Loading...
Agenda 01/05/2004 W Agenda Naples City Council Board of County Commissioners, Collier County City Council Chamber, 735 Eighth Street South, Naples, Florida Joint Meeting Monday, January 5, 2004 1:30 p.m. All proposed ordinances and information on other items listed below, which have been provided in advance of this meeting, may be inspected in the office of the City Clerk, Room B, City Hall, or at the Collier County Public Library Research Section, 650 Central Avenue. See also City of Naples home page http://www.naplesgov.com or call the City Clerk's Office, 213-1015. All written, audio-visual and other materials presented to the City Council in conjunction with deliberations during this meeting will become the property of the City of Naples and will be retained by the City Clerk. 1. Roll call 2. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance 3. Set Agenda (add or remove items) 4. Discussion of Transportation Issues a. Overpass Feasibility Alternative Solutions b. Proposed 2nd Gordon River Bridge c. U.S. 41 By-Pass d. Waterside Shops Expansion and Other Commercial Ventures 5. Heart of Naples Comprehensive Plan Amendment 6. Ruffina Annexation 7. Public Comment 8. Adjourn NOTICE Formal action may be taken on any item discussed or added to this agenda. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting (or hearing) will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be heard. Any person with a disability requiring auxiliary aids and services for this meeting may call the City Clerk's Office at 213-1015 with requests at least two business days before the meeting date. Agenda Item #4 - Transportation Issues Attached is a copy of a memo from Naples Public Works Director, Dan Mercer. Therein, Mr. Mercer summarizes the "Final Report" prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. (PB) who prepared the report for the Collier County Transportation Department. A copy of the PB report is also attached. The PB report provides a preliminary analysis of the Golden Gate Parkway / Airport Pulling Road intersection, including an examination of 'unconventional' intersection designs for that location. In their report, alternatives in lieu of an overpass, are available for County consideration. Also attached is a copy of an Executive Summary prepared by County staff which provides data and analysis regarding the various improvements to the Airport-Pulling Road / Golden Gate Parkway intersection. At the January 5, 2004 Workshop, a City staff presentation will be made to address traffic concerns that directly and indirectly effect this overpass issue. A presentation from County staff is also anticipated. Agenda Items #5 and #6 No City or County staff presentations have been prepared for either of these items. Arrangements are currently being made for a joint meeting between City and County staff members to discuss an interlocal agreement on the Ruffina annexation. Engineering · Utilities · Solid Waste · Equipment Services TO: FROM: DR. ROBERT E. LEE, CITY MANAGER DAN MERCER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT-PRELIMiNARY EVALUATION OF UNCONVENTIONAL INTERSECTION DESIGNS/GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY/AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD INTERSECTION DATE: DECEMBER 30, 2003 As you are aware the City has recently received a copy of the 'Final Report' on the Golden Gate Parkway/Airpod-Pulling Road Intersection. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. (PB) submitted the report dated December 8, 2003, to Collier County Transportation Department. Previously the City Council had received a copy of the 'Draft Report' dated November 13, 2003. In reviewing both copies t find very minor and insignificant changes between the content of the documents. Some of the changes consisted of sentence structure, grammar revisions, and expansion of information. Table 3 was revised in structure only to be easier to read, but the data it contained remained the same. In Exhibit 'A' a couple of figures were relocated for better understanding. In Exhibit 'A' of the Final Report, figure 3 the footprint changed somewhat. This study of unconventional intersections designs was initiated by a presentation to the City. The presentation along with a letter from PB made its way to Collier County. In a good faith effort Collier County decided to hire PB to produce the study. PB was then asked to perform a preliminary analysis of the Golden Gate Parkway/Airport-Pulling Road intersection, including an examination of "unconventional" intersection designs for that location. Typical unconventional designs include Roundabouts, Median U-turns, Jughandles, and newer concepts such as Continuous Flow Intersections, Quadrant Roadways, and Split Intersections. PB also looked into other unconventional grade-separated designs such as the Echelon and the Center Turn Overpass. tn their report PB mentions that early on they quickly eliminated several concepts, such as: Roundabout-type treatments, Continuous Flow intersection, Quadrant Roadway intersections, Echelon and Center Turn Overpass interchange concepts. Then PB PAGE 2 FINAL REPORT-PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF UNCONVENTIONAL INTERSECTION DESIGNS/GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY/AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD INTERSECTION DECEMBER 30, 2003 selected several unconventional layouts, including the Median U-turn, Split Intersection and Continuous Flow Intersection. I am not sure if it was an error or typo, but they had mentioned earlier the elimination of the Continuous Flow Intersection, so I am not sure whether they analyzed it or not? Again, let me mention this report is_extremely preliminary and actually produces more questions than answers. Just as PB recommends, a more intensive Corridor Congestions Management Study is both appropriate and essential. A study such as this would provide a basis for strengthening the comprehensive and integrated investment strategy for the entire Corridor. In conjunction with this report, staff reviewed Collier County's 2002 Average Daily Traffic report. In April 1989, Collier County Transportation Department took over all traffic counting activities on State roads (except for 1-75) and County roads in unincorporated coastal Collier County. These counts are taken to measure seasonal variations and to identify growth patterns. The 2002 report indicates an overall County wide average increase of 0.4.7%. PB developed a set of projections using an average growth rate of two percent (2%) per year for existing counts performed in 2000 to be used over the next 20 years. Table 2 of PB Final Report shows the calculations produced by Kimley-Horn and Associates dated January 3, 2003, and the new calculations produced by PB using the 2% growth. By using the 2% there is a significant difference in the two projections, particularly in regard to their conclusions as to the need for an overpass in the distant future. I am sure PB may have a logical explanation as to why they used 2%, but staff has not been able to reach them for an answer. Of concern is both the inconsistency in data and in recommendations. Another important piece of the puzzle was found in the County's 2002 Average Daily Traffic report that I think warrants plugging into the plan. That is a significant change in the traffic counts since the construction of Livingston Road extension from Radio Road to Pine Ridge Road. Traffic seems to have migrated south toward Radio Road, to Airport Road, and then to Davis, etc. Staff would have expected an increase in traffic from Livingston Road then west on Golden Gate Parkway into the City. The latest counts do not show that. This would leave me to believe if a new corridor was added south of Golden Gate Parkway (maybe a 2nd Gordon River Bridge) that the need for major improvements at Golden Gate Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road might not be warranted! I am not saying no improvements are needed at this intersection, but the thought of spending $10 - $15,000,000 versus $30,000,000 sound much PAGE 3 FINAL REPORT-PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF UNCONVENTIONAL INTERSECTION DESIGNS/GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY/AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD INTERSECTION DECEMBER 30, 2003 more appealing. The remaining $15,000,000 could be used elsewhere to improve traffic flow throughout the County road system. The most notable information I have been able to gather from the Final Report provided by PB is there are numerous other alternatives that are available in lieu of an overpass configuration at thi~ time. The alternatives involve intersection configurations and other corridor improvements, as indicated by our on-going review of the data. In the interest of obtaining the most 'capacity' for the 'dollar', I do think there are solutions to improving the road network that potentially create more capacity (concerns the City and the County faces), but further studies are necessary fo justify this. Staff is in the process of completing a 'draft' presentation to address traffic concerns in general to be presented at the City-County Workshop on Monday, January 5, 2003. It will include information from this Final Report and the 2002 Average Daily Traffic data from the County that will look at most of the issues we face currently, such as the Overpass, Waterside Shops expansion, and others. I hope to have the draft to you by Wednesday afternoon for review and finalization. If you require any additional information please contact me. Thank you. FINAL REPORT Preliminary Evaluation of Unconventional Intersection Designs Golden Gate Parkway/AirpOrt-Pulling Road Intersection Collier County, Florida Submitted to: Collier County Transportation Department By: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. December 8, 2003 Final Report Preliminary Evaluation of Unconventional Intersection Designs Golden Gate Parkway/Airport-Pulling Road intersection Collier County, Florid~ 1.0 Introduction Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. {PB) was asked to perform a preliminary analysis of the Golden Gate Parkway/Airport-Pulling Road intersection, including an examination of "unconventionaF intersection designs for that location. The intersection is proposed to be grade- separated due to projected growth in the area as well as traffic volumes associated with the new 1-75 interchange with Golden Gate Parkway. 1-75 is located approximately two miles west of the intersection under study. PB has extensively researched into howother state, county and local transportation agencies handle high-volume intersections; thus the firm is uniquely qualified to evaluate feasibility, planning and design issues associated with various "unconventional" intersection solutions. On November 5 and 6, 2003, the PB Team joined with Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) representatives and Collier County Transportation officials in a work session to review potential unconventional intersection designs at the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road as well as at other locations along the Golden Gate Parkway corridor, including Santa Barbara Boulevard. County officials had provided existing information, studies and plans to the pB Team in advance of the work session to ensure a consistent framework for considering alternatives. 2.0 Golden Gate and Airport-Pulling Intersection 2.1 Unconventional Intersection Design Concepts When conventional intersection design concepts do not to provide adequate existing or future capacity, many communities are looking for "unconventional" design solutions - concepts that reduce the impact of left turning traffic volumes at the intersection and share common principles of separating left turn movements through various designs. Typical unconventional designs include Roundabouts, Median U-turns, Jughandles, and newer concepts such as Continuous Flow Intersections, Quadrant Roadways, and Split Intersections. Unconventional grade- separated designs such as the Echelon and the Center Turn Overpass also were discussed. Early in the session, several concepts were quickly eliminated: · Roundabout-type treatments could not handle the magnitude of volumes at this intersection and were felt to have significant motorist acceptance issues in this area · The Continuous Flow intersection and Quadrant Roadway intersections could not be fit within the available right-of-way footprint without significant additional takings, property and access impacts and drainage basin mitigation. · The Echelon and CenterTurn Overpass interchange concepts are unlikely to provide significant cost savings or operational benefits compared to the planned interchange design. 2.2 Comparison of Initial Intersection Layouts Several unconventional layouts were selected for further study, including the Median U-turn, Split Intersection and Continuous Flow Intersection. These designs were analyzed using simulation models to compare traffic impacts compared to a conventional intersection design and the single- point overpass design currently planned. Page I oi 8 Final Report Preliminary Evaluation of Unconventional Intersection Designs Golden Gate Parkway/Airport-Pulling Road Intersection Collier County, Florida -Fable I summarizes the initial results for the 2025 design year according to volume-to-capacity ratios. The volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio is the measure of how much of the available capacity of an intersection is being used. A volume to capacity ratio of 1.42 for example means that the intersection is over the available capacity by 42 percent. The higher the v/c ratio, the greater the delay (amount of time a driver has to wait) at an intersection. A v/c ratio slightly greater than 1.0 typically means that drivers will experience moderate delay and have to wait a minimum of one signal cycle before clearing the intersection. Higher v/c ratios also indicate a greater length of the peak hour, lasting until volumes recede to a v/c ratio of less than 1.0 and the intersection can begin to clear. Intersections with v/c ratio~ under but near 1.0 may still have some peak queuing and delays, and intersections with v/c <0.80 will generally operate without undue delays. Table 1 reports v/c ratios for the worst intersection within the study limits, because many of the unconventional designs create multiple signalized intersections of varying operations. Table 1: Initial 2025 Volume-to-Capacity Analysis Results Intersection Design 2025 PM VIC Conventional Intersection 1.42 Single POint Overpass (planned) 0.85 Median U-Turn (crossovers only on Golden Gate Parkway) 1.21 Continuous Flow Intersection 1.05 Split Intersection (with median crossovers) 1.11 Echelon Interchange 0.98 Only the interchange designs (Single Point Overpass and Echelon Interchange) could provide sufficient peak hour capacity at the intersection, although several of the unconventional designs provide improved efficiency compared to the conventional design at near capacity operations in 2025. These unconventional at-grade alternatives could be implemented at substantial cost savings compared to an interchange design. 2.3 Preliminary Intersection Layout During the work session, a Split Intersection (with median crossovers) design concept was developed and considered for further analysis. The layout consisted of routing the northbound and southbound left turns on Airport-Pulling Road to two signalized median U-turns on Golden Gate Parkway east and west of Airport-Pulling Road. Both arterials would retain the proposed six-lane typical section. The intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road would be "split", with separate signalized intersections provided for eastbound and westbound movements. Left turns from Golden Gate Parkway to Airport-Pulling Road would be provided at these intersections. This layout was analyzed further because it could fit within the proposed right-of-way for the planned overpass, could be built as the first phase of the overpass, and could be retrofitted to the ultimate proposed design of the overpass without major reconstruction. Further, refinements to the ultimate interchange design can be made to minimize "wasted" costs and provide a more cost effective transition between phases. Further details on the history and background of this type of intersection as well as its applicability to the location under study are provided in Exhibit A. Page 2 of 8 Final Report Preliminary Evaluation of Unconventional Intersection Designs Golden Gate Parkway/Airpoa-PuIling Road Intersection Collier County, Florida 2.4 Traffic Projections The traffic simulation for the Split Intersection (with median crossovers) alternative on Golden Gate Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road was performed using two sets of traffic projections. The traffic volumes are provided in Exhibit B. The first set was provided by Collier County staff and is documented in the traffic study performed by Kimley-Horn and Associates (KH&A) dated January 3, 2003. Decreases between existing (2000) counts and the projected traffic on northbound and southbound Airport-Pulling Road can be attributed to changes in travel patterns-as a result of the proposed new interchange at Golden Gate Parkway and 1-75. The second set of projections was developed using an average growth rate of two percent per year from existing counts performed in 2000. This average growth rate was developed by comparing average annual daily traffic volumes between 1998 and 2002. These volumes, provided by Collier County staff, show an average growth of less than two percent per year along both arterials under study. However, a two percent growth was assumed to account for traffic reductions due to roadway construction in the area between 1998 and 2002. Approach volumes to the intersection were developed by applying the two percent yearly growth rate to existing approach counts. In order to account for the new interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, the turning movements were calculated using the trip distribution from the data developed by KH&A. This methodology resulted in an increase in volumes for all of the movements at Golden Gate Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road, except for Golden Gate Parkway westbound. The following table shows the existing counts as well as the two sets of projections used for the analysis. Table 2: Traffic Projections Existing 2005 PM Peak Volumes 2025 PM Peak Volumes Volumes Estimated (2% Estimated (2% Approach (PM 2000) KH&A Annual Growth) KH&A Annual Growth) Golden Gate Pkwy 850 940 945 1,520 1,290 _~_e s t___b2_u_Qn d__ ............................................................................................................................................. Golden Gate Parkway 2,720 2,910 2,990 3,350 4,075 _ E_._a s t__b_o..u. _n._d .............................................................................................. Airport-Pulling Road 3,270 2,700 3,600 2,750 4,910 ._N_o.~.b_b_o_ u_~.~ ................................................................................................ Airport-Pulling Road 2,015 2,510 2,215 2,510 3,020 Southbound Note: Volumes are in vehicles per hour per direction. 2.5 Roadway Network The proposed roadway network is shown in Exhibit C. The left turns from Airport-Pulling Road both northbound and southbound are projected to be heavier than the left turns from Golden Gate Parkway. With the proposed layout, left turns from Airport-Pulling Road will first turn right at Golden Gate Parkway and than use the median U-turns to continue east and west on Golden Gate. Page 3 of 8 Final Report Preliminary Evaluation of Unconventional Intersection Designs Golden Gate Parkway/Airport-Pulling Road Intersection Collier County, Florida The analysis is based on the median U-Turns located approximately 600 feet east and west of Airport-Pulling Road, and a distance of approximately 150 feet between the Golden Gate intersections with Airport-Pulling Road. This design seems to fit within the available right-of-way along both arterials, while allowing full intersection movement at Bear's Paw (approximately 2,600 feet from Airport-Pulling Road) to the west. Right-in/right-out driveways can also be built into this design to allow access to future residential sites at the northwest corner of the intersection and the Gray Oaks future commercial site in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. The median crossover east of 'Airport-Rulling Road will allow left-in access to the Poinciana Professional Park, and right-turn out movements can take place with the crossover movements. This maneuver does not seem to create operational and/or safety issues as the number of vehicles performing that turn is projected to be less than 50 vehicles per hour during the afternoon peak period in 2025. This condition also exists in the westbound direction of traffic from the Gray Oaks future commercial site located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection. Similarly, volumes exiting the site and heading south to Airport-Pulling Road are projected to be minimal and significantly impact intersection traffic operation and safety. In both cases, the heavier flow of traffic, eastbound and westbound on Golden Gate Parkway, will be metered by the traffic lights at the crossovers. The intersection design also includes provision for dual left turn lanes with approximately 300 feet of storage at the median U-turns on Golden Gate Parkway east and west of Airport-Pulling Road. Based on the preliminary analysis this will provide adequate storage area between Airport-Pulling Road and median u-turn intersections on Golden Gate Parkway. Dual right turn lanes will also be provided on Airport-Pulling Road approaching Golden Gate Parkway. To limit the number of weaving maneuvers at the intersection, appropriate signing will direct northbound traffic heading to eastbound Golden Gate Parkway via the median U-turn to use the inside right turn lane. Right turn-on-red will be prohibited from the inside right turn lane. Traffic heading from Airport-Pulling Road northbound to westbound Golden Gate Parkway will be directed to use the outside right turn lane, eliminating weaving maneuvers from that lane. Right turn-on-red will be allowed from that movement. 2.6 Projected Delay/Level of Service Table 3 summarizes the results of the preliminary traffic simulations performed using 2005 and 2025 traffic projections for the afternoon peak period. Values are shown both for the current projections documented in the January 2003 traffic memorandum by KH&A and for the estimated volumes assuming a 2 percent growth per year. The latter are conservative figures except for Golden Gate Parkway westbound, as they are based on existing traffic patterns and do not specifically account for traffic diversion due to the addition of the new interchange between 1-75 and Golden Gate Parkway. With a two percent annual growth rate, projected peak hour volumes are on average 15 to 35 percent greater than the available approach capacity for both of the six- lane arterials. These numbers were used to determine the earliest year that additional improvements would be needed at the intersection. Page 4 of 8 Final Report Preliminary Evaluation of Unconventional Intersection Designs Golden Gate Parkway/Airport-Pulling Road Intersection Collier County, Florida Table 3: Split Intersection (with median crossovers) Preliminary Analysis Summary 2005 PM Peak Analysis 2025 PM Peak Analysis Delay Level of Service Delay Level of Service (secs per veh) (secs per veh) Golden Gate Parkway Westbound from 40 35 D ; D 50 110 D { F Future Access Road to Ai~omPulling Road Golden Gate Par~ay Eastbound from 45 65 D ~ E 115 ~ 160 F ~ F ~ar's Paw to Air~-Pulling Road Airpo~-Pulling Road No~h~und to 30 75 C ~ E ~ 40 ~ 100 D ~ F Golden Gate Parkway West~und Signal 40 35 D C 40 ;: 120 D'~ F Airpod-Pulling Road Southbound to Golden Gate Parkway' Eastbound Signal Delays are in seconds per vehicles and include the following movements: Westbound: from Future Access Road to Airport-Pulling Road. Eastbound: from Bear's Paw Entrance to Airport-Pulling Road. Northbound: south of Golden Gate Parkway Westbound Lanes. Southbound: north of Golden Gate Parkway Eastbound Lanes. 2.7 Potential Project Phasing The results of the preliminary traffic simulation were evaluated in order to identify a time frame for additional improvements at the intersection. These improvements would include constructing three elevated eastbound and westbound lanes along Golden Gate Parkway between the median U-Turns. Because the proposed elevated lanes could be constructed within the wide median provided in the proposed layout, this approach would allow the County to provide adequate levels of service at the intersection with minimum disruption of traffic in the future. To estimate the time-frame when additional improvements will be necessary, the average delay based on 2005 projections was compared to the average delay with 2025 PM peak hour traffic volumes. The projected yearly growth rate between the two analysis years was then applied to the average delay to estimate the approximate year when additional improvements will be needed. Based on this methodology, it is estimated that the elevated lanes along Golden Gate Parkway may be needed between 2010 (based on conservative two percent annual growth rate) and 2015 (based on KH&A 2025 volume projections), when the at-grade intersection is likely to reach a v/c ratio of 1.0. This preliminary analysis is based on available data. A final recommendation of the projected phasing and specific geometry should follow a more thorough analysis of the traffic projections, traffic operation, constructability and other impacts associated with the project. Page 5 of 8 Final Report Preliminary Evaluation of Unconventional Intersection Designs Golden Gate Parkway/Airport-Pulling Road Intersection Collier County, Fiorid,n 2.8 Preliminary Conclusions: Golden Gate Parkway/Airport-Pulling Road Because the existing planned footprint for. the Golden Gate Parkway Overpass of Airport-Pulling Road is clearly a constraint for any alternatives, the Split Intersection (with median crossovers) was determined to be the most viable. The advantages and disadvantages of the Split Intersection (with median crossovers) are as follows: Advantages Compared to Overpass: · Significantly lower initial construction costs and facilitates funding reallocation to other priority projects. · Provides improved level of service compared to existing intersection. · Reduces the duration of the initial construction period and allows less disruptive maintenance of traffic impacts. · Perceived as less obtrusive ir~ the short term. · Allows more flexibility with likely ultimate Golden Gate Parkway corridor improvements. · Allows further consideration of long-term improvements after the 1-75/Golden Gate Parkway Interchange is in place, actual traffic levels are known and the updated regional traffic assignment model has been validated. Disadvantages Compared to Overpass: · Requires driver acclamation to different turning movements; additional driver educational and enforcement efforts are necessary. · Longer-term construction costs likely to be higher given escalation over time and additional contractor mobilization costs and some additional reconstruction costs. · Will not provide a comparable level-of-service over the long-term and the duration of peak congestion hours will be longer compared to the interchange design. · Some additional redesign costs would be incurred to adjust the current 60 percent plans to be compatible with the interim Split Intersection (with median crossovers) design and assure minimal later "wasted cost" for the overpass construction. 3.0 Golden Gate Parkway/Santa Barbara Boulevard The intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard also was analyzed for potential application of an "unconventional" intersection design. Both arterials are currently four- lane divided roadways with plans to widen Golden Gate Parkway to six lanes west of Santa Barbara Boulevard. Page 6 of 8 Final Report Preliminary Evaluation of Unconventional intersection Designs Golden Gate Parkway/Airport-Pulling Road Intersection Collier County, Fiodda 3.1 Initial Observations Traffic operations at the intersection were observed during both morning and afternoon peak periods. Congestion was mainly in the eastbound direction during the afternoon peak period, with queues extending to just east of the bridge over 1-75. Both through and left turn movements were equally heavy. Most vehicles are turning left from Golden Gate Parkway westbound to Santa Barbara northbound, ultimately headed west on Green Street. Most of the vehicles continuing eastbound on Golden Gate Parkway travel equally north and south on SR-951. During the morning peak period, the heaviest movements were the right turn from Santa Barbara Boulevard southbound to Golden Gate Parkway westbound. The queue on Golden Gate Parkway extended beyond 53rd Street during the observation period. 3.2 Potential Short-Term Improvements The current signal timing and phasing of the intersection allows most of the vehicles to clear the intersection in the non-peak directions during peak periods. Improving the turning radius as well as providing for an overlap phase can improve the efficiency of the exclusive right turn from southbound Santa Barbara Boulevard to westbound Golden Gate Parkway. That phase would be concurrent with the existing phase provided to the eastbound and westbound left turn movements. 3.3 Determination of Long-Term Improvements Identification of potential future long-term improvements to the intersection could not be identified based on the available data. The current projections reflect the roadway network included in the latest Cost Feasible Plan adopted by the County, except for the number of lanes on Santa Barbara Boulevard. Subsequent to the adoption of the Cost Feasible Plan, the number of lanes on Santa Barbara Boulevard, north of Golden Gate Parkway, was reduced from six to four lanes. Green Street Extension to Livingston Road is also not included in the Cost Feasible Plan and would have a significant impact on the projections at Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. The evaluation of potential improvements at Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway should be based on a thorough knowledge of existing travel patterns. This information can be obtained by performing daily and peak hour turning movement counts at key locations within the area formed by Livingston Road, Golden Gate Parkway, Santa Barbara, and Pine Ridge Road. This will in turn allow the County to evaluate, validate, and make necessary adjustments to the future projections produced by the regional model. The evaluation should also account for the impacts of proposed improvements along Golden Gate Parkway and on 1-75 on future traffic patterns at the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard. The proposed improvements to the intersection should take into consideration surrounding land-uses. This intersection appears to have limited potential for application of "unconventional" design, however, certainly warrants a more thorough analysis. Page 7 of 8 Final Report Preliminary Evaluation of Unconventional Intersection Designs Golden Gate Parkway/Airport-Pulling Road Intersection Collier County, FIorid~ 4.0 Recommendation Based on the significance of the pending Golden Gate Parkway/Airport~Pulling Road Overpass investment ($28 million) and the increased traffic demand throughout the Golden Gate Parkway Corridor (Santa Barbara Boulevard to US-41), PB believes a more intensive Corridor Congestion Management Study is both appropriate and essential. This study would provide a basis for strengthening the comprehensive and integrated investment strategy for the entire Corridor. Based on this evaluation and preliminary conclusions and the advantages and disadvantages associated described previously, PB believes there are further significant opportunities and recommend continued consideration of unconventional design alternatives. The comprehensive study would have three specific objectives: · Refinement of overpass alternatives at the Golden Gate Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road intersection, including detailed traffic operation evaluations and design recommendations compatible with a phased Split Intersection (with median crossovers)/Overpass intersection; · Development of a plan to address the demand/constraint problems at Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard; · Development of the short-term and long-range improvement concepts for the entire Golden Gate Parkway Corridor between Santa Barbara Boulevard and US-41. Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT A THE SPLIT INTERSECTION (with median crossovers): WHAT IT IS? History The first known application of the Split Intersection concept is in Tel Aviv, Israel, converted from a conventional intersection design in 1975. The design proved to be successful, providing greater intersection capacities than expected, and postponed the construction of a complete grade-separated design at this location. Several other Split Intersections have been constructed in Israel and were later converted to diamond at-grade intersections. The design has been used as temporary measure during interchange construction in the U.S., but there is presently no known longstanding specific application. Operations The Split Intersection (with median crossovers) separates traffic flow on the mainline into offset one-way roadways, resulting in two intersections with the cross street Figure 1: Split Intersection Design Concept within 200 to 300 feet. The concept is similar to a conventional diamond interchange, yet without grade-separating the roadways. The separation of roadways and reduced cycle length and improved signal coordination can provide greater efficiency and higher capacity compared to the conventional intersection design. The two intersections are controlled by coordinated signals and each intersection is reduced to three signal phases. The design can be further modified to include indirect left-turn movements using directional U-turn crossovers, eliminating the need for left turn bays on the cross street and reduces signal operations to two phases. Design Considerations for a successful Split Intersection (with median crossovers) design include: · The distance between intersections must be sufficient to store projected left-turn volumes to avoid potential spillbacks and/or locking through and turning movements on the cross street. · It is preferable that the signals at the two intersections be controlled by a single controller to avoid the operational inefficiencies that would occur should the coordination of individual signals' timing fail. · The Split Intersection (with median crossovers) requires more right-of-way than most other unconventional intersection designs, and the design's greatest impacts are closest to the intersection, where right-of-way may be more difficult to acquire under a design retrofit scenario. ~:~:;;~ Figure 2: Median U-Turn Signing Research Several engineering studies have simulated operations comparing Split Intersections to conventional intersection designs. Their results show that the Split Intersection has great efficiency potential with delay reductions of 40 and 60 percent under certain high-volume scenarios. Both studies attribute operational timesavings to the reduction in signal phases that yield greater arterial green time and shorter cycle lengths. Intersection Vehicular/Pedestrian Safety While no specific accident studies are available, there is valid reason to assume that the Split Intersection design would reduce collisions and the rate of severity of those collisions compared to the conventional intersection by reducing and separating vehicle conflict points. Left turns from the arterial to the cross street are without opposing movements. Pedestrians have an additional intersection to cross but each intersection crossing is narrower, has fewer opposing vehicle conflicts, and potentially shorter cycle lengths. When to Consider The Split Intersection is best suited for isolated and congested suburban intersections where the total intersection volume is greater than 4,000 vehicles per hour (vph) with mid to high levels of left-turning traffic. The Split Intersection concept can be particularly applicable where the creation of a grade-separated diamond interchange is planned in the future, causing a delayed (or eliminated) need for an expensive grade-separation. HOW WOULD IT WORK AT THE GOLDEN GATE/AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD INTERSECTION? Drivers on Golden Gate Parkway will experience operations that are more typical at conventional intersections. Both lefts and right will be made at the intersection. Left turns will have dual storage bays and turn onto the storage area between the EB and WB Golden Gate intersections with Airport-Pulling Road. The 150-plus feet of separation between intersections provided within the footprint of the proposed interchange design should provide adequate for left turn storage in the three lanes between the intersections. If the through and left turn volumes on Golden Gate Parkway are extremely directional in the peak periods, the signal phasing may be altered to allow left turns in the busiest direction some additional beginning green time so that motorists do not have to wait in the storage area between the intersections. Through and right turn movements on Airport-Pulling Road approaching Golden Gate Parkway remain conventional; however, the left turn movements are made by turning right first onto Golden Gate Parkway and proceeding 500 to 600 feet to the U-turn movement in the median. They proceed around the U-turn and become through movements at the Airport-Pulling Road intersection. This movement, known as the Median U-turn Crossover, has been successfully designed, signed and operated at over 1,000 intersections in Michigan and other parts of the country. WHAT ARE THE FUTURE IMPLICATIONS? Figure 3: Split intersection (with median crossovers} Concept at Golden Gate Par~ay and Airport-Pulling Road intersection The Split Intersection (with median crossovers) design may significantly postpone construction of an interchange at the Golden Gate/Airport-Pulling Road intersection. Constructabiiity The Split Intersection (with median crossovers) could be constructed in the same footprint as the interchange, essential building the ramp roadways already in design for the interchange. When the future overpass roadway is needed, the bridge could be constructed without extended interruption of traffic because the maintenance of traffic roads would already be constructed. There would be some additional construction costs to re-construct the single point intersection and the initial split roadways would have three lanes instead of the two lanes for the ultimate design. The Split Intersection (with median crossovers) also could be built in a shorter construction period, and can be constructed before the opening of the new 1-75 interchange west of Livingston Road. Further, the design allows for future flexibility - as both the conventional interchange could be built if 2025 traffic demand trends begin to be realized, or, if the initial Split Intersection (with median crossovers) concept is successful, the concept could be carried through additional intersections along Golden Gate Parkway at perhaps less cost than the interchange design. 0 '~ 0 ~ ii... 0 0 0 PRESENTED TO THE JOINT CITY/COUNTY WORKSHOP JANUARY 5, 2004 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A REVIEW OF ALL FEASIBLE PLANNING & DESIGN ALTERNATIVES (CONVENTIONAL & UNCONVENTIONAL) FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD/GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND THEIR IMPACT ON ALL OTHER MAJOR INTERSECTIONS ALONG THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY CORRIDOR. A GRADE SEPARATED OVERPASS IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE ACHIEVING AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF SERVICE IN 2025 WHILE PROVIDING THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE, LONG-TERM BENEFIT TO TAXPAYERS. OBJECTIVE: To present comprehensive data, analysis and infbrmation to the Board of County Commissioners, Naples City Council, and Collier County citizens regarding various improvements to the Airport-Pulling Road/Golden Gate Parkway intersection resulting from extensive study by staff and five professional consulting firms. All conclude that a grade separated overpass is the only alternative achieving an adequate level of service in 2025 while providing the most cost effective, long-term benefit to taxpayers. CONSIDERATION: Collier County is approaching the completion of a $1.8 million design effort that will substantially address existing transportations deficiencies at the intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway, and more importantly, accommodate transportation needs well into the future. This $1.8 million design cost does not include an additional $435,000 the County has already spent on supplemental studies, analysis and reports considering alternative improvements and impacts along the corridor. The design effort to date is in accordance with a decade of extensive planning and preparation by City and County officials. The project, a grade separated overpass, is one critical step in a series of improvements to occur along the Golden Gate Parkway corridor. Such improvements include the 6-1ane expansion currently under construction, the 1-75 interchange to be completed in 2007, and the Goodlette-Frank Road improvements to begin early in 2005. In reviewing a decade of planning, this project is specifically called out within the Halstatt (Grey Oaks, Estuary & Naples Grande) Development of Regional Impacts (DRI)/PUD, which was approved under an Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County in 1990. This development was required to reserve the rights-of-way fbr an overpass with Golden Gate Parkway to fly over Airport Road. An overpass was identified as a need in the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO's) Long Range Transportation Plan since 1993. The project was also identified in the County's Transportation 5-Year Funded Work Program since 2001. In 2002, the County received notice that it was the recipient of $7.45 million in grant funding from the State of Florida (TOPS Grant) specifically for the proposed improvements to the Parkway which included an overpass to handle the traffic increase from the new 1-75 interchange. As part of the overall corridor study, as well as concerns expressed by the City of Naples, the County advanced improvements to Goodlette-Frank Road in its 2002 update to the 5-Year Transportation Work Program. To evaluate all conventional and unconventional alternatives to improve the intersection and corridor, the County has worked with five different professional consulting firms; and the City has worked with one firm. Kimley-Horn's first study looked at improvements to several intersections throughout the County and evaluated those intersections against several criteria including existing and future traffic conditions, activity centers, whether the roadways are evacuation routes, and parallel roadway options. The Grade Separation Study indicated that even with at-~ade intersection improvements this intersection would fait from a level of service standpoint, which would cause a severe delay to the transportation system. Even if at-grade improvements were designed to include free flow rights and triple lefts along with six through lanes for each approach, the intersection still fails to operate at an acceptable level-of-service (LOS) in 2025. Additional analysis in the report was undertaken to estimate the user benefits of an Overpass at this location. It is estimated that over 550,000 hours of delay per year could be saved based on 2025 traffic conditions at a cost savings of $2.9 million. In addition the overpass is projected to reduce traffic crashes and save motorists approximately $130,000 per year. Subsequent to Kimley-Horn's ,,.a,, sLu,~: of conventional, at-grade improvements, Kimley Horn prepared a Technical Memorandum in 2001, which reviewed the types of overpass structures that could operate most efficiently and at the greatest level of safety. Structures that were considered include diamond, cloverleaf, trumpet and single point urban interchanges (SPUI). in summary, Kimley-Horn states, "the combination of relatively high capacity and low right-of-way costs makes the SPUI an ideal candidate for urban arterials". The need for a grade separated overpass at Airport Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway was further evaluated under a contract with RWA Consultants who were tasked with the refinement of design traffic movements to develop an overpass concept within reserved rights-of-ways. RWA was also charged with coordinating public involvement activities to develop a concept that would be consistent with the expectations of quality as characterized by the community. County staff and RWA met with the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), the Naples City Council on February 6, 2002, Bear's Paw on April 4, 2002 and held Count?vide public meetings on February 11. 2002 and March 4, 2002 to present the conceptual plan and gain input into the design of this project. This concept plan was finalized in February of 2002 and it included almost $4 million in architectural and landscaping features to establish a more human scale to the structure and to serve as the gateway into the City of Naples. On May 14, 2002, County staff received authorization from the BCC to begin design and engineering with RWA based on the work accomplished through the conceptual design study. In late 2002, the City of Naples asked Kimley-Horn to look at the traffic impacts associated with the future interchange and overpass. This study was undertaken to determine the traffic conditions at the intersections of Airport Pulling Road and Goodlette Frank Road. The results again indicated that the intersection at Airport Pulling Road fails in 2025 during both AM and PM peak hour conditions even with the best conventional at-grade solutions. With an overpass, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS for peak hour conditions in 2025. Kimley-Horn also determined that the intersection at Goodlette Frank Road is projected to fail fbr both the AM and PM peak hours with at- grade improvements within the existing right-of-way in 2025. It should also be noted that the intersection operates at a LOS F for the peak hour conditions today in this analysis and is projected to fail with or without the overpass at Airport-Pulling Road. At the January 7, 2003 City/County joint workshop, Kimley-Horn confirmed the need fbr an overpass at Airport-Pulling Road and concluded the need for an overpass at Goodlette-Frank Road. However, they assumed that they would have to stay within the current ROW. County staff stated that because the primary movements are turning movements (unlike Golden Gate Pkwy. at Airport) the intersection should be able to be addressed with at-grade improvements. Subsequently, the County and City have been cooperatively working with American Consulting Engineers (ACE) to design improvements to the intersection at Goodlette-Frank Road (as well as that segment of Goodlette-Frank Road between the Parkwav and Pine Ridge Road). The current design creatively calls for improvements that bypass westbound'right turns outside the existing right-of-way. The design is quickly approaching 30% complete and will provide for an acceptable level of service today and through 2025. Kimley-Horn's study utilized the MPO's 2025 traffic model, which includes two Gordon River Bridges. Subsequent to the Ci~/County workshop, Kimley-Horn was asked by the City to remove the bridges from the model and determine the impacts along the corridor. Kimley-Horn concluded that without the bridges, delay and extended queue lengths already experienced along the corridor would increase considerably. At a City Council Meeting, these results were discussed and concerns were raised with the Overpass. Later, in response to issues raised by the City at an MPO meeting about the beneficial impacts of building one or two additional bridge crossings across the Gordon River, thc County hired the TBE Group to prepare a detailed analysis of the costs and traffic impacts of additional bridges,. particularly as they provide relief to Golden Gate Parkway. In building two bridges, different scenarios were developed to maximize diversion from Golden Gate Parkway. In summary, the cost to establish a single bridge crossing is estimated at $75 million. The cost to establish two bridge crossings is estimated at $90 million. These estimates are attributed to the acquisition of right-of-way, design, engineering, construction, and inspection associated with the proposed bridges and roads leading to the bridges. TBE concluded that the bridges would improve the operation of' the network, with primary relief to Radio Road and Davis Boulevard rather than Golden Gate Parkway. FINAL REPORT In November 2003, the County contracted with Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas (Parsons), a transportation firm identified by the City as uniquely qualified in evaluating unconventional intersection designs. Parsons visited the area and reviewed prior studies and data. They quickly discounted previously considered unconventional approaches such as round-a-bouts, jug-handles, continuous flow intersections and quadrant roadways because of the volume of traffic seen at this intersection and right-of-way constraints. Parsons found that only grade separation would meet the 20-year design needs (see Figure 1 below). However, Parsons did recommend a split intersection / median u-turn concept as a possible interim solution. Parsons proposed that this unconventional concept could likely fit within the dedicated right-of-way for an ultimate overpass. Parson also estimates that grade separation would ' be needed between 2010 and 2015; the earlier date liketv if the corridor experiences a 2% a year growth rate which Parsons raised as a likely probability based on historical growth along the corridor. They noted that a split intersection design has been used as a temporary measure during interchange construction in the U. S., but there is presently no known longstanding specific application. In whichever year grade separation becomes necessary, it is estimated that $3.5 million worth of construction associated with the unconventional design would be disrupted and/or removed as part of an overpass construction. The unconventional nature of Figure I: 2025 Volume-to-Capacity Analysis Results 2025 PM INTERSECTION DESIGN Volume-to~ I Capacity Ratio Conventional intersection 1.42 Sing!e 1~ 0~ o~erpass ¢lanned) Median U-Turn (crossovers only on GGP) [ 1.21 Continuous Flow Intersection i 1.05 Split Intersection {with median crossovers} [ 1.11 E~hel:0n InterChange~ (grade: se~arati®) [ 0 98 V/C Ratio above 1.0 = greater delav and longer peak volume tiine. such a design requires significant driver acclamation, education and special law enforcement. Lastly, the County has been working with Post Buckley Shuh and Jemigan (PBS&J), another leading transportation consulting firm, to evaluate future traffic conditions along Golden Gate Parkway from Santa Barbara Boulevard to U.S. 41. Two specific assignments were given. The first included the evaluation of different build scenarios for the Golden Gate Parkway intersections with Goodlette-Frank Road and Airport-Pulling Road in 2005 and 2025. The second assignment focused on the evaluation of different traffic scenarios due to the implementation of a second Gordon River bridge crossing. PBS&J's results are best summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Findings from the first assignment as depicted in Table 1 revealed the following: · Operations at US 41 and at Santa Barbara Boulevard are relatively unaffected by the specific improvement decision at the Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway intersection or by the possible addition of two Gordon River Bridges · The addition if two Gordon River Bridges will slightly reduce delay at Goodlette Frank Road, but add more delay at Livingston Road regardless of the specific improvement decision at the Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway intersection 4 · Given that all Airport Road at Golden Gate Parkway intersection alternatives, when optimized, do not significantly impact other intersections along the corridor, Table 1~ below provides the best tool to evaluate the corridor operations and cost of the Airport Road at Golden Gate Parkway improvement options. An overpass at Airport-Pulling Road provides significant benefit to the operation of the intersection well into the future; · Alternative improvements, such as a westbound bypass, at the intersection of Goodlette- Frank Road significantly improve the operation of th~ intersection. · In 2005, the signalized intersections within the study corridor are expected to operate better than a LOS 'D', with the proposed improvements; In 2025, the following intersections along the Parkway are expected to operate below LOS 'D' with the proposed improvements: Goodlette-Frank, Livingston, Santa Barbara (which is policy constrained). However, only Santa Barbara will operate below a LOS E (the county'S' minimum standard) for portions of the day. Findings from the second assignment as depicted in Table 2 revealed that an overpass at Airport-Pulling Road, along with a second Gordon River bridge crossing, provides the greatest savings in travel time, delay and fuel consumption along the Parkway corridor when compared to all other alternatives. The alternative of best conventional at-grade improvements, without a second Gordon River bridge crossing, is used as the baseline by which other alternatives are gauged. The baseline alternative has a cost of approximately $12 million. Other alternatives that were considered include: 1. An overpass without additional Gordon River bridge crossings; 2. At-grade improvements at Airport-Pulling Road with two Gordon River bridge crossings; 3. An overpass with two Gordon River bridge crossings; 4. Split intersection / median U-turn concept without additional Gordon River brid~oe crossings; ~ 5. Split intersection / median U-turn concept with two Gordon River bridge crossings. The PBS&J findings confirm the results of all prior studies that the only conventional or unconventional improvement that meets the needs in 2025 is grade separation. Their analysis showed that the overpass does not adversely impact the other intersections along the corridor and that the overpass, even without two new bridges, provides for nearly a 20% reduction in travel time over the entire corridor. Even with 4-lanes on a north Gordon River bridge crossing and 2-lanes on a south bridge crossing, the addition of two new bridges does not provide sufficient relief to Golden Gate Parkway traffic to eliminate the need for grade separation. Lastly, they found that the split intersection with median u-turns would initially provide better operations than at-grade conventional improvements, but would actually operate less effectively than conventional at-grade intersection improvements in 2025. Neither the split intersection nor the conventional at-grade improvements, even when combined with the additional bridges, would meet the 2025 traffic at an acceptable LOS. FISCAL IMPACT: The Overpass is estimated to cost $27.2 million, which is to be funded by Gas Taxes, Impact Fees and a portion of the TOPS grant. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: The design., construction, and all-inclusive detail analysis of a grade separated overpass is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the MPO's Cost Feasible Plan. RECOMMENDATION: To recognize that an exhaustive analysis of all conventional and unconventional improvements concludes that a grade separated overpass is the only alternative achieving an adequate level of service in 2025. Secondly, to recognize that implementation of a split intersection with median u-tums would only address deficiencies for a short duration even if additional bridges were constructed and, therefore, construction of an overpass at the outset would deliver the most cost effective solution meeting the long-term needs of the entire county with the least construction disruption. And lastly to recognize that the current overpass design includes $4 million in aesthetic enhancements to maintain community character. Prepared by: Gregg R. Strakaluse, P.E. Director, Engineering & Construction Management Date: Reviewed by: Don Scott, AICP Director, Transportation Planning Date: Reviewed and Approved by: Norman Feder, AICP Transportation Administrator Date: