St. Helena City Council
August 11, 2026

B-3
Table B.2: First Interactive Map Comments
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
I Wish Napa
The area between the 5-
way intersection at
Silverado Trail/Coombsville
Rd/Third St and the
Silverado Middle School is
lacking infrastructure for
walking and biking and is
need of significant safety
improvements.

38.295999 -122.259722 2 0
I Wish Napa
Need pedestrian crossing
improvements and traffic
calming here.

38.324193 -122.301189 1 0
I Wonder Napa
The trail behind Copia has
been washed out since
storms in 2006/07. Nearly
18 years...I wonder
whether this will ever get
fixed.

38.303821 -122.280343 1 0
I Love Yountville
I love the pathways that
wind through Yountville!
Thanks to the town for
opening up access to our
creeks to kids and families!

38.404139 -122.359865 2 0
I Wish Napa
Flashing light cross walk, at
Cabot and Marina drive,
and paint sidewalk red near
that crosswalk for safe
crossings

38.280771 -122.289279 0 0
I Wish Napa
Silverado Trail between
Hagen and Lincoln needs
wider shoulders.

38.31634 -122.273927 3 0
I Wish Napa
The city paved the middle
of Jefferson, but bikes use
the side parking lane where
they did not pave. WTF? I
guess I can just ride in the
middle of the road and piss
off all the drivers.

38.290812 -122.294397 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
I would like to see more
lighting, water refills/ a
bathroom. And safety
buttons like some
campuses have

38.525943 -122.498417 0 0

B-4
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
I Wish Napa
Need traffic calming all
along River Park Blvd.

Lane striping was voted on
last year via Ed Moore's
survey, but nothing has
materialized to-date. We
continually have high-speed
traffic especially during late
hours of the night.

Fisherman's Park at the end
of the street attracts illegal
behavior 24/7.

38.277934 -122.290378 1 0
I Wish Napa
County
I would love to see a better
street circulation plan in St
Helena to divert local traffic
to secondary roads on both
the east and west sides. I
would also like to see
Adams Street continued to
the trail.

38.470794 -122.486572 0 0
I Wish Calistoga
I wish there was a "Cyclists
on Road" flashing sign that
was automatically activated
when cyclists rode on
Petrified Forest Rd from the
intersection with 128 to the
intersection with Franz
Valley School Rd. This is a
common cycling route for
those doing the Franz
Valley Loop or riding to
Healdsburg/Santa Rosa.

38.579373 -122.597809 10 1
I Wish Calistoga I wish the pavement was in
better shape for cyclists. 38.589302 -122.590857 5 0
I Wish Napa
County
I wish it was easier for
cyclists to cross from Picket
Rd. onto 29 to head South
or North.

38.580987 -122.558718 2 1
I Wish Napa
County
I wish it was safer to go
from Bale Lane to Silverado
Trail to Crystal Springs
Road. Crystal Springs Road
is popular with cyclists and
Bale is a good way to get to
the Vine Trail

38.554571 -122.500624 2 0

B-5
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
I Wish Napa
I wish government offices
would install showers, as it
might encourage county
workers to bike to work. No
one wants to bike and show
up sweaty, then have to put
on work clothes. (I no
longer work for the county,
but this was the main
reason I didn’t bike to work,
ever)

38.296134 -122.285385 0 0
I Wish American
Canyon
I would love some type of
safer way for our kids to
cross the intersection.

38.164475 -122.252769 5 0
I Wish Napa
I wish there was a bike trail
(not touching the roadway)
along Trancas. I ride my
bike from my home west of
Hwy 29 to Bel Aire Plaza,
but I walk it along Trancas
and Bel Aire is as far east as
I will go.. I once rode to
Safeway and felt very
unsafe. I will not ride along
Trancas bc I fear being hit
by a car at any moment.

38.321996 -122.304096 1 0
I Wish Napa
I wish the bike trail going
from Redwood/29 toward
Downtown were less
isolated. I would love to
have my kid ride a bike to
school at Mayacamas, but
the trail has some very
isolated areas which feel
unsafe and I’m concerned
about my kid becoming a
victim of a robbery or sex
crime. As an adult female I
feel unsafe through some
areas, even on a bike. I
won’t let my kid ride
through there even with a
buddy.

38.320448 -122.304611 0 0
I Love Napa
I love that northwest Napa
is so bike friendly! I escort
my child to Northwood

38.323882 -122.314224 0 0

B-6
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
Elementary School daily on
bike, and I can bike to Bel
Aire Plaza for errands. I’ve
also tended the “Bike to
School Day” table the last
two years. I love seeing all
the kids show up on their
bikes/scooters/skates/feet.

I would love to find ways to
encourage human power
every day instead of only
once a year. Too much
traffic and too much carbon
footprint coming from cars
that drive less than two
miles to school.

I Wish Yountville
Need green bike path logo
on Yount Street and on
road by underpass en route
to south bound bike path so
that bikes can safely access
the path while avoiding
oncoming traffic coming
from vets’ home and from
cars turning off of Solano

38.397207 -122.358856 1 0
I Wish Yountville
Please add crosswalk
functionality to this light by
Ramp’d Kitchen. There is
already a streetlight here
but no crosswalk light for
bikes to use

38.40548 -122.368512 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
Would like green bike
crosswalk so that cyclists
can cross Highway 29 to
enter onto Yount Mill Road

38.422226 -122.389884 2 0
I Wish Napa
County
Would like green bike
crosswalk to allow cyclists
to cross safely off of
Yountville Cross Road onto
Finnel

38.413753 -122.356839 2 0
I Wish Napa
County
Would like green bike
crosswalk so that cyclists
can safely cross highway 29
here

38.427437 -122.340574 2 0
I Wish Napa
County
Need green bike crosswalk
at this T junction to safely

38.346638 -122.328215 1 0

B-7
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
cross Solano, enter onto
Orchard
I Wish Napa
County
Paint green bike crosswalk
stripes across Oakville
Crossroad T junction b/c
cars edge up through the
intersection and cut off bike
traffic, can be very scary to
ride in front of Oakville
Grocery. Ideally also paint
green stripes in front of the
Oakville Grocery entrance
and exit as well

38.436716 -122.401772 2 0
I Wish St Helena
Create a bike route painted
with green bike logo and
crosswalks from the police
department parking lot
north bound through St
Helena to the entrance of
the bike path

38.509221 -122.454901 3 0
I Wish Napa
County
Add green bike crosswalks
for the entirety of the bike
path (Napa to Calistoga)
when it crosses
intersections -- cars pull too
far forward and can be
dangerous b/c many people
are not aware that it is legal
for bikes to be on the road,
nor do they realize that the
road is a part of the bike
path

38.553267 -122.524252 2 1
I Wish Napa
County
Can you change the new
crosswalk light to a regular
red/green light? Cars seem
confused and all come to a
stop while I wait for the
crosswalk light to come on,
and it seems to anger
drivers if I don't go when
they try to waive me
through (I don't know
where exact location of the
new light is on this map)

38.54783 -122.511635 1 0
I Wish Calistoga Picture of sign 38.579373 -122.597809 2 0

B-8
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
I Wish Calistoga
That would be amazing. It is
one of the best cycling
routes in Calistoga and that
stretch feels very
dangerous.

38.579373 -122.597809 3 0
I Wish Calistoga
Please make this happen
for the safety of cyclists and
vehicles alike.

38.579373 -122.597809 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
I wish this road were safer
for students to ride bike
and walk. There are no
sidewalks or bike lanes.

38.279007 -122.26254 1 0
I Wish Napa
County
This portion of Silverado is
a challenge for cyclists.

Widen the road and
provide a separate lane for
cyclists and pedestrians.

38.31634 -122.273927 0 0
I Wonder Napa
Let's fix this trail and the
one along the Napa River
from Trancas to Lincoln. It's
all full of holes and cracks.

38.303821 -122.280343 0 0
I Wonder Napa
Very difficult area for
cyclists and pedestrians.

Widen the road, add
crosswalks

38.28864 -122.275064 1 0
I Wish Napa
This road is too narrow for
cyclists with no apron. Pick
ups at school causes cars to
park on the roadside
blocking any potential
travel lanes for bikes.

38.297953 -122.273605 1 0
I Wish Napa
County
Only 1/2 of the road has
smooth pavement; the east
side is bumpy and full of
potholes. Please pave this
portion of the road.

38.289128 -122.241611 1 0
I Wish Napa
One of the slowest
intersections in Napa. Cars
are baked up and prevent
right turns for cyclists onto
S. Coombs. Change light
timing and create
a right turn option

38.281768 -122.293582 0 0

B-9
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
I Wish Napa Improve bumpy pavement
here. 38.281785 -122.300963 1 0
I Wish Napa
County
River trail is full or bumps
and cracks. It needs to be
repaved through Kennedy
Park.

38.272352 -122.280149 2 0
I Wish Napa
This is a tough transition
from the Vine Trail through
the intersection. Provide
better signage and timing
of lights for cycles to cross.

38.32107 -122.310287 1 0
I Wish Napa
County
This crossing is always full
of gravel. More regular
sweeping is needed.

38.352595 -122.331219 0 0
I Wish Napa
This is the worst
intersection in Napa. There
are potholes and the need
for change. Traffic on
Silverado is often backed up
for 2 light changes.

38.299351 -122.276051 0 0
I Wish Napa This is a bumpy road and
needs to be repaved. 38.292513 -122.276716 0 0
I Wonder Napa
Cars often try to turn left
here across lanes of busy
Soscol and the wait time
during afternoon rush can
be 10 -15 minutes. Suggest
no left turn here.

38.292412 -122.277864 2 0
I Wish Napa
There are 3 sets of railroad
tracks here that are in
disrepair. The Wine Train is
obligated to repair the road
for their crossings. The
tracks and the poor
pavement is a danger to
cyclists.

38.296585 -122.280874 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
This bridge and street are
often full of glass, liter and
gravel. There should be
more street sweeping here.

38.3249 -122.283829 1 0
I Wish Napa
County
This trail here and through
the development needs
more regular sweeping of
leaves and debris.

38.25611 -122.306253 1 0

B-10
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
I Wish Napa
County
Cyclists use the stretch of
Hwy 221 from Streblow to
Kaiser to connect to the
cycle trail. It's full of gravel
and debris. Please sweep
more often.

38.265933 -122.271287 1 0
I Love Yountville I really enjoy the paved bike
trails! 38.395492 -122.360916 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
That short stretch is one of
the scariest parts of my
rides. Bikes, cars, and large
trucks share a narrow road.

38.579373 -122.597809 0 0
I Wish American
Canyon
Better identify bike path
along Newell Drive (SB
& NB).

38.174242 -122.242856 1 0
I Wish St Helena
I want to get from the S end
of the new Calistoga bike
trail to the st Helena town
center from the north.
there is only ONE BLOCK
that forces bikes to cross
hwy 29 twice, to get from
Crinella to Fulton. You can
go down by the tracks,
rocky narrow path, not for
kids I see bikes of all kinds
stuck crossing main St. at
crinella. provide one last
tiny piece of the trail on the
east side, please.

38.503848 -122.475586 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
I wish there was a blinking
light that cyclists could
activate to cross over to
Myrtledale Rd when coming
from Bennett Ln and viceversa. The cars on Tubbs Ln
go very fast and it's
challenging to safely cross.

Bennett Ln is frequented by
many tourists on bikes.

38.596243 -122.601061 3 0
I Wish Napa
County
Tubbs Lane crossing: not
only cyclists - a LOT of
pedestrians cross from
Myrtledale to Bennett Lane

38.596243 -122.601061 0 0

B-11
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
I Wonder Napa
County
Why is our beautiful scenic
Highway 29 now an eyesore
with the overkill of signage
warning bikers and others
about common sense road
awareness that any
functioning bike rider
already knows. A yield sign
warning you that a yield
sign is approaching. Really?
Same goes for stop signs,
etc. and none of the
protective barriers along
the road are consistent in
look or materials The whole
thing is confusing and a
mess. I'm all for the bike
path but the blight is a
disappointment and
unnecessary.

38.549508 -122.531548 2 0
I Wish American
Canyon
Sidewalk connectivity
throughout American
Canyon (but especially
along SR 29) would greatly
improve the city’s
walkability.

38.171172 -122.253456 2 0
I Wish Napa
I wish we had a pedestrian
zone downtown--no cars
between Main and School
and Third and Pearl.

38.297572 -122.28676 1 0
I Wish Napa
I wish there was a bike
safer way to get from my
house off South Minahen to
Fuller Park.

38.285439 -122.294057 0 0
I Wonder Napa
I wonder how we can make
Jefferson Street better for
walking and biking
throughout the whole
corridor. It's a key part of
the most direct route to a
lot of destinations - yet it's
one of the biggest barriers
to walking or biking places
because it is
unsafe/uncomfortable. Can
we make this a corridor

38.309398 -122.296062 1 0

B-12
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
that works for more
people? Won't more foot
traffic and bike riders help
the businesses along the
corridor? Can we make it
an enjoyable place to travel
actively?
I Love Napa
I love the SR 29
undercrossing! I used to
never bike to this part of
the west side of Napa
because the 1st St
overpass/big intersection
with highway on/off ramps
and Freeway Drive was too
stressful and there was no
space for bikes. This
separated path has made
biking possible for me and
now I bike to meetings at
brewed. and other
destinations on the west
side. Love the separation
and the mural. It would be
perfect if it had lighting.

38.300759 -122.304268 2 0
I Wish Napa
I wish California Boulevard
had more separation for
bicycles, either vertical or
horizontal (vertical would
be better). Cars pass
bicyclists very close and at
high speeds (speed limit is
30-35 but cars often go
faster). Especially if gravel
in bike lanes forces
bicyclists closer to moving
traffic. It's a nice tree-lined
street but stressful to bike
on. I also see people
park/stop cars in bike lanes
often.

38.308904 -122.302826 0 0
I Wish Napa
I wish Bel Aire Plaza was
bikefriendlier. The parking
lot is stressful when you're
just walking from your car
to the store - biking
through it and the

38.32266 -122.307409 1 0

B-13
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
intersection entrance at
Trancas and California is
extremely busy and
stressful.

I Wonder Napa
I wonder if we can give
bicyclists more space in the
bike lanes on 3rd Street.

They are narrow bike lanes,
and the shared parking/bike
lane set-up leaves you right
in the door zone.

38.295556 -122.288939 0 0
I Love Napa
I love Seminary Street as
my north/south alternative
to Jefferson. It's a pleasant
street to bike on.

38.299465 -122.290629 1 0
I Wonder Napa
Seminary is a great
north/south alternative for
Jefferson in central Napa;
however, the many stop
signs are cumbersome on a
bike and trying to cross
1st/2nd/3rd/Oak Street
where cross-traffic is
uncontrolled can be very
difficult. I wonder if there's
a way to improve getting
across the streets for bikes
and pedestrians (the RRFBs
at 3rd have helped for
walking so far).

38.29637 -122.2912 1 0
I Wonder Napa
I wonder how West Lincoln
Avenue can be made to be
more bicycle and
pedestrian friendly. Cars go
fast and there is little to no
bike and pedestrian
infrastructure. Would also
require addressing the
overpass and navigating
highway on/off ramps.

38.306216 -122.307916 1 0
I Wish Napa
I wish we could complete
the sidewalks on California
Blvd in this area.

38.301662 -122.300912 1 0
I Wish Napa
I wish the Vine Trail had
lighting, at least in the
urban centers it goes

38.311316 -122.292277 1 0

B-14
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
through. Many people rely
on it for transportation
during dark hours
(especially in the winter)
but it's so dark.

I Love Napa
I love that with the SR 29
undercrossing and the
future protected bike lanes
on Browns Valley Road, I
will be able to bike to
Westwood Hills Park.

38.302961 -122.319271 1 0
I Wonder St Helena
Walking to any destinations
south of Grayson Avenue to
the city limits is difficult and
unsafe due to lack of
pedestrian facilities. There's
housing, hotels, a gym,
pediatrician and
orthodontist (near the high
school no less), and more,
all within walking distance
of downtown. Crossing 29
is super unsafe (you have to
run across gaps of traffic)
and there are no sidewalks.

I have seen people walking
with strollers from hotels to
downtown on the side of
the highway where there
are no sidewalks.

38.495951 -122.458128 0 0
I Wonder St Helena
Backroads provide valuable
alternative routes to
walking/biking along SR 29,
especially for youth heading
to schools. Can we make
them friendlier to young
bicyclists? Roads like Valley
View Street get very busy
during school arrival hours,
and with bike facilities,
most people feel unsafe
sharing the road.

38.495181 -122.472015 0 0
I Wonder St Helena
A lot of people walk and
bike on Crane and Sulphur
Springs, both recreationally
and for transportation. Is

38.48888 -122.462514 0 0

B-15
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
there a way to make it safer
for these folks? There are
no bike or pedestrian
facilities, so people are in
the road/on the dirt
shoulders.

I Wish St Helena
I wish this bridge on Pope
Street had better bike
facilities - the sight lines
aren't great and it's a busy
street.

38.504946 -122.463769 0 0
I Wonder St Helena
Hunt Ave is a pretty
significant east/west
connector for the east side
of town but has no bike
facilities and it's easy for
drivers to speed (few traffic
controls, no trafficcalming). Can it be made
safer for bicyclists,
especially students biking
to schools on the west side
of town?

38.507344 -122.46628 0 0
I Wish St Helena
I wish there were bike
facilities on Madrona. This
is a big speeding corridor
and sharing the road can be
stressful.

38.503431 -122.475822 0 0
I Wonder St Helena
Throughout the city - I
wonder if pedestrian
walkways can be created to
improve limited
connectivity created by
many dead-end/cul-de-sac
streets or big blocks (like
Grayson/Sulphur
Springs/Crane). New streets
would be impossible and
not necessarily needed, but
pedestrian cut-throughs
can make it easier to walk
and bike.

38.50261 -122.474384 0 0
I Wonder Napa
I don't dare ride my trike
along Jefferson Street. Due
to the many potholes
motorist try to avoid them

38.309398 -122.296062 0 0

B-16
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
and drive close to the
parked cars leaving no
room for a bicyclist let
alone a 3-wheel trike. Do
have to wait until someone
is seriously injured before
Jefferson Street is repaired?
I Wish Napa
The bike lane (north side)
along Imola from S. Coombs
to Hwy 29 could be safer
and more attractive to
pedestrians if it was
broadened and made more
visible to traffic. There are
stretches of the current
bike lane that seem too
close to traffic and flood
when it rains.

38.281999 -122.291699 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
I wish the bike trail
alongside this frontage road
could be broadened and
improved for safety. Traffic
passes close to pedestrians.

Some cars move to the
other lane to avoid walkers.
and Pedestrians will walk in
the street from overgrowth
or to let others pass.

38.268275 -122.299204 1 0
I Wish Napa
We need to have sidewalks
on Browns Valley Rd
leading to the elementary
school

38.306928 -122.340467 2 0
I Wish Napa
County
It would be great to have
the Vine Trail connect to
the new trail near Costco.

It looks like an easy
addition.

38.259708 -122.281111 1 0
I Wish Napa
It would be great to
improve this dirt path to
the Vine Trail, so you don't
have to cross Imola and
ride the streets to the
access near In-Shape. When
you bike ride from the west
side of Imola to the Vine
Trail, you head east and

38.280725 -122.278456 2 0

B-17
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
cross the bridge on the
south side of the street.

But then you have to cross
Imola at the light, ride
down Gasser Dr, cross
Gasser at the light, then
ride down Hartle to get to
the Vine Trail access road.

It would be much safer the
way I propose.

I Wish Napa
Install a speed bump in the
circle here at the end of the
street to stop the side show
burnouts late at night. I live
near here and hear cars
screeching doing burnouts
and circles every few
nights. In the summer, it
can be two or three a night.

After doing their burnout,
they race down River Park
Blvd. A simple speed bump
at the circle would stop
this.

38.277739 -122.282729 0 0
I Love Napa
I love that someone is now
regularly cleaning the bike
path over the bridge. It
makes it so much better.

38.281446 -122.284656 0 0
I Wish Napa Sidewalk needed 38.314269 -122.340531 0 0
I Wish Napa Sidewalk needed 38.311777 -122.340467 0 0
I Wish Napa Sidewalk needed 38.309235 -122.340961 0 0
I Wish Napa Sidewalk needed 38.305968 -122.339845 1 0
I Wish Napa Sidewalk needed 38.307383 -122.340381 0 0
I Wish Napa Sidewalk needed 38.304655 -122.33845 0 0
I Wish Napa Sidewalk needed 38.30479 -122.337098 0 0
I Wish Napa Sidewalk needed 38.305358 -122.332109 1 0
I Wish Napa
Sidewalk needed (and NOT
included in current
project!)

38.30376 -122.322266 0 0
I Wish Napa
Sidewalk needed (and NOT
included in current
project!)

38.302878 -122.318618 0 0

B-18
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
I Wish Napa Direct access from road to
bike path needed! 38.299997 -122.30574 1 0
I Wish Napa Bike lane needed! 38.299917 -122.303179 0 0 I Wish Napa Bike lanes needed from
California to Jefferson! 38.295934 -122.295883 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
Sidewalks AND bike lanes
needed!! 38.316794 -122.331946 1 0
I Wish Napa
A safe way is needed for
bicyclists to cross from
westbound Redwood to
southbound Westview on a
blind and hilly curve!

38.314972 -122.331997 0 0
I Wish Napa
I would like a paved bike
and pedestrian path
between Forest and Camilla
on what is already a public
right-of-way!

38.312762 -122.337109 0 0
I Wish Napa
I would like Regal Drive
extended from
Westminster Court to
Camilla Drive, including
sidewalks and bike lanes (or
at least a paved bike and
pedestrian path created)!

38.312112 -122.337302 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
This entire section of
Buhman desperately needs
bike lanes and either
sidewalks or an unpaved
shoulder for pedestrians!!

38.291343 -122.343034 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
It would be nice if this bike
and pedestrian path were
wider and paved!

38.24647 -122.281992 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
These bike lanes are too
narrow and overgrown with
tall weeds!

38.231573 -122.260336 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
These tiny shoulders need
to be widened into actual
bike lanes!

38.221284 -122.262238 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
Bike lanes and sidewalks
are needed here! 38.209879 -122.263437 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
The asphalt is too low
where it meets the
concrete overcrossing!

38.202532 -122.261031 0 0

B-19
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
I Wish Napa
County
A way to walk and ride a
bike across the river
between Milton Road and
Green Island Road would be
very nice!

38.208438 -122.306752 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
There is currently no way to
travel by bicycle from Napa
to American Canyon
without riding on the
shoulder of a highway! A
connection here would
create that way!

38.259708 -122.281111 0 0
I Wish Napa
There is no easy way to ride
a bike thru Napa Riverfront
Green, even though it is
part of the Vine Trail. I
suggest removing a section
of fence at this location and
paving a connection
between the sidewalk and
the Vine Trail.

38.296917 -122.281246 0 0
I Wish Napa
This intersection lacks a
crosswalk. Also, when
crossing Solano from the
Vine Trail the trees and
bushes to the south block
your vision of approaching
traffic, as well as their
vision of you!

38.34377 -122.327053 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
This location needs a
separate bike and
pedestrian bridge. The bike
lanes on Solano suddenly
disappear on one side of
the current bridge, then
reappear on the other side!
The Vine Trail uses a
narrow portion of this
bridge that is only half as
wide as the trail normally
is!

38.364966 -122.338152 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
The "paint" on these stripes
is so thick that they act like
speed bumps, making riding
a bike over all 25 of them
difficult!

38.366686 -122.339024 0 0

B-20
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
I Wish Napa
County
This spot on the Vine Trail,
like many, many, others,
needs repaving. Before
repaving though, it needs
to have all of the high spots
that have resulted from the
roots of thousands of trees
immediately next to the
trail ground down!

38.376795 -122.34441 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
All of the trees on the east
side of these two bridges,
along with those
immediately north and
south of these bridges,
need to either be removed
or trimmed up at least 8
feet! Visibility is poor here
and the bridges are
narrower than the Vine
Trail and bicycles must
make 4 turns to pass thru
here!

38.382589 -122.348055 0 0
I Wish Napa
County
Here, as at many other
crossings, are steel posts
placed in the middle of the
trail. I know that they are
here to try to prevent cars
from driving onto the trail.

These posts are very
dangerous, because riders
must focus on not catching
their handlebars (or
mirrors) on these posts and
crashing, when the riders
should be focused on not
getting run over by-passing
cars!

38.385409 -122.349731 0 0
I Wish Napa Sidewalk needed 38.305286 -122.338597 1 0
I Wish Napa Sidewalk needed 38.3054 -122.337396 1 0
I Wish Napa
Crosswalk with RRFBs
needed here for bicyclists
and pedestrians who are
using the freeway
undercrossing!

38.302596 -122.301081 1 0

B-21
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
I Wish Napa This bike path is in serious
need of repaving! 38.301407 -122.30389 0 0
I Wish Napa
I would like a bridge here
for bicyclists and
pedestrians (and possibly
emergency vehicles)
connecting the two parts of
Linda Vista Avenue! This
would also allow users from
Brown's Valley to access
Lincoln Avenue into the
middle of the city without
having to deal with the 1st
Street overpass!

38.305861 -122.315254 0 0
I Wish Calistoga
Foothill Boulevard is
identified as a Safe Route to
School, and many children
cross regularly by foot to
get to school. Sadly, many
vehicles speed 10-15 miles
above the speed limit
making it very unsafe for
any pedestrians who live on
the hillside of the street
who don’t have access to a
motor vehicle. I believe
implementation of traffic
calming measures such as
optical speed bars or
lowering the speed limit
would help improve safety
here.

38.578266 -122.589226 0 0
I Wish Calistoga
We need a flashing bike
sign or cyclist warning
system here to let people
know a bike is on the road.

It’s too dangerous biking
here currently

38.579482 -122.598882 0 0
I Wish Napa
Parents drop kids off
waiting in the bike lane
here. Then they make U
turns in school traffic. This
is incredibly dangerous for
cyclists.

38.296183 -122.263294 0 0
I Love Napa Agree its great! 38.300759 -122.304268 0 0

B-22
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
I Wish Calistoga
I wish all of Washington St
was paved. It's NOT safe for
bike riders trying to avoid
potholes and not get hit by
a passing car.

38.579677 -122.581967 0 0
I Wish Calistoga
This intersection needs
safety work for bicyclists
and pedestrians. Drivers are
trying to make a left out of
CalMart onto Fair Way or
don't see people in the
crosswalk on Lincoln.

38.580247 -122.578318 0 0
I Wish Calistoga
I wish Fair Way was paved
from Lincoln Ave to Lake St.

It's very dangerous on bike
trying to avoid the potholes
and not get hit by passing
cars. I'd ride my bike more
to the Vine trail if Fair Way
was paved.

38.580751 -122.579203 0 0
I Wish Calistoga 3rd St needs major paving.

It's not safe for bikes! 38.580653 -122.581423 0 0
I Wish Calistoga
I wish there was a safe
walking path or sidewalk
that made it safer to walk
along Grant Street.

38.586627 -122.584956 0 0
I Wish Calistoga
As someone whose child
regularly bikes to school, I
often worry about the
safety of cycling on
Washington St. especially
during high traffic times like
morning drop off and after
school lets out. I wish there
were a designated bike lane
to encourage more
students to bike to school
safely.

38.580098 -122.582499 0 0
I Wish Calistoga
If the area formally
occupied by a golf course
was opened (the chain link
fences removed) and was
redesigned to contain
pathways and bikeways and
recreational destinations
we wouldn't have to

38.586627 -122.584956 0 0

B-23
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
navigate narrow and
hazardous Grant Street.

I Wonder Calistoga
I wonder if the food cart
person could move to a
safer spot. They are on the
sidewalk, Calmart side of
Lincoln and Fair Way. They
create a blind spot for
drivers on Fair Way. It
makes it difficult to see
pedestrians starting to
cross the street. Shouldn't
the same 20ft law apply to
food carts as it does to
parked cars?

38.580211 -122.578324 0 0
I Love Napa
I love that the development
of small businesses here
has made it a walkable and
bikeable destination for my
family

38.286871 -122.295063 0 0
I Wish Napa
I wish this stretch of
sidewalk along California
was wider and better kept
up for cyclists and walkers.

38.2961 -122.300298 0 0
I Wish Napa
I wish there was a wellkept, protected path for my
tween children to take from
this part of town to main st
and the bike path east of
the river. Current options
include lots of traffic on 3rd
St or lots of stop signs
without careful drivers in
Abajo.

38.292867 -122.2962 0 0
I Wish Napa
I wish that Shurtleff were
safer for kids to use to get
to/from school. There are
no sidewalks along parts of
the road between Imola
and Wyatt, and cars often
go way too fast, making it
unsafe for kids who want to
bike.

38.281448 -122.263541 0 0
I Wish Napa
This is the most dangerous,
scary intersection in Napa,
trying to cross from Laurel

38.301422 -122.314224 1 0

B-24
Type Jurisdiction Comment Latitude Longitude Up Votes Down Votes
to west bound Browns
Valley Road is treacherous
to say the least
Vehicles routinely travel
well in excess of posted
speed limit
Some vehicles SLAM on
brakes to allow cyclist
waiting for their turn to
"Go"-massively dangerous
to all.

I Wish American
Canyon
I wish this stop sign had
better visibility so cars
would not run the stop
sign. It’s difficult to see the
other vehicles until you’re
very close to the
intersection.

38.180615 -122.257439 0 0
I Wish American
Canyon
I would love to see Main
Street connected along the
east side of hwy 29 and for
it to be bike/pedestrian
friendly.

38.175181 -122.252544 0 0
I Wish Yountville
I'd love to see a stop sign
instead of a yield here. I
often see west bound
vehicles speed through to
get on 29 without looking. I
worry about cyclists on the
trail and pedestrians
traveling to the veteran's
home.

38.397728 -122.358781 0 0

B-25
Table B.3: Second Interactive Map Comments: Proposed Bicycle Network Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Wish
I wish (non-bus vehicle)
stopping were prohibited on
HWY29 near the Oakville
Grocery. Cyclists and ecyclists slalom weave around
stopped vehicles "popping" in
and out of visibility to passing
cars. Additionally, vehicles
exiting Oakville Grocery
experience decreased
visibility. Please consider
applying no-stopping to
delivery vehicles too.
7856 Saint Helena
Highway, Napa,
California 94562,
United States
0 0
Walking Wish
I wish for a Leading
Pedestrian Interval for the
crosswalk across Redwood.

As I try to walk or cycle cross
from the SE (near Valero) to
the NE (adjacent to RPR
parking), cars cut in front of
me (turning right from Solano
onto Redwood) about 20% of
the time. I experience nearmiss collisions with cars
about once per month. The
drivers seem angrier at this
intersection since the
implementation of no right
on red.
2000 Redwood
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Driving Wonder
I wonder how to improve
turning left onto Soscol Ferry
Road from Devlin Road
during the pm weekday
commute hours. Cars, the
11N Vine bus and cyclists
wait for a safe opening since
westbound Soscol Ferry Road
vehicles don't have to stop.
110 Devlin Road,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0

B-26
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Wish
Deer Park Road east of
Silverado Trail:
• Create more shoulder
where possible, perhaps by
reducing lane width even by
1/2 foot. This would help to
reduce speeding as well.
• Include painted buffers on
right leaning curves to guide
vehicles to stay in their lanes
rather than hugging the curve
where visibility is low and a
slower moving bicyclist may
be (see curve buffer pic for
example).
• Include bike passing lanes
or pullouts on uphill’s where
possible (see pic of Mt.

Diablo example).
• Add ""Bikes have full use of
lane” signage.
• Place ""Watch Your Speed""
message with three
thermoplastic bars preceding
the intersection of Sunnyside
Rd. (a high crash history and
a school zone), in the
eastbound land preceding
the Sanitarium Rd.
intersection (high crash
history), and in the
southbound lane preceding
the Mund Rd. intersection
(high crash history). We are
requesting the same design
as that used by the County on
Redwood Rd. (see pic
attached).
• Add conflict markings at the
intersection of Silverado Trail.
301 Deer Park Road,
Deer Park, California
94574, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Old Sonoma Road in the
County: Install Class IIs with
buffers and rumble strips
3230 Old Sonoma
Road, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish Hwy 12: Install Class IIs with
buffers and rumble strips
3176 Carneros
Highway, Napa,
0 0

B-27
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes California 94559,
United States
Bicycling Wish
Silverado Trail from Deer Park
in the north to the Napa City
limits in the south, upgrade
to Class Is with buffers.
6171 Silverado Trail,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Yount Mill Road: This
functions as an advisory road,
with so many walkers and
bikers on it and low traffic
volumes. Why not stripe it
that way?
1820 Yount Mill
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish Hardman Ave: Increase
shoulder width.
1120 Hardman
Avenue, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Install Class IIs on Atlas Peak
Road from Monticello to
Westgate Dr.
1569 Atlas Peak
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Would like to clarify – if
recommending a Class IV on
SR 29 from the roundabouts
down to S Kelly Road, is Class
IV going to be on both sides?
Right now, when you zoom
in, it shows it on the
southbound side only.

Napa-Vallejo
Highway, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish Jameson Canyon: Show as
proposed Class I path.

Jameson Canyon
Road, Napa,
California 94503,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
North Kelly Road at SR 29 just
has a gap even though this is
a really dangerous location.

Needs to be addressed.
1988 North Kelly
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Agree with existing comment
that since Vine Trail is no
longer planning to go down
Devlin, that Devlin existing
Class IIs need upgrade
231 Devlin Road,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Make a bidirectional Class IV
from the middle school to
2nd Ave on the south side of
the road to increase safety
2049 Coombsville
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0

B-28
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes for youth and parents biking
to Stone Bridge.

Bicycling Wish
From Napa City Limits to
Orchard, make a standard
Class II, and add buffers
where feasible. Lane widths
are over 12 feet in some
areas. This is currently VERY
substandard in parts.
3073 Dry Creek
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Sanitarium Rd: Create more
shoulder where possible,
perhaps by reducing lane
width even by 1/2 foot. This
would help to reduce
speeding as well.

Include painted buffers on
right leaning curves to guide
vehicles to stay in their lanes
rather than hugging the curve
where visibility is low and a
slower moving bicyclist may
be.

Include bike passing lanes on
uphill’s where possible.

Add "Bikes have full use of
lane” signage.

Place "Watch Your Speed"
message with three
thermoplastic bars preceding
the intersections of Crystal
Springs Rd. and Glass
Mountain Rd. (high crash
histories)
Could the "yield" at
Sanitarium and Deer Park be
a "stop" instead? Especially if
it was moved back some,
allowing for cars to regain
speed as they merge with
fast moving traffic?
512 Sanitarium
Road, Deer Park,
California 94574,
United States
0 1
Bicycling Wish
Given speeds, could Deer
Park Rd between Silverado
Trail & SR 29 be upgraded
from Class II? High speeds
and volumes; connecting
road between Angwin
communities and St. Helena;
Deer Park Road, St.

Helena, California
94574, United States
0 0

B-29
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes connection between
Silverado Trail/SR 29/Vine
Trail
Bicycling Wish Let's propose some facility on
this road
500 Kortum Canyon
Road, Calistoga,
California 94515,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Petrified Forest Rd: This is
ridden frequently. Upgrade
to "Bike Route (Class III)" and
add bicycle detection signal -
and especially given that the
County segment calls for a
Bike Route.
933 Petrified Forest
Road, Calistoga,
California 94515,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish Extend Cedar Class III bike
boulevard to Lincoln
1402 Cedar Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Recommended bike lanes on
Grant St should connect to
Lincoln via Stevenson or
Wappo via Class IIIs
1408 Grant Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Fill gap on Myrtledale Rd
between existing bike
facilities and proposed
facilities on Grant. Also,
existing facility on Myrtledale
appears to be Class III bike
route (as of May 2024 on
Google Maps), not Class II
bike lanes?
3032 Myrtledale
Road, Calistoga,
California 94515,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
There has been much
discussion of a Class I from
Oak Ave terminus at Mitchell
to I believe Grayson Ave. Why
is that not included in this
plan, at least as a study?
Would be an invaluable SRTS
route.
1111 Oak Avenue,
St. Helena, California
94574, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Add a Class I down College
Ave given schools &
apartments but lack of ability
to add bike lanes. Widen
existing sidewalk to
accomplish.
882 College Avenue,
St. Helena, California
94574, United States
0 0

B-30
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Wonder Fully connect Valley View St
Class III with existing Class II.
945 Valley View
Street, St. Helena,
California 94574,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Being realistic about Allyn &
Hudson. Pretty sure the city
just repaved Allyn and put
down sharrows. With
residences, I doubt parking
will be removable. Perhaps
better to make it a Class III
bike boulevard with trafficcalming? These are
neighborhood streets that
should be slowed down
anyway. People do use them
as cut throughs to get
offspring.
1329 Allyn Avenue,
St. Helena, California
94574, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Vine Trail along Oak/Adams is
marked Class I – while it is
part of the VT, it will not be a
Class 1 facility. Will Vine Trail
alignment have a unique
color designation in final plan
like it did in the last Bike
Plan? That would be helpful
to identify Vine Trail
alignment (existing &
proposed) apart from other
facilities.
1304 Oak Avenue,
St. Helena, California
94574, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Pope from Main to Allison
needs improvement. Mark as
study corridor if nothing else.
1024 Pope Street,
St. Helena, California
94574, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Fill gap on Madrona Ave from
Oak to Main. Include bike
facilities on Fulton from Main
to VT
1220 Madrona
Avenue, St. Helena,
California 94574,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Fill gap on Oak Ave between
Madrona and Adams, likely
with Class III bike boulevard
1477 Oak Avenue,
St. Helena, California
94574, United States
0 0

B-31
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Wish
SR 29 undercrossing at
California Boulevard –
connections between town,
Vine Trail, and the Veterans
Home
Desired improvement:

SR 29 on/off ramps where
Vine Trail crosses: highvisibility crosswalks with
green conflict markings,
signage warning drivers of
bicyclists/pedestrians ahead
on off-ramps, shorten
crossings/narrow ramps to
improve visibility/crossing
Class II bike lane eastbound
connecting Vine Trail to Class
II heading into downtown
Yountville. Conflict markings
at on/off ramps
California Drive,
Yountville, California
94599, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Extend Washington bike
boulevard to Madison
intersection
2 Burgundy Way,
Yountville, California
94599, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Old Sonoma Road: Add
buffers to Class IIs from City
limits to bridge - tons of
speeding in the eastbound
lane, just ask NPD.
2707 Old Sonoma
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Create bikeable ways to
access the River Trail
between Trancas and Lincoln,
perhaps near Elk way (I
believe the path there is
closed off), and one spot
further south.
2712 Elks Way,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Upgrade to Class II s between
Browns Valley Rd. and
Browns Valley Rd. There is
plenty of space and this
would increase consistency
and connectivity between the
other upgrades. Also, add
conflict markings and
Partrick Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0

B-32
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes upgrade the interchange on
eastbound Partrick as it
merges into Browns Valley.

Bicycling Wish
Extend proposed Class I along
the river at the Oxbow
entirely
600 1st Street,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Dry Creek Rd: Upgrade to
parking protected Class IVs
on the east side of the street
and to Class IIbs on the west
side. This is a very popular
recreational route and there
are both few driveways and
plenty of space on the road.

Guessing vehicle volume is
low-ish, but speeds can be
high.
2076 Dry Creek
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Upgrade at the very least to
Class IIs, given
speeds/volumes and route to
school, and popular
recreational route.
1000 Buhman
Avenue, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Shurtleff was recommended
for Class IIs in last bike plan.

Why is it downgraded now to
Class IIIs?
2087 Shurtleff
Avenue, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Terrace was recommended
for Class IIs in last bike plan.

Why is it downgraded now to
Class IIIs?
1002 Wyatt Avenue,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Silverado Trail is complicated,
but it needs to be better than
a Class II to be low stress
based on speeds/volumes.

We realize any bike facility
would be a long-shot, but a
bi-directional Class IV or a
Class I (or a combo of the
two) are the correct facilities,
and likely would not cost
more than a Class II anyway.

The plan should reflect the
appropriate facility, even if it
is a long-shot.
1608 Silverado Trail,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0

B-33
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Wish
East Ave will need some
serious traffic-calming to
function as a Class III.
1412 East Avenue,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Montecito Blvd – Would a
Class II uphill and Class III
downhill be possible?
(Lakeview to East). Busy
street, route to school,
provide space for bicyclists
going uphill.
124 Montecito
Boulevard, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Area of resorts – Meritage
(which also does events),
Vista Collina, Vino Bello –
create a low stress bikeway
on Napa Valley Corporate
Drive between Bordeaux Way
and Anselmo Court to
connect visitors/event goers
to Class I network.
2779 Napa Valley
Corporate Drive,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
James Diemer Drive: Upgrade
whole road to Class IIb. Even
though speed limit is low, we
believe speeding is still
common.

James Diemer Drive,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
SR 221 South of Soscol: We
would like to better
understand why both a Class
I and a Class II is proposed. A
class IV would be the
appropriate on-street facility,
or Class IIb's with rumble
strips at the very least.
2100 Napa-Vallejo
Highway, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Does proposed Class I
adjacent to W Imola Ave
between the River and Soscol
actually connect to the VT? It
should if not.
949 West Imola
Avenue, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
1st Street: We strongly
recommend signage on 1st
near California instructing
cars to move into the left
lane when bikes are present.

From Seminary to Main, we
request that 1st Street have
Class III signage and sharrows
added - this is already a
1242 1st Street,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0

B-34
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes pretty traffic-calmed area,
but the wayfinding and
instruction for bicyclists to
take the lane (especially for
visitors biking to downtown)
would help reinforce sharing
the road. Class II bike lanes
should be added from Main
across the 1st Street bridge
to connect to proposed Class
IIs east of Soscol.
(Westbound transition at
Main from Class II bike lanes
and Class III bike boulevard
would need to be clearly
marked).

Bicycling Wish Extend Beard Rd Class III to
Trancas
3245 Beard Road,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Complete Yajome bike
boulevard to Lincoln (both
north and south of Lincoln)
2223 Yajome Street,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish Lincoln Ave - Include Class IVs
where feasible.
966 Lincoln Avenue,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish Complete Pearl St bike
boulevard to Vine Trail
968 Pearl Street,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
A clearer/wider entry from
Main/West to Oxbow
Commons would be really
helpful. Very awkward how it
is now and also a tight
squeeze with pedestrians
where it’s next to the parking
lot wall
1122 Main Street,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Oak St bike boulevard seems
very short – why doesn’t it
extend to California, or at
least to Jefferson along the
park?
1581 Oak Street,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Pine from Walnut to Coombs
is an important east-west
corridor, especially given
schools – make Class III bike
1788 Pine Street,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0

B-35
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes boulevard, if not the entire
way, then especially from
Seminary (where one bike
boulevard abruptly ends) to
Coombs (a well utilized route
to school that needs bulbout
for pedestrians as well).

Bicycling Wonder
In NVTA Imola plan, there are
on-road facilities for the east
segment as well as the Class I
proposed, but not seeing the
on-road facilities here.
1032 Imola Avenue,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Could Freeway Drive be
upgraded? It’s narrow south
of Laurel but it’s high stress
as is. This would also be a
good candidate for a
bidirectional Class IV, with no
driveways on the Freeway
side. Traffic calming is
needed on this road,
especially if Class IVs are not
implemented.
359 South Freeway
Drive, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Could West Lincoln be Class II
until road narrows? Could
road be widened around the
bend? This is a pinch point on
a route to school. Speed limit
is 30, high volumes. Could
Lincoln overpass be
upgraded? High volumes &
speeds.
2085 West Lincoln
Avenue, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Solano Ave (Redwood to
Lincoln) needs improved
facilities, as current Class IIs
are substandard in areas and
not low stress given speeds
and volumes. A bi-directional
cycle track on the east side
seems like a good option. If
not feasible, then work
especially hard to install a
bidirectional Class IV from
the Vine Trail connection on
Soscol to where the VT picks
3331 Solano
Avenue, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0

B-36
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes up on the north side of
Redwood on Soscol.

Bicycling Wonder
This proposed Class I along
the Butler Bridge does not
connect to bicycle facilities
on either side. What is the
purpose of this isolated
segment of Class I?
California Highway
12, Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Add Class III bike boulevard
on Pinewood Dr for
connectivity in proposed bike
boulevard network.
2850 Pinewood
Drive, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Extend Partrick Rd Class II
west to Tall Grass Dr to
connect bike lanes to more
neighborhoods
1022 Partrick Road,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Byway East - Add Class II
lanes? With few crossings to
Vine Trail, bicyclists may need
to travel here when heading
east of highway. Or maybe
just Monarch to El Centro.

California Highway
29, Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Why not extend Baxter Ave
Class III bike boulevard to
Trancas? Seems that’s where
traffic-calming and bike
facilities would be really
helpful given traffic
ingress/egress
3432 Baxter Avenue,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Old Soscol Way – needs to be
upgraded. There’s already a
lot of red zones and
unnecessary parking lots
(everything here has parking
lots).
3300 Old Soscol
Way, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Identify Soscol Ave as study
corridor all the way not just
south of 3rd. The whole road
is appropriate for Class IVs.
796 Soscol Avenue,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Would love to see Class 1
from the 5-way to the Middle
School.

Tulocay Drive, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0

B-37
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Wish
Extend Trower
recommended Class IV to Dry
Creek Rd., especially on the
south side of the road. At
least Class IIb to east
terminus of Trower on east
side. Achieve by narrowing
vehicle lanes? Why not plan
for Class IV to Big Ranch Rd
with road extension?
4001 Pinot Drive,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
The parts of Flosden Road
where the path is not at least
the minimum 8 feet should
not be marked as existing
Class I.
2555 Flosden Road,
American Canyon,
California 94503,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Class IIs on American Canyon
Road on either side of the SR
29 are not safe or
comfortable. Those segments
need to be upgraded. We
strongly believe we can get a
Class IV or Class I through the
whole stretch, especially with
the upcoming roundabout
project with SR 29. At least
designate as a study corridor
for bike facility upgrades.
3331 Broadway
Street, American
Canyon, California
94503, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Consider adding a bike
network connection between
the Class I on Rolling Hills
Drive and Donaldson Way
East via Rolling Hills Drive.

Maybe just a Class III bike
boulevard
403 Rolling Hills
Drive, American
Canyon, California
94503, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Recommended Class I on
Rolling Hills Drive that
connects to SR 29 via S Napa
Junction Road was a
recommended Class I all the
way through in last Bike Plan.

Now that connecting
segment on S Napa Junction
Road is a rural Class III. That’s
not low stress at all, and
arguably on the busiest
section of the road, since
163 South Napa
Junction Road,
American Canyon,
California 94503,
United States
0 0

B-38
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes people will be
entering/existing highway.

Restore Class I connection.

Bicycling Wonder
With installation of Class I
paths on SR 29, the existing
Class I that runs along
American Canyon Creek and
currently ends at Banbury
Way should be extended to
connect to the SR 29 Class I.

Class I connections between
adjacent neighborhoods and
cul-de-sacs should also be
considered to maximize
direct connections to Class Is
and encourage bike/ped
travel, especially in
southwest quadrant of
AmCan where there are
many adjacent
neighborhoods
156 Hartford Ct,
American Canyon,
California 94503,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Danrose Dr from SR 29 to
Class I path should be a Class
III bike boulevard, not rural
bike route. Busy with traffic
due to Safeway plaza. You
could also remove parking
from the west side of the
street (no houses facing that
way) and maybe have room
for Class IIs.
824 Danrose Drive,
American Canyon,
California 94503,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Add Class III bike boulevards
on Chaucer Ln and/or
Hummingbird Way? Would
be helpful for students biking
to middle school.
640 Chaucer Lane,
American Canyon,
California 94503,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Extend recommended Class
IV on W American Canyon
Road to SR 29. At the very
least, add buffers and
continue bike lane all the way
to the intersection. No bike
facilities through this highinjury intersection is really not acceptable.
109 West American
Canyon Road,
American Canyon,
California 94503,
United States
0 0

B-39
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Wonder
Add Class III bike boulevard
along Crawford Way from SR
29 to Elliott Drive – especially
due to new Crawford Way
Apartments project coming in
219 Crawford Way,
American Canyon,
California 94503,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
W. Donaldson Way as a
recommended Class III bike
boulevard west of the
highway is a downgrade from
last Bike Plan, where it was
recommended Class II, which
would be more appropriate
given volumes. Also
recommended facility does
not connect with existing
Class IIs, so fill that gap.

Space is tight here but it’s
very busy and too busy to be
a shared corridor for all ages
and abilities. Maybe remove
one side of parking and
create a Class I on one side.
231 West Donaldson
Way, American
Canyon, California
94503, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Why is this plan
recommending a Class III bike
boulevard on Donaldson Way
where there is an existing
Class II? This is a downgrade
from the last Bike Plan and
what’s already existing.
905 Donaldson Way,
American Canyon,
California 94503,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Also included in Ped Plan –
but the gaps in the Class Is
along SR 29 on both sides
around Eucalyptus Dr to
Napa Junction Rd should be
filled. Big connectivity issue,
seems really odd to keep a
gap.
3945 Broadway
Street, American
Canyon, California
94503, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Theresa Ave (Napa Junction
Rd to Eucalyptus Dr) was a
Class II in the last bike plan
but is now a Class III bike
boulevard. Why the
downgrade?
97 Theresa Avenue,
American Canyon,
California 94503,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Love
A bike path across the creek
here would be really great in
increasing connectivity.
1120 Linda Vista
Avenue, Napa,
0 0

B-40
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes California 94558,
United States
Bicycling Wonder
There are no bike lanes on
Congress Valley, yet the map
is showing them as complete.

It would be great to show
them as proposed.
1195 Congress
Valley Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder Again, there are no bike lanes
on this road.
2280 Buhman
Avenue, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
There are no bike lanes
currently on the County
portion of Buhman, but Class
IIs would be great. Change to
proposed, rather than
current.
1310 Buhman
Avenue, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
We need a bike lane on the
street. Calistoga elementary
school encourages the
community to walk or bike to
school. We need a safer
route for children to bike.
1406 4th Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
I used to ride my bike on
Magnolia Drive daily, to get
to Napa Valley College. It was
a safe and pleasant
alternative to the disasters
that are Imola and Soscol
Avenues. Magnolia has been
closed since (I think) the
COVID pandemic. Why can't
it be reopened to walkers
and cyclists?
Spruce Drive, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
There needs to be some sort
of warning system here that
cyclists are biking here. It is a
windy segment of road
without any advance
warning.
650 Petrified Forest
Road, Calistoga,
California 94515,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Wish the new Bv bike lanes
connect through here or the
adjacent alleyway to
downtown.
1439 E Street, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0

B-41
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Transit Love
Love Love LOVE the BART
Connector bus to get to the
Airport. Please make this a 7-
day service, and include late
nights so we can get back
home after an evening
landing!
Also, express service to the
Vallejo Ferry on weekends
(but 7-day BART service first
please).
1900 West Imola
Avenue, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0
Walking Wish
It would be amazing if there
was a foot/bike crossing over
29 connecting both ends of
Laurel St. that could serve as
a quick route from the Fuller
Park area to the outlets and
Browns Valley, but also from
Westwood to downtown.

California Highway
29, Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Love
The undercrossing is
amazing, it’s a great shortcut
and the mural under the
bridge is super cool. More
safe crossings of Highway 28
please!
California Highway
29, Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Better signage/wayfinding for
northbound riders on the
Vine Trail. I regularly get
asked at this junction by
people “how do I get to the
trail?” when they come out
onto Trancas.
2005 Redwood
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
I think more parents would
feel comfortable letting their
kids’ bike to school (so many
benefits to this) if
Washington street was safer
to bike on. The road is rough
and there is no clear
designation for bikes.
1605 Washington
Street, Calistoga,
California 94515,
United States
0 1
Walking Wish
The City has had a plan to put
in a walking path on this
stretch of Grant Street for so
long, but there are been very
little movement. So many
2032 Grant Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0

B-42
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes residents walk along this
stretch with young children,
elderly, strollers, and pets. As
it is, it is very unsafe how
close these walkers are to the
traffic that is often speeding.

Bicycling Wish
The B&G club often leaves
their trash, green waste, and
recycling bins out in the bike
line for 3-4 days at a time
instead of just on garbage
day. Can NVTA help
communicate this issue to
their staff?
1409 Lake Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Please add sharrows along
Washington St. because cars
are constantly trying to pass
around bikes when they do
not have the room to do so
and it’s a dangerous stretch
for bikes. Especially since so
many small children bike to
school along this route.
1509 Washington
Street, Calistoga,
California 94515,
United States
0 1
Bicycling Wonder
Should there be a bike facility
on Corporate Way that
connects to the future bike
path on 221?
875 Napa Valley
Corporate Way,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
There used to be an idea for
an improved connection
between Old Sonoma and
Duhig Road. Add that back -
this is a popular and unsafe
area to cross.

Carneros Highway,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Add a bike facility on
Cartegena Way that connects
to the green line (bike path)
to the east.

Cartagena Way,
American Canyon,
California 94503,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder Why not route this on D
Street on the alley?
1616 E Street, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Love I'm looking forward to the
improvements here.
760 Lincoln Avenue,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0

B-43
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Walking Love Love this for both biking and
walking.
876 Water Street,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
This is a very uncomfortable
route for biking. Car traffic is
very fast, and the pavement
is irregular.
1064 Imola Avenue,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Walking Wonder
The school has paved over
where the sidewalk ought to
be, prioritizing drivers over
those on foot.
1210 Shetler
Avenue, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0
Walking Wish
Crossing from the east side of
Shurtleff to Camille Park on
foot feels dicey. There's poor
visibility if you cross at the
southernmost park entrance,
and walking to the Seville Dr
intersection often requires
stepping into the road to
avoid parked vehicles.
1948 Shurtleff
Avenue, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish This is an uncomfortable left
turn.
850 West Imola
Avenue, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Love
The bike lanes are a huge
improvement for cross town
traffic in South Napa.
950 West Imola
Avenue, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 1
Walking Wish
The inconsistent sidewalks
here make it difficult to safely
walk to Target and Raley's.
1026 Shetler
Avenue, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 1
Walking Wish
I frequently walk this block
and there is no safe place to
walk except the school
parking long.
2098 Imola Avenue,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
This should probably be a
Class III Bike Route, not a Bike
Boulevard, as it is a very rural
area.
698 Las Posadas
Road, Angwin,
California 94508,
United States
0 0

B-44
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Wish
The Silverado Trail between
Pope Street and Deer Park
Road, through "the narrows"
is not a Class II Bike Lane. The
bike lane it is too narrow.

This is because the road is
not striped properly. I have
met with the County on site
and commented ad nauseam
on past bike plans. This is a
dangerous misrepresentation
of the conditions on the
ground. If this is not revised
for this plan, I will
recommend to the St. Helena
City Council that they not
adopt the plan.

I have provided photos of the
issues for the last 20+ years
and if you need photos again,
I can provide them in a week.

Please get on your bike and
ride this section, both north
and south!
1730 Silverado Trail
North, Deer Park,
California 94574,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Love
The speed cushions on grant
St. have been amazing at
slowing down traffic without
forcing bikes to go over a
speed bump as well.
2102 Grant Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Biking with my kids to school
in the morning, this right turn
is always scary because there
isn't enough room for bikes
to fit in-between the cars and
the curb.
1507 Washington
Street, Calistoga,
California 94515,
United States
0 1
Bicycling Wish
Anonymous22 October, 2025
Comment
I wish UVDS and the Town of
Yountville would manage to
near-zero UVDS bins in the
bike-lanes through Yountville.

My recommendation is that
UVDS does not pick up bins
that encroach on the bike
lane.
6772 Washington
Street, Yountville,
California 94599,
United States
0 0

B-45
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Wish
Anonymous22 October, 2025
Comment I wish UVDS and
the Town of Yountville would
manage to near-zero UVDS
bins in the bike-lanes through
Yountville. My
recommendation is that
UVDS does not pick up bins
that encroach on the bike
lane.
2041 Madison
Street, Yountville,
California 94599,
United States
0 0
Other Wish
I wish for a Flashing Light
crosswalk for our veterans
who walk, cycle and use
other active transportation
modes.

California Drive,
Yountville, California
94599, United States
0 0
Other Wish
I wish for a Flashing Light
crosswalk for our veterans
who walk, cycle and use
other active transportation
modes.

California Drive,
Yountville, California
94599, United States
0 0
Other Wish
I wish for a Flashing Light
crosswalk for our veterans
who walk, cycle and use
other active transportation
modes.
1 California Drive,
Yountville, California
94599, United States
0 0
Bicycling Love Hurray for Bike Route (Class
III)
6761 Jefferson
Street, Yountville,
California 94599,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
I wonder about the utility of
this Bike Route (Class III).

Consider extending it to the
north to meet the SharedUse Path (Class I) at the end
of Heritage Ct. Seems like a
path to nowhere, but
perhaps it's the provided bike
route to keep bikes off the
parallel Shared-use Path
(Class I)?
6488 Heather
Street, Yountville,
California 94599,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
I wish there was no private
parking at the former
Bordeaux House 20' from the
NE corner of this intersection.
2015 Webber
Avenue, Yountville,
California 94599,
United States
0 0

B-46
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Walking Wish
I wish there were no parking
20' from the NE corner of this
intersection.
2161 Pedroni Street,
Yountville, California
94599, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
I wonder if there is sufficient
Yount St road width for a
Class III Bike Route, parking
on both sides and sidewalk
on both sides. This stretch
does not seem very safe for
cyclists currently. And where
are the UVDS bins supposed
to be staged?
6537 Yount Street,
Yountville, California
94599, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
California Drive is one way
between the Security Station
and California Circle. I wish
this bike trail would be
established in both
directions. Currently it maps
only the direction from the
Vet's Home toward HWY29. It
needs to run on the other
part of the "Y" too.
798 California Drive,
Yountville, California
94599, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
I wish for a bike lane free of
plant growth. Plants (mostly
blackberries?) growing up
into the 3D bike-lane space.
1707 Yountville
Cross Road, Napa,
California 94599,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
I wish this path were well
labeled as Shared-Use by
stenciling the bike path
symbol on the path or some
signs that signal which side to
walk and which side to cycle.
9 Ghirardi Place,
Yountville, California
94599, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
I wish UVDS and the Town of
Yountville would manage to
near-zero UVDS bins in the
bike-lanes through Yountville.

My recommendation is that
UVDS does not pick up bins
that encroach on the bike
lane.
6787 Jefferson
Street, Yountville,
California 94599,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
I wish for rumble strips
adjacent to Hwy29 between
Madison and North
Washington.

Saint Helena
Highway, Yountville,
California 94558,
United States
0 0

B-47
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Wonder
I wonder if there is precedent
for a diagonal-across-the
intersection crosswalk being
safer than two right angle
crosswalks. I understand it
directs westbound cyclists to
the Vine Trail. It seems to
increase risk and decrease
confusion.
6770 Washington
Street, Yountville,
California 94599,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Would love to see sharrows
on Main St to reinforce
cyclists right to share the
roadway
1277 Main Street,
St. Helena, California
94574, United States
0 0
Bicycling Love
Would love to see a
designated north south
shared use Class I path to get
through town. To cross town
on a bike on School,
Randolph, Main streets you
have to cross 1st, 2nd and
3rd which are not stop
controlled
929 Parkway Mall,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 1
Bicycling Love
CalTrans needs to widen
HWY 121 from Atlas Peak to
Silverado. With bike lanes.
1215 Monticello
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Love
The County needs to crack
seal and blade patch Hagen
Road, from Silverado to 3rd.

Ave. Also tree trim just east
of Silverado on the North
side.
1225 Hagen Road,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Love
The city needs to crack seal
the whole section of Dry
Creek from Redwood Road to
the County section. Also,
pothole patch the holes also.
1400 Dry Creek
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 1
Bicycling Love
Pueblo should have bike
lanes from Beard to Soscol.

Also, at the intersection of
Pueblo and Yajome the city
should build curb extensions,
because of all the kids
walking to school.
1540 Menlo Avenue,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0

B-48
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Love
There should be rumble
strips on Silverado from
Trancas to Sage Canyon
Road.
2921 Silverado Trail,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
The City should change this
section of Redwood from Dry
Creek to Solano to one lane
in each direction, with
buffered bike lanes, with a
turn lane in the middle.

Traffic volume is low with
high rate of speed.
3325 Baywood Lane,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 1
Bicycling Wonder
There are existing Class II bike
lanes on Kimberly Drive, not a
Class I path
316 Kimberly Drive,
American Canyon,
California 94503,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Existing Class II bike lanes on
Donaldson Way East &
Shenandoah not shown on
map
Shenandoah Drive,
American Canyon,
California 94503,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Public comment from St
Helena Harvest Festival - How
realistic or valuable would a
Class I be on Starr, vs
buffered bike lanes?
1171 Starr Avenue,
St. Helena, California
94574, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
What is the intent for the
yellow study corridors? Are
they for future improvements
to be determined based on
needs?
1712 Hemlock
Street, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
The Jefferson Street corridor
has public schools capping it
at the north and south end,
with businesses all along it,
yet no continuous safe
bicycle route. This should be
a focus area.
3244 Jefferson
Street, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Wonder if we could get
buffered or even protected
bike lanes on Airport - it's
SOOO wide and people drive
fast.
1555 Airport
Boulevard, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish I wish Oak Knoll was safer for
cyclists. It is narrow, no
Oak Knoll Avenue,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 1

B-49
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes shoulder, lots of traffic and to
top it all off - A ditch!
Walking Wonder
Why isn't their a crosswalk
and pedestrian blickey lights
from the D street alley to the
bike path under the freeway?
1075 California
Boulevard, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Lincoln, by the high school
has no bicycle infrastructure.

Students would be risking
their lives to try to ride to
school. Lincoln, by The Hub
has no bicycle infrastructure.

People risk their lives if they
want to ride a bike to the
bike shop. Ridiculous
2505 Jefferson
Street, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 2
Bicycling Wonder
How will this intersection be
made safer for cyclists
crossing the highway to get
onto Duhig Rd?
5400 Old Sonoma
Road, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Crane Ave was recently
repaved, not sure status on
striping. Will be trafficcalmed Class III from Grayson to roughly the tennis courts
and then Class II the rest of
the way to Sulphur Springs
347 Crane Avenue,
St. Helena, California
94574, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Hard to tell what's going on
for recommendations on
Grayson (even zoomed in
they overlap too much), but
Grayson was repaved and has
Class IIs on the west end and
Class IIIs that start at the
baseball field.
1644 Grayson
Avenue, St. Helena,
California 94574,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Why is there both proposed
and existing Class IIs marked
on Silverado Trail in this
area?
4600 Silverado Trail,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder No existing Class II bike lanes
on Grant St
1628 Grant Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Lake from Grant to Silverado
Trail does not have existing
Class II bike lanes. City is
currently doing a repaving
1814 Lake Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0

B-50
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes project - not sure the status,
but it will likely include a
Class II one way and Class III
the other way.

Bicycling Wonder
Existing bike lanes end closer
to Fisher St - do not extend
all the way to Fair Way.
1513 Lake Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Dangerous RR crossing here
with exposed rails and
potholes very close to access
of the Vine Trail. Have the
Vine Train to the repairs for
the damage their trains
caused.
816 Vallejo Street,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 1
Bicycling Wonder
Huge problem of broken
asphalt and potholes at the
RR tracks crossing in north
and south direction. Only 1 of
3 crossing has good concrete
support. This is dangerous for
bikes and cars. The Vine Train
seems to have money to
repair the crossings and
should be obligated to fix the
damage their trains caused.
710 Soscol Avenue,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 1
Bicycling Wonder
There are dangerous
potholes on the eastbound
side of the street that are
shaded by shadows from
vegetation. Please repair the
potholes.
3101 Old Sonoma
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Why not add striping for a
bike lane through the state
park?
3535 Saint Helena
Highway, St. Helena,
California 94574,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Lincoln Ave. is a disaster for
bikes. Cars are pulling in/out
of diagonal spaces. Suggest
parking lots for cars and have
the state highway folks add
protected bike lanes
downtown. It will help
business.
1467 Lincoln
Avenue, Calistoga,
California 94515,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish Provide a signal button or
proximity detector for bike
4606 Oak Knoll
Avenue, Napa,
0 2

B-51
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes crossing the highway. Also,
keep the intersection free of
loose gravel.

California 94558,
United States
Bicycling Wonder
Improve signals at the
entrance to the shopping
center. Cars going west
turning into the shopping
center often block
westbound Trancas for bikes.
3350 California
Boulevard, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Make this intersection easier
to navigate from the Vine
Trail across 2 freeway
onramps. Remove signposts
from bike lanes.
6770 Washington
Street, Yountville,
California 94599,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
The developer is obligated to
provide part of this
connection. Now, the only
connection between the
Costco center/housing and
downtown Napa is on the
crowded highway. This is a
much-needed economic
development issue for the
City of Napa.
1060 Kaiser Road,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
This route through recently
paved Kennedy park is an
embarrassment. Seems not
to be a priority for the Parks
Department or Public Works,
yet it is a high use bike and
walkway. Find the funds and
make it happen.
1 North Newport
Drive, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 1
Bicycling Wish
Cycling here is on curvy
sidewalk. Why not add a bike
lane and provide access
through speed bumps for
bikes.
252 Wetlands Edge
Road, American
Canyon, California
94503, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish Bumpy asphalt now being
repaired. Add bike lane.
507 Green Island
Road, American
Canyon, California
94503, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Only west side of the street
has smooth paving. East side
need paving now.
1141 4th Avenue,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0

B-52
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Wish
Cars waiting to pick up school
kids block the curb in the
afternoon making passage
difficult for cyclists going east
and uphill.
1001 Little Street,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish Improve pavement on 3rd
Avenue.
1093 2nd Avenue,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 1
Bicycling Wish
Visibility at this intersection is
poor for bikes and cars
turning right block cycling
access to a right turn. Add
bike lane.
2006 Silverado Trail,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 2
Bicycling Wish
There is no way for bicycles
to trip the light to change for
a left turn onto Trancas.

Install a proximity trip for the
traffic light soon.
2035 Silverado Trail,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 3
Bicycling Wish
This trail is in terrible shape;
ruts can cause bikes to get
caught. Tired of waiting for
the Flood Control people to
do something. Patch and
repair is needed now.
10 Towpath Drive,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 1
Bicycling Wish
Difficult to cross here at
signal. Need crosswalks and
signal enhancements.
407 Soscol Avenue,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Silverado Trail has no apron,
cycling in dangerous. Suggest
curbs and a bicycle land
separate from vehicle lanes.
1860 Silverado Trail,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 3
Bicycling Love
As a Napa resident who
commutes to Devlin (near
Airport), adding an
alternative to as much of
Devlin as possible would
make me feel much safer.

Devlin as a workaround to
avoid the highway gets very
fast (sometimes reckless)
drivers on a road with
sometimes narrow shoulders
with gravel/trash. Traffic
calming of some kind on
Devlin could also help.
1221 Soscol Ferry
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 3

B-53
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Love
Connecting downtown Napa
to Napa Valley Corporate
Drive, Devlin, etc. would be
hugely beneficial for Napa
residents to be able to
commute to work by bicycle.
1060 Kaiser Road,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 1
Bicycling Wish
No shoulders on Silverado
Trail in section from Hagen
south to “M” resort.
1878 Silverado Trail,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 2
Bicycling Wonder
How often are crews going to
replace the poles that
vehicles keep knocking
down? Seems like an everlosing battle that could be
better managed with bike
lane divider bumps.

Also, when will the police do
speed checks on Imola
bridge? Most vehicles are
doing 45-50mph when it's
35mph limit.

West Imola Avenue,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Love
Thank you for repaving this
section and adding dedicated
bike lanes.
2701 Soscol Avenue,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 1
Bicycling Wish
Please pave the remaining
few meters so cyclists can
connect to Lincoln without
having to go over crushed
gravel and/or through
RiverPointe.

Burrows Court,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 2
Driving Wish
Is this going to be a
roundabout? I often see
vehicles speeding through
yellow/red lights.
801 Silverado Trail,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 1
Bicycling Wish
This section has narrow
shoulders + turns + blink hill =
dangerous cycling. Any help is
appreciated to prevent a
collision.
4207 Old Sonoma
Road, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 1
Bicycling Wish
Every cyclist knows the
middle section of Partrick is
VERY dangerous to descend.

Why did the bottom and top
Partrick Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0

B-54
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes get repaved (thank you) but
not the middle?
Bicycling Wish
One section of the
westbound bike lane has
protruding vegetation,
requiring cyclists to veer into
westbound vehicle lane.
3055 Old Sonoma
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 1
Driving Wish
Pavement in this intersection
has significant holes. Franklin
south of this intersection has
already been repaved; this
and the few blocks north
need to be included.
295 Franklin Street,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Has anyone explored building
hiking and mountain biking
trails on this unused land NE
of the existing Skyline trails?
Napa, California
94558, United States 0 0
Bicycling Wish
This section seriously needs
repaving. Recently there was
patchwork to fill the parallel
cracks but that is an
insufficient repair. Bicycles
with narrow tires are still in
danger, and traveling via
skateboard or inline skates is
nearly impossible given the
very rough surface.
1 North Newport
Drive, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 1
Bicycling Wonder
Similar to existing comment,
cycling south through the
double roundabout is fine,
but coming back north
requires crossing over both
Hwy 221 lanes from the left
to the right. Whether that's
possible depends on the
amount of traffic, but some
cyclists would never even
dare this maneuver.

Whoever planned the double
roundabout should have
shared the blueprints with a
cyclist before moving
forward.

Napa-Vallejo
Highway, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
No defined bike lane or solid
white line striping makes for
dangerous cycling on these
Devlin Road,
American Canyon,
0 0

B-55
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes turns, especially with large
trucks.

California 94558,
United States
Bicycling Love
This probably one of the
most dangerous places
routinely ride. Riding west
from Dry Creek to Lynn Dr
there is no shoulder. Cars are
often very impatient and try
to pass even when they can’t
see oncoming traffic around
the corner. Coming east,
there are huge potholes that
are very dangerous
2855 Redwood
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 1
Bicycling Love
This road is in terrible
condition. Avoiding the
potholes and cars at the
same time is HARD
1121 Thompson
Avenue, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 1
Bicycling Wish
Many bicycles ride along big
ranch, some are with wine
tasting touring companies. It
is so dangerous people drive
so fast on this road. It would
be wonderful to have some
sort of dedicated safe bike
lane. Even walking is
extremely dangerous.
2003 Big Ranch
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 3
Bicycling Wish
It would be great if the
trees/bushes could be cut
back on the bridge. It's a
blind spot for both directions.

Can't see people, bikes, cars
on the bridge before it's to
late. Can't see people or
bikes coming from the other
direction either.
1100 Dunaweal
Lane, Calistoga,
California 94515,
United States
0 1
Bicycling Wish
Upper dry creek has
deteriorated to the point
many cyclists have stopped
riding it.
5780 Dry Creek
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 1
Bicycling Wish
Intersection is so rough that
cyclists move to the center of
road to avoid ruts and
damaged pavement. Seems
to be a safety hazard
7830 Saint Helena
Highway, Napa,
California 94562,
United States
0 4

B-56
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Wish
Coordinate with County of
Sonoma to extend this to
Burndale/12 intersection, and
consider adding a HAWK
signal to improve safe
crossings.

Ramal Road,
Sonoma, California
95476, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Feels like this road is wide
enough to provide protected
or buffered bike lane,
especially if big housing
project is going in on the
former Harvest school site.
2454 Old Sonoma
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 3
Bicycling Wish
Vine Trail is no longer
proposing to go along Devlin,
but this road does need
better bike lanes. Can road
accommodate protected or
even just buffered bike
lanes? Existing NB lane is
often overgrown with
weeds.
231 Devlin Road,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Clean up this area - tie
proposed Class I on SR 221
into existing roundabouts,
and connect remaining
segment to south side of
Soscol Ferry. Remove
duplicate Class I on Soscol
Ferry Rd.
1020 Soscol Ferry
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 1
Bicycling Wonder
No need to rebuild new Class
I path adjacent to County
path to detention center, but
does need connection from
south end of existing to
proposed for remaining
segment.
2300 Napa-Vallejo
Highway, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Love
Another popular bike route
that would benefit from
better bike lanes. Redwood
Rd between Dry Creek & BV
Rd is narrow and twisty.

Shoulders quickly get
obstructed by leaves and
debris from trees.
2821 Redwood
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 4
Bicycling Love Another very popular biking
route, more so now that it
1243 Orchard
Avenue, Napa,
0 2

B-57
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes has been repaved. It would
be great to have a Class 2
along it.

California 94558,
United States
Bicycling Love
This is a very popular biking
and walking route. It would
be great to have signage &
road markings reinforcing
this.
1556 Yount Mill
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 1
Bicycling Love
Love to have Class 2 lanes
along this downtown by-pass
route
1813 Sulphur
Springs Avenue, St.

Helena, California
94574, United States
0 0
Bicycling Love
This section is very curvy, and
it would be great to have
consistent bike lanes along it.
2981 Lake County
Highway, Calistoga,
California 94515,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
Would love to see Class 2
lanes up to Bennett Lane.

Traffic volume is usually
pretty light, but there is no
shoulder along this section.
3271 California
Highway 128,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
Bicycling Love
This has been needed for a
long time. There are great
bike facilities down here on
the east and west of Hwy 29,
but a giant gap down the
middle.
3330 Broadway
Street, American
Canyon, California
94503, United States
0 0
Bicycling Love
This would be a great
recreational ride. If built, it
could be a great attraction
for valley visitors, especially
with the new resorts in the
Carneros area.
3290 Cuttings Wharf
Road, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
Northbound cyclists should
never travel on Hwy 29 at
this location. Turning onto N.

Kelly Rd is a better option,
but crossing should have
RRFB's, and shoulder of N.

Kelly needs to be improved.
1988 North Kelly
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder A Class 3 on Hwy 29?
398 Devlin Road,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 1
Bicycling Love This is great. The Soscol
Junction is great for cycling
Napa-Vallejo
Highway, Napa, 0 0

B-58
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes south, but there's no safe
way to travel north, unless
you want to ride on the
narrow shoulder against
traffic.

California 94558,
United States
Bicycling Love
This would be great (if it
connects to the Vine Trail).

Currently, if you're riding east
on Imola, you have to
negotiate a very dangerous
left hand turn onto Gasser Ln
to access the Vine Trail.
850 West Imola
Avenue, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 3
Bicycling Wish
Soscol Ave, both north and
south, is heavily travelled by
bikes and cars. Protected
lanes would be great!
2012 Soscol Avenue,
Napa, California
94558, United States
0 1
Bicycling Love
I've been waiting for years to
see the River Trail connect to
the Oxbow. It provides a
safer way to make an
upvalley loop utilizing the
Vine Trail and the Silverado
Trail.
1114 Jordan Lane,
Napa, California
94559, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
I love seeing more Class 1
trails, but don't see this one
as very useful. Byway East
isn't very bike friendly, so I
see this as one of those
"bikeway to no-where"
scenarios.
1908 Valencia
Street, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Love
Would love to see Class 2
lane along here. Will require
widening the road, though, as
there are ditches along most
of the shoulder on both sides.
977 Salvador
Avenue, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 1
Bicycling Love
Would love to see a Class 2
along Oak Knoll. This road
gets a lot of bike traffic,
including tourists, but has
little to no room off of
roadway.
1170 Oak Knoll
Avenue, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 3
Bicycling Wonder
Pavement along this section
is very poor. Would this
proposed improvement
include repaving?
1019 Rutherford
Road, Napa,
California 94573,
United States
0 1

B-59
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes Bicycling Love
Would be great to have Class
one connector from Hwy 29
& Vine Trail to Silverado Trail
565 Hunt Avenue,
St. Helena, California
94574, United States
0 1
Bicycling Wonder
This was the old proposed
alignment for the Vine Trail.

Current planned alignment is
Class 3 on Oak Avenue.
1055 Crinella Court,
St. Helena, California
94574, United States
0 1
Walking Wonder
Why isn't the little path here
recommended to be a full
trail?
2126 Madrona
Avenue, St. Helena,
California 94574,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wonder
There are fairly recent
improvements including
buffered bike lanes on parts
of Salvador. Update map to
show.
1843 Salvador
Avenue, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 2
Bicycling Wonder
Coombsville really needs
protected or at least buffered
bike lanes. Why no proposed
improvements? Please put in
bike lane buffer, and
protected bike lane near the
school.
1069 Coombsville
Road, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 3
Bicycling Wonder
This road shows as proposed
Bike Boulevard and as a Study
Corridor. Which is it? Suggest
BB on southern half, Class I
bridge over creek, BB up to
Shurtleff, and Study Corridor
from Shurtleff to
Coombsville.
2011 South Terrace
Drive, Napa,
California 94559,
United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
This part of West Lincoln has
extremely poor pavement, no
sidewalks, and is very
dangerous for bicycle riders -
especially children trying to
get to/from school.
2144 West Lincoln
Avenue, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 2
Bicycling Wonder
I wonder when Calistoga is
going to repave this street. It
is a major hazard for bikes,
cars, first responders, etc...
1418b 3rd Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
Bicycling Wish
There is a posted sign at CalMart showing no left turn. I wish it was enforced. I've
almost been hit in the
1506 Lincoln
Avenue, Calistoga,
California 94515,
United States
0 0

B-60
Mode of
Transportation Category Comment Address Down Votes UpVotes crosswalk while walking my
bike across and via car on Fair
Way while making a right
turn onto Lincoln. This whole
intersection needs a better
review for all types of
transportation.

Bicycling Wish
Crossing at this intersection
to connect back to the trail is
very dangerous and has
gotten worse with the red
light camera in place.

Southbound cars don’t have a
protected left and are
watching oncoming traffic to
turn which creates a hazard
in the crossword. Personally, I
have almost been hit 4 times
since the red light cam
activated while having the
crossing signal on and being
in the crossword. I’d ask for a
review of this intersection
and its safety for those
utilizing the “car free” vine
trail.
3397 Solano
Avenue, Napa,
California 94558,
United States
0 1

B-61
Table B.4: Second Interactive Map: Proposed Pedestrian Network Comments Category Comment Address Down Votes Up Votes
I Wonder
I know there's been a lot of work on
figuring out the Vine Trail alignment
between Yountville and St Helena,
particularly in this area. Is this alignment
up to date?
7391 Saint Helena
Highway, Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
I Wonder Proposed sidewalk on west side seems
duplicative with shared-use path
8572 Saint Helena
Highway, St. Helena,
California 94558, United
States
0 0
I Wish lets propose some facility here
500 Kortum Canyon
Road, Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
I Wish
A sidewalk from this intersection to the
Linda Falls trail entrance might be
helpful, as the parking area across
Howell Mountain Road is a common
parking place for people going to Linda
Falls.
235 Howell Mountain
Road, Angwin, California
94508, United States
0 0
I Wish
Extend recommended sidewalk in front
of Howell Mountain Elementary to Toyon
St to connect to some of the nearby
neighborhoods
510 White Cottage Road
North, Angwin, California
94508, United States
0 0
I Wonder Remove proposed sidewalk lines - do not
connect to anything
Silverado Trail North,
Deer Park, California
94574, United States
0 0
I Wonder
Remove or explain duplicative proposed
Class I. Explain proposed alignment in
park where currently it doesn't exist.

Saint Helena Highway, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 0
I Wonder Realign or explain this Class I
1313 Silver Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
I Wish Fully fill gap with proposed sidewalk
965 Silverado Trail,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
I Wonder
Extend proposed sidewalk on Grant St to
intersection with Stevenson or Wappo
where people can cross to existing
sidewalk.
1507 Grant Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
I Wonder
What is happening here with this Class I?
No existing facilities around there. End of
Money Ln seems to be a private
driveway.
2080 Mora Avenue,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0

B-62
Category Comment Address Down Votes Up Votes
I Wonder
Why is there both a proposed sidewalk
and a proposed Class I on the same side?
Should just be the Class I.
2054 Grant Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
I Wonder
Proposed sidewalk along Foothill – why
not make it a Class I so bicyclists also
have a safe route?
1722 Foothill Boulevard,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
I Wonder
Does the little path on south side of
Pope between Starr and Peppertree
really count as a sidewalk? Highly doubt
it's ADA compliant, and not sure it should
be counted.
576 Pope Street, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 0
I Wish
Add a Class I down College Ave given
schools & apartments but lack of ability
to add bike lanes. Widen existing
sidewalk to accomplish.
900 College Avenue, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 0
I Wish
Many people walk to/around this area of
south St. Helena, especially with V Sattui
Winery, wineries along west side, and
plaza with Press restaurant/the
MAC/Flora Springs. With nearby hotels
(Harvest Inn, El Bonita, etc), partial
sidewalks in this area, and traffic
congestion on SR 29, this area needs to
better accommodate pedestrian
movement. This will be especially
necessary when Vine Trail goes in.

Especially needs something for
pedestrians to cross at White Lane to get
to V Sattui. People run across the
highway here all the time currently.
1148 White Lane, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 0
I Wish
Crossing improvements needed at Main
& Grayson with Mills realignment, given
upcoming Farmstead hotel project and
Our Town St Helena affordable housing
project going in. Crosswalks needed on
all four legs of intersection, as well as
sidewalk connection to intersection on
south side of realigned Mills (on north
end of affordable housing project). There
should also be a Class I proposed on Mills
according to other plans.
501 Main Street, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 0
I Wonder
Crossing improvements needed at
Vintage Ave with VT installation given
walkability from high school and location
of pediatrician and orthodontist
1100 Vintage Avenue, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 0

B-63
Category Comment Address Down Votes Up Votes
I Wonder
Proposed sidewalk on Main St from
existing sidewalk in front of district office
to Salvestrin seems not to serve much of
a purpose? Unless it’s accompanied by
SR 29 pedestrian crossing improvements
at Dowdell, but that’s not clear in this
map.
397 Main Street, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 0
I Wonder
Sidewalk gap closure in front of El Bonita
seems like it doesn't really serve a
purpose? Doesn’t connect to anything as
is, and will be duplicative since that is
where the VT is supposed to run.
195 Main Street, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 0
I Wonder
Proposed Vine Trail alignment is not
correct through the city, and is on the
wrong side of Main St in the south of
downtown area
1080 Main Street, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 0
I Wish
Not sure the gap closure on west side of
South Crane should be a priority or if it's
feasible. Or if so, maybe just to Vallejo St.

Discussion with City Public Works about
bike facilities in this area sounded like
this part of S Crane is already very
constrained - adding sidewalk on the
west side seems infeasible and would
serve very few past Vallejo St.
375 Crane Avenue, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 0
I Wish Spring Street between Valley View St and
Crane Ave: Fill sidewalk gaps
1918 Spring Street, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 0
I Wonder
Is sidewalk on south side of Yountville
Cross Rd between Yount and Stags View
Lane planned with repaving? Is it really
feasible? Also why does it extend to city
boundaries and then dead end?
1951 Yountville Cross
Road, Yountville,
California 94599, United
States
0 0
I Wonder
Class I off Stanly Ln going to dead end at
Napa River? Is that for river access off of
the Bay Trail? A spot to rest?
Soscol Ferry Road, Napa,
California 94558, United
States
0 0
I Wish Would love to see Class 1 from the 5-way
to the Middle School.
579 Coombsville Road,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 0
I Wish
Southbound Silverado Trail approaching
Soscol Ave should have sidewalk gap
filled to avoid unnecessary crossings on
Silverado Trail.
141 Silverado Trail, Napa,
California 94559, United
States
0 0

B-64
Category Comment Address Down Votes Up Votes
I Wish
Burnell sidewalk gap closure should
extend to 8th St where pedestrians can
cross Soscol Ave at a lighted crosswalk.
300 Burnell Street, Napa,
California 94559, United
States
0 0
I Wonder
Alta Heights neighborhood seems sparse
on sidewalks despite neighborhood
elementary school in walking distance.
1420 Banks Avenue,
Napa, California 94559,
United States
0 0
I Wish
Sidewalk gap on Byway East between
Valencia St and El Centro Ave should be
filled. Potential route to school.
4100 Byway East, Napa,
California 94558, United
States
0 0
I Wish
The gap on El Centro Ave by Willow
Elementary near Jefferson intersection
should be a proposed gap closure –
would allow students to cross El Centro
at Verbena St closer to the school rather
than next to a busy intersection where
Jefferson traffic doesn’t have any traffic
control (therefore faster vehicle turns).
1417 El Centro Avenue,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 0
I Wish
Sidewalk gaps on Jefferson near Willow
Elementary are not included as proposed
pedestrian gap closures – this is critical
on such a busy corridor on routes to
several nearby schools. Fill sidewalk
gaps.
4010 Jefferson Street,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 0
I Wonder
Not addressing Marin St sidewalk gap
between Park and Lincoln seems like a
missed opportunity, especially with
school and as a quieter parallel route to
California Blvd.
2515 Marin Street, Napa,
California 94558, United
States
0 0
I Wonder
The proposed Class I across Main Street
seems like it should be north of the
creek.
1038 Main Street, Napa,
California 94559, United
States
0 0
I Wish
Fill gaps on Laurel between Griggs and
Freeway Dr. Lot of foot traffic in the
area.
2740 Laurel Street, Napa,
California 94558, United
States
0 0
I Wonder
Would like more info on recommended
Class I on W Imola between SR 29 and
Hunt St
1900 West Imola Avenue,
Napa, California 94559,
United States
0 0
I Wish Fill sidewalk gap on Solano Ave off of W
Lincoln
2445 Solano Avenue,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 0
I Wonder Fill sidewalk gap between West Park
School and Bradford St
2409 West Park Avenue,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 0

B-65
Category Comment Address Down Votes Up Votes
I Wonder
Why are no sidewalks proposed for
County pocket in Pueblo Vista area,
especially along routes to nearby
schools?
1600 Carol Drive, Napa,
California 94558, United
States
0 0
I Wish Fill sidewalk gap on W Pueblo from
Rancho Dr to Massa Dr
2481 West Pueblo
Avenue, Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
I Wonder Fill sidewalk gap on Cornwall, even if just
on one side, given route to school.
15 Cornwall Avenue,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 0
I Wonder Are the sidewalk gaps here being filled
with BVR road repaving project?
2959 1st Street, Napa,
California 94558, United
States
0 0
I Wonder Can gap on Redwood Rd between Lynn
and Reuben be filled?
2677 Redwood Road,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 0
I Wonder
Not closing sidewalk gap on Linda Vista
between Trower and Northwood school
entrance seems like a missed
opportunity given route to school.
3920 Linda Vista Avenue,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 0
I Wonder
No sidewalk gap closure on Hermosa Dr
off Salvador near middle school seems
like a missed opportunity
3091 Hermosa Drive,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 0
I Wonder
Were Salvador Ave sidewalk gaps filled
with recent project? Proposed sidewalk
on south side east of Summerfield Dr
seems like an error. Would be more
useful between Jefferson and
Manchester, prioritize filling this gap.
1610 Salvador Avenue,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 0
I Wonder
Citywide for American Canyon: Maybe
more Class I/sidewalk only connections
between cul-de-sac neighborhoods
should be considered. That would
encourage more active travel and make
active travel more direct and convenient
than driving. There are a lot of deadend/cul-de-sac neighborhoods throughout the city that could benefit
from this.
3 Mosaic Court, American
Canyon, California 94503,
United States
0 0
I Wonder
Multiple Class Is existing/proposed on
Newell Dr is confusing. In one spot it
looks like two paths are proposed on top
of each other and across the street from
the existing path.
7000 Newell Drive,
American Canyon,
California 94503, United
States
0 0

B-66
Category Comment Address Down Votes Up Votes
I Wonder
Class I/ped path gap on S Napa Junction
Road east of the highway will likely be an
issue - fill this gap with Class I or
sidewalk.
163 South Napa Junction
Road, American Canyon,
California 94503, United
States
0 0
I Wonder
Fill gaps between the proposed Class I on
the west side of SR 29 between Napa
Junction Road and Poco Way. Also on the
east side between S Napa Junction and
existing at Eucalyptus
3945 Broadway Street,
American Canyon,
California 94503, United
States
0 0
I Wonder Add a connection between west end of
Knightsbridge Way and proposed Class I.
428 Knightsbridge Way,
American Canyon,
California 94503, United
States
0 0
I Wonder Fill all sidewalk gaps on W Donaldson
Way
207 West Donaldson
Way, American Canyon,
California 94503, United
States
0 0
I Wonder
Why doesn’t proposed sidewalk on
Eucalyptus between Theresa and Rio del
Mar go all the way to Theresa? Fill this
gap to provide connectivity.
6 Eucalyptus Drive,
American Canyon,
California 94503, United
States
0 0
I Wonder Connect proposed Class I on Hess Dr to
existing sidewalk on Lombard Rd
185 Lombard Road,
American Canyon,
California 94503, United
States
0 0
I Wonder
Connect proposed Class I on Paoli Loop
Rd to existing Class I on east side of SR
29 – understanding difficulties with
crossing the RR tracks, you can see there
is already an existing desire line here
that will be more utilized with proposed
Class I.

Broadway Street,
American Canyon,
California 94590, United
States
0 0
I Wonder
A parent was struck by a vehicle in the
crosswalk here this morning while
dropping off their child. Police and fire
responded to the crash. This intersection
has special yellow crosswalks too. More
protection measures for ped/bikes
should be implemented here.
1341 Berry Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
I Wonder I wonder if there's a way to make this
intersection safer for pedestrians.
1506 Lincoln Avenue,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
I Love
Thank you for including Grant Street!
We're hoping to have a fully integrated
walking path here.
2320 Grant Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0

B-67
Category Comment Address Down Votes Up Votes
I Wish
The Fairgrounds need to have pedestrian
paths that offer leisure space and
walking areas.
2025 Grant Street,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
I Love
This is an unaddressed portion of road
where many students walk to get across
Foothill Blvd. Thank you for including it!
1523 Foothill Boulevard,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
I Wish
This is an unsafe intersection for
pedestrian traffic. Possibly connecting
the sidewalk with a crosswalk would be
helpful? Also: consider a roundabout at
this intersection to make traffic flow
safer for everyone.
2080 Lincoln Avenue,
Calistoga, California
94515, United States
0 0
I Wish
Suggest prioritizing gap closure of
existing sidewalk along Silverado Trail
between East Ave and Lincoln Ave.
1745 Silverado Trail,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 0
I Wish
I would love a full sidewalk leading out
to the middle school for the families, and
kids. It’s currently very dangerous with
traffic.

Cedar Drive, Napa,
California 94559, United
States
0 1
I Wish
There is not a designated place for
pedestrians. You walk through the
shopping center parking lot as a
pedestrian. Would at least like a
designate place in the parking lot
1850 Old Sonoma Road,
Napa, California 94559,
United States
0 0
I Wish
Would like to see slip lane from Jefferson
to Hayes removed. The sight lines from
Jefferson to Hayes are very poor and you
cannot see pedestrians walking north on
Jefferson across the Hayes intersection
1272 Hayes Street, Napa,
California 94559, United
States
0 0
I Wish
Kids walking to Shearer Elementary
(between Pine and Oak need a
consistent sidewalk on Jefferson
220 Jefferson Street,
Napa, California 94559,
United States
0 0
I Wish
I wish there was a sidewalk all the way
from the Silverado Trail down
Coombsville, to the middle school.

Middle School students walk here
frequently and my kids and I walk here
and it feels unsafe.
505 Coombsville Road,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 1
I Wish
I wish there were continuous sidewalks
from Silverado Trail to Silverado Middle
School along Coombsville Road. The
school is a community focal point and
pedestrians often walk in the busy,
sunny road in dangerous conditions.
1071 Coombsville Road,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 2

B-68
Category Comment Address Down Votes Up Votes
I Wonder
There is not a complete sidewalk on the
north side of Third St. between Silverado
and Juarez. It would be great if this gap
could be filled in.
801 Silverado Trail, Napa,
California 94559, United
States
0 1
I Wish
I wish there were a sidewalk on the
south side of Coombsville for the ENTIRE
block between Davis and Silverado.

Pedestrians, especially Silverado Middle
School students, frequently walk on the
shoulder of the road here, in dangerous
conditions.
9 Coombsville Road,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 3
I Wish
I wish there were a sidewalk on the
south side of Coombsville between
Hennessy and Davis. Pedestrians,
especially Silverado Middle School
students frequently walk on the shoulder
of the road here, in dangerous
conditions.
112 Coombsville Road,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 3
I Wonder
If Vine Trail will be on west side of
highway, should a sidewalk connect from
Grayson/Mills down to Dowdell on the
east side of the highway?
501 Main Street, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 1
I Wish
Comment from St Helena Harvest
Festival attendee - Crosswalk at Allison is
dangerous due to vehicle speeds and
poor sight lines. Noted that there have
been several crashes in vicinity. See TIMS
CASE ID: 9643937
924 Pope Street, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 0
I Wonder
Pretty sure Crawford Way apartment
project at this location will add sidewalks
here
325 Crawford Way,
American Canyon,
California 94503, United
States
0 0
I Wonder Sidewalk does exist on east side of Crane
Ave where it is marked as proposed.
375 Crane Avenue, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 0
I Wonder There is no sidewalk gap here.
1376 Grayson Avenue, St.

Helena, California 94574,
United States
0 0
I Love
this is a great addition to the riverfront
for those accessing from the west (the
majority of residents)!
100 Riverside Drive,
Napa, California 94559,
United States
0 0
I Love this will be a great addition for kids going
to school and every day pedestrians!
1900 West Imola Avenue,
Napa, California 94559,
United States
0 0

B-69
Category Comment Address Down Votes Up Votes
I Wish Suggest closing gap in sidewalk here
218 Soscol Avenue, Napa,
California 94559, United
States
0 1
I Wonder I don't think there is an existing Class I
here. Is this meant to be proposed?
209 Kimberly Drive,
American Canyon,
California 94503, United
States
0 0
I Wonder
Sidewalk from Community Park I parking
lot to ACMS basketball court next to the
track is not marked.
28 Spikerush Circle,
American Canyon,
California 94503, United
States
0 0
I Wonder
The "sidewalk" fronting Napa Junction
Magnet School is actually an existing
Class I path.
500 Eucalyptus Drive,
American Canyon,
California 94503, United
States
0 0
I Wonder Existing Class I (Vine Trail) here is not
marked.
3360 Solano Avenue,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 1
I Wish Sidewalk exists here (according to
Google Maps)
2001 Salvador Avenue
West, Napa, California
94558, United States
0 0
I Wonder Existing sidewalk in front of Hall Wines
not marked.
436 Saint Helena Highway
South, St. Helena,
California 94574, United
States
0 0
I Wish
I wish the power line pole wasn’t
blocking the sidewalk. Parrish also has
overgrown bushes and fencing that
blocks the sidewalk. We have children
who have to use the middle of the street
to get to 7/11 because Parrish Rd’s
sidewalks are not wide enough, even non
existent in some parts. We have elderly
who use wheelchairs on Parrish that
can’t use the sidewalks at all.
2180 Parrish Road, Napa,
California 94559, United
States
0 1
I Wonder
Isn't the City currently adding sidewalks
on many of the streets in this
neighborhood?
44 Chelsea Avenue, Napa,
California 94558, United
States
0 0
I Wish There should be a crosswalk here.
249 Jefferson Street,
Napa, California 94559,
United States
0 0
I Wonder This is weird.
9 Burnette Court, Napa,
California 94558, United
States
0 0

B-70
Category Comment Address Down Votes Up Votes
I Wonder Why is this here? It doesn't connect to
anything?
3 Highland Drive, Napa,
California 94559, United
States
0 0
I Wish
I really wish this crosswalk were safer.

Cars never stop when I'm trying to cross
here
411 Coombsville Road,
Napa, California 94558,
United States
0 3

Appendix C
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Methodology & Bicycle
Connectivity

C-1
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Level of traffic stress (LTS) is a suitability rating system from the perspective of different subsets of the population, which measures the perceived comfort, safety and convenience associated with bicycling or walking in or adjacent to vehicle traffic. Studies have shown that 60 percent of the population will be deterred from bicycling or walking if an active transportation facility features high levels of traffic stress and they will only choose the routes with the highest levels of perceived safety.1 The less stressful the experience, and the lower the LTS score, the more likely bicycling or walking is to appeal to a broader segment of the population.

A bicycle and pedestrian network will attract greater numbers of residents, employees and visitors of all ages and abilities if it is designed to reduce the level of stress associated with potential conflicts with motor vehicles and safely connect people to their destinations. Facilities that provide greater separation between vehicle traffic and people walking and bicycling, as well as minimize the potential for stressful conflicts between these road user groups, will result in the lowest levels of traffic stress and highest comfort using the facility.

The original LTS methodology was developed by Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon in Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, Report 11-19, published by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) (May 2012). Since the original 2012 MTI paper, Peter Furth has continued to update the LTS criteria for road segments, most recently in 20222 .

This analysis employs the most updated 2022 criteria for road segment LTS analysis, described in additional detail below.

Methodology
The bicycle LTS methodology considers a variety of roadway infrastructure characteristics to determine the LTS score of a roadway or intersection, including:
» Level of separation from vehicular traffic
» Street width (number of lanes), daily traffic volumes and/or functional classification » Presence and width of bike lanes, parking lanes, medians and turn lanes » Frequency of bike lane blockage
» Speed limit or prevailing speed of adjacent street or streets being travelled along or crossed » Intersection control type
Level of traffic stress scores are governed by the worst-case principle, meaning that the highest stress score associated with analyzed criteria will determine the LTS score of the overall segment, with LTS 1 being the lowest stress and LTS 4 being the highest stress. The application of these criteria-specific bicycle LTS analysis is described below.
1 “Four Types of Transportation Cyclists in Portland,” Geller, 2006 2 https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.northeastern.edu/dist/e/618/files/2014/05/LTS-Tables-v2.2.pdf

C-2
Figure B.1 describes each LTS score by bicycle user type or category. Sixty percent of the population falls within the interested but concerned LTS 1 or LTS 2 categories. Bicycle LTS analyzes roadway segments, intersection approaches and intersection crossings, and the worst score among the three analysis categories determines the overall LTS score of the overall segment.

Table C.1: Bicyclist Comfort Typology
The criteria for analyzing Bicycle LTS is broken into three categories:
» Physically separated paths or lanes, such as Class I shared-use paths or Class IV cycle tracks » Streets with standard bicycle lanes, such as Class II or Class II buffered bicycle lanes » Streets without bicycle lanes, also referred to as mixed traffic Physically separated paths or lanes are generally assigned LTS scores of one due to the greater separation from vehicular traffic, while the LTS scores associated with the other two categories vary based on a variety of factors.

The criteria for analyzing the segment LTS of streets with Class II bicycle lanes are presented in Table B.1 and Table B.2, which are separated by segments that feature an adjacent parking lane, and those that do not. As shown, the segment BLTS score considers bicycle lane width, presence and parking lane width, speed and lanes per direction.

C-3
Table C.2: BLTS Criteria for Segment with Bike Lane and Adjacent Parking Lane Number of
lanes
Bike lane reach
= bike + parking
lane width
Prevailing or Posted Speed
0-28.5 28.5-33.5 33.5-38.5 38.5-43.5
1 thru lane
per direction
or contraflow
lane
15+ ft LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
<15 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
1-way multilane 15+ ft LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
<15 ft LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
2-way, 2 lanes
per direction
15+ ft LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
<15 ft LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
Other 2-way
multilane
any LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
Notes

1. If bike lane is frequently blocked (as may be the case in commercial areas), use mixed traffic criteria.

2. Minimum bike lane reach is 12 ft. For narrower reach, use Mixed Traffic criteria.

3. Bike lane reach includes any marked buffer next to the bike lane; also, add 2 ft if road has one thru lane per direction and a central two-way turn lane.

4. Use mixed traffic criteria if it would result in lower LTS.

Table C.3: BLTS Criteria for Segment with Bike Lane, no Adjacent Parking Lane Number of
Lanes
Bike lane
Width
Prevailing or Posted Speed
0-28.5 28.5-33.5 33.5-38.5 38.5-43.5 43.5-48.5 48.5+
1 thru lane
per
direction or
contraflow
lane
6+ ft LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
Less than 6
ft
LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
2 thru
lanes per
direction
6+ ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
Less than 6
ft
LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
3+ lanes
per
direction
Any width LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Notes

1. If bike lane is frequently blocked (as may be the case is commercial areas), or if parking is allowed in an advisory lane, use mixed traffic criteria.

2. Minimum bike lane width is 4 ft next to a curb and 3.5 ft next to a road edge or discontinuous gutter seam. For narrower bike lanes, use Mixed Traffic criteria.

3. Bike lane width includes nay market buffer next to the bike lane; also, add 2 ft if road has one thru lane per direction and a central two-way turn lane.

4. Use mixed traffic criteria if it would result in lower LTS.

Table B.3 presents the criteria for analyzing segments without bicycle lanes that require a bicyclist to ride with mixed traffic. If daily traffic volume is available, then that data should be considered in the analysis. If daily volume data is not available, functional classification should be analyzed in place of daily traffic volumes. As shown, lower speed roadways and higher speed roadways are analyzed differently, but both categories consider presence of a marked centerline, number of through lanes per direction, daily traffic volume or functional classification, and speed.

C-4
Table C.4: BLTS Criteria for Segments in Mixed Traffic
Number
of Lanes
ADT Posted or Prevailing Speed
0-23.5 23.5-28.5 28.5-33.5 33.5-38.5 38.5-43.5 43.5-48.5 48.5+ Unlaned
2-way
street (no
centerline)
0-750 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
751-1500 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
1501-
3000
LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
3001+ LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
2-way
with 1
lane per
direction
and
centerline,
or wide*
1-way, 1
lane
0-1000 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
1001-
1500
LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
1501+ LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Narrow*
one-way,
1 lane
0-600 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
601-1000 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
1001+ LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
2 thru
lanes per
direction
0-8000 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
8001+ LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
3+ thru
lanes per
direction
Any ADT LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Notes
* A one-way street is “narrow” if its width is less than 30 ft with parking on both sides, less than 22 ft with parking on one side, or less than 15 ft with no parking. Otherwise, it is wide.

C-5
Bicycle Connectivity
Roads with high LTS are barriers for most bicyclists. These barriers limit connectivity between neighborhoods and to key destinations. Based on the LTS analysis conducted, an assessment of bicycle connectivity was completed. 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.

The goal of this analysis is to identify which destinations are well connected along the low-stress bicycle network, and which destinations are poorly connected. This assessment also resulted in maps that visualize low-stress bicycle connectivity.

Methodology
Low-stress bicycle connectivity is assessed based on whether an origin and a destination were connected along the low-stress bicycle network. A low-stress bicycle connection was drawn between an origin and a destination if a bicycle trip could be completed along streets that scores LTS 2 or lower.

Origins
Origins in this assessment are identified as residential units or starting places for bicycle trips. The analysis does not include every residence in Napa County, but rather a point of origin where multiple residents may begin their trip. Points of origin are identified every 50 feet if one or more residences are present.

Origins are only considered if they are 1.5 miles or less along the roadway network from a destination. This distance represents the distance a bicyclist is willing to ride to their destination and the low-stress bicycle network.

Results
The output of the bicycle connectivity assessment is a series of connectivity maps describing low-stress connectivity to key destinations throughout Napa County. The figures below show a connectivity heat map, where areas in dark green have the best low-stress bicycle connectivity. In addition, the AT Plan includes the percentage of origins (residential units) that are connected to each destination along the low stress network. For these tables, and a discussion of the connectivity results, see Chapters 7-12.

Robert Louis
Stevenson State
Park
Mount Saint
Helena Golf
Course

CHAMPAGNE N

GRANT ST

FOOTHILL BLVD

TUBBS LN

LAKE ST

WASHINGTON ST

GREENWOOD AVE

N OAK ST

DUNAWEAL
LN

SILVERADO TRL

ROSEDALE RD

MYRTLEDALE RD

MORA AVE

PICKETT RD

BRA N NA N RIDGE
LN
LEGEND
Density of Residential Parcels with a Low
Stress Connection
Dense
Sparse
Points of Interest
Hospital
School
Public Service and Government
Fresh Food
Park
Senior Living
Large Employer in Napa Valley
Retail
Accommodation
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 C.1
City of Calistoga
Connectivity
H

0.5 Miles

Crane Park
Stonebridge Park

CHAIX LN

MADRON A A V E

POPE ST

SPRING ST

VALLEJO ST

MEADOWOOD LN

MAIN ST

WHITEHALL LN

DOWDELL LN

ZINFANDEL LN

SULPHUR SPRING S AVE

WHITE LN

HUNT AVE SPRING MOUNTAI N RD

W ZINFANDEL LN
BI G

RO CK RD

FULTON LN

MILLS LN

PRATT AVE

GRAYSON AVE

CRANE AVE

SILVERADO TRL

INGLEWOOD AVE

LEWELLING AVE

DEAN YORK LN

CABERNET LN

DEER PARK RD

WHITEHALL LN
FIGURE C.2
City of St. Helena
Connectivity
H

0.5 Miles
LEGEND
Density of Residential Parcels with a Low
Stress Connection
Dense
Sparse
Points of Interest
Hospital
School
Public Service and Government
Fresh Food
Park
Senior Living
Large Employer in Napa Valley
Retail
Accommodation
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
County Limits
City Limits

Vintner's Golf Club
Yountville Park
OUTE
Vineyard Park

R ALEMEDA

CALIFORNIA DR

MISSION ST

FORRESTER LN HEATHER ST
YO
UNT ST

OAK CIR

YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD

JEFFERSON ST

SAN ANTONIO ST

PRESIDENTS CIR

FINNELL RD

CHAMPAGNE DR

LANDE WAY

YOUNT MILL RD
SOLANO
AVE

MADISON ST

CALIFORNIA
DR

WASHINGTON ST
VISTA
DR

VINEYARDCIR

MULBERRY ST

HERITAGE WAY
NAPA

VALLEY VINE TRAIL

VINEYARD VIEW DR

IMPERIAL RD

INNER ALEMEDA

LAND LN

WASHINGTON ST
FIGURE C.3
Town of Yountville
Connectivity
H

0.5 Miles
No bicycle facilities
westwards
LEGEND
Density of Residential Parcels with
a Low Stress Connection
Dense
Sparse
Points of Interest
Hospital
School
Public Service and
Government
Fresh Food
Park
Senior Living
Large Employer in Napa
Valley
Retail
Accommodation
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

Skyline Wilderness Park
Alston Park
John F Kennedy
Memorial Park
Westwood
Hills Park
Trancas Crossing
Park
1S
T AVE

DRY CREEK RD
F
O
S
TER RD

LAS AMIGAS RD

REDWOOD RD

HAGEN RD
GOLDEN
GA
TE D
R

CUTTINGS WHARF RD

DEVLIN RD

VICHY AVE

DUHIG RD

COOM BSVILLE RD

SILVERA
DO
TRL

WITHERS RD

MADRONE DR

ORCHARD AVE

DEALY LN
FIGURE C.4
City of Napa
Connectivity
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Density of Residential Parcels
with a Low Stress Connection
Dense
Sparse
Points of Interest
Hospital
School
Public Service and
Government
Fresh Food
Park
Senior Living
Large Employer in Napa
Valley
Retail
Accommodation
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

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
LEGEND
Density of Residential Parcels with a Low Stress
Connection
Dense
Sparse
Points of Interest
Hospital
School
Public Service and Government
Fresh Food
Park
Senior Living
Large Employer in Napa Valley
Retail
Accommodation
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 C.5
City of Napa - Northwest
Connectivity
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
FIGURE C.6
City of Napa - Northeast
Connectivity
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Density of Residential Parcels with a
Low Stress Connection
Dense
Sparse
Points of Interest
Hospital
School
Public Service and Government
Fresh Food
Park
Senior Living
Large Employer in Napa Valley
Retail
Accommodation
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

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 C.7
City of Napa - South
Connectivity
H
1 Miles
LEGEND
Density of Residential Parcels
with a Low Stress Connection
Dense
Sparse
Points of Interest
Hospital
School
Public Service and
Government
Fresh Food
Park
Senior Living
Large Employer in Napa
Valley
Retail
Accommodation
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

Veterans
Memorial Park
Shenandoah Park
American Canyon
Community Park
Kimberly Park
BOONE
DR

DEVLIN RD

MARLA DR
S

KELLY RD TOWER RD

GREEN ISLAND RD
WA
TS
ON
LN

BROADWAY

BROADWAY
NEWELL
DR

EUCALYPTUS DR

AIRPORT RD

MARCUS RD

COMMERCE
CT
29 LEGEND
Density of Residential
Parcels with a Low Stress
Connection
Dense
Sparse
Points of Interest
Hospital
School
Public Service and
Government
Fresh Food
Park
Senior Living
Large Employer in
Napa Valley
Retail
Accommodation
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 C.8
City of American Canyon
Connectivity

0.5 Miles H

Appendix D
Treatment Toolkit

NAPA COUNTY

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

TREATMENT TOOLKIT
MARCH 2026

2NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 4
BICYCLE FACILITIES 5
POTENTIAL BICYCLE USERS 6
BICYCLE FACILITY SELECTION 7
SHARED-USE PATHS (CLASS I) 9
SEPARATED BIKE LANES (CLASS IV) 12
BUFFERED BIKE LANES (CLASS II) 13
BIKE LANES (CLASS II) 14
BICYCLE BOULEVARD (CLASS III) 15
RURAL BIKE ROUTES (CLASS III) 16
UNCLASSIFIED BIKE ROUTES (CLASS III) 17
BIKEWAY INTERSECTION & SPOT TREATMENTS 19
BIKE BOXES 20
PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS 22
MIXING ZONES 23
SEPARATED BIKE LANES AT ROUNDABOUTS 24
BIKE LANE EXTENSION MARKINGS 25
TRUCK APRONS 26
AT-GRADE RAILROAD CROSSINGS 27
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES & AMENITIES 29
ELEMENTS OF A SIDEWALK 30
PREFERRED WIDTHS FOR SIDEWALK ZONES 31
CORNERS AND CURB RADII 32
CURB RAMPS 33
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TREATMENTS 34
PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS AT UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS 35
MARKED CROSSWALKS 36
RAISED CROSSWALKS 37
CURB EXTENSIONS 38

3NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT DAYLIGHTING 39
CROSSING ISLANDS 40
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON 41
PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON 42
PEDESTRIAN-SCALE LIGHTING 43
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 45
LANE NARROWING 46
LANE RECONFIGURATION 47
QUICK-BUILD 48
MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALKS AND SHARED-USE PATHS 49
MAINTENANCE OF ON-STREET FACILITIES 50
DESIGNING AN ACTIVE MODES NETWORK 51
WAYFINDING 52
PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS 53
BICYCLE SIGNALS 54
SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING 55
LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING 56
DRIVEWAYS 57
TRANSIT STOPS 58
DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 59
TRAFFIC CALMING 61
CHICANES 62
SPEED CUSHIONS 63
SPEED REDUCTION MARKINGS 64
HARDENED CENTERLINES 65
TRANSVERSE RUMBLE STRIPS 66
TRAFFIC CIRCLES 67

4NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Toolkit is to provide best practice guidance and other considerations to engineers, planners, and community members. This Toolkit introduces bicycle and pedestrian facility treatments, providing an overview, engineering guidance, and additional contextual considerations for each treatment.

The Toolkit is not comprehensive nor intended to take the place of design standards prepared by local agencies, Caltrans, or any other entity.

The content in this Toolkit aligns with the following key principles:
+ The bicycling and walking networks should accommodate people of all ages and abilities. + Bicycle travel on all streets should be safe, continuous, direct, and convenient. + The pedestrian network should not only be safe, but also attractive and dignified, and account for the fact that we are all pedestrians at some point of every trip.

BICYCLE FACILITIES
1

6NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

POTENTIAL BICYCLE USERS
Dill, J. McNeil, N. “Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey” Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting, 2016.

Types of Bicyclists
Many factors contribute to whether people will choose to ride a bicycle for utilitarian trips like commuting to work or school, or running errands. Two of the primary considerations are safety and comfort. Research has found that most of the American population is interested in bicycling for transportation but does not currently do so because they feel unsafe or uncomfortable. In fact, most people in the U.S. have little tolerance for interacting with motor vehicle traffic unless volumes and speeds are very low. This group is referred to as “Interested but Concerned” bicyclists, reflecting both their interest in bicycling for transportation as well as concerns about safety and comfort when interacting with motor vehicle traffic.

Interested but Concerned bicyclists feel safest and most comfortable riding on low-traffic, low-speed streets or on separate paths or other facilities that provide protection or physical separation from fast-moving traffic. Interested but Concerned bicyclists include people of all ages and abilities, including but not limited to disabled users, older adults, and families. The Napa Active Transportation Plan recommends facilities that are comfortable for Interested but Concerned bicyclists, which serves Enthusiastic and Confident bicyclists, as well.

REFERENCES

7NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

BICYCLE FACILITY SELECTION
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Highway Capacity Manual. 2010.

Designing for Interested but Concerned Bicyclists
Interested but Concerned bicyclists prefer physical separation between the bike lane and vehicle lane as traffic volumes and speeds increase. The bikeway facility selection chart below identifies preferred bikeway facilities for Interested but Concerned bicyclists at different roadway speeds and traffic volumes. Transitions are based on a shift in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) bicycle level of service from A to B (assuming no parking, 12’ outside travel lane, 6’ bike lane, 8’ buffered bike lane), or a C to D transition with on-street parking (8’ parking lane). Speed thresholds (which refer to posted speed) are based on bicycle level of traffic stress.

Where the preferred bikeway facility may not be feasible, consider reducing posted speed limit and/or installing traffic calming features to reduce roadway speed or volumes in order match the bicycle facility to road conditions. REFERENCES

8NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

BICYCLE FACILITY SELECTION
Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 5th Edition, 2024
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Shoulder Widths for Rural Roadways
In rural areas, shoulders are often provided instead of more robust bicycle facilities. Shoulder width should be based on traffic volumes and posted speeds in the rural context. For the purposes of determining the appropriate shoulder width, it is assumed that posted speeds are approximately the same as operating speeds. If operating speeds differ from posted speeds, then operating speed should be used instead of posted speed. For additional guidance and considerations for treatments along rural roadways with no dedicated bicycle facilities see page 16. REFERENCES

9NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. Highway Design Manual. 2020.

Caltrans. DIB-94: Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance. 2024.

FHWA. Achieving Multimodal Networks. 2016.

A shared-use path is a two-way facility physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and used by bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized users. Shared-use paths can be located in an independent alignment, such as a greenbelt or abandoned railroad, or constructed along roadways.

SHARED-USE PATHS (CLASS I)
+ Recommended widths vary based on the user types,
anticipated volumes, and context, but shared-use paths
should generally be 12 feet wide with 3-foot shoulders on each side. See Caltrans DIB-94 and the AASHTO Bike Guide for more guidance on facility widths.
+ Shared-use paths may be desirable along high-volume
or high-speed roadways, where accommodating the
targeted type of bicyclist within the roadway in a safe and comfortable way is impractical.
+ Although the minimum required path width is 10 feet, a path width of 8 feet is the minimum width that may be
used for a short distance to accommodate a physical
constraint such as an environmental feature.
+ Trails expected to serve a high percentage of pedestrians (30 percent or more) or be used by large maintenance
vehicles should be wider than 10 feet.
+ Fourteen feet is the preferred width where volumes are high (> 100 total users in the peak hour), there are steep grades, or high volumes of users who need additional
operating width are anticipated (e.g., children or skaters). + Maximum grade should not exceed 5 percent. There may
be certain situations in which physical constraints prevent compliance with the 5 percent maximum grade, in which
case mitigations such as providing additional path width for slower bicyclists to dismount and walk, providing
resting intervals with flatter grades, or providing pedestrian handrails should be considered. Grades less than 0.5
percent should be avoided, if possible.
+ Provide protective railings/fences at 42 inches high if the trail and graded shoulder are directly adjacent to a steep slope and drop, as defined in Chapter 5 of the AASHTO
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.
+ Ideally, provide a graded shoulder area of 3 to 5 feet on at least one side of path where feasible. The shoulder
area should be maintained and recoverable in all weather conditions.
+ Consider providing lighting at path/roadway intersections at a minimum and at other locations where personal
security may be an issue.
+ All shared-use paths must conform to the current editions of both the AASHTO and ADA guidelines.
+ Shared-use paths are pedestrian facilities and are required to be fully accessible. They must conform to Public Rightsof-way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) if in a public right-of-way or Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) on Accessibility Guideline for Shared-Use Paths if in a private right-of-way.

REFERENCES

10NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

SHARED-USE PATHS (CLASS I)

CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. Highway Design Manual. 2020.

Caltrans. DIB-94: Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance. 2024.

FHWA. Achieving Multimodal Networks. 2016.
+ Shared-use paths are appropriate when an on-street route may be perceived as unsafe due to the speed of the road, the majority of users are recreational or leisure users, or to provide a direct route between points of interest.
+ Shared-use paths typically have a lower design speed for bicyclists than on-street facilities and may not provide appropriate accommodation for more confident bicyclists who desire to travel at greater speeds. In some situations it may be appropriate to provide an on-street bikeway in addition to a shared-use path along the same roadway.
+ Path width should be informed by the number and type of users, and the differences in their speeds. For example, a path used by higher-speed bicyclists and children
walking to school may experience conflicts due to the
difference in user speeds. Additional user types like roller bladers, skateboarders, and dog walkers can introduce
similar conflicts. By widening the path to provide space to accommodate passing, conflicts can be reduced.
+ A path may benefit from the separation of users by user speed, type, or direction. When separating users, consider the path width and paving material preferred by each user. + Shared-use paths may present increased conflicts
between path users and motor vehicles at intersections
and driveway crossings. Conflicts can be reduced by
minimizing the number of driveway and street crossings
present along a path and otherwise providing high-visibility crossing treatments.
+ Path clearances are an important element in path design and reducing user conflicts. Vertical objects should be set back at least two feet from the edge of the path. Path shoulders may also reduce conflicts by providing space for users who step off the path to rest, allowing users to pass one another, or providing space for viewpoints.
+ Trails on grades greater than 3 to 5 percent should be wider to account for higher bicycle speed in the downhill direction and additional space for faster bicyclists to pass slower bicyclists and pedestrians in the uphill direction. + On sections with long steep grades, provide periodic
sections with a flat grade to permit users to stop and rest.

REFERENCES

11NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

SHARED-USE PATHS (CLASS I)
+ Consider providing amenities such as restrooms, bike
racks, and portable water at trailheads, and covered rest stops along the trail to ensure that paths are welcoming to a variety of user types, including families with children and seniors.
+ Consider providing maps and signs to improve wayfinding for users, such as signs that show trail names, connections to nearby trails, and/or nearby destinations.
+ Bollards within the clear width of shared-use paths are generally discouraged due to increased crash risk and
potential delays to emergency response. Instead, prioritize regulatory signage, clear visual cues indicating the facility is not intended for motor vehicle use, and entry designs that discourage vehicle access without introducing fixed obstacles. Where physical measures are necessary,
use markings and geometric design elements, such as
narrowed or split path entries, to deter vehicle intrusion while maintaining a clear, predictable path for shared-use path users.
+ Center line striping is optional on shared-use paths and should be applied strategically based on context and
safety needs. When used, center lines help separate
opposing travel directions and may be applied continuously or at targeted locations, such as curves with limited
sight distance, unlit segments where nighttime use is
expected, approaches to intersections, or near centerline obstructions like bollards.

12NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. DIB 89-02: Class IV Bikeway Guidance (Separated Bikeways/ Cycle Tracks). 2022.

Caltrans. DIB-94: Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance. 2024.

FHWA. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

SEPARATED BIKE LANES (CLASS IV)
Separated bike lanes are a dedicated bikeway facility type that combines the user experience of a shared-use path with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. They are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by a vertical element and are distinct from the sidewalk. Separated bike lanes can be constructed at sidewalk grade, roadway grade, or an intermediate grade between the sidewalk and street. Separated bike lanes can be designed to serve one-way bicyclist traffic or two-way bicyclist traffic. + Separated bike lanes are preferred over shared-use
paths in higher density areas, commercial and mixed-use development, and near major transit stations or locations where peak pedestrian volumes are anticipated to exceed 200 people per hour on a shared use path.
+ Separated bike lanes are more attractive to a wider range of bicyclists than striped bikeways on higher volume and higher speed roads since they are designed to prevent
motor vehicles from driving or waiting in the bikeway. They also provide greater comfort to pedestrians by separating them from bicyclists operating at higher speeds.
+ Choice of one- or two-way facility should be based on connectivity, bicyclist desire lines, roadway configuration, and potential intersection conflicts. Generally, one-way facilities are preferred.
+ The allocation of space can vary from midblock locations to intersection approaches. Providing a larger street buffer at intersections can be achieved by tapering the bike lane toward the sidewalk as it approaches the intersection and narrowing or eliminating the sidewalk buffer.
+ See Driveways section in Chapter 5 for details on how to address driveway crossings.
+ Separated bike lanes are a dedicated bike-only facility type and should be considered on any road with one or more of the following characteristics:
+ Traffic lanes: 3 lanes or greater.
+ Posted speed limit: 30 mph or more.
+ Traffic: 6,000 vehicles per day or greater.
+ On-Street parking turnover: frequent.
+ Streets that are designated as truck or bus routes.
+ One-way separated bike lanes should be 5’ wide minimum but widths of 7’ are preferred to allow for passing.
+ Buffer width may vary depending on type of vertical
separation used, but typically is 3’ wide. If adjacent to onstreet parking, a minimum 3’-wide buffer is required.

One-way sidewalk-level separated
bike lane
One-way intermediate-level
separated bike lane
One-way, street-level
separated bike lane with bollards

REFERENCES

SIDEWALK

BIKE LANE

BUFFER W/ STAKES

PARKING

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK

BIKE LANE
BUFFER

PARKING

13NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. DIB-94: Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance. 2024.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

Buffered bike lanes are created by painting a buffer zone between the bike lane and the adjacent travel lane. While buffers are typically used between bike lanes and motor vehicle travel lanes to increase bicyclists’ comfort, they can also be provided between bike lanes and parking lanes in locations with high parking turnover to discourage bicyclists from riding too close to parked vehicles.
+ Can be used on one-way or two-way streets.
+ Consider placing buffer next to parking lane where there is commercial or metered parking.
+ When 7’ of pavement width is available, consider providing a 5-foot bike lane with a 2-foot buffer.
+ Buffered bike lanes allow bicyclists to ride side by side or to pass slower moving bicyclists. A larger buffer and/or bike lane is acceptable in cases where sufficient/excess pavement width is available.
+ Preferable to a conventional bike lanes when used as a contra-flow bike lane on one-way streets.
+ As noted in the Bicycle Facility Selection section earlier in this chapter, Where the preferred bikeway facility may not be feasible (such as a street with a posted speed greater than 30 mph and existing Class II bike lanes that cannot accommodate Class IV separated bike lanes), consider
reducing the posted speed limit, consistent with state
law, and/or installing traffic calming features to reduce roadway speed or volumes in order match the bicycle
facility to road conditions. In this example, enhancing the existing bike lanes to Class II buffered bike lanes can be paired with reducing the posted speed limit to 30 mph.
+ Place buffered or unbuffered bike lanes next to travel lane where speeds are 30 mph or slower and when traffic volume are fewer than 6,000 vehicles per day.
+ Bike lanes must be a minimum of 4 feet wide and ideally 5–6 feet wide, with an additional painted buffer of at least 2 feet (or 3 feet when adjacent to parking). Consistent with AASHTO guidance, where bike lanes are located adjacent
to a gutter or pan that is less than 5 feet wide, the gutter area should not be counted toward the effective bike lane width, as it does not provide usable operating space for bicyclists.

BUFFERED BIKE LANES (CLASS II)
Buffered bike lane adjacent to a curb Buffered bike lane adjacent to parking

REFERENCES

14NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. DIB-94: Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance. 2024.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

Bike lanes provide an exclusive space for bicyclists in the roadway. Bike lanes are established through the use of lines and symbols on the roadway surface. Bike lanes are for one-way travel and are normally provided in both directions on two-way streets or on one side of a one-way street. Bicyclists are not required to remain in a bike lane when traveling on a street and may leave the bike lane as necessary to make turns, pass other bicyclists, or to properly position themselves for other necessary movements. + Can be used on one-way or two-way streets.
+ Bike lanes may be enhanced with consistent use of conflict area striping, preferably with green-colored pavement,
including right turn lanes & major driveways. More details can be found in the “Bikeway Intersection and Spot
Treatments” section.
+ Word/Symbol markings should be applied before & after intersections.
+ Stopping, standing and parking in bike lanes may be
problematic in areas of high parking demand and
deliveries, especially in commercial areas. Use of sign R7-9 (or R7-9a) and/or red curbs may be used to discourage
parking in bike lanes.
+ Wider bike lanes or buffered bike lanes are preferable at locations with high parking turnover or higher volumes of bicyclists during peak hours.
+ Place bike lanes next to travel lane where speeds are 25 mph or slower and when traffic volume are fewer than
6,000 vehicles per day.
+ Bike lanes must be a minimum of 4’ wide, but ideally
should be 5-6’ wide. When adjacent to on-street parking, bike lanes should be a minimum of 5’ wide. Consistent with AASHTO guidance, where bike lanes are located adjacent
to a gutter or pan that is less than 5 feet wide, the gutter area should not be counted toward the effective bike lane width, as it does not provide usable operating space for bicyclists.
+ Parking T’s or hatch marks can highlight the door zone on constrained corridors with high parking turnover to guide bicyclists away from doors. (See rightmost graphic above.)

BIKE LANES (CLASS II)
Bike lane adjacent to a curb Bike lane adjacent to parking Bike lane with door zone marking

REFERENCES

15NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. DIB-94: Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance. 2024.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

BICYCLE BOULEVARD (CLASS III)
Bicycle boulevards are applied on quiet streets, often through residential neighborhoods. These treatments are designed to prioritize bicycle through-travel, while calming motor vehicle traffic and maintaining relatively low motor vehicle volumes. Treatments vary depending on context, but often include elements of traffic calming and measures to discourage cut-through traffic, including traffic diverters, speed attenuators such as speed humps or chicanes, pavement markings, and signs. Bicycle boulevards are also known as neighborhood greenways or neighborhood bikeways, among other locally-preferred terms. + Many cities already have Class III bike routes along
neighborhood streets that provide an alternative to
traveling on high-volume, high-speed arterials. Applying bicycle boulevard treatments to these routes makes them more suitable for bicyclists of all abilities and can reduce crashes.
+ Stop signs or traffic signals (where possible and allowed by warrant) should be placed along the bicycle boulevard in a way that prioritizes the bicycle movement, minimizing stops and delays for bicyclists whenever possible.
+ Agencies may consider implementing bicycle boulevard
treatments on one pilot corridor to measure the impacts and gain community support. The pilot program should
include before-and-after crash studies, motor vehicle
counts, and bicyclist counts on both the bicycle boulevard and parallel streets. Findings from the pilot program can be used to justify bicycle boulevard treatments on other neighborhood streets.
+ Additional treatments for major street crossings may be needed, such as median refuge islands, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, bicycle signals, or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons.
+ Bicycle boulevards can generally be considered on any road with one or more of the following characteristics:
+ Maximum Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 3,000
+ Preferred ADT: up to 1,000
+ Target speeds for motor vehicle traffic are typically around 20-25 mph; there should be a maximum 15 mph speed
differential between bicyclists and vehicles.
+ Bicycle boulevards feature regularly spaced traffic calming treatments to slow vehicles and meet target vehicle
speeds. See “Traffic Calming” section.
+ Refer to State Bill 1216 for new Class III bicycle facility requirements beginning January 1, 2025.
+ Provide clear wayfinding to help users navigate to and along bike boulevards, supporting connectivity within the broader bicycle network (see Wayfinding page 52).

REFERENCES

16NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Rural bike routes accommodate bicyclists on roadways without dedicated facilities, either on shoulders or by sharing the travel lane with vehicles. This type of facility is applicable in rural areas where dedicated bikeways either will not fit on the street or would not be appropriate given the surrounding context.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

FHWA. Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts. 2016.

FHWA. Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks. 2016.

REFERENCES

RURAL BICYCLE ROUTES
(CLASS III)

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
+ Refer to State Bill 1216 for new Class III bicycle facility requirements beginning January 1, 2025.
+ Where present, shoulder width should be at least 5’
if the roadway is curbless and there are no vertical
obstructions. If curbs, gutter, or vertical obstructions are present, shoulder width should be 5’ minimum exclusive
of obstructions. See table on Page 8 for recommended
shoulder width based on roadway speed and volume.
+ When posted speed limits or 85th percentile speeds
exceed 50 mph and/or if heavy vehicles frequently use
the road, shoulders should exceed minimum widths to
enhance bicyclist comfort.
+ Edge line rumble strips can provide additional bicyclist protection on paved shoulders. The width of a shoulder
with rumble strips should be measured from the rightmost side of the rumble strip. Periodic gaps should be provided to allow bicyclists to move across the strip pattern.
+ On rural roadways with higher traffic volumes (e.g., ADT above approximately 6,000–7,000 vehicles per day,
depending on context) and/or higher speeds (45 mph or
greater), shared use paths are often preferred over on-road bike facilities to improve bicyclist comfort and safety. + On roads used by bicyclists that lack shoulders, the
BICYCLE warning sign (W11-1) or BICYCLES ALLOWED
USE OF FULL LANE (R9-20) may be used. It may
be supplemented with an IN LANE, ON ROAD, or ON
ROADWAY plaque. A fluorescent yellow-green background
may be used for these sign assemblies.
+ Signs W11-1 or R9-20 should be spaced every 1-2 miles.

They should also be placed prior to approaches to curves, hills, or other places with limited sight distances.
+ The SHARE THE ROAD sign (W16-1P) is not recommended
as it does not provide a clear message to users.
+ For roads that are unable to provide consistent and
standard size bikeable shoulders in both directions, provide a wider shoulder on:
+ The uphill direction on hilly roads to reduce conflicts between slow-moving bicyclists and fast-moving
motor vehicles.
+ The inside of a horizontal curve and/or the downgrade of a vertical curve where sight distance is restricted. + In rural areas, paved shoulders may provide space for pedestrians on roadways without sidewalks. In situations where a shoulder is intended for pedestrian use, it must meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.

17NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

FHWA. Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks. 2016.

UNCLASSIFIED BIKE ROUTES
Unclassified Bike Routes are paths, trails, or roadways that provide readily apparent transportation options to users, but which are not consistent with minimum standards established for Class I-IV facilities due to material type, width, or other characteristics. Unclassified Bike Routes are almost always existing facilities that preclude identification as a future Class I–IV facility without substantial reconstruction. REFERENCES + On roads used by bicyclists that lack shoulders, the
BICYCLE warning sign (W11-1) or BICYCLES ALLOWED
USE OF FULL LANE sign (R9-20) may be used. It may
be supplemented with an IN LANE, ON ROAD, or ON
ROADWAY plaque. A fluorescent yellow-green background
may be used for these sign assemblies.
+ Signs W11-1 or R9-20 should be spaced every 1-2 miles.

They should also be placed prior to approaches to curves, hills, or other places with limited sight distances.
+ The SHARE THE ROAD sign (W16-1P) is not recommended
as it does not provide a clear message to users.
+ California state law requires motorists to provide at least 3’ clearance when passing bicyclists. The Bicycle Passing Clearance sign, R117(CA), may be used to specify this.
+ Speed reduction markings, ideally placed upstream of
unexpected horizontal curves, may be particularly useful on rural roads with higher volumes of bicyclists. (See
Speed Reduction Markings section in Chapter 6 for more
information.)
+ Paved shoulders are particularly important for improving comfort and safety for bicyclists on roadways that meet any or all of the following conditions:
+ Inadequate sight distances for the typical operating
speed,
+ Grades in excess of 5 percent, or
+ High percentages (> 10 percent) of heavy vehicles.
+ When it is not possible to install paved shoulders on both sides of the roadway, climbing lanes (paved shoulders
on one side of the roadway in the uphill direction) provide dedicated space for people to bicycle uphill allowing faster vehicular traffic to pass comfortably.
+ On roadway sections with vertical or horizontal curves that limit sight distance, it can be helpful to provide shoulders over the crest and on the downgrade of a vertical curve or on the inside of a horizontal curve.
+ Refuge areas are paved or unpaved locations adjacent to the roadway where bicyclists may pull over to stop for rest or allow traffic to pass. Refuge areas should have adequate visibility for bicyclists pulling in and out to avoid conflicts with moving traffic. It may also be necessary to restrict parking in refuge areas to ensure that parked vehicles do not inhibit the use of the space by bicyclists or create sight distance obstructions.

18 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

BIKEWAY INTERSECTION &

SPOT TREATMENTS
2

20NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
FHWA. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

BIKE BOXES
SINGLE
A bike box provides dedicated space between the crosswalk and vehicle stop line where bicyclists can wait in front of motor vehicles during the red light at signalized intersections. Bike boxes are primarily used to mitigate conflicts between through bicyclists and right-turning motorists and to reduce conflicts between motorists and bicyclists at the beginning of the green signal phase.
+ Bike boxes should be a minimum of 10 ft in depth and may be larger depending on anticipated bicyclist volumes.
+ The bike box should connect directly to the approaching bike lane. At least 50 ft of bike lane should be provided on the approach to a bike box so bicyclists will not need to ride between lanes to enter the box. The approaching bike lane, and the bike box, may be colored green.
+ Install advance stop bar where crosswalk serves as limit line for existing facilities; also consider pavement marking or signage (such as MUTCD R10-6).
+ Applicable at signalized intersections with high bicycle or motor vehicle volumes, especially those with frequent bicyclist left turns and/or motorist right turns.
+ Recommended where a left turn is required to follow a designated bike route, access a shared-use path, or when the bicycle lane moves to the left side of the street.
+ When a bike box is implemented in front of a vehicle lane that previously allowed right turns on red, the right turn on red movement must be restricted using signage and
enforcement once a bike box is installed.
+ A bicycle box should only extend across one travel lane. In limited situations, bike boxes may be used to facilitate left turns for bicycles when there is an unusually heavy left turn volume, such as near the entrance to a popular shared use path, although the preferred treatment for bicylist left turns is a two-stage bicycle turn box.
+ See Bicycle Signals (Chapter 5) for use of dedicated bike signal or hybrid signal with advance green for bicycles.

REFERENCES

21NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE

CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

FHWA. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

TWO-STAGE
A two-stage turn box designates a space for bicyclists to wait for traffic to clear before proceeding in a different direction of travel. Two-stage turn queue boxes may be used with any type of bicycle facility. A two-stage turn queue box should be considered where separated bike lanes are continued up to an intersection and a protected intersection is not provided.
+ Two stage turn boxes are applicable at locations where a left turn movement is expected by bicyclists.
+ A two-stage bicycle turn box may be used at signalized intersections per FHWA Interim Approval IA-20, though
experimental approval from FHWA is required to use this pavement marking at unsignalized intersections.
+ May be used at any signalized intersection but are
preferable on high-volume and multilane roads to reduce the need for bicyclist weaving across motor vehicle traffic. + Two-stage bicycle turn boxes should be placed in a logical location that aligns with the receiving bicycle facility. They can be placed in front of a through lane, in front of a turn lane, or entirely outside of a motor vehicle lane.
+ Dashed bike lane extension markings may be used to
indicate the path of travel across the intersection.
+ Passive detection of bicycles in the two-stage bicycle turn box must be provided if detection is required to actuate a traffic signal.
+ Both driver and bicyclists public education is
recommended to support greater understanding of
purpose and correct use of two stage bike boxes. + A two-stage bicycle turn box:
+ Must be located outside of the path of through and
turning traffic.
+ Should be located adjacent to the direct path of
bicyclist travel.
+ Should be located downstream of the crosswalk and
downstream of the stop line.
+ Must include a bicycle symbol oriented in the direction in which the bicyclists enter the box, along with an
arrow showing the direction of the turn.
+ May include green-colored pavement.
+ A NO RIGHT TURN ON RED sign, R13-A(CA), must be
installed where a two-stage turn queuing box is not located outside the path of right-turning traffic to prevent motorists from entering the bicycle queuing area.

REFERENCES

22NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS

PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS
Separated bike lanes provide an exclusive travel way for bicyclists alongside roadways that is separate from motor vehicle travel lanes, parking lanes, and sidewalks. Separated bike lane designs at intersections should manage conflicts with turning vehicles and increase visibility for all users. + Protected intersections have eight key elements, as noted in the above image.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

FHWA. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.
+ At major intersections where space is available, protected intersection designs are preferred because they are
intuitive and comfortable, provide clear right-of-way
assignment, promote predictability of movement, and allow eye contact between motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. + Where two-way separated bike lanes are installed on one side of the street, the contra-flow direction of bicycle travel introduces an unexpected movement at the intersection
and requires more complex signal operations.
+ Corner refuge islands allow the bike lane to be physically separated up to the intersection crossing point where
potential conflicts with turning motorists can be controlled more easily. They serve an important purpose in protecting the bicyclist from right-turning motor vehicle traffic.

REFERENCES

23NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

MIXING ZONES
Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

FHWA. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

CONSIDERATIONS
D
A
B
C
A mixing zone designates space for turning motorists to merge across a separated bike lane at a defined location in advance of an intersection. The mixing zone design limits bicyclists’ exposure to motor vehicles by defining a limited merge area for the turning motorist. Mixing zones are compatible only with one-way bike lanes.

GUIDANCE
+ Locate merge points where the entering speeds of motor vehicles will be 20 mph or less by (a) minimizing the length of the merge area and (b) locating the merge point as close as practical to the intersection.
+ Minimize the length of the storage portion of the turn lane + Provide a buffer and physical separation (e.g. flexible delineator posts) from the adjacent through lane after the merge area, if feasible.
+ Highlight the conflict area with green surface coloring and dashed bike lane markings, as necessary, or shared lane markings placed on a green box.
+ Provide a BEGIN RIGHT (or LEFT) TURN LANE YIELD TO
BIKES sign (R4-4) at the beginning of the merge area.
+ Restrict parking within the merge area
+ At locations where raised separated bike lanes approach the intersection, the bike lane should transition to street elevation at the point where parking terminates.
+ Where posted speeds are 35 mph or higher, or at locations where it is necessary to provide additional storage
for queued vehicles, it may be necessary to provide a
deceleration/storage lane in advance of the merge point. + Protected intersections with phase separation between bicyclists and right-turning motorists are preferable to mixing zones. Mixing zones are generally appropriate as an interim solution or in situations where severe right-ofway constraints make it infeasible to provide a protected intersection.
+ Mixing zones are only appropriate on street segments with one-way separated bike lanes. They are not appropriate
for two-way separated bike lanes due to the contra-flow bicycle movement.

A
B
C

D REFERENCES

24NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

omatic data transmission option (purchased for the first year), did not always

gon Warning Sign Installation
ODOT Region 4
assembled sign
ir Bend, Oregon
ed the concrete
nd concrete pull
ull boxes protect
ata logger and
es that may pull
der and are more
plastic Rainbird
cally used. The
about a week to
ng the signposts.
e upper warning

78.78 with the
the foreground.
nch was dug to
onduit that holds
the data logger
, ODOT hired a
sawcut the
nstall the Zelt
stem per Eco
gns on a trailer to
ruck with a crane
m into place and install into the foundation. A second truck with an extended lectrician to access the electric panel located at the top of sign, about 12 feet higher elevation section of Hwy 242 over McKenzie Pass is closed to motor snowy season typically from October through mid-June. Part of the warning occurred prior to the road opening on June 17, 2019, reducing the need for Figure 6: Oregon HWY 242 dynamic warning sign near
Milepost 78 and concrete junction box (photo: ODOT)

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS

DYNAMIC WARNING SYSTEMS
Bicycling on narrow, rural roads can present unique hazards, particularly in areas of Napa County with steep topography, blind curves, and presence of large agricultural or recreational vehicles. Dynamic Warning Systems utilize active detection (via in-ground inductive loops or other technologies) to activate flashing beacons, alerting drivers to the presence of bicyclists on a roadway.
+ Dynamic Warning Systems are best utilized along existing popular bicycling routes that lack dedicated bicycle
facilities.
+ Beacons should be combined with BICYCLE (W11-1) sign
and AHEAD (W16-9P) sign.

FHWA. Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University.

Dynamic Warning Systems: A Review of Applications and Effectiveness. 2021.
+ Systems should be located strategically at locations
near blind curves, steep grades, or other locations where bicyclists using the roadway may not be readily apparent to other road users.
+ Installation locations should avoid areas where roadway congestion may exist (eg: near intersections or major
driveways) or where pullouts or other road design features may result in less accurate system operation.
+ As a relatively new safety treatment, conducting pre- and post-project vehicle and bike volume and speed counts will help inform future use of this technology.

REFERENCES
Source: FHWA. Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University. Dynamic Warning Systems: A Review of Applications and Effectiveness. 2021.

25NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS

SEPARATED BIKE LANES AT ROUNDABOUTS
MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide
674 INTERSECTIONS
When separated bike lanes are provided at roundabouts, they should be continuous around the intersection and parallel to the sidewalk. Separated bike lanes should generally follow the contour of the circular intersection. + It may be advisable to install RRFBs (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons) or apply geometric design changes to
support motorist yielding.
+ The bicycle crossing should be immediately adjacent to and parallel with the pedestrian crossing, and both should be at the same elevation.
+ The separated bike lane approach to the bicycle crossing should result in bicyclists arriving at the queuing area at a perpendicular angle to approaching motorists.
+ Consider providing supplemental yield lines at roundabout exits to indicate priority at these crossings.
+ Channelizing islands are preferred to maintain separation between bicyclists and pedestrians, but may be eliminated if different surface materials are used.
+ On- and off-ramps should be provided when a Class I
shared-use path is employed to allow bicyclists to safely enter and exit the facility from the roadway.
+ Where separated bike lanes are provided at a roundabout, the use of Class III pavement markings (sharrows) within the roundabout is encouraged to provide an on-street
alternative for bicyclists who prefer to travel with motor vehicle traffic.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

U.S. Access Board. Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, 2025.
+ Separated bike lanes are applicable at all roundabouts.

This treatment reduces conflict and places bicyclists in more predictable and visible positions.
+ Separated bike lanes at roundabout crossings should
provide:
+ Yield control for motorists at the bicycle crossing,
+ Detectable surface materials to maintain separation
between bicyclists and pedestrians; and
+ Bicycle/pedestrian warning signs (W11-15) at the
bicycle and pedestrian crossings.

REFERENCES

26NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE

CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. DIB 89-02: Class IV Bikeway Guidance. 2022.

FHWA Memorandum – Interim Approval for Optional Use of Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lane. 2011.

Where a bicycle facility crosses an intersection or higher volume driveway, the delineation of bicycle space through the intersection using dashed line increases the legibility of the bikeway and raises awareness of bicyclists to other roadway users. Bicycle lane extension markings, also called conflict area markings, may be used with any Class II or Class IV bike lane across driveways, through intersections, or in separated bike lane mixing zones. See Protected Intersections graphic for illustration of extension markings at an intersection. + A variety of pavement marking symbols can enhance
intersection treatments to guide bicyclists and warn of potential conflicts.
+ Symbol placement within intersections should consider vehicle wheel paths to minimize maintenance.
+ Driveways with higher volumes may require additional
pavement markings and signage.
+ Consideration should be given to using intersection
pavement markings as spot treatments or standard
intersection treatments. A corridor wide treatment can
maintain consistency; however, spot treatments can be
used to highlight conflict locations.

BICYCLE LANE EXTENSION MARKINGS
+ Dashed white lane lanes should conform to the latest
edition of the CA MUTCD. These can be used through
different types of intersections based on engineering
judgment.
+ Green pavement markings, where utilized, may be applied in a solid or dashed pattern within a dashed bicycle lane to indicate conflict areas and where merging maneuvers are permitted, such as across intersections, driveways, and at STOP or YIELD-controlled cross-streets.
+ Green pavement markings shall be placed before the
stop bar at the intersection and continue through the
intersection. Dashed marking should be aligned with the approaching/receiving bike lane.
+ Green dashed pavement markings are typically 4’ by 5’-2” with a 6” white edge.
+ The colored markings should be skid-resistant and
retroreflective, made from durable liquid pavement.

REFERENCES
FHWA. Separated Bike Lane Guide. 2015.

Caltrans.California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.
+ Extension markings should be used to guide vehicle
and bicycle movements and clarify travel paths through
intersections or interchanges with complex geometry or
reduced visibility. These conditions may include offset, skewed, multi-legged, or curved intersections; locations with multiple turn lanes; or offset turn lanes that could create driver confusion.

27NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

FHWA. Achieving Multi-modal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts. 2016.

TRUCK APRONS
In locations where large vehicles make occasional turns, designers can consider mountable truck aprons.

Mountable truck aprons reduce turning speeds for passenger vehicles, yet accommodate the occasional large vehicle without encroachment or off-tracking into pedestrian waiting areas. + The mountable surface should be visually distinct from the adjacent travel lane, sidewalk and separated bike lane. + The heights of mountable areas and curbs should be no more than 3 inches above the travel lane to accommodate lowboy trailers.
+ Mountable truck aprons have a preferred corner radius of 15’.
+ Truck aprons are typically constructed with asphalt or concrete but may also be constructed with pavement
markings and bolt-down speed bumps aligned
perpendicular to the roadway edge as an interim strategy. + Mountable truck aprons are part of the traveled way and should be designed to discourage pedestrian or bicycle
refuge.
+ Bicycle stop bars, detectable warning surfaces, traffic signal equipment and other intersection features must be located behind the mountable surface area.
+ While bicyclist and pedestrian safety is negatively impacted by wide crossings, bicyclists and pedestrians are also at risk if the curb radius is too small. Curb radii that are too small for large vehicles to navigate can result in the rear wheels of a truck tracking over queuing areas at the corner.

Maintenance problems are also caused when trucks must
regularly drive over street corners to make turns.
+ For related information, see Corners and Curb Radii and Curb Extensions sections in Chapter 3.

REFERENCES

28NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

AT-GRADE RAILROAD CROSSINGS
Railroad tracks that interface with bicycle facilities can be hazardous. Tracks running along bike facilities create hazards for bicyclists traveling parallel to the tracks as well as when turning across the tracks. + Railroad crossings should be designed to allow bicyclists to cross at an angle between 60 and 90 degrees to
minimize their risk of crashing. This may require wider paved shoulders to accomplish.
+ Provide clear delineation with pavement markings
indicating to bicyclists where they should travel to cross railroad tracks at an optimum location.
+ Provide adequate sight lines for approaching bicyclists to see approaching trains at rail crossings.
+ Provide warning signs to alert bicyclists of the crossing ahead.

REFERENCES

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
+ Railroad crossings may require supplemental traffic control devices approved by the rail authority; in unique situations, design solutions may include a separate bridge structure to avoid at-grade crossings.
+ Provide, as practicable, the best track surface treatment for bicyclists. Concrete produces the smoothest ride for bicyclists, even under wet conditions. This is preferred to rubber, which can become slippery when wet and degrade
over time; asphalt, which can deform or heave over time; and timber, which wears down relatively rapidly and can be slippery when wet.
+ Reduce the flangeway width to minimize the possibility of bicycle wheels getting caught in the opening.
+ Alternative crossing facilities (eg., Class I) may be appropriate (as opposed to shared roadway/shoulder) in
locations where higher volumes or bicycle or pedestrian users are expected, or where a history of incidents is
present.

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
& AMENITIES
3

30NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Sidewalks play a critical role in the character, function, enjoyment, and accessibility of neighborhoods, main streets, and other community destinations. In addition to providing space for pedestrians separated from motor vehicles, sidewalks also accommodate street trees and other plantings, stormwater infrastructure, street lights, and bicycle racks. This section defines sidewalk zones and provides considerations for better activating the streetscape to enhance peoples’ experiences.

Frontage Zone:

The Frontage Zone is the area of sidewalk that immediately abuts buildings along the street. In residential areas, the Frontage Zone may be occupied by front porches, stoops, lawns, or other landscape elements that extend from the front door to the sidewalk edge. The Frontage Zone of commercial properties may include architectural features, outdoor displays, café seating, awnings, signage, etc. Frontage Zones may vary in width from just a few feet to several yards.

Pedestrian Through Zone:

Also known as the “walking zone,” the Pedestrian Zone is the portion of the sidewalk space used for active travel. For it to function, it must be kept clear of any obstacles and be wide enough to comfortably accommodate expected pedestrian
volumes (as anticipated by density and adjacent land use) including those using mobility assistance devices, pushing strollers, or pulling carts.

Amenity Zone:

The Amenity Zone, or “landscape zone,” lies between the curb and the Pedestrian Zone. This area is occupied by fixtures such as street lights, trees, bicycle racks, utility poles, transit shelters, parking meters, signposts, signal boxes, benches, trash and recycling receptacles, and other amenities. In commercial areas, it is typical for this zone to be hardscape pavement, pavers, or tree grates. In residential, or lower intensity areas, it is commonly a planted strip.

ELEMENTS OF A SIDEWALK
Frontage, Pedestrian and Amenity Zones
+ Where demand is highest, it may be appropriate to reallocate street width to provide amenities that cannot be accommodated within the existing sidewalk width,
such as bicycle parking or outdoor dining. Outdoor dining opportunities contribute to a lively street environment and add economic value by enabling private commercial activity to spill into the public environment of the street.
+ While there are some exceptions, most street furniture installation is installed in the Amenity Zone. For example, bicycle parking may be installed in the frontage zone if it is ZONES

CONSIDERATIONS
sufficiently wide enough to accommodate it. Regardless, street furniture should not impede movement in the
Pedestrian Zone.
+ Seating is most commonly located in the Amenity Zone of the street, but may also be placed in the Frontage Zone.

Seating in the Amenity Zone should generally face away
from the street and toward the sidewalk or be aligned
perpendicular to the curb. Seating in the Frontage Zone should face the street.
+ Stormwater facilities are commonly located in the Amenity Zone.
+ Where demand is highest, it may be appropriate to reallocate street width to provide amenities that cannot be accommodated within the existing sidewalk width, such as bicycle parking or outdoor dining.

31NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
The width of the various sidewalk zones will vary given the street type, the available right-of-way, scale of the adjoining buildings and the intensity and type of uses expected along a particular street segment. A balanced approach for determining the sidewalk width should consider the character of the surrounding area and the anticipated pedestrian activities. For example, is the street lined with retail that encourages window shopping or does it connect a residential neighborhood to a commercial area where pedestrians frequently need to pass one another? Does the scale of the buildings and the character of the street indicate a need for a wider sidewalk? NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

U.S. Access Board. Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, 2025.

PREFERRED WIDTHS FOR SIDEWALK ZONES
+ In locations with constrained rights-of-way, it is possible to provide a narrower Frontage Zone and Pedestrian Zone.

Sidewalk width is based on local context, therefore in
retrofit locations where development is not occurring and where existing building are anticipated to remain, 5-footwide sidewalks may be adequate. + Frontage Zones used for sidewalk cafés are a special
condition and should generally be no less than 6 feet in width.
+ The provision of tree wells or landscape strip within the Amenity Zone will be based on the existing or planned
character of the neighborhood.
+ Sidewalk stormwater facilities (including rain gardens) are generally located in the Amenity Zone and may indicate a need for a wider zone than what is identified in the table above.

REFERENCES
+ Sidewalk width must be a minimum of 4’ of clear space for path of travel (not including the curb which is typically 6”) and a passing space of minimum 5’x5’ is required every
200’ or more.
+ Pedestrian Through Zone width recommendations:
+ School Zones (8-12ft)
+ Downtown, Urban Centers, Main Streets (6-12ft)
+ Suburban Commercial (6-10ft)
+ Suburban Residential (6ft)
+ Rural (4-6ft), where applicable

32NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Pedestrian safety and comfort is enhanced by smaller curb radii, which shorten crossing distances for pedestrians and reduce vehicle turning speeds. However, streets must accommodate large turning vehicles, including school buses and transit vehicles, which require larger turning radii. One of the most challenging aspects of intersection design is to determine methods of accommodating large vehicles while keeping intersections as compact as possible. This requires engineering judgment, as each intersection is unique in terms of the number of travel lanes, presence of a median, and a number of other features that fundamentally impact corner design.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.
+ The design and control vehicle are context-dependent.

Common design vehicles include a DL-27 for local streets, SU-30 for downtown and commercial streets, and BU-40
for designated bus routes. Control vehicles are often larger trucks like a WB-50.
+ At signalized intersections, corner design should assume that a large vehicle will use the entire width of the receiving lanes on the intersecting street.
+ Depending on an agency’s encroachment policy, it may be possible to allow a large turning vehicle to encroach on the adjacent travel lane on the departure side (on multi-lane roads) to make the turn.
+ Mountable truck aprons can be implemented to deter
design vehicles from making higher-speed turns, while
accommodating control vehicles without encroachment or
off-tracking into pedestrian areas. Mountable truck aprons should be visually distinct from the adjacent travel lane and sidewalk. (For more information, refer to Truck Aprons section).

CORNERS AND CURB RADII
Actual
Eective Curb Radius
Curb
Radius
+ Curb radii should be designed to accommodate the
intended design vehicle, or the most frequent user of a given street, turning using one approach lane and one
receiving lane, as well as the intended control vehicle, or an infrequent larger vehicle, turning using multiple lane spaces.

REFERENCES

33NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
The transition for pedestrians from the sidewalk to the street is provided by a curb ramp. The designs of curb ramps are critical for all pedestrians, but particularly for people with disabilities. The ADA Standards require all pedestrian crossings be accessible to people with disabilities by providing curb ramps at intersections and midblock crossings as well as other locations where pedestrians can be expected to enter the street. Curb ramps also benefit people pushing strollers, grocery carts, suitcases, or bicycles.

U.S. Access Board. Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, 2025.
+ Curb ramps must meet PROWAG requirements for
running slope, cross slope, grade breaks, clear area, side treatments, and detectable warning surfaces.
+ Furnishing zones (the space between the curb and
sidewalk) of 7’ in width provide just enough space at
intersections for curb ramps to gain sufficient elevation to a sidewalk.
+ Consider providing wider curb ramps in areas of high
pedestrian volumes and crossing activities.
+ The side of the curb ramp shall be flared when the surface adjacent to the ramp’s sides is walkable. However, when the surface adjacent to a ramp is landscaped or otherwise not walkable, the side is not required to be flared, and can be a vertical curb.

CURB RAMPS
+ Curb ramps are part of the accessible Pedestrian Access Route (PAR) and must be provided at all intersections
where pedestrians are permitted and expected to cross the street, i.e., all street corners in California.
+ Separate, perpendicular curb ramps should be provided for each crosswalk at an intersection (as shown in graphic above) rather than a single ramp at a corner for both
crosswalks. The separate curb ramps improve orientation for visually impaired pedestrians by directing them toward the correct crosswalk. Blended transitions may be provided instead of perpendicular curb ramps. Diagonal curb ramps are not recommended.

REFERENCES

34NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TREATMENTS

CROSSING

TREATMENT APPLICATION
APPROPRIATE AT…

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

STOP-CONTROLLED

INTERSECTIONS

UNCONTROLLED

INTERSECTIONS

MID-BLOCK

CROSSINGS

HIGH-VISIBILITY

CROSSWALK ALWAYS RECOMMENDED ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED

DIRECTIONAL

CURB RAMPS

MANDATORY AT ALL

LOCATIONS, PER PROWAG
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
PEDESTRIANSCALE LIGHTING

ALWAYS APPROPRIATE,

ESPECIALLY AT AREAS

WITH COMMON NIGHTTIME

PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED

DAYLIGHTING

TYPICALLY APPLIED AT

CROSSING LOCATIONS

WITH ON-STREET PARKING
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED

CROSSING

ISLAND (MEDIAN,

PEDESTRIAN

REFUGE ISLAND)

TYPICALLY APPLIED AT

CROSSINGS OF THREE

TRAVEL LANES, WITH

THE CROSSING ISLAND

LOCATED IN THE TWO-WAY

LEFT-TURN LANE

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED
CURB

EXTENSIONS
(BULB OUTS)

TYPICALLY APPLIED AT

CROSSING LOCATIONS

WITH ON-STREET PARKING

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED
RAISED

CROSSING

REFER TO TABLE ON

FOLLOWING PAGE N/A SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

RECTANGULAR

RAPID FLASHING

BEACON (RRFB)

REFER TO TABLE ON

FOLLOWING PAGE N/A N/A SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

PEDESTRIAN

HYBRID BEACON
(PHB)

REFER TO TABLE ON

FOLLOWING PAGE N/A N/A SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

SOMETIMES

RECOMMENDED

LEADING

PEDESTRIAN

INTERVAL (LPI)

MANDATORY

AT SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS WITH

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL

HEADS, PER PROWAG
ALWAYS

RECOMMENDED N/A N/A N/A
The treatments described on the following pages provide guidance, not standards or requirements, to support context-sensitive planning and design. The information illustrates commonly used treatments and typical applications but does not replace requirements in the MUTCD, PROWAG, or other adopted state and local standards. The table below is not a set of crosswalk marking warrants; it is intended to inform treatment selection after a crossing location is deemed appropriate based on engineering judgment, traffic operations, accessibility needs, and site-specific conditions. Marked crosswalks and related treatments should be considered as part of a broader pedestrian safety approach. The table below indicates when each treatment is applicable.

FHWA Crosswalk Selection Guide. 2023.

Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines. (PROWAG). 2023.

California Assembly Bill 413 (Daylighting).2024/2025.

REFERENCES
FHWA. STEP Guide. 2018.

35NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TREATMENTS AT

UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS

ROADWAY CONFIGURATION

POSTED SPEED LIMIT AND AADT

VEHICLE AADT
<9,000

VEHICLE AADT
9,000–15,000

VEHICLE AADT
>15,000
≤30 MPH 35-40
MPH 45 MPH ≤30 MPH 35-40 MPH 45 MPH ≤30 MPH 35-40 MPH 45 MPH 2 LANES
(1 LANE IN EACH DIRECTION)
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 LANES WITH RAISED MEDIAN
(1 LANE IN EACH DIRECTION)
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 LANES W/O RAISED MEDIAN
(1 LANE IN EACH DIRECTION WITH A

TWO-WAY LEFT-TURN LANE)
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 9 7 9 7 9 9 7 9 9 9
4+ LANES WITH RAISED MEDIAN
(2 OR MORE LANES IN EACH

DIRECTION)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
4+ LANES W/O RAISED MEDIAN
(2 OR MORE LANES IN EACH

DIRECTION)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
Given the set of conditions in a cell,
# Signifies that the
countermeasure is a
candidate treatment at a
marked uncontrolled
crossing location.

Signifies that the
countermeasure should always
be considered, but not
mandated or required, based
upon engineering judgment at
a marked uncontrolled
crossing location.

Signifies that crosswalk
visibility enhancements
should always occur in
conjunction with other
identified countermeasures.
1 High-Visibility Crosswalk
Markings, Parking Restrictions
on Crosswalk Approach,
Adequate Nighttime Lighting
Levels, and Crossing Warning Signs
2 Raised Crosswalk
3 Advance Yield Here To (Stop
Here For) Pedestrians Sign and
Yield (Stop) Line
4 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing
Sign (Not Permanent)
5 Curb Extension
6 Pedestrian Refuge Island
7 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)*
8 Road Diet
9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)*
* PHB and RRFB are not both
installed at the same crossing
location.

Treatments for uncontrolled crossings should be selected based on the FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (STEP Guide), which recommends appropriate design treatments based on the number of lanes, posted speed limit, and daily traffic volume on a given street.

To promote consistency across jurisdictions, agencies should apply crosswalk marking warrants and evaluation criteria uniformly and document decisions regarding where marked crossings are provided or omitted, particularly at uncontrolled and midblock locations.

REFERENCES
FHWA. STEP Guide. 2018.

36NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Legal crosswalks exist at all locations where sidewalks meet the roadway, regardless of whether pavement markings are present. Drivers are legally required to yield to pedestrians at intersections, even when there are no pavement markings. Providing marked crosswalks communicates to drivers that pedestrians may be present, and helps guide pedestrians to locations where they should cross the street. In addition to pavement markings, crosswalks may include signals/beacons, warning signs, and raised platforms.

FHWA. Crosswalk Marking Selection Guide. 2023.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

U.S. Access Board. Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, 2025. + Crosswalks should be marked on all legs of signalized intersections, in school zones, and across streets with more than minimal levels of traffic.
+ Marked crosswalks should be oriented perpendicular
to streets, minimizing crossing distances and therefore limiting the time that pedestrians are exposed.
+ Marked crosswalks should be at least 10 feet wide or
the width of the approaching sidewalk if it is greater.

Crosswalks within 600’ of school grounds must be painted yellow.
+ Stop lines at stop-controlled and signalized intersection approaches should be striped no less than 4 feet and no more than 30 feet from the edge of marked crosswalks.
+ Advance yield lines (“shark teeth”) at mid-block crossings should be located 20 to 50 feet from the edge of the
marked crosswalk.
+ There are many different styles of marked crosswalk
striping and some are more effective than others. Highvisibility crosswalks with striping parallel to the direction of travel for drivers are more visible to drivers, and are recommended in all cases, especially near schools. The
graphic above shows continential striping, but other types of high-visibility striping include ladder style, zebra, and triple four.
+ In areas of heavy pedestrian volumes (such as transit station areas, school zones, and main streets), marked
crosswalks can be up to 25 feet wide.
+ Crosswalks may need to be restriped after pavement work.

MARKED CROSSWALKS REFERENCES

37NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Raised crosswalks are used for traffic calming and to improve motorist yielding to people walking, rolling and biking at intersections and midblock crossings. In this design, crosswalks are elevated to reduce or eliminate the transition from the sidewalk to the street crossing. Transition aprons on each approach to the raised crossing are marked with pavement markings to alert drivers of the grade change. + Crossings of channelized right turn lanes and
roundabouts.
+ Intersections where a large corner radius is required to accommodate large vehicles.
+ Use trail-level and sidewalk-level bikeway crossings and locations where increased visibility, priority or accessibility for people walking, riding bicycles or using dockless
mobility vehicles is desired or needed, including school zones.
+ Raised crossings may be used as midblock crossings with the appropriate infrastructure, such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), pedestrian hybrid beacons
(PHB)s, median refuges, warning signage, and other
elements as appropriate.
+ Raised crosswalks are not appropriate on streets with steep roadway grades higher than 8%.
+ Ensure that drainage and maintenance needs are
accounted for in raised crossing design.
+ Ensure a raised crosswalk is at least as wide as the
connecting sidewalk or path of travel.
+ Provide detectable warning surfaces at the edge of the sidewalk to indicate to pedestrians that they are exiting the sidewalk and entering the street. Ensure that raised crossing meets accessible slope requirements.
+ On-street parking and loading must be restricted 20 feet before the marked crosswalk to provide adequate sight
distance between people crossing and people driving.
+ Yield lines (“shark teeth”) should be located 20 to 50 feet from the edge of the crosswalk.
+ Include warning pavement markings for drivers on
transition aprons and “Raised Crosswalk” signs at the
crossing. Transition aprons should be 5 to 8 percent
(relative to the street) on streets, and 5 to 15 percent (relative to the driveway/alley) on driveways and alleys.

RAISED CROSSWALKS REFERENCES
+ Raised crosswalks may be beneficial at:
+ Unsignalized collector and local street crossings.
+ Crossings of driveways and alleys.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.

U.S. Access Board. Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way
Accessibility Guidelines, 2025.

38NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE

CONSIDERATIONS
Curb extensions, also known as neckdowns, bulb-outs, or bump-outs, are created by extending the sidewalk at corners or mid-block. In addition to shortening crossing distances, curb extensions can be used to change the geometry of intersections resulting in smaller corner radii and slowing turning motor vehicles.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.
+ The turning needs of emergency, transit, and other large vehicles must be considered in curb extension design.
+ Care should be taken to maintain direct routes across + Curb extensions should be considered where parking is present or where motor vehicle traffic deflection is provided through other curbside uses such as bicycle share stations or parklets. They cannot be installed where the curbside lane is a vehicle travel lane.
+ Curb extensions are particularly valuable in locations with high volumes of pedestrian traffic, near schools, at unsignalized pedestrian crossings, or where there are
demonstrated pedestrian safety issues.

CURB EXTENSIONS REFERENCES
intersections by aligning pedestrian desire lines on either side of the sidewalk. Curb extensions often make this
possible as they provide extra space for grade transitions. + Consider providing a 20’ long curb extension to restrict parking within 20’ of an intersection to enhance visibility. + When curb extensions conflict with turning movements, reducing the width and/or length of the curb extension
should be prioritized over elimination.
+ Emergency access is often improved through the use of curb extensions because intersections are kept clear of parked cars.
+ Where feasible, curb extensions may be used to support stormwater management and green infrastructure, street
beautification, bicycle parking, and other amenities that enhance the function and comfort of the street.
+ Curb extensions may be implemented using temporary or quick-build materials, such as pavement markings or tape, modular curb elements, planters, flexible delineators, or similar hardware, to pilot designs, respond to near-term safety concerns, or support phased implementation prior to permanent construction.

39NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Improves visibility at intersections and mid-block crossing locations by removing visual obstructions near the crossing. Daylighting often includes the spot removal of parking spaces, accomplished via red curb, signage, and removal of parking space pavement markings.

DAYLIGHTING REFERENCES
Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2012.

California Vehicle Code § 22500
+ In addition to red-painted curb, the parking-restricted area can be defined using curb extensions, planters, or flexible delineators. Additionally, this space can be repurposed for green infrastructure or bicycle parking.
+ A “No Parking” sign (MUTCD R7 series) can additionally be installed.
+ Enforcement may be necessary to ensure compliance with new restrictions, particularly in residential or commercial areas with high demand for on-street parking or locations where drivers have historically utilized this area of the street for parking.
+ The prioritization of daylighting treatments, including signage, curb markings, and enforcement, should be
based on location, such as proximity to schools, parks, transit stops, and other locations with higher pedestrian volumes or vulnerable users, as well as documented
collision history, turning movement conflicts, and visibility constraints.
+ Use at all crossing approaches.
+ Daylighting should be implemented via signage and
striping at all crossing approaches (including unmarked crossings) on streets with on-street parking.
+ California Assembly Bill 413 prohibits the stopping,
standing, or parking of a vehicle within 20’ of an
intersection approach (including any marked or unmarked crosswalk) or within 15’ of a crosswalk with a curb
extension, effective January 1, 2025. This law applies to all intersections, even where formal daylighting treatments or signs have not been installed.

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS

40NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Crossing islands, also known as pedestrian refuge islands, are raised islands that provide a protected waiting area and allow pedestrians to cross one direction of motor vehicle traffic at a time. They can be located at intersections or mid-block.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.
+ Crossing islands can be coupled with other traffic calming features, such as partial diverters and curb extensions at mid-block and intersection locations.
+ At mid-block crossings where width is available, islands should be designed with a stagger, or in a “Z” pattern, encouraging pedestrians within the median to face
oncoming traffic before crossing.
+ Should a midblock crossing be provided along a
multilane arterial, a raised median or crossing island and supplementary traffic control devices are desirable.
+ On a local road with relatively low traffic speeds and volumes, placing a raised median or crossing island might be done for aesthetic considerations or special pedestrian crossing characteristics and volumes.
+ Crossing islands require minimum depth of 6’, with
preferred depth of 8-10’ in locations where significant pedestrian or bicycle volumes are present/expected, or to accommodate cargo bikes & wheelchairs more effectively. + May be implemented as a quick build treatment through use of temporary materials.
+ There are two primary types of crossing islands:
+ The first provides a cut-through of the island, keeping pedestrians at street-grade. These islands must be
at least 6’ in width in order to integrate detectable
warning surfaces and be considered a true pedestrian
refuge island.
+ The second type ramps pedestrians up above street
grade and may present challenges to constructing
accessible curb ramps unless they are more than 17’
wide (accommodating for ramp width and landing
area).
+ Crossing islands should always be considered on collector or arterial roadways with moderate-to-high traffic speeds and volumes and multiple lanes, as well as where crossing distances are greater than 50 feet.

CROSSING ISLANDS REFERENCES

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS

41NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Uncontrolled multi-lane crossings decrease pedestrian visibility and can decrease motor vehicle yielding compliance. Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs) can be implemented to improve yielding compliance at these locations. RRFBs combine a pedestrian crossing sign with a bright flashing beacon that is activated only when a pedestrian is present.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. 2005. + RRFBs are considerably less expensive to install than mast arm-mounted signals. They can also be installed with solar power panels to eliminate the need for an external power source.
+ RRFBs should be limited to locations with critical safety concerns, and should not be installed in locations with sight distance constraints that limit the driver’s ability to view pedestrians on the approach to the crosswalk.
+ RRFBs should be used in conjunction with advance stop or yield bars and signs.
+ RRFBs are usually implemented at high-volume pedestrian crossings, but may also be considered for priority bicycle route crossings or locations where bike facilities cross roads at mid-block locations.
+ RRFBs may be installed at roundabout crossings.

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON
+ RRFBs can be used when a signal is not warranted at
an unsignalized crossing. They are not appropriate at
intersections with signals or STOP signs.

REFERENCES

42NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs), including the High-intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon (HAWK), are a type of hybrid signal intended to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to stop traffic to cross high-volume arterial streets.

This type of signal may be used in lieu of a full signal that meets any of the traffic signal control warrants in the MUTCD.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Location. 2005. + While this type of device is intended for pedestrians, it would be beneficial to retrofit it for bicyclists as the City of Portland, Oregon has, using bicycle detection and bicycle signal heads on major cycling networks. Depending upon
the detection design, the agency implementing these
devices may have the option to provide different clearance intervals for bicyclists and pedestrians. The provision of bicycle signal heads would require permission to
experiment from FHWA.

PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON
+ This type of device should be considered for all arterial crossings in a bicycle network and for path crossings if other engineering measures are found inadequate to create safe crossings.
+ The MUTCD recommends minimum volumes of 20
pedestrians or bicyclists an hour for major arterial
crossings (volumes exceeding 2,000 vehicles/hour).
+ PHBs may also be used at locations which do not meet
traffic signal warrants but where assistance is needed for pedestrians or bicyclists to cross a high-volume street.

REFERENCES

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS

43NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT FHWA. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). 2013 (with ongoing updates).

PEDESTRIAN-SCALE LIGHTING
Illuminates sidewalks and crossings at night or low-light conditions using light fixtures that are shorter than roadway-scale light fixtures. REFERENCES
+ Lighting should be uniform, with consistent light levels that avoid dark spots, sharp contrasts, and glare to support pedestrian visibility and safety.
+ Lighting should be provided on approaches to pedestrian crosswalks, including those serving Class I shared-use
paths and other pedestrian or bicycle facilities, such that users are illuminated from the driver’s perspective and not silhouetted. Where crossings include a crossing island or median, supplemental lighting may be provided.
+ Consider energy usage, environmental impacts, and
impacts on residential neighborhoods. Also consider
applicability of pedestrian-scale lighting to crime reduction efforts such as Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design (CPTED).
+ Install lighting to Illuminating Engineering Society and DarkSky standards.

Pedestrian-scale lighting should be provided:
+ At controlled and uncontrolled intersections at crossing approaches
+ Along sidewalks, especially along arterials and near
schools, parks, commercial and recreation centers
+ Along Class I facilities in urban areas that serve as a primary active transportation facility

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS

44 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

IMPLEMENTATION

STRATEGIES
4

46NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

LANE NARROWING
AASHTO. Green Book. 2011.

FHWA. Achieving Multi-modal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts. 2016. 5’ 3’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 14’ 3’
5’ 5’ 5’ 9’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 9’ 5’ 5’ 5’
8’ 7’ 9’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 9’ 7’ 8’
5’
5’ 3’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 14’ 3’
5’ 5’ 5’ 9’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 9’ 5’ 5’ 5’
8’ 7’ 9’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 9’ 7’ 8’
5’
5’ 3’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 14’ 3’
5’ 5’ 5’ 9’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 9’ 5’ 5’ 5’
8’ 7’ 9’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 9’ 7’ 8’
5’
Lane narrowing can improve comfort and safety for vulnerable road users. Narrowing lanes creates space that can be reallocated to other modes, in the form of wider sidewalks, bike lanes, reduced crossing distances, and buffers between cyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicles. Space can also be dedicated to plantings and amenity zones. + Motor vehicle travel lanes as narrow as 10’ are allowed in low and moderate-speed environments (45 mph or less)
according to the AASHTO Green Book. Caltrans allows lane widths of 10.5’ on Caltrans roadways, per DIB-94.
+ 10’ travel lanes are not recommended on 4-lane undivided arterial roadways, but may be considered where speeds are 30 mph or less and truck use is low.
+ 11’ travel lanes are considered minimum safe width for fixed route transit vehicles per NVTA.

Roadway before narrowing
Narrowing motor vehicle
lanes to increase sidewalk
and amenity zones
Narrowing motor vehicle
lanes to increase amenity
zone and add bicycle lanes

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
+ Narrowing existing motor vehicle lanes may result in
enough space to create separated bicycle lanes, widened sidewalks and buffers, or a combination of on-street bike lanes and enhancements to the pedestrian corridor.
+ Narrower lanes can contribute to lower operating speeds along the roadway, which may be appropriate in dense,
walkable corridors.

REFERENCES

47NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

FHWA Road Diet Guide. 2014.

NACTO Urban Street Design Guide .2013.
+ Four-lane streets with volumes less than 15,000 vehicles per day are generally good candidates for four- to threelane conversions. + Four-lane streets with volumes between 15,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day may be good candidates for four- to threelane conversions. A traffic analysis is needed to determine feasibility.
+ Six-lane streets with volumes less than 35,000 vehicles per day may be good candidates for six- to five-lane (including two-way center turn lane) conversions. A traffic analysis is needed to determine feasibility.

Lane reconfiguration involves modifying one or more travel lanes to improve the safety performance of a roadway segment and provide space for bicycle lanes, turn lanes, streetscapes, wider sidewalks, and other purposes. Fourto three-lane conversions are most common, however, there are numerous types (e.g., three- to two-lanes, or fiveto three-lanes).

LANE RECONFIGURATION
Typical 4-lane road with
on-street parking
Three-lane road diet (with
center two-way left-turn
lane), with on-street
parking and separated
bicycle lanes
+ Lane reconfiguration is a great tool for reducing collisions and injuries, improving pedestrian crossings and providing designated space for bicyclists. Road diets improve safety as they reduce conflict points and lead to fewer and less severe collisions.
+ Robust public engagement is often required for successful lane reconfiguration projects.

REFERENCES

48NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

QUICK-BUILD
FHWA. DIB-89-02: Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

Quick-build projects allow for faster and lower-cost implementation using temporary materials. Many bicycle and pedestrian facilities can be implemented as quick-build projects, including separated bike lanes, curb extensions, mini-roundabouts, and crossing islands. This profile focuses on the quick-build implementation of separated bike lanes, using flex posts and paint to retrofit existing Class II buffered bike lanes. More permanent forms of separation, such as curb-protected bike lanes, cost more and are less flexible once implemented. A phased implementation approach, where quick-build “pilot” projects transition to permanent, protected bike lanes allow for public input and evaluation before investing in a permanent design. + Lower-cost retrofits or pilot projects allow for quick implementation, responsiveness to public perception
and ongoing evaluation. Separation types for short-term separated bike lane designs often include non-permanent separation, such as flexible delineator posts, planters or parking stops. Pilot projects allow the agency to:
+ Test the separated bike lane configuration for
bicyclists and traffic operations
+ Evaluate public reaction, design performance, and
safety effectiveness
+ Make changes if necessary
+ Transition to permanent design
CONSIDERATIONS + Permanent separation designs provide a high level of protection and often have greater potential for
placemaking, quality aesthetics, and integration with
features such as green stormwater infrastructure.

Agencies often implement permanent separation designs
by leveraging private development (potentially through
developer contribution), major capital construction, and including protected bike lanes in roadway reconstruction designs. Examples of permanent separation materials
include rigid bollards, raised medians and grade-protected bike lanes at an intermediate or sidewalk level.

SIDEWALK

BIKE LANE

BUFFER W/ STAKES

PARKING

SIDEWALK

BIKE LANE

BUFFER W/ PLANTERS

PARKING

SIDEWALK

BIKE LANE

CURB SEPARATION

PARKING

SIDEWALK

BIKE LANE
BUFFER

PARKING
Progression from pilot project to separated bike lane

REFERENCES

49NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Maintenance is a crucial component of a well-functioning active transportation network. A timely response to maintenance issues will encourage more people to use the infrastructure and boost confidence in the network.

CONSIDERATIONS
MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALKS AND SHAREDUSE PATHS
+ Conduct routine inspections of high-volume sidewalks and apply temporary measures to maintain functionality and
repair heaving (such as patching, grinding, mudjacking). + Shared-use paths should meet a baseline pavement
condition index (PCI) of 70 or greater, with 80 or greater preferred. Pavement should also provide enough stability to prevent substantial wear and cracking with regular
maintenance vehicle traffic (typically, 6” thick concrete or asphalt).
+ Provide surface repairs such as crack repair, concrete stone replacement, and/or joint sealing as soon as the
issue is identified. These problems grow worse over time and can continue to provide opportunity for conflict or injury.
+ Regular sweeping and trash removal of shared-use paths and sidewalks enhance the user experience and minimize
opportunities for conflict or injury.

Frequency Maintenance Activity
More
Frequently
Less
Frequently
Tree/brush sweeping, mowing, and clearing, and
regular trash cleanup and removal
Patching/minor regrading/concrete panel
replacement
Planting/pruning/beautification/removing leaves
Culvert/drainage cleaning and repair
Surface evaluation/pavement assessment to
determine need for patching/regrading/ re-striping
Repaint or repair trash receptacles, benches,
signs, and other amenities, if necessary
Sealcoat asphalt shared-use paths
Resurface/regrade/re-stripe shared-use paths
Assess/replace sidewalks and shared-use paths
Sign replacement
The table below describes the frequency for various shared-use path and bikeway maintenance activities.
+ Cut back vegetation that is encroaching on paths and
sidewalks. Cut back tree roots and/ or install root barriers where appropriate.
+ Inspect signs and markings regularly, replacing and
repairing them as soon as possible. Consider upgrading old signs or markings with newer materials, if available.
+ Ensure drainage swales and structures are kept free of silt and debris and are functioning appropriately.
+ For any construction project that may impact an existing sidewalk or shared-use path, an appropriate detour and
signage plan should be proposed by the contractor to
ensure continuous and safe service.
+ Check, repair, and maintain all lights and lighting systems, particularly underpass lighting.
+ Natural surface paths may need regrading, weeding, or the repair of ruts.

50NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

CONSIDERATIONS

MAINTENANCE OF ON-STREET FACILITIES
+ When roadway pavement condition is assessed, the entire roadway including bicycle facilities and shoulders must be included in the PCI score.
+ The general public, public works staff, and contractors should be trained to place garbage bins in the street buffer zone to avoid obstructing the bike lane. Sidewalk buffers may be used to store bins where street buffers are too
narrow.
+ For Class IV separated bikeways: Bike lane widths of 8 feet or more are compatible with smaller sweepers, but
responsible parties may have larger and incompatible
maintenance fleets. Narrower sweepers (approximately 4
feet to 5 feet minimum operating width) may be required to clear one-way separated bike lanes.
+ For Class IV street-level separated bike lanes without raised medians, debris can collect in the street buffer area between vertical objects and can migrate into the bike lane if not routinely collected.
+ Landscaped areas, including green stormwater
infrastructure, can also collect debris and require regular attention.
+ As noted in the previous section, seasonal maintenance activities such as frequent removal of leaves in the fall should be considered.
+ Maintenance of bike lanes and crosswalks is the
responsibility of the public or private agency that is
responsible for maintaining the roadway. This practice may contrast with responsibility for maintaining the adjacent sidewalk, which in some cases will be that of the abutting landowner.
+ Designated bike lanes, bicycle boulevards, and routes should be maintained through routine sweeping to remove debris and maintain usability. A regular sweeping schedule, such as monthly sweeping, is recommended, along with
proactive spot-checks conducted by the contractor or
responsible jurisdiction.
+ Pavement markings may require regular maintenance.

Deteriorated bike lane markings, buffers, crosswalks, or sharrows may reduce perceived safety on facility.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

REFERENCES
Maintenance is a crucial component of a well-functioning active transportation network. A timely response to maintenance issues will encourage more people to use the infrastructure and boost confidence in the active transportation network. The considerations below apply to all on-street bicycle facilities, as well as crosswalks.

DESIGNING AN ACTIVE

MODES NETWORK
5

52NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

WAYFINDING
Wayfinding helps identify the best routes to destinations, helps bicyclists overcome a barrier of not knowing where to ride, and reminds motorists to anticipate the presence of bicyclists and pedestrians. Wayfinding systems often combine signage and pavement markings to guide bicyclists and pedestrians along preferred routes to destinations across the community, county, or region. Routes may or may not be numbered, named, or colorcoded. Signs may also indicate distances or travel time to destinations. + A bicycle wayfinding protocol should coordinate with
bicycle route maps and provide three general forms of
guidance:
+ Decision assemblies, which consist of Bike Route
identification and optional destination panels, placed
at decision points where routes intersect or on the
approaches to a designated bike route.
+ Turn assemblies, which consist of Bike Route panels
and arrow plaques, placed where a designated bike
route turns from one street to another.
+ Confirmation assemblies, which consist of Bike Route
optional destination panels, placed on the far side of
intersections to confirm route choice and the distance
(and optionally, time) to destinations.
+ Sign design can be customized to add distinct community branding, but the clarity and accuracy of the information must be the top priority.
+ Basic bicycle route signs consist of a MUTCD-style “Bike Route” sign (D11-1 shown above, right) placed every half mile on a bike route and on the approach to bike routes at decision points.
+ Bike route signs can be supplemented with panels showing destinations, directions, and distances (MUTCD D1 series, shown in photo above, left).
+ Unique numbered or named routes can be designated and can incorporate a route name or agency logos also shown in photo above, left.
+ Place directional signs on the near side of intersections and confirmation signs on the far side of intersections.

REFERENCES

53NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Pedestrian signal heads display the three intervals of the pedestrian phase: (1) The Walk Interval, signified by the WALK indication (or the walking person symbol) alerts pedestrians to begin crossing the street; (2) The Pedestrian Change Interval, signified by the flashing DON’T WALK indication (or the flashing hand symbol accompanied by a countdown display; shown on following page) alerts pedestrians approaching the crosswalk that they should not begin crossing the street; and (3) The Don’t Walk Interval, signified by a steady DON’T WALK indication (or the steady upraised hand symbol) alerts pedestrians that they should not cross the street.

CONSIDERATIONS
FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

U.S. Access Board. Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, 2025.

Intersection geometry and traffic controls should encourage turning vehicles to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians. Traffic movements should be analyzed at intersections in order to utilize non-conflicting phases to implement one or more WALK intervals per cycle.

Signal design should also minimize the time that pedestrians must wait. Requiring pedestrians to wait for extended periods can encourage crossing against the signal. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual states that pedestrians have an increased likelihood of risk-taking behavior (crossing against the signal) after waiting longer than 30 seconds.

Free-flowing right-turn lanes are discouraged at signalized intersections. Where they are present and unsignalized, the pedestrian signal and pushbutton should be located on the channelization (“pork chop”) island. A yield or crosswalk warning sign should then be placed in advance of the
crosswalk.
+ Pedestrian signals should allocate enough time for
pedestrians of all abilities to safely cross the roadway. The MUTCD specifies a pedestrian walking speed of 3.5 feet
per second to account for an aging population.
+ Countdown pedestrian displays inform pedestrians of
the amount of time in seconds that is available to safely cross during the flashing DON’T WALK (or upraised hand) interval. All pedestrian signal heads should contain a
countdown display provided with the DON’T WALK (or
upraised hand) indication.
+ In areas with higher pedestrian activity, such as near transit stations, Main Streets, and school zones, push button
actuators may not be appropriate. People should expect
to get a pedestrian cycle at every signal phase, rather than having to push a button to call for a pedestrian phase.

PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS

TIMING & ACTIVATION

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL
(LPI)

ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN

SIGNALS (APS)
+ Accessible pedestrian signals and accessible detectors are devices that communicate information in non-visual
formats about the pedestrian phase to pedestrians with
visual and/or hearing disabilities. APS and detectors may include features such as audible tones, speech messages, detectable arrow indications and/or vibrating surfaces. + Pushbutton locator tones are used for locating the
pedestrian pushbutton needed to actuate the WALK
interval. Detectable arrows should be located on
pushbuttons to point in the same direction as the
crosswalk. At corners of signalized locations where two pushbuttons are present, they should be separated by at least 10’.
+ Audible walk indications should have the same duration as the pedestrian walk indication unless the pedestrian signal rests during the pedestrian phase, in which case the audible indication should be provided in the first seven seconds of the Walk interval.
+ For automatically-called pedestrian phases, pushbuttons can be used to activate accessible pedestrian signal
features such as detectable arrow indications and/or
speech messages.
+ When new pedestrian signals are installed, APS with
pushbuttons are required. For existing pedestrian signals, the APS and pedestrian pushbuttons should be provided
when the signal controller and software are altered, or the signal head is replaced.
+ The Leading Pedestrian Interval initiates the pedestrian WALK indication three to seven seconds before motor
vehicles traveling in the same direction are given the green indication. This signal timing technique allows pedestrians to enter the intersection prior to turning vehicles, increasing visibility between all modes.
+ The LPI should be used at intersections with high volumes of pedestrians and conflicting turning vehicles and at
locations with a large population of elderly or school
children who tend to walk slower.
+ A lagging protected left arrow for vehicles should be provided to accommodate the LPI.

REF.

54NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS

BICYCLE DETECTION & DEDICATED SIGNALS
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

Bicyclists have unique needs at signalized intersections. Bicycle movements may be controlled by the same indications that control motor vehicle movements, by pedestrian signals, or by bicycle-specific traffic signals.

The introduction of separated bike lanes creates situations that may require a leading bicycle interval or protected phases for bicycle traffic, or place bicyclists outside the cone of vision of existing signal equipment. In these situations, provision of signals for bicycle traffic will be required. + Bicycle-specific signals may be appropriate to provide additional guidance or separate phasing for bicyclists per the 2024 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities.
+ It may be desirable to install advanced bicycle detection on the intersection approach to extend the phase, or to prompt the phase and allow for continuous bicycle through movements.
+ Video detection, microwave and infrared detection can be an alternate to loop detectors.
+ Another strategy in signal timing is coordinating signals to provide a “green wave” timed to align with the travel speed of bicyclists (often 15 mph) such that bicycles will receive a green indication and not be required to stop. Several cities including Portland, OR and San Francisco, CA have implemented “green waves” for bicycles.
+ A stationary, or “standing”, cyclist entering the intersection at the beginning of the green indication can typically be accommodated by increasing the minimum green time
on an approach per the 2024 AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities.
+ A moving, or “rolling”, bicyclist approaching the
intersection towards the end of the phase can typically be accommodated by increases to the red times (change and
clearance intervals) per the 2024 AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities.
+ Set loop detectors to the highest sensitivity level possible without detecting vehicles in adjacent lanes and field
check.
+ All signalized intersections should aim to integrate passive detection of bicycles, such as inductive loops designed for bicycle detection or similar technologies, to reduce reliance on manual actuation.

REFERENCES

55NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

APBP. Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Ed. 2010.

California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Title 24, Part 11. 2022.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING
Bicycle parking enhances the effectiveness of bicycle networks by providing locations for the secure storage of bicycles during a trip. Sometimes called visitor parking, short-term parking is intended for shorter stays at locations such as shops, recreational facilities, businesses and other institutions. Bicycle parking requires far less space than automobile parking; in fact, 10 bicycles can typically park in the area needed for a single car. + Racks should be located in a well lit, high visibility location to reduce potential for theft or vandalism.
+ Bicycle parking should be provided at all publicly accessible buildings, parks, and other destinations, and included
in roadway, streetscape, and transit projects, as well as wherever car parking is required.
+ Multiple types of racks exist, but all should adhere to guidance pictured above regarding providing two points of contact for bike frame to prevent bikes from falling.
+ Wave-style racks are not to be utilized as they do not allow for two points of contact.

GUIDANCE
Rack supports
the bike in
2 places 34
inches
rack height
2 feet
clear
24 inch
rack width
2 feet
clear
24 inch
rack width
8 feet
between racks
+ Bicycle parking consists of a rack that supports the bicycle upright in two places and provides a secure place for
locking. Bicycle racks should be permanently affixed to a paved surface. Movable bicycle racks are only appropriate for temporary use, such as at major community gatherings. + Bicycle parking facility should not obstruct pedestrian traffic or interfering with the use of the pedestrian areas. + Each parked bicycle should be accessible without moving another bicycle.
+ Add 2’ from curb face.
+ Add 4’ from curb for perpendicular installations.
+ Short-term bicycle parking should be located near and clearly visible from the destination it serves, with a target distance of 50’ or less from building entrances.

CONSIDERATIONS

REFERENCES
+ Short-term bicycle parking is required under the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) for new
nonresidential buildings expected to generate visitor traffic.

At a minimum, projects must provide bicycle parking
equivalent to 5 percent of new motor vehicle parking
spaces added, with at least one rack accommodating two
bicycles.

56NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
+ In lieu of lockers, long-term bicycle parking can also be provided indoors. This can be located within businesses or offered as a locked public facility, accessible with the same key card technology as bicycle lockers.
+ Long-term bicycle parking should provide:
+ Direct or indirect access to the street or sidewalk
depending on whether it is located in a parking garage
or at street level.
+ Varying amount of conflict with automobiles
depending on whether it is located in a parking garage
or at street level.

LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING
Long-term bike parking is intended for residents in multi-unit buildings, employees, transit users, and others not attending to their bicycle for longer periods of time (generally several hours or days). Typically used for longterm bicycle parking, bicycle lockers are secure, locked boxes that store a single bicycle.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

APBP. Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Ed. 2010.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

Lockers should be:
+ Clearly marked as a long-term bicycle parking space.
+ Located no lower than the first complete parking level below grade, and no higher than the first complete
parking level above grade.
+ Available and accessible to all building tenants during the buildings hours of operation and at all times for
residents in residential contexts.
+ Located in a well-lit, visible location near the main entrance or elevators.
+ Separated from vehicle parking by a barrier that
minimizes the possibility of a parked bicycle being hit by a car.
+ Securely anchored.
+ Well-maintained and well lit.

REFERENCES

57NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
FHWA. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

DRIVEWAYS
Most bicycle and pedestrian facilities will need to cross streets, driveways, or alleys at multiple locations along a corridor. At these locations, the crossings should be designed to 1) delineate a preferred path for people bicycling through the intersection and 2) to encourage driver yielding behavior, where applicable. Bicycle crossings may be supplemented with green pavement, yield lines, and/or regulatory signs. + Advance stop bars may be used in advance of driveway
crossings to alert motorists to bicyclists and pedestrians crossing.
+ Supplemental yield lines (“shark’s teeth”) may be used in advance of unsignalized crossings at driveways, at
signalized intersections where motorists may turn across a bicycle crossing during a concurrent phase, and in advance of bicycle crossings located within roundabouts.
+ Raised bicycle crossings further promote driver yielding behavior by slowing their speed before the crossing and increasing visibility of people bicycling.
+ Dashed green-colored pavement may be used in a bicycle crossing to increase the visibility of the crossing where permitted conflicts occur. Green color may be desirable at crossings where concurrent vehicle crossing movements
are allowed and where sightlines are constrained, or where motor vehicle turning speeds exceed 10 mph.
+ Whenever a bicycle lane intersects with a high traffic driveway special treatment should be taken to reduce
conflict.
+ Consider installing signage for drivers entering roadway, particularly relevant for commercial driveways (eg: fast food restaurants) where drivers’ attention may challenged. + The bicycle crossing should be a minimum of 6 feet wide for one-way travel and 10 feet wide for two-way travel, as measured from the outer edge of the elephant’s feet.

Bicycle lane symbol markings should be avoided in bicycle crossings. Directional arrows are preferred within twoway bicycle crossings. Two-way crossings should also be indicated with warning signage for drivers entering and exiting the driveway.
+ Though the graphic above shows a Class IV Separated Bike Lane, bicycle driveway crossings are also applicable to Class II bicycle facilities.
+ Regardless of whether a driveway crossing is commercial or private, property owners must maintain a “visibility triangle” that ensures adequate sightlines as a motorist exits a driveway. Requirements vary based on jurisdiction. + Refer to the AASHTO Green Book and AASHTO BIke Guide
for guidance on establishing clear sight triangles that should remain free of visual obstructions such as parked vehicles, vegetation, and fences

REFERENCES

58NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT Any marked or signed location where transit vehicles stop and service passenger boarding and alighting is a transit stop. The most basic transit stops have only a pole-mounted “header” sign indicating the transit provider and route(s). High frequency routes and higher volume stops generally have more passenger amenities such as benches, shelters, traveler information, trash receptacles, bicycle parking, and other features.

CONSIDERATIONS
AASHTO. Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

U.S. Access Board. Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, 2025.
+ All transit stops must be ADA compliant, and should be safe, convenient, well-illuminated, and clearly visible.

Transit stops should be connected to the larger pedestrian network with continuous sidewalks, curb ramps, and safe pedestrian crossings. Mid-block stops should provide
access to mid-block crosswalks.
+ Transit stops on urban streets are typically located at the natural curb line or on a bus bulb or transit island.
+ Bus bulbs may be considered where additional pedestrian space is needed or to provide an in-lane spot where it is challenging for transit vehicles to reenter traffic. Transit islands are recommended on streets with separated
bicycle facilities.
+ Transit stops may be located on the near-side of an
intersection before a signal or cross street, on the far-side after a bus has passed through an intersection, or at a midblock location between intersections. + Generally, transit agencies prefer far-side stops since they provide better visibility between transit riders and motor vehicles. Near-side bus stops may be appropriate
where traffic flow is lower or where transit riders can more easily transfer without crossing the street. Stops can also be placed mid-block where there are major passenger
generators or where space next to an intersection is
insufficient.
+ Transit stop locations are determined based on a number of factors including intersection operations, bus routing, curbside conditions, transfer points, intersection geometry and sightlines, consideration of other street users, and major generators or destinations. The location of a transit stop can affect transit travel time, passenger safety, and roadway operations.
+ Seating at or near transit stops can improve passenger comfort, as can shade in the form of street trees or
awnings. Seating need not be a unique and dedicated
element, but may include leaning rails, planters, ledges, or other street elements.
+ Landing zones should be provided at all doors of the transit vehicle. Buses can vary in length and will have different door configurations. Landing zones should be designed in coordination with all transit providers.

TRANSIT STOPS
Min. 5’ Pref.15’

GUIDANCE REFERENCES
Landing Zone on Natural Curb Line
Transit Island

59NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Providing proper drainage enhances the safety and comfort of all users by reducing water ponding on the street and bike lane surfaces as well as the accumulation of debris. Proper drainage also protects the longevity of the roadway infrastructure and ensures that drainage features are adequate to accommodate state and local requirements to manage stormwater and minimize erosion. + A hard surface cross slope of 1 percent typically provides adequate conveyance of drainage while meeting
accessibility requirements.
+ Rectangular grates should be considered in place of square designs where the grate design can result in bicycle wheels being caught if installed in the wrong direction. Where grates are located within a bicycle facility or adjacent to bicyclists’ operating space, the gap between the drainage grate and its frame should be 0.5 in. or less. Another
bicycle friendly option is to place the grate entirely within a gutter rather than extending it into the bicycle facility. + Grates and other utility covers should remain flush with the pavement surface after a pavement overlay to within 0.25” of the new surface. If this is not possible or practicable, the pavement edge should slope to the drainage grate so it does not have an abrupt edge at the inlet.
+ Pedestrian accessibility guidelines limit openings on ground surfaces, such as grates, to a width of 0.5”. or less to prevent wheelchair castors from becoming wedged
into the opening. Pedestrian accessibility guidelines also limit vertical deviations in surfaces of more than 0.25”.

To minimize risks to pedestrians, drainage grates, utility covers, and gutters should not be located within bicycle facilities where pedestrians are traveling unless they meet pedestrian accessibility guidelines.

REFERENCES

CONSIDERATIONS
+ In urban areas, stormwater may need to be directed
toward the sidewalk buffer. In suburban and rural areas, the preferred practice is to direct runoff onto adjacent vegetated areas, where soils and slopes allow for runoff to naturally infiltrate. For uncurbed roadways, the preference is to locate drainage swales between the roadway and
separated bike lane or side path, which may require street buffer widths wider than the minimum recommended
widths to provide sufficient capacity in the swale.
+ For locations where curbs do not include a gutter, curb inlets located within or adjacent to the bike lane zone should be designed to minimize steep elevation changes
or slopes that could cause a bicyclist to crash. If a steep elevation change is provided, it should be designed as a gutter, the steep slope width may not be counted as part of the bike lane, and the area may be demarked with a surface material change and/or a white edge line to guide bicyclists away from the hazard.
+ Drainage grates should be located outside of the bike lane whenever feasible to maintain a comfortable riding surface. When their placement in the bike lane cannot be avoided, drainage grates must be bicycle-compatible, with openings small enough to prevent a bicycle wheel from
falling into the slots of the grate or with bar designs which are perpendicular to the path of travel.

60NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT + Any infrastructure located in low-lying areas may need special attention due to larger scale drainage and flooding issues. Designers may need to capture excess stormwater to prevent standing water or erosion on a bicycle facility. + When stormwater management features such as
filtration/infiltration measures or permeable pavements are considered in conjunction with a bike facility project, designers should give special consideration to the location of existing utilities and placement of relocated utilities.

Utilities are generally incompatible with stormwater
infiltration measures and should be relocated outside of the zone of influence of those facilities.
+ The addition of separated bike lanes to a roadway presents an opportunity to introduce green infrastructure strategies, including continuous treatments (e.g., permeable
hardscape surfaces, linear bioretention areas, and linear water quality swales) as well as those that may only be implemented at spot locations (e.g., bioretention areas, bioretention curb extension areas, and tree boxes).
+ Permeable hardscape surfaces for bicycle and pedestrian zones can also reduce stormwater flows.
+ Curb extensions can be designed to direct stormwater
runoff from bike lanes and adjacent roadways into green infrastructure systems like bioswales or rain gardens,
where the water can be filtered and absorbed. These
extensions also provide space for permeable surfaces,
such as permeable pavement or plantings. Additionally,
bulb-outs can improve safety by slowing vehicle speeds
and increasing visibility for cyclists and pedestrians.

DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

TRAFFIC CALMING
6

62NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

CHICANES AND CHOKERS

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Chicanes slow traffic by creating a serpentine travel path by alternating street features from one side of the street to the other. Chokers narrow the road in midblock locations through the application of curb extensions (or on-street parallel parking) on both sides of the street. Chicanes and chokers both can be designed to integrate stormwater drainage catchments, street tree planting, benches, bicycle parking, and other amenities.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.
+ Use for stormwater infiltration with bioretention areas or appropriately sized tree filter boxes.
+ Consult with fire department to ensure that designs
minimize impacts to emergency services.
+ If needed to maintain existing drainage patterns, consider constructing with a 2’ drainage channel between the
chicane island and curb.
+ Use chicanes on low-volume, local streets. Use chokers on arterials, collector, and local streets. Engineering judgment should be used to determine when the need is met for each treatment.
+ Chicanes must meet requirements for horizontal tapers per the California MUTCD.
+ Avoid use of chicanes on streets with higher volumes of bus, freight, or emergency service activity. Use mountable curbs to accommodate larger motor vehicles while
maintaining tight turn radii to slow people driving.
+ Use vertical elements like plantings in combination with chicanes to warn drivers of traffic pattern.

REFERENCES

63NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

GUIDANCE

SPEED CUSHIONS

CONSIDERATIONS
Vertical deflection treatments like speed cushions are some of the most effective treatments for slowing motor vehicle speeds. These treatments can reduce higher-speed motor vehicle cut-through traffic on local streets.

Speed cushions are similar to speed humps, but include gaps to allow vehicles with wider wheelbases, such as fire apparatus, to pass through unimpeded. Speed cushions also provide bicyclists an opportunity to subvert verticle deflection.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

FHWA. Traffic Calming E-Primer. (N.D.)
NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.
+ To minimize emergency response delay even further,
consider offset speed tables instead, which are speed
tables split in half down the street centerline with
longitudinal separation between the halves.
+ Speed cushions may be constructed out of asphalt or
rubber vertical deflections.
+ Design should consider the ability to withstand the weight of fire apparatus and outriggers.
+ Use on local and shared streets at midblock locations where lower motor vehicle speeds and volumes are
desired, such as on bike boulevards.
+ Locate speed cushions periodically along the corridor every 250 to 500 feet to accomplish speed control. Do not locate in front of driveways, close to intersections, or on a sharp curve.

REFERENCES

64NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

SPEED REDUCTION MARKINGS

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Speed Reduction Markings (also known as Optical Speed Bars) are transverse pavement markings placed with progressively reduced spacing on both edges of the traveled way to create the perception of increased speed. This illusion encourages drivers to slow down as they pass by the markings.

Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

Caltrans. Traffic Calming Guide. 2023.

ITE. Traffic Calming Fact Sheets. (N.D.)
+ Speed reduction markings may be particularly useful on rural roads, such as identified Rural Class III facilities, which have higher volumes of bicyclists. See Chapter 1 for more information on Rural Class III facilities and Class III unclassified bike routes.
+ Durable marking materials, such as thermoplastic, should be used as markings are exposed to increased wear from
tires.
+ Do not install on lanes that do not have a longitudinal line (center line, edge line, or lane line) on both sides of the lane.
+ Use on collector or local roads with any volume, ideally placed upstream of horizontal cuves or other locations
where roadway design or street context change
unexpectedly.

REFERENCES

65NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

HARDENED CENTERLINES

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Hardened centerlines feature vertical elements such as mountable curb or flex posts that force turning drivers to slow down and keep them from crossing the centerline when making turning movements. They have been shown to reduce motorist-pedestrian conflicts and reduce the speed of left-turning vehicles.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024. + On roadways where trucks and emergency vehicles
frequently make turning movements, consider using
mountable curbs to allow larger motor vehicles to make
turns while slowing smaller motor vehicles.
+ Intersection design including hardened centerlines must consider vehicular turning paths to prevent head-on
collisions between opposing left-turning motorists.
+ Can be used in conjunction with turn wedges and at
protected intersections
Use at:
+ Intersections with a history of collisions involving
people walking or rolling and left-turning motor
vehicles; or
+ Intersections with high volumes of people walking,
rolling, and biking across the street; or
+ Intersections where motor vehicles are frequently
turning across double yellow lines at high speeds.
+ Designs can include any combination of plastic curbing, rubber speed bumps, and flex posts, depending on turning radii, lane width, and needs to accommodate large motor vehicle turning movements.
+ Where space allows, install rubber speed bump “nose”
extending into the intersection.

REFERENCES

66NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

TRANSVERSE RUMBLE STRIPS

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Transverse rumple strips are raised areas across the surface of an approach lane to produce an audible and tactile warning of the impending intersection.

Caltrans. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014.

ITE. Traffic Calming Fact Sheets. (N.D.)

REFERENCES
+ Use in combination with Intersection Warning (W2-1
through W2-8), Advance Traffic Control (W3-1 or W3-2), or Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) signs.
+ Noise generated from vehicles traversing the rumble strips can be an issue when residences are in close proximity to the intersection.
+ Can require significant maintenance activities, especially on approaches characterized by high volumes of truck
traffic.

67NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

TRAFFIC CIRCLES

GUIDANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Traffic circles are circular raised center islands at the intersection of two neighborhood streets installed to slow vehicle approach speeds. Unlike a mini-roundabout, a residential traffic circle is typically characterized by (1) a non-traversable center island, (2) no splitter islands on the intersection approaches, and (3) either yield control or no control.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2024.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2023.

ITE. Traffic Calming Fact Sheets. (N.D.)
+ Neighborhood traffic circles are most effective when paired with other traffic calming treatments.
+ Where large vehicles are infrequent, design to allow larger trucks to turn left in front of the circle.Where trucks are frequent, include mountable truck aprons around the
outside of the circle to allow large motor vehicles to use the intersection without encouraging high speeds by
smaller motor vehicles.
+ If the circle geometry precludes turning movements for larger vehicles, consider turning restrictions if the adjacent street network is adequate.
+ Traffic circles also provide opportunities for plantings, special identifying signage for neighborhoods, or public art. Consider planting native and/or seasonal vegetation in the center of the circles to provide neighborhood
beautification, traffic calming elements, and stormwater infiltration.
+ Traffic circles can be constructed as a quick-build project using temporary materials. See the Quick-Build section of Chapter 4 for more details.
+ Use at intersections in primarily residential areas where daily motor vehicle volumes for all approaching legs of the intersection is less than 15,000 ADT. In particular, these may be used at intersections along bike boulevards.
+ Design the circles to be visible at night with reflective materials and/or ensure adequate street lighting exists. + Provide adequate signage (see FHWA MUTCD for details). REFERENCES

68 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

RESOURCES & CITATIONS
7

70NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

RESOURCES & CITATIONS
The bicycle and pedestrian facilities and amenities included in this Toolkit are based on the recommendations from the following state and national standards and resources:

Transportation Research Board
(TRB)
Highway Capacity Manual, 2010
National Association of City
Transportation Officials (NACTO)
Urban Street Design Guide, 2013
Transit Street Design Guide, 2017
Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014
California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans)
DIB 82-06: Pedestrian Accessibility
Guidelines for Highway Projects, 2017
DIB 89-02: Class IV Bikeway Guidance,
2022
DIB 94: Complete Streets Contextual
Design Guidance, 2024
Highway Design Manual, 7th Edition,
2020
California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices, Revision 8, 2014
California Legislature
Assembly Bill 413 (AB 413), Daylighting
Law. (full enforcement beginning
January 1, 2025)
California Building Standards
Commission
California Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen), Title 24, Part 11.
2022
American Association of State
Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO)
Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities, 2024
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)
Crosswalk Selection Guide. 2023.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety
at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations,
2018
Dynamic Warning Systems: A Review
of Applications and Effectiveness.

Western Transportation Institute,
Montana State University. 2021
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, 11th Edition, 2023
Pedestrian Safety Guide and
Countermeasure Selection System
(PEDSAFE). 2013 (with ongoing
updates)
Safety Effects of Marked Versus
Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled
Locations, 2005
Safe Transportation for Every
Pedestrian (STEP) Guide. 2018
Separated Bike Lane Planning and
Design Guide, 2015
Small Town and Rural Multimodal
Networks, 2016
United States Access Board
Americans with Disabilities Act and
Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility
Guidelines, 2004
Final Rule on Public Right-of-Way
Accessibility Guidelines, 2025
Public Right-of-Way Accessibility
Guidelines (PROWAG). 2023
Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE)
Traffic Calming Fact Sheets, (N.D.)

71 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NAPA COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - TREATMENT TOOLKIT

NAPA COUNTY ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

TREATMENT TOOLKIT
2024

Appendix E
Bicycle Network
Recommendations

E-1
Table E.1: Bicycle Network Recommendations – City of Calistoga ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual
New Commuters
VMT Reduction Value
Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
702 Greenwood Avenue Napa River SR 29 1.0 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $74,600 7 9,975 $165,900 0 1 1 1 0 3 703 Grant Street Greenwood Avenue N Oak St 1.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $3,838,100 11 15,797 $378,000 0 1 1 1 1 4 Y 705 Grant Street N Oak Street Lake Street 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $266,000 9 13,735 $228,600 0 1 0 0 0 1 Y 706 Grant Street Lake St Stevenson Street 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $46,800 9 13,373 $451,100 1 1 1 0 1 4 Y 707 Money Ln Mora Avenue Lake Street 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $765,400 8 12,014 $200,000 0 1 1 1 0 3 708 Lake Street Washington Street Fisher Street 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $437,300 9 13,493 $224,600 0 1 1 1 0 3 Y 710 Lincoln Street Silverado Trail Fair Way 0.6 Bike Lanes (Class II) $93,200 9 14,068 $317,600 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 711 Lincoln Street Fair Way Foothill Boulevard 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $52,900 8 12,576 $410,300 1 1 1 1 1 5 Y 712 Foothill Boulevard Western City Limit Eastern City Limit 2.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $296,100 10 15,091 $311,900 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 713 3rd Street Fair Way Washington Street 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $289,700 8 12,202 $203,100 1 1 1 1 0 4 714 Washington Street Lake Street Lincoln Avenue 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $592,400 9 13,789 $229,500 1 1 1 0 1 4 Y 715 Fair Way Lake Street Lincoln Avenue 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $541,400 9 13,394 $223,000 1 1 1 1 0 4 717 Berry Street Cedar Street Washington Street 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $183,600 7 10,827 $180,200 0 1 1 0 0 2 1100 Rosedale Rd Rickett Rd Silverado Trail 0.8 Bike Lanes (Class II) $111,800 4 6,185 $103,100 0 1 1 1 0 3 1102 Brannan St Lincoln Ave Silverado Trail 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $643,600 7 11,113 $185,000 1 1 1 1 0 4 1105 Carli Dr Aurora Dr Money Ln 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $110,100 7 9,691 $161,300 0 1 1 1 0 3 1106 Aurora Dr N Oak St Carli Dr 0.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $51,700 6 9,361 $155,800 0 1 1 1 0 3 1107 N Oak St Grant St Aurora Dr 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $458,100 8 12,624 $210,100 0 1 0 1 0 2 1108 Berry St Cedar St Foothill Blvd 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $224,800 7 10,599 $176,400 1 1 1 1 0 4 1109 Silver Street Trail Silver Street (north end) Napa River Trail 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $298,400 8 11,472 $270,600 0 1 1 1 0 3 1111 S Oak St Cedar St School St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $114,400 7 11,141 $185,400 0 1 0 1 0 2 1112 Mora Ave Grant St SR-29 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,203,700 8 12,002 $199,700 0 1 0 1 0 2 1113 Money Ln Trail Proposed class I facility at Mora Ave Mora Ave 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $218,600 6 8,949 $220,500 0 1 1 1 0 3 1114 Oak Street Logvy Bridge School St Washington St 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $511,300 8 12,044 $280,500 0 1 1 1 0 3 1119 Denise Dr Kathy Way Cedar St 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $203,400 5 8,056 $197,100 0 1 1 1 0 3 1121 Napa River Trail Greenwood Ave, Calistoga city limit Calistoga city limit 2.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $8,165,400 13 18,690 $442,000 1 1 1 1 0 4 1122 SR 29 Silverado Trail Tubbs Lane 1.6 Bike Lanes (Class II) $229,500 8 11,855 $252,800 1 1 1 1 1 5 Y 1125 Berry St Berry St Bridge at Washington 0.0 Separated Bikeway (Class IV) $27,500 7 10,841 $255,800 1 1 1 0 0 3 1196 Kortum Canyon Rd Foothill Blvd City Limits 0.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $23,300 7 10,046 $167,200 1 1 0 0 1 3 1238 Stevenson St Grant St Lincoln Ave 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $266,900 8 11,389 $189,600 1 1 0 0 1 3 Note: For additional details and methodology for the project cost estimates above, please refer to Table 6.4 on page 127. For more information about estimated project benefits, refer to Appendix F. Project cost estimates and benefits are for rough estimation purposes only. The benefits were developed using the NCHRP 552 methodology, with the total economic benefits shown in the table reflecting high estimated benefit values.

E-2
Table E.2: Bicycle Network Recommendations – City of St. Helena ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction Value
Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
721 Madrona Avenue Oak Ave Riesling Way 0.9 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,713,600 9 13,312 $221,400 1 0 0 1 0 2 722 Spring Street Sylvaner Avenue Main Street 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,087,000 10 14,446 $240,400 0 1 1 1 0 3 723 Valley View Street Spring Street Birch Street 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $400,900 7 10,251 $170,700 0 1 0 1 0 2 724 S Crane Avenue Grayson Avenue Sulphur Springs Avenue 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $65,100 6 8,426 $225,900 0 1 0 1 0 2 725 Sulphur Springs Crane Avenue Main Street 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $72,400 4 6,185 $168,100 1 1 0 1 1 4 726 Adams Street Allyne Ave Main St 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $807,900 9 13,572 $225,700 1 0 1 1 0 3 727 Hunt Avenue Main Street and Starr Avenue 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $922,300 9 13,410 $223,000 1 0 0 1 0 2 728 Oak Ave Hillview Place Madrona Ave 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $202,500 7 10,306 $171,300 1 0 0 1 0 2 731 Spring Mountain Road Madrona Avenue Spring Mountain Ct 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $61,500 7 10,571 $252,100 1 0 0 1 0 2 732 Grayson Avenue SR 29 South Crane Avenue 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $61,000 7 10,250 $250,000 1 1 0 1 0 3 869 Railroad Ave Fulton Ln Hunt Ave 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $623,300 9 12,907 $214,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 875 Spring St Sylvaner Ave Sulfur Springs Ave 0.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $13,500 4 5,368 $89,400 0 1 0 1 0 2 890 Hudson Ave Madrona Ave Spring St 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $46,200 8 11,665 $300,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 891 Lower Reservoir Loop Trail NW city limit Loop around Lower Reservoir and connect 0.9 Shared Use Path (Class I) $3,339,900 2 3,197 $82,900 0 0 0 1 0 1 893 Starr Ave-Adams St- Railroad Ave-Fulton Ln Hunt Ave Railroad Ave 0.5 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,953,100 9 13,235 $316,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 895 Library Lane Path Adams St Vine Trail (along RR corridor) 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $485,900 7 10,912 $261,200 0 0 0 1 0 1 900 Main St Madrona Ave Charter Oak Ave 0.6 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $47,900 10 15,135 $251,700 1 1 1 1 1 5 Y 901 McKorkle Ave Alison Ave Proposed class I facility 675' west of College Ave 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $575,200 6 9,332 $155,200 0 1 0 1 0 2 902 McCorkle Ave Path Proposed class I facility 675' west of College Ave College Ave 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $519,700 4 6,641 $163,000 0 1 0 1 0 2 904 Main St Fulton Ln St Helena city limit, Deer Park Rd 1.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $83,100 8 12,055 $200,400 1 0 1 1 0 3 1063 Sulphur Springs Ave Sulphur Creek SR 29/Main St 0.9 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $69,900 4 6,141 $102,300 0 1 0 1 0 2 1064 Crane Park Path (to La Quinta Wy) Grayson Ave Kennedy Ct 0.5 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,900,300 5 7,767 $192,300 0 1 0 1 0 2 1065 Starr Ave Path Hunt Ave Mills Ln 0.7 Shared Use Path (Class I) $2,581,400 7 10,372 $253,400 0 1 1 1 0 3 1068 Mitchell Dr Main St Crane Ave 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $855,800 9 13,569 $225,800 1 1 1 1 0 4 1069 Birch Ave Crane Ave Valley View St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $295,100 7 10,121 $168,500 0 1 0 1 0 2 1070 N Crane Ave Spring St Birch St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $445,400 7 10,954 $182,300 0 1 0 1 0 2 1071 Edwards St Hunt Ave Pope St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $288,400 8 11,396 $189,500 1 1 0 1 0 3 1072 Hillview Pl Spring Mountain Rd Oak St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $283,700 7 9,814 $163,200 0 0 0 1 0 1