Imola Avenue Corridor Complete Streets Improvement Plan

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN

FINAL PLAN SEPTEMBER 2020 Funding for this report provided by Caltrans Sustainable Communities Planning Grant

PREPARED FOR

PREPARED BY

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

2

INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1

5

FROM VISION TO CONCEPT DESIGN .....53

PLANNING CONTEXT ......................................... 4

CORRIDOR STRATEGIES ............................... 54

COMMUNITY OUTREACH............................ 7

WEST SEGMENT STRATEGIES................... 56

APPENDIX B: BENEFIT-COST BACKUP

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ........................7

CENTER SEGMENT STRATEGIES ..............58

STAFF WORKING GROUP................................ 9

EAST SEGMENT STRATEGIES .....................62

APPENDIX C: CORRIDOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS ..................... 65

APPENDIX D: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 ........................ 12

TYPES OF BIKEWAYS ..................................... 66

APPENDIX E: DATA COLLECTION

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 ....................... 14

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS ...................................... 68

6

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 ....................... 15

CORRIDOR GOALS ........................................... 20

7

SAFETY BENEFIT ............................................... 90 LEVEL OF SERVICE BENEFIT ......................92

WEST SEGMENT CONDITIONS ................... 24

COMMUNITIES OF CONCERN BENEFIT ....................................................... 94

CENTER SEGMENT CONDITIONS ............. 28 EAST SEGMENT CONDITIONS .................... 32

COMMUNITY SUPPORT .................................. 95

PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS........................... 36

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS .................................. 46 ECONOMICS ..........................................................48

EVALUATION ............................................... 87 LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS BENEFIT .. 88

ESTABLISHING A BASELINE ........................ 23

SAFETY ................................................................... 44

WORKSHEETS

IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS .......................... 72

EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................. 23

BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS .. 40

APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

OTHER CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS ....... 71

VISION + GOALS .......................................... 17 A COMPLETE CORRIDOR FOR ALL .......... 17

4

TECHNICAL APPENDICES

IMOLA AVENUE ....................................................... 1

COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER GROUP .....10

3

CORRIDOR STRATEGIES .......................... 53

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ........................... 96 8

IMPLEMENTATION .................................... 101 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................. 102 FUNDING SOURCES ........................................109 WHAT HAPPENS NEXT ....................................111

SUMMARY OF NEEDS ....................................... 51

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | i

1 INTRODUCTION

IMOLA AVENUE Imola Avenue is a significant east-west transportation connector in Napa County, a link to trails and outdoor recreation opportunities, a local residential street, a school route, and an urban commercial corridor. Fulfilling these diverse functions requires a balance between traffic flow, safety, and access for many modes of transportation.

Today, the corridor is oriented primarily toward motor vehicle traffic and experiences congestion in several areas—especially during peak commute hours. Intermittent sidewalks and bicycle lanes offer space for people walking or bicycling, but gaps in these facilities force people to walk on the edge of the roadway or ride mixed with heavy traffic.

These circumstances contribute to a stressful experience for all users of Imola Avenue, whether they are driving, walking, bicycling, or using transit. The community has expressed a desire for a plan to make the corridor safer and more comfortable for all modes of transportation.

With input from the community and guidance from local agencies, this Imola Avenue Corridor Complete Streets Improvement Plan outlines a vision of transportation improvements for the corridor, documents existing conditions and challenges, and presents an implementation plan to improve multimodal travel along Imola Avenue from Foster Road to 4th Avenue.

This project carries forward a multimodal transportation emphasis identified in the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Countywide Transportation Plan, Countywide Pedestrian Plan, and Countywide Bicycle Plan, as well as the direct input of the Staff Working Group, Community Stakeholder Group, and Community Visioning Workshop participants.

Transforming this corridor to support active, sustainable transportation while balancing traffic flow and commercial deliveries will create a model for Napa Valley to be replicated throughout the region.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 1

PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN

PROJECT AREA

Creating a corridor plan that meets the needs of the residential neighborhoods, businesses, and destinations along Imola Avenue requires context-sensitive solutions that adapt to the changing character. The purpose of this plan is to articulate the current challenges on the corridor and recommend achievable solutions to implement the community vision.

The project area includes approximately 3.5 miles of Imola Avenue from Foster Road to 4th Avenue. The corridor runs east-west in the south end of the City of Napa, at the entry to a Priority Development Area1, and passes through some unincorporated Napa County areas. A portion of the corridor between State Route (SR) 29 and Soscol Avenue (SR 221) is designated as SR 121 and is a designated segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail.

This plan presents an overview of the project purpose and corridor area, summarizes the previous planning efforts and community outreach that informed this project, and outlines a draft vision statement and supporting goals that guide the development, evaluation, and implementation of recommended corridor improvements.

Later chapters document the existing conditions along the project corridor, identify and evaluate strategies for improvements, and present a strategic plan to implement the corridor vision.

The Imola Avenue Corridor Complete Streets Improvement Plan will provide NVTA, the City and County of Napa, and Caltrans with a flexible and achievable road map to create a safer, more accessible corridor for the Napa community. It includes a strategic plan with improvements prioritized to guide phased implementation, and identify federal, state, regional, and local funding sources suitable for design and construction funding for corridor improvements.

2 | INTRODUCTION

Land uses and landmarks along the corridor include residential neighborhoods, highway interchanges, commercial areas, and large institutions such as Napa Valley College, Napa State Hospital, and the Napa County Office of Education. Imola Avenue also crosses the Napa River and the Napa Valley Vine Trail, and connects at the east end to Skyline Wilderness Park.

Based on the surrounding land uses and varying character of the street, the corridor has been divided into three segments described in detail on the following page.

These segments lend structure to the forthcoming discussions of existing conditions and proposed corridor strategies and improvements.

1 For more information, see http://bit.ly/nvtaPDA2017

CORRIDOR SEGMENTS The West Segment from Foster Road to Jefferson Street is primarily within City of Napa jurisdiction, with a small segment in Caltrans right-of-way. This segment is primarily residential, with a few commercial uses located near SR 29. Traffic speeds and volumes are low near the west end of the corridor, increasing near the SR 29 interchange. Intermittent sidewalks exist along the corridor in this segment, and bicycle lanes begin east of SR 29. A Park & Ride lot supports regional commuter transit.

The Center Segment from Jefferson Street to Soscol Avenue is entirely within the City of Napa but is a Caltrans facility for the full length of the segment. Residential neighborhoods are accessed from side streets in this segment, and several major commercial or public uses line the corridor including River Park Shopping Center, South Napa Marketplace, Napa Valley College, and the Napa Valley Vine Trail. Traffic volumes are higher in this segment than either end, and speeds are higher than the West Segment. Sidewalks are relatively consistent on both sides of the corridor, and some bicycle lanes are present. Near the midpoint of this section, the corridor crosses the Napa River.

From Minahen Street to Gasser Drive, this segment is a designated section of the San Francisco Bay Trail.

The East Segment from Soscol Avenue to 4th Avenue has portions in both the City of Napa and unincorporated Napa County. This segment is more rural in character, with residential neighborhoods on the north side and large institutions including the Napa State Hospital, Napa County Office of Education, and Skyline Wilderness Park on the south side. The roadway is narrower, with no bicycle facilities, intermittent sidewalks, and few pedestrian crossings. Traffic volumes are low, but drivers entering the corridor from the east often travel at high speeds.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 3

PLANNING CONTEXT The Imola Avenue Corridor Complete Streets Improvement Plan builds on a robust framework of existing plans and policy documents developed by stakeholder and partner agencies.

NVTA is the county transportation agency (CTA) and oversees both short– and longrange transportation planning. NVTA works closely with the county, town, and cities to improve streets, highways, transit, bikeways, and pedestrian facilities.

This Imola Avenue Corridor Complete Streets Improvement Plan incorporates guidance and recommendations from appropriate adopted plans as well as ongoing planning and design work to develop a cohesive plan for the corridor.

Regional and other countywide plans and reports that inform this project include: » Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan » Napa County General Plan » City of Napa General Plan

Adopted NVTA plans that govern and support this project include the Countywide Transportation Plan—Vision 2040 Moving Napa Forward, Countywide Bicycle Plan, Countywide Pedestrian Plan, Short-Range Transit Plan, Community Based Transportation Plan, and the Vine Transit Express Bus Study.

In addition to planning, NVTA allocates state and federal funds for local transportation projects and operates the regional Vine Transit service. NVTA also administers Measure T transportation sales tax funds1 in coordination with local agencies.

» Napa Valley College Master Plan » Napa County Office of Education (NCOE) Master Plan Several concurrent, ongoing projects and planning efforts are also coordinated with this corridor study to ensure consistency: » Napa Countywide Bicycle Plan Update » City of Napa General Plan Update » City of Napa Imola Avenue Gateway Project » Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan » NVTA Imola Park & Ride Improvement Project » NVTA Community Based Transportation Plan » NCOE Camille Creek frontage improvements » Caltrans Capital Maintenance Project

1 For more information, see: https://www.nvta.ca.gov/measure-t-info

4 | INTRODUCTION

» Napa Valley College Housing Project

LOCAL AGENCY PARTNERS

CALTRANS

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

The City and County of Napa are critical local agency partners in this plan, as Imola Avenue crosses both jurisdictions. Both develop plans, policies, and programs for their portion of the corridor.

Imola Avenue is part of California’s State Highway System. SR 121 is designated along Imola Avenue from SR 29 to Soscol Avenue (which is designated as SR 221 south of Imola Avenue). This segment is subject to Caltrans policies and standards including the Highway Design Manual and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

In addition to the standards and planning direction provided by state and local agencies, This project incorporates design guidance and best practices for multimodal streets. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has developed two manuals likely to be relevant to this effort: a Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, (also called the “Green Book”), and a Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

The City and County are also responsible for maintaining and improving their segments of the corridor. Both agencies have General Plan Circulation Elements and street design standards that guide development of this plan.

Caltrans prepares plans and policies at both the state and district level that inform the development of this plan. These include Toward an Active California: State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Transportation Concept Reports, Corridor System Management Plans, and guidance documents like Main Street, California—A Guide for Improving Community and Transportation Vitality

The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has also published several relevant books that present robust application guidance and safety considerations, including the Urban Street Design Guide and Urban Bikeway Design Guide.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 5

2 COMMUNITY OUTREACH

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Successful plans are partnerships between local agencies, stakeholders, and community members. Engaging these partners and the broader Napa community has been a priority throughout the Imola Avenue Corridor Complete Streets Improvement Plan process.

A variety of outreach opportunities were used to seek input from diverse Napa residents and community members, including targeted coordination with partner agencies to ensure this Plan meets community needs, advances initiatives of local and regional partners, and includes recommendations that can feasibly be implemented.

Ongoing outreach ensured a continuous feedback loop that informed the final improvement concept and Plan. This chapter presents an overview of the format and approach for these outreach opportunities, and summarizes the feedback received.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 7

This plan reflects the guidance and input gathered through a robust community outreach process, summarized in the timeline below. Outreach for this project included three major groups who provided guidance and feedback throughout all phases to ensure the final plan reflects community needs and supports agency goals. Support from these groups will continue to be valuable as NVTA works to coordinate implementation of this plan.

A Staff Working Group composed of representatives from NVTA and partner agencies provided strategic direction, reviewed draft project documents, and will support implementation following adoption of a final improvement plan. This group also coordinated concurrent planning efforts or other projects near the Imola Avenue Corridor to ensure consistency.

8 | COMMUNITY OUTREACH

A Community Stakeholder Group included representatives from a variety of local organizations and interest groups to share ongoing feedback on community needs and priorities. This group met twice during the project: once to provide input on the vision for Imola Avenue and needs for the corridor, and once to review draft recommended improvements. Members of this group also serve as ambassadors for the project, sharing information about upcoming events and project milestones with their communities to engage as many people as possible.

Finally, input from the public was gathered both online through the project website and at events throughout the project. These opportunities were open to everyone who lives, works, or is otherwise connected to the Imola Avenue community or interested in this process. Information about the project and upcoming events was shared online on a project website and through NVTA’s social media networks. Three public workshops provided opportunities for members of the community to discuss their needs and concerns about Imola Avenue with the project team and give feedback on draft recommendations.

STAFF WORKING GROUP The Staff Working Group for this project included representatives of agencies with planning jurisdiction over parts of Imola Avenue along with members of the consultant team. Agencies represented include: » NVTA » City of Napa » County of Napa » Caltrans This group met periodically throughout the process to provide strategic direction on project goals, coordinate consistency with existing plans and current nearby projects, and ensure consensus at key project milestones.

The Staff Working Group met to kick off this project in December 2018. At that meeting, the project purpose and approach were reviewed and refined to reflect the needs of the partner agencies.

Goals and priorities for this project expressed at this initial meeting included: » Improve mobility and reliability for all modes of transportation » Provide a more accessible and low-stress experience for all modes of transportation

As the project progressed through analysis of existing conditions and development of the improvement concepts and alternatives, the Staff Working Group continued to provide feedback on key deliverables and highlight opportunities for collaboration.

» Balance needs of all users without overemphasizing any group: driving, walking, bicycling, and transit should be equally considered » Focus on improvements that are achievable, with funding sources identified and phased implementation strategies that support a goal of getting projects “on the ground” within five years » Address congestion concerns and improve the intersection of SR 121 and SR 221

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 9

COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER GROUP Representatives from businesses and organizations along Imola Avenue were invited to participate in the Community Stakeholder Group along with community organizations that have missions relevant to this project.

Some members of this diverse group have business or property that fronts directly onto Imola Avenue, making their input particularly valuable in developing frontage improvements along the corridor. Others work on projects or for organizations with complementary goals and objectives to this project, seeking to further shared interests in promoting multimodal transportation, physical activity, public health, education, and economic development.

Organizations invited to participate include: » Napa County Board of Supervisors Districts 1 and 5 » City of Napa » Napa County Office of Education » Napa County Open Space District » Napa County Bicycle Coalition » Napa County Public Health » Live Healthy Napa County » Napa State Hospital » Napa Valley College » Napa Valley Products Services & Industries » South Napa Marketplace » River Park Shopping Center » Economy Market » Gasser Foundation » Napa Valley Community Housing » Skyline Wilderness Park The project team also met with organizations individually to discuss economic issues facing business owners and employees along the corridor.

10 | INTRODUCTION

The first Community Stakeholder Group meeting was held in June 2019 to discuss goals for the project and provide input for this draft vision document. Overall, stakeholders expressed a desire for the plan to identify improvements that offer a high return on investment for the community. Additional goals and desired outcomes included: » Create a safe experience on the corridor for transportation as well as those who live, work, or go to school nearby » Incorporate traffic calming, especially at the east and west ends of the corridor » Provide street trees and other green elements along the corridor, balancing shade and comfort for pedestrians with sight lines and concerns about tree roots buckling sidewalks » Improve crossings of Imola Avenue, especially at intersections without a signal or stop sign

A second Community Stakeholder Group meeting in November 2019 focused on reviewing an early draft of improvement concepts for the corridor alongside the documented challenges and needs.

Stakeholders discussed findings related to safety, traffic operations, multimodal connectivity, and others that are explored in detail in Chapter 4 of this report.

Concerns were expressed about protected intersections presented as part of the draft improvement concept, particularly with regard to turning movements for large trucks. The Community Stakeholder Group expressed a preference for intersection improvements at that scale to be assessed in greater detail through a Caltrans Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) process, which would be pursued as a separate effort. Those recommendations are noted as long-term alternatives in this plan, but not recommended for implementation at this time.

» Support access to businesses and other destinations along the corridor » Include gateway and placemaking elements that support a vision of Imola Avenue as an entrance to the Napa Valley and an inviting place to spend time

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 11

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 NVTA hosted the first of three planned workshops at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center on May 22, 2019. Attendees included people who live or work along Imola Avenue as well as others for whom the corridor is one transportation link in a larger daily routine.

Attendees reported regularly walking, bicycling, using transit, or driving on Imola Avenue.

Following a brief presentation to introduce the project, workshop attendees completed a variety of activities: » A feedback board asked participants to describe how they currently use Imola Avenue » Informational boards presented existing conditions along the corridor and described complete streets concepts and features for community input » A vision board invited participants to help craft the vision statement and supporting goals for this plan » A “Build a Street” activity helped participants visualize their ideal street, while demonstrating the trade-offs that are often necessary in achieving the ultimate design

Workshop boards guided attendees through a series of activities to gather input on their vision for Imola Avenue

12 | INTRODUCTION

WHAT WE HEARD Safety and speeding were identified as high priority concerns for this plan to address, especially near the intersection with SR 29.

Multimodal issues reflected in comments included a desire for sidewalk gap closures, enhanced crossings of Imola Avenue, and connections to the Napa Vine Trail.

Many local destinations were identified along the corridor, including Skyline Park, Napa Valley College, schools, shopping centers, and small businesses.

Participants working on the “Build a Street” activity noted the importance of separated bicycle facilities and green elements such as trees or landscaped medians.

Workshop participants were asked to vote for elements that contribute to their vision for Imola Avenue. The concepts that received the strongest support were: » Regional Green Corridor: creating park-like off-street paths for bicycling and walking, supporting sustainable stormwater solutions, and providing enhanced wayfinding and connections to the riverfront and other open spaces » Multimodal Boulevard: providing separate and dedicated space for each mode of transportation, offering a high degree of safety and protection for bicyclists while improving viability of transit The corridor should be a place for local travel and a destination itself, balanced with regional traffic entering the community.

Above, sticky note comments identify challenges and opportunities. Right, a young resident at the “Build a Street” station

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 13

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 A second community workshop was held on December 12, 2019 at the Napa County Office of Education campus on the east end of Imola Avenue. Members of the project team shared draft improvement concepts with attendees from the community.

Following a brief presentation to provide a status update on the project and share findings from existing conditions and needs analysis phases, attendees were invited to review large boards with draft improvement concepts and discuss their questions and ideas with the project team.

These comments were reviewed and incorporated into the final improvement concepts presented in Chapter 6 of this plan.

Each workshop attendee was also provided three colored dots to place as “votes” near improvements or areas of the corridor they felt should be prioritized for implementation.

Clusters of dots were placed at the following locations, indicating priorities of the community: » Minahen Street intersection (3 dots) » Jefferson Street intersection (4 dots) » Soscol Avenue intersection (3 dots)

14 | COMMUNITY OUTREACH

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 A third community workshop was held on July 13, 2020 to present the draft plan to attendees and gather input on priorities. In response to shelter-in-place orders and social distancing practices related to the global COVID-19 pandemic, the workshop was conducted online.

Members of the project team shared the revised improvement concept with the community by conducting a virtual walkthrough of recommendations in Google Earth.

A series of polls to gathered input on community priorities along the corridor. These polling results are reported in Chapter 7: Evaluation.

Throughout the presentation and polls, attendees were able to submit questions and comments for discussion. Comments included the following general themes: » Strong support for bicycling and walking improvements along the corridor » Questions about how bicyclists and pedestrians will share space, and where separate facilities for different users interact » Long-term vision for a Class I path on the south side of Imola Avenue that is continuous along the Bay Trail/Vine Trail alignment

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 15

3 VISION + GOALS

A COMPLETE CORRIDOR FOR ALL Based on current and prior planning efforts, direction from the Staff Working Group and Community Stakeholder Group, and input from the community, the project team identified a vision statement for Imola Avenue that defines the function and role of the corridor in the Napa community. Safety, accessibility, and sustainability emerged as priorities.

Throughout early phases of this project, the vision statement was refined as community input and technical analyses illuminated or reinforced priorities for the Imola Corridor.

As a multimodal complete street, Imola Avenue will make walking, bicycling, transit, and driving accessible for daily transportation and recreation. The corridor will balance these walking, bicycling, and transit improvements with its key role in local and regional circulation and commerce.

The vision statement on the following page informed the goals, strategies, and recommendations in this plan.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 17

VISION STATEMENT

THE IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR WILL OFFER A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR BICYCLING + WALKING, PROVIDE CONVENIENT ACCESS TO TRANSIT, MINIMIZE CONGESTION FOR COMMERCE + COMMUTERS, AND SUPPORT A HEALTHY + DIVERSE LOCAL ECONOMY

BY CREATING GREEN + INVITING PLACES

18 | INTRODUCTION

FROM VISION TO GOALS Building on this vision statement and input from the community, four goals were identified that guide this project. Some of the goals were directly chosen by the public at the first community workshop. Others are informed by discussions with partner agencies and input from stakeholders. These guiding principles, explained in additional detail on the following page, are: » Safety + Capacity » Complete Streets » Green Streets » Community Vitality A description of how each goal could be applied to the Imola Avenue corridor is followed by a brief list of potential solutions to consider. These do not reflect specific recommendations, but should be used as a toolbox of ideas as the project team worked to identify and refine the improvement concepts.

Together, these four goals provide a framework for the evaluation of existing conditions along Imola Avenue and for the development of recommended strategies, improvements, and programs to make the vision statement a reality.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 19

CORRIDOR GOALS SAFETY + CAPACITY Imola Avenue provides an important east-west connection in the City of Napa. All roadway users should be able to travel safely along and across the corridor whether they walk, bicycle, drive, or take transit.

Safety improvements should rely on proven treatments that are appropriate for the local context and meet the needs of the community.

SOLUTIONS TO CONSIDER

COMPLETE STREETS Imola Avenue should connect people and places through all modes of transportation including walking, bicycling, driving, and transit. Safe, comfortable, and convenient facilities should allow people of all ages and abilities to travel along or across the corridor to access destinations.

SOLUTIONS TO CONSIDER » Shared use paths

» Enhanced pedestrian crossings

» Connections to transit

» Protected bikeways

» Complete pedestrian networks

» Enhanced school safety zones

» Connected bicycle facilities

» Safer intersections

» Shared active transportation and transit hubs

» Traffic calming measures

» Enhanced park-and-ride facilities

» Improve traffic flow » Improve signal operation or coordination

Example of a protected bikeway

20 | VISION + GOALS

Example of a bikeshare hub

GREEN STREETS

COMMUNITY VITALITY

Imola Avenue should preserve and enhance its tremendous environmental assets and cultivate new opportunities. The corridor should connect people to regional open space destinations and seamlessly integrate smaller scale green spaces into the streetscape.

SOLUTIONS TO CONSIDER » Regional open space links

Imola Avenue should support a thriving local economy both by attracting new land uses to the corridor and connecting people to existing goods, services, and destinations. Enhanced mobility along and across the corridor will support new and established residents and businesses.

SOLUTIONS TO CONSIDER

» Stormwater management landscapes

» Community growth opportunities

» Pocket parks

» Active streetscapes with outdoor seating and community spaces

» Gateway and wayfinding elements

» Support commercial uses

» Street trees and landscaped areas

The Napa Vine Trail near Imola Avenue

Skyline Park and other recreation activities draw residents and visitors to the Imola corridor

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 21

4 EXISTING CONDITIONS

ESTABLISHING A BASELINE This chapter presents a review of existing conditions along Imola Avenue based on corridor walk-throughs, community input, and technical analyses. These findings inform the recommendations in this plan and establish a baseline against which progress can be measured.

Corridor conditions are provided in two formats: » A summary of existing conditions in each segment based on the four project goals » Corridor-wide summaries of individual analysis topic areas Conditions in each segment are organized by project goals: » Safety + Capacity includes collision and traffic operations analyses » Complete Streets includes existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities as well as Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress » Green Streets includes a review of existing tree canopies , stormwater drains, and open space connections » Community Vitality includes local commute patterns and commercial activity centers

Following this, a corridor-wide overview of each analysis topic is accompanied by additional detail on inputs and methods. Seven evaluations were conducted: » Safety discusses reported collisions along the corridor from 2013 to 2018 to identify locations or contributing factors that should be addressed » Traffic Operations measures vehicle congestion based on the delay drivers experience at intersections » Pedestrian Conditions describes the walking environment along Imola Avenue, including sidewalks and crossings » Transit Stops identifies locations and amenities provided at transit stops on Imola Avenue » Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress scores corridor segments and intersections based on how comfortable it may be for bicyclists » Landscaping and Open Space presents an overview of street trees, landscaped areas, and open spaces located on or near Imola Avenue » Economics discusses local and regional commercial activity, commute patterns, and socioeconomic factors Results of these evaluations may also be helpful in preparing applications for competitive funding sources.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 23

WEST SEGMENT CONDITIONS SAFETY + CAPACITY » Collisions were reported primarily at intersections » Two pedestrians and one bicyclist were involved in collisions » At least three resulted in severe injuries, including one injured pedestrian

24 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

» Foster Road and Jefferson Street experience significant congestion in the AM and PM peaks respectively » Freeway Drive/Golden Gate Drive and Minahen Street are both severely congested during both AM and PM peak hours

WEST SEGMENT CONDITIONS COMPLETE STREETS » Sidewalks alternate from the north to south side of corridor with large gaps in some places » Crosswalks are typically marked across side streets, but few crossings of Imola Avenue are provided » Transit stops are primarily located on the south side of the corridor

» A Park n Ride lot is located on the south side of Imola Avenue west of SR 29 » Bicycle lanes exist east of SR 29 » On a four-lane state highway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph, this may not provide enough separation to create a comfortable experience for bicyclists

» Only one stop, near Foster Road, has a bench

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 25

WEST SEGMENT CONDITIONS GREEN STREETS » Street trees cover much of the residential frontage in this segment, with a few gaps

» Stormwater drains are located primarily along the north side of the corridor

» Coverage is equally distributed on the north and south sides

» Stormwater drains are concentrated in areas with existing sidewalk, curb, and gutter.

» Larger gaps in street tree coverage exist near SR 29 and near Jefferson Street » No greenways or open space exist in this segment

26 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

WEST SEGMENT CONDITIONS COMMUNITY VITALITY

» Most of this segment is residential on both the north and south sides of the corridor » 2,284 people live in this segment » Two areas with highway-oriented businesses are located near SR 29 and between Minahen Street and Jefferson Street

» Opportunities exist on the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection at Jefferson Street » These are underutilized parcels that should be considered for public or private development

» 824 people are employed in this segment » 24 people both live and work in this segment

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 27

CENTER SEGMENT CONDITIONS SAFETY + CAPACITY » Collisions were reported primarily at intersections, but at least one collision occurred midblock east of Coombs Street » Three pedestrians and two bicyclists were involved in collisions » At least three collisions resulted in severe injuries, none of which involved people walking or bicycling

28 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

» Jefferson Street and Soscol Avenue both experience significant congestion during the PM peak

CENTER SEGMENT CONDITIONS COMPLETE STREETS » Sidewalks are mostly complete in this segment, with two notable gaps: one on the north side near Jefferson Street, and one on the south side near Soscol Avenue » Crosswalks are typically marked across side streets, but few crossings of Imola Avenue are provided

» Bicycle lanes exist throughout this segment » On a four-lane state highway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph, this may not provide enough separation to create a comfortable experience for bicyclists

» One transit stop with a shelter is located on the south side of Imola Avenue near Jefferson Street

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 29

CENTER SEGMENT CONDITIONS GREEN STREETS » Few street trees are present in this segment » The largest continuous segment of street tree coverage is adjacent to the residential area on the north side of the corridor, between Jefferson Street and Coombs Street » A large gap in shade exists on the bridge over the Napa River » A large riverfront green space passes under the corridor

30 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

» The Napa Valley Vine Trail offers scenic regional connections for people walking or bicycling in the vicinity, but no direct access to the trail is provided from the corridor » Stormwater drains are concentrated on the north side of the corridor » Storm drains on the bridge are located along the south side of the road for both directions

CENTER SEGMENT CONDITIONS COMMUNITY VITALITY

» The Center Segment is dominated by large commercial centers, open space, and Napa Valley College » River Park Shopping Center near Jefferson Street has 142,000 square feet of retail and offices » South Napa Marketplace and South Napa Century Center, near Soscol Avenue, together have nearly 500,000 square feet of retail and entertainment

» Napa Valley College employs approximately 750 people and serves approximately 7,500 students who commute from the City of Napa, American Canyon, and Vallejo, among other places » 2,391 people are employed and 1,274 people live in this segment » 36 people both live and work in this segment

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 31

EAST SEGMENT CONDITIONS SAFETY + CAPACITY » Collisions were reported primarily at intersections, including intersections with driveways » Five pedestrians were involved in collisions, including one pedestrian who was severely or fatally injured » At least two other collisions resulted in severe injuries or fatalities

32 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

» The intersection with Soscol Avenue is the only one to experience significant congestion in this segment, which occurs during the PM peak

EAST SEGMENT CONDITIONS COMPLETE STREETS » Sidewalks are sparse in this segment, especially on the south side of the corridor » Few marked crosswalks exist » One transit stop with a shelter is located on the south side of Imola Avenue near Soscol Avenue » No bicycle facilities exist in this segment

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 33

EAST SEGMENT CONDITIONS GREEN STREETS » Moderate street tree coverage exists in this segment » Significant gaps exist particularly on the south side of the corridor » Skyline Wilderness Park is located at the east end of Imola Avenue, representing a large outdoor recreation opportunity

34 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

» Stormwater drains are primarily located along the north side of the corridor » Few storm drains exist in this segment, likely due to a lack of sidewalk, curb, and gutter along most of the segment

EAST SEGMENT CONDITIONS COMMUNITY VITALITY

» The East Segment houses several large institutions » Napa State Hospital is licensed for 1,266 patients and has approximately 2,300 full time employees, most of whom commute from Napa, Fairfield, and Vacaville

» Individual commercial businesses are scattered along the north side of the corridor » 2,918 people are employed and 2,686 people live in this segment » 76 people both live and work in this segment

» The Napa County Office of Education campus houses several small schools in addition to administrative offices, and has approximately 260 employees

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 35

PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS Pedestrian facilities like sidewalks and crossings form the foundation of a complete street. Users of all modes of transportation become pedestrians for at least part of their journey after parking a car, locking a bicycle, or arriving at a transit stop.

Pedestrian conditions in the project area were evaluated using site visits to the corridor as well as a desktop review of high-quality aerial images. Conditions evaluated include: » Sidewalk presence or gaps » Accessibility » Surface condition » Crossing features » Length of crossings Roadway features that may indirectly affect the experience for people walking along the corridor were also documented, including: » Stop signs and traffic signals » Speed limits » Transit stops » Destinations » Environmental concerns » “Pinch points” or constrained locations

36 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

WHAT WE LEARNED » Gaps in sidewalks exist on both the north and south sides of the corridor.

Additionally, sidewalks become sparse near the east end of Imola Avenue. Sidewalk gaps should be closed, and convenient crossings should be provided where sidewalk exists only on one side to create a continuous walking route from one end of the corridor to the other. » Few marked crosswalks exist east of Soscol Avenue. Additionally, many large intersections are missing crossings on one or more legs, which can require people walking to cross multiple legs to continue on their route. Pedestrian crossings should be evaluated and provided where feasible. » Street lighting is inconsistent along the corridor, and often only placed on one side of the street. Continuous pedestrian-scale lighting creates a safer and more comfortable experience for people walking at night, and improves visibility of pedestrians for drivers.

WEST SEGMENT

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 37

CENTER SEGMENT

38 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

EAST SEGMENT

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 39

BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS Traffic stress is the perceived risk or comfort level experienced by a person bicycling in or adjacent to motor vehicle traffic. Because high traffic stress is one of the most common deterrents to bicycling, providing more comfortable bikeways can encourage people to try bicycling for more trips.

Bikeways that are considered low-stress minimize potential conflicts with motor vehicles either by nature of the roadway (a quiet residential street with little traffic) or by providing greater separation between people bicycling and driving (a dedicated shared use path parallel to a busy roadway). Even lowstress streets can have stressful crossings where they intersect with higher-stress roadways, which may be the case for many side streets as they cross Imola Avenue.

BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS Bicycle level of traffic stress (Bicycle LTS) is a data-driven evaluation of the comfort experienced on different streets. Streets are evaluated based on a variety of characteristics: » Posted speed limit » Number of vehicle lanes » Presence and type of bikeway » Driveways and other potential conflicts

40 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

This project considered Bicycle LTS for three categories: » Segments traveling between intersections in a bikeway or sharing a vehicle lane » Approaches to intersections where right turn lanes can create unique contexts for bicyclists, especially when bicycle facilities end to accommodate these extra lanes » Intersections without traffic signals that may be challenging for bicyclists to cross Based on this evaluation, segments, approaches, and intersections received a score from 1 to 4, with 1 being the most comfortable and 4 being the most stressful.

Shared use paths like the Napa Vine Trail offer a bicycling experience completely separated from vehicle traffic that appeals to most people, resulting in a score of LTS 1

» Bicycle LTS 1 includes roads that are likely suitable for most children and shared use paths that are completely separate from the roadway » Bicycle LTS 2 includes roads that most adults would likely be comfortable bicycling on » Bicycle LTS 3 includes roads that are comfortable for confident, experienced bicyclists but are likely not appealing to others » Bicycle LTS 4 includes roads tolerable only to highly skilled and fearless riders who are comfortable bicycling in high-traffic situations where they may be mixing with drivers

Even with on-street bicycle lanes, streets with higher posted speed limits, higher traffic volumes, or where gaps in the bicycle facilities appear near intersections can create a more stressful bicycling environment and result in a score of LTS 3 or 4

TYPES OF BICYCLISTS Based on their skill level and confidence, most people fall into one of four categories. » Strong and Fearless bicyclists are skilled and experienced, and are comfortable riding on most roadways whether or not a designated bicycle facility is provided. They likely account for one to three percent of the population. » Enthused and Confident bicyclists are very comfortable riding in most situations, but would prefer streets with designated bicycle facilities. They likely account for five to ten percent of the population.

» Interested but Concerned bicyclists are comfortable riding on shared use paths or in bicycle lanes on lower-speed streets, and would like to bicycle more if better separation was provided. They likely account for about half of the population. » Not Currently Interested people are either physically unable to bicycle or very uncomfortable riding even on the most comfortable facilities. They likely account for about a third of the population.

The graphic below shows how roads with varying levels of traffic stress appeal to different types of bicyclists. To increase bicycling in the community, bikeways should meet the needs of the large “Interested but Concerned” group by providing adequate separation from moving traffic. Creating a Bicycle LTS of 1 or 2 will appeal to the largest group of potential bicyclists.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 41

WHAT WE LEARNED

APPROACHES WHERE BICYCLE LANES MERGE ACROSS A RIGHT TURN POCKET RESULT IN LTS 3

» Segments along Imola Avenue are largely considered high-stress, with Bicycle LTS scores of 3 or 4. Although bicycle lanes exist in some areas, posted speed limits at or above 35 mph and relatively high traffic volumes create a need for bikeways that offer more separation between people bicycling and driving. » Many intersection approaches on Imola Avenue feature turn pockets longer than 150 feet which cause bicycle lanes to end abruptly or shift to the left of the turn lane, merging across turning vehicles. This results in LTS 3 or 4 scores for these approaches.

Continuous bicycle facilities should be provided wherever possible, or clear information should be communicated where bicyclists are expected to merge into a vehicle lane. » Most unsignalized intersections are considered relatively comfortable, with Bicycle LTS scores of 1 or 2. These crossings should be monitored in the future, and improvements may be needed if traffic volumes increase.

42 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

SEGMENTS WITH NO BICYCLE LANES AND POSTED SPEED LIMITS OF 30 MPH RESULT IN LTS 3

EAST OF SR 29, A POSTED SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MPH RESULTS IN LTS 3 DESPITE BICYCLE LANES A GAP IN THE BICYCLE LANE EAST OF JEFFERSON ST RESULTS IN LTS 4

APPROACHES WITH LONG TURN POCKETS AND BICYCLE LANES THAT END RESULT IN LTS 4

SEGMENTS WITH NO BICYCLE LANES AND POSTED SPEED LIMITS OF 35 TO 40 MPH RESULT IN LTS 4

UNSIGNALIZED CROSSINGS OF SMALL, LOW SPEED SIDE STREETS RESULT IN LTS 1 OR 2

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 43

SAFETY Collision report data provides insight into locations or roadway features that have higher rates of collisions, in addition to behaviors and other factors that may contribute to collisions.

To assess safety along Imola Avenue, collision data from 2013 to 2018 was reviewed and compared to statewide averages.

Data was acquired from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), a repository for the California Highway Patrol and local law enforcement agencies to upload collision reports. Data from 2018 includes provisional reports.

WHAT WE LEARNED » 200 collisions were reported on the corridor, including one fatality, ten severe injuries, and 96 other injuries. » The entire corridor east of Jefferson Street has high rates of injury collisions compared to statewide averages.

44 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 45

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Traffic operations are measured by Level of Service (LOS), a qualitative metric for traffic conditions. Grades A through F are assigned to intersections and represent progressively worsening traffic conditions. LOS is typically measured for AM and PM peak hours to capture the most congested conditions based on commute traffic. For Imola Avenue: » LOS A, B, or C indicate acceptable operations with minor delays, if any » LOS D indicates tolerable operations, with noticeable delays » LOS E indicates concerning levels of congestion, and drivers may frequently experience long delays » LOS F indicates extensive congestion and severely overcapacity intersections

WHAT WE LEARNED » Most intersections in the project area operate at LOS C or better during both AM and PM peak hours » Significant congestion occurs at Foster Road during AM peak and at both Jefferson Street and Soscol Avenue during PM peak, resulting in LOS E » LOS F conditions occur during both AM and PM peak on Imola Avenue at South Freeway Drive/Golden Gate Drive and Minahen Street, and at Soscol Avenue and Magnolia Drive

46 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 47

ECONOMICS Imola Avenue serves an important economic role in the Napa Valley, providing access to employment and commercial areas both along the corridor and in the broader region by connecting SR 29 to SR 221.

Three major retail centers are located on Imola Avenue: River Park Shopping Center, South Napa Century Center, and South Napa Marketplace. Large institutions employ about 10,000 people including Napa Valley College, Napa State Hospital, Napa County Education Offices. Skyline Park at the east end of the corridor draws 15,000 visitors per year, including up to 300 people each weekend during summer months.

These large centers of economic activity present considerable opportunity for the Napa community. The current automobiledominated configuration of Imola Avenue creates barriers for people in surrounding residential neighborhoods to walk or bicycle to these nearby businesses, though—a concern cited in stakeholder interviews conducted as part of this project. When visiting two or more businesses along the corridor, people currently drive rather than walk. This further exacerbates congestion during peak times.

Providing enhanced access to businesses for people walking, bicycling, or taking transit is likely to increase local tax revenues and support the Napa economy.

48 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

River Park Shopping Center

» 142,000 sq. ft shopping center anchored by Grocery Outlet » Additional services include gyms, urgent care clinic, and a variety of restaurants and personal services

» Two shopping centers with several big box stores including Target, Home Depot, Office Depot and Raley’s

» Around 15,000 visitors per year

» Movie theater, hotel, health club, and restaurants

» Around 260 employees including those of Napa County Office of Education, the community school, and the County Children’s Center

» Corridor retail employment is concentrated here with almost 500,000 sq. feet total South Napa Century Center

South Napa Marketplace

Napa Valley College

» Around 7,500 students and 750 employees » Most students originate from Napa, American Canyon, and Vallejo

Napa Valley State Hospital

Napa Co. Office of Education

» Peak season visitation of about 300 people per weekend

Skyline Park

» Around 2,300 full-time employees » Licensed for 1,266 patients » Most employees commute from Napa, Fairfield, and Vacaville

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 49

WHAT WE LEARNED » South Napa Marketplace near SR 221 is a major economic opportunity, providing significant jobs as well as shopping and entertainment. Local residents would prefer to walk or bicycle to reach the marketplace, but currently feel uncomfortable. Improving multimodal access may relieve some traffic congestion by shifting driving trips to other modes.

5,881 PEOPLE WHO WORK ON THE CORRIDOR LIVE ELSEWHERE

WORKERS COME FROM: ELSEWHERE IN NAPA 28% VALLEJO 15% FAIRFIELD 8% AMERICAN CANYON 7% VACAVILLE 3%

» Most people employed in the project area do not live in the project area but commute from Napa (25 percent), Vallejo (17 percent), Fairfield (eight percent), or American Canyon (seven percent). » Napa State Hospital is unique because of its high employment and low residential rates.

Full-time residents of the hospital contribute to a lower average income in this area compared to the rest of the corridor and the City of Napa as a whole.

325 PEOPLE BOTH LIVE AND WORK ON THE CORRIDOR

» Residential neighborhoods along Imola Avenue are less affluent than the City of Napa overall, with incomes about nine percent lower and home values about 14 percent lower than the City. People who live in these neighborhoods may be more likely to rely on affordable modes like walking, bicycling, or transit for their transportation needs.

RESIDENTS COMMUTE TO: ELSEWHERE IN NAPA 28% SAN FRANCISCO 4% ST HELENA 3% YOUNTVILLE 3%

6,151 PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THE CORRIDOR WORK ELSEWHERE

50 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

SUMMARY OF NEEDS Based on early community outreach and a thorough review of existing corridor conditions, the following broad needs have been identified for the Imola Avenue corridor.

CREATE A CONTINUOUS AND ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN NETWORK

PROVIDE LOWSTRESS BUFFERED OR SEPARATED BIKEWAYS

FACILITATE CROSSINGS BETWEEN DESTINATIONS

SUPPORT TRANSIT AND PARK AND RIDE ACCESS

REDUCE CONFLICTS BETWEEN MODES

MAINTAIN TRAFFIC FLOW AND GOODS MOVEMENT

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 51

5 CORRIDOR STRATEGIES

FROM VISION TO CONCEPT DESIGN Building on the vision statement and existing corridor conditions identified in previous chapters, the project team developed strategies to improve the corridor as a whole and for individual segments. These strategies are intended to address the identified needs and present actionable ideas that support the four stated goals for the Imola Avenue Corridor.

Detailed design concepts for the corridor informed by these high-level strategies are presented in the next chapter, as well as alternatives, interim treatments, or phased implementation approaches. This flexible approach will empower NVTA and their partners to take advantage of multiple funding sources and concurrent projects to bring the vision for Imola Avenue into reality.

VISION: THE IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR WILL OFFER A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR BICYCLING + WALKING, PROVIDE CONVENIENT ACCESS TO TRANSIT, MINIMIZE CONGESTION FOR COMMERCE + COMMUTERS, AND SUPPORT A HEALTHY + DIVERSE LOCAL ECONOMY

BY CREATING GREEN + INVITING PLACES

GOALS: SAFETY + CAPACITY

COMPLETE STREETS GREEN STREETS

COMMUNITY VITALITY

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 53

CORRIDOR STRATEGIES Improvements for transit, active transportation facilities, and enhanced green spaces will create inviting and varied streetscapes along Imola Avenue.

Safe, comfortable bikeways designed for people of all ages and abilities and the “interested but concerned” bicyclists will be the centerpiece of the corridor improvements.

Four approaches to bikeway design will adapt to meet the needs of each segment of the corridor: » Maximized Protection » Residential District » Commercial District » Neighborhood Green Street

54 | CORRIDOR STRATEGIES

Safety + Capacity

Complete Streets

Green Streets

Community Vitality

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 55

WEST SEGMENT STRATEGIES Maintain the pastoral, tree-lined character of the corridor through this residential segment.

Rehabilitate the street and sidewalk while improving bikeways and creating active connections to the new Park and Ride lot.

SAFETY + CAPACITY Simplify turning movements and freeway ramps at SR 29 to reduce conflicts for people bicycling and walking.

Maintain on-street parking between Golden Gate Drive and Foster Road.

COMPLETE STREETS Repair existing sidewalks and close gaps in bicycle facilities east of Golden Gate Drive. Minimize conflicts between bikeways and on-street parking. Ensure Park and Ride lot proposals support active transportation.

GREEN STREETS Preserve the legacy of Imola Avenue as a tree-lined corridor from Golden Gate Drive to Foster Road. Improve pedestrian comfort and access to the Park and Ride through the SR 29 underpass.

COMMUNITY VITALITY Create a regional gateway with wayfinding at SR 29 to facilitate use of the Park and Ride by regional visitors as well as commuters.

56 | CORRIDOR STRATEGIES

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 57

CENTER SEGMENT STRATEGIES CENTER WEST This segment includes a mix of residential and retail uses, requiring a balance between transit, active transportation, and vehicles. A mobility hub and community resources near Jefferson Street will anchor the segment.

SAFETY + CAPACITY Maintain traffic flow and access to businesses while implementing separation for westbound bicyclists wherever possible. “Square up” intersections west of Jefferson Street.

COMPLETE STREETS Provide a separated bicycle facility with vehicle crossings for retail access. Create mobility hub in open space created by squaring up intersections at Lernhart Street and Minahen Street.

GREEN STREETS Introduce pocket parks and stormwater swales where unused land is adjacent to intersection improvements.

Plant street trees.

COMMUNITY VITALITY Highlight underutilized land and new spaces created by reconfiguring intersections as growth opportunities for public or private development. Provide sidewalks and lay out parkways.

58 | CORRIDOR STRATEGIES

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 59

CENTER SEGMENT STRATEGIES CENTER EAST Asymmetric street design in this segment will be responsive to large commercial complexes on the north side and Napa Valley College on the south side. Emphasize connections to the river trail along with access to retail.

SAFETY + CAPACITY Maintain traffic flow and access to businesses while implementing separation for westbound bicyclists wherever possible. Provide major protection for pedestrians and bicyclists at Soscol Avenue.

COMPLETE STREETS Extend the shared use path and provide a separated bikeway for bicyclists turning west off of Soscol Avenue.

Provide highly visible crossings and mobility hubs at Soscol Avenue or Gasser Drive.

GREEN STREETS Provide a high quality connection to the Napa Vine Trail and riverfront, creating a linear park and preserving growth opportunities for Napa Valley College.

COMMUNITY VITALITY Establish an active streetscape and preserve buffers for growth near Napa Valley College.

60 | CORRIDOR STRATEGIES

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 61

EAST SEGMENT STRATEGIES Extend regional green assets such as Skyline Park, linking them with new linear open spaces.

A shared use path parallel to Imola Avenue will minimize impact to homes and contribute to a safer and more comfortable experience for people walking and bicycling.

SAFETY + CAPACITY Emphasize pedestrian safety and reduce vehicular conflicts for students walking to the Napa Community School from the north side of Imola Avenue.

Improve the shoulder on the south side, and implement traffic calming.

COMPLETE STREETS Take advantage of partnerships with Caltrans, the City, and the County to maintain continuity for a shared use path.

Connect to a mobility hub at the heart of the East Segment.

GREEN STREETS Configure and landscape the shared use path as an extension of the open space at Skyline Park. Create seating areas, stormwater swales, and native planted areas.

COMMUNITY VITALITY Identify opportunities for community spaces in the public realm. Explore gateways and regional interpretive heritage signs.

62 | CORRIDOR STRATEGIES

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 63

6 IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

This chapter presents the proposed improvement concepts for Imola Avenue.

Based on community input, analysis of existing conditions, and the vision, objectives, and strategies outlined in previous chapters, these improvements are intended to create a vibrant, inviting corridor that is safer and more comfortable for people walking, bicycling, using transit, and driving.

First, bikeway classes and other types of improvements for people bicycling and walking are summarized in a brief visual glossary.

Following that, a walkthrough of the corridor improvement concepts provides a closer look at the bikeways, pedestrian amenities, intersection improvements and transit stop enhancements recommended along Imola Avenue.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 65

TYPES OF BIKEWAYS Caltrans designates four classes of bicycle facilities, defined by the amount of separation they offer from traffic.

CLASS I SHARED USE PATHS

CLASS II BICYCLE LANES

CLASS III BICYCLE ROUTE

Class I shared use paths are paved trails completely separated from the street. They allow two-way travel by people bicycling and walking, and are often considered the most comfortable facilities for children and less experienced riders as there are few potential conflicts between bicyclists and vehicles.

Class II bicycle lanes are striped preferential lanes on the roadway for one-way bicycle travel. Some bicycle lanes include a striped buffer on one or both sides to increase separation from the traffic lane or from parked cars, where people may open doors into the bicycle lane.

Class III bicycle routes are signed routes where people bicycling share a travel lane with people driving. Because they are shared facilities, bicycle routes are only appropriate on quiet, low-speed streets with relatively low traffic volumes. Some Class III bicycle routes include shared lane markings or “sharrows” that recommend proper positioning in the center of the travel lane and alert drivers that bicyclists may be present. Others include more robust traffic calming features to promote bicyclist comfort and are known as “bicycle boulevards.”

66 | IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

CLASS IV SEPARATED BIKEWAYS Class IV separated bikeways are on-street bicycle facilities that are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by a vertical element or barrier. They can allow one– or two-way bicycle travel on one or both sides of the roadway.

Different options for separation are illustrated below, ranging from low-cost paint and bollards, standalone planters placed in the buffer, or a raised concrete median. Any of these can be combined with on-street parking, if appropriate and where street width exists.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 67

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS SIDEWALK

ADVANCE STOP BAR

CURB RAMP

Sidewalks provide dedicated space for pedestrians separate from vehicle traffic.

Where they are next to busy, high-speed streets, sidewalks should be buffered with landscaping. Where high pedestrian volumes are expected, provide wide sidewalks.

Advance stop bars are lines placed before crosswalks at intersections with traffic signals or stop signs. They indicate to drivers where they should stop, discouraging encroachment into the crosswalk. (See below right.)

Curb ramps provide an accessible transition from the sidewalk to the street level for pedestrians at crosswalks, and for bicyclists where sidewalk-level bikeways or shared-usepaths transition to on-street facilities. At intersections, two perpendicular curb ramps are preferred to a single diagonal ramp.

HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK MARKINGS High visibility crosswalk markings are easier for approaching drivers to see than standard crosswalks that consist of two parallel lines. In school zones, marked crosswalks are yellow.

ADVANCE YIELD LINE Advance yield lines are used at marked crosswalks without a traffic signal or stop sign.

They indicate where drivers should yield, discouraging encroachment into the crosswalk.

68 | IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

PASSIVE BICYCLE DETECTION Passive bicycle detection at signalized intersections improves convenience and safety for people bicycling by eliminating the need for a bicyclist to press a button to request a green signal. This allows the bicyclist to remain properly positioned in a bicycle lane or leftturn pocket, and reduces the risk of right-hook collisions. Passive detection is most commonly implemented with in-pavement loops that detect the metal frame when a bicyclist stops over the loop. Pavement markings to indicate where a bicyclist should wait to be detected are typically used. Other forms of passive detection include video, infrafred, or microwave systems.

CURB EXTENSION Curb extensions expand the sidewalk into the street at a crossing. Typically used where there is on-street parking, curb extensions improve visibility of pedestrians waiting to cross the street by moving them further into the roadway. They also improve safety by shortening the crossing, reducing the amount of time they are exposed to potential conflicts with drivers.

BIKE BOX

PROTECTED INTERSECTION

ROUNDABOUT

Bike boxes provide a dedicated space for bicyclists to wait in front of stopped cars at signalized intersections.. Placing bicyclists in front of cars makes them more visible and can help safely transition from a dedicated bicycle lane to a shared-lane facility. Where bike boxes are used, right turns on red should be restricted.

Protected intersections improve safety and reduce conflicts at intersections by providing dedicated and clearly marked space for bicyclists, pedestrians, and drivers, including raised islands that reduce crossing distances and offer physical separation between modes.

Roundabouts are an intersection design treatment that decrease conflict points compared to traffic signals, stop signs, or yield -controlled intersections. They can also improve operations and reduce delay for drivers by allowing continuous flow from all directions.

GREEN CONFLICT MARKINGS Green markings are used to highlight bicycle lanes or crossings at locations where potential conflicts with drivers are anticipated. They increase visibility of the bicycle facility and remind drivers to yield to bicyclists.

FLOATING TRANSIT ISLAND Floating transit islands provide pedestrian access at transit stops where buses stop in the travel lane. This allows the on-street bike facility to pass behind the bus stop, eliminating potential conflicts between buses and bicyclists.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 69

MEDIAN REFUGE ISLAND Median refuge islands provide a protected areas for pedestrians to wait, breaking long crossings into two shorter crossings. They can be used at midblock or intersection locations.

PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING Pedestrian scaled lighting improves safety and comfort for people walking by illuminating sidewalks and crossings. This also makes pedestrians more visible to drivers. Pedestrian scaled lighting is typically mounted 10 to 15 feet high and spaced 15 to 30 feet apart.

RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons or RRFBs combine a pedestrian crossing sign with bright lights that flash in an alternating pattern when a pedestrian presses a button. They increase visibility of the crossing and are proven to increase yielding.

70 | IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

LEAD PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL At signalized intersections, a lead pedestrian interval (LPI) improves visibility of pedestrians in crosswalks by giving them a head start into the intersection before vehicles. This brings them forward into the field of view of drivers who may be turning across the crosswalk. The pedestrian WALK phase begins a few seconds before the complementary green through phase for vehicles begins.

PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON or PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) or pedestrian signals are used at crossing locations that are not stop-controlled or signalized for vehicles but the number of lanes, posted speed limit, or other context suggests a need for motorist yielding to be enforced. Both PHBs and pedestrian signals require motorists to stop when a solid red signal is displayed, and require pedestrians to wait for a WALK signal before crossing the street. They are activated only when a pedestrian pushes a button and can be used at midblock or intersection locations.

OTHER CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS BIOSWALES

LANDSCAPED MEDIANS

Bioswales are landscaping areas designed to collect stormwater and allow it to percolate back into the soil rather than being diverted to a stormwater drainage system. They can be incorporated into medians, curb extensions, or sidewalk buffer areas.

Raised medians offer opportunities to add greenery to the corridor. Plants should be selected that are appropriate for the local area and minimize water and maintenance needs.

Landscaping should be trimmed to preserve visibility near intersections and crosswalks.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 71

IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS This section presents the improvement concepts developed for Imola Avenue. These concepts reflect an iterative public engagement process with the community as well as staff from key partner agencies, and were informed by the in-depth analysis, identified needs, and corridor vision and goals documented in earlier chapters.

On each page, callouts provide an assessment of challenges the improvements are intended to resolve and highlight the alignment with the four goals identified for this project:

SAFETY + CAPACITY

COMPLETE STREETS GREEN STREETS

COMMUNITY VITALITY

72 | IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

In some locations, more than one alternative is presented. Some of these locations represent alternative treatments or alignments that will require additional study or discussion with relevant partners to determine the preferred concept to implement. Others represent shortterm concepts that are lower-cost and will be easier to implement paired with a longer-term concept for a more complex or expensive improvement.

Long Term alternatives are indicated by this icon. These represent improvements which, upon investigation, revealed a challenge that may make implementation more complex, such as a need for additional right-of-way, potential traffic impacts, structural issues, or a need for coordination with overlapping projects. Rather than remove these improvements from consideration, they are identified as long-term to reflect the need for additional study or coordination before they can advance.

BAY TRAIL / VINE TRAIL Throughout the planning process, community members and stakeholder representatives expressed a desire to see the Bay Trail and Vine Trail connection along Imola Avenue in the form of a Class I shared use path on the south side of the corridor for its full length.

While this vision is supported by the project team, the preliminary planning-level design work completed for this Plan identified a number of challenges to implement a path.

Providing a separated walking and bicycling path would require negotiating easements or acquiring right-of-way from at least 20 different property owners and agencies and would likely require construction of a new bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the Napa River. These and other challenges, while not insurmountable, add significant complexity that will require additional funding and time.

Based on discussions with local agency staff, this Plan recommends moving forward with bicycling and walking improvements along Imola Avenue that will improve safety and comfort on a shorter timeline. None of these improvements preclude construction of a continuous Class I path in the future, and this remains the desired long-term vision for the corridor.

WEST SEGMENT FOSTER ROAD TO S FREEWAY DRIVE

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 73

WEST SEGMENT SR 29 TO HUNT STREET

74 | IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

WEST SEGMENT MINAHEN STREET TO HOOVER STREET

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 75

CENTER SEGMENT RIVER PARK SHOPPING CENTER TO MAXWELL BRIDGE

76 | IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

CENTER SEGMENT MAXWELL BRIDGE

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 77

CENTER SEGMENT MAXWELL BRIDGE TO GASSER DRIVE

78 | IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

CENTER SEGMENT S NAPA MARKETPLACE TO SOSCOL AVENUE

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 79

EAST SEGMENT HARDING AVENUE TO CORONADO AVENUE

80 | IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

EAST SEGMENT MARSHALL AVENUE TO SHURTLEFF AVENUE

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 81

EAST SEGMENT TEJAS AVENUE TO GRANADA STREET

82 | IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

EAST SEGMENT PATTON AVENUE TO PENNY LANE

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 83

EAST SEGMENT SKYLINE PARK TO 4TH AVENUE

84 | IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 85

7 EVALUATION

This chapter presents an evaluation of the proposed improvement concept. Analyses conducted to document current conditions along the corridor were repeated to gauge the effect the recommended improvements would be expected to have on various metrics.

Evaluations included in this chapter include: » Improvement in Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) » Safety improvement » Improvement in Vehicular Level of Service (LOS) » Connections to Communities of Concern » Community Support for the corridor concept » Benefit-Cost of the corridor concept

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 87

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS BENEFIT The figure at right shows the bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) expected following implementation of the improvement concept presented in Chapter 6. For more information on LTS, see Chapter 2.

LTS on corridor segments improves to LTS 1 for most of the corridor following implementation of dedicated bicycle lanes and shared-use paths. The west end of the corridor, where bicyclists and drivers will share a lane, improves to LTS 2 with the addition of traffic calming at Kent Street.

Unsignalized intersection crossings that were previously LTS 2 or 3 are addressed with new traffic signals at S Freeway Drive and at Minahen Street. LTS 2 intersections at the east end of the corridor improve to LTS 1 with new high visibility crosswalk markings and traffic calming along the corridor.

88 | EVALUATION

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 89

SAFETY BENEFIT The figure at right shows the crash reduction factors associated with improvements proposed along the corridor, at intersections and along segments. Crash reduction factors estimate a safety improvement’s potential to reduce crash rates. Crash reduction factors can apply only to bicycle and pedestrian crashes, all crashes, or other specific conditions.

The table below shows, by intersection, the safety improvements (countermeasures) associated with the crash reduction factors shown in the figure. In subsequent pages, the Cost-Benefit analysis provides additional detail on how safety improvements were calculated. # 1, 11-16 2 3, 4, 6, 9

Safety Improvement Upgrade Pedestrian Crossings Install Traffic Signal Install Pedestrian Crossings

5

Install Pedestrian Signal & Upgrade Crossings

7

Install Bike Box and Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval

8

Install Raised Median, Pavement Markings, & Upgrade Crossings

10

Install Raised Median, Pavement Markings, & Bike Box

12

Install All-Way Stop

Note: Crash reduction factors in this study are sourced from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual Version 1.5

90 | EVALUATION

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 91

LEVEL OF SERVICE BENEFIT The figure at right shows the vehicular Level of Service (LOS) expected following implementation of the improvement concept presented in Chapter 6. For more information on LOS, see Chapter 2.

Under current corridor conditions, the intersections at S Freeway Drive and at Minahen Street both operate at LOS F during both AM and PM peaks. Following near-term implementation of corridor improvements, LOS during both peaks s anticipated to improve to LOS D at S Freeway Drive and LOS B at Minahen Street.

Operations at most other intersections remain acceptable, at or below LOS D, or improve slightly. However, the intersection of Foster Road remains LOS E due to a relatively intense AM peak related to school traffic.

LONG TERM IMPROVEMENTS Not shown in the figure, forecasted 20-year conditions show further degradation of LOS. Additional corridor capacity improvements will be required to reduce LOS to acceptable levels under forecast 20-year conditions. Major changes to the configuration and control of intersections along SR 121, including the intersection of SR 221 and the SR 29 ramp terminals, will require coordination with Caltrans, may be costly, and may require additional right-of-way acquisition.

92 | EVALUATION

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 93

COMMUNITIES OF CONCERN BENEFIT The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) designates Communities of Concern in the nine Bay Area counties based on eight variables at the Census-tract level: » Minority residents » Low-income residents » English Proficiency » Elderly residents » Zero-vehicle households » Single parent households » Residents with disabilities » Rent-burdened households One Community of Concern is located along Imola Avenue in the City of Napa, between the Napa River and Shurtleff Avenue.

94 | EVALUATION

California’s Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 established the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to support programs and projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the State. SB 535 and AB 1550 aim to ensure that the benefits from California’s climate change policies are distributed to areas designated as disadvantaged and/or lowincome communities.

Disadvantage community designations are defined per SB 535, and low-income designations are defined per AB 1550. There are no disadvantaged communities located within the City of Napa; however, the communities located north of Imola Avenue between Shurtell Avenue and SR 29 are designated as low-income communities.

The 2018 Napa Valley Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) also identifies local Communities of Concern based on Census data and other criteria. One CBTP Community of Concern is located on the south side of Imola Avenue between the Napa River and Skyline Wilderness Park.

COMMUNITY SUPPORT At the third community workshop, participants were asked to prioritize corridor segments. Each participant was able to select their first and second highest priority from the West, Center, and East segments.

WEST SEGMENT

CENTER SEGMENT

EAST SEGMENT

67%

67% 50% 25%

25%

25%

25%

8% First Priority

Second Priority

8%

Third Priority

First Priority

West Segment

A1

Second Priority

First Priority

Third Priority

Center Segment

Second Priority

Third Priority

East Segment

A2 B1

B2

B3

C1

C2

C3

Within each segment, community members were also asked to prioritize smaller sections of the corridor to indicate which short sub-segment was the most important to them in that area.

A1: Foster Rd to S Freeway Dr A2: S Freeway Dr to Jefferson St

B1: Jefferson St to Coombs St

17% 83%

B2: Maxwell Bridge B3: Gasser Rd to Soscol Ave

46%

58%

C1: Soscol Ave to Cedar/Parrish C2: Cedar/Parrish to NCOE

8% 46%

C3: NCOE to 4th Ave

33% 8%

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 95

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Benefits likely to result from the recommended improvement concept are estimated based on a variety of methodologies described in additional detail in this chapter. Benefits were monetized based on the societal cost information from the Caltrans 2018 Economic Parameters (or 2016 if 2018 were unavailable).

All project benefits are reported in annualized and projected 20-year life cycle costs. The monetized benefits are divided by planninglevel costs, reported in 2020 dollars, for the improvements to yield a benefit-cost ratio.

Benefit-cost reflects return-on-investment, and is an important factor in the selection of projects through competitive grant programs.

IMPROVEMENT COSTS The cost estimates for the proposed corridor improvements are shown below. As shown, the entire corridor, assuming a conservative $100,000 annual maintenance cost, is estimated to have a 20-year life-cycle cost of $16.3 million.

Segment

Cost Estimate

West Segment

$3,460,000

Center Segment

$5,740,000

East Segment

$5,100,000

Entire Corridor

$14,300,000

Entire Corridor 20-Year Life Cycle Cost Estimate

$16,300,000

96 | EVALUATION

ESTIMATED BICYCLE BENEFITS The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 552 methodology was applied to estimate bicycle benefits. The analysis quantifies the induced mode shift associated with the proposed improvements, and monetizes the annualized mobility, health, recreation, and decreased auto use benefits provided by the projected mode shift at high, moderate, and low estimates.

Up to 330 new bicycle trips are estimated to occur on Imola Avenue each year if the recommended improvement concept is implemented. Benefit are shown in the table to the right for the following categories: » Mobility Benefit reflects time savings when people are able to bicycle instead of some other mode of transportation » Health Benefit is based on reduced healthcare costs due to increased physical activity » Recreation Benefit is based on reduced cost for other outdoor recreation activities as bicycling becomes more appealing » Decreased Auto Use Benefit reflects both personal savings accrued from lower gas and vehicle maintenance costs as well as societal savings related to reduced pollution and traffic congestion

Annual Bicycle Facility Benefits

Annual Monetized Benefit

Mobility Benefits Off-street Trail

$185,226

Bicycle Lane (Without Parking)

$52,023

Bicycle Lane (With Parking)

$16,926

Health Benefit High Estimate

$54,016

Moderate Estimate

$45,952

Low Estimate

$36,864

Recreation Benefit High Estimate

$1,470,950

Moderate Estimate

$1,241,000

Low Estimate Decreased Auto Use Benefit

$981,850 $10,843

Total Annual Benefits High Estimate Moderate Estimate Low Estimate

$1,789,985 $1,551,971 $1,283,733

Of the overall corridor benefits, approximately 22% of the benefit is associated with the West Segment. 37% is associated with the Center Segment, and 41% is associated with the East Segment.

ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL BENEFITS

ESTIMATED SAFETY BENEFITS

ROADWAY SEGMENTS

Vehicular operations benefits associated with the proposed plan were based on AM and PM peak hour delay at study intersections. Due to the uncertainty of long term improvements along the corridor, near term build and no build conditions were used to estimate benefit.

Safety benefits associated with the proposed plan were generated using the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) analyzer published by Caltrans, applying the latest economic parameters and using the crash reduction factors reported in the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) Version 1.5 (published in April 2020).

» R33PB—Install Separated Bike Lanes (Class IV Bikeways)

The cost per person hour of delay was based on the following economic parameters:

The following countermeasures from the LRSM were applied along the corridor:

» Automobile: $14.20 per hour per person » Truck: $32.25 per hour per person A weighed average rate was calculated using the corridor’s average 4% truck percentage: » Blended: $14.92 per hour per person Benefits were calculated by converting average intersection delay per vehicle into hours of delay per person, assuming a vehicle occupancy rate of 1.15. Annualization was based on 260 working days. Benefits are summarized below.

Person Hours of Delay Scenario No Build

Build

Saving

NON SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

» NS03—Convert Stop-Control to Signal

Since the HSIP analyzer only generates safety benefit where a location has a history of crashes, some corridor locations did not result in a safety benefit. The table below summarizes the applied countermeasures by corridor location that resulted in a monetized safety benefit.

Intersection / Segment S. Freeway Drive

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Minahen Street

» S09—Installed Raised Pavement Markers and Striping (Through Intersection)

Coombs Street

» S12—Installed Raised Median on Approaches

258

373

» S18PB—Install Pedestrian Crossing

PM Peak

668

287

381

1,299

545

754

» S20PB—Install Advance Stop Bar Before Crosswalk (Bicycle Box)

337,767

141,737

196,030

Annual Benefit

» R35PB—Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing (with Enhanced Safety Features)

» NS21PB—Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing (with Enhanced Safety Features)

631

Annualized

» R34PB—Install Sidewalk/Pathway

» NS02—Convert Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) into All-Way Stop Control (AWSC)

AM Peak

Combined

» R32PB—Install Bike Lanes (Class II)

Countermeasure 1

2

3

NS03

-

-

NS23PB NS21PB

-

S21PB

S20PB

-

Gasser Drive

S12

S18PB

S09

Soscol Avenue

S12

S18PB

S20PB

Parrish Road

NS02

NS21PB

-

SR 29 to Jefferson Street

R22PB

R34PB

-

» S21PB—Modify Signal Phasing to Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval

$2,925,160 IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 97

The total crashes, per location, and resulting monetized safety benefit is presented in the table below. The safety benefit is presented in 20-year life-cycle benefit amounts.

Intersection/ Segment

Crashes (2013-17)

Safety Benefit

All

P&B

S. Freeway Dr.

14

-

$ 3,382,200

Minahen St.

10

2

$ 6,895,295

Coombs St.

24

1

$ 94,908

Gasser Dr.

13

2

$ 2,711,654

Soscol Ave.

25

1

$ 4,049,778

Parrish Rd.

1

-

$ 11,800

34

2

$ 450,340

ESTIMATED AIR QUALITY / EMISSIONS BENEFITS Air quality and emissions benefits were estimated using the SB1 Emissions Calculator, a component of the Cal B/C suite, developed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC).

Study corridor travel speed inputs to inform the emissions calculator were generated using the Synchro traffic analysis software used to calculate LOS. Study corridor VMT was calculated using existing and future ADT, by segment, multiplied by segment length. Reductions in VMT were applied to the “with project” scenario commensurate with the bicycle mode shift analysis results developed using NCHRP 552 methods.

The table below presents the reductions in emissions and associated benefit associated with the proposed plan’s effect on VMT and travel delays along the corridor.

Emission

SR 29 to Jefferson St.

Total Safety Benefit

$ 17,595,975

Annual CO (Carbon Monoxide)

20-Years

Emissions Reduction Benefit Value Annual

20-Years

2.5803

51.6058

$ 125.17

$ 2,503.39

CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)

781.7077

15,634.1533

$ 20,810.02

$ 416,200.46

NOX (Nitrous Oxides)

0.6115

12.2306

$ 5,029.74

$ 100,594.83

PM10 and PM2.5 (Particulate Matter)

0.0026

0.0512

$ (239.53)

$ (4,790.54)

SOX (Sulfur Oxides)

0.0078

0.1551

$ 288.78

$ 5,775.67

0.1561

3.1220

$ 91.65

$ 1,833.08

$ 26,105.84

$ 522,116.89

VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) Total Emissions Benefit

98 | EVALUATION

Emissions Reductions (in Short Tons)

BENEFIT-COST RESULTS

Benefit Type

Based on the results of the benefit assessment, and the monetization of the benefits, a total corridor benefit for the propose plan has been calculated. Using the planning-level cost estimates for the proposed improvements, the table below presents a benefit/cost value of 5.15. This result demonstrates a positive return on investment for the corridor plan.

Bicycle Mode Shift

$ 1,789,985

$ 24,970,284

Operations / Delay

$ 2,925,160

$ 40,805,975

$ 879,799

$ 17,595,975

$ 26,106

$ 522,117

$ 5,621,049

$ 83,894,351

The total corridor benefit and benefit-cost ratio is presented to the right.

Annualized Benefit

Safety Air Quality / Emissions Total Benefit

20-Year Benefit

Total Cost

$ 16,300,000

Benefit-Cost Ratio

5.15

BENEFIT-COST BY SEGMENT A rough benefit-cost by segment is presented in the three tables below. However, it is important to note that these benefit-cost results do not account for air quality or emissions benefits, which are calculated on a corridor basis.

WEST SEGMENT Benefit Type Bicycle Mode Shift

CENTER SEGMENT 20-Year Benefit

Benefit Type

$ 5,563,586

Bicycle Mode Shift

EAST SEGMENT 20-Year Benefit

Benefit Type

$ 9,116,290

Bicycle Mode Shift

20-Year Benefit $ 10,290,407

Operations

$ 38,452,681

Operations

$ 2,053,650

Operations

Safety

$ 10,727,835

Safety

$ 6,856,340

Safety

Total Benefit

$ 54,744,102

Total Benefit

$ 18,026,280

Total Benefit

$ 10,601,852

Total Cost

$ 3,944,000

Total Cost

$ 6,543,000

Total Cost

$ 5,813,000

Benefit-Cost Ratio

13.9

Benefit-Cost Ratio

2.76

Benefit-Cost Ratio

$ 299,644 $ 11,800

1.82

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 99

8 IMPLEMENTATION

This chapter presents a strategy to implement the improvement concept and recommended projects outlined in Chapter 6.

Small segments used for the evaluation are described and illustrated in the first section, followed by a description of the evaluation criteria and scoring process.

The final section of this Plan describes federal, state, regional, and local programs that may fund implementation efforts.

The intent of evaluating projects is to create a flexible matrix to guide implementation of improvements as compatible opportunities arise. Over time as development occurs or funding sources issue calls for projects, this matrix can be used to evaluate remaining segments or improvements and continue to pursue implementation of the complete corridor.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 101

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CORRIDOR SUB-SEGMENTS Within the West, Center, and East segments, the Imola Avenue corridor was further divided into logical sections for evaluation based on surrounding land use character, the nature of the improvement concept, and Caltrans jurisdiction. These sub-segments indicated on the following page are:

Intersections at the boundary between two sub-segments were evaluated as follows: » Foster Rd is included in Segment A1 » S Freeway Dr is included in Segment A2 » Jefferson St and Coombs St are included in Segment B1 » Segment B2 does not include any intersections

» Segment A1: Foster Rd to S Freeway Dr » Segment A2: S Freeway Dr to Jefferson St » Segment B1: Jefferson St to Coombs St » Segment B2: Maxwell Bridge » Segment B3: Gasser Rd to Soscol Ave » Segment C1: Soscol Ave to Cedar Ave/Parrish Dr » Segment C2: Cedar Ave/Parrish Dr to the eastern NCOE driveway » Segment C3: Eastern NCOE driveway to 4th Ave

102 | IMPLEMENTATION

» Gasser Rd and Soscol Ave are included in Segment B3 » Cedar Ave/Parrish Dr is included in Segment C1 » The eastern NCOE campus driveway is included in Segment C2 » 4th Ave is included in Segment C3

A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

B3

C2

C3

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 103

EVALUATION CRITERIA Improvements proposed for Imola Avenue have been evaluated by subsegment and by improvement type to develop an implementation matrix intended to support funding and construction of the concept.

SAFETY + CAPACITY VMT Reduction

Evaluation criteria are primarily aligned with the four goals established in Chapter 2 of this Plan. A fifth group of criteria considers deliverability of projects, assessing construction readiness and opportunities for funding or partnerships.

For each criteria, a score of 0, 1, or 2 was awarded. Typically, this means: » A score of 0 indicates the segment is unlikely to have an effect on the criteria » A score of 1 indicates the segment is anticipated to have a moderate effect on the criteria » A score of 2 indicates the segment is anticipated to have a significant effect on the criteria Additional information on evaluation criteria and analyses that informed scoring is provided on the following pages. The matrix on page 107 provides scores for these metrics by segment and sub-segment.

» Reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a result of mobility improvements for non-vehicles, with associated increases in bicycle/ pedestrian/transit mode share. Project components include improvements aimed at making alternative modes of travel more convenient, comfortable, and affordable.

LOS Improvement » Improved Level of Service (LOS) at intersections as a result of improved vehicular traffic flow. Project components includes changes in intersection control type (i.e., traffic signal, roundabout, or stopcontrol) or intersection lane reconfiguration to increase capacity and operations.

Reduced Collisions » Reduction in the number of (or potential for) vehicular collisions as a result of safety countermeasures along corridor segments or at intersections. Project components include traffic calming and speed reduction measures, access management strategies to reduce vehicle conflicts, and changes in intersection control type (i.e., traffic signal, roundabout, or stop-control).

Reduced Bicycle/Pedestrian Collisions » Reduction in the number of (or potential for) vehicular collisions involving bicyclists and/or pedestrians as a result of safety countermeasures along corridor segments or at intersections. Project components include traffic calming and speed reduction measures, visibility improvements at crosswalks and along sidewalks, and signs and pavement markings to direct bicyclists.

104 | IMPLEMENTATION

COMPLETE STREETS

GREEN STREETS

LTS Improvement

Open Space Connections

» Improvement in the connectivity and safety of bicycle infrastructure resulting in a reduction in the “stress” experienced by bicyclists. Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) reduction measures aim to reduce vehicular speeds, enhance bicycle connectivity, and increase bicycle protection and separation from vehicles along segments and at intersections.

» Provide links between recreational areas and local businesses by increasing multimodal accessibility via increased vehicular parking spaces and continuous multi-use trails. Project components include wayfinding or other informational sources to direct individuals to recreational areas via safe and connected multimodal facilities.

Gap Closure

Air Quality Improvement

» Closure of a gap in the multimodal network resulting from improvements to or addition of sidewalk and bicycle lanes, and enhancements to transition points between modes of travel and along travel routes.

» Projects that are anticipated to improve air quality and/or reduce auto emissions. Project components include landscaping or improvements that shift travel to non-vehicular modes.

Bicycle/Pedestrian/Transit Mode Share » Increases in bicycle, pedestrian, and/or transit mode share resulting from improvements to the comfort and connectivity of the multimodal network. Project components include the addition or completion of multimodal network facilities, visibility and safety enhancements, and adjustments to pedestrian phases at intersection crosswalks.

Landscape/Greening Opportunities » Enhance public space areas with creative opportunities to add greenery to the corridor while maximizing space and improving the look and feel of public spaces, including bioswales and landscaped medians and sidewalks.

Safe Routes to School » Safe Routes to School improvements aim to enhance comfort and connectivity of the multimodal network between residential areas and schools.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 105

COMMUNITY VITALITY

DELIVERABILITY

Connection to Economic Opportunity

Matching Funds

» Increased connections to economic opportunity can be achieved by improving access to and enhancing spaces surrounding commercial areas along the corridor. All project improvements with safety, accessibility, and aesthetic components work to create opportunities for economic vitality.

» Projects that have access to local matching funds are often prioritized in state and regional funding programs.

Community Support

Deliverable Readiness » Deliverable readiness represents projects or project components that are further along the project delivery sequence.

Potential for Collaboration

» Projects that are supported by the community are more likely to be implemented, and may be more competitive for funding from certain programs.

» Projects or project components that are well suited for public-private partnerships and/or multi-agency partnerships.

Disadvantaged Community Benefit

Cost Effectiveness

» Projects that create benefits for disadvantaged or economically impacted communities often have increased opportunities for funding due performance criteria in many funding programs.

» Projects or project components that have a higher benefit to cost ratio demonstrate return on investment and are more likely to be funded.

106 | IMPLEMENTATION

OVERALL SCORES sub-segment scores. While these average segment scores were very close, the Center segment scored slightly higher than the West or East segments.

Safety + Capacity

VMT Reduction

LOS Improvement

Reduced Collisions

Reduced Bicycle/Pedestrian Collisions

Complete Streets

LTS Improvement

Gap Closure

Bicycle/Pedestrian/Transit Mode Share

Safe Routes to School

Green Streets

Open Space Connections

Air Quality Improvement

Landscape/Greening Opportunities

Community Vitality

Connection to Economic Opportunity

Community Support

Disadvantaged Community Benefit

Deliverability

Matching Funds

Deliverable Readiness

Potential for Collaboration

Cost Effectiveness

Overall Score

The table below shows scores for each listed criteria. Scores for the West, Center, and East segments are the averages of their respective

A: West Segment

5

1

1

2

1

5

2

2

2

1

3

1

2

2

3

1

2

1

4

1

1

1

2

21

A1: Foster Rd to S Freeway Dr

3

1

0

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

2

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

2

0

1

0

2

14

A2: S Freeway Dr to Jefferson St

6

1

2

2

1

6

2

2

2

0

6

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

5

1

1

1

2

27

B: Center Segment

4

1

0

1

1

5

2

1

2

0

4

2

1

1

5

2

2

2

4

1

1

1

1

22

B1: Jefferson St to Coombs St

3

1

0

1

1

5

2

1

2

0

6

2

2

2

5

2

2

1

4

1

1

1

1

23

B2: Maxwell Bridge

3

1

0

1

1

4

2

0

2

0

3

2

1

0

4

1

1

2

4

1

1

1

1

18

B3: Gasser Rd to Soscol Ave

5

1

1

2

1

5

2

1

2

0

4

2

1

1

6

2

2

2

5

1

1

2

1

25

C: East Segment

3

1

0

1

1

6

2

2

2

1

4

2

1

1

4

1

2

1

2

0

0

1

1

19

C1: Soscol Ave to Cedar/Parrish

4

1

1

1

1

6

2

2

2

0

4

2

1

1

5

1

2

2

2

0

0

1

1

21

C2: Cedar/Parrish to NCOE Driveway

3

1

0

1

1

7

2

2

2

1

4

2

1

1

5

1

2

2

2

0

0

1

1

21

C3: NCOE Driveway to 4th Ave

3

1

0

1

1

6

2

2

1

1

4

2

1

1

1

0

1

0

2

0

0

1

1

16

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 107

As shown in the table at right, each segment’s length, average daily traffic (ADT), and average VMT were used to establish a proportional “weight” relative to the entire corridor. This weighting was applied to the Overall Score from the previous page to generate a VMT-weighted score.

108 | IMPLEMENTATION

A: West Segment

21

A1: Foster Rd to S Freeway Dr

14

A2: S Freeway Dr to Jefferson St

27

B: Center Segment

22

B1: Jefferson St to Coombs St

23

B2: Maxwell Bridge

VMT Weighted Score

Weighting Factor

Average Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

Length in Feet

While all recommended improvements serve a vital community purpose, a weighting methodology was developed that adjusts the relative benefit of each segment in proportion to its length and average daily traffic. Length and traffic volumes on each segment were used to calculate the average vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which is an appropriate proxy for measuring each segment’s relative level of stress, congestion, and safety from a multimodal perspective.

Overall Score

While the overall scores provided in the previous table offer a helpful comparison of segments along the corridor, these scores do not account for fundamental differences between the segments. Each segment varies in length, and each carries different levels of traffic on any given day. The SR 121 segment of Imola Avenue, from SR 29 to Soscol Avenue, carries the highest volume, while the segments at each end carry far fewer motorists.

Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

VMT WEIGHTED SCORES

3,594

20,008

3.70

19,500

960

3,545

0.05

0.65

33,000

2,634

16,463

0.25

6.75

5,716

35,584

34,500

1,348

8,808

0.13

2.99

18

36,000

2,925

19,943

0.30

5.40

B3: Gasser Rd to Soscol Ave

25

25,000

1,443

6,832

0.10

2.50

C: East Segment

19

7,173

11,229

C1: Soscol Ave to Cedar/Parrish

21

11,000

2,397

4,994

0.07

1.47

C2: Cedar/Parrish to NCOE Driveway

21

8,250

2,782

4,347

0.07

1.40

C3: NCOE Driveway to 4th Ave

16

5,000

1,994

1,888

0.03

0.45

3.63

1.11

FUNDING SOURCES A variety of sources exist to fund the corridor improvements recommended in Chapter 6.

Funding programs that can be used for construction or maintenance of multimodal corridor improvements are described on the following pages. State and federal funding programs are listed first, followed by regional and local programs.

STATE HIGHWAY OPERATION AND PROTECTION PROGRAM

STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Projects in the west and center segments that are on Caltrans facilities and score highly on Complete Streets criteria may be eligible for funding through the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP).

STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS

The SHOPP funds rehabilitation and reconstruction of state highways and bridges.

It includes a set-aside for Complete Streets projects, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The SHOPP Minor Program includes an additional $1 billion set-aside over four years for small projects (under $1.25 million) that allows for more efficient implementation of small-scale projects.

The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is the biennial five-year plan adopted by the CTC for future allocations of state transportation funds. Projects in the west and center segments, within Caltrans right-ofway, are ideal candidates for nomination to the STIP.

HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Projects that score highly on safety and collision reduction and have a high benefitcost ratio are likely to be competitive for funding through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

HSIP is a federal program that emphasizes reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including both state facilities and non-state-owned roads. Applications to this program require data-driven, strategic approaches to improving safety with a focus on performance.

As part of the 2020 SHOPP, it is anticipated that ADA improvements along Imola Avenue will be included in a CAPM (Capital Preventative Maintenance) project. Pedestrian, bicycling, and on-street improvements in this plan that align with the CAPM project purpose should be considered for inclusion.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM Projects that score highly on bicycle and pedestrian collision reduction, community support, and disadvantaged community benefit are likely to be competitive for funding through California’s Active Transportation Program (ATP).

The ATP funds bicycle and pedestrian projects that support program goals of increasing active transportation, improving public health, and addressing air quality concerns.

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 109

ADDITIONAL GRANT PROGRAMS Additional grant programs that may fund active transportation improvements like those included in this plan include: » Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program » Clean Mobility Options » Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement » Local Partnership Program » Local Streets and Roads Program » Solutions for Congested Corridors » Sustainable Transportation Equity Project » Transformative Climate Communities » Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program » Transportation Development Act funding » Urban Greening

REGIONAL AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FOR CLEAN AIR

ONE BAY AREA GRANTS

Projects that score highly on VMT reduction and air quality improvement may be competitive for funding from the Transportation Funds for Clean Air program.

Projects that score highly on Complete Streets criteria and disadvantaged community benefit are likely to be competitive for funding through Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) One Bay Area Grants (OBAG).

OBAG includes both a regional program managed by MTC and a County Program managed by the nine Bay Area Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs). Regional funding emphasizes active transit and transportation projects in Priority Development Areas and those that support land use and affordable housing initiatives. The County Program offers flexibility for cities and counties to fund local roadway projects, bicycle and pedestrian projects, Safe Routes to School projects, and more. Funds are allocated through a competitive process administered by the CMAs.

LIFELINE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS MTC’s Lifeline Transportation Program taps both state and federal funds to provide grants for projects that advance mobility and accessibility for low-income communities in the Bay Area. Funds are administered by CMAs in each county.

110 | IMPLEMENTATION

Funds are generated by a $4 surcharge on vehicle registrations in the nine Bay Area counties, and may be used on projects that reduce vehicle emissions. Most bicycle and pedestrian projects are eligible for these funds, which may also be used as a match for competitive state or federal funding programs.

Funds are programmed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

MEASURE T Some sidewalks and on-street bikeway projects may be eligible for local Napa County Measure T funding.

Measure T is a half-cent sales tax in Napa County anticipated to generate $500 million over 25 years, with approximately $8 million allocated to the City of Napa annually. Funds are used to supplement existing budgets for maintenance, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of local roadways and sidewalks. Sidewalk projects and on-street bikeway projects that can be implemented through striping after a repaving effort may be eligible for Measure T funding.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT This Plan is not the conclusion of this project— it is a beginning. This Plan documents technical analysis, community input, and the desires of local and regional stakeholder agencies to present a vision for improvements along the Imola Avenue corridor.

To make this vision a reality, these improvements will require additional approvals, analysis, and funding before construction can occur. Some improvements may be prioritized over others, as opportunities arise. Other improvements may be revised if further analysis or changing circumstances reveal new needs or information.

While this is not an exhaustive list, some of the next steps toward implementation are: » Include the recommended improvements in this plan in the countywide transportation plan and MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy » Develop a Project Initiation Document (PID), the first step to implement improvements on a Caltrans facility » Conduct Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) analyses at necessary locations » Coordinate with Caltrans to incorporate improvements into complementary SHOPP projects

IMOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PLAN | 111