Napa City Council
May 21, 2024

Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Program
Guidelines and Procedures
Final Report - April 2024
ATTACHMENT 4

Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
Guidelines and Procedures
Prepared for: City of Napa
Prepared by: TJKM Transportation Consultants
Final Report - April 2024
ATTACHMENT 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 1.1 Background

........................................................................................................................................................... 1 . 1.2
.

Project
.

Goals
.
and
.

Benefits
.............................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 The Four E’s
........................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 The Three Tiers

.................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 How to Use This Document
............................................................................................................................ 5 2. Implementation
P
rocess

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8 2.1 Roles and Responsibilities
.............................................................................................................................. 9 2.2 Application (Reporting a Concern)
........................................................................................................... 10 . 2.3
.

Evaluation
.
and
.

Notification
.
....................................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Neighborhood Support

................................................................................................................................ 11 2.5 Design
.................................................................................................................................................................. 12 2.6 Prioritization and Funding
........................................................................................................................... 12 2.7 Implementation

............................................................................................................................................... 14 2.8 Monitoring and Evaluation
.......................................................................................................................... 14 2.9 Process Flow Chart
......................................................................................................................................... 14 3. Traffic Calming Measures

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 3.2 Tier II

..................................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3 Tier III

.................................................................................................................................................................... 21 . 3.4
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

T oolbox

................................................................................................................................. 22 4. References

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 25 5. Glossary of Acronyms

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 28 ATTACHMENT 4

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix
.

A:
.

City
.
of
.

Napa
.

Neighborhood
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

Program
.

T oolbox
Appendix
.

B:
.

Application
.

Form
Appendix
.

C:
.

Information
.
on
.

Background
.

Studies
.
and
.

Best
.

Practices
Appendix
.

D:
.

Community
.

Input
.

Summary

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. NTCP Decision Making Process (Tier I)
............................................................................................... 15 Figure 2. NTCP Decision Making Process (Tier II and Tier III) ....................................................................... 16 LIST OF TABLES
T able
.

1. .

Scoring
.

Criteria
.
for
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

Consideration
........................................................................... 13 T able
.

2. .

List
.
of
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

Measures
.............................................................................................................. 22 ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
1 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Traffic
.

Calming
.
involves
.
strategies
.
that
.
are
.
intended
.
to
.
reduce
.
the
.
adverse
.
effects
.
related
.
to
.
motor
.
vehicle use on neighborhood streets, create safe streets for all, and promote use by pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), a global organization of
.
over
.
17,000
.
transportation
.
professionals
.
in
.
over
.
78 .
countries,
.
defines
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.
as
.
“a
.
combination
.
of
.
mainly
.
physical
.
measures
.
that
.
reduce
.
the
.
negative
.
effects
.
of
.
motor
.
vehicle
.
use,
.
alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for non-motorized street users.” The
.

City
.
of
.

Napa
.
originally
.
began
.
its
.

Neighborhood
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

Program
.
(NTCP)
.
in
.
2005.
.

This document and the guidelines and procedures herein constitute a revision to the Program to account for previous successes (of the 2005 NTCP and of other cities), shortcomings, and new research that has been conducted over the last two decades. The NTCP is complementary to and accounts for the overall transportation vision outlined in the City’s various adopted planning documents
.
including
.
the
.

City
.
of
.

Napa
.
2040
.

General
.

Plan
.
(2022),
.
the
.

Downtown
.

Napa
.

Specific
.

Plan (2012), the City of Napa Local Roadway Safety Plan (LSRP) (2022), the City of Napa Bicycle Plan (2021), and the City of Napa Pedestrian Plan (2017).

This document outlines the process by which members of the public may make a request to the
.

City
.
for
.
traffic
.
calming
.
as
.
part
.
of
.
the
.

NTCP,
.
and
.
by
.
which
.
the
.

City
.
exercises
.
its
.
discretion
.
to
.
review
.
and
.
approve
.
a
.
request.
.

The
.
traffic
.
calming
.
measures
.
discussed
.
in
.
this
.
document
.
include
.
the
.
most
.
effective
.
solutions
.
from
.
the
.
collaboration
.
of
.
the
.
four
.

E’s
.
of
.
traffic
.
safety
.
–
Engineering,
Education, Enforcement,
and
Empowerment
.
.

A
.
roadway
.
must
.
be
.
classified
.
as
.
a
.
collector
.
or
.
local
.
street
.
as
.
specified
.
in
.
the
.

City
.
of
.

Napa’s
.
2040
.

General
.

Plan,
.
and
.
that
.
have
.
a
.
posted
.
speed
.
limit
.
of 35 MPH or less to be applicable to the NTCP.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
2 1.2 Project Goals and Benefits
The
.
overarching
.
goals
.
of
.
the
.

City
.
of
.

Napa
.

Neighborhood
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

Program
.
are
.
to:
•

Lower
.
traffic
.
volumes
.
and
.
reduce
.
vehicular
.
speeding
.
on
.
neighborhood
.
streets;
.
and
•

Enhance safety for all roadway users.

In
.
addition
.
to
.
the
.
overarching
.

NTCP
.
goals,
.
a
.
comprehensive
.

Neighborhood
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

Program
.
can
.
benefit
.
the
.
community
.
in
.
numerous
.
ways,
.
including:
•

Encouraging non-motorized modes of transportation, such as walking and cycling.

•

Educating drivers on roadway regulations.

•

Improving
.
drivers’
.
attention
.
and
.
awareness,
.
thus
.
positively
.
affecting
.
driving
.
behavior
.
long-term.

•

Allowing residents and other stakeholders a new path to be heard and have local roadway concerns remediated.
•

Providing a fair, transparent, consistent, and equitable process that is understood by both the City and its residents.

•

Fostering a livable community.

This
.
program
.
aims
.
to
.
assess
.

Napa’s
.
neighborhood
.
traffic-related
.
concerns
.
and
.
reduce
.
the
.
adverse
.
effects
.
of
.
vehicles
.
on
.
neighborhood
.
streets
.
by
.
incorporating
.
strategies
.
to
.
reduce
.
traffic
.
volume
.
and
.
speed.
.

Program
.
development
.
included
.
researching
.
effective
.
traffic
.
calming
.
strategies
.
utilized
.
by cities and states across the nation and conducting community outreach to understand the needs/desires of the local Napa community. This research resulted in the development of a robust traffic
.
calming
.
toolbox
.
and
.
program
.
guidelines
.
to
.
assist
.

Napa
.
in
.
addressing
.
these
.
concerns.

Vehicular speeds can impact roadway users’ safety, as the severity of crash-related injuries increases
.
significantly
.
with
.
speed.
.

A
.
pedestrian’s
.
survival
.
rate
.
decreases
.
from
.
90 .
percent
.
to
.
10 .
percent when hit by a vehicle traveling at 40 MPH speed compared to 20 MPH.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
3 1.3 The Four E’s
The
.

NTCP
.
utilizes
.
a
.
comprehensive
.
approach
.
to
.
traffic
.
calming
.
incorporating
.
the
.
four
.

E’s
.
of
.
traffic
.
safety
.
–
.

Engineering, Education
,
Enforcement,
and
Empowerment
. This approach recognizes
that not all locations can be addressed solely by infrastructure improvements (i.e., engineering strategies),
.
and
.
that
.
significant
.
impact
.
often
.
requires
.
a
.
multi-faceted
.
approach.
.

Each
.
strategy
.
is
.
discussed below:

Engineering
Most
.
traffic
.
calming
.
measures
.
involve
.
engineering
.
analysis
.
followed
.
by
.
specific
.
physical
.
improvements
.
on streets or sidewalks. The engineering strategies
discussed
.
in
.
this
.
document
.
include
.
vertical
.
deflection,
.
roadway narrowing or reallocation, visibility
improvements,
.
and
.
conflict
.
point
.
reduction.
.

The
.
advantages
.
and
.
disadvantages
.
of
.
specific
.
engineering
.
strategies,
.
along
.
with
.
the
.
approximate
.
cost
.
range,
.
are
.
provided in this document. While some engineering
strategies
.
are
.
relatively
.
simple
.
and
.
inexpensive,
.
most
.
measures require substantial funding, construction
times,
.
design
.
considerations,
.
and
.
staffing
.
hours.
.

Therefore,
.
other
.
strategies
.
should
.
be
.
explored
.
without
.
being solely dependent on engineering measures.

Education
Education
.
strategies
.
are
.
essential
.
to
.
inform
.
residents
.
about
.
traffic-related
.
topics,
.
such
.
as
.
the
.

City’s
.
traffic
.
calming
.
policies
.
and
.
procedures,
.
basic
.
rules
.
of
.
the
.
road,
.
and
.
how
.
different
.
traffic
.
devices operate. The intent of education strategies is to instruct people in all age groups on how to use the public streets safely.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
4 Enforcement
Enforcement is a strategy that deters motorists from speeding and other unsafe driving behavior. This can be accomplished by enforcement conducted by the City’s Police Department.

Measures of enforcement range from portable trailers that measure motorists’ speed to increased patrol and citation issuance.
.

Enforcement
.
can
.
effectively
.
create
.
awareness
.
of
.
vehicle
.
speeds
.
and
.
traffic
.
safety
.
in
.
the
.
neighborhoods.

Empowerment
Traditional
.
traffic
.
calming
.
strategies
.
rely
.
heavily
.
on
.
the
.
first
.
three
.
“E’s”,
.
but this document considers the addition of Empowerment. Public empowerment allows community members to take initiative and have an active role. Numerous cities across the nation have engaged their communities in such programs, with impressive results including less speeding and increased street safety.

1.4 The Three Tiers
The
.
traffic
.
calming
.
measures
.
herein
.
are
.
categorized
.
into
.
three
.

Tiers,
.
with
.
each
.

Tier
.
increasing
.
in
.
complexity.
.

Using
.
this
.
comprehensive
.

Tier
.
strategy,
.
the
.

City
.
intends
.
to
.
address
.
traffic
.
calming
.
issues
.
with
.
the
.
most
.
effective
.
and
.
least
.
intrusive
.
measures
.
(Tier
.

I
.
or
.

Tier
.

II)
.
where
.
appropriate
.
and
.
seek out harder-to-implement measures (Tier III) as needed. The City will determine which Tier is appropriate
.
for
.
a
.
particular
.
concern.
.

The
.
traffic
.
calming
.

Tiers
.
are
.
categorized
.
as
.
follows:
.

Tier I
All concerns from the residents are initially evaluated for suitability of Tier I strategies. Tier I measures
.
are
.
the
.
least
.
complex
.
of
.
the
.
traffic
.
calming
.
measures,
.
involving
.
only
.
minor
.
engineering
.
analysis and design considerations and they do not require additional neighborhood support. Tier I measures typically have lower implementation costs.

Tier II
After
.
determining
.
that
.

Tier
.

I
.
strategies
.
may
.
not
.
adequately
.
address
.
traffic
.
calming
.
concerns,
.

Tier
.

II
.
solutions
.
are
.
investigated.
.

Under
.
this
.
tier,
.
additional
.
field
.
observations
.
and
.
data
.
collection
.
are
.
required for evaluation. Some Tier II improvements (Tier IIb measures) necessitate neighborhood outreach
.
and
.
support.
.

Tier
.

II
.
enhancements
.
are
.
more
.
expensive
.
and
.
time
.
intensive
.
than
.

Tier
.

I
.
enhancements but less than Tier III enhancements.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
5 Tier III
Tier
.

III
.
strategies
.
typically
.
require
.
substantial
.
field
.
observations,
.
data
.
collection,
.
public
.
outreach,
.
and
.
neighborhood
.
support
.
prior
.
to
.
implementation.
.

Tier
.

III
.
traffic
.
calming
.
strategies
.
are
.
permanent
.
physical
.
modifications
.
to
.
the
.
roadway
.
that
.
will
.
alter
.
traffic
.
flows,
.
roadway
.
configurations,
.
and
.
driver behavior. These solutions are substantially more costly than Tier I or II solutions (thereby often depleting limited funding sources) and take a substantial amount of time to implement (often
.
years)
.
due
.
to
.
complex
.
design
.
considerations,
.
staffing
.
hours,
.
and
.
community
.
input.

1.5 How to Use This Document
This
.
document
.
is
.
subdivided
.
into
.
three
.
chapters
.
to
.
guide
.

City
.
officials
.
and
.
residents:
•

Chapter
.
1 .
provides
.
an
.
introduction
.
to
.
traffic
.
calming
.
and
.
key
.
concepts,
.
such
.
as
.
the
.
4 .

E’s
.
of
.
traffic
.
safety
.
and
.
the
.
three
.
tiered
.
approach
.
to
.

Napa’s
.

NTCP.
.
•

Chapter 2 describes the NTCP process from an initial application by a community member to implementation by the City.
•

Chapter
.
3 .
discusses
.
the
.
measures
.
that
.
the
.

City
.
will
.
use
.
to
.
resolve
.
traffic
.
calming
.
issues.

The
.
figure
.
on
.
the
.
following
.
page
.
is
.
intended
.
to
.
help
.
direct
.

City
.
officials
.
and
.
residents
.
through
.
this document.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
6 For City Officials
Chapter
(Sections)
For Residents
Chapter 1
Learn about traffic calming, project goals and benefits, the four "E's" of traffic safety, and the three tier approach.

Chapter 2
(Section 2.2)
Report a concern.

Determine if a concern is
applicable to the NTCP.

Chapter 2
(Section 2.3)
Understand what metrics are
used to determine applicability.

Engage with residents to
understand issues.

Engage with City officials to show
support and understand public
involvement components.

Design traffic calming solutions
and coordinate with residents and
other public agencies.

Determine project priority and
allocate funding sources for
implementation.

Understand what metrics are
used to determine prioritization.

Implement projects. Determine
project effectiveness through
monitoring and post
-
project
evaluation.

Help the City continue to monitor
roadway conditions.

Use the traffic calming toolbox to
identify an appropriate solution
based on context.

Learn about what solutions the
City will use to address your
concern.

Chapter 2
(Section 2.4)
Chapter 2
(Section 2.5)
Chapter 2
(Section 2.6)
Chapter 2
(Section 2.7
-8)
Chapter 3
Coordinate with City officials
through the process and help
select appropriate solutions.

ATTACHMENT 4

2 IMPLEMENTATION

PROCESS
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
8 2

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
The
.

Neighborhood
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

Program
.
aims
.
to
.
involve
.
both
.

City
.
of
.

Napa
.
staff
.
and
.
community
.
members
.
in
.
the
.
development
.
and
.
implementation
.
of
.
traffic
.
calming
.
measures.
.

Therefore,
.
the
.

NTCP process is intended to be transparent, consistent, and straightforward.

The City of Napa’s NTCP process is divided into seven primary steps:

This section discusses the roles and responsibilities of both the City and community (Section 2.1), the
.
seven
.
steps
.
of
.
the
.

NTCP
.
(Sections
.

2.2 .
through
.

2.8),
.
and
.
includes
.
a
.
detailed
.
flow
.
chart
.
of
.
the
.
entire NTCP process (Section 2.9).

Application
Evaluation and Notification
Support
Design
Prioritization
Implementation
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Process
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
9 2.1 Roles and Responsibilities
The City
The City is responsible for maintaining a transportation system that provides safe access for all travel modes. The City’s
Public Works Department
will accept applications from the community
year-round in accordance with Section 2.2, and where warranted, will utilize the NTCP to develop and
.
implement
.
traffic
.
calming
.
measures.
.

For
.
applications
.
accepted
.
into
.
the
.

NTCP
.
in
.
accordance
.
with
.

Section
.

2.3,
.
staff
.
will
.
conduct
.
critical
.
field
.
reviews,
.
complete
.
investigations,
.
receive
.
community
.
feedback,
.
design
.
improvements,
.
and
.
pursue
.
construction
.
funding.
.

The
.
staff
.
will
.
coordinate
.
with
.
other City departments (e.g., Fire and Police) and regional agencies (e.g., public transit) that may
.
have
.
an
.
interest
.
or
.
service
.
impact
.
due
.
to
.
the
.
proposed
.
traffic
.
calming
.
improvements.
.

It
.
is
.
expected
.
that
.
the
.
available
.
budget
.
will
.
be
.
limited,
.
and
.
not
.
all
.
recommended
.
improvements
.
can
.
be
.
implemented
.
in
.
a
.
fiscal
.
year.
.

Staff
.
will
.
maintain
.
a
.
list
.
of
.
projects
.
with
.
priorities
.
for
.
future
.
implementation as funds become available. Any roadway narrowing, vertical measure, or other features that may impact emergency response times must be reviewed by the Fire Department
as early as possible in the NTCP process, and designs must be approved before construction. The City
.
retains
.
its
.
right
.
to
.
install,
.
modify,
.
or
.
remove
.
any
.
traffic
.
calming
.
measure
.
to
.
ensure
.
public
.
safety and accessibility.

The Community
The
.
community
.
acts
.
as
.
the
.
informant
.
to
.
the
.

City,
.
sharing
.
any
.
traffic-related
.
issues
.
and
.
concerns
.
that
.
affect
.
their
.
safety
.
and
.
livability.
.

T o
.
make
.
this
.
program
.
successful,
.
the
.
community
.
must
.
become
.
engaged
.
in
.
understanding
.
traffic
.
calming
.
issues
.
and
.
the
.
advantages,
.
disadvantages,
.
and
.
applicability
.
of
.
the
.
different
.
measures.
.

Since
.
some
.
traffic
.
calming
.
measures
.
have
.
disadvantages
.
that may negatively impact adjacent streets or neighborhoods, neighborhood support is required through
.
the
.
initial
.
application
.
process
.
(20
.
percent
.
of
.
affected
.
residents)
.
and
.
for
.

Tier
.

IIb
.
or
.

III
.
measures
.
(60
.
percent
.
of
.
affected
.
residents).
.

Neighborhood
.
support
.
identified
.
by
.
percentages
.
(20
.
or 60), is a procedural requirement to use the process under the NTCP. Additionally, the program intends
.
that
.
the
.
residents
.
spread
.
the
.
message
.
within
.
their
.
neighborhoods
.
regarding
.
the
.
benefits
.
of
.
slowing
.
traffic
.
on
.
city
.
streets
.
and
.
enhancing
.
everyone’s
.
safety
.
and
.
livability.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
10 2.2

Application (Reporting a Concern)
The
.
process
.
begins
.
when
.
a
.
concern
.
is
.
identified
.
by
.
the
.
community.
.

A
.
member
.
of
.
the
.
community
.
expresses
.
their
.
concern
.
by
.
filling
.
out
.
a
.

NTCP
.

Application
.

Form.
.

The
.

NTCP
.

Application
.

Form
.
can
.
be found on the City’s NTCP webpage (
https://www.cityofnapa.org/1180/Neighborhood-Traffic-
Calming-Program
) or in
Appendix B
. The requestor provides a detailed account of the observed concern
.
on
.
the
.
form
.
and
.
will
.
serve
.
as
.
a
.
primary
.
point
.
of
.
contact
.
with
.

City
.
staff.

Prior to completing the NTCP Application Form, it is encouraged that the requestor reviews the concern location against the following two metrics, which the City will use as the initial screening metrics in determining whether the concern is applicable to the NTCP in accordance with Section

2.3:
•

The
.
roadway
.
is
.
classified
.
as
.
a
.
collector
.
or
.
local
.
street
.
as
.
specified
.
in
.
the
.

City
.
of
.

Napa’s
.
2040 General Plan.
•

The posted speed limit on the roadway
3 is 35 MPH or less.

Additionally, as part of the application submittal, the requestor is required to collect signatures from
.
community
.
members
.
that
.
may
.
be
.
affected
.
by
.
the
.
concern.
.

For
.
the
.
application,
.
if
.
20 .
percent
.
of residents residing within 500 feet of the concern location acknowledge and concur with the concerns being raised by signing the application, then the City will initiate a review of the application
.
to
.
evaluate
.
the
.
other
.
elements
.
identified
.
in
.
the
.

NTCP
.
(Section
.

2.3).
.

The
.
requestor
.
can coordinate with the City’s Public Works Department to identify which residents should be included for signature. After all components are completed, the requestor will submit the NTCP Application Form to the City for initial evaluation. See Appendix B
for details on submitting the
application form.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
11 2.3

Evaluation and Notification
Once an application is received, the City will review the concern and determine whether the concern is applicable to the NTCP.

If
.
the
.
concern
.
identified
.
in
.
the
.
application
.
does
.
not
.
meet
.
the
.
following
.
two
.
metrics,
.
no
.
further
.
review or analysis in accordance with the NTCP will be taken. •

The roadway
1 .
is
.
classified
.
as
.
a
.
collector
.
or
.
local
.
street
.
as
.
specified
.
in
.
the
.

City
.
of
.

Napa’s
.
2040 General Plan
2 .
•

The posted speed limit of the roadway
3 is 35 MPH or less.

If the above two metrics are met, the City will collect data (if needed) and will review the request using
.
five
.
additional
.
metrics.
.

Note,
.
not
.
all
.
metrics
.
need
.
to
.
be
.
satisfied
.
to
.
meet
.

NTCP
.
applicability.
•

The roadway
4 meets the following vehicle per day (vpd) thresholds:
•

Local
.

Street:
.
500
.
vpd
.
or
.
greater;
•

Collector: 1,000 vpd or greater.
•

Roadway segments must be longer than 500 feet.
•

The 85
th
-percentile
.
speed
.
of
.
traffic
.
exceeds
.
the
.
posted
.
speed
.
limit
.
by
.
at
.
least
.
five
.
mph.
•

Has a documented crash history.
•

Located in a school zone or along a bike route.

The City will make a determination on the applicability of the concern to the NTCP based on all seven metrics. Regardless of the determination, the City will inform the requestor of the results of NTCP applicability, typically within 60 calendar days of receiving an application. Note, it should be recognized
.
that
.
some
.
data
.
collection
.
(traffic
.
volumes
.
or
.
speed
.
data)
.
may
.
need
.
to
.
be
.
collected
.
by
.
the
.

City
.
(sometimes
.
when
.
schools
.
are
.
in
.
session);
.
as
.
such,
.
determination
.
times
.
may
.
in
.
some
.
cases
.
extend
.
past
.
the
.
60-day
.
target.

If
.
the
.
concern
.
is
.
applicable
.
for
.
the
.

Neighborhood
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

Program,
.
the
.

City
.
will
.
analyze
.
the
.
concern
.
to
.
determine
.
if
.

Tier
.

I
.
measures
.
would
.
likely
.
be
.
sufficient
.
for
.
addressing
.
a
.
problem
.
or
.
if Tier II or III measures would be required.
1 For concerns at intersections, the criteria are applicable to both intersecting roadways. (Does not apply to intersecting residential or commercial driveways.)
2 The road classification may be found in the City’s 2040 General Plan, which is available on the City’s website at https:/ /napa2040.
com/
, in Figure 3-1 Future Roadway Network.
3 For concerns at intersections, the criteria are applicable to both intersecting roadways. (Does not apply to intersecting residential or commercial driveways.)
4 For concerns at intersections, the criteria are applicable to both intersecting roadways. (Does not apply to intersecting residential or commercial driveways.)
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
12 2.4

Neighborhood Support
Neighborhood Support is a crucial component of a successful NTCP, as it promotes an open discussion
.
and
.
understanding
.
of
.
traffic
.
calming
.
measures
.
and
.
their
.
impact
.
on
.
the
.
community
.
as
.
a whole.

As part of the initial application process, the requestor is required to garner signatures through a petition process. If 20 percent of residents residing within 500 feet of the concerned location acknowledge and concur with the concerns being raised by signing the application, then the City
.
will
.
initiate
.
a
.
review
.
of
.
the
.
application
.
to
.
evaluate
.
the
.
other
.
elements
.
identified
.
in
.
the
.

NTCP
.
(Section 2.3).

If the application evaluation criteria are met, the City will conduct a preliminary analysis to determine
.
if
.

Tier
.

I
.
measures
.
would
.
likely
.
be
.
sufficient
.
for
.
addressing
.
a
.
problem
.
or
.
if
.

Tier
.

II
.
or
.

III
.
measures would be required (see Chapter 3). Additional neighborhood support is not required for Tier
.

I
.
and
.
most
.

Tier
.

II
.
measures;
.
however,
.

Tier
.

IIb
.
and
.

Tier
.

III
.
measures
.
do
.
require
.
signatures
.
from
.
60 percent of residents residing within 500 feet of the concern location.

If Tier IIb or III measures are determined to be necessary, the City will coordinate with the requestor to garner additional signatures. The additional signatures can be obtained in one of two ways: (1) the requester collects signatures via petition, or (2) the City sends out mailers. The primary way to garner additional support is that the requestor collects signatures. The secondary option where the City sends out mailers may be conducted if requested by the applicant. For both options, if 60 percent of residents residing within 500 feet of the concern location submit signatures on the request,
.
then
.

City
.
staff
.
will
.
proceed
.
to
.
the
.

Design
.
step
.
of
.
the
.

NTCP
.
process.

2.5 Design
During this step in the NTCP process, the City will collect necessary data and begin designing measures
.
to
.
address
.
the
.
concern.
.

The
.
level
.
and
.
complexity
.
of
.
the
.
design
.
required
.
for
.
each
.
measure varies by Tier. Tier I measures generally involve little-to-minor engineering analysis and
.
design,
.

Tier
.

II
.
measures
.
involve
.
moderately
.
complex
.
engineering
.
analysis
.
and
.
design,
.
and
.

Tier
.

III
.
measures
.
require
.
extensive
.
engineering
.
analysis
.
and
.
design.
.

During
.
the
.
design
.
phase,
.

Public
.

Works
.
staff
.
will
.
coordinate
.
with
.
other
.

City
.
departments
.
(e.g.,
.

Fire
.
and
.

Police)
.
and
.
regional
.
agencies (e.g., public transit) that may have an interest or service impact due to the proposed traffic
.
calming
.
improvements.
.

Tier
.

III
.
measures
.
typically
.
require
.
this
.
additional
.
coordination
.
due
.
to
.
the
.
nature
.
of
.
the
.
physical
.
improvement.
.

In
.
addition
.
to
.
more
.
complex
.
engineering
.
analysis,
.

Tier
.

IIb and III measures may also necessitate community outreach to gather feedback on a design.

In these cases, the City will coordinate with the community (through neighborhood meetings, one-on-one discussions, etc.) to discuss design concepts. Additionally, this outreach can help the community to better understand the overall NTCP process, understand why some measures may have been pursued while other measures were not, and be informed on project progress.

T o
.
account
.
for
.
these
.
components,
.
the
.

City
.
will
.
prioritize
.
the
.
use
.
of
.

Tier
.

I
.
solutions
.
first.
.

However,
.
depending
.
on
.
the
.
complexity
.
of
.
the
.
issue,
.
the
.

City
.
may
.
recommend
.
that
.

Tier
.

II
.
or
.

III
.
solutions
.
be
.
pursued immediately.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
13 2.6

Prioritization and Funding
The
.

NTCP
.
aims
.
to
.
provide
.
equitable,
.
efficient,
.
and
.
uniform
.
traffic-related
.
solutions
.
throughout
.
the City. After the Design phase, the City will conduct an evaluation to determine whether the selected
.
traffic
.
calming
.
measure
.
can
.
be
.
funded
.
within
.
the
.
existing
.
budget.
.

If
.
there
.
is
.
not
.
sufficient
.
funding to implement the measure, the City may pursue additional funding sources (i.e. grant funding, etc.). As there may be times when there is not enough funding for all projects to be implemented, NTCP projects are compared among one another to prioritize projects.

A
.
methodology
.
to
.
prioritize
.
traffic
.
calming
.
projects
.
has
.
been
.
developed
.
for
.
the
.

City
.
of
.

Napa
.
that
.
takes
.
into
.
consideration
.
concern
.
severity
.
and
.
benefit
.
potential.

Table 1
illustrates the
City’s 100-point scoring system to determine project prioritization through the NTCP process. It emphasizes
.
the
.
significance
.
of
.
speeds,
.
collisions,
.
traffic
.
volumes,
.
proximity
.
to
.
schools
.
and
.
other
.
pedestrian
.
generators,
.
and
.
includes
.
additional
.
traffic
.
calming-related
.
items.

Table 1. Scoring Criteria for Traffic Calming Consideration Criteria
Point Definitions
Points
Available
85 th
Percentile
Speed
2 points for every 1 MPH above the posted speed limit (85 th
-percentile speed
must be at least 5 MPH over the posted speed limit to be considered for speed-related
.
traffic
.
calming)
35 Crash History
3 .
points
.
for
.
each
.
preventable
.
crash
.
within
.
the
.
last
.
five
.
years
25 Traffic Volumes
1 .
point
.
for
.
0-500
.
average
.
daily
.
traffic
.
(ADT)
2 points for 501-1,000 ADT
3 .
points
.
for
.
1,001
.
–
.
1,500
.

ADT
4 .
points
.
for
.
1,501
.
–
.
2,000
.

ADT
5 points for > 2,000 ADT
5 Cut-through
Traffic
4 .
points
.
if
.
at
.
least
.
25%
.
of
.
traffic
.
volume
.
is
.
cut-through
1 .
point
.
for
.
each
.
additional
.
5%
.
(Up
.
to
.
40%
.
max)
7 Equity
3 points if located in an MTC EPC
1 census tract
3 points if located in a USDOT ETC
2 disadvantaged census tract
6 Vicinity to
Schools
5 points if the street fronts or provides access to a school 5 Pedestrian

Generators
5 points if the location is within 1,000 feet of a pedestrian generator (such as a bus stop, civic facility, place of worship, restaurant, park, etc.) 5 Additional

Concerns
2 points if visibility restrictions result from roadway geometry 2 points if the segment is a bike or pedestrian corridor 2 points if the street has no sidewalks or sidewalk gaps are present 2 points if the segment is > 1,000 feet in length
2 points if the segment is > 40 feet in curb-to-curb width 2 points if included in another planning document
12 Total
100
1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Equity Priority Community (EPC) 2 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
14 2.7

Implementation
Typically,
.

Tier
.

I
.
measures
.
can
.
address
.
the
.
most
.
prevalent
.
and
.
straightforward
.
traffic
.
calming
.
issues
.
and
.
problems.
.

As
.
such,
.
the
.

City’s
.

NTCP
.
strategy
.
prioritizes
.
the
.
use
.
of
.

Tier
.

I
.
measures
.
first.
.

However,
.
depending
.
on
.
the
.
complexity
.
of
.
the
.
issue,
.

City
.
staff
.
may
.
recommend
.
that
.

Tier
.

II
.
or
.

III
.
measures be pursued immediately.

Due to the nature of Tier II and Tier III measures, the implementation process generally takes a substantial
.
amount
.
of
.
time.
.

These
.
measures
.
require
.
additional
.
data
.
collection,
.
a
.
more
.
complex
.
design process, and Tier IIb and Tier III measures require additional neighborhood support. For physical measures, construction time, right-of-way, and utility needs must also be taken into account. Additionally, these measures typically have higher implementation costs which may necessitate
.
seeking
.
additional
.
funding
.
sources
.
and
.
may
.
extend
.
the
.
implementation
.
timeline.

2.8 Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring
.
and
.
evaluation
.
are
.
crucial
.
components
.
to
.
the
.
success
.
of
.
the
.

Neighborhood
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

Program.
.

Monitoring
.
and
.
evaluation
.
helps
.
determine
.
the
.
effectiveness
.
of
.
individual
.
projects,
.
as
.
well
.
as
.
whether
.
adjustments
.
to
.
the
.
toolbox
.
or
.

Program
.
are
.
needed
.
to
.
better
.
meet
.
the
.
needs of the City of Napa.

Monitoring,
.
including
.
periodic
.
review
.
of
.
roadway
.
safety
.
data
.
(such
.
as
.
collision
.
data,
.
traffic
.
volumes,
.
speeds,
.
etc.)
.
can
.
assist
.
in
.
evaluating
.
both
.
the
.

Program
.
as
.
a
.
whole,
.
as
.
well
.
as,
.
specific
.
traffic
.
calming
.
projects.
.

Post-project
.
evaluations
.
(PPE)
.
can
.
be
.
used
.
to
.
determine
.
whether
.
a
.
specific
.
traffic
.
calming
.
project
.
has
.
effectively
.
addressed
.
the
.
community
.
concerns,
.
and
.
to
.
determine
.
whether
.
additional
.
measures
.
are
.
necessary,
.
or
.
whether
.
a
.
measure
.
should
.
be
.
relocated
.
to
.
increase
.
effectiveness.
.

Evaluation
.
should
.
occur
.
after
.
a
.
period
.
of
.
normalization
.
(typically
.
three
.
to
.
six
.
months
.
after
.
implementation).
.

PPEs can be both qualitative and quantitative in nature. Feedback can be solicited from the community
.
through
.
interviews
.
and
.
surveys
.
to
.
gauge
.
whether
.
the
.
traffic
.
calming
.
solution
.
has
.
successfully
.
addressed
.
the
.
concerns.
.

Additionally,
.
through
.
additional
.
data
.
collection
.
efforts,
.
a
.
before-and-after comparison may illustrate measurable impacts, such as reductions to operating speeds
.
or
.
in
.
traffic
.
volumes.
.

2.9 Process Flow Chart
The
.
flow
.
chart
.
(
Figure 1
and
Figure 2
) provided on the following pages depicts a typical review and
.
approval
.
process
.
for
.
traffic
.
calming
.
requests.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
15 Figure 1. NTCP Decision Making Process (Tier I)
Resident’s Role
City’s Role
Does concern meet two
NTCP basic criteria?
YES
NO
Identify a concern.

YES
NO
Concern is evaluated for
NTCP applicability based on
seven criteria.

Implement
Tier I solution(s).

Collect signatures &
submit petition.
(20 percent
approval required.)
Contact City staff
for inquiry.

Collect additional data &
Conduct Tier II & III evaluation.

Can the problem
be addressed with
Tier I solution(s)?

APPLICABLE

NOT APPLICABLE
Notify Requestor.

Concern addressed.

Project is weighed for
funding prioritization.

Monitor and
evaluate project.

FUNDING

AVAILABLE

EFFECTIVE

NOT EFFECTIVE

FUNDING

BECOMES

AVAILABLE

FUNDS NOT

CURRENTLY

AVAILABLE
Search for alternative
funding resources or
implementation opportunities.
(See Tier II, IIB, & III Flowchart)
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
16 Figure 2. NTCP Decision Making Process (Tier II and Tier III) Iterative Process
Concept plans
and
alterna
tives are shared
for community input.

Tier I s
olutions
are determined to not
y
ield
effect
res
ults needed to address concern.

Cit
y preliminary ass
esses if
Tier II, IIB,
or
III m
easure(s) are needed.

Resident’s Role
City’s Role
(cont.)

PETITION
(Preferred)
MAILER
(Upon Request)
Tier IIB or III solution(s)
are likely to be needed
to address concern.

City notifies requestor of Tier IIB or III
community consensus requirements.

City conducts mailer.
(60% approval required.)
Additional data is collected.

Plans are finalized.

Evaluate Tier II, IIB, or III solution(s).

Concept plans and alternatives
designs are developed.

Requestor chooses
to collect signatures or
have the City conduct a mailer.

Requestor collects
signatures.
(60% approval required.)
Tier II solution(s) are
likely to be needed to
address concern.

Implement Tier II, IIB,
or III solution(s).

Project is weighed for
funding prioritization.

Monitor and evaluate project.

FUNDING

AVAILABLE

FUNDING BECOMES

AVAILABLE

FUNDS NOT

CURRENTLY

AVAILABLE
Search for alternative
funding resources or
implementation opportunities.

ATTACHMENT 4

3 TRAFFIC CALMING

MEASURES
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
18 3

TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
The
.

City
.
of
.

Napa
.

Neighborhood
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

Program
.
(NTCP)
.
identifies
.
various
.
traffic
.
calming
.
solutions
.
across
.
four
.
“E”
.
categories
.
(
Engineering, Education, Enforcement,
and
Empowerment
)
and
.
three
.
different
.
tiers.
.

Through
.
this
.
approach,
.
the
.

City
.
can
.
evaluate
.
traffic
.
safety-related
.
concerns,
.
identify suitable solutions, garner neighborhood support, prioritize projects, and implement when funds become available.

This
.
section
.
discusses
.
the
.
improvement
.
types
.
associated
.
with
.
each
.
tier.
.

Differences
.
between
.
tiers
.
are
.
explained
.
in
.
detail
.
to
.
increase
.
clarity
.
and
.
comprehension
.
of
.
the
.
measure
.
and
.
their
.
typical
.
application.

Appendix A
.
contains
.
a
.
toolbox
.
with
.
numerous
.
solutions
.
and
.
strategies,
.
relevant
.
graphics,
.
specific
.
advantages
.
and
.
disadvantages,
.
and
.
approximate
.
implementation
.
costs.

3 �
1 Tier I
All
.
traffic
.
calming
.
concerns
.
from
.
residents
.
that
.
meet
.
the
.
threshold
.
metrics
.
for
.

NTCP
.
applicability
.
as determined by the City in accordance with Section 2.3, are initially evaluated for Tier I solutions, which are the most fundamental strategies. They do not require a comprehensive engineering review
.
or
.
additional
.
neighborhood
.
support.
.

Tier
.

I
.
traffic
.
calming
.
measures
.
are
.
typically
.
lower-cost
.
and quicker to implement.

Tier I
Lower-cost improvements that require minimal engineering design and community outreach.

Tier II
Improvements that require some engineering analysis, design,

and community outreach.

Tier III
Requires
.
extensive
.
engineering
.
analysis,
.
design,
.
community
.

outreach and funding.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
19 Education

Community is provided with educational materials that inform them of traffic,
.
pedestrian,
.
and
.
bicycle
.
safety
.
issues.
.

Information
.
is
.
disseminated
.
via
.
brochures, website, and videos, which may be general in nature or focused on
.
a
.
specific
.
mode
.
of
.
transportation.
.

The
.
distribution
.
of
.
educational
.
materials can target all age groups or the community as a whole and provides a
.
gentle
.
reminder
.
of
.
the
.
rules
.
of
.
the
.
road,
.
the
.
benefits
.
of
.
safe
.
driving,
.
and information on future and ongoing roadway improvements. With increased
.
exposure
.
to
.
educational
.
material
.
and
.
periodic
.
reinforcement,
.
observable changes in driver behavior are possible.

Empowerment
Empowering
.
the
.
public
.
with
.
useful
.
information
.
on
.
the
.
benefits
.
of
.
traffic
.
calming, available strategies, and the City’s policies and procedures are valuable tools included in this program. There are limited opportunities for public empowerment due to the basic nature of Tier I complaints and concerns.

Enforcement
Tier I concerns do not rely heavily on law enforcement, but it is possible
.
to
.
increase
.
compliance
.
with
.
traffic
.
and
.
parking
.
regulations
.
by providing a site presence at locations with repeated complaints of traffic
.
violations.
.

The
.
presence
.
of
.
law
.
enforcement
.
and
.
the
.
issuance
.
of warnings may result in reduced speeds and an environment that is safer for all users. It can foster improved relationships between the community and law enforcement as they collaborate to address fundamental
.
traffic
.
and
.
safety
.
issues.

Engineering
Engineering measures under Tier I include lower-cost measures that typically involve a quicker implementation timeline. Tier I measures include striping, markings, and signage.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
20 3
�
2 Tier II
After
.
determining
.
that
.

Tier
.

I
.
strategies
.
may
.
not
.
adequately
.
address
.
traffic
.
calming
.
concerns,
.

Tier
.

II
.
solutions
.
are
.
investigated.
.

Under
.
this
.
tier,
.
additional
.
field
.
observations
.
and
.
data
.
collection
.
are
.
required for evaluation. Tier IIb improvements necessitate community outreach and support. Tier II
.
enhancements
.
are
.
more
.
expensive
.
and
.
time
.
intensive
.
than
.

Tier
.

I
.
enhancements
.
but
.
less
.
than
.

Tier III enhancements.

Education
Tier II places an increased emphasis on public education initiatives and may include safety campaigns such as the Street Smarts Program.

Empowerment
Tier IIb measures require additional neighborhood support and may involve community input during the design phase. Both neighborhood support and community input provide opportunity for empowerment as community
.
members
.
proivde
.
feedback
.
regarding
.
traffic
.
calming
.
in their neighborhood.

Enforcement
Enforcement measures in Tier II include increased patrols and the issuance
.
of
.
citations
.
for
.
traffic
.
infractions.
.

When
.
traffic
.
concerns
.
cannot be addressed through other measures, increasing patrols may bring about safer transportation operations. By issuing citations,
.
police
.
officers
.
reinforce
.
the
.
importance
.
of
.
compliance
.
with
.
traffic
.
and
.
parking
.
regulations.
.

Engineering
When
.

Tier
.

I
.
strategies
.
are
.
not
.
fully
.
effective,
.
the
.

City
.
staff
.
shall
.
perform
.
necessary
.
field
.
observations
.
and collect data to identify appropriate Tier II solutions. Tier II engineering enhancements are more
.
expensive
.
and
.
take
.
longer
.
to
.
implement
.
than
.

Tier
.

I
.
measures
.
and
.
may
.
necessitate
.
additional
.
neighborhood support and collaboration. Engineering improvements available under Tier II include
.
dynamic
.
feedback
.
signs,
.
rectangular
.
rapid
.
flashing
.
beacons
.
(RRFBs),
.
and
.
multimodal
.
road
.
reconfigurations
.
(commonly
.
referred
.
to
.
as
.
roadv
.
diets).
.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
21 3
�
3 Tier III
Before
.
implementation,
.

Tier
.

III
.
strategies
.
typically
.
require
.
substantial
.
field
.
observations,
.
data
.
collection,
.
public
.
outreach,
.
and
.
neighborhood
.
support.
.

Tier
.

III
.
traffic
.
calming
.
strategies
.
include
.
many
.
permanent
.
physical
.
modifications
.
to
.
the
.
roadway
.
that
.
may
.
alter
.
traffic
.
flows,
.
roadway
.
configurations,
.
and
.
driver
.
behavior.
.

These
.
solutions
.
are
.
more
.
costly
.
than
.

Tier
.

I
.
and
.

II
.
solutions
.
and take a substantial amount of time to implement.

Education
Tier
.

III
.
educational
.
measures
.
further
.
extend
.

Tier
.

I
.
and
.

Tier
.

II
.
strategies.
.

These
.
measures
.
are
.
more
.
intensive and focused in nature. Such strategies may include focused safety training, including components of the Street Smarts Program.

Empowerment
Tier III empowerment strategies include safety initiatives such as the Pace Car Program. A Pace Car Program, where volunteering residents sign a pledge to drive at or below the posted speed limit, has been successful in many cities, including Seattle, Salt Lake City, Palo Alto, San Leandro, El Cerrito, Walnut Creek,
.
and
.

Capitola.
.

Tier
.

III
.
empowerment
.
programs
.
bring
.
significant
.
benefits
.
to
.
the
.
community
.
as
.
engagement
.
and
.
acceptance
.
of
.
traffic
.
calming strategies spread.

Enforcement
Tier
.

III
.
enforcement
.
strategies
.
involve
.
stepped-up
.
efforts
.
from
.

Tier II enforcement and may include focused enforcement. Focused enforcement
.
provides
.
police
.
presence
.
at
.
specific
.
locations
.
and
.
times
.
in which the most problematic conditions are observed. These methods effectively
.
alert
.
the
.
community
.
that
.
traffic
.
safety
.
is
.
a
.
high
.
priority
.
to
.
the
.

City
.
and
.
that
.
the
.

City
.
is
.
committed
.
to
.
full
.
compliance
.
with
.
traffic
.
regulations
.
and
.
observing
.
safety
.
practices.

Engineering
Tier
.

III
.
engineering
.
strategies
.
involve
.
significant
.
physical
.
improvements
.
that
.
require
.
extensive
.
engineering analysis, design, and community engagement, and they are typically slower to implement.
.

Tier
.

III
.
engineering
.
strategies
.
are
.
explored
.
when
.
other
.
measures
.
are
.
not
.
suitable
.
or
.
are
.
ineffective
.
in
.
addressing
.
the
.
particular
.
traffic-related
.
concerns.
.

Examples
.
of
.

Tier
.

III
.
engineering
.
measures
.
include
.
bulbouts,
.
chokers,
.
speed
.
cushions,
.
raised
.
crosswalks,
.
traffic
.
circles,
.
single-lane
.
roundabouts, and half- or full-street closures.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
22 3.4

Traffic Calming Toolbox
The
.

City
.
of
.

Napa
.

Neighborhood
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

Program
.

T oolbox
.
(
Appendix A
)
.
expands
.
on
.

Table 2
.
below,
.
which
.
provides
.
a
.
list
.
of
.
traffic
.
calming
.
measures.
.

The
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

T oolbox
.
was
.
developed
.
through
.
a
.
research-based
.
and
.
community-driven
.
process
.
and
.
utilizes
.
the
.
four
.
“E’s”
.
approach
.
–
.

Education, Enforcement, Empowerment,
and
Engineering
.

Appendix A
goes into
detail on the advantages, disadvantages, and suitability of each of the measures. It is intended that
.
the
.
measures
.
included
.
in
.
the
.

T oolbox
.
will
.
assist
.
the
.

City
.
and
.
its
.
residents
.
to
.
achieve
.
the
.

NTCP
.
goals
.
of
.
lowering
.
traffic
.
volumes
.
and
.
reducing
.
vehicular
.
speeding
.
on
.
neighborhood
.
streets,
.
and
.
enhancing safety for all roadway users. The City retains its right to install, modify, or remove any traffic
.
calming
.
measure
.
to
.
ensure
.
public
.
safety
.
and
.
accessibility.

Table 2. List of Traffic Calming Measures
Measures
Tier
Education Strategies
1 Go Safely California Program
I
2 Safe Routes to School Program
I, II
3 Street Smarts Program

II, III
Enforcement Strategies
4 Targeted Location Speed Enforcement

I, II, III
5 Increased Patrol and Warnings/Citations

II, III
Empowerment Strategies
6 Pace Car Program
III
Engineering Strategies
7 Edgeline/Centerline Striping
I
8 Lane Narrowing
I
9 Speed Legends
I
10 Signage
I
11 Botts
.

Dots
.
/
.

Raised
.

Reflectors
.
/
.

Rumble
.

Strips
.
/
.

T extured
.

Pavement
I
12 High-Visibility Crosswalks
I
13 Dynamic Speed Feedback Signs
II
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
23 Measures
Tier
14 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
II
15 Quick Build Projects
II
16 Pilot Projects
II, IIb
17 Angled Parking
IIb
18 Multimodal
.

Road
.

Reconfiguration
.
(Road
.

Diet)
IIb, III
19 Bulbouts / Neckdowns
III
20 Chokers / Pinchpoint
III
21 Center Island Narrowing/ Pedestrian Refuges
III
22 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
III
23 Traffic
.

Circles
III
24 Roundabouts (Single-Lane)
III
25 Lateral Shifts
III
26 Chicanes
III
27 Speed Table
III
28 Speed Cushion
III
29 Raised Crosswalks
III
30 Raised Intersections
III
31 Forced Turn Islands
III
32 Diagonal Diverters
III
33 Partial Closures / Half-Street Closures
III
34 Full Closures
III
ATTACHMENT 4

4 REFERENCES
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
25 4

REFERENCES
The following references were used in the revision of Napa’s NTCP. Additional information is provided in
Appendix C
.

Complete Streets
•

Federal Highway Administration
•

National
.

Associations
.
of
.

City
.

Transportation
.

Officials
.
-
.

Global
.

Street
.

Design
.

Guide
•

National Cooperative Highway Research Program

Street Smarts Program
•

City of Benicia
•

City of Cupertino
•

City of Davis
•

City of Napa
•

City of Santa Rosa
•

City of Salinas
•

City of San Francisco
•

San Ramon Valley Street Smarts
•

Santa
.

Clara
.

County
.

Traffic
.

Safe
.

Communities
.

Network
•

Street Smarts Marin (Marin County)
•

West Contra Costa County Safe Communities Program
•

Monterey County Health Department

Speed Management
•

City
.
of
.

Napa
.
–
.

Local
.

Roadway
.

Safety
.

Plan
.
(2022)
•

Federal Highway Administration
•

Institute
.
of
.

Transportation
.

Engineers
.
–
.

A
.

Guide
.
to
.

Vertical
.

Deflection
.

Speed
.

Reduction
.

Techniques

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
26 Traffic Calming
•

Alameda County
•

City of American Canyon
•

City of Dinuba
•

City of Hayward
•

City of Livermore
•

City of Los Gatos
•

City of Millbrae
•

City of Oceanside
•

City of Palo Alto
•

City of Pleasanton
•

City of San Diego
•

City of San Francisco
•

City of San Jose
•

Federal
.

Highway
.

Administration
.
&
.

Institute
.
of
.

Transportation
.

Engineers
.
–
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.
ePrimer
•

Federal
.

Highway
.

Administration
.
&
.

Institute
.
of
.

Transportation
.

Engineers
.
–
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

State of the Practice
•

National
.

Association
.
of
.

City
.
of
.

Transportation
.

Officials
•

Smart Growth America
•

Town of Los Altos Hills

Vision Zero
•

City of Chicago
•

City of Los Angeles
•

City of Portland
•

City
.
of
.

Napa
.
–
.

Local
.

Roadway
.

Safety
.

Plan
.
(2022)
•

City of New York
•

City of San Antonio
•

City of San Diego
•

City of San Francisco
•

City of San Jose
•

Napa Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Vision Zero Plan (2023) •

National Cooperative Highway Research Program - Towards Zero Deaths •

National
.

Highway
.

Traffic
.

Safety
.

Administration
.
-
.

Fatality
.

Analysis
.

Report
.

System
•

National Safety Council - Road to Zero Coalition
ATTACHMENT 4

5 GLOSSARY OF

ACRONYMS
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
28 5

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
4 E’s
.
–
.

Education,
.

Enforcement,
.

Engineering,
.
and
.

Empowerment
AAA
.
–
.

American
.

Automobile
.

Association
AASHTO
.
–American
.

Association
.
of
.

State
.

Highway
.
and
.

Transportation
.

Officials
ADT
.
–
.

Average
.

Daily
.

Traffic
BCR
.
–
.

Benefit-Cost
.

Ratio
CRF
.
–
.

Crash
.

Reduction
.

Factor
EMS
.
–
.

Emergency
.

Medical
.

Services
EPC
.
–
.

Equity
.

Priority
.

Community
FARS
.
–
.

Fatality
.

Analysis
.

Report
.

System
FHWA
.
–
.

Federal
.

Highway
.

Administration
HSIP
.
–
.

Highway
.

Safety
.

Improvement
.

Program
ITE
.
–
.

Institute
.
of
.

Transportation
.

Engineers
KSI
.
–
.

Killed
.
and
.

Severe
.

Injury
.

Collisions.

LRSM
.
–
.

Local
.

Roadway
.

Safety
.

Manual
LRSP
.
–
.

Local
.

Roadway
.

Safety
.

Plan
.

MTC
.
–
.

Metropolitan
.

Transportation
.

Commission
NATCO
.
–
.

National
.

Association
.
of
.

City
.

Transportation
.

Officials
NCHRP
.
–
.

National
.

Cooperative
.

Highway
.

Research
.

Program
.

NHTSA
.
–
.

National
.

Highway
.

Traffic
.

Safety
.

Administration
.

NSC
.
–
.

National
.

Safety
.

Council
NTCP
.
–
.

Neighborhood
.

Traffic
.

Calming
.

Program
SWITRS
.
–
.

Statewide
.

Integrated
.

Traffic
.

Records
.

System
TIMS
.
–
.

Transportation
.

Injury
.

Mapping
.

System
TZD
.
–T owards
.

Zero
.

Death
.

USDOT ETC
.
–
.

United
.

States
.

Department
.
of
.

Transportation
.

Equitable
.

Transportation
.

Community
VPD
.
–
.

Vehicles
.

Per
.

Day
ATTACHMENT 4

APPENDIX A: CITY OF

NAPA NEIGHBORHOOD

TRAFFIC CALMING

PROGRAM TOOLBOX

APPENDIX A

CITY OF NAPA

NEIGHBORHOOD

TRAFFIC CALMING

PROGRAM TOOLBOX
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Benefits:
•

Program can be flexible based on need.
•

Program is focused on the community as a
whole instead of one block or street.

Disadvantages:
•

N/A

1. Go Safely California Program
Tier: I
Go Safely California is an education program from the California Office of Traffic Safety and Caltrans that promotes a safety culture where everyone will “go safely”. Through education campaigns, informational resources and tips, Go Safely California helps the public make smart, informed choices about how to stay safe on the go.

List of Traffic Calming Measures
•

Suitable for all age groups and
community settings
•

Can have citywide impacts
•

Free online resources are
offered.
•

Additional cost may be incurred
and varies based on level of
effort.

Cost
Implementation
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Benefits:
•

Program can be flexible based on need.
•

Program is focused on the community as a
whole instead of one block or street.

Disadvantages:
•

N/A

2. Safe Routes to School Program
Tier: I & II
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a nationally recognized approach that promotes walking and bicycling to school through a variety of initiatives. Education components include safety education, tools, and incentives to encourage walking and bicycling to school. Education and encouragement components can be coupled with infrastructure improvements and/or enforcement. •

Can have citywide impacts
•

Varies based on level of effort
Cost
Implementation
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Benefits:
•

Program can be flexible based on need.
•

Program is focused on the community as a
whole instead of one block or street.

Disadvantages:
•

N/A

3. Street Smarts Program
Tier: II & III
Street Smarts is a nationally recognized traffic safety education program, focused on educating students, youth, and adults about safe walking, cycling, and driving behavior. Originally developed by the City of San Jose, this program has been implemented across the nation. Strategies include development and dissemination of information fliers and brochures, in-class training, safety rodeos, print and electronic media campaigns, and billboards. •

Suitable for all age groups and
community settings
•

Can have citywide impacts
•

Varies based on level of effort
•

Ongoing program requires

annual
budget allocation
Cost
Implementation
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Benefits:
•

Reduce speeding
•

Enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Disadvantages:
•

Little or no lasting benefit once
removed.
•

Based on compliance with speed limit,
not the desired operating speed of the
street.
•

Recommended for roadway
segments with school zones.
•

All road types, but should primarily
be considered on Local Roads and
Collectors for the purposes of the
NTCP.
•

Varies based on level of effort
Cost

4. Target Location Speed Enforcement
Tier: I, II, & III
Targeted speed enforcement is a tool to reduce unsafe speeds and driver behavior. “Targeted” implies selectivity when choosing a focus location, typically where high speeds coincide with high non-auto volumes, such as within a downtown area or within a school zone. Enforcement can be performed through the use of a portable speed radar device that measures and displays a motorist’s speed, or the physical presence of a police officer at the location.

Implementation
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Positive impacts are temporary unless
programs are continuous.
•

Increased workload for Police
Department.

5. Increased Patrol and Warnings / Citations
Tier: II, & III
Traffic enforcement initiatives can target inappropriate driving behavior, such as speeding. Police departments can issue warnings or citations as needed. The level of enforcement efforts can be dependent upon other competing priorities. Community opinion may vary. •

All road types, but should primarily
be considered on Local Roads and
Collectors for the purposes of the
NTCP.
•

School zones.
•

Identified locations with higher
collision rates.
•

Roadways with known speeding
concerns.
•

Varies based on level of effort
Cost
Implementation
Benefits:
•

Effective when officers are present.
•

Low impact to normal traffic.
•

Can increase the effectiveness of other
traffic calming devices.
•

Warnings and citations can promote
education regarding changes in driving
conditions or restrictions.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Improvements require time to occur
and may not be directly measurable.
•

Increased staff workload to manage
ongoing program.

6. Pace Car Program
Tier: III
A Pace Car program is a locally delivered, citizen-driven initiative that focuses on raising awareness of speed reduction in a community. Participants (motorists) are asked to sign a pledge and implement it into their driving habits. A bumper sticker is then sent to each participant, which identifies that the driver has agreed to drive courteously, at or below the posted speed limit, and follow other traffic laws.
•

Varies based on level of effort.
•

Cost of initial campaign; ongoing
program requires annual budget
allocation.

Cost
•

Can have citywide impacts.
•

Program should be published on a
City webpage.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Improve safety and livability of a
neighborhood.
•

Program is focused on the community as a
whole instead of one block or street.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Requires periodic maintenance/
increased maintenance costs.
•

Does not physically restrict vehicles
from speeding.

7. Edgeline/Centerline Striping
Tier: I
Striping provides definition to a roadway and visually creates an effect of narrower travel lanes, which encourages drivers to slow down. It helps prevent encroachment into parking lanes, opposing travel lanes, and bicycle lanes. Field verification is necessary to determine if application is justified; no additional data or engineering design is required. •

$3.00-$5.00 per linear-foot for new
markings and striping (6-inch stripe).
•

$2.00-$4.00 per linear-foot for
eradication of existing markings.

Cost
•

All road types, but should primarily
be considered on Local Roads and
Collectors for the purposes of the
NTCP.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Heightens awareness of travel space.
•

Potential reduction in travel speeds
between 1 and 5 mph where parallel
parking is added to narrow travel ways and
a reduction of 0.5 mph where shoulder
marking are used. (Source: FHWA)
•

No impact to emergency vehicles.
•

Low cost and fast to implement.
•

Uses a standard traffic control device easily
recognizable by motorists.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Requires periodic maintenance/
increased maintenance costs.
•

Does not physically restrict vehicles
from speeding.

8. Lane Narrowing
Tier: I
Lane narrowing reduces the width of the travel portion of a lane. Narrowed lanes can influence drivers to reduce their operating speed. It is accomplished by modifying longitudinal pavement markings resulting in a reduced lane width. Lane narrowing does not change the number of travel lanes on a roadway, but the modified pavement markings may provide a designated shoulder, bicycle lane, or a striped median on a roadway.
•

$3.00-$5.00 per linear-foot for new
markings and striping (6-inch stripe).
•

$2.00-$4.00 per linear-foot for
eradication of existing markings.

Cost
•

All road types, but should primarily
be considered on Local Roads and
Collectors for the purposes of the
NTCP.
•

Must consider effects on transit and
truck corridors.
•

Existing lane widths are ≥ 12 feet.
•

≤ 35 mph speed limit.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Potential reduction in travel speeds by an
average of 0.5 mph where shoulder markings
are used to narrow travel ways. (Source: FHWA)
•

Reduces exposure area for pedestrians and
bicyclists at crosswalks.
•

Uses a standard traffic control device easily
recognizable by motorists.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Requires periodic maintenance/
increased maintenance costs.
•

Does not physically restrict vehicles
from speeding.
•

Cannot be used to change a roadway’s
speed limit.

9. Speed Legends
Tier: I
Speed legends help indicate the speed limit of a roadway. They bring additional awareness where signage may not be posted or where a speed limit change occurs. Field verification is needed to determine if application is justified; no additional data or engineering design is required. •

$250-$550 per legend.

Cost
•

All road types, but should primarily
be considered on Local Roads and
Collectors for the purposes of the
NTCP.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Heightens awareness of roadway speed
limit.
•

Low cost and fast to implement.
•

Uses a standard traffic control device easily
recognizable by motorists.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Does not physically restrict vehicles
from speeding.
•

May become less effective over time or
if used too often.
•

Cannot be used to reduce the existing
speed limit without an engineering and
traffic survey.

10. Signage
Tier: I
Signs are installed at a location to bring awareness to driving speeds or to enhance user safety.

Warning signs can bring awareness to the presence of specific conditions such as a trail crossing, school zone, etc. Speed limit signs define the maximum enforceable speed of a given roadway. (Note: The speed limit is set based on geometric design and engineering and traffic surveys. A reduction to the speed limit would require an engineering and traffic survey and may need to be accompanied by changes in roadway geometry.)
•

$150-$200 per sign removal.
•

$250-$300 per sign and post removal.
•

$300-$500 per sign.
•

$500-$750 per sign and post.

Cost
•

All road types, but should primarily
be considered on Local Roads and
Collectors for the purposes of the
NTCP.
•

Locations where speeding occurs.
•

Along roadway curvature.
•

Bicycle and Pedestrian crossing
locations.
•

Schools zones.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Heightens awareness of roadway speed
limit.
•

Heightens awareness of the presence of
pedestrians and bicyclists.
•

Low cost and fast to implement.
•

Uses a standard traffic control device easily
recognizable by motorists.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Requires periodic maintenance/
increased maintenance costs.
•

Increases noise levels from traffic.
•

May impact bicyclists.

11. Bott’s Dots / Raised Strips / Textured Pavement
Tier: I
When applied on roads for traffic calming, transverse raised strips (Bott’s Dots or rumble strips) or indentations (textured pavement) in the roadway are installed across a travel lane to physically alert drivers to upcoming changes in the roadway, such as an upcoming stop sign or traffic signal.

They can also be used along horizontal curves to help reduce vehicles from drifting off course and can be used as a centerline to reduce encroachment into opposing travel lanes. This treatment is especially recommended under low-visibility conditions. •

Bott’s Dots or Rumble Strips: $3,000-
$4,000 per crossing / approach.
•

Raised Reflectors: $250 per reflector.
•

Textured Pavement: $70 per square-
foot.

Cost
•

Suitable for Local Roads, Collectors,
and some Arterials, but should
primarily be considered on Local
Roads and Collectors for the
purposes of the NTCP.
•

Recommended where roadway
characteristics change (significant
change in speed limit, horizontal
curve, end of highway, etc.)
•

10,000 vehicles per day.
•

≤ 35 mph speed limit.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Improves driver attentiveness to changes in
the roadway.
•

Improves safety under low-visibility
conditions.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Can lose enhanced effectiveness if used
too often.
•

Does not physically restrict vehicles
from speeding.

12. High-Visibility Crosswalks
Tier: I
High-visibility crosswalks typically consist of two stripes defining the width of a crosswalk with perpendicular ladder markings along its length. These facilities are considered “highly visible” because they guide pedestrians and can have up to double the detection distance (for drivers approaching the crosswalk) as compared to a standard crosswalk. High-visibility crosswalks can be implemented on their own or in conjunction with other enhancements, such as lighting, additional signage, and pavement markings.
•

$4,000-$7,500 per crossing.

Cost
•

Midblock crossings or at
intersections.
•

Within school zones.
•

Crossings with high bicycle and
pedestrian usage.
•

Roadways with limited lighting.
•

≤ 10,000 vehicles per day. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 35 mph speed limit. (Source:

FHWA)
Implementation
Benefits:
•

Enhances bicycle and pedestrian safety.
•

Improves driver awareness of crossing
locations.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Not aesthetically appealing.
•

May become less effective over time.
•

Does not physically restrict vehicles
from speeding.

13. Dynamic Speed Feedback Signs
Tier: II
Speed feedback signs are used as part of targeted location speed enforcement. Signs can be temporary or permanently fixed on street poles. These measures can be installed at locations to bring awareness to driver speeds and can enhance safety of all roadway users. •

$15,000 to $20,000 per sign, pole,
and foundation (based on power
source).

Cost
•

All road types, but should primarily
be considered on Local Roads and
Collectors for the purposes of the
NTCP.
•

School Zones.
•

Roadways with known speeding
concerns.
•

Areas with recurring speeding
problems.
•

Installation of permanent signs may
be impacted by the availabliliity of a
power source.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Provides immediate feedback.
•

Low-to-medium cost to implement with
high benefit.
•

Uses a standard traffic control device easily
recognizable by motorists.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Increased implementation and
maintenance costs.
•

Can lose enhanced effectiveness if used
too often.

14. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
Tier: II
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are flashing beacons that are used to warn drivers of crossing location such as midblock crossings, trail crossings, school crossings, and other situations where such cautions are warranted. Typically used on lower speed roadways, RRFBs enhance pedestrian crossings (especially at high visibility crosswalks) with high demand or vulnerable users. •

$20,000 to $100,000 per location
(may vary based on power source
and location).

Cost
•

Suitable for midblock locations with
high traffic volumes, school zones,
and crossings with high bicycle and
pedestrian usage.
•

≤ 12,000 vehicles per day. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 40 mph speed limit. (Source:

FHWA)
•

Typically for crossings between two
and four lanes. (Source: FHWA)
Implementation
Benefits:
•

Effective in alerting drivers to yield.
•

Enhances bicyclist and pedestrian
safety.
•

Can reduce pedestrian crashes by up to
47% and have yielding rates up to 98%.
(Source: FHWA & NCHRP)
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Varies by project.

15. Quick Build Projects
Tier: II
Quick build projects are interim capital improvements projects that are built with durable, low to moderate cost materials (such as fixed traffic delineators, pavement marking and striping, signage, and in some cases non-bonded / non-reinforced concrete or asphalt). Quick build projects have moderate design flexibility to anticipate some adjustments that may occur. Quick build projects can be used to test out a Tier III traffic calming measure and gage community opinion on a measure before committing to permanent installation. An example of a quick build project is a bulb-out constructed using flexible posts and striping rather than concrete. •

Varies by project, however quick
build projects tend to be substantially
cheaper than the permanent
equivalent measure.

Cost
•

Project dependent, but generally
suitable for Local Roads, Collectors,
and some Arterials. Should primarily
be considered on Local Roads and
Collectors for the purposes of the
NTCP.
•

May require Fire Department review/
approval.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Quicker implementation timelines.
•

Can be temporary or semi-permanent.
•

Can be used to gage community
opinion before committing to
permanent (concrete) installation of
Tier III measures.
•

Can be used as an interim condition
until permanent devices can be
constructed.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Varies by project.

16. Pilot Projects
Tier: II & IIb
Pilot Projects use a combination of temporary devices and measures (such as delineators, pavement marking and striping, signage, parking and loading adjustments, etc.) to help evaluate traffic calming benefits at a particular location or set of locations. These devices and measures can be adjusted periodically over a duration to observe impacts/benefits. Pilot projects are only temporary; they are not intended to be permanent solutions but may help the City decide whether to pursue permanent solutions later.
•

Varies by project, however pilot
projects tend to be substantially
cheaper than the permanent
equivalent measure.

Cost
•

Project dependent, but generally
suitable for Local Roads, Collectors,
and some Arterials. Should primarily
be considered on Local Roads and
Collectors for the purposes of the
NTCP.
•

May require Fire Department review/
approval.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Quicker implementation timelines.
•

Can be used to test multiple
configurations, or different measures.
•

Can be used to quantitatively measure
traffic calming benefits.
•

Can be used to gage community
opinion before committing to
permanent (concrete) installation of
Tier III measures.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Requires more consideration to
improve visibility at crossings and
intersections.
•

May impact bike lanes by creating
conflict between bicyclists and vehicles
backing out.

17. Angled Parking
Tier: IIb
Angled parking is the use of angular on-street parking spaces that are rotated between 30 and 90 degrees from the direction of travel. The specific angle varies based on location. Angled parking provides more parking spaces than traditional parallel parking by reducing the width of the travel lanes. Reductions in travel lane widths can reduce driver speeds. Compared to on-street parallel parking, angled parking makes parking maneuvers easier for drivers and provides a wider buffer between pedestrians on the sidewalk and moving vehicles in the travel lane. Special consideration must be made for accessible spaces (ADA).
•

$3.00-$5.00 per linear-foot for new
marking and striping.
•

$2.00-$4.00 per linear-foot for
eradication of existing markings.
•

$500-$750 per Sign and Post.

Cost
•

Suitable for downtown areas,
commercial or mixed-use areas, or
residential streets.
•

Suitable for areas with low bicycle
usage.
•

Requires special considerations for
compliance of ADA spaces.
•

Requires approval via ordinance
(NMC 10.36.130 and 10.36.140).
•

≤ 3,000 vehicles per day.
•

≤ 35 mph speed limit.
•

≥ 48 feet in roadway cross-section.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Can change the perception and
function of a street.
•

Reduces operating speeds.
•

Increases on-street parking capacity.
•

Creates a buffer between the sidewalk
and moving vehicles.
•

Can reduce pedestrian crossing
distances.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

May impact driveway access.
•

Increased implementation cost
compared to other traffic calming
measures.
•

Increased maintenance needs/costs.

18. Multimodal Road Reconfiguration (Road Diet)
Tier: IIb & III
A Multimodal Road Reconfiguration (commonly called a road diet) modifies the cross section of a roadway designated for vehicular use. This is accomplished by narrowing the width of the travel lanes and by reducing the total number lanes. Narrow lanes reduce operating speeds and reduce pedestrian crossing distances. Remaining pavement can be used to provide median islands, a two-way left-turn lane, pedestrian refuges, bike lanes, and/or on-street parking. An engineering evaluation is needed to assess site specific impacts.
•

Varies by project (based on location
and improvement type).

Cost
•

Commercial or Mixed-use areas.
•

Roadways with high bicycle usage.
•

Multilane roadways that are
underutilized.
•

May require Fire Department review/
approval.
•

≤ 25,000 vehicles per day (Source:

FHWA)
•

Four or more lanes (Source: FHWA)
Implementation
Benefits:
•

Reduces vehicular speeds by an
average speed of three to five mph
(Source: FHWA)
•

Provides opportunity to add or
enhance bicycle lanes.
•

Provides opportunity to add on-street
parking.
•

Promotes multi-modal transportation
use.
•

Provides opportunity to reduce
crossing distances at crosswalks.
•

Provides opportunity to enhance street
beautification.
•

Can reduce total crashes by 19-47%.
(Source: FHWA)
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Higher design and construction costs.
•

May impact bus and emergency vehicle
access.
•

May impact drainage without proper
engineering.

19. Bulbouts/Neckdowns
Tier: III
A corner bulbout, also called a neckdown or corner extension, are located at intersections to tighten the curb radii and decrease the width of the roadway. This reduces crossing distances for pedestrians, enhances safety and comfort, and may reduce vehicle speeds. •

$30-$50 per square-foot of concrete.
•

$80-$100 per linear-foot of curb and
gutter.
•

$6,000-$10,000 per curb ramp
•

Can vary in order to accommodate
drainage.

Cost
•

Suitable for downtown areas,
locations with high pedestrian
volumes, and in school zones
•

Street corners where extension of
sidewalk is recommended.
•

Not viable for roadways with high
posted speeds limits.
•

Not recommended at intersections
with high heavy truck traffic left or
right turns.
•

Appropriate dimensions may
accommodate bicyclists, bus, and
emergency vehicles.
•

Requires Fire Department review/
approval.
•

May be constructed as an interim
quick build project.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Decreases the overall width of the
roadway.
•

Increases visibility of pedestrians.
•

Reduces pedestrian crossing distances
and time.
•

Encourages slower turning speeds.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

May result in loss of on-street parking.
•

May impact bicyclists, bus, and
emergency vehicles.
•

Higher design and construction costs.
•

May impact drainage without proper
engineering.

20. Chokers/Pinchpoint
Tier: III
Chokers are midblock curb extensions that narrow a street by widening the public space through the addition of a wider sidewalk or a planting strip. Chokers can be installed on one or both sides of a street. This reduces crossing distance for pedestrians, enhances safety and comfort, and may reduce vehicle speeds.
•

$30-$50 per square-foot of concrete.
•

$80-$100 per linear-foot of curb and
gutter.
•

$50-$250 per delineator.
•

$500-$750 per sign and post.
•

Can vary in order to accommodate
drainage.

Cost
1 •

Suitable for wide residential streets
with persistent speeding concerns
or experiencing heavy cut-through
traffic.
•

Appropriate dimensions may
accommodate bicyclists, bus, and
emergency vehicles.
•

Requires Fire Department review/
approval.
•

≤ 35 mph speed limit. (Source:

FHWA)
•

May be constructed as an interim
quick build project.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Reduces operating speeds by between
1 and 4 mph. (Source: FHWA)
•

Reduces pedestrian crossing distances.
•

Enhances neighborhood aesthetic
appeal, especially when landscaping is
included.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Landscaping requires continuous
maintenance/increased maintenance
costs.
•

Higher design and construction costs.
•

Potential loss of on-street parking.

21. Center Island Narrowing/Pedestrian Refuges
Tier: III
Center islands are raised islands located along the centerline of a street that narrow the travel lanes at that location. When located adjacent to a pedestrian crossing they are often called pedes -
trian refuges. A pedestrian refuge allows for a two-stage pedestrian crossing on busy roadways and creates a narrowing effect on the vehicle travel lanes. The islands are typically landscaped and provide accompanying pedestrian crossing signage and striping. •

$30-$50 per square-foot of concrete.
•

$80-$100 per linear-foot of curb and
gutter.
•

$50-$250 per delineator.
•

$500-$750 per sign and post.

Cost
•

Suitable for wide residential streets
or collector streets with two-lane
bidirectional traffic and center
median (striped or concrete) (≤ 38
feet in cross-section)
•

Recommended for locations with
speeding complaints, with high
pedestrian volumes, or high vehicle
volumes.
•

Requires Fire Department review/
approval.
•

May be constructed as an interim
quick build project.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Reduced operating speeds by up to
four mph. (Source: FHWA)
•

Improves pedestrian crossing safety
with an estimated reduction in
pedestrian crashes between 46% and
56%. (Source: FHWA)
•

Provides opportunity for landscaping.
•

Enhances street aesthetics and may
serve as a gateway treatment.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Higher design and construction costs.

22. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Tier: III
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) are traffic control devices designed to help pedestrians safety cross high-speed roadways at midblock crossings and uncontrolled intersections. Typically used on higher speed roadways, PHBs enhance pedestrian crossings (especially at high visibility cross -
walks) with high demand or vulnerable users.
•

$250,000-$400,000 per location.

Cost
•

Suitable for midblock locations with
high traffic volumes, school zones,
and crossings with high bicycle and
pedestrian usage.
•

≥ 9,000 vehicles per day. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≥ 30 mph speed limit. (Source:

FHWA)
•

Typically for crossings spanning
three lanes or more. (Source: FHWA)
Implementation
Benefits:
•

Effective in alerting drivers to stop.
•

Enhances bicyclist and pedestrian
safety.
•

Can reduce pedestrian crashes by up to
55% and have a 29% reduction in total
crashes. Yielding rates are 96% and
better. (Source: FHWA)
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Higher design and construction costs.
•

Landscaping requires continuous
maintenance/increased maintenance
costs.
•

May impact bus and emergency vehicle
access.

23. Traffic Circles
Tier: III
Traffic circles are installed at small intersections to reduce speeding and cut-through traffic, and improve safety. They are smaller in size compared to traditional roundabouts yet serve similar purposes. Circles can be concrete or fully landscaped which beautifies the intersection and adds to neighborhood livability. They can be difficult for large vehicles (such as fire trucks and buses) to circumnavigate.
•

$25,000-$100,000 per intersection
(may vary based on size, drainage,
and materials used).

Cost
1 •

Recommended for two-lane
intersections on Local Roadways
with low left turning volume and low
heavy truck usage.
•

Recommended for locations with
elevated accident rates.
•

Not recommended at locations with
significant horizontal or vertical
curvature.
•

Not recommended on streets with
heavy truck traffic.
•

Appropriate dimensions may
accommodate bus and emergency
vehicles.
•

Requires Fire Department review/
approval.
•

≤ 7,000 vehicles per day. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 30 mph speed limit. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 8% grades. (Source: ITE)
•

May be constructed as an interim
quick build project.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Reduces the number of points where
vehicles can cross paths and eliminates
the potential for right-angle and head-
on collisions.
•

Reduces operating speeds at the
intersection.
•

Yield-controlled design means fewer
stops, less delay, shorter queues.
•

Provides opportunity to enhance street
aesthetic.
•

5-13 mph reduction in speeds within
200 feet; 1-6 mph in a greater vicinity.
(Source: FHWA)
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

May require right-of-way from adjacent
properties.
•

Higher design and construction costs.
•

Potential loss of on-street parking.

24. Roundabouts (Single-Lane)
Tier: III
Roundabouts are installed at intersections replacing traffic signals or stop controls. They are used on higher volume streets compared to where traffic circles are used. Roundabouts feature chan -
nelized, curved approaches that reduce vehicle speed, entry yield control that gives right-of-way to circulating traffic, and counterclockwise flow around a central island that minimizes conflict points. The reduction in vehicle speed and conflict points at roundabouts can reduce the fatal and severe injury collisions at an intersection. Roundabouts can be concrete, paved, or fully land -
scaped, which beautifies the intersection and adds to neighborhood livability. •

$500,000-$750,000 per location (may
vary based on size, drainage, and
materials used).

Cost
1 •

Suitable for Local Roads, Collectors,
and some Arterials.
•

Recommended for two-lane
intersections with low left turning
volume and low heavy truck usage.
•

Not recommended at locations with
significant horizontal or vertical
curvature.
•

Appropriate dimensions may
accommodate bicyclists, bus, and
emergency vehicles.
•

Requires Fire Department review/
approval.
•

≤ 20,000 vehicles per day. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 30 mph speed limit.
•

≤ 6% grades. (Source: ITE)

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Reduces the number of points where
vehicles can cross paths and eliminates
the potential for right-angle and head-
on crashes.
•

Reduces operating speeds at the
intersection.
•

Yield-controlled design means fewer
stops, less delay, shorter queues.
•

Provides opportunity to enhance street
aesthetic.
•

Converting a traditional intersection to
a roundabout results in a 78% to 82%
reduction in severe and fatal crashes.
(Source: FHWA)
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Potential loss of on-street parking.
•

Landscaping requires continuous
maintenance/increased maintenance
costs.
•

Higher design and construction cost.
•

May impact bus and emergency vehicle
access.

25. Lateral Shifts
Tier: III
Lateral shifts utilize curb extensions to produce a slight twist in the travel lanes on an otherwise straight street. The curb extensions cause the travel lanes to bend one way, then bend back the other way to the original direction of travel. This slight twist in the travel lanes reduces driver speed. Lateral shifts may be accompanied by a center median island to discourage drivers from deviating out of the appropriate lane.
•

$30-$50 per square-foot of concrete.
•

$80-$100 per linear-foot of curb and
gutter.
•

$3.00-$5.00 per linear-foot for new
marking and striping (6-inch stripe).
•

$50-$250 per delineator.

Cost
•

Appropriate for use on a single-lane,
one-way street and on a two-lane,
two-way street. (Source: FHWA)
•

All road types, but should primarily
be considered on Local Roads and
Collectors for the purposes of the
NTCP.
•

Not recommended for foggy
environments.
•

Requires Fire Department review/
approval.
•

≤ 35 mph speed limit (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 6% grades. (Source: ITE)
•

May be constructed as an interim
quick build project.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Reduces midblock travel speeds by
between 4 and 9 mph. (Source: ITE)
•

Discourages cut-through traffic.
•

Provides opportunity for landscaping.
•

Provides opportunity to enhance street
aesthetic.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Potential loss of on-street parking.
•

Higher design and construction costs.
•

May impact bus and emergency vehicle
access.
•

May impact drainage.

26. Chicanes
Tier: III
A curb or striped extension into the roadway that narrows the street forming S-shaped travel path.

Chicanes involve staggered placement of chokers on both sides of the road, creating a meander -
ing street. Chicanes can increase the amount of public space available on a corridor and can be activated using benches, bicycle parking, landscaping and other amenities. •

$30-$50 per square-foot of concrete.
•

$80-$100 per linear-foot of curb and
gutter.

Cost
1 •

Suitable for wide residential streets
and with persistent speeding
concerns.
•

Appropriate for use on a single-lane,
one-way street and on a two-lane,
two-way street. (Source: FHWA)
•

Not recommended for foggy
environments.
•

Appropriate dimensions may
accommodate bicyclists, bus, and
emergency vehicles.
•

Requires Fire Department review/
approval.
•

≤ 3,500 vehicles per day. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 35 mph speed limit. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 8% grades. (Source: ITE)
•

May be constructed as an interim
quick build project.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Reduces midblock travel speeds by
between 3 to 9 mph. (Source: FHWA)
•

Discourages cut-through traffic.
•

Provides opportunity for landscaping.
•

Provides opportunity to enhance street
aesthetic.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Speed reduction limited to within a few
hundred feet of the treatment.
•

Potential obstacle to all vehicles.
•

Increases noise and air pollution.
•

Delays emergency response vehicles
two to nine seconds per speed table
(two seconds for a firetruck and nine
seconds for an ambulance treating a
patient). (Source: FHWA)
•

May impact bus access.

27. Speed Table
Tier: III
Speed Table are vertical pavement deflections (typically 3.0 to 4.0 inches in height) with a raised parabolic shape that extend across the travel way perpendicular to traffic. Speed tables provide a vertical pavement change that raises the wheelbase of a vehicle to achieve speed reductions, but further, incorporate a flat-topped “table” area which provides for a relatively gentle transition. The flat-topped area is sized to accommodate the most typical vehicle wheelbase (usually a passenger car) but can be extended to accommodate other vehicles if desired. Speed tables may accommo -
date pedestrian crossings.
•

$10,000-$20,000 per installation (may
vary based on drainage).

Cost
•

Midblock along residential streets,
commercial streets, in the downtown
area, or in mixed-use developments.
•

Typically on one- or two-lane
roadways.
•

Special consideration must be
taken for bus, truck, and emergency
response routes.
•

Requires Fire Department review/
approval.
•

≤ 4,000 vehicles per day. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 30 mph speed limit. (Source:

FHWA)
•

May be constructed as an interim
quick build project.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

May accommodate pedestrian
crossings to enhance pedestrian
visibility and safety.
•

May reduce cut-through traffic.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Speed reduction limited to within a few
hundred feet of the treatment.
•

Potential obstacle to all vehicles.
•

Increases noise and air pollution.
•

May impact bus and emergency vehicle
access.

28. Speed Cushion
Tier: III
A speed cushion consists of two or more raised areas (typically 3.0 to 4.0 inches in height) placed laterally across a roadway. A speed cushion has gaps (often referred to as “cutouts”) between the raised areas to enable a vehicle with a wide track (e.g., a large emergency vehicle, some trucks, some buses) to pass though the feature without any vertical deflection. •

$5,000-$7,000 per installation (may
vary based on drainage).

Cost
•

Midblock along residential streets,
commercial streets, in the downtown
area, or in mixed-use developments.
•

Typically on one- or two-lane
roadways.
•

Special consideration must be
taken for bus, truck, and emergency
response routes.
•

Requires Fire Department review/
approval.
•

≤ 4,000 vehicles per day. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 30 mph speed limit. (Source:

FHWA)
•

May be constructed as an interim
quick build project.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Reduces midblock travel speeds by
between 5 and 7 mph (Source: FHWA)
•

Reduces cut-through traffic.
•

Bicyclists can pass through speed
cushion gaps.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

May impact bus and emergency vehicle
access.
•

Potential obstacle to all vehicles.
•

Increases noise and air pollution.
•

May impact drainage.

29. Raised Crosswalk
Tier: III
Raised crosswalks are elevated, flat-topped pedestrian crosswalks with vehicle ramps on the ap -
proaches. They are vertical deflections installed across a roadway to reduce speed and create a safer crossing environment for pedestrians by making them more visible to approaching drivers.

Raised crosswalks need to be marked well and may contain special paving or textures to enhance visibility.
•

$35,000-$50,000 per location (may
vary based on size, drainage, and
materials used).

Cost
•

Suitable for on residential street
(midblock).
•

Suggested near high pedestrian
activity areas such as schools,
shopping centers, recreational
facilities, parks, etc.
•

Requires adequate warning signs.
•

Special consideration must be
taken for bus, truck, and emergency
response routes.
•

Requires Fires Department review/
approval.
•

≤ 4,000 vehicle per day. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 30 mph speed limit. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 8% grades. (Source: ITE)
•

May be constructed as an interim
quick build project.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Enhances pedestrian visibility and
safety.
•

Slows driver speeds in vicinity.
•

May reduce cut-through traffic.
•

Allows for decorative treatment,
improving street character.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Higher design and construction costs.
•

Requires periodic maintenance/
increased maintenance costs.
•

May impact drainage at the
intersection.
•

May impact bus and emergency vehicle
access.

30. Raised Intersections
Tier: III
A raised intersection involves elevating the surface of an intersection to be at-grade with existing sidewalks. They require extensive design and improvements, and are useful in creating a safe “shared- zone,” where pedestrian and bicycle safety is enhanced. A raised intersection is similar to a raised crosswalk but the entire intersection is elevated by about 3.0 to 3.5 inches. •

$100,000-$200,000 per location (may
vary based on size, drainage, and
materials used).

Cost
•

Suitable for downtown areas,
locations with high pedestrian
volumes or with high vehicle speeds.
•

Requires Fire Department review/
approval.
•

≤ 10,000 vehicles per day. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 30 mph speed limit. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 8% grades. (Source: ITE)
Implementation
Benefits:
•

Can reduce vehicle speeds navigating
the intersection between 0.3 and 1
mph. (Source: ITE and FHWA)
•

Improves pedestrian and bicycle safety.
•

Provides traffic calming on all
connecting streets at the intersection.
•

Improves roadway character and place
making.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

May require longer routes for vehicles.
•

May impact bus and emergency vehicle
access.

31. Forced Turn Islands
Tier: III
Forced turn islands, also called forced turn channelization, pork chops, or right-turn islands, re -
strict traffic from marking certain turning movements when approaching an intersection. They can be used to remove potential conflict points, divert traffic to desired routes, or away from specific neighborhood access points.
•

$30-$50 per square-foot of concrete.
•

$80-$100 per linear-foot of curb and
gutter.
•

$6,000-$10,000.00 per curb ramp.
•

$50-$250 per delineator.
•

$500-$750 per sign and post.

Cost
•

Intersections with high collision
rates.
•

Suitable for Local Roads, Collectors,
and Arterials, but should primarily
be considered on Local Roads and
Collectors for the purposes of the
NTCP.
•

Recommended for locations with
speeding concerns and where
limited access is desired.
•

Requires Fire Department review/
approval.
•

≤ 25 mph speed limit. (Source:

FHWA)
•

35% non-local traffic.
•

May be constructed as an interim
quick build project.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Reduce cut-through traffic.
•

Restrict undesired left turning
movements.
•

Can provide a refuge for pedestrians.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

May divert traffic to surrounding
streets.
•

May impact emergency vehicle access.
•

Higher design and construction costs.

32. Diagonal Diverters
Tier: III
Diagonal diverters restrict vehicular through movements from occurring at an intersection by allowing only left- or right-turns. They are considered permanent features through installation of barriers or a concrete island. They are usually staggered to create circuitous routes through neighborhoods.
•

$30-$50 per square-foot of concrete.
•

$80-$100 per linear-foot of curb and
gutter.
•

$6,000-$10,000 per curb ramp.
•

$50-$250 per delineator.
•

$500-$750 per sign and post.

Cost
•

Suitable for residential streets and
locations where limited access is
desired.
•

Requires Fire Department review/
approval.
•

≤ 3,500 vehicles per day. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≥ 35% non-local traffic (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 25 mph speed limit. (Source:

FHWA)
•

May be constructed as an interim
quick build project.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Reduces cut-through traffic.
•

Reduces vehicles speeds.
•

Can accommodate bicycle and
pedestrian access.
•

Provides safer environment for
pedestrians and bicyclists.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

May divert traffic to surrounding
streets.
•

May impact emergency vehicle access.
•

Higher design and construction costs.

33. Partial Closures/Half-Street Closures
Tier: III
Partial closures, also known as half-street closures, are permanent street closures through instal -
lation of barriers or concrete curb treatments. Half-street closure usually describes a street closed from one direction that allows traffic in the opposite direction. •

$30-$50 per square-foot of concrete.
•

$80-$100 per linear-foot of curb and
gutter.
•

$6,000-$10,000 per curb ramp.
•

$50-$250 per delineator.
•

$500-$750 per sign and post.

Cost
•

Suitable for residential streets and
locations where limited access is
desired.
•

Appropriate dimensions may
accommodate emergency vehicles.
•

Requires Fire Department review/
approval.
•

≤ 3,500 vehicles per day. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 25 mph speed limit. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≥ 35% non-local traffic.
•

May be constructed as an interim
quick build project.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Reduces cut-through traffic.
•

Can accommodate bicycle and
pedestrian access.
•

Provides safer environment for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
•

6 mph reduction in speeds. (Source:

FHWA)
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa List of Traffic Calming Measure
Disadvantages:
•

Diverts traffic to surrounding streets.
•

Impacts emergency vehicle access.
•

Higher design and construction costs.
•

Causes circuitous routes with limited
access points.

34. Full Closures
Tier: III
Full-street closures are permanent street closures through installation of barriers, landscape is -
lands, or concrete curb treatments. Full-street closure describes a street closed with a dead end for vehicle traffic but typically allow pedestrian and bicycle access. •

$30-$50 per square-foot of concrete.
•

$80-$100 per linear-foot of curb and
gutter.
•

$6,000-$10,000 per curb ramp.
•

$50-$250 per delineator.
•

$500-$750 per sign and post.

Cost
1 •

Suitable for residential streets and
locations where limited access is
desired.
•

Not suitable for emergency response
unless alternative routes are readily
available.
•

Requires Fire Department review/
approval.
•

Requires City Council approval.
•

Appropriate dimensions may
accommodate cyclists.
•

≤ 4,000 vehicles per day. (Source:

FHWA)
•

≤ 30 mph speed limit. (Source:

FHWA)
•

35% non-local traffic.
•

May be constructed as an interim
quick build project.

Implementation
Benefits:
•

Prevents cut-through traffic.
•

Can accommodate bicycle and
pedestrian access.
•

Provides safer environment for
pedestrians and cyclists.
•

3 mph reduction in speeds. (Source:

FHWA)
1 : Costs reflected above are approximations. Project/countermea -
sure costs may substantially change based on field conditions.

Design plans developed by the City’s Public Works Department will be used to more accurately estimate implementation costs.

ATTACHMENT 4

APPENDIX B: PETITION
FORM

APPENDIX B

APPLICATION FORM
ATTACHMENT 4

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM
Application for Evaluation

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM (NTCP) - APPLICATION FOR EVALUATION PAGE
1 OF
5 Information on filling out the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) Application Form is provided from pages 1 to 3. The application form is provided on page 4 to 5. Please fill in as much detail as possible to help the City staff review.

For any application, one community member will be designated as a primary point of contact to coordinate with the City. This person will fill out this section with their contact information.

Detailed information regarding the concern will need to be provided. This includes if the concern is located at an intersection (ex. Berks Street and Dover Street) or pertains to a roadway segment (ex. Wilson Street from Laurel Street to Palmer Street). One application form is required per concern location.

The types of primary concerns that the NTCP is intended to address include cut-through traffic, vehicular speeding, limited roadway visibility, pedestrian safety, bicycle safety, and roadway safety. Applications not related to the above will not be accepted for review by the City.

Primary Point of Contact
Concern Location
The NTCP is intended to address concerns on neighborhood streets. The process is not intended to be used on the City’s primary arterial system. In order to determine applicability the following two criteria
must
be met:
•

The roadway is classified as a “collector” or “local street” as specified in the City of Napa 2040 General Plan (or most recent version), and
•

Posted speed limit of the roadway is 35 miles per hour or less.

The road classification may be found in the City’s General Plan, which is available on the City’s website at
https://napa2040.com/
, in Figure 3-1 Future Roadway Network.

Based on the type of concern, the following criteria will also be evaluated by the City to determine applicability:
•

The roadway meets the following vehicles per day (vpd) threshold:

o Local Streets: 500 vpd or greater

o Collector: 1,000 vpd or greater.
•

Road segments must be longer than 500 feet.
•

85th-percentile speed of traffic exceeds the posted speed limit by at least 5 mph. •

Has a documented crash history.
•

Located in a school zone or along a bike route.

NTCP Applicability
ATTACHMENT 4

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM
Application for Evaluation

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM (NTCP) - APPLICATION FOR EVALUATION PAGE
2 OF
5 To initiate an evaluation for traffic calming, the primary point of contact must attain signatures from at least 20 percent of residents within a block/blocks where a traffic calming evaluation is being requested. Only one signature per property is counted for the neighborhood support requirement. If there is a condominium or apartment building, each unit is considered a separate “property.” For example, if there are 22 households and one retail store in a block, at least five signatures must be collected. Please use page 5 and 6 to gather signatures. Use additional copies of page 6 as necessary to collect additional signatures.

Note: In accordance with Section 2.4 of the NTCP Guidelines and Procedures document, additional support (60%) is required for Tier IIb and Tier III measures. If applicable, the City will coordinate with the primary point of contact on this.

For determining the signature collection boundary:

If a traffic concern pertains to a roadway segment, then the study area will include that block, into the intersections at either end, but will not continue through the intersections.

If the traffic concerns are at an intersection, then the study area will include all street segments touching that intersection as far as the next intersection.

Neighborhood Support Section
Street
Parcel/Household
Segment Concern
Study Area
Street
Parcel/Household
Intersection Concern
Study Area
ATTACHMENT 4

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM
Application for Evaluation

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM (NTCP) - APPLICATION FOR EVALUATION PAGE
3 OF
5 Please submit the completed application by email or postal service. The application form and signature page(s) may be emailed to
[email protected]

with the subject line

“Traffic Calming Application”. Applications may also be submitted by mailing the application to:

Public Works Department, City of Napa
Attn: NTCP
1600 First Street,
Napa, CA 94559
If you have any questions regarding the application process, please contact City staff by emailing
[email protected]
or by calling the City’s Public Works department (707) 257- 9520.

Application Submittal
Questions and Additional Information
ATTACHMENT 4

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM
Application for Evaluation

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM (NTCP) - APPLICATION FOR EVALUATION PAGE
4 OF
5 Primary Point of Contact
Concern Information
Application Submittal
Name
Street Name
Street Name
Intersection:

Segment:

Or
Via Email:

[email protected]
Subject Line:

“Traffic Calming Application”
Via Mail:

Public Works Department, City of Napa
ATTN: NTCP
1600 First Street

Napa, CA 94559
For more information, please visit the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program website, email at
[email protected]
, or call (707) 257-9520.

Types of Concerns (
Select all that apply
):

Please provide detailed information about your concern(s):

Please submit the completed application by email or postal service.

Street Address
Email Address
Phone Number
Zip Code
and
Street Name
Cross Street
Cross Street
from
to
Cut-through Traffic
Bicycle Safety
Vehicular Speeding
Roadway Visibility
Vehicular Safety
Pedestrian Safety
Other
ATTACHMENT 4

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM

CITY OF NAPA
Signature Form
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM - SIGNATURE PAGE ________ OF ________ We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City of Napa to proceed with the evaluation of the listed locations.

Please include the Primary Contact signature in Line #1. Use additional copies of this sheet as necessary to collect more signatures.

Concern Information
Or
Types of Concerns (
Select all that apply
):

Bicycle Safety
Vehicular Speeding
Cut-through Traffic
Pedestrian Safety
Roadway Visibility
Vehicular Safety
Other
Street Name
Street Name
Street Name
Cross Street
Cross Street
Intersection:
and
from
to
Segment:
#
Resident Name
Address
Signature
Email (Optional)
Phone (Optional)
ATTACHMENT 4

APPENDIX C:

INFORMATION

ON BACKGROUND

STUDIES AND BEST

PRACTICES

APPENDIX C

INFORMATION ON

BACKGROUND STUDIES

AND BEST PRACTICES
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Information on Background Studies and Best Practices Information on Background Studies and Best Practices
The following Appendix provides additional information on traffic calming and safety literature and best practices that were used in the revision of the Napa NT CP.

C.1 Street Smarts Program
Developed by the City of San Jose in 2002, the Street Smarts program is an extensive traffic safety education campaign to change motorist behaviors regardless of traffic calming measures and make streets more accessible and safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. The program aims to reduce vehicle speed and enhance neighborhood street safety using sound engineering, practical education, and proactive enforcement strategies. The program offers multilingual courses in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese that operate on the grassroots level in schools and neighborhoods. The courses involve educational booklets, safety videos, classroom training, and select traffic safety events that improve users’ skills in all age groups, whether driving, walking, or bicycling. San Jose’s Street Smarts Initiative may have contributed to a significant reduction in injury crashes along city streets since the program’s inception. The rate of injury crashes per 1,000 residents dropped from 4.5 in 2002 to 2.4 in 2014 – a 47 percent reduction.

The Street Smarts program comprises three hours of driving, pedestrian, and bicycle behavior education along with a Neighborhood Kit that includes lawn signs, safety tips, driving quizzes, bumper stickers, and other educational materials. The media campaign includes radio messages at peak hours, print articles in magazines, and posters on transit shelters and bus backs. The San Jose Sharks team also promotes the program by displaying messages at their events. For schools, the Street Smarts Back-to-School Traffic Safety Committee partners with City Departments and American Automobile Association (AAA) and distributes flyers to students and parents.

Enforcement in school zones is also established. Along with flyers and banners, the campaign also organizes events for school students to teach safe practices.

With the program’s success, the City of San Jose offered to provide Street Smarts branding and related intellectual resources to other cities at no cost. Many cities across California have rolled out their own Street Smarts program utilizing San Jose’s theme. Some of the agencies are as follows:
•

San Ramon Valley Street Smarts – includes the City of San Ramon, the Town of Danville, Contra Costa County, and the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, •

Cities of San Francisco, Davis, Santa Rosa, Napa, Benicia, Cupertino, and Salinas, •

Transportation Authority of Marin,
•

West Contra Costa County Safe Communities Program,
•

Santa Clara County Traffic Safe Communities Network, and •

Monterey County Health Department.

Besides, several cities across the nation have initiated their own Street Smarts programs reflecting local branding preferences and approaches.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Information on Background Studies and Best Practices C.2 Vision Zero Initiatives
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Report System (FARS), approximately 40,000 people – the population of a small city - are killed on the streets all over the nation every year. In 2020 alone, 6,516 pedestrians and 938 cyclists were fatally involved in roadway crashes, accounting for 19 percent of all fatalities nationally. In California, 3,847 fatalities were reported in 2020, of which 1,167 involved non-motorists (30 percent).

There has been a steady rise in such fatalities over the last ten years. The significant loss of life exacts a tragic toll, extending beyond personal
loss to deep community impacts, including
personal economic costs and emotional trauma
to those suffering; and significant taxpayer
spending on emergency response and long-
term healthcare costs. And because so many fear
for their safety on our streets, there is no true
freedom of mobility, and, as a result, leading to a
compromise in public health.

The Vision Zero initiative believes that traffic
deaths are preventable and that we should
account for human mistakes; saving lives is not
expensive. Thus, with a commitment to traffic
safety for all users and eliminating fatalities from
all transportation modes, the Vision Zero initiative
was established in Sweden in 1997. Following its
global success, many cities in the US, such as New York, Chicago, Portland, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and Seattle, have adopted vision zero guidelines. Other national programs have since been established such as Towards Zero Deaths (promoted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and numerous state Departments of Transportation (DOTs)) and the Road to Zero Coalition (managed by the National Safety Council (NSC) and which ITE is a steering group member).

In Napa, during the five years between January 2016 and December 2020, there have been 1,207 reported injury-related crashes on City of Napa roads. A breakdown by crash severity and roadway facility is presented in
Table 1
. Of the total crashes, 123 involved pedestrians (10 percent), and 104 involved bicyclists (nine percent). Seven of the 12 fatal crashes involved non-motorists.

Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) lead the development of a countywide Vision Zero Plan for all Napa County jurisdictions, including the City of Napa. This Plan was adopted in October 2023 by the NVTA Board. In January 2024, Napa City Council adopted a resolution supporting the Napa Valley Transportation Authority Vision Zero Plan and its goal of eliminating traffic collisions resulting in severe injuries or fatalities in Napa County by 2030. https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/ ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Information on Background Studies and Best Practices Table C1. City of Napa Collisions by Severity and Facility Type (2016 – 2020) 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
Portland, OR
Although Portland’s traffic fatality rate is one of the lowest in the country, the City intends to achieve zero deaths or serious injuries as they feel that “One Death on Our Streets is Too Many.” Through their Vision
Zero initiative, they aim to develop and implement a
multi-faceted approach that is safe and easy to use by
people of all ages, while providing safe and affordable transportation options. Portland aims to achieve this in ten years through:
•

Street Design that encourages safe behavior
and offers facilities to accommodate all travel
modes;
•

Complete Street network that supports the
most vulnerable users like pedestrians and
bicyclists through separation, and speed reduction;
•

Educate the population who respect and protect one another as they share streets; and •

Enforcement of traffic safety laws with a focused effort on high-crash roadway segments and places with the most vulnerable users.

San Diego, CA
With more people walking and biking, the City of San Diego has taken the initiative to achieve zero fatalities by 2025. The City’s Vision Zero plan aims at reducing traffic deaths to zero by deploying various engineering, educational, and enforcement strategies. Among many other initiatives, the plan includes adopting a Complete Streets Policy, updating the Comprehensive Pedestrian Crossing Policy, completing the Citywide Sidewalk Assessment, the launch of a Safety Education Program, and increasing enforcement in school zones. https:/ /www.portland.gov/transportation/vision-zero
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Information on Background Studies and Best Practices Seattle, WA
The City of Seattle considers safety for people walking and biking as its top priority. The City aims to commit to a goal of zero fatalities by 2030. Thus, the Vision Zero initiative, through context- sensitive engineering and thoughtful enforcement patrols, streets would be redesigned to reduce risks and improve conditions for everyone. This would be achieved by integrating safety efforts recommended in Pedestrian, Bicycle, Transit, and Freight Master Plans with targeted educational outreach to address behavioral issues.

Los Angeles, CA
Through its Vision Zero initiative, the City of Los Angeles pledged to achieve zero traffic deaths by 2025. The Initiative anchors in a data-driven approach that identifies proven methods and solutions to decrease traffic deaths by designing and operating a road system that accounts for human error. The City believes that although human error is unpredictable, traffic deaths are preventable. For a safe system, engineering, education, enforcement, and evaluation are essential with human life as the priority. Analysis of collision data found that children, seniors, pedestrians, and bicyclists were most prone to fatal and severe injuries.

Towards Zero Deaths
Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) is a national strategy on
highway safety to advocate for eliminating serious
injuries and deaths on our nation’s roadways,
conceptualized by safety practitioners, researchers,
advocates, and others from a variety of disciplines.

The strategy calls for all stakeholders to champion
the idea that one death on our nation’s roadways is
too many, and we must all work together to bring
the annual number of roadway deaths down to zero.

Developed under the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program’s (NCHRP) Report 17-
64, Guidance for the Implementation of the Toward
Zero Deaths National Strategy on Highway Safety,
provides a framework for implementing the TZD
National Strategy at state and local levels. The road
map offers implementation guidance and a checklist
of short- and long-term action steps:
•

Zero Vision and Goal Setting;
•

Leadership and Safety Culture;
•

Supporting Program Structure;
•

Key Partner / Stakeholder Engagement and Communication; •

Technical Assistance and Training;
•

Focus on Safety Priorities and Strategies; and
•

Implementation and Progress Monitoring.
https://www.towardzerodeaths.org/implementing-
the-national-strategy/
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Information on Background Studies and Best Practices Road to Zero Coalition
The Road to Zero Coalition recently released a comprehensive report laying out strategies to end roadway deaths in the U.S. by 2050. It is the first time so many organizations have collaborated to put forth a plan to address motor vehicle fatalities, which recently increased after years of decline.

The Coalition identified three main initiatives to reduce roadway fatalities:
•

Double down on what works through proven, evidence-based strategies; •

Advance life-saving technology in vehicles and infrastructure; and •

Prioritize safety by adopting a safe systems approach and creating a positive safety culture.

In the short term, the Coalition stresses enforcing and strengthening current traffic safety laws, providing new resources for traffic safety researchers and practitioners, and supporting those who design and build roads and vehicles.

C.3 Traffic Calming ePrimer
The Traffic Calming ePrimer is an online resource openly available for public use that was developed by the FHWA in coordination with ITE. The ePrimer presents a thorough review of current traffic calming practices and is presented in eight distinct modules. The ePrimer presents:
•

A definition of traffic calming, its purpose, and its relationship to other transportation initiatives (like complete streets and context-sensitive solutions); •

Illustrations and photographs of 22 different types of traffic calming measures; •

Considerations for their appropriate application, including effects and design and installation specifics;
•

Research on the effects of traffic calming measures on mobility and safety for passenger vehicles; emergency response, public transit, and waste collection vehicles; and pedestrians and bicyclists;
•

Examples and case studies of both comprehensive traffic calming programs and neighborhood-specific traffic calming plans; and
•

Case studies that cover effective processes used to plan and define a local traffic calming program or project and assessments of the effects of individual and series of traffic calming measures.

Many components of the Traffic Calming ePrimer are incorporated into the City of Napa’s NTCP.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Information on Background Studies and Best Practices C.4 Speed Management
Speeding - traveling too fast for conditions or exceeding the posted speed limits - is a contributing factor in 26 percent of all fatalities. In 2020, there were nearly 40,000 fatalities on our Nation’s roadways, of which 11,258 were speeding-related. Speeding is a safety concern on all roads and for all road users. Although much of the public concern about speeding has been focused on high-speed Interstates, only 14 percent (1,344) occurred on interstate highways, rural and urban combined, while 86 percent of speeding-related fatalities occurred on non-interstate roadways. The FHWA maintains a database of references on speed management policy setting, implementation, recommendations, and impacts.

Speeding needs to be assessed in terms of context (place-setting), driver perception, and the physical attributes of the street network. Changing a speed limit on a roadway should never be considered without a proper engineering study; simply lowering the speed limit is not always enough to slow drivers—a wide travel lane design and unobstructed views on many city streets encourage speeding by making drivers feel that it is safe to speed.

In the City of Napa, 22 percent of all reported collisions between 2016 and 2020 were related to unsafe speeds (Source: City of Napa’s Local Road Safety Plan).

C.5 Complete Streets
A Complete Street is safe, and also feels safe, for all users. The majority of States and hundreds of local jurisdictions have adopted Complete Streets policies. The FHWA supports these transportation agencies plan, implement and evaluate equitable streets and networks that prioritize safety, comfort, and connectivity to destinations for all people who use the street network.

Complete Streets serve pedestrians, cyclists, public transportation users, children, older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles. A Complete Streets implementation strategy combines innovations from multiple disciplines to achieve the creation of safe, connected, and equitable street networks.

Complete Streets implementation starts with people, not transportation mode. The elements of a Complete Street vary based on community context and the role that a particular street needs to serve in the multimodal network. Not every street requires bicycle lanes or public transportation stops. Instead, creating a safe, connected, and equitable Complete Streets network is an iterative strategy that involves:
•

Understanding the community and network context;
•

Identifying safety, connectivity, and equity concerns;
•

Implementing improvements over time; and
•

Evaluating impacts by monitoring and measuring success.

ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Information on Background Studies and Best Practices Complete streets strategies often lead to roadway cross-section reallocation. Different stakeholders and users view prospective street redesigns from the lenses of their own experiences, preferences, and needs. When practitioners paint a complete picture of the outcomes of a potential street redesign, they help stakeholders and users comprehend other perspectives.

Some key roadway design principles identified in the National Associations of City Transportation Officials’ (NATCO) Global Street Design Guide include:
•

Street for Everyone;

•

Streets are Multimodal;
•

Streets for Safety;

•

Streets as Ecosystems;
•

Streets are Multidimensional Spaces;

•

Greets Streets Create Value;
•

Streets for Health;

•

Streets for Context;
•

Streets are Public Spaces;

•

Streets can Change.

ATTACHMENT 4

APPENDIX D:

COMMUNITY INPUT

SUMMARY

APPENDIX D

COMMUNITY INPUT

SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT 4

City of Napa Information on Background Studies and Best Practices Community Input Summary
The development of the revised Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) included community engagement as the foundation of the planning process. Over the course of the project, three series of community workshops with a total of 11 individual community meetings were held to discuss the NTCP and collect community input. The total combined attendance at these in-person and virtual workshops exceeded two hundred participants. In addition to community workshop meetings, an online map tool and online feedback form were provided to collect community input, and updates on the work efforts were presented at the City of Napa Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission (BPAC) meetings over the course of the project.

Community Workshop #1 consisted of five individual community meetings. These five meetings were intended to be a listening session and provide an opportunity for community members to voice their concerns and ideas related to traffic safety in their neighborhoods. For community members not able to attend the Community Workshop #1 meetings, an online map toll was set up where community members could input their traffic concerns. The following Community Input Summary presents the input collected via the Community Workshop #1 meetings and the online map tool.

ATTACHMENT 4

COMMUNITY IMPUT SUMM
ARY

Traffic Concerns by Type

169
138
72 27
25 19
18 18
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
Speeding
Pedestrian
Safety
Bicycle
Safety
Design
Constraints
Lighting and
Visibility
Intersection
Control
Issues
Cut Through
Control
Type
Violation
Reported Concerns
Concern Category
City of Napa Community Input Summary
ATTACHMENT 4

C
itywide Roadway with Highest Reported Concerns

(Includes Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials,
Coll
e
ctors, and Local Roads)

NT
CP
-
Focused Roadways with Highest Reported Concerns

(Includes Collectors and Local Roads)

43 28
26 17
17 17
16 16
15 12
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 Jefferson
Street
Imola
Avenue
Redwood
Road
3rd Street
California
Boulevard
Linda
Vista
Avenue
1st Street
Browns
Valley
Road
Silverado
Trail
Trower
Avenue
Reported Concerns
Roadways
17 11
11 10
8 7
7 7
7 6
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Linda
Vista
Avenue
Coombs
Street
Shurtleff
Avenue
Buhman
Avenue
Laurel
Street
Clay
Street
East
Avenue
Main
Street
Sierra
Avenue
Solano
Avenue
Reported Concerns
Roadways
City of Napa Community Input Summary
City of Napa Community Input Summary
ATTACHMENT 4