Agenda 05/13/2008 Item #10A
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 13, 2008
Page 1 of 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A presentation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding a conceptual plan
to finance operating costs and capacity recovery improvements on County roads
having constraints due to traffic signals serving non-public roadways and driveways
by use of a user's fee for "Convenience Signals".
OBJECTIVE: To brief members and receive direction of the Board of County
Commissioners on a conceptual plan that would allow a means to finance roadway
capacity improvements on County arterials that are capacity constrained by traffic signals
serving developments and commercial centers that do not provide public traffic
throughput.
CONSIDERATIONS: The roadway system of Collier County consists of only a few
arterials with many neighborhoods and commercial developments fronting those arterials
allowing no public access through their developments to other arterials. This lack of
interconnectivity and its deleterious effect upon the arterial system is often exasperated
even further by the installation of traffic signals serving only the private properties
adjacent to the side street intersecting the arterial at the signalized intersection. Those
intersections, which do marginally meet the warrant for traffic signalization, create delay
and reduce roadway capacity on the public arterial, but allow no benefit to the public at
large since the side streets provide no public interconnectivity to the roadway network.
For this reason they are often referred to as "convenience signals" in that they exist for
the convenience of the property owners, either residential or commercial, served by the
intersecting side street and traffic signal.
Approximately a year ago the Transportation Services Division began a review of the
number and operation of these convenience signals and their effect upon the county's
roadway system. The first step was to define the term convenience signal, which became
defined as a traffic signal on a collector or arterial roadway that meets warrants for
signalization but serves only a side street or side streets that do not provide public access
to another public collector or arterial. Examples would be shopping centers,
developments with gated entrances, or non-gated developments that have no other access
to the roadway system.
In July 2007 the Transportation Services Division issued a work order to a traffic
consulting firm, Vanus, Inc. of Tampa, Florida, to better define and quantity the effects
of these convenience signals and to investigate the possibility that there might be a way
in which a user's fee might be collected from the benefactors of such signals. The idea
was that the user's fee might be applied to mitigate the costs of operating the convenience
signals as well as implement projects to mitigate their effect of lost capacity to the
roadway system. Such projects would include enhancing and cxpanding the County's
Intelligent Transportation System, constructing intersection modification projects aimed
towards improved capacity and lower delay, and arterial capacity recovery projects, such
as median Access Management modifications.
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 13, 2008
Page 2 of?
The consultant began the study with a legal review by the law firm of Dye, Deitrich,
Petroff, and St. Paul, P.L., to assure that such a user's fee is legal and proper, which it
found to be the case. Then the consultant worked to identify the number and location of
such convenience signals within the county and to define a method to determine the fair
and proper fee for such signals. The last step in the consultant's effort has been to
graphically represent the effect of these convenience signals upon the capacity and delay
experience of the county arterials, which will be a part of their presentation of study
findings to the Board.
FISCAL IMPACT: While this discussion has no fiscal impact for the County, if the
identified user's fee were to be instituted it would provide a funding source for projects
that are implemented to recapture capacity and reduce delay caused by such convenience
traffic signals.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There IS no Growth Management Impact
associated with this Executive Summary.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners provide the
Transportation Serviccs Division with direction as to whether to continue to develop
and/or modify for approval by the Board the identified new user's fee for convenience
traffic signals.
Prepared By: Robert W. Tipton, P.E., Traffic Operations Director
Attachment: Collier County "Convenience Signal" Fee Assessment Study Summary
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Page lof2
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 13, 2008
Page 3 of 7
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
10A
This item to be heard at 4:00 p,m. A presentation to the Board of County Commissioners
regarding a conceptual plan to finance operating costs and capacity recovery improvements
on County roads having constraints due to traffic signals serving non-public roadways and
driveways by use of a users fee for Convenience Signals. (Bob Tipton, Traffic Operations
Director and Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator)
5/13/2008 9:0000 AM
Prepared By
Robert W. Tipton, P.E,
Transportation Services
Traffic Operations Director
Date
Traffic Operations
3/10/20085:32:47 PM
Approved By
Robert W. Tipton, P .E.
Transportation Services
Traffic Operations Director
Date
Traffic Operations
3/10/20085:38 PM
Approved By
Norm E. Feder, Ale?
Transportation Services
Transportation Division Administrator
Date
Transportation Services Admin.
3/11/200811 :33 AM
Approved By
Sharon Newman
Transportation Services
Accounting Supervisor
Date
Transportation Services Admin
3/12/2008 4:34 PM
Approved By
Nick Casalanguida
Transportation Services
MPO Director
Date
Transportation Planning
3/13/2008 11 :32 AM
Approved By
Pat Lehnhard
Transportation Services
Executive Secretary
Date
Transportation Services Admin
3/13/200812:56 PM
Approved By
OMS Coordinator
County Manager's Office
OMS Coordinator
Date
Office of Management & Budget
3/13/20084:36 PM
Approved By
John A. Yonkosky
County Manager's Office
Director of the Office of Management
Date
Office of Management & Budget
3/14/200812:00 PM
Approved By
James V. Mudd
Board of County
County Manager
Date
file://C :\AgendaT est\Export\ I 07 -May%20 13,%202008\ I O. %20COUNTY%20MANAGER %... 517/2008
Page 2of2
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 13, 2008
Page 4 of?
Commissioners
County Manager's Office
3/14/20085:17 PM
file://C:\AgendaTest\Export\! 07 -May%20 13,%202008\ 1 0.%20COUNTY%20MANAGER %... 51712008
REPORT SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 13, 2008
Page 5 of 7
The Collier County Transportation Division has developed the idea of implementing a
user fee for traffic signals that serve to enhance ingress and egress for private
development and, in so doing, cause delay for motorists without providing greater
network connectivity. Such site related traffic signals solely serve the convenient access
into and out of shopping centers and gated or non-interconnected communities. Local
roads without connectivity to other segments of the transportation network reduce the
level of services on the public roadways without providing alternative routes for public
travel. The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of this fee, and if deemed
feasible, the appropriate methodology to assess the fee. Research was conducted to
determine if similar fees are used elsewhere in the country or to determine if such a fee
has been tried and failed to pass legal and/or public scrutiny. The research included
reviewing legal, planning, and engineering websites and contacting technical
organizations which may have knowledge of this type of fee. The research concluded
that no such fee exists.
The legality of such a fee was investigated by the law firm of Dye, Deitrich, Petruff & St.
Paul, P.L. The user fee would be imposed on those private properties requesting the
continual operation of, or the new installation of, a signal at a location that meets the
County's definition of a "convenience signal",
In simplistic terms, a convenience signal is defined as a traffic signal installed solely for
the purpose of benefiting the private property users. If the development seeking a signal
is not interconnected to a public collector or arterial roadway then the signal is deemed
for the convenience of the development(s) served. A convenience signal intersection has
a maximum of two publicly owned and interconnected legs. The delay caused by the
deceleration, wait during the yellow and red phases along the public road, and the
subsequent acceleration back to travel speed equates to delay and additional costs
experienced by the public to accommodate the convenient access to the private
development.
Once the fee was determined to be legal, the methodology by which to assess the fee was
developed. The methodology focused on assessing the delay, fuel, maintenance, and
energy costs associated with the installation of a new private traffic signal. The
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 13, 2008
installation of a signal increases the main street through traffic delay and ftlMge 6 of 7
consumption since these motorists would typically be traveling under free-flow
conditions. These costs are determined based on typical PM peak hour values as derived
from existing private signalized intersections in Collier County.
If such a non-connected location is approved by the County for continued operation or
installation of a signal, the private entity will have the option to pay the designated annual
user fee (as determined by the County) for the signal. Currently, the developer is only
responsible for their fair share of the signal installation costs. The signal equipment
becomes the property of Collier County. The warrants for signal installation/retention
would still need to be verified. The signal design is required to meet the County's design
requirements. If a developer/owner chooses not to pay the convenience signal fee for an
existing or proposed signal, the County will conduct an engineering study to determine
the best design for the intersection given the specific conditions and the need to address
the level of service for motorists on the public roadway segments. The County will
assume the costs for the signal removal and any reconstruction costs.
L(.I ,-,<,,-,,;h U",L
.
i
J:i
.
....-""';"'"
IMMOKALEE ~OAD
~
'..
z
~
~
RBILT ROA
"
?
~
<;\
:;:,
~
B
o
~
o
.
pn~E DGE ROAD ~
~
~
g
~
w
~
~
~
z
5
~
~
f",
..:j~
f
Signals.
R IORDAD
j
~
~~.'! ~~.._, ,"'.....",." ,,,,
Figure 1. Locations of identified Convenience Signals
Table I. Currently Identified Convenience Signals
Arterial Name Intersection Year
Built
Immokalee Rd Valewood Dr 2008
Vanderbilt Beach Rd Island Walk 2008
Naples Blvd Hollywood/Lowes 2007
SR 951 (Collier Blvd) Super WalmartlTrail Ridge 2006
Goodlette Rd Wilderness Dr 2006
Airport Rd Estuary/Grey Oaks 2006
Livingston Road Osceola Trail/Sable Ridge Dr **2004
Livingston Rd Wyndemere/Grey Oaks 2002
Airport Rd Pelican Marsh/Tiburon 2002
Goodlette-Frank Road Panther Lane/Pine Ridge Commons **2001
Airport Rd Emerald Lakes Dr/Old Groves Rd 2001
Immokalee Rd Strand Boulevard 2000
Vanderbilt Beach Rd Wilshire Lakes DrNillage Walk 2000
Immokalee Rd Collier's Reserve 1999
US 41 (Tamiami Trail
S) Guilford Rdffowne Center 1997
Golden Gate Pkwy Bear's Paw 1996
Pine Ridge Rd Barron Collier HS/Kensington Drive **1995
Airport Rd Target Center/Carrillon Center 1994
Airport Rd Clubhouse Dr/Rustic Oaks Circle 1994
Airport Rd Pine Wood Dr/Europa Dr 1994
Airport Rd Poinciana Dr & Grey Oaks Dr 1994
Pine Ridge Rd Bed, Bath, Beyond (Ridgeport Plaza) 1994
Pine Ridge Rd YMCNCarrrillon Center 1994
Collier Blvd Oakridge MS/Crystal Lake Dr **1994
US 41 (Tamiami Trail
S) Imperial Golf Course Blvd 1990
Pine Ridge Rd Forest Lakes Blvd. 1986
Pine Ridge Rd Pine Ridge MS/Mission Square SC **1986
** Signal also serving a school
Agenda Item NO.1 OA
May 13, 2008
Page 7 of 7