American Canyon City Council
June 16, 2026

SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL / OPEN

SPACE, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, AND

SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION AGENDA
City Hall - Council Chambers
4381 Broadway St., Suite 201, American Canyon
June 16, 2026
7:30 PM

1. Active Transportation (AT) Plan General Plan Amendment Recommendation: Adopt a Resolu#on approving a General Plan Amendment to incorporate the American Canyon Ac#ve Transporta#on Plan as an appendix into the General Plan Mobility Element

2. 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.

Mayor: Pierre Washington
Vice Mayor: Mark Joseph
Councilmembers: Brando Cruz, Melissa Lamattina, David Oro Chair: Nance Matson
Vice Chair: Tara McClinton Horner
Commissioners: Debbie Chavarria, Barry Christian, Sean Hughes 7:30 P.M. OPEN SESSION - SPECIAL JOINT MEETING

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

PUBLIC COMMENT - ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
This me is reserved for members of the public to address the City Council on items not appearing on the agenda that are within the Council's jurisdicon. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the City Council is generally prohibited from discussing or taking action on items not listed on the agenda.

PUBLIC HEARING

BUSINESS

ADJOURNMENT
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/OPEN SPACE, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JUNE 16, 2026 1 CERTIFICATION
I, Taresa Geilfuss, City Clerk for American Canyon, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda was posted in compliance with the Brown Act prior to the meeting date.

Taresa Geilfuss, City Clerk

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
This mee8ng is a limited public forum. The City expects respec<ul conduct from all par8cipants.

Offensive language or discriminatory remarks based on any protected classifica8on under federal, state, or local law will not be tolerated, and the speaker may be immediately disconnected.

Mee#ngs are conducted in person and are also available via Zoom. Mee#ngs are broadcast live on Napa Valley TV, the City’s website, and YouTube.

Zoom Link: Click here. Webinar ID: 847 1017 1711. Passcode: 123456. Phone-in: (408) 638-0968 Oral Comments: In person during Open/Closed Session, or via Zoom during Open Session only. Use “Raise Your Hand” during public comment periods only.

Written Comments: Submit via eComments on the City’s Mee#ngs & Agendas webpage. eComments close at 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.

Agenda Materials: Posted 72 hours in advance at www.americancanyon.gov.

ADA: Requests for accommoda#ons or alterna#ve formats must be submiHed at least three calendar days in advance to the City Clerk at 4381 Broadway, Suite 201, American Canyon, CA 94503 or [email protected].

Need Addi8onal Assistance? Contact the City Clerk by phone at (707) 647-4369 or by email at [email protected].

SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/OPEN SPACE, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JUNE 16, 2026 2 SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/OPEN SPACE,

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, AND SUSTAINABILITY

COMMISSION AGENDA
JUNE 16, 2026

STAFF REPORT

PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM NUMBER: 1.

TITLE
Active Transportation (AT) Plan General Plan Amendment

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolu.on approving a General Plan Amendment to incorporate the American Canyon Active Transportation Plan as an appendix into the General Plan Mobility Element

CONTACT
Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
Imagine a community where residents and visitors can easily complete daily trips—to work, the market, or home—without relying on cars or other motorized vehicles. Shi9ing more trips to ac.ve transporta.on will lower household transporta.on costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve public health, and ease traffic congestion.

To expand opportuni.es for non-automobile travel, the Napa Valley Transporta.on Authority (NVTA) has prepared a Countywide Ac.ve Transporta.on Plan (Plan). The Plan aims to enhance walking, biking, and other non-motorized travel op.ons throughout Napa County. The new plan replaces the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans that were included as appendices to the General Plan.

The NVTA Board approved the Countywide Ac.ve Transporta.on Plan on April 15, 2026. This new Plan establishes countywide standards and policies, along with dedicated chapters for each jurisdiction: American Canyon, the City of Napa, Yountville, St. Helena, Calistoga, and unincorporated Napa County.

The American Canyon Plan under considera.on includes countywide standards and specific goals for American Canyon. The other Napa County jurisdic.on policy components were excluded from our plan. A copy of the proposed American Canyon Ac.ve Transporta.on Plan is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 1.
3 Key Project Goals
Create a Connected Network
Develop a countywide system of bicycle and pedestrian facili.es that link communi.es and key destinations.

Improve Safety and Accessibility
Enhance safety and accessibility for users of all ages and abili.es, with a focus on vulnerable road users.

Encourage Active Transportation
Promote walking and biking—especially for short trips—to support public health, reduce conges.on, and improve air quality.

Engage the Community
Incorporate community input through surveys, interac.ve mapping tools, and outreach events to ensure the Plan reflects local needs and priorities.

Grant Benefits for American Canyon
Once adopted, the Plan will help jurisdic.ons like American Canyon qualify for ac.ve transporta.on grants by aligning local policies with State and Regional funding programs, including:

California Active Transportation Program (ATP)
SB1 (Road Repair and Accountability Act)
AHSC (Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities)
SCCP (Solutions for Congested Corridors Program)
Local Adoption Is Critical:

Jurisdic.ons must formally adopt the Plan to qualify for certain funding programs. Adop.on demonstrates a commitment to implementa.on and helps ensure projects are “shovel-ready” when funding opportunities arise.

Napa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan:

Outdoor, non-group recrea.onal facili.es—such as sidewalks and trails iden.fied in the Ac.ve Transporta.on Plan—cons.tute linear, low-occupancy infrastructure. Under Exhibit 5-2 of the Napa Airport Land Use Compa.bility Plan (NACUCP), these improvements are considered “normally compatible” within Zones D1, D2, and E.

This designa.on is appropriate because implementa.on of the Ac.ve Transporta.on Plan would not alter land use designa.ons or densi.es, nor would it introduce facili.es into safety-cri.cal areas (e.g., Runway Protec.on Zones or inner approach zones). Accordingly, the Plan would not affect 4 Napa County airport opera.ons and is therefore exempt from referral to the Napa County Airport Land Use Commission.

On May 28, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Plan and recommended City Council approval.

COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Outdoors and Recrea.on: "Expand opportuni.es for use of outdoor recrea.on and an ac.ve and healthy lifestyle."

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this report. However, adop.on of the AT Plan may improve the City's eligibility for future grant funding opportuni.es through programs such as ATP, SB1, AHSC, and SCCP.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ac.on is statutorily exempt from the CEQA pursuant to PRC §21080.20, as it is an ac.ve transporta.on plan “that promotes and encourages people to choose walking, bicycling, or rolling through the crea.on of safe, comfortable, connected, and accessible walking, bicycling, or rolling networks, and encourages alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle trips.”

COMMUNICATION
Level 0: No Further Public Communication Needed
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Reso Active Transportation Plan

1. Exhibit A American Canyon-AT-Plan
5 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE THE AMERICAN

CANYON ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AS AN APPENDIX INTO THE GENERAL PLAN MOBILITY

ELEMENT
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65300 of the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the City of American Canyon has adopted a General Plan to guide long-term growth and development, including land use and circulation policies; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan currently includes separate Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans as appendices to the Mobility (formerly Circulation) Element; and
WHEREAS, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) has prepared the Napa Countywide Active Transportation Plan (“Plan”) to update and consolidate existing plans and to integrate bicycle and pedestrian travel into a coordinated, countywide program; and WHEREAS, development of the Plan included extensive public outreach, engaging nearly 2,000 community members through more than 30 in-person and virtual events, and generating over 700 comments via meetings, surveys, and interactive mapping tools; and WHEREAS, the Plan is intended to be adopted by each Napa County jurisdiction to guide local planning efforts and investment in active transportation infrastructure and programs; and WHEREAS, Section 65358 of the State Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the City Council to amend the General Plan when such amendments are in the public interest; and WHEREAS, incorporating the Plan into the Mobility Element will strengthen policy direction and improve the City’s competitiveness for grant funding related to bicycle, pedestrian, and active transportation projects identified in the Plan; and
WHEREAS, outdoor, non-group recreation such as trails are limited to Zones D1, D2, and E of the Napa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Exhibit 5-2) and trails in these zones are deemed “normally compatible”; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.20, as it promotes walking, bicycling, and other non-motorized travel through the development of safe, connected, and accessible transportation networks; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing to evaluate the Active Transportation Plan and determined that based on all the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, written and oral testimony given at meetings, it is appropriate to recommend that the City Council adopt the Active Transportation Plan; and 6 WHEREAS, on June 16, 2026, the City Council reviewed the Active Transportation Plan during a joint meeting with the Open Space, Active Transportation, and Sustainability Commission; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly-noticed public hearing to evaluate the Active Transportation Plan and determined that based on all the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, written and oral testimony given at meetings, it is appropriate to approve the General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all written and oral testimony presented at the public hearing in making its recommendation.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon HEREBY repeals the Bicycle Master Plan (Appendix 4-1) and Pedestrian Master Plan (Appendix 4-2) and approves a General Plan Amendment to incorporate the American Canyon Active Transportation Plan as Appendix 4-1 to the Mobility Element as attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 1. CEQA FINDINGS
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.20, as it supports active transportation by encouraging walking, bicycling, and rolling through the development of safe, accessible, and connected networks
SECTION 2. NAPA AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN.

Outdoor, non-group recreational facilities—such as sidewalks and trails identified in the Active Transportation Plan—constitute linear, low-occupancy infrastructure. Under Exhibit 5-2 of the Napa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (NACUCP), these improvements are considered “normally compatible” within Zones D1, D2, and E.

This designation is appropriate because implementation of the Active Transportation Plan would not alter land use designations or densities, nor would it introduce facilities into safety-critical areas (e.g., Runway Protection Zones or inner approach zones). Accordingly, the Plan would not affect Napa County airport operations and is therefore exempt from referral to the Napa County Airport Land Use Commission.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a special joint meeting of the City Council/Open Space Active Transportation Sustainability Commission of the City of American Canyon held on the 16th day of June 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
7 ____________________________
Pierre Washington, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ _________________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk Matthew Summers, City Attorney Exhibit A: American Canyon Active Transportation Plan
8 American Canyon

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Final Plan | April 2026
Exhibit A
9 i
Acknowledgments
Jurisdiction Partners
City of Calistoga
Derek Raynor
Greg Desmond
David Fradelizio
City of St. Helena
Joe Leach
Maya DeRosa
Eric Janzen
Jackie O’Neal
Town of Yountville
John Ferons
Aaron Hecock
Rosalba Ramirez
City of Napa
Julie Lucido
Farid Javandel
Lorien Clark
City of American Canyon
Erica Ahmann Smithies
Brent Cooper
County of Napa
Steve Lederer
Juan Arias
Leigh Sharp
Graham Wadsworth
Project Team
Napa Valley Transportation Authority
Diana Meehan
Planning and Programming Manager
Patrick Band
Senior Program Planner
GHD
Todd Tregenza
Emily Shandy
Holly Murphy
Zach Porteous
Sarah Glick
Toole Design
Lauren Pepe
Circlepoint
Regina Merrill
10 ii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Napa Countywide.......................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of this Plan ...................................................................................................................... 3 Vision Statement........................................................................................................................... 5 Goals and Objectives..................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 2 Existing Active Transportation Environment.......................................................................... 9 Demographics............................................................................................................................... 9 Travel Behavior............................................................................................................................ 10 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.................................................................................................. 13 Existing Active Transportation Network ...................................................................................... 18 Chapter 3 Community Engagement ............................................................................................................51 Communication Tools and Engagement Activities ...................................................................... 51 Key Findings from Community Engagement............................................................................... 55 Chapter 4 Needs Assessment .......................................................................................................................56 Bicycle Connectivity .................................................................................................................... 56 Community Priorities.................................................................................................................. 58 Developing the Active Transportation Network .......................................................................... 59 Chapter 5 Countywide Recommendations ................................................................................................61 Proposed Bicycle Network .......................................................................................................... 61 Proposed Pedestrian Network .................................................................................................... 80 Recommended Policies and Programs........................................................................................ 99 Chapter 6 Implementation Plan .................................................................................................................105 Bicycle Network Prioritization................................................................................................... 105 Estimated Project Benefits........................................................................................................ 124 Unit Cost Assumptions.............................................................................................................. 127 Funding Opportunities.............................................................................................................. 128 Chapter 7 City of Calistoga ..........................................................................................................................131 Demographics........................................................................................................................... 131 Travel Behavior.......................................................................................................................... 132 Key Community Destinations.................................................................................................... 133 Existing Bicycling and Walking Environment............................................................................. 133 Needs Assessment.................................................................................................................... 137 Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 140 Implementation Plan................................................................................................................. 145 Chapter 8 City of St. Helena........................................................................................................................150 Demographics........................................................................................................................... 150 Please Note: To keep the document shorter, Chapters about plans for Calistoga, St. Helena, Yountville, and the City and County of Napa have been removed. 11 iii
Travel Behavior.......................................................................................................................... 151 Key Community Destinations.................................................................................................... 151 Existing Bicycling and Walking Environment............................................................................. 152 Needs Assessment.................................................................................................................... 156 Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 160 Implementation Plan................................................................................................................. 165 Chapter 9 Town of Yountville......................................................................................................................170 Demographics........................................................................................................................... 170 Travel Behavior.......................................................................................................................... 171 Key Community Destinations.................................................................................................... 172 Existing Bicycling and Walking Environment............................................................................. 172 Needs Assessment.................................................................................................................... 176 Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 179 Implementation Plan................................................................................................................. 184 Chapter 10 City of Napa................................................................................................................................. 187 Demographics........................................................................................................................... 187 Travel Behavior.......................................................................................................................... 188 Key Community Destinations.................................................................................................... 188 Existing Bicycling and Walking Environment............................................................................. 189 Needs Assessment.................................................................................................................... 199 Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 206 Implementation Plan................................................................................................................. 217 Chapter 11 City of American Canyon ........................................................................................................ 225 Demographics........................................................................................................................... 225 Travel Behavior.......................................................................................................................... 226 Key Community Destinations.................................................................................................... 227 Existing Bicycling and Walking Environment............................................................................. 227 Needs Assessment.................................................................................................................... 232 Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 235 Implementation Plan................................................................................................................. 240 Chapter 12 County of Napa.......................................................................................................................... 245 Demographics........................................................................................................................... 245 Travel Behavior.......................................................................................................................... 246 Existing Bicycling and Walking Environment............................................................................. 247 Needs Assessment.................................................................................................................... 264 Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 275 Implementation Plan................................................................................................................. 293 12 iv
Appendices
Appendix A – Countywide Project, Policy, and Program Review Appendix B – Community Engagement Summary
Appendix C – Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Methodology and Bicycle Connectivity Appendix D – Treatment Toolkit
Appendix E – Bicycle Network Recommendations
Appendix F – Potential Induced Demand & VMT Reduction
13 v
Table of Figures
Figure 2.1: Napa Countywide Age...............................................................................................................................9 Figure 2.2: Napa Countywide Household Income.................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2.3: Napa Countywide Means of Transportation to Work............................................................................. 11 Figure 2.4: Napa Countywide Trip Length ................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 2.5: Napa Countywide Existing Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................... 19 Figure 2.6: City of Calistoga Existing Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................................. 20 Figure 2.7: City of St. Helena Existing Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................ 21 Figure 2.8: Town of Yountville Existing Bicycle Facilities........................................................................................... 22 Figure 2.9: City of Napa Existing Bicycle Facilities.................................................................................................... 23 Figure 2.10: City of Napa – Northwest Existing Bicycle Facilities.............................................................................. 24 Figure 2.11: City of Napa – Northeast Existing Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................. 25 Figure 2.12: City of Napa – South Existing Bicycle Facilities..................................................................................... 26 Figure 2.13: City of American Canyon Existing Bicycle Facilities............................................................................... 27 Figure 2.14: County of Napa – Northwest Existing Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................ 28 Figure 2.15: County of Napa – Northeast Existing Bicycle Facilities......................................................................... 29 Figure 2.16: County of Napa – Central West Existing Bicycle Facilities..................................................................... 30 Figure 2.17: County of Napa – Central East Existing Bicycle Facilities...................................................................... 31 Figure 2.18: County of Napa – South Existing Bicycle Facilities................................................................................ 32 Figure 2.19: County of Napa – West Pueblo Existing Bicycle Facilities..................................................................... 33 Figure 2.20: County of Napa – Southeast Napa Islands Existing Bicycle Facilities.................................................... 34 Figure 2.21: County of Napa – Napa / American Canyon Existing Bicycle Facilities.................................................. 35 Figure 2.22: City of Calistoga Existing Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................... 37 Figure 2.23: City of St. Helena Existing Pedestrian Facilities .................................................................................... 38 Figure 2.24: Town of Yountville Existing Pedestrian Facilities................................................................................... 39 Figure 2.25: City of Napa Existing Pedestrian Facilities............................................................................................ 40 Figure 2.26: City of Napa – Northwest Existing Pedestrian Facilities........................................................................ 41 Figure 2.27: City of Napa – Northeast Existing Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................ 42 Figure 2.28: City of Napa – South Existing Pedestrian Facilities............................................................................... 43 Figure 2.29: City of American Canyon Existing Pedestrian Facilities......................................................................... 44 Figure 2.30: County of Napa – Rutherford and Oakville Existing Pedestrian Facilities............................................. 45 Figure 2.31: County of Napa – Angwin Existing Pedestrian Facilities....................................................................... 46 Figure 2.32: County of Napa – Deer Park Existing Pedestrian Facilities.................................................................... 47 Figure 2.33: County of Napa – Silverado Resort Existing Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................... 48 Figure 2.34: County of Napa – West Pueblo Existing Pedestrian Facilities............................................................... 49 Figure 2.35: County of Napa – Southeast Napa Islands Existing Pedestrian Facilities.............................................. 50 Figure 4.1: Bicyclist Comfort Typology ..................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 4.2: Example of Connectivity Analysis........................................................................................................... 58 Figure 5.1: Napa Countywide Proposed Bicycle Network ........................................................................................ 63 Figure 5.2: City of Calistoga Proposed Bicycle Network ........................................................................................... 64 Figure 5.3: City of St. Helena Proposed Bicycle Network ......................................................................................... 65 Figure 5.4: Town of Yountville Proposed Bicycle Network........................................................................................ 66 14 vi
Figure 5.5: City of Napa Proposed Bicycle Network ................................................................................................. 67 Figure 5.6: City of Napa – Northwest Proposed Bicycle Network ............................................................................ 68 Figure 5.7: City of Napa – Northeast Proposed Bicycle Network ............................................................................. 69 Figure 5.8: City of Napa – South Proposed Bicycle Network .................................................................................... 70 Figure 5.9: City of American Canyon Proposed Bicycle Network.............................................................................. 71 Figure 5.10: County of Napa – Northwest Proposed Bicycle Network ..................................................................... 72 Figure 5.11: County of Napa – Northeast Proposed Bicycle Network...................................................................... 73 Figure 5.12: County of Napa – Central West Proposed Bicycle Network ................................................................. 74 Figure 5.13: County of Napa – Central East Proposed Bicycle Network ................................................................... 75 Figure 5.14: County of Napa – South Proposed Bicycle Network............................................................................. 76 Figure 5.15: County of Napa – West Pueblo Proposed Bicycle Network.................................................................. 77 Figure 5.16: County of Napa – Southeast Napa Islands Proposed Bicycle Network................................................. 78 Figure 5.17: County of Napa – Napa / American Canyon Proposed Bicycle Network .............................................. 79 Figure 5.18: City of Calistoga Proposed Pedestrian Network ................................................................................... 81 Figure 5.19: City of St. Helena Proposed Pedestrian Network ................................................................................. 82 Figure 5.20: Town of Yountville Proposed Pedestrian Network................................................................................ 83 Figure 5.21: City of Napa Proposed Pedestrian Network ......................................................................................... 84 Figure 5.22: City of Napa – Northwest Proposed Pedestrian Network .................................................................... 85 Figure 5.23: City of Napa – Northeast Proposed Pedestrian Network ..................................................................... 86 Figure 5.24: City of Napa – South Proposed Pedestrian Network ............................................................................ 87 Figure 5.25: City of American Canyon Proposed Pedestrian Network ..................................................................... 88 Figure 5.26: County of Napa – Rutherford and Oakville Proposed Pedestrian Network .......................................... 89 Figure 5.27: County of Napa – Angwin Proposed Pedestrian Network .................................................................... 90 Figure 5.28: County of Napa – Deer Park Proposed Pedestrian Network ................................................................ 91 Figure 5.29: County of Napa – Silverado Resort Proposed Pedestrian Network ...................................................... 92 Figure 5.30: County of Napa – West Pueblo Proposed Pedestrian Network............................................................ 93 Figure 5.31: County of Napa – Southeast Napa Islands Proposed Pedestrian Network........................................... 94 Figure 5.32: Crossing Treatments by Intersection Type............................................................................................ 97 Figure 5.33: FHWA Step Guide................................................................................................................................. 98 Figure 6.1: City of Calistoga Near-Term Bicycle Network ....................................................................................... 107 Figure 6.2: City of St. Helena Near-Term Bicycle Network ..................................................................................... 108 Figure 6.3: Town of Yountville Near-Term Bicycle Network.................................................................................... 109 Figure 6.4: City of Napa Near-Term Bicycle Network ............................................................................................. 110 Figure 6.5: City of Napa – Northwest Near-Term Bicycle Network......................................................................... 111 Figure 6.6: City of Napa – Northeast Near-Term Bicycle Network.......................................................................... 112 Figure 6.7: City of Napa – South Near-Term Bicycle Network ................................................................................ 113 Figure 6.8: City of American Canyon Near-Term Bicycle Network.......................................................................... 114 Figure 6.9: County of Napa Near-Term Bicycle Network ........................................................................................ 115 Figure 6.10: County of Napa – Northwest Near-Term Bicycle Network ................................................................. 116 Figure 6.11: County of Napa – Northeast Near-Term Bicycle Network .................................................................. 117 Figure 6.12: County of Napa – Central West Near-Term Bicycle Network.............................................................. 118 Figure 6.13: County of Napa – Central East Near-Term Bicycle Network ............................................................... 119 Figure 6.14: County of Napa – South Near-Term Bicycle Network......................................................................... 120 Figure 6.15: County of Napa – West Pueblo Near-Term Bicycle Network .............................................................. 121 Figure 6.16: County of Napa – Southeast Islands Near-Term Bicycle Network ...................................................... 122 15 vii
Figure 6.17: County of Napa – Napa / American Canyon Near-Term Bicycle Network........................................... 123 Figure 7.1: City of Calistoga Age Distribution ......................................................................................................... 131 Figure 7.2: City of Calistoga Household Income..................................................................................................... 131 Figure 7.3: City of Calistoga Means of Transportation to Work.............................................................................. 132 Figure 7.4: City of Calistoga Trip Length................................................................................................................. 132 Figure 7.5: City of Calistoga Existing Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................ 135 Figure 7.6: City of Calistoga Existing Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................... 136 Figure 7.7: City of Calistoga Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress...................................................................................... 138 Figure 7.8: City of Calistoga Proposed Bicycle Network ......................................................................................... 142 Figure 7.9: City of Calistoga Proposed Pedestrian Network ................................................................................... 143 Figure 7.10: City of Calistoga Near-Term Bicycle Projects ...................................................................................... 147 Figure 8.1: City of St. Helena Age Distribution ....................................................................................................... 150 Figure 8.2: City of St. Helena Household Income................................................................................................... 150 Figure 8.3: City of St. Helena Means of Transportation to Work............................................................................ 151 Figure 8.4: City of St. Helena Trip Length ............................................................................................................... 151 Figure 8.5: City of St. Helena Existing Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................................... 154 Figure 8.6: City of St. Helena Existing Pedestrian Facilities .................................................................................... 155 Figure 8.7: City of St. Helena Level of Bicycle Traffic Stress.................................................................................... 157 Figure 8.8: City of St. Helena Proposed Bicycle Network ....................................................................................... 162 Figure 8.9: City of St. Helena Proposed Pedestrian Network ................................................................................. 163 Figure 8.10: City of St. Helena Near-Term Bicycle Projects .................................................................................... 167 Figure 9.1: Town of Yountville Age Distribution ..................................................................................................... 170 Figure 9.2: Town of Yountville Household Income ................................................................................................. 170 Figure 9.3: Town of Yountville Means of Transportation to Work .......................................................................... 171 Figure 9.4: Town of Yountville Trip Length (2025 Travel Behavior Study)............................................................... 171 Figure 9.5: Town of Yountville Existing Bicycle Facilities......................................................................................... 174 Figure 9.6: Town of Yountville Existing Pedestrian Facilities................................................................................... 175 Figure 9.7: Town of Yountville Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress.................................................................................. 177 Figure 9.8: Town of Yountville Proposed Bicycle Network...................................................................................... 181 Figure 9.9: Town of Yountville Proposed Pedestrian Network................................................................................ 182 Figure 9.10: Town of Yountville Near-Term Bicycle Projects................................................................................... 185 Figure 10.1: City of Napa Age Distribution............................................................................................................. 187 Figure 10.2: City of Napa Household Income......................................................................................................... 187 Figure 10.3: City of Napa Means of Transportation to Work.................................................................................. 188 Figure 10.4: City of Napa Trip Length..................................................................................................................... 188 Figure 10.5: City of Napa Existing Bicycle Facilities................................................................................................ 191 Figure 10.6: City of Napa – Northwest Existing Bicycle Facilities............................................................................ 192 Figure 10.7: City of Napa – Northeast Existing Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................ 193 Figure 10.8: City of Napa – South Existing Bicycle Facilities................................................................................... 194 Figure 10.9: City of Napa – Existing Pedestrian Facilities ....................................................................................... 195 Figure 10.10: City of Napa – Northwest Existing Bicycle Facilities.......................................................................... 196 Figure 10.11: City of Napa –Northeast Existing Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................... 197 Figure 10.12: City of Napa – South Existing Pedestrian Facilities........................................................................... 198 Figure 10.13: City of Napa Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress........................................................................................ 200 Figure 10.14: City of Napa – Northwest Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress................................................................... 201 16 viii
Figure 10.15: City of Napa – Northeast Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress.................................................................... 202 Figure 10.16: City of Napa – South Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress .......................................................................... 203 Figure 10.17: City of Napa Proposed Bicycle Network ........................................................................................... 208 Figure 10.18: City of Napa – Northwest Proposed Bicycle Network ...................................................................... 209 Figure 10.19: City of Napa – Northeast Proposed Bicycle Network ....................................................................... 210 Figure 10.20: City of Napa – South Proposed Bicycle Network.............................................................................. 211 Figure 10.21: City of Napa Proposed Pedestrian Network ..................................................................................... 212 Figure 10.22: City of Napa – Northwest Proposed Pedestrian Network ................................................................ 213 Figure 10.23: City of Napa – Northeast Proposed Pedestrian Network ................................................................. 214 Figure 10.24: City of Napa – South Proposed Pedestrian Network........................................................................ 215 Figure 10.25: City of Napa Near-Term Bicycle Projects.......................................................................................... 219 Figure 10.26: City of Napa – Northwest Near-Term Bicycle Projects...................................................................... 220 Figure 10.27: City of Napa – Northeast Near-Term Bicycle Projects ...................................................................... 221 Figure 10.28: City of Napa – South Near-Term Bicycle Projects............................................................................. 222 Figure 11.1: City of American Canyon Age Distribution ......................................................................................... 225 Figure 11.2: City of American Canyon Household Income ..................................................................................... 226 Figure 11.3: City of American Canyon Means of Transportation to Work .............................................................. 226 Figure 11.4: City of American Canyon Trip Length ................................................................................................. 227 Figure 11.5: City of American Canyon Existing Bicycle Facilities............................................................................. 229 Figure 11.6: City of American Canyon Existing Pedestrian Facilities....................................................................... 231 Figure 11.7: City of American Canyon Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress...................................................................... 233 Figure 11.8: City of American Canyon Proposed Bicycle Network ......................................................................... 237 Figure 11.9: City of American Canyon Proposed Pedestrian Network ................................................................... 238 Figure 11.10: American Canyon Near-Term Bicycle Projects.................................................................................. 242 Figure 12.1: County of Napa Age Distribution........................................................................................................ 245 Figure 12.2: County of Napa Household Income ................................................................................................... 245 Figure 12.3: County of Napa Means of Transportation to Work ............................................................................ 246 Figure 12.4: County of Napa Trip Length................................................................................................................ 246 Figure 12.5: County of Napa Existing Bicycle Facilities........................................................................................... 248 Figure 12.6: County of Napa – Northwest Existing Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................... 249 Figure 12.7: County of Napa – Northeast Existing Bicycle Facilities....................................................................... 250 Figure 12.8: County of Napa – Central West Existing Bicycle Facilities................................................................... 251 Figure 12.9: County of Napa – Central East Existing Bicycle Facilities.................................................................... 252 Figure 12.10: County of Napa – South Existing Bicycle Facilities............................................................................ 253 Figure 12.11: County of Napa – West Pueblo Existing Bicycle Facilities................................................................. 254 Figure 12.12: County of Napa – Southeast Napa Islands Existing Bicycle Facilities................................................ 255 Figure 12.13: County of Napa – Napa / American Canyon Existing Bicycle Facilities.............................................. 256 Figure 12.14: County of Napa – Rutherford and Oakville Existing Pedestrian Facilities ......................................... 258 Figure 12.15: County of Napa – Angwin Existing Pedestrian Facilities................................................................... 259 Figure 12.16: County of Napa – Deer Park Existing Pedestrian Facilities................................................................ 260 Figure 12.17: County of Napa – Silverado Resort Existing Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................... 261 Figure 12.18: County of Napa – West Pueblo Existing Pedestrian Facilities........................................................... 262 Figure 12.19: County of Napa – Southeast Napa Islands Existing Pedestrian Facilities.......................................... 263 Figure 12.20: County of Napa Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress.................................................................................. 266 Figure 12.21: County of Napa – Northwest Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress............................................................. 267 17 ix
Figure 12.22: County of Napa – Northeast Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress .............................................................. 268 Figure 12.23: County of Napa – Central West Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress.......................................................... 269 Figure 12.24: County of Napa – Central East Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress............................................................ 270 Figure 12.25: County of Napa – South Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress..................................................................... 271 Figure 12.26: County of Napa – West Pueblo Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress .......................................................... 272 Figure 12.27: County of Napa – Southeast Napa Islands Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress ......................................... 273 Figure 12.28: County of Napa – Napa / American Canyon Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress....................................... 274 Figure 12.29: County of Napa Proposed Bicycle Network...................................................................................... 277 Figure 12.30: County of Napa – Northwest Proposed Bicycle Network ................................................................. 278 Figure 12.31: County of Napa – Northeast Proposed Bicycle Network .................................................................. 279 Figure 12.32: County of Napa – Central West Proposed Bicycle Network ............................................................. 280 Figure 12.33: County of Napa – Central East Proposed Bicycle Network ............................................................... 281 Figure 12.34: County of Napa – South Proposed Bicycle Network......................................................................... 282 Figure 12.35: County of Napa – West Pueblo Proposed Bicycle Network.............................................................. 283 Figure 12.36: County of Napa – Southeast Napa Islands Proposed Bicycle Network............................................. 284 Figure 12.37: County of Napa – Napa / American Canyon Proposed Bicycle Network .......................................... 285 Figure 12.38: County of Napa – Rutherford and Oakville Proposed Pedestrian Network ...................................... 286 Figure 12.39: County of Napa – Angwin Proposed Pedestrian Network ................................................................ 287 Figure 12.40: County of Napa – Deer Park Proposed Pedestrian Network ............................................................ 288 Figure 12.41: County of Napa – Silverado Resort Proposed Pedestrian Network .................................................. 289 Figure 12.42: County of Napa – West Pueblo Proposed Pedestrian Network........................................................ 290 Figure 12.43: County of Napa – Southeast Napa Islands Proposed Pedestrian Network....................................... 291 Figure 12.44: County of Napa Near-Term Bicycle Projects..................................................................................... 295 Figure 12.45: County of Napa – Northwest Near-Term Bicycle Network ............................................................... 296 Figure 12.46: County of Napa – Northeast Near-Term Bicycle Network ................................................................ 297 Figure 12.47: County of Napa – Central West Near-Term Bicycle Network............................................................ 298 Figure 12.48: County of Napa – Central East Near-Term Bicycle Network ............................................................. 299 Figure 12.49: County of Napa – South Near-Term Bicycle Network....................................................................... 300 Figure 12.50: County of Napa – West Pueblo Near-Term Bicycle Network ............................................................ 301 Figure 12.51: County of Napa – Southeast Napa Islands Proposed Bicycle Network............................................. 302 Figure 12.52: County of Napa – Napa / American Canyon Near-Term Bicycle Network......................................... 303 18 x
Table of Tables
Table 1.1: Napa AT Plan Goals and Objectives.............................................................................................................7 Table 2.1: Travel Between Jurisdictions (2025 Travel Behavior Study) ..................................................................... 12 Table 2.2: Napa Countywide Existing Bicycle Facility Mileage.................................................................................. 18 Table 2.3: Napa Countywide Existing Pedestrian Facility Mileage............................................................................ 36 Table 3.1: NVTA-Hosted Community Meetings........................................................................................................ 53 Table 3.2: Community Meetings and Events Attended by NVTA .............................................................................. 53 Table 5.1: Napa Countywide Proposed Bicycle Network Mileage ............................................................................ 62 Table 5.2: Napa Countywide Proposed Pedestrian Network Mileage ...................................................................... 80 Table 5.3: Caltrans DIB 94 Crosswalk Location Guidance ......................................................................................... 95 Table 5.4: Engineering Policies and Programs.......................................................................................................... 99 Table 5.5: Education and Engagement Policies and Programs ............................................................................... 102 Table 5.6: Encouragement Policies and Programs.................................................................................................. 103 Table 5.7: Evaluation Policies and Programs .......................................................................................................... 104 Table 6.1: Prioritization Metrics............................................................................................................................. 106 Table 6.2: Near-Term Bicycle Project List ............................................................................................................... 106 Table 6.3: Top 20 Block Groups – Sidewalk Project Estimated GHG Emissions Reductions.................................... 126 Table 6.4: Unit Cost Assumptions........................................................................................................................... 127 Table 7.1: City of Calistoga Existing Bicycle Facility Mileage................................................................................... 133 Table 7.2: City of Calistoga Existing Pedestrian Facility Mileage............................................................................. 133 Table 7.3: City of Calistoga Low Stress Connectivity............................................................................................... 139 Table 7.4: City of Calistoga Proposed Bicycle Network Mileage ............................................................................. 141 Table 7.5: City of Calistoga Proposed Pedestrian Network Mileage ....................................................................... 141 Table 7.6: City of Calistoga Near-Term Bicycle Project List..................................................................................... 146 Table 7.7: City of Calistoga Near-Term Bicycle Project Benefits.............................................................................. 149 Table 8.1: City of St. Helena Existing Bicycle Network Mileage .............................................................................. 152 Table 8.2: City of St. Helena Existing Pedestrian Facility Mileage........................................................................... 153 Table 8.3: City of St. Helena Low Stress Connectivity............................................................................................. 158 Table 8.4: City of St. Helena Proposed Bicycle Network Mileage ........................................................................... 160 Table 8.5: City of St. Helena Proposed Pedestrian Network Mileage ..................................................................... 161 Table 8.6: City of St. Helena Near-Term Bicycle Project List ................................................................................... 166 Table 8.7: City of St. Helena Near-Term Bicycle Project Benefits............................................................................ 169 Table 9.1: Town of Yountville Existing Bicycle Network Mileage ............................................................................ 172 Table 9.2: Town of Yountville Existing Pedestrian Facility Mileage ......................................................................... 173 Table 9.3: Town of Yountville Low Stress Connectivity ........................................................................................... 178 Table 9.4: Town of Yountville Proposed Bicycle Network Mileage ......................................................................... 180 Table 9.5: Town of Yountville Proposed Pedestrian Network Mileage ................................................................... 180 Table 9.6: Town of Yountville Near-Term Bicycle Project List.................................................................................. 184 Table 9.7: Town of Yountville Near-Term Bicycle Project Benefits.......................................................................... 186 Table 10.1: City of Napa Existing Bicycle Network Mileage.................................................................................... 189 Table 10.2: City of Napa Existing Pedestrian Facilities Mileage .............................................................................. 189 Table 10.3: City of Napa Low Stress Connectivity................................................................................................... 204 19 xi
Table 10.4: City of Napa Study Corridors ............................................................................................................... 206 Table 10.5: City of Napa Bicycle Network Mileage................................................................................................. 207 Table 10.6: City of Napa Pedestrian Network Mileage........................................................................................... 207 Table 10.7: City of Napa Near-Term Bicycle Project List......................................................................................... 218 Table 10.8: City of Napa Near-Term Bicycle Project Benefits ................................................................................. 224 Table 11.1: City of American Canyon Existing Bicycle Network Mileage ................................................................ 227 Table 11.2: City of American Canyon Existing Pedestrian Facility Mileage ............................................................. 230 Table 11.3: City of American Canyon Low Stress Connectivity............................................................................... 234 Table 11.4: City of American Canyon Proposed Bicycle Network Mileage ............................................................. 236 Table 11.5: City of American Canyon Proposed Pedestrian Network Mileage ....................................................... 236 Table 11.6: City of American Canyon Near-Term Bicycle Project List ..................................................................... 241 Table 11.7: City of American Canyon Near-Term Bicycle Project Benefits.............................................................. 244 Table 12.1: County of Napa Existing Bicycle Network Mileage............................................................................... 247 Table 12.2: County of Napa Existing Pedestrian Facility Mileage ........................................................................... 257 Table 12.3: County of Napa Low Stress Connectivity ............................................................................................. 265 Table 12.4: County of Napa Proposed Bicycle Network Mileage............................................................................ 275 Table 12.5: County of Napa Proposed Pedestrian Mileage .................................................................................... 276 Table 12.6: County of Napa Near-Term Bicycle Project List.................................................................................... 294 Table 12.7: County of Napa Near-Term Bicycle Project Benefits............................................................................ 305 20 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Located in the northern San Francisco Bay region,
Napa County is renowned worldwide as a premier
winemaking region and cherished locally as a vibrant
place to live, work, and visit. In addition to the many wineries and restaurants, the county offers a wide
variety of outdoor recreation opportunities including
mountain biking, hiking, swimming, and more. The
region’s mild climate makes it a year-round
destination for outdoor activities and makes active
transportation an attractive option for most of the
year.

With input from the community and guidance from
stakeholder agencies, this Napa Countywide Active
Transportation Plan (AT Plan) captures a vision for
walking, bicycling and other non-automotive
transportation options such as e-bikes and escooters throughout the county over the next 25 years. The AT Plan documents the existing
environment and presents a thoughtful set of
recommended projects and other strategies to make
active transportation safer, more accessible, and
more convenient for residents and visitors to the
region. The AT Plan provides an achievable
implementation framework to complete the
proposed strategies by 2050.

Napa Countywide
Napa County has a total population of 136,070
residents. There are five incorporated jurisdictions
within Napa County, all located along the
north/south spine formed by State Route (SR) 128 /
SR 29 in the western portion of the county. From
north to south, they are the City of Calistoga, the
City of St. Helena, the Town of Yountville, the City of Napa, and the City of American Canyon.

Unincorporated areas outside these jurisdictions are
dominated by vineyards along the valley floor and a
mix of forests, grazing land, and open spaces in the
mountains to the east and west. Several small
residential communities are located throughout the
unincorporated County of Napa, including Deer Park,
Angwin, Pope Valley, Carneros, and Circle Oaks,
among others.

The eastern portion of the county is dominated by
foothills and the Vaca Range mountains, which
include Lake Berryessa, a popular recreational
destination and major reservoir for Solano County.

The Mayacamas Range runs along the western edge
of the County, separating the Napa and Sonoma
valleys.
21 2
City of Calistoga
The City of Calistoga covers approximately 2.5 square
miles and has a population of 5,159 residents.

Calistoga is located in the northern part of the Napa
Valley at the junction of SR 29 and SR 128. Calistoga
is a walkable small town, made up of a vibrant main
street set within pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods
and surrounded by wineries, vineyards, and other
agricultural lands.

City of St. Helena
St. Helena is a town of 5,378 residents and covers

5.6 square miles. The city is centrally located in the
heart of the upper Napa Valley. St. Helena is bisected
by SR 29 (also known as Main Street) and
surrounded agricultural uses. The community stands
out in the Valley for its unique historic character.

Major economic drivers in St. Helena include
agriculture, winemaking, tourism, and education.

Town of Yountville
The Town of Yountville is approximately 1.5 square
miles and has a population of 3,396 residents. The
town is located halfway between Napa and St.

Helena along SR 29. The Yountville Veterans Home is
a focal point in the town and accounts for between
one-quarter and one-third of the Town’s population.

Yountville began as an agricultural settlement
surrounded by fields and vineyards, and it remains
small and compact to this day.

City of Napa
The City of Napa is the county seat and the largest
city in the county, with a population of 78,816
residents and an area of 18.4 square miles. Highway
29 runs north/south through the City with other
major highways (SR 12, 121, 221) crossing the City
and providing access to nearby communities and the
greater region. The community offers a multitude of
options for entertainment, dining, cultural and
recreational experiences; quaint and historic
neighborhoods; an active and historic Downtown;
and access to recreation, nature, and the Napa River.

City of American Canyon
The City of American Canyon is approximately 6.5
square miles and has a population of 21,698
residents. The city is located in southern Napa
County along SR 29, in the world-famous Napa Valley
wine growing region and in close proximity to the
San Francisco Bay.

American Canyon serves as a wine processing hub;
and is a vibrant and diverse community. Because of
its strategic location at the southern end of Napa
County and with easy access to state and interstate
highways, American Canyon’s industrial district is
home to millions of square feet of wine processing,
bottling storage, and shipping space.

County of Napa
The unincorporated areas of the county are
predominantly rural, characterized by wineries,
vineyards, open space, and hills. Small communities
and neighborhoods in the county including Angwin,
Lake Berryessa, Rutherford, Oakville, and Silverado
are linked primarily by two-lane rural roadways and
state routes. There are approximately 21,623
residents in the unincorporated areas.
22 3
Purpose of this Plan
The Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) is
the county transportation agency (CTA) and oversees
both short- and long-range transportation planning
in Napa County. NVTA works closely with the County,
Town, and Cities to improve streets, highways,
transit, bikeways, and pedestrian facilities.

Since the development of the 2016 Countywide
Pedestrian Plan and the 2019 Countywide Bicycle
Plan, Napa Countywide’s population has grown,
transportation demand has changed, and active
transportation best practices have been updated.

NVTA has developed this Countywide AT Plan to
address these changes and reflect the current
regional transportation priorities. This AT Plan is the culmination of more than a year of community
engagement, technical analysis, and stakeholder
input to update and consolidate prior countywide
pedestrian and bicycle planning efforts into one
document.

By developing this countywide AT Plan, NVTA
provides a framework for consistency in bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, policies, and programs across all jurisdictions, supporting both formula and
discretionary funding of infrastructure and
programs.

Planning Context
This Countywide AT Plan helps NVTA do its part to
implement and achieve the goals, guiding principles,
and targets set forth by local, regional, and statewide planning documents. The planning process began
with a thorough screen of all planning efforts
relevant to active transportation in Napa County,
which ultimately informed the development of
countywide infrastructure recommendations,
programs, and policies. The goal of the screen was to
develop a framework of policies that provide
consistency throughout the region, while also
responding to the unique needs of local jurisdictions.

Below is a list of the programs and policies reviewed
for the AT Plan. See Appendix A for the complete
project, policy, and program consistency screen.

Statewide Plan
» Toward an Active California (2017)
Regional Plans
» Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
Plan Bay Area 2050 (2024)
» NVTA Vision Zero Plan (2023)
» Advancing Mobility 2045 (2021; update
underway)
» Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan (2025) and
Pedestrian Plan (2021)
» SR 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan
(CMCP, 2020)
» NVTA Napa Countywide Bicycle Plan (2019)
» Napa County Bicycle Coalition: Napa County Safe
Routes to School Program Published Reports
(2018-2022)
» NVTA Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan
(2016)
23 4
Local Plans and Reports
Local plans and reports that inform this plan include
General Plans, Local Road Safety Plans, and Active
Transportation Plans.
» City of Calistoga
− Calistoga General Plan (2014)
− Calistoga Active Transportation Plan (2014)
» City of St. Helena
− St. Helena 2040 General Plan (2019)
» Town of Yountville
− Envision Yountville General Plan (2019)
» City of Napa
− City of Napa Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP,
2022)
− Napa 2040 General Plan (2022)
» City of American Canyon
− City of American Canyon Local Road Safety
Plan (LRSP, 2022)
− Broadway District Specific Plan (2019)
» County of Napa
− Napa County Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP,
2022)
− Napa County General Plan (2008)
In addition, this plan is coordinated with several
concurrent, ongoing projects and planning efforts to
align recommendations:
» NVTA Accessible Transportation Needs
Assessment (2025)
» NVTA Travel Behavior Study (2025)
» NVTA Community Based Transportation Plan
(2025)
» City of St. Helena Streets Master Plan
(anticipated 2026)
» City of American Canyon General Plan 2040
(2025)
Organization of this Plan
Chapters 1-6 present countywide analysis, findings,
and recommendations for active transportation.

Chapters 7-12 present individual Active
Transportation Plans intended to be adopted by each
of the five Cities/Town and the County. These
individual chapters focus on the existing conditions,
analysis, and recommendations for each jurisdiction.

After the chapters, six appendices are provided,
expanding on and addressing topics discussed
throughout the AT Plan.
24 5
Vision Statement
A countywide vision statement and subsequent goals
and objectives were developed to guide the planning
process and the recommendations made by this
plan. The vision statement was developed by NVTA
and was informed by current and past planning
efforts, existing transportation needs, and input from
the community and local jurisdictions.

The vision is the basis for the goals and objective
outlined below, which ultimately guided the analysis
conducted and development of recommendations.

These goals prioritize safety and connectivity, while
also addressing equity, accessibility, sustainability,
and infrastructure maintenance and project
accountability.
“Napa County will be an active transportation-friendly
community with a connected and comfortable network
designed for all ages and abilities.

This comprehensive active transportation network will provide residents and visitors with safe, convenient, and enjoyable access to destinations throughout Napa County and beyond, supporting everyday commuting, non-work trips, and
recreation, and promoting a high quality of life.”
Vision Zero
In 2023, NVTA adopted a Vision Zero Plan, which
aims to eliminate traffic related deaths and serious
injuries by 2030. The AT Plan is one tool NVTA can
use to achieve this goal. As compared to the Vision
Zerio Plan, The AT Plan provides a wider range
recommendations specific to pedestrians, bicyclists,
and other non-motorized users. The analysis
conducted to develop this plan, and the subsequent
infrastructure and policy recommendations, are all
guided by the vision of a safe active transportation
network that supports the region’s most vulnerable
road users.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction
Encouraging active travel and reducing vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) is key to achieving regional climate
and sustainability goals. Advancing Mobility 2045
sets four goals related to sustainability:
» Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 19 percent
per capita
» Reduce vehicle miles traveled by 15 percent per
capita
» Increase work trips made by bicycling or walking
to 10 percent mode share
» Maintain or increase transit ridership
People are typically willing to walk up to one halfmile, and willing to bike up to two miles. The AT Plan explores opportunities for mode shift for these
“short trips” by recommending active transportation
near key destinations where it is feasible to walk or
bike.
25 6
All Ages and Abilities
Providing comfortable active transportation facilities
for all users, regardless of age and ability, is key for reducing reliance on driving and increasing active
travel. While a portion of the population are
uninterested in riding a bicycle under any condition,
a majority of people are “interested but concerned”,
meaning they may want to ride a bicycle, but feel
uncomfortable riding with or adjacent to high-speed,
high-volume traffic.
1 These riders, which comprise
between 50 and 60 percent of the population,
typically prefer riding in off-street pathways, on
lower volume streets, or in conditions where their
interactions with motor vehicles are limited. The
vision statement guides the AT Plan to support these
riders in an effort to encourage bicycling in Napa
County. Perceived safety or comfort riders
experience on a given road can be measured by
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS). LTS considers a variety of factors that may impact a bicyclist’s experience,
including whether a bicycle facility is present, how
wide it is, the speed and volume of adjacent vehicle
traffic, and more. A complete LTS analysis can be
found in Chapter 4 Needs Assessment.
1 Jennifer Dill and Nathan McNeil, “Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey,” Transportation Research Record:

Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2587: 90-99, 2016. 26 7
Goals and Objectives
The following goals and objectives outlined in Table 1.1 were developed to advance the vision statement and aim to achieve vision zero, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and provide an active transportation network for all ages and abilities.

Table 1.1: Napa AT Plan Goals and Objectives
Goal Objective
Goal 1: Safety
Improve safety for all users of the transportation system, especially vulnerable road users (those who use active
transportation).

Objective 1.1
Reduce level of traffic stress (LTS) on the bicycle
network by using LTS as a tool for facility design. For example, if a facility scores LTS 3 or 4 (high stress), use design to reduce to a low stress score of LTS 1 or 2.

Objective 1.2
Improve safety for vulnerable users by enhancing
roadway crossings, particularly intersections on the High Injury Network.

Objective 1.3
Achieve the Vision Zero goal of zero severe injuries and fatalities by 2035.

Goal 2: Equity & Accessibility
Develop an active transportation network that supports all ages and abilities and prioritize access for underserved communities.

Objective 2.1
Strive for a bicycle network that is comfortable for the “interested but concerned” bicyclist by implementing
new and enhanced low-stress facilities on the primary
network.

Objective 2.2
Prioritize funding for new and enhanced bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure for underserved communities,
including communities where people rely on active and
public transportation as their primary modes.

Objective 2.3
Upgrade all pedestrian facilities to be ADA- and
PROWAG-compliant so that users with disabilities can
comfortably use the network.

Goal 3: Connectivity
Efficiently implement a connected network that allows
active transportation users to directly access key
destinations without interruption.

Objective 3.1
Prioritize gap closures in the active transportation
network over new infrastructure that does not connect
to the existing network.

Objective 3.2
Identify opportunities to use quick-build techniques to get projects on the ground in shorter timelines, and to test treatments before installing fixed infrastructure. 27 8
Goal Objective
Goal 4: Sustainability &
Mode Shift
Invest in complementary programs to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and increase active transportation mode
share.

Objective 4.1
Partner with local businesses to create robust
Transportation Demand Management programs that
support the local economy while reducing VMT and
greenhouse gas emissions.

Objective 4.2
Achieve a countywide active transportation mode
share2 of 10% by 2050
Goal 5: Maintenance Evaluation &
Data Collection
Support the longevity of the active transportation network through maintenance and evaluation.

Objective 5.1
Develop and implement a maintenance program that
includes all facilities within the public right-of-way, including shared facilities, dedicated active
transportation facilities, and amenities.

Objective 5.2
Utilize pre/post data collection to evaluate project
success, including metrics such as volume, speed, mode, as well as qualitative community feedback.

Objective 5.3
Maintain a publicly accessible record of past and
planned active transportation projects and priorities.
2 Mode share is defined as the percentage of total trips taken using a given type of transportation (e.g. transit, single occupancy vehicle) for any purpose (work, shopping, recreation, etc.) that begin and/or end in Napa County. Active transportation includes but is not limited to those trips that occur by walking, bicycling, e-bike, scooter, or other human-powered and battery-electric assisted mobility devices. 28 9
Chapter 2
Existing Active
Transportation Environment
This chapter presents a review of existing conditions
for active transportation throughout Napa County.

Understanding the current environment establishes
a foundation for recommended facilities, policies,
and programs, and documents a baseline against
which future progress can be measured. Existing
facilities are also important for understanding
ongoing maintenance obligations to ensure a safe
and accessible network.

Demographics
The following demographic information is based on
American Community Survey (ACS) 2023 five-year
estimates.

Age
Communities of all ages benefit from a connected
and accessible active transportation network. People
who are introduced to walking, bicycling and transit
at a younger age are more likely to use active modes
of travel in adulthood, contributing to active
lifestyles. Active lifestyles are linked to many physical and mental benefits such as cardiovascular health,
improved mental health, and for areas, can form a
large sense of community. Figure 2.1 shows the age
distribution of Napa County residents. The median
age is 42.8 years old, though 28% of the population
are under 25.

Figure 2.1: Napa Countywide Age
16%
12%
12%
13%
13%
14%
12%
9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Under 15 years
15 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 years and over
29 10
Income
Figure 2.2 shows household income for Napa
County. Napa County has a median household
income (MHI) of $108,970, slightly higher than the
state of California’s MHI of $96,334. The California
low-income level for a family of 3 (average
household size in Napa County is approximately 2.66
people) is $29,657 annually. Around 12 percent of
Napa County households fall below the federal
poverty level. Lower-income community members
are more likely to rely on active transportation and
transit as opposed to car travel. Providing adequate
active transportation will support connectivity for
these residents.

Figure 2.2: Napa Countywide Household
Income
Travel Behavior
Travel behavior data is based on American
Community Survey (ACS) 2023 five-year estimates,
as well as excerpted from the 2025 NVTA Travel
Behavior Study (TBS).

According to the TBS, there are fewer Napa County
residents and fewer Napa County based employees
in 2025 than there were in 2018. Napa County is
exporting fewer and importing more workers, and
more residents are working from home. The TBS
reports that traffic passing through Napa County has
increased, while trips that enter and leave Napa
County from nearby regional (inter-county trips)
have decreased. Internal Napa County trips have
increased by 5%.

Typically, people are willing to walk up to one halfmile or bicycle up to two miles to their destinations.

Short driving trips under two miles present the
potential for mode shift, or the opportunity to
encourage active travel instead of driving. There may
be potential for mode shift among shorter trips
within jurisdictions, or between cities along regional
routes like the Vine Trail.

Mode Share
Figure 2.3 provides an overview of commute mode
share in Napa County for workers 16 years and older.

Mode share data was sourced from the American
Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates for
2016 and 2023. The data does not include non-work
trips.

Most Napa County residents drive to work, either
alone or by carpooling. Since 2016, more residents
are working from home, likely due to the Covid-19
pandemic, and fewer residents are driving alone or
carpooling to work.

Though 13 percent of all workers who live in Napa
County work from home and do not have a
commute, there may be opportunities to increase
active travel for non-work and recreational trips.

Trip Length
Figure 2.4 shows average trip length for weekday
and weekend trips from the 2025 Travel Behavior
Study. About a quarter of trips in Napa County are
under 2 miles—focusing on improving active
transportation infrastructure for these trips could
increase rates of walking and bicycling.
9%
13%
24%
19%
13%
22%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Below $25,000
$25,000 -$49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 or more
30 11
Figure 2.3: Napa Countywide Means of Transportation to Work Figure 2.4: Napa Countywide Trip Length
76%
12%
1% 1%
4%
1%
6%
71%
10%
1% 1% 3% 1%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Drove alone Carpooled Public
transportation
Bicycle Walked Other Worked at home
Percent of Workers 16 and Over
2016
2023
11%
16%
26%
16%
14%
7%
3%
8%
10%
15%
26%
17%
16%
8%
4%
5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
0-1 mile
1-2 miles
2-5 miles
5-10 miles
10-20 miles
20-30 miles
30-40 miles
40+ miles
Percent of Trips
Average Weekday Trip Length Average Weekend Trip Length 31 12
Travel Between Jurisdictions
The TBS also provides information about travel
between jurisdictions. Table 2.1 shows where trips
begin and end for each jurisdiction. In American
Canyon, Calistoga, and the City of Napa, most trips
end in the same jurisdiction where they started.

Trips that begin in St. Helena, Yountville, or the
unincorporated County of Napa are more likely to
end in a different jurisdiction.

Transit
While this chapter details the existing pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, NVTA recognizes that transit is a key component to the active transportation network.

Transit riders rely on the active transportation
network to travel to and from their transit stop,
often referred to as “first- and last-mile connectivity.” The Vine is the county’s bus system and is operated
by NVTA. The Vine is comprised of local routes
serving the City of Napa and adjacent areas, and
regional routes that connect residents and visitors to
the Up Valley Communities (Calistoga, St. Helena,
and Yountville) as well as the Bay Area. Local
jurisdictions also feature their own fixed and ondemand transit services. The transit network expands how far pedestrians, bicyclists, and other
non-motorized users can travel, connecting them to
regional destinations.

Transit mode share for commuters comprises 1% of
all trips, through NVTA recognizes transit is also used for non-work trips. Bolstering the active
transportation network near transit stops and along
key routes would improve first- and last-mile
connectivity and encourage transit mode shared for
commuting, non-work trips, and recreation.

Table 2.1: Travel Between Jurisdictions (2025 Travel Behavior Study) Destination
American
Canyon Calistoga City of Napa County of Napa St. Helena Yountville Trips originating in American Canyon
76% <1% 17% 6% <1% 1%
Trips originating in Calistoga
1% 60% 5% 23% 10% <1%
Trips originating in the City of Napa
2% <1% 87% 9% 1% 1%
Trips originating in the County of Napa
5% 4% 39% 39% 10% 3%
Trips originating in St. Helena
1% 6% 16% 28% 46% 2%
Trips originating in Yountville
3% 1% 39% 20% 5% 31%
32 13
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Bikeways
In California, dedicated bicycle facilities are categorized into one of four “classes” based on the amount of separation they offer from traffic. Some classes have variations within them that can improve bicyclist comfort or respond to different roadway contexts. For more information on bicycle and pedestrian facilities, see Appendix D:

Treatment Toolkit.

Shared-Use Paths (Class I)
A shared-use path is a two-way facility physically
separated from motor vehicle traffic and used by
bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized
users. Shared-use paths can be located in an
independent alignment, such as a greenbelt or
abandoned railroad, or constructed adjacent to a
roadway.

Shared-use Path (Class I)
Separated Bikeways (Class IV)
Separated bikeways or 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
curbs, bollards, parked cars, or other vertical
elements, 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 Bikeway (Class IV)
33 14
Bicycle Lanes (Class II)
Bike lanes provide an exclusive space for bicyclists in the roadway. Bike lanes are delineated with 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 may leave the bike lane as
necessary to make turns, pass other bicyclists, avoid
debris, or other potential conflicts or hazards, or to
properly position themselves for other necessary
movements.

Bicycle Lane (Class II)
Buffered Bicycle Lanes (Class II)
Buffered bike lanes are created by painting a buffer
zone between the bike lane and the adjacent travel
lane. Buffers are typically used between bike lanes
and motor vehicle travel lanes to increase bicyclists’
comfort. However, buffers can also be painted in the
“door zone” between the right edge of the bike lane
and the parking lane in locations with high parking
turnover to discourage bicyclists from riding too
close to parked vehicles.

Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class II)
34 15
Urban Bicycle Routes (Class III)
Urban bike routes are neighborhood streets where
the travel lane is shared between bicyclists and
motorists. Urban bicycle routes are designed for
lower speeds and average daily traffic below 3,000
vehicles. These facilities may be marked with
sharrow pavement markings and bicycle signage to
alert drivers that they are sharing the road with nonmotorized users.

Bicycle Boulevards (Class III)
Like bicycle routes, bicycle boulevards are designed
for bicyclists to ride with vehicle traffic. However,
they emphasize slow vehicle speeds and are often
located on quitter, residential streets. Traffic calming treatments are often employed on bicycle
boulevards to slow traffic, including speed humps,
traffic diverters, pavement markings, and more.

Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
35 16
Rural Bicycle Routes (Class III)
In rural areas, rural bicycle routes are applicable on
roadways with posted speed limits of less than 35
mph.
3 Bicyclists are instructed to share the lane with
vehicle traffic or ride in the shoulder. This type of
facility is typical where dedicated bikeways either will not fit on the street or would not be appropriate
given the surrounding context.

Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Unclassified Bicycle Routes
Unclassified bike routes are rural roadways popular
with recreational bicyclists that have no dedicated
bike facilities and posted speed limits of 35 mph or
greater. The high posted speed limits preclude these
roads from being Bicycle Routes, but a designation
acknowledges that bicyclists use these roads.
3 SB 1216: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1216 Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking enhances the effectiveness of bicycle
networks by providing locations for the secure
storage of bicycles at the end of 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, ten bicycles can
typically park in the area needed for a single car.

Long-term bike parking is intended for residents in
multi-unit buildings, workers, transit users, and
others not attending to their bicycle for longer
periods of time (generally two hours or longer).

Typically used for long-term bicycle parking, bicycle
lockers are secure, locked boxes that store a single
bicycle. Bicycle lockers are concentrated in the City
of Napa, but they are also available in Calistoga,
Yountville, and American Canyon.

BikeLink cards grant users access to long-term
bicycle parking lockers. In some cases, larger housing
or commercial sites may have dedicated indoor bike
rooms or other long-term bicycle storage options.

Bicycle parking locations shown in maps throughout
this plan were mapped utilizing Survey 123, an
online GIS-based data collection platform. Volunteer
data collectors were recruited by the Napa County
Bicycle Coalition and trained on data collection by
NVTA staff. Volunteers contributed many dozens of
hours identifying existing bike parking locations
throughout Napa County and collecting information
about the type of parking and compliance with bike
parking best practices.

Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks
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
36 17
pedestrians separated from motor vehicles,
sidewalks also accommodate street trees and other
plantings, stormwater infrastructure, streetlights,
and bicycle parking.

Sidewalks vary by street type and expected
pedestrian activity. Sidewalks along downtown
corridors may be wider to accommodate window
shopping, higher pedestrian volumes, and street
amenities like benches and trash receptacles, while
neighborhood sidewalks are often narrower. Other
characteristics that may impact sidewalk width
include building scale, character of the surrounding
environment, or available right-of-way.

Marked Crosswalks
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 for
crosswalks.

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.

Marked Crosswalks
Unmarked Crosswalks
Even when no marked crosswalk is present,
pedestrians have the right-of-way to cross at most
intersections. This is known as an unmarked
crosswalk. Unmarked crosswalks are part of the
pedestrian network and are frequently used by
pedestrians when no other crossing infrastructure is
present.

Unmarked crosswalks are appropriate along streets
with minimal levels of traffic. However, marked
crosswalks and crossing enhancements should be
considered where at key crossing locations on
streets with more than minimal levels of traffic.

Curb Ramps
Curb ramps transition pedestrian from the sidewalk
to the street. Curb ramps improve accessibility
specifically for people with disabilities, but benefit all pedestrians, including those pushing strollers,
grocery carts, suitcases, or bicycles. Curb ramps
should meet requirements defined by Right-of-Way
Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), including proper
slopes, grade breaks, side treatments, and
detectable warning surfaces. In reality, many curb
ramps throughout Napa County may not meet all
PROWAG requirements.

Crossing Enhancements
Safety at crossing locations may be enhanced
through a variety of physical infrastructure
measures, lighting, signage, and policy. Many of
these crossing enhancements already exist in parts
of the county or are being considered for
implementation. For more information, see
Appendix D: Treatment Toolkit.
» Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) and
pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB): alert drivers to
pedestrian activity at midblock crossings, or at
intersections where traffic signals or stop signs
are not present
» Pedestrian scale lighting: typically, shorter than
roadway-scale light fixtures, lamps are installed
along corridors to illuminate walkways or at
intersections to enhance crossing safety at night
or in low-light conditions
» Daylighting: restricts parking within 20-feet of a
crossing location to improve sightlines (required
in California under AB 1330).
37 18
» Curb extensions: extension of the sidewalk at a
crossing location meant to shorten crossing
distances and reduce driver speeds.
» Raised crosswalks: slow traffic and improve
motorists yielding to pedestrians.
» Crossing islands: raised island located in the
middle of a crossing to allow pedestrians to
cross one lane of traffic at a time.

Existing Active
Transportation Network
The active transportation network detailed in this
section identifies dedicated pedestrian and bicycle
facilities in Napa County. It is important to note that many residents who rely on active modes of
transportation travel along the road network
regardless of the presence of active transportation
facilities.

Existing Bicycle Network
Napa County’s existing bicycle facilities include
denser networks of bicycle lanes, routes, and paths
in more heavily populated areas with more limited
connections through rural areas. Table 2.2 below
lists the total mileage of each bicycle facility type by jurisdiction within Napa County. The countywide
bicycle network is mapped in Figure 2.5 through
Figure 2.21. Data collection for existing facilities
occurred in 2024; more recently completed facilities
may not appear on maps or in mileage counts.

The on-street bikeway network provides both intracity and regional bicycle connections. Many of the County’s bike lanes are in the City of Napa. These
bike lanes are typically located on primary arterials
and collectors with higher vehicle capacity and
speeds. Bike lanes (Class II) are also present on some
rural roadways, such as SR 29 and Silverado Trail,
where the road shoulder is designated as the bike
lane.

Bicycle Routes (Class III) and unclassified bicycle
routes are present throughout incorporated and
unincorporated parts of the County. The City of Napa
has the most bicycle routes of all incorporated
jurisdictions. Unclassified bicycle routes are common
throughout the unincorporated County. Bicycle
routes in the unincorporated County are primarily
located west of American Canyon and east of the
City of Napa.

The off-street shared-use path network centers
around the Vine Trail, which currently has segments
between Calistoga and St. Helena, and through the
Town of Yountville and the City of Napa and includes
other recreational facilities. Other off-street path
networks provide regional bicycle connections
between communities, as well as within some
jurisdictions such as the City of Napa, American
Canyon, and the Town of Yountville.

Table 2.2: Napa Countywide Existing Bicycle Facility Mileage Jurisdiction
Shared Use
Paths
(Class I)
Separated
Bikeways
(Class IV)
Bicycle
Lanes
(Class II) *
Bicycle
Routes
(Class III) *
Unclassified
Bicycle
Routes
Total
City of Calistoga 2.3 1.6 3.5 0.4 7.8
City of St Helena 1.3 1.8 0.6 0.9 4.6
Town of Yountville 2.4 0.7 0.4 3.5
City of Napa 18.6 1.9 28.4 5.3 54.2
City of American Canyon 11.0 6.0 1.1 1.9 20.0
County of Napa 11.5 52.2 5.1 14.7 83.5
Total 47.0 1.9 90.7 16.0 17.9 173.6
*In this table, buffered bicycle lanes are included under Bicycle Lanes (Class II) and rural bicycle routes, and bicycle boulevard are included under Bicycle Routes (Class III).
38 Lake Berryessa
American
Canyon
Calistoga
Napa
St. Helena
Yountville SODA
CANYON
RD

DRY CREEK RD

SAGE CANYON RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD

BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE RD
ATLAS
PEAK
RD

WOODEN VALLEY RD

POPE CANYON RD
29 128
128
221 12
121
29 80
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.5
Napa Countywide
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
39 Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course

DUNAWEAL LN

MORA AVE

PETRIFIED FOREST RD

MYRTLEDALE RD

WASHINGTON ST

GREENWOOD AVE

CHAMPAGNE N

GRANT ST

MYRTLE ST

LAKE ST

FOOTHILL BLVD

TUBBS LN

FAIR WAY

N OAK ST

CEDAR ST

PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL

DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD

ROSEDALE RD

KORTUM CANYON RD

LINCOLN AVE

BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN

PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.6
City of Calistoga
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
40 Crane Park
Stonebridge Park

SILVERADO TRL

CHAIX LN

DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE

ZINFANDEL LN

PRATT AVE

MADRON A A V E

FULTON LN

SPRI N G
ST

ADAMS ST POPE ST

VALLEJO ST

DEER PARK RD

MAIN ST

WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD

MEADOWOOD LN

WHITEHALL LN

INGLEWOOD AVE

CRANE AVE

SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE

GRAYSON AVE

OAK AVE

WHITE LN

SPRING MOUNTAIN RD

HUNT AVE

W ZINFANDEL LN

BIG ROCK RD

DEAN YORK LN

CABERNET LN

SYLVANER AVE

HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD

LEWELLING AVE

WHITEHALL LN

MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.7
City of St. Helena
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
41 Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUTE
Vineyard Park

R ALEMEDA

CALIFORNIA DR

MISSION ST

FORRESTER LN HEATHER ST
YO
UNT ST

OAK CIR

YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD

JEFFERSON ST

SAN ANTONIO ST

PRESIDENTS CIR

FINNELL RD

CHAMPAGNE DR

LANDE WAY

YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
AVE

MADISON ST

CALIFORNIA
DR

WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR

VINEYARDCIR

MULBERRY ST

HERITAGE WAY
NAPA

VALLEY VINE TRAIL

VINEYARD VIEW DR

IMPERIAL RD

INNER ALEMEDA

LAND LN

WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.8
Town of Yountville
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
42 Skyline Wilderness Park
Alston Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
Westwood
Hills Park
Trancas Crossing
Park

HILLCREST DR
NAPA
RIVER
TRAIL

TROWER AVE

PUEBLO AVE

PINE ST
1ST ST

SOLANO AVE

WINE COUNTRY AVE

EASTAVE
1ST
AVE

WITHERS RD

DRY CREEK RD

SOSCOL FERRY RD

BROWNS VALLEY RD

JEFFERSON ST

GRANDVIEW DR

BROWN ST

LAS AMIGAS RD
OAK ST

IMOLA AVE

FOSTER RD

ATLAS PEAK RD

TWIN OAKS
DR

CEDAR DR

CONGRESSVALLEY RD

BASALT RD

SILVERADO
TRL

DEVLIN RD

CALIFORNIA
BLVD

MAIN ST

SHURTLEFF AVE

SCENIC DR

COOMBS ST

HAGEN RD

SOSCOL AVE

THOMPSON AVE
2ND ST
3RD ST

LINCOLN AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

GOLDEN GATE DR

OLIVE HILL LN

LAUREL ST

REDWOOD RD

W IMOLA AVE

ORCHARDAVE

W PUEBLO AVE

MONTECITO BLVD

VICHYAVE

PARTRICK RD

DUHIG RD

TRANCAS ST

OLD SONOMA RD

STANLY LN

STANLY CROSSROAD

BIG RANCH RD

LINDA VISTAAVE

LOS CARNEROS AVE

BUHMAN AVE

CUTTINGS WHARF RD

DEALY LN

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
221
121
121
12 12
29 29
29 FIGURE 2.9
City of Napa
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
School
City Limits
County Limits
43 Alston Park
Westwood
Hills Park

JEFFERSON ST

LAUREL ST

SOLANO AVE

WINE COUNTRY AVE

CALIFORNIA
BLVD

CONGRESS VALLEYRD

DRY CREEK RD
1ST ST

BROWNS VALLEY RD

KATHLEEN DR

EL CENTRO AVE

TWIN OAKS DR

LONE OAK AVE

W PARK AVE

W LINCOLN AVE
FALCON
CREST
CIR

SIERRA AVE

SUMMERFIELD DR

TROWER AVE

KILBURN AVE

OLD SONOMA RD

WESTVIEW DR

SCENIC DR

THOMPSON
AVE

YOUNG AVE

BYWAY E

BROADMOORDR

SALVADOR AVE

REDWOOD RD

HOMEWOOD AVE

ORCHARD AVE

W PUEBLO AVE

PARTRICK RD

TIMBERHILLLN

BUHMAN AVE

MAHER ST

LINDA VISTA AVE

OXFORD ST
NAPA

VALLEY VINE TRAIL

STONEBRIDGE DR

HUNTER RANCHRD
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.10
City of Napa - Northwest
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
44 NAPARIVER TRAIL

PUEBLO AVE

PINE ST
1ST ST

SEMINAR
Y
ST

VILLA LN

EASTAVE
SHURTL

EFF AVE
1ST AVE

HARDMAN AVE

JEFFERSON ST

BROWN ST
OAK ST

SAINT ANDREWSDR

PEAR TREE LN

ATLAS PEAK RD

LAUREL ST

SILVERADOTRL

LA GRANDE
AVE

SOSCOL AVE

FRANKLIN
ST

CALIFORNIA
BLVD

MAIN ST

FREEWAY DR

HEDGESIDE

MCKINLEY RD
AVE
G ST

COOMBS ST

CLAY ST

YAJOME ST

SILVER TRL
SOSCOL
AVE

NORTH AVE
2ND ST
3RD ST

LINCOLN AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

EL CENTRO AVE

SPRUCE ST

TERRACE DR

STONECREST DR

LA HOMA DR
ELM ST

STONEHOUSE DR

OLIVE HILL LN

RANDOLPH ST

MARIN ST

CAYETANO DR

WILLIS DR

ROSS CIR

HAGEN RD

ESTEE AVE
2ND
AVE

RIVERSIDE
DR

MONTECITO BLVD

VICHY AVE

CENTRAL AVE
3RD AVE

TRANCAS ST

KANSAS AVE

HILLCREST DR

BIG RANCH RD

SILVERADO
TRL
RAPP
LN

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
29 121
121
FIGURE 2.11
City of Napa - Northeast
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
45 Skyline County P
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park

RIVERSOUND WAY
NAPA

VALLEY CORPORATEDR

PINE ST

GASSER DR

S JEFFERSON ST

SOSCOL FERRY RD

LASAMIGAS RD

IMOLA AVE

FOSTER RD

CEDAR DR

BASALT RD

LAUREL ST

DEVLIN RD

SHETLER AVE

TECHNOLOGYWAY

SHURTLEFFAVE

HEMLOCK ST

SPRUCE ST SEVILLE DR

JAMES DIEMER DR
ELM ST

GOLDEN GATE DR

CAYETANO DR

N AIRPORT RD

CLEAR STREAM AVE

W IMOLA AVE

N KELLY RD

KANSAS AVE

OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY
LN

STANLY CROSSROAD

RIVER PARK BLVD

SOSCOL CREEK RD

CUTTINGS WHARF RD

N NEWPORT DR
NAPA

VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
12 12
29 29
29 221

STANLY LN
FIGURE 2.12
City of Napa - South
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
46 Veterans
Memorial Park
Shenandoah Park
American Canyon
Community Park
Kimberly Park

VIA BELLAGIO

WETLANDS EDGE RD

SILVER OAK TRL NEWELL DR

KIMBERLY DR

CRAWFORD WAY

RIO DEL MAR

DONALDSON WAY

DONALDSON WAY E

BOONE DR

S KELLY RD
PAOLI
LOOP
R
D

ELLIOTT DR

REDWO OD CIR

TR I A L ER
PA

RK R O AD

DEVLIN RD

AMERICAN CANYON RD

MARLA DR

KNIGHTSBRIDGEWAY

SPIKERUSH CIR

GREEN ISLAND RD
CHA

UCER LN

TOWER RD

NORTHAMPTONDR

ENTRADACIR

WATSON LN

BROADWAY
C
O
MMER
CE
BLVD

DANROSE
DR

W AMERICAN CANYON RD

JAMES RD

LOS ALTOS DR

EUCALYPTUS DR

AIRPORT RD

MARCUS RD

SONOMA BLVD

COMMERCE CT
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.13
City of American Canyon
Existing Bicycle Facilities

0.5 Miles H
47 Las Posadas
State Forest
Bothe-Napa Valley State Park
Robert Louis
Stevenson
State Park
29 29
128
Lake County
Sonoma County

POPE CANYON
RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.14
County of Napa - Northwest
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
48 Lake Berryessa
Las Posadas
State Forest
Lake County
Yolo County

BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE RD

POPE CANYON RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.15
County of Napa - Northeast
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
49 DRY CREEK RD

SAGE CANYON RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
29 29
128
128
Sonoma County
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.16
County of Napa - Central West
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
50 Lake Berryessa
Lake Curry
Lake Hennessey
Lake Hennessey City
Recreation Area
Las Posadas
State Forest

SILVERADO
TRL
SODA

CANYON RD

DRY CREEK RD

SAGE CANYON RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD

ATLAS PEAK RD

BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE
RD

SILVERADO TRL

WOODEN VALLEY RD
128
128
29 121
Solano County
Sonoma
County
Yolo County
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.17
County of Napa - Central East
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
51 12
121
221
29 29
12 121
80 AMERICAN CANYON RD

TROWER AVE

JEFFERSON ST
1ST ST
1S
T AVE

DRY CREEK RD

B ROWNS VALLEY RD

LAS AMIGAS RD

CUTTINGS WHARF RD

FOSTER RD
ATLAS

PEAK RD

CALIFORNIA BLVD

SOLANO AVE

LAKEMARIE RD

DEVLIN RD

GREEN ISLAND RD

SOSCOL AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD
3RD AVE

GOLDEN GA TE DR

BROADWAY

REDWO OD RD

W IMOLA AVE

HAGEN RD

POLSON RD

PARTRICK RD

DUHIG RD

TRANCAS ST

OLD SONOMA RD

STANLY LN

W ILDHORSE

VALLEY RD

AIR PORT RD

BIG RANCH RD

SILVERADO TRL

LINDAVISTA AVE

MOUNT VEEDER RD

BUHMAN AVE

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.18
County of Napa - South
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H

2.5 Miles
52 TRANCAS ST

NORMA DR

NORFOLK ST

JOMAR DR

KATHLEEN DR

EMERSON ST

SHERRY DR

OXFORD ST

SUTHERLAND DR

ETHEL PORTER DR

MACLENNAN ST
BA

YWOOD LN

DELPHA DR

BARBARA RD

VERNA DR

SANDRA DR

CAROL DR

MACLEOD ST

ROHLFFSWAY

THOMAS DR

CAROL DR

YOUNG AVE

DOVER ST

PAMELA DR

ROLLINGWOOD DR

EUCLID AVE

SOLANO AVE

WAVERLY ST

DONNA DR

MACBETH ST

JANETTE DR

REDWOOD RD
LINDA

VISTA AVE

W PUEBLO AVE

MORGAN LN

MACLEAN ST

GLEN CT

MACFADDEN
ST

MASSA DR

BEL AIRE PLZ
RA

NCHO DR

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL

MORLAN DR
SB SR29 OFF TRANCAS
NB SR29 ON TRANCAS
SB SR29 ON

TRANCAS
NB SR29

OFF TRANCAS

W PARK AVE
29 29
FIGURE 2.19
County of Napa - West Pueblo
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H

0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
53 CEDAR DR

IMOLA AVE

LONDON WAY

REPUBLIC AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

CAPITOLA DR

LOS ROBLES DR

WYATT AVE

MUIR ST

MARSHALL AVE

JUNIPER CIR

BIRKDALE DR

LAREDO ST

S TERRACE DR

ERIN WAY

SHETLER AVE

CORONADO AVE
PATTON
AVE

SHURTLEFF AVE

LINDEN ST

N OAK DR

TAMARISK DR

WILKINS AVE

SEVILLE DR MARIA DR

TERRACE DR

HOLMES AVE

TRAILER PA R K
R
OA
D

RUSSELL ST

PENNY LN

CAYETANO DR

PARRISH RD
SOMMER
S
T

OAKMONT CT

ACACIA DR

LIBERTY DR HARDING AVE

PERKINS ST

BELV EDERE CT

KANSAS AVE

PENNYROYAL ST

MAGNOLIA DR
FIGURE 2.20
County of Napa - Southeast Napa Islands
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H

0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
54 Chardonnay Golf Club
Skyline County Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
American Canyon
Community Park
121
12 12
221
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.21
County of Napa - Napa / American Canyon
Existing Bicycle Facilities
1 Miles H
55 36
Existing Pedestrian Network
The pedestrian network was mapped for all five
incorporated jurisdictions and the four
unincorporated communities of Deer Park, Angwin,
Rutherford, and Oakville. Other rural communities of
Pope Valley, Berryessa Highlands, and Circle Oaks
were not analyzed given their removed location and
limited opportunities for pedestrian facility
enhancements. Existing sidewalks and shared-use
paths are mapped in Figure 2.22 through Figure

2.35. Total existing facility mileage is listed by
jurisdiction in Table 2.3.

The pedestrian network inventory provides
information about streets with existing or missing
sidewalks or paths, which will be used to develop
near-term sidewalk gap closure recommendations.

However, not all locations without sidewalks will be
considered gaps in the network. Some rural or
residential neighborhoods may not require sidewalk
implementation per local guidelines, and
jurisdictions may apply their own discretion where
sidewalk gap projects are or are not appropriate.

The pedestrian network provides some regional
connections throughout the county, and efforts are
being made to continue improving regional
connectivity. Along SR 29, the Vine Trail has been
constructed between Calistoga and St. Helena and
between Yountville and the City of Napa. The future
alignment will include connections between St.

Helena and Yountville and between the City of Napa
and American Canyon south to the City of Vallejo.

The unincorporated communities of Angwin, Deer
Park, Rutherford, and Oakville have limited
pedestrian facilities. Where present, sidewalks are
generally of minimum width and offer limited
connectivity to local destinations.

There are also numerous unincorporated islands or
pockets of Napa County in and around the City of
Napa. These areas have a limited or non-existent
sidewalks with constrained right of way for new or
expanded facilities, presenting long-term challenges
for user safety and network connectivity.

Table 2.3: Napa Countywide Existing Pedestrian Facility Mileage Jurisdiction Shared Use Paths
(Class I) Sidewalks Total Mileage
Calistoga 2.3 17.3 19.6
St. Helena 1.3 32.5 33.8
Yountville 2.4 15.0 17.4
City of Napa 18.6 344.5 363.1
American Canyon 11.0 108.1 119.1
County of Napa 11.5 9.3 20.8
Total 47.0 523.1 570.1
56 Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course

DUNAWEAL LN

MORA AVE

PETRIFIED FOREST RD

MYRTLEDALE RD

WASHINGTON ST

GREENWOOD AVE

CHAMPAGNE N

GRANT ST

MYRTLE ST

LAKE ST

FOOTHILL BLVD

TUBBS LN

FAIR WAY

N OAK ST

CEDAR ST

PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL

DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD

ROSEDALE RD

KORTUM CANYON RD

LINCOLN AVE

BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN

PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.22
City of Calistoga
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
57 Crane Park
Stonebridge Park

SILVERADO TRL

CHAIX LN

DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE

ZINFANDEL LN

PRATT AVE

MADRON A A V E

FULTON LN

SPRI N G
ST

ADAMS ST

POPE ST

VALLEJO ST

DEER PARK RD

MAIN ST

WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD

MEADOWOOD LN

WHITEHALL LN

INGLEWOOD AVE

CRANE AVE

SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE

GRAYSON AVE

OAK AVE

WHITE LN

SPRING MOUNTAIN RD

HUNT AVE

W ZINFANDEL LN

BIG ROCK RD

DEAN YORK LN

CABERNET LN

SYLVANER AVE

HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD

LEWELLING AVE

WHITEHALL LN

MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.23
City of St. Helena
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
58 Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUT
Vineyard Park ER ALEMEDA

CALIFORNIA DR

MISSION ST

FORRESTER LN
HEA

THER ST
YO
U
NT ST

OAK CIR

YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD

JEFFERSON ST

SAN ANTONIO ST
P
R

ESIDENTS CIR

FINNELL RD

CHAMPAGNE DR

LANDE WAY

YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
A
VE

MADISON ST

CALIFORNIA
DR

WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR

VINEYARDCIR

MULBERRY ST

HERITAGE WAY
NAPA
VALLEY
VINE
TRAIL

VINEYARD VIEW DR

IMPERIAL RD
INNER
ALEM
ED
A

LAND LN

WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.24
Town of Yountville
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
59 Skyline Wilderness Park
Alston Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
Westwood
Hills Park
Trancas Crossing
Park

TROWER AVE

PUEBLO AVE
1ST ST

SOLANO AVE

WINE COUNTRY AVE
1ST A
VE

DRY CREEK RD

SOSCOLFERRY RD

BROWNS VALLEY RD

JEFFERSON
ST

LAS AMIGAS RD
OAK ST

IMOLA AVE
FO
STER
R
D

ATLAS PEAK RD

TWIN OAKS
D
R

CEDAR DR

BASALT RD

S LI VERADO
TRL

CALIFORNIA
BLVD

DEVLIN RD

HAGEN RD
COOMBS
ST
SOSCOL
AVE

THOMPSON
A
VE

LINCOLN AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

GOLDEN GATE DR

OLIVE HILL LN

CUTTINGS WHARF RD

LAUREL ST

REDWOOD RD

W IMOLA AVE

ORCHARD AVE
VICHY
A
VE

PARTRICK RD

DUHIG RD

TRANCAS ST

OLD SONOMA RD

STANLY LN

HILLCRESTDR

BIG RANCH RD

LINDA VISTAAVE

LOS CARNEROS AVE

BUHMAN AVE

DEALY LN

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
221
29 29
29 12
12 FIGURE 2.25
City of Napa
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
60 Alston Park
Westwood
Hills Park

JEFFERSON ST

LAUREL ST

SOLANO AVE

WINE COUNTRY AVE

CALIFORNIA
BL
VD

CONGRESS VALLEYRD

DRY CREEK RD
1ST ST

BROWNS VALLEY RD

KATHLEEN DR

EL CENTRO AVE

TWIN OAKS DR

LONE OAK AVE

W PARK AVE

W LINCOLN AVE

AF LCON
CREST
C RI

SIERRA AVE

SUMMERFIELD DR

TROWER AVE

KILBURN AVE

OLD SONOMA RD

WESTVIEW
D
R

SCENIC DR

THOMPSON
A
VE

YOUNG AVE

BYWAY E
BROADM
O
O
R
D
R

SALVADOR AVE

REDWOOD RD

HOMEWOOD AVE

ORCHARD AVE

W PUEBLO AVE

PARTRICK RD

TIMBERHILLLN

BUHMAN AVE

MAHER ST

LINDA VISTA AVE

OXFORD ST
NAPA

VALLEY VINE TRAIL

STONEBRIDGE DR

HUNTER RANCHRD
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.26
City of Napa - Northwest
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
61 NAPARIVER TRAIL

PUEBLO AVE

PINE ST
1ST ST

SEMINAR
Y
S
T

VILLA LN
EASTA
VE
SHURTL

EFF AVE
1S
T AVE

HARDMAN AVE

JEFFERSON ST

BROWN ST
OAK ST

SAINT ANDREWSDR

PEAR TREE LN

ATLAS PEAK RD

LAUREL ST

SILVERADOTRL

LA GRANDE
AVE

SOSCOL AVE

FRANKLIN
ST

CALIFORNIA
BLVD

MAIN ST

FREEWAY DR

HEDGESIDE AVE

MCKINLEY RD
G ST

COOMBS ST

CLAY ST

YAJOME ST

SILVER TRL
SOSCOL
A
VE

NORTH AVE
2ND ST
3RD ST

LINCOLN AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

EL CENTRO AVE

SPRUCE ST

TERRACE DR

STONECREST DR

LA HOMA DR
ELM ST

STONEHOUSE DR

OLIVE HILL LN

RANDOLPH ST

MARIN ST

CAYETANO DR

WILLIS DR

ROSS CIR

HAGEN RD

ESTEE AVE
2ND
A
VE

RIVERSIDE
DR

MONTECITO BLVD

VICHY AVE

CENTRAL AVE
3RD AVE

TRANCAS ST

KANSAS AVE

HILLCREST DR

BIG RANCH RD

SILVERADO
TRL
RAPP
LN

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
29 121
121
FIGURE 2.27
City of Napa - Northeast
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
62 Skyline County P
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park

RIVERSO
UND
WA
Y
NAPA
VALLEY
C
O
R
P
O
RATE
D
R

PINE ST

GASSER DR

S JEFFERSON ST

SOSCOL FERRY RD

LASAMIGAS RD

IMOLA AVE
FOS
TER
R
D

CEDAR DR

BASALT RD

LAUREL ST

DEVLIN RD

SHETLER AVE

TECHNOLOGYWAY

SHURTLEFFA
VE

HEMLOCK ST

SPRUCE ST

SEVILLE DR

JAMES DIEMER
D
R
ELM ST
G
OLD
EN
GATE
D
R

CAYETANO DR

N AIRPORT RD

CLEAR STR
EA
M
A
VE

W IMOLA AVE

N KELLY RD

KANSAS AVE

OLD SONOMA RD
STA
NLY LN

STANLY CROSSROAD

RIVER PARK BLVD

SOSCOL CREEK RD

CUTTINGS WHARF RD

N NEWPORT DR
NAPA
VALLEY

VINE TRAIL
121
121
12 12
29 29
29 221

STANLY LN
FIGURE 2.28
City of Napa - South
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
63 Veterans
Memorial Park
Shenandoah Park
American Canyon
Community Park
Kimberly Park

WETLAND
S
ED
G
E
RD

SILVER OAK TRL
NEWELL
DR

KIMBERLY DR

CRAWFORD WAY

DONALDSON WAY

BOONE DR

S KELLY RD
PAOLI
L
O
O
P
R
D

ELLIOTT DR

REDWO OD CIR

RT I A L ER
PA

RK R O AD

DEVLIN RD

AMERICAN CANYON RD

MARLA DR

GREEN ISLAND RD

CHAUCER LN

TOWER RD

NORTHAMPTON DR

ENTRADACIR

WATSON LN

BROADWAY
C
O
MMER
CE
BLVD
DA
NR
O
SE
D
R

JAMES RD

LOS ALTO S
DR

EUCALYPTUS DR

AIRPORT RD

MARCUS RD
C
O
MMERCE
CT
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.29
City of American Canyon
Existing Pedestrian Facilities

0.5 Miles H
64 WALNUT DR OAKVILLE GRADE RD

MANLEY LN

BELLA OAKS LN

NIEBAUM LN

MONEY RD

OAKVILLE CROSS RD

RUTHERFORD ROAD

ACACIA DR
MEE LN

BEERS TECHER RD

CONN CREEK RD
128 128
29 29
Oakville
Rutherford
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
School
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
Census Designated Places
FIGURE 2.30
County of Napa - Rutherford and Oakville
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
65 LAS POSADAS RD

KEYES AVE

BROOKSI D E DR

DEER PARK RD

SKY OAKS DR

S WHITEC O TTAGE RD

N WHITE COTTAGERD

LA JOTA DR

INK GRADE RD

BELL CANYON RD

FRIESEN DR

COLLEGE AVE

CLARK WAY

SUMMIT LAKE DR

FA LLS RD

CRESTMONT DR

HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
Angwin
Deer Park
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
Census Designated Places
City Limits
FIGURE 2.31
County of Napa - Angwin
Existing Pedestrian Facilities

0.5 Miles H
66 Stonebridge Park

SILVERADO TRL

S WHITE COTTAGE RD

MUND RD

SPRING MOUNTAIN RD

HILLCREST RD

SANITARIUM RD

PRATT AVE

FULTON LN HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD

POPE ST

LODI LN

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

MAIN ST

GLASS MOUNTAIN RD

MEADOWOOD LN

D EERPARK RD

SUNNYSIDERD

CAMINO V ISTA

HOWELL MOUNTAIN
RD

LIND A FALL S TERRACE

HUNT AVE

BIG ROCK RD

CRESTMONT DR
128
29 Angwin
Deer Park
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk
Data
School
Census Designated Places
City Limits
FIGURE 2.32
County of Napa - Deer Park
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
67 TROON DR

S ILV E RADO SPRINGS
DR

HARDMAN AVE
STONE

MO UN T A IN
CIR

AUGUSTA CIR

SA INTANDREWS DR

CASTLE OAKS DR

ATLAS PEAK RD

KAANAPALI DR

HEDGESIDE AVE

MCKINLEY RD

SILVER TRL
MIL
L
KE I N

CREEK DR

VICHY AVE

WESTGATE DR

ESTEE AVE

WESTGATE DR
OLD

SODA SPRINGS RD

FAIRWAY DR

HILLCREST DR

COTTAGE DR
121
121
Silverado
Resort
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
Census Designated Places
City Limits
FIGURE 2.33
County of Napa - Silverado Resort
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
68 NORMA DR

NORFOLK ST

JOMAR DR

KATHLEEN DR

EMERSON ST

SHERRY DR

OXFORD ST

SUTHERLAND DR

ETHEL PORTER DR

MACLENNAN ST

BAYWOOD
LN

DELPHA DR

BARBARA RD

VERNA DR

SANDRA DR

CAROL DR

MACLEOD ST

ROHLFFS
WA
Y

THOMAS DR
CAROL
DR

YOUNG AVE

DOVER ST

PAMELA DR

ROLLINGWOOD DR

EUCLID AVE

SOLANO AVE

WAVERLY ST

DONNA DR

MACBETH ST

JANETTE DR

REDWOOD RD
LINDA

VISTA AVE

W PUEBLO AVE

MORGAN LN

MACLEAN ST

GLEN CT

MACFADDEN
ST

MASSA DR

BEL AIRE PLZ
RA

NCHO DR

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL

MORLAN DR
SB SR29 OFF TRANCAS
NB SR29 ON TRANCAS
SB
SR29
O
N
TRA
N
CA
S
NB
SR29
OFF

TRANCAS

W PARK AVE
29 29
FIGURE 2.34
County of Napa - West Pueblo
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
School
City Limits
County Limits
69 CEDAR DR

IMOLA AVE

LONDON WAY

REPUBLIC AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

CAPITOLA
D
R

LOS ROBLES DR

WYATT AVE

MUIR ST

MARSHALL AVE

JUNIPER CIR

BIRKDALE DR

LAREDO ST

S TERRACE DR

ERIN WAY

SHETLER AVE

CORONADO AVE
PA
TTON
A
VE

SHURTLEFF AVE

LINDEN ST

N OAK DR

TAMARISK DR

WILKINS
A
VE

SEVILLE DR MARIA DR

TERRACE DR

HOLMES AVE

TRAILER PA R K
R
OA
D

RUSSELL ST

PENNY LN

CAYETANO DR

PARRISH RD
SOMMER
S
T

OAKMONT CT

ACACIA DR

LIBERTY DR HARDING AVE

PERKINS ST

BELV EDERE CT

KANSAS AVE

PENNYROYAL ST

MAGNOLIA DR
FIGURE 2.35
County of Napa - Southeast Napa Islands
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
School
City Limits
County Limits
70 51
Chapter 3
Community Engagement
A foundational element in the development of this
AT Plan was gathering meaningful public input from
community members across Napa County.

Throughout the planning process, NVTA sought to
better understand the needs of community
members by encouraging broad participation at key
milestones.

Community engagement efforts invited individuals to
share their experiences, challenges, and priorities
related to active transportation, helping to identify
key issues such as pedestrian safety, connectivity
gaps, improvement preferences, and locationspecific barriers.

This feedback directly informed the development of
the AT Plan, ultimately shaping a community-driven
vision for improving safe, convenient, and accessible
active transportation throughout Napa County. Over
the year-long engagement period, more than 700
comments were received from community members
throughout the county.

Communication Tools and
Engagement Activities
Outreach for the AT Plan was conducted between
October 2024 and October 2025. Communications
tools included a project-specific website;
informational materials including fact sheets; paid
and organic social media; newsletters and e-blasts,
and online surveys. Engagement activities included
multiple community workshops held in person
throughout the County as well as online, as well as
presentations and conversations with stakeholders
and local residents at community events, civic
gatherings, and local agency meetings.

Workshop 2- Community Member adding comment
71 52
Website
NVTA provided information about the AT Plan
through a dedicated page on its site4 and an
engagement-specific webpage5 that served as the
central hub for information, plan development
updates, information on upcoming and past public
events, and resources for community participation,
including links to the online survey, interactive map
tool, and a project team contact form.

Fact Sheet
The AT Plan fact sheet included information on the
project background, goals, how to get involved, and
the project timeline. The fact sheet was updated
throughout the development of the plan, with later
versions including a link and QR code to the survey
and interactive map. The fact sheet was distributed
in-person at community events and electronically.

Social Media and Newsletters
Social media posts and newsletter updates for the
project were released prior to community
workshops, to promote surveys, and provide Plan
development updates.

Online Map Tools and Survey
The engagement website included a mapping tool
where community members were invited to share
what they loved, wished for, and wondered about
the future of the Napa County community. They
could place pins for each prompt on a map of the
county to identify specific locations in response to
each prompt, which helped identify priority areas for
improvements. The mapping tool received a total of
143 responses between October 2024 and June
2025.

A survey was also developed to better understand
how local residents get around and their priorities
for improving walking, biking, and rolling in their
community. The survey was open from April 21 to
June 23, 2025, and collected a total of 199
responses.

Once the proposed bicycle and pedestrian networks
were developed, community members could also
place comments via the interactive mapping tool
with a similar framework of what they loved, wished
for, and wondered about for the future of biking and
walking in Napa County. During the comment period
from September 26th through October 31, the
proposed bicycle network map received 229 unique
comments while the proposed pedestrian priority
gap closure maps received 91 comments. A full list of
all comments received through the map tool and
survey, along with geographic coordinates, is
available in Appendix B.

Community Open House Flyer
4 nvta.ca.gov/planning-and-projects/planning/regional/active-transportation-plan 5 ghd.mysocialpinpoint.com/napaatplan
72 53
Events
NVTA organized three in-person outreach opportunities and attended 33 events and meetings to reach community members throughout the County, provide details about the AT Plan, and collect input. Nearly 2,000 people were engaged at various events during the engagement period, which may include some individuals who attended more than one event.

NVTA hosted the following community meetings to share updates about the AT Plan and collect input on projects, programs, and policies.

Table 3.1: NVTA-Hosted Community Meetings
Event Location Date
Community Open House Napa Valley College Performing Arts Center Wednesday, February 26, 2025 Up-Valley (Calistoga) Focus Workshop Calistoga Community Center Wednesday, April 2, 2025 Virtual Open House Zoom Meeting Tuesday, October 21, 2025 The project team attended the following meetings and events between summer 2024 and winter 2026.

Table 3.2: Community Meetings and Events Attended by NVTA Event Location Date
City of St. Helena Active Transportation &
Sustainability Committee
St. Helena City Hall July 3, 2024
City of Calistoga Active Transportation
Advisory Committee
Calistoga Community Center August 7, 2024
City of American Canyon Open Space,
Active Transportation, and Sustainability
Commission
American Canyon City Hall September 4, 2024
NVTA Technical Advisory Committee NVTA Board Room September 5, 2024 City of Calistoga Active Transportation
Advisory Committee
Calistoga Community Center October 2, 2024
City of Napa Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Commission
City of Napa City Hall October 10, 2024
City of American Canyon Open Space,
Active Transportation, and Sustainability
Commission
American Canyon City Hall November 6, 2024
City of St. Helena Active Transportation &
Sustainability Committee
St. Helena City Hall November 6, 2024
City of Napa Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Commission
City of Napa Committee Hearing Room February 13, 2025
Napa Valley Vine Trail Board Meeting Virtual (Zoom) February 20, 2025 NCOE 8th Grade Career Fair Napa Valley Expo March 13, 2025 Napa Earth Day Napa Oxbow Commons April 12, 2025
League of Women Voters of Napa County Unitarian Universalist Church Napa April 16, 2025 Napa BikeFest Napa Century Cinemas Lot May 4, 2025
American Canyon Middle School (ACMS)
Fair
ACMS May 7, 2025
73 54
Event Location Date
NVTA Active Transportation Advisory
Committee
NVTA Board Room May 19, 2025
Democrats of Napa Valley Monthly Meeting American Legion Napa July 21, 2025 American Canyon Meet Me in the Street American Canyon Rd June 10, 2025 American Canyon Meet Me in the Street American Canyon Rd August 12, 2025 NVTA Board Presentation NVTA Board Room September 17, 2025 St. Helena Active Transportation &
Sustainability Committee
St. Helena City Hall October 1, 2025
City of Napa Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Commission Presentation
City of Napa Committee Hearing Room October 9, 2025
City of Calistoga Council Presentation Calistoga Council Chambers October 14, 2025 Napa Vine Trail Board Presentation Virtual (Zoom) October 16, 2025 St. Helena Harvest Festival Street Festival, St. Helena October 19, 2025 St. Helena City Council Presentation St. Helena High – Council Chambers October 28, 2025 NVTA Paratransit Coordinating Committee NVTA Board Room November 6, 2025 NVTA Community Advisory Committee NVTA Board Room November 5, 2025 NVTA Active Transportation Advisory
Committee
NVTA Board Room November 17, 2025
Napa County Board of Supervisors Meeting Napa Board of Supervisors Chambers January 13, 2026 74 55
Key Findings from
Community Engagement
Community input was key to the development of the
final AT Plan. Across all communication tools and
engagement events, the following themes emerged.

These comments directly informed the contents of
this AT Plan, including as proposed bicycle or
pedestrian facilities, recommended policies and
programs, or criteria for project prioritization.

Pedestrian Infrastructure and
Safety
Community members expressed strong support for
improving pedestrian safety and comfort, noting that
sidewalk gaps, fractured or broken concrete, a lack
of curb ramps, and other issues create daily barriers
to safe and convenient pedestrian access. Crossing
safety was a major concern, with high vehicle
speeds, limited visibility, and insufficient lighting
making intersections difficult to navigate.

Community members suggested improvements such
as curb extensions, raised crosswalks, added
beacons, and daylighting to enhance safety,
especially around schools. Maintenance issues such
as uneven pavement, flooding, and debris were also
frequently cited, emphasizing that both repairs and
new infrastructure are needed.

Connectivity
A consistent theme across feedback was the need
for a more connected and comprehensive active
transportation network for walking and biking,
particularly with connections to transit. Respondents
stressed the importance of linking neighborhoods
with schools, parks, shopping areas, and nearby
cities to make active travel a practical option. Survey results reinforced this sentiment, with the most
frequent highest-rated priority being the creation of
a countywide network of safe, accessible bikeways.

Participants emphasized that improving connectivity
is essential for expanding mobility choices and
reducing reliance on driving, especially when it
comes to multimodal transportation.

Encouraging Multimodality
Community members expressed that transportation
projects should balance the needs of drivers,
pedestrians, and bicyclists rather than prioritizing
any single mode. Many supported encouraging
walking and biking for short trips, and some
expressed openness to reducing on-street parking
when it improves safety. While some residents
reported easy access to local destinations, others
noted that concern over infrastructure or conditions
prevent them from choosing active transportation
more often.

Priority Improvements and
Amenities
Community members strongly supported a wide
range of safety and mobility initiatives, with
especially high enthusiasm for expanding a
countywide network of low-stress bikeways for all
ages and abilities (AAA). Intersection redesigns,
protected bike lanes, wayfinding, sidewalk gap
closures, improved lighting, school-based bike
education, and more secure bike parking were also
frequently rated as important. There was mixed
support for increased traffic enforcement.

Location Specific Barriers for
Active Transportation
Community members identified numerous locations
across the county where walking, biking, and rolling
feel unsafe or unreliable, underscoring the need for
targeted improvements. Intersections and segments
in Napa, such as Solano Avenue at Redwood Road,
Jefferson Street, Trancas Street, West Lincoln
Avenue, Imola Avenue, Silverado Trail, and multiple
points along Soscol Avenue and SR 121 were
consistent points of concern. SR 29 in American
Canyon and countywide corridors like SR 128, Big
Ranch Road, and areas east of St. Helena also
marked major concerns for cyclists.
75 56
Chapter 4
Needs Assessment
The following needs assessment builds upon the
review of the existing transportation environment to
identify specific areas for active transportation
improvements. The assessment includes an
evaluation of bicycle connectivity based on the
existing roadway and bicycle facility network. It also
includes a summary of priorities identified through
the community engagement process, and outlines
the methodology used to develop the proposed
project list.

Bicycle Connectivity
The following assessment of connectivity considers
level of traffic stress (LTS), or how safe a bicyclist
might feel on a given roadway, and how LTS impacts
bicyclist connectivity to nearby destinations. Higher
stress roadways are likely barriers for many bicyclists, and can limit connectivity throughout a city, county,
or region.

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is the perceived sense of safety associated with bicycling with or adjacent to
vehicular traffic. Studies have shown that traffic
stress is one of the biggest deterrents to walking and
bicycling. The less stressful the experience (the lower the LTS score), the more likely it is to appeal to a
broader segment of the population.

Bicycle facilities are considered low stress if they
have fewer interactions with vehicular traffic (such as slow, low-traffic neighborhood streets) or if greater
separation is provided between people walking or
bicycling and vehicular traffic.

LTS 1 indicates a street with low stress and high
comfort for bicyclists, while LTS 4 reflects a street
with high stress and low comfort for bicyclists. LTS
scores are used to identify locations for project
recommendations that create lower stress networks
for people of different ages, abilities, and comfort
walking and bicycling in Napa County.

Methodology
For the bicycle LTS analysis, road segments were
scored from LTS 1 to LTS 4 based on a variety of
roadway infrastructure characteristics, including:
» Posted and prevailing speeds
» Number of vehicle lanes
» Roadway functional classification
» Bicycle facility classification
» Separation between bicycle facilities and
vehicles
» Parking alongside bike lanes
» Width of bike and parking lanes
Types of Bicyclists
Research conducted by the Portland Bureau of
Transportation and later updated with national data
indicates that most people in the United States
would bike if dedicated bicycle facilities were
provided. Based on their skill level and confidence,
most people self-identify as one of the four “types of
76 57
bicyclists” shown in Figure 4.1.
6 Only a small
percentage of Americans are willing to ride on busy
streets if no facilities are provided—the so-called
“Strong and Fearless” bicyclists.

To better meet the needs of “Interested but
Concerned” bicyclists, it is recommended that
communities work to decrease stress and improve
comfort on their bikeway network. LTS 1 and 2 roads
are typically appealing to these bicyclists.

Results
LTS of roadways varies throughout the county. Each
jurisdiction is typically made up of a lower stress
residential street network divided by higher stress
arterial and collector roads. In the unincorporated
county, roads are typically higher stress, higher
volume, and seldom feature dedicated bicycle
facilities. As a result, these corridors are generally
taken by more experienced recreational bicyclists
and not by residents commuting to their
destinations. LTS results for individual jurisdictions
can be found in Chapter 7 through Chapter 12.

Safety and Vision Zero
Bicycle LTS is one way of assessing bicyclist safety
along the roadway network, but another common
way to quantify safety is through a collision analysis.

The 2023 NVTA Vision Zero Plan analyzed collisions
in the county between 2015 and 2021 and identifies
roadways with a high frequency of collisions (also
known as the High Injury Network). Local Road
Safety Plans (LRSP) conducted at the local and
county level provide similar information about high
injury and high severity corridors.

While collision analysis shows where collisions have
occurred in the past, LTS analysis highlights roads
that may feel uncomfortable for bicyclists to ride on
and therefore are barriers to active transportation. A
high stress road may not have a history of frequent
collisions if bicyclists avoid that route.

Figure 4.1: Bicyclist Comfort Typology
6 Dill, J., & McNeil, N. (2016). Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2587(1), 90-99
77 58
Low Stress Bicycle Connectivity
Bicycle connectivity throughout Napa County was
analyzed using LTS scores and origin and destination
points. In this assessment, bicycle connectivity is
defined as either high-stress or low-stress.

Destinations with low-stress connectivity are
connected to residential units (origins) along the
low-stress bicycle network, or roads that score LTS 2
or lower. Providing low-stress connectivity improves
bicycle access for a wider range of ages and abilities
and induces bicycle demand.

An example of this analysis in the City of American
Canyon is shown in Figure 4.2. The heat map
indicates concentrations of low-stress connectivity,
where darker green indicates more low-stress
connection. The red and orange lines along the road
network represent high stress streets, while green
and yellow lines represent lower stress streets.

As you can see, many residents can connect to
Canyon Oaks Elementary School (the school west of
Newell Drive) on the low-stress bicycle network. On
the other hand, low-stress connectivity to American
Canyon High School (east of Newell Drive) is poor
because Newell Drive and American Canyon Road
create high stress barriers.

Figure 4.2: Example of Connectivity Analysis
7 A convenient walking distance is typically assumed to be less than one half-mile, while an acceptable bicycling distance is assumed to be two miles or less.

Results from the bicycle connectivity analysis show
areas of low stress connectivity are separated by
high stress streets creating barriers to bicycling in
neighborhoods across the county. Most low stress
bicycle corridors in Napa County are along the Napa
Valley Vine Trail or other Class I pathways, or within
incorporated cities where residents are within
convenient walking and bicycling distances of their
destinations7
. Every community in Napa County has
at least one higher stress corridor or intersection
that serves as a barrier to key destinations. Investing in lower stress improvements at these locations can
increase active transportation use and reduce
potential for future collisions.

In the unincorporated county, bicyclists typically
begin trips further from their destinations. Much of
the current bicycling occurring in this part of the
county is for recreational purposes rather than
commuting, and bicyclists here are typically more
experienced at riding on higher stress roads with
vehicles.

Further discussion on low stress bicycle connectivity
for individual jurisdictions can be found in Chapter 7
through Chapter 12.

Community Priorities
Through community engagement across Napa
County, in-person and online, the priorities of the
community were used to develop the current Plan.

Key feedback themes from each community included
the following:
» Calistoga
− Pedestrian and bicycle crossing
improvements at Tubbs Lane/Myrtledale
Road, and along Foothill Boulevard
− Sidewalks along Grant Street
− Concerns about pavement quality
− Safe Routes to School
78 59
» St. Helena
− Safe Routes to School, including on Main
Street (SR 29), Madrona Avenue, Hunt
Avenue, Valley View Street, Crane Avenue,
Sulfur Springs Road, and Spring Street
− Traffic calming to reduce speeding
− Sidewalks on SR 29
− Visibility challenges and narrow streets
− Complete the Vine Trail
» Yountville
− SR 29 undercrossing – bicycle and
pedestrian improvements
− Bicycle facilities on Washington Street and
Yount Street
− Sidewalks and paved pathways in
neighborhoods
» City of Napa
− Sidewalk gaps on key corridors, near
neighborhood schools, and in older
residential neighborhoods
− Bicycle connectivity to and through
downtown
− Safe Routes to School
− Vine Trail improvements
» American Canyon
− Safe Routes to School
− Improve existing bicycle lanes
− Traffic calming to reduce speeding
− Improve intersections along SR 29
− Connections to industrial areas
− Vine Trail opportunities
» County of Napa
− Improve major bicycle corridors, including
Silverado Trail and SR 29
− Upgrade bicycle facilities between cities,
including Devlin Road and Solano Avenue
− Pavement quality and bicycle lane
maintenance
Developing the Active
Transportation Network
Using the findings from the bicycle connectivity
analysis and community engagement priorities, the
proposed active transportation network was
developed. The draft network was created in July
2025 and went through extensive review by NVTA
and local jurisdiction staff. Following agency review,
the network was refined and shared with the
community during a virtual workshop in October
2025. Community members also had the
opportunity to comment on the network using an
interactive map hosted on the project website.

Feedback gathered during the workshop and from
the interactive map was vetted by NVTA and local
jurisdictions, and the proposed active transportation
network was finalized in early 2026.

Developing the Bicycle Network
The development of the proposed bicycle network
considered a variety of factors, including past
planning efforts, the existing transportation
environment, and community feedback.

First, the bicycle network proposed in the 2019
Countywide Bicycle Plan was incorporated. Facilities
were upgraded to meet current best practices where
possible. In some cases, planned bicycle facilities
were removed if they were redundant or infeasible
to implement. Proposed bicycle facilities from local
plans were also incorporated and updated to align
with the goals of the AT Plan.

Bicycle facilities were then developed based on the
existing network, bicycle LTS scores, and proximity to
destinations. Destinations with low bicycle
connectivity were considered for bicycle
improvements. Bicycle facilities were also considered
to expand the existing network, especially if they
improve connectivity to key destinations. Where
possible, bicycle facilities were proposed to reduce
LTS, especially along routes where no parallel, lower
stress option was available.
79 60
Qualitative feedback from the community was key to
understanding barriers to active transportation not
identified in the quantitative analysis described
above. Residents highlighted commonly used routes
that needed improvements, streets that were
barriers to safe active transportation, and
destinations that lacked adequate connectivity. This
feedback was incorporated throughout the proposed
bicycle network.

In some cases, study corridors were recommended.

These are streets that were identified through the
needs assessment or by the community for future
improvements but require a greater level of study
than is possible within this planning effort to
determine the most appropriate improvements for
the corridor.

Developing the Pedestrian
Network
Shared-Use Paths
Shared-use paths were largely identified as part of
the bicycle facilities development process, but they
also contribute to a connected, low-stress pedestrian
network. Shared-use paths were considered in the
development of the sidewalk gap closure projects.

Sidewalk Gap Closure Projects
Using satellite imagery, the roadway network was
mapped, and each roadway segment was
categorized as having sidewalks or no sidewalks.

Potential sidewalk gap projects were then
determined based on a series of factors including
roadway context and proximity to walkable
destinations. Roadways that would provide
pedestrian connectivity to nearby destinations or
existing sidewalks and paths were considered for
potential sidewalk projects.

Roadways were typically removed from the list of
potential gap projects if they were rural in nature,
did not provide connectivity to key destinations, or
right-of-way was severely limited. Gaps along vacant
lots were also excluded, as developers of property
would be responsible for implementing sidewalks
Local sidewalk policies and jurisdictional discretion
were also used to eliminate potential sidewalk gap
projects. This manual review of the network
provided a list of potential sidewalk gap projects.

Once the list of potential sidewalk gap projects was
identified, the projects were proposed based on how
beneficial they would be to pedestrian travel.

Sidewalk gap projects were added to the final list of
projects if:
» The gap is located within 500 feet of a point of
interest, including parks, schools, transit stops,
etc.
» The gap is located along a corridor with an
existing or proposed bicycle improvement. The
goal of this criterion is to create multimodal
corridors that prioritize both pedestrians and
bicyclists.

If gaps are present on both sides of the street, the AT Plan proposes a sidewalk on the side of the street
closest to the point of interest.

In addition to the methodology described above, a
manual review was conducted to add or exclude
projects where necessary. This methodology used to
develop the pedestrian network aims to allocate
resources to pedestrian projects that would provide
the highest pedestrian benefit. NVTA recognizes that
additional sidewalk projects throughout the county
may provide safety and connectivity benefits but
may be longer term projects due to funding
limitations.
80 61
Chapter 5
Countywide
Recommendations
Based on prior planning efforts, findings from the
existing conditions analysis and needs assessment,
and feedback from the community, the countywide
active transportation network was developed. Site
specific infrastructure improvements included a
network of proposed bicycle facilities and a
pedestrian network of proposed sidewalk gap
closure projects. To accompany the network
improvements and crossing policy, a treatment
toolkit was developed with bicycle and pedestrian
improvement design guidance. See Appendix D for
the Treatment Toolkit.

The pedestrian and bicycle network
recommendations were vetted through a
collaborative process with local jurisdiction staff.

Staff reviewed and provided edits to the network to
ensure that the recommended improvements
aligned with local planning projects and priorities.

In addition, a set of non-infrastructure policies and
programs were developed to support the
infrastructure recommendations and help Napa
County move towards countywide transportation
goals identified in the Plan. Recommended policies
and programs can be found beginning on Page 99.

Proposed Bicycle Network
The proposed bicycle network aims to improve
connectivity for bicyclists throughout the county. The
network includes a variety of bicycle facility types to address various user needs and abilities, including
off-street paths, on-street bicycle lanes and
protected bikeways, and mixed traffic facilities
(bicycle routes and bicycle boulevards). The network
also includes study corridors that may be prioritized
for future planning efforts.

The bicycle network is intended to be implemented
over time as funding opportunities arise. To help
NVTA and local jurisdictions prioritize bicycle projects for implementation, a list of near-term projects is
provided in Chapter 6.

Bicycle Facility Selection
Bicycle facility types were selected in accordance
with the bicycle facility selection guidance outlined
in the treatment toolkit. The guide recommends
bicycle facility types based on posted speeds and
average daily traffic volumes. Other factors
considered include whether there was room within
the existing right of way for dedicated bicycle
facilities, to which destinations the bicycle facilities connect and who the target users would be. In
addition to the toolkit guidance, feedback from the
jurisdiction, prior planning efforts, and local
knowledge informed facility selection.
81 62
The proposed bicycle projects include a network of
rural bicycle routes throughout Unincorporated
County of Napa. These proposed routes do not
adhere to the bicycle facility selection guidance as
they are typically travelled by more experienced
riders and serve recreational purposes. In many
cases, the bicycle routes are along roads where there
is no room for a dedicated bicycle facility.

Proposed Bicycle Network
Table 5.1 provides the total existing, proposed, and
future mileage of the countywide bicycle network by
facility type. For detailed project recommendations
for each jurisdiction, see Chapter 7 through Chapter

12. For the full list of bicycle network
recommendations, see Appendix E.

The proposed bicycle network also includes several
study corridors that were identified through the
needs assessment or by the community but require
further study to determine the most appropriate
facility type. These studies may be conducted by
individual jurisdictions or by partnerships between
jurisdictions and NVTA.

Table 5.1: Napa Countywide Proposed Bicycle Network Mileage Facility Type 2019 Existing
Mileage
2025 Existing
Mileage*
Change 2019
to 2025
2025
Proposed
Mileage
Total Future
Mileage
Shared Use Path (Class I) 40.9 47.0 +6.1 66.2 113.3
Bicycle Lanes (Class II) 87.8 87.1 -0.7 79.7 166.8
Buffered Bicycle Lanes (Class II) - 3.7 +3.7 30.9 34.6
Bicycle Route (Class III) 13.5 6.8 -6.7 - 6.8
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) - 0.1 +0.1 52.4 52.4
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) - 9.1 +9.1 201.0 210.1
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) - 1.9 +1.9 5.8 7.7
Unclassified Bike Route - 17.9 +17.9 0.8 18.7
Total 142.2 173.6 +31.4 436.9 610.4
*2025 Existing mileage totals are derived from a comprehensive review of existing bicycle facilities, which in some cases resulted in removal or re-categorization of facilities.
82 Lake Berryessa
American
Canyon
Calistoga
Napa
St. Helena
Yountville SODA
CANYON
RD

DRY CREEK RD

SAGE CANYON RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD

BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE RD
ATLAS
PEAK
RD

WOODEN VALLEY RD

POPE CANYON RD
Lake County
Marin County
Sonoma County
Yolo County
29 128
128
221 12
121
29 80
Solano County
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.1
Napa Countywide
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
83 Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course

DUNAWEAL LN

MORA AVE

PETRIFIED FOREST RD

MYRTLEDALE RD

WASHINGTON ST

GREENWOOD AVE

CHAMPAGNE N

GRANT ST

MYRTLE ST

LAKE ST

FOOTHILL BLVD

TUBBS LN

FAIR WAY

N OAK ST

CEDAR ST

PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL

DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD

ROSEDALE RD

KORTUM CANYON RD

LINCOLN AVE

BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN

PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.2
City of Calistoga
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
84 Crane Park
Stonebridge Park

SILVERADO TRL

CHAIX LN

DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE

ZINFANDEL LN

PRATT AVE

MADRON A A V E

FULTON LN

SPRI N G
ST

ADAMS ST POPE ST

VALLEJO ST

DEER PARK RD

MAIN ST

WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD

MEADOWOOD LN

WHITEHALL LN

INGLEWOOD AVE

CRANE AVE

SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE

GRAYSON AVE

OAK AVE

WHITE LN

SPRING MOUNTAIN RD

HUNT AVE

W ZINFANDEL LN

BIG ROCK RD

DEAN YORK LN

CABERNET LN

SYLVANER AVE

HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD

LEWELLING AVE

WHITEHALL LN

MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.3
City of St. Helena
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
85 Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUTE
Vineyard Park

R ALEMEDA

CALIFORNIA DR

MISSION ST

FORRESTER LN HEATHER ST
YO
UNT ST

OAK CIR

YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD

JEFFERSON ST

SAN ANTONIO ST

PRESIDENTS CIR

FINNELL RD

CHAMPAGNE DR

LANDE WAY

YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
AVE

MADISON ST

CALIFORNIA
DR

WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR

VINEYARDCIR

MULBERRY ST

HERITAGE WAY
NAPA

VALLEY VINE TRAIL

VINEYARD VIEW DR

IMPERIAL RD

INNER ALEMEDA

LAND LN

WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.4
Town of Yountville
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
86 Skyline Wilderness Park
Alston Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
Westwood
Hills Park
Trancas Crossing
Park

TROWER AVE

PUEBLO AVE
1ST ST

SOLANO AVE

WINE COUNTRY AVE
1ST
AVE

DRY CREEK RD

SOSCOLFERRY RD

BROWNS VALLEY RD

JEFFERSON
ST

LAS AMIGAS RD
OAK ST

IMOLA AVE

FOSTER RD

ATLAS PEAK RD

TWIN OAKS
DR

CEDAR DR

BASALT RD SILVERADO
CALI
TRL
FORNIA
BLVD

DEVLIN RD

HAGEN RD
COOMBS
ST
SOSCOL
AVE

THOMPSON
AVE

LINCOLN AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

GOLDEN GATE DR

OLIVE HILL LN

CUTTINGS WHARF RD

LAUREL ST

REDWOOD RD

W IMOLA AVE

ORCHARD AVE
VICHY
AVE

PARTRICK RD

DUHIG RD

TRANCAS ST

OLD SONOMA RD

STANLY LN

HILLCRESTDR

BIG RANCH RD

LINDA VISTAAVE

LOS CARNEROS AVE

BUHMAN AVE

DEALY LN

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
221
29 29
29 12
12 FIGURE 5.5
City of Napa
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
School
City Limits
County Limits
87 Alston Park
Westwood
Hills Park

JEFFERSON ST

LAUREL ST

SOLANO AVE

WINE COUNTRY AVE

CALIFORNIA
BLVD

CONGRESS VALLEYRD

DRY CREEK RD
1ST ST

BROWNS VALLEY RD

KATHLEEN DR

EL CENTRO AVE

TWIN OAKS DR

LONE OAK AVE

W PARK AVE

W LINCOLN AVE
FALCON
CREST
CIR

SIERRA AVE

SUMMERFIELD DR

TROWER AVE

KILBURN AVE

OLD SONOMA RD

WESTVIEW DR

SCENIC DR

THOMPSON
AVE

YOUNG AVE

BYWAY E

BROADMOORDR

SALVADOR AVE

REDWOOD RD

HOMEWOOD AVE

ORCHARD AVE

W PUEBLO AVE

PARTRICK RD

TIMBERHILLLN

BUHMAN AVE

MAHER ST

LINDA VISTA AVE

OXFORD ST
NAPA

VALLEY VINE TRAIL

STONEBRIDGE DR

HUNTER RANCHRD
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.6
City of Napa - Northwest
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
88 NAPARIVER TRAIL

PUEBLO AVE

PINE ST
1ST ST

SEMINAR
Y
ST

VILLA LN

EASTAVE
SHURTL

EFF AVE
1ST AVE

HARDMAN AVE

JEFFERSON ST
OAK ST

SAINT ANDREWSDR

PEAR TREE LN

ATLAS PEAK RD

LAUREL ST

SILVERADOTRL

LA GRANDE
AVE

SOSCOL AVE

FRANKLIN
ST

CALIFORNIA
BLVD

MAIN ST

FREEWAY DR

HEDGESIDE

MCKINLEY RD
AVE
G ST

COOMBS ST

CLAY ST

SILVER TRL
SOSCOL
AVE

NORTH AVE

LINCOLN AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

EL CENTRO AVE

SPRUCE ST

TERRACE DR

STONECREST DR

LA HOMA DR

STONEHOUSE DR

OLIVE HILL LN

RANDOLPH ST

MARIN ST

CAYETANO DR

WILLIS DR

ROSS CIR

HAGEN RD

ESTEE AVE
2ND
AVE

RIVERSIDE
DR

MONTECITO BLVD

VICHY AVE

CENTRAL AVE
3RD AVE

TRANCAS ST

KANSAS AVE

HILLCREST DR

BIG RANCH RD

SILVERADO
TRL
RAPP
LN

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
29 121
121
FIGURE 5.7
City of Napa - Northeast
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
89 Skyline County P
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park

RIVERSOUND WA
Y
NAPA

VALLEY CORPORATEDR

PINE ST

GASSER DR

S JEFFERSON ST

SOSCOL FERRY RD

LASAMIGAS RD

IMOLA AVE

FOSTER RD

CEDAR DR

BASALT RD

LAUREL ST

DEVLIN RD

SHETLER AVE

TECHNOLOGYWAY

SHURTLEFFAVE

HEMLOCK ST

SPRUCE ST SEVILLE DR

JAMES DIEMER DR
ELM ST

GOLDEN GATE DR

CAYETANO DR

N AIRPORT RD

CLEAR STREAM AVE

W IMOLA AVE

N KELLY RD

KANSAS AVE

OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY
LN

STANLY CROSSROAD

RIVER PARK BLVD

SOSCOL CREEK RD

CUTTINGS WHARF RD

N NEWPORT DR
NAPA

VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
12 12
29 29
29 221

STANLY LN
FIGURE 5.8
City of Napa - South
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
90 Veterans
Memorial Park
Shenandoah Park
American Canyon
Community Park
Kimberly Park

VIA BELLAGIO

WETLANDS EDGE RD

SILVER OAK TRL NEWELL
DR

KIMBERLY DR

CRAWFORD WAY

RIO DEL MAR

DONALDSON WAY

DONALDSON WAY E

BOONE DR

S KELLY RD
PAOLI
LOOP
R
D

ELLIOTT DR

REDWO OD CIR

TR I A L ER
PA

RK R O AD

DEVLIN RD

AMERICAN CANYON RD

MARLA DR

KNIGHTSBRIDGEWAY

SPIKERUSH CIR

GREEN ISLAND RD
CHA
UCER L
N

TOWER RD

NORTHAMPTONDR

ENTRADACIR

WATSON LN

BROADWAY
C
O
MMER
CE
BLVD

DANROSE
D
R

W AMERICAN CANYON RD

JAMES RD

LOS ALTOS DR

EUCALYPTUS DR

AIRPORT RD

MARCUS RD

SONOMA BLVD

COMMERCE
CT
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.9
City of American Canyon
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities

0.5 Miles H
91 Las Posadas
State Forest
Bothe-Napa Valley State Park
Robert Louis
Stevenson
State Park
29 29
128
Lake County
Sonoma County

POPE CANYON
RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.10
County of Napa - Northwest
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
92 Lake Berryessa
Las Posadas
State Forest
Lake County
Yolo County

BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE RD

POPE CANYON RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.11
County of Napa - Northeast
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
93 DRY CREEK RD

SAGE CANYON RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
29 29
128
128
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.12
County of Napa - Central West
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
94 Lake Berryessa
Lake Curry
Lake Hennessey
Lake Hennessey City
Recreation Area
Las Posadas
State Forest

SILVERADO
TRL
SODA

CANYON RD

DRY CREEK RD

SAGE CANYON RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD

ATLAS PEAK RD

BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE
RD

SILVERADO TRL

WOODEN VALLEY RD
128
128
29 121
Solano County
Sonoma
County
Yolo County
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.13
County of Napa - Central East
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
95 12
121
221
29 29
12 121
80 AMERICAN CANYON RD

TROWER AVE

JEFFERSON ST
1ST ST
1S
T
AVE

DRY CREEK RD

B ROWNS VALLEY RD

LAS AMIGAS RD

CUTTINGS WHARF RD

FOSTER RD
ATLAS

PEAK RD

CALIFORNIA
BLVD

SOLANO AVE

LAKEMARIE RD

DEVLIN RD

GREEN ISLAND RD

SOSCOL AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD
3RD AVE

GOLDEN GA TE DR

BROADWAY

REDWO OD RD

W IMOLA AVE

HAGEN RD

POLSON RD

PARTRICK RD

DUHIG RD

TRANCAS ST

OLD SONOMA RD

STANLY LN

W ILDHORSE
VALL
EY RD

AIR PORT RD

BIG RANCH RD

SILVERADO TRL

LINDAVISTA AVE

MOUNT VEEDER RD

BUHMAN AVE

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.14
County of Napa - South
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H

2.5 Miles
96 TRANCAS ST

NORMA DR

NORFOLK ST

JOMAR DR

KATHLEEN DR

EMERSON ST

SHERRY DR

OXFORD ST

SUTHERLAND DR

ETHEL PORTER DR

MACLENNAN ST
BA

YWOOD LN

DELPHA DR

BARBARA RD

VERNA DR

SANDRA DR

CAROL DR

MACLEOD ST

ROHLFFSWAY

THOMAS DR
CAROL
DR

YOUNG AVE

DOVER ST

PAMELA DR

ROLLINGWOOD DR

EUCLID AVE

SOLANO AVE

WAVERLY ST

DONNA DR

MACBETH ST

JANETTE DR

REDWOOD RD
LINDA

VISTA AVE

W PUEBLO AVE

MORGAN LN

MACLEAN ST

GLEN CT

MACFADDEN
ST

MASSA DR

BEL AIRE PLZ
RA

NCHO DR

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL

MORLAN DR
SB SR29 OFF TRANCAS
NB SR29 ON TRANCAS
SB SR29 ON

TRANCAS
NB SR29
OFF

TRANCAS

W PARK AVE
29 29
FIGURE 5.15
County of Napa - West Pueblo
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H

0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
97 CEDAR DR

IMOLA AVE

LONDON WAY

REPUBLIC AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

CAPITOLA DR

LOS ROBLES DR

WYATT AVE

MUIR ST

MARSHALL AVE

JUNIPER CIR

BIRKDALE DR

LAREDO ST

S TERRACE DR

ERIN WAY

SHETLER AVE

CORONADO AVE
PATTON
AVE

SHURTLEFF AVE

LINDEN ST

N OAK DR

TAMARISK DR

WILKINS AVE

SEVILLE DR MARIA DR

TERRACE DR

HOLMES AVE

TRAILER PA R K
R
OA
D

RUSSELL ST

PENNY LN

CAYETANO DR

PARRISH RD
SOMMER
S
T

OAKMONT CT

ACACIA DR

LIBERTY DR HARDING AVE

PERKINS ST

BELV EDERE CT

KANSAS AVE

PENNYROYAL ST

MAGNOLIA DR
FIGURE 5.16
County of Napa - Southeast Napa Islands
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H

0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
98 Chardonnay Golf Club
Skyline County Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
American Canyon
Community Park
121
12 12
221
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.17
County of Napa - Napa / American Canyon
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
1 Miles H
99 80
Proposed Pedestrian
Network
Recommended pedestrian projects aim to create a
more complete, more connected pedestrian
network. Proposed projects include off-street,
shared-use paths as well as sidewalk gap closure
projects near key destinations.

Providing dedicated pedestrian facilities separate
from vehicle traffic decreases potential conflict with
motorists. A complete pedestrian network is more
accessible to a wide range of users, including people
with physical disabilities, as well as people with
strollers, shopping carts, suitcases, or bicycles. It also supports first- and last-mile trips to and from transit stops, improved public health by encouraging
walking, and drives foot traffic to local businesses.

The proposed network does not include specific
locations for crossing or intersection improvements,
but rather a crosswalk policy that may be employed
by the jurisdictions. The Treatment Toolkit in
Appendix D provides a host of potential crossing
improvement measures, including signage, lighting,
physical infrastructure improvements, and parking
policy. Jurisdictions may use this toolkit at their own discretion to develop site specific crossing
improvement projects.

Proposed Pedestrian Network
Table 5.2 provides existing and proposed mileage of
the pedestrian network by facility type. For detailed
project recommendations for each jurisdiction, see
Chapter 7 through Chapter 12.

Table 5.2: Napa Countywide Proposed Pedestrian Network Mileage Facility Type Existing Mileage Proposed Mileage Total
Shared Use Path (Class I) 47.0 66.2 113.3
Sidewalk 523.1 18.3 541.4
Total 570.1 84.6 654.7
100
Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course

DUNAWEAL LN

MORA AVE

PETRIFIED FOREST RD

MYRTLEDALE RD

WASHINGTON ST

GREENWOOD AVE

CHAMPAGNE N

GRANT ST

MYRTLE ST

LAKE ST

FOOTHILL BLVD

TUBBS LN

FAIR WAY

N OAK ST

CEDAR ST

PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL

DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD

ROSEDALE RD

KORTUM CANYON RD

LINCOLN AVE

BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN

PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Crosswalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.18
City of Calistoga
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
101
Crane Park
Stonebridge Park

SILVERADO TRL

CHAIX LN

DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE

ZINFANDEL LN

PRATT AVE

MADRON A A V E

FULTON LN

SPRI N G
ST

ADAMS ST

POPE ST

VALLEJO ST

DEER PARK RD

MAIN ST

WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD

MEADOWOOD LN

WHITEHALL LN

INGLEWOOD AVE

CRANE AVE

SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE

GRAYSON AVE

OAK AVE

WHITE LN

SPRING MOUNTAIN RD

HUNT AVE

W ZINFANDEL LN

BIG ROCK RD

DEAN YORK LN

CABERNET LN

SYLVANER AVE

HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD

LEWELLING AVE

WHITEHALL LN

MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Crosswalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.19
City of St. Helena
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
102
Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUTE
Vineyard Park

R ALEMEDA

CALIFORNIA DR

MISSION ST

FORRESTER LN HEATHER ST
YO
UNT ST

OAK CIR

YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD

JEFFERSON ST

SAN ANTONIO ST

PRESIDENTS CIR

FINNELL RD

CHAMPAGNE DR

LANDE WAY

YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
AVE

MADISON ST

CALIFORNIA
DR

WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR

VINEYARDCIR

MULBERRY ST

HERITAGE WAY
NAPA

VALLEY VINE TRAIL

VINEYARD VIEW DR

IMPERIAL RD

INNER ALEMEDA

LAND LN

WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.20
Town of Yountville
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
103
Skyline Wilderness Park
Alston Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
Westwood
Hills Park
Trancas Crossing
Park

TROWER AVE

PUEBLO AVE
1ST ST

SOLANO AVE

WINE COUNTRY AVE
1ST
AVE

DRY CREEK RD

SOSCOLFERRY RD

BROWNS VALLEY RD

JEFFERSON
ST

LAS AMIGAS RD
OAK ST

IMOLA AVE

FOSTER RD

ATLAS PEAK RD

TWIN OAKS
DR

CEDAR DR

BASALT RD SILVERADO
CALI
TRL
FORNIA
BLVD

DEVLIN RD

HAGEN RD
COOMBS
ST
SOSCOL
AVE

THOMPSON
AVE

LINCOLN AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

GOLDEN GATE DR

OLIVE HILL LN

CUTTINGS WHARF RD

LAUREL ST

REDWOOD RD

W IMOLA AVE

ORCHARD AVE
VICHY
AVE

PARTRICK RD

DUHIG RD

TRANCAS ST

OLD SONOMA RD

STANLY LN

HILLCRESTDR

BIG RANCH RD

LINDA VISTAAVE

LOS CARNEROS AVE

BUHMAN AVE

DEALY LN

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
221
29 29
29 12
12 FIGURE 5.21
City of Napa
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Crosswalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
104
Alston Park
Westwood
Hills Park

JEFFERSON ST

LAUREL ST

SOLANO AVE

WINE COUNTRY AVE

CALIFORNIA
BLVD

CONGRESS VALLEYRD

DRY CREEK RD
1ST ST

BROWNS VALLEY RD

KATHLEEN DR

EL CENTRO AVE

TWIN OAKS DR

LONE OAK AVE

W PARK AVE

W LINCOLN AVE
FALCON
CREST
CIR

SIERRA AVE

SUMMERFIELD DR

TROWER AVE

KILBURN AVE

OLD SONOMA RD

WESTVIEW DR

SCENIC DR

THOMPSON
AVE

YOUNG AVE

BYWAY E

BROADMOORDR

SALVADOR AVE

REDWOOD RD

HOMEWOOD AVE

ORCHARD AVE

W PUEBLO AVE

PARTRICK RD

TIMBERHILLLN

BUHMAN AVE

MAHER ST

LINDA VISTA AVE

OXFORD ST
NAPA

VALLEY VINE TRAIL

STONEBRIDGE DR

HUNTER RANCHRD
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.22
City of Napa - Northwest
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
105

NAPARIVER TRAIL

PUEBLO AVE

PINE ST
1ST ST

SEMINAR
Y
ST

VILLA LN

EASTAVE
SHURTL

EFF AVE
1ST AVE

HARDMAN AVE

JEFFERSON ST

BROWN ST
OAK ST

SAINT ANDREWSDR

PEAR TREE LN

ATLAS PEAK RD

LAUREL ST

SILVERADOTRL

LA GRANDE
AVE

SOSCOL AVE

FRANKLIN
ST

CALIFORNIA
BLVD

MAIN ST

FREEWAY DR

HEDGESIDE

MCKINLEY RD
AVE
G ST

COOMBS ST

CLAY ST

YAJOME ST

SILVER TRL
SOSCOL
AVE

NORTH AVE
2ND ST
3RD ST

LINCOLN AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

EL CENTRO AVE

SPRUCE ST

TERRACE DR

STONECREST DR

LA HOMA DR
ELM ST

STONEHOUSE DR

OLIVE HILL LN

RANDOLPH ST

MARIN ST

CAYETANO DR

WILLIS DR

ROSS CIR

HAGEN RD

ESTEE AVE
2ND
AVE

RIVERSIDE
DR

MONTECITO BLVD

VICHY AVE

CENTRAL AVE
3RD AVE

TRANCAS ST

KANSAS AVE

HILLCREST DR

BIG RANCH RD

SILVERADO
TRL
RAPP
LN

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
29 121
121
FIGURE 5.23
City of Napa - Northeast
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
106
Skyline County P
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park

RIVERSOUND WA
Y
NAPA

VALLEY CORPORATEDR

PINE ST

GASSER DR

S JEFFERSON ST

SOSCOL FERRY RD

LASAMIGAS RD

IMOLA AVE

FOSTER RD

CEDAR DR

BASALT RD

LAUREL ST

DEVLIN RD

SHETLER AVE

TECHNOLOGYWAY

SHURTLEFFAVE

HEMLOCK ST

SPRUCE ST SEVILLE DR

JAMES DIEMER DR
ELM ST

GOLDEN GATE DR

CAYETANO DR

N AIRPORT RD

CLEAR STREAM AVE

W IMOLA AVE

N KELLY RD

KANSAS AVE

OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY
LN

STANLY CROSSROAD

RIVER PARK BLVD

SOSCOL CREEK RD

CUTTINGS WHARF RD

N NEWPORT DR
NAPA

VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
12 12
29 29
29 221

STANLY LN
FIGURE 5.24
City of Napa - South
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
107
Veterans
Memorial Park
Shenandoah Park
American Canyon
Community Park
Kimberly Park

WETLANDS EDGE RD

SILVER OAK TRL
NEWELL
DR

KIMBERLY DR

CRAWFORD WAY

DONALDSON WAY

BOONE DR

S KELLY RD
PAOLI
LOOP
R
D

ELLIOTT DR

REDWO OD CIR

TR I A L ER
PA

RK R O AD

DEVLIN RD

AMERICAN CANYON RD

MARLA DR

GREEN ISLAND RD

CHAUCER LN

TOWER RD

NORTHAMPTON DR

ENTRADACIR

WATSON LN

BROADWAY
C
O
MMER
CE
BLVD

DANROSE
D
R

JAMES RD

LOS ALTO S
DR

EUCALYPTUS DR

AIRPORT RD

MARCUS RD

COMMERCE
CT
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.25
City of American Canyon
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities

0.5 Miles H
108

WALNUT DR OAKVILLE GRADE RD

MANLEY LN

BELLA OAKS LN

NIEBAUM LN

MONEY RD

OAKVILLE CROSS RD

RUTHERFORD ROAD

ACACIA DR
MEE LN

BEERS TECHER RD

CONN CREEK RD
128 128
29 29
Oakville
Rutherford
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
School
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
Census Designated Places
FIGURE 5.26
County of Napa - Rutherford and Oakville
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
109

LAS POSADAS RD

KEYES AVE

BROOKSI D E DR

DEER PARK RD

SKY OAKS DR

S WHITEC O TTAGE RD

N WHITE COTTAGERD

LA JOTA DR

INK GRADE RD

BELL CANYON RD

FRIESEN DR

COLLEGE AVE

CLARK WAY

SUMMIT LAKE DR

FA LLS RD

CRESTMONT DR

HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
Angwin
Deer Park
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
Census Designated Places
City Limits
FIGURE 5.27
County of Napa - Angwin
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities

0.5 Miles H
110
Stonebridge Park

SILVERADO TRL

S WHITE COTTAGE RD

MUND RD

SPRING MOUNTAIN RD

HILLCREST RD

SANITARIUM RD

PRATT AVE

FULTON LN HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD

POPE ST

LODI LN

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

MAIN ST

GLASS MOUNTAIN RD

MEADOWOOD LN

D EERPARK RD

SUNNYSIDERD

CAMINO V ISTA

HOWELL MOUNTAIN
RD

LIND A FALL S TERRACE

HUNT AVE

BIG ROCK RD

CRESTMONT DR
128
29 Angwin
Deer Park
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Crosswalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
Census Designated Places
City Limits
FIGURE 5.28
County of Napa - Deer Park
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
111

TROON DR

S ILV E RADO SPRINGS
DR

HARDMAN AVE
STONE

MO UN T A IN
CIR

AUGUSTA CIR

SA INTANDREWS DR

CASTLE OAKS DR

ATLAS PEAK RD

KAANAPALI DR

HEDGESIDE AVE

MCKINLEY RD

SILVER TRL
MIL
L
KE I N

CREEK DR

VICHY AVE

WESTGATE DR

ESTEE AVE

WESTGATE DR
OLD

SODA SPRINGS RD

FAIRWAY DR

HILLCREST DR

COTTAGE DR
121
121
Silverado
Resort
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
Census Designated Places
City Limits
FIGURE 5.29
County of Napa - Silverado Resort
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.5 Miles
112

NORMA DR

NORFOLK ST

JOMAR DR

KATHLEEN DR

EMERSON ST

SHERRY DR

OXFORD ST

SUTHERLAND DR

ETHEL PORTER DR

MACLENNAN ST

BAYWOOD
LN

DELPHA DR

BARBARA RD

VERNA DR

SANDRA DR

CAROL DR

MACLEOD ST

ROHLFFSWAY

THOMAS DR
CAROL
DR

YOUNG AVE

DOVER ST

PAMELA DR

ROLLINGWOOD DR

EUCLID AVE

SOLANO AVE

WAVERLY ST

DONNA DR

MACBETH ST

JANETTE DR

REDWOOD RD
LINDA

VISTA AVE

W PUEBLO AVE

MORGAN LN

MACLEAN ST

GLEN CT

MACFADDEN
ST

MASSA DR

BEL AIRE PLZ
RA

NCHO DR

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL

MORLAN DR
SB SR29 OFF TRANCAS
NB SR29 ON TRANCAS
SB
SR29 O
N
TRA
N
CA
S
NB SR29
OFF

TRANCAS

W PARK AVE
29 29
FIGURE 5.30
County of Napa - West Pueblo
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Crosswalk
School
City Limits
County Limits
113

CEDAR DR

IMOLA AVE

LONDON WAY

REPUBLIC AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

CAPITOLA
D
R

LOS ROBLES DR

WYATT AVE

MUIR ST

MARSHALL AVE

JUNIPER CIR

BIRKDALE DR

LAREDO ST

S TERRACE DR

ERIN WAY

SHETLER AVE

CORONADO AVE
PA
TTON
A
VE

SHURTLEFF AVE

LINDEN ST

N OAK DR

TAMARISK DR

WILKINS
A
VE

SEVILLE DR MARIA DR

TERRACE DR

HOLMES AVE

TRAILER PA R K
R
OA
D

RUSSELL ST

PENNY LN

CAYETANO DR

PARRISH RD
SOMMER
S
T

OAKMONT CT

ACACIA DR

LIBERTY DR HARDING AVE

PERKINS ST

BELV EDERE CT

KANSAS AVE

PENNYROYAL ST

MAGNOLIA DR
FIGURE 5.31
County of Napa - Southeast Napa Islands
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H

0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
School
City Limits
County Limits
114
95 Marked Crosswalk Strategies
The following crosswalk strategy may be used to
determine locations for new or improved marked
crosswalks and prioritize key crossing opportunities.

For a menu of crossing safety treatments, refer to
the Treatment Toolkit in Appendix D.

Three factors must be considered when identifying
locations for marked crosswalks:
» Where is there a demand for a crosswalk?
» Is there a history of collisions?
» Where can people cross safely?
In addition to this strategy, jurisdictions should refer to the NVTA Community Based Transportation Plan
(CBTP) recommended project list, which includes
more than 80 potential projects and programs
recommended by disadvantaged community
members. The CBTP seeks to address transportation
access issues for disadvantaged residents who are
more likely to be dependent upon transit or other
forms of transportation besides a car but may have
less resources or access to travel where they need to
go. By considering crosswalks requested by this
community, it will ensure that some of the county's
most vulnerable residents have a voice in steering
transportation policy and improving their day-to-day
lives.

Crossing Demand
Marked crosswalks should be prioritized at locations
where there is existing crossing demand, including at
community destinations such as schools, parks,
commercial centers, wineries, and transit stops.

Choosing crossing locations will depend on
pedestrian desire lines, which are the most direct,
desirable crossing route locations to key
destinations. According to the National Association
of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), where the
walking distance to a crosswalk exceeds three
minutes, pedestrians are more likely to cross at
unmarked, unsafe locations for a more direct route.

Long wait times at signalized intersection may also
encourage risky crossing behavior. Crosswalks at
uncontrolled intersections or midblock locations
should be considered, where appropriate, to follow
pedestrian desire lines and create more convenient
crossing opportunities. Caltrans Design Information
Bulletin (DIB) 94 recommends guidance for
identifying locations for marked crosswalks, listed in
Table 5.3.

DIB 94 specifies that crosswalks should be within
250-500 feet of each other in urban areas, and
within 500 feet of each other in suburban areas or
along rural main streets. Transit stops and key
community destinations should have crosswalks
within 50 to 200 feet.

Crosswalks should be prioritized at schools,
commercial centers, hospitals, government
buildings, tourist attractions, and other destinations
where 1) pedestrians are encouraged to walk and 2)
may be used by vulnerable road users (children,
seniors, etc.). Crosswalks and pedestrian facilities
should be considered in large commercial parking
lots as well.

Table 5.3: Caltrans DIB 94 Crosswalk Location Guidance
Destination/Land Use Context Crosswalk Location
Transit Stop 50-200 feet to destination
Community Destination 50-200 feet to destination
Urban Areas Every 250 to 500 feet
Suburban Areas/Rural Main Streets Every 500 feet
115
96 Collision History
Another way to identify potential marked crosswalk
locations is through an analysis of local collision
history. Identifying collision hot spots will highlight areas for potential pedestrian improvements, and
shared roadway characteristics that may contribute
to high collision frequency. A collision analysis will
also help identify places where pedestrians are
crossing often, but adequate crossing safety features
are not present. Collision history may be used in
tandem with crossing demand to prioritize crossing
locations to key destinations.

Some commonly used sources for collision data,
such as the Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), only report collisions that result in a fatality or injury and therefore underreport total collisions
by excluding non-injury or property damage only
crashes. Street Story Reports by Berkeley SafeTREC
provide supplemental information about collisions,
near-misses, and other roadway safety concerns.

Crossing Safety
Once crossing demand is established and collision
hotspots are located, potential crossing locations
should be evaluated for safety. The number of lanes,
posted speed, and volume of vehicles—measured as
the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)—all impact
pedestrian crossing safety, and appropriate
pedestrian crossing treatments should be considered
and implemented. Stopping sight distance should
also be evaluated when identifying appropriate
locations for midblock or uncontrolled crosswalks.

Selecting Crossing Treatments
After selecting marked crosswalk locations for
implementation, pedestrian crossing treatments
should be considered based on intersection context.

Figure 5.32 provides crossing treatments and where
they are deemed most appropriate based on
intersection characteristics. Figure 5.33 provides the
FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at
Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (STEP Guide), which
includes appropriate crossing treatments based on
roadway configuration, speed limit, and average
daily traffic volumes. See Appendix D for a list of
potential pedestrian crossing treatments.
116
97 Figure 5.32: Crossing Treatments by Intersection Type 117
98 Figure 5.33: FHWA Step Guide
118
99 Recommended Policies and
Programs
Policies and programs, in tandem with state-of-thepractice infrastructure, will help Napa County achieve its vision of being an active transportationfriendly community with a connected and comfortable network for all ages and abilities.

Inspired by the “Six E’s” framework developed by the
Safe Routes Partnership8
, the recommended policies
and programs in this Plan are categorized into the
following distinct implementation channels—
engineering, education and engagement,
encouragement, and evaluation. Since equity (one of
the “Six E’s”) is one of the goals of this plan and not an “implementation channel,” the policies and
programs that support the Equity and Accessibility
goal are distributed among the other “E’s”
categories.

Policies are typically set by local jurisdictions, while programs may be led by those agencies directly or in
partnership with external stakeholders such as
nonprofit organizations or school districts. The
policies in this Plan build upon and complement
policies developed in previous planning efforts (both
countywide and local), and supersede any conflicting
policies in previous plans, unless noted. The policies
and programs in this section are intended to be
applied countywide and adopted by each
jurisdiction.

The lead implementing agency for each policy and
program is the local jurisdiction, unless otherwise
noted.

Engineering
Recommended policies and programs that support the build-out of a connected and comfortable active transportation network for all ages and abilities are listed in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Engineering Policies and Programs
Topic Policy or Program Goal Themes
Active
Transportation
Network
Implementation
(Development
Regulations)
Update development code to condition discretionary projects to provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities recommended in this Plan, assuming a nexus is established. With prior approval from the jurisdiction, construction may be deferred until a connection to an existing route can be made.

Improvements include, but are not limited to, easements, land dedication, route design and construction, maintenance, safety enhancements, and support facilities.

Connectivity
Automated
Enforcement
Technology
Evaluate automated technology innovations to enforce posted speed limits, traffic signal compliance, and other moving vehicle violations.

Safety
Bicycle Parking and
End-of-Trip
Facilities
Update municipal code to require the provision of long- and short-term bicycle parking in all new or redeveloped multifamily residential, office, public, and commercial buildings. Additionally require employers with 50 or more full-time exempt employees to provide end-of-trip facilities, such as showers and lockers. Refer to the Treatment Toolkit for best practices.

Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Bikeways, Existing Do not remove existing bikeways unless an improved bikeway is installed in its place.

Safety,
Connectivity
8 https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/safe-routes-school/101/6-Es 119
100
Topic Policy or Program Goal Themes
Capital
Improvements
Program (CIP)
Include projects from this Plan’s proposed pedestrian network and near-term bicycle project list in the CIP.

Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Coordination with
Caltrans
Work with Caltrans to identify projects on Caltrans facilities that address issues related to collisions, speeding, or other barriers to active transportation.

Safety,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Complete Streets Establish a deadline to update local engineering standards to incorporate Complete Streets consistent with Metropolitan Transportation Commissions (MTC) guidance,
9 Caltrans Director’s Policy 37, and incorporating best practices as identified by AASHTO, NACTO, and PROWAG.

Complete streets serve not only vehicle operations, but also pedestrians, personal mobility device users, bicyclists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities in a form that is compatible with and complementary to adjacent land uses, and that promotes connectivity between uses and areas.

Equity and
Accessibility,
Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Crossings Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian crossing enhancement projects located along the Vision Zero High Injury Network (HIN).

Safety,
Connectivity
Curb Design Discourage rolled curbs adjacent to sidewalks; they may increase frequency of vehicles parking on or blocking pedestrian path of travel.

Safety, Equity
and
Accessibility,
Connectivity
Daylighting Prioritize curb extensions and other daylighting improvements at key locations, such as near schools, or on higher volume roads.

Safety
Design Standards Design all active transportation infrastructure to serve all ages and abilities. In the absence of local jurisdictional design guidelines, please refer to the Treatment Toolkit in this Plan. The Toolkit should be regularly updated by NVTA to reflect best practices.

Safety, Equity
and
Accessibility
Leading Pedestrian
Interval
Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) at signals near key destinations such as schools, parks, hospitals, multi-family housing, retail hubs, transit, and at intersections along the HIN
Safety, Equity
and
Accessibility
Lighting Prioritize pedestrian-scale lighting along primary active transportation corridors and near intersections along the HIN, primary active transportation corridors including Class I and Class IV facilities in urbanized areas, and arterials with bicycle facilities and/or sidewalks.

Safety,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Maintenance Recognizing that small jurisdictions may not have the resources to acquire equipment, jurisdictions should share maintenance equipment (e.g., for sweeping, moving, bollard replacement) where feasible.

Equity and
Accessibility,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Maintenance Maintain bicycle facilities at the same or better condition as on-road facilities.

Examples include pavement condition, signing and striping, street sweeping and debris removal, and trimming of vegetation. Consult the Treatment Toolkit section for guidance.

Equity and
Accessibility,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Maintenance
Reporting
Enable residents and visitors to easily report hazards in the public right-ofway using digital/mobile tools that automatically and consistently track maintenance needs. This could include reporting maintenance needs for pedestrian-related pavement markings and traffic control devices.

Equity and
Accessibility,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
9 MTC Complete Streets Checklist. https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024- 10/MTC_Administrative_Guidance_for_Complete_Streets_Checklist_2024.pdf 120
101
Topic Policy or Program Goal Themes
Mode Hierarchy Establish a mode hierarchy for land use, design and engineering decisions on key corridors or specific street typologies that identify where to prioritize pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit.

Safety,
Connectivity,
sustainability,
and Mode Shift
Project
Implementation
Review the projects identified in this plan for inclusion in street resurfacing, construction projects, and development application review, to promote consistency and buildout of the active transportation network.

Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Quick Build10 Develop a countywide Quick-Build Program to quickly and consistently select and implement active transportation projects.

Safety,
Connectivity
Regional Active
Transportation
Network
Enhance safety by prioritizing bike and pedestrian connectivity to regional bicycle trail facilities such as the Vine Trail and Bay Trail.

Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Right on Red Evaluate existing signalized intersections for locations where Right on Red may be prohibited to improve safety.

Safety
Safe Routes to
School – Bicycle
Parking
Partner with local school districts to provide safe, secure bicycle parking.

Short-term bicycle parking should be provided at a rate of at least 1 space per every 20 students.11 In the absence of local jurisdictional design guidelines, refer to the Treatment Toolkit for bicycle parking design guidance.

Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Safe Routes to
School –
Crosswalks
Enhance all school zone crosswalks at collector or arterial intersections within

0.25 miles of a school with yellow, higher-visibility continental or ladder-style markings.

Safety
Safe Routes to
School - Sidewalks
Strive to provide sidewalks of at least 6’ wide within 250’ of the school entrance. If a school has only one entrance, strive to provide sidewalks of at least 8’ wide within 250’ of that entrance.

Equity and
Accessibility
Sidewalk Gaps Support safe and convenient access for pedestrians of all ages and abilities by filling all sidewalk network gaps. Prioritize filling gaps (1) along arterials and collectors, (2) proximate to key destinations such as schools, parks, hospitals, multi-family housing, or transit, and (3) in areas that are identified as a neighborhood/community priority.12
Equity and
Accessibility,
Connectivity
Sidewalks as
Shared-Use Paths
Install signage and pavement markings (such as thermoplastic decals) along all existing wide or “jumbo” sidewalks to satisfy the facility requirements of shared-use paths.

Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Speed Limits
(General)
Using the CA Manual for Setting Speed Limits, further Vision Zero objectives to lessen the severity and frequency of crashes by reducing roadway design speed and associated posted speed limits on arterial and collector roadways.

Safety
Speed Limits
(School Zone)
Per California Vehicle Code Section 22358.8, evaluate the reduction of speed limits in School Zones, which may be lowered to 15 mph on all two-way residential streets under the City’s jurisdiction within 500 feet of schools and 25 mph up to 1,000 feet from schools.

Safety
Transit First Prioritize active transportation to/from transit stops, transit hubs, and park and rides, particularly within Equity Priority Communities.

Equity and
Accessibility,
Connectivity
10 NVTA would implement this policy or program.
11 Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Ed, 2010. 12 There are some exceptions to this policy, including rural residential zones and the Town of Yountville Old Town Historic District. See Town of Yountville General Plan, Mobility Element MO-3.2 – Old Town Historic District, which states “Maintain the Old Town Historic residential neighborhood with minimal traffic improvements and without curb, gutter, and sidewalks.” 121
102
Education and Engagement
The policies and programs recommended below are intended to educate and increase awareness of active transportation-related best practices among the public.

Table 5.5: Education and Engagement Policies and Programs Topic Policy or Program Goal Themes
Bike Rental
Education
Promote bicycle safety and reduce conflicts by coordinating with businesses that provide bike rentals, tours, and/or loaner bikes (including local retailers, hotels, and tour companies) to promote user education/etiquette and to provide preferred route guides to those who borrow or rent equipment.

Safety
Construction
Detours
Provide designated detour routes with an LTS equivalent to the existing bicycle/pedestrian facility so that construction projects (whether public or private) do not unnecessarily impact active transportation facilities.

Safety
Micromobility If necessary, update local ordinances to specify where e-bikes and other motorized micromobility devices are allowed to operate, consistent with state legislation.

Equity and
Accessibility,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Obstructions Develop an awareness program and/or educational materials that discourage blocking bike lanes and sidewalks (including residential driveways), especially within 0.25 miles of schools. This information could be communicated through local jurisdictions’ websites and directly to businesses (re: commercial deliveries).

Safety, Equity
and
Accessibility,
Connectivity
Road Safety
Education
Organize countywide efforts to partner with local stakeholders to expand roadway safety events, programs, and leverage regional/state/federal campaigns such as those developed by the Office of Traffic Safety. Partner with local nonprofit organizations and other community partners to provide and support free bicycle and pedestrian education to the community that includes topics such as safety and maintenance.

Safety,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Safe Routes to
School Education
Support and expand Safe Routes to School program, including classroombased curriculum and on-bike education for all Napa County K-12 students by identifying consistent long-term funding for Safe Routes to School programs.

Safety,
Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Safe Routes to
School
Engagement
Partner with local schools to provide Safe Routes to Schools materials and communications in commonly spoken languages to reach diverse populations.

Equity and
Accessibility
Waste Hauling Expand Napa County Bicycle Coalition’s awareness program that discourages placing waste bins in bike lanes and within the pedestrian clear space of the sidewalk. Develop local policies to support ongoing education and compliance.

Safety, Equity
and Accessibility
Wayfinding13 Partner with local and regional jurisdictions and stakeholders to develop countywide bikeway signage, striping, wayfinding, and lighting standards.

Whether on regional multi-use paths or in local downtowns, signage, striping, wayfinding, and lighting should be consistent.

Connectivity
122
103
Encouragement
The policies and programs described below are intended to encourage residents and visitors alike to choose active transportation as a means of traveling throughout Napa County.

Table 5.6: Encouragement Policies and Programs
Topic Policy or Program Goal Themes
Bicycle Events Encourage events that familiarize the public with bicycling and walking such as Bike to Work Day, Bike to School Day, Bike Fest, and commute challenges.

Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Bike Parking at
Large Events
Enforce the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) which requires large events (those with 5,000+ projected attendees) and recurring community events (such as farmers markets) to provide safe/secure bike parking on-site.

Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Bicycle Friendly
Community Status
Partner with Napa County Bicycle Coalition to apply for, and maintain, Bicycle Friendly Community status from the League of American Bicyclists. The City of Calistoga became a Silver Bicycle Friendly Community in 2013, and the City of Napa became a Bronze Bicycle Friendly Community in 2012.

Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Bikes for LowIncome Residents
Provide free or low-cost bicycles and helmets to those who qualify for CalFresh by collaborating with local bike shops, nonprofits, and advocacy groups to source bikes and helmets at discounted rates or through donations.

Equity and
Accessibility,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Class I Facilities in
Parks
Evaluate existing policies and revise where necessary to support 24-hour access to low-stress (Class I) active transportation facilities in parks.

Safety, Equity
and
Accessibility,
Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Micromobility
Encourage e-bike mode shift among low-income California residents with a targeted outreach program to promote any state-administered e-bike rebates or subsides.

Equity and
Accessibility,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Safe Routes to
School
Support local schools and other Safe Routes to School program partners, such as non-profits, in offering age-appropriate Safe Routes to School programming.

This may include walking school buses and bike rodeos for elementary students, bike safety and “walk and roll to school” events for all ages, bike repair workshops for middle and high schoolers, and student-led encouragement (through events or affinity groups) for high schoolers.

Safety,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Social Walks/Rides
& Family Biking
Workshops
Support development and expansion of recurring social walking/biking events, family biking workshops, Walk-with-a-Doc programs, and other activities to introduce/encourage active transportation.

Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Transportation
Demand
Management
(TDM)13
Develop a countywide TDM program to oversee projects with conditioned TDM requirements and identify funding strategies for monitoring. The County of Napa General Plan Circulation Element provides details on potential strategies.14
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
TDM Programs Support/expand TDM programs that encourage or incentivize active transportation as an alternative to solo vehicle commutes.

Sustainability
and Mode Shift
13 NVTA would implement this policy or program
14 County of Napa General Plan Circulation Element, 2019. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/3332/CirculationElement-PDF 123
104
Evaluation
The policies and programs described below track progress towards a connected and comfortable active transportation network for all ages and abilities. NVTA has set aside resources to regularly evaluate the outcomes of this AT Plan, whether that be annually or biannually; therefore, NVTA would be the implementing agency for many of the following evaluation recommendations.

Table 5.7: Evaluation Policies and Programs
Topic Policy or Program Goal Themes
ADA Compliance Develop a countywide program to track ADA compliance of new and redeveloped curb ramps and sidewalks, consistent with the guidelines in the Treatment Toolkit.

Equity and
Accessibility
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Counts
Considering the active transportation mode share goal of 10% by 2040, establish a bicycle and pedestrian counts program and continue to install automated multimodal counters along key corridors and other locations countywide.

Counts, along with MioVision data from signalized intersections, will help track active transportation mode share. Additionally, counts can help assess the impact of active transportation improvements (i.e., before and after studies to measure increase in active mode share within a certain distance of a facility improvement or development project).

Sustainability
and Mode
Shift
Countywide
Database
Establish a one-stop comprehensive countywide GIS database that includes collision data, bicycle, and pedestrian network segment information (facility type, mileage, LTS score where applicable, planned infrastructure), counts data, curb ramps, and other relevant data. This database will support most of the other evaluation metrics described within this section. Update countywide GIS database each year to assess how many miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities have been added to the network.

Safety, Equity
and
Accessibility,
Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode
Shift
Data Collection
Collect and analyze vehicle and active mode data, including volumes, speeds, time-of-day, and other characteristics to determine pre- and post-project measurements for major bikeway and pedestrian improvement projects, as well as for large-scale development projects (e.g., Napa Pipe, Amazon warehouse, etc.). Big data sources of transportation data should also be considered for evaluation
Sustainability
and Mode
Shift
Equity Priority
Communities
Implement at least two projects per year in both locally identified and MTC Equity Priority Communities within the County.

Equity and
Accessibility
LTS Use the LTS tool to gauge whether each new bicycle facility added or upgraded within the county’s network will achieve a comfortable score of LTS 1 or 2. Safety Measure U
Coordination
In developing a five-year project list for Measure U, include on-street bike facilities, sidewalks, and other eligible projects from the active transportation recommendations in this Plan.

Sustainability
and Mode
Shift
Mode Share Goal
To support the countywide 10% active mode share goal, each jurisdiction should strive to complete as many projects as possible from the proposed pedestrian network and near-term bicycle project list by 2040.

Sustainability
and Mode
Shift
Safe Routes to
School
Foster a partnership between Napa County Bicycle Coalition and local schools to conduct student travel tallies twice per year at all elementary, middle, and high schools to track how students are traveling to school. This may inform whether encouragement programs and active transportation network improvements are contributing to mode shift.

Sustainability
and Mode
Shift
Vision Zero16 Track active transportation fatalities and severe injuries with the goal of reaching zero by 2035. Safety
124
105
Chapter 6
Implementation Plan
The following chapter provides a plan for
implementing the recommendations proposed in
Chapter 5. This chapter includes the following
sections:
» Bicycle Network Prioritization
» Estimated Project Benefits
» Unit Cost Assumptions
» Funding opportunities
The implementation plan outlines an approach for
prioritizing bicycle projects for implementation. Note
that the pedestrian network presented in Chapter 5
represents a prioritized list of sidewalk gap projects
and no further prioritization was conducted in
development of this Implementation Plan. The
sidewalk gap projects recommended form the
prioritized list as they provide improved pedestrian
access near key destinations.

In addition to the prioritization of near-term bicycle
projects, the implementation plan includes estimates
for induced bicycling demand and potential VMT
reduction benefits of all bicycle projects identified in the AT Plan, as well as estimated greenhouse gas
emissions reductions associated with
implementation of proposed sidewalk projects.

Finally, unit cost assumptions used to calculate
planning-level project cost estimates and a list of
potential funding opportunities with project
eligibility are included.

This AT Plan includes Caltrans planning efforts and
proposed facilities along state routes, which will
require coordination with Caltrans.

Bicycle Network
Prioritization
The proposed active transportation network
provides a vision through 2050 and includes 363
miles of projects. However, there is limited available
funding, and the whole network cannot be
implemented at once. As a result, a list of “nearterm” bicycle projects was developed for implementation over the next five to seven years,
totaling 83 miles of bicycle facilities.

The near-term bicycle project list is meant to be a
guide for jurisdictions, but implementation priorities
may change. Project implementation can be aligned
with other ongoing projects, like those
recommended in the 2023 Vision Zero Plan. Other
factors, such as project complexity and available
resources, may also impact which projects are
prioritized for implementation.

Prioritization Metrics
Scoring metrics were identified based on
community-identified values, common grant funding
program guidelines, and local agency priorities.

Bicycle projects were scored on the five metrics
listed in Table 6.1: safety, equity, connectivity, plan consistency, and community support.
125
106
Table 6.1: Prioritization Metrics
Metric Definition
Safety
Improvement is located on the HIN
defined by the 2023 NVTA Vision Zero
Plan
Equity
The project is within an Equity Priority
Community (EPC) defined by the 2025
NVTA Vision Zero Plan
Connectivity
The project provides a connection
along or across a high stress route that
is a barrier to low stress bicycle
connectivity
Plan
Consistency
The project was identified in a prior
planning effort
Community
Support
The project was identified or supported
by the community.

Manual Review
Once the proposed bicycle projects were scored,
high scoring projects were manually refined to
finalize the near-term bicycle project list for each
jurisdiction.

Projects that scored high but do not provide
connectivity to key destinations, or projects that
provide primarily recreational benefit instead of
commuter benefit were reconsidered. High scoring
projects were reevaluated if they are parallel to an
existing facility. If two high scoring projects are
proposed on the same corridor, the project offering
the least separation from vehicle traffic was removed
from the near-term project list. For example, if a
shared-use path (Class I) and a bike lane (Class II)
were both proposed on the same street, the bike
lane was removed from the near-term list.

Projects that may have not previously scored well
were considered for the near-term project list if they
provide key connections between existing bikeways
or other near-term projects, key destinations, or
would provide commuter benefit.

Near-term networks within each jurisdiction were
also reviewed holistically, in the context of how
useful or disjointed the network would be if all
included projects were implemented over the next
five to seven years.

Near-Term Project List
The assessment of bicycle projects resulted in a
near-term list that includes 87.5 miles of bicycle
facilities across 52 projects. Table 6.2 provides the
mileage of near-term bicycle projects in each city by
facility type. Maps of near-term bicycle projects in
each jurisdiction are provided in Figure 6.1 through
Figure 6.17.

Table 6.2: Near-Term Bicycle Project List
Jurisdiction Miles
City of Calistoga 6.6
Shared Use Path (Class I) 1.0
Bike Lanes (Class II) 5.0
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 0.7
City of St Helena 4.8
Shared Use Path (Class I) 4.2
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) 0.6
Town of Yountville 0.1
Shared Use Path (Class I) 0.1
City of Napa 12.6
Shared Use Path (Class I) 3.4
Bike Lanes (Class II) 4.0
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) 0.2
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 2.5
Study Corridor 2.5
City of American Canyon 4.2
Shared Use Path (Class I) 3.3
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) 0.7
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 0.2
County of Napa 59.1
Shared Use Path (Class I) 13.1
Bike Lanes (Class II) 9.8
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) 36.3
Total 87.5
126
Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course

DUNAWEAL LN

MORA AVE

PETRIFIED FOREST RD

MYRTLEDALE RD

WASHINGTON ST

GREENWOOD AVE

CHAMPAGNE N

GRANT ST

MYRTLE ST

LAKE ST

FOOTHILL BLVD

TUBBS LN

FAIR WAY

N OAK ST

CEDAR ST

PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL

DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD

ROSEDALE RD

KORTUM CANYON RD

LINCOLN AVE

BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN

PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.1
City of Calistoga
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H

0.5 Miles
127
Crane Park
Stonebridge Park

SILVERADO TRL

CHAIX LN

DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE

ZINFANDEL LN

PRATT AVE

MADRON A A V E

FULTON LN

SPRI N G
ST

ADAMS ST POPE ST

VALLEJO ST

DEER PARK RD

MAIN ST

WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD

MEADOWOOD LN

WHITEHALL LN

INGLEWOOD AVE

CRANE AVE

SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE

GRAYSON AVE

OAK AVE

WHITE LN

SPRING MOUNTAIN RD

HUNT AVE

W ZINFANDEL LN

BIG ROCK RD

DEAN YORK LN

CABERNET LN

SYLVANER AVE

HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD

LEWELLING AVE

WHITEHALL LN

MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.2
City of St. Helena
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H

0.5 Miles
128
Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUTE
Vineyard Park

R ALEMEDA

CALIFORNIA DR

MISSION ST

FORRESTER LN HEATHER ST
YO
UNT ST

OAK CIR

YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD

JEFFERSON ST

SAN ANTONIO ST

PRESIDENTS CIR

FINNELL RD

CHAMPAGNE DR

LANDE WAY

YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
AVE

MADISON ST

CALIFORNIA
DR

WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR

VINEYARDCIR

MULBERRY ST

HERITAGE WAY
NAPA

VALLEY VINE TRAIL

VINEYARD VIEW DR

IMPERIAL RD

INNER ALEMEDA

LAND LN

WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.3
Town of Yountville
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H

0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
129
Skyline Wilderness Park
Alston Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
Westwood
Hills Park
Trancas Crossing
Park

TROWER AVE

PUEBLO AVE
1ST ST

SOLANO AVE

WINE COUNTRY AVE
1ST
AVE

DRY CREEK RD

SOSCOLFERRY RD

BROWNS VALLEY RD

JEFFERSON
ST

LAS AMIGAS RD
OAK ST

IMOLA AVE

FOSTER RD

ATLAS PEAK RD

TWIN OAKS
DR

CEDAR DR

BASALT RD SILVERADO
CALI
TRL
FORNIA
BLVD

DEVLIN RD

HAGEN RD
COOMBS
ST
SOSCOL
AVE

THOMPSON
AVE

LINCOLN AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

GOLDEN GATE DR

OLIVE HILL LN

CUTTINGS WHARF RD

LAUREL ST

REDWOOD RD

W IMOLA AVE

ORCHARD AVE
VICHY
AVE

PARTRICK RD

DUHIG RD

TRANCAS ST

OLD SONOMA RD

STANLY LN

HILLCRESTDR

BIG RANCH RD

LINDA VISTAAVE

LOS CARNEROS AVE

BUHMAN AVE

DEALY LN

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
221
29 29
29 12
12 FIGURE 6.4
City of Napa
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
School
City Limits
County Limits
130
Alston Park
Westwood
Hills Park

JEFFERSON ST

LAUREL ST

SOLANO AVE

WINE COUNTRY AVE

CALIFORNIA
BLVD

CONGRESS VALLEYRD

DRY CREEK RD
1ST ST

BROWNS VALLEY RD

KATHLEEN DR

EL CENTRO AVE

TWIN OAKS DR

LONE OAK AVE

W PARK AVE

W LINCOLN AVE
FALCON
CREST
CIR

SIERRA AVE

SUMMERFIELD DR

TROWER AVE

KILBURN AVE

OLD SONOMA RD

WESTVIEW DR

SCENIC DR

THOMPSON
AVE

YOUNG AVE

BYWAY E

BROADMOORDR

SALVADOR AVE

REDWOOD RD

HOMEWOOD AVE

ORCHARD AVE

W PUEBLO AVE

PARTRICK RD

TIMBERHILLLN

BUHMAN AVE

MAHER ST

LINDA VISTA AVE

OXFORD ST
NAPA

VALLEY VINE TRAIL

STONEBRIDGE DR

HUNTER RANCHRD
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.5
City of Napa - Northwest
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
1 Miles
131

NAPARIVER TRAIL

PUEBLO AVE

PINE ST
1ST ST

SEMINAR
Y
ST

VILLA LN

EASTAVE
SHURTL

EFF AVE
1ST AVE

HARDMAN AVE

JEFFERSON ST

BROWN ST
OAK ST

SAINT ANDREWSDR

PEAR TREE LN

ATLAS PEAK RD

LAUREL ST

SILVERADOTRL

LA GRANDE
AVE

SOSCOL AVE

FRANKLIN
ST

CALIFORNIA
BLVD

MAIN ST

FREEWAY DR

HEDGESIDE

MCKINLEY RD
AVE
G ST

COOMBS ST

CLAY ST

YAJOME ST

SILVER TRL
SOSCOL
AVE

NORTH AVE
2ND ST
3RD ST

LINCOLN AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

EL CENTRO AVE

SPRUCE ST

TERRACE DR

STONECREST DR

LA HOMA DR
ELM ST

STONEHOUSE DR

OLIVE HILL LN

RANDOLPH ST

MARIN ST

CAYETANO DR

WILLIS DR

ROSS CIR

HAGEN RD

ESTEE AVE
2ND
AVE

RIVERSIDE
DR

MONTECITO BLVD

VICHY AVE

CENTRAL AVE
3RD AVE

TRANCAS ST

KANSAS AVE

HILLCREST DR

BIG RANCH RD

SILVERADO
TRL
RAPP
LN

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
29 121
121
FIGURE 6.6
City of Napa - Northeast
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
132
Skyline County P
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park

RIVERSOUND WA
Y
NAPA

VALLEY CORPORATEDR

PINE ST

GASSER DR

S JEFFERSON ST

SOSCOL FERRY RD

LASAMIGAS RD

IMOLA AVE

FOSTER RD

CEDAR DR

BASALT RD

LAUREL ST

DEVLIN RD

SHETLER AVE

TECHNOLOGYWAY

SHURTLEFFAVE

HEMLOCK ST

SPRUCE ST SEVILLE DR

JAMES DIEMER DR
ELM ST

GOLDEN GATE DR

CAYETANO DR

N AIRPORT RD

CLEAR STREAM AVE

W IMOLA AVE

N KELLY RD

KANSAS AVE

OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY
LN

STANLY CROSSROAD

RIVER PARK BLVD

SOSCOL CREEK RD

CUTTINGS WHARF RD

N NEWPORT DR
NAPA

VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
12 12
29 29
29 221

STANLY LN
FIGURE 6.7
City of Napa - South
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
133
Veterans
Memorial Park
Shenandoah Park
American Canyon
Community Park
Kimberly Park

VIA BELLAGIO

WETLANDS EDGE RD

SILVER OAK TRL NEWELL
DR

KIMBERLY DR

CRAWFORD WAY

RIO DEL MAR

DONALDSON WAY

DONALDSON WAY E

BOONE DR

S KELLY RD
PAOLI
LOOP
R
D

ELLIOTT DR

REDWO OD CIR

TR I A L ER
PA

RK R O AD

DEVLIN RD

AMERICAN CANYON RD

MARLA DR

KNIGHTSBRIDGEWAY

SPIKERUSH CIR

GREEN ISLAND RD
CHA
UCER L
N

TOWER RD

NORTHAMPTONDR

ENTRADACIR

WATSON LN

BROADWAY
C
O
MMER
CE
BLVD

DANROSE
D
R

W AMERICAN CANYON RD

JAMES RD

LOS ALTOS DR

EUCALYPTUS DR

AIRPORT RD

MARCUS RD

SONOMA BLVD

COMMERCE
CT
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.8
City of American Canyon
Near-Term Bicycle Network

0.5 Miles H
134
Lake Berryessa
American
Canyon
Calistoga
Napa
St. Helena
Yountville SODA
CANYON
RD

DRY CREEK RD

SAGE CANYON RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD

BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE RD
ATLAS
PEAK
RD

WOODEN VALLEY RD

POPE CANYON RD
Lake County
Marin County
Sonoma County
Yolo County
29 128
128
221 12
121
29 80
Solano County
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.9
County of Napa
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
5 Miles
135
Las Posadas
State Forest
Bothe-Napa Valley State Park
Robert Louis
Stevenson
State Park
29 29
128
Lake County
Sonoma County

POPE CANYON
RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.10
County of Napa - Northwest
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
5 Miles
136
Lake Berryessa
Las Posadas
State Forest
Lake County
Yolo County

BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE RD

POPE CANYON RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.11
County of Napa - Northeast
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
5 Miles
137

DRY CREEK RD

SAGE CANYON RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
29 29
128
128
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.12
County of Napa - Central West
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
5 Miles
138
Lake Berryessa
Lake Curry
Lake Hennessey
Lake Hennessey City
Recreation Area
Las Posadas
State Forest

SILVERADO
TRL
SODA

CANYON RD

DRY CREEK RD

SAGE CANYON RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD

ATLAS PEAK RD

BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE
RD

SILVERADO TRL

WOODEN VALLEY RD
128
128
29 121
Solano County
Sonoma
County
Yolo County
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.13
County of Napa - Central East
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
5 Miles
139
12 121
221
29 29
12 121
80 AMERICAN CANYON RD

TROWER AVE

JEFFERSON ST
1ST ST
1S
T
AVE

DRY CREEK RD

B ROWNS VALLEY RD

LAS AMIGAS RD

CUTTINGS WHARF RD

FOSTER RD
ATLAS

PEAK RD

CALIFORNIA
BLVD

SOLANO AVE

LAKEMARIE RD

DEVLIN RD

GREEN ISLAND RD

SOSCOL AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD
3RD AVE

GOLDEN GA TE DR

BROADWAY

REDWO OD RD

W IMOLA AVE

HAGEN RD

POLSON RD

PARTRICK RD

DUHIG RD

TRANCAS ST

OLD SONOMA RD

STANLY LN

W ILDHORSE
VALL
EY RD

AIR PORT RD

BIG RANCH RD

SILVERADO TRL

LINDAVISTA AVE

MOUNT VEEDER RD

BUHMAN AVE

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.14
County of Napa - South
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H

2.5 Miles
140

TRANCAS ST

NORMA DR

NORFOLK ST

JOMAR DR

KATHLEEN DR

EMERSON ST

SHERRY DR

OXFORD ST

SUTHERLAND DR

ETHEL PORTER DR

MACLENNAN ST
BA

YWOOD LN

DELPHA DR

BARBARA RD

VERNA DR

SANDRA DR

CAROL DR

MACLEOD ST

ROHLFFSWAY

THOMAS DR
CAROL
DR

YOUNG AVE

DOVER ST

PAMELA DR

ROLLINGWOOD DR

EUCLID AVE

SOLANO AVE

WAVERLY ST

DONNA DR

MACBETH ST

JANETTE DR

REDWOOD RD
LINDA

VISTA AVE

W PUEBLO AVE

MORGAN LN

MACLEAN ST

GLEN CT

MACFADDEN
ST

MASSA DR

BEL AIRE PLZ
RA

NCHO DR

NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL

MORLAN DR
SB SR29 OFF TRANCAS
NB SR29 ON TRANCAS
SB SR29 ON

TRANCAS
NB SR29
OFF

TRANCAS

W PARK AVE
29 29
FIGURE 6.15
County of Napa - West Pueblo
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H

0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
141

CEDAR DR

IMOLA AVE

LONDON WAY

REPUBLIC AVE

COOMBSVILLE RD

CAPITOLA DR

LOS ROBLES DR

WYATT AVE

MUIR ST

MARSHALL AVE

JUNIPER CIR

BIRKDALE DR

LAREDO ST

S TERRACE DR

ERIN WAY

SHETLER AVE

CORONADO AVE
PATTON
AVE

SHURTLEFF AVE

LINDEN ST

N OAK DR

TAMARISK DR

WILKINS AVE

SEVILLE DR MARIA DR

TERRACE DR

HOLMES AVE

TRAILER PA R K
R
OA
D

RUSSELL ST

PENNY LN

CAYETANO DR

PARRISH RD
SOMMER
S
T

OAKMONT CT

ACACIA DR

LIBERTY DR HARDING AVE

PERKINS ST

BELV EDERE CT

KANSAS AVE

PENNYROYAL ST

MAGNOLIA DR
FIGURE 6.16
County of Napa - Southeast Napa Islands
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H

0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
142
Chardonnay Golf Club
Skyline County Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
American Canyon
Community Park
121
12 12
221
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.17
County of Napa - Napa / American Canyon
Near-Term Bicycle Network
1 Miles H
143
124
Project Complexity
Assessing project complexity can help identify
opportunities for project implementation outside
the near-term project list. Bicycle projects in this AT Plan which were not included in the near-term
project list are categorized as either high or low
complexity. This grouping is intended as a general
guide to help local jurisdictions select additional
projects to pursue as opportunities arise.

Lower Complexity Projects
Lower complexity projects are generally those that
require minimal improvements, such as striping and
signage. These projects may include, but are not
limited to, Bicycle Lanes (Class II), Buffered Bicycle
Lanes (Class II) as well as Bicycle Routes (Class III)
and Bicycle Boulevards (Class III). Even if these
projects are not on the near-term bicycle project list, they may be lower cost and should be implemented
alongside restriping and repaving projects as
opportunities present themselves. For bicycle
boulevards, temporary modular treatments provide
a lower-complexity alternative to permanent
concrete improvements.

Higher Complexity Projects
Higher complexity projects refer to projects that
require right-of-way acquisition, concrete work,
drainage improvements, stormwater treatment,
relocation of utilities, and other factors that increase construction costs. This may include shared-use
paths, separated bikeways, or projects that require
road widening or reconfiguration. High-complexity
projects on the near-term projects list should still be prioritized for implementation but may require more
funding as compared to low-complexity projects.

Short-Term Solutions
In Appendix D, the Toolkit refers to the
implementation of quick builds. Cities can employ
alternative solutions such as quick builds which are
improvements that address safety and connectivity
at a lower cost and timeline than a full build-out with concrete or other permanent treatments. They often
consist of plastic infrastructure such as bollards,
signs, and paint, making them easy to install and
adjust. Quick builds prioritize affordability for
communities, allowing a community to find quick
and sustainable solutions while allowing for future
growth and possible changes to the improvements.

Estimated Project Benefits
Induced Bicycle Demand and
VMT Reduction Methodology
The proposed bicycle facilities presented in the Plan
may correlate with induced bicycling demand for
both existing and new bicyclists. This is based on
research presented in the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 552,
Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in Bicycle
Facilities, which describes the methodology of
estimating the induced demand associated with
each bicycle facility and the monetized benefits of
such.

The benefits associated with the proposed bicycle
facilities are quantified through this induced demand
analysis but are not promised as the methodology is
based on several assumptions, generalizations, and
are used as an estimator for potential benefits. The
annualized benefits are based on the projects
induced bicycling demand at high, moderate, and
low estimates, using data from the US Census
Bureau, commuter pattern data, and average
bicycling trip length estimates from 2021 Replica
data. See Appendix E for benefits associated with
each project, excluding study corridors, for which
benefits were not quantified.

Induced Demand
The annualized benefits are based on potential
induced bicycling demand for each proposed
project. The total rate of adult bicycling ranges from
a low estimate, based on the Census bicycling
commute mode share, to a high estimate, based on

0.6 percent plus three times the Census commute
share. Thus, demand is quantified at low, medium,
and high estimates for the populations at each buffer
distance. The NCHRP 552 research cites that people
who live closest to a bicycle facility are more likely to 144
125
bike than those who live further from the facility.

Likelihood multipliers were developed to represent
this probability15 and used to estimate the total
induced commuter bicyclists annually. Each buffer
area—at 0.5-, 1- and 1.5-mile distances from a
proposed bicycle improvement is created using a
network-based analysis in a GIS environment.

This methodology results in annual monetized
benefits associated with mobility, health, recreation,
and decreased auto use expected to result from the
proposed bicycle facilities, as detailed in Appendix F.

These benefits are summed to produce the total
monetized benefit for each project.
» Mobility Benefits: 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 commuters.
» Health Benefits: the cost savings from physical
activity benefits associated with induced
demand
» Recreation Benefits: the cost savings related to
recreational activity for new bicyclists induced
» Decreased Auto Use Benefits: the benefits
associated with user cost savings, reduced
congestion, and reduced air pollution.

In addition to the four benefits outlines above,
benefits associated with greenhouse gas (GHG)
reduction benefits were also calculated. The NCHRP
guidelines do not discuss how to calculate GHG
emissions reduction associated with a reduction
VMT. Instead, the Senate Bill (SB) 1 California LifeCycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C) Grant Program Emissions Reduction Calculator was used.

VMT Reduction Methodology
The methodology to determine VMT reduction
considers the total projected new bike commuters
and the average round trip length determined by
Replica’s 2023 data which states the average oneway bicycling trip along a corridor is 3.1 miles. 15 NCHRP 552, Appendix B; Supplemental White Paper Translating Demand and Benefits Research into Guidelines Sidewalk Emissions Reductions
The NCHRP Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in
Bicycle Facilities do not extend to pedestrian
improvements, because the relationship between
bicycle facilities and induced trips should not be
assumed to hold true for walking. Instead, the
California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reductions Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities and
Advancing Health and Equity was used to estimate
the emissions reductions associated with improving
the pedestrian network. The analysis estimates
emissions reductions based on the percent increase
of sidewalk coverage in a given community, and
results in an estimated percentage of emissions
reduction by Census block group.

Of the 101 block groups where sidewalks are
proposed, 68 are expected to see reduced GHG
emissions following implementation of the proposed
sidewalk projects, 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 20 block groups that are expected to result in
the highest GHG emission reductions associated with
sidewalk improvements are listed in Table 6.3. Block
Groups that are not wholly in one jurisdiction are
shown with the second jurisdiction listed. Block
groups in Calistoga, the City of Napa, and portions of
Unincorporated Napa County benefit most from the
proposed sidewalk improvements.
145
126
Table 6.3: Top 20 Block Groups – Sidewalk Project Estimated GHG Emissions Reductions Block Group Jurisdiction
Existing
Sidewalk
Mileage
Existing +
Proposed
Sidewalk
Mileage
Estimated
GHG
Emissions
Reduction
060552017002 County of Napa (Angwin) 0.55 0.89 -3.11%
060552015002 County of Napa 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 County of Napa / City of Napa 1.35 1.63 -1.02% 060552007042 City of Napa / County of Napa 2.23 2.61 -0.85% 060552008044 City of Napa 3.35 3.82 -0.71%
060552007051 City of Napa / County of Napa 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 County of Napa (Deer Park) 0.07 0.08 -0.60% 060552003012 City of Napa / County of Napa 4.85 5.42 -0.59% 060552011012 City of Napa / County of Napa 1.74 1.93 -0.54% 060552010062 City of Napa 7.97 8.84 -0.54%
060552003013 City of Napa / County of Napa 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 County of Napa / City of Napa 3.36 3.68 -0.48% 146
127
Unit Cost Assumptions
The table below presents planning level unit cost
assumptions that will be used to develop project
construction cost estimates. The unit cost method
uses a single functional unit (linear mile or linear
foot) that serves as a multiplier. The appropriate unit cost is multiplied by the length of the improvement
to develop a planning-level project cost estimate.

Notes and assumptions that informed the unit cost
estimate are listed below. These assumptions are
intended to provide a reasonable basis for costs; if
specific improvements selected during detailed
design of projects vary from these assumptions,
actual project costs may differ.

Cost estimates were developed based on recent
local project costs. Estimates include assumed costs
for mobilization, traffic control, minor drainage, and
utility work. In addition, estimates include 30
percent soft costs including engineering design,
administration, and construction management, as
well as a 20 percent contingency. Cost estimates for
projects in this plan are in 2025 dollars which do not
include cost escalation and have been rounded to
the nearest $100.

At the planning level, cost assumptions do not
consider project-specific or location-specific factors
that may affect actual costs, including acquisition of
right-of-way, road widening, major grading, or
drainage system upgrades. For some projects, actual
costs may differ significantly from the planning-level
estimates.

Table 6.4: Unit Cost Assumptions
Improvement Unit Estimated
Unit Cost Notes
Shared-use Path
(Class I) MI $3,800,000
Assumes 10’ wide asphalt path with 2’ shoulders and minor grading; no right of way acquisition or major grading/drainage/railings/retaining systems; in some contexts, concrete pathways may be preferred which would increase the unit cost estimate by approximately $1M per mile Bicycle Lane (Class
II) MI $145,000 Striping, bike lane symbol, and signs on both sides of street Buffered Bicycle
Lane (Class II) MI $220,000 Striping, bike lane symbol, and signs on both sides of street; includes 2’ striped buffer
Separated Bicycle
Lane (Class IV) MI $650,000 Striping and separation on both sides of street; assume 3’ striped buffer with flexible K-71 bollards spaced every 15’
Bike Route (Class III) MI $30,000 Assumes sharrows every 250’ and signs every 500’ on both sides of street Bike Boulevard
(Class III) MI $1,960,000 Assumes sharrows every 400’, signs every 400’ on both sides of street; assumes speed table every 500’ and curb extension every 500’ Bike Boulevard with
Modular Curb
Extensions (Class III)
MI $615,000
Assumes sharrows every 400’, signs every 400’ on both sides of street; assumes speed cushion every 500’ and modular curb extensions every 500’
Rural/Unclassified
Bike Route MI $75,000 Assumes edge stripe and Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs on both sides of street approximately every 0.75 mile
Sidewalk LF $600 Assumes 6’ wide sidewalk with curb and gutter on one side of street Note: MI = linear mile; LF = linear foot
147
128
Funding Opportunities
A variety of funding sources are available for funding
projects recommended in Chapter 5. The sources
below include county, regional, and statewide
funding opportunities for capital improvements,
planning efforts, and non-infrastructure programs.

Countywide Funding
Opportunities
Measure U
Measure U is a 1/2-cent countywide sales tax
prioritized for roadway improvements and active
transportation projects. Funds are allocated to
jurisdictions annually by NVTA as the administering
agency. Eligible improvement types include
sidewalks, on-street bikeways (including separated
bikeways (Class IV)), and complete streets
improvements such as curb extensions, curb ramps,
sidewalks, or new curb and gutter. More information
at https://nvta.ca.gov/programs/measureu/
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program
The One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program includes
both a regional funding program administered by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and
county programs administered by the nine
Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs). Funds
are typically allocated for a four-year funding cycle,
with the most recent OBAG Program 3 allocating
funds for FY2023-2026. Eligible improvement types
include bicycle and pedestrian improvements and
programs including complete streets, SRTS, and
crossing improvements, as well as pavement
rehabilitation projects. More information at
https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federalhighway-administration-grants/one-bay-area-grantobag-3 Transportation Development Act –
Article 3
The Transportation Development Act – Article 3
(TDA-3) program is funded by approximately 2% of
the statewide quarter-cent sales tax. NVTA
administers the revenues generated in Napa County
through a competitive process. Funds are allocated
annually, with any unused funds rolled over for
programming in future cycles. Eligible projects
include construction and/or engineering of bicycle
and/or pedestrian capital projects, capital purchases
for maintenance of a Class I or Class IV facility,
enhancement of Class II bicycle lanes, bicycle safety
education programs (no more than 5% of county
total), development of comprehensive bicycle and/or
pedestrian facility plan (once every 5 years), and
quick build projects. More information at
https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/regional-funding/tdasta/bicycle-pedestrian-funds-tda-3 Transportation Fund for Clean Air
(TFCA) 40% Fund
The Transportation Funds for Clean Air (TFCA)
program is funded by a $4 surcharge on vehicle
registration in the nine Bay Area counties. The
majority of the funding is programmed annually by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD); priority is given to projects that reduce
vehicle emissions or vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The remaining 40% of funds are allocated to and
administered by the appropriate transportation
agency in each Bay Area county, including NVTA for
Napa County. Eligible improvement types include
capital bicycle projects and infrastructure
improvements for trip reduction, which includes
traffic calming and measures that expand access to
transit. More information at
https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/funding-andincentives/funding-sources/tfca-40-percent-fund 148
129
Regional Funding Opportunities
Community Action Resource &
Empowerment (CARE) Program
The Community Action Resource & Empowerment
(CARE) Program is funded by a combination of
federal, state, and local sources. Funds are
administered by MTC to support community-based
transportation initiatives that have been identified
locally as high priority. Eligible projects include
capital projects identified in a locally adopted
Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP), as
well as planning and technical support. More
information at https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/fundingopportunities/community-action-resourceempowerment-care-program Regional Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
Projects not funded in the statewide competition for
Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds may be
funded at the regional level. A portion of statewide
ATP funding is allocated to MTC and other regional
agencies to fund additional projects. Funds are
awarded through competitive application cycles that
typically occur every other year between March and
June. More information at
https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/investment-strategiescommitments/climate-protection/activetransportation-program Transportation Fund for Clean Air
(TFCA) Regional Fund
The Transportation Funds for Clean Air (TFCA)
program is funded by a $4 surcharge on vehicle
registration in the nine Bay Area counties. The
majority of the funding is programmed annually by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD; priority is given to projects that reduce
vehicle emissions or vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The remaining 40% of funds are allocated to and
administered by the appropriate transportation
agency in each Bay Area county, including NVTA for
Napa County. Eligible improvement types include
capital bicycle projects and infrastructure
improvements for trip reduction, which includes
traffic calming and measures that expand access to
transit. More information at
https://www.baaqmd.gov/funding-andincentives/funding-sources/regional-fund Statewide Funding
Opportunities
State Active Transportation Program
(ATP)
California’s Active Transportation Program (ATP) is
funded by a variety of state and federal sources with
a goal of increasing walking and bicycling, improving
public health, and addressing air quality concerns. At
the state level, the program is administered by the
California Transportation Commission (CTC). Funds
are awarded through a competitive process that
typically occurs every two years, with the call for
projects issued in March. Eligible project types
include bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
projects, non-infrastructure program activities, and
planning. More information at
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fedand-state-programs/active-transportation-program 149
130
California Office of Traffic Safety
(OTS) Grants
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) provides
grants to fund programs and projects that aim to
reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries.

Funding is awarded through an annual competitive
process, with the call for projects typically issued in December. Eligible programs include safety,
education, and enforcement efforts. More
information at https://www.ots.ca.gov/grants/
California State Parks Recreational
Trails Program (RTP)
Recreational Trails Program (RTP) funding is
administered at the state level by the CTC as part of
the California ATP as well as by the California
Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) as a
standalone grant program. Non-motorized CDPR
projects are administered by the Office of Grants and
Local Services (OGALS). Funds are typically allocated
on an annual basis. Eligible project types include
acquisition of easements or property for recreational
trails or trail corridors; development and
rehabilitation of trails; trailside and trailhead
facilities; and construction of new trails. More
information at
https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24324
Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP)
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is
administered by Caltrans to fund projects that
reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries.

Funding is awarded through a competitive grant
program every two years. Eligible improvement
types include work on public roads, bicycle
pedestrian pathways, or tribal lands that improves
safety for transportation network users. Eligible
projects must be listed in an adopted Local Road
Safety Plan (LRSP) or Vision Zero Plan, and right of
way acquisition must be no more than ten percent of
construction costs. More information at
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fedand-state-programs/highway-safety-improvementprogram Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC) Program
The Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC) Program is administered by the
California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) to support projects that
integrate low-carbon transportation options and
affordable housing. Funds are awarded annually
through a competitive program. Eligible
improvement types include bikeways, traffic calming,
sidewalks, and other roadway reconfiguration
projects that have been adopted in a specific plan.

More information at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/funding/ahsc#nofa
Sustainable Transportation Planning
Grants (STPG)
The Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants
(STPG) program is administered by Caltrans to fund
planning efforts that aim to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in support of statewide targets. Funds are
awarded through an annual competitive process.

Eligible project types include planning projects,
community engagement, and preliminary design (up
to a 30 percent level of detail). More information at
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportationplanning/division-of-transportationplanning/regional-and-communityplanning/sustainable-transportation-planning-grants 150
225
Chapter 11
City of American Canyon
The City of American Canyon is approximately 6.5
square miles and has a population of 21,698
residents. The city is located in southern Napa
County along SR 29 in the world-famous Napa Valley
wine growing region and in close proximity to the
San Francisco Bay.

American Canyon serves as a wine processing hub;
and is a vibrant and diverse community. Because of
its strategic location at the southern end of Napa
County and with easy access to state and interstate
highways, American Canyon’s industrial district is
home to millions of square feet of wine processing,
bottling storage, and shipping space.

The northern portions of the city are composed of
industrial land uses with limited roadway
connectivity. The southern half of the city is primarily residential with a disconnected suburban roadway
network.

Demographics
The following demographic information is from the
American Community Survey (ACS) 2023 five-year
estimates.

Age
Communities whose population skews younger may
have improved opportunities for increasing active
transportation mode shift. People who are
introduced to walking, bicycling and transit at a
younger age are more likely to use active modes of
travel in adulthood. The median age for the City of
American Canyon is 36.2 years, which is younger
than the county median age of 42.8. Additionally,
37% of American Canyon’s population is under 25
years old, which is a larger portion of the population
compared to other jurisdictions. Figure 11.1 shows
the age distribution for the City of American Canyon.

Figure 11.1: City of American Canyon Age
Distribution
20%
17%
13%
12%
14%
12%
8%
5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Under 15 years
15 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 years and over
151
226
Income
As shown in Figure 11.2, the City of American
Canyon has a median household income (MHI) of
$123,935, which is higher than Napa County’s MHI
of $108,970. Those below the county median make
up over 40% of the total population for American
Canyon. Lower-income community members are
more likely to rely on active transportation and
transit as opposed to car travel. Providing adequate
active transportation will support connectivity for
these residents.

Figure 11.2: City of American Canyon
Household Income
Travel Behavior
Mode Share
Figure 11.3 provides an overview of commute mode
share for workers living in American Can aged 16
years and older. Mode share data was sourced from
the American Community Survey (ACS) five-year
estimates and represents data for 2016 and 2023.

The data does not include non-work trips.

Most American Canyon residents drive to work,
either alone or by carpooling. There is a small
portion of the population that walks or takes public
transportation.

Since 2016, more people have started working from
home, likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
percentage of people who drive alone or carpool has
declined.

Figure 11.3: City of American Canyon Means of
Transportation to Work
8%
11%
22%
21%
15%
23%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Below $25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 or more
79%
14%
2%
0%
1%
0%
3%
76%
11%
2%
0%
1%
2%
9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Drove alone
Carpooled
Public transportation
Bicycle
Walked
Other
Worked at home
2023 2016
152
227
Trip Length
Figure 11.4 shows trip length information for
American Canyon from the 2025 Travel Behavior
Study. Of all trips originating in American Canyon,
29% were two miles or less in length. These “shorttrips” represent opportunities for potential mode shift, encouraging people to switch from driving to
active modes of transportation.

Figure 11.4: City of American Canyon Trip
Length
Key Community Destinations
Some key destinations in American Canyon are
located along and around James Street such as the
Library. Some schools in American Canyon include
American Canyon High, Canyon Oaks Elementary,
and Donaldson Way Elementary. Improving
pedestrian and bicycle connections to these
destinations is key for developing a more connected
active transportation network in American Canyon.

Focusing improvements to schools mentioned will
improve connectivity and safety, for more vulnerable
road users (children and families) traveling to school.

Transit System and Stops
The Napa Vallejo is a bus system that goes from
Vallejo through American Canyon with a direct line
or indirect line up to City of Napa. There is also an
on-demand transit system where users can call, use
the online website or the app to request a ride on
weekdays from 8:30 am to 5:30pm. American
Canyon also has a fixed-route system that operates
on 3 route loops, two in the morning and one in the
afternoon. Improvements along these routes should
be considered to improve first- and last-mile
connectivity and increase access for those who rely
on walking and bicycling.

Existing Bicycling and
Walking Environment
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities in American Canyon are
mapped in Figure 11.5. The map also includes
bicycle parking locations.

Bicycle Network
Mileage of existing bicycle facilities is listed in Table

11.1. The American Canyon Bikeway network is
composed of primarily off-street paths, supported by
on-street bicycle lanes and bicycle routes. Most of
the city’s bicycle facilities are throughout the
residential neighborhoods on either side of SR 29.

However, east/west connectivity is limited as there
are no bicycle facilities that connect across the
highway.

Table 11.1: City of American Canyon Existing
Bicycle Network Mileage
Facility Type Miles
Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 11.0
Bicycle Lanes (Class II) 6.0
Bicycle Routes (Class III) 0.6
Rural Bicycle Routes (Class III) 0.6
Separated Bikeways (Class IV) -
Unclassified Bicycle Routes 1.9
Total 20.0
11%
18%
23%
16%
18%
6%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
0-1 mi
1-2 mi
2-5 mi
5-10 mi
10-20 mi
20-30 mi
30-40 mi
40-50 mi
50-60 mi
60-70 mi
70-80 mi
80-90 mi
90-100 mi
100+ mi
153
228
West of SR 29, off-street paths along Wetlands Edge
Road designated as part of the San Francisco Bay
Trail provide local connections to Donaldson Way
Elementary School and American Canyon Middle
School, and provide regional connectivity to much of
the bay area. There are also pathways through Elliot
Park and the American Canyon Recreation Area. In
the industrial areas of the City north of Eucalyptus
Drive, there is a shared use path along Devlin Road
(Vine Trail) that transitions to a bike lane at
Middleton Way.

East of the highway, there are shared-use pathways
along Donaldson Way, Newell Drive/Flodsen Road,
Shenandoah Drive and parallel to American Canyon
Road (off-street pathways). These paths connect
residents to American Canyon High School, Canyon
Oaks Elementary School, Newell Open Space, North
Vallejo Community Center, and other key
destinations. There is also a shared-use pathway
along SR 29 between the Tractor Supply and
Eucalyptus Drive. This pathway connects to a key
commercial area but is not connected to the greater
bicycle network.

On-street bicycle lanes and bicycle routes support
the off-street path network. West of SR 29, Benton
Way has a bicycle lane/bicycle route that connects
west to the San Francisco Bay Trail to Andrew Road.

There is a bicycle lane on Elliott Drive that connects
to the Benton Way bike lane and the American
Canyon Recreation area and path. Further south,
there is a bicycle lane on Kimberly Drive between
Kimberly Park and SR 29. East of the highway, there
is a bike lane on the Silver Oak Trail that connects to American Canyon High and the various existing
shared-use paths.

There are several unclassified bicycle routes along
the edge of the city boundary or just beyond it,
including a dirt pathway south of American Canyon
Road and along the San Franciso Bay Trail alignment.

These routes provide recreational bikeway access
and connect to existing pathways throughout the
city.