Summary of Community Comments
for
the
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
(NTCP)
Guidelines and Procedures
The Draft NTCP Guidelines and Procedures document was available for community review from October 11, 2023, to December 15, 2023.
Listed below is a summary of the
c
ommunity
comments received
during this comment period
on
the
Draft NTCP Guidelines and
Procedures document.
The below comments were received during the three
Community
Workshop #3
m
eetings
, the December 14, 2024
,
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Commission Meeting, and
via the online feedback form.
A
dditional
ly
,
two
written comments
received
are
also
attached.
•
Glad
to hear that
signage is included
in the program
.
•
Traffic is too fast on Soscol: Add signage and pedestrian blinking lights at Soscol and Central
for
pedestrian crossing.
•
Traffic calming also considered in other City projects outside of NTCP.
•
Will there be a list of
the
measures added?
•
Understand that s
top signs are not part of the program, because they are not a traffic calming measure.
•
First Street and Second Street are too fast.
•
Anyone would benefit from the KQED Radio, In Transit the Joys and Risks of Being a Pedestrian.
•
Consider
s
quaring intersections as a calming device
.
•
H
ave planning policy that reflects slower streets (ex. Less setbacks for buildings)
•
Who will get the application form?
•
Acknowledge the precedence of other City Plans;
Allocate
prioritization
points
if projects
are a part of other Plans/Projects/Programs
.
•
Signature requirement for Tier IIB/Tier III are too high at 60% for collector streets specifically.
•
NTCP needs more inclusion of equity: Allocate prioritization points if projects
are located
in low
-
income areas
.
•
Flip signatures, so that you sign if you don’t want the improvements.
•
Suggestion for initial application: send confirmation of a receipt of application .
•
Measures don’t reflect all the benefits with respect to mode shift to active transportation ;
Language is car
-
focused.
•
Recommends moving Quick
-
Build to Tier I since it’s “low cost and fast to implement” by definition.
•
Separate Lane Narrowing from Road Diet measure, and have Lane Narrowing as a lower Tier measure.
•
How is cut
-
through traffic measured?
•
Use predesignated areas
for the program so there won’t be a need to collect signatures.
•
Include vibration barriers as a measure.
•
Wants transparency on the applications: Example is Oakland’s program website.
•
City Staff responsibility to educate City Council on what else could be done; Need to
consider effects of higher speed roads; Consider school zones ( 15 MPH), add other
ATTACHMENT 2
items to lower speed limits for low speed zones
(20 MPH)
, lower speed limits in
complete segments along a roadway, include Oxbow in Downtown lower speed zone.
•
Add tree trimming as a
traffic calming
measure.
•
Fix hotspot of
Silverado Trail and Third Street.
•
Lower signature threshold from 60% to 50% to ease burden on affected party.
•
Crash History in scoring criteria is reactive not proactive.
•
Tier III has all the most effective measures, but the Tier system signals that these are least likely to be implemented.
•
Document language has a negative tone and is from a driver’s perspective; Show more positives in the Toolbox.
•
Wants speed cushions on Oak Street near Fuller Park.
•
Implement pilot projects to test program.
•
Lots of cars and speeding on Rubicon between Jefferson and Baxter.
•
Corner at Seminary and Pine is a concern for speeding; So is Third Street, particularly Seminary and Third; Needs enforcement.
•
Is there funding available for the program?
•
Bike paths and ped paths are not included in the list of measures.
•
Prioritization score doesn’t include a safety value to reflect the cost of a human life.
•
Make things easier for non
-
car users if you want them to bike and walk.
•
The 500 feet boundary alleviated prior concerns about gathering signatures .
•
Denser areas will require more signatures and suggest considering incorporating a hard number of signatures, such as X number or 20%, whichever is lower.
•
Consider identifying indirect impacts/benefits of the traffic calming measures.
•
Consider a lower Tier for the education and encouragement measures and adding additional education measures.
•
T
he minimum signatures should be 20% OR 10 households, in the case of denser neighborhoods.
•
Streets
should get points for being wider than 24’, which is enough for 2 -
way traffic. 40’
is far too wide for local or collector streets.
•
P
oints for school access should apply to all routes to schools.
•
A project should get more than 2 points for being on a designated bike route; bike routes should have traffic calming measures installed as part of their designation.
•
E
ducational measures like the Pace Car should be easily implemented without any engineering, and should be tier 1.
•
Q
uick build projects with temporary materials (planter boxes, wooden barriers, jersey barriers) should be implementable on a trial basis under tier 1 .
•
The process shouldn't fall on the shoulders of people who want change. It should require people who do not want something to happen to stand up and say so.
•
Items such as speed humps/cushions/tables (referred to collectively as humps from here on) should not be in the most difficult to implement category. They are cheap and easy to prove their effectiveness. Overall, the language in the toolbox is very car cen tric, which
is disappointing when the purpose of the toolkit is to improve livability in the neighborhoods. Even the SFMTA traffic calming website admits that speed humps are the most effective traffic calming, so making it the most difficult to implement feels
disingenuous (
https://www.sfmta.com/getting
-
around/walk/residential
-
traffic
-
calming
-
program#TCToolbox
).
ATTACHMENT 2
•
This program should include the items that will be added in regular maintenance in the neighborhoods to introduce traffic calming de facto such as decreasing curb radius, bulb outs, raised crosswalks/speed tables. Overall, this entire guide is disappointin gly car
centric.
•
Please add the intersection of Salvador Ave and Jefferson St as a hot spot. Extreme speeding and reckless driving frequently occurs and/or starts at this location, especially late nights. Thank you!
•
Please
prioritize implementing/executing real control measures/features and police enforcement ASAP! The extreme speeding and reckless driving -
especially on north
Jefferson St
-
with no consequences to behavior, is getting steadily worse and is astonishing from
the viewpoint of public safety and peace. Thank you.
•
The implementation process puts too much of an onus on Napa residents. It is unclear how much input residents will have on what the proposed solution will be.
•
There appears to be a bias against engineering solutions. These are the most effective traffic calming solutions but they are all in the "most difficult tier" are described as time consuming and expensive. Many of them have more cons than pros, and the con s are
things like "removes on
-
street parking". It makes it feel like traffic calming isn't very important.
•
I encourage the City to adopt more of a human
-
level view of transportation planning, as
opposed to vehicle
-
centric. This plan is an opportunity to make steps towards this but it does not seem to be doing so.
•
Capitola street is no safe. People don’t stop and speed all the time. I have email our representatives with minimal success. Can we install speed bumps?
Please help with
this problem as there was a big 3 car accident recently and there is a daycare on the corner as well. It’s not safe.
•
Please consider Shurtleff near Terrace. Cars race along this residential street where deer cross to the creek, children walk to/from school and resident walk dogs.
•
Please get these efforts and devices out into the community quickly.
ATTACHMENT 2
From:
Robert Reber
To:
Lorien Clark;
CC:
Julie Lucido
Title:
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program: Questions & Comments
Date:
12/5/2023 1:02pm
Hello Lorien,
Hope your holidays got off to a great start with an enjoyable Thanksgiving. In anticipation
of the BPAC’s Dec. 15 meeting, I thought I should submit some questions and comments regarding the draft Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. Any information that can be provided in advance, either separate from or as part of an agenda packet , would be greatly
appreciated, but of course can be reserved for discussion at the meeting itself. Thanks!
General Questions & Requests for Dec. 15 BPAC Meeting
•
Will the NTCP be presented to the BPAC in its current draft form, or with any changes? If the latter, can we have a tracked changes version?
•
Because Brown Act quorum rules limited each Commissioner to attending just one of the three NTCP community meetings, will staff provide a summary of the comments and feedback received during those meetings?
Questions from Nov. 8 workshop
•
$200k was mentioned as money available for traffic calming; what is this money? One
-
time? Budgeted?
•
Not sure I heard correctly, but believe I heard some mention of $1M available for data
-
driven decisions; is that
correct, and if so, what does that mean?
•
Does Public Works maintain a map (preferably online) of current and upcoming projects (e.g., Jefferson buffered bike lane, Sierra extension, etc.)?
Questions about
Prior (2005) Traffic Calming Program
•
Do we know how many traffic calming projects have been initiated since 2005 via the NTCP resident initiative?
•
Any estimate of the amount of money spent on such projects?
•
If any, how have those projects been measured for success?
Comments & Questions Regarding Current Draft NTCP
•
Funding
•
Relying on future and typically highly competitive grant opportunities to fund NTCP projects will not likely lead to much progress. The program needs some sort of reasonably reliable funding.
o
The prior General Plan, Envision Napa 2020, included Program T -
4.B, “The City
shall investigate the feasibility of creating a special assessment district to fund capital improvements for traffic calming.” What were the results of that ATTACHMENT 2
program? The current General Plan 2040 does not appear to have any equivalent program for determining feasibility of special assessment districts or other funding mechanisms; is that correct? If so, why not included?
•
Is there a specific budget allocation or Council commitment to fiscally support the program?
•
Is there any portion of existing funding sources (e.g., Measure T, impact fees, or already awarded grants) that can be used towards projects?
•
Where public funding does not exist, what realistic opportunities are there for community initiative, e.g., Adopt
-
a
-
Street, GoFundMe, localized assessments, etc.?
•
Initiative and Decision Process
•
In addition to the citizen
-
led initiative process, the City should assess traffic calming opportunities and incorporate public outreach into the existing regularly scheduled neighborhood street repaving program.
•
To avoid wasting time and creating false hopes, City staff should verify that the two NTCP basic criteria AND other criteria are met BEFORE circulating petitions for signatures.
•
Petitions, FAQs, and forms should be provided in English and Spanish.
•
Do neighborhood signatures need to be verified? If so, how? Will the City accept digital signatures from residents? If so, recommend the City create and host an online petition form with QR code to facilitate more efficient and user -
friendly
electronic sig
nature soliciting, gathering, and tracking.
•
Where the document states “the City will determine,” who within the City will be deciding: Staff
-
level decision? Staff recommendation to Council? Is there staff assigned and with sufficient bandwidth to support the program?
•
On the flow chart, when funds are not available for a project, projects should move into a backlog of prioritized projects to be considered for future funding.
•
Engineering & Technology
•
In collecting traffic data, does the City rely on traditional engineering methods, such as manual in
-
person counting and temporary systems for detecting vehicles, which can be costly, time
-
consuming, may require either permanent or temporary
infrastructure
, and are limited in scope and insight? Does the City subscribe to or have access to any cellular phone data aggregation (aka, “Big Data”) services (e.g.:
StreetLight Data, a company that NVTA has used; Urban SDK; etc.), which are efficient, accurate, prec
ise, continuous, comprehensive (can capture on average
>98% of all public right
-
of
-
way movement while discerning between motorists,
cyclists, and pedestrians and protecting privacy) while affording virtually limitless means of analysis, including pre
-
and
post
-
project comparison?
•
Traffic Calming Measures & Implementation
ATTACHMENT 2
•
Any reason why NTVA’s Vision Zero Toolbox (Appendix A) can’t also serve as the NTCP’s Toolbox? NTVA’s Toolbox appears to have several advantages:
o
More comprehensive set of options (e.g., includes centerline hardening, a great, easy
-
to
-
implement option for many residential streets);
o
Better aligns City of Napa with NTVA and other local agencies;
o
Offers a simpler three
-
tier cost categorization basis ($, $$, $$$) vs. the NTCP’s slightly confusing four
-
tier categorization (I , II, IIb, III)
•
If not adopting the Vision Zero toolbox, then consider the following:
o
Although bike lanes are mentioned as part of Tier IIb & III Multimodal Road Reconfigurations, recommend expanding Tier 1 Speed
Legends to include
other roadway signage, including basic bike markings such as “sharrows” where appropriate.
o
Though more expensive than some other Tier I measures, solar -
powered
dynamic feedback signs should be considered as possible Tier 1 options since they are usually relatively cheap (often well below the $15 -
$20K cited,
especially where sign posts already ex
ist), are simple and require minimal
infrastructure and engineering (solar power eliminates power source complexity), and have few negative impacts.
o
Add street trees as a stand
-
alone Tier I/II option.
o
Add mid
-
block crossings as a Tier II/III option.
o
Add centerline hardening as a Tier I/II option.
o
Consider including effectiveness data (which were included as Table 4 in the 2005 Traffic Calming Plan) as an appendix.
•
Miscellaneous
•
What is the basis for the five zones in the maps? Should they be realigned to conform to the City Council’s four political boundaries?
•
Zone 1 map: speeding needs to be highlighted as a concern on Main Street between Lincoln and Pueblo.
I hope these comment are constructive. If you like, I’m happy to go over any of them prior to the meeting. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing you on the 15th.
Cheers!
Robert Reber
ATTACHMENT 2
P.O. Box 5157
| Napa, CA 945
81 | (707) 258
-
6318 | www.napabike.org
November 7, 2023
Re: City of Napa’s Draft Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
Dear City Manager Potter, Public Works Director Lucido, and Transportation Planner Clark,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comment on the Draft Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP). We appreciate the extensive consideration the City has given to how to reduce speeding and cut
-
through traffic in Napa’s neighborhoods, an
d we are hopeful that this plan will result
in implemented changes that reduce collisions and make Napa’s streets safer for all.
T
o make the plan as
effective as possible, we request the following
update
s
prior to final plan adoption
:
•
Inclu
de
a
statement that the NTCP does not supersede other plans. The draft currently says it “accounts for” other plans (pg. 1), but this does not provide clarity on how overlapping plans will interact. We want to ensure that the NTCP process is not a barrier to i mprovements that are
already identified in other plans, and that those improvements, when along collectors and residential streets, can move forward without going through the NTCP process.
•
Reduce
signature threshold
on changes to collector streets. The NTCP wants neighborhoods to “act with one voice” in requesting traffic
-
calming measures, which is more realistic on local
streets where residents who live along them are much more likely to be the primary
users.
However, this is not true for collectors, many of which are very frequently used by those who do not live adjacent to the road. Take Laurel (on the west side of Highway 29) and Foothill as examples; these roads are frequently travelled
by those who live in Browns Valley while on their
way out of town to Highway 12 or to local businesses like Lola’s Market and Journey Coffee. As well, those living west of Foothill’s 500
-
foot line between Roosevelt and Freeway Drive use
Foothill to exit th
eir neighborhood on their way to places like Westwood Hills Park and Browns Valley Shopping Center. Therefore, the City should
alter it
s
model
for collector streets
,
factor
ing
in other transportation plans and its own expertise on how to reduce speeds, and
weighing that
alongside a reduced signature requirement for
those living along
the street
. We would like to
see the percentage of signatures needed within 500 feet of a Tier II or Tier III project on a collector at no more tha
n
40%.
•
Add
a criterion that adds points to project
s
that also
exist in adopted plan
s
, such as the Bicycle
and/or Pedestrian Plan, Vision Zero, etc. Making the roads safe for all road users is primarily the responsibility of the City’s trained professionals, and while empowering residents to participate in that process through the NTCP is
also helpful, it should not supplant the
right
and
responsibility
of the City to design roads that reduce collisions and are safe for all roads users.
When it so happens that adopted plans have identified an area for improvement or traffic
calming measure
that has also been identified by residents, there is even more reason to prioritize these changes.
•
Add
a criterion that adds points to projects within Napa’s low -
income census tracts.
As the NTCP
stands, it will exacerbate current inequities. The process requires a lot of time, effort, and confidence on behalf of those who are seeking especially Tier II & III changes. More resourced neighborhoods will be better positioned to enact the
process, along with those who speak
English, already have the confidence and expertise to work through City processes, have the security of citizenship, and are more comfor
table knocking on the doors of strangers because
ATTACHMENT 2
P.O. Box 5157
| Napa, CA 945
81 | (707) 258
-
6318 | www.napabike.org
2 they do not fear being assaulted or being judged for the color of their skin or ability to speak English. Though providing equitable traffic
-
calming solutions is a goal of the program (pg. 12),
we cannot find anything in the process that
demonstrates this or that
is
“constantly and
consistently recognizing and redistributing power”
—
the definition of equity used in the City of
Napa’s Equity & Inclusion Plan. Adding points to projects within Napa’s low -
income census
tracts, which cover most of the Valley floo
r
according to the California Air Resources Board low
-
income census tracts map
, would be one
widely accept
ed approach to
build equity into the
process.
This
could
also greatly expand the funding available for requested projects. Currently grant funding available for transportation improvements almost always requires applicants to
demonstrate how a project is
equitable, and a process that includes an element of income level in its prioritization is one that can demonstrate
this
—
which
is especially important given that
the NTCP does not come with a funding commitment within the City’s current budget outside of engineering studies and will rely in part on securing gran t funding.
•
Remove car bias from Benefits and Disadvantages. We are concerned with the NTCP’s approach towards identifying benefits and disadvantages of the various traffic -
calming treatments; the
current approach underrepresents the benefits of traffic -
calming throug
h mode shift to active
transportation and fostering livable, walkable neighborhood streets. The plan demonstrates a bias towards motor vehicle use by focusing on traffic
-
calming disadvantages for motor vehicle
users without acknowledging the subsequent ben
efits for active transportation users. Noise and
air pollution associated with vehicles slowing down for traffic -
calming is listed as a disadvantage
for a number of treatments, yet the potential noise and air pollution reduction from increased active trans
portation due to reduced vehicle speeds and volumes is ignored. “Discomfort for all drivers” is listed under speed tables and speed cushions, yet the improved comfort for active transportation users is not acknowledged. “Causes circuitous routes with limit ed access points”
is listed as a disadvantage for full street closure, while failing to specify both that this applies only to motorists and recognizing as a benefit that connectivity and access for active users will be maintained and potentially improved
by reduced automobile use. As well, one of the
treatments that stands to most encourage mode shift, Multi -
modal Road Reconfiguration, lists
as a disadvantage “Requires significant community support.” Yet the exact amount of community support is defined in
the process and is the same for all measures, leaving us wondering why this “disadvantage” was only included in this measure.
Disadvantages lists also appear to be overly
-
inflated. Under raised intersections, pedestrian
hybrid beacons, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons, benefits such as “enhances bicyclist and pedestrian safety” and statistics in treatment efficacy are follo wed with contradictory and
speculative disadvantages such as “may give pedestrians a false sense of safety” and “may give non
-
auto users a false sense of safety.” Some disadvantages listed are in fact, not disadvantages, but implementation considerations,
such as “not recommended on street with
heavy truck traffic” and “not recommended at locations with significant horizontal or vertical curvature.”
•
Move Quick
-
build/pilot projects under Tier 1. Quick
-
build projects are inappropriately
categorized as Tier II/IIb, alongside significant permanent treatments such as road diets and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons that are “more expensive and time intens ive.” They should
instead be categorized as Tier I, under which treatments are characterized as “lower -
cost and
quicker to implement.” Quick
-
build projects, by definition, are project installations made of inexpensive materials that are fast to implement,
aligning with Tier I criteria. Furthermore, one
ATTACHMENT 2
P.O. Box 5157
| Napa, CA 945
81 | (707) 258
-
6318 | www.napabike.org
3 of the main benefits of quick
-
build projects is that they allow residents to provide feedback and evaluate level of support for a project based on experience, rather than just concepts, which can be particularly important for traffic
-
calming elements that
are new to the City of Napa. Quick
-
build and pilot projects should be leveraged as tools of community engagement and effectiveness tests of traffic
-
calming approaches under the NTCP, rather than subject to the additional barriers to implementation. We woul
d also like to see all traffic
-
calming approaches
in the NTCP that have quick
-
build options marked as such, as is done in the Napa County Vision Zero Plan.
•
List Road Diet and Lane Narrowing as two separate measures. A specific treatment that we believe requires more nuance is the “Multimodal Road Reconfiguration (Road Diet).” The description discusses both narrowing and removing lanes. We suggest that road di ets, which
specifically narrow and reduce the number of vehicle travel lanes, be a separate treatment from just lane narrowing, which can be done to help reduce speeds and make room for multimodal improvements without removing vehicle lane quantities. Most , if not all, streets under the NTCP
would not qualify for a road diet because they do not have four vehicle travel lanes; however, some may benefit from narrowing existing travel lanes. Narrowing travel lanes is a less complex, less expensive, and more ap
propriate treatment for the NTCP than a road diet and should be offered as a standalone treatment. Such separation is already demonstrated in the Napa County Vision Zero Plan.
•
Expand Education and Empowerment
program options
. The only education tool included in the
traffic calming toolbox is the Street Smarts Program. This program was created by the City of San Jose with a grant from the Office of Traffic Safety ,
but is now defunct. The program is now
called
Walk N’ Roll
and is the City’s
Safe Routes to School Program
. Street Smarts is what the
City of Davis calls its Safe Routes to School Program, and while some jurisdictions continue to use the open
-
source resources designed through San Jose’s Street Smarts program, there is no prescribe
d
program model that is being used with fidelity in other areas and would stand up to any consistent program findings regarding impact. As well, the Office of Traffic Safety has since developed a wide array of free traffic safety educational programs, inclu ding
Go Safely
, as noted
in the Napa Valley Transportation Authority’s new Vision Zero plan. Further, t he City of San Jose
once used the PACE Program, but has since moved on to its Slow Down San Jose program
, which
is similar but based on more recent market research and is more equitable given that it is available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese.
In short, there are a variety of more current and
equitable traffic safety education and empowerment programs available and in use that the toolbox leaves out in favor of just two older programs. We would like to see the toolkit include Safe Routes to Scho
ol, Office of Traffic Safety, and programs developed in other jurisdictions to ensure that the best possible tools are available for implementation.
We would also like to understand how th
e NTCP
process would result in traffic safety education,
as the process is location
-
specific, but the educational and empowerment campaigns would largely operate community
-
wide. As well, Napa County’s Safe Routes to School program has been underway for many year
s, and we would like to better understand how an NTCP education project would or would not intersect with the established Safe Routes to School Partnership.
Thank you for considering our requests, and thank you again for working to make our roads safer. Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions about this feedback or wish to discuss alternatives.
Sincerely,
Kara Vernor, Executive Director
ATTACHMENT 2