189
Transit System and Stops
The Vine runs the Up Valley Connector, bus route 10,
from the City of Napa along SR 29, ending in
Calistoga. The City has seven internal bus lines
serving all points of Napa from Monday to Saturday.
Half of the buses operate north/south alignments
while the other half generally run east/west.
Existing Bicycling and
Walking Environment
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities in the City of Napa are
mapped in Figure 10.5 through Figure 10.8. The map
also includes bicycle parking locations
Bicycle Network
Mileage of existing bicycle facilities is listed in Table
10.1. The City of Napa bikeway network is composed
primarily of on-street bicycle lanes, with the Vine
Trail providing an off-street connection throughout
the city and to the Town of Yountville.
Table 10.1: City of Napa Existing Bicycle
Network Mileage
Facility Type Miles
Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 18.6
Bicycle Lanes (Class II) 25.9
Buffered Bicycle Lanes (Class II) 2.5
Bicycle Routes (Class III) 5.3
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) 1.9
Unclassified Bicycle Route -
Total 54.2
Though the city has north/south connectivity via the
Vine Trail, Solana Ave, and Soscol Ave, east/west
connectivity is limited. Many of the on-street bike
lanes are located on high-speed, high-capacity
roadways that do not offer comfortable routes for
most bicyclists. Further, these routes are primarily
along roadways that run north / south. Lincoln
Avenue and Imola Avenue provide the only
east/west connectivity.
There is a network of bicycle routes through the
central grid between Lincoln Avenue and Imola
Avenue. These routes are marked with sharrows and
signage, and are intended to be lower stress routes
where bicyclists ride with vehicle traffic. The bicycle routes connect to downtown Napa and key
destinations such as the Vine Trail, Shearer
Elementary School, and local parks.
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking in the City of Napa is most
concentrated downtown, in the shopping centers off
SR 221 and SR 29, and throughout the central grid.
Bicycle lockers for longer-term bicycle parking are
concentrated downtown, but are also available at
the following locations:
» Shopping center on Imola Avenue and Soscol
Avenue
» The Imola Park and Ride Station
» Napa Valley College
» Meritage Resort on Napa Valley Corporate Drive
Pedestrian Facilities
Existing sidewalks and shared-use paths in the City of
Napa are mapped in Figure 10.9 through Figure
10.12. Mileage of pedestrian facilities is listed in
Table 10.2.
Table 10.2: City of Napa Existing Pedestrian
Facilities Mileage
Facility Type Miles
Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 18.6
Sidewalks 344.5
Total 363.1
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
190
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 City of Napa has a well-connected sidewalk
network. The network is supported by the Vine Trail,
which provides a north/south connection through
the entire city, as well as other recreational shareduse pathways.
The 2016 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
identifies key corridors with missing sidewalks,
including Coombsville Road, Redwood Road, Linda
Vista Avenue, Imola Avenue, Sierra Avenue, and
Salvador Avenue.
Some residential neighborhoods within the city do
not have sidewalks, including the Alta Heights
community east of the Napa River. West of SR 29,
there is an unincorporated pocket of Napa County
within the City that does not have sidewalks, though
the surrounding residential area does.
Crossings
There is a high concentration of marked crosswalks
in downtown Napa. Marked crosswalks are present
along key east/west corridors such as Redwood Road
and Lincoln Avenue, as well as north/south corridors
including Soscol Avenue.
Connectivity between the east and west sides of
Napa across SR 29 is limited. At key crossing
locations such as Salvador Avenue, Trower Avenue,
Redwood Road/Trancas Street, Lincoln Avene,1st
Street, and Imola Avenue, pedestrians may have to
cross up to six lanes of traffic and cross highway onand off-ramps.
There are crosswalks used to access the Napa Vine
Trail, but connectivity is limited along Solano Avenue, and some entry points do not have marked
crossings.
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 10.5
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 10.6
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 10.7
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 10.8
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
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 10.9
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 10.10
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 10.11
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 10.12
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
199
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 the City of Napa 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 10.13 through Figure 10.16, the
City of Napa is made up of low stress residential
networks divided by higher stress arterials and
collectors. Of the 271.7 miles of roadway in Napa,
19% scored LTS 3 or 4 and are considered high
stress.
SR 29 divides the City of Napa and prohibits
bicycling. Most of the east/west connections across
SR 29 are high stress (LTS 3 or higher) with higher
speeds, higher vehicle capacity and lack bicycle
facilities, limiting access for most bicyclists. Key
north/south routes such as Linda Vista Avenue,
California Boulevard, and Jefferson Street are also
high stress. The Vine Trail provides a low-stress
north/south connection along the Napa River and
rail corridor.
Downtown Napa is composed of streets that scored
LTS 1-2. Most of these routes do not have bicycle
facilities and have high traffic volumes, but lower
prevailing speeds.
Low Stress Connectivity
Bicycle connectivity throughout the City of Napa 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 10.3 describes low stress bicycle connectivity
to 41 key destinations in Napa City. 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.
Skyline Wilderness Park
Alston Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
Westwood
Hills Park
Trancas Crossing
Park
1S
T
A
VE
DRY CREEK RD
F
O
S
TER
RD
LAS AMIGAS RD
REDWOOD RD
HAGEN RD
GOL
DEN
GA
TE
D
R
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
DEVLIN RD
VICHY
A
VE
DUHIG RD
COOM BSVILLE RD
SILVERA
D
O
TRL
WITHERS RD
MADRONE DR
ORCHARD AVE
DEALY LN
FIGURE 10.13
City of Napa
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
H
1 Miles
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
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
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 10.14
City of Napa - Northwest
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
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
FIGURE 10.15
City of Napa - Northeast
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
H
1 Miles
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
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 10.16
City of Napa - South
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
H
1 Miles
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
204
Table 10.3: City of Napa Low Stress Connectivity
Key Destinations
Total Connections
to each destination
(high- and low- stress)
Total Low
Stress
Connections
Percent Low-Stress
Connectivity to
Origins
Alta Heights Elementary 2,187 348 3.2%
Bel Aire Park Elementary 3,306 486 4.5%
Bel Aire Plaza 3,783 486 4.5%
Browns Valley Elementary 1,995 639 5.9%
City of Napa - Local Government 3,298 524 4.8%
Costco Wholesale Nama 23 6 0.1%
Economy Market 1,047 32 0.3%
Fuller Park 3,115 524 4.8%
Garfield Park 1,745 486 4.5%
Goodman Library 3,456 524 4.8%
Grocery Outlet 4 2 0.0%
Kaiser Permanente 3,212 1 0.0%
Lola's Market 2,729 761 7.0%
Mayacamas Charter Middle 3,112 2 0.0%
Mi Familia Market 2,869 820 7.6%
Napa County Library 3,157 524 4.8%
Napa County Public Works 3,341 524 4.8%
Napa County Resource Conservation District 3,073 168 1.6% Napa Premium Outlets 3,210 820 7.6%
NAPA Town Center 3,452 518 4.8%
Napa Valley Language Academy 2,481 822 7.6%
New Technology High 2,779 6 0.1%
Northwood Elementary 3,330 373 3.4%
O'Brien Park 1,898 75 0.7%
Providence Queen Of The Valley Medical Center 2,741 27 0.2% Pueblo Vista Elementary 2,712 297 2.7%
Redwood Middle 3,490 373 3.4%
River Park Plaza 1,602 21 0.2%
Safeway 3,171 1 0.0%
Shearer Elementary 2,780 524 4.8%
Silverado Plaza 1,718 11 0.1%
Snow Elementary 1,059 23 0.2%
South Napa Market Place 1,729 4 0.0%
Trancas Crossing Park 6 3 0.0%
Valley Oak High 2,625 366 3.4%
Vintage High 2,592 362 3.3%
Walmart Supercenter 2,186 10 0.1%
West Park Elementary 2,175 57 0.5%
Whole Foods & Trader Joes 3,522 486 4.5%
Willow Elementary 2,330 256 2.4%
Westwood Hills Park 2,300 654 6.0%
Note: Total Connections refers to potential origins within 1.5 miles of the listed destination
205
Of the 41 destinations, only four are connected to
more than 7% of total residential units along the
low-stress network. These destinations are Lola’s
Market, Mi Familia Market, Premium Outlets, and
the Language Academy. Low-stress bicycle
connections are typically present within
neighborhoods, but high stress arterial roads limit
connectivity between communities. As a result,
percent connectivity to most destinations is low.
Community Priorities
Throughout the community engagement process,
Napa residents identified priorities for potential
improvements. Residents discussed identifying
sidewalk gaps on key corridors, near neighborhood
schools, and in older neighborhoods. They
emphasized bicycle connectivity to and through
downtown Napa, improving pedestrian and bicycle
connections to schools and the Vine Trail. One
specific commenter noted an unmarked crossing for
the Vine Trail located on Solano Avenue near the
Redwood/Trancas intersection as a recommended
project.
Developing the Active
Transportation Network in the
City of Napa
Using 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 2019 Countywide Bicycle Plan, which was
adopted into the City of Napa’s General Plan in 2022,
was reviewed and incorporated into the proposed
network.
SR 29, as well as many arterials and collectors limit
connectivity throughout the city. Bicycle connections
along or across these high stress routes were
prioritized. The development of the network also
focused on connections to the Vine Trail, schools,
and routes beyond the city limits. Bicycle Boulevards
were also considered where connectivity was
needed but room was limited for dedicated bicycle
facilities. Some bicycle routes were also upgraded to
bicycle boulevards to provide traffic calming
benefits.
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.
Sidewalk gap projects are located throughout City,
with concentrations east of SR 121 and west of SR
29. 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 mostly in
the southern part of the city, including along the
west side of the Napa River, SR 121, and Imola
Avenue.
206
Recommendations
Recommendations for the City of Napa 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 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 Napa bicycle network, see Figure 10.17 through
Figure 10.20. For the list of bicycle network
recommendations, see Appendix E.
The City of Napa bicycle network also includes
several study corridors. 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. Most of the study
corridors in Napa are along high stress routes where
separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles
may be needed to reduce LTS. Table 10.4 lists the
study corridors recommended for the City of Napa.
The SF Bay Trail parallels SR 29 at the southern end
of the City before turning east to follow Imola
Avenue. The Napa Valley Vine Trail and the SF Bay
Trail overlap in some portions of the city, but are
recognized as two separate trails. While not called
out as individual projects in this AT Plan, they are
integral to the regional active transportation
network and are regionally prioritized.
Table 10.4: City of Napa Study Corridors
Street Begins Ends Length
(mi)
Jefferson St
(Study
Underway
in 2026)
Salvador
Ave
S Jefferson St
at City Limits 5.0
Trancas St Dry Creek
Rd Napa river 1.5
California
Blvd Clay St Trancas St 1.6
South
Soscol St Imola Ave 3rd St 1.3
Terrace Dr Imola Ave Coombsville
Rd 1.2
Redwood
Road
Solano
Avenue
Dry Creek
Road 1.0
Table 10.5 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 68.7 miles to the bicycle network, for a
total of 122.9 miles once implemented.
207
Table 10.5: City of Napa Bicycle Network Mileage
Facility Type
2019
Existing
Mileage
2025
Existing
Mileage*
Change
2019 to
2025*
2025
Proposed
Mileage
Total
Mileage
Shared-Use Path (Class I) 14.9 18.6 +3.7 10.5 29.1
Bike Lanes (Class II) 28.5 25.9 -2.6 12.5 38.4
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) - 2.5 +2.5 4.9 7.5
Bicycle Route (Class III) 5.6 5.3 -0.3 - 5.3
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) - - - 38.0 38.0
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) - - - 0.2 0.2
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) - 1.9 +1.9 2.6 4.4
Unclassified Bike Route - - - - -
Total 49.0 54.2 +5.2 68.7 122.9
*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. As such, direct comparison between 2019 and 2025 facility mileages for a given facility type may be misleading
Proposed Pedestrian Network
The proposed the City of Napa pedestrian network
includes sidewalk gap closure projects and shareduse paths, as was developed based on existing gaps in the network. For maps of the pedestrian network,
see Figure 10.21 through Figure 10.24.
Table 10.6 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 20.4 miles to the pedestrian network,
for a total future mileage of 354.4 miles of sidewalks
and 29.1 miles of shared-use paths. Shared-use path
mileage in Table 10.6 is not additional mileage but
rather reflects the same mileage in the bicycle
mileage table (Table 10.5), as these facilities are
suitable for both pedestrians and bicyclists.
Table 10.6: City of Napa Pedestrian Network Mileage
Facility Type Existing Mileage 2025 Proposed Mileage Total Future Mileage Class I Shared-use Path 18.6 10.5 29.1
Sidewalk 344.5 9.7 354.2
Total 363.1 20.2 383.3
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 10.17
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 10.18
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 10.19
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 10.20
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
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 10.21
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 10.22
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 10.23
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 10.24
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
216
Programs and Policies
This section will be completed by the individual
jurisdiction should locally identified programs or
policies be added prior to local adoption.
217
Implementation Plan
The previous Recommendations section provides the
complete active transportation network for the City
of Napa 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 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 the City of Napa through 2050.
However, there is limited available funding, and the
whole network cannot be implemented at once. A
prioritized list of bicycle projects was developed for
implementation over the next five to seven years.
For prioritization methodology, see Chapter 6.
Seventeen projects in the City of Napa were
prioritized for implementation, listed in Table 10.7
and shown in Figure 10.25. Most of the prioritized
projects fall within an Equity Priority Community, and
all are consistent with past planning efforts. Many of
the projects are located along or across high stress
corridors, or along the High Injury Network, defined
by the Vision Zero Plan. These projects aim to reduce
barriers to low-stress bicycle connectivity, as well as address transportation inequities.
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.
218
Table 10.7: City of Napa Near-Term Bicycle Project List ID Segment Begins Ends Length
(miles) Type
742 Redwood Road Solano Avenue Dry Creek Road 1.0 Study Corridor 757 Foothill Boulevard Laurel Street Old Sonoma Drive 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) 762 Imola Avenue South Freeway Drive Foster Road 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 766 Shurtleff Avenue Imola Avenue Terrace Drive 0.9 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 785 3rd Street California Boulevard Jefferson Street 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) 831 Imola Avenue Hunt Street South Freeway Drive 0.2 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II)
842 Old Sonoma Rd
Old Sonoma Rd
(near Playground
Fantastico)
Jefferson St 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II)
843 Old Sonoma Rd Western City Limits Foster Rd 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) 867 SR 221 Imola Ave Kaiser Rd 1.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) 886 SR 221 Kaiser Rd Magnolia Dr 1.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) 945 Brown St Corridor Coombs St/Pearl St 3rd St 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) 951 Laurel St Foothill Blvd 1st St 0.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) 952 W Pueblo Ave Solano Ave Redwood Rd 1.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 980 Big Ranch Rd Trancas St Northern City Limits 0.9 Bike Lanes (Class II) 1131 Imola Ave Class I Path Vine Trail at Imola
Bridge SR 221 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I)
1142 Silverado Trail Soscol Ave Lincoln Ave 1.6 Shared Use Path (Class I) 1210 Trancas St City Limits Solano Ave 1.5 Study Corridor
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 10.25
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 10.26
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 10.27
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 10.28
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
223
Induced Bicycle Demand and
VMT Reductions
Of the 17 near-term projects proposed in Napa City,
benefits of 15 projects 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 10.8, 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 probability19 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.
19 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 10.8 provides the new bicycle commuters
induced annually, annual VMT reduction, and the
total annual monetized benefit provided by each
project. The near-term proposed projects induce
between 13 and 50 new annual commuters a year.
Both Imola Avenue and Old Sonoma Road hold
multiple projects that provide high total benefits.
The bike lanes on Third Street and shared-use path
on Silverado Trail provide the highest benefits.
224
Table 10.8: City of Napa Near-Term Bicycle Project Benefits ID Segment Begins Ends Length
(miles) Type
New
Annual
Commuter
Bicyclists
Annual
Emissions
Reduction
(Tons)
Total
Annual
Benefits
742 Redwood
Road
Solano Avenue Dry Creek
Road
1.0 Study
Corridor
N/A N/A N/A
757 Foothill
Boulevard
Laurel Street Old
Sonoma
Drive
0.4 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
26 39,331 $951,800
762 Imola
Avenue
South Freeway
Drive
Foster
Road
0.2 Bicycle
Boulevard
(Class III)
15 22,883 $382,100
766 Shurtleff
Avenue
Imola Avenue Terrace
Drive
0.9 Bicycle
Boulevard
(Class III)
23 34,957 $582,600
785 3rd Street California
Boulevard
Jefferson
Street
0.4 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
39 58,397 $1,396,900
831 Imola
Avenue
Hunt Street South
Freeway
Drive
0.2 Buffered
Bike Lanes
(Class II)
24 35,407 $778,200
842 Old Sonoma
Rd
Old Sonoma Rd
(near
Playground
Fantastico)
Jefferson
St
0.3 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
35 52,286 $1,098,700
843 Old Sonoma
Rd
Western City
Limits
Foster Rd 0.5 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
25 37,797 $823,600
867 SR 221 Imola Ave Kaiser Rd 1.3 Shared
Use Path
(Class I)
17 25,447 $635,100
886 SR 221 Kaiser Rd Magnolia
Dr
1.4 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
13 18,790 $569,900
945 Brown St
Corridor
Coombs
St/Pearl St
3rd St 0.3 Shared
Use Path
(Class I)
36 53,587 $1,322,400
951 Laurel St Foothill Blvd 1st St 0.1 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
19 28,823 $742,000
952 W Pueblo
Ave
Solano Ave Redwood
Rd
1.4 Bicycle
Boulevard
(Class III)
50 73,911 $1,230,800
980 Big Ranch Rd Trancas St Northern
City Limits
0.9 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
32 48,079 $1,316,500
1131 Imola Ave
Class I Path
Vine Trail at
Imola Bridge
SR 221 0.2 Shared
Use Path
(Class I)
15 22,486 $564,900
1142 Silverado
Trail
Soscol Ave Lincoln
Ave
1.6 Shared
Use Path
(Class I)
43 63,524 $1,571,300
1210 Trancas St City Limits Solano
Ave
1.5 Study
Corridor
N/A N/A N/A
225
Chapter 11
City of American Canyon
The City of American Canyon is approximately 6.5
square miles and has a population of 21,698
residents. The city is located in southern Napa
County along SR 29 in the world-famous Napa Valley
wine growing region and in close proximity to the
San Francisco Bay.
American Canyon serves as a wine processing hub;
and is a vibrant and diverse community. Because of
its strategic location at the southern end of Napa
County and with easy access to state and interstate
highways, American Canyon’s industrial district is
home to millions of square feet of wine processing,
bottling storage, and shipping space.
The northern portions of the city are composed of
industrial land uses with limited roadway
connectivity. The southern half of the city is primarily residential with a disconnected suburban roadway
network.
Demographics
The following demographic information is from the
American Community Survey (ACS) 2023 five-year
estimates.
Age
Communities whose population skews younger may
have improved opportunities for increasing active
transportation mode shift. People who are
introduced to walking, bicycling and transit at a
younger age are more likely to use active modes of
travel in adulthood. The median age for the City of
American Canyon is 36.2 years, which is younger
than the county median age of 42.8. Additionally,
37% of American Canyon’s population is under 25
years old, which is a larger portion of the population
compared to other jurisdictions. Figure 11.1 shows
the age distribution for the City of American Canyon.
Figure 11.1: City of American Canyon Age
Distribution
20%
17%
13%
12%
14%
12%
8%
5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Under 15 years
15 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 years and over
226
Income
As shown in Figure 11.2, the City of American
Canyon has a median household income (MHI) of
$123,935, which is higher than Napa County’s MHI
of $108,970. Those below the county median make
up over 40% of the total population for American
Canyon. Lower-income community members are
more likely to rely on active transportation and
transit as opposed to car travel. Providing adequate
active transportation will support connectivity for
these residents.
Figure 11.2: City of American Canyon
Household Income
Travel Behavior
Mode Share
Figure 11.3 provides an overview of commute mode
share for workers living in American Can aged 16
years and older. Mode share data was sourced from
the American Community Survey (ACS) five-year
estimates and represents data for 2016 and 2023.
The data does not include non-work trips.
Most American Canyon residents drive to work,
either alone or by carpooling. There is a small
portion of the population that walks or takes public
transportation.
Since 2016, more people have started working from
home, likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
percentage of people who drive alone or carpool has
declined.
Figure 11.3: City of American Canyon Means of
Transportation to Work
8%
11%
22%
21%
15%
23%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Below $25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 or more
79%
14%
2%
0%
1%
0%
3%
76%
11%
2%
0%
1%
2%
9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Drove alone
Carpooled
Public transportation
Bicycle
Walked
Other
Worked at home
2023 2016
227
Trip Length
Figure 11.4 shows trip length information for
American Canyon from the 2025 Travel Behavior
Study. Of all trips originating in American Canyon,
29% were two miles or less in length. These “shorttrips” represent opportunities for potential mode shift, encouraging people to switch from driving to
active modes of transportation.
Figure 11.4: City of American Canyon Trip
Length
Key Community Destinations
Some key destinations in American Canyon are
located along and around James Street such as the
Library. Some schools in American Canyon include
American Canyon High, Canyon Oaks Elementary,
and Donaldson Way Elementary. Improving
pedestrian and bicycle connections to these
destinations is key for developing a more connected
active transportation network in American Canyon.
Focusing improvements to schools mentioned will
improve connectivity and safety, for more vulnerable
road users (children and families) traveling to school.
Transit System and Stops
The Napa Vallejo is a bus system that goes from
Vallejo through American Canyon with a direct line
or indirect line up to City of Napa. There is also an
on-demand transit system where users can call, use
the online website or the app to request a ride on
weekdays from 8:30 am to 5:30pm. American
Canyon also has a fixed-route system that operates
on 3 route loops, two in the morning and one in the
afternoon. Improvements along these routes should
be considered to improve first- and last-mile
connectivity and increase access for those who rely
on walking and bicycling.
Existing Bicycling and
Walking Environment
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities in American Canyon are
mapped in Figure 11.5. The map also includes
bicycle parking locations.
Bicycle Network
Mileage of existing bicycle facilities is listed in Table
11.1. The American Canyon Bikeway network is
composed of primarily off-street paths, supported by
on-street bicycle lanes and bicycle routes. Most of
the city’s bicycle facilities are throughout the
residential neighborhoods on either side of SR 29.
However, east/west connectivity is limited as there
are no bicycle facilities that connect across the
highway.
Table 11.1: City of American Canyon Existing
Bicycle Network Mileage
Facility Type Miles
Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 11.0
Bicycle Lanes (Class II) 6.0
Bicycle Routes (Class III) 0.6
Rural Bicycle Routes (Class III) 0.6
Separated Bikeways (Class IV) -
Unclassified Bicycle Routes 1.9
Total 20.0
11%
18%
23%
16%
18%
6%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
0-1 mi
1-2 mi
2-5 mi
5-10 mi
10-20 mi
20-30 mi
30-40 mi
40-50 mi
50-60 mi
60-70 mi
70-80 mi
80-90 mi
90-100 mi
100+ mi
228
West of SR 29, off-street paths along Wetlands Edge
Road designated as part of the San Francisco Bay
Trail provide local connections to Donaldson Way
Elementary School and American Canyon Middle
School, and provide regional connectivity to much of
the bay area. There are also pathways through Elliot
Park and the American Canyon Recreation Area. In
the industrial areas of the City north of Eucalyptus
Drive, there is a shared use path along Devlin Road
(Vine Trail) that transitions to a bike lane at
Middleton Way.
East of the highway, there are shared-use pathways
along Donaldson Way, Newell Drive/Flodsen Road,
Shenandoah Drive and parallel to American Canyon
Road (off-street pathways). These paths connect
residents to American Canyon High School, Canyon
Oaks Elementary School, Newell Open Space, North
Vallejo Community Center, and other key
destinations. There is also a shared-use pathway
along SR 29 between the Tractor Supply and
Eucalyptus Drive. This pathway connects to a key
commercial area but is not connected to the greater
bicycle network.
On-street bicycle lanes and bicycle routes support
the off-street path network. West of SR 29, Benton
Way has a bicycle lane/bicycle route that connects
west to the San Francisco Bay Trail to Andrew Road.
There is a bicycle lane on Elliott Drive that connects
to the Benton Way bike lane and the American
Canyon Recreation area and path. Further south,
there is a bicycle lane on Kimberly Drive between
Kimberly Park and SR 29. East of the highway, there
is a bike lane on the Silver Oak Trail that connects to American Canyon High and the various existing
shared-use paths.
There are several unclassified bicycle routes along
the edge of the city boundary or just beyond it,
including a dirt pathway south of American Canyon
Road and along the San Franciso Bay Trail alignment.
These routes provide recreational bikeway access
and connect to existing pathways throughout the
city.
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking is available at key destinations,
including American Canyon Middle School,
Donaldson Way Elementary School, Elliott Park, and
Canyon Plaza on the west side of SR 29, and at
Shenandoah Park, American Canyon High School,
and the Walmart Supercenter on the east side.
Bicycle lockers for longer-term bike parking are
available at the American Canyon Library at Crawford
Way and James Road.
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 11.5
City of American Canyon
Existing Bicycle Facilities
0.5 Miles H
230
Pedestrian Facilities
Existing sidewalks and shared-use paths in American
Canyon are mapped in Figure 11.6. Mileage of
existing pedestrian facilities is listed in Table 11.2.
Table 11.2: City of American Canyon Existing
Pedestrian Facility Mileage
Facility Type Miles
Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 11.0
Sidewalks 108.1
Total 119.1
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
American Canyon has a well-connected sidewalk
network south of Eucalyptus Drive. The north end of
the city is primarily industrial, and pedestrian
connectivity is limited. In the southern residential
portion of the city, most neighborhood streets have
sidewalks on both sides of the street. There is also a
robust shared-use pathway network on either side of
SR 29 that supports the sidewalk network for
commuting and recreation.
The 2016 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
identifies James Road and Andrew Road as
north/south pedestrian corridors without consistent
sidewalks on both sides of the street. The AT Plan
also highlights east/west corridors Donaldson Way
and Crawford Way west of SR 29.
Pedestrian connectivity is limited across SR 29. At
Donaldson Way and American Canyon Road, the two
SR 29 crossings locations in the south end of the city, sidewalks leading up to the intersection are missing
or limited. These locations are planned for future
improvements as part of the SR 29 Corridor project.
Crossings
Marked crosswalks are present throughout the
residential portions of the city, including major
signalized intersections, minor stop-controlled
intersections, and midblock crossings throughout
residential neighborhoods and connected to the
shared-use path network.
Crossing opportunities across SR 29 are limited.
There are four signalized intersections between
Napa Junction Road and American Canyon Road
where drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists can cross
between the east and west sides of the community.
Here, pedestrians must cross up to six lanes of
traffic, and crosswalks are not present at all
intersection legs.
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 11.6
City of American Canyon
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
0.5 Miles H
232
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 American Canyon 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 11.7, the road network in
American Canyon is composed of low-stress
residential streets and higher stress arterials and
collectors. Of the 85.1 miles of roadway in American
Canyon, 15 percent scored LTS 3 or 4 and are
considered high stress.
SR 29 scored LTS 4 and divides the city. There are
two east/west routes that provide connectivity
across SR 29: Donaldson Way and American Canyon
Road. Donaldson Way is LTS 2 and provides access to
schools on the west side of SR 29. It has bike lanes
(Class II) for most of the corridor, moderate
prevailing speeds (32 mph) and is classified as a
collector with lower assumed traffic volumes,
making it an appropriate bicycle route for many
riders. Conversely, American Canyon Road scored an
LTS 4 for its high speeds, vehicle capacity, and lack of bicycle facilities. American Canyon Road connects to
American Canyon High School, but the existing
conditions create a stressful environment for most
bicyclists. Areas of low stress connectivity are
separated by high stress streets that are barriers to
low stress bicycling.
Key north/south routes include Donaldson and
Melvin Road/James Rd, which score LTS 2 and 3 in
different segments. These routes provide
north/south connectivity and are opportunities for
improved bicycle connectivity.
Low Stress Connectivity
Bicycle connectivity throughout the City of American
Canyon 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 11.3 describes low stress bicycle connectivity
to 14 key destinations within the city. 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.
Veterans
Memorial Park
Shenandoah Park
American Canyon
Community Park
Kimberly Park
B
O
O
NE
DR
DEVLIN RD
MARLA DR
S
KELL
Y
R
D
TOWER RD
GREEN ISLAND RD
WA
TS
ON
LN
BROADWAY
BROADWAY
NEWELL
DR
EUCALYPTUS DR
AIRPORT RD
MARCUS RD
C
O
MMER
CE
CT
29 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 11.7
City of American Canyon
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
0.5 Miles H
234
Table 11.3: City of American Canyon Low Stress Connectivity Key Destinations
Total Connections to
each destination (highand low-stress)
Total Low Stress
Connections
Percent Low-Stress
Connectivity to
Origins
American Canyon City Hall 1,532 697 25.5%
American Canyon High 1,865 488 17.8%
American Canyon Library 2,343 2 0.1%
American Canyon Middle 2,579 891 32.5%
Canyon Oaks Elementary 2,113 489 17.9%
Canyon Plaza 2,202 2 0.1%
Donaldson Way Elementary 2,855 893 32.6%
Elliot Park 2,261 327 11.9%
Safeway Shopping Center 2,606 327 11.9%
Walmart Supercenter 963 3 0.1%
Kimberly Park 1,499 1 0.0%
Montecarlo Park 1,071 250 9.1%
Silver Oak Park 1,235 420 15.3%
Via Bellagio Park 764 250 9.1%
Note: Total Connections refers to potential origins within 1.5 miles of the listed destination American Canyon Middle and Donaldson Way
Elementary have the best bicycle connectivity. Both
schools are surrounded by low stress streets with no
high stress barriers. However, fewer than 50% of
residential units are connected to these destinations,
due to high stress barriers like Broadway Street (SR
29) and American Canyon Road.
The four destinations with the poorest low-stress
bicycle connectivity are the American Canyon
Library, Canyon Plaza, The Walmart Supercenter and
Kimberly Park. The library is located between James
Road and Broadway Street, limiting connectivity for
residents on both sides of town. Kimberly Park,
which only has one low stress connection, is
cornered on two high stress streets, Kimberly Dr. and
Elliot Dr. The other two locations are located along
SR 29, a high stress barrier, preventing low stress
bicycle connectivity.
Community Priorities
Throughout the community engagement process,
American Canyon residents identified priorities for
potential improvements. Broadway Street/SR 29,
Donaldson Way, American Canyon Road, Kimberly
Drive and Eucalyptus Driver were highlighted as
priority improvement locations. Community
members discussed safe routes to school, improving
existing bicycle facilities, and traffic calming. They
also provided comments about future vine trail
connections to American Canyon, and the need to
improve intersections across SR 29.
Developing the Active
Transportation Network in
American Canyon
Using 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
235
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
American Canyon adopted the Countywide Bicycle
Plan (2019), and additional efforts the Local Road
Safety Plan (2022) and Broadway District Specific
Plan were also reviewed.
The development of the network specifically focused
on improving north/south connectivity along SR 29,
connections across the highway and to local schools.
The network builds off the existing shared-use paths
in American Canyon, providing both on- and offstreet bicycle connections. There was also a focus on improving connectivity across east/west arterials
that are currently barriers to bicycling.
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 west of SR 29 and north of American Canyon
Road along West Donaldson Way, Andrew Road, and
James Road. There are also two gap projects on
American Canyon Road.
Shared-use path projects were identified during the
development of the bicycle network but are also
included as part of the pedestrian network.
American Canyon. There are several existing shareduse paths in American Canyon, and the AT Plan proposes to expand the network along SR 29,
Eucalyptus Drive, and American Canyon Road. These
recommendations increase access to parks, schools,
and residential neighborhoods, as well as
recreational facilities outside city limits.
Recommendations
Recommendations for the American Canyon active
transportation network includes 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 AT network. See Appendix D for more
information.
Proposed Bicycle Network
The proposed American Canyon bicycle network
builds off the 2019 Countywide Bicycle Plan, and was
developed from the findings in 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 American Canyon bicycle network, see Figure
11.8. The SF Bay Trail alignment runs along the western edge of the city, with two small gaps on the southern
portion of the city and a larger gap west and north of
the airport. The Napa Valley Vine Trail and the SF Bay
Trail overlap in some portions of the city, but are
recognized as two separate trails. While not called
out as individual projects in this AT Plan, they are
integral to the regional active transportation
network and are regionally prioritized.
Table 11.4 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 19.1 miles to the bicycle network, for a
total of 39.1 miles once implemented.
236
Table 11.4: City of American Canyon Proposed Bicycle Network Mileage Facility Type
2019
Existing
Mileage
2025
Existing
Mileage*
Change
2019 to
2025*
2025
Proposed
Mileage
Total
Mileage
Shared-Use Path (Class I) 9.7 11.0 +1.3 10.3 21.4
Bike Lanes (Class II) 1.6 6.0 +4.4 2.9 8.9
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) - - - 0.3 0.3
Bicycle Route (Class III) 1.8 0.6 -1.2 - 0.6
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) - - - 3.7 3.7
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) - 0.6 +0.6 1.1 1.6
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) - - - 0.7 0.7
Unclassified Bike Route - 1.9 +1.9 - 1.9
Total 13.1 20.0 +6.9 19.1 39.1
*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 American 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 11.9.
Table 11.5 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 miles to the pedestrian network, for
a total future mileage of 109.8 miles of sidewalks
and 21.4 miles of shared-use paths. Shared-use path
mileage in Table 11.5 is not additional mileage but
rather reflects the same mileage in the bicycle
mileage table (Table 11.4), as these facilities are
suitable for both pedestrians and bicyclists.
Table 11.5: City of American Canyon Proposed Pedestrian Network Mileage Facility Type Existing Mileage Proposed Mileage Total Future Mileage Class I Shared-use Path 11.0 10.3 21.4
Sidewalk 108.1 1.7 109.8
Total 119.1 12.0 131.1
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 11.8
City of American Canyon
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
0.5 Miles H
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 11.9
City of American Canyon
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
0.5 Miles H
239
Programs and Policies
This section will be completed by the individual
jurisdiction should locally identified programs or
policies be added prior to local adoption.
240
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 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 near-term 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, 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.
Five projects from American Canyon were identified
for near-term implementation, listed in Table 11.6
and shown in Figure 11.10. The separated bikeway
proposed on American Canyon Road will greatly
improve connectivity west of SR 29 and reduce stress
bicycle stress significantly. The Vine Trail segment in American Canyon and the path along SR 29 are key
to connecting American Canyon north to the City of
Napa. The bicycle boulevard on Kimberly Drive
provides connectivity between the path along
Meadow Bay Drive and the proposed bike lane on
Elliot Drive.
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.
241
Table 11.6: City of American Canyon Near-Term Bicycle Project List ID Segment Begins Ends Length (miles) Type
796 Kimberley Drive Elliot Drive Meadow Bay Drive 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
839 American Canyon Rd Wetlands Edge Rd SR 29 0.7 Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
855 Vine Trail (along Devlin Rd) Middleton Way Watson Ln 1.1 Shared Use Path (Class I)
862 Vine Trail (along Watson Ln) Paoli Loop Rd Newell Rd Extension 0.4 Shared Use Path
(Class I)
917 Kelly Rd SR 12 Devlin Rd 1.0 Bike Lanes (Class
II)
1147 SR 29 NB American Canyon
Rd Napa Junction Rd 1.8 Shared Use Path
(Class I)
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 11.10
City of American Canyon
Near-Term Bicycle Network
0.5 Miles H
243
Induced Bicycle Demand and
VMT Reductions
For the five near-term projects proposed in
American Canyon, 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 11.7 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 probability20 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.
20 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 11.7 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 four and 44 new
annual commuters a year. The proposed shared-use
path on northbound SR 29, is anticipated to provide
the highest total benefit, followed by the separated
bikeway on American Canyon Road.
244
Table 11.7: City of American Canyon Near-Term Bicycle Project Benefits ID Segment Begins Ends Length
(miles) Type
New
Annual
Commuter
Bicyclists
VMT
Reduction
Total
Annual
Benefits
796 Kimberley Drive Elliot
Drive
Meadow
Bay Drive
0.2 Bicycle
Boulevard
(Class III)
19 27,846 $463,800
839 American
Canyon Rd
Wetlands
Edge Rd
SR 29 0.7 Separated
Bikeway
(Class IV)
36 53,620 $1,280,900
855 Vine Trail (along
Devlin Rd)
Middleton
Way
Watson Ln 1.1 Shared Use
Path (Class I)
4 6,435 $170,900
862 Vine Trail (along
Watson Ln -
American
Canyon)
Paoli Loop
Rd
Newell Rd
Extension
0.4 Shared Use
Path (Class I)
3 3,861 $98,700
1147 SR 29 NB American
Canyon Rd
Napa
Junction
Rd
1.8 Shared Use
Path (Class I)
44 66,046 $1,574,900
245
Chapter 12
County of Napa
The unincorporated areas of the county are
predominantly rural, characterized by wineries,
vineyards, open space, and hills. Small communities
and neighborhoods in the county including Angwin,
Lake Berryessa, Rutherford, and Silverado are linked
primarily by two-lane rural roadways and state
routes.
Demographics
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 12.1 shows the age
distribution for residents in unincorporated Napa
County.
Figure 12.1: County of Napa Age Distribution
Income
Figure 12.2 shows the household income distribution
for unincorporated Napa County. The median
income countywide is $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 12.2: County of Napa Household
Income
13%
14%
8%
12%
11%
17%
13%
12%
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
8%
11%
22%
26%
26%
18%
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
246
Travel Behavior
Mode Share
Figure 12.3 provides an overview of commute mode
share in unincorporated Napa County for workers 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 of unincorporated Napa County residents drive
to work, either alone or by carpooling. Since 2016,
more residents are working from home, likely due to
the Covid-19 pandemic, and fewer residents are
driving alone or carpooling to work.
Figure 12.3: County of Napa Means of
Transportation to Work
Trip Length
Figure 12.4 shows trip length data for
unincorporated Napa County from the 2025 Travel
Behavior Study. Of trips originating in Napa County,
14% were two miles or less. Typically, these “short
trips” represent potential for mode shift, or the
opportunity to encourage people to switch from
driving to an active mode of transportation. Many
roadways in unincorporated Napa County are rural in
nature, and destinations are further from one
another than in other jurisdictions, which may
impact mode shift feasibility.
Figure 12.4: County of Napa Trip Length
76%
12%
1%
1%
4%
1%
6%
71%
10%
1%
1%
3%
1%
13%
0% 50% 100%
Drove alone
Carpooled
Public
transportation
Bicycle
Walked
Other
Worked at home
2023 2016
7%
7%
21%
21%
21%
10%
5%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
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
247
Existing Bicycling and
Walking Environment
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities in unincorporated Napa
County are mapped in Figure 12.5 through Figure
12.13. Bicycle Network
Mileage of existing bicycle facilities is listed in Table
12.1. The bicycle network provides some regional
connections throughout the county, and efforts are
being made to continue improving regional
connectivity. The network is composed primarily of
on-street bicycle lanes supported by bicycle routes
and shared-use paths. These facilities provide
regional connections between jurisdictions, but
some communities remain disconnected from the
greater bicycle network.
Table 12.1: County of Napa Existing Bicycle
Network Mileage
Facility Type Miles
Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 11.5
Bicycle Lanes (Class II) 51.0
Buffered Bicycle Lanes (Class II) 1.1
Rural Bicycle Routes (Class III) 5.1
Separated Bikeways (Class IV) -
Unclassified Bicycle Routes 14.7
Total 83.5
The two primary bicycle routes through the County
of Napa are along SR 29 and Silverado Trail. On 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 a
connection between St. Helena and Yountville and
between the City of Napa and American Canyon.
Silverado Trail features a bicycle lane between
Calistoga and the City of Napa. While it is a rural
road with a speed limit of up to 55 mph, bicyclists on
the corridor vary from experienced long-distance
recreational cyclists to wine tasting bicycle tour
groups. Most of the unclassified bicycle routes are
located along SR 29 between Yountville and City of
St. Helena.
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 12.5
County of Napa
Existing Bicycle Facilities
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
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 12.6
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 12.7
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 12.8
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 12.9
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
VALL
EY 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 12.10
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 12.11
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 12.12
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 12.13
County of Napa - Napa / American Canyon
Existing Bicycle Facilities
1 Miles H
257
Pedestrian Facilities
An inventory of sidewalks was conducted in four
unincorporated communities including Deer Park,
Angwin, Rutherford and Oakville. Existing sidewalks
and shared-use paths in unincorporated Napa
Countyare mapped in Figure 12.14 through Figure
12.19. Mileage of each facility type is listed in Table
12.2. Table 12.2: County of Napa Existing Pedestrian
Facility Mileage
Facility Type Miles
Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 11.5
Sidewalks 9.3
Total 20.8
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 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.
The pedestrian network provides some regional
connections throughout the county, and efforts are
being made to continue improving regional
connectivity. Adjacent to 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 a connection between
St. Helena and Yountville and between the City of
Napa and American Canyon.
Some unincorporated communities have pedestrian
facilities, including Deer Park, Angwin, Rutherford,
and Oakville. These communities are rural, feature
limited sidewalks and crossings, and are not
connected to the greater pedestrian network. The
Silverado Resort community has some existing
pedestrian pathways through the golf course which
are not intended for use by the public and are not
connected to the broader network.
There are also unincorporated pockets within the
City of Napa. These areas have a limited or nonexistent sidewalk network even though there are pedestrian facilities in adjacent parts of the city.
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 12.14
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 12.15
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 12.16
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 12.17
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
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 12.18
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 12.19
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
264
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 unincorporated Napa
County 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 12.20 through Figure 12.28,
much of the County of Napa’s roadway network is
composed of rural, two-lane roads, many of which
are high stress for bicyclists. Of the 533.7 miles of
roadway in unincorporated Napa County, 55% scored
LTS 3 or 4 and are considered high stress.
SR 29 and Silverado Trail are the primary north/south
connections between jurisdictions in the Napa
Valley. SR 29 is a four-lane highway with high speeds
and high traffic volumes. Silverado Trail is a two-lane road used by recreational bicyclists with high
prevailing speeds.
Most county roads outside of jurisdiction boundaries
are local or rural roads that are low stress, and high
stress arterial roads with high traffic volumes and
speeds.
Low Stress Connectivity
Bicycle connectivity throughout unincorporated
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 connectivity. Destinations with lowstress 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 12.3 describes low stress bicycle connectivity
to key destinations in unincorporated Napa County
Low stress connectivity is defined by if the
destination is reachable along the low stress bicycle
network (roads that scored LTS 1 or 2). It 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.
Destinations in unincorporated Napa County are
more spread out, and the roadway network
prioritizes car travel. This results in poor low-stress bicycle connectivity throughout most of the
unincorporated county.
Community Priorities
Throughout the community engagement process,
residents from all cities and areas within
unincorporated Napa County identified priorities for
potential improvements. Connectivity between cities
were highlighted as a priority, specifically regarding
future vine trail connections. Proper signage, safe
routes, improving existing bicycle facilities, and
traffic calming were common themes in comments.
Developing the Active
Transportation Network in the
County of Napa
Using 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
265
Table 12.3: County of Napa Low Stress Connectivity
Key Destinations
Total Connections to
each destination (highand low-stress)
Total Low Stress
Connections
Percent Low-Stress
Connectivity to Origins
Allied Universal 26 4 0.1%
Bale Grist Mill State Historic Park 51 2 0.0%
Berryessa Estates Marketplace 308 154 2.9%
Bothe-Napa State Park 54 3 0.1%
Domaine Chandon 828 2 0.0%
Lake Berryessa Market 330 6 0.1%
Las Posadas State Forest 44 2 0.0%
Berryessa Highlands 334 167 3.2%
Note: Total Connections refers to potential origins within 1.5 miles of the listed destination 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 2019 Countywide Bicycle Plan was the basis of
the proposed bicycle network, and new
recommendations were made based on the existing
roadway network, LTS, connectivity to community
destinations, and community feedback.
The development of the network primarily focused
on rural bicycle routes primarily used for recreation,
and providing connectivity to key destinations where
possible.
Developing the Pedestrian Network
Destinations in unincorporated Napa County are
typically located too far from homes or hotels to be
walkable. Instead of proposing sidewalks throughout
the entire county, more populated communities
were reviewed for potential sidewalk gap projects
including Angwin, Deer Park, Oakville, and
Rutherford, of which Angwin and Rutherford
received sidewalk recommendations. 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.
Angwin and Rutherford were the focus of these
efforts, with the aim to improve access to
destinations like Pacific Union College, Howel
Mountain Elementary School, and local retail.
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
80 Solano County
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
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 12.20
County of Napa
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
H
5 Miles
Las Posadas
State Forest
Bothe-Napa Valley State Park
Robert Louis
Stevenson
State Park
Lake County
Sonoma County
POPE
CANYON
RD
CHILES POPE
VALLEY
RD
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
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 12.21
County of Napa - Northwest
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
H
5 Miles
Lake Berryessa
Las Posadas
State Forest
Lake County
Yolo County
BERRYESSA
KNOXVILLE RD
POPE CANYON RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
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
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 12.22
County of Napa - Northeast
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
H
5 Miles
DRY CREEK RD
SAGE CANYON RD
CHILES POPE VALLEY RD
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
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 12.23
County of Napa - Central West
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
H
5 Miles
Lake Berryessa
Lake Curry
Lake Hennessey
Lake Hennessey City
Recreation Area
Las Posadas
State Forest
Solano County
Sonoma
County
Yolo County
DRY CREEK RD
SAGE CANYON RD
CHILES
POPE VALLEY RD
ATLA
S
PEAK
RD
SODA
CAN
YON
R
D
WOODEN VALLEY RD
BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE
RD
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
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 12.24
County of Napa - Central East
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
H
5 Miles
12 121
221
29 29
12 121
80 1ST AVE
DRY CREEK RD
SOLANO AVE
LAKEMARIE RD
BIG RANCH RD
D
UHIG RD
W ILDHORSE
VA
L
L
EY
RD
MOUNT VEED
ER
RD
POLSONRD
3RD AVE
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
City Limits
County Limits
FIGURE 12.25
County of Napa - South
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
H
2.5 Miles
W PUEBLO AVE
NORFOLK ST
REDWOOD RD
JOMAR DR
KATHLEEN DR
BEL AIRE PLZ
BARBARA RD
SHERRY DR NORMA DR
ETHEL PORTER DR
OXFORD ST
SUTHERLAND DR
YOUNG AVE
BAYWOOD LN
MACLEOD ST
VERNA DR
JANETTE DR
LINDA VISTA AVE
MACLENNAN ST
CAROL DR
DONNA DR
ROHLFFS WAY
THOMAS DR
CAROL DR
DOVER ST
PAMELA DR
EUCLID AVE
SOLANO AVE
WAVERLY ST
MACBETH ST
MORGAN LN
MACLEAN ST
GLEN CT
MASSA DR
RANCHO
DR
NAPA VALLEY VINE TRAIL
MORLAN DR
NB SR29 ON TRANCAS
SB SR29
ON
TRA
N
CA
S
NB SR29 OFF TRANCAS
W PARK AVE
FIGURE 12.26
County of Napa - West Pueblo
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
H
0.25 Miles
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
IMOLA AVE
LONDON WAY
COOMBSVILLE RD
CAPITOLA DR
SHETLER AVE
MUIR ST
CORONADO AVE
MARSHALL AVE
JUNIPER CIR
BIRKDALE DR
SHURTLEFF AVE
SOMMER S
T
LAREDO ST
S TERRACE DR TERRACE DR
PA
TTO
N
AVE
LINDEN ST
N OAK DR
TAMARISK DR
KANSAS AVE
WIL
KINS AVE
SEVILLE DR MARIA DR
WYATT AVE
HOLMES AVE
REPUBLIC AVE PARRISH RD
TRAILER P A RK ROAD
RUSSELL ST
PENNY LN
CAYETANO DR
ACACIA DR
LIBERTY DR HARDING AVE
PERKINS ST
BE LVEDERE CT
PENNYROYAL ST
LOS ROBLES DR
MAGNOLIA DR
FIGURE 12.27
County of Napa - Southeast Napa Islands
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
H
0.25 Miles
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
Chardonnay Golf Club
Skyline County Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
American Canyon
Community Park
B OONE DR
SOSCOL
FERRY RD
FOS
TER
RD
D EVLIN RD
B UCHLI STATION RD
BASALT RD
LAKE MARIE RD
GOL
DEN GA
TE D
R
BROADWAY
N AIRPORTRD
STANLY CROSSROAD
N KELLY RD
AIRPORT RD
CUTTINGS WHARF RD
DEVLIN RD
MADRONE DR
LEGEND
Level of Traffic Stress for Bicyclists
Segment LTS
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 12.28
County of Napa - Napa / American Canyon
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
1 Miles H
275
Recommendations
Recommendations for unincorporated Napa County
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 bicycle network in unincorporated
Napa County 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 maps of unincorporated Napa County
bicycle network, see Figure 12.29 through Figure
12.37. For the list of bicycle network
recommendations, see Appendix E.
The Napa Valley Vine Trail and the SF Bay Trail
overlap in some alignments in the southern portions
of the county, but are recognized as two separate
trails. While not called out as individual projects in
this AT Plan, they are integral to the regional active
transportation network and are regionally
prioritized.
Table 12.4 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 310 miles to the bicycle network, for a
total of 393.5 miles once implemented.
Table 12.4: County of Napa 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) 11.5 11.5 - 31.3 42.8
Bike Lanes (Class II) 54.3 51.0 -3.3 53.5 104.6
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) - 1.1 +1.1 25.6 26.8
Bicycle Route (Class III) 1.7 - -1.7 - -
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) - - - 1.5 1.5
Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) - 5.1 +5.1 194.8 199.9
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) - - - 2.5 2.5
Unclassified Bike Route - 14.7 +14.7 0.7 15.5
Total 67.5 83.5 +16.3 310.0 393.5
*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.
276
Proposed Pedestrian Network
The proposed pedestrian network in unincorporated
Napa County includes sidewalk gap closure projects
and shared-use paths, as was developed based on
existing gaps in the network. For maps of the
pedestrian network, see Figure 12.37 through Figure
12.43. Angwin
In Angwin, sidewalk gap closure projects are
recommended on Howell Mountain Road to provide
connectivity to Pacific Union College, and White
Cottage Road to fill the sidewalk gap in front of
Howell Mountain Elementary School.
Rutherford
In Rutherford, sidewalks are recommended at SR 29
and Rutherford Road to enhance pedestrian
connectivity to the local businesses near the
intersection.
Shared-use path projects were identified during the
development of the bicycle network but are also
included as part of the pedestrian network. The Vine
Trail is the primary recommended shared-use path,
which is proposed to extend 31.7 miles throughout
the County. Additional paths are proposed to expand
upon the Vine Trail, recommended between
American Canyon and the City of Napa and outside
of St. Helena.
Table 12.5 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 32 miles to the pedestrian network, for
a total future mileage of 9.6 miles of sidewalks and
42.8 miles of shared-use paths. Shared-use path
mileage in Table 12.5 is not additional mileage but
rather reflects the same mileage in the bicycle
mileage table (Table 12.4), as these facilities are
suitable for both pedestrians and bicyclists.
Table 12.5: County of Napa Proposed Pedestrian Mileage
Facility Type Existing Mileage Proposed Mileage Total Future Mileage Class I Shared-use Path 11.5 31.3 42.8
Sidewalk 9.3 0.3 9.6
Total 20.8 32.0 52.4
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 12.29
County of Napa
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
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 12.30
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 12.31
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 12.32
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 12.33
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
A
TLAS
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 12.34
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 12.35
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 12.36
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 12.37
County of Napa - Napa / American Canyon
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
1 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 12.38
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 12.39
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 12.40
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 12.41
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 12.42
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 12.43
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
292
Programs and Policies
This section will be completed by the individual
jurisdiction should locally identified programs or
policies be added prior to local adoption.
293
Implementation Plan
The previous Recommendations section provides the
complete active transportation network for
Unincorporated Napa County to be implemented
over the next 25 years. The implementation plan
outlines an approach for prioritizing the 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 near-term bicycle projects, the
implementation plan includes potential induced
demand and VMT reductions from the full proposed
bicycle network in the County of Napa.
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 Unincorporated Napa County
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 near-term project list includes 18 bicycle
projects in unincorporated Napa County, listed in
Table 12.6 and shown in Figure 12.44. Many of these
projects are within an Equity Priority Community,
and all are consistent with prior planning efforts.
Most projects provide connectivity along or across a
high stress route, or enhance safety along the High
Injury Network defined by the Vision Zero Plan.
These projects aim to reduce barriers to low-stress
bicycle connectivity and address transportation
inequities.
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.
294
Table 12.6: County of Napa Near-Term Bicycle Project List ID Segment Begins Ends Length
(miles) Type
821 SR 12 City boundary Ramal 4.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) 838 Vine Trail Vista Carneros
(NapaSan Fields)
Airport Blvd Soscol Ferry Rd 2.0 Shared Use Path
(Class I)
866 SR 221 Kaiser Rd Vista Point Rd 1.1 Shared Use Path (Class I)
871 Dry Creek Rd Oakville Grade Rd Orchard Ave 6.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
885 SR 29/221 American Canyon
city limit
Kaiser Rd 1.1 Bike Lanes (Class II)
889 Yount Mill Rd - Yount Street Yountville town limit SR 29 2.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
917 Kelly Rd SR 12 Jameson Road 1.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) 1047 Skyline Path (along Imola
Ave to Skyline Park)
Soscol Ave & 221 4th Avenue 2.0 Shared Use Path
(Class I)
1054 Big Ranch Rd Napa City Limits Oak Knoll Ave 2.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) 1082 Conn Valley Rd Howell Mountain Rd Moore Creek Park 3.0 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
1084 Monticello Rd Silverado Trail Atlas Peak Rd 1.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) 1087 Deer Park Rd Silverado Trail White Cottage Rd 4.0 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
1092 SR 128/Sage Canyon Rd Berryessa Knoxville
Rd
Silverado Trail 11.2 Rural Bicycle Route
(Class III)
1093 Lower Chiles Valley Rd SR 128/Sage Canyon
Rd
Chiles Pope Valley Rd 3.4 Rural Bicycle Route
(Class III)
1095 Chiles Pope Valley Rd SR 128/Sage Canyon
Rd
Lower Chiles Valley Rd 3.7 Rural Bicycle Route
(Class III)
1120 Petrified Forest Rd City Border Foothill Blvd 0.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III)
1180 Vine Trail St Helena to
Yountville
Chaix Ln Madison St 7.7 Shared Use Path
(Class I)
1220 Snonma hwy from old
sonoma to Duhig rd
Old Sonoma Rd Duhig rd 0.2 Shared Use Path
(Class I)
1228 Petrified Forest Rd County border Calistoga City Border 1.8 Rural Bicycle Route (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
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 12.44
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 12.45
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 12.46
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 12.47
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 12.48
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
A
TLAS
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 12.49
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 12.50
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 12.51
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 12.52
County of Napa - Napa / American Canyon
Near-Term Bicycle Network
1 Miles H
304
Induced Bicycle Demand and
VMT Reductions
For the 18 near-term projects proposed for
unincorporated Napa County, 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 12.7 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 probability21 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.
21 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 12.7, provides the estimated new bicycle
commuters induced annually, annual VMT
reduction, and the total annual monetized benefit
provided by each project. All near-term proposed
projects induce between zero and 20 new annual
commuters a year. The proposed shared-use path on
Skyline would provide the highest total benefit,
followed by the shared-use path on the Vine Trail.
305
Table 12.7: County of Napa Near-Term Bicycle Project Benefits ID Segment Begins Ends Length
(miles) Type
New
Annual
Commuter
Bicyclists
VMT
Reduction
Total
Annual
Benefits
821 SR 12 City
boundary
Ramal 4.5 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
2 2,369 $49,800
838 Vine Trail Vista
Carneros
(NapaSan
Fields)
Airport
Blvd
Soscol
Ferry Rd
2.0 Shared Use
Path (Class
I)
0 681 $16,800
866 SR 221 Kaiser Rd Vista Point
Rd
1.1 Shared Use
Path (Class
I)
0 695 $17,400
871 Dry Creek Rd Oakville
Grade Rd
Orchard
Ave
6.8 Rural
Bicycle
Route
(Class III)
2 2,403 $40,000
885 SR 29/221 American
Canyon
city limit
Kaiser Rd 1.1 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
1 763 $20,800
889 Yount Mill Rd -
Yount Street
Yountville
town limit
SR 29 2.1 Rural
Bicycle
Route
(Class III)
4 6,614 $109,600
917 Kelly Rd SR 12 Jameson
Road
1.0 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
0 337 $5,700
1047 Skyline Path
(along Imola
Ave to Skyline
Park)
Soscol Ave
& 221
4th Avenue 2.0 Shared Use
Path (Class
I)
20 29,643 $725,000
1054 Big Ranch Rd Napa City
Limits
Oak Knoll
Ave
2.1 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
10 15,290 $301,400
1082 Conn Valley Rd Howell
Mountain
Rd
Moore
Creek Park
3.0 Rural
Bicycle
Route
(Class III)
0 662 $11,100
1084 Monticello Rd Silverado
Trail
Atlas Peak
Rd
1.1 Bike Lanes
(Class II)
12 18,557 $371,700
1087 Deer Park Rd Silverado
Trail
White
Cottage Rd
4.0 Rural
Bicycle
Route
(Class III)
1 1,962 $32,600
1092 SR 128/Sage
Canyon Rd
Berryessa
Knoxville
Rd
Silverado
Trail
11.2 Rural
Bicycle
Route
(Class III)
0 174 $29,000
1093 Lower Chiles
Valley Rd
SR
128/Sage
Canyon Rd
Chiles Pope
Valley Rd
3.4 Rural
Bicycle
Route
(Class III)
0 45 $700
306
ID Segment Begins Ends Length
(miles) Type
New
Annual
Commuter
Bicyclists
VMT
Reduction
Total
Annual
Benefits
1095 Chiles Pope
Valley Rd
SR
128/Sage
Canyon Rd
Lower
Chiles
Valley Rd
3.7 Rural
Bicycle
Route
(Class III)
0 62 $1,000
1120 Petrified Forest
Rd
City
Border
Foothill
Blvd
0.3 Rural
Bicycle
Route
(Class III)
5 7,367 $122,500
1180 Vine Trail St
Helena to
Yountville
Chaix Ln Madison St 7.7 Shared Use
Path (Class
I)
9 13,580 $330,100
1220 Sonoma HWY
from Old
Sonoma Road to
Duhig Rd
Old
Sonoma
Rd
Duhig Rd 0.2 Shared Use
Path (Class
I)
0 107 $2,600
1228 Petrified Forest
Rd
County
border
Calistoga
City Border
1.8 Rural
Bicycle
Route
(Class III)
3 4,501 $74,800
Appendix A
Project, Policy, and
Program Consistency
Screen
MEMORANDUM
November 4, 2024
To: Patrick Band
Organization: Napa Valley Transportation Authority
From: Toole Design and GHD, Inc.
Project: Napa Countywide ATP
Re: Existing Planning Efforts – Project, Policy, and Program Consistency Screen Contents
Table of Figures..........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction and Purpose ...........................................................................................................................................3 Reviewed Plans ......................................................................................................................................................3 Project Inventory and Consistency Screen ................................................................................................................8 Key Findings ...........................................................................................................................................................8 Multi-Jurisdictional Project Inventory ......................................................................................................................8 Jurisdiction-Specific Project Inventory ................................................................................................................. 10 Bikeway Project Discrepancies............................................................................................................................ 17 Program and Policy Inventory and Consistency Screen ......................................................................................... 20 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................................ 20 Regional Plan Program and Policy Inventory ...................................................................................................... 20 Local Plan Program and Policy Inventory............................................................................................................ 31 Table of Figures
Table 1: NVTA 2023 Vision Zero Plan - Top 10 Projects...........................................................................................8 Table 2: State Route 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan Projects ......................................................... 10 Table 3: Advancing Mobility 2045 Projects ............................................................................................................. 12 Table 4: Community-Based Transportation Plan Priority Projects .......................................................................... 15 Table 5: Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan - Napa County Top Tier Projects ................................................................. 16 Table 6: Calistoga ATP and NVTA Countywide Bicycle Master Plan Comparison................................................. 17 Table 7: St. Helena General Plan and NVTA Countywide Bike Plan Comparison ................................................. 18 Table 8: NVTA Vision Zero Action Plan Programs and Policies ............................................................................. 21 Table 9: Advancing Mobility 2045 Programs........................................................................................................... 22 Table 10: CBTP Recommended Programmatic Themes........................................................................................ 23 Table 11: Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019) Support Programs and Policies ..................................... 24
2 Table 12: Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019) Support Policies and Programs ..................................... 25 Table 13: Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2016) Programs and Policies............................................. 27 Table 14: Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2016) Plan Goals and Policies........................................... 30 Table 15: St. Helena General Plan Policies ............................................................................................................ 32 Table 16: Town of Yountville General Plan Mobility Chapter Policies and Programs............................................. 34 Table 17: Napa General Plan Transportation Element Policies.............................................................................. 37 Table 18: City of Napa LRSP Programs and Policies ............................................................................................. 38 Table 19: City of American Canyon General Plan Mobility Element Policies.......................................................... 39 Table 20: American Canyon LRSP Recommend Systemic Countermeasures....................................................... 42
3 Introduction and Purpose
This memo includes a review of adopted (or draft as of October 2024) state, regional, and local plans relevant to the Napa Countywide ATP, and includes:
A brief summary of each plan and its goals, objectives, and/or purpose; A summary of each plan’s recommended infrastructure projects, screen for consistency with other regional and local recommendations, where applicable; and An inventory and summary table of each plan’s programs and policies, including a consistency screen with other regional and local plans.
This document will inform the Napa Countywide ATP by highlighting priority and recommended projects from past plans, noting where project recommendations may be inconsistent between plans, and summarizing relevant programs and policies and highlighting inconsistencies:
Between a jurisdiction’s plans; and
Across different jurisdictions within regional plans.
A standalone Appendix includes a comprehensive summary and crosswalk table of policies and plans.
Reviewed Plans
All plans reviewed are grouped by state, regional, or local jurisdiction, starting with the most recent.
State Plans
Caltrans District 4 Bicycle (2018) and Pedestrian Plan (2021) The Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan aims to remove barriers to bicycling throughout the San Francisco Bay Area via a variety of infrastructure improvements that enhance bicycle safety and mobility. The Plan establishes a vision that by 2040, people in California of all ages, abilities, and incomes can safely, conveniently, and comfortably walk and bicycle for their everyday transportation needs. The plan is focused on infrastructure and does not include policies and programs.
The Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan identifies locations in need of pedestrian improvements along the State Highway System (SHS) throughout the Bay Area. While the District 4 Pedestrian Plan does not identify specific improvement projects, it prioritizes areas of need for future funding and implementation based on mobility/access, safety, and equity, including both existing and new infrastructure. The plan does not include policies and programs.
Four goals guide these plans, and are listed below:
Safety: Facilitate safe travel for all users (modes) and abilities, as expressed through Toward Zero Deaths (Caltrans) and Vision Zero (local agencies) initiatives Mobility: Reduce dependency on motor vehicle travel through mode shift to bicycling, walking, and transit Preservation: Ensure district active transportation strategies and actions adequately discuss the long-term maintenance needs and resources required to maintain a state of good repair for state highways Equity: Promote active transportation solutions that serve the communities within the district by improving accessibility and healthy transportation options for disadvantaged communities Regional Plans
NVTA Accessible Transportation Needs Assessment (2024 Draft) NVTA is developing the Accessible Transportation Needs Assessment (ATNA) scheduled to be completed in January 2025. The assessment will study barriers to mobility for seniors and individuals with disabilities throughout
4 Napa County and will propose recommendations to provide equitable and improved transportation options for these populations.
As of October 2024, a comparative analysis report of transportation programs and services in peer counties was published as part of the ATNA. The analysis reviews transportation services offered to older adults by public, private, and non-profit entities in other similar counties and considers their potential in Napa County. Currently, the report does not include project recommendations, programs, or policies, and therefore is not included in the consistency screen sections of this document.
NVTA Vision Zero Plan (2023)
The NVTA Vision Zero Plan aims to increase roadway safety and eliminate traffic related death and serious injuries in Napa Valley. Informed by the Safe System approach, the Plan outlines six guiding principles:
Safety is the highest priority
People make mistakes
A data-driven approach
Safety is a shared responsibility
Transportation networks must be equitable
Vision Zero will be accountable and transparent
The Vision Zero Plan places an emphasis on equity, focusing efforts on low-income communities, the needs of seasonal workers and unhoused individuals, and reimagines the role of enforcement in the Safe System Approach.
Advancing Mobility 2045 (2021)
Advancing Mobility 2045 is the NVTA Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) that provides long-range, countywide transportation priorities for Napa County. The plan outlines priorities for NVTA and Napa County’s transportation system to relieve congestion, improve traffic safety, create more active transportation infrastructure, provide more reliable and frequent bus service, and maintain and repair the existing transportation system. The Plan establishes a framework for investments in the transportation network over the next five years, while establishing longer range priorities for estimated land-use, environmental, population and financial projects over the next 25 years. The plan’s six goals include:
Serve the transportation needs of the entire community regardless of age, income, or ability Improve system safety in order to support all modes and serve all users Use taxpayer dollars efficiently
Promote Napa County’s economic sustainability
Minimize energy and other resources required to move people and goods Prioritize the maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing system The CTP not only establishes a long-term vision for the county, but also identifies countywide projects, policies and programs to be submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for inclusion in the Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The CTP will be updated and adopted by early 2026.
SR 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (2020)
The State Route (SR) 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP) is a multiagency plan that evaluates the most constrained portion of SR 29 between the cities of Napa and Vallejo. The plan’s objective is to develop a comprehensive multimodal package of prioritized improvements, resulting in a Preferred Corridor Plan, over the next 20 years to address the following issues:
5 Traffic congestion and delay
Increased crash risks for all users
Lack of low-stress multimodal connectivity
Reduced travel time and transit reliability
Napa Valley Community-Based Transportation Plan (2020; plan update in progress) The Napa Valley Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) addresses community of concern (COC) transportation needs and network gaps. The Plan was published in 2020, and NVTA is currently in the process of a plan update. The CBTP outlines two goals:
Improve access and mobility for low-income communities, for commute and non-commute trips; and Engage residents and community organizations in conducting the analysis and shaping recommendations NVTA Travel Behavior Study (2020; plan update in progress) The Travel Behavior Study investigates travel demand and travel patterns in the Napa Valley. While the study does not include project, program, or policy recommendations, the study will be used to refine the Napa Travel Model and inform regional transportation planning efforts. The initial Travel Behavior Study was created in 2014, with the most recent update published in 2020. NVTA is working on an additional update, which started in summer of 2024.
Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019)
The Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan envisions a comprehensive, connected bicycle network for people of all ages and abilities that provides safe, convenient and enjoyable bicycle access throughout the County. The Plan aims to increase bicycle mode share to 10 percent by 2035, and includes four guiding goals:
Develop a well-designed low Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) connected bicycle network Improve bicycle access for disadvantaged and/or underserved communities Improve safety for all ages and abilities
Increase mode share of bicycling
This plan includes jurisdiction-specific bicycle plans within it.
Napa County Safe Routes to School Program Published Reports (2018-2022) The Napa County Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) program, led by the Napa County Office of Education (NCOE) and the Napa County Bicycle Coalition (NCBC), aims to ensure that every child can walk or bicycle to school safely. Currently, the SRTS program includes educational and encouragement elements such as bicycle safety education, bike rodeo, walking school buses, community rides, helmet distributions, and annual countywide events like Walk and Roll to School Day.
Between 2018 and 2022, NCBC conducted 31 walk audits of public schools throughout the county to identify barriers to safe walking and bicycling and developed action plans with specific improvement recommendations for schools in Calistoga, St. Helena, Napa, and American Canyon. The plans include feedback from Safe Routes evaluations conducted in 2018, walk audits from 2019-2020, and a 2021 parent survey.
Reports include both infrastructure and programmatic recommendations, which can be used to support and complement countywide and jurisdictional plans.
Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2016)
The Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan aims to increase pedestrian trips countywide by providing a connected, safe, and enjoyable pedestrian network for all. The plan outlines four goals:
6 Provide a connected network of pedestrian sidewalks, trails and pathways in the County and its jurisdictions that are safe and accessible to a variety of users and that foster community interactions Encourage a multimodal transportation system
Obtain funding for pedestrian projects
Encourage and educate residents about walking and enforce safe interactions between pedestrians and motorists
The Plan includes individual local plans with priority project lists and supporting program and policies for the cities of Calistoga, St. Helena, Napa, and American Canyon, the Town of Yountville, and Unincorporated Napa County.
Local Plans
City of Calistoga
Calistoga General Plan (2014)
The Calistoga General Plan is the City’s fundamental land use and development policy document, and is used to guide development, growth, and conserve resources into the future. The plan aims to maintain Calistoga’s smalltown character and walkability.
Calistoga Active Transportation Plan (ATP) (2014)
The Calistoga Active Transportation Plan (ATP) updates the 2012 ATP and provides a framework for pedestrian and bicycle improvement implementation. The ATP’s vision is to develop a comprehensive, connected bicycle and pedestrian system. The plan’s programs provide people with safe, convenient and enjoyable access throughout and beyond Calistoga. The Plan assesses pedestrian and bicyclist needs throughout the city and identifies infrastructure and programmatic improvements to support active transportation.
City of St. Helena
St. Helena 2040 General Plan (2019)
The City of St. Helena 2040 General Plan provides a vision for the City to build a community of effective community institution, safe neighborhoods and streets, and superior schools, parks and public facilities. The Plan will guide thoughtful, well-managed development while maintaining the City’s small-town, rural character. The Plan includes an assessment of active transportation needs and identifies infrastructure and programmatic improvements to support active transportation.
Town of Yountville
Envision Yountville General Plan (2019)
The Envision Yountville General Plan outlines a community vision for transportation, housing, open space, conservation, safety and more. The Plan aims to limit growth and encourage infill, preserve quality of life, maintain community character, and provide a transportation network that encourages walking, biking, and public transportation ridership.
The Mobility Element of the General Plan provides the framework for decisions concerning Yountville’s multimodal transportation system, which includes roadway, transit, bike, pedestrian, and parking facilities. The Mobility Element includes an assessment of pedestrian and bicyclist needs throughout the city and identifies infrastructure and programmatic improvements to support active transportation.
7 City of Napa
City of Napa Local Road Safety Plan (2022)
The City of Napa Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), adopted in September 2022, aims to reduce fatal and severe collisions on Napa’s roadways. The plan systematically identifies traffic and safety related issues and recommends a list of projects and countermeasures to improve safety. The plan recommends a prioritized list of improvements that qualify for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding.
Napa 2040 General Plan (2022)
The City of Napa’s General Plan is a comprehensive, long-range planning document that is used to guide the City’s decision making in terms of future growth and physical development. The Transportation Element of the plan establishes goals and policies to enhance transportation options for the community and improve mobility through increased connectivity and efficient infrastructure management. The element addresses various modes of transportation and aims to improve transportation options and connectivity within the City and to the surrounding region, and identifies infrastructure and programmatic improvements to support active transportation.
City of Napa Bicycle Plan (2021) and Pedestrian Plan (2021) The City of Napa Bicycle Plan is intended to guide development of infrastructure, programs, and policies that improve the bicycling environment for all residents and visitors in this Napa Valley community. The City of Napa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans were developed as part of the NVTA Countywide Plans.
City of American Canyon
General Plan 2040 (2024 Draft)
The American Canyon General Plan, currently undergoing updates and pending adoption, provides a planning framework for the City and expresses the shared community vision of a Healthy, Equitable, Resilient, and Economically Vibrant community to the year 2040 and beyond. The plan presents a long-term framework for future growth and development in the city.
The Mobility Element of the General Plan aims to guide a safe and efficient transportation system. The core value of the Mobility Element is to provide safe and easy travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and motor vehicles. The Plan assesses pedestrian and bicyclist needs throughout the city and identifies infrastructure and programmatic improvements to support active transportation.
City of American Canyon Local Road Safety Plan (2022)
The American Canyon Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) aims to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions and increase safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all through proposed roadway improvements and safety countermeasures.
8 Project Inventory and Consistency Screen
For all plans listed above, recommended projects were inventoried and reviewed for consistency across plans.
Key Findings
The NVTA Vision Zero Plan (2023) recommends installing a roundabout at SR 29 and Madison Street, which is an additional improvement not included among intersection improvements recommended in the SR 29 CMCP (2020).
The SR 29 CMCP (2020) maintains SR 29 as a four-lane arterial through the City of American Canyon, but the City’s General Plan Update (2024) envision SR 29 ultimately widened to six lanes. The Napa Valley 2020 CBTP includes two projects in the City of Napa that are not included in any other regional or local plans.
The City of Calistoga ATP (2014) includes 10 projects that are inconsistent with projects included in the Napa Countywide Bicycle Plan (2019). These projects mainly differ in where they begin and end, and the facility type proposed.
St. Helena’s General Plan (2019) lists 21 bikeway projects that differ from projects listed in the Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019). These projects mainly differ in where they begin and end, and the facility type proposed.
Multi-Jurisdictional Project Inventory
The tables in this section summarize non-conflicting projects sourced from multi-jurisdictional plans that aim to achieve different goals.
NVTA Vision Zero Plan (2023)
This plan includes 46 roadway safety projects throughout the corridor. The 10 priority projects are included in the table below.
Table 1: NVTA 2023 Vision Zero Plan - Top 10 Projects
Location Recommended Projects
American
Canyon Rd E
Install protected intersections or roundabouts, high-visibility crosswalks and daylighting Lincoln Ave Install signal with LPI and audible push buttons, and square intersection Install Class II bike lane, narrow travel lanes
Install high-visibility crosswalks and daylighting at all intersections Install RRFBs
SR 128 Install centerline delineators
Install asphalt berms
Build permanent sidewalks
Install RRFBs and high-visibility crosswalks
Deer Park Rd/
Sanitarium Rd
Install roundabout
Howell
Mountain Rd
Upgrade signage
Upgrade pavement markings/raised markings
Install advance curve warning signage, rumble strips, delineators and markers
9 Install Class IIB buffered bike lanes and conflict striping Main St Install curb extensions
Upgrade signal synchronization
Install high-visibility crosswalks
Upgrade sidewalks with ADA-compliant ramps
Trancas St/
Redwood Rd
Road diet
Install Class II bike lanes, Class IIB buffered bike lanes Implement LPI, install pedestrian countdown timers, audible push buttons, retroflective tape, edge lines, and advance stop bars
Install wayfinding signage
Improve sightlines
Straighten crosswalks, upgrade to high-visibility markings, ADA-compliant curb ramps Install bike conflict striping, delineators, object markers, speed feedback signs Upgrade to fluorescent signage
Close/reconfigure slip lane and implement all-way stop control Install RRFB and pedestrian median refuge
Close sidewalk gaps
Install protected intersection
Soscol Ave Upgrade signage
Install speed feedback signs, delineators and object markers Upgrade bike lanes to Class IIB buffered bike lanes or Class IV separated bike lanes Narrow travel lanes
Install trail crossing
Install high-visibility crosswalks
Square intersections
Re-configure slip lanes
Install bike conflict striping and transit islands
Install Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs)
Finell Rd Install curb extensions, daylight, and high-visibility crosswalks Close sidewalks gaps
SR 29/
Madison St
Install roundabout
SR 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (2020)
The projects proposed in the SR 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP) were compared to the Caltrans SR 29 Route Concept Report, NVTA Regional Transportation Plan, and the Circulation Elements of the Napa County, City of American Canyon, and City of Napa General Plans. The proposed SR 29 CMCP was consistent with other agency plans, aside from one recommendation: while the SR 29 CMCP (2020) maintains SR 29 as a four-lane arterial through the City of American Canyon, the City of American Canyon’s General Plan (2024 draft; in-progress) envisions SR 29 ultimately widened to six lanes.
10 Table 2: State Route 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan Projects Improvement Type Project Description
SR 29 Multimodal
Improvements
SR 37 to Napa Junction Road Separated pathways on either side of SR 29 Pedestrian refuge islands at intersections
8’ shoulders and landscaping
Napa Junction Road to Paoli
Loop Road
Separated pathway on the west side of SR 29
Connect to Vine Trail and Paoli Loop Road
South Kelly Road to Soscol
Junction
Buffered bike lanes
Improved intersections
Intersection
Improvements
Airport Boulevard/SR12/SR29 Interchange improvements
Pedestrian and bicycle crossings
Soscol Junction Two roundabouts and grade separated
crossing for SR 29
Pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements
GradeSeparated
Pedestrian
Crossings
Donaldson Drive
American Canyon Road
Napa Junction Road
Eliminate at-grade pedestrian traffic signal
cycles
Provide raised crossings over SR 29
Shared-Use Paths Napa Valley Vine Trail Separated path along SR 29 Gap closures from the City of Napa (Kennedy
Park) to the City of American Canyon (Newell
Drive) to the existing Vine Trail along
Broadway
San Franscisco Bay Trail Separated paths along Napa River Connect through Napa, American Canyon,
Vallejo and to SR 37
Jurisdiction-Specific Project Inventory
City of Napa Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP; 2022)
The LRSP identifies safety projects, based on countermeasures in the plan, that qualify for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. Active-transportation related recommendations include:
Install advance warning flashing beacons at:
» Soscol Ave at W. Imola Ave
» SR 29 at SR 12
» SR 29 at Trower Ave
» Lincoln Ave at Soscol Ave
» SR 29 at Wine Country Ave
» Silverado Trail at Lincoln Ave/Clark St
» Redwood Rd at Solano Ave
» SR 29 at Salvador Ave
11 » Soscol Ave at Shetler Ave
» W. Imola Ave at SR 29 NB Ramps
» Jefferson St at Sheridan Dr
Modify traffic signal to include Leading Pedestrian Interval, and install advance stop bars and pedestrian countdown signal heads at:
» Soscol Ave at W. Imola Ave
» SR 29 at Trower Ave
» Lincoln Ave at Soscol Ave
» SR 29 at Wine Country Ave
» Silverado Trail at Lincoln Ave/Clark St
» Redwood Rd at Solano Ave
» SR 29 at Salvador Ave
» Soscol Ave at Shetler Ave
» W. Imola Ave at SR 29 NB Ramps
» Jefferson St at Sheridan Dr
Install high-visibility crosswalks, additional stop signs (or other regulatory signs), and improve intersection pavement at:
» California Blvd at Pueblo Ave
» Soscol Ave: W. Imola Ave to Trancas St
» Silverado Trail: Soscol Ave to City Limit
» Solano Ave: Lincoln Ave to Trower Ave
» Lincoln Ave: Yajome St to Silverado Trail
» S. Freeway Dr/Golden Gate Dr: 900’ N of Imola Ave to 1,600’ S of Imola Ave » SR 29: 1,400’ N of Trancas St to City Limit (North)
» W. Imola Ave: Foster Rd to Soscol Ave
» Browns Valley Rd: 350' W of Austin Rd to 400’ W of Freeway Dr » Main St: 750’ N of Lincoln Ave to 5th St
» Jefferson St: Trancas St to 2nd St
» Trancas St/Redwood Rd: 450' E of Dry Creek Rd to City Limit (East) Along the following roadway segments, install high-visibility crosswalks, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, and dynamic speed warning signs:
» Soscol Ave: W. Imola Ave to Trancas St
» Silverado Trail: Soscol Ave to City Limit
» Solano Ave: Lincoln Ave to Trower Ave
» Lincoln Ave: Yajome St to Silverado Trail
» W. Imola Ave: Foster Rd to Soscol Ave
» Browns Valley Rd: 350' W of Austin Rd to 400’ W of Freeway Dr » Main St: 750’ N of Lincoln Ave to 5th St
» S. Freeway Dr/Golden Gate Dr: 900’ N of Imola Ave to 1,600’ S of Imola Ave City of American Canyon Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP; 2022) The LRSP identifies safety projects, based on countermeasures in the plan, that qualify for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding. Active-transportation related recommendations include:
Install pedestrian crossing (new signs and markings) at uncontrolled locations:
» Flosden Rd and Daniel Dr
12 » Rio Del Mar and Rio Grande
» Silver Oak Trail (American Canyon Rd to Newell Dr)
» Benton Way (Wetlands Edge Rd to Donaldson Way/Elliott Dr) Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval at:
» American Canyon Rd and Broadway Silver Oak Trail
» American Canyon Rd and Newell Dr/Flosden Rd
» Flosden Rd and Canyon Creek Dr
» Flosden Rd and Via Bellagio
» American Canyon Rd and Via Firenze
Evaluate installing a mini roundabout at Rio Del Mar and Los Altos Pl Install high-visibility yellow school crosswalk striping at American Canyon Rd and Via Firenze Relocate existing school crossing at Rio Del Mar and Rio Grande Advancing Mobility 2045 (2021)
The projects listed in Table 3 below are included in the Advancing Mobility 2045 countywide plan, which was developed with the input of all jurisdictional and countywide plans that preceded it (including General Plan Circulation Elements).
Table 3: Advancing Mobility 2045 Projects
Jurisdiction Project Description
American Canyon American Canyon Multimodal Transit Center: Construct transit center American Canyon Highway 29 Pedestrian Safety Overcrossings: Construct three pedestrian crossings over Highway 29
Calistoga Lake Street reconstruction and complete street enhancements Calistoga Pedestrian safety improvements at SR 29 and Cedar Street: Stop signs and crosswalks
Calistoga Pedestrian safety improvements at SR 29 and Brannan Street: Curb extension and flashing beacon
Calistoga Safe Routes to School: Construct foot bridge over the Napa River at Pioneer Park Calistoga Lincoln Corridor Safety Enhancements: Signal modification, bicycle, and pedestrian enhancements
Calistoga South Oak Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge: Construct fast bridge over Napa River at Logvy Park
Calistoga Grant Street – City Limit to Centennial Court: Complete Street enhancements and multiuse pathway on Grant
City of Napa Trower Avenue Extension: Extend Trower Avenue east to connect with Big Ranch Road
13 City of Napa Linda Vista Avenue Bridge and Extension: New bridge at Redwood Creek and extension of Terrace Drive from the southern terminus of Terrace Drive to the northerly terminus of South Terrace Drive
City of Napa Terrace Drive Bridge and Extension: New bridge at Cayetano Creek and extension of Terrace Drive from the southern terminus of Terrace Drive to the northerly terminus of South Terrace Drive
City of Napa Solano Avenue Bridge and Extension: New bridge at Napa Creek and extension of Solano Avenue south to connect with First Street
City of Napa Lincoln Avenue at California Boulevard and SR 29 Off-Ramp: Reconfigure northbound SR 29 off-ramp at Lincoln Avenue and modify Lincoln Avenue/California Boulevard intersection
City of Napa Salvador Avenue Complete Streets: Complete streets infrastructure improvements including roadway widening to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities City of Napa SR 29 over Trower Avenue: Trower Avenue underpass at SR 29 City of Napa Jefferson Street/Laurel Street Signal: New signal at intersection City of Napa Jefferson Street/Old Sonoma Road Signal: New signal at intersection City of Napa Jefferson Street/Imola Avenue Intersection Modifications: modifications including additional right-turn lanes
City of Napa Solano Avenue/Redwood Road Intersection Modifications: modifications including widening and restriping
City of Napa Jefferson Street/Lincoln Avenue Intersection Modifications: modifications including additional right-turn lanes
City of Napa Lincoln Avenue/Soscol Avenue Intersection Modifications: modifications including additional right-turn lanes
City of Napa First Street and Browns Valley Road – Corridor Complete Streets: Complete Streets infrastructure improvements including roundabouts at the intersections of First Street/Freeway Drive and First Street/SR 29 southbound ramps City of Napa Jefferson Street/Sierra Avenue Signal: New signal at intersection City of Napa Browns Valley Road Complete Streets: Completes Streets infrastructure improvements including roadway widening between Westview Drive and McCormick Lane to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities
City of Napa Salvador Creek Bicycle Trail: Construct a Class I multiuse path along Salvador Creek City of Napa Intersection modification: Construct intersection improvements at Silverado Trail/Third Street/Coombsville Road/East Avenue
City of Napa Oxbow Preserve/Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge: Construct a bicycle/pedestrian bridge from the Oxbow Preserve over the Napa River to the River Trail City of Napa Oxbow District Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge: Construct a bicycle/pedestrian bridge from the River Trail over the Napa River to Third Street
14 City of Napa Laurel Street Sidewalks: Construct sidewalks along Laurel Street where gaps are present
City of Napa Sierra Avenue Sidewalks: Construct sidewalks along Sierra Avenue from Jefferson Street to SR 29
City of Napa Terrace Drive Sidewalks: Construct sidewalks along Terrace Drive where gaps are present
City of Napa Railroad Crossing Upgrades: Upgrade all railroad crossings citywide to Concreate® panels with flangeway fillers
City of Napa Vine Trail (Redwood Road Crossing): Construct a grade-separated crossing across Redwood Road connecting the adjacent sections of the Vine Trail Napa County Vine Trail: Class I bicycle trails, including portions of American Canyon, St. Helena, and unincorporated Napa County
Napa County Soscol Gateway Transit Center Improvements: Pedestrian connector, safety, and infrastructure upgrades
Napa County Oxbow Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing: Construct a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over the Napa River between 3rd Street and 1st Street adjacent to the existing railroad bridge
Napa County Imola Complete Streets Corridor: Complete Streets enhancements and safety improvements along the Imola Avenue corridor
St. Helena Main Street Corridor Improvements Phase I: Upgrade sidewalk, pedestrian lighting, pedestrian furniture, landscaping/trees, and bicycle infrastructure St. Helena Main Street Corridor Improvements Phase II: Install traffic calming devices (e.g. curb extensions), pedestrian lighting, pedestrian furniture, landscaping, bicycle infrastructure, and traffic signal synchronization modifications St. Helena Downtown Corridor Improvements: Install traffic calming devices (e.g. curb extensions), pedestrian lighting, pedestrian furniture, landscaping, bicycle infrastructure, and traffic signal synchronization
St. Helena Sulphur Creek Class I Bikeway: Construct Class I bikeway St. Helena Spring Mountain Road Class I Bikeway: Construct Class I bikeway St. Helena Napa River Class I Bikeway: Construct Class I bikeway (River Trail) St. Helena Highway 29/Main Street and Deer Park Road Intersection Improvements: Construct intersection improvements to safety and circulation on Highway 29 St. Helena Highway 29/Main Street and Pratt Avenue Intersection Improvements: Construct intersection improvements to safety and circulation on Highway 29 Yountville Washington Park – Parks and Path ADA Improvements: Adding sidewalks to the Washington Park Subdivision
Yountville Yountville Crossroads Bicycle Path & Sidewalk: Add a full-lane bicycle path along Yountville Crossroads
15 Napa Valley Community-Based Transportation Plan (2020; update in progress) The 2020 Napa Valley Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) identifies 11 priority infrastructure projects, including crossing improvements, new or improved sidewalks and bikeways, and transit service enhancements and stop improvements. These projects differ from those listed in Table 3, above, but are not inconsistent.
Bikeway and pedestrian recommendations in the CBTP do not include details, such as recommended bicycle facility class or crossing improvement type. There are two projects in the City of Napa that are not included in any other planning efforts, and one project in St. Helena that is not included in any other planning efforts. The table below outlines active transportation-related improvements and notes their inclusion and consistency with other regional or local plans.
Table 4: Community-Based Transportation Plan Priority Projects Project Sponsor Included In
Regional
or Local
Plan
Regional Plan Local Plan Consistent
With Local
Plans
Bike facility from Jefferson
Street to Soscol Avenue
City of
Napa
Yes Napa
Countywide
Regional
Bicycle Plan
(2019)
City of Napa
Bicycle Plan
(2021)
Enhanced pedestrian
crossing/RRFB on Trancas
Street at Valley Verde Drive
City of
Napa
Yes NVTA Vision
Zero Plan
-
Enhanced pedestrian
crossing/RRFB on Jefferson
Street and Rubicon Street
City of
Napa
No - - -
Enhanced pedestrian
crossing at Jefferson Street
and El Capitan Way
City of
Napa
No - - -
Bus shelter/benches at high
usage stops
NVTA Yes NVTA
Countywide
Transportation
Plan (2021)
-
Hunt Avenue
sidewalks/pedestrian
improvements*
City of St.
Helena
Yes Napa
Countywide
Regional
Pedestrian
Plan (2016)
St. Helena
General Plan
Update (2040)
Pope Avenue
sidewalks/pedestrian and
lighting improvements
City of St.
Helena
No - - -
16 Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan (2018)
While the Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan is a regional plan developed by a state agency, its recommendations are jurisdiction specific. The top-tier projects described in the table below were prioritized based on demand and need from a list of 40 bicycle projects within Napa County and are not duplicative of the projects from other plans.
Table 5: Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan - Napa County Top Tier Projects Project
Number
Jurisdiction Location Improvement
Nap-121-C03 Unincorporated Hwy 121 (Duhig Rd to Old Sonoma Rd)
Corridor Improvement- Class IV
Nap-128-C05 St Helena Hwy 128 (Sage Canyon Rd to Conn
Creek Rd)
Corridor Improvement- Class IV
Nap-29-C07 American
Canyon
Hwy 29 (American Canyon Rd to
Jameson Canyon Rd/Hwy 12)
Corridor Improvement- Class I
Nap-29-X11 Napa Hwy 29 (Imola Ave W) Minor interchange improvements (signage and striping)- Class I
17 Bikeway Project Discrepancies
The tables in this section compare bikeway projects in local plans (including ATPs and General Plans) with the jurisdiction-specific plans included in the NVTA Countywide Bicycle Master Plan.
Table 6: Calistoga ATP and NVTA Countywide Bicycle Master Plan Comparison *Denotes inconsistency
Bikeways Calistoga ATP NVTA Countywide Plan
Class Begins Ends Class Begins Ends
Southern
Crossing
I Foothill
Boulevard*
Washington Street I School
Street*
Washington
Street
Lake Street II Silverado Trail Washington
Street*
II Silverado
Trail
Grant Street*
Lake Street II* Silverado
Trail*
Washington
Street*
III* N. Oak
Street*
Lake Street*
Fair Way III* (Route) N. Oak Street* Lincoln Avenue III* (Boulevard)
Lake
Street*
Lincoln
Avenue
Grant
Street
III (Route) N. Oak Street* Wappo Avenue* III (Route) Greenwood Avenue*
Mora Street*
Grant
Street
III
(Boulevard)
N. Oak Street* Wappo Avenue* III
(Boulevard)
Mora
Avenue*
N. Oak Street*
Greenwood
Avenue
III (Route) Napa River Grant Street* III (Route) Napa River SR 29* Lincoln
Avenue
III (Route)* Foothill
Boulevard
Fair Way II* Foothill
Boulevard
Fair Way
Money
Lane
III (Route)* Lake Street Michael Way* III
(Boulevard)
*
Lake Street Mora Avenue*
Money
Lane
Extension
III (Route)* Michael Way* Greenwood
Avenue*
III
(Boulevard)
*
Lake
Street*
Mora Avenue*
18 Table 7: St. Helena General Plan and NVTA Countywide Bike Plan Comparison *Denotes inconsistency
Bikeways St. Helena General Plan NVTA Countywide Plan
Class Begins Ends Class Begins Ends
Crane
Park Path
I Grayson Avenue La Quinta Way* I Grayson Avenue Kennedy Court*
Sulphur
Springs
Trail
I Sulphur Springs
Ave*
Silverado Trail* I Valley View St* Main St/SR
29*
Mariposa
Lane
I (Vine
Trail)*
Pope St McCorkle Ave III
(Boulevard)*
Pope St McCorkle Ave
Starr Ave
Path
I (Vine
Trail)*
Adams St Pope St* I* Adams St Mills Ln*
Starr Ave
Path
II* Pope St* Mills Ln I* Adams St* Mills Ln
Railroad
Ave
I (Vine
Trail)*
Fulton Ln Adams St* III
(Boulevard)*
Fulton Ln Hunt Ave*
Railroad
Ave
III
(Route)
*
Adams St* Hunt Ave III
(Boulevard)*
Fulton Ln* Hunt Ave
Pope St II* Starr Ave Silverado Trail I* Starr Ave Silverado Trail Main/SR
29 II Mitchell Dr* Mills Ln* II Charter Oak Rd* Chaix Ln* Hunt Ave II* Main St/SR 29* Starr Ave III
(Boulevard)*
Church St* Starr Ave
College
Ave
II* Pope St McCorkle Ave III
(Boulevard)*
Pope St McCorkle Ave
Valley
View St
II* Spring St Birch St III
(Boulevard)*
Spring St Birch St
Spring St II* Sulphur Springs
Ave
Sylvaner Ave III (Route)* Sulphur Springs
Ave
Sylvaner Ave
Oak Ave II* Charter Oak Ave Grayson Ave I (Vine
Trail)*
Charter Oak Ave Grayson Ave
McCorkle
Ave
II* Vine Trail* College Ave III
(Boulevard)*
Allision Ave* College Ave
19 Pratt Ave III
(Route)
*
Main St/SR 29 Napa River
Trail
I (Vine
Trail)*
Main St/SR 29 Napa River
Trail
Church St III
(Route)
*
Hunt Ave Pope St III
(Boulevard)*
Hunt Ave Pope St
Edwards
St
III
(Route)
*
Hunt Ave Pope St III
(Boulevard)*
Hunt Ave Pope St
Main St III
(Route)
Pratt Ave* Mitchell Dr* III (Route) Deer Park Rd* Fulton Ln* Main St III
(Route)
Pratt Ave* Mitchell Dr* III (Route) Madrona Ave* Charter Oak Ave*
20 Program and Policy Inventory and Consistency Screen
In addition to the infrastructure projects included above, programs and policies were also inventoried and reviewed for consistency. Generally, programs and policies were consistent in multiple plans within a single jurisdiction. More variation was found in programs and policies across jurisdictions (i.e., policies differed between jurisdictions within a single plan).
Key Findings
Inconsistencies Across Jurisdictions
In the Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2016), most programs and policies are consistent across jurisdictions with a few exceptions:
» Yountville does not include a school crossing guard training or construction coordination policy » American Canyon is the only jurisdiction that includes an ADA compliance tracking program » Unincorporated Napa County is the only jurisdiction that includes a pedestrian guidelines policy Inconsistencies across jurisdictions in the Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019) include:
» Napa and Unincorporated Napa County are the only two jurisdictions that do not include a Capital Improvement Project/Complete Streets Checklist program
» Unincorporated Napa County is the only jurisdiction that does not include a policy to retain a dedicated bicycle staff member
» Calistoga and Napa are the only two jurisdictions to not include programs for law enforcement activities
» St. Helena is the only jurisdiction that does not include an existing bikeways policy » Napa is the only jurisdiction that does not include a Vision Zero policy » American Canyon and Unincorporated Napa County are the only jurisdictions that include bicycle parking/additional facilities policies
» Unincorporated Napa County is the only jurisdiction to include a County Roads and Streets Standards policy
Napa’s LRSP is the only safety plan to mention emergency medical services policies The American Canyon General Plan includes a “universal design” policy, while other jurisdictional plans include policies related to required ADA standards
St. Helena’s General Plan is the only plan to include a policy that mentions “smart growth” and sustainable planning principles related to land use and growth management American Canyon’s General Plan is the only plan to include a “context sensitive design” policy Inconsistencies Within Jurisdictions
Sidewalk policies for the Town of Yountville were inconsistent between Yountville’s General Plan Mobility Chapter (2019) and the Napa Countywide Pedestrian Plan (2016).
The Appendix at the end of this document includes two comparative inventories of State versus Regional Programs and Policies, and Regional versus Local Programs and Policies.
Regional Plan Program and Policy Inventory
NVTA Vision Zero Plan (2023)
The NVTA Vision Zero Plan outlines strategies and supporting actions to reach zero traffic deaths. The table below outlines the programs and policies included in the Action Plan related to active transportation. Within this regional plan, policies and programs are consistent across the jurisdictions, however, when comparing local plans
21 from the Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan, Napa is the only local plan that does not contain a Vision Zero policy.
Table 8: NVTA Vision Zero Action Plan Programs and Policies Number Action Policy
2E Update roadway design standards and policies for
implementation of safety-related projects
Create an internal training program for
engineering and planning staff to stay up to
date on best practices in Vision Zero,
Complete Streets, and Design Standards.
5B Prioritize disadvantaged communities and people
who have fewer mobility choices
Develop a driver, bicyclist, and pedestrian
safety campaign focused on those over the
age of 60
7A Educate all roadway users Develop a Vision Zero educational campaign 8F Educate all roadway users Develop an educational campaign targeting specific behaviors of all roadway users
identified by the emphasis areas along the
HIN
10 Reduce speeds through policy and design For member agencies that have not gone through the process in the last year, update
traffic calming programs to prioritize the HIN
22 Advancing Mobility 2045 (2021)
The Advancing Mobility 2045 Plan has eight programmatic themes with program descriptions and project examples. The programs and themes related to active transportation are described in the table below. Overall, these themes are consistent with the programs proposed in the other local and regional plans reviewed.
Table 9: Advancing Mobility 2045 Programs
Program Theme Description Project Examples
Improve
Pedestrian Safety
Improve pedestrian conditions to reduce
traffic collisions and increase safety
High visibility pedestrian
crosswalks
Pedestrian crossing warning
signage
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
Improve
Pedestrian Access
to Schools and
Transit
Improve, maintain, and repair pedestrian
facilities around schools and transit stops to
enable and encourage pedestrian mobility,
walkability, and active forms of transportation
Repaired and improved sidewalks
around schools and transit stops
Completed sidewalk paths and
links bridging network gaps around
schools and transit stops
High-visibility pedestrian
crosswalks around schools and
transit stops
Pedestrian crossing warning
signage around schools and transit
stops
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons around schools and
transit stops
New sidewalks around schools
and transit stops
Increase Transit
Amenities
Maintain existing and add new transit-related
amenities, like benches, shelters, restrooms,
and pedestrian and bicycle facilities, to enable
and encourage a significant Napa County
transit mode shift
New bus stop benches and
shelters
Secure bicycle parking
Increase Transit
ADA Access
Increase transit service enhancements that
improve service for persons with disabilities
New ADA curb ramps
New ADA transit amenities
High visibility pedestrian
crosswalks
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon
23 SR 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (2020)
Policies in the SR 29 CMCP were consistent with all policies established by the other agency plans.
Napa Valley Community-Based Transportation Plan (2020) (Plan Update in Progress) The Community-Based Transportation Plans (CBTP) recommends programmatic themes that can be applied to different project types throughout the plan’s various Communities of Concern (COCs). The table below describes the themes and actions relevant to active transportation and are consistent with other reviewed regional plans.
Table 10: CBTP Recommended Programmatic Themes
Theme Action
Improve Pedestrian Safety Improve pedestrian conditions to reduce traffic collisions and increase safety Improve Pedestrian Access
to Schools and Transit
Improve, maintain, and repair pedestrian facilities around schools and transit stops to enable and encourage pedestrian mobility/walkability/active forms of transportation
Expand Mobility Options for
Low-income, Senior, and
Disabled Residents
Introduce enhancements that improve service for residents of Communities of Concern (COCs)
Increase Transit Amenities Maintain existing and add transit-related amenities like benches, shelters, restrooms, pedestrian and bicycle facilities to enable and encourage a significant Napa County transit mode shift
Increase transit ADA access Enhance transit service to improve service for persons with disabilities Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019)
The Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan includes programs and policies at both the countywide level and the local jurisdictional level. The programs and policies for each local jurisdiction are summarized in the table below and have been compared for consistency with other regional and jurisdictional plans. In the Countywide plan, programs and policies are generally consistent across the jurisdictional plans.
Inconsistencies across jurisdictions include the following:
Napa and Unincorporated Napa County are the only two jurisdictions that do not include a Capital Improvement Project/Complete Streets Checklist program. Unincorporated Napa County is the only jurisdiction that does not include a policy to retain a dedicated bicycle staff member.
Calistoga and Napa are the only two jurisdictions to not include programs for law enforcement activities St. Helena is the only jurisdiction that does not include an existing bikeways policy. Napa is the only jurisdiction in this plan that does not include a Vision Zero policy (it is included in Napa’s General Plan instead.)
American Canyon and Unincorporated Napa County are the only jurisdictions that include bicycle parking/additional facilities policies.
24 Unincorporated Napa County is the only jurisdiction to include a County Roads and Streets Standards policy.
The City of Napa’s programs and policies follow a different, more detailed and specific format in the plan than the other five jurisdictions; Napa’s programs and policies have been adapted to match the format of the other five jurisdiction’s plans in the table below, but there are additional programs and policies included in the Napa plan that are not necessarily included in the table below.
Table 11: Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019) Support Programs and Policies Program or
Policy
Recommendation
Calistoga
St. Helena
Yountville
Napa
American
Canyon
Unincorporated
County
Capital
Improvement
Projects/
Complete Streets
Checklist
Create checklist for capital projects on and adjacent to streets (repaving, restriping, reconstruction) that ensures City staff review the infrastructure recommendations of this Plan at the time of project development.
Dedicated
Bicycle Staff
Identify a staff member who is responsible for bicycle
planning and the implementation of bicycle facilities and dedicate a percentage of their time to these efforts.
Law Enforcement
Activities
Provide bicycle-specific training for law enforcement personnel and establish a community policing
agreement which engages members of the
community, including agency engineering and
planning staff, local elected officials, non-profit
community advocates, schools, and others, to
ensure the coordination of enforcement goals and
strategies, and to develop a balanced approach to
address traffic safety issues that includes education,
engineering, and enforcement.
Establish a bicycle diversion program for bicycle
traffic offenders.
Provide focused law enforcement operations at high
collision locations.
Existing
Bikeways Policy
Develop a policy which specifies that existing bikeways should not be removed, unless an improved bikeway is
being installed.
Vision Zero
Policy
Adopt a countywide Vision Zero policy and develop an
action plan for implementing Vision Zero. Identify
opportunities for funding for Vision Zero efforts, such as developing a Countywide database to inventory collision
25 data and environmental factors, undertaking a
comprehensive analysis to understand collision patterns, and facilitating an outreach process to identify community safety priorities and determine where to focus safety
investments and improvements.
Wayfinding
Program
Develop a regional wayfinding system that has a similar brand throughout Napa Valley and helps bicyclists navigate the transportation network with confidence and provide
direction to their destinations; create a community identity; and build a sense of place. The Town of Yountville could adjust the brand to reflect local character while still maintaining signage elements for consistency including
placement, frequency of signs, and content.
Bikeway
Maintenance
Prioritize maintenance of roadways and removal of debris where bicycle facilities are present.
Bicycle Parking
and additional
facilities
Consider amending County code to define standards for
long-term bicycle parking. Encourage employers to install showers and locker facilities for bicycle commuters
County Road and
Street Standards
Revise the current standards to reference this Plan and the 2016 Pedestrian Plan with regard to implementation of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities in addition to the discretion of the County Engineer.
Programs and policies to be implemented at the countywide level include those from past planning efforts. The table below describes new countywide programs and policies in the 2019 Bicycle Plan, all of which have been compared and verified for consistency with other regional planning documents.
Table 12: Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019) Support Policies and Programs Policy/Program Description
Vision Zero
Policy
Adopt a countywide Vision Zero policy and develop an action plan for implementing Vision Zero. Identify opportunities for funding for Vision Zero efforts, such as developing a countywide database to inventory collision data and environmental factors, undertaking a comprehensive analysis to understand collision patterns, and facilitating an outreach process to identify community safety priorities and determine where to focus safety investments and improvements.
Existing
Bikeways Policy
Develop a policy which specifies that existing bikeways should not be removed, unless an improved bikeway is being installed.
Bicycle Voucher
Program (Bucks
for Bikes)
Provides up to $100 voucher for new bicycle purchased for commuting.
26 Bike Share
Program
Pursue opportunities for creating a Bike Share program designed to encourage making short distance trips by bicycle and to provide a transportation alternative for zero-vehicle households.
Wayfinding Create and install countywide wayfinding to help bicyclists navigate the roadway network and find their way past barriers, such as complex intersections or high-stress streets.
Coordinate wayfinding across jurisdictions.
Bicycle Friendly
Community
Status
Create a coordinated countywide effort to apply for 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 2016.)
Bicycle Count
Program
Develop bicycle count strategies that are implementable in the short-term and assist NVTA as it measures progress towards achieving the goal of 10 percent mode shift by 2035. See Appendix D for bicycle count program recommendations.
Data Sharing
Program
Maintain a comprehensive database of bikeways throughout Napa County and, to track progress, develop a process for jurisdictions to share updated project implementation/data with NVTA once projects are completed.
Dedicated
Bicycle Staff
Identify a staff member at NVTA who is responsible for bicycle planning and the implementation of bicycle facilities and dedicate a percentage of their time to these efforts.
Dedicated Safe
Routes to
School Funding
Pursue coordination of sources to ensure consistent funding for Safe Routes to School programming throughout the County’s school districts.
Bikeway
Maintenance
Prioritize maintenance of roadways and removal of debris where bicycle facilities are present.
Napa County Safe Routes to Schools Program Published Reports (2018-2022) For the Napa County Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Program, programmatic recommendations were determined using walk audit results, infrastructure assessments, existing plans, and local stakeholder and community input.
Recommendations included in the reports address safety, close network gaps and reduce barriers, calm traffic, and increase local support for programs and policies that support safe routes to schools.
The published reports include programs and policies to support Safe Routes to Schools programs countywide.
The following bullets provide a thematic summary of the types of programs and policies included across the 31 reports:
Student-led encouragement events and education campaigns Ongoing and annual/countywide encouragement events
Group encouragement events
Circulation plan/policy
Bicycle and bicycle safety education programming
Pedestrian safety education programming
27 Bike maintenance education programming
Parent involvement programs
Parent Champion program
Carpool program
Schol street pilot program
Congestion management programs and policies
Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2016)
The Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (CPMP) includes programs and policies at both the countywide and local jurisdictional level. Countywide programs include Safe Routes to School efforts, countywide pedestrian counts, funding Vision Zero efforts, and enacting Complete Streets policies. The pedestrian programs and policies for each local jurisdiction are summarized in the table below and compared for consistency with other regional and jurisdictional plans. Overall, programs and policies are generally consistent across the jurisdictional plans:
Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville have consistent programs and policies with each other, except:
» Yountville does not include a school crossing guard training nor construction coordination policy Napa, American Canyon, and Unincorporated Napa County have consistent programs and policies with each other, except:
» American Canyon is the only jurisdiction that includes an ADA compliance tracking program » Unincorporated Napa County is the only jurisdiction with a pedestrian guidelines policy Table 13: Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2016) Programs and Policies Theme Recommended Program or Policy
Calistoga
St. Helena
Yountville
Napa
American
Canyon
Unincorporated
County
Education and
Encouragement
Safe Routes to Schools Coordination: Coordinate with
the Napa County Office of Education to continue SRTS
programs in the city and determine feasibility of
implementing SRTS recommendations.
Safety and
Enforcement
Law Enforcement for Pedestrian Safety: Coordinate with
NVTA to provide resources to officers on pedestrian safety principles / best practices and education outreach efforts to align with countywide collision reduction goals. Consider designating traffic safety officers who conduct pedestrianrelated enforcement activities, such as monitoring school circulation activity during pick up and drop off periods.
Determine feasibility of enforcement recommendations in the Countywide Implementation chapter.
28 NVTA Safety Campaign: Coordinate with NVTA on the
media safety campaign that NVTA is pursuing, as an
opportunity for education by distributing pedestrian safety pamphlets in-lieu of, or in addition to, citations.
Elementary School Crossing Guard Training: Review
crossing guard training and staffing to improve operations and reduce confusion.
Construction Coordination: Coordinate with stakeholders during traffic control plan development near key pedestrian nodes such as schools, parks and transit stops to ensure appropriate considerations for pedestrian circulation
Maintenance Repair of Sidewalks, Crosswalks, and Curb Ramps:
Continue to regularly improve and repair uneven sidewalk, broken asphalt in crosswalks, and install new curb ramps as part of the citywide Sidewalk Maintenance Program.
Consider adding a page to the city’s website to allow
residents and visitors to more easily report and track
hazards in the public right-of-way and to ensure all
necessary sidewalk repairs are included in the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This could include the
reporting of maintenance needs for pedestrian-related
pavement markings and traffic control devices.
Overgrown Vegetation on Sidewalks and Planting
Strips: Continue to ensure that landscapes at maturity do not interfere with safe sight distances for bicycle, pedestrian, or vehicular traffic; do not conflict with overhead lights, traffic controls, traffic signage, utility lines or poles, or walkway lights; and do not block bicycle or pedestrian ways.
Require adjacent property owners to maintain landscaped areas with live and healthy plant materials, replacing plant materials when necessary to maintain full function and
aesthetics; to water, weed, prune, fertilize and keep
sidewalks and planting strips litter free.
Caltrans Coordination: Coordinate with Caltrans for
sidewalk maintenance, crosswalk enhancements and curb
ramp upgrades
Engineering and
Design
Standards
Crosswalk Guidelines: Implement Crosswalk Guidelines,
included in Appendix D, to enable the City to respond to crosswalk requests in a manner that improves pedestrian accessibility and maintains public safety. Reference the guidelines when making decisions about where standard
crosswalks (two, parallel white stripes) can be marked; where crosswalks with special treatments, such as high
visibility crosswalks, flashing beacons and other special features, should be employed; and where crosswalks will not be marked due to safety concerns resulting from
volume, speed, or sight distance issues.
29 ADA Compliance Tracking Program: Determine feasibility of tracking ADA improvements and updates using practices recommended as part of the ADA Transition Plan update, to be coordinated by the ADA Coordinator. Maintain and
update GIS database of ADA curb ramps and sidewalk in
the public right-of way to align with priority schedule in the updated ADA Transition Plan.
Pedestrian Guidelines: Adopt pedestrian design guidelines in this plan, Appendix UNC-F, especially those for rural contexts including distinctions for rural remote roadways and those near pedestrian generators.
Placemaking
and Complete
Streets
Parking Plan: Develop parking plan to identify shared
parking opportunities, consider parklets and mid-block
crosswalks, and identify opportunities for bike parking to include bike corrals, which are an on-street bicycle parking facility that can accommodate up to 16 bicycles parked on racks in the same area as a single vehicle parking space.
Development/Site Plan Review Checklist: Create
checklist for development review to ensure site plans
include considerations for pedestrian access, safety and sidewalk activation (including considerations for building frontage location, pocket parks, small plazas, or small retail/commercial kiosks and evaluation of pedestrian
circulation in parking lots). Include items from MTC’s
Routine Accommodation Checklist for projects in the public right-of-way to ensure routine application of the Complete Streets policy.
Funding and
Implementation
Develop focus area list to identify additional projects through use of PedINDEX map in this plan and public outreach to unincorporated communities. Prioritize ADA improvements and enhancements near schools and transit.
The CPMP also includes overarching Countywide Plan goals and corresponding policies which are summarized in the table below. These countywide goals and policies are consistent with the local plan policies.
30 Table 14: Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2016) Plan Goals and Policies Goal Policies
Provide a connected
network of pedestrian
sidewalks, trails, and
pathways that are safe
and accessible to a
variety of users and
that foster community
interactions
1A: Protect the character and context of the County and its jurisdictions 1B: Prioritize safe routes to schools, safe routes to transit, and safe routes for seniors within the County
1C: Acknowledge the central role that the Vine Trail plays in active transportation infrastructure and prioritize connections between the trail and key destinations 1D: Work to reduce the rate of pedestrian collisions
1E: Connect key pedestrian desire lines via accessible sidewalks and marked crosswalks, focusing on downtown areas, transit stops, schools, senior housing and destinations, and tourist destinations and lodging
Encourage a
multimodal
transportation system
2A: Adhere to the current design standards in this plan as well as local design standards and other national and state manuals when designing new or retrofitted streets and communities
2B: Investigate the use of performance measures such as multi-modal level of service or built environment factors to facilitate complete streets implementation 2C: Prioritize infrastructure projects that will increase the walk mode share, while also taking advantage of all available funding opportunities to construct pedestrian infrastructure, including private development with an appropriate nexus 2D: Investigate creative parking measures such as shared parking, parking maximums, and strategic parking locations to encourage a “park once” environment in commercial districts
2E: Review new development proposals to ensure pedestrian access and circulation is maintained or improved, including during construction phases Obtain funding for
pedestrian projects
3A: Continue to allocate Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funding to pedestrian projects 3B: Pursue grant funding related to pedestrian projects 3C: Identify new funding sources and partnership opportunities, such as those focusing on public health and sustainability
Encourage and
educate residents
about walking and
enforce safe
interactions between
pedestrians and
motorists
4A: Increase public awareness of pedestrian facilities, amenities, and safety 4B: Pursue recognition such as Walk-Friendly Community status 4C: Implement ongoing pedestrian safety enforcement programs and campaigns 4D: Partner with local health agencies to encourage more activity among youth through the built environment to target childhood obesity 4E: Collaborate with local businesses to enhance wayfinding and streetscape amenities
Complete Streets Development Review Checklist: Create checklist for development review to ensure considerations for pedestrian access and safety, especially near bus stops, schools, and through parking lots. Include items from MTC’s Routine Accommodation Checklist for projects in the public right-of-way to ensure routine application of the Complete Streets policy.
Funding and
Implementation
Implementation Plan: Develop focus area list to identify projects beyond those recommended in this plan through use of PedINDEX map in this plan and public outreach to unincorporated communities. Prioritize ADA improvements and enhancements near schools and transit.
31 Local Plan Program and Policy Inventory
City of Calistoga
City of Calistoga General Plan (2014)
There is one policy from the City’s General Plan Circulation Element related to active transportation, which is consistent with the City’s other policies:
Implement traffic calming measures, such as speed lumps, curb extensions, and/or chicanes to limit travel speeds between intersections and optimize safety for all roadway users.
City of Calistoga Active Transportation Plan (2014)
Calistoga’s Active Transportation Plan includes a variety of collaborative programs and actions that aim to achieve the vision of increased and safe bicycling in Calistoga and throughout Napa County. The plan’s programs and actions are important to help realize the plan’s Vision, with an emphasis on implementing safety enhancements as soon resources become available. The bullets below describe the plan’s programs and have been verified for consistency across other reviewed plans:
Bicycle Network Maps
Safety and Education Publications (such as the Safe Bicycling Guidelines) Street Skills Bicycle Safety Courses
Bicycle Parking Program
Focused/Targeted Enforcement
Encouragement Activities/Events
Bicycle Counts
Maintenance and Monitoring
Wayfinding and Signage
Citywide Walking promotion
Individual travel marketing
Citywide Safety advertising
City of St. Helena
City of St. Helena General Plan (2019)
The table below lists policies from the General Plan’s Circulation Element relevant to active transportation. These policies are consistent with other St. Helena policies. This plan is the only plan across all Napa County jurisdictions to include a policy that mentions “smart growth” and sustainable planning principles related to land use and growth management.
32 Table 15: St. Helena General Plan Policies
Policy Description
CR1.1 Promote a connected street and bicycle and pedestrian network within the city to provide better internal automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian connections for residents.
CR1.2 Provide Complete Streets that balance the diverse needs of users of the public right-of-way, in accordance with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008.
CR1.3 Pursue appropriate funding for the development of a balanced transportation system.
CR1.4 Develop and use, in addition to intersection level-of-service standards, performance measures that consider all road users to determine transportation impacts of new development.
CR1.5 Avoid mitigation measures that negatively impact the walking and bicycling environment and encourage driving.
CR1.8 Reduce transportation-based GHG emissions from City-controlled sources by employing the following strategies:
Complete the City’s bicycle and pedestrian network, which will increase transportation choices in the city and reduce the demand for vehicle travel
Maximize the overall efficiency of the transportation system, including managing the transportation network through a citywide transportation system management program; Encourage/provide incentives for employee carpools.
Implement “smart growth” and sustainable planning principles as defined in the Land Use and Growth Management Element;
Encourage jobs/housing match, as defined in the Housing Element; and Encourage/provide incentives for employee carpools.
CR1.9 Promote a walking and bicycling environment that is comfortable and convenient. Ensure that all St.
Helena streets have no more than a single through-automobile lane in each direction, plus a single left-hand turning lane where appropriate, even if this requirement increases vehicle travel times. Allow exceptions if an extra lane would reduce the possibility of collisions.
CR2.1 Create a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network that enhances neighborhood connectivity.
CR2.2 Promote walking and bicycling as safe and convenient modes of transportation.
CR2.3 Ensure secure, accessible, and convenient bicycle parking facilities throughout St. Helena, including downtown, commercial areas, schools, and parks.
CR2.4 Preserve and enhance pedestrian connectivity and safety throughout St. Helena.
CR2.5 Improve the pedestrian experience through streetscape enhancements, focusing improvements where there is the greatest need, and by orienting development toward the street.
CR2.6 Encourage walking and bicycling trips to St. Helena schools.
33 CR3.1 Provide incentives and encourage existing major employers to develop and implement transportation demand management (TDM) programs to increase the number of people who bike, walk, and take transit to work and reduce peak-period trip generation. Coordinate as appropriate with NVTA to implement strategies including the following:
Transit subsidies or reimbursement to residents and employees (often referred to as “commuter check” or “EcoPass”);
Car-share, car-pooling, and neighborhood electric vehicle programs to reduce the need to have a car or second car;
Integrated bicycle parking and support facilities, primarily to reduce trips within the city; Modified parking codes to manage the supply of parking that generates frequent turn-over and serves multiple users; and
Marketing and information programs to encourage alternative transportation modes.
CR3.2 Support the implementation of NVTA goals to reduce/restrain growth of automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
CR3.3 Shift travel from single-occupancy vehicles to other modes so that by 2040, 45 percent of work trips by St. Helena residents and workers are by carpool, transit, walking or bicycling (see Table 5.5 at the end of this section for 2040 commute mode split targets).
CR3.6 Support development of the bikeway and pedestrian networks to provide a convenient opportunity for at least 20 percent of commuters to get to work by walking or bicycling.
CR4.2 Ensure safety on residential neighborhood streets to promote walking and bicycling and preserve neighborhood livability.
CR4.3 Continue efforts to calm traffic and minimize traffic volumes and speeds in residential areas.
CR4.4 Strive to bring all pedestrian facilities into compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) specifications.
CR4.5 Improve traffic safety and encourage walking and bicycling trips to St. Helena schools through a Safe Routes to School program.
CR6.1 Prioritize and implement improvements to the circulation system with an emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian improvements and expanded transit service.
Town of Yountville
Yountville General Plan (2019)
Most of the programs and policies included in the Yountville General Plan’s Mobility Chapter are consistent with other regional and local plans. However, the General Plan emphasizes maintaining the historic character of Yountville, outlining alternative sidewalk policies and restricting implementation of gutters, curbs and sidewalks in the Historic Old Town Residential Neighborhood. This is inconsistent with the Countywide Pedestrian Plan, which recommends filling in sidewalk gaps townwide.
The table below describes policies and programs included in the Circulation Element relevant to active transportation and highlights inconsistencies.
34 Table 16: Town of Yountville General Plan Mobility Chapter Policies and Programs Policy/Program Description
MO-1.1
Circulation Network. Ensure that the Town’s circulation network is a well-connected system of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, and bicycle/ pedestrian paths that effectively accommodates vehicular and non-vehicular traffic in a manner that considers the context of surrounding land uses and the needs of all roadway users.
MO-1.4 Circulation Network Impact Analysis. When analyzing impacts to the circulation network created by new development or roadway improvements, consider the needs of all users including those with disabilities, ensuring that pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders are considered at an equal level to the needs of automobile drivers.
MO-1.6 Safe Travel. Maintain safe travel conditions for all modes of travel.
MO-2.1 Planning for Transportation Improvements. Consider all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all roadway users.
MO-2.1b Roadway Improvements Provided by New Development. Ensure that future development provides roadway improvements consistent with the recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements included in related policies and actions.
MO-2.13 Traffic Calming and Safety Enhancements. Through the use of available Town funds or grants, apply techniques such as implementation of traffic calming, geometric modifications, increased enforcement, etc., to improve safety.
MO-2.1h Design for Complete Streets. Consider modifications in the Town’s circulation network, where appropriate and feasible, to serve all modes of transportation in a “Complete Streets” manner, including modifications such as the installation of sidewalks, signing, striping, sharrows, lane narrowing or other complete street features.
MO-2.2 Viewpoint. Retain the viewpoint of pedestrians and bicyclists as the primary perspective when identifying any traffic improvements.
MO-2.3 Safe Intersections. Any intersection to be modified should be designed to provide adequate and safe access for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists of all ages and abilities, as well as ADA considerations.
MO-3.2 Old Town Historic District. Maintain the Old Town Historic residential neighborhood with minimal traffic improvements and without curb, gutter and sidewalks*.
MO-4.3 Street Grid. Require streets in new developments be designed with a grid of streets with pedestrian and bicycle paths.
MO-6.1 Pedestrian Network. Establish and maintain a system of pedestrian facilities and crossing enhancements that are consistent with the Town’s Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan.
35 MO-6.2 Washington Street Pedestrian Facilities. Strive to maintain continuous pedestrian facilities along the Washington Street corridor and on the east side of Washington Street in the Old Town Historic District.
MO-6.3 New Development. Require development projects to construct sidewalks and walkways on and offsite in order to maintain consistency with the Town’s Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan, and as dictated by the location of transit stops and common pedestrian destinations.
MO-6.4 Sidewalk Alternatives. When it can be shown that construction of a sidewalk would be at odds with an existing neighborhood’s aesthetic and the historic nature of the area, such as in the Old Town Historic district, alternatives such as an off-street path or wider paved shoulders may be considered*.
MO-6.5 Gaps in Pedestrian Network. With the exception of the Old Town Historic district, gaps in sidewalks and walkways should be identified and a plan to fill these gaps completed.
MO-6.8 ADA Improvements. Create an accessible circulation network that is consistent with guidelines established by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), allowing mobilityimpaired users such as the disabled and elderly to safely and effectively travel within the Town.
MO-6.10 Pedestrian Crossings. Enhance the safety of pedestrian crossings in the Town.
MO-6.10a Intersection Review. Review and evaluate existing policy and determine whether additional measures such as raised crosswalks, additional lighting, enhanced signage, or other measures or technology are appropriate at the more commonly crossed intersections of Town.
MO-6.10b Traffic Calming Review. Review and evaluate existing policy and determine if additional physical modifications such as raised crosswalks, curb extensions, medians, or other traffic calming devices are appropriate at streets with relatively higher traffic patterns.
MO-6.10c Pedestrian Route to the Veterans Home. Review the pedestrian route between the Veterans Home property entry and downtown Yountville to determine if any enhancements such as sidewalks/walkways, higher visibility crosswalks, pedestrian warning signs at crosswalks, and traffic calming elements are needed to increase the safety for pedestrians.
MO-7.1 Bicycle Plan. Establish and maintain bicycle facilities that are consistent with the network depicted in the Town’s Bicycle Plan.
MO-7.1a Funding. Work with the NVTA to acquire funding to complete bicycle facilities.
MO-7.1b Bicycle Lanes and Routes. Consider installing complete street features such as signing and striping to accommodate travel by bicycle.
MO-7.2 Road Construction Projects. Public road construction projects shall incorporate facilities identified in the Bicycle Plan to the greatest extent feasible.
36 MO-7.3 Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking facilities such as bike racks, bike lockers, and secure bike corrals shall be provided at locations where there is a concentration of residents, visitors, students, or employees.
MO-7.4 Connections with Residential Areas. Provide pedestrian and bike connections which link residential areas with businesses and recreational facilities, including parks, schools, the US Post Office, Town Hall, Community Hall and the commercial core.
MO-7.4a Hopper Creek Pathway. Complete the Hopper Creek path system in the areas with gaps and, where possible, explore the potential for widening the path to improve multi-modal opportunities.
MO-7.5 Connections with Alleys. Encourage pedestrian/bike connections where none currently exist, including alleys.
MO-8.3d Bicycle Transport. Work with transit providers to ensure there are adequate facilities to transport bicycles.
MO-9.1 Student Safety. Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian safety for students travelling to and from school.
MO-9.1a Safe Routes to School Program. Develop a Safe Routes to School Program and strive to improve infrastructure for parents and students choosing to walk and bike to school by promoting school faculty and parent participation, applying for Safe Routes to School grants, identifying the issues associated with unsafe bicycle and pedestrian facilities between neighborhoods and schools, and executing plans to improve those facilities.
MO-13.1 Transportation Emissions. Encourage community members to walk, bicycle, carpool, vanpool, and take transit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
MO-13.1c Public Education. Educate residents and employees about the health and environmental benefits of walking and cycling and provide information in public places to assist in utilizing these modes of travel.
MO-13.3b Town Employee Commute. Provide Town employees with incentives to use alternatives to single occupant auto commuting, such as transit subsidies, bicycle facilities, ridesharing services, flexible schedules, and telecommuting when practical. Provide incentives to commute in electric vehicles, such as free EV charging
City of Napa
City of Napa General Plan (2022)
The policies in the Napa General Plan largely align with the NVTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans.
While both countywide plans and Napa’s General Plan recommend a low stress, connected active transportation network, utilizing Complete Streets strategies, improving safety, and bicycle parking in Napa, Napa’s Vision Zero policy is only included in the General Plan. Additionally, while the General Plan does mention developing a Safe Routes to School program in collaboration with the Napa Unified School District, the General Plan does not discuss education or encouragement tactics; these are, however, included in the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans.
37 Table 17: Napa General Plan Transportation Element Policies Number Policy
TE 1-1
Maintain a roadway network that serves not just automobile operations, but also multimodal movement and adjacent land uses. Develop multi-modal level of service (LOS) objectives and performance targets with differing priorities depending on road types.
TE 1-2 Foster a more connected system of streets, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities as new development and redevelopment is undertaken, or as opportunities are presented.
TE 1-3 Develop and maintain a low Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) connected bicycle network consistent with the adopted City of Napa Bicycle Plan.
TE 1-6 Support Complete Streets and planned roadway improvements through right-of-way dedication as new development and redevelopment projects are undertaken.
TE 2-1 Work towards safer streets to reduce and eventually eliminate fatal and severe injury collisions among vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists by adopting a Local Roadway Safety Plan and Vision Zero Plan.
TE 2-2 Evaluate methods and undertake transportation facility improvements to promote biking, walking, and safer street crossings. Establish a target date for buildout of currently planned active transportation network improvements.
TE 2-3 Apply traffic calming principles where appropriate with consideration of functional classification, emergency access, and vehicular traffic volumes to support livable and complete streets. Conduct an update of the City of Napa Traffic Calming Guidelines.
TE 2-4 As part of streetscape design, incorporate features that enhance safety for all users and establish effective mode transitions, where appropriate. Examples of these features include bus pullouts and shelters, street lighting, enhanced crossing features such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons, high-visibility crosswalk striping, curb extensions, and pedestrian refuge islands, and curbside management features such as pickup/dropoff locations for shared ride/transit network companies and spaces for delivery vehicles to park safely for short durations.
TE 2-5 Study and prepare designs for the Study Corridors to evaluate future improvement for all modes in coordination with existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transportation plans. Coordinate with other agencies (e.g., NVTA, Caltrans, County of Napa, etc.) as needed for study development.
TE 2-6 Establish and maintain a system of pedestrian facilities and crossing enhancements that are consistent with the Town’s Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan.
TE 3-1 Support strategies to further enhance the pedestrian and cyclist experience in Downtown Napa.
TE 3-2 Collaborate with the Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD), and public and nonprofit partners in creating and Implementing a Safe Routes to Schools plans and securing dedicated funding to provide safe and equitable access for students to local schools.
TE 3-3 Promote a connected pedestrian and bicycle network that provides safe and direct access between destinations, such as from existing residential areas, schools and Napa Valley College,
38 shopping, employment centers, and connections to regional trail systems, such as the Napa River Trail, the Vine Trail, and the Bay Trail.
TE 3-4 Promote increased pedestrian and bicycle travel citywide.
TE 3-5 Improve connections to existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities from existing neighborhoods.
TE 3-6 Follow the current, adopted City of Napa Bicycle Plan and work to implement the bicycle facilities TE 3-7 Implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements during proposed development review in accordance with the City of Napa Bicycle Plan and City of Napa Pedestrian Plan where feasible and appropriate.
TE 4-1 Encourage and educate residents and visitors to take alternative modes of transportation within the City Limits by providing transit stops that promote a fun, clean, safe, and accessible transit experience.
TE 10-3 Work with NVTA to promote sustainable transportation choices by supporting more efficient and accessible mass transit services to BART and SMART Train, the Vallejo Ferry, San Francisco, and Oakland, with easy bicycle service on all connections.
TE 10-4 Continue to support and implement the use of alternative transportation modes to reduce car trips, such as bikeshare, electric bikes, and electric scooters, by providing proper infrastructure such as designated parking areas.
City of Napa Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022)
The City of Napa’s LRSP identifies programs and policies to increase safety in Napa. Education and enforcement programs and policies are consistent with the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian plans, however, as mentioned above, Napa’s General Plan does not include specific education or enforcement related programs or policies.
Additionally, Napa’s LRSP is the first plan to mention emergency medical services (EMS) policies.
Table 18: City of Napa LRSP Programs and Policies
Theme Program or Policy
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for intersection safety laws regarding traffic signals, stop signs, and turning left or right.
Partner with Safe Routes to School to conduct bicycle and pedestrian safety programs in Napa’s schools.
Enforcement Install targeted enforcement at high-injury intersections to monitor right-of-way violations, speed limit laws and other violations that occur at intersections.
Continue to place a high priority on enforcement of motorist and pedestrian violations that most frequently cause injuries and fatalities among pedestrians.
Emergency
Medical
Services
Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collision sites. Ensure emergency routes are clear and well defined
39 City of American Canyon
City of American Canyon 2040 General Plan (Public Review Draft September 2024) The policies recommended by the American Canyon General Plan align with the goals of the NVTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans that preceded it. However, while other jurisdictional plans mention and include policies related to ADA accessibility and meeting required ADA standards, the American Canyon General Plan includes a “universal design” policy and “context sensitive design” policy. The Mobility Element’s policies and programs related to active transportation are in the table below.
Table 19: City of American Canyon General Plan Mobility Element Policies Number Description
Policies
MOB-1.1
Complete Streets. Maintain and update street standards that serve not just automobile operations, but also multimodal movement and adjacent land uses, including pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities, in a form that is compatible with and complementary to adjacent land uses, and promotes connectivity between uses and areas.
MOB-1.2 Complete Street Standards. Review current arterial, collector, and local street standards and update as necessary to conform to best practice classification standards and NACTO complete streets guidelines.
MOB-1.4 Development Review. Evaluate new development to ensure that the safety, comfort, and convenience of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users are given equal level of consideration to motor vehicle operators.
MOB-1.5 Sidewalks. Require sidewalks on all arterial and collector streets. Where feasible, separate sidewalks from streets on arterials and collectors with landscaping including a tree canopy to create shade.
MOB-1.6 Transportation Facility Construction and Modification. When constructing or modifying transportation facilities, strive to provide for the movement of vehicles, commercial trucks, alternative and low energy vehicles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians appropriate for the road classification and adjacent land use.
MOB-1.7 Promote Walking and Bicycling. Promote walking and bicycling for transportation, recreation, and improvement of public health.
MOB-1.9 SR 29 Mobility. Work with regional partners, including Caltrans, NVTA, and other agencies to explore a Complete Streets approach that will expand the travel capacity of SR 29.
MOB1.11Reduce the Need to Drive. Implement land use policies designed to create a pattern of activity that makes it easy to shop, play, visit friends, and conduct personal business without driving.
MOB1.12Neighborhood Context. Support safe, complete, and well-connected neighborhood street, bicycle, and pedestrian access and connections that balance circulation needs with the neighborhood context.
40 MOB1.17Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Through layout of land uses, improved alternate travel modes, and provision of more direct routes, strive to reduce the total vehicle miles traveled by city and non-residents traveling to American Canyon to work or shop.
MOB1.20Bicycle Plan Funding. Include funding for the City' s Bicycle Plan updates and bikeway improvements consistent with the Bicycle Plan in the City' s transportation financing program and TIF, recognizing the multi- modal travel needs of the City.
MOB1.21Address Mobility Needs. Recognize and meet the mobility needs of persons using wheelchairs and those with other mobility limitations.
MOB1.22Collaborate with the Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD), and public and nonprofit partners in creating and Implementing a Safe Routes to Schools plans and securing dedicated funding to provide safe and equitable access for students to local schools.
MOB1.23Pedestrian Connections to Employment Destinations. Encourage the development of a network of continuous walkways within new commercial, town center, public, and industrial uses to improve workers' ability to walk safely around, to, and from their workplaces. Where possible, route pedestrians to grade separated crossings over State Route 29.
MOB1.24Bicycle Facilities. Bicycle facilities shall be provided to complete a continuous bikeway system, consistent with state standards, as shown on the Bikeway Plan Map. In cases where existing right of way constraints limit development of Class II or Class IV facilities, Class Ill signage and demarcation may be permitted at the discretion of the City Engineer. Deviations from these standards and from the routing shown on the diagram shall be permitted with the approval of the City Engineer.
MOB1.25Street Trees. Ensure that street tree plans consider shade and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists and traffic calming benefits.
MOB1.26Universal Design. Provide pedestrian facilities that are accessible to persons with disabilities and ensure that roadway improvement projects address accessibility by using universal design concepts such as bus pullouts and shelters, street lighting, and curbside management features such as pickup/drop- off locations for shared ride/ transit network companies and spaces for delivery vehicles to park safely for short durations.
MOB-2.1 Vision Zero. Strive for the elimination of all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all.
MOB-2.2 Context Sensitive Design. Improve multimodal transportation safety by expanding the City’ s non- motorized transportation infrastructure using context sensitive design.
MOB-2.3 Bicycle Safety. Increase the safety of those traveling by bicycle by sweeping debris from and repairing bicycle paths and lanes.
MOB-2.4 Improved Bikeway Visibility. Use visual cues, such as brightly colored paint on bike lanes or a one-foot painted buffer strip, along bicycle routes to provide a visual signal to drivers to watch out for bicyclists and nurture a " share the lane" ethic, prioritizing bikeways with recent automobilebicycle collisions.
41 MOB-2.5 Speeds on Residential and Arterial Streets. Explore innovative ways to reduce vehicular speeds through residential neighborhoods to posted speed limits, such as implementing traffic calming strategies such as: enhanced cross walks, lighted crosswalks, reducing lane widths, and others).
MOB-2.6 Site Designs and Safety. Ensure, through the development review process, that development projects follow best design practices to reduce conflicts between multiple travel modes.
Programs
A Capital Improvement Program. Update the CIP annually to incorporate necessary circulation system improvements.
B Update Street Standards. Update the City’s street standards based on the complete streets guidelines published by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO).
C Active Transportation Plan. Prepare and update every five years an Active Transportation Plan to replace the Bicycle Master Plan and include pedestrian facilities. The Plan should include a full range of facilities for bicycle travel, including Class I bike/multiuse paths, Class II bike lanes, Class Ill bike routes, and Class IV separated bikeways, to provide a continuous system of bikeways throughout the city.
F Active Transportation Funding. Annually allocate TIF funds for the Active Transportation Plan updates and bikeway design and improvements consistent with the Active Transportation Plan implementation program.
G Bicycle Use by City Employees. Establish a program to encourage bicycle use among City employees.
H Bicycle Facility Development and Maintenance. Prepare and update every five years a bike facility development and maintenance program that includes the following provisions:
Signage consistent with according to Caltrans or City standards; Lighting where needed;
Bicycle paths and lanes on bridges and overpasses;
Bicycle- safe drainage grates;
Bikeways free of hazards such as uneven pavement or gravel; Merging or crossing signage where bike routes and paths make transitions into or across roadways;
Promoting classes on bicycle safety in the schools in coordination with the Napa Valley Unified School District; and
Sweeping debris from and repairing bicycle paths and lanes.
J Pedestrian Crosswalk Installation. Install clearly marked crosswalks at intersections near all commercial uses, as well as clearly marked pedestrian paths within parking areas. While midblock crossings are discouraged, if conditions warrant and are approved by City Engineer, crosswalks and signage indicating pedestrian activity should be installed at midblock entrances where existing commercial uses are adjacent to other high- intensity uses, such as parks and schools where necessary for safety. Where possible, pedestrians should be routed to grade separated crossings over State Route 29.
42 K Pedestrian Connections to Schools. Continue developing the existing network of walkways between schools and residential uses and encourage the development of new continuous walkways between schools and residential uses. Where possible, route pedestrians to grade separated crossings over State Route 29.
L Vision Zero. Prepare and update every five years a Vision Zero program and install safety countermeasures consistent with the results and recommendations of the Local Roadway Safeway Plan (LRSP).
City of American Canyon Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP; 2022) The City of American Canyon LRSP identifies recommended systemic countermeasures divided into three categories: Education, Enforcement, and Engineering. These countermeasures, described in the table below, are essentially programmatic efforts and/or policies and are consistent with other plan’s programs and policies.
Table 20: American Canyon LRSP Recommend Systemic Countermeasures Category Countermeasure
Education Pedestrian and bicycle education campaign (crossing at crosswalks, wearing highvisibility clothing at night, following the bicycle rules of the road, etc.) Safe driver education for all drivers
Safe driving campaign for students
Enforcement Speed enforcement and management
Engineering Install bike infrastructure
Add sidewalks/close sidewalk gaps
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements: Provide pedestrian countdown timers, updated push buttons, and leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections Flashing Yellow Arrows/Protected Left Turn signal heads at signalized intersections Evaluate installation of green bike conflict markings at intersections Evaluate adding bike boxes at intersections
Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan (2018)
Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan(2021)
NVTA Vision Zero Plan (2023)
SR 29 Comprehensive Multimodal
Corridor Plan (2020)
Advancing Mobility 2045 (2021)
Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2016)
Napa Countywide Bicycle Master
Plan (2019)
Napa Valley Community-Based
Transportation Plan (2020)
NVTA Travel Behavior Study (2020)
Napa County Safe Routes to School
Program
NVTA Accessible Transportation Needs Assessment
Appendix
Policy/Program Inventory: State and Regional Plans
(by category/theme)
Curb Ramps
Meet and Address Mobility Needs
ADA Compliance Tracking
Low Stress Facilities
Bay Area Best Practices
Recommendations
Pedestrian Facilities
Prioritize Trail Connections
Prioritize Safe Routes to Schools
Prioritize Safe Routes for Seniors
Prioritize Safe Routes to Transit
Prioritize Routes to Employment
Centers
Prioritize Low Stress Facilities / all ages
and abilities network
Prioritize Intersection Safety
Fill sidewalk gaps
Prioritize connected bicycle and
pedestrian networks
Bicycle Parking
Data collection and analysis
Counts program
Comprehensive Network Database
Implement Complete Streets Policies
Design Standards / Guidelines (Adhere
to existing and/or create/implement)
Traffic Calming
Pedestrian Facilities / Crossing
Improvements and enhancements
Construction Coordination
Site Plan/Development Review Checklist
(to ensure bike/ped safety and access)
Existing Bikeway Policy
US Bike Route Systems
Bicycle Friendly Community
Bicycle transportation training
Vision Zero Educational Campaign
Pedestrian safety outreach
Pedestrian and or Bicyclist Education
and Public Awareness Campaign
Roadway user education (for all users)
Bicycling safety and benefits outreach
campaign
Safe Driver Education
Bike Commuter Vouchers / Employee
Commute Programs
Encouragement Events (Bike to Work
day, commute challenges, etc.).
Prioritize Underserved communities
Pedestrian Safety Enforcement
Bicycle Safety Enforcement
Traffic/Speed Safety Enforcement
School Circulation Activity Monitoring
Equity Prioritize Underserved communities
Implementation Plan
Allocate Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Funding to bike and pedestrian projects
Grant Funding
Repair/maintain sidewalks
Repair/maintain crosswalks
Repair/maintain curb ramps
Repair/maintain bicycle facilities
Regional agency Coordination
Citywide reporting tool
Maintain vegetation/landscaping
interference with bicycle and pedestrian
facilities
Improve/maintain pedestrian facilities
around schools
SRTS Programming / Implementation
School Guard Crossing Training
Education and Encouragement
Engineering Walk Audits
School Pick-up and Drop-off
enforcement/circulation plan or policy
Evaluation/Surveys
Media Safety Campaign
EMS Safety Response
Reduce collisions for bicycles and
pedestrians
Dedicated Bicycle Planner
Advisory Committees
Parking Parking Plan
Local Agencies and Organizations
Bikeshare
Placemaking Wayfinding
Transit-related Amenities Pedestrian and Bicycle facilities Vision Zero Educational Campaign
Countywide Collision Data Database
Community Engagement and Outreach
Adopt Vision Zero Policy or goal
Develop Action Plan
Connected Bike and Pedestrian
Networks
State Plans Regional Plans
Access/ADA
Best Practices
Vision Zero
Data and Evaluation
Design/Engineering
Designation/Status Efforts
Education and Encouragement
and Community Engagement
and Outreach
Enforcement
Funding and Implementation
Maintenance
Safe Routes to School
Safety
Staff capacity
Partnerships
NVTA Vision Zero Plan (2023)
SR 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (2020) Advancing Mobility 2045 (2021) Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2016) Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019) Napa Valley Community-Based Transportation Plan (2020) NVTA Travel Behavior Study (2020) Napa County Safe Routes to School Program NVTA Accessible Transportation Needs Assessment Calistoga ATP Calistoga General Plan Calistoga Pedestrian Plan (Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2019)) Calistoga Bicycle Plan (Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019)) St. Helena General Plan St. Helena Pedestrian Plan (Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2019)) St. Helena Bicycle Plan (Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019)) Town of Yountville General Plan Town of Yountville Pedestrian Plan (Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2019)) Town of Yountville Bicycle Plan (Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019)) City of Napa General Plan City of Napa Bicycle Plan City of Napa Pedestrian Plan (Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2019)) City of Napa Bicycle Plan (Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019)) City of Napa Local Road Safety Plan City of American Canyon General Plan City of American Canyon Local Road Safety Plan City of American Canyon Bicycle Plan (Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019)) City of American Canyon Pedestrian Plan (Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2019)) Unincorporated County Pedestrian Plan (Napa Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2019)) Unincorporated Napa County Bicycle Plan (Napa Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (2019)) Appendix Policy/Program Inventory: Regional and Local Plans (by category/theme) Curb Ramps Meet and Address Mobility Needs ADA Compliance Tracking Low Stress Facilities Bay Area Best Practices Recommendations Pedestrian Facilities Prioritize Trail Connections Prioritize Safe Routes to Schools Prioritize Safe Routes for Seniors Prioritize Safe Routes to Transit Prioritize Routes to Employment Centers Prioritize Low Stress Facilities / all ages and abilities network Prioritize Intersection Safety Fill sidewalk gaps Prioritize connected bicycle and pedestrian networks Bicycle Parking Data collection and analysis Counts program Comprehensive Network Database Implement Complete Streets Policies Design Standards / Guidelines (Adhere to existing and/or create/implement) Traffic Calming Pedestrian Facilities / Crossing Improvements and enhancements Construction Coordination Site Plan/Development Review Checklist (to ensure bike/ped safety and access) Existing Bikeway Policy US Bike Route SystemsBicycle Friendly Community Bicycle transportation training Vision Zero Educational Campaign Pedestrian safety outreach Pedestrian and or Bicyclist Education and Public Awareness Campaign Roadway user education (for all users) Bicycling safety and benefits outreach campaign Safe Driver Education Bike Commuter Vouchers / Employee Commute Programs Encouragement Events (Bike to Work day, commute challenges, etc.). Prioritize Underserved communities Pedestrian Safety Enforcement Bicycle Safety Enforcement Traffic/Speed Safety Enforcement School Circulation Activity Monitoring Equity Prioritize Underserved communities
Implementation Plan Allocate Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Funding to bike and pedestrian projects Grant Funding Repair/maintain sidewalks Repair/maintain crosswalks Repair/maintain curb ramps Repair/maintain bicycle facilities Regional agency Coordination Citywide reporting tool Maintain vegetation/landscaping interference with bicycle and pedestrian facilities Improve/maintain pedestrian facilities around schools SRTS Programming / Implementation School Guard Crossing Training Education and Encouragement Engineering Walk Audits School Pick-up and Drop-off enforcement/circulation plan or policy Evaluation/Surveys Media Safety Campaign EMS Safety Response Reduce collisions for bicycles and pedestrians Dedicated Bicycle Planner Advisory Committees Parking Parking Plan
Local Agencies and Organizations Bikeshare
Placemaking Wayfinding
Transit-related Amenities Pedestrian and Bicycle facilities Vision Zero Educational Campaign Countywide Collision Data Database Community Engagement and Outreach Adopt Vision Zero Policy or goal Develop Action Plan Enforcement
Regional Plans Local Plans
Access/ADA
Best Practices
Connected Bike and
Pedestrian Networks
Data and Evaluation
Design/Engineering
Designation/Status Efforts
Education and
Encouragement and
Community Engagement and
Outreach
Vision Zero
Funding and Implementation
Maintenance
Safe Routes to School
Safety
Staff capacity
Partnerships
Appendix B
Community
Engagement
Summary
B-1
Table B.1: Workshop 1 Comments
Comment
Improve bike path from Thomas/California St. to downtown. So something different instead of sharp turns and poles at intersections on the wine trail from Thomas to Yountville. I know of 2 serious crashes! Improve road quality/smoothness everywhere so bikes don't have to swerve into traffic to avoid cracks and potholes Thank you so much. Looking forward to seeing this process progress! The broader coordination is fantastic! Love the lmola corridor wow
Fix 5 corners. Commuter train to Calistoga. Bike lanes with barriers on all main streets, Trancas, Jefferson, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Silverado Trail
I like to see bike "protected intersections" and conflict markings. I'd really like to see Silverado Trail have bike lanes, class II, or better yet a class I bike path. Silverado Trail between Lincoln and Hagen is really dangerous but doesn't have any reasonable alternative routes. Love the idea of turning Lincoln into one lane each way with a center turn lane and protected bikes lanes
The maps were useful to gain perspective about areas that are safe/less safe to travel. We are excited to see many people caring about similar issues around the valley. Hopefully, more traction can be gained around schools for bike and walking paths
Close downtown to walking only
Moving north/south by bicycle in relatively easy in the valley. The main barrier is moving east/west. Improve the movement off the vine trail east/west and between Silverado On project timeline board: re demand assessment. Also consider transportation routes between where people work, live, etc. Green conflict markings needed in Yountville where hwy 29 exits from Nard S. onto California.
We need a well connected active transportation network that people feel safe using. It needs to be maintained to keep it safe. Bike facilities should be protected or at least buffered if there is high stress on roadway
More bike paths! If you provide the bike infrastructure, it will take cars off road. Silverado Trl from Lincoln to Trancas is dangerous. Need separate bike lane!
Parking outside Napa with shuttles (weekends). Easy to rent bikes around town Please 1) more and better marked bike lanes 2) more sidewalks (or shelter) 3) safer walk/ride routes around schools
1) Provide bike parking in all downtown parking garages 2) Ebikes are a "game changer" and will drastically increase bike travel. Can we support? 3) Fee structure to ride vine trail. Bike rental companies are making $$ on transit rental. Change $$/day to fund bike investment I have seen these ideas/proposals many times. Nothing has improved. I have provided input and never hear back about tangible improvements
Cyclists are getting injured and dying. We need to do everything we can to value our community safer for them. We need a vulnerable user ordinance (yes, even if the consequences are just civil). We need rumble strips on the fog line on Silverado Trail (even if some cyclists complain. They will be safer). We need to have monthly sweeping of bike lanes (not sweeping debris into them but out of them). We need better bike lanes and narrower street lanes and most of all we need lower speed limits. Speed kills.
Bike lanes on highway 29
Thank you for soliciting our input. I loved hearing about some possible plans in the works. I appreciate how NVTA is trying to get people out of their cars. Please take extra care at looking at low-income neighborhoods so those residents have safe options.
B-2
Comment
This was great, please continue to engage the community throughout this process! Some info on what is already being planned so that we can add thoughts or build on ideas Is there a way to highlight on the maps which areas are already receiving, or are planned to receive attention/improvements? I just wanted to avoid placing stickers in areas already on the list to be updated.
Prioritize bike safety upgrades on Silverado Trail - Napa to St. Helena Great open house! I attended to advocate for pedestrian infrastructure in general and, more specifically, continuous sidewalk networks along busy streets within the city of Napa as well as pedestrian street lighting and handicap-accessible crosswalks. Thanks for listening! I already walk and bike for transportation - but I would do so a lot more with 1) better lighting, especially on bike paths (class 1s) and popular bike routes; 2) more separated class IV bike lanes on high speed/volume roads and 3) later bus service if it gets dark and/or rains We need more designated cross walks on 3rd St. and Patchett with the flashing lights. The people driving on 3rd street go way too fast and it is dangerous to try to cross the street if you're walking 1) street level lighting to make it safer to walk at night and see the bad sidewalk 2) repairing sidewalks 3) much better bicycle safety everywhere 4) make 1st St from City Hall to Oxbow a walking street Redesign the incoming traffic into the valley. Coordinate bus schedule to specific areas where clusters of people work, i.e. clusters of wineries, restaurants, etc. for all of the low-income people who have to drive into the valley. Approach large wineries to see if they could/would support tied stronger shifts so a bus schedule could work
1. Thank you so much for including an "all ages and abilities" perspective right from the start! 2. From a public health, equity and climate change perspective, please keep functional A.T. (as equal to, or greater than recreational A.T.) at the fore in this effort. 3. Go hard on A.T. connectivity and circulation in the new American Canyon developments
Excited for the future and actualization of the plans!
Valle Verde and Trancas needs lights so people can get access to the nature area at the end of Valle Verde.
Because we can't cross the street, we don't go ):
Well done! Thank you
Thank you all! Love and appreciate you guys.
1. Crossing Third Street at Franklin is extremely dangerous! Cars go at least 15 miles an hour over limit. 2.
Crossing by foot/car at Division and Riverside-blind in both directions heading east - needs stop sign on Riverside - three way stop 3. I have walked to Imola Park and ride from Food City neighborhood-very dangerous along Imola! Not lit, no sidewalks. 4. There was once a crosswalk at Spruce crossing Jefferson which the city eliminated!!! When I called to ask why, I was told that having a crosswalk there made the city more liable for pedestrians. Need high visibility crosswalks and rapid flashing beacons.
Please more blinking lights at crossways/paths. Pedestrians’ safety is a must!! Please sign me up for CAC safety council.
Please improve walking and biking safety on Silverado Trail between Trancas and Lincoln