Loading...
MPO Agenda 03/08/2019COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 March 08, 2019 9:00 AM Councilman Reg A. Buxton, Chair Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt, Esq., Vice-Chair Commissioner Penny Taylor Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Commissioner Burt L. Saunders Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. Councilwoman Charlette Roman Councilman Terry Hutchinson This meeting of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is open to the public and citizen input is encouraged. Any person wishing to speak on any scheduled item may do so upon recognition of the Chairperson. Any person desiring to have an item placed on the agenda shall make a request in writing with a description and summary of the item, to the MPO Director or MPO Chairman 14 days prior to the date of the next scheduled meeting of the MPO. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting should contact Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director, 72 hours prior to the meeting by calling (239) 252 - 8192. The MPO’s planning process is conducted in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Related Statutes. Any person or beneficiary who believes that within the MPO’s planning process they have been discriminated against because of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, or familial status may file a complaint with the Collier MPO Executive Director, Anne McLaughlin at (239) 252 -8192 or by writing to Ms. McLaughlin at 2885 South Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, PREVIOUS MINUTES AND CONSENT ITEMS 4.A. Approval of Reappointment of a Local Coordinating Board (LCB) for Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Member 4.B. February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 6. AGENCY UPDATES 6.A. FDOT 6.B. MPO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 7. COMMITTEE CHAIR REPORTS 7.A. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) 7.A.1. Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report (CAC) 7.B. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) 7.B.1. Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report (TAC) 7.C. BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC) 7.C.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report (BPAC) 7.D. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (CMC) 7.E. LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD (LCB) 8. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (ROLL CALL REQUIRED) 8.A. Approval of Amendment to the FY2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 9. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (NO ROLL CALL) 9.A. Approval of a Work Order for Tindale Oliver Associates to prepare the Transit Impact Analysis 9.B. Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., for professional consulting services in the amount of $599,006 and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached agreement. 9.C. Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 10. PRESENTATIONS (MAY REQUIRE BOARD ACTION) 11. DISTRIBUTION ITEMS 11.A. Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update 12. MEMBER COMMENTS 13. NEXT MEETING DATE 13.A. Next Meeting Date - April 12, 2019 - 10:00 a.m. Everglades City Hall, 102 Copeland Ave. N Everglades City, FL 34139 14. ADJOURN 03/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approval of Reappointment of a Local Coordinating Board (LCB) for Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Member OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to approve the reappointment of one LCB Member to an additional three-year term. CONSIDERATIONS: The LCB is a standing committee of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Board. The primary purpose of the LCB is to assist the Collier MPO in identifying local service needs and providing information, advice and direction to the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) on the coordination of services to be provided to the transportation disadvantaged pursuant to Chapter 427.0157, Florida Statutes. Sherry Brenner is an active member of the LCB. Sherry has verbally indicated her request to be re-appointed to the LCB. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: n/a. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the MPO Board approve the reappointment of Sherry Brenner to the LCB for an additional three-year term. Prepared by: Brandy Otero, Senior Planner ATTACHMENT(S) 1. LCB Membership List (PDF) 4.A Packet Pg. 4 03/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 4.A Doc ID: 8205 Item Summary: Approval of Reappointment of a Local Coordinating Board (LCB) for Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Member Meeting Date: 03/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 02/28/2019 12:13 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 02/28/2019 12:13 PM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 02/28/2019 12:33 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 02/28/2019 2:03 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 03/08/2019 9:00 AM 4.A Packet Pg. 5 Local Coordinating Board (LCB) for the Transportation Disadvantaged A Representative of: Voting Member Alternate 1. CHAIRWOMAN Donna Fiala Collier County Board of County Commissioners No alternate pursuant to Chapter 427, Florida Statutes, and Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative Code. 2. Elderly – Vice-Chairman Mr. Harold Kurzman 1166 Sweetwater Lane Appt 10/13/17 Term Expires 10/13/20 3. Citizens Advocate/Non- User Ms. Birgittta Grasser Appt 12/5/2018 Term Expires 12/5/2021 4. Citizens Advocate/User Mr. Dylan Vogel Appt 2/10/17 Term Expires 2/10/20 5. Veteran Services Ms. Irene Johnson Oscar Gomez 6. Florida Association for Community Action Ms. Cheryl Burnham, Community Services Director Ms. Pa Houa Lee-Yang 7. Public Education Mr. David Ogilvie Transportation Director Ms. Bonnie Zaino 8. FDOT Dale Hanson Transit Project Coordinator Kelley Fernandez 9. Florida Department of Children and Family Services Mr. Felix Soto 10. Florida Department of Education Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services Mr. Robert Richards Dept. of Education/Division of Vocational Rehab Services Ms. Lisa O’Leary Dept. of Education/Division of Vocational Rehab Services 11. Area Agency on Aging SWFL – Florida Department of Elder Affairs Rebecca MacKenzie Area Agency on Aging Shelby Yelvington Area Agency on Aging 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: LCB Membership List (8205 : Approval of Reappointment of a Local Coordinating Board (LCB) for Transportation Disadvantaged A Representative of: Voting Member Alternate 12. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Maribel Perez Senior Human Services Program Specialist Glenda Gonzalez Ft. Myers Medicaid Field Office 13. Representative for Children at Risk Emely Kafle School District of Collier County 14. Private Transportation Industry VACANT 15. Disabled Sherry Brenner Appointed 4/8/16 Term Expires 4/8/19 16. Local Medical Community VACANT 17. Southwest Florida Regional Workforce Development Board Ms. Susan Corris 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: LCB Membership List (8205 : Approval of Reappointment of a Local Coordinating Board (LCB) for Transportation Disadvantaged 03/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 4.B Item Summary: February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 03/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 02/28/2019 12:22 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 02/28/2019 12:22 PM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 02/28/2019 12:37 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 02/28/2019 2:00 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 03/08/2019 9:00 AM 4.B Packet Pg. 8 COLLIER METROPLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) BOARD MEETING Board of County Commissioner Chambers 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples 9:00 a.m. February 8, 2019 Meeting Minutes 1. Call to Order Commissioner McDaniel called the meeting to order at approximately 9:00 a.m. 2. Roll Call Ms. Otero 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 Councilwoman Charlette Roman, City of Marco Island Members Absent Councilman Terry Hutchison, City of Naples (newly appointed) MPO Staff Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director Brandy Otero, MPO Senior Planner Eric Ortman, MPO Senior Planner Karen Intriago, MPO Administrative Assistant FDOT Wayne Gaither, FDOT Victoria Peters, District One Liaison Others Present Scott Teach, Deputy County Attorney Joe Bonness, BPAC Michelle Avola, Naples Pathway Coalition Lorrain Lantz, Collier County Transportation Planning Trinity Scott, Collier County Transportation Planning 3. Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner McDaniel led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. Election of Chair Commissioner Taylor nominated Councilman Buxton as Chair. Second by Commissioner Saunders. Carried unanimously. 4.B.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes (8208 : February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes) Commissioner Taylor nominated Councilwoman Middelstaedt as Vice-Chair. Second by Councilman Buxton. Carried unanimously. 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 Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Member representing the City of Naples Commissioner Taylor moved to approve the Agenda, Previous Minutes, and Consent Items. Second by Commissioner McDaniel. Carried unanimously. 6. Public Comments for Items not on the Agenda Ms. Avola stated that Naples Pathway Coalition (NPC) has been working with Rails to Trails and a consultant on putting together an off-road nonmotorized shared used pathway system for Collier County. Ms. Avola also invited anyone that is interested to attend the NPC Bike Brunch on March 3rd at Fleishman Park. 7. Agency Updates A. FDOT Mr. Gaither noted that on January 18th Governor DeSantis appointed Kevin Thibault as FDOTs new secretary. Mr. Thibault has extensive experience in both the private and public sector. Ms. Peters stated that the Tentative Work Program has be updated to reflect a few changes. A new PD&E study has been added for I-75 and Pine Ridge Rd. This will evaluate the interchange and intersection improvements, the scheduled time for the study will be FY20. SR951 from Manatee Rd. to North of Tower Rd project has added just under $13 million in funding to the construction phase. This project adds four to six lanes, rehab pavements, resurfacing, a 10-foot shared use path, 5-foot sidewalk on the westside of the roadway and bike lanes on both sides of the roadway. Ms. Peters noted that with the addition of the PD&E study for Pine Ridge Rd, the Whippoorwill to Napa Blvd. sidewalk project was deleted because these projects will be included in the County’s infrastructure improvement for that corridor. The funds for these projects have been returned to the MPO’s SU box. SR82 from Gator Slough to SR29 construction phase was moved from FY19 to FY20. Ms. Peters stated that the debris on Trail Blvd. has been removed and lighting has been completed from Pine Ridge Rd. to Gulf Park Dr. The entire project is scheduled for completion for the end of March. Ms. Peters noted that the lights on Jolley Bridge will be completed by the end of March beginning of April. FDOT will also be replacing the structures for both bridges. Commissioner Fiala asked if there will be any lights added on US41 from SR951 to Greenway. Ms. Peters stated that a lighting project has been let (out for bids) for that segment. Commissioner McDaniel noted that he has previously expressed how important it is that the north end of SR29 and SR82 be prioritized first before SR 29 south of Immokalee due to the amount of traffic it receives daily and safety concerns. Commissioner McDaniel would like to know what the procedure is to adjust FDOT’s prioritization for funding those projects. Mr. Gaither noted that FDOT has been working with project management in reviewing the way FDOT is approaching SR29 and other areas that needed to be addressed. Mr. Gaither stated that a meeting could be arranged to discuss this further. 4.B.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes (8208 : February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes) B. MPO Executive Director Ms. McLaughlin noted that staff handed out copies this morning to Board members of a letter she signed supporting FDOT’s proposal to include doing a Feasibility Study of an interchange at Vanderbilt Beach Rd in the PD&E study FDOT has underway for I-75. This study will not be charged to the MPOs budget. 8. Committee Chair Report 8.A.1. Citizen Advisory Committee Chair Report Ms. McLaughlin stated that the CAC was unable to obtain a quorum for their January 28th meeting. This was due in part to staff’s error - not including William Stephens in the email distribution so he was not aware of the meeting. 8.B.1 Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report Ms. Lantz noted that the TAC met on January 28th and a quorum was obtained. MPO staff reported that the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) submitted notice that they will no longer participate on the TAC as a non-voting member. The Lee MPO Director Don Scott stated that the SWFRPC has not been attending Lee’s TAC meetings as voting members. MPO staff was asked to correspond with the SWFRPC concerning why they no longer wish to participate. Ms. McLaughlin stated that she has reached out to the SWFRPC and the Executive Director stated that they will participate if they are a voting member for the committee. Ms. Lantz noted that the committee elected her as Chair and Tim Brock as Vice-Chair. The committee endorsed the Golden Gate Walkable Community Study as well as the Public Participation Plan. The FDOT Tentative Work Program was discussed and provided Ms. Peters with comments. Ms. McLaughlin updated the committee on the progress made concerning revisions to the draft Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan. 8.C.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Chair Report Joe Bonness noted that the BPAC met on January 22nd and a quorum was obtained. The committee reelected Joe Bonness as Chair and elected Anthony Matonti as Vice-Chair. The Golden Gate Walkable Community Study was endorsed. Ms. McLaughlin updated the committee on the progress made concerning revisions to the draft Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan. 8.D.1 Congestion Management Committee Chair Report Ms. McLaughlin noted that the CMC Chairman’s report was submitted in writing and is in the meeting packet. Neither the Chair nor the Vice Chair attended today’s meeting to give the report. 8.E.1 Local Coordinating Board (LCB) 9. Regular Board Action (Roll Call Required) None. 10. Regular Board Action (No Roll Call) 10.A. Election of Representation to Serve on the Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Governing Board for 2019. 4.B.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes (8208 : February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes) Commissioner Saunders moved to reelect Councilman Buxton as Representative on the Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council and Commissioner McDaniel as the MPO’s alternate. Second by Commissioner McDaniel. Carried unanimously. 10.B. Adopt Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study Ms. Otero presented the PowerPoint “Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study” highlighting the following: • The Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study was started a year ago to identify the need to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian mobility options and issues throughout Collier County. • Intent was to specifically assess and improve walkability conditions in mobility restricted communities. • Walkability studies have been identified in the past for Naples Manor, Immokalee, and Bayshore. • The goals for the study are to provide Collier County agencies and organizations an efficient and effective way to integrate the pedestrian needs of the community . As well as to prioritize list of sidewalk and pedestrian amenity projects which would promote and enhance walkability, bicycle use, transit use and social equity throughout the community. • Extensive data collection, public involvement and technical analysis took place in developing the Study. • Golden Gate City is a four-square mile community and has a total of 76- miles of roadway. • Most of the roads are local, two-lane roadways without sidewalks or curbs and with open drainage swales. • Existing network currently has 30.5 miles of sidewalks and 4.2 miles of bike lanes, • The study assesses the pedestrian experience within the community by reviewing existing conditions and working directly with stakeholders. • The consultant was on-site to observe morning drop-off and afternoon dismissal for schools. • Conducted walking and bicycle audits. Mr. Grainer presented the second half of the PowerPoint “Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study” the technical evaluation, highlighting: • Pedestrian Level of Service methodology was conducted for the study. This evaluated the directness of the sidewalks, continuity, concerns with street crossings and security. • An expanded methodology was included using GIS overlays to analyze the network and Jacobs developed a weighted scoring element to provide a quantitative analysis. • Buffers were drawn around each school, government center, and commercial centers to identify any missing sidewalk segments that fell within a quarter mile, eighth mile and half mile radius • The combined forms of analysis validated the need for pedestrian infrastructure within Golden Gate City serving the first and last mile walking and bicyclist links to transit. • Major arterials received higher scores compared to local roads, due to the concentration of activity in these locations. • Each roadway was evaluated for connectivity and those which would significantly improve connectivity and benefit residents the most received a connectivity score of 20. • The study prioritized the needs of each segment and put them into three tiers. Tier 1 represents the highest priority based on 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. • Short-term and mid-term projects were added to the study to recommend other types of improvements in addition to building new sidewalks. 4.B.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes (8208 : February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes) Commissioner McDaniel noted that coordination should be done with Wastewater and Water Utilities because the County recently took over the utility in Golden Gate City. Commissioner Fiala asked what the study’s conclusion is for Golden Gate City. Mr. Grainer stated that Golden Gate City is severely lacking sidewalks. Golden Gate City currently has a portion of a network, but on just 36% of the overall roadway system. Commissioner Saunders noted that the taxing district is set up to generate a million dollars a year, and this will help cover funds for projects in Golden Gate City. Trinity Scott noted that the County will utilize the study as a basis for grant opportunities. The County used the Immokalee Walkable Study as the basis for the TIGER Grant application. Commissioner Saunders moved to adopt the Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study. Second by Commissioner Taylor. Carried unanimously. 10.C. Adopt Public Participation Plan Ms. McLaughlin stated that the Public Participation Plan (PPP) is an update of what previously was called the Public Involvement Plan. The plan was taken to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) in May 2018. Extensive comments were received from the committee members. MPO staff presented a substantially revised draft to the advisory committees in October 2018; no revisions were requested at that time. Ms. Mclaughlin stated that she attended the Regional MPOs Directors meeting and was impressed by Polk TPO’s Public Participation Plan, because it is very user-friendly. Staff used Polk TPO’s formatting and methods on ways to engage public participation. Another reason for the change in approach concerns eliminating practices that have been used throughout the years that have not been effective in generating public comments – such as posting legal ads and distributing hard copies of documents to public libraries. Ms. Mclaughlin noted that what has proven effective is the MPO’s advisory committee process. The CAC and BPAC are citizen-based committees. Engaged members of public are aware of these committee meetings and attend them whenever a topic of interest is being discussed. Online comments have also generated a lot of comments in the past year. Commissioner McDaniel moved to adopt the Public Participation Plan. Second by Councilwoman Roman. Carried unanimously. 11. Presentations (May Require Board Action) 11.A. Update on the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Ms. McLaughlin presented the Executive Summary “Update on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.” The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) has been developed through a very extensive planning process. The vision statement is to provide a safe and comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network that promotes and encourages community use and enjoyment. This statement grew out of the public involvement and the advisory committee process. The primary goals for the plan are to provide safety, equity, network connectivity and community health. The first phase of the development for this project took place between October 2017 and August 2018 with periodic reviews by the advisory committees occurring throughout that time. In August 2018, MPO staff took a preliminary draft plan to the committees for review. The draft generated a substantial amount of comment. Staff took the draft back in-house and, with the help of the consultant, Tindale Oliver, made extension revisions, updating the existing facilities inventory, Environmental Justice (EJ) community identification, addressing rate FDOT’s identification of the 5 worst road segments in Collier County for bicycle and pedestrian crashes. MPO staff began working with Naples Pathway Coalition (NPC) and the City of Naples on a 4.B.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes (8208 : February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes) joint bicycle map. Through this collaboration, MPO staff was able to improve the existing condition inventory for the BPMP. During the development of the BPMP, the City of Naples adopted the Downtown Mobility Study and the Board of County Commissioners adopted a Complete Street Resolution. These new policies were incorporated in the BPMP. MPO also coordinated with NPC to incorporate their Spine Trail Vision, Coastal Paradise Bike Route and proposed improved crossing at Seagate and Crayton Road. The Spine Trail Vision adds a second alignment to the SunTrail network that aligns well with Lee County plans and includes connections to the Gordon River Greenway and on to Golden Gate City and Immokalee. Ms. McLaughlin noted that an existing and proposed facility map has been created to focus on short-term investment because these plans are updated every five years. Staff is still working on refining the Spine Trail alignment from Golden Gate to Immokalee and down to Marco Island and beyond. Ms. Mclaughlin stated that the Conservancy of Southwest Florida has just recently commented on the portion of existing SunTrail alignment through Rookery Bay. The final daft will be taken through the advisory committees in February for endorsement and to the Board in March for adoption. April Olson noted that the Conservancy is concerned with several alignments in the Rookery Bay area. Some of these areas have mangroves on both sides and lifting the road or making any other type of improvements can result in a mangrove die-off. Commissioner Taylor stated that the redevelopment of Bayshore is ongoing and would like to know if there are any pathways along Bayshore. Ms. McLaughlin stated that there has been involvement with the CRA throughout the plan. The BPMP includes a policy adopting CRA plans by reference. This way the staff of these entities can bring forward priorities for funding based on a wealth of knowledge that the MPO staff wouldn’t be able to capture on its own. Ms. Mclaughlin stated that the BPMP focuses on major arterials and collector roads but includes recommendation for local roads as well. Michelle Avola noted that cyclists are using a dirt path or an adjacent parking lot to cross over to Seagate from Crayton Rd, but it’s not safe because it hasn’t been designated as a pathway or marked as a crossing. Having this pathway become a recognized paved pathway will allow for a safe route for the public that currently utilize the path. NPC will be getting in contact with the Pelican Bay Foundation to have this path recognized. Ms. McLaughlin stated that if the Board of County Commissioner is interested in pursuing Seagate connection she is willing to help have discussion because, from a regional perspective, it makes sense to have this connection as part of a coastal bike route. 11.B. Update on 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Ms. McLaughlin stated that contract negotiations are nearing completion for the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and staff anticipates bringing a contract to the Board for approval at the March 8th 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. Staff subsequently discovered that the actual cost of the 2040 LRTP totaled over $600,000. discovered. For the 2045 LRTP, to establish a basic plan covering all the required elements in the scope would cost about $492,000. The cost could go as high as $590,000 to include optional tasks that would provide more flexibility in responding to public input. These options will be contingent upon needing them as the plan unfurls, allowing staff to do additional data crunching and analyses. Ms. McLaughlin noted that the base amount of $492,000 could be covered using PL funds made available due to the MPO not having to cover the cost of the D1 Travel Demand Model ($30,000). The budget to cover optional services could come from tapping into SU box funds. Project number 4051061 in the Tentative Work 4.B.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes (8208 : February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes) Program had over a million in SU dollars in it when the Board reviewed the Work Program. The Board asked MPO staff to propose a spend down plan, so those funds would not be lost, FDOT and the County worked together and some of those funds were moved to the Pine Ridge Interchange study. Which left $500,000 in FY2019/2020. MPO staff would like to use $130,000 of these funds, but due to an FDOT Work Program rule, the MPO cannot tap into SU when carrying a balance greater than 20% of unspent PL funds. That is the situation the MPO is in, due to saving PL funds over the years to have sufficient budget to pay for the LRTP update. However, MPO staff is working with FDOT to develop a plan to spend down the PL funds in order to tap into SU funds when they are needed to complete the 2045 LRTP. Ms. Peters stated that FDOT and the MPO staff are working together to alleviate the funds in the box without having the MPO get out of compliance with the 20% rule. 12. Distribution Items 12. A. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc Contract Modification Comprehensive Pathway Plan 12. B. Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update Commissioner McDaniel noted that he would like to see if there is anything the MPO Board could do to assist and promote the legislation for enhancement of penalty for distracted driving and have the bill named after the former Executive Director of NPC, Beth Brainerd. 12. C. Revised 2019 MPO Calendar Ms. Otero stated that the April MPO Board meeting will be held in Everglades City Hall, the time has been changed to 10:00 a.m. to allow travel time . 13. Member Comment Commissioner McDaniel thanked Ms. Peters for doing an amazing job in responding to the public’s needs, especially in Immokalee. 14. Next Meeting Date Regular Meeting – March 8, 2019 – 9:00 a.m. Board of County Commissioners Chambers 15. Adjourn With no further comments Commissioner McDaniel adjourned the meeting at 10:50 a.m. 4.B.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes (8208 : February 8, 2019 MPO Board Meeting Minutes) 03/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) related to recent committee actions and recommendations. CONSIDERATIONS: Staff prepared the attached written report. The CAC Chair will provide a verbal report providing additional information regarding recent committee activities. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommendations are reported in the Executive Summary for each action item, and may be elaborated upon by the Chair in his/her report to the Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable Prepared by: Eric Ortman, Senior Planner ATTACHMENT(S) 1. CAC Chair Report (PDF) 7.A.1 Packet Pg. 16 03/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 7.A.1 Doc ID: 8195 Item Summary: Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report (CAC) Meeting Date: 03/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 02/28/2019 10:53 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 02/28/2019 10:53 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 02/28/2019 12:36 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 02/28/2019 2:01 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 03/08/2019 9:00 AM 7.A.1 Packet Pg. 17 CAC Committee Chair Report The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) met on February 25, 2019 and a quorum was achieved. Agency Reports Ms. Peters, FDOT, reported that the Department had received the Congestion Management Committee’s project applications for review for potential SU funding. Committee Actions • Elected Ms. Pam Brown and Mr. Robert Phelan to serve as committee chair and vice-chair, respectively, for 2019. • Voted to continue discussion of amendment to the FY2019-FY2023 TIP to the March meeting in order to obtain information regarding the project description and location . • Following a staff progress update and report on TAC and BPAC actions, the Committee u nanimously endorsed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan including the following recommendations made by the TAC and the BPAC: o Accept the recommendations of the Conservancy of SW Florida - remove Rookery Bay Trail from SunTrail alignment; limit bike/ped accommodations on Collier Blvd from US 41 to Jolley Bridge, Shell Island Rd, Isle of Capris Rd and Goodland Rd to existing paved areas; minimize expansion of pavement to accommodate bike lanes on San Marco Rd from Marco Island to US 41 and request Conservancy review and concurrence. o Bring cost estimates up-to-date on Tables 13, 14, p 47-48 o Revise illustrative cross sections on p67-68 to delete driving lane widths and references to speeds. Reports and Presentations • The Committee received a status update on the vendor’s contract for the Long Range Transportation Plan and current funding for the Plan. • After the meeting, staff gave two new committee members an orientation to the MPO process. The next regularly scheduled meeting is on March 25, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. 7.A.1.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: CAC Chair Report (8195 : Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report (CAC)) 03/08/2019 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) 7.B.1 Packet Pg. 19 03/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 7.B.1 Doc ID: 8200 Item Summary: Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report (TAC) Meeting Date: 03/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 02/28/2019 11:25 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 02/28/2019 11:25 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 02/28/2019 12:46 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 02/28/2019 2:07 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 03/08/2019 9:00 AM 7.B.1 Packet Pg. 20 TAC Committee Chair Report The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met on February 25, 2019 and a quorum was achieved. Agency Reports Ms. Peters, FDOT, reported that the Department had received the Congestion Management Committee’s project applications for review for potential SU funding. Committee Actions • Voted unanimously to endorse the amendment to the FY2019-FY2023 TIP to the March meeting in order to obtain information regarding the project description and location. • Voted 6:1 to endorse the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan subject to the following revisions: o Accept the recommendations of the Conservancy of SW Florida - remove Rookery Bay Trail from SunTrail alignment; limit bike/ped accommodations on Collier Blvd from US 41 to Jolley Bridge, Shell Island Rd, Isle of Capri Rd and Goodland Rd to existing paved areas; minimize expansion of pavement to accommodate bike lanes on San Marco Rd from Marco Island to US 41 and request Conservancy review and concurrence. o Bring cost estimates up-to-date on Tables 13, 14, p 47-48 o Revise illustrative cross sections on p67-68 to delete driving lane widths and references to speeds. Reports and Presentations • The Committee received a status update on the vendor’s contract for the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan and current funding for the Plan. The next regularly scheduled meeting is on March 25, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. 7.B.1.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: TAC Chair Report (8200 : Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report) 03/08/2019 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) 7.C.1 Packet Pg. 22 03/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 7.C.1 Doc ID: 8196 Item Summary: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report (BPAC) Meeting Date: 03/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 02/28/2019 10:58 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 02/28/2019 10:58 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 02/28/2019 12:35 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 02/28/2019 2:02 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 03/08/2019 9:00 AM 7.C.1 Packet Pg. 23 BPAC Committee Chair Report The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) met on February 19, 2019 and a quorum was achieved. Agency Reports Mr. Agacinski, FDOT, reported that he had worked with the Central Office to correct the SunTrail map which was not showing the existing multi-use path on US 41 between Marco Island and Everglades City. The Department is looking at whether the raised pavement markers (RPMs) on US41 can be removed. Committee Actions The Committee has received monthly updates and worked very closely with staff on the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master plan since September. Comments from the BPAC and other advisory committee meetings have been incorporated into the draft document each month. The Committee unanimously endorsed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan with the modifications listed below. • Clarification that the four projects in Everglades City are the City Council’s highest sidewalk priorities (page 43). • Adding a Shared Use Path on Logan Boulevard from Immokalee Road north towards Lee County Line (page 2). • Replacing Figure 27 (page 56) to better illustrate an audible pavement marking. • Update cost estimates on Tables 13, 14 p47-48 • Minor corrections to clarify/correct maps and text. • Accept the recommendations of the Conservancy of SW Florida - remove Rookery Bay Trail from SunTrail alignment; limit bike/ped accommodations on Collier Blvd from US 41 to Jolley Bridge, Shell Island Rd, Isle of Capris Rd and Goodland Rd to existing paved areas; minimize expansion of pavement to accommodate bike lanes on San Marco Rd from Marco Island to US 41 and request Conservancy review and concurrence. Presentations and Discussions The next regularly scheduled meeting is on March 19, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. 7.C.1.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: BPAC Chair Report (8196 : Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report (BPAC)) 03/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approval of Amendment to the FY2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to approve an amendment to the FY2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). CONSIDERATIONS: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has requested the following amendment to the FY2019 - FY2023 TIP to ensure authorization of federal funds and planning consistency. The amendment adds a new project to FY2020. The project is from the Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The project’s purpose is to rehabilitate Fritz Road (RT. 419) in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge; the amount of funding is $750,000. The MPO amendment form requiring signatures and the project sheets are included as Attachment 1. The FDOT letter requesting the amendment is included as Attachment 2. The required 21-day public comment period ran from December 18, 2018 through January 8, 2019; no public comments were received. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) endorsed the amendment at their February 25, 2019 meeting. The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) voted to continue the item to their March meeting in order to receive clarification regarding the project location and description. FDOT has obtained that information, as shown in Attachment 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the MPO Board approve the amendment to the FY2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Prepared by: Eric Ortman, MPO Senior Planner ATTACHMENT(S) 1. TIP Signature Pages and Project Sheets (PDF) 2. FDOT letter requesting amendment (PDF) 3. Fritz Rd Project Description & Location (PDF) 8.A Packet Pg. 25 03/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 8.A Doc ID: 8206 Item Summary: Approval of Amendment to the FY2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Meeting Date: 03/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 02/28/2019 12:16 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 02/28/2019 12:16 PM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 02/28/2019 12:32 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 02/28/2019 2:03 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 03/08/2019 9:00 AM 8.A Packet Pg. 26 TIP Amendment for Approval by MPO Board on March 8, 2019 for FY 2019 through FY 2023 Action FPN Project Name Description & Request Fund Phase FY Amount Update FHW A Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division list of FY2019-FY2023 TIP projects FW FLPA 419(1) --Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge Limits By Rehab Fritz FDOT FLTP Rd (RT 419) (Design Phase) FOOT Comment: New project and funding added to FY2019-2023 Five-Year Work Program Total Project Cost: Responsible Agency: TIP Reference Page: LRTP Reference Page: $750,000 FHWA 203A-203C None COLLIER METRO POLIT AN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 3RL By:___________ Date: ___ _ Anne McLaughlin By:-----------­MPO Chair Collier MPO Executive Director Printed Name: 2020 $750,000 Date: ---- ------------- Title: _______________ _ orney 203A �'E!:J 8.A.1 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: TIP Signature Pages and Project Sheets (8206 : Approval of Amendment to the FY2019-2023 8.A.1Packet Pg. 28Attachment: TIP Signature Pages and Project Sheets (8206 : Approval of Amendment to the FY2019-2023 8.A.1Packet Pg. 29Attachment: TIP Signature Pages and Project Sheets (8206 : Approval of Amendment to the FY2019-2023 8.A.2 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: FDOT letter requesting amendment (8206 : Approval of Amendment to the FY2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program 8.A.2 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: FDOT letter requesting amendment (8206 : Approval of Amendment to the FY2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program From:Peters, Victoria To:McLaughlinAnne Subject:Fwd: Collier Request for Info regarding Eastern Fed"l Lands Project Date:Wednesday, February 27, 2019 4:30:22 PM Attachments:image003.png image006.png D01-02-FLPA_419(1)_pnp.pdf Design-Scoping-Report_FLPA 419(1) - Final Report - 8-23-16 Updates1.pdf A03_FLPA419_loc-US_Sur_ft2D-000.pdf Get Outlook for iOS From: Grimm, Lewis (FHWA) <lewis.grimm@dot.gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 12:00:05 PM To: Peters, Victoria Cc: Gaither, Wayne; Tessitore, Michael (FHWA) Subject: RE: Collier Request for Info regarding Eastern Fed'l Lands Project Victoria, Thanks for providing this additional background information on the questions raised about the FW_FLPA 419(1) – Rehab of Fritz Road project. I discussed this with the EFL Project Manager – Michael Tessitore (Tel: 703-948-1404 and email: Michael.Tessitore@dot.gov ) and he directed me to the project file folders associated with this project. As I mentioned to you during our conversation yesterday, EFLHD is delivering this project (design, permitting, contractor acquisition, and construction inspection services) at the request of the USFWS Southeast Regional office and the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. This effort began a couple of years ago and is currently scheduled for authorization and award in FY2020. During my conversation with Michael, he mentioned that the scope of the project has evolved since the original scoping trip in August 2016. Based primarily on Florida DOT and permitting agency comments on the 30% design plans prepared by EFL, there have been several design modifications made to the original concept. These include expanded intersection geometrics at the junction of Fritz Road with State Route 29 (the only entry point to the refuge headquarters and visitor center facilities), and recommendations to add several larger vehicle pull off areas along Fritz Road between SR 29 and the refuge offices. The former action relates to safer traffic operations along the high speed SR 29 corridor, while the latter reflects the narrow, basically only lane wide cross section of Fritz Road. The result of these design concept changes has been an increase in the estimated construction costs 8.A.3 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Fritz Rd Project Description & Location (8206 : Approval of Amendment to the FY2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program from the $750,000 shown in last fall’s EFLHD TIP to a current engineer’s estimate of approximately $1.50 million. This cost increase has been discussed with, and has been agreed to by the FWS staff at the refuge and regional office levels. The three attached files are the final version of the project design scoping report, a free=standing project location map, and a 2-page set of plan view illustrations of the proposed intersection improvements. Mike suggested that if you have any additional questions, you should either contact him or reach out to the Refuge Manager – Kevin Godde (239) 657-8001. Please let us know if you need any additional information to pass on to the MPO Board to support their action to add this project to the agency’s TIP. Thanks, Lewis Lewis G. Grimm, P.E. Planning Team Leader, EFLHD, FHWA Tel: 703-404-6289 Fax: 703-404-6217 Cell: 703-629-1450 From: Peters, Victoria [mailto:Victoria.Peters@dot.state.fl.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 10:25 AM To: Grimm, Lewis (FHWA) <lewis.grimm@dot.gov> Cc: Gaither, Wayne <Wayne.Gaither@dot.state.fl.us> Subject: Collier Request for Info regarding Eastern Fed'l Lands Project Good Afternoon Lewis, the Collier CAC met Monday afternoon (02/25) and would not endorse the Eastern Federal Land project (number FW_FLPA 419 (1 ) for Collier County – rehab of Fritz Road. They requested I provide them with a brief description of the project and a map showing the location of the project. They mentioned their request for this information is for informational and transparency purposes so the public is made aware. Thank you for your assistance!! Thank you, 8.A.3 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Fritz Rd Project Description & Location (8206 : Approval of Amendment to the FY2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program Victoria Victoria Peters, J.D. Planning Specialist III/Community Liaison Florida Department of Transportation, District One 10041 Daniels Parkway, Fort Myers, FL 33913 Phone: 239-225-1974, FAX: 239-338-2353 Cell: 239-872-5904 Email: Victoria.peters@dot.state.fl.us From: Peters, Victoria Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 8:43 AM To: McLaughlinAnne <Anne.McLaughlin@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'OrtmanEric' <Eric.Ortman@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Updated info regarding Eastern Fed'l Lands Projects and adding them into your TIP.... Good Morning Anne and Eric, I recently received updated information from FHWA to include the Eastern Federal Lands Projects into your TIP via a TIP Amendment. If I’m not mistaken, you usually add these via a Modification where the project(s) is added into the Collier TIP in the Appendix section. It may still be added into the Appendix section, however, this year FHWA is looking for a TIP Amendment with a Board resolution and meeting minutes. I asked Alex if this is a full blown STIP/TIP 8.A.3 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Fritz Rd Project Description & Location (8206 : Approval of Amendment to the FY2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program 8.A.3 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Fritz Rd Project Description & Location (8206 : Approval of Amendment to the FY2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program 8.A.3 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Fritz Rd Project Description & Location (8206 : Approval of Amendment to the FY2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program 8.A.3 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Fritz Rd Project Description & Location (8206 : Approval of Amendment to the FY2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program 03/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approval of a Work Order for Tindale Oliver Associates to prepare the Transit Impact Analysis OBJECTIVE: To approve a Work Order for Tindale Oliver and Associates, and the scope and fee for the Transit Impact Analysis. CONSIDERATION: The Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement Division (PTNE) is responsible for the management of the Collier Area Transit (CAT) System. CAT provides Fixed Route and Paratransit services. The Fixed Route system provides public transit service to the urbanized areas of the County, including Naples, Marco Island, Golden Gate City and Immokalee. Limited Fixed Route service is also provided in the Golden Gate Estates area. CAT also partners with Lee County Transit (LeeTran) to provide an express route between the two counties. The Collier Area Paratransit (CAP) system provides passenger door to door trips funded by two different programs; Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Through the years the service to the community has grown in response to the development that has occurred in the area. The transit system has been responding to development rather than being a part of the planning process so that the service can be provided as an alternative mode when then development is completed. For Transit to be included as part of the development process it is necessary to understand the demand placed on the community’s transit network by development when assessing the effects of development. This study is intended to assess the effects that a development’s traffic will have on the transit network in the community and provide criteria for determining the capital or operating improvements required to the transit system in the form of stop improvements, route modifications or ad ditions based on the defined impacts. By preparing this study the transit system will be provided the nexus required to include measurable Goals, Objectives and policies in the Growth Management Plan and applicable land development codes to support the need to conduct a Transit Impact Analysis prior to approving future developments inclusive of the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Collier County. The study will help answer the questions of the implications of land use decisions on the transit system. Funding is identified in the FY 2018/19-2019/20 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for this study. To complete this task, the MPO requires the services of a consultant to provide technical support. This study is being completed under the MPO General Planning Services Contract (GPC) # 16-6562, which was approved by the MPO Board on December 9, 2016. As required under that contract, a request for proposals letter and a scope of work (Attachment 1) was sent to each of the three consulting firms on that contract. Only Tindale Oliver and Associates submitted a response to the request for proposals letter. A selection committee reviewed and scored the proposal and met on January 9, 2019, to discuss the proposal and determine if it was sufficient and met the intent of the scope. The committee score the proposal and determined that the study should be awarded to Tindale Oliver. Tindale Oliver’s proposal is included as Attachment 2. The cost to complete the Transit Impact Analysis is $123,040. There is sufficient transit planning funding (Federal Transit Administration Section 5305) identified in the UPWP to complete this project. The cost will be split between FY 17/18 and FY 18/19. In accordance with the Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the MPO, G0581, the Collier MPO has requested the Department’s concurrence to use Tindale Oliver and Associates. Staff will present any comments received from the Department at the March 8th MPO Board meeting. 9.A Packet Pg. 38 03/08/2019 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Technical Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory Committee reviewed and endorsed the scope of services. Contracting matters are not presented to committees. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approves the work order for Tindale Oliver to prepare the Transit Impact Analysis. Prepared by: Brandy Otero, MPO Senior Planner ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Request for Proposal and Scope of Work (PDF) 2. Tindale Oliver Proposal (PDF) 3. Work Order (PDF) 9.A Packet Pg. 39 03/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 9.A Doc ID: 8198 Item Summary: Approval of a Work Order for Tindale Oliver Associates to prepare the Transit Impact Analysis Meeting Date: 03/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 02/28/2019 11:04 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 02/28/2019 11:04 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 02/28/2019 12:28 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 02/28/2019 2:04 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 03/08/2019 9:00 AM 9.A Packet Pg. 40 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Request for Proposal and Scope of Work (8198 : Approval of a Work Order for Tindale Oliver Associates to prepare the Transit 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Request for Proposal and Scope of Work (8198 : Approval of a Work Order for Tindale Oliver Associates to prepare the Transit Collier Area Transit & Collier Area Paratransit  Transit Impact Analysis & Funding Strategies  Scope of Work  Background    The Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement Division (PTNE) is responsible for the management of  the Collier Area Transit (CAT) System. CAT provides Fixed Route and Paratransit transportation services to  the residents of Collier County. The Fixed Route system provides public transit service to the urbanized  areas of the County, including Naples, Marco Island and Immokalee.  Limited Fixed Route service is also  provided in the Golden Gate Estates area. CAT also partners with Lee County Transit (LeeTran) to provide  an express route between the two counties. The Collier Area Paratransit (CAP) system provides passenger  door to door trips funded by two different programs; Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) and Americans  with Disabilities Act (ADA).   Through the years the service to the community has grown in response to the development that has  occurred in the area.  The transit system has been responding to development rather than being a part of  the planning process so that the service can be provided as an alternative mode when then development  is completed.  For Transit to be included as part of the develo pment process it is necessary to understand  the demand placed on the community’s transit network by development when assessing the effects of  development.  All development generates traffic, and some may generate enough traffic to create congestion on the  existing roadways system requiring the community to invest more capital in the form of new roads, added  lanes, traffic signals or turn lanes. Currently as new development or redevelopment is proposed, there  are traffic impact studies that are required of the petitioner to analyze the impacts on the roadway  network but not the transit system as a component of the overall transportation network. Understanding  traffic  impacts  becomes  even  more  important  as  budgets  for  public  facility  and  infrastructure  improvements become increasingly strained.  It is important to ensure that the evaluation of the traffic  impacts includes a multi‐modal aspect to help expand the capacity of the existing roadway system.  In a community like Collier County, there are considerable numbers of elderly and young residents that  do not have access to a vehicle and may be willing to use public transportation.  The community has a  very seasonal population that are used to public transportation as an option in the communities that they  are visiting from or would like the option of a transit system to take them to destinations they are not  familiar with.  The Collier County, Cities of Marco Island, Naples & Everglades Growth Management Plans  and land development regulations do not contemplate transit impacts during the typical transportation  impact statement review.  Without this alternative mode being considered as an option during the  development process, the transit agency is faced with finding a way to accommodate the demand after  the fact and without the necessary resources.  The PTNE Division would like to have a study which assesses the effects that a development’s traffic will  have on the transit network in the community and provide criteria for determining the capital or operating  improvements required to the transit system in the form of stop improvements, route modifications or  9.A.1 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Request for Proposal and Scope of Work (8198 : Approval of a Work Order for Tindale Oliver Associates to prepare the Transit additions based on the defined impacts.  By preparing this study the transit system will be provided the  nexus required to include measurable Goals, Objectives and policies in the Growth Management Plan and  applicable land development codes to support the need to conduct a Transit Impact Analysis prior to  approving  future  developments  inclusive  of  the  incorporated  and  unincorporated  areas  of  Collier  County.  The study will help answer the questions of the implications of land use decisions on the transit  system.   The  responsibility  to  upgrade  transit  network  and  associated  amenities  in  conjunction  with  new  development is currently the sole responsibility of the Transit agency. Yet Transit agencies often lack  funding for improvements necessary to keep pace with development.   This study should provide information and analysis that can be used to develop funding strategies for the  benefit of enhancing transit to meet the development demands.  These funding strategies may include  the development of parameters that can be applied to developments based on the land use being  developed (residential units; commercial use; # of jobs generated; etc.) to determine the improvement  that would be needed to support the impact (bus route; bus stop/shelter; park‐n‐ride lot; etc.).  The  funding strategies could also include the establishment of funding sources that could support improving  the  “backlog”  of  operational  improvements  and  infrastructure  as well as new improvements/  infrastructure.  The research for the development of funding strategies should include an evaluation of  what other Counties/Transit Agencies are doing within this realm.   SCOPE OF SERVICES  The following tasks are requested as part of this scope and will correspond with the project schedule and  budget:  1. A kick‐off meeting will be held via conference call. The kick‐off meeting will confirm project  objectives, schedule, and deliverables. The meeting will also provide an opportunity to introduce staff  and identify roles and responsibilities for this project.  2. Data Collection and analysis.  Data shall be collected of the transit service (system coverage, hours  of operations; headways; etc.) and cost; existing development and associated transit uses; analysis of  enhanced transit service and anticipate cost increase; anticipated components of capital cost increase  based  on  added  service  (buses/bus  stops/shelters,  transfer  stations,  park‐n‐ride  facilities,  fleet  maintenance etc.); and any other data and analysis needed to develop transit planning parameters to  be utilized during the development review to identify the impact on transit.  The data collected should  also be usable to develop a nexus for the potential establishment funding strategies for transit.  If a  fee structure is contemplated the nexus could be structured in a way that for the desired development  pattern being proposed, the amount of Transportation impact fee would be lower and/or transferred  to promote transit development rather than adding another fee.   Conversely,  if  the  proposed  development is low density urban sprawl or in a rural area where it would be more expensive to  provide transit service, the fee would be higher.  The Consultant should develop a standard where trip generation rates and trip reduction factors  include  calculations  whereby  if  Transit  is  introduced  along  a  corridor  adjacent  to  the  proposed  development what impacts that would have on their traffic impact statement and what contributions  to the service the development would be required to make; and determine how to obtain funding  9.A.1 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Request for Proposal and Scope of Work (8198 : Approval of a Work Order for Tindale Oliver Associates to prepare the Transit from existing developments that already impact transit and as a result, require implementation of  enhanced service to improve the service delivery to that area.  3. Prepare draft findings and analysis.  A draft report of the findings, analysis and recommendation  for the Transit parameters, impact assessment and mobility nexus should be prepared and presented  to  staff  for  they  review  and  comments.    The  document  shall  be  modified  to  incorporate  staff  comments and input where applicable.  4. Conduct two public involvement workshops and two charrette type sessions.  Workshop  notices will be prepared along with e‐mail communications for CAT and the Collier Metropolitan  Planning Organization (MPO) to distribute and advertise as appropriate. The consultant will prepare  information  for  dissemination  and  present  the  proposed  Transit impact  analysis  and  funding  strategies to the public. The Consultant will work with CAT to ensure that workshop materials are  multi‐lingual  and  persons  at  the  workshop  have  access  to  multi‐lingual  staff  for  information  dissemination and questions in accordance with the Collier MPO Limited English Proficiency (LEP)  Plan.  Two Charrette style sessions shall be conducted with invitations to developers; major employers; and  others that might be impacted by new regulations to incorporate transit in the development process  in an effort to receive their feedback.  The input received from these sessions should be considered  and incorporated into the report.  5. Prepare  documentation  and  present  to  committees/boards. A  final  draft  report  will  be  prepared to include all analysis; public, developer and employers’ comments; and a recommendation  for how Transit should be included in the development review process, including the implementation  of any funding strategies proposed.  Staff will be allotted a minimum of two weeks to review the final  draft  and  provide  comments  back  to  the  Consultant  for  incorporation  into  a  final  report.   Presentations will be given based on direction from CAT.  It is anticipated that these presentations  will  be  given  to  the  Development  Services  Advisory  Committee,  the  Collier  County  Planning  Commission, the Public Transit Advisory Committee (PTAC), the MPO Technical Advisory Committee  (TAC), the Collier MPO Board, and the Collier County Board of County Commission.    The consultant should be prepared to include County stakeholders throughout the process, including  Comprehensive Planning and Transportation Planning. Any other tasks respondents to this scope of  services believe are necessary to produce the best quality report and analysis should be included in the  proposal.  This scope of work will be completed within 6 months and a schedule identifying individual  tasks is to be provided.  9.A.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Request for Proposal and Scope of Work (8198 : Approval of a Work Order for Tindale Oliver Associates to prepare the Transit GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. www.tindaleoliver.com TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE Headquarters 1000 N. Ashley Dr. | Suite 400 | Tampa, FL 33602 | (813) 224-8862 | Fax (813) 226-2106 Collier County MPO Transit Impact Analysis Scope of Services Since formally launching fixed-route bus service nearly 20 years ago, Collier Area Transit (CAT) has gradually become a more significant component of the transportation system in Collier County with its 19 bus routes and nearly 1 million annual trips in 2017. As transit service has grown, so has the need for finding new revenue sources to support both transit infrastructure and operations. This need led to a Request for Proposals to conduct a Transit Impact Analysis and identify opportunities for supporting and advancing transit revenue and development review solutions in Collier County. This Scope of Services consists of five tasks summarizing the approach for completing this work effort. Task 1: Kick-off Meeting and Project Management Tindale Oliver will develop and transmit a draft Project Management Plan (PMP), which includes the following elements: • Summary of key high-level project objectives. • Detailed project schedule, including deliverable dates with internal and client review timeframes and Board/Commission/committee presentation dates and corresponding agenda packet due dates. • Project communication plan including recommended status meetings/call schedule and progress report format. • QA/QC plan and technical reviewer assignments by subject area. • Project Public Involvement Plan (PIP), including recommended public workshop and charette formats. The PMP will be submitted prior to the kick-off meeting, which will be held via conference call to confirm project objectives, schedule, and deliverables. The meeting will also provide an opportunity to introduce staff and identify roles and responsibilities for this project. During the kick-off meeting, the draft PMP will serve to guide the agenda and will be finalized and resubmitted following the call. The kick-off meeting will also provide the opportunity to finalize the list of MPO/County stakeholders that will serve as advisors and reviewers (Project Management Team) of interim and final deliverables. Project coordination calls will be held as needed (approximately twice a month) and will include a brief agenda and written follow-up summary. A workshop meeting will be held following submittal of the Draft Report of Findings and Analysis to gather input and strategize next steps. Task 2: Data Collection and Analysis Tindale Oliver will develop and submit a draft Data Needs Memorandum prior to the kick-off meeting, indicating which data the firm has available in-house or can acquire independently and which data the County/MPO will need to provide. Review of this during the kick-off meeting will help to maintain the project schedule. 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Tindale Oliver Proposal (8198 : Approval of a Work Order for Tindale Oliver Associates to prepare the Transit Impact Analysis) GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 2 of # www.tindaleoliver.com TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE Headquarters 1000 N. Ashley Dr. | Suite 400 | Tampa, FL 33602 | (813) 224-8862 | Fax (813) 226-2106 The first part of this task will include a review/analysis of transit parameters related to: • Existing transit service (system coverage, hours of operations; headways; etc.) • Transit operating and capital costs and funding sources • Land use considerations, such as existing development and associated transit uses. • Review of planned transit service enhancements and anticipated operating and capital cost impacts (e.g., buses/bus stops/shelters, transfer stations, park-n-ride facilities, fleet maintenance etc.). • Any other data and analysis needed to develop transit planning parameters to be utilized during the development review to identify the impact on transit. The data collected will be used to develop a nexus for the potential establishment funding strategies for transit. Prior to moving forward with further analysis, a conference call with County/MPO staff will be held to discuss potential recommendations for adjusting mobility impacts due to existing or planned transit service. As part of this task potential impact assessment approaches will also be explored. First, documentation of the County’s existing development process (piggy-backing on past work completed by Tindale Oliver) will be completed and potential changes necessary to integrate considerations for transit in the development review process will be explored. This effort will include developing a standard methodology for calculating trip generation rates and trip reduction factors for new development in the event transit is introduced along a corridor adjacent to the proposed development. This includes understanding what impacts transit service would have on their traffic impact statement and what contributions to the service new and existing development may be required to make for new and enhanced transit service. Task 3: Draft Report of Findings and Analysis Based on the data and analysis performed in the prior task and feedback from the MPO and County stakeholders under Task 4, Tindale Oliver will prepare a draft report of the findings, analysis and recommendation for the transit parameters, mobility nexus, and impact assessment. Key findings from the report will be presented to the Project Management Team for review and comment. A revised document shall incorporate Project Management Team and other staff comments and input where applicable. Task 4: Public Outreach Activities Effective public participation requires outreach, listening, education/collaboration, and consensus- building. Tindale Oliver will work with the Project Management Team to conduct outreach necessary to make the public aware of the project and inform them of upcoming outreach opportunities. These activities will include two (2) open-house style workshops and two (2) charrette-style sessions. It is assumed that the public workshops will be held on the same day and the charette-style sessions will be held on the same day (two trips total. Tindale Oliver will provide materials to Project Management Team for review and approval in advance of the outreach activities. 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Tindale Oliver Proposal (8198 : Approval of a Work Order for Tindale Oliver Associates to prepare the Transit Impact Analysis) GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 3 of # www.tindaleoliver.com TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE Headquarters 1000 N. Ashley Dr. | Suite 400 | Tampa, FL 33602 | (813) 224-8862 | Fax (813) 226-2106 For the two (2) public workshops, Tindale Oliver will prepare notices along with e-mail communications for CAT and the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to distribute and advertise as appropriate. The workshop material will focus on presenting to the public key findings from transit impact analysis and proposed funding strategies from Task 2. The Consultant will work with CAT staff to ensure that workshop materials are multi-lingual and persons at the workshop have access to multi-lingual staff for information dissemination and questions in accordance with the Collier MPO’s Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan. The two (2) charrette-style sessions will be invitation only and include developers, major employers, and others that might be impacted by new regulations to incorporate transit in the development process in an effort to receive their feedback regarding the mobility nexus and impact assessment concepts developed under Task 2. The input received from these sessions will be considered and incorporated into the draft report. Task 5: Final Documentation and Presentations Following the workshop and charrette process, Tindale Oliver will synthesize findings and make recommendations to revise the draft recommendations for consideration by the Project Management Team. Following review and comment, a final written report will be prepared. The final report will include necessary technical appendices, an executive summary, short and long-form companion presentations, and an implementation matrix identifying short-, medium-, and longer-term strategies and implementation mechanisms (e.g., Development Review Procedures, Land Development Code, Comprehensive Plan). The Project Management Team will have a minimum of two weeks to review the final draft and provide comments back to Tindale Oliver for incorporation into a final report. This task includes a total of six (6) presentations to be assigned at the discretion of the Project Management Team. Up to six (6) presentations at the direction of the Project Management Team will be given to the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC), the Collier County Planning Commission, the Public Transit Advisory Committee (PTAC), the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the Collier MPO Board, and the Collier County Board of County Commission. Budget The tasks described above shall be completed for a Lump Sum fee of $123,040 as detailed in Attachment A. Schedule The tasks described above shall be completed within 6 Months of Notice to Proceed. A detailed schedule with interim deliverable submittal and review timeframes will be prepared and provided as part of Task 1. 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Tindale Oliver Proposal (8198 : Approval of a Work Order for Tindale Oliver Associates to prepare the Transit Impact Analysis) GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 4 of # www.tindaleoliver.com TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE Headquarters 1000 N. Ashley Dr. | Suite 400 | Tampa, FL 33602 | (813) 224-8862 | Fax (813) 226-2106 Task Nbr Task Description Budget Percent of Total Task 1 Kick-off Meeting & Project Management $ 12,960 10.5% Task 2 Data Collection and Anlaysis $ 37,360 30.4% Task 3 Draft Report of Findings and Analysis $ 21,860 17.8% Task 4 Public Outreach Activities $ 25,280 20.5% Task 5 Final Report and Presentations $ 25,580 20.8% Task 6 Task6 $ - 0.0% Task 7 Task7 $ - 0.0% Task 8 Task8 $ - 0.0% Task 9 Task9 $ - 0.0% 123,040$ 100.0% Project Budget Total ATTACHMENT A Transit Impact Assessment Collier MPO General Planning Services Contract #16-6562 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Tindale Oliver Proposal (8198 : Approval of a Work Order for Tindale Oliver Associates to prepare the Transit Impact Analysis) 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Work Order (8198 : Approval of a Work Order for Tindale Oliver Associates to prepare the Transit Impact Analysis) 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Work Order (8198 : Approval of a Work Order for Tindale Oliver Associates to prepare the Transit Impact Analysis) 03/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., for professional consulting services in the amount of $599,006 and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached agreement. OBJECTIVE: To procure professional consulting services to prepare the 2045 LRTP on behalf of the Collier MPO prior to the deadline of December 11, 2020. CONSIDERATIONS: The MPO is required to complete a LRTP to receive federal funds. The LRTP is updated every five years and must maintain a minimum time horizon of 20 years to be in federal compliance. The 2040 LRTP was adopted in December 2015; therefore the 2045 LRTP must be adopted by December 2020. The previous LRTP update took two years to complete. The Collier MPO has completed the selection process for the 2045 LRTP. On November 9, 2018, the MPO Board accepted the selection committee’s ranking and authorized staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked firm, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., for the 2045 LRTP. In accordance with the Consultant’s Competitive Negotiation Act, Florida Statutes §287.055, staff negotiated and reached a proposed agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., in the total amount of $599,006, which includes optional services, for professional consulting services to complete the 2045 LRTP. See Attachment 1. That amount includes a base cost of $500,406 and optional services of $98,600. There is approximately $461,000 in funding identified for the LRTP expected to be available. MPO staff has been in discussion with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to allow use of SU funding to cover the shortfall. In the event that SU funding is not available, Federal Highway Planning (PL) funding will be reallocated to cover the shortfall of the base cost ($39,406) and the optional services will not be requested. Since the LRTP will be funded with both PL funding and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5305 funding, the contract has been sent to the FDOT Collier MPO Liaison and the FDOT Transit Project Coordinator for approval. Staff will present any comments received from the Department at the March 8 th MPO Board meeting. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) previously approved the scope of services. Contracting matters are not taken to the advisory committees. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the award of Agreement No. 18-7408 to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. for professional consulting services to complete the 2045 LRTP and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached agreement. Prepared By: Brandy Otero, MPO Senior Planner ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Agreement 18-7408 (PDF) 9.B Packet Pg. 52 03/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 9.B Doc ID: 8199 Item Summary: Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., for professional consulting services in the amount of $599,006 and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached agreement. Meeting Date: 03/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 02/28/2019 11:08 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 02/28/2019 11:08 AM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 02/28/2019 12:44 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 02/28/2019 2:07 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 03/08/2019 9:00 AM 9.B Packet Pg. 53 9.B.1Packet Pg. 54Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 55Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 56Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 57Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 58Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 59Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 60Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 61Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 62Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 63Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 64Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 65Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 66Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 67Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 68Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 69Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 70Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 71Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 72Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 73Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 74Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 75Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 76Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 77Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 78Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 79Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 80Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 81Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 82Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 83Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 84Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 85Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 86Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 87Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 88Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 89Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 90Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 91Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 92Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 93Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 94Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 95Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 96Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 97Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 98Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 99Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 100Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 101Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 102Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 103Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 104Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 105Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 106Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 107Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 108Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 109Attachment: Agreement 18-7408 (8199 : Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7408, 2045 LRTP, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) 03/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. CONSIDERATIONS: MPO staff and the project consultant, Tindale Oliver, Associates, have completed extensive revisions to the initial draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) released in August 2018. Beginning in October 2018, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) received monthly updates on the mapping and analysis underway and provided comments as revisions were introduced. The result is a Plan that has been thoroughly researched and analyzed, addresses public comments, and incorporates local agency plans and input received from local advocacy groups in addition to comments from technical staff and MPO advisory committees. Policies - One of the larger shifts in policy is the more proactive approach to Complete Streets which stemmed from the Board of County Commissioners approving a Complete Streets Resolution. The Plan recommends conducting a number of Complete Streets and Corridor Safety Studies in coordination with FDOT and local entities and bringing forward for Board approval the recommendations contained in completed Road Safety Audits so they can be implemented. Flexibility - The Plan is designed to provide implementing agencies maximum flexibility in bringing projects forward for funding. The Plan identifies regional network priorities to attain the vision of an interconnected network but also recognizes the need to fund improvements on local, residential roads. The design guidelines are a new feature. They are meant to serve as guidance rather than as directives because each project will have unique characteristics that must be studied and addressed. The policy statements address the MPO’s role in prioritizing projects for state and federal funding while encompassing the adopted plans of member entities. The Plan may be amended and updated as needed to address unforeseen opportunities or to resolve issues that are preventing or delaying Plan implementation. Any amendments or updates would be in addition to the planned update in five years. Public Comment - Several hundred public comments were received and are incorporated into the plan. Examples include the proposed enhanced facilities on arterial and collector roadways, which are based on a combination of technical analysis and public comment; the development of greenways; and the expanded consideration of sidewalks on local roads which now include sidewalks that are most proximate to schools, transit stops and areas of Environmental Justice. Inventory and Technical Analysis - The Plan’s inventory of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure represents a major accomplishment resulting from the collaboration between the City of Naples, Naples Pathways Coalition and the MPO on producing the Naples Bicycle and Tourism map that was published in the Fall of 2018. In order to be cost effective, improving the accuracy of the data and keeping up with new construction will require an ongoing commitment and collaboration on the part of all parties involved, particularly as new projects come on-line. Additional refinements were made to the inventory after the August draft and the GIS overlay analyses were redone, essentially repeating the original technical analysis with refined spatial data. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee endorsed the Plan on the 19th of February; the Technical Advisory Committee and the Citizens Advisory Committee 9.C Packet Pg. 110 03/08/2019 both endorsed the Plan on February 25, 2019. Collectively, the committees’ endorsement was subject to incorporating the following changes/revisions into the document which are listed below. • Accept the recommendations of the Conservancy of SW Florida - remove Rookery Bay Trail alignment from SunTrail alignment; do not expand existing paved areas for bike/ped accommodations on Collier Blvd from US 41 to Jolley Bridge, Shell Island Rd, Isle of Capri s Rd and Goodland Rd; minimize expansion of pavement to accommodate bike lanes on San Marco Rd from Marco Island to US 41; and request Conservancy review and concurrence • Bring cost estimates up-to-date in Tables 13-14 on pages 47-48 • Revise illustrative cross sections on pages 67-68 to delete driving lane widths and references to speeds. • Minor corrections to correct scriveners’ errors. The Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in Attachment 1 incorporates all of the revisions requested by the MPO’s advisory committees. Subsequent to their inclusion, staff has reviewed a technical edit prepared by Tindale Oliver, Associates, but has not yet had time to incorporate the edits in the draft for Board review. The additional edits are also scriveners’ errors and will not change the substance of the Plan but will improve the overall quality of the final product. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the MPO Board adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and grant staff the authority to make minor technical edits prior to distribution and posting of the final, adopted document. Prepared by: Eric Ortman, MPO Senior Planner ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (PDF) 9.C Packet Pg. 111 03/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 9.C Doc ID: 8214 Item Summary: Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Meeting Date: 03/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 02/28/2019 2:33 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 02/28/2019 2:33 PM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 02/28/2019 2:38 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 02/28/2019 2:40 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 03/08/2019 9:00 AM 9.C Packet Pg. 112 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) Photo Credit: Naples Pathways CoalitionPhoto Credit: Naples Pathways Coalition 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) CHAPTERS PAGE Acknowledgements………….……………...……..……………………………………….……………………………………………………`0 Executive Summary………...………..…………………………...…………...…………......………..………….…………………………i Chapter 1 ‐ Existing Conditions....…………..………………..………………………………………………………………………..……1 Chapter 2 ‐ Safety Crash Data Analysis..……….……………………………………………………………………………………..…7 Chapter 3 ‐ Community Engagement.………………….…………………….………………………………………………………..…18 Chapter 4 ‐ Vision, Goals and Objectives..….….………….………………………………….…………………….……………..… 22 Chapter 5 ‐ Needs Analysis...…….………….……..……...………….………………………….……..………….………….………..…27 Chapter 6 ‐ Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Guidelines..….………...…….…....……..……..……….………..…49 Chapter 7 ‐ Policies and Implementation.........……………...…..….………….…….……………………...………………..… 69 KEY FIGURES  Figure 1 ‐ Existing Facilties Inventory….….…....………………..……………….…...…………………..…….…….…………..…2 Figure 2 ‐ Environmental Justice (EJ) Communities....……………….……………….……………….……………………..……4 Figure 5 ‐ Major Arterials and Collectors in Collier County..…….…...……….…………………………………………..… 9 Figure 6 ‐ FDOT High Crash Locations...……..……….………………………………………………………………………………..…11 Figure 13 ‐ Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Gaps Overlapped with Public Comment.....…….…………………..…30 Figure 14 ‐ SunTrail Alignments and Spine Corridor Pathways.....…….…………….…...….….....………………..……34 Figure 17 ‐ Existing + Proposed Facilities………………………………………………..……..……………………….……..………37 Figure 18 ‐ Sidewalk Segments ‐ Transit Proximity and EJ...……..……..………………………………………………..……40 Figure 19 ‐ Sidewalk Segments ‐ School Proximity and EJ........………………………………………..……..………..……41 Figure 20 ‐ Sidewalk Segments ‐ Transit and School Proximity and EJ.....……………….………………….……..……42 Figure 21 ‐ Marco Island Bike Path Master Plan....…………………..…………...….………………………………………..… 44 Figure 22 ‐ Naples Priority Sidewalk Projects……………………………………………….…………………………………………46 Figure 24 ‐ NACTO Guidance for Selecting Appropriate Bicycle Facilities…………….…………...……………..…… 51 Figure 42 ‐ High Speed Two‐Lane Rural Highway.....…...…………………..………………...….…………….…………..……67 Figure 43 ‐ High Speed Multi‐Lane with  Shared Use Paths and Protected Bike Lanes........……………..………67 Figure 44 ‐ High Speed Multi‐Lane with Shared Use Paths and Buffered Bike Lanes..…….………………..…… 68 Figure 45 ‐ High Speed Multi Lane with Shared Use Path, 1 Sidewalk, 2 Standard Bike Lanes..………..…… 68 Figure 46 ‐ High Speed Multi Lane with Standard Sidewalks and Bike Lanes Both Sides.....……………..………68 Figure 47 ‐  Complete Streets and Safety Corridors……………………………………………………..…………………..……71 Figure 48 ‐ Collier MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy Zones..…….…..………………………………………………..……72 KEY TABLES Table 6 ‐ Goals and Strategies…………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………22 Table 7 ‐ Network Gaps ‐ Facility Needs.......…………………………….…….…...……………………………….…………..……28 Table 8 ‐ Complete Streets ‐ Safety Corridor Studies..…...…..…………………………..…...………….……….……..……29 Table 9 ‐ Prioritized Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.....………………………………….………………………………..……31 Table 10 ‐ Prioritized Spine Pathway Projects..……………………….………….………………..……………....…………..……33 Table 11 ‐ Prioritization Criteria for Use on Local Roads or Local Agency ……..……………………………………… 38 Table 19 ‐ Naples Priority Bicycle Pathways ‐ 5 Years Goals & Objectives………………………………………………45 Table 17 ‐ Collier MPO Design Guidelines Summary Chart…..……………………..………………………………..…………66 TABLE OF CONTENTS 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) APPENDICES Appendix 1 ‐ Environmental Justice (EJ) Methodology………..…………………….………………………………………..…1 Appendix 2 ‐ Naples 2013 Bike Ped Master Plan Update…………..……………...……………………..………….……..…3 Appendix 3 ‐ 2018 Marco Island Bike Path Master Plan…………..……………...……………………..…………..………..27 Appendix 4 ‐ Public Outreach Tools…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……28 Appendix 5 ‐ Public Comments ‐ Outreach and at MPO Office………………………………………………………..………86 Appendix 6 ‐ Wiki Maps…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………180 Appendix 7 Survey Form, Results, Comments……………………………………………………………………………..…………197 Appendix 8 ‐ Advisory Committee/Collier County Transportation Planning Comments………….……..………235 Appendix 9 ‐ Stakeholder Comments……………………………………………………………………….…………………...…..… 285 Appendix 10 ‐ Arterial and Collector Gaps…………………………………………………………………………………...…………293 Appendix 11 ‐ Walkable Community Studies Tier 1………………………………………………………………………………. 311 Appendix 12 ‐ Local Road Sidewalks ………………………………………………………………………………………………..……313 Appendix 13 ‐ MPO Resolution 2010‐05…………………………………………………………………………………………………322 TABLE OF CONTENTS 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) has been financed in part through grants from the Federal  Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration and the U.S. Department of Transportation,  under the Metropolitan Planning Program, Sections 134 and 135 of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this  report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.  The BPMP was made possible by the leadership of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),  the MPO staff, MPO advisory committees, BPMP Stakeholder Committee and the members of the public  who commented on various drafts of the Plan.  COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION  Commissioner Reg Buxton, City of Naples, MPO Chair   Collier County  Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt, Esq., Vice‐Chair   Commissioner Donna Fiala Commission Penny Taylor           Collier County Collier County  Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. Councilman Terry Hutchison   Collier County              City of Naples  Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Councilwoman Charlette Roman            Collier County  City of Marco Island  Commissioner Burt L. Saunders    Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt, Esq.            Collier County  City of Everglades City  MPO Project Staff  Anne McLaughlin, Executive Director  Eric Ortman, Project Manager  Karen Intriago, GIS  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)     Tindale Oliver, Associates  Wally Blain, AICP, Senior Project Manager  Jennifer V. Bartlett, AICP, LEED AP, Project Manager  Sara Goolsby, GIS    Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee  Joe Bonness, Chair  Anthony Matonti, Vice Chair  Jane Cheffy  Dayna Fendrick  Dr. Mort Friedman  Andrea Halman  Victor Ordija  Alan Musico  Reginald Wilson    Citizens Advisory Committee  Gary Shirk, Chair  Karen Homiak, Vice Chair  Robert Anderson  Pam Brown  Suzanne Cross  Neal Gelfand  Rick Hart  Susan Jones  Tammie Pernas  Robert Phelan  Josh Rincon  William Stephens  Russell Tuff       9.C.1 Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)     Technical Advisory Committee  Voting Members  Lorraine Lantz, Chair, Collier County Transportation Planning  Tim Brock, Vice Chair, City of Everglades City  Michelle Arnold, Collier County Public Transportation & Neighborhood Enhancement  Dan Hall, Collier County Traffic Operations  Andy Holland, City of Naples Planning   Justin Lobb, Collier County Airport Authority  Tim Pinter, City of Marco Island Public Works  Don Scott, Lee County MPO  Daniel James Smith, AICP, City of Marco Island Planning  Alison Beckett, City of Naples Streets and Drainage  Ute Vandersluis, City of Naples Airport Authority  Non‐Voting Members  David Ogilvie, Collier County Public Schools  April Olson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida  David Agacinski, FDOT    Stakeholders Committee  Joe Adams, BPAC, former member  Michelle Avola‐Reese, Naples Pathways Coalition  Beth Brainard, Naples Pathways Coalition  Jessica AyersCrane, Blue Zones  Debra Forester, Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency  Patty Huff, Citizen  Anita Jenkins, Collier County Transportation Planning   Robert Jones, CAC, former member  Matthew Liveringhouse, Collier Public Transportation & Neighborhood Enhancement  Wendy Olson, BPAC, former member  Wayne Sherman, CAC, former member  Patricia Spencer, Golden Gate Civic Association  Fred Thomas, CAC former member  Cherryl Thomas, Citizen  Barry Williams, Collier County Parks and Recreation      It is the policy of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization to support and encourage public  involvement and to adhere to the principles of Environmental Justice in the planning process relating to  transportation systems and facilities. The MPO’s public participation policy is designed to ensure  opportunities for the public to express its views on transportation and mobility issues and to become  active participants in the decision‐making process.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)   i      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   Introduction  Prior to this Plan, bicycle and pedestrian facility plans were referred to as “Comprehensive Pathway Plans.”  MPO staff suggested changing the title to Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to bring the document’s title  more in‐line with State and Federal transportation funding categories. “Pathway” is an undefined term in  the transportation planning lexicon. The term “pathways” brings to mind a winding path through the woods,  or a garden path of flagstones. The term conveys neither the complex, technical requirements nor the  critical role bicycle and pedestrian facilities provide related to multimodal transportation.      The Collier MPO developed its first Comprehensive Pathways Plan in 1994 to establish a basis for an  organized and strategic approach to developing a bicycle and pedestrian system in Collier County. The MPO  conducted a major update to the Plan in 2006, introducing Best Practices and using a Level of Service (LOS)  methodology to identify needs. Due to the complex statistical nature of the LOS methodology, staff and the  Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) (formerly called the Pathways Advisory Committee)  found it difficult to manipulate the model and make adjustments. The Comprehensive Pathways Plan  adopted in 2012 replaced the LOS methodology with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis using a  series of overlays.  This Plan continues that practice, expanding the GIS database and overlays to include  public input in evaluating and prioritizing network connections.    Purpose  The purpose of this Plan is to build on prior efforts to develop a fist‐class bicycle and pedestrian network  throughout Collier County. This Plan is not intended to duplicate or conflict with existing local plans and  ongoing  bicycle  and  pedestrian  projects,  but  rather,  to  unify  planning  efforts  and  influence  facility  improvement priorities at the county level.    Vision  The Plan’s Vision, Goals, Objectives and Strategies were developed with input from the MPO’s advisory  committees, the BPMP Stakeholders group, MPO staff and the consultant and vetted by the MPO Board.  The Vision combines an emphasis on safety with creating a network for the community to use and enjoy:    To provide a safe and comprehensive   bicycle and pedestrian network   that promotes and encourages   community use and enjoyment.    Goals and Strategies  The Goals and Strategies were developed by reviewing local, state and national Best Practices and goals in  similar plans including the 2012 Comprehensive Pathways Plan. (See Chapter 4, p22, Table 6). Though  similar to the previous plan, Safety, Equity and Community Health have received greater emphasis in 2019.   9.C.1 Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)   ii      Planning Process  The Plan took approximately 1 ½ years to complete. The process began with a Kick‐off meeting held on  October 30, 2017 and ended with adoption by the MPO Board on March 8, 2019 [TBD].  Several of the MPO’s  longstanding advisory committees were directly involved throughout the process – the Citizens Advisory  Committee, Technical Advisory Committee and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. In addition, the  MPO reached out to a group of Stakeholders that expanded the representation to include other agency  staff, nonprofit groups and members of the public who had expressed an interest in working on the Plan.     MPO staff and the consultant engaged in a robust and multifaceted public outreach campaign that attracted  300+ online comments on an interactive map posted on the MPO’s website and another 300+ comments  via completed online surveys. The project team hosted 2 stakeholder meetings, 12 community events, 2  public open houses and presented updates and sought input at numerous advisory committee meetings.  MPO staff and the consultant gave presentations to the MPO Board as progress on major milestones were  met. (See Chapter 3 on Community Engagement.)    As with all major planning efforts, this Plan evolved over time slowly at first, then rapidly gaining momentum  through a reiterative process invo lving gathering and analyzing existing conditions, inviting public comment,  developing a vision and goals towards identifying a preferred future network. That network was then  evaluated against criteria developed specifically for this Plan – such as safety, equity, connectivity, and  opportunities available for funding. The planning process constantly looped back through public comment  and data analysis to derive additional guidance in the form of investment policies, planning policies and  design guidelines. The planning process had to remain flexible enough to periodically expand to incorporate  recommendations arising from other local initiatives that were underway – such as the City of Naples  Downtown Circulation and Connectivity Plan adopted in April 2018 and the Board of County Commissioner’s  adoption  of  a  Complete  Streets  Resolution  and  Policy  in  January  2019.  The  process  adjusted  to  accommodate the Naples Pathway Coalition’s nascent Spine Trail Vision map revealed in January 2019 and  a late arriving request from the City of Naples and Collier County’s Parks and Recreation to incorporate a  proposed pedestrian bridge connecting the Gordon River Greenway with Freedom Park across the Golden  Gate Parkway. MPO staff’s desire to expand the SunTrail network necessitated additional public comment  and coordination among staff, the Naples Pathways Coalition, the Conservancy of SW Florida and the MPO’s  advisory committees in January and February 2019. (See Chapter 5 Needs Analysis.)  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)   iii      Major Components of the Plan  The major components of the Plan are readily identifiable in the Table of Contents. What follows is a high‐ level summary:     Existing Conditions: Every new plan establishes a benchmark when it comes to inventorying existing  facilities, and this Plan is no exception. The GIS database provides an excellent starting place for  measuring performance and identifying needs when the next update occurs.     Public Input: This Plan broke new ground for the Collier MPO by actual mapping of public comments  regarding network needs in GIS and including public input as an evaluation measure for identifying  high priority projects.     Vision,  Goals,  Objectives  &  Strategies: These  elements  grew  out  of  advisory  committee  participation and public comments. The project team referred constantly back to this section as a  guide throughout the development of the Plan.     Needs Analysis: This proved to be the most iterative component of the Plan, as Needs were  constantly evaluated against the goals of Equity, Safety, Network Connectivity and funneled through  additional review incorporating public comments, roadway capacity projects identified in the 2040  Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Plan’s design guidelines and evolving policy statements.    The Needs Analysis (Chapter 5) resulted in the selection of several groups of priority projects.  Projects within each group were not prioritized to provide implementing agencies greater flexibility  in selecting projects. The projects may require further review and study before proceeding. The  prioritized groups include:     Complete Streets/Safety Corridor Studies for high crash locations on arterial and collector  roadways   Bicycle and pedestrian facility gaps on arterial and collector roadways   Shared Use Path facility gaps   Sidewalks on local roads     Design Guidelines: The advisory committees urged the project team to develop design guidelines  customized for the MPO’s jurisdiction. The Plan coalesced quickly around the concept of designing  for All Ages and Abilities as promoted by the National Association of City Traffic Officials (NACTO)  and Complete Streets and Context Classification guidance provided by the Florida Department of  Transportation (FDOT). While it may sound simple to address, this was challenging due to great  differences in scale between the road networks serving the incorporated cities of Naples, Marco  Island and Everglades City and the road network serving unincorporated Collier County. Additional   complicating factors were the difference in posted and/or target speeds, vast differences in the  amount of traffic the roadways carry on a daily basis, and the differing amounts of commercial  vehicle  usage.  The  Design  Guidelines  Matrix  in  Chapter  6  is  a  first‐generation  attempt  at  customization to fit Collier County that will undoubtedly require adjustment over time. But it  provides an essential starting point.    9.C.1 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)   iv       Policies: The Plan establishes policies pertaining to including bicycle and pedestrian facilities along  all collector and arterial roads; formalizes the applicability of the Design Guidelines; adopts FDOT’s  Complete Streets policy, identifies high priority Complete Streets Corridors and establishes MPO  priorities for funding improvements. The policies also commit MPO staff to reporting to the MPO  Board on performance measures and targets on an annual basis.     Appendices: The appendices contain a compendium of advisory committee and public comments  and the tools used in developing the Plan, such as the on‐line survey and interactive Wiki map.                      9.C.1 Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    1    CHAPTER 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS   This chapter provides an overview of existing conditions in Collier County, particularly as they relate to  the bicycle and pedestrian network and the people who use the network. Figure 1 on the following page  shows the MPO’s 2018 updated inventory of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Collier County.   Demographics  Collier is the largest county in Florida by land area and had a 2016 American Community Survey (ACS)  population estimate of 348,236. There are three cities in the county: City of Everglades City, City of Marco  Island and City of Naples. There are also multiple Census Designated Places (CDP) within unincorporated  Collier County. Demographics for the three cities as well as three of the largest CDPs – Immokalee, Golden  Gate  City  and  Naples  Manor  –  were  compared  with  each  other,  the  county  and  the  state.    The county’s population is socio‐economically diverse. The average household income is higher than that  of Florida, and the percent of people living below the poverty level is lower than Florida. However, there  are areas within Collier County—including Golden Gate City, Immokalee, and Naples Manor—where  incomes are significantly lower, levels of poverty are significantly higher, and more people are without  access to a vehicle than county or Florida averages as shown in Table 1. The people who live and work in  these areas tend to be greater users of the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit networks. Collier also has many  seasonal residents and visitors who, as part of their daily lives, also bike and walk for recreation, to run  errands, and for transportation to and from local destinations.     Table 1‐ Vehicle Availability, Income, Means of Transportation to Work 1  Area  Percent of  Population with  No Vehicle  Available  Percent of  Population  Who Walk,  Bike, or Use  Public  Transportation  to Get to Work  Percent of  Individuals with  Incomes in the Last  12 Months Below  Poverty Level   Mean  Household  Income   Florida  3%   2%   16%  $69,936  Collier County 5% 6% 13% $98,115  Everglades City  4%   5%  11%  $57,739  Marco Island 6%  6% 8%     $119,571  Naples  2%   7%  9%      $173,790  Golden Gate City 13%  5% 23% $52,759  Immokalee  24%  32%  44%  $38,071  Naples Manor 16%  8% 25% $56,339                                                               1 US Census, American Community Survey, 2016 5‐year estimates, Tables S0802, B08101, B17001, DP03  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) EVERGLADES BLVD NWILSON BLVD NSR 29TAMIAMI T R L E OIL WELL RD IMMOKALEE RD CR 846 ESR 29 NSAN MARCO RDCOLLIER BLVDLIVINGSTON RD NGOLDEN GATE PKWY PINE RIDGE RD IMMOKALEE RD §¨¦75 §¨¦75 Legend Incorporated Municipalities Immokalee Urban Area Designated Bike Lane Low Speed/Low Volume Road Sharrow Environmental Lands Shared Use Path Greenway Paved Shoulder Connector Sidewalk Gulf of Mexico LEE Immokalee Marco Island Naples SAN MARCO RDN B A R F I E L D D R B A L D E A G L E D R N COLLIER BLVDS COLL IER BLVDS BARFIELD DRCOLLIER BLVDDOGWOO D D RKENDALL DRWINTERBERRY DR WHISKEY CREEK DR6TH AVE PELICAN ST G O O D L A N D D R SCOTT DRCOPPERFIELD CT SWALLOW AVE ELM CT WA T ER S IDE DRE INLET DRN BAHAMA A V E PO L Y N E S I A C T SAN M A R C O R D N BARFIELD D R Gulf of Mexico Marco Island Inset Figure 1: Existing Facilities Inventory Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan NE W M A R K E T R D W SR 2 9 CR 846 E LAKE TRAFFORD RD SR 29 NS 1ST STN 15TH STCR 846GOPHER RIDGE RDS 5TH STN 11TH STCARSON RDN 9TH STE MAIN ST S 9TH STN 18TH STWESTCLOX ST STOCKADE RD AIRPARK BLVDS 4TH STLITTLE LEAGUE RD PALM DRMIRAHAM DR DILSA LNW MAIN ST OT T E R T R L WA S H I N G T O N A V E SR 2 9 CR 846 E Immokalee InsetCRAYTON RDLIVINGSTON RD S9TH ST N TA M I A M I T R L EGORDON DRDAVIS BLVDGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NTAMIAMI TRL NPINE RIDGE RD GOLDEN GATE PKWY 3RD ST SRADIO RD 5TH AVE S10TH ST NESTEY AVE THOMASSON DR 7TH AVE N NORTH RD PALM DR9TH ST S1ST AVE S G A L L E O N D R LAKEWOOD BLVDBELAIR LN2ND AVE N RUM ROW3RD AVE S 10TH AVE S 4TH AVE N 70TH ST SWGAIL BLVD 68TH ST SWALLEYIVY DR SEAGATE DR SANDPIPER ST8TH ST N18TH AVE S GIN LNGULF SHORE BLVD NPROGRESS AVE EXCHANGE AVE PALM STOUTRIGGER LNLONGBOAT DR HARBOUR DR ESTUARY DR TARPON RDDOMESTIC AVE RIDGE DR ARNOLD AVEYAHL STBROAD AVE S ALBI RDPIER ETAYLOR RD14TH ST NWEDGE DR BURNING TREE DRLINWOOD AVE 13TH AVE S FERN ST15TH AVE SWEST BLVDKINGS LAKE BLVD21ST AVE S BAYSHORE DRNAPLES BLVDRIVIERA DR BAILEY LN HAWAII BLVDPENNY LNEAST AVEPOINCIANA ST GLADES BLVD ENTERPRISE AVE TIVOLI DRORCHID DR BEECHWOOD LAKE DRROSE AVEKENSINGTON HIGH STVAN BUREN AVE 14TH AVE NCAPRI DRFUEL FARM RD PROSPECT AVE FOXTAIL CTPOMPEI LN PINE STBALD EAGLE DR ROBIN AVELEWIS LNG R E Y O A K S D R NEUROPA DRGARDENS BLVDOUTER DRRORDON AVE PARROT AVE KINGS WAYKAREN DRLANTERN LNGORDON STCURTIS STRIVERSIDE CIRCU T L A S S L N HOLLY AVE CURLEW AVE HAWKSRIDGE DR DIANA AVE SERRANO CIRTOWER DRSEMINOLE AVE B U L R U S H L N JEEPERS DR BAY PT 11TH ST N SEAGRAPE AVE PINE TREE DRS LAKE DRAV I A T I O N D R SHAWSER LNPREMIER WAYCOLONIAL DR WOODSIDE AVE PINE CT 12TH ST N11TH ST SMER I D I A N P LSEAGATE DRGULF SHORE BLVD N10TH ST NCRAYTON RDENTERPRISE AVE 14TH ST NPINE STCRAYTON RDLIVINGSTON RD S9TH ST NTA M I A M I T R L EGORDON DRDAVIS BLVDAIRPORT PULLING RD N5TH A V E SNORTH RDRUM ROW BALD EAGLE DR GREY OAKS DR N0 5 102.5 Miles¹ Gulf of Mexico Naples Inset Source: Collier MPO COP E L A N D A V E SCR 29COLLIER AVEPLANTATION PKWY SMALLWOOD DRCOPELAND AVE S Everglades City Inset Everglades City Page 2 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    3    The 2016 ACS lists 30 percent (30%) of Collier County’s residents as being age 65 and older compared to  19 percent (19%) for the State. As they become less comfortable with driving, they may increasingly use  the transit system or, with the appropriate infrastructure and proximity, could walk or bicycle to run  errands or get to appointments. Research has shown that people are willing to walk about ½ mile to a  transit stop, and access to convenient biking infrastructure can increase that travel distance to about 3  miles. This access can have far‐reaching impacts on personal and community quality of life and livability,  provide  better  access  to  jobs,  and  benefit  the  overall  financial  health  of  the  community.     As noted in the Collier MPO’s 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Collier County is one of the  fastest growing counties in the United States, with its population increasing seven‐fold between 1970 and  2010. Population projections forecast the addition of another 150,000 people by 2040, bringing the  population to almost 500,000. This forecasted growth in population will increase travel demand and likely  result in additional traffic congestion. Whereas widening roads to accommodate additional vehicle traffic  is one approach, continuing to build these roads to accommodate different modes of travel such as  bicycles and proactively planning bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are other important strategies.     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.  The EJ criteria used for this Plan 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. Figure 2 on the following page shows the results of the EJ analysis. A full description of the EJ  methodology may be found in Appendix 1.   Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure  Except for I‐75 and limited access facilities, bicyclists and pedestrians are allowed, under state statute, to  use all types of roads, sidewalks and Shared Use Paths in Collier County. Therefore, their needs must be  addressed at all levels, from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and intersection improvements to  creating corridors that safely accommodate walking and bicycling. There are roughly 1,400 centerline  miles of locally maintained roads throughout Collier County. Focusing just  on collector  and arterial  roadways, the current facility inventory and gap analysis (see Chapter 5) show approximately 72 miles  with no bicycle facility and another 153 miles having insufficient cycling facilities – either a paved shoulder  or connector sidewalk. Currently there are five (5) miles of bike lanes that are funded but not yet  constructed; this provides a glimpse of the amount of work left to be done.  Many factors beyond the number of bicyclists riding influence the extent to which these facilities are used  including traffic volumes, posted speed limits, width of facilities, and individual riders’ level of comfort  and perception of safety. Current best practices indicate that separating bicycles from vehicles is the safest  and preferred method when adding bicycle infrastructure to roadways that carry large volumes of traffic  at higher speeds. Increasing the quantity, quality, connectivity and safety of the bicycle infrastructure is a  critical strategy for improving the overall appeal of the bicycle network.    9.C.1 Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) SR 29TAMIAMI T R L E OIL WELL RD IMMOKALEE RD CR 846 ESR 29 NSAN MARCO RDCOLLIER BLVDLIVINGSTON RD NGOLDEN GATE PKWY PINE RIDGE RD IMMOKALEE RD §¨¦75 §¨¦75 Legend Gulf of Mexico LEE Immokalee Marco Island Naples SAN MAR C O R D N B A R F I E L D D RBALD EAG LE DRN COLLIER BLVDS COLL IER BLVDS BARFIELD DRDOGWOOD DRKENDALL DRCOLLIER BLVDWINTERBERRY DR WHISKEY CREEK DRINL E T D R6TH AVE JAM A I C A R D G O O D L A N D D R SCOTT DRCOPPERFIELD CT SWALLOW AVE ELM CT WA T ER S IDE DRE INLET DRBOND CT PO L Y N E S I A C T VILLA CTS SEAS CT Marco Island Inset Figure 2: Environmental Justice (EJ) Communities Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan SR 2 9 CR 846 E LAKE TRAFFORD RDSR 29 NS 1ST STN 15TH STCR 846GOPHER RIDGE RDS 5TH STN 11TH STCARSON RDN 9TH STMA D I S O N A V E W E MAIN ST S 9TH STN 18TH STWESTCLOX ST STOCKADE RDTAYLOR TERAIRPARK BLVDS 4TH STLITTLE LEAGUE RD ALACHUA STDILSA LNW MAIN ST OT T E R T R LBUSH ST WSR 2 9 CR 846 E Immokalee InsetCRAYTON RDLIVINGSTON RD S9TH ST N TA M I A M I T R L E DAVIS BLVD GORDON DRGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NTAMIAMI TRL NPINE RIDGE RD GOLDEN GATE PKWY RADIO RD 3RD ST S5TH AVE S10TH ST NESTEY AVE THOMASSON DR 7TH AVE N NORTH RD PALM DR9TH ST S1ST AVE S KINGS WAYG A L L E O N D R LAKEWOOD BLVDBELAIR LN2ND AVE N RUM ROW3RD AVE S 10TH AVE S 4TH AVE N 70TH ST SWGAIL BLVD 68TH ST SWAIRPORT PULLING RD SALLEYIVY DR SEAGATE DR SANDPIPER ST8TH ST N18TH AVE S GIN LNGULF SHORE BLVD NPROGRESS AVE EXCHANGE AVE PALM STOUTRIGGER LNLONGBOAT DR HARBOUR DR ESTUARY DR TARPON RDDOMESTIC AVE RIDGE DR ARNOLD AVEYAHL STBROAD AVE S ALBI RDPIER ETAYLOR RD14TH ST NWEDGE DR BURNING TREE DRLINWOOD AVE 13TH AVE S FERN ST15TH AVE SWEST BLVD21ST AVE S BAYSHORE DRNAPLES BLVDKINGS LAKE BLVDRIVIERA DR BAILEY LN HAWAII BLVDPENNY LNEAST AVETIVOLI DR POINCIANA ST ENTERPRISE AVE ORCHID DR DUCHESS DRBEECHWOOD LAKE DRKENSINGTON HIGH STVAN BUREN AVE 14TH AVE NCAPRI DRFUEL FARM RD PROSPECT AVE THOMASSON LN FOXTAIL CT POMPEI LN PINE STBALD EAGLE DR ROBIN AVELEWIS LNG R E Y O A K S D R NEUROPA DRGARDENS BLVDOUTER DRRORDON AVE PARROT AVE KAREN DRLANTERN LNCURTIS STRIVERSIDE CIRCU T L A S S L N HOLLY AVE CURLEW AVE HAWKSRIDGE DR DIANA AVE TOWER DRSEMINOLE AVE B U L R U S H L N JEEPERS DR BAY PT 11TH ST N SEAGRAPE AVE PINE TREE DRS LAKE DRAV I A T I O N D R SHAWSER LNPREMIER WAYCOLONIAL DR WOODSIDE AVE PINE CT 12TH ST N11TH ST SLANDMARK DR MER I D I A N P L GULF SHORE BLVD N10TH ST NSEAGATE DRCRAYTON RD14TH ST N ENTERPRISE AVE PINE STCRAYTON RDLIVINGSTON RD S9TH ST NTA M I A M I T R L E DAVIS BLVD GORDON DRAIRPORT PULLING RD N5TH A V E SNORTH RDRUM ROW BALD EAGLE DR GREY OAKS DR N0 5 102.5 Miles¹ Gulf of Mexico Naples Inset Source: Collier MPO Everglades City Note: Block groups were ranked based on their composition of low-income households, zero vehicle households, limited English, and minority populations. EJ Rank Low Medium High Very High Date Saved: 12/18/2018 Page 4 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    5    The current facility inventory and gap analysis indicates there are approximately 72 miles of collector and  arterial roadways having no sidewalk or Shared Use Path.  Filling in the gaps and increasing connectivity  in the existing sidewalk and pathway network; and constructing and interconnecting new sidewalks and  pathways where there is demand are critical steps to improving the connectivity and overall appeal of the  sidewalk/pathway network.  Other Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans   The Cities of Marco Island and Naples have each developed their own bicycle and pedestrian master plans.  These plans include similar goals of improving bicycle and pedestrian safety and connectivity. The Collier  MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will work in conjunction with these other plans by incorporating  their priorities and needs into the MPOs’ list of needed improvements to be prioritized and evaluated for   funding. Following are brief descriptions of each of these plans.  In  2013,  Naples  adopted  a  Pedestrian  and  Bicycle  Master  Plan 2  that  identified  five‐year  goals  and  objectives and outlined programs and projects that would enhance biking and walking in Naples. The  infrastructure recommendations include adding bike lanes and shared‐lane markings with pavement  resurfacing and completing sidewalk gaps. The 2013 Naples Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan may be  found in Appendix 2.  See Chapters 5 Needs Analysis and 7 Policies and Implementation regarding  incorporating the most current adopted City of Naples Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan by reference.  The City of Marco Island has an approved bicycle and shared use path master plan (map) which the City  updates annually.   The plan’s goal is to develop “bike lanes and shared use pathway projects to allow  both expert and novice riders to get around most parts of the City by bicycle.” Many of the plan’s  remaining projects have been funded and will be completed in the next five years. The 2018 Marco Island  Bike Path Master Plan and supporting City Council resolution can be found in Appendix 3. See Chapters 5  Needs Analysis and 7 Policies and Implementation regarding incorporating the most current adopted  Marco island Bike Path Master Plan by reference.  The City of Everglades City is a small community on the edge of the Florida Everglades. The City Council  has identified four priority sidewalk projects that can be considered for future funding.   There are multiple Community Redevelopment Associations (CRA) i n Collier County which in collaboration  with the County government identify infrastructure needs and develop funding strategies. Collier County  recently was awarded a $13 million federal TIGER Grant that will construct 20 miles of sidewalk, upgrade  32  intersections,  add  or  upgrade  bus  shelters  and  lighting,  and  make  drainage  improvements  in  Immokalee. Many roads identified for improvements in the grant application have also been identified in  other plans  such as the  Collier MPO  2012 Comprehensive Pathways Plan and the 2011 Immokalee  Walkable Community Study. Needs that are in areas outside the grant area will be included on the list of  local needs developed for this plan. See Chapter 7 Policies and Implementation regarding incorporating  the most current adopted CRA bicycle and pedestrian plans by reference.                                                               2 https://www.naplesgov.com/community/page/cycling‐naples.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    6    Walkability Studies   Three walkable community studies have been prepared for the MPO: Bayshore (2010), Naples Manor  (2010) and Immokalee (2011). A fourth study for Golden Gate City will be completed in 2019.  Each study  identified, and prioritized walking infrastructure needs within the community and included a list of  prioritized recommendations to improve walkability. As part of this plan, the first‐tier recommendations  from each walkability study were reviewed and added to the list of needs for bicycle and sidewalk  infrastructure on local roads. See Chapters 5 Needs analysis and Chapter 7 – Policies and Implementation  for prioritized projects on local roads.                                            9.C.1 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    7     Figure 3‐ Total Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes 2011‐2016  CHAPTER 2 – SAFETY CRASH DATA ANALYSIS  Crash Data   In order to better understand conditions and risks, and to begin to identify potential improvement  strategies for people walking and biking in Collier County, six years of bicycle and pedestrian crash data  (2011–2016) were mapped and analyzed using data from the Collier County Crash Data Management  System (CDMS).3 The primary purposes of the review were to note any changes in trends and to identify  where the most severe crashes and crash clusters occur. The MPO conducted a similar analysis in 2014.  The two analyses generally agree with each other and identify similar high crash areas. This suggests that  the challenges remain consistent, and opportunities for safety‐focused projects throughout Collier County  continue  to  be  a  primary  need.  Smart  Growth  America’s  Dangerous  by  Design  2019 highlights  this  challenge stating that Florida has the highest pedestrian danger index in the c country.4    Between 2011 and 2016, there   were 808 reported bicycle and  pedestrian crashes resulting in 33  fatalities, 119 serious injuries and  460 total injuries. Approximately  80% of all the reported crashes  occurred on a collector or arterial  roadway; these roads have  higher posted speed limits and  greater volumes of traffic than  local, residential roads. As shown  in Figure 3, bicyclists accounted  for 60% (485) of the reported  crashes, and 40% (323) involved  pedestrians.   The number of bicycle crashes has declined in each of the last four years. Pedestrian crashes increased  from 2011 to 2014 before declining in 2015 and 2016. Analysis of the reasons for these decreases is  beyond  the  scope of this Plan; however, the average annual  number of 81 bicycle crashes and 54  pedestrian  crashes  still  represents  a  sizeable  absolute  number of  crashes  and  indicate  that  further  opportunities and challenges to improving safety remain.                                                                3 Source: Collier County Crash Data Management System, 2011–2016.  4 Smart Growth America, Dangerous by Design 2019, p. 26.  0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pedestrian Bicycle 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    8    Traffic Speed and Crash Severity  The arterial roadways in Collier County form the backbone of the transportation network. They function  to move large volumes of traffic efficiently and effectively and allow the rapid movement of people and  goods providing the necessary infrastructure for a successful economy. Most of these roads have posted  speed limits between 35 and 50 miles per hour (mph); and have four to six‐lanes through lanes with  multiple turning lanes which results in very large intersections. These same roadways also provide  important bicycle and pedestrian throughfares due to the lack of publicly accessible collector roads, yet  they present obstacles of varying degrees of difficulty to pedestrians and bicyclists who are using or  crossing these roads. Eighty percent (80%) of the reported bicycle and pedestrian crashes occurred on  arterials and collectors. Figure 5, on following page, shows the major arterials and collectors with bicycle  facility gaps in Collier County.  Many studies have determined that vehicle speed is a critical factor in the survivability of a pedestrian or  bicyclist involved in a crash with a motor vehicle. Figure 4 depicts the liklihood of a pedestrian being fatally  or severely injured rising dramatically as the speed of the vehicle increases.  Figure 4 ‐ Vehicle Speed Impacts on Pedestrian Survival Rates when Involved in a Crash  Source: Seattle.gov. Vision Zero                          Because the difference in speed between vehicles and bicyclists/pedestrians is a primary factor in the  severity of injuries, much of the current focus in bicycle and pedestrian safety is on funding education and  enforcement campaigns to train drivers to obey the speed limit, slowing down traffic, or separating the  modes. A recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concluded that “lowering the speed  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) EVERGLADES BLVD NWILSON BLVD NSR 29TAMIAMI T R L E OIL WELL RD IMMOKALEE RD CR 846 ESR 29 NSAN MARCO RDCOLLIER BLVDLIVINGSTON RD NGOLDEN GATE PKWY PINE RIDGE RD IMMOKALEE RD §¨¦75 §¨¦75 Legend Incorporated Municipalities Immokalee Urban Area Environmental Lands Gulf of Mexico LEE Immokalee Marco Island Naples SAN MARCO RDN B A R F I E L D D R B A L D E A G L E D R N COLLIER BLVDS COLL IER BLVDS BARFIELD DRCOLLIER BLVDDOGWOO D D RKENDALL DRWINTERBERRY DR WHISKEY CREEK DR6TH AVE PELICAN ST G O O D L A N D D R SCOTT DRCOPPERFIELD CT SWALLOW AVE ELM CT WA T ER S IDE DRE INLET DRN BAHAMA A V E PO L Y N E S I A C T SAN M A R C O R D N BARFIELD D R Gulf of Mexico Marco Island Inset Figure 5: Major Arterials and Collectors in Collier County Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan NE W M A R K E T R D W SR 2 9 CR 846 E LAKE TRAFFORD RD SR 29 NS 1ST STN 15TH STCR 846GOPHER RIDGE RDS 5TH STN 11TH STCARSON RDN 9TH STE MAIN ST S 9TH STN 18TH STWESTCLOX ST STOCKADE RD AIRPARK BLVDS 4TH STLITTLE LEAGUE RD PALM DRMIRAHAM DR DILSA LNW MAIN ST OT T E R T R L WA S H I N G T O N A V E SR 2 9 CR 846 E Immokalee Inset TAMIAMI TRL NLIVINGSTON RD SAIRPORT PULLING RD NGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NCRAYTON RD9TH ST NTRAIL BLVDIMMOKALEE RD VANDERBILT BEACH RD DAVIS BLVD PINE RIDGE RD GOLDEN GATE PKWYWEST ST3RD ST SRIDGE DR5TH AVE S RADIO RD10TH ST NTHE LNESTEY AVE LIVINGSTON RD NPIPER BLVD 8TH ST S7TH AVE N NORTH RD1ST AVE SVANDERBILT DRORANGE BLOSSOM DR TA M I A M I T R L E PELICAN MARSH BLVD BELAIR LN91ST AVE N TAYLOR RD99TH AVE N97TH AVE N 94TH AVE N PALM DR2ND AVE N 3RD AVE S 111TH AVE N 4TH AVE N 101ST AVE N 70TH ST SWGAIL BLVD 109TH AVE N107TH AVE N105TH AVE N PELICAN BAY BLVD103RD AVE N HICKORY RDALLEYJ AND C BLVD IVY DR SEAGATE DR LAKE W O O D B L V DGULF SHORE BLVD S8TH ST N18TH AVE S 11TH AVE S C A R I C A R D GULF SHORE BLVD NPROGRESS AVE EXCHANGE AVE PALM STTIBURON BLVD E OUTRIGGER LN SANDPIPER STLONGBOAT DR OLD LIVINGSTON RDHARBOUR DR ESTUARY DR DOMESTIC AVE NOTTING H A M D R ARNOLD AVEYAHL STWINTERVIEW DRPIER E14TH ST NWEDGE DR BURNING TREE DRLINWOOD AVE 13TH AVE S 15TH AVE SWEST BLVDAUTUMN WOODS BLVDGREENTREE DRBAY LAUREL DRNAPLES BLVDRIVIERA DR BAILEY LNCARIBBEAN RDMISSION DRCREEKSIDE BLVD EAST AVEBA Y C O L O N Y D R WICKLIFFE DR COUGAR DRPOINCIANA STJEWEL LNENTERPRISE AVE P O I N T E D R ORCHID DR STONEGATE DRILEX CIRGRANADA BLVD STRA D A P L TUPELO R D KENSINGTON HIGH STELSA STCAJEPUT DR14TH AVE N VILLAGE WALK CIRBECCA AVE FUEL FARM RD TERYL RDPROSPECT AVE POMPEI LN FOXTAIL CTBOCA CIRSUMMER PLBALD EAGLE DR OSCEOLA TRLCITRUS LAKE DR ROBIN AVE HILLTOP DR LEWIS LNG R E Y O A K S D R NEUROPA DRGARDENS BLVDOAK AVE PARROT AVEOAKMONT PKWYHARB O R L N MAHOGANY DR FOUNTAIN VIEW CIR TIVOLI LNASTON DRP U R S L A N E D R RIVERSIDE CIRCURLEW AVE HAWKSRIDGE DR DIANA AVE B U L R U S H L N PERSIMMON DRPARNU STWAGGLE W A Y BAY PT 11TH ST N SEAGRAPE AVES LAKE DRAV I A T I O N D R SHAWSER LNPREMIER WAYHUELVA CTPINE CT 12TH ST N11TH ST S10TH ST NGULF SHORE BLVD NENTERPRISE AVECRAYTON RD10TH ST NSEAGATE DR12TH ST NTAMIAMI TRL NLIVINGSTON RD SCRAYTON RD9TH ST NTRAIL BLVDIMMOKALEE RD DAVIS BLVD WEST ST 5TH A V E S THE LNLIVINGSTON RD NNORTH RDBELAIR LNTAYLOR RDPALM DRSANDPIPER STNAPLES BLVD COUGAR DRJEWEL LNILEX CIR BALD EAGLE DR CITRUS LAKE DR 0 5 102.5 Miles¹ Gulf of Mexico Naples Inset COP E L A N D A V E SCR 29COLLIER AVEPLANTATION PKWY SMALLWOOD DRCOPELAND AVE S Everglades City Inset Everglades City Bicycle Facility Gaps No Existing Bicycle Facilities Existing Paved Shoulder Existing Connector Sidewalk Note: Gaps include segments where no facilities exist and where substandard facilities existconsistent with policies of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Source: Collier MPO Page 9 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    10    limit in urban areas is an effective countermeasure to reduce speeds and improve safety for all road  users.”5   The 2015 Pedestrian / Bicycle Safety Audit (from Commercial Drive to Guilford Road on US 41 and Airport  Road from US 41 to Estey Avenue) completed by FDOT stated that reducing the speed on US 41 from 45  mph to 35 mph and modifying the “look” of the corridor to emphasize the multi‐use characteristics along  with controlling speeds by design with tighter turning radius and narrower lanes will aid in slowing  motorists down. This will assist in driver reaction times, not only for pedestrians and bicyclists, but also  for reducing vehicle‐vehicle collisions. Reducing speeds will reduce the probability of a pedestrian fatality.  The study graphic below shows the relationship between vehicle speed and pedestrian injury. A reduction  of speed from 40 MPH to 30 MPH shows a reduction in the probability of a pedestrian fatality from 80%  to 40%. “in combination with other strategies to establish a “gateway” will “aid in slowing motorists  down”. 6  High Crash Corridors  FDOT periodically releases a report on the top 50 Bicycle and Pedestrian High Crash locations in each  District. The most recent District 1 list, partially shown below in Table 2 and Figure 6 on the next page,  includes  five  locations  in  Collier  County;  three  on  US41,  one  on  Airport  Road  and  one  on  SR29  in  Immokalee.  FDOT has conducted a Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Audit (PBSA) on US41 from Commercial Drive to Guilford  Road and on Airport Road from US41 to Esty Avenue. FDOT is implementing a limited range of the  recommended improvements in a repaving project on US41 (FPN 4380591) and at the intersection of  Airport Road and Calusa Avenue but much of the PBSA has not been addressed thus far. FDOT also  conducted  a  BP  RSA  on  SR29  in  Immokalee  and  has  constructed  several  safety  improvements.                      Table 2‐ FDOT 2013‐2015 Bicycle and Pedestrian High Crash List – Collier MPO                                                               5 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Lowering the speed limit from 30 to 25 mph in Boston: effects on vehicle  speeds, Wen Hu, August 2018  6 FDOT Pedestrian Bicycle Safety Audit: US 41 from Commercial Drive to Guilford Road; Airport Pulling Road from  US41 to Estey Avenue, FPN 430582‐1, June 2015, p. 22    District  Rank County  Rank  Miles Name of Segment From Location To Location All  Injury  Incapacita ting Injury  Fatal  Total  Per  Mile Incapacita ting Injury  & Fatal  Per Mile Injury &  Fatal Per  Mile 4 1 0.5 SR 29 ‐Main St 9th St 1st St 16 1 1 35.9 4 33.9 8 2 0.5 US 41 ‐ 5th Ave S 9th St Davis Blvd 11 0 1 22.3 1.9 22.3 11 3 1.3 US 41 ‐  Tamiami Trail Davis Blvd Airport Rd 26 2 1 24.8 2.3 21 12 4 1.8 Airport Rd US41 Radio Rd 29 1 2 22.2 1.7 20.9 16 5 0.3 US 41 ‐ Tamiami Trail Sunrise Blvd Royal Cove Dr 4 0 1 23.1 3.8 19.2 Bicycle/Pedestrian Crashes 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) 432 1 5 SR 29TAMIAMI T R L E OIL WELL RD IMMOKALEE RD CR 846 ESR 29 NSAN MARCO RDCOLLIER BLVDLIVINGSTON RD NGOLDEN GATE PKWY PINE RIDGE RD IMMOKALEE RD §¨¦75 §¨¦75 Incorporated Municipalities Immokalee Urban Area High Crash Corridors Legend Gulf of Mexico LEE Immokalee Marco Island Naples TAMIAMI TRL NVANDERBILT DRIMMOKALEE RDOLD US 41 NWIGGINS PASS RD AUDUBON BLVD 111TH AVE N109TH AVE N107TH AVE N105TH AVE N103RD AVE N LIVINGSTON RD NCYPRESS WAY E EUCLID AVEBAREFOOT BEACH BLVD RETREAT DR CREEKSIDE BLVD CORSO ME D I T E R R A C I R PALM VIEW DR BLUEBILL AVE REGENT CIRENCORE WAY WIGG INS PARK RD IMPERIAL CIR EGRET AVE CYPRESS WAY WROMA CT PAN AM AVE GULF COAST DR BROLIO WAYRED FOX R U N B A R C A RM I L W A Y PARNU STDIMOCK LN CELLE WAY IXORA CTBAY FOREST DR TAMIAMI TRL NVANDERBILT DRIMPERIAL CIR Gulf of Mexico North County Figure 6: FDOT High Crash Corridors Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan SR 2 9 CR 846 E LAKE TRAFFORD RDSR 29 NS 1ST STN 15TH STCR 846GOPHER RIDGE RDS 5TH STN 11TH STCARSON RDN 9TH STMA D I S O N A V E W E MAIN ST S 9TH STN 18TH STWESTCLOX ST STOCKADE RDTAYLOR TERAIRPARK BLVDLITTLE LEAGUE RD ALACHUA STDILSA LNOT T E R T R LBUSH ST WSR 2 9 CR 846 E Immokalee Inset 4 3 2CRAYTON RDLIVINGSTON RD S9TH ST N TA M I A M I T R L E DAVIS BLVD GORDON DRGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NTAMIAMI TRL NPINE RIDGE RD GOLDEN GATE PKWY RADIO RD 3RD ST S5TH AVE S10TH ST NESTEY AVE THOMASSON DR 7TH AVE N NORTH RD PALM DR9TH ST S1ST AVE S KINGS WAYG A L L E O N D R LAKEWOOD BLVDBELAIR LN2ND AVE N RUM ROW3RD AVE S 10TH AVE S 4TH AVE N 70TH ST SWGAIL BLVD 68TH ST SWALLEYIVY DR SEAGATE DR SANDPIPER ST8TH ST N18TH AVE S GIN LNGULF SHORE BLVD NPROGRESS AVE EXCHANGE AVE PALM STOUTRIGGER LNLONGBOAT DR HARBOUR DR ESTUARY DR TARPON RDDOMESTIC AVE RIDGE DR ARNOLD AVEYAHL STBROAD AVE S ALBI RDPIER ETAYLOR RD14TH ST NWEDGE DR BURNING TREE DRLINWOOD AVE 13TH AVE S FERN ST15TH AVE SWEST BLVD21ST AVE S BAYSHORE DRNAPLES BLVDKINGS LAKE BLVDRIVIERA DR BAILEY LN HAWAII BLVDPENNY LNEAST AVETIVOLI DR POINCIANA ST GLADES BLVD ENTERPRISE AVE ORCHID DR DUCHESS DRBEECHWOOD LAKE DRKENSINGTON HIGH STVAN BUREN AVE 14TH AVE NCAPRI DRFUEL FARM RD PROSPECT AVE THOMASSON LN FOXTAIL CT POMPEI LN PINE STBALD EAGLE DR ROBIN AVELEWIS LNG R E Y O A K S D R NEUROPA DRGARDENS BLVDOUTER DRRORDON AVE PARROT AVE KAREN DRLANTERN LN HARBOR LN GORDON STCURTIS STRIVERSIDE CIRCU T L A S S L N HOLLY AVE CURLEW AVE HAWKSRIDGE DR DIANA AVE TOWER DRSEMINOLE AVE B U L R U S H L N JEEPERS DR BAY PT 11TH ST N SEAGRAPE AVE PINE TREE DRS LAKE DRAV I A T I O N D R SHAWSER LNPREMIER WAYCOLONIAL DR WOODSIDE AVE PINE CT 12TH ST N11TH ST SMER I D I A N P L 10TH ST NGULF SHORE BLVD NCRAYTON RDENTERPRISE AVESEAGATE DR14TH ST NCRAYTON RDLIVINGSTON RD S9TH ST NDAVIS BLVD GORDON DRAIRPORT PULLING RD NNORTH RDRUM ROW BALD EAGLE DR GREY OAKS DR N0 5 102.5 Miles¹ Gulf of Mexico Naples Inset Source: FDOT Map ID Segment Name From Location To Location B/P Total Crashes per Mile B/P Injury & Fatal Crashes per Mile1 Main St 9th St 1st St 35.9 33.92 5th Ave S 9th St Davis Blvd 22.3 22.33Tamiami Trl Davis Blvd Airport Rd 24.8 214 Airport Pulling Rd US 41 Radio Rd 22.2 20.95Tamiami Trl Sunrise Blvd Royal Cove Dr 23.1 19.2 1 5 Page 11 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    12    Contributing Factors  Data collected for crashes includes contributing crash factors. Although there is a reliance upon the law  official’s judgement and experience regarding contributing factors, assigning cause and effect, and simply  in filling out forms, understanding contributing crash factors is important in developing strategies to lower  the number of and lessen the severity of crashes.   Contributing  behavioral  factors  from  the  CDMS  data  are  shown  in  Figure  7.  At  37  percent  (37%),  Aggressive driving was the most frequent behavioral factor; in 37 percent (37%, 296) of the crashes.  Failure to Yield was listed as a contributing factor in one‐third of the crashe s (31%, 251) crashes.  The data  did not state whether the driver or pedestrian/bicyclist had failed to yield. Impaired/intoxicated driving  and distracted driving were each listed as a behavioral contributing factor in 10 percent (10%) of the  crashes, listed in 78 and 79 crashes, respectively. According to NHTSA, education and enforcement have  the greatest impact on changing behavior.   Figure 7‐ Behavioral Contributing Factors in Reported Crashes                                                                   Analysis of the data also looked at two demographic factors; teen drivers and drivers 65 and over. The  data indicate that both age groups are not involved in any more crashes than the percent of the county’s  population that they constitute. Teens were involved in five percent (5%) of the crashes and constitute  five percent (5%) of the County’s population. Drivers 65 and over were involved in 32 percent (32%) of  the crashes and constitute 30 percent (30%) of the County’s population.  Speeding was indicated as a contributing factor in just two crashes. Any info we can quote on lack of NO    enforcement? Speeding is only included as a contributing factor when a law enforcement officer, using  radar, detects the driver’s speed or determines that the driver was driving too fast for the road conditions.    10% 0% 2% 37% 10% 31% Impaired Speeding Disregard Traffic Control Aggressive Driving Distracted Driving Failure to Yield 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    13    The Florida Bicycle Association has published a booklet containing relevant statistics on safety, entitled  the Florida Pedestrian/Bicycle Law Enforcement Guide – 2017 Edition7. The Guide identifies the following  conditions as common contributing factors in pedestrian‐motor vehicle crashes. The guide assigns actions  by both pedestrian and driver that contributed to a crash as shown in Table 3.  Table 3‐ Pedestrian and Driver Actions as Contributing Crash Factor  Primary Error by Pedestrian Percent  Failure to yield when crossing roadway  19%  Dash/Dart out 14%  Parking lot  7%     Primary Error by Driver   Failure to yield when crossing roadway 16%  Backing vehicle (failed to detect pedestrian)  8%    Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Audits  A Road Safety Audit (RSA) is a formal safety performance examination of a roadway or intersection by an  independent and multidisciplinary team. An audit qualitatively estimates and reports on potential road  safety issues and identifies opportunities to improve safety for all road users. A Pedestrian and Bicycle  Safety Audit (PBSA) is a more narrowly focused audit for pedestrians and bicyclists. Areas of safety concern  may be identified by just looking at crash data, but a Safety Audit is often the only way to determine what  is causing the crashes and to develop appropriate strategies to increase safety.    The 2015 FDOT Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Audit (PB Safety Audit) for Airport Road and US41 included a  detailed data analysis of the 72 pedestrian and bicycle crashes on US41 and Airport Road. Bicycle crashes  (85%) are more predominant than pedestrian crashes (15%) in the study area. Half of the crashes (51%)  occurred at a driveway; 23% at a signalized intersection and 17% occurred mid‐block. The study also noted  that 61% of the individuals involved in the crash were listed as Hispanic while Hispanics and Latinos  comprise 26% of the County’s residents according to 2013 Census data.   The bicycle crashes are typically occurring during daylight hours with males riding on the sidewalk and  being struck while crossing a driveway. The bicyclist is more often approaching from the driver’s right but  there is a pattern of crashes with bicyclists approaching from the driver’s left also. The bicycle crashes  occurring in the bike lane were typically bicyclists traveling the wrong way. The bicycle crashes at a signal                                                               7 Source: Florida’s Integrated Report Exchange System (FIRES) and USF Center for Urban Transportation Research  (CUTR) Data Collection and Analysis.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    14    were typically daytime crashes involving a right‐turning vehicle and more often the fault of the bicyclist.  Overall, crash conflicts involving turning vehicles was significantly higher on the south side of US 41 than  on the north side.  The pedestrian crashes typically involve males, crossing mid‐block at night and often under the influence  of alcohol. The pedestrian crashes occurring at signals are often attributed to pedestrians not using the  pushbuttons or failing to wait for the pedestrian signals before crossing the intersection.  The detailed analysis of the Airport Road crashes also concludes that bicycle crashes are significantly  higher than pedestrian crashes. The bicycle crashes are more often occurring during the day with males  riding on the sidewalk, crossing a driveway and approaching from the driver’s right side. The crashes  occurring at the signals are primarily motorists turning right on red and failing to yield to the pedestrian’s  right‐of‐way. Overall, crash conflicts involving turning vehicles on Airport Rd occurred more often on the  east side of Airport Rd.  The P/B Safety Audit also identified a reoccurring engineering issue – channelized right‐turn lanes and  conflicts  with  pedestrians  and  cyclists.  The  Airport  Rd  intersection  with  Davis  Blvd,  for  example,  is  described as having been redesigned and ready to go to construction phase to add a southbound right‐ turn lane. The proposed design includes a channelized right‐turn lane that will provide an unsignalized  right‐turn movement or YIELD control and an unsignalized pedestrian movement across the channelized  turn lane. FDOT notes that this could contribute to pedestrian/bicycle crashes at this location as seen at  other locations. The YIELD condition and the wider turning radius of the right turn lanes encourage higher  turning speeds by motorists.   FDOT suggests modifying the proposed design to include a signalized crosswalk across the entire north  leg by removing the channelized right‐turn lane and providing signalized control for the southbound right‐ turn movement. At the very least, the design should be modified to include signalized control of the  southbound right‐turn lane with a right‐turn signal overlap phase.  Economic Costs of Crashes  A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) study8 estimated the economic9 and  comprehensive10 costs of those severely or fatally injured in a motor vehicle crash involving at least two  motor vehicles. Table 4 lists the combined NHTSA and FDOT estimated costs per injury type and  multiplies these figures by the number of fatal and severe bicycle and pedestrian injuries shown in the                                                               8 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), “The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle  Crashes,” 2010 (revised 2015).  9 Economic costs are the total of goods and services expended to respond to a crash, treat injuries, repair or  replace damaged property, litigate restitution, administer insurance programs, and retrain or replace injured  employees; also includes health and environmental congestion impacts and value of workplace and household  productivity lost.  10 Comprehensive costs are the total societal harm resulting from a crash; includes value of lost quality‐of‐life as  measured and economic impacts that result from crash.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    15    data collected for this Plan to develop an order of magnitude of the total economic and comprehensive  costs associated with bicycle and pedestrian crashes.    Table 4‐ Economic and Comprehensive Cost of Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes 2011‐2016  (Costs expressed in 2010 economics using a 3% discount rate.)    Economic Cost  Type NHTSA/FDOT Cost  per Crash  2011‐2016 Bike Ped  Crashes  2011‐2016 Total Cost  of Crashes  Severe Injury $1.0 million 119 $ 119 million  Fatal injury  $1.4 million  33  $  46 million  Comprehensive Cost  Type  Each Cost  Crashes  Total Cost  Severe Injury $ 5.6 million 119 $ 666 million  Fatal injury  $ 9.1 million  33  $ 300 million    Enforcement and Education  The Collier County Sheriff’s Office Traffic Unit periodically conducts high‐visibility enforcement details  targeting high crash corridors. For example, in September 2018, enforcement campaigns were held in  the following locations:   Airport Road from Davis Blvd to US 41   US 41 from Davis Blvd to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd   North 15th/Main Street from New Market Road west to Immokalee Rd   State Rd 29 South and Farm Worker Way    High‐visibility enforcement details are funded through a contract with the University of North Florida in  partnership with FDOT’s focused initiative to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. The goal of this  enforcement effort is to increase awareness of and compliance with traffic laws that protect the safety of  pedestrians and bicyclists. Enforcement efforts focus primarily on education to drivers, pedestrians and  bicyclists. However, violations may result in warning or citations depending on the circumstances.    Education Campaigns  The P/B Safety Audit suggests that bi‐lingual education material needs to be incorporated into education  outreach. The FHWA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have free downloadable  material including flyers, brochures, posters and Public Service Announcements (PSAs) that can be used.  FDOT also recommends using changeable message signs on both Airport and US41 to display to motorists  the need to follow the 3‐foot rule.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    16    Unreported Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes  Law  enforcement  crash  reports  have  been  the  traditional  source of  bicycle and pedestrian crash statistics. Although these reports provide  significant information, studies have concluded that they represent only  a portion of the total number of crashes.  Many factors contribute to this  underreporting including 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)  found  that  60–75%  of  hospitalized victims of pedestrian‐ and bicycle‐motor vehicle crashes were identified in official motor  vehicle crash files. The report also found that for persons receiving only emergency room treatment and  not hospitalization, the reported crash percentages ranged from 50–60%.11 A study by Elvik and Mysen in  2007 found that 95% 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% of all crashes.12 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 were not admitted.13  Street and Sidewalk Lighting   Lighting can be an important safety feature, allowing increased visibilty for motorists, pedestrians, and  bicyclists. It is important to consider adequate ligthing during the design and construction of bicycle and  pedestrian infrastruture. Public comments often equate safety with adequate lighting. A survey was  administered during the public outreach for this Plan. The survey and results may be found in Appendix  7. Two of the survey’s questions asked respondents what made them feel unsafe when walking or biking.  Of the respondents who answered, 30 percent of pedestrians and 22 percent of bicyclists noted a lack of  lighting as a reason they felt unsafe.     Safety Performance Targets  FDOT has adopted “Vision Zero,” a program that sets the goal of zero traffic fatalities or severe injuries in  the state; the Collier MPO adopted FDOT’s safety performance targets in February 2018. By doing so, the  MPO  can  rely  upon  FDOT’s  annual  reporting  to  (Federal  Highway  Administration)  FHWA  on  safety  performance in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which greatly simplifies the  reporting requirements associated with the MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Long                                                               11 “Injuries to Pedestrians and Bicyclists: An Analysis Based on Hospital Emergency Department Data,” FHWA‐RD‐ 99‐078 (1999).  12 Rune Elvik and Ann Borger Mysen, “Incomplete Accident Reporting: Meta‐Analysis of Studies Made in 13  Countries,” Transportation Research Record, 1665, 133‐140, 2007.  13 J. C. Stutts and W. W. Hunter, “Police Reporting of Pedestrian and Bicyclists Treated in Hospital Emergency  Rooms,” Transportation Research Record, 1635, 88‐92, 1998.  Many studies show that  reported crashes  represent only a portion of  the total number of  crashes.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    17    Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). This Plan also includes other performance measures which are Safety  Performance Targets  Safety is the first national goal identified in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act and is  of critical importance to the MPO. As part of the FAST Act, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)  required all state departments of transportation (DOTs) and MPOs to adopt five safety performance  targets by the end of February 2018 (Table 5). MPOs could adopt their own targets or those of the State  DOT. The five safety performance measures and their associated targets are shown in Table 5 below. The  Safety Performance Target for Non‐motorized fatalities and serious injuries is also referred to in in Chapter  7 Policy and Implementation, under monitoring and reporting.    Table 5‐ Safety Performance Measure Targets  Performance Measure Performance Target  Number of fatalities  0  Rate of fatalities per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 0  Number of serious injuries  0  Rate of serious injuries per 100 million VMT 0  Number of non‐motorized fatalities and serious injuries  0                          9.C.1 Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    18    CHAPTER 3 – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT  An enhanced community engagement process was used for this Plan to reach the most people and get  the broadest possible community input. In addition to traditional workshops, committee meetings, and  open houses, the process included outreach at farmer’s markets and non‐MPO public meetings, an  interactive map on the Collier MPO website, and a survey in English, Spanish, and Creole. The survey was  available on line and distributed at outreach events. Appendix 4 contains the public outreach tools used.  The MPO considered the pubic engagement for this Plan to be a success, as more than 600 total  comments were received. See Figure 8. These comments are described below and may be found in the  appendices. Several repeated themes were identified during the process including the following:   Increase safety for those walking and bicycling.    Complete sidewalk, bike lane, and path gaps on major roads.   Address local sidewalk needs.   Increase connectivity particularly to and from the region’s beaches, between existing greenways,  and between Immokalee and the rest of the county.   Develop multi‐use paths where possible.                                                                                   Figure 8‐ Collier MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian                                                                                                  Engagement by the Numbers  Two open house workshops were held during  the Plan’s development. The first at Veterans  Community Park was held early in the process  to  receive  input  about  plan  goals  and  objectives,  bicycle  and  pedestrian  facility  needs, and the public’s perception of this part  of  the  region’s  transportation  system.  Attendees  voted  on  goal  statements  that  were  used  to  develop  the  needs  and  evaluation criteria. They also marked up maps  to  show  challenging  locations,  and  connections  they  wanted  to  see  made.  Twenty people signed in for the meeting and  many comments were received; an additional  15 written comments were received after the  open house.  A second workshop at East Naples Community Park was held at the end of the plan development process  to affirm that the planning process had captured the feedback correctly and that there was community  support for the Plan. Maps of the needs on collectors, arterials and local roads were presented for review  and  comment.  Attendees  were  asked  to  comment  on  any  omissions  or  proposed  additions  to  the  proposed maps and lists. Seven (7) individuals signed in, two written comments were received as well as     12 Community Events  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    19    many  verbal  comments  from  most  of  those  who  attended.  Public  outreach  was  also  conducted  at  locations listed below. Appendix 5 contains these comments.   4 Farmers Markets: Vanderbilt Beach Road, Golden Gate City, Naples Community Hospital (NCH)  and Marco Island.   2 Community Redevelopment Association (CRA) meetings: Bayshore CRA and Immokalee CRA   1 City of Everglades City Council meeting   2 Open Houses for Commissioner Taylor: Naples City Hall and Livingston Road   3 Immokalee CRA: Farm Workers Coalition, Unmet Needs Coalition and the CRA office (This  outreach was conducted by the CRA)  Another product of the outreach for this Plan was that the MPO received multiple emails, phone calls and  letters from citizens with questions and comments about the Plan. Appendix 5 contains the comments  collected through outreach or by citizens contacting the MPO office.  Interactive Map  Figure  9  depicts  a  portion  of  an  interactive  web‐based  tool  that  was  used  to  gather  citizen  input.   Comments could be made about bicycle or pedestrian needs and challenges, needed connections, safety  concerns, and potential destinations. See Appendix 6 for list of all comments received.                                   Figure 9‐ Interactive Wike Map Used in Public Outreach    Online Survey   An online survey was used to get a sense of the level of comfort  people felt when walking or bicycling and to identify areas of concern  and desired support. Respondents were asked a variety of questions  relating to bicycling and walking; several of the questions allowed  87% of survey respondents  stated that there are places  they would not bike because  of “uncomfortable/unsafe  routes or lack of routes.”  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    20    multiple selections. Generally, those who responded to the survey expressed discomfort with the  bicycling and walking environment in Collier County. The survey received more 327 responses. The  complete survey and responses as well as other feedback can be found in Appendix 7.                                                          Figure 10‐ What Makes Pedestrians and Bicyclists Feel Unsafe?   Respondents were  asked what makes them  feel unsafe when biking  or walking. The top  three reasons for not  feeling safe biking were  lack of facilities (81%),  driver behavior (78%),  and speed of traffic  (72%). The top three  reasons why  pedestrians felt unsafe  were lack of facilities  (64%), driver behavior  (60%) and speed of  traffic (55%) Figure 10  shows the responses to  these questions.                                                                               Figure 11‐ Desired Pedestrian Facility Support    Respondents were also asked about  walking  support  (Figure  11)  and  could  select  as  many  options  as  desired. New sidewalks had the  most  support  (28%)  followed  by  filling  gaps  in  existing  sidewalks  (16%)  and  wider  sidewalks  (15%).  Items in the “Other” category  included lighting, maintenance, and  mid‐block crossings.         0% 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90% Fear of crime Lack of direction signage Other Lack of lighting Large Intercestions High speed traffic Driver behavior Lack of facilities Walking Biking 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    21                                           Figure 12‐ Desired Bicycle Facility Support  Respondents  were  asked   what  types  of  facilities  or  bike  support  they  would  like  to  see  more of and could select as many  options  as  desired.  Paths  were  noted  by  34%  of  respondents,  and  bike  lanes  were  noted  by  21%. Items in the “Other”  category included protected bike  lanes,  wider  bike  lanes,  green‐ painted  bike  lanes,  and  bike  parking. (See Figure 12.)                                                                                                             MPO Board and Advisory Committee Meetings  The MPO Board and three of its advisory committees—the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the  Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)—were  updated regularly on the Plan’s development and provided meaningful direction and comment. All MPO  meetings are open to the public, and additional public comment was gathered at these meetings. Advisory  Committee and Collier County Transportation Planning comments made be found in Appendix 8.   Stakeholder Group  A Stakeholder Group, comprising agency and advocacy groups for users of the bicycle and pedestrian  system as well as MPO committee members was convened twice to solicit feedback on the Plan’s focus  and direction as well as goals and objectives. In addition to providing feedback, the group acted as a voice  for people who regularly walk and bike but whose voice may not have been heard through the other  public engagement efforts. Stakeholders comments made be found in Appendix 9.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    22    CHAPTER 4 – VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES  Defining a vision, goals, and objectives creates the structure for a plan. To develop the vision for this Plan,  the team reviewed the 2012 MPO Comprehensive Pathways Plan and other similar plans and considered  public, Board, committee, and stakeholder group input.  The following vision statement was used to guide  the development of the Plan’s goals, objectives and strategies.   Vision   To provide a safe and comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network that promotes and  encourages community use and enjoyment.  Safety and a comprehensive or connected network are the two cornerstones of the Plan. Public feedback  indicated that safety and making biking and walking more accessible and interconnected should be  primary emphasis points. This interest is supported by travel trends and by current research showing that  if there are safe and accessible facilities, whether for walking or for biking, people will use them. With this  and the future in mind, the vision for this Plan was developed. The vision and the goals and objectives are  consistent with the priorities identified in the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and will be  incorporated into the 2045 LRTP.  Goals  The goals (Table 6) were developed by reviewing local, state and national Best Practices, goals in similar  plans including the 2012 MPO Comprehensive Pathways Plan, and with consideration of public and  committee input. Though similar to the previous plan, the importance of safety, equity (Environmental  Justice) and community health have been increased in this Plan. The goals became the basis for the  development of strategies, policies and project prioritization criteria which are discussed in Chapter 7.  Table 6‐ Goals and Strategies  Goal Strategy  Safety  Increase safety for people who walk and bicycle in Collier County.  Connectivity Create a network of efficient, convenient  bicycle  and  pedestrian  facilities  in  Collier  County.  Health Increase total miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and encourage local governments  to incorporate Complete Streets principals in road planning, design and operations  Environment Protect the environment by supporting mode choice.  Equity/Livability Increase transportation choice and community livability through the development of an  integrated multimodal system.  Economy Promote tourism and economic opportunities by developing a safe, connected network  of biking and walking facilities.      9.C.1 Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    23    Objectives and Strategies   Goals can be general and lofty, but objectives and strategies need to specific enough to help make  measurable progress towards meeting the goals. The following objectives and strategies were identified  to help achieve the goals developed for this Plan and to provide sufficient flexibility in the implementation  of the Plan.   1. Safety   Increase safety for people who walk and bicycle in Collier County.    Objectives:   Reduce the number and severity of bicycle crashes.   Reduce the number and severity of pedestrian crashes.    Strategies:   Identify high‐crash locations for RSAs. Projects identified in RSAs will be a high priority for funding.   Collaborate with law enforcement to develop and deploy enforcement/education campaigns.   Work with FDOT and law enforcement agencies to seek funding for High Visibility Enforcement  (HVE) for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety.   Adopt a Complete Streets Policy and work with local governments and the County to develop    and adopt their own complete streets policies.    Work with FDOT, MPO member entities and other transportation agencies to reduce the number  of crashes, particularly those with severe or fatal injuries.    2. Connectivity   Create a network of efficient, interconnected and convenient bicycle  and  pedestrian  facilities in Collier County.    Objectives:   Fill in gaps in the existing bicycle and pedestrian network.   Provide a variety of bikeways and pedestrian facilities connected to transit stops and along transit           routes.   Provide a variety of bikeways and pedestrian facilities connected to parks, schools, downtowns,          and employment centers.    Strategies:    Actively pursue multiple sources of funding to implement Plan.   Use Transportation Management Area (TMA) funds for a wide‐         range or project types    Coordinate with MPO member entities and FDOT to complete         network gaps that may be completed during roadway widening         or reconstruction, or infrastructure projects.   Coordinate with MPO member entities and FDOT to complete  gaps during resurfacing projects.  TMA funds are distributed  from State DOTs to MPOs with  populations over 200,000.  TMA funds are prioritized by  the MPO in conjunction with  the State DOT.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    24     Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian projects in areas that will impact the greatest number of people.    3. Equity/livability Increase transportation choice and community livability through the development of  an integrated multimodal system.    Objectives:   Provide safe biking and walking conditions in areas of Collier County that are underserved or         transit‐dependent.    Provide a variety of bikeways and pedestrian facilities connected to destinations.   Provide a variety of bikeways and pedestrian facilities connected to transit.    Strategies:   Support Collier Area Transit (CAT) by coordinating bicycle and pedestrian facilities and ADA          improvements with bus routes and transfer centers   Identify and select projects that support the safe, convenient and accessible use of transit.   Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian projects in areas that will impact the greatest number of people.   Identify and select projects that allow safe, convenient access to areas of high employment.   Identify and select a proportion of projects that address the needs in EJ communities/areas.   Adopt a Complete Streets policy.    4. Health Encourage health and fitness by providing a safe, convenient network of facilities for walking  and biking.  Being either obese or overweight increases the risk for many chronic diseases (e.g., heart disease, type 2  diabetes,  certain  cancers,  and  stroke).  Reversing  the  Collier  County  obesity  epidemic  requires  a  comprehensive approach that uses policy and environmental change to transform communities into  places that support and promote healthy lifestyle choices for all Collier County residents. Lack of access  to safe places to play and exercise contribute to the increase in obesity rates by inhibiting or preventing  healthy active living behaviors. The objectives and strategies listed below are supported by the Florida  Department of Health and are based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Recommended  Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the United States”.14    Objectives:   Increase physical activity or limit sedentary activity among children and youth   Create safe communities that support physical activity                                                                 14 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommended Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent  Obesity in the United States. July 24, 2009.  https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5807a1.htm  Suggested measurements #17, #18, #23  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    25    Strategies:   Increase total miles of designated shared‐use paths and bike lanes relative to the total street miles          (excluding limited access highways) maintained by a local jurisdiction.   Increase total miles of paved sidewalks relative to the total street miles (excluding limited access          highways) maintained by a local jurisdiction.   Local government has a policy for designing and operating streets with safe access for all users          which  includes  at  least  one  element  suggested  by  the  National  Complete  Streets  Coalition         (http://www.completestreets.org).  In all‐user street design policies, such as the Complete Streets program, local governments incorporating  at least one of the following elements in a policy will enhance traffic safety and promote healthy lifestyle  choices:    specifies that "all users" includes pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles and users, and motorists          of all ages and abilities;   aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network;   recognizes the need for flexibility: that all streets are different and user needs will be balanced;   is adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads;   applies  to  both  new  and  retrofit  projects,  including  design,  planning,  maintenance,  and         operations, for the entire right of way;   makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires high‐level approval of           exceptions;   directs the use of the latest and best design standards;   directs that Complete Streets solutions fit within the context of the community; and   establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes.   5. Economy Promote tourism and economic opportunities by developing a safe, connected network of  biking and walking facilities.    Objectives:   Improve bikeability to destinations.   Support bicycle and pedestrian access to jobs.   Improve connections to lively pedestrian environments.    Strategies:   Coordinate with local agencies to develop a wayfinding and directional signage program.   Identify and select projects that allow safe, convenient access to areas of high employment.   Work  with  local  agencies  to  identify  projects  that  facilitate  pedestrian  access  to  areas  of           employment and recreation.   Collaborate with local agencies to identify opportunities for amenities (e.g., bike parking, benches,           street trees).  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    26    6. Environment Protect the environment by promoting walking and bicycling for transportation to reduce  congestion, reduce the need for costly expansion of road and highway systems and reduce our nation’s  dependence on foreign energy sources    Objectives:   Provide an accessible, connected network.   Connect to destinations such as retail or service, making short distance trips on foot or by bike          appealing.   Plan,  design  and  construct  bicycle  and  pedestrian  facilities  in a manner that minimizes any          negative environmental impacts and maximizes positive impacts    Strategies:   Fill gaps in the network to create better connections and to minimize the disruption in travel.   Work with agencies to improve intersections and create safe crossing opportunities.                        9.C.1 Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    27    CHAPTER 5 – NEEDS ANALYSIS  Identification of Network Needs   The  steps  taken  to  identify  and  prioritize  bicycle  and  pedestrian infrastructure gaps and needs on collector and  arterial roads were:   1. Plan Review ‐ Review of plans and documents that  address  bicycle  and  pedestrian  issues  and  opportunities. The plans review noted the following:   FDOT released a list of the top 5 bicycle and  pedestrian crash corridors while work on this Plan  was underway. FDOT’s list coincides for the most  part with the high crash corridors that this Plan  had  already  identified.  The  only  notable  difference  is  that  FDOT’s  list  does  not  include  US41 (Tamiami) between 91st and 111th Ave as this  Plan does.   Collier  County’s  TIGER  grant  goes  a  long  way  towards implementing the Immokalee Walkable  Community  Study,  thereby  addressing  two  primary concerns raised by this Plan – safety and  equity (EJ). In addition, FDOT is in the process of  implementing  a  bicycle  and  pedestrian  safety  project on Immokalee’s Main Street.   The Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study completed in 2019 addresses another EJ and  high crash location identified by this Plan.    2. Inventories ‐ The MPO’s 2017 bicycle and pedestrian facilities inventory maps were reviewed and  commented on by local agencies, stakeholders, and the community through an extensive public  outreach effort, resulting in further edits. While the BPMP was underway, the MPO entered into an  agreement  with  the  Naples  Pathway Coalition (NPC) to develop a joint  bicycle  facilities  map  in  partnership with NPC and the City of Naples Community Services Department. In the process, MPO  staff approved many revisions to the MPO’s 2017 facilities inventory. The joint map was completed  and published in November 2018 and those GIS files were then used by the BPMP consultant to  update all of the Plan’s base maps again. Going forward, NPC agreed to serve as the recipient of  comments regarding the joint map’s accuracy, and the MPO agreed to update the GIS files on an as‐ needed basis. Given that improving the accuracy of the facilities inventory remains an ongoing effort,  field review is a necessary precursor for all projects that MPO member entities wish to advance  through the funding application process.     Arterial road: A roadway that serves  primarily through traffic and secondarily  provides access to abutting properties.   Collector road: A roadway providing  access and traffic circulation service to a  residential, commercial, or industrial  area and secondarily provides for local  through traffic.   Local road or street: A route providing  service which is of relatively low traffic  volume, serving short trip length, or  minimal through‐traffic movements,  and a high degree of access for abutting  properties. Local roads may be privately  owned or governed by Collier County or  the incorporated municipalities in the  county.  Types of Roadways  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    28    3. Public Input – In addition to the public outreach described in Chapter 3, the MPO posted an interactive  map on its website using a Wiki map platform. The interactive map generated nearly 400 total  comments. Roughly 250 of the comments were gathered at the Marco Island Farmers’ Market and  input into the Wiki map; these comments expressed support for the top priorities in the City of Marco  Island Bike Path Master Plan. The remaining 150 comments were attributable to 25 unique creator  ID’s; most of these comments were from people living in the western and southern parts of the  county.  The project’s consultants created a GIS overlay from the Wiki maps data.    4. Crash and EJ Data ‐ Analysis of crash and EJ data overlays. Concentrations of bicycle and pedestrian  crashes are indicative of high use areas related to adjacent land uses. The high use areas in Collier  County tend to occur in relation to tourism, services or in relation to EJ residential areas.  The  combination of these two factors – bicycle and pedestrian crash  clusters and EJ communities – proved  to be a useful marker for the needs of low income, minority and immigrant populations.     5. Network Configuration – MPO staff worked closely with the advisory committees and agency staff  and considered public comment in the process of articulating design and planning policies related to  roads.  (See Chapter 7.)     6. Gap / Needs Analysis ‐ The project team – consultants and staff – using GIS as the basis, analyzed a  series of overlays of the gathered data, public input, and draft policies, to identify missing links in the  bicycle/pedestrian  network  and  portions  of  the  network  with  deficiencies  in  the  existing  infrastructure.  The  combination  of  missing  links  and  segments  characterized  as  deficient  infrastructure culminated in maps and related spreadsheets quantifying Needs; and in the process of  analysis,  continuously  refined  the  prioritization  criteria;  and monthly updates with the advisory  committees and stakeholders beginning in the fall of 2018.    The foregoing analysis identified a total of 74 miles of roadway lacking any type of bicycle and/or  pedestrian facility; and 150 miles of roadway lacking sufficient bicycle facilities. See summary in Table 7.  Table 7‐ Network Gaps ‐ Facility Needs  Type of Gap in Bicycle  Network  Mileage of Missing Facilities  All Gaps on  Collector &  Arterial  Roadways  Gaps Meeting  Equity  Criterion (2)  Gaps Meeting  Safety  Criterion  Gaps Meeting  Equity and  Safety Criteria  No Facility  73.9  22.9  2.4  0.0  Insufficient Facility 150.3 44.5 13.1 5.8  Paved Shoulder(1) 85.3  26.0  1.7  1.3  Connector Sidewalk(1) 65.0 18.5 11.4 4.5  Total Miles  224.2  67.4  15.5  5.8  (1) Paved Shoulder/ Connector Sidewalk are sub‐categories of Insufficient Facility total.  (2) Equity Criterion established as block groups receiving a Medium, High, or Very High ranking  from the Composite Equity Analysis.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    29    Priority Projects Identified  The  following  project  priorities  are  identified  based  on  the  analysis  that  began  with  identifying  EJ  considerations in Chapter 1, followed by Safety in Chapter 2, then this chapter’s Plan Review, Gaps and  Needs Analysis.   Safety, Equity and Multimodal Connections ‐ Complete Streets / Safety Corridor Studies on High  Crash Locations on Arterial and Collector Roads  This Plan’s adoption of FDOT’s Complete Street’s Policy (See Chapter 7) makes it possible to address a  multiplicity of factors – equity/EJ, safety, high use, transit connections, public and agency input.   The in‐ depth  multi‐disciplinary  analysis  conducted  during  a  Complete  Streets  /  Safety  Study  will  develop  recommendations to reduce crashes  and improve safety. Road Safety  Audits  and  the  projects  they  recommend are eligible for HSIP funding.  Table 8 ‐ Complete Streets ‐ Safety Corridor Studies    Network Gaps on Arterial and Collector Roads Prioritized by Public Input  The Network Gaps/Facility Needs (Table 7 on previous page) identified a total of 224 miles of collector  and arterial roadways in need of facility improvements. Appendix 10 contains the complete listing,  alphabetized by road name with mileage shown by road segment and a description of the infrastructure  gap.  The magnitude of the needs identified through technical analysis alone demonstrated the importance of  prioritizing public investment; to do so, the project team used GIS to analyze the confluence of public  comments and facility gaps.  Figure 13 and Table 9 on following pages show the result of that analysis. These are the facility gaps  identified by technical analysis that the public is most interested in addressing at this time. The segments  identified total 66 miles – an amount that is within reach of achievement by concerted effort of all parties.    Rank Rorad Name From To Project Description  1 US41 Tamiami  Commercial Dr/Palm St  Guilford Road  Review, adopt and implement  FDOT RSA recommendations   Airport Road US41 Tamiami Estey Ave  2 Airport Road Estey Ave Golden Gate  Pkwy  Corridor Study  3 US41 Tamiami Commercial Dr/Palm St  9th Ave Corridor Study  4 Goodlette  Frank  US41 Tamiami Golden Gate  Pkwy  Corridor Study  5 Davis Blvd US41 Tamiami Airport Rd Corridor Study  6 Golden Gate  Parkway  Santa Barbara Blvd Collier Blvd Corridor Study  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) EVERGLADES BLVD NWILSON BLVD NSR 29TAMIAMI T R L E OIL WELL RD IMMOKALEE RD CR 846 ESR 29 NSAN MARCO RDCOLLIER BLVDLIVINGSTON RD NGOLDEN GATE PKWY PINE RIDGE RD IMMOKALEE RD §¨¦75 §¨¦75 Legend Incorporated Municipalities Immokalee Urban Area Environmental Lands Gulf of Mexico Immokalee Marco Island Naples SAN MARCO RDN B A R F I E L D D R B A L D E A G L E D R N COLLIER BLVDS COLL IER BLVDS BARFIELD DRCOLLIER BLVDDOGWOO D D RKENDALL DRWINTERBERRY DR WHISKEY CREEK DR6TH AVE PELICAN ST G O O D L A N D D R SCOTT DRCOPPERFIELD CT SWALLOW AVE ELM CT WA T ER S IDE DRE INLET DRN BAHAMA A V E PO L Y N E S I A C T SAN M A R C O R D N BARFIELD D R Gulf of Mexico Marco Island Inset Figure 13: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Gaps Overlapped with Public Comment Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan NE W M A R K E T R D W SR 2 9 CR 846 E LAKE TRAFFORD RD SR 29 NS 1ST STN 15TH STCR 846GOPHER RIDGE RDS 5TH STN 11TH STCARSON RDN 9TH STE MAIN ST S 9TH STN 18TH STWESTCLOX ST STOCKADE RD AIRPARK BLVDS 4TH STLITTLE LEAGUE RD PALM DRMIRAHAM DR DILSA LNW MAIN ST OT T E R T R L WA S H I N G T O N A V E SR 2 9 CR 846 E Immokalee Inset TAMIAMI TRL NLIVINGSTON RD SAIRPORT PULLING RD NGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NCRAYTON RD9TH ST NTRAIL BLVDIMMOKALEE RD VANDERBILT BEACH RD DAVIS BLVD PINE RIDGE RD GOLDEN GATE PKWYWEST ST3RD ST SRIDGE DR5TH AVE S RADIO RD10TH ST NTHE LNESTEY AVE LIVINGSTON RD NPIPER BLVD 8TH ST S7TH AVE N NORTH RD1ST AVE SVANDERBILT DRORANGE BLOSSOM DR TA M I A M I T R L E PELICAN MARSH BLVD BELAIR LN91ST AVE N TAYLOR RD99TH AVE N97TH AVE N 94TH AVE N PALM DR2ND AVE N 3RD AVE S 111TH AVE N 4TH AVE N 101ST AVE N 70TH ST SWGAIL BLVD 109TH AVE N107TH AVE N105TH AVE N PELICAN BAY BLVD103RD AVE N HICKORY RDALLEYJ AND C BLVD IVY DR SEAGATE DR LAKE W O O D B L V DGULF SHORE BLVD S8TH ST N18TH AVE S 11TH AVE S C A R I C A R D GULF SHORE BLVD NPROGRESS AVE EXCHANGE AVE PALM STTIBURON BLVD E OUTRIGGER LN SANDPIPER STLONGBOAT DR OLD LIVINGSTON RDHARBOUR DR ESTUARY DR DOMESTIC AVE NOTTING H A M D R ARNOLD AVEYAHL STWINTERVIEW DRPIER E14TH ST NWEDGE DR BURNING TREE DRLINWOOD AVE 13TH AVE S 15TH AVE SWEST BLVDAUTUMN WOODS BLVDGREENTREE DRBAY LAUREL DRNAPLES BLVDRIVIERA DR BAILEY LNCARIBBEAN RDMISSION DRCREEKSIDE BLVD EAST AVEBA Y C O L O N Y D R WICKLIFFE DR COUGAR DRPOINCIANA STJEWEL LNENTERPRISE AVE P O I N T E D R ORCHID DR STONEGATE DRILEX CIRGRANADA BLVD STRA D A P L TUPELO R D KENSINGTON HIGH STELSA STCAJEPUT DR14TH AVE N VILLAGE WALK CIRBECCA AVE FUEL FARM RD TERYL RDPROSPECT AVE POMPEI LN FOXTAIL CTBOCA CIRSUMMER PLBALD EAGLE DR OSCEOLA TRLCITRUS LAKE DR ROBIN AVE HILLTOP DR LEWIS LNG R E Y O A K S D R NEUROPA DRGARDENS BLVDOAK AVE PARROT AVEOAKMONT PKWYHARB O R L N MAHOGANY DR FOUNTAIN VIEW CIR TIVOLI LNASTON DRP U R S L A N E D R RIVERSIDE CIRCURLEW AVE HAWKSRIDGE DR DIANA AVE B U L R U S H L N PERSIMMON DRPARNU STWAGGLE W A Y BAY PT 11TH ST N SEAGRAPE AVES LAKE DRAV I A T I O N D R SHAWSER LNPREMIER WAYHUELVA CTPINE CT 12TH ST N11TH ST S10TH ST NGULF SHORE BLVD NENTERPRISE AVECRAYTON RD10TH ST NSEAGATE DR12TH ST NTAMIAMI TRL NLIVINGSTON RD SCRAYTON RD9TH ST NTRAIL BLVDIMMOKALEE RD DAVIS BLVD WEST ST 5TH A V E S THE LNLIVINGSTON RD NNORTH RDBELAIR LNTAYLOR RDPALM DRSANDPIPER STNAPLES BLVD COUGAR DRJEWEL LNILEX CIR BALD EAGLE DR CITRUS LAKE DR 0 5 102.5 Miles¹ Gulf of Mexico Naples Inset COP E L A N D A V E SCR 29COLLIER AVEPLANTATION PKWY SMALLWOOD DRCOPELAND AVE S Everglades City Inset Everglades City Public Comment Overlap On-Road Bicycle Facility Pathway Safety Concern Marco Island Master Plan Sidewalk Bicycle Facility Gaps No Existing Bicycle Facilities Existing Paved Shoulder Existing Connector Sidewalk Page 30 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    31    Table 9‐ Prioritized Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities  Road From To Dist Agency Facility Type  111TH AVE N  VANDERBILT DR  TAMIAMI TRL N  1.0  Collier Co  Bike Lane/Path  AIRPORT RD N PINE RIDGE RD IMMOKALEE RD 4.2 Collier Co Bike Lane/Path  AIRPORT RD N  S HORSESHOE DR  PINEWOODS CIR  2.5  Collier Co  Bike Lane/Path  AIRPORT RD S SEAGRAPE AVE DAVIS BLVD 0.5 Collier Co Bike Lane/Path  AIRPORT RD S  DAVIS BLVD  TAMIAMI TRL E  0.8  Collier Co  Safety  BLUEBILL AVE BLUEBILL AVE VANDERBILT DR 0.4 Collier Co Bike Lane/Path  BONITA BEACH RD  VANDERBILT DR  1.7  Collier Co  Bike Lane/Path  CASTAWAYS ST SATURN CT AMAZON CT 0.2 Marco Is Marco Master Plan  COLLIER BLVD  17TH AVE SW  CITY GATE BLVD N  2.0  Collier Co  Bike Lane/Path  COLLIER BLVD N END JOLLEY  BRIDGE  FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY 3.6 Collier Co Bike Lane/Path  COPELAND AVE S  BROADWAY   OYSTER BAR LN  0.7  Everglades   Pathway  DAVIS BLVD TAMIAMI TRL  AIRPORT RD S 1.0 Collier Co Bike Lane/Path  EVERGLADES BLVD   OIL WELL RD  58TH AVE NE  3.1  Collier Co  Sidewalk  GOLDEN GATE PKWY 9TH ST N ESTUARY BLVD 1.6 Naples Bike Lane/Path  GREENBRIER ST  MANOR TER  SATURN CT  0.2  Marco Is  Marco Master Plan  IMMOKALEE RD TAMIAMI TRL  NORTHBROOKE DR 4.0 Collier Co Bike Lane/Path  LOGAN BLVD N  LOGAN BLVD   VANDERBILT BEACH RD  1.1  Collier Co  Bike Lane/Path  LOGAN BLVD S LOGAN BLVD  GREEN BLVD 2.0 Collier Co Bike Lane/Path  OIL WELL RD  EVERGLADES BLVD N  OIL WELL GRADE RD  3.9  Collier Co Bike Lane/Path  OIL WELL RD AVE MARIA BLVD SR 29 5.7 Collier Co Bike Lane/Path  OLD US 41 N  TAMIAMI TRL   PERFORMANCE WAY  1.5  Collier Co  Pathway  PERU ST    SEAGRAPE DR 0.1 Marco Is Marco Master Plan  PINE RIDGE RD  TAMIAMI TRL   LOGAN BLVD S  5.1  Collier Co  Bike Lane/Path  RANDALL BLVD RANDALL BLVD APPROACH BLVD 1.5 Collier Co Bike Lane/Path  RATTLESNAKE H RD  VALLEY STREAM DR  COLLIER BLVD  3.5  Collier Co  Bike Lane/Path  SAN MARCO RD GOODLAND DR TAMIAMI TRL E 6.5 Collier Co  Pathway  SANTA BARB BLVD  GREEN BLVD  17TH AVE SW  0.2  Collier Co  Bike Lane/Path  SATURN CT CASTAWAYS ST GREENBRIER ST 0.1 Marco Is Marco Master Plan  SEAGRAPE DR  PERU ST  SWALLOW AVE  0.7  Marco Is  Marco Master Plan  TAMIAMI TRL E GREENWAY RD SIX LS FARM RD 2.5 Collier Co Pathway  VANDERBILT BEACH RD  GULFSHORE DR  VANDERBILT DR  0.4  Collier Co  Bike Lane/Path  WIGGINS PASS RD VANDERBILT DR TAMIAMI TRL N 1.0 Collier Co Bike Lane/Path  WILSON BLVD N  GOLDEN GATE BLVD   24TH AVE NE  3.0  Collier Co  Pathway  TOTAL MILES   66.3        9.C.1 Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    32    SunTrail Alignments and Spine Pathway Corridors  Figure 14 (Page 33) shows the two SunTrail alignments and other interconnected spine pathway corridors  within Collier County, forming an integrated high priority pathway network. The following paragraphs  describe the network and the prioritized projects needed to complete it.  SunTrail Alignments – The Gulf Coast Trail is envisioned to be a regional facility linking Collier, Lee County  and  Sarasota‐Manatee  MPOs.  As  such,  it  is  critical  to  maintain regional  connections  across  county  boundaries. This Plan expands the Collier MPO’s previously adopted alignment to include the Paradise  Coast Bicycle Route connecting to a coastal alignment of the Gulf Coast Trail approved for Lee County.  Collier’s Paradise Coast Bicycle Route follows existing roadways that for the most part do not require  additional signage or lane markings with the exception of completing the missing link across Seagate Ave  that would connect Crayton Road north and south. Public input and the Naples Pathways Coalition (NPC)  strongly  support  filling  this  gap.  The  MPO  will  submit  the  new alignment  to  the  Department  of  Environmental Protection – Office of Greenways and Trails for consideration.  FPL Easement/Livingston/Rich King Greenway alignment ‐ The current SunTrail alignment occurs within a  Florida Power and Light (FPL) easement that parallels Livingston Road and would connect with the existing  Rich King Greenway. Constructing a Shared Use Path in this alignment has been a goal of the Bicycle and  Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) for many years. The southeast portion of the current alignment  occurs on‐street except for the proposed Rookery Bay Greenway. Due to its environmental and hydrologic  sensitivity, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida (Conservancy) recommended eliminating the proposed  trail  through  Rookery  Bay  and  making  other  refinements  to  the  current  SunTrail,  Southwest  Coast  Connector alignment. These revisions have been incorporated in this Plan (Figure 14).   FDOT is planning to conduct a safety study of US41 Tamiami Trail east that may result in improvements  to the existing shoulders to more safely accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. The roadway forms a  gateway into a region of State and National Parks, as well as a critical cycling link within Collier County in  that it also connects to SR 29 and the greater Everglades City area.   Gordon River Greenway Connections ‐ Improved connections to the Gordon River Greenway are needed  to bridge the gap between the two SunTrail alignments. The Gord on River Greenway Master Plan calls for  a pedestrian overpass over Golden Gate Parkway connecting Freedom Park with the Greenway to the  south. Golden Gate Parkway is a critical connecting east/west roadway.   Golden Gate Canal Greenway (Proposed) – The Golden Gate Canal provides an opportunity to extend the  off‐street Shared Use Path system north and west, connecting to Golden Gate City, Ave Maria, Immokalee  and the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.  Golden Gate Parkway between Santa Barbara and Collier Boulevards – This section of Golden Gate  Parkway coincides with the Spine Trail Network and has been identified in this Plan for additional bicycle,  pedestrian and transit enhancements following Complete Streets design principles.  The segment also falls  within the newly designated Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone and has been identified as  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    33    needing improved bicycle and pedestrian safety features in the Golden Gate City Walkable Community  Study (2019).   SR29 and SR82 – These roadways form a critical outer loop for recreational cycling. As adjacent lands  become urbanized, portions of these roadways will serve as multimodal transportation.        Table 10‐ Prioritized Spine Pathway Projects  Rank Road / Trail  From To Project Description  1 Seagate Crossing  Crayton Rd  Crayton Rd  Connect & Improve Crossing  2 Freedom Park  Overpass  Golden Gate Pkwy Gordon River  Greenway  Pedestrian Overpass estimated  at $5million  3 Wilson Road  Connection to New  Sports Stadium  Immokalee Road  New Frontage Rd  north of I/75  Shared Use Paths & Bike Lanes  4 Lake Trafford Rd   Endpoint of FPN  4433573 & 574  Lake Trafford  TBD through further study  5 Golden Gate Canal  Greenway  Airport Rd Oil Well Rd Shared Use Path ‐ Paved  6 FPL Greenway  along Livingston Rd  South of Golden Gate  Pkwy  Lee County Line  Shared Use Path ‐ Paved  7 Golden Gate Pkwy Livingston Rd Gordon River  Greenway  Shared Use Path ‐ Paved  8 Golden Gate Pkwy Santa Barbara Blvd Collier Blvd Enhanced Facilities – Complete  Streets Study – Newly  Designated Economic  Development Zone    9.C.1 Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Naples Goodland Immokalee Baker Park Naples Zoo Golden Gate Chokoloskee Naples Pier Naples Manor Crayton Cove Lake Trafford Bonita Springs FPL Substation Barefoot Beach Clam Pass Park Ave Maria Entry Ave Maria Entry Everglades City Vanderbilt Beach Golden Gate City Plantation Island Clam Pass Parking Rich King Greenway Immokalee Main Street Conservancy SW Florida Public Park and Marina Rookery Bay Edu Center Naples Botanical Gardens Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary Delnor-Wiggins State Park Public Beach Access Parking Collier Seminole State Park Shell Island Scenic Overlook Venetian Bay Commercial Center Isle of Capri Paddlepark Overlook Collier County Government Center and CAT Transit Center EVERGLADES BLVD NWILSON BLVD NTAMIAMI TRL NLOGAN BLVD NSR 29TAMIAMI T R L E OIL WELL RD IMMOKALEE RD SR 29 NSAN MARCO RDLIVINGSTON RD NIMMOKALEE RD §¨¦75 Legend Shared Use Path Bicycle Facility Connector Sidewalk Paved Shoulder Greenway Proposed Greenway Proposed Shared Use Path Proposed Bicycle Facility !Points of Interest Gulf of Mexico LEE Immokalee Marco Island Naples !SAN MARCO RDN B A R F I E L D D R B A L D E A G L E D R N COLLIER BLVDS COLL IER BLVDS BARFIELD DRCOLLIER BLVDDOGWOO D D RKENDALL DRWINTERBERRY DR WHISKEY CREEK DR6TH AVE PELICAN ST G O O D L A N D D R SCOTT DRCOPPERFIELD CT SWALLOW AVE ELM CT WA T ER S IDE DRE INLET DRN BAHAMA A V E PO L Y N E S I A C T SAN M A R C O R D N BARFIELD D R GoodlandGulf of Mexico Marco Island Inset Figure 14: SunTrail Alignments and Spine Pathway Corridors Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan ! ! ! NE W M A R K E T R D W SR 2 9 CR 846 E LAKE TRAFFORD RD SR 29 NS 1ST STN 15TH STCR 846GOPHER RIDGE RDS 5TH STN 11TH STCARSON RDN 9TH STE MAIN ST S 9TH STN 18TH STWESTCLOX ST STOCKADE RD AIRPARK BLVDLITTLE LEAGUE RD PALM DRMIRAHAM DR DILSA LNW MAIN ST OT T E R T R L WA S H I N G T O N A V E SR 2 9 CR 846 E Immokalee Lake Trafford Immokalee Main Street Immokalee Inset ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !I 75TAMIAMI TRL NLIVINGSTON RD SAIRPORT PULLING RD NGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NCRAYTON RDPINE RIDGE RD IMMOKALEE RD 9TH ST N DAVIS BLVD VANDERBILT BEACH RD TRAIL BLVDRADIO RD LIVINGSTON RD NTA M I A M I T R L E GOLDEN GATE PKWYVANDERBILT DRWEST ST3RD ST SRIDGE DR5TH AVE S10TH ST NTHE LNRich King Mem GreenwayESTEY AVE GORDON DRSTRAND BLVD 7TH AVE N NORTH RD PALM DR9TH ST SORANGE BLOSSOM DR KINGS WAYPELICAN MARSH BLVD LAKEWOOD BLVDBELAIR LNSOLL ST91ST AVE N TAYLOR RD99TH AVE N 96TH AVE N 2ND AVE N CENTRAL AVE 111TH AVE N 4TH AVE N 70TH ST SWGAIL BLVD 68TH ST SW108TH AVE N 105TH AVE N PELICAN BAY BLVD66TH ST SWGULF SHORE DR 102ND AVE N HICKORY RDGULF SHORE BLVD SALLEYG A L L E O N D R J AND C BLVD IVY DR DANIELS RD SEAGATE DR SANDPIPER STHUNTERS RD C A R I C A R D CYPRESS WAY E MENTOR DR GULF SHORE BLVD N PROGRESS AVE EXCHANGE AVE TIBURON BLVD E OUTRIGGER LN OLD LIVINGSTON RDHARBOUR DR ESTUARY DR TARPON RDERIE DR RIDGEWOOD DRARNOLD AVE DELASOL LN WINTERVIEW DRPIER EWYNDEMERE WAY WEDGE DR LINWOOD AVE 64TH ST SW21ST AVE S BAYSHORE DRSAN MARCOS BLVD2ND AVE S BAY LAUREL DRNAPLES BLVD26TH AVE N 22ND AVE N WINDSTAR BLVD MISS I O N D R CREEKSIDE BLVD EAST AVE17TH AVE S WHIPPOORWILL LNPALM VIEW DR WHITTEN DRBA Y C O L O N Y D R WICKLIFFE DR SAINT CLAIR SHORES RDCOUGAR DRTARPON BAY BLVDTERRACE AVE VILLAGE WALK CIR ORCHID DR STONEGATE DRILEX CIRENCORE WAY GRANADA BLVD ROSE AVE ST R A D A P L KENSINGTON HIGH ST PINE ISLE LNIMPERIAL CIR VIA NAPOLI 14TH AVE NBRASSIE BNDWINDING OAKS WAY POMPEI LN PINE STKINGS LAKE BLVDBALD EAGLE DRCYPRESS WAY WCITRUS LAKE DR LUNAR ST ROBIN AVELEWIS LNWILSHIRE LAKES BLVDROYAL COVE DR EUGENIA DR S HORSESHOE DR JULIET BLVDESTELLE DRROMA CT MA R S A L A W A Y PARROT AVE LANTERN LNGORDON STTIVOLI LNRIVERSIDE CIRCURLEW AVE DONOSO CT PORTSIDE DR B U L R U S H L N PERSIMMON DR PARK AVE WALKERBILT RD PARNU STEATONWOOD LNDIMOCK LN PATRIOT 7TH ST S5TH ST S12TH ST N12TH ST NI 75GULF SHORE BLVD N10TH ST NNaples5th Ave Baker Park Naples Zoo Louden Park Naples Pier Crayton Cove FPL Substation Clam Pass Park Vanderbilt Beach Clam Pass Parking Rich King Greenway Gordon River Greenway Conservancy SW Florida Delnor-Wiggins State Park Public Beach Access Parking Freedom Park and BP Overpass Gordon River Greenway Parking Gordon River Greenway Parking Venetian Bay Commercial Center Improve Crossing and Connection Collier County Government Center and CAT Transit Center I 75TAMIAMI TRL NAIRPORT PULLING RD NCRAYTON RDPINE RIDGE RDLIVINGSTON RD NVANDERBILT DRWEST STTHE LNGORDON DRNORTH RDTAYLOR RDMISSION DRCOUGAR DRI 750 5 102.5 Miles¹ Gulf of Mexico Naples Inset ! ! ! ! COP E L A N D A V E SCR 29COLLIER AVEPLANTATION PKWY COPELAND AVE S Chokoloskee Everglades City Plantation IslandEverglades National Park Gulf Coast Visitor Center Everglades City Inset Everglades City Isle of Capri Restaurant, Fire Station, Paddle Board Rentals Barefoot Williams Rd KOA Scenic Overlook Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary New Sports Arena Page 34 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    35    City of Naples Downtown Circulation & Connectivity Plan  The  Naples  City  Council  formally  adopted  Resolution  2018‐14134 on  April  4,  2018.  The  Resolution  establishes that the City desires to maintain the existing number of vehicular travel lanes on US41 and  asks FDOT to work with City staff to establish other improvements  that  promote  safe  multimodal  connectivity across US41 as described in the Naples Downtown Circulation and Connectivity Plan (Naples  Downtown Plan.) The Naples Downtown plan is incorporated by reference in this Plan.  A project calling for bicycle and pedestrian improvements to the Gordon River Bridge (5th Ave S) has  regional significance and is therefore included as a high priority project in this Plan. (See Figure 14). The  proposed design calls for narrowing the existing travel lanes, eliminating the shoulder, and moving the  existing barrier to provide a 14’ Shared Use Path on each side of the bridge at an estimated cost of $2.6  million. The Gordon River Bridge has regional significance because it is the hub of the SunTrail and Spine  Corridor Network, as shown in Figure 15 on the next page.     Figure 15‐ Gordon River Greenway Bridge      9.C.1 Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    36    Figure 16‐ Gordon River Greenway ‐ Regional Significance      Existing + Proposed Facilities  The project team added an additional layer to the needs analysis described above – capacity enhancement  roadway projects identified in the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).  Roadway enhancement  projects provide an excellent opportunity to expand the bicycle and pedestrian network in a cost‐effective  manner, and a common practice among member entities of the MPO.  The Existing + Proposed Facilities Map (Figure 17, next page) is a visual summary of the project priorities  for major roadways and the Spine Trail network based on the foregoing analysis.   9.C.1 Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) EVERGLADES BLVD NWILSON BLVD NSR 29TAMIAMI T R L E OIL WELL RD IMMOKALEE RD CR 846 ESR 29 NSAN MARCO RDCOLLIER BLVDLIVINGSTON RD NGOLDEN GATE PKWY PINE RIDGE RD IMMOKALEE RD §¨¦75 §¨¦75 Gulf of Mexico LEE Immokalee Marco Island Naples SAN MARCO RDN B A R F I E L D D R B A L D E A G L E D R N COLLIER BLVDS COLL IER BLVDS BARFIELD DRCOLLIER BLVDDOGWOO D D RKENDALL DRWINTERBERRY DR WHISKEY CREEK DR6TH AVE PELICAN ST G O O D L A N D D R SCOTT DRCOPPERFIELD CT SWALLOW AVE ELM CT WA T ER S IDE DRE INLET DRN BAHAMA A V E PO L Y N E S I A C T SAN M A R C O R D N BARFIELD D R Gulf of Mexico Marco Island Inset Figure 17: Existing + Proposed Facilities Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan NE W M A R K E T R D W SR 2 9 CR 846 E LAKE TRAFFORD RD SR 29 NS 1ST STN 15TH STCR 846GOPHER RIDGE RDS 5TH STN 11TH STCARSON RDN 9TH STE MAIN ST S 9TH STN 18TH STWESTCLOX ST STOCKADE RD AIRPARK BLVDS 4TH STLITTLE LEAGUE RD PALM DRMIRAHAM DR DILSA LNW MAIN ST OT T E R T R L WA S H I N G T O N A V E SR 2 9 CR 846 E Immokalee InsetCRAYTON RDLIVINGSTON RD S9TH ST N TA M I A M I T R L EGORDON DRDAVIS BLVDGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NTAMIAMI TRL NPINE RIDGE RD GOLDEN GATE PKWY 3RD ST SRADIO RD 5TH AVE S10TH ST NESTEY AVE THOMASSON DR 7TH AVE N NORTH RD PALM DR9TH ST S1ST AVE S G A L L E O N D R LAKEWOOD BLVDBELAIR LN2ND AVE N RUM ROW3RD AVE S 10TH AVE S 4TH AVE N 70TH ST SWGAIL BLVD 68TH ST SWALLEYIVY DR SEAGATE DR SANDPIPER ST8TH ST N18TH AVE S GIN LNGULF SHORE BLVD NPROGRESS AVE EXCHANGE AVE PALM STOUTRIGGER LNLONGBOAT DR HARBOUR DR ESTUARY DR TARPON RDDOMESTIC AVE RIDGE DR ARNOLD AVEYAHL STBROAD AVE S ALBI RDPIER ETAYLOR RD14TH ST NWEDGE DR BURNING TREE DRLINWOOD AVE 13TH AVE S FERN ST15TH AVE SWEST BLVDKINGS LAKE BLVD21ST AVE S BAYSHORE DRNAPLES BLVDRIVIERA DR BAILEY LN HAWAII BLVDPENNY LNEAST AVEPOINCIANA ST GLADES BLVD ENTERPRISE AVE TIVOLI DRORCHID DR BEECHWOOD LAKE DRROSE AVEKENSINGTON HIGH STVAN BUREN AVE 14TH AVE NCAPRI DRFUEL FARM RD PROSPECT AVE FOXTAIL CTPOMPEI LN PINE STBALD EAGLE DR ROBIN AVELEWIS LNG R E Y O A K S D R NEUROPA DRGARDENS BLVDOUTER DRRORDON AVE PARROT AVE KINGS WAYKAREN DRLANTERN LNGORDON STCURTIS STRIVERSIDE CIRCU T L A S S L N HOLLY AVE CURLEW AVE HAWKSRIDGE DR DIANA AVE SERRANO CIRTOWER DRSEMINOLE AVE B U L R U S H L N JEEPERS DR BAY PT 11TH ST N SEAGRAPE AVE PINE TREE DRS LAKE DRAV I A T I O N D R SHAWSER LNPREMIER WAYCOLONIAL DR WOODSIDE AVE PINE CT 12TH ST N11TH ST SMER I D I A N P LSEAGATE DRGULF SHORE BLVD N10TH ST NCRAYTON RDENTERPRISE AVE 14TH ST NPINE STCRAYTON RDLIVINGSTON RD S9TH ST NTA M I A M I T R L EGORDON DRDAVIS BLVDAIRPORT PULLING RD N5TH A V E SNORTH RDRUM ROW BALD EAGLE DR GREY OAKS DR N0 5 102.5 Miles¹ Gulf of Mexico Naples Inset COP E L A N D A V E SCR 29COLLIER AVEPLANTATION PKWY SMALLWOOD DRCOPELAND AVE S Everglades City Inset Everglades City Proposed Facilities CS/Safety Study Corridors Greenways with SUPs Proposed Enhanced Facility Designated Bike Lane Low Speed/Low Volume Road Sharrow Shared Use Path Greenway Paved Shoulder Connector Sidewalk Legend > > > Proposed Enhanced Crossing Page 37 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    38    Local / Residential Roads  The MPO has completed four Walkable Community Studies that focused on pedestrian needs in areas of  the county with concentrated populations and, therefore, more walking and biking. The goal of each study  was to identify infrastructure needs and then prioritize them into separate tiers. Tier 1 identified the  greatest needs as segments with no sidewalks, Tier 2 was sidewalks on only one side of the street, and  Tier 3 included lighting and additional amenities. These studies generated a long list of projects, and  considerable progress has been made building the Tier 1 projects.   This Plan recommends continuing to coordinate with the County to fund the recommended remaining Tier  1 facilities from the first three studies as well as the Tier 1 priorities from the fourth study which was  adopted in 2019. (Tiers 2 and 3 in high‐need areas should be considered and may present opportunities to  partner with local groups or agencies.) The Tier 1 segments were combined with the top priorities of cities  of Everglades City and Marco Island (A walkable community study has not been done in either city.). Each  candidate project on the combined list was then scored and ranked using the methodology that was  developed based on the Plan’s goals. Table 11 lists these criteria and the point values.  The list of projects  and their relative priority can be found in the Appendix 11.  Table 11‐ Prioritization Criteria for Use on Local Road or Local Agency Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs    Because many local road projects identified in previous Walkability studies have been constructed, the  need for more projects was identified. Analysis yielded 360 miles of sidewalk needs throughout Collier  County where there are no sidewalks on either side of the street. In collaboration with the County, a  screening process was developed to identify the highest priority segments. The screening identified roads  segments that were within one mile of a school or a transit stop and that also were in a medium, high or  very high EJ area. The results of this analysis yielded 160 miles of road segments that are within one mile  of a transit stop and that meet the EJ criteria, and 146 miles of road segments within one mile of a school  and that meet the EJ criteria. These results are graphically displayed in Figures 18 through 20 on pages 40  through 42.  Review of these needs identified a lot of overlap between sidewalk gaps around schools and near transit  stops. Figure 20 (page 42) shows the sidewalk gaps that satisfy both criteria. There are 119 miles of   Criterion Intention Points  Safety  Increase safety for people who walk and ride in Collier County.  25  Connectivity Enhance the network of efficient, convenient bicycle and pedestrian facilities  in Collier County. 20  Equity/Livability Increase transportation choice and community livability through the  development of an integrated multimodal system. 10  Economic  Development  Promote tourism and economic opportunities by developing a safe,  connected network of biking and walking facilities. 15  Community Support  Agency or local group.  10  Readiness Has any work been done? 5  Major Road – Bike or  Pedestrian Access Provides bike or pedestrian access to major roads.  5  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    39    sidewalks that could be constructed that would facilitate safer access to schools and to transit stops.  Appendix 12 lists the name of each road that passed these screens.   This Plan focused on sidewalks in residential areas. Towards the end of the planning process, MPO staff  received a request from members of the public to include completing sidewalk and bicycle connections in  office and industrial areas. The concept has tremendous merit; however, this has not been vetted against  the criteria developed for this Plan. MPO staff will work with interested parties and local agencies to try  to identify funding for specific proposals on a case‐by‐case basis. 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) TAMIAMI TRL NGOLDEN GATE BLVD WLOGAN BLVD NSR 29TAMIAMI T R L E OIL WELL RD IMMOKALEE RD CR 846 ESR 29 NSAN MARCO RDCOLLIER BLVDLIVINGSTON RD NGOLDEN GATE PKWY PINE RIDGE RD IMMOKALEE RD §¨¦75 §¨¦75 Legend Gulf of Mexico LEE Immokalee Marco Island Naples SAN MAR C O R D N B A R F I E L D D RBALD EAG LE DRN COLLIER BLVDS COLL IER BLVDS BARFIELD DRDOGWOOD DRKENDALL DRCOLLIER BLVDWINTERBERRY DR WHISKEY CREEK DRINL E T D R6TH AVE JAM A I C A R D G O O D L A N D D R SCOTT DRCOPPERFIELD CT SWALLOW AVE ELM CT WA T ER S IDE DRE INLET DRBOND CT PO L Y N E S I A C T VILLA CTS SEAS CT Marco Island Inset Figure 18: Sidewalk Segments - Transit Proximity and EJ Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan SR 2 9 CR 846 E LAKE TRAFFORD RDSR 29 NS 1ST STN 15TH STCR 846GOPHER RIDGE RDS 5TH STN 11TH STCARSON RDN 9TH STMA D I S O N A V E W E MAIN ST S 9TH STN 18TH STWESTCLOX ST STOCKADE RDTAYLOR TERAIRPARK BLVDS 4TH STLITTLE LEAGUE RD ALACHUA STDILSA LNW MAIN ST OT T E R T R LBUSH ST WSR 2 9 CR 846 E Immokalee InsetCRAYTON RDLIVINGSTON RD S9TH ST N TA M I A M I T R L E DAVIS BLVD GORDON DRGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NTAMIAMI TRL NPINE RIDGE RD GOLDEN GATE PKWY RADIO RD 3RD ST S5TH AVE S10TH ST NESTEY AVE THOMASSON DR 7TH AVE N NORTH RD PALM DR9TH ST S1ST AVE S KINGS WAYG A L L E O N D R LAKEWOOD BLVDBELAIR LN2ND AVE N RUM ROW3RD AVE S 10TH AVE S 4TH AVE N 70TH ST SWGAIL BLVD 68TH ST SWAIRPORT PULLING RD SALLEYIVY DR SEAGATE DR SANDPIPER ST8TH ST N18TH AVE S GIN LNGULF SHORE BLVD NPROGRESS AVE EXCHANGE AVE PALM STOUTRIGGER LNLONGBOAT DR HARBOUR DR ESTUARY DR TARPON RDDOMESTIC AVE RIDGE DR ARNOLD AVEYAHL STBROAD AVE S ALBI RDPIER ETAYLOR RD14TH ST NWEDGE DR BURNING TREE DRLINWOOD AVE 13TH AVE S FERN ST15TH AVE SWEST BLVD21ST AVE S BAYSHORE DRNAPLES BLVDKINGS LAKE BLVDRIVIERA DR BAILEY LN HAWAII BLVDPENNY LNEAST AVETIVOLI DR POINCIANA ST ENTERPRISE AVE ORCHID DR DUCHESS DRBEECHWOOD LAKE DRKENSINGTON HIGH STVAN BUREN AVE 14TH AVE NCAPRI DRFUEL FARM RD PROSPECT AVE THOMASSON LN FOXTAIL CT POMPEI LN PINE STBALD EAGLE DR ROBIN AVELEWIS LNG R E Y O A K S D R NEUROPA DRGARDENS BLVDOUTER DRRORDON AVE PARROT AVE KAREN DRLANTERN LNCURTIS STRIVERSIDE CIRCU T L A S S L N HOLLY AVE CURLEW AVE HAWKSRIDGE DR DIANA AVE TOWER DRSEMINOLE AVE B U L R U S H L N JEEPERS DR BAY PT 11TH ST N SEAGRAPE AVE PINE TREE DRS LAKE DRAV I A T I O N D R SHAWSER LNPREMIER WAYCOLONIAL DR WOODSIDE AVE PINE CT 12TH ST N11TH ST SLANDMARK DR MER I D I A N P L GULF SHORE BLVD N10TH ST NSEAGATE DRCRAYTON RD14TH ST N ENTERPRISE AVE PINE STCRAYTON RDLIVINGSTON RD S9TH ST NTA M I A M I T R L E DAVIS BLVD GORDON DRAIRPORT PULLING RD N5TH A V E SNORTH RDRUM ROW BALD EAGLE DR GREY OAKS DR N0 5 102.5 Miles¹ Gulf of Mexico Naples Inset Source: Collier MPO Everglades City Bus Routes Sidewalk on Both Sides of Street Sidewalk on One Side of Street No Sidewalk on Either Side of Street Note: Segments represent local roads 3/4-mile from a bus stop EJ Score Medium High Very High Page 40 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^TAMIAMI TRL NGOLDEN GATE BLVD WLOGAN BLVD NSR 29TAMIAMI T R L E OIL WELL RD IMMOKALEE RD CR 846 ESR 29 NSAN MARCO RDCOLLIER BLVDLIVINGSTON RD NGOLDEN GATE PKWY PINE RIDGE RD IMMOKALEE RD §¨¦75 §¨¦75 Legend Gulf of Mexico LEE Immokalee Marco Island Naples ^SAN MAR C O R D N B A R F I E L D D RBALD EAG LE DRN COLLIER BLVDS COLL IER BLVDS BARFIELD DRDOGWOOD DRKENDALL DRCOLLIER BLVDWINTERBERRY DR WHISKEY CREEK DRINL E T D R6TH AVE JAM A I C A R D G O O D L A N D D R SCOTT DRCOPPERFIELD CT SWALLOW AVE ELM CT WA T ER S IDE DRE INLET DRBOND CT PO L Y N E S I A C T VILLA CTS SEAS CT Marco Island Inset Figure 19: Sidewalk Segments - School Proximity and EJ Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ SR 2 9 CR 846 E LAKE TRAFFORD RDSR 29 NS 1ST STN 15TH STCR 846GOPHER RIDGE RDS 5TH STN 11TH STCARSON RDN 9TH STMA D I S O N A V E W E MAIN ST S 9TH STN 18TH STWESTCLOX ST STOCKADE RDTAYLOR TERAIRPARK BLVDS 4TH STLITTLE LEAGUE RD ALACHUA STDILSA LNW MAIN ST OT T E R T R LBUSH ST WSR 2 9 CR 846 E Immokalee Inset ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^CRAYTON RDLIVINGSTON RD S9TH ST N TA M I A M I T R L E DAVIS BLVD GORDON DRGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NTAMIAMI TRL NPINE RIDGE RD GOLDEN GATE PKWY RADIO RD 3RD ST S5TH AVE S10TH ST NESTEY AVE THOMASSON DR 7TH AVE N NORTH RD PALM DR9TH ST S1ST AVE S KINGS WAYG A L L E O N D R LAKEWOOD BLVDBELAIR LN2ND AVE N RUM ROW3RD AVE S 10TH AVE S 4TH AVE N 70TH ST SWGAIL BLVD 68TH ST SWAIRPORT PULLING RD SALLEYIVY DR SEAGATE DR SANDPIPER ST8TH ST N18TH AVE S GIN LNGULF SHORE BLVD NPROGRESS AVE EXCHANGE AVE PALM STOUTRIGGER LNLONGBOAT DR HARBOUR DR ESTUARY DR TARPON RDDOMESTIC AVE RIDGE DR ARNOLD AVEYAHL STBROAD AVE S ALBI RDPIER ETAYLOR RD14TH ST NWEDGE DR BURNING TREE DRLINWOOD AVE 13TH AVE S FERN ST15TH AVE SWEST BLVD21ST AVE S BAYSHORE DRNAPLES BLVDKINGS LAKE BLVDRIVIERA DR BAILEY LN HAWAII BLVDPENNY LNEAST AVETIVOLI DR POINCIANA ST ENTERPRISE AVE ORCHID DR DUCHESS DRBEECHWOOD LAKE DRKENSINGTON HIGH STVAN BUREN AVE 14TH AVE NCAPRI DRFUEL FARM RD PROSPECT AVE THOMASSON LN FOXTAIL CT POMPEI LN PINE STBALD EAGLE DR ROBIN AVELEWIS LNG R E Y O A K S D R NEUROPA DRGARDENS BLVDOUTER DRRORDON AVE PARROT AVE KAREN DRLANTERN LNCURTIS STRIVERSIDE CIRCU T L A S S L N HOLLY AVE CURLEW AVE HAWKSRIDGE DR DIANA AVE TOWER DRSEMINOLE AVE B U L R U S H L N JEEPERS DR BAY PT 11TH ST N SEAGRAPE AVE PINE TREE DRS LAKE DRAV I A T I O N D R SHAWSER LNPREMIER WAYCOLONIAL DR WOODSIDE AVE PINE CT 12TH ST N11TH ST SLANDMARK DR MER I D I A N P L GULF SHORE BLVD N10TH ST NSEAGATE DRCRAYTON RD14TH ST N ENTERPRISE AVE PINE STCRAYTON RDLIVINGSTON RD S9TH ST NTA M I A M I T R L E DAVIS BLVD GORDON DRAIRPORT PULLING RD N5TH A V E SNORTH RDRUM ROW BALD EAGLE DR GREY OAKS DR N0 5 102.5 Miles¹ Gulf of Mexico Naples Inset Source: Collier MPO Everglades City ^School Sidewalk on Both Sides of Street Sidewalk on One Side of Street No Sidewalk on Either Side of Street Note: Segments represent local roads 1 mile from a school EJ Score Medium High Very High Page 41 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^TAMIAMI TRL NGOLDEN GATE BLVD WLOGAN BLVD NSR 29TAMIAMI T R L E OIL WELL RD IMMOKALEE RD CR 846 ESR 29 NSAN MARCO RDCOLLIER BLVDLIVINGSTON RD NGOLDEN GATE PKWY PINE RIDGE RD IMMOKALEE RD §¨¦75 §¨¦75 Legend Gulf of Mexico LEE Immokalee Marco Island Naples ^SAN MAR C O R D N B A R F I E L D D RBALD EAG LE DRN COLLIER BLVDS COLL IER BLVDS BARFIELD DRDOGWOOD DRKENDALL DRCOLLIER BLVDWINTERBERRY DR WHISKEY CREEK DRINL E T D R6TH AVE JAM A I C A R D G O O D L A N D D R SCOTT DRCOPPERFIELD CT SWALLOW AVE ELM CT WA T ER S IDE DRE INLET DRBOND CT PO L Y N E S I A C T VILLA CTS SEAS CT Marco Island Inset Figure 20: Sidewalk Segments - Transit and School Proximity and EJ Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ SR 2 9 CR 846 E LAKE TRAFFORD RDSR 29 NS 1ST STN 15TH STCR 846GOPHER RIDGE RDS 5TH STN 11TH STCARSON RDN 9TH STMA D I S O N A V E W E MAIN ST S 9TH STN 18TH STWESTCLOX ST STOCKADE RDTAYLOR TERAIRPARK BLVDS 4TH STLITTLE LEAGUE RD ALACHUA STDILSA LNW MAIN ST OT T E R T R LBUSH ST WSR 2 9 CR 846 E Immokalee Inset ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^CRAYTON RDLIVINGSTON RD S9TH ST N TA M I A M I T R L E DAVIS BLVD GORDON DRGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NTAMIAMI TRL NPINE RIDGE RD GOLDEN GATE PKWY RADIO RD 3RD ST S5TH AVE S10TH ST NESTEY AVE THOMASSON DR 7TH AVE N NORTH RD PALM DR9TH ST S1ST AVE S KINGS WAYG A L L E O N D R LAKEWOOD BLVDBELAIR LN2ND AVE N RUM ROW3RD AVE S 10TH AVE S 4TH AVE N 70TH ST SWGAIL BLVD 68TH ST SWAIRPORT PULLING RD SALLEYIVY DR SEAGATE DR SANDPIPER ST8TH ST N18TH AVE S GIN LNGULF SHORE BLVD NPROGRESS AVE EXCHANGE AVE PALM STOUTRIGGER LNLONGBOAT DR HARBOUR DR ESTUARY DR TARPON RDDOMESTIC AVE RIDGE DR ARNOLD AVEYAHL STBROAD AVE S ALBI RDPIER ETAYLOR RD14TH ST NWEDGE DR BURNING TREE DRLINWOOD AVE 13TH AVE S FERN ST15TH AVE SWEST BLVD21ST AVE S BAYSHORE DRNAPLES BLVDKINGS LAKE BLVDRIVIERA DR BAILEY LN HAWAII BLVDPENNY LNEAST AVETIVOLI DR POINCIANA ST ENTERPRISE AVE ORCHID DR DUCHESS DRBEECHWOOD LAKE DRKENSINGTON HIGH STVAN BUREN AVE 14TH AVE NCAPRI DRFUEL FARM RD PROSPECT AVE THOMASSON LN FOXTAIL CT POMPEI LN PINE STBALD EAGLE DR ROBIN AVELEWIS LNG R E Y O A K S D R NEUROPA DRGARDENS BLVDOUTER DRRORDON AVE PARROT AVE KAREN DRLANTERN LNCURTIS STRIVERSIDE CIRCU T L A S S L N HOLLY AVE CURLEW AVE HAWKSRIDGE DR DIANA AVE TOWER DRSEMINOLE AVE B U L R U S H L N JEEPERS DR BAY PT 11TH ST N SEAGRAPE AVE PINE TREE DRS LAKE DRAV I A T I O N D R SHAWSER LNPREMIER WAYCOLONIAL DR WOODSIDE AVE PINE CT 12TH ST N11TH ST SLANDMARK DR MER I D I A N P L GULF SHORE BLVD N10TH ST NSEAGATE DRCRAYTON RD14TH ST N ENTERPRISE AVE PINE STCRAYTON RDLIVINGSTON RD S9TH ST NTA M I A M I T R L E DAVIS BLVD GORDON DRAIRPORT PULLING RD N5TH A V E SNORTH RDRUM ROW BALD EAGLE DR GREY OAKS DR N0 5 102.5 Miles¹ Gulf of Mexico Naples Inset Source: Collier MPO Everglades City ^School Bus Routes No Sidewalk on Either Side of Street Note: Segments represent local roads located in a Medium, High, or Very High EJ area, 3/4-mile from a bus stop, and 1 mile from a school EJ Score Medium High Very High Page 42 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    43    Local Agency Priorities on Local Roads  Adopted local agency plans are incorporated into this Plan by reference. Current priorities are described  in the following paragraphs.  Everglades City  Everglades City is developing its own bicycle and pedestrian master plan. Once adopted by the City  Council, the plan, including any adopted updates, will automatically be incorporated in this Plan by  reference; assuming the policies towards US 41 east are compatible with MPO Board directives. The  Everglades City Council has endorsed the four sidewalk projects below as their highest priority.   Copeland Ave: City Hall to Chokoloskee Causeway – sidewalk on east side of road   Datura Street: East School Drive to Collier Ave (SR 29)    Broadway: Riverside Drive to Copeland Avenue    Collier Avenue (SR 29): Begonia to bridge   Immokalee Urban Area  In 2018, Collier County was awarded a $13 million TIGER grant to make sidewalk and other improvements  in Immokalee. The County identified the sidewalk projects in the grant application based on the adopted  Immokalee Walkable Community Study. Implementing the TIGER grant will significantly improve the  pedestrian and cycling network in Immokalee along with improved connection to transit.   This Plan identifies State Roads 29 and 82 as critical components of the Spine Trail Network for Collier  County. In addition, the Immokalee CRA’s request to extend bicycle and pedestrian facilities along Lake  Trafford Road all the way to the lake itself is acknowledged as a Spine Trail priority. The drainage issues  along this segment will need to be addressed by a different funding source than the bike/ped facilities.  The details are under discussion between FDOT, the CRA, Collier County and MO staff at the time this Plan  was published.  Marco Island  The current, adopted Bike Path Master Plan map is shown on the next page (Figure 21). Marco Island  updates their Bike Path Master Plan, which has significant public support, on a regular basis. Future  updates of the plan are automatically incorporated into this Plan by reference. The City Council notes the  following projects as current, top priorities for the plan:    Collier Boulevard – alternate bike lanes (Landmark extension)   Bald Eagle Drive – bike lanes (Collier to San Marco)      9.C.1 Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity Sources: Esri, HERE,DeLorme, USGS, Intermap,INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri 2018 2018 2020 2020 2022 SEE INSET ABOVEÉ 1 inch = 3,000 feet Date Saved: 1/8/2018 11:39:39 AM Document Path: H:\Projects\Tim Pinter\Marco Island Bike Path Master Plan Update.mxd EXISTING BIKE LANES (BOTH SIDES OF STREET) EXISTING SHARED PATHS (ONE OR TWO SIDES OF STREET) PLANNED BIKE LANES PLANNED SHARED PATHS PROGRAMMED FUNDED SHARED PATHS PROGRAMMED FUNDED BIKE LANES Marco Island Bike Path Master Plan 2021 2021 Figure 21 Page 44 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    45    Naples  The City of Naples’ 5‐Year Goals and Objective for Priority Bicycle Pathways is shown in Table 12. The  Naples 2013 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan includes a list (Figure 22, next page) of priority sidewalk  projects. They are not individually ranked; however, the City selects locations to install sidewalks from  this list. The first four projects on the list have been constructed or programmed to be built. Future  updates to the City of Naples Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and/or bicycle and pedestrian facility  priority lists are automatically incorporated into this Plan by reference.                               Table 12 ‐ Naples Priority Bicycle Pathways ‐ 5 Years Goals & Objectives            Location From To Project Description Cost  Gulf Shore Blvd  Mooring  Line Dr  20th Ave S  Sharrow designation (with resurfacing)   $   5,000   Crayton Rd Seagate Dr Neapolitan Way Sharrow designation (with resurfacing)  $   2,500   14th Ave N  US41  Goodlette‐Frank   Sharrow designation    $   5,000   Fleishman Blvd US41 Goodlette‐Frank  8'‐12' multiuse pathway on south side  $ 70,000   Central Ave  10th St  Riverside Cl  designate bike lanes with future CRA  streetscape improvements   n/a   Central Ave 6th St 8th St designate bike lanes with resurfacing  $   3,500   3rd Ave S  US41  10th St  designate bike lanes with resurfacing   $   3,500    Total Cost  89,500   9.C.1 Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) 46  Figure 22‐ Naples Priorities Sidewalk Projects  Project Costs  Routine  resurfacing  and  infrastructure  projects  represent  some of  the  best  and  least  expensive  opportunities to add bicycle lanes and other facilities. Roads are restriped after being resurfaced, so the  additional cost to include bike lanes when restriping is minimal. A paved bike lane may be added, or a  paved  shoulder  converted  to  a  bike lane as part of a roadway reconstruction  project.  Costs  for  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) 47  construction will be impacted by the unique circumstances of each site, but generalized costs can be  helpful when considering projects. Details such as drainage issues and right‐of‐way availability have not  been confirmed as part of this study and would be identified during feasibility. Project costs have been  estimated at a planning level. A more detailed engineer’s estimate would be required for submission of a  project for prioritization consideration.  There are a number of ways to get sidewalk gaps filled. Depending on the agency, sidewalk gaps may be  filled during a resurfacing project or they may be filled when a parcel is developed. Another option is to  group a number of proximate sidewalk gaps into a “bundle” of projects to gain some efficiencies of scale.  The rebuilding of infrastructure, whether it be sub‐surface utility work or adding lanes, also provides an  opportunity to add both bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Safe Routes to School funding is limited to gaps  in walking infrastructure within two miles of middle schools, and applications for those projects are  independent of roadway reconstruction.  The cost per mile estimates shown in Table 13 are based on the FDOT District 1 Long Range Estimates (last  updated 2018). It’s important to note that these costs are for new construction. For stand‐alone projects  that are retrofits on existing roadways, the costs are likely to double, or even quadruple, depending on  available right‐of‐way, encroachments, drainage issues, the need to move or restore utilities, and other  site conditions.    Table 13‐ Estimated Per Mile Costs for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects (1)  (1)FDOT D1 Long Range Estimates (LRE) last updated 2018 (rounded up to nearest $1,000) (2)MPO staff approximation based on cost per vehicle lane mile new construction, rural setting Table 14 shows order of magnitude costs for constructing different combinations of bicycle and pedestrian  facilities on the road segments identified as meriting Proposed Enhanced Facilities (see Figure 17, page  37.)   Table 14‐ Cost of Proposed Enhanced Facilities by Mileage Totals (Based on Table 13 and various  combinations of facilities described in Ch 6 Design Guidelines) from most to least expensive.  Component Mileage/number Cost Per Mile Cost  Shared use paths and bike lanes on both  sides of roadway 122 $1,104,000 $135 million  Bicycle lanes on both sides, shared use path  on one side, sidewalk on the other 122 $972,000 $119 million  Bicycle lanes and sidewalks on both sides of  roadway 122 $840,000 $103 million   Bicycle lanes on both sides; shared use path  on one side 122 $818,000 $100 million  Bike lanes on both sides, sidewalk on one  side 122 $686,000 $ 84 million  Component Cost  Bicycle Lane or Road Shoulders per Mile (5’ width, 2 sides) (2) $532,000  Sidewalks per mile (5' width, 1 side) $154,000  Shared Use Trail per mile (12’ width)   $286,000  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) 48  Beach access for cyclists and pedestrians off Seagate Drive  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    49    CHAPTER 6 – BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY DESIGN GUIDELINES  Bicycle and pedestrian facility design is constantly evolving. Past guidance provided by organizations such  as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the National  Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) focused on providing on‐street bicycle facilities for  experienced and confident riders, rather than off‐street NHPPs (SUPs) that less‐accomplished cyclists  preferred.  This guidance has resulted in bicycle lanes being included in the design and construction of  roadways for more than two decades. In the last 10 years, however, an increasing number of people have  begun riding, and research indicates that most people need more than standard 4’ bike lane to feel  comfortable riding.   Level of Comfort and Facility Type – Designing for All Ages & Abilities  Due  to  the  strong  correlation  between  comfort  and  facility  type,  communities  around  the  US  are  developing bicycle networks that also support more casual cyclists who may be interested in riding but  are intimidated by sharing the road with vehicles. Building facilities that are more protected will expand  the number and types of users to include those who are less expert and feel less safe riding in or adjacent  to vehicular travel lanes.                                                                                                       Figure 23‐ Designing for All Ages and Abilities  The NACOT publication, “Designing for All Ages &  Abilities‐Contextual Guidance for High‐Comfort  Bicycle Facilities” (December 2017) (Figure 23) builds  on NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide and  establishes All & Abilities criteria for selecting and  implementing bike facilities. According to NACTO,  “Building bicycle infrastructure that meets these  criteria is an essential strategy for cities seeking to  improve traffic safety, reduce congestion, improve air  quality and public health, provide better and more  equitable access to jobs and opportunities, and  bolster local economies.”           The All Ages & Abilities facility selection guidance is  focused on urban street types. It considers factors  such as vehicular speeds and volumes, operational  uses and what NACTO terms “bicycling stress” – the  level of comfort or discomfort cyclists of all ages and  abilities feel riding alongside vehicular traffic. The guidance indicates when traffic calming tools, like  speed reduction and volume management may be needed in addition to roadway design changes, like  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    50    full lane separation, to reduce traffic fatalities and increase cycling rates and rider comfort. The box  below defines the terms used by NACTO to describe how bicycle facilities meet the needs of riders of all  ages and abilities, increase cycling rates and rider comfort.      NACTO has also developed contextual guidance for selecting the most appropriate type of bicycle facility  to meet the needs of riders of all ages and abilities (See Fig 24).                9.C.1 Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    51    Figure 24‐ NACTO Guidance for Selecting Appropriate Bicycle Facilities  In keeping with the general trends reported around the country,  the online survey developed to capture input for this Plan found  that although many people ride and walk, feeling unsafe is the  primary reason reported by those who do not ride often. In total,  88% of survey respondents said there are places they want to ride  in Collier County but do not because they feel unsafe. Comfort and  safety are the primary motivators for people who ride by choice.  The analysis of safety crash data (Chapter 2) shows that areas of  88%   of survey respondents said  there are places they want to  ride in Collier County but do  not because they feel unsafe.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    52    high use for walking and cycling coincide with a high number of vehicular crashes. Residents who rely on  these modes to meet daily transportation needs are particularly at‐risk.   FDOT Guidance  Two  FDOT  publications,  the  “Florida  Greenbook”  and  the  “Florida Design Manual” provide essential design guidelines to  follow when seeking State and Federal transportation funding  for local projects.  The MPO values FDOT’s design guidance for  reasons that go beyond  funding  considerations –  FDOT  has  nationally recognized expertise in integrating the concept of  Complete  Streets  into  State  DOT  practices.  Smart  Growth  America identified the Florida Design Manual as one of the 12  best Complete Streets Initiatives of 2017. Furthermore, FDOT  design guidance takes into consideration the 2010 Americans  with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design and  the US Department of Transportation 2006 ADA Standards for  Transportation Facilities.  The Manual  of  Uniform  Minimum  Standards  for  Design,  Construction  and  Maintenance (Florida Greenbook) provides  criteria for public streets, roads, highways, bridges, sidewalks,  curbs and curb ramps, crosswalks, bicycle facilities, underpasses and overpasses used by the public for  vehicular and pedestrian travel. The current version, 2016 Florida Greenbook became effective on June  19, 2017.  The current version of the Florida Design Manual (FDM) (January 2018) includes design criteria for  pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are linked to the Context Classification System FDOT developed.    Florida Design Manual, Context Classification and Complete Streets16   FDOT adopted a Complete Streets Policy in 2014 that accommodates all users along the State roadway  system. In August 2017, FDOT published guidance on Context Classification which states, “FDOT will  routinely plan, design, construct, reconstruct and operate a context‐sensitive system of Complete Streets.  To this end, a context classification system comprising eight context classifications has been adopted. The  context  classification  of  a  roadway,  together  with  its  transportation  characteristics,  will  provide  information about who the users are along the roadway, the regional and local travel demand of the  roadway, and the challenges and opportunities of each roadway user. The context classification and  transportation characteristics of a roadway will determine key design criteria for all non‐limited‐access  state roadways.”                                                               16 Additional information may be found at http://flcompletestreets.com or at http://fdot.gov/roadway/fdm/.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) 53  Though counties typically follow the Florida Green Book, it has not yet been updated to match the Florida  Design Manual (FDM) which sets the design criteria for state roads. The two resources, while separate,  are coordinated in their approach to developing a transportation system that serves all users. To better  serve the different users of the system, FDOT developed a Context Classification methodology that,  according to infrastructure and land use, assigns a context that reflects where the roadway is in the land  development continuum, as shown in Figure 25. This continuum ranges from undeveloped conservation  land to the most urban downtowns. By analyzing land use, FDOT determined the facilities that are most  appropriate for where they are located. It is FDOT policy that roadways in all counties be classified before  or when work is anticipated to assist in the determination of what facilities to include.  Figure 25‐ Illustration of FDOT Context Classification System  FDOT Guidance on Pedestrian Facilities   Table 15 identifies sidewalk facilities by FDOT Context Classification. Table 15 ‐ FDOT Context Classification Guidance for Sidewalks  Context Allowable  Range (mph) SIS Minimum (mph) Sidewalk  C1 Natural 55‐70 65 5’ Sidewalk if demand warrants  C2 Rural 55‐70 65 5’ Sidewalk if demand warrants  C2T Rural Town 25‐45  40 (35 with design elements)  6’ Sidewalk  C3R Suburban Residential 35‐55 50 (45 with curb) 6’ Sidewalk  C3C Suburban Commercial 6’ Sidewalk if demand warrants  C4 Urban General 30‐45 45 6’ Sidewalk  C5 Urban Center 25‐35 35 10’ Sidewalk  C6 Urban Core 25‐30 30 12’ Sidewalk  Notes: 1) C2T, C3, C4 sidewalk may be increased to 8’ with demand; 2) C5 and C6 should be maximum width possible, not less  than 6’; 3) For RRR projects, 4’ sidewalk may be retained.  C1 C2 C2T C3R C3C C4 C5 C6  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) 54  Crosswalks  According to the FDM, Special Emphasis crosswalk markings should be used at signalized intersections,  roundabouts and midblock crosswalks. Midblock crosswalks should be illuminated, marked and signed in  accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Traffic Engineering Manual  (TEM) and FDM. An engineering study supporting the need for the installation is required before a  midblock crosswalk can be placed on a State roadway.  Standard crosswalk markings should be used for stop or yield‐controlled intersections. When separated  right‐turn lanes are used, crosswalks should be placed so that an approaching motorist has a clear view  of the pedestrian, and the crossing distance is minimized. School Zone crosswalks have additional criteria  for signing and pavement markings. See “The Manual on Speed Zoning for Highways, Roads and Streets in  Florida”, Chapter 15.  The  FDM  advises  that,  as  roadway  volumes,  speeds,  and  number  of  travel  lanes  increase,  marked  crosswalks are best used in conjunction with other treatments; e.g.,  signals,  signs,  beacons,  curb  extensions, raised medians, refuge islands, and enhanced overhead lighting.  Bicycle Facilities  Table 16 identifies bicycle facilities by FDOT Context classification. It is important to note that the vision  or  community  intent  for  a  corridor  is  a  factor  that  FDOT  considers  when  it  designs  a  facility,  and  coordination between agencies is critical to the final result. Bicycle lanes are a portion of a roadway  designated for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Bike lanes are designated by a bicycle symbol  pavement marking and signage in accordance with Standard Plans and MUTCD.   According to the FDM, bicycle lanes are the preferred bicycle facility type on curbed roadways with a  design speed of ≤ 45 mph. For new construction projects, a 7’ buffered bicycle lane is the standard. A  buffered bicycle lane has a separated, double 6” white edge line separating the bike lane and the adjacent  travel lane. For projects where a bike lane is needed, but it is not practical to move the existing curb, the  width of the bicycle lane depends on the width of available roadway pavement. The options in the order  of priority are:  7 ‐ buffered bicycle lane 6‐ buffered bicycle lane 5‐ bicycle lane 4‐ bicycle lane Do not provide a bike lane when available roadway pavement is less than 4 feet. 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) 55  Table 16‐ FDOT Context Classification Guidance for Bicycle Facilities  Context Allowable  Range (mph)  SIS Minimum  (mph) Bicycle Facility  C1 Natural  55‐70 65  Unmarked paved shoulder or shared use path  C2 Rural 55‐70 65 Unmarked paved shoulder or shared use path  C2T Rural Town  25‐45  40 (35 with design  elements) Marked bicycle lane  C3R Suburban  Residential 35‐55 50 (45 with curb) Marked bicycle lane when speed is ≤ 45pmh and  shared use path is not present or shared use path  C3C Suburban  Commercial 35‐55 50 (45 with curb) Marked bicycle lane when speed is ≤ 45pmh and  shared use path is not present or shared use path  C4 Urban  General 30‐45 45  Buffered bike lanes when posted speed is ≤ 45pmh.  Facility options, in decreasing order of priority are: 7’‐ buffered bike lane, 6’‐buffered bike lane, 5’ bicycle  lane, 4’ bicycle lane  C5 Urban  Center 25‐35  35  Buffered bike lanes when posted speed is ≤ 45pmh.  Facility options, in decreasing order of priority are: 7’‐ buffered bike lane, 6’‐buffered bike lane, 5’ bicycle  lane, 4’ bicycle lane.   C6 Urban Core 25‐30 30  Buffered bike lanes when posted speed is ≤ 45pmh.  Facility options, in decreasing order of priority are: 7’‐ buffered bike lane, 6’‐buffered bike lane, 5’ bicycle  lane, 4’ bicycle lane.   Illustrated Guide to Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities  On‐Road Bicycle Facilities  Several different on‐road bicycle facility types make use of the current roadway network by working  between existing curbs; they can enhance the trail network by connecting parks and trails and creating  transportation opportunities and accommodating different categories of users. They also tend to be less  expensive to build and may be able to be implemented with a resurfacing project. Increasingly, as noted,  research is showing that the more protection bicyclists have from vehicles, the more comfortable they  feel, and the more people ride. Following are facility types, from least to most protected or comfortable,  and a discussion of where they should be considered for construction.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    56    Paved Shoulders                    Figure 26 ‐ Paved Shoulder    Paved shoulders (Figure 26) are  commonly used on rural roads that  provide a separated space for  bicyclists but are not marked as a  bicycle facility. The minimum shoulder  width is 4’, but on high‐speed  roadways or roadways with many  bicycle users, wider shoulders are  recommended.    Audible Pavement Markings – Buffered Bike Lanes                                                                     Figure 27‐ Audible Pavement Marking   This is an enhanced paved shoulder, primarily used along rural roads.  Many cyclists report feeling unsafe on a standard paved shoulder,   especially when adjacent to high‐speed traffic or high volumes of  trucks. Florida DOT has developed audible pavement markings to  buffer bike lanes on high‐speed rural roads. The Audible Pavement  Markings act like a rumble strip, providing additional separation  between vehicles, and requires only a modest increase in shoulder  width (Figure 27).         Bike Lanes  Bike lanes (Figure 28) are spaces dedicated  Figure 28‐ Marked Bicycle Lane   to bicycle travel on roadways. They are a   minimum of 4‐ft‐wide if no curb and gutter,   and 5‐ft wide if included. Typical users are   those who are comfortable riding with   traffic and who represent a small segment   of the bicycle‐riding community. This   facility type should be minimum considered   during roadway resurfacing projects and  can be used to make connections between   Shared Use Paths. Bike lanes are not   9.C.1 Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    57    considered a preferred facility type for  developing a community‐friendly Shared Use Path system.  Buffered Bike Lanes                                                                              Figure 29‐ Buffered Bicycle Lane    Buffered bike lanes (Figure 29) are spaces  dedicated to bicycle travel on roadways and are 7‐ ft wide with a painted buffer to provide extra  space between bicyclists and adjacent vehicles.  These facilities provide an additional degree of  comfort to bicyclists and should be considered for  all new roads being constructed in Collier County,  particularly where higher volumes of bicycle traffic  are anticipated.  Separated Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks              Figure 30 – Cycle Track  Separated bicycle lanes/cycle tracks are on‐road  facilities  that  include  a  traffic  separator  and  dedicated space for bicyclists. They can be one‐ or  two‐way depending on the need or the roadway  condition. Figure 30 depicts a two‐way cycle track.  Separated bicycle lanes  can often be constructed  between existing curbs if the roadway has excess  capacity. In urban areas, this type of facility can  provide  a  high  level  of  comfort  for  bicyclists  (similar to a shared‐use path) and decrease the number of bicycle crashes. Design care must be taken at  intersections and driveways. Adding this type of facility has also been shown to increase ridership.17                                                               17 “Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the US”. Transportation Research Board, RIP  #32182. June 30, 2014.   9.C.1 Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    58      Green Bike Lanes                                                                                   Figure 31‐ Green Bicycle Lane                                                                                                                                                   Central Ave., Naples   Green paint can be applied to bike lanes in areas of  potential conflict where motorists must cross the bike  lane to turn or to exit a parking area. Green paint is  considered a traffic control device and, after receiving  approval (Interim Approval 14) is subject to guidance  in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices  (MUTCD). See Figure 31.         Figure 32 – Advisory Bike Lane    Advisory Bike Lane  An advisory bike lane is used on low‐speed roadways where  there is not enough room for both bike lanes and travel  lanes. These markings communicate to both bicyclists and  motorists where to ride while also communicating to  motorists that they can pass when there is room (Figure 32).      Advisory Shoulder      Figure 33‐ Advisory Shoulder  Advisory shoulders (Figure 33) may be used  on  roads  where  it  is  not  possible  to  construct  a  traditional  shoulder.  Using  paint, space is designated for pedestrians  within the travel lane; a dashed line is used  to delineate the space may be crossed by  motorists if the way is clear. Considered an  innovative  facility  type  by  FHWA,  an  approved  Request  to  Experiment  is  required  to  implement  this  facility  on  federally‐funded  projects.  Additional  information  can  be  found  it  the  FHWA’s  Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    59      Two‐Stage Queue Box            Figure 34‐ Two‐Stage Queue Box  A two‐stage queue box (Figure 34) allows bicyclists to more  easily make a left turn. Rather than having to move into a  turn lane to make a left turn, the turn box allows bicyclists to  proceed across the intersection and position themselves to  cross  the  intersection  with  the  signal.  It  received  FHWA  Interim Approval IA‐20 in 2017.    Figure 35 ‐ Bicycle Boulevard         Bicycle Boulevard   A bicycle boulevard (Figure 35) is a low‐volume, low‐speed street  designed to give bicycles priority, typically achieved by a combination of  signage and infrastructure. Also called neighborhood greenways, bicycle  boulevards generally provide convenient access to local destinations  and often connect or go through neighborhoods.         Off‐Road Bicycle & Shared‐Use Facilities on Independent Rights‐of‐Way  Shared Use Paths on Independent Rights‐of‐Way                The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) defines a Shared Use  Path (SUP) on an independent ROW as a facility that provides a separated path for nonmotorized users  to supplement the on‐road network.   It may be used for recreation or transportation purposes and falls  under the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (Figure 36)          9.C.1 Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    60    Figure 36 ‐ Shared Use Path Cross‐Section    Sidepaths  AASHTO defines a Sidepath (Figure 37) as a Shared Use Path immediately adjacent or parallel to a roadway  and lists 10 reasons why using a sidewalk as a Shared Use Path or providing a sidepath is undesirable:                          Figure 37‐ US 41    Conflicts at intersections and driveways; motorists  often do not notice bicyclists approaching from the  right because they do not expect wheeled traffic  from this direction   Bicyclists are apt to cross intersections and driveways  at unexpected speeds which are significantly faster  than pedestrian speeds   Drivers often pull forward to get an unobstructed  view of traffic, in doing so they block the sidepath  crossing    Attempts to require bicyclists to yield or stop at each  cross‐street  or  driveway  are  inappropriate  and  ineffective   When a sidepath is provided on just one side of the   road, it tends to produce wrong‐way travel by   bicyclists when a sidepath abruptly ends or in order   Sidewalks on US 41 between 5th Ave and 9th St  Intersection and Airport Rd are heavily used by  cyclists, often riding against traffic. They are a  good example of a situation to be strenuously  avoided in new and retrofit designs.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    61    to access the path from the other side of the road.   Wrong‐way travel by cyclists is a common factor in bicycle‐automobile crashes; a two‐way sidepath  on one side of the road may need additional road crossings to provide safe access   Signs and traffic signals posted for roadway users are backwards for contra‐flow riders    Because of proximity of roadway traffic, barriers or railings are sometimes needed.   Sidepath width may be constrained by fixed objects such as utility poles, mailboxes, etc. 8’ is the  minimum width for a sidewalk intended to accommodate bicyclists as well as pedestrians   Due to operational issues, some bicyclists will use the roadway instead of the sidepath; when this  occurs, drivers may harass the cyclists, even though Florida does not have a law requiring cyclists to  use a path if one is provided.    When using a sidepath, bicyclists must yield to traffic twice instead of once when making pedestrian  style left turn thereby introducing unnecessary delay  Sidepaths (Figure 38) may be considered where one or more of the following conditions exist:   If bicyclists cannot be accommodated on nearby parallel streets and a sidepath is the only practical  alternative   The sidepath is used for a short distance to provide continuity  between sections of path in independent  rights‐of‐way, or to connect to local streets   The sidepath can be built with few roadway and driveway crossings   The sidepath can be terminated at each end onto streets that accommodate cyclists, onto another  path, or in a location that is bicycle compatible.  Figure 38‐ Sidepath on Airport Road    .             Bicycle and Pedestrian Counters  Understanding bicycle and pedestrian usage is critical to properly plan and design bicycle and pedestrian  facilities.  Information on usage can help make the case to expand the system or improve facilities.  The Collier MPO recently submitted a proposal, which was accepted, to be a participant in FDOT’s  Statewide  Non‐motorized  Traffic  Monitoring  Program.  FDOT  has  looked  at  two  candidate  sites  for  installing permanent bicycle and pedestrian counters, and it’s possible that both sites will be approved.  They are:  The Sidepath on Airport Road  adjacent to Naples Municipal  Airport is a good example of a  sidepath application that works  due to the edge condition – the  absence of multiple driveways  and curb cuts.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    62     The County owned and maintained bicycle/pedestrian bridge over the Gordon River on the Gordon  River Greenway   The City of Naples owned and maintained bicycle/pedestrian bridge connecting Baker Park to the  west side of the Gordon River/Naples Bay.  FDOT will share the count data gathered at these sites with participating agencies and use the data to  calibrate bicycle and pedestrian trip data assumptions statewide.  Cycling Facility Crossings on Major Roadways     Walkers and bicycle riders are especially vulnerable as they cross a roadway, whether at an intersection  or at a Shared Use Path or a sidewalk that is functioning as a sidepath, and road crossing. Several  engineering  design  techniques  are  available  to  help  minimize  the  risks.  Crossing  features  for  both  pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure are discussed below.  Two of the primary challenges for bicyclists are the speed differential between vehicles and bicyclists and  sight distance, which is related to speed. Designing intersections that give bicyclists and vehicle operators  enough time to react to each other is crucial to minimizing the opportunities for crashes. Several design  tools are available to help all users navigate intersections, as described below.   Because each crossing is unique, the specific geometry and location will factor into the design of each  intersection. It is important to note that circumstances of use may change over time; this should trigger a  review and modification as needed at certain intersections. If, for example, a bicycle lane, Shared Use  Path or sidewalk has a higher volume of users than might have been anticipated, it is recommended that  the road crossings be reviewed. It is also important to consider changes to surrounding land use. A crash  trend or higher‐than‐projected volumes for either vehicles or bicyclists may require the need to redesign  the crossing to address the challenges.  Pedestrian Safety Counter Measures  FHWA is promoting a number of pedestrian safety countermeasures through their Every Day Counts (EDC‐ 4) program:18  • Road diets can reduce vehicle speeds and the number of lanes pedestrians cross and can create space  to add new pedestrian facilities.  • Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) are a beneficial intermediate option between Rectangular Rapid  Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) and a full pedestrian signal. They provide positive stop control in areas  without the high pedestrian traffic volumes that typically warrant signal installation.  • Pedestrian refuge islands allow pedestrians a safe place to stop at the midpoint of the roadway before  crossing the remaining distance. This is particularly helpful for older pedestrians or others with limited  mobility.                                                               18 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc_4/step.cfm.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    63    • Raised crosswalks can reduce vehicle speeds.  • Crosswalk visibility enhancements, such as crosswalk lighting and enhanced signing and marking, help  drivers detect pedestrians—particularly at night.    Enhanced At‐Grade Crossing or                                         Figure 39‐ Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon  Signalized Crossing  A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (Figure 39) is a   pedestrian‐activated traffic control device  that is dark to motorists until activated by a  pedestrian, at which time a flashing yellow  light followed by a solid red light is provided  to motorists to direct them to stop. The  solid red advances to a flashing red that  allows motorists to proceed with caution  once the pedestrian has cleared the  crossing).        Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)                                                                                         Figure 40 ‐ Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beason (RRFB)  A RRFB (Figure 40) is a traffic control device  consisting of two rapidly and alternately  flashing rectangular yellow indications with  an LED array that functions as a warning  beacon. This device has Interim Approval  through FHWA for use at unmarked  crosswalks. z      Mid‐Block Crosswalks  Crosswalks provide critical clarification at intersections. In mid‐block locations, the design of the crosswalk  is particularly critical to identify a safe space for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross and heighten the  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    64    visibility of users of the crossing. The design of a crosswalk should depend on the facility type, location,  adjacent street function, surrounding land use, and level of potential conflict.  The Small Town and Rural Design Guide has identified several factors that can be included to make a  crossing safer, including median islands, raised crossings, and crosswalk markings (Figure 41). NACTO’s  Bikeway  Design  Guide has also identified a  number of  crosswalk  designs that  can be implemented  depending on context. Features highlighted in the guide include green paint in the intersection and  “elephant tracks” or wider white striping along the outside of the intersection. It is recommended that  each intersection or crossing be designed for the context, including the features that would provide the  most clarity for all users of the crossing.                                                                Figure 41 ‐ Shared Use Path Crossing  (Source: FHWA Small Town and Rural Design Guide)    Overpasses and Underpasses   Overpasses and underpasses could be considered in locations where traffic volumes and speeds are too  high to manage with an at‐grade crossing, such as multi‐lane highway crossings. In some instances, based  on usage volume, it may be appropriate to consider the construction of an overpass as part of a long‐term  plan for the bicycle and pedestrian network. Overpasses and underpasses present their own design  challenges, however, and require a great deal of study prior to making the determination that they are  the preferred roadway crossing solution.    Wayfinding   Wayfinding is an important component of a bicycle network and can be defined as:  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)    65    … a system [that consists] of comprehensive signing and/or pavement markings to guide  bicyclists to their destinations along preferred bicycle routes. Signs are typically placed at  decision points along bicycle routes – typically at the intersection of two or more bikeways  and at other key locations leading to and along bicycle routes. (NACTO Urban Bikeway  Design Guide)  Collier MPO has areas that would benefit from signage that informs bicycle riders in the same way  roadway  signage  informs  motorists.  Although  cell  phones  have  put  maps  and  information  at  rider  fingertips, signage creates confidence in the route being traveled and can quickly and conveniently convey  directions and distance. Established local signage plans are helpful when riding in defined areas. Signage  can also be used to help ‘bridge the gap’ between SUPs and on‐street facilities, telling users how to get to  a SUP or a destination.    Summary Chart and Recommended Cross Sections  The design guide lines summarized in Table 17 are customized to  fit the characteristics of the Collier MPO’s  road network and consider established land uses, development patterns and form‐giving environmental  conditions such as canals, drainageways and protected, conservation lands. The MPO Design Guidelines  account for the fact that major arterials located in high growth areas in Collier County exhibit current  Average Daily Traffic (ADT) that far exceeds the levels envisioned in the source manuals referenced at the  beginning of this chapter. Figures 42‐46 (pages 67‐68) show recommended cross‐sections based on  roadway characteristics with an emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The following Chapter on  Policy and Implementation provides additional guidance.      9.C.1 Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) Collier MPO Planning and Design Guidelinesfor All Ages & AbilitiesFederal/FDOT Roadway Functional ClassificationRoadway DescriptionMotor Vehicle Posted SpeedTarget Maximum Motor Vehicle Volume in (ADT)  Number of Vehicular Lanes Type of Bikeway Minimum Bikeway Width Minimum Sidewalk WidthPhotosunclassified (i.e. residential or "local" roads) ‐ urban and rural settingsMinor, low volume roads up to 25 mph up to 1,000 2‐lanes (1 in each direction)Shared lanes, marked (sharrows) or unmarked   N/A 5' in residential areasunclassified (i.e. residential or "local" roads) ‐ urban and rural settingsLocal, low volume, low speed roads up to 25 mphover 1,000  up to 3,000 2‐lanes (1 in each direction) Bicycle Boulevards N/A 5' in residential areasCollectors and Arterials with Severely Constrained ROWLower volume, moderate speed, major roads with space constraints 26 to 35 mphover 3,000 up to 6,000 2‐4 lanes (1‐2 in each direction)on roads serving residential land uses, reducing road pavement width may be a traffic calming measure: 10' lanes with 2' shoulder fits context; in mixed‐use or commercial areas, a wide,  shared‐use outside lane  marked with "sharrows"  fits context10' lane + 2' shoulder;  or 14' outside lane  6'Collectors and Arterials with Moderately Constrained ROWModerate volume and speed, major roads with space constraints 26 to 35 mphover 3,000 up to 6,000 2‐4 lanes (1‐2 in each direction)Conventional, Marked Bike Lanes in urban setting; Paved Shoulders in rural settingsminimum 4' bike lane width; 5' adjacent to curbs, walls, guardrails, other fixed verticle objects)   6'Rural Highways (State Roads ‐US41 & SR29 are prime  examples)Low to Moderate volume, high speed and high commercial or RV traffic 45 to 60 mph under 6,0002‐lanes (1 in each direction)Wide, paved shoulders,  Buffered bike lanes or Shared Use Paths; 8'‐wide sidewalks may be substituted for Shared Use Paths on State roads; and on locally‐owned roads on a case‐by‐case basismin. 5'‐wide paved shoulders, preferred 7' with 2' buffer or 11' SUP on one side; 7' shoulder width required if marked as a bike lane (FDM)pedestrians use shoulders or SUP; if marked bike lanes, include signage ‐ cyclists yield to pedsCollectors and Arterials with higher speeds, higher volumes Higher volume, higher speed, limited access, urban and rural highways 36 to 45 mph over 6,000 2‐4 lanes (1‐2 in each direction)Buffered Bike Lanes or Shared Use Paths (AASHTO & FDOT Greenbook); 8'‐wide sidewalks may be substituted for Shared Use Paths on State roads; and on locally‐owned roads on a case‐by‐case basis.5' bike lane and 2' painted buffer (may include a rumble strip)6' with minimum 5' wide planting strip; if adjacent to protected bike lane, can eliminate planting stripHigh volume, High speed Arterials with greater than 20% Commercial or Recreational Vehicular Traffic (only truck count data (not RV) available; RV use based on observation, not %)High volume, high speed urban and rural highways 45 mph and greater over 6,000 4‐6 lanes (2‐3 in each direction)Protected Bike Lanes or Shared Use Paths (NACTO‐ All Ages & Abilities 26 mph and greater) ‐ in places with low curbside activity; 8'‐wide sidewalks may be substituted for Shared Use Paths on State roads; and on locally‐owned roads on a case‐by‐case basis.5' bike lane and sufficient width to provide curbed or other verticle separation6' with minimum 5' wide planting strip; if adjacent to protected bike  sidewalks on flush shoulder roadways should not be constructed directly adjacent to the roadway or shoulder pavement. Collectors and Arterials with limited access and sufficient ROW Adjacent to roadways with no or very few intersections or driveways 45 mph and greater over 6,000 4‐6 lanes (2‐3 in each direction)Sidepath defined by AASHTO as a two‐way Shared Use Path adjacent to roadways ‐ in places with low curbside activity per NACTO; 8'‐wide sidewalks may be substituted for Shared Use Paths on State roads; and on locally‐owned roads on a case‐by‐case basis.11'  ‐AASHTO            12' ‐ FDOT N/AOFF ROAD FACILITIES LocationN/A ‐ Facilities constructed outside of road ROWLinear greenways typically within or adjacent to drainage and utility ROW N/A N/A N/Aa two‐way Shared Use Path in independent ROW12' N/A Table 17  MPO Design Guidelines Summary  Page 66  9.C.1Packet Pg. 189Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)   67    Recommended High Speed Roadway Cross‐Sections   The following illustrations of roadway cross‐sections show MPO‐recommended bicycle and pedestrian   facilities on roadways having posted or target speeds of 40 mph and higher.                                    Figure 42‐ Two‐Lane Rural Roadway  Buffered Bike Lanes on both sides of road; option to add audible pavement markings and green surface                                      Figure 43‐ Multi‐Lane Urban Roadway                             Shared Use Path* and Protected Bike Lane on Both Sides          *Note Applicable to Figures 42 to 45    An 8’ sidewalk meets minimum standards and may be substituted for a Shared Use Path on State roads,     and on locally‐owned roads where ROW is limited    9.C.1 Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)   68    Figure 44‐ Multi‐Lane Urban Roadway  Shared Use Path* and Buffered Bike Lane on Both Sides      Figure 45 – Multi‐Lane Urban Roadway  Shared Use Path* on One Side, 8’ Sidewalk on Other Side, Standard Bike Lanes Both    Figure 46‐ Multi‐Lane Urban Roadway – Retrofit                             8’‐Wide Sidewalks* and Standard Bike Lanes on Both Sides        9.C.1 Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) 69  CHAPTER 7 – POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION  The MPO’s Role in Setting Policies  Locally adopted plans and policies relating to biking and walking provide a key part of the framework for  building a safe, convenient multimodal network for users of all ages and all abilities. According to FHWA’s  Noteworthy Local Policies that Support Safe and Complete Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks,  Effective policy shapes long‐term planning efforts, as well as more immediate decision making. It informs  infrastructure planning, design, construction and maintenance and shapes decision making related to  investments in infrastructure and capital improvements. Policy informs and shapes an agency’s work in  engineering, education, enforcement, emergency response, encouragement, and evaluation efforts. This  multidisciplinary approach, embodied in both required Federal safety planning and best practices in  bicycle and pedestrian planning and design, is important in establishing a safe and complete pedestrian  and bicycle network.19  Unlike its member entities, the Collier MPO does not build projects and is not an implementing agency.  The  MPO  does,  however,  play  a  unique  role  in  providing  a  forum for  regional  coordination  and  a  collaborative process for establishing funding priorities.  MPO Planning Policies  The following policies provide a guide for planning bicycle and pedestrian facilities identified as  high priorities in this Plan and for identifying future project priorities over the coming years.  1) The MPO reconfirms Resolution 2010‐05 (Appendix 13) with regard to giving walking and bicycling the same priority as is given to other modes of transportation and ensuring that there are transportation choices for people of all ages and abilities. 2)The MPO supports FDOT’s Statewide Complete Streets Policy (Topic No. 000‐625‐017‐a). The key components are: a.It is the policy of the MPO to serve the transportation needs of transportation system users of all ages and abilities, including but not limited to: pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and freight handlers. b.The MPO recognizes Complete Streets are context‐sensitive and require transportation system design that considers local land development patterns and built form. c.The MPO encourages its member entities to incorporate a Complete Streets approach for all projects submitted for funding consideration and for inclusion in the LRTP. 19 https://nacto.org/2016/07/20/high‐quality‐bike‐facilities‐increase‐ridership‐make‐biking‐safer/  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)   70      3)  The MPO’s High Priority Complete Streets Corridors coincide with the Collier Area Transit (CAT)  System bus routes, high bicycle/pedestrian crash corridors and address the need to provide  equitable access to multimodal transportation facilities for populations identified in this Plan’s  Environmental Justice Communities (Figure 47 on next page)   4)   Bicycle facilities should be designed for All Ages and Abilities (AAA), a principal developed by the  National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO.)20 Lesser accommodation requires  additional justification as projects are brought forward for prioritization.   5)  The MPO encourages its member entities and FDOT to Include bike lane improvements as part  of resurfacing, reconstruction and routine maintenance.   6)  The MPO encourages its member entities to require new development to connect on‐site bicycle  and pedestrian infrastructure to adjacent public bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.   7)  State roads that are fronted on both sides by a continuum of tribally‐owned lands, State and  National Parks, Preserves, Forests, Wildlife Refuges, and Everglades National Park are identified  as  primarily  serving  a  recreational  function  and  statewide  interests  in  terms  of  bicycle  and  pedestrian usage. Therefore, the MPO asks that FDOT take the lead in coordinating stakeholder  involvement (refer to Figure 48 on next page)  MPO Design Policies  1)  MPO member entities are encouraged to follow the MPO Design Gu idelines in Chapter 6, particularly  on projects submitted for MPO funding.    2)  Figure 48 identifies which facilities the MPO views as filling a recreational function and which fill a  transportation function. The distinction is made based upon existing and future urbanized areas in  contrast with conservation lands. Existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities located within  urbanized areas clearly serve a transportation function for  MPO  residents  and  tourists.  Facilities  surrounded by large areas of conservation lands serve a recreational function.                                                                        20 Designing for All ages & Abilities – Contextual Guidance for High‐Comfort Bicycle Facilities, December  2017, NACTO  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) I 75 COLLIER BLVDDAVIS BLVD SABAL PALM RD VANDERBILT BEACH RD RADIO RD PINE RIDGE RD TAM I A M I T R L ELIVINGSTON RD STAMIAMI TRL NGOLDEN GATE PKWYAIRPORT PULLING RD NGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NSANTA BARBARA BLVDCRAYTON RD9TH ST N39TH ST SWGREEN BLVDTRAIL BLVDBLACKBURN RD GOLDEN GATE BLVD W GORDON DRSMITH RDWHITE BLVD 13TH ST SW21ST ST SW31ST ST SW17TH ST SW29TH ST SW27TH ST SW25TH ST SW19TH ST SW23RD ST SWWEST ST3RD ST SRIDGE DR16TH AVE SWARBOR BLVD10TH ST NKEANE AVE WASHBURN AVE RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RDRich King Mem GreenwayESTEY AVE VINEYARDS BLVDINEZ RD8TH ST SE6TH ST SE4TH ST SEPRICE ST 5TH ST SWGRAND LELY DRTHOMASSON DR 16TH ST SE2ND ST SE12TH ST SE14TH ST SE10TH ST SENORTH RD 4TH ST NEWILSON BLVD N8TH ST NE6TH ST NE1ST ST SWPALM DR2ND ST NE32ND AVE SW 5TH ST NW7TH ST NW3RD ST SWORANGE BLOSSOM DR 7TH ST SWK I N G S W A Y POLLY AVE9TH ST SW3RD ST NW9TH ST NW10TH AVE NE 14TH ST NE16TH ST NE10TH ST NE12TH ST NETOBIAS ST13TH ST NWLAKEWOOD BLVDBELAIR LN SNAKE RD11TH ST SW11TH ST NWMANATEE RD 15TH ST SWTAYLOR RD2ND AVE N 31ST ST NW29TH ST NW7TH AVE SW 1ST AVE SW LELY RESORT BLVD44TH ST SW1ST AVE NW 5TH AVE SW 27TH ST NW3RD AVE SW 5TH AVE NW 7TH AVE NW GAIL BLVDPELICAN BAY BLVD68TH AVE SE 3RD AVE NWKORY RDGARLAND RD15TH AVE SW 13TH AVE SW 11TH AVE SW LE BUFFS RDFL O R I D A N A V E IVY DR BENFIELD RDSANDPIPER STBUR OAKS LN 29TH AVE SW 31ST AVE SW 27TH AVE SW BRANTLEY BLVD23RD AVE SW SORRENTO LNDOVE TREE STDOGWOOD WAYMYRTLE RDCELESTE DRWESTPORT LN SEA GRASS LNGULF SHORE BLVD NPROGRESS AVE EXCHANGE AVE PALM STLONGBOAT DR 55TH ST SWSTAR GRASS LN IVY WAYCEDAR TREE LN COUNTRYSIDE DRLANCEWOOD WAY GREENWAY RDKAM LUCK DRVERONAWALK C IR TOWER RD KAPOK STALLEYFERN STSUNS E T R DHUNTER BLVDC A R O L I N A A V E SANDY LNBAYSHORE DRBELINA DRTRADE CENTER WAY NAPLES BLVDSHAW BLVD HAWAII BLVDMISS I O N D R TIVOLI DR GRIFFIN RDWHIPPOORWILL LNBAROT DRMAGNOLIA POND DR WHITTEN DRGRO V E S R D GLADES BLVD C L A S S I C S D R JOHNS RDEDGEMERE WAY EILEX C I R LAMBTON LN6T H S T CLUB ESTATES DR BENTON RDBUCKS RUN DR PINE STOSCEOLA TRLJAEGER RDROBIN AVELEWIS LNMARKET ST ATOLL CT PARK STTA M I A M I T R L E 17TH ST SWI 75 13TH AVE SW 19TH ST SW11TH AVE SW 1ST AVE SW I 7523RD ST SWCOLLIER BLVD5TH AVE SW 21ST ST SWGulf of Mexico Figure 47: Complete Streets and Safety Corridors ¹ 0 1.5 30.75 Miles Legend §¨¦75 Source: Collier MPO Collier County Overview Incorporated Municipalities Environmental Lands Study Corridors £¤41 £¤41 Page 71 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master   72    Figure 48 ‐ Collier MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy Zones    1. Where bicycle and pedestrian facilities are identified along roadways and greenways that, based on  local land use policies, will eventually transition from undeveloped to developed conditions – the  areas identified as Transitional on the following map ‐ the MPO recommends a phased approach to  planning, design and construction. MPO member entities are encouraged to plan for and obtain  sufficient  ROW  to  accommodate  anticipated  developed  conditions,  while  phasing  actual  construction of facilities to match the current roadway context.  2. Designing  for  Safety  ‐The  MPO  recommends  that  member  entities  incorporate  the  following  principles when planning transportation improvements in areas this Plan has identified as having  high  pedestrian  and  bicycle  use  (coinciding  with  high  crash  concentrations).  These  recommendations are based on the BP Road Safety Audit referenced in the Chapter on Safety:  a. Limit unsignalized right turns   b. Target and posted speeds should not exceed 35 mph    9.C.1 Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)   73    Funding Priorities     The MPO Board establishes policy by which it allocates Surface Transportation‐Urban (SU) funds for  1) congestion management, 2) new bridge construction, and 3) bicycle and pedestrian projects.  MPO staff issues a Call for Projects based on the Board’s established allocation policy and schedule,  which is currently on a 5‐year rotation among the three categories. MPO member entities submit  bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects that implement the current, adopted Bicycle and  Pedestrian Master Plan, which is, or will be, incorporated by reference into the current, adopted  Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).   Bicycle and Pedestrian projects range from locations on  local, collector, and arterial roads to greenway connections, Road Safety Audits, and special  studies.  1) The Network Needs analysis (Chapter 5) identifies the MPO’s priorities for funding projects based  on  safety,  equity,  and  connectivity.  In  addition,  the  MPO’s  priorities  include  the  projects  recommended in adopted Community Walkability studies and the current adopted bicycle and/or  pedestrian master plans of the City of Marco Island, City of Naples, City of Everglades City and  Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs) in Collier County – all of which are incorporated by  reference.    2) MPO  staff  will  coordinate  with  FDOT  and  local  entities  to  implementing  Road  Safety  Audit  recommendations that the MPO Board has specifically endorsed.     3) The  MPO’s  priority  projects  include  planning,  designing  and  constructing  Complete  Streets  retrofits to coincide with a) the FDOT top five High Crash Corridors, b) high‐use CAT routes, and  c) equity. FDOT has completed bicycle/pedestrian retrofit projects on SR 29/Main St in Immokalee  between 9th and 1st ST; and on US 41 from Royal Cove Drive north to Sunrise Blvd both of which  are located outside of the CAT bus route service but remain viable candidates for safety audits.  The two highest priority Complete Streets retrofit projects are:  a) US 41 between 5th Ave/9th St intersection and Airport Rd  b) Airport Road from US 41 north to Radio Road    Evaluation Criteria    4) MPO staff will issue a Call for Nonmotorized Transportation Projects on an as‐needed basis, based  on the MPO’s current adopted TMA SU “Box” allocation/programming policy. The Board has sole  discretion to set this policy and may change it at any time pursuant to the MPO Bylaws and Public  Participation Plan.  5) Member entities are free to choose which projects to submit as long as they are identified in the  Network Needs analysis (Chapter 5) and/or other local plans incorporated by reference in this  Plan. Member entities may submit up to one project for each jurisdictional area represented by  voting membership on the Board, and MPO staff may submit one project of regional significance,  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)   74    for a total of 10 projects in response to any Call for Projects:  1 project located in each County Commissioner District (total 5)  2 projects located within City of Naples   1 project located within City of Marco Island  1  Project  located  within  City  of  Everglades  City  (inclusive  of Chokoloskee  and  Plantation               Island)  1 project submitted by MPO staff to implement this Plan    6)   MPO staff shall conduct a preliminary assessment of submitted projects for eligibility according  to the following criteria. Incomplete project submittals will not be considered for funding.  Timeliness – The submitting agency verifies that the project can and should be designed and  constructed within the time‐period selected for funding.    Constructability – The submitting agency verifies that the project is fully scoped, the right‐ of‐way is available, cost estimates are complete and accurate.    Funding Availability – the submitting agency has identified funding that is currently available  for programming by the MPO and funding available for programming by the local entity.  Funding availability must be sufficient to meet project costs.   7)   MPO  staff  shall  conduct  a  preliminary  prioritized  ranking  of eligible  projects  based  on  the  following scoring criteria. The BPAC, CAC and TAC will all review and comment on the ranking and  endorse with adjustments as deemed warranted. Projects will be scored and ranked according to  the following method: Project Addresses Multiple Objectives: the submitting agency has demonstrated that the project  addresses multiple plan objectives in a substantial manner. The score is cumulative depending on  the number of factors addressed:   Safety  o Implements a recommended action in a Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Audit – 5 points  o Addresses a safety concern involving serious injuries and fatalities as identified in this Plan,  absent a Safety Audit to verify the proposed mitigation measure – 3 points  o Addresses a safety concern involving crashes of less severity, absent a Safety Audit to verify  the proposed mitigation measure – 2 points  o Addresses a safety concern expressed by members of the public in the absence of crash  records – 1 point    Equity  o Fills a need associated with Environmental Justice community or use identified in this Plan –  5 points  o Fills a need associated with an area that meets some, but not all EJ criteria used in identifying  EJ communities for this Plan – 3 points  o Fills a need associated with an area that does not have adequate access to nonmotorized  transportation facilities based upon public input received in the development of this Plan   –  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)   75    1 point   Connectivity  o Fills a prioritized infrastructure gap identified in this Plan – 5 points  o Fills a need for improved connectivity based upon public input received in the development  of this Plan – 2 points  8)  MPO staff will present the complete record of staff and advisory committee rankings to the MPO  Board.  The  Board  has  sole  and  final  decision‐making  authority  in  determining  the  final  list  of  priorities in ranked order. MPO staff shall submit the Board’s adopted project priorities to FDOT on  or before June 30th.  MPO Programs and Special Events  MPO staff will incorporate bi‐lingual educational material from NHTSA, such as flyers, brochures,  posters and Public Service Announcements (PSA), and work with the Community Traffic Safety Team  to augment distribution of the materials.   Staff will work with the CTST and FDOT to use changeable message signs on both Airport Road and  US41 to display to motorists the need to follow the 3‐foot rule, and to watch for cyclists at driveway  crossings.  MPO staff will help promote outreach and education opportunities offered throughout Collier County  on the MPO website and through social media. Example programs include Walk/Bike to School Day,  Bike to Work Day/Week, Safe Kids SWFL, bike helmet fittings and giveaways, car seat fitting and  giveaways, Ciclovía*, bike rodeos, and programs such as Summer Nights, Winter Nights, and Fridays  Nights, which are safety programs targeting school age kids and their parents.   (*Ciclovía,  also  spelled ciclovia or cyclovia, is a Spanish term that means “cycleway,” either a  permanent bike path or the closing of certain streets to automobiles for cyclists and pedestrians.  Ciclovia Immokalee! Has hosted events in May and August of 2017 and 2018, in a parking lot.  See:  http://www.cicloviaimmokalee.org/august‐4‐2018‐ciclovia‐immokalee‐joins‐lipman‐family‐farms‐at‐ their‐backpack‐giveaway/    ADDITIONAL  FEDERAL,  STATE  AND  LOCAL  FUNDING  SOURCES  &  TECHNICAL  ASSISTANCE    The projects identified this Plan are in locations throughout unincorporated Collier County and its  member entities – the cities of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City. Projects range from locations  on local, collector, and arterial roads to greenway connections, Road Safety Audits, and special  studies.   9.C.1 Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) 76  The needs for bicycle and pedestrian improvements far outstrip the funds available. This section  discusses funding sources in addition to SU funds that may be used to fully implement this Plan and  help make up for the ongoing funding shortfall. The potential to form partnerships with other agencies  is another funding option that is not discussed in this Plan. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements can  also be incorporated into roadway construction projects or funded independently.   MPO  member  entities  have  the  jurisdictional  authority  over  land use and zoning to work with  developers to address gaps in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and make connections as new  homes,  communities,  and  shopping areas  are  constructed.  MPO  member  entities  have  many  opportunities  to  submit  projects in response to Calls for Projects  related  to  other  funding  opportunities such as State and Federal grant programs, SRTS and NHTSA funding.  In addition, MPO  member entities have their own plans, policies and funding sources to address project priorities that  are independent of MPO funding sources.  Collier County, for example, typically funds transportation  improvements that incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities using local funds on County‐owned  roads.  FEDERAL PROGRAMS  The MPO collaborates with FDOT on the allocation of a variety of State and Federal funds, which are  one component of a complex funding stream in which the competition for limited resources statewide  is fierce. The primary funding sources available to the MPO are discussed below.   National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)  NHPP funds may be obligated only for a project on an “eligible facility” – a project, part of a program  of  projects,  or  an  eligible  activity  supporting  progress  toward the achievement of national  performance  goals  for  improving  infrastructure  condition,  safety,  congestion  reduction,  system  reliability, or freight movement on the National Highway System (NHS). Projects must be identified in  the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)/Transportation Improvement Program  (TIP) and be consistent with the Long‐Range Statewide Transport ation Plan and the MPO’s Long Range  Transportation Plan (LRTP). Bicycle transportation and pedestrian improvements associated with an  NHS facility are eligible. Bicycle lanes, paved shoulders and sidewalk improvements on major arterial  roads that are part of the NHS, and bicycle and/or pedestrian bridges and tunnels that cross NHS  facilities are eligible for funding.   Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG)  The  FAST  Act  converts  the  long‐standing  Surface  Transportation Program into the Surface  Transportation block Grant Program (STBG) . this program has the most flexible eligibilities among all  Federal‐aid highway programs. Funding for Transportation Alternatives is set aside from a State’s  STBG apportionment, as is funding for bridges not on Federal‐aid highways (aka “off‐system bridges.”)  Lee County MPO and Collier MPO jointly prioritize Regional Transportation Alternative Program funds  on an annual basis.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)   77    A  percentage  of  a  State’s  STBG  apportionment  (after  set‐asides)  is  to  be  obligated  to  areas  in  proportion to their relative shares of the State’s population. Urbanized areas with population greater  than 200,000, such as Collier MPO represents, are apportioned an annual amount of SU funds to  program projects eligible for STBG funding. The MPO Board prioritizes projects for programming for  the new 5th year of the new TIP.  FDOT covers the 20% match requirement.   STBG projects may not be on local (i.e. residential) roads or rural minor collectors, with the exception  of recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle projects and safe routes to school projects. (SRTS). SRTS  projects require a 50% local match.  Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)21  FDOT determines the use of HSIP funds on a statewide basis. HSIP funds can be used for pedestrian  and bicycle safety improvements but this is subject to meeting FDOT’s strict criteria and statewide  prioritization. States may obligate funds under HSIP to carry out any highway safety improvement  project on any public road or publicly‐owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail, or as provided  under Flexible Funding for States with a Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and other safety projects. The  HSIP requires a data‐driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that  focuses on performance. The FAST Act added the following items to the list of approved uses:   Pedestrian hybrid beacons – roadway improvements that provide separation between  pedestrians and motor vehicles, including medians and pedestrian crossing islands   Road Safety Audits (RSAs), a category that include Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Audits    Recreational Trails Program (RTP)22  The RTP is a federally‐funded competitive grant program that provides financial assistance to agencies  of city, county, state, or federal governments and organizations approved by the State, or State‐ and  federally‐recognized Indian tribal governments, for the development of recreational trails, trailheads,  and  trailside  facilities.  The  Florida  Department  of  Environmental  Protection  (DEP)  –  Division  of  Greenways and Trails, manages the State’s RTP. The DEP periodically issues a Call for Projects. The  most recent Call for Projects identified the maximum grants funds an applicant could request for Fiscal  Year 2018: Mixed Use and Nonmotorized Projects $200,000; Motorized Projects $500,000. Additional  information including the application form, Fact Sheet and other tools are available on their website  at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/grants/                                                                 21 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/legislationandpolicy/fast/guidance.cfm.  22 https://floridadep.gov/ooo/land‐and‐recreation‐grants/content/recreational‐trails‐ program.  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)   78    FTA Funds   A  variety  of  FTA  funding  is  available  that  may  be  used  to  fund the  design,  construction,  and  maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle projects that enhance or are related to public transportation  facilities. Improvements made expressly eligible by statute include capital projects such as pedestrian  and bicycle access to a public transportation facility and transit enhancements such as pedestrian  access,  walkways,  and  bicycle  access,  including  bicycle  storage  facilities  and  equipment  for  transporting bicycles on public transportation vehicles.  NHTSA Funds    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provides funding to State DOT’s and  any of their subgrantees or contractors to address traffic safety in the States. Grants funds may be  used for:23  The National Highway Traffic Safety  Administration (NHTSA) provides funding to State  DOT’s to  undertake priority area programs and activities to improve traffic safety and reduce crashes, serious  injuries and fatalities.  Any use of NHTSA grant funds must support data‐driven State safety goals.  NHTSA annually apportions these funds according to a formula based on population and road miles.  Occasionally, additional funding may be available for projects in other programs areas if there is  documented evidence of an identified program.   The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) awards these funds as subgrants to traffic safety  partners.  Please  see https://www.fdot.gov/safety/3‐grants/grants‐home.shtm for detailed  information including eligibility, funding cycle and selection process. Funds may be used for programs  for:   Pedestrian and bicycle safety;   Speed and aggressive driving;   Impaired driving;   Aging road users;   Teed driver safety;   Community traffic safety;   Police traffic services;   Impaired driving;   Motorcycle safety;   Occupant protection and child passenger safety;   Teed driver safety;   Traffic records; and                                                                  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) 79  The Traffic Record Coordinating Committee (TRCC) Emphasis areas under the pedestrian and bicycle safety program include:   Increasing awareness and understanding of safety issues and compliance with traffic laws; Development and use of a systematic approach to identify locations and behaviors prone to bicycle and pedestrian crashes and implement multidisciplinary countermeasures; Create urban and rural built environments that support and encourage safe walking and biking; Support national, state and local legislative initiatives and policies that promote bicycle and pedestrian safety Efforts to combat aggressive driving and speeding include:  Enforcing speeding and aggressive driving laws by focusing on high‐risk locations; Incorporate technology and other innovations at high‐risk locations; Evaluate hot spots and implement appropriate engineering countermeasures to control speed and recuse aggressive driving Technical Assistance  The Florida Traffic and Bicycle Safety Education Program (FTBSEP) is a statewide comprehensive  training program funded by the FDOT Safety Office, which teaches individuals how to be more  competent and safer pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition to training individuals, the FTBSEP uses a  train‐the‐trainer model to teach training workshop participants (e.g., district, county, city staff, law  enforcement, fire rescue, EMS, municipal parks and recreation staff, senior center staff, community  professions, etc.) how to teach pedestrian and bicycle safety education to others (e.g., children,  adults,  and  seniors).  Training  is  provided  at  no  cost  to  district,  county,  city  staff  and  other  organizations. Collier County is identified as one of the Top 25 Priority Counties of the Pedestrian and  Bicycle Focused Initiative and is eligible for assistance in coordinating a training workshop in the area.  For more information see the following websites:   http://hhp.ufl.edu/safety   https://alerttodayflorida.com/resources/Top25Countiesmap_dark.pdf  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)   80    Shared‐Use Non‐motorized (SUN) Trail Network  Managed by the Department of Environmental Protection – Office of Greenways and Trails, the  SUNTrail program funds non‐motorized, paved, shared‐use trails that are part of the Florida  Greenways and Trails System Priority Trail Map. The Southwest Coast Connector Trail alignment (see  map x) is eligible to receive SUNTrail funds IF local entities agree in advance to assume maintenance  responsibilities.     USDOT BUILD Program (formerly TIGER Grant Program)  The USDOT manages the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development, or BUILD  Transportation Discretionary Grant program. (See  https://www.transportation.gov/BUILDgrants/about).  The BUILD Program replaces the Transportation Investment Generating Economy Recovery (TIGER)  program. The eligibility requirements allow for multi‐modal, multi‐jurisdictional projects that are  more difficult to support through traditional DOT programs.   When the USDOT publishes a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), MPO member entities may  submit project applications to the USDOT. The most recent NOFO was issued on April 27, 2018 with  a submittal deadline of July 18, 2018. This is a highly competitive, national program. Instructions for  completing a Project Information Form are posted at:  http://www.transportation.gov/buildgrants/build‐info .  Plan Monitoring and Reporting    This Plan update is a living document and reflects the vision of the MPO and stakeholders and analysis  done at the time the Plan was developed. Yet, developing a plan is only the first step in the process  to creating a robust and successful active transportation network. After plan adoption, collaboration  and action are what make the plan successful. Monitoring and reporting on performance measures  and  targets  is  necessary  to  assess  the  strengths  and  weaknesses of the plan in light of actual  performance.   The measures and targets described below will be incorporated into the MPO Director’s Annual  Report to the MPO Board, which will also be presented to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory  Committee. The MPO Director’s Annual Report to the MPO Board also includes a listing of currently  programmed projects that address problem areas in the bicycle and pedestrian network identified in  safety studies, Walkable Community Studies and bicycle and pedestrian Safety Audits. This reporting  is mandated by the MPO Congestion Management Process.  Safety and Safety Performance Targets   Safety is the first national goal identified in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act and  is of critical importance to the MPO. As part of the FAST Act, the Federal Highway Administration  9.C.1 Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) 81  (FHWA) required all state departments of transportation (DOTs) and MPOs to adopt five safety  performance targets by the end of February 2018. MPOs could adopt their own targets or those of  the State DOT. The Collier MPO adopted FDOT’s safety performance targets which are for zero non‐ motorized  fatalities  and  serious  injuries.  To  satisfy  federal  requirements,  FDOT  has  issued  a  clarification that forecasts an interim performance measure of 3,447 nonmotorized fatalities and  serious injuries statewide in 2018. In support of the MPO commitment to Vision Zero, one of the  primary goals of this Plan is to reduce the number of bicycle and pedestrian injuries and fatalities by  funding  projects  that  will  support  this  goal.  The  MPO  Director’s  Annual  Report  will  address  performance according to both the 0 target and the interim performance measure.  The  MPO  Director’s  Annual  Report  to  the  MPO  Board  already  reports  on  the  Number  of  Non‐ motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries on an annual basis and tracks trends over a five‐year period.  The significance of tracking trends involving safety crash statistics must be understood in the context  of several important caveats  The MPO Board prioritizes projects for the new 5th year of the following year’s TIP. Projects are therefore 6 years out at the earliest, yet this Plan will be updated every 5‐years. Project phases usually, but not always, start with preliminary design, followed by obtaining environmental clearances, ROW acquisition, final design and construction. Including time to complete each of these phases, the actual opening day for a new construction project is about 9 years out. If the projects selected for funding are widely scattered geographically and/or not specifically geared towards addressing safety per se, but address other issues as well, such as bicycle and pedestrian injuries and fatalities by funding projects that will support this goal. The MPO  Director’s Annual Report will address performance according to both the 0 target and the interim  performance measure.  The  MPO  Director’s  Annual  Report  to  the  MPO  Board  already  reports  on  the  Number  of  Non‐ motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries on an annual basis and tracks trends over a five‐year period.  The significance of tracking trends involving safety crash statistics must be understood in the context  of several important caveats  The MPO Board prioritizes projects for the new 5th year of the following year’s TIP. Projects are therefore 6 years out at the earliest, yet this Plan will be updated every 5‐years. Project phases usually, but not always, start with preliminary design, followed by obtaining environmental clearances, ROW acquisition, final design and construction. Including time to complete each of these phases, the actual opening day for a new construction project is about 9 years out. If the projects selected for funding are widely scattered geographically and/or not specifically geared towards addressing safety per se, but address other issues as well, such as network connectivity, recreational and other local agency needs and priorities, there will be little to show from a safety statistical perspective. 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) 82  Network expansion   The Director’s Annual Report to the MPO Board already tracks the following measures, which are in  the MPO’s 2017 Congestion Management Process:  Centerline miles of paved shoulders Centerline miles of bike lanes Linear miles of Shared Use Paths (SUPs) adjacent to roadways Linear miles of SUPs located within greenways Linear miles of connector sidewalks on arterial roadways. Connector sidewalks are defined in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities inventory database as “a sidewalk that provides cyclists the option of a connection that is separated from motorized vehicle traffic, identified only where there are gaps in the cycling network between stretches of bike lanes, paved shoulders and/or shared use paths.” The MPO established this data by updating the 2007 sidewalk inventory conducted by Collier County against satellite imagery available via the free website platform: Google Earth. The MPO does not attempt to inventory or report on linear miles of all sidewalks located within the MPO jurisdictional area; however, the MPO’s member entities are encouraged to begin doing so as part of their asset management programs. BPMP Priority Project Implementation   The MPO Director’s Annual Report to the MPO Board will be expanded to include a status report on  BPMP Project Priorities that are making their way through the following project development steps:  MPO Project Priority Listing for: o SU box funding o RTAP funding o Incorporated in Roadway projects for TRIP or CIGP funding o Other funding applications submitted Projects programmed and funded in the MPO TIP/FDOT STIP for design and construction Projects programmed in a member entity’s CIP or identified for local funding in the County’s Annual  Update & Inventory Report (AUIR) / Capital Improvement Element Schedule (CIE)  Projects received funding through notice of a grant award Plan Updates and Amendments  The MPO will update this Plan every 5 years to match the cycle for updating the MPO’s LRTP. The  BPMP will be incorporated for reference in the LRTP.   9.C.1 Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)   83    Member entities and MPO staff may propose major revisions to the Plan in the form of amendments  for the MPO Board to consider on an as‐needed basis to address unforeseen opportunities or resolve  issues that are preventing or delaying plan implementation. Major revisions are changes that would  alter plan policies or project priorities. The procedures for amending the BPMP will follow MPO’s  adopted Public Participation Plan.  MPO staff may make minor revisions to correct typographical errors, mapping errors or to update  references and pertinent data.  Such minor revisions will be distributed to the Board and to advisory  committees and the MPO’s email listserv(s) indicating track changes and the resulting clean version  of any altered text, spreadsheet or map, following the procedures in the MPO’s adopted Public  Participation Plan.  When the USDOT publishes a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), MPO member entities may  submit project applications to the USDOT. The most recent NOFO was issued on April 27, 2018 with a  submittal deadline of July 18, 2018. This is a highly competitive, national program. Instructions for  completing a Project Information Form are posted at:   http://www.transportation.gov/buildgrants/build‐info .          9.C.1 Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) Photo Credit: Naples Pathways ColaitionPhoto Credit: Naples Pathways Colaition 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (8214 : Adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) 03/08/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update OBJECTIVE: To distribute a copy of the latest MPOAC Legislative Update to the MPO Board. CONSIDERATIONS: The latest MPOAC update regarding the 2019 Florida legislative session is included as 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 2/22/19 (PDF) 11.A Packet Pg. 209 03/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 11.A Doc ID: 8213 Item Summary: Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update Meeting Date: 03/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 02/28/2019 1:28 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 02/28/2019 1:28 PM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 02/28/2019 1:43 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 02/28/2019 2:06 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 03/08/2019 9:00 AM 11.A Packet Pg. 210 Carl Mikyska, Executive Director 605 Suwannee Street, MS 28B · Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 1-866-374-3368 x 4037 or 850-414-4062 www.mpoac.org Commissioner Nick Maddox Chair Legislative Update for the week ending 02/22/2019 Overview This past week advanced a couple of bills we are tracking in your MPOAC Legislative Newsletter. A couple to note, the Distracted Driving Bill passed out of its first committee in the Senate. The House version has not yet been scheduled for its first committee hearing and that is a little concerning. There is plenty of session to go, but we do need the House version to begin moving. Florida is one of four states that does not have a primary ban on texting while driving. The bill on street racing, SB 116 named Motor Vehicle Racing passed its first committee as well this week. Since Florida is committed to traffic safety the drag racing bill is something that will hopefully help make our roadways a safer place. As the session is unfolding, some non-transportation issues are beginning to take on importance, headlines and the time of our legislators. This can be good at times and not so good in other regards. We have bills and issues we want advanced and these other non-transportation issues distract our members of the legislature from advancing our priorities. On the other hand, if legislators are looking for something to introduce we could find ourselves on the wrong end of a proposed bill. It is a double-edged sword. While the legislature is not meeting next, they will begin their official session on March 5 th. During this next week and during session, issues and questions that may occupy the minds of our legislators would be: should medical marijuana include a smokeable version, how to implement and define completion of a sentence which allows voting rights for ex-felons and how to deal with a couple of insurance issues including assignment of benefits reform. We will see where these topics go and how much attention they gather. In the meantime, please watch the bills which we have listed here in the newsletter. There are a couple of bills (OK, more than just a couple) which affect local units of government. I know these are of interest to the reading audience of this newsletter and if something really shocking comes up I will share the news with you here. Our partner organizations such as Florida League of Cities and Florida Association of Counties are tracking these “other” bills and we meet regularly to compare notes. The Senate and the House are not meeting next week A few more bills have been filed and certainly many more will be filed over the coming months. New bills are shown in RED in the last section of the newsletter. Your MPOAC Legislative Update will keep you apprised of newly filed bills and amendments. Grab a cup of coffee and enjoy this edition of the MPOAC Legislative Update. MPOAC The Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: MPOAC Legislative Update for 2/22/19 (8213 : Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (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 Committee Meeting schedule prior to the official Legislative Session beginning on March 5 th 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 February 22, 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. All updates to this section of the newsletter and bills shown below will be in RED so you can quickly distinguish between updates and old news. 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. 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: MPOAC Legislative Update for 2/22/19 (8213 : Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update) SB 72: Alligator 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. On Committee Agenda – Infrastructure and Security, 02/19/2019, 4:30PM, Room 110 Senate Building. Favorable by Infrastructure and Security; 8 Yeas, Zero Nays. Now in Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism and Economic Development. 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. On Committee agenda-- Criminal Justice Subcommittee, 02/06/19, 9:00 am, Sumner Hall. Favorable by Criminal Justice Subcommittee, 14 Yeas, 1 Nay. On Committee agenda-- State Affairs Committee, 02/19/19, 3:00 pm, Morris Hall. Committee Substitute by State Affairs Committee, passed 22 Yeas, Zero Nays. SB 76: Use of Wireless Communications Devices While Driving – (Simpson; Co- Introducers: Passidomo; Hooper; Mayfield; Book; Rouson; Berman) – Similar to HB 107 (Toledo, Slosberg) and H 45 (Slosberg). Creating the "Florida Ban on Wireless Communications Devices While Driving Law"; prohibiting a person from operating a motor vehicle while listening or talking on a wireless communications device for the purpose of voice interpersonal communication; deleting a provision requiring that enforcement of this section be accomplished only as a secondary action, etc. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Innovation, Industry, and Technology; Judiciary; Rules. On Committee agenda-- Infrastructure and Security, 02/19/19, 4:30 pm, 110 Senate Building. Committee Substitute by Infrastructure and Security; passed with 8 Yeas, Zero Nays. Now in Innovation, Industry, and Technology Committee. 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. HB 107: Use of Wireless Communications Devices While Driving – (Toledo; Slosberg; Co- Introducers: Beltran; Casello; Cortes; Duran; Eskamani; Gottlieb; Grieco; Hattersley; Killebrew; Massullo; McClure; Overdorf; Polo; Smith, C.; Stark; Stevenson; Thompson; Webb ) – Similar to SB 76 (Simpson). Revises short title & legislative intent; prohibits person from operating motor vehicle while using wireless communications device for purpose of nonvoice or voice interpersonal communication; redefines term "wireless communications device" to include voice communications; requires deposit of fines into Emergency Medical Services Trust Fund; removes provision requiring that enforcement be accomplished only as secondary action. Referred to Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; Appropriations Committee; State Affairs Committee. 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: MPOAC Legislative Update for 2/22/19 (8213 : Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update) SB 116: Motor Vehicle Racing – (Stewart) – Identical to HB 611 (Mercado). 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. On Committee agenda-- Infrastructure and Security, 02/19/19, 4:30 pm, 110 Senate Building . Favorable by Infrastructure and Security; 8 Yeas, Zero Nays. Now in Criminal Justice. SB 132: Drones – (Rouson) – Similar to HB 75 (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. On Committee agenda – Criminal Justice, 02/11/19, 2:30PM Room 37 Senate Bldg. Committee Substitute by Criminal Justice; 5 Yeas, 0 Nays. Now in Infrastructure and Security. SB 144: Impact Fees – (Gruters) – Similar to HB 207 (Donalds). Revising the minimum requirements for impact fees adopted by a local government; exempting water and sewer connection fees from the Florida Impact Fee Act, etc. Referred to Community Affairs; Finance and Tax; Appropriations. On Committee agenda-- Community Affairs, 02/05/19, 2:00 pm, 301 Senate Building --Temporarily Postponed. 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. HB 207: Impact Fees – (Donalds) – Similar to SB 144 (Gruter). Revises minimum requirements for adoption of impact fees by specified local governments; authorizes prevailing party to recover attorney fees under certain circumstances; exempts water & sewer connection fees from Florida Impact Fee Act. Referred to Local, Federal and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee; Commerce Committee; State Affairs Committee. On Committee agenda-- Local, Federal and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, 02/20/19, 4:00 pm, 12 HOB. Committee Substitute by Local, Federal and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee; 14 Yeas, Zero Nays. 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 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: MPOAC Legislative Update for 2/22/19 (8213 : Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update) 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. Withdrawn. HB 309: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings – (Duggan) – Similar to SB 608 by Bean. Prohibits railroad train from blocking public highway, street, or road at railroad-highway grade crossing for more than specified time period; provides exceptions; provides civil penalties; exempts certain persons from liability for violations. Referred to Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; Civil Justice Subcommittee; State Affairs Committee. HB 311: Autonomous Vehicles – (Fisher) – Co-Introducers: Rodriguez; Mayfield) – Similar to SB 932 by Brandes. 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) – Identical to SB 1002 by Hutson. 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. SB 350: Impact Fees – (Hutson) – Prohibiting local governments from charging impact fees for certain developments, etc. Referred to Community Affairs; Infrastructure and Security; Appropriations. 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. Referred to Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; Ways and Means Committee; State Affairs Committee. On Committee agenda-- Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, 02/13/19, 1:30 pm, Reed Hall. Committee Substitute by Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; 15 Yeas, 0 Nays. Now in Ways and Means Committee. HB 453: Micromobility Devices and Motorized Scooters – (Toledo) – Similar to SB 542 (Brandes). 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 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: MPOAC Legislative Update for 2/22/19 (8213 : Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update) 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. Referred to Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; Local, Federal and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee; State Affairs Committee. HB 476: Child Restraint Requirements – (Perry) – Identical to HB 567 (Slosberg). 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. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Children, Families, and Elder Affairs; Rules. SB 542: Micromobility Devices and Motorized Scooters – (Brandes) – Similar to HB 453 (Toledo). Defining the term “micromobility device”; revising the definition of the term “motorized scooter”; authorizing a county or municipality to regulate the operation of micromobility devices and for-hire motorized scooters, subject to certain restrictions; authorizing a county or municipality to require that a person offering micromobility devices or for-hire motorized scooters be licensed; exempting a micromobility device or motorized scooter from certain registration, insurance, and licensing requirements, etc. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; Appropriations. SB 544: Airports – (Brandes) – Requiring the Department of Transportation to provide financial and technical assistance to sponsors that operate public-use airports by making department personnel and department-owned facilities and equipment available on a cost- reimbursement basis to such sponsors for special needs of limited duration; requiring federal funding of individual local public-use airport projects to be wholly between the airport sponsors and the appropriate federal agencies; authorizing the department to receive federal grants for both local and statewide public-use airport projects when no sponsor is available, etc. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; Appropriations. SB 567: Child Restraint Requirements – (Slosberg) – Identical to SB 467 (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. Referred to Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; Children, Families and Seniors Subcommittee; State Affairs Committee. HB 605: Tax Increment Revenues – (Casello) – Authorizes counties and municipalities to use increment revenues under specified conditions. Referred to Local, Federal and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee; Ways and Means Committee; State Affairs Committee. SB 608: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings – (Bean) – Similar to HB 309 by Duggan. Prohibits railroad train from blocking public highway, street, or road at railroad-highway grade crossing for more than specified time period; provides exceptions; provides civil penalties; exempts certain persons from liability for violations. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Judiciary; Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; Appropriations. 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: MPOAC Legislative Update for 2/22/19 (8213 : Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update) HB 611: Motor Vehicle Racing – (Mercado) – Identical to SB 116 (Stewart). Motor Vehicle Racing; Increases criminal penalty for third or subsequent violation related to motor vehicle racing within specified period after date of prior violation that resulted in conviction. Referred to Criminal Justice Subcommittee; Justice Appropriations Subcommittee; Judiciary Committee. SB 612: Driving Under the Influence – (Baxley) – Similar to HB 929 by Antone; Plakon. Requiring that the monthly leasing fee for an ignition interlock device be discounted by specified percentages under certain circumstances when a person claims inability to pay; authorizing a court, upon agreement by a state attorney, to withhold adjudication of guilt for certain criminal violations relating to driving under the influence, under certain circumstances, etc. Not yet assigned to committees. Referred to Criminal Justice; Appropriations Subcommittee on Criminal and Civil Justice SB 622: Traffic Infraction Detectors – (Brandes; Co-Introducer: Diaz) – Similar to HB 6003 (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; repealing provisions relating to the authorization to use traffic infraction detectors, etc. Not yet assigned to committees. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; Appropriations SB 660: Transportation – (Brandes) – Requiring the Department of Transportation to consist of a central office that establishes policies and procedures and districts that carry out projects as authorized or required under the policies and procedures of the central office; prohibiting the driver of any vehicle from following another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent given certain circumstances; revising the number of times that certain persons may elect to attend a basic driver improvement course; providing requirements, beginning on a specified date, for license plates, cab cards, and validation stickers for vehicles registered in accordance with the International Registration Plan; directing the department to implement protocols for issuing an optional electronic credential and to procure a related technology system, etc. Not yet assigned to committees. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; Appropriations HB 681: Florida Transportation Commission – (Zika; Co-Introducer: Roach) – Removes requirement that Secretary of Transportation be nominated by FTC & that secretary provide assistance to FTC; removes provisions relating to creation, membership, duties, meetings, executive director & staff, & budget of FTC; removes requirement that FTC review certain transportation policy initiatives; repeals provisions relating to transportation performance & productivity standards; revises membership & member approval of Center for Urban Transportation Research advisory board; revises provisions relating to review & evaluation of DOT's tentative work program; requires DOT to determine certain average administrative costs for expressway authorities; removes FTC rulemaking authority. Not yet assigned to committees. Referred to Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; Transportation and Tourism Appropriations Subcommittee; State Affairs Committee HB 693: Communications Services – (Fischer) – Reduces communications services tax rate on sales of communications services; revises authority for municipalities, and counties to impose permit fees on providers of communications services that use or occupy municipal or county roads or rights-of-way; deletes procedures, requirements, & limitations with respect to such fees. Not yet assigned to committees. Referred to Energy and Utilities Subcommittee; Ways and Means Committee; Commerce 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: MPOAC Legislative Update for 2/22/19 (8213 : Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update) HB 725: Commercial Motor Vehicles – (Payne) – Repeals assistive truck platooning technology pilot project; revises provisions relating to platoon vehicle operation, commercial motor vehicle safety regulations & penalties, apportionable vehicle requirements, certain license plate fees, vehicles registered under International Registration Plan, & theft of certain commercial cargo; authorizes DHSMV to partner with tax collector to conduct Fleet Vehicle Temporary Tag pilot program. Referred to Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; Transportation and Tourism Appropriations Subcommittee; State Affairs Committee. SB 728: Growth Management – (Lee) – Authorizing sufficiently contiguous lands located within the county or municipality which a petitioner anticipates adding to the boundaries of a new community development district to also be identified in a petition to establish the new district under certain circumstances; providing requirements for the petition; providing notification requirements for the petition, etc. Referred to Community Affairs; Infrastructure and Security; Rules SB 898: Transportation – (Diaz) – Revising the authorized uses of proceeds from charter county and regional transportation system surtaxes; revising the preservation goals of the Department of Transportation to include ensuring that all work on the State Highway System meets department standards; requiring the department to approve design plans for all transportation projects relating to department-owned rights-of-way under certain circumstances; prohibiting the department from using toll revenues from high-occupancy toll lanes or express lanes to offset certain funding, etc. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; Appropriations. HB 905: Department of Transportation – (Andrade) – Identical to SB 1044 by Albritton. Revises provisions related to DOT, including requirements for appointment of Secretary of Transportation, computation of mileage, pavement standards, construction contracts, use of toll revenue, allocation of transportation capacity funds, facility improvements, & project development & environmental studies. Filed, not yet assigned to committees. HB 929: Driving Under the Influence – (Antone; Plakon) – Similar to SB 612 by Baxley. Requires ignition interlock provider to discount monthly leasing fee for ignition interlock device by certain percentage for certain persons; exempts such person from paying costs of installation of device; authorizes court to withhold adjudication of guilt for certain DUI offenses; requires court to order adjudication of guilt if certain requirements are not met; authorizes person to petition court for withhold of adjudication 5 years after his or her conviction. Filed, not yet assigned to committees. SB 932: Autonomous Vehicles – (Brandes) – Similar to HB 311 by Fischer. Exempting a fully autonomous vehicle being operated with the automated driving system engaged from a prohibition on the active display of television or video; exempting a motor vehicle operator who is operating an autonomous vehicle from a prohibition on the use of wireless communications devices; providing that a licensed human operator is not required to operate a fully autonomous vehicle; authorizing a fully autonomous vehicle to operate in this state regardless of whether a human operator is physically present in the vehicle, etc. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; Appropriations. SB 952: Electronic Navigation Systems – (Taddeo) – Prohibiting electronic navigation systems, for certain purposes, from directing the operator of a vehicle to drive through adjacent residential areas when a school zone speed limit is in effect if the primary purpose of such 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: MPOAC Legislative Update for 2/22/19 (8213 : Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update) direction is to avoid the school zone, etc. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Innovation, Industry, and Technology; Rules. SB 1002: Motor Vehicles and Railroad Trains– (Hutson) – Identical to HB 341 by LaMarca. Revising the definition of the term “railroad train”; requiring that, in the event of a crash involving a railroad train, the collection of certain information be at the discretion of the law enforcement officer having jurisdiction to investigate the crash; specifying that certain persons are not considered passengers for the purpose of making crash reports, etc. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Criminal Justice; Rules. SB 1044: Department of Transportation – (Albritton) – Identical to HB 905 by Andrade. Providing that the Department of Transportation consists of a central office that establishes policies and procedures and districts that carry out certain projects; requiring certain preservation goals to include ensuring that a specified percentage of the pavement in each of the department’s districts meet department standards by a specified year; prohibiting local governments from adopting standards or specifications that are contrary to the department standards or specifications for permissible use of aggregates and materials that have been certified for use, etc. Referred to Infrastructure and Security; Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; Appropriations. 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 (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. HB 6017: Small-scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments – (Duggan) – Removes acreage limitations that apply to small-scale comprehensive plan amendments. Referred to Local, Federal and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee; Commerce Committee; State Affairs Committee. On Committee agenda-- Local, Federal and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, 02/13/19, 8:30 am, 12 HOB. Favorable by Local, Federal and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee; 14 Yeas, 0 Nays. Now in Commerce Committee. HB 7007: OGSR/Toll Facilities – (General Bill by Oversight, Transparency and Public Management Subcommittee; Andrade) – Removes scheduled repeal of exemption from public records requirements for personal identifying information provided for purpose of paying, prepaying, or collecting tolls & associated administrative charges for use of toll facilities. Referred to Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; State Affairs Committee. On Committee agenda-- Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, 02/13/19, 1:30 pm, Reed Hall. Favorable by Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; 15 Yeas, 0 Nays. Now in State Affairs Committee. 11.A.1 Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: MPOAC Legislative Update for 2/22/19 (8213 : Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Legislative Update) 03/08/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 13.A Item Summary: Next Meeting Date - April 12, 2019 - 10:00 a.m. Everglades City Hall, 102 Copeland Ave. N Everglades City, FL 34139 Meeting Date: 03/08/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Karen Intriago 02/28/2019 12:35 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 02/28/2019 12:35 PM Approved By: Review: Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 02/28/2019 12:39 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 02/28/2019 1:59 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 03/08/2019 9:00 AM 13.A Packet Pg. 220