MPO Agenda 05/11/2018COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
May 11, 2018
9:00 AM
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., Chair
Councilwoman Linda Penniman, Vice-Chair
Commissioner Penny Taylor
Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq.
Commissioner Burt L. Saunders
Commissioner Donna Fiala
Councilman Reg Buxton
Councilman Joe Batte
Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt
This meeting of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is open to the public and citizen input is
encouraged. Any person wishing to speak on any scheduled item may do so upon recognition of the Chairperson.
Any person desiring to have an item placed on the agenda shall make a request in writing with a description and
summary of the item, to the MPO Director or MPO Chairman 14 days prior to the date of the next scheduled
meeting of the MPO. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore 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 based. In accordance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting
should contact Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director, 72 hours prior to the meeting by calling (239) 252 -
8192. The MPO’s planning process is conducted in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
Related Statutes. Any person or beneficiary who believes that within the MPO’s planning process they have been
discriminated against because of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, or familial status may file
a complaint with the Collier MPO Executive Director, Anne McLaughlin at (239) 252 -8192 or by writing to Ms.
McLaughlin at 2885 South Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, PREVIOUS MINUTES AND CONSENT ITEMS
4.A. April 13, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes
4.B. Reappointment of Victor Ordija to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(BPAC)
4.C. Appointment of a new CAC member
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
6. AGENCY UPDATES
6.A. FDOT
6.B. MPO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
7. COMMITTEE CHAIR REPORTS
7.A. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)
7.A.1. Citizen Advisory Committee Chair Report
7.B. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
7.B.1. Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report
7.C. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC)
7.C.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Chair Report
7.D. LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD
7.D.1. Local Coordinating Board Chair Report
8. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (ROLL CALL REQUIRED)
8.A. Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment
9. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (NO ROLL CALL)
9.A. Adopt Policy on Reprogramming Unobligated SU Funds
9.B. Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and
MPO Agreement
9.C. Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and
Recommendations
9.D. Adopt Updated Project Priorities for 2018
10. PRESENTATIONS (MAY REQUIRE BOARD ACTION)
10.A. Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study
10.B. Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
11. MEMBER COMMENTS
12. DISTRIBUTION ITEMS
12.A. Naples City Manager Response for Co-location Study
13. NEXT MEETING DATE
13.A. Regular Meeting - June 8, 2018 - 9:00 a.m. Board of County Commissioners
Chambers, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112
14. ADJOURN
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 4.A
Item Summary: April 13, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/03/2018 4:09 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/03/2018 4:09 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/03/2018 4:09 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/03/2018 4:17 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
4.A
Packet Pg. 4
1
COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) BOARD MEETING
City of Marco Island
Marco Island Community Meeting Room
51 Bald Eagle Drive
9:00 a.m.
April 13, 2018
Meeting Minutes
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
Members Present
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., Collier County BCC District 5, Chair
Commissioner Donna Fiala, Collier County BCC District 1
Commissioner Andy Solis, Collier County BCC District 2
Commissioner Burt Saunders, Collier County BCC District 3
Commissioner Penny Taylor, Collier County BCC District 4
Councilman Joe Batte, City of Marco Island
Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt, City of Everglades City
Members Absent
Councilwoman Linda Penniman, City of Naples, Vice-Chair
Councilman Reg Buxton, City of Naples
MPO Staff
Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director
Brandy Otero, MPO Senior Planner
Eric Ortman, MPO Senior Planner
Gabrielle Gonzalez, MPO Administrative Secretary
FDOT
L.K. Nandam, District One Secretary
Lawrence Massey, FDOT
Victoria Peters, District 1 Liaison
Ryan Lazenby, Engineer of Record, SR 82
Zach Burch, PIO
Others Present
Thaddeus Cohen, Collier County, Growth Management Department Head
Amy Patterson, Collier County, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management
Trinity Scott, Collier County, Transportation Planning
Lorraine Lantz, Collier County, Transportation Planning
Adam Ahmad, Jacobs Engineering
Wally Blain, Tindale Oliver
Vito J. Congine, Jr
Rae Ann Burton
Vicki Standen
David Standen
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 4-13-18 MPO Board Mtg Minutes (5572 : April 13, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes)
2
3. Pledge of Allegiance
Commissioner McDaniel led the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. Approval of the Agenda, Previous Minutes, and Consent Items
A. March 9, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes
Commissioner McDaniel entertained a motion for approval of the agenda and March 9 minutes, there being no
items on Consent.
Commissioner Taylor: Move to approve.
Commissioner Solis: Second.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. Public Comments for Items not on the Agenda
There were no public speakers.
6. Agency Updates
A. FDOT
Ms. Peters thanked Councilman Batte for hosting the meeting in Marco Island and introduced Ryan Lazenby,
Engineer of Record for SR 82. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is working with Florida
Highway Patrol (FHP) on getting roads closed and opening them again as quickly as possible regarding local
brush fires that have been occurring.
Mr. Lazenby provided an update on SR 82. [Presentation available on request.] He explained that starting at SR
29 up to Gator Slough, the segment is about 3.2 miles and includes a round-about at SR29. It is a 4-lane section
that is expandable to 6 lanes if traffic ever warrants it. The permitting accommodates the 6-lane section. There
is a 5’ sidewalk shown on the north side of the roadway and a 10’ asphalt path on the southside. He stated that
FDOT is going to final plans in July of this year for an April 2019 letting so sometime next summer we should
be beginning construction. That project will cost approximately $28.5 million for construction. The adjacent
segment of SR 82 runs from the Hendry County Line to Gator Slough, approximately 4 miles. FDOT is
currently in the process of design and will move to Right-Of-Way (ROW) acquisition this July, primarily to
take care of some drainage issues. The project estimate is $36.7 million. The project is a little longer and also
has two structures to provide animal crossings. It is funded for construction in fiscal year 2023, which means
it will be in production that spring. He explained that the timing is determined by the ROW acquisition. In
response to a question from Commissioner Taylor, Mr. Lazenby clarified that a portion of SR 82 does go
through Hendry County before entering Lee County and that section (#5 on the map) is complete except for the
trail, which FDOT has just let for construction [items 3 & 4 on the map.]
Commissioner McDaniel noted his familiarity with this section of SR 82 which is in an extremely rural part of
the county although right at the county line, Lehigh Acres subdivision which is fairly dense, at 6 units per acre,
and growing. He asked if there any latitude to appropriate funding for ROW without the expense of building
the bike path today because there is no one living out there to use sidewalks and bike paths and the like at this
stage. Can that be adapted to the construction plans to not expend those funds?
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 4-13-18 MPO Board Mtg Minutes (5572 : April 13, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes)
3
Mr. Lazenby responded that if that is something the MPO wants FDOT to look into, they will, but since they
are going to final plans in July, he would probably keep the berm the path will be on because it would take
longer and cost more to remove it at this time, but not construct the actual asphalt itself. That way the MPO can
come back in the future and construct the trail if it wants to.
Commissioner McDaniel responded that the MPO definitely wants to construct the pathway when it’s
warranted. He asked if FDOT had an estimated cost for constructing the trail? Mr. Lazenby responded that he
would need to get the answer when he’s back in the office. Commissioner McDaniel noted that he would like
to have this discussed at a future MPO meeting.
Secretary Nandam stated that FDOT will definitely come back with cost estimates at the next meeting. He
explained that the Board may want to consider that a master plan was developed calling for a trail along SR 82
into Immokalee. He suggested that the Board talk about the goal of that particular trail and if it make more sense
to build it now or later. He added that it was supposed to be a linear park type of trail rather than a transportation
trail.
Commissioner McDaniel responded that he would like to talk about it at the next meeting.
Commissioner Fiala inquired whether a date had been set yet for repairing the lights on the [Judge Jolley] Bridge
[to Marco Island].
Ms. Peters responded that the FDOT maintenance team is looking into it and conducted some emergency
repairs. FDOT is working with FEMA on replacement. Ms. Peters will look into the status and report back to
Commissioner Fiala and Councilman Batte.
Councilman Batte asked whether FDOT is still on target for paving SR 951 from the bridge to US 41 this
summer. Ms. Peters responded yes.
B. MPO Executive Director
Ms. McLaughlin thanked Ms. Peters for assisting with preparing the application packet to submit to the
Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) which is now prescreening freight projects
submitted by the MPOs and prioritizing them for consideration by FDOT at the district level. Each MPO was
allowed to submit up to 3 projects. Staff focused on SR29, requesting construction funds for freight trucking
purposes. Ms. McLaughlin will provide updates on the status at future Board meetings.
7. Committee Chair Reports
A. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
The CAC Chair was not in attendance to provide a report. Ms. McLaughlin noted that the CAC Chair report is
included in the meeting packet.
B. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Ms. McLaughlin noted that the TAC Chair report is included in the meeting packet. Items that may be of
particular interest to the Board include the status of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which was
endorsed by the TAC [and CAC] but has been distributed for the required 21-day public comment period and
therefore not on this MPO agenda for final approval. As a condition for endorsing the TIP, the Lee MPO
Executive Director [Don Scott] requested that the Regional Nonmotorized Transportation map be removed,
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 4-13-18 MPO Board Mtg Minutes (5572 : April 13, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes)
4
because he is no longer recommending that the Lee County MPO Board adopt the map. Lee County MPO staff
is finding that when pathway projects are identified as “regional” on a map, FDOT requires local maintenance
of the facility. Collier County staff acknowledged that they have the same concern. The Collier MPO will need
to have follow-up discussions at another meeting because the Board has adopted the [Joint Regional] map, but
now Lee County MPO will not. Perhaps the broader issue of trail maintenance can be a discussion item at the
next Board meeting, and FDOT can explain its position at that time.
C. Congestion Management Committee (CMC)
The CMC Chair was not in attendance to provide the report. Ms. McLaughlin noted that the report is in the
meeting packet.
Chairman McDaniel entertained a motion to accept the reports.
Commissioner Taylor: Move to approve.
Commissioner Fiala: Second.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Regular Board Action (Roll Call Required)
None.
9. Regular Board Action (No Roll Call)
A. Approve Amendment to the FY 16/17-17/18 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)
Ms. Otero explained that the FY 16/17 – 17/18 UPWP identified the MPO budget and tasks over 2-year period
which comes to a close at the end of June 2018. In order for the remaining fund balance to be immediately
available for spending in FY 2019, the MPO must de-obligate the estimated amount we want to be available in
the next year of the UPWP. The documentation provided in the agenda packet identifies the breakdown of the
$177,000 requested for de-obligation. The agenda packet also includes the amended UPWP pages with revisions
noted in strikethrough/underline. Revisions include extending the contract for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan into the next fiscal year; extending the completion date of Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan
(TDSP) to the next fiscal year and revisions to the soft match total amount. The amended MPO Agreement and
Resolution are in the packet. The amended UPWP was posted for the required 21-day public comment period.
No public comments were received for this item.
Chairman McDaniel entertained a motion to approve the amendment to the FY 16/17-17/18 UPWP.
Commissioner Solis: Move to approve.
Commissioner Taylor: Second.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. Presentations (May Require Board Action)
A. Revised Interchange Access Request (IAR) Federal-Approval Process Presentation - FDOT
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 4-13-18 MPO Board Mtg Minutes (5572 : April 13, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes)
5
Secretary Nandam introduced Chris Simpron, Model, Level of Service (LOS) & District Interchange Review
Coordinator. Mr. Simpron explained that the new, revised User’s Guide results from the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) having made a change to interchange justification process. A copy of Mr. Sempron’s
presentation on FDOT’s Interchange Access Request User’s Guide is included in the agenda packet. To recap
briefly – all new interchange proposals require an Interchange Justification Report (IJR) that addresses FHWA’s
first two policy points:
The request does not have a significant adverse impact on the operation and safety of the freeway
system.
The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Approval
of an IJR does not guarantee a project’s construction.
A Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Study will be required to address the remaining six FHWA
policy points, leading to approval under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The remaining
six policy points are:
The existing roadway network cannot be improved to handle the current and/or future traffic demand.
(PD&E)
The request cannot be adequately satisfied by reasonable transportation system management
alternatives. (PD&E)
The proposal considers and is consistent with local and regional land use and transportation plans.
(PD&E and NEPA)
The proposed modification lies within the context of a long-range system or network Plan (NEPA)
Appropriate coordination has occurred between the development and any proposed transportation
system improvements. (NEPA)
The proposal does not have any fatal environmental flaws. (NEPA)
Commissioner Taylor questioned whether there had been a duplication of reporting and analysis which made
the process cumbersome.
Mr. Massey responded that PD&E is the stage at which you investigate all preliminary issues to design the
project, including environmental concerns, traffic, other issues and the purpose and need for the interchange.
Commissioner Taylor explained that her understanding was that there was a duplication of efforts in the former
policy.
Mr. Massey responded that FHWA determined that the PD&E research was effectively required twice under
the old system – once as part of the Interchange Justification Report (IJR) and again several years after
completion of the IJAR. FHWA decided to remove the six policy points from the initial IJAR process and place
them in the subsequent PD&E phase instead, to avoid the duplication. However, this in effect has actually
complicated the process because you really don’t know if you will need an interchange until the PD&E process
is completed.
Commissioner McDaniel expressed appreciation for Mr. Simpron’s thorough presentation, saying it had been
most informative.
B. Review and Comment on Draft 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment
Ms. Otero introduced the consultant, Wally Blain, Tindale Oliver, noting that there were three public speakers
registered to speak on this item.
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 4-13-18 MPO Board Mtg Minutes (5572 : April 13, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes)
6
Mr. Blain’s presentation is included in the agenda packet. He provided an overview of the public meeting held
on March 15th and comments received to-date; reviewed the process followed to reallocate 2040 socioeconomic
data and re-assessed the 2040 Needs transportation network; compared the cost of the two viable options for
addressing the need; and explained project scoring and prioritization and suggested changes to the Cost Feasible
Plan.
The two alternatives reviewed for the Needs Network involved providing an S-Curve connection between
Randall and Oil Well west of Everglades Blvd versus connecting the two arterials by extending Randall to Oil
Well east of Big Cypress Parkway. The amendment to the needs network includes adding Big Cypress Parkway
at 2 lanes and extending Vanderbilt Beach Road and Golden Gate Blvd to Big Cypress Parkway. The addition
of these components to the Needs Network adds between $144 -$146 million in total cost. The cost differential
between the two alternatives is approximately $2 million.
Public comments have primarily reflected opposition to the S-Curve Alignment in the County’s ongoing
Randall/Oil Well Corridor Study. Concerns were also expressed regarding the alignment of the Vanderbilt
Beach Road Extension, the use of Impact Fees and required developer contributions, and the loss of wildlife
habitat and other environmental concerns.
Referring to the slide showing the additional costs identified for the Needs Network, Commissioner McDaniel
asked MPO staff to confirm that the MPO Board would not be voting on anything today. Ms. Otero responded
in the affirmative and stated that the report in draft form is posted for public comment. The final will come
before the Board in May.
Mr. Blain observed that the MPO hired Tindale Oliver to analyze the impact of the Rural Lands West proposed
master plan development on the 2040 LRTP Needs and Cost Feasible networks, and that similar conversations
were held with the Board in 2015 during the adoption of the 2040 LRTP. He stated that the amendment
incorporates the information coming from the RLW master plan while remaining consistent with the 2040
LRTP control totals for county-wide growth and consistent with methodologies used to determine needs, costs,
and priorities. The result is identifying that there are needs to address the additional traffic concerns. He
reiterated that socioeconomic data was not pulled from designated high growth areas as part of the reallocation,
and that the projected growth within the RLW master plan was capped at 80%. Tindale Oliver then developed
a revised needs network and came up with 2 alternatives based on the County’s ongoing Randall/Oil Well study,
which will ultimately go back to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for approval. That study will look
deeply into costs of the two alternatives and since the details are not yet available, Tindale Oliver has provided
a conservatively high estimate in anticipation of the more detailed costs coming in within range of, but lower
than the planning level estimates.
Mr. Blain responded that the primary factors that dictate how costs are estimated are the current market and
recent unit cost per mile and FHWA requirement to determine probable future costs – Year of Expenditure –
and factor in inflation.
Commissioner McDaniel commented that the slide showing total 2040 Cost Feasible Plan costs in billions of
dollars is daunting, and possibly misleading in that the total costs could be misread as the net increase to the
needs plan. He recommended segregating those out, specifying the proposed amendments and the cost
associated with the amendment.
Mr. Blain agreed that the slide shows cumulative numbers rather than additive, and continued with the
presentation. He explained that the needs must be prioritized because revenues are insufficient to address all of
them. He stated that based on the evaluation criteria used in developing the 2040 LRTP, the new projects rank
27-63 out of 69. He added that when the 2040 LRTP was brought to the MPO Board in 2015, the decision was
made to remove the widening of Randall Blvd. from 8th Street to Oil Well Rd./Everglades Blvd. and the
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 4-13-18 MPO Board Mtg Minutes (5572 : April 13, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes)
7
extension of Vanderbilt Beach Rd. from 8th to Desoto. The Board asked for the widening of Wilson Blvd
between Golden Gate Blvd and Immokalee Road and the extension of Little League Road from SR 82 to
Westclox to be added in the place of the removed projects. He stated that the revenue left was put into a local
improvement box.
Commissioner McDaniel asked if there was a need to take Vanderbilt Beach Road to Desoto Blvd. now. Mr.
Blain responded that further refinements will come through the design process, but as part of this process it is
being shown as a need. Mr. Blain continued with the presentation and summarized project updates.
Mr. Blain reported that County staff recommends adding design/mitigation cost for the Randall Blvd Corridor
from 8th St to Everglades Blvd in FY 2021-2025; retaining the Local Improvements Box funds of $122 million
identified in the 2040 LRTP. With cost savings anticipated on the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, the Cost
Feasible Plan would have a $3.5 million positive balance in County revenues.
Mr. Blain concluded his presentation by summarizing public comments received through the public meeting
and the 21-day public comment period and providing the remaining project schedule.
Rae Anne Burton, residing at 2530 31st Ave NE, spoke first. Ms. Burton stated that she represented neighbors
that could not come and speak themselves because they are working. She distributed hard copies of a petition
with 28 signatures to MPO Board members [copies available on request]. Ms. Burton stated that the S-curve
will spoil the natural environment and destroy the community. She stated that there is no need for the S-curve,
and private property cannot be taken without a valid public purpose, without violating homeowners
constitutional rights. She urged the Board to not build any roads crossing dead-end streets, specifically 27th, 29th
and 31st. The homeowners of these dead-end streets believe the S-curve is not necessary. She requested that
roads that are in place be enhanced and widened. She asked the Board to allow homeowners who would be
impacted by the S-curve to live our American dreams where we are and how we are now.
Vicky Standen, residing at 2405 33rd Ave NE, spoke in opposition to the S-curve proposal in the study area.
Ms. Standen commented that it sounds like the Board will be voting on the LRTP amendment without a decision
having been made regarding the Randall Blvd/Oil Well study area. The S-curve is getting a great deal of
attention. She stated that Consulting engineers present at the public meeting [on the LRTP amendment] last
month had very detailed plans about how this will be constructed and the fact sheets in the agenda packet state
that the S-curve was adopted and may be a 6-lane road, but that is incorrect. She stated that the S-curve was
removed from the 2040 LRTP. She commented that according to the required roadway design, which is 4-lanes
wide, it would create a large footprint and be raised above all adjacent residential property, causing noise, speed
and the disappearance of dead-end streets. She explained that one by one, with each decision the Board makes,
it changes the landscape of Golden Gate Estates and that each time the Board votes, it changes the character of
her community. She stated that they don’t want to be the suburbs. She added that they want convenience and
solutions to the traffic problems, but Everglades and Randall can handle the load. She urged the Board to do it
right and commented that one vote is not about one road – it’s about the dynamics of Golden Gate Estates.
Vito Congine, residing at 2894 31st Ave NE, spoke last, stating that residents have attended each public event
where the S-curve has been brought up, having something put upon them that nobody in the neighborhood
wants. He stated that the S-curve will bring additional traffic down individual streets, causing everything from
speeding to accidents to property damage. He stated that residents already have constant damage of properties,
and don’t need additional damage. RLW is very important to Collier County; however, the best way to do this,
in the resident’s opinion, is to widen Randall Blvd. He explained that the widening makes sense, and the
easements are already in place to allow for expansion. He felt that RLW is controversial as there is an
exponential amount of homes proposed. He stated that residents don’t want to see an end to our dead-end street
and they don’t want the S-curve. He concluded by stating that it doesn’t accomplish what he believes the Board
of County Commissioners are trying to accomplish.
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 4-13-18 MPO Board Mtg Minutes (5572 : April 13, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes)
8
Commissioner Taylor stated that clarity needs to be provided regarding the fact sheet and the adopted plan.
Chairman McDaniel stated that when information provided by staff is being interpreted, staff should be given
the opportunity to clarify.
Mr. Blain stated that the 2040 plan process included an evaluation of growth, a assessment of needs, and a
determination of what is cost feasible. He added that when the Board was taking action to approve the plan in
2015, they were looking at approving the final step, the Cost Feasible Plan. The decision/discussion was about
removing the S-Curve from the Cost Feasible plan, not backing it up and taking it out of the needs. There was
still an identification of needs in the corridor, that from a financially feasible perspective was showing that the
next step was to conduct a corridor study an evaluation of what should be the preferred alignment. He stated
that what was approved in the LRTP still had the need of the S-Curve shown, but funding for the project was
removed.
Commissioner Saunders asked what the alternative to the S-Curve is and why is it needed. Mr. Blain responded
that when the LRTP was adopted, in 2010 for the horizon year of 2035, it included the extension of Randall to
Oil Well Road. When the 2040 Plan was being developed the S-Curve was introduced. He stated that up to
the adoption of the 2040 plan, the alternative was continuing to widen Randall and to continue to widen at an
angle to Oil Well Road.
Commissioner Saunders asked if staff had any more information on the S-Curve and added that he has an issue
with running a major road through a neighborhood.
Ms. Scott reported that County staff is working with Jacobs Engineering to look at multiple alternatives and
the S-curve is not the only alternative. Also being considered are - the widening of Everglades and Randall, or
just Randall on its own. She explained that there are multiple iterations. She stated that staff is preparing for a
public information meeting which will be scheduled in May before school gets out. Staff will present
alternatives in a public workshop to get public comment, then review the feedback received and look at
narrowing down to an alternative that we think will work and then take that back out to the public and ultimately
to the Board of County Commissioners for approval of an alignment. She added that public input has been taken
into consideration throughout the study, including all the comments the MPO has received as part of this
amendment.
Commissioner Sanders noted that he appreciates staff looking at all alternatives, noting that a sales tax on
services is coming up in a couple of weeks and if that is approved by the voters it may provide more flexibility
regarding improvements to Randall and Oil Well Road and perhaps help avoid negative impacts on that
neighborhood.
Commissioner McDaniel commented that it’s the Board’s duty to explore all of these alternatives, even if we
don’t like some of them, and eliminate those that are less feasible from a cost and impact standpoint.
Commissioner Taylor asked who brought the S-Curve forward. Mr. Blain responded that he first saw the S-
curve in maps distributed at the LRTP working group convened to develop the 2040 LRTP.
Commissioner McDaniel recalled that the MPO suggested the S-curve. The issue is with Oil Well and the
intersection of Oil Well with Immokalee Rd, which is imminently going to fail. He stated that the County
doesn’t have capacity at that intersection to expand or enhance it, due to development already in place when
Oil Well reduces down from 6 lanes to 4, creating a bottleneck.
Commissioner Taylor observed that when a 6-lane road goes through a neighborhood, it ceases to be a
neighborhood street and asked what evaluation criteria was applied in developing the Needs Network. She
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 4-13-18 MPO Board Mtg Minutes (5572 : April 13, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes)
9
asked what the criteria was that was used to evaluate projects. Mr. Blain stated that there were six criteria used
to evaluate projects, including safety, freight route, and wildlife impact. There are regional criteria that are
prescribed by FHWA as planning factors that must be evaluated. Commissioner Taylor asked if the list of
criteria includes smart growth and walkable/bike-able aspects.
Mr. Blain responded that based on anticipated growth, the transportation system needed for growth is evaluated.
He explained that the smart growth principles happen at an earlier stage when scenarios for growth are
considered.
Commissioner Taylor noted that [former FDOT District 1] Secretary Hattaway promoted Complete Streets to
a great extent and asked if it remains a priority for FDOT to create a mode of transportation which keeps the
neighborhood at the top.
Secretary Nandam responded, from FDOT’s perspective, we begin with the LRTP which identifies lines on the
map; then we get into the PD&E process which looks at multiple factors, including the factors Commissioner
Taylor mentioned. He explained that the next step is to move to the design phase, where there is even more
detail on what that facility looks like.
Chairman McDaniel stated that no vote was necessary today. He reminded everyone that this would be brought
up for approval at the May meeting.
C. Review and Comment on Draft Policy on Reprogramming Unobligated SU Funds
Ms. McLaughlin presented the draft policy on reprogramming unobligated Surface Transportation – Urban
(SU) funds, reminding the Board that she had introduced the topic at the March meeting and was directed to
come back with a draft policy, which is on page 124 of the agenda packet. The draft policy has been reviewed
and endorsed by the TAC and CAC. With Board direction, Ms. McLaughlin will work with the County
Attorney’s Office to develop a resolution adopting the policy. The proposed policy considers three factors: 1)
FDOT recommends the project be considered for additional funding, 2) the project is either programmed and
underway in the fiscal year the SU funds are available or is on a list of prioritized projects waiting for funding;
and 3) the designated entity is prepared to meet FDOT’s internal deadlines. The standard review process will
be followed if timing permits; if not, projects will come straight to the Board for action, possibly as walk-on
items if necessary. The main thing is that it is the Board’s decision
Commissioner Solis: Move to direct staff to bring this forward as a formal policy.
Councilwoman Middelstaedt: Second.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner McDaniel asked whether there would be a dollar amount put on it, stating he would support
leaving it open.
11. Member Comments
Commissioner Taylor announced a workshop on BCC for Blue Zones in May. She stated that it will be
interesting as we’re talking about the development in the eastern portions of the County and as we plan for 2040
, it would be helpful to understand what other areas may be doing and what the best practices are moving
forward and not build as we’ve always built. The workshop will introduce planning concepts that are not new
and have had success.
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 4-13-18 MPO Board Mtg Minutes (5572 : April 13, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes)
10
Councilman Batte remarked that it had been a pleasure to host the meeting.
12. Distribution Items
A. Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Public Meeting Announcement
13. Next Meeting Date
A. Regular Meeting – May 11, 2018 – 9:00 a.m. Board of County Commissioners Chambers
14. Adjourn
With no further comments Commissioner McDaniel adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:43 a.m.
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 4-13-18 MPO Board Mtg Minutes (5572 : April 13, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes)
05/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Reappointment of Victor Ordija to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
OBJECTIVE: For the Board to reappoint Victor Ordija to the BPAC.
CONSIDERATIONS: The term of Victor Ordija expires in May 2108. He has indicated a desire to
remain on the BPAC and has signed a letter requesting reappointment. The letter is included as
Attachment 1.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Per BPAC bylaws this item was not to the committee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board reappoint Victor Ordija to the BPAC.
Prepared By: Eric Ortman, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Victor Ordija Reappointment Letter and Application (PDF)
4.B
Packet Pg. 15
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 4.B
Doc ID: 5547
Item Summary: Reappointment of Victor Ordija to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(BPAC)
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/02/2018 9:55 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/02/2018 9:55 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/02/2018 9:55 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Executive Director Review Skipped 05/04/2018 12:56 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
4.B
Packet Pg. 16
4.B.1
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Victor Ordija Reappointment Letter and Application (5547 : Reappointment of Victor Ordija to the BPAC)
4.B.1
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Victor Ordija Reappointment Letter and Application (5547 : Reappointment of Victor Ordija to the BPAC)
4.B.1
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Victor Ordija Reappointment Letter and Application (5547 : Reappointment of Victor Ordija to the BPAC)
4.B.1
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Victor Ordija Reappointment Letter and Application (5547 : Reappointment of Victor Ordija to the BPAC)
4.B.1
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Victor Ordija Reappointment Letter and Application (5547 : Reappointment of Victor Ordija to the BPAC)
4.B.1
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Victor Ordija Reappointment Letter and Application (5547 : Reappointment of Victor Ordija to the BPAC)
05/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Appointment of a new CAC member
OBJECTIVE: For the Board to appoint one new CAC member.
CONSIDERATIONS: Per CAC bylaws when there is a vacancy on the CAC in one of the five county
districts, the MPO Board member from that district will nominate a candidate to fill the vacancy. The
District II, Commissioner Solis’ district, position is currently vacant. Commissioner Solis has nominated
Mr. Neal Gelfand to be the District II CAC representative. Mr. Gelfand’s application is included a s an
attachment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Per CAC bylaws this item was not brought to the CAC.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board appoint Mr. Gelfand to fill the District II vacancy on
the CAC.
Prepared By: Eric Ortman, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Neal Gelfand CAC Application (PDF)
4.C
Packet Pg. 23
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 4.C
Doc ID: 5548
Item Summary: Appointment of a new CAC member
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/02/2018 9:59 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/02/2018 9:59 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/02/2018 9:59 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/02/2018 10:11 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
4.C
Packet Pg. 24
4.C.1
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Neal Gelfand CAC Application (5548 : Appointment of a new CAC member)
4.C.1
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Neal Gelfand CAC Application (5548 : Appointment of a new CAC member)
4.C.1
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Neal Gelfand CAC Application (5548 : Appointment of a new CAC member)
4.C.1
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Neal Gelfand CAC Application (5548 : Appointment of a new CAC member)
4.C.1
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Neal Gelfand CAC Application (5548 : Appointment of a new CAC member)
05/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report
OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Citizens Advisory
Committee related to recent committee actions and recommendations.
CONSIDERATIONS: Staff prepared the attached written report. The CAC Chair will provide a verbal
report providing additional information regarding recent committee activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommendations are reported in the Executive
Summary for each action item, and may be elaborated upon by the Chair in his/her report to the Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
Prepared by: Eric Ortman, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. CAC Chair Report May 2018 (PDF)
7.A.1
Packet Pg. 30
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 7.A.1
Doc ID: 5573
Item Summary: Citizen Advisory Committee Chair Report
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/03/2018 4:18 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/03/2018 4:18 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/03/2018 4:18 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/03/2018 4:22 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
7.A.1
Packet Pg. 31
CAC Committee Chair Report
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) met on April 30, 2018 and a quorum was achieved with all
members in attendance. Due to increased work-related travel demands, Robert Jones resigned from the
Committee. Commissioner Solis appointed Mr. Neal Gelfand to represent District II on the Committee.
The committee received the following presentations:
Update on Golden Gate Community Walkability Study
Update and on the CAT Fare Study
The committee took the following actions on items going before the Board:
Endorsed the Amendment to the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan
Endorsed the FY18/19–FY19/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)
Endorsed the 2018 Project Priorities
The next regularly scheduled meeting will be on May 21st at 2 p.m. The Committee has also been invited
to a Stakeholder Meeting for the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan to be held at 10:30 a.m. on the same
day.
7.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: CAC Chair Report May 2018 (5573 : Citizen Advisory Committee Chair Report)
05/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report
OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Technical Advisory
Committee related to recent committee actions and recommendations.
CONSIDERATIONS: Staff prepared the attached written report. Staff typically provides a verbal report
at the MPO Board meeting, although the Chair is welcome to do so.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommendations are reported in the Executive
Summary for each action item, and may be elaborated upon by the Chair in his/her report to the Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
Prepared by: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. TAC Chair Report May 2018 (PDF)
7.B.1
Packet Pg. 33
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 7.B.1
Doc ID: 5574
Item Summary: Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/03/2018 4:25 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/03/2018 4:25 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/03/2018 4:25 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/03/2018 4:26 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
7.B.1
Packet Pg. 34
TAC Committee Chair Report
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met on April 30, 2018 and a quorum was achieved..
The committee received a presentation on the status of the Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study.
The committee took the following actions on items going before the Board:
Endorsed the Amendment to the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan
Endorsed the FY18/19–FY19/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)
Endorsed the 2018 Project Priorities with the exception of Congestion Management, for further
assessment of project status by the Congestion Management Committee in May and reporting back
to the TAC also in May
Endorsed the CAT Fare Study
The next regularly scheduled meeting will be on May 21st at 9:00 am, starting a half hour early to facilitate
TAC’s participation in a Stakeholder Meeting for the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan to be held at 10:30
a.m. on the same day.
7.B.1.a
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: TAC Chair Report May 2018 (5574 : Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report)
05/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair (BPAC) Report
OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee related to recent committee actions and recommendations.
CONSIDERATIONS: Staff prepared the attached written report. The BPAC Chair will provide a verbal
report providing additional information regarding recent committee activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommendations are reported in the Executive
Summary for each action item, and may be elaborated upon by the Chair in his/her report to the Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
Prepared by: Eric Ortman, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. BPAC Chair Report May 2018 (PDF)
7.C.1
Packet Pg. 36
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 7.C.1
Doc ID: 5583
Item Summary: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Chair Report
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/04/2018 11:38 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/04/2018 11:38 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/04/2018 11:38 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/04/2018 1:49 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
7.C.1
Packet Pg. 37
BPAC Committee Chair Report
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) met on April 17, 2018 and a quorum was
achieved.
Mr. Agacinski, FDOT District 1 Bike Ped Coordinator informed the committee that the FDOT resurfacing
project on Collier Boulevard between the Judge Jolly Bridge and Fiddler’s Creek would include six-foot
buffered bike lanes on both sides of the road as part of the Department’s Complete Streets efforts.
Mr. Agacinski stated that Smart Growth America had listed FDOT’s Design Manual as one of the twelve
best complete street initiatives in the country in 2017.
The committee received an update on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan which included much
discussion with committee members. Items discussed included:
the possibilities of including bicycle and pedestrian improvements in road resurfacing and
improvement projects, and when major stormwater projects were being done;
the use of population density as a criterion for project prioritization;
the weight that local support for a project should be given and that the absence of such support is
not necessarily indicative of a lack of need;
the possibility of delaying certain bicycle and pedestrian projects is a larger road improvement was
planned for that area; and
the appropriate level of detail for application of Environmental Justice (EJ) criteria
The committee received presentations on the Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study and the
Amendment to the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan.
The 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities were distributed to the committee. The list is the same list as in
2017 and 2016; all but one the projects on the list have received either initial preliminary engineering
funding or construction funding.
The committee endorsed the FY2019–FY2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The May BPAC meeting is being combined with a stakeholder group meeting for the Bicycle & Pedestrian
Master Plan on May 21st at 10:30 a.m. In addition to the stakeholder group, members for the BPAC, CAC
and TAC will be invited. The next regularly scheduled BPAC meeting will be on August 21st at 9:00 a.m.
7.C.1.a
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: BPAC Chair Report May 2018 (5583 : Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report)
05/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Local Coordinating Board Chair Report
OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report regarding the Local Coordinating Board (LCB)
meeting on May 2, 2018.
CONSIDERATIONS: The LCB met on May 2nd and did not achieve a quorum. A special meeting has
been scheduled for May 23rd at 2:30 p.m., at the Collier County Government Center, Human Resources
Training Room, 3303 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
Prepared by: Brandy Otero, Senior Planner
7.D.1
Packet Pg. 39
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 7.D.1
Doc ID: 5580
Item Summary: Local Coordinating Board Chair Report
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/04/2018 8:55 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/04/2018 8:55 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/04/2018 8:55 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/04/2018 11:16 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
7.D.1
Packet Pg. 40
05/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment
OBJECTIVE: For the Board to approve the proposed 2040 LRTP Amendment, including the revised
needs and cost feasible plans.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The 2040 LRTP was adopted by the MPO Board on December 11, 2015 and was last modified on
October 14, 2016. This proposed amendment to the LRTP seeks to identify changes to the transportation
system that are needed as a result of reallocating the 2040 projections of population and employment
based on potential changes to the County Growth Management Plan map in the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area. The potential changes include an increase in the development potential, and designation, of the
Rural Lands West Stewardship Receiving Area. The potential changes are based on the Rural Lands West
Master Plan which is under review by Collier County.
During the LRTP amendment process, opportunities for review and comment on the amendment have
been provided at each of the MPO Board, Technical Advisory, and Citizen Advisory meeting. A public
outreach meeting was held on March 15th where 38 individuals signed in. The consultant prepared a 2040
LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (Attachment 1), which was distributed for a 21-day public comment
period on April 2nd.
During the March 15th public meeting, 15 written comments were provided dealing with the topics listed
below.
Concern regarding alignment of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension
Opposition to S‐Curve alignment in Randall/Oil Well Corridor Study
Questions regarding Impact Fees and required developer payments
Concern for wildlife and species habitat impacts
Concern for clean water and air
During the 21‐day public review period from April 2nd to April 23rd, the MPO Board met on April 13th to
review the draft LRTP amendment. At the April 13th MPO Meeting, three speakers commented on the
LRTP amendment and spoke against the inclusion of the S‐Curve alignment between Randall Blvd and
Oil Well Road. In addition to the speakers at the MPO meeting, the following comments were received
during the public comment period.
Opposition for extending Vanderbilt Beach Road
Most opposed to including S-Curve between Randall and Oil Well Road (specifically connections
to NE 27th, 29th, & 31st Avenues)
Amendment is premature
Petition with 36 signatures opposing the S-Curve
Conservancy of Southwest Florida provided written comments opposing the amendment
Collier Citizens for Sustainability provided written comments opposing the amendment
During the review of the draft amendment, Collier County asked MPO Staff to consider placing funds
from
the Local Improvements Box on Randall Boulevard from 8th to Oil Well Road in order to provide the
public
with information of the County’s intent to move forward with implementing the preferred alternative from
the Randall/Oil Well Road study once approved by the Board of County Commissioners. While future
8.A
Packet Pg. 41
05/11/2018
funding is not anticipated for funding construction of the preferred alternative, funding listed in the Local
Improvements Box is sufficient to fund the estimated costs for design, environmental mitigation and right
of‐way by 2040.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC) voted to endorse the amendment to the 2040 LRTP on April 30, 2018.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report
including recommendations for the Needs Plan and the Cost Feasible Plan.
Prepared By: Brandy Otero, MPO Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (PDF)
2. LRTP Amendment Presentation (PDF)
8.A
Packet Pg. 42
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 8.A
Doc ID: 5566
Item Summary: Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
Amendment
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/03/2018 10:21 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/03/2018 10:21 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/03/2018 10:21 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/03/2018 12:18 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
8.A
Packet Pg. 43
2040 LRTP Amendment
Adoption Report
April 2018
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report i
Table of Contents
Background & Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 1
Step 1: Reallocation of Future Growth ......................................................................................................... 3
Step 2: Evaluation of Transportation Needs ................................................................................................. 7
Step 3: Identification of Cost Feasible Projects .......................................................................................... 11
Public Outreach and Comment ................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
Table of Figures
Figure 1 ‐ Rural Lands West Location Map ................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2 ‐ LRTP Amendment Analysis Steps .................................................................................................. 2
Table of Tables
Table 1 ‐ Reallocated Socioeconomic Data ................................................................................................... 4
Table 2 ‐ Assessment of Transportation Needs ............................................................................................ 7
Table 3 ‐ 2040 LRTP Amendment Needs Alternatives .................................................................................. 8
Table 4 ‐ Prioritization of LRTP Amendment Needs Projects...................................................................... 10
Table 5 ‐ Costs of LRTP Amendment Needs Projects .................................................................................. 10
Table 6 ‐ Cost Feasible Assessment ............................................................................................................ 11
Table of Maps
Map 1 ‐ Reallocated 2040 Population ........................................................................................................... 5
Map 2 ‐ Reallocated 2040 Employment ........................................................................................................ 6
Map 3 ‐ 2040 LRTP Amendment Needs Number of Lanes ........................................................................... 9
Map 4 ‐ Recommended Amended 2040 Cost Feasbile Lanes ..................................................................... 13
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 1
BACKGROUND & PURPOSE
The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is responsible for developing a 20‐year Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP). The LRTP is a multi‐modal plan that incorporates the transportation needs of
pedestrians, drivers, transit riders, cyclists and freight operators. The goal of the LRTP is to develop an
efficient transportation system that will serve the mobility needs of the people and businesses of Collier
County and Southwest Florida. The LRTP considers future growth and development patterns in
determining the need for new and expanded transportation facilities.
The Collier MPO has begun an analysis in order to consider amending the transportation needs resulting
from a reallocation of population and employment growth within the limits of the proposed Rural Lands
West Stewardship Receiving Area. Shown in Figure 1, this Stewardship Receiving Area is located in eastern
Collier County along Oil Well Road and east of Desoto Blvd. As defined below, this type of revision to the
LRTP is categorized as an amendment.
Amendments are major revisions to the LRTP. Actions that require an amendment include
adding or deleting a project; major changes to project costs or initiation dates; and
changes to design concepts and scopes for existing projects. An amendment requires
public review and comment in accordance with the LRTP amendment and Public
Involvement processes, and re‐demonstrating fiscal constraint. Changes to projects,
included only for illustrative purposes, do not require an amendment. [23 C.F.R. 450.104]
Figure 1 ‐ Rural Lands West Location Map
The 2040 LRTP, which considers future growth and development patterns in determining the need for
new and expanded transportation facilities, included growth assumptions for the area known as Rural
Lands West when it was first adopted. This amendment revised the growth projections for this area by
more accurately reflecting the recent development information by reallocating future growth in the
eastern part of Collier County.
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 2
The three step process illustrated in Figure 2 was followed for completed the analysis of this LRTP
amendment.
Completion of this LRTP amendment has
been coordinated with the ongoing
Randall/Oil Well transportation study being
conducted by Collier County. During
adoption of the 2040 LRTP, the MPO Board
directed that a study of the Randall Blvd/Oil
Well Road corridor should be undertaken to
identify the appropriate solution for
addressing the transportation capacity
needs in the area instead of showing
specific roadway alignments or future lanes
as cost feasible.
This summary report covers the following
topics for the proposed amendment to the
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP in the remaining
sections of this report.
Step 1: Reallocation of Future
Growth
Step 2: Evaluation of
Transportation Needs
Step 3: Identification of Cost
Feasible Projects
Public Outreach and Comments
Received
Schedule for LRTP Amendment
Additional information regarding the Long Range Transportation Plan and this amendment can be found
on the MPO website at http://colliermpo.com/index.aspx?page=187.
Figure 2 ‐ LRTP Amendment Analysis Steps
Step 1:
Reallocation of
Future Growth
•Maintain Countywide growth
projections
•Reallocate growth based on new
information
Step 2: Evaluation
of Transportation
Needs
•Analyze transportation network
using Regional Travel Demand
Model
•Evaluate future projected
congestion
Step 3:
Identification of
Cost Feasbile
Projects
•Prioritize transportation needs
using evaluation criteria
•Balance project costs with
expected revenues.
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 3
STEP 1: REALLOCATION OF FUTURE GROWTH
Socio‐economic Data (SE Data) used in the District 1 Regional Planning Model (D1RPM) encompasses
variables related to trip making activities. These activities, based primarily on residential and employment
locations include the following data attributes for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) which were reviewed
for purposes of the LRTP amendment.
Dwelling Units (Single Family and Multi‐Family)
Population
Workers (identified by dwelling unit)
Employees (Industrial, Commercial, and Service based on location of employment)
Hotel/Motel Units
School Enrollment
The purpose of reallocating the SE Data within the D1RPM, is to analyze the impacts of the proposed Rural
Lands West development area, while maintaining the future 2040 growth totals used when the 2040 LRTP
was developed and adopted. Rather than adding the additional land use densities and intensities within
the proposed project area, reallocation of the land use data allows the overall growth estimates used in
the 2040 LRTP to remain constant for this analysis.
Following the methodology used to develop the 2040 LRTP forecasts of population and employment, the
following guiding principles were used to arrive at a multi‐tiered approach for reallocating the SE Data
and was developed in consultation with Collier County Growth Management Staff.
‐ TAZs where growth was identified as part of an approved DRI or large‐scale development were
not used as sources for the reallocation.
‐ Consistent with the treatment of other large‐scale developments included in the 2040 SE Data,
growth in the 2040 LRTP was capped at 80% of the proposed entitlements.
‐ Future growth removed from any one TAZ was limited to a maximum of 66% (two‐thirds) in order
to account for development which may have occurred since 2010 when the 2040 SE Data forecasts
were initially developed.
Following this methodology, a tiered strategy was used to identify the order of areas selected for the
reallocation. As shown in Table 1, the number of dwelling units and jobs proposed for the Rural Lands
West development were capped at 80% consistent with the treatment of other known approved large‐
scale developments. Since growth for the Rural Lands West was already assumed during the development
of the 2040 LRTP, a portion of the proposed growth is already included in the 2040 LRTP data.
Tier 1 – consisted of evaluating the assumptions included in the 2040 LRTP for the Rural Lands West
development – known at that time as the Town of Big Cypress. When the 2040 forecasts were developed
for the LRTP, population and employment figures for this area were spread across six TAZs as opposed to
the refined information which consists of only four zones. This first step then was to reallocating the future
growth forecasts from the six zones down to the four in the current proposal.
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 4
Tier 2 – Following Tier 1, additional land uses available for redistribution within TAZs that overlap with the
Rural Land Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) were identified as the next level for reallocation of future
growth.
Tier 3 – Following Tier 1 and Tier 2, the strategy used here was to identify additional growth available for
reallocation from TAZs east of Collier Boulevard. TAZs marked as DRIs in the LRTP SE Data Development
technical memo; TAZs around Immokalee; TAZs on the east side of the Collier Boulevard at I‐75
interchange; and additional specific TAZs identified through coordination with the County Growth
Management Staff were excluded from this reallocation. Since there was more growth forecast through
2040 for the tier 3 areas, a percentage reduction was applied equally to each zone based on the
reallocation need.
Table 1 ‐ Reallocated Socioeconomic Data
Source Dwelling
Units Jobs Hotel/Motel
Rooms (1)
School
Enrollment (2)
Proposed RLW Development 10,000 6,305 220 3,200
80% Threshold 8,000 5,044 176 2,560
Included in original 2040
Forecast 3,340 2,566 0 2,584
Net Needed for reallocation 4,660 2,478 0 0
Tier 1 reallocation 1,060 113 0 0
Tier 2 reallocation 355 0 0 ‐24
Tier 3 reallocation 3,245 2,365 0 0
(1) Hotel/Motel Rooms are not developed using countywide control totals. Units were
not reallocated for these variables. Adjustments resulted in a net increase of hotel/motel
rooms.
(2) School Enrollment was reallocated to existing locations outside the proposed
amendment area.
The maps on the following pages illustrate the result of this reallocation. Map 1 shows the results of
reallocating the number of dwelling units by showing the change in population. Map 2 shows the net
change in total employment.
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 5 Map 1 ‐ Reallocated 2040 Population 8.A.1Packet Pg. 50Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 6 Map 2 ‐ Reallocated 2040 Employment 8.A.1Packet Pg. 51Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 7
STEP 2: EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Evaluating the transportation needs was conducted by using the D1RPM to identify a list of future
transportation projects based on the travel demand generated from the forecasted population and
employment through 2040. Using a supply and demand ratio known as volume (demand) to capacity
(supply), the performance of roadways was estimated. A volume to capacity (V/C) ratio greater than 1.0
indicates places where the travel demand exceeds the roadway capacity. For the LRTP, the following
ranges were used to demonstrate degrees of congestion.
Using the existing transportation network, including projects with existing funding commitments, the
travel demands from the reallocated population and employment forecasts were evaluated. The
congestion levels listed above were used to identify roadway segments where the results changed from
one category to another. Table 2 identifies the four segments where a category change in congestion level
occurred as a result of the reallocation of the SE Data. The segments of Desoto Blvd and Oil Well Grade
Road experience the highest amount of change due to their immediate proximity to the Rural Lands West
development area. Table 2 also includes that status of these roadway segments in the current 2040 Needs
Assessment.
Table 2 ‐ Assessment of Transportation Needs
Road Segment Released SE
Data V/C
Reallocated
SE Data V/C
Status in 2040 Needs
Assessment
Desoto Blvd:
18th Ave NE to Randall 1.11 1.66 No project listed
Oil Well Grade Rd:
North of Oil Well Rd 0.95 1.63 No project listed
Camp Keais Rd:
South of Immokalee Rd 1.22 1.27 Widen to 4 Lanes
Immokalee Rd (CR 846):
North of Camp Keais Rd 1.73 1.80 Widen to 4 Lanes
Additional transportation needs were also identified and tested against the reallocated SE Data based on
the current corridor study for Randall Blvd and Oil Well Road and the roadway network included with the
preliminary Rural Lands West development submittal.
When the MPO Board approved the 2040 Needs, the alignment connecting Randall Blvd and Oil Well Road
known as the S‐curve was questioned and the MPO Board requested a corridor study to determine an
appropriate corridor alignment. Consistent with the ongoing corridor study, this LRTP amendment
Congestion Levels (Volume /Capacity)
‐ Gridlock (Greater than 1.75)
‐ High (1.5 – 1.75)
‐ Moderate (1.26 – 1.5)
‐ Some (1.00‐1.25)
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 8
evaluated two needs networks for identifying this east/west transportation corridor. Alternative 2A
included the S‐Curve as a new connection between Randall Blvd and Oil Well Road around 16th Ave NE,
while Alternative 3A included additional lanes on Randall Blvd east of 16th Ave NE and the Randall
Extension to Oil Well Road.
The transportation needs included based on the Rural Lands West submittal include a new north/south
corridor call Big Cypress Parkway running from Golden Gate Blvd north to Oil Well Grade Road and
continuing on to Immokalee Road and the extension of Randall Blvd east of Desoto Road to Oil Well Road.
Table 3 lists the additional roadway configurations tested in developing the 2040 Needs for this LRTP
amendment. With the addition of these projects, it was determined that the widening of Everglades Blvd
north of Oil Well Road to Immokalee Road is no longer needed by 2040.
Table 3 ‐ 2040 LRTP Amendment Needs Alternatives
Roadway
Adopted
2040
Needs
2040
Alternative
2A
2040
Alternative
3A
Big Cypress Parkway: Golden Gate to Vanderbilt Beach N/A 2 Lanes 2 Lanes
Big Cypress Parkway: Vanderbilt Beach to Immokalee Rd N/A 2 Lanes 2 Lanes
Golden Gate Blvd: Extend to Big Cypress N/A 2 Lanes 2 Lanes
Vanderbilt Beach: Everglades to Desoto 2 Lanes 4 Lanes 4 Lanes
Vanderbilt Beach: Desoto to Big Cypress N/A 2 Lanes 2 Lanes
Randall Blvd: Immokalee Rd to 16th Ave NE 6 Lanes 6 Lanes 6 Lanes
Randall Blvd: 16th Ave NE to Everglades 2 Lanes 4 Lanes 6 Lanes
Randall Blvd: Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd 2 Lanes 4 Lanes 6 Lanes
Randall Blvd: Desoto Blvd to Big Cypress N/A 4 Lanes 6 Lanes
Randall Blvd: Big Cypress to Oil Well Road N/A 4 Lanes 6 Lanes
Oil Well Rd: Immokalee to Everglades 4 Lanes 4 Lanes 4 Lanes
Oil Well Rd: Everglades to Big Cypress 6 Lanes 6 Lanes 4 Lanes
Oil Well Rd: Big Cypress to Randall Blvd Ext. 6 Lanes 6 Lanes 4 Lanes
Oil Well Rd: Randall Blvd Ext. to Camp Keais Rd 6 Lanes 6 Lanes 6 Lanes
S‐Curve: Randall Blvd to Oil Well Rd 6 Lanes 4 Lanes N/A
Everglades Blvd: N of Oil Well Road to Immokalee Rd 4 Lanes 2 Lanes 2 Lanes
Further coordination with the ongoing Randall / Oil Well corridor study will provide direction on showing
the preferred set of projects for identifying the area’s needs. As such, Map 3 shows the number of lanes
proposed for this amendment and includes a study area for the Randall Blvd / Oil Well Corridor.
Using the project selection criteria and values used during the 2040 LRTP development, each of these
projects were evaluated. Table 4 shows the results of the scoring for the needs included in the LRTP
amendment. Likewise, cost estimates for each of these projects were developed consistent with the 2040
LRTP methodology. Project cost estimates are listed in Table 5.
Included in the appendix is a full listing of the 2040 Needs Assessment projects with project selection
criteria and cost estimates.
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 9 Map 3 ‐ 2040 LRTP Amendment Needs Number of Lanes Oil Well Rd 47th Ave NE Immokalee Rd Immokalee Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Golden Gate Blvd Wilson Blvd 8th St NE 16th St NE Everglades Blvd Desoto Blvd Big Cypress Parkway 8.A.1Packet Pg. 54Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 10
Table 4 ‐ Prioritization of LRTP Amendment Needs Projects
Facility Continuity and
Connectivity
Evacuation
Route
Reduces
Congestion
Freight
Route
Wetland
Impact
Species
Impact Score
Randall Blvd Ext:
Desoto Blvd to Big Cypress Pkwy 3 0 10 0 ‐1 ‐4 8
Randall Blvd Ext:
Big Cypress Pkwy to Oil Well Road 3 0 10 0 ‐2 ‐4 7
Big Cypress Pkwy:
Vanderbilt Beach Ext. to Oil Well
Grade Rd
3 0 6 0 ‐1 ‐4 4
Big Cypress Pkwy:
Golden Gate Blvd to Vanderbilt
Beach Ext
3 0 2 0 ‐1 ‐4 0
Big Cypress Pkwy:
Oil Well Grade Rd to Immokalee
Rd
0 0 0 0 ‐3 0 ‐3
Golden Gate Blvd Ext:
Desoto Blvd to Big Cypress Pkwy 3 0 2 0 ‐4 ‐4 ‐3
Randall Blvd:
16th Street NE to Desoto Blvd 0 0 0 0 ‐2 ‐3 ‐5
Table 5 ‐ Costs of LRTP Amendment Needs Projects
Facility Project Description Right of
Way
Environmental
Mitigation Construction Total Cost
Estimate
Randall Blvd Ext: Desoto
Blvd to Big Cypress Pkwy
New 4‐ Lane Road $1,281,313 $160,000 $2,562,625 $4,003,938
New 6‐Lane Road $1,613,625 $240,000 $3,227,250 $5,080,875
Randall Blvd Ext: Big
Cypress Pkwy to Oil Well Rd
New 4‐ Lane Road $8,200,400 $1,350,000 $16,400,800 $25,951,200
New 6‐Lane Road $10,327,200 $2,024,000 $20,654,400 $33,005,600
Big Cypress Pkwy:
Vanderbilt Beach Ext. to Oil
Well Grade Rd
New 2‐ Lane Road
(4‐Lane right‐of‐way) $30,238,975 $3,776,000 $39,136,175 $73,151,150
Big Cypress Pkwy: Golden
Gate Blvd to Vanderbilt
Beach Ext
New 2‐ Lane Road
(4‐Lane right‐of‐way) $6,919,088 $432,000 $8,954,888 $16,305,976
Big Cypress Pkwy: Oil Well
Grade Rd to Immokalee Rd
New 2‐ Lane Road
(4‐Lane right‐of‐way) $7,327,929 $339,000 $13,730,828 $21,397,757
Golden Gate Blvd Ext:
Desoto Blvd to Big Cypress
Pkwy
New 2‐ Lane Road $1,658,313 $313,000 $3,316,625 $5,287,938
Randall Blvd:
16th Street NE to Desoto
Blvd
Widen from 4 lanes
to 6 lanes $12,039,625 $2,278,000 $24,079,250 $38,396,875
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 11
STEP 3: IDENTIFICATION OF COST FEASIBLE PROJECTS
Determining changes to the projects in the Cost Feasible Plan was based on an evaluation of the prioritized
needs, availability of transportation revenues, and performance of the current cost feasible projects. Like
the evaluation of transportation needs, the D1RPM was used to evaluate the current Cost Feasible
Network with the reallocated population and employment through 2040.
Table 6 provides an overview of the segments which were noted as having a volume/capacity change from
one category to another.
Table 6 ‐ Cost Feasible Assessment
Road Segment Released SE
Data V/C
Reallocated
SE Data V/C
Status in 2040 Cost
Feasible Plan
Randall Blvd :
16th St NE to Everglades Blvd 0.82 1.02 Corridor Study Area
Oil Well Rd:
Ave Maria to Camp Keais Rd 0.97 1.05 No project listed
Oil Well Rd:
Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd 0.97 1.11 Corridor Study Area
Immokalee Rd:
Randall Blvd to Oil Well Road 0.98 1.02 Randall at Immokalee
intersection project
Desoto Blvd
18th Ave NE to Randall Blvd 1.02 1.57 No project listed
Oil Well Grade Rd:
North of Oil Well Rd 0.97 1.87 No project listed
When the 2040 LRTP was adopted, a Local Funds Improvements Box was created due, in part, to the
decision to include the Randall Blvd/Oil Well Corridor Study instead of a specific project alignment. This
left more than $120 million in future local revenues available for project funding.
Collier County has progressed the design and engineering phase of the Vanderbilt Beach Extension east
of CR 591 (Collier Blvd) since the adoption of the 2040 LRTP. This effort has resulted in a lower cost
estimate of more than $21 million compared to the amount listed in the adopted 2040 LRTP. In
coordination with Collier County Transportation, it was determined that the right‐of‐way required for this
roadway extension will be purchased before 2021 and that the eastern limits of the first phase is slated
to be 16th Street NE.
Based on the prioritization of all projects in the 2040 needs assessment (listed in the Appendix), two
projects, which are currently unfunded, have been identified as candidates for adding/amending into the
2040 cost feasible plan.
‐ Project 13a: Vanderbilt Beach Extension from 8th Street NE to 16th Street NE
‐ Project 16: Randall Blvd from 8th Street to Everglades Blvd.
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 12
Based on the refined cost estimate for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, the two‐phase construction
of Vanderbilt Beach Extension listed in the LRTP would be amended to include funding construction
further east to 16th Street.
During the review of the draft amendment, Collier County asked MPO Staff to consider placing funds from
the Local Improvements Box on Randall Boulevard from 8th to Oil Well Road in order to provide the public
with information of the County’s intent to move forward with implementing the preferred alternative
from the Randall/Oil Well Road study once approved by the Board of County Commissioners. While future
funding is not anticipated for funding construction of the preferred alternative, funding listed in the Local
Improvements Box is sufficient to fund the estimated costs for design, environmental mitigation and right‐
of‐way by 2040.
A summary of the projects listed in the amendment 2040 LRTP is included in the Appendix. This summary
provides an overview of the anticipated revenues, project future Year of Expenditure costs for each
project and a revenue balance for each revenue source in demonstrating financial feasibility.
The number of lanes map for the proposed amended 2040 Cost Feasible Plan are shown on Map 4.
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 13 Map 4 ‐ Recommended Amended 2040 Cost Feasbile Lanes Oil Well Rd 47th Ave NE Immokalee Rd Immokalee Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Golden Gate Blvd Wilson Blvd 8th St NE 16th St NE Everglades Blvd Desoto Blvd 8.A.1Packet Pg. 58Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 14
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENT
The MPO’s public involvement program is designed to ensure opportunities for the public to express their
views on transportation and mobility issues and to become active participants in the decision making
process. During the LRTP amendment process, opportunities for review and comment on the status have
been provided at each of the MPO Board, Technical Advisory, and Citizen Advisory Meetings. A public
outreach meeting was also held on March 15th where 38 individuals signed in. Moving forward, the MPO
conducted a 21‐day public comment period for the amendment starting on Monday, April 2nd. During this
comment period, a status presentation was given to the MPO Board on April 13th where additional public
comments were received.
During the March 15th public meeting, 15 written comments were provided dealing with the topics listed
below.
‐ Concern regarding alignment of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension
‐ Opposition to S‐Curve alignment in Randall/Oil Well Corridor Study
‐ Questions regarding Impact Fees and required developer payments
‐ Concern for wildlife and species habitat impacts
‐ Concern for clean water and air
During the 21‐day public review period from April 2nd to April 23rd, the MPO Board met on April 13th to
review the draft LRTP amendment. At the April 13th MPO Meeting, three speakers commented on the
LRTP amendment and spoke against the inclusion of the S‐Curve alignment between Randall Blvd and
Oil Well Road. In addition to the speakers at the MPO meeting, the following comments were received
during the public comment period.
‐ Concern regarding alignment of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension and proposed roundabouts
‐ Opposition to S‐Curve alignment including a petition signed by 36 residents
At the request of the League of Women Voters, MPO Staff provided a status update and responded to
questions provided by the League of Women Voters and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
Final action on this amendment by the MPO Board will be on May 11th at 9:00 AM. The MPO meeting
will be held at
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Building F, 3rd Floor
Board of County Commissioners Changers
Naples, FL 34112.
Public comments will be taken at this meeting prior to the MPO Board taking action.
Information regarding times and locations of upcoming MPO meetings can be found by visiting
www.colliermpo.com online or by calling the MPO at 239‐252‐5804.
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment | Adoption Report 15
APPENDIX
‐ 2040 Needs Assessment with Project Selection Criteria
‐ 2040 Cost Feasible Plan – Summary of Funded Projects
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
2040 LRTP Amendment ‐ Needs Assessment Ranking1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.5ID Facility Limit From Limit To Final Proposed Improvement ‐ Needs Plan Update Link in Miles CST Phase in CFPAny Phase in CFPConstruction Cost Estimates Present Day Costs (PDC)Revised Cost Estimates (Includes Env Mitigation and ROW)Unfunded SIS CostROW (Included in Cost Estimates Total)Environmental Mitigation (included in Cost Estimates Total)System Continuity & ConnectivityWeighted ValuePrevious ScoreEvac Route Weighted ValuePrevious ScoreReduce Cong Weighted Value Wetland Impact Weighted Value Species Impact Weighted Value Freight Route Weighted Value Un‐Weighted Weighted$M/lane‐mileBP/$/lane‐mile2NACritical Needs Intersection Golden Gate Parkway @ I‐75 Major Ramp ImprovementsCST X$2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $0 0 0 5 5 5 10 0 0 0 0 5 3 15 18 NA NA3NACritical Needs Intersection Pine Ridge Road @ I‐75 Major Ramp Improvements (Partial Cloverleaf)CST X$5,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 $0 0 0 5 5 5 10 0 0 0 0 5 3 15 18 NA NA470Critical Needs Intersection I‐75 (SR‐93) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) Partial cloverleaf interchange with 2 loop ramps 0.0CST X$42,504,654 $42,504,654 $0 $0 0 0 5 5 5 10 0 0 0 0 5 3 15 18 NA NA54CR 951 (Collier Boulevard) Golden Gate Canal Green Boulevard Expand from 4‐Lane Divided to 6‐Lane Divided Arterial 2.0CST X$30,000,000 $30,000,000 $0 $0 2 2 5 5 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 17 $7.50 2.27642SR 29 Immokalee Dr. New Market Road North Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided with center turn lane to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 2.0$31,273,603 $10,388,201 $109,000 005551000‐1‐1 5 3 14 17 $6.50 2.547NACritical Needs Intersection Immokalee Rd @ I‐75 Interchange Major Ramp ImprovementsCST X$2,750,000 $2,792,000 $0 $42,000 0055510‐1‐100531417NA NA849SR 29 By‐Pass SR 29 (north of New Market Rd) SR‐29/CR‐846 Intersection New 4‐lane Divided Arterial 2.5$54,369,907 $17,862,636 $782,000 0055510‐1‐1‐1‐1 5 3 13 16 $6.39 2.43973Critical Needs IntersectionUS41 (SR‐90) (Tamiami Trail East) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951)Single point urban interchange 0.0No X$44,140,000 $44,140,000 $0 $0 0 0 5 5 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 NA NA11 43SR 29 New Market Road North North of SR‐82 Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 3.1$33,451,404 $0 $507,000 005551000‐3‐3 5 3 12 15 $6.70 2.1612 16Old US 41 US 41 (SR‐45) Collier/Lee County Line Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Major Collector 1.5CST X$15,030,000 $15,488,000 $0 $458,000 0055510‐3‐3 0 0 5 3 12 15 $5.16 2.8113a 60aVanderbilt Beach Road 8th Street 16th Street New 4 lane Divided Arterial from 21st St SW to Desoto Blvd 1.0CST X$11,701,459 $36,728,134 $24,088,675 $938,000 5555510‐3‐3‐3‐3 0 0 9 14 $9.18 1.5213b 60bVanderbilt Beach Road 16th Street Desoto Boulevard New 4 lane Divided Arterial from 21st St SW to Desoto Blvd 3.7$43,295,399 $70,855,074 $24,088,675 $3,471,000 5555510‐3‐3‐3‐3 0 0 9 14 $4.79 2.9214 59Vanderbilt Beach Road CR 951 8th StreetExpand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial from CR951 to 21 St SW & New 4‐lane to Wilson6.0CST X$99,930,000 $141,511,000 $38,766,000 $2,815,000 5555510‐3‐3‐3‐3 0 0 9 14 $11.79 1.1915 52US41 (SR‐90) (Tamiami Trail East) Greenway Road 6 L Farm Road Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 2.6CST X$21,830,000 $26,190,664 $3,953,664 $407,000 0055510‐1‐1‐1‐1 0 0 8 13 $5.04 2.5816 34Randall Boulevard / Oil Well Road Study Area 8th Street Everglades Blvd IntersectionExpand from 2‐Lane Undivided + New Road to 6‐Lane Divided Arterial (Future Study Area)3.4X$25,500,000 $49,250,300 $21,945,300 $1,805,000 2255510‐1‐1‐3‐3 0 0 8 13 $3.62 NA17 15Green Boulevard Ext / 16th Ave SW 23rd St SW Wilson Blvd Ext (Corridor Study) New 2‐Lane Collector (Future Study Area)2.9$30,193,638 $9,618,213 $1,339,000 3355510‐4‐4‐1‐1 0 0 8 13 $5.21 2.5018 48SR 84 (Davis Boulevard) Airport Pulling Road Santa Barbara Boulevard Expand from 4 divided to 6‐Lane Divided Arterial 3.0No X$33,110,000 $50,839,000 $17,424,000 $305,000 225536‐1‐1 0 0 0 0 9 12 $8.47 1.4219 69Critical Needs Intersection Immokalee Road and Randall BoulevardPhase 1 ‐ Maximum at‐grade improvements to accommodate a future fly‐over interchange0.0CST X$49,250,000 $49,385,000 $0 $135,000 005551000‐3‐3 0 0 7 12 NA NA20 19Immokalee Road Camp Keais Road Carver Street Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 2.5CST X$25,040,000 $27,546,000 $1,452,000 $1,054,000 0055510‐2‐2‐4‐4 5 3 9 12 $5.51 2.0921 NACritical Needs Intersection US 41 @ Goodlette Road Major At‐Grade Intersection Improvements (2nd WB RT‐Ln)CST X$2,000,000 $2,250,000 $250,000 $0 0 0 55 36000000811NA NA22 71Critical Needs IntersectionI‐75 (SR‐93) in the vicinty of Everglades BoulevardNew Interchange 0.0$42,729,654 $225,000 55553600‐5‐5 0 0 8 11 NA NA23 14Green Boulevard Ext / 16th Ave SW CR 951 23rd Street SW (Corridor Study) New 4‐Lane Divided Collector (Future Study Area)2.1$42,216,300 $13,568,100 $1,512,000 4400510‐3‐3‐1‐1 0 0 5 10 $5.03 1.9925 31Oil Well Road / CR 858 Everglades Boulevard Oil Well Grade Road 2‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes divided 3.9CST X$20,000,000 $37,004,625 $15,146,625 $1,858,000 2255510‐2‐2‐5‐5 0 0 5 10 $4.74 2.1126 6.1Everglades Boulevard Golden Gate Blvd Vanderbilt Bch Rd Ext Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 2.2$24,161,413 $7,788,138 $797,000 00551510‐2‐2‐3‐3 0 0 5 10 $5.57 1.8027 5CR 951 Extension Heritage Bay Entrance Lee/Collier County Line New 2‐lane Arterial to Bonita Beach Road 2.5$37,424,625 $11,171,875 $3,909,000 55553510‐5‐5‐5‐5 0 0 5 10 $3.74 2.6728 41SR 29 9th St Immokalee Dr.Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided with center turn lane to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 0.9$22,011,093 $13,329,360 $0 0 0 5 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 3 11 10 $8.51 1.1229 67Wilson Boulevard Ext / Black Burn Rd Wilson Blvd End of Haul Road (Corridor Study) New 2‐Lanes of a Future Multi‐lane Facility( Future Study Area) 2.6No X$29,310,000 $36,691,625 $3,316,625 $4,065,000 330550510‐5‐5‐5‐5 0 0 3 8 $7.06 1.1374aRandall Blvd Extension Desoto Boulevard Big Cypress Parkway New 4‐Lane Road 0.3$2,562,625 $4,003,938 $1,281,313 $160,000 3300510‐1‐1‐4‐4 0 0 3 8 $4.00 2.0074bRandall Blvd Extension Desoto Boulevard Big Cypress Parkway New 6‐Lane Road 0.3$3,227,250 $5,080,875 $1,613,625 $240,000 3300510‐1‐1‐4‐4 0 0 3 8 $3.39 2.3630 18I‐75 (SR‐93) Managed/ Express (Toll) Lanes North of Golden Gate Parkway (Exit #105) Collier/Lee County Line New 4‐Lanes Express (Toll) Lanes with slip‐ramp locations connecting to general purpose lanes TBD9.0$134,646,986 $0 $0 005512‐2‐2 0 0 5 3 9 8 $4.66 1.6131 9.2Goodlette‐Frank Road Orange Blossom Drive Vanderbilt Beach Road Expand from 4‐Lane Divided to 6‐Lane Divided Arterial 0.9$12,997,969 $4,332,656 $0 0 0 5 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 $7.22 0.9732 20Immokalee Road (CR 846) SR 29 Airpark Boulevard Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 0.4CST X$4,060,000 $4,060,000 $0 $0 0 0 5 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 $4.83 1.4533 61Veterans Memorial Boulevard US 41 (SR‐45) Livingston Road New 2‐Lane of future 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 2.9CST X$8,000,000 $27,622,900 $18,736,900 $886,000 440036‐3‐3 0 0 0 0 4 7 $4.76 1.4734 3Camp Keais Road Pope John Paul Blvd Immokalee Road Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 2.6CST X$10,000,000 $10,425,000 $0 $425,000 0000151000‐3‐3 0 0 2 7 $2.00 3.4975aRandall Blvd Extension Big Cypress Parkway Oil Well Road New 4‐Lane Road 1.6$16,400,800 $25,951,200 $8,200,400 $1,350,000 3300510‐2‐2‐4‐4 0 0 2 7 $4.05 1.7375bRandall Blvd Extension Big Cypress Parkway Oil Well Road New 6‐Lane Road 1.6$20,654,400 $33,005,600 $10,327,200 $2,024,000 3300510‐2‐2‐4‐4 0 0 2 7 $3.44 2.0435 47SR 82 SR 29 Collier/Hendry County Line Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 6‐Lane Divided Arterial 7.0CST X$63,214,837 $64,359,837 $0 $1,145,000 00551200‐3‐3 5 3 8 7 $2.80 2.3236 58Vanderbilt Beach Road US 41 (SR‐45) Airport Pulling Road Expand from 4‐Lane Divided to 6‐Lane Divided Arterial 2.1CST X$4,000,000 $4,214,000 $0 $214,000 0055312‐1‐1 0 0 0 0 5 6 $1.00 5.9837 10Goodlette‐Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 1.8$17,023,440 $1,045,440 $183,000 005512‐1‐1 0 0 0 0 5 6 $4.73 1.2738 24Logan Boulevard Green Boulevard Pine Ridge Road Expand from 4‐Lane Divided to 6‐Lane Divided Arterial 2.6$37,549,688 $12,516,563 $0 0 0 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 $7.22 0.6939 15Green Boulevard Ext / 16th Ave SW Wilson Blvd ExtEverglades Boulevard (Corridor Study)New 2‐Lane Collector 3.9$30,655,638 $9,618,213 $1,801,000 3355312‐4‐4‐1‐1 0 0 4 5 $3.93 1.2740 2Airport Pulling Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road Expand from 4‐Lane Divided to 6‐Lane Divided Arterial 2.0CST X$5,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 $0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 $1.25 4.0041 50SR 951 (Collier Boulevard) So. of Manatee Road No. of Tower Road Expand from 4‐Lane Divided to 6‐Lane Divided Arterial 1.0CST X$13,350,000 $13,554,000 $0 $204,000 005512‐2‐2 0 0 0 0 4 5 $6.78 0.7442 38Santa Barbara Boulevard Painted Leaf Lane Green Boulevard Expand from 4‐Lane Divided to 6‐Lane Divided Arterial 1.7$25,744,975 $9,204,163 $173,000 005500‐1‐1 0 0 0 0 4 4 $7.57 0.5376Big Cypress Parkway Vanderbilt Beach Extension Oil Well Grade Road New 2‐Lane Road (ROW Expandable to 4‐Lanes) 5.9$39,136,175 $73,151,150 $30,238,975 $3,776,000 330036‐1‐1‐4‐4 0 0 1 4 $3.10 1.2943 43SR 29 North of SR‐82 Collier/Hendry County Line Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 2.4CST X$7,889,764 $7,889,764 $0 $0 005500‐1‐1‐3‐3 5 3 6 4 $1.64 2.1344 25Logan Boulevard Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Major Collector 2.1$20,075,180 $1,219,680 $428,000 005500‐2‐2 0 0 0 0 3 3 $4.78 0.6345 6.3Everglades Boulevard I‐75 (SR‐93) Golden Gate Blvd Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 5.3$59,626,994 $18,762,331 $3,340,000 005536‐4‐4‐4‐4 0 0 0 3 $5.58 0.5446 40SR 29 Oil Well Road Immokalee Road (CR 846) Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 9.4$100,320,008 $7,080,125 $2,564,000 00550000‐5‐5 5 3 5 3 $6.15 0.4147 25Logan Boulevard Pine Ridge Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Major Collector 2.1$20,288,180 $1,219,680 $641,000 005500‐3‐3 0 0 0 0 2 2 $4.83 0.4148 13Green Boulevard Santa Barbara/ Logan Boulevard Sunshine Boulevard Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Collector 1.0$9,355,800 $580,800 $0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 $4.68 0.432040 Amended Needs Asessment with Project Selectin Critieria Benefit PointsDRAFT ‐ for Review14/1/201811:25 PM8.A.1Packet Pg. 61Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
2040 LRTP Amendment ‐ Needs Assessment Ranking1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.5ID Facility Limit From Limit To Final Proposed Improvement ‐ Needs Plan Update Link in Miles CST Phase in CFPAny Phase in CFPConstruction Cost Estimates Present Day Costs (PDC)Revised Cost Estimates (Includes Env Mitigation and ROW)Unfunded SIS CostROW (Included in Cost Estimates Total)Environmental Mitigation (included in Cost Estimates Total)System Continuity & ConnectivityWeighted ValuePrevious ScoreEvac Route Weighted ValuePrevious ScoreReduce Cong Weighted Value Wetland Impact Weighted Value Species Impact Weighted Value Freight Route Weighted Value Un‐Weighted Weighted$M/lane‐mileBP/$/lane‐mile2040 Amended Needs Asessment with Project Selectin Critieria Benefit Points49 32Oil Well Road / CR 858 Ave Maria Entrance Camp Keais Road Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 6‐Lane Divided Arterial 1.0$8,293,940 $253,440 $273,000 22550000‐5‐5 0 0 2 2 $2.07 0.9650 6.1Everglades Boulevard Vanderbilet Bch Rd Ext South of Oil Well Road Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 2.2$24,161,413 $7,788,138 $797,000 005512‐2‐2‐3‐3 0 0 1 2 $5.57 0.3651 68Wilson Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Immokalee Road Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 3.3$36,078,619 $11,682,206 $1,032,000 005500‐2‐2‐2‐2 0 0 1 1 $5.47 0.1852 6.2Everglades Boulevard Oil Well Road Immokalee Road Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 5.0$54,929,938 $17,700,313 $1,829,000 005500‐2‐2‐3‐3 0 0 0 0 $5.52 0.0053 33Orange Blossom Drive Airport Pulling Road Livingston Road Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Major Collector 0.7$9,213,750 $3,071,250 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $6.58 0.0054 62Westclox Street Extension Little League Road West of Carson Road New 2‐Lane Road 0.9$12,065,625 $4,021,875 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $6.70 0.0055 2.1Benfield Road US 41 (SR‐90) Rattlesnake‐Hammock Ext New 2‐Lanes of a Future Multi‐lane Arterial 4.5$40,047,276 $3,902,976 $3,479,000 0000510‐5‐5‐5‐500‐5 0 $4.50 0.0056 2.2Benfield Road Lord's Way City Gate Blvd North New 2‐lanes of a Future Multi‐lane Arterial + I‐75 Overpass 3.9No X$56,465,000 $138,884,000 $79,370,000 $3,049,000 0000510‐5‐5‐5‐500‐5 0 $17.81 0.0077Big Cypress Parkway Golden Gate Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Extension New 2‐Lane Road (ROW Expandable to 4‐Lanes) 1.4$8,954,888 $16,305,976 $6,919,088 $432,000 330012‐1‐1‐4‐400‐1 0 $6.04 0.0057 96I‐75 (SR93) Collier Blvd SR‐29 Expand from 4 to 6‐Lane Freeway 21.0$186,209,512 $0 $0 005500‐3‐3‐5‐5532‐1 $5.52‐0.0958 3Camp Keais Road Oil Well Road Pope John Paul Blvd Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 2.6$18,833,325 $0 $425,000 00001200‐3‐300‐2‐1 $3.62‐0.2860 39SR 29 I‐75 (SR‐93) Oil Well Road Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 10.2X$89,381,277 $0 $6,936,000 005500‐4‐4‐5‐5531‐2 $5.38‐0.2873Little League Road Extension SR‐82 Westclox Street New 2‐Lane Road 3.7CST X$35,286,249 $7,267,392 $404,000 00000000‐2‐200‐2‐2 $4.77‐0.4278Big Cypress Parkway Oil Well Grade Road Immokalee Rd New 2‐Lane Road (ROW Expandable to 4‐Lanes) 2.1$13,730,828 $21,397,757 $7,327,929 $339,000 00000000‐3‐300‐3‐3 $5.17‐0.5879Golden Gate Boulevard Ext Desoto Boulevard Big Cypress Parkway New 2‐Lane Road 0.5$3,316,625 $5,287,938 $1,658,313 $313,000 330012‐4‐4‐4‐400‐4‐3 $5.29‐0.5764 97CR‐92A CR‐92Angler Drive (200 ft. east of City of Marco city limits2‐Lane Reconstruction 0.6$5,362,500 $0 $0 000000‐4‐40000‐4‐4NA NA65 35Randall Boulevard / Oil Well Road Study Area 16th Street NE (@ Canal) Desoto Boulevard Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐lane Divided Arterial (Future Study Area) 3.1$21,948,388 $34,060,582 $10,974,194 $1,138,000 000000‐2‐2‐3‐300‐5‐5 $5.49 NA65bRandall Boulevard 16th Street NE Desoto BlvdExpand from 4‐Lane Undivided to 6‐Lane Divided Arterial 3.1$24,079,250 $38,396,875 $12,039,625 $2,278,000 000000‐2‐2‐3‐300‐5‐5 $3.10‐1.6166 22Keane Avenue 23rd Street SW Inez RdNo increase in capacity, but a major capital investment in upgrading existing local street to collector standards (Future Study Area)0.9$8,954,888 $2,984,963 $0 000000‐1‐1‐5‐500‐6‐6NA NA68 8.1Golden Gate Boulevard Everglades Blvd. Desoto Boulevard Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 4‐Lane Divided Arterial 2.0$22,261,375 $7,080,125 $1,021,000 000000‐3‐3‐4‐400‐7‐7 $5.71‐1.2370 23Keane Avenue Inez Rd Wilson Blvd. Ext.New 2‐Lane Undivided Collector ‐ name change at Inez to Brantley for short way (dirt road) (Future Study Area)2.0$21,055,750 $6,633,250 $1,156,000 000000‐3‐3‐5‐500‐8‐8 $5.26‐1.5272 64White Boulevard CR 951 31st St SW Expand from 2‐Lane Undivided to 2‐Lane Divided Collector 0.8$7,150,000 $0 $0 000000‐3‐3‐5‐500‐8‐8NA NA80US 41 at Immokalee RdCMS ‐ Intersection Improvements$1,000,000 $1,000,000 81US 41 at Golden Gate ParkwayCMS ‐ Intersection Improvements$1,000,000 $1,000,000 82Airport Rd at Pine Ridge RdCMS ‐ Intersection Improvements$1,000,000 $1,000,000 83Livingston Rd at Immokalee RdCMS ‐ Intersection Improvements$1,000,000 $1,000,000 84Livingston Rd at Pine Ridge RdCMS ‐ Intersection Improvements$1,000,000 $1,000,000 87US 41 at San Marco Road (CR‐92)CMS ‐ Intersection Improvements$500,000 $500,000 88SR‐29 at US 41CMS ‐ Intersection Improvements$500,000 $500,000 89Livingston Road at Radio RoadCMS ‐ Intersection Improvements$1,000,000 $1,000,000 90Livingston Road at Vanderbilt Beach RoadCMS ‐ Intersection Improvements$1,000,000 $1,000,000 91Airport‐Pulling Road at US 41CMS ‐ Intersection Improvements$1,000,000 $1,000,000 92Airport‐Pulling Road at Vanderbilt Beach RoadCMS ‐ Intersection Improvements$1,000,000 $1,000,000 NABicycle PrioritiesPathways Improvements from Comprehensive Pathways Plan$41,248,000 $41,248,000 NAPedestrian PrioritiesPathways Improvements from Comprehensive Pathways Plan$65,818,000 $65,818,000 NABridgesGolden GateEstates (9 new Bridges per East of 951 Bridge Study)$27,000,000 $27,000,000 $779,038,079 $2,017,901,952 $694,393,443 CMS/ITS, Bridge Program Improvements, and Pathways PrioritiesIndicates Projects Recommended for the Cost Feasible Plan$779,038,079 $689,591,450 Indicates New Projects Included in the Assessment of the 2040 NeedsPDC of Improvements with one or more phase(s) in the CFP (and not necessarily funded throught construction); Excludes CMS, Bridges & PathwaysDRAFT ‐ for Review24/1/201811:25 PM8.A.1Packet Pg. 62Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
2021-2040 2041-2050 PE ROW CST PE ROW CST PE ROW CST Project Totals YOE CST 43 SR 29 North of SR 82 Collier/Hendry Line 2 2.42‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Paved Shoulders (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$7.89$10.02$10.0260 SR 29 I‐75 (SR 93) Oil Well Rd 2 10.22‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Paved Shoulders (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)n/a$6.19 $3.63 $9.824I‐75 Collier Blvd (CR 951) Interchange, Single Point Urban$41.40$55.87$55.8735 SR 82 Gator Slough SR 29 2 3.2 2‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes$34.54$34.54$34.54TMA BOX (20%) Bridgesn/a$4.66 $4.66 $9.34 $18.66TMA BOX (40%) Pathways (Bike/Ped)n/a$9.32 $9.32 $18.67 $37.31TMA BOX (40%) CMPn/a$9.32 $9.32 $18.67 $37.312Golden Gate Parkway I‐75 (New) 2‐Lane Ramp $2.00 $0.59 $2.54$3.133Pine Ridge Rd I‐75 Intersection Traffic Signalization $5.00 $0.80 $6.35$7.157 Immokalee Rd I‐75 interchange Intersection Traffic Signalization $2.75 $0.51 $3.49$4.0012 Old US 41 US 41 (SR 45) Lee/Collier County Line 2 1.52‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$15.03 $2.72 $22.55 $25.2718 SR 84 (Davis Blvd) Airport Pulling Rd Santa Barbara Blvd 4 34‐Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes , and Curb & Gutter with Inside Paved Shoulder (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$33.11 $6.85 $77.66 $84.51 $82.7819aCritical Needs Intersection (Randall Blvd at Immokalee Road)Immokalee Road 8th Street Interim At‐Grade Intersection improvements, including 4‐laning to 8th Street; $4.00 $5.08$5.0821 US 41 Goodlette Rd N/A Intersection $2.00 $0.37 $2.54$2.9141 SR 951 (Collier Blvd) South of Manatee Rd North of Tower Rd 4 14‐Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$13.35 $2.02 $20.03 $22.0515 US 41 (SR 90) (Tamiami Trail East) Greenway Rd 6 L Farm Rd 2 2.62‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Outside Paved Shoulders (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$21.83 $6.01 $25.59 $41.70 $73.309US 41 (SR 90) (Tamiami Trail East) Collier Blvd (SR 951) Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) ‐ Mainline Over Crossroad $44.14$10.30 $10.30 $110.355CR 951 (Collier Blvd) Golden Gate Canal Green Blvd 4 24‐Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Sidewalk, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$30.00 $3.66 $38.10$41.7619bCritical Needs Intersection (Randall Blvd at Immokalee Road)Immokalee Road 8th Street Ultimate intersection improvement $31.00$4.68 $53.48 $58.1613a / 14pVanderbilt Beach Rd CR 951 (Collier Blvd)16th St0 & 27Expand from 0 & 2 lanes to building 3 lanes of a six lane footprint from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd and 2 lanes from Wilson to 16th St$67.60$0.00$67.60$67.6040 Airport Pulling Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Rd 4 24‐Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$5.00 $1.22 $6.35$7.5725 Oil Well Rd/CR 858 Everglades Blvd Oil Well Grade Rd 2 3.92‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Outside Paved Shoulders (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$20.00$30.00 $30.0016 Randall Boulevard 8th Street Everglades Blvd 2 3.44 lane divided to 6 lane divided (includes corridor study to determine preferred alignment)$25.50$6.22$5.76$25.73$9.25$46.96 $63.7465Randall BoulevardEverglades BlvdDesoto Blvd21.842‐Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Outside Paved Shoulder (includes corridor study to determine preferred alignment)$27.32$5.81$32.03$37.84 $68.2974Randall BoulevardDesoto BlvdBig Cypress Parkway00.25New 6‐Lane Roadway with Outside Paved Shoulder (includes corridor study to determine preferred alignment)$5.79$0.69$3.78$4.47 $14.4775Randall BoulevardBig Cypress ParkwayOil Well Road01.6New 6‐Lane Roadway with Outside Paved Shoulder (includes corridor study to determine preferred alignment)$20.65$4.11$24.22$28.33 $51.6233 Veterans Memorial Blvd Livingston Road US 41 2 2.9 2‐Lane Undivided Roadway with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes and Curb & Gutter $8.00 $1.95 $1.08 $12.00 $15.0320 Immokalee Rd Camp Keais Rd Carver St 2 2.52‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$25.04 $5.24 $23.01 $37.56 $65.8156 Benfield RoadCity Gate Boulevard NorthLords Way 0 3.9 2 lane roadway in a 4 lane footprint $56.47 $1.83$20.69 $21.21 $43.72 $141.1629 Wilson Boulevard/Black Burn Road Wilson Boulevard End of Haul Road 0 2.6 2 lane roadway in a 4 lane footprint $29.31 $0.61$6.90 $30.70 $38.20 $73.2813b Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext16th StDesoto 03.72 lane roadway in a 4 lane footprint $35.00$0.00 $188.0551 Wilson Blvd. Golden Gate Blvd. Immokalee Rd. 2 3.3 2‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes $23.36 $2.85 $21.47 $44.63 $68.9473 Little League Rd. Ext. SR‐82 Westclox St. 0 3.7 New 2‐lane roadway $28.02 $3.86 $17.05 $53.52 $74.42Local Funds Improvement BoxProjects to be determined at a later date $9.12$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0013a / 14pVanderbilt Beach Road Ext Collier Boulevard16th St2 & 07Add remaining 3 lanes$48.05$91.78$91.7834 Camp Keais Road Immokalee Road Pope John Paul Blvd. 2 2.62‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Outside Paved Shoulder (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$10.00 $2.76 $19.10 $21.8636 Vanderbilt Beach Road Airport Road US 41 4 2.14‐Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$4.00 $3.10 $6.00 $9.1032 Immokalee Rd (CR 846) SR 29 Airpark Blvd 2 0.42‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$4.06 $3.10 $4.69 $7.75 $15.55$740.33 $35.95 $6.84 $255.77 $58.50 $70.21 $151.43 $21.17 $249.81 $358.64 $1,208.32 $793.74Revenue Spent Remaining Revenue Spent Remaining Revenue Spent Remaining2021‐2025 2026‐2030TMA$23.32$23.29 $0.03$23.32$23.29 $0.03$46.64$46.69‐$0.05$0.01PE/PD&E 1.219 1.379OA$55.60$58.10‐$2.50$52.60$42.58 $10.02$115.10$144.95‐$29.85‐$22.33ROW 1.44 1.838SIS$100.43$100.43 $0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$9.82$9.82 $0.00$0.00CST 1.27 1.5County$106.82$106.07 $0.75$201.66$201.41 $0.25$430.84$417.87 $12.97$13.97Notes: Design phases funded by OA not included in totals#56 and #29 are only partial ROW & Mitigation costsProject PhaseInflation Factors2031‐20401.5612.3452021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐20401.91Remaining Balance2040 Cost Feasible Plan - Summary of Funded Projects Grouped by Funding Source with Costs Shown in Future Year of Expenditure (YOE) in Millions of DollarsCF# Facility From To# ofExistingLanesProjectLength(Miles)Project Type CST PDC2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2040Final DRAFT ‐ for Adoption8.A.1Packet Pg. 63Attachment: 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment)
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESMay 11, 2018 MPO Board AdoptionCollier MPO 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Amendment8.A.2Packet Pg. 64Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESLRTP Amendment Purpose•Incorporate and reflect current Rural Lands West (RLW) development•Update to the 2040 LRTP socioeconomic land use data•Update the list of corridor needs•Updated list of cost feasible projects2040 LRTP Amendment8.A.2Packet Pg. 65Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESReallocation Methodology•Rural Lands West Development limited to 80%•Used a tiered approach for identifying reallocation areas•Tier 1 – Reallocate from original Big Cypress TAZs•Tier 2 – Remove growth from potential Stewardship Sending Areas•Tier 3 – Proportional reduction in areas east of CR 951.•Areas avoided•TAZs with approved development (ie: Ave Maria)•Immokalee•High growth areas of Orangetree and 6L Farms2040 LRTP Amendment – Reallocated SE Data8.A.2Packet Pg. 66Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESReallocation Results2040 LRTP Amendment – Reallocated SE DataSource Dwelling Units JobsHotel / Motel RoomsSchool EnrollmentRLW Development Total (80%)8,000 5,044 176* 2,560Included in D1RPM 3,340 2,566 0 2,584Tier 1 1,060 113 0 0Tier 2 355 0 0 (24)Tier 3 3,245 2,365 0 08.A.2Packet Pg. 67Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESSummary•Future Growth Reallocation•3,600 future dwelling units reallocated•2,365 future jobs reallocated•Future Growth Expected East of CR 951 (2010 – 2040)•48,000+ dwelling units added from 2010 to 2040 east of CR 951•32,000+ jobs added from 2010 + 2040 east of CR 9512040 LRTP Amendment – Reallocated SE Data8.A.2Packet Pg. 68Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES2040 Needs Networks•Developed 2 Alternatives for Needs Networks•Alternative 2a – Randall / S‐Curve / Oil Well (6 lane corridor)•Alternative 3a – Randall Extension / Oil Well (6 lane corridor)•Big Cypress Parkway 2 lanes•Vanderbilt Beach Road and Golden Gate Blvd extended to Big Cypress Parkway•Pending BOCC recommendation on Randall/Oil Well Study2040 LRTP Amendment – Needs Review8.A.2Packet Pg. 69Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESCosts of Additional Needs (2015 $)•Big Cypress Parkway ($111 million) •Construct 2 lanes in 4 lane ROW•Randall Blvd ($62 million)•Widen 4 lanes to 6 lanes (16thAve NE to Desoto)•Randall Blvd Extension ($30 million) / ($38 million)•Construct 4 lanes east of Desoto / 6 lanes east of Desoto•Golden Gate Blvd Extension ($5.3 million)•Construct 2 lanes east of Desoto•Current 2040 Highway Needs ($1.6 billion)2040 LRTP Amendment – Cost Estimates8.A.2Packet Pg. 70Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES2040 Needs Networks•Adopted Needs (December 2015)•$2.323 billion•Alternative 2a – Randall / S‐Curve / Oil Well (6 lane corridor)•$2.469 billion•Alternative 3a – Randall Extension / Oil Well (6 lane corridor)•$2.467 billion2040 LRTP Amendment – Needs Review8.A.2Packet Pg. 71Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
Needs Lanes MapOil Well Rd47thAve NEImmokalee RdImmokalee RdVanderbilt Beach RdGolden Gate BlvdWilson Blvd8thSt NE16thSt NEEverglades BlvdDesoto BlvdBig Cypress Parkway8.A.2Packet Pg. 72Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESProject Scoring and Prioritization•Scored new projects based on criteria and scoring methodology used by LRTP Working Group•System Connectivity•Evacuation Route•Reduce Congestion•Wetland Impact•Species Impact•Freight Route•New projects rank between 27 and 63 (out of 69)2040 LRTP Amendment – Project Scoring8.A.2Packet Pg. 73Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESChanges at LRTP Adoption (November 2015)•Removed•Randall widening from 8thStreet to Oil Well Road/Everglades (S‐Curve)•Vanderbilt Beach Extension from 8thto Desoto (2 lanes within 4 lanes ROW)•Added•Study area for Randall and Oil Well •Widening of Wilson Blvd between Golden Gate Blvd and Immokalee Rd (4 lanes)•Extension of Little League Road from SR 82 to Westclox Street2040 LRTP Amendment – Cost Feasible8.A.2Packet Pg. 74Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESID Facility Limit From Limit ToFinal Proposed Improvement ‐ Needs Plan Update 2 Critical Needs Intersection Golden Gate Parkway @ I‐75 Major Ramp Improvements3 Critical Needs Intersection Pine Ridge Road @ I‐75 Major Ramp Improvements (Partial Cloverleaf)4 Critical Needs Intersection I‐75 (SR‐93) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) Partial cloverleaf interchange with 2 loop ramps5 CR 951 (Collier Boulevard) Golden Gate Canal Green Boulevard Expand from 4‐Lane to 6‐Lane6 SR 29 Immokalee Dr. New Market Road Expand from 2‐Lane to 4‐Lane7 Critical Needs Intersection Immokalee Rd @ I‐75 Interchange Major Ramp Improvements8 SR 29 By‐Pass SR 29SR‐29/CR‐846 IntersectionNew 4‐lane Divided Arterial9 Critical Needs Intersection US41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Collier Boulevard Single point urban interchange11 SR 29 New Market Road North North of SR‐82 Expand from 2‐Lane to 4‐Lane12 Old US 41 US 41 (SR‐45) Collier/Lee County Line Expand from 2‐Lane to 4‐Lane13a Vanderbilt Beach Road 8th Street16th StreetNew 4 lane Divided Arterial13b Vanderbilt Beach Road 16th StreetDesoto Boulevard New 4 lane Divided Arterial14 Vanderbilt Beach Road CR 951 8th StreetExpand from 2‐Lane to 4‐Lane Divided from & New 4‐lane15 US41 (Tamiami Trail East) Greenway Road 6 L Farm Road Expand from 2‐Lane to 4‐Lane16Randall Boulevard / Oil Well Road Study Area8th StreetEverglades Blvd Intersection(Future Study Area)2040 LRTP Amendment – Cost Feasible8.A.2Packet Pg. 75Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESProject Updates•Vanderbilt Beach Extension•CR 951 to 8thStreet Currently in LRTP in two phases•3 lanes to Wilson / 2 lanes to 8thby 2025 ($89 million)•6 lanes to Wilson / 4 lanes to 8thby 2040 ($76 million)•Right of way funded by 2040•Propose amending to CR 951 to 16thStreet in two phases•3 lanes to Wilson / 2 lanes to 16thStreet by 2025 ($67.6 million)•6 lanes to Wilson / 4 lanes to 16thStreet by 2040 ($91.8 million)•Right of Way acquired by 20212040 LRTP Amendment – Cost Feasible8.A.2Packet Pg. 76Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESProject Updates•Randall Blvd•Add design/mitigation for 8thStreet to Everglades (2021‐2025)•County request to consider reallocation of the $122 millionLocal Improvements Box to Randall/Oil Well preferred alternative•Added design/mitigation for Everglades to Oil Well (2021‐2025)•Added right‐of‐way for preferred alternative resulting from County Randall / Oil Well Corridor Study (all three time periods).•8thStreet to Everglades Blvd•Everglades Blvd to Oil Well Road2040 LRTP Amendment – Cost Feasible8.A.2Packet Pg. 77Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
Cost Feasible Lanes MapOil Well Rd47thAve NEImmokalee RdImmokalee RdVanderbilt Beach RdGolden Gate BlvdWilson Blvd8thSt NE16thSt NEEverglades BlvdDesoto Blvd8.A.2Packet Pg. 78Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES2040 LRTP Amendment – Cost Feasible8.A.2Packet Pg. 79Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESCosts in future Year of Expenditure Format•Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension•CR 951 to 16thStreet NE (6 lanes CR 951 to Wilson; 4 lanes Wilson to 16thSt NE)•Construct first half $67.6 million 2021‐2025•Construct second half $91.8 million 2030‐2040•Randall Blvd Preferred Alternative •8thStreet NE to Everglades Blvd•Design and Environmental Mitigation $6.22 million 2021‐2025•Right‐of‐Way $41.24 million 2021‐2040•Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd•Design and Environmental Mitigation $5.81 million 2021‐2025•Right‐of‐Way $32.03 million 2030‐20402040 LRTP Amendment – Cost Feasible Changes8.A.2Packet Pg. 80Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESCosts in future Year of Expenditure Format•Randall Blvd Preferred Alternative •Desoto Blvd to Big Cypress Parkway•Design and Environmental Mitigation $69,000 2021‐2025•Right‐of‐Way $3.78 million 2030‐2040•Big Cypress Parkway to Oil Well Road•Design and Environmental Mitigation $4.11 million 2021‐2025•Right‐of‐Way $24.22 million 2030‐20402040 LRTP Amendment – Cost Feasible Changes8.A.2Packet Pg. 81Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESMarch 15thPublic Meeting•38 in attendance•Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association•Conservancy of Southwest Florida•League of Women Voters•15 written comments provided •Concern regarding alignment of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension•Opposition to S‐Curve Alignment in Randall/Oil Well Corridor Study•Questions regarding Impact Fees and required developer payments•Concern for wildlife and species habitat impacts•Concern for clean water and air2040 LRTP Amendment – Public Comments8.A.2Packet Pg. 82Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES21‐Day Public Comment Period (April 2nd–23rd)•24 written comments from public•Opposition for extending Vanderbilt Beach Road•Most opposed to including S‐Curve between Randall and Oil Well Road•Specifically connections to NE 27th, 29th, & 31stAvenues•Amendment is premature – timing with RLSA restudy, impacts to natural habitats•Petition with 36 signatures opposing S‐Curve•Conservancy of Southwest Florida •Collier Citizens for Sustainability•Written comment from Collier County•Commitment from County to move forward with Board of County Commissioners approved preferred alternative•3 Speakers in opposition to the S‐Curve at April 13thMPO Board Meeting2040 LRTP Amendment – Public Comments8.A.2Packet Pg. 83Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESTechnical and Citizens Advisory CommitteesEndorsed the 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report including recommendations for the Needs Plan and the Cost Feasible Plan2040 LRTP Amendment8.A.2Packet Pg. 84Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESRecommendationThat the Board adopt the 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report including recommendations for the Needs Plan and the Cost Feasible PlanRequires roll‐call or hand‐counted vote 2040 LRTP Amendment8.A.2Packet Pg. 85Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMESCollier MPO 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan AmendmentWally Blain, AICP239‐298‐8007wblain@tindaleoliver.com8.A.2Packet Pg. 86Attachment: LRTP Amendment Presentation (5566 : Approve the Proposed 2040 Long Range
05/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Adopt Policy on Reprogramming Unobligated SU Funds
______________________________________________________________________________
OBJECTIVE: For the Board to review and approve Resolution 2018-02, establishing policy on the use
and reprogramming of available Surface Transportation - Urban Funds to cover cost over-runs on Local
Agency and FDOT managed projects.
CONSIDERATIONS: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) recently contacted the MPO
Director to ask whether the remaining 2018 SU funds programmed in the current Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) could be used to address a shortfall in funding for a County Local Agency
Project (LAP) where bids for the project had come in considerably higher than the amount programmed
for construction. The MPO Director researched, with FDOT’s assistance, all currently programmed
projects that might be faced with cost overruns in the current fiscal year and that could be eligible for use
of the funds in question. The result was that the County project was the only eligible project ready for
consideration. The Director sent an email concurring with FDOT’s request.
FDOT typically reserves a balance of SU funds under the project description “Collier MPO Identified
Operational Improvements Funding” in every Work Program with the intention of using these funds to
cover cost overruns on FDOT-managed projects. The end result is that FDOT generally applied these
funds to cover cost overruns on City of Naples projects because the City’s LAP certification had expired.
As LAP certified entities, FDOT required Collier County and the City of Marco Island to cover any cost
overruns with local funds. Collier County Transportation Planning staff argued against that practice and it
appears that FDOT finally yielded. The MPO Director briefed the Board at their March 9, 2018 meeting
and was directed to come back to the Board with a proposed policy for the Board to review and possibly
adopt at a future meeting.
Staff is attaching for the Board’s consideration the proposed Resolution establishing policy on the use and
reprogramming of available Surface Transportation-Urban Funds to cover cost over-runs on Local
Agency and FDOT managed projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Citizens Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory
Committee voted to endorse the draft policy at their March 26, 2018 meetings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board review and approve Resolution 2018-02, establishing
policy on the use and reprogramming of available Surface Transportation-Urban Funds to cover cost
over-runs on Local Agency and FDOT managed projects.
Prepared by: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. MPO Resolution 2018-02 (PDF)
9.A
Packet Pg. 87
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 9.A
Doc ID: 5549
Item Summary: Adopt Policy on Reprogramming Unobligated SU Funds
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/02/2018 10:08 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/02/2018 10:08 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/02/2018 10:08 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/02/2018 10:31 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
9.A
Packet Pg. 88
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: MPO Resolution 2018-02 (5549 : Adopt Policy on Reprogramming Unobligated SU Funds)
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: MPO Resolution 2018-02 (5549 : Adopt Policy on Reprogramming Unobligated SU Funds)
05/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement
OBJECTIVE: For the Board to approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP, the MPO Agreement and a
resolution memorializing the Board’s approval.
CONSIDERATIONS: The MPO is required to develop and submit to the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) a two-year Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The UPWP serves as the
resource and budgeting document for the MPO for the coming fiscal years beginning July 1st.
The MPO will receive $532,379 in Federal Planning (PL) and $200,000 in Surface Transportation
Program - Anywhere (SA) funds in FY 2018/19. In addition, there is a $177,000 carryover from de -
obligation of the FY 16/17-FY17/18 UPWP; a Transportation Disadvantaged Grant (TD Grant) allocation
of $26,962; a FTA Section 5305(d) Grant allocation and carry-forward of $227,310; and a State and local
contribution of $64,828. The total FY 2018/19 funding for all UPWP tasks is $1,228,479 (amount does
not include FDOT’s soft match). Funding begins July 1, 2018. The State’s fiscal year does not coincide
with the County’s budget cycle.
The second year does not include any carry-forward or de-obligation amounts. The total FY 2019/20
funding for all UPWP tasks is $714,349.
Since the document was presented in March, the following changes have been made:
Updated Table of Contents
Corrected formatting throughout the document
Revised budget to include De-obligated funding from FY 17/18 in the amount of $177,000
Revised Cost Analysis Certification forms
Updated City of Everglades City planning activities
Updated advisory committee section
Revised soft match language on page viii
Revised end products throughout the document to remove verbs
Added website update and maintenance to Task 1 (Carryover from previous UPWP)
Added Strategic Highway Safety Plan and SA funding in the amount of $200,000 to Task 5
Updated TD Planning Grant amount to $26,962
Revised document to address comments as noted in the Appendices
MPO staff has incorporated all changes and comments received from FHWA, the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) and the advisory committees related to UPWP. The comments have been
included in the appendices. The draft 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP is included as Attachment 1.
9.B
Packet Pg. 91
05/11/2018
Pursuant to the MPO’s Public Involvement/Public Participation Plan, the draft UPWP was made available
for a 21-day public comment period. The public comment period for the draft UPWP began on April 19,
2018 and will end on May 10, 2018. No comments from the public have been received to date.
The MPO Agreement for PL Funding establishes the cooperative relationship between the Collier MPO
and FDOT to accomplish the transportation planning requirements of State and federal law. The
agreement runs concurrently with the new FY 2018/19 - 2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program
(UPWP). The MPO Agreement will become effective July 1, 2018 and will terminate on June 30, 2020.
The Agreement is included as Attachment 2.
FDOT requires a resolution memorializing the approval of the UPWP and the MPO Agreement. The
resolution is included as Attachment 3.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC) voted to endorse the UPWP on April 30, 2018.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the FY 2018/19- 2019/20 UPWP, the MPO
Agreement and the attached resolution memorializing the Board’s approval.
Prepared By: Brandy Otero, Collier MPO Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (PDF)
2. MPO Agreement (PDF)
3. Resolution 2018-04 (PDF)
9.B
Packet Pg. 92
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 9.B
Doc ID: 5569
Item Summary: Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and
MPO Agreement
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/03/2018 11:07 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/03/2018 11:07 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/03/2018 11:07 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/03/2018 11:12 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
9.B
Packet Pg. 93
COLLIER
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Bonita Springs (Naples), FL UZA
FISCAL YEARS (FY) 2018/19-2019/20
UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM
This document was approved and adopted by the
Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization on
Approved and Adopted May 11, 2018
_________________________________________
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr.
MPO Chair
Prepared by:
Staff and the participating agencies of the
Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization
2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, Florida 34104
(239) 252-5804
Fax: (239) 252-5815
Collier.mpo@colliercountyfl.gov
http://www.colliermpo.com
The preparation of this document has been financed in part through grants from
the Federal Highway Administration (CFDA Number 20.205),
the Federal Transit Administration (CFDA Number 20.505),
the U.S. Department of Transportation, under the Metropolitan Planning Program,
Section 104(f) of title 23, U.S. Code,
and from Local funding provided by Collier County, the
City of Naples, the City of Marco Island, and the City of Everglades City.
The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Federal Planning Funds
Federal Aid Program (FAP) - # PL0313 (056)
Financial Management (FM) - # 439314-2-14-01
FDOT Contract #
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5305(d) Funds
Financial Management (FM) - # 410113 1 14
Contract # GO581
Federal Surface Transportation Program - Any Area (SA) Funds
Financial Management - # 435041-1-18-01
FDOT Contract #
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS ..........................................................................................................iii
COST ANALYSIS CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................viii
STATUS OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES ........................................................... x
UPWP FORMAT ....................................................................................................................................... xx
UPWP EFFORT AND CONSISTENCY ............................................................................................... xxii
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE MPO ................................................................xxiii
ADVISORY COMMITTEES ................................................................................................................. xxiv
AGREEMENTS AND PROCEDURES ..............................................................................................xxviii
1 ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................................................ 2
2 DATA COLLECTION / DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 9
3 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM MONITORING AND
DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 13
4 LONG RANGE PLANNING ................................................................................................................ 17
5 SPECIAL PROJECTS AND SYSTEMS PLANNING ....................................................................... 21
6 TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLANNING ..................................... 26
7 REGIONAL COORDINATION ........................................................................................................... 33
8 LOCALLY FUNDED ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................... 37
9 STATE SUPPORT FOR FTA SECTION 5305 (d) ............................................................................ 40
SUMMARY TABLES
Table 1 – Agency Participation FY 2018/19 ......................................................................................... T - 1
Table 2 – Funding Source Table FY 2018/19 ....................................................................................... T - 2
Table 3 – Agency Participation Table FY 2019/20 .............................................................................. T - 3
Table 4 – Funding Source Table FY 2019/20 ....................................................................................... T - 4
Table 5 – Federal Planning Factors ...................................................................................................... T - 5
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A – FY 2018/19-2019/20 Federal Planning Factors and FDOT’s Planning
Emphasis Areas
Appendix B – FTA Grant Application
Appendix C – Response to Comments – FHWA & FTA
Appendix D – Response to Comments – FDOT
Appendix E – Response to Comments – Board and Advisory Committee Members
Appendix F – Response to Comments – Public
Appendix G – Planning Studies in the MPO Area
Appendix H –Statements & Assurances
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
iii
COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS
Acronym Full Name
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic
ADA Americans with Disability Act
AMPO Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AUIR Annual Update and Inventory Report
BCC Board of County Commissioners
BPAC Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
CAC Citizens Advisory Committee
CAT Collier Area Transit
CEMP County Emergency Management Plan
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIA Community Impact Assessment
CIE Capital Improvement Element
CIGM Collier Inter-Active Growth Model
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CMC Congestion Management Committee
CMP Congestion Management Process
CMS Congestion Management System
COA Comprehensive Operational Analysis
COOP Continuity of Operations Plan
CORSIM Corridor Simulation
CR County Road
CRA Community Redevelopment Agency
CTC Community Transportation Coordinator
CTD (Florida) Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged
CTST Community Traffic Safety Team
CUTR Center for Urban Transportation Research
CUTS Coordinated Urban Transportation Studies
DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
DOPA Designated Official Planning Agency
DRI Development of Regional Impact
EAR Evaluation and Appraisal Report
EMS Emergency Medical Services
ETAT Environmental Technical Advisory Team
ETDM Efficient Transportation Decision Making
F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code
FAP Federal Aid Program
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
FHREDI Florida’s Heartland Rural Economic Development Initiative
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
iv
COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS
Acronym Full Name
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FM Financial Management
FS Florida Statutes
FSUTMS Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure
FTA Florida Transit Administration
FTP Florida Transportation Plan
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographical Information System
ICAR Intergovernmental Coordination and Review
ICE Intergovernmental Coordination Element
IJR Interchange Justification Report
IT Information Technology
ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems
JARC Job Access Reverse Commute
JPA Joint Participation Agreement
LAP Local Agency Program
LCB Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged
LEP Limited English Proficiency
LinC Lee in Collier Transit Service
LOS Level of Service
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
MMP Master Mobility Plan
MMTPP Metropolitan Multimodal Transportation Planning Process
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization (includes references to the organization,
MPO Board, Staff and Committees)
MPOAC Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council
MPP Metropolitan Planning Program
NTD National Transit Database
PD&E Project Development & Environment
PEA Planning Emphasis Area
PIP Public Involvement Plan
PL Highway Planning Funds
PTNE Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement
PTOP Public Transportation Operation Plan
QRC Quick Response Code
RFP Request for Proposal
ROW Right-of-Way
SHS State Highway System
SIS Strategic Intermodal System
SR State Road
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
v
COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS
Acronym Full Name
SSPP System Safety Program Plan
SWFRPC Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TD Transportation Disadvantaged
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TDP Transit Development Plan
TDSP Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TMA Transportation Management Area
TSM Transportation Systems Management
TRIP Transportation Regional Incentive Program
ULAM Urban Land Allocation Model
UPWP Unified Planning Work Program
USC United States Code
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
VE Value Engineering
ZDATA Zonal Data (land use and socio-economic)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
vi
COST ANALYSIS CERTIFICATION
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
vii
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
viii
INTRODUCTION
The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for the Collier Metropolitan Planning Area documents
transportation planning and transportation planning related activities for FY 2018/19-2019/20. The
objective of this work program is to ensure that a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive approach to
planning for transportation needs is maintained and properly coordinated with other jurisdictions and MPOs,
the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) and the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT).
Comments received from FHWA, FTA, and FDOT have been addressed and incorporated into the final
document. A draft of this UPWP was presented for final endorsement to the Citizens and Technical
Advisory Committees on April 30, 2018 and received final approval by the Collier MPO Board on May 11,
2018.
This document is intended to inform all public officials and agencies that contribute effort and allocated
funds to the multimodal transportation planning process about the nature of the tasks identified in the UPWP.
It is also intended to assign specific responsibilities for the various tasks to the participating agencies in
accordance with the Interlocal Agreement creating the Metropolitan Planning Organization. In addition, the
UPWP provides the basis for Federal funding of the transportation planning activities to be undertaken with
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds.
MPO planning principles, procedures and technical issues in the UPWP are intended to be an integral part
of the planning process and bring about improved decision making in transportation project selection,
development, design, mitigation and construction. The level of effort in this UPWP is largely based on
state and federal requirements, joint efforts with planning partners that support the transportation planning
process, and the cycle of updates to the Long Range Transportation Plan.
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) maintains the federal planning factors that were
included in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU). In addition, the new transportation authorization bill, Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation (FAST) added two planning factors. The following ten federal planning factors have been
incorporated into the MPO Planning Process and this UPWP:
1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global
competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight;
5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life,
and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned
growth and economic development patterns;
6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between
modes, for people and freight;
7. Promote efficient system management and operation;
8. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate
stormwater impacts of surface transportation;
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
ix
INTRODUCTION (cont.)
9. Enhance travel and tourism; and,
10. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system
In addition to the planning factors noted above, MAP-21 required that State DOTs and MPOs conduct
performance-based planning by tracking performance measures and setting data-driven targets to improve
those measures. Performance-based planning ensures the most efficient investment of federal transportation
funds by increasing accountability, transparency, and providing for better investment decisions that focus
on key outcomes related to seven national goals which include:
Improving Safety;
Maintaining Infrastructure Condition;
Reducing Traffic Congestion;
Improving the Efficiency of the System and Freight Movement;
Protecting the Environment; and,
Reducing Delays in Project Delivery.
The FAST Act supplements the MAP-21 legislation by establishing timelines for State DOTs and MPOs to
comply with the requirements of MAP-21. State DOTs are required to establish statewide targets and MPOs
have the option to support the statewide targets or adopt their own. The transition to performance based
planning is being addressed within the tasks identified in this UPWP. The Collier MPO intends to
coordinate with FDOT and member agencies to fully comply with the performance based planning
requirements.
The MPO performs a variety of tasks utilizing funds under Titles 23 and 49, U.S.C. Those tasks include
annual development of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); continually improving the
Congestion Management System; regular updates to the Transit Development Plan (TDP) and
Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP); assisting Collier County in its role as Transportation
Disadvantaged Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC); support of Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning
activities; preparation of updates to the Long Range Transportation Plan; periodically updating the Public
Involvement Plan (PIP), expanding public outreach activities and implementing strategies to address
environmental justice issues; and supporting FDOT District One and Collier County planning activities with
emphasis on improving traffic modeling and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) capabilities.
Section 120 of Title 23, U.S.C, permits a state to use certain toll revenue expenditures as a credit toward the
non-federal matching share of all programs authorized by Title 23, (with the exception of Emergency Relief
Programs) and for transit programs authorized by Chapter 53 of Title 49, U.S.C. This is in essence a “soft-
match” provision that allows the federal share to be increased up to 100% to the extent credits are available.
The “soft-match” amount being utilized to match the FHWA funding in this UPWP is 18.07% of FHWA
program funds for a total of $156,456 in FY 2018/19 and $120,547 in FY 2019/20 for a total of $277,003.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
x
STATUS OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Collier County is located along Southwest Florida’s tropical Gulf Coast. Collier County has a well defined
network of state and local roadways and is continuing to grow and develop to meet the changing demands
of the community. The figure below shows the population and land area distribution of the Jurisdictions
within Collier County.
Figure 1
Population and Land Area Summary and Distribution (2000, 2010, 2017)
Source: 2010 Census and BEBR Projections
The most populous city in the county is Naples with an estimated 2017 population of 20,195. The City of
Marco Island is the second largest in Collier County, with an estimated population of 17,036. The population
of the county’s unincorporated area is quite large as compared to the cities, with about 306,276 residents.
During the time period of 2010 to 2017, Collier County saw its population increase from 321,520 to 357,470,
approximately a 11% increase. Much of Collier County’s current growth is occurring in Golden Gate
Estates, one of the largest platted subdivisions of its kind in the world. Since this single-family residential
subdivision was developed prior to Florida’s growth management laws, building permits in Golden Gate
Estates are not subject to the same concurrency regulations as new development, thus, Collier County cannot
deny residential building permits due to the lack of transportation capacity. In addition to the growth in the
number of permanent residents, Collier County has a high seasonal influx, with a projected peak season
population of approximately 20% over full-time residents.
At 2,025 square miles, Collier County consists of a very large area. The unincorporated community of
Immokalee is located 41 miles northeast of Naples and the City of Everglades City is located 36 miles
southeast of Naples. Much of the eastern part of Collier County is in public ownership, including Everglades
National Park, Big Cypress Preserve, Picayune Strand and Fakahatchee Strand State Preserves, Collier-
Seminole State Park, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Florida Panther Wildlife Refuge
and Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. These areas represent 80% of the land in Collier County and cannot be
developed.
Over the ten year period of 2000-2010, Collier County grew at a rate much higher than that of the State of
Florida, seeing a 30% increase in population. The population density that exists in Collier County, however,
is much less than the overall State population density, with approximately 159 persons per square mile
versus 353 persons per square mile in the State of Florida. This reflects the large undeveloped area of the
county and a small urban core.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xi
STATUS OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES (cont.)
The percent of households with incomes in the categories under $50,000 are lower than the percentages for
the State of Florida. On the other hand, Collier County is higher than the State of Florida in the category
over $75,000. According to 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the median
household income for the State of Florida is $48,900. Collier County has a significantly higher median
household income of $59,783.
It is important to note that while the county as a whole is predominantly more affluent than that for the State
of Florida, there are anomalies that exist. The Immokalee area falls within a statewide area of critical
economic concern and has been designated as a “rural enterprise zone” with higher than average
unemployment, children living in poverty, and families who fall under the federal poverty thresholds.
Transportation to employment, job training, and critical health and social services available in the western
portions of the county must continue to be available to residents of Immokalee area.
According to the 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-year estimate, approximately 5.4% of the
households in Collier County have no access to a vehicle which is slightly less than the 6.9% of Floridians
that live in households with no vehicle availability.
The conditions described above highlight the challenges that impact transportation, including rapid growth,
high seasonal population, the development of gated communities (lack of effective local/collector
street network and lack of connectivity), the low population density of the county, and access and reliance
on automobiles. The planning activities described below are intended to address these issues at the local
and regional levels and are performed with funds under Title 23 and 49, U.S.C.
FY 2018/19 and FY 2019/20 MPO Staff’s Transportation Planning Priorities
The major focus for the upcoming fiscal years of 2018/19 and 2019/20 will be the Long Range
Transportation Plan and the transition to performance based planning. In addition, a Transportation System
Performance Report will be prepared to provide a thorough system assessment to identify where priority
investments should be made. All of the studies will include public involvement and outreach to the
community. The MPO staff will continue to develop demographic analysis and travel behavior of Collier
County to assist with MPO and jurisdictional agency efforts. In addition, the MPO staff will continue to
coordinate and assist the Collier County Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement Division with the
development of the Transit Development Plans (TDP), including a major update over the next two fiscal
years, and Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plans (TDSP) and any other transit enhancement plans
jointly agreed to.
Regional Transportation Planning Activities
The Lee County and Collier MPOs meet annually to discuss regional issues and projects which may have a
joint impact on the area. The MPOs will continue to work together to endorse and adopt regional priorities
for enhancements, TRIP, highway and transit projects.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xii
STATUS OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES (cont.)
FDOT Five Year Work Program
The MPO annually recommends priority lists for roadway capacity improvements, congestion management,
enhancement, and transit projects to FDOT which then incorporates these recommended priorities, to the
maximum extent feasible, into their Tentative Five Year Work Program. The Adopted FDOT Work
Program and the Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) of Collier County, the City of Naples, the City of
Marco Island, and the City of Everglades City are combined to form a single multimodal Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
Congestion Management System (CMS)
An operational CMS was originally adopted in 1997 and was updated in 2006. The CMS was developed to
reduce congestion, not by adding travel lanes to existing highways, but by such initiatives as improving
traffic signal timing, improving intersections (adding/lengthening turn lanes, etc.), and modifying medians.
In 2008, the MPO updated the CMS and renamed it the Congestion Management Process (CMP). The CMP
was updated again in 2017. The latest update brought the document current with the 2040 LRTP and with
new federal legislation which requires performance-based and data driven planning. The update recognized
the need for a more extensive data analysis. This led to the recommendation to fund a biennial
Transportation System Performance Report, which is intended to identify projects and priorities going
forward. The updated CMP adopted performance measures and required project sponsors to establish
baseline measures and report on the results to the Congestion Management Committee and the MPO Board.
Public Transportation
In January 2001, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) began the Collier Area Transit
(CAT) System. CAT is funded through a variety of sources including FTA Section 5307, various state
grants, fare box, and local revenues. In February 2016, CAT celebrated 15 years of services, another historic
milestone! Since the service inception, CAT has expanded its services to 19 fixed routes and transported an
estimate of 1 million residents and visitors annually.
Lee and Collier Counties established a regional transit connection called the LinC (Lee in Collier) route in
October 2011. The LinC service has exceeded ridership expectations. The route was made possible by
funds from Lee County, FDOT, and through coordinated efforts by the City of Bonita Springs, CAT, Collier
County and the Collier MPO.
A major Transit Development Plan (TDP) update was completed in August 2015. The Public Transit and
Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Department in coordination with the Collier MPO is expected to
complete Annual Progress Reports to the TDP in-house. The next Major TDP update will be completed by
a consultant with coordination with PTNE and the MPO and is anticipated to be completed in September
2020.
Transportation Disadvantaged Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC)
Under the direction of Collier County CTC, the transit service is managed by two new vendors, MTM
manages the scheduling and dispatch services and MV Transportation manages the fixed route and
paratransit services. The County’s paratransit program includes Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and Transportation Disadvantaged services funded by the State’s Transportation Disadvantaged (TD)
Program. Collier County acts as the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC). As the Designated
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xiii
STATUS OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES (cont.)
Official Planning Agency (DOPA) for the TD program, Collier MPO staff continues to coordinate the TD
planning efforts by providing support to the Local Coordinating Board (LCB) and monitoring the CTC
activities to ensure the availability of efficient, cost effective and quality transportation services for the
transportation disadvantaged.
Services under the Medicaid Program are provided by MTM. It is noted that while MTM coordinates with
PTNE/CAT and the MPO, neither entity is required to monitor or evaluate the services they provide.
CAT’s paratransit system and the Immokalee Circulator route are funded through various state grants, fare
box, and local revenues including FTA’s Section 5311 program for rural public transportation.
The Collier MPO completed the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) major update in
house. The TDSP was approved in October 2013. The Collier MPO has been completing the annual TDSP
Minor Updates in house. The MPO continues to assist CAT with research, budget, funding discussions and
presentations, regarding the current paratransit service and the existing fare structure.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning
Collier County continues to improve conditions for bicycling and walking through the efforts of the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and MPO
Board. The TAC and BPAC collectively make annual recommendations to the Board for bicycle and
pedestrian projects using local, state and federal funds, and based on policies and projects identified in the
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan. The MPO coordinates with the Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST)
on educational efforts such as the annual “Walk to School Day”. In 2018, the MPO updated and made
available the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Map. In 2012, the MPO completed a Major Update to the
Comprehensive Pathways Plan. In 2017, the MPO began work on a new (as opposed to revised) Bicycle &
Pedestrian Master Plan (which included changing its name from the Comprehensive Pathways Plan). The
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will be completed by September 30, 2018. In addition, the MPO will
finish the series of Walkable Communities Studies when it completes the Golden Gate Walkable
Community Study in 2018. The Collier MPO also maintains a countywide database of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.
Long Range Transportation Plan
The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is a critical tool in the MPO process. It is composed of a
Needs Assessment, a Cost Feasible Plan, and several multi-modal transportation components. It is the
primary document in which multi-modal components (such as pathways, transit and other projects), land
use data and projected revenues are integrated in the long range planning process.
The 2040 LRTP was adopted in December 2015. Two amendments to the plan were completed and a third
is underway. The 2045 LRTP will be developed over the next three fiscal years, with adoption expected in
December 2020. The development of the 2045 LRTP will include coordination with member agencies and
the Florida Department of Transportation. It will include public involvement, financial revenue projections,
travel demand model validation, coordination and development of Needs Plan projects, project cost
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xiv
STATUS OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES (cont.)
estimates, a cost feasible plan, operations and maintenance costs, and a review of other plans and programs
resulting in a multi-modal, long-range blueprint for the community’s policy makers.
During the development of the 2045 LRTP, the MPO will continue to review projects and plans for
consistency with the 2040 LRTP and will amend/update the plan as necessary.
The MPO will continue to review projects and plans for consistency with the 2040 LRTP and will
amend/update the plan as necessary.
Information Management/Public Involvement
In order to reach a wider audience, the MPO public information/involvement efforts continue to include the
use of newsletters, a stand-alone MPO website, and televised MPO Board meetings. Staff also continues to
participate in public outreach efforts by attending community and special interest group meetings, as well
as by conducting public workshops.
The MPO conducts public comment periods on major document and continues to provide pre-paid postage
on all public comment forms. This allows the public to mail comments to the MPO without having to
provide postage. Comments may also be submitted electronically. The MPO also translates public meeting
flyers and applicable surveys to Spanish and Creole in order to meet the needs of the population.
Extensive public involvement efforts have been conducted for the update to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master
Plan (BPMP) and the Golden Gate City Walkable Community study. Public meetings were held in multiple
areas throughout the County. In order to facilitate public comment for the BPMP the MPO, along with
consultants, developed a survey that could be taken on paper or online as well as an interactive map where
the public could electronically comment directly on the map.
The MPO maintains a stand-alone MPO website on a continual basis. The website is visual, easily
accessible, and has searchable categories to find documents easier. The website includes translation
capabilities which allow a user to translate pages on the website into 71 languages. In addition, a project
directory allows users to view information and before and after pictures of projects programmed in the
county. The MPO is currently working on a full redesign and update to the website that will make it user
friendly.
MPO staff continue to use quick response codes (QRC) on all documents and public comment forms. The
QRC allows anyone who has a smart phone to scan a document’s barcode and access the MPO’s link to that
document. This effort promotes technology and allows a user to simply scan a document instead of taking
a hard copy from the display. This is a cost saving and environmentally friendly effort.
MPO staff has begun public outreach efforts through our partners’ social media site. Though the Collier
MPO does not currently have a stand-alone social media site, we have partnered with Collier County
Government to create events and status’ on their page. This allows the MPO to reach a broader cross section
of the public.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xv
STATUS OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES (cont.)
The MPO is also working on an update to the Public Involvement Plan (PIP) which will facilitate ease of
public comment. The new PIP will also outline new goals and objectives that the MPO will continue
working on in order to create an atmosphere that welcomes public involvement in many different forms.
MPO staff will continue to seek methods of generating public interest and participation on the MPO’s
standing advisory committees, and ensure all vacancies are filled. The MPO will continuously review their
public involvement efforts and evaluate their success. This will allow us to change course of action when
necessary and decipher what works best for the area.
Title VI and Environmental Justice
Staff will work on refining an in-house draft of a new PIP incorporating an updated Title VI Complaint
Procedure and Policy and current Best Practices in conducting public outreach. Staff anticipates bringing
the new draft to the MPO CAC and TAC for review in late summer, early fall 2018.
A preliminary identification of Environmental Justice Communities was conducted in 2016 and will be
further refined as part of the Existing Conditions analysis for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Staff
will continue to update EJ Community profiles on an as-needed basis for incorporation in future plans and
studies.
Florida Department of Transportation District One Planning Activities
Florida Department of Transportation- District One District Wide Planning activities for FY18/19-
FY19/20) include the following:
• GIS Application Development and System Maintenance
• Systems Planning and Reviews
• Interchange Reviews
• Travel Demand Model Development
• ETDM/Community Impact Assessment
• Statistics
• Federal Functional Classification
• Traffic Counts Program
• Modal Development Technical Support
• Enhancement Program Development
• Commuter Services
• State Highway System Corridor Studies
• Complete Streets Studies
• Growth Management Impact Reviews
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xvi
STATUS OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES (Cont.)
Collier County Planning Activities
The Transportation Planning section completes reviews, provides planning and programming of County and
State transportation facilities and administers the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) in
Collier County. In FY 2017/18, the section has secured additional funding from FDOT and the Collier MPO
for new sidewalks and bike lanes in much needed areas of Collier County including the design and
construction of bike path and trail along County Barn Road from Rattlesnake Hammock to SR 84 (Davis
Blvd.), a sidewalk along Vanderbilt Dr. from Vanderbilt Beach Rd. to 109th Ave. N., a bike lane and
sidewalk along Green Blvd. from Santa Barbara Blvd. to Sunshine Blvd. and a Safe Routes To School
project at Eden Park Elementary School. The Transportation Planning section also secured funding for
roadway projects including the design of a road widening project along Airport-Pulling Road from
Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road and assisted the Collier MPO by justifying the need for the
advancement of both the SR29 from SR82 to the Hendry County Line and SR82 from the Hendry County
Line to Gator Slough Lane projects.
Transportation Planning has completed: reviews of multiple miles of developer designed roadways; the
Developer Sponsor Road Project Permitting Process guidance, which will help facilitate the review process
and expedite the project development schedule; and the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) that
determines existing Level of Service on over 140 road segments throughout Collier County and provides
the means to project forward and analyze the potential traffic on these road segments. This provided the
information necessary to determine when and if those segments are projected to fail between 2018 and
2027.
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) Monitoring section that maintains an accessible information tracking
system for nearly 400 PUD’s and ensures all commitments agreed to in a PUD are monitoring for
compliance on a yearly basis.
City of Naples Planning Activities
The City of Naples is a residential community with an area of approximately 16 square miles with a local
road system consisting of 108 miles of streets. The community is based on a town plat recorded in 1887
and development is at substantial build out. The community’s transportation planning activities involve the
following programs: 1) City Street Level of Service (LOS) monitoring; 2) Downtown redevelopment
and traffic circulation; 3) Use of an established traffic calming program to address city street issues; and 4)
Implementation of master plans for intermodal facilities.
The four major planning activities are outlined as follows:
The City maintains a quarterly traffic count program of State arterials, County arterials and City
collector streets within its corporate limits. The quarterly count program produces average daily
traffic data and peak hour traffic data; this data is monitored for compliance with the City’s Growth
Management Plan for LOS ‘C’. The count data is placed on the City’s website and updated
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xvii
STATUS OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES (Cont.)
quarterly. The traffic count program data provides both current and historic data for public review
and analysis. In preparing an internal Annual Inventory and Update Report (AUIR), the City
provides an analysis of the traffic data. Historically, the City’s LOS has been LOS ‘C’ or better with
the notation that 5th Avenue South is a constrained facility and only a few streets require monitoring
for the potential need of traffic circulation improvements.
The City’s ‘D’ downtown district [Note: the Naples Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
includes the downtown district] has been subject of traffic modeling to reflect future redevelopment
with mixed-use zoning. The on-going planning activities concurrent with redevelopment involve
reconfiguring of City streets to create a more pedestrian friendly character that is more conducive to
the existing mixed-use zoning. Within the ‘D’ district, the Naples CRA is processing amendments
to reflect the need for improvements to serve future redevelopment to include considerations for
improved connectivity and intermodal functions within the U.S.41 corridor. The City anticipates
partnering with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) and Collier County in planning for future connectivity improvements,
particularly improvements that may potentially impact State and County roads.
In 2013, the City completed and adopted the first comprehensive plan amendment for intermodal
facilities (Note: the original pedestrian and bicycle plans were adopted in 2007). Both the 2007 and
2013 adopted plans include a pedestrian master plan and a bicycle master plan identifying
community-wide intermodal improvements. Based on the priorities established in these plans,
elements of pedestrian and bicycle improvements are on-going. Recent project improvements
implemented by the City have been segments of ‘missing sidewalk links’ and new pavement striping
that includes sharrows and bike lanes on select streets.
Additional projects have been subject of funding request to the MPO and the FDOT. Both these
agencies have been supportive of improvements identified in the referenced comprehensive plans
with the MPO adopting a number of City intermodal projects and the FDOT funding such projects
in their 5-Year Work Plans. Future projects, endorsed by the MPO and funded by the FDOT include
new sidewalks on segments of Gulf Shore Boulevard, 3rd Street North, 2nd Street South, and
sidewalks in and around the St. Ann School.
The City has a neighborhood traffic calming program based on planning and implementing changes
to City streets to deter adverse traffic related problems. There are currently six areas/streets in the
community subject of on-going analysis for improvements to counter traffic speeding, ‘cut thru’
traffic volumes and/or counter excessive truck traffic. These areas include Crayton Road, Park
Shore Drive, Seagate Drive, South Golf Drive, Old Trail Drive, Eagle Oak Ridge and sections of
Downtown. Due to the upcoming extension of 3rd Avenue South to Goodlette-Frank Road, the City
is also focusing on traffic volumes and speed characteristics on 3rd Avenue South. The speed study
will be used to establish existing speeds and volumes and compare them to post-extension speeds.
By using the data from the study, the City will be able to determine whether traffic calming will be
needed. The planning of improvements is typically followed by the budgeting, design and
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xviii
STATUS OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES (Cont.)
construction of improvements that vary from entry islands, to roundabouts, to special pedestrian
crossings and others.
City of Marco Island Planning Activities
The City is continuing and annual street resurfacing program to systematically resurface the entire 121
miles of street surfaces within the City Limits. These are all non-federal aid routes and funding is from ad
valorem taxes. During FY18, 8.33 miles of roadways will be resurfaced at a cost of $2,165,500.00.
The City is currently continuing with an area wide Bicycle Pathway/Bike Land Program which has been
funded through the MPO and the FDOT. This year, the City completed two shared use pathway projects
with a grant from FDOT for $1,107,146.00. In FY18, the City will complete two more grant funded
projects, Winterberry Linear Trail and the Yellowbird Shared Use Path (formally a SRTS Project) for a
total of $900,107.00. The City also has five (5) additional projects programed within the FDOT Five Year
Work Program, with a grant total of $2,791,000. Upon completion of these programed projects that will
complete the Master Planned Bike Routes identified in 2005 by the Ad-Hoc Bike Path Committee.
The City is currently in the planning stages for the final bridge replacement project on the island. The W.
Winterberry Bridge is scheduled for total reconstruction in FY20 and will be replaced with a new single
span FDOT rated bridge.
The Growth Management Division is currently working on a major change to the current Land
Development Code and subsequent governing Ordinances. Projected completion is early in 2019.
City of Everglades City Planning Activities
The City of Everglades City was incorporated as a municipality in 1953. At the time of its incorporation it had
been the county seat of Collier County since 1923. Following Hurricane Donna in September 1960, the county
seat was moved to East Naples in 1962. The total land area of Everglades City is 768 acres, or approximately
1.2 square miles.
Existing development in Everglades City is located largely on compacted fill land; it consists primarily of
residential housing supported by commercial and local government land uses. The Everglades AirPark, operated
by the Collier County Airport Authority, and a National Park Service Visitor Center are located on public lands
within the City and next to Chokoloskee Bay.
The single access road to and from Everglades City is County Road 29 (CR-29). It is a southern extension of
State Road 29 (SR-29). The northern portion of SR-29 in Collier County is part of an emerging Strategic
Intermodal System, or SIS, network that traverses rural Collier and Hendry counties from State Road 80 in the
City of LaBelle south to its intersection with Interstate 75 (I-75). South of I-75, SR-29 continues to its
intersection with US-41, Tamiami Trail, at Carnestown. South of US-41, it becomes County Road 29 (CR-29),
extending south three miles to the municipal limits of Everglades City, and beyond to its southern terminus on
Chokoloskee Island.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xix
STATUS OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES (Cont.)
Along its entire length, CR-29 is the only roadway access point to unincorporated Chokoloskee Island and
another unincorporated community, Plantation Island, located east of the Lake Placid waterway. Persons
living in these two island communities are not Everglades City residents.
Due to Hurricane Irma, conditions have merited the City requesting that the improvement and resurfacing
of the entire length of CR-29 be placed on the Collier MPO list of Unfunded Roadway Priorities.
Some future planning activities include:
Completing an accurate assessment of City Streets, intersections, and its bicycle/pedestrian pathways; and
Completing the pedestrian pathway (sidewalk) on Copeland Avenue South
All Everglades City streets require special attention for needed storm water drainage improvements and
pavement replacement.
Everglades City is relied on the contribution of Florida Department of Transportation District 1 and the Collier
County Growth Management Division in completing construction of Street Lighting Improvements along
Collier Avenue and Broadway from the Barron River Bridge to the City Hall traffic circle during Fiscal Year
2010/11. Everglades City continues to coordinate its transportation planning activities with the Collier MPO.
Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
The Collier MPO operates under the rules and procedures of its own Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP).
The development of the COOP was based on the Collier County Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) criteria
and is updated by the MPO annually. The Collier MPO conducts an annual training exercise to ensure the COOP
is updated. The last training session was held in August 2017. The COOP was utilized when Hurricane Irma
struck on September 10, 2017.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xx
UPWP FORMAT
The FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP covers the fiscal years starting July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2020.
Since this is a two year UPWP the MPO will use the following designations for the task completion target
dates included in the document: 1st Quarter = July – September 2018, 2nd Quarter = October – December
2019, 3rd Quarter = January – March 2019, 4th Quarter = April – June 2019, 5th Quarter = July – September
2019, 6th Quarter = October – December 2019, 7th Quarter = January – March 2020, 8th Quarter = April –
June 2020.
FHWA Metropolitan Planning Program planning (MPP/PL) funds, FTA Section 5305 (d) Planning Funds,
State Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Funds, FDOT Grant Funds, and local match participation provide
financing for all the tasks contained within the UPWP. The Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court
performs an annual audit of the MPO program. The UPWP tasks to be undertaken during these fiscal years
are organized into eight major subsets.
1. Administration
Administrative tasks provide for the primary management of MPO activities, including but not limited
to, staff time to organize and conduct MPO Board and advisory committee meetings, public involvement
efforts, and to participate in intergovernmental activities. In addition, this section includes all necessary
expenditures to maintain operations, capital expenditures, Federal and State compliance documentation
and all fiscally related tasks such as audits, progress reporting, maintenance of financial records, and the
preparation of annual administrative reports, such as the UPWP, are also included.
2. Data Collection / Development
Task activities in this section includes those needed to monitor and analyze travel behavior and factors
affecting travel, such as socio-economic, land use, environmental, air quality, safety, security and freight
and transportation system data. Evaluation of the data collected in this section is used for both long and
short range planning for the transportation system.
3. Transportation Improvement Program Maintenance and Development
This task annually provides for the development of the TIP, a five-year program of transportation
improvements. The TIP will be developed in cooperation with FDOT and the local governments.
Transportation projects will be drawn from the currently adopted MPO Long Range Transportation Plan
to ensure the program’s consistency relative to priorities and financial constraints. The prioritization
methodology for each State and Federal funding project category will be detailed in the introduction of
each pertinent section of the TIP. Regionally significant projects, regardless of funding source, are also
included in the Transportation Improvement Program. The TIP also includes a list of multi-modal
unfunded State, county and municipal projects that have been prioritized by the MPO Board.
Task activities in this section include establishing project priorities, annually updating the TIP and
reviewing transportation plans and reports for use in many other UPWP sections and tasks, including
short range planning, the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Transit Planning, and project
planning.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xxi
UPWP FORMAT (cont.)
4. Long Range Planning
Updates and amendments to the LRTP include multi-modal aspects of transportation planning such as
highway planning, transit planning, reviewing enhancement priorities, bicycle/pedestrian programming,
and congestion monitoring of the Systems Planning area. This section is intended to work with the other
sections of the UPWP in the development, review, amending and updating of the Long Range
Transportation Plan.
5. Special Projects and Systems Planning
Bicycle and Pedestrian planning and support are conducted in order to provide a balanced transportation
system to ensure that non-motorized travel options are safe, convenient and offer recreational
opportunities. In addition, Congestion Management planning is also addressed in this task. As part of
the Congestion Management Process, the first biennial Transportation System Performance Report will
be completed.
6. Transit & Transportation Disadvantaged Planning
The UPWP addresses the continuing efforts of the Transit Program and Transportation Disadvantaged
(TD) Program. Transit support is provided in order to develop the LRTP, TIP and other plans, programs
and technical studies relating to public transportation. In addition, planning services are provided to
ensure a coordinated Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Program in Collier County.
7. Regional Coordination
This task provides for the creation of a region-wide multimodal transportation planning process in
accordance with Federal and State guidelines to ensure the coordination of transportation planning and
policy activities in FDOT District One. This includes travel expenditures, room rental, and any other
necessary costs for regional planning.
8. Locally Funded Activities
This task allows staff to complete requests to prepare resolutions and policy position statements which
are not eligible for grant reimbursement. In addition, travel expenses that are not eligible for grant
reimbursement will be funded from this task.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xxii
UPWP EFFORT & CONSISTENCY
Level of Effort
The level of effort described in this UPWP includes the MPO staff, consultant services, FDOT support, and
technical assistance from the various planning and engineering departments of Collier County, City of
Naples, City of Everglades City and the City of Marco Island. It is anticipated that this support level will
be sufficient to meet the “3-C’s” (continuing, comprehensive and cooperative) of the metropolitan
transportation planning process throughout the Collier County Metropolitan Area.
Public Involvement
The UPWP has been developed in cooperation with FDOT, FHWA and FTA. The process began by holding
a kick-off meeting with Collier County Public Transportation and Neighborhood Enhancement Division
(PTNE) to discuss their transit planning needs. The UPWP was discussed at the CAC and TAC meetings
and at the MPO Board.
The development of the UPWP has been subject to public review and comment and is consistent with the
Collier MPO’s adopted Public Involvement Plan (PIP). The PIP is designed to educate and inform the
public about transportation issues, and to provide the public with opportunities to contribute their ideas and
opinions early and often throughout the planning process.
Local Government Comprehensive Plan Consistency
The UPWP has been developed to be consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, with the approved Growth
Management Plans of the participating local governments and the Southwest Florida Strategic Regional
Policy Plan.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xxiii
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
OF THE
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
The Collier MPO is the primary agency responsible for transportation planning in Collier County. The
MPO Board consists of nine voting members, representing the county government and three local
municipalities, and one non-voting representative from the FDOT. The MPO is a legislative body with the
power to develop and adopt plans, and to set priorities for the programming of improvements to the
transportation system. The MPO membership includes the following:
COLLIER COUNTY
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1
Commissioner Andy Solis., District 2
Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5
CITY OF NAPLES
Councilwoman Linda Penniman
Councilman Reg Buxton
CITY OF MARCO ISLAND
Councilman Joe Batte
CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY
Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
L.K. Nandam, District Secretary, District One
COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION STAFF
Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director
Eric Ortman, Senior Planner
Brandy Otero, Senior Planner
Gabrielle Gonzalez, Administrative Secretary
Vacant, Planner
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xxiv
ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
The MPO’s TAC is composed of technically qualified representatives of agencies responsible for directing,
developing and improving the transportation system within the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Area.
Committee duties include the coordination of transportation planning and programming activities arising
from the review of all transportation technical studies and reports submitted to them. The following is a list
of the TAC membership:
Andy Holland, City of Naples Planning, Chair
Michelle Arnold, Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement, Vice-Chair
Dan Hall, Collier County Transportation Engineering
Daniel James Smith, City of Marco Island Community Affairs
Don Scott, Lee County MPO
Gregg Strakaluse, City of Naples Engineering
Justin Lobb, Collier County Airport Authority
Kerry Keith, City of Naples Airport Authority
Lorraine Lantz, Collier County Transportation Planning
Tim Pinter, City of Marco Island Planning
Vacant, City of Everglades City
David Ogilvie, Collier County Public Schools (non-voting)
Vacant, SWFRPC (non-voting)
Vacant, Local Environmental Agency Representative (non-voting)
Vacant, Freight Representative (non-voting)
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
The MPO’s CAC is composed of individuals representing a cross-section of the geographic community and
special interests, such as minorities and persons with disabilities. They are recruited to represent the City
of Naples, the City of Marco Island, the City of Everglades City and the County Commission Districts of
the unincorporated areas of the county. The CAC provides the MPO Board and staff with the citizen’s
perspective on the multimodal transportation planning process. The CAC is the focal point of the MPO’s
public involvement process. The following is a list of the CAC membership:
Gary Shirk, At-Large, Chair
Karen Homiak, District I, Vice-Chair
Josh Rincon, Representing Minorities
Pam Brown, At-Large
Rick Hart, Representing Persons with Disabilities
Dr. Robert Jones, District II
Robert Phelan, City of Marco Island
Russell Tuff, District III
Wayne Sherman, District IV
Vacant, District V
Vacant, Everglades City
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xxv
ADVISORY COMMITTEES (cont.)
Vacant, City of Naples
Vacant, City of Naples
Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
The MPO’s BPAC is composed of eleven (11) at-large voting members representing a wide cross-section
of Collier County residents and neighborhoods, bicycle and pedestrian safety professionals, Safe Routes to
Schools organizations, transit riders, local bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups, organizations that
encourage active transportation from a community health perspective, and advocates for persons with
disabilities and other transportation disadvantaged populations.
The committee is responsible for providing citizen input into the deliberations of bicycle and pedestrian
related issues within the community and to advise the MPO on developing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
The BPAC is also involved in recommending priorities for bicycle and pedestrian projects and program
implementation. Following is a list of the BPAC membership (Eleven at-large members appointed by the
MPO Board):
Joe Bonness, Chair
Joe Adams, Vice-Chair
Alan Musico
Andrea Halman
Dayna Fendrick,
Jane Cheffy
Dr. Mort Friedman
Ray Steadman
Reginald Wilson
Victor Ordija
Vacant
Congestion Management Committee (CMC)
The CMC serves the MPO in an advisory capacity on technical matters relating to the update of the MPO’s
Congestion Management System and the coordination of the CMS with the regional ITS architecture. The
committee is responsible for creating and amending the Congestion Management Process (CMP) and for
prioritizing candidate CMS projects to be funded from the MPO’s CMS boxed funds. The following is a
list of the CMC membership:
Voting Members
Tony Khawaja, Collier County Traffic Operations, Chair
Tim Pinter, City of Marco Island, Vice-Chair
Alison Bickett, City of Naples
Dan Summers, Collier County Emergency Management
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xxvi
ADVISORY COMMITTEES (cont.)
Dave Rivera, City of Naples
David Ogilvie, Collier County Public Schools
Karen Homiak, CAC Representative
Ian Barnwell, Collier County Transportation Planning
Dr. Mort Friedman, PAC Representative
Omar Deleon, Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement
Vacant, City of Everglades City
Advisory Members
Chief Alan McLaughlin, Ochopee Fire Control
Don Scott, Lee County MPO
Sgt. Greg Sheridan, City of Naples Police Department
Fire Chief Kingman Schuldt, Golden Gate Fire District
Lt. Mike Dolan, Collier County Sheriff’s Office
Deputy Chief Nick Biondo, East Naples Fire District
Fire Chief Orly Stolts, North Naples Fire District
Fire Chief Paul Anderson, Jr., Immokalee Fire District
Chief Rita Greenberg, Big Corkscrew Fire District
Chief Walter Kopka, Collier County EMS
Chief Wayne Martin, Isles of Capri Fire District
Wayne Watson, Collier County EMS
Vacant, Florida Highway Patrol
Vacant, City of Marco Island Police
Vacant, Naples Fire Rescue Department
Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged (LCB)
The LCB for the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) has been appointed by the MPO to carry out the duties
described in Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative Code, as an integral part of the TD planning and delivery
service program.
The LCB is composed of representatives from various State and local agencies, as well as citizen
representatives. A member of the MPO Board is appointed to serve as the LCB’s Chairman. Following is
a list of the LCB membership:
Commissioner Donna Fiala - Chair
Harold Kurzman, Elderly, Vice-Chair
Cheryl Burnham, Florida Association for Community Action
David Ogilvie, Public Education
Dylan Vogel, Citizen/User
Emely Kafle, Representative for Children at Risk
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xxvii
ADVISORY COMMITTEES (cont.)
Felix Soto, Florida Department of Children and Families
Irene Johnson, Veteran Services
Joe Martinez, Agency for Health Care Administration
John Starling, FDOT
Rebecca MacKenzie, Area Agency on Aging
Robert Richards, Florida Department of Education Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
Sherry Brenner, Persons with Disabilities
Susan Corris, Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board
Vacant, Private Transportation Industry
Vacant, Citizens Advocate/Non-User
Vacant, Local Medical Community
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
xxviii
AGREEMENTS AND PROCEDURES
Agreements
The MPO has various agreements in place with State and local governments and agencies that promote the
“3-C” planning process. The following is a list of agreements currently in place:
Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement for the Creation of the Collier County MPO – FDOT,
City of Naples, City of Marco Island, City of Everglades City, Collier County (2/26/15)
Metropolitan Planning Organization Agreement – FDOT/MPO (7/1/16) – Agreement for planning
funding.
Staff Services Agreement – MPO/Collier County (6/28/16)
Interlocal Agreement – Lee and Collier MPO regional coordination (amended 3/20/09)
Intergovernmental Coordination and Review (ICAR) and Public Transportation Coordination Joint
Participation Agreement – FDOT/MPO/Collier County Airport Authority, Naples Airport
Authority/ Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (11/25/14)
Public Transportation Joint Participation Agreement – FDOT/MPO (11/10/15)
These agreements are currently under review and will be updated as appropriate.
Operational Procedures and Bylaws
The MPO operates under an adopted set of Bylaws. In 2015, the MPO Board selected Anne McLaughlin
as the MPO Executive Director. The MPO Executive Director reports directly to the MPO Board. The
additional MPO staff members are Collier County employees pursuant to a staff services agreement.
Administrative services are provided by Collier County under the rules and procedures of Collier County
and the State of Florida. Annual audits of the MPO Program are performed as part of the single audit process
under the direction of the Clerk of Courts Finance Department.
Official records of MPO business are maintained in the MPO Offices located in the Collier County Growth
Management Division, 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. All of the MPO records are
available for public inspection during normal business hours.
The Collier MPO’s operational procedures fully comply with the public records laws and the Sunshine Laws
of the State of Florida.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
1
COLLIER
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
FY 2018/19-2019/20
UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
2
TASK 1 ADMINISTRATION
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
3
ADMINISTRATION
PURPOSE:
To conduct activities (including staff travel and capital expenses) including the development and
maintenance of administrative reports and grants contract administration. This task also includes all
public involvement activities and administrative support for MPO planning and programs in general,
including assistance to Federal, State and local agency staff, as needed. It provides for the
administration of the area-wide multimodal transportation planning process in accordance with Federal
and State requirements, and for the technical management over each project included in the UPWP.
PREVIOUS WORK:
Staff Management
UPWP development and Amendments
Annual and Quadrennial MPO Certifications
Quarterly Reports and Invoices
Grant Applications, Contracts, Joint Participation Agreements, and Budget Submittals
Audits as required
Legal services for MPO
Purchase, lease or rent for MPO staff offices, vehicle, facilities and equipment
Copies
COOP
Published MPO newsletters
Developed and maintained an interactive stand-alone Website
Staff spoke before groups and organizations
Staff issued press releases and legal ads
Participated in interviews by local print and broadcast media
Public Involvement activities
Provided information to the public, consultants and other government agencies by mail, phone
and e-mail.
REQUIRED ACTIVITIES:
Manage in-house staff and consultants to accomplish all planning tasks.
General administration and coordination of the MPO and MPO activities required to facilitate
the UPWP and planning tasks per federal and state planning requirements.
Maintain and update a General Planning Contract for planning tasks and issue purchase orders,
work orders or necessary authorizations under contracts associated with the General Planning
Contract or future planning contracts.
Preparation of contracts, request for proposals and agreements between the MPO and
participating agencies, including contracts with outside consultants.
Technical assistance to local governments, public agencies, and other qualified grant sponsors
regarding Federal and state grant applications or management issues.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
4
General facilitation, coordination and minute / record keeping of all MPO Board, advisory
committee meetings, and any other public meetings or workshops. This includes legal ads and
notices, scheduling the meetings, facility rentals, assembling and delivering the agendas /
packets, transcribing the minutes, etc.
Complete press releases, legal ads, advertisements, fliers, notices, etc. for meetings,
transportation plans and MPO related activities.
MPO Board, committee members and staff to participate in transportation workshops,
conferences, meetings and coordination activities to provide staff, board, and committee
members training and education, about the MPO and to enhance knowledge in any UPWP task,
maintain technical expertise, promote sound transportation planning, and stay abreast of
emerging issues. This includes purchase of any necessary resource and training materials.
Travel may be required for these activities.
Participate in any air quality compliance training and related air quality regulations (as
necessary).
Soliciting applications for vacancies on advisory committees, as needed.
Updating of MPO and advisory committee bylaws, as needed.
Contracting with outside legal counsel as necessary for contracts, agreements, and procedural
assessments.
Contractual lease or rent for MPO staff offices, facilities, vehicle and equipment, if applicable.
Monitor progress towards goals, including Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goals.
Ensure compliance with DBE policy.
Assist Collier County with MPO budget, grant compliance and annual audit as necessary.
Ensure all MPO Board Members receive a copy of the annual audit.
Drafting or updating any necessary agreements, resolutions or documents including but not
limited to the reapportionment plan, interlocal agreements and coordination agreements.
Pursue new grant opportunities as they arise to support transportation and related planning.
Payment of professional membership dues for planning, such as AICP, engineering, such as
EIT and ITS, and appropriate legal organizations.
Purchase of all routine / necessary office supplies for the MPO.
Printing expenses, either in house or through a vendor.
Purchase or lease the necessary office equipment such as computers / laptops / monitors / color
copiers / printers / scanners / fax machines / iPads / Tablets (or equivalent) / audiovisual aids
in order to enhance MPO documentation and communication.
Software license and maintenance agreements, including but not limited to computer operating
systems, Adobe Professional and ArcGIS.
Maintenance fees from the Collier County Information Technology department (IT) for help
desk support and maintenance of MPO computers and related hardware/software, as necessary.
Develop/update/revise/amend FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program.
Develop an Annual Report to report on annual activities of staff and advisory committees,
incorporating PIP statistics, performance measures and the Board’s strategic plan.
Develop annual reports for FHWA, FDOT, and other member governments, as requested.
Continue to coordinate with FDOT and partner agencies to address and implement performance
measures as required.
Coordinate with FDOT and member agencies to address integration of MAP-21 and FAST
Performance Management Measures in an effort to move towards performance based planning.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
5
Assess progress towards meeting UPWP objectives, project end dates and budget targets.
Preparation of documents necessary to maintain the Federal and state certification of the Collier
MPO’s metropolitan multimodal transportation planning process (MMTPP) and the related
requirements associated with Federal funding and the planning process. This includes the
preparation of quarterly invoices and an Annual Summary Report to ensure compliance with
any federal or state regulations.
Maintain and update the Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) or other disaster preparedness
procedures and conduct a COOP preparedness training / exercise, as necessary.
Review, update and distribution of MPO’s Public Involvement Plan (PIP), LEP and the Joint
Regional PIP.
Ongoing Title VI & Environmental Justice evaluations including updating the complaint
process and resolving complaints, as necessary.
Document measures of effectiveness for the PIP.
Complete MPO/project newsletters, fliers, and outreach materials to educate the public.
Provides staff for information booths at community events and business trade fairs.
Ongoing development, update and maintenance/enhancement of MPO website, social media
and networking media to engage the public, gain public input and provide document
availability, such as the QRC.
Provide, conduct and review public involvement surveys and responses and public comment
periods.
Ongoing development and maintenance of mailing and community contact lists to ensure
adequate notice of public meetings and distribution of public information materials.
Payment of all postage, FedEx and routine / necessary office supplies for the MPO.
Consultant assistance as required.
END PRODUCT: (TARGET DATE)
Quarterly progress reports and invoices. (quarterly)
Certification documentation, Agreements, Resolutions
and JPAs. (annually)
Annual Audit distribution (annually)
Compliance with DBE Policy and reporting requirements. (as needed)
Press releases and solicitation for vacancies on advisory committees. (as needed)
Monthly agenda packets for advisory committees and the MPO Board (monthly)
Press releases or legal ads for advisory committee meetings, MPO
Board meetings and any other meetings or special workshops/events (monthly/ as needed)
Annual summary of activities. (as needed)
Pursue a MPO Internship Program (as necessary)
Air quality compliance and regulation training (as necessary)
Title VI training. (as necessary)
FSUTMS training. (as necessary)
GIS training (as necessary)
Professional development training and workshops. (as necessary)
Office Lease and usage of car from Collier County Fleet Management for
$735 per quarter and an additional rate of $0.49 per mile over 1,500 miles (quarterly)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
6
Office equipment lease (monthly)
2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program updates (as needed)
Draft 2020/21 – 2021/22 Unified Planning Work Program (7th quarter)
Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) or other disaster
preparedness procedures. (ongoing)
MPO committee and Board member orientation. (as needed)
Minutes of MPO Board and Advisory Committees and
associated subcommittee meetings. (monthly)
Agendas for the MPO Board and associated
Advisory Committees. (Monthly)
MPO newsletters. (semi-annually)
Updated MPO website and web pages (ongoing)
Information about MPO events and workshops. (ongoing)
Timely response to all information requests. (ongoing)
Public Involvement Plan (PIP) and Evaluation Guide (as necessary)
Published list of projects for which Federal funds are
obligated in the preceding year, and make available for public review. (annually)
Annual Report (annually)
Presentations for MPO committees, Board members and the public
regarding the LRTP, TIP, UPWP and other plans (as needed)
Updates to the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan. (as needed)
Updates to the community outreach tools to identify Environmental (as needed)
Justice and Title VI populations
Public involvement documents in accordance with the PIP (ongoing)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:
FY 2018/19
Collier MPO FHWA (PL) $330,000
Consultant Services
FY 2019/20
Collier MPO FHWA (PL) $259,185
Consultant Services
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
7
Task 1 - Financial Tables
Task 1 ‐ Administration
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2018/19
Budget
Category
Budget Category
Description
FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State
Match
FTA Local
Match
Trans.
Disad. Total (PL)(SU)5303
A. Personnel Services
MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits,
and other deductions $249,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $249,750
Subtotal: $249,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $249,750
B. Consultant Services
Website maintenance, hosting fees,
etc. $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000
Subtotal: $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000
C. Travel
Travel and Professional
Development $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000
Subtotal: $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000
D. Other Direct Expenses
Building or room Rental/lease $14,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000
Insurance $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000
Cellular Telephone Access and
expenses $750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $750
General Copying Expenses,
equipment lease, printing charges,
repairs and maintenance $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
General Office Supplies $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000
Legal Advertising $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000
Motor Pool Rental and Car
Maintenance /expenses $4,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,500
Postage, business reply permit,
freight expenses, etc. $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000
Telephone Access, expenses and
system maintenance $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000
Subtotal: $46,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46,250
Total: $330,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $330,000
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
8
Task 1 ‐ Administration
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2019/20
Budget Category & Description
FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State
Match
FTA Local
Match
Trans.
Disad.Total (PL)(SU)5303
A. Personnel Services
MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits,
and other deductions $203,935 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $203,935
Subtotal: $203,935 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $203,935
B. Consultant Services
Website maintenance, hosting fees,
etc. $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000
Subtotal: $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000
C. Travel
Travel and Professional
Development $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000
Subtotal: $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000
D. Other Direct Expenses
Building or room Rental/lease $14,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000
Insurance $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000
Cellular Telephone Access and
expenses $750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $750
General Copying Expenses,
equipment lease, printing charges,
repairs and maintenance $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
General Office Supplies $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000
Legal Advertising $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000
Motor Pool Rental and Car
Maintenance /expenses $4,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,500
Postage, business reply permit,
freight expenses, etc. $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000
Telephone Access, expenses and
system maintenance $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000
Subtotal: $46,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46,250
Total: $259,185 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $259,185
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9
TASK 2 DATA COLLECTION / DEVELOPMENT
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
10
DATA COLLECTION / DEVELOPMENT
PURPOSE:
Develop and monitor the multimodal transportation system to preserve capacity, maximize personal
mobility and freight movement, ensure user safety and system security, and maintain the transportation
system’s integrity. Evaluate the system’s operating efficiency and conditions to assess current needs,
validate the long-range transportation planning model by looking at shorter range tasks, project future
travel demand, and identify future improvements. Coordination with local agencies, jurisdictions and
municipalities when reviewing and updating the forecasts and plans is essential. Update GIS database
to address current conditions related, but not limited to: functional classification; roadway network for
District One Regional Transportation Demand Model purposes; bicycle & pedestrian facilities
inventory; and prepare various overlays for analytical purposes. Coordinate with Collier County staff
on use of the County’s Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) in analyzing amendments and updates to the
Long Range Transportation Plan.
PREVIOUS WORK:
Provided current data sources via the MPO’s Website.
Compiled annual traffic data and conducted surveys for Congestion Management Process
(CMP) consideration.
Updated the existing GIS maps. Coordinated with Growth Management Division,
Comprehensive Planning staff on land use forecasts and data review. Updated socio-economic
data and TAZ structures for the 2040 LRTP Update.
REQUIRED ACTIVITIES:
Coordinate with the planning departments of the municipalities to update the existing land use forecasts
and traffic analysis zone updates from the current county build out study effort to assist in these efforts.
Review and develop comments and recommendations regarding Intergovernmental Coordination
Element (ICE) activities, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports (EAR), Intergovernmental Coordination
and Review (ICAR), in regard to the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan.
Review of Data:
Staff and consultant will coordinate with the jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Planning
Departments regarding land use forecasting efforts to ensure that demographic and
employment data at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level of regional and local
transportation planning efforts are updated.
Staff will coordinate with the planning and zoning departments of the municipalities to
ensure that updated socioeconomic, demographic and employment data are updated.
Staff will maintain both employment and residential databases to ensure that the locations
and projected build-out of major new developments are accounted for in future forecasts.
Continued coordination with jurisdictions, agencies and municipalities within Collier
County and adjacent to Collier County on community master plans, transportation system
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
11
plans, multi-modal mobility plans, Strategic Highway Safety Plan etc. and the data used to
update and maintain such information.
Update and review any functional classifications, boundary information and transportation
network databases and inventory.
Participate in update of National Household Travel Survey (as deemed appropriate).
Review and provide travel demand model information such as Annual Average Daily Traffic
(AADT) and volume-to-capacity ratios for planning documents and citizen’s request.
Continue to track the implementation status of projects and update any project lists as
needed.
Coordinate with FDOT and member agencies to address integration of MAP-21 and FAST
Performance Management Measures in the move towards performance based planning.
GIS
Continue to expand program development for Web-based roadway data exchange and
review between agencies.
Continue to create and update maps and graphics using GIS data.
END PRODUCTS: (TARGET DATE)
Updated demographic and employment data forecasts. (as needed)
Updated Traffic Analysis Zone/Traffic Analysis District
structure. (as needed)
Miscellaneous research reports and analyses. (ongoing)
Updated maps and graphics. ` (ongoing)
Maintenance of functional classifications, boundary information
and TAZ data based on 2010 census. (as needed)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:
FY 2018/19
Collier MPO FHWA (PL) $ 20,000
Consultant Services
FY 2019/20
Collier MPO FHWA (PL) $ 20,000
Consultant Services
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
12
Task 2 - Financial Tables
Task 2 – DATA COLLECTION/DEVELOPMENT
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2018/19
Budget Category &
Description
FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State
Match
FTA Local
Match
Trans.
Disad. Total (PL) (SU)5303
A. Personnel Services
MPO staff salaries,
fringe benefits, and
other deductions $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
Subtotal: $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
B. Consultant Services
Contract/Consultant
Services $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
Subtotal $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
Total: $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000
Task 2 – DATA COLLECTION/DEVELOPMENT
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2019/20
Budget Category &
Description
FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State
Match
FTA Local
Match
Trans.
Disad. Total (PL) (SU) 5303
A. Personnel Services
MPO staff salaries,
fringe benefits, and
other deductions $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
Subtotal: $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
B. Consultant Services
Contract/Consultant
Services $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
Subtotal $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
Total: $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
13
TASK 3 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM MONITORING AND
DEVELOPMENT
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
14
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PURPOSE:
Develop Multimodal TIPs for FY 2018/2019-2022/2023 and FY 2019/20-2023/24 that identify all
Federal, State, and locally funded transportation improvements consistent with the requirements of
Federal and State laws. Coordinate with FDOT and member agencies to address integration of MAP-
21 and FAST Performance Management Measures in the TIP. This section also includes transportation
system planning tasks related to contingency of operations and short-range transportation planning and
programming.
PREVIOUS WORK:
Coordinated with agencies and jurisdictions on transportation plans and programs.
Developed Annual preparation of TIPs and TIP Amendments with the assistance of a consultant
to develop a web-based TIP Tool.
REQUIRED ACTIVITIES
Coordinate all TIP efforts with FDOT, local agencies, jurisdictions and the STIP.
Continue to analyze proposed amendments to the current TIP for conformity, policy
implications, financial impact, and administrative changes.
Prepare and distribute updates to the TIP.
Develop reports that provide information on various aspects of transportation projects and
programs.
Review and prioritize transportation system projects in the LRTP in preparation for the TIP.
Continue to share project information with other transportation agencies and the public via the
MPO website and QRC.
Prepare project priority lists for the MPO Board and its advisory committees.
Continued incorporation of Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) into the
transportation planning process.
Review ETDM projects and purpose and needs statements for projects on MPO priority lists
and in the LRTP.
Continued incorporation of any air quality compliance and related air quality regulations (as
necessary).
Review and update the Collier County Freight and Goods Mobility Analysis as necessary and
respond to inquiries regarding this document.
Review and assess the need for freight strategies and develop them as necessary.
Coordinate with FDOT and member agencies to address integration of MAP-21 and FAST
Performance Management Measures in the move towards performance based planning.
END PRODUCTS: (TARGET DATE)
Miscellaneous research reports and analyses. (ongoing)
Updated maps and graphics (ongoing)
FY 2018/19 Transportation Project Priority List (4th Quarter)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
15
FY 2019/20 Transportation Project Priority List (8th Quarter)
Updates of available discretionary transportation funding
Programs project lists. (as necessary)
FY 2018/19 – 2022/23 TIP (4th Quarter)
FY 2019/20 – 2023/24 TIP (8th Quarter)
TIP Amendments (as necessary)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:
FY 2018/19
Collier MPO FHWA (PL) $ 20,000
FY 2019/20
Collier MPO FHWA (PL) $ 20,000
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
16
Task 3 - Financial Tables
Task 3 ‐ TIP
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2019/20
Budget Category & Description
FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State
Match
FTA Local
Match
Trans.
Disad. Total (PL) (SU) 5303
A. Personnel Services
MPO staff salaries, fringe
benefits, and other
deductions $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000
Subtotal: $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000
Total: $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000
Task 3 ‐ TIP
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2018/19
Budget Category & Description
FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State
Match
FTA Local
Match
Trans.
Disad. Total (PL) (SU)5303
A. Personnel Services
MPO staff salaries, fringe
benefits, and other
deductions $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000
Subtotal: $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000
Total: $43,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
17
TASK 4 LONG RANGE PLANNING
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
18
LONG RANGE PLANNING
PURPOSE:
To evaluate plans and programs for consistency with the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
and to begin preparation for a major update of the LRTP to the horizon year of 2045. MAP-21 and
FAST Act Performance measures will be integrated into the 2045 LRTP in an effort to move towards
performance based planning. This task will work in coordination with other tasks throughout the
UPWP, including Administration, Data Collection/Development, and Transit and Transportation
Disadvantaged.
PREVIOUS WORK:
The MPO’s LRTP was updated to a forecast year of 2040. The MPO adopted the 2040 LRTP in
December 2015. The 2040 LRTP was amended three times after adoption. The multi-modal LRTP
included transit and bicycle/pedestrian projects (both on- and off-road). The MPO staff worked with
member governments and advisory committees to evaluate changing land use patterns, to account for
changes that have occurred in the urban fringe and rural lands; as well as the significant growth in
Collier County.
REQUIRED TASKS:
Prepare amendments or updates to the 2040 LRTP as required;
Continue to execute the public participation plan for any 2040 LRTP amendments or updates;
Address integration of MAP-21 and FAST Performance Management Measures on the 2040
LRTP, as necessary.
Continued coordination with the FDOT District 1 regional transportation/planning model
Coordinating Committee and local staff on any updates required to the travel demand model
tool; including an allocation of $34,000 of PL funds to FDOT for the Collier MPO’s
participation in the District 1 Model.
Continue to incorporate the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Process into
the Long Range Multimodal transportation planning process. Continue to work with FDOT to
develop projects for the ETDM process as they relate to LRTP projects and priorities and to
provide project specific comments as part of the ETDM process.
Attend meetings and participate on committees of FDOT District 1 Regional
Transportation/Planning Model (RPM) Coordinating Committee, GIS Users Groups, Florida
Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS) Users Groups, and others as
needed.
Attend training as necessary on FSUTMS;
Utilize consultant assistance for modeling support, data development and evaluation, and other
support necessary to complete updates to the 2040 LRTP and to develop the 2045 LRTP.
Begin coordination and development of the 2045 LRTP.
Continued coordination with FDOT District 1 to develop the next generation Regional Planning
Model; including an allocation of PL consultant funds to FDOT for the Collier MPO’s
participation in the District 1 Model.
Coordinate with member agencies to develop and review socio economic forecasts for the
2045 LRTP.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
19
Coordinate with the Lee MPO to prepare a scope and conduct an Origin/Destination Study
Coordinate with on-going studies related to climate change and vulnerability.
Incorporate federal performance measures into the 2045 LRTP.
Begin updating revenue projections, needs plan and cost feasible plan.
END PRODUCT: (TARGET DATE)
Lee/Collier Origin/Destination Study (8th quarter)
Amended 2040 LRTP ` (as needed)
Data development for the 2045 LRTP (8th quarter)
Socio-economic forecasts for the 2045 LRTP (8th quarter)
Base model of District 1 Regional Planning Model (6th quarter)
for 2045 LRTP
Financial Revenue Forecasts for 2045 LRTP (8th quarter)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:
FY 2018/19
Collier MPO FHWA (PL) $162,379
Consultant Services
FY 2019/20
Collier MPO FHWA (PL) $150,379
Consultant Services
FDOT District One Modeling
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
20
Task 4 - Financial Tables
Task 4 – Long Range Planning
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2018/19
Budget Category & Description
FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State
Match
FTA Local
Match
Trans.
Disad. Total (PL) (SU)5303
A. Personnel Services
MPO staff salaries, fringe
benefits, and other
deductions $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000
Subtotal: $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000
B. Consultant Services
2045 LRTP $122,379 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $122,379
Subtotal: $122,379 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $122,379
Total:
$162,379 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $162,379
Task 4 –Long Range Planning
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2019/20
Budget Category &
Description
FHWA FHWA
FTA
5303
FTA State
Match
FTA
Local
Match
Trans.
Disad. Total (PL) (SU)
A. Personnel Services
MPO staff salaries, fringe
benefits, and other
deductions $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000
Subtotal: $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000
B. Consultant Services
2045 LRTP $86,379 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $86,379
FDOT District 1 Model $34,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,000
Subtotal: $120,379 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,379
Total: $150,379 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,379
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
21
TASK 5 SPECIAL PROJECTS AND SYSTEMS
PLANNING
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
22
SPECIAL PROJECTS & SYSTEMS PLANNING
PURPOSE:
To complete various recurring and non-recurring planning projects. These projects will assist in
providing a balanced, multimodal transportation system.
PREVIOUS WORK:
Staff support to the citizen-based Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
Development of annual Work Program priorities for construction of new sidewalks, pathways
and bike lanes.
Served as liaison to FDOT to communicate the need for bicycle and pedestrian facilities on
State roads.
Completed an update of the Comprehensive Pathways Plan in 2012. Began the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan in 2017. The plan is expected to be completed in the 2nd quarter of
2018.
Coordinated with the City of Naples, Marco Island, Everglades City, and Collier County Staff
to complete an inventory of the current bike and pedestrian facilities.
Incorporated the inventory into the Collier County Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Map which
will be published in 2018.
Completed the Naples Manor Walkable Community Study (March 2010), Immokalee Walkable
Community Study (December 2011), and the Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (June
2018).
Participated in the US 41 (Commercial Drive to Guilford Road) and Airport Pulling Road (US
41 to Estey Avenue) Pedestrian/ Bicycle Safety Audit.
The MPO first adopted CMS priorities in August 2003.
Developed the CMC Stakeholders Committee which developed the concept for the update of
the CMP in 2006.
Updated CMP in 2008 and in 2017 to better define the CMP performance measures and process
for projects.
REQUIRED TASKS:
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANNING SUPPORT:
Consultant services to complete the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan .
Conduct an annual project prioritization process, if needed.
Participate in special events that promote bicycle/pedestrian activities and safety education.
Continue outreach to Naples Pathway Coalition, Community Traffic Safety Team and Healthy
Community Coalition of Collier County to gain community support of Bicycle and Pedestrian
initiatives.
Coordinate with MPO member governments and School District regarding data collection
activities to quantify number of bicyclists and pedestrians at specific locations around Collier
County.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
23
Coordinate with FDOT and local governments to ensure that roadway expansion and retrofit
projects work towards meeting the bicycle/pedestrian goals identified in the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan.
Work with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and School District to identify candidate
projects for Safe Routes to Schools Program.
Analyze bicycle/pedestrian facilities and crashes
Update the multi-modal components of the LRTP, and LOS analysis as needed.
Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities plans and programs into multi-modal and mode-
shift efforts.
Coordinate with, and coordinate support for, the transit modal interface.
Attend and participate in workshops and seminars sponsored by FHWA, FDOT and other
professional organizations as appropriate.
Coordinate with FDOT and member agencies to address integration of MAP-21 and FAST
Performance Management Measures into Bicycle and Pedestrian planning in the move towards
performance based planning.
Consultant services may be used on this task.
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS SUPPORT:
Review CMP 2017 Update with the Congestion Management Committee (CMC) and prioritize
CMP projects for funding from Federal, State or local sources.
Complete a biannual Transportation System Performance Report to provide a thorough system
assessment in order to identify where priority investments should be made.
Staff will continue to coordinate with the Lee County MPO by attending their Traffic
Management and Operations Committee (TMOC) and on the Collier/Lee/Charlotte Traffic
Incident Management Committee to the extent necessary and feasible.
Continue to coordinate with Collier Area Transit (CAT) and LeeTran with the LinC system
which connects CAT and LeeTran; thereby connecting two counties over an expansive
geographical area.
Coordinate with FDOT and member agencies to address Congestion Management Planning in
an effort to move towards performance based planning.
Consultant and/or MPO staff will continue to review the current CMP and will update or revise
the plan to reflect the latest strategies and performance measures as necessary.
Attend and participate in local, jurisdictional, agency, municipality, FDOT and Lee MPO
technical meetings and workshops related to CMC, CMP, and congestion relief strategies.
Consultant and/or MPO staff to gather traffic volume, traffic signal, and roadway geometry
information and crash statistics to facilitate the MPO’s assessment of congestion for the
Metropolitan Area.
Facilitate “best practices” approach for incorporating CMP measures into existing plans and
programs, including preliminary engineering, traffic simulation modeling, and project
prioritization.
Staff will continue to research alternative transportation choices to include Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) strategies in the CMP.
Consultant and MPO staff will prepare a Countywide Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
24
END PRODUCT: (TARGET DATE)
Prioritized Transportation Alternative Program Projects (as needed)
Prioritized Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects for inclusion in
FDOT’s Work Program. (as needed)
Coordinated efforts with member governments. (ongoing)
Pathways element of the Regional Transportation
Network. (annually)
Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST) meetings and activities (monthly)
Updated Bike/Ped Users Map (as needed)
Bicycle and Pedestrian crash data (as needed)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2nd quarter)
Transportation System Performance Report (7th quarter)
Updated Congestion Management Process (as necessary)
Updated CMP project identification and prioritization (as necessary)
Methodology.
Updated transportation project information. (ongoing)
Updated traffic volume, signal and roadway geometry information (as necessary)
Prioritized Congestion Management projects for funding. (as necessary)
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (4th quarter)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:
FY 2018/19
Collier MPO FHWA (PL) $117,000
Consultant Services FHWA (SA) $200,000
FY 2019/20
Collier MPO FHWA (PL) $67,000
Consultant Services
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
25
Task 5 - Financial Tables
Task 5 ‐ Special Projects & Systems Planning
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2018/19
Budget Category &
Description
FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State
Match
FTA Local
Match
Trans.
Disad. Total (PL) (SA)5303
A. Personnel Services
MPO staff salaries,
fringe benefits, and
other deductions $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
Subtotal: $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
B. Consultant Services
Transportation
System Performance
Report $61,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,000
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master
Plan $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000
Strategic Highway
Safety Plan $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Subtotal: $67,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $267,000
Total: $117,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $317,000
Task 5 ‐ Special Projects & Systems Planning
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2019/20
Budget Category &
Description
FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State
Match
FTA Local
Match
Trans.
Disad. Total (PL) (SU)5303
A. Personnel Services
MPO staff salaries,
fringe benefits, and
other deductions $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
Subtotal:$50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
B. Consultant Services
Transportation
System Performance
Report $17,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,000
Subtotal:$17,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,000
Total:$67,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,000
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
26
TASK 6 TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED PLANNING
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
27
TRANSIT & TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLANNING
PURPOSE:
To develop the LRTP, TIP and other plans, programs and technical studies relating to public
transportation at a system level for Collier County. To oversee and provide planning services for a
coordinated Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Program in Collier County, in accordance with
Chapter 427 of the Florida Statutes (FS) and Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Rule 41-2.
PREVIOUS WORK:
Compilation of transit operations data, including ridership, fare revenues, and other pertinent
data to evaluate efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system.
Major Update and Annual Progress reports for the TDP.
Coordinated with PTNE to address Transit Asset Management (TAM).
Long Range Transit Needs section as part of the adopted 2040 LRTP.
Completed the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) which includes a complete
evaluation of programmed services to determine the most effective approach to providing
transportation service in Collier County within the current financial and operating constraints.
Completed the Transit Development Plan (TDP) major update which was adopted in August
2015.
Completed the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) Bus Stop Assessment / Study.
Completed the Transit Fare Analysis Study addressing fixed route and paratransit.
Participated in the development of Rule 41-2, F.A.C.
Attended meetings of the TD Commission.
Provided staff services to the Local Coordinating Board (LCB).
Managed the TD services and prepared grant applications.
As the Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA), completed the Community
Transportation Coordinator renewal in 2018.
Completed the Annual Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) evaluations.
Began the TDSP major update in 2018.
Completed the TDSP Minor Updates.
Began the Transit Fare Analysis Study (expected to be completed in June 2018)
Coordinated with PTNE to review a scope of work for the Transit Impact Analysis.
REQUIRED TASKS:
TRANSIT:
Conduct and maintain the operations of the MPO including providing administrative support
activities such as financial management, contract management, public outreach, personnel
matters, procurement of equipment and supplies and general management of Transit Planning
at the system level within the MPO. (Technical Code (TC) # 44.21.00)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
28
MPO staff and Board, and PTNE staff will attend and participate in meetings, seminars, training
and workshops related to public transportation service which may include fixed route, ADA
and ParaTransit Services. (TC # 44.21.00)
Coordinate with transportation partners to identify transit projects for various State and Federal
funding programs. (TC # 44.27.00)
Prepare Transit Joint Participation Agreements and Section 5305(d) Grant Applications for
submittal with biannual UPWP and during the interim year. (TC # 44.21.00)
Update of annual Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goals (TC #44.21.00).
Annual preparation of TIPs and TIP Amendments (TC #44.25.00).
Coordinate with the planning departments of the municipalities to ensure that a multi-modal
aspect is included in their plans or projects (TC #44.22.00).
MPO and PTNE staff will provide project management for consultant work activities associated
with the major update and annual reports to the TDP. (TC # 44.24.00)
MPO staff will coordinate with PTNE staff on the major updates and annual reports to the TDP.
(TC # 44.24.00)
Consultant and staff activities for the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. (TC #44.23.01
and 44.23.02)
Consultant and staff activities for the Minor Annual Updates to the TDSP which also may serve
as the Locally Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan (LCHSTP) as required for
FTA §5307, §5310 and §5311 and the programs previously known as Job Access and Reverse
Commute (JARC) and New Freedom programs. (TC #44.26.12)
If the BCC becomes the designated recipient of additional FTA funds, the MPO staff will
coordinate as needed with the designated recipient regarding the grants. (TC #44.26.12)
MPO staff will coordinate with PTNE and consultants regarding any multi-modal safety
initiatives. (TC# 44.26.00 and 44.26.16)
MPO staff will coordinate with PTNE to address transit performance measures as required. (TC
#44.26.00)
Consultant and staff activities to conduct a Transit Impact Analysis Study which will evaluate
the demand placed on the community’s transit network by development, which is an
important dimension of the overall transportation network that is overlooked when assessing
the impacts of development. (TC # 44.23.01 and 44.24.00)
Consultant and staff activities to prepare the Transit Element of the 2045 Long Range
Transportation Plan. (TC #44.22.00)
Consultant and staff activities to prepare a Collier Area Transit Park and Ride Study. (TC #
44.26.15)
Consultant and staff activities to prepare a major update to the CAT Transit Development
Plan. (TC #44.24.00)
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED (TC#44.26.12, 44.26.13, 44.26.14 and 44.26.15):
Monitor and evaluate performance of the CTC.
Monitor Unmet Needs as determined by the TDSP Major Update.
Cooperate with the CTC in developing funding applications.
Coordinate with TD Commission and the LCB to ensure the maintenance of the Paratransit
System.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
29
Attend and participate in meetings, seminars and workshops sponsored by the CTD and
FDOT.
Provide staff support to the LCB Board. Technical assistance includes preparation of meeting
materials, meeting notices including legal advertisements of meetings and meeting
advertisements in the Department of State Florida Administrative Register, official minutes,
and maintaining permanent meeting records.
Coordinate TD planning with the Transit Development Plan
Insure effective coordination of non-emergency transportation services in metropolitan and
Immokalee rural areas.
Review system safety and security considerations.
END PRODUCT: (TARGET DATE)
Various grant applications throughout the year. (ongoing)
Annual Transit Performance Report by PTNE. (annually)
FTA Section 5305(d) Grant application (annually)
FTA Section 5305(d) Funding Agreement (as needed)
TDP Annual Updates (PTNE and MPO) (2nd and 8th Quarter)
Major TDP Update (7th quarter)
Transit Element of the TIP (2nd and 8th Quarter)
Transit Impact Analysis (4th Quarter)
Park and Ride Study (6th Quarter)
Transit Element of the Long Range Transportation Plan (8th Quarter)
TD Services Program (maintained by CTC). (ongoing)
Major Update of the TDSP (2nd Quarter)
Minor Update of TDSP (8th Quarter)
Updated Memoranda of Agreements, service contracts. (as required)
Agendas and minutes for LCB meetings. (quarterly)
FY 2018/19 annual evaluation of the CTC. (4th Quarter)
FY 2019/20 annual evaluation of the CTC. (8th Quarter)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: FY 2018/19
Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement FHWA (PL) $ 25,000
Collier MPO FTA (Sec. 5305) FY 17/18 $113,655
Collier Area Transit State (cash match) FY 17/18 $ 14,207
Consultant Services Local match (FY 17/18) $ 14,207
FTA (Sec. 5305) FY 18/19 $113,655
State (cash match) FY 18/19 $ 14,207
Local match FY 18/19 $ 14,207
State TD Trust Fund $ 26,962
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
30
FY 2019/20
Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement FTA (Sec. 5305) $113,655
Collier MPO State (cash match) $ 14,207
Collier Area Transit Local match $ 14,207
Consultant Services State TD Trust Fund $ 26,915
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
31
Task 6 - Financial Tables
Task 6 –Transit & TD Planning
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 18/19
Budget Category &
Description
FTA 5305
FY 17/18
FTA State
Match
FY 17/18
FTA
Local
Match
FY 17/18
FHWA
(PL)
FTA 5305
FY 18/19
FTA State
Match
FY 18/19
FTA Local
Match
FY 18/19
Trans.
Disad. Total
A. Personnel Services
MPO staff salaries,
fringe benefits, and
other deductions $74,965 $9,370 $9,370
$0 $19,264 $2,408 $2,408 $21,102 $138,887
Subtotal: $74,965 $9,370 $9,370
$0 $19,264 $2,408 $2,408 $21,102 $138,887
B. Consultant Services
Transit Impact Analysis $32,800 $4,100 $4,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,000
Park and Ride Study $0 $0 $0 $0 $48,000 $6,000 $6,000 $0 $60,000
TDP Major Update $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,671 $5,459 $5,459 $0 $54,589
TDSP Major Update $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 $25,000
Subtotal: $32,800 $4,100 $4,100 $25,000 $91,671 $11,459 $11,459 $6,000 $180,589
C. Travel
MPO Staff and PTNE staff
attendance at training
and conferences $3,887 $486 $486 $0 $1,600 $200 $200 $2,000 $8,859
Subtotal: $3,887 $486 $486 $0 $1,600 $200 $200 $2,000 $8,859
D. Other Direct Expenses
Legal Ads $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,760 $2,760
Website $240 $30 $30 $0 $240 $30 $30 $0 $600
Fed Ex/ Postage $120 $15 $15 $0 $80 $10 $10 $1,100 $1,350
Office Supplies $1,643 $206 $206 $0 $800 $100 $100 $0 $3,055
Subtotal: $2,003 $251 $251 $0 $1,120 $140 $140 $3,860 $7,765
Total: $113,655 $14,207 $14,207 $25,000 $113,655 $14,207 $14,207 $26,962 $336,100
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
32
Task 6 –Transit & TD Planning
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 19/20
Budget Category & Description
FHWA
(PL)
FHWA
(SU)FTA 5305
FTA State
Match
FTA Local
Match
Trans.
Disad. Total
A. Personnel Services
MPO staff salaries, fringe
benefits, and other deductions $0 $0 $19,264 $2,408 2,408 $21,055 $45,135
Subtotal: $0 $0 $19,264 $2,408 $2,408 $21,055 $45,135
B. Consultant Services
Transit Element of 2045 LRTP $0 $0 $36,000 $4,500 $4,500 $0 $45,000
TDP Major Update $0 $0 $52,501 $6,562 $6,562 $0 $65,625
Subtotal: $0 $0 $88,501 $11,062 $11,062 $0 $110,625
C. Travel
MPO Staff and PTNE staff
attendance at training and
conferences $0 $0 $3,887 $486 $486 $2,000 $6,859
Subtotal: $0 $0 $3,887 $486 $486 $2,000 $6,859
D. Other Direct Expenses
Legal Ads $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,760 $2,760
Website $0 $0 $240 $30 $30 $0 $300
Fed Ex/ Postage $0 $0 $120 $15 $15 $1,100 $1,250
Office Supplies $0 $0 $1,643 $206 $206 $0 $2,055
Subtotal: $0 $0 $2,003 $251 $251 $3,860 $6,365
Total: $0 $0 $113,655 $14,207 $14,207 $26,915 $168,984
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
33
TASK 7 REGIONAL COORDINATION
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
34
REGIONAL COORDINATION
PURPOSE:
Provide for the creation of a region-wide multimodal transportation planning process in accordance
with Federal and State guidelines to ensure the coordination of transportation planning and policy
activities in FDOT District One.
PREVIOUS WORK:
Represented the MPO at local, regional, State and Federal meetings.
Attended quarterly Coordinated Urban Transportation Studies (CUTS) meetings, MPOAC
meetings.
Developed and updated an interlocal agreement between the Collier MPO and the Lee County
MPO coordinating regional transportation solutions.
Development and adoption of Lee-Collier Bi-County Regional Transportation Network that
includes Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) and other important cross-county connections and
intermodal facilities.
Developed, adopted, and updated the Regional Transportation Network Priorities for Statewide
Discretionary funding.
Developed the evaluation criteria for and ranking of candidate Transportation Regional
Incentive Program (TRIP) projects.
The 2040 District wide model.
REQUIRED ACTIVITIES:
Participation in the Lee County MPO and advisory committee meetings.
Participation and coordination of Joint MPO Board and Joint Advisory Committee meetings
with Lee County.
Coordinate with FDOT, Lee County MPO, other adjoining MPOs and adjoining jurisdictions,
municipalities or agencies to ensure that regional needs are being addressed and planning
activities are consistent. Such coordination includes but is not limited to discussion of regional
plans, review of the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) plan, evaluation and ranking of TRIP
projects, and update of Joint priorities for regional and statewide funding.
Develop, adopt and update regional transportation priorities, including the Regional
Transportation Network Priorities, the Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP)
projects and Regional Enhancement Priorities.
Manage consultant services as required.
Participation and membership in, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(AMPO), MPOAC, District One CUTS, FDOT / FHWA quarterly confere nce calls and regional
quarterly meetings, and Florida’s Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative
(FHREDI) meetings. Travel may be required for this activity.
Analysis of State and Federal laws and regulations for MPOs, committees and local government
officials to aid them in the application of regional transportation policy strategies.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
35
END PRODUCT: (TARGET DATE)
An enhanced regional transportation planning process. (ongoing)
Participation in the statewide MPOAC, the quarterly MPO
Staff Directors’ Advisory Committee and MPOAC subcommittees,
and FDOT District One CUTS meetings. (quarterly)
Participation in the Lee County TAC meetings. (monthly)
Joint meetings with the Lee County MPO advisory committees
and MPO Board. (annually)
Participation in SWFRPC planning process. (as necessary)
TRIP Priorities. (as necessary)
Joint MPO Priorities for Statewide Discretionary Funding (as needed)
Updated regional transportation priorities. (as needed)
FHWA/FTA/FDOT meetings and trainings (as needed)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:
FY 2018/19
Collier MPO FHWA (PL) $35,000
FY 2019/20
Collier MPO FHWA (PL) $30,000
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
36
Task 7 - Financial Tables
Task 7‐ Regional Coordination
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2018/19
Budget Category &
Description
FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State
Match
FTA Local
Match
Trans.
Disad. Total (PL) (SU)5303
A. Personnel Services
MPO staff salaries,
fringe benefits, and
other deductions $28,000 $0 0 0 0 0 $28,000
Subtotal: $28,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,000
B. Travel
Travel to MPOAC and
any other out of
county activities as
necessary $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000
Subtotal: $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000
Total: $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000
Task 7‐ Regional Coordination
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2019/20
Budget Category &
Description
FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State
Match
FTA Local
Match
Trans.
Disad. Total (PL) (SU)5303
A. Personnel Services
MPO staff salaries,
fringe benefits, and
other deductions $25,000 $0 0 0 0 0 $25,000
Subtotal:$25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000
B. Travel
Travel to MPOAC and
any other out of
county activities as
necessary $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000
Subtotal:$5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000
Total:$30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
37
TASK 8 LOCALLY FUNDED ACTIVITIES
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
38
LOCALLY FUNDED ACTIVITIES
PURPOSE:
To cover any MPO expenses deemed not eligible or reimbursable by FHWA PL, TD or FTA Section
5305(d) funding.
PREVIOUS WORK:
Preparation of resolutions and policy positions with respect to legislative issues.
Reimbursement of travel and training expenses not eligible for reimbursement from the FHWA
PL, TD or FTA Section 5305(d) Grants.
REQUIRED TASKS:
Requests are often made of MPO staff to prepare resolutions and policy position statements which are
not eligible for grant reimbursement. Travel expenses will be reimbursed consistent with the MPO’s
adopted policy, and any expenses that are not eligible for grant reimbursement will be funded from this
task.
TASK ACTIVITIES:
Preparation of resolutions and policy positions with respect to legislative issues.
Payment for training and travel that is not eligible for FHWA PL, TD or FTA Section
5305(d) reimbursement.
Payment of any shortfall of Consultant or Personnel costs.
Payment of funds to operate the MPO until reimbursement by the grantor.
END PRODUCT: (TARGET DATE)
Resolutions and policy position statements. (as necessary)
Membership to AICP, AMPO, and other organizations. (as necessary)
Training and travel. (as necessary)
Funds necessary to operate the MPO. (as necessary)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:
FY 2018/19
Collier MPO Local Funds $ 8,000
FY 2019/20
Collier MPO Local Funds $ 8,000
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
39
Task 8 - Financial Tables
Task 8 ‐Locally Funded Activities
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2019/20
Budget Category &
Description
FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State
Match
FTA Local
Match
Trans.
Disad.
Other
Total (PL) (SU)5303
A. Miscellaneous Expenses
Resolutions and
policy positions,
travel, membership
dues, and any other
expenses not
eligible for grant
reimbursement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000 $8,000
Total: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000 $8,000
Task 8 ‐Locally Funded Activities
Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2018/19
Budget Category &
Description
FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State
Match
FTA Local
Match
Trans.
Disad.
Other
Total (PL) (SU) 5303
A. Miscellaneous Expenses
Resolutions and
policy positions,
travel, membership
dues, and any other
expenses not
eligible for grant
reimbursement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000 $8,000
Total: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000 $8,000
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
40
TASK 9 STATE SUPPORT
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
41
STATE SUPPORT FOR FTA SECTION 5305(D)
PURPOSE:
To provide guidance, technical assistance and one-half the cash match to the MPO, in support of the
transit planning activities; provide one-half the local cash match for the FTA Section 5303 or 5305(d)
funds supporting UPWP Tasks.
PREVIOUS WORK:
Annual State support since FY 1997-1998.
METHODOLOGY:
The FDOT will assist the MPO staff in the guidance and support of transit project planning efforts.
Management efforts include State support in the form of a cash match. Funding in this category is
contingent upon execution of a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) between FDOT and the MPO.
END PRODUCT: (TARGET DATE)
Cash match and assistance with management and
technical tasks funded with FTA Section 5303/5305(d) funds. (Ongoing)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:
FY 2018/19
FDOT FDOT (17/18) $14,207
FDOT (18/19) $14,207
FY 2019/20
FDOT FDOT $14,207
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
42
TABLES
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
TABLE 1 AGENCY PARTICIPATION FY2018/19 Soft Match Cash Match185,000$ 245,000$ -$ 72,783$ -$ -$ -$ 402,783$ 30,000$ 2-$ 20,000$ -$ 4,411$ -$ -$ -$ 24,411$ 10,000$ 3-$ 20,000$ -$ 4,411$ -$ -$ -$ 24,411$ 4-$ 162,379$ -$ 35,813$ -$ -$ -$ 198,192$ 122,379$ 567,000$ 50,000$ 200,000$ -$ 25,805$ -$ -$ -$ 342,805$ 267,000$ 620,000$ 5,000$ 227,310$ 5,514$ 28,414$ 28,414$ 26,962$ 341,614$ 180,589$ 75,000$ 30,000$ -$ 7,719$ -$ -$ -$ 42,719$ 8-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,000$ -$ 8,000$ 177,000$ 532,379$ 227,310$ 156,456$ 28,414$ 36,414$ 26,962$ 1,184,935$ 177,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 177,000$ 177,000$ 532,379$ 200,000$ 227,310$ 156,456$ 28,414$ 36,414$ 26,962$ 1,384,935$ 609,968$ FHWA PL FHWA SA FDOT FTA 5305 TD Trust Collier Co. Naples Everglades Marco Is. Total-$ 156,456$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 156,456$ -$ 14,207$ -$ -$ 8,879$ 3,552$ -$ 1,776$ 28,414$ 532,379$ 200,000$ -$ 113,655$ 26,962$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 872,996$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,000$ 2,000$ -$ 1,000$ 8,000$ -$ 14,207$ 113,655$ -$ 8,879$ 3,552$ -$ 1,776$ 142,069$ 177,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 177,000$ 709,379$ 200,000$ 184,870$ 227,310$ 26,962$ 22,759$ 9,104$ -$ 4,552$ 1,384,935$ * - FTA Section 5305 includes 2017/18 and 18/19 funding Amount to Consultant De-obligation from 17/18 FHWA (PL)Total De-obligation from prior fiscal yearsAdministrationTransportation Improvement Program (TIP)Regional CoordinationTransit and Transportation DisadvantagedLocally Funded ActivitiesData Collection/ DevelopmentSpecial Projects and Systems PlanningLong Range Planning FTA Section 5305*Total fiscal year 2018/19 funds for all tasksFDOT(1) For FY 2018/2019, FDOT will "soft match" the MPP/PL Funds using toll revenue expenditures as a credit toward the non-Federal matching share. requested in this UPWP.State Support/Match for MPO (1)FY 18/19 State and Local Support for FTA Program (2)FY 2018/19 Local FundingLocal TD Trust Total The amount identified on this line represent the amount of "soft match" required (both State and local) for the amount of Federal PL section 112 fundsTotal cost, including carryover, for all tasks5305 CarryoverDe-Obligation from Prior Fiscal Years(2) This amount identified on this line represents the amount of FTA 5305 funding and the amount of local match (10%) required.Task #Task DescriptionFY 2018/19 FundingTotal cost, including carryover, for all tasksFHWA (SA)T-1 9.B.1Packet Pg. 165Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work
TABLE 2 FUNDING SOURCE TABLE FY 2018/19 T-2 Task DescriptionFHWA PLFDOTLocalTask #FederalSoft MatchFederal State Local Federal State LocalFunding1 Administration $ 85,000 245,000$ 72,783$ 330,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 402,783$ 2 Data Collection/Development 20,000$ 4,411$ 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,411$ 3 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 20,000$ 4,411$ 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,411$ 4 Long Range Planning 162,379$ 35,813$ 162,379$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 198,192$ 5 Special Projects and Systems Planning $ 67,000 50,000$ 200,000$ 25,805$ 317,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 342,805$ 6 Transit and Transportation Disadvantaged $ 20,000 5,000$ 5,514$ 25,000$ 113,655$ 14,207$ 14,207$ 113,655$ 14,207$ 14,207$ 26,962$ 8,000$ 349,614$ 7 Regional Coordination $ 5,000 30,000$ 7,719$ 35,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 42,719$ 8 Locally Funded Activities $ - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total fiscal year 2018/19 funds for all tasks $ 177,000 532,379$ 200,000$ 156,456$ 909,379$ 113,655$ 14,207$ 14,207$ 113,655$ 14,207$ 14,207$ 26,962$ 8,000$ 1,384,935$ State Support/Match for MPO (1)-$ -$ -$ 156,456$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 156,456$ State and Local Support for FTA Program (2)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,207$ 14,207$ -$ 28,414$ FY 2018/19 Funding-$ 532,379$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 113,655$ -$ -$ 846,034$ FY 2018/19 Local Funding-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 26,962$ 8,000$ 34,962$ Roll Forward from Prior Fiscal Year177,000$ -$ -$ 113,655$ 14,207$ 14,207$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 319,069$ Total cost, including carryover, for all tasks177,000$ 532,379$ 200,000$ 156,456$ 909,379$ 113,655$ 14,207$ 14,207$ 113,655$ 14,207$ 14,207$ 26,962$ 8,000$ 1,384,935$ TotalDe-obligated Funding from 17/18State TD TrustFTA 5305 2017-18 (Carry Forward)Total Federal FundingFHWA SA FederalFTA 5305 2018-199.B.1Packet Pg. 166Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work
TABLE 3 AGENCY PARTICIPATION FY 2019/20 T-3 Soft Match Cash Match1259,185$ -$ 57,164$ -$ -$ -$ 316,349$ 5,000$ 220,000$ -$ 4,411$ -$ -$ -$ 24,411$ 10,000$ 320,000$ -$ 4,411$ -$ -$ -$ 24,411$ -$ 4150,379$ -$ 33,167$ -$ -$ -$ 183,546$ 120,379$ 567,000$ -$ 14,777$ -$ -$ -$ 81,777$ 17,000$ 6-$ 113,655$ -$ 14,207$ 14,207$ 26,915$ 168,984$ 110,625$ 730,000$ -$ 6,617$ -$ -$ -$ 36,617$ -$ 8-$ -$ -$ -$ 8,000$ -$ 8,000$ -$ 546,564$ 113,655$ 120,547$ 14,207$ 22,207$ 26,915$ 844,095$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 546,564$ 113,655$ 120,547$ 14,207$ 22,207$ 26,915$ 844,095$ 263,004$ FHWA PL FDOT FTA 5305 TD Trust Collier Co. Naples Everglades Marco Is.Total-$ 120,547$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 120,547$ -$ 14,207$ -$ -$ 8,879$ 3,552$ -$ 1,776$ 28,414$ 546,564$ -$ 113,655$ 26,915$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 687,134$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,000$ 2,000$ -$ 1,000$ 8,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 546,564$ 134,754$ 113,655$ 26,915$ 13,879$ 5,552$ -$ 2,776$ 844,095$ TotalAmount to ConsultantTask #Task DescriptionFDOTFTA Section 5305FHWA (PL)Local TD Trust The amount identified on this line represent the amount of "soft match" required (both State and local) for the amount of Federal PL section 112 fundsTotal cost, including carryover, for all tasks5305 CarryoverPL Roll Forward from Prior Fiscal Years(2) This amount identified on this line represents the amount of FTA 5305 funding and the amount of local match (10%) required.FY 2019/20 Local FundingClose-Out from FY 2017/18Total fiscal year 2019/20 funds for all tasksFY 2019/20 FundingState Support/Match for MPO (1)State and Local Support for FTA Program (2)Total cost, including carryover, for all tasks(1) For FY 2019/2020, FDOT will "soft match" the MPP/PL Funds using toll revenue expenditures as a credit toward the non-Federal matching share. requested in this UPWP.Locally Funded ActivitiesTotal De-obligation from prior fiscal yearsAdministrationData Collection/ DevelopmentSpecial Projects and Systems PlanningLong Range Planning Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)Regional CoordinationTransit and Transportation Disadvantaged9.B.1Packet Pg. 167Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work
TABLE 4 FUNDING SOURCE TABLE FY 2019/20 T-4 FHWA PL FDOT TOTALState TD LocalFederal Soft Match FEDERAL PL Federal State Local Trust Funding Total1 Administration 259,185$ 57,164$ 259,185$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 316,349$ 2 Data Collection/Development 20,000$ 4,411$ 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,411$ 3 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 20,000$ 4,411$ 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,411$ 4 Long Range Planning 150,379$ 33,167$ 150,379$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 183,546$ 5 Special Projects and Systems Planning 67,000$ 14,777$ 67,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 81,777$ 6 Transit and Transportation Disadvantaged -$ -$ -$ 113,655$ 14,207$ 14,207$ 26,915$ -$ 168,984$ 7 Regional Coordination 30,000$ 6,617$ 30,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 36,617$ 8 Locally Funded Activities -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,000$ 8,000$ Total fiscal year 2019/20 funds for all tasks 546,564$ 120,547$ 546,564$ 113,655$ 14,207$ 14,207$ 26,915$ 8,000$ 844,095$ State Support/Match for MPO -$ 120,547$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 120,547$ State and Local Support for FTA Program-$ -$ -$ -$ 14,207$ 14,207$ -$ -$ 28,414$ 546,564$ -$ 113,655$ -$ -$ 26,915$ 687,134$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,000$ 8,000$ PL Roll Forward from Prior Fiscal Year-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 546,564$ 120,547$ -$ 113,655$ 14,207$ 14,207$ 26,915$ 8,000$ 844,095$ Total cost, including carryover, for all tasksFTA 5305 2019-20FY 2019/20 FundingFY 2019/20 Local FundingTask #Task Description 9.B.1Packet Pg. 168Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work
TABLE 5 The Planning Factors listed below are priority themes for the FHWA, the FTA and the FDOT. The matrix identifies which of the Planning Factors and Emphasis Areas that will be considered in each of the UPWP Task activity. Administration Data CollectionTIP Maintenance & Development Long Range PlanningSpecial Projects & Systems PlanningTransit & Transportation Disadvantaged PlanningRegional CoordinationLocally Funded Activities1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency. 2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non‐motorized users. 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non‐motorized users.4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight.5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns. 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight.7. Promote efficient system management and operation.8. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation. 9. Enhance travel and tourism.10. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. 11. Rural Transportation Planning 12. Transportation Performance Measures 13. ACES (Automated/Connected/Electric/Shared‐use) VehiclesMAP ‐21 Federal Planning FactorsFAST Planning FactorsFDOT Planning Emphasis AreasT-5 9.B.1Packet Pg. 169Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work
APPENDIX A
FY 2018/19 & 2019/2020
FEDERAL PLANNING FACTORS AND FDOT’S PLANNING
EMPHASIS AREAS (PEA)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
Appendix ‘A’
Federal Planning Factors and FDOT Planning Emphasis Area (PEA) for FY 2018/2019 & 2019/2020
The FTA and FHWA have in the past identified PEAs annually to promote priority themes for consideration, as
appropriate, in metropolitan and statewide Unified Planning Work Programs proposed for FTA and FHWA
funding. SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21 and the subsequent rulemaking have specified eight specific planning factors
that FTA and FHWA will use in determining MPO and UPWP compliance with federal and state requirements.
These factors are:
1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness,
productivity, and efficiency;
2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight;
5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and
promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and
economic development patterns;
6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for
people and freight;
7. Promote efficient system management and operation; and
8. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater
impacts of transportation system.
In addition to the existing factors, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act added two planning
factors:
1. Enhance travel and tourism.
2. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
FDOT Planning Emphasis Areas
The Florida Department of Transportation Office of Policy Planning develops Planning Emphasis Areas on a two-
year cycle in coordination with the development of Metropolitan Planning Organizations’ respective unified
planning work programs. Emphasis areas set planning priorities, support the Florida Transportation Plan, and give
importance to topic areas which MPOs are encouraged to address as they develop their planning programs.
Implementation of the seven goals of the Florida Transportation Plan requires embracing innovation; extensive
collaboration across jurisdictions, modes and disciplines; an emphasis on customer service; data and performance
feedback; and strategic investments for the efficient and effective allocation of resources.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations should consider the following topics when updating their Unified Planning
Work Plan.
Rural Transportation Planning
MAP-21 defined the structure and responsibilities of designated regional transportation planning organizations in
federal regulations for the first time. Florida Statutes include several provisions that require coordination with
local governments including those in rural areas. Some rural communities in Florida face significant development
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
pressures and need transportation investments to handle growing populations and economic activities. Others
simply struggle to maintain their existing transportation system and with providing services to a spread-out
community. MPOs are encouraged to plan for and coordinate with rural governmental entities both within their
planning boundaries as well as those areas outside of the current boundaries that are impacted by transportation
movements between regions.
Transportation Performance Measures
FHWA has finalized six interrelated performance rules to implement the transportation performance measures
framework established by MAP-21 and the FAST Act. Collectively, the rules address challenges facing the
transportation system, including: improving safety, maintaining the condition of the infrastructure, reducing traffic
congestions, improving the efficiency of the system and freight movement, protecting the environment, and
reducing delays in project delivery. The rules established national performance measures. State DOTs and MPOs
must establish targets for each measure. Planning documents will identify the strategies and investments used to
reach the targets. Progress towards meeting the targets will be reported through new and existing mechanisms.
MPOs need to account in their UPWP for the effort necessary to satisfy the federal requirements. As MPOs and
Florida DOT venture into this first round of target setting and adopting performance measures into our planning
products, more emphasis will be placed on this topic area. The cooperative efforts of Florida’s MPOs and DOT to
insure this new planning tool will be effective and well-coordinated will need to be shown in the upcoming UPWPs.
ACES (Automated/Connected/Electric/Shared-use) Vehicles
According to the Federal Highway Administration, “Transportation is in the midst of disruptive change from new
technologies (automated and connected vehicles); new institutions (shared mobility firms); and changing attitudes
(reduced car ownership). Across the nation, transportation planners are under pressure to develop performance-
oriented policies, plans, and investment decisions that consider an increasingly complex transportation landscape.
In the process, planners need to consider, but cannot yet reliably predict, the potential impact of disruptive and
transformational Connected Vehicle (CV) and Automated Vehicle (AV) technologies on safety, vehicle ownership,
road capacity, VMT, land-use, roadway design, future investment demands, and economic development, among
others. While some forms of CV and AV are already being deployed across the United States, significant
unknowns exist regarding the rate of technology adoption, which types of technologies will prevail in the
marketplace, the interaction between CV/AV vehicles and various forms of shared mobility services, and the
impacts of interim and widespread levels of CV/ AV usage.”
Adopting and supporting innovative technologies and business practices supports all seven goals of the Florida
Transportation Plan and the federal planning factors found in the FAST Act. ACES may lead to great
improvements in safety, transportation choices, and quality of life for Floridians, our visitors and the Florida
economy. Though there is a great deal of speculation and uncertainty of the potential impacts these technologies
will have, MPOs need to determine how best to address the challenges and opportunities presented to them by
ACES vehicles.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
APPENDIX B
FTA Grant Application
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR 2018/19-2019/20 FTA SECTION 5305(d) FUNDS
This application for FTA Section 5305(d) funds pertains to a study to be conducted by the Collier MPO staff in
the 2018/19-2019/20 fiscal year.
A consultant to the MPO will prepare a major update to the Transit Development Plan. This plan was last
adopted in 2015 and is scheduled to be updated in 2020.The update will ensure consistency with the Florida
Transportation Plan and the Florida Transportation Plan in order to reflect changes in local policy direction
and input gained from public involvement activities.
A consultant to the MPO will complete a Transit Impact Analysis. The purpose of this study is to understand
the demand placed on the community’s transit network by development, which is an important dimension of the
overall transportation network that is often overlooked when assessing the impacts of development.
A consultant to the MPO will conduct a Park and Ride study. The intent of this analysis is to evaluate the fare
box recovery for the fixed route and ADA services to ensure that any increase will not create a reduction in the
use of the service.
In addition, a consultant to the MPO will complete the transit element of the 2045 Long Range Transportation
Plan. The purpose of this study is to understand the demand placed on the community’s transit network by
development, which is an important dimension of the overall transportation network that is often overlooked
when assessing the impacts of development.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
Section 5305(d)
GMIS PLANNING LINE ITEM CODES –FFY 2018-19
(FTA Funds Only)
Technical
Classifications:
ITEM FTA Funds
44.21.00 Program Support and Administration $26,742
44.22.00 General Development and Comprehensive Planning $13,371
44.23.01 Long Range Transportation - System Level $6,686
44.23.02 Long Range Transportation - Project Level $6,686
44.24.00 Short Range Transportation Planning $13,371
44.25.00 Transportation Improvement Program $6,686
44.26.00 Planning Emphasis Areas $6,6867
44.26.12 Coordination of Non-Emergency Human Service Transportation $13,371
44.26.13 Participation of Transit Operators in Metropolitan Planning
44.26.14 Planning for Transit Systems Management / Operations to Increase
Ridership
44.26.15 Support Transit Capital Investment Decisions through Effective
Systems Planning
44.26.16 Incorporating Safety & Security in Transportation Planning $6,686
44.27.00 Other Activities $13,371
TOTAL NET PROJECT COST $113,655
ACCOUNTING CODE
NUMBER
44.30.01 Personnel $14,848
44.30.02 Fringe Benefits $4,416
44.30.03 Travel $1,600
44.30.04 Equipment $0
44.30.05 Supplies $800
44.30.06 Contractual $91,911
44.30.07 Other $900
44.30.08 Indirect Charges $0
TOTAL NET PROJECT COST $113,655
FUND CODE
NUMBER
44.40.01 MPO Activities $113,655
44.40.02 Transit Operator Activities
44.40.03 State and /or Local Agency Activities
TOTAL NET PROJECT COST $113,655
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
Section 5305(d)
Approved Project Budget for FFY 2018-19
(Total Dollars)
TECHNICAL
CLASSIFICATIONS:
ITEM FTA Funds
44.21.00 Program Support and Administration $33,428
44.22.00 General Development and Comprehensive Planning $16,714
44.23.01 Long Range Transportation - System Level $8,357
44.23.02 Long Range Transportation - Project Level $8,357
44.24.00 Short Range Transportation Planning $16,714
44.25.00 Transportation Improvement Program $8,357
44.26.00 Planning Emphasis Areas $8,357
44.26.12 Coordination of Non-Emergency Human Service Transportation $16,714
44.26.13 Participation of Transit Operators in Metropolitan Planning
44.26.14 Planning for Transit Systems Management / Operations to
Increase Ridership
44.26.15 Support Transit Capital Investment Decisions through Effective
Systems Planning
44.26.16 Incorporating Safety & Security in Transportation Planning $8,357
44.27.00 Other Activities $16,714
TOTAL Net Project Cost $142,069
ACCOUNTING CODE
NUMBER
44.30.01 Personnel $18,560
44.30.02 Fringe Benefits $5,520
44.30.03 Travel $2,000
44.30.04 Equipment $0
44.30.05 Supplies $1,000
44.30.06 Contractual $114,889
44.30.07 Other $100
44.30.08 Indirect Charges
TOTAL Net Project Cost $142,069
FUND CODE NUMBER
44.40.01 MPO Activities $142,069
44.40.02 Transit Operator Activities $0
44.40.03 State and/or Local Agency Activities $0
TOTAL Net Project Cost $142,069
Federal Share (80%) $113,655
Local Share (20%)$28,414
Accounting
Classification
91.37.08.8P-2 FPC Description
02 Technical Studies - Planning
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
Section 5305(d)
GMIS PLANNING LINE ITEM CODES –FFY 2019-20
(FTA Funds Only)
Technical
Classifications:
ITEM FTA Funds
44.21.00 Program Support and Administration $26,742
44.22.00 General Development and Comprehensive Planning $13,371
44.23.01 Long Range Transportation - System Level $6,686
44.23.02 Long Range Transportation - Project Level $6,686
44.24.00 Short Range Transportation Planning $13,371
44.25.00 Transportation Improvement Program $6,686
44.26.00 Planning Emphasis Areas $6,6867
44.26.12 Coordination of Non-Emergency Human Service Transportation $13,371
44.26.13 Participation of Transit Operators in Metropolitan Planning
44.26.14 Planning for Transit Systems Management / Operations to Increase
Ridership
44.26.15 Support Transit Capital Investment Decisions through Effective
Systems Planning
44.26.16 Incorporating Safety & Security in Transportation Planning $6,686
44.27.00 Other Activities $13,371
TOTAL NET PROJECT COST $113,655
ACCOUNTING CODE
NUMBER
44.30.01 Personnel $14,848
44.30.02 Fringe Benefits $4,416
44.30.03 Travel $3,887
44.30.04 Equipment $0
44.30.05 Supplies $1,643
44.30.06 Contractual $88,741
44.30.07 Other $120
44.30.08 Indirect Charges $0
TOTAL NET PROJECT COST $113,655
FUND CODE
NUMBER
44.40.01 MPO Activities $113,655
44.40.02 Transit Operator Activities
44.40.03 State and /or Local Agency Activities
TOTAL NET PROJECT COST $113,655
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
Section 5305(d)
Approved Project Budget for FFY 2019-20
(Total Dollars)
TECHNICAL
CLASSIFICATIONS:
ITEM FTA Funds
44.21.00 Program Support and Administration $33,428
44.22.00 General Development and Comprehensive Planning $16,714
44.23.01 Long Range Transportation - System Level $8,357
44.23.02 Long Range Transportation - Project Level $8,357
44.24.00 Short Range Transportation Planning $16,714
44.25.00 Transportation Improvement Program $8,357
44.26.00 Planning Emphasis Areas $8,357
44.26.12 Coordination of Non-Emergency Human Service Transportation $16,714
44.26.13 Participation of Transit Operators in Metropolitan Planning
44.26.14 Planning for Transit Systems Management / Operations to
Increase Ridership
44.26.15 Support Transit Capital Investment Decisions through Effective
Systems Planning
44.26.16 Incorporating Safety & Security in Transportation Planning $8,357
44.27.00 Other Activities $16,714
TOTAL Net Project Cost $142,069
ACCOUNTING CODE
NUMBER
44.30.01 Personnel $18,560
44.30.02 Fringe Benefits $5,520
44.30.03 Travel $4,859
44.30.04 Equipment $0
44.30.05 Supplies $2,055
44.30.06 Contractual $110,925
44.30.07 Other $150
44.30.08 Indirect Charges
TOTAL Net Project Cost $142,069
FUND CODE NUMBER
44.40.01 MPO Activities $142,069
44.40.02 Transit Operator Activities $0
44.40.03 State and/or Local Agency Activities $0
TOTAL Net Project Cost $142,069
Federal Share (80%) $113,655
Local Share (20%)$28,414
Accounting
Classification
91.37.08.8P-2 FPC Description
02 Technical Studies - Planning
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
APPENDIX C
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS – FHWA & FTA
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
FHWA & FTA Comments and MPO Responses
Page # Comment Type Comment Description
viii & x Critical “Titles 23 and 49 of the Federal Transit Act” is not accurate – these titles do
not just pertain to transit. It would be better stated as Titles 23 and 49, U.S.C.
Response The statements have been revised as suggested.
Page 6 Editorial Some End Products are listed in past tense. For example: Developed,
maintained and enhanced MPO website and web pages
Response The end tasks have been revised to remove the past tense verbs.
Page 19 Critical Many of the End Products are targeted towards the end of Year 2 of the
UPWP, yet less funding is planned than Year 1. Please review to ensure this
is accurate.
Response
Section 3.10 of the MPO Handbook states that if the MPO has an
unexpended balance on a task in year one of the UPWP and they wish to
continue with that task n year 2, the MPOs must leave the balance in the first
fiscal year of the two-year UPWP. The funds and budget would be available
July 1st of the second fiscal year of the UPWP. Many of the projects that have
been identified in the UPWP are expected to take more than 12 months for
completion. Funding from year one will be available to complete these tasks.
In addition, the MPO expects to have carry over funding from the close-out
of the FY 16/17-17/18 UPWP which will be added to the 2nd year.
General Editorial Good information about the performance measures in the introduction! I also
like that you include a section to show responses to comment received.
Overall, very comprehensive document!
Response Thank you for your positive comments.
General Editorial Tasks that involve consultant participation should provide enough detail
(such as project scope, work to be accomplished for each project, anticipated
completion dates, and project costs) about what the consultant
responsibilities are concerning the activities to be undertaken using federal-
aid funds. If that is not possible at this time, prior to the MPO’s use of PL
funds for these types planning projects or activities, the District should
forward a copy of the scope of services, the anticipated cost, and completion
date to the FHWA for review. It will continue to be the responsibility of the
District and MPO to ensure that all activities undertaken as part of these tasks
are eligible and are allowable costs.
Response
Understood. The scope of work for projects identified with consultant
participation is not available at this time. The MPO will send all scopes of
work to the District for review and approval prior to issuing a purchase order.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
General Editorial All Agreements or Certifications, including Debarment and Suspension,
Contracts, Grants, and Cooperative Agreements, Title VI agreements and
DBE statements should be signed and dated, and included in the final
document.
Response All agreements will be executed and included in Appendix H of the final
document.
General FTA Region IV If planning activities are proposed for funding under the 49 USC 5307
program or any other FTA program, please ensure they are listed and
programmed in the UPWP. (FTA Circular 9030.1E, p. IV-1)
Response
The MPO has not been notified of any planning activities proposed for funding
under the 49 USC 5307 program. Staff will coordinate with Collier County
PTNE Division and ensure that any future planning activities funded with
5307 funding are included in the UPWP.
General FTA Region IV If the programmed 5305(d) funds are estimates, coordination with the State DOT
may be required for UPWP modification or amendment after the release of the FTA
FY18 Apportionment Notice.
Response Understood. The MPO will coordinate with the State DOT to ensure that
accurate amounts are reflected in the UPWP as actual funding is updated.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
APPENDIX D
Response to Comments – FDOT
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
FDOT Comments and MPO Responses
General Comments:
Specific Comments:
1. Please ensure that the MPO uses the revised Cost Analysis Certification in their final UPWP. The liaison
will sign this form when the Board signs the final UPWP and Resolution. This Draft UPWP contains the
older version that needs to be “switched out” for the revised version)
a. This form is attached and available at the following link:
https://fms.fdot.gov/Anonymous/SendDocumentToClient?documentId=1788 (Alex’s
Recommendation)
The Cost Analysis Certification form has been revised and included in the final UPWP.
2. APPENDIX H Certification and Statements and Assurances ‐in response to the MPO’s request for
direction, please note the following: (Alex’s Recommendation)
a. The Joint Cert package is not required to be included in the UPWP, however, the MPO may
include it if they wish.
b. Please ensure that the MPO includes the signed UPWP Statements and Assurances
(Debarment and Suspension, Lobbying, DBE, Title IV/, and Appendices A and E) in their final
UPWP.
c. The form that includes all of the required Statements and Assurances is attached and available
at the following link:
https://fms.fdot.gov/Anonymous/SendDocumentToClient?documentId=1795
The signed UPWP Statements and Assurances will be included in Appendix H of the final UPWP.
3. Table 1, Agency Participation and Table 2, Funding Source Table (both the Task Tables & Summary
Tables on both pages T‐1 and T‐2): The De‐Obligation from Prior Fiscal years, should be updated to
reflect the revised requested amount of $177,000. (it is currently showing $132,000 which has been
revised since this Draft UPWP was submitted and has been reviewed initialed by FDOT Attorney Don
Conway and should be resolved by the Collier Board on Friday, April 13, 2018.
Table 1 and Table 2 have been updated to reflect the approved de‐obligation amount.
4. It appears that there may be a typographical error at the very top of the pages for T‐3 and T‐4. The
FY reads FY 2017/2018 on both pages but shouldn’t the dates listed on the top of the pages be
updated to reflect the two new fiscal years in which this UPWP will be adopted?
The fiscal years for Table 3 and Table 4 have been corrected.
5. Please include a brief narrative as to the percentage and expla nation of the Collier “Soft Match”. Here
is an example of what the narrative might look like:
FDOT Soft Match
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
Section 120 of Title 23, U.S.C., permits a state to use certain toll revenue expenditures as a credit
toward the non‐federal matching share of all programs authorized by Title 23, (with the exception of
Emergency Relief Programs) and for transit programs authorized by Chapter 53 of Title 49, U.S.C. This
is in essence a “soft‐match” provision that allows the federal share to be increased up to 100% to the
extent credits are available. The “soft match” amount being utilized to match the FHWA funding in
the UPWP is _____ of FHWA program funds for a total of ______ in FY 18/19 and ______ in FY 19/20
for a total of _______.
The narrative is included on page viii and has been updated to illustrate the amount of “soft‐match”
funding in each fiscal year.
6. If the MPO intends to manage a PL Study, it shall be included in their UPWP for the year(s) in which it will
be carried out. If the Collier MPO intends on managing the County Wide Strategic Highway Safety Plan,
previously programmed in the Work Program (WP) as FPN 4350411 and programmed with SA funds for
FY2019, it shall be listed in their UPWP. Due to the fact that this project is funded with SA funds and not PL
funds, it should have its own column to separately identify this planning study with the fund source (SA)
and the year(s) in which it will be completed. Specifically, on page T‐1, Agency Participation Table, a column
should be added in‐between the 2 columns of FHWA PL and FTA Section 5305* that reads: FHWA SA; funds
to be listed in the Task #5 row; Special Projects. Similarly, a column should be added on page T‐2 in the
Funding Source Table with the column labeled as FHWA SA and placed in‐between the 2 columns of FHWA
PL and FDOT Soft Match, also listing the funds in the Task #5 row; Special Projects. It shall also remain in
both the Work Program and the Collier TIP and a Modification will need to be processed to reflect the
update of the Responsible Agency from Collier County to the Collier MPO upon the UPWP approval.
Funding for the Strategic Highway Safety Plan has been identified in Task 5, and included in T‐1 and T‐2.
7. Planning Studies In The MPO Area: The last sentence in this paragraph reads “An update will occur in
2016”. Since 2016 has passed, this language should be updated to reflect that an update will occur in the
future, currently occurring or that an update already occurred.
The reference to 2016 has been removed.
Recommendations
8. An interactive table of contents, or section index would be very helpful to navigate the UPWP. (Alex’s
Recommendation).
Thank you for the recommendation. MPO staff will look into creating an interactive table of contents during
the next update.
9. Just a recommendation to update the Executive Director’s email address at the bottom of the SF‐424 form‐
it currently reflects the older address.
The email address has been corrected.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
10. Under the Planning Studies in the MPO Area: The narrative for some of the projects includes the agency
who is completing the study (responsible agency mentioned) while some of the examples of the planning
studies on this list do not. For example, the first one listed is the SR29 (in Collier County) and that it involves
a PD&E study, however, it doesn’t mention that it is being completed by FDOT. The next Planning Study
listed is Old US 41 (Lee/Collier County) and that it is being completed by FDOT. It is optional, but the MPO
may wish to mention the agency conducting the study for consistency purposes with this list.
The narrative has been updated to reflect the agency responsible for completing each study.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
APPENDIX E
Response to Comments – Board and Advisory Committee Members
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
Comments received from the TAC
1. Page xiii – What is the status of the full redesign and update of the website? Will that be complete before the new UPWP
starts (7/1/18)?
The website redesign is currently in the procurement process. Funding has been moved to Fiscal Year 2018/19. Redesign
is expected to be completed in Fiscal Year 2018/19.
2. Page xxiii – Correct the name of the MPO = Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization not Collier County…
a. What is the status of the Vacant Planner position? When will it be filled?
Corrected. The vacant planner position is being held at this time. There is not sufficient funding to hire another full time
position and fund essential studies over the next two years.
3. Page xxiv – BPAC membership was amended. The paragraph describing the membership should be edited to reflect
changes.
a. Please review and edit as appropriate the current chair and vice-chair of the committee so there are not 2 chairs and
2 vice-chairs listed.
b. Please review and edit as appropriate the font and spacing of bullets on this page
The above referenced items have been corrected as suggested.
4. Page xxv – Some of the advisory members of the CMC are listed as (Advisory) and some are not. Is there a difference?
All advisory members are non-voting. The list has been corrected to list all members similarly.
5. Page xxvii – Was the Interlocal Agreement revised or is the 3/20/09 the most recent document?
The 3/20/09 Interlocal agreement is the current document. The agreement is in the process of being updated.
6. Page 5 – Pursue a MPO Internship Program is listed as an end product – Is this a current initiative or left over from prior
MPO initiative?
The MPO is currently pursuing an internship program.
7. Page 6 – Status of the MPO Website – will the full redesign be completed by 7/1/18 and if not, is $5,000 for consultant
services in this task enough?
The website redesign is currently in the procurement process. Funding in the amount of $30,000 has been allocated in
Fiscal Year 2018/19. Redesign is expected to be completed in Fiscal Year 2018/19.
8. General comment about all End Products – throughout the UPWP - Some items are verbs/action words – complete, develop,
participate in, present…. and others are just lists of items - minutes of meetings, MPO Newsletters, etc. Should it be
standard? Recommend to use verbs – Create, Distribute, Conduct…
9. Page 10 – Required Activities – does the MPO review and develop comments on DRIs?
Review of DRIs has been removed from the required activities for this task.
10. Page 11 – Is the MPO planning to review and update the functional classifications etc.? Is this a separate task or part of the
LRTP or only if FDOT initiates it?
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
The functional classifications will only be addressed on an as needed basis. The MPO is not planning to update the
functional classifications at this time.
11. Page 11 – Analysis for the LRTP 2045 update – what is this end product – is this analysis of land use, traffic, TAZ,
functional classification? Explain what is being analyzed.
a. Once defined as to what the end products are - Is $20,00 for this task enough and is $10,000 for consultant enough?
This was a duplicated effort. It has been removed from this task.
12. Page 14-16 – No consultant services – what about DTS?
The TIP is being completed in house. No consultant services are required.
13. Page 19 – Please explain under required tasks what “Potential” means. Potential projects are not listed in the end product.
a. End Product – how is Data Development for the 2045 LRTP different from the end products in Task 2 – Analysis
for 2045 LRTP?
b. Lack of verbs make the tasks confusing. Is the MPO developing the Financial Revenues for 2045 or just reviewing
and incorporating them into the LRTP? Bullet 5 and 7 maybe repetitious. Similarly, bullets 4 and 6 are confusing.
The reference to “potential” has been removed. The Origin/Destination study has been modified to be a task and end
product. The verbs have been removed from end products. The repetitive bullets have been deleted.
14. Page 24 – Some end products are italicized. If placing names of reports or plans in italic, please be consistent throughout
document.
a. What is the status of the Bike/Ped Master Plan Update – will it be completed before 7/1/18?
The italics have been removed. The Bike/Ped Master Plan has been revised to show completion in the 2nd quarter.
15. Page 28 – “Annual preparation of TIPs and TIP Amendment with the assistance of a consultant” – Previously it was
indicated that the MPO was not using a consultant. This is not consistent, please explain.
The reference to assistance of a consultant has been removed.
a. References are to CAT staff – is this the transit provider or should there be a reference to PTNE staff?
The references to CAT staff have been corrected. The statements now reflect coordination with PTNE staff.
16. Page 29 – End Product – Add Major TDP to be consistent with the tables.
a. What is “Increased access to medical, social, recreational, shopping and jobs for the TD”?
b. What is the difference between bullet 6 and 19?
c. Typo in responsible agency – Collier MPO 1
Major TDP has been added as an end product. The statement referenced in “a”. (Increased access to medical, social…)
was a carryover from a previous UPWP and has been removed. Bullet 6 and 19 both refer to the TIP so bullet 19 was
removed. The typo in responsible agency has been corrected.
17. T-3 and T-4 – should be FY19/20 not FY17/18
The typo has been corrected.
18. Appendix “A” – please be consistent as to fonts, sizing, spacing, etc.
Formatting and font has been corrected.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
Comments received from the CAC
No comments received.
Comments received from the MPO Board
No comments received.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
APPENDIX F
Response to Comments –Public
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
Comments received from the Public
No comments received.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
APPENDIX G
Planning Studies in the MPO Area
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
PLANNING STUDIES IN THE MPO AREA
This list is compiled and/or updated by the Collier MPO staff for the purposes of regional planning. It is included here for reference.
SR 29 (in Collier County) – FDOT is completing a PD&E study that looks at several alternatives to provide more capacity through
Immokalee. An alternative has been endorsed by the MPO Board but the PD&E has not been approved by FHWA. This project has
been going on since 2007. The Collier MPO 2040 Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan include this project.
Old US 41 (Lee/Collier County)– FDOT will be completing a PD&E study to evaluate alternatives for capacity and sidewalk
improvements.
Triangle Blvd. Traffic Study – Collier County recently completed this study which analyzed the traffic impacts and improvement
concepts on Triangle Blvd. between US41 and SR951 (Collier Blvd.).
Pine Ridge Road Corridor Congestion Study – Pine Ridge Road between Livingston Road and I-75 was identified as having a level
of service “F”, failing, in the 2016 and 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIRs). Collier County began the Corridor
Congestion Study to identify existing and future conditions in the corridor, to develop and evaluate options to relieve the congestion,
to engage the public in presenting the study findings and take input, and to develop recommendations to guide decision-makers in
advancing future improvements. The recommendations of the study included several innovative intersection improvements and design
concepts which will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for approval. Ultimately, the County will pursue
preliminary engineering and environmental assessment to further evaluate the design features, right-of-way needs, and costs of the
chosen concept for the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road. The additional intersections at Whippoorwill Lane and
I-75 are within Limited Access Right-of-Way Limits. The County will pursue an Interchange Modification Report (IMR) with FDOT
for the intersections in that portion of the corridor.
Randall Boulevard/Oil Well Road Study – This study surrounds the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road corridors and it is intended
that this study clearly define the most appropriate corridor for needed multi-lane improvements to facilitate east-west travel. Collier
County is currently studying the corridors and will be considering several alternatives to provide more capacity for the area.
Green Boulevard Extension/ North Belle Meade Study – Collier County has not commenced this study, but it is intended to evaluate
the area that extends eastward from CR – 951 to surround the North Belle Meade area from Golden Gate Estates to I-75 and eastward
to Everglades Boulevard. The purpose of this study is to more clearly define the future collector roadway network in this area. Several
east-west and north-south needs-based corridors have been identified that would enhance circulation throughout the area. The study
effort would include determining the feasibility and preferred alignment for the identified corridors or alternatives that may be
developed during the study.
CR951 Congestion Relief Study – Collier County has not commenced this study, but it is intended to identify an alternative travel
route to the existing CR951 corridor due to forecasted high congestion levels by 2040. The study area extends from CR951 to City
Gate North Boulevard to Benfield Road on its eastern limits to US41 at its southern limits. The limits of this study area are subject to
change. The study will consider multiple travel routes, improvements to CR951, a no-build option, and evaluate other alternative
planning strategies to alleviate future congestion on CR951.
Transportation System Performance Report - This report will be completed by the Collier MPO with the assistance of a consultant.
It is intended to provide a thorough system assessment in order to identify where priority investments should be made. The report will
begin in 2018 and will be completed by March of 2020.
CAT Transit Development Plan (TDP) – The major update is due in September 2020. The major update will be completed as a joint
project with the Collier MPO/ Collier County PTNE and the assistance of a consultant. The update is programmed to begin with the
next fiscal year. The 2018 TDP Minor Update is due September 2018 and will be completed by Collier County PTNE staff.
Park and Ride Study – This study will identify sites for park and ride locations for CAT. The park and ride study will be a joint
project with the Collier MPO/ Collier County PTNE and the assistance of a consultant. The study is expected to be completed in the
fall of 2019.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
Transit Impact Analysis – This study is intended to help understand the demand placed on the community’s transit network by
development. This study will be a joint project with the Collier MPO/ Collier County PTNE and the assistance of a consultant. It is
expected to begin by the summer of 2018.
Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP in Collier County) – The 2018 TDSP Annual Update is due to the Commission
for the Transportation Disadvantaged by July 1, 2018. The minor update will be completed as a joint project with the Collier MPO and
Collier County PTNE. The next major update to the TDSP must be completed by October 1, 2018. The major update will be completed
as a joint project with the Collier MPO/ Collier County PTNE and the assistance of the Center for Urban Transportation Research.
The update is expected to begin by May 2018.
Strategic Highway Safety Plan – The County Wide Strategic Highway Safety Plan was funded through the Congestion Management
priority process. It is included in the TIP for funding in FY 18/19. The study will be managed by the MPO and completed by a
consultant. It is expected to begin in the fall of 2018.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
APPENDIX H
Statements and Assurances
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: FY 2018/19-2019/20 UPWP (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: MPO Agreement (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: MPO Agreement (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: MPO Agreement (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: MPO Agreement (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: MPO Agreement (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: MPO Agreement (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: MPO Agreement (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: MPO Agreement (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: MPO Agreement (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: MPO Agreement (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: MPO Agreement (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: MPO Agreement (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: MPO Agreement (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: MPO Agreement (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Resolution 2018-04 (5569 : Approve the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO Agreement)
05/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations
OBJECTIVE: For the Board to review and endorse the CAT Fare Study and provide comments.
CONSIDERATIONS: The Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement Division
(PTNE) administers Collier County’s public transportation system, known as Collier Area Transit (CAT).
The system consists of a fixed-route network comprised of 19 routes and partners with Lee County
Transit (LeeTran) to provide the LinC express route between the two counties. A paratransit service know
as Collier Area Paratransit (CAP), is also a part of the public transportation system which includes
complementary Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) service and Transportation Disad vantaged (TD)
services.
Collier County has the responsibility to ensure that a financially-sound and fiscally-accountable transit
system is available to citizens and visitors. Although fixed-route and paratransit fares only fund a portion
of CAT’s services, they are a critical component of the budget. It is appropriate for CAT to periodically
review and evaluate its fare structure to ensure the fares are fair and equitable, while also generating
revenue needed to operate the services. Federal regulations outlined by FTA in Circular 4702.1B require
that service modifications and fare changes be fair and equitable to all citizens, regardless of race color, or
national origin. To accomplish the above, CAT, in partnership with the Collier County Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO), has undertaken this study to evaluate its fixed-route and paratransit fare
structures and to perform a service equity analysis of the recommendations.
The fares for fixed-route were last modified in 2009 and in 2012 for the paratransit system. As part of the
study a ridership and fare revenue trend analysis was completed to review system ridership and fare
revenue growth prior to and after the most recent fixed -route and paratransit fares. A peer review to
compare and evaluate how systems within a similar environment or with similar characteristics are
operating was also conducted. This fare study included a comparative analysis of transit systems similar
to CAT to assist in determining the appropriateness of specific fare policies and fare structures.
Based on analyses completed during early stages of the fare study and discussions with CAT staff, 14 fare
change scenarios were prepared. Each scenario was designed to measure potential changes in ridership
and revenue to ensure that low-income or minority riders are not disproportionately or adversely affected,
as required by federal Environmental Justice (EJ) regulations.
Each fixed-route scenario was designed to measure potential changes in ridership and revenue with the
overall objective of defining a scenario that increases ridership or encourages the use of fare passes
instead of cash fares. The ADA fare is controlled by the amount of the fixed-route fare and cannot exceed
twice the base fixed-route fare. The TD fare does not have a similar restriction, therefore there is more
flexibility in the amount that can be charged for that service. However, both programs serve a population
where the potential financial impacts of a modification in fares must be carefully consid ered as part of the
decision.
The public was surveyed and a public meeting was conducted to receive input on the proposed scenarios.
The study was reviewed by the Public Transit Advisory Committee (PTAC) on January 16 th, 2018 and
endorsed by the PTAC on March 20th, 2018. The Local Coordinating Board also reviewed and endorsed
the study on March 7th, 2018.
The following scenarios are being recommended for modifications to the Fixed -route and Paratransit fare
structure and policies.
9.C
Packet Pg. 224
05/11/2018
Fixed-route:
Increase the Fixed Route fare by $0.50 ($2.00 proposed full-fare); and increase the reduced fare
by $0.25 ($1.00 proposed reduced fare); Provide a free 90-minute transfer; Reduce the day pass
to $3 as part of a consolidated package to optimize use of the day pass while reducing possible
ridership reduction associated with increasing the one-way fare;
Eliminate the existing 7-day pass and replace with a 15-day pass at 50% of the cost of the 30-day
pass. The 15-day pass would be priced at $20 ($10 for reduced fare) based on increasing the cost
of the 30-day pass to $40 as the next bullet describes;
Increase the cost of the 30-day pass from $35 to $40 ($20 for reduced fare).
Increase the cost of the Marco Express single fare from $2.50 to $3 ($1.50 for reduced fare) to
bring it more in line with the cost of the Marco Express monthly pass.
Eliminate the cost of the smartcard in conjunction with the fare increase for the 30-day pass.
Combine the cost of the smartcard and the full or reduced 30-day pass price into one fare when a
customer needs to purchase or replace a smart card. ($42 full fare or $22 reduced fare)
Fixed Route Policy Recommendations:
Explore the potential for sale of passes at third party vendors (such as grocery and convenience
stores). This had considerable support by the public.
Explore the potential to use a phone/computer app to purchase passes/fares. This concept was
also desired by the public.
Implement a policy to include college-age students and active/retired military personnel as
eligible for reduced fare with valid ID.
Further incentivize the Business Pass Program by maintaining the currently corporate 30-day pass
rate of $29.75 if the 30-day pass fare is increased to $40.
Implement a promotional “Try Transit” day where fixed-route fares are waived on a designated
day to encourage infrequent or new riders to try CAT’s service.
Fare Category Current Proposed
Full Fare Reduced Fare Full Fare Reduced Fare
One-way Fare $1.50 $0.75 $2.00 $1.00
Children 5 years of age & under Free Free Free Free
Transfer $0.75 $0.35 Free/90 min. Free/90 min.
Day Pass $4.00 $2.00 $3.00 $1.50
7-Day Pass $15.00 $7.50 NA NA
15-Day Pass NA NA $20.00 $10.00
30-Day Pass $35.00 $17.50 $40.00 $20.00
Marco Express One-way Fare $2.50 $1.20 $3.00 $1.50
Marco Express 30-Day Pass $70.00 $35.00 $70.00 $35.00
Paratransit:
Maintain the existing ADA fare structure and consolidate the TD fare structure from five to three
income-based categories to include:
o $1 for riders at or below the poverty level
9.C
Packet Pg. 225
05/11/2018
o $3 for riders 101-150% of the poverty level
o $4 for riders with income 151% or higher above the poverty.
Paratransit Policy Recommendations:
Update the definition of “household income” and required documentation as recommended in the
“Definition of Household for Low Income Fare Qualification”
Consider implementing a fare increase of up to $1 for the ADA and TD fares within the next two
years. The PTAC members did not want this to be an automatic increase without further review
and evaluation of the impacts on the users.
The study and recommendations will be presented to Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on May
22nd. The BCC will decide whether or not to adopt the proposed rates and recommendations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The TAC and CAC endorsed the Fare Study and
recommendations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board endorse the Fare Study and recommendations.
Prepared By: Michelle Arnold, PTNE Director
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. CAT Fare Study Executive Summary (PDF)
2. CAT Fare Study Final Report (PDF)
3. CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (PDF)
9.C
Packet Pg. 226
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 9.C
Doc ID: 5571
Item Summary: Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and
Recommendations
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/03/2018 4:06 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/03/2018 4:06 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/03/2018 4:06 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Executive Director Review Skipped 05/04/2018 11:45 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
9.C
Packet Pg. 227
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Executive Summary (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
2 Executive Summary | March 2018
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................... 1
Existing & Historical Fare Structure ........... 1
Trend Analysis ............................................ 2
Peer Review ................................................ 3
Conceptual Fare Alternatives .................... 4
Estimated Impacts ..................................... 6
Public Outreach .......................................... 8
Fare Change Recommendations .............. 9
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Executive Summary (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
1 Executive Summary | March 2018
Introduction
The Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement Division (PTNE) administers Collier County’s public
transportation system, known as Collier Area Transit (CAT). CAT provides a fixed-route network comprised of 19 routes and also
partners with Lee County Transit (LeeTran) to provide the LinC express route between the two counties. CAT provides
paratransit service under the Collier Area Paratransit (CAP) program that includes complementary Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) service and Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) services.
Collier County has the responsibility to ensure that a financially-sound and fiscally-accountable transit system is available to
citizens and visitors. Although fixed-route and paratransit fares only fund a portion of CAT’s services, they are a critical
component of the budget. It is appropriate for CAT to periodically review and evaluate its fare structure to ensure the fares are
fair and equitable, while also generating revenue needed to operate the services. Federal regulations outlined by FTA in Circular
4702.1B require that service modifications and fare changes be fair and equitable to all citizens, regardless of race color, or
national origin. To accomplish the above, CAT, in partnership with the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO), is undertaking this study to evaluate its fixed-route and paratransit fare structures and to perform a service equity
analysis of the recommendations.
CAT last modified its fixed-route fares in 2009 and paratransit fares in 2012. The most recent major update of the County’s
Transit Development Plan (TDP), completed in 2015, recommends that CAT’s fare structure be evaluated every five years,
starting in 2017. This will help Collier County ensure that it is maximizing potential farebox recovery in a fair and equitable
manner.
Existing and Historical Fare Structure
Table 1: CAT Fare Structure History
Fare Category 2005 & Prior August 2006 March 2009 October 2012
Base Fare—Full $1.00 $1.25 $1.50 $1.50
Base Fare—Reduced $0.50 $0.60 $0.75 $0.75
Transfer—Full Free Free $0.75 $0.75
Transfer—Reduced Free Free $0.35 $0.35
Children Age 6 & Under
Free
Age 6 & Under
Free
Age 5 & Under
Free Age 5 & Under Free
Day Pass—Full $3.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00
Day Pass—Reduced $1.50 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
7-Day Pass—Full - - $15.00 $15.00
7-Day Pass—Reduced - - $7.50 $7.50
30-Day Pass—Full $30.00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00
30-Day Pass—Reduced $15.00 $17.50 $17.50 $17.50
Marco Express Base Fare—Full $2.00 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50
Marco Express Base Fare—Reduced $1.00 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20
Marco Express 30-Day Pass—Full $60.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00
Marco Express 30-Day Pass—Reduced $30.00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00
Summer Paw Pass (17 and younger to
ride June-August) - - - $30.00 (implemented
April 2015)
Paratransit Fares
ADA Fare Full/At or Under the PL $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $3.00/$1.00
TD Fare—At or Under the PL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.00
TD Fare - 101% to 150% of PL $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $3.00
TD Fare - 151% to 225% of PL $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $4.00
TD Fare - 226% to 337% of PL $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $5.00
TD Fare - +337% of PL $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $7.00
Fixed-Route Fares
Source: Collier Area Transit
PL = Poverty Level
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Executive Summary (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
2 Executive Summary | March 2018
Trend Analysis
A ridership and fare revenue trend analysis was completed to
review system ridership and fare revenue growth prior to and
after the most recent fixed-route and paratransit fares.
Fixed-Route Trends
Ridership initially declined following the March 2009 fare
increase but peaked in 2019 at 1.36 million riders.
Ridership has since declined and is currently just under 1
million annual riders.
Ridership during the peak tourist/seasonal resident
season (October-March) averages 5% higher than non-
peak ridership.
The base fare (including full and reduced) provides the
highest percentage of fare revenue (Figure 1),
corresponding to the highest percentage of riders paying
the base fare. The 30-day pass generates the second
highest revenue and ridership, followed by the day pass.
While fare revenue decreased slightly (3%) between FY
2008 and FY 2016 (Figure 2), operating costs continued to
increase. As a result, the annual fixed-route farebox
recovery ratio decreased by 10% overall during this
period.
Paratransit Trends
Paratransit ridership peaked in FY 2011 at nearly 123,000
passengers prior to the fare increase in October 2012 (from
$2 to $3). Ridership then decreased by 29% between FY
2011 and FY 2013, primarily due to Collier County ceasing
Medicaid service in July 2012. By FY 2016, ridership had
increased by 15% (Figure 3).
There is negligible difference in peak season versus non-
peak season ridership, indicating that paratransit riders
are primarily permanent, year-round residents.
While the paratransit fares were not increased until
October 2012, the revenue increased by approximately
19% between FY 2008 and FY 2011 due to the ridership
growth. Despite an 8% decline in paratransit ridership,
fare revenue increased by more than 89% during this trend
period (Figure 4).
The ADA program generates an average of 77% of the
monthly total revenue for both the ADA and TD programs.
Due to increases in operating costs outpacing revenue
growth, the paratransit farebox recovery ratio only
increased by 10% between FY 2008-2016 despite revenue
increasing by 89% during this period.
Figure 2: Fixed-Route Farebox Recovery Ratio, FY 2008–FY 2016
Figure 1: Fixed-Route Fare Revenue by Fare Type, FY 2016
Figure 3: Paratransit Ridership, FY 2008–FY 2016
Figure 4: Paratransit Fare Revenue, FY 2008–FY 2016
Source: Collier Area Transit
Source: Collier Area Transit
Source: National Transit Database (FYs 2008–2015), Collier Area Transit (FY 2016)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Executive Summary (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
3 Executive Summary | March 2018
Peer Review
A peer review is a common tool used by transit agencies to
compare and evaluate how systems within a similar
environment or with similar characteristics are operating,
which can help inform the decision-making process. This fare
study included a comparative analysis of transit systems
similar to CAT to assist in determining the appropriateness of
specific fare policies and fare structures. Table 2 lists the
selected peer agencies included in this analysis.
Highlights of the information gathered from this peer review
are presented in Table 3 for fixed-route and ADA services and
Table 4 for TD services. Key observations made from this
review include::
CAT’s base fare, daily pass, and 30-day pass are all less
than the peer mean at 10%, 5%, and 25% less,
respectively. Only CAT’s 7-day pass is higher than the peer
mean (4% greater).
Only one peer agency charges a transfer fare, which at
$0.25 is one third the cost of a CAT regular fare transfer of
$0.75.
CAT’s ADA fare at $3.00 is in line with the peer mean ADA
fare of $2.94 per one-way trip.
CAT does not offer any discounts for military or college/
university students, while several of the peers do.
CAT charges the most widely ranging fares for TD services
compared to the selected peers. Also of note is CAT does
not provide a bus transit pass for TD eligible riders, while
most other peers do.
Peer System Location
Cape Fear Public Transportation
Authority (WAVE) Wilmington, NC
Escambia County Area Transit
(ECAT) Escambia County, FL
Citrus Connection Polk County, FL
Lee County Transit (LeeTran) Lee County, FL
Manatee County Area Transit Manatee County, FL
Emerald Coast Rider (EC Rider) Okaloosa County, FL
Pasco County Public Transporta-Pasco County, FL
Volusia County Transit (Votran) Volusia County, FL
St. Lucie County St. Lucie County, FL
Table 2: Selected Peer Systems
Transit System
Fixed-Route Fares
ADA Fare
(One-Way) Base One-
Way Fare
Daily
Pass
Weekly/
7-Day
Pass
Monthly/
30-Day
Pass
Transfers
Base
Transfer
Fare
CAT $1.50 $4.00 $15.00 $35.00 Y $0.75 $3.00
ECAT $1.75 $5.25 $14.50 $47.00 Y $0.00 $3.50
Citrus Connection $1.50 $3.00 $12.00 $47.00 Y $0.00 $2.00
LeeTran $1.50 $4.00 $15.00 $40.00 N - $3.00
MCAT $1.50 $4.00 $12.00 $40.00 Y $0.25 $2.00
EC Rider $1.50 - - $30.00 Y $0.00 Varies2
PCPT $1.50 $3.75 - $37.50 N - $4.00
Votran $1.75 $3.75 $13.00 $46.00 N - $3.00
WAVE $2.00 $5.00 $20.00 $80.00 Y $0.00 $4.00
St Lucie County $2.00 $5.00 - $50.00 Y $0.00 $2.00
Peer Group Mean $1.67 $4.22 $14.42 $46.39 - - $2.94
CAT % from Mean -10% -5% 4% -25% - - 2%
Table 3: Peer Comparison of Fixed-Route and ADA Fares
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Executive Summary (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
4 Executive Summary | March 2018
Conceptual Fare
Alternatives
Based on analyses completed during early stages of the fare
study and discussions with CAT staff, 14 fare change scenarios
were prepared. Each scenario was designed to measure
potential changes in ridership and revenue to ensure that low
-income or minority riders are not disproportionately or
adversely affected, as required by federal Environmental
Justice (EJ) regulations.
Fixed-Route Fare Change Scenarios
Seven fixed-route fare change scenarios were developed. Each
scenario was designed to measure potential changes in
ridership and revenue with the overall objective of defining a
scenario that increases ridership or encourages the use of fare
passes instead of cash fares in the case of fixed-route service.
The fixed-route fare change scenarios are presented in Table
5.
Paratransit Fare Change Scenarios
As the ADA fare cannot exceed twice the base fixed-route fare
for the same trip, there are limited options for changing this
fare structure. In several of the fixed-route scenarios
presented, the base fixed-route fare is proposed to increase
from $1.50 to $2.00. This would allow for an increase from the
current ADA fare of $3.00 to a maximum new fare of $4.00.
Collier County also offers a reduced ADA fare of $1.00 for
households whose income is at or below the poverty level.
Since TD fares are not tied to the base fixed-route fare, there is
more flexibility in terms of changing them; however, it is
acknowledged that potential financial impacts to both ADA
and TD riders must be carefully considered as part of any
recommendation.
For paratransit services, seven additional scenarios were
developed, which are presented in Table 6.
Transit System Eligibility
Requirements Fare/Fee TD Bus
Pass
CAT Income-based Varies from $1 to $7 per one-way trip depending
on rider’s household income No
ECAT Income-based $2.50 per one way trip flat fee Yes
Citrus Connection Income-based Base fare $2.00 per one way trip, plus 25% to 100% of
base fare, depending on rider’s income Yes
LeeTran Income-based $2.00 per one way trip flat fee No
MCAT Income-based $4.00 per one way trip flat fee Yes
EC Rider Income-based
TD 1 (Shoppers): $1.00 one-way flat fee (shared-
ride shopping trips; scheduled 6 times a week to/
from different locations)
TD 5 (Rural): $1.00 one-way flat fee
TD (Urban): per mile fee
Yes
PCPT Income-based $2.00 per one way trip flat fee Yes
Votran Income-based $3.00 per one way trip flat fee No
WAVE N/A N/A N/A
St. Lucie County Income-based $1.00 per one way trip flat fee No
Table 4: Peer Comparison of Transportation Disadvantaged Fares
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Executive Summary (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
5 Executive Summary | March 2018
Fare Category Current Scenario
1
Scenario
2
Scenario
3
Scenario
4
Scenario
5
Scenario
6
Scenario
7
Base Fare – Full $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
Base Fare – Reduced $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
Transfer – Full $0.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Free 90
min
Free 90
min
Transfer – Reduced $0.35 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Free 90
min
Free 90
min
Day Pass – Full $4.00 $3.00 $4.00 $4.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $4.00
Day Pass – Reduced $2.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.00 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $2.00
7-Day Pass – Full $15.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
7-Day Pass – Reduced $7.50 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
15-Day Pass – Full (new) n/a $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00
15-Day Pass – Reduced
(new) n/a $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00
30-Day Pass – Full $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00
30-Day Pass – Reduced $17.50 $17.50 $17.50 $17.50 $17.50 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00
Marco Express Base Fare $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
Marco Express Base Fare –
Reduced $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50
Table 6: Summary of Paratransit Fare Change Scenarios
Fare Category Current Scenario
8
Scenario
9
Scenario
10
Scenario
11
Scenario
12
Scenario
13
Scenario
14
ADA (Low-Income) $1 $1 $1.25 $1 $1 n/a n/a $1
ADA $3 $4 $4 $3 $3 n/a n/a $3
TD At or Under Poverty
Level (PL) $1 $1 $1 $1.50 $2 n/a n/a $1
TD 101% to 150% of PL $3 $3 $3 $3.50 $4 n/a n/a $3
TD 151% to 225% of PL $4 $4 $4 $4.50 $5 n/a n/a $4
TD 226% to 337% of PL $5 $5 $5 $5.50 $6 n/a n/a $4
TD +337% of PL $7 $7 $7 $7.50 $8 n/a n/a $4
Single ADA/TD Fare
(At or Under PL) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $1 $1 n/a
Single ADA/TD Fare
(Above PL) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $3 $4 n/a
Changes in fares indicated in bold.
Changes in fares indicated in bold.
Table 5: Summary of Fixed-Route Fare Change Scenarios
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Executive Summary (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
6 Executive Summary | March 2018
Table 7: Low-End Ridership and Revenue Estimates for Fixed-Route Fare Change Scenarios
(Elasticity Fully Applied Resulting in Ridership Loss)
Estimated Impacts
To recognize potential changes in rider behavior resulting
from fare changes, a range (low to high) of likely behavioral
impacts was examined. For both fixed-route and paratransit
services, the low end of the range assumes that the full impact
of measured elasticity is applied to the ridership and those
riders will initially leave the system, resulting in greater initial
impacts to annual ridership and revenue. Elasticity calculated
for this study is -0.40, which implies that for every 10%
decrease in fare, the ridership is anticipated to also decline by
4% (Figure 5).
For fixed-route service, the high end of the range assumes that
either the existing ridership will be maintained or only a
portion of the riders will leave the system due to elasticity
impacts. Depending on the scenario/fare category, it is
assumed the remaining riders impacted will shift to other,
more attractive fare categories.
The ridership and revenue impacts for the paratransit
scenarios assume that the elasticity is applied in the case of a
fare increase; however, in instances of a fare decrease, it is
assumed that a person’s travel behavior does not necessarily
change and the number of trips does not increase, nor does
the ridership increase due to a lower fare offered as eligibility
requirements stay the same. For the low-end range when
elasticity is applied and ridership is assumed to decrease, it is
assumed that CAT’s overall operating costs will also decrease
accordingly given the nature of paratransit service. This
estimated net operating cost reduction, which is the reduced
operating expense anticipated due to ridership loss less
estimated state revenue for non-sponsored paratransit trips
that would also decrease if these trips are no longer provided,
is also accounted for in estimating the low-end paratransit
revenue impacts. Although this provides an overall net
revenue increase to CAT, it is not recognized as a benefit, as it
is based on a reduction of service and likely negative impact
to these riders.
Tables 7 and 8 illustrate the ridership and revenue impacts for
the low-end range (elasticity fully applied) and the high-end
range (elasticity partially applied), respectively, for each fixed-
route scenario. It should be noted that the fixed-route
ridership and revenue figures in these tables represent only
the fare types affected by each scenario and do not reflect
system-wide ridership and revenue figures. Tables 9 and 10
illustrate the ridership and revenue impacts for the low-end
range (elasticity fully applied and operating cost reduction
assumed) and the high-end range (no ridership loss or
operating cost reduction assumed), respectively, for each
paratransit scenario.
The low-end assumptions present the “worst case” scenario
while the high-end assumptions produce less impacts to
ridership and therefore higher annual revenue estimates. The
actual ridership and revenue impacts are likely somewhere in
the middle of the ranges presented, as assumptions must be
made regarding ridership behavior for each scenario.
Important in the fare model assumptions is the recognition
that mobility is largely an essential commodity for most
riders, especially those on the low end of the income
spectrum. Thus, by providing a range of scenarios that
attempt to counter increased costs in certain fare categories
with reduced costs in alternative fare categories, the
scenarios attempt to provide attractive and reasonable
options for riders other than to simply stop using the CAT
services.
Scenario
Base: FY 2016 Estimated Ridership and Revenue
Existing
Ridership
Existing
Revenue
Estimated
Ridership
Difference
from Base
Estimated
Revenue
Difference
from Base
Scenario 1 891,606 $873,694 869,679 (21,927) $816,874 ($56,820)
Scenario 2 891,606 $873,694 864,755 (26,851) $846,616 ($27,078)
Scenario 3 911,114 $912,120 820,470 (90,644) $953,077 $40,957
Scenario 4 911,114 $912,120 830,880 (80,234) $933,170 $21,050
Scenario 5 911,114 $912,120 816,194 (94,920) $956,624 $44,504
Scenario 6 911,114 $912,120 845,489 (65,625) $980,135 $68,015
Scenario 7 911,114 $912,120 840,109 (71,005) $991,510 $79,390
Figure 5: Elasticity Concept
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Executive Summary (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
7 Executive Summary | March 2018
Table 8: High-End Ridership and Revenue Estimates for Fixed-Route Fare Change Scenarios
(Elasticity Applied with Estimate of Likely Shift of Riders to More Favorable Fare Options)
Scenario
Base: FY 2016 Estimated Ridership and Revenue
Ridership Revenue Ridership Difference
from Base Revenue Difference
from Base
Scenario 1 891,606 $873,694 872,052 (19,554) $818,804 ($54,890)
Scenario 2 891,606 $873,694 868,513 (23,093) $850,979 ($22,715)
Scenario 3 911,114 $912,120 914,652 3,538 $1,078,138 $166,018
Scenario 4 911,114 $912,120 925,853 14,739 $1,052,875 $140,754
Scenario 5 911,114 $912,120 932,816 21,702 $1,089,134 $177,013
Scenario 6 911,114 $912,120 964,792 53,678 $1,120,682 $208,562
Scenario 7 911,114 $912,120 959,842 48,728 $1,142,987 $230,867
Table 10: High-End Ridership and Revenue Estimates for Paratransit Fare Change Scenarios
(Assumes No Ridership Loss or Operating Cost Reduction)
Table 9: Low-End Ridership and Revenue Estimates for Paratransit Fare Change Scenarios
(Elasticity Fully Applied Resulting in Ridership Loss)
Scenario
Base: FY 2016 Estimated Ridership and Revenue Net Revenue
with
Reduced
Operating Ridership Revenue Ridership Difference
from Base
Fare
Revenue
Difference
from Base
Scenario 8 75,961 $192,470 68,203 (7,758) $219,477 $27,007 $262,117
Scenario 9 75,961 $192,470 66,425 (9,536) $221,699 $29,229 $318,222
Scenario 10 24,686 $57,004 21,676 (3,010) $62,266 $5,262 $96,473
Scenario 11 24,686 $57,004 18,667 (6,019) $64,844 $7,840 $190,263
Scenario 12 100,647 $249,474 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Scenario 13 100,647 $249,474 99,673 (974) $273,657 $24,183 $288,825
Scenario 14 100,647 $249,474 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Scenario
Base: FY 2016 Estimated Ridership and Revenue
Ridership Revenue Ridership Difference
from Base Revenue Difference
from Base
Scenario 8 75,961 $192,470 75,961 0 $250,507 $58,037
Scenario 9 75,961 $192,470 75,961 0 $254,952 $62,482
Scenario 10 24,686 $57,004 24,686 0 $68,010 $11,006
Scenario 11 24,686 $57,004 24,686 0 $79,016 $22,012
Scenario 12 100,647 $249,474 100,647 0 $238,244 ($11,230)
Scenario 13 100,647 $249,474 100,647 0 $308,163 $58,689
Scenario 14 100,647 $249,474 100,647 0 $243,610 ($5,864)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Executive Summary (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
8 Executive Summary | March 2018
Public Outreach
As part of this fare study, a rider intercept survey and public
workshops were conducted to gather input on potential fare
changes from both fixed-route and paratransit riders.
Rider Intercept Surveys
CAT staff conducted an intercept survey via tablet of 80 riders
at the CAT Transfer Center on January 18–19, 2018. Highlights
of the survey findings are as follows:
If the base fare increases from $1.50 to $2, most fixed-
route respondents stated they would switch to either a
day pass or the new 15-day pass if offered.
If transfers are eliminated, respondents were split
between switching to a day pass and staying with the
base fare.
If the 30-day pass increases from $35 to $40, riders were
split between continuing to use the same fare versus
switching to a 15-day pass. A few respondents indicated
that a $5 increase on the 30-day pass is too high.
Of the respondents who currently use the reduced fixed-
route base fare, two-thirds would keep using that fare
and the remaining one-third would switch to the reduced
day pass if the price was lowered to $1.50.
Of the respondents who use the reduced 30-day pass,
nearly all would keep using it if the price was increased,
given how often they ride.
Of the paratransit riders who responded, most would
continue to use the service if the fare was increased from
the current $3 fare because they have no other choice,
but they felt this would be a financial hardship and could
try to find financial assistance.
Public Workshops
Two public workshops were held on January 30, 2018, to
solicit feedback from the public on potential fare changes for
CAT’s fixed-route and paratransit services. The workshops
were noticed on CAT buses in English, Spanish, and Creole.
The first workshop was held at the CAT Transfer Center in
Naples from 10:00 AM–2:00 PM, and the second was held at
CareerSource Southwest Florida in Immokalee from 4:00–7:00
PM. Workshop participants were asked to complete an
exercise sheet to provide feedback on potential fixed-route
and paratransit fare change scenarios. Highlights of the
public input received include are illustrated in Figures 6-9.
Figure 6: Would you support a fare increase if …?
Figure 7: How much do you think the fares should be
increased to cover the cost to provide ADA service?
Figure 8: How much do you think the TD fares should be
increased to cover the cost to provide TD services?
Figure 9: Which fare changes should CAT institute first?
$0.05 increase
6%
13%
16%
18%
29%
24%
Increase the base fare
to $2.00 and make
transfers free for 90
minutes Eliminate transfers
and reduce the
unlimited day-pass
from $4.00 to $3.00
Change the 7-day pass
from $15.00 to a 15-day
pass at 50% of the 30-day
pass price ($18 or $20)
Reduce the day-pass
from $4.00 to $3.00 as a
stand alone change
Increase the base fare
from $1.50 to $2.00 and
reduce the day-pass
from $4.00 to $3.00
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Executive Summary (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
9 Executive Summary | March 2018
Fare Change
Recommendations
Based on the analysis and public outreach completed during
this study, fixed-route and paratransit fare change
recommendations are recommended. If the proposed fare
changes are implemented as recommended, they do not
appear to create any disparate impacts for minority
communities, nor do they create any disproportionate burden
on low-income communities
For fixed-route fares, it is recommended that Scenario 6 is be
implemented. This will increase the base fare to $2 ($1.50
reduced), provide a 90-minute free transfer, reduce the day
pass to $3 ($1.50 reduced) eliminate the 7-day pass in favor of
a new15-day pass priced at $20 ($10 reduced), increase the
price of the 30-day pass to $40 ($20 reduced), and increase the
Marco Express full base fare to $1.50 ($1.20 reduced).
For paratransit fares, it is recommended that Scenario 14 be
implemented at this time. This will maintain existing ADA and
TD fares for most riders while consolidating the number of TD
fares categories from five to three, thereby decreasing the
fares for TD riders who currently pay $5 or $7 to $4. It is also
recommended that CAT implement a fare increase of up to $1
for all ADA and TD riders within the next two years. Providing
considerable advance notice of a future fare change to riders
should reduce potential ridership loss while generating the
additional fare revenue needed to maintain existing service
levels as operating costs continue to increase.
The recommended fixed-route and paratransit fare changes
are illustrated in Table 11. It is also recommended that CAT
explore implementing the following policy changes:
Eliminate the $2 cost of the smartcard in conjunction with
the fare increase for the 30-day pass.
Sell passes at third-party vendors (such as grocery and
convenience stores).
Use a phone/computer app to purchase passes/fares.
Allow reduced fares for college students and active/
retired military personnel with valid ID.
Further incentivize the Business Pass Program by
maintaining the current corporate 30-day pass rate of
$29.75 if the 30-day pass fare is increased to $40.
Implement a promotional “Try Transit” day where fixed-
route fares are waived on a designated day to encourage
infrequent or new riders to try CAT’s service.
Review the average fare and subsidy per passenger and
the farebox recovery ratio during the annual budgeting
process. If all three ratios are declining and operating
costs are increasing, consider a fare adjustment.
Monitor the local Consumer Price Index; if increases are
greater than 5% in any given year, consider increasing
fares to keep pace with inflation.
Maintain the requirement that qualification for the
reduced/low-income fare be tied to household income
rather than individual income. Documentation used to
demonstrate this should prove household income meets
the required threshold.
Table 11: Recommended Fare Structure
Fare Category Existing
Fares
Recommended
Fare
Fixed-Route Fares
Base Fare—Full $1.50 $2.00
Base Fare—Reduced $0.75 $1.00
Transfer—Full $0.75 n/a (90 minutes
free)
Transfer—Reduced $0.35 n/a (90 minutes
free)
Children Age 5 &
Under Free
Age 5 & Under
Free
Day Pass—Full $4.00 $3.00
Day Pass—Reduced $2.00 $1.50
7-Day Pass—Full $15.00 n/a (eliminate)
7-Day Pass—Reduced $7.50 n/a (eliminate)
15-Day Pass – Full n/a $20.00
15-Day Pass – Reduced n/a $10.00
30-Day Pass—Full $35.00 $40.00
30-Day Pass—Reduced $17.50 $20.00
Marco Express Base Fare—
Full $2.50 $3.00
Marco Express Base Fare—
Reduced $1.20 $1.50
Marco Express 30-Day
Pass—Full $70.00 $70.00
Marco Express 30-Day
Pass—Reduced $35.00 $35.00
Summer Paw Pass $30.00 $30.00
ADA Fare Full/At or Under
the PL $3.00/$1.00 $3.00/$1.00
TD Fare—At or Under the
PL $1.00 $1.00
TD Fare - 101% to 150% of
PL $3.00 $3.00
TD Fare—+151% of PL n/a $4.00
TD Fare - 151% to 225% of
PL $4.00 n/a
(consolidate)
TD Fare - 226% to 337% of
PL $5.00 n/a
(consolidate)
TD Fare - +337% of PL $7.00 n/a
(consolidate)
Paratransit Fares
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Executive Summary (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Executive Summary (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Fare Study
Final Report
March 2018
Prepared for
Prepared by
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study i
Table of Contents
Section 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background and Study Purpose ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Report Organization ........................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.3 CAT Service Area .............................................................................................................................. 1-2
Section 2 Existing and Historical Fare Structures ................................................................. 2-4
Section 3 Fare Policy and Structure Assessment .................................................................. 3-6
3.1 Trend Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 3-6
Fixed-Route Trends ........................................................................................................................... 3-6
Paratransit Trends .......................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.2 Peer Review ................................................................................................................................... 3-14
Selection of Peer Agencies .............................................................................................................. 3-14
Peer Fixed-Route and ADA Fare Structure Comparison ................................................................ 3-14
Peer Transportation Disadvantage Program Fare Structure Comparison ................................... 3-17
Section 4 Demographics .................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Title VI and Environmental Justice Considerations ....................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Low-Income and Minority Demographics ...................................................................................... 4-2
4.3 Geographic Analysis of Ridership by Fare Type ............................................................................. 4-5
Section 5 Fare Scenarios and Potential Impacts ................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Conceptual Fare Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 5-1
Fixed-Route Fare Concepts ............................................................................................................... 5-1
ADA Fares ........................................................................................................................................... 5-3
TD Fares ............................................................................................................................................. 5-3
5.2 Potential Ridership and Revenue Impacts ..................................................................................... 5-3
Model Assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 5-4
Fare Model Scenarios ........................................................................................................................ 5-6
Estimated Ridership and Revenue Impacts by Fare Scenario ...................................................... 5-10
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study ii
Section 6 Public Outreach Results ...................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Rider Intercept Surveys ................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Public Workshop Results ................................................................................................................. 6-1
Section 7 Recommended Fare Changes ............................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Recommended Changes Fare Structure ........................................................................................ 7-1
Fixed-Route Fare Structure Recommendations .............................................................................. 7-1
Fixed-Route Smartcard Recommendations .................................................................................... 7-2
Paratransit Fare Structure Recommendations ................................................................................ 7-3
Documentation for Required Low-Income Fare Qualification ........................................................ 7-4
Other Policy Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 7-4
7.2 Fare Change Equity Analysis Findings ............................................................................................ 7-5
Appendix A—Intercept Survey Questions
Appendix B—Public Workshop Notice, Presentation, and Exercise Response Form
List of Tables
Table 2-1: CAT Fare Structure History ...................................................................................................... 2-5
Table 3-1: Distribution of Ridership by Fare Used, FY 2012–FY 2016 .................................................... 3-10
Table 3-2: Selected Peer Systems ........................................................................................................... 3-14
Table 3-3: Peer Comparison of Fixed-Route & ADA Fare Structures ..................................................... 3-15
Table 3-4: CAT & Peer Fixed-Route Base Fare Multipliers ...................................................................... 3-16
Table 3-5: Peer Comparison of College/University Student and Military Discounts ............................ 3-17
Table 3-6: Peer Comparison of Transportation Disadvantaged Fares .................................................. 3-18
Table 4-1: Collier County Low-Income Households, 2015 ....................................................................... 4-2
Table 4-2: Collier County Minority Populations, 2015 ............................................................................. 4-2
Table 4-3: Distribution of Ridership in Low-income Block Groups by Fare Type (FY 2013–FY 2017 YTD)
................................................................................................................................................................... 4-5
Table 5-1: Number of Trips by Fare Type ................................................................................................. 5-5
Table 5-2: Summary of Fixed-Route Fare Change Scenarios .................................................................. 5-9
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study iii
Table 5-3: Summary of Paratransit Fare Change Scenarios .................................................................... 5-9
Table 5-4: Low-End Ridership and Revenue Estimates for Fixed-Route Fare Change Scenarios
(Elasticity Fully Applied Resulting in Ridership Loss) ............................................................................ 5-11
Table 5-5: High-End Ridership and Revenue Estimates for Fixed-Route Fare Change Scenarios
(Elasticity Applied with Estimate of Likely Shift of riders to More Favorable Fare Options) ................ 5-11
Table 5-6: Low-End Ridership and Revenue Estimates for Paratransit Fare Change Scenarios (Elasticity
Fully Applied Resulting in Ridership Loss) ............................................................................................. 5-13
Table 5-7: High-End Ridership and Revenue Estimates for Paratransit Fare Change Scenarios (Assumes
No Ridership Loss or Operating Cost Reduction) .................................................................................. 5-13
Table 7-1: Recommended Fixed-Route Fare Structure ........................................................................... 7-2
Table 7-2: Recommended Paratransit Fare Structure ............................................................................. 7-3
List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Annual Fixed-Route Ridership Trends, FY 2008–FY 2016....................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-2: Fixed-Route Ridership for Peak and Non-Peak Months, FY 2008–FY 2016 ........................... 3-7
Figure 3-3: Fixed-Route Fare Revenue, FY 2008–FY 2016 ......................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-4: Fixed-Route Fare Revenue by Fare Type, FY 2016 ................................................................. 3-8
Figure 3-5: Fixed-Route Fare Revenue per Passenger, FY 2008–FY 2016 ................................................ 3-9
Figure 3-6: Fixed-Route Farebox Recovery Ratio, FY 2008–FY 2016 ........................................................ 3-9
Figure 3-7: Paratransit Ridership, FY 2008–FY 2016 ............................................................................... 3-11
Figure 3-8: Paratransit Ridership for Peak & Non-Peak Months, FY 2008–FY 2016............................... 3-11
Figure 3-9: Paratransit Fare Revenue, FY 2008–FY 2016 ........................................................................ 3-12
Figure 3-10: Paratransit Fare Revenue per Passenger, FY 2008–FY 2016 .............................................. 3-12
Figure 3-11: Paratransit Fare Revenue by Fare Type, FY 2016 ............................................................... 3-13
Figure 3-12: Paratransit Farebox Recovery Ratio, FY 2008–FY 2016 ..................................................... 3-13
Figure 6-1: Which fare increments make paying with cash most convenient for you? .......................... 6-2
Figure 6-2: Which new fare purchase/payment options would be convenient to you? ......................... 6-3
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study iv
Figure 6-3: Would you support a fare increase if …? ............................................................................... 6-3
Figure 6-4: How much do you think the fares should be increased to cover the cost to provide ADA
service? ...................................................................................................................................................... 6-4
Figure 6-5: How much do you think the TD fares should be increased to cover the cost to provide TD
services? .................................................................................................................................................... 6-4
Figure 6-6: How long is your typical one-way trip? (minutes).................................................................. 6-5
Figure 6-7: How long is your typical one-way trip? (miles) ...................................................................... 6-5
Figure 6-8: Would you support paying a slightly higher one-way fare if it includes a free transfer? ..... 6-6
Figure 6-9: At what price is fixed-route bus service too expensive? ........................................................ 6-6
Figure 6-10: If you do not currently use passes, why? ............................................................................. 6-7
Figure 6-11: Which fare changes should CAT institute first? ................................................................... 6-7
List of Maps
Map 1-1: Study Area and Existing Bus Routes .......................................................................................... 1-3
Map 4-1: Low-Income Households ........................................................................................................... 4-3
Map 4-2: Minority Populations .................................................................................................................. 4-4
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study v
Acronyms
ACS—American Community Survey
ADA—Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA—American Public Transportation Association
ARIMA—Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average Model
BOCC— (Collier County) Board of County Commissioners
CAP—Collier Area Paratransit
CAT—Collier Area Transit
CTC—Community Transportation Coordinator
CTD— (Florida) Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged
EJ—Environmental Justice
FDOT—Florida Department of Transportation
FTA—Federal Transit Administration
FY—Fiscal Year
LCB—Local Coordinating Board
LeeTran—Lee County Transit
MPO— (Collier County) Metropolitan Planning Organization
PTAC— (Collier County) Public Transit Advisory Committee
PTNE—(Collier County) Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement Division
TD—Transportation Disadvantaged
TDP—Transit Development Plan
TDSP—Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan
YTD—Year to Date
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 1-1
Section 1 Introduction
1.1 Background and Study Purpose
The Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement Division (PTNE) administers Collier
County’s public transportation system, known as Collier Area Transit (CAT). CAT provides a fixed-route
network comprising 19 routes and also partners with Lee County Transit (LeeTran) to provide the LinC
express route between the two counties. CAT provides paratransit service under the Collier Area
Paratransit (CAP) program that includes complementary Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) service
and transportation disadvantaged (TD) services. Medicaid transportation services previously provided
by CAT are now provided through a network of transportation providers overseen by MTM, Inc., the
County’s Medicaid transportation services broker. The County also serves as the Community
Transportation Coordinator (CTC) under Chapter 427 of the Florida Statutes. As the CTC, the PTNE
Division administers the coordination of countywide transportation services for individuals who are
transportation disadvantaged.
Funding for transit services in Collier County is provided by a variety of sources, including the Florida
Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD), the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), local funding, and directly-generated revenue that
consists primarily of passenger fares.
Collier County has the responsibility to ensure that a financially-sound and fiscally-accountable
transit system is available to citizens and visitors. Although fixed-route and paratransit fares fund only
a portion of CAT’s services, they are a critical component of the budget. It is appropriate for CAT to
periodically review and evaluate its fare structure to ensure the fares are fair and equitable while also
generating revenue needed to operate the services. Federal regulations outlined by FTA in Circular
4702.1B require that all service modifications and fare changes be fair and equitable to all citizens,
regardless of race, color, or national origin. To accomplish the above, CAT, in partnership with the
Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), conducted this study to evaluate its fixed-
route and paratransit fare structures and to perform a service equity analysis of the
recommendations.
CAT last modified its fixed-route fares in 2009 and paratransit fares in 2012. The most recent major
update of the County’s Transit Development Plan (TDP), completed in 2015, recommends that CAT’s
fare structure be evaluated every five years, starting in 2017. This will help Collier County ensure that
it is maximizing potential farebox recovery in a fair and equitable manner and that passenger fares
are consistent with “peer” transit agencies similar to services provided in Collier County.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 1-2
1.2 Report Organization
This report documents the findings of the fare study completed for CAT for its fixed-route and
paratransit services and, including this introduction, is organized as follows:
Section 2 includes an overview of CAT’s current and historical fare structure.
Section 3 provides an evaluation of CAT’s fixed-route and paratransit ridership and revenue trends
since the most recent fare modifications occurred. An assessment of fare policies for selected peer
systems compared to CAT also is documented.
Section 4 provides a profile of Collier County demographic variables used to develop and evaluate a
series of subsequent fare policy concepts.
Section 5 presents initial fixed-route and paratransit fare concepts that were evaluated and
presented to the public for comment prior to determining final recommendations. For each fare
scenario identified, ridership and revenue impacts are estimated based on fare elasticity and a fare
analysis model developed for this study to reflect likely behavioral responses by riders.
Section 6 documents the public input gathered during this study on the potential fare changes.
Section 7 documents the recommended changes to CAT’s fixed-route and paratransit fare structures
and provides other policy recommendations for consideration.
1.3 CAT Service Area
The CAT service area fixed-routes and bus stops are shown in Map 1-1. Paratransit service is provided
countywide, and the majority of paratransit trips are provided for travel to medical appointments,
nutrition sites, and employment. CAT’s fixed-route services are available to the general public,
whereas customers using ADA or TD paratransit services must be approved for service through an
eligibility process.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 1-3
Map 1-1: Study Area and Existing Bus Routes
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 2-4
Section 2 Existing and Historical Fare Structures
CAT’s fixed-route service has a base fare of $1.50 per one-way trip for all routes except the Marco
Island Express route, which has a $2.50 base fare. CAT also provides fare options for a daily, 7-day, or
30-day pass for more frequent customers. Reduced fares are provided for members of Medicare,
persons with disabilities, passengers age 65 and older or children age 17 and under, and TD
passengers. Children age 5 and under ride for free. Appropriate ID is required to receive the reduced
fare rate. CAT began charging for transfers on the fixed-route system when the fixed-route fare
increase was implemented in 2009. The base fare transfer is $0.75 ($0.35 for a reduced fare transfer)
and must be used within 90 minutes on a different route.
The one-way fare for ADA-eligible riders is $3.00 or $1.00 for persons whose household income is at or
below the poverty level. FTA regulations prohibit the ADA fare from being increased to more than
twice the regular fixed-route fare for the same trip. CAT’s TD fare is income-based, with customers at
or below the poverty level paying a fare of $1.00 and ranging up to $7.00 for persons 337% or above
the poverty level. CAT has the ability to increase the TD fare to any level it deems appropriate,
pending the completion of an equity analysis, as required by FTA, and approval of the Local
Coordinating Board (LCB) and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). As
previously noted, all paratransit customers must be certified as eligible to use the system under the
ADA and/or TD programs.
Table 2-1 presents CAT’s historical and current fixed-route and paratransit fare structures. Fare
structure updates were instituted in 2006 and 2009 for fixed-route service and in 2012 for paratransit
service.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 2-5
Table 2-1: CAT Fare Structure History
Fare Category 2005 & Prior August 2006 March 2009 October 2012
Fixed-Route Fares
Base Fare – Full $1.00 $1.25 $1.50 $1.50
Base Fare – Reduced $0.50 $0.60 $0.75 $0.75
Transfer – Full Free Free $0.75 $0.75
Transfer – Reduced Free Free $0.35 $0.35
Children
Age 6 &
under free
Age 6 &
under free
Age 5 &
under free
Age 5 &
under free
Day Pass – Full $3.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00
Day Pass – Reduced $1.50 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
7-Day Pass – Full --$15.00 $15.00
7-Day Pass – Reduced --$7.50 $7.50
30-Day Pass – Full $30.00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00
30-Day Pass – Reduced $15.00 $17.50 $17.50 $17.50
Marco Express Base Fare – Full $2.00 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50
Marco Express Base Fare – Reduced $1.00 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20
Marco Express 30-Day Pass – Full $60.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00
Marco Express 30-Day Pass – Reduced $30.00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00
Summer Paw Pass (age 17 & younger
to ride June-August) - - -
$30.00
(implemented
April 2015)
Paratransit Fares
ADA Fare $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
$3.00($1.00 at
or under PL)
Medicaid Fare
$1.00 fare or
co-payment;
services
managed by
Collier County
$1.00 fare or
co-payment;
services
managed by
Collier County
$1.00 fare or
co-payment;
services
managed by
Collier County
Services
managed by
MTM, Inc.
TD Fare – At or Under PL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.00
TD Fare – 101% to 150% of PL $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $3.00
TD Fare – 151% to 225% of PL $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $4.00
TD Fare – 226% to 337% of PL $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $5.00
TD Fare – +337% of PL $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $7.00
PL = poverty level
Source: Collier Area Transit
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 3-6
Section 3 Fare Policy and Structure Assessment
This section presents the results of a trend analysis completed to examine historical fixed-route and
paratransit ridership and revenue changes. A peer review also was completed to benchmark CAT’s
existing fixed-route and paratransit fare structures against selected peer transit agencies.
3.1 Trend Analysis
A ridership and fare revenue trend analysis was completed to review system ridership and fare
revenue growth prior to and after the most recent fare increase for both fixed-route and paratransit
services. Data through FY 2016 were used, as they were the most recent complete year of data
available at the time the analysis was undertaken.
Fixed-Route Trends
Figure 3-1 provides the trend in annual ridership for CAT’s fixed-route service between Fiscal Years
(FY) 2008 and FY 2016. CAT’s last fixed-route fare increase occurred in March 2009. Ridership steadily
decreased between FY 2008 and FY 2010, with an overall loss of approximately 9%. Ridership
gradually increased starting in FY 2010, peaking in FY 2013 at 1,361,232 passengers. Since peaking,
ridership has been declining, with an overall reduction of 17% between FY 2008 and FY 2016.
Figure 3-1: Annual Fixed-Route Ridership Trends, FY 2008–FY 2016
Source: Collier Area Transit
Given that Collier County’s significant peak population consists of visitors and seasonal residents
during October through March, the fixed-route ridership also was examined during peak versus non-
peak months. As shown in Figure 3-2, the peak ridership for FY 2008–FY 2016 is higher than the non-
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,200,000
1,300,000
1,400,000
FY
2008
FY
2009
FY
2010
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016Fixed-Route Fare Increase9.C.2
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 3-7
peak ridership for most years, ranging from 95% to 121% of peak ridership and averaging 5% more
than non-peak ridership over the entire nine-year period. The Comprehensive Planning Section of the
County’s Growth Management Division estimates the countywide population increases approximately
+20% during the peak season.
Figure 3-2: Fixed-Route Ridership for Peak and Non-Peak Months, FY 2008–FY 2016
Source: Collier Area Transit
Figure 3-3 provides the trend in annual fare revenue for CAT’s fixed-route service between FY 2008 and
FY 2016. Fixed-route fare revenue increased 26% between FY 2008 and FY 2012 following
implementation of the fare increase in 2009, despite the decrease in ridership during that time period.
However, fare revenue has been steadily declining since FY 2014, consistent with the ridership
decrease experienced during this same period. CAT experienced a slight overall decrease in fare
revenue of 3% between FY 2008 and FY 2016.
Figure 3-4 illustrates the distribution of fixed-route fare revenue by fare type using FY 2016 as a proxy.
The base fare (including full and reduced) provides the highest percentage of fare revenue,
corresponding to the highest percentage of riders paying the base fare (44% in FY 2016). The 30-day
pass generates the second-highest revenue, and the day pass generates the third-highest revenue
(20% and 11% of the FY 2016 total fare revenue, respectively).
574,137 608,488 519,667 580,941 629,005 666,406 624,699 570,448 497,502
592,221 501,222
545,243
571,561
587,292
694,826
562,695
523,655
474,123
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
Peak Non-Peak
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 3-8
Figure 3-3: Fixed-Route Fare Revenue, FY 2008–FY 2016
Source: Collier Area Transit
Figure 3-4: Fixed-Route Fare Revenue by Fare Type, FY 2016
Figure 3-5 provides the trend in annual fixed-route fare revenue per passenger for FY 2008 through FY
2016. As the reduction in ridership was greater than the reduction in fare revenue, the revenue per
passenger increased by 16% overall between FY 2008 and FY 2016, averaging $0.83 per passenger
during this nine-year period.
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
$1,100,000
$1,200,000
$1,300,000
FY
2008
FY
2009
FY
2010
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
Base Fare, 55%
Transfer, 3%
Day Pass,
11%
7 Day Pass, 1%
30 Day Pass, 20%
ME Fares, 2%Other,
9%Fixed-Route Fare Increase 9.C.2
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 3-9
Figure 3-5: Fixed-Route Fare Revenue per Passenger, FY 2008–FY 2016
Source: Collier Area Transit
Although fare revenue decreased slightly (3%) between FY 2008 and FY 2016 (see Figure 3-3),
operating costs continued to increase. As a result, the annual farebox recovery ratio decreased by
10% overall, or from 17.6% in FY 2008 to 15.8% in FY 2016, during this period, as demonstrated in
Figure 3-6.
Figure 3-6: Fixed-Route Farebox Recovery Ratio, FY 2008–FY 2016
Source: National Transit Database (FYs 2008–2015), Collier Area Transit (FY 2016)
$0.70
$0.75
$0.80
$0.85
$0.90
$0.95
$1.00
FY
2008
FY
2009
FY
2010
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16Farebox Recovery RatioFixed-Route Fare Increase Fixed-Route Fare Increase9.C.2
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 3-10
The historical trends in type of fare media used also were analyzed. Table 3-1 displays the percentage
of riders using each type of fare option since the last fare study, FY 2012–FY 2016. The full base fare is
the predominant type of fare paid, followed by 30-day pass, day pass, and transfers; the 7-day pass is
used very infrequently by CAT passengers compared to other fare media options. Over the last two
years, the percentage of customers using full fare media have declined slightly, whereas the
percentage of customers using reduced fare media has held steady or increased slightly. Since 2012,
only the reduced base fare and reduced 30-day pass have seen an increase in overall ridership during
the five-year period. Although overall ridership has declined during this period, these fare types have
increased in popularity among CAT customers.
Table 3-1: Distribution of Ridership by Fare Used, FY 2012–FY 2016
FY
Base
Fare–
Full
Base
Fare–
Reduced
Transfer–
Full
Transfer–
Reduced
Day
Pass–
Full
Day
Pass–
Reduced
7-Day
Pass–
Full
7-Day
Pass–
Reduced
30-Day
Pass–
Full
30-Day
Pass–
Reduced
Other*
2012 33.2% 9.0% 3.4% 0.8%8.5%4.9%0.5%0.3%16.8% 10.9%11.7%
2013 37.8% 8.3% 2.7% 0.6%7.3%4.0%0.4%0.2%16.4% 9.4%13.0%
2014 32.4% 9.8% 2.8% 0.5%6.9%4.2%0.5%0.1%19.7% 12.3%10.7%
2015 31.9% 11.0% 2.7% 0.5%6.0%4.7%0.5%0.2%17.9% 15.0%9.5%
2016 30.5% 13.7% 2.5% 0.5%5.5%4.7%0.4%0.3%16.8% 16.6%8.5%
*Other includes CAT employee/family, county employee, child 5 and under, free/voucher, Marco Express (full and reduced),
and youth summer pass.
Source: Collier Area Transit
Paratransit Trends
Figure 3-7 shows the trend in total paratransit ridership between FY 2008 and FY 2016. Paratransit
ridership peaked in FY 2011 at 122,977 passengers prior to the fare increase (from $2 to $3) in October
2012. Ridership then decreased by 29% between FY 2011 and FY 2013 to 87,263 passengers, primarily
due to Collier County ceasing Medicaid service in July 2012. By FY 2016, ridership had increased by
15%, resulting in an overall decrease in paratransit ridership of -8% between FY 2008 and FY 2016.
Figure 3-8 shows the paratransit ridership by peak and non-peak months for FY 2008–FY 2017. There is
a smaller difference in paratransit ridership during peak and non-peak than for fixed-route ridership,
with the peak season ridership averaging a 2% increase over non-peak season ridership during this
nine-year period. This indicates that paratransit riders primarily are permanent rather than seasonal
residents. According to Census data, the percentage of Collier County residents age 65 and over has
increased 27% since 1990. This trend is expected to continue as the baby boomer generation
continues to age and could result in increased paratransit service demand.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 3-11
Figure 3-7: Paratransit Ridership, FY 2008–FY 2016
Source: Collier Area Transit
Figure 3-8: Paratransit Ridership for Peak & Non-Peak Months, FY 2008–FY 2016
Source: Collier Area Transit
Figure 3-9 displays the trend in total paratransit revenue between FY 2008 and FY 2016. Although the
paratransit fares were not increased until October 2012, the revenue increased by approximately 19%
between FY 2008 and FY 2011 due to ridership growth. Despite an 8% decline in paratransit ridership,
fare revenue increased by more than 89% during this trend period.
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
FY
2008
FY
2009
FY
2010
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
53,031 57,463 58,621 61,237 62,696
44,023 42,278 47,175 51,179
56,270 55,229 59,131 61,740 52,882
43,240 43,732
46,132 49,468
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
Peak Non-PeakParatransit Fare Increase 9.C.2
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 3-12
Figure 3-9: Paratransit Fare Revenue, FY 2008–FY 2016
Source: Collier Area Transit
Figure 3-10 shows the trend in annual paratransit fare revenue per passenger for FY 2008 through FY
2016. Given the minimal ridership decline and relative high revenue increase, revenue per passenger
increased overall by 105% during this period.
Figure 3-10: Paratransit Fare Revenue per Passenger, FY 2008–FY 2016
Source: Collier Area Transit
Figure 3-11 illustrates the distribution of paratransit fare revenue by fare type using FY 2016 as a
proxy. The ADA program generates an average of 77% of the monthly total revenue, including both
ADA and TD revenue.
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
FY
2008
FY
2009
FY
2010
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
FY
2008
FY
2009
FY
2010
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016Paratransit Fare Increase Paratransit Fare Increase 9.C.2
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 3-13
Figure 3-11: Paratransit Fare Revenue by Fare Type, FY 2016
As previously noted, the paratransit fare change had a significant positive impact on fare revenue
despite an overall decline in ridership (see Figures 3-8 and 3-9). However, higher annual operating
costs during this period tempered the effect of the fare revenue increase on the farebox recovery
ratio. Although the paratransit fare revenue increased by more than 89% during this period, the
paratransit farebox recovery ratio only increased by 10%, as demonstrated in Figure 3-12.
Figure 3-12: Paratransit Farebox Recovery Ratio, FY 2008–FY 2016
Source: National Transit Database (FYs 2008–2015), Collier Area Transit (FY 2016)
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
ADA TDC
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16Farebox Recovery RatioParatransit Fare Increase 9.C.2
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 3-14
3.2 Peer Review
A peer review is a common tool used by transit agencies to compare and evaluate how systems within
a similar environment or with similar characteristics are operating, which can help inform the
decision-making process. This fare study included a comparative analysis of transit systems similar to
CAT to assist in determining the appropriateness of specific fare policies and fare structures.
Selection of Peer Agencies
For this fare policy review, peer systems were selected by reviewing transit systems from the most
recent CAT TDP, CAT Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP), and input from CAT staff.
Table 3-2 presents the transit systems included in this peer review.
Table 3-2: Selected Peer Systems
Peer System Location
Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority (WAVE) Wilmington, NC
Escambia County Area Transit (ECAT) Escambia County, FL
Citrus Connection Polk County, FL
Lee County Transit (LeeTran) Lee County, FL
Manatee County Area Transit (MCAT) Manatee County, FL
Emerald Coast Rider (EC Rider) Okaloosa County, FL
Pasco County Public Transportation (PCPT) Pasco County, FL
Volusia County Transit (Votran) Volusia County, FL
St. Lucie County St. Lucie County, FL
Peer Fixed-Route and ADA Fare Structure Comparison
Information on each system’s fare policy and fare structures was collected either directly from the
transit agency’s website or by contacting each agency via telephone. Table 3-3 summarizes the fare
structure, fares, and transfer policies for each peer transit agency compared to CAT, the peer group
mean, and the percentage of CAT’s fare from the peer group mean, when applicable. It is important to
note that St. Lucie County recently received a grant from FDOT, making all fares free for the next two
years (2017-2019). The fares used in this peer review were in place before the grant was received since
it is likely the previous fares will return when the grant expires.
From this peer review, the following observations are made:
• CAT’s base fare, daily pass, and 30-day pass are all less than the peer mean at 10%, 5%, and
25% less, respectively. Only CAT’s 7-day pass is higher than the peer mean (4% greater).
• Only one peer agency charges a transfer fare, which at $0.25 is one third the cost of a CAT
regular fare transfer of $0.75.
• CAT’s ADA fare at $3.00 is in line with the peer mean ADA fare of $2.94.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 3-15
Table 3-3: Peer Comparison of Fixed-Route & ADA Fare Structures
Transit System
Fixed-Route Fares
ADA Fare
(One-Way) Base One-
Way Fare
Daily
Pass
Weekly/
7-Day
Pass
Monthly/
30-Day
Pass
Transfers
Base
Transfer
Fare
CAT $1.50 $4.00 $15.00 $35.00 Y $0.75 $3.00
ECAT $1.75 $5.25 $14.50 $47.00 Y $0.00 $3.50
Citrus Connection $1.50 $3.00 $12.00 $47.00 Y $0.00 $2.00
LeeTran(1) $1.50 $4.00 $15.00 $40.00 N - $3.00
MCAT $1.50 $4.00 $12.00 $40.00 Y $0.25 $2.00
EC Rider $1.50 - - $30.00 Y $0.00 Varies2
PCPT $1.50 $3.75 - $37.50 N - $4.00
Votran $1.75 $3.75 $13.00 $46.00 N - $3.00
WAVE $2.00 $5.00 $20.00 $80.00 Y $0.00 $4.00
St. Lucie County $2.00 $5.00 - $50.00 Y $0.00 $2.00
Peer Group Mean $1.67 $4.22 $14.42 $46.39 - - $2.94
CAT % from Mean -10% -5% 4% -25% - - 2%
1 LeeTran also has a $0.75 base trolley fare. For comparison purposes, base bus fare of $1.50 used in peer analysis.
Source: Transit agency fare schedules.
Using the fare information from Table 3-3, the base fare multiplier for each type of pass was
calculated. The base fare multiplier refers to the number that is multiplied by the cash fare to
determine the price of the pass. Table 3-4 compares the base fare multiplier for each of CAT’s fare
pass options to those offered by the peer agencies and the peer agency mean, when applicable.
Based on this analysis, the following conclusions are drawn:
• Whereas CAT’s base fare and daily pass prices are slightly less (-5%) than the peer mean, the
daily pass multiplier is slightly higher (7%), resulting in a spread of 12%. This suggests that the
price of a daily pass price is slightly high in relation to the base fare compared to those of
CAT’s peer agencies.
• Similarly, the fare for CAT’s 7-day pass is 4% higher than the peer agency mean, and its
multiplier is 15% higher than the average for the peer agencies, resulting in an 11% spread.
This suggests that the price of the 7-day pass is slightly high in relation to the base fare
compared to those of CAT’s peer agencies.
• The cost of CAT’s 30-day pass is considerably lower (25%) than the average price of the peer
agency 30-day/monthly pass options, resulting in a lower multiplier of 15% less than the
average multiplier for the peer agencies.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 3-16
Table 3-4: CAT & Peer Fixed-Route Base Fare Multipliers
Agency Base
Fare
Daily Pass Weekly/7-Day Pass Monthly/ 30-Day Pass
Fare Multiplier Fare Multiplier Fare Multiplier
CAT $1.50 $4.00 2.67 $15.00 10.00 $35.00 23.33
ECAT $1.75 $5.25 3.00 $14.50 8.29 $47.00 26.86
Citrus Connection $1.50 $3.00 2.00 $12.00 8.00 $47.00 31.33
LeeTran $1.50 $4.00 2.67 $15.00 10.00 $40.00 26.67
MCAT $1.50 $4.00 2.67 $12.00 8.00 $40.00 26.67
EC Rider $1.50 n/a n/a n/a n/a $30.00 20.00
PCPT $1.50 $3.75 2.50 n/a n/a $37.50 25.00
Votran $1.75 $3.75 2.14 $20.00 11.43 $46.00 26.29
WAVE $2.00 $5.00 2.50 $13.00 6.50 $80.00 40.00
St. Lucie County $2.00 $5.00 2.50 n/a n/a $50.00 25.00
Peer Group Mean $1.67 4.22 2.50 $14.42 8.70 $46.39 27.53
% CAT from Mean -10% -5% 7% 4% 15% -25% -15%
CAT currently does not provide discounts to college students or military personnel, but it is interested
in considering a discounted fare for either/both groups as part of this study. Therefore, information on
student and military discounted fares for each of the peers was collected and is summarized in Table
3-5. The majority of the selected peers provide base fare discounts in addition to multi-day/ride
passes to college students with a valid student ID, and four of the nine selected peers provide
discounts on base fare and/or multi-day/ride passes for active duty military and veterans.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 3-17
Table 3-5: Peer Comparison of College/University Student and Military Discounts
Transit
System
Student Discounts Military Discounts
Base Fare Passes Base Fare Passes
ECAT
$1.25
(28.5%
discount)
$12.00 (10 rides) (specialty
fare available for students
only)
Free (in uniform); $1.00 w/
ID (43% discount); $1.25
w/ ID (Routes 59A, 59, 60,
61) (28.5% discount)
No discount
Citrus
$1.25
(16.6%
discount)
$2.50 (day pass)(17%
discount); $22.00 (10
days) (12% discount)
No discount No discount
LeeTran
$0.75
(50%
discount)
$12.00 (7 days) (20%
discount); $6.50 (12 rides)
(51.8% discount); $25.00
(31 days) (37.5% discount)
No discount No discount
MCAT No
discount
$2.00 (day pass); $6.00 (7
days) $20.00 (31 days)
(50% discount all)
$0.75 (50% discount)
$2.00 (day pass);
$6.00 (7 days); $20.00
(31 days); (50%
discount all)
EC Rider No
discount No discount No discount No discount
PCPT
$0.75
(50%
discount)
$1.85 (day pass)
$18.75 (31 days)
$12.50 (20 rides)
(50% discount all)
$0.75
(50% discount)
$1.85 (day pass);
$18.75 (31 days);
$12.50 (20 rides);
(50% discount all)
Votran No
discount No discount No discount No discount
WAVE Free No discount $1.00(50% discount)No discount
St. Lucie
Paratransit
No
discount No discount No discount No discount
Peer Transportation Disadvantage Program Fare Structure Comparison
Table 3-6 presents TD eligibility, TD services, and TD fares for CAT and the selected peer transit
systems based on information obtained from these systems. TD mobility services in Florida are a
program-based support for persons with qualifying incomes below and/or relative to poverty level.
Although TD is a state-based program, TD services are deployed at the county level, and policy varies
county to county. Table 3-5 shows that TD eligibility is income-based, but that the type of services and
fares vary across the peers. CAT charges the most widely-ranging fares for TD services compared to
the selected peers. Also of note is that CAT does not provide a bus transit pass for TD-eligible riders,
whereas most other peers do.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 3-18
Table 3-6: Peer Comparison of Transportation Disadvantaged Fares
Transit
System
Eligibility
Requirements Fare/Fee TD Bus
Pass
CAT Income-based Varies from $1 to $7 per one-way trip depending on rider’s household
income No
ECAT Income-based $2.50 per one way trip flat fee Yes
Citrus
Connection Income-based Base fare $2.00 per one-way trip, plus 25% to 100% of base fare,
depending on rider’s income Yes
LeeTran Income-based $2.00 per one-way trip flat fee No
MCAT Income-based $4.00 per one-way trip flat fee Yes
EC Rider Income-based
• TD 1 (shoppers): $1.00 one-way flat fee (shared-ride shopping trips;
scheduled 6 times/week to/from different locations)
• TD 5 (rural): $1.00 one-way flat fee
• TD (urban): per mile fee
Yes
PCPT Income-based $2.00 per one-way trip flat fee Yes
Votran Income-based $3.00 per one-way trip flat fee No
WAVE n/a n/a n/a
St. Lucie
County Income-based $1.00 per one-way trip flat fee No
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 4-1
Section 4 Demographics
4.1 Title VI and Environmental Justice Considerations
Transit providers within service areas containing more than 200,000 residents are required under Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to complete an equity analysis of any major service change or fare
change. The analysis must be completed during the programming stages, regardless of the proposed
fare increase or decrease amount. Requirements for major service changes differ based on the
magnitude of changes and established thresholds. The purpose of this equity analysis is to ensure
that any potential fare structures are consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and are fair
and equitable to all citizens, regardless of race, color, or national origin. The objectives of FTA’s Title
VI Program, as set forth in FTA Circular 4702.1B, “Title VI Program Guidelines for Federal Transit
Administration Recipients,” are:
• To ensure that FTA-assisted benefits and related services are made available and are
equitably distributed without regard to race, color, or national origin.
• To ensure that the level and quality of FTA-assisted transit services are sufficient to provide
equal access and mobility for any person without regard to race, color, or national origin.
• To ensure that opportunities to participate in the transit planning and decision-making
process are provided to persons without regard to race, color, or national origin.
• To ensure that decisions on the location of transit services and facilities are made without
regard to race, color, or national origin.
• To ensure that corrective and remedial action is taken by all applicants and recipients of FTA
assistance to prevent discriminatory treatment of any beneficiary based on race, color, or
national origin.
An equity analysis was completed to determine whether the planned changes will have a disparate
impact on minority populations. Although low-income populations are not a protected class under
Title VI, it is recognized that there is an inherent overlap of environmental justice (EJ) principles in this
area. Additionally, because it is important to evaluate the impacts of service and fare changes on
passengers who are transit-dependent, FTA requires transit providers to evaluate proposed service
and fare changes to determine if low-income populations will bear a disproportionate burden of the
changes. Therefore, the equity analysis determines whether there is a disproportionate burden
between the existing fare and the proposed fare change on low-income riders.
This section presents demographic data from the 2011–2015 American Community Survey (ACS)
5-year Estimates used to map the low-income and minority populations throughout the CAT service
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 4-2
area at the Census block group level. These results are used in the equity analysis to assess the fare
change impacts on low-income and minority populations within Collier County.
4.2 Low-Income and Minority Demographics
Table 4-1 shows the percentage of Collier County’s low-income households, defined as 200% of the
federal poverty level. Map 4-1 depicts all low-income block groups where the number of below-
poverty households is greater than the County average of 10.7%. As shown by the map, the block
groups with greater numbers of households below the poverty level are located in the more rural
northern-most and southern-most portions of the county, along with several in the denser areas
within Naples. All low-income block groups have full or partial fixed-route transit service in addition to
ADA and TD services, except for the block group in which Everglades City is located.
Table 4-1: Collier County Low-Income Households, 2015
Total
Households
Households
Below Poverty
%
Below Poverty
129,888 13,917 10.7%
Source: 2011–2015 ACS 5-year Estimates
Table 4-2 shows the percent of Collier County’s population that identify as a minority. Map 4-2 depicts
all minority block groups where the minority population is greater than the county average of 35.5%.
Block groups with the highest minority populations are located in the northern-most portion of the
county and to the south and east of the urban area. These block groups all have full or partial fixed-
route transit service in addition to ADA and TD services.
Table 4-2: Collier County Minority Populations, 2015
Total Population Minority
Population % Minority
341,091 121,070 35.5%
Source: 2011–2015 ACS 5-year Estimates
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 4-3
Map 4-1: Low-Income Households
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 4-4
Map 4-2: Minority Populations
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 4-5
4.3 Geographic Analysis of Ridership by Fare Type
An analysis of the fixed-route fares paid by riders when boarding a bus at each stop in the CAT service
area was conducted to understand what proportion of boardings are occurring in low-income block
groups (previously identified on Map 4-1) and what fare types are being paid by these riders.
Based on a GIS analysis of CAT bus stop data for FY 2013–FY 2017 year-to-date (YTD) (October 2016–
July 2017), 55% of all bus stops are located in a low-income block group. Further, 70% of all riders
board the bus at one of these bus stops, indicating that the majority of CAT riders live within or near a
low-income area within the county and ride the bus.
Table 4-3: Distribution of Ridership in Low-income Block Groups by Fare Type
(FY 2013–FY 2017 YTD)
Fare Type Total Ridership
Ridership in
Low-income
Block Groups
% Ridership in
Low-income
Block Groups
Base Fare – Full 260,432 176,430 68%
Day Pass – Full 44,192 32,369 73%
7-Day Pass – Full 3,162 2,383 75%
30-Day Pass – Full 139,770 97,836 70%
Transfer – Full 19,314 17,120 89%
Base Fare – Reduced 136,023 94,357 69%
Day Pass – Reduced 41,192 29,495 72%
7-Day Pass – Reduced 2,137 1,601 75%
30-Day Pass – Reduced 167,134 124,837 75%
Transfer – Reduced 3,966 3,266 82%
Other Fare(1) 510,255 346,009 68%
Total 1,327,577 925,703 70%
(1) Of the 68% of riders in the low-income block groups under the “Other Fare” category, 36% are
children age 5 and under who ride free, 41% are free rides; the remaining 23% are other fares under
this category (Marco Express fares, Summer Paw Passes, etc.).
Source: Collier Area Transit
The results of the Equity Analysis on the proposed fare structure changes are provided in Section 7.2.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 5-1
Section 5 Fare Scenarios and Potential Impacts
5.1 Conceptual Fare Alternatives
This section presents initial fare concepts for both fixed-route and paratransit services. These
comments were then evaluated and presented to the public for comment prior to determining final
recommendations. For each fare scenario identified, ridership and revenue impacts were estimated
based on fare elasticity and a fare analysis model developed for this study.
Fixed-Route Fare Concepts
Key findings related to each of CAT’s existing fixed-route fares are noted below. Unlike paratransit
service, fixed-route riders do not need qualify for service or for a specific fare category (although they
do need to qualify for a reduced price). With fixed-route service, riders have flexibility in which fare
they choose, based on price and the frequency with which they use the service. When evaluating
potential changes to the fixed-route fare structure, how the fares compare to each other in terms of
value to riders must be considered. Changing the price of existing fares or introducing new fare
categories may influence rider behavior in several ways: ridership decreases, as cost is too high for
some existing riders; ridership increases ridership by attracting new riders through new fare options;
or riders shift from one fare category to another because the value of a different fare is now more
attractive.
• Base Fare—CAT’s base fare of $1.50 is slightly less (10%) than the average base fare of its peer
agencies (see Table 3-4). CAT has also not increased the fixed-route fare structure since 2009.
In that time, the farebox recovery ratio has decreased by 10%, as fare revenue has not
increased at the same rate as operating costs (see Figure 3-6).
• Transfers—The industry-wide trend is to move away from providing transfers. The primary
reasons for this are to increase efficiency by reducing boarding times and reduce costs by
eliminating transfer fraud. By removing transfers, passengers must pay the base fare twice,
resulting in a higher cost for the overall trip. Passes that are priced competitively incentivizes
the use of smart card passes as opposed to cash fares, reducing the cash-counting costs
associated with paid transfers. However, CAT is currently evaluating operational changes to
split some routes to increase frequency and providing a free 90-minute transfer would allow
riders to transfer between these routes without paying any additional fare over the existing
route structure. Therefore, consideration also was given to evaluate the potential impacts of
providing a free 90-minute transfer between routes along with other potential fare changes.
• Day Pass—CAT’s full/reduced day pass is used by an average of 11% of riders annually (see
Table 3-1), and the spread between the day pass cost and its multiplier is 12% compared to
the average of its peers (see Table 3-4). This suggests that the price of the daily pass price is
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 5-2
slightly high in relation to the base fare compared to those of CAT’s peer agencies, and there is
room to reduce the price of the day pass to make it a more attractive fare, particularly if
transfers are eliminated.
• 7-Day Pass—CAT’s 7-day full/reduced pass is its least-used fare option, averaging less than
1% of riders annually (see Table 3-1). Further, its multiplier is 15% higher than the peer 7-day/
weekly pass option, indicating it is over-priced compared to CAT’s base fare price. However, it
is recognized that the 7-day pass creates a more affordable option if paying the higher cost of
the 30-day pass is not financially feasible. Replacing the low-used 7-day pass with a 15-day
pass that costs 50% of the 30-day pass would allow low-income riders who cannot afford the
up-front cost of a 30-day pass to ride at the same cost per trip as a 30-day pass while
spreading the cost out over two passes per month. Currently, a 7-day pass purchased weekly
to avoid the higher up-front cost of a 30-day pass ends up costing nearly double that of 4
weekly 7-day passes + 2 single-day passes to create a 30-day pass ($68 versus $35 for a 30-day
pass). Introducing a 15-day pass would benefit low-income customers who are more frequent
riders and cannot afford a 30-day pass.
• 30-Day Pass—CAT’s 30-day full/reduced pass is its most-used fare pass option, averaging
around 30% of riders annually (see Table 3-1). However, its price is 25% less and its multiplier
is 15% less than peer 30-day/ pass options, indicating being underpriced compared to CAT’s
base fare price.
• Marco Express Fares—Marco Express fares are set to fund a specialized service for a small
segment of CAT’s annual ridership. The multiplier for the Marco Express 30-day pass is
considerably higher, at 28.0, compared to the multiplier for the regular 30-day pass of 23.33.
Increasing the Marco Express base fare while keeping the Marco Express 30-day pass price the
same could encourage the use of the 30-day pass while bringing the multiplier for the Marco
Express 30-day pass more in line with the multiplier for the regular 30-day pass.
• Children—CAT changed its policy in 2009 when it lowered the age at which children ride free
from 6 to 5. Although there is no indication that this policy should be changed at this time, it is
important for CAT to recognize that this provides financial assistance to low-income families
with children. Of the children who ride for free, 36% board the bus within a low-income block
group (see Table 4-3) and may be part of households with more limited transportation options
that greatly benefit from younger children in the household riding for free.
• Summer Paw Pass—Implemented in April 2015, the Summer Paw Pass gives students age 17
and younger the ability to use CAT unlimited from June 1–August 31. Although only 125 or
fewer passes have been sold annually since this pass was implemented, it benefits youths
who may not have other transportation options to travel in the summer. Increasing the cost of
the pass beyond $30 likely would make it more unaffordable for some riders and have no
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 5-3
measurable increase in revenue due to the low number of passes sold each year. Therefore,
no change to the Summer Paw Pass cost is recommended at this time.
ADA Fares
Federal regulations stipulate that the fare for a one-way ADA trip must not exceed twice the full fare
charged for a similar trip on the fixed-route system.1 Therefore, increasing the ADA fare is limited by
whatever changes are made to the base fare or other applicable fares to provide a similar trip on the
fixed-route system.
TD Fares
CAT’s TD fare structure is tiered based on income, with persons falling into the lowest income
brackets paying the least. CAT operators/staff and evaluating peer agencies indicate that the number
of income categories (five) within the current TD fare structure causes an increased amount of
administrative work. Consolidating the number of income categories and fares assessed could
alleviate some of this burden. However, any changes to the TD fare structure to generate additional
revenue to maintain or expand services should be made across the board so impacts are equitable
among all income levels or in a way that does not disproportionately impact lower-income riders.
CAT bases the TD income brackets on household income, and customers can provide proof of
eligibility using personal income statements. To avoid this in the future, a clearer definition of
“household” and eligible proof of income should be explored as part of the TD fare recommendations.
5.2 Potential Ridership and Revenue Impacts
As part of this study, a fare model was developed to estimate ridership and the revenue impacts of
potential fare changes to CAT’s existing fare structures. This model takes into consideration the
following:
• Fare elasticity or the sensitivity to ridership based on fare increases or decreases
• Potential shifts in fare usage
• Existing CAT ridership and revenue data for FY 2016 (the most recent full year of data available
at the time of the analysis)
1 U.S. Department of Transportation, 49 CFR Part 73.131(4)(c).
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 5-4
Model Assumptions
Elasticity
A rule of thumb often used in fare elasticity is the Simpson-Curtin formula, which provides that
ridership will decrease 0.3 percent for every 1 percent of transit fare increase above the current fare.2
However accurate this may be on a global scale, this estimate is based on an average of all riders and
does not provide an accurate assessment of fare-to-rider elasticity for any given location and
demographic combination.3 The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) found that the
Simpson-Curtin formula was simplistic in nature and that a more complex econometric model would
be necessary to incorporate a wide array of factors into the model. APTA adapted the Autoregressive
Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model to estimate ridership up to 24 months after a fare change.
Data used for the ARIMA model include service levels (measured by revenue vehicle miles), transit
costs (measured by average fares), costs of alternative modes (measured by gasoline prices), market
characteristics (approximated by the number of people employed locally), intervening factors
(including any abrupt changes that may occur), and time. APTA found an average elasticity of -0.43 in
areas with populations of less than 1 million.
As part of this fare study, an elasticity analysis was conducted by Dr. Brad Kamp of the Economics
Department at the University of South Florida. Following methodology suggestions provided in the
APTA study, he calculated the elasticity for CAT’s fixed-route and paratransit ridership at -0.40, in line
with research findings previously noted. This implies that for every 10% decrease in fare, the ridership
is anticipated to also decline by 4%. This is also consistent with the paratransit elasticity estimated by
Dr. Kamp during the fare study completed prior to the 2012 changes to the paratransit fare structure.
Cost per Trip Assumptions
Assumptions must be made about the number of daily trips made, on average, for each type of fare
pass to determine how implementing other new fares, and resulting cost per trip, may influence a
rider’s choice to switch. Table 5-1 documents the assumptions made for the number of trips made
and the resulting cost per trip included in the fare analysis model.
2 Curtin, J. F., “Effects of Fares in Transit Riding,” Highway Research Record, 213, 1968.
3 Perk, V., J. Voliniski, and N. Kamp, “Impacts of Transfer Fares on Transit Ridership and Revenue,” National Center for
Transit Research (NCTR), 2004.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 5-5
Table 5-1: Number of Trips by Fare Type
Fare Type Current
Fare Assumptions Cost per
Trip
Base Fare – Full $1.50 1 trip made per fare $1.50
Base Fare – Reduced $0.75 1 trip made per fare $0.75
Base Fare + Transfer – Full $2.25 2 trips made per fare $1.13
Bare Fare +Transfer – Reduced $1.10 2 trips made per fare $0.55
30-Day Pass – Full Fare $35.00 2 round trips + transfers per day for
22 weekdays (88 trips total) $0.40
30-Day Pass – Reduced $17.50 Same as 30-day full fare $0.20
7-Day Pass – Full Fare $15.00 2 round trips + transfers per day for
7 days (28 trips total) $0.54
7-Day Pass – Reduced $7.50 Same as 7-day full fare $0.27
Day Pass – Full Fare $4.00 2 round trips + transfers for 1 day
(4 trips total) $1.00
Day Pass – Reduced $2.00 Same as day pass full fare $0.50
Marco Express Base Fare – Full $2.50 1 trip made per fare $2.50
Marco Express Base Fare – Reduced $1.25 1 trip made per fare $1.25
Marco Express 30-Day Pass – Full $70.00 2 round trips + transfers per day for
22 weekdays (88 trips total) $0.80
Marco Express 30-Day Pass – Reduced $35.00 Same as Marco Express 30-day full fare $0.40
Cost per trip = fare ÷number of trips for each fare type
Ridership Shifts between Fare Categories
In addition to assumed ridership increases or decreases based on fare elasticity in the fare model,
assumptions also are made regarding potential ridership shifts between the various fixed-route fare
categories. The extent of these shifts depends on the relative value of the ride in terms of the assumed
cost per trip in a given scenario. For example, if the price of the base fare increases and the price of
the day pass decreases, it is assumed that a percentage of riders currently purchasing the base fare
for a round trip will now find the lower-priced day pass more attractive. These assumptions are made
to calculate more realistic ridership and revenue impacts each scenario.
Fare elasticity and ridership for ADA and TD services is more difficult to apply, as travel behavior is
different for fixed-route riders and eligibility requirements must be met to use paratransit services.
The ridership and revenue impacts for the paratransit scenarios assume that the elasticity is applied
in the case of a fare increase; however, in instances of a fare decrease, it is assumed that a person’s
travel behavior does not necessarily change and the number of trips does not increase, nor does the
ridership increase due to a lower fare offered as eligibility requirements stay the same.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 5-6
Fare Model Scenarios
Fixed-Route Fare Scenarios
Based on analyses completed during early stages of the fare study and discussions with CAT staff,
seven initial fixed-route fare change scenarios were prepared. Each scenario was designed to measure
potential changes in ridership and revenue with the overall objective of defining a scenario that
increases ridership or encourages the use of fare passes instead of cash fares, increases revenue for
CAT to enhance/expand services, and does not disproportionately adversely impact low-income or
minority riders as required by federal Environmental Justice regulations. The seven scenarios initially
developed are presented in Table 5-2, and a description of each scenario is provided.
Scenario 1
1.A Eliminate transfers; no change to base fare price
1.B Decrease cost of day pass from $4 to $3/reduced day pass from $2 to $1.50
1.C Eliminate 7-day pass and replace with 15-day pass at 50% of 30-day pass price
Scenario 2 (same as Scenario 1 but no change to cost of day pass)
2.A Eliminate transfers; no change to base fare price
2.B No change to cost of day pass
2.C Eliminate 7-day pass and replace with 15-day pass at 50% of 30-day pass price
Scenario 3 (same as Scenario 2 but increase base fare and Marco Express fares)
3.A Eliminate transfers
3.B No change to cost of day pass
3.C Eliminate 7-day pass and replace with 15-day pass at 50% of 30-day pass price
3.D Increase base fare to $2/reduced base fare to $1
3.E Increase Marco Express base fare to $3/reduced ME base fare to $1.50
Scenario 4 (same as Scenario 1 but reduce cost of day pass)
4.A Eliminate transfers
4.B Decrease cost of day pass from $4 to $3/reduced day pass from $2 to $1.50
4.C Eliminate 7-day pass and replace with 15-day pass at 50% of 30-day pass price
4.D Increase base fare to $2/reduced base fare to $1
4.E Increase Marco Express base fare to $3/reduced Marco Express base fare to $1.50
Scenario 5 (same as Scenario 4 but increase cost of 30-day pass)
5.A Eliminate transfers
5.B Decrease cost of day pass from $4 to $3/reduce day pass from $2 to $1.50
5.C Eliminate 7-day pass and replace with 15-day pass at 50% of 30-day pass price
5.D Increase base fare to $2/reduce base fare to $1
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 5-7
5.E Increase Marco Express base fare to $3/reduce ME base fare to $1.50
5.F Increase 30-day pass fare to $40/reduce 30-day pass to $20
Scenario 6 (same as Scenario 5 but allows for free 90-minute transfer)
6.A Free 90-minute transfer to different route
6.B Decrease cost of day pass from $4 to $3/reduced day pass from $2 to $1.50
6.C Eliminate 7-day pass and replace with 15-day pass at 50% of 30-day pass price
6.D Increase base fare to $2/reduced base fare to $1
6.E Increase Marco Express base fare to $3/reduced ME base fare to $1.50
6.F Increase 30-day pass fare to $40/reduced 30-day pass to $20
Scenario 7 (same as Scenario 6 but no increase to cost of day pass)
7.A Free 90-minute transfer to different route
7.B No change to cost of day pass
7.C Eliminate 7-day pass and replace with 15-day pass at 50% of 30-day pass price
7.D Increase base fare to $2/reduced base fare to $1
7.E Increase Marco Express base fare to $3/reduced ME base fare to $1.50
7.F Increase 30-day pass fare to $40/reduced 30-day pass to $20
Paratransit Fare Scenarios
As the ADA fare cannot exceed twice the base fixed-route fare for the same trip, there are limited
options for changing this fare structure. In the fixed-route scenarios presented, the base fixed-route
fare is proposed to increase from $1.50 to $2.00 in Scenarios 3, 4, and 5. This would allow for an
increase from the current ADA fare of $3.00 to a maximum new fare of $4.00. Collier County also offers
a reduced ADA fare of $1.00 for households whose income is at or below the poverty level. Since TD
fares are not tied to the base fixed-route fare, there is more flexibility in terms of changing them;
however, it is acknowledged that potential financial impacts to both ADA and TD riders must be
carefully considered as part of any recommendation.
For paratransit services, seven additional scenarios were developed, and the ridership and revenue
impacts of each were assessed. The paratransit fare change scenarios are presented in Table 5-3, and
a description of each scenario follows.
Scenario 8 ($4 full and $1 reduced ADA fare)
This scenario provides for an increase of the ADA fare from $3 to $4 (assuming the fixed-route fare is
increased to $2), but maintains the $1 fare for qualified low-income individuals to minimize financial
hardship on the most vulnerable riders.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 5-8
Scenario 9 ($4 full and $1.25 reduced ADA fare)
This scenario assumes an increase in the ADA fare from $3 to $4 as in Scenario 8, but also increases
the $1 fare to $1.25 for qualified low-income individuals. Although a low-income fare of $1.33 would
equate to the same percentage increase as the regular ADA fare (33%), a fare of $1.25 is assumed for
ease of fare collection.
Scenario 10 ($0.50 increase to all TD fare categories)
This scenario assumes an increase of $0.50 in the TD fare for all income-based fare categories. It is
recognized that increasing the TD fare the same amount among all five fare categories results in a
higher percentage change in fares for riders at or below the poverty level, as they are paying the
lowest fare; however, the range in current fares collected ($1 to $7) provides a challenge in creating a
more equitable distribution unless the amount of the proposed increase was considerably higher for
TD riders in higher income categories.
Scenario 11 ($1 increase to all TD fare categories)
This scenario assumes an increase of $1.00 in the TD fare for all income-based fare categories. As with
the previous scenario, it is recognized that increasing the TD fare the same amount among all five fare
categories results in a higher change in overall fare for riders at or below the poverty level, as they are
paying the lowest fare.
Scenario 12 (single fare of $3 full and $1 reduced for TD and ADA services)
This scenario provides a single ADA and TD fare based on income to simplify the paratransit fare
structure, in which individuals at or below the poverty level (currently paying $1 for either ADA or TD
services) will continue to pay $1 and all others will pay $3. Maintaining the $1 fare for the lowest-
income tier will eliminate impacts on most vulnerable riders.
Scenario 13 (single fare of $4 full and $1 reduced for TD and ADA services)
This scenario is similar to Scenario 12 in that it provides a single ADA and TD fare based on income, in
which individuals at or below the poverty level (currently paying $1 for either ADA or TD services) will
continue to pay $1; however, this scenario assumes that all others will pay $4. Similar to Scenario 12,
maintaining the $1 fare for the lowest-income tier will eliminate impacts on most vulnerable riders.
Scenario 14 (maintain existing ADA fare and consolidate TD fare structure)
This scenario assumes that the existing ADA fare structure is maintained, but simplifies the TD fare
structure by consolidating the existing five income-based categories into three with fares of $1, $3, or
$4. This scenario results in no fare increase for any paratransit rider and the TD passengers currently
paying the highest fares ($5 and $7) will now pay a lower fare of $4.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 5-9 Table 5-2: Summary of Fixed-Route Fare Change Scenarios Fare Category CurrentScenario 1Scenario 2Scenario 3 Scenario 4Scenario 5Scenario 6Scenario 7Base Fare – Full $1.50$1.50$1.50$2.00 $2.00$2.00$2.00$2.00Base Fare – Reduced $0.75$0.75$0.75$1.00 $1.00$1.00$1.00$1.00Transfer – Full $0.75n/an/an/a n/an/aFree 90 minFree 90 minTransfer – Reduced $0.35n/an/an/a n/an/aFree 90 minFree 90 minChildren Age 5 & under free Age 5 & under free Age 5 & under free Age 5 & under free Age 5 & under free Age 5 & under free Age 5 & under free Age 5 & under free Day Pass – Full $4.00$3.00$4.00$4.00 $3.00$3.00$3.00$4.00Day Pass – Reduced $2.00$1.50$2.00$2.00 $1.50$1.50$1.50$2.007-Day Pass – Full $15.00n/an/an/a n/an/an/an/a7-Day Pass – Reduced $7.50n/an/an/a n/an/an/an/a15-Day Pass – Full (new) n/a$18.00$18.00$18.00 $18.00$20.00$20.00$20.0015-Day Pass – Reduced (new) n/a$9.00$9.00$9.00 $9.00$10.00$10.00$10.0030-Day Pass – Full $35.00$35.00$35.00$35.00 $35.00$40.00$40.00$40.0030-Day Pass – Reduced $17.50$17.50$17.50$17.50 $17.50$20.00$20.00$20.00Marco Express Base Fare $2.50$2.50$2.50$3.00 $3.00$3.00$3.00$3.00Marco Express Base Fare – Reduced $1.20$1.20$1.20$1.50 $1.50$1.50$1.50$1.50Marco Express 30-Day Pass $70.00$70.00$70.00$70.00 $70.00$70.00$70.00$70.00Marco Express 30-Day Pass – Reduced $35.00$35.00$35.00$35.00 $35.00$35.00$35.00$35.00Changes in fares indicated in bold. Table 5-3: Summary of Paratransit Fare Change Scenarios Fare Category Current Scenario 8Scenario 9Scenario 10 Scenario 11Scenario 12Scenario 13Scenario 14ADA (Low-Income) $1$1$1.25$1$1n/an/a$1ADA $3$4$4$3$3n/an/a$3TD At or Under Poverty Level (PL) $1$1$1$1.50 $2n/an/a$1TD 101% to 150% of PL $3$3$3$3.50 $4n/an/a$3TD 151% to 225% of PL $4$4$4$4.50 $5n/an/a$4TD 226% to 337% of (PL $5$5$5$5.50 $6n/an/a$4TD +337% of PL $7$7$7$7.50 $8n/an/a$4Single ADA/TD Fare (At or Under PL) n/an/an/an/an/a$1$1n/aSingle ADA/TD Fare (Above PL) n/an/an/an/an/a$3$4n/aChanges in fares indicated in bold. 9.C.2Packet Pg. 277Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 5-10
Estimated Ridership and Revenue Impacts by Fare Scenario
Defining Low and High End Impacts
In an effort to recognize potential changes in rider behavior resulting from fare changes, a range (low
to high) of likely behavioral impacts was examined. The low end of the range assumes that the full
impact of measured elasticity is applied to the ridership and those riders will initially leave the
system, resulting in greater initial impacts to annual ridership and revenue. The high end of the range
assumes that either the existing ridership will be maintained or only a portion of the riders will leave
the system due to elasticity impacts. Depending on the scenario/fare category, it is assumed the
remaining riders impacted will shift to other, more attractive fare categories.
The low-end assumptions present the “worst case” scenario while the high-end assumptions produce
less impacts to ridership and therefore higher annual revenue estimates. The actual ridership and
revenue impacts are likely somewhere in the middle of the ranges presented, as assumptions must be
made regarding ridership behavior for each scenario. Important in the fare model assumptions is the
recognition that mobility is largely an essential commodity for most riders, especially those on the
low end of the income spectrum. Thus, by providing a range of scenarios that attempt to counter
increased costs in certain fare categories with reduced costs in alternative fare categories, the
scenarios attempt to provide attractive and reasonable options for riders other than to simply stop
using the CAT services.
As previously noted, the ridership and revenue impacts for the paratransit scenarios assume that the
elasticity is applied in the case of a fare increase; however, in instances of a fare decrease, it is
assumed that a person’s travel behavior does not necessarily change and the number of trips does
not increase, nor does the ridership increase due to a lower fare offered as eligibility requirements
stay the same.
Fixed-Route Ridership and Revenue Impacts
Tables 5-4 and 5-5 illustrate the ridership and revenue impacts for the low-end range (elasticity fully
applied) and the high-end range (elasticity partially applied), respectively, for each fixed-route
scenario. It should be noted that the ridership and revenue figures in these tables represent only the
fare types affected by each scenario and do not reflect system-wide fixed-route ridership and revenue
figures.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 5-11
Table 5-4: Low-End Ridership and Revenue Estimates for Fixed-Route Fare Change Scenarios
(Elasticity Fully Applied Resulting in Ridership Loss)
Scenario
Base: FY 2016 Estimated Ridership and Revenue
Existing
Ridership
Existing
Revenue
Estimated
Ridership
Difference
from Base
Estimated
Revenue
Difference
from Base
Scenario 1 891,606 $873,694 869,679 (21,927)$816,874 ($56,820)
Scenario 2 891,606 $873,694 864,755 (26,851)$846,616 ($27,078)
Scenario 3 911,114 $912,120 820,470 (90,644)$953,077 $40,957
Scenario 4 911,114 $912,120 830,880 (80,234)$933,170 $21,050
Scenario 5 911,114 $912,120 816,194 (94,920)$956,624 $44,504
Scenario 6 911,114 $912,120 845,489 (65,625)$980,135 $68,015
Scenario 7 911,114 $912,120 840,109 (71,005)$991,510 $79,390
Table 5-5: High-End Ridership and Revenue Estimates for Fixed-Route Fare Change Scenarios
(Elasticity Applied with Estimate of Likely Shift of riders to More Favorable Fare Options)
Scenario
Base: FY 2016 Estimated Ridership and Revenue
Ridership Revenue Ridership Difference
from Base Revenue Difference
from Base
Scenario 1 891,606 $873,694 872,052 (19,554)$818,804 ($54,890)
Scenario 2 891,606 $873,694 868,513 (23,093)$850,979 ($22,715)
Scenario 3 911,114 $912,120 914,652 3,538 $1,078,138 $166,018
Scenario 4 911,114 $912,120 925,853 14,739 $1,052,875 $140,754
Scenario 5 911,114 $912,120 932,816 21,702 $1,089,134 $177,013
Scenario 6 911,114 $912,120 964,792 53,678 $1,120,682 $208,562
Scenario 7 911,114 $912,120 959,842 48,728 $1,142,987 $230,867
Based on the analysis conducted, Scenarios 1 and 2 are anticipated to produce less revenue than the
base year (FY 2016), primarily due to minimal proposed changes to the fare structure. Scenarios 2, 4,
and 5, which propose to eliminate transfers, are projected to generate additional revenue ranging
from approximately $41,000–$166,000 in Scenario 3, $21,000–$141,000 in Scenario 4, and $37,500–
$179,000 in Scenario 5. The higher revenue generated in Scenarios 3, 4, and 5 is influenced primarily
by the increase in the base fare, which carries the highest percentage of riders (44% of ridership in FY
2016, including full and reduced fare customers).
Scenarios 6 and 7, which provide a free 90-minute transfer to another route along with other fare
changes, generate the highest revenue of all the scenarios. In FY 2016, approximately $25,000 was
generated by full and reduced transfer fares. If the current fare structure remains unchanged and a
90-minute free transfer is allowed, then it is assumed the $25,000 annual transfer revenue would
disappear, as most (if not all) riders make a transfer to another route within a 90-minute window.
If a free 90-minute transfer is offered along with other fare changes, it is estimated that more revenue
will be generated, as the free transfer encourages riders to remain in the highest cost-per trip base
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 5-12
fare category rather than shifting to another fare options. Under Scenarios 6 and 7, although the
transfer revenue disappears, more riders remain in the base fare category, which has a higher average
cost per trip than a day pass. This generates more revenue than if those riders shift to a pass option.
Therefore, it is estimated that Scenario 6 could generate up to an additional 53,700 annual trips and
$68,000–$209,000 annually in revenue over the base year (or $23,000–$31,000 more than Scenario 5).
Scenario 7 could generate up to an additional 48,700 annual trips and $79,000–$231,000 annually over
the base year (or $35,000–$54,000 more than Scenario 5, as the cost of a day pass is not reduced).
Paratransit Ridership and Revenue Impacts
A similar analysis of ridership and revenue impacts was completed for the paratransit fare change
scenarios. Tables 5-6 and 5-7 illustrate the ridership and revenue impacts for the low-end range
(elasticity fully applied) and the high-end range (elasticity partially applied), respectively, for each
paratransit scenario. Unlike fixed-route service in which the costs of service are set to a certain
economy of scale, the operating costs of paratransit service are variable, in that as trips are added,
additional costs are incurred and when trips decrease, these costs are not incurred. Further, CAT
receives revenue from the Florida CTD for non-sponsored trips to fund ADA and TD services in Collier
County that are reimbursed on a per-trip basis, so if the number of trips provided decreases, this
revenue is not provided to CAT. For the low-end range when elasticity is applied and ridership is
assumed to decrease, it is assumed that CAT’s overall operating costs will also decrease accordingly
given the nature of paratransit service. This estimated net operating cost reduction, which is the
reduced operating expense anticipated due to ridership loss less estimated state revenue for non-
sponsored paratransit trips that would also decrease if these trips are no longer provided, is also
shown in Table 5-6. Although this provides an overall net revenue increase to CAT, it is not recognized
as a benefit, as it is based on a reduction of service and likely negative impact to these riders.
Based on the analysis conducted, the paratransit fare scenarios generate a wide range of potential
ridership and revenue impacts. For Scenarios 8 and 9, which reflect only a change to ADA fares,
increasing the fare from $3 to $4 is anticipated to generate between $27,000 and $63,000 more
annually, depending on if the low-income ADA fare is increased from $1 to $1.25. Scenario 10, which
assumes a $0.50 across-the-board increase to all five TD income-based fare categories, is anticipated
have the least financial impact, estimated to generate $5,000 annually if elasticity is applied or
$11,000 annually if ridership is maintained. Similarly, Scenario 11, which assumes a $1 across-the-
board TD fare increase, is estimated to generate just under $8,000 annually if elasticity is applied or
$22,000 annually if ridership is maintained.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 5-13
Table 5-6: Low-End Ridership and Revenue Estimates for Paratransit Fare Change Scenarios
(Elasticity Fully Applied Resulting in Ridership Loss)
Scenario
Base: FY 2016 Estimated Ridership and Revenue Net Revenue
with
Reduced
Operating
Costs
Ridership Revenue Ridership Difference
from Base
Fare
Revenue
Difference
from Base
Scenario 8 75,961 $192,470 68,203 (7,758)$219,477 $27,007 $262,117
Scenario 9 75,961 $192,470 66,425 (9,536)$221,699 $29,229 $318,222
Scenario 10 24,686 $57,004 21,676 (3,010)$62,266 $5,262 $96,473
Scenario 11 24,686 $57,004 18,667 (6,019)$64,844 $7,840 $190,263
Scenario 12 100,647 $249,474 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Scenario 13 100,647 $249,474 99,673 (974)$273,657 $24,183 $288,825
Scenario 14 100,647 $249,474 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Table 5-7: High-End Ridership and Revenue Estimates for Paratransit Fare Change Scenarios
(Assumes No Ridership Loss or Operating Cost Reduction)
Scenario
Base: FY 2016 Estimated Ridership and Revenue
Ridership Revenue Ridership Difference
from Base Revenue Difference
from Base
Scenario 8 75,961 $192,470 75,961 0 $250,507 $58,037
Scenario 9 75,961 $192,470 75,961 0 $254,952 $62,482
Scenario 10 24,686 $57,004 24,686 0 $68,010 $11,006
Scenario 11 24,686 $57,004 24,686 0 $79,016 $22,012
Scenario 12 100,647 $249,474 100,647 0 $238,244 ($11,230)
Scenario 13 100,647 $249,474 100,647 0 $308,163 $58,689
Scenario 14 100,647 $249,474 100,647 0 $243,610 ($5,864)
Of the scenarios that recommend a single ADA/TD fare schedule, impacts to ridership are minimal,
and the estimated annual revenue impacts vary greatly, depending on whether the $3 or $4 fare
option is selected. Scenario 12, which proposes a $3 ADA/TD fare (maintaining the $1 low-income fare
option for qualified individuals), is anticipated to generate $11,000 less annual than current, due to TD
riders who currently pay $4, $5, or $7 paying the lower amount. However, under Scenario 13, if the
ADA/TD fare is set at $4 (maintaining the $1 fare option for qualified individuals), then the estimated
revenue could range from $24,000 to $58,000 depending on whether a ridership loss occurs. Scenario
14, which does not propose any change to the ADA fare structure and consolidates the TD fare
structure into three income-based categories, has the least impacts. No ridership loss is anticipated
under this scenario, as no riders will experience a fare increase and minimal impacts to annual
revenue will occur. This is due to only 12% of riders currently paying the highest TD fares of $5 or $7
and paying a lower fare of $4 under this scenario.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 6-1
Section 6 Public Outreach Results
6.1 Rider Intercept Surveys
CAT staff conducted an intercept survey via tablet of 80 riders at the CAT Transfer Center on January
18–19, 2018. Survey questions are provided in Appendix A. Highlights of the survey findings are as
follows:
• If the base fare increases from $1.50 to $2, most fixed-route respondents stated they would
switch to either a day pass or the new 15-day pass if offered.
• If transfers are eliminated, respondents were split between switching to a day pass and
staying with the base fare.
• If the 30-day pass increases from $35 to $40, riders were split between continuing to use the
same fare versus switching to a 15-day pass. A few respondents indicated that a $5 increase
on the 30-day pass is too high.
• Of the respondents who currently use the reduced fixed-route base fare, two-thirds would
keep using that fare and the remaining one-third would switch to the reduced day pass if the
price was lowered to $1.50.
• Of the respondents who use the reduced 30-day pass, nearly all would keep using it if the
price was increased, given how often they ride.
• Of the paratransit riders who responded, most would continue to use the service if the fare
was increased from the current $3 fare because they have no other choice, but they felt this
would be a financial hardship and could try to find financial assistance.
• Of those who responded to the demographic questions:
o Most use the bus for life-sustaining trips or as their primary mode of transportation.
o There is a fairly even distribution of riders ages 25–65 years and age 65+.
o Approximately 80% of respondents have an annual household income of less than
$25,000.
6.2 Public Workshop Results
Based on the survey results and discussions with staff, the County’s Public Transit Advisory
Committee (PTAC) recommended that Scenarios 1, 4, 5, and 6 be presented to the public for further
review and comment.
Two public workshops were held on January 30, 2018, to solicit feedback from the public on potential
fare changes for CAT’s fixed-route and paratransit services. The workshops were noticed on CAT buses
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 6-2
in English, Spanish, and Creole. The first workshop was held at the CAT Transfer Center in Naples from
10:00 AM–2:00 PM, and the second was held at CareerSource Southwest Florida in Immokalee from
4:00–7:00 PM. The workshops were open-house style with three stations. The first station included a
narrated presentation running a continuous loop providing information about CAT’s current fare
structure, historic ridership and revenue trends, and the four proposed fare scenarios. Following the
presentation, participants were asked to move to a second station to complete an exercise sheet
seeking information about their use of CAT’s fixed-route and paratransit services and the different
fare scenarios. The third station provided an opportunity to discuss the fare study with and ask
questions of CAT and Tindale Oliver staff. The presentation and exercise sheet from the public
workshops are provided in Appendix B.
A total of 54 people completed the exercise sheet to provide feedback for use in developing fare study
recommendations. Highlights of the public workshop feedback are noted below.
As shown in Figure 6-1, most respondents (43%) stated that a fare rounded to a whole dollar is most
convenient.
Figure 6-1: Which fare increments make paying with cash most convenient for you?
Nearly 60% of all respondents stated that the ability to buy a smart card at a third-party location
(such as a convenience or grocery store) would be convenient. Just over 40% stated that being able to
pay the fare using their smartphone or tablet also would be convenient (see Figure 6-2).
An even dollar,
43%
An even half
dollar, 15%
An even quarter
dollar, 17%
All of the above are
equally convenient
to me, 17%
No response, 4%
Other, 6%
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 6-3
Figure 6-2: Which new fare purchase/payment options would be convenient to you?
As shown in Figure 6-3, 77% of all respondents stated that they would support a fare increase if the
revenue was used to improve service frequency/availability or provide better access to other
locations. The remaining 23% stated they do not support a fare increase. Additional service to
Vanderbilt Beach, better locations of stops, and later/more frequent service were specific comments
received.
Figure 6-3: Would you support a fare increase if …?
59%
41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Buying a smart card at places like grocery
or convenience stores
Pay fare using my smartphone or tablet
Yes, improve
frequency/
availability,
56%
Yes, access
more
locations, 21%
Do not
support, 23%
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 6-4
Of respondents who use ADA service, 50% said they would support a fare increase of $0.50, 11% would
support an increase of $0.25, and 17% would support an increase of $1. The remaining 22% stated
they did not support an ADA fare increase (Figure 6-4).
Figure 6-4: How much do you think the fares should be increased to
cover the cost to provide ADA service?
As shown in Figure 6-5, 56% of respondents who use TD service said they would support a fare
increase of $0.25, and 17% would support an increase of $0.50. Respondents indicated different
amounts they would support other than the options supplied; one person stated they would support
an increase of $0.05, and the remaining 33% stated they did not support a TD fare increase.
Figure 6-5: How much do you think the TD fares should be increased to
cover the cost to provide TD services?
$0.50 increase,
50%
$1.00 increase,
17%
$0.25 increase,
11%
No increase,
22%
$0.25 increase,
56%
$0.50
increase,
17%
$0.05 increase,
6%
No increase,
33%
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 6-5
Respondents who use fixed-route service were asked how long their typical trip is in time and
distance. As shown in Figures 6-6 and 6-7, the distribution of responses was varied; however, more
than half of riders indicated spending 30 minutes or more on their typical trip, and nearly one-quarter
have an average trip distance of greater than 20 miles.
Figure 6-6: How long is your typical one-way trip? (minutes)
Figure 6-7: How long is your typical one-way trip? (miles)
10 or less, 11%
11-20, 24%
21-30, 13%
31-45,
11%
45-60, 26%
61-90, 8%
Longer than 90,
8%
Less than 5,
14%
5-10, 41%
11-15, 14%
16-20, 9%
21-30, 5%
31-40, 9%
Greater than 40,
9%
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 6-6
Of the respondents who use the fixed-route system, 60% indicated they would support paying a
slightly higher one-way fare if it includes a free transfer (Figure 6-8).
Figure 6-8: Would you support paying a slightly higher one-way fare if it includes a free transfer?
As shown in Figure 6-9, of the respondents who use the fixed-route system, 31% indicated that a fare
of $2.00 would be too expensive and 40% indicated that a fare of $2.50 would be too expensive. The
remaining 29% indicated that the current fare of $1.50 is already too expensive.
Figure 6-9: At what price is fixed-route bus service too expensive?
When asked about fare passes, 47% of fixed-route riders indicated that they do not ride the bus
enough to make the cost of a pass worthwhile, and 41% stated that one of the pass options was too
expensive (20% for the 30-day pass, 12% for the day pass, and 9% for the 7-day pass). The remaining
12% indicated they are either unable to get to a location to buy a pass or it is too confusing for them
to buy a pass on the bus (Figure 6-10).
Yes, 60%
No, 29%
I don't require
a transfer, 10%
No response,
13%
Current fare of
$1.50, 29%
$2.00 fare, 31%
$2.50 fare, 40%
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 6-7
Figure 6-10: If you do not currently use passes, why?
As shown in Figure 6-11, when asked which three fixed-route fare pass options CAT should institute
first, the top choice was reducing the day-pass from $4.00 to $3.00 as a stand-alone change, followed
by increasing the base fare from $1.50 to $2.00 and with reducing the day-pass from $4.00 to $3.00.
Figure 6-11: Which fare changes should CAT institute first?
Unable to get to
a location to buy
the pass, 5.9%
Day-pass is too
expensive, 11.8%
7-day pass is too
expensive, 8.8%
30-day pass is
too expensive ,
20.6%
Too confusing to buy the
pass on the bus, 5.9%
Do not ride enough
to make the cost of a
pass worth the price ,
47.1%
Reduce the day-pass from
$4.00 to $3.00 as a stand-
alone change, 29%
Increase the base fare
from $1.50 to $2.00 and
reduce the day-pass from
$4.00 to $3.00, 24%
Change the 7-day pass from
$15.00 to a 15-day pass at
50% of the 30-day pass
price ($18 or $20), 18%
Eliminate transfers and reduce
the unlimited day-pass from
$4.00 to $3.00, 16%
Increase the base fare to $2.00 and
make transfers free for 90 minutes,
13%
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 6-8
Other comments received from the public workshop include:
• Provide a two-hour fare with transfer.
• Provide 1-day, 7-day, and 30-day pass options for service between Lee and Collier counties.
• Have a frequent-user program or other ways of purchasing a 30-day pass.
• Extend summer season student Paw pass for athletes/college students during sports.
• Allow payment options for the 30-day pass.
• Provide reduced passes for college students.
• Provide Wi-Fi in buses.
• Provide a simpler (more user-friendly) website and a smartphone/tablet app with a trip
planner.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 7-1
Section 7 Recommended Fare Changes
7.1 Recommended Changes Fare Structure
Based on the analysis completed during this study and the public outreach conducted through
intercept surveys and public workshops in January 2018, the following recommendations were
identified and presented to the Collier County LCB for further consideration. The LCB concurred with
these recommendations as presented.
Fixed-Route Fare Structure Recommendations
For fixed-route fares, Scenario 6 is recommended as the preferred scenario. This includes the changes
described below, which are also illustrated in Table 7-1).
• Increase the fixed-route base fare to $2 ($1 reduced), provide a 90-minute free transfer, and
reduce the cost of the day pass to $3. This consolidated package of fare changes is designed
to optimize use of the day pass while reducing possible ridership reduction associated with
increasing the one-way fare.
• Eliminate the existing 7-day pass and replace it with a 15-day pass at 50% of the cost of the 30-
day pass. This will provide a better option for low-income riders if the 30-day pass is too
expensive and a better cost-per-trip value than the 7-day pass, which is used the least and
generates the least revenue of all pass types. Under this scenario, the 15-day pass would be
priced at $20 ($10 reduced) based on increasing the cost of the 30-day pass to $40, as
described below.
• Increase the cost of the 30-day pass from $35 to $40 ($20 reduced). Input from the public did
not indicate that this would be a considerable hardship for existing riders, and it will put the
cost per trip for the 30-day pass more in line with the cost per trip for the other passes offered
while still providing the lowest cost per trip for all CAT’s fare options.
• Increase the cost of the Marco Express base fare from $2.50 to $3 ($1.50 reduced) to bring it
more in line with the cost of the Marco Express 30-day pass based on its multiplier. Increase
the Marco Express reduced base fare from $1.20 to $1.50 for ease of collection, as a $0.50
increase consistent with the regular fare would be $1.80.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 7-2
Table 7-1: Recommended Fixed-Route Fare Structure
Fare Category Current Fare Recommended Fare
Base Fare – Full $1.50 $2.00
Base Fare – Reduced $0.75 $1.00
Transfer – Full $0.75 n/a (90 minutes free)
Transfer – Reduced $0.35 n/a (90 minutes free)
Children Age 5 & under free Age 5 & under free
Day Pass – Full $4.00 $3.00
Day Pass – Reduced $2.00 $1.50
7-Day Pass – Full $15.00 n/a (eliminate)
7-Day Pass – Reduced $7.50 n/a (eliminate)
15-Day Pass – Full n/a $20.00
15-Day Pass – Reduced n/a $10.00
30-Day Pass – Full $35.00 $40.00
30-Day Pass – Reduced $17.50 $20.00
Marco Express Base Fare – Full $2.50 $3.00
Marco Express Base Fare – Reduced $1.20 $1.50
Marco Express 30-Day Pass – Full $70.00 $70.00
Marco Express 30-Day Pass – Reduced $35.00 $35.00
Summer Paw Pass $30.00 $30.00
Changes to fares shown in bold text.
Fixed-Route Smartcard Recommendations
The cost of a smartcard-based pass currently involves two transactions—a $2 transaction to purchase
the smartcard and a purchase for the 30-day pass, for a combined cost of $37. This process takes time
and adds a disincentive for riders to purchase the 30-day pass. Regarding the current purchase of the
smartcard, there are two recommendations:
• Eliminate the cost of the smartcard in conjunction with the fare increase for the 30-day pass.
• If the smartcard purchase fee is maintained, fare options should be added that combine the
cost of the smartcard and the full or reduced 30-day pass price into one fare.
The primary recommendation is that CAT eliminate the cost of the smartcard in conjunction with the
fare increase for the 30-day pass. The revenue impacts for new card purchases are anticipated to be
minimal, but the added initial cost may discourage new riders. Although smartcard purchases have
generated $2,500–$3,000 annually over the last two years, this is due primarily to the influx of initial
purchases of 30-day passes upon introduction of this fare media. In the future, the cost of the
smartcard should be included in the price of the pass. If the price of a 30-day pass increases from $35
to $40, then the net effect is a $3 fare increase for new 30-day pass users. Eliminating the smartcard
fee may encourage new riders who otherwise feel an initial $42 cost for a 30-day pass is too high.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 7-3
If CAT maintains a fee to purchase a smartcard, additional fare options should be introduced that
combine the cost of the smartcard and the full or reduced 30-day pass price into one fare when a
customer needs to purchase a smart card. For example, to reload a 30-day pass costs $35 currently
($40 if the pass price changes). To purchase a new or replacement card in conjunction with a 30-day
pass, the price is $37 currently ($42 if the 30-day pass price changes as recommended). This
eliminates the need for the two transactions currently required to purchase the smartcard and pass
separately, thereby saving time (especially when purchasing the pass onboard the bus).
Paratransit Fare Structure Recommendations
Given that the last fare increase in 2012 applied only to paratransit fares, and public outreach
indicates that a fare increase at any level would provide a financial hardship to many paratransit
riders, it is recommended that Scenario 14 be implemented at this time. This will maintain existing
ADA and TD fares for most riders while consolidating the number of TD fares provided, thereby
decreasing the fares for TD riders who currently pay $5 or $7 to $4 (Table 7-2). The purpose of this
change is to simplify the administration and collection of TD fares. When/if ADA and TD fares are
increased, it is recommended that CAT explore implementation of an unlimited paratransit monthly
pass or discounted ticket book (10 or 20 ride tickets at reduced cost per trip from single fare) to offset
the overall financial impacts for frequent ADA or TD users. CAT also could explore providing a fixed-
route pass at no cost to TD riders who are able to use the fixed-route system.
In conjunction with the above, it is also recommended that CAT implement a fare increase of up to $1
for all ADA and TD riders within the next two years. Providing considerable advance notice of a future
fare change to riders should reduce potential ridership loss while generating the additional fare
revenue needed to maintain existing service levels as operating costs continue to increase.
Table 7-2: Recommended Paratransit Fare Structure
Fare Category Current Fare Recommended Fare
Reduced ADA Fare $1.00 $1.00
ADA Fare $3.00 $3.00
TD Fare – At or Under Poverty Level $1.00 $1.00
TD Fare – 101% to 150% of Poverty Level $3.00 $3.00
TD Fare – +151% of Poverty Level n/a $4.00
TD Fare – 151% to 225% of Poverty Level $4.00 n/a (consolidate)
TD Fare – 226% to 337% of Poverty Level $5.00 n/a (consolidate)
TD Fare – +337% of Poverty Level $7.00 n/a (consolidate)
Changes to fares shown in bold text.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 7-4
Documentation for Required Low-Income Fare Qualification
Reduced ADA and TD fares are available for riders who qualify based on their annual household
income, and proof of income is required. Currently, acceptable types of proof of income are pension
benefit statements, unemployment benefit statements, or current paystubs. These documents all tie
to individual income rather than household income, which may allow individuals to qualify for
reduced fares based on their individual income when household income is high enough to support
paying the full fare. Also, it should be recognized that individuals may live in a physical household
with other family members but still maintain separate finances, such as an older parent living with
his/her child but who is independent financially and supported by his/her own retirement/Social
Security income.
It is recommended that CAT maintain the requirement that qualification for the reduced/low-income
fare be tied to household income rather than individual income. Documentation used to demonstrate
this should prove that the household income meets the required threshold; proof of income should be
tied to a person’s federal income tax return from the prior year (or State filing if from outside Florida).
This will ensure that the most current annual household income figure is used to determine eligibility
and will reduce potential abuse of eligibility if the documentation provided does not reflect the true
household income. At the same time, it will ensure that a person physically living in a household who
is otherwise financially independent may still qualify for a reduced fare as long as her/she has filed
their own taxes reflecting their own “household” income.
It is recognized that not all individuals file federal taxes or can provide a federal tax return. To provide
flexibility in these instances, it is recommended that CAT also adopt a policy to consider other types of
proof of income such as year-end Social Security statement, etc., on a case-by-case basis for
individuals who either cannot provide a federal income tax form or to document that their income has
changed since their last tax statement, such as due to job change or loss, now qualifying them for the
reduced fare.
Other Policy Recommendations
It is recommended that CAT explore implementing the following policy changes:
• Sell passes at third-party vendors (such as grocery and convenience stores).
• Use a phone/computer app to purchase passes/fares.
• Allow reduced fares for college students and active/retired military personnel with valid ID.
• Further incentivize the Business Pass Program by maintaining the current corporate 30-day
pass rate of $29.75 if the 30-day pass fare is increased to $40. The federal tax incentive for
private employers to subsidize employee commuter benefits, including transit passes, was
eliminated under the federal tax reform signed into law in December 2018. To overcome the
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 7-5
loss of this tax incentive, a 25% reduced 30-day pass may re-incentivize private employers to
offer transit passes for their employees.
• Implement a promotional “Try Transit” day—fixed-route fares are waived on a designated day
to encourage infrequent or new riders to try CAT’s service. Revenue impacts for providing a
free transit day likely will be minimal, as revenue only from single rides or day passes that
otherwise would have been purchased that day will not be generated.
• Review the average fare and subsidy per passenger and the farebox recovery ratio when
developing the annual operating budget; if all three ratios are declining and costs to operate
the service are increasing, consider a fare adjustment.
• Monitor the local Consumer Price Index; if increases are greater than 5% in any given year,
consider increasing fares to keep pace with inflation.
7.2 Fare Change Equity Analysis Findings
As discussed in Section 4, CAT is required to complete an equity analysis in consideration of a fare
change, regardless of the proposed fare increase or decrease amount. The equity analysis determines
if proposed changes have a disparate impact on minority populations or do not disproportionately
burden low-income persons.
While any changes to CAT fares will have a greater impact on low income and minority populations
simply because these groups comprise the disproportionate share of the population using CAT
services, the proposed fare changes do not appear to have a disproportionate adverse impact on
these groups. If the proposed fare changes discussed in this section are implemented as
recommended, they do not appear to create any disparate impacts for minority communities, nor do
they create any disproportionate burden on low-income communities due to the following:
• Whereas an increase in the base fare is proposed, it is justified by rising operating costs.
Further, the base fare increase is presented as a package, with a lowered day-pass price and
free 90-minute transfer, mitigating the burden that would be felt if the base fare was
increased independently. High use riders are able to shift to more affordable fare options.
• In addition, the infrequently used 7-day pass is proposed to be eliminated, in favor of a 15-day
pass priced at 50% of the price of the 30-day pass. The 15-day pass is a far better value than
the 7-day pass in terms of the cost per trip and offers a lower cost point of entry alternative for
low-income riders unable to afford the higher up-front cost of a 30-day pass. Further, riders
would be able to purchase two 15-day passes back-to-back at a cost equal to the 30-day pass.
• All fixed-route fare changes are designed to affect all riders within a fare category equally
while providing more fare choice at a higher value per ride. The fare changes proposed do not
appear to adversely affect any protected class of people more than another.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study 7-6
• No increase in fares for ADA and TD riders are proposed at this time. Fares for TD riders in the
highest income brackets will decrease to consolidate the number of income brackets on
which the fares are based- reducing fare brackets to $1, $3, and $4.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study B-1
Appendix A
Intercept Survey Questions
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
CAT Fare Study Intercept Survey Questions
Note: Italicized text for instructional purposes only and not to be included in survey questions.
Collier County is investigating ways to maintain and improve services to customers and balance these
services with the necessary revenues to close funding gaps. The County recognizes that transit services
are essential for persons who do not have access to a car, especially residents whose income is limited.
As part of this investigation, Collier County staff have has identified potential changes the fare structure
with the goals of expanding ridership, limiting negative financial impact on low income residents, and
increasing revenue to maintain and expand transit services. To assist the County in this analysis, please
take a few minutes to complete the following questions.
1. Do you qualify for reduced fares? Yes___ No ___
(Reduced fares are available for persons who are age 65 or over or age 17 and younger,
disabled, or)
2. If no to Q1: What fare do you usually use?
a. Base Fare $1.50
b. Base Fare $1.50 Plus Transfer $0.75
c. Day Pass $4.00
d. 7‐Day Pass $15.00
e. 30‐Day Pass $35.00
f. Marco Express Single Fare $2.50
g. Marco Express 30‐Day Pass $70.00
h. Other
3. If yes to Q1: What fare do you usually use?
a. Reduced Fare $0.75
b. Reduced Fare $0.75 Plus Transfer $0.35
c. Reduced Day Pass $2.00
d. Reduced 7‐Day Pass $7.50
e. Reduced 30‐Day Pass $17.50
f. Reduced Marco Express Single Fare $1.20
g. Reduced Marco Express 30‐Day Pass $35.00
h. Other
4. If Yes to Q2(a) (base fare): If the cost of a one‐way fare increased from $1.50 to $2.00, I would:
a. Switch to the Day Pass at the current price of $4 because I make at least two trips a day
b. Switch to the Day Pass only if lowered to $3 as I typically only make one trip per day
c. Switch to a new 15‐Day Pass offered at $18
d. I would not make any change
e. I would no longer use the system
f. Other, explain: ___________________________________
5. If Yes to Q3(a) (reduced fare): If the cost of a one‐way fare increased $0.75 to $1.00, I would:
a. Switch to the Day Pass at the current price of $2 because I make at least two bus trips a
day
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
b. Switch to the Day Pass only if lowered to $1.50 as I typically make fewer than two bus
trips per day
c. Switch to a new 15‐Day Pass offered at $9
d. I would not make any change
e. I would no longer use the system
f. Other, explain: ___________________________________
6. If Yes to Q2(b) (base fare plus transfer): If transfers are eliminated, I would:
a. Switch to the Day Pass at the current price of $4 because I make at least two bus trips a
day
b. Switch to the Day Pass only if lowered to $3 as I typically make fewer than two bus trips
per day
c. Switch to a new 15‐Day Pass at $18
d. I would not make any change
e. I would no longer use the system
f. Other, explain: ___________________________________
7. If Yes to Q3(b) (reduced fare plus transfer): If transfers are eliminated, I would:
a. Switch to the Day Pass at the current price of $2
b. Switch to the Day Pass only if lowered to $1.50 for reduced fare as I typically make
fewer than two bus trips per day
c. Switch to a new 15‐Day Pass at $9
d. I would not make any change
e. I would no longer use the system
f. Other, explain: ___________________________________
8. If Yes to Q2(c) or Q3(c) (full or reduced day pass): If the price of a day pass was lowered to $3 for
regular fare and $1.50 for reduced fare if transfers were eliminated I would:
a. Switch to the lower price Day Pass
b. Other, explain: ___________________________________
9. If Yes to Q2(d) (full 7 day pass): If the 7 day pass were eliminated, I would:
a. Switch to the Day Pass either at the current price of $4 or at a lower fare of $3
b. Switch to a new 15 day pass that is half the cost of the 30 day pass at $18 (based on the
current 30 day pass price)
c. I would no longer use the system
d. Other, explain: ___________________________________
10. If Yes to Q3(d) (reduced 7 day pass): If the 7 day pass were eliminated, I would:
a. Switch to the Day Pass either at the current price of $2 or at a lower fare of $1.50
b. Switch to a new 15 day pass that is half the cost of the 30 day pass at $9 reduced fare
(based on the current 30 day pass price)
c. I would no longer use the system
d. Other, explain: ___________________________________
11. If Yes to Q2(e) (full 30 day pass): If the price of the 30 day pass were increased from $35 to $40, I
would:
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
a. Switch to the new 15 day pass that is half the cost of the 30 day pass at $18 (based on
the current 30 day pass price)
b. I would no longer use the system
c. Other, explain: ___________________________________
12. If Yes to Q3(e) (reduced 30 day pass): If the price of the 30 day pass were increased from $17.50
to $20, I would:
a. Switch to the new 15 day pass that is half the cost of the 30 day pass at $9 (based on the
current 30 day pass price)
b. I would no longer use the system
c. Other, explain: ___________________________________
13. If Yes to Q2(f) (Marco Express base fare): If the cost of a one‐way fare increased from $2.50 to
$3.00, I would:
a. Switch to the 30 day pass offered at the existing price of $70 as I am a frequent user
b. I would not make any change
c. Would prefer there is a reasonably priced day pass for Marco Express service
d. I would no longer use the system
e. Other, explain: ___________________________________
14. If Yes to Q3(f) (Marco Express reduced fare): If the cost of a one‐way fare increased from $1.20
to $1.50, I would:
a. Switch to the 30 day pass offered at the existing price of $35 as I am a frequent user
b. I would not make any change
c. Would prefer there is a reasonably priced day pass for Marco Express service
d. I would no longer use the system
e. Other, explain: ___________________________________
15. If you ride the CAP paratransit services and the CAP fare is increased from $3.00 to $4.00, what
are you likely to do?
a. I do not ride the CAP service
b. I would pay the new fare
c. I would file for reduced fare eligibility
d. I would stop riding CAP
e. Other, explain: ____________________________________
Once finished with Q4‐15 or if select Q2(g), Q2(h), Q3(g), or Q3(h) answer the following:
16. I primarily ride the bus:
a. To/from work
b. For shopping/recreation trips
c. Necessary trips like grocery/medical, etc.
d. For everything—the bus is my primary mode of transportation
17. My age is
a. under 18 years
b. 18‐25
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
c. 25‐65
d. Over 65
18. My income level is:
a. Less than $10,000
b. $10,000‐$24,999
c. $25,000‐$49,999
d. $50,000‐$74,999
e. $75,000‐$99,999
f. $100,000‐$149,999
g. $150,000 or more
19. My race/ethnicity is:
a. Caucasian/White
b. Black or African American
c. Hispanic or Latino
d. American Indian or Alaska Native
e. Asian
f. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
g. Other
h. Two or More Races
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Collier Area Transit | Fare Study B-1
Appendix B
Public Workshop Notice, Presentation, and
Exercise Response Form
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
POTENTIAL FARE CHANGES TO
FIXED-ROUTE AND PARATRANSIT SERVICES
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Collier Area Transit Transfer Center
3229 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, FL 34112
4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
CareerSource Southwest Florida
750 South 5th Street
Immokalee, FL 34142
Collier Area Transit (CAT) provides fixed-route and paratransit transportation services
to the residents of Collier County and is evaluating a potential fare increase for both
services. Please join us at one of the two public meetings noted above to discuss the
proposed changes, ask questions, and share your thoughts. Both workshop locations
are accessible by fixed-route service. Please check route schedules for details.
Paratransit customers interested in attending either workshop should make
reservations in advance.
Members of the Board of County Commissioners may be in attendance.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing a special
accommodation at this meeting because of a disability or physical impairment should contact Matthew
Liveringhouse at Collier Area Transit, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 103, Naples, Florida 34104 or at
(239) 252-5849 no later than 48 hours before the meeting
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
AVISO DE REUNIÓN PÚBLICA
CAMBIOS POTENCIALES A LAS TARIFAS
DE SERVICIOS DE RUTA FIJA Y PARATRÁNSITO
Martes, 30 de Enero del 2018
10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Collier Area Transit Transfer Center
3229 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, FL 34112
4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
CareerSource Southwest Florida
750 South 5th Street
Immokalee, FL 34142
Collier Area Transit (CAT) proporciona servicios de transporte de ruta fija y
paratránsito a los residentes del Condado de Collier y está evaluando un posible
aumento de tarifas para ambos servicios. Por favor asista a una de las dos reuniones
públicas mencionadas anteriormente para analizar los cambios propuestos, hacer
preguntas y/o compartir sus ideas. Ambas ubicaciones son accesibles por el servicio
de ruta fija. Por favor revise los horarios de las rutas para más detalles. Los clientes de
Paratránsito interesados en asistir a cualquiera de las reuniones deberán hacer sus
reservaciones con anticipación.
Los miembros de la Junta de Comisionados del Condado pueden estar presentes.
De acuerdo con la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades de 1990, las personas que necesiten un
alojamiento especial en esta reunión debido a una discapacidad o impedimento físico deberán
comunicarse con Matthew Liveringhouse en Collier Area Transit, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 103,
Naples, Florida 34104 o (239) 252-5849) con 48 horas de anticipación a la reunion.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
AVI POU REYINYON PIBLIK
CHANJMAN POTANSYÈL NAN PRI
POU WOUT FIKS AK SÈVIS PARATRANSIT
Madi, 30 janvye, 2018
De 10:00 a.m. a 2:00 p.m.
Collier Area Transit Transfer Center
3229 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, FL 34112
De 4:00 p.m. a 7:00 p.m.
CareerSource Southwest Florida
750 South 5th Street
Immokalee, FL 34142
Collier Area Transit (CAT), ki bay sèvis transpò wout fiks e transpò pou moun ki andikapè
ki abite nan Collier County, ap evalye yon ogmantasyon nan pri tikè pou tou de sèvis yo.
Tanpri vini nan youn de reyinyon piblik kap fet nan dat ki bay anlè a pou diskite
chanjman ki pwopoze yo, poze kesyon, epi di sa ou panse. Tou de kote pou reyinyon yo
aksesib ak sèvis –wout fiks. Tanpri tcheke orè wout pou plis detay. Kliyan transpò pou
moun ki andikap ki enterese patisipe nan youn de reyinyon yo dwe fè rezèvasyon
davans.
Manm Konsèy Komisyonè a ka nan youn nan reyinyon piblik yo.
akò la Lwa 1990 Ameriken ak Enfimite yo, moun ki bezwen yon aranjman espesyal nan
reyinyon sa a poutèt yon andikap oswa andikap fizik dwe kontakte Matthew
Liveringhouse nan Transit Area Collier, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 103, Naples,
Florida 34104 oswa nan (239) 252‐5849 pa pita pase 48 èdtan anvan reyinyon an.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Fare Study Public Workshop
Exercise Responses
Please view the workshop presentation at the designated station then answer the following questions.
This information will provide valuable input on the proposed fare recommendations and other aspects
of Collier Area Transit’s (CAT) fare policies. You may use the space on the backside of this sheet to
expand your responses or to provide additional comments, as needed. Thank you in advance for your
input!
1. Which fare increments make paying with cash most convenient for you?
a) An even dollar – like $1.00, $2.00, etc.
b) An even half dollar – like $0.50, $1.50, etc.
c) An even quarter dollar – like $0.25, $0.50, $0.75, etc.
d) All of the above are equally convenient to me
e) Other increments? _________________________
2. Which new fare purchase/payment options would be convenient to you?
a) Buying a smart card at places like grocery or convenience stores
b) Pay fare using my smartphone or tablet
c) Other? Please explain:_____________________________________________________
3. Would you support a fare increase if the revenue was used for the following? (pick all that apply)
a) Yes, to improve service frequency/availability
b) Yes, to provided better access to locations you wish to go
c) Yes, for: _____________________________
d) No, I do not support a fare increase
4. Please answer only if you ride CAP paratransit (ADA) service. If not, skip to the next question.
How much do you think the fares should be increased to cover the cost to provide ADA service?
a) $0.50 increase
b) $1.00 increase
c) Other increase ______________________
5. Please answer only if you are a TD eligible rider. If not, skip to the next question. How much do
you think the TD fares should be increased to cover the cost to provide TD services? (pick one)
a) $0.25 increase
b) $0.50 increase
c) Other increase ______________________
The remaining questions should be answered by riders who use fixed‐route service.
6. How long is your typical one‐way trip?
___________ minutes ___________ miles
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
7. Would you support paying a slightly higher one‐way fare if it includes a free transfer?
a) Yes
b) No, keep as is
c) Does not matter since my travel does not require a transfer.
8. At what price is fixed‐route bus service too expensive?
a) Current fare of $1.50 (or $0.75 for riders qualifying for reduced fare)
b) $2.00 fare (or $1.00 for riders qualifying for reduced fare)
c) $2.50 fare (or $1.25 for riders qualifying for reduced fare)
d) Other? ________________
9. If you do not currently use passes, why? (pick all that apply)
a) I am not able to get to a location to buy the pass
b) The day‐pass is too expensive
c) The 7‐day pass is too expensive
d) The 30‐day pass is too expensive
e) It is too confusing to buy the pass on the bus
f) I do not ride enough to make the cost of a pass worth the price
10. Which fare changes should CAT institute first? (please pick 3)
a) Reduce the day‐pass from $4.00 to $3.00 as a stand‐alone change
b) Increase the base fare from $1.50 to $2.00 and reduce the day‐pass from $4.00 to $3.00
c) Change the 7‐day pass from $15.00 to a 15‐day pass at 50% of the 30 day pass price
($18 or $20)
d) Eliminate transfers and reduce the unlimited day‐pass from $4.00 to $3.00
e) Increase the base fare to $2.00 and make transfers free for 90 minutes
f) Other options? ________________________________________________
11. In addition to existing pass types, are there any other fare options should CAT consider?
List/describe up to 3 if applicable.
a) ________________________________________________________________________
b) ________________________________________________________________________
c) ________________________________________________________________________
Please provide any additional comments, questions, or thoughts in the space below.
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you!
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
3/16/2018
1
Fare Study
Public Workshop
January 30, 2018
Workshop Overview
•Workshop Goals
•Existing Fare Structure
•Ridership & Revenue Trends
•Conceptual Fare Alternatives
•Workshop Exercises
•Questions & Comments
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 2
Workshop Goals
•Educate the Public about CAT Fares and Potential Fare Changes
•Gather Feedback concerning Potential Fare Changes
•Develop Consensus about Potential Fare Change Alternatives
•Fixed‐route fares
•ADA fares
•Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) fares
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 3
Existing Fare Structure
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 4
Fixed‐Route Fares
Full Fixed Route Fare $1.50
Reduced Fixed‐Route Fare $0.75
Transfer $0.75
Reduced Transfer $0.35
Children Age 5 & Under Free
All Day Pass $4.00
Reduced All Day Pass $2.00
Weekly Pass $15.00
Reduced Weekly Pass $7.50
Monthly Pass $35.00
Reduced Monthly Pass $17.50
Marco Express (ME) Single Fare $2.50
Reduced ME Single Fare $1.20
ME Monthly Pass $70.00
Reduced ME Monthly Pass $35.00
Paratransit Fares
ADA Fare $3.00 ($1.00 at or under
poverty level)
Medicaid Fare Services managed by
MTM, Inc.
TD Fare ‐At or Under Poverty Level $1.00
TD Fare ‐101% to 150% of Poverty Level $3.00
TD Fare ‐151% to 225% of Poverty Level $4.00
TD Fare ‐226% to 337% of Poverty Level $5.00
TD Fare ‐+337% of Poverty Level $7.00
Existing Fare Structure
•Value of Existing Fixed‐Route Fare Passes
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 5
Fare Type Fare Assumed #
Trips Fare/Trip
Cash Fare ‐Full $1.50 1 $1.50
Day Pass ‐Full $4.00 4 $1.00
7Day Pass ‐Full $15.00 28 $0.54
30 Day Pass ‐Full $35.00 88 $0.40
Cash Fare ‐Reduced $0.75 1 $0.75
Day Pass ‐Reduced $2.00 4 $0.50
7Day Pass ‐Reduced $7.50 28 $0.27
30 Day Pass ‐Reduced $17.50 88 $0.20
Existing Fare Structure
•Fare per Trip vs. Cost per Trip (FY 16)
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 6
Service Average
Fare/Trip Cost/Trip Cost
Recovery
Fixed‐Route $1.05 $5.91 18%
Paratransit $2.48 $36.92 7%
21.1%20.7%21.0%
18.6%18.9%
16.8%
4.2%4.6%
7.4%6.8%7.5%6.7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Fixed‐Route Paratransit
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
3/16/2018
2
Existing Fare Structure
•Comparison of Fixed‐Route & ADA Fares to Peer Systems
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 7
Transit System
Fixed‐Route Fares ADA Fare
(One‐Way)Base One‐Way
Fare Daily Pass Weekly/
7Day Pass
Monthly/
30 Day Pass Transfers Base Transfer
Fare
CAT $1.50 $4.00 $15.00 $35.00 Y $0.75 $3.00
Escambia County Area Transit (ECAT) $1.75 $5.25 $14.50 $47.00 Y $0.00 $3.50
Citrus Connection (Citrus County) $1.50 $3.00 $12.00 $47.00 Y $0.00 $2.00
LeeTran (Lee County) $1.50 $4.00 $15.00 $40.00 N ‐$3.00
Manatee Co. Area Transit (MCAT) $1.50 $4.00 $12.00 $40.00 Y $0.25 $2.00
EC Rider (Okaloosa County) $1.50 ‐‐$30.00 Y $0.00 Varies²
Pasco County Public Transportation (PCPT) $1.50 $3.75 ‐$37.50 N ‐$4.00
Votran (Volusia County) $1.75 $3.75 $13.00 $46.00 N ‐$3.00
WAVE (Wilmington, NC) $2.00 $5.00 $20.00 $80.00 Y $0.00 $4.00
St Lucie County $2.00 $5.00 ‐$50.00 Y $0.00 $2.00
Peer Group Mean $1.67 $4.22 $14.42 $46.39 ‐$0.25 $2.94
CAT % from Mean ‐10%‐5% 4%‐25%‐300% 2%
Existing Fare Structure
•Comparison of TD Fares to Peer Systems
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 8
Transit System Eligibility Requirements Fare/Fee TD Bus Pass
CAT Income‐based Varies from $1 to $7 per one‐way trip. No
ECAT Income‐based $2.50 per one way trip flat fee Yes
Citrus Connection Income‐based Base fare $2.00 per one way trip, plus 25% to 100% of base fare, depending
on rider’s income Yes
LeeTran Income‐based $2.00 per one way trip flat fee No
MCAT Income‐based $4.00 per one way trip flat fee Yes
EC Rider Income‐based
TD 1 (Shoppers): $1.00 one‐way flat fee (shared‐ride shopping trips;
scheduled 6 times a week to/from different locations)
TD 5 (Rural): $1.00 one‐way flat fee
TD (Urban): per mile fee
Yes
PCPT Income‐based $2.00 per one way trip flat fee Yes
Votran Income‐based $3.00 per one way trip flat fee No
WAVE N/A (Non‐FL System)
St. Lucie County Paratransit Income‐based $1.00 per one way trip flat fee No
Ridership Trends
Fixed‐Route Ridership (FYs 08‐16)
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 9
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,200,000
1,300,000
1,400,000
13% decrease since 2009 fare increase
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
Paratransit Ridership (FYs 08‐16)
Paratransit
Fare Increase
Fixed‐Route
Fare Increase
16% decrease since 2012 fare increase
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
$1,100,000
$1,200,000
$1,300,000
Revenue Trends
Fixed‐Route Revenue (FYs 08‐16)
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 10
Revenue by Fare Type (FY 16)
Fixed‐Route
Fare Increase
Base Fare, 55%
Transfer, 3%
Day Pass,
11%
7 Day Pass, 1%
30 Day Pass,
20%
ME Fares, 2%Other, 9%
5% decrease in revenue since 2009
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
Revenue Trends
Paratransit Revenue (FYs 08‐16)
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 11
Revenue by Fare Type (FY 16)
Paratransit
Fare Increase $‐
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
ADA TDC
ADA ~ 77% of monthly revenue
40% increase since 2012
Revenue Trends
•Fixed‐Route 10‐Year Farebox Recovery Ratio Trends (2000‐2010)
•Since 2013, fare revenue has funded 7% of fixed‐route costs
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 12
What is the impact of reduced
farebox revenues on CAT’s
operating budgets?
22%
20%21%
18%
20%19%
21%21%21%
19%19%
8%
6%
8%
5%
4%4%4%5%
7%7%7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%Farebox Recovery Ratio9.C.2
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
3/16/2018
3
Conceptual Fare Alternatives
•Fare Elasticity Factor
•Statistical model
•Experience of other systems
•Elasticity is ‐0.40
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 13
10%
Fares
4.3%
Ridership
Economic elasticity shows that for each 10% increase in fare cost, we are likely to see a 4.3% decrease in ridership
Conceptual Fare Alternatives
•Increase Base Fare
•Base fare fixed at $1.50 full/ $0.75 reduced
•Operating costs have increased 14% between 2009 and 2016
•Transfers
•Eliminate transfers to reduces fare abuse, cash counting costs
•Offer free 90‐minute transfer, does not penalize need to transfer
•Day‐Pass
•Reduce cost of day pass to provide more affordable alternative to increased base fare
•Day pass offers unlimited rides
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 14
Conceptual Fare Alternatives
•Replace 7 Day Pass with 15 Day Pass Priced at 50% cost of 30 Day Pass
•7 day pass is under utilized, 30 day pass may be unaffordable to some
•15 day pass adds significant value to rider (more travel) at an affordable price
•Increase Price of 30 Day Pass
•Very low cost per trip compared to base fare and peers
•Resulting value per trip remains significant for rider at a slightly high priced 30 day pass
•Military and College Students Eligible for Reduced Fare (Policy)
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 15
Conceptual Fare Alternatives
Fare Category Current Scenario AScenario BScenario CScenario D
Full Fixed Route Fare $1.50/$0.75 $1.50/$0.75 $2.00/$1.00 $2.00/$1.00 $2.00/$1.00
Transfer Full/Reduced $0.75/$0.35 N/A N/A N/A Free 90 min
Children Age 5 & Under Free Age 5 & Under Free Age 5 & Under Free Age 5 & Under Free Age 5 & Under Free
Day Pass Full/Reduced $4.00/$2.00 $3.00/$1.50 $3.00/$1.50 $3.00/$1.50 $3.00/$1.50
7 Day Pass Full/Reduced $15.00/$7.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A
15 Day Pass Full/Reduced
(new)N/A $18.00/$9.00 $18.00/$9.00 $20.00/$10.00 $20.00/$10.00
30 Day Pass Full/Reduced $35.00/$17.50 $35.00/$17.50 $35.00/$17.50 $40.00/$20.00 $40.00/$20.00
Marco Express Single Fare
Full/Reduced $2.50/$1.20 $2.50/$1.20 $3.00/$1.50 $3.00/$1.50 $3.00/$1.50
Marco Express 30 Day
Pass Full/Reduced $70.00/$35.00 $70.00/$35.00 $70.00/$35.00 $70.00/$35.00 $70.00/$35.00
Summer Paw Pass $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 16
*Proposed change to fares bolded
Workshop Exercises
1. Which fare increments make paying with cash most convenient for you?
a)An even dollar – like $1.00, $2.00, etc.
b)An even half dollar – like $0.50, $1.50, etc.
c) An even quarter dollar – like $0.25, $0.50, $0.75, etc.
d)All of the above are equally convenient to me
e)Other increments? _________________________
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 17
Workshop Exercises
2. Which new fare purchase/payment options would be convenient to you?
a)Buying a smart card at places like grocery or convenience stores
b)Pay fare using my smartphone or tablet
c) Other? Please
explain:_____________________________________________________
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 18
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
3/16/2018
4
Workshop Exercises
3. Would you support a fare increase if the revenue was used for the
following? (pick all that apply)
a)Yes, to improve service frequency/availability
b)Yes, to provided better access to locations you wish to go
c) Yes, for: _____________________________
d)No, I do not support a fare increase
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 19
Workshop Exercises
4. Please answer only if you ride CAP paratransit (ADA) service. If not, skip
to the next question. How much do you think the fares should be
increased to cover the cost to provide ADA service?
a)$0.50 increase
b)$1.00 increase
c) Other increase ______________________
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 20
Workshop Exercises
5. Please answer only if you are a TD eligible rider. If not, skip to the next
question. How much do you think the TD fares should be increased to
cover the cost to provide TD services? (pick one)
a)$0.25 increase
b)$0.50 increase
c) Other increase ______________________
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 21
Workshop Exercises
The remaining questions should be answered by riders who use fixed‐
route service.
6. How long is your typical one‐way trip?
___________ minutes ___________ miles
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 22
Workshop Exercises
7. Would you support paying a slightly higher one‐way fare if it
includes a free transfer?
a) Yes
b) No, keep as is
c) Does not matter since my travel does not require a transfer.
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 23
Workshop Exercises
8. At what price is fixed‐route bus service too expensive?
a)Current fare of $1.50 (or $0.75 for riders qualifying for reduced fare)
b)$2.00 fare (or $1.00 for riders qualifying for reduced fare)
c) $2.50 fare (or $1.25 for riders qualifying for reduced fare)
d)Other? ________________
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 24
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
3/16/2018
5
Workshop Exercises
9. If you do not currently use passes, why? (pick all that apply)
a)I am not able to get to a location to buy the pass
b)The day‐pass is too expensive
c) The 7‐day pass is too expensive
d)The 30‐day pass is too expensive
e)It is too confusing to buy the pass on the bus
f) I do not ride enough to make the cost of a pass worth the price
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 25
Workshop Exercises
10. Which fare changes should CAT institute first? (please pick 3)
a)Reduce the day‐pass from $4.00 to $3.00 as a stand‐alone change
b)Increase the base fare from $1.50 to $2.00 and reduce the day‐pass from $4.00 to
$3.00
c) Change the 7‐day pass from $15.00 to a 15‐day pass at 50% of the 30 day pass
d)Eliminate transfers and reduce the unlimited day‐pass from $4.00 to $3.00
e)Increase the base fare to $2.00 and make transfers free for 90 minutes
f) Other options? ________________________________________________
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 26
Workshop Exercises
11. In addition to existing pass types, are there any other fare options
should CAT consider? List/describe up to 3 if applicable.
a) _________________________________________________________
b) _________________________________________________________
c) _________________________________________________________
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 27
Workshop Exercises
12. Please provide any additional comments, questions, or thoughts using a
comment card which are available from the staff.
Collier Area Transit Fare Study 28
Questions & Comments
Thank You
For
Participating!!
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: CAT Fare Study Final Report (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fare Study and Recommendations)
Fare Study Collier MPO BoardMay 11, 20189.C.3Packet Pg. 312Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Update Overview•Fare Study Objectives•Public Outreach Highlights•Fare Study Recommendations•Next Steps•Questions & CommentsCollier Area Transit Fare Study29.C.3Packet Pg. 313Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Fare Study Objectives•Analyze potential fixed‐route and paratransit fare changes•Assess potential ridership and revenue impacts •Identify fare policy recommendations•Minimize adverse impacts to low income and minority persons as required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) ‐ Title VICollier Area Transit Fare Study39.C.3Packet Pg. 314Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Public Outreach Highlights•Majority (77%) support fare increase if revenue is used to improve service frequency and service availability or to access new locations•Support for sale of passes at third party vendors (60%) or by phone app (40%)•Bus riders (60%) support a slightly higher base fare if it includes a free transfer1stChoice: Reduce Day Pass from $4.00 to $3.00 as a stand‐alone change2nd Choice: Raise base fare from $1.50 to $2.00 and drop Day Pass from $4.00 to $3.003rdChoice: Change 7‐Day Pass to a 15‐Day Pass priced at 50% the cost of a 30‐Day Pass•For ADA riders, 50% said they would support a fare increase of $0.50 •For TD riders, 56% said they would support a fare increase of $0.25Collier Area Transit Fare Study49.C.3Packet Pg. 315Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
RecommendationsFixed‐Route FaresFare Category Current RecommendedFull Fixed Route Fare $1.50/$0.75 $2.00/$1.00 Transfer Full/Reduced $0.75/$0.35 Free 90 minChildren Age 5 & Under Free Age 5 & Under FreeDay Pass Full/Reduced $4.00/$2.00$3.00/$1.507‐Day Pass Full/Reduced $15.00/$7.50N/A15‐Day Pass Full/Reduced (new)N/A$20.00/$10.00 30‐Day Pass Full/Reduced $35.00/$17.50 $40.00/$20.00 Marco Express Single Fare Full/Reduced$2.50/$1.20 $3.00/$1.50Collier Area Transit Fare Study5*Proposed change to fares bolded•Recommended Changes•Enhanced value of passes •No fare for transfers•$68,000 to $209,000 in potential additional revenue•Least potential adverse impact to ridership; range (‐66k to +54k)•Smartcard fee•Eliminate $2 charge, absorb cost of card it in price of pass (FY17 cost ~$2200) •If fee retained, reduce transactions by combining smartcard fee and pass price9.C.3Packet Pg. 316Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
RecommendationsParatransit Fares•Paratransit Recommendation•No fare change to ADA or for lowest‐income TD fares (paying $1, $3, or $4)•Reduce income‐based TD fare categories to streamline collection and administration ‐ riders now paying $5 and $7 will pay $4 •No estimated ridership impacts; minimal revenue impacts (‐$6k annually)•Postpone any ADA fare increase to within next two years•Last fare increase in 2012 ‐ only affected paratransit riders•Provides time to monitor ridership and revenue•Provides time to prepare for a fare increase when needed•Explore unlimited paratransit pass and/or reduced cost trip books to minimize financial impacts on frequent paratransit ridersCollier Area Transit Fare Study69.C.3Packet Pg. 317Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Other Fare Policy Recommendations•Explore increased sale of passes at third party vendors•Explore use of smartphone application to be used as passes/fares•Include college‐age students and active/retired military personnel as reduced‐fare eligible for fixed‐route (with valid ID)•Incentivize Business Pass Program by maintaining corporate 30‐day pass rate of $29.75 if regular 30‐day pass price increases to $40•Implement a free transit day to attract infrequent or new ridersCollier Area Transit Fare Study79.C.3Packet Pg. 318Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Next Steps•Present recommendations to Board of County Commissioners—June 12th•BCC must approve via resolution for the fare changes to be adopted Collier Area Transit Fare Study89.C.3Packet Pg. 319Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Questions & Comments9.C.3Packet Pg. 320Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Existing Fare StructureCollier Area Transit Fare Study10Fixed‐Route FaresFull Fixed Route Fare $1.50Reduced Fixed‐Route Fare $0.75Transfer $0.75Reduced Transfer $0.35Children Age 5 & Under FreeAll Day Pass $4.00Reduced All Day Pass $2.00Weekly Pass $15.00Reduced Weekly Pass $7.50Monthly Pass $35.00Reduced Monthly Pass $17.50Marco Express (ME) Single Fare $2.50Reduced ME Single Fare $1.20ME Monthly Pass $70.00Reduced ME Monthly Pass $35.00Paratransit FaresADA Fare$3.00 ($1.00 at or under poverty level)Medicaid FareServices managed by MTM, Inc.TD Fare ‐ At or Under Poverty Level $1.00TD Fare ‐ 101% to 150% of Poverty Level $3.00TD Fare ‐ 151% to 225% of Poverty Level $4.00TD Fare ‐ 226% to 337% of Poverty Level $5.00TD Fare ‐ +337% of Poverty Level $7.009.C.3Packet Pg. 321Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Existing Fare StructureFare per trip vs. cost per trip (FY 16)Collier Area Transit Fare Study11ServiceAverage Fare/TripCost/TripCost RecoveryFixed‐Route $1.05 $5.91 18%Paratransit $2.48 $36.92 7%21.1%20.7%21.0%18.6%18.9%16.8%4.2%4.6%7.4%6.8%7.5%6.7%0%5%10%15%20%25%2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Fixed‐RouteParatransitCaution: improved economic conditions are resulting in fewer riders on fixed route while long term demographics trends show an increasing demand for paratransit services. The fiscal impacts of these trends mean more revenue will be needed.9.C.3Packet Pg. 322Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Existing Fare StructureComparison of Fixed‐Route & ADA Fares to Peer SystemsCollier Area Transit Fare Study12Transit SystemFixed‐Route FaresADA Fare (One‐Way)Base One‐Way FareDaily PassWeekly/ 7‐Day PassMonthly/ 30‐Day PassTransfersBase Transfer FareCAT $1.50 $4.00 $15.00 $35.00 Y $0.75 $3.00Escambia County Area Transit (ECAT) $1.75 $5.25 $14.50 $47.00 Y $0.00 $3.50Citrus Connection (Citrus County) $1.50 $3.00 $12.00 $47.00 Y $0.00 $2.00LeeTran (Lee County) $1.50 $4.00 $15.00 $40.00 N ‐ $3.00Manatee Co. Area Transit (MCAT) $1.50 $4.00 $12.00 $40.00 Y $0.25 $2.00EC Rider (Okaloosa County) $1.50 ‐ ‐ $30.00 Y $0.00 Varies²Pasco County Public Transportation (PCPT) $1.50 $3.75 ‐ $37.50 N ‐ $4.00Votran (Volusia County) $1.75 $3.75 $13.00 $46.00 N ‐ $3.00WAVE (Wilmington, NC) $2.00 $5.00 $20.00 $80.00 Y $0.00 $4.00St Lucie County $2.00 $5.00 ‐ $50.00 Y $0.00 $2.00Peer Group Mean $1.67 $4.22 $14.42 $46.39 ‐ $0.25 $2.94CAT % from Mean ‐10% ‐5% 4% ‐25% ‐ 300% 2%9.C.3Packet Pg. 323Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Existing Fare StructureComparison of TD fares to peer systemsCollier Area Transit Fare Study13Transit System Eligibility Requirements Fare/Fee TD Bus PassCAT Income‐based Varies from $1 to $7 per one‐way trip. NoECAT Income‐based $2.50 per one way trip flat fee YesCitrus Connection Income‐basedBase fare $2.00 per one way trip, plus 25% to 100% of base fare, depending on rider’s incomeYesLeeTran Income‐based $2.00 per one way trip flat fee NoMCAT Income‐based $4.00 per one way trip flat fee YesEC Rider Income‐basedTD 1 (Shoppers): $1.00 one‐way flat fee (shared‐ride shopping trips; scheduled 6 times a week to/from different locations)TD 5 (Rural): $1.00 one‐way flat feeTD (Urban): per mile feeYesPCPT Income‐based $2.00 per one way trip flat fee YesVotran Income‐based $3.00 per one way trip flat fee NoWAVEN/A (Non‐FL System)St. Lucie County Paratransit Income‐based $1.00 per one way trip flat fee No9.C.3Packet Pg. 324Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Existing Fare StructureValue of existing fixed‐route fare passesCollier Area Transit Fare Study14Fare TypeFareAssumed # TripsFare/TripCash Fare ‐ Full $1.50 1 $1.50Day Pass ‐ Full $4.00 4 $1.007‐Day Pass ‐ Full $15.00 28 $0.5430‐Day Pass ‐ Full $35.00 88 $0.40Cash Fare ‐ Reduced $0.75 1 $0.75Day Pass ‐ Reduced $2.00 4 $0.507‐Day Pass ‐ Reduced $7.50 28 $0.2730‐Day Pass ‐ Reduced $17.50 88 $0.209.C.3Packet Pg. 325Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Ridership TrendsFixed‐route ridership (FYs 08‐16)Collier Area Transit Fare Study15800,000900,0001,000,0001,100,0001,200,0001,300,0001,400,00013% decrease since 2009 fare increase60,00070,00080,00090,000100,000110,000120,000130,000Paratransit ridership (FYs 08‐16)Paratransit Fare IncreaseFixed‐RouteFare Increase16% decrease since 2012 fare increase9.C.3Packet Pg. 326Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000$1,000,000$1,100,000$1,200,000$1,300,000Revenue TrendsFixed‐route revenue (FYs 08‐16)Collier Area Transit Fare Study16Revenue by fare type (FY 16)Fixed‐RouteFare IncreaseBase Fare, 55%Transfer, 3%Day Pass, 11%7 Day Pass, 1%30 Day Pass, 20%ME Fares, 2%Other, 9%5% decrease in revenue since 2009 consistent with drop in ridership9.C.3Packet Pg. 327Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
$0$50,000$100,000$150,000$200,000$250,000$300,000Revenue TrendsParatransit revenue (FYs 08‐16)Collier Area Transit Fare Study17Revenue by fare type (FY 16)ParatransitFare Increase $‐ $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov DecADATDCADA ~ 77% of monthly revenue40% increase since 20129.C.3Packet Pg. 328Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Revenue TrendsFixed‐route 10‐Year farebox recovery ratio trends (2000‐2010)•Since 2013, fare revenue has funded 7% of fixed‐route costsCollier Area Transit Fare Study18What is the impact of reduced farebox revenues on CAT’s operating budgets?22%20%21%18%20%19%21%21%21%19%19%8%6%8%5%4%4%4%5%7%7%7%0%5%10%15%20%25%Farebox Recovery Ratio9.C.3Packet Pg. 329Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Conceptual Fare Alternatives•Fare elasticity factor•Statistical model•Experience of other systems•Elasticity is ‐0.40•Applied to fixed route•Not equivalent for paratransit•Fixed‐route ridership impacts•High‐end impacts‐ assumes trips are eliminated due to elasticity•Low‐end impacts‐ assumes some riders shift to other fare categoriesCollier Area Transit Fare Study19Economic elasticity shows that for each 10% increase in fare cost, we are likely to see a 4% decrease in ridership10%Fares4%Ridership=9.C.3Packet Pg. 330Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Fixed‐RouteConceptual Fare Alternatives•7 scenarios developed, 4 presented to the public•Increase base fare•Base fare fixed at $1.50 full/ $0.75 reduced •Reason ‐ operating costs have increased 14% between 2009 and 2016•Transfers•Eliminate paid transfers to reduces fare abuse, cash counting costs•Reduce penalty on riders with free 90‐minute transfer•Day pass•Reduce cost of day pass to provide more affordable alternative to increased base fare•Day pass offers unlimited rides Collier Area Transit Fare Study209.C.3Packet Pg. 331Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Fixed‐RouteConceptual Fare Alternatives•Replace 7‐day pass with 15‐day pass priced at 50% cost of 30‐day pass•7‐day pass is under utilized, 30‐day pass is unaffordable to low income riders•15‐day pass adds significant value to rider (more travel) at an affordable price •Increase price of 30‐day pass •Very low cost per trip compared to base fare and peers•Value per trip remains significant for rider•Add military and college student eligibility for reduced fare (Policy)Collier Area Transit Fare Study219.C.3Packet Pg. 332Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
ParatransitConceptual Fare Alternatives•7 scenarios developed and presented to the public•Balance additional revenue generated with potential impacts to riders•Tie ADA fare to base fixed‐route fare?•Treat ADA and TD fares consistently?•Consolidate number of TD fare categories?•Provide a consolidated TD/ADA fare with a low‐income fare option?Collier Area Transit Fare Study229.C.3Packet Pg. 333Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Fixed‐RouteConceptual Fare AlternativesFare Category Current Fares Scenario 1 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Full Fixed Route Fare $1.50/$0.75 $1.50/$0.75 $2.00/$1.00 $2.00/$1.00 $2.00/$1.00 Transfer Full/Reduced $0.75/$0.35 N/A N/A N/A Free 90 minChildren Age 5 & Under Free Age 5 & Under Free Age 5 & Under Free Age 5 & Under Free Age 5 & Under FreeDay Pass Full/Reduced $4.00/$2.00$3.00/$1.50 $3.00/$1.50$3.00/$1.50 $3.00/$1.507‐Day Pass Full/Reduced $15.00/$7.50N/A N/A N/A N/A15‐Day Pass Full/Reduced (new)N/A$18.00/$9.00 $18.00/$9.00 $20.00/$10.00 $20.00/$10.00 30‐Day Pass Full/Reduced $35.00/$17.50 $35.00/$17.50 $35.00/$17.50 $40.00/$20.00 $40.00/$20.00 Marco Express Single Fare Full/Reduced$2.50/$1.20 $2.50/$1.20 $3.00/$1.50 $3.00/$1.50 $3.00/$1.50Estimated Annual Ridership Impacts-22,000 to -19,500 -80,000 to 15,000 -95,000 to 22,000 -66,000 to 54,000Estimated Annual Revenue Impacts-$57,000 to -$55,000$21,000–$141,000 $44,000–$177,000 $68,000–$209,000Collier Area Transit Fare Study23*Proposed change to fares bolded9.C.3Packet Pg. 334Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
ParatransitConceptual Fare AlternativesCollier Area Transit Fare Study24Fare CategoryCurrent FaresScenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10 Scenario 11 Scenario 12 Scenario 13Scenario 14ADA (Low‐Income)$1 $1$1.25$1 $1N/A N/A$1ADA $3$4 $4$3 $3N/A N/A$3TD At or Under Poverty Level (PL)$1 $1 $1$1.50 $2N/A N/A$1TD 101% to 150% of PL$3 $3 $3$3.50 $4N/A N/A$3TD 151% to 225% of PL$4 $4 $4$4.50 $5N/A N/A$4TD 226% to 337% of (PL$5 $5 $5$5.50 $6N/A N/A$4TD +337% of PL$7 $7 $7$7.50 $8N/A N/A$4Single ADA/TD Fare (At or Under PL) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A$1 $1N/ASingle ADA/TD Fare (Above PL) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A$3 $4N/AEstimated Annual Ridership Impacts if ElasticityApplied-7,800 -9,500‐3,000 ‐6,0000 (no fare increase)‐9750 (no fare increase)Estimated Annual Revenue Impacts (Net operating cost impact)$27k-$58k ($262k)$29k-$62k ($318k)$5k-$11k ($96k)$8k-$22k ($190k)‐$11k-$3k($292k)-$6k*Proposed change to fares bolded9.C.3Packet Pg. 335Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
ParatransitConceptual Fare Alternatives•Paratransit ridership impacts•High‐end assumes trips are eliminated due to elasticity if fare increases•Low‐end assumes existing ridership is maintained due to need for service•Other financial impacts considered•Reduced operating cost if the number of trips operated decrease with elasticity•State revenue for non‐sponsored trips will be lost for decrease in trips operated•Net operating cost reduction is documented, but not recognized as a benefit given service reduction and presumed increase in unmet demandCollier Area Transit Fare Study259.C.3Packet Pg. 336Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Other Policy Recommendations•Redefine “household income” and documentation required to qualify for reduced ADA and TD fares•Current fares based on householdincome but documentation is tied to the individual(pension benefit statements, unemployment benefits, paystubs)•Recommend proof of income be tied to household income based on tax filing ‐most recent federal tax return (front/back Form 1040 or 1040 EZ)•Provide policy for other income types if tax form cannot be provided or to document change in income since last tax filingCollier Area Transit Fare Study269.C.3Packet Pg. 337Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Public Workshop Highlights•For all Riders:•Paying fares in even $1 increments is most popular•Support for sale of passes at third party vendors (60%) or by phone app (40%)•Majority (77%) support fare increase if revenue is used to improve service frequency and service availability or to access new locations•For ADA riders, 50% said they would support a fare increase of $0.50 •For TD riders, 56% said they would support a fare increase of $0.25 Collier Area Transit Fare Study279.C.3Packet Pg. 338Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Public Workshop Highlights•For fixed‐route riders:•60% support a slightly higher one‐way fare if it includes a free transfer•71% stated a one‐way fare of $2 or more is too high•41% stated a pass option is too expensive, 12% unable to get to a location to purchase a pass and/or it is too confusing to buy a pass on the bus•1stChoice: Reduce the day pass from $4.00 to $3.00 as a stand‐alone change•2nd Choice: Increase the base fare $1.50 to $2.00, drop day pass from $4.00 to $3.00.•3rdChoice: Change 7‐day pass from $15.00 to a 15‐day pass at 50% cost of a 30‐day pass.Collier Area Transit Fare Study289.C.3Packet Pg. 339Attachment: CAT Fare Study MPO Presentation (5571 : Review and Endorse the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
05/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Adopt Updated Project Priorities for 2018
______________________________________________________________________________
OBJECTIVE: For the Board to adopt updated project priorities for 2018
CONSIDERATIONS: The MPO Board adopted a policy regarding allocation of its Transportation-
Management Area (TMA) Surface Transportation - Urban (SU) funds over a five-year period. The focus
for FY2024, the new 5th year of the FDOT Work Program which will be programmed this summer, is on
funding the construction of new bridges. The priority ranking has not changed. The highest priority - on
16th Street NE, south of 10th Ave NE -is highlighted on Attachment 1. The estimated cost is $8 million.
Staff is recommending that the Board confirm this as the highest priority for funding in FY2024. The
annual TMA SU allocation averages just over $4 million; therefore another $4 million is required to fully
fund construction.
Although other project categories are not slated to receive TMA SU funds in the FY2024 , the lists have
been updated as follows, in the event that other funding becomes available:
Attachment 2: Highway and Bicycle/Pedestrian Priorities updated to reflect current funding status. The
current highest, unfunded Bike/Ped priority is ranked 14 on the attached list - constructing a 10’ shared
use pathway on Immokalee Rd between Strand Blvd and Northbrooke Dr in Collier County.
Attachment 3: New Transit Priorities submitted by County Public Transportation and Neighborhood
Enhancement staff this year.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Citizens Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory
Committee voted to endorse the updated project priorities for 2018 as shown in the attachments, deferring
action on the updated Congestion Management projects for clarification regarding project status.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board adopt the attached updated project priorities for 2018.
Prepared by: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. 2018 Bridge Priorities (PDF)
2. 2018 Highway & Bike-Ped Priorities (PDF)
3. 2018 Transit Priorities (PDF)
9.D
Packet Pg. 340
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 9.D
Doc ID: 5577
Item Summary: Adopt Updated Project Priorities for 2018
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/03/2018 4:37 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/03/2018 4:37 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/03/2018 4:38 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/03/2018 4:49 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
9.D
Packet Pg. 341
2018 Bridge Priorities
Rank Location Proposed Improvement Cost Estimate Status
1 16th Street NE, south of 10th Ave NE New Bridge Construction $8,000,000 PD&E completed
2 47th Avenue NE, west of Everglades Boulevard New Bridge Construction $8,000,000 PD&E completed
3 Wilson Boulevard, south of 33rd Avenue NE New Bridge Construction $8,000,000
4 18th Ave NE, between Wilson Boulevard N and 8th Street NE New Bridge Construction $8,000,000
5 18th Ave NE, between 8th Street NE and 16th Street NE New Bridge Construction $8,000,000
6 13th Street NW, north end at proposed Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension New Bridge Construction $8,000,000
7 16th Street SE, south end New Bridge Construction $8,000,000
8 Wilson Boulevard South, south end New Bridge Construction $8,000,000
9 Location TBD, between 10th Avenue SE and 20th Avenue SE New Bridge Construction $8,000,000
10 62nd Avenue NE, West of 40th Street NE New Bridge Construction $8,000,000
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: 2018 Bridge Priorities (5577 : Adopt Updated Project Priorities for 2018)
Collier MPO 2018 Priorities for Highway Projects from 2040 LRTP Phase Source YOE CostFUNDING STATUSPE OA $590,000CST OA $2,540,000PE OA $800,000CST OA $6,350,000PE OA $3,600,000$0CST OA $38,100,000$0PE OA $510,000CST OA $3,490,00012Old US 41 US 41 (SR 45)Lee/Collier County lineAdd Lanes and Reconstruct 1.5 $15,030,000 2026‐2030 PE OA $2,720,000PD&E #4351101 SU $838,297 FY19 SU $1,170,000 FY2019aCritical Needs Intersection (Randall Blvd at Immokalee Rd)Immokalee Rd 8th StreetInterim At‐Grade Improvements, including 4 laning 8th Street$4,000,000 2021‐2025 CST OA $5,080,000Randall Corridor Study County Local Funds $XXXX FY19PEOA $370,000$0CST OA $2,542,000$041SR 951 (Collier Blvd)South of Manatee RdNorth of Tower Rd 4 to 6 lane roadway1 $13,350,000 2026‐2030 PE OA $2,020,000$0FDOT conducting "interim" solution study in‐houseFDOT conducting "interim" solution study in‐houseFDOT conducting "interim" solution study in‐house$5,000,000 3Pine Ridge Rd I‐75 Interchange$3,130,000$2,750,000 2021‐2025$4,000,0005CR 951 (Collier Blvd)Golden Gate CanalGreen Blvd4 to 6 lane roadway2021‐2025$7,150,000Intersection Traffic SignalizationProjects Funded in CFP YOEI‐75 Interchange2Golden Gate ParkwayEastbound on‐ramp ‐ New 2 lane Ramp$2,000,000 Final Proposed Improvement ‐ 2040 LRTPFacility Limit From Limit To2021‐2025LRTP Priority Ranking2021‐25Construction Time Frame5‐Year Window in which CST is Funded by SourceI‐75 Interchange I‐75 InterchangeTotal Project Cost (PDC)Link in Miles HIGHWAY PRIORITIES 2018$2,000,0002021‐2025$2,912,000$22,050,00021US 41 Goodlette Rd N/AIntersection Improvements (was on‐hold pending outcome of Naples Downtown Mobility Study)$5,080,0002.0 $30,000,000 2021‐2025$41,700,0007Immokalee Rd I‐75 Interchange I‐75 Interchange Intersection Traffic Signalization9.D.2Packet Pg. 343Attachment: 2018 Highway & Bike-Ped Priorities (5577 : Adopt Updated Project Priorities for 2018)
Rank Project NameProject DescriptionAmount RequestedSubmitting Agency/ JurisdictionPhase/Amount Funded in Work ProgramFPN 1 County Barn Rd 10' Shared Use Path - west side Davis BlvdRattlesnake Hammock Rd$1,411,482 Collier CountyPE $176,000 CST $1,879,37643809112 Vanderbilt Drive Sidewalk and crosswalk VBR & 109th Ave North109th Ave. North & 111th Ave North$272,248 Collier CountyPE $151,000 CST $709,07543809213 Green Blvd5' Bike Lanes - both sides Santa Barbara Blvd Sunshine Blvd $567,750 Collier CountyPE $279,363 CST $1,084,67043809315 S. Golf Dr5-ft sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, parking on north side 500' West of US 41 & 7th St N7th St. N. & '400 eastof Gulf Shore Blvd N$880,000City of NaplesPE $279,36344043716 Pine Ridge Road 6' sidewalk - south side Whippoorwill LaneNapa Blvd$561,800 Collier County PE $229,418 44042517 111th Ave N5' Bike Lanes/Paved Shoulders - both sidesU.S. 41 East of Bluebill Bridge $480,000 Collier County PE $64,740 44184618Mandarin GreenwaySidewalk LoopSidewalks Banyan Blvd & on Pine Ct Orchid Dr$299,500 City of NaplesPE $45,311 CST $349,40744043619 Bald Eagle Dr8' Shared Use Pathway - west sideCollier Blvd.Old Marco Lane $344,030City of MarcoIslandPE $36,000441878110Everglades City -Copeland Ave SSidewalksTraffic Circle by Everglades City HallChokoloskee Bay Causeway$410,000Everglades CityPE $235,000 CST $520,391437096111 Lake Trafford Rd 6' SidewalksCarson Rd Laurel St $492,800 Collier County PE $71,209 441845212Inlet Dr. - AddisonCourt Pathway8' Shared Use Pathway - east and south side Travida Terr. Along Addison CtLee Court$299,707City of MarcoIslandPE $31,000441879113 Lake Trafford Rd 5' Bike LanesLittle League RdLaurel St $780,500 Collier County PE $92,245 441845114 Immokalee Rd 10' Shared Use Pathway Strand BlvdNorthbrooke Dr $1,209,219 Collier County2018 Bike/Ped PrioritiesLimits9.D.2Packet Pg. 344Attachment: 2018 Highway & Bike-Ped Priorities (5577 : Adopt Updated Project Priorities for 2018)
2018 Transit Priorities
** Includes cost for 3 years based on existing routes costs, this cost does not include bus purchase.
**** Cost estimate does not include right-of-way acquisition or construction
Priority
Ranking
Requested Funding /
Project Estimates Location Description
1 $200,000 Throughout
Collier County
Enhance accessibility to bus stops to
meet Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) requirements. (10 / year)
2 $480,000 Throughout
Collier County
Construction of bus shelters & amenities
(bike rack, bench, trash can, etc.) (12 /
year)
3 $396,000*** US 41 at the Lee
County line
Required Environmental & Design
Phases for future construction of a Park
and Ride Facility
4 $396,000***
Collier Boulevard
and Immokalee
Road
Required Environmental & Design
Phases for future construction of a Park
and Ride Facility at the intersection
5 $2,520,180** Throughout
Collier County
Extended Service Hours on existing
routes - 1 additional run - 7 days a week.
6 $3,686,400** US 41 & Airport
Road
Reduce headways to 30 minutes during
peak hours on routes 11 & 12
7 $1,339,400** Collier County Lee/Collier Connection
8 $2,887,200** Golden Gate City
& East Naples
Reduce headways to 45 minutes during
peak hours on routes 15, 17 & 24
9 $1,476,900** Central Naples &
Bayshore
Reduce headways to 30 minutes during
peak hours on route 13 &14
10 $1,004,538** Golden Gate
Estates
Implement Flex Service for the Golden
Gate Estates Area
9.D.3
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: 2018 Transit Priorities (5577 : Adopt Updated Project Priorities for 2018)
05/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study
OBJECTIVE: For the Board to receive a presentation on the Golden Gate City Walkable Community
Study and provide comments related to the report.
CONSIDERATIONS: The Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study is intended to assess and
prioritize pedestrian facility needs for the Golden Gate City area. The consultant has conducted two
public outreach events and has completed the draft report (Attachment 1) which identifies
recommendations for improvements in the area. Jacobs Engineering will provide a brief presentation on
the ongoing study and address any comments.
The final study will be presented at the May 21st TAC and CAC meetings and will be presented to the
MPO Board for adoption on June 8th.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The TAC and CAC received a presentation on the draft
document at their April 30th meeting. TAC members submitted comments which are in the process of
being addressed by the consultant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board review the draft Golden Gate City Walkable
Community Study and provide comments.
Prepared By: Brandy Otero, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (PDF)
2. Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (PDF)
10.A
Packet Pg. 346
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 10.A
Doc ID: 5581
Item Summary: Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/04/2018 9:08 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/04/2018 9:08 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/04/2018 9:08 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/04/2018 11:15 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
10.A
Packet Pg. 347
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
i
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................1
Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................................2
Existing Plans Review ..............................................................................................................................18
Public Engagement ...................................................................................................................................23
Pedestrian Level of Service .....................................................................................................................31
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
ii
Priorities .....................................................................................................................................................43
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................45
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
1
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
2
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
3
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
4
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
5
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
6
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
7
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
8
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
9
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
10
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
11
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
12
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
13
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
14
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
15
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
16
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
17
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
18
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
19
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
20
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
21
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
22
www.colliergov.net/home/showdocument?id=74810
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
23
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
24
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
25
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
26
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
27
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
28
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
29
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
30
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
31
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
32
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
33
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
34
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
35
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
36
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
37
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
38
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
39
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
40
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
41
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
42
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
43
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
44
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
45
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
46
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
47
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
48
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
49
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
50
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
51
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
52
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
53
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
54
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Att1 Draft GGC Walkable Community Studyr-1 (5581 : Review of Draft Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study)
Meeting Name
DATE
Golden Gate City
Walkable Community Study
Collier MPO Board
May 11, 2018
Golden Gate City
Walkable Community Study
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
•Introduction
•Findings
•Draft Recommendations
•Next Steps
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
Introduction
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
Prioritized project
recommendations
Data
review
Talk
with
people
Field
review
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
•Extensive public & stakeholder outreach
–Hosted public workshops, walking audits, bicycling audits, windshield tour with Dan Burden
–Stakeholder focus groups: school, agency, business community
–Hosted community meeting to review draft recommendations
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
Findings
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
Cumulative Pedestrian Level of
Service (PLOS)
•Based on five individual PLOS
factors
•Golden Gate City has an overall
PLOS of E
NOTE
PLOS scores are not equivalent to
school grades. It is up to the
community to define acceptable PLOS
for different areas and road types.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
Criteria
1.Proximity to schools
2.Proximity to transit stops
3.Presence of crash involving
pedestrian or bicyclist (weighted
most heavily)
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
Draft Recommendations
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
To make Golden Gate City a more
walkable community…
1.Focus on infrastructure gaps
2.Explore other projects and programs
3.Don’t be afraid to try something that
hasn’t been done before
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
Painted intersections
Community shade tree
nursery and planting
programEarly school release for
walkers and bikers
Roundabouts
Wider sidewalks around all
schools
Midblock HAWK signals
Painted road diet on Coronado
Parkway
For your consideration…
Intersection mini-circles
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
Next Steps
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
•Collecting comments
on draft plan and
recommendations
–MPO committees and
Board
•Refining
recommendations
•Plan adoption
–June
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
Collier MPO Board
May 11, 2018
Golden Gate City
Walkable Community Study
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Presentation (5581 : Review of
05/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Update on Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
OBJECTIVE: For the Board to receive an update on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
CONSIDERATIONS: More than 600 public comments have been received for the Plan. The comments,
previous plans and studies, current inventory, and socioeconomic and bicycle/pedestrian crash data have
been used to develop initial prioritization criteria and lists of potential projects. Staff will make a
powerpoint presentation of the work and seek further Board direction.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board receive an update on and provide input for the
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Prepared By: Eric Ortman, MPO Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (PDF)
10.B
Packet Pg. 420
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 10.B
Doc ID: 5584
Item Summary: Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/04/2018 11:42 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/04/2018 11:42 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/04/2018 11:42 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/04/2018 1:50 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
10.B
Packet Pg. 421
Board UpdateMay 11, 2018110.B.1Packet Pg. 422Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Project Schedule 2•May 21 – Stakeholder #2 (TAC/CAC/BPAC)•June 8 – Board Update•August – Draft Plan (BPAC/TAC/CAC)•Late August – Open House #2•September – Draft Plan (Board)•September – Endorsement of Plan (TAC/CAC/BPAC)•October 12 ‐ MPO Board adoption10.B.1Packet Pg. 423Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Public Outreach 3•Open House #2 ‐ Date and Location TDB•April 3 at 7:00 pm, Everglades City Council•March 19 ‐Comm. Taylor Town Hall meeting, 12760 Livingston Rd, Naples•March 8 ‐Comm. Taylor Town Hall meeting, Naples City Hall•March 7 ‐Marco Island Farmers' Market, Veterans Park, 901 Park Avenue•Immokalee outreach with the Immokalee CRA•February 22 ‐NCH Farmers' Market, 311 9th St N•February 21 ‐Immokalee CRA, 1155 Roberts Ave, Immokalee•February 6 ‐Bayshore CRA, 3570 Bayshore Drive•February 4 ‐Golden Gate Farmers' Market, 11725 Collier Boulevard•January 27 ‐VBR Farmers' Market at the corner of VBR and Airport Pulling•January 17 ‐Open House #1 at Veterans Park, 1895 Veterans Park Drive10.B.1Packet Pg. 424Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Public Comments 4•600+ Comments •Safety•Connectivity•Multi‐use Paths and Greenways•Locals Needs10.B.1Packet Pg. 425Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Needs Identification Strategy5•Safety•Equity•Connectivity •Higher priority at locations with NO existing facilities•Multiple Lists:•Safety•Major roads•Local roads•Greenways and Multi‐use Paths10.B.1Packet Pg. 426Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Needs Identification Crash Data 657% Crashes Occur on 10 Roads 1. US 41 6. North 15thSt (SR 2. Airport Pulling 7. Pine Ridge Road3. Collier Blvd 8. Golden Gate Parkway4. Immokalee Rd 9. Radio Road5. Davis Blvd 10. VBR10.B.1Packet Pg. 427Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
7Proposed Bicycle Needs (Criteria) –Collectors and ArterialsItem 8A – Attachment 3E10.B.1Packet Pg. 428Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
8Proposed Pedestrian Needs (Criteria) –Collectors and ArterialsItem 8A – Attachment 3D10.B.1Packet Pg. 429Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Proposed Evaluation Criteria91st review (Fatal flaw)High crash areaEJ ‐ 3 levelsCost/benefit Environmental permitting issuesDRAFT Prioritization CriteriaPointsDRAFT Prioritization CriteriaPointsSafety30HealthProject in a high crash corridor (high crash = #)See connecvityWill project improve identified safety issue?EnvironmentConnectivity 25See connecvityConnects to 1 other path or trailConnections to destinations (schools, parks)Economic Development 15Connects existing infrastructure/fills a gapProject supports econmic potentialConnects to/is along a transit lineDestinations along bike facility Greenway or off‐road trail corridor including SUPJobs within 2 miles of bicycle facilityAdjacent to major roads Project connects to existing facility in walkable areaEquity/Livability 15Community Support4Few or no connections in the area surrounding the project Project identified in local plans/RSAs, etc.Numerous connections in the areas surrounding the trail corridor Local agency/group advocacy for alignmentProject is in an area that meets X number of EJ categoriesReadiness2Pre‐constuction phase/s completePopulation Criteria Being Developed10.B.1Packet Pg. 430Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Needs Local Roads Naples Manor1010.B.1Packet Pg. 431Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Needs Local Roads Bayshore & Gateway Triangle1110.B.1Packet Pg. 432Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Needs Local Roads Immokalee 1210.B.1Packet Pg. 433Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Needs Local Roads Golden Gate City1310.B.1Packet Pg. 434Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Needs Local Roads Marco Island Bike Lanes1410.B.1Packet Pg. 435Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Proposed Policy Concepts15Land Development Code•Connections between developments and the bike/ped network•Interconnections between developments•Bicycle parkingRoadway•6 ft sidewalk one side, 10‐12’ trail other side (roadway cross‐section) ALL capacity projects•Consistent handling of begin/end bike lanes•Wider shoulders on high speed roadways•Pedestrian crossing opportunities (signalized, long blocks)•Trail / roadway crossings – signalized•Buffered bicycle lanes should be considered BEFORE standard bike lanes on all resurfacing and capacity projects •Bike lanes (minimum)– all resurfacing and capacity projects New Development / RedevelopmentInfrastructure Built to Current Standards to Extent Feasible10.B.1Packet Pg. 436Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Next Steps•Refine needs, prioritization criteria•Develop planning level costs•Develop/refine policy statements•Update program support strategies•Additional funding sources1610.B.1Packet Pg. 437Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Discussion/Questions?17THANK YOU!10.B.1Packet Pg. 438Attachment: Bike Ped Master Plan Presentation (5584 : Update on Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
05/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Naples City Manager Response for Co-location Study
OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a copy of a letter from the Naples City Manager regarding
the Traffic Management Center Co-location Study report.
CONSIDERATIONS: The MPO Director contacted City of Naples staff to ask whether FDOT’s report
on the Traffic Management Center Co-location Feasibility Study would be scheduled for the City Council
to review, as recommended by the MPO Board. Staff responded that it would not be scheduled for City
Council review and submitted the letter from the City Manager supporting staff’s position and reiterating
the conclusion that it is in the City’s best interest to maintain its traffic management center while
continuing to work towards efforts to share video and data to improve regional traffic management.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
Prepared by: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. City of Naples Traffic Management Center and FDOT’s Consolidation Study Letter (PDF)
12.A
Packet Pg. 439
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 12.A
Doc ID: 5576
Item Summary: Naples City Manager Response for Co-location Study
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/03/2018 4:34 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/03/2018 4:34 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/03/2018 4:34 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/03/2018 4:36 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
12.A
Packet Pg. 440
City of Naples
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
TELEPHONE (239) 213-1030 ● FACSIMILE (239) 213-1033
735 EIGHTH STREET SOUTH ● NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102-6796
Ethics above all else ... Service to others before self ... Quality in all that we do.
April 26, 2018
Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director
2885 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Via email: annemclaughlin@colliergov.net
Re: City of Naples Traffic Management Center and FDOT’s Consolidation Study
Dear Ms. McLaughlin,
This correspondence is intended to support public comments made by Gregg
Strakaluse, the City’s Streets & Stormwater Director, at the March 2018 MPO meeting
regarding FDOT’s study on consolidation of traffic management centers. In October of
2017, FDOT completed a cursory study exploring the potential to consolidate (or co-
locate) the City and County traffic management centers. While the study’s conclusion
indicated that consolidation would result in cost savings opportunities, FDOT would be
the direct beneficiary of those savings, not the City of Naples.
After speaking with the Naples Police Department, Naples Fire Department, and
the Technology Services Department, it was agreed that the value of maintaining the
City’s traffic management center in the city is significant. The Naples City Council has
supported efforts to improve traffic management through the high-tech services
provided by the City’s traffic management center. And, the Streets & Stormwater
Department has identified several unique operational differences between agency traffic
management centers, as well as institutional barriers related to consolidation that
cannot be discounted.
According to County staff, the designated location for a new, consolidated traffic
management center would be located at the James V. Mudd Emergency Operations
Center, a 17-mile round-trip drive from the City’s operation center. Dispatching City
staff from this remote location reduces the City’s current level of service by requiring
longer response times and higher costs. On page 26 of the study, the report concludes
that a consolidated center needs to be within a reasonable distance to the existing
centers as to not add additional burden or hardship. This is likely a reason that a
consolidated traffic management center was not considered at FDOT’s Southwest
Interagency Facility for Transportation in Fort Myers, where FDOT monitors and
manages the State highway system.
12.A.1
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: City of Naples Traffic Management Center and FDOT’s Consolidation Study Letter (5576 : Naples City Manager Response for Co-
Ethics above all else... Service to others before self... Quality in all that we do.
Section 6.2 of FDOT’s study details the numerous challenges and institutional
barriers associated with consolidation. For these reasons, and reasons previously
stated herein, we believe it is in the City’s best interest to maintain its traffic
management center while continuing to work towards efforts to share video and data to
improve regional traffic management. In fact, City staff continue to work with County
and FDOT staff on an $800,000 project aimed at upgrading hardware and software at
each center that would enable all three traffic management centers to share traffic video
feeds and information.
Please feel free to reach me at this office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
A. William Moss
City Manager
12.A.1
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: City of Naples Traffic Management Center and FDOT’s Consolidation Study Letter (5576 : Naples City Manager Response for Co-
05/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 13.A
Item Summary: Regular Meeting - June 8, 2018 - 9:00 a.m. Board of County Commissioners
Chambers, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112
Meeting Date: 05/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/04/2018 9:17 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/04/2018 9:17 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/04/2018 9:17 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/04/2018 11:11 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/11/2018 9:00 AM
13.A
Packet Pg. 443