both directions on two-way streets or on one side of a one-way street. Bicyclists are not required to remain in a bike lane when traveling on a street and may leave the bike lane as necessary to make turns, pass other bicyclists, or to properly position themselves for other necessary movements. + Can be used on one-way or two-way streets.
+ Bike lanes may be enhanced with consistent use of conflict area striping, preferably with green-colored pavement,
including right turn lanes & major driveways. More details can be found in the “Bikeway Intersection and Spot
Treatments” section.
+ Word/Symbol markings should be applied before & after intersections.
+ Stopping, standing and parking in bike lanes may be
problematic in areas of high parking demand and
deliveries, especially in commercial areas. Use of sign R7-9 (or R7-9a) and/or red curbs may be used to discourage
parking in bike lanes.
+ Wider bike lanes or buffered bike lanes are preferable at locations with high parking turnover or higher volumes of bicyclists during peak hours.
+ Place bike lanes next to travel lane where speeds are 25 mph or slower and when traffic volume are fewer than
6,000 vehicles per day.
+ Bike lanes must be a minimum of 4’ wide, but ideally
should be 5-6’ wide. When adjacent to on-street parking, bike lanes should be a minimum of 5’ wide. Consistent with AASHTO guidance, where bike lanes are located adjacent
to a gutter or pan that is less than 5 feet wide, the gutter area should not be counted toward the effective bike lane width, as it does not provide usable operating space for bicyclists.
+ Parking T’s or hatch marks can highlight the door zone on constrained corridors with high parking turnover to guide bicyclists away from doors. (See rightmost graphic above.)

BIKE LANES (CLASS II)
Bike lane adjacent to a curb Bike lane adjacent to parking Bike lane with door zone marking

REFERENCES
315
15NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. DIB-94: Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance. 2024.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

BICYCLE BOULEVARD (CLASS III)
Bicycle boulevards are applied on quiet streets, often through residential neighborhoods. These treatments are designed to prioritize bicycle through-travel, while calming motor vehicle traffic and maintaining relatively low motor vehicle volumes. Treatments vary depending on context, but often include elements of traffic calming and measures to discourage cut-through traffic, including traffic diverters, speed attenuators such as speed humps or chicanes, pavement markings, and signs. Bicycle boulevards are also known as neighborhood greenways or neighborhood bikeways, among other locally-preferred terms. + Many cities already have Class III bike routes along
neighborhood streets that provide an alternative to
traveling on high-volume, high-speed arterials. Applying bicycle boulevard treatments to these routes makes them more suitable for bicyclists of all abilities and can reduce crashes.
+ Stop signs or traffic signals (where possible and allowed by warrant) should be placed along the bicycle boulevard in a way that prioritizes the bicycle movement, minimizing stops and delays for bicyclists whenever possible.
+ Agencies may consider implementing bicycle boulevard
treatments on one pilot corridor to measure the impacts and gain community support. The pilot program should
include before-and-after crash studies, motor vehicle
counts, and bicyclist counts on both the bicycle boulevard and parallel streets. Findings from the pilot program can be used to justify bicycle boulevard treatments on other neighborhood streets.
+ Additional treatments for major street crossings may be needed, such as median refuge islands, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, bicycle signals, or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons.
+ Bicycle boulevards can generally be considered on any road with one or more of the following characteristics:
+ Maximum Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 3,000
+ Preferred ADT: up to 1,000
+ Target speeds for motor vehicle traffic are typically around 20-25 mph; there should be a maximum 15 mph speed
differential between bicyclists and vehicles.
+ Bicycle boulevards feature regularly spaced traffic calming treatments to slow vehicles and meet target vehicle
speeds. See “Traffic Calming” section.
+ Refer to State Bill 1216 for new Class III bicycle facility requirements beginning January 1, 2025.
+ Provide clear wayfinding to help users navigate to and along bike boulevards, supporting connectivity within the broader bicycle network (see Wayfinding page 52).

REFERENCES
316
16NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Rural bike routes accommodate bicyclists on roadways without dedicated facilities, either on shoulders or by sharing the travel lane with vehicles. This type of facility is applicable in rural areas where dedicated bikeways either will not fit on the street or would not be appropriate given the surrounding context.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

FHWA. Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts. 2016.

FHWA. Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks. 2016.

REFERENCES

RURAL BICYCLE ROUTES
(CLASS III)

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
+ Refer to State Bill 1216 for new Class III bicycle facility requirements beginning January 1, 2025.
+ Where present, shoulder width should be at least 5’
if the roadway is curbless and there are no vertical
obstructions. If curbs, gutter, or vertical obstructions are present, shoulder width should be 5’ minimum exclusive
of obstructions. See table on Page 8 for recommended
shoulder width based on roadway speed and volume.
+ When posted speed limits or 85th percentile speeds
exceed 50 mph and/or if heavy vehicles frequently use
the road, shoulders should exceed minimum widths to
enhance bicyclist comfort.
+ Edge line rumble strips can provide additional bicyclist protection on paved shoulders. The width of a shoulder
with rumble strips should be measured from the rightmost side of the rumble strip. Periodic gaps should be provided to allow bicyclists to move across the strip pattern.
+ On rural roadways with higher traffic volumes (e.g., ADT above approximately 6,000–7,000 vehicles per day,
depending on context) and/or higher speeds (45 mph or
greater), shared use paths are often preferred over on-road bike facilities to improve bicyclist comfort and safety. + On roads used by bicyclists that lack shoulders, the
BICYCLE warning sign (W11-1) or BICYCLES ALLOWED
USE OF FULL LANE (R9-20) may be used. It may
be supplemented with an IN LANE, ON ROAD, or ON
ROADWAY plaque. A fluorescent yellow-green background
may be used for these sign assemblies.
+ Signs W11-1 or R9-20 should be spaced every 1-2 miles.

They should also be placed prior to approaches to curves, hills, or other places with limited sight distances.
+ The SHARE THE ROAD sign (W16-1P) is not recommended
as it does not provide a clear message to users.
+ For roads that are unable to provide consistent and
standard size bikeable shoulders in both directions, provide a wider shoulder on:
+ The uphill direction on hilly roads to reduce conflicts between slow-moving bicyclists and fast-moving
motor vehicles.
+ The inside of a horizontal curve and/or the downgrade of a vertical curve where sight distance is restricted. + In rural areas, paved shoulders may provide space for pedestrians on roadways without sidewalks. In situations where a shoulder is intended for pedestrian use, it must meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
317
17NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

FHWA. Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks. 2016.

UNCLASSIFIED BIKE ROUTES
Unclassified Bike Routes are paths, trails, or roadways that provide readily apparent transportation options to users, but which are not consistent with minimum standards established for Class I-IV facilities due to material type, width, or other characteristics. Unclassified Bike Routes are almost always existing facilities that preclude identification as a future Class I–IV facility without substantial reconstruction. REFERENCES + On roads used by bicyclists that lack shoulders, the
BICYCLE warning sign (W11-1) or BICYCLES ALLOWED
USE OF FULL LANE sign (R9-20) may be used. It may
be supplemented with an IN LANE, ON ROAD, or ON
ROADWAY plaque. A fluorescent yellow-green background
may be used for these sign assemblies.
+ Signs W11-1 or R9-20 should be spaced every 1-2 miles.

They should also be placed prior to approaches to curves, hills, or other places with limited sight distances.
+ The SHARE THE ROAD sign (W16-1P) is not recommended
as it does not provide a clear message to users.
+ California state law requires motorists to provide at least 3’ clearance when passing bicyclists. The Bicycle Passing Clearance sign, R117(CA), may be used to specify this.
+ Speed reduction markings, ideally placed upstream of
unexpected horizontal curves, may be particularly useful on rural roads with higher volumes of bicyclists. (See
Speed Reduction Markings section in Chapter 6 for more
information.)
+ Paved shoulders are particularly important for improving comfort and safety for bicyclists on roadways that meet any or all of the following conditions:
+ Inadequate sight distances for the typical operating
speed,
+ Grades in excess of 5 percent, or
+ High percentages (> 10 percent) of heavy vehicles.
+ When it is not possible to install paved shoulders on both sides of the roadway, climbing lanes (paved shoulders
on one side of the roadway in the uphill direction) provide dedicated space for people to bicycle uphill allowing faster vehicular traffic to pass comfortably.
+ On roadway sections with vertical or horizontal curves that limit sight distance, it can be helpful to provide shoulders over the crest and on the downgrade of a vertical curve or on the inside of a horizontal curve.
+ Refuge areas are paved or unpaved locations adjacent to the roadway where bicyclists may pull over to stop for rest or allow traffic to pass. Refuge areas should have adequate visibility for bicyclists pulling in and out to avoid conflicts with moving traffic. It may also be necessary to restrict parking in refuge areas to ensure that parked vehicles do not inhibit the use of the space by bicyclists or create sight distance obstructions.
318
18 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT 319

BIKEWAY INTERSECTION &

SPOT TREATMENTS
2 320
20NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
FHWA. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

BIKE BOXES
SINGLE
A bike box provides dedicated space between the crosswalk and vehicle stop line where bicyclists can wait in front of motor vehicles during the red light at signalized intersections. Bike boxes are primarily used to mitigate conflicts between through bicyclists and right-turning motorists and to reduce conflicts between motorists and bicyclists at the beginning of the green signal phase.
+ Bike boxes should be a minimum of 10 ft in depth and may be larger depending on anticipated bicyclist volumes.
+ The bike box should connect directly to the approaching bike lane. At least 50 ft of bike lane should be provided on the approach to a bike box so bicyclists will not need to ride between lanes to enter the box. The approaching bike lane, and the bike box, may be colored green.
+ Install advance stop bar where crosswalk serves as limit line for existing facilities; also consider pavement marking or signage (such as MUTCD R10-6).
+ Applicable at signalized intersections with high bicycle or motor vehicle volumes, especially those with frequent bicyclist left turns and/or motorist right turns.
+ Recommended where a left turn is required to follow a designated bike route, access a shared-use path, or when the bicycle lane moves to the left side of the street.
+ When a bike box is implemented in front of a vehicle lane that previously allowed right turns on red, the right turn on red movement must be restricted using signage and
enforcement once a bike box is installed.
+ A bicycle box should only extend across one travel lane. In limited situations, bike boxes may be used to facilitate left turns for bicycles when there is an unusually heavy left turn volume, such as near the entrance to a popular shared use path, although the preferred treatment for bicylist left turns is a two-stage bicycle turn box.
+ See Bicycle Signals (Chapter 5) for use of dedicated bike signal or hybrid signal with advance green for bicycles.

REFERENCES
321
21NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE

CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

FHWA. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

TWO-STAGE
A two-stage turn box designates a space for bicyclists to wait for traffic to clear before proceeding in a different direction of travel. Two-stage turn queue boxes may be used with any type of bicycle facility. A two-stage turn queue box should be considered where separated bike lanes are continued up to an intersection and a protected intersection is not provided.
+ Two stage turn boxes are applicable at locations where a left turn movement is expected by bicyclists.
+ A two-stage bicycle turn box may be used at signalized intersections per FHWA Interim Approval IA-20, though
experimental approval from FHWA is required to use this pavement marking at unsignalized intersections.
+ May be used at any signalized intersection but are
preferable on high-volume and multilane roads to reduce the need for bicyclist weaving across motor vehicle traffic. + Two-stage bicycle turn boxes should be placed in a logical location that aligns with the receiving bicycle facility. They can be placed in front of a through lane, in front of a turn lane, or entirely outside of a motor vehicle lane.
+ Dashed bike lane extension markings may be used to
indicate the path of travel across the intersection.
+ Passive detection of bicycles in the two-stage bicycle turn box must be provided if detection is required to actuate a traffic signal.
+ Both driver and bicyclists public education is
recommended to support greater understanding of
purpose and correct use of two stage bike boxes. + A two-stage bicycle turn box:
+ Must be located outside of the path of through and
turning traffic.
+ Should be located adjacent to the direct path of
bicyclist travel.
+ Should be located downstream of the crosswalk and
downstream of the stop line.
+ Must include a bicycle symbol oriented in the direction in which the bicyclists enter the box, along with an
arrow showing the direction of the turn.
+ May include green-colored pavement.
+ A NO RIGHT TURN ON RED sign, R13-A(CA), must be
installed where a two-stage turn queuing box is not located outside the path of right-turning traffic to prevent motorists from entering the bicycle queuing area.

REFERENCES
322
22NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS

PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS
Separated bike lanes provide an exclusive travel way for bicyclists alongside roadways that is separate from motor vehicle travel lanes, parking lanes, and sidewalks. Separated bike lane designs at intersections should manage conflicts with turning vehicles and increase visibility for all users. + Protected intersections have eight key elements, as noted in the above image.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

FHWA. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.
+ At major intersections where space is available, protected intersection designs are preferred because they are
intuitive and comfortable, provide clear right-of-way
assignment, promote predictability of movement, and allow eye contact between motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. + Where two-way separated bike lanes are installed on one side of the street, the contra-flow direction of bicycle travel introduces an unexpected movement at the intersection
and requires more complex signal operations.
+ Corner refuge islands allow the bike lane to be physically separated up to the intersection crossing point where
potential conflicts with turning motorists can be controlled more easily. They serve an important purpose in protecting the bicyclist from right-turning motor vehicle traffic.

REFERENCES
323
23NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

MIXING ZONES
Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

FHWA. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

CONSIDERATIONS
D
A
B
C
A mixing zone designates space for turning motorists to merge across a separated bike lane at a defined location in advance of an intersection. The mixing zone design limits bicyclists’ exposure to motor vehicles by defining a limited merge area for the turning motorist. Mixing zones are compatible only with one-way bike lanes.

GUIDANCE
+ Locate merge points where the entering speeds of motor vehicles will be 20 mph or less by (a) minimizing the length of the merge area and (b) locating the merge point as close as practical to the intersection.
+ Minimize the length of the storage portion of the turn lane + Provide a buffer and physical separation (e.g. flexible delineator posts) from the adjacent through lane after the merge area, if feasible.
+ Highlight the conflict area with green surface coloring and dashed bike lane markings, as necessary, or shared lane markings placed on a green box.
+ Provide a BEGIN RIGHT (or LEFT) TURN LANE YIELD TO
BIKES sign (R4-4) at the beginning of the merge area.
+ Restrict parking within the merge area
+ At locations where raised separated bike lanes approach the intersection, the bike lane should transition to street elevation at the point where parking terminates.
+ Where posted speeds are 35 mph or higher, or at locations where it is necessary to provide additional storage
for queued vehicles, it may be necessary to provide a
deceleration/storage lane in advance of the merge point. + Protected intersections with phase separation between bicyclists and right-turning motorists are preferable to mixing zones. Mixing zones are generally appropriate as an interim solution or in situations where severe right-ofway constraints make it infeasible to provide a protected intersection.
+ Mixing zones are only appropriate on street segments with one-way separated bike lanes. They are not appropriate
for two-way separated bike lanes due to the contra-flow bicycle movement.

A
B
C

D REFERENCES
324
24NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

omatic data transmission option (purchased for the first year), did not always

gon Warning Sign Installation
ODOT Region 4
assembled sign
ir Bend, Oregon
ed the concrete
nd concrete pull
ull boxes protect
ata logger and
es that may pull
der and are more
plastic Rainbird
cally used. The
about a week to
ng the signposts.
e upper warning

78.78 with the
the foreground.
nch was dug to
onduit that holds
the data logger
, ODOT hired a
sawcut the
nstall the Zelt
stem per Eco
gns on a trailer to
ruck with a crane
m into place and install into the foundation. A second truck with an extended lectrician to access the electric panel located at the top of sign, about 12 feet higher elevation section of Hwy 242 over McKenzie Pass is closed to motor snowy season typically from October through mid-June. Part of the warning occurred prior to the road opening on June 17, 2019, reducing the need for Figure 6: Oregon HWY 242 dynamic warning sign near
Milepost 78 and concrete junction box (photo: ODOT)

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS

DYNAMIC WARNING SYSTEMS
Bicycling on narrow, rural roads can present unique hazards, particularly in areas of Napa County with steep topography, blind curves, and presence of large agricultural or recreational vehicles. Dynamic Warning Systems utilize active detection (via in-ground inductive loops or other technologies) to activate flashing beacons, alerting drivers to the presence of bicyclists on a roadway.
+ Dynamic Warning Systems are best utilized along existing popular bicycling routes that lack dedicated bicycle
facilities.
+ Beacons should be combined with BICYCLE (W11-1) sign
and AHEAD (W16-9P) sign.

FHWA. Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University.

Dynamic Warning Systems: A Review of Applications and Effectiveness. 2021.
+ Systems should be located strategically at locations
near blind curves, steep grades, or other locations where bicyclists using the roadway may not be readily apparent to other road users.
+ Installation locations should avoid areas where roadway congestion may exist (eg: near intersections or major
driveways) or where pullouts or other road design features may result in less accurate system operation.
+ As a relatively new safety treatment, conducting pre- and post-project vehicle and bike volume and speed counts will help inform future use of this technology.

REFERENCES
Source: FHWA. Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University. Dynamic Warning Systems: A Review of Applications and Effectiveness. 2021. 325
25NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS

SEPARATED BIKE LANES AT ROUNDABOUTS
MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide
674 INTERSECTIONS
When separated bike lanes are provided at roundabouts, they should be continuous around the intersection and parallel to the sidewalk. Separated bike lanes should generally follow the contour of the circular intersection. + It may be advisable to install RRFBs (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons) or apply geometric design changes to
support motorist yielding.
+ The bicycle crossing should be immediately adjacent to and parallel with the pedestrian crossing, and both should be at the same elevation.
+ The separated bike lane approach to the bicycle crossing should result in bicyclists arriving at the queuing area at a perpendicular angle to approaching motorists.
+ Consider providing supplemental yield lines at roundabout exits to indicate priority at these crossings.
+ Channelizing islands are preferred to maintain separation between bicyclists and pedestrians, but may be eliminated if different surface materials are used.
+ On- and off-ramps should be provided when a Class I
shared-use path is employed to allow bicyclists to safely enter and exit the facility from the roadway.
+ Where separated bike lanes are provided at a roundabout, the use of Class III pavement markings (sharrows) within the roundabout is encouraged to provide an on-street
alternative for bicyclists who prefer to travel with motor vehicle traffic.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

U.S. Access Board. Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, 2025.
+ Separated bike lanes are applicable at all roundabouts.

This treatment reduces conflict and places bicyclists in more predictable and visible positions.
+ Separated bike lanes at roundabout crossings should
provide:
+ Yield control for motorists at the bicycle crossing,
+ Detectable surface materials to maintain separation
between bicyclists and pedestrians; and
+ Bicycle/pedestrian warning signs (W11-15) at the
bicycle and pedestrian crossings.

REFERENCES
326
26NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE

CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. DIB 89-02: Class IV Bikeway Guidance. 2022.

FHWA Memorandum – Interim Approval for Optional Use of Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lane. 2011.

Where a bicycle facility crosses an intersection or higher volume driveway, the delineation of bicycle space through the intersection using dashed line increases the legibility of the bikeway and raises awareness of bicyclists to other roadway users. Bicycle lane extension markings, also called conflict area markings, may be used with any Class II or Class IV bike lane across driveways, through intersections, or in separated bike lane mixing zones. See Protected Intersections graphic for illustration of extension markings at an intersection. + A variety of pavement marking symbols can enhance
intersection treatments to guide bicyclists and warn of potential conflicts.
+ Symbol placement within intersections should consider vehicle wheel paths to minimize maintenance.
+ Driveways with higher volumes may require additional
pavement markings and signage.
+ Consideration should be given to using intersection
pavement markings as spot treatments or standard
intersection treatments. A corridor wide treatment can
maintain consistency; however, spot treatments can be
used to highlight conflict locations.

BICYCLE LANE EXTENSION MARKINGS
+ Dashed white lane lanes should conform to the latest
edition of the CA MUTCD. These can be used through
different types of intersections based on engineering
judgment.
+ Green pavement markings, where utilized, may be applied in a solid or dashed pattern within a dashed bicycle lane to indicate conflict areas and where merging maneuvers are permitted, such as across intersections, driveways, and at STOP or YIELD-controlled cross-streets.
+ Green pavement markings shall be placed before the
stop bar at the intersection and continue through the
intersection. Dashed marking should be aligned with the approaching/receiving bike lane.
+ Green dashed pavement markings are typically 4’ by 5’-2” with a 6” white edge.
+ The colored markings should be skid-resistant and
retroreflective, made from durable liquid pavement.

REFERENCES
FHWA. Separated Bike Lane Guide. 2015.

Caltrans.California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.
+ Extension markings should be used to guide vehicle
and bicycle movements and clarify travel paths through
intersections or interchanges with complex geometry or
reduced visibility. These conditions may include offset, skewed, multi-legged, or curved intersections; locations with multiple turn lanes; or offset turn lanes that could create driver confusion.
327
27NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

FHWA. Achieving Multi-modal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts. 2016.

TRUCK APRONS
In locations where large vehicles make occasional turns, designers can consider mountable truck aprons.

Mountable truck aprons reduce turning speeds for passenger vehicles, yet accommodate the occasional large vehicle without encroachment or off-tracking into pedestrian waiting areas. + The mountable surface should be visually distinct from the adjacent travel lane, sidewalk and separated bike lane. + The heights of mountable areas and curbs should be no more than 3 inches above the travel lane to accommodate lowboy trailers.
+ Mountable truck aprons have a preferred corner radius of 15’.
+ Truck aprons are typically constructed with asphalt or concrete but may also be constructed with pavement
markings and bolt-down speed bumps aligned
perpendicular to the roadway edge as an interim strategy. + Mountable truck aprons are part of the traveled way and should be designed to discourage pedestrian or bicycle
refuge.
+ Bicycle stop bars, detectable warning surfaces, traffic signal equipment and other intersection features must be located behind the mountable surface area.
+ While bicyclist and pedestrian safety is negatively impacted by wide crossings, bicyclists and pedestrians are also at risk if the curb radius is too small. Curb radii that are too small for large vehicles to navigate can result in the rear wheels of a truck tracking over queuing areas at the corner.

Maintenance problems are also caused when trucks must
regularly drive over street corners to make turns.
+ For related information, see Corners and Curb Radii and Curb Extensions sections in Chapter 3.

REFERENCES
328
28NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

AT-GRADE RAILROAD CROSSINGS
Railroad tracks that interface with bicycle facilities can be hazardous. Tracks running along bike facilities create hazards for bicyclists traveling parallel to the tracks as well as when turning across the tracks. + Railroad crossings should be designed to allow bicyclists to cross at an angle between 60 and 90 degrees to
minimize their risk of crashing. This may require wider paved shoulders to accomplish.
+ Provide clear delineation with pavement markings
indicating to bicyclists where they should travel to cross railroad tracks at an optimum location.
+ Provide adequate sight lines for approaching bicyclists to see approaching trains at rail crossings.
+ Provide warning signs to alert bicyclists of the crossing ahead.

REFERENCES

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
+ Railroad crossings may require supplemental traffic control devices approved by the rail authority; in unique situations, design solutions may include a separate bridge structure to avoid at-grade crossings.
+ Provide, as practicable, the best track surface treatment for bicyclists. Concrete produces the smoothest ride for bicyclists, even under wet conditions. This is preferred to rubber, which can become slippery when wet and degrade
over time; asphalt, which can deform or heave over time; and timber, which wears down relatively rapidly and can be slippery when wet.
+ Reduce the flangeway width to minimize the possibility of bicycle wheels getting caught in the opening.
+ Alternative crossing facilities (eg., Class I) may be appropriate (as opposed to shared roadway/shoulder) in
locations where higher volumes or bicycle or pedestrian users are expected, or where a history of incidents is
present.
329

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
& AMENITIES
3 330
30NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Sidewalks play a critical role in the character, function, enjoyment, and accessibility of neighborhoods, main streets, and other community destinations. In addition to providing space for pedestrians separated from motor vehicles, sidewalks also accommodate street trees and other plantings, stormwater infrastructure, street lights, and bicycle racks. This section defines sidewalk zones and provides considerations for better activating the streetscape to enhance peoples’ experiences.

Frontage Zone:

The Frontage Zone is the area of sidewalk that immediately abuts buildings along the street. In residential areas, the Frontage Zone may be occupied by front porches, stoops, lawns, or other landscape elements that extend from the front door to the sidewalk edge. The Frontage Zone of commercial properties may include architectural features, outdoor displays, café seating, awnings, signage, etc. Frontage Zones may vary in width from just a few feet to several yards.

Pedestrian Through Zone:

Also known as the “walking zone,” the Pedestrian Zone is the portion of the sidewalk space used for active travel. For it to function, it must be kept clear of any obstacles and be wide enough to comfortably accommodate expected pedestrian
volumes (as anticipated by density and adjacent land use) including those using mobility assistance devices, pushing strollers, or pulling carts.

Amenity Zone:

The Amenity Zone, or “landscape zone,” lies between the curb and the Pedestrian Zone. This area is occupied by fixtures such as street lights, trees, bicycle racks, utility poles, transit shelters, parking meters, signposts, signal boxes, benches, trash and recycling receptacles, and other amenities. In commercial areas, it is typical for this zone to be hardscape pavement, pavers, or tree grates. In residential, or lower intensity areas, it is commonly a planted strip.

ELEMENTS OF A SIDEWALK
Frontage, Pedestrian and Amenity Zones
+ Where demand is highest, it may be appropriate to reallocate street width to provide amenities that cannot be accommodated within the existing sidewalk width,
such as bicycle parking or outdoor dining. Outdoor dining opportunities contribute to a lively street environment and add economic value by enabling private commercial activity to spill into the public environment of the street.
+ While there are some exceptions, most street furniture installation is installed in the Amenity Zone. For example, bicycle parking may be installed in the frontage zone if it is ZONES

CONSIDERATIONS
sufficiently wide enough to accommodate it. Regardless, street furniture should not impede movement in the
Pedestrian Zone.
+ Seating is most commonly located in the Amenity Zone of the street, but may also be placed in the Frontage Zone.

Seating in the Amenity Zone should generally face away
from the street and toward the sidewalk or be aligned
perpendicular to the curb. Seating in the Frontage Zone should face the street.
+ Stormwater facilities are commonly located in the Amenity Zone.
+ Where demand is highest, it may be appropriate to reallocate street width to provide amenities that cannot be accommodated within the existing sidewalk width, such as bicycle parking or outdoor dining.
331
31NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
The width of the various sidewalk zones will vary given the street type, the available right-of-way, scale of the adjoining buildings and the intensity and type of uses expected along a particular street segment. A balanced approach for determining the sidewalk width should consider the character of the surrounding area and the anticipated pedestrian activities. For example, is the street lined with retail that encourages window shopping or does it connect a residential neighborhood to a commercial area where pedestrians frequently need to pass one another? Does the scale of the buildings and the character of the street indicate a need for a wider sidewalk? NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

U.S. Access Board. Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, 2025.

PREFERRED WIDTHS FOR SIDEWALK ZONES
+ In locations with constrained rights-of-way, it is possible to provide a narrower Frontage Zone and Pedestrian Zone.

Sidewalk width is based on local context, therefore in
retrofit locations where development is not occurring and where existing building are anticipated to remain, 5-footwide sidewalks may be adequate. + Frontage Zones used for sidewalk cafés are a special
condition and should generally be no less than 6 feet in width.
+ The provision of tree wells or landscape strip within the Amenity Zone will be based on the existing or planned
character of the neighborhood.
+ Sidewalk stormwater facilities (including rain gardens) are generally located in the Amenity Zone and may indicate a need for a wider zone than what is identified in the table above.

REFERENCES
+ Sidewalk width must be a minimum of 4’ of clear space for path of travel (not including the curb which is typically 6”) and a passing space of minimum 5’x5’ is required every
200’ or more.
+ Pedestrian Through Zone width recommendations:
+ School Zones (8-12ft)
+ Downtown, Urban Centers, Main Streets (6-12ft)
+ Suburban Commercial (6-10ft)
+ Suburban Residential (6ft)
+ Rural (4-6ft), where applicable
332
32NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Pedestrian safety and comfort is enhanced by smaller curb radii, which shorten crossing distances for pedestrians and reduce vehicle turning speeds. However, streets must accommodate large turning vehicles, including school buses and transit vehicles, which require larger turning radii. One of the most challenging aspects of intersection design is to determine methods of accommodating large vehicles while keeping intersections as compact as possible. This requires engineering judgment, as each intersection is unique in terms of the number of travel lanes, presence of a median, and a number of other features that fundamentally impact corner design.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.
+ The design and control vehicle are context-dependent.

Common design vehicles include a DL-27 for local streets, SU-30 for downtown and commercial streets, and BU-40
for designated bus routes. Control vehicles are often larger trucks like a WB-50.
+ At signalized intersections, corner design should assume that a large vehicle will use the entire width of the receiving lanes on the intersecting street.
+ Depending on an agency’s encroachment policy, it may be possible to allow a large turning vehicle to encroach on the adjacent travel lane on the departure side (on multi-lane roads) to make the turn.
+ Mountable truck aprons can be implemented to deter
design vehicles from making higher-speed turns, while
accommodating control vehicles without encroachment or
off-tracking into pedestrian areas. Mountable truck aprons should be visually distinct from the adjacent travel lane and sidewalk. (For more information, refer to Truck Aprons section).

CORNERS AND CURB RADII
Actual
Eective Curb Radius
Curb
Radius
+ Curb radii should be designed to accommodate the
intended design vehicle, or the most frequent user of a given street, turning using one approach lane and one
receiving lane, as well as the intended control vehicle, or an infrequent larger vehicle, turning using multiple lane spaces.

REFERENCES
333
33NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
The transition for pedestrians from the sidewalk to the street is provided by a curb ramp. The designs of curb ramps are critical for all pedestrians, but particularly for people with disabilities. The ADA Standards require all pedestrian crossings be accessible to people with disabilities by providing curb ramps at intersections and midblock crossings as well as other locations where pedestrians can be expected to enter the street. Curb ramps also benefit people pushing strollers, grocery carts, suitcases, or bicycles.

U.S. Access Board. Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, 2025.
+ Curb ramps must meet PROWAG requirements for
running slope, cross slope, grade breaks, clear area, side treatments, and detectable warning surfaces.
+ Furnishing zones (the space between the curb and
sidewalk) of 7’ in width provide just enough space at
intersections for curb ramps to gain sufficient elevation to a sidewalk.
+ Consider providing wider curb ramps in areas of high
pedestrian volumes and crossing activities.
+ The side of the curb ramp shall be flared when the surface adjacent to the ramp’s sides is walkable. However, when the surface adjacent to a ramp is landscaped or otherwise not walkable, the side is not required to be flared, and can be a vertical curb.

CURB RAMPS
+ Curb ramps are part of the accessible Pedestrian Access Route (PAR) and must be provided at all intersections
where pedestrians are permitted and expected to cross the street, i.e., all street corners in California.
+ Separate, perpendicular curb ramps should be provided for each crosswalk at an intersection (as shown in graphic above) rather than a single ramp at a corner for both
crosswalks. The separate curb ramps improve orientation for visually impaired pedestrians by directing them toward the correct crosswalk. Blended transitions may be provided instead of perpendicular curb ramps. Diagonal curb ramps are not recommended.

REFERENCES
334
34NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TREATMENTS

CROSSING

TREATMENT APPLICATION
APPROPRIATE AT…

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

STOP-CONTROLLED

INTERSECTIONS

UNCONTROLLED

INTERSECTIONS

MID-BLOCK

CROSSINGS

HIGH-VISIBILITY

CROSSWALK ALWAYS RECOMMENDED ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED

DIRECTIONAL

CURB RAMPS

MANDATORY AT ALL

LOCATIONS, PER PROWAG
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
PEDESTRIANSCALE LIGHTING

ALWAYS APPROPRIATE,

ESPECIALLY AT AREAS

WITH COMMON NIGHTTIME

PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED

DAYLIGHTING

TYPICALLY APPLIED AT

CROSSING LOCATIONS

WITH ON-STREET PARKING
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED

CROSSING

ISLAND (MEDIAN,

PEDESTRIAN

REFUGE ISLAND)

TYPICALLY APPLIED AT

CROSSINGS OF THREE

TRAVEL LANES, WITH

THE CROSSING ISLAND

LOCATED IN THE TWO-WAY

LEFT-TURN LANE

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED
CURB

EXTENSIONS
(BULB OUTS)

TYPICALLY APPLIED AT

CROSSING LOCATIONS

WITH ON-STREET PARKING

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED
RAISED

CROSSING

REFER TO TABLE ON

FOLLOWING PAGE N/A SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

RECTANGULAR

RAPID FLASHING

BEACON (RRFB)

REFER TO TABLE ON

FOLLOWING PAGE N/A N/A SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

PEDESTRIAN

HYBRID BEACON
(PHB)

REFER TO TABLE ON

FOLLOWING PAGE N/A N/A SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

LEADING

PEDESTRIAN

INTERVAL (LPI)

MANDATORY

AT SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS WITH

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL

HEADS, PER PROWAG
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED N/A N/A N/A
The treatments described on the following pages provide guidance, not standards or requirements, to support context-sensitive planning and design. The information illustrates commonly used treatments and typical applications but does not replace requirements in the MUTCD, PROWAG, or other adopted state and local standards. The table below is not a set of crosswalk marking warrants; it is intended to inform treatment selection after a crossing location is deemed appropriate based on engineering judgment, traffic operations, accessibility needs, and site-specific conditions. Marked crosswalks and related treatments should be considered as part of a broader pedestrian safety approach. The table below indicates when each treatment is applicable.

FHWA Crosswalk Selection Guide. 2023.

Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines. (PROWAG). 2023.

California Assembly Bill 413 (Daylighting).2024/2025.

REFERENCES
FHWA. STEP Guide. 2018.
335
35NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TREATMENTS AT

UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS

ROADWAY CONFIGURATION

POSTED SPEED LIMIT AND AADT

VEHICLE AADT
<9,000

VEHICLE AADT
9,000–15,000

VEHICLE AADT
>15,000
≤30 MPH 35-40
MPH 45 MPH ≤30 MPH 35-40 MPH 45 MPH ≤30 MPH 35-40 MPH 45 MPH 2 LANES
(1 LANE IN EACH DIRECTION)
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 LANES WITH RAISED MEDIAN
(1 LANE IN EACH DIRECTION)
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 LANES W/O RAISED MEDIAN
(1 LANE IN EACH DIRECTION WITH A

TWO-WAY LEFT-TURN LANE)
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 9 7 9 7 9 9 7 9 9 9
4+ LANES WITH RAISED MEDIAN
(2 OR MORE LANES IN EACH

DIRECTION)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
4+ LANES W/O RAISED MEDIAN
(2 OR MORE LANES IN EACH

DIRECTION)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
Given the set of conditions in a cell,
# Signifies that the
countermeasure is a
candidate treatment at a
marked uncontrolled
crossing location.

Signifies that the
countermeasure should always
be considered, but not
mandated or required, based
upon engineering judgment at
a marked uncontrolled
crossing location.

Signifies that crosswalk
visibility enhancements
should always occur in
conjunction with other
identified countermeasures.
1 High-Visibility Crosswalk
Markings, Parking Restrictions
on Crosswalk Approach,
Adequate Nighttime Lighting
Levels, and Crossing Warning Signs
2 Raised Crosswalk
3 Advance Yield Here To (Stop
Here For) Pedestrians Sign and
Yield (Stop) Line
4 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing
Sign (Not Permanent)
5 Curb Extension
6 Pedestrian Refuge Island
7 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)*
8 Road Diet
9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)*
* PHB and RRFB are not both
installed at the same crossing
location.

Treatments for uncontrolled crossings should be selected based on the FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (STEP Guide), which recommends appropriate design treatments based on the number of lanes, posted speed limit, and daily traffic volume on a given street.

To promote consistency across jurisdictions, agencies should apply crosswalk marking warrants and evaluation criteria uniformly and document decisions regarding where marked crossings are provided or omitted, particularly at uncontrolled and midblock locations.

REFERENCES
FHWA. STEP Guide. 2018.
336
36NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Legal crosswalks exist at all locations where sidewalks meet the roadway, regardless of whether pavement markings are present. Drivers are legally required to yield to pedestrians at intersections, even when there are no pavement markings. Providing marked crosswalks communicates to drivers that pedestrians may be present, and helps guide pedestrians to locations where they should cross the street. In addition to pavement markings, crosswalks may include signals/beacons, warning signs, and raised platforms.

FHWA. Crosswalk Marking Selection Guide. 2023.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

U.S. Access Board. Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, 2025. + Crosswalks should be marked on all legs of signalized intersections, in school zones, and across streets with more than minimal levels of traffic.
+ Marked crosswalks should be oriented perpendicular
to streets, minimizing crossing distances and therefore limiting the time that pedestrians are exposed.
+ Marked crosswalks should be at least 10 feet wide or
the width of the approaching sidewalk if it is greater.

Crosswalks within 600’ of school grounds must be painted yellow.
+ Stop lines at stop-controlled and signalized intersection approaches should be striped no less than 4 feet and no more than 30 feet from the edge of marked crosswalks.
+ Advance yield lines (“shark teeth”) at mid-block crossings should be located 20 to 50 feet from the edge of the
marked crosswalk.
+ There are many different styles of marked crosswalk
striping and some are more effective than others. Highvisibility crosswalks with striping parallel to the direction of travel for drivers are more visible to drivers, and are recommended in all cases, especially near schools. The
graphic above shows continential striping, but other types of high-visibility striping include ladder style, zebra, and triple four.
+ In areas of heavy pedestrian volumes (such as transit station areas, school zones, and main streets), marked
crosswalks can be up to 25 feet wide.
+ Crosswalks may need to be restriped after pavement work.

MARKED CROSSWALKS REFERENCES
337
37NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Raised crosswalks are used for traffic calming and to improve motorist yielding to people walking, rolling and biking at intersections and midblock crossings. In this design, crosswalks are elevated to reduce or eliminate the transition from the sidewalk to the street crossing. Transition aprons on each approach to the raised crossing are marked with pavement markings to alert drivers of the grade change. + Crossings of channelized right turn lanes and
roundabouts.
+ Intersections where a large corner radius is required to accommodate large vehicles.
+ Use trail-level and sidewalk-level bikeway crossings and locations where increased visibility, priority or accessibility for people walking, riding bicycles or using dockless
mobility vehicles is desired or needed, including school zones.
+ Raised crossings may be used as midblock crossings with the appropriate infrastructure, such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), pedestrian hybrid beacons
(PHB)s, median refuges, warning signage, and other
elements as appropriate.
+ Raised crosswalks are not appropriate on streets with steep roadway grades higher than 8%.
+ Ensure that drainage and maintenance needs are
accounted for in raised crossing design.
+ Ensure a raised crosswalk is at least as wide as the
connecting sidewalk or path of travel.
+ Provide detectable warning surfaces at the edge of the sidewalk to indicate to pedestrians that they are exiting the sidewalk and entering the street. Ensure that raised crossing meets accessible slope requirements.
+ On-street parking and loading must be restricted 20 feet before the marked crosswalk to provide adequate sight
distance between people crossing and people driving.
+ Yield lines (“shark teeth”) should be located 20 to 50 feet from the edge of the crosswalk.
+ Include warning pavement markings for drivers on
transition aprons and “Raised Crosswalk” signs at the
crossing. Transition aprons should be 5 to 8 percent
(relative to the street) on streets, and 5 to 15 percent (relative to the driveway/alley) on driveways and alleys.

RAISED CROSSWALKS REFERENCES
+ Raised crosswalks may be beneficial at:
+ Unsignalized collector and local street crossings.
+ Crossings of driveways and alleys.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.

U.S. Access Board. Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way
Accessibility Guidelines, 2025.
338
38NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE

CONSIDERATIONS
Curb extensions, also known as neckdowns, bulb-outs, or bump-outs, are created by extending the sidewalk at corners or mid-block. In addition to shortening crossing distances, curb extensions can be used to change the geometry of intersections resulting in smaller corner radii and slowing turning motor vehicles.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.
+ The turning needs of emergency, transit, and other large vehicles must be considered in curb extension design.
+ Care should be taken to maintain direct routes across + Curb extensions should be considered where parking is present or where motor vehicle traffic deflection is provided through other curbside uses such as bicycle share stations or parklets. They cannot be installed where the curbside lane is a vehicle travel lane.
+ Curb extensions are particularly valuable in locations with high volumes of pedestrian traffic, near schools, at unsignalized pedestrian crossings, or where there are
demonstrated pedestrian safety issues.

CURB EXTENSIONS REFERENCES
intersections by aligning pedestrian desire lines on either side of the sidewalk. Curb extensions often make this
possible as they provide extra space for grade transitions. + Consider providing a 20’ long curb extension to restrict parking within 20’ of an intersection to enhance visibility. + When curb extensions conflict with turning movements, reducing the width and/or length of the curb extension
should be prioritized over elimination.
+ Emergency access is often improved through the use of curb extensions because intersections are kept clear of parked cars.
+ Where feasible, curb extensions may be used to support stormwater management and green infrastructure, street
beautification, bicycle parking, and other amenities that enhance the function and comfort of the street.
+ Curb extensions may be implemented using temporary or quick-build materials, such as pavement markings or tape, modular curb elements, planters, flexible delineators, or similar hardware, to pilot designs, respond to near-term safety concerns, or support phased implementation prior to permanent construction.
339
39NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Improves visibility at intersections and mid-block crossing locations by removing visual obstructions near the crossing. Daylighting often includes the spot removal of parking spaces, accomplished via red curb, signage, and removal of parking space pavement markings.

DAYLIGHTING REFERENCES
Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2012.

California Vehicle Code § 22500
+ In addition to red-painted curb, the parking-restricted area can be defined using curb extensions, planters, or flexible delineators. Additionally, this space can be repurposed for green infrastructure or bicycle parking.
+ A “No Parking” sign (MUTCD R7 series) can additionally be installed.
+ Enforcement may be necessary to ensure compliance with new restrictions, particularly in residential or commercial areas with high demand for on-street parking or locations where drivers have historically utilized this area of the street for parking.
+ The prioritization of daylighting treatments, including signage, curb markings, and enforcement, should be
based on location, such as proximity to schools, parks, transit stops, and other locations with higher pedestrian volumes or vulnerable users, as well as documented
collision history, turning movement conflicts, and visibility constraints.
+ Use at all crossing approaches.
+ Daylighting should be implemented via signage and
striping at all crossing approaches (including unmarked crossings) on streets with on-street parking.
+ California Assembly Bill 413 prohibits the stopping,
standing, or parking of a vehicle within 20’ of an
intersection approach (including any marked or unmarked crosswalk) or within 15’ of a crosswalk with a curb
extension, effective January 1, 2025. This law applies to all intersections, even where formal daylighting treatments or signs have not been installed.

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
340
40NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Crossing islands, also known as pedestrian refuge islands, are raised islands that provide a protected waiting area and allow pedestrians to cross one direction of motor vehicle traffic at a time. They can be located at intersections or mid-block.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.
+ Crossing islands can be coupled with other traffic calming features, such as partial diverters and curb extensions at mid-block and intersection locations.
+ At mid-block crossings where width is available, islands should be designed with a stagger, or in a “Z” pattern, encouraging pedestrians within the median to face
oncoming traffic before crossing.
+ Should a midblock crossing be provided along a
multilane arterial, a raised median or crossing island and supplementary traffic control devices are desirable.
+ On a local road with relatively low traffic speeds and volumes, placing a raised median or crossing island might be done for aesthetic considerations or special pedestrian crossing characteristics and volumes.
+ Crossing islands require minimum depth of 6’, with
preferred depth of 8-10’ in locations where significant pedestrian or bicycle volumes are present/expected, or to accommodate cargo bikes & wheelchairs more effectively. + May be implemented as a quick build treatment through use of temporary materials.
+ There are two primary types of crossing islands:
+ The first provides a cut-through of the island, keeping pedestrians at street-grade. These islands must be
at least 6’ in width in order to integrate detectable
warning surfaces and be considered a true pedestrian
refuge island.
+ The second type ramps pedestrians up above street
grade and may present challenges to constructing
accessible curb ramps unless they are more than 17’
wide (accommodating for ramp width and landing
area).
+ Crossing islands should always be considered on collector or arterial roadways with moderate-to-high traffic speeds and volumes and multiple lanes, as well as where crossing distances are greater than 50 feet.

CROSSING ISLANDS REFERENCES

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
341
41NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Uncontrolled multi-lane crossings decrease pedestrian visibility and can decrease motor vehicle yielding compliance. Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs) can be implemented to improve yielding compliance at these locations. RRFBs combine a pedestrian crossing sign with a bright flashing beacon that is activated only when a pedestrian is present.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. 2005. + RRFBs are considerably less expensive to install than mast arm-mounted signals. They can also be installed with solar power panels to eliminate the need for an external power source.
+ RRFBs should be limited to locations with critical safety concerns, and should not be installed in locations with sight distance constraints that limit the driver’s ability to view pedestrians on the approach to the crosswalk.
+ RRFBs should be used in conjunction with advance stop or yield bars and signs.
+ RRFBs are usually implemented at high-volume pedestrian crossings, but may also be considered for priority bicycle route crossings or locations where bike facilities cross roads at mid-block locations.
+ RRFBs may be installed at roundabout crossings.

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON
+ RRFBs can be used when a signal is not warranted at
an unsignalized crossing. They are not appropriate at
intersections with signals or STOP signs.

REFERENCES
342
42NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs), including the High-intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon (HAWK), are a type of hybrid signal intended to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to stop traffic to cross high-volume arterial streets.

This type of signal may be used in lieu of a full signal that meets any of the traffic signal control warrants in the MUTCD.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Location. 2005. + While this type of device is intended for pedestrians, it would be beneficial to retrofit it for bicyclists as the City of Portland, Oregon has, using bicycle detection and bicycle signal heads on major cycling networks. Depending upon
the detection design, the agency implementing these
devices may have the option to provide different clearance intervals for bicyclists and pedestrians. The provision of bicycle signal heads would require permission to
experiment from FHWA.

PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON
+ This type of device should be considered for all arterial crossings in a bicycle network and for path crossings if other engineering measures are found inadequate to create safe crossings.
+ The MUTCD recommends minimum volumes of 20
pedestrians or bicyclists an hour for major arterial
crossings (volumes exceeding 2,000 vehicles/hour).
+ PHBs may also be used at locations which do not meet
traffic signal warrants but where assistance is needed for pedestrians or bicyclists to cross a high-volume street.

REFERENCES

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
343
43NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT FHWA. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). 2013 (with ongoing updates).

PEDESTRIAN-SCALE LIGHTING
Illuminates sidewalks and crossings at night or low-light conditions using light fixtures that are shorter than roadway-scale light fixtures. REFERENCES
+ Lighting should be uniform, with consistent light levels that avoid dark spots, sharp contrasts, and glare to support pedestrian visibility and safety.
+ Lighting should be provided on approaches to pedestrian crosswalks, including those serving Class I shared-use
paths and other pedestrian or bicycle facilities, such that users are illuminated from the driver’s perspective and not silhouetted. Where crossings include a crossing island or median, supplemental lighting may be provided.
+ Consider energy usage, environmental impacts, and
impacts on residential neighborhoods. Also consider
applicability of pedestrian-scale lighting to crime reduction efforts such as Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design (CPTED).
+ Install lighting to Illuminating Engineering Society and DarkSky standards.

Pedestrian-scale lighting should be provided:
+ At controlled and uncontrolled intersections at crossing approaches
+ Along sidewalks, especially along arterials and near
schools, parks, commercial and recreation centers
+ Along Class I facilities in urban areas that serve as a primary active transportation facility

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
344
44 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT 345

IMPLEMENTATION

STRATEGIES
4 346
46NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

LANE NARROWING
AASHTO. Green Book. 2011.

FHWA. Achieving Multi-modal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts. 2016. 5’ 3’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 14’ 3’
5’ 5’ 5’ 9’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 9’ 5’ 5’ 5’
8’ 7’ 9’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 9’ 7’ 8’
5’
5’ 3’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 14’ 3’
5’ 5’ 5’ 9’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 9’ 5’ 5’ 5’
8’ 7’ 9’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 9’ 7’ 8’
5’
5’ 3’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 14’ 3’
5’ 5’ 5’ 9’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 9’ 5’ 5’ 5’
8’ 7’ 9’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 9’ 7’ 8’
5’
Lane narrowing can improve comfort and safety for vulnerable road users. Narrowing lanes creates space that can be reallocated to other modes, in the form of wider sidewalks, bike lanes, reduced crossing distances, and buffers between cyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicles. Space can also be dedicated to plantings and amenity zones. + Motor vehicle travel lanes as narrow as 10’ are allowed in low and moderate-speed environments (45 mph or less)
according to the AASHTO Green Book. Caltrans allows lane widths of 10.5’ on Caltrans roadways, per DIB-94.
+ 10’ travel lanes are not recommended on 4-lane undivided arterial roadways, but may be considered where speeds are 30 mph or less and truck use is low.
+ 11’ travel lanes are considered minimum safe width for fixed route transit vehicles per NVTA.

Roadway before narrowing
Narrowing motor vehicle
lanes to increase sidewalk
and amenity zones
Narrowing motor vehicle
lanes to increase amenity
zone and add bicycle lanes

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
+ Narrowing existing motor vehicle lanes may result in
enough space to create separated bicycle lanes, widened sidewalks and buffers, or a combination of on-street bike lanes and enhancements to the pedestrian corridor.
+ Narrower lanes can contribute to lower operating speeds along the roadway, which may be appropriate in dense,
walkable corridors.

REFERENCES
347
47NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

FHWA Road Diet Guide. 2014.

NACTO Urban Street Design Guide .2013.
+ Four-lane streets with volumes less than 15,000 vehicles per day are generally good candidates for four- to threelane conversions. + Four-lane streets with volumes between 15,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day may be good candidates for four- to threelane conversions. A traffic analysis is needed to determine feasibility.
+ Six-lane streets with volumes less than 35,000 vehicles per day may be good candidates for six- to five-lane (including two-way center turn lane) conversions. A traffic analysis is needed to determine feasibility.

Lane reconfiguration involves modifying one or more travel lanes to improve the safety performance of a roadway segment and provide space for bicycle lanes, turn lanes, streetscapes, wider sidewalks, and other purposes. Fourto three-lane conversions are most common, however, there are numerous types (e.g., three- to two-lanes, or fiveto three-lanes).

LANE RECONFIGURATION
Typical 4-lane road with
on-street parking
Three-lane road diet (with
center two-way left-turn
lane), with on-street
parking and separated
bicycle lanes
+ Lane reconfiguration is a great tool for reducing collisions and injuries, improving pedestrian crossings and providing designated space for bicyclists. Road diets improve safety as they reduce conflict points and lead to fewer and less severe collisions.
+ Robust public engagement is often required for successful lane reconfiguration projects.

REFERENCES
348
48NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

QUICK-BUILD
FHWA. DIB-89-02: Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

Quick-build projects allow for faster and lower-cost implementation using temporary materials. Many bicycle and pedestrian facilities can be implemented as quick-build projects, including separated bike lanes, curb extensions, mini-roundabouts, and crossing islands. This profile focuses on the quick-build implementation of separated bike lanes, using flex posts and paint to retrofit existing Class II buffered bike lanes. More permanent forms of separation, such as curb-protected bike lanes, cost more and are less flexible once implemented. A phased implementation approach, where quick-build “pilot” projects transition to permanent, protected bike lanes allow for public input and evaluation before investing in a permanent design. + Lower-cost retrofits or pilot projects allow for quick implementation, responsiveness to public perception
and ongoing evaluation. Separation types for short-term separated bike lane designs often include non-permanent separation, such as flexible delineator posts, planters or parking stops. Pilot projects allow the agency to:
+ Test the separated bike lane configuration for
bicyclists and traffic operations
+ Evaluate public reaction, design performance, and
safety effectiveness
+ Make changes if necessary
+ Transition to permanent design
CONSIDERATIONS + Permanent separation designs provide a high level of protection and often have greater potential for
placemaking, quality aesthetics, and integration with
features such as green stormwater infrastructure.

Agencies often implement permanent separation designs
by leveraging private development (potentially through
developer contribution), major capital construction, and including protected bike lanes in roadway reconstruction designs. Examples of permanent separation materials
include rigid bollards, raised medians and grade-protected bike lanes at an intermediate or sidewalk level.

SIDEWALK

BIKE LANE

BUFFER W/ STAKES

PARKING

SIDEWALK

BIKE LANE

BUFFER W/ PLANTERS

PARKING

SIDEWALK

BIKE LANE

CURB SEPARATION

PARKING

SIDEWALK

BIKE LANE
BUFFER

PARKING
Progression from pilot project to separated bike lane

REFERENCES
349
49NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Maintenance is a crucial component of a well-functioning active transportation network. A timely response to maintenance issues will encourage more people to use the infrastructure and boost confidence in the network.

CONSIDERATIONS
MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALKS AND SHAREDUSE PATHS
+ Conduct routine inspections of high-volume sidewalks and apply temporary measures to maintain functionality and
repair heaving (such as patching, grinding, mudjacking). + Shared-use paths should meet a baseline pavement
condition index (PCI) of 70 or greater, with 80 or greater preferred. Pavement should also provide enough stability to prevent substantial wear and cracking with regular
maintenance vehicle traffic (typically, 6” thick concrete or asphalt).
+ Provide surface repairs such as crack repair, concrete stone replacement, and/or joint sealing as soon as the
issue is identified. These problems grow worse over time and can continue to provide opportunity for conflict or injury.
+ Regular sweeping and trash removal of shared-use paths and sidewalks enhance the user experience and minimize
opportunities for conflict or injury.

Frequency Maintenance Activity
More
Frequently
Less
Frequently
Tree/brush sweeping, mowing, and clearing, and
regular trash cleanup and removal
Patching/minor regrading/concrete panel
replacement
Planting/pruning/beautification/removing leaves
Culvert/drainage cleaning and repair
Surface evaluation/pavement assessment to
determine need for patching/regrading/ re-striping
Repaint or repair trash receptacles, benches,
signs, and other amenities, if necessary
Sealcoat asphalt shared-use paths
Resurface/regrade/re-stripe shared-use paths
Assess/replace sidewalks and shared-use paths
Sign replacement
The table below describes the frequency for various shared-use path and bikeway maintenance activities.
+ Cut back vegetation that is encroaching on paths and
sidewalks. Cut back tree roots and/ or install root barriers where appropriate.
+ Inspect signs and markings regularly, replacing and
repairing them as soon as possible. Consider upgrading old signs or markings with newer materials, if available.
+ Ensure drainage swales and structures are kept free of silt and debris and are functioning appropriately.
+ For any construction project that may impact an existing sidewalk or shared-use path, an appropriate detour and
signage plan should be proposed by the contractor to
ensure continuous and safe service.
+ Check, repair, and maintain all lights and lighting systems, particularly underpass lighting.
+ Natural surface paths may need regrading, weeding, or the repair of ruts.
350
50NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

CONSIDERATIONS

MAINTENANCE OF ON-STREET FACILITIES
+ When roadway pavement condition is assessed, the entire roadway including bicycle facilities and shoulders must be included in the PCI score.
+ The general public, public works staff, and contractors should be trained to place garbage bins in the street buffer zone to avoid obstructing the bike lane. Sidewalk buffers may be used to store bins where street buffers are too
narrow.
+ For Class IV separated bikeways: Bike lane widths of 8 feet or more are compatible with smaller sweepers, but
responsible parties may have larger and incompatible
maintenance fleets. Narrower sweepers (approximately 4
feet to 5 feet minimum operating width) may be required to clear one-way separated bike lanes.
+ For Class IV street-level separated bike lanes without raised medians, debris can collect in the street buffer area between vertical objects and can migrate into the bike lane if not routinely collected.
+ Landscaped areas, including green stormwater
infrastructure, can also collect debris and require regular attention.
+ As noted in the previous section, seasonal maintenance activities such as frequent removal of leaves in the fall should be considered.
+ Maintenance of bike lanes and crosswalks is the
responsibility of the public or private agency that is
responsible for maintaining the roadway. This practice may contrast with responsibility for maintaining the adjacent sidewalk, which in some cases will be that of the abutting landowner.
+ Designated bike lanes, bicycle boulevards, and routes should be maintained through routine sweeping to remove debris and maintain usability. A regular sweeping schedule, such as monthly sweeping, is recommended, along with
proactive spot-checks conducted by the contractor or
responsible jurisdiction.
+ Pavement markings may require regular maintenance.

Deteriorated bike lane markings, buffers, crosswalks, or sharrows may reduce perceived safety on facility.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

REFERENCES
Maintenance is a crucial component of a well-functioning active transportation network. A timely response to maintenance issues will encourage more people to use the infrastructure and boost confidence in the active transportation network. The considerations below apply to all on-street bicycle facilities, as well as crosswalks. 351

DESIGNING AN ACTIVE

MODES NETWORK
5 352
52NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

WAYFINDING
Wayfinding helps identify the best routes to destinations, helps bicyclists overcome a barrier of not knowing where to ride, and reminds motorists to anticipate the presence of bicyclists and pedestrians. Wayfinding systems often combine signage and pavement markings to guide bicyclists and pedestrians along preferred routes to destinations across the community, county, or region. Routes may or may not be numbered, named, or colorcoded. Signs may also indicate distances or travel time to destinations. + A bicycle wayfinding protocol should coordinate with
bicycle route maps and provide three general forms of
guidance:
+ Decision assemblies, which consist of Bike Route
identification and optional destination panels, placed
at decision points where routes intersect or on the
approaches to a designated bike route.
+ Turn assemblies, which consist of Bike Route panels
and arrow plaques, placed where a designated bike
route turns from one street to another.
+ Confirmation assemblies, which consist of Bike Route
optional destination panels, placed on the far side of
intersections to confirm route choice and the distance
(and optionally, time) to destinations.
+ Sign design can be customized to add distinct community branding, but the clarity and accuracy of the information must be the top priority.
+ Basic bicycle route signs consist of a MUTCD-style “Bike Route” sign (D11-1 shown above, right) placed every half mile on a bike route and on the approach to bike routes at decision points.
+ Bike route signs can be supplemented with panels showing destinations, directions, and distances (MUTCD D1 series, shown in photo above, left).
+ Unique numbered or named routes can be designated and can incorporate a route name or agency logos also shown in photo above, left.
+ Place directional signs on the near side of intersections and confirmation signs on the far side of intersections.

REFERENCES
353
53NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Pedestrian signal heads display the three intervals of the pedestrian phase: (1) The Walk Interval, signified by the WALK indication (or the walking person symbol) alerts pedestrians to begin crossing the street; (2) The Pedestrian Change Interval, signified by the flashing DON’T WALK indication (or the flashing hand symbol accompanied by a countdown display; shown on following page) alerts pedestrians approaching the crosswalk that they should not begin crossing the street; and (3) The Don’t Walk Interval, signified by a steady DON’T WALK indication (or the steady upraised hand symbol) alerts pedestrians that they should not cross the street.

CONSIDERATIONS
FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

U.S. Access Board. Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, 2025.

Intersection geometry and traffic controls should encourage turning vehicles to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians. Traffic movements should be analyzed at intersections in order to utilize non-conflicting phases to implement one or more WALK intervals per cycle.

Signal design should also minimize the time that pedestrians must wait. Requiring pedestrians to wait for extended periods can encourage crossing against the signal. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual states that pedestrians have an increased likelihood of risk-taking behavior (crossing against the signal) after waiting longer than 30 seconds.

Free-flowing right-turn lanes are discouraged at signalized intersections. Where they are present and unsignalized, the pedestrian signal and pushbutton should be located on the channelization (“pork chop”) island. A yield or crosswalk warning sign should then be placed in advance of the
crosswalk.
+ Pedestrian signals should allocate enough time for
pedestrians of all abilities to safely cross the roadway. The MUTCD specifies a pedestrian walking speed of 3.5 feet
per second to account for an aging population.
+ Countdown pedestrian displays inform pedestrians of
the amount of time in seconds that is available to safely cross during the flashing DON’T WALK (or upraised hand) interval. All pedestrian signal heads should contain a
countdown display provided with the DON’T WALK (or
upraised hand) indication.
+ In areas with higher pedestrian activity, such as near transit stations, Main Streets, and school zones, push button
actuators may not be appropriate. People should expect
to get a pedestrian cycle at every signal phase, rather than having to push a button to call for a pedestrian phase.

PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS

TIMING & ACTIVATION

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL
(LPI)

ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN

SIGNALS (APS)
+ Accessible pedestrian signals and accessible detectors are devices that communicate information in non-visual
formats about the pedestrian phase to pedestrians with
visual and/or hearing disabilities. APS and detectors may include features such as audible tones, speech messages, detectable arrow indications and/or vibrating surfaces. + Pushbutton locator tones are used for locating the
pedestrian pushbutton needed to actuate the WALK
interval. Detectable arrows should be located on
pushbuttons to point in the same direction as the
crosswalk. At corners of signalized locations where two pushbuttons are present, they should be separated by at least 10’.
+ Audible walk indications should have the same duration as the pedestrian walk indication unless the pedestrian signal rests during the pedestrian phase, in which case the audible indication should be provided in the first seven seconds of the Walk interval.
+ For automatically-called pedestrian phases, pushbuttons can be used to activate accessible pedestrian signal
features such as detectable arrow indications and/or
speech messages.
+ When new pedestrian signals are installed, APS with
pushbuttons are required. For existing pedestrian signals, the APS and pedestrian pushbuttons should be provided
when the signal controller and software are altered, or the signal head is replaced.
+ The Leading Pedestrian Interval initiates the pedestrian WALK indication three to seven seconds before motor
vehicles traveling in the same direction are given the green indication. This signal timing technique allows pedestrians to enter the intersection prior to turning vehicles, increasing visibility between all modes.
+ The LPI should be used at intersections with high volumes of pedestrians and conflicting turning vehicles and at
locations with a large population of elderly or school
children who tend to walk slower.
+ A lagging protected left arrow for vehicles should be provided to accommodate the LPI.

REF.
354
54NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS

BICYCLE DETECTION & DEDICATED SIGNALS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

Bicyclists have unique needs at signalized intersections. Bicycle movements may be controlled by the same indications that control motor vehicle movements, by pedestrian signals, or by bicycle-specific traffic signals.

The introduction of separated bike lanes creates situations that may require a leading bicycle interval or protected phases for bicycle traffic, or place bicyclists outside the cone of vision of existing signal equipment. In these situations, provision of signals for bicycle traffic will be required. + Bicycle-specific signals may be appropriate to provide additional guidance or separate phasing for bicyclists per the 2024 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities.
+ It may be desirable to install advanced bicycle detection on the intersection approach to extend the phase, or to prompt the phase and allow for continuous bicycle through movements.
+ Video detection, microwave and infrared detection can be an alternate to loop detectors.
+ Another strategy in signal timing is coordinating signals to provide a “green wave” timed to align with the travel speed of bicyclists (often 15 mph) such that bicycles will receive a green indication and not be required to stop. Several cities including Portland, OR and San Francisco, CA have implemented “green waves” for bicycles.
+ A stationary, or “standing”, cyclist entering the intersection at the beginning of the green indication can typically be accommodated by increasing the minimum green time
on an approach per the 2024 AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities.
+ A moving, or “rolling”, bicyclist approaching the
intersection towards the end of the phase can typically be accommodated by increases to the red times (change and
clearance intervals) per the 2024 AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities.
+ Set loop detectors to the highest sensitivity level possible without detecting vehicles in adjacent lanes and field
check.
+ All signalized intersections should aim to integrate passive detection of bicycles, such as inductive loops designed for bicycle detection or similar technologies, to reduce reliance on manual actuation.

REFERENCES
355
55NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

APBP. Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Ed. 2010.

California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Title 24, Part 11. 2022.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING
Bicycle parking enhances the effectiveness of bicycle networks by providing locations for the secure storage of bicycles during a trip. Sometimes called visitor parking, short-term parking is intended for shorter stays at locations such as shops, recreational facilities, businesses and other institutions. Bicycle parking requires far less space than automobile parking; in fact, 10 bicycles can typically park in the area needed for a single car. + Racks should be located in a well lit, high visibility location to reduce potential for theft or vandalism.
+ Bicycle parking should be provided at all publicly accessible buildings, parks, and other destinations, and included
in roadway, streetscape, and transit projects, as well as wherever car parking is required.
+ Multiple types of racks exist, but all should adhere to guidance pictured above regarding providing two points of contact for bike frame to prevent bikes from falling.
+ Wave-style racks are not to be utilized as they do not allow for two points of contact.

GUIDANCE
Rack supports
the bike in
2 places 34
inches
rack height
2 feet
clear
24 inch
rack width
2 feet
clear
24 inch
rack width
8 feet
between racks
+ Bicycle parking consists of a rack that supports the bicycle upright in two places and provides a secure place for
locking. Bicycle racks should be permanently affixed to a paved surface. Movable bicycle racks are only appropriate for temporary use, such as at major community gatherings. + Bicycle parking facility should not obstruct pedestrian traffic or interfering with the use of the pedestrian areas. + Each parked bicycle should be accessible without moving another bicycle.
+ Add 2’ from curb face.
+ Add 4’ from curb for perpendicular installations.
+ Short-term bicycle parking should be located near and clearly visible from the destination it serves, with a target distance of 50’ or less from building entrances.

CONSIDERATIONS

REFERENCES
+ Short-term bicycle parking is required under the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) for new
nonresidential buildings expected to generate visitor traffic.

At a minimum, projects must provide bicycle parking
equivalent to 5 percent of new motor vehicle parking
spaces added, with at least one rack accommodating two
bicycles.
356
56NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
+ In lieu of lockers, long-term bicycle parking can also be provided indoors. This can be located within businesses or offered as a locked public facility, accessible with the same key card technology as bicycle lockers.
+ Long-term bicycle parking should provide:
+ Direct or indirect access to the street or sidewalk
depending on whether it is located in a parking garage
or at street level.
+ Varying amount of conflict with automobiles
depending on whether it is located in a parking garage
or at street level.

LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING
Long-term bike parking is intended for residents in multi-unit buildings, employees, transit users, and others not attending to their bicycle for longer periods of time (generally several hours or days). Typically used for longterm bicycle parking, bicycle lockers are secure, locked boxes that store a single bicycle.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

APBP. Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Ed. 2010.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

Lockers should be:
+ Clearly marked as a long-term bicycle parking space.
+ Located no lower than the first complete parking level below grade, and no higher than the first complete
parking level above grade.
+ Available and accessible to all building tenants during the buildings hours of operation and at all times for
residents in residential contexts.
+ Located in a well-lit, visible location near the main entrance or elevators.
+ Separated from vehicle parking by a barrier that
minimizes the possibility of a parked bicycle being hit by a car.
+ Securely anchored.
+ Well-maintained and well lit.

REFERENCES
357
57NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
FHWA. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

DRIVEWAYS
Most bicycle and pedestrian facilities will need to cross streets, driveways, or alleys at multiple locations along a corridor. At these locations, the crossings should be designed to 1) delineate a preferred path for people bicycling through the intersection and 2) to encourage driver yielding behavior, where applicable. Bicycle crossings may be supplemented with green pavement, yield lines, and/or regulatory signs. + Advance stop bars may be used in advance of driveway
crossings to alert motorists to bicyclists and pedestrians crossing.
+ Supplemental yield lines (“shark’s teeth”) may be used in advance of unsignalized crossings at driveways, at
signalized intersections where motorists may turn across a bicycle crossing during a concurrent phase, and in advance of bicycle crossings located within roundabouts.
+ Raised bicycle crossings further promote driver yielding behavior by slowing their speed before the crossing and increasing visibility of people bicycling.
+ Dashed green-colored pavement may be used in a bicycle crossing to increase the visibility of the crossing where permitted conflicts occur. Green color may be desirable at crossings where concurrent vehicle crossing movements
are allowed and where sightlines are constrained, or where motor vehicle turning speeds exceed 10 mph.
+ Whenever a bicycle lane intersects with a high traffic driveway special treatment should be taken to reduce
conflict.
+ Consider installing signage for drivers entering roadway, particularly relevant for commercial driveways (eg: fast food restaurants) where drivers’ attention may challenged. + The bicycle crossing should be a minimum of 6 feet wide for one-way travel and 10 feet wide for two-way travel, as measured from the outer edge of the elephant’s feet.

Bicycle lane symbol markings should be avoided in bicycle crossings. Directional arrows are preferred within twoway bicycle crossings. Two-way crossings should also be indicated with warning signage for drivers entering and exiting the driveway.
+ Though the graphic above shows a Class IV Separated Bike Lane, bicycle driveway crossings are also applicable to Class II bicycle facilities.
+ Regardless of whether a driveway crossing is commercial or private, property owners must maintain a “visibility triangle” that ensures adequate sightlines as a motorist exits a driveway. Requirements vary based on jurisdiction. + Refer to the AASHTO Green Book and AASHTO BIke Guide
for guidance on establishing clear sight triangles that should remain free of visual obstructions such as parked vehicles, vegetation, and fences

REFERENCES
358
58NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Any marked or signed location where transit vehicles stop and service passenger boarding and alighting is a transit stop. The most basic transit stops have only a pole-mounted “header” sign indicating the transit provider and route(s). High frequency routes and higher volume stops generally have more passenger amenities such as benches, shelters, traveler information, trash receptacles, bicycle parking, and other features.

CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

U.S. Access Board. Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, 2025.
+ All transit stops must be ADA compliant, and should be safe, convenient, well-illuminated, and clearly visible.

Transit stops should be connected to the larger pedestrian network with continuous sidewalks, curb ramps, and safe pedestrian crossings. Mid-block stops should provide
access to mid-block crosswalks.
+ Transit stops on urban streets are typically located at the natural curb line or on a bus bulb or transit island.
+ Bus bulbs may be considered where additional pedestrian space is needed or to provide an in-lane spot where it is challenging for transit vehicles to reenter traffic. Transit islands are recommended on streets with separated
bicycle facilities.
+ Transit stops may be located on the near-side of an
intersection before a signal or cross street, on the far-side after a bus has passed through an intersection, or at a midblock location between intersections. + Generally, transit agencies prefer far-side stops since they provide better visibility between transit riders and motor vehicles. Near-side bus stops may be appropriate
where traffic flow is lower or where transit riders can more easily transfer without crossing the street. Stops can also be placed mid-block where there are major passenger
generators or where space next to an intersection is
insufficient.
+ Transit stop locations are determined based on a number of factors including intersection operations, bus routing, curbside conditions, transfer points, intersection geometry and sightlines, consideration of other street users, and major generators or destinations. The location of a transit stop can affect transit travel time, passenger safety, and roadway operations.
+ Seating at or near transit stops can improve passenger comfort, as can shade in the form of street trees or
awnings. Seating need not be a unique and dedicated
element, but may include leaning rails, planters, ledges, or other street elements.
+ Landing zones should be provided at all doors of the transit vehicle. Buses can vary in length and will have different door configurations. Landing zones should be designed in coordination with all transit providers.

TRANSIT STOPS
Min. 5’ Pref.15’

GUIDANCE REFERENCES
Landing Zone on Natural Curb Line
Transit Island
359
59NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Providing proper drainage enhances the safety and comfort of all users by reducing water ponding on the street and bike lane surfaces as well as the accumulation of debris. Proper drainage also protects the longevity of the roadway infrastructure and ensures that drainage features are adequate to accommodate state and local requirements to manage stormwater and minimize erosion. + A hard surface cross slope of 1 percent typically provides adequate conveyance of drainage while meeting
accessibility requirements.
+ Rectangular grates should be considered in place of square designs where the grate design can result in bicycle wheels being caught if installed in the wrong direction. Where grates are located within a bicycle facility or adjacent to bicyclists’ operating space, the gap between the drainage grate and its frame should be 0.5 in. or less. Another
bicycle friendly option is to place the grate entirely within a gutter rather than extending it into the bicycle facility. + Grates and other utility covers should remain flush with the pavement surface after a pavement overlay to within 0.25” of the new surface. If this is not possible or practicable, the pavement edge should slope to the drainage grate so it does not have an abrupt edge at the inlet.
+ Pedestrian accessibility guidelines limit openings on ground surfaces, such as grates, to a width of 0.5”. or less to prevent wheelchair castors from becoming wedged
into the opening. Pedestrian accessibility guidelines also limit vertical deviations in surfaces of more than 0.25”.

To minimize risks to pedestrians, drainage grates, utility covers, and gutters should not be located within bicycle facilities where pedestrians are traveling unless they meet pedestrian accessibility guidelines.

REFERENCES

CONSIDERATIONS
+ In urban areas, stormwater may need to be directed
toward the sidewalk buffer. In suburban and rural areas, the preferred practice is to direct runoff onto adjacent vegetated areas, where soils and slopes allow for runoff to naturally infiltrate. For uncurbed roadways, the preference is to locate drainage swales between the roadway and
separated bike lane or side path, which may require street buffer widths wider than the minimum recommended
widths to provide sufficient capacity in the swale.
+ For locations where curbs do not include a gutter, curb inlets located within or adjacent to the bike lane zone should be designed to minimize steep elevation changes
or slopes that could cause a bicyclist to crash. If a steep elevation change is provided, it should be designed as a gutter, the steep slope width may not be counted as part of the bike lane, and the area may be demarked with a surface material change and/or a white edge line to guide bicyclists away from the hazard.
+ Drainage grates should be located outside of the bike lane whenever feasible to maintain a comfortable riding surface. When their placement in the bike lane cannot be avoided, drainage grates must be bicycle-compatible, with openings small enough to prevent a bicycle wheel from
falling into the slots of the grate or with bar designs which are perpendicular to the path of travel.
360
60NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT + Any infrastructure located in low-lying areas may need special attention due to larger scale drainage and flooding issues. Designers may need to capture excess stormwater to prevent standing water or erosion on a bicycle facility. + When stormwater management features such as
filtration/infiltration measures or permeable pavements are considered in conjunction with a bike facility project, designers should give special consideration to the location of existing utilities and placement of relocated utilities.

Utilities are generally incompatible with stormwater
infiltration measures and should be relocated outside of the zone of influence of those facilities.
+ The addition of separated bike lanes to a roadway presents an opportunity to introduce green infrastructure strategies, including continuous treatments (e.g., permeable
hardscape surfaces, linear bioretention areas, and linear water quality swales) as well as those that may only be implemented at spot locations (e.g., bioretention areas, bioretention curb extension areas, and tree boxes).
+ Permeable hardscape surfaces for bicycle and pedestrian zones can also reduce stormwater flows.
+ Curb extensions can be designed to direct stormwater
runoff from bike lanes and adjacent roadways into green infrastructure systems like bioswales or rain gardens,
where the water can be filtered and absorbed. These
extensions also provide space for permeable surfaces,
such as permeable pavement or plantings. Additionally,
bulb-outs can improve safety by slowing vehicle speeds
and increasing visibility for cyclists and pedestrians.

DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
361

TRAFFIC CALMING
6 362
62NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

CHICANES AND CHOKERS

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Chicanes slow traffic by creating a serpentine travel path by alternating street features from one side of the street to the other. Chokers narrow the road in midblock locations through the application of curb extensions (or on-street parallel parking) on both sides of the street. Chicanes and chokers both can be designed to integrate stormwater drainage catchments, street tree planting, benches, bicycle parking, and other amenities.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.
+ Use for stormwater infiltration with bioretention areas or appropriately sized tree filter boxes.
+ Consult with fire department to ensure that designs
minimize impacts to emergency services.
+ If needed to maintain existing drainage patterns, consider constructing with a 2’ drainage channel between the
chicane island and curb.
+ Use chicanes on low-volume, local streets. Use chokers on arterials, collector, and local streets. Engineering judgment should be used to determine when the need is met for each treatment.
+ Chicanes must meet requirements for horizontal tapers per the California MUTCD.
+ Avoid use of chicanes on streets with higher volumes of bus, freight, or emergency service activity. Use mountable curbs to accommodate larger motor vehicles while
maintaining tight turn radii to slow people driving.
+ Use vertical elements like plantings in combination with chicanes to warn drivers of traffic pattern.

REFERENCES
363
63NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE

SPEED CUSHIONS

CONSIDERATIONS
Vertical deflection treatments like speed cushions are some of the most effective treatments for slowing motor vehicle speeds. These treatments can reduce higher-speed motor vehicle cut-through traffic on local streets.

Speed cushions are similar to speed humps, but include gaps to allow vehicles with wider wheelbases, such as fire apparatus, to pass through unimpeded. Speed cushions also provide bicyclists an opportunity to subvert verticle deflection.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

FHWA. Traffic Calming E-Primer. (N.D.)
NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.
+ To minimize emergency response delay even further,
consider offset speed tables instead, which are speed
tables split in half down the street centerline with
longitudinal separation between the halves.
+ Speed cushions may be constructed out of asphalt or
rubber vertical deflections.
+ Design should consider the ability to withstand the weight of fire apparatus and outriggers.
+ Use on local and shared streets at midblock locations where lower motor vehicle speeds and volumes are
desired, such as on bike boulevards.
+ Locate speed cushions periodically along the corridor every 250 to 500 feet to accomplish speed control. Do not locate in front of driveways, close to intersections, or on a sharp curve.

REFERENCES
364
64NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

SPEED REDUCTION MARKINGS

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Speed Reduction Markings (also known as Optical Speed Bars) are transverse pavement markings placed with progressively reduced spacing on both edges of the traveled way to create the perception of increased speed. This illusion encourages drivers to slow down as they pass by the markings.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

Caltrans. Traffic Calming Guide. 2023.

ITE. Traffic Calming Fact Sheets. (N.D.)
+ Speed reduction markings may be particularly useful on rural roads, such as identified Rural Class III facilities, which have higher volumes of bicyclists. See Chapter 1 for more information on Rural Class III facilities and Class III unclassified bike routes.
+ Durable marking materials, such as thermoplastic, should be used as markings are exposed to increased wear from
tires.
+ Do not install on lanes that do not have a longitudinal line (center line, edge line, or lane line) on both sides of the lane.
+ Use on collector or local roads with any volume, ideally placed upstream of horizontal cuves or other locations
where roadway design or street context change
unexpectedly.

REFERENCES
365
65NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

HARDENED CENTERLINES

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Hardened centerlines feature vertical elements such as mountable curb or flex posts that force turning drivers to slow down and keep them from crossing the centerline when making turning movements. They have been shown to reduce motorist-pedestrian conflicts and reduce the speed of left-turning vehicles.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024. + On roadways where trucks and emergency vehicles
frequently make turning movements, consider using
mountable curbs to allow larger motor vehicles to make
turns while slowing smaller motor vehicles.
+ Intersection design including hardened centerlines must consider vehicular turning paths to prevent head-on
collisions between opposing left-turning motorists.
+ Can be used in conjunction with turn wedges and at
protected intersections
Use at:
+ Intersections with a history of collisions involving
people walking or rolling and left-turning motor
vehicles; or
+ Intersections with high volumes of people walking,
rolling, and biking across the street; or
+ Intersections where motor vehicles are frequently
turning across double yellow lines at high speeds.
+ Designs can include any combination of plastic curbing, rubber speed bumps, and flex posts, depending on turning radii, lane width, and needs to accommodate large motor vehicle turning movements.
+ Where space allows, install rubber speed bump “nose”
extending into the intersection.

REFERENCES
366
66NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

TRANSVERSE RUMBLE STRIPS

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Transverse rumple strips are raised areas across the surface of an approach lane to produce an audible and tactile warning of the impending intersection.

Caltrans. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

ITE. Traffic Calming Fact Sheets. (N.D.)

REFERENCES
+ Use in combination with Intersection Warning (W2-1
through W2-8), Advance Traffic Control (W3-1 or W3-2), or Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) signs.
+ Noise generated from vehicles traversing the rumble strips can be an issue when residences are in close proximity to the intersection.
+ Can require significant maintenance activities, especially on approaches characterized by high volumes of truck
traffic.
367
67NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

TRAFFIC CIRCLES

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Traffic circles are circular raised center islands at the intersection of two neighborhood streets installed to slow vehicle approach speeds. Unlike a mini-roundabout, a residential traffic circle is typically characterized by (1) a non-traversable center island, (2) no splitter islands on the intersection approaches, and (3) either yield control or no control.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.

ITE. Traffic Calming Fact Sheets. (N.D.)
+ Neighborhood traffic circles are most effective when paired with other traffic calming treatments.
+ Where large vehicles are infrequent, design to allow larger trucks to turn left in front of the circle.Where trucks are frequent, include mountable truck aprons around the
outside of the circle to allow large motor vehicles to use the intersection without encouraging high speeds by
smaller motor vehicles.
+ If the circle geometry precludes turning movements for larger vehicles, consider turning restrictions if the adjacent street network is adequate.
+ Traffic circles also provide opportunities for plantings, special identifying signage for neighborhoods, or public art. Consider planting native and/or seasonal vegetation in the center of the circles to provide neighborhood
beautification, traffic calming elements, and stormwater infiltration.
+ Traffic circles can be constructed as a quick-build project using temporary materials. See the Quick-Build section of Chapter 4 for more details.
+ Use at intersections in primarily residential areas where daily motor vehicle volumes for all approaching legs of the intersection is less than 15,000 ADT. In particular, these may be used at intersections along bike boulevards.
+ Design the circles to be visible at night with reflective materials and/or ensure adequate street lighting exists. + Provide adequate signage (see FHWA MUTCD for details). REFERENCES 368
68 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT 369

RESOURCES & CITATIONS
7 370
70NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

RESOURCES & CITATIONS
The bicycle and pedestrian facilities and amenities included in this Toolkit are based on the recommendations from the following state and national standards and resources:

Transportation Research Board
(TRB)
Highway Capacity Manual, 2010
National Association of City
Transportation Officials (NACTO)
Urban Street Design Guide, 2013
Transit Street Design Guide, 2017
Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014
California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans)
DIB 82-06: Pedestrian Accessibility
Guidelines for Highway Projects, 2017
DIB 89-02: Class IV Bikeway Guidance,
2022
DIB 94: Complete Streets Contextual
Design Guidance, 2024
Highway Design Manual, 7th Edition,
2020
California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices, Revision 8, 2014
California Legislature
Assembly Bill 413 (AB 413), Daylighting
Law. (full enforcement beginning
January 1, 2025)
California Building Standards
Commission
California Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen), Title 24, Part 11.
2022
American Association of State
Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO)
Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities, 2024
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)
Crosswalk Selection Guide. 2023.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety
at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations,
2018
Dynamic Warning Systems: A Review
of Applications and Effectiveness.

Western Transportation Institute,
Montana State University. 2021
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, 11th Edition, 2023
Pedestrian Safety Guide and
Countermeasure Selection System
(PEDSAFE). 2013 (with ongoing
updates)
Safety Effects of Marked Versus
Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled
Locations, 2005
Safe Transportation for Every
Pedestrian (STEP) Guide. 2018
Separated Bike Lane Planning and
Design Guide, 2015
Small Town and Rural Multimodal
Networks, 2016
United States Access Board
Americans with Disabilities Act and
Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility
Guidelines, 2004
Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way
Accessibility Guidelines, 2025
Public Right-of-Way Accessibility
Guidelines (PROWAG). 2023
Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE)
Traffic Calming Fact Sheets, (N.D.)
371
71 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT 372

NAPA COUNTY ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

TREATMENT TOOLKIT
2024
373
Appendix E
Bicycle Network
Recommendations
374
E-1
Table E.1: Bicycle Network Recommendations – City of Calistoga ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction Value Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 702 Greenwood Avenue Napa River SR 29 1.0 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $74,600 7 9,975 $165,900 0 1 1 1 0 3 703 Grant Street Greenwood Avenue N Oak St 1.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $3,838,100 11 15,797 $378,000 0 1 1 1 1 4 Y 705 Grant Street N Oak Street Lake Street 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $266,000 9 13,735 $228,600 0 1 0 0 0 1 Y 706 Grant Street Lake St Stevenson Street 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $46,800 9 13,373 $451,100 1 1 1 0 1 4 Y 707 Money Ln Mora Avenue Lake Street 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $765,400 8 12,014 $200,000 0 1 1 1 0 3 708 Lake Street Washington Street Fisher Street 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $437,300 9 13,493 $224,600 0 1 1 1 0 3 Y 710 Lincoln Street Silverado Trail Fair Way 0.6 Bike Lanes (Class II) $93,200 9 14,068 $317,600 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 711 Lincoln Street Fair Way Foothill Boulevard 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $52,900 8 12,576 $410,300 1 1 1 1 1 5 Y 712 Foothill Boulevard Western City Limit Eastern City Limit 2.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $296,100 10 15,091 $311,900 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 713 3rd Street Fair Way Washington Street 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $289,700 8 12,202 $203,100 1 1 1 1 0 4 714 Washington Street Lake Street Lincoln Avenue 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $592,400 9 13,789 $229,500 1 1 1 0 1 4 Y 715 Fair Way Lake Street Lincoln Avenue 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $541,400 9 13,394 $223,000 1 1 1 1 0 4 717 Berry Street Cedar Street Washington Street 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $183,600 7 10,827 $180,200 0 1 1 0 0 2 1100 Rosedale Rd Rickett Rd Silverado Trail 0.8 Bike Lanes (Class II) $111,800 0 93 $103,100 0 1 1 1 0 3 1102 Brannan St Lincoln Ave Silverado Trail 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $643,600 4 6,185 $185,000 1 1 1 1 0 4 1105 Carli Dr Aurora Dr Money Ln 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $110,100 0 59 $161,300 0 1 1 1 0 3 1106 Aurora Dr N Oak St Carli Dr 0.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $51,700 7 9,691 $155,800 0 1 1 1 0 3 1107 N Oak St Grant St Aurora Dr 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $458,100 6 9,361 $210,100 0 1 0 1 0 2 1108 Berry St Cedar St Foothill Blvd 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $224,800 8 12,624 $176,400 1 1 1 1 0 4 1109 Silver Street Trail Silver Street (north end) Napa River Trail 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $298,400 7 10,599 $270,600 0 1 1 1 0 3 1111 S Oak St Cedar St School St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $114,400 1 970 $185,400 0 1 0 1 0 2 1112 Mora Ave Grant St SR-29 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,203,700 7 11,141 $199,700 0 1 0 1 0 2 1113 Money Ln Trail Proposed class I facility at Mora Ave Mora Ave 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $218,600 8 12,002 $220,500 0 1 1 1 0 3 1114 Oak Street Logvy Bridge School St Washington St 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $511,300 6 8,949 $280,500 0 1 1 1 0 3 1119 Denise Dr Kathy Way Cedar St 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $203,400 1 1,006 $197,100 0 1 1 1 0 3 1121 Napa River Trail Greenwood Ave, Calistoga city limit Calistoga city limit 2.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $8,165,400 5 7,367 $442,000 1 1 1 1 0 4 1122 SR 29 Silverado Trail Tubbs Lane 1.6 Bike Lanes (Class II) $229,500 13 18,690 $252,800 1 1 1 1 1 5 Y 1125 Berry St Berry St Bridge at Washington 0.0 Separated Bikeway (Class IV) $27,500 8 11,855 $255,800 1 1 1 0 0 3 1196 Kortum Canyon Rd Foothill Blvd City Limits 0.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $23,300 1 1,382 $167,200 1 1 0 0 1 3 1238 Stevenson St Grant St Lincoln Ave 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $266,900 6 9,340 $189,600 1 1 0 0 1 3 Note: For additional details and methodology for the project cost estimates above, please refer to Table 6.4 on page 127. For more information about estimated project benefits, refer to Appendix F. Project cost estimates and benefits are for rough estimation purposes only. 375
E-2
Table E.2: Bicycle Network Recommendations – City of St. Helena ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction Value Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 721 Madrona Avenue Oak Ave Riesling Way 0.9 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,713,600 9 13,312 $221,400 1 0 0 1 0 2 722 Spring Street Sylvaner Avenue Main Street 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,087,000 10 14,446 $240,400 0 1 1 1 0 3 723 Valley View Street Spring Street Birch Street 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $400,900 7 10,251 $170,700 0 1 0 1 0 2 724 S Crane Avenue Grayson Avenue Sulphur Springs Avenue 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $65,100 6 8,426 $225,900 0 1 0 1 0 2 725 Sulphur Springs Crane Avenue Main Street 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $72,400 4 6,185 $168,100 1 1 0 1 1 4 726 Adams Street Allyne Ave Main St 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $807,900 9 13,572 $225,700 1 0 1 1 0 3 727 Hunt Avenue Main Street and Starr Avenue 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $922,300 9 13,410 $223,000 1 0 0 1 0 2 728 Oak Ave Hillview Place Madrona Ave 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $202,500 7 10,306 $171,300 1 0 0 1 0 2 731 Spring Mountain Road Madrona Avenue Spring Mountain Ct 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $61,500 7 10,571 $252,100 1 0 0 1 0 2 732 Grayson Avenue SR 29 South Crane Avenue 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $61,000 7 10,250 $250,000 1 1 0 1 0 3 869 Railroad Ave Fulton Ln Hunt Ave 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $623,300 9 12,907 $214,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 875 Spring St Sylvaner Ave Sulfur Springs Ave 0.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $13,500 4 5,368 $89,400 0 1 0 1 0 2 890 Hudson Ave Madrona Ave Spring St 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $46,200 8 11,665 $300,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 891 Lower Reservoir Loop Trail NW city limit Loop around Lower Reservoir and connect 0.9 Shared Use Path (Class I) $3,339,900 2 3,197 $82,900 0 0 0 1 0 1 893 Starr Ave-Adams StRailroad Ave-Fulton Ln Hunt Ave Railroad Ave 0.5 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,953,100 9 13,235 $316,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 895 Library Lane Path Adams St Vine Trail (along RR corridor) 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $485,900 7 10,912 $261,200 0 0 0 1 0 1 900 Main St Madrona Ave Charter Oak Ave 0.6 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $47,900 10 15,135 $251,700 1 1 1 1 1 5 Y 901 McKorkle Ave Alison Ave Proposed class I facility 675' west of College Ave 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $575,200 6 9,332 $155,200 0 1 0 1 0 2 902 McCorkle Ave Path Proposed class I facility 675' west of College Ave College Ave 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $519,700 4 6,641 $163,000 0 1 0 1 0 2 904 Main St Fulton Ln St Helena city limit, Deer Park
Rd 1.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $83,100 8 12,055 $200,400 1 0 1 1 0 3 1063 Sulphur Springs Ave Sulphur Creek SR 29/Main St 0.9 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $69,900 4 6,141 $102,300 0 1 0 1 0 2 1064 Crane Park Path (to La
Quinta Wy) Grayson Ave Kennedy Ct 0.5 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,900,300 5 7,767 $192,300 0 1 0 1 0 2 1065 Starr Ave Path Hunt Ave Mills Ln 0.7 Shared Use Path (Class I) $2,581,400 7 10,372 $253,400 0 1 1 1 0 3 1068 Mitchell Dr Main St Crane Ave 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $855,800 9 13,569 $225,800 1 1 1 1 0 4 1069 Birch Ave Crane Ave Valley View St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $295,100 7 10,121 $168,500 0 1 0 1 0 2 1070 N Crane Ave Spring St Birch St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $445,400 7 10,954 $182,300 0 1 0 1 0 2 1071 Edwards St Hunt Ave Pope St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $288,400 8 11,396 $189,500 1 1 0 1 0 3 1072 Hillview Pl Spring Mountain Rd Oak St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $283,700 7 9,814 $163,200 0 0 0 1 0 1 376
E-3
ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction Value Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 1073 Allyn Ave Spring St Madrona Ave 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $48,900 8 12,233 $227,900 0 0 0 1 1 2 1075
White Sulfur Springs Rd to
Sulfur Springs Ave
Connector Bridge
Spring St Sulphur Springs Ave 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $427,500 3 4,222 $105,500 0 1 0 1 0 2 1076 Sulphur Springs Ave St Helena city limit Spring St 0.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $12,200 3 4,215 $70,200 0 1 1 1 0 3 1077 Sylvaner Ave Riesling Way Spring St 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $56,300 4 5,419 $153,000 0 1 0 1 0 2 1078 Elmhurst Ave Spring Mountain Rd Main St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $450,400 7 10,005 $166,300 1 0 0 1 0 2 1079 York Creek Path Spring Mountain Rd Vine Trail 0.7 Shared Use Path (Class I) $2,592,800 6 8,189 $199,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 1128 Mariposa Ln McCorkle Ave Pope St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $270,300 6 8,980 $149,400 0 1 1 0 0 2 1129 Crinella Drive Connector Existing City Park future Vine Trail 0.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $119,000 5 7,958 $193,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 1172 Spring Mountain Rd W St Helena city limit Spring Mtn Court 0.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $21,000 2 3,036 $50,500 0 0 0 1 0 1 1173 Sulphur Creek Path Sulphur Springs Ave Napa River Trail 1.4 Shared Use Path (Class I) $5,334,500 11 16,412 $390,300 1 1 1 1 0 4 1181 Napa Valley Vine Trail Pratt Ave Chaix Ln 2.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $8,696,000 12 17,854 $424,500 1 1 1 0 1 4 Y 1219 Crinella Dr Park St Existing city park 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $523,600 6 8,274 $201,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 1224 Napa River Trail St Helena city limit near wastewater treatment plant SE edge Wappo Park 1.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $4,335,100 2 3,627 $92,400 0 1 0 1 0 2 1225 Napa River Trail Pope St (Napa River Trail-Wappo Park) St Helena city limit (Deer Park Rd / Lower Reservoir Trail) 1.9 Shared Use Path (Class I) $7,209,700 6 8,607 $212,300 0 1 1 1 1 4 Y 1246 Howell Mountain Rd Silverado Trail Conn Valley Rd 0.7 Bike Lanes (Class II) $101,700 3 5,153 $139,500 0 1 1 1 0 3 1251 Mills Ln SR 29 Proposed Path 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $71,600 6 9,461 $213,500 0 1 1 1 0 3 1252 College Ave McCorkle Ave Pope St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $346,600 4 6,165 $102,600 0 1 1 0 0 2 1253 Church St Pope St Hunt Ave 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $257,600 8 12,170 $202,400 1 1 0 1 0 3 Note: For additional details and methodology for the project cost estimates above, please refer to Table 6.4 on page 127. For more information about estimated project benefits, refer to Appendix F. Project cost estimates and benefits are for rough estimation purposes only. 377
E-4
Table E.3: Bicycle Network Recommendations – Town of Yountville ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction Value Total Economic BenefitProject Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 733 Webber Avenue Vine Trail Yount Street 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $197,000 7 10,350 $171,500 0 0 1 1 0 2 734 Washington Street Oak Circle Weber Avenue 0.8 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,556,100 9 13,717 $227,300 1 0 1 0 0 2 737 Jefferson Street Washington Street / Humboldt Street Monroe Street 0.4 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 1 0 1 2 738 Yount Street Washington Street Yountville Cross Road 0.5 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 0 2 1019 Monroe St Lincoln Ave Jefferson St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $126,500 5 8,147 $135,000 0 0 0 1 0 1 1020 Jefferson St path entrance Monroe St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $114,700 6 8,584 $142,300 0 0 1 1 0 2 1021 Lincoln Ave Monroe Grant 0.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $7,100 5 7,977 $132,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 1022 Yount Mill Rd Yountville Cross Rd NE city limit 0.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $24,800 6 9,340 $154,800 0 1 0 1 0 2 1169 Webber Avenue Vine Trail Yount Street 0.1 Unclassified Bicycle Route $4,700 7 9,765 $161,800 0 0 1 1 0 2 1234 Hopper Creek Path – South
Extension to Washington St Hopper Creek Washington St. 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $305,700 6 8,356 $195,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y Note: For additional details and methodology for the project cost estimates above, please refer to Table 6.4 on page 127. For more information about estimated project benefits, refer to Appendix F. Project cost estimates and benefits are for rough estimation purposes only. 378
E-5
Table E.4: Bicycle Network Recommendations – City of Napa ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction Value Total Economic BenefitProject Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 8 Napa River Trail (Copia) Oxbow North Lot Trail Closure at Copia 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,017,500 22 33,242 $847,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Coombsville Rd Silverado Trail Silverado Middle School 0.8 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $175,600 24 35,969 $858,800 0 1 0 0 0 1 131 Dry Creek Rd Redwood Rd NW city limit 1.0 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $227,600 35 51,546 $1,131,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 739 Orchard Avenue Western city limits Solano Ave 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $46,000 5 6,815 $189,800 0 1 1 1 0 3 740 Salvador Avenue Hwy 29 Hahnemann Ave 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $33,000 16 23,154 $444,100 0 1 1 0 0 2 741 Wine Country Avenue Hwy 29 Linda Vista Avenue 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $73,300 28 41,977 $755,600 0 1 1 1 0 3 742 Redwood Road Solano Avenue Dry Creek Road 1.0 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 743 West Lincoln Avenue Solano Ave Lone Oake Ave 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $947,500 38 56,057 $934,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 744 Linda Vista Ave City Boundary Trower Ave 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,216,900 33 49,695 $826,800 0 1 0 1 1 3 745 Linda Vista Ave Trower Ave Redwood Ave 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,172,500 47 69,607 $1,158,600 1 1 1 1 0 4 746 Linda Vista Avenue Redwood Avenue W. Pueblo Avenue. 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $75,000 45 66,771 $1,174,200 1 1 1 1 0 4 747 Linda Vista Avenue W. Pueblo Avenue. Lone Oak Avenue 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $54,900 32 47,531 $839,200 0 1 1 1 0 3 748 Redwood Creek Bridge Lone Oak Kingston Avenue 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $369,900 28 41,752 $1,038,900 0 0 1 1 1 3 749 Robinson Ln - Linda Vista
Ave Kingston Avenue Browns Valley Road. 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $443,000 15 22,868 $381,500 1 0 0 1 0 2 751 Browns Valley Road Patrick Road Buhman Avenue 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $22,200 11 16,881 $822,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 752 Trower Avenue Solano Avenue Linda Vista Avenue 0.5 Separated Bikeway (Class IV) $293,300 41 61,263 $1,489,700 0 0 1 0 0 1 753 Trower Avenue SR 29 Jefferson Street 0.5 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $115,800 40 59,068 $1,398,800 0 0 1 0 0 1 755 Kilburn Avenue Laurel Street Freeway Drive 0.8 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,579,600 32 48,145 $803,900 0 1 0 1 0 2 756 Laurel Street Foothill Drive Freeway Drive 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $804,700 28 40,998 $684,800 0 1 0 1 0 2 757 Foothill Boulevard Laurel Street Old Sonoma Drive 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $61,600 26 39,331 $951,800 0 0 1 1 0 2 Y 758 Foster Road Old Sonoma Road West Imola Avenue 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $59,600 25 36,726 $879,400 1 1 0 1 0 3 759 California Boulevard Clay St Trancas Street 1.6 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 0 2 761 Imola Avenue Hunt Street SR-29 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $355,600 18 26,581 $662,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 762 Imola Avenue South Freeway Drive Foster Road 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $367,300 15 22,883 $382,100 1 0 0 1 0 2 Y 763 Imola Avenue Eastern end of bridge SR 121 1.3 Separated Bikeway (Class IV) $860,800 40 59,040 $1,444,900 1 1 1 0 1 4 764 James Diemer Drive From Magnolia Drive Administration Library Parking entrance

0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $44,400 10 14,886 $533,400 0 1 0 0 1 2 765 James Diemer Drive From Administration Library Parking entrance Streblow Dr. 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $46,800 5 7,353 $355,700 0 1 0 0 0 1 766 Shurtleff Avenue Imola Avenue Terrace Drive 0.9 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,852,300 23 34,957 $582,600 1 1 0 1 1 4 Y 767 Terrace Drive Imola Avenue Coombsville Rd 1.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $2,312,600 31 45,925 $764,900 1 1 1 1 0 4 768 Elm Street / S Seminary St Ash St Riverside Dr 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,180,300 33 49,799 $830,000 0 0 1 0 0 1 379
E-6
ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction Value Total Economic BenefitProject Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 769 Seminary St Oak St Pine St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $466,300 34 50,519 $841,800 0 1 1 0 0 2 770 Birkdale Drive Wyatt Ave Tamarisk Dr 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $541,100 17 25,853 $430,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 771
Trail between Forest Drive,
Camilla Drive, and
Westminster Ct
Forest Dr south Camilla Dr and then south 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $389,800 14 21,210 $530,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 772 River Park Blvd Jefferson St Newport Dr 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,078,700 13 19,645 $327,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 773 Silverado Trail Hagen and Lincoln 0.8 Separated Bikeway (Class IV) $504,000 18 27,360 $701,300 1 0 1 1 1 4 774 Montecito Blvd East Avenue Lakeview Dr 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $820,300 17 24,819 $412,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 775 East Avenue Silverado Trail 1st Street 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $849,200 23 34,477 $573,500 1 0 1 0 0 2 776 Beckworth Drive Tallac Street Palomar Wy 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,145,200 46 68,807 $1,145,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 777 El Capitan Way Willis Dr Baxter Avenue 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $789,800 42 62,612 $1,042,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 779 Yount Street Seminary Street Yajome Street 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $424,100 35 52,380 $872,800 1 0 0 0 0 1 780 Yajome Street Pearl Street Jackson St 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $886,400 41 61,743 $1,028,300 0 0 1 0 0 1 781 Vallejo Street Yajome Street Soscol Avenue 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $263,600 33 48,825 $813,200 0 0 1 0 0 1 782 Jackson Street Yajome Street Soscol Avenue 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $526,700 35 52,733 $878,500 0 0 1 0 0 1 783 Myrtle Avenue California Blvd Marin Street 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $203,300 25 37,565 $626,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 784 Marin Street Lincoln Street Myrtle Avenue 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $864,700 43 63,536 $1,058,900 1 0 0 0 0 1 785 3rd Street California Boulevard Jefferson Street 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $53,600 39 58,397 $1,396,900 1 0 1 1 0 3 Y 814 Hagen Road Silverado Trail City Border 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $63,000 5 7,786 $146,600 1 0 1 1 0 3 831 Imola Avenue Hunt Street South Freeway Drive 0.2 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $49,100 24 35,407 $778,200 1 0 1 0 0 2 Y 834 Hahnemann Ln Salvador Ave Wine Country Ave 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $536,400 20 29,785 $495,400 0 1 0 1 0 2 835 Lone Oak Ave W Lincoln Ave Linda Vista Ave 0.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $66,800 21 31,537 $525,500 0 0 0 1 0 1 841 Redwood Rd Browns Valley Rd Western City Limits 0.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $14,900 9 13,920 $231,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 842 Old Sonoma Rd Old Sonoma Rd (near Playground Fantastico) Jefferson St 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $39,500 35 52,286 $1,098,700 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 843 Old Sonoma Rd Western City Limits Foster Rd 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $70,900 25 37,797 $823,600 0 1 1 1 1 4 Y 844 Tulocay Creek Trail Soscol Ave Vine Trail 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $605,700 21 30,570 $755,000 0 1 0 1 0 2 846 Terrace Dr Imola Ave Coombsville Rd 1.2 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1 1 0 4 848 Laurel St California Blvd Franklin St 0.7 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,408,000 43 64,073 $1,068,000 1 1 1 1 0 4 850 Vine Trail - S Kennedy Park
to Napa Pipe
Napa city limit (Adjacent to Kaiser Road) to
Existing Bay Trail Kaiser Road 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,267,100 0 556 $13,300 0 1 0 1 0 2 861 Thompson Rd Napa City Limits Browns Valley Rd 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $71,400 13 20,067 $715,600 1 0 1 1 1 4 867 SR 221 Imola Ave Kaiser Rd 1.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $4,823,600 17 25,447 $635,100 0 1 1 1 0 3 Y 874 Bay Trail (Stanly Crossroad) Cuttings Wharf Rd Stanly Ln 0.9 Shared Use Path (Class I) $3,542,200 1 1,545 $37,000 0 0 0 1 0 1 380
E-7
ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction Value Total Economic BenefitProject Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 878 Railroad Bridge 3rd St 1st St 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $739,300 30 44,059 $1,105,700 1 0 0 1 1 3 883 Solano Ave Coffield Ave W Lincoln Ave 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $338,500 31 46,178 $1,155,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 886 SR 221 Kaiser Rd Magnolia Dr 1.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $208,400 13 18,790 $569,900 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 887 River Trail Bridge River Trail West Oxbow Preserve 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $256,700 2 2,250 $55,400 0 0 0 1 0 1 888 River Trail West Lincoln Ave existing River Trail terminus (near River Terrace) 0.4 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,521,500 3 4,530 $106,800 1 0 0 1 1 3 892 Coombs St First St Division St 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $39,500 33 49,537 $979,200 1 1 0 1 0 3 896 Vine Trail (undercrossing) Existing Vine Trail (near Redwood Park & Ride)
Existing Vine Trail (near Vine
Trail SR 29 overcrossing) 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,166,300 43 64,105 $1,575,600 1 1 1 1 0 4 919 Bordeaux Way Napa Valley Corporate Wy Napa Valley Corporate Dr 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $840,300 0 563 $9,400 0 0 0 1 0 1 922 Cabot Wy S Jefferson St W Imola Ave 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $606,400 22 32,004 $533,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 923 S Hartson St Lernhart St Old Sonoma Rd 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $684,200 32 46,929 $782,600 1 0 1 1 0 3 924 Lernhart St W Imola Ave S Hartson St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $145,200 20 29,980 $499,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 925 Ash St Jefferson St Franklin St 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $519,100 32 48,043 $801,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 927 Clark St Silverado Trail East Ave 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $232,700 16 23,584 $392,500 1 0 1 1 0 3 929 Sousa Ln Soscol Ave Silverado Trail 0.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $20,500 20 30,226 $505,200 1 1 0 1 0 3 930 Fairview Dr Silverado Trail Fairview Park 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $398,500 18 26,251 $436,700 1 1 0 1 0 3 931 Burnell St - 8th St 3rd St Soscol Ave 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $602,000 30 43,988 $732,000 1 1 1 1 0 4 932 Juarez St 1st St 3rd St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $466,300 25 36,620 $609,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 933 1st St East Ave Silverado Trail 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $427,400 19 27,975 $465,400 1 0 1 1 0 3 934 Silverado Trail Hagen Rd Silverado Trail (Northern City Limits) 0.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $12,800 6 8,554 $328,800 1 0 1 1 0 3 937 River Trail East Oxbow Preserve 1st St 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $812,000 21 31,144 $792,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 938 McKinstry St Water St Soscol Ave 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $637,300 36 53,397 $889,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 939 River Trail West existing trail terminus (near 1st Street) Railroad Bridge 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,079,900 29 42,547 $1,070,600 0 0 0 1 0 1 940 River Trail Bridge River Trail West 3rd St 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $270,200 25 37,239 $936,400 0 0 0 1 0 1 941 1st St Soscol Ave Vernon St 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $23,200 29 43,559 $965,600 1 0 1 1 0 3 942 3rd St Soscol Ave Lawrence St 0.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $6,400 26 39,176 $841,400 1 0 1 1 0 3 943 River Promenade (1st
Street underpass) Riverfront Promenade Opera House Plaza 0.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $128,700 27 40,739 $1,013,800 0 0 1 1 0 2 944 Napa Creek Connector Trail Oxbow Commons Path 9/11 Memorial Garden 0.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $140,200 28 42,139 $1,050,600 1 1 1 1 0 4 945 Brown St Corridor Coombs St/Pearl St 3rd St 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,156,400 36 53,587 $1,322,400 0 1 1 1 1 4 Y 946 River Trail West Division St Imola Ave 1.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $4,007,900 30 45,081 $1,125,000 0 1 1 1 0 3 381
E-8
ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction Value Total Economic BenefitProject Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 947 Division St - Franklin St Brown St Oak St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $429,200 28 41,677 $694,100 0 1 1 1 0 3 948 Walnut St Laurel St Old Sonoma Rd 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $837,900 40 59,011 $984,600 1 0 1 1 0 3 949 California Blvd 3rd St Laurel St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $441,400 35 52,623 $877,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 950 California Blvd 3rd St 1st St 0.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $17,400 34 50,242 $1,093,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 951 Laurel St Foothill Blvd 1st St 0.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $16,900 19 28,823 $742,000 0 1 0 1 0 2 Y 952 W Pueblo Ave Solano Ave Redwood Rd 1.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $2,756,200 50 73,911 $1,230,800 0 1 1 1 0 3 Y 953 Westview Dr Redwood Rd Browns Valley Rd 0.7 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,296,700 23 34,189 $569,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 954 Austin Way Scenic Dr Browns Valley Rd 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $358,700 16 23,449 $390,500 0 0 1 1 0 2 955 Scenic Dr Larkin Wy Browns Valley Rd 1.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,910,800 24 35,680 $594,000 0 0 0 1 0 1 956 Larkin Wy Browns Valley Rd Scenic Dr 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $206,200 13 20,041 $333,800 1 0 1 1 0 3 957 Partrick Rd Browns Valley Rd City Limits 0.8 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,549,700 12 17,881 $297,500 0 0 0 1 1 2 958 Clinton St Brown St Soscol Ave 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $399,700 33 49,023 $816,400 1 0 1 1 0 3 959 Clay St - Pearl St Coombs St California Blvd 0.8 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,536,300 50 74,244 $1,237,400 1 1 1 1 0 4 960 Lincoln Ave California Blvd Solano Ave 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $31,000 41 60,481 $1,465,000 1 0 1 1 0 3 961 Georgia St Lincoln Ave E St 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $519,700 40 58,847 $980,700 1 0 1 1 1 4 962 Brown St Lincoln Ave Clinton St 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,251,000 49 73,270 $1,220,600 1 0 1 1 0 3 964 Park Ave Jefferson St California Blvd 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $728,800 42 63,009 $1,049,900 1 0 0 1 0 2 966 Central Ave Soscol Ave Jefferson St 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,269,300 50 75,093 $1,251,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 967 Main St Pueblo Ave Lincoln Ave 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $996,000 54 79,624 $1,326,700 1 0 1 1 0 3 968 Yajome St Pueblo Ave Vine Trail 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $799,300 48 71,322 $1,188,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 969 Pueblo Ave California Ave Soscol Ave 1.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $156,500 58 86,613 $1,901,400 1 0 1 1 0 3 970 Beard Rd Pearl Tree Ln Pueblo Ave 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $612,300 45 67,455 $1,123,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 971 Pear Tree Ln Soscol Ave Beard Rd 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,091,400 43 64,106 $1,067,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 973 Sierra Ave Willis Dr Diablo St 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $905,000 39 57,384 $955,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 974 Connector Path Industrial Way Sheridan Dr 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $232,800 34 50,561 $1,283,000 0 0 0 1 0 1 975 Redwood Rd Browns Valley Rd SR 29 0.9 Bike Lanes (Class II) $132,900 32 47,781 $822,500 0 0 1 1 1 3 977 Villa Ln Firefly Ln Pear Tree Ln 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $65,800 41 60,712 $1,460,800 1 0 1 1 0 3 978 Salvador Creek Trail existing trail (near Ranch Lane) existing trail (near Serendipity Way) 0.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $145,900 1 997 $21,800 0 0 0 1 0 1 979 Garfield Ln Austin Miller Memorial Bike Path Culbertson Ct 0.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $44,900 3 4,173 $69,400 0 0 0 1 0 1 980 Big Ranch Rd Trancas St Northern City Limits 0.9 Bike Lanes (Class II) $125,400 32 48,079 $1,316,500 1 1 1 1 1 5 Y 981 Vine Hill Dr Dry Creek Rd Linda Vista Ave 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,001,700 24 35,506 $590,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 982 Wine Country Ave Dry Creek Rd Linda Vista Ave 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $985,200 21 30,947 $514,800 0 1 1 1 0 3 382
E-9
ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction Value Total Economic BenefitProject Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 983 Valle Verde Dr Salvador Creek Trail Trancas St 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $522,900 34 50,420 $840,000 1 0 1 1 0 3 984 Firefly Ln Wild Rye Way Valle Verde Dr 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $511,300 33 49,366 $822,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 985 Wild Rye Way Rubicon St Firefly Ln 0.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $46,400 30 44,507 $741,300 0 0 0 1 0 1 986 Rubicon St Baxter Ave Wild Rye Way 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $881,700 48 70,922 $1,181,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 987 Baxter Ave Diablo St Rubicon St 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $600,800 47 70,232 $1,169,600 1 0 0 1 0 2 988 Diablo St Yellowstone St Baxter Ave 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $801,900 42 62,031 $1,032,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 989 Yellowstone St Lassen St Diablo St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $329,700 30 45,373 $755,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 990 Lassen St Salvador Creek Trail Yellowstone St 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $629,800 31 46,492 $773,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 991 El Centro Ave Byway East Jefferson St 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,087,700 28 41,152 $684,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 992 El Centro Ave Jefferson St Eastern City Limits 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $496,800 21 31,083 $517,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 993 Carol Dr Oxford St W Pueblo Ave 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,183,700 48 71,776 $1,195,100 1 1 1 1 0 4 994 Oxford St Trower Ave Carol Dr 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,217,600 49 72,191 $1,201,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 995 Fairfax Dr Cesar St Trower Ave 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $411,600 32 47,265 $786,300 0 0 0 1 0 1 996 Cesar St Maher St Fairfax Dr 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $114,500 24 36,042 $599,500 0 0 0 1 0 1 997 Maher St Wine Country Ave Cesar St 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $651,100 28 41,094 $683,600 0 0 0 1 0 1 999 Capitola Dr Saratoga Dr Saratoga Dr/Erin Wy 0.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $12,100 16 23,662 $649,800 0 1 0 1 0 2 1000 Saratoga Dr Capitola Dr/Erin Wy Terrace Dr 0.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $18,400 16 24,422 $611,900 0 1 0 1 0 2 1001 Shelter Ave Sommer St Soscol Ave 0.7 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,467,000 20 29,875 $498,100 1 1 0 1 0 3 1002 Sommer St Muir St Shelter Ave 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $170,600 12 17,410 $290,400 0 0 0 1 0 1 1003 Muir St Granada St Sommer St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $246,500 11 16,479 $274,900 0 0 0 1 0 1 1004 Granada St Imola Ave Muir St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $224,300 10 14,550 $242,700 1 0 0 1 0 2 1005 Napa Valley College Path
:Roy Patrick Dr College Wy, Magnolia Dr Imola Ave 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $620,600 15 22,800 $572,400 0 1 0 1 0 2 1006 Kansas Ave Shurtleff Ave Soscol Ave 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,177,900 24 34,968 $582,800 1 1 0 1 0 3 1007 Tamarisk Dr Terrace Dr Coombsville Rd 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $676,200 16 23,776 $395,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 1008 Pascale Pl Connector Pascale Pl Montecito Blvd 0.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $137,700 8 11,410 $282,600 0 0 0 1 0 1 1044 Bay Trail Connector Stanly Crossroad Napa River 0.7 Shared Use Path (Class I) $2,754,700 1 1,687 $40,100 0 0 0 1 0 1 1046 Foster Rd W Imola Ave Hilton Dr 0.8 Bike Lanes (Class II) $113,400 14 20,936 $507,400 0 0 0 1 0 1 1048 Fairview Dr Pathway
Connector Aguire Wy Terrace Dr 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $582,000 18 26,721 $672,500 0 1 0 1 0 2 1049 Arroyo Dr Brown St Seminary St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $218,700 31 45,415 $756,500 0 0 0 1 0 1 1051 Salvador Creek Trail Byway East Jefferson St 0.7 Shared Use Path (Class I) $2,574,300 33 48,790 $1,202,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 1052 Jefferson St Salvador Ave S Jefferson St at City Limits 5.0 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 1 0 3 383
E-10
ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction Value Total Economic BenefitProject Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 1131 Imola Ave Class I Path Vine Trail at Imola Bridge SR 221 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $836,300 15 22,486 $564,900 0 1 1 0 1 3 Y 1132 Wyatt Ave Birkdale Dr Peppergrass St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $216,200 16 23,681 $394,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 1133 Peppergrass St Wyatt Ave Shurtleff Ave 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $214,100 16 23,753 $395,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 1134 East Ave 1st Street Clark St 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $946,700 20 29,821 $496,100 0 0 1 0 0 1 1142 Silverado Trail Soscol Ave Lincoln Ave 1.6 Shared Use Path (Class I) $5,982,900 43 63,524 $1,571,300 1 1 0 1 1 4 Y 1194 Vine Trail - Napa Pipe to
Soscol Ferry Riversound Way Soscol Ferry Rd 0.5 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,763,900 1 1,382 $33,600 0 0 1 0 0 1 1197 Pinewood Dr W Pueblo Ave Scenic Dr 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $969,300 26 39,371 $655,600 0 0 1 0 1 2 1198 Trower Ave Dry Creek Rd East end of Trower at Vintage High 0.9 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $204,900 45 67,606 $1,408,300 0 0 1 0 1 2 1203 Coombs Street Imola Avenue Division Street 1.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,874,800 40 58,946 $981,800 0 1 1 0 0 2 1204 Oak Street Franklin St Seminary St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $449,300 32 47,696 $794,600 0 1 0 0 0 1 1205 Seminary Street Oak St Hayes St 0.7 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,288,700 48 71,677 $1,194,300 1 1 1 0 0 3 1206 Hayes Street Yount St Jefferson St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $467,800 35 52,729 $878,700 1 0 1 0 0 2 1207 E Street Jefferson St California Blvd 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $753,200 42 62,111 $1,035,100 1 0 1 0 1 3 1208 D Street Alley York St California Blvd 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $526,200 37 54,523 $908,900 0 0 1 0 0 1 1209 Franklin Street Coombs St Division St 0.8 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,648,000 41 61,069 $1,017,400 0 1 1 0 0 2 1210 Trancas St City Limits Solano Ave 1.5 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1 0 1 4 Y 1212 South Sosocl Imola Ave 3rd Street 1.3 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1 0 0 3 1213 Lincoln Ave Silverado Trail West Lincoln 1.4 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $314,400 66 97,577 $2,062,100 1 0 1 0 1 3 1218 Beard Rd Trancas St Pear Tree Ln 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $374,900 41 61,536 $1,024,900 0 0 0 0 1 1 1233 Byway E Salvador Ave El Centro Ave 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $835,900 23 34,760 $578,200 1 1 1 0 1 4 1235 Napa River Trail Napa River Trail Oxbow Preserve 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $269,200 13 18,976 $497,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note: For additional details and methodology for the project cost estimates above, please refer to Table 6.4 on page 127. For more information about estimated project benefits, refer to Appendix F. Project cost estimates and benefits are for rough estimation purposes only. 384
E-11
Table E.5: Bicycle Network Recommendations – American Canyon ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction (Miles) Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 219 Kimberly Dr SR 29 (Broadway) Elliot Dr 0.3 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $76,000 23 34,604 $671,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 Devlin Road South Kelly Road Boone Road Roundabout 0.5 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,797,000 0 269 $6,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 788 Class I Off-Street Multi Use
path Hess Road Commerce Boulevard 0.6 Shared Use Path (Class I) $2,320,500 4 5,237 $138,800 0 0 0 1 0 1 789 Napa Junction Broadway Theresa Avenue 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $420,300 8 11,582 $291,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 790 Theresa Avenue Napa Junction Eucalyptus Drive 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $587,900 14 20,209 $337,500 0 0 1 1 0 2 793 Rio Del Mar Broadway Wetlands Edge Road 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $66,200 21 30,652 $544,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 795 Donaldson Way West Just past Andrew Road Broadway 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $648,200 32 48,029 $801,300 0 0 1 1 0 2 796 Kimberley Drive Elliot Drive Meadow Bay Drive 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $459,300 19 27,846 $463,800 0 0 0 1 0 1 Y 797 Elliott Drive Past Knightsbridge Way City Line 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $61,500 23 34,848 $987,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 798 Danrose Drive American Canyon City Line 0.7 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,392,100 34 51,197 $853,400 0 0 1 1 1 3 800 Napa Junction Eastern end Broadway 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $300,200 16 24,356 $406,700 0 0 1 0 0 1 833 Flosden Road American Canyon City Line 0.6 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 1 0 0 2 839 American Canyon Rd Wetlands Edge Rd SR 29 0.7 Separated Bikeway (Class IV) $462,200 36 53,620 $1,280,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 Y 851 James Rd Wilson Wy American Canyon Rd 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,000,500 38 56,528 $942,800 1 0 1 1 0 3 855 Vine Trail (along Devlin Rd) Middleton Way Watson Ln 1.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $4,039,800 4 6,435 $170,900 1 0 1 1 0 3 Y 862 Vine Trail (along Watson Ln
- American Canyon) Paoli Loop Rd Newell Rd Extension 0.4 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,582,200 3 3,861 $98,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 Y 863 Vine Trail (Newell Rd
Extension)
Donaldson Way (Southern Intersection of
proposed Vine and Ridge Trails) Paoli Rd 1.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $4,010,400 14 21,575 $544,800 0 0 1 1 0 2 870 Melvin Rd James Rd Rio Del Mar 0.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $88,800 23 34,174 $570,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 873 Broadway Veterans Park American Canyon Rd 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $900,300 31 45,724 $1,093,300 0 1 1 1 0 3 880 Napa Ruins Loop Main St Vine Trail (Newell Dr extension) 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $793,300 11 16,049 $405,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 897 Los Altos Dr Thersea Ave Rio del Mar 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $205,400 15 21,628 $361,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 909 Hanna St Commerce Blvd terminus 0.4 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $27,800 0 591 $9,900 0 0 0 1 0 1 910 Commerce Blvd Clarke Ranch Park Green Island Rd 0.7 Bike Lanes (Class II) $107,200 4 5,744 $178,800 0 0 0 1 0 1 911 Green Island Rd Vine Trail Commerce Blvd 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,267,400 0 650 $18,100 0 0 1 1 1 3 912 Mezzetta Ct Green Island Rd end of street 0.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $14,800 0 239 $4,000 0 0 0 1 0 1 913 Green Island Rd Northern intersection of Green Island Rd and Mezzetta Ct
Vine Trail (Class I facility
intersecting at Green Island Rd
300' W of RR tracks)

0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $36,800 0 481 $79,500 0 0 1 1 0 2 914 Green Island Rd Mezetta Ct City Border 0.5 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $34,400 0 203 $3,400 0 0 0 1 0 1 1009 Theresa Ave Eucayptus Dr Los Altos Dr 0.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $65,200 13 19,114 $319,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 1014 Melvin Rd James Rd Cassayre Dr 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $684,600 24 36,381 $607,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 385
E-12
ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction (Miles) Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 1028 Cassayre Dr Melvin Rd Rio Del Mar 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $299,700 16 24,486 $408,800 0 0 1 1 0 2 1033
Bay Trail (Kimberly Area
Segment - south of
American Canyon)
Catalina Wy, Vallejo Class I facility adjacent 0.5 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,964,100 12 18,160 $445,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 1034 Bay Trail (Kimberly Area
Segment) Kimberly Dr Kensington Wy 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,233,400 19 27,809 $666,500 0 0 0 1 0 1 1035 Cartegena-Via Bellagio
Connector Path 150' E of Entrada Circle Flosden Rd 0.4 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,529,600 1 2,008 $44,000 0 1 1 1 0 3 1037 American Canyon Rd Newell Dr City Limit 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $60,600 20 29,610 $497,100 0 1 1 1 0 3 1038 Bay Area Ridge Trail -
Eucalyptus Dr Greenwing Street Main St 0.8 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,475,500 8 12,170 $202,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 1039 Lombard Rd Napa Junction Rd Hess Rd 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $31,700 15 21,605 $540,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 1040 Hess Rd Commerce Blvd Lombard Rd 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $841,900 7 10,926 $185,900 0 0 0 1 0 1 1144 Napa Ruins Loop South Napa Ruins Loop Rolling Hills Ln 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $526,300 43 63,524 $1,571,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 1146 SR 29 SB American Canyon Rd Napa Junction Rd 1.9 Shared Use Path (Class I) $7,381,100 12 18,482 $467,000 1 0 1 1 0 3 1147 SR 29 NB American Canyon Rd Napa Junction Rd 1.8 Shared Use Path (Class I) $6,837,100 45 67,618 $1,608,800 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 1160 S Kelly Rd American Canyon Path Devlin Rd 0.4 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,565,000 12 17,338 $299,900 1 0 1 1 0 3 1200 Crawford Way James Rd Broadway St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $296,600 45 67,606 $1,408,300 0 0 1 0 0 1 1201 Cartegena Way Broadway Road End 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $739,700 29 43,182 $720,200 0 1 1 0 0 2 1215 Rolling Hills Rd Donaldson Way Frontier St 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $22,400 66 97,577 $2,062,100 0 0 0 0 1 1 1216 Knightsbridge Wy Hartford Ct SR 29 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $310,600 17 25,291 $865,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1222 Hummingbird Way Benton Way W American Canyon Rd 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $521,900 0 395 $9,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 1241 Donaldson Way Rio del Mar Amarillo Dr 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $28,500 8 11,389 $189,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 1242 Via Bellagio Connector Via Bellagio Via Bellagio Trail 0.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $4,000 22 33,236 $1,696,600 0 1 0 0 0 1 Note: For additional details and methodology for the project cost estimates above, please refer to Table 6.4 on page 127. For more information about estimated project benefits, refer to Appendix F. Project cost estimates and benefits are for rough estimation purposes only. 386
E-13
Table E.6: Bicycle Network Recommendations – County of Napa ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction Value Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 191 Coombsville Road City Limits 2nd Avenue 0.9 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $198,500 8 11,642 $558,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 802 Larkmead Ln 1.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $187,300 0 173 $42,600 1 0 1 1 0 3 803 Bale Lane 0.7 Bike Lanes (Class II) $99,400 0 203 $79,100 1 0 1 1 0 3 804 Berryessa Knoxville Road North Smittle Creek Trail Head SR 128 8.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $625,200 0 48 $800 0 0 1 1 0 2 805 Hardman Avenue Silverado Trail Atlas Peak Road 0.9 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $68,800 1 1,221 $20,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 806 Orchard Avenue Napa City boundary S-bend 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $65,400 2 2,604 $198,300 0 1 1 1 0 3 807 Atlas Peak Road Monticello Road to Hillcrest Drive 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $75,100 2 2,642 $241,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 808 Monticello Road (SR 121)* SR 128 Atlas Peak Road 11.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $834,600 2 3,107 $51,600 1 0 1 1 0 3 809 Hagen Road 1st Avenue 3rd Avenue 1.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $151,100 1 1,889 $186,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 810 3rd Avenue Hagen Road North/3rd Avenue 1.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $135,900 1 1,323 $22,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 811 3rd Avenue North/3rd Coombsville Road 0.7 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $53,300 1 1,525 $25,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 812 2nd North Coombsville Road 0.6 Bike Lanes (Class II) $90,200 1 1,890 $31,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 813 North 1st 3rd 0.9 Bike Lanes (Class II) $130,300 1 1,676 $35,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 815 Salvador Avenue City boundary Big Ranch Road 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $77,000 7 11,092 $199,600 1 1 1 1 1 5 816 El Centro Avenue City boundary Big Ranch Road 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $74,400 14 21,153 $370,400 1 0 1 1 0 3 817 Buhman Avenue City boundary Congress Valley Road 0.6 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $46,600 4 5,548 $92,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 818 Buhman Avenue Congress Valley Road Henry Road 1.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $96,800 1 1,809 $30,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 819 Thomson Avenue Congress Valley Road City boundary 0.9 Bike Lanes (Class II) $132,900 6 9,114 $161,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 820 Old Sonoma Road City boundary SR 12 2.8 Bike Lanes (Class II) $411,700 12 17,338 $302,500 1 0 1 1 0 3 821 SR 12* City boundary Ramal 4.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $646,000 2 2,369 $49,800 1 0 1 1 1 4 Y 822 Duhig Road Las Amigas SR 12 2.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $314,900 0 162 $64,100 1 0 0 1 0 2 823 Milton Road end Las Amigas 2.9 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $219,000 0 159 $2,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 826 SR 29* SR 221 American Canyon boundary 2.5 Separated Bikeway (Class IV) $1,648,600 1 883 $22,300 1 0 1 1 0 3 828 Trower Avenue City boundary Big Ranch Road 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $71,900 15 22,475 $413,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 838 Vine Trail Vista Carneros
(Napa San Fields) Airport Blvd Soscol Ferry Rd 2.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $7,721,700 0 681 $16,800 0 0 0 1 1 2 Y 840 Bay Trail (Along Napa River
- N American Canyon Area) Existing Bay Trail (Just S of Green Island Rd) Soscol Ferry Rd 5.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $19,978,000 1 1,428 $34,900 0 0 0 1 1 2 852 Coombsville Rd-Wild Horse
Valley Rd Shady Brook Lane SR 128 6.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $458,500 0 446 $7,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 858 Coombsville Rd-Wild Horse
Valley Rd 2nd Ave 4th Ave 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $33,300 1 1,657 $218,300 0 0 1 1 0 2 859 Las Amigas Buchli Station Rd Milton Rd 0.7 Bike Lanes (Class II) $95,000 0 138 $272,600 0 0 0 1 0 1 866 SR 221* Kaiser Rd Vista Point Rd 1.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $4,104,500 0 695 $17,400 1 0 1 1 1 4 Y 387
E-14
ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction Value Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 868 Skellenger Rd Conn Creek Rd Silverado Trail 0.9 Bike Lanes (Class II) $131,900 0 141 $63,100 0 0 0 1 0 1 871 Dry Creek Rd Oakville Grade Rd Orchard Ave 6.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $511,000 2 2,403 $40,000 0 1 1 1 1 4 Y 872 Coombsville Rd-Wild Horse
Valley Rd 4th Ave Shady Brook Ln 1.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $85,500 1 1,158 $19,300 0 0 1 1 0 2 884 Linda Vista Ave Napa City Limits Dry Creek Rd 0.8 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,569,700 16 24,159 $401,900 0 1 1 1 0 3 885 SR 29/221* American Canyon city limit Kaiser Rd 1.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $166,500 1 763 $20,800 1 0 1 1 1 4 Y 889 Yount Mill Rd - Yount Street Yountville town limit SR 29 2.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $157,600 4 6,614 $109,600 1 1 1 1 1 5 Y 894 SR 128 /Conn Creek Rd* Rutherford Rd Silverado Trail 1.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $98,900 0 140 $2,300 1 0 1 1 0 3 906 Sanitarium Rd Deer Park Rd Deer Park Rd 1.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $133,100 1 1,212 $20,100 1 0 1 1 0 3 907 Glass Mountain Rd Silverado Trail Sanitarium Rd 0.9 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $65,700 1 853 $14,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 908 McGary Rd (Extension of
the Solano Bikeway) Solano Bike (Class I multi-use path) Hiddenbrook Pkwy 0.7 Unclassified Bicycle Route $55,500 0 15 $300 0 0 0 1 0 1 916
American Canyon Path
(along Newell Rd - S Kelly
Rd)
Watson Ln SR 12 (Jameson Canyon Rd) 2.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $8,628,500 3 4,031 $102,500 0 0 0 1 0 1 917 Kelly Rd SR 12 Jameson Road 1.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $142,600 0 337 $5,700 1 0 1 1 0 3 Y 918 Airport Blvd Devlin Rd SR 29 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $37,500 0 401 $12,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 935 Silverado Trail* Napa City Limit Monticello Rd 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $50,700 9 13,703 $507,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 998 4th Ave Imola Ave Coombsville Rd 1.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $101,000 5 7,437 $124,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 1010 1st Ave Coombsville Rd Hagen Rd 2.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $287,500 4 5,244 $179,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 1011 Vichy Ave Hagen Rd Monticello Rd 1.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $173,300 2 3,289 $144,100 1 0 1 1 0 3 1013 Wooden Valley Cross Rd Wooden Valley Rd Gordon Vallley Rd 1.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $96,700 0 28 $500 0 0 0 1 0 1 1015 Wooden Valley Rd County Border Monticello Rd 6.6 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $495,400 0 128 $2,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 1016 Soda Canyon Rd Silverado Trail county line 5.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $379,300 0 126 $2,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 1017 SR 29* Tubbs Ln Lake/Napa County Line 8.9 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $667,500 0 582 $9,700 1 0 1 1 0 3 1018 Finnel Rd Town Limit Yountville Cross Rd 0.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $58,400 6 9,407 $155,900 0 1 1 1 0 3 1023 Dealy Ln Old Sonoma Rd Henry Rd 1.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $86,800 0 167 $2,800 0 0 1 1 0 2 1024 Henry Rd End of Henry Rd Buhman Ave 3.4 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $254,100 0 283 $4,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 1025 Middle Ave Los Carneros Ave Cuttings Wharf Rd 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $486,200 0 131 $2,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 1026 Redwood Rd - Mt Veeder
Rd Napa City Limits Dry Creek Rd 10.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $811,500 7 10,899 $181,300 0 0 0 1 0 1 1027 Dry Creek Rd Trinity Rd Mt Veeder Rd 2.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $176,100 0 140 $2,300 0 0 1 1 0 2 1029 Oakville Grade Rd Dry Creek Rd SR 29 3.7 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $276,300 0 551 $9,200 0 1 1 1 0 3 1030 Zinfandel Ln SR 29/128 Silverado Trail 1.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $206,000 0 415 $47,000 1 0 1 1 0 3 1031 Oakville Cross Rd SR 29 Silverado Trail 2.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $363,900 0 286 $54,500 0 0 1 1 0 2 388
E-15
ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction Value Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 1032 SR 128 – Rutherford* SR 29 Conn Creek Rd 1.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $220,200 0 183 $4,000 1 0 1 1 0 3 1036 American Canyon Rd American Canyon City Limit I-80 1.9 Bike Lanes (Class II) $280,900 10 14,400 $389,500 0 0 0 1 0 1 1045 Stanly Ln W Imola Ave SR 12 1.7 Bike Lanes (Class II) $241,300 1 1,687 $40,100 1 0 0 1 0 2 1047 Skyline Path (along Imola
Ave to Skyline Park) Soscol Ave & 221 4th Avenue 2.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $7,757,100 14 20,936 $507,400 1 1 1 1 1 5 Y 1054 Big Ranch Rd Napa City Limits Oak Knoll Ave 2.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $303,000 136 201,854 $3,362,800 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 1055 Oak Knoll Ave SR 29 Silverado Trail 2.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $303,200 10 15,290 $301,400 1 1 1 1 1 5 1056 Orchard Ave Dry Creek Rd City/County Line 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $79,400 2 2,723 $54,600 0 1 1 1 1 4 1057 Conn Creek Path Oakville Cross Rd Skellenger Ln 0.9 Shared Use Path (Class I) $3,507,900 3 4,067 $87,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 1058 SR 29* Madison St Rutherford Rd 2.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $284,100 0 165 $4,000 1 1 1 1 0 4 1081 Los Posadas Rd Howell Mountain Rd State Park 1.9 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $143,100 6 8,189 $199,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 1082 Conn Valley Rd Howell Mountain Rd Moore Creek Park 3.0 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $224,000 1 1,629 $27,000 0 0 0 1 0 1 Y 1083 Howell Mountain Rd Deer Park Rd Ink Grade Rd 3.5 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $265,500 0 662 $11,100 1 0 1 1 0 3 1084 Monticello Rd* Silverado Trail Atlas Peak Rd 1.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $2,161,000 3 4,076 $67,700 1 0 1 1 1 4 Y 1085 Howell Mountain Rd Silverado Trail Conn Valley Rd 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $70,300 12 18,557 $371,700 0 1 1 1 0 3 1086 White Cottage Rd Deer Park Rd Ink Grade Rd 3.7 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $281,200 1 1,303 $66,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 1087 Deer Park Rd Silverado Trail White Cottage Rd 4.0 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $303,700 3 3,921 $65,100 1 0 1 1 1 4 Y 1088 White Sulphur Springs Rd St. Helena city limit End of Road 3.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $232,400 1 1,962 $32,600 0 1 0 1 0 2 1089 SR 128/Capell Valley Rd* Steele Canyon Rd Napa/Solano County Line 10.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $775,100 2 2,971 $49,500 1 0 1 1 0 3 1090 SR 128/Capell Valley Rd* Steele Canyon Rd Berryessa Knoxville Rd 4.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $357,500 0 111 $1,800 0 0 1 1 0 2 1091 Berryessa Knoxville Rd SR 128/Sage Canyon Road Pope Canyon Rd 4.6 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $346,700 0 100 $1,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 1092 SR 128/Sage Canyon Rd* Berryessa Knoxville Rd Silverado Trail 11.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $838,600 0 16 $300 1 0 1 1 0 3 Y 1093 Lower Chiles Valley Rd SR 128/Sage Canyon Rd Chiles Pope Valley Rd 3.4 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $252,100 0 174 $2,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 Y 1094 Franz Valley School Rd County Border Petrified Forest Rd 1.9 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $141,200 0 45 $700 1 0 0 1 0 2 1095 Chiles Pope Valley Rd SR 128/Sage Canyon Rd Lower Chiles Valley Rd 3.7 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $274,800 1 2,142 $35,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 Y 1096 SR 29/128/Foothill Blvd* Deer Park Rd Calistoga - southern city limit 6.1 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $1,352,900 0 62 $1,000 1 1 1 1 0 4 1098 Pickett Rd Silverado Trail Rosedale Rd 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $37,900 3 5,053 $84,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 1099 Chiles Pope Valley Rd Lower Chiles Valley Rd Howell Mountain Rd 8.6 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $647,000 1 1,420 $24,300 0 0 1 1 0 2 1103 Howell Mountain Rd Ink Grade Rd Pope Valley Rd 2.5 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $185,800 7 11,113 $185,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 1104 Pope Valley Rd Howell Mountain Rd Aetna Springs Rd 1.7 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $125,200 1 946 $15,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 1110 Ink Grade Rd N White Cottage Rd Pope Valley Rd 4.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $314,500 8 11,472 $270,600 0 0 0 1 0 1 1115 Butts Canyon Rd Aetna Springs Rd Lake/Napa County Line 7.0 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $523,500 8 12,044 $280,500 0 0 1 1 0 2 1116 Silverado Trail Larkmead Dunaweal 2.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $363,300 0 99 $1,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 1117 Dunaweal Ln Washington Street Path/Vine Trail Silverado Tr 0.8 Bike Lanes (Class II) $117,500 0 615 $67,800 1 1 1 1 0 4 389
E-16
ID Segment Name Begin End Length
(Mi) Facility Type
Estimated
Cost of
Project Estimated Annual New Commuters VMT Reduction Value Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List Safety Equity Connectivity Plan Consistency Community Support Total 1120 Petrified Forest Rd City Border Foothill Blvd 0.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $21,600 5 8,056 $197,100 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 1126 Cedar St Willow St Berry St 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $793,600 7 10,841 $255,800 0 1 0 0 0 1 1127 Adams Street Extension 0.5 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,743,000 9 13,498 $224,600 1 0 1 0 1 3 1135 Tulocay Creek RR Bridge Over Wine Train RR ROW 0.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $108,500 20 29,821 $496,100 0 1 0 0 0 1 1136 Westgate Dr Atlas Peak Hillcrest 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $103,400 2 2,254 $50,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 1139 Foster Rd Hilton Ave Golden Gate Dr 0.7 Bike Lanes (Class II) $105,300 1 1,723 $28,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 1156 Pope Canyon Rd Berryessa Knoxville Rd Chiles Pope Valley Rd 9.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $690,500 44 66,046 $1,574,900 0 0 1 0 0 1 1157 Howell Mountain Rd Conn Valley Rd Deer Park Rd 3.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $12,055,200 0 37 $600 1 1 0 0 0 2 1158 Old Sonoma Road City boundary SR 12 2.8 Bike Lanes (Class II) $411,700 1 1,066 $26,200 1 0 1 1 1 4 1162 Congress Valley Rd Old Sonoma Rd Buhman Ave 1.0 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $71,900 0 390 $10,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 1171 Spring Mountain Rd Sonoma/Napa County Line St Helena city limit 4.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $307,300 7 9,765 $161,800 0 0 0 1 0 1 1174 Sulphur Creek Path - South
Extent Sulphur Springs Ave Crane Ave 0.8 Shared Use Path (Class I) $2,897,000 11 16,412 $390,300 0 1 1 0 0 2 1180 Vine Trail St Helena to
Yountville* Chaix Ln Madison St 7.7 Shared Use Path (Class I) $29,307,900 6 9,364 $228,200 1 1 1 0 0 3 Y 1186 Napa Valley Vine Trail Airport Blvd Northern American Canyon City Limits 1.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $5,008,800 12 17,854 $424,500 0 0 1 0 1 2 1188 Soscol Ferry Rd Devlin / roundabout Class I connection Vine Trail 0.4 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,459,900 0 563 $13,200 0 0 1 0 1 2 1202 Tubbs Ln Hwy 29 Silverado Trail 1.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $191,400 18 27,129 $452,300 1 0 1 0 0 2 1220 Sonoma Hwy from Old
Sonoma to Duhig Rd* Old Sonoma Rd Duhig Rd 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $883,400 6 8,274 $201,300 1 0 1 0 1 3 Y 1221 SR 29 Shared Use* Broadway St Solano County Limits 3.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $11,801,900 0 107 $2,600 1 0 1 0 0 2 1223 Napa Valley Vine Trail -
Napa Pipe to Soscol Ferry Riversound Way Soscol Ferry Rd 0.5 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,989,700 23 34,357 $572,700 1 0 1 0 0 2 1227 Kortum Canyon Rd Calistoga City Limits County Limits 1.7 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $126,700 6 8,607 $212,300 0 0 0 0 1 1 1228 Petrified Forest Rd County border Calistoga City Border 1.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $135,300 4 6,296 $104,800 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 1229 Foothill Boulevard / SR
128* County Border Eastern City Limit 3.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $440,700 3 4,501 $74,800 1 0 1 1 0 3 1230 Hagen Road City of Napa Border 1st 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $76,900 3 3,755 $63,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 1232 Green Island Rd Good Luck Point City of American Canyon Border 0.4 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $28,300 2 2,944 $51,300 0 0 0 1 0 1 1236 Eucalyptus Dr Wetlands Edge Rd Landfill Loop 0.4 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 1244 Silverado Trail Trancas St Deer Park Rd 18.6 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $4,089,700 10 14,529 $242,400 1 1 1 0 1 4 Note: For additional details and methodology for the project cost estimates above, please refer to Table 6.4 on page 127. For more information about estimated project benefits, refer to Appendix F. Project cost estimates and benefits are for rough estimation purposes only. * These projects are anticipated to be constructed along/within Caltrans ROW; this was only done for County of Napa and may exclude projects within the jurisdictions 390
Appendix F
Potential Induced Demand,
Benefits, and Emissions
Reduction
391
F-1
Induced Bicycling Demand and Subsequent Benefits
The following analysis utilizes the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 552 Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in Bicycle Facilities1 to calculate potential induced bicycling demand among existing and new bicyclists generated by the proposed bicycle facilities. The methodology describes an approach for estimating the induced demand associated with a given bicycle facility improvement and translates the projected increase in demand to monetized benefits related to mobility, health, recreation, and decreased auto use. This section describes the application of the NCHRP 552 methodology for this project, and the anticipated benefits in terms of induced bicycling demand and monetized benefits associated with proposed bicycle facilities.

The induced bicycling demand benefits analyzed herein are calculated for each project separately and should be used for project-to project comparison only. Some benefits categories analyze the estimated benefits separately for “separated” versus “on-street” facilities2
.

Methodology
To estimate the induced demand benefits associated with bicycle improvements proposed in the Plan, the project team utilized the sketch planned method described in Appendix A and B of NCHRP Report 552, as well as Census population and commute pattern data, and average bicycling trip length estimates from 2023 Replica data3 . The
NCHRP 552 methodology is centered on several assumptions.

1. Existing bicyclists near a new facility will shift from the existing nearby facility to the new facility.

2. The new facility will result in induced number of bicyclists as a function of the number of existing bicyclists, relative to the attractiveness of the proposed facility (i.e., Class I shared-use path vs. Class II bicycle lanes).

3. People are more likely to ride a bicycle if they live within 1.5 miles of a facility than if they live outside that distance.

The methodology suggests that existing bicycle commute mode share can be utilized to estimate the number of existing and future bicycle ridership based on low, moderate, and high likelihood multipliers and the population within 1.5-mile, 1-mile, and 0.5-mile buffers that surround a facility. According to the NCHRP 522 research, the total rate of adult bicycling ranges from a low estimate, based on the Census bicycling commute mode share, to a 1 Methodology utilized here in based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 552, Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2006), as well as the supplemental White Paper titled “Translating Demand and Benefits Research into Guidelines,” available here, which was adapted from the demands and benefits outlined in the original NCHRP 552 report. The methodology described in the White Paper was used in the development of an online tool (no longer supported) created by the NCHRP 552 research authors. 2 The NCHRP 552 methodology does not include Class III bike routes, so those facility types were not included in the induced demand benefits assessment. While the methodology did not originally include Class IV bikeways or Class II buffered bike lanes, as those facility types had not yet been consistently implemented at the time of report publication, Class IV facilities were analyzed using the same calculations as separated paths and Class II buffered facilities were analyzed the same as onstreet bike lanes. 3 Replica is an online platform providing data on the built environment and how people interact with it, most notably trip patterns. Replica models their data, representing movement by aggregating data from three primary sources: census demographic data, proprietary location data from telecommunications and other digital infrastructure within a region, and field observations. Replica’s simulated datasets are cleaned of identifying information and calibrated against observed “ground-truth.” The data is tested with field observations to ensure it is consistent with actual human behavior. 392
F-2
high estimate, based on 0.6 percent plus three times the Census commute share. Moreover, the highest likelihood of a member of the population to use the facility exists if they live within a 0.5-mile buffer around the facility.

Thus, demand is reported at low, medium, and high estimates for the populations at each buffer distance. Each buffer area—at 0.5-, 1- and 1.5-mile distances from a proposed bicycle improvement are created using a networkbased analysis in a GIS environment.

Existing Population Estimates
To project future bicycling demand, the existing population, and more specifically existing bicycling population near the proposed improvements, a key input to the NCHRP 552 methodology, must first be estimated. Existing population by block group for Napa County was estimated using 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates. Using a GIS-based python script, the network analysis buffers at 0.5-mile, 1-mile and 1.5-mile distances from each proposed bicycle facility are intersected with the block groups to establish the proportion of the entire block group within a given buffer distance area. The total population within each buffer distance near the proposed improvements was estimated by multiplying the proportion of area of each buffer to the area of the whole block by the estimated block population.

Existing Bicycle Demand Estimates
Daily existing bicycling population is estimated for several categories: adult commuter bicyclists, adultnoncommuter bicyclists and child bicyclists. The calculations used to estimate existing and new bicyclists within each category are described in the following sections. The estimates of existing population and bicyclists by category for each of the bicycle facilities considered is provided at the end of this document.

Existing Bicycle Commuters
The estimated number of daily existing bicycle commuters are based on the existing bicycle commute mode share, the percent of adult population, and the percent of adult commuters for each block group, which is estimated based on U.S. Census data4
. To identify the existing bicyclist commuter population who could shift to the new facility, the equation below is used, where (R) is the total population within each buffer distance, (A) is the percentage of adult population, (C) is the Census bicycle commute mode share, and it is assumed that 50% of adults are commuters.

Daily existing bicycle commuters = R * A * C *0.5
Existing Adult Bicyclists
Adult bicycling rates are calculated at high, moderate, and low estimates. The NCHRP 552 research found that total adult bicycling rates range from the Census commute mode share at the low end to 0.6 percent plus three times the Census commute mode share at the high end5
.

Thigh = 0.06% + 3C
Tmoderate = 0.4% + 1.2C
Tlow = C
4 2019-2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates for Total Population, Age, Means of Transportation to Work 5 NCHRP 552, Chapter 4; Appendix A.
393
F-3
To estimate existing adult bicyclists the equation below is used, where (R) is the total population within each buffer distance, (A) is the percentage of adult population, and (T) is the adult bicycling rate at high, moderate, and low estimates.

Total existing adult bicyclists = R * A * Ti
Existing Child Bicyclists
To estimate existing child bicyclists, the below equation is used. The population within each buffer area (R) is multiplied by the percent of population who are children (PC), then by 0.02 based on the 2017 National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS) estimate of children who ride a bicycle on a given day.

Daily existing child bicyclists = R * PC * 0.02
Future Estimates – Induced Bicyclists Demand
The NCHRP 552 research cites that people who live closest to a bicycle facility are more likely to bike than those who live further from the facility. Likelihood multipliers were developed to represent this probability6 .Using the
estimated bicycling rates for each group (bicycle commuters, total adults, and children) along with the likelihood multipliers cited by the NCHRP 552 research (L), the estimates of induced bicyclists anticipated to be associated with a given facility is calculated for each group, as shown in the equations below.

New bicyclist commuters = existing bicyclist commuters * L New adult bicyclists = existing adult bicyclists * L
New child bicyclists = existing child bicyclists * L
Where:

L800m = 0.51
L1600m = 0.44
L2400m = 0.15
Estimates of induced bicycling demand for each of the bicyclist groups is provided for the full list of evaluated bicycle projects at the end of this document.

Monetized Bicycle Mode Shift Benefits
The NCHRP 552 methodology presents guidance on translating their demand and benefits research to a benefit cost analysis approach for bicycle facility investments. This methodology results in total annual monetized benefits associated with mobility, health, recreation, and decreased auto use expected to result from new bicycle facilities.

Each of the benefit types associated with the induced bicycling demand that is anticipated for the bicycle facilities proposed in the Plan are described in the following sections. The following benefits are summed up to provide a total monetary benefit for each bicycle project, provided in Appendix E.

Mobility Benefits
6 NCHRP 552, Appendix B; Supplemental White Paper Translating Demand and Benefits Research into Guidelines 394
F-4
Mobility benefits represent the time cost associated with shift to given bicycle facility type for the total number of commute trips over a commute year for new and existing bicyclist commuters7 . This approach is based on stated
preference analysis findings that establish the number of minutes, on average, bicycle commuters are willing to spend to access various facility types, as well as an hourly value of time assumption. The resulting calculation represents a per-trip benefit by facility type. The annualized mobility benefits consider the estimated existing and induced demand to reflect the time in dollars that a new or existing bicyclist commuter is willing to spend to access the new facility.

Health Benefits
Health benefits represent the cost savings from physical activity benefits associated with induced demand anticipated to result from the proposed bicycle facilities. An annual per capita cost savings of $128, representing health benefit cost savings8
. The annual health benefit is calculated by multiplying the annual per capita cost savings by the total number of new bicyclists anticipated with the proposed bicycle facilities. See Table 2 for the estimated health benefits associated with the proposed bicycle projects.

Recreation Benefits
Recreation benefits represent the cost savings related to recreational activity for new bicyclists induced by the new bicycle facilities. The cost of a typical day of recreation, valued at $10 for 1 hour of recreation activity, is based on a variety of outdoor recreational activities. The average adult cycling day, for example, includes roughly 40 minutes of cycling, in addition to some preparation and clean up time. To calculate annualized health benefits, the number of new commuters is subtracted from the number of new bicyclists, then multiplied by the typical recreation day cost. The number of new commuters is subtracted from the number of new bicyclists, because the value of the facility to new commuters is already accounted for in the mobility benefit.

Decrease Auto Use Benefits
Decreased auto use benefits include the benefits associated with user cost savings, reduced congestion, and reduced air pollution. This benefit is calculated based on the benefit per mile associated with vehicle to bicycle mode shift as a function of location and time of day, with congestion savings ranging from 0 to 5 cents per mile and pollution savings ranging from 1 to 5 cents per mile depending on conditions. The middle range of congestion and pollution savings is used for suburban areas, which is the value used for the analysis in this study. The overall savings per mile is estimated at 8 cents per mile for suburban geographies.

To calculate the annual decreased auto use benefit, the number of new commuters is multiplied by the average round trip length, savings per mile, 48 weeks per year, 5 days per week, and 2 trips per day. In addition to the monetized benefits associated with decreased auto use, these benefits can also be described in terms of VMT reduction. The estimated VMT reduction can be utilized as an input to calculate air quality benefits using other methods, as well as provides another metric to use as a lens to view decreased auto use benefits associated with bicycle mode shift.

Emissions Reduction
The NCHRP guidelines do not discuss how to calculate monetized greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions benefits associated with a reduction in VMT. Instead, the Senate Bill (SB) 1 California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost 7 NCHRP Report 552, Chapter 4; NCHRP Report 552 Appendix D. 8 NCHRP Report 552, Chapter 4; Appendix E, reflects the median value of 10 studies on health-related annual per capita cost savings for physical activity associated with induced bicycle use 395
F-5
Analysis Model (Cal-B/C) Grant Program Emissions Reduction Calculator is used. The model estimates emissions from changes in vehicle miles. The calculator requires the project location, length of construction period, average Daily VMT, percent of VMT that is truck and bus travel, and average trip length to calculate the value of tons of emissions saved per year. Benefits associated with emissions reductions are not included in the total monetized benefits for each project.
396
F-6
Pedestrian Network Improvement Emissions Reduction
The NCHRP Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in Bicycle Facilities do not extend to pedestrian improvements.

The guidelines state that the relationship between bicycle facility improvements and induced riders/commuters should not be assumed to hold true for walking. The analysis the following analysis utilizes the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities and Advancing Health and Equity. The Pedestrian Network Improvement methodology describes an approach for estimating the percent reduction in emissions from induced pedestrian trips based on the percent increase in sidewalk coverage.

Methodology
To estimate the GHG emissions reduction benefits associated with the pedestrian improvements proposed in the Plan, the projects team used the method described in CalEEMod Handbook: Pedestrian Network Improvements, sidewalk mileage collected during the analysis of existing pedestrian facilities, and the proposed pedestrian network. The CalEEMod methodology is centered on the assumption that:

Elasticity of household VMT with respect to the ratio of sidewalks-to-streets remains constant. A study found that a 0.05 percent decrease in household vehicle travel occurs for every 1 percent increase in the sidewalk-to-street ratio (Frank et el. 2011; Handy et al. 2014).

The estimated percentage of GHG emissions reductions is based on dividing the total sidewalk coverage (existing and proposed) in miles by the existing coverage, subtracting one, and multiplying by an elasticity factor. The percent reduction in GHG emissions from household vehicle travel in the study area (A) is calculated using the formula below, where C is the total sidewalk length in miles in the study area (existing and proposed), B is the total existing sidewalk mileage in the study area, and D is the Elasticity of household VMT with respect to the ratio of sidewalks-to-streets (-0.05).

A = (C/B -1) * D
The methodology suggests the study area be within 0.6 miles of the proposed pedestrian improvement, which represents a 6- to 10-minute walking time. Due to the number of pedestrian facilities proposed throughout the county, Census Block Groups were used to define each study area.

Results
Of the 101 block groups, 68 are expected to reduce GHG emissions, ranging from 0.01 – 3.11% reductions.

Twenty-nine block groups did not have any proposed sidewalk improvements. Four block groups had no recorded existing sidewalks but had proposed improvements; in these cases, the calculation could not be performed. It should be noted that although sidewalks did not exist previously, it cannot be assumed that pedestrians did not use the unpaved areas. Therefore, the proposed sidewalks may have some GHG emission reductions.

The top 20 block groups that are expected to result in the most GHG emission reductions from sidewalk improvements are listed in Table F.1. Block Groups that are not wholly in one jurisdiction are shown with the second jurisdiction listed.
397
F-7
Table F.1: Top 20 Proposed Sidewalk Emissions Reductions by Block Group Block Group Jurisdiction
Existing
Sidewalk
Mileage
Total Sidewalk
Mileage (Existing
and Proposed)
GHG Emissions
Reduction
060552017002 Unincorporated Napa County
(Angwin)

0.55 0.89 -3.11%
060552015002 Unincorporated Napa County 0.36 0.56 -2.83% 060552020004 City of Calistoga 4.63 5.84 -1.31%
060552020002 City of Calistoga 3.35 4.19 -1.24%
060552020003 City of Calistoga 6.32 7.63 -1.04%
060552007043 Unincorporated Napa County /
City of Napa

1.35 1.63 -1.02%
060552007042 City of Napa / Unincorporated
Napa County

2.23 2.61 -0.85%
060552008044 City of Napa 3.35 3.82 -0.71%
060552007051 City of Napa / Unincorporated
Napa County

6.74 7.61 -0.65%
060552006012 City of Napa 4.66 5.24 -0.62%
060552016021 City of St. Helena 5.97 6.70 -0.62%
060552017005 Unincorporated Napa County
(Deer Park)

0.07 0.08 -0.60%
060552003012 City of Napa / Unincorporated
Napa County

4.85 5.42 -0.59%
060552011012 City of Napa / Unincorporated
Napa County

1.74 1.93 -0.54%
060552010062 City of Napa 7.97 8.84 -0.54%
060552003013 City of Napa / Unincorporated
Napa County

5.04 5.58 -0.54%
060552020001 City of Calistoga 3.01 3.32 -0.52%
060552013001 Town of Yountville 5.23 5.78 -0.52%
060552004002 City of Napa 2.27 2.50 -0.49%
060552008031 Unincorporated Napa County /
City of Napa

3.36 3.68 -0.48%
398

SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/OPEN SPACE,

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, AND SUSTAINABILITY

COMMISSION AGENDA
JUNE 16, 2026

STAFF REPORT

BUSINESS
ITEM NUMBER: 2.

TITLE
Work Plan Fiscal Year 2026/27

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Minute Order approving the Open Space, Ac/ve Transporta/on, and Sustainability Commission Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2026/27.

CONTACT
Jason B. Holley, City Manager

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
The City Council formed the Open Space, Ac/ve Transporta/on, and Sustainability (OSATS) Commission in 2022 (Attachments 2 & 3).

Per these guidelines, the Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council and staff.

Each fiscal year, the Commission develops a Work Plan for the upcoming fiscal year. The Work Plan will list issues and projects to be addressed by the Commission and should be consistent with the Council's adopted goals and priori/es pertaining to open space, ac/ve transporta/on, and sustainability. On May 6, 2026, the Commission, along with staff support, developed the dra? Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2026/27 (Attachment 1).

For issues and projects that come up during the year that are out of the realm of the approved Work Plan and would require significant staff /me or City funds, the Commission should determine if it is feasible to wait un/l the next year to address the issue or project. If the Commission determines that the issue or project should be addressed in the current year, a recommenda/on for modifica/on of the Work Plan will need to be submiBed to the Council for considera/on. This recommenda/on for modifica/on of the Work Plan will need to indicate which issues or projects will be postponed or eliminated to accommodate and add the new issue or project to the Work Plan.

Accomplishments From FY2025/26
The Commission con/nued its work on the Parks and Recrea/on Master Plan update, which is scheduled for City Council adop/on on June 16, 2026. The Commission also established courtesy 399
trail signage to promote safe and shared use of trails throughout our park system. Staff is currently developing the signage and preparing an outreach plan for implementation.

The Commission received a presenta/on from Public Works staff on the concept of Complete Streets and its applica/on to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) street projects. Addi/onally, the Napa Valley Transporta/on Authority (NVTA) gave a presenta/on on the combined Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. This item is scheduled to return to the City Council on June 16, 2026 for adop/on and approval of a General Plan Amendment incorpora/ng the American Canyon Ac/ve Transporta/on Plan as an appendix to the Mobility Element. The City was also awarded the Bronzelevel Bicycle Friendly Community Designation through 2029.

The following projects are in progress or have been completed: The Outdoor Educa/on Project at Wetlands Edge Park was completed and included construc/on of an outdoor classroom, restroom facility, interpre/ve garden, and addi/onal walking trails. A Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) crossing and traffic calming improvements on Melvin Road were completed. Addi/onal completed projects include shade improvements at Northampton Park, and the recycled water line connec/on at the American Canyon LiBle League Complex. The new restroom facili/es at Northampton Park and Silver Oak Park remain under construc/on. The Recycled Water Refill Sta/on Project is currently in development, with planning and coordina/on efforts ac/vely underway.

Lastly, construc/on con/nues for the Green Island Road Reconstruc/on and Widening Project, including the installation of a Class I trail.

The Commission received presenta/ons on the BCDC's Sea Level Rise Report related to SB 272 and the Regional Climate Ac/on and Adapta/on Plan (RCAAP). The Commission also reviewed the mapping of sustainability-related ini/a/ves iden/fied in the City's General Plan. In addi/on, the Commission promoted community engagement by highligh/ng Napa Climate Now through the City's website, social media plaHorms, and the City Manager's Update newsleBer. These outreach efforts helped residents beBer understand their climate footprint and opportuni/es to support local sustainability goals.

Work Plan initiatives on hold:

Engage with American Canyon youth - this ini/a/ve was not completed during the current work plan cycle and will be carried forward into the next fiscal year's work plan to allow for more focused outreach and collaboration opportunities with local youth.

Increase tree plantings and prepare a "Road Map to 2030" - development of a residen/al tree plan/ng program and the "Road Map to 2030" ini/a/ve were deferred to next fiscal year's work plan pending the onboarding of the City's new Sustainability Analyst.

Looking Ahead
The OSATS Commission, alongside the Parks and Community Services Commission, will work collabora/vely to evaluate the need for an e-bike ordinance and assess poten/al policy considera/ons related to safety and enforcement. The Commissions will also explore trail and park 400
wayfinding opportuni/es that improve connec/vity and support ac/ve transporta/on throughout American Canyon.

The Commission will con/nue advancing sustainability ini/a/ves focused on climate ac/on, community engagement, and environmental stewardship. Planned efforts include evalua/ng a reusable foodware ordinance recommended by Napa County. The Commission will also develop a residen/al tree plan/ng program, similar to the City's Cash for Grass program, to encourage increased tree canopy throughout the community. The Commission will prepare a "Road Map to 2030" to engage American Canyon businesses and residents in achieving the City's sustainability goals and will engage with local youth on sustainability and climate ac/on ini/a/ves through the City's High School Ci/zens Academy program. Addi/onal educa/onal opportuni/es include presenta/ons on Marin Clean Energy's Deep Green program and par/cipa/on trends, Tree City USA designa/on requirements and benefits, and home energy savings. Community outreach efforts will focus on increasing residents' awareness of clean energy options and other sustainability initiatives.

The Commission will review the requirements of the Room to Roam Act (AB 1889) and evaluate its poten/al implica/ons for City planning and policy. The Commission will also develop a project charter and evaluate the feasibility of a Class I trail along Paoli Loop to improve connec/vity and expand active transportation opportunities.

And lastly, the Commission will provide input on design of open space, ac/ve transporta/on, and sustainability projects in the current Capital Improvement Program, and review future projects.

COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Organizational Effectiveness: "Deliver exemplary government services."

FISCAL IMPACT
The annual cost to convene the Commission on a monthly basis is approximately $30,000. These costs are included in the FY2026/27 Budget - primarily through staffing allocations.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
None

COMMUNICATION
Level 0: No Further Public Communication Needed
This staff report serves as the formal communication on this item.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. DRAFT Work Plan FY26-27

2. Ordinance No. 2023-01: Chapter 2.30 to Municipal Code

3. OSATS Resolution 2022-R112
401
DATE: June 16, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Holley, City Manager
CC: Deputy City Manager Ikeda
Public Works Director Ahmann Smithies
Community Development Director Cooper
RE: Draft “FY2026/27 Work Plan” for the Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission
____________________________________________________________________________________________ Below is the proposed DRAFT Work Plan for FY2026/27 for the Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission.

1. Review the requirements of the Room to Roam Act (AB 1889) and its potential implications for City planning and policy.

2. Evaluate the need for an e-bike ordinance.

3. Evaluate a reusable foodware ordinance.

4. Create a residential tree planting program.

5. Engage with American Canyon youth on sustainability and climate action initiatives through the City’s High School Citizens Academy.

6. Receive a presentation from Marin Clean Energy on Deep Green energy and participation trends from 2024 to present and encourage participation in community outreach to educate residents on clean energy options.

7. Receive a presentation on Tree City USA designation requirements and benefits.

8. Receive a presentation on home energy savings.

9. Prepare a “Road Map to 2030” to engage with American Canyon businesses and residents in the pursuit of social accountability and support for actions needed to accomplish these goals.

10. Develop a project charter and evaluate the feasibility for a Class I bike trail on Paoli Loop.

11. Evaluate trail and park wayfinding opportunities to improve connectivity and active transportation.

12. Provide input on the design for open space, active transportation, and sustainability projects in the current Capital Improvement Program

13. Review the FY27/28 Capital Improvement Program projects pertaining to open space, active transportation, and sustainability
402
ORDINANCE NO. 2023- 01

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON ADOPT TO AN ORDINANCE REGARDING THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 2. 30 TO THE AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING

THE OPEN SPACE, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION The Council of the City of American Canyon does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. A new Chapter is hereby added to the American Canyon Municipal Code regarding the creation of an Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission, to read as follows:

CHAPTER 2. 30 OPEN SPACE, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION Section 2. 30. 010
Section 2. 30. 020
Section 2. 30. 030
Section 2. 30. 040
Section 2. 30. 050
Section 2. 30. 060
Creation of the Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission/ Terms of Commissioners
Jurisdiction and Functions of Commission
Compensation of Commissioners
Designation of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, Committees and Staff Time and Place of Meetings, Definition of Commission Quorum Commission Rules and Records
Section 2. 30. 010 Creation of the Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission/ Terms of Commissioners.

There is created an Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission for the City of American Canyon. It shall consist of five ( 5) members, appointed in the manner and for the terms prescribed in Sections 2. 04.70 and 2.8. 010, respectively, of this Code.

Section 2. 30. 020 Jurisdiction and Functions of Commission.

A. The Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission for the City of American Canyon shall perform all functions as described below and shall serve in an advisory capacity to City staff and the City Council.

B. The functions, powers, and duties of the Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission shall include the review of issues referred to the Commission by the City Council, the City Manager, and City staff, residents, or organizations of the City; to provide advice, comment and make recommendations regarding such issues as requested; to organize or facilitate community benefit activities or functions; and other duties as assigned by the City Council.

C. Areas of purview of the Commission shall include, but not be limited to, review and provide input on plans and policy documents supporting Open Space, Active 403
Transportation, and Sustainability efforts, and recognize further Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability efforts needed.

D. The City Council may from time to time refer a matter to the Commission for review, comment, recommendation, and action. All actions of the Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission are subject to appeal to the City Council by any person or organization affected by such action through the procedures set forth in Chapter 2. 04 of this Code.

E. All actions taken by the Commission shall be reported by City Staff to the City Clerk and shall be placed on the next regular agenda of the City Council after receipt of the report by the City Clerk. Actions taken by the Commission shall not be considered final until the City Council has heard and further considered the matter or has determined that further consideration of the matter is not required. When placed on the agenda of the City Council, the City Council may elect to consider the matter and may schedule the matter for a hearing of public hearing before the City Council. The City Council shall consider any appeal of an action taken by the Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission by an interested person or organization through the procedures set forth in Chapter 2. 04 of this Code. The decision of the City Council, after considering or hearing the matter shall be final.

Section 2. 30. 030 Compensation of Commissioners.

The members of the Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission shall each receive compensation payable out of the general fund of the City, provided adequate funds have been budgeted, therefore, in the amount of one hundred and five dollars ($ 105. 00) per meeting. Standing or temporary committee or subcommittee members shall not be compensated. The compensation for Commissioners prescribed herein shall be exclusive of any amount payable as reimbursement for actual or necessary expenses authorized by the City Council and incurred in the performance of official duties for the City.

Section 2. 30. 040 Designation of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, Committees, and Staff.

A. Designation of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the Commission shall be governed by section 2.8.0 of this Code.

B. The Commission may, from time to time, create committees or subcommittees to study issues, to perform work on behalf of the Commission, to provide a service to the residents, or a segment of the residents, of the City, or to improve the quality of the environment of the City and living conditions of the residents of the City.

C. Standing or temporary committee or subcommittee shall have at least one Commissioner assigned to the committees. The Commission shall make appointments of 404
committee and subcommittee members with the approval of the City Manager or designee.

D. The City Manager may appoint a department head, or other staff, and provide compensation for their services as may be authorized by the City Council and by an annual City Budget.

Section 2. 30. 050 Time and Place of Meetings, Definition of Commission Quorum.

A. The Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month at such time, date, and place designated by the Commission. The Chairperson or a majority of the Commission, after giving notice to the Commissioners, and to any media and members of the public who have previously requested such notices in writing, so that the notice is received at least twenty- four (24) hours before the meeting, may hold a special meeting.

B. A majority of the Commissioners shall constitute a quorum.

Section 2. 30. 060 Commission Rules and Records.

The Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of its business and shall keep a public record of its resolutions, transactions, findings, recommendations, and actions. Minutes of the Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission meetings shall be filed with the City Clerk.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect thirty ( 30) days after its adoption.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. The ordinance shall be liberally constructed to achieve its purpose and preserve its validity. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be servable and are intended to have independent validity.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at aregular meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon, State of California, held on the 17th day of January, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Aboudamous, Joseph, Oro, Vice Mayor Washington, and Mayor Garcia NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
405
The foregoing ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon, State of California, held on the 7th day of February, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Aboudamous, Joseph, Oro, Vice Mayor Washington, and Mayor Garcia NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:

Leon Garcia, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, C' Clerk William D. Ross, City Attorney 406
RESOLUTION NO 2022- R112

A RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON RECONSTITUTING

THE OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS THE OPEN SPACE, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION, AND APPROVING THE COMMISSION' SFISCAL YEAR 2022/023

WORK PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of American Canyon has always been supportive of open space preservation and enhancement and such support has been integrated into the City' s General Plan ( for
example, the Vision Statement notes we should " capitalize on the unique environmental setting of the foothills river valleys and agriculture") and
WHEREAS, the General Plan ' Parks and Recreation Element advocates for trail systems that connect the river areas with residential neighborhoods and open space areas in the foothills, and WHEREAS, in 1999, the City was fortunate to receive 640 acres of foothill open space as a result of a generous donation from Jack and Bernice Newell and WHEREAS, at approximately the same time, the City received a $ 3 million CalFed Grant to acquire and restore 460 acres of wetlands on our western border and WHEREAS, connecting the wetlands and Newell Open Space through a network of trails and bike paths is important to enhance public access and enjoyment and WHEREAS, the City Council formally recognized the efforts to establish preserve and enhance open space in and around American Canyon through the establishment of the Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC) as a standing "citizen s advisory committee ( Resolution 2005- 83) and WHEREAS, the City Council formally designated the OSAC as the City s Bicycle Advisory Committee in November 2010 ( Resolution 2010 115) and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to reconstitute the OSAC as a new commission having purview over issues of ' open space active transportation' and sustainability and WHEREAS, the role of the new Open Space Active Transportation and Sustainability Commission OSATS Commission) is to review and provide input on various plans and policy documents prepared by staff ( and consultants) before they are eventually considered by the Council NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council hereby rescinds Resolution 2005- 83 and Resolution 2010 115 in order to reconstitute the former Open Space Advisory Committee as the new Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council establishes a five member Open Space Active Transportation and Sustainability Commission ( OSATS Commission) pursuant 407
to American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 2 28 ( Boards and Commissions Generally) for the purpose of supporting open space active transportation and sustainability efforts in and around American Canyon, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council endorses the OSATS Commission' sreview and input on plans and policy documents supporting the following Open Space' efforts and recognizes there may be future efforts needed, subject to Council review and confirmation
Restoration of the wetlands on the City' s western border to improve the eco system in the Bay Area and provide public water access, and
Updates to the General Plan, Parks and Open Space Master Plan, Newell Management Plan, Newell Grazing Plan, and other plans, and
Open space, trails, and public access development, such as Clarke Ranch, re use of the Corporation Yard Jaegar Open Space, and other open space areas, and Trail use rules and regulations and trail maintenance and repair standards, and Volunteer conservation programs and projects, wildlife monitoring, and improvements or alterations to City owned open space property, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council endorses the OSATS Commission s review and input on plans and policy documents supporting the following ' Active Transportation" efforts and recognizes there may be future efforts needed, subject to Council review and confirmation
Updates to the Citywide Bike Plan
Updates to the Citywide Pedestrian Plan
Updates Active Transportation Development Standards
Awards and recognitions such as the Bicycle Friendly Community designation NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council endorses the OSATS Commission s review and input on plans and policy documents supporting the following Sustainability efforts and recognizes there may be future efforts needed subject to Council review and confirmation
Countywide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Regional Climate Action Plan
Climate Action Interim Plan for City of American Canyon NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the OSATS Commission shall support staff s open space active transportation and sustainability efforts by reviewing and providing comment on plans and policy documents funding programs the annual Capital Improvement Program CIP) CIP Project design documents and/ or serving on technical advisory committees 408
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the OSATS Commission shall draw upon the expertise of its members and other sources to provide advice to the City Council regarding open space active transportation and sustainability efforts
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Commissioners serve as liaisons with the community regarding open space, active transportation, and sustainability efforts, keeping staff and the Council informed of issues and concerns
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution does not constitute authority for Commissioners or the OSATS Commission to perform operational or management functions or to make decisions on behalf of the City
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that OSATS Commission shall develop an annual work plan regarding open space, active transportation and sustainability efforts for approval by the City Council
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council hereby approved the OSATS Commission' sFY 2022/3 Annual Work Plan attached hereto as Exhibit " A and incorporated by reference
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council formally designates the Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission as the City' s Bicycle Advisory Committee, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption
PASSES, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon on the 20th of December 2022 by the following vote AYES Councilmembers Joseph, Oro, Washington Vice Mayor Aboudamous and Mayor Garcia NOES None
ABSTAIN None
ABSENT None
ATTEST
40614
Leon Garcia Mayor

APPROVE AS TO FORM
Y( t"
faresa Geilfuss, CMC, City erk William D Ross City Attorney 409