Study says Napa Pipe homes project would add 1,600 cars to congested rush hour

The proposed development at Napa Pipe will put 1,600 new cars on the road during morning rush-hour traffic, according to a preliminary traffic study released Wednesday by Napa County officials.

During evening peak hours, 1,300 cars would drive to and from the south county site where developers are proposing 2,580 homes and a host of commercial and industrial activity.

Eleven intersections would be clogged if the project is built, 10 of which would be congested regardless of whether the Napa Pipe project is approved, according to the report. The nearby interchanges at Kaiser Road and Highway 221, and 221 at Streblow Drive would feel the greatest pain as a result of the development.

About half of the traffic from Napa Pipe would flow in and out of the city of Napa.

Because the estimates are based on a traditional traffic models, the figures may be high, according to Chris Mitchell, the San Francisco-based traffic consultant who unveiled the study Wednesday night. Final figures will be included in the environmental impact review of the project, scheduled for release later this year.

Mitchell explained that a more nuanced model would take into account additional project elements, such as density, design and proximity to public transit. While not yet considered mainstream, this innovative approach would project 15 percent fewer cars on the road than the traditional model and would show five fewer intersections feeling the crunch. .

In the formal environmental review, however, consultants are going with the conservative projections “to make sure we’re not missing anything,” Mitchell said.

Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman, who helped lead the special Planning Commission meeting Wednesday night at the Napa Pipe site, said it will be up to the public and to policy makers to decide which model is best.

Traffic consultants from Fehr & Peers, the firm preparing the traffic study, are also trying to predict what alternative uses of the Napa Pipe site would do to traffic.

The study shows that the most dramatic increase would occur if the site is developed industrially, a use for which it is currently zoned. If the project has access to rail — a possibility that has been proposed by developers — this would significantly reduce traffic on nearby roads.

The likelihood that rail may alleviate traffic at Napa Pipe remains an open question.

“The financial feasibility (of rail) is not something we’ve really gotten into,” Gitelman said. Instead, conservative figures assume that there is no access to rail at Napa Pipe.

Smaller versions of the Napa Pipe project would generate less traffic than the 2,580 homes currently proposed, according to the report.

While not presented Wednesday night, the final environmental report on the project will also analyze the potential effects of locating housing in other areas of the county instead the Napa Pipe site.

Gitelman said those calculations are “something we are struggling with right now. … It’s hard to say where those other sites are.”

Meanwhile, traffic consultants are putting together a list of measures designed to relieve traffic at intersections that would be congested if the project were to be built. These measures include the installation of several new traffic signals and lanes, a flyover at highways 29 and 221, and the reconfiguration of some nearby intersections.

The feasibility of these mitigation measures have not yet been studied, but will be analyzed in the environmental review, Mitchell said.

Some of these measures would be necessary without Napa Pipe, according to Mitchell. Gitelman said developers will negotiate with the county on estimating their fair share of the cost of implementing the mitigation measures.

Congested intersections, proposed solutions

First Street and Soscol Avenue: Add lane on First

Third Street/Silverado Trail/East Avenue/Coombsville Road: Reconstruct intersection

Highway 29 northbound/Imola Avenue: Install traffic signal

Imola at Soscol: Add lane on all approaches

Imola at Jefferson Street: Add lane on Jefferson

Highway 221 at Streblow Drive: Add lane on 221

Highway 221 at Kaiser Road: Add lane on 221

Soscol Ferry Road and Devlin Road: Reconfigure

Highway 12-29 at Highway 29-221: Southbound flyover

Highway 12/Airport Boulevard/Highway 29: Construct interchange

Highway 29 in American Canyon: Add lanes

35 comment(s)

bornin74 wrote on Jun 26, 2009 7:11 AM:

" I will vote for the Napa Pipe Fiasco, IF as listed above the developer pays for ALL of the listed improvements AND they are installed and up and runnung PRIOR to homes being built out there.
THEN you have my vote, but not until then.... "

Get real wrote on Jun 26, 2009 7:33 AM:

" From what I understand, the Napa Pipe Project has to happen to fullfill the mandated low and affordable housing element that the Feds are mandating, dont forget th Napa Co. lawsuit. But hey, what happens if we dont build low and affordable housing? We have put it off this long. What wrong with continuing to float our poorer folks to Solano Co? They have lots of affordable housing, I am sure they dont mind as long as the poor folk have section 8 vouchers in hand. Let's send our social undesirables to Solano Co. and let's "keep Napa Napa." "

casaencielo2 wrote on Jun 26, 2009 7:43 AM:

" At some point during the day we will have 2580 cars on the highway. I am not sure that the improvements will help the congestion. I for one am frustrated with the escalating amount of traffice each year. It seems that each year I am adding at least 5-8 minutes to my commute. "

Cadence wrote on Jun 26, 2009 8:00 AM:

" Already had your chance to vote on measure N, bornin74, and it failed. Game over.
These traffic improvements must be paid for by the taxpayer and will be decades in coming, if past history is any indication.
And note that the much ballyhooed train service will also be taxpayer subsidized. It took Marin and Sonoma counties contentious decades to approve their SMART train and the required bonds. It passed last year only because the state legislature created a special railroad district that allowed more populous Sonoma Co to outvote littler Marin. And today the SMART train is already lacking $150,000,000! That train remains years away.
There will not be commuter trains here for years. Taxpayer subsidized water taxis will be fun for those who can afford them and for tourists. We will need the road improvements, the legions of trucks rely on roads, and this in a state that has taken over TEN YEARS to finally apply some bandaids to its major and critical interstate 80! Even during the boom years, I-80 got worse and worse, both pavement-wise and congestion-wise and nothing was done. You really think even Noreen Evans is going to pour buckets of non-existent cash into Napa County?
But why not have a moment of glaring honesty, developers and county "planners," and explain WHERE these taxpayer subsidies will come from? Who in this bankrupt state is able to pay more? When will they be able to pay? What is a REAL timeline to expect these transportation improvements? And if bus transit is such a useful and critical component, WHY do I see nothing but nearly empty VINE buses roaming through town?
The coming snow job's going to chew up this county just like the blizzards did to the Donner party. "

random name here wrote on Jun 26, 2009 8:05 AM:

" Yes, and almost every one of those 1000+ cars must pass through one specific intersection during rush hour: Soscol and Imola.

Unless they drive all the way around and come back up from the south, that intersection is the ONLY way to get to Kaiser Rd from Napa.

Imagine that. "

napalove wrote on Jun 26, 2009 9:42 AM:

" So let me get this straight. The idea is to not put houses at Napa Pipe and build out at its current zoning which is industrial, which will put even more traffic on the road and than we still need to build houses in other places, which will put even more cars on the road? Sounds to me like building Napa Pipe with houses makes more sense or we are going to have double the traffic. "

littleonett wrote on Jun 26, 2009 9:45 AM:

" I was at the meeting on Wednesday and I feel this article does not paint a true picture of the focus of the meeting. Most of the comments and questions were about the transit, pedestrian and alternative commuting options that Napa Pipe will deliver because of its close proximity to jobs. There was a little discussion on the traffic trips, but most were interested in how we can help give alternatives to using a car to get to work "

ManMan wrote on Jun 26, 2009 9:47 AM:

" Yes building homes at Napa Pipe will create some traffic, however it is better to have it concentrated in one area and close to where the jobs are as opposed to putting them all over Napa and than everyone is effected. Plus with a dense population, like there will be at Napa Pipe I am sure there will be transit options. "

A Million Bucks wrote on Jun 26, 2009 9:48 AM:

" At the meeting a person who used to work at Napa Pipe said that there were over 2,000 workers at the site at one point. That means 4,000 trips a day, one in and one out, plus all the truck traffic and commercial traffic. So adding 1600 cars does not seem like a lot to me. And once the alternative commuting options are offered I think it will be less "

freeport56 wrote on Jun 26, 2009 9:54 AM:

" So they are predicting at least 1600 new vehicles congesting Napa. I am wondering on the effect on the already inbound traffic to the city\county from the commuters?

This number, should low income housing truely be avaialble at Napa Pipe, mean that some commuters will move to Napa. the article does not enumerate the possibility of public transit picking up commuters for the ride to the downtown area. As time passes will the commuter traffic grow even more?

Or will the down turn in the economy after "Cap and Trade", kill the home buying altogether? "

susan100 wrote on Jun 26, 2009 10:06 AM:

" Has anyone considered that some of the people that will be moving to Napa Pipe are the ones that are currently commuting. I mean heck if the everyone that moves there was once a commuter from outside the county, than we won’t be adding trips at all. "

Sickothis wrote on Jun 26, 2009 10:12 AM:

" Wonder what it looks like without Napa Pipe. My guess is that the report would look almost exactly the same. "

Cadence wrote on Jun 26, 2009 10:49 AM:

" Susan100, and someday the sun will shine and there will be water and all will be glorious!
Really - how many families are going to sell their right side up, single family homes in Solano in this market - homes with yards, homes near kids' friends, homes that sometimes are paid for or almost paid for - to move into crowded concrete boxes in the sky? Heck, if their commute were too onerous, why are local foreclosures keeping the "for sale" signs on the lawns?
I realize Napa has wonderful qualities, but please. New workers may locate at Napa Pipe. Don't ask me to believe very many existing workers will do so. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 26, 2009 11:21 AM:

" Sickofthis you are exactly right, because if they don't build housing at Napa Pipe they will build it elsewhere plus Napa Pipe will get built into something, like industrial which generates just as much traffic.

The headline on this is more like an opinion. It could have read "would add only 1600 cars compared to the City of Napa study that said it would be 26,000 car trips".

They haven't done any of the mitigations yet, either. Some are already in the works, though.

I was at the meeting and was struck by how few trips this was, I was expecting a lot more. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jun 26, 2009 11:40 AM:

" Cadence has it exactly right. There's a reason that Napa workers buy homes in Solano County. A home with a moderate sized yard, with more square footage is worth the drive to some, and probably most people.

There's a good chance that Napa Pipe homes will be bought up by investors and rented out. Some of these rentals may or may not become vacation rentals, depending on the quality of other tenants.

These units may also be purchased outright by people desiring a second home in the area. This seems to be a trend here. If it occurs, the problem of housing for the workforce will not be solved.

On the other hand, IF the county is determined to approve this monstrosity which will undoubtedly be a burden on taxpayers, it seems to me that it should be designated as rental property from the get go. Either way, taxpayers will need to step up to the plate and fix infrastructure problems that were not accounted for or that develop long after the developer has made a profit and left. "

Ferrarigtc wrote on Jun 26, 2009 11:51 AM:

" @Cadence

Couldn't have said it better.
The Napa Pipe project has good intentions but at the currrent economic state we are in who would even be buying ? What business are expanding their operations? Everyone I know is cutting back. The Napa Riverfront project is a good example. It's now built but business are not moving in. The real estate market is at a standstill. People are upside down in their homes and barley holding on. Foreclosures will only continue to drive the market down. You can get a single family home in Napa for $150-400k.

Where are all these jobs at that people commute too? A good majority of the people I know in Napa in their 20-30's don't have jobs. Most would love to move out of Napa and find new opportunities but are stuck.

Things will only continue to get worse. The economy shed more than 500,000 jobs in each of the first four months of the year and the U.S. jobless rate is expected to climb above 10 percent by year-end. "

bennyd wrote on Jun 26, 2009 11:57 AM:

" It's time we look at long term solutions to our traffic mess. A modern light rail system eventually running to the Vallejo ferry terminal, is an alternative that will benefit all of us for the long term. Mitigations only help for the short term, then our mess continues. We need bold solutions! "

winelover80 wrote on Jun 26, 2009 12:37 PM:

" The study says that 1,600 car will be added to the commuter time but does it say how far they will be commuting? There is a difference between the 45 minute to an hour commute from Solano County or Vallejo and a five minute drive down the road to downtown Napa. Especially when it comes to our environment. Shorter commutes mean less pollution and cleaner air for our children. I am all for Napa Pipe if it cuts down on those long commutes "

Just Concerned wrote on Jun 26, 2009 1:13 PM:

" We could also build another road into Napa from I-80! All we need to do is push Coombsville Road through to Green Valley Road. That would be a pretty drive through rolling hills, and reduce traffic on Highway 29 significantly. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jun 26, 2009 1:48 PM:

" People keep referring to the short commute that people will make to Napa. I'm assuming they mean Napa City? Upvalley is not a short commute. Many areas are as close to Lake and Sonoma Counties as they are to Napa. People are not going to give up their homes in those areas either to live in a "concrete box in the sky" as Cadence suggests.

I'm curious, how many jobs are available in downtown Napa to justify this development? What type of jobs are they? Are we building houses to accommodate the generally low wage hotel business? If so, wouldn't if be wiser to slow hotel development down than to build a monstrosity of a development which is going to be costly to taxpayers on some level? Wouldn't it be a little like "City gets hotel revenues; city and county both become responsible for infrastructure, social problems the develop as a result of this development". From this perspective, it looks alot like taxpayers are subsidizing businesses who want to make more profit by paying lower wages and hiring part time only. "

TAXPAYER wrote on Jun 26, 2009 2:07 PM:

" California population is growing.
If the no growth liberals want no growth, the only answer is to start exterminating. Otherwise there must be growth.

Have a nice day! "

les wrote on Jun 26, 2009 3:12 PM:

" There was time when 2000 + cars made their way from Kaiser to Napa on Soscal. Traffic was solid from the light to Imola and there was no Steblow Drive. The county should require all future developers pay for access roads and flyovers. The way I see it there should be two fly overs and a bipass. the fly overs at Soscal and 29, and by the airport. The bipass should be light free around Am Cyn. and finally 4 lanes on 12 from 29 to 80. Rail connecting Vallejo and Fairfield to St Helena would also be nice. I'd say do the rail first since most of the infrastructure is there already. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 26, 2009 5:22 PM:

" To answer several of yours questions about which way the 1600 went, I added two directions north to 60% of commuters, most toward downtown Napa, the rest down Imola or north on 29 from the southern crossing.

They can put an exit from Napa Pipe right into 29 north of the southern crossing. "

napalove wrote on Jun 26, 2009 5:58 PM:

" Vocal De Vocal – I think you should read up a little on the Napa Pipe project and what they are proposing. There are already 34,000 existing jobs that are within a 4 mile radius of Napa Pipe, so no new jobs are necessary. We have more than 20,000 people that commute into Napa for work everyday, so the goal with Napa Pipe is to get those people off the roads by having them live closer to where they work.
I love how everyone is concerned about other people’s finances and wages. I think we should allow people to make the decision of where they want to live and what kind of home they want to live in. I know that my quality of life suffered when I was forced to commute over an hour each way to work, so I moved in to a smaller place, closer to where I work and I my quality of life is much better. We need to give more options for people and Napa Pipe brings that option. "

magnum wrote on Jun 26, 2009 6:18 PM:

" There's actually a market for these homes? If homes in Napa are back in demand, than maybe I'll get the $600K asking price that has eluded me for the past 3 years due to the poor housing market. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 27, 2009 12:06 AM:

" magnum, you and others continue to make the mistake of thinking that these homes will be available soon. Even if it were approved today, it would take 2-3 years before the first units were built and 7-10 years to finish the first phase of 850 units.

By the time it actually gets built we will be in a whole new real estate world. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jun 27, 2009 12:58 AM:

" TAXPAYER, your suggestion of "exterminating" to reduce population is absurd. No one is making that type of recommendation and you know it.

Regarding growth, we cannot continue growing forever. What? You want every place to resemble Mexico City eventually? Have you ever visited a really crowded city before? I have. And if this is the lifestyle I am bequeathing to my children, than you're right, I don't want growth.

Also, this most definitely is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. Growth and development areas that both extremes and everyone in between are concerned about. We actually get along on these types of threads. Quit trying to create political division for the purpose of gaining a buck or getting kudos from a developer friend or whatever. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jun 27, 2009 1:24 AM:

" napalove, thankfully,we live in a country where we CAN be "vocal" even though there will still be those who want to shut the vocal opposition down. I recognize your writing style (under a different name last time), and your subtle attempts to intimidate actually give me more strength to persevere! Thank you for reminding me of why this fight is so important.

Regarding your comment about 20,000 people commuting to work in Napa everyday: Do you mean Napa "County"? There's quite a difference between the "City" of Napa and the "County" of Napa in these discussions.

Many of those so called 20,000 "commuters" are from Sonoma and Lake Counties, and they are headed for work in the Upvalley area. Their commute from Napa Pipe would be every bit as lengthy as the areas where they are commuting from right now. I know many people who commute from Santa Rosa to work in Calistoga and St. Helena every day. Google the distance. You will see that Napa Pipe does not reduce travel time when an employee lives in the Larkfield or Windsor areas of Santa Rosa, which have much more reasonably priced homes btw. And that's where most of the people who commute from that direction seem to live.

I would like to see some REAL figures, (not 20,000) which reveal how many people commute into the "City' of Napa everyday. Napa Pipe is not going to solve the housing problems of Upvalley employees, and in fact may exacerbate it. Right now, the commuters coming over from Santa Rosa and Lake County are not clogging up the Hwy 29 corridor or the City of Napa streets. Enticing them to move to the outskirts of Napa City could invite more problems than anticipated. "

paddy wrote on Jun 27, 2009 10:27 AM:

" If they're basing their numbers, 1600 cars for 2580 homes, their analysis is flawed from the beginning. There will be far more than 1600 cars being added to the current mix of gridlocked traffic in and out of Napa.

All of you who believe new homes at Napa Pipe will take cars off the road as people move from neighboring counties to Napa are not being realistic. Nature abhors a vacuum and each person leaving one place will be replaced by another. Your reasoning that building at Napa Pipe will mitigate incoming traffic is incorrect, it will actually increase the current traffic that much more. "

manxkat wrote on Jun 27, 2009 8:57 PM:

" No one really cares about the environmental impact of the Napa Pipe project any more than they care that the people of Napa will have to buy the schools for 2,000 kids. Rogal will get his project, build the houses, fail to provide infrastructure and create massive traffic jams, but who cares? "

wine_oh wrote on Jun 29, 2009 8:32 AM:

" Everyone needs to remember that what was presented the other night was "peak -hr" trips....the previous studies referred to total daily trips so an apples to apples comparison should be made....the rule of thumb used to be about 10 daily trips per house, so 2500 homes equals 25,000 daily trips "

5th generation napan wrote on Jun 29, 2009 3:38 PM:

" Lets see, one two or three trips to the store for groceries, to the mechanic's shop for servicing, to the post office, to north napa for shopping, to the school to drop off the kids, and pick them up, to attend meetings, to go to church, to visit friends, to go to classes, to take the dog out, to get printer ink from office depot, plus commuting? I believe wine_oh is conservative on the added trips. Ask your spouse how many trips a day they really make to town? And thats only one issue with this project.

Get an industrial business in there with real paying jobs. Is half the effort was put to this it would have been built by now! "

misfit wrote on Jul 3, 2009 4:17 PM:

" Why aren't the developers made to run a shuttle service from the area out to Napa and wherever else. This should be easy enough. The UCSF system in San Francisco, operates an extensive shuttle system that shuttles it's 6000 employees plus students to various parts of the city, from one facility to another. It is amazing. The riders love it and some jump on it to get to and from work or school...for free.
They are color coded depending on the route. This could be done at Napa Pipe as well. It only takes a ride or two to realize, this is the way to go. Forget the car, forget the gas, forget trying to park. It's nice! "

LittleJoe wrote on Jul 7, 2009 10:07 AM:

" Why is the only option for napa pipe more houses? Why not start a public park and gardens? I bet we could grow enough fresh vegetables to feed all of our students in NVUSD a healthy meal once a day.

We need to be able to look outside of the box on this issue and stop seeing how many houses, stores, cars, and people we can stuff in there... "

KelzMom wrote on Jul 13, 2009 12:06 PM:

" soooo......all the people who will live at the Napa Pipe property will have 9-5 jobs? Really? I'm going to move there so I can have a 9-5 job, which will afford me to be able to have a house. That's so cool! ((( insert sarcasm here ))) "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: