18 » Curb extensions: extension of the sidewalk at a
crossing location meant to shorten crossing
distances and reduce driver speeds.
» Raised crosswalks: slow traffic and improve
motorists yielding to pedestrians.
» Crossing islands: raised island located in the
middle of a crossing to allow pedestrians to
cross one lane of traffic at a time.
Existing Active
Transportation Network
The active transportation network detailed in this
section identifies dedicated pedestrian and bicycle
facilities in Napa County. It is important to note that many residents who rely on active modes of
transportation travel along the road network
regardless of the presence of active transportation
facilities.
Existing Bicycle Network
Napa County’s existing bicycle facilities include
denser networks of bicycle lanes, routes, and paths
in more heavily populated areas with more limited
connections through rural areas. Table 2.2 below
lists the total mileage of each bicycle facility type by jurisdiction within Napa County. The countywide
bicycle network is mapped in Figure 2.5 through
Figure 2.21. Data collection for existing facilities
occurred in 2024; more recently completed facilities
may not appear on maps or in mileage counts.
The on-street bikeway network provides both intracity and regional bicycle connections. Many of the County’s bike lanes are in the City of Napa. These
bike lanes are typically located on primary arterials
and collectors with higher vehicle capacity and
speeds. Bike lanes (Class II) are also present on some
rural roadways, such as SR 29 and Silverado Trail,
where the road shoulder is designated as the bike
lane.
Bicycle Routes (Class III) and unclassified bicycle
routes are present throughout incorporated and
unincorporated parts of the County. The City of Napa
has the most bicycle routes of all incorporated
jurisdictions. Unclassified bicycle routes are common
throughout the unincorporated County. Bicycle
routes in the unincorporated County are primarily
located west of American Canyon and east of the
City of Napa.
The off-street shared-use path network centers
around the Vine Trail, which currently has segments
between Calistoga and St. Helena, and through the
Town of Yountville and the City of Napa and includes
other recreational facilities. Other off-street path
networks provide regional bicycle connections
between communities, as well as within some
jurisdictions such as the City of Napa, American
Canyon, and the Town of Yountville.
Table 2.2: Napa Countywide Existing Bicycle Facility Mileage Jurisdiction
Shared Use
Paths
(Class I)
Separated
Bikeways
(Class IV)
Bicycle
Lanes
(Class II) *
Bicycle
Routes
(Class III) *
Unclassified
Bicycle
Routes
Total
City of Calistoga 2.3 1.6 3.5 0.4 7.8
City of St Helena 1.3 1.8 0.6 0.9 4.6
Town of Yountville 2.4 0.7 0.4 3.5
City of Napa 18.6 1.9 28.4 5.3 54.2
City of American Canyon 11.0 6.0 1.1 1.9 20.0
County of Napa 11.5 52.2 5.1 14.7 83.5
Total 47.0 1.9 90.7 16.0 17.9 173.6
*In this table, buffered bicycle lanes are included under Bicycle Lanes (Class II) and rural bicycle routes, and bicycle boulevard are included under Bicycle Routes (Class III).
Lake Berryessa
American
Canyon
Calistoga
Napa
St. Helena
Yountville SODA
CANYON
RD
DRY CREEK RD
SAGE CANYON RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE RD
ATLAS
PEAK
RD
WOODEN VALLEY RD
POPE CANYON RD
29 128
128
221 12
121
29 80
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.5
Napa Countywide
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course
DUNAWEAL LN
MORA AVE
PETRIFIED FOREST RD
MYRTLEDALE RD
WASHINGTON ST
GREENWOOD AVE
CHAMPAGNE N
GRANT ST
MYRTLE ST
LAKE ST
FOOTHILL BLVD
TUBBS LN
FAIR WAY
N OAK ST
CEDAR ST
PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL
DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD
ROSEDALE RD
KORTUM CANYON RD
LINCOLN AVE
BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN
PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.6
City of Calistoga
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
Crane Park
Stonebridge Park
SILVERADO TRL
CHAIX LN
DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE
ZINFANDEL LN
PRATT AVE
MADRON A A V E
FULTON LN
SPRI N G
ST
ADAMS ST POPE ST
VALLEJO ST
DEER PARK RD
MAIN ST
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD
MEADOWOOD LN
WHITEHALL LN
INGLEWOOD AVE
CRANE AVE
SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE
GRAYSON AVE
OAK AVE
WHITE LN
SPRING MOUNTAIN RD
HUNT AVE
W ZINFANDEL LN
BIG ROCK RD
DEAN YORK LN
CABERNET LN
SYLVANER AVE
HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
LEWELLING AVE
WHITEHALL LN
MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.7
City of St. Helena
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUTE
Vineyard Park
R ALEMEDA
CALIFORNIA DR
MISSION ST
FORRESTER LN HEATHER ST
YO
UNT ST
OAK CIR
YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD
JEFFERSON ST
SAN ANTONIO ST
PRESIDENTS CIR
FINNELL RD
CHAMPAGNE DR
LANDE WAY
YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
AVE
MADISON ST
CALIFORNIA
DR
WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR
VINEYARDCIR
MULBERRY ST
HERITAGE WAY
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
VINEYARD VIEW DR
IMPERIAL RD
INNER ALEMEDA
LAND LN
WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.8
Town of Yountville
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
Skyline Wilderness Park
Alston Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
Westwood
Hills Park
Trancas Crossing
Park
HILLCREST DR
NAPA
RIVER
TRAIL
TROWER AVE
PUEBLO AVE
PINE ST
1ST ST
SOLANO AVE
WINE COUNTRY AVE
EASTAVE
1ST
AVE
WITHERS RD
DRY CREEK RD
SOSCOL FERRY RD
BROWNS VALLEY RD
JEFFERSON ST
GRANDVIEW DR
BROWN ST
LAS AMIGAS RD
OAK ST
IMOLA AVE
FOSTER RD
ATLAS PEAK RD
TWIN OAKS
DR
CEDAR DR
CONGRESSVALLEY RD
BASALT RD
SILVERADO
TRL
DEVLIN RD
CALIFORNIA
BLVD
MAIN ST
SHURTLEFF AVE
SCENIC DR
COOMBS ST
HAGEN RD
SOSCOL AVE
THOMPSON AVE
2ND ST
3RD ST
LINCOLN AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
GOLDEN GATE DR
OLIVE HILL LN
LAUREL ST
REDWOOD RD
W IMOLA AVE
ORCHARDAVE
W PUEBLO AVE
MONTECITO BLVD
VICHYAVE
PARTRICK RD
DUHIG RD
TRANCAS ST
OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY LN
STANLY CROSSROAD
BIG RANCH RD
LINDA VISTAAVE
LOS CARNEROS AVE
BUHMAN AVE
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
DEALY LN
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
221
121
121
12 12
29 29
29 FIGURE 2.9
City of Napa
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
School
City Limits
County Limits
Alston Park
Westwood
Hills Park
JEFFERSON ST
LAUREL ST
SOLANO AVE
WINE COUNTRY AVE
CALIFORNIA
BLVD
CONGRESS VALLEYRD
DRY CREEK RD
1ST ST
BROWNS VALLEY RD
KATHLEEN DR
EL CENTRO AVE
TWIN OAKS DR
LONE OAK AVE
W PARK AVE
W LINCOLN AVE
FALCON
CREST
CIR
SIERRA AVE
SUMMERFIELD DR
TROWER AVE
KILBURN AVE
OLD SONOMA RD
WESTVIEW DR
SCENIC DR
THOMPSON
AVE
YOUNG AVE
BYWAY E
BROADMOORDR
SALVADOR AVE
REDWOOD RD
HOMEWOOD AVE
ORCHARD AVE
W PUEBLO AVE
PARTRICK RD
TIMBERHILLLN
BUHMAN AVE
MAHER ST
LINDA VISTA AVE
OXFORD ST
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
STONEBRIDGE DR
HUNTER RANCHRD
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.10
City of Napa - Northwest
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
NAPARIVER TRAIL
PUEBLO AVE
PINE ST
1ST ST
SEMINAR
Y
ST
VILLA LN
EASTAVE
SHURTL
EFF AVE
1ST AVE
HARDMAN AVE
JEFFERSON ST
BROWN ST
OAK ST
SAINT ANDREWSDR
PEAR TREE LN
ATLAS PEAK RD
LAUREL ST
SILVERADOTRL
LA GRANDE
AVE
SOSCOL AVE
FRANKLIN
ST
CALIFORNIA
BLVD
MAIN ST
FREEWAY DR
HEDGESIDE
MCKINLEY RD
AVE
G ST
COOMBS ST
CLAY ST
YAJOME ST
SILVER TRL
SOSCOL
AVE
NORTH AVE
2ND ST
3RD ST
LINCOLN AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
EL CENTRO AVE
SPRUCE ST
TERRACE DR
STONECREST DR
LA HOMA DR
ELM ST
STONEHOUSE DR
OLIVE HILL LN
RANDOLPH ST
MARIN ST
CAYETANO DR
WILLIS DR
ROSS CIR
HAGEN RD
ESTEE AVE
2ND
AVE
RIVERSIDE
DR
MONTECITO BLVD
VICHY AVE
CENTRAL AVE
3RD AVE
TRANCAS ST
KANSAS AVE
HILLCREST DR
BIG RANCH RD
SILVERADO
TRL
RAPP
LN
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
29 121
121
FIGURE 2.11
City of Napa - Northeast
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
Skyline County P
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
RIVERSOUND WAY
NAPA
VALLEY CORPORATEDR
PINE ST
GASSER DR
S JEFFERSON ST
SOSCOL FERRY RD
LASAMIGAS RD
IMOLA AVE
FOSTER RD
CEDAR DR
BASALT RD
LAUREL ST
DEVLIN RD
SHETLER AVE
TECHNOLOGYWAY
SHURTLEFFAVE
HEMLOCK ST
SPRUCE ST SEVILLE DR
JAMES DIEMER DR
ELM ST
GOLDEN GATE DR
CAYETANO DR
N AIRPORT RD
CLEAR STREAM AVE
W IMOLA AVE
N KELLY RD
KANSAS AVE
OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY
LN
STANLY CROSSROAD
RIVER PARK BLVD
SOSCOL CREEK RD
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
N NEWPORT DR
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
12 12
29 29
29 221
STANLY LN
FIGURE 2.12
City of Napa - South
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
Veterans
Memorial Park
Shenandoah Park
American Canyon
Community Park
Kimberly Park
VIA BELLAGIO
WETLANDS EDGE RD
SILVER OAK TRL NEWELL DR
KIMBERLY DR
CRAWFORD WAY
RIO DEL MAR
DONALDSON WAY
DONALDSON WAY E
BOONE DR
S KELLY RD
PAOLI
LOOP
R
D
ELLIOTT DR
REDWO OD CIR
TR I A L ER
PA
RK R O AD
DEVLIN RD
AMERICAN CANYON RD
MARLA DR
KNIGHTSBRIDGEWAY
SPIKERUSH CIR
GREEN ISLAND RD
CHA
UCER LN
TOWER RD
NORTHAMPTONDR
ENTRADACIR
WATSON LN
BROADWAY
C
O
MMER
CE
BLVD
DANROSE
DR
W AMERICAN CANYON RD
JAMES RD
LOS ALTOS DR
EUCALYPTUS DR
AIRPORT RD
MARCUS RD
SONOMA BLVD
COMMERCE CT
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.13
City of American Canyon
Existing Bicycle Facilities
0.5 Miles H
Las Posadas
State Forest
Bothe-Napa Valley State Park
Robert Louis
Stevenson
State Park
29 29
128
Lake County
Sonoma County
POPE CANYON
RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.14
County of Napa - Northwest
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
Lake Berryessa
Las Posadas
State Forest
Lake County
Yolo County
BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE RD
POPE CANYON RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.15
County of Napa - Northeast
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
DRY CREEK RD
SAGE CANYON RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
29 29
128
128
Sonoma County
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.16
County of Napa - Central West
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
Lake Berryessa
Lake Curry
Lake Hennessey
Lake Hennessey City
Recreation Area
Las Posadas
State Forest
SILVERADO
TRL
SODA
CANYON RD
DRY CREEK RD
SAGE CANYON RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
ATLAS PEAK RD
BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE
RD
SILVERADO TRL
WOODEN VALLEY RD
128
128
29 121
Solano County
Sonoma
County
Yolo County
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.17
County of Napa - Central East
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
12 121
221
29 29
12 121
80 AMERICAN CANYON RD
TROWER AVE
JEFFERSON ST
1ST ST
1S
T AVE
DRY CREEK RD
B ROWNS VALLEY RD
LAS AMIGAS RD
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
FOSTER RD
ATLAS
PEAK RD
CALIFORNIA BLVD
SOLANO AVE
LAKEMARIE RD
DEVLIN RD
GREEN ISLAND RD
SOSCOL AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
3RD AVE
GOLDEN GA TE DR
BROADWAY
REDWO OD RD
W IMOLA AVE
HAGEN RD
POLSON RD
PARTRICK RD
DUHIG RD
TRANCAS ST
OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY LN
W ILDHORSE
VALLEY RD
AIR PORT RD
BIG RANCH RD
SILVERADO TRL
LINDAVISTA AVE
MOUNT VEEDER RD
BUHMAN AVE
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.18
County of Napa - South
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
2.5 Miles
TRANCAS ST
NORMA DR
NORFOLK ST
JOMAR DR
KATHLEEN DR
EMERSON ST
SHERRY DR
OXFORD ST
SUTHERLAND DR
ETHEL PORTER DR
MACLENNAN ST
BA
YWOOD LN
DELPHA DR
BARBARA RD
VERNA DR
SANDRA DR
CAROL DR
MACLEOD ST
ROHLFFSWAY
THOMAS DR
CAROL DR
YOUNG AVE
DOVER ST
PAMELA DR
ROLLINGWOOD DR
EUCLID AVE
SOLANO AVE
WAVERLY ST
DONNA DR
MACBETH ST
JANETTE DR
REDWOOD RD
LINDA
VISTA AVE
W PUEBLO AVE
MORGAN LN
MACLEAN ST
GLEN CT
MACFADDEN
ST
MASSA DR
BEL AIRE PLZ
RA
NCHO DR
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
MORLAN DR
SB SR29 OFF TRANCAS
NB SR29 ON TRANCAS
SB SR29 ON
TRANCAS
NB SR29
OFF TRANCAS
W PARK AVE
29 29
FIGURE 2.19
County of Napa - West Pueblo
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
CEDAR DR
IMOLA AVE
LONDON WAY
REPUBLIC AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
CAPITOLA DR
LOS ROBLES DR
WYATT AVE
MUIR ST
MARSHALL AVE
JUNIPER CIR
BIRKDALE DR
LAREDO ST
S TERRACE DR
ERIN WAY
SHETLER AVE
CORONADO AVE
PATTON
AVE
SHURTLEFF AVE
LINDEN ST
N OAK DR
TAMARISK DR
WILKINS AVE
SEVILLE DR MARIA DR
TERRACE DR
HOLMES AVE
TRAILER PA R K
R
OA
D
RUSSELL ST
PENNY LN
CAYETANO DR
PARRISH RD
SOMMER
S
T
OAKMONT CT
ACACIA DR
LIBERTY DR HARDING AVE
PERKINS ST
BELV EDERE CT
KANSAS AVE
PENNYROYAL ST
MAGNOLIA DR
FIGURE 2.20
County of Napa - Southeast Napa Islands
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
Chardonnay Golf Club
Skyline County Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
American Canyon
Community Park
121
12 12
221
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.21
County of Napa - Napa / American Canyon
Existing Bicycle Facilities
1 Miles H
36 Existing Pedestrian Network
The pedestrian network was mapped for all five
incorporated jurisdictions and the four
unincorporated communities of Deer Park, Angwin,
Rutherford, and Oakville. Other rural communities of
Pope Valley, Berryessa Highlands, and Circle Oaks
were not analyzed given their removed location and
limited opportunities for pedestrian facility
enhancements. Existing sidewalks and shared-use
paths are mapped in Figure 2.22 through Figure
2.35. Total existing facility mileage is listed by
jurisdiction in Table 2.3.
The pedestrian network inventory provides
information about streets with existing or missing
sidewalks or paths, which will be used to develop
near-term sidewalk gap closure recommendations.
However, not all locations without sidewalks will be
considered gaps in the network. Some rural or
residential neighborhoods may not require sidewalk
implementation per local guidelines, and
jurisdictions may apply their own discretion where
sidewalk gap projects are or are not appropriate.
The pedestrian network provides some regional
connections throughout the county, and efforts are
being made to continue improving regional
connectivity. Along SR 29, the Vine Trail has been
constructed between Calistoga and St. Helena and
between Yountville and the City of Napa. The future
alignment will include connections between St.
Helena and Yountville and between the City of Napa
and American Canyon south to the City of Vallejo.
The unincorporated communities of Angwin, Deer
Park, Rutherford, and Oakville have limited
pedestrian facilities. Where present, sidewalks are
generally of minimum width and offer limited
connectivity to local destinations.
There are also numerous unincorporated islands or
pockets of Napa County in and around the City of
Napa. These areas have a limited or non-existent
sidewalks with constrained right of way for new or
expanded facilities, presenting long-term challenges
for user safety and network connectivity.
Table 2.3: Napa Countywide Existing Pedestrian Facility Mileage Jurisdiction Shared Use Paths
(Class I) Sidewalks Total Mileage
Calistoga 2.3 17.3 19.6
St. Helena 1.3 32.5 33.8
Yountville 2.4 15.0 17.4
City of Napa 18.6 344.5 363.1
American Canyon 11.0 108.1 119.1
County of Napa 11.5 9.3 20.8
Total 47.0 523.1 570.1
Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course
DUNAWEAL LN
MORA AVE
PETRIFIED FOREST RD
MYRTLEDALE RD
WASHINGTON ST
GREENWOOD AVE
CHAMPAGNE N
GRANT ST
MYRTLE ST
LAKE ST
FOOTHILL BLVD
TUBBS LN
FAIR WAY
N OAK ST
CEDAR ST
PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL
DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD
ROSEDALE RD
KORTUM CANYON RD
LINCOLN AVE
BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN
PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.22
City of Calistoga
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
Crane Park
Stonebridge Park
SILVERADO TRL
CHAIX LN
DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE
ZINFANDEL LN
PRATT AVE
MADRON A A V E
FULTON LN
SPRI N G
ST
ADAMS ST
POPE ST
VALLEJO ST
DEER PARK RD
MAIN ST
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD
MEADOWOOD LN
WHITEHALL LN
INGLEWOOD AVE
CRANE AVE
SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE
GRAYSON AVE
OAK AVE
WHITE LN
SPRING MOUNTAIN RD
HUNT AVE
W ZINFANDEL LN
BIG ROCK RD
DEAN YORK LN
CABERNET LN
SYLVANER AVE
HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
LEWELLING AVE
WHITEHALL LN
MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.23
City of St. Helena
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUT
Vineyard Park ER ALEMEDA
CALIFORNIA DR
MISSION ST
FORRESTER LN
HEA
THER ST
YO
U
NT ST
OAK CIR
YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD
JEFFERSON ST
SAN ANTONIO ST
P
R
ESIDENTS CIR
FINNELL RD
CHAMPAGNE DR
LANDE WAY
YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
A
VE
MADISON ST
CALIFORNIA
DR
WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR
VINEYARDCIR
MULBERRY ST
HERITAGE WAY
NAPA
VALLEY
VINE
TRAIL
VINEYARD VIEW DR
IMPERIAL RD
INNER
ALEM
ED
A
LAND LN
WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.24
Town of Yountville
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
Skyline Wilderness Park
Alston Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
Westwood
Hills Park
Trancas Crossing
Park
TROWER AVE
PUEBLO AVE
1ST ST
SOLANO AVE
WINE COUNTRY AVE
1ST A
VE
DRY CREEK RD
SOSCOLFERRY RD
BROWNS VALLEY RD
JEFFERSON
ST
LAS AMIGAS RD
OAK ST
IMOLA AVE
FO
STER
R
D
ATLAS PEAK RD
TWIN OAKS
D
R
CEDAR DR
BASALT RD
S LI VERADO
TRL
CALIFORNIA
BLVD
DEVLIN RD
HAGEN RD
COOMBS
ST
SOSCOL
AVE
THOMPSON
A
VE
LINCOLN AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
GOLDEN GATE DR
OLIVE HILL LN
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
LAUREL ST
REDWOOD RD
W IMOLA AVE
ORCHARD AVE
VICHY
A
VE
PARTRICK RD
DUHIG RD
TRANCAS ST
OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY LN
HILLCRESTDR
BIG RANCH RD
LINDA VISTAAVE
LOS CARNEROS AVE
BUHMAN AVE
DEALY LN
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
221
29 29
29 12
12 FIGURE 2.25
City of Napa
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
Alston Park
Westwood
Hills Park
JEFFERSON ST
LAUREL ST
SOLANO AVE
WINE COUNTRY AVE
CALIFORNIA
BL
VD
CONGRESS VALLEYRD
DRY CREEK RD
1ST ST
BROWNS VALLEY RD
KATHLEEN DR
EL CENTRO AVE
TWIN OAKS DR
LONE OAK AVE
W PARK AVE
W LINCOLN AVE
AF LCON
CREST
C RI
SIERRA AVE
SUMMERFIELD DR
TROWER AVE
KILBURN AVE
OLD SONOMA RD
WESTVIEW
D
R
SCENIC DR
THOMPSON
A
VE
YOUNG AVE
BYWAY E
BROADM
O
O
R
D
R
SALVADOR AVE
REDWOOD RD
HOMEWOOD AVE
ORCHARD AVE
W PUEBLO AVE
PARTRICK RD
TIMBERHILLLN
BUHMAN AVE
MAHER ST
LINDA VISTA AVE
OXFORD ST
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
STONEBRIDGE DR
HUNTER RANCHRD
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.26
City of Napa - Northwest
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
NAPARIVER TRAIL
PUEBLO AVE
PINE ST
1ST ST
SEMINAR
Y
S
T
VILLA LN
EASTA
VE
SHURTL
EFF AVE
1S
T AVE
HARDMAN AVE
JEFFERSON ST
BROWN ST
OAK ST
SAINT ANDREWSDR
PEAR TREE LN
ATLAS PEAK RD
LAUREL ST
SILVERADOTRL
LA GRANDE
AVE
SOSCOL AVE
FRANKLIN
ST
CALIFORNIA
BLVD
MAIN ST
FREEWAY DR
HEDGESIDE AVE
MCKINLEY RD
G ST
COOMBS ST
CLAY ST
YAJOME ST
SILVER TRL
SOSCOL
A
VE
NORTH AVE
2ND ST
3RD ST
LINCOLN AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
EL CENTRO AVE
SPRUCE ST
TERRACE DR
STONECREST DR
LA HOMA DR
ELM ST
STONEHOUSE DR
OLIVE HILL LN
RANDOLPH ST
MARIN ST
CAYETANO DR
WILLIS DR
ROSS CIR
HAGEN RD
ESTEE AVE
2ND
A
VE
RIVERSIDE
DR
MONTECITO BLVD
VICHY AVE
CENTRAL AVE
3RD AVE
TRANCAS ST
KANSAS AVE
HILLCREST DR
BIG RANCH RD
SILVERADO
TRL
RAPP
LN
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
29 121
121
FIGURE 2.27
City of Napa - Northeast
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
Skyline County P
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
RIVERSO
UND
WA
Y
NAPA
VALLEY
C
O
R
P
O
RATE
D
R
PINE ST
GASSER DR
S JEFFERSON ST
SOSCOL FERRY RD
LASAMIGAS RD
IMOLA AVE
FOS
TER
R
D
CEDAR DR
BASALT RD
LAUREL ST
DEVLIN RD
SHETLER AVE
TECHNOLOGYWAY
SHURTLEFFA
VE
HEMLOCK ST
SPRUCE ST
SEVILLE DR
JAMES DIEMER
D
R
ELM ST
G
OLD
EN
GATE
D
R
CAYETANO DR
N AIRPORT RD
CLEAR STR
EA
M
A
VE
W IMOLA AVE
N KELLY RD
KANSAS AVE
OLD SONOMA RD
STA
NLY LN
STANLY CROSSROAD
RIVER PARK BLVD
SOSCOL CREEK RD
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
N NEWPORT DR
NAPA
VALLEY
VINE TRAIL
121
121
12 12
29 29
29 221
STANLY LN
FIGURE 2.28
City of Napa - South
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
Veterans
Memorial Park
Shenandoah Park
American Canyon
Community Park
Kimberly Park
WETLAND
S
ED
G
E
RD
SILVER OAK TRL
NEWELL
DR
KIMBERLY DR
CRAWFORD WAY
DONALDSON WAY
BOONE DR
S KELLY RD
PAOLI
L
O
O
P
R
D
ELLIOTT DR
REDWO OD CIR
RT I A L ER
PA
RK R O AD
DEVLIN RD
AMERICAN CANYON RD
MARLA DR
GREEN ISLAND RD
CHAUCER LN
TOWER RD
NORTHAMPTON DR
ENTRADACIR
WATSON LN
BROADWAY
C
O
MMER
CE
BLVD
DA
NR
O
SE
D
R
JAMES RD
LOS ALTO S
DR
EUCALYPTUS DR
AIRPORT RD
MARCUS RD
C
O
MMERCE
CT
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 2.29
City of American Canyon
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
0.5 Miles H
WALNUT DR OAKVILLE GRADE RD
MANLEY LN
BELLA OAKS LN
NIEBAUM LN
MONEY RD
OAKVILLE CROSS RD
RUTHERFORD ROAD
ACACIA DR
MEE LN
BEERS TECHER RD
CONN CREEK RD
128 128
29 29
Oakville
Rutherford
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
School
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
Census Designated Places
FIGURE 2.30
County of Napa - Rutherford and Oakville
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
LAS POSADAS RD
KEYES AVE
BROOKSI D E DR
DEER PARK RD
SKY OAKS DR
S WHITEC O TTAGE RD
N WHITE COTTAGERD
LA JOTA DR
INK GRADE RD
BELL CANYON RD
FRIESEN DR
COLLEGE AVE
CLARK WAY
SUMMIT LAKE DR
FA LLS RD
CRESTMONT DR
HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
Angwin
Deer Park
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
Census Designated Places
City Limits
FIGURE 2.31
County of Napa - Angwin
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
0.5 Miles H
Stonebridge Park
SILVERADO TRL
S WHITE COTTAGE RD
MUND RD
SPRING MOUNTAIN RD
HILLCREST RD
SANITARIUM RD
PRATT AVE
FULTON LN HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
POPE ST
LODI LN
CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD
MAIN ST
GLASS MOUNTAIN RD
MEADOWOOD LN
D EERPARK RD
SUNNYSIDERD
CAMINO V ISTA
HOWELL MOUNTAIN
RD
LIND A FALL S TERRACE
HUNT AVE
BIG ROCK RD
CRESTMONT DR
128
29 Angwin
Deer Park
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk
Data
School
Census Designated Places
City Limits
FIGURE 2.32
County of Napa - Deer Park
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
TROON DR
S ILV E RADO SPRINGS
DR
HARDMAN AVE
STONE
MO UN T A IN
CIR
AUGUSTA CIR
SA INTANDREWS DR
CASTLE OAKS DR
ATLAS PEAK RD
KAANAPALI DR
HEDGESIDE AVE
MCKINLEY RD
SILVER TRL
MIL
L
KE I N
CREEK DR
VICHY AVE
WESTGATE DR
ESTEE AVE
WESTGATE DR
OLD
SODA SPRINGS RD
FAIRWAY DR
HILLCREST DR
COTTAGE DR
121
121
Silverado
Resort
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
Census Designated Places
City Limits
FIGURE 2.33
County of Napa - Silverado Resort
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
NORMA DR
NORFOLK ST
JOMAR DR
KATHLEEN DR
EMERSON ST
SHERRY DR
OXFORD ST
SUTHERLAND DR
ETHEL PORTER DR
MACLENNAN ST
BAYWOOD
LN
DELPHA DR
BARBARA RD
VERNA DR
SANDRA DR
CAROL DR
MACLEOD ST
ROHLFFS
WA
Y
THOMAS DR
CAROL
DR
YOUNG AVE
DOVER ST
PAMELA DR
ROLLINGWOOD DR
EUCLID AVE
SOLANO AVE
WAVERLY ST
DONNA DR
MACBETH ST
JANETTE DR
REDWOOD RD
LINDA
VISTA AVE
W PUEBLO AVE
MORGAN LN
MACLEAN ST
GLEN CT
MACFADDEN
ST
MASSA DR
BEL AIRE PLZ
RA
NCHO DR
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
MORLAN DR
SB SR29 OFF TRANCAS
NB SR29 ON TRANCAS
SB
SR29
O
N
TRA
N
CA
S
NB
SR29
OFF
TRANCAS
W PARK AVE
29 29
FIGURE 2.34
County of Napa - West Pueblo
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
School
City Limits
County Limits
CEDAR DR
IMOLA AVE
LONDON WAY
REPUBLIC AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
CAPITOLA
D
R
LOS ROBLES DR
WYATT AVE
MUIR ST
MARSHALL AVE
JUNIPER CIR
BIRKDALE DR
LAREDO ST
S TERRACE DR
ERIN WAY
SHETLER AVE
CORONADO AVE
PA
TTON
A
VE
SHURTLEFF AVE
LINDEN ST
N OAK DR
TAMARISK DR
WILKINS
A
VE
SEVILLE DR MARIA DR
TERRACE DR
HOLMES AVE
TRAILER PA R K
R
OA
D
RUSSELL ST
PENNY LN
CAYETANO DR
PARRISH RD
SOMMER
S
T
OAKMONT CT
ACACIA DR
LIBERTY DR HARDING AVE
PERKINS ST
BELV EDERE CT
KANSAS AVE
PENNYROYAL ST
MAGNOLIA DR
FIGURE 2.35
County of Napa - Southeast Napa Islands
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
School
City Limits
County Limits
51 Chapter 3
Community Engagement
A foundational element in the development of this
AT Plan was gathering meaningful public input from
community members across Napa County.
Throughout the planning process, NVTA sought to
better understand the needs of community
members by encouraging broad participation at key
milestones.
Community engagement efforts invited individuals to
share their experiences, challenges, and priorities
related to active transportation, helping to identify
key issues such as pedestrian safety, connectivity
gaps, improvement preferences, and locationspecific barriers.
This feedback directly informed the development of
the AT Plan, ultimately shaping a community-driven
vision for improving safe, convenient, and accessible
active transportation throughout Napa County. Over
the year-long engagement period, more than 700
comments were received from community members
throughout the county.
Communication Tools and
Engagement Activities
Outreach for the AT Plan was conducted between
October 2024 and October 2025. Communications
tools included a project-specific website;
informational materials including fact sheets; paid
and organic social media; newsletters and e-blasts,
and online surveys. Engagement activities included
multiple community workshops held in person
throughout the County as well as online, as well as
presentations and conversations with stakeholders
and local residents at community events, civic
gatherings, and local agency meetings.
Workshop 2- Community Member adding comment
52 Website
NVTA provided information about the AT Plan
through a dedicated page on its site4 and an
engagement-specific webpage5 that served as the
central hub for information, plan development
updates, information on upcoming and past public
events, and resources for community participation,
including links to the online survey, interactive map
tool, and a project team contact form.
Fact Sheet
The AT Plan fact sheet included information on the
project background, goals, how to get involved, and
the project timeline. The fact sheet was updated
throughout the development of the plan, with later
versions including a link and QR code to the survey
and interactive map. The fact sheet was distributed
in-person at community events and electronically.
Social Media and Newsletters
Social media posts and newsletter updates for the
project were released prior to community
workshops, to promote surveys, and provide Plan
development updates.
Online Map Tools and Survey
The engagement website included a mapping tool
where community members were invited to share
what they loved, wished for, and wondered about
the future of the Napa County community. They
could place pins for each prompt on a map of the
county to identify specific locations in response to
each prompt, which helped identify priority areas for
improvements. The mapping tool received a total of
143 responses between October 2024 and June
2025.
A survey was also developed to better understand
how local residents get around and their priorities
for improving walking, biking, and rolling in their
community. The survey was open from April 21 to
June 23, 2025, and collected a total of 199
responses.
Once the proposed bicycle and pedestrian networks
were developed, community members could also
place comments via the interactive mapping tool
with a similar framework of what they loved, wished
for, and wondered about for the future of biking and
walking in Napa County. During the comment period
from September 26th through October 31, the
proposed bicycle network map received 229 unique
comments while the proposed pedestrian priority
gap closure maps received 91 comments. A full list of
all comments received through the map tool and
survey, along with geographic coordinates, is
available in Appendix B.
Community Open House Flyer
4 nvta.ca.gov/planning-and-projects/planning/regional/active-transportation-plan 5 ghd.mysocialpinpoint.com/napaatplan
53 Events
NVTA organized three in-person outreach opportunities and attended 33 events and meetings to reach community members throughout the County, provide details about the AT Plan, and collect input. Nearly 2,000 people were engaged at various events during the engagement period, which may include some individuals who attended more than one event.
NVTA hosted the following community meetings to share updates about the AT Plan and collect input on projects, programs, and policies.
Table 3.1: NVTA-Hosted Community Meetings
Event Location Date
Community Open House Napa Valley College Performing Arts Center Wednesday, February 26, 2025 Up-Valley (Calistoga) Focus Workshop Calistoga Community Center Wednesday, April 2, 2025 Virtual Open House Zoom Meeting Tuesday, October 21, 2025 The project team attended the following meetings and events between summer 2024 and winter 2026.
Table 3.2: Community Meetings and Events Attended by NVTA Event Location Date
City of St. Helena Active Transportation &
Sustainability Committee
St. Helena City Hall July 3, 2024
City of Calistoga Active Transportation
Advisory Committee
Calistoga Community Center August 7, 2024
City of American Canyon Open Space,
Active Transportation, and Sustainability
Commission
American Canyon City Hall September 4, 2024
NVTA Technical Advisory Committee NVTA Board Room September 5, 2024 City of Calistoga Active Transportation
Advisory Committee
Calistoga Community Center October 2, 2024
City of Napa Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Commission
City of Napa City Hall October 10, 2024
City of American Canyon Open Space,
Active Transportation, and Sustainability
Commission
American Canyon City Hall November 6, 2024
City of St. Helena Active Transportation &
Sustainability Committee
St. Helena City Hall November 6, 2024
City of Napa Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Commission
City of Napa Committee Hearing Room February 13, 2025
Napa Valley Vine Trail Board Meeting Virtual (Zoom) February 20, 2025 NCOE 8th Grade Career Fair Napa Valley Expo March 13, 2025 Napa Earth Day Napa Oxbow Commons April 12, 2025
League of Women Voters of Napa County Unitarian Universalist Church Napa April 16, 2025 Napa BikeFest Napa Century Cinemas Lot May 4, 2025
American Canyon Middle School (ACMS)
Fair
ACMS May 7, 2025
54 Event Location Date
NVTA Active Transportation Advisory
Committee
NVTA Board Room May 19, 2025
Democrats of Napa Valley Monthly Meeting American Legion Napa July 21, 2025 American Canyon Meet Me in the Street American Canyon Rd June 10, 2025 American Canyon Meet Me in the Street American Canyon Rd August 12, 2025 NVTA Board Presentation NVTA Board Room September 17, 2025 St. Helena Active Transportation &
Sustainability Committee
St. Helena City Hall October 1, 2025
City of Napa Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Commission Presentation
City of Napa Committee Hearing Room October 9, 2025
City of Calistoga Council Presentation Calistoga Council Chambers October 14, 2025 Napa Vine Trail Board Presentation Virtual (Zoom) October 16, 2025 St. Helena Harvest Festival Street Festival, St. Helena October 19, 2025 St. Helena City Council Presentation St. Helena High – Council Chambers October 28, 2025 NVTA Paratransit Coordinating Committee NVTA Board Room November 6, 2025 NVTA Community Advisory Committee NVTA Board Room November 5, 2025 NVTA Active Transportation Advisory
Committee
NVTA Board Room November 17, 2025
Napa County Board of Supervisors Meeting Napa Board of Supervisors Chambers January 13, 2026
55 Key Findings from
Community Engagement
Community input was key to the development of the
final AT Plan. Across all communication tools and
engagement events, the following themes emerged.
These comments directly informed the contents of
this AT Plan, including as proposed bicycle or
pedestrian facilities, recommended policies and
programs, or criteria for project prioritization.
Pedestrian Infrastructure and
Safety
Community members expressed strong support for
improving pedestrian safety and comfort, noting that
sidewalk gaps, fractured or broken concrete, a lack
of curb ramps, and other issues create daily barriers
to safe and convenient pedestrian access. Crossing
safety was a major concern, with high vehicle
speeds, limited visibility, and insufficient lighting
making intersections difficult to navigate.
Community members suggested improvements such
as curb extensions, raised crosswalks, added
beacons, and daylighting to enhance safety,
especially around schools. Maintenance issues such
as uneven pavement, flooding, and debris were also
frequently cited, emphasizing that both repairs and
new infrastructure are needed.
Connectivity
A consistent theme across feedback was the need
for a more connected and comprehensive active
transportation network for walking and biking,
particularly with connections to transit. Respondents
stressed the importance of linking neighborhoods
with schools, parks, shopping areas, and nearby
cities to make active travel a practical option. Survey results reinforced this sentiment, with the most
frequent highest-rated priority being the creation of
a countywide network of safe, accessible bikeways.
Participants emphasized that improving connectivity
is essential for expanding mobility choices and
reducing reliance on driving, especially when it
comes to multimodal transportation.
Encouraging Multimodality
Community members expressed that transportation
projects should balance the needs of drivers,
pedestrians, and bicyclists rather than prioritizing
any single mode. Many supported encouraging
walking and biking for short trips, and some
expressed openness to reducing on-street parking
when it improves safety. While some residents
reported easy access to local destinations, others
noted that concern over infrastructure or conditions
prevent them from choosing active transportation
more often.
Priority Improvements and
Amenities
Community members strongly supported a wide
range of safety and mobility initiatives, with
especially high enthusiasm for expanding a
countywide network of low-stress bikeways for all
ages and abilities (AAA). Intersection redesigns,
protected bike lanes, wayfinding, sidewalk gap
closures, improved lighting, school-based bike
education, and more secure bike parking were also
frequently rated as important. There was mixed
support for increased traffic enforcement.
Location Specific Barriers for
Active Transportation
Community members identified numerous locations
across the county where walking, biking, and rolling
feel unsafe or unreliable, underscoring the need for
targeted improvements. Intersections and segments
in Napa, such as Solano Avenue at Redwood Road,
Jefferson Street, Trancas Street, West Lincoln
Avenue, Imola Avenue, Silverado Trail, and multiple
points along Soscol Avenue and SR 121 were
consistent points of concern. SR 29 in American
Canyon and countywide corridors like SR 128, Big
Ranch Road, and areas east of St. Helena also
marked major concerns for cyclists.
56 Chapter 4
Needs Assessment
The following needs assessment builds upon the
review of the existing transportation environment to
identify specific areas for active transportation
improvements. The assessment includes an
evaluation of bicycle connectivity based on the
existing roadway and bicycle facility network. It also
includes a summary of priorities identified through
the community engagement process, and outlines
the methodology used to develop the proposed
project list.
Bicycle Connectivity
The following assessment of connectivity considers
level of traffic stress (LTS), or how safe a bicyclist
might feel on a given roadway, and how LTS impacts
bicyclist connectivity to nearby destinations. Higher
stress roadways are likely barriers for many bicyclists, and can limit connectivity throughout a city, county,
or region.
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is the perceived sense of safety associated with bicycling with or adjacent to
vehicular traffic. Studies have shown that traffic
stress is one of the biggest deterrents to walking and
bicycling. The less stressful the experience (the lower the LTS score), the more likely it is to appeal to a
broader segment of the population.
Bicycle facilities are considered low stress if they
have fewer interactions with vehicular traffic (such as slow, low-traffic neighborhood streets) or if greater
separation is provided between people walking or
bicycling and vehicular traffic.
LTS 1 indicates a street with low stress and high
comfort for bicyclists, while LTS 4 reflects a street
with high stress and low comfort for bicyclists. LTS
scores are used to identify locations for project
recommendations that create lower stress networks
for people of different ages, abilities, and comfort
walking and bicycling in Napa County.
Methodology
For the bicycle LTS analysis, road segments were
scored from LTS 1 to LTS 4 based on a variety of
roadway infrastructure characteristics, including:
» Posted and prevailing speeds
» Number of vehicle lanes
» Roadway functional classification
» Bicycle facility classification
» Separation between bicycle facilities and
vehicles
» Parking alongside bike lanes
» Width of bike and parking lanes
Types of Bicyclists
Research conducted by the Portland Bureau of
Transportation and later updated with national data
indicates that most people in the United States
would bike if dedicated bicycle facilities were
provided. Based on their skill level and confidence,
most people self-identify as one of the four “types of
57 bicyclists” shown in Figure 4.1.
6 Only a small
percentage of Americans are willing to ride on busy
streets if no facilities are provided—the so-called
“Strong and Fearless” bicyclists.
To better meet the needs of “Interested but
Concerned” bicyclists, it is recommended that
communities work to decrease stress and improve
comfort on their bikeway network. LTS 1 and 2 roads
are typically appealing to these bicyclists.
Results
LTS of roadways varies throughout the county. Each
jurisdiction is typically made up of a lower stress
residential street network divided by higher stress
arterial and collector roads. In the unincorporated
county, roads are typically higher stress, higher
volume, and seldom feature dedicated bicycle
facilities. As a result, these corridors are generally
taken by more experienced recreational bicyclists
and not by residents commuting to their
destinations. LTS results for individual jurisdictions
can be found in Chapter 7 through Chapter 12.
Safety and Vision Zero
Bicycle LTS is one way of assessing bicyclist safety
along the roadway network, but another common
way to quantify safety is through a collision analysis.
The 2023 NVTA Vision Zero Plan analyzed collisions
in the county between 2015 and 2021 and identifies
roadways with a high frequency of collisions (also
known as the High Injury Network). Local Road
Safety Plans (LRSP) conducted at the local and
county level provide similar information about high
injury and high severity corridors.
While collision analysis shows where collisions have
occurred in the past, LTS analysis highlights roads
that may feel uncomfortable for bicyclists to ride on
and therefore are barriers to active transportation. A
high stress road may not have a history of frequent
collisions if bicyclists avoid that route.
Figure 4.1: Bicyclist Comfort Typology
6 Dill, J., & McNeil, N. (2016). Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2587(1), 90-99
58 Low Stress Bicycle Connectivity
Bicycle connectivity throughout Napa County was
analyzed using LTS scores and origin and destination
points. In this assessment, bicycle connectivity is
defined as either high-stress or low-stress.
Destinations with low-stress connectivity are
connected to residential units (origins) along the
low-stress bicycle network, or roads that score LTS 2
or lower. Providing low-stress connectivity improves
bicycle access for a wider range of ages and abilities
and induces bicycle demand.
An example of this analysis in the City of American
Canyon is shown in Figure 4.2. The heat map
indicates concentrations of low-stress connectivity,
where darker green indicates more low-stress
connection. The red and orange lines along the road
network represent high stress streets, while green
and yellow lines represent lower stress streets.
As you can see, many residents can connect to
Canyon Oaks Elementary School (the school west of
Newell Drive) on the low-stress bicycle network. On
the other hand, low-stress connectivity to American
Canyon High School (east of Newell Drive) is poor
because Newell Drive and American Canyon Road
create high stress barriers.
Figure 4.2: Example of Connectivity Analysis
7 A convenient walking distance is typically assumed to be less than one half-mile, while an acceptable bicycling distance is assumed to be two miles or less.
Results from the bicycle connectivity analysis show
areas of low stress connectivity are separated by
high stress streets creating barriers to bicycling in
neighborhoods across the county. Most low stress
bicycle corridors in Napa County are along the Napa
Valley Vine Trail or other Class I pathways, or within
incorporated cities where residents are within
convenient walking and bicycling distances of their
destinations7
. Every community in Napa County has
at least one higher stress corridor or intersection
that serves as a barrier to key destinations. Investing in lower stress improvements at these locations can
increase active transportation use and reduce
potential for future collisions.
In the unincorporated county, bicyclists typically
begin trips further from their destinations. Much of
the current bicycling occurring in this part of the
county is for recreational purposes rather than
commuting, and bicyclists here are typically more
experienced at riding on higher stress roads with
vehicles.
Further discussion on low stress bicycle connectivity
for individual jurisdictions can be found in Chapter 7
through Chapter 12.
Community Priorities
Through community engagement across Napa
County, in-person and online, the priorities of the
community were used to develop the current Plan.
Key feedback themes from each community included
the following:
» Calistoga
− Pedestrian and bicycle crossing
improvements at Tubbs Lane/Myrtledale
Road, and along Foothill Boulevard
− Sidewalks along Grant Street
− Concerns about pavement quality
− Safe Routes to School
59 » St. Helena
− Safe Routes to School, including on Main
Street (SR 29), Madrona Avenue, Hunt
Avenue, Valley View Street, Crane Avenue,
Sulfur Springs Road, and Spring Street
− Traffic calming to reduce speeding
− Sidewalks on SR 29
− Visibility challenges and narrow streets
− Complete the Vine Trail
» Yountville
− SR 29 undercrossing – bicycle and
pedestrian improvements
− Bicycle facilities on Washington Street and
Yount Street
− Sidewalks and paved pathways in
neighborhoods
» City of Napa
− Sidewalk gaps on key corridors, near
neighborhood schools, and in older
residential neighborhoods
− Bicycle connectivity to and through
downtown
− Safe Routes to School
− Vine Trail improvements
» American Canyon
− Safe Routes to School
− Improve existing bicycle lanes
− Traffic calming to reduce speeding
− Improve intersections along SR 29
− Connections to industrial areas
− Vine Trail opportunities
» County of Napa
− Improve major bicycle corridors, including
Silverado Trail and SR 29
− Upgrade bicycle facilities between cities,
including Devlin Road and Solano Avenue
− Pavement quality and bicycle lane
maintenance
Developing the Active
Transportation Network
Using the findings from the bicycle connectivity
analysis and community engagement priorities, the
proposed active transportation network was
developed. The draft network was created in July
2025 and went through extensive review by NVTA
and local jurisdiction staff. Following agency review,
the network was refined and shared with the
community during a virtual workshop in October
2025. Community members also had the
opportunity to comment on the network using an
interactive map hosted on the project website.
Feedback gathered during the workshop and from
the interactive map was vetted by NVTA and local
jurisdictions, and the proposed active transportation
network was finalized in early 2026.
Developing the Bicycle Network
The development of the proposed bicycle network
considered a variety of factors, including past
planning efforts, the existing transportation
environment, and community feedback.
First, the bicycle network proposed in the 2019
Countywide Bicycle Plan was incorporated. Facilities
were upgraded to meet current best practices where
possible. In some cases, planned bicycle facilities
were removed if they were redundant or infeasible
to implement. Proposed bicycle facilities from local
plans were also incorporated and updated to align
with the goals of the AT Plan.
Bicycle facilities were then developed based on the
existing network, bicycle LTS scores, and proximity to
destinations. Destinations with low bicycle
connectivity were considered for bicycle
improvements. Bicycle facilities were also considered
to expand the existing network, especially if they
improve connectivity to key destinations. Where
possible, bicycle facilities were proposed to reduce
LTS, especially along routes where no parallel, lower
stress option was available.
60 Qualitative feedback from the community was key to
understanding barriers to active transportation not
identified in the quantitative analysis described
above. Residents highlighted commonly used routes
that needed improvements, streets that were
barriers to safe active transportation, and
destinations that lacked adequate connectivity. This
feedback was incorporated throughout the proposed
bicycle network.
In some cases, study corridors were recommended.
These are streets that were identified through the
needs assessment or by the community for future
improvements but require a greater level of study
than is possible within this planning effort to
determine the most appropriate improvements for
the corridor.
Developing the Pedestrian
Network
Shared-Use Paths
Shared-use paths were largely identified as part of
the bicycle facilities development process, but they
also contribute to a connected, low-stress pedestrian
network. Shared-use paths were considered in the
development of the sidewalk gap closure projects.
Sidewalk Gap Closure Projects
Using satellite imagery, the roadway network was
mapped, and each roadway segment was
categorized as having sidewalks or no sidewalks.
Potential sidewalk gap projects were then
determined based on a series of factors including
roadway context and proximity to walkable
destinations. Roadways that would provide
pedestrian connectivity to nearby destinations or
existing sidewalks and paths were considered for
potential sidewalk projects.
Roadways were typically removed from the list of
potential gap projects if they were rural in nature,
did not provide connectivity to key destinations, or
right-of-way was severely limited. Gaps along vacant
lots were also excluded, as developers of property
would be responsible for implementing sidewalks
Local sidewalk policies and jurisdictional discretion
were also used to eliminate potential sidewalk gap
projects. This manual review of the network
provided a list of potential sidewalk gap projects.
Once the list of potential sidewalk gap projects was
identified, the projects were proposed based on how
beneficial they would be to pedestrian travel.
Sidewalk gap projects were added to the final list of
projects if:
» The gap is located within 500 feet of a point of
interest, including parks, schools, transit stops,
etc.
» The gap is located along a corridor with an
existing or proposed bicycle improvement. The
goal of this criterion is to create multimodal
corridors that prioritize both pedestrians and
bicyclists.
If gaps are present on both sides of the street, the AT Plan proposes a sidewalk on the side of the street
closest to the point of interest.
In addition to the methodology described above, a
manual review was conducted to add or exclude
projects where necessary. This methodology used to
develop the pedestrian network aims to allocate
resources to pedestrian projects that would provide
the highest pedestrian benefit. NVTA recognizes that
additional sidewalk projects throughout the county
may provide safety and connectivity benefits but
may be longer term projects due to funding
limitations.
61 Chapter 5
Countywide
Recommendations
Based on prior planning efforts, findings from the
existing conditions analysis and needs assessment,
and feedback from the community, the countywide
active transportation network was developed. Site
specific infrastructure improvements included a
network of proposed bicycle facilities and a
pedestrian network of proposed sidewalk gap
closure projects. To accompany the network
improvements and crossing policy, a treatment
toolkit was developed with bicycle and pedestrian
improvement design guidance. See Appendix D for
the Treatment Toolkit.
The pedestrian and bicycle network
recommendations were vetted through a
collaborative process with local jurisdiction staff.
Staff reviewed and provided edits to the network to
ensure that the recommended improvements
aligned with local planning projects and priorities.
In addition, a set of non-infrastructure policies and
programs were developed to support the
infrastructure recommendations and help Napa
County move towards countywide transportation
goals identified in the Plan. Recommended policies
and programs can be found beginning on Page 99.
Proposed Bicycle Network
The proposed bicycle network aims to improve
connectivity for bicyclists throughout the county. The
network includes a variety of bicycle facility types to address various user needs and abilities, including
off-street paths, on-street bicycle lanes and
protected bikeways, and mixed traffic facilities
(bicycle routes and bicycle boulevards). The network
also includes study corridors that may be prioritized
for future planning efforts.
The bicycle network is intended to be implemented
over time as funding opportunities arise. To help
NVTA and local jurisdictions prioritize bicycle projects for implementation, a list of near-term projects is
provided in Chapter 6.
Bicycle Facility Selection
Bicycle facility types were selected in accordance
with the bicycle facility selection guidance outlined
in the treatment toolkit. The guide recommends
bicycle facility types based on posted speeds and
average daily traffic volumes. Other factors
considered include whether there was room within
the existing right of way for dedicated bicycle
facilities, to which destinations the bicycle facilities connect and who the target users would be. In
addition to the toolkit guidance, feedback from the
jurisdiction, prior planning efforts, and local
knowledge informed facility selection.
62 The proposed bicycle projects include a network of
rural bicycle routes throughout Unincorporated
County of Napa. These proposed routes do not
adhere to the bicycle facility selection guidance as
they are typically travelled by more experienced
riders and serve recreational purposes. In many
cases, the bicycle routes are along roads where there
is no room for a dedicated bicycle facility.
Proposed Bicycle Network
Table 5.1 provides the total existing, proposed, and
future mileage of the countywide bicycle network by
facility type. For detailed project recommendations
for each jurisdiction, see Chapter 7 through Chapter
12. For the full list of bicycle network
recommendations, see Appendix E.
The proposed bicycle network also includes several
study corridors that were identified through the
needs assessment or by the community but require
further study to determine the most appropriate
facility type. These studies may be conducted by
individual jurisdictions or by partnerships between
jurisdictions and NVTA.
Table 5.1: Napa Countywide Proposed Bicycle Network Mileage Facility Type 2019 Existing
Mileage
2025 Existing
Mileage*
Change 2019
to 2025
2025
Proposed
Mileage
Total Future
Mileage
Shared Use Path (Class I) 40.9 47.0 +6.1 66.2 113.3
Bicycle Lanes (Class II) 87.8 87.1 -0.7 79.7 166.8
Buffered Bicycle Lanes (Class II) - 3.7 +3.7 30.9 34.6
Bicycle Route (Class III) 13.5 6.8 -6.7 - 6.8
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) - 0.1 +0.1 52.4 52.4
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) - 9.1 +9.1 201.0 210.1
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) - 1.9 +1.9 5.8 7.7
Unclassified Bike Route - 17.9 +17.9 0.8 18.7
Total 142.2 173.6 +31.4 436.9 610.4
*2025 Existing mileage totals are derived from a comprehensive review of existing bicycle facilities, which in some cases resulted in removal or re-categorization of facilities.
Lake Berryessa
American
Canyon
Calistoga
Napa
St. Helena
Yountville SODA
CANYON
RD
DRY CREEK RD
SAGE CANYON RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE RD
ATLAS
PEAK
RD
WOODEN VALLEY RD
POPE CANYON RD
Lake County
Marin County
Sonoma County
Yolo County
29 128
128
221 12
121
29 80
Solano County
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.1
Napa Countywide
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course
DUNAWEAL LN
MORA AVE
PETRIFIED FOREST RD
MYRTLEDALE RD
WASHINGTON ST
GREENWOOD AVE
CHAMPAGNE N
GRANT ST
MYRTLE ST
LAKE ST
FOOTHILL BLVD
TUBBS LN
FAIR WAY
N OAK ST
CEDAR ST
PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL
DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD
ROSEDALE RD
KORTUM CANYON RD
LINCOLN AVE
BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN
PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.2
City of Calistoga
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
Crane Park
Stonebridge Park
SILVERADO TRL
CHAIX LN
DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE
ZINFANDEL LN
PRATT AVE
MADRON A A V E
FULTON LN
SPRI N G
ST
ADAMS ST POPE ST
VALLEJO ST
DEER PARK RD
MAIN ST
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD
MEADOWOOD LN
WHITEHALL LN
INGLEWOOD AVE
CRANE AVE
SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE
GRAYSON AVE
OAK AVE
WHITE LN
SPRING MOUNTAIN RD
HUNT AVE
W ZINFANDEL LN
BIG ROCK RD
DEAN YORK LN
CABERNET LN
SYLVANER AVE
HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
LEWELLING AVE
WHITEHALL LN
MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.3
City of St. Helena
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUTE
Vineyard Park
R ALEMEDA
CALIFORNIA DR
MISSION ST
FORRESTER LN HEATHER ST
YO
UNT ST
OAK CIR
YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD
JEFFERSON ST
SAN ANTONIO ST
PRESIDENTS CIR
FINNELL RD
CHAMPAGNE DR
LANDE WAY
YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
AVE
MADISON ST
CALIFORNIA
DR
WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR
VINEYARDCIR
MULBERRY ST
HERITAGE WAY
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
VINEYARD VIEW DR
IMPERIAL RD
INNER ALEMEDA
LAND LN
WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.4
Town of Yountville
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
Skyline Wilderness Park
Alston Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
Westwood
Hills Park
Trancas Crossing
Park
TROWER AVE
PUEBLO AVE
1ST ST
SOLANO AVE
WINE COUNTRY AVE
1ST
AVE
DRY CREEK RD
SOSCOLFERRY RD
BROWNS VALLEY RD
JEFFERSON
ST
LAS AMIGAS RD
OAK ST
IMOLA AVE
FOSTER RD
ATLAS PEAK RD
TWIN OAKS
DR
CEDAR DR
BASALT RD SILVERADO
CALI
TRL
FORNIA
BLVD
DEVLIN RD
HAGEN RD
COOMBS
ST
SOSCOL
AVE
THOMPSON
AVE
LINCOLN AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
GOLDEN GATE DR
OLIVE HILL LN
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
LAUREL ST
REDWOOD RD
W IMOLA AVE
ORCHARD AVE
VICHY
AVE
PARTRICK RD
DUHIG RD
TRANCAS ST
OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY LN
HILLCRESTDR
BIG RANCH RD
LINDA VISTAAVE
LOS CARNEROS AVE
BUHMAN AVE
DEALY LN
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
221
29 29
29 12
12 FIGURE 5.5
City of Napa
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
School
City Limits
County Limits
Alston Park
Westwood
Hills Park
JEFFERSON ST
LAUREL ST
SOLANO AVE
WINE COUNTRY AVE
CALIFORNIA
BLVD
CONGRESS VALLEYRD
DRY CREEK RD
1ST ST
BROWNS VALLEY RD
KATHLEEN DR
EL CENTRO AVE
TWIN OAKS DR
LONE OAK AVE
W PARK AVE
W LINCOLN AVE
FALCON
CREST
CIR
SIERRA AVE
SUMMERFIELD DR
TROWER AVE
KILBURN AVE
OLD SONOMA RD
WESTVIEW DR
SCENIC DR
THOMPSON
AVE
YOUNG AVE
BYWAY E
BROADMOORDR
SALVADOR AVE
REDWOOD RD
HOMEWOOD AVE
ORCHARD AVE
W PUEBLO AVE
PARTRICK RD
TIMBERHILLLN
BUHMAN AVE
MAHER ST
LINDA VISTA AVE
OXFORD ST
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
STONEBRIDGE DR
HUNTER RANCHRD
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.6
City of Napa - Northwest
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
NAPARIVER TRAIL
PUEBLO AVE
PINE ST
1ST ST
SEMINAR
Y
ST
VILLA LN
EASTAVE
SHURTL
EFF AVE
1ST AVE
HARDMAN AVE
JEFFERSON ST
OAK ST
SAINT ANDREWSDR
PEAR TREE LN
ATLAS PEAK RD
LAUREL ST
SILVERADOTRL
LA GRANDE
AVE
SOSCOL AVE
FRANKLIN
ST
CALIFORNIA
BLVD
MAIN ST
FREEWAY DR
HEDGESIDE
MCKINLEY RD
AVE
G ST
COOMBS ST
CLAY ST
SILVER TRL
SOSCOL
AVE
NORTH AVE
LINCOLN AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
EL CENTRO AVE
SPRUCE ST
TERRACE DR
STONECREST DR
LA HOMA DR
STONEHOUSE DR
OLIVE HILL LN
RANDOLPH ST
MARIN ST
CAYETANO DR
WILLIS DR
ROSS CIR
HAGEN RD
ESTEE AVE
2ND
AVE
RIVERSIDE
DR
MONTECITO BLVD
VICHY AVE
CENTRAL AVE
3RD AVE
TRANCAS ST
KANSAS AVE
HILLCREST DR
BIG RANCH RD
SILVERADO
TRL
RAPP
LN
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
29 121
121
FIGURE 5.7
City of Napa - Northeast
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
Skyline County P
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
RIVERSOUND WA
Y
NAPA
VALLEY CORPORATEDR
PINE ST
GASSER DR
S JEFFERSON ST
SOSCOL FERRY RD
LASAMIGAS RD
IMOLA AVE
FOSTER RD
CEDAR DR
BASALT RD
LAUREL ST
DEVLIN RD
SHETLER AVE
TECHNOLOGYWAY
SHURTLEFFAVE
HEMLOCK ST
SPRUCE ST SEVILLE DR
JAMES DIEMER DR
ELM ST
GOLDEN GATE DR
CAYETANO DR
N AIRPORT RD
CLEAR STREAM AVE
W IMOLA AVE
N KELLY RD
KANSAS AVE
OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY
LN
STANLY CROSSROAD
RIVER PARK BLVD
SOSCOL CREEK RD
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
N NEWPORT DR
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
12 12
29 29
29 221
STANLY LN
FIGURE 5.8
City of Napa - South
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
Veterans
Memorial Park
Shenandoah Park
American Canyon
Community Park
Kimberly Park
VIA BELLAGIO
WETLANDS EDGE RD
SILVER OAK TRL NEWELL
DR
KIMBERLY DR
CRAWFORD WAY
RIO DEL MAR
DONALDSON WAY
DONALDSON WAY E
BOONE DR
S KELLY RD
PAOLI
LOOP
R
D
ELLIOTT DR
REDWO OD CIR
TR I A L ER
PA
RK R O AD
DEVLIN RD
AMERICAN CANYON RD
MARLA DR
KNIGHTSBRIDGEWAY
SPIKERUSH CIR
GREEN ISLAND RD
CHA
UCER L
N
TOWER RD
NORTHAMPTONDR
ENTRADACIR
WATSON LN
BROADWAY
C
O
MMER
CE
BLVD
DANROSE
D
R
W AMERICAN CANYON RD
JAMES RD
LOS ALTOS DR
EUCALYPTUS DR
AIRPORT RD
MARCUS RD
SONOMA BLVD
COMMERCE
CT
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.9
City of American Canyon
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
0.5 Miles H
Las Posadas
State Forest
Bothe-Napa Valley State Park
Robert Louis
Stevenson
State Park
29 29
128
Lake County
Sonoma County
POPE CANYON
RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.10
County of Napa - Northwest
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
Lake Berryessa
Las Posadas
State Forest
Lake County
Yolo County
BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE RD
POPE CANYON RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.11
County of Napa - Northeast
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
DRY CREEK RD
SAGE CANYON RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
29 29
128
128
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.12
County of Napa - Central West
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
Lake Berryessa
Lake Curry
Lake Hennessey
Lake Hennessey City
Recreation Area
Las Posadas
State Forest
SILVERADO
TRL
SODA
CANYON RD
DRY CREEK RD
SAGE CANYON RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
ATLAS PEAK RD
BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE
RD
SILVERADO TRL
WOODEN VALLEY RD
128
128
29 121
Solano County
Sonoma
County
Yolo County
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.13
County of Napa - Central East
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
5 Miles
12 121
221
29 29
12 121
80 AMERICAN CANYON RD
TROWER AVE
JEFFERSON ST
1ST ST
1S
T
AVE
DRY CREEK RD
B ROWNS VALLEY RD
LAS AMIGAS RD
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
FOSTER RD
ATLAS
PEAK RD
CALIFORNIA
BLVD
SOLANO AVE
LAKEMARIE RD
DEVLIN RD
GREEN ISLAND RD
SOSCOL AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
3RD AVE
GOLDEN GA TE DR
BROADWAY
REDWO OD RD
W IMOLA AVE
HAGEN RD
POLSON RD
PARTRICK RD
DUHIG RD
TRANCAS ST
OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY LN
W ILDHORSE
VALL
EY RD
AIR PORT RD
BIG RANCH RD
SILVERADO TRL
LINDAVISTA AVE
MOUNT VEEDER RD
BUHMAN AVE
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.14
County of Napa - South
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
2.5 Miles
TRANCAS ST
NORMA DR
NORFOLK ST
JOMAR DR
KATHLEEN DR
EMERSON ST
SHERRY DR
OXFORD ST
SUTHERLAND DR
ETHEL PORTER DR
MACLENNAN ST
BA
YWOOD LN
DELPHA DR
BARBARA RD
VERNA DR
SANDRA DR
CAROL DR
MACLEOD ST
ROHLFFSWAY
THOMAS DR
CAROL
DR
YOUNG AVE
DOVER ST
PAMELA DR
ROLLINGWOOD DR
EUCLID AVE
SOLANO AVE
WAVERLY ST
DONNA DR
MACBETH ST
JANETTE DR
REDWOOD RD
LINDA
VISTA AVE
W PUEBLO AVE
MORGAN LN
MACLEAN ST
GLEN CT
MACFADDEN
ST
MASSA DR
BEL AIRE PLZ
RA
NCHO DR
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
MORLAN DR
SB SR29 OFF TRANCAS
NB SR29 ON TRANCAS
SB SR29 ON
TRANCAS
NB SR29
OFF
TRANCAS
W PARK AVE
29 29
FIGURE 5.15
County of Napa - West Pueblo
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
CEDAR DR
IMOLA AVE
LONDON WAY
REPUBLIC AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
CAPITOLA DR
LOS ROBLES DR
WYATT AVE
MUIR ST
MARSHALL AVE
JUNIPER CIR
BIRKDALE DR
LAREDO ST
S TERRACE DR
ERIN WAY
SHETLER AVE
CORONADO AVE
PATTON
AVE
SHURTLEFF AVE
LINDEN ST
N OAK DR
TAMARISK DR
WILKINS AVE
SEVILLE DR MARIA DR
TERRACE DR
HOLMES AVE
TRAILER PA R K
R
OA
D
RUSSELL ST
PENNY LN
CAYETANO DR
PARRISH RD
SOMMER
S
T
OAKMONT CT
ACACIA DR
LIBERTY DR HARDING AVE
PERKINS ST
BELV EDERE CT
KANSAS AVE
PENNYROYAL ST
MAGNOLIA DR
FIGURE 5.16
County of Napa - Southeast Napa Islands
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
Chardonnay Golf Club
Skyline County Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
American Canyon
Community Park
121
12 12
221
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.17
County of Napa - Napa / American Canyon
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
1 Miles H
80 Proposed Pedestrian
Network
Recommended pedestrian projects aim to create a
more complete, more connected pedestrian
network. Proposed projects include off-street,
shared-use paths as well as sidewalk gap closure
projects near key destinations.
Providing dedicated pedestrian facilities separate
from vehicle traffic decreases potential conflict with
motorists. A complete pedestrian network is more
accessible to a wide range of users, including people
with physical disabilities, as well as people with
strollers, shopping carts, suitcases, or bicycles. It also supports first- and last-mile trips to and from transit stops, improved public health by encouraging
walking, and drives foot traffic to local businesses.
The proposed network does not include specific
locations for crossing or intersection improvements,
but rather a crosswalk policy that may be employed
by the jurisdictions. The Treatment Toolkit in
Appendix D provides a host of potential crossing
improvement measures, including signage, lighting,
physical infrastructure improvements, and parking
policy. Jurisdictions may use this toolkit at their own discretion to develop site specific crossing
improvement projects.
Proposed Pedestrian Network
Table 5.2 provides existing and proposed mileage of
the pedestrian network by facility type. For detailed
project recommendations for each jurisdiction, see
Chapter 7 through Chapter 12.
Table 5.2: Napa Countywide Proposed Pedestrian Network Mileage Facility Type Existing Mileage Proposed Mileage Total
Shared Use Path (Class I) 47.0 66.2 113.3
Sidewalk 523.1 18.3 541.4
Total 570.1 84.6 654.7
Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course
DUNAWEAL LN
MORA AVE
PETRIFIED FOREST RD
MYRTLEDALE RD
WASHINGTON ST
GREENWOOD AVE
CHAMPAGNE N
GRANT ST
MYRTLE ST
LAKE ST
FOOTHILL BLVD
TUBBS LN
FAIR WAY
N OAK ST
CEDAR ST
PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL
DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD
ROSEDALE RD
KORTUM CANYON RD
LINCOLN AVE
BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN
PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Crosswalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.18
City of Calistoga
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
Crane Park
Stonebridge Park
SILVERADO TRL
CHAIX LN
DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE
ZINFANDEL LN
PRATT AVE
MADRON A A V E
FULTON LN
SPRI N G
ST
ADAMS ST
POPE ST
VALLEJO ST
DEER PARK RD
MAIN ST
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD
MEADOWOOD LN
WHITEHALL LN
INGLEWOOD AVE
CRANE AVE
SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE
GRAYSON AVE
OAK AVE
WHITE LN
SPRING MOUNTAIN RD
HUNT AVE
W ZINFANDEL LN
BIG ROCK RD
DEAN YORK LN
CABERNET LN
SYLVANER AVE
HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
LEWELLING AVE
WHITEHALL LN
MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Crosswalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.19
City of St. Helena
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUTE
Vineyard Park
R ALEMEDA
CALIFORNIA DR
MISSION ST
FORRESTER LN HEATHER ST
YO
UNT ST
OAK CIR
YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD
JEFFERSON ST
SAN ANTONIO ST
PRESIDENTS CIR
FINNELL RD
CHAMPAGNE DR
LANDE WAY
YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
AVE
MADISON ST
CALIFORNIA
DR
WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR
VINEYARDCIR
MULBERRY ST
HERITAGE WAY
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
VINEYARD VIEW DR
IMPERIAL RD
INNER ALEMEDA
LAND LN
WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.20
Town of Yountville
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
Skyline Wilderness Park
Alston Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
Westwood
Hills Park
Trancas Crossing
Park
TROWER AVE
PUEBLO AVE
1ST ST
SOLANO AVE
WINE COUNTRY AVE
1ST
AVE
DRY CREEK RD
SOSCOLFERRY RD
BROWNS VALLEY RD
JEFFERSON
ST
LAS AMIGAS RD
OAK ST
IMOLA AVE
FOSTER RD
ATLAS PEAK RD
TWIN OAKS
DR
CEDAR DR
BASALT RD SILVERADO
CALI
TRL
FORNIA
BLVD
DEVLIN RD
HAGEN RD
COOMBS
ST
SOSCOL
AVE
THOMPSON
AVE
LINCOLN AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
GOLDEN GATE DR
OLIVE HILL LN
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
LAUREL ST
REDWOOD RD
W IMOLA AVE
ORCHARD AVE
VICHY
AVE
PARTRICK RD
DUHIG RD
TRANCAS ST
OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY LN
HILLCRESTDR
BIG RANCH RD
LINDA VISTAAVE
LOS CARNEROS AVE
BUHMAN AVE
DEALY LN
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
221
29 29
29 12
12 FIGURE 5.21
City of Napa
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Crosswalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
Alston Park
Westwood
Hills Park
JEFFERSON ST
LAUREL ST
SOLANO AVE
WINE COUNTRY AVE
CALIFORNIA
BLVD
CONGRESS VALLEYRD
DRY CREEK RD
1ST ST
BROWNS VALLEY RD
KATHLEEN DR
EL CENTRO AVE
TWIN OAKS DR
LONE OAK AVE
W PARK AVE
W LINCOLN AVE
FALCON
CREST
CIR
SIERRA AVE
SUMMERFIELD DR
TROWER AVE
KILBURN AVE
OLD SONOMA RD
WESTVIEW DR
SCENIC DR
THOMPSON
AVE
YOUNG AVE
BYWAY E
BROADMOORDR
SALVADOR AVE
REDWOOD RD
HOMEWOOD AVE
ORCHARD AVE
W PUEBLO AVE
PARTRICK RD
TIMBERHILLLN
BUHMAN AVE
MAHER ST
LINDA VISTA AVE
OXFORD ST
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
STONEBRIDGE DR
HUNTER RANCHRD
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.22
City of Napa - Northwest
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
NAPARIVER TRAIL
PUEBLO AVE
PINE ST
1ST ST
SEMINAR
Y
ST
VILLA LN
EASTAVE
SHURTL
EFF AVE
1ST AVE
HARDMAN AVE
JEFFERSON ST
BROWN ST
OAK ST
SAINT ANDREWSDR
PEAR TREE LN
ATLAS PEAK RD
LAUREL ST
SILVERADOTRL
LA GRANDE
AVE
SOSCOL AVE
FRANKLIN
ST
CALIFORNIA
BLVD
MAIN ST
FREEWAY DR
HEDGESIDE
MCKINLEY RD
AVE
G ST
COOMBS ST
CLAY ST
YAJOME ST
SILVER TRL
SOSCOL
AVE
NORTH AVE
2ND ST
3RD ST
LINCOLN AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
EL CENTRO AVE
SPRUCE ST
TERRACE DR
STONECREST DR
LA HOMA DR
ELM ST
STONEHOUSE DR
OLIVE HILL LN
RANDOLPH ST
MARIN ST
CAYETANO DR
WILLIS DR
ROSS CIR
HAGEN RD
ESTEE AVE
2ND
AVE
RIVERSIDE
DR
MONTECITO BLVD
VICHY AVE
CENTRAL AVE
3RD AVE
TRANCAS ST
KANSAS AVE
HILLCREST DR
BIG RANCH RD
SILVERADO
TRL
RAPP
LN
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
29 121
121
FIGURE 5.23
City of Napa - Northeast
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
Skyline County P
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
RIVERSOUND WA
Y
NAPA
VALLEY CORPORATEDR
PINE ST
GASSER DR
S JEFFERSON ST
SOSCOL FERRY RD
LASAMIGAS RD
IMOLA AVE
FOSTER RD
CEDAR DR
BASALT RD
LAUREL ST
DEVLIN RD
SHETLER AVE
TECHNOLOGYWAY
SHURTLEFFAVE
HEMLOCK ST
SPRUCE ST SEVILLE DR
JAMES DIEMER DR
ELM ST
GOLDEN GATE DR
CAYETANO DR
N AIRPORT RD
CLEAR STREAM AVE
W IMOLA AVE
N KELLY RD
KANSAS AVE
OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY
LN
STANLY CROSSROAD
RIVER PARK BLVD
SOSCOL CREEK RD
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
N NEWPORT DR
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
12 12
29 29
29 221
STANLY LN
FIGURE 5.24
City of Napa - South
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
Veterans
Memorial Park
Shenandoah Park
American Canyon
Community Park
Kimberly Park
WETLANDS EDGE RD
SILVER OAK TRL
NEWELL
DR
KIMBERLY DR
CRAWFORD WAY
DONALDSON WAY
BOONE DR
S KELLY RD
PAOLI
LOOP
R
D
ELLIOTT DR
REDWO OD CIR
TR I A L ER
PA
RK R O AD
DEVLIN RD
AMERICAN CANYON RD
MARLA DR
GREEN ISLAND RD
CHAUCER LN
TOWER RD
NORTHAMPTON DR
ENTRADACIR
WATSON LN
BROADWAY
C
O
MMER
CE
BLVD
DANROSE
D
R
JAMES RD
LOS ALTO S
DR
EUCALYPTUS DR
AIRPORT RD
MARCUS RD
COMMERCE
CT
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 5.25
City of American Canyon
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
0.5 Miles H
WALNUT DR OAKVILLE GRADE RD
MANLEY LN
BELLA OAKS LN
NIEBAUM LN
MONEY RD
OAKVILLE CROSS RD
RUTHERFORD ROAD
ACACIA DR
MEE LN
BEERS TECHER RD
CONN CREEK RD
128 128
29 29
Oakville
Rutherford
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
School
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
Census Designated Places
FIGURE 5.26
County of Napa - Rutherford and Oakville
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
LAS POSADAS RD
KEYES AVE
BROOKSI D E DR
DEER PARK RD
SKY OAKS DR
S WHITEC O TTAGE RD
N WHITE COTTAGERD
LA JOTA DR
INK GRADE RD
BELL CANYON RD
FRIESEN DR
COLLEGE AVE
CLARK WAY
SUMMIT LAKE DR
FA LLS RD
CRESTMONT DR
HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
Angwin
Deer Park
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
Census Designated Places
City Limits
FIGURE 5.27
County of Napa - Angwin
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
0.5 Miles H
Stonebridge Park
SILVERADO TRL
S WHITE COTTAGE RD
MUND RD
SPRING MOUNTAIN RD
HILLCREST RD
SANITARIUM RD
PRATT AVE
FULTON LN HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
POPE ST
LODI LN
CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD
MAIN ST
GLASS MOUNTAIN RD
MEADOWOOD LN
D EERPARK RD
SUNNYSIDERD
CAMINO V ISTA
HOWELL MOUNTAIN
RD
LIND A FALL S TERRACE
HUNT AVE
BIG ROCK RD
CRESTMONT DR
128
29 Angwin
Deer Park
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Crosswalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
Census Designated Places
City Limits
FIGURE 5.28
County of Napa - Deer Park
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
TROON DR
S ILV E RADO SPRINGS
DR
HARDMAN AVE
STONE
MO UN T A IN
CIR
AUGUSTA CIR
SA INTANDREWS DR
CASTLE OAKS DR
ATLAS PEAK RD
KAANAPALI DR
HEDGESIDE AVE
MCKINLEY RD
SILVER TRL
MIL
L
KE I N
CREEK DR
VICHY AVE
WESTGATE DR
ESTEE AVE
WESTGATE DR
OLD
SODA SPRINGS RD
FAIRWAY DR
HILLCREST DR
COTTAGE DR
121
121
Silverado
Resort
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
Census Designated Places
City Limits
FIGURE 5.29
County of Napa - Silverado Resort
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
NORMA DR
NORFOLK ST
JOMAR DR
KATHLEEN DR
EMERSON ST
SHERRY DR
OXFORD ST
SUTHERLAND DR
ETHEL PORTER DR
MACLENNAN ST
BAYWOOD
LN
DELPHA DR
BARBARA RD
VERNA DR
SANDRA DR
CAROL DR
MACLEOD ST
ROHLFFSWAY
THOMAS DR
CAROL
DR
YOUNG AVE
DOVER ST
PAMELA DR
ROLLINGWOOD DR
EUCLID AVE
SOLANO AVE
WAVERLY ST
DONNA DR
MACBETH ST
JANETTE DR
REDWOOD RD
LINDA
VISTA AVE
W PUEBLO AVE
MORGAN LN
MACLEAN ST
GLEN CT
MACFADDEN
ST
MASSA DR
BEL AIRE PLZ
RA
NCHO DR
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
MORLAN DR
SB SR29 OFF TRANCAS
NB SR29 ON TRANCAS
SB
SR29 O
N
TRA
N
CA
S
NB SR29
OFF
TRANCAS
W PARK AVE
29 29
FIGURE 5.30
County of Napa - West Pueblo
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Crosswalk
School
City Limits
County Limits
CEDAR DR
IMOLA AVE
LONDON WAY
REPUBLIC AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
CAPITOLA
D
R
LOS ROBLES DR
WYATT AVE
MUIR ST
MARSHALL AVE
JUNIPER CIR
BIRKDALE DR
LAREDO ST
S TERRACE DR
ERIN WAY
SHETLER AVE
CORONADO AVE
PA
TTON
A
VE
SHURTLEFF AVE
LINDEN ST
N OAK DR
TAMARISK DR
WILKINS
A
VE
SEVILLE DR MARIA DR
TERRACE DR
HOLMES AVE
TRAILER PA R K
R
OA
D
RUSSELL ST
PENNY LN
CAYETANO DR
PARRISH RD
SOMMER
S
T
OAKMONT CT
ACACIA DR
LIBERTY DR HARDING AVE
PERKINS ST
BELV EDERE CT
KANSAS AVE
PENNYROYAL ST
MAGNOLIA DR
FIGURE 5.31
County of Napa - Southeast Napa Islands
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
School
City Limits
County Limits
95 Marked Crosswalk Strategies
The following crosswalk strategy may be used to
determine locations for new or improved marked
crosswalks and prioritize key crossing opportunities.
For a menu of crossing safety treatments, refer to
the Treatment Toolkit in Appendix D.
Three factors must be considered when identifying
locations for marked crosswalks:
» Where is there a demand for a crosswalk?
» Is there a history of collisions?
» Where can people cross safely?
In addition to this strategy, jurisdictions should refer to the NVTA Community Based Transportation Plan
(CBTP) recommended project list, which includes
more than 80 potential projects and programs
recommended by disadvantaged community
members. The CBTP seeks to address transportation
access issues for disadvantaged residents who are
more likely to be dependent upon transit or other
forms of transportation besides a car but may have
less resources or access to travel where they need to
go. By considering crosswalks requested by this
community, it will ensure that some of the county's
most vulnerable residents have a voice in steering
transportation policy and improving their day-to-day
lives.
Crossing Demand
Marked crosswalks should be prioritized at locations
where there is existing crossing demand, including at
community destinations such as schools, parks,
commercial centers, wineries, and transit stops.
Choosing crossing locations will depend on
pedestrian desire lines, which are the most direct,
desirable crossing route locations to key
destinations. According to the National Association
of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), where the
walking distance to a crosswalk exceeds three
minutes, pedestrians are more likely to cross at
unmarked, unsafe locations for a more direct route.
Long wait times at signalized intersection may also
encourage risky crossing behavior. Crosswalks at
uncontrolled intersections or midblock locations
should be considered, where appropriate, to follow
pedestrian desire lines and create more convenient
crossing opportunities. Caltrans Design Information
Bulletin (DIB) 94 recommends guidance for
identifying locations for marked crosswalks, listed in
Table 5.3.
DIB 94 specifies that crosswalks should be within
250-500 feet of each other in urban areas, and
within 500 feet of each other in suburban areas or
along rural main streets. Transit stops and key
community destinations should have crosswalks
within 50 to 200 feet.
Crosswalks should be prioritized at schools,
commercial centers, hospitals, government
buildings, tourist attractions, and other destinations
where 1) pedestrians are encouraged to walk and 2)
may be used by vulnerable road users (children,
seniors, etc.). Crosswalks and pedestrian facilities
should be considered in large commercial parking
lots as well.
Table 5.3: Caltrans DIB 94 Crosswalk Location Guidance
Destination/Land Use Context Crosswalk Location
Transit Stop 50-200 feet to destination
Community Destination 50-200 feet to destination
Urban Areas Every 250 to 500 feet
Suburban Areas/Rural Main Streets Every 500 feet
96 Collision History
Another way to identify potential marked crosswalk
locations is through an analysis of local collision
history. Identifying collision hot spots will highlight areas for potential pedestrian improvements, and
shared roadway characteristics that may contribute
to high collision frequency. A collision analysis will
also help identify places where pedestrians are
crossing often, but adequate crossing safety features
are not present. Collision history may be used in
tandem with crossing demand to prioritize crossing
locations to key destinations.
Some commonly used sources for collision data,
such as the Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), only report collisions that result in a fatality or injury and therefore underreport total collisions
by excluding non-injury or property damage only
crashes. Street Story Reports by Berkeley SafeTREC
provide supplemental information about collisions,
near-misses, and other roadway safety concerns.
Crossing Safety
Once crossing demand is established and collision
hotspots are located, potential crossing locations
should be evaluated for safety. The number of lanes,
posted speed, and volume of vehicles—measured as
the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)—all impact
pedestrian crossing safety, and appropriate
pedestrian crossing treatments should be considered
and implemented. Stopping sight distance should
also be evaluated when identifying appropriate
locations for midblock or uncontrolled crosswalks.
Selecting Crossing Treatments
After selecting marked crosswalk locations for
implementation, pedestrian crossing treatments
should be considered based on intersection context.
Figure 5.32 provides crossing treatments and where
they are deemed most appropriate based on
intersection characteristics. Figure 5.33 provides the
FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at
Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (STEP Guide), which
includes appropriate crossing treatments based on
roadway configuration, speed limit, and average
daily traffic volumes. See Appendix D for a list of
potential pedestrian crossing treatments.
97 Figure 5.32: Crossing Treatments by Intersection Type
98 Figure 5.33: FHWA Step Guide
99 Recommended Policies and
Programs
Policies and programs, in tandem with state-of-thepractice infrastructure, will help Napa County achieve its vision of being an active transportationfriendly community with a connected and comfortable network for all ages and abilities.
Inspired by the “Six E’s” framework developed by the
Safe Routes Partnership8
, the recommended policies
and programs in this Plan are categorized into the
following distinct implementation channels—
engineering, education and engagement,
encouragement, and evaluation. Since equity (one of
the “Six E’s”) is one of the goals of this plan and not an “implementation channel,” the policies and
programs that support the Equity and Accessibility
goal are distributed among the other “E’s”
categories.
Policies are typically set by local jurisdictions, while programs may be led by those agencies directly or in
partnership with external stakeholders such as
nonprofit organizations or school districts. The
policies in this Plan build upon and complement
policies developed in previous planning efforts (both
countywide and local), and supersede any conflicting
policies in previous plans, unless noted. The policies
and programs in this section are intended to be
applied countywide and adopted by each
jurisdiction.
The lead implementing agency for each policy and
program is the local jurisdiction, unless otherwise
noted.
Engineering
Recommended policies and programs that support the build-out of a connected and comfortable active transportation network for all ages and abilities are listed in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4: Engineering Policies and Programs
Topic Policy or Program Goal Themes
Active
Transportation
Network
Implementation
(Development
Regulations)
Update development code to condition discretionary projects to provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities recommended in this Plan, assuming a nexus is established. With prior approval from the jurisdiction, construction may be deferred until a connection to an existing route can be made.
Improvements include, but are not limited to, easements, land dedication, route design and construction, maintenance, safety enhancements, and support facilities.
Connectivity
Automated
Enforcement
Technology
Evaluate automated technology innovations to enforce posted speed limits, traffic signal compliance, and other moving vehicle violations.
Safety
Bicycle Parking and
End-of-Trip
Facilities
Update municipal code to require the provision of long- and short-term bicycle parking in all new or redeveloped multifamily residential, office, public, and commercial buildings. Additionally require employers with 50 or more full-time exempt employees to provide end-of-trip facilities, such as showers and lockers. Refer to the Treatment Toolkit for best practices.
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Bikeways, Existing Do not remove existing bikeways unless an improved bikeway is installed in its place.
Safety,
Connectivity
8 https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/safe-routes-school/101/6-Es
100
Topic Policy or Program Goal Themes
Capital
Improvements
Program (CIP)
Include projects from this Plan’s proposed pedestrian network and near-term bicycle project list in the CIP.
Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Coordination with
Caltrans
Work with Caltrans to identify projects on Caltrans facilities that address issues related to collisions, speeding, or other barriers to active transportation.
Safety,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Complete Streets Establish a deadline to update local engineering standards to incorporate Complete Streets consistent with Metropolitan Transportation Commissions (MTC) guidance,
9 Caltrans Director’s Policy 37, and incorporating best practices as identified by AASHTO, NACTO, and PROWAG.
Complete streets serve not only vehicle operations, but also pedestrians, personal mobility device users, bicyclists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities in a form that is compatible with and complementary to adjacent land uses, and that promotes connectivity between uses and areas.
Equity and
Accessibility,
Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Crossings Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian crossing enhancement projects located along the Vision Zero High Injury Network (HIN).
Safety,
Connectivity
Curb Design Discourage rolled curbs adjacent to sidewalks; they may increase frequency of vehicles parking on or blocking pedestrian path of travel.
Safety, Equity
and
Accessibility,
Connectivity
Daylighting Prioritize curb extensions and other daylighting improvements at key locations, such as near schools, or on higher volume roads.
Safety
Design Standards Design all active transportation infrastructure to serve all ages and abilities. In the absence of local jurisdictional design guidelines, please refer to the Treatment Toolkit in this Plan. The Toolkit should be regularly updated by NVTA to reflect best practices.
Safety, Equity
and
Accessibility
Leading Pedestrian
Interval
Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) at signals near key destinations such as schools, parks, hospitals, multi-family housing, retail hubs, transit, and at intersections along the HIN
Safety, Equity
and
Accessibility
Lighting Prioritize pedestrian-scale lighting along primary active transportation corridors and near intersections along the HIN, primary active transportation corridors including Class I and Class IV facilities in urbanized areas, and arterials with bicycle facilities and/or sidewalks.
Safety,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Maintenance Recognizing that small jurisdictions may not have the resources to acquire equipment, jurisdictions should share maintenance equipment (e.g., for sweeping, moving, bollard replacement) where feasible.
Equity and
Accessibility,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Maintenance Maintain bicycle facilities at the same or better condition as on-road facilities.
Examples include pavement condition, signing and striping, street sweeping and debris removal, and trimming of vegetation. Consult the Treatment Toolkit section for guidance.
Equity and
Accessibility,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Maintenance
Reporting
Enable residents and visitors to easily report hazards in the public right-ofway using digital/mobile tools that automatically and consistently track maintenance needs. This could include reporting maintenance needs for pedestrian-related pavement markings and traffic control devices.
Equity and
Accessibility,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
9 MTC Complete Streets Checklist. https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024- 10/MTC_Administrative_Guidance_for_Complete_Streets_Checklist_2024.pdf
101
Topic Policy or Program Goal Themes
Mode Hierarchy Establish a mode hierarchy for land use, design and engineering decisions on key corridors or specific street typologies that identify where to prioritize pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit.
Safety,
Connectivity,
sustainability,
and Mode Shift
Project
Implementation
Review the projects identified in this plan for inclusion in street resurfacing, construction projects, and development application review, to promote consistency and buildout of the active transportation network.
Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Quick Build10 Develop a countywide Quick-Build Program to quickly and consistently select and implement active transportation projects.
Safety,
Connectivity
Regional Active
Transportation
Network
Enhance safety by prioritizing bike and pedestrian connectivity to regional bicycle trail facilities such as the Vine Trail and Bay Trail.
Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Right on Red Evaluate existing signalized intersections for locations where Right on Red may be prohibited to improve safety.
Safety
Safe Routes to
School – Bicycle
Parking
Partner with local school districts to provide safe, secure bicycle parking.
Short-term bicycle parking should be provided at a rate of at least 1 space per every 20 students.11 In the absence of local jurisdictional design guidelines, refer to the Treatment Toolkit for bicycle parking design guidance.
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Safe Routes to
School –
Crosswalks
Enhance all school zone crosswalks at collector or arterial intersections within
0.25 miles of a school with yellow, higher-visibility continental or ladder-style markings.
Safety
Safe Routes to
School - Sidewalks
Strive to provide sidewalks of at least 6’ wide within 250’ of the school entrance. If a school has only one entrance, strive to provide sidewalks of at least 8’ wide within 250’ of that entrance.
Equity and
Accessibility
Sidewalk Gaps Support safe and convenient access for pedestrians of all ages and abilities by filling all sidewalk network gaps. Prioritize filling gaps (1) along arterials and collectors, (2) proximate to key destinations such as schools, parks, hospitals, multi-family housing, or transit, and (3) in areas that are identified as a neighborhood/community priority.12
Equity and
Accessibility,
Connectivity
Sidewalks as
Shared-Use Paths
Install signage and pavement markings (such as thermoplastic decals) along all existing wide or “jumbo” sidewalks to satisfy the facility requirements of shared-use paths.
Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Speed Limits
(General)
Using the CA Manual for Setting Speed Limits, further Vision Zero objectives to lessen the severity and frequency of crashes by reducing roadway design speed and associated posted speed limits on arterial and collector roadways.
Safety
Speed Limits
(School Zone)
Per California Vehicle Code Section 22358.8, evaluate the reduction of speed limits in School Zones, which may be lowered to 15 mph on all two-way residential streets under the City’s jurisdiction within 500 feet of schools and 25 mph up to 1,000 feet from schools.
Safety
Transit First Prioritize active transportation to/from transit stops, transit hubs, and park and rides, particularly within Equity Priority Communities.
Equity and
Accessibility,
Connectivity
10 NVTA would implement this policy or program.
11 Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Ed, 2010. 12 There are some exceptions to this policy, including rural residential zones and the Town of Yountville Old Town Historic District. See Town of Yountville General Plan, Mobility Element MO-3.2 – Old Town Historic District, which states “Maintain the Old Town Historic residential neighborhood with minimal traffic improvements and without curb, gutter, and sidewalks.”
102
Education and Engagement
The policies and programs recommended below are intended to educate and increase awareness of active transportation-related best practices among the public.
Table 5.5: Education and Engagement Policies and Programs Topic Policy or Program Goal Themes
Bike Rental
Education
Promote bicycle safety and reduce conflicts by coordinating with businesses that provide bike rentals, tours, and/or loaner bikes (including local retailers, hotels, and tour companies) to promote user education/etiquette and to provide preferred route guides to those who borrow or rent equipment.
Safety
Construction
Detours
Provide designated detour routes with an LTS equivalent to the existing bicycle/pedestrian facility so that construction projects (whether public or private) do not unnecessarily impact active transportation facilities.
Safety
Micromobility If necessary, update local ordinances to specify where e-bikes and other motorized micromobility devices are allowed to operate, consistent with state legislation.
Equity and
Accessibility,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Obstructions Develop an awareness program and/or educational materials that discourage blocking bike lanes and sidewalks (including residential driveways), especially within 0.25 miles of schools. This information could be communicated through local jurisdictions’ websites and directly to businesses (re: commercial deliveries).
Safety, Equity
and
Accessibility,
Connectivity
Road Safety
Education
Organize countywide efforts to partner with local stakeholders to expand roadway safety events, programs, and leverage regional/state/federal campaigns such as those developed by the Office of Traffic Safety. Partner with local nonprofit organizations and other community partners to provide and support free bicycle and pedestrian education to the community that includes topics such as safety and maintenance.
Safety,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Safe Routes to
School Education
Support and expand Safe Routes to School program, including classroombased curriculum and on-bike education for all Napa County K-12 students by identifying consistent long-term funding for Safe Routes to School programs.
Safety,
Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Safe Routes to
School
Engagement
Partner with local schools to provide Safe Routes to Schools materials and communications in commonly spoken languages to reach diverse populations.
Equity and
Accessibility
Waste Hauling Expand Napa County Bicycle Coalition’s awareness program that discourages placing waste bins in bike lanes and within the pedestrian clear space of the sidewalk. Develop local policies to support ongoing education and compliance.
Safety, Equity
and Accessibility
Wayfinding13 Partner with local and regional jurisdictions and stakeholders to develop countywide bikeway signage, striping, wayfinding, and lighting standards.
Whether on regional multi-use paths or in local downtowns, signage, striping, wayfinding, and lighting should be consistent.
Connectivity
103
Encouragement
The policies and programs described below are intended to encourage residents and visitors alike to choose active transportation as a means of traveling throughout Napa County.
Table 5.6: Encouragement Policies and Programs
Topic Policy or Program Goal Themes
Bicycle Events Encourage events that familiarize the public with bicycling and walking such as Bike to Work Day, Bike to School Day, Bike Fest, and commute challenges.
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Bike Parking at
Large Events
Enforce the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) which requires large events (those with 5,000+ projected attendees) and recurring community events (such as farmers markets) to provide safe/secure bike parking on-site.
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Bicycle Friendly
Community Status
Partner with Napa County Bicycle Coalition to apply for, and maintain, Bicycle Friendly Community status from the League of American Bicyclists. The City of Calistoga became a Silver Bicycle Friendly Community in 2013, and the City of Napa became a Bronze Bicycle Friendly Community in 2012.
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Bikes for LowIncome Residents
Provide free or low-cost bicycles and helmets to those who qualify for CalFresh by collaborating with local bike shops, nonprofits, and advocacy groups to source bikes and helmets at discounted rates or through donations.
Equity and
Accessibility,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Class I Facilities in
Parks
Evaluate existing policies and revise where necessary to support 24-hour access to low-stress (Class I) active transportation facilities in parks.
Safety, Equity
and
Accessibility,
Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Micromobility
Encourage e-bike mode shift among low-income California residents with a targeted outreach program to promote any state-administered e-bike rebates or subsides.
Equity and
Accessibility,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Safe Routes to
School
Support local schools and other Safe Routes to School program partners, such as non-profits, in offering age-appropriate Safe Routes to School programming.
This may include walking school buses and bike rodeos for elementary students, bike safety and “walk and roll to school” events for all ages, bike repair workshops for middle and high schoolers, and student-led encouragement (through events or affinity groups) for high schoolers.
Safety,
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Social Walks/Rides
& Family Biking
Workshops
Support development and expansion of recurring social walking/biking events, family biking workshops, Walk-with-a-Doc programs, and other activities to introduce/encourage active transportation.
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
Transportation
Demand
Management
(TDM)13
Develop a countywide TDM program to oversee projects with conditioned TDM requirements and identify funding strategies for monitoring. The County of Napa General Plan Circulation Element provides details on potential strategies.14
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
TDM Programs Support/expand TDM programs that encourage or incentivize active transportation as an alternative to solo vehicle commutes.
Sustainability
and Mode Shift
13 NVTA would implement this policy or program
14 County of Napa General Plan Circulation Element, 2019. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/3332/CirculationElement-PDF
104
Evaluation
The policies and programs described below track progress towards a connected and comfortable active transportation network for all ages and abilities. NVTA has set aside resources to regularly evaluate the outcomes of this AT Plan, whether that be annually or biannually; therefore, NVTA would be the implementing agency for many of the following evaluation recommendations.
Table 5.7: Evaluation Policies and Programs
Topic Policy or Program Goal Themes
ADA Compliance Develop a countywide program to track ADA compliance of new and redeveloped curb ramps and sidewalks, consistent with the guidelines in the Treatment Toolkit.
Equity and
Accessibility
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Counts
Considering the active transportation mode share goal of 10% by 2040, establish a bicycle and pedestrian counts program and continue to install automated multimodal counters along key corridors and other locations countywide.
Counts, along with MioVision data from signalized intersections, will help track active transportation mode share. Additionally, counts can help assess the impact of active transportation improvements (i.e., before and after studies to measure increase in active mode share within a certain distance of a facility improvement or development project).
Sustainability
and Mode
Shift
Countywide
Database
Establish a one-stop comprehensive countywide GIS database that includes collision data, bicycle, and pedestrian network segment information (facility type, mileage, LTS score where applicable, planned infrastructure), counts data, curb ramps, and other relevant data. This database will support most of the other evaluation metrics described within this section. Update countywide GIS database each year to assess how many miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities have been added to the network.
Safety, Equity
and
Accessibility,
Connectivity,
Sustainability
and Mode
Shift
Data Collection
Collect and analyze vehicle and active mode data, including volumes, speeds, time-of-day, and other characteristics to determine pre- and post-project measurements for major bikeway and pedestrian improvement projects, as well as for large-scale development projects (e.g., Napa Pipe, Amazon warehouse, etc.). Big data sources of transportation data should also be considered for evaluation
Sustainability
and Mode
Shift
Equity Priority
Communities
Implement at least two projects per year in both locally identified and MTC Equity Priority Communities within the County.
Equity and
Accessibility
LTS Use the LTS tool to gauge whether each new bicycle facility added or upgraded within the county’s network will achieve a comfortable score of LTS 1 or 2. Safety Measure U
Coordination
In developing a five-year project list for Measure U, include on-street bike facilities, sidewalks, and other eligible projects from the active transportation recommendations in this Plan.
Sustainability
and Mode
Shift
Mode Share Goal
To support the countywide 10% active mode share goal, each jurisdiction should strive to complete as many projects as possible from the proposed pedestrian network and near-term bicycle project list by 2040.
Sustainability
and Mode
Shift
Safe Routes to
School
Foster a partnership between Napa County Bicycle Coalition and local schools to conduct student travel tallies twice per year at all elementary, middle, and high schools to track how students are traveling to school. This may inform whether encouragement programs and active transportation network improvements are contributing to mode shift.
Sustainability
and Mode
Shift
Vision Zero16 Track active transportation fatalities and severe injuries with the goal of reaching zero by 2035. Safety
105
Chapter 6
Implementation Plan
The following chapter provides a plan for
implementing the recommendations proposed in
Chapter 5. This chapter includes the following
sections:
» Bicycle Network Prioritization
» Estimated Project Benefits
» Unit Cost Assumptions
» Funding opportunities
The implementation plan outlines an approach for
prioritizing bicycle projects for implementation. Note
that the pedestrian network presented in Chapter 5
represents a prioritized list of sidewalk gap projects
and no further prioritization was conducted in
development of this Implementation Plan. The
sidewalk gap projects recommended form the
prioritized list as they provide improved pedestrian
access near key destinations.
In addition to the prioritization of near-term bicycle
projects, the implementation plan includes estimates
for induced bicycling demand and potential VMT
reduction benefits of all bicycle projects identified in the AT Plan, as well as estimated greenhouse gas
emissions reductions associated with
implementation of proposed sidewalk projects.
Finally, unit cost assumptions used to calculate
planning-level project cost estimates and a list of
potential funding opportunities with project
eligibility are included.
This AT Plan includes Caltrans planning efforts and
proposed facilities along state routes, which will
require coordination with Caltrans.
Bicycle Network
Prioritization
The proposed active transportation network
provides a vision through 2050 and includes 363
miles of projects. However, there is limited available
funding, and the whole network cannot be
implemented at once. As a result, a list of “nearterm” bicycle projects was developed for implementation over the next five to seven years,
totaling 83 miles of bicycle facilities.
The near-term bicycle project list is meant to be a
guide for jurisdictions, but implementation priorities
may change. Project implementation can be aligned
with other ongoing projects, like those
recommended in the 2023 Vision Zero Plan. Other
factors, such as project complexity and available
resources, may also impact which projects are
prioritized for implementation.
Prioritization Metrics
Scoring metrics were identified based on
community-identified values, common grant funding
program guidelines, and local agency priorities.
Bicycle projects were scored on the five metrics
listed in Table 6.1: safety, equity, connectivity, plan consistency, and community support.
106
Table 6.1: Prioritization Metrics
Metric Definition
Safety
Improvement is located on the HIN
defined by the 2023 NVTA Vision Zero
Plan
Equity
The project is within an Equity Priority
Community (EPC) defined by the 2025
NVTA Vision Zero Plan
Connectivity
The project provides a connection
along or across a high stress route that
is a barrier to low stress bicycle
connectivity
Plan
Consistency
The project was identified in a prior
planning effort
Community
Support
The project was identified or supported
by the community.
Manual Review
Once the proposed bicycle projects were scored,
high scoring projects were manually refined to
finalize the near-term bicycle project list for each
jurisdiction.
Projects that scored high but do not provide
connectivity to key destinations, or projects that
provide primarily recreational benefit instead of
commuter benefit were reconsidered. High scoring
projects were reevaluated if they are parallel to an
existing facility. If two high scoring projects are
proposed on the same corridor, the project offering
the least separation from vehicle traffic was removed
from the near-term project list. For example, if a
shared-use path (Class I) and a bike lane (Class II)
were both proposed on the same street, the bike
lane was removed from the near-term list.
Projects that may have not previously scored well
were considered for the near-term project list if they
provide key connections between existing bikeways
or other near-term projects, key destinations, or
would provide commuter benefit.
Near-term networks within each jurisdiction were
also reviewed holistically, in the context of how
useful or disjointed the network would be if all
included projects were implemented over the next
five to seven years.
Near-Term Project List
The assessment of bicycle projects resulted in a
near-term list that includes 87.5 miles of bicycle
facilities across 52 projects. Table 6.2 provides the
mileage of near-term bicycle projects in each city by
facility type. Maps of near-term bicycle projects in
each jurisdiction are provided in Figure 6.1 through
Figure 6.17.
Table 6.2: Near-Term Bicycle Project List
Jurisdiction Miles
City of Calistoga 6.6
Shared Use Path (Class I) 1.0
Bike Lanes (Class II) 5.0
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 0.7
City of St Helena 4.8
Shared Use Path (Class I) 4.2
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) 0.6
Town of Yountville 0.1
Shared Use Path (Class I) 0.1
City of Napa 12.6
Shared Use Path (Class I) 3.4
Bike Lanes (Class II) 4.0
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) 0.2
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 2.5
Study Corridor 2.5
City of American Canyon 4.2
Shared Use Path (Class I) 3.3
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) 0.7
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 0.2
County of Napa 59.1
Shared Use Path (Class I) 13.1
Bike Lanes (Class II) 9.8
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) 36.3
Total 87.5
Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course
DUNAWEAL LN
MORA AVE
PETRIFIED FOREST RD
MYRTLEDALE RD
WASHINGTON ST
GREENWOOD AVE
CHAMPAGNE N
GRANT ST
MYRTLE ST
LAKE ST
FOOTHILL BLVD
TUBBS LN
FAIR WAY
N OAK ST
CEDAR ST
PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL
DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD
ROSEDALE RD
KORTUM CANYON RD
LINCOLN AVE
BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN
PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.1
City of Calistoga
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
0.5 Miles
Crane Park
Stonebridge Park
SILVERADO TRL
CHAIX LN
DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE
ZINFANDEL LN
PRATT AVE
MADRON A A V E
FULTON LN
SPRI N G
ST
ADAMS ST POPE ST
VALLEJO ST
DEER PARK RD
MAIN ST
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD
MEADOWOOD LN
WHITEHALL LN
INGLEWOOD AVE
CRANE AVE
SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE
GRAYSON AVE
OAK AVE
WHITE LN
SPRING MOUNTAIN RD
HUNT AVE
W ZINFANDEL LN
BIG ROCK RD
DEAN YORK LN
CABERNET LN
SYLVANER AVE
HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
LEWELLING AVE
WHITEHALL LN
MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.2
City of St. Helena
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
0.5 Miles
Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUTE
Vineyard Park
R ALEMEDA
CALIFORNIA DR
MISSION ST
FORRESTER LN HEATHER ST
YO
UNT ST
OAK CIR
YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD
JEFFERSON ST
SAN ANTONIO ST
PRESIDENTS CIR
FINNELL RD
CHAMPAGNE DR
LANDE WAY
YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
AVE
MADISON ST
CALIFORNIA
DR
WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR
VINEYARDCIR
MULBERRY ST
HERITAGE WAY
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
VINEYARD VIEW DR
IMPERIAL RD
INNER ALEMEDA
LAND LN
WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.3
Town of Yountville
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
Skyline Wilderness Park
Alston Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
Westwood
Hills Park
Trancas Crossing
Park
TROWER AVE
PUEBLO AVE
1ST ST
SOLANO AVE
WINE COUNTRY AVE
1ST
AVE
DRY CREEK RD
SOSCOLFERRY RD
BROWNS VALLEY RD
JEFFERSON
ST
LAS AMIGAS RD
OAK ST
IMOLA AVE
FOSTER RD
ATLAS PEAK RD
TWIN OAKS
DR
CEDAR DR
BASALT RD SILVERADO
CALI
TRL
FORNIA
BLVD
DEVLIN RD
HAGEN RD
COOMBS
ST
SOSCOL
AVE
THOMPSON
AVE
LINCOLN AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
GOLDEN GATE DR
OLIVE HILL LN
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
LAUREL ST
REDWOOD RD
W IMOLA AVE
ORCHARD AVE
VICHY
AVE
PARTRICK RD
DUHIG RD
TRANCAS ST
OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY LN
HILLCRESTDR
BIG RANCH RD
LINDA VISTAAVE
LOS CARNEROS AVE
BUHMAN AVE
DEALY LN
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
221
29 29
29 12
12 FIGURE 6.4
City of Napa
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
School
City Limits
County Limits
Alston Park
Westwood
Hills Park
JEFFERSON ST
LAUREL ST
SOLANO AVE
WINE COUNTRY AVE
CALIFORNIA
BLVD
CONGRESS VALLEYRD
DRY CREEK RD
1ST ST
BROWNS VALLEY RD
KATHLEEN DR
EL CENTRO AVE
TWIN OAKS DR
LONE OAK AVE
W PARK AVE
W LINCOLN AVE
FALCON
CREST
CIR
SIERRA AVE
SUMMERFIELD DR
TROWER AVE
KILBURN AVE
OLD SONOMA RD
WESTVIEW DR
SCENIC DR
THOMPSON
AVE
YOUNG AVE
BYWAY E
BROADMOORDR
SALVADOR AVE
REDWOOD RD
HOMEWOOD AVE
ORCHARD AVE
W PUEBLO AVE
PARTRICK RD
TIMBERHILLLN
BUHMAN AVE
MAHER ST
LINDA VISTA AVE
OXFORD ST
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
STONEBRIDGE DR
HUNTER RANCHRD
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.5
City of Napa - Northwest
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
1 Miles
NAPARIVER TRAIL
PUEBLO AVE
PINE ST
1ST ST
SEMINAR
Y
ST
VILLA LN
EASTAVE
SHURTL
EFF AVE
1ST AVE
HARDMAN AVE
JEFFERSON ST
BROWN ST
OAK ST
SAINT ANDREWSDR
PEAR TREE LN
ATLAS PEAK RD
LAUREL ST
SILVERADOTRL
LA GRANDE
AVE
SOSCOL AVE
FRANKLIN
ST
CALIFORNIA
BLVD
MAIN ST
FREEWAY DR
HEDGESIDE
MCKINLEY RD
AVE
G ST
COOMBS ST
CLAY ST
YAJOME ST
SILVER TRL
SOSCOL
AVE
NORTH AVE
2ND ST
3RD ST
LINCOLN AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
EL CENTRO AVE
SPRUCE ST
TERRACE DR
STONECREST DR
LA HOMA DR
ELM ST
STONEHOUSE DR
OLIVE HILL LN
RANDOLPH ST
MARIN ST
CAYETANO DR
WILLIS DR
ROSS CIR
HAGEN RD
ESTEE AVE
2ND
AVE
RIVERSIDE
DR
MONTECITO BLVD
VICHY AVE
CENTRAL AVE
3RD AVE
TRANCAS ST
KANSAS AVE
HILLCREST DR
BIG RANCH RD
SILVERADO
TRL
RAPP
LN
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
29 121
121
FIGURE 6.6
City of Napa - Northeast
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
Skyline County P
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
RIVERSOUND WA
Y
NAPA
VALLEY CORPORATEDR
PINE ST
GASSER DR
S JEFFERSON ST
SOSCOL FERRY RD
LASAMIGAS RD
IMOLA AVE
FOSTER RD
CEDAR DR
BASALT RD
LAUREL ST
DEVLIN RD
SHETLER AVE
TECHNOLOGYWAY
SHURTLEFFAVE
HEMLOCK ST
SPRUCE ST SEVILLE DR
JAMES DIEMER DR
ELM ST
GOLDEN GATE DR
CAYETANO DR
N AIRPORT RD
CLEAR STREAM AVE
W IMOLA AVE
N KELLY RD
KANSAS AVE
OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY
LN
STANLY CROSSROAD
RIVER PARK BLVD
SOSCOL CREEK RD
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
N NEWPORT DR
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
121
121
12 12
29 29
29 221
STANLY LN
FIGURE 6.7
City of Napa - South
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
Veterans
Memorial Park
Shenandoah Park
American Canyon
Community Park
Kimberly Park
VIA BELLAGIO
WETLANDS EDGE RD
SILVER OAK TRL NEWELL
DR
KIMBERLY DR
CRAWFORD WAY
RIO DEL MAR
DONALDSON WAY
DONALDSON WAY E
BOONE DR
S KELLY RD
PAOLI
LOOP
R
D
ELLIOTT DR
REDWO OD CIR
TR I A L ER
PA
RK R O AD
DEVLIN RD
AMERICAN CANYON RD
MARLA DR
KNIGHTSBRIDGEWAY
SPIKERUSH CIR
GREEN ISLAND RD
CHA
UCER L
N
TOWER RD
NORTHAMPTONDR
ENTRADACIR
WATSON LN
BROADWAY
C
O
MMER
CE
BLVD
DANROSE
D
R
W AMERICAN CANYON RD
JAMES RD
LOS ALTOS DR
EUCALYPTUS DR
AIRPORT RD
MARCUS RD
SONOMA BLVD
COMMERCE
CT
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.8
City of American Canyon
Near-Term Bicycle Network
0.5 Miles H
Lake Berryessa
American
Canyon
Calistoga
Napa
St. Helena
Yountville SODA
CANYON
RD
DRY CREEK RD
SAGE CANYON RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE RD
ATLAS
PEAK
RD
WOODEN VALLEY RD
POPE CANYON RD
Lake County
Marin County
Sonoma County
Yolo County
29 128
128
221 12
121
29 80
Solano County
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.9
County of Napa
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
5 Miles
Las Posadas
State Forest
Bothe-Napa Valley State Park
Robert Louis
Stevenson
State Park
29 29
128
Lake County
Sonoma County
POPE CANYON
RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.10
County of Napa - Northwest
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
5 Miles
Lake Berryessa
Las Posadas
State Forest
Lake County
Yolo County
BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE RD
POPE CANYON RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.11
County of Napa - Northeast
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
5 Miles
DRY CREEK RD
SAGE CANYON RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
29 29
128
128
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.12
County of Napa - Central West
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
5 Miles
Lake Berryessa
Lake Curry
Lake Hennessey
Lake Hennessey City
Recreation Area
Las Posadas
State Forest
SILVERADO
TRL
SODA
CANYON RD
DRY CREEK RD
SAGE CANYON RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
ATLAS PEAK RD
BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE
RD
SILVERADO TRL
WOODEN VALLEY RD
128
128
29 121
Solano County
Sonoma
County
Yolo County
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.13
County of Napa - Central East
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
5 Miles
12 121
221
29 29
12 121
80 AMERICAN CANYON RD
TROWER AVE
JEFFERSON ST
1ST ST
1S
T
AVE
DRY CREEK RD
B ROWNS VALLEY RD
LAS AMIGAS RD
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
FOSTER RD
ATLAS
PEAK RD
CALIFORNIA
BLVD
SOLANO AVE
LAKEMARIE RD
DEVLIN RD
GREEN ISLAND RD
SOSCOL AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
3RD AVE
GOLDEN GA TE DR
BROADWAY
REDWO OD RD
W IMOLA AVE
HAGEN RD
POLSON RD
PARTRICK RD
DUHIG RD
TRANCAS ST
OLD SONOMA RD
STANLY LN
W ILDHORSE
VALL
EY RD
AIR PORT RD
BIG RANCH RD
SILVERADO TRL
LINDAVISTA AVE
MOUNT VEEDER RD
BUHMAN AVE
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.14
County of Napa - South
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
2.5 Miles
TRANCAS ST
NORMA DR
NORFOLK ST
JOMAR DR
KATHLEEN DR
EMERSON ST
SHERRY DR
OXFORD ST
SUTHERLAND DR
ETHEL PORTER DR
MACLENNAN ST
BA
YWOOD LN
DELPHA DR
BARBARA RD
VERNA DR
SANDRA DR
CAROL DR
MACLEOD ST
ROHLFFSWAY
THOMAS DR
CAROL
DR
YOUNG AVE
DOVER ST
PAMELA DR
ROLLINGWOOD DR
EUCLID AVE
SOLANO AVE
WAVERLY ST
DONNA DR
MACBETH ST
JANETTE DR
REDWOOD RD
LINDA
VISTA AVE
W PUEBLO AVE
MORGAN LN
MACLEAN ST
GLEN CT
MACFADDEN
ST
MASSA DR
BEL AIRE PLZ
RA
NCHO DR
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
MORLAN DR
SB SR29 OFF TRANCAS
NB SR29 ON TRANCAS
SB SR29 ON
TRANCAS
NB SR29
OFF
TRANCAS
W PARK AVE
29 29
FIGURE 6.15
County of Napa - West Pueblo
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
CEDAR DR
IMOLA AVE
LONDON WAY
REPUBLIC AVE
COOMBSVILLE RD
CAPITOLA DR
LOS ROBLES DR
WYATT AVE
MUIR ST
MARSHALL AVE
JUNIPER CIR
BIRKDALE DR
LAREDO ST
S TERRACE DR
ERIN WAY
SHETLER AVE
CORONADO AVE
PATTON
AVE
SHURTLEFF AVE
LINDEN ST
N OAK DR
TAMARISK DR
WILKINS AVE
SEVILLE DR MARIA DR
TERRACE DR
HOLMES AVE
TRAILER PA R K
R
OA
D
RUSSELL ST
PENNY LN
CAYETANO DR
PARRISH RD
SOMMER
S
T
OAKMONT CT
ACACIA DR
LIBERTY DR HARDING AVE
PERKINS ST
BELV EDERE CT
KANSAS AVE
PENNYROYAL ST
MAGNOLIA DR
FIGURE 6.16
County of Napa - Southeast Napa Islands
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
0.25 Miles
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
Chardonnay Golf Club
Skyline County Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
American Canyon
Community Park
121
12 12
221
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 6.17
County of Napa - Napa / American Canyon
Near-Term Bicycle Network
1 Miles H
124
Project Complexity
Assessing project complexity can help identify
opportunities for project implementation outside
the near-term project list. Bicycle projects in this AT Plan which were not included in the near-term
project list are categorized as either high or low
complexity. This grouping is intended as a general
guide to help local jurisdictions select additional
projects to pursue as opportunities arise.
Lower Complexity Projects
Lower complexity projects are generally those that
require minimal improvements, such as striping and
signage. These projects may include, but are not
limited to, Bicycle Lanes (Class II), Buffered Bicycle
Lanes (Class II) as well as Bicycle Routes (Class III)
and Bicycle Boulevards (Class III). Even if these
projects are not on the near-term bicycle project list, they may be lower cost and should be implemented
alongside restriping and repaving projects as
opportunities present themselves. For bicycle
boulevards, temporary modular treatments provide
a lower-complexity alternative to permanent
concrete improvements.
Higher Complexity Projects
Higher complexity projects refer to projects that
require right-of-way acquisition, concrete work,
drainage improvements, stormwater treatment,
relocation of utilities, and other factors that increase construction costs. This may include shared-use
paths, separated bikeways, or projects that require
road widening or reconfiguration. High-complexity
projects on the near-term projects list should still be prioritized for implementation but may require more
funding as compared to low-complexity projects.
Short-Term Solutions
In Appendix D, the Toolkit refers to the
implementation of quick builds. Cities can employ
alternative solutions such as quick builds which are
improvements that address safety and connectivity
at a lower cost and timeline than a full build-out with concrete or other permanent treatments. They often
consist of plastic infrastructure such as bollards,
signs, and paint, making them easy to install and
adjust. Quick builds prioritize affordability for
communities, allowing a community to find quick
and sustainable solutions while allowing for future
growth and possible changes to the improvements.
Estimated Project Benefits
Induced Bicycle Demand and
VMT Reduction Methodology
The proposed bicycle facilities presented in the Plan
may correlate with induced bicycling demand for
both existing and new bicyclists. This is based on
research presented in the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 552,
Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in Bicycle
Facilities, which describes the methodology of
estimating the induced demand associated with
each bicycle facility and the monetized benefits of
such.
The benefits associated with the proposed bicycle
facilities are quantified through this induced demand
analysis but are not promised as the methodology is
based on several assumptions, generalizations, and
are used as an estimator for potential benefits. The
annualized benefits are based on the projects
induced bicycling demand at high, moderate, and
low estimates, using data from the US Census
Bureau, commuter pattern data, and average
bicycling trip length estimates from 2021 Replica
data. See Appendix E for benefits associated with
each project, excluding study corridors, for which
benefits were not quantified.
Induced Demand
The annualized benefits are based on potential
induced bicycling demand for each proposed
project. The total rate of adult bicycling ranges from
a low estimate, based on the Census bicycling
commute mode share, to a high estimate, based on
0.6 percent plus three times the Census commute
share. Thus, demand is quantified at low, medium,
and high estimates for the populations at each buffer
distance. The NCHRP 552 research cites that people
who live closest to a bicycle facility are more likely to
125
bike than those who live further from the facility.
Likelihood multipliers were developed to represent
this probability15 and used to estimate the total
induced commuter bicyclists annually. Each buffer
area—at 0.5-, 1- and 1.5-mile distances from a
proposed bicycle improvement is created using a
network-based analysis in a GIS environment.
This methodology results in annual monetized
benefits associated with mobility, health, recreation,
and decreased auto use expected to result from the
proposed bicycle facilities, as detailed in Appendix F.
These benefits are summed to produce the total
monetized benefit for each project.
» Mobility Benefits: the time cost associated with
shift to given bicycle facility type for the total
number of commute trips over a commute year
for new and existing bicyclist commuters.
» Health Benefits: the cost savings from physical
activity benefits associated with induced
demand
» Recreation Benefits: the cost savings related to
recreational activity for new bicyclists induced
» Decreased Auto Use Benefits: the benefits
associated with user cost savings, reduced
congestion, and reduced air pollution.
In addition to the four benefits outlines above,
benefits associated with greenhouse gas (GHG)
reduction benefits were also calculated. The NCHRP
guidelines do not discuss how to calculate GHG
emissions reduction associated with a reduction
VMT. Instead, the Senate Bill (SB) 1 California LifeCycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C) Grant Program Emissions Reduction Calculator was used.
VMT Reduction Methodology
The methodology to determine VMT reduction
considers the total projected new bike commuters
and the average round trip length determined by
Replica’s 2023 data which states the average oneway bicycling trip along a corridor is 3.1 miles. 15 NCHRP 552, Appendix B; Supplemental White Paper Translating Demand and Benefits Research into Guidelines Sidewalk Emissions Reductions
The NCHRP Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in
Bicycle Facilities do not extend to pedestrian
improvements, because the relationship between
bicycle facilities and induced trips should not be
assumed to hold true for walking. Instead, the
California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reductions Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities and
Advancing Health and Equity was used to estimate
the emissions reductions associated with improving
the pedestrian network. The analysis estimates
emissions reductions based on the percent increase
of sidewalk coverage in a given community, and
results in an estimated percentage of emissions
reduction by Census block group.
Of the 101 block groups where sidewalks are
proposed, 68 are expected to see reduced GHG
emissions following implementation of the proposed
sidewalk projects, ranging from 0.01 – 3.11%
reductions. Twenty-nine block groups did not have
any proposed sidewalk improvements.
Four block groups had no recorded existing
sidewalks but had proposed improvements; in these
cases, the calculation could not be performed. It
should be noted that although sidewalks did not
exist previously, it cannot be assumed that
pedestrians did not use the unpaved areas.
Therefore, the proposed sidewalks may have some
GHG emission reductions.
The 20 block groups that are expected to result in
the highest GHG emission reductions associated with
sidewalk improvements are listed in Table 6.3. Block
Groups that are not wholly in one jurisdiction are
shown with the second jurisdiction listed. Block
groups in Calistoga, the City of Napa, and portions of
Unincorporated Napa County benefit most from the
proposed sidewalk improvements.
126
Table 6.3: Top 20 Block Groups – Sidewalk Project Estimated GHG Emissions Reductions Block Group Jurisdiction
Existing
Sidewalk
Mileage
Existing +
Proposed
Sidewalk
Mileage
Estimated
GHG
Emissions
Reduction
060552017002 County of Napa (Angwin) 0.55 0.89 -3.11%
060552015002 County of Napa 0.36 0.56 -2.83%
060552020004 City of Calistoga 4.63 5.84 -1.31%
060552020002 City of Calistoga 3.35 4.19 -1.24%
060552020003 City of Calistoga 6.32 7.63 -1.04%
060552007043 County of Napa / City of Napa 1.35 1.63 -1.02% 060552007042 City of Napa / County of Napa 2.23 2.61 -0.85% 060552008044 City of Napa 3.35 3.82 -0.71%
060552007051 City of Napa / County of Napa 6.74 7.61 -0.65% 060552006012 City of Napa 4.66 5.24 -0.62%
060552016021 City of St. Helena 5.97 6.70 -0.62%
060552017005 County of Napa (Deer Park) 0.07 0.08 -0.60% 060552003012 City of Napa / County of Napa 4.85 5.42 -0.59% 060552011012 City of Napa / County of Napa 1.74 1.93 -0.54% 060552010062 City of Napa 7.97 8.84 -0.54%
060552003013 City of Napa / County of Napa 5.04 5.58 -0.54% 060552020001 City of Calistoga 3.01 3.32 -0.52%
060552013001 Town of Yountville 5.23 5.78 -0.52%
060552004002 City of Napa 2.27 2.50 -0.49%
060552008031 County of Napa / City of Napa 3.36 3.68 -0.48%
127
Unit Cost Assumptions
The table below presents planning level unit cost
assumptions that will be used to develop project
construction cost estimates. The unit cost method
uses a single functional unit (linear mile or linear
foot) that serves as a multiplier. The appropriate unit cost is multiplied by the length of the improvement
to develop a planning-level project cost estimate.
Notes and assumptions that informed the unit cost
estimate are listed below. These assumptions are
intended to provide a reasonable basis for costs; if
specific improvements selected during detailed
design of projects vary from these assumptions,
actual project costs may differ.
Cost estimates were developed based on recent
local project costs. Estimates include assumed costs
for mobilization, traffic control, minor drainage, and
utility work. In addition, estimates include 30
percent soft costs including engineering design,
administration, and construction management, as
well as a 20 percent contingency. Cost estimates for
projects in this plan are in 2025 dollars which do not
include cost escalation and have been rounded to
the nearest $100.
At the planning level, cost assumptions do not
consider project-specific or location-specific factors
that may affect actual costs, including acquisition of
right-of-way, road widening, major grading, or
drainage system upgrades. For some projects, actual
costs may differ significantly from the planning-level
estimates.
Table 6.4: Unit Cost Assumptions
Improvement Unit Estimated
Unit Cost Notes
Shared-use Path
(Class I) MI $3,800,000
Assumes 10’ wide asphalt path with 2’ shoulders and minor grading; no right of way acquisition or major grading/drainage/railings/retaining systems; in some contexts, concrete pathways may be preferred which would increase the unit cost estimate by approximately $1M per mile Bicycle Lane (Class
II) MI $145,000 Striping, bike lane symbol, and signs on both sides of street Buffered Bicycle
Lane (Class II) MI $220,000 Striping, bike lane symbol, and signs on both sides of street; includes 2’ striped buffer
Separated Bicycle
Lane (Class IV) MI $650,000 Striping and separation on both sides of street; assume 3’ striped buffer with flexible K-71 bollards spaced every 15’
Bike Route (Class III) MI $30,000 Assumes sharrows every 250’ and signs every 500’ on both sides of street Bike Boulevard
(Class III) MI $1,960,000 Assumes sharrows every 400’, signs every 400’ on both sides of street; assumes speed table every 500’ and curb extension every 500’ Bike Boulevard with
Modular Curb
Extensions (Class III)
MI $615,000
Assumes sharrows every 400’, signs every 400’ on both sides of street; assumes speed cushion every 500’ and modular curb extensions every 500’
Rural/Unclassified
Bike Route MI $75,000 Assumes edge stripe and Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs on both sides of street approximately every 0.75 mile
Sidewalk LF $600 Assumes 6’ wide sidewalk with curb and gutter on one side of street Note: MI = linear mile; LF = linear foot
128
Funding Opportunities
A variety of funding sources are available for funding
projects recommended in Chapter 5. The sources
below include county, regional, and statewide
funding opportunities for capital improvements,
planning efforts, and non-infrastructure programs.
Countywide Funding
Opportunities
Measure U
Measure U is a 1/2-cent countywide sales tax
prioritized for roadway improvements and active
transportation projects. Funds are allocated to
jurisdictions annually by NVTA as the administering
agency. Eligible improvement types include
sidewalks, on-street bikeways (including separated
bikeways (Class IV)), and complete streets
improvements such as curb extensions, curb ramps,
sidewalks, or new curb and gutter. More information
at https://nvta.ca.gov/programs/measureu/
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program
The One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program includes
both a regional funding program administered by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and
county programs administered by the nine
Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs). Funds
are typically allocated for a four-year funding cycle,
with the most recent OBAG Program 3 allocating
funds for FY2023-2026. Eligible improvement types
include bicycle and pedestrian improvements and
programs including complete streets, SRTS, and
crossing improvements, as well as pavement
rehabilitation projects. More information at
https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federalhighway-administration-grants/one-bay-area-grantobag-3 Transportation Development Act –
Article 3
The Transportation Development Act – Article 3
(TDA-3) program is funded by approximately 2% of
the statewide quarter-cent sales tax. NVTA
administers the revenues generated in Napa County
through a competitive process. Funds are allocated
annually, with any unused funds rolled over for
programming in future cycles. Eligible projects
include construction and/or engineering of bicycle
and/or pedestrian capital projects, capital purchases
for maintenance of a Class I or Class IV facility,
enhancement of Class II bicycle lanes, bicycle safety
education programs (no more than 5% of county
total), development of comprehensive bicycle and/or
pedestrian facility plan (once every 5 years), and
quick build projects. More information at
https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/regional-funding/tdasta/bicycle-pedestrian-funds-tda-3 Transportation Fund for Clean Air
(TFCA) 40% Fund
The Transportation Funds for Clean Air (TFCA)
program is funded by a $4 surcharge on vehicle
registration in the nine Bay Area counties. The
majority of the funding is programmed annually by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD); priority is given to projects that reduce
vehicle emissions or vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
The remaining 40% of funds are allocated to and
administered by the appropriate transportation
agency in each Bay Area county, including NVTA for
Napa County. Eligible improvement types include
capital bicycle projects and infrastructure
improvements for trip reduction, which includes
traffic calming and measures that expand access to
transit. More information at
https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/funding-andincentives/funding-sources/tfca-40-percent-fund
129
Regional Funding Opportunities
Community Action Resource &
Empowerment (CARE) Program
The Community Action Resource & Empowerment
(CARE) Program is funded by a combination of
federal, state, and local sources. Funds are
administered by MTC to support community-based
transportation initiatives that have been identified
locally as high priority. Eligible projects include
capital projects identified in a locally adopted
Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP), as
well as planning and technical support. More
information at https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/fundingopportunities/community-action-resourceempowerment-care-program Regional Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
Projects not funded in the statewide competition for
Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds may be
funded at the regional level. A portion of statewide
ATP funding is allocated to MTC and other regional
agencies to fund additional projects. Funds are
awarded through competitive application cycles that
typically occur every other year between March and
June. More information at
https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/investment-strategiescommitments/climate-protection/activetransportation-program Transportation Fund for Clean Air
(TFCA) Regional Fund
The Transportation Funds for Clean Air (TFCA)
program is funded by a $4 surcharge on vehicle
registration in the nine Bay Area counties. The
majority of the funding is programmed annually by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD; priority is given to projects that reduce
vehicle emissions or vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
The remaining 40% of funds are allocated to and
administered by the appropriate transportation
agency in each Bay Area county, including NVTA for
Napa County. Eligible improvement types include
capital bicycle projects and infrastructure
improvements for trip reduction, which includes
traffic calming and measures that expand access to
transit. More information at
https://www.baaqmd.gov/funding-andincentives/funding-sources/regional-fund Statewide Funding
Opportunities
State Active Transportation Program
(ATP)
California’s Active Transportation Program (ATP) is
funded by a variety of state and federal sources with
a goal of increasing walking and bicycling, improving
public health, and addressing air quality concerns. At
the state level, the program is administered by the
California Transportation Commission (CTC). Funds
are awarded through a competitive process that
typically occurs every two years, with the call for
projects issued in March. Eligible project types
include bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
projects, non-infrastructure program activities, and
planning. More information at
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fedand-state-programs/active-transportation-program
130
California Office of Traffic Safety
(OTS) Grants
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) provides
grants to fund programs and projects that aim to
reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries.
Funding is awarded through an annual competitive
process, with the call for projects typically issued in December. Eligible programs include safety,
education, and enforcement efforts. More
information at https://www.ots.ca.gov/grants/
California State Parks Recreational
Trails Program (RTP)
Recreational Trails Program (RTP) funding is
administered at the state level by the CTC as part of
the California ATP as well as by the California
Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) as a
standalone grant program. Non-motorized CDPR
projects are administered by the Office of Grants and
Local Services (OGALS). Funds are typically allocated
on an annual basis. Eligible project types include
acquisition of easements or property for recreational
trails or trail corridors; development and
rehabilitation of trails; trailside and trailhead
facilities; and construction of new trails. More
information at
https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24324
Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP)
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is
administered by Caltrans to fund projects that
reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries.
Funding is awarded through a competitive grant
program every two years. Eligible improvement
types include work on public roads, bicycle
pedestrian pathways, or tribal lands that improves
safety for transportation network users. Eligible
projects must be listed in an adopted Local Road
Safety Plan (LRSP) or Vision Zero Plan, and right of
way acquisition must be no more than ten percent of
construction costs. More information at
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fedand-state-programs/highway-safety-improvementprogram Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC) Program
The Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC) Program is administered by the
California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) to support projects that
integrate low-carbon transportation options and
affordable housing. Funds are awarded annually
through a competitive program. Eligible
improvement types include bikeways, traffic calming,
sidewalks, and other roadway reconfiguration
projects that have been adopted in a specific plan.
More information at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/funding/ahsc#nofa
Sustainable Transportation Planning
Grants (STPG)
The Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants
(STPG) program is administered by Caltrans to fund
planning efforts that aim to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in support of statewide targets. Funds are
awarded through an annual competitive process.
Eligible project types include planning projects,
community engagement, and preliminary design (up
to a 30 percent level of detail). More information at
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportationplanning/division-of-transportationplanning/regional-and-communityplanning/sustainable-transportation-planning-grants
131
Chapter 7
City of Calistoga
The City of Calistoga covers approximately 2.5 square
miles and has a population of 5,159 residents.
Calistoga is located in the northern part of the Napa
Valley at the junction of SR 29 and SR 128.
Calistoga is a walkable small town, made up of a
vibrant main street set within pedestrian-oriented
neighborhoods and surrounded by wineries,
vineyards, and other agricultural lands. SR 29 forms
the community’s main street (Lincoln Avenue), while
SR 128 and Silverado Trail form the southern and
northern edges of the city.
Demographics
The following demographic information is from the
American Community Survey (ACS) 2023 five-year
estimates.
Age
Communities whose population skews younger may
have improved opportunities for increasing active
transportation mode shift. People who are
introduced to walking, bicycling and transit at a
younger age are more likely to use active modes of
travel in adulthood. The median age is 48.9 years,
older than the county median age of 42.8. However,
24% of the population is under 25 years old. Figure
7.1 shows the age distribution in Calistoga.
Figure 7.1: City of Calistoga Age Distribution
Income
Calistoga has a median household income (MHI) of
$84,892, which is lower than Napa County’s MHI of
($108,970); see Figure 7.2. Lower-income
community members are more likely to rely on
active transportation and transit as opposed to car
travel. Providing adequate active transportation will
support connectivity for these residents.
Figure 7.2: City of Calistoga Household
Income
14%
10%
12%
10%
20%
12%
14%
11%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Under 15 years
15 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 years and over
12%
20%
23%
17%
12%
16%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Below $25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 or more
132
Travel Behavior
Mode Share
Figure 7.3 provides an overview of commute mode
share for workers living in Calistoga aged 16 years
and older. Mode share data was sourced from the
American Community Survey (ACS) five-year
estimates and represents data for 2016 and 2023.
The data does not include non-work trips.
Most Calistoga residents drive to work, though a
significant portion also walk. In 2023, seven percent
of residents walked to work, two percent rode their
bicycle, and two percent took transportation.
Since 2016, more people have started working from
home, likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
percentage of people who carpool has decreased
significantly, and more people are driving alone.
Figure 7.3: City of Calistoga Means of
Transportation to Work
Trip Length
Figure 7.4 shows the length of trips that originate in
the City of Calistoga, sourced from the 2025 NVTA
Travel Behavior Study. Of the total trips taken, 39%
are two miles or less in length. These “short trips”
represent opportunities to encourage mode shift
from driving to active modes of travel.
Figure 7.4: City of Calistoga Trip Length
67%
18%
0%
2%
9%
1%
1%
78%
4%
2%
2%
7%
1%
6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Drove alone
Carpooled
Public transportation
Bicycle
Walked
Other
Worked at home
2023 2016
23%
16%
10%
8%
17%
15%
5%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
0-1 mi
1-2 mi
2-5 mi
5-10 mi
10-20 mi
20-30 mi
30-40 mi
40-50 mi
50-60 mi
60-70 mi
70-80 mi
80-90 mi
90-100 mi
100+ mi
133
Key Community Destinations
Key community destinations in Calistoga include
Calistoga Elementary School and Junior/Senior High
School, Logvy Community Park, and commercial and
retail destinations along Lincoln Avenue. Focusing
improvements to Calistoga Elementary School and
Calistoga Junior/Senior High School will improve
safety and access for students who are considered
vulnerable road users.
Transit System and Stops
The Vine runs the Up Valley Connector, bus route 10,
from the City of Napa along SR 29 to Lincoln Avenue
in Calistoga, then along Lincoln Avenue to Lake
Street. Improvements along this route should be
considered to improve first- and last-mile
connectivity and increase access to transit for those
who rely on walking and bicycling. There is also an
on-demand shuttle that serves the rest of the city, as
well as Bennet Lane Winery, Castello di Amorosa,
and Bothe Napa Valley State Park.
Existing Bicycling and
Walking Environment
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities in Calistoga are mapped in
Figure 7.5. The map also includes bicycle parking
locations.
Bicycle Network
Mileage of existing bicycle facilities is listed in Table
7.1. Much of Calistoga’s bicycle network is composed
of rural and unclassified bicycle routes through the
central part of the city. Bicycle routes are located on primary east/west connections such as Washington
Street, Cedar Street, and part of Grant Street, as well part of Oak Street and Berry Street. There are also
bicycle routes located through the neighborhood
west of the golf course. Some of these bicycle routes
do not have sharrows or signage but are
acknowledged as routes used by bicyclists.
Table 7.1: City of Calistoga Existing Bicycle
Facility Mileage
Facility Type Miles
Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 2.3
Bicycle Lanes (Class II) 1.6
Bicycle Routes (Class III) 3.5
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) -
Unclassified Bicycle Routes 0.4
Total 7.8
On-street dedicated bicycle facilities include the bike lane (Class II) on Silverado Trail, which provides
connection between Calistoga and the City of Napa;
it is a rural road primarily used by recreational
cyclists. There is also a bicycle lane along Lake Street between Fisher Street and Silverado Trail that
provides connectivity to Calistoga High School.
Off-street bicycle facilities include the Vine Trail east of Washington Street, and short segments of shareduse paths near the golf course.
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking is located primarily in downtown
Calistoga, Pioneer Park, Logvy Community Park, and
Calistoga Fair Grounds. Bicycle lockers for longerterm bike parking are available at the Monhoff Recreation Center on Stevenson Street.
Pedestrian Facilities
Existing sidewalks and shared-use paths in Calistoga
are mapped in Figure 7.6. Mileage of existing
pedestrian facilities is listed in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2: City of Calistoga Existing Pedestrian
Facility Mileage
Facility Type Miles
Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 2.3
Sidewalks 17.3
Total 19.6
134
The pedestrian network inventory provides
information about streets with existing or missing
sidewalks or paths, which will be used to develop
near-term sidewalk gap closure recommendations.
However, not all locations without sidewalks are
considered gaps in the network—some residential,
rural, and/or recently annexed communities may not
require sidewalk implementation per local
guidelines. Sidewalk gap closures may also not be
appropriate where right-of-way is limited, where
community character is to be preserved, or in areas
where traffic volumes and speeds are low enough for
pedestrians to share the roadway.
Sidewalks and Paths
Areas of Calistoga without sidewalks include portions
of Grant Street, connecting to Calistoga Junior-Senior
High School, and Cedar Street, which connects to
Calistoga Elementary School. These routes are
identified in the 2016 Napa County Pedestrian
Master Plan as east/west pedestrian corridors with
sidewalk gaps. Other streets without sidewalks
include portions of Lake Street, View Road, and
north Oak Street.
Crossings
Crosswalks are concentrated south of Fair Way,
providing crossing locations across Washington
Street, Berry Street, and Lincoln Street. These
crosswalks connect to destinations such as Calistoga
Elementary School and the commercial downtown
area.
There are few crosswalks north of Fair Way. The
2016 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan identifies
the need for crosswalks along Lincoln Avenue, as the
one of the primary north/south pedestrian corridors,
including Brennan Steet and Stevenson Street.
Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course
DUNAWEAL LN
MORA AVE
PETRIFIED FOREST RD
MYRTLEDALE RD
WASHINGTON ST
GREENWOOD AVE
CHAMPAGNE N
GRANT ST
MYRTLE ST
LAKE ST
FOOTHILL BLVD
TUBBS LN
FAIR WAY
N OAK ST
CEDAR ST
PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL
DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD
ROSEDALE RD
KORTUM CANYON RD
LINCOLN AVE
BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN
PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 7.5
City of Calistoga
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course
DUNAWEAL LN
MORA AVE
PETRIFIED FOREST RD
MYRTLEDALE RD
WASHINGTON ST
GREENWOOD AVE
CHAMPAGNE N
GRANT ST
MYRTLE ST
LAKE ST
FOOTHILL BLVD
TUBBS LN
FAIR WAY
N OAK ST
CEDAR ST
PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL
DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD
ROSEDALE RD
KORTUM CANYON RD
LINCOLN AVE
BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN
PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 7.6
City of Calistoga
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
137
Needs Assessment
Once existing transportation conditions were
documented, a needs assessment was conducted to
highlight needs in the active transportation network.
The needs assessment for Calistoga includes an
analysis of bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) and
connectivity, community priorities, and the
methodology used to develop the proposed
pedestrian and bicycle networks.
Level of Bicycle Stress
LTS produces a score for roadways from 1 to 4.
Streets that scored 1 or 2 are less stressful and
comfortable for bicyclists of most ages and abilities,
while streets that scored 3 or 4 are more stressful
and appropriate for only more experienced riders.
For more information about LTS methodology, see
Chapter 4.
As shown in Figure 7.7, Calistoga is composed of lowstress neighborhood streets and higher stress arterials and collectors. Of the 24.9 miles of roads in Calistoga, 21 percent scored LTS 3 or 4 and are
considered high stress.
Higher stress streets include Lincoln Avenue (SR 29)
which scored LTS 3-4 and connects Silverado Trail
and Foothill Boulevard, as well as Foothill Boulevard
(SR 128), which scored LTS 3-4 and runs along the
south side of the city. Lincoln Avenue and Foothill
Boulevard have high traffic volumes, high prevailing
speeds, and no dedicated bicycle facilities, making
them stressful for most bicyclists. Other higher stress routes include 1st Street, 2nd Street, and 3rd Street
which are used as cut throughs and have high traffic
volumes. Washington Street is a primary east/west
connection through the city and is relatively low
stress (LTS 1-2).
The northern half of the city is composed primarily
of lower stress bicycle connections. Grant Street
provides a low-stress, east/west connection from the
western city limits to Palisades High School. Low
stress north/south connections include North Oak
Street (LTS 1) and Lake Street (LTS 1-2). The southern
half of the city has a grid of low stress neighborhood
streets and is bordered by Foothill Boulevard.
Low stress bicycle routes are limited between the
north and south sides of the city. The only travel
routes that extend south beyond Washington Street
are 3rd Street, which is LTS 3 between Fair Way and
Washington Street, and Lincoln Street, which is LTS
3-4 along its entire length. Improved low stress
north/south connections along these routes could
improve citywide connectivity.
Low Stress Bicycle Connectivity
Bicycle connectivity throughout the City of Calistoga
was analyzed using LTS scores and origin and
destination points. In this assessment, bicycle
connectivity is defined as either high-stress or lowstress connectivity. Destinations with low-stress connectivity are connected to residential units
(origins) along the low-stress bicycle network, or
roads that score LTS 2 or lower. Providing low-stress
connectivity improves bicycle access for a wider
range of ages and abilities and induces bicycle
demand.
Table 7.3 describes low stress bicycle connectivity to
eight key destinations in Calistoga. The table
describes the percentage of origins (residential units) that are connected to each destination along the low
stress network. Origins in this analysis are within 1.5 miles of one or more destinations, which is the
average distance a person is willing to bike. Origins
outside of this 1.5-mile range are excluded.
Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course
CHAMPAGNE N
GRANT ST
FOOTHILL BLVD
TUBBS LN
LAKE ST
WASHINGTON ST
GREENWOOD AVE
N OAK ST
DUNAWEAL
LN
SILVERADO TRL
ROSEDALE RD
MYRTLEDALE RD
MORA AVE
PICKETT RD
BRA N NA N RIDGE
LN
LEGEND
Level of Traffic Stress for Bicyclists
1 – Comfortable for All Ages/Abilities
2 – Comfortable for Most Adults
3 – Comfortable for Confident Bicyclists
4 – Uncomfortable for Most Users
Bikes not permitted
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 7.7
City of Calistoga
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
H
0.5 Miles
139
Table 7.3: City of Calistoga Low Stress Connectivity
Key Destinations Total Connections to
each destination
(high- and low-stress)
Total Low Stress
Connections
Percent Low-Stress
Connectivity to Origins
Calistoga Branch Library 724 21 2.8%
Calistoga City Hall 723 2 0.3%
Calistoga Elementary 863 133 18.0%
Calistoga Fairgrounds 1,033 351 47.4%
Calistoga Farmers' Market 724 2 0.3%
Calistoga Junior/Senior High 1,037 351 47.4%
Calistoga Little League 588 21 2.8%
Logvy Community Park 1,045 351 47.4%
Note: Total Connections refers to potential origins within 1.5 miles of the listed destination Calistoga Fairgrounds, Calistoga Junior/Senior High,
and Logvy Community Park are most connected by
the low-stress bicycling network. The two
destinations with the poorest connectivity are
Calistoga City Hall and the Farmers Market at 0.3%
low-stress connectivity. Both City Hall and the
Farmers Market are located off of First St. which is a
high stress street. The Calistoga Branch Library is also poorly connected, as it is located on Lincoln Avenue,
which is also high stress.
Community Priorities
Throughout the community engagement process,
Calistoga residents identified priorities for potential improvements. Washington Street, Grant Street, and
Foothill Boulevard were highlighted as near-term
improvement locations. Community members
discussed the need to improve pavement quality,
interest in adequate pedestrian facilities on Grant
Street, safer routes to school, and crossing
improvements.
Developing the Active
Transportation Network in
Calistoga
Utilizing the findings from the past planning efforts,
existing transportation conditions, LTS and bicycle
connectivity analysis and community engagement
priorities, the active proposed active transportation
network was developed. The draft network was
created in July 2025 and went through extensive
review by NVTA and city staff. Once this review
occurred, the network was revised and shared with
the community during a virtual workshop in October
2025. Community members also had the
opportunity to comment on the network using an
interactive map hosted on the project website.
Feedback gathered during the workshop and from
the interactive map was used to update the active
transportation network. Changes were vetted by
NVTA and city staff before the network was finalized
early 2026.
140
Developing the Bicycle Network
In addition to the 2019 Countywide Bicycle Plan,
Calistoga’s General Plan and Active Transportation
Plan, both adopted in 2014, were reviewed and
incorporated into the proposed bicycle network.
The development of the network focused on
furthering bicycle connectivity to Calistoga
Elementary and Calistoga Junior/Senior High School.
It also aims to lower stress along Lincoln Avenue
Calistoga’s commercial main street, Washington
Street, and Third Street to improve connectivity to
retail, the public library, farmers market, and more.
Bicycle boulevards were considered where
connectivity was needed or where bicycle stress was
high, but roadways were too narrow for a dedicated
bicycle facility.
Developing the Pedestrian Network
Sidewalk gap closure projects were proposed if they
met the following criteria:
» The gap is located within 500 feet of a point of
interest, including parks, schools, transit stops,
etc.
» The gap is located along a corridor with an
existing or proposed bicycle improvement. The
goal of this criterion is to create multimodal
corridors that prioritize both pedestrians and
bicyclists.
In addition to the methodology described above, a
manual review was conducted to add or exclude
projects where necessary.
Most of the proposed pedestrian gap projects are
located along Grant Street, Lake Street, North Oak
Street and Foothill Boulevard, improving pedestrian
connectivity to Calistoga High School, the Golf
Course and Fairgrounds, as well as Logvy Community
Park.
Shared-use path projects were identified during the
development of the bicycle network but are also
included as part of the pedestrian network.
Proposed shared-use paths are proposed along
Grant Street and the Napa River through the city,
providing both pedestrian connectivity and
recreational benefits.
Recommendations
Recommendations for the Calistoga active
transportation network include the proposed
network of bikeways and sidewalk gap closure
projects. The AT Plan does not identify specific
crossing improvements. Instead, a crosswalk strategy
is detailed in Chapter 5. Additionally, a treatment
toolkit detailing bicycle and pedestrian improvement
design guide was developed to accommodate the
proposed network. See Appendix D for more
information.
Proposed Bicycle Network
The proposed Calistoga bicycle network builds off
the 2019 Countywide Bicycle Plan and the findings
from the needs assessment.
The proposed network follows best practices
established in the Treatment Toolkit (Appendix D)
and upgrades previous recommendations where
necessary. For a map of the Calistoga bicycle
network, see Figure 7.8. For the list of bicycle
network recommendations, see Appendix E.
Table 7.4 provides the mileage of the existing
network, compares mileage proposed in the AT Plan
and the previous Countywide Bicycle Plan (2019),
and the total mileage of entire bicycle network. The
AT Plan adds 13.7 miles to the bicycle network, for a
total of 21.5 miles once implemented.
141
Table 7.4: City of Calistoga Proposed Bicycle Network Mileage Facility Type
2019
Existing
Mileage
2025
Existing
Mileage*
Change
2019 to
2025*
2025
Proposed
Mileage
Total Future
Mileage
Shared-Use Path (Class I) 1.4 2.3 +0.9 3.5 5.8
Bike Lanes (Class II) 1.0 1.6 +0.6 5.7 7.4
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) - - - - -
Bicycle Route (Class III) - - - - -
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) - - - 3.1 3.1
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) 3.6 3.5 -0.1 1.3 4.8
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) - - - - -
Unclassified Bike Route - 0.4 +0.4 - 0.4
Total 6.0 7.8 +1.8 13.7 21.5
*2025 Existing mileage totals are derived from a comprehensive review of existing bicycle facilities, which in some cases resulted in removal or re-categorization of facilities.
Proposed Pedestrian Network
The proposed Calistoga pedestrian network includes
sidewalk gap closure projects and shared-use paths,
developed based on existing gaps in the network. For
a map of the pedestrian network, see Figure 7.9.
Table 7.5 presents the existing pedestrian network
mileage, mileage proposed in this AT Plan, as well as
the total existing and proposed mileage. The AT Plan
adds 7.2 miles of proposed projects to the
pedestrian network, for a total of 26.8 miles. Shareduse path mileage in Table 7.5 is not additional mileage but rather reflects the same mileage in the
bicycle mileage table (Table 7.4), as these facilities
are suitable for both pedestrians and bicyclists.
Table 7.5: City of Calistoga Proposed Pedestrian Network Mileage Facility Type Existing Mileage Proposed Mileage Total
Shared-Use Path (Class I) 2.3 3.5 5.8
Sidewalk 17.3 3.7 21.0
Total 19.6 7.2 26.8
Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course
DUNAWEAL LN
MORA AVE
PETRIFIED FOREST RD
MYRTLEDALE RD
WASHINGTON ST
GREENWOOD AVE
CHAMPAGNE N
GRANT ST
MYRTLE ST
LAKE ST
FOOTHILL BLVD
TUBBS LN
FAIR WAY
N OAK ST
CEDAR ST
PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL
DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD
ROSEDALE RD
KORTUM CANYON RD
LINCOLN AVE
BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN
PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 7.8
City of Calistoga
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course
DUNAWEAL LN
MORA AVE
PETRIFIED FOREST RD
MYRTLEDALE RD
WASHINGTON ST
GREENWOOD AVE
CHAMPAGNE N
GRANT ST
MYRTLE ST
LAKE ST
FOOTHILL BLVD
TUBBS LN
FAIR WAY
N OAK ST
CEDAR ST
PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL
DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD
ROSEDALE RD
KORTUM CANYON RD
LINCOLN AVE
BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN
PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Crosswalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 7.9
City of Calistoga
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
144
Programs and Policies
This section will be completed by the individual
jurisdiction should locally identified programs or
policies be added prior to local adoption.
145
Implementation Plan
The previous Recommendations section provides the
complete active transportation network for Calistoga
to be implemented over the next 25 years. The
implementation plan outlines an approach for
prioritizing certain bicycle projects for near-term
implementation. Note that the pedestrian network
presented in the previous section represents the
prioritized list of sidewalk gap projects which provide improved access near key destinations and no
further prioritization of pedestrian projects is
conducted in this AT Plan.
In addition to the prioritized bicycle projects, the
implementation plan includes potential induced
demand and VMT reductions from the full proposed
bicycle network in Calistoga.
For the complete implementation plan, see Chapter
6 which includes unit cost assumptions for
pedestrian and bicycle projects, as well as funding
opportunities. The proposed network includes some
facilities along state routes, which will require
coordination with Caltrans.
Bicycle Network Prioritization
The proposed active transportation network
provides a vision for Calistoga through 2050.
However, there is limited available funding in any
given year, and the whole network cannot be
implemented at once. A list of near-term bicycle
projects was developed for implementation over the
next five to seven years. For prioritization
methodology, see Chapter 6.
Nine projects in Calistoga were identified for nearterm implementation, listed in Table 7.6. For a map of near-term bicycle projects, see Figure 7.10. Three
of the nine projects are on Grant Street, which
would fill gaps in the existing bicycle network along
this corridor, and improve connectivity to Calistoga
Junior/Senior High School. Proposed bicycle
boulevards on Lake Street and Washington Street
provide low-stress connections to both schools in
Calistoga. The bicycle lane on Foothill Boulevard
improves connectivity along the south side of the
city, while the bicycle lane on SR 29 formalizes a
recreational connection to Silverado Trail. Bicycle
lanes and the Vine Trail alignment along Lincoln
Avenue are also prioritized, as the corridor connects
residents and visitors to many key destinations in
Calistoga, but is currently high stress.
Washington Street, Lincoln Street, Foothill Boulevard
and SR 29 are all identified as part of the High Injury Network in the Vision Zero Plan. Providing adequate
bicycle infrastructure along these routes aims to
reduce collision risk. All near-term bicycle projects
are also located in an Equity Priority Community and
are consistent with past planning efforts.
Project Complexity
In addition to the prioritization, project complexity Is an essential consideration. Lower-complexity
projects are projects that generally require only
striping and signage, or which can be incorporated
into routine paving or road resurfacing activities
Higher complexity projects refer to projects that
require right-of-way acquisition, concrete work,
drainage, relocation of utilities, and other factors
that increase construction costs. Projects in this AT
Plan are categorized as either high or low complexity.
For more information about project complexity, see
Chapter 6.
Short-Term Solutions
For quick or short-term implementation, quick builds
can be a viable option. Quick builds to address safety
and connectivity at a lower cost and timeline than a
full build-out with concrete or other permanent
treatments. They often consist of plastic
infrastructure such as bollards, signs, and paint,
making them easy to install and adjust.
146
Table 7.6: City of Calistoga Near-Term Bicycle Project List ID Segment Begins Ends Length
(mi) Type
703 Grant Street Greenwood Avenue N Oak St 1.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) 705 Grant Street N Oak Street Lake Street 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 706 Grant Street Lake St Stevenson Street 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) 708 Lake Street Washington Street Fisher Street 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 710 Lincoln Street Silverado Trail Fair Way 0.6 Bike Lanes (Class II) 711 Lincoln Street Fair Way Foothill Boulevard 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) 712 Foothill Boulevard Western City Limit Eastern City Limit 2.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) 714 Washington Street Lake Street Lincoln Avenue 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 1122 SR 29 Silverado Trail Tubbs Lane 1.6 Bike Lanes (Class II)
Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course
DUNAWEAL LN
MORA AVE
PETRIFIED FOREST RD
MYRTLEDALE RD
WASHINGTON ST
GREENWOOD AVE
CHAMPAGNE N
GRANT ST
MYRTLE ST
LAKE ST
FOOTHILL BLVD
TUBBS LN
FAIR WAY
N OAK ST
CEDAR ST
PICKETT RD SILVERADO TRL
DIAMOND MOUNTAINRD
ROSEDALE RD
KORTUM CANYON RD
LINCOLN AVE
BRAN N AN RIDGE
LN
PACHATE A U RD
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 7.10
City of Calistoga
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
0.5 Miles
148
Induced Bicycle Demand and
VMT Reductions
For the nine near-term bicycle projects proposed in
Calistoga, benefits were quantified using the NCHRP
Report 552 Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in
Bicycle Facilities. The benefits presented are
estimates and may not predict the exact benefits
produced by each project.
Methodology
The annualized benefits are based on potential
induced bicycling demand for each proposed
project. The total rate of adult bicycling ranges from
a low estimate, based on the Census bicycling
commute mode share, to a high estimate, based on
0.6 percent plus three times the Census commute
share. Thus, demand is quantified at low, medium,
and high estimates for the populations at each buffer
distance. The results presented in Table 7.7 utilize
the highest estimate. The NCHRP 552 research cites
that people who live closest to a bicycle facility are
more likely to bike than those who live further from
the facility. Likelihood multipliers were developed to
represent this probability16 and used to estimate the
total induced commuter bicyclists annually.
This methodology results in annual monetized
benefits associated with mobility, health, recreation,
and decreased auto use expected to result from the
proposed bicycle facilities, as detailed in Appendix F.
These benefits are summed to produce the total
monetized benefit for each project.
16 NCHRP 552, Appendix B; Supplemental White Paper Translating Demand and Benefits Research into Guidelines » Mobility Benefits: the time cost associated with
shift to given bicycle facility type for the total
number of commute trips over a commute year
for new and existing bicyclist commuters.
» Health Benefits: the cost savings from physical
activity benefits associated with induced
demand
» Recreation Benefits: the cost savings related to
recreational activity for new bicyclists induced
» Decreased Auto Use Benefits: the benefits
associated with user cost savings, reduced
congestion, and reduced air pollution.
In addition to the four benefits outlined above,
benefits associated with greenhouse gas (GHG)
reduction benefits were also calculated. The NCHRP
guidelines do not discuss how to calculate GHG
emissions reduction associated with a reduction
VMT. Instead, the Senate Bill (SB) 1 California LifeCycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C) Grant Program Emissions Reduction Calculator was used.
Results
Table 7.7 provides the new bicycle commuters
induced annually, annual VMT reduction, and the
total annual monetized benefit provided by each
project. All near-term proposed projects are
estimated to induce between eight and eleven new
annual commuters each year.The proposed shareduse path on Grant Street is anticipated to provide the highest total benefit, followed by the bike lanes
(Class II) on Lincoln Street.
149
Table 7.7: City of Calistoga Near-Term Bicycle Project Benefits ID Segment Begins Ends Length
(miles) Type
New
Annual
Commuter
Bicyclists
VMT
Reduction
Total
Annual
Benefits
703 Grant Street Greenwood
Avenue
N Oak St 1.0 Shared
Use Path
(Class I)
11 15,797 $378,000
705 Grant Street N Oak
Street
Lake
Street
0.1 Bicycle
Boulevard
(Class III)
9 13,735 $228,600
706 Grant Street Lake St Stevenson
Street
0.3 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
9 13,373 $451,100
708 Lake Street Washington
Street
Fisher
Street
0.2 Bicycle
Boulevard
(Class III)
9 13,493 $224,600
710 Lincoln Street Silverado
Trail
Fair Way 0.6 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
9 14,068 $317,600
711 Lincoln Street Fair Way Foothill
Boulevard
0.4 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
8 12,576 $410,300
712 Foothill
Boulevard
Western
City Limit
Eastern
City Limit
2.0 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
10 15,091 $311,900
714 Washington
Street
Lake Street Lincoln
Avenue
0.3 Bicycle
Boulevard
(Class III)
9 13,789 $229,500
1122 SR 29 Silverado
Trail
Tubbs
Lane
1.6 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
8 11,855 $252,800
150
Chapter 8
City of St. Helena
St. Helena is a town of 5,378 residents and covers
5.6 square miles. The City is centrally located in the
heart of the upper Napa Valley and is bisected by SR
29/128 (also known as Main Street) and surrounded
by agricultural uses. The community stands out in
the Valley for its unique historic character. Major
economic drivers in St. Helena include agriculture,
wine making, tourism, and education. Just outside of
Main Street, the city is primarily composed of
residential neighborhoods organized on a
disconnected grid network.
Demographics
The following demographic information is from the
American Community Survey (ACS) 2023 five-year
estimates.
Age
Communities whose population skews younger may
have improved opportunities for increasing active
transportation mode shift. People who are
introduced to walking, bicycling and transit at a
younger age are more likely to use active modes of
travel in adulthood. Communities that have access to
safe bike and pedestrian facilities are more likely to
engage in active lifestyles which provides a multitude
of benefits to one’s health and well-being.
The median age for St. Helena is 47.6, slightly higher
than the county median of 42.8. However, 25% of
the population is under 25 years old. Figure 8.1
shows the age distribution for St. Helena.
Figure 8.1: City of St. Helena Age Distribution
Income
The city of St. Helena has a median household
income (MHI) of $158,218, which is higher than
Napa County’s MHI of $108,970. See Figure 8.2 for
the distribution of household income in the city.
Figure 8.2: City of St. Helena Household
Income
14%
11%
9%
13%
13%
11%
15%
15%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Under 15 years
15 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 years and over
4%
10%
24%
11%
13%
39%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Below $25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 or more
151
Travel Behavior
Mode Share
Figure 8.3 provides an overview of commute mode
share for workers living in St. Helena aged 16 years
and older. Mode share data was sourced from the
American Community Survey (ACS) five-year
estimates and represents data for 2016 and 2023.
The data does not include non-work trips.
Most St. Helena residents drive to work, though a
significant portion of residents walk. In 2023, eleven
percent of residents walked to work, one percent
rode their bicycle, and two percent took
transportation.
Since 2016, more people have started working from
home, likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
percentage of people who drive alone has decreased
significantly, and more people are walking. Rates of
bicycling and carpooling have decreased while public
transportation use has increased.
Figure 8.3: City of St. Helena Means of
Transportation to Work
Trip Length
Figure 8.4 provides trip length data for St. Helena
from 2025 Travel Behavior Study. Of trip that
originated in St. Helena, 39% were two or less miles.
These “short-trips” represent mode shift potential,
or opportunities to encourage walking and bicycling
instead of driving.
Figure 8.4: City of St. Helena Trip Length
Key Community Destinations
Many of the key community destinations in St.
Helena are located along or near Main Street,
including grocery stores and retail, City Hall, the
library, and schools such as Robert Louis Stevenson
Intermediate. St. Helena Primary, St. Helena High
School, and Crane Park are located off Main Street
further south. Improving pedestrian and bicycle
connections to these destinations is key for
developing a more connected active transportation
network in St. Helena. Focusing improvements to
schools mentioned will improve connectivity and
safety for more vulnerable road users (children and
families) traveling to school.
78%
4%
1%
3%
6%
0%
9%
65%
3%
2%
1%
11%
0%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Drove alone
Carpooled
Public transportation
Bicycle
Walked
Other
Worked at home
2023 2016
16%
23%
18%
15%
15%
7%
3%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
0-1 mi
1-2 mi
2-5 mi
5-10 mi
10-20 mi
20-30 mi
30-40 mi
40-50 mi
50-60 mi
60-70 mi
70-80 mi
80-90 mi
90-100 mi
100+ mi
152
Transit System and Stops
The Vine runs the Up Valley Connector, bus route 10,
from the City of Napa through St. Helena along SR
29, ending in Calistoga. The St. Helena shuttle
operates along a fixed route during the weekdays,
supporting pick-up and drop-off at various schools
throughout the city. On the weekend, the shuttle is
on-demand only. Improvements along these routes
should be considered to improve first- and last-mile
connectivity and increase access for those who rely
on walking and bicycling.
Existing Bicycling and
Walking Environment
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities in St. Helena are mapped in Figure 8.5. The map also includes existing bicycle
parking locations.
Bicycle Network
Mileage of existing bicycle facilities is listed in Table
8.1. Bicycle infrastructure is limited and
disconnected in St. Helena. The network includes a
few dedicated bike lanes, bike routes, and shareduse paths. There are few bicycle facilities in the central grid-based network downtown. Existing
bicycle infrastructure is located mostly on the edge
of the city, and these facilities do not connect to key destinations.
Table 8.1: City of St. Helena Existing Bicycle
Network Mileage
Facility Type Miles
Shared-Use Path (Class I) 1.3
Bicycle Lanes (Class II) 1.8
Bicycle Route (Class III) 0.6
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 0.1
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) -
Unclassified Bicycle Route 0.9
Total 4.6
Off-street facilities include the Vine Trail between
Calistoga and Pratt Avenue and a short shared-use
path off Pope Street.
Dedicated on-street bicycle lanes within the city
bounds include a bike lane on Pope Street and a
short segment on Valley View Street. The Pope
Street bike lane extends between Allison Avenue and
College Avenue. Where the bicycle lane ends, bike
routes (marked by sharrows and signage) extend to
Silverado Trail and Main Street. Silverado Trail is on
the edge of the city limits and provides a connection
between Calistoga and the City of Napa. Pope Street
accounts for most of the city’s on-street bicycle
lanes; it is a rural road primarily used by recreational cyclists. The Valley View Street bike lane only
extends between Birch Avenue and Grayson Avenue
and is not connected to any additional facilities.
SR 29 is categorized as an unclassified bicycle route;
while it is a greatly used corridor for bicyclists, the shoulders are of sub-standard width, and it cannot
be classified as an existing bike lane.
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking in St. Helena is concentrated
downtown. Parking is also located at Crane Park, St.
Helena Primary School, and Stonebridge Park. No
bicycle lockers or other long-term bicycle parking
was identified in St. Helena.
153
Pedestrian Facilities
Existing sidewalks and shared-use paths in St. Helena
are mapped in Figure 8.6. Mileage of pedestrian
facilities is listed in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2: City of St. Helena Existing
Pedestrian Facility Mileage
Facility Type Miles
Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 1.3
Sidewalks 32.5
Total 33.8
The pedestrian network inventory provides
information about streets with existing or missing
sidewalks or paths, which will be used to develop
near-term sidewalk gap closure recommendations.
However, not all locations without sidewalks are
considered priority gaps in the network. Additionally,
some residential, rural, and/or recently annexed
communities may not require sidewalk
implementation per local guidelines. Sidewalk gap
closures may also not be feasible where right-of-way
is limited, where community character is to be
preserved, or in areas where traffic volumes and
speeds are low enough for pedestrians to share the
roadway.
Sidewalks and Paths
The sidewalk network is most connected in
downtown St. Helena between Stockton Street and
Railroad Avenue, connecting to residences and
commercial businesses.
As identified in the 2016 Napa County Pedestrian
Master Plan, sidewalks are missing further from the
center of town. The 2019 plan highlights missing
sidewalks along key east/west pedestrian corridors,
such as Mitchell Drive and the west side of Grayson
Avenue on the southeast end of town, which
connect residents to Main Street and St. Helena
Primary School, respectively. Missing sidewalks are
also identified on north/south corridors, including
the northwest portion of Main Street as well as
Hudson Avenue. Other residential streets with
missing sidewalks include the west end of Madrona
Avenue, Crane Avenue, and throughout the
residential community west of Madrona Avenue.
Crossings
Marked crosswalks are concentrated where the
sidewalk network is most connected downtown.
Midblock and uncontrolled crossings are present
throughout the city, primarily on Spring Street, Pope
Street, Main Street, Tainter Street at St. Helena
Catholic Church and the Boys and Girls Club, on
Elmhurst and Hillview Place at Robert Louis
Stevenson Middle School.
Marked crosswalks appear less frequently farther
from downtown, including along Grayson Avenue at
St. Helena Primary School and across Spring Street.
Crane Park
Stonebridge Park
SILVERADO TRL
CHAIX LN
DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE
ZINFANDEL LN
PRATT AVE
MADRON A A V E
FULTON LN
SPRI N G
ST
ADAMS ST POPE ST
VALLEJO ST
DEER PARK RD
MAIN ST
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD
MEADOWOOD LN
WHITEHALL LN
INGLEWOOD AVE
CRANE AVE
SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE
GRAYSON AVE
OAK AVE
WHITE LN
SPRING MOUNTAIN RD
HUNT AVE
W ZINFANDEL LN
BIG ROCK RD
DEAN YORK LN
CABERNET LN
SYLVANER AVE
HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
LEWELLING AVE
WHITEHALL LN
MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 8.5
City of St. Helena
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
Crane Park
Stonebridge Park
SILVERADO TRL
CHAIX LN
DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE
ZINFANDEL LN
PRATT AVE
MADRON A A V E
FULTON LN
SPRI N G
ST
ADAMS ST
POPE ST
VALLEJO ST
DEER PARK RD
MAIN ST
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD
MEADOWOOD LN
WHITEHALL LN
INGLEWOOD AVE
CRANE AVE
SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE
GRAYSON AVE
OAK AVE
WHITE LN
SPRING MOUNTAIN RD
HUNT AVE
W ZINFANDEL LN
BIG ROCK RD
DEAN YORK LN
CABERNET LN
SYLVANER AVE
HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
LEWELLING AVE
WHITEHALL LN
MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 8.6
City of St. Helena
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
156
Needs Assessment
Once existing transportation conditions were
documented, a needs assessment was conducted to
highlight needs in the active transportation network.
The needs assessment for St. Helena includes an
analysis of bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) and
connectivity.
Level of Bicycle Stress
LTS produces a score for roadways from 1 to 4.
Streets that scored 1 or 2 are less stressful and
comfortable for bicyclists of most ages and abilities,
while streets that scored 3 or 4 are more stressful
and appropriate for only more experienced riders.
For more information about LTS methodology, see
Chapter 4.
As shown in Figure 8.7, a majority of St. Helena’s
roadway network is low stress for bicyclists. Of the
32.4 miles of roadways in St. Helena, 18 percent
scored LTS 3 or 4 and are considered high stress.
Main Street (SR 128) is the highest stress route in
the city, primarily scoring LTS 3 with a short segment
near the Culinary Institute of America at Greystone
scoring LTS 4. Main Street is an arterial with a
prevailing speed of 38.5 miles an hour and no bicycle
facilities. Main Street is the primary north/south
connection through the city and provides access to
key destinations downtown. However, the high stress
roadway environment is not suitable for most
bicyclists. Alternative north/south connections
include Oak Avenue and Kearny Street, which are LTS
1-2 and provide connections to Robert Louis
Stevenson Middle School and St. Helena Elementary
School. Valley View Street/South Crane Avenue is
another north/south route that provides access to
St. Helena Primary School and scored LTS 1-2.
Key east/west routes in St. Helena include Madrona
Avenue/Fulton Lane, Spring Street, Pope Street, and
Grayson Street. Madrona Avenue and Spring Street
cross through the southern part of town and scored
LTS 1 with portions of LTS 2. These routes present
opportunities for lower stress bicycle connections.
Pope Street connects between Main Street and
Silverado Trail and scored LTS 2. Grayson Street
provides access to St. Helena Primary School, Crane
Park and St. Helena High School and scored LTS 2.
Low Stress Connectivity
Bicycle connectivity throughout St. Helena was
analyzed using LTS scores and origin and destination
points. In this assessment, bicycle connectivity is
defined as either high-stress or low-stress
connectivity. Destinations with low-stress
connectivity are connected to residential units
(origins) along the low-stress bicycle network, or
roads that score LTS 2 or lower. Providing low-stress
connectivity improves bicycle access for a wider
range of ages and abilities and induces bicycle
demand.
Table 8.3 describes low stress bicycle connectivity to
14 key destinations in the City of St. Helena. The
table describes the percentage of origins (residential
units) that are connected to each destination along
the low stress network. Origins in this analysis are
within 1.5 miles of one or more destinations, which
is the average distance a person is willing to bike.
Origins outside of this 1.5-mile range are excluded.
Crane Park
Stonebridge Park
CHAIX LN
MADRON A A V E
POPE ST
SPRING ST
VALLEJO ST
MEADOWOOD LN
MAIN ST
WHITEHALL LN
DOWDELL LN
ZINFANDEL LN
SULPHUR SPRING S AVE
WHITE LN
HUNT AVE SPRING MOUNTAI N RD
W ZINFANDEL LN
BI G
RO CK RD
FULTON LN
MILLS LN
PRATT AVE
GRAYSON AVE
CRANE AVE
SILVERADO TRL
INGLEWOOD AVE
LEWELLING AVE
DEAN YORK LN
CABERNET LN
DEER PARK RD
WHITEHALL LN
Culinary
Institute of
America at Greystone
LEGEND
Level of Traffic Stress for Bicyclists
1 – Comfortable for All Ages/Abilities
2 – Comfortable for Most Adults
3 – Comfortable for Confident Bicyclists
4 – Uncomfortable for Most Users
Bikes not permitted
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 8.7
City of St. Helena
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
H
0.5 Miles
158
Table 8.3: City of St. Helena Low Stress
Connectivity
Key Destinations
Total Connections to
each destination
(high- and low-stress)
Total Low Stress
Connections
Percent Low-Stress
Connectivity to
Origins
City Hall - City of St. Helena 889 211 21.0%
Jacob Meiley Park 1,152 216 21.5%
Robert Louis Stevenson Intermediate 1,409 531 52.8%
Safeway 1,177 216 21.5%
St. Helena Elementary 1,525 583 58.0%
St. Helena High 1,417 506 50.3%
St. Helena Opportunities Program 1,525 583 58.0%
St. Helena Primary 1,453 619 61.6%
St. Helena Montessori 733 210 20.9%
St. Helena Public Library 1,123 216 21.5%
St. Helena Farmers' Market 1,396 605 60.2%
Sunshine Foods 1,573 600 59.7%
Wine Country Cases 657 5 0.5%
Crane Park 1,396 605 60.2%
Note: Total Connections refers to potential origins within 1.5 miles of the listed destination St. Helena Elementary, St. Helena Opportunities
Program, St. Helena Primary, St. Helena Farmers'
Market, Sunshine Foods, and Crane Park have the
highest percentage of low-stress connectivity in St.
Helena. These locations are located off of low stress
streets making them more reachable via the bicycle
network.
The destination with the poorest connectivity is
Wine Country Cases located off of Main Street,
which is a high stress street. Other destinations with
poorer connectivity include City Hall, Jacob Meiley
Park, Safeway, St. Helena Public Library and Safeway.
In some cases, these destinations are located on low
stress streets, but other higher stress streets, like SR 29, are barriers for many bicyclists.
Community Priorities
Throughout the community engagement process, St.
Helena residents identified priorities for potential
improvements. Main Street/SR 29, Madrona Avenue,
Hunt Avenue, and Spring Street were highlighted as
priority improvement locations. Community
members discussed safe routes to school, traffic
calming, sidewalks along SR 29, improved visibility,
and emphasized the Vine Trail. One comment
received during the CBTP outreach noted the lack of
secure bicycle parking options in St. Helena,
expressing interest in more secure bike racks.
Another specific comment received during CBTP
outreach suggested adding pedestrian facilities along
Hudson Avenue.
Developing the Active
Transportation Network in St.
Helena
Utilizing the findings from the past planning efforts,
existing transportation conditions, LTS and bicycle
connectivity analysis and community engagement
priorities, the active proposed active transportation
network was developed. The draft network was
created in July 2025 and went through extensive
review by NVTA and city staff. Once this review
occurred, the network was revised and shared with
the community during a virtual workshop in October
2025. Community members also had the
opportunity to comment on the network using an
interactive map hosted on the project website.
159
Feedback gathered during the workshop and from
the interactive map was used to update the active
transportation network. Changes were vetted by
NVTA and city staff before the network was finalized
early 2026.
Developing the Bicycle Network
In addition to the 2019 Countywide Bicycle Plan, St.
Helena developed a Streets Master Plan
concurrently with the Napa Countywide AT Plan.
Recommendations from the Streets Master Plan
were incorporated into the proposed network.
The development of the network focused specifically
on providing connectivity across high stress roads
such as SR 29, as well as connections to the Vine
Trail, local schools, and commercial destinations. To
provide connectivity to key destinations on narrower
streets, Class III bicycle boulevards were considered.
Developing the Pedestrian Network
Sidewalk gap closure projects were proposed if they
met the following criteria:
» The gap is located within 500 feet of a point of
interest, including parks, schools, transit stops,
etc.
» The gap is located along a corridor with an
existing or proposed bicycle improvement. The
goal of this criterion is to create multimodal
corridors that prioritize both pedestrians and
bicyclists.
In addition to the methodology described above, a
manual review was conducted to add or exclude
projects where necessary.
Most of the proposed pedestrian gap projects are
located along Hillview Place, Hudson Avenue, and
Crane Avenue, improving pedestrian connectivity to
St. Helena Primary school and Robert Louis
Stevenson Intermediate School, as well as a few local
parks.
Shared-use path projects were identified during the
development of the bicycle network but are also
included as part of the pedestrian network.
Proposed shared-use paths are proposed throughout
the city, connecting to the vine trail, providing access through the southern part of the city, and to
Silverado Trail beyond the city limits.
160
Recommendations
Recommendations for the St. Helena active
transportation network include the proposed
network of bikeways and sidewalk gap closure
projects. The AT Plan does not identify specific
crossing improvements. Instead, a crosswalk strategy
is detailed in Chapter 5. Additionally, a treatment
toolkit detailing bicycle and pedestrian improvement
design guide was developed to accommodate the
proposed network. See Appendix D for more
information.
Proposed Bicycle Network
The proposed St. Helena bicycle network builds off
the 2019 Countywide Bicycle Plan and is largely
based off the St. Helena Streets Master Plan (2026)
and the findings from the needs assessment. Existing
bicycle facilities, community engagement feedback,
and findings from the LTS analysis were also
considered. The proposed network follows best
practices established in the Treatment Toolkit
(Appendix D) and upgrades previous
recommendations where necessary. For a map of
the St. Helena bicycle network, see Figure 8.8. For
the list of bicycle network recommendations, see
Appendix E.
Table 8.4 provides the mileage of the existing
network, compares mileage proposed in the AT Plan
and the previous Countywide Bicycle Plan (2019),
and the total mileage of entire bicycle network. The
AT Plan adds 22.9 miles to the bicycle network, for a
total of 27.5 miles once implemented.
Table 8.4: City of St. Helena Proposed Bicycle Network Mileage Facility Type 2019 Existing
Mileage
2025 Existing
Mileage*
Change 2019
to 2025*
2025
Proposed
Mileage
Total Future
Mileage
Shared-Use Path (Class I) 1.0 1.3 +0.3 10.5 11.8
Bike Lanes (Class II) 1.3 1.8 +0.5 4.0 5.8
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) - - - - -
Bicycle Route (Class III) 0.2 0.6 +0.4 - 0.6
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) - 0.1 +0.1 5.0 5.1
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) - - - 3.3 3.3
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) - - - - -
Unclassified Bike Route - 0.9 +0.9 - 0.9
Total 2.5 4.6 +2.1 22.9 27.5
*2025 Existing mileage totals are derived from a comprehensive review of existing bicycle facilities, which in some cases resulted in removal or re-categorization of facilities.
161
Proposed Pedestrian Network
The proposed St. Helena pedestrian network
includes sidewalk gap closure projects and shareduse paths, as was developed based on existing gaps in the network. For a map of the pedestrian
network, see Figure 8.9.
Table 8.5 presents the existing pedestrian network
mileage, and mileage proposed in this AT Plan, as
well as the total existing and proposed mileage. The
AT Plan adds 12.3 miles to the pedestrian network,
for a total future mileage of 34.3 miles of sidewalks
and 11.8 miles of shared-use paths. Shared-use path
mileage in Table 8.5 is not additional mileage but
rather reflects the same mileage in the bicycle
mileage table (Table 8.4), as these facilities are
suitable for both pedestrians and bicyclists.
Table 8.5: City of St. Helena Proposed Pedestrian Network Mileage Facility Type 2025 Existing Mileage 2025 Proposed Mileage Total Future Mileage Shared-Use Path (Class I) 1.3 10.5 11.8
Sidewalk 32.5 1.8 34.3
Total 33.8 12.3 46.1
Crane Park
Stonebridge Park
SILVERADO TRL
CHAIX LN
DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE
ZINFANDEL LN
PRATT AVE
MADRON A A V E
FULTON LN
SPRI N G
ST
ADAMS ST POPE ST
VALLEJO ST
DEER PARK RD
MAIN ST
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD
MEADOWOOD LN
WHITEHALL LN
INGLEWOOD AVE
CRANE AVE
SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE
GRAYSON AVE
OAK AVE
WHITE LN
SPRING MOUNTAIN RD
HUNT AVE
W ZINFANDEL LN
BIG ROCK RD
DEAN YORK LN
CABERNET LN
SYLVANER AVE
HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
LEWELLING AVE
WHITEHALL LN
MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 8.8
City of St. Helena
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
Crane Park
Stonebridge Park
SILVERADO TRL
CHAIX LN
DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE
ZINFANDEL LN
PRATT AVE
MADRON A A V E
FULTON LN
SPRI N G
ST
ADAMS ST
POPE ST
VALLEJO ST
DEER PARK RD
MAIN ST
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD
MEADOWOOD LN
WHITEHALL LN
INGLEWOOD AVE
CRANE AVE
SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE
GRAYSON AVE
OAK AVE
WHITE LN
SPRING MOUNTAIN RD
HUNT AVE
W ZINFANDEL LN
BIG ROCK RD
DEAN YORK LN
CABERNET LN
SYLVANER AVE
HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
LEWELLING AVE
WHITEHALL LN
MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Crosswalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 8.9
City of St. Helena
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
164
Programs and Policies
This section will be completed by the individual
jurisdiction should locally identified programs or
policies be added prior to local adoption.
165
Implementation Plan
The previous Recommendations section provides the
complete active transportation network for St.
Helena to be implemented over the next 25 years.
The implementation plan outlines an approach for
prioritizing certain bicycle projects for near-term
implementation. Note that the pedestrian network
presented in the previous section represents the
prioritized list of sidewalk gap projects and no
further prioritization is conducted in this AT Plan.
The sidewalk gap projects recommended form the
prioritized list as they provide improved pedestrian
access near key destinations.
In addition to the prioritized bicycle projects, the
implementation plan includes potential induced
demand and VMT reductions from the full proposed
bicycle network in St. Helena.
For the complete implementation plan, see Chapter
6 which includes unit cost assumptions for
pedestrian and bicycle projects, as well as funding
opportunities. The proposed network includes some
facilities along state routes, which will require
coordination with Caltrans.
Bicycle Network Prioritization
The proposed active transportation network
provides a vision for St. Helena through 2050.
However, there is limited available funding, and the
whole network cannot be implemented at once. A
near-term list of bicycle projects was developed for
implementation over the next five to seven years.
For prioritization methodology, see Chapter 6.
Three projects in St. Helena are identified for nearterm implementation, listed in Table 8.6. For a map of near-term bicycle projects, see Figure 8.10. The
proposed bicycle route on Main Street would
provide connectivity to many destinations along the
city’s primary travel routes.
Main Street is identified as part of the High Injury
Network by the Vision Zero Plan – adding a bicycle
facility on this route aims to improve safety. The
Napa Vine Trail and Napa River trail alignments are
both prioritized, providing off-street connections. All of the near-term projects are also in Equity Priority
Communities and are consistent with past planning
efforts.
Project Complexity
In addition to the prioritization, project complexity Is an essential consideration. Lower-complexity
projects are projects that generally require only
striping and signage, or which can be incorporated
into routine paving or road resurfacing activities
Higher complexity projects refer to projects that
require right-of-way acquisition, concrete work,
drainage, relocation of utilities, and other factors
that increase construction costs. Projects in this AT
Plan are categorized as either high or low complexity.
For more information about project complexity, see
Chapter 6.
Short-Term Solutions
For quick or short-term implementation, quick builds
can be a viable option. Quick builds are
improvements that address safety and connectivity
at a lower cost and timeline than a full build-out with concrete or other permanent treatments. They often
consist of plastic infrastructure such as bollards,
signs, and paint, making them easy to install and
adjust.
166
Table 8.6: City of St. Helena Near-Term Bicycle Project List ID Segment Begins Ends Length
(mi) Type
900 Main St Madrona Ave Charter Oak Ave 0.6 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
1181 Napa Valley Vine Trail Pratt Ave Chaix Ln 2.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) 1225 Napa River Trail Pope St (Napa River
Trail-Wappo Park)
St Helena city limit (Deer
Park Rd / Lower Reservoir
Trail)
1.9 Shared Use Path (Class I)
Crane Park
Stonebridge Park
SILVERADO TRL
CHAIX LN
DOWDELL LN MCCORKLE AVE
ZINFANDEL LN
PRATT AVE
MADRON A A V E
FULTON LN
SPRI N G
ST
ADAMS ST POPE ST
VALLEJO ST
DEER PARK RD
MAIN ST
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD
MEADOWOOD LN
WHITEHALL LN
INGLEWOOD AVE
CRANE AVE
SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE
GRAYSON AVE
OAK AVE
WHITE LN
SPRING MOUNTAIN RD
HUNT AVE
W ZINFANDEL LN
BIG ROCK RD
DEAN YORK LN
CABERNET LN
SYLVANER AVE
HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD
LEWELLING AVE
WHITEHALL LN
MILLS LN
Culinary Institute
of America
at Greystone
128
128
29 29
LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 8.10
City of St. Helena
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
0.5 Miles
168
Induced Bicycle Demand and
VMT Reductions
For the three near-term projects proposed in St.
Helena, benefits were quantified using the NCHRP
Report 552 Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in
Bicycle Facilities. The benefits presented are
estimates and may not predict the exact benefits
produced by each project.
Methodology
The annualized benefits are based on potential
induced bicycling demand for each proposed project
The total rate of adult bicycling ranges from a low
estimate, based on the Census bicycling commute
mode share, to a high estimate, based on 0.6
percent plus three times the Census commute share.
Thus, demand is quantified at low, medium, and high
estimates for the populations at each buffer
distance. The results presented in Table 8.7 utilize
the highest estimate. The NCHRP 552 research cites
that people who live closest to a bicycle facility are
more likely to bike than those who live further from
the facility. Likelihood multipliers were developed to
represent this probability17 and used to estimate the
total induced commuter bicyclists annually.
This methodology results in annual monetized
benefits associated with mobility, health, recreation,
and decreased auto use expected to result from the
proposed bicycle facilities, as detailed in Appendix F.
These benefits are summed to produce the total
monetized benefit for each project.
17 NCHRP 552, Appendix B; Supplemental White Paper Translating Demand and Benefits Research into Guidelines » Mobility Benefits: the time cost associated with
shift to given bicycle facility type for the total
number of commute trips over a commute year
for new and existing bicyclist commuters.
» Health Benefits: the cost savings from physical
activity benefits associated with induced
demand
» Recreation Benefits: the cost savings related to
recreational activity for new bicyclists induced
» Decreased Auto Use Benefits: the benefits
associated with user cost savings, reduced
congestion, and reduced air pollution.
In addition to the four benefits outlines above,
benefits associated with greenhouse gas (GHG)
reduction benefits were also calculated. The NCHRP
guidelines do not discuss how to calculate GHG
emissions reduction associated with a reduction
VMT. Instead, the Senate Bill (SB) 1 California LifeCycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C) Grant Program Emissions Reduction Calculator was used.
Results
Table 8.7 provides the new bicycle commuters
induced annually, annual VMT reduction, and the
total annual monetized benefit provided by each
project. All near-term proposed projects are
estimated to induce between six and twelve new
annual commuters a year. In St. Helena, the
proposed Napa Valley Vine Trail segment is
anticipated to provide the highest total benefit,
followed by the SR 29/Main St bike lanes.
169
Table 8.7: City of St. Helena Near-Term Bicycle Project Benefits ID Segment Begins Ends Length
(mi) Type
New
Annual
Commuter
Bicyclists
VMT
Reduction
Total
Annual
Benefits
900 Main St Madrona
Ave
Charter
Oak Ave
0.6 Rural
Bicycle
Route
(Class III)
10 15,135 $251,700
1181 Napa Valley Vine
Trail
Pratt Ave Chaix Ln 2.3 Shared
Use Path
(Class I)
12 17,854 $424,500
1225 Napa River Trail Pope St
(Napa
River TrailWappo
Park)
St Helena
city limit
(Deer Park
Rd / Lower
Reservoir
Trail)
1.9 Shared
Use Path
(Class I)
6 8,607 $212,300
170
Chapter 9
Town of Yountville
The Town of Yountville is approximately 1.5 square
miles and has a population of 3,396 residents.
Yountville began as an agricultural settlement
surrounded by fields and vineyards, and it remains
small and compact to this day. The Town’s business
district and residential neighborhoods lie to the east
of the highway, while the Veterans Home is to the
west.
Demographics
The following demographic information is from the
American Community Survey (ACS) 2023 five-year
estimates.
Age
Communities of all ages benefit from a connected
and accessible transit network. People who are
introduced to walking, bicycling and transit at a
younger age are more likely to use active modes of
travel in adulthood, contributing to active lifestyles.
Active lifestyles are linked to many physical and
mental benefits such as cardiovascular health,
improved mental health, and for areas, can form a
large sense of community. Figure 9.1 shows the age
distribution in the Town of Yountville. The median
age is 65 years, which is older than the county
median age of 42.8. Yountville’s population skews
older than neighboring jurisdictions, and only 5% of
the population is under 25 years of age.
Figure 9.1: Town of Yountville Age Distribution
Income
The Town of Yountville has a median household
income (MHI) of $131,592, which is higher than
Napa County’s MHI of $108,970. See Figure 9.2 for
the distribution of household income in the town.
Figure 9.2: Town of Yountville Household
Income
4%
1%
9%
9%
8%
18%
21%
29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Under 15 years
15 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 years and over
12%
20%
25%
14%
12%
17%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Below $25,000
$25,000 -$49,999
$50,000- $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more
171
Travel Behavior
Mode Share
Figure 9.3 provides an overview of commute mode
share for workers living in Yountville aged 16 years
and older. Mode share data was sourced from the
American Community Survey (ACS) five-year
estimates and represents data for 2016 and 2023.
The data does not include non-work trips.
Most Yountville residents drive to work, though a
significant portion of residents walk. In 2023,
nineteen percent of residents walked to work, less
than one percent rode their bicycle, and one percent
took public transportation.
Since 2016, more people have started working from
home, likely due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. The
percentage of people who drive alone or carpool has
decreased significantly, and more people are
walking.
Figure 9.3: Town of Yountville Means of
Transportation to Work
Trip Length
Figure 9.4 provides trip length information for
Yountville from the 2025 Travel Behavior Study. Of all
trips originating in Yountville, 15 percent were two
miles or less. These “short-trips” represent an
opportunity for mode shift, or to encourage people
to switch from driving to an active mode of travel.
Figure 9.4: Town of Yountville Trip Length
(2025 Travel Behavior Study)
70%
5%
1%
0%
5%
2%
17%
57%
2%
1%
0%
19%
0%
21%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Drove alone
Carpooled
Public transportation
Bicycle
Walked
Other
Worked at home
2023 2016
10%
5%
8%
31%
22%
8%
4%
3%
1%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
0-1 mi
1-2 mi
2-5 mi
5-10 mi
10-20 mi
20-30 mi
30-40 mi
40-50 mi
50-60 mi
60-70 mi
70-80 mi
80-90 mi
90-100 mi
100+ mi
172
Key Community Destinations
Many of the key community destinations in
Yountville are located along or near Washington St.
The Town of Yountville, unofficially called the
Culinary Capital of the Napa Valley, offers worldrenowned restaurants and dining experiences. Key destinations such as the Veterans Home of
California, Yountville Library. Vineyard Park and
Yountville City Hall are main points of interest.
Prioritizing a safe and connected Yountville includes
improving pedestrian and bicycling facilities.
Transit System and Stops
The Vine runs the Up Valley Connector, bus route 10,
from the City of Napa through the Town of Yountville
along SR 29, ending in Calistoga. There is also the
Yountville Bee bus system, an on-demand transit
service operating Sunday through Friday. Users can
call, use the online website or the app to request a
ride from the Bee. Improvements along these routes
should be considered to improve first- and last-mile
connectivity and increase access for those who rely
on walking and bicycling.
Existing Bicycling and
Walking Environment
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities in Yountville are mapped in Figure 9.5. The map also includes bicycle parking
locations.
Bicycle Network
Mileage of existing bicycle facilities is listed in Table
9.1. The bicycle network in Yountville is composed
primarily of shared-use pathways and on-street
bicycle lanes. Connectivity is limited through the
town's main roadways, but the network connects to
regional bicycle facilities. There are no bicycle
facilities south of SR 29 that connect to the Veteran’s Home of California community.
Table 9.1: Town of Yountville Existing Bicycle
Network Mileage
Facility Type Miles
Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 2.4
Bicycle Lanes (Class II) 0.7
Bicycle Routes (Class III) 0.4
Separated Bikeways (Class IV) -
Unclassified Bicycle Routes -
Total 3.5
Off-street bicycle paths include the Vine Trail, which
extends from the northern town boundary through
the City of Napa. There is also disconnected network
of shared-use paths around the now closed
Yountville Elementary School property and through
the nearby residential neighborhood.
Dedicated on-street bike lanes are located on
Yountville Cross Road and on a Portion of Finnell
Road. Yountville Cross Road is a collector road where
bicyclists ride on the roadway shoulder. It connects
the Vine Trail and Silverado Trail north of town.
Silverado Trail has a dedicated bike lane and provides
a connection between Calistoga and the City of
Napa; it is a rural road primarily used by recreational cyclists. The bicycle lane on Finnell Road connects
residents to portions of the shared-use path
network.
There is one bicycle route in Yountville, on Yount
Street between Yountville Cross Road and Webber
Avenue. The bicycle route does not extend into town
or connect to other destinations south.
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking in Yountville is located primarily along Washington Street. Parking is also located at the
Vine Trail Trailhead and Veterans Park at the Oak
Circle Parking Lot. Bicycle lockers for longer-term
bike parking are available at the Napa Vine Trail
Trailhead at Solana Avenue and California Drive.
173
Pedestrian Facilities
Existing sidewalks and shared-use paths in Yountville
are mapped in Figure 9.6. Mileage of existing
pedestrian facilities is listed in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2: Town of Yountville Existing
Pedestrian Facility Mileage
Facility Type Miles
Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 2.4
Sidewalks 15.0
Total 17.4
The pedestrian network inventory provides
information about streets with existing or missing
sidewalks or paths, which will be used to develop
near-term sidewalk gap closure recommendations.
However, not all locations without sidewalks are
considered gaps in the network – some residential,
rural, and/or recently annexed communities may not
require sidewalk implementation per local
guidelines. Sidewalk gap closures may also not be
appropriate where right-of-way is limited, where
community character is to be preserved, or in areas
where traffic volumes and speeds are low enough for
pedestrians to share the roadway.
Sidewalks
In Yountville, sidewalks are present on primary
roadways such as Yount Street and Washington
Street. Along some segments, sidewalks are only
present on one side of the road. There is also a
connected sidewalk network through the residential
community between Vineyard Circle and Oak Circle.
This network is connected to various neighborhood
shared-use pathways, as well as the Vine Trail. The
Outer Alameda community has a connected
sidewalk network.
Sidewalks are limited in the residential community at
the north end of town. However, as identified in the
2016 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan, roadways
through these communities have gravel shoulders to
preserve the rural community character and are not
identified as gaps.
Crossings
Marked crosswalks are concentrated around the
commercial core in Yountville. Many of the
crosswalks along Yountville’s primary roadways,
including Yount Street, Washington Street, California
Street, and Finell Road, are at uncontrolled locations.
Yount Street features bulb outs at some of these
locations to reduce crossing distances and slow
traffic. The rest of Yountville’s roadway network is
primarily residential, and crosswalks are less
concentrated and typically not needed due to the
low speed, low-capacity nature of the network.
Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUTE
Vineyard Park
R ALEMEDA
CALIFORNIA DR
MISSION ST
FORRESTER LN HEATHER ST
YO
UNT ST
OAK CIR
YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD
JEFFERSON ST
SAN ANTONIO ST
PRESIDENTS CIR
FINNELL RD
CHAMPAGNE DR
LANDE WAY
YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
AVE
MADISON ST
CALIFORNIA
DR
WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR
VINEYARDCIR
MULBERRY ST
HERITAGE WAY
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
VINEYARD VIEW DR
IMPERIAL RD
INNER ALEMEDA
LAND LN
WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 9.5
Town of Yountville
Existing Bicycle Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUT
Vineyard Park ER ALEMEDA
CALIFORNIA DR
MISSION ST
FORRESTER LN
HEA
THER ST
YO
U
NT ST
OAK CIR
YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD
JEFFERSON ST
SAN ANTONIO ST
P
R
ESIDENTS CIR
FINNELL RD
CHAMPAGNE DR
LANDE WAY
YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
A
VE
MADISON ST
CALIFORNIA
DR
WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR
VINEYARDCIR
MULBERRY ST
HERITAGE WAY
NAPA
VALLEY
VINE
TRAIL
VINEYARD VIEW DR
IMPERIAL RD
INNER
ALEM
ED
A
LAND LN
WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 9.6
Town of Yountville
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
176
Needs Assessment
Once existing transportation conditions were
documented, a needs assessment was conducted to
highlight needs in the active transportation network.
The needs assessment for Yountville includes an
analysis of bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) and
connectivity.
Level of Bicycle Stress
LTS produces a score for roadways from 1 to 4.
Streets that scored 1 or 2 are less stressful and
comfortable for bicyclists of most ages and abilities,
while streets that scored 3 or 4 are more stressful
and appropriate for only more experienced riders.
For more information about LTS methodology, see
Chapter 4.
As shown in Figure 9.7, the Town of Yountville is
composed mostly of low stress neighborhood streets
with a few higher stress corridors. Of the 18.1 miles
of roadway in Yountville, 19% scored LTS 3 or 4 and
are considered high stress.
Yount Street is a primary north/south collector in
Yountville and scored an LTS 2. There are no bicycle
facilities on Yount Street, but lower prevailing speeds and traffic volumes provide an opportunity for a
lower stress bicycle corridor. Washington Street is a
local road that parallels Yount Street and offers a
lower stress north/south connection. Where Yount
Street terminates, Washington Street becomes the
primary north/south collector and LTS increases to 2
as a result of higher assumed volumes. Jefferson
Street is another north/south corridor, though
higher volumes and speeds result in a higher stress
corridor (LTS 3). East/west connectivity is composed
primarily of low stress local residential streets.
Low Stress Connectivity
Bicycle connectivity throughout the Town of
Yountville was analyzed using LTS scores and origin
and destination points. In this assessment, bicycle
connectivity is defined as either high-stress or lowstress connectivity. Destinations with low-stress connectivity are connected to residential units
(origins) along the low-stress bicycle network, or
roads that score LTS 2 or lower. Providing low-stress
connectivity improves bicycle access for a wider
range of ages and abilities and induces bicycle
demand.
Table 9.3 describes low stress bicycle connectivity to
seven key destinations in the Town of Yountville. The
table describes the percentage of origins (residential
units) that are connected to each destination along
the low stress network. Origins in this analysis are
within 1.5 miles of one or more destinations, which
is the average distance a person is willing to bike.
Origins outside of this 1.5-mile range are excluded.
Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUT
Vineyard Park ER ALEMEDA
CALIFORNIA DR
MISSION ST
FORRESTER LN
HEA
THER ST
YO
U
NT ST
OAK CIR
YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD
JEFFERSON ST
SAN ANTONIO ST
P
R
ESIDENTS CIR
FINNELL RD
CHAMPAGNE DR
LANDE WAY
YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
A
VE
MADISON ST
CALIFORNIA
DR
WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR
VINEYARDCIR
MULBERRY ST
HERITAGE WAY
NAPA
VALLEY
VINE
TRAIL
VINEYARD VIEW DR
IMPERIAL RD
INNER
ALEM
ED
A
LAND LN
WASHINGTON ST
LEGEND
Level of Traffic Stress for Bicyclists
1 – Comfortable for All Ages/Abilities
2 – Comfortable for Most Adults
3 – Comfortable for Confident Bicyclists
4 – Uncomfortable for Most Users
Bikes not permitted
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 9.7
Town of Yountville
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
H
0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
178
Table 9.3: Town of Yountville Low Stress Connectivity
Key Destinations
Total Connections to
each destination
(high- and low-stress)
Total Low Stress
Connections
Percent Low-Stress
Connectivity to
Origins
Town of Yountville – Public Works 582 259 74.6%
V Marketplace 583 258 74.4%
Veterans Home 317 2 0.6%
Veterans Park 590 258 74.4%
Yountville Library 582 258 74.4%
Yountville Park 350 23 6.6%
Vineyard Park 575 256 73.8%
Note: Total Connections refers to potential origins within 1.5 miles of the listed destination Five of the seven destinations are more than 70%
connected to the low-stress network. This includes
the public works department, V Marketplace,
Veterans Park, the Yountville Library and Vineyard
Park, all of which are located off of low-stress
streets. The Yountville Veterans Home has the
poorest bicycle connectivity – it is disconnected form
the rest of the town by SR 29. Yountville Park is also
poorly connected. Jefferson Street is a high stress
road that limits connectivity to the park from the
east side of town.
Community Priorities
Throughout the community engagement process,
Yountville residents identified priorities for potential improvements. Residents were interested in
improving bike accommodations on Washington
Street, Yount Street, and Silverado trail, as well as
improving the SR 29 undercrossing for nonmotorized users. Community members also discussed improving pavement conditions and
improving connectivity between jurisdictions.
Developing the Active
Transportation Network in
Yountville
Utilizing the findings from the past planning efforts,
existing transportation conditions, LTS and bicycle
connectivity analysis and community engagement
priorities, the active proposed active transportation
network was developed. The draft network was
created in July 2025 and went through extensive
review by NVTA and city staff. Once this review
occurred, the network was revised and shared with
the community during a virtual workshop in October
2025. Community members also had the
opportunity to comment on the network using an
interactive map hosted on the project website.
Feedback gathered during the workshop and from
the interactive map was used to update the active
transportation network. Changes were vetted by
NVTA and city staff before the network was finalized
early 2026.
Developing the Bicycle Network
The Envision Yountville General Plan (2022) largely
reflects the bicycle recommendations proposed in
the 2019 2019 Countywide Bicycle Plan. Both
documents were reviewed and incorporated in the
proposed network.
The development of the network specifically
considered increasing connectivity to Yountville Park
and the Yountville Veteran’s home and reducing
bicycle stress on Jefferson Street. Connectivity along
key north/south routes through town, and
connections to the Vine Trail, we also incorporated.
179
Developing the Pedestrian Network
Sidewalk gap closure projects were proposed if they
met the following criteria:
» The gap is located within 500 feet of a point of
interest, including parks, schools, transit stops,
etc.
» The gap is located along a corridor with an
existing or proposed bicycle improvement. The
goal of this criterion is to create multimodal
corridors that prioritize both pedestrians and
bicyclists.
In addition to the methodology described above, a
manual review was conducted to add or exclude
projects where necessary. Development of the
pedestrian network focused on Madison Street and
Yountville Cross Road, and improving pedestrian
connectivity to the Napa Vine Trail.
Recommendations
Recommendations for the Yountville active
transportation network include the proposed
network of bikeways and sidewalk gap closure
projects. The AT Plan does not identify specific
crossing improvements. Instead, a crosswalk strategy
is detailed in Chapter 5. Additionally, a treatment
toolkit detailing bicycle and pedestrian improvement
design guide was developed to accommodate the
proposed network. See Appendix D for more
information.
Proposed Bicycle Network
The proposed Yountville bicycle network builds off
the 2019 Countywide Bicycle Plan and the findings
from the needs assessment.
The proposed network follows best practices
established in the Treatment Toolkit (Appendix D)
and upgrades previous recommendations where
necessary. For the map of the Yountville bicycle
network, see Figure 9.8. For the list of bicycle
network recommendations, see Appendix E.
The proposed network also includes two study
corridors along Jefferson Street and Yount Street.
Jefferson Street is high stress for bicyclists because of high traffic volumes. Yount Street is considered lower
stress and serves as one of the primary connections
through Yountville. The City should consider
improving safety and connectivity along these
routes, but further study is needed to determine
what kinds of bicycle improvements are feasible.
Table 9.4 provides the mileage of the existing
network, compares mileage proposed in the AT Plan
and the previous Countywide Bicycle Plan (2019),
and the total mileage of entire bicycle network. The
AT Plan adds 1.5 miles to the bicycle network, for a
total of 5 miles once implemented.
180
Table 9.4: Town of Yountville Proposed Bicycle Network Mileage Facility Type
2019
Existing
Mileage
2025
Existing
Mileage*
Change 2019
to 2025*
2025
Proposed
Mileage
Total Future
Mileage
Shared-Use Path (Class I) 2.5 2.4 -0.1 0.1 2.5
Bike Lanes (Class II) 1.2 0.7 -0.5 0.05 0.8
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) - - - - -
Bicycle Route (Class III) 0.5 0.4 -0.1 - 0.4
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) - - - 1.0 1.0
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) - - - 0.3 0.3
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) - - - - -
Unclassified Bike Route - - - 0.1 0.1
Total 4.2 3.5 -0.7 1.5 5.0
*2025 Existing mileage totals are derived from a comprehensive review of existing bicycle facilities, which in some cases resulted in removal or re-categorization of facilities.
Proposed Pedestrian Network
The proposed Yountville pedestrian network includes
sidewalk gap closure projects and shared-use paths,
as was developed based on existing gaps in the
network. For a map of the pedestrian network, see
Figure 9.9.
Table 9.5 presents the existing pedestrian network
mileage, mileage proposed by the AT Plan, as well as
the total existing and proposed mileage. The AT Plan
adds 0.7 miles to the pedestrian network, for a total
future mileage of 15.6 miles of sidewalks and 2.5
miles of shared-use paths.
Table 9.5: Town of Yountville Proposed Pedestrian Network Mileage Facility Type Existing Mileage 2025 Proposed Mileage Total Future Mileage Shared-Use Path (Class I) 2.4 0.1 2.5
Sidewalk 15.0 0.6 15.6
Total 17.4 0.7 18.1
Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUTE
Vineyard Park
R ALEMEDA
CALIFORNIA DR
MISSION ST
FORRESTER LN HEATHER ST
YO
UNT ST
OAK CIR
YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD
JEFFERSON ST
SAN ANTONIO ST
PRESIDENTS CIR
FINNELL RD
CHAMPAGNE DR
LANDE WAY
YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
AVE
MADISON ST
CALIFORNIA
DR
WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR
VINEYARDCIR
MULBERRY ST
HERITAGE WAY
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
VINEYARD VIEW DR
IMPERIAL RD
INNER ALEMEDA
LAND LN
WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 9.8
Town of Yountville
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUTE
Vineyard Park
R ALEMEDA
CALIFORNIA DR
MISSION ST
FORRESTER LN HEATHER ST
YO
UNT ST
OAK CIR
YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD
JEFFERSON ST
SAN ANTONIO ST
PRESIDENTS CIR
FINNELL RD
CHAMPAGNE DR
LANDE WAY
YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
AVE
MADISON ST
CALIFORNIA
DR
WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR
VINEYARDCIR
MULBERRY ST
HERITAGE WAY
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
VINEYARD VIEW DR
IMPERIAL RD
INNER ALEMEDA
LAND LN
WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Proposed Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Sidewalk
Existing Facilities
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Extent of Sidewalk and Crosswalk Data
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 9.9
Town of Yountville
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
H
0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
183
Programs and Policies
This section will be completed by the individual
jurisdiction should locally identified programs or
policies be added prior to local adoption.
184
Implementation Plan
The previous Recommendations section provides the
complete active transportation network for
Yountville to be implemented over the next 25 years.
The implementation plan outlines an approach for
prioritizing certain bicycle projects for near-term
implementation. Note that the pedestrian network
presented in the previous section represents the
prioritized list of sidewalk gap projects and no
further prioritization is conducted in this plan. The
sidewalk gap projects recommended form the
prioritized list as they provide improved pedestrian
access near key destinations.
In addition to the near-term bicycle projects, the
implementation plan includes potential induced
demand and VMT reductions from the full proposed
bicycle network in Yountville.
For the complete implementation plan, see Chapter
6 which includes unit cost assumptions for
pedestrian and bicycle projects, as well as funding
opportunities.
Bicycle Network Prioritization
The proposed active transportation network
provides a vision for Yountville through 2050.
However, there is limited available funding, and the
whole network cannot be implemented at once. A
near-term list of bicycle projects was developed for
implementation over the next five to seven years.
For prioritization methodology, see Chapter 6.
The Hopper Creek Path Extension in Yountville was
identified for near-term implementation (see Table
9.6). This 0.1-mile project closes the gap between
the existing Hopper Creek Path and Washington
Street, improving connectivity between the on-street
bicycle network and on-street paths.
Project Complexity
In addition to the prioritization, project complexity Is an essential consideration. Lower-complexity
projects are projects that generally require only
striping and signage, or which can be incorporated
into routine paving or road resurfacing activities
Higher complexity projects refer to projects that
require right-of-way acquisition, concrete work,
drainage, relocation of utilities, and other factors
that increase construction costs. Projects in this AT
Plan are categorized as either high or low complexity.
For more information about project complexity, see
Chapter 6.
Short-Term Solutions
For quick or short-term implementation, quick builds
can be a viable option. Quick builds are
improvements that address safety and connectivity
at a lower cost and timeline than a full build-out with concrete or other permanent treatments. They often
consist of plastic infrastructure such as bollards,
signs, and paint, making them easy to install and
adjust.
Table 9.6: Town of Yountville Near-Term Bicycle Project List ID Segment Begins Ends Length
(mi) Type
1234 Hopper Creek Path:
South Extension Hopper Creek Washington St. 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I)
Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUTE
Vineyard Park
R ALEMEDA
CALIFORNIA DR
MISSION ST
FORRESTER LN HEATHER ST
YO
UNT ST
OAK CIR
YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD
JEFFERSON ST
SAN ANTONIO ST
PRESIDENTS CIR
FINNELL RD
CHAMPAGNE DR
LANDE WAY
YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
AVE
MADISON ST
CALIFORNIA
DR
WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR
VINEYARDCIR
MULBERRY ST
HERITAGE WAY
NAPA
VALLEY VINE TRAIL
VINEYARD VIEW DR
IMPERIAL RD
INNER ALEMEDA
LAND LN
WASHINGTON ST
29 29
29 LEGEND
Proposed Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Study Corridor
Existing Facility
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lanes (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
Unclassified Bicycle Route
Bike Parking
School
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 9.10
Town of Yountville
Near-Term Bicycle Network
H
0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
186
Induced Bicycle Demand and
VMT Reductions
For the one near-term project proposed in
Yountville, benefits were quantified using the NCHRP
Report 552 Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in
Bicycle Facilities. The benefits presented are
estimates and may not predict the exact benefits
produced by each project.
Methodology
The annualized benefits are based on potential
induced bicycling demand for each proposed project
The total rate of adult bicycling ranges from a low
estimate, based on the Census bicycling commute
mode share, to a high estimate, based on 0.6
percent plus three times the Census commute share.
Thus, demand is quantified at low, medium, and high
estimates for the populations at each buffer
distance. The results presented in Table 9.7 utilize
the highest estimate. The NCHRP 552 research cites
that people who live closest to a bicycle facility are
more likely to bike than those who live further from
the facility. Likelihood multipliers were developed to
represent this probability18 and used to estimate the
total induced commuter bicyclists annually.
This methodology results in annual monetized
benefits associated with mobility, health, recreation,
and decreased auto use expected to result from the
proposed bicycle facilities, as detailed in Appendix F.
These benefits are summed to produce the total
monetized benefit for each project.
» Mobility Benefits: the time cost associated with
shift to given bicycle facility type for the total
number of commute trips over a commute year
for new and existing bicyclist commuters.
» Health Benefits: the cost savings from physical
activity benefits associated with induced
demand
» Recreation Benefits: the cost savings related to
recreational activity for new bicyclists induced
» Decreased Auto Use Benefits: the benefits
associated with user cost savings, reduced
congestion, and reduced air pollution.
In addition to the four benefits outlines above,
benefits associated with greenhouse gas (GHG)
reduction benefits were also calculated. The NCHRP
guidelines do not discuss how to calculate GHG
emissions reduction associated with a reduction
VMT. Instead, the Senate Bill (SB) 1 California LifeCycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C) Grant Program Emissions Reduction Calculator was used.
Results
Table 9.7 provides the new bicycle commuters
induced annually, annual VMT reduction, and the
total annual monetized benefit provided by the
project. The near-term proposed project induces
six new annual commuters a year.
Table 9.7: Town of Yountville Near-Term Bicycle Project Benefits ID Segment Begins Ends Length
(miles) Type
New
Annual
Commuter
Bicyclists
VMT
Reduction
Total
Annual
Benefits
1234 Hopper Creek
Path – South
Extension to
Washington St
Hopper
Creek
Washington
St.
0.1 Shared Use
Path (Class I)
6 8,356 $195,600
18 NCHRP 552, Appendix B; Supplemental White Paper Translating Demand and Benefits Research into Guidelines
187
Chapter 10
City of Napa
The City of Napa is the county seat and the largest
city in the County, with a population of 78,816
residents and an area of 18.4 square miles. SR 29, SR
121, and SR 221 run though the city, connecting it to
other communities in the region.
The community offers a multitude of options for
entertainment, dining, cultural and recreational
experiences; quaint and historic neighborhoods; an
active and historic Downtown; and access to
recreation, nature, and the Napa River. Its vibrant,
historic downtown has a grid street network with a
growing retail core bordered by older neighborhoods
and residential areas. Toward the edges of the city,
lower-density residential uses are laid out in a
suburban pattern.
Demographics
The following demographic information is from the
American Community Survey (ACS) 2023 five-year
estimates.
Age
Communities whose population skews younger may
have improved opportunities for increasing active
transportation mode shift. People who are
introduced to walking, bicycling and transit at a
younger age are more likely to use active modes of
travel in adulthood. Figure 10.1 shows the age
distribution in the City of Napa. The City of Napa’s
median age is 41.2 years, which is slightly younger
than the county median age of 42.8. Almost one
third of the City of Napa’s population is under 25
years of age, which is a larger portion of the
population than some other jurisdictions.
Figure 10.1: City of Napa Age Distribution
Income
Figure 10.2 shows the income distribution in the City
of Napa. The City of Napa has a median household
income (MHI) of $102,231, which is lower than Napa
County’s MHI of $108,970. Lower-income
community members are more likely to rely on
active transportation and transit as opposed to car
travel. Providing adequate active transportation will
support connectivity for these residents.
Figure 10.2: City of Napa Household Income
17%
13%
13%
14%
13%
13%
11%
8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Under 15 years
15 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 years and over
10%
13%
27%
19%
13%
20%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Below $25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 or more
188
Travel Behavior
Mode Share
Figure 10.3 provides an overview of commute mode
share for workers living in the City of Napa aged 16
years and older. Mode share data was sourced from
the American Community Survey (ACS) five-year
estimates and represents data for 2016 and 2023.
The data does not include non-work trips.
Most City of Napa residents drive to, work either
alone or by carpooling. In 2023, three percent of
residents walked to work, one percent rode their
bicycle, and one percent took transportation. Since
2016, more people have started working from home,
likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
percentage of people who drive alone or carpool has
declined.
Figure 10.3: City of Napa Means of
Transportation to Work
Trip Length
Figure 10.4 illustrates trip length information for the City of Napa from the 2025 Travel Behavior Study. Of
all trips originating in the City of Napa, 31% are two
miles or under in length. These “short trips” pose
opportunities for mode shift, or the potential to
encourage active modes of travel instead of driving.
Figure 10.4: City of Napa Trip Length
Key Community Destinations
Many of the key community destinations in Napa are
located along or near Main Street, including grocery
stores and retail, City Hall, the Library, and Schools
such as Mayacamas Charter Middle. Other key
destinations include Westwood Hills Park, Browns
Valley Elementary, Bel Aire Plaza, and Fuller Park.
Improving pedestrian and bicycle connections to
these destinations is key for developing a more
connected active transportation network in the City
of Napa. Focusing improvements to schools
mentioned will improve connectivity and safety, for
more vulnerable road users (children and families)
traveling to school.
77%
12%
2%
1%
3%
1%
5%
72%
10%
1%
1%
3%
1%
12%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Drove alone
Carpooled
Public transportation
Bicycle
Walked
Other
Worked at home
2023 2016
11%
20%
35%
14%
10%
4%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
0-1 mi
1-2 mi
2-5 mi
5-10 mi
10-20 mi
20-30 mi
30-40 mi
40-50 mi
50-60 mi
60-70 mi
70-80 mi
80-90 mi
90-100 mi
100+ mi