The URL can be used to link to this page

MPO Agenda 02/08/2019COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 February 08, 2019 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, Esq. 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 recor d 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. ELECTION OF CHAIR 4.A. Election of MPO Board Chair and Vice-Chair 5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, PREVIOUS MINUTES AND CONSENT ITEMS 5.A. December 14, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes 5.B. Appointment of a New Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Member representing Everglades City 5.C. Appointment of a New Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member representing the City of Naples 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 7. AGENCY UPDATES 7.A. FDOT 7.B. MPO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 8. COMMITTEE CHAIR REPORTS 8.A. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) 8.B. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) 8.B.1. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Chair Report 8.C. BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC) 8.C.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Chair Report 8.D. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (CMC) 8.D.1. Congestion Management Committee (CMC) Chair Report 8.E. LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD (LCB) 9. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (ROLL CALL REQUIRED) 10. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (NO ROLL CALL) 10.A. Election of Representatives to Serve on the Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Governing Board for 2019. 10.B. Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study 10.C. Adopt Public Participation Plan 11. PRESENTATIONS (MAY REQUIRE BOARD ACTION) 11.A. Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) 11.B. Update on 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) 12. DISTRIBUTION ITEMS 12.A. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc Contract Modification Comprehensive Pathways Plan 12.B. Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update 12.C. Revised 2019 MPO Calendar 13. MEMBER COMMENTS 14. NEXT MEETING DATE 14.A. Next Meeting Date - March 8, 2019 - 9:00 a.m. Board of County Commissioners Chambers, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112 15. ADJOURN 02/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Election of MPO Board Chair and Vice-Chair OBJECTIVE: For the Board to elect a Chair and Vice-Chair for calendar year 2019. CONSIDERATIONS: The MPO by-laws (attached) state that the Board shall elect a Chair and Vice- Chair at the first regularly scheduled meeting of each calendar year and that the officers shall be voting members of the MPO. Any Board member may nominate or be nominated as Chair/Vice-Chair. Elections shall be decided by majority vote. The Chair and Vice-Chair shall serve a one-year term or until a successor is elected. Commissioner William McDaniel, Jr is the current Chair and Councilwoman Linda Penniman served as Vice-Chair until she announced her resignation from Naples City Council last month. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board elect a Chair and Vice-Chair for calendar year 2019. Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. MPO Bylaws (PDF) 4.A Packet Pg. 4 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 4.A Doc ID: 7924 Item Summary: Election of MPO Board Chair and Vice-Chair Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 8:35 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 8:35 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:00 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 10:44 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 4.A Packet Pg. 5 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: MPO Bylaws (7924 : Election of MPO Board Chair and Vice-Chair) 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: MPO Bylaws (7924 : Election of MPO Board Chair and Vice-Chair) 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: MPO Bylaws (7924 : Election of MPO Board Chair and Vice-Chair) 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: MPO Bylaws (7924 : Election of MPO Board Chair and Vice-Chair) 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: MPO Bylaws (7924 : Election of MPO Board Chair and Vice-Chair) 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: MPO Bylaws (7924 : Election of MPO Board Chair and Vice-Chair) 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: MPO Bylaws (7924 : Election of MPO Board Chair and Vice-Chair) 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: MPO Bylaws (7924 : Election of MPO Board Chair and Vice-Chair) 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: December 14, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 8:05 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 8:05 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:17 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:23 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 14 COLLIER METROPLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) BOARD MEETING Board of County Commissioner Chambers 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples 9:00 a.m. December 14, 2018 Meeting Minutes 1. Call to Order Commissioner McDaniel called the meeting to order at approximately 9:00 a.m. 2. Roll Call Mr. Ortman called roll and confirmed a quorum was present. 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 Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt, City of Everglades City Councilman Reg Buxton, City of Naples Members Absent Councilman Joe Batte, City of Marco Island (RSVP’d no longer on City Council) Councilwoman Linda Penniman, City of Naples, Vice-Chair (RSVP’d unable to attend) MPO Staff Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director Eric Ortman, MPO Senior Planner Karen Intriago, MPO Administrative Assistant FDOT L.K. Nandam, District One Secretary Lawrence Massey, FDOT Victoria Peters, District One Liaison Others Present Scott Teach, Deputy County Attorney Joe Bonness, BPAC Michelle Avola, Naples Pathway Coalition Rae Ann Burton, Citizen Tara Jones, Jacobs Engineering 3. Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner Saunders led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. Approval of the Agenda, Previous Minutes, and Consent Items 4.A. Approval of November 9, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes Councilman Buxton moved to approve the Agenda, November 9, 2018 Meeting Minutes. Second by Commissioner Saunders. Carried unanimously. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: December 14, 2018 MPO Meeting Minutes (7916 : December 14, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes) 4.B. Appointment of new CAC Member Commissioner Taylor moved to approve the Appointment of William Stephens to the CAC. Second by Councilman Buxton. Carried unanimously. 4.C. Appointment of new LCB Member Commissioner Fiala noted that she is very pleased with appointing Birgitta Grasser as a LCB member. Ms. Grasser has been a tremendous help with addressing areas of concern for paratransit. Commissioner Fiala moved to approve the Appointment of Birgitta Grasser to the LCB. Second by Councilman Buxton. Carried unanimously. 5. Public Comments for Items Not on the Agenda Rae Ann Burton noted that she was protesting the proposed projects that are destroying Golden Gate Estates’ rural environment. Ms. Burton noted that at the November 9th Board meeting she stated that the Board seemed to be ignoring the Estate’s wishes and favors the developer. Some of the concerns Mrs. Burton voiced against are noted below: • The S Curve and expanding Randell from four to six lanes would create confusion and accidents. • Wildlife preserve destruction by Habitat Conservation Plan allowing mining and building. • December 11th BCC Board meeting stated that the HCP 50-year mining lease and Rural Land West Development is in a prime panther corridor. Scientists state that this is panthers’ primary breeding ground. • Habitat destruction is causing wildlife to seek food in residential areas. Panthers have progressed to killing horses and large livestock. • Creating new commercial centers when existing ones have not been filled • Bus Barn on Randall curve has created more traffic. • Golden Gate Estates needs cell towers not more roads. Ms. Burton questioned why public meetings are being held if the needs and concerns of the residents are not being honored. Ms. Burton wished the Board and staff a Merry Christmas. 6. Agency Updates A. FDOT Ms. Peters provided an update regarding Commissioner Solis’s request for an explanation why the sidewalk project on Trail Blvd is taking so long to complete and when the brush and debris would be removed. She noted that FDOT held a progress meeting with Project Management and Operation staff and the contractor. The contractor indicated that the anticipated completion date is March of 2019. Secretary Nandam noted that with a construction project there’s major construction activity followed by clean-up activity, so what can possibly be seen can be the clean-up activity. Secretary Nandam stated that they will get the exact details from FDOT’s Operation center and report back at the next Board meeting. Ms. Peter stated that the issue with the mowing, weeds and litter has been addressed with the contractor. The contractor has added a mowing, weeding and litter cycle for December 17th. Commissioner Solis noted that residents are urging that this project be completed quickly. Ms. Peters stated that a new crosswalk with pedestrian signal is being added at Pelican Bay south and US 41 intersection. All existing lighting and drainage structures will be replaced. Ms. Peter addressed a concern that a few of the Commissioners had regarding the posted speed on US 41 between Vanderbilt and Trail 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: December 14, 2018 MPO Meeting Minutes (7916 : December 14, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes) Park. FDOT Traffic Operations has informed her that the speed study has not been finalized. FDOT also has a forum for expressing local traffic safety concerns - the Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST). The CTST includes local law enforcement agencies. Ms. Peters noted that the Public Hearing for the PD&E study on SR29 widening in Immokalee was a success with a high turnout. Ms. Peter presented the Board with a video composed of various shots of wildlife using underpasses constructed by FDOT. (Video can be made available upon request) Commissioner Fiala questioned when the lights on Jolly Bridge were getting fixed. Ms. Peters noted that Jolley Bridge is a top priority with FDOT. The Department has contacted the contractor and they advised that the lights are being acquired. Once all the materials are obtained the lights on the Jolley Bridge will be fixed. Commissioner Fiala noted that the signs on US 41 for Lakewood are mismatched, would like to know if there is a possibility of getting these fixed. Ms. Peters noted that she would investigate it. Commissioner McDaniel thanked Ms. Peters for her involvement with the community, noting he has received a lot of positive comments from members of the public. Commented that FDOT has been an entity that no one gets to see, but with Ms. Peters, her presence has brought a personal touch for the residents in the County. Ms. Peters responded to a question Commissioner Fiala had asked at the previous Board meeting - whether safety funds had been removed from the repaving project on US 41 as reported by County staff. Ms. Peters noted that safety funds have not been removed. FDOT uses different fund codes. B. MPO Executive Director None. 7. Committee Chair Report 7.A.1. Citizen Advisory Committee Chair Report Ms. McLaughlin noted that the CAC Chairman’s report was submitted in writing and is in the meeting packet. Neither the Chair nor the Vice Chair attend today’s meeting to give the report. 7.B.1 Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report Ms. McLaughlin noted that the TAC Chairman’s report was submitted in writing and is in the meeting packet. Neither the Chair nor the Vice Chair could attend today’s meeting to give the report. Commissioner Fiala noticed that the Lee County MPO is being discussed in various meeting and questioned why. Ms. McLaughlin noted that the Lee MPO Director sits on the TAC as a member. Stated that it’s part of the regional cooperation established by the joint interlocal agreement. 7.C.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Chair Report Mr. Bonness reported that BPAC met on November 20th. The meeting primarily had to do with an overview of the progress that has been made on the revised Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Mr. Bonness noted that the Committee is giving priority to designing pathways that accommodate all ages and abilities. He noted that Joe Adams had resigned from the Committee, leaving a vacancy. Mr. Bonness stated that the Committee discussed how in the past, when a pavement overlay or rebuilding project was conducted, the Committee would take that opportunity to look at the restriping plans and investigate ways to incorporate bike lanes. At the time Venetian Bay was developed on Gulf Shore Dr., there was a lack of sidewalks on one side of the roadway. With the restriping program the City of 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: December 14, 2018 MPO Meeting Minutes (7916 : December 14, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes) Naples was able to restripe the road and accommodate both bicycle and pedestrians. With the help of public officials in the City of Naples, this program has been able to accommodate bicyclists in many areas. Mr. Bonness stated that it takes a political will from the Board to be able to push this program in the County. Mr. Bonness noted that the overlay and restriping program should be handed to the BPAC for review. Currently, it has been held back from the Committee. Mr. Bonness stated that it would be nice to get the program to follow through so that the BPAC or a staff Bicycle Coordinator could review the pavement overlay program. This is the cheapest way to be able to include bicycle paths. Commissioner McDaniel noted that any information on this subject be communicated between MPO staff and FDOT. Ms. Avola stated that Southwest Florida is not on the map when it comes to trails because it doesn’t have the multiuse pathways that are prevalent in other parts of Central Florida. This comes with the risk of missed tourism dollars. Ms. Avola also wanted to follow through with what Mr. Bonness stated about the restriping plan and getting the BPAC notified. If road improvements are reviewed for opportunities for active transportation as well as vehicular transportation simultaneously, in the long run it would save money. Commissioner Fiala noted that it should be up to the Commissioners to not allow a PUD to remove sidewalks from any of the communities. This should be a subject to consider for discussion at a future meeting. Board members expressed support for having the BPAC review repaving plans, including those of member entities. 7.D.1 Congestion Management Committee Chair Report Ms. McLaughlin noted that the CMC Chair’s report was submitted in writing and is in the meeting packet. Neither the Chair nor the Vice Chair are in attendance to give the report. 7.E.1 Local Coordinating Board (LCB) Ms. McLaughlin noted that the CMC Chair’s report was submitted in writing and is in the meeting packet. She provided a brief synopsis at the request of Commissioner Fiala. 8. Regular Board Action (Roll Call Required) None. 9. Regular Board Action (No Roll Call) 9.A. Review and comment on FDOT Tentative Work Program Mr. Massey presented a video from FDOT District 1 for the Tentative Work Program FY2020- 2024. The Work Program is guided by FDOT’s mission statement to provide a safe transportation system, that ensures mobility of people and goods. It also enhances the economy prosperity and preserves the quality of the environment. The Tentative Work Program represents the best efforts of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization and FDOT District 1 to program transportation projects identified as priorities in the area. (Video can be made available upon request) Trinity Scott expressed her appreciation for the hard work that FDOT put into the Draft Tentative Work Program and for the funding of the 16th Street Bridge. Ms. Scott noted that Ms. Peters made it possible to have this project constructed with the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension project. The County also received construction funding for Airport Road and Lake Trafford sidewalk and bike lanes. Ms. Scott stated that a concern that was brought up at the TAC meeting was the MPOs’ box funds for FY19/20 has 1.5 million. FDOT likes these funds to be spent down to avoid an obligation constraint 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: December 14, 2018 MPO Meeting Minutes (7916 : December 14, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes) with the federal funds. The County would like for FDOT and the MPO to develop a plan to have those funds spent down. Ms. Scott stated that the Fast Act has new requirements for the Long-Range Transportation Plan and perhaps the MPO would be able to utilize some of those funds. Other items of concerns were the landscaping project on I-75 at the toll booth as well as Golden Gate Parkway, the design was $210,000 which seems high for landscape at an interchange. In addition, the Golden Gate Parkway interchange has been a long-standing priority to do operational improvements, County staff would like to be assured if additional landscape is place at this interchange that it will not have to be relocated. Ms. Scott thanked FDOT for listening to the MPO Board about improving SR29. There is funding for right-of-way for many of the segments on SR29. Ms. Scott questioned the use of TRIP (Transportation Regional Incentive Program) funding for a resurfacing on US 41 South of Dunruss Creek to South of Gulf Park Drive; noting there is a specific process established for prioritizing TRIP Funds with Lee County MPO. The allocation of these funds to the project could have been in error and County staff would like FDOT to swap those funds out. A sidewalk construction project has been added to Pine Ridge Rd. from Whippoorwill Lane to Napa Blvd. This project has been incorporated with the study of Pine Ridge Rd. County staff and MPO staff are working on creating a [MPO Board] Resolution regarding increasing the capacity of the roadway and would like FDOT’s partnership. Ms. Scott stated that FDOT’s revenue estimates for the 2045 LRTP continue to report that revenues are going up, but FDOT reported that revenues are down for the Work Program. the LRTP uses the revenue estimates to build the Cost Feasible Plan. These estimates reflect that Collier MPO will receive double the amount they had for the 2040 Plan. County staff would like FDOT and local staff to work with Central office staff to look at the revenue projections the MPO will be using as the basis for the 2045 LRTP are correct. Commissioner Taylor asked if the cost of bridges outlined in the 5-year program would be offset, being that the Sales Tax Referendum puts money aside for the construction of bridges. Trinity Scott responded that County staff is discussing the Sales Tax and how projects will be laid out and making sure that if funding is identified in the FDOT Work Program, it’s being lined up in the County’s production schedule. Commissioner Taylor expressed concerns over the parking alongside South Gulf Dr., that it’s critical for events and for the public to access the beach; would Councilman Buxton discuss this matter with the City of Naples. Councilman Buxton indicated that he would. Commissioner Taylor requested that a report be generated on a yearly basis regarding how much money is being allocated to each FDOT District Office. 9.B. Approval of MPO Strategic Plan 2019 Ms. McLaughlin noted that the Strategic Plan is a critical component of the Evaluation Plan for the MPO Executive Director’ which must be completed in December each year. Ms. McLaughlin suggested minor changes to update the 2018 Strategic Plan for the new year - 2019. Commissioner Taylor moved to approve of MPO Strategic Plan of 2019. Second by Councilman Buxton. Carried unanimously. 9.C. Approval of MPO Director Performance Evaluation Plan for 2019 Ms. McLaughlin noted that the Evaluation has been amended to reflect the new language in the Strategic Plan. Commissioner Taylor moved to approve of MPO Director Performance Evaluation. Second by Councilman Buxton. Carried unanimously. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: December 14, 2018 MPO Meeting Minutes (7916 : December 14, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes) 10. Presentations (May Require Board Action) 10.A. FDOT – Immokalee and Randel Commissioner Solis wished everyone a Merry Christmas and excused himself from the Board meeting. Tara Jones presented the PowerPoint “Immokalee Road (CR 846) at Randell Blvd Intersection Project Development and Environment PD&E Study” highlighting: • FDOT put the PD&E study on hold back in 2014 due to the Randell and Oil Well Corridor Study. Recently restarted the PD&E • The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion and improve intersection traffic operations. It will help improve safety and enhance emergency evacuation. • The plan is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the MPOs 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan • Working with FDOT to update the 5-year Tentative Work Plan • Proposed typical section for Randall Blvd is to widen the road from 2 to 4 lanes from Immokalee Rd. to 8th St. in a manner that can accommodate a future 6 lane widening within the median if needed • A no-build alternative is being investigated for the study and will be taken to the public hearing in April • First phase will include triple left- turn westbound onto Immokalee Rd. and a continuous right- turn movement from Immokalee Rd. onto Randell Blvd. • Second Phase will include a flyover from Randell Blvd to Immokalee Rd. including one signalized through left-turn lane. Proposed canal modification to accommodate flyover bridge • 29 parcels will be impacted, most of the parcels are located on southside of Randell Blvd. 10.B. MPO Annual Report Ms. McLaughlin presented the ‘’MPO Annual Report 2018” highlights included in the Executive Study in the agenda packet. Noted that Reginal Coordination element is undergoing changes for next year. The Interlocal Agreement is being revised to reflect meeting on an as-needed basis; status is shifting regarding Regional Nonmotorized Transportation Network planning due to unresolved issues over maintenance of recreational bike/ped facilities on State roads. Noted that Commissioner McDaniel continued the Board’s 2017 initiative by requesting a Government to Government meeting with the Miccosukee Tribe. Staff has completely revamped the Public Participation Plan (PPP) based on current best practice, will take the PPP back to committees after the mandatory 45-day public comment period ends in January for another round of review, then to the MPO Board for action in February. The Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will be brought to the Board no later than March. The Golden Gate Walkability Study is ready to go back through advisory committees in January. Contract negotiations are underway for the 2045 LRTP. The MPO’s primary focus in 2019 will be on the start of the 2045 LRTP. 11. Member Comments Secretary Nandam noted that FDOTs’ Work Program emphasizes partnering with the community and making sure that FDOT priorities align with the communities. Thanked County and MPO staff for making sure FDOT met the deadlines established. The Board wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Years. 12. Distribution Items 12.A. FDOT Comments 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: December 14, 2018 MPO Meeting Minutes (7916 : December 14, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes) Commissioner Taylor noticed that the funding for the wildlife corridor and improvements for endangered species have not been addressed in FDOT letter commenting on the Habitat Conservation Plan. Secretary Nandam stated that if there are any wildlife crossings required as result of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), there will be opportunity for future federal and state funding to put towards construction. However, there is also a funding source that the state and local governments can tap into to mitigate environmental impacts by constructing wildlife crossings. There would be opportunities in the future when roadway improvements or resurfacing needs are addressed to incorporate wildlife crossings. 13. Next Meeting Date Regular Meeting – February 8, 2019 – 9:00 a.m. Board of County Commissioners Chambers 14. Adjourn With no further comments Commissioner McDaniel adjourned the meeting at 10:07 a.m. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: December 14, 2018 MPO Meeting Minutes (7916 : December 14, 2018 MPO Board Meeting Minutes) 02/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Appointment of a New Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Member representing Everglades City OBJECTIVE: For the Board to appoint a new CAC member representing Everglades City. CONSIDERATIONS: Per CAC bylaws, committee vacancies are filled by the MPO Board. Currently, there is a vacancy on the CAC for a representative from the City of Everglades City. Councilwoman Middelstaedt has nominated Ms. Tammie Pernas to fill the vacancy. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board appoint Ms. Pernas as a new CAC member representing Everglades City. Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Application of Ms. Pernas (PDF) 5.B Packet Pg. 22 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 5.B Doc ID: 7917 Item Summary: Appointment of a New Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Member representing Everglades City Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 8:09 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 8:09 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 8:31 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 8:50 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 5.B Packet Pg. 23 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Application of Ms. Pernas (7917 : Appointment of a New Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Member) 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Application of Ms. Pernas (7917 : Appointment of a New Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Member) 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Application of Ms. Pernas (7917 : Appointment of a New Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Member) 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Application of Ms. Pernas (7917 : Appointment of a New Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Member) 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Application of Ms. Pernas (7917 : Appointment of a New Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Member) 02/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Appointment of a New Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member representing the City of Naples OBJECTIVE: For the Board to appoint a new CAC member representing the City of Naples. CONSIDERATIONS: Per CAC bylaws, committee vacancies are filled by the MPO Board. Currently, there is a vacancy on the CAC for a representative from the City of Naples. The City of Naples City Council is voting on the appointment of Ms. Suzanne Cross at their February 6th meeting. Confirmation from the City of Naples will be received prior to the MPO Board taking action on February 8 th. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board appoint Ms Cross as a new CAC member representing the City of Naples contingent upon the Naples City Council confirming the appointment on February 6th. Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Application of Ms. Cross (PDF) 5.C Packet Pg. 29 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 5.C Doc ID: 7918 Item Summary: Appointment of a New Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member representing the City of Naples Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 8:13 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 8:13 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 8:37 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 8:51 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 5.C Packet Pg. 30 5.C.1 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Application of Ms. Cross (7918 : Appointment of a New Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member) 5.C.1 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Application of Ms. Cross (7918 : Appointment of a New Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member) 5.C.1 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Application of Ms. Cross (7918 : Appointment of a New Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member) 5.C.1 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Application of Ms. Cross (7918 : Appointment of a New Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member) 5.C.1 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Application of Ms. Cross (7918 : Appointment of a New Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member) 02/08/2019 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 (PDF) 8.B.1 Packet Pg. 36 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 8.B.1 Doc ID: 7919 Item Summary: Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Chair Report Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 8:18 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 8:18 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 8:55 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 8:58 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 8.B.1 Packet Pg. 37 TAC Committee Chair Report The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met on January 28, 2019 and a quorum was achieved. MPO staff reported that the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council had submitted notice that they did not wish to continue to participate on the TAC as a non-voting member. The MPO Director has reached out to them asking for more information regarding how they would like the MPO to work with them. Agency Reports Victoria Peters reported on FDOT’s revised Tentative Work Program for FY20-24; noting deadline to submit comments is January 30th; and the appointment of Mr. Thibault as the new FDOT Secretary.. Tim Brock, Everglades City rep, questioned whether roll forward amendments had been approved. Ms. Peters said she would find out and report back. Anne McLaughlin reported on the 2019 Dangerous by Design report which staff had distributed to committee members prior to the meeting, noting that the report confirms much of the analysis and supports the policy recommendations in the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Committee Actions • The committee elected Lorraine Lantz, Collier County Transportation Planning, as Chair and Tim Brock, Everglades City, as Vice-Chair • Endorsed Golden Gate Walkable Community Study • Endorsed the Public Participation Plan subject to minor corrections including: updating population figures in the Introduction, acknowledging FDOT in the section entitled Planning Partners, and removing a reference to “snail” mail. • Discussed the revised Tentative Work Program but had no comments other than correcting a spelling error Reports and Presentations • Ms. McLaughlin updated the committee on progress made concerning revisions to the draft Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, focusing on the revised series of analytical maps and revised Chapter 5 – Needs Analysis. Committee members were asked to provide comments within the next 2-3 weeks, and encouraged to do so within 2 weeks so that a final draft can be distributed for review for the February 25 meeting. The next regularly scheduled meeting is on February 25 at 9:30 am. 8.B.1.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: TAC Chair Report (7919 : Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Chair Report) 02/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) 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 (PDF) 8.C.1 Packet Pg. 39 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 8.C.1 Doc ID: 7920 Item Summary: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Chair Report Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 8:24 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 8:24 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 8:43 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 8:53 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 8.C.1 Packet Pg. 40 BPAC Committee Chair Report The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) met on January 22, 2019 and a quorum was achieved. Committee Actions • Mr. Joe Bonness was re-elected as Committee Chair; Mr. Anthony Matonti was elected as Vice-Chair. • Unanimously endorsed the Golden Gate Walkable Community Study. Presentations and Discussions MPO staff gave a monthly update on revisions to the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ; committee discussion followed the staff update. The focus on the monthly update was Chapter 5 – Needs Analysis. Based on positive committee input, staff anticipates bringing a final draft to the committee for endorsement in February. Highlights of the presentation and discussion include: • Continued refinements to the Existing Conditions map • Refinement of Environmental Justice (EJ) methodology and re-analysis of EJ areas based on committee input • Re-analysis of gaps and needs and identification of priority pathway corridors and projects • Additional language and policy recommendations based on Board of County Commissioners adoption of a Complete Streets Policy and FDOT’s Design Manual and Complete Street • Policy recommendations to provide greater flexibility to local jurisdictions • A series of 12 maps that graphically represent the analyses done, the identification of bicycle and pedestrian needs and a first draft existing and proposed bike/ped facilities map The next regularly scheduled meeting is on February 19, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. 8.C.1.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: BPAC Chair Report (7920 : Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Chair Report) 02/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Congestion Management Committee Chair Report OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Congestion Management 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. CMC Chair Report (PDF) 8.D.1 Packet Pg. 42 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 8.D.1 Doc ID: 7922 Item Summary: Congestion Management Committee (CMC) Chair Report Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 8:29 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 8:29 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 8:46 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 8:59 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 8.D.1 Packet Pg. 43 CMC Committee Chair Report The Congestion Management Committee (CMC) met on January 16, 2019 and a quorum was achieved. The committee received agency updates and conducted another detailed review of project applications. Submitting agencies made presentations, followed by question and answer and discussion. The committee ranked the projects in the following order: Project Title Submitting Agency 1. Crayton Rd. & Harbour Dr. Roundabout City of Naples 2. Fiber Optic and FPL Power Project Collier County 3. Travel Time and Performance Measurements Project Collier County 4. Mooring Line Dr. & Crayton Rd. Roundabout City of Naples 5. Golden Gate Pkwy & US 41 Intersection Improvement City of Naples 6. Updated School Flasher System Collier County 7. Vehicle Traffic Count Stations Collier County 8. Bicycle Detection System Project City of Naples 9. Advanced Traffic Control System Collier County 10. Lidar Mapping Equipment for Crash Investigations Lee MPO The project ranking will be reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory Committee. FDOT will review the projects for constructability and eligibility. The final list of projects will be brought to the MPO Board prior to June 2019. 8.D.1.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: CMC Chair Report (7922 : Congestion Management Committee (CMC) Chair Report) 02/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Election of Representatives to Serve on the Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Governing Board for 2019. OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to elect an MPOAC representative and alternate for 2019. CONSIDERATIONS: The administrative rule of the MPOAC provides that “by no later than December 31st of each year, each metropolitan planning organization shall appoint its representative to the MPOAC to serve for the succeeding calendar year.” See MPOAC Letter Requesting Names of Appointees for calendar year 2019, Attachment 1. The tentative dates and locations for the 2019 MPOAC meetings are: April 30, 2019 Orlando, FL July 30, 2019 Orlando, FL October 29, 2019 Orlando, FL The 2018 MPOAC representative was Councilman Reg Buxton. The designee was Commissioner William McDaniel. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: For the MPO Board to elect or re-elect an MPOAC representative and alternate for 2019. Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. MPOAC 2019 Annual Appointment Letter (PDF) 10.A Packet Pg. 45 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 10.A Doc ID: 7926 Item Summary: Election of Representatives to Serve on the Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Governing Board for 2019. Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 8:39 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 8:39 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:06 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:22 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 10.A Packet Pg. 46 10.A.1 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: MPOAC 2019 Annual Appointment Letter (7926 : Election of Representatives to Serve on the MPOAC Governing Board for 2019) 02/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To Adopt the Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study OBJECTIVE: To adopt the Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study. CONSIDERATIONS: A final draft of the study was presented at the May Board and committee meetings. Substantial comments were received from both the committees and Collier County Transportation Planning. The consultant and MPO staff have fully addressed these comments through additional analysis, mapping and writing. The revisions focus on the following: • Clear definition of the most critical routes/streets and segments in Golden Gate • Clarification of maps and text • Distinct listing of potential projects in three priority tiers • Improved analysis of data COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee endorsed the study on January 22, 2019. The Technical Advisory Committee endorsed the study on January 28, 2019. The Citizens Advisory Committee did not have a quorum and was unable to take formal action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the MPO Board adopt the Golden Gate Walkable Community Study. Prepared by: Brandy Otero, MPO Senior Planner ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (PDF) 10.B Packet Pg. 48 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 10.B Doc ID: 7938 Item Summary: Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 10:04 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 10:04 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 10:09 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 10:23 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 10.B Packet Pg. 49 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Executive Summary The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) commissioned the Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study to develop a prioritized list of sidewalk and pedestrian amenity projects which would promote and enhance walkability, bicycle use, transit use, and social equity throughout the community. The study utilized field data collection, community engagement, quantitative and qualitative technical analyses, and best practices to develop and validate prioritized recommendations for a more walkable, safer, and healthier community. When implemented, the recommendations will result in a community where mobility options, safety, social engagement and a “sense of place” are the foundation of the neighborhood. Background In 2008, the Collier MPO, along with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), identified the need to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian mobility options and issues throughout Collier County. The intent was to specifically assess and improve walkability conditions in mobility restricted communities and neighborhoods. As a result, the need for Walkability Studies were identified for Naples Manor, Immokalee, Bayshore, and Golden Gate City. To date, the first three studies (Naples Manor, Immokalee, and Bayshore) have been completed and the results were incorporated into the Collier MPO’s Comprehensive Pathways Plan. The Comprehensive Pathways Plan is used by the BPAC to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian projects for future funding considerations. The study’s results may also be used by Collier County, its cities, Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs), and Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTU) to develop their capital improvement programs. Methodology The study utilized field data collection, community engagement, technical analyses, and best practices to develop a prioritized list of projects. The existing roadway network was documented by type of facility (ex. Major Arterial, Collector, Local Road, etc.) and overlaid on a neighborhood map to identify existing vehicular infrastructure. The existing sidewalk and bicycle network was documented and overlaid on a neighborhood map to identify needs. A Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) was determined based on existing infrastructure. Safety data regarding pedestrian and bicycle accidents was collected, documented, evaluated, and overlaid on a neighborhood map to help identify any areas of concern. Schools, Commercial Areas, Parks, Government Services and Transit Stops were documented and overlaid on a neighborhood map to help identify their roles as pedestrian and bicycle attractors. A public outreach program was initiated to gather input from the community and develop recommendations. Public engagement included: o Three (3) Community workshops o Three (3) Stakeholder meetings o Two (2) Walking audits o One (1) Biking audit o Two (2) Windshield tours o Field observations related to school arrival and dismissal patterns Values were assigned to each segment of the existing and potential sidewalk network for Pedestrian Level of Services (PLOS) scores; proximity to crashes, schools, commercial destinations, parks, and transit; ability to provide connectivity and public support, which includes support from MPO committees. 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Based on the above data, a “Tier Map” and Database were established which identified sidewalk network priorities based upon a quantitative scoring system. This database will be used by the Collier MPO to identify and prioritize future projects. Study Results The initial analysis studied the current conditions in Golden Gate City to develop a PLOS score. It measured how comfortable, efficient and effective walking in Golden Gate City is by evaluating the following five factors: Directness, Continuity, Street Crossings, Visual Interest and Amenities, and Security. Scores range from “A” (Most Effective/Desirable) to “F” (Least Effective/Desirable). The analysis revealed that Golden Gate City has an overall PLOS of E (The results of this initial PLOS analysis are shown on a map on the following page). These results were not surprising based on the lack of existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure within the Golden Gate City community, the geometric layout of the roadway grid and the series of canals throughout the neighborhood which restrict connectivity and access. A secondary analysis was conducted to establish a priority list of sidewalk projects within the community which would be based on both the greatest need and benefit. The analysis factored in PLOS scores; proximity to crashes, schools, commercial destinations, parks, and transit; and public input. The results of the study demonstrated a significant need for sidewalk infrastructure in Golden Gate City. The report documents the data used in the study, public input, and methodology used to establish project “Tiers.” Projects were ranked as Tier 1, 2, and 3 based on their current condition and greatest value to the public. The results of the project ranking are shown on a map at the end of this section. •Tier 1 Projects were given the highest priority based on their benefit to the community •Tier 2 Projects are instrumental in completing a continuous sidewalk network throughout the community. •Tier 3 Projects will enhance overall walkability within the community. Note: The detailed scoring matrix used to establish project tiers is included in Appendix D of this report. In addition, project recommendations include ten (10) projects for further consideration that are relatively inexpensive and easily implemented which address safety issues identified by the public. 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE SW 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE S W 18th AVE SW5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AV E S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW 52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea Level of Service A B C D E F Level of Service - OverallGolden Gate CommunityNaples, FloridaNorth Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Community Center Golden Gate Community Center Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Grace Place Community Center Grace Place Community Center US Post Oce US Post Oce St. John NeumannCatholic High SchoolSt. John NeumannCatholic High School Golden GateHigh SchoolGolden GateHigh School Mike DavisElementaryMike DavisElementary Golden TerraceSouthGolden TerraceSouth Golden TerraceNorthGolden TerraceNorth Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryGolden GateElementary Golden GateMiddle SchoolGolden GateMiddle School St. Elizabeth SetonCatholic SchoolSt. Elizabeth SetonCatholic School 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAY55th TER SWSanta Barbara BLVDSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW49th ST SW31st AVE SW 27th CT S W 25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY43rd LN SW51st TER SWAtoll CT 53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY 18th CT SW 30th AVE S W 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE SW 18th AVE SW 27th PL SW 5 3 r d T E R SW26th AVE S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW23rd PL SW 52nd TER SW28th PL SW 23rd CT SW Washington LN 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW Heritage CIR Jefferson LN 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW43rd ST SW22nd AVE SW 42nd ST SWHemingway CIR 42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Coral Palms L N Lucerne RD28th CT SW 43rd TER SWSunnyland LN Heming w a y L N E 41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SWLaurel Ridge LN 54th ST SW41st TER SW41st TER SW17th PL SW 41st ST SW51st ST SW23rd PL SW 45th ST SWTropical WAY25th PL SW 44th TER SW42nd ST SW20th PL S W 18th AVE SW 26th PL SW 19th P L S W 31st PL SW 21st PL SW 21st AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 26th P L S W 19th CT SW 55th TER SW22nd AVE SW 19th P L S W 53rd ST SW23rd CT SW 25th AVE SW 16th PL SW 28th PL SW 50th TER SW54th ST SW30th PL SW54th TER SW46th TER SW27th PL SW 54th TER SW52nd LN SW55th ST SW22nd PL SW 46th ST SW41st ST SW5 2 n d T E R SW 18th C T S W 32nd AVE SW44th ST SW43rd TER SW26th AVE S W Santa Barbara BLVD17th AVE SW 50th ST SW18th AVE SW 44th ST SW 5 0 t h TER SW 23rd AVE SW 28th AVE SW51st TER SW28th AVE SW 19th CT SW 49th ST SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW42nd ST SW21st AVE S W 20th PL SW45th TER SW17th AVE SW 28th PL SW 16th PL SW 46th ST SW22nd AVE SW 54th ST SW 5 3 r d S T SW43rd ST SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 17th AVE SW 19th AVE SW 19th PL SW 20th AVE SW Toucan ALY44th TER SW17th PL SW 45th ST SW25th CT SW 50th ST SW52nd ST SW41st TER SW20th PL SW StudyArea Funded_Projects Sidewalk Tier TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3Sidewalk One Side Sidewalk Both Sides Tier Needs Map Golden Gate Community Naples, FloridaNorth Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Table of Contents Executive Summary Background Methodology Study Results Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1 Background .................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 2 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 2 Road Network ...................................................................................................................... 4 Points of Interest and Key Destinations ............................................................................... 4 Multimodal Network ............................................................................................................. 9 Transit ............................................................................................................................... 11 Safety ................................................................................................................................ 14 Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 19 Methodology ............................................................................................. 23 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 23 PLOS Analysis ........................................................................................................... 23 Facility Analysis .......................................................................................................... 36 Public Engagement .................................................................................. 38 Recommendations ................................................................................... 39 Recommended Golden Gate City Sidewalk Improvements Projects .......................... 47 Short-Term/Mid-Term Projects for Implementation/Consideration ............................. 52 Recommendations by Type ........................................................................................ 53 Appendices Appendix A: Additional Plans Review Appendix B: Public Engagement Events Appendix C: Fact Sheets Appendix D: Golden Gate City Sidewalk Evaluation Scoring Matrix 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Introduction The Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study assesses the pedestrian experience (walkability) within the community today by reviewing existing conditions and working directly with stakeholders and members of the community that live and work there. Understanding the mobility options available today, and how the community currently travels, provides a foundation for the study. The analysis is based on both quantitative and qualitative factors which are used to prioritize projects which will ultimately improve walkability within Golden Gate City. This study does more than provide justification for establishing priorities for sidewalk network improvements, it brings an awareness of the mobility and safety needs of the community. This increased awareness will help garner support and build a case for expedited implementation of the required infrastructure improvements. The report focuses on practical steps to enhance the most common needs of walking and bicycling trips as identified by public input and best practices research. Needs include Safe Routes to School; First- and Last-Mile walking and bicycling links to transit; and how to reach common destinations by foot or pedal for shopping, school and community life. The two main goals of this study are: 1)To provide Collier County agencies and organizations an efficient and effective ways to integrate the pedestrian needs of the Golden Gate City community, especially children, into their prioritized, funded projects. 2)To update current policies and practices to better meet the mobility needs of Golden Gate City residents seeking healthier lives and a deeper sense of community. With such a high concentration of people who rely on walking or bicycling for transportation, the solutions pioneered in the Golden Gate City community, once enacted, can be studied, amended (if necessary) and applied to other parts of Collier County to entice a healthier and more environmentally friendly way of life. Creating a livable community requires looking at it through an “8 to 80” lens. A place that is comfortable and safe for an 8-year-old to bike or an 80-year-old to walk will work well for the community as a whole. Purpose This report documents the information gathering, analysis, and results of the Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study. It contains a description of the existing conditions within the study area, area demographics, public outreach events, a Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) analysis, a Facility Analysis, a prioritized “Tiered” list of projects, and additional recommendations for pedestrian infrastructure improvements in Golden Gate City. This document is intended to be used to coordinate and schedule pedestrian infrastructure improvements through the Collier MPO’s planning process and provide an informative and defendable resource for potential grant opportunities. Walkability studies are partially, but not fully quantifiable, so quantitative data gathered for the study must be supplemented by the public engagement process. In addition, the study team must also observe what people in the community do to overcome the lack of walking and bicycling infrastructure. Combining these three data sets WALKABLE COMMUNITY A walkable community is defined as having compact residential development, a mix of land uses, a well-connected street network, bus stops, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and mixed-use paths. It is a community where one can safely and efficiently get to the store, school, park, or other destinations within the neighborhood without the use of an automobile. Walkable Community Studies Collier MPO website 1 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) and analyzing the information gives rise to the studies recommendations. Understanding how all people in Golden Gate City (drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists) use their transportation infrastructure will bring clarity to the real issues and inspire the most successful solutions. Background Golden Gate City is a four-square mile community located east of downtown Naples in Collier County. It is a safe, diverse, family-oriented community that offers immediate access to education, parks, shopping, and services within a vibrant, walkable community. The City was platted for development in the 1960s. Small residential lots line the curvilinear roads with commercial and governmental services clustered on the major and minor arterials. The noncontiguous layout of the community is mainly auto-centric. Unfortunately, the original development plans did not include pedestrian amenities like sidewalks and walking paths. Although the County has constructed sidewalks segments within the community, particularly around the many schools in Golden Gate City, the majority of streets do not have adjacent sidewalks to provide residents a safe and efficient means of travel. Despite a lack of infrastructure, the rates of walking and biking in Golden Gate City are very high. Bike corrals at schools are full, sidewalks overflow at times, and crossing guards are busy. However, many residents walk and bike around the community on a daily basis not always because they choose to, but often because it is their only mode of transportation. In 2008, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) identified the need to explore bicycle and pedestrian mobility issues throughout Collier County and specifically assess and improve walkability conditions in specific communities and neighborhoods. Walkable Community Studies were identified for Naples Manor, Immokalee, Bayshore, and Golden Gate City. To date, the first three studies (Naples Manor, Immokalee, Bayshore) have been completed and the results were incorporated into the Collier MPO’s Comprehensive Pathways Plan. The Comprehensive Pathways Plan is used by the BPAC to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian projects for future funding considerations. The study’s results may also be used by Collier County, its cities, Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs), and Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTU) to develop their capital improvement programs. In 2017, the Collier MPO initiated the Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study. The unique challenge of the Study is not how to encourage its residents to venture out on foot, it is how to make sure residents are comfortable and safe when they are traveling on foot or bicycle. The study was performed with this challenge at the top of the list of project goals. Existing Conditions Study Area The Golden Gate City Walkable Community study area (Exhibit 1 shown on the following page) encompasses the infrastructure within the borders of the four-square mile community. The boundaries of the study area are Collier Boulevard (CR 951) to the east, Golden Gate Canal to the south, Santa Barbara Boulevard to the west, and Green Boulevard to the north. 2 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE S W 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE S W 18th AVE SW 5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AVE S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW 52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea Project Study Area Golden Gate Community Naples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study 3 Exhibit 1 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Road Network The study area contains a total of 76 miles of roadways. The majority are classified as local roads and have a typical cross-section of two travel lanes, no sidewalks, no curbs, and open drainage. The table on the right shows the breakdown of the roadway classifications (in miles) in the road network. Note: Most of the roads operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS), although Golden Gate Parkway (the main east-west arterial) is expected to be deficient by 2026. Points of Interest and Key Destinations Located within the study area are a variety of attractors and destinations which generate trips and dictate the need for safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The proximity of residences to destinations such as schools, parks, community centers, government facilities and commercial areas determine trip length and mobility options. This section identifies key destinations, provides details on usage and shows where the destinations are concentrated in the Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 on the following pages. Knowing where the destinations are located helps determine future needs for pedestrian and bicycling connections. The proximity of destinations to roadway/network segments was used to determine a priority matrix of needs. Each destination was shown with a buffer of 1/8, 1/4 and 1/2-mile radius. That correlation is further explained in the analysis section of this report. Schools There are seven schools located within the study area boundary and two schools* immediately south of the study area. Golden Gate Elementary Golden Gate Elementary Intermediate Golden Terrace Elementary North Golden Terrace Elementary South Golden Gate Middle School St. Elizabeth Seaton Catholic School St. John Neumann Catholic High School Golden Gate High School* Mike Davis Elementary School* The two elementary schools are each split into two campuses. Golden Gate Elementary has a larger campus to the north of 20th Place SW for kindergarten through second grade. A second campus to the west and south of 20th Place SW is for third through fifth grade. The campuses are separated by a canal running north and south. A pedestrian bridge was built over the canal and adjacent to 20th Place SW for the students and parents traveling between the two schools using Safe Routes to School funds. Golden Terrace Elementary is organized in a similar way. The primary campus is on 44th Terrace SW, and the secondary campus is about two blocks away, also on 44th Terrace SW. Observations were made during morning drop-off and afternoon dismissal at Golden Gate Elementary, Golden Terrace Elementary, Golden Gate Middle School, and Golden Gate High School to better understand how students and parents access the schools. Many students walk and bicycle to school or are accompanied by their parents and sometimes younger siblings in strollers. Roadway Miles by Classification Total Collector Local Arterial* Service Road 76 3.9 61.7 8.0 3.3 Morning car line at Golden Terrace Elementary’ s north campus 4 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE S W 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE SW 18th AVE SW5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AVE S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW 25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea 1/8 Mile Buffer 1/4 Mile Buffer 1/2 Mile Buffer School Parcel Exhibit 2School Proximity Map Golden Gate Community Naples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Community Center Golden Gate Community Center Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Grace Place Community Center Grace Place Community Center US Post Oce US Post Oce St. John NeumannCatholic High SchoolSt. John NeumannCatholic High School Golden GateHigh SchoolGolden GateHigh School Mike DavisElementaryMike DavisElementary Golden TerraceSouthGolden TerraceSouth Golden TerraceNorthGolden TerraceNorth Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryGolden GateElementary Golden GateMiddle SchoolGolden GateMiddle School St. Elizabeth SetonCatholic SchoolSt. Elizabeth SetonCatholic School 5 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Commercial Locations A variety of shopping centers are located along Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard. Some are larger developments while others are strip developments. There is a large chain grocery store (Winn Dixie), between Golden Gate Parkway and Coronado Parkway. A large commercial development used to be home to a Kmart, but is now vacant, leaving an opportunity for redevelopment that can serve the community. There are many other small grocery stores that meet the daily needs of Golden Gate City residents. These are mostly along Golden Gate Parkway and the northern section of Collier Boulevard. Government Services Most government services are located in the heart of Golden Gate City on Golden Gate Parkway between Coronado Parkway and Sunshine Boulevard. This location is home to a fire station, sheriff’s office, county tax collector, and public library. There is also a post office located on the corner of Collier Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. Parks There are two large parks in Golden Gate City: Wheels BMX Skate Park on Sunshine Boulevard adjacent to the community center and the Golden Gate Community Park on Santa Barbara Boulevard just south of the Golden Gate Canal (outside of the study area). This park’s location makes walking or biking to the park difficult, and its borders (the canal, a major road, and the interstate to its south) isolate the park from the community. There are also two small neighborhood parks within Golden Gate City; Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park and Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park. Community Centers There are two Community Centers in Golden Gate City. The Golden Gate Community Center serves as a town square. It is a place where the community comes together for public meetings, arts events, festivals, farmers markets, and food assistance programs. Grace Place for Children and Families offers educational programs including early childhood education, youth education, adult education, P.A.C.T. (parent and child together) time, and family literacy activities. The Friday Food Pantry generates significant activity and traffic of all modes in the northeast section of Golden Gate City. According to its website, Grace Place served more than 800 families in 2017, and the Friday Food Pantry served 2,500 families. Rita Eaton Park is a passive neighborhood park The Golden Gate Community Center is a popular destination for residents of Golden Gate City Commercial sites on Golden Gate Parkway are strip malls located close to the road Government services are centrally located in Golden Gate City 6 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE S W 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE S W 18th AVE SW 5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AVE S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW 52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea 1/8 Mile Buffer 1/4 Mile Buffer 1/2 Mile Buffer Commercial Buildings Exhibit 3Commercial Proximity Map Golden Gate Community Naples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study 7 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE S W 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE SW 18th AVE SW5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AVE S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW 25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea 1/8 Mile Buffer 1/4 Mile Buffer 1/2 Mile Buffer Community Center / Park Exhibit 4Community Centers and Parks Proximity Map Golden Gate CommunityNaples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Community Center Golden Gate Community Center Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Grace Place Community Center Grace Place Community Center US Post Oce US Post Oce 8 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Multimodal Network The study area’s multimodal network consists of sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit service. There are no multi- use paths or pathways. The existing sidewalk and bike lane network is shown in Exhibit 5 on the following page. Sidewalks In the study area, approximately 36 percent of road miles have some sidewalk coverage. There are 4.3 miles of roadways with sidewalks on both sides and 22.9 miles of road with a sidewalk on one side. Roadways with sidewalks on both sides include; Coronado Boulevard, Sunshine Boulevard, Golden Gate Parkway (majority), and Green Boulevard (Santa Barbara Boulevard to Sunshine Boulevard). Bike Lanes Approximately 4 percent of road miles within the study area have some bike lane coverage. There are 1.2 miles of roads with bike lanes on both sides, and 1.8 miles of roads with bike lanes on one side. Bike lanes are found on Hunter Boulevard from Coronado Parkway to Santa Barbara Boulevard, Santa Barbara Boulevard from Coronado Parkway to the south study area limits, Tropicana Boulevard from 25th Place SW south to 32nd Avenue SW. Multi-use Trails There are no multi-use trails within the study area. Multi-use trails, pathways, or greenways are typically eight to 12-foot wide paved paths separated from the roadway by a buffer. They are ideal for people on foot as well as on bicycles. Multi-use trails can be used for both recreation and transportation and are ideal for a walkable community. Planned Multimodal Improvements The 2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) lists the following five multimodal improvement projects within the study area. These projects will add to the existing bicycle and pedestrian network in Golden Gate City. Funded Multimodal Projects Project Location/ Description FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Green Boulevard from Santa Barbara to Sunshine Boulevard; Five-foot bike lanes (both directions) $226K for Preliminary Engineering $1.1M Construction 49th Terrace SW from 20th Place SW to 19th Place SW; Sidewalk $183K for Construction Golden Gate Parkway from Tropicana to 50th Street SW and Santa Barbara from Cedar Tree Lane to Copper Leaf Lane; Sidewalk $610K for Construction 51st Street SW from 20th Place SW to 20th Court SW, 51st Terrace SW from 22nd Avenue SW to 20th Court SW, and 20th Court SW from Hunter Boulevard to 50 Terrace SW; Sidewalk $280K for Construction Sunshine Boulevard from 17th Ave SW to Green Boulevard; Sidewalk $517K for Construction 9 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE S W 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE S W 18th AVE SW 5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AVE S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW 25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea Sidewalk One Side Sidewalk Both Sides Bike LanesFunded Projects Exhibit 5Exis�ng Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Golden Gate CommunityNaples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study 10 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Transit Collier Area Transit (CAT) serves the Golden Gate City area with 8 transit routes and 37 bus stops. Although CAT has a total of 20 transit routes, the ridership of the routes serving the study area (see below) accounts for 35 percent of CAT’s system-wide ridership (2017 Transit Development Plan). This statistic helps validate the need for pedestrian infrastructure within Golden Gate City servicing the “First- and Last-Mile” walking and bicycling links to transit. The figure above shows all CAT routes (labeled with the route number) and their relative share of ridership; the routes serving Golden Gate City are marked with an asterisk. Transit Coverage The transit routes provide access for residents to destinations and services throughout the County. It is important to understand how the transit system can impact pedestrian and bicyclist needs in Golden Gate City. Nearly every transit passenger is either a pedestrian or bicyclist before and after riding the bus. Often it is the space between the transit stop and the final destination, the last mile of a trip or the crossing of a busy arterial, that can lack dedicated facilities to connect passengers. Connecting the transit stops to final destinations, such as grocery stores or governement centers, with safe and comfortable facilities, including crosswalks, will fill in the “first mile and last mile” gaps. Further study is recommended to concretely understand where passengers may experience barriers and safety issues when trying to access transit as well as how transit vehicles may impact other vehicles on the road, such as with frequent stops in the travel lanes and by creating visual barriers. Route 15 is CAT’s most utilized route. Route 15 serves the Golden Gate City area making connections at both the CAT Operations and Administration Facility (located just south of the Golden Gate City study area), and the Intermodal Transfer Facility at the Collier County Government Center (near Airport Pulling Road and Tamiami Trail). Route 15 provides fixed route service seven days a week. The route has demonstrated steady ridership consistent with a maturing fixed route service. Route 16 serves the Golden Gate City area making connections at both the CAT Operations and Administration Facility and the Intermodal Transfer Facility. Route 16 provides fixed route service six days a week. Route 19 currently connects Immokalee with Naples, making connections at the Intermodal Transfer Facility and Immokalee Health Department; the route includes stops along Collier Boulevard. Route 19 provides fixed route service seven days a week. Route 19 has the same origin and destination as Route 28 but travels on different roads. Ridership of Routes Serving Study Area Route FY16 Ridership 15 113,238 16 56,673 19 67,502 20 10,133 25 38,367 26 8,955 27 27,114 28 22,683 Total 344,665 15* 16* 19* 20*25*26* 27* 28*1112 13 14 17 18 21 22 23 24 121 CAT Routes' Ridership (FY16) 11 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Route 20 serves the Pine Ridge Road area making connections at the CAT Operations and Administration Facility, and on Santa Barbara Boulevard in Golden Gate City. Route 20 provides fixed route service seven days a week with limited frequency. Route 25 serves the Golden Gate Parkway and Goodlette-Frank Road corridors. Route 25 provides fixed route service seven days a week, with limited service on Sundays. Route 26 serves the Pine Ridge Road and Golden Gate City area, including Naples Boulevard, Santa Barbara Boulevard, Coronado Parkway and Clam Pass Park. Route 26 provides fixed route service seven days a week, with limited hours throughout the day. Route 27 is a new route that starts at the Golden Gate Community Center and provides access to Immokalee Road, the Sun ‘n’ Fun Lagoon, and connects with Routes 11, 12, and LinC at the Creekside Super Stop. Route 27 provides fixed route service seven days a week. Route 28 is a new route that serves Oil Well Road and Everglades Boulevard as well as Collier Boulevard in the Golden Gate City study area. Route 28 was created after a reduction in service hours to Route 19. The origins and destinations for the two routes are the same, but the routes travel on different roads. Bus Stops and Amenities In Golden Gate City, bus shelters exist along Tropicana Boulevard, Sunshine Boulevard, and Golden Gate Parkway. A covered shelter provides a comfortable place to await the bus, but it also allows those walking and bicycling a place to pull over to either rest, escape from the heat or avoid a sudden Florida rain storm. As of March 2018, 12 enhanced bus shelters have been designed for installation throughout Collier County, including one on Sunshine Boulevard. Each will include the following shelter infrastructure; bench, bike rack, trash receptacle and a standard ADA compliant boarding and alighting area. Note: Opportunities should be evaluated for additional bus shelter locations in Golden Gate City to enhance the ridership experience. CAT routes within and adjacent to the study area 12 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE S W 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE S W 18th AVE SW 5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AVE S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW 52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW 553 542 541 540539 315 314313 310 309 308 296 295 294 276 218 217 216 215 214 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 206 205 202 201 199 198 197 196 195 194 193 192 191 190 189 188 187 186 184 GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea n£BusStops 1/8 Mile Buffer 1/4 Mile Buffer 1/2 Mile Buffer Exhibit 6Collier Area Transit Proximity Map Golden Gate Community Naples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study 13 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Safety This study looked at available crash data to determine if there are any accident patterns that reveal deficiencies in the walking network that would impact pedestrian safety. Analysis included a review of crashes over a five- year-period, as well as discussions about personal experience and perceptions with residents and other stakeholders at the public engagement workshops. The evaluation determined that the accidents were mostly random as opposed to “Dangerous by Design.” Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes There were a total of 75 bicyclist and pedestrian crashes reported in Golden Gate City between January 2012 and January 2017. Crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists made up 13 percent of all crashes. There were two fatalities during that time period: a 20-year-old cyclist was struck on Collier Boulevard and 23rd Avenue, and a 40-year-old pedestrian was struck on Santa Barbara Boulevard at Cedar Tree Lane. The cyclist was hit during daylight hours; the pedestrian was hit at 1:00 am in an unlit area. It’s noteworthy that both fatal crashes occurred on roadways with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. A total of six crashes resulted in severe or incapacitating injury. Of those, three involved cyclists and three involved pedestrians. Of the two cyclists whose age is known, one was 23 and the other 59 years old. Of the two pedestrians whose ages were recorded, one was 29 and the other 55 years old. Three of the crashes causing severe injuries occurred during daylight; two occurred after dark in lighted locations, and one occurred in an unlit location. Three occurred at non-intersection locations: two at an intersection, and one involving a 55- year-old pedestrian occurred in a parking lot, which was attributed to “improper backing” on the part of the driver. Contributing causes were identified for two of the other crashes: one cited the driver for failing to yield the right of way and the other for operating a motor vehicle in a careless or negligent manner. The relatively small number of crashes involving serious injuries and fatalities is likely due to the limitations on the driving speeds due to posted speed limits, intersection spacing and enforcement. It is encouraging to note that no crashes involving children and youth under the age of 18 were reported during that time period. Safety within School Zones An analysis of the current crash history of the Golden Gate Community does not indicate an accident problem within the vicinity of schools. However, school administrators, parents and other members of the public remained concerned about safety for children walking and biking around schools. Streets near schools perceived to be unsafe due to a lack of sidewalks and bike lanes can inhibit kids from walking and biking. School safety was a message heard at all the public engagement events. It should be noted that when the perception of safety was discussed during outreach events in January 2018, one parent walking her son to school cited cars speeding near the elementary school and failing to stop at stop signs as reasons why she feels unsafe as a pedestrian. Therefore, providing safe driving, bicycling, and walking environments within one-half mile of each school is a major emphasis of this report. Walking and bicycling to school for most residents is a way of life. Besides being the only available options for many students, it provides social and physical health advantages. Crashes involving bicycles or pedestrians, 2012 – 2017 Mode Crashes with No Injuries Crashes with Possible Injuries Crashes with Non- Incapacitating Injuries Crashes with Incapacitating Injuries Crashes with Fatalities Other Crashes Total Crashes 2012-2017 Bicycle 9 1 1 3 1 31 46 Pedestrian 3 8 1 3 1 13 29 TOTAL 12 9 2 6 2 44 75 14 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) bcdqf bcdqf bcdqf bcdqf bcdqf bcdqf bcdqf bcdqf bcdqf bcdqf bcdqf ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© bcdqf ¡© bcdqf ¡© ¡© bcdqf ¡©¡© ¡© bcdqf bcdqf bcdqf ¡© bcdqf ¡© bcdqf ¡© ¡© ¡© bcdqf ¡© bcdqf¡© ¡© ¡© bcdqf bcdqf ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© bcdqf ¡© bcdqf bcdqf bcdqf ¡© ¡© ¡© bcdqf ¡© bcdqf bcdqf Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE S W 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE S W 18th AVE SW 5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AVE S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW 52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea ¡©Bicycle Crash Reported bcdqf Pedestrian Crash Reported Exhibit 7aBicycle / Pedestrian Reported Crash Map Golden Gate CommunityNaples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study 15 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) In addition, Golden Gate City’s schools also serve as significant gathering places for many after school activities. This adds to the benefits of providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities routes to schools. The community at large will enjoy the benefits of a healthier lifestyle and increased public safety within their neighborhood. Exhibit 7a on the previous page shows the locations of concentrations of bicycle and pedestrian crashes where future Road Safety Audits would be an appropriate next step in analysis. Those locations, shown in Exhibit 7b as a Concentration Map or “Heat Map,” on the following page include: Golden Gate Parkway and Coronado Blvd Golden Gate Parkway and Sunshine Blvd Sunshine Blvd between 18th SW and Sunset Road Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Blvd Santa Barbara Blvd between Westport Lane and 17th Ave SW/Cedar Tree Lane Additionally, missing crosswalks were noted at the following locations and could contribute to safety issues: Hunter Boulevard and Coronado Boulevard 23rd Avenue SW and Sunshine Boulevard 23rd Avenue SW and 49th Terrace SW Pedestrian Safety and Crash Data. It should be noted that pedestrian safety does not always correlate directly with data regarding crashes and geographic specific solutions. Decades of detailed national reviews of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes by the U.S. DOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration reveal that many of these crash events are similar. •Are mostly random, especially on local streets (Exception “Dangerous by Design”) •Increase three-fold at night due to poor lighting, incapacitated and fatigued drivers, and higher numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists •Often roadway designs, posted speed limits, and conditions invite motorists to drive with low beam headlamps which limits visibility. •Pedestrians and bicyclists in dark clothing add to accidents since they can only be successfully detected by motorists at speeds below 30 mph. •Aging drivers and aging pedestrians increase the likelihood of crash events. •On higher speed roads (especially postings of 40 mph or higher) the crash numbers, severity, and likelihood of severe and fatal crashes go up exponentially. Speed Kills! An overall reduction in speed and speeding will bring down not only the probability of a future crash, it will reduce the severity of a crash when it does occur. Lower speed limits and separated pedestrian and bicycle facilities will lead to more people feeling safe and will therefore increase walking and bicycling trips. As more people walk and bicycle, all crashes go down, including crashes of motorists. 16 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Community Health While the focus of safety is typically on crashes, safety should also consider the general health benefits found in communities where walking and bicycling is supported and prevalent. The public health community recognizes that lack of physical activity is a major contributor to the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by heart attacks and strokes. This number dwarfs the 32,675 total deaths nationwide due to motor vehicle crashes and the relatively small 4,884 pedestrian deaths in 2014. In fact, the number of deaths in 2000 caused by poor diet and physical inactivity increased by approximately 66,000, accounting for about 15.2 percent of the total number of deaths. Promoting walking and bicycle trips with safe infrastructure will result in a healthier lifestyle for Golden Gate City residents. Pedestrian Lighting One of the most frequent comment topics heard at the outreach events in January 2018 was the poor lighting conditions for pedestrians. This comment came from residents and stakeholders throughout the study area, and many stated that it is the number one hurdle that prevents them from walking in the evenings. While Florida Power and Light maintains many streetlights in the area, observations and interactions with residents confirmed they are not adequate to support the needs of the community. The Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU), maintains decorative landscaping lights along Tropicana Boulevard, but the lights illuminate portions of a planted median and not where pedestrians are walking. Exhibit 7b: Concentrations of Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes 17 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Note: The residents of Golden Gate City may benefit from a Lighting Study, which would evaluate existing conditions and make specific recommendations for supplemental lighting in areas where visibility was limited or below proper lighting standards. This topic is discussed further in the Pedestrian Level of Service section of the report. Conclusion A review of the crash data associated with this study area determined most crashes involving people walking and biking occurred on higher speed, higher volume roads like Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard. While this report isn’t a full safety analysis, a cursory look at the data doesn’t reveal patterns that suggest the lack of walking and biking infrastructure in Golden Gate City is contributing to the crashes that appeared in historic reports. The available crash data was utilized in the analysis portion of this report and aided in the prioritization of needed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. A full safety analysis, including interviews with regular users of the network, may reveal other “warning” patterns. For example, anecdotal evidence may reveal many near-misses at a particular location at school dismissal. A detailed study may reveal that many people choose to take a longer, safer route to their destinations in an effort to avoid a missing crosswalk or poor lighting. These experiences do not show up in crash reports. Imperfect Crash Reports. Crash reports from law enforcement agencies have traditionally been the source of bicycle and pedestrian crash statistics. While these reports provide significant information they have also been referred to as the “tip of the iceberg” because they are often limited to events that occur on a public roadway and exclude events that occur in parking lots, driveways, on sidewalks and on private roads. Other factors that contribute to the under reporting include the presence and/or severity of any injuries; whether an insurance claim is filed; and whether those involved wish to not report the crash. A literature review done by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determined that only 60 to 75 percent of hospitalized victims of pedestrian and bicycle crashes were identified in official motor vehicle crash files. The report also found that for persons receiving emergency room treatment but not hospitalization, the reported crash percentage ranged from 50 to 60 percent. A study done by Elvik and Mysen found that 95 percent of all fatal pedestrian and bicycle crashes are captured in official crash data. However, the percent of reported crashes declined dramatically with decreasing injury severity to as low as 25 percent of all crashes. A similar study found that bicyclists who were hospitalized or killed were 1.4 times more likely to be reported in official state crash data than bicyclists who received emergency room treatment but who were not admitted to the hospital. -excerpt from Existing Conditions Analysis prepared by Collier MPO (Eric Ortman, author) for Bike/Ped Master Plan Update, 2018 18 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Land Use Golden Gate City has a relatively mixed land use composition. The following land use designations (shown in Exhibit 8) help planners understand where people are likely to walk and bike (commercial areas are destinations as are schools and parks, for example); they are also policy tools that can be used to help encourage a more walkable community by: 1.Developing destinations in proximity to or within residential areas 2.Promoting higher density These polices would contribute to Golden Gate City being an active and walkable community, within the land use designations. Exhibit 8: Golden Gate City Future Land Use Designations Urban-Mixed Use District. This district is intended to accommodate various residential and commercial land uses including single-family, multi-family, duplex, and mixed-use. High Density Residential Subdistrict. To encourage higher density residential and promote mixed uses in close proximity to Activity Centers, these residential zoned areas permit up to 12 dwelling units per acre. Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict. The primary purposes of the Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict are to encourage redevelopment along Golden Gate Parkway, to improve the physical appearance of the area, and create a viable downtown district for the residents of Golden Gate City and Golden Gate Estates. 19 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Mixed-use Activity Center Subdistrict. The Activity Center designation of the Future Land Use Map is intended to accommodate commercial zoning within the Urban Designated Area. Activity Centers are intended to be mixed-use in character. Golden Gate Urban Commercial In-fill Subdistrict. This subdistrict is located at the southwest quadrant of CR 951 and Golden Gate Parkway. Commercial uses are limited to low intensity and intermediate commercial uses. Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict. The intent of the Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict is to provide Golden Gate City with an area that is primarily commercial, with an allowance for certain conditional uses. The types of uses permitted within this subdistrict are low intensity retail, offices, personal services, and institutional. Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict. The provisions of this subdistrict are intended to provide Golden Gate City with a viable professional office district with associated small-scale retail. Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. The primary purpose of the Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict is to encourage redevelopment along Collier Boulevard in order to improve the physical appearance of the area. This subdistrict is intended to allow a mix of uses, including heavy commercial within those areas presently zoned C-5. Redevelopment The Golden Gate City Redevelopment and Renewal Study is currently underway. It indicates a compelling community-wide desire for redevelopment within the existing commercial areas. Collier County is responding to this desire by: 1.Taking ownership of Golden Gate City utilities 2.Amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to streamline land use designations and to add job- promoting uses 3.Amending the land development code to improve development standards and process 4.Submitting Golden Gate City for federal designation as an Opportunity Zone. This designation will create a funding source to attract and retain businesses and improve infrastructure. 5.Considering the establishment of an Economic Development ordinance 6.Studying the development potential of County-owned land adjacent to Golden Gate Parkway A Focus Area for redevelopment along Golden Gate Parkway has been identified and is shown below. Exhibit 9: Redevelopment and Renewal Focus Area Boundary along Golden Gate Parkway 20 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) The Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy also affects Golden Gate City. The report covers three diverse geographic areas: the eastern or rural estates west of CR 951, the western or urban estates west of CR 951, and Golden Gate City. More than 300 people took part in a series of workshops for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy, still in development, and many are volunteering to stay active with planning. Some of the results include: According to a community questionnaire, 63 percent of the residents never walk. Five percent reported walking monthly, 8 percent weekly, and 22 percent walk daily. Eighty percent of the population has never used the local transit service. School related trips are higher than the Florida or national average, with about 37 percent of students reported walking or biking to school. Traffic calming, sidewalks, and bike routes/lanes are the highest priority improvements sought by participants. The following were identified as things that would most improve the future of Golden Gate City: Code enforcement Safety of pedestrian, bicyclists Infrastructure Create a CRA Reduce public transit headways Create a community trolley Lighting Preserve green space Socioeconomic Data In addition to understanding the infrastructure in Golden Gate City, it is important to know who lives in the community. Where do they work, how do they get there, what are their economic circumstances? The answers to these questions help further the knowledge of who might want and need to walk and bike and what they require for infrastructure. Golden Gate City is a Census Designated Place whose boundaries match the study area boundaries. The following socioeconomic data came from the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Update and/or from the American Community Survey Five-Year estimates. Population There are approximately 29,000 people living in the Golden Gate City study area. Approximately 8,220 or 28 percent of the population are children under the age of 18. For comparison, only 18.3 percent of Collier County’s population is children under the age of 18. Conversely, approximately 2,525 or 8.7 percent of the people living in Golden Gate City are 65 years old and older compared to Collier County’s population which indicates 29.6 percent in that age bracket. There is a large and diverse Hispanic or Latino population in Golden Gate City. Sixty percent, or nearly 17,500 people, in Golden Gate City identify as either Hispanic or Latino. Collier County’s Hispanic or Latino community makes up 26 percent of the County’s total population. There is a total of 7,109 households, with an average size of 4.3 people per household. The average household size in Collier County is 2.4 people. Jobs/Workforce There are approximately 4,850 jobs in the Golden Gate City study area, compared to almost 15,000 workers. Table 5 shows the breakdown of the mode of transportation employees use to get to work and how that compares to Collier County. 21 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Golden Gate City Percent Collier County Percent Workers 16 years and over 17,925 -- 141,497 -- Car, truck, van, drive alone 12,814 71 104,891 74 Carpooled 3,806 21 16,103 11.4 Public transportation 251 1.7 3,822 2.7 Walked 57 0.4 2,125 1.5 Other 997 5.6 14,265 10.2 Source: US Census Bureau 2012-2016 ACS 5-year estimate Note: The data above does not reflect the field observations and documented CAT ridership numbers of many people walking, bicycling, and using transit. Without travel surveys, the study team speculates that people in Golden Gate City walk, bike, and use transit to get places other than to work. In addition, the numbers indicate residents may not be completing Census reports accurately. Zero Vehicle Households Of the 7,109 households in Golden Gate City, 967 do not have a car. Members of these “zero vehicle households” often rely on public transportation and active transportation, such as walking and biking, for all of their trips: to work, school, shopping, doctors, and recreation. Household Income In Golden Gate City, approximately 1,800 households or 25 percent of the households, earn less than $25,000 annually. 22 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Methodology As part of the study, an evaluation of the current policies in place which effect pedestrian mobility as well as a review of prior studies involving walkable communities was performed. The Walkable Community Study for Naples Manor (2010), Bayshore (2010), and Immokalee (2011) were reviewed. The methodology used in those reports included a Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) analysis to identify needs for future bicycling and pedestrian facilities. The summaries show that, like Golden Gate City, connecting schools was a priority. The Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study used the same methodology to determine PLOS but expanded the methodology to include a Facility Analysis which considered proximity to destinations as a key component of the needs assessment. Existing Conditions Golden Gate City is a compact community with residences in close proximity to destinations such as schools, recreation and shopping. It exhibits a community culture of walking and biking for daily needs, meaning that people already walk in Golden Gate City at rates unseen in other Florida communities. It has the potential to be an ideal walkable community. The present conditions include a population with many young residents and many households with limited access to vehicles. The development layout also highlights opportunities to improve the kinds of infrastructure that make walking safe, secure, and comfortable. The information gathered through research and public involvement has been used in the study analyses to evaluate the present walking conditions and identify locations with the greatest needs. The observation of existing conditions throughout the community uncovered a number of key factors that obstruct people’s ability to walk and to bicycle. Some conditions are easily or immediately correctable through simple fixes and policy changes, while others must wait until funding is available or roadways come up for maintenance or re-design. This study concludes with recommendations for projects and programs that will help Golden Gate City fulfill its potential as a truly walkable community. PLOS Analysis The PLOS methodology used in this Walkable Community Study is consistent with the previous Walkable Community Studies conducted in Collier County and is comparable to similar pedestrian planning studies completed around the country. The Collier MPO uses the following five PLOS categories: Directness, Continuity, Street Crossings, Visual Interest and Amenities, and Security. PLOS for Golden Gate City was determined through field observations, data collection, public input, and desktop reviews of the study area. Different communities find different levels of services to be acceptable. Therefore, the PLOS outcomes for this study should be considered as an inventory of observed conditions only and should not be compared to LOS A road’s Level of Service (LOS) compares the amount of traffic that is on the road and the amount of traffic for which it was designed. LOS for other modes, like walking, measure the comfort and safety of the infrastructure. The FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook explains that LOS letter grades are not comparable across different modes of transportation (i.e., automobile level of service D is not equivalent to pedestrian level of service D, and the same segment may have drastically different levels of service for automobile traffic and pedestrian traffic). 23 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) scales for other transportation modes, nor with PLOS standards established for other communities. At the time of this study, there is no PLOS standard adopted by the Collier MPO or by Collier County. Directness Directness measures pedestrian trip length via the available transportation network and compares it to the straight-line or “as the crow flies” distance. Directness quantifies how a person’s walking trip length is affected by the study area’s development pattern and its related transportation network. Even though destinations may be geographically close to residents, pedestrians may have to walk a much greater distance to reach the destination if the route is impeded by a barrier such as a canal. A gridded street system allows pedestrians to reach destinations more directly and therefore receives a lower Directness score, while street systems consisting of long, winding roads with fewer intersections and physical barriers receive higher scores. The Directness value has a corresponding PLOS score shown in the table to the right. The following formula is used to determine a Directness score: (a)Actual distance pedestrian must walk Directness Value = ---------------------------------------------------------- (b)Minimum measured distance The Directness calculation compares: (a) the actual distance a pedestrian must travel from that origin using available infrastructure to reach a destination, and (b) the minimum distance measured from the origin to the destination. Due to the large number of origins and destinations in the four-square-mile study area, this study’s methodology used sampling to determine directness and demonstrate how barriers, like canals and the street pattern, can make it harder for people on foot to reach their destinations. For this study, Directness was measured using a specific destination within each quadrant of the study area as a typical destination, and a sampling of residential street segments within the quadrant as origins. Quadrant 1 Destination: Golden Gate Elementary (north campus) Quadrant 2 Destination: Grace Place Quadrant 3 Destination: Golden Terrace Elementary (north campus) Quadrant 4 Destination: Golden Gate Middle School The average PLOS score of the street samples was then Directness PLOS Scoring Directness PLOS Directness Value A <1.2 B 1.3 – 1.4 C 1.5 – 1.6 D 1.7 – 1.8 E 1.9 - 2.0 F >2.0 The Study Area was divided into four quadrants for determining the Directness PLOS assigned to the general quadrant of the study area. As a result, all streets within that quadrant received the same Directness score. The figure above shows the study area quadrants used to determine Directness PLOS. The directness scores ranged from 1.6 to 2.1, with some of the biggest differences between measured distance and straight-line distance found near Grace Place and the northern portion of Collier Boulevard. 24 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE SW 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE S W 18th AVE SW5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AV E S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW 25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea Level of Service A B C D E F Exhibit 10Level of Service - Directness Golden Gate Community Naples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Community Center Golden Gate Community Center Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Grace Place Community Center Grace Place Community Center US Post Oce US Post Oce St. John NeumannCatholic High SchoolSt. John NeumannCatholic High School Golden GateHigh SchoolGolden GateHigh School Mike DavisElementaryMike DavisElementary Golden TerraceSouthGolden TerraceSouth Golden TerraceNorthGolden TerraceNorth Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryGolden GateElementary Golden GateMiddle SchoolGolden GateMiddle School St. Elizabeth SetonCatholic SchoolSt. Elizabeth SetonCatholic School 25 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Continuity Continuity measures the condition and completeness of the existing pedestrian network. The Continuity PLOS scores inventory whether pedestrian facilities exist and where the existing network has gaps, breaches, or breaks. The Continuity PLOS score is assigned relative to the conditions listed in table below. Continuity PLOS Scoring Continuity PLOS Continuity Value A Pedestrian facilities are unified as a single entity providing complete access including public spaces B Pedestrian facilities are continuous and buffered from vehicle traffic with landscaping C Pedestrian facilities are on both sides of the street, but may not meet current standards D Pedestrian facility exists on only one side of the street; breaks or breaches may exist E Pedestrian facility exists but has significant condition problems F No pedestrian facility exists Source: City of Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Exhibit 5 shows the existing sidewalk network within Golden Gate City. Approximately 36 percent of the streets within Golden Gate City have sidewalks on at least one side of the street and there are typically sidewalks adjacent to and near schools. In addition, there are sidewalks on both sides of the street, although with gaps, along most of Golden Gate Parkway, as well as the collectors of Sunshine Boulevard and Coronado Parkway. However, the majority of sidewalks were observed to be of insufficient width (often five feet wide or less) for sidewalks with high usage. A wider sidewalk or pathway which would allow two people to walk abreast more comfortably as well as walkers to pass each other is recommended in most cases. Exhibit 11 (shown on the next page) depicts the results of the Continuity PLOS analysis. Since most of the local, residential streets in the study area do not have sidewalks, they received a Continuity score of F. However, a PLOS of F may be perfectly acceptable on small local streets with low speeds and safe crossings and is not necessarily a problem that needs to be immediately remedied. 26 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE SW 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE S W 18th AVE SW5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AV E S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW 25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea Level of Service A B C D E F Exhibit 11Level of Service - Con�nuity Golden Gate Community Naples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Community Center Golden Gate Community Center Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Grace Place Community Center Grace Place Community Center US Post Oce US Post Oce St. John NeumannCatholic High SchoolSt. John NeumannCatholic High School Golden GateHigh SchoolGolden GateHigh School Mike DavisElementaryMike DavisElementary Golden TerraceSouthGolden TerraceSouth Golden TerraceNorthGolden TerraceNorth Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryGolden GateElementary Golden GateMiddle SchoolGolden GateMiddle School St. Elizabeth SetonCatholic SchoolSt. Elizabeth SetonCatholic School 27 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Street Crossings A Street Crossings PLOS reflects the conditions of street intersections and other pedestrian facilities. Safe and well-maintained intersection conditions for pedestrians are necessary for a walkable community. The safer the condition of the intersection, the lower the risk of incidents. Street Crossings PLOS was based on assessing the seven attributes listed below. The presence of each of the following attributes equated to one point. Delineated crosswalk Vehicular traffic signal Pedestrian traffic signal Street lighting Signage for pedestrians Unobstructed view from motorists to pedestrians Curb ramps for pedestrians The total points per intersection determine the corresponding Street Crossings PLOS as shown in the table below. The results of the Street Crossings PLOS are show in Exhibit 12. The fewer vehicle lanes a pedestrian must cross, the lower the risk of incidents. Most of the roads in Golden Gate City have two lanes of traffic, making the crossings a very reasonable distance for pedestrians. Exceptions include Golden Gate Parkway, Collier Boulevard, Santa Barbara Boulevard, and Green Boulevard. However, those roads with a greater crossing distance also have well-marked crossings, typically on all four legs of the intersection. In addition, a number of crossings on Golden Gate Parkway are staffed by professional crossing guards during school hours who have the ability to control the lighted intersection and increase safety for pedestrians. This feature increased the Street Crossing PLOS for Golden Gate Parkway. However, substandard and faded marked crossings were also observed and particularly noted around schools. There were also very few signs specifically for pedestrians, and street lighting was lacking in many locations. These are all safety concerns which should be remedied. Street Crossings PLOS Street Crossings PLOS Total Street Crossings Attributes A 5 B 4 C 3 D 2 E 1 F 0 28 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE SW 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE S W 18th AVE SW5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AV E S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW 25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea Level of Service A B C D E F Exhibit 12Level of Service - Crossing Golden Gate Community Naples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Community Center Golden Gate Community Center Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Grace Place Community Center Grace Place Community Center US Post Oce US Post Oce St. John NeumannCatholic High SchoolSt. John NeumannCatholic High School Golden GateHigh SchoolGolden GateHigh School Mike DavisElementaryMike DavisElementary Golden TerraceSouthGolden TerraceSouth Golden TerraceNorthGolden TerraceNorth Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryGolden GateElementary Golden GateMiddle SchoolGolden GateMiddle School St. Elizabeth SetonCatholic SchoolSt. Elizabeth SetonCatholic School 29 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Visual Interest and Amenities Having visual interest and amenities within the pedestrian realm improves the pedestrian experience and comfort level. The presence of visually interesting features and pedestrian amenities, such as art, pedestrian oriented building design, benches, decorative paving and pedestrian level lighting, enhance the walking experience for people of all ages and abilities. A built environment that is designed to be pedestrian oriented provides visual cues to both motorists and pedestrians. Motorists are more aware that walkers are present, and walkers are more comfortable. The five attributes listed below were assessed for each road segment within the study area to determine the Visual Interest and Amenities PLOS. The presence of each of the following attributes equated to one point. Building frontages that are oriented toward the public right-of-way Benches Decorative pavement Shade trees along the street Pedestrian level lighting The total points per segment determine the corresponding Visual Interest and Amenities PLOS for the segment, as shown in the table below. The results of the Visual Interest and Amenities PLOS are shown in Exhibit 13. The scores of E and F indicate much of Golden Gate City transportation infrastructure lacks pedestrian amenities. The only major exception is the central portion of Golden Gate Parkway which scored a D. Along that small segment of Golden Gate Parkway, development is nearer to the roadway, shade trees provide aesthetics and comfort, and some transit shelters offer benches. The areas around the schools and parks offer some visual amenities and the chance to interact with the public realm and therefore received a score of E. Visual Interest and Amenities PLOS Visual Interest and Amenities PLOS Total Visual Interest and Amenities Attributes A 5 B 4 C 3 D 2 E 1 F 0 30 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE S W 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE SW 18th AVE SW5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AVE S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW 25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea Level of Service A B C D E F Exhibit 13Level of Service - Visual Golden Gate Community Naples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Community Center Golden Gate Community Center Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Grace Place Community Center Grace Place Community Center US Post Oce US Post Oce St. John NeumannCatholic High SchoolSt. John NeumannCatholic High School Golden GateHigh SchoolGolden GateHigh School Mike DavisElementaryMike DavisElementary Golden TerraceSouthGolden TerraceSouth Golden TerraceNorthGolden TerraceNorth Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryGolden GateElementary Golden GateMiddle SchoolGolden GateMiddle School St. Elizabeth SetonCatholic SchoolSt. Elizabeth SetonCatholic School 31 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Security Security measures how safe pedestrians feel while walking along a particular route. Potential hazards for pedestrians may include proximity to vehicular traffic, line of sight to vehicular traffic, existing lighting levels, visibility to motorists and surrounding activity centers and vulnerability to crime and/or injury. Walkability is limited in settings where the surroundings are perceived as unsafe due to lack of visibility, darkness at night, isolation and sightline obstructions that put pedestrians at risk of conflict with bikes, vehicles and other people. Five qualifiers listed below were assessed for each segment in the study area to determine the Security PLOS. The presence of each of the following attributes equate to one point: Is the public realm of the street active with pedestrians to enhance the sense of security? Are the occupants of buildings along the street actively engaged with the public realm of the street? Is the public realm of the street visible to residents or shops along the street? Is lighting adequate for safe nighttime walking? Are lines of sight clear between motorists and pedestrians? The total points per segment determine the corresponding Security PLOS for the segment, as shown in the table below. The Golden Gate City study area earned a low PLOS for this metric (Exhibit 14), mostly due to the lack of effective street lighting. While Florida Power and Light maintains many streetlights in the area, observations and interactions with residents confirmed they are not adequate to support the needs of the community. The Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) maintains decorative landscaping lights along Tropicana Boulevard, but the lights illuminate portions of a planted median and not where pedestrians are walking. This was particularly noticeable while observing the large numbers of students walking to Golden Gate City High School at the southern terminus of Tropicana Boulevard in the pre-dawn hours. In addition, few of the roads have development near enough to create a relationship between those in the building and those walking by on the street. These “eyes on the street,” as coined by Jane Jacobs, create a feeling of security. . Security PLOS Security PLOS Total Security Attributes A 5 B 4 C 3 D 2 E 1 F 0 32 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE SW 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE S W 18th AVE SW5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AV E S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW 25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea Level of Service A B C D E F Exhibit 14Level of Service - Security Golden Gate Community Naples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Community Center Golden Gate Community Center Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Grace Place Community Center Grace Place Community Center US Post Oce US Post Oce St. John NeumannCatholic High SchoolSt. John NeumannCatholic High School Golden GateHigh SchoolGolden GateHigh School Mike DavisElementaryMike DavisElementary Golden TerraceSouthGolden TerraceSouth Golden TerraceNorthGolden TerraceNorth Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryGolden GateElementary Golden GateMiddle SchoolGolden GateMiddle School St. Elizabeth SetonCatholic SchoolSt. Elizabeth SetonCatholic School 33 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Cumulative PLOS A cumulative PLOS score is calculated by averaging the five PLOS factors and is displayed in Exhibit 15 on the following page. Overall, Golden Gate City has a PLOS of E. 34 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE SW 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE S W 18th AVE SW5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AV E S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW 52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea Level of Service A B C D E F Exhibit 15Level of Service - OverallGolden Gate CommunityNaples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Community Center Golden Gate Community Center Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Grace Place Community Center Grace Place Community Center US Post Oce US Post Oce St. John NeumannCatholic High SchoolSt. John NeumannCatholic High School Golden GateHigh SchoolGolden GateHigh School Mike DavisElementaryMike DavisElementary Golden TerraceSouthGolden TerraceSouth Golden TerraceNorthGolden TerraceNorth Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryGolden GateElementary Golden GateMiddle SchoolGolden GateMiddle School St. Elizabeth SetonCatholic SchoolSt. Elizabeth SetonCatholic School 35 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Facility Analysis The Facility Analysis used in this Walkable Community Study was performed using Geographic Information System (GIS) Data. Each segment of roadway within the Golden Gate City Study Area was previously designated with an Object Identification Code. These unique codes are shown on the Tiering Tables included in the Recommendations Section as well as the Evaluation Matrix found in Appendix D. The methodology used Proximity to Roadway Segments to evaluate needs and benefits. Scores were assigned for Facility Type, Proximity to Destinations/Attractors, Safety and Connectivity. A buffer (1/8 Mile, 1/4 Mile, 1/2 Mile) was extended around each scoring element and roadway segments within those buffered zones received points. In addition, Facility Type was evaluated and those facilities exhibiting the most pedestrian traffic (such as Major Arterials) were given higher scores. Facility Type Each roadway facility type was given a score based on the benefit of having adjacent pedestrian facilities. Roadways with higher pedestrian volumes received higher points. Points were assigned as follows: Major Arterial = 20 Points Minor Arterial = 20 Points Collector = 10 Points Local Road = 2 Points Proximity to Attractors The proximity of roadways to Schools, Commercial Areas, Parks, Government Services and Transit Stops was evaluated and each roadway was given a score based on its location relative to attractors. Roadways closer to attractors (within 1/8 mile) received higher points. Points were assigned as follows: 1/8 Mile = 10 Points 1/4 Mile = 4 Points 1/2 Mile = 2 Points Safety Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Data was collected, analyzed and overlayed on a roadway network map. Roadways with pedestrian and bicycle accidents associated to them were assigned points based on the number of crashes. Points were assigned as follows: 1 Crash = 5 Points 2+ Crashes = 10 Points Connectivity The curvilinear layout of the Golden Gate City street network, along with the existence of canals which bisect streets, results in pedestrian network connectivity and safety issues. Each roadway was evaluated for pedestrian network connectivity and those which would significantly improve connectivity and benefit residents the most received a Connectivity Score of 20 Points. Figure 16 on the following page shows the Connectivity Routes identified within the study area. Connectivity Benefit = 20 Points The results of the Facility Analysis were tabulated and combined with the PLOS Analysis scores to create an Evaluation Matrix which prioritized needs using a quantitative method. 36 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAYSanta Barbara BLVD55th TER SWSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW31st AVE SW49th ST SW27th CT S W25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY 43rd LN SW51st TER SW53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY18th CT SW 30th AVE SW 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE S W 18th AVE SW5 3 r d T E R SW 27th PL SW26th AV E S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW52nd TER SW23rd PL SW 28th PL SW 23rd CT SW 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW22nd AVE SW 43rd ST SW42nd ST SW42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Lucerne RD43rd TER SW41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SW50th ST SW23rd AVE SW 17th PL SW 17th AVE SW 41st TER SW21st PL SW19th CT SW 16th PL SW 42nd ST SW46th TER SW28th AVE SW 41st ST SW45th ST SW55th TER SW41st TER SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW 44th TER SW19th P L S W 25th PL SW 28th PL SW 28th AVE SW 17th PL SW 44th ST SW25th AVE SW54th TER SW50th TER SW44th TER SW16th PL SW 22nd PL SW 28th AVE SW 19th PL SW 54th TER SW20th AVE SW 32nd AVE SW 18th C T S W 51st TER SW23rd CT SW 22nd AVE SW 21st AVE S W 23rd PL SW 27th PL SW 55th TER SW50th ST SW18th AVE SW Toucan ALY53rd ST SW 25th CT SW 19th CT SW 18th AVE SW 27th CT SW 28th AVE SW 21st AVE SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE S W 55th ST SW17th AVE SW 46th ST SW43rd ST SW54th ST SW5 3 r d S T SW 5 4 t h S T SW52nd LN SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 17th AVE SW 20th PL S W 45th TER SW19th AVE SW 45th ST SW52nd ST SW41st ST SW49th ST SW46th ST SW51st ST SW28th PL SW 20th PL SW 22nd AVE SW GGC Road Network Legend StudyArea Connectivity Exhibit 16Network Connec�vity Map Golden Gate Community Naples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Community Park Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Library Golden Gate Community Center Golden Gate Community Center Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Rita Eaton Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park Grace Place Community Center Grace Place Community Center US Post Oce US Post Oce St. John NeumannCatholic High SchoolSt. John NeumannCatholic High School Golden GateHigh SchoolGolden GateHigh School Mike DavisElementaryMike DavisElementary Golden TerraceSouthGolden TerraceSouth Golden TerraceNorthGolden TerraceNorth Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryIntermediate Golden GateElementaryGolden GateElementary Golden GateMiddle SchoolGolden GateMiddle School St. Elizabeth SetonCatholic SchoolSt. Elizabeth SetonCatholic School 37 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Public and Stakeholder Engagement Collecting, reviewing and incorporating input from the public and other stakeholders was a major focus of this study. Focus-group comments were particularly valuable in sorting out which issues and proposals should be emphasized in the key recommendations of this report. Participants identified a variety of real-world issues and provided support for proposed solutions. Public support, including that of MPO Committee members, is a key driver for a successful study and served as a scoring metric that has been incorporated into the prioritized recommendations. Major outreach events occurred in January and April 2018 and are summarized below. Additional details of our public engagement efforts related to this project can be found in Appendix B. January 11–12, 2018. The study team organized a series of events over a two-day period that included evening public workshops; on-site observation of the morning drop-off and afternoon dismissals at local schools; windshield tours, walking audits and bicycling audits with agency staff to experience first-hand Golden Gate City’s walking environment. We met with focus groups comprised of individuals from local agencies, schools, and local non-profits to gather insight on access and other walkability concerns. Input resulting from this event included the following common themes: People have a desire to walk more. Lighting is insufficient for pedestrian visibility and security The lack of sidewalks beyond the school perimeter require students to walk in ditches or roads. More pathways would serve many needs. Traffic speeds are too high, especially on Tropicana Boulevard. April, 2018. A community workshop was held at the Golden Gate Community Center that included a presentation and review of draft recommendations focused on specific areas of the community. Participants were able to vote for the solutions they thought would provide the biggest benefit to City residents. The results indicated public support for the following alternatives: Mini-circles in intersections could work well to show vehicle traffic in residential areas. Pedestrian bridge across the canal at 20th Place SW. (Note: safety was a concern) Lighting should be a priority. Better crosswalks near schools might have a good impact. Shade trees could make a big difference but should be planned with tropical storms in mind. 38 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Recommendations Based on an understanding of existing conditions, the desires of the community, and the locations of the greatest needs; a prioritized list of projects was developed for implementation. This “Tiered” list of roadway segments was based on a quantitative analysis and refined by qualitative analysis as required. The recommendations were refined through public and agency review. A detailed scoring of each segment, which will help explain the rationale behind the ranking system, is included in Appendix D. The results are shown on Exhibit 17. These projects were designated Long-Term Projects due to the requirement for funding, planning, design, permitting, and construction. The report also contains 10 project recommendations that were designated Short-Term and Mid-Term Projects for minor improvements, projects, and studies within the Golden Gate City study area which warrant further consideration. Those recommendations, along with detailed descriptions, can be found after the Priority Tiering Matrix. In addition, the report includes a “Recommendations by Type” Section which includes many detailed recommendations for considerations which are categorized by “Type” of improvements. Examples of the proposed improvements are shown for purposes of clarification and ease of explanation when communicating with project stakeholders. Implementation of these projects and programs would make Golden Gate City a showcase for walkable communities. Stormwater System Note: The final priority ranking may need to be modified in the future, in the interest of efficiency, due to upcoming and ongoing drainage improvements in Golden Gate City. The timing of improvements will need to be coordinated with the Collier County Storm Water Division who are currently involved in a 10-year program to replace the aged storm water drainage systems (Ex. pipes, inlets, outfalls, drainage swales) within Golden Gate City. The upgrades are planned to improve stormwater flow, help to alleviate flooding, and to address safety issues. Projects priorities may change to reflect an economical approach to the combined infrastructure improvements. Prioritized segments which may be affected by future storm water improvement projects are designated with an asterisk * in the summary table. 39 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Collier BLVDGreen BLVD Golden Gate PKWY 32nd AVE SW55th ST SW44th ST SWTropical WAY55th TER SWSanta Barbara BLVDSunshine BLVD23rd AVE SW Salt ALY48th ST SWHunter BLVDCoronado PKWY Su n s e t R D 50th TER SWTropicana BLVD24th AVE SW 47th ST SW16th PL SW 45th ST SW47th TER SW40th TER SW31st PL SW 17th AVE SW 18th PL SW 48th TER SW46th TER SW49th ST SW31st AVE SW 27th CT S W 25th AVE SW 52nd ST SWMystic ALY43rd LN SW51st TER SWAtoll CT 53rd ST SW29th PL SW46th ST SW41st TER SW22nd PL SW45th TER SWToucan ALY 18th CT SW 30th AVE S W 51st ST SW24th PL S W 19th AVE SW 44th TER SW19th PL SW 50th ST SW41st ST SW30th PL SW 25th CT SW 54th LN SW28th AVE SW 18th AVE SW 27th PL SW 5 3 r d T E R SW26th AVE S W 17th CT SW19th CT SW23rd PL SW 52nd TER SW28th PL SW 23rd CT SW Washington LN 49th LN SW20th PL SW 20th AVE SW 27th AVE SW 49th TER SW 21st PL SW 25th PL SW 54th TER SW26th PL SW 17th PL SW Heritage CIR Jefferson LN 54th ST SW53rd LN SW52nd LN SW43rd ST SW22nd AVE SW 42nd ST SWHemingway CIR 42nd TER SW29th AVE S W 21st AVE SW Coral Palms L N Lucerne RD28th CT SW 43rd TER SWSunnyland LN Heming w a y L N E 41st LN SW50th LN SW20th CT SWLaurel Ridge LN 54th ST SW41st TER SW41st TER SW17th PL SW 41st ST SW51st ST SW23rd PL SW 45th ST SWTropical WAY25th PL SW 44th TER SW42nd ST SW20th PL S W 18th AVE SW 26th PL SW 19th P L S W 31st PL SW 21st PL SW 21st AVE SW 5 2 n d T E R SW 26th P L S W 19th CT SW 55th TER SW22nd AVE SW 19th P L S W 53rd ST SW23rd CT SW 25th AVE SW 16th PL SW 28th PL SW 50th TER SW54th ST SW30th PL SW54th TER SW46th TER SW27th PL SW 54th TER SW52nd LN SW55th ST SW22nd PL SW 46th ST SW41st ST SW5 2 n d T E R SW 18th C T S W 32nd AVE SW44th ST SW43rd TER SW26th AVE S W Santa Barbara BLVD17th AVE SW 50th ST SW18th AVE SW 44th ST SW 5 0 t h TER SW 23rd AVE SW 28th AVE SW51st TER SW28th AVE SW 19th CT SW 49th ST SW25th AVE SW 19th CT SW42nd ST SW21st AVE S W 20th PL SW45th TER SW17th AVE SW 28th PL SW 16th PL SW 46th ST SW22nd AVE SW 54th ST SW 5 3 r d S T SW43rd ST SW29th PL SW 30th AVE SW 17th AVE SW 19th AVE SW 19th PL SW 20th AVE SW Toucan ALY44th TER SW17th PL SW 45th ST SW25th CT SW 50th ST SW52nd ST SW41st TER SW20th PL SW StudyArea Funded_Projects Sidewalk Tier TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3Sidewalk One Side Sidewalk Both Sides Exhibit 17Tier Needs Map Golden Gate Community Naples, Florida North Scale in Feet 0 8000 16000 Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study 40 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) RECOMMENDED GOLDEN GATE CITY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ID Facility From To Score Priority Tier 32766 Golden Gate Pkwy Coronado Pkwy Tropicana Blvd 84 Tier 1 39778 Collier Blvd Golden Gate Pkwy 23rd Ave SW 83 Tier 1 32204 Tropicana Blvd Golden Gate Pkwy Toucan Aly 81 Tier 1 38658 Santa Barbara Blvd Cedar Tree Ln 19th Ct SW 80 Tier 1 39872 Tropicana Blvd 25th Pl SW 28th Ave SW 80 Tier 1 30909 Collier Blvd 25th Ave SW Golden Gate Pkwy 78 Tier 1 34409 Collier Blvd 23rd Ave SW 23rd Ave SW 78 Tier 1 32602 Tropicana Blvd Toucan ALY 25th SW/26th SW 76 Tier 1 42766 Collier Blvd Canal 25th Ave SW 76 Tier 1 30808 Collier Blvd 18th Ave SW 17th Ave SW 70 Tier 1 31178 Santa Barbara Blvd Star Grass Ln Coronado Pkwy 70 Tier 1 30812 Santa Barbara Blvd Hunter Blvd Sea Grass Ln 70 Tier 1 34227 Collier Blvd 20th Pl SW 18th Ave SW 70 Tier 1 34762 Santa Barbara Blvd Green Blvd 16th Pl SW 70 Tier 1 38367 Santa Barbara Blvd Sea Grass Ln 22nd Pl SW 70 Tier 1 39350 Santa Barbara Blvd 17th Ave SW Cedar Tree Ln 70 Tier 1 40685 Santa Barbara Blvd 16th Pl SW 17th Ave SW 70 Tier 1 33537 Green Blvd 40th Ter SW 41st Ln SW 68 Tier 1 39430 Santa Barbara Blvd 19th Ct SW Hunter Blvd 68 Tier 1 37743 Santa Barbara Blvd Painted Leaf Ct 27th Ct SW 68 Tier 1 42326 Collier Blvd 17th Ave SW Green Blvd 68 Tier 1 44309 Green Blvd Salt Aly 40th Ter SW 68 Tier 1 44757 Green Blvd Collier Blvd Salt Aly 68 Tier 1 34119 Green Blvd Whistlers Green Hemingway Ln 67 Tier 1 33538 Green Blvd Laurel Ridge Ln Santa Barbara Blvd 67 Tier 1 41075 Hunter Blvd 23rd Ct SW 24th Ave SW 67 Tier 1 44101 Hunter Blvd 24th Ave SW Coronado Pkwy 67 Tier 1 34206 Green Blvd Sunshine Blvd Whistlers Green 65 Tier 1 32337 Santa Barbara Blvd 540 ft South of Copper Leaf Ln Copper Leaf Ln 64 Tier 1 33772 23rd Ave SW 49th Ter SW 50th St SW 64 Tier 1 32767 52nd Ter SW 25th Ave SW 27th Ave SW 62 Tier 1 33972 Green Blvd Hemingway Ln Laurel Ridge Ln 62 Tier 1 34193 Green Blvd Logan Ct Laurel Ridge Ln 62 Tier 1 33977 Hunter Blvd 54th Ter SW 55th St SW 62 Tier 1 35528 Santa Barbara Blvd Coronado Pkwy Copper Leaf Ln 62 Tier 1 38338 Santa Barbara Blvd 22nd Pl SW Star Grass Ln 62 Tier 1 39325 Green Blvd Laurel Ridge Ln Logan Ct 62 Tier 1 33791 Hunter Blvd 19th Ct SW 51th St SW 61 Tier 1 38701 45th St SW Mystic Aly Golden Gate Pkwy 61 Tier 1 33811 Green Blvd Heritage CIR Sunshine Blvd 60 Tier 1 41 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) RECOMMENDED GOLDEN GATE CITY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ID Facility From To Score Priority Tier 33769 Hunter Blvd 55th St SW 55th Ter SW 58 Tier 1 33815 Hunter Blvd 55th Ter SW Tropical W ay 58 Tier 1 44316 Hunter Blvd Tropical Way Santa Barbara Blvd 58 Tier 1 41674 Tropicana Blvd 28th Ave SW 30th Pl SW 57 Tier 1 32482 Hunter Blvd 22nd Pl SW 23rd Ct SW 56 Tier 1 32372 45th St SW 23rd Pl SW Mystic Aly 56 Tier 1 36057 52nd Ter SW Coronado Pkwy 25th Ave SW 56 Tier 1 34192 Green Blvd 41st Ln SW 43rd Ln SW 56 Tier 1 44592 Santa Barbara Blvd 26th Ave SW Painted Leaf Ln 56 Tier 1 39069 23rd Ave SW 42nd St SW 43rd Ln SW 56 Tier 1 39341 55th St SW 27th Ct SW 28th Ave SW 54 Tier 1 37852 Santa Barbara Blvd German Woods Ct South end of bridge 52 Tier 1 39866 Santa Barbara Blvd 29th Pl SW German Woods Ct 52 Tier 1 42360 55th St SW 27th Ave SW 27th Pl SW 52 Tier 1 37918 55th St SW 27th Pl SW 27th Ct SW 52 Tier 1 44310 Green Blvd 43rd Ln SW Heritage CIR 52 Tier 1 33238 Tropicana Blvd 31st Pl SW 32nd Ave SW 51 Tier 1 41893 Sunshine Blvd 16th Pl SW 17th Ave SW 51 Tier 1 32247 55th St SW 28th Ave SW Golden Gate Pkwy 50 Tier 1 30872 Coronado Pkwy Tropical WAY Santa Barbara Blvd 50 Tier 1 30951 Coronado Pkwy 55th St SW 55th Ter SW 50 Tier 1 30971 Coronado Pkwy 55th Ter SW Tropical WAY 50 Tier 1 44773 54th Ter SW Hunter Blvd 20th Pl SW 50 Tier 1 42259 45th St SW 23rd Ave SW Coral Palms Ln 50 Tier 1 30952 Lucerne Rd 24th Ave SW Coronado Pkwy 49 Tier 1 30683 54th Ter SW 20th Pl SW 21st Ave SW 48 Tier 1 34482 45th St SW 21st Ave SW 22nd Pl SW 48 Tier 1 34240 45th St SW 22nd Pl SW 23rd Ave SW 48 Tier 1 36228 50th St SW 28th Ave SW 29th Pl SW 48 Tier 1 34123 Collier Blvd Green Blvd End of study area 48 Tier 1 41379 51st Ter SW 17th Ct SW 50th Ter SW 48 Tier 1 38798 24th Ave SW Lucerne RD Lucerne RD 47 Tier 1 31282 Tropicana Blvd 31st Ave SW 31st Pl SW 46 Tier 1 30973 55th St SW 26th Pl SW 27th Ave SW 46 Tier 1 34022 Hunter Blvd 20th Ct SW 22nd Ave SW 46 Tier 1 34086 Hunter Blvd 22nd Ave SW 22nd Pl SW 46 Tier 1 38056 Sunshine Blvd Green Blvd 16th Pl SW 46 Tier 1 38433 Hunter Blvd 19th Ct SW 20th Ct SW 46 Tier 1 37521 24th Ave SW 50th Ter SW Hunter Blvd 46 Tier 1 44211 54th Ter SW 23rd Pl SW 23rd Ct SW 46 Tier 1 42 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) RECOMMENDED GOLDEN GATE CITY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ID Facility From To Score Priority Tier 37609 54th Ter SW 23rd Ct SW 24th Ave SW 46 Tier 1 38908 50th St SW 29th Pl SW 29th Pl SW 46 Tier 1 30800 23rd Ct SW 49th Ter SW 50th St SW 44 Tier 1 30945 54th Ter SW 24th Ave SW Coronado Pkwy 44 Tier 1 31143 47th Ter SW 25th Ave SW 28th Ave SW 43 Tier 1 42402 42nd St SW 18th Pl SW 19th Ave SW 43 Tier 1 32965 28th Ave SW 54th St SW 55th St SW 42 Tier 1 31103 24th Pl SW 44th St SW 47th St SW 42 Tier 1 31144 27th Pl SW 50th St SW Cul-de-sac 42 Tier 1 34241 48th St SW 22nd Pl SW 23rd Ave SW 42 Tier 1 35896 29th Pl SW 53rd St SW 54th Ln SW 42 Tier 1 42054 54th Ter SW 22nd Ave SW 23rd Ave SW 42 Tier 1 38078 55th Ter SW 29th Pl SW 32nd Ave SW 42 Tier 1 37046 54th Ter SW 21st Ave SW 21st Pl SW 42 Tier 1 37658 54th Ter SW 21st Pl SW 22nd Ave SW 42 Tier 1 38797 Lucerne RD 23rd Ct SW 24th Ave SW 42 Tier 1 39781 53rd St SW 25th Ave SW 27th Ave SW 42 Tier 1 98505 16th Pl SW Laurel Ridge Ln Santa Barbara Blvd 42 Tier 1 37370 23rd Pl SW 43rd Ln SW 45th St SW 41 Tier 1 41859 52nd St SW 28th Pl SW 30th Ave SW 41 Tier 1 31343 Tropicana Blvd 30th Pl SW 31st Ave SW 40 Tier 1 30715 45th St SW Sunset RD 21st Ave SW 40 Tier 1 32768 26th Ave SW 55th St SW 55th Ter SW 40 Tier 1 31395 43rd St SW 30th Ave SW 31st Pl SW 40 Tier 1 31487 31st Ave SW 44th St SW 44th Ter SW 40 Tier 1 31263 44th Ter SW 30th Pl SW 31st Ave SW 40 Tier 1 35654 29th Pl SW 43rd St SW 44th St SW 40 Tier 1 33394 43rd St SW 31st Pl SW 32nd Ave SW 40 Tier 1 38157 27th Pl SW 54th St SW 55th St SW 40 Tier 1 37614 55th St SW 26th Ave SW 26th Pl SW 40 Tier 1 38642 54th Ter SW 23rd Ave SW 23rd Pl SW 40 Tier 1 39890 26th Ave SW 55th Ter SW Tropical WAY 40 Tier 1 44216 26th Ave SW Tropical WAY Santa Barbara Blvd 40 Tier 1 44132 31st Ave SW 44th Ter SW 45th St SW 40 Tier 1 38745 30th Pl SW 49th Ln SW 50th St SW 40 Tier 1 38742 44th Ter SW 30th Ave SW 30th Pl SW 40 Tier 1 37718 41st Ter SW 22nd Ave SW 23rd Pl SW 40 Tier 1 34460 55th St SW 19th Pl SW Hunter Blvd 39 Tier 2 38796 24th Ave SW Hunter Blvd 52nd Ter SW 39 Tier 2 30729 54th Ter SW 30th Ave SW 31st Pl SW 38 Tier 2 43 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) RECOMMENDED GOLDEN GATE CITY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ID Facility From To Score Priority Tier 30802 54th St SW 30th Ave SW 31st Pl SW 38 Tier 2 34197 19th Pl SW 19th Ct SW 55th St SW 38 Tier 2 34708 22nd Ave SW 48th St SW 50th St SW 38 Tier 2 33792 50th St SW 22nd Pl SW 23rd Ave SW 38 Tier 2 34707 48th St SW 21st Pl SW 22nd Ave SW 38 Tier 2 34014 19th Ave SW 42nd St SW 44th St SW 38 Tier 2 38441 22nd Pl SW 48th St SW 50th St SW 38 Tier 2 39274 19th Ave SW 44th St SW 45th St SW 38 Tier 2 41839 30th Pl SW 49th St SW 49th Ln SW 38 Tier 2 30757 55th Ter SW 22nd Pl SW Coronado Pkwy 37 Tier 2 38769 18th Ct SW 48th St SW 49th St SW 37 Tier 2 30739 42nd St SW Golden Gate Pkwy 25th Ave SW 36 Tier 2 30875 31st Pl SW 54th St SW 54th Ter SW 36 Tier 2 33814 19th Ave SW 54th St SW 51th Ter SW 36 Tier 2 34435 16th Pl SW Hemingway CIR Laurel Ridge Ln 36 Tier 2 35798 25th Ave SW 53rd St SW 53rd Ter SW 36 Tier 2 35046 25th Ave SW 52nd Ter SW 53rd St SW 36 Tier 2 39033 21st Pl SW 48th St SW 48th St SW 36 Tier 2 44529 28th Ave SW 50th Ter SW 51st St SW 36 Tier 2 36967 48th St SW 21st Ave SW 21st Pl SW 36 Tier 2 38858 30th Pl SW 48th Ter SW 49th St SW 36 Tier 2 38445 50th Ter SW 28th Ave SW 28th Pl SW 36 Tier 2 39119 28th Ave SW 50th St SW 50th Ter SW 36 Tier 2 38856 54th St SW 17th Ave SW 18th Ct SW 35 Tier 2 44210 51st Ter SW 22nd Ave SW 23rd Ct SW 35 Tier 2 38768 18th Ct SW Sunshine Blvd 48th St SW 35 Tier 2 30972 27th Ave SW 54th St SW 55th St SW 34 Tier 2 31342 31st Ave SW 45th St SW 47th St SW 34 Tier 2 30861 31st Pl SW 53rd St SW 54th St SW 34 Tier 2 30941 21st Ave SW 48th St SW 49th Ter SW 34 Tier 2 30773 48th St SW 20th Pl SW 21st Ave SW 34 Tier 2 30719 54th St SW 27th Pl SW 28th Ave SW 34 Tier 2 36377 29th Pl SW 41st Ter SW 43rd St SW 34 Tier 2 36655 43rd St SW 29th Pl SW 30th Ave SW 34 Tier 2 34235 54th Ter SW 17th Ave SW 19th Ave SW 34 Tier 2 34410 41st Ter SW 20th Pl SW 22nd Ave SW 34 Tier 2 34237 19th Ct SW 55th St SW 55th Ter SW 34 Tier 2 34226 55th St SW 17th Ave SW 19th Ct SW 34 Tier 2 34130 20th Pl SW 41st St SW 41st Ter SW 34 Tier 2 34018 20th Pl SW 41st Ter SW Canal 34 Tier 2 44 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) RECOMMENDED GOLDEN GATE CITY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ID Facility From To Score Priority Tier 37703 24th Ave SW 52nd Ter SW 54th Ter SW 34 Tier 2 39086 52nd Ter SW 23rd Ct SW 24th Ave SW 34 Tier 2 39602 53rd Ter SW 25th Ave SW 27th Ave SW 34 Tier 2 41863 30th Pl SW Tropicana Blvd 48th Ter SW 34 Tier 2 37313 54th St SW 27th Ave SW 27th Pl SW 34 Tier 2 38571 55th St SW 19th Ct SW 19th Pl SW 34 Tier 2 40396 17th Ave SW Canal 55th St SW 34 Tier 2 40789 17th Ave SW 55th St SW 55th Ter SW 34 Tier 2 33982 51st Ter SW 20th Ct SW 22nd Ave SW 33 Tier 2 32665 29th Pl SW 41st St SW 41st Ter SW 32 Tier 2 32375 47th St SW 25th Ct SW 26th Pl SW 32 Tier 2 32826 23rd Ct SW 50th St SW 50th Ter SW 32 Tier 2 31281 52nd St SW 30th Ave SW 31st Ave SW 32 Tier 2 34040 18th Ct SW 49th St SW 19th Pl SW 32 Tier 2 38639 48th St SW 22nd Ave SW 22nd Pl SW 32 Tier 2 44102 55th St SW 22nd Pl SW Coronado Pkwy 32 Tier 2 39506 55th Ter SW 26th Ave SW 27th Ct SW 32 Tier 2 36749 27th Ct SW 55th Ter SW Tropical W ay 32 Tier 2 37048 27th Ct SW 55th St SW 55th Ter SW 32 Tier 2 44716 27th Ct SW Tropical Way Santa Barbara Blvd 32 Tier 2 42929 51st St SW 22nd Ave SW 23rd Ct SW 32 Tier 2 44215 25th Ct SW 45th St SW 47th St SW 32 Tier 2 37523 50th St SW 23rd Ave SW 23rd Ct SW 32 Tier 2 40034 50th St SW 22nd Ave SW 22nd Pl SW 32 Tier 2 38317 55th Ter SW 17th Ave SW 19th Ct SW 32 Tier 2 40033 55th Ter SW Hunter Blvd 22nd Pl SW 32 Tier 2 44323 55th St SW Hunter Blvd 22nd Pl SW 32 Tier 2 38478 17th Ave SW Tropical WAY Santa Barbara Blvd 32 Tier 2 42279 17th Ave SW 55th Ter SW Tropical WAY 32 Tier 2 32378 28th Pl SW 50th Ter SW 51st St SW 30 Tier 2 32483 23rd Ct SW 51st Ter SW Hunter Blvd 30 Tier 2 35452 53rd Ln SW 17th Pl SW 18th Ave SW 30 Tier 2 33998 22nd Pl SW 45th St SW 45th Ter SW 30 Tier 2 36654 50th Ter SW 28th Pl SW 28th Pl SW 30 Tier 2 41452 22nd Pl SW 46th St SW 46th Ter SW 30 Tier 2 42702 31st Pl SW 54th Ter SW 54th Ln SW 30 Tier 2 37704 26th Ave SW 45th St SW 45th St SW 30 Tier 2 39049 30th Ave SW 54th St SW 54th Ter SW 30 Tier 2 39818 30th Ave SW 53rd St SW 54th St SW 30 Tier 2 38313 16th Pl SW 40th Ter SW 41st St SW 30 Tier 2 45 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) RECOMMENDED GOLDEN GATE CITY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ID Facility From To Score Priority Tier 36013 18th Pl SW 46th Ter SW Sunshine Blvd 29 Tier 2 38273 42nd Ter SW 23rd Pl SW Mystic Aly 29 Tier 2 30883 51st St SW 20th Ct SW 20th Pl SW 28 Tier 2 30809 17th Ct SW 51st Ter SW 52nd St SW 28 Tier 2 30735 52nd St SW 17th Ave SW 17th Ct SW 28 Tier 2 32334 23rd Ct SW 52nd Ter SW 54th Ter SW 28 Tier 2 30701 17th Pl SW 52nd Ter SW 53rd Ln SW 28 Tier 2 32242 45th St SW 25th Ct SW 26th Ave SW 28 Tier 2 30899 31st Pl SW 52nd St SW 52nd Ter SW 28 Tier 2 30754 49th Ter SW 20th Pl SW 21st Ave SW 28 Tier 2 32643 54th St SW 26th Pl SW 27th Ave SW 28 Tier 2 35455 25th Ave SW 53rd Ter SW 54th Ter SW 28 Tier 2 35795 52nd Ter SW 17th Pl SW 18th Ave SW 28 Tier 2 34129 19th Ave SW 52nd St SW 54th St SW 28 Tier 2 33975 54th St SW 18th Ct SW 19th Ave SW 28 Tier 2 36730 50th St SW 20th Pl SW 21st Pl SW 28 Tier 2 35124 25th Ct SW 44th Ter SW 45th St SW 28 Tier 2 34021 22nd Ave SW 41st St SW 41st Ter SW 28 Tier 2 34238 20th Pl SW 42nd St SW End 28 Tier 2 37707 26th Pl SW 54th St SW 55th St SW 28 Tier 2 40503 19th Ave SW 19th Ct SW 52nd St SW 28 Tier 2 38431 20th Ave SW 46th St SW 46th Ter SW 28 Tier 2 40400 20th Pl SW 19th Ct SW 54th Ter SW 28 Tier 2 41019 44th Ter SW Sunset RD 22nd Pl SW 28 Tier 2 41119 18th Ct SW 53rd Ln SW 54th St SW 28 Tier 2 40395 17th Ave SW 52nd St SW 52nd Ter SW 28 Tier 2 38477 17th Ave SW 52nd Ter SW 53rd Ln SW 28 Tier 2 39868 32nd Ave SW 55th Ter SW End 28 Tier 2 41489 44th Ter SW 22nd Pl SW 23rd Ave SW 28 Tier 2 41849 52nd Ter SW 17th Ave SW 17th Pl SW 28 Tier 2 44097 53rd Ln SW 17th Ave SW 17th Pl SW 28 Tier 2 37749 54th St SW 26th Ave SW 26th Pl SW 28 Tier 2 41985 31st Ave SW 50th Ln SW 52nd St SW 28 Tier 2 44315 19th Ct SW 46th Ter SW 46th Ter SW 28 Tier 2 38800 45th St SW 26th Ave SW 26th Pl SW 28 Tier 2 41936 52nd St SW 31st Ave SW 31st Pl SW 28 Tier 2 38366 22nd Pl SW 42nd St SW 43rd Ln SW 28 Tier 2 41915 42nd St SW 22nd Ave SW 22nd Pl SW 28 Tier 2 38816 42nd St SW 23rd Ave SW 23rd Pl SW 28 Tier 2 40010 41st St SW 19th Ct SW 20th Ave SW 28 Tier 2 40790 41st Ter SW 19th Ct SW 20th Ave SW 28 Tier 2 46 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) RECOMMENDED GOLDEN GATE CITY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ID Facility From To Score Priority Tier 40788 17th Ave SW 53rd Ln SW 54th St SW 28 Tier 2 44699 20th Ave SW 41st St SW 41st Ter SW 28 Tier 2 38507 20th Ct SW 51st Ter SW Hunter Blvd 27 Tier 2 30656 31st Pl SW 50th St SW 52nd St SW 26 Tier 3 32414 23rd Ct SW 50th Ter SW 51st St SW 26 Tier 3 35514 18th Ave SW 52nd Ter SW 53rd Ln SW 26 Tier 3 34196 52nd St SW 17th Ct SW 18th Ct SW 26 Tier 3 34211 52nd St SW 18th Ct SW 19th Ave SW 26 Tier 3 35373 29th Pl SW 50th St SW 50th Ter SW 26 Tier 3 36567 28th Ave SW 47th Ter SW Tropicana Blvd 26 Tier 3 34228 20th Ave SW 42nd St SW Sunset RD 26 Tier 3 34703 42nd St SW 20th Ave SW 20th Pl SW 26 Tier 3 34045 22nd Ave SW 43rd Ter SW 43rd Ln SW 26 Tier 3 38480 49th Ter SW 19th Ave SW 20th Pl SW 26 Tier 3 38429 19th Pl SW 46th St SW 46th Ter SW 26 Tier 3 38588 18th Ct SW 52nd Ter SW 53rd Ln SW 26 Tier 3 42138 18th Ct SW 52nd St SW 52nd St SW 26 Tier 3 38735 53rd Ln SW 18th Ave SW 18th Ct SW 26 Tier 3 38907 49th St SW 28th Ct SW 30th Pl SW 26 Tier 3 39169 52nd St SW 31st Pl SW 32nd Ave SW 26 Tier 3 42000 23rd Ct SW 51st St SW 51st Ter SW 26 Tier 3 42173 41st St SW 18th Ave SW 19th Ct SW 26 Tier 3 42631 44th St SW 20th Ave SW 22nd Pl SW 26 Tier 3 38319 42nd St SW 19th Pl SW 20th Ave SW 26 Tier 3 42041 20th Pl SW 42nd St SW 43rd Ln SW 26 Tier 3 40143 42nd St SW 20th Pl SW 21st Ave SW 26 Tier 3 38736 19th Ct SW 41st St SW 41st Ter SW 26 Tier 3 39044 19th Ct SW 40th Ter SW 41st St SW 26 Tier 3 39596 41st St SW 16th Pl SW 18th Ave SW 26 Tier 3 38335 22nd Pl SW 44th St SW 44th Ter SW 26 Tier 3 40743 22nd Pl SW 43rd Ln SW 44th St SW 26 Tier 3 31171 31st Pl SW 45th St SW Tropicana Blvd 25 Tier 3 33469 45th St SW 31st Pl SW 32nd Ave SW 25 Tier 3 42010 31st Pl SW 44th St SW 45th St SW 25 Tier 3 32794 52nd Ter SW 23rd Pl SW 23rd Ct SW 24 Tier 3 32336 25th Ct SW 55th St SW 55th Ter SW 24 Tier 3 33320 55th St SW Coronado Pkwy 25th Ct SW 24 Tier 3 30740 25th Ave SW 42nd St SW 42nd Ter SW 24 Tier 3 30814 42nd Ter SW Golden Gate Pkwy 25th Ave SW 24 Tier 3 31125 43rd St SW Golden Gate Pkwy 25th Ave SW 24 Tier 3 47 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) RECOMMENDED GOLDEN GATE CITY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ID Facility From To Score Priority Tier 32564 55th Ter SW Coronado Pkwy 25th Ct SW 24 Tier 3 35121 18th Pl SW 46th St SW 46th Ter SW 24 Tier 3 34772 45th Ter SW 21st Ave SW 22nd Pl SW 24 Tier 3 34024 46th St SW 21st Ave SW 22nd Pl SW 24 Tier 3 34087 22nd Pl SW 45th Ter SW 46th St SW 24 Tier 3 35518 54th Ter SW Coronado Pkwy Coronado Pkwy 24 Tier 3 39436 23rd Pl SW 52nd Ter SW 54th Ter SW 24 Tier 3 41399 52nd Ter SW 18th Ave SW 18th Ct SW 24 Tier 3 38058 17th Ave SW 49th St SW 50th Ter SW 24 Tier 3 39090 55th Ter SW 25th Ct SW 25th Pl SW 24 Tier 3 37520 42nd Ter SW Mystic ALY Golden Gate Pkwy 24 Tier 3 40139 17th Ave SW 48th St SW 49th St SW 24 Tier 3 38687 48th Ter SW 28th Ct SW 30th Pl SW 24 Tier 3 41675 49th Ln SW 28th Ct SW 30th Pl SW 24 Tier 3 44653 52nd Ter SW 23rd Ave SW 23rd Pl SW 24 Tier 3 44218 51st St SW 28th Ave SW 28th Pl SW 24 Tier 3 40006 16th Pl SW 41st St SW 41st Ln SW 24 Tier 3 40032 22nd Pl SW 55th St SW 55th Ter SW 24 Tier 3 40408 22nd Pl SW 55th Ter SW Tropical W ay 24 Tier 3 41018 22nd Pl SW Tropical WAY Santa Barbara Blvd 24 Tier 3 35083 42nd St SW 17th Ave SW 18th Pl SW 23 Tier 3 30850 51st St SW 17th Ave SW 17th Ct SW 22 Tier 3 30907 45th Ter SW 19th Pl SW 21st Ave SW 22 Tier 3 30665 21st Ave SW 45th Ter SW 21st Ave SW 22 Tier 3 31122 21st Ave SW 45th Ter SW 46th St SW 22 Tier 3 31102 25th Ave SW 42nd Ter SW 43rd St SW 22 Tier 3 34046 22nd Ave SW 54th St SW 54th Ter SW 22 Tier 3 34463 42nd St SW 22nd Pl SW 23rd Ave SW 22 Tier 3 38479 20th Ct SW 51st St SW 51st St SW 22 Tier 3 42110 20th Ct SW 51st St SW 51st Ter SW 22 Tier 3 38523 23rd Ave SW 52nd Ter SW 52nd Ln SW 22 Tier 3 42486 26th Ave SW 54th St SW 55th St SW 22 Tier 3 39782 25th Pl SW 54th St SW 55th Ter SW 22 Tier 3 37892 21st Pl SW 53rd St SW 54th Ter SW 22 Tier 3 39960 21st Ave SW 21st Pl SW 54th Ter SW 22 Tier 3 41166 54th St SW 22nd Ave SW 23rd Ave SW 22 Tier 3 40684 17th Ave SW 51st St SW 52nd St SW 22 Tier 3 38482 19th Ct SW Hunter Blvd 20th Pl SW 22 Tier 3 40008 16th Pl SW Jefferson Ln End 22 Tier 3 38314 16th Pl SW Jefferson Ln Sunshine Blvd 22 Tier 3 48 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) RECOMMENDED GOLDEN GATE CITY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ID Facility From To Score Priority Tier 40009 17th Ave SW Sunshine Blvd 48th St SW 22 Tier 3 38442 52nd Ter SW 22nd Pl SW 23rd Ave SW 22 Tier 3 38059 51st St SW 17th Ct SW 50th Ter SW 22 Tier 3 37611 54th St SW 25th Pl SW 26th Ave SW 22 Tier 3 44106 28th Ave SW 44th St SW 44th Ter SW 22 Tier 3 38129 28th Ave SW 44th Ter SW 46th St SW 22 Tier 3 38503 17th Ave SW 54th St SW 54th Ter SW 22 Tier 3 38504 17th Ave SW 54th Ter SW Canal 22 Tier 3 31315 41st Ter SW 30th Ave SW 31st Pl SW 20 Tier 3 31248 31st Ave SW 50th Ln SW 50th St SW 20 Tier 3 30939 50th Ter SW 17th Ave SW 17th Pl SW 20 Tier 3 30789 20th Pl SW 21st Pl SW 19th Ct SW 20 Tier 3 32243 55th Ter SW 25th Pl SW 26th Ave SW 20 Tier 3 31432 42nd Ter SW 30th Ave SW 31st Pl SW 20 Tier 3 30772 50th Ter SW 17th Pl SW 18th Ave SW 20 Tier 3 31449 50th Ln SW 31st Ave SW End 20 Tier 3 30786 17th Pl SW 49th St SW 50th Ter SW 20 Tier 3 30844 32nd Ave SW 41st St SW End 20 Tier 3 30845 41st St SW 31st Pl SW 32nd Ave SW 20 Tier 3 31307 31st Pl SW 42nd Ter SW 43rd St SW 20 Tier 3 31416 31st Pl SW 41st Ter SW 42nd St SW 20 Tier 3 31417 31st Pl SW 42nd St SW 42nd Ter SW 20 Tier 3 32832 28th Pl SW 44th Ter SW 46th St SW 20 Tier 3 30771 41st Ter SW 17th Ave SW 18th Ave SW 20 Tier 3 34481 52nd Ter SW 21st Pl SW 22nd Pl SW 20 Tier 3 34041 18th Ave SW 44th Ter SW Sunset Rd 20 Tier 3 34232 22nd Pl SW Hunter Blvd 52nd Ter SW 20 Tier 3 33852 32nd Ave SW 41st St SW 43rd St SW 20 Tier 3 34212 19th Pl SW 42nd St SW 44th Ter SW 20 Tier 3 39202 42nd St SW 30th Ave SW 31st Pl SW 20 Tier 3 42617 41st St SW 29th Pl SW 31st Pl SW 20 Tier 3 41351 23rd Ave SW 53rd St SW 54th St SW 20 Tier 3 39351 46th St SW 19th Pl SW 20th Ave SW 20 Tier 3 40027 46th St SW 20th Ave SW 21st Ave SW 20 Tier 3 38316 17th Ave SW 51st St SW End 20 Tier 3 42053 23rd Ave SW 54th St SW 54th Ter SW 20 Tier 3 39887 18th Ave SW 49th St SW 50th Ter SW 20 Tier 3 41476 47th Ter SW 28th Ave SW 30th Pl SW 20 Tier 3 42285 17th Ct SW 51st St SW 51st Ter SW 20 Tier 3 37894 44th Ter SW 28th Ave SW 28th Pl SW 20 Tier 3 49 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) RECOMMENDED GOLDEN GATE CITY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ID Facility From To Score Priority Tier 39050 30th Pl SW 44th Ter SW 46th St SW 20 Tier 3 40075 31st Pl SW 41st St SW 41st Ter SW 20 Tier 3 44217 44th Ter SW 28th Pl SW 29th Ave SW 20 Tier 3 38057 17th Ave SW 41st Ter SW 41st Ter SW 20 Tier 3 39829 45th St SW 31st Ave SW 31st Pl SW 19 Tier 3 33016 50th St SW 31st Ave SW 31st Pl SW 18 Tier 3 31477 19th Pl SW 45th Ter SW 46th St SW 18 Tier 3 30775 21st Pl SW 52nd Ter SW 21st Ave SW 18 Tier 3 34405 17th Ct SW 18th Pl SW Sunset Rd 18 Tier 3 36236 45th Ter SW 17th Ave SW 18th Pl SW 18 Tier 3 42400 17th Ct SW 45th St SW 18th Pl SW 18 Tier 3 38337 53rd St SW 21st Pl SW 23rd Ave SW 18 Tier 3 38524 23rd Ave SW 52nd Ln SW 53rd St SW 18 Tier 3 39958 17th Ave SW 43rd Ter SW 45th St SW 18 Tier 3 40745 52nd Ln SW 21st Pl SW 23rd Ave SW 18 Tier 3 41961 17th Ct SW 44th Ter SW 45th St SW 18 Tier 3 42208 17th Pl SW 44th Ter SW 45th St SW 18 Tier 3 41097 18th Pl SW 17th Ct SW 17th Ct SW 18 Tier 3 41727 18th Pl SW 45th Ter SW 46th St SW 18 Tier 3 44723 17th Ave SW 50th Ter SW Canal 18 Tier 3 38216 16th Pl SW 41st Ln SW Washington Ln 18 Tier 3 40017 17th Ave SW 42nd St SW 42nd Ter SW 18 Tier 3 38473 41st Ln SW Green Blvd Atoll Ct 18 Tier 3 40136 41st Ln SW Atoll Ct 16th Pl SW 18 Tier 3 30678 43rd Ter SW 17th Ave SW 17th Pl SW 16 Tier 3 30732 17th Pl SW 43rd Ter SW 44th Ter SW 16 Tier 3 30881 44th Ter SW 17th Pl SW 17th Ct SW 16 Tier 3 30882 43rd Ter SW 17th Pl SW 18th Ave SW 16 Tier 3 36338 45th St SW 17th Pl SW 17th Ct SW 16 Tier 3 34127 44th St SW 18th Pl SW 19th Ave SW 16 Tier 3 35429 43rd St SW 17th Ave SW 18th Pl SW 16 Tier 3 35517 43rd Ter SW 18th Ave SW 18th Pl SW 16 Tier 3 35997 18th Ave SW 43rd Ter SW 44th Ter SW 16 Tier 3 36337 44th Ter SW 17th Ct SW 18th Ave SW 16 Tier 3 36339 42nd Ter SW 17th Ave SW 18th Pl SW 16 Tier 3 38761 17th Ave SW 45th St SW 45th Ter SW 16 Tier 3 44639 45th Ter SW 18th Pl SW 19th Pl SW 16 Tier 3 44624 50th St SW 31st Pl SW 32nd Ave SW 16 Tier 3 39422 17th Ave SW 43rd St SW 43rd Ter SW 16 Tier 3 40138 17th Ave SW 42nd Ter SW 43rd St SW 16 Tier 3 50 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) RECOMMENDED GOLDEN GATE CITY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ID Facility From To Score Priority Tier 41892 16th Pl SW Washington Ln 43rd Ln SW 16 Tier 3 30751 45th St SW 17th Ave SW 17th Pl SW 14 Tier 3 35822 30th Ave SW 42nd St SW 42nd Ter SW 14 Tier 3 36894 30th Ave SW 42nd Ter SW 43rd St SW 14 Tier 3 38834 30th Pl SW 47th Ter SW Tropicana Blvd 14 Tier 3 40016 43rd Ln SW Green Blvd Atoll Ct 14 Tier 3 40786 43rd Ln SW Atoll Ct 16th Pl SW 14 Tier 3 37218 30th Ave SW 41st Ter SW 42nd St SW 12 Tier 3 42157 41st Ter SW 29th Pl SW 30th Ave SW 12 Tier 3 51 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Short-Term/Mid-Term Projects for Implementation/Consideration The following minor improvements, projects and studies have been derived based on suggestions made by the public and other project stakeholders throughout the public involvement process (workshops, walk audits, bike audits, surveys). These projects address safety, traffic calming and aesthetic concerns. These projects can be considered Short-Term and Mid-Term projects due to the ease of implementation. Some projects are further detailed for clarification in the Recommendations by Type section of this report which follows the table below. 1. Install missing crosswalks at the following locations: High Priority/Short-Term Hunter Boulevard and Coronado Boulevard 23rd Avenue SW and Sunshine Boulevard 23rd Avenue SW and 49th Terrace SW 2. Install Double faced Signs: High Priority/Short-Term Why: Makes the signs visible to traffic approaching from either direction Where: Advance warning crosswalk signs and crosswalk signs in and around all school zones 3. Install 10-foot-wide crossings for all four legs of intersections on the perimeters of schools: High Priority/Short-Term 4.Apply for Federal and State funds to complete the Tier One sidewalk gaps. High Priority/Short-Term 5. Perform an engineering study to place High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacons in appropriate locations, such as: Tropicana Boulevard near 32nd Avenue SW; Golden Gate Parkway near Tropicana Boulevard; Sunshine Boulevard near 23rd Avenue SW; and 49th Terrace SW and 23rd Avenue SW. Mid -term 6. Initiate a feasibility study for installing mini-circles in intersections of streets with long block lengths. First consideration near schools such as: 25th Place SW and 48th Terrace SW; 25th Place SW and 50th Street.; 49th Terrace SW and 19th Street SW; 49th Terrace SW and 20th Place SW. Mid -term 7. Initiate an engineering study for road diets along Coronado Parkway and Sunshine Boulevard, and, once the studies are complete, conduct community workshops for both projects. Mid-term 8. Activate a shade tree planting program with the Collier County forester, a local school, organization, or agency. Partner with an established group to begin a sponsored tree nursery, with first planting priorities near Golden Gate City schools. Mid-term 9. Create buffered bike lanes on streets that can be narrowed to 10-foot lanes. Even a buffer of only one foot is helpful to increase safety and comfort. Mid-term 10.Adopt a Collier County painted intersection resolution. Mid-term Short-term = today to 3 years Mid-term = 3 to 5 years 52 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Recommendations by Type The following project recommendations for consideration have been included for purposes of clarification and ease of explanation when communicating with project stakeholders. Most have been researched based on suggestions made by the public and other project stakeholders throughout the public involvement process. They are intended to promote dialog and provide information and examples for further discussion. The recommendations have been summarized by type for ease of review and are not in priority order. Utilization of “Informal Pathways” There are opportunities to extend the pedestrian network by using low-speed and often informal pathways such as alleys. The following alleys and paths were observed in Golden Gate City: Tropical Way is a paved alley immediately parallel to Santa Barbara Boulevard. There is an unnamed, paved alley immediately parallel to and south of Golden Gate Parkway from west of 50 Street to 44 Street SW. There is an unpaved informal path immediately east of and parallel to Hunter Boulevard from 23 Court SW to 55 Street SW. There is an unpaved informal path immediately east of and parallel to Sunshine Boulevard from 23 Avenue SW to Sunset Road. There is an unpaved informal path immediately west of and parallel to Sunshine Boulevard from 23 Avenue SW to 17 Avenue SW. A brief field review indicated substantial pedestrian usage. However, the current usage by motorists and restricted width of passageway poses serious safety concerns. A detailed analysis is required before recommendations can be made for incorporation into a formal pedestrian network. Crosswalks Crosswalks provide dedicated space for pedestrians to cross roads. The following recommendations increase the quantity and quality of crosswalks in Golden Gate City: Missing crosswalks should be filled in and were noted at the following location: o Hunter Boulevard and Coronado Boulevard. Short term o 23rd Avenue SW and Sunshine Boulevard. Short term o 23rd Avenue SW and 49th Terrace SW. Short term Low-Cost Traffic Calming Demonstration Projects Traffic calming was a common theme heard at stakeholder and public meetings, including MPO committee meetings. There are some techniques and projects that can be tried inexpensively as demonstration or pilot projects. Demonstration projects also allow the community to try out solutions without fully committing to them. The following are suggested for Golden Gate City: Use spray paint and bollards to visually narrow travel lanes at intersections that have high pedestrian activity, such as Tropicana Boulevard, south of Golden Gate Parkway. This gives the pedestrian a shorter crossing distance and should encourage drivers to reduce their speeds. Use spray paint to increase the width of crosswalks to the recommended 10-feet width at crossings adjacent to Golden Gate Middle School. Use spray paint and large planters to mimic a protected bike lane or road diet. Spray paint and planters can also be used to mimic mini- circles at minor intersections on residential streets. 53 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Due to safety concerns as noted in the Existing Conditions section of this report, additional or improved crosswalks are recommended for the following locations: o Golden Gate Parkway and Coronado Boulevard. Short term o Golden Gate Parkway and Sunshine Boulevard. Short term o Sunshine Boulevard between 18th SW and Sunset Road. Short term o Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Short term o Santa Barbara Blvd between Westport Lane and 17th Ave SW/Cedar Tree Lane. Short term To increase the visibility of crosswalks for all motorists, it is recommended that all advance warning crosswalk signs in and around all school zones are “double faced,” meaning the sign is visible to traffic approaching from either direction. Short term Use minimum 10-foot-wide high emphasis crosswalk markings on all four legs of intersections within 1,000 feet of each school. Start with the Golden Gate High School, Golden Gate Middle School, Grace Place, and other schools with high walking rates. Over time, incorporate this practice at all schools. Short-term Provide a mid-block crossing on Coronado Parkway approximately 300 feet back from intersection with Golden Gate Parkway. With the recommended road diet, the travel lane exposure will be changed to a 10-foot lane, a wide median, then another 10-foot lane. This could also be considered for a raised crossing. A study is warranted to determine spacing and feasibility. Mid term Consider removing on-demand signals and go to fully automated signals in light of the volume of pedestrians in some locations, such as Golden Gate Parkway at the Sunshine Boulevard and the Coronado Parkway intersections. Mid term Consider one or more midblock HAWK signals at locations such as Tropicana Boulevard and 32nd Avenue SW; Golden Gate Parkway and Tropicana Boulevard; Collier Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard; Sunshine Boulevard and 23rd Avenue SW; 49th Terrace SW near 23rd Avenue SW. Long term Examples of high-visibility crossings from FHWA 54 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) School-Focused Recommendations With so many schools in Golden Gate City, and with high rates of students walking and bicycling, recommendations that directly impact schools can quickly and positively impact many of Golden Gate City’s residents. The following recommendations can make it safer and more comfortable for students to walk and bike to and from school: Explore an early release of about six to eight minutes before parent pickup for all children who walk or bike home from Golden Gate Middle School. This offers students choosing active transportation a reward for walking and biking. More importantly, it provides them a greater margin of safety crossing streets near schools because they have a head start before the arrival of most parents in cars. Short term Monitor this program, and expand it to area elementary schools, such as the intermediate campus of Golden Gate Elementary School, as a recommended next step. Mid term Coordinate with the Sheriff’s office and code enforcement to develop a campaign to address parked cars blocking sidewalks. Start this on all sidewalks within 1,500 feet of schools and then expand this to all roads in Golden Gate City. Short term Widen sidewalks around the high school and middle school to eight to 10 feet in width. Long term Lighting The figure below shows the locations of Florida Power and Light (FPL) and MSTU maintained lighting. Although there is significant coverage, the residents’ perception is that the existing lighting isn’t sufficient for them to feel safe. A follow-up lighting study is recommended to measure street and sidewalk light illumination, and create a map identifying places that need additional lighting. Prioritize lighting along sidewalks and roadways used by students walking home from school and after-school activities are a particular priority. Short term Develop a lighting and landscape plan with the MSTU. Short term Lighting inventory in Golden Gate City FPL (yellow) and MSTU (red) Source: Collier County 55 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Mini-Circles in Intersections Like painted intersections, mini-circles in intersections help to create visual interruptions for motorists. Uninterrupted lengths of road encourage motorists to travel at higher speeds than posted. Study the feasibility of installing mini-circles in intersections of streets with long block lengths (above 600 feet) with first consideration near schools. Suggestions: o 25th Place SW and 48th Terrace SW. Mid term o 25th Place SW and 50th Street SW. Mid term o 49th Terrace SW and 19th Street SW. Mid term o 49th Terrace SW and 20th Place SW. Mid term Road Diets and Roundabouts Reducing the number of lanes, narrowing the width of existing lanes, or changing a traditional intersection into a roundabout are all strategies to reduce observed speeds and elevate the status of pedestrians while still moving people in cars. Study the possibility of a road diet for Sunshine Boulevard, and use an engaging process such as a neighborhood charrette to gauge support. The outer lanes can be repainted as buffered bike lanes. Short to mid term Study the feasibility of painted road diets for Coronado Parkway and Hunter Boulevard. The outer lanes can be altered to include buffered bike lanes. Painted road diets can be considered temporary tests to determine the best configuration and to gauge community support. Mid term To help bring the observed speeds closer to the posted speed limit of 35 mph, explore creating 11-foot-wide lanes on Golden Gate Parkway within one mile of the community center or the full length of the road between Collier Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Current lanes are 12-feet-wide. Coordinate the effort with Collier Area Transit to ensure buses can be accommodated. Mid term Study the feasibility of converting the intersections at Coronado Parkway and Golden Gate Parkway and Sunshine Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway to roundabouts. Long term Mini-circles in Seattle and Boston Example of a road diet 56 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Pedestrian Signals Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) and High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacons are two examples of tools that allocate time to pedestrians and bicyclists and increase roadway safety. LPI typically gives people on foot a three to seven second head start when entering an intersection with a corresponding green signal in the same direction of travel. LPIs enhance the visibility of people on foot in the intersection and reinforce their right- of-way over turning vehicles, especially in locations with a history of conflict. HAWK beacons add traffic signal displays on both sides of the road that stop traffic in both directions when push buttons are pressed by someone wishing to use the crosswalk. HAWK beacons, because of their ability to stop traffic with red traffic lights, work well on busy streets where there is a high volume of pedestrian traffic but no traditional traffic signals to periodically stop traffic. Instead of competing with vehicles, pedestrians have their own space and time in which to travel. LPIs have been shown to reduce crashes between pedestrians and vehicles by as much as 60 percent at treated intersections. HAWKs in Phoenix, AZ, have resulted in a 29 percent reduction of total crashes; 69 percent reduction of pedestrian crashes; and 15 percent reduction of severe crashes. Specific locations that could be considered for these treatments include Tropicana Boulevard near 32nd Avenue SW; Golden Gate Parkway near Tropicana Boulevard; Sunshine Boulevard near 23rd Avenue SW; and 49th Terrace SW and 23rd Avenue SW. Phoenix, AZ, began installing HAWKs in 2004, and more than 90 are now throughout the city. Floridian examples can be found in Tampa near the University of South Florida and on East Hillsborough Avenue (in response to a number of pedestrian deaths in recent years), as well as on Bayshore Drive in East Naples. LPI have been implemented in Tallahassee, Ocala, Fort Lauderdale, and Gainesville. The MUTCD allows for pedestrian signals or beacons to warn or control vehicle traffic at an unsignalized location to help people on foot cross a street at a marked crosswalk. They are recommended on street with speeds no greater than 35 mph. FDOT has installed HAWKs on FDOT maintained roads as an experimental traffic control device. The MUTCD offers guidance on implementing LPI, including a minimum lead time of three seconds, which signs may be appropriate, and suggests turns across the crosswalk should be prohibited during the leading pedestrian interval. The following short-term recommendations for pedestrian-friendly signal timing practices at all principal roadway intersections are applicable throughout Golden Gate City: Maximize walk release phase for crossings at all side streets Provide automatic recall Consider removal of on-demand signals, and go to fully automated signals in light of the volume of pedestrians in some locations, such as Golden Gate Parkway at Coronado Parkway and Sunshine Boulevard intersections to improve pedestrian safety HAWK beacons 57 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Study and apply protected left phase signals, and go to “lagging,” where appropriate Provide transit signal priority at key signals where not already in practice Reduce vehicle speeds to match sight distance as recommended by NACTO, rather than enlarging the intersection or removing obstructions Eliminate left or right turns where they cause safety problems, especially around schools where the street grid permits In off-peak hours set signals to reduce pedestrian wait times by using shorter cycles (long cycle lengths discourage active transportation) Shared Streets Low-volume residential streets often have narrow, crumbling, or non-existent sidewalks. Many of these streets operate as shared spaces, in which children play and people walk, sharing the roadway with drivers. Depending on the street’s volume and role in the traffic network, these streets have the potential to be redesigned and enhanced as shared streets. Shared streets, also known as home streets or woonerfs, can meet the desires of adjacent residents and function foremost as a public space for recreation, socializing, and leisure. Shared Streets are one of the newest ideas in walkability and are appropriate for residential blocks. One car lane is marked in paint in the middle of the street, with the rest of the street space available for walkers and bikers. There are generally no sidewalks or bike lanes. If two cars meet on the street, one simply moves out of the car lane until the other passes, which poses no risk to people on foot or bike because motor vehicles travel slowly (5-10 mph). Some local streets in Golden Gate City lend themselves to a shared street demonstration project – they are narrow, have low posted speed limits, are home to many people traveling on foot and on bicycle, and are within a tight-knit community. Shared streets let residents reclaim the public realm of the street for recreation and social gathering. 58 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) A strong candidate for this treatment is 18th Avenue SW between Sunset Road and 43rd Terrace SW. Begin by hosting a neighborhood charrette to consider how the conversion could look and function - the community has to be the entity desiring, requesting, and supporting the change. Many cities that grew before the advent of the automobile have streets that serve naturally as shared spaces. Cities considering the implementation of a shared space should consider the adoption of a specific definition of a shared street in their city code. Seattle and Cambridge, MA, have both officially incorporated a definition of shared street into their city code. While the MUTCD has no references to home streets, woonerfs, or shared streets, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has developed detailed design and policy guidance for “residential shared streets.” NACTO recommends: Textured pavements that are flush with the curb reinforce the pedestrian-priority nature of the street. The design of the surface should be the prominent feature. Street furniture, including bollards, benches, planters, and bicycle parking, can help define a shared space, delineating the traveled way from the pedestrian-only space. A shared street sign should be used at the entrance to a shared street. Shared streets should generally be designed to operate intuitively as shared spaces without the need of signage. Signage serves to educate the public in the early stages of a conversion. Provide tactile warning strips at the entrance to all shared spaces to alert drivers and pedestrians. Shared streets generally allow motorists and bicyclists to operate in a two-way fashion. Designers should strive to make these behaviors implicit through the design details of the street itself. Shared Streets in Golden Gate City would be a big change, but they can be implemented relatively quickly. Both the community engagement process and design and implementation can be achieved within five years. Short term 59 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Shade Trees Shade trees are one of the most important ingredients in creating a safe and comfortable community for walking. This is particularly true in southwest Florida where the high temperature is above 90 degrees for months on end. Shade trees are recommended first along all Tier One street segments and then along sidewalks on Tier Two facilities. It is recommended that a shade tree planting program is started at select schools and a nursery is created to supply trees. The program can involve the county forester and volunteer groups of students, scouts, or citizens to plant shade trees around the perimeter of a pilot school campus within three years. This program can be expanded to all schools within five years. Short to mid term Pedestrian Connections The following recommendations can create more direct walking connections within Golden Gate City. A bridge at 20th Place SW over the canal will connect residents to nearby retail and transit. Take advantage of the existing path connection between Golden Gate High School and Golden Gate Community Park through Forest Park, a gated community, by improving wayfinding for pedestrian routes leading to the park. NOTE: Coordination with and Approval by HOA will be required. Work to make this an official walk and bike route, which will give students a much shorter and safer direct route to all the recreational facilities in Golden Gate Community Park. Map out and create “first and last mile” wayfinding signs that announce walking distance in minutes (up to fifteen minutes or ½-mile) from major transit pick up and drop off stops to parks, retail, and other services and amenities. For areas with high elder populations or significant multi-family housing, add benches along key walking routes, spaced roughly 400 feet apart. Short term Improve walkability through the parking lots that connect the government center, the senior center, and Golden Gate Community Center. Short term Explore with the county engineer ways to slow traffic in and around the civic center complex with off- peak signal phasing cycles. Mid term Work with Collier County to require better street connectivity for all future developments through the adopted Land Development Code. Avoid building additional super-blocks and walled or gated communities. Mid to long term Enhance key parkway and other transit stops for improved placemaking and comfort. Long term 20th Place SW is currently interrupted by a canal 60 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Painted Intersections Painted intersections are murals painted on the street that create a sense of place through designs. They often reflect the character of an area and add to the social and economic fabric of a community. In addition, they offer traffic-calming through colorful, visual public art displays and provide safer experiences for pedestrians through well- marked crosswalks incorporated into the art design. Painted intersections also provide motorists with a tangible, visible reminder that they are traveling in a public thoroughfare and should be on the lookout for pedestrians, joggers, and bicyclists in the area. This treatment is appropriate for low-volume, local streets. Golden Gate City is a close-knit neighborhood with personality. Painted intersections can help highlight that sense of place and community, add neighborhood pride, and help create a safer, more comfortable walking and biking environment. A painted intersection says, “This is a place, you’re in a community that cares.” Specific locations that may be great candidates for painted intersections are Sunshine Boulevard and 20th Place SW and 32nd Avenue SW and Tropicana Boulevard. These could be the first painted intersections in Collier County and neighboring counties and could be on the ground by 2019. While there are many examples around the country, painted intersections are also found closer to Golden Gate City. Fort Lauderdale has completed three stunning examples as part of its “Connecting the Block Painted Intersection Program” that is intended to create a safer balance between cars and people. Tampa’s South Seminole Heights neighborhood installed a colorful painted intersection in July 2017. Both cities developed supportive programs and guidelines that allow neighborhoods to design, create, and install painted intersections. The guidelines also specify the kind of paint to be used, suggest fundraising ideas, and offer templates for gathering support and even “Paint Day” event planning. The 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices doesn’t directly apply to painted intersections because they are not considered traffic control devices. However, it states that painted intersections should not interfere with or obscure crosswalks, which are traffic control devices. Local agencies have developed effective guidelines to ensure the safety of all road users is respected. It is recommended that the implementing agency in Collier County collaborate with the implementing agencies in Tampa and Fort Lauderdale to understand the process and experience, particularly the impact on safety. Painted intersections can be implemented quickly and inexpensively. Short term Painted intersections in Fort Lauderdale, FL, St Petersburg, FL, and Tampa, FL 61 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Appendix A Additional Plans Review 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Appendix A: Additional Plans Review Collier County Comprehensive Plan Policies and Objectives Policy 6.2.3: Sidewalks and bike lanes shall provide access to government facilities, schools, commercial areas and the planned County greenway network. Objective 6.3: Coordinate with local emergency services officials in planning and constructing road improvements within Golden Gate Estates and Golden Gate City to ensure that the access needs of fire department, police and emergency management personnel and vehicles are met. Objective 7.3: Develop strategies through the County Growth Management Division – Planning and Regulation for the enhancement of roadway interconnection within Golden Gate City and the Estates Area including interim measures to assure interconnection. Collier MPO 2012 Comprehensive Pathways Plan The Collier MPO 2012 Comprehensive Pathways Plan (CPP) serves as the bicycle and pedestrian master plan for Collier County. The CPP was first developed in 1994 and was last updated in 2012; it is being replaced by a new plan, the Collier MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which is currently under development. Its purpose is to provide a framework for developing a first-class bicycle and pedestrian network throughout Collier County. This plan includes prioritized lists of bicycle and pedestrian needs, as well as general policy and program recommendations that may be used by the cities and Collier County when planning new and redevelopment projects. A specially-designed Stakeholders Working Group worked with MPO staff to identify the following issues:  Safety  Existing Roadway Network – High Volume, High Speed  Access & Transportation Mode Parity  Connectivity and Continuity  Link to Transit  Facility Type & Diversity  Facility Design  Development & Land Planning Practices  Promoting Livable Communities & Increasing the Number of Bicyclists & Pedestrians In response to these issues, the plan presents a comprehensive set of recommendations to strategically develop a county-wide bicycle and pedestrian network comprised of sidewalks, bike lanes, paved shoulders and shared-use paths. The recommendations include:  Construct new bicycle and pedestrian facilities  Adopt a bicycle and pedestrian accommodation policy  Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt Complete Streets policies  Evaluate existing street design and safety enhancement opportunities  Take advantage of regularly-scheduled maintenance and resurfacing  Consider strategic “network quality” improvements  Encourage facility diversity 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Establish a greenways and trail program Implement education, encouragement and enforcement strategies, campaigns and programs Promote and facilitate the design of livable and walkable communities It also includes a Prioritized Needs Plan, and the following Golden Gate City roadways were identified. The table below shows the bicycle needs identified in the plan followed by the pedestrian needs identified in the plan. Comprehensive Pathways Plan Prioritized Bicycle Needs in Golden Gate City Facility From To Length (miles) Need Rank Improvement Est. Construction Cost Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway City Gate Boulevard N 4.16 High Bike lanes on 2 sides $1.1 M Golden Gate Parkway Collier Boulevard 55th Street SW 2.07 High Bike lanes on 2 sides $550k Green Boulevard Sunshine Boulevard Logan Boulevard S 1.04 High Bike lanes on 2 sides $278k Sunshine Boulevard Green Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway 1.09 High Bike lanes on 2 sides $291k Comprehensive Pathways Plan Prioritized Pedestrian Needs in Golden Gate City Facility From To Length (miles) Need Rank Improvement Est. Construction Cost Collier Boulevard Green Boulevard Vanderbilt Beach Road 3.05 Medium Sidewalks on 1 side $350k (funded for construction FY 2013/14) Collier Boulevard Davis Boulevard Green Boulevard 3.08 High Sidewalks on 1 and 2 sides $588k Golden Gate Parkway* Tropicana Boulevard 53rd Terrace SW 0.39 High Sidewalks on 1 side $45k Golden Gate Parkway Collier Boulevard Sunshine Boulevard 0.93 High Sidewalks on 1 and 2 sides $120k Green Boulevard Collier Boulevard Logan Boulevard S 2.00 High Sidewalks on 1 and 2 sides $339k Sunshine Boulevard* Green Boulevard 17th Ave SW 0.16 High Sidewalks on 1 side $18k *These projects or portions of these projects have construction funds programmed in Fiscal Year 2019. The new Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is currently underway and will incorporate some of the 2012 CPP. The Plan will integrate the MPO’s vision with local jurisdictions’ existing plans and policies with the goal of a safe, convenient bicycle and pedestrian network that will yield economic, recreational, and quality of life benefits for Collier County residents and visitors. The Plan will address current best practices and include policies and guidelines pertaining to the preservation of rights-of-way and/or public access easements and bicycle/pedestrian design guidelines. 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Appendix B Public Engagement Events 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Appendix B: Public Engagement Events Focus Groups January 11, 9:45 am - 12:00 pm Three focus groups were held to talk to unique groups of stakeholders: Golden Gate City’s schools and educational institutions, the agencies who oversee and interact with the delivery and maintenance of infrastructure, and the business community. Representative comments included: The Golden Gate Middle School principal helps direct students who are on-foot at dismissal time due to the high number of students that walk or bike to school. Around 50 percent of the 900 kids in after school programs at Grace Place walk home from their campus. The lack of sidewalks beyond the school grounds is a major concern because many kids wind up walking in streets and ditches. Another problem is cars parking on the sidewalks. Lack of pedestrian lighting is of concern—both in the morning for kids walking to school and in the evening as they come home from after-school activities and sports events. Light poles installed by the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU on Sunshine Blvd. and Tropicana Blvd. are primarily decorative. Located mainly at median ends on these roadways, they offer only incidental pedestrian lighting. In a discussion of possible utilization of MSTU funds for new pedestrian lighting, two considerations are noted: (1) Sufficient funds are required at all times to maintain existing MSTU assets and planned improvements, and (2) the MSTU Ordinance may require BCC-approved modification to include improved pedestrian lighting. Many City residents walk as their means of transportation. Bus service is limited, stopping between 6:30 pm and 8:00 pm, depending on the line. Roundabouts on busy streets might slow down traffic speeds. More multi-purpose pathways should be considered for both sides of major streets. Research shows that residents want Golden Gate City to be a vibrant, walkable, family-friendly community. Improving biking and walking conditions was a higher priority in the survey than easing auto congestion. Golden Gate Community Center functions as a town square, a place where the community comes together for public meetings, arts events, festivals, and food assistance programs. 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Walking Audits Three walking audits were held over two days near the Golden Gate Community Center along Golden Gate Parkway and Sunshine Boulevard. Adult crossing guards are assigned to major intersections at school dismissal time, some of whom have the ability to control traffic signals. The study team asked participants to consider “How do you reward people who walk and bike, rather than punish them ?” Participants and the walkability team came up with a menu of options to make walking safe, comfortable, and convenient for all. These options have been included in the Recommendations section of this report. Bike Tour January 11, 2018, 3:00 pm The study team led a group on bikes through the neighborhood beginning at the Community Center, north on Sunshine Boulevard (a four-lane road with sidewalks and no marked bike lanes), to 17th Avenue SW. The group paused at an intersection, and the study team described the benefits of road diets for roads like Sunshine Boulevard. The group then toured a residential neighborhood with narrow streets, no sidewalks, and little traffic which the study team said could be perfect for a Shared Street (see the Recommendations section of this report for additional details). The team stopped at several road crossings and described how right angles at intersections can reduce vehicle rolling stops, increasing safety for bicyclists and walkers. The group observed how the canals create obstructions to direct travel in the neighborhood. The team suggested that canal crossings could reduce the length or walking or biking trips and provide better connectivity. One benefit of Shared Streets is that they can be done one block at a time, wherever a “champion” emerges who educates neighbors about the advantages of the plan. A strategic strength of the idea is that homeowners readily embrace it because it reduces speed and noise and improves quality of life on their own block. Windshield Tours During the two windshield tours, staff from the study team and Collier County investigated locations discussed in meetings and events. The following observations were made: 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Because there are sidewalks on just one side of Tropicana Boulevard, students walking to schools are forced to walk on the pavement in the bicycle lane. Even though there is a locked gate between Golden Gate High School and the Forest Park gated community, access is possible via a somewhat hidden walkway and bridge across the canal. The gate to the community park at the west end of Forest Park is also open, making it possible for students to walk between the school and the park. Sidewalks and bike lanes are limited near schools and Grace Place, even though a high percentage of students regularly walk or bike. Winn-Dixie, the only large supermarket in the community, has poor pedestrian access. Street connectivity can be improved with pedestrian bridges over canals in several locations. The sidewalk disappears on Santa Barbara Boulevard, with people being forced to walk in the buffered bike lane. Lack of shade on many sidewalks deters walking. Parents’ cars line up long before school pick up time, aggravating congestion and pollution. Posted speed limits on the streets bordering Golden Gate City are 45 mph while most local streets interior to the study area are much lower. Golden Gate Parkway is 35 mph. There are very few speed limit signs posted on local streets. Evening Public Events Publicly advertised workshops were held to engage with the community. A presentation was followed by group work on maps and discussions about problems and desired outcomes. January 11 and 12, 2018, 5:00 - 7:00 pm The study team asked people to share thoughts on how to transform Golden Gate City from a place where auto traffic defines the community to one that exhibits the feel of a village, where people can easily and safely get around on foot. The team invited the audience to contribute ideas on how to “make walking the natural and the easy choice” in transportation. Highlights of comments received include: Reduce speeding in school zones where the speed limit is 20 mph. Lower speeds dramatically increase public safety. 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Golden Gate City families have less access to automobiles and therefore, people walk more often because they don’t have a choice. Bike and pedestrian safety should become a subject for health classes in the schools. Poor lighting contributes to street crime in some neighborhoods, especially after dark. Break Out Session January 12, 2018 Attendees of the public workshop gathered around tables with a large Golden Gate City map where they highlighted problems and solutions in the community with blue stickers and post-it notes. Group #1 emphasized the following: Bad design for pedestrian crossing at Golden Gate Parkway and 44th Street SW No sidewalks on Santa Barbara Boulevard Sidewalk abruptly ends on Golden Gate Parkway at 55th Street SW People drive off the road at Santa Barbara Boulevard and Green Boulevard Incomplete sidewalks near Winn-Dixie Group #2 emphasized the following: Crossing guard at Sunshine Boulevard and 20th Place SW is hampered in helping people get across street safely Locked gates in the Forest Park gated community discourage kids from walking from the high school to recreational facilities and aquatic center in Golden Gate Community Park ; the only alternative route is much longer because of canals, and involves crossing very busy streets Dismissal time at Grace Place can create traffic problems in the neighborhood School Observations Morning Visit to Golden Gate Elementary Thursday, January 11 Observations Golden Gate Elementary is divided into two campuses that are geographically separated. Kindergarten through second grade attend one campus north of 20th Place SW, while third through fifth grade are located a few blocks to the west, south of 20th Place SW. There is a relatively new pedestrian bridge along 20th Place S over a canal that separates the campuses. The surrounding sidewalks are filled with kids on foot, a few on bikes, parents walking with strollers, etc. School is in session from 7:55 a.m. to 2:50 p.m. Concerns 4-5-foot sidewalks are too narrow for the heavy volume of kids walking Limited number of entrances increases walking distance and time; at K-2 school, only one entrance on a roughly ½-mile superblock is safe for kids and parents to use; kids and parents use unsafe entrances to save time and steps Very few sidewalks on streets away from immediate vicinity of schools Heavy auto traffic of parents dropping off kids makes walking more risky Sidewalk pavement and buffer strips deteriorating in some places 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Assets Zebra-striped crosswalks at some intersections New pedestrian bridge over the canal and funded by Safe Routes for Schools Locked bike corrals available at both campuses (K-2 and 3-5) Youth crossing guards Narrow streets slow speed of traffic Morning Visit to Golden Terrace Elementary School Thursday, January 11 Observations Like Golden Gate Elementary School, Golden Terrace is divided into two campuses. Kindergarten through second grades are at the northern campus on 27th Court SW, and third through fifth grades are at the campus to the south on 30th Avenue SW. School is in session from 7:55 a.m. to 2:50 p.m. Concerns Very few sidewalks on streets away from immediate vicinity of school Sidewalks are narrow, not comfortable for two people to walk abreast There is no direct connection on the street network between the two campuses; parents walking children to school at both campuses have to travel further than necessary Speeding observed; a parent said she observes speeding and running stop signs regularly Limited entrance to school grounds requires walkers and cyclists to walk further Crossings directly adjacent to the school are faded and in poor condition Assets Surrounding streets are narrow, good potential for controlling speeds and for pedestrian crossings High rates of walking and biking observed Well-designed system for parents in cars dropping off kids Morning Visit to Golden Gate High School Friday, January 12 Observations School starts at 7:05 am. Many students walk or bike to school, and vehicle traffic was heavy going south on Tropicana Boulevard. While there are buffered bike lanes on Tropicana Boulevard and sidewalks on the west side, many students were walking and biking southbound in the northbound travel lanes. Traveling correctly requires them to cross Tropicana Boulevard with low-lighting and heavy vehicle traffic. 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Concerns  Very few sidewalks on streets away from immediate vicinity of school  On heavily-traveled Tropicana Boulevard, no crossing lights or sidewalk on one side of street  Median lighting on Tropicana Boulevard is ineffective  Two entrances to school grounds: Tropicana Boulevard and Magnolia Pond Drive (outside study area); creates congestion and reduces directness Assets  Tropicana Boulevard is a road with a good cross-section and has room for improvements  High bicycling and pedestrian use  Medians can act as good pedestrian refuge Morning and Afternoon Visit to Golden Gate Middle School Friday, January 12 Observations School is in session from 9:05 a.m. to 3:50 p.m. It is estimated that 800-900 of the 1,100-student body walk or bike at least part of the time. These are extraordinary numbers and a great advantage to furthering a culture of walking as transportation in Golden Gate City. In the afternoon, the principal escorts walkers and cyclists to the intersection of Tropicana Boulevard and 26th Place SW and encourages safe walking and biking. Concerns  Very few sidewalks on streets away from immediate vicinity of school  On heavily-traveled Tropicana Boulevard, two blocks from school, no crossing lights or sidewalk on one side of street  Limited number of entrance to school grounds, which means further walking or biking for some kids Assets  Well-designed syst em for parents in cars dropping off kids  Buses have separate drop-off zone  Cones placed at the exit restrict left turns as cars leave the school grounds (roughly 90-95 percent)  Zebra-stripes at some crossings near school  Large corral for storing bikes, with ample bike racks so kids can lock their bikes  Sidewalks all at least five feet wide  School administration is dedicated to keeping kids on foot and on bikes safe Team Meetings January 12, 2018 8:00 am An in-depth, follow-up discussion looked deeper at the concerns and solutions that surfaced in meetings and events. Of note are the following issues: 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) MSTU could be a potential source for funding installing pedestrian lighting. There is need for engaging more constituencies in the Golden Gate community on walkability issues. Faith communities and civics classes in the schools could be used for outreach possibilities. The development of a private golf course into a large multi-family housing project raises traffic and other issues for the neighborhood. Could some of it be preserved as parkland? Numerous site visits were also conducted during this time to review areas noted by community members during the previous evening’s public meetings. School sites were explored as well as the connections between the schools and the surrounding neighborhoods. Community Meeting The study team presented the draft study and recommendations at a community meeting on Thursday, April 19, 2018, that saw many of the same residents who participated in the January events. After the presentation, participants reviewed a map of recommendations for the areas with the greatest needs. The following comments were collected: Safety is a concern if a pedestrian bridge were to fill in the gap across the canal on 20th Place SW Mini-circles in intersections could help slow vehicle traffic on residential streets Shade trees are good, but also pose a risk during storms Painted intersections could help add pride to Golden Gate City A reconfigured connection from Coronado Parkway to Golden Gate Parkway, possibly through the adjacent commercial area, could be beneficial and support redevelopment Possible redevelopment of the golf course could increase the volume of traffic along 44th Street SW; many students walk along this road Fact Sheets for three project types (Shared Streets, pedestrian signals, and painted intersections) were created for this event and are included in Appendix C. 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Appendix C Fact Sheets 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Appendix C: Fact Sheets 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Appendix D Golden Gate City Sidewalk Evaluation Scoring Matrix 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Visual Ranking Security Ranking Crossings Ranking Continuity Ranking Directness Ranking Cumulative PLOS Ranking Max Points 20 Proximity Points 20 10 4 2 10 4 2 10 4 2 10 4 2 20 20 10 2 -50 10 5 Object ID Street Name From To 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Service 1+ Crash 1 Crash 32766 Golden Gate Pkwy.Coronado Pkwy.Tropicana Blvd.20 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 D C B D C C 4 84 1 474 39778 Collier Blvd.Golden Gate Pkwy.23rd Ave. SW 20 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 5 F F E F F E 8 83 1 724 32204 Tropicana Blvd.Golden Gate Pkwy.Toucan Aly 20 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 5 E D D D C D 6 81 1 206 38658 Santa Barbara Blvd.Cedar Tree Ln.19th Ct. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 10 0 F F E F C E 8 80 1 1305 39872 Tropicana Blvd.25th Pl. SW 28th Ave. SW 20 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 E D D D C D 6 80 1 1640 30909 Collier Blvd.25th Ave. SW Golden Gate Pkwy.20 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 F F E F C E 8 78 1 429 34409 Collier Blvd.23rd Ave. SW 23rd Ave. SW 20 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 F F E D F E 8 78 1 1728 32602 Tropicana Blvd.Toucan Aly 25th Pl. SW/26th Pl. SW 20 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D D D C D 6 76 1 162 42766 Collier Blvd.Canal 25th Ave. SW 20 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 F F E F C E 8 76 1 5014 30808 Collier Blvd.18th Ave. SW 17th ave SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 F F E D F E 8 70 1 725 31178 Santa Barbara Blvd.Star Grass Ln.Coronado Pkwy.20 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 F F E F C E 8 70 1 908 30812 Santa Barbara Blvd.Hunter Blvd.Sea Grass Ln.20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 F F E F C E 8 70 1 847 34227 Collier Blvd.20th Pl. SW 18th Ave. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 F F E D F E 8 70 1 1675 34762 Santa Barbara Blvd.Green Blvd.16th Pl. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 F F E F C E 8 70 1 433 38367 Santa Barbara Blvd.Sea Grass Ln.22nd Pl. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 F F E F C E 8 70 1 741 39350 Santa Barbara Blvd.17th Ave. SW Cedar Tree Ln.20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 F F E F C E 8 70 1 177 40685 Santa Barbara Blvd.16th Pl. SW 17th Ave. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 F F E F C E 8 70 1 472 33537 Green Blvd.40th Ter. SW 41st Ln. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 E F C F F E 8 68 1 902 39430 Santa Barbara Blvd.19th Ct. SW Hunter Blvd.20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 F F E D C D 6 68 1 492 37743 Santa Barbara Blvd.Painted Leaf Ct.27th Ct. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 F F E D C D 6 68 1 679 42326 Collier Blvd.17th Ave. SW Green Blvd.20 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 F F E D F E 8 68 1 640 44309 Green Blvd.Salt Aly 40th Ter. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 E F C F F E 8 68 1 167 44757 Green Blvd.Collier Blvd.Salt Aly 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 E F C F F E 8 68 1 286 34119 Green Blvd.Whistlers Green Cir.Hemingway Ln.20 0 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 5 E F C D C D 6 67 1 2270 33538 Green Blvd.Laurel Ridge Ln.Santa Barbara Blvd.20 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 5 E F C D C D 6 67 1 330 41075 Hunter Blvd.23rd Ct. SW 24th Ave. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 5 E D D D C D 6 67 1 312 44101 Hunter Blvd.24th Ave. SW Coronado Pkwy.20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 5 E D D D C D 6 67 1 351 34206 Green Blvd.Sunshine Blvd.Whistlers Green Cir.20 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 5 E F C D C D 6 65 1 954 32337 Santa Barbara Blvd.540 ft South of Copper Leaf Ln.Copper Leaf Ln.20 0 4 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 F F E F C E 8 64 1 1057 33772 23rd Ave. SW 49th Ter. SW 50th St. SW 20 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 64 1 562 32767 52nd Ter. SW 25th Ave. SW 27th Ave. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 62 1 627 33972 Green Blvd.Hemingway Ln.Laurel Ridge Ln.20 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 E F C D C D 6 62 1 1370 34193 Green Blvd.Logan Ct.Laurel Ridge Ln.20 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 E F C D C D 6 62 1 249 33977 Hunter Blvd.54th Ter. SW 55th St. SW 20 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D D D C D 6 62 1 380 35528 Santa Barbara Blvd.Coronado Pkwy.Copper Leaf Ln.20 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 F F E F C E 8 62 1 410 38338 Santa Barbara Blvd.22nd Pl. SW Star Grass Ln.20 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 F F E F C E 8 62 1 578 39325 Green Blvd.Laurel Ridge Ln.Logan Ct.20 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 E F C D C D 6 62 1 341 33791 Hunter Blvd.19th Ct. SW 51th St. SW 20 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 5 E D D D C D 6 61 1 1075 38701 45th St. SW Mystic Aly Golden Gate Pkwy.20 0 4 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F F E 8 61 1 201 33811 Green Blvd.Heritage Cir.Sunshine Blvd.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 E F C F F E 8 60 1 1244 33769 Hunter Blvd.55th St. SW 55th Ter. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D D D C D 6 58 1 311 33815 Hunter Blvd.55th Ter. SW Tropical Way 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D D D C D 6 58 1 162 44316 Hunter Blvd.Tropical Way Santa Barbara Blvd.20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D D D C D 6 58 1 189 41674 Tropicana Blvd.28th Ave. SW 30th Pl. SW 20 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 5 E D D D C D 6 57 1 1401 32482 Hunter Blvd.22nd Pl. SW 23rd Ct. SW 20 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D D D C D 6 56 1 828 32372 45th St. SW 23rd Pl. SW Mystic Aly 20 0 4 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 56 1 164 36057 52nd Ter. SW Coronado Pkwy.25th Ave. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 56 1 354 34192 Green Blvd.41st Ln. SW 43rd Ln. SW 20 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 E F C F F E 8 56 1 1379 44592 Santa Barbara Blvd.26th Ave. SW Painted Leaf Ln.20 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 F F E D C D 6 56 1 263 39069 23rd Ave. SW 42nd St. SW 43rd Ln. SW 20 0 4 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 56 1 1282 39341 55th St. SW 27th Ct. SW 28th Ave. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 54 1 146 37852 Santa Barbara Blvd.German Woods Ct.South end of bridge 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 F E E D E E 8 52 1 473 39866 Santa Barbara Blvd.29th Pl. SW German Woods Ct.0 0 0 2 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 F E E D E E 8 52 1 108 42360 55th St. SW 27th Ave. SW 27th Pl. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 52 1 309 37918 55th St. SW 27th Pl. SW 27th Ct. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 52 1 165 44310 Green Blvd.43rd Ln. SW Heritage Cir.20 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 E F C F F E 8 52 1 1073 33238 Tropicana Blvd.31st Pl. SW 32nd Ave. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 5 E D D D C D 6 51 1 312 41893 Sunshine Blvd.16th Pl. SW 17th Ave. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 5 E D C D C C 4 51 1 434 32247 55th St. SW 28th Ave. SW Golden Gate Pkwy.20 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 50 1 386 30872 Coronado Pkwy.Tropical Way Santa Barbara Blvd.20 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D C F C D 6 50 1 183 30951 Coronado Pkwy.55th St. SW 55th Ter. SW 20 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D C F C D 6 50 1 311 30971 Coronado Pkwy.55th Ter. SW Tropical Way 20 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D C F C D 6 50 1 165 44773 54th Ter. SW Hunter Blvd.20th Pl. SW 20 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 50 1 355 42259 45th St. SW 23rd Ave. SW Coral Palms Ln.20 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 50 1 310 30952 Lucerne Rd.24th Ave. SW Coronado Pkwy.0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 49 1 342 30683 54th Ter. SW 20th Pl. SW 21st Ave. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 48 1 310 34482 45th St. SW 21st Ave. SW 22nd Pl. SW 20 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 48 1 878 34240 45th St. SW 22nd Pl. SW 23rd Ave. SW 20 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 48 1 330 36228 50th St. SW 28th Ave. SW 29th Pl. SW 20 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 48 1 616 34123 Collier Blvd.Green Blvd.End of study area 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 F F E F F E 8 48 1 1 41379 51st Ter. SW 17th Ct. SW 50th Ter. SW 20 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 48 1 1157 38798 24th Ave. SW Lucerne Rd.Lucerne Rd.0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 47 1 911 31282 Tropicana Blvd.31st Ave. SW 31st Pl. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D D D C D 6 46 1 307 30973 55th St. SW 26th Pl. SW 27th Ave. SW 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 46 1 313 34022 Hunter Blvd.20th Ct. SW 22nd Ave. SW 20 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D D D C D 6 46 1 1055 34086 Hunter Blvd.22nd Ave. SW 22nd Pl. SW 20 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D D D C D 6 46 1 230 38056 Sunshine Blvd.Green Blvd.16th Pl. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D C D C C 4 46 1 416 38433 Hunter Blvd.19th Ct. SW 20th Ct. SW 20 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D C D C C 4 46 1 307 37521 24th Ave. SW 50th Ter. SW Hunter Blvd.0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 F E E F C E 8 46 1 972 44211 54th Ter. SW 23rd Pl. SW 23rd Ct. SW 20 0 4 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 46 1 321 37609 54th Ter. SW 23rd Ct. SW 24th Ave. SW 20 0 4 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 46 1 312 Golden Gate City Sidewalk(s) Evaluation Scoring Matrix Generators Connectivity BenefitProximity to Commercial Areas Type of Adjacent StreetProximity to Schools (Safe Routes to Schools) 10 Safety PLOS A=0; B=2; C=4; D=6; E=8; F=10 20 Assigned Tier 10 Total Segment Score Length (LF) Known Crashes 1010 Proximity to Parks/ Recreation Center/Libraries 10 Proximity to Collier Area Transit 10 Cumulative PLOS Score 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Visual Ranking Security Ranking Crossings Ranking Continuity Ranking Directness Ranking Cumulative PLOS Ranking Max Points 20 Proximity Points 20 10 4 2 10 4 2 10 4 2 10 4 2 20 20 10 2 -50 10 5 Object ID Street Name From To 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Service 1+ Crash 1 Crash Golden Gate City Sidewalk(s) Evaluation Scoring Matrix Generators Connectivity BenefitProximity to Commercial Areas Type of Adjacent StreetProximity to Schools (Safe Routes to Schools) 10 Safety PLOS A=0; B=2; C=4; D=6; E=8; F=10 20 Assigned Tier 10 Total Segment Score Length (LF) Known Crashes 1010 Proximity to Parks/ Recreation Center/Libraries 10 Proximity to Collier Area Transit 10 Cumulative PLOS Score 38908 50th St. SW 29th Pl. SW 29th Pl. SW 20 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 46 1 553 30800 23rd Ct. SW 49th Ter. SW 50th St. SW 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 44 1 550 30945 54th Ter. SW 24th Ave. SW Coronado Pkwy.20 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 44 1 350 31143 47th Ter. SW 25th Ave. SW 28th Ave. SW 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 43 1 1499 42402 42nd St. SW 18th Pl. SW 19th Ave. SW 20 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F F E 8 43 1 305 32965 28th Ave. SW 54th St. SW 55th St. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 42 1 1669 31103 24th Pl. SW 44th St. SW 47th St. SW 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 42 1 1725 31144 27th Pl. SW 50th St. SW Cul-de-sac 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 42 1 1063 34241 48th St. SW 22nd Pl. SW 23rd Ave. SW 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 42 1 313 35896 29th Pl. SW 53rd St. SW 54th Ln. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 42 1 824 42054 54th Ter. SW 22nd Ave. SW 23rd Ave. SW 20 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 42 1 518 38078 55th Ter. SW 29th Pl. SW 32nd Ave. SW 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 42 1 1455 37046 54th Ter. SW 21st Ave. SW 21st Pl. SW 20 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 42 1 309 37658 54th Ter. SW 21st Pl. SW 22nd Ave. SW 20 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 42 1 310 38797 Lucerne Rd.23rd Ct. SW 24th Ave. SW 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 42 1 315 39781 53rd St. SW 25th Ave. SW 27th Ave. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 42 1 838 98505 16th Pl. SW Laurel Ridge Ln.Santa Barbara Blvd.0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 F E E F C E 8 42 1 521 37370 23rd Pl. SW 43rd Ln. SW 45th St. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F F E 8 41 1 1000 41859 52nd St. SW 28th Pl. SW 30th Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F E E 8 41 1 304 31343 Tropicana Blvd.30th Pl. SW 31st Ave. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 E D D D C D 6 40 1 382 30715 45th St. SW Sunset Rd.21st Ave. SW 20 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 40 1 1030 32768 26th Ave. SW 55th St. SW 55th Ter. SW 20 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 40 1 311 31395 43rd St. SW 30th Ave. SW 31st Pl. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 40 1 889 31487 31st Ave. SW 44th St. SW 44th Ter. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 40 1 310 31263 44th Ter. SW 30th Pl. SW 31st Ave. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 40 1 309 35654 29th Pl. SW 43rd St. SW 44th St. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 40 1 381 33394 43rd St. SW 31st Pl. SW 32nd Ave. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 40 1 291 38157 27th Pl. SW 54th St. SW 55th St. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 40 1 1457 37614 55th St. SW 26th Ave. SW 26th Pl. SW 20 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 40 1 308 38642 54th Ter. SW 23rd Ave. SW 23rd Pl. SW 20 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 40 1 298 39890 26th Ave. SW 55th Ter. SW Tropical Way 20 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 40 1 168 44216 26th Ave. SW Tropical Way Santa Barbara Blvd.20 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 40 1 212 44132 31st Ave. SW 44th Ter. SW 45th St. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 40 1 897 38745 30th Pl. SW 49th Ln. SW 50th St. SW 20 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 40 1 300 38742 44th Ter. SW 30th Ave. SW 30th Pl. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 40 1 312 37718 41st Ter. SW 22nd Ave. SW 23rd Pl. SW 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 40 1 929 34460 55th St. SW 19th Pl. SW Hunter Blvd.0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 39 2 354 38796 24th Ave. SW Hunter Blvd.52nd Ter. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 39 2 351 30729 54th Ter. SW 30th Ave. SW 31st Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 38 2 858 30802 54th St. SW 30th Ave. SW 31st Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 38 2 925 34197 19th Pl. SW 19th Ct. SW 55th St. SW 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 38 2 1706 34708 22nd Ave. SW 48th St. SW 50th St. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 38 2 1018 33792 50th St. SW 22nd Pl. SW 23rd Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 38 2 309 34707 48th St. SW 21st Pl. SW 22nd Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 38 2 379 34014 19th Ave. SW 42nd St. SW 44th St. SW 20 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 38 2 1036 38441 22nd Pl. SW 48th St. SW 50th St. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 38 2 1044 39274 19th Ave. SW 44th St. SW 45th St. SW 20 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 38 2 937 41839 30th Pl. SW 49th St. SW 49th Ln. SW 20 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 38 2 313 30757 55th Ter. SW 22nd Pl. SW Coronado Pkwy.0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 37 2 1484 38769 18th Ct. SW 48th St. SW 49th St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 37 2 309 30739 42nd St. SW Golden Gate Pkwy.25th Ave. SW 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 36 2 597 30875 31st Pl. SW 54th St. SW 54th Ter. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 36 2 313 33814 19th Ave. SW 54th St. SW 51th Ter. SW 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 36 2 309 34435 16th Pl. SW Hemingway Cir.Laurel Ridge Ln.0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 36 2 2442 35798 25th Ave. SW 53rd St. SW 53rd Ter. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 36 2 311 35046 25th Ave. SW 52nd Ter. SW 53rd St. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 36 2 311 39033 21st Pl. SW 48th St. SW 48th St. SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 36 2 1067 44529 28th Ave. SW 50th Ter. SW 51st St. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 36 2 645 36967 48th St. SW 21st Ave. SW 21st Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 36 2 311 38858 30th Pl. SW 48th Ter. SW 49th St. SW 20 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 36 2 308 38445 50th Ter. SW 28th Ave. SW 28th Pl. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 36 2 361 39119 28th Ave. SW 50th St. SW 50th Ter. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 36 2 308 38856 54th St. SW 17th Ave. SW 18th Ct. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 36 2 20 44210 51st Ter. SW 22nd Ave. SW 23rd Ct. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 35 2 906 38768 18th Ct. SW Sunshine Blvd.48th St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 35 2 1062 30972 27th Ave. SW 54th St. SW 55th St. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 35 2 353 31342 31st Ave. SW 45th St. SW 47th St. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 1246 30861 31st Pl. SW 53rd St. SW 54th St. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 34 2 589 30941 21st Ave. SW 48th St. SW 49th Ter. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 309 30773 48th St. SW 20th Pl. SW 21st Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 792 30719 54th St. SW 27th Pl. SW 28th Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 310 36377 29th Pl. SW 41st Ter. SW 43rd St. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 294 36655 43rd St. SW 29th Pl. SW 30th Ave. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 929 34235 54th Ter. SW 17th Ave. SW 19th Ave. SW 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 311 34410 41st Ter. SW 20th Pl. SW 22nd Ave. SW 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 34 2 1192 34237 19th Ct. SW 55th St. SW 55th Ter. SW 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 1155 34226 55th St. SW 17th Ave. SW 19th Ct. SW 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 306 34130 20th Pl. SW 41st St. SW 41st Ter. SW 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 34 2 1458 34018 20th Pl. SW 41st Ter. SW Canal 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 34 2 329 37703 24th Ave. SW 52nd Ter. SW 54th Ter. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 134 39086 52nd Ter. SW 23rd Ct. SW 24th Ave. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 1283 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Visual Ranking Security Ranking Crossings Ranking Continuity Ranking Directness Ranking Cumulative PLOS Ranking Max Points 20 Proximity Points 20 10 4 2 10 4 2 10 4 2 10 4 2 20 20 10 2 -50 10 5 Object ID Street Name From To 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Service 1+ Crash 1 Crash Golden Gate City Sidewalk(s) Evaluation Scoring Matrix Generators Connectivity BenefitProximity to Commercial Areas Type of Adjacent StreetProximity to Schools (Safe Routes to Schools) 10 Safety PLOS A=0; B=2; C=4; D=6; E=8; F=10 20 Assigned Tier 10 Total Segment Score Length (LF) Known Crashes 1010 Proximity to Parks/ Recreation Center/Libraries 10 Proximity to Collier Area Transit 10 Cumulative PLOS Score 39602 53rd Ter. SW 25th Ave. SW 27th Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 310 41863 30th Pl. SW Tropicana Blvd.48th Ter. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 34 2 1048 37313 54th St. SW 27th Ave. SW 27th Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 356 38571 55th St. SW 19th Ct. SW 19th Pl. SW 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 311 40396 17th Ave. SW Canal 55th St. SW 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 149 40789 17th Ave. SW 55th St. SW 55th Ter. SW 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 34 2 124 33982 51st Ter. SW 20th Ct. SW 22nd Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 34 2 313 32665 29th Pl. SW 41st St. SW 41st Ter. SW 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 33 2 1356 32375 47th St. SW 25th Ct. SW 26th Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 291 32826 23rd Ct. SW 50th St. SW 50th Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 533 31281 52nd St. SW 30th Ave. SW 31st Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 32 2 378 34040 18th Ct. SW 49th St. SW 19th Pl. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 1427 38639 48th St. SW 22nd Ave. SW 22nd Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 1270 44102 55th St. SW 22nd Pl. SW Coronado Pkwy.0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 307 39506 55th Ter. SW 26th Ave. SW 27th Ct. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 1481 36749 27th Ct. SW 55th Ter. SW Tropical Way 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 1092 37048 27th Ct. SW 55th St. SW 55th Ter. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 171 44716 27th Ct. SW Tropical Way Santa Barbara Blvd.0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 308 42929 51st St. SW 22nd Ave. SW 23rd Ct. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 225 44215 25th Ct. SW 45th St. SW 47th St. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 1063 37523 50th St. SW 23rd Ave. SW 23rd Ct. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 1258 40034 50th St. SW 22nd Ave. SW 22nd Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 438 38317 55th Ter. SW 17th Ave. SW 19th Ct. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 312 40033 55th Ter. SW Hunter Blvd.22nd Pl. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 1462 44323 55th St. SW Hunter Blvd.22nd Pl. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 1593 38478 17th Ave. SW Tropical Way Santa Barbara Blvd.0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 1597 42279 17th Ave. SW 55th Ter. SW Tropical Way 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 32 2 183 32378 28th Pl. SW 50th Ter. SW 51st St. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 32 2 52 32483 23rd Ct. SW 51st Ter. SW Hunter Blvd.0 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 30 2 604 35452 53rd Ln. SW 17th Pl. SW 18th Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 30 2 351 33998 22nd Pl. SW 45th St. SW 45th Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 30 2 309 36654 50th Ter. SW 28th Pl. SW 28th Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 30 2 309 41452 22nd Pl. SW 46th St. SW 46th Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 30 2 678 42702 31st Pl. SW 54th Ter. SW 54th Ln. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 30 2 311 37704 26th Ave. SW 45th St. SW 45th St. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 30 2 308 39049 30th Ave. SW 54th St. SW 54th Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 30 2 768 39818 30th Ave. SW 53rd St. SW 54th St. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 30 2 313 38313 16th Pl. SW 40th Ter. SW 41st St. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 30 2 307 36013 18th Pl. SW 46th Ter. SW Sunshine Blvd.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F F E 8 30 2 331 38273 42nd Ter. SW 23rd Pl. SW Mystic Aly 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F F E 8 29 2 354 30883 51st St. SW 20th Ct. SW 20th Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 29 2 167 30809 17th Ct. SW 51st Ter. SW 52nd St. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 972 30735 52nd St. SW 17th Ave. SW 17th Ct. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 308 32334 23rd Ct. SW 52nd Ter. SW 54th Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 450 30701 17th Pl. SW 52nd Ter. SW 53rd Ln. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 1286 32242 45th St. SW 25th Ct. SW 26th Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 896 30899 31st Pl. SW 52nd St. SW 52nd Ter. SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 28 2 297 30754 49th Ter. SW 20th Pl. SW 21st Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 310 32643 54th St. SW 26th Pl. SW 27th Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 302 35455 25th Ave. SW 53rd Ter. SW 54th Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 297 35795 52nd Ter. SW 17th Pl. SW 18th Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 636 34129 19th Ave. SW 52nd St. SW 54th St. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 310 33975 54th St. SW 18th Ct. SW 19th Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 985 36730 50th St. SW 20th Pl. SW 21st Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 311 35124 25th Ct. SW 44th Ter. SW 45th St. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 493 34021 22nd Ave. SW 41st St. SW 41st Ter. SW 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 28 2 308 34238 20th Pl. SW 42nd St. SW End 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 28 2 330 37707 26th Pl. SW 54th St. SW 55th St. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 133 40503 19th Ave. SW 19th Ct. SW 52nd St. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 1051 38431 20th Ave. SW 46th St. SW 46th Ter. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 28 2 304 40400 20th Pl. SW 19th Ct. SW 54th Ter. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 446 41019 44th Ter. SW Sunset Rd.22nd Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 28 2 822 41119 18th Ct. SW 53rd Ln. SW 54th St. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 1657 40395 17th Ave. SW 52nd St. SW 52nd Ter. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 310 38477 17th Ave. SW 52nd Ter. SW 53rd Ln. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 311 39868 32nd Ave. SW 55th Ter. SW End 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 28 2 896 41489 44th Ter. SW 22nd Pl. SW 23rd Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 E E E F F E 8 28 2 226 41849 52nd Ter. SW 17th Ave. SW 17th Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 309 44097 53rd Ln. SW 17th Ave. SW 17th Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 309 37749 54th St. SW 26th Ave. SW 26th Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 311 41985 31st Ave. SW 50th Ln. SW 52nd St. SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 28 2 296 44315 19th Ct. SW 46th Ter. SW 46th Ter. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 28 2 616 38800 45th St. SW 26th Ave. SW 26th Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 241 41936 52nd St. SW 31st Ave. SW 31st Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 28 2 287 38366 22nd Pl. SW 42nd St. SW 43rd Ln. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 28 2 311 41915 42nd St. SW 22nd Ave. SW 22nd Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 28 2 1282 38816 42nd St. SW 23rd Ave. SW 23rd Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 28 2 311 40010 41st St. SW 19th Ct. SW 20th Ave. SW 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 28 2 310 40790 41st Ter. SW 19th Ct. SW 20th Ave. SW 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 28 2 538 40788 17th Ave. SW 53rd Ln. SW 54th St. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 28 2 535 44699 20th Ave. SW 41st St. SW 41st Ter. SW 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 28 2 311 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Visual Ranking Security Ranking Crossings Ranking Continuity Ranking Directness Ranking Cumulative PLOS Ranking Max Points 20 Proximity Points 20 10 4 2 10 4 2 10 4 2 10 4 2 20 20 10 2 -50 10 5 Object ID Street Name From To 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Service 1+ Crash 1 Crash Golden Gate City Sidewalk(s) Evaluation Scoring Matrix Generators Connectivity BenefitProximity to Commercial Areas Type of Adjacent StreetProximity to Schools (Safe Routes to Schools) 10 Safety PLOS A=0; B=2; C=4; D=6; E=8; F=10 20 Assigned Tier 10 Total Segment Score Length (LF) Known Crashes 1010 Proximity to Parks/ Recreation Center/Libraries 10 Proximity to Collier Area Transit 10 Cumulative PLOS Score 38507 20th Ct. SW 51st Ter. SW Hunter Blvd.0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 28 2 299 30656 31st Pl. SW 50th St. SW 52nd St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 27 3 351 32414 23rd Ct. SW 50th Ter. SW 51st St. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 26 3 1200 35514 18th Ave. SW 52nd Ter. SW 53rd Ln. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 E E E F C D 6 26 3 309 34196 52nd St. SW 17th Ct. SW 18th Ct. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 26 3 892 34211 52nd St. SW 18th Ct. SW 19th Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 26 3 898 35373 29th Pl. SW 50th St. SW 50th Ter. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 26 3 301 36567 28th Ave. SW 47th Ter. SW Tropicana Blvd.0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 26 3 289 34228 20th Ave. SW 42nd St. SW Sunset Rd.0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 26 3 352 34703 42nd St. SW 20th Ave. SW 20th Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 26 3 1389 34045 22nd Ave. SW 43rd Ter. SW 43rd Ln. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 26 3 310 38480 49th Ter. SW 19th Ave. SW 20th Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 E E E F C D 6 26 3 310 38429 19th Pl. SW 46th St. SW 46th Ter. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 26 3 999 38588 18th Ct. SW 52nd Ter. SW 53rd Ln. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 E E E F C D 6 26 3 734 42138 18th Ct. SW 52nd St. SW 52nd St. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 26 3 587 38735 53rd Ln. SW 18th Ave. SW 18th Ct. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 E E E F C D 6 26 3 298 38907 49th St. SW 28th Ct. SW 30th Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 26 3 299 39169 52nd St. SW 31st Pl. SW 32nd Ave. SW 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 26 3 887 42000 23rd Ct. SW 51st St. SW 51st Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 26 3 310 42173 41st St. SW 18th Ave. SW 19th Ct. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 26 3 312 42631 44th St. SW 20th Ave. SW 22nd Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 26 3 749 38319 42nd St. SW 19th Pl. SW 20th Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 26 3 1430 42041 20th Pl. SW 42nd St. SW 43rd Ln. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 26 3 315 40143 42nd St. SW 20th Pl. SW 21st Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 26 3 1127 38736 19th Ct. SW 41st St. SW 41st Ter. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 26 3 311 39044 19th Ct. SW 40th Ter. SW 41st St. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 26 3 302 39596 41st St. SW 16th Pl. SW 18th Ave. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 26 3 332 38335 22nd Pl. SW 44th St. SW 44th Ter. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 E E E F F E 8 26 3 956 40743 22nd Pl. SW 43rd Ln. SW 44th St. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 E E E F F E 8 26 3 311 31171 31st Pl. SW 45th St. SW Tropicana Blvd.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 26 3 63 33469 45th St. SW 31st Pl. SW 32nd Ave. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 25 3 1321 42010 31st Pl. SW 44th St. SW 45th St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 25 3 310 32794 52nd Ter. SW 23rd Pl. SW 23rd Ct. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 25 3 1205 32336 25th Ct. SW 55th St. SW 55th Ter. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 309 33320 55th St. SW Coronado Pkwy.25th Ct. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 298 30740 25th Ave. SW 42nd St. SW 42nd Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 755 30814 42nd Ter. SW Golden Gate Pkwy.25th Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 284 31125 43rd St. SW Golden Gate Pkwy.25th Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 597 32564 55th Ter. SW Coronado Pkwy.25th Ct. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 582 35121 18th Pl. SW 46th St. SW 46th Ter. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 24 3 769 34772 45th Ter. SW 21st Ave. SW 22nd Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 24 3 310 34024 46th St. SW 21st Ave. SW 22nd Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 24 3 947 34087 22nd Pl. SW 45th Ter. SW 46th St. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 24 3 1011 35518 54th Ter. SW Coronado Pkwy.Coronado Pkwy.0 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 311 39436 23rd Pl. SW 52nd Ter. SW 54th Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 348 41399 52nd Ter. SW 18th Ave. SW 18th Ct. SW 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 E E E F C D 6 24 3 1286 38058 17th Ave. SW 49th St. SW 50th Ter. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 564 39090 55th Ter. SW 25th Ct. SW 25th Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 956 37520 42nd Ter. SW Mystic Aly Golden Gate Pkwy.0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 24 3 382 40139 17th Ave. SW 48th St. SW 49th St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 197 38687 48th Ter. SW 28th Ct. SW 30th Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 24 3 310 41675 49th Ln. SW 28th Ct. SW 30th Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 24 3 880 44653 52nd Ter. SW 23rd Ave. SW 23rd Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 898 44218 51st St. SW 28th Ave. SW 28th Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 24 3 311 40006 16th Pl. SW 41st St. SW 41st Ln. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 24 3 296 40032 22nd Pl. SW 55th St. SW 55th Ter. SW 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 570 40408 22nd Pl. SW 55th Ter. SW Tropical Way 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 309 41018 22nd Pl. SW Tropical Way Santa Barbara Blvd.0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 24 3 167 35083 42nd St. SW 17th Ave. SW 18th Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F F E 8 24 3 17 30850 51st St. SW 17th Ave. SW 17th Ct. SW 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 23 3 888 30907 45th Ter. SW 19th Pl. SW 21st Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 22 3 449 30665 21st Ave. SW 45th Ter. SW 21st Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 22 3 841 31122 21st Ave. SW 45th Ter. SW 46th St. SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 22 3 309 31102 25th Ave. SW 42nd Ter. SW 43rd St. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 310 34046 22nd Ave. SW 54th St. SW 54th Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 302 34463 42nd St. SW 22nd Pl. SW 23rd Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 22 3 337 38479 20th Ct. SW 51st St. SW 51st St. SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 310 42110 20th Ct. SW 51st St. SW 51st Ter. SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 311 38523 23rd Ave. SW 52nd Ter. SW 52nd Ln. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 310 42486 26th Ave. SW 54th St. SW 55th St. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 311 39782 25th Pl. SW 54th St. SW 55th Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 902 37892 21st Pl. SW 53rd St. SW 54th Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 1198 39960 21st Ave. SW 21st Pl. SW 54th Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 590 41166 54th St. SW 22nd Ave. SW 23rd Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 814 40684 17th Ave. SW 51st St. SW 52nd St. SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 458 38482 19th Ct. SW Hunter Blvd.20th Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 617 40008 16th Pl. SW Jefferson Ln.End 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 22 3 353 38314 16th Pl. SW Jefferson Ln.Sunshine Blvd.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 22 3 916 40009 17th Ave. SW Sunshine Blvd.48th St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 105 38442 52nd Ter. SW 22nd Pl. SW 23rd Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 356 38059 51st St. SW 17th Ct. SW 50th Ter SW 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 207 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Visual Ranking Security Ranking Crossings Ranking Continuity Ranking Directness Ranking Cumulative PLOS Ranking Max Points 20 Proximity Points 20 10 4 2 10 4 2 10 4 2 10 4 2 20 20 10 2 -50 10 5 Object ID Street Name From To 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Service 1+ Crash 1 Crash Golden Gate City Sidewalk(s) Evaluation Scoring Matrix Generators Connectivity BenefitProximity to Commercial Areas Type of Adjacent StreetProximity to Schools (Safe Routes to Schools) 10 Safety PLOS A=0; B=2; C=4; D=6; E=8; F=10 20 Assigned Tier 10 Total Segment Score Length (LF) Known Crashes 1010 Proximity to Parks/ Recreation Center/Libraries 10 Proximity to Collier Area Transit 10 Cumulative PLOS Score 37611 54th St. SW 25th Pl. SW 26th Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 1372 44106 28th Ave. SW 44th St. SW 44th Ter. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 341 38129 28th Ave. SW 44th Ter. SW 46th St. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 308 38503 17th Ave. SW 54th St. SW 54th Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 927 38504 17th Ave. SW 54th Ter. SW Canal 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 309 31315 41st Ter. SW 30th Ave. SW 31st Pl. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 22 3 70 31248 31st Ave. SW 50th Ln. SW 50th St. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 20 3 891 30939 50th Ter. SW 17th Ave. SW 17th Pl. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 582 30789 20th Pl. SW 21st Pl. SW 19th Ct. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 310 32243 55th Ter. SW 25th Pl. SW 26th Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 211 31432 42nd Ter. SW 30th Ave. SW 31st Pl. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 309 30772 50th Ter. SW 17th Pl. SW 18th Ave. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 890 31449 50th Ln. SW 31st Ave. SW End 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 20 3 290 30786 17th Pl. SW 49th St. SW 50th Ter. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 410 30844 32nd Ave. SW 41st St. SW End 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 960 30845 41st St. SW 31st Pl. SW 32nd Ave. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 285 31307 31st Pl. SW 42nd Ter. SW 43rd St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 309 31416 31st Pl. SW 41st Ter. SW 42nd St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 311 31417 31st Pl. SW 42nd St. SW 42nd Ter. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 309 32832 28th Pl. SW 44th Ter. SW 46th St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 311 30771 41st Ter. SW 17th Ave. SW 18th Ave. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 20 3 1032 34481 52nd Ter. SW 21st Pl. SW 22nd Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 518 34041 18th Ave. SW 44th Ter. SW Sunset Rd.0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 20 3 1074 34232 22nd Pl. SW Hunter Blvd.52nd Ter. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 1117 33852 32nd Ave. SW 41st St. SW 43rd St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 357 34212 19th Pl. SW 42nd St. SW 44th Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 20 3 1230 39202 42nd St. SW 30th Ave. SW 31st Pl. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 1621 42617 41st St. SW 29th Pl. SW 31st Pl. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 889 41351 23rd Ave. SW 53rd St. SW 54th St. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 1189 39351 46th St. SW 19th Pl. SW 20th Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 20 3 342 40027 46th St. SW 20th Ave. SW 21st Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 20 3 625 38316 17th Ave. SW 51st St. SW End 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 304 42053 23rd Ave. SW 54th St. SW 54th Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 132 39887 18th Ave. SW 49th St. SW 50th Ter. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 333 41476 47th Ter. SW 28th Ave. SW 30th Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 952 42285 17th Ct. SW 51st St. SW 51st Ter. SW 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 1447 37894 44th Ter. SW 28th Ave. SW 28th Pl. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 310 39050 30th Pl. SW 44th Ter. SW 46th St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 308 40075 31st Pl. SW 41st St. SW 41st Ter. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 1175 44217 44th Ter. SW 28th Pl. SW 29th Ave. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 20 3 311 38057 17th Ave. SW 41st Ter. SW 41st Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 20 3 309 39829 45th St. SW 31st Ave. SW 31st Pl. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 F E E F C E 8 20 3 276 33016 50th St. SW 31st Ave. SW 31st Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 19 3 311 31477 19th Pl. SW 45th Ter. SW 46th St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 18 3 287 30775 21st Pl. SW 52nd Ter. SW 21st Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 18 3 325 34405 17th Ct. SW 18th Pl. SW Sunset Rd.0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 18 3 3402 36236 45th Ter. SW 17th Ave. SW 18th Pl. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 18 3 458 42400 17th Ct. SW 45th St. SW 18th Pl. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 18 3 861 38337 53rd St. SW 21st Pl. SW 23rd Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 18 3 310 38524 23rd Ave. SW 52nd Ln. SW 53rd St. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 18 3 738 39958 17th Ave. SW 43rd Ter. SW 45th St. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 18 3 309 40745 52nd Ln. SW 21st Pl. SW 23rd Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 18 3 1299 41961 17th Ct. SW 44th Ter. SW 45th St. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 18 3 1010 42208 17th Pl. SW 44th Ter. SW 45th St. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 18 3 579 41097 18th Pl. SW 17th Ct. SW 17th Ct. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 18 3 620 41727 18th Pl. SW 45th Ter. SW 46th St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 18 3 323 44723 17th Ave. SW 50th Ter. SW Canal 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 18 3 377 38216 16th Pl. SW 41st Ln. SW Washington Ln.0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 18 3 127 40017 17th Ave. SW 42nd St. SW 42nd Ter. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 18 3 151 38473 41st Ln. SW Green Blvd.Atoll Ct.0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 18 3 310 40136 41st Ln. SW Atoll Ct.16th Pl. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 18 3 198 30678 43rd Ter. SW 17th Ave. SW 17th Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 18 3 8 30732 17th Pl. SW 43rd Ter. SW 44th Ter. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 309 30881 44th Ter. SW 17th Pl. SW 17th Ct. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 682 30882 43rd Ter. SW 17th Pl. SW 18th Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 227 36338 45th St. SW 17th Pl. SW 17th Ct. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 337 34127 44th St. SW 18th Pl. SW 19th Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 601 35429 43rd St. SW 17th Ave. SW 18th Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 309 35517 43rd Ter. SW 18th Ave. SW 18th Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 894 35997 18th Ave. SW 43rd Ter. SW 44th Ter. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 297 36337 44th Ter. SW 17th Ct. SW 18th Ave. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 541 36339 42nd Ter. SW 17th Ave. SW 18th Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 310 38761 17th Ave. SW 45th St. SW 45th Ter. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 887 44639 45th Ter. SW 18th Pl. SW 19th Pl. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 311 44624 50th St. SW 31st Pl. SW 32nd Ave. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F E E 8 16 3 334 39422 17th Ave. SW 43rd St. SW 43rd Ter. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 306 40138 17th Ave. SW 42nd Ter. SW 43rd St. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 310 41892 16th Pl. SW Washington Ln.43rd Ln. SW 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 310 30751 45th St. SW 17th Ave. SW 17th Pl. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 16 3 56 35822 30th Ave. SW 42nd St. SW 42nd Ter. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 14 3 310 36894 30th Ave. SW 42nd Ter. SW 43rd St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 14 3 308 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) Visual Ranking Security Ranking Crossings Ranking Continuity Ranking Directness Ranking Cumulative PLOS Ranking Max Points 20 Proximity Points 20 10 4 2 10 4 2 10 4 2 10 4 2 20 20 10 2 -50 10 5 Object ID Street Name From To 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Service 1+ Crash 1 Crash Golden Gate City Sidewalk(s) Evaluation Scoring Matrix Generators Connectivity BenefitProximity to Commercial Areas Type of Adjacent StreetProximity to Schools (Safe Routes to Schools) 10 Safety PLOS A=0; B=2; C=4; D=6; E=8; F=10 20 Assigned Tier 10 Total Segment Score Length (LF) Known Crashes 1010 Proximity to Parks/ Recreation Center/Libraries 10 Proximity to Collier Area Transit 10 Cumulative PLOS Score 38834 30th Pl. SW 47th Ter. SW Tropicana Blvd.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 14 3 310 40016 43rd Ln. SW Green Blvd.Atoll Ct.0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 14 3 339 40786 43rd Ln. SW Atoll Ct.16th Pl. SW 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F F E 8 14 3 204 37218 30th Ave. SW 41st Ter. SW 42nd St. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 14 3 193 42157 41st Ter. SW 29th Pl. SW 30th Ave. SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 F E E F C E 8 12 3 314 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Golden Gate Walkable Community Study (7938 : Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study) 02/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To Adopt the Public Participation Plan. OBJECTIVE: For the Board to adopt the Public Participation Plan CONSIDERATIONS: A Draft Public Participation Plan (PPP) was presented to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) in May 2018. Significant comments were received from the committees and Collier County Transportation Planning. A substantially revised draft that addressed the comments was presented to the TAC and CAC in October 2018. The Committee s did not request revisions at that time. The MPO duly noticed, posted and distributed the Draft PPP for the required 45-day public comment period which ran from November 19, 2018 through January 3, 2019. No public comments were received. The public review draft was presented to the TAC and CAC at their January 28th meetings. The TAC asked for three minor changes which are shown as Track Changes (Attachment 1). A clean version of the PPP is provided in Attachment 2. The draft retains placeholders for the QR code and links to the MPO website. These will be filled-in when the website update is completed and “goes live” in a few weeks. A draft Lee County/Collier MPO Interlocal Agreement is a placeholder for the final version pending ratification by the Lee County MPO. The Traditionally Underserved Communities map shown in Appendix E is taken from the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and will be replaced, if needed, by the final map adopted along with that Plan. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The TAC endorsed the PPP on January 28, 2019. The CAC did not achieve a quorum and was unable to take formal action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the MPO Board adopt the Public Participation Plan. Prepared by: Anne McLaughlin, Executive Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Public Participation Plan TRACK CHANGES – REVISED PAGES ONLY (PDF) 2. Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (PDF) 10.C Packet Pg. 139 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 10.C Doc ID: 7928 Item Summary: Adopt Public Participation Plan Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 8:49 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 8:49 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 8:57 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 10:43 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 10.C Packet Pg. 140 10.C.1 Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Public Participation Plan TRACK CHANGES – REVISED PAGES ONLY (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) p9 10.C.1 Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Public Participation Plan TRACK CHANGES – REVISED PAGES ONLY (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) p69 10.C.1 Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Public Participation Plan TRACK CHANGES – REVISED PAGES ONLY (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) P71 10.C.1 Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Public Participation Plan TRACK CHANGES – REVISED PAGES ONLY (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 333 document Collier MPO 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-5814 CollierMPO.com Public Participation Plan PLACEHOLDER FOR QR CODE Scan the QR code with your smartphone to visit our website. MPO Board Review Draft 2/8/19 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 1 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN COLLIER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 www.colliermpo.com E-mail: mpo@colliergov.net Phone: 239-252-5814 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The preparation of this document has been financed in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation, under the Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104 (f) of Title 23, U.S. Code, and local funding. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. TITLE VI AND RELATED LAWS The MPO’s public participation is conducted in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes. Public participation in the MPO’s planning process is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion or family status. Persons requiring special accommodations for MPO meetings or to participate in MPO activities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) should contact the MPO Executive Director, Anne McLaughlin at (239) 252- 5884 or annemclaughlin@colliergov.net. LEARNING FROM OUR COLLEAGUES This document represents a significant departure from prior versions of Collier MPO’s PIP adopted in 2013 and revised in 2015 and 2017. Staff reviewed Public Participation Plans produced by other Florida MPOs to identify elements that were innovative and applicable to Collier MPO’s needs. This PPP borrows a great deal of material from the Polk Transportation Planning Organization’s Public Participation Plan (2016). Interested readers may wish to view the entire Polk TPO PPP at www.polktpo.com 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 2 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Collier MPO places a high value on public involvement. For questions regarding public involvement and to learn more about how you can get involved, contact the MPO office at (239) 252-5814. You Can Make a Difference There are several ways for you to help shape the future of transportation: Become a member of Collier MPO’s Adviser Network Page 10 How to submit your comments to the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Page 14 How to leave comments about a specific plan or study Page 16 Submit an application to serve on an MPO Advisory Committee Page 16 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 3 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Guiding Principles………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 About Us……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 What is the Collier MPO Responsible For?.....................................................................................9 Our Planning Partners………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9 Planning Factors………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11 Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures…………………………………………………………………………12 Whom We Seek to Consult With………………………………………………………………………………………………13 Having Your Say……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13 Getting Involved………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14 Access for All……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17 Outreach Strategies………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 Evaluation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………,……….21 Required Notification……..………………………………………………………………………………………………………..21 Federal Compliance………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….27 FDOT MPO Handbook Compliance………………………………………………………………………….……………….28 Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………32 APPENDICES A. Government to Government Public Involvement Policy……………………………………………….34 B. Lee County MPO/Collier MPO Interlocal Agreement…………………………………………………….38 C. Limited English Proficiency Plan……………………………………………………………………………………45 D. Nondiscrimination Plan & Complaint Process……………………………………………………………….53 E. Traditionally Underserved Communities………………………………………………………………………59 F. Standard Operating Procedures……………………………………………………………………………………62 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 4 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN INTRODUCTION The goal of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Public Involvement Plan is to ensure that all citizens regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability, or familial status, have an equal opportunity to participate in the MPO’s decision-making process. A 1994 Presidential Executive Order directed every Federal agency to make Environmental Justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing the effects of all programs, policies, and activities on "minority populations and low-income populations." The MPO strives to accomplish this by involving the potentially affected public in MPO outreach programs. MPO staff activities are designed to develop partnerships and enhance the participation in the transportation planning process, with groups and individuals of “traditionally underserved” communities. These communities include minorities, low income, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Staff activities include, but are not limited to, participation in groups serving these communities, targeted communications with local media outlets, conducting meetings at convenient times and in locations that are accessible to transit, when possible, and the publication of MPO documents in non-technical, accessible formats when needed. GUIDING PRINCIPLES The Public Participation Plan (PPP) serves as a framework to the public involvement process in regard to MPO planning related activities. The plan identifies federal, state and MPO requirements, PPP goals and objectives, PPP policies, planning activities which require public involvement and the process involved when providing the public with full access and notice to planning activities. The PPP incorporates the following guiding principles into the development of any required transportation plans and programs: ➢ Early and continuous public involvement opportunities throughout the planning and programming process; ➢ Timely information to citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agencies, private sector transportation entities and other interested parties, including segments of the community affected by transportation plans, programs, and projects; ➢ Adequate public notice of public involvement activities and ample time for public review and comment at key decision points; ➢ Consideration of the needs of the traditionally underserved, including low‐income and minority citizens; ➢ Periodic review of public involvement efforts by the MPO to ensure full and open access to all; ➢ Review of public involvement procedures by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) when necessary; ➢ Coordination of MPO public involvement processes with statewide efforts whenever possible; ➢ Reasonable public access to information; and ➢ Consideration and reasonable response to public comments received. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 5 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN ABOUT US Established in 1982, the Collier MPO is a federally mandated transportation policy-making organization composed of locally elected officials from Collier County, City of Naples, City of Marco Island, and the City of Everglades City. The MPO is tasked to provide both the urban and rural areas of the County with a Continuing, Cooperative, and Comprehensive (3-C) planning process to ensure that highways, transit, bicycle, pedestrian and other facilities are properly considered within the context of the overall transportation needs of the community. The MPO staff reports directly to the MPO Board and provides information and technical assistance to the advisory committees. On a regular basis the committees, along with the MPO staff, provide recommendations to the MPO Board regarding short and long-range planning, implementation of projects, and related issues. The MPO Board and each of its advisory committees operate under bylaws approved by the MPO Board. The advisory committees include the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), Local Coordinating Board (LCB) and the Congestion Management Committee (CMC). Members of these committees, various interested parties and citizens make up the MPO Master Database of Contacts. The committees review plans, documents and programs and provide comments and recommendations during the development of plans and major studies. Documents presented to the MPO Board for approval, endorsement or ratification have typically been reviewed by the TAC and CAC. The Collier MPO Board adopted new Vision and Mission statements in 2017. The MPO’s goal is to work together with the public citizens of the Collier MPO planning area to fulfill the MPO’s Mission and Vision. Vision Statement The MPO strives to provide a fully integrated and multi-modal transportation system that safely and efficiently moves people and goods while promoting economic development and protecting natural and man-made regional assets. Mission Statement Provide transportation planning leadership through a collaborative effort to maintain a safe, efficient, integrated, and multi-modal transportation system. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 6 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN ABOUT THE REGION The Collier MPO’s jurisdiction includes Collier County and the cities of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City. Collier County has an estimated 2017 population of 356,774. The 2017 Median Household Income in Collier County is $62,407 compared with $50,883 for the state of Florida as a whole. The 2017 Percent of Households Below Poverty Level is 13% in Collier County, compared with 16% for Florida.1 1 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-yr Estimates, Tables S0101, DP03, CP03 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 7 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN All of Collier County - including the Cities of Naples, Marco Island, and Everglades City – experience a large, seasonal increase in population and traffic between October and April, with the highest traffic volumes occurring in the months of February and March. Collier County is expected to continue growing in population. Collier County has a large land area preserved under various conservation mechanisms combined with State and Federal conservation lands, shown in green on the map below. The conservation lands provide recreational opportunities and help sustain the natural environment. They also constrain development. The protected lands to the southeast buffer Collier County somewhat from the intense traffic impacts and pressures that interconnectivity with urban areas to the southeast. As a result, Collier County has a minimal system of Federal Aid Eligible roadways, as shown on the map on the following page, which somewhat constrains the availability of State and Federal funding for the MPO. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 8 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 9 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN WHAT IS THE COLLIER MPO RESPONSIBLE FOR? The Collier MPO is required under State and Federal laws to develop the following documents: 1. Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) – updated every five years, required to address a minimum time horizon of 20 years. The LRTP identifies needed improvements to the transportation network and provides a long-term investment framework that addresses current and future transportation needs. The LRTP must be multimodal and include, at a minimum, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian and transit infrastructure improvements. 2. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – identifies transportation projects and priorities that will be pursued over the next five years. 3. Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) – a two-year plan that identifies funding sources for each MPO planning activity and a schedule of activities 4. Public Participation Plan (PPP) – provides a framework for public involvement in regard to MPO planning related activities. OUR PLANNING PARTNERS MPO BOARD (BOARD) The MPO Board establishes transportation policies and evaluates transportation needs for the area. The Board is comprised of 9 elected officials, including all 5 County Commissioners, 2 City Council members representing the City of Naples, 1 City Council member representing the City of Marco Island and 1 City Council member representing Everglades City. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) attends and participates in all MPO Board meetings. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FDOT and the MPO work closely together and have a long-standing partnership. The majority of the MPO’s funding comes through FDOT. The Department also provides guidance and assistance as needed and informs the MPO of new or different requirements and practices. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) The TAC is composed of professional staff of member entities. The TAC advises the MPO on technical matters, promotes coordination among member agencies regarding transportation planning and programming, reviews MPO products for technical sufficiency, accuracy and completeness, makes priority recommendations for the LRTP, TIP, UPWP and provides technical analyses on other transportation planning issues. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 10 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) The CAC advises the MPO by reviewing, reacting to, and providing comment on transportation planning issues and needs from the citizens’ perspectives. The CAC consists of voting members appointed by the MO Board to represent various regions and jurisdictions, the disabled, minorities and groups having civic, community and economic interests. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC) The BPAC provides citizen input on bicycle and pedestrian related issues within the community, advises on developing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that is responsive to the needs of the community, recommends policies that will improve the walking and bicycling environment, recommend priorities for bicycle and pedestrian projects and program implementation. Members are appointed by the MPO Board to represent a broad cross-section of Collier County residents, neighborhoods and to include bike/ped safety professions, transit riders, local advocacy groups, organizations that encourage active transportation from a community health perspective and advocates for persons with disabilities and other transportation disadvantaged populations. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (CMC) The CMC advises on technical matters related to updating the MPO’s Congestion Management Process (CMP) and coordinating the CMP with regional Congestion Management System and Intelligent Transportation System architecture. Members are professional staff appointed by the division, department or agency they represent and one representative each from the TAC and CAC. LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD (LCB) FOR TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED The LCB assists the MPO in identifying local service needs, providing information and direction to the Community Transportation Coordinator (Board of County Commissioners) on the coordination of services. Members on the LCB are appointed by designated planning agencies. The designated official planning agency for Collier County is the MPO. ADVISER NETWORK Collier MPO established the Adviser Network in 2018 to serve as an additional mechanism for citizen involvement with the objective of increasing participation by local residents who may not have the time to participate on a standing committee. The MPO gathers contact information from participants at MPO- sponsored public meetings and special events who express an interest in remaining informed of MPO activities and wish to comment on MPO actions of specific interest to them. Members of the Adviser Network have several options for participating in the MPO planning process, varying from interaction through social media, responding to surveys, submitting comments, and viewing of videos to attendance at community forums. Members are encouraged to participate on an as-desired basis as time allows and their interest dictates. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 11 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION The MPO adopted a Government to Government Public Involvement Policy effecting tribal entities in June 2016. The policy is incorporated in the PPP as Appendix A. The MPO has an Interlocal Agreement with Lee County MPO to coordinate regional transportation planning. The Interlocal Agreement is incorporated in the PPP as Appendix B. PLANNING FACTORS The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, signed into law in December 2015, continued the performance based planning and public involvement requirements of prior transportation acts. It is likely that future transportation appropriation acts will do likewise. However, to the extent that Planning Factors change in the future, this section of the PPP will be updated to reflect them. The FAST Act identifies ten planning factors the MPO must consider when developing its LRTP. 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 the transportation system. 9. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. 10. Enhance travel and tourism. *the following definitions help explain the use of these words in transportation planning: Accessibility – the ability to reach a desired destination Mobility – physical movement from one place to another, relates to the availability of different modes or options for travel Connectivity – the integration of transportation modes throughout the system 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 12 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES PRIMARY GOAL: TO ACTIVELY ENGAGE A BROAD CROSS-SECTION OF THE PUBLIC IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND SERVE AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON MPO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES OBJECTIVES 1. Maintain an up-to-date master database of contacts 2. Develop an Adviser Network 3. Broaden public awareness of, and active engagement with, the MPO 4. Develop a presence on social media 5. Develop an interactive website, conduct on-line surveys and invite on-line commentary 6. Receive input from a diverse cross-section of the community 7. Demonstrate effectiveness of public input PERFORMANCE MEASURES 1. Contact Database - updated quarterly at a minimum 2. Adviser Network – track numbers of Advisers listed and attendance at community forums on an annual basis 3. Public Awareness/Engagement – conduct annual on-line surveys 4. Social Media –establish a program and report on beginning levels of activities after year one 5. Interactive Website – track opportunities and participation numbers annually 6. Diversity – track and report on participation by demographics, businesses, NGO, civic groups 7. Effectiveness – track and report on changes that can be directly linked to public comments SECONDARY GOAL: TO COMPLY WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS OBJECTIVES 1. Identify regulatory requirements in PPP 2. Develop PPP to meet requirements. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 1. FDOT review and concurrence 2. FDOT review and concurrence 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 13 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN WHOM WE SEEK TO CONSULT WITH Tribal entities Regional planning partners Public Agencies Minority communities Business groups Public health organizations Civic organizations Neighborhood/Homeowner Associations Freight industry representatives Private transportation providers Low-income communities Environmental groups Tourism industry representatives Bicyclists and pedestrians Representatives of the disabled Higher education institutions Social service organizations Transit dependent persons Organizations focused on aging Organizations focused on youth Community & economic development organizations Workforce development organizations/agencies HAVING YOUR SAY The Collier MPO encourages public comments and provides the public with a variety of ways to voice their opinions and share their ideas. EARLY COORDINATION The Adviser Network will have an opportunity to submit early comments and provide direction on the development of major work products such as the LRTP, PPP, UPWP and TIP. The Adviser Network will also have an opportunity to provide public input on transportation planning issues and subject areas prior to the MPO actually beginning work on developing a specific plan. Comments and suggestions will be used to guide the development of work products that will eventually go before the advisory committees and MPO Board. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS & NOTIFICATIONS The primary opportunity for the public to share their thoughts and ideas occurs during public review and comment periods as major plans are developed through the MPO’s planning process and reviewed at regularly scheduled advisory committee and Board meetings. The public will have at least 30 days to review and comment as major plans make their way through the advisory committee process and ultimately, go to the MPO Board for formal action such as approval or adoption. State statutes and Federal law require the provision of adequate public notice of public participation activities, providing timely notice and reasonable access to information about transportation issues, using visualization techniques to describe the LRTP and TIP and making information and meeting notices available in electronic format on the Internet. Rarely are public comment periods of specific duration specified by law except for the following with regards to the PPP and LRTP: ➢ PPP - Adopting or revising the MPO’s Public Participation Plan – 45 calendar days 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 14 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN ➢ LRTP - Posting the final adopted LRTP on the internet and having hard copies available at the MPO office– no later than 90 days after adoption HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS TO THE COLLIER MPO • The MPO provides self-addressed stamped comment cards which may be mailed to the MPO office. Call 239-252-5814 for more information. • Comments may be submitted on the MPO website with electronic comment cards. Go to www.colliermpo.com • The public may comment at any MPO advisory committee or MPO Board meeting. The meeting schedule is available on the MPO website (http://colliermpo.com/index.aspx?page=125) or by calling 239-252-5814 HOW YOUR COMMENTS WILL BE USED The Collier MPO values public input. All comments received will be considered as part of the transportation decision-making process. Staff will document all comments and forward them to the MPO advisory committees and Boards. All organizations and individuals who submit a comment in writing or via email and include their contact information will receive a written response to their comment. Staff will make every effort to respond to comments before a final vote by the MPO Board on an action item. Comments received using the methods described above are documented as part of the public record and are posted on line at www.colliermpo.com Appendix F Standard Operating Procedures identifies how public comments will be documented. GETTING INVOLVED The current calendar of MPO and advisory committee meetings may be found online at www.colliermpo.com or you may request a hard copy be mailed or faxed to you by calling 239-252-5814. MPO BOARD MEETINGS The MPO Board meets on the second Friday of the month (with the exception of July, August and January, when there are no regularly scheduled meetings.) Board meetings are typically held in the Board of County Commissioners Chambers, 3299 E. Tamiami Blvd. Naples, Administration Building (F), third floor. See Site map for Collier County Government Center, following page. The Collier MPO traditionally holds its April Board meeting in a different location, rotating between facilities provided by member entities. Joint Lee County MPO/Collier MPO advisory committee and Board meetings rotate locations between Lee County and Collier County. Additionally, special meetings are sometimes called on dates, times and locations that vary from the norm. Staff advises checking the MPO website prior to a Board meeting to confirm the location, date and time of a meeting you wish to attend. Please check the MPO calendar for advisory committee meeting dates, times and locations as well. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 15 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 16 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN ADVISER NETWORK PUBLIC FORUMS In addition to providing notice via the MPO’s listserv(s), the MPO will send email notice to the Adviser Network when hosting community meetings on plans and studies in process, to solicit public input on issues of current interest. As part of the process, MPO staff or the MPO’s consultant will prepare a recap of the meeting to document public comments and to share the comments and recommendations with the advisory committees and MPO Board. See Appendix F – Standard Operating Procedures for more detail. APPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY COMMITTEES The Collier MPO Board appoints local residents to serve on two Advisory Committees – the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). The MPO Bylaws specify the makeup of each committee. The MPO Bylaws may be viewed on the MPO website at the following link: TBD – Website Update in-Process The bylaws of the CAC may be viewed at the following link(s): TBD – Website Update in-Process BPAC Bylaws: TBD – Website Update in-Process If you are interested in serving on one of these two advisory committees, staff recommends first reviewing the bylaws to determine your eligibility, then contacting the MPO Director at 239-252-5884 if you have questions concerning eligibility or the time commitment entailed. You may download an application to serve on an Advisory Committee at this link: TBD – Website Update in-Process As an alternative, you may call the MPO office at 239-252-5814 and ask that an application form be sent to your home address. Completed application forms must include your signature and may be scanned and sent electronically to colliermpo@colliergov.net. If you prefer, you may mail in or hand deliver applications to the MPO office at 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 HOW TO LEAVE COMMENTS ABOUT A SPECIFIC PLAN OR STUDY The MPO website features the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the Unified Public Work Program (UPWP) and other plans currently underway. Opportunities for the public to comment accompany each posted plan. Call the office if you have any questions (239) 252-5814 or cannot find what you are looking for on the website: www.colliergov.com PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULES The meeting schedule is standardized but it is subject to change. Check the location by viewing the current agenda on the MPO website or call the MPO office at 239-252-5814 to have one sent to you. Link to agendas: TBD – Website Update in-Process 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 17 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN ACCESS FOR ALL LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN The purpose of the Collier MPO’s Limited English Proficiency Plan is to provide meaningful access to the MPO for people with limited or no ability to speak, read, write or understand English. The LEP Plan is incorporated in the PPP as Appendix C. NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE Collier MPO places a high value on providing equal access to the transportation planning process. The MPO’s Nondiscrimination Plan and Complaint Procedures are incorporated in the PPP as Appendix D. IDENTIFYING UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS Collier MPO maintains a GIS database and map that identifies traditionally underserved populations in the region. MPO staff updates the database and map periodically, based on conducting annual reviews of Census Bureau statistics. See Appendix E for the current version of the map and related statistics. The following Outreach Strategies are intended to reach a broad cross-section of the region’s demographics, including traditionally underserved populations. OUTREACH STRATEGIES The MPO will use the following outreach strategies to engage the public in the transportation planning process. Appendix F – Standard Operating Procedures summarizes in graphic format how these strategies will be deployed on specific plans and studies along with public notification requirements for committee and Board meetings. ENHANCED INTERACTIVE WEBSITE: www.colliermpo.com Un traductor del idioma español está disponible en la oficina de MPO. Teléfono: 239-252-5814 Yon tradiktè pou Kreyòl ayisyen ki disponib nan biwo MPO la. Telefòn: 239-252-5884 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 18 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN The MPO is updating its website to introduce interactive features that will enhance its ability to serve as a source of information. The site provides a calendar of events, links to agendas, minutes, and draft MPO documents currently under review. Opportunities for the public to comment are available in the form of staff email and phone number listings. Interactive surveys and maps are frequently posted on the website while major plans and studies are in process. VISUALIZATION TECHNIQUES The MPO will invest in enhanced visualization techniques such as videos, simulation models, animated graphics and 3D imaging in the course of developing updates to the Long-Range Transportation Plan and other major plans and studies that may be underway in any given year. For example, in 2018, staff posted a video created for the Golden Gate Walkability Study. The video was produced by a drone, fly-over camera view of people walking and crossing streets in the community. Information was added to generate interest in participating in public meetings to develop the plan. The video was also shown on local public access TV. In addition, the MPO will continue the use of a broad range of traditional visualization techniques such as maps, pictures or graphics in order to assist with the communication of complex concepts and to promote understanding of transportation plans and programs. A logo representing the MPO is used to identify products and publications of the MPO. The logo helps the public to become familiar with the MPO and recognize MPO products. The logo is used on all MPO publications. E-NOTIFICATIONS AND SOCIAL MEDIA The MPO began posting information on Collier County’s Facebook page in January 2018. Current MPO postings may be viewed at the following link: https://www.facebook.com/CollierGov/ In addition, E-blasts will be sent to members of the Adviser Network and other interested parties to provide helpful information on transportation planning, public meetings, events and opportunities for involvement. The MPO Master Database lists all contacts including businesses, residential associations, agencies, Native American Tribes, the Adviser Network, and the public. The database includes committee membership and e-mail addresses. Mailing addresses will be included for Individuals who do not have e- 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 19 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN mail and require hard copy documents, surveys, comment cards, etc. to be mailed to them. SURVEYS & POLLS The MPO will conduct surveys and polls on specific topics and plans as needed to engage a broad cross section of the public. The information will be shared on the MPO’s website. PARTNERING The MPO will coordinate with government agencies to conduct outreach at health care centers, food banks and food stamp offices, schools, offices on aging etc. and develop alliances with faith-based institutions, cultural centers, community-based organizations; partnering with local interest groups to conduct outreach at special events. Partners in outreach will be encouraged to take a leadership role in public participation efforts in the area. The purpose is to build relationships and identify strategies to bring former nonparticipants into the planning process. PUBLIC TELEVISION Regular MPO Board meetings – those that take place at the Board of County Commissioners Chamber - are shown on Collier TV, and can be watched live and on-line at the following link: http://www.colliergov.net/your-government/divisions-a-e/communication-customer-relations- division/watch-collier-tv-online Collier County maintains an archive of MPO Board meetings on-line. The MPO is currently working with Collier TV to also post video recordings and flyers produced by the MPO on Collier TV. http://www.colliergov.net/your-government/divisions-a-e/communication-customer-relations- division/meeting-video-archive EARNED MEDIA The MPO will issue press releases and provide briefings in advance of special events and public meetings and workshops oriented to plan development or gathering public comments on major issues. The intention is to build relationships with local television, radio and print journalists and reporters to facilitate public information campaigns. For example, during the development of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in 2018, the Project Manager with the MPO was interviewed on Univision, with translation services provided by the station for its Spanish speaking audience. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 20 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN PROJECT SPECIFIC PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLANS (PIP) The MPO typically develops project specific PIPs targeting stakeholders who are most likely to be interested in the outcome of the plan or project in question. The public involvement strategies are geared to the target audience and may vary by topic or subarea of the MPO. A PIP developed for a specific project must meet or exceed the notification commitments in the Board- adopted PPP. SEMI-ANNUAL NEWSLETTER MPO staff produces a semi-annual newsletter that is distributed via email and hard copy to the Master Database list of all contacts. MPO staff will bring hard copies for distribution at public meetings and community outreach events held throughout the year. The newsletter promotes regular and special meetings, planning studies, publications and work products. The newsletter will be translated into Spanish or Haitian Creole upon request. PUBLIC WORKSHOPS/OPEN-HOUSES Public workshops are generally open and informal with project team members interacting with the public on a one-on-one basis. Short presentations may be given at these meetings. Project-specific workshops and meetings provide detailed project information to the public and solicit public involvement. They are conducted for project-specific activities and the MPO’s federal certification review. (See PIP above and Appendix F – Standard Operating Procedures for more detail.) PUBLIC MEETINGS All MPO Board and advisory committee meetings are open to the public at ADA accessible facilities in convenient locations and used to solicit public comment. Members of the public are given an opportunity to address the MPO board or committee on any agenda item or transportation related topic not on the agenda. These meetings provide formal settings for citizens or interested parties to make comments to the MPO and advisory committees. They are recorded and minutes are taken for the record. The MPO may also hold stand-alone public meetings related to specific projects or plans. These meetings can be held at any time during a project. Notice of the meetings is given to the public through the MPO website, e-mail, and if requested, by regular mail. COMMUNITY OUTREACH EVENTS MPO staff participation in community outreach events at public venues, fairs and festivals provides another method to inform the public about the Collier MPO and how individuals or groups can become involved in the metropolitan transportation planning process. MPO surveys, newsletters, maps or comment forms are often distributed to heighten the awareness of the public on functions of the MPO. MPO staff will participate in activities hosted by other agencies and organizations and provide printed materials at outreach events. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 21 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN COMMENT FORMS Comment forms are used to solicit public comment on specific issues being presented at workshops or public meetings and community outreach events. Comment forms may be very general in nature, or very specific for soliciting feedback. Comment forms are sometimes included in publications and on the MPO website to solicit input. QR CODES The MPO inserts Quick Response (QR) Codes on the covers of adopted plans such as the Long Range Transportation Plan, Public Participation Plan, Transportation Improvement Program, Unified Planning Work Program and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. QR codes allow the public immediate access to view MPO documents using cell phone applications. ORIENTATIONS MPO staff conduct individual orientations to inform new members of the MPO Board and committees of their roles and the MPO transportation planning process. EVALUATION ANNUAL REPORTING ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES Reporting on the PPP performance measures is included in the MPO Director’s Annual Report to the MPO Board at the end of each fiscal year. If the analysis indicates a need for modifications to the PPP, the Director will discuss options with the Board and follow-up with bringing the changes through the Advisory Committee review process during the coming year. REQUIRED NOTIFICATION The MPO will review the PPP on an annual basis to ensure it remains consistent with the requirements in the Florida Department of Transportation’s MPO Handbook. The MPO Handbook may be viewed in its entirely at the following link: http://www.fdot.gov/planning/policy/metrosupport/mpohandbook/ Current requirements are summarized by planning product as follows. LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Florida Statutes 339.175 – requires the MPO to provide the following interested parties, at a minimum, a reasonable opportunity to comment on the LRTP: • Public 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 22 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN • Affected Public Agencies • Representatives of Transportation Agencies • Freight Transportation Service Providers and Shippers • Private providers of Transportation • Public Transit Representatives and Users • 23 CFR 450.322 – All interested parties are to be given a reasonable opportunity to comment on the LRTP. ➢ Administrative Modifications are minor revisions to the LRTP and do not require public review and comment or re-demonstrating fiscal constraint. 23 CFR 450.104 ➢ Amendments are major revisions to the LRTP and do require public involvement and re- demonstrating fiscal constraint. ➢ Major Updates are adopted every 5 years. The TAC and CAC are provided the opportunity to review and comment on Amendments and Major Updates prior to the MPO Board taking action. If the TAC and CAC achieve a quorum, the committees may vote to endorse the amendment or update as presented, or vote to endorse subject to revision, or may vote not to endorse. Whatever action an advisory committee takes is reported to the Board in the MPO staff Executive Summary. See Appendix F – Standard Operating Procedures for public notification and public comment period requirements. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Maintaining Concurrency with MPO Handbook - FDOT continually updates the MPO Handbook and notifies the MPOs of any changes. These FDOT-generated updates may on occasion trigger the need to update the PPP as well. When that occurs, the MPO will post notice containing the new PPP language on its website and distribute copies to the MPO Advisory Committees and Board. Other routine updates, such as identifying new MPO Board members and/or officers, new MPO contact information, new State and Federal code citations, correcting typographical or grammatical errors or clarifications, will be handled in the same manner Amendments and Adopting a New PPP - Amendments and Major Updates will be previewed by the MPO TAC and CAC before being acted upon by the Board. ➢ Federal law requires a minimum 45-day public comment period prior to amending or adopting a PPP. The public comment period begins with posting the CAC and TAC meeting agendas, posting notification on the MPO website, and emailing the Adviser Network. Final Board action may be scheduled to occur after the 45-day public comment period has ended. TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED SERVICE PLAN (TDSP) Purpose – A TDSP addresses the services provided to meet the public transportation and mobility needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities. The plan discusses the types of paratransit services available to citizens of the county. Examples include: ADA paratransit service and Transportation Disadvantaged 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 23 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Program (TD) services which are part of a coordinated human services requirement of all three core FTA grant programs as reauthorized under the FAST Act for the Urbanized Area Formula Funding program, 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5310 and 5311. Statutory Requirements – Florida Statutes (F.S.) 427. Each county or each MPO is required to develop a TDSP with updates every five years. The Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (FCTD) oversees the implementation of the TDSP. The Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) and the Local Coordinating Board (LCB) will use the TDSP as a guide for maintaining and improving transportation services. It is the requirement of the MPO to provide an annual performance evaluation of the CTC. The MPO is also required to provide annual minor updates to the TDSP and a major update every five years. Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged The Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged has issued two regulatory documents – “Local Coordinating Board and Planning Agency Operating Guidelines (2014)” and an “Instruction Manual for the Memorandum of Agreement and the TDSP – 2007/2008” that remain in effect today. The documents may be viewed on the Commission’s website at: http://www.fdot.gov/ctd/doingbusiness.htm The Commission stipulates that Major Updates to the TDSP be announced by way of an “advertisement” published in the local newspaper with the greatest circulation. This requirement is carried out by the MPO. Major Update - adopted every 5 years Public Comment Period ➢ 30-day public comment period required ➢ Legal ad required – place in Naples Daily News • Additional public notice of public comment period provided by posting on the MPO website, emailing the Adviser Network and any other stakeholders the MPO and LCB have identified • Distribute flyers on transit vehicles to notify riders of comment period and adoption meeting • Distribute copies of the Major TDSP Update and/or QRC on comment forms to local government agency offices and libraries • Post Major TDSP Update and comment forms on the MPO website • Distribute copies of the Major TDSP Update to the LCB members Response to Comments • MPO staff will respond in writing to public input received during the comment period • When significant written and oral comments are received, a summary, analysis or report will be included in the plan. The term, “significant” is used in State statutes and Federal law governing public involvement, but remains undefined. The MPO’s working definition of “significant” is any comment that could potentially result in a change to the scope of a document, existing conditions analysis, issue definition, recommended projects, policies. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 24 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Adoption • The LCB will meet at the end of the public comment period and allow time for public comment at the meeting prior to adoption of the TDSP • The LCB will consider the comments received during the public comment period before adopting the TDSP by Roll Call Vote • The MPO Board will ratify the Major TDSP Update after adoption by the LCB. Ratification may be placed on the MPO Board Consent Agenda Minor Update – adopted annually except in Major Update adoption years ➢ The only difference between the public involvement requirements of a Major and Minor Update is the required public comment period is shortened to 14 days. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Administrative Modifications are minor revisions to the TIP and do not require public review and comment, or re-demonstrations of fiscal constraint. Administration Modifications will be distributed as informational items in MPO Board and advisory committee meeting packets, in addition to being posted on the MPO website’s TIP page. Amendments are major revisions to the TIP and do require public review and comment along with re - demonstration of financial constraint. The TAC and CAC are provided the opportunity to review and comment on amendments and the annual adoption of a new 5-year TIP based on the FDOT Work Program prior to the Board taking action. If they achieve a quorum, the TAC and CAC may vote to endorse the amendment as presented or vote to endorse subject to revision, or may vote not to endorse. Whatever action an advisory committee takes is reported to the Board in the MPO staff Executive Summary. The MPO will follow the notification procedures outlined herein for MPO Board and Advisory Committee meetings See Appendix F – Standard Operating Procedures for public notification and public comment period requirements. UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM The two-year UPWP is adopted every other year. As with Amendments, the MPO adoption process requires that the two-year UPWP be previewed and commented upon by the MPO TAC and CAC, at a minimum, before being acted upon by the Board. Modifications as defined by the FDOT MPO Handbook, do not require MPO Board or FDOT approval and do not require public involvement. Modifications will be posted on the MPO website on the UPWP page and distributed to FDOT, the MPO Board and Advisory Committees as informational items in agenda packets. Amendments as defined by the FDOT MPO Handbook, do require MPO Board approval. The TAC and CAC are provided the opportunity to review and comment on amendments prior to the Board taking action. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 25 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN If the committees achieve a quorum, they may vote to endorse the amendment as presented, or vote to endorse subject to revision, or vote not to endorse. Whatever action an advisory committee takes is reported to the Board in the MPO staff Executive Summary. The MPO will follow the notification procedures outlined herein for MPO Board and Advisory Committee meetings. See Appendix F – Standard Operating Procedures for public notification and public comment period requirements. MPO BOARD MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS The MPO commits to maintaining the following longstanding notification standard: • Posting agenda and meeting packet seven days in advance on the MPO website • Email distribution of agenda and packet to MPO Board members and delivering hard copies to members who have requested them, seven days in advance of the meeting • Email distribution of agenda and packet to Advisor Network and to other interested parties on the MPO’s email contact list MPO ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS The MPO commits to maintaining the following longstanding notification standard: • Posting agenda and meeting packet seven days in advance on the MPO website • Email distribution of agenda and packet to committee members along with hard copies delivered to members who have requested them, seven days in advance of the meeting • Email distribution of agenda and packet to Adviser Network and to other interested parties on the MPO’s email contact list OTHER PUBLIC MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS The MPO may wish to schedule other public meetings and workshops in the course of developing a wide variety of planning documents, researching specific issues, conducting surveys and public education campaigns. The MPO commits to maintaining the longstanding notification standard of: • Posting notices of public meetings a minimum seven days in advance on the MPO website, • Posting agenda and meeting packet, to the extent materials are available, on MPO website • Email distribution of agenda and packet to Advisor Network and to other interested parties on the MPO’s contact list • Issuing press release to major local newspapers, television and radio stations • Emailing MPO Advisory Committee members notice of meetings on topics of interest to the Committee members as appropriate 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 26 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN EXCEPTIONS TO NOTIFICATION COMMITMENTS There are occasions when the MPO is required to act quickly in order to meet a grant deadline, preserve spending authority or respond to an unforeseen opportunity. This is most likely to occur in response to a request by FDOT due to the severe time constraints the agency operates under. When situations demanding immediate Board action arise, staff may bring proposed actions forward to the MPO Board that the TAC and CAC have not had the opportunity to preview and comment on. This allows the Board to be fully informed of the situation and to take action if it wishes to do so, or to decline to take immediate action and remand the item to one or more Advisory Committee for further study. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 27 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN FEDERAL COMPLIANCE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), signed into law in 1990, is a landmark civil rights legislation ensuring equal opportunity for people with disabilities to access employment, public facilities, transportation, state and local government services and communications. The ADA requires coordinating with disabled community representatives in the development and improvement of transportation services. Persons with disabilities must also be able to access the sites where public involvement activities occur as well as the information presented. See www.ada.gov for more information. TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 prohibits discrimination based upon race, color or national origin. Specifically, 42 USC § 2000d states, “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” See www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/titlevi.php for more information. EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 – ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Executive Order (EO) 12898; Federal Actions to Address Environmental justice in Minority and Low Income Populations. The EO reinforced the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and focused federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions in minority and low income communities. Furthermore, recent guidance issued by the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) emphasizes the importance of considering and addressing Environmental Justice (EJ) in all phases of the transportation planning process. EJ calls for the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin or income, and that the benefits, as well as the impacts, of transportation investments are fairly distributed. EXECUTIVE ORDER 13166 – LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY People with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) are those with a primary or home language other than English. EO 13166 requires any agency that receives federal funds to make their activities accessible to non-English speaking individuals. See www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/13166.php for more information. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 28 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN FDOT MPO HANDBOOK - COMPLIANCE CHAPTER SIX PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Chapter Six of the FDOT MPO Handbook identifies Federal and State public involvement requirements for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) in Florida. The primary public involvement document that MPOs must develop and maintain is a Public Participation Plan (PPP) that defines a process for providing interested parties reasonable opportunities to review and comment on MPO work products. In addition, MPOs must make Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Plans (TIP) readily available for public review. The MPO is required to develop the participation plan in consultation with all interested parties and must, at a minimum, describe explicit procedures, strategies, and desired outcomes for: [23 C.F.R. 450.316(a)(1)] 1. Providing adequate public notice of public participation activities and time for public review and comment at key decision points, including a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed LRTP and the TIP; 2. Providing timely notice and reasonable access to information about transportation issues and processes; 3. Employing visualization techniques to describe LRTPs and TIPs; 4. Making public information (technical information and meeting notices) available in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the Internet; 5. Holding any public meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times; 6. Demonstrating explicit consideration and response to public input received during the development of the LRTP and the TIP; 7. Seeking out and considering the needs of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, such as low -income and minority households, who may face challenges accessing employment and other services; 8. Providing an additional opportunity for public comment, if the final LRTP or TIP differs significantly from the version that was made available for public comment by the MPO and raises new material issues that interested parties could not reasonably have foreseen from the public involvement efforts; 9. Coordinating with the statewide transportation planning public involvement and consultation processes; and 10. Periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the public involvement procedures and strategies contained in the PPP to ensure a full and open participation process. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 29 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN When developing the PPP, it is important to allow enough time to receive and respond to public input to find a balance between addressing appropriate public comments and adopting the LRTP within the required timeframe, including any meetings or hearings that take place during that time. A minimum public comment period of 45 calendar days must be provided before the initial or revised participation plan is adopted by the MPO. Copies of the approved PPP must be provided to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for informational purposes; and must be posted on the Internet to the maximum extent practicable. [23 C.F.R. 450.316(a)(3)] LRTP AND TIP When “significant” written and oral comments are received on the draft LRTP and TIP (including the financial plans) as a result of the participation process in this section or the interagency consultation process required under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transportation conformity regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 93, Subpart A), a summary, analysis, and report on the disposition of comments are required to be included in the final LRTP and TIP. [23 C.F.R. 450.316(a)(2)] When the MPO area includes Indian Tribal lands, the MPO must appropriately involve the Indian Tribal government(s) in the development of the LRTP and the TIP. [23 C.F.R. 450.316(c)] The MPO may develop a PPP specific to the LRTP as part of the scope of that project. If this is done, the PPP for the LRTP must be consistent with the overall PPP of the MPO. Federal Strategies for Implementing Requirements for LRTP Update for the Florida MPOs, U. S. Department of Transportation, November 2012. This additional guidance states that for LRTPs, MPO Boards, their advisory committees, and the public, should have the opportunity to periodically review the LRTP products, interim tasks, and reports that result in the final LRTP documentation. Furthermore, this guidance also states that final adopted LRTP documentation should be posted to the Internet, and available at the MPO offices, no later than 90 days after adoption. The term, “significant” is used in State statutes and Federal law but remains undefined. THE COLLIER MPO DEFINES “SIGNIFICANT” AS ANY COMMENT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN A CHANGE TO THE SCOPE OF A PROJECT OR STUDY, TO REPORTING ON EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT LEADS TO DEFINING ISSUES AND RECOMMENDING SOLUTIONS IN TERMS OF PROJECTS OR POLICIES. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 30 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Specific to the TIP, Federal requirements are that the MPO must provide all interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed TIP, as required by the PPP. In addition, the MPO must publish or otherwise make readily available the TIP for public review, including (to the maximum extent practicable) in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the Internet, as described in the PPP. [23 C.F.R. 450.326(b)], [23 U.S.C. 134 (i)(6) and (7)] In the event an MPO revises its TIP, the MPO must always use public participation procedures consistent with the MPO’s PPP. However, public participation is not required for administrative modifications unless specifically addressed in the PPP. [23 C.F.R. 450.328(a)] ANNUAL LIST OF PRIORITIZED PROJECTS Each MPO annually must prepare a list of project priorities and submit the list to the appropriate FDOT District by October 1 of each year. The list must have been reviewed by the technical and citizens’ advisory committees and approved by the MPO before submission to the District. The annual list of project priorities must be based upon project selection criteria that consider, among other items, the MPO’s public involvement procedures. [s.339.175(8)(b)(5), F.S.] PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND MPO COMMITTEES Most MPOs consider their standing committees to be a fundamental part of their public involvement activities. The formation of a technical advisory committee (TAC) and citizens’ advisory committee (CAC) are required pursuant to s.339.175(6)(d), F.S. and s.339.175(6)(e), F.S.; and formation guidance is provided in Chapter 2 of the MPO Handbook. As an alternative to the use of a CAC, Florida Statute provides provisions for MPOs to adopt an alternate program or mechanism that ensures adequate citizen involvement in the transportation planning process following approval by FHWA, FTA, and FDOT. MPOs may also consider additional standing committees as a public involvement activity to address specific needs, such as bicyclists, pedestrians, and multiuse trails, safety, goods/freight movement, etc. MPOs must address and include their committee activities in the PPP; and are encouraged to detail how the schedule for meetings, agenda packages, and actions of the committees will be communicated with the public and how the public can participate in those meetings. MOST METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS CONSIDER THEIR STANDING COMMITTEES TO BE A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THEIR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 31 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN SUNSHINE LAW MPOs must provide reasonable notice of meetings and make adequate accommodations to hold open meetings and provide an opportunity for public input. Minutes of meetings must be available for public inspections. MPOs are prohibited from holding public meetings at a facility or location that discriminates on the basis of sex, age, race, creed, color, origin, or economic status; or that otherwise restrict public access. The statute establishes penalties for violations of these provisions and exceptions for specific situations. MPOs should consult legal counsel for any questions regarding Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Law. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 32 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN ACRONYMS ADA Americans with Disabilities Act BPAC Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee CFR Code of Federal Regulations EJ Environmental Justice EO Executive Order FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration LCB Local Coordinating Board LEP Limited English Proficiency LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization (interchangeable with TPO) PIP Public Involvement Plan (for individual projects) PPP Public Participation Plan (adopted by the MPO) TDP Transit Development Plan TDSP Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan TIP Transportation Improvement Program TPO Transportation Planning Organization (interchangeable with MPO) UPWP Unified Planning Work Program USC United States Code 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 33 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN APPENDICES A. GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT POLICY B. LEE COUNTY MPO/COLLIER MPO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT C. LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN D. NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE E. TRADITIONALLY UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES F. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 34 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN APPENDIX A: COLLIER MPO’S GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT POLICY EFFECTING TRIBAL ENTITIES 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 35 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT POLICY Adopted June 9, 2017 I. Purpose: To promote Tribal involvement in the MPO planning process; initiate and maintain a positive working relationship between the MPO and Tribal governments; promote effective collaboration and communication between the MPO and Tribes; II. Goals of Tribal Consultation: • To create durable relationships between the Tribes and the MPO based on a mutual respect that promotes coordinated transportation partnerships in service to all of our citizens. • For the MPO to take a proactive approach to consultation by ensuring Tribal participation in MPO planning processes that may affect Tribal governments, Tribal programs and Tribal citizens. III. Consultation Requirements Federal Transportation Planning Requirements 23 USC § 135(f)(2)c applies to FDOT, as follows: “With respect to each area of the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian Tribal government, the statewide transportation plan shall be developed in consultation with the Tribal government.” 23 CFR § 450.316(c), Interested parties, participation and consultation, applies to MPOs where an MPO includes Indian Tribal lands and provides: • “When the MPO includes Indian Tribal lands, the MPO(s) shall appropriately involve the Indian Tribal government(s) in the development of the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP.” 23 CFR § 450.316(e), Interested parties, participation and consultation, provides: • “MPOs shall, to the extent practicable, develop a documented process(es) that outlines roles, responsibilities, and key decision points for consulting with other governments and agencies, as defined in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, which may be included in the agreement(s) developed under § 450.314.” In addition to the above-referenced consultation requirements, if a Tribe wishes to access federal transportation funds available to MPOs, the Tribe must do so through the MPO processes as provided by law. IV. Definitions Collaboration: – Indicates a process in which two or more parties work together to achieve a common set of goals. Collaboration is the timely communication and joint effort that lays the groundwork for mutually beneficial relationships, including identifying issues and problems, identifying solutions and providing follow-up as needed. Communication: - Refers to verbal, electronic or written exchange of information between the MPO and the Tribe. Generally, posting information on a website or in the newspaper does not constitute consultation. Written correspondence, whether electronic or letter/postal format, should generally be sent to the Tribe Chair with a copy to staff, requesting review and comment on specific plans or 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 36 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN projects that will affect a Tribe. While Tribal review may occur concurrently with public review, Tribes are not considered the “public” for purposes of such communication. Consultation – Means that one or more parties confer with other identified parties in accordance with an established process and, prior to taking action(s), considers the views of the other parties and periodically informs them about action(s) taken.” (See 23 CFR Part 450 Planning Assistance and Standards, subpart A §450.104). Government-to-Government Relations: Refers to an intergovernmental relationship between a federally-recognized Tribe and the MPO Board during which consultation, meetings, and communications occur between top-level officials of the MPO and the Tribe. Tribal Sovereignty: Refers to a unique, political relationship between American Indians and the United States government that recognizes that Tribes are sovereign nations with recognized powers of self- government. V. Tribal Entities The two Federally-recognized Tribes with land holdings within or abutting Collier County are: • The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, represented by the Business Council, consisting of Chairman, Assistant Chairman, Treasurer, Secretary, and Lawmaker Mailing address: PO Box 440021 Tamiami Station Miami, Fl 33144 (o) 305-223-8380 • The Seminole Tribe of Florida, represented by the Tribal Council comprised of Chairman, Vice Chairman, Big Cypress Councilman, Brighton Councilman, and Hollywood Councilman Mailing address: Attn: Chairman and General Counsel 6300 Stirling Rd Hollywood, FL 33024 (o) 239-354-5220 x 11402 VI. Core Principles 1. The MPO wishes to establish a Government-to-Government relationship and communication protocol in recognition of the principle of Tribal sovereignty. 2. The MPO recognizes that good faith, mutual respect, and trust are fundamental to meaningful collaboration and communication between governmental entities. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 37 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 3. Formal communication and consultation will take place between the MPO Chair or Vice Chair and the Tribal Chair or Assistant/Vice Chair. Written notification in the form of an email or letter requesting consultation may be initiated by either the Tribal government or the MPO and should include the following information: • Identify the proposed action, program or project requiring consultation; and • Identify the personnel authorized to consult on behalf of the MPO and the Tribe. 4. Informal Communications may occur between MPO and designated Tribal staff members on an as-needed basis. The MPO will include designated Tribal staff members or representatives on email distribution lists to receive notifications of all upcoming MPO advisory committee and Board meetings. MPO staff will provide convenient access to meeting agendas and packets for review and be available to answer questions. VII. Application of Tribal Consultation Policy 1. The MPO will make a good-faith effort to review all proposed plans, policies, rulemakings, actions or other aspects of the transportation planning process that may affect or impact Tribal resources and determine whether Tribal consultation or collaboration may assist in the process. The MPO will notify Tribal governments and inquire whether Tribal consultation should occur. Tribal Officials have the discretion whether to engage in the consultation process. Consultation will be initiated by formal, written request. 2. If the MPO does not receive a response from a Tribe requesting a response to a proposed plan, project or other matter that may affect or impact a Tribal government, the MPO is encouraged to follow up further with the Tribal government to ascertain its level of interest. If no response is provided, the MPO believes that it is only appropriate to move forward after the following: (a) directly contacting a Tribal government authorized representative to solicit its participation, review and comment after providing sufficient time for the Tribe’s review and response; (b) that the direct communication/request for information or comment include a date when the MPO would like the response; and (c) that a minimum of thirty (30) days be provided for the Tribal government to provide for requests for information, or review and comment on draft documents. 3. The MPO recognizes that formal consultation may not be required in all situations or interactions. Tribal staff members and MPO staff may communicate on an as-needed basis. These communications do not negate the authority of the MPO and the Tribes to pursue formal consultation. 4. This policy will not diminish any administrative or legal remedies otherwise available by law to the MPO or the Tribe. This policy shall not be construed to waive the sovereign immunity of any party or create a cause of action for either party for failing to comply with this policy. 5. This policy is a working document and may be revised as needed. The MPO will consult periodically with the Tribes to evaluate its effectiveness and determine the need for revision. 6. The policy shall become effective upon the date signed by the MPO Chair following approval by the MPO Board. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 38 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN APPENDIX B: LEE COUNTY MPO/COLLIER MPO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 39 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 2018 AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND COORDINATION BETWEEN THE COLLIER AND LEE COUNTY MPOs DRAFT – PLACEHOLDER FOR FINAL This INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (hereinafter the Agreement) is made and entered into as of as of the date last signed below by and between the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (hereinafter the Collier MPO) and the Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organization (hereinafter the Lee County MPO). Whereas, the Lee County and Collier Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are the duly designated and constituted agencies responsible for carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning and programming processes for the Cape Coral and Bonita Springs-Naples Urbanized Areas; and Whereas, the 2000 Census, while identifying distinct and separate Bonita Springs-Naples and Cape Coral Urbanized Areas, also determined that the Naples Urbanized Area had expanded into the metropolitan planning area of the Lee County MPO to become the Bonita Springs-Naples Urbanized Area; and Whereas, the elected and appointed officials comprising the policy boards of the Collier MPO and the Lee County MPO recognize the benefits of regional cooperation; and Whereas, on October 17, 2002, at a joint meeting, the members of the Collier MPO and Lee County MPO voted unanimously for staff not to pursue consolidation of the MPOs or alter their common metropolitan planning area boundary; and Whereas, on October 17, 2002, at a joint meeting, the members of the Collier MPO and Lee County MPO voted unanimously for staff to coordinate transportation planning and policy activities in this bi- county region to promote regional transportation solutions and enhance overall regional transportation system efficiency using a straightforward, resourceful method; and Whereas, the parties agree that the MPOs should continue coordination efforts by having a member of each MPO’s staff serve as a voting member of the other’s technical advisory committee and by holding joint MPO policy board meetings on an as-needed basis and when necessary to resolve otherwise irresolvable differences; and Whereas, staff and policy board members from both the Collier and Lee County MPOs also already coordinate regional transportation issues through participation in the Metropolitan Planning 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 40 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC), the District One Coordinated Urban Transportation Studies (CUTS) Committee, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC); and Whereas, the Collier and Lee County MPOs executed an agreement on January 27, 2004 and amended it in January 2006 to develop a joint regional long range transportation plan and joint long range regional transportation priorities; and Whereas, the Collier and Lee County MPOs executed an amended agreement on March 20, 2009 to update the joint coordination activities to match the current requirements and processes at the time; and Whereas, certain provisions of the amended Agreement now need updating; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants made by each party to the other and of the mutual benefits to be realized by the parties hereto, the Collier MPO and Lee County MPO hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Authority. This Interlocal Agreement is entered into pursuant to the general authority of Sections 339.175, Florida Statutes, relating to metropolitan planning organizations, and 163.01, Florida Statutes, relating to interlocal agreements. Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to promote and establish a forum for communication and coordination between the Collier and Lee County MPOs and to foster joint regional cooperation and conduct regarding transportation planning in accordance with Section 339.175, Florida Statutes, 23 C.F.R. 450.312, and the goals and requirements of current applicable Federal transportation appropriations legislation. More specifically, this Agreement establishes the commitment by the parties to develop joint regional transportation planning products and processes for the bi-county region of Collier and Lee Counties and provides targeted timeframes for the accomplishment of these products and processes. Section 3. Staff–level Coordination. Each party will continue to maintain a representative of the other party’s staff agency as a voting member of its Technical Advisory Committee. Section 4. Joint Meetings and Quorum Requirements. Joint meetings of the governing boards, and advisory committees of the Collier and Lee County MPOs will be held at least annually. Quorum requirements for each MPO’s Technical Advisory Committee at the joint meetings will be consistent with their respective bylaws, after leaving out the SWFRPC and MPO staff representatives from the quorum calculations. However, during voting on any items, while the SWFRPC representatives will each have a single vote, MPO representatives will abstain from voting as they provide the administrative support at these meetings. Quorum requirements for each MPO’s Citizens Advisory Committee and Bicycle- Pedestrian Advisory Committee at the joint meetings will be as established for each committee under their respective MPO bylaws. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 41 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Section 5. Planning Products and Timeframes. The parties hereby agree to coordinate and collaborate in good faith and with due diligence to develop the following joint regional planning products by the target dates set out by each product described below: (a) Joint Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) The parties will continue to maintain and update as necessary the Joint Regional Multi-Modal Transportation System. The system will continue to remain a component of each MPO’s LRTP and will continue to identify a network of regionally significant transportation corridors, facilities, and services. The two MPOs continue to participate in the development and implementation of the FDOT Districtwide Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS) through the Coordinated Urban Transportation Studies (CUTS) meetings and coordination with FDOT. Each MPO has adopted a 2040 LRTP. The 2045 LRTP is due to be adopted in 2020. During the development of each MPO’s 2045 LRTP update, the parties agree to identify where improvements may be needed, to propose and test appropriate alternative system improvements, and update the current joint regional long range transportation plan addressing those needs. The parties further agree to incorporate this regional plan in the updates of their own LRTPs, and to agree on any refinements or modifications to the regional plan that either MPO may wish to include in its LRTP prior to or concurrent with the adoption of their LRTPs. The joint regional long range transportation plan shall be published in and adopted as part of each MPO’s LRTP. The target date for adoption of the initial LRTPs thus coordinated is December 2020. The parties agree that amendments to their LRTPs affecting the joint regional long range transportation plan must be approved by both MPOs’ governing boards. (b) Joint Regional Project Priorities On the basis of the Joint Regional Multi-Modal Transportation System addressed in paragraph 5(a) above, the MPOs agree to continue adopting priorities for funding unprogrammed improvements on the network that will be competing for statewide discretionary funding within the next six fiscal years, and include said projects in the respective MPO’s project priorities adopted in the summer. The MPOs also agree to continue adopting priorities jointly for improvements to transportation facilities and services on the identified regional network that are competing for funding through the state’s Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP). Both sets of Joint Regional Project Priorities must be adopted by each MPO’s governing board. Either MPO governing board may require that the Joint Regional Project Priorities be reconsidered at any time. This collaboration and the products developed will recur each subsequent year during the duration of this Agreement and will be a continuing obligation and commitment. (c) Joint Regional Public Involvement Process Component The parties will collaborate to maintain the Joint Regional Public Involvement Component which shall continue to be included in each MPO’s existing Public 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 42 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Involvement Plan. This Joint Regional Component prescribes public notice and outreach actions and measures to assure public access and involvement for all joint regional activities including development of the Joint Regional Long Range Transportation Plan component and annual regional priority list within the bi- county area. Any amendments to this Joint Regional Public Involvement Process Component must be approved by both MPO’s governing boards. (d) Joint Regional Web Page The parties will collaborate to maintain the Collier and Lee County MPO Joint Regional Web Page. The Web Page is hosted in the Lee County MPO Web Site, and maintained and updated as necessary by Lee County MPO staff. A link to this web page will continue to be provided in the Collier MPO Web Site. Section 6. Staff Services and Costs. The directors and staffs of each MPO will be responsible for development and maintenance of the joint regional products identified in this Agreement, subject to review and final approval by each MPO governing board. In this regard, each MPO will cooperate to assign and share equitably the needed staff resources to accomplish these regional efforts as specified in their respective Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWP). The cost of staff or consultant services provided by one party for the mutual benefit of both parties shall be split between the parties in proportion to their annual allocations of FHWA planning funds as shown in their latest adopted Unified Planning Work Programs. Similarly, direct costs for the joint regional efforts and products identified in this Agreement will be split between the parties in proportion to their annual allocations of FHWA planning funds. Either party may also provide staff services to, or provide for the use of its consultants by, the other party, in which event the benefiting party shall reimburse the party providing the services for its full cost of the services rendered, including any associated direct expenses and any applicable share of personnel benefits and allocated indirect costs. The parties agree to invoice each other at the end of each monthly or quarterly accounting period for all expenses thus incurred on the other’s behalf during that period. The parties further agree, as may be necessary in order to carry out the terms and commitments of this Agreement, to cooperate in seeking federal, state and local funding for the joint regional products to be developed. Section 7. Conflict Resolution. The parties to this Agreement concur that if an issue is otherwise irresolvable, their staffs will organize a joint meeting of the MPO governing boards to resolve said matter. If the parties are unable to resolve the issue at the joint meeting, they agree to submit the issue to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council for non-binding arbitration. Notwithstanding any such resolution process, the parties to this agreement do not waive their respective rights to seek declaratory judgment as provided in Chapter 86, Florida Statutes. Section 8. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall have an initial term of five (5) years, commencing on the date first above written, and shall automatically renew at the end of five (5) years for an additional five (5)-year term and every five years thereafter unless terminated or rescinded as set out in Section 10, herein. Prior to the end of each five (5)-year term, the parties shall reexamine the terms hereof for possible amendment. However, the failure to amend or reaffirm the terms of this Agreement shall not invalidate or otherwise terminate this Agreement. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 43 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Section 9. Modification. This Agreement may be modified at any time, but only by a new or addendum interlocal agreement duly signed by both parties. Section 10. Termination-Rescission. This Agreement shall continue in force unless terminated with or without cause by either party by providing thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. Section 11. Liability. The parties agree that nothing created or contained in this Agreement shall be construed, interpreted or inferred to establish any joint liability amongst or between one or more of the parties by the actions or omissions of its individual employees or agents acting pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. In this regard, each party agrees that it shall be solely responsible and bear its own cost of defending any claim or litigation arising out of the acts or omissions of its employees or agents for actions or omissions in carrying out the terms and provisions of this Agreement. Finally, pursuant to Section 768.28, Florida Statutes each party agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the other party against any claims or causes of action based upon the individual acts or omissions of its employees or agents. Section 12. Notice. Any notice provided for herein, including the written notice referenced in Section 10 above, shall be provided by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the other party’s representatives listed below at the following addresses: Director Director Collier MPO Lee County MPO 2885 South Horseshoe Drive P.O. Box 150045 Naples, Florida 34104 Cape Coral, Florida 33915-0045 Notice shall be deemed received on the first business day following actual receipt of the notice. The parties will promptly notify the other in writing of any change to their respective addresses. As required by Section 163.01(11), Florida Statutes, this Interlocal Agreement and all future amendments hereto shall be filed with the Clerks of the Circuit Courts of Collier and Lee Counties, Florida. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties herein have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized officials as of the day and year written below. _____________________________ ____________________________________ Commissioner Penny Taylor, Chair Councilman Rick Williams, Chair Collier MPO Lee County MPO ________________________________ _______________________________ 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 44 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Date: ____________________________ Date: ___________________________ Approved as to form and legality: ______________________________________ Scott R. Teach, Deputy Collier County Attorney ______________________________________ Derek Rooney, Lee County MPO Attorney 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 45 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN APPENDIX C. Limited English Proficiency Plan 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 46 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is responsible for a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process in Collier County (as well as a small portion of Lee County included in the MPO’s Planning Area). This planning process guides the use of federal and state dollars spent on existing and future transportation projects or programs, and the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan plays an integral role in this process. This document will detail the LEP Plan, developed in conjunction with best practice standards for public involvement. Introduction On August 11, 2000, President William J. Clinton signed an executive order, Executive Order 13166: Improving Access to Service for Persons with Limited English Profic iency, to clarify Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its purpose was to ensure accessibility to programs and services to eligible persons who are not proficient in the English language. This executive order stated that individuals who do not speak English well and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English are entitled to language assistance under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with respect to a particular type of service, benefit, or encounter. It reads in part, “Each Federal agency shall prepare a plan to improve access to its federally conducted programs and activities by eligible LEP persons. Each plan shall be consistent with the standards set forth in the LEP Guidance, and shall include the steps the agency will take to ensure that eligible LEP persons can meaningfully access the agency's programs and activities.” Not only do all federal agencies have to develop LEP Plans, as a condition of receiving federal financial assistance, but also state and local recipients are required to comply with Title VI and LEP guidelines of the federal agency from which they receive funds. Federal financial assistance includes grants, training, use of equipment, donations of surplus property and other assistance. Recipients of federal funds range from state and local agencies to nonprofits and other organizations. Title VI covers a recipient's entire program or activity. This means all components of a recipient's operations are covered. Simply put, any organization that receives federal financial assistance is required to follow this Executive Order. The US Department of Transportation (DOT) published: “Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients’ Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient Person” in the December 14, 2005 Federal Register. The guidance explicitly identifies MPOs as organizations that must follow this guidance: The guidance applies to all DOT funding recipients, which include state departments of transportation, state motor vehicle administrations, airport operators, metropolitan planning organizations, and regional, state, and local transit operators, among many others. Coverage extends to a recipient’s entire program or activity, i.e., to all parts of a recipient’s operations. This is true even if only one part of the recipient receives the Federal assistance. For example, if DOT provides assistance to a state department of 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 47 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN transportation to rehabilitate a particular highway on the National Highway System, all of the operations of the entire state department of transportation—not just the particular highway program or project—are covered by the DOT guidance. The intent of this Limited English Proficiency Plan is to ensure access to the planning process and information published by the MPO where it is determined that a substantial number of residents in the Collier MPO Planning Area do not speak or read English proficiently. The production of multilingual publications and documents and/or interpretation at meetings or events will be provided to the degree that funding permits based on current laws and regulations. Laws and Policies Guiding Limited English Proficiency Plans As part of Metropolitan Planning Organization certification by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the LEP Plan will be assessed and evaluated. The following matrix illustrates these laws, policies and considerations: Rights A Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Limited English Proficiency Executive Order 13166 Federal Law Federal Policy Enacted in 1964 Enacted in August 2000 Considers all persons Considers eligible population Contains monitoring and oversight compliance review requirements Contains monitoring and oversight compliance review requirements Factor criteria is required, no numerical or percentage thresholds Factor criteria is required, no numerical or percentage thresholds Provides protection on the basis of race, color, and national origin Provides protection on the basis of national origin Focuses on eliminating discrimination in federally funded programs Focuses on providing LEP persons with meaningful access to services using four factor criteria Annual Accomplishment and Upcoming Goals Report to FHWA Annual Accomplishment and Upcoming Goals Report to FHWA Who is an LEP individual? As defined in the 2000 United States Census, it is any Individual who speaks a language at home other than English as his/her primary language, and who speaks or understands English ‘not well’ or ‘not at all’. Determining the need As a recipient of federal funding, the MPO must take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to the information and services it provides. As noticed in the Federal Register/ Volume 70, Number 239/ Wednesday, December 14, 2005/ Notices, there are four factors to consider in determining “reasonable steps”. • Factor 1 - The number and proportion of LEP persons in the eligible service area; • Factor 2 - The frequency with which LEP persons encounter MPO programs; 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 48 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN • Factor 3 - The importance of the service provided by MPO programs; • Factor 4 - The resources available and overall cost to the MPO. The DOT Policy Guidance gives recipients of federal funds substantial flexibility in determining what language assistance is appropriate based on a local assessment of the four factors listed above. The following is an assessment of need in Collier MPO’s Planning Area in relation to the four factors and the transportation planning process. LEP Assessment for the Collier MPO Factor 1. The Number and proportion of LEP persons in the eligible service area The first step towards understanding the profile of individuals who could participate in the transportation planning process is a review of Census data. Tables 1 and 2 on the following pages display the primary language spoken and number of individuals that are LEP. In Collier County, between 2010 and 2016, the number of people who speak a language other than English at home increased by 16,000 while the number of people who speak English less than “very well” decreased by 1,000. For our planning purposes, we are considering people that speak English ‘less than very well’ and only the top four language groups are included in the analysis. Table 1, derived from the 2016 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates conducted by the US Census, shows the number and percent of the population, with regard to their English language skills, for the cities and unincorporated portions of Collier County as well as for the County as a whole.. In unincorporated Collier County, 15.7% of the population age 5 years or older speak English less than “very well”, compared to 14.5 for the entire County 2 Table 1: Limited English Proficient Persons in the MPO Planning area and local jurisdictions 2016 American Community Survey – US Census - 5-year estimates Jurisdiction Population Population 5 years and over Number of LEP Persons (5 years and over) Percentage of LEP Persons (5 years and over) Everglades City 232 228 11 4.8% City of Naples 20,980 20,510 828 4.0% City of Marco Island 17,361 17,135 1,115 6.5% Unincorporated Collier County 309,663 293,645 46,143 15.7% Collier County 348,236 331,518 48,097 14.5% Table 2 shows the number and percent of LEP persons by language spoken at the individual’s home. Of the LEP persons within Collier County, 23.4% speak Spanish at home making this the most significant percentage of the area’s population. The second most common language at home is Other Indo-European 2 2016 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates, Tables B01003, S1601. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 49 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN languages at 7.8%; Asian and Pacific Islander languages represent 0.9% of the “other” languages spoken at home. Table 2: Language Spoken at Home by LEP Persons - Collier MPO Planning Area 2016 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates, US Census LEP Persons Spanish Language Other Indo- European Languages Asian & Pacific Islander Languages Other Languages 5 years and over - Everglades City 9 7 0 0 5 years and over - City of Naples 658 1,216 83 14 5 years and over - Marco Island 1,162 1,006 176 71 5 years and over – Unincorporated County 75,843 23,630 2,750 764 5 years and over - Total 77,672 25,859 3,009 849 Percent of Total Population 5 years and over 23.4% 7.8% 0.9% 0.3% Factor 2. The frequency in which LEP Persons encounter MPO programs The MPO documents phone inquiries, public meetings and office visits. To date, the MPO has had no requests for interpreters and no requests for translated program documents or publications by either individuals or groups. Factor 3. The importance of the service provided by the MPO program MPO programs use federal funds to plan for future transportation projects, and therefore do not include any direct service or program that requires vital, immediate or emergency assistance, such as medical treatment or services for basic needs (like food or shelter). Further, the MPO does not conduct required activities such as applications, interviews or other activities prior to participation in its programs or events. Involvement by any citizen with the MPO or its committees is voluntary. However, the MPO must ensure that all segments of the population, including LEP persons, have been involved or have had the opportunity to be involved in the transportation planning process to be consistent with the goal of the Federal Environmental Justice program and policy. The impact of proposed transportation investments on underserved and under-represented population groups is part of the evaluation process in use of federal funds in three major areas for the MPO: • the biennial Unified Planning Work Program, • the five-year Transportation Improvement Program, • the Long-Range Transportation Plan, covering 20+ years. Inclusive public participation is a priority consideration in other MPO plans, studies and programs as well. The impacts of transportation improvements resulting from these planning activities have an impact on all residents. Understanding and continued involvement are encouraged throughout the process. The 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 50 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN MPO is concerned with input from all stakeholders, and makes every effort to ensure that the planning process is as inclusive as possible. As a result of the long range transportation planning process, selected projects receive approval for federal funding and progress towards project planning and construction under the responsibility of local jurisdictions or state transportation agencies. These state and local organizations have their own policies to ensure LEP individuals can participate in the process that shapes where, how and when a specific transportation project is implemented. Factor 4. The resources available and overall MPO cost Given the size of the LEP population in the MPO area, the current financial constraints of the MPO and the expense of full multi-language translations of large transportation plan documents and maps which have frequent changes and are not often used by the public, translation of MPO documents is not considered to be warranted at this time. The MPO will continue efforts to collaborate with state and local agencies to provide language translation and interpretation services when practical and funding is available. Spanish and other language outreach materials from organizations such as federal, state, and local transportation agencies will be used when possible. The MPO will monitor increases in the LEP population and adjust its LEP policy accordingly. If warranted in the future, the MPO will consider new techniques to reach the LEP population, such as (1) the translation of executive summaries for key MPO documents, such as the Long Range Transportation Plan, the Transportation Improvement Program, and the Public Involvement Plan, and (2) the translation of document summaries, brochures or newsletters, which are designed to capture significant points of the full document. Additionally, the MPO currently has an employee that is fluent in both English and Spanish. In addition, Collier County Growth Management Division and the Alternative Transportation Modes Department have employees fluent in English, Spanish and Haitian Creole, and are available as interpreters as needed. MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS Engaging the diverse population within the MPO area is important. The MPO is committed to providing quality services to all citizens, including those with limited English proficiency. All language access activities detailed below will be coordinated in collaboration with the MPO Board and staff. Safe Harbor Stipulation Federal law provides a ‘safe harbor’ stipulation so recipients of federal funding can ensure compliance with their obligation to provide written translations in languages other than English with greater certainty. A ‘safe harbor’ means that as long as a recipient (the MPO) has created a plan for the provision of written TRANSLATION OF MPO DOCUMENTS IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE WARRANTED AT THIS TIME. THE MPO WILL CONTINUE EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE WITH STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES TO PROVIDE LANGUAGE TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION SERVICES WHEN PRACTICAL AND FUNDING IS AVAILABLE 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 51 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN translations under a specific set of circumstances, such action will be considered strong evidence of compliance with written translation obligations under Title VI. However, failure to provide written translations under the circumstances does not mean there is noncompliance, but rather provides for recipients a guide for greater certainty of compliance in accordance with the four factor analysis. Evidence of compliance with the recipient’s written translation obligations under ‘safe harbor’ includes providing written translations of vital documents for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes 5% or 1,000 persons, whichever is less of eligible persons served or likely to be affected. (Note: At this time, data on area language groups indicates that this requirement does not apply.) Translation also can be provided orally. The ‘safe harbor’ provision applies to the translation of written documents only. It does not affect the requirement to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals through competent oral interpreters where oral language services are needed and reasonable to provide. Providing Notice to LEP Persons US DOT guidance indicates that once an agency has decided, based on the four factors, to provide language services, it is important that the recipient notify LEP persons of services available free of charge in a language the LEP persons would understand. Example methods for notification include: 1. Signage that indicates when free language assistance is available with advance notice; 2. Stating in outreach documents that language services are available; 3. Working with community-based organizations and other stakeholders to inform LEP individuals of MPO services and the availability of language assistance; 4. Using automated telephone voice mail or menu to provide information about available language assistance services; 5. Including notices in local publications targeting Spanish-speaking and Haitian-Creole-speaking ng audiences in languages other than English; 6. Providing notices on non-English-language radio and television about MPO services and the availability of language assistance; and 7. Providing presentations and/or notices at schools and community based organizations (CBO). If deemed essential in the future in light of revised census data, the MPO will publicize the availability of interpreter services, free of charge, at least 7 days prior to MPO Board and committee meetings, workshops, forums or events which will be noticed on the MPO website, in meeting notices (packets), and using the following additional tools as appropriate: • signage • public outreach materials • community-based organizations • local publications as referenced above • Non-English-language radio and television The MPO defines an interpreter as a person who translates spoken language orally, as opposed to a translator, who translates written language and transfers the meaning of written text from one language into another. The MPO will request language interpreter services from Collier County staff, as needed, and will reciprocate by making MPO staff available as needed. As covered under Title VI requirements for 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 52 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN nondiscrimination, at each meeting, the MPO will provide Title VI material and include this material in an alternative language when applicable. Language Assistance A goal of the PPP is to provide user-friendly materials that will be appealing and easy to understand. The MPO will provide on an “as needed” basis, executive summaries in alternative formats, such as brochures or newsletters, depending on the work product. MPO Staff Training This LEP Plan is incorporated in the PIP to maintain meaningful access to information and services for LEP individuals, the MPO will properly train its employees to assist in person, and/or by telephone, LEP individuals who request assistance. MPO Board members will receive a briefing on the PIP & LEP Plan, assuring that they are aware of and understand how the PIP implements the LEP Plan. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 53 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN APPENDIX D. NONDISCRIMINATION PLAN AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 54 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Title VI Nondiscrimination Program Policy and Complaint Procedure Introduction The Collier MPO is a recipient of federal funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation modal agencies, including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). All recipients of federal funding must comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination statutes, regulations and authorities. This Implementation Plan describes how the Department effectuates nondiscrimination in the delivery of its federally assisted programs, services and activities. The Plan includes the structure of the MPO’s Title VI/Nondiscrimination program as well as the policies, procedures and practices that the Department uses to comply with nondiscrimination requirements. The Plan is intended to be a living document, regularly policed and updated by the Department to meaningfully reflect the program as it changes and grows. Anyone wishing to provide input into the Department’s Title VI/Nondiscrimination Implementation Plan is encouraged to contact the Title VI/Nondiscrimination Program Coordinator, Anne McLaughlin at AnneMcLaughlin@dot.state.fl.us or 239-252-5884 or by writing at 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. Policy Statement It is the policy of the MPO to comply with all federal and state authorities requiring nondiscrimination, including but not limited to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) and 13166 (Limited English Proficiency). The MPO does not and will not exclude from participation in; deny the benefits of; or subject anyone to discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability or income. In addition, the MPO complies with the Florida Civil Rights Act, and does not permit discrimination on the basis of religion or family status in its programs, services or activities. The Collier MPO has adopted the Florida Department of Transportation’s (Department) Title VI/Nondiscrimination policy and ADA policy by reference. Topic No.:275-010-010-f–Title VI Program and Related Statutes-Implementation and Review Procedures. The Department’s Title VI/Nondiscrimination policy and ADA policy statement may be found at: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/equalopportunityoffice/TitleVI/001-275-006.pdf. Those requiring information in alternative formats or in a language subject to the Department’s Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan, should contact the Title VI/Nondiscrimination Coordinator. MPO DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROCEDURE Any person who believes that he or she, or any specific class of persons, has been subjected to discrimination or retaliation prohibited by the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and related statutes, under the MPO’s planning process may file a written complaint. The MPO encourages the filing of a complaint in writing which includes a name, address, and other information so that you may be contacted in regard to the matter. Please see the Title VI Complaint Form. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 55 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN The MPO will investigate complaints received no more than 180 days after the alleged incident. The MPO will process complaints that are complete. • All complaints will be investigated promptly. Reasonable measures will be undertaken to preserve any information that is confidential. The MPO’s Title VI Specialist will review every complaint to determine if our office has jurisdiction. • Within ten (10) calendar days, the Title VI Specialist will acknowledge receipt of the allegation(s), inform the Complainant of action taken or proposed action to process the allegation(s), and advise the Complainant of other avenues of redress available, such as the FDOT’s Equal Opportunity Office (EOO). • The MPO has sixty (60) calendar days to investigate the complaint. If more information is needed to resolve the complaint, the MPO’s Title VI Specialist will contact the complainant. The complainant has 10 business days from the date of the letter to send the requested information to the Title VI Specialist. If the Title VI Specialist is not contacted by the complainant or does not receive the additional information within 15 business days, the MPO may administratively close the case. A case can also be administratively closed if the complainant no longer wishes to pursue their case. • At a minimum, the investigation will: o Identify and review all relevant documents, practices, and procedures; o Identify and interview persons with knowledge of the Title VI violation, including the person making the complaint, witnesses, or anyone identified by the complainant; anyone who may have been subject to similar activity or anyone with relevant information. • Within ninety (90) calendar days of the complaint, the MPO’s Title VI Specialist will issue one of two letters to the complainant: a closure letter or a letter of finding (LOF). A closure letter summarizes the allegations and states that there was not a Title VI violation and that the case will be closed. An LOF summarizes the allegations and the interviews regarding the alleged incident, and explains whether any disciplinary action, additional training of the staff members or other action will occur. • If no violation is found and the complainant wishes to appeal the decision, he/she has fourteen (14) days after the date of the letter or the LOF to do so. • If the issue has not been satisfactorily resolved through the MPO’s investigation, or if at any time the person(s) request(s) to file a formal complaint, the recipient’s MPO Title VI Specialist shall refer the Complainant to the FDOT’s District One Title VI Coordinator for processing in accordance with approved State procedures. • The MPO’s Title VI Specialist will advise the FDOT’s District One Title VI Coordinator within five (5) calendar days of the completed investigation. The following information will be included in every notification to the FDOT’s District One Title VI Coordinator: 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 56 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN (a) Name, address, and phone number of the Complainant. (b) Name(s) and address(es) of Respondent. (c) Basis of complaint (i.e., race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, familial status or retaliation). (d) Date of alleged discriminatory act(s). (e) Date of complaint received by the recipient. (f) A statement of the complaint. (g) Other agencies (state, local or Federal) where the complaint has been filed. (h) An explanation of the actions the recipient has taken or proposed to resolve the allegation(s) raised in the complaint. • The MPO’s Title VI Specialist will maintain a log of complaints received by the MPO. The log will include the following information: o Name of Complainant o Name of Respondent o Basis of Complaint (i.e., race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, familial status or retaliation) o Date complaint was received by the recipient o Date that the MPO Title VI Specialist notified the FDOT’s District One Title VI Coordinator of the complaint o Explanation of the actions the recipient has taken or proposed to resolve the issue raised in the complaint 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 as part of the MPO 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 Title VI Specialist Anne McLaughlin (239) 252- 5884 by writing Ms. McLaughlin at 2885 South Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104 or via email at: annemclaughlin@colliergov.net; or by contacting Brandy Otero, Senior Planner, by phone at 239-252- 5859, in writing at the above address, or via email at: brandyotero@colliergov.net 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 57 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Title VI Complaint Form Before completing this form, please read the Collier MPO’s Title VI Complaint Procedures located on our website or by visiting our office. The following information is necessary and required to assist in processing your complaint. If you require assistance in completing this form, please contact us at the phone number listed. Complaints must be filed within 180 calendar days after the date alleged discrimination occurred. Complainant’s Name: __________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________________ City: __________________________ State: _________________ Zip Code: ______________ Telephone Numbers: Home __________Work: _____________ Cell: ______________ E-mail Address: ________________________________________________________________ Date of alleged discrimination: _______________________________________________ Which of the following best describes the reason you believe the discrimination took place? Was it because of your: Race/Color: ____________ National Origin:____________ Person discriminated against (if someone other than complainant). Please confirm that you have obtained the permission of the aggrieved party if you are filing on behalf of a third party. Name_______________________________________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________________________ City: _______________________ State: ___________ Zip Code: _________________ Have you filed this complaint with any other federal, state, or local agency? Yes No If yes, check each box that applies: 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 58 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Federal Transit Administration Department of Transportation Dept. of Justice Equal Opportunity Commission Other: _______________________________________________________ Have you filed a lawsuit regarding this complaint? Yes No In your own words, describe the alleged discrimination. Explain what happened and whom you believe was responsible. Include specific details such as names, dates, times, route numbers, witnesses, and any other information that would assist us in our investigation of the allegations. Please also provide any other documentation that is relevant to this complaint. Complainant’s Signature Date 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 59 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN APPENDIX E – TRADITIONALLY UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 60 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Environmental Justice Communities / Traditionally Underserved Communities The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) advised the MPO during the quadrennial Transportation Management Area (TMA) review in 2016 to incorporate an analysis of Environmental Justice Communities and issues in all new plans and studies. The FHWA advised MPO staff to include the type of analysis conducted for the MPO’s Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan. According to guidance published by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), it is important to see Environmental Justice as an opportunity to make better transportation decisions by doing the following: (http://www.fdot.gov/research/Completed_Proj/Summary_PL/FDOT_BD171_TEJ.pdf) • Making transportation decisions that meet the needs of all people • Designing facilities that fit into communities • Enhancing the public involvement process and strengthening community-based partnerships • Improving the tools for analyzing the impacts of transportation decisions on minority and low- income communities • Partnering with other public and private agencies to leverage resources and achieve a common vision for communities MPO staff began by reviewing the MPO’s Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP), Major Update, adopted October 25, 2013 for maps showing Populations in Poverty, Households with No Vehicles and Identified Areas of Need as a starting point in identifying disadvantaged communities potentially underserved by transportation infrastructure and programs within Collier County. FHWA advised using a variety of resources, and local knowledge to determine the location and needs of disadvantaged communities. MPO staff augmented the TDSP maps using the following sources: • US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP) • US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Justice (EJ) Screening and Mapping Tool • MPO Advisory Committee review of findings (for local knowledge) To address the issue of equity in terms of providing equal access to bicycle and pedestrian facilities County-wide, the MPO’s previous identification of Environmental Justice (EJ) communities was updated for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2019). The EJ criteria used for the BPMP were minority status, poverty, no access to a vehicle, and limited ability to speak English. EJ areas were defined as areas where the criteria were 10% greater than the County average. The map on the following page shows the results of the EJ analysis. The map may be viewed in larger format on the MPO website. 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 61 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Environmental Justice (EJ) Communities, Collier County, 2019 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 63 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN APPENDIX F – STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 64 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 65 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 66 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 67 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 68 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 69 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 70 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 71 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 72 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 73 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 74 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 10.C.2 Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Public Participation Plan CLEAN VERSION (7928 : Adopt Public Participation Plan) 02/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) OBJECTIVE: For the Board to receive an update on the draft BPMP. CONSIDERATIONS: MPO staff and the project consultant, Tindale Oliver and Associates, have been working diligently through the advisory committee process to develop a draft BPMP that incorporates a high level of technical analysis and extensive input from advisory committee members and the general public. The project is nearing completion, with another, hopefully f inal, round of committee reviews in February. Staff’s goal is to bring the draft BPMP to the MPO Board for action in March 2019. The MPO Director will give a brief PowerPoint presentation summarizing the planning process and key components of the draft BPMP at the Board’s February meeting. The 2019 Dangerous By Design report published by Smart Growth America and the National Complete Streets Coalition is attached as an informational item. The analysis and recommendations in the report regarding pedestrian safety and vulnerable populations are supportive of the analysis and recommendations in the draft BPMP. (Attachment 1). COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: not applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board receives an update on the draft BPMP. Prepared by: Anne McLaughlin, Executive Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Dangerous by Design 2019 (PDF) 11.A Packet Pg. 219 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 11.A Doc ID: 7939 Item Summary: Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 10:09 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 10:09 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 10:12 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 10:24 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 11.A Packet Pg. 220 DANGEROUSBY DESIGN2019Source: April Bertelsen, PBOTSource: Dr. Scott CrawfordSource: Stephen Lee Davis, SGA11.A.1 Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) SMART GROWTH AMERICA is a national organization dedicated to researching, advocating for, and leading coalitions to bring better development to more communities nationwide. From providing more sidewalks to ensuring that more homes are built near public transportation or that productive farms remain a part of our communities, smart growth helps make sure people across the nation can live in great neighborhoods. Learn more at www.smartgrowthamerica.org. The NATIONAL COMPLETE STREETS COALITION, a program of Smart Growth America, seeks to fundamentally transform the look, feel, and function of the roads and streets in our communities, by changing the way most roads are planned, designed, and constructed. Complete Streets policies direct transportation planners and engineers to consistently design with all users in mind. Learn more at www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets. 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) AARP is the nation’s largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as they age. With nearly 38 million members and offices in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, AARP works to strengthen communities and advocate for what matters most to families with a focus on healthy security, financial stability and personal fulfillment. The AARP Livable Communities initiative works nationwide to support the efforts of neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties and rural areas to be livable for people of all ages. Websites: AARP.org and AARP.org/Livable | Email: Livable@AARP.org | Free Newsletter: AARP.org/Livable-Subscribe Facebook: /AARPLivableCommunities | Twitter: @AARPLivable | 601 E Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20049 Founded in 1899, the AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS is the professional association for landscape architects in the United States, representing more than 15,000 members. The Society’s mission is to advance landscape architecture through advocacy, communication, education, and fellowship. Sustainability has been part of ASLA’s mission since its founding and is an overarching value that informs all of the Society’s programs and operations. ASLA has been a leader in demonstrating the benefits of green infrastructure and resilient development practices through the creation of its own green roof, co- development of the SITES® Rating System, and the creation of publicly-accessible sustainable design resources. Learn more at www.asla.org. NELSON\NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES is an internationally recognized firm committed to developing transportation systems that promote vibrant, sustainable, and accessible communities. We plan and design connected complete streets that put people first. Learn more at www.nelsonnygaard.com. This project was made possible by the following organizations: In addition, thank you to the following individuals for your support and for adding your voices to call for safer streets: John David Carson Barb Chamberlain Rich Harrison Janet Manry Morgan Palmer Joe Roskowski Elizabeth Schilling John Siekmeier Daniel P Stephens John D Thompson Project Team: The primary author of the language in this report was Heather Zaccaro. Jordan Chafetz and Sophie Schonfeld conducted all analyses and created the maps and figures throughout this report. This project was conducted under the leadership and guidance of Emiko Atherton, Stephen Lee Davis, and Michael Rodriguez. 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN 2 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Between 2008 and 2017, drivers struck and killed 49,340 people who were walking on streets all across the United States. That’s more than 13 people per day, or one person every hour and 46 minutes. It’s the equivalent of a jumbo jet full of people crashing—with no survivors—every single month. In the past decade, the number of people struck and killed while walking increased by 35 percent. 2016 and 2017 were the two highest years since 1990 for the number of people who were killed by drivers while walking. This report ranks states and metropolitan areas around the country using our “Pedestrian Danger Index”, or PDI. This index measures how deadly it is for people to walk based on the number of people struck and killed by drivers while walking, controlling for the number of people that live in that state or metro area and the share of people who walk to work. The 2019 edition of Dangerous by Design includes traffic deaths that occurred between 2008 and 2017 from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a national database of all fatal traffic crashes. What this report shows is that our streets aren’t getting safer. Even more so, while traffic deaths impact every community in the United States, states and metropolitan areas across the southern continental United States, older adults, people of color, and people walking in low-income communities bear a higher share of this harm. Why is this happening? We’re not walking more, and we’re only driving slightly more than we were back in 2008. What is happening is that our streets, Federal funds, policies, and standards helped to create this problem and have a role in improving the streets we build tomorrow. which we designed for the movement of vehicles, haven’t changed. In fact, we are continuing to design streets that are dangerous for all people. Furthermore, federal and state policies, standards, and funding mechanisms still produce roads that prioritize high speeds for cars over safety for all people. To reverse this trend and save lives, we need to protect all users of the transportation system through our policies, programs, and funding. 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN 3 Executive Summary Our federal government needs to take the lead on prioritizing safer streets. Federal dollars and policies helped create these unsafe streets in the first place. And federal funds, policies, and guidance have a significant role to play in fixing these streets and in designing the streets we’ll build tomorrow. We call on Congress to adopt a strong, federal Complete Streets policy that requires state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to consistently plan for all people who use the street, including the most vulnerable users. THE TOP 20 Most Dangerous Metropolitan Areas for Pedestrians (2008-2017) We call on state DOTs and MPOs to put people first and give their organizations the tools and training they need to create transportation networks that serve all users. We call on the over 1,400 communities that have adopted a Complete Streets policy to turn their vision into practice and implementation. And we call on you to demand safer streets from the elected officials in your communities. Top 20 Most Dangerous Metropolitan Areas for Pedestrians, 2008-2017 2019 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 Memphis Baton Rouge Birmingham-Hoover Miami-Fort Lauderdale- West Palm Beach Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin McAllen-Edinburg-Mission Albuquerque Detroit-Warren-Dearborn Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway Augusta-Richmond County 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton Lakeland-Winter Haven Jacksonville Bakersﬁeld Cape Coral-Fort Myers Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater Jackson Top 1-10 Top 11-20 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction 4 “INTRODUCTION Between 2008 and 2017, drivers struck and killed 49,340 people while they were walking throughout the United States.1 That’s more than 13 people per day, or one person every hour and 46 minutes. It’s the equivalent of a jumbo jet full of people crashing—with no survivors—every single month. Unlike traffic fatalities for motor vehicle occupants, which decreased by 6.1 percent from 2008 to 2017, pedestrian deaths have been steadily rising since 2009. In 2015, 5,494 people died while walking, an unprecedented increase of 11.9 percent compared to the previous year. In 2016, pedestrian deaths rose by another 10.6 percent to 6,080. Deaths declined slightly in 2017 to 5,977, but this is nothing to celebrate—it’s still the second highest body count on record since 1990.2 How do we shift safety culture? One fatality on a U.S. air carrier in nine years, and everyone in this room knew about it. So why do we under- react to hundreds of tragic deaths every day on our roads?" -Deborah Hersman, former President & CEO, National Safety CouncilPedestrian Fatalities and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) (2008-2017) 0 1 2 3 4 Total Pedestrian Fatalities (thousands)2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20172016 5 6 National Vehicle Miles Traveled (trillions)2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4,414 4,109 4,302 4,457 4,818 4,779 4,910 5,494 6,080 5,977 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction 5 WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? BY THE NUMBERS ARE WE WALKING MORE? Not really. Although individual cities and metropolitan areas have observed increased walking rates, the share of trips made by walking nationwide barely increased from 2009 to 2017 according to the National Household Travel Survey, and the total number of all trips, including walking trips, decreased during this time.3 ARE WE DRIVING MORE? Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), or the total amount of driving we do as a nation each year, has gradually increased since 2011. However, as shown in the chart on the previous page, VMT in 2017 was only 8.1 percent higher than it was in 2008 before the economic recession, but the number of people struck and killed by drivers while walking rose by more than a third during this time period and is higher now than it’s been in nearly three decades.4,5 From 2008 to 2017: Pedestrian deaths increased by Vehicle miles traveled increased by Walking as a share of all trips increased by Traffic deaths among motor vehicle occupants decreased by 35.4%8.1% 1%*6.1%less than *from 2009 to 2017 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction 6 WHAT’S GOING WRONG? We continue to design streets that are dangerous for all people, not just because we keep repeating the same mistakes, but because our federal policies, standards, and funding mechanisms that have been in place for decades produce dangerous roads that prioritize high speeds for cars over safety for all people. Additionally, more people are driving cars that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined to be notoriously dangerous for people walking. According to a 2015 NHTSA report, SUVs (sport utility vehicles) and pickup trucks are two to three times more likely than smaller personal vehicles like sedans to kill people walking in the event of a crash. A recent Detroit Free Press article observed that SUV sales have climbed steadily since 2012, surpassing sedans as the best-selling type of vehicle nationwide as of 2014.6,7 This year, Congress has a major opportunity to reshape our mobility future as they begin the work of reauthorizing our federal transportation bill in 2020. To address our continuing safety problems, they must create policies that change the way we fund, design, and measure the success of our streets nationwide to make sure the safety of all people who use the street including people walking, is our highest priority. Our federal government needs to take the lead on prioritizing safer streets. Federal dollars and policies helped create these unsafe streets in the first place. And federal funds, policies, and standards have a significant role to play in fixing these streets and in designing the streets we’ll build tomorrow.Source: Stephen Lee Davis / Smart Growth America11.A.1 Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction 7 We need a strong federal Complete Streets policy that requires state departments of transportation to consistently plan for all people who use the street, including the most vulnerable users. Federal policy must also open the door for flexible guidance to allow planners and engineers to make innovative decisions about how to design roadways to accommodate all users. We need performance measures that ensure states set targets that require progress toward creating safer streets and hold them accountable for achieving reductions in serious injuries and fatalities, penalizing them for failing to meet those targets. And we also need more high quality data on the street conditions where fatalities occur and on traffic-related injuries nationwide to help us better diagnose and solve the problem. Funding is a first step. But not the last. As long as the federal government continues to invest the lion’s share of our transportation funding in building, maintaining, and widening streets for cars instead of creating safer streets for people, we will continue to see more people being killed while walking. National policy must reflect safety as a higher priority. This will result in the reallocation of our current spending to invest in safety for all users and help to establish dedicated funding programs for projects to support walking, biking, transit, and other modes of transportation. Emerging technologies such as automated vehicles (AVs) aren’t the answer either. These technologies are not going to solve our safety problems for us, especially not when it comes to the safety of people walking. AVs may not always be able to reliably detect people walking and biking. Additionally, under pending federal legislation, states and cities will have little to no oversight over how these technologies are deployed within their own communities. Many states—including 10 of the 20 most dangerous for people walking— planned for more pedestrian deaths in 2018 than 2017. Under the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), state departments of transportation were required to set performance targets for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and then monitor their progress over time. Unfortunately, a closer look at these targets reveals just how low the bar is for safety in many states which are setting targets that would actually increase pedestrian fatalities. In 2017, states updated their safety goals for 2018, including setting target numbers for deaths and serious injuries among people walking, biking, or using other non-motorized forms of travel. 18 states established targets for non-motorized deaths and injuries that are higher than the number of people killed or injured in the most recent year of data reported. Ten of these 18 states—Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, and Oklahoma—are among the top 20 most dangerous states for people walking. The only “acceptable” number of deaths on our roadways is zero, but every single state—whether seeking to marginally reduce pedestrian deaths and injuries or allow them to continue climbing unabated— established a target for “success” that allows these preventable deaths to continue or even increase. We can and must raise the bar by requiring states to set safety targets that reduce rather than increase the number of people killed or seriously injured while walking or biking on our streets, ultimately working toward eventually eliminating all traffic-related deaths and serious injuries. However, to make this vision a reality, we need a strong federal policy with binding enforceable requirements that hold states to higher safety standards. “ACCEPTABLE” DEATHS? 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction 8 We must make preventing traffic deaths a higher priority nationwide, including for people walking. Of all the people that die in traffic crashes on our roads, people walking now comprise 16.1 percent of all deaths, and as shown above, that share has been consistently growing for more than a decade.8 Better, faster trauma care and safety improvements for occupants of vehicles ranging from seatbelts to automatic braking and lane departure warnings have played an important role in saving lives on our roadways overall. However, the safer street and vehicle design standards needed to protect people walking have progressed slowly or not at all. Motor Vehicle Related Fatalities This report ranks the most dangerous states and metropolitan areas across the United States for people walking. It also exposes disparities in which groups of people are most at risk of dying while walking. Traffic deaths impact every community in the United States, but states and metropolitan areas across the southern continental United States, older adults, people of color, and people walking in low-income communities bear a higher share of this harm. It is our hope that this report will inspire communities across the country to take action. Policymakers at the federal, state, and local level can and should do more to ensure streets are designed and operated to protect the safety of all people who use them regardless of age, ability, income, race, ethnicity, or mode of transportation. 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) WHAT CAN BE DONE TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM? It’s thankfully not a mystery—we have the recipe in our hands. At the federal level, we need a strong, federal Complete Streets policy as a first major step, but here are nine other concrete actions that policymakers, local leaders, engineers, and others can take at the state, metropolitan, or local level. State actions 1. Set performance targets that will improve safety. State (DOTs) must be held accountable for making reductions in serious injuries and fatalities and should be penalized for failing to meet those targets. They certainly shouldn’t receive funding for plans to increase fatalities. Read more on page 7. 2. Prioritize safety over vehicle movement. Though states might have a long list of goals or objectives for their transportation system, moving vehicles quickly and efficiently and maintaining pavement conditions generally take precedence. One way to make safety a higher priority is to get rid of the “level of service” design metric. Level of service, used by nearly all states, measures the success of a street solely based on vehicle delay. Minimizing vehicle delay as the number one goal often produces the roads that are the most dangerous by design. 3. Provide state transportation officials and engineers with the most up-to-date training and education on implementing Complete Streets. In states that have made a policy commitment to Complete Streets, often the professional staff tapped to implement changes lack the knowledge required, or the policies and decision-making frameworks already in place need to be updated to support Complete Streets. At the request of state or city DOTs, the National Complete Streets Coalition (and other programs within Smart Growth America) have provided staff with the training needed to embed Complete Streets in their day-to-day work and make safer projects a reality. 9 IntroductionDANGEROUS BY DESIGN 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) State or local actions 1. Prioritize projects that will benefit those who suffer disproportionately. Some groups, including people of color and people walking in lower-income communities, are disproportionately struck and killed while walking. To address this, decision-makers should prioritize the projects that would benefit these vulnerable users. For example, the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, when deciding which projects to fund in their selection process, awards extra points to projects that will improve safety for people walking or biking in certain disadvantaged areas.1 2. Embrace the flexibility provided by FHWA to design safer streets. New design guidance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 2016 gave states and cities wide latitude to design streets to best suit local needs and rolled back old regulations that treated all streets and roads like highways. This cleared the way for states, metro areas, and local communities to use federal dollars to design safer streets, yet many states falsely claim that federal guidelines continue to restrict innovative street design. 3. Design roads to reduce speeds wherever possible. For people on foot, the likelihood of surviving a crash decreases rapidly as speeds increase past 30 mph. The federal government already knows that excessive speed is a deadly problem in our nation’s transportation system—the National Transportation Safety Board recently acknowledged this in a powerful report to FHWA.2 The current practice of measuring how fast most traffic travels on a road and then setting speed limits so that only 15 percent of the drivers are exceeding that limit results in artificially high speed limits—and unsafe streets for everyone. Rather than designing roads that encourage speeding and then relying upon enforcement, states and cities should design roads to encourage safer, slower driving speeds in the first place. 4. Pass actionable Complete Streets policies that lay the groundwork for implementation. The National Complete Streets Coalition’s policy framework provides guidance on how to craft a strong policy that sets up clear next steps to embed Complete Streets in routine transportation planning.3 5. Stop referring to pedestrian fatalities as unavoidable “accidents.” City and state leaders should set an example by replacing the word “accident” with “crash” when discussing these preventable deaths. It’s a small change that can make a big difference. Read more on page 22. 6. Test out bold, creative approaches to safer street design. Poor street design is neither an insurmountable nor expensive problem. Some cities have found success by testing out low-cost, short-term interventions to create safer streets and then measuring the results to gauge the impact of their projects to work toward permanent solutions.4 1. Building Healthy & Prosperous Communities: How metro areas are implementing more and better bicycling and walking projects. Transportation for America. December, 2017. http://t4america.org/maps-tools/healthy-mpos-guidebook/ 2. Safety Study: Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles. NTSB/SS-17/01 PB2017-102341 National Transportation Safety Board. Adopted July 25, 2017. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf 3. The Elements of a Complete Streets Policy, Effective 2018. Smart Growth America and the National Complete Streets Coalition. November, 2017. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/introducing-brand-new-grading-framework-complete-streets-policies/ 4. Safety Demonstration Projects: Case studies from Orlando, FL, Lexington, KY, and South Bend, IN. Smart Growth America and the National Complete Streets Coalition. April, 2018. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/safety-demonstration-projects-case-studies-from- orlando-fl-lexington-ky-and-south-bend-in/ DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction 1010 IntroductionDANGEROUS BY DESIGN 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN 11 The Most Dangerous Places to Walk Our “Pedestrian Danger Index”, or PDI, calculates how deadly it is for people to walk in a state or metropolitan area based on the number of people struck and killed by drivers while walking, controlling for the number of people that live in that state or metro area and the number of people that walk to work. Calculating PDI in this way corrects for places that may have higher numbers of fatalities simply as a function of higher numbers of people traveling on foot overall, allowing balanced comparisons between very different places. The share of people who walk to work is the best nationally available approximation of the total number of people who walk for all trips. The 2019 calculations include traffic deaths that occurred between 2008 and 2017 from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a national database of all fatal traffic crashes. Walk to work and population data are taken from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2016 American Community Survey five-year estimates. For age, race, and ethnicity, we calculate a variation of PDI using walking rates from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey in lieu of Census data. Consult the Appendix for a more detailed description of our methodology. This report calculates PDI for all 50 states (plus Washington, DC) and for the 100 largest census defined metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) nationwide. However, just because your community does not fall within the top 10 or 20 most dangerous places is not necessarily cause for celebration. Since the previous edition of Dangerous by Design, which looked at pedestrian deaths between 2004 and 2015, PDI scores in the vast majority of states and metropolitan areas nationwide have worsened. Compared to the previous decade of data in Dangerous by Design 2016, 39 states and the District of Columbia, and 79 out of the 100 largest metropolitan areas, have become more dangerous for people walking.Source: Stephen Lee Davis, SGAPedestrian Deaths Population 100,000 Percentage of Walking Trips Pedestrian Danger Index THE MOST DANGEROUS PLACES TO WALK 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN The Most Dangerous Places to Walk 12 PDI BY STATE The map above highlights the top 20 most dangerous states for people walking based on PDI scores. With just a few exceptions, the most dangerous states are located in the southern continental United States. Why the Sun Belt? Part of the reason for this may be because much of the growth in these places occurred in the age, and the development scale of, the automobile. Previous research by Smart Growth America found that in general, the most sprawling metropolitan areas with wider roads and longer blocks typically cluster in the southern states.9 Furthermore, academic research has consistently linked these sprawling growth patterns to higher rates of both traffic-related deaths for people walking and traffic-related deaths overall.10 Future research should explore how historic and ongoing street design practices contribute to these geographic trends. Top 20 Most Dangerous States for Pedestrians, 2008-2017 111 FL AL DE LA MS GA NM TX AZ SC 182 145 127 125 123 117 108117112 NV TN NC OK AR CA MO MD MI KY 65 101 101 98 86 85 68 586866 Arizona Michigan Tennessee North Carolina Texas South Carolina Louisiana Alabama Georgia MississippiMississippi FloridaFlorida 9 New Mexico 7 8 4 5 2 6 1 10 Delaware3 MarylandNevada 11 12 13 Oklahoma 14 Arkansas 15 California 16 Missouri 17 18 19 Kentucky 20 THE TOP 20 Most Dangerous States for Pedestrians (2008-2017) Future research should explore how historic and ongoing street design practices contribute to these geographic trends. 2008-2017 Pedestrian Danger Index 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN The Most Dangerous Places to Walk 13 States with Largest Increases in 10-Year PDI Scores The figure below shows the 10 states that experienced the biggest increase in PDI since the previous iteration of Dangerous by Design. Compared to PDI scores for traffic deaths for the period from 2004 to 2015, PDI scores for these states for the decade from 2008 to 2017 rose by anywhere from 7.9 to 24.5 points, meaning these places have become even more dangerous for people walking. Largest Increases in MSA PDI Scores, 2016-2018 Largest Increases in State PDI Scores, 2016-2018 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Delaware Georgia District of Columbia Texas Tennessee Nevada Oklahoma Mississippi Alabama Louisiana +24.5 +19.2 +11.4 +10.8 +10.3 +9.8 +9.5 +8.6 +8.4 +7.9 Dangerous by Design 2016 Dangerous by Design 2019 The top 10 most dangerous states for people walking in 2019 are the exact same states called out in Dangerous by Design 2016, although the rankings within the top 10 have shifted slightly. The figure at right shows how the top ten states have changed, or more importantly, remained exactly the same in ranking between our 2016 and 2019 reports. States highlighted in bold at the right either moved up in the ranks or remained at the top of our list of the most dangerous places for people walking. Unfortunately, overhauling road design can take decades without the political will to prioritize safety improvements. Although some of these states, including Florida (through their state DOT), have committed to statewide Complete Streets policies, they still have a long way to go to translate those policies into practice. Top Ten Most Dangerous States 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 Florida Alabama Louisiana Mississippi New Mexico Arizona South Carolina Delaware Texas Georgia 5 Florida Alabama Delaware Louisiana Mississippi Georgia New Mexico Texas Arizona South Carolina Dangerous by Design 2016 Dangerous by Design 2019 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 5 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction 14 PDI BY METROPOLITAN AREA The next page shows the PDI scores for the top 20 most dangerous metropolitan areas for people walking. Once again, the majority of these places fall across the southern continental United States, with eight of the top 10 most dangerous metropolitan areas in the state of Florida. Four out of every five major metropolitan areas grew more dangerous for people walking since the previous edition of Dangerous by Design. The chart below shows the metropolitan areas that experienced the largest increases. These regions saw PDI scores climb by upwards of 28.6 to 86.4 points, meaning the decade from 2008 to 2017 was on average much more dangerous for people walking in these places compared to the decade between 2004 and 2015. MSAs with Largest Increases in 10-Year PDI ScoresLargest Increases in MSA PDI Scores, 2016-2018 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 North Port - Sarasota - Bradenton, FL +86.4 +84.9 +78.6 +51.5 +37.3 +37.2 +32.3 +30.9 +30.3 +28.6 Bakersfield, CA Orlando - Kissimmee - Sanford, FL Greenville - Anderson - Mauldin, SC Baton Rouge, LA Deltona - Daytona Beach - Ormond Beach, FL Fresno, CA Memphis, TN-MS-AR Lakeland - Winter Haven, FL Greensboro - High Point, NC Dangerous by Design 2016 Dangerous by Design 2019 4 out of 5 major metropolitan areas grew more dangerous for people walking Source: Creative Commons11.A.1 Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN The Most Dangerous Places to Walk 15 Top 20 Most Dangerous Metropolitan Areas for Pedestrians, 2008-2017 2019 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 Memphis Baton Rouge Birmingham-Hoover Miami-Fort Lauderdale- West Palm Beach Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin McAllen-Edinburg-Mission Albuquerque Detroit-Warren-Dearborn Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway Augusta-Richmond County 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton Lakeland-Winter Haven Jacksonville Bakersﬁeld Cape Coral-Fort Myers Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater Jackson Top 1-10 Top 11-20 135 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway135 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn138 Albuquerque141 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission153 Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin154 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach157 Birmingham-Hoover158 Baton Rouge184 Memphis192 Jackson205 Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater217 Cape Coral-Fort Myers218 Bakersﬁeld226 Jacksonville231 Lakeland-Winter Haven235 North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton245 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville265 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach313 Orlando-Kissimmee-SanfordAugusta-Richmond County134 THE TOP 20 Most Dangerous Metropolitan Areas for Pedestrians (2008-2017) 2008-2017 Pedestrian Danger Index 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction RIGHT PLACE, WRONG TIME On July 15, 2015, 46-year-old Francisca Chaja Pelico and her nine-year-old granddaughter Mariela stood on the corner of Broadway and Cecil Avenue in Knoxville, Tennessee. They waited for the light to change then proceeded into the crosswalk. But the light changed back before they had enough time to make it all the way across the street. A driver waiting at the red light accelerated, striking both Francisca and her granddaughter in the crosswalk. Mariela’s injuries, thankfully, were not serious. But Francisca was transported to the hospital where she died the next day. Tragedies like Francisca’s are far too commonplace. Compared to younger people who are struck and killed by drivers while walking, older adults killed while walking are more often at an intersection or within a crosswalk. Part of the reason for this is because even when transportation planners provide people with marked places to cross the street, the amount of time provided to rush all the way across often isn’t adequate, especially for older adults and people living with disabilities. Three years later, the City of Knoxville is testing out improvements to make the intersection of Broadway and Cecil a safer place for people walking. The T-shaped intersection now includes technology that detects people in the crosswalk and extends the length of the walk phase until they make it all the way across the street. Scarcely 10 miles away two older adults were struck and injured in the same crosswalk by two different drivers making left-hand turns at the intersection of Downtown West and Ray Mears Boulevards. In response, the city added a leading pedestrian interval, which gives people crossing the street a head start before cars are given the green light, making people walking more visible to turning drivers. Leading pedestrian intervals, a proven safety countermeasure recommended by the Federal Highway Administration, cost nothing to implement where there are already pedestrian signals in place, and neither does extending the time people have to cross the street. These no-cost measures can (and do) mean the difference between life and death, especially for older adults and people living with mobility challenges. We need to think proactively about these safety concerns when we design our intersections and make sure we provide people not only with safe, convenient places to cross the street, but also with sufficient time to make it all the way across at their own pace. DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Right Place, Wrong Time 16 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN 17 Who are the victims of these tragic crashes? Although people of all ages, races, ethnicities, and income levels suffer the consequences of dangerous street design, some neighborhoods and groups of people bear a larger share of the burden than others. Older adults, people of color, and people walking in low-income communities are disproportionately represented in fatal crashes involving people walking. Even after controlling for differences in population size and walking rates, we see that drivers strike and kill people over age 50, Black or African American people, American Indian or Alaska Native people, and people walking in communities with lower median household incomes at much higher rates. Older Adults Our nation’s population is becoming older on average. People are living longer and the post-war generation known as the Baby Boomers is reaching the age of retirement. According to U.S. Census Bureau projections, people age 65 and older currently make up about 15 percent of the population, but by 2050 this is expected to rise to 22 percent.11 This has important implications for traffic-related deaths as well as for how we design our streets. People age 50 and up, and especially people age 75 and older, are overrepresented in deaths involving people walking.12 This age group is more likely to experience challenges seeing, hearing, or moving, and if these trends are any indication, we are not devoting nearly enough attention to the unique needs of older adults when we design our streets. These disparities become even more pronounced when we account for variations in walking rates by age.13,14 The relative PDI for older adults age 50 and above is more than a third higher than it is for the general population, and for people age 75 and up it is almost twice as high. Additionally, a closer look at nationwide FARS data reveals that, compared to younger victims of pedestrian deaths, older adults who are struck and killed while walking are more often at an intersection or in a crosswalk.15 Pedestrian Danger Index by Age, 2008-2017 75+ 28 65+ 20.7 50+ 2020 U.S.Overall: 14.8 Relative Pedestrian Danger by Age (2008-2017) THE MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS The Most Vulnerable Populations 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) 18 SEIZE THE MOMENT Across the country, nonprofits and advocacy groups have staged protests and performances to call attention to the amount of time older adults need to safely cross the street. Even where marked crosswalks exist—and in many places they are still, crucially, absent—the traffic signal timing may provide a dangerously inadequate amount for older adults and people living with disabilities to safely cross. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Sojourn Theatre staged a performance to highlight insufficient signal timings at crosswalks. They carried homemade ship sails and mock drawbridges, staging 20-second performances in dangerous intersections identified by older adults through a survey. They also invited a state senator and six local and regional elected officials to walk across the street alongside older adults to experience firsthand how stressful and dangerous it can be to try to race against the clock. As a result, Milwaukee adjusted countdown clocks to give pedestrians more time to make it safely across the street. In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a group called Lively Pittsburgh organized a crosswalk flash mob. Participants of all ages and abilities wore matching “safer together” t-shirts and danced in the crosswalk as a reminder to drivers to look out for people crossing the street, especially people who may take longer to cross and use motorized chairs or crutches to get around. And in San Francisco, California, the nonprofit organization Senior and Disability Action led a campaign to increase citywide signal timings so people of all ages and abilities, including people living with sight and mobility challenges, have enough time to safely cross any street. They organized marches and press conferences in public plazas to call attention to their concerns. As a result, the city changed its guidance for calculating how much time to give people to cross the street, increasing crossing times by a third citywide. The Most Vulnerable PopulationsDANGEROUS BY DESIGN Source: Nelson\Nygaard11.A.1 Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN The Most Vulnerable Populations 19 PEOPLE OF COLOR Drivers strike and kill people of color, especially Black or African American and American Indian or Alaska Native people, at higher rates compared to White, Non-Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander people.The figure below highlights the relative danger by census-designated racial and ethnic groups of being struck and killed while walking, controlling for differences in walking rates and population size.16,17 Structural racism has guided many of the decisions we’ve made about housing and transportation for decades, and the consequences of these decisions are still readily apparent in communities of color today. Federal policies and practices actively discouraged homeownership for people of color, particularly for Black or African American people, by restricting mortgages outside of exclusively White neighborhoods, and the construction of the National Highway System disproportionately carved through communities of color when building these new high- speed arterials.18 In addition to siting more dangerous roads near communities of color, implicit bias may also play a role in the increased danger for people of color. Research by the University of Nevada has shown that drivers are significantly more likely to yield to a White pedestrian in a crosswalk than to a Black or African American pedestrian.19 American Indian or Alaska Native 33 Black or African American 18.3 Hispanic or Latino 13.9 White, Non-Hispanic 12.4 Asian or Pacific Islander 8.18.1 U.S.Overall: 14.8 Relative Pedestrian Danger by Race and Ethnicity (2008-2017) 19 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) Where are people most often struck and killed while walking? Find the most deadly places with an interactive map: www.smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design 20 KALISPEL TRIBE OF INDIANS ADOPTS COMPLETE STREETS When it comes to traffic safety, the challenges faced by American Indians are similar to the challenges faced throughout rural America. Sprawling, car-oriented street design, often without sidewalks or marked crosswalks, can make it incredibly dangerous to walk along many rural roads, and when crashes do occur, it can take much longer for emergency medical services to reach the victims and begin critical, life-saving treatment. Among American Indians specifically, these challenges are further compounded by historic—and ongoing—injustices. The reservation system was, simply put, not designed with the interests or wellbeing of American Indians in mind. Lack of funding to improve and maintain roads coupled with historically poor street design has left these communities incredibly vulnerable to traffic fatalities. For the Kalispel Tribe of Indians in Washington State, the most dangerous street is a 50 mile-per-hour county-owned roadway without any sidewalks or crosswalks. Many people must regularly walk along this road to reach jobs, shops, and schools, especially children and people who do not have access to personal vehicles. However, change is on the horizon for the Kalispel Tribe. In 2018, they became the first tribal government to adopt a Complete Streets policy. Now, they are working closely with the county to introduce safer street improvements and to develop a new framework for economic development. Kalispel hopes to establish itself as a model for how tribal governments around the country can adopt policies and develop partnerships that better serve their unique needs, challenges, and desires. DANGEROUS BY DESIGN The Most Vulnerable Populations 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction 21 LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES Although nationwide data do not include information about the household income of individuals who are struck and killed while walking, they do reveal where people are walking when they are killed. We analyzed where pedestrian fatalities occur relative to the median household income of the surrounding area and found that people die while walking at much higher rates in lower-income communities compared to higher-income ones, as seen below.20 This is unsurprising, given that low-income communities are significantly less likely than higher income communities to have sidewalks, marked crosswalks, and street design to support safer, slower speeds, also known as traffic calming.21 Location of Pedestrian Fatalities by Neighborhood IncomePedestrian Fatalities per 100,000 People by Median Household Income $3-$36k $37k-$47k $48k-$59k $60k-$78k $79k-$250k0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Pedestrian Fatalities per 100,000U.S. Overall: 1.55 Census Tract Median Household Income Source: Tri-State Transportation Campaign11.A.1 Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction 22 CONCLUSION We can and must do more to reduce the number of people who die while walking every day on our roadways. For too long we have disregarded this problem by prioritizing moving cars at high speeds over safety for everyone. It’s past time for that to change. Protecting the safety of all people who use the street, especially the people most vulnerable to being struck and killed, needs to be a higher priority for policymakers, and this priority must be reflected in the decisions we make about how to fund, design, operate, maintain, and measure the success of our roads. We call on federal policymakers to step up and establish safety as a higher priority. We call for binding, enforceable requirements for states to work toward reducing—and eventually eliminating—deaths and serious injuries on our roadways. We call for funding dedicated to safer street projects that specifically serve the needs of all people walking, particularly older adults, people of color, and low-income communities. We call for federally endorsed street design standards that put the safety of vulnerable users first and foremost and that allow for flexible, context-sensitive design approaches. The time for complacency has passed. We must treat this crisis as if our lives, and the lives of our friends, families, and neighbors, depend on it. Because the reality is, they do. WORDS MATTER They’re crashes, not “accidents.” Writing and talking about these preventable deaths as mere “accidents” undermines the urgency of this crisis and undercuts our responsibility to take action. To combat this rhetoric, one Nashville-based initiative is changing the conversation. A partnership between Vanderbilt Medical Center, Tennessee State University, The Sidewalk Foundation, and Walk Bike Nashville launched the Nashville Pedestrian Death Registry. The project maps where people die while walking in Nashville and tells a richer, more complete story about who the victims were and where and why the fatal crash occurred. The project aims to add urgency to the call for safer streets in Nashville, where the sidewalk network is notoriously incomplete or non-existent. Instead of reiterating the victim- blaming rhetoric prevalent in media coverage about these tragic deaths (such as focusing on dark colored clothing, distracted walking, walking while intoxicated, and crossing where no crosswalk is available), the Nashville Pedestrian Death Registry is shifting the narrative toward the human faces behind these tragedies. By changing the conversation about why people die while walking, the Nashville Pedestrian Death Registry hopes to garner support for policies that prioritize the safety of people walking and for more investment in projects to improve safety. You can learn more about this initiative at NashvillePedestrianDeathRegistry.org Source: Barbara McCann11.A.1 Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN 23 Endnotes ENDNOTES 1. All pedestrian fatality data for the report are from: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2017). Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Available from https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars. 2. Ibid. 3. Federal Highway Administration. (2009; 2017). National Household Travel Survey. Available from https://nhts.ornl.gov/. 4. Federal Highway Administration. (2008-2016). Highway Statistics Series, Table VM-2. Available from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ policyinformation/quickfinddata/qftravel.cfm 5. Federal Highway Administration. (2017). Travel Monitoring, Traffic Volume Trends. Available from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ policyinformation/travel_monitoring/tvt.cfm. 6. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2015). New Car Assessment Program. Available from https://www.federalregister.gov/ documents/2015/12/16/2015-31323/new-car-assessment-program. 7. Lawrence ED, Bomey N, and Tanner K. (2018). “Death on foot: America’s love of SUVs is killing pedestrians.” Detroit Free Press. Available from https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/. 8. Other non-motorists category includes bicyclists and other cyclists, persons on personal conveyances, and persons in/on buildings. 9. Ewing R, Pendall R, and Chen D. (2002). Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact. Available from: https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/ legacy/documents/MeasuringSprawl.PDF. 10. Ewing R, Schieber RA, and Zegeer CV. (2003). Urban Sprawl as a Risk Factor in Motor Vehicle Occupant and Pedestrian Fatalities. American Journal of Public Health 93(9): 1541-1545. Available from https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/ AJPH.93.9.1541. 11. U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). National Population Projections Tables. Available from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/ popproj/2017-summary-tables.html. 12. Excludes 164 reported pedestrian fatalities (0.3 percent of all pedestrian fatalities) with missing age data. 13. Share of all trips made by walking by age taken from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey. These range from 9.5 percent of all trips for people age 75 and older to 11.2 percent of all trips for people age zero to nineteen. 14. Gender-neutral icon courtesy of OliM via the Noun Project. Available from https://thenounproject.com. 15. Built environment data, including the presence of a crosswalk, were made available in the FARS dataset as of 2015. Between 2015 and 2017, pedestrian fatalities at intersections and crosswalks were more likely to be a person over 65 than a person under 65. 16. Excludes 5,420 reported pedestrian fatalities (11.0 percent of all pedestrian fatalities) with missing race and/or ethnicity data. 17. Share of all trips made by walking by race and ethnicity taken from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey. These range from 9.9 percent of all trips for the White, Non-Hispanic population to 14.5 percent of all trips for the Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander population. 18. Rothstein R. (2017). The Color of Law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation. 19. Coughenour C, Clark S, Singh A, et al. (2017). Examining racial bias as a potential factor in pedestrian crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention 98: 96-100. Available from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000145751630361X. 20. Consult the Methodology for a more detailed description of this analysis. 21. Gibbs K, Slater SJ, Nicholson N, et al. (2012.) “Income Disparities in Street Features that Encourage Walking.” Bridging the Gap Program, University of Illinois at Chicago. Available from http://www.bridgingthegapresearch.org/_asset/02fpi3/btg_street_walkability_ FINAL_03-09-12.pdf. 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN 24 APPENDICES Methodology Dangerous by Design uses several metrics to assess relative danger to pedestrians across different geographies and demographic characteristics. All pedestrian fatalities are reported within the 10-year timeframe of 2008 to 2017 to account for any large variations in fatalities in a single year. The 2016 edition of the report accounted for data between 2005 and 2014. One measure of pedestrian fatality rates that this report cites across different demographic characteristics is pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 people. This metric accounts for the number of pedestrian deaths that are occurring within a certain population, while normalizing by the population itself. For example, all pedestrian deaths of people over the age of 65, normalized by the total population of people over 65. All population, race, age, and ethnicity data are from the 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, to ensure the most up-to-date information at the time of this report. Pedestrian Deaths of Population A Population A 100,000 Pedestrian Deaths per 100,000 people in Population A Pedestrian Deaths Population 100,000 Percentage of Walking Trips Pedestrian Danger Index The Pedestrian Danger Index (PDI) takes pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people and normalizes it by walking rates. The count of pedestrian deaths or pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people may be much higher in an urban area than a rural area; however, that doesn’t account for how many people are walking. For geographic area PDI scores, such as the state and metropolitan statistical area (MSA)-level, walking rates are measured with Census “Means of Transportation to Work” data. While walk-to-work percentage is merely a proxy for the share of walking trips in an area, it is used because the metric is available uniformly across all states and the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas. For demographic analysis of pedestrian fatalities across age, race, and ethnicity, we use a variation of PDI scores that includes the percentage of total trips that were walking trips is taken from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). These data were used because they report walking trips by age, race, and ethnicity as well as include walking percentage for all trips—not just journey to work trips. This information allows relative danger by age, race, and ethnicity to reflect whether these populations tend to walk more or less than the population as a whole. Due to the small sample size of the NHTS, the total percentage of walking trips is only appropriate to use for comparisons across race, age, and ethnicity at the national level. Appendices 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN 25 NHTSA FARS data do not include information about the household income of individuals who are struck and killed while walking; however, they do reveal where people are walking when they are killed. To analyze where pedestrian fatalities occur relative to median household income of the surrounding area, fatalities were joined to census tracts using GIS. The median household income of census tracts was grouped into quintiles to determine high- and low- income communities. Pedestrian deaths were then aggregated into these 5 tract types, and normalized by the population of the tracts. This analysis serves as a method to determine whether pedestrians die disproportionately in low-income areas. To calculate the number of fatalities by MSA, a spatial join was performed with the longitude and latitude as reported by FARS. Approximately 126 fatalities did not include location data, and therefore there is a chance that the estimate of deaths per MSA is conservative. Appendices 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN 26 2019 Rank State Pedestrian Fatalities (2008-2017) Average Annual Pedestrian Fatalities per 100,000 (2008-2017) 2019 Pedestrian Danger Index 1 Florida 5,433 2.73 182.02Alabama8411.74 145.03Delaware2502.67 127.14Louisiana1,047 2.25 125.05Mississippi5511.84 122.7 6 Georgia 1,782 1.76 117.33 7 New Mexico 537 2.58 117.27 8 Texas 4,831 1.79 111.9 9 Arizona 1,503 2.23 111.5 10 South Carolina 1,144 2.37 107.8 11 Nevada 601 2.12 100.95 12 Tennessee 856 1.31 100.7713North Carolina 1,762 1.77 98.314Oklahoma5961.54 85.615Arkansas4271.44 84.716California7,127 1.84 68.217Missouri7791.29 67.9 18 Maryland 1,059 1.78 65.9 19 Michigan 1,409 1.42 64.6 20 Kentucky 610 1.38 57.5 National Average 49,340 1.55 55.3 21 New Jersey 1,543 1.73 54.1 22 Indiana 725 1.10 52.4 23 Virginia 865 1.04 43.324Utah3211.09 42.025Connecticut4251.18 40.726Ohio1,058 0.91 39.627West Virginia 214 1.16 38.728Oregon5571.40 36.829Colorado5901.10 36.7 30 Hawaii 226 1.60 36.4 31 Kansas 242 0.83 36.1 32 Illinois 1,323 1.03 33.2 33 Pennsylvania 1,502 1.17 30.0 34 Rhode Island 127 1.20 30.0 35 Washington 712 1.01 28.136District of Columbia 101 1.53 26.837Wisconsin4910.85 25.838Idaho1210.74 25.539Montana1301.27 24.940North Dakota 62 0.84 24.741New York 2,958 1.50 24.6 42 Maine 130 0.98 23.9 43 Minnesota 361 0.66 23.6 44 New Hampshire 97 0.73 23.6 45 Nebraska 116 0.62 23.0 46 Massachusetts 725 1.08 22.5 47 South Dakota 72 0.85 22.4 48 Wyoming 48 0.82 20.549Iowa2100.68 19.450Alaska931.26 16.051Vermont500.80 13.8 Table 1. State Pedestrian Danger Index, 2008-2017State Pedestrian Danger Index, 2008-2017 Appendices 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN 27 Table 2. Change in Statewide Pedestrian Danger Index Scores, 2016-2019 State 2016 PDI 2019 PDI Change 2016-2019 Delaware 102.6 127.1 24.5 Georgia 98.1 117.3 19.2 District of Columbia 15.4 26.8 11.4 Texas 101.1 111.9 10.8 Tennessee 90.5 100.8 10.3 Nevada 91.2 101.0 9.8 Oklahoma 76.1 85.6 9.5 Mississippi 114.1 122.7 8.6 Alabama 136.6 145.0 8.4 Louisiana 117.1 125.0 7.9 Missouri 60.2 67.9 7.7Oregon30.7 36.8 6.1 Indiana 46.3 52.4 6.1Connecticut34.9 40.7 5.8 Nebraska 17.3 23.0 5.7Kansas30.5 36.1 5.6 Florida 177.0 182.0 5.0 New Mexico 112.8 117.3 4.5 Arkansas 80.6 84.7 4.1 Maine 19.9 23.9 4.0 California 64.4 68.2 3.8 Michigan 61.0 64.6 3.6 Ohio 36.3 39.6 3.3 Utah 38.9 41.9 3.0 Arizona 108.5 111.5 3.0 Colorado 33.7 36.7 3.0 Kentucky 54.9 57.5 2.6 North Dakota 22.2 24.7 2.5Vermont11.4 13.8 2.5 North Carolina 96.3 98.3 2.0Virginia41.4 43.3 1.9 Idaho 23.8 25.5 1.7Washington26.5 28.1 1.6 New Hampshire 22.2 23.6 1.4 Alaska 14.6 16.0 1.4 South Carolina 106.5 107.7 1.2 Minnesota 22.6 23.6 1.0 New York 24.0 24.6 0.6 Massachusetts 22.1 22.5 0.4 Wisconsin 25.6 25.8 0.2 Iowa 19.7 19.4 -0.3 Pennsylvania 30.3 30.0 -0.3 South Dakota 22.8 22.4 -0.4 Illinois 34.0 33.2 -0.8 Wyoming 22.0 20.5 -1.5Hawaii38.3 36.4 -1.9 New Jersey 56.1 54.1 -2.0Montana27.1 24.9 -2.2 Rhode Island 32.3 30.0 -2.3West Virginia 41.6 38.7 -2.9 Maryland 77.8 65.9 -11.9 Appendices Change in Statewide Pedestrian Danger Index Scores, 2016-2018 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN 28 Table 3: Top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas Pedestrian Danger Index, 2008-2017 2019 Rank Metro Area Pedestrian Deaths (2008-2017) Annual Pedestrian Fatalities per 100,000 2019 Pedestrian Danger Index 1 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 656 2.82 313.32Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL 212 3.45 265.4 3 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 165 2.94 245.0 4 North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL 194 2.58 234.65Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 162 2.54 230.96Jacksonville, FL 419 2.94 226.2 7 Bakersfi eld, CA 247 2.83 217.7 8 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 148 2.17 217.09Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 900 3.07 204.710Jackson, MS 111 1.92 192.0 11 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 297 2.21 184.2 12 Baton Rouge, LA 182 2.21 157.913Birmingham-Hoover, AL 179 1.57 157.014Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 1,549 2.61 153.5 15 Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC 197 2.29 152.7 16 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 140 1.69 140.817Albuquerque, NM 213 2.35 138.2 18 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI 757 1.76 135.4 19 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR 118 1.62 135.020Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 126 2.15 134.421San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 519 2.23 131.2 22 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 874 1.95 130.0 23 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 1,179 1.82 130.024Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 453 2.19 128.825Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 1,005 1.79 127.9 26 Fresno, CA 209 2.17 127.7 27 Greensboro-High Point, NC 121 1.62 124.628Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 1,037 1.49 124.229Tulsa, OK 148 1.52 116.9 30 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 922 2.08 115.6 31 Raleigh, NC 170 1.37 114.232Oklahoma City, OK 222 1.66 110.733Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 359 1.51 107.9 34 Stockton-Lodi, CA 151 2.11 105.5 35 Louisville/Jeff erson County, KY-IN 225 1.77 104.136Knoxville, TN 105 1.23 102.5 37 Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 232 1.29 99.2 38 El Paso, TX 173 2.07 98.639Winston-Salem, NC 89 1.36 97.140Austin-Round Rock, TX 303 1.56 91.8 41 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN 269 1.37 91.3 42 New Orleans-Metairie, LA 257 2.06 89.643St. Louis, MO-IL 393 1.40 87.544Charleston-North Charleston, SC 165 2.27 87.3 45 Kansas City, MO-KS 234 1.13 86.9 46 Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade, CA 407 1.81 86.247Tucson, AZ 199 1.98 86.148San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 281 1.45 80.6 49 Richmond, VA 175 1.39 77.2 50 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 2,520 1.91 76.451Wichita, KS 68 1.06 70.7 52 Salt Lake City, UT 155 1.34 70.5 53 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 67 1.21 67.254San Diego-Carlsbad, CA 610 1.87 64.555Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 496 1.78 63.6 56 Ogden-Clearfi eld, UT 66 1.04 61.2 57 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 352 1.28 58.2 National Average 49,340 1.55 55.358Chattanooga, TN-GA 60 1.10 55.0 59 Columbus, OH 225 1.13 53.8 60 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 111 1.08 51.4 Appendices Top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas Pedestrian Danger Index, 2008- 2017 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN 29 2019 Rank Metro Area Pedestrian Deaths (2008-2017) Annual Pedestrian Fatalities per 100,000 2019 Pedestrian Danger Index 61 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 86 1.02 51.062Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 145 1.20 50.0 63 Columbia, SC 175 2.19 49.864Toledo, OH 72 1.19 49.665Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 1,045 1.73 46.8 66 Akron, OH 56 0.80 44.4 67 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 49 0.80 44.468Buff alo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY 131 1.15 44.269Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 102 1.23 43.9 70 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 194 0.90 42.9 71 Dayton, OH 85 1.06 42.472Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, PA 78 1.39 42.173Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 178 1.13 41.9 74 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 70 1.25 41.7 75 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 213 1.24 41.376Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 764 1.27 39.7 77 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 101 1.07 39.6 78 New Haven-Milford, CT 121 1.41 38.179Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA 57 1.05 36.280Boise City, ID 43 0.65 36.1 81 Omaha-Council Bluff s, NE-IA 59 0.65 36.1 82 Cleveland-Elyria, OH 162 0.79 35.983Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 288 1.22 35.884Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 106 1.21 34.6 85 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 1,022 1.07 34.5 86 Providence-Warwick, RI-MA 195 1.21 33.687San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA 659 1.44 33.5 88 Worcester, MA-CT 102 1.10 33.3 89 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 237 0.68 30.990Urban Honolulu, HI 154 1.56 30.691Rochester, NY 110 1.02 29.1 92 Pittsburgh, PA 211 0.90 27.3 93 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 3,210 1.60 27.194Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 360 0.98 26.595Springfi eld, MA 76 1.21 24.7 96 Syracuse, NY 71 1.07 23.8 97 Colorado Springs, CO 55 0.80 23.598Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 465 0.98 19.699Madison, WI 56 0.88 18.0 100 Provo-Orem, UT 45 0.78 17.3 Appendices Top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas Pedestrian Danger Index, 2008- 2017 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN 30 Metro Area 2016 PDI 2019 PDI Change 2016- 2019 North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL 148.2 234.6 86.4Bakersfi eld, CA 132.8 217.7 84.9 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 234.7 313.3 78.6 Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC 101.2 152.7 51.5Baton Rouge, LA 120.6 157.9 37.3 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL 228.2 265.4 37.2 Fresno, CA 95.4 127.7 32.3Memphis, TN-MS-AR 153.3 184.2 30.9 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 200.6 230.9 30.3 Greensboro-High Point, NC 96.0 124.6 28.6San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 104.5 131.2 26.7 Birmingham-Hoover, AL 132.1 157.0 24.9 Albuquerque, NM 113.6 138.2 24.6Oklahoma City, OK 86.7 110.7 24.0 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 118.8 140.8 22.0 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN 69.9 91.3 21.4Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 107.2 127.9 20.7 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 114.8 134.4 19.6 St. Louis, MO-IL 69.7 87.5 17.8Salt Lake City, UT 53.0 70.5 17.5 Knoxville, TN 85.5 102.5 17.0 Austin-Round Rock, TX 77.8 91.8 14.0Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 110.4 124.2 13.8 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 192.0 204.7 12.7 El Paso, TX 86.8 98.6 11.8Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI 124.2 135.4 11.2 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 117.7 128.8 11.1 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 39.6 50.0 10.4Colorado Springs, CO 13.5 23.5 10.0 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 235.2 245.0 9.8 Charleston-North Charleston, SC 77.9 87.3 9.4Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 98.5 107.9 9.4 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 145.1 153.5 8.4 Kansas City, MO-KS 79.2 86.9 7.7Columbus, OH 46.2 53.8 7.6 Raleigh, NC 106.7 114.2 7.5 Louisville/Jeff erson County, KY-IN 96.7 104.1 7.4Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR 127.9 135.0 7.1 Dayton, OH 35.4 42.4 7.0Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 27.8 34.6 6.8 Omaha-Council Bluff s, NE-IA 29.5 36.1 6.6 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 69.8 76.4 6.6Tulsa, OK 110.5 116.9 6.4 Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 92.9 99.2 6.3 Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA 30.0 36.2 6.2Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 35.5 41.7 6.2 Cleveland-Elyria, OH 30.3 35.9 5.6 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 34.1 39.6 5.5San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 75.1 80.6 5.5 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 37.5 42.9 5.4 New Haven-Milford, CT 33.1 38.1 5.0Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 125.1 130.0 4.9 Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade, CA 81.3 86.2 4.9 Boise City, ID 31.3 36.1 4.8Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 31.3 35.9 4.6 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 37.1 41.3 4.2 Buff alo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY 40.7 44.2 3.5Tucson, AZ 82.6 86.1 3.5 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 38.6 41.9 3.3 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 127.2 130.0 2.8Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 44.0 46.8 2.8 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 28.2 30.9 2.7 Stockton-Lodi, CA 102.9 105.5 2.6Jackson, MS 189.6 192.0 2.4 Wichita, KS 68.5 70.7 2.2 Table 4: Change in Metropolitan Statistical Areas Pedestrian Danger Index Scores, 2016-2019 Appendices Change in Metropolitan Statistical Areas Pedestrian Danger Index Scores, 2016-2018 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN 31 Metro Area 2016 PDI 2019 PDI Change 2016- 2019 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA 31.4 33.5 2.1 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 24.7 26.5 1.8 San Diego-Carlsbad, CA 62.7 64.5 1.8Worcester, MA-CT 31.7 33.3 1.6 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 18.0 19.6 1.6 Toledo, OH 48.0 49.6 1.6 Madison, WI 16.4 18.0 1.6 New Orleans-Metairie, LA 88.7 89.6 0.9Syracuse, NY 23.0 23.8 0.8Pittsburgh, PA 26.6 27.3 0.7 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 51.1 51.4 0.3 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 34.2 34.5 0.3 Rochester, NY 29.0 29.1 0.1New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 27.0 27.1 0.1Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 67.3 67.2 -0.1 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 58.7 58.2 -0.5 Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, PA 42.7 42.1 -0.6 Akron, OH 46.0 44.4 -1.6 Chattanooga, TN-GA 56.8 55.0 -1.8Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 65.7 63.6 -2.1Provo-Orem, UT 19.5 17.3 -2.2 Jacksonville, FL 228.7 226.2 -2.6 Winston-Salem, NC 99.7 97.1 -2.6 Urban Honolulu, HI 33.9 30.6 -3.3Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 54.4 51.0 -3.4Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 47.5 43.9 -3.6 Springfi eld, MA 28.3 24.7 -3.6 Richmond, VA 81.0 77.2 -3.8 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 43.5 39.7 -3.8Providence-Warwick, RI-MA 38.0 33.6 -4.4Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 49.7 44.4 -5.3 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 123.4 115.6 -7.8 Columbia, SC 62.6 49.7 -12.8 Ogden-Clearfi eld, UT 74.4 61.2 -13.2 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 283.1 217.0 -66.1 Appendices Change in Metropolitan Statistical Areas Pedestrian Danger Index Scores, 2016-2018 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN 32 Appendices [ this page intentionally blank ] 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction 33 DANGEROUSBY DESIGN2019 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Dangerous by Design 2019 (7939 : Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)) 02/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Update on 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) OBJECTIVE: For the Board to receive an update on the 2045 LRTP. CONSIDERATIONS: The MPO Board, on November 9, 2018, authorized staff to enter into negotiations with the highest ranked firm, Jacobs Engineering Group. Contract negotiations are nearing completion and staff anticipates bringing one forward to the Board for approval at the March 8th meeting. Assuming that all goes smoothly, a Notice to Proceed will be issued in April 2019. The 2045 LRTP must be completed and adopted by the MPO Board by no later than its December 2020 meeting. Staff anticipated a cost on the order of $351,000 based on discussions with other MPOs within District 1 and an understanding that the 2040 LRTP had cost on the order of $300,000, when, the cost had totaled over $608,000, as staff later discovered. The 2045 LRTP is now expected to cost between $492,000 and $590,000. The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for FY 18/19 and 19/20 sets aside roughly $461,000 in PL (Planning) funds. At the February 8th meeting, the MPO Director will present a plan for addressing the shortfall, including the option of using a portion of the MPO’s SU “Box” funds, which are programmed under FPN -4051061 in FDOT’s revised Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024. (Attachment 1.). COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: not applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board receives an update on the 2045 LRTP. Prepared by: Anne McLaughlin, Executive Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (PDF) 11.B Packet Pg. 256 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 11.B Doc ID: 7932 Item Summary: Update on 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 9:13 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 9:13 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:22 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:58 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 11.B Packet Pg. 257 TENTATIVE FIVE YEAR WORK PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2020-2024 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - DISTRICT ONE COLLIER COUNTY 7D Attachment 1 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range MISSION STATEMENT The Department will provide a safe, interconnected statewide transportation system for Florida's citizens and visitors that ensures the mobility of people and goods, while enhancing economic prosperity and sustaining the quality of our environment. Zachary Burch Gov. Affairs & Comm. Manager Southwest Area Office 10041 Daniels Parkway Fort Myers, FL 33913 (239) 225-1950 Email : Zachary.Burch@dot.state.fl.us Brian Rick Communications Specialist District 1 Headquarters 801 North Broadway Avenue Bartow, FL 33830 (863) 519-2828 Email : Brian.Rick@dot.state.fl.us For additional Information, please visit our website at www.swflroads.com PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 1 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range ACNP ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION NHPP ACSA ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (SA) ACSS ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (SS,HSP) ACSU ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (SU) ACTU ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION TALU BNIR INTRASTATE R/W & BRIDGE BONDS BRRP STATE BRIDGE REPAIR & REHAB CIGP COUNTY INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAM D UNRESTRICTED STATE PRIMARY DDR DISTRICT DEDICATED REVENUE DI ST. - S/W INTER/INTRASTATE HWY DIH STATE IN-HOUSE PRODUCT SUPPORT DPTO STATE - PTO DS STATE PRIMARY HIGHWAYS & PTO DSB2 EVERGLADES PKY/ALLIGATOR ALLEY DU STATE PRIMARY/FEDERAL REIMB EM19 GAA EARMARKS FY 2019 FAA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN FTA FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FTAT FHWA TRANSFER TO FTA (NON-BUD) GFSA GF STPBG ANY AREA GMR GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR SIS HSP SAFETY (HIWAY SAFETY PROGRAM) LF LOCAL FUNDS LFP LOCAL FUNDS FOR PARTICIPATING PL METRO PLAN (85% FA; 15% OTHER) REPE REPURPOSED FEDERAL EARMARKS SA STP, ANY AREA SIWR 2015 SB2514A-STRATEGIC INT SYS SR2T SAFE ROUTES - TRANSFER CURRENTLY REPORTED ACTIVE FUND CODES PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 2 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range SU STP, URBAN AREAS > 200K TALT TRANSPORTATION ALTS- ANY AREA TALU TRANSPORTATION ALTS- >200K PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 3 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FLP: TRANSIT FPN :4101131 Project/Location :COLLIER COUNTY MPO TRANSIT PLANNING FTA SECTION 5305 (D) Desc:MODAL SYSTEMS PLANNING Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 PLN DPTO $9,720 $9,877 $9,877 $9,877 $9,877 PLN DU $77,760 $79,010 $79,010 $79,010 $79,010 PLN LF $9,720 $9,877 $9,877 $9,877 $9,877 Project Total:$97,200 $98,764 $98,764 $98,764 $98,764 FPN :4101201 Project/Location :COLLIER COUNTY FTA SECTION 5311 OPERATING ASSISTANCE Desc:OPERATING/ADMIN. ASSISTANCE Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 OPS DU $404,500 $366,460 $364,222 $404,525 $379,787 OPS LF $404,500 $366,460 $364,222 $404,525 $379,787 Project Total:$809,000 $732,920 $728,444 $809,050 $759,574 FPN :4101391 Project/Location :COLLIER COUNTY STATE TRANSIT BLOCK GRANT OPERATING ASSISTANCE Desc:OPERATING FOR FIXED ROUTE Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 OPS DDR $0 $0 $0 $906,623 $0 OPS DPTO $982,792 $1,031,948 $1,083,545 $228,574 $1,194,608 OPS LF $982,792 $1,031,948 $1,083,545 $1,135,197 $1,194,608 Project Total:$1,965,584 $2,063,896 $2,167,090 $2,270,394 $2,389,216 FPN :4101461 Project/Location :COLLIER COUNTY FTA SECTION 5307 CAPITAL ASSISTANCE Desc:CAPITAL FOR FIXED ROUTE Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CAP FTA $2,313,830 $2,348,065 $2,643,559 $2,061,778 $1,782,420 CAP LF $578,458 $587,016 $660,890 $515,445 $445,605 Project Total:$2,892,288 $2,935,081 $3,304,449 $2,577,223 $2,228,025 FPN :4101462 Project/Location :COLLIER COUNTY FTA SECTION 5307 OPERATING ASSISTANCE Desc:OPERATING FOR FIXED ROUTE Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 OPS FTA $574,297 $500,000 $100,000 $442,610 $807,700 OPS LF $574,297 $500,000 $100,000 $442,610 $807,700 Project Total:$1,148,594 $1,000,000 $200,000 $885,220 $1,615,400 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 4 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FPN :4340301 Project/Location :COLLIER CO./BONITA SPRINGS UZA FTA SECTION 5339 CAPITAL ASSISTANCE Desc:CAPITAL FOR FIXED ROUTE Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CAP FTA $365,428 $347,686 $299,327 $299,889 $411,466 CAP LF $91,357 $86,922 $74,382 $74,972 $102,867 Project Total:$456,785 $434,608 $373,709 $374,861 $514,333 FPN :4350292 Project/Location :US 41 FROM CR 846 (111TH AVE) TO NORTH OF 91ST AVE Desc:PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SHELTER Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CAP FTAT $51,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 CAP SU $51,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$103,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 FLP: TRANSIT TOTAL 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 $7,472,651 $7,265,269 $6,872,456 $7,015,512 $7,605,312 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 5 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FLP:AVIATION FPN :4443941 Project/Location :EVERGLADES AIRPARK SEAPLANE BASE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT Desc:AVIATION CAPACITY PROJECT Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CAP DDR $630,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 CAP LF $157,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$787,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4336321 Project/Location :IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS Desc:AVIATION SECURITY PROJECT Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CAP DPTO $480,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 CAP LF $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4389771 Project/Location :IMMOKALEE REGIONAL ARPT REHABILITATE RUNWAY 18/36 Desc:AVIATION PRESERVATION PROJECT Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CAP DDR $1,074,000 $4,706,000 $400,000 $0 $0 CAP LF $268,500 $1,176,500 $100,000 $0 $0 Project Total:$1,342,500 $5,882,500 $500,000 $0 $0 FPN :4417831 Project/Location :IMMOKALEE ARPT TAXIWAY C EXTENSION Desc:AVIATION PRESERVATION PROJECT Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CAP DDR $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 CAP DPTO $12,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 CAP FAA $225,000 $2,700,000 $0 $0 $0 CAP LF $12,500 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$250,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4417841 Project/Location :IMMOKALEE ARPT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR RUNWAY 9/27 EXTENSION Desc:AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CAP DDR $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 CAP FAA $0 $0 $180,000 $0 $0 CAP LF $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 6 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FPN :4370631 Project/Location :MARCO ISLAND APT NEW TERMINAL BUILDING Desc:AVIATION CAPACITY PROJECT Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CAP DDR $3,599,620 $0 $0 $0 $0 CAP LF $899,905 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$4,499,525 $0 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4416751 Project/Location :NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SECURITY UPGRADES Desc:AVIATION SECURITY PROJECT Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CAP DDR $0 $0 $0 $0 $800,000 CAP LF $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 Project Total:$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 FPN :4417651 Project/Location :NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RUNWAY 5-23 DRAINAGE SWALE IMPROVEMENTS Desc:AVIATION PRESERVATION PROJECT Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CAP DDR $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 CAP FAA $2,700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 CAP LF $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 FLP:AVIATION TOTAL 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 $10,479,525 $8,882,500 $700,000 $0 $1,000,000 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 7 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range HIGHWAYS FPN :4418461 Project/Location :111TH AVE NORTH FROM BLUEBILL AVE BRIDGE TO 7TH ST NORTH Desc:BIKE LANE/SIDEWALK Project Length : 0.001 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.001 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SU $0 $553,410 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $553,410 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4318953 Project/Location :16TH ST BRIDGE NE FROM GOLDEN GATE BLVD TO RANDALL BLVD Desc:NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION Project Length : 3.212 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 3.212 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SA $0 $0 $1,132,944 $0 $0 CST SU $0 $0 $3,801,000 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $0 $4,933,944 $0 $0 FPN :4404411 Project/Location :AIRPORT PULLING RD FROM VANDERBILT RD TO IMMOKALEE RD Desc:ADD THRU LANE(S) Project Length : 1.970 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 1.970 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST CIGP $0 $0 $0 $4,928,100 $0 CST LF $0 $0 $0 $4,928,100 $0 PE LF $0 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 PE CIGP $0 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $3,000,000 $0 $9,856,200 $0 FPN :4418781 Project/Location :BALD EAGLE DRIVE FROM COLLIER BLVD TO OLD MARCO LN Desc:SIDEWALK Project Length : 0.001 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.001 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SU $0 $509,685 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $509,685 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4404351 Project/Location :COLLIER COUNTY TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING OPTIMIZATION AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS Desc:TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SU $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 PE SU $0 $0 $351,000 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $0 $351,000 $50,000 $0 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 8 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FPN :4433753 Project/Location :COLLIER COUNTY LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD SIDEWALK AND BIKE LANES Desc:SIDEWALK Project Length : 0.001 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.001 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SU $0 $800,460 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $800,460 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4433754 Project/Location :COLLIER COUNTY LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD SIDEWALK AND BIKE LANES Desc:SIDEWALK Project Length : 0.001 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.001 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SU $0 $572,675 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $572,675 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4350431 Project/Location :COLLIER COUNTY SCOUR COUNTERMEASURE AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS Desc:BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION Project Length : 0.074 Begin Mile Post : 1.039 End Mile Post: 34.286 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST BRRP $0 $0 $151,340 $0 $920,920 CST DIH $0 $0 $54,050 $0 $0 PE BRRP $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $0 Project Total:$0 $0 $205,390 $200,000 $920,920 FPN :4126661 Project/Location :COLLIER COUNTY TRAFFIC SIGNALS REIMBURSEMENT Desc:TRAFFIC SIGNALS Project Length : 12.814 Begin Mile Post : 1.299 End Mile Post: 14.113 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 OPS DDR $331,017 $339,661 $348,971 $358,843 $369,348 Project Total:$331,017 $339,661 $348,971 $358,843 $369,348 FPN :4051061 Project/Location :COLLIER MPO IDENTIFIED OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING Desc:TRAFFIC OPS IMPROVEMENT Project Length : Begin Mile Post : End Mile Post: Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SU $506,518 $163,287 $229,418 $1,061,033 $3,215,390 Project Total:$506,518 $163,287 $229,418 $1,061,033 $3,215,390 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 9 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FPN :4371031 Project/Location :COLLIER TMC OPS FUND COUNTY WIDE Desc:OTHER ITS Project Length : 0.001 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.001 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 OPS DS $81,000 $81,000 $81,000 $81,000 $81,000 Project Total:$81,000 $81,000 $81,000 $81,000 $81,000 FPN :4380911 Project/Location :COUNTY BARN ROAD FROM RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK TO SR 84(DAVIS BLVD) Desc:BIKE PATH/TRAIL Project Length : 2.045 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 2.045 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SA $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 CST SU $0 $0 $0 $1,829,376 $0 PE SU $0 $176,000 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $176,000 $0 $1,879,376 $0 FPN :4380921 Project/Location :CR 901/VANDERBILT DR FROM VANDERBILT BEACH RD TO 109TH AVENUE N Desc:SIDEWALK Project Length : 1.214 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 1.214 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SU $0 $0 $0 $709,075 $0 PE SU $0 $151,000 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $151,000 $0 $709,075 $0 FPN :4369701 Project/Location :CR 92 (SAN MARCO RD) FROM S BARFIELD DRIVE TO 400 FT E OF VINTAGE BAY Desc:BIKE PATH/TRAIL Project Length : 1.417 Begin Mile Post : 2.027 End Mile Post: 3.444 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SU $1,330,114 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$1,330,114 $0 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4414801 Project/Location :EDEN PARK ELEMENTARY Desc:SIDEWALK Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SR2T $0 $0 $663,333 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $0 $663,333 $0 $0 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 10 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FPN :4380931 Project/Location :GREEN BLVD FROM SANTA BARBARA BLVD TO SUNSHINE BLVD Desc:BIKE LANE/SIDEWALK Project Length : 1.040 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 1.040 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SU $0 $0 $0 $1,084,670 $0 PE SU $0 $226,000 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $226,000 $0 $1,084,670 $0 FPN :4411281 Project/Location :I-75 (SR 93) AT CR 886 (GOLDEN GATE PKWY) Desc:LANDSCAPING Project Length : 0.900 Begin Mile Post : 53.300 End Mile Post: 54.200 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST DIH $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CST DDR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 PE DDR $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 PE DIH $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $210,000 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4440081 Project/Location :I-75 (SR 93) FROM BROWARD COUNTY LINE TO TOLL BOOTH Desc:RESURFACING Project Length : 78.304 Begin Mile Post : 0.063 End Mile Post: 49.102 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST DDR $0 $0 $1,525,599 $0 $0 CST DS $0 $0 $208,905 $0 $0 CST DSB2 $0 $0 $91,886,954 $0 $0 PE DSB2 $4,942,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$4,942,900 $0 $93,621,458 $0 $0 FPN :4452961 Project/Location :I-75 @ PINE RIDGE ROAD Desc:PD&E/EMO STUDY Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 PDE DDR $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 PDE DIH $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$1,015,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 11 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FPN :4258432 Project/Location :I-75 AT SR 951 Desc:INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT Project Length : 0.651 Begin Mile Post : 50.096 End Mile Post: 50.747 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST DI $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,505,533 CST DIH $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,200 CST DSB2 $0 $0 $46,974 $0 $0 CST LF $0 $0 $0 $0 $143,000 ENV DDR $0 $0 $0 $125,000 $0 PE DDR $0 $0 $0 $1,087,990 $0 ROW ACNP $1,386,463 $0 $0 $0 $0 ROW BNIR $4,787,537 $0 $0 $0 $0 ROW DI $0 $0 $0 $1,323,000 $0 RRU DI $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,651,000 RRU LF $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,100,000 Project Total:$6,174,000 $0 $46,974 $2,535,990 $89,456,733 FPN :4385841 Project/Location :I-75/ALLIGATOR ALLEY TOLL BOOTH LANDSCAPING Desc:LANDSCAPING Project Length : 0.001 Begin Mile Post : 49.250 End Mile Post: 49.251 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST DDR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CST DIH $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 PE DIH $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 PE DDR $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $210,000 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4418791 Project/Location :INLET DRIVE FROM ADDISON CT TO TRAVIDA TERRACE Desc:SIDEWALK Project Length : 0.001 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.001 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SU $0 $411,781 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $411,781 $0 $0 $0 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 12 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FPN :4404361 Project/Location :MANDARIN GREENWAY SIDEWALKS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS Desc:BIKE LANE/SIDEWALK Project Length : 10.360 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 10.320 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST DDR $0 $0 $17,478 $0 $0 CST SU $0 $0 $331,929 $0 $0 PE TALU $45,311 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$45,311 $0 $349,407 $0 $0 FPN :4331891 Project/Location :N COLLIER BLVD FROM E ELKCAM CIRCLE TO BUTTONWOOD COURT Desc:SIDEWALK Project Length : 0.658 Begin Mile Post : 1.727 End Mile Post: 2.385 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST LFP $105,146 $0 $0 $0 $0 CST SU $656,579 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$761,725 $0 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4371851 Project/Location :NAPLES BEACH ACCESS SIDEWALKS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS Desc:SIDEWALK Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SU $1,118,682 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$1,118,682 $0 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4371041 Project/Location :NAPLES TMC OPERATIONS FUNDING CITY WIDE Desc:OTHER ITS Project Length : 0.001 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.001 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 OPS DDR $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 OPS DS $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Project Total:$80,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 FPN :4136271 Project/Location :NAPLES TRAFFIC SIGNALS REIMBURSEMENT Desc:TRAFFIC SIGNALS Project Length : 12.814 Begin Mile Post : 1.299 End Mile Post: 14.113 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 OPS DDR $122,010 $125,194 $128,621 $132,249 $136,117 Project Total:$122,010 $125,194 $128,621 $132,249 $136,117 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 13 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FPN :4404381 Project/Location :SAN MARCO RD FROM VINTAGE BAY DRIVE TO GOODLAND RD Desc:BIKE PATH/TRAIL Project Length : 1.440 Begin Mile Post : 3.440 End Mile Post: 4.880 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SU $0 $650,062 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $650,062 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4370961 Project/Location :SIDEWALKS EVERGLADES CITY AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS Desc:SIDEWALK Project Length : 0.200 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.200 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST TALT $0 $0 $84,692 $0 $0 CST TALU $0 $0 $372,940 $0 $0 ENV TALT $0 $20,000 $40,000 $0 $0 PE TALT $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 PE TALU $185,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$335,000 $20,000 $497,632 $0 $0 FPN :4379251 Project/Location :SIGNAL TIMING COUNTY ROADS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS Desc:TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE Project Length : 0.001 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.001 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SA $0 $0 $452,560 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $0 $452,560 $0 $0 FPN :4379261 Project/Location :SIGNAL TIMING US41 FROM SR951/COLLIER BLVD TO OLD US41 Desc:TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE Project Length : 19.960 Begin Mile Post : 1.300 End Mile Post: 20.200 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SU $0 $516,200 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $516,200 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4404371 Project/Location :SOUTH GOLF DR FROM GULF SHORE BLVD TO W US 41 Desc:BIKE LANE/SIDEWALK Project Length : 2.537 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 2.537 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SA $0 $0 $0 $1,976,749 $0 Project Total:$0 $0 $0 $1,976,749 $0 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 14 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FPN :4390021 Project/Location :SR 29 FROM NORTH 1ST STREET TO NORTH 9TH STREET Desc:PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENT Project Length : 0.502 Begin Mile Post : 37.309 End Mile Post: 37.811 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST DDR $1,607,137 $0 $0 $0 $0 CST SU $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$2,607,137 $0 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4175402 Project/Location :SR 29 FROM OIL WELL ROAD TO SUNNILAND NURSERY ROAD Desc:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Project Length : 4.762 Begin Mile Post : 27.209 End Mile Post: 31.971 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 ENV DI $0 $0 $0 $0 $885,000 PE DI $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,140,000 PE ACNP $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,250,000 Project Total:$0 $0 $0 $0 $8,275,000 FPN :4175403 Project/Location :SR 29 FROM SUNNILAND NURSERY ROAD TO S OF AGRICULTURE WAY Desc:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Project Length : 2.548 Begin Mile Post : 31.971 End Mile Post: 34.519 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 ENV TALT $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 Project Total:$0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 FPN :4175404 Project/Location :SR 29 FROM S OF AGRICULTURE WAY TO CR 846 E Desc:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Project Length : 2.251 Begin Mile Post : 34.519 End Mile Post: 36.770 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 ENV TALT $0 $0 $0 $270,000 $0 Project Total:$0 $0 $0 $270,000 $0 FPN :4175405 Project/Location :SR 29 FROM CR 846 E TO N OF NEW MARKET ROAD N Desc:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Project Length : 3.484 Begin Mile Post : 36.770 End Mile Post: 40.254 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 ROW ACNP $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,022,228 ROW DI $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,022,228 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 15 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FPN :4175406 Project/Location :SR 29 FROM N OF NEW MARKET RD N ROAD TO SR 82 Desc:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Project Length : 3.037 Begin Mile Post : 39.761 End Mile Post: 42.798 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 ENV TALT $0 $0 $0 $380,000 $0 ROW ACNP $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,122,707 Project Total:$0 $0 $0 $380,000 $1,122,707 FPN :4178784 Project/Location :SR 29 FROM SR 82 TO HENDRY C/L Desc:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Project Length : 1.869 Begin Mile Post : 42.844 End Mile Post: 44.713 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST ACNP $0 $0 $0 $9,753,761 $0 CST DI $0 $0 $0 $166,650 $0 ENV DI $0 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 ENV ACNP $400,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 INC DDR $0 $0 $0 $0 $475,000 ROW ACNP $0 $1,258,822 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$400,000 $1,273,822 $0 $9,970,411 $475,000 FPN :4308481 Project/Location :SR 82 FROM HENDRY COUNTY LINE TO GATOR SLOUGH LANE Desc:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Project Length : 4.022 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 4.022 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST DI $0 $0 $0 $44,744,273 $0 CST DIH $0 $0 $0 $59,967 $0 ENV DDR $0 $0 $20,000 $50,000 $0 INC DDR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ROW BNIR $2,496,116 $0 $0 $0 $0 RRU DDR $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 Project Total:$2,496,116 $0 $20,000 $45,354,240 $0 FPN :4308491 Project/Location :SR 82 FROM GATOR SLOUGH LANE TO SR 29 Desc:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Project Length : 3.219 Begin Mile Post : 3.826 End Mile Post: 7.045 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST DIH $158,209 $0 $0 $0 $0 CST GMR $29,931,844 $0 $0 $0 $0 CST LF $123,775 $0 $0 $0 $0 CST SIWR $4,029,717 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$34,243,545 $0 $0 $0 $0 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 16 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FPN :4415611 Project/Location :SR 90 FROM WHISTLER'S COVE TO COLLIER BLVD Desc:RESURFACING Project Length : 1.380 Begin Mile Post : 18.883 End Mile Post: 20.263 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST DDR $0 $0 $6,200,277 $0 $0 CST DIH $0 $0 $43,240 $0 $0 ENV DDR $0 $25,000 $50,000 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $25,000 $6,293,517 $0 $0 FPN :4395551 Project/Location :SR 951 FROM JUDGE JOLLEY BRIDGE TO FIDDLERS CREEK PARKWAY Desc:RESURFACING Project Length : 3.031 Begin Mile Post : 3.152 End Mile Post: 6.183 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 ENV DDR $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4351112 Project/Location :SR 951 FROM MANATEE RD TO N OF TOWER RD Desc:ADD LANES & REHABILITATE PVMNT Project Length : 0.350 Begin Mile Post : 8.615 End Mile Post: 8.965 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 ROW DDR $3,812,751 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$3,812,751 $0 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4348571 Project/Location :SR 951 OVER BIG MARCO PASS(JUDGE JOLLY MEMORIAL BRIDGE) Desc:BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION Project Length : 0.302 Begin Mile Post : 2.606 End Mile Post: 2.908 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST BRRP $0 $2,393,322 $0 $0 $0 CST DIH $0 $21,060 $0 $0 $0 ENV BRRP $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 PE BRRP $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 PE DIH $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$280,000 $2,414,382 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4379241 Project/Location :TRAVEL TIME DATA COLLECTION COLLIER COUNTY ITS ARCH ATMS Desc:OTHER ITS Project Length : 0.001 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.001 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SA $0 $0 $441,000 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $0 $441,000 $0 $0 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 17 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FPN :4415121 Project/Location :US 41 (SR 45) FROM S OF DUNRUSS CREEK TO S OF GULF PARK DR Desc:RESURFACING Project Length : 4.735 Begin Mile Post : 1.175 End Mile Post: 5.910 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST DDR $0 $0 $0 $15,240,858 $0 CST SA $0 $0 $0 $55,550 $0 Project Total:$0 $0 $0 $15,296,408 $0 FPN :4419751 Project/Location :US 41 (SR 90) AT OASIS VISITOR CENTER Desc:ADD LEFT TURN LANE(S) Project Length : 0.276 Begin Mile Post : 21.000 End Mile Post: 21.276 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST DDR $0 $0 $0 $509,442 $0 CST DIH $0 $0 $0 $16,665 $0 ENV DDR $0 $15,000 $30,000 $0 $0 PE DDR $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 PE DIH $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$160,000 $15,000 $30,000 $526,107 $0 FPN :4380591 Project/Location :US41(SR 90) TAMIAMI TRL FM E OF SR84(DAVIS BLVD) TO COURTHOUSE SHADOWS Desc:RESURFACING Project Length : 1.346 Begin Mile Post : 13.039 End Mile Post: 14.385 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST SA $0 $52,650 $0 $0 $0 CST ACSS $0 $1,496,440 $0 $0 $0 CST DDR $0 $7,105,058 $0 $0 $0 ENV DDR $30,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$30,000 $8,729,148 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4439891 Project/Location :US41(SR90) FROM SR951(COLLIER BLVD) TO GREENWAY ROAD Desc:LANDSCAPING Project Length : 7.529 Begin Mile Post : 6.908 End Mile Post: 23.668 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 CST DDR $0 $1,978,000 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $1,978,000 $0 $0 $0 HIGHWAYS TOTAL 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 $60,922,826 $23,181,767 $108,724,225 $92,252,351 $105,104,443 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 18 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FPN :4393142 Project/Location :COLLIER COUNTY MPO FY 2018/2019-2019/2020 UPWP Desc:TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 PLN PL $546,564 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Total:$546,564 $0 $0 $0 $0 FPN :4393143 Project/Location :COLLIER COUNTY MPO FY 2020/2021-2021/2022 UPWP Desc:TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 PLN PL $0 $546,564 $546,564 $0 $0 Project Total:$0 $546,564 $546,564 $0 $0 FPN :4393144 Project/Location :COLLIER COUNTY MPO FY 2022/2023-2023/2024 UPWP Desc:TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Project Length : 0.000 Begin Mile Post : 0.000 End Mile Post: 0.000 Comments : Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 PLN PL $0 $0 $0 $546,564 $0 Project Total:$0 $0 $0 $546,564 $0 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING TOTAL 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 $546,564 $546,564 $546,564 $546,564 $0 COLLIER COUNTY TOTALS Phase Fund 2019/ 2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 2022/ 2023 2023/ 2024 Total COUNTY Total :$79,421,566 $39,876,100 $116,843,245 $99,814,427 $113,709,755 $449,665,093 PHASE CODES ADM – Administration ● CAP – Capitol Improvement ● CS – Construction ● DSB – Design Build ● ENV – Environmental ● INC – Contract Incentives ● LAR – Local Government Reimbursement ● MNT – Bridge/Rdway/Contract Maint ● MSC – Miscellaneous ● OPS – Operations ● PE – Prelim Engineering ● PDE – Project Dev and Enviro ● PLN – Planning ● RES – Research ● ROW – Right of Way ● RRU – Railroad Utilities Page: 19 Run Date:01/09/2019 SnapShot Date: 01/07/2019 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - 1 TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM REPORT July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FM #ROAD DESCRIPTION TYPES OF WORK PHASE From FY to FY 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 COMMENTS 4452961 I-75 at Pine Ridge Rd I-75 at Pine Ridge Rd PD&E/EMO PD&E PD&E $1,000,000 $15,000 Highway Priority 3 New project added in Tentative to align with County's Pine Ridge Rd corridor projects. 4351112 SR 951 Manatee Rd to N of Tower Road Add Lanes (4 to 6) and Rehab Pavement CST CST CST CST $8,743,074 $3,000,000 $11,440 $1,049,620 Funding for Construction phase. 431895-3 16th Street Bridge Golden Gate Blvd to Randall Blvd New Bridge Construction CST CST CST $4,377,294 $1,000 $555,650 Bridge Priority 1 Newly programmed project - County requested FY22 D/B 440441-1 Airport Pulling Road Vanderbilt Rd to Immokalee Rd Add Thru Lane, Sidewalk & Drainage CST $4,928,100 CIGP Grant Award Funding for Construction Phase 440437-1 South Golf Drive Gulf Shore Blvd to W US 41 Sidewalks, Bike Lanes & Crosswalks CST CST CST $1,855,749 $1,000 $120,000 Bike/Ped Priority 5 Funding for Construction Phase 441846-1 111th Avenue Bluebill Ave Bridge to 7th St North 5 Ft Bike Lns 111th, Paved Shoulder & Key Hole Bike Ln CST CST CST $467,424 $1000 $84,986 2018 Bike/Ped Priority 7 Funding for Construction Phase 437096-1 Everglades Sidewalks Everglades City at Various Locations Sidewalks ENV PE $20,000 $100,000 $40,000 Bike/Ped Priority 10 Funding added onto ENV & PE phases 443375-3 Collier County Lake Trafford Rd Sidewalks Little League Rd to Laurel St Sidewalks CST CST $799,460 $1,000 Bike/Ped Priority 13 Funding for Construction Phase 443375-4 Collier County Lake Trafford Rd Sidewalks Carson Rd to Krystal Lane Sidewalks CST CST $571,675 $1,000 Bike/Ped Priority 11 Funding for Construction Phase 441512-1 US 41 (SR 45)South of Dunruss Creek to South of Gulf Park Dr Resurfacing CST CST CST $13,213,278 $55,560 $2,027,581 RRRResurfacing, Restoration & Rehabilitation FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5 YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM COLLIER MPO FY2020 THROUGH FY2024 SUMMARY OF ADDITIONS, RESCHEDULINGS AND DELETIONS Additions (Projects, Phases and Funding) Page 1 Last Updated 1/14/2019 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FM #ROAD DESCRIPTION TYPES OF WORK PHASE From FY to FY 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 COMMENTS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5 YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM COLLIER MPO FY2020 THROUGH FY2024 SUMMARY OF ADDITIONS, RESCHEDULINGS AND DELETIONS Additions (Projects, Phases and Funding) 441878-1 Bald Eagle Drive Collier Blvd to Old Marco Lane Sidewalks CST CST 2025 to 2021 $508,685 $1,000 Bike/Ped Priority 9 Funding for Construction Phase 441879-1 Inlet Drive Addison Ct to Travida Terr Sidewalks CST CST 2025 to 2021 $410,781 $1,000 Bike/Ped Priority 12 Funding for Construction Phase 443989-1 US 41 (SR 90)SR 951 (Collier Blvd) to Greenway Road Landscape Project CST 1,978,000 435111-2 SR 951 Manatee Rd to N of Tower Road Add Lanes (4 to 6) and Rehab Pavement ROW 3,812,751 441975-1 US 41 (SR 90)Oasis Visitor Center Adding Left Turn Lane(s) ENV $45,000 438584-1 I-75/Alligator Alley Toll Booth Landscaping PE $200,000 444008-1 I-75 (SR 93)Broward County Line to Toll Booth Resurfacing PE PE CST CST CST $1,000 $4,750,000 $81,293,801 $108,100 $8,655,672 4371041 Naples TMC Operations Funding Other ITS-Naples TMC Operations Funding City Wide Funding to support locals manage traffic OPS $50,000 $30,000 For FY19/20, Project total is now $80,000 ($50,000 added) 444394-1 Everglades Airpark Everglades Airpark Seaplane Base Design Seaplane Base Design CAP $630,000 437185-1 Naples Beach Access Naples Beach Access Sidewalks at Various Locations Sidewalks CST CST CST 2021 to 2020 $991,234 $25,650 $101,798 2016 Pathways Priority 7 Rescheduling's-Advancements Additions (Projects, Phases and Funding) Page 2 Last Updated 1/14/2019 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FM #ROAD DESCRIPTION TYPES OF WORK PHASE From FY to FY 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 COMMENTS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5 YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM COLLIER MPO FY2020 THROUGH FY2024 SUMMARY OF ADDITIONS, RESCHEDULINGS AND DELETIONS Additions (Projects, Phases and Funding) 440436-1 Mandarin Greenway Mandarin Greenway Sidewalks at Various Locations Sidewalks PE PE CST CST CST 2021 to 2020 2023 to 2022 $1,000 $44,311 $295,407 $1,000 $53,000 Bike/Ped Priority 8 440438-1 San Marco Road Vintage Bay Drive to Goodland Rd Sidewalks CST CST CST 2022 to 2021 $581,062 $1,000 $68,000 2016 Pathways Priority 4 440439-1 Collier County Collier County at Various Locations Bus Shelters CAP 2022 to 2019 $286,180 2016 CMS/ITS Priority 1 Occurs in FY19-outside of Draft Tentative 440437-1 South Golf Drive Gulf Shore Blvd to W US 41 Sidewalks PE PE 2022 to 2019 $1,000 Bike/Ped Priority 5 Design Occurs in FY19- outside of Draft Tentative 425843-2 I-75 at SR 951 I-75 at SR 951 Interchange Improvement CST CST CST CST RRU RRU 2023 to 2024 $76,261,188 $3,751,000 $55,550 $6,916,715 $2,651,000 $1,1000,000 Construction and Railroad Utility phases deferred from FY23 to FY24 435043-1 Collier County Collier Scour at Various Locations Scour Countermeasure ROW 2022 to 2024 $920,920 437924-1 Collier County Collier County Travel Time Data Collection CST CST 2021 to 2022 $440,000 $1,000 2016 CMS/ITS Priority 2 437925-1 Collier County County Roads at Various Locations Signal Timing Updates CST CST `$451,560 $1,000 2016 CMS/ITS Priority 3 441675-1 Naples Municipal Airport Security Upgrade CAP 2022 to 2024 $800,000 Airport Security Upgrades 441975-1 US 41 (SR 90)Oasis Visitor Center Left Turn Lane CST CST CST 2022 to 2023 $346,125 $16,665 $163,317 Funding for CST phase Reschedulings -Deferrals Rescheduling's-Advancements Page 3 Last Updated 1/14/2019 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range FM #ROAD DESCRIPTION TYPES OF WORK PHASE From FY to FY 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 COMMENTS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5 YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM COLLIER MPO FY2020 THROUGH FY2024 SUMMARY OF ADDITIONS, RESCHEDULINGS AND DELETIONS Additions (Projects, Phases and Funding) 440425-1 Pine Ridge Rd Whipoorwill Lane to Napa Blvd 6 Ft Sidewalk on S Side of Pine Ridge Rd PE CST ($229,418) ($1,315,273) Deleted per County's request.Sidewalks to be incorporated into their Pine Ridge corridor projects. Bike/Ped Priority 6 - funds returned to MPO SU Box 4051061 434815-1 Immokalee Regional Airport Security Enhancements CAP 2020 ($480,000)Per Airport's request, combined w/433632-1 w/a new cost est. of $850,000 Rescheduling's -Deletions Page 4 Last Updated 1/14/2019 11.B.1 Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: FDOT (Revised) Tentative Work Program FY2020-2024 (7932 : Update on 2045 Long Range 02/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc Contract Modification Comprehensive Pathways Plan OBJECTIVE: To inform the MPO Board of a Contract Modification for Tindale-Oliver & Associates regarding the Comprehensive Pathways Plan. CONSIDERATIONS: The contract modification added $8,720 to the existing contract to coordinate with the MPO for revisions to policy, design guidelines and Master Plan documentation which required additional GIS and data analysis of existing and proposed facilities. The additional analysis went beyond the original project scope in response to extensive County staff and public comments received. The modification also extends the completion date an additional two months, to terminate on 2/28/2019. Attachment 1. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Contract Modification Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc – Comprehensive Pathways Plan (PDF) 12.A Packet Pg. 282 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 12.A Doc ID: 7933 Item Summary: Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc Contract Modification Comprehensive Pathways Plan Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 9:15 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 9:15 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:19 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:24 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 12.A Packet Pg. 283 12.A.1 Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Contract Modification Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc – Comprehensive Pathways Plan (7933 : Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc 12.A.1 Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Contract Modification Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc – Comprehensive Pathways Plan (7933 : Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc 12.A.1 Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Contract Modification Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc – Comprehensive Pathways Plan (7933 : Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc 02/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update OBJECTIVE: To distribute a copy of the MPOAC’s Legislative Update for 1/25/19 to the MPO Board. CONSIDERATIONS: This is the first report from the MPOAC regarding the 2019 Florida legislative session. Attachment 1. The MPOAC intends to provide updates on an as-needed basis. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. MPOAC Legislative update for 01-25-2019 (PDF) 12.B Packet Pg. 287 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 12.B Doc ID: 7935 Item Summary: Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 9:17 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 9:17 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:23 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:25 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 12.B Packet Pg. 288 Carl Mikyska, Executive Director 605 Suwannee Street, MS 28B · Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 1-866-374-3368 x 4037 or 850-414-4062 · Fax 850-414-4895 www.mpoac.org Commissioner Nick Maddox Chair Legislative Update for the week ending 01/25/2019 Overview Greetings and welcome to the first MPOAC legislative update of the 2019 Florida legislative session. While the session officially begins March 5th, 2019, the capitol is busy with activities which will lead us into the session. Some of the anticipated issues that we are likely to see coming up during session will include hurricane recovery, education, water quality, school safety, deregulation and certainly a few others will come up. There will be committee meetings in the next few months and of course bills are being filed for the upcoming session. Below are the dates of events for the 2019 legislative session, and included in this legislative update is a listing of bills filed thus far in the session. Updates will occur on an as needed basis until the official start of the 2019 legislative session, then your MPOAC updates will be issued weekly. The new Governor is off to a very busy start and has accomplished a lot in his first few weeks, he has stated it is his intention to keep this furious pace going. His efforts have impressed many and hopefully that will help his priorities make their way through the legislature. The Governor recently announced the selection of Kevin Thibault as the new Florida Department of Transportation Secretary. He has an extensive transportation background and previously worked in senior leadership at Florida DOT so he will be able to hit the ground running. We extend a hearty welcome to Secretary Thibault and look forward to working with him to advance Florida’s mobility solutions. After this initial newsletter, all updates to bills shown below will be shown in RED so you can quickly distinguish between updates and old news. A few bills have been filed, many more will be filed over the coming months. Your MPOAC Legislative Update will keep you apprised of newly filed bills. Grab a cup of coffee and enjoy this edition of the MPOAC Legislative Update. Important Dates for the 2019 Legislative Session o January 25, 2019 - deadline for submitting requests for drafts of general bills and joint resolutions, including requests for companion bills o March 1, 2019 - Deadline for approving final drafts of general bills and joint resolutions, including companion bills o March 5, 2019 - Regular Session convenes, deadline for filing bills for introduction o April 20, 2019 - All bills are immediately certified, motion to reconsider made and considered the same day o April 23, 2019 - Last day for regularly scheduled committee meetings o May 3, 2019 - Last day of Regular Session MPOAC The Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council 12.B.1 Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: MPOAC Legislative update for 01-25-2019 (7935 : Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Committee Meeting schedule prior to the official Legislative Session beginning on March 5th January 2019 - Week of the 7th January 2019 - Week of the 22nd February 2019 - Week of the 4th February 2019 - Week of the 11th February 2019 - Week of the 18th Legislation of interest to the membership This is a summary of transportation related bills filed and published on the legislature’s website as of January 25, 2019. More bills will be filed during the 2019 session and as they are made available the newly filed transportation bills will be added to this list. The bills are listed in numerical order for your convenience. As the session and bills progress, this ordering of bills will make it easier to follow the status of any particular bill you are tracking. SB 68: Transportation Disadvantaged – (Book) - Requiring community transportation coordinators, in cooperation with the coordinating board, to plan for and use any available and cost-effective regional fare payment systems that enhance cross-county mobility for specified purposes for the transportation disadvantaged; requiring each coordinating board to evaluate multicounty or regional transportation opportunities to include any available regional fare payment systems that enhance cross-county mobility for specified purposes for the transportation disadvantaged, etc. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; Appropriations. HB 71: Traffic Offenses – (McClain; Co-Introducers: Stevenson; Stone) – Identical to SB 158 by Baxley. Provides criminal penalties for person who commits moving violation that causes serious bodily injury to or death of vulnerable road user; requires person to pay specified fine, serve minimum period of house arrest, & attend driver improvement course; requires court to revoke person's driver license for minimum specified period; defines "vulnerable road user". Referred to Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; Criminal Justice Subcommittee; State Affairs Committee. SB 72: Aligator Alley Toll Road – (Passidomo; Co-Introducers: Hooper) – Identical to HB 6011 by Rommel. Requiring specified fees to be used indefinitely, instead of temporarily, to reimburse a local governmental entity for the direct actual costs of operating a specified fire station, etc. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; Appropriations. HB 75: Expanded Uses of Unmanned Aircraft – (Yarborough; Co-Introducers: Grieco; Killebrew) – Similar to SB 132 by Rouson. Permits use of drones by law enforcement agencies & other specified entities for specified purposes. Referred to Criminal Justice Subcommittee; State Affairs Committee; Judiciary Committee. 12.B.1 Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: MPOAC Legislative update for 01-25-2019 (7935 : Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative SB 78: Public Financing of Construction Projects – (Rodriguez) – Identical to HB 169 by Fernandez. Prohibiting state-financed constructors from commencing construction of certain structures in coastal areas without first conducting a sea level impact projection study and having such study published and approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; requiring the department to develop by rule standards for such studies; providing for enforcement; requiring the department to publish such studies on its website, subject to certain conditions, etc. Referred to Environment and Natural Resources; Infrastructure and Security; Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government; Appropriations. SB 116: Motor Vehicle Racing – (Stewart) – Increasing the criminal penalty for a third or subsequent violation related to motor vehicle racing within a specified period after the date of a prior violation that resulted in a conviction, etc. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Criminal Justice; Judiciary; Rules. SB 132: Drones – (Rouson) – Similar to HB 75 by Yarborough. Defining the terms “dangerous or deadly weapon” and “large-scale event”; authorizing the use of a drone by a law enforcement agency to prepare for or monitor safety and security at a large-scale event; prohibiting a law enforcement agency using a drone in an authorized manner from equipping it with specified attachments or using it to fire projectiles, etc. Referred to Criminal Justice; Infrastructure and Security; Rules. SB 158: Traffic Offenses – (Baxley) – Identical to HB 71 by McClain. Citing this act as the "Vulnerable Road User Act"; providing criminal penalties for a person who commits a moving violation that causes serious bodily injury to, or causes the death of, a vulnerable road user; requiring that the person pay a specified fine, serve a minimum period of house arrest, and attend a driver improvement course; requiring that the court revoke the person’s driver license for a minimum specified period, etc. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Appropriations Subcommittee on Criminal and Civil Justice; Appropriations. HB 169: Public Financing of Construction Projects – (Fernandez) – Identical to SB 78 by Rodriguez. Prohibiting state-financed constructors from commencing construction of certain structures in coastal areas without first conducting a sea level impact projection study and having such study published and approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; requiring the department to develop by rule standards for such studies; providing for enforcement; requiring the department to publish such studies on its website, subject to certain conditions, etc. Referred to Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee; Appropriations Committee; State Affairs Committee. SB 306: Traffic Infraction Detectors – (Brandes) – Similar to HB 6003 by Sabatini. Repealing provisions relating to the installation and use of traffic infraction detectors to enforce specified provisions when a driver fails to stop at a traffic signal, provisions that authorize the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, a county, or a municipality to use such detectors, and the distribution of penalties collected for specified violations; amending provisions relating to distribution of proceeds, enforcement by traffic infraction enforcement officers using such detectors, procedures for disposition of citations, preemption of additional fees or surcharges, compliance, amount of penalties, registration and renewal of license plates, and points assessed for certain violations, to conform provisions to changes made by the act, etc. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; Appropriations. 12.B.1 Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: MPOAC Legislative update for 01-25-2019 (7935 : Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative HB 311: Autonomous Vehicles – (Fisher) – Co-Introducers: Rodriguez; Mayfield) - Exempts autonomous vehicles & operators from certain prohibitions; provides that human operator is not required to operate fully autonomous vehicle; authorizes fully autonomous vehicle to operate regardless of presence of human operator; provides that automated driving system is deemed operator of autonomous vehicle operating with system engaged; authorizes Florida Turnpike Enterprise to fund & operate test facilities; provides requirements for operation of on-demand autonomous vehicle networks; revises registration requirements for autonomous vehicles. Referred to Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; Transportation and Tourism Appropriations Subcommittee; State Affairs Committee. HB 341: Motor Vehicles and Railroad Trains – (LaMarca) - Requires that, in event of crash involving railroad train, collection of certain information be at discretion of law enforcement officer having jurisdiction to investigate crash; specifies that certain persons are not considered passengers for purpose of making crash reports. Not yet assigned to committees. HB 385: Transportation – (Avila) – Requires certain authority members to comply with financial disclosure requirements; limits levy of & revises authorized uses of certain surtaxes; revives Pilot Rebuilt motor vehicle inspection program; revises provisions relating to DOT design plan approval, transportation project programs, toll collection & use, & M.P.O. membership; repeals pts. I & V of ch. 348, F.S., related to Florida Expressway Authority Act & Osceola County Expressway Authority Law. Not yet assigned to committees. HB 453: Micromobility Devices and Motorized Scooters – (Toledo) - Authorizes county or municipality to regulate operation of micromobility devices & for-hire motorized scooters; authorizes county or municipality to require licensure; requires proof of certain insurance coverage; provides that regulation of micromobility devices & for-hire motorized scooters is controlled by state & federal law; provides that operator has all rights & duties applicable to rider of bicycle; exempts micromobility device or motorized scooter from certain requirements; provides that person is not required to have valid driver license to operate micromobility device or motorized scooter; authorizes parking on sidewalk; removes requirements for sale of motorized scooters; exempts micromobility devices & motorized scooters from certain emblem requirements. Not yet assigned to committees. HB 476: Child Restraint Requirements – (Perry) - Increasing the age of children for whom operators of motor vehicles must provide protection by using a crash-tested, federally approved child restraint device; increasing the age of children for whom a separate carrier, an integrated child seat, or a child booster seat may be used, etc. Not yet assigned to committees. HB 6001: Alligator Alley Toll Road – (Rommel) – Identical bill to SB 72 by Passidomo. Requires specified fees to be used indefinitely to reimburse local governmental entity for direct actual costs of operating specified fire station. Referred to Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; Transportation and Tourism Appropriations Subcommittee; State Affairs Committee. HB 6003: Traffic Infraction Detectors – (Sabatini – Co-Introducers: Grieco; Hill; Jacobs; Sirois) – Similar bill to SB 306 by Brandes. Repeals provisions relating to Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program & authorization to use traffic infraction detectors; repeals provisions relating to distribution of penalties, transitional implementation, & placement & installation; conforms cross-references & provisions to changes made by act. Referred to Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; Appropriations Committee; State Affairs Committee. Favorable by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 12 Yeas, 1 Nay. Now in Appropriations Committee. 12.B.1 Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: MPOAC Legislative update for 01-25-2019 (7935 : Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative 02/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MPO 2019 Calendar - Revised OBJECTIVE: To distribute a copy of the MPO’s revised 2019 calendar. CONSIDERATIONS: The MPO’s 2019 Calendar has been revised and is included as Attachment 1. Note that the November 8, 2019 meeting date will need to be revised due to a meeting conflict involving the Board of County Commissioners. Staff will suggest a revised date when we have more information regarding the scheduled release of FDOT’s draft Tentative Work Program next fall, in order to synchronize calendars. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Revised MPO 2019 Calendar (PDF) 12.C Packet Pg. 293 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 12.C Doc ID: 7936 Item Summary: Revised 2019 MPO Calendar Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 9:20 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 9:20 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:26 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:54 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 12.C Packet Pg. 294 STRIKETHROUGH = CANCELLED MEETING DATES IN RED = ADDED MEETING Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) – Monthly at 9:00 a.m. All MPO Board Meetings are held on the second Friday of the month. MPO Board Meetings will be held at the Board of County Commissioners Chambers, 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, unless otherwise noted. February 8, 2019 March 8, 2019 *April 12, 2019 May 10, 2019 June 14, 2019 September 13, 2019 October 11, 2019 **October 18,2019 November 8, 2019 December 13, 2019 *This is the Collier MPO road-show meeting held at 10:00 a.m. in Everglades City Hall, 102 Copeland Ave. N ** This a JOINT MEETING with Lee MPO, location TBD Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) – Monthly at 9:30 a.m. All TAC Meetings are held on the last Monday of the month. TAC Meetings will be held at the Collier Growth Management Department, Planning & Regulation Building Conference Rooms 609/610, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, unless noted below. January 28, 2019 February 25, 2019 March 25, 2019 April 29, 2019 *May 20, 2019 August 26, 2019 September 30, 2019 **October 3, 2019 October 28, 2019 November 25, 2019 *May 27th is Memorial Day **This is a JOINT MEETING with Lee TAC, location TBD Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) – Monthly at 2:00 p.m. All CAC Meetings are held on the last Monday of the month. CAC Meetings will be held at the Collier Growth Management Department Construction and Maintenance Building, Main Conference Room, 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, unless noted below. January 28, 2019 February 25, 2019 March 25, 2019 April 29, 2019 *May 20, 2019 August 26, 2019 September 30, 2019 **October 3,2019 October 28, 2019 November 25, 2019 *May 27th is Memorial Day *This is a JOINT MEETING with Lee CAC, location TBD Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) – Monthly at 9:00 a.m. All BPAC Meetings are held on the third Tuesday of the month. BPAC Meetings will be held at the Collier County Growth Management Division, Planning & Regulation Building Conference Rooms 609/610, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, unless noted below. January 22, 2019 February 19, 2019 March 19, 2019 April 16, 2019 May 21, 2019 August 20, 2019 *August 27,2019 September 17, 2019 October 15, 2019 November 19, 2019 *This is a JOINT MEETING with Lee BPCC, location TBD Congestion Management Committee (CMC) – Bi-Monthly at 2:00 p.m. All CMC Meetings are held on the third Wednesday of every other month. CMC Meetings will be held at the Collier County Growth Management Department Main Conference Room, 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, unless noted below. January 16, 2019 March 20, 2019 May 15, 2019 July 17, 2019 September 18, 2019 November 20, 2019 Local Coordinating Board (LCB) for the Transportation Disadvantaged – Quarterly at 2:30 p.m. All LCB Meetings are held quarterly on the first Wednesday of the corresponding month. LCB Meetings will be held at the Collier County Government Center Building F, Information Technology Training Room 5th Floor, 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, unless noted below. March 13, 2019 May 1, 2019 September 4, 2019 December 4, 2019 2019 Meeting Schedule Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2885 S. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 www.CollierMPO.com (239) 252-5814 12.C.1 Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Revised MPO 2019 Calendar (7936 : Revised 2019 MPO Calendar) 02/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 14.A Item Summary: Next Meeting Date - March 8, 2019 - 9:00 a.m. Board of County Commissioners Chambers, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112 Meeting Date: 02/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 01/31/2019 9:23 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 01/31/2019 9:23 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:52 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 01/31/2019 9:58 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 02/08/2019 9:00 AM 14.A Packet Pg. 296