Backup Documents 04/06/2004 WBOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS-
W/CITY OF NAPLES
JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING
April 6, 2004
Joint BCC and City of Naples Workshop
9:00 a.m., April 6, 2004
Collier County Board of County Commissioners Boardroom
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
1. Update on Golden Gate Parkway/Airport-Pulling Road
Intersection Improvements
2. City of Naples Comprehensive Plan Amendment
3, Annexation Policy
4. Waterside Shops and other Commercial Interests
5, Second Gordon River Bridge Options
6. FEMA FIRM Negotiations
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 information 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-lane expansion currently under constrtiction,
the 1-75 interchange to be completed in 2007, and the Goodlette-Frarak Road improvements to begin
early in 2005.
In reviewing a decade of plamfing, 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 for 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 fi'om 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 Pr0grmT~.
1
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 a-grade
intersection improvements this intersection would fail from a
level of service standpoint, which would cause a severe delay to
the transportation system. Even if a-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 study 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
Countywide 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 g/ssociated 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 for 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-Hom confirmed the need for an overpass at Airport-Pulling Road and
concluded the need for an overpass at Goodlette-Frank Road. However, they assurned 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 Parkway 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 tlu'ough 2025.
Kimley-Horn's study utilized the MPO's 2025 traffic model, which includes two Gordon River
Bridges. Subsequent to the City/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, the
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.
3
In November 2003, the County contracted withn[t'arsons
Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas (Parsons), a transportation
~,,~^L~,o,~ firm identified by the City as uniquely qualified in
......... ,~v., ..................... , evaluating unconventional intersection designs. Parsons
o~,~ ...... ,.~ .............. , ...... 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
Z;;;'c; .......................... 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 (see
Figure 2 attached). 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 likely 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 ovmpass
construction. The unconventional nature of
Figure 1:2025 Volume-to-Capacity Analysis Results
2025 PM
INTERSECTION DESIGN Volume-to-
Capacity Ratio
Conventional Intersection 1.42
Sing!e Point Overpass (planned) 0::85
Median U-Turn (crossovers only on GGP) 1.21
Continuous Flow Intersection 1.05
Split Intersection (with median crossovers) 1.11
Echelon Interchhnge, (grade separation} 0,98
V/C Ratio above 1.0 = greater delay and longer peak volume time.
such a design requires significant driver acclamation, education and special law enforcement.
Lastly, the County has been working with Post Buckley Shuh and Jernigan (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 assigmnent 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 assigmnent as depicted in Table I 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 the 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 assigmnent 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 bridge
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 m~d
that the overpass, even without two new bridges, provides for nearly a 20% reduction in travel time
over the entire corridor. Even with 4-1m~es 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 G~as
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-turns 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:
· 3 1 ~ ~old~n G-al:~ Pkwy.
unted 'by: B &: M
.-ather: Surrey & Dry
.y of the vcaek: Tuesday
Si3aa23G4i TEZ
TEl Enginears& Planners
51 i0 Eisenhower Blvd., Suite 220
Tampa, FL 33634
(81,3) 884-7339
Grou~s Printed- CARS, TRUCKS
File Name : SR 31 ~ Golden Gate PkwW.
Ske Code : 00000000
Start Date : 02/24/2004
Page No ' 1
I SR 31 GOLDEN GATE pK''CCC t SR 31 I GOLDEN GATF' PKWY
¢~,1' ~.oi ~.o "~.D' ~.o1' ~ ~.o'~ ~.o ~.:o ,.o.~ ". ~.~ _~.o ,.o . ,.o~ ~.o~ ~.o-~-- ~ T.~,~ r~
0~:45 A~ ~0 191 20 0 2~J 75 ~ 44 0 5~~ 29 ~4 1~ I 3T9I 8~ 81 ~ O ~5~[ 1345
07:00 AM 66 2~9 18 2 a~ ~ 50 330 76 0 458 [ ~o 237 ~ 0 342 I~0 138 ~9 0 297 ~ 1420
07;~ AM 58 217 lg 1 2~ S4 335 78 0 465 ~ 21 264 B7 I 373 t2l 14t 20 0 291 { 14ta
07;4~ AM 92 229 ~ 2 486 97 416 141 D 654 28 . 323 16~ .O 517 168 t06 44 0 ~18 ] !955
7o~1 300 11t7 118 5 1540 ) 293 1480 425 0 2204 ~ 88 1128 501 1 1718 ~74 532 151 I 1258~ $720
o8:~ AM ~ 334 4~ o 473 i~ 4~ ~42 0 065 ~ 25 317 I81 0 527 [ 1~5 154 33 O 340 2005
08115 AM 120 292 23 I 447 46 52u 75 ~ 641~ 21 200 132 O 4U~¢ lli T~ 31 O 2t7 ~708
O~;gQ AM 108 2zO 21 0 3~7 103 ~40 55 0 4~ ~ 39 ~47 I~ O 444 I~ I29 32 0 27~ ~ t585
09:45 AM 108 241 1D 2 270 66 2~ 35 0 DS1 24 297 192 U 513 103 13~ 34 0 270 t584
10:30 AM 94 209
10:45 AM 85 274 20
!79 543 38
38l[ 28 2:37 21 0 2961 ~2 2?5 158
-~?~I '23 2~.=7 ~..5 0 355[ 29 278 168
760 51 534 66 0 - ~51 ~ 61 553 326
11:00 AM 88 249 26
t 1 ;!~ AM ~5 254 23
I '1:30 AM 113 268 25
1'i:45 AM io0 325 3~
'Li'ni :~.:1S I.QD4 'i07
344 , ~2 292 44 9 383[[ 31 276 t71 0 478 137 !32 ~7
342 37 253 40 0 330t 28 288 !~"~ 0 459 122 123 ~t
409 35 221 27 O 294[ 2~ 248 1~9 I 453 138 185 65
45~ 87 223 58 O 3~6 39 264 161 O 464 168 179 88
346 1536
316 1447
1696
1485, 8221
12:50 PM S4 $i,~ S2
~2:45 PM ii2 90t G2
441
432
472
44?
?utW 430 116b 152 8 17~2
0!;~O PM :2t 31! ~ O 471
3-13. 11i8 1:55
49 247 77
172 88t 2~0
34 i92 43
31 245 i~4
i I817 133 888 ~74
I 347 46 26~ 120
178 172 11t
13111 2'4 1114 aSfi
229 33 292 l~
430[ ~'i 33~ ~87
480 I~¢ 167
537 ~C2 20~ !09
~ 154 203
0 i395 ~50 I27B 710 O 2944 538 7'85
~24r 167'
508j
465 I643
t882
480 ~7!~
4~2 1537
,47I' -i n¢~6
1~$6 ?022
O3;00 PM 9a 358 ~1
03:33 PM ~2 329 5t
03:4~ PM 91 362 64
Tull 371 I377 223
04:1'5 PM 1 'tS 30~ 71
T~al 403 1393 264
~$7 [ 32 312 9T 0 441 55 242
518 17 190 34 O 24~ ] 33 357/ 140
4~ 23 257 41 o 32Ii 59 283 129
472 42 2?4 4T ~ 3~'"~ 67 2~ 14~
516 SO 2t9 43 0 312 71 ~35 12~
1~73 1~2 940 le5 0 ~257[ 23( 1270 535
~§7 j 53 23I ?~ 2 361[ 87 ~83
548] ~2 2~5 81 0 378 102 L29
426 26 197 62 O 285 81 326 !30
2064 ] 202 894 265 2 1363 [ 824 1437
3:29
348
2~:15 PM 78 SOB il~ 0 ~0O¢ 2~ 259 ~0
~5:30 PM 73 305 98 0 476 34 282 33
)5:45 PM 70 292 111 0 473 36 266 46
O f300
)6:00 PM ~5 289 88 2 444
)~:15 ~M ~0 285 87 0 412
123~- lg2~ 32 18454
m~ai
21,2 6S. 2 10.5 0.2
5. I le,4 ~5 O.O 24.o
57 ~04 67 0 ~2B
28 IgD 65 0 292
2110 123[-. 2~8 I0 17343
tZ2 71,~ 1~.4 0.1
2.8 t6.1 3.7 0.0 22.6
2 388
152 214 ~05 0 472 1~63
!59 2!t !10 3 480 1677
2 710 31~ 425 216
53l 198 255 140
471 232 823 ~3
2 203? 1020 1217 425
0 547 242 $!~ 93
I 814 201 2g7 85
92 402' 159
350 1536 609
171 4.41 252
61 375 133
2328 628 11~5 346
¢¢~i'.¢22 184 35B 89
O $5~ t78 331 82
665 ~81 340 82
2501 718 1310 359
814 167 357' 7~
56~ 161 ~28 7~
O 6¢8 I955
O 726 2066
O 647 2007
0 2~62 ?SO9
q 847 2058
O $44 1782
o 2364 51~9
0 ~ZD 1837
9 ~-s~ 631 2071
O'-'> '.591 2049
~ ~02 2089
2365 8048
~BQ 2256
560 1633
2147 1332 8525 !0 22004 701~ ~.&?,7 3209 2 f.~063
2
9.6 80.5 29.7 O.O [~8_.~ 46.4 96.8 O,O
2.g 17.3 B.5 O.O ~.8 ~~1. 11.5 4.2 0.0 24.e
76864
Engineers & Planners
T~ anspo~ t.d~o.~ So~,,,~, ns
March 1, 2004
Mr. Bob Tipton
Collier County
2705 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, Florida 34104
Turning Movement Counts SR 31 ~ Golden Gate Pkwy
WO-TEI-FT-04-01
TEI Reference Number: 23013.01
Dear Mr. Tipton:
As a follow up to our fax to you last Thursday, please fmd the originals for the referenced project
attached. ~
We thank you for the oppommity to work with you on this project and look forward to other
assignments in the future.
Sincerely,
Transportagion Engineering, Inc. d/b/a TEI
la M.
Area Manager
Cc: file
3665 Bee Ridge Road · Suite 312 - Samsota, FL 34233 · 941.927.6800 · Fax: 941.927.0626
www.tei-us.com
SR 31 ~ Golden Gate Pkwy.
Counted by: B & M
Weather: Sunny & DrY
Day of the week: Tuesday
TEI Engineers & Planners
5110 Eisenhower Blvd., Suite 220
Tampa, FL 33634
(813) 884-7339
File Name : SR 31 ~ Golden Gate Pkwy.
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 02/24/2004
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- CARS - TRUCKS
-- SR 31 GOLDEN GAT~ PKWY SR 31 GOLDEN GATE PKV~Y
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Total turns To{al tums T ,otat turns Total Total
Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.a 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0~:30 AM 56 153 11 0 220 43 384 37 0 464 25 213 86 0 324 82 61 21 0 164 J 1172
06:45 AM 66 191 20 0 277 75 401 44 0 520 29 224 125 I 379 66 81 22 0 169 1345
Total 122 344 31 0 497 118 785 81 0 984 54 437 211 I 703 148 142 43 0 333 2517
07:00 AM 66 239 18 2 325
07:15 AM 58 217 19 I 295
07:30 AM 84 332 38 0 454
07:45 AM 92 329 43 2 466
Total 300 1117 118
5 1540
50 330 76 0 456
54 335 76 0 465
92 405 132 0 629
97 416 141 0 654
293 1486 425 0 2204
20 237 85 0 342t 120 138 39 0 297 I 1420
21 264 87 1 373I 121 141 29 0 2911 1424
21 304 161 0 486 165 147 39 1 352 1921
26 323 168 0 517 168 106 44 0 318 1955
88 1128 501 I 1718 574 532 151 1 1258 6720
08:00 AM 93 334 46 0 473
08:15 AM 128 292 26 I 447
08:30 AM 105 282 24 2 413
08:45 AM 111 244 23 1 37g
Total 437 1152 119 4 1712
103 420 142 0 665
46 520 75 0 641
105 524 88 0 717
43 333 48 0 424
297 1797 353 0 2447
29 3t7 181 0 527
21 250 132 0 403
22 258 137 0 417
33 246 153 0 432
105 1071 603 0 1779
153 154 33 0 340 I 2005
111 75 31 0 2171 1708
119 78 27 0 224 1771
116 137 40 0 293 1528
499 444 131 0 1074 7012
09:00 AM 106 240 21 0 367
09:15 AM 90 257 23 I 371
09:30 AM 88 244 27 0 359
09:45 AM 108 241 19 2 370
Total 392 982 90 3 1467
103 340 55 0 498
22 261 34 0 317
81 263 53 0 397
66 249 36 0 351
272 1113 178 0 1563
39 247 158 0 444
29 309 180 0 518
33 316 187 0 536
24 297 192 0 513
125 1169 717 0 2011
115 129 32 0 276 I 1585
104 108 41 0 253I 1459
100 101 40 0 241 1533
103 133 34 0 270 1504~
422 471 147 0 1040 6081
10:30 AM 94 269 18 0 381 i 28 237 31
10:45 AM 85 274 20 0 379I 23 297 35
Total 179 543 38 0 760 51 534 66
0 296 32 275 158
0 355 29 278 168
0 651 61 553 326
I 466 143 132 52 0 327I 1470
0 475 130 128 56 0 314f 1523
1 941 273 260 108 0 641 299~-
11:00 AM 68 249 26 I 344
11:15 AM 65 254 23 0 342
11:30 AM 113 268 25 3 409
11:45AM 100 323 33 0 456
Total 346 1094 107 4 1551
32 292 44
37 253 40
36 221 37
57 223 58
162 989 179
0 368
0 330
0 294
0 338
0 1330
31 276 171
28 268 163
35 248 169
39 264 161
133 1056 664
0 478
0 459
1 453
0 464
I 1854
137 132 77 0 346 t 1536
132 123 61 0 316I 1447
138 186 65 O 389 1545
168 179 88 0 435 1693~_
575 620 291 0 1486 6221
12:00 PM 94 315 32
12:15 PM 112 279 38
12:30 PM 118 303 49
12:45 PM 112 301 33
Total 436 1198 152
0 441
3 432
2 472
1 447
6 1792
55 218 59
38 235 73
49 247 77
30 181 41
172 881 250
0 332
I 347
7 380
0 252
8 1311
50 259 165
46 266 120
91 279 135
27 310 146
214 1114 566
0 474I 166 167 91 0 424I 1671
0 432I 172 226 108 0 506I 1717
I 506 172 206 113 0 491 I 1849
0 483 178 172 111 0 461 1643
I 1895 688 771 423 0 1882 6880
01:00 PM 121 311 39
01:15 PM 77 268 34
01:30 PM 70 268 51
01:45 PM 75 271 31
Total 343 1118 155
0 4711 34 152 43
1 380I 28 246 45
0 389 31 245 154
0 377 40 245 132
I 1617 133 888 374
0 229 J 33 292 135
0 319J 34 322 181
0 430 41 328 187
0 417 42 336 213
0 1395 150 1278 716
0 460 J 169 167 117 0 453 { 1613
0 537I 162 209 109 0 480I 1716
0 556 154 203 105 0 462 1837
0 591 153 206 112 0 471 1856
0 2144 638 785 443 0 1866 7022
02:30 PM 73 262 32
02:45 PM 75 ' 269 34
0 367 I 32 312 97
0 378J 39 255 103
0 745 71 567 200
0 441J 55 242 89 2 388J 152 214 106 0 472J 1668
0 397J 20 215 87 0 322 159 211 110 0 480J 1577
0 838 75 457 176 2 710 311 425 216 0 952 3245
Total 148 531 66
03:00 PM 98 358 61
03:15 PM 90 328 47
03:30 PM 92 329 51
03:45 PM 91 362 64
1 518 J 17 190 34 0 241J
0 465I 23 257 41 0 321J
0 472 42 274 47 0 363J
1 518 50 219 43 0 312
1973 1237
33 357 140 I 531
59 283 129 0 471
67 295 143 0 505
71 335 123 1 530
Total 371 1377 223 2
04:00 PM 95 368 60 0 523
04:15 PM 118 368 71 0 557
04:30 PM 105 375 65 3 548
04:45 PM 85 282 68 I 436
Total 403 1393 264 4 2064
05:00 PM 85 279 66 1 431
05:15 PM 78 306 116 0 500
05:30 PM 73 305 98 0 476
05:45 PM 70 292 111 0 473
Total 306 1182 391 1 1880
06:00 PM 65 289 88 2 444
06:15 PM 60 265 87 0 412
Grand Total 3908 1258 1929 32 18454
5
Apprch % 21.2 68.2 10.5 0.2
Total % 5.1 16.4 2.5 0.0 24.0
132 940 165 0
61 231 47 0 339
53 231 75 2 361
62 235 81 0 378
26 197 62 0 285
202 894 265 2 1363
29 207 69 0 305
29 259 30 0 318
34 262 33 0 329
36 266 46 0 348
128 gg4 178 0 1300
57 304 67 0 428
28 199 65 0 292
2116 1237 2846 10 17343
1
12.2 71.3 16.4 0.1
2.8 16.1 3.7 0.0 22.6
230 1270 535 2 2037
74 340 133 0 547
87 383 143 1 614
102 388 160 0 650
61 326 130 0 517
324 1437 566 I 2328
89 333 139 0 561
80 392 150 0 622
92 4O2 159 0 653
95 409 161 0 665
356 1536 609 0 2501
171 441 202 0 814
61 375 133 0 569
2147 1332 6525 10 22004
2
9.8 60.5 29.7 0.0
2.8 17.3 8.5 0.0 28.6
196 255 140
282 323 93
298 332 96
244 307 96
1020 1217 425
242 312 93
201 297 85
207 301 82
173 285 86
823 1195 346
173 281 86 0
184 358 89 0
178 331 82 0
181 340 82 0
716 1310 339 0
167 337 75 I 580
161 328 71 0 560
7015 8837 3209 2 19063
36.8 46.4 16.8 0.0
9.1 11.5 4.2 0.0 24.8
0 591J 1881
0 698[ 1955
0 726 2066
0 647 2007
0 2662 7909
0 647I 2056
0 583 2115
0 590 2166
0 544 1782
0 2364 8119
540 t 1837
631 2071
591 2049
603 2089
2365 8046
2266
1833
76864
Message
Feder N
From: Upton_b
Sent: Thursday, March 11,2004 12:35 PM
To: 'bebatte n~.naplesnews.com'
Cc: mudd_j; Feder_N; flagg_d; StrakaluseGreg; deane_c
Subject: Golden Gate Pkwy at Airport
.ge 1 of 2
Mr. Batten -
Diana Perryman forwarded your e-mail of yesterday (attached below) to which I am responding as
follows:
Obviously, different times of the day require different traffic signal timing to best serve the varied travel
patterns of the public. There are currently six timing plans operating at this intersection each weekday.
One plan is for the late night and is not coordinated with other intersections. From 6:00 a.m. until 11:00
p.m. the intersection uses five distinct timing plans, with some used more than once, that are coordinated
with other intersections on Airport Road: The morning plans favor traffic traveling southbound and
westbound. The afternoon plans favor traffic that is eastbound and northbound.
Our central computer database and recent inspection for this intersection shows that from 6:00 to 7:50
a.m. the west bound through and left-turns sfart with 24 seconds, then the westbound and eastbound
through lanes run for 11 seconds, then the eastbound through and left-tom run for 15 seconds. Starting
at 7:50 until 9:00 a.m. the west bound through and left-tom starts with 29 seconds, then the westbound
and eastbound through lanes run for 21 seconds, then the eastbound through and left-tom mn for 15
seconds.
Our recent traffic signal timing changes for the PM Peak Hours, in which we added 10 seconds to the
eastbound movement, would have no effect upon the morning operation. A traffic signal allocates
available capacity, but cannot create new capacity. In fact, the only observed effect upon the evening
operation from adding the 10 seconds to the eastbound Golden Gate Parkway timing, as expected, is a
slight decrease in the delay for eastbound traffic and a corresponding additional delay to the northbound
traffic. We, like you, have noticed an increase in traffic throughout the system. As intersections
approach or exceed capacity, as with this intersection, efforts to fine tune the signals will be intensified
to keep traffic moving, but the opportunity for improved flow in any direction is limited and will result
in additional delays in the opposing flow. Until additional capacity is provided, at the intersection or at
other intersections that serve the trip purpose, we will continually update the timings to balance the
delays for opposing traffic along the corridors. For every person that proceeds through an intersection
under a green light there are other people sitting at a red light convinced that the signal needs to be
retimed. The fact that we are having to constantly fine tune the timing at this intersection to squeeze out
every last drop of capacity in the AM and PM speaks volumes for the need for the overpass to add
capacity at this intersection before the new 1-75 interchange opens and adds significant additional traffic
on Golden Gate Parkway.
Dianna, here are the questions I had regarding the present timing of lights at golden gate
parkway and airport road:
Since the adjustments were made to (successfully) ease the afternoon traffic flow on
3/12/2004
Message
Pagl°~2
eastbound golden gate parkway, there seems to be more of a backup on westbound
golden gate parkway in the morning, the green cycle for westbound traffic seems to be
no more than maybe 15 seconds, the backup in the morning is noticeably greater than it
was just a couple of weeks ago. was the westbound morning cycle changed at the same
time the eastbound evening cycle was? if so, why? is it possible to set the lights one way
for morning traffic and another way for evening traffic or is the present circumstance an
example of an adjustment that helps in the evening hurting in the morning because time-
of-day customization is not possible? If the morning westbound green is indeed shorter
than it was, what is the present green time and what was the old?
BB
3/12/2004
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
March 2, 2004
Mr. Don Scott
Director
Transportation Planning Department
Collier County
2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 211
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: Golden Gate Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road
Dear Mr. Scott:
As requested, Kimley-Horn conducted a Level of Service (LOS)
evaluation for projected Year 2025 traffic conditions at the intersection of
Golden Gate Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road in Collier County (see
Exhibit 1). The objective of this task was to determine if at-grade
improvements could be made to achieve an acceptable intersection
operation in Year 2025. As a certified engineer in the State of Florida, I
acknowledge that the procedures and references used to develop the
results contained in this analysis are standard to the ordinary practices of
transportation engineering.
Level of Service Criteria
The traffic LOS requirement for the intersection operation is D. The LOS
concept is generally understood as the road user's perception of the quality
of traffic flow. The LOS is represented by using one of the letters A
through F, with A generally representing the most favorable conditions
and F representing the least favorable. LOS A conditions are described by
traffic that moves in a free flow. manner without congestion. On the
contrary, LOS F conditions describe heavy congestion, excessive delays
and frequent stopping. Therefore, an objective of the transportation
analysis is to examine future traffic conditions and determine the ability of
this intersection to satisfy the LOS D requirement for the target year,
2025. LOS D means that there may be periods of moderate congestion
during peak traffic periods (generally morning and evening peak hours).
·
Suite 100
1820 East Park Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida
323O1
·
TEL 850 309 0035
FAX 850 309 0055
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Mr. Don Scott, March 2, 2004, Page 2
A summary of the LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as documented
in the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, is
provided below:
LOS
A
B
C
D
E
F
Control Delay per Vehicle
10 seconds/veh and less
11-20 seconds/vehicle
21-30 seconds/vehicle
36-55 seconds/vehicle
56-80 seconds/vehicle
81 seconds/vehicle and greater
Summary of Existing Conditions
Information provided.by Collier County indicates that the intersection of
Golden Gate Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road operated at LOS F
(estimated 138 seconds of delay per vehicle) during the evening peak hour
in Year 2002 (see attached HCS2000 printout). Exhibit 2 summarizes the
Year 2002 intersection'turn movement traffic volumes and existing
intersection laneage.
Year 2025 Intersection LOS Analyses
The latest long-range transportation model, as provided by Collier County,
was used as the basis for developing traffic volumes for Year 2025. This
transportation model is influenced by the assumed roadway network and
projected socioeconomic data (population, employment and housing),
which were previously approved through the County's most recent long-
range transportation study update.
Exhibit 3 shows the resulting traffic volumes estimated for Year 2025,
which includes the assumption of an 1-75 interchange. In an effort to
achieve the objective of this work task, the intersection laneage was
expanded to its maximum laneage potential to determine if an at-grade
geometric solution was possible. Laneage additions included eight (8)
through lanes on Golden Gate Parkway, southbound triple left-mm lanes,
and dual left mm lanes on all other approaches.
Using the maximum laneage indicated on Exhibit 3, an intersection
analysis was conducted using two common evaluation methods (HCS2000
Signalized Intersection Release 4.1d and Synchro 5). Evaluations using
each method considered three different signal timing alternatives which
also allowed for simultaneous and complimentary left and right turn
movements through the intersection where appropriate. Results of the
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Mr. Don Scott, March 2, 2004, page 3
evaluations are shown on the HCS2000 and Synchro 5 printouts (attached
to this documentation).
Results clearly demonstrate that the projected LOS for Year 2025 is F
(approximately 115 seconds of delay per vehicle) for an at-grade
intersection solution. These results are representative of vehicle delays
which are much greater than those of the desired LOS D requirement.
Conclusion
Understanding that the acceptable LOS for this intersection operation is D
(36-55 seconds of delay per vehicle), it is clear that the projected traffic
demand cannot be accommodated at the required LOS standard should the
intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road remain at-
grade in Year 2025.
In the interim, improvements such as optimizing signal timing, adding turn
lanes, etc, can be considered. But these minor improvements are a short-
term measure that will not resolve the future traffic demand.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Da~.E.
DM/dm
w/attachments
P:\048835 - Collier County\003 - Transpott..ation Work Order No. 3x3100 - Labor~R. eportskFinalsLScollD040302.doc
David Muntean, Jr., P.E.
1820 East Park Avenue, Suite 100
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
(850) 309-0035
Florida PE# 433368
Corporate Registration No: CA 00000696
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.lc
Analyst: TBE Group, Inc.
Agency: Collier County
Date: 7/29/2002
~ ~iod: PM Peak Hour
~ject ID: Collier County Concurrency
~/W St: Golden Gate Parkway @
Inter.: gold_arpl
Area Type: Ail other areas
Jurisd: Collier County
Year : 2002
N/S St: Airport-Pulling Road
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane Width
RTOR Vol
Eastbound
L T R
2 2 2
L T R
518 1434 764
12.0 12.0 12.0
76
Westbound
L T R
2 3 1
L T R
129 533 153
12.0 12.0 12.0
15
Northbound
L T R
2 3 0
L TR
654 1756 139
12.0 12.0
0
Southbound
L T R
2 3 1
L T R
475 1398 190
12.0 12.0 12.0
19
Duration 0.25
Phase Combination 1
EB Left A
Thru
Right
Peds
WB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
NTM Right
Right
m.een
Yellow
Ail Red
A
Area Type: Ail other areas
Signal Operations
2 3 4
A NB Left
A A' Thru
A A Right
Peds
SB Left
A Thru
A Right
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
11.0 27.0
3.0
1.0 0.0
5
A
Appr/ Lane
Lane Group
Grp Capacity
6
A
7
A
A
A
A
21.0 11.0 21.0 39.5
4.0 3.0 4.5
1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 150.0
Intersection Performance Summary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Flow Rate
(s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
secs
Eastbound
L 961 3433 0.60 0.28 47.8 D
T 1132 3539 1.41 0.32 239.6 F 148.7 F
R 1189 2787 0.64 0.43 35.2 D
Westbound
L 252 3433 0.57 0.07 70.2 ~E
T 7!2 5085 0.83 0.14 71.1 E 70.8 E
R 222 1583 0.69 0.14 70.1 E
Northbound
L 824 3433 0.88 0.24 66.0 E
TR 2028 5029 1.04 0.40 75.4 E 73.0 E
Southbound
L 252 3433 2.10 0.07 575.7 F
T 1339 5085 - 1.16 0.26 135.9 F 230.7 F
417 1583 0.46 0.26 47.0 D
Intersection Delay = 137.8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = F
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
2025_81anedGGate210
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1d
Analyst: DM Inter.: Golden Gate
Agency: KHA Area Type: All other areas
Date: 2/19/2004 Jurisd: Collier county
Period: PM Peak Year : Year 2025
Project ID: Year 2025 - 8-Laned on Golden Gate
E/W St: Golden Gate Pkwy. N/S St: Airport Rd.
NO, Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane width
RTOR vol
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY.
L EastboundT R I LWeStb°UndT R
I
2 4 2 I 2 4 1
L T R I L T R
570 2600 750 1150 I470 3SO
12.0 i2.0 12,0 112.0 12.0 12.0
0 I 0
Northbound I Southbound
L T R I L T R
I
2 3 i I 3 3
L T R I L T R
630 1900 220 1740 1600 240
12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
0 I 0
Duration 0.25
Phase combination 1 2
EB Left A A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
WB Left A
Thru
Right
Peds
NB Right A
SB Right A A
Green 13.0 21.0
Yellow 4.0 0.0
All Red 2.0 0.0
Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
3 4
A
A
X
A
A
X
50.0 65.0
4.O 4.O
2.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 210.0
Intersection Performance Summar~
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Flow Rate
(s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Appr/ Lane
Lane Group
Grp Capacity
5 6 7 8
NB Left A A
Thru A A
Right A A
Peds x
s8 Left A
Th ru A
Right A
Peds X
EB Right A A
WB Right A
30.0 7.0
4.0 0.0
2.0 0.0
secs
Eastbound
L 667 3502 0.91 0,19 99.6 F
T 2338 6916 1.18 0.34 156.6 F
R 1624 2842 0.50 0.57 27.3 C
Westbound
L 217 3502 0.77 0.06 112,5 F
T 1647 6916 0.99 0.24 99.9 F
R 661 1615 0.59 0.41 49.6 D
Northbound
L 717 3502 0.94 0.20 103,4 F
T 1778 5187 1,15 0.34 143,1 F
R 700 1615 0.36 0.43 40.2 D
southbound
L 704 4928 1.13 0.14 165.9
T 1606 5187 1.09 0.31 125.5
R 854 1615 0.32 0.53 28.3
Intersection Delay = 119.1 (sec/veh)
123.2 F
91.9 F
125.4 F
F
F 127.5 F
C
Intersection LOS = F
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1d
Page 1
2025_81anedGGate
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.id
Analyst: DM Inter.: Golden Gate
Agency: KHA Area Type: All other areas
Date: 2/19/2004 ]urisd: Collier County
Period: PM Peak Year : Year 2025
Project ID: Year 2025 - 8-Laned on Golden Gate
E/W St: Golden Gate Pkwy. N/S St: Airport Rd.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY.
J Eastbound I westbound I Northbound I southbound
L T R J L T R J L T R J L T R
I I. 1
NO. Lanes I 2 4 2 J 2 4 1 I 2 3 1 I 3 3 1
LGConfig J L T RI L T R j L T R I L T R
volume J570 2600 750 IlS0 1470 350 J630 1900 220 J740 1600 240
Lane width J12.0 12.0 12.0 J12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol J 0 I o I 0 I o
ou rati on 0.25
Phase combination I 2 3
EB Left A A
Thru A A
Right A A
Peds X
WB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds x
NB Right A
sB Rfgh~ A A
Green 1-O.0 18.0 43.0
Yellow 4.0 0.0 4.0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Area Type: All other areas
signal operations
4
5 6 7 8
NB Left A A
Th r u A A
Right A A
Peds x
SB Left A
Th ru A
Right A
Peds x
EB Right A A
WB Right A
25.0 6.0
4.0 0.0
2.0 0.0
Appr/ Lane
Lane Group
Grp capacity
54.0
4.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 180.0
Intersection Performance summary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Flow Rate
(s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 661 3502 0.92 0.19 89.3
T 2344 6916 1.18 0.34 145.3
R 1642 2842 0.S0 0.58 22.7
westbound
L 195 3502 0.86 0.06 113.7
t 1652 6916 0,99 0.24 87.6
R 664 1615 0.59 0.41 42.5
Northbound
L 720 3502 0.94 0.21 90.7
T 1729 5187 1.18 0.33 148.0
R 682 1615 0.37 0.42 35.9
southbound
L 684 4928 1.16 0.14 166.6
T 1556 5187 1,13 0.30 130.2
R 843 1615 0,32 0.52 25,0
Intersection Delay = 114.5 (sec/veh)
F
F 113.3 F
C
F
F 81.6 F
D
F
F 125.5 F
D
F
F 130.3 F
C
InterseCtion LOS = F
SeCS
HCS2000: signalized Intersections Release 4.1d
Page 1
2025_SlanedGGate160
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4,1d
Analyst: DM Inter,: Golden Gate
Agency: KHA Area Type: All other areas
Date: 2/i9/2004 ~urisd: collier county
Period: PM Peak Year : Year 2025
Project ID: Year 2025 - 8-Laned on Golden Gate
E/W St: Golden Gate Pkwy, N/S St: Airport Rd.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY.
I Eastbound I westbound I Northbound I southbound
IL T R IL T R J L T R IL T R
' I
1
No. Lanes [ 2 4 2 2 4 1 I 2 3 1 I 3 3 1
LGConfig I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
Volume 1570 2600 750 1150 1470 3501630 I900 220 1740 i600 240
Lane width 112,0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12,0 12.0 112,0 12,0 12,0 112,0 12,0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 0 I 0 I o I o
Duration 0.25
Phase combination 1
EB Left A
Thru
Right
Peds
WB Left A
Thru
Right
Peds
NB Right
SB Right
Green
Yellow
All Red
Area Type: All other areas
signal Operations
4
NB
2 3
A
A A
A A
X
A
A
X
A
A A
9.0 16,0 36,0
4.O 0.0 4.0
2.0 0.0 2.0
SB
EB
WB
Appr/ Lane
Lane Group
Grp Capacity
5 6 7 8
Left A A
Thru A A
Right A A
Peds x
Left A
Th ru A
Right A
Peds x
Right A A
Right A
22.0 6.0
4.0 0.0
2,.0 0.0
47.0
4.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 160.0
Intersection Performance Summary.
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
F1 ow Rate
(s) v/c g/C oelay LOS Delay LOS
secs
Eastbound
L 679 3502 0.89 0,19 77.0 E
T 2248 6916 1,23 0.32 161,8 F
R 1634 2842 0.50 0.57 20,5 C
westbound
L '197 3502 0,85 0,06 102,5 F
T 1556 6916 1.05 0.22 99.0 F
R 646 1615 0.60 0.40 39.5 D
Northbound
L 744 3502 0.91 0.21 76.8 E
T 1718 5187 1.19 0.33 144.8 F
R 686 1615 0.36 0.43 31.6 C
Southbound
L 678 4928 1.17 0.14 162.3
T 1524 5187 1.15 0.29 133.6
R 848 1615 0.32 0.52 21.9
Intersection Delay = 117.5 (sec/veh)
122.0 F
88.7 F
119.7 F
F
F 130.9 F
C
Intersection LOS = F
HCS2000: signalized Intersections Release 4.1d
Page 1
Intersection 3: Golden Gate Parkway & Airport Road
Baseline
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR
3/4e2004
PM Peak Hour
SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations ~i~i Ill! i~i~ ~i~ III! t~ ~ffi f~'f F ~i~ ~"H" F
Ideal Ftow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. FIow(prot) 3433 6408 2787 3433 6408 1583 3433 5085 1583 4990 5085 1583
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 6408 2787 3433 6408 1583 3433 5085 1583 4990 5085 1583
Volume (vph) 570 2600 750 150 1470 350 630 1900 220 740 1600 240
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.93 0.91 0.88
Adj. Flow (vph) 606 2766 815 167 1633 389 677 2043 250 796 1758 273
Lane Group Flow (vph) 606 2766 815 167 1633 389 677 2043 250 796 1758 273
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 32.0 73.0 107.0 6.0 47.0 73.0 34.0 71.0 77.0 26.0 63.0 95.0
Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 75.0 1 i 1.08.0 49.0 77.0 36.0 73.0 81.0 28.0 65.0 99.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.38 0.56 0.04 0.24 0.38 0.18 0.36 0.40 0.14 0.32 0.50
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 584 2403 1603 137 1570 641 618 1856 673 699 1653 815
v/sRatioProt c0.18 c0.43 0.09 0.05 0.25 0.08 c0.20 c0.40 0.01 0.16 0.35 0.06
vis Ratio Perm 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.12
vic Ratio 1.04 1.15 0.51 1.22 1.04 0.61 1.10 1.10 0.37 1.14 1.06 0.33
Uniform Delay, dl 83.0 62.5 27.6 96.0 75.5 49.4 82.0 63.5 41.7 86.0 67.5 30.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 47.3 73.3 0.3 147.4 33.9 1.6 65.0 54.2 0.3 79.1 41.2 0.2
Delay(s) 130.3 135.8 27.8 243.4 109.4 51.0 147.0 117.7 42.0 165.1 108.7 30.8
Level of Service F F C F F D F F D F F C
Approach Delay (s) 114.0 109.2 118.0 117.1
Approach LOS F F F F
ection Summaq/
Inters
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
c Critical Lane Group
114.8 HCM Level of Service F
1.12
200.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
112.8% ICU Level of Service G
kimleylv17-ff51
Synchro 5 Report
U:\Holding\Colliers200 0402120optimized.sy6
Intersection 1: Golden Gate Parkway & Airport Road
2025 Conditions - 180 Second Cycle Lencjth
Movement
3/4/2~04
PM Peak Hour
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations Ill1 Ill! i i i*
Ideal FIow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.88 0.97 0,86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. FIow(prot) 3433 6408 2787 3433 6408 1583 3433 5085 1583 4990 5085 1583
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 6408 2787 3433 6408 1583 3433 5085 1583 4990 5085 1583
Volume (vph) 570 2600 750 150 1470 350 630 1900 220 740 1600 240
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.93 0.91 0.88
Adj. Flow (vph) 606 2766 815 167 1633 389 677 2043 250 796 1758 273
Lane Group Flow (vph) 606 2766 815 167 1633 389 677 2043 250 796 1758 273
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 27.0 65.0 93.0 5.0 43.0 66.0 28.0 63.0 68.0 23.0 58.0 85.0
Effective Green, g (s) 29.0 67.0 97.0 7.0 45.0 70.0 30.0 65.0 72.0 25.0 60.0 89.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.37 0.54 0.04 0.25 0.39 0.17 0.36 0.40 0.14 0.33 0.49
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
LaneGrp Cap (vph) 553 2385 1564 134 1602 651 572 1836 668 693 1695 818
v/sRatioProt c0.18 c0.43 0.09 0.05 0.25 0.08 c0.20 c0.40 0.01 0.16 0.35 0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.12
vic Ratio 1.10 1.16 0.52 1.25 1.02 0.60 1.18 1.11 0.37 1.15 1.04 0.33
Uniform Delay, dl 75.5 56.5 26.6 86.5 67.5 43.8 75.0 57.5 38.1 77.5 60.0 27.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 67.1 77.0 0.3 158.4 27.5 1.5 99.5 59.0 0.4 83.0 32.1 0.2
Delay(s) 142.6 133.5 26.9 244.9 95.0 45,3 174.5 116.5 38.5 160.5 92.1 27.8
Level of Service F F C F F D F F D F F C
Approach Delay (s) 114.1 97,6 123.2 105.2
Approach LOS F F F F
Inter:seC, tio~ summarY ~ ': .~
HCM Average Control Delay 111.3 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.14
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 180.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.8% ICU Level of Service G
c Critical Lane Group
kimleylvlT-ff51
Synchro 5 Report
U:\Holding\Colliers180 0402120optimized.sy6
Intersection 1: Golden Gate Parkway & Airport Road
2025 Conditions - 160 Second Cycle Lencjth
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT
NBR SBL
3/4/2004
PM Peak Hour
SBT SBR
Lane Configurations lit! i'i tit! r r r
Ideal FIow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. FIow(prot) 3433 6408 2787 3433 6408 1583 3433 5085 1583 4990 5085 1583
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 6408 2787 3433 6408 1583 3433 5085 1583 4990 5085 1583
Volume (vph) 570 2600 750 150 1470 350 630 1900 220 740 1600 240
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0,94 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.93 0.91 0.88
Adj. Flow (vph) 606 2766 815 167 1633 389 677 2043 250 796 1758 273
Lane Group Flow (vph) 606 2766 815 167 1633 389 677 2043 250 796 1758 273
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.0 57.0 82.0 5.0 37.0 57.0 25.0 54.0 59.0 20.0 49.0 74.0
Effective Green, g (s) 27.0 59.0 86.0 7.0 39.0 61.0 27.0 56.0 63.0 22.0 51.0 78.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.37 0.54 0.04 0.24 0.38 0.17 0.35 0.39 0.14 0.32 0.49
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6,0 6,0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
LaneGrp Cap (vph) 579 2363 1568 150 1562 643 579 1780 663 686 1621 811
v/sRatioProt c0.18 c0.43 0.09 0.05 0.25 0.08 c0.20 c0.40 0.02 0.16 0.35 0.06
v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.12
vic Ratio 1.05 1.17 0.52 1.11 1.05 0.60 1.17 1.15 0.38 1.16 1.08 0.34
Uniform Delay, dl 66.5 50.5 23.7 76.5 60.5 39.8 66.5 52.0 34.5 69.0 54.5 25.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 50.2 81.7 0.3 107.1 35.7 1.6 93.6 73.6 0.4 87.8 49.1 0.2
Delay(s) 116.7 132.2 24.0 183.6 96.2 41.4 160.1 125.6 34.9 156.8 103.6 25.4
Level of Service F F C F F D F F C F F C
Approach Delay (s) 108.9 93.1 125.8 111.0
Approach LOS F F F F
InterSectien summary. , ~
HCM Average Control Delay 110.7
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.15
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.8%
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
F
12.0
G
kimleylv17-ff51
Synchro 5 Report
U:\Holding\Colliers160 0402120optimized.sy6
lets r0il!
for the iconoclastically inclined ,~,,6~_,~,o.~.,~0)6~_~o~,,h, ~,,~,~. ,~o, ~_~, ~
Pager ~ (239) 436 0382
NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
6 April 2004
Elected officials - Joint Naples/County workshop
Re: Security & Safety at Naples Municipal Airport
If I keep appearing before you all, I am going to get a
reputation as the Wolfman. Crying wolf is not my
purpose; informing you of danger is. The problem
with yelling "Wolff" is people stop listening to the
message as the messenger drowns out the message,
In 1986, I told the Greater Boston YMCA group
about a problem with their humidity systems. They
said to get lost. Within six months, the roof over a
swimming pool collapsed while a pre-school class of
children were in it. In 1993, I told Mike Watkins of
the Beach Hotel, and Falling Waters, the largest
swimming hole in the county about hazardous
materials handling problems, and within 3 years both
had hazmat incidents.
Now I'm telling you about security and safety
concerns at the Naples Municipal Airport. Crying
"Wolff" you say? Yes, but with the background to
992 Plymouth Rock Naples, Florida 34110 239.450.277'1' remarkrj@aol.com
prove it. You don't want to be elected officials who
were informed of public health, safety and welfare
issues when a catastrophic miscalculation or mistake
is made by an employee. And the "sky falls" [plane]
on your communities.
Get with airport management and see to it that they
conduct an independent investigation. I'm sure none
of you would allow the attorney for your opponents
to represent your interests in legal actions. Let's get
this resolved.
I just want to clear my name and reputation of the
character assassination the Authority has engaged in.
Their violation of the whistle-blower protections can
be proved in all 4 examples set out in the employee
handbook [see procedural purpose, Whistle-blower
speech before NAA Board 3/18/04].
Can you intervene?
Sincerely,