Napa City Council
August 2, 2022

City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Draft Report: July 2022

ATTACHMENT 1

2 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan

CONTENTS
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 What is an LRSP? ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Study Area .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8

2. Safety Partners ........................................................................................................................................................................... 11

3. Existing Planning Efforts .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 Relevant City and County Planning Documents & Projects ...................................................................................... 17

4. Collision Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 Collision Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 25 Geographic Collision Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 39 High Injury Network .............................................................................................................................................................. 48

5. Emphasis Areas .......................................................................................................................................................................... 54 The 4 E's of Traffic Safety ..................................................................................................................................................... 54 Existing Traffic Safety Efforts in the City of Napa ......................................................................................................... 55 Factors Considered in the Determination of Emphasis Areas ................................................................................... 56

6. Countermeasure Selection ..................................................................................................................................................... 64 Identification of Countermeasures .................................................................................................................................... 64 Countermeasure Toolbox .................................................................................................................................................... 64

7. Viable Safety Projects ............................................................................................................................................................... 69

8. Implementation and Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 78 Implementation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 78 Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................................................................................. 80 LRSP Update ............................................................................................................................................................................ 80 Supplemental Programs and Activities ............................................................................................................................ 81

ATTACHMENT 1

3 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan

FIGURES
Figure 1: Study Area ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Zoom Meeting from Stakeholder Meeting #1 ....................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3: Napa LRSP Project Website ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4: Interactive Map Comment Responses ...................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5: Public Comments on Traffic Safety ............................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 6. Injury Collisions in the City of Napa (2016-2020) .................................................................................................. 24 Figure 7. Collisions by Severity (2016 -2020) ............................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 8: Five Year Collision Trend ............................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 9: Roadway Segment vs. Intersection: All Injury Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions .................................................. 27 Figure 10. Collision Type - All Collisions vs F+SI Collisions.................................................................................................. 27 Figure 11. Violation Categories: All Collisions vs F+SI ........................................................................................................... 28 Figure 12. Motor Vehicle Involved With: All Collisions vs F+SI Collisions........................................................................ 29 Figure 13. Modes: All Collisions vs F+SI Collisions ................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 14. Lighting Conditions: All Collisions vs F+SI Collisions ......................................................................................... 30 Figure 15. Weather Conditions: All Collisions vs F+SI Collisions ........................................................................................ 30 Figure 16. Time of the Day: All Collisions vs F+SI ................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 17: Intersection vs. Roadway Segment Collisions – F+SI Collisions ..................................................................... 32 Figure 18. Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2016 - 2020).................................................................................................. 33 Figure 19. F+SI Collision Type vs Location Type ..................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 20. F+SI Collisions: Violation Category vs Location Type ........................................................................................ 35 Figure 21. F+SI Collisions: Motor Vehicle Involved With vs Location Type ..................................................................... 35 Figure 22. F+SI Collisions: Lighting vs and Location Type .................................................................................................... 36 Figure 23. F+SI Collisions: Weather vs Location Type............................................................................................................ 37 Figure 24. F+SI Collisions: Time of Day vs Location Type ..................................................................................................... 37 Figure 25. F+SI Collisions by Gender and Age ......................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 26. F+SI Collisions by Collision Type and Movement Preceding Collisions of Party at Fault ....................... 38 Figure 27. City of Napa Broadside Collisions (2016 - 2020) ................................................................................................ . 41 Figure 28. City of Napa Nighttime Collisions (2016-2020) ................................................................................................... 42 Figure 29. City of Napa Unsafe Speed Collisions (2016 - 2020) ......................................................................................... 43 Figure 30. City of Napa DUI Collisions (2016 - 2020) ............................................................................................................. 44 Figure 31. City of Napa Pedestrian Collisions (2016 - 2020) ................................................................................................ 45 Figure 32. City of Napa EPDO Score ........................................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 33. City of Napa High Injury Network ........................................................................................................................... 49

ATTACHMENT 1

4 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
TABLES
Table 1: Napa Commute to Work Census Data ....................................................................................................................... 10 Table 2. Collision by Severity and Facility Type ....................................................................................................................... 26 Table 3. EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 10 .............................................................................................................................. 46 Table 4. High Injury Intersections ................................................................................................................................................ 50 Table 5. High Injury Corridors ....................................................................................................................................................... 51 Table 6: Existing Programs Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 55 Table 7. Emphasis Area 1 Strategies ........................................................................................................................................... 57 Table 8. Emphasis Area 2 Strategies ........................................................................................................................................... 58 Table 9: Emphasis Area 3 Strategies ........................................................................................................................................... 59 Table 10: Emphasis Area 4 Strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 60 Table 11: Emphasis Area 5 Strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 61 Table 12: Emphasis Area 6 Strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 62 Table 13. Emphasis Area 7 Strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 63 Table 14: Countermeasures Selected for the City of Napa .................................................................................................. 65 Table 15: List of Viable Safety Projects ....................................................................................................................................... 71 Table 16: Safety Projects by Location ......................................................................................................................................... 73 Table 17: List of Potential Funding Sources .............................................................................................................................. 79

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Summary of Planning Documents
Appendix B: Consolidated High Injury Collision Database Appendix C: Countermeasure Toolbox
Appendix D: LRSM Excerpt
Appendix E: B/C Ratio Calculations

ATTACHMENT 1

5 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Napa’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a comprehensive plan that creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze traffic safety related issues and recommend projects and countermeasures. It aims to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions through a prioritized list of improvements that can enhance safety on local roadways.

The LRSP takes a proactive approach to addressing safety needs. It is viewed as a guidance document that can be a source of information and ideas. It is also a living document, one that is routinely reviewed and updated by City staff and their safety partners to reflect evolving collision trends and community needs and priorities. With the LRSP as a guide, the City will be able to apply for grant funds, such as the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) or One Bay Area Grant (OBAG). This document summarizes an analysis of collisions that occurred in Napa, identifies high-injury locations, and recommends countermeasures at each of these high-injury locations. It is organized into eight sections as follows:

Chapter 1 –
Introduction
The Introduction describes what an LRSP is and details the study area.

Chapter 2 – Safety Partners
Involvement of safety partners is critical in the success of the LRSP. For the City of Napa, this included a stakeholder group made up of representatives from local governmental and community organizations including City staff from the Public Works Department, Napa Police Department, and Napa Fire Department, and representatives from the City of Napa Bicycle and Trails Advisory Commission, Napa Valley Unified School District, Napa Valley Transportation Authority, Napa Chamber of Commerce, Napa County Bicycle Coalition, Slow Down Napa, Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition, Visit Napa Valley , and Downtown Napa Association. This chapter summarizes the involvement of the stakeholders in the LRSP process.

Chapter 3 – Existing Planning Efforts
This chapter summarizes City and regional planning documents and projects that are relevant to the LRSP.

It ensures that the recommendations of the LRSP are in line with existing goals, objectives, policies, or projects.

Chapter 4 – Collision Data and Analysis
This chapter summarizes the data analysis approach and presents preliminary as well as detailed collision analysis and findings in the study area. An analysis of fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions is performed by facility type (intersection and roadway segment). Collision data was obtained and analyzed for a five- year period from 2016 to 2020 from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records

ATTACHMENT 1

6 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
System (SWITRS) and the University of California at Berkeley SafeTREC’s Transpor tation Injury Mapping Service (TIMS).

Chapter 5 – Emphasis Areas
Emphasis areas are a focus of the LRSP that are identified through the various collision types and factors resulting in fatal and severe injury collisions within the City of Napa. The seven emphasis areas for Napa are:

1. Improve Intersection Safety (Collisions within 250 feet of an intersection)

2. Address Rear End Collisions & Unsafe Speed Violations

3. Address Broadside Collisions

4. Improve Pedestrian Safety

5. Address Nighttime Collisions

6. Address Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Collisions

7. Address Young Adult Party-at-Fault Collisions

Chapter 6 – Countermeasure Identification
Engineering countermeasures were selected for each of the high-injury locations and for the emphasis areas. These were based off of approved countermeasures from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) used in HSIP grant calls for projects. The intention is to give the City potential countermeasures for each location that can be implemented either in future HSIP calls for projects, or using other funding sources, such as the City ’s Capital Improvement Program. Non -engineering countermeasures were also selected using the 5 E’s strategies, and are included with the emphasis areas.

Chapter 7 –
Safety Projects
A set of six safety projects were created for high-injury intersections and roadway segments, using HSIP approved countermeasures. These safety projects are:
 Project #1: Signalized Intersections (Raised Pavement Markers, and Improve Pavement Friction)  Project #2: Signalized Intersections (Improve Signal Hardware and Timing, and Advance Warning Flashing Beacon)
 Project #3: Signalized Intersections (Modify Signal to include a Leading Pedestrian Interval, Install Advance Stop Bar, and Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads)  Project #4: Non-Signalized Intersections (Install High Visibility Crosswalk, Install/Upgrade Larger or Additional STOP Signs or other Intersection Regulatory/Warning Signs, and Improve Intersection Pavement Markings)

ATTACHMENT 1

7 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
 Project #5: Roadway Segments: (Install/Upgrade Signs with Fluorescent Sheeting, Install Delineators/Reflectors/Object Markers, and Improve Pavement Friction)  Project 6: Roadway Segments: (Install High Visibility Crosswalks, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, and Install Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Signs) Chapter 8 – Implementation and Evaluation
The LRSP is a guidance document that is recommended to be updated every two to five years in coordination with the safety partners. The LRSP document provides engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical service-related countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the City to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions. After implementing countermeasures, the performance measures for each emphasis area should be evaluated annually. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reducing fatal and severe injury collisions throughout the City. If the number of fatal and severe injury collisions does not decrease over time, then the emphasis areas and countermeasures should be re- evaluated.

ATTACHMENT 1

8 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
What is an LRSP?
The Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a localized data-driven traffic safety plan that provides opportunities to address unique roadway safety needs and reduce the number of fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions. The LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze traffic safety-related issues, and recommend safety projects and countermeasures. It facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in the development of a prioritized list of improvements that can qualify for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. The LRSP is a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and is viewed as a living document that can be constantly reviewed and revised to reflect evolving trends, and community needs and priorities.

Process
The systemic approach in preparing the LRSP involves the following steps:
 Develop plan goals and objectives
 Analyze collision data
 Meet with stakeholders/safety partners
 Determine focus areas and identify crash reduction strategies  Prioritize countermeasures/projects
 Prepare the LRSP
Study Area
The City of Napa, located in Napa County, California, covers a total area of 18.3 square miles and is located in the Northern Bay Area approximately 50 miles from San Francisco . The City’s estimated population is 79,246 (US Census 2020). SR 29, SR 12, SR 221, and SR 121 are major thoroughfares that connect the city with the rest of Napa County and the Bay Area. The nearest cities include Yountville to the north, Sonoma to the west, American Canyon to the south, and Fairfield to the east. The study area is mapped in Figure 1 below.

ATTACHMENT 1

9 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 1: Study Area

ATTACHMENT 1

10 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
According to the Census American Community Survey (ACS) 2020 5-Year Estimates, 76.4% of Napa commuters get to work by driving alone , slightly higher than both the Napa County and State rate of driving commuters. The second most common method of commuting to work is carpool at 10.8%. The different modes of transportation used by Napa residents to commute to work are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Napa Commute to Work Census Data
Commute to Work Napa Napa County California
Drive Alone 76.4% 74.9% 73.7%
Carpool 10.8% 10.5% 10.1%
Public Transportation 1.2% 1.4% 5.1%
Walked 2.0% 3.5% 2.6%
Bicycle 1.1% 1.0% 1.0%
Work from Home 6.5% 7.3% 5.9%
Other 1.7% 1.5% 1.6%

ATTACHMENT 1

11 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan

2. SAFETY PARTNERS
Safety partners are vital to the development and implementation of an LRSP. For the City o f Napa, this included a stakeholder group made up of representatives from local governmental and community organizations including City staff from the Public Works Department, Napa Police Department, and Napa Fire Department, and representatives from the City of Napa Bicycle and Trails Advisory Commission, Napa Valley Unified School District, Napa Valley Transportation Authority, Napa Chamber of Commerce, Napa County Bicycle Coalition, Slow Down Napa, Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition, Visit Napa Valley, and Downtown Napa Association. Representatives from many of these organizations attended two virtual stakeholder meetings, which were held on March 30, 2022, and June 22, 2022 to review project goals and findings, and to solicit feedback from the group.

During the first stakeholder meeting on March 30, 2022, the group was presented an overview of the LRSP process and goals, the collision analysis findings, the project website, and the interactive map tool. The meeting included open discussion on the presented components as well as feedback regarding observed traffic safety issues.

During the second stakeholder meeting on June 22, 2022, the group was presented an overview of the project status and milestones, the collision analysis findings, the emphasis areas, engineering and non- engineering countermeasures, and implementation and next steps. The meeting included open discussion on the presented components and additional time was provided for the group to review and comment on the countermeasures.

ATTACHMENT 1

12 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 2: Zoom Meeting from Stakeholder Meeting #1

This stakeholder outreach was supplemented by a project website with an interactive map tool platform that was posted to the City ’s website. Information on the project website and interactive map tool was distributed via the City of Napa’s social media channels, a public meeting of the City of Napa Bicycle and Trails Advisory Commission, an article in the local newspaper, and through e-mail outreach efforts conducted by various community groups. The interactive map was used to solicit input from Napa residents and stakeholders outside the confines of traditional meetings. This was supplemented by additional comments sent in by residents to City staff.

ATTACHMENT 1

13 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 3: Napa LRSP Project Website

In total, 808 comments were received through the project website and other related outreach efforts. The comments indicated that Napa residents are most concerned about speeding, which received 267 comments. The next category was bicycle/pedestrian safety with 187 comments, followed by intersection safety with 142. The results of the interactive map are shown below in Figure 4, and summarized in Figure

5.

ATTACHMENT 1

14 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 4: Interactive Map Comment Responses

ATTACHMENT 1

15 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 5: Public Comments on Traffic Safety

Note: Category was chosen based on the primary issue listed in the comment.

Additional public outreach for the project included project updates at the City of Napa Bicycle and Trails Advisory Commission’s (BTAC) meetings. Specific agenda items on the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan were included at multiple BTAC meetings during 2022 to review the various Plan components. In addition to the regularly scheduled BTAC Meetings, a Special BTAC Meeting was held on July 14, 2022. At this meeting, the Commission received a presentation of the Local Roadway Safety Plan recommendations and had opportunity for discussion and comment. All BTAC Meetings are public meetings and provide opportunity for public comment.
0 50
100
150
200
250
300

ATTACHMENT 1

16 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan

3. EXISTING PLANNING EFFORTS
This chapter summarizes the planning documents, projects underway, and studies reviewed for the City of Napa Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The purpose of this review is to ensure the LRSP vision, goals, and E's strategies (Education, Enforcement, Engineering, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS)) are aligned with prior planning efforts, planned transportation projects, and non-infrastructure programs for the City.

The documents reviewed are listed below:

1. City of Napa General Plan

2. Downtown Napa Specific Plan

3. City of Napa Bicycle Plan

4. City of Napa Pedestrian Plan

5. Napa Countywide Transportation Plan

6. Community Based Transportation Plan

7. Imola Avenue Corridor Complete Streets Improvement Plan

8. City of Napa Capital Improvement Program

9. Citywide Guidelines for Traffic Calming and Neighborhood Traffic Management

10. City of Napa Standard Plans and Specifications

11. Napa Municipal Code

12. General Plan Housing Element

The following sections include brief descriptions of these documents and how they inform the development of the LRSP. A more detailed list of relevant policies and projects is listed in Appendix A.

ATTACHMENT 1

17 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Relevant City and County Planning Documents & Projects

Napa General Plan (1998)
Adopted in 1998, the Envision Napa 2020 General Plan formalizes a long-term vision for the physical evolution of Napa and outlines policies, standards, and programs to guide day-to-day decisions concerning Napa’s development. Most relevant to the development of the LRSP is the Circulation element, which focuses on the access and mobility needs of residents and businesses in the City of Napa.

It contains several sections addressing the various modes of transportation in Napa, including: street and roadway system, roadway levels of service and vehicle miles traveled, crucial corridors, residential streets, public transit, bicycle routes, bicycle facilities, bicycle safety, pedestrians, and air/water/rail transport. Future transportation improvements are also outlined in the element, including roadway improvements, future bicycle facilities, and a citywide trails plan.

Downtown Napa Specific Plan (2012)
The Downtown Napa Specific Plan provides the guiding framework for realizing the vision of a vibrant, healthy, and balanced pedestrian oriented city center. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to illustrate and bring to life the community based vision; and create an implementation action plan to systematically achieve its key objectives. It includes a chapter on Circulation and Parking, which provides guidance to improve all forms of transportation serving Downtown. It aims to return the streets of Downtown Napa to its original function of providing access and mobility for transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians, while balancing the needs of motorists, goods movement, and emergency access.

The Circulation and Parking chapter is divided up into seven sections, primarily focusing on the existing and planned roadway system, transportation systems and demand management, public transit system, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and parking supply and demand/parking management plan. One of the main recommendations of the plan is to convert one-way couplet streets in Downtown to two-way streets, in order to allow greater access and create less confusion for visitors. Other recommendations include (but are not limited to): an extension of Coombs St, transportation demand management strategies, relocation of Downtown Transit Center, and new bicycle/pedestrian facilities.

ATTACHMENT 1

18 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
City of Napa Bicycle Plan (2021)
Developed as part of the Napa Countywide Bicycle Plan, The City of Napa Bicycle Plan is intended to guide development of infrastructure, programs, and policies that improve the bicycling environment for all residents and visitors in Napa. It is intended to help the City achieve the plan’s vision statement of having Napa County be a bicycle–friendly community with a world-class bicycling system for all ages and abilities, and achieve a 10% mode shift toward bicycling by 2035.

The plan first deta ils the City’s existing bicycle network, which currently totals 49 miles of Class I, Class II, and Class III facilities. It follows this with a detailed analysis of bicycle collisions, the community input process, proposed bicycle network, and support programs/policies. Included in these support programs and policies are a number of policies in regards to bicycle safety, which will help to inform any recommended countermeasures regarding addressing bicycle collisions. Finally, the recommended bicycle projects are categorized into immediate, short, medium, and long term projects. A total of 59.2 miles of bicycle facilities were recommended.

City of Napa Pedestrian Plan (2017)
The City’s Pedestrian Plan is intended to be a guiding document for maintaining and implementing new pedestrian infrastructure in Napa. It was developed as part of a countywide effort with the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) to develop the Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan. The plan first starts with an inventory of existing sidewalks and crosswalks in 12 neighborhoods citywide, pedestrian counts, a collision analysis, and public and stakeholder input. It then identifies opportunity areas that estimates pedestrian demand on streets throughout Napa. High demand areas included the downtown core, Trancas St, Lincoln Ave and Jefferson St near Napa High School, and neighborhood pockets near Phillips Charter School and Imola Ave. The plan concludes with project development and a table of recommended projects, followed by potential funding sources.

ATTACHMENT 1

19 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Napa Valley Countywide Transportation Plan (2021)
The Advancing Mobility 2045 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) outlines priorities for the Napa Valley Transportation Authority and Napa County’s transportation system to relieve congestion, improve traffic safety, create more active transportation infrastructure, provide more reliable and frequent bus service, and maintain and repair the existing transportation system. The CTP is a required planning document that is updated every four to five years with planned transportation projects and funding sources. The plan begins with a section on the vision of the plan and its goals, objectives, and performance metrics. It’s then followed by a summary of existing transportation, la nd use, and travel patterns/behaviors within the Napa Valley, including information on Communities of Concern in Napa County. This is followed by a section detailing the existing infrastructure, policies, and programs surrounding the roadway system, bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and transportation demand management in Napa County. Of most relevance is a section on Health and Safety, which includes information on safety (including a collision analysis), Vision Zero, and Complete Streets. The plan concludes with a list of recommended projects, travel forecasting, and funding sources. 28 projects are recommended within the City of Napa.

Napa Valley Community Based Transportation Plan (2020)
The Napa Valley Community-Based Transportation (CBTP) is the result of a community-based planning effort in Napa County, led by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority. It relies on an open community discussion between residents and transportation planners to identify transportation gaps of low- income and underserved residents in communities of concern. The overarching goal of the CBTP is to identify perceived transportation gaps, provide example projects identified by residents, and provide a list of improvements, such as infrastructure projects or social service programs. An intensive public outreach campaign was undertaken as part of the plan, including 15 outreach meetings.

In this outreach campaign, the second most mentioned comment was to increase pedestrian safety. A total of eight communities of concern were identified countywide, five of which are in Napa. The plan includes a profile of each, including demographic information, commute patterns, and population. A needs analysis for each community was conducted, which partially included an analysis of collisions. From this, a priority need/opportunity was identified for each community. Lastly, the plan concludes with a list of recommended projects/programs and prioritizes CTP projects that can benefit communities of concern.

ATTACHMENT 1

20 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Imola Avenue Corridor Complete Streets Improvement Plan (2020) Imola Avenue is a major east-west corridor in south Napa that is primarily oriented to auto traffic. The purpose of the Complete Streets Improvement Plan is to articulate the current challenges on the corridor and recommend achievable complete streets solutions to implement the community vision. The study area includes 3.5 miles of Imola Avenue between Foster Road and 4th Avenue, divided into three segments. The plan included a robust community outreach campaign, and details existing conditions, vision and goals for the corridor, corridor strategies, improvement concepts, an evaluation of the proposed concepts, and an implementation plan. As it pertains to the LRSP, the plan will inform any potential countermeasures selected for the Imola Avenue corridor to make sure they fit in with the overall corridor vision.

City of Napa Capital Improvement Program (2021)
The City’s Capital Improvement Program details all capital projects the City has budgeted over the next five fiscal years (until FY 2026). This includes projects pertaining to bicycle/pedestrians, facilities, miscellaneous (eg. parking, EV charging, etc.), parks, sidewalks, storm drains, streets, traffic signals, underground utility, and water administration/distribution. The CIP will inform the LRSP on upcoming projects in the City and ensure that any recommendations complement existing efforts. Looking at project areas relevant to the LRSP, there are a total of two bicycle/pedestrian projects, one sidewalk project, 51 street projects, and three traffic signal projects.

Citywide Guidelines for Traffic Calming and Neighborhood Traffic Management (2005) The City’s traffic calming guidelines provide a framework for the potential selection, funding, application, and design of traffic calming measures in the City of Napa in order to support the General Plan policy of “protecting residential neighborhoods from high-volume and high-speed traffic and its effect”. The document outlines policy guidelines of when to consider traffic calming measures, protecting emergency response routes, arterials/collectors, truck routes, and transit access, and the selection and placement of appropriate traffic calming measures. The plan also includes ways to incorporate traffic calming into new street networks, and a self-help neighborhood program for traffic calming. This is followed by a toolbox of traffic calming measures. The traffic calming guidelines are important to the LRSP as it informs it of existing policies and programs to combat speeding in

ATTACHMENT 1

21 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
residential areas within Napa. Traffic calming measures are sometimes recommended as part of an LRSP, though they are typically not eligible for highway safety funding.

City of Napa Standard Plans and Specifications (2022)
The City’s Standard Plans and S pecifications lay out the standard practices by which infrastructure is designed and constructed in Napa. The Standard Specifications focuses on general provisions for construction of projects, followed by standard specifications for projects regarding drainage, streets, landscaping, water distribution, signals/lighting/electrical systems, and solid waste/recyclable materials/compost. The LRSP primarily focuses on street, traffic signal, and electrical improvements and as such these sections will be most informative on the LRSP’s recommendations. The Street Standards include design criteria, considerations of driveways/parking facilities, private street connections, fire department access, and street special provisions. The Signals, Lighting, and Electrical Systems section focuses on specifications for (among other things):
signal controller cabinets, controller cabinet equipment, pole standards, heads, and pedestrian push buttons. The Standard Specifications is complemented with the Standard Plans, which provides detailed engineering plans for standard design elements of drainage, storm water, street, fire, parks and landscaping, street trees, water, electrical, and solid waste and recycling projects.

Napa Municipal Code (1992)
The Napa Municipal Code details the laws governing the City of Napa, divided into 17 sections. As it pertains to the LRSP, the most relevant section is Title 10, Vehicles and Traffic. Title 10 details the vehicle code by which motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and other modes must move about Napa in a safe and orderly manner. As one of the 4 E’s of traffic safety, enforcement of traffic laws is a key portion of the LRSP and critical to addressing traffic safety. The Municipal Code details the laws that must be followed in order to ensure that all that use the transportation system do so in a way that is safe.

ATTACHMENT 1

22 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
General Plan Housing Element (2015)
The Housing Element, an element of the City’s General Plan, casts a vision for preserving, improving, and developing housing within the City of Napa. It analyzes existing and projected housing needs and identifies adequate sites that will be zoned and available within the eight year housing cycle to meet the City’s fair share of regional housing needs at all income levels. The Housing Element helps to shape the City’s growth and ensure that it occurs in an orderly and diverse (in terms of housing affordability) manner. As it pertains to the LRSP, the Housing Element encourages high quality and pedestrian and bicycle access to housing throughout the City, particularly in areas of higher density.

ATTACHMENT 1

23 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan

4. COLLISION DATA ANALYSIS
This chapter summarizes the results of the analysis of collisions that have occurred in the City of Napa between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 20 20, as part of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). This chapter includes the following sections:

1. Data Collection

2. Collision Data Analysis

3. Fatal and Severe Injury Collision Analysis

4. Geographic Collision Analysis

5. High Injury Network

6. Summary
The LRSP focuses on systemically identifying and analyzing traffic safety issues and recommends appropriate safety improvements. The collision analysis starts with a comprehensive analysis of injury collisions of all severity types in the City of Napa and compares this with fatal and severe Injury ( F+SI) collisions. Factors such as collision severity, type of collision, primary collision factor, lighting, weather, and time of day were analyzed. Following this, a more detailed analysis was conducted for fatal and severe injury ( F+SI) collisions that have occurred on the City ’s roadways, including analyzing collision factors together (such as comparing collision type with violation category). Figure 6 illustrates all the injury collisions (excluding Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions) that have occurred in the City of Napa from 1/1/2016 to 12/31/2020.

ATTACHMENT 1

24 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 6. Injury Collisions in the City of Napa (2016-2020)

ATTACHMENT 1

25 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Data Collection
Collision data helps to understand different factors that might be leading to collisions and influencing collision patterns in a given area. For the purpose of this analysis, five-years of jurisdiction-wide collision data (2016 to 2020) was retrieved from Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Collisions that occurred on the freeway portions of SR 29 (roughly Imola Ave to Trancas St) were not included in the analysis. Collisions on other state routes (SR 12, SR 29 non-freeway, SR 121, and SR 221) were included. The collision data was analyzed and plotted in ArcMap to identify high-injury intersections and roadways segments.

Collision Data Analysis
Collision Analysis by Severity
There were a total of 1,207 collisions reported on
the City of Napa roads from 2016 to 2020. Out of
these, 721 collisions (60%) led to complaint of pain
injury and 406 collisions (34%) led to a visible injury.

There were 80 F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions, of which 68 collisions (5%) led to a severe injury and
12 collisions (1%) led to a fatality. Figure 7 illustrates the classification of all collisions based on severity.

The analysis first includes a comparative evaluation
between all collisions and F+SI collisions, based on
various factors including (but not limited to): collision trend, primary collision factor, collision type, facility type, motor vehicle involved with, weather, lighting, and time of the day. Following this, a comprehensive analysis is conducted for only F+SI collisions. F+SI collisions cause the most damage to those affected and to infrastructure. The aftermath of these collisions can lead to great expenses for jurisdiction administration. The LRSP process thus focuses on these collision locations to proactively identify and counter safety issues leading to these F+SI collisions.

The collision data was separated by facility type, i.e. based on collisions occurring on intersections and roadway segments. For the purposes of the analysis and in accordance with HSIP guidelines, a collision was designated to have occurred at an intersection if it occurred within 250 feet of it. The reported collisions categorized by facility type and collision severity are presented in Table 2.

Figure 7. Collisions by Severity (2016 -2020)
Fatal
1%
Severe
Injury
5%
Visible
Injury
34%
Complaint
of Pain
60%

ATTACHMENT 1

26 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Table 2. Collision by Severity and Facility Type
Collision Severity Roadway Segment Intersection Total
Fatal 3 9 12
Severe Injury 4 64 68
Visible Injury 52 354 406
Complaint of Pain 66 655 721
Total 125 1,082 1,207

Yearly Trend
The number of reported collisions of all severity has overall decreased between 2016 and 2020, with an increase from 2017 to 2019. The year with the highest number of collisions was 2019 (293 collisions), while the year with the lowest number of collisions was 2020 (207 collisions). A total of 80 F+SI collisions occurred in the City of Napa during the study period, overall consistent from 2016 to 2020. The least number of F+SI collisions occurred in 2016 (13 collisions), while the most occurred in 2020 (18 collisions).

Figure 8 illustrates the five-year collision trend for all collisions, and F+SI collisions.

Figure 8: Five Year Collision Trend

241
221
245
293
207
13 17 15 17 18
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total F+SI

ATTACHMENT 1

27 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Roadway Segment vs. Intersection
When evaluating the locations of collisions, most collisions occurred at intersections and not along roadway segments. In the City of Napa, 90% of all collisions (1,082 collisions) occurred at intersections whereas 10% (125 collisions) occurred on roadway segments. A slightly stronger trend towards intersection collisions is seen when looking only at F+SI collisions. This classification by facility type can be observed in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Roadway Segment vs. Intersection: All Injury Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions

Collision Type
For collisions of all severity, the most commonly occurring collision type was broadside collisions (40%) and rear end collisions (26%). The collision types for F+SI collisions follow a different pattern, where the most commonly occurring collision type was vehicle/pedestrian collisions (30%), broadside collisions (24%) and hit object (15%). Figure 10 illustrates the collision type for all collisions as well as F+SI collisions.

Figure 10. Collision Type - All Collisions vs F+SI Collisions

10%
90%
Roadway Segment Intersection
7%
93%
Roadway Segment Intersection
7% 7%
26%
40%
8%
1%
9%
3%
11%
3%
10%
24%
15%
3%
30%
5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Head- On Sideswipe Rear End Broadside Hit Object Overturned Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other
Total F+SI

ATTACHMENT 1

28 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Primary Collision Factor
For collisions of all severity, the most common primary violation categories were observed to be unsafe speed (22%) and automobile right of way (20%). The most common primary violation categories for F+SI collisions were driving under the influence (20%), pedestrian violation (15%), automobile right of way (11%), and pedestrian right of way (11%). Figure 11 illustrates the violation category for all collisions and F+SI collisions.

Figure 11. Violation Categories: All Collisions vs F+SI

10%
22%
4%
12%
20%
6%
2%
11%
2% 2%
4% 5%
20%
8%
3%
8%
11% 11%
15%
4% 5%
1%
5%
10%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Total F+SI

ATTACHMENT 1

29 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Motor Vehicle Involved With
For collisions of all severity, 64% of the collisions occurred by motor vehicles colliding with other vehicles.

This was followed by pedestrian collisions (10%), and bicycle (9%). For F+SI collisions, 35% involved a pedestrian, 28% of the collisions involved another motor vehicle, and 18% involved a fixed object. Figure 12 illustrates the motor vehicle involved with category for all collisions as well as F+SI collisions.

Figure 12. Motor Vehicle Involved With: All Collisions vs F+SI Collisions

Modes
The modes category provides a more detailed breakdown of the vehicle type at fault in the collision. For collisions of all severity, the majority were caused by a passenger or other vehicles (69%), followed by truck or bus (13%). Collisions caused by passenger or other vehicles (51%) also makes up the majority of F+SI collisions, but pedestrian or bicycle caused collisions (19%) rose in percentage. Figure 13 illustrates the percentage for all collisions as well as F+SI collisions by mode.

Figure 13. Modes: All Collisions vs F+SI Collisions

0% 2%
10%
64%
5% 9% 8%
0%0% 6%
35%
28%
6% 8%
18%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Not Stated Non-Collision Pedestrian Other Motor
Vehicle
Parked Motor
Vehicle
Bicycle Fixed Object Other Object
Total F+SI
2% 8% 13%
69%
8%4%
19%
11%
51%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Motor Cycle/ Scooter Pedestrian/ Bicycle Truck/ Bus Passenger or Other Vehicle
Not Stated
Total F+SI

ATTACHMENT 1

30 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Lighting
For collisions of all severity, 72% of collisions occurred in daylight, while 22% of collisions occurred in the dark on streets with streetlights. For F+SI collisions, a higher percentage of crashes occurred in nighttime conditions, with 54% of collisions having occurred in daylight and 39% of collisions occurred in the dark on streets with street lights. Figure 14 illustrates the lighting condition for all collisions and F+SI collisions.

Figure 14. Lighting Conditions: All Collisions vs F+SI Collisions

Weather
For all collisions, the vast majority occurred during clear weather conditions (83%). For F+SI collisions similar trends have been observed, with 89% of the collisions having occurred during clear weather conditions. Figure 15 illustrates the percent distribution of weather conditions during occurrence of collisions of all severity as well as F+SI collisions.

Figure 15. Weather Conditions: All Collisions vs F+SI Collisions

72%
3%
22%
2% 0% 0%
54%
5%
39%
3% 0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Daylight Dusk- Dawn Dark- Street Lights Dark- No Street Lights
Dark - Street Light
Not Functioning
Not Stated
Total F+SI
83%
12% 5% 0%
89%
8% 4% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Clear Cloudy Raining Fog
Total F+SI

ATTACHMENT 1

31 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Time of the Day
For collisions of all severity, the time period with the greatest number of collisions was between 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (25%), while the time period with the fewest number of collisions was between 3:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. (2%). For all F+SI collisions, the greatest number of collisions occurred between 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. (21% each). Figure 16 illustrates the percentage of collisions occurring during each hour of the day for all collisions as well as F+SI collisions.

Figure 16. Time of the Day: All Collisions vs F+SI

4%
2%
14% 13%
18%
25%
15%
9%
6%
4%
10%
6%
16%
21% 21%
15%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
12 am - 3 am 3 - 6 am 6 - 9 am 9 am - 12 pm 12 - 3 pm 3 - 6 pm 6 - 9 pm 9 pm - 12 am Total F+SI

ATTACHMENT 1

32 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Fatal and Severe Injury Collision Analysis
This section describes a detailed collision analysis performed for F+SI collisions occurring at roadway segments and intersections in the City of Napa. Of the total 80 F+SI collisions that oc curred during the study period, 7 collisions (9 %) occurred on roadway segments and 73 collisions (9 1%) occurred at intersections. This distribution is illustrated in Figure 17.

Figure 18 maps the F+SI collisions that occurred in the City of Napa during the study period.

9%
91%
Roadway Segment Intersection
Figure 17: Intersection vs. Roadway Segment Collisions – F+SI Collisions

ATTACHMENT 1

33 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 18. Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2016 - 2020)

ATTACHMENT 1

34 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Collision Type and Location Type
As previously indicated in Figure 10, the most common F+SI collision type was vehicle/pedestrian involved collisions (30%). These collisions were most likely to occur at intersections, 28% of all F+SI collisions were a vehicle/pedestrian collision that occurred at an intersection. Broadside (24%) and hit object (13%) collisions were the next two highest F+SI collision types to occur at intersections. Figure 19 shows fatal and severe injury collisions by the location type and the collision type.

Figure 19. F+SI Collision Type vs Location Type

Violation Category and Location Type
The most common violation types among F+SI collisions were DUI (20%), pedestrian violation (15%), pedestrian right of way (11%) and automobile right of way (11%). These F+SI collisions primarily occurred at intersections. DUI was the most common violation category along roadway segments, as well as at intersections.
3% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0% 3% 0%
9%
3%
9%
24%
13%
3%
28%
5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Head- On Sideswipe Rear End Broadside Hit Object Overturned Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other
Roadway Segment Intersection

ATTACHMENT 1

35 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 20 shows fatal and severe injury collisions by the location type and violation category.

ATTACHMENT 1

36 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 20. F+SI Collisions: Violation Category vs Location Type

Motor Vehicle Involved With and Location Type
F+SI collisions involving pedestrians was the most common type occurring at intersections (33% of all F+SI collisions). On roadway segments, the most common collision was with fixed objects (4% of all F+SI collisions). Figure 21 shows fatal and severe injury collisions b y the location type as well as the collision type.

Figure 21. F+SI Collisions: Motor Vehicle Involved With vs Location Type

3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
18%
6%
3%
8%
11% 11%
14%
4% 4% 4%
10%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Roadway Segment Intersection
0%
3% 3%
0% 0%
4%
6%
33%
25%
6% 8%
14%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Non-Collision Pedestrian Other Motor Vehicle Parked Motor Vehicle
Bicycle Fixed Object
Roadway Segment Intersection

ATTACHMENT 1

37 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Lighting vs and Location Type
Most F+SI collisions occurred in daylight at intersections (49%). The second most common lighting for fatal and severe injury collisions was collisions that occurred at intersections in the dark with street lights (36%). Figure 22 shows fatal and severe injury collisions by the location type and lighting conditions.

Figure 22. F+SI Collisions: Lighting vs and Location Type

5% 1% 3% 0%
49%
4%
36%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Daylight Dusk- Dawn Dark- Street Lights Dark- No Street Lights Roadway Segment Intersection

ATTACHMENT 1

38 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Weather vs and Location Type
The majority of F+SI collisions occurred during clear weather primarily at intersections (80%). Figure 23 shows fatal and severe injury collisions by the location type and weather conditions.

Figure 23. F+SI Collisions: Weather vs Location Type

Time of the Day vs and Location Type
The time duration with the most F+SI collisions was during 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. These primarily occurred at intersections, though the greatest number of roadway segment F+SI collisions also occurred between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Figure 24 shows fatal and severe injury collisions by location type and time of day.

Figure 24. F+SI Collisions: Time of Day vs Location Type

9%
0% 0% 0%
80%
8% 4%
14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Clear Cloudy Raining Other
Roadway Segment Intersection
0 5
10 15
20 25
12 am - 3 am 3 - 6 am 6 - 9 am 9 am - 12 pm 12 - 3 pm 3 - 6 pm 6 - 9 pm 9 pm - 12 am Roadway Segment Intersection

ATTACHMENT 1

39 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Gender vs Age
For F+SI collisions, the gender of the party at fault was more likely to be male than female (56% of F+SI collisions were caused by a male). Parties at fault from the age group of 30-39 years accounts for the largest percentage (20%) of all F+SI collisions. Parties at fault under 40 years of age accounts for just under half (46%) of all F+SI collisions. Figure 25 illustrates the gender and age of the party at fault for F+SI collisions.

Figure 25. F+SI Collisions by Gender and Age

Collision Type vs. Movement Preceding Collision of Party at Fault The most common type of collision for F+SI collisions was vehicle/pedestrian collisions. Of these collisions, Proceeding Straight was the most common movement preceding the collision of the party at fault (16% of all F+SI collisions), followed by making left turn (9%). Figure 26 shows distribution of collision type and the movement by the party at fault preceding the collision.

Figure 26. F+SI Collisions by Collision Type and Movement Preceding Collisions of Party at Fault

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 -59 60 -69 70 -79 80 + Unknown Female Male Unknown
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Head- On Sideswipe Rear End Broadside Hit Object Overturned Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other
Proceeding Straight Making Right Turn Making Left Turn Slowing/Stopping Entering Traffic Other

ATTACHMENT 1

40 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Geographic Collision Analysis
This section describes a detailed geographic collision analysis performed for injury collisions occurring on roadway segments and at intersections in the City of Napa. The above collision analysis was used to identify five main collision factors that highlight the top trends among collisions in the City of Napa. These five collision factors were identified to be broadside collisions, nighttime collisions, unsafe speed violations, DUI violations, and pedestrian collisions.

Broadside Collisions
Broadside collisions represented the highest proportion of collisions of all severity (40%), and a significant percentage of F+SI collisions (24%). Figure 27 shows the distribution of broadside collisions throughout the City of Napa between 2016 and 2020. Jefferson St, Trancas St, Solano Ave, and Soscol Ave have a higher concentration of broadside collisions.

Nighttime Collisions
Collisions occurring at night represented only 27% of all injury collisions, but rose significantly to 47% of F+SI collisions, indicating that lighting may be a factor in those collisions. Figure 28 shows the distribution of nighttime collisions throughout the City of Napa between 2016 and 2020. SR 29, W. Imola Ave, 3 rd St, SR 12, and Trancas St have a higher concentration of nighttime collisions.

Unsafe Speed Violations
22% of all injury collisions in Napa were caused by unsafe speed, the highest of any violation type among all injury collisions. Figure 29 shows the distribution of unsafe speed collisions throughout the City of Napa between 2016 and 2020. SR 29, W. Imola Ave, Jefferson St, Lincoln Ave, and Soscol Ave have a higher concentration of unsafe speed collisions.

DUI Violations
DUI violations caused only 10% of all injury collisions, but doubled to 20% when considering only F+SI collisions. It was the most common violation type among F+SI collisions. Figure 30 shows the distribution of DUI collisions throughout the City of Napa between 2016 and 2020. Jefferson St, Silverado Trail, and SR 29 have a higher concentration of DUI collisions.

Pedestrian Collisions
Vehicle/pedestrian collisions accounted for 30% of all F+SI collisions (the most of any category), compared to just 9% of all injury collisions. Figure 31 shows the distribution of pedestrian collisions throughout the City of Napa between 2016 and 2020. 3 rd St, Main St, Solano Ave, and Trancas St have a higher concentration of pedestrian collisions, compared to other Napa roads.

ATTACHMENT 1

41 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
The following figures detail concentrations of each of the above five collision factors on roadways throughout Napa. All collisions, whether they occurred at an intersection or roadway segment, are considered in these maps (for example, roads where a particular collision factor is more concentrated may have collisions that occurred at an intersection within the segment, or along the segment itself away from an intersection).

ATTACHMENT 1

42 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 27. City of Napa Broadside Collisions (2016 - 2020)

ATTACHMENT 1

43 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 28. City of Napa Nighttime Collisions (2016-2020)

ATTACHMENT 1

44 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 29. City of Napa Unsafe Speed Collisions (2016 - 2020)

ATTACHMENT 1

45 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 30. City of Napa DUI Collisions (2016 - 2020)

ATTACHMENT 1

46 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 31. City of Napa Pedestrian Collisions (2016 - 2020)

ATTACHMENT 1

47 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
High Injury Network
Collision Severity Weight
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) method was used to identify the high injury network. The EPDO method accounts for both the severity and frequency of collisions by converting each collision to an equivalent number of property damage only (PDO) collisions. The EPDO method assigns a crash cost and score to each collision according to the severity of the crash weighted by the comprehensive crash cost.

These EPDO scores are calculated using a simplified version of the comprehensive crash costs per HSIP Cycle 10 application. The weights used in the analysis are shown below in Table 3.

Table 3. EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 10
Collision Severity EPDO Score
Fatal and Severe Injury Combined 165*
Visible Injury 11
Possible Injury 6
PDO 1
*This is the score used in HSIP Cycle 10 for collisions on roadways segments, to simplify the analysis this study uses the same score for all F+SI collisions regardless of location.

EPDO is used because it provides a methodology for the project team to understand the locations in Napa that are experiencing the most severe crashes. Because of the high score given to fatal and severe injur y crashes, locations that have these types of crashes are more likely to receive a higher EPDO score than other locations that may have more collisions, but fewer fatal or severe injury collisions. Locations that have the highest EPDO scores are selected for inclusion in the High Injury Network, shown in the next section.

Identified intersections are scored based on collisions occurring at or within 250 feet of the intersection, while roadway segment locations are identified based on collisions that occur along the segment, except directly at an intersection (0 feet from intersection per SWITRS and TIMS data). Identifying the locations with the most severe crashes allows the team to focus recommended solutions and countermeasures at these locations.

The EPDO scores for all collisions can then be aggregated in a variety of ways to identify collision patterns, such as location hot-spots. The weighted collisions for the City of Napa were geolocated onto Napa’s road network. GIS is then used to calculate the EPDO score for each roadway segment and intersection citywide, which is then ranked according to its score. Figure 32 shows the location and geographic concentration of all collisions (those that occurred at intersections and along roadway segments) by their EPDO score.

ATTACHMENT 1

48 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 32. City of Napa EPDO Score

ATTACHMENT 1

49 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
High Injury Network
Following the detailed collision analysis, the next step was to identify the high-injury roadway segments and intersections in Napa. The methodology for scoring the high injury locations is the same method as used in the collision severity weight section. Figure 33 shows the top 11 high-injury roadway segments, and top 12 high-injury intersections.

For the purposes of the high injury network analysis, intersections include collisions that occurred within 250 feet of it, and roadway segments include all collisions that occurred along the roadway except for collisions that occurred directly at an intersection. Such collisions are assigned a 0 value in distance from intersection value column in the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).

ATTACHMENT 1

50 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 33. City of Napa High Injury Network

ATTACHMENT 1

51 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection Rankings
12 intersections were identified as high collision intersections. There were a total of 146 collisions and 18 F+SI collisions that occurred at these intersections during the five-year study period (2016-2020). The intersection of Soscol Ave and W. Imola Ave had the highest number of F+SI collisions with three.

Table 4 lists the top 12 identified high-injury intersections along with the number of injury collisions, the number of F+SI collisions, and the severity weight for each intersection.

Table 4. High Injury Intersections
ID Intersection Total Injury
Collisions
F+SI
Collisions Severity Weight
1 Soscol Ave at W. Imola Ave 18 3 600
2 SR 29 at Trower Ave 18 2 456
3 Lincoln Ave at Soscol Ave 17 2 430
4 SR 29 at Wine Country Ave 7 2 370
5 Silverado Trail at Lincoln Ave/Clark St 5 2 353
6 Redwood Rd at Solano Ave 17 1 296
7 SR 29 at SR 12 14 1 268
8 W. Imola Ave at SR 29 NB Ramps 11 1 240
9 SR 29 at Salvador Ave 10 1 234
10 Soscol Ave at Shetler Ave 11 1 230
11 California Blvd at Pueblo Ave 9 1 228
12 Jefferson St at Sheridan Dr 9 1 228

ATTACHMENT 1

52 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Corridor Rankings
11 corridors were identified as high injury corridors. There was a total 229 injury collisions and 19 F+SI collisions on these corridors during the five-year study period (2016-2020). The Soscol Ave corridor had the highest number of F+SI collisions with five.

Table 5 lists the top 11 identified high-collision corridors along with the number of injury collisions, the number of F+SI collisions, corridor length, and the severity weight for each corridor.

Table 5. High Injury Corridors
ID Corridor
Total
Injury
Collisions
F+SI
Collisions
Length
(miles)
Severity
Weight
A
Soscol Ave: W. Imola Ave to Trancas St
38 5 3.3 1073
B
Silverado Trail: Soscol Ave to City Limit 24 3 2.4 636
C
Solano Ave: Lincoln Ave to Trower Ave 13 2 1.8 426
D
Trancas St/Redwood Rd: 450’ E of Dry Creek
Rd to City Limit (East) 31 1 2.3 400
E
Lincoln Ave: Yajome St to Silverado Trail 9 2 0.8 372
F
S. Freeway Dr/Golden Gate Dr: 900’ N of
Imola Ave to 1,600’ S of Imola Ave 5 2 0.5 353
G
SR 29: 1,400’ N of Trancas St to City Limit
(North) 24 1 1.5 338
H
W. Imola Ave: Foster Rd to Soscol Ave 22 1 1.8 326
I
Browns Valley Rd/First Street: 350’ W of
Austin Rd to 400’ W of Freeway Dr 20 1 1.3 309
J
Main St: 750’ N of Lincoln Ave to 5th St 13 1 1.2 252
K
Jefferson St: Trancas St to 2nd St 30 0 1.9 235

ATTACHMENT 1

53 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Summary
Between 2016 and 2020, a total of 1,207 injury collisions occurred within the City of Napa, of which 80 resulted in a fatality or severe injury. Among all collisions, the most prominent collision types were broadside and rear end collisions, while unsafe speed and automobile right-of-way were the most common violation types. The corridor with the greatest number of F+SI collisions was Soscol Ave between W. Imola Ave and Trancas St, while the intersection with the most F+SI collisions was Soscol Ave at W. Imola Ave.

Five prominent collision factors that emerged were: broadside collisions, nighttime collisions, unsafe speed violations, DUI violations, and pedestrian collisions. Each of these is described in turn.

Broadside collisions represented the highest proportion of collisions of all severity (40%), a significant percentage of F+SI collisions (24%). Higher numbers of broadside collisions were observed on Jefferson St, Trancas St, Solano Ave, and Soscol Ave, compared to other Napa roads. Broadside collisions can potentially be mitigated by increasing the visibility of an intersection through updated pavement markings, new or updated signage, lighting, advance flashing beacons, and improving sight distance.

Collisions occurring at night represented only 27% of all injury collisions, but rose significantly to 47% of F+SI collisions. Higher numbers of these collisions occurred on SR 29, W. Imola Ave, 3 rd St, SR 12, and Trancas St, indicating lighting as a potential countermeasure at these locations. Many different factors can contribute to nighttime collisions, such as low lighting levels that can be targeted with countermeasure, but extraneous factors can also contribute to nighttime injury such as alcohol use or sleepiness/fatigue.

Improvements such as installing new lighting, upgrading existing lighting to a higher lumen, installing and upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting and installing pedestrian improvements with lighting elements such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), pedestrian hybrid beacons or high intensity activated crosswalk beacons (HAWK) can help make these locations safer for all road users. 22% of all injury collisions in Napa were caused by unsafe speed, the highest of any violation type among all injury collisions. Higher numbers of these collisions were experienced on SR 29, W. Imola Ave, Jefferson St, Lincoln Ave, and Soscol Ave. Speeding can be mitigated through the introduction of traffic calming, which can be a combination of street narrowing, medians, bulb outs at intersections, or Complete Streets elements like high visibility crosswalks, bike lanes, and wider sidewalks. Driver education and speed enforcement, either through radar trailers or officer patrols, can also help to mitigate instances of unsafe speed violations.

DUI violations caused only 10% of all injury collisions, but doubled to 20% when considering only F+SI collisions. It was the most common violation type among F+SI collisions. Higher numbers of DUI collisions occurred on Jefferson St, Silverado Trail, and SR 29. Engineering countermeasures can potentially include edge line rumble strips, object markers, guard rails, or ensuring a clear recovery zone. DUI collisions can be addressed with education and enforcement strategies such as DUI checkpoints and educational campaigns on the dangers of impaired driving.

ATTACHMENT 1

54 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Vehicle/pedestrian collisions accounted for 30% of all F+SI collisions (the most of any category), compared to just 9% of all injury collisions. Higher concentration of pedestrian collisions occurred on 3rd St, Main St, Solano Ave, and Trancas St. Addressing these types of collisions helps to make Napa’s transp ortation network safe for all modes of travel. Countermeasures such as traffic calming, high visibility crosswalks, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), sidewalk bulb outs, advanced flashing warning signs, can all help to address pedestrian collisions.

ATTACHMENT 1

55 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan

5. EMPHASIS AREAS
Emphasis areas are focus areas for the LRSP that are identified through the comprehensive collision analysis of the identified high injury locations within the City of Napa. Emphasis areas help in identifying appropriate safety strategies and countermeasures with the greatest potential to reduce collisions occurring at these high injury locations. They can include (but not be limited to): specific collision types, human behaviors, facility types, and specific locations or corridors.

This chapter summarizes the top seven (7) emphasis areas identified for the City of Napa. These emphasis areas were derived from the consolidated high injury collision database ( Appendix B) where top injury factors were identified by combining the data manually. Along with findings from the data analysis, stakeholder and community input was also considered while identifying emphasis areas specific to the City of Napa.

The identified emphasis areas are as follows:

1. Improve Intersection Safety (Collisions within 250 feet of an intersection)

2. Address Rear End Collisions & Unsafe Speed Violations

3. Address Broadside Collisions

4. Improve Pedestrian Safety

5. Address Nighttime Collisions

6. Address Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Collisions

7. Address Young Adult Party-at-Fault Collisions
The 4 E's of Traffic Safety
The LRSP utilizes a comprehensive approach to safety incorporating the “4 E’s of traffic safety”: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). This approach recognizes that not all locations can be addressed solely by infrastructure improvements. Incorporating the 4 E’s of traffic safety is often required to ensure successful implementation of significant safety improvements and reduce the severity and frequency of collisions throughout a jurisdiction.

Some of the common violation types that may require a comprehensive approach are speeding, failure- to-yield to pedestrians, red light running, aggressive driving, failure to wear safety belts, distracted driving, and driving while impaired. When locations are identified as having these types of violations, coordination with the appropriate law enforcement agencies is needed to arrange visible targeted enforcement to reduce the potential for future driving violations and related crashes and injuries.

To improve safety, education efforts can be used to supplement enforcement and improve the efficiency of each strategy. Education can also be employed in the short-term to address high collision locations until the recommended infrastructure project can be implemented. Similarly, Emergency Medical Services entails strategies around supporting organizations that provide rapid response and care when responding to collisions causing injury, by stabilizing victims and transporting them to medical facilities.

ATTACHMENT 1

56 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Existing Traffic Safety Efforts in the City of Napa
The City of Napa and partner agencies have already planned and implemented safety strategies corresponding to the 4 E’s of traffic safety. The strategies detailed in this chapter can supplement these existing programs and concentrate them on high injury collision locations and crash types. These initiatives are summarized in the following table:

Table 6: Existing Programs Summary
Document/ Program Description E’s
Addressed
Napa County Safe
Routes to School (SRTS)
Program
The Napa County Safe Routes to School Program is operated in partnership by the Napa County Office of Education, the Napa County Bicycle Coalition, and the Napa Valley Transportation Authority. The SRTS Program provides bicycle and pedestrian safety education and encouragement programs, such as Walk and Roll Wednesdays, at schools across Napa County. School site walk audits and surveys were conducted at 31 public schools in Napa County.

Education,
Engineering
Napa County Bicycle
Coalition
The NCBC works to make riding a bicycle anywhere in Napa County safe, convenient, and accessible for all ages and abilities, through education, encouragement, and advocacy. Their programs include Safe Streets, Bike Valet, and partnering to operate the County’s SRTS program.

Education
City of Napa Police
Department and City of
Napa Fire Department
City of Napa Police Department and City of Napa Fire Department provide traffic enforcement and emergency response to collisions occurring within City limits. Additionally, the Napa Police Department offers safety brochures and tips on their website regarding teen driver education and car seat safety, and an educational video on texting and driving.

Education,
Enforcement,
EMS
City of Napa General
Plan
The Transportation Element of the General Plan stipulates goals and policies for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods, traffic enforcement, driver education, and safe access between residential areas, public uses, schools, shopping, and employment centers. The General Plan is undergoing an update with adoption anticipated in 2022.

Engineering,
Education,
Enforcement
City of Napa
Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Guidelines
This policy document provides a framework for the City to select, fund, and design traffic calming improvements, as well as respond to such requests from residents. The guidelines are planned to be revised in 2022.

Engineering
City of Napa Bicycle
Plan (2021)
This plan aims towards reducing bicycle collisions to zero by 2035, creating a robust and connected network of low-stress bike facilities, implementing complete street policies, and encouraging bicycling as a mode share through education programs.

Engineering,
Education
Napa Valley Countywide
Transportation Plan
(2021)
This comprehensive document on transportation in Napa County recommends and prioritizes projects that promote safety in the County’s transportation network. There were 28 projects recommended within Napa.

Engineering

ATTACHMENT 1

57 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Factors Considered in the Determination of Emphasis Areas This section presents collision data analysis findings of collision types, factors, facility types, roadway geometries, and party level data analyzed for the various emphasis areas. Emphasis areas were determined by factors that led to the highest amount of injury collisions, with a specific emphasis on fatal and severe (F+SI) injury collisions. The City of Napa experienced a total of 333 collisions at high injury network locations during the 2016-2020 study period, including 30 F+SI collisions. The data presented below in each emphasis area is based on these collisions.

Each emphasis area is accompanied by comprehensive programs, policies, and countermeasures to reduce collisions on City roads in that specific emphasis area. It provides the basis by which the countermeasure toolbox was developed for each identified high injury location.

Note: Engineering countermeasures are based on the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual and are used in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) calls for projects. They are categorized as follows:
 S = Signalized Intersections Countermeasures
 NS = Non-Signalized Intersections Countermeasures
 R = Roadway Segments Countermeasures

A consolidated list of collisions on the high injury network is included as Appendix B.

ATTACHMENT 1

58 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Emphasis Area 1 – Improve Intersection Safety
Intersection collisions made up the vast majority of collisions occurring on the Napa high injury network during the study period, a total of 78%. The majority of fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions (83%) also occurred at intersections. The following collision data is based on only intersection collisions on the high injury network in the City of Napa, followed by 4 E’s strategies selected to address intersection collisions. 36%
Unsafe Speed
41%
Rear End Collisions
10%
F+SI Collisions
Table 7. Emphasis Area 1 Strategies
Objective:

Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions at intersections.

Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for intersection safety laws regarding traffic signals, stop signs, and turning left or right.

Number of education
campaigns or residents
reached.

City/Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-injury intersections to monitor right -of-way violations, speed limit laws and other violations that occur at intersections.

Decrease in number of
citations and/or
warnings issued over
time due to increased
driver compliance.

Police Department
Engineering
 S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
 S03, Improve signal timing
 S09, Install raised pavement markers
 NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additio nal stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
 NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings
 NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop -Controlled Intersections  NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (Non -Signalized Intersection) (NS.I.)
 NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
 NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)  NS13, Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches  NS14, Install raised median on approaches
 NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands)
Number of intersections
improved. City/Caltrans
EMS S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collision sites.

Ensure emergency routes are clear and well defined
EMS vehicle response
time.

City/Fire Department
& EMS Response
Teams

ATTACHMENT 1

59 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Emphasis Area 2 – Address Rear End Collisions and Unsafe Speed Violations 131 (39%) of the high injury network collisions were rear end collisions, including 3 fatal or severe injury (F+SI) collisions. 36% of high injury network collisions were caused by unsafe speed, including 79% of rear end collisions. These two factors are combined due to the strong correlation between unsafe speed and rear end collisions. The following is based on only rear end injury collisions on the high injury network, followed by 4 E’s strategies to address them.
79%
Rear End Collisions due to
Unsafe Speed
81%
Occurred at
Intersections
30%
Occurred on Soscol
Avenue
Table 8. Emphasis Area 2 Strategies
Objective:

Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury rear end and unsafe speed collisions.

Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding unsafe speed and its dangers.

Number of
education
campaigns or
residents reached.

City/Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-injury locations where unsafe speed violations are more common.

Deploy a radar trailer at locations where instances of unsafe speed is more prevalent Decrease in number
of citations and/or
warnings issued
over time due to
increased driver
compliance.

Police Department
Engineering
 S02, Improve signal hardware
 S04, Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection for high speed ap proaches  S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)  S16/NS04/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout
 NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
 R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting  R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
 R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines
 Decrease width of travel lanes.
 Simplify turn configurations.
 Decrease curb radius of intersections.
 Traffic calming strategies where appropriate.

Number of locations
improved. City/Caltrans
EMS S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collision sites.

Ensure emergency routes are clear and well defined
EMS vehicle
response time.

City/Fire Department
& EMS Response
Teams

ATTACHMENT 1

60 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Emphasis Area 3 – Address Broadside Collisions
95 (29%) of the high injury network collisions were broadside collisions, including 5 fatal or severe injury (F+SI) collisions. The following collision data is based on only broadside injury collisions on the high injury network of the City of Napa, followed by 4 E’s strategies to address them. 39%
Automobile Right of Way
Violation
26%
Traffic Signals and
Signs Violation
84%
Occurred at Intersection
Table 9: Emphasis Area 3 Strategies
Objective:

Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury broadside collisions.

Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education c ampaigns for intersection safety laws regarding traffic lights, stop signs and turning left or right.

Number of
education
campaigns or
residents reached.

City/Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-injury locations where violations tha t lead to broadside collisions are more common, such as automobile right of way and traffic signal/stop sign violations.

Decrease in number
of citations and/or
warnings issued over
time due to
increased driver
compliance.

Police Department
Engineering
 S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
 S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)  S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal -mounted)  S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)  S16/NS04/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout
 NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control)  NS03, Install signals
 NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
 NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
 NS08, Install flashing beacons at stop controlled intersections  NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.)  NS11, Improve sight distance to intersecti on (Clear Sight Triangles)  NS13, add splitter-islands on the minor road approaches  NS14, install raised median on approaches
Number of locations
improved to
mitigate broadside
collisions.

City/Caltrans
EMS S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collision sites.

Ensure emergency routes are clear and well defined
EMS vehicle
response time.

City/Fire Department
& EMS Response
Teams

ATTACHMENT 1

61 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Emphasis Area 4 – Improve Pedestrian Safety
23 (7%) of collisions on the high injury network involved pedestrians, however, of those collisions, four were fatal. Three out of four pedestrian fatalities were intersection-related and occurred on or near SR 29.

The following collision data is based on only pedestrian collisions on the high injury network of the City of Napa, followed by 4 E’s strategies to address them.
40%
F+SI Collisions
48%
Crossing not in Crosswalk
61%
Pedestrian Violation
Table 10: Emphasis Area 4 Strategies
Objective:

Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions involving pedestrians.

Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education Conduct pedestrian safety campaigns and outreach to raise their awareness of pedestrian safety needs through media outlets, social media, and public events.

Partner with Safe Routes to School to conduct bicycle and pedestrian safety programs in Napa’s schools.

Number of education
campaigns or residents
reached.

City/School District/
SRTS Program
Partners/ Police
Department
Enforcement Targeted enforcement at high-injury locations especially near schools, down town Napa, and other areas where pedestrians are more present.

Continue to place a high priority on enforcement of motorist and pedestrian violations that most frequently cause injuries and fatalities among pedestrians.

Decrease in number of
citations and/or
warnings issued over
time due to increased
driver compliance.

Police Department
Engineering
 S17PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
 S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)
 S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval  NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
 NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands)
 NS21PB/R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossi ng (with enhanced safety features)
 NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)  NS23PB, Install pedestrian signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK))  R36PB, Install raised pedestrian crossing
 R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Be acons (RRFB)  High-visibility ladder crosswalks
 Mid-block curb extension
 In-road yield sign for pedestrian crossing at crosswalk  Intersection bulb-outs
Number of locations
improved. City/Caltrans
EMS S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collision sites.

Ensure emergency routes are clear and well defined, particularly to areas and times of high pedestrian activity.

EMS vehicle response
time.

City/Fire Department
& EMS Response
Teams

ATTACHMENT 1

62 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Emphasis Area 5 – Address Nighttime Collisions
103 (31%) of high injury network collisions occurred at night or in low light (dawn/dusk) conditions, including 20 F+SI collisions (67%). The following collision data is based on only nighttime injury collisions on the high injury network of City of Napa, followed by 4 E’s strategies selected to address nighttime collisions.
33%
Involved Alcohol
29%
Occurred on SR 29
28%
Rear End Collisions
Table 11: Emphasis Area 5 Strategies
Objective:

Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions that occur at night or dawn/dusk.

Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Develop an awareness program to inform motorists of safe nighttime driving habits and the dangers of drunk or impaired driving, as well as high-injury collision locations and the most common violations/collision types occurring at night.

Number of
education
campaigns or
residents reached.

City/Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-injury intersections and roadway locations where nighttime collisions are more common.

Establish DUI checkpoints at night where appropriate.

Decrease in
number of
citations and/or
warnings issued
over time due to
increased driver
compliance.

Police Department
Engineering
 S01, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.)  S02, Improve signal hardware
 S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.)  NS01, Add intersection lighting
 NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop si gns or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
 NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
 NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop -Controlled Intersections  NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.)  NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)  R01, Add Segment Lighting
 R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone  R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)  R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object ma rkers  R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines
 R31, Install edge-line rumble strips/stripes
Number of
locations
improved.

City/Caltrans
EMS S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collisi on sites.

Ensure emergency routes are clear and well defined
EMS vehicle
response time.

City/Fire
Department & EMS
Response Teams

ATTACHMENT 1

63 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Emphasis Area 6 – Address Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Collisions A total of 54 (16%) high injury network collisions involved alcohol. However, of these 54 collisions, 14 led to a fatality or severe injury (40% of F+SI collisions). DUI collisions also made up 20% of all F+SI collisions citywide. The following collision data is based on only alcohol involved injury collisions on the high injury network of the City of Napa, followed by 4 E’s strategies selected to address DUI collisions. 46%
Rear End or Hit
Object Collisions
78%
Occurred at Intersections
54%
Nighttime Collisions
Table 12: Emphasis Area 6 Strategies
Objective:

Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions that occur due to driving under the influence.

Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct safety campaigns and outreach for safety laws rega rding driving under the influence, such as CHP campaigns to address drunk and impaired driving.

Number of
education
campaigns or
residents reached.

City/Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-injury intersections and roadway locations to monitor violations of driving under influence.

Establish DUI check points near high-injury locations as appropriate.

Decrease in
number of
citations and/or
warnings issued
over time due to
increased driver
compliance.

Police Department
Engineering
 S01/NS01/R01, Add lighting
 S02, Improve signal hardware
 S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)  S10/NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning  NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional intersection warning/regulatory s igns NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
 NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
 NS12, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatment)  R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone  R15, Widen shoulder
 R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)  R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R30/R31, Install centerline/edge line rumble strips/stripes Number of
locations
improved.

City/Caltrans
EMS S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collision sites.

Ensure emergency routes are clear and well defined
Increase the number of EMS personnel taking Traffic Incident Management Tra ining EMS vehicle
response time.

City/Fire
Department & EMS
Response Teams

ATTACHMENT 1

64 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Emphasis Area 7 – Address Young Adult Party at Fault Collisions Of the 333 reported collisions on the high injury network of Napa, 35% were caused by a party at fault under the age of 30. The following is a review of the data of collisions caused by young adults occurring on the high injury network, along with educational strategies to address young adult party at fault collisions.
34%
Collision Occurred Due to
Unsafe Speed

63%
Party-at-Fault Under 30 was Male

Table 13. Emphasis Area 7 Strategies
Objective:

Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions caused by young adults.

Strategy Performance
Measure Agencies/Organizations
Education
Target educational programs for young adults. Distribute brochures/fliers with red light running, speeding, distracted driving, improper turning, aggressive driving and stop sign violation information at driver training programs. Include statistics of young a dult larger risk of fatalities. Involve school districts in such campaigns.

Utilize CHP programs and classes, such as Start Smart to teach teen drivers safe driving habits.

Number of education
campaigns or residents
reached.

City/School District/SRTS
Program Partners/Police
Department

ATTACHMENT 1

65 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan

6. COUNTERMEASURE SELECTION
Identification of Countermeasures
Upon the identification of high-injury locations and Emphasis Areas, the next step was to identify appropriate safety countermeasures. The Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) provides 82 countermeasures, of which 21 are eligible in the current Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) call for signalized intersections, 23 for un-signalized intersections, and 38 for roadway segments. The LRSM provides guidance on where to apply the countermeasures including the crash types each countermeasure would address, and a Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) for each countermeasure. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse and published research papers were reviewed by the project team to gain additional insight on CRFs and effectiveness of specific countermeasures.

The project team conducted a thorough review of the high-injury locations (intersections and roadway segments) using aerial photography, Google Maps Street View software, and in-person site visits. Crash characteristics of all collisions occurring on the High Injury Network were considered. After combining the physical and collision characteristics, the project team developed a table of preliminary countermeasures that address each of the seven identified emphasis areas. The table was refined by selecting up to four countermeasures for each high-injury location that were most commonly recommended among all Emphasis Areas. By doing this, the project team was able to identify countermeasures with the greatest opportunity for systemic implementation.

Countermeasure Toolbox
Engineering countermeasures were selected for each of the high-injury locations and for the emphasis areas. These were based off of approved countermeasures from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) used in HSIP grant calls for projects. The intention is to give the City potential countermeasures for each location that can be implemented either in future HSIP calls for projects, or using other funding sources. Non-engineering countermeasures were also selected using the 4 E’s strategies, and are included with the emphasis areas. The countermeasure toolbox in Appendix C details the draft countermeasures for each high-injury location and emphasis area, separated by intersections and roadway segments. While not all of these countermeasures will be included in the resulting safety projects, they are included to give the City a toolbox for implementing future safety improvements through other means, such as other grant funding sources or the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

Table 14 provides a description of each countermeasure along with the crash reduction factor (CRF), federal funding eligibility, and opportunity for systemic implementation. An excerpt of the LRSM, detailing each available HSIP countermeasure referenced in the recommendations tables, is included as Appendix D.

ATTACHMENT 1

66 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Table 14: Countermeasures Selected for the City of Napa Code Countermeasure Name Countermeasure Description CRF Federal Funding
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity
S01 Add intersection lighting Provision of lighting at intersection. 40% 90% Medium S02
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and
number
Includes New LED lighting, signal back plates,
retro-reflective tape outlining the back plates, or
visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal
heads, relocation of the signal heads, or
additional signal heads.
15% 90% Very High
S03
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
Includes adding phases, lengthening clearance
intervals, eliminating or restricting higher-risk
movements, and coordinating signals at multiple
locations.
15% 50% Very High
S04
Provide Advanced
Dilemma Zone Detection
for high speed approaches
The Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection system
enhances safety at signalized intersections by
modifying traffic control signal timing to reduce
the number of drivers that may have difficulty
deciding whether to stop or proceed during a
yellow phase.

N/A N/A N/A
S07
Provide protected left turn
phase (left turn lane
already exists)
Left turns are widely recognized as the highest-
risk movements at signalized intersections.

Providing Protected left-turn phases for
signalized intersections with existing left turn
pockets significantly improve the safety for left-
turn maneuvers by removing the need for the
drivers to navigate through gaps in
oncoming/opposing through vehicles
30% 90% High
S08
Convert signal to mast
arm (from pedestal-
mounted)
Providing better visibility of intersection signs
and signals aids the drivers’ advance perception
of the upcoming intersection. Visibility and clarity
of the signal should be improved without
creating additional confusion or distraction for
drivers.
30% 90% Medium
S09
Install raised pavement
markers and striping
(Through Intersection)
Adding clear pavement markings can guide
motorists through complex intersections. When
drivers approach and traverse through complex
intersections, drivers may be required to perform
unusual or unexpected maneuvers
10% 90% Very High
S10 Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (S.I.)
Increased driver awareness of an approaching
signalized intersection and an increase in the
driver's time to react.
30% 90% Medium
S11
Improve pavement friction
(High Friction Surface
Treatments)
Improving the skid resistance at locations with
high frequencies of wet road crashes and/or
failure to stop crashes
55% 90% Medium
S12 Install raised median on
approaches (S.I.)
Raised medians next to left turn lanes at
intersections offer a cost effective means for
reducing crashes and improving operations at
higher volume intersections
25% 90% Medium
S13PB Install pedestrian median
fencing on approaches
Signalized Intersections with high pedestrian-
generators nearby (e.g. transit stops) may 35% 90% Low

ATTACHMENT 1

67 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Code Countermeasure Name Countermeasure Description CRF Federal Funding
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity
experience a high volumes of pedestrians J-
walking across the travel lanes at mid-block
locations instead of walking to the intersection
and waiting to cross during the walk-phase.

S17PB Install pedestrian
countdown signal heads
Signals that have signalized pedestrian crossing
with walk/don't walk indicators and where there
have been pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.
25% 90% Very High
S20PB
Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk (Bicycle
Box)
Signalized Intersections with a marked crossing,
where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians
volumes are known to occur.
15% 90% Very High
S21PB
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Addition of LPI gives pedestrians the opportunity
to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before
vehicles are given a green indication; only minor
signal timing alteration is required.
60% 90% Very High
NS01 Add intersection lighting
(NS.I.) Provision of lighting at intersection. 40% 90% Medium NS06
Install/upgrade larger or
additional stop signs or
other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
Replaces existing or installs new larger signs to
assist the driver in perceiving an intersection
from a greater distance, particularly at night.
15% 90% Very High
NS07 Upgrade intersection
pavement markings (NS.I.)
Typical improvements include "Stop Ahead"
markings and the addition of centerlines and
stop bars
25% 90% Very High
NS12
Improve pavement friction
(High Friction Surface
Treatments)
Non-signalized Intersections noted as having
crashes on wet pavements or under dry
conditions when the pavement friction available
is significantly less than needed for the actual
roadway approach speeds. This treatment is
intended to target locations where skidding and
failure to stop is determined to be a problem in
wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is
unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.
55% 90% Medium
NS19PB Install raised medians
(refuge islands)
Raised medians decrease the level of exposure
for pedestrians and allow pedestrians to
concentrate (or cross) only one direction of traffic
at a time.
45% 90% Medium
NS21PB
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing at uncontrolled
locations (with enhanced
safety features)
Adding pedestrian crossings that includes
enhanced safety features has the opportunity to
enhance pedestrian at locations noted as being
especially problematic.
35% 90% Medium
R01 Add Segment Lighting Provision of lighting along roadways. 35% 90% Medium R02
Remove or relocate fixed
objects outside of Clear
Recovery Zone
Known locations or roadway segments prone to
collisions with fixed objects such as utility poles,
drainage structures, trees, and other fixed
objects, such as the outside of a curve, end of
lane drops, and in traffic islands. A clear recovery
zone should be developed on every roadway, as
space is available. In situations where public
35% 90% High

ATTACHMENT 1

68 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Code Countermeasure Name Countermeasure Description CRF Federal Funding
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity
right-of-way is limited, steps should be taken to
request assistance from property owners, as
appropriate.

R03 Install median barrier Installs a barrier in between opposing lanes of traffic to address head-on collisions. 25% 90% Medium
R09 Install median (flush) Adds a striped median to mitigate vehicles that cross the centerline into oncoming vehicles. 15% 90% Medium R13
Add two-way left-turn
lane (without reducing
travel lanes)
Two-way left turn lanes provide a buffer between
opposing lanes of travel and separate left turning
traffic from through traffic.
30% 90% Medium
R14
Road Diet (Reduce travel
lanes from 4 to 3 and add
a two-way left turn lane
and bike lanes)
Reduces travel lanes to install bike lanes and a
two-way left turn lanes, with the benefit of speed
reduction and increased bicycle safety.
35% 90% Medium
R21
Improve pavement friction
(High Friction Surface
Treatments)
Improving the skid resistance at locations with
high frequencies of wet road crashes and/or
failure to stop crashes
55% 90% High
R22
Install/Upgrade signs with
new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or warning)
Additional or new signage can address crashes
caused by lack of driver awareness or complaince
of roadway signing.
15% 90% Very High
R23 Install chevron signs on
horizontal curves
Roadways that have an unacceptable level of
crashes on relatively sharp curves during periods
of light and darkness.
40% 90% Very High
R24 Install curve advance
warning signs
Placed in advance of curves with an unacceptable
level of crashes to warn drivers of an impending
sharp curve.
25% 90% Very High
R26 Install dynamic/variable
speed warning signs
Includes the addition of dynamic speed warning
signs (also known as Radar Speed Feedback
Signs)
30% 90% High
R27
Install delineators,
reflectors and/or object
markers
Installation of delineators, reflectors and/or
object markers are intended to warn drivers of an
approaching curve or fixed object that cannot
easily be removed.
15% 90% Very High
R28 Install edge-lines and
centerlines
Any road with a history of run-off-road right,
head-on, opposite-direction-sideswipe, or run-
off-road-left crashes is a candidate for this
treatment -install where the existing lane
delineation is not sufficient to assist the motorist
in understanding the existing limits of the
roadway. Depending on the width of the
roadway, various combinations of edge line
and/or center line pavement markings may be
the most appropriate.
25% 90% Very High
R30 Install centerline rumble
strips/stripes
Center Line rumble strips/stripes can be used on
virtually any roadway – especially those with a
history of head-on crashes.
20% 90% High

ATTACHMENT 1

69 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Code Countermeasure Name Countermeasure Description CRF Federal Funding
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity
R31 Install edgeline rumble
strips/stripes
Shoulder and edge line milled rumble
strips/stripes should be used on roads with a
history of roadway departure crashes.
15% 90% High
R33PB Install Separated Bike
Lanes
Separated bikeways are most appropriate on
streets with high volumes of bike traffic and/or
high bike-vehicle collisions, presumably in an
urban or suburban area. Separation types range
from simple, painted buffers and flexible
delineators, to more substantial separation
measures including raised curbs, grade
separation, bollards, planters, and parking lanes.
45% 90% High
R34PB
Install sidewalk/pathway
(to avoid walking along
roadway)
Areas noted as not having adequate or no
sidewalks and a history of walking along roadway
pedestrian crashes. In rural areas asphalt curbs
and/or separated walkways may be appropriate.
80% 90% Medium
R35PB
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing (with enhanced
safety features)
Roadway segments with no controlled crossing
for a significant distance in high-use midblock
crossing areas and/or multilane roads locations.
flashing beacons, curb extensions, medians and
pedestrian crossing islands and/or other safety
features should be added to complement the
standard crossing elements.
35% 90% Medium
R37PB Install Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
includes pedestrian-activated flashing lights and
additional signage that enhance the visibility of
marked crosswalks and alert motorists to
pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash
pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on
police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at
unsignalized intersections and mid-block
pedestrian crossings
35% 90% Medium
* Code: S - Signalized intersection improvements
NS - Non-signalized intersection improvements
R - Roadway segment improvements

ATTACHMENT 1

70 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan

7. VIABLE SAFETY PROJECTS
This chapter summarizes the process of selecting safety projects as part of the analysis for the Napa Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The next step after the identification of high-injury locations, emphasis areas and applicable countermeasures was to identify location specific safety improvements for all high-injury roadway segments and intersections.

Specific countermeasures and improvements were selected from the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) from Caltrans, where:
 S refers to improvements at signalized locations,
 NS refers to improvements at non-signalized locations, and  R refers to improvements at roadway segments.

The corresponding number refers to the countermeasure number in the LRSM (2022). The countermeasures were grouped into safety projects for high-injury intersections and roadway segments. A total of six safety projects were developed. All countermeasures were identified based on the technical teams’ assessment of viability that consisted of extensive analysis, observations, City staff input, and stakeholder/community input. The most applicable and appropriate countermeasures as identified have been grouped together to form projects that can help make high-injury locations safer.

Table 15 lists the safety projects for high-injury intersections and roadway segments, along with total base planning level cost (2022 dollar amounts) estimates and the resultant preliminary Benefit-Cost (B/C) Ratio.

The “Total Benefit” estimates were calculated for the proposed improvements being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis. This “Total Benefit” is divided by the “Total Cost per Location” estim ates for the proposed improvements, giving the resultant B/C Ratio. The B/C Ratio Calculation follows the methodology as mentioned in the LRSM (2022).

Appendix E lists the detailed methodology to calculate B/C Ratio, as well as the complete cost, benefit and B/C Ratio calculation spreadsheet.

These safety projects were chosen based on the previously completed collisions analysis, which was used to identify main collision attributes that were found to be leading factors of fatal and severe collisions in Napa. These collision factors are shown below, as well as viable safety projects that can help address these factors.

Broadside Collisions: Broadside collisions represented the highest proportion of collisions of all severity (40%), a significant percentage of F+SI collisions (24%). Viable safety projects to help address these collisions include improving signal hardware & timing, installing raised pavement markers, improving pavement friction, installing/upgrading larger stop signs or other intersection regulatory/warning signs, and installing flashing beacons as advance warning.

ATTACHMENT 1

71 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Nighttime Collisions: Collisions occurring at night represented only 27% of all injury collisions, but rose significantly to 47% of F+SI collisions. Viable safety projects to help address these collisions include installing advance warning flashing beacons, installing additional or larger warning/regulatory signs, upgrading signs with new fluorescent sheeting, installing raised pavement markers, installing high visibility crosswalks and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, and installing delineators/reflectors/object markers.

Unsafe Speed Collisions: 22% of all injury collisions in Napa were caused by unsafe speed, the highest of any violation type among all injury collisions. Viable safety projects to help address these collisions include installing advance warning flashing beacons, upgrading/installing additional stop signs or other intersection warning signs; installing dynamic/variable speed warning signs; and improving pavement friction.

Pedestrian Collisions: Vehicle/pedestrian collisions accounted for 30% of all F+SI collisions (the most of any category), compared to just 9% of all injury collisions. Safety projects to address these include installing a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) at signalized intersections, installing high visibility crosswalks, and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons.

DUI Collisions: DUI violations caused only 10% of all injury collisions, but doubled to 20% when considering only F+SI collisions. It was the most common violation type among F+SI collisions. Viable safety projects to help address these collisions include advance warning flashing beacons, upgrading/installing signs with new fluorescent sheeting, installing delineators, reflectors, or object markers, installing larger or additional stop or regulatory/warning signs, improving signal hardware & timing, and installing raised pavement markings.

Table 15 provides the list of identified safety projects for the City of Napa, with a preliminary cost estimate for each location and the resulting benefit-cost ratio of the project (the title of each countermeasure is located in a separate table below). Following this, the safety projects are also organized by location in Table

16. The manner in which the projects are organized, the inclusion of preliminary cost estimates, and the inclusion of resulting benefit-cost ratios for each project aligns with the requirements for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) project applications. The safety projects included in the LRSP were based on high-injury locations, but HSIP applications can be expanded to include many locations across the City .

Additional locations may be beneficial to add to the HSIP application, however it should be noted that HSIP is a competitive grant funding source based on a benefit/cost analysis. The benefit value is calculated automatically based on crash data document by law enforcement and standard cost data. The cost of some measures may adversely impact the benefit to cost ratio making the grant application less competitive for funding. This should be taken into consideration when developing an HSIP application.

ATTACHMENT 1

72 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Table 15: List of Viable Safety Projects
Location CM1 CM2 CM3 Cost per
Location Total Cost B/C
Ratio
Project 1 – Signalized Intersections [Raised Pavement Markers (S09), and Improve Pavement Friction (S11)] Soscol Ave at W. Imola Ave S09 S11 $372,666

$3,624,366 28.06
SR 29 at SR 12 S09 S11 $555,233
SR 29 at Trower Ave S09 S11 $286,857
Lincoln Ave at Soscol Ave S09 S11 $482,958
SR 29 at Wine Country Ave S09 S11 $438,452
Silverado Trail at Lincoln Ave/Clark St S09 S11 $259,952 Redwood Rd at Solano Ave S09 S11 $298,060
SR 29 at Salvador Ave S09 S11 $237,552
Soscol Ave at Shetler Ave S09 S11 $392,952
W. Imola Ave at SR 29 NB Ramps S09 S11 $118,468
Jefferson St at Sheridan Dr S09 S11 $181,216

Project 2: Signalized Intersections [Improve Signal Hardware (S02) and Timing (S03), and Advance Warning Flashing Beacon (S10)]
Soscol Ave at W. Imola Ave S03 S10 $87,010
$479,990 179.29
SR 29 at SR 12 S03 $8,610
SR 29 at Trower Ave S03 $8,610
Lincoln Ave at Soscol Ave S02 S03 $85,610
SR 29 at Wine Country Ave S03 $8,610
Silverado Trail at Lincoln Ave/Clark St S02 S03 $79,870 Redwood Rd at Solano Ave S03 $8,610
SR 29 at Salvador Ave S02 S03 $50,260
Soscol Ave at Shetler Ave S03 $8,610
W. Imola Ave at SR 29 NB Ramps S03 S10 $87,010
Jefferson St at Sheridan Dr S02 S03 $47,180
Project 3: Signalized Intersections Signalized Intersections [Modify Signal to include a Leading Pedestrian Interval (S21PB), Install Advance Stop Bar (S20PB), and Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads (S17PB)] Soscol Ave at W. Imola Ave S21PB S17PB S20PB $97,174
$500,906 135.72
SR 29 at Trower Ave S21PB S17PB $16,800
Lincoln Ave at Soscol Ave S21PB S17PB S20PB $106,974
SR 29 at Wine Country Ave S21PB S17PB $11,900
Silverado Trail at Lincoln Ave/Clark St S21PB S17PB S20PB $93,898 Redwood Rd at Solano Ave S21PB S17PB S20PB $121,660
SR 29 at Salvador Ave S21PB S17PB $11,900
Soscol Ave at Shetler Ave S21PB S17PB $21,700
W. Imola Ave at SR 29 NB Ramps S21PB S17PB $11,900
Jefferson St at Sheridan Dr S21PB $7,000
Project 4: Non-Signalized Intersections [Install High Visibility Crosswalk (NS21PB), Install/Upgrade Larger or Additional STOP Signs or other Intersection Regulatory/Warning Signs (NS06), and Improve Intersection Pavement Markings (NS07)]
California Blvd at Pueblo Ave NS21PB NS06 NS07 $74,620 $74,620 52.97 Project 5: Roadway Segments: [Install/Upgrade Signs with Fluorescent Sheeting (R22), Install Delineators/Reflectors/Object Markers (R27), and Improve Pavement Friction (R21)]

ATTACHMENT 1

73 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Location CM1 CM2 CM3 Cost per
Location Total Cost B/C
Ratio
Soscol Ave: W. Imola Ave to Trancas St R22 R27 R21 $1,122,583 $5,973,387 20.59
Silverado Trail: Soscol Ave to City Limit R22 R27 R21 $629,734 Solano Ave: Lincoln Ave to Trower Ave R22 R27 R21 $510,272 Lincoln Ave: Yajome St to Silverado Trail R22 R27 R21 $475,545 S. Freeway Dr/Golden Gate Dr: 900’ N of
Imola Ave to 1,600’ S of Imola Ave R22 R27 R21 $370,930 SR 29: 1,400’ N of Trancas St to City Limit
(North) R22 R27 R21 $1,348,291
W. Imola Ave: Foster Rd to Soscol Ave R22 R27 R21 $387,310 Browns Valley Rd: 350' W of Austin Rd to
400’ W of Freeway Dr R22 R27 R21 $223,895
Main St: 750’ N of Lincoln Ave to 5th St R22 R27 R21 $144,802 Jefferson St: Trancas St to 2nd St R22 R27 R21 $223,755 Trancas St/Redwood Rd: 450' E of Dry
Creek Rd to City Limit (East) R22 R27 R21 $536,270
Project 6: Roadway Segments: [Install High Visibility Crosswalks (R35PB), Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (R37PB), and Install Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Signs (R26)] Soscol Ave: W. Imola Ave to Trancas St R35PB R37PB R26 $963,060 $5,066,208 18.77
Silverado Trail: Soscol Ave to City Limit R35PB R37PB R26 $388,444 Solano Ave: Lincoln Ave to Trower Ave R35PB R37PB R26 $419,524 Lincoln Ave: Yajome St to Silverado Trail R35PB R37PB R26 $127,190 W. Imola Ave: Foster Rd to Soscol Ave R35PB R37PB R26 $405,440 Browns Valley Rd: 350' W of Austin Rd to
400’ W of Freeway Dr R35PB R37PB R26 $768,530
Main St: 750’ N of Lincoln Ave to 5th St R35PB R37PB R26 $555,450 Jefferson St: Trancas St to 2nd St R35PB R37PB R26 $560,630 Trancas St/Redwood Rd: 450' E of Dry
Creek Rd to City Limit (East) R35PB R37PB R26 $877,940
Notes: CM – countermeasure. B/C ratio is the dollar amount of benefits divided by the cost of the countermeasure. *Costs and B/C Ratios are preliminary and subject to change as the scope of each project develops.

Countermeasure Name
S02 - Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number S03 – Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S09 – Install raised pavement markers (through intersection) S10 - Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) S11 - Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) S17PB - Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
S20PB - Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box)

ATTACHMENT 1

74 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Countermeasure Name
S21PB – Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)

NS06 - Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs NS07 - Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
NS21PB – Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) R21 - Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) R26 - Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R35PB – Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) R37PB – Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)

Table 16: Safety Projects by Location
ID Location HSIP Eligible Recommended Safety Project
High Injury Intersections
1 Soscol Ave at W. Imola Ave
 S09 – Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
 S11 – Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)

 S03 – Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
 S10 – Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.)  S21PB – Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
 S17PB – Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
 S20PB – Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) 2 SR 29 at Trower Ave
 S09 – Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
 S11 – Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  S03 – Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
 S21PB – Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
 S17PB – Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
3 Lincoln Ave at Soscol Ave  S09 – Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)

ATTACHMENT 1

75 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
ID Location HSIP Eligible Recommended Safety Project
 S11 – Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  S02 – Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
 S03 – Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
 S21PB – Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
 S17PB – Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
 S20PB – Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) 4 SR 29 at Wine Country Ave
 S09 – Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
 S11 – Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  S03 – Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
 S21PB – Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
 S17PB – Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
5 Silverado Trail at Lincoln
Ave/Clark St
 S09 – Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
 S11 – Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  S02 – Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
 S03 – Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
 S21PB – Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
 S17PB – Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
 S20PB – Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) 6 Redwood Rd at Solano Ave
 S09 – Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
 S11 – Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  S03 – Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
 S21PB – Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
 S17PB – Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
 S20PB – Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) 7 SR 29 at SR 12
 S09 – Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
 S11 – Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  S03 – Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)

ATTACHMENT 1

76 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
ID Location HSIP Eligible Recommended Safety Project
8 W. Imola Ave at SR 29 NB Ramps
 S09 – Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
 S11 – Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  S03 – Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
 S10 – Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.)  S21PB – Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
 S17PB – Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
9 SR 29 at Salvador Ave
 S09 – Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
 S11 – Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  S02 – Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
 S03 – Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
 S21PB – Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
 S17PB – Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
10 Soscol Ave at Shetler Ave
 S09 – Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
 S11 – Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)

 S03 – Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
 S21PB – Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
 S17PB – Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
11 California Blvd at Pueblo Ave
 NS21PB – Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
 NS06 – Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory sign
 NS07 – Upgrade intersection pavement markings
12 Jefferson St at Sheridan Dr
 S09 – Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
 S11 – Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  S02 – Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
 S03 – Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
 S21PB – Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)

ATTACHMENT 1

77 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
ID Location HSIP Eligible Recommended Safety Project
High-Injury Corridors
A Soscol Ave: W. Imola Ave to
Trancas St
 R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
 R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R21 - Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  R35PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
 R37PB - Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)  R26 - Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
B Silverado Trail: Soscol Ave to City
Limit
 R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
 R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R21 - Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  R35PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
 R37PB - Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)  R26 - Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
C Solano Ave: Lincoln Ave to
Trower Ave
 R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
 R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R21 - Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  R35PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
 R37PB - Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)  R26 - Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
D
Trancas St/Redwood Rd: 450’ E
of Dry Creek Rd to City Limit
(East)
 R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
 R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R21 - Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  R35PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
 R37PB - Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)  R26 - Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
E Lincoln Ave: Yajome St to
Silverado Trail
 R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
 R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R21 - Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  R35PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
 R37PB - Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)  R26 - Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs

ATTACHMENT 1

78 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
ID Location HSIP Eligible Recommended Safety Project
F
S. Freeway Dr/Golden Gate Dr:
900’ N of Imola Ave to 1,600’ S
of Imola Ave
 R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
 R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R21 - Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)

G SR 29: 1,400’ N of Trancas St to
City Limit (North)
 R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
 R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R21 - Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) H W. Imola Ave: Foster Rd to
Soscol Ave
 R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
 R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R21 - Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  R35PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
 R37PB - Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)  R26 - Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
I
Browns Valley Rd/First Street:
350’ W of Austin Rd to 400’ W of
Freeway Dr
 R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
 R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R21 - Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  R35PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
 R37PB - Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)  R26 - Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
J Main St: 750’ N of Lincoln Ave to
5th St
 R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
 R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R21 - Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  R35PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
 R37PB - Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)  R26 - Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
K Jefferson St: Trancas St to 2nd St
 R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
 R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R21 - Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)  R35PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
 R37PB - Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)  R26 - Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs

ATTACHMENT 1

79 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan

8. IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
This chapter describes the steps the City may take to evaluate the success of this plan and steps needed to update the plan in the future. The LRSP is a guidance document and requires periodic updates to assess its efficacy and re-evaluate potential solutions. It is recommended to update the plan every two to five years in coordination with the identified safety partners. This document was developed based on community needs, stakeholder input, and collision analysis conducted to identify priority emphasis areas throughout the City. The implementation of strategies under each emphasis area would aim to reduce F+SI collisions in the coming years.

Implementation
The LRSP is a guidance document that is recommended to be updated every two to five years in coordination with the safety partners. The LRSP document provides engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical service-related countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the City to reduce F+SI collisions. It is recommended that the City of Napa implement the selected projects in high- collision locations in coordination with other projects proposed for the City ’s infrastructure development in their future Capital Improvement Plans. After implementing countermeasures, the performance measures for each emphasis area should be evaluated annually. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reducing F+SI collisions throughout the City. If the number of F+SI collisions does not decrease over time, then the emphasis areas and countermeasures should be re-evaluated.

Funding is a critical component of implementing any safety project. While the HSIP program is a common source of funding for safety projects, there are numerous other funding sources that could be pursued for such projects. A list of potential funding sources is included in Table 17.

ATTACHMENT 1

80 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Table 17: List of Potential Funding Sources
Funding Source Funding
Agency
Amount
Available
Next
Estimated
Call for
Projects
Applicable
E’s Notes
Active
Transportation
Program (ATP)
Caltrans,
California
Transportation
Commission,
MTC
~$450
million per
cycle (every
two years)
2024 Engineering
, Education
Can use used for most active
transportation related safet y
projects as well as education
programs. Funding a vailable
through Caltrans or MTC
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Caltrans Current
call
opened
May 2022
Engineering Most common grant source for
safety projects
One Bay Area Grant
(OBAG)
MTC
(Combines
various federal
funds)
$750
million for
2023-2026
County &
Local
Program:
2022
Engineering Distributes federal funding to
cities and counties in MTC region
Office of Traffic
Safety Grants
California
Office of Traffic
Safety
Varies by
grant
Closes
January
31st
annually
Education,
Enforcemen
t,
Emergency
Response
10 grants available to address
various components of traffic
safety
Affordable Housing
and Sustainable
Communities
Program (AHSC)
Strategic
Growth Council
and Dept. of
Housing and
Community
Development
~$405
million
2022 Engineering
, Education
Must be connected to affordable
housing projects; typically
focuses on bike/pedestrian
infrastructure/programs
Urban Greening California
Natural
Resources
Agency
$28.5
million
2022 Engineering Focused on bike/pedestrian
infrastructure and greening
public spaces
Local Streets and
Road Maintenance
and Rehabilitation
CTC
(distributed to
local agencies)
$1.5 billion
statewide
N/A;
distributed
by formula
Engineering Typically pays for road
maintenance type projects
RAISE Grant USDOT ~$1 billion 2022 Engineering Typically used for larger infrastructure projects
Sustainable
Transportation
Equity Project
California Air
Resources
Board
~$19.5
million
TBD; most
recent call
in 2020
Engineering
, Education
Targets projects that will increase
transportation equit y in
disadvantaged communities
Transformative
Climate
Communities
Strategic
Growth Council
~$90
million
TBD; most
recent call
in 2020
Engineering Funds community -led projects
that achieve major reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions in
disadvantaged communities

ATTACHMENT 1

81 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Funding Source Funding
Agency
Amount
Available
Next
Estimated
Call for
Projects
Applicable
E’s Notes
Safe Streets and
Roads for All
USDOT ~$ billion Current
call
opened
2022
Engineering Funds action plans, supplemental
action plan activities, and
implementation projects that
address roadway safety

Monitoring and Evaluation
For the success of the LRSP, it is crucial to monitor and evaluate the five E-strategies continuously.

Monitoring and evaluation help provide accountability, ensures the effectiveness of the countermeasures for each emphasis area, and help in making decisions on the need for new strategies. The process would help the City make informed decisions regarding the implementation plan’s progress and accordingly, update the goals and objectives of the plan.

After implementing countermeasures, the strategies should be evaluated annually as per their performance measures. The evaluation should be recorded in a before-after study to validate the effectiveness of each countermeasure as per the following observations:
 Number of F+SI collisions
 Number of police citations
 Number of public comments and concerns
Evaluation should be conducted during similar time periods and durations each year. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reduction in F+SI collisions throughout the City. If the number of F+SI collisions doesn’t decrease initially, then the countermeasures should be evaluated as per the other observations, as mentioned above. The effectiveness of the countermeasures should be compared to the goals for each emphasis area.

LRSP Update
The LRSP is a guidance document and is recommended to be updated every two to five years after adoption. After monitoring performance measures focused on the status and progress of the 4 E’s strategies in each emphasis area, the next LRSP update can be tailored to resolve any continuing safety problems. An annual stakeholder meeting with the safety partners is also recommended to discuss the progress for each emphasis area and oversee the implementation plan. The document should then be updated as per the latest collision data, emergin g trends, and the E’s strategies’ progress and implementation.

ATTACHMENT 1

82 City of Napa
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Supplemental Programs and Activities
Supplemental programs and activities can assist in the implementation of the Local Roadway Safety Plan and help to improve safety and reduce F+SI collisions throughout the City. Supplemental work can be completed that addresses the 4 E’s of traffic safety. The following are areas in which supplemental work would support the implementation of the City’s Local Roadway safety Plan:

Vision Zero
Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility of all. At a regional level, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Regional Safety/Vision Zero Policy establishes a strategy for working with partner agencies to support equitable and data-driven action towards eliminating traffic deaths and serious vehicular injuries in the Bay Area by 2030. The regional strategy encourages the adoption of Vision Zero plans and safety best practices at the local level. Adoption of a local Vision Zero policy or plan would support the implementation of the Local Roadway Safety Plan.

Red Light Cameras
A Red Light Camera Program can supplement an LRSP in the 4 E’s area of enforcement. There is evidence that as part of an overall traffic safety plan, red light cameras contribute to an increase in traffic safety citywide. An IIHS study comparing large cities with red light cameras to those without found the devices reduce the fatal red light violation crash rate by 21 percent and the rate of all types of fatal crashes at signalized intersections by 14 percent. The City of Napa previously had red light cameras from 2009 to 2017, and during their time in use, they were successful in reducing injury crashes and crashes overall. In October 2021, the City Council directed staff to look into the impacts of adding back in a red light camera enforcement program. In May 2022, the City Council directed staff to issue a competitive request for proposals (RFP) to select a vendor to provide a red-light camera enforcement program, and return to City Council at a future meeting to consider approving a contract to implement the program.

Traffic Calming
The Local Roadway Safety Plan emphasizes countermeasures to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions at high injury locations, which tend to occur along State Highway and arterial roadways. Based on community input and feedback there is a strong desire to address speeding and increase safety among residential streets and neighborhoods that may not be highlighted as heavily in the LRSP. To help address this community desire and to support the LRSP, the City will be undertaking a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. This work will include a series of community workshops, a review and update of the City’s existing traffic calming guidelines, and development of a list of traffic calming strategies. This work will begin in 2022 with anticipated completion in the first half of 2023.

ATTACHMENT 1