MPO Agenda 05/14/2021COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
May 14, 2021
9:00 AM
Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt, Esq., Chair
Councilman Paul Perry, Vice-Chair
Councilman Greg Folley
Commissioner Penny Taylor
Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq.
Commissioner Burt L. Saunders
Commissioner Rick LoCastro
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Councilman Mike McCabe
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 t he
proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. In accordance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting
should contact Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director, 72 hours prior to the meeting by calling (239) 252-
8192. The MPO’s planning process is conducted in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
Related Statutes. Any person or beneficiary who believes that within the MPO’s planning process they have been
discriminated against because of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, or familial status may file
a complaint with the Collier MPO Executive Director, Anne McLaughlin at (239) 252 -8192 or by writing to Ms.
McLaughlin at 2885 South Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, PREVIOUS MINUTES AND CONSENT ITEMS
4.A. April 9, 2021 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
7.B. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
7.B.1. Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report
7.C. BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC)
7.C.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report
7.D. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (CMC)
7.E. LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD (LCB)
7.E.1. Local Coordinating Board Chair Report
8. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (ROLL CALL REQUIRED)
9. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (NO ROLL CALL)
9.A. Reappointment of Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member
9.B. Approve Appointment to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
9.C. Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning
Grant
9.D. Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan
9.E. Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement
10. PRESENTATIONS (MAY REQUIRE BOARD ACTION)
10.A. Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
10.B. Draft 2021 Project Priorities
11. DISTRIBUTION ITEMS
12. MEMBER COMMENTS
13. NEXT MEETING DATE
13.A. Next Meeting Date - June 11, 2021 - 9:00 a.m. Board of County Commissioners
Chambers, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112
14. ADJOURN
05/14/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 4.A
Item Summary: April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: 05/14/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/06/2021 9:43 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/06/2021 9:43 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/06/2021 9:44 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/06/2021 2:51 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/14/2021 9:00 AM
4.A
Packet Pg. 4
1
Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
April 9, 2021
9:00 a.m.
**HYBRID REMOTE – IN-PERSON AND VIRTUALLY VIA ZOOM
1. CALL TO ORDER
Meeting was called to order at approximately 9:00 a.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Anne McLaughlin called roll and confirmed a quorum was present.
Members Present (in BCC Chambers)
Councilman Paul Perry, City of Naples
Commissioner Rick LoCastro, Collier County BCC District 1
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. District 5
Commissioner Burt Saunders, Collier County BCC District 3
Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt, City of Everglades City, Chair
Commissioner Penny Taylor, Collier County BCC District 4
Members Present (virtually and via phone)
Councilman Greg Folley, City of Marco Island
Commissioner Andy Solis, Collier County BCC District 2
Councilman Mike McCabe, City of Naples
Members Absent
MPO Staff
Anne McLaughlin, Executive Director
Brandy Otero, Principal Planner
Karen Intriago, Administrative Assistant
FDOT
L. K. Nandam, District 1 Secretary
Victoria Peters, Community Liaison
Others Present
Scott Teach, Deputy County Attorney (in-person)
Trinity Scott, Collier County Transportation Planning (in-person)
Sarafin Sousa, FDOT (virtually)
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes (15800 : April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes)
2
Joe Bonness, BPAC, Chair (in-person)
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilwoman Middelstaedt served as Chair and called the meeting to order.
Commissioner Taylor led the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, PREVIOUS MINUTES AND CONSENT ITEMS
4.A. March 12, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Saunders moved to approve the Agenda and Previous Minutes.
Commissioner Taylor seconded. Passed unanimously.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
none
6. AGENCY UPDATES
6.A. FDOT
Ms. Peters – Update on the SR82 and SR29 intersection: FDOT paid contractor extra
money to advance construction of right turn lane southbound onto SR29, anticipated to be
completed and functional by Monday, April 19th. Anticipated completion date of roundabout at
SR82 and SR29 is summer of 2022.
Secretary Nandam – according to COVID relief bill just signed into law, Florida will
receive $93.8 million statewide for transportation infrastructure, another $250 million for seaports.
Department talking to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to find out what type of projects
will be eligible.
Commissioner Taylor – We want I-75/951 interchange project to be on the list.
6.B. MPO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Ms. McLaughlin – nothing to report beyond what is in the agenda packet.
7. COMMITTEE CHAIR REPORTS
7.A. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)
7.A.1. Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes (15800 : April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes)
3
Ms. McLaughlin – noted Chair was not present in the room or virtually. Report is in
agenda packet.
7.B. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
7.B.1. Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report
Ms. McLaughlin – noted Chair, Lorraine Lantz, was not present in the room or
virtually. Report is in agenda packet.
7.C. BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC)
7.C.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report
Ms. McLaughlin – noted Chair report is copied to wrong item in agenda packet, 9.C, can
be viewed on pages 278-280 in the packet.
Mr. Bonness – Committee received presentation on proposed US Bike Route 15 through
Collier County from Kerry Irons, Adventure Cycling. Committee members discussed pros and
cons about a number of alignment possibilities, need to avoid high speed/high volume roadways.
Members of public spoke in opposition to alignment shown on Grand Lely Dr. Committee
members suggested moving alignment to St. Andrews Rd instead. Revised alignment will be
brought back before BPAC for further review, more public input, in April. Regarding MPO Call
for Bike/Ped Projects this year, Ms. Fendrick proposed capping amount that can be requested. Ms.
McLaughlin explained that Call for Projects following protocols in Bike/Ped Master Plan. Mr.
Musico suggested large projects be segmented into series of lower cost projects.
Commissioner Taylor - BPAC discussed or decided to move the alignment off Grand
Lely Blvd? Mr. Bonness – took suggestions to move, did not vote on realignment. Grand Lely not
completely excluded but there are clear problems. Commissioner Taylor – wide lanes, restriping
could create bike lanes; has driven the roadway several times recently, perfect place to bike ride.
Mr. Bonness – agrees, uses Grand Lely and back roads to 951. The committee is continuing to
look at different alignments, using Golden Gate Pkwy to Santa Barbara to St. Andrews Blvd to
US41. Considered alignment on and then off Radio Rd and Livingston. Commissioner Taylor –
include Naples Pathways Coalition members in discussion. Commissioner LoCastro – Grand
Lely and St. Andrews alignments are in his district, receiving emails for and against route on Grand
Lely. Some people think the Tour de France is coming. Expecting 10,000 riders. Needs factual
information to share with constituents. Trying to make things better, not just different, taking
citizen input and safety into account. Referenced need for information for upcoming meeting
involving County staff member, Anthony Khawaja. Ms. McLaughlin – will coordinate with Mr.
Bonness, Ms. Scott to prepare briefing paper for Commissioner LoCastro.
7.D. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (CMC)
7.D.1. Congestion Management Committee Chair Report
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes (15800 : April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes)
4
Ms. McLaughlin – noted Chair not present, report is in agenda packet.
7.E. LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD (LCB)
7.E.1. Local Coordinating Board Chair Report
Ms. McLaughlin – no meeting this month to report on.
8. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (ROLL CALL REQUIRED)
8.A. Approve an Amendment to the FY2021- 2025 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and an Authoring Resolution– 5305D Funds
Ms. Otero – presented Executive Summary. FDOT requested amendment to FY2021-2025
TIP to reflect current FTA 5305(d) allocation which was $128,028, and to change required 20%
match from cash match to soft match. Previously, FDOT provided 10% of match in cash,
remaining 10% provided by City of Naples, City of Marco Island and Collier County. FDOT
notified MPOs that cash match to federal funds no longer available, would be replaced with
Transportation Development Credits as a soft match, which is for in kind services. Reduces amount
of funding received by $32,007.
Commissioner Taylor – What’s the value of the soft match, what are we using it for?
Ms. Peters – Transportation Development Credits, also called Toll Credits, get value when
local transit agency applies for other grants.
Commissioner Taylor – Does that mean FDOT works harder for us?
Secretary Nandam – Previously 80% federal, 20% match split evenly between FDOT and
local contributions, roughly $16,000 each. Value of moving to soft match is ability to use 80%
federal funds without using cash, leveraging the same amount of federal funds with in-kind
services. In immediate picture, the MPOs are getting less, but they don’t have to put up cash to
apply for grants.
Commissioner Taylor – so the result is good for smaller communities - they can apply for
more grants.
Secretary Nandam – yes, we learned of this approach from other districts.
Commissioner McDaniel moved to approve an Amendment to the FY2021 – 2025
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and an Authoring Resolution – 5305D Funds.
Commissioner Taylor seconded. Roll Call vote taken:
Commissioner Taylor – Yes
Councilwoman Middelstaedt – Yes
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes (15800 : April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes)
5
Commissioner McDaniel – Yes
Commissioner LoCastro – Yes
Councilman Perry – Yes
Commissioner Saunders – Yes
Commissioner Solis – Yes
Councilman Folley – Yes
Councilman McCabe – Yes
Passed unanimously.
8.B. Approve an Amendment to the FY 2021 – 2025 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and an Authoring Resolution– 5310D Funds
Ms. Otero – presented Executive Summary. FDOT requested amendment to add two
projects to FY2021-2025 TIP: Operating Assistance for Easter Seals of Naples and Notice of Grant
Award for six busses for Collier Area Transit.
Commissioner McDaniel moved to approve an Amendment to the FY2021 – 2025
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and an Authoring Resolution – 5310D Funds.
Commissioner Taylor seconded. Roll Call Vote Taken:
Commissioner Taylor – Yes
Councilwoman Middelstaedt – Yes
Commissioner McDaniel – Yes
Commissioner LoCastro – Yes
Commissioner Saunders – Yes
Councilman Perry – Yes
Commissioner Solis – Yes
Councilman Folley – Yes
Councilman McCabe – Yes
Passed unanimously.
9. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (NO ROLL CALL)
9.A. Appointment of Three Members to the Local Coordinating Board (LCB)
Ms. Otero – presented Executive Summary. Purpose of the LCB Board is to identify local service
needs and provide information, advice and direction to Community Transportation Coordinator
on services provided to transportation disadvantaged. Members are appointed by the MPO Board.
Current positions available on the LCB include: a person over sixty representing the elderly, a
citizen advocate (non-user) a representative of the local, private for-profit transportation industry,
and a representative of the medical community. Three applications received. Anne Chernin,
Elderly Representative, Bianca Borges, Medical Community Representative and Eileen Streight,
Citizen Advocate. All meet the requirements as stated.
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes (15800 : April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes)
6
Commissioner McDaniel moved to appointment of three members to the Local
Coordinating Board (LCB). Councilman Perry seconded. Passed unanimously.
9.B. Approve Reappointment to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(BPAC)
Ms. McLaughlin - presented Executive Summary. Mr. Larry Smith’s term expires at end
of May. He is a consulting civil engineer, member of Naples Pathways Coalition and Naples Velo,
willing to attend committee meetings in-person. There are two current vacancies on this
committee. Staff recommends reappointment.
Commissioner McDaniel moved to award Reappointment to the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee. Councilman Perry seconded. Passed unanimously.
9.C. Approval of the Public Transportation Grant Agreement (PTGA) for Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) 5305(D) Funding
Ms. Otero – presented Executive Summary. The PTGA establishes cooperative
relationship between the MPO and FDOT to use FTA Section 5305(D) funds for Metropolitan
Planning Program tasks. Funds are used for transit planning studies identified in the Unified
Planning Work Program (UPWP) for FY 2020/21-2021/22. The UPWP is included as an exhibit
to the PTGA. The total amount of award is $128,028. This is companion piece to TIP amendment
Board approved earlier.
Commissioner McDaniel moved to approve the Public Transportation Grant Agreement
for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5305(D) Funding. Councilman Perry Seconded. Passed
unanimously.
10. PRESENTATIONS (MAY REQUIRE BOARD ACTION)
No presentations.
11. DISTRIBUTION ITEMS
Ms. McLaughlin – no action required. Included in packet for transparency so members of
public are aware of activity taking place. Item 11A is programming additional SU funds for the
design phase of S. Golf Dr Sidewalk Project in City of Naples. Board granted approval to do so at
a previous meeting. Item 11B concerns addition of Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division
project to the TIP, a continuation of work being done of Fritz Rd in the National Panther Refuge.
This has been in the TIP for at least a year, possibly two.
11.A. Administrative Modification FY2021-2025 TIP – S Golf Dr Sidewalk Project
11.B. Administrative Modification FY2021-2025 TIP – Eastern Federal Lands
Highway Division (EFLHD)
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes (15800 : April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes)
7
12. MEMBER COMMENTS
Commissioner McDaniel – Secretary Nandam mentioned additional funds coming to
Department from the CARES Act. Should the MPO prepare now to hire consultant to amend the
Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)so there is no delay in receiving funding?
Secretary Nandam – Department’s first priority is to bring projects back in [that have
been pushed out beyond the years of the current TIP]. Probably no need for LRTP amendment. As
we get more clarity, will work with MPO Directors. As we shift projects back in, opportunities
will arise to fit in additional projects.
Commissioner LoCastro – directed comments to Councilman Folley – regarding the
construction cost increase on a project, we need to do a deep dive into the details about why it is
costing more than expected. $200,000 is a lot, we want to feel good about it. On flip side, we want
to make biking safer and so it’s desirable.
Councilman Folley – couldn’t agree more with you.
13. NEXT MEETING DATE
13.A. Next Meeting Date – May 14, 2021 - 9:00 a.m. Board of County Commissioners
Chambers, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112
14. ADJOURN
There being no further business, Councilwoman Middelstaedt adjourned the meeting at
approximately 9:55 a.m.
4.A.1
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes (15800 : April 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes)
05/14/2021
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: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. CAC Chair Report (PDF)
7.A.1
Packet Pg. 12
05/14/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 7.A.1
Doc ID: 15801
Item Summary: Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report
Meeting Date: 05/14/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/06/2021 9:47 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/06/2021 9:47 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/06/2021 9:47 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/06/2021 2:49 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/14/2021 9:00 AM
7.A.1
Packet Pg. 13
CAC Committee Chair Report
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) held an in-person meeting on April 26, 2021, and a quorum was
achieved.
Agency Reports
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) – none
MPO Director – none.
Committee Actions
• Ratified amendment to committee bylaws approved by MPO Board, reducing in-person quorum to
3 due to COVID-19 considerations.
• Opportunity to comment on draft FY2022-2026 TIP. (no comments)
• Received hard copy of project priorities at the meeting. (no comments)
Reports and Presentations
• None
Distribution Items
• None
The next regular meeting will be held on May 24, 2021 as an in-person meeting.
7.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: CAC Chair Report (15801 : Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report)
05/14/2021
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. 15
05/14/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 7.B.1
Doc ID: 15802
Item Summary: Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report
Meeting Date: 05/14/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/06/2021 9:51 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/06/2021 9:51 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/06/2021 9:51 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/06/2021 2:48 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/14/2021 9:00 AM
7.B.1
Packet Pg. 16
TAC Committee Chair Report
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) held an in-person meeting on April 26, 2021, and a quorum was
achieved.
Agency Reports
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) – none
MPO Director – none.
Committee Actions
• Ratified amendment to committee bylaws approved by MPO Board, reducing in-person quorum to
3 due to COVID-19 considerations.
• Review and Comment on Draft FY2022-2026 TIP – Committee to provide comments by May 15th.
• Received hard copy and update from Lee MPO on revised Transportation Regional Incentive
Program (TRIP) Joint Lee/Collier Project Priorities 2021. Collier County Transportation Planning
provided an overview of the new TRIP project being submitted (Immokalee at Livingston Rd).
Reports and Presentations
• None
Distribution Items
• None
The next regular meeting will be held on May 24, 2021 as an in-person meeting.
7.B.1.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: TAC Chair Report (15802 : Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report)
05/14/2021
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: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. BPAC Chair Report (PDF)
7.C.1
Packet Pg. 18
05/14/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 7.C.1
Doc ID: 15805
Item Summary: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report
Meeting Date: 05/14/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/06/2021 10:01 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/06/2021 10:01 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/06/2021 10:01 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/06/2021 2:46 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/14/2021 9:00 AM
7.C.1
Packet Pg. 19
BPAC Committee Chair Report
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) met on April 20, 2021 and a quorum was
achieved.
Agency Reports
• FDOT – none
• MPO Director – explained that the May meeting will be in-person only. The MPO’s Administrative
Assistant has submitted her resignation, leaving the MPO down to two staff members. By the time
the MPO’s staffing level is back up to par, the need to offer a virtual meeting option due to concerns
about COVID-19 is expected to diminish significantly given the vaccine rollout.
Committee Actions
• The committee continued its review of potential alignments for the proposed US Bike Route 15
through Collier County. Ms. McLaughlin introduced the item and showed the map provided by
Adventure Cycling with the proposed route moved to St. Andrews Blvd from Grand Lely Rd.
Committee members asked questions and commented on the route, followed by comments from a
resident of St. Andrews Blvd., the Chairman of the Lely MSTU, and the President of Lely Civic
Association HOA. Ms. McLaughlin also read an email from a concerned resident into the record.
The speakers expressed concern about safety, the amount of traffic on St. Andrews and increasing
cycling in that context unless more can be done to enhance safety. The Lely MSTU representative
spoke out strongly against the alignment, providing photo documentation of damage that speeding
vehicles have caused within the ROW. The committee decided to meet again to review traffic count
data, and any additional information the County wishes to provide regarding traffic calming on St.
Andrews Blvd as well as potential alternate routes in May.
Reports and Presentations
• none
Distribution Items
• none
The next regularly scheduled meeting will occur on May 18, 2021 at 9:00 am.
7.C.1.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: BPAC Chair Report (15805 : Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report)
05/14/2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Local Coordinating Board Chair Report
OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Local Coordinating Board
(LCB) related to recent LCB actions and recommendations.
CONSIDERATIONS: Staff prepared the attached written report. The LCB Chair may provide
additional information to the Board.
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: Brandy Otero, Principal Planner
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. LCB Chair Report (PDF)
7.E.1
Packet Pg. 21
05/14/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 7.E.1
Doc ID: 15804
Item Summary: Local Coordinating Board Chair Report
Meeting Date: 05/14/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/06/2021 9:55 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/06/2021 9:55 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/06/2021 9:56 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/06/2021 2:47 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/14/2021 9:00 AM
7.E.1
Packet Pg. 22
LCB Chair Report
The Local Coordinating Board (LCB) conducted a hybrid virtual meeting on May 5th and a quorum was
attained.
The LCB took the following action at the meeting:
• Reviewed and approved an updated LCB Grievance Policy.
• Review and approved the annual Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) Evaluation. The
evaluation will be brought to the MPO Board in June for ratification.
• Reviewed and approved the 2021 Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan Minor Update. The
TDSP minor update will be brought to the MPO Board in June for ratification.
• Endorsed the Fiscal Year 2020/21 Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant application and
resolution.
The LCB received the following presentations:
• Received a presentation of the CTC Quarterly Report. Identified operating statistics for paratransit
system last quarter.
• Received MPO Quarterly Progress Report identifying planning tasks invoiced to the Commission
for Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) last quarter.
• Received FDOT report including an update on the Section 5310, 5311 and 5339 FFY 2021 Grant
Cycle.
The next LCB meeting is scheduled for September 1, 2021 at 1:30 p.m., at the Collier County Government
Center, Building F, Collier County Chambers, 3rd Floor - 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples.
7.E.1.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: LCB Chair Report (15804 : Local Coordinating Board Chair Report)
05/14/2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Reappointment of Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member
OBJECTIVE: For the Board to reappoint a CAC member.
CONSIDERATIONS: Mr. Gelfand is currently serving as Chair of the CAC. His term expires at the end
of May 2021. Commissioner Solis supports the reappointment of Mr. Neal Gelfand to serve a second 3-
year term as the District II representative on the CAC. Mr. Gelfand’s application for reappointment is
included as an attachment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board reappoint Mr. Gelfand to serve as the District II
representative for a second three-year term.
Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Neal Gelfand Letter & Original Application (PDF)
9.A
Packet Pg. 24
05/14/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 9.A
Doc ID: 15806
Item Summary: Reappointment of Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member
Meeting Date: 05/14/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/06/2021 10:07 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/06/2021 10:07 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/06/2021 10:07 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/06/2021 2:45 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/14/2021 9:00 AM
9.A
Packet Pg. 25
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Neal Gelfand Letter & Original Application (15806 : Reappointment of Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member)
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Neal Gelfand Letter & Original Application (15806 : Reappointment of Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member)
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Neal Gelfand Letter & Original Application (15806 : Reappointment of Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member)
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Neal Gelfand Letter & Original Application (15806 : Reappointment of Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member)
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Neal Gelfand Letter & Original Application (15806 : Reappointment of Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member)
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Neal Gelfand Letter & Original Application (15806 : Reappointment of Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Member)
05/14/2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Approve Appointment to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
OBJECTIVE: For the Board to approve an appointment to the BPAC.
CONSIDERATIONS: There were no vacancies on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee at
the time George Dondanville submitted an application for appointment to the Citizens Advisory
Committee in December 2019, but it is clear in his application (Attachment 1) that his greatest interest
involves nonmotorized transportation planning. Mr. Dondanville served on the initial Pathways Advisory
Committee established in the early 1990’s and contributed to the development of the MPO’s first
Pathways Master Plan. He was a founding member of the Naples Pathways Coalition. His long record of
public service includes serving on the Community Services Advisory Board to the City of Naples as a
member and as Chair. Now that the opportunity has arisen, Mr. Dondanville has asked to change his
current appointment as an at-large member of the CAC to fill one of two vacancies on the BPAC.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the appointment of George Dondanville to the
BPAC.
Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Dondanville Original Application (PDF)
9.B
Packet Pg. 32
05/14/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 9.B
Doc ID: 15807
Item Summary: Approve Appointment to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(BPAC)
Meeting Date: 05/14/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/06/2021 10:11 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/06/2021 10:11 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/06/2021 10:11 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/06/2021 2:45 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/14/2021 9:00 AM
9.B
Packet Pg. 33
tz/o/t
R fi'tf /t
n a)
7/,4 {z+
2/? €//o /'%
z,t 2hJ
2 zP/
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Dondanville Original Application
.g"1Amflb 2019 COLLIER COUNTY MPO
(METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION)
ADVISORY COMMITTEE,/BOARD APPLICATION
Retum
Application
to:
Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization
2885 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples. Florida 341 04
Phone: (239) 252-5884
Email:,\nnc\.1c l.auuhlin,?,collicr go\'.nct
Name:a VrV€ Gfa,ecf
Last
Address:2
First Middley<
City:Zip Code:74/a3
Home Tel cp hone:7\4 -2b2-Arq
Email Address:E2ta,,vt
Refened By':Date Avail ble:
I am applying for:
Please nole; Year-round residents are eligible to apply, Your applicalion will remain
active in lhe MPO's Olficc.for one (l) I'cur. The applicalion must be complete in order
to be considered. Reud 'lmportant lnftn'mation" seclion on the second page ol the
application. then sign oul dole the appli.'ation. (Use udLlitional pagas as needed.)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY
Date:
Tribal
1L I n Commission District #/City t&t
A1T liation
Ifyou are a member of, or officially represent a nonprofit or public agenc1,, identifu here.
and provide link to website:
Please list any Advisory Committees or Boards on rvhich you currentl-rr serve:
J
4
Have you previously scned on an NIPO advisorv committee or board? Pleasc
specifl,com nl ittee/board and dates sen'ed:
L,
t ,7-(
Occupation & E ployer (i retired. plcase indicate):
Contact-I'ime:
l.
2.
/t't''
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Dondanville Original Application (15807 : Approve Appointment to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC))
Please describe your background and expericnce rvhich you feel provides a useful
persp cctir.e for this Committee/Board
{
I l/AA
Please describe an1'public involr,cment or communitl' service vou've been inr,olved in
either Iocally or otherwise (in addition to Committees and Boards you currently sene
on. )2./)
What other MPO advisory committcc(s) rvould vou he rrillin g to serve on?
Several of the MPO advisory com mittees/boards have specific
membership requirements. To assist the Collier MPO in its selection
p rocess, please q[!c\ as man]' of the follorving categories that applv:
l. Ycar-round residcnt of:
o Collier County (unincorporaled area)
o City of Naples
o City of Marco Island
o Everglades City
)<
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
AARP
Adventure Cycling
Bicycling/Walking Advocacy Group:
Professional Association:
><
// /(
Chamber of Commerce
Visitors & Tourism Bureau
Community Redevelopment Agency
NAACP
Ilistorical Presen'ation Societl
2. .\Iember of one of the follotving organizations or grouDs:
\./
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Dondanville Original Application (15807 : Approve Appointment to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC))
5. Kno$ledge, training, background, interest or crperience in:
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Natural Sciences. Environmental Consen'ation
Mobility & Access for the workforce
r'_\a
xPublic Finance. Grants. N(ios
Sustainable Development(S nablc Trans
Planning. Engineering, Architecture, Landscape Architecture
Economic Development
Land Development&.edevelopment
Archaeological, Cultural & Historic Resources
Mobility/Active Living (related to community health)
Tourism Industry
Parent, Advocate for Working Families
><
Other. please specify
The Collier MPO strives to ensure equal access and representation for minorities, rvomen and those with
disabilities to serve on advisory boards,/comm ittees.
Ouestions 6 throush 8 are OPTIONAL
o Female
o Male
o White
o Hispanic or Latino
o Black or African American
o Asian or Pacific Islander
o American Indian or Alaskan Native
o C)ther:
8. Handicapped/Disabled:
o Yes
oNo
6. Gendcr:
><-
\-,-
7. Race/Ethnicitr':
k
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Dondanville Original Application (15807 : Approve Appointment to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC))
IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
a Be advised that membership on certain advisory committees/boards
may involve financial disclosure or the submission of other
information.
a Florida State Statute 119.07 designates that this application as a public
document be made available for anyone requesting to view it'
Your application is not complete until you answer the following question,
sign and date the fbrm.
Are you related to any member of the Collier MPO?
YI.]S No
Date Signed:IL lO
Applicantos Signature:
22
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Dondanville Original Application (15807 : Approve Appointment to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC))
05/14/2021
Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning Grant
OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to approve the FY 2021/22 TD Planning Grant Application and
supporting resolution.
CONSIDERATIONS: The MPO has the authority to file a TD Planning Grant Application for Collier
County and to undertake a TD service project as authorized by Section 427.0159, Florida Statutes, and
Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative Code. As part of the annual process, the TD Grant Application must be
filed by July 1st. The amount requested in the TD Grant application for FY 2021/22 is $27,906. These
funds will be used as described in the FY 2020/21-2021/22 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP),
Task 6 - Transit and Transportation Disadvantaged and the TD Planning Grant Agreement. The planning
tasks include:
• Conducting the annual Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan Update;
• Annual Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) Evaluation;
• Staff support at LCB meetings;
• Legal advertisement of LCB meetings;
• Conducting the annual Public Hearing;
• Conducting LCB training
• Review of LCB bylaws, grievance procedures, reports; and
• Staff attending TD Training Events and TD Commission meetings.
The FY 2021/22 planning grant allocation is included as Attachment 1. The completed application
(Attachment 2) and resolution (Attachment 3) must be submitted to the TD Commission to receive
funding. The FY 2021/22 Planning Grant Program Manual summarizes the requirements for the grant
and is included as Attachment 4. The planning grant agreement for FY 2020/21 is included as
Attachment 4 for reference. Due to timing of the grant agreement, the Board is asked to authorize the
Chair to execute the agreement upon receipt. A copy of the fully executed agreement will be p rovided to
the Board at a future meeting.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Local Coordinating Board (LCB) for the Transportation
Disadvantaged reviewed and endorsed the TD planning grant application and Resolution 2021-06 at its
May 5, 2021 meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the grant application and Resolution and
authorize the MPO Chair to execute the agreement upon receipt.
Prepared By: Brandy Otero, Principal Planner
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Draft Planning Grant Allocation FY2021-22 (PDF)
2. TD Planning Grant Application (PDF)
3. Resolution 2021-06 TD Planning Grant Execution (PDF)
4. Planning Grant Program Manual 2021-22 (PDF)
5. FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (PDF)
9.C
Packet Pg. 39
05/14/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 9.C
Doc ID: 15808
Item Summary: Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning
Grant
Meeting Date: 05/14/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/06/2021 10:24 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/06/2021 10:24 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/06/2021 10:24 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/06/2021 2:44 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/14/2021 9:00 AM
9.C
Packet Pg. 40
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Draft Planning Grant Allocation FY2021-22 (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: TD Planning Grant Application (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning Grant)
9.C.3
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Resolution 2021-06 TD Planning Grant Execution (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
PROGRAM MANUAL AND INSTRUCTIONS
FOR THE
PLANNING GRANT
Issued By:
FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED
605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 49
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
850-410-5700
http://ctd.fdot.gov/
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Planning Grant Program Manual 2021-22 (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning
Planning Grant Program Manual 2
Form Rev. April 12, 2021
INTRODUCTION
The Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund is administered by the Florida Commission for
the Transportation Disadvantaged (Commission), pursuant to Section 427.0159, Florida
Statutes. The purpose of the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund is to provide a
dedicated funding source for the operational and planning expenses of the Commission in
carrying out its legislative responsibilities. The trust fund is appropriated by the Legislature
annually from revenues collected from vehicle registrations and voluntary contributions. The
Planning Grant Program was established to provide funding to designated official planning
agencies to assist the Commission in their responsibilities at the local level and to provide
support to the Local Coordinating Boards.
This manual contains information regarding the Transportation Disadvantaged Planning
Grant Program administered by the Commission. It provides guidance to designated official
planning agencies when implementing local transportation disadvantaged planning services
under the Transportation Disadvantaged Program.
This manual is divided into two parts: Program Requirements and the Grant Recipient
Information Instructions.
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Planning Grant Program Manual 2021-22 (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning
Planning Grant Program Manual 3
Form Rev. April 12, 2021
PART I
PLANNING GRANT
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
This part of the manual contains requirements that accompany the Planning Grant Program
and the tasks that are required to be accomplished.
1.ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
A.Eligible Recipients
An eligible recipient is any official body, agency or entity designated by the Commission
to fulfill the functions associated with staffing the local coordinating board (LCB) and
other necessary local designated planning agency functions. The Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) shall serve as the planning agency in areas covered by such
organizations unless the Commission has designated a service area beyond the area for
which an MPO has been created to serve. In designated service areas not covered by a
MPO, agencies eligible for selection as the designated planning agency include c ounty or
city governments, regional planning councils, local planning organizations or other
planning providers who are currently performing planning activities in designated service
areas or capable of such.
To be eligible for this grant agreement, there must be an active LCB in the respective
service area to assist in the successful completion of the tasks herein. The determination
of whether a LCB is functioning will be based on supportive documentation in the
Commission files.
B.Allowable Activities
This is a fixed-price agreement to complete tasks identified in the law, rule, this Program
Manual and the grant agreement. It is not subject to adjustment due to the actual cost
experience of the recipient in the performance of the grant agreement. The amount paid
is based on the weighted value of the tasks and deliverables listed below that have been
accomplished for the invoiced period. Prior to payment, the tasks performed and
deliverables are subject to review and acceptance by the Commission. The criteria for
acceptance of completed tasks and deliverables are based on the most recent regulations,
guidelines or directives related to the particular task and deliverable. Specific required
tasks are as follows:
TASK 1: Weighted value = 17%
Jointly develop and annually update the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan
(TDSP) with the community transportation coordinator (CTC) and the LCB.
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Planning Grant Program Manual 2021-22 (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning
Planning Grant Program Manual 4
Form Rev. April 12, 2021
Deliverable: Complete initial TDSP or annual updates. Must be approved by the LCB
no later than June 30th of the current grant cycle.
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Planning Grant Program Manual 2021-22 (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning
Planning Grant Program Manual 5
Form Rev. April 12, 2021
TASK 2 A: Weighted value = 15%
When necessary and in cooperation with the LCB, solicit and recommend a CTC. The
selection will be accomplished, to the maximum extent feasible, through public competitive
bidding or proposals in accordance with applicable laws and rules. Such recommendation
shall be presented to the Commission by planning agency staff or their designee as needed.
Deliverable:
Planning agency’s letter of recommendation and signed resolution.
OR
TASK 2 B:
Provide staff support to the LCB in conducting an annual evaluation of the CTC, including
local developed standards as delineated in the adopted TDSP. Assist the Commission in joint
reviews of the CTC.
Deliverable:
LCB and planning agency selected CTC evaluation worksheets pursuant to the most recent
version of the Commission’s CTC Evaluation Workbook.
TASK 3: Weighted value = 40%
Organize and provide staff support and related resources for at least four (4) LCB meetings
per year, holding one meeting during each quarter.
Provide staff support for committees of the LCB.
Provide program orientation and training for newly appointed LCB members.
Provide public notice of LCB meetings in accordance with the most recent LCB and Planning
Agency Operating Guidelines.
LCB meetings will be held in accordance with the Commission’s most recent LCB and
Planning Agency Operating Guidelines and will include at least the following:
1. Agendas for LCB meetings. Agenda should include action items, informational items
and an opportunity for public comment.
2. Official minutes of LCB meetings and committee meetings (regardless of a quorum). A
copy will be submitted along with the quarterly report to the Commission. Minutes will
at least be in the form of a brief summary of basic points, discussions, decisions, and
recommendations. Records of all meetings shall be kept for at least five years.
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Planning Grant Program Manual 2021-22 (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning
Planning Grant Program Manual 6
Form Rev. April 12, 2021
3. A current full and active membership of voting and non-voting members to the
LCB. Any time there is a change in the membership, provide the Commission with
a current membership roster and mailing list of LCB members.
4. A report of the LCB membership’s attendance at the LCB meeting held during this
grant period. This would not include committee meetings.
Deliverable: LCB Meeting agendas; minutes; membership roster; attendance report;
copy of public notice of meetings.
TASK 4: Weighted value = 4%
Provide at least one public workshop annually by each LCB, and assist the Commission,
as requested, in co-sponsoring public workshops. This public workshop must be held
separately from the LCB meeting. It may, however, be held on the same day as the
scheduled LCB meeting. It could be held immediately following or prior to the LCB
meeting.
Deliverable: Public workshop agenda, minutes of related workshop, and copy of
public notice of workshop. The agenda and minutes must be separate documents and
cannot be included in the LCB meeting agenda and minutes, if held on the same day.
Minutes may reflect “no comments received” if none were made.
TASK 5: Weighted value = 4%
Develop and annually update by-laws for LCB approval.
Deliverable: Copy of LCB approved by-laws with date of update noted on cover page.
TASK 6: Weighted value = 4%
Develop, annually update, and implement LCB grievance procedures in accordance with
the Commission’s most recent LCB and Planning Agency Operating Guidelines.
Procedures shall include a step within the local complaint and/or grievance procedure
that advises a dissatisfied person about the Commission’s Ombudsman Program.
Deliverable: Copy of LCB approved Grievance Procedures with date of update noted
on cover page.
TASK 7: Weighted value = 4%
Review and comment on the Annual Operating Report (AOR) for submittal to the LCB,
and forward comments/concerns to the Commission.
Deliverable: Cover Page of AOR, signed by CTC representative and LCB Chair.
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Planning Grant Program Manual 2021-22 (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning
Planning Grant Program Manual 7
Form Rev. April 12, 2021
TASK 8: Weighted value = 4%
Research and complete the Actual Expenditures Report (AER) for direct federal and local
government transportation funds to the Commission no later than September 15th.
Complete the AER, using the Commission approved form.
Deliverable: Completed AER in accordance with the most recent Commission’s AER
instructions.
TASK 9: Weighted value = 4%
Complete quarterly progress reports addressing planning accomplishments for the local
transportation disadvantaged program as well as planning grant deliverables; including
but not limited to, consultant contracts, special studies, and marketing efforts.
Deliverable: Complete Quarterly Progress Reports submitted with invoices. Quarterly
Report must be signed by planning agency representative. Electronic signatures are
acceptable.
TASK 10: Weighted value = 4%
Planning agency staff shall attend at least one Commission sponsored training, including
but not limited to, the Commission's regional meetings or annual training workshop.
Deliverable: Documentation related to attendance at such event(s); including but not
limited to sign in sheets.
2. GRANT FUNDING
Each year, the Commission will calculate each service area’s allocation in accordance with
Rule 41-2, FAC. Each service area's anticipated eligible allocation is subject to change
based on appropriations by the Legislature.
LOCAL MATCH REQUIREMENT
There is no match required.
3. GRANT APPROVAL
All grants are subject to approval by the Commission or its designee. Once the
completed Grant Recipient Information document has been received, a grant agreement
will be forwarded to the recipient for execution. An authorizing resolution or
documentation by the Grantee’s governing body shall also be submitted along with the
executed grant agreement.
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Planning Grant Program Manual 2021-22 (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning
Planning Grant Program Manual 8
Form Rev. April 12, 2021
4. INVOICING
Invoices for trust funds will not be honored until the grant agreement has been executed
by both the Commission and the Grantee, and is on file at the Commission office.
Invoices related to this grant agreement shall be completed on the invoice form(s)
provided by the Commission and submitted electronically to
FLCTDInvoice@dot.state.fl.us unless otherwise notified by the Commission.
Grantee shall invoice on a quarterly basis. Invoices should be submitted after the last
month of each quarter and shall include only the activities performed during that time.
The Grantee shall provide sufficient detailed documentation to support the completion of
task outlined above.
Invoices for expenses provided or incurred pursuant to the grant ag reement must be
submitted in detail sufficient for a proper pre-audit and post-audit thereof. Failure to
submit to the Commission detailed supporting documentation with the invoice or request
for project funds will be cause for the Commission to refuse to pay the amount claimed
by the Grantee until the Commission is satisfied that the criteria set out in Chapter 427,
Florida Statutes, and Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative Code, is met. Unless extended by
the Commission, the final invoice and supporting documentation must be submitted to
the Commission in acceptable format by August 15 for each grant year.
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Planning Grant Program Manual 2021-22 (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning
Planning Grant Program Manual 9
Form Rev. April 12, 2021
PART II
PLANNING GRANT
RECIPIENT INFORMATION DOCUMENTATION
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Presented in this part are specific instructions on the completion of the grant recipient
information document. Additional assistance may be obtained by contacting the
Commission.
A. A complete Grant Recipient Information document shall be submitted to the assigned
CTD project manager via email. The original signed documentation shall be mailed to
the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, 605 Suwannee Street, MS-49,
Tallahassee, FL 32399.
For those planning agencies who are responsible for more than one service area that
has not been designated as a multi-county service area, a separate Planning Grant
Recipient Information document must be submitted for each service area. However,
one original resolution will satisfy the requirement for each service area.
TIMETABLE
JULY 1 Earliest date that grant agreements can be effective for these grant funds.
Commission’s fiscal year begins on July 1. Grant Agreements not executed
prior to July 1 will begin on the date of execution.
JUNE 30 All Grant Agreements will terminate on June 30th the following year.
AUGUST 15 Deadline for final invoices.
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Planning Grant Program Manual 2021-22 (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning
Planning Grant Program Manual 10
Form Rev. April 12, 2021
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLANNING GRANT
RECIPIENT INFORMATION INSTRUCTIONS
Except for the following notes, the grant information document is essentially self-
explanatory. If questions arise, please contact the Commission.
PLANNING GRANT REIPIENT INFORMATION
LEGAL NAME: The full legal name of the grantee’s organization, not an individual. Name
must match Federal ID number and the information registered with MyFloridaMarketPlace.
FEDERAL EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: The number used by all employers within
the United States to identify their payroll and federal income tax. Name must match Federal
ID number and the information registered with MyFloridaMarketPlace.
REGISTERED ADDRESS: This should be the grant recipient’s mailing address as registered in
MyFloridaMarketPlace, and will be the address on the grant agreement. This address should
also be consistent with the address associated with your Federal Employer Identification
(FEI) Number.
CONTACT PERSON, PHONE NUMBERS AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: Provide the name of the
person who will be the point of contact, their phone number and email address.
PROJECT LOCATION: This is the service area [county(ies)] the Planning Agency is
designated to serve. Planning Agencies that serve several different service areas shall
complete a separate Grant Recipient Information document for each service area.
PROPOSED PROJECT START DATE: The start date shall be July 1st each fiscal cycle or date
of grant agreement execution if later than July 1st.
BUDGET ALLOCATION: Using the Commission approved Planning Grant Allocations chart,
complete the funding category as appropriate. Once the line item is complete, right click on
the space provided for the “Total Project Amount.” Select “update field” from the drop down
box. This will automatically calculate the total project amount.
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Planning Grant Program Manual 2021-22 (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD)
9.C.5Packet Pg. 75Attachment: FY 2020_21 TD PLanning Grant Agreement (15808 : Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Transportation Disadvantage (TD) Planning
05/14/2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan
OBJECTIVE: For the Board to approve the Local Roads Safety Plan (LRSP).
CONSIDERATIONS: Since the MPO Board received a briefing on the Draft LRSP on December 11 th,
MPO staff updated the draft to reflect the MPO’s current practices, taking into account plans developed
concurrently with the LRSP that incorporated many of its recommendations. These include the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan (March 2019), Transportation System Performance Report & Action Plan
(September 2020), and the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (December 2020).
MPO staff interviewed technical staff of member agencies to identify current practices related to each of
the strategies identified by the consultant team, and in the process, refined the preliminary draft
recommendations to focus on enhanced practices addressing three key strategies:
1. Flag high crash locations identified in the LRSP to incorporate safety analysis in the project
scoping and design for road improvement projects and stand-alone bike/ped facility projects.
2. Flag high crash locations for Road Safety Audits using MPO SU safety set-aside and/or state,
federal funds. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan already does this for stand-alone bike-ped
projects.
3. Promote bike-ped safety videos, handouts and special events more proactively as part of the
CTST /Blue Zones Naples Bike-Ped Safety Coalition.
The Draft LRSP is provided in Attachment 1.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Congestion Management Committee voted to endorse
the LRSP on March 17, 2021; the Technical and Citizen Advisory Committees voted to endorse the LRSP
on March 29, 2021.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the Local Roads Safety Plan.
Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Local Roads Safety Plan (PDF)
9.D
Packet Pg. 76
05/14/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 9.D
Doc ID: 15809
Item Summary: Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan
Meeting Date: 05/14/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/06/2021 10:33 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/06/2021 10:33 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/06/2021 10:36 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/06/2021 2:43 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/14/2021 9:00 AM
9.D
Packet Pg. 77
Collier MPO
Local Road Safety Plan
May 14, 2021 MPO Board Review Draft
Prepared by
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan i
Table of Contents
Section 1: Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 1-1
Introduction and Intent .......................................................................................................................... 1-1
Key Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 1-2
Plan Organization ................................................................................................................................... 1-5
Section 2: Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................................... 2-1
Introduction and Methodology .............................................................................................................. 2-1
Crash Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 2-1
Traffic Citation Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 2-10
Emphasis Area 1: Non-Motorized Crashes ........................................................................................... 2-14
Emphasis Area 2: Intersection Crashes (Angle and Left-Turn) ............................................................. 2-16
Emphasis Area 3: Lane Departure ........................................................................................................ 2-18
Emphasis Area 4: Same Direction (Rear-End and Sideswipe) Crashes ................................................. 2-20
Key Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2
Section 3: Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 3-1
Introduction and Problem Statement .................................................................................................... 3-1
Infrastructure Strategies ........................................................................................................................ 3-3
Section 4: Implementation Plan ....................................................................................................... 4-1
Local Best Practices…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4-1
Conclusions............................................. ............................................................................................... 4-3
Relationship to MPO Processes............................................................................................................. .4-5
Monitoring and Performance Measures ................................................................................................. 4-7
Appendices
Appendix 1: Glossary of Technical Terms
Appendix 2: Crash Data Quality Control Technical Memorandum
Appendix 3: Community Survey Summary
Non-infrastructure Strategies...............................................................................................................3-29
Summary............................................................................................................................................3-36
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 1-1
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction and Intent
Collier MPO’s Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is a collaborative and comprehensive plan that identifies
transportation safety issues and provides a framework for reducing fatalities and serious injuries on
highways and local public roads. This framework is developed through data analysis and public outreach,
along with the development and adoption of recommendations. The data analysis step allows for the
identification of emphasis areas which represent the most critical safety concerns within Collier County.
Emphasis areas are then matched with strategies and action steps for reducing roadway fatalities and
serious injuries.
These strategies will be grouped under the 4 Es of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and
Emergency Response.
In addition to a thorough analysis of safety issues in Collier County and development of recommended
strategies, other high-level objectives of this project include the following:
• Quality Control (QC) of Collier Crash Data Management System to ensure the best quality data
for development of the Plan and identification of potential areas of improvement for crash data
reporting.
• Develop implementable short-term recommendations to address critical safety issues.
• Provide input to Collier MPO’s 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to address long-
term strategies and funding needs.
• Identify ways the MPO can support FDOT’s Vision Zero targets
The Collier MPO LRSP incorporates strategies currently being promoted by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and will be implemented in
close coordination with these agencies, Collier MPO Member Governments, and local law enforcement.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 1-2
Key Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the data analysis conducted as part of the Collier MPO LRSP, four key emphasis areas were
identified for further analysis and identification of high-crash corridors. The following crash types were
identified as having a high severity ratio (constituting a greater percentage of severe crashes than all
crashes) and accounting for a high overall number of severe crashes (more than 5% of total severe
crashes):
• Bicycle
• Pedestrian
• Left-turn
• Angle
• Hit fixed object
Additionally, rear-end, single vehicle, head-on, and run-off-road crash types either account for a high
frequency of severe crashes or have a high severity ratio. Based on similar characteristics and
countermeasure profiles, these crash types can be combined to form the following Emphasis Areas:
• Non-Motorized (Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes)
• Intersection (Left-Turn and Angle Crashes)
• Lane Departure (Hit Fixed Object, Single Vehicle, Head-On, and Run-Off-Road Crashes)
• Same Direction (Rear-End and Sideswipe Crashes)
Table 1-1 is a summary of Emphasis Area crash statistics excluding private roads and interstate
highways. Each emphasis area is discussed further in Section 2: including maps and tables illustrating
crash concentrations and high-crash corridors for each area.
Table 1-1: Emphasis Area Summary
All Crashes Non-
Motorized Intersection Lane
Departure
Same
Direction
Total Crashes 38,887 862 6,819 3,829 23,419
Injury Crashes 3,469 448 1,030 567 1,111
Total Injuries 4,719 470 1,621 747 1,492
Total Serious Injuries 928 136 326 201 187
Fatal Crashes 148 38 39 53 10
Total Fatalities 160 38 40 64 10
Severity Ratio 2.4% 15.8% 4.8% 5.2% 0.8%
Percent of All Crashes NA 2% 18% 10% 60%
Percent of Severe Injuries NA 15% 35% 22% 20%
Percent of Fatalities NA 24% 25% 40% 6%
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 1-3
In addition to the definition of Collier MPO-specific emphasis areas, the following key conclusions help
to formulate data-driven recommendations for reducing crashes, injuries, and fatalities in Collier
County:
1. Roadway Safety Relative to Florida: Collier County has fewer crashes, traffic injuries, and traffic
fatalities than Florida as a whole as a function of population and daily vehicle miles of travel
(VMT).
2. Major Roadway Focus: As is common in many urbanized Florida communities, a significant
majority of public road traffic crashes, including severe injury crashes, occur along elements of
the County’s arterial and collector road network.
3. Local Autonomy: Because Collier County has a relatively sparse network of State highways and
many County-maintained roadways that carry significant traffic volume, approximately 2/3 of
crashes occur along County-maintained roadways. This means Collier County has substantial
agency to self-manage safety outcomes on its roadway network.
4. Driver Demographics: Driver age data show that older road users do not disproportionately
contribute to crashes in Collier County; however, inferential time-of-day data suggest that older
drivers (age 55+) also have less exposure to nighttime and rush-hour driving.
5. Moderate Enforcement: Fewer traffic citations per capita and per vehicle mile of travel are
issued in Collier County than in Florida as a whole and within a group of similarly sized coastal
counties.
6. High Severity Emphasis Areas: Certain crash types contribute disproportionately to
incapacitating injury and fatal crashes. Collectively, non-motorized road user, angle, left-turn,
and lane departure crashes account for 30% of all crashes but result in 72% of severe injuries
and 89% of fatalities.
7. High Frequency Emphasis Area: Though significantly less likely to result in severe injury than the
crash types noted above, rear-end and sideswipe crashes result in a significant number of
incapacitating injuries due to their frequency.
Based on the LRSP Emphasis Areas and the summary conclusions described above, infrastructure and
non-infrastructure strategies have been identified. These are summarized in Table 1-2 and 1-3 and
described in detail in Section 4:.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 1-4
Table 1-2: Infrastructure Strategies Matrix
Infrastructure Strategies Non-
Motorized Intersection Lane
Departure
Same
Direction
Speed Management • • • •
Alternative Intersections (ICE Process) • • •
Intersection Design Best Practices for Pedestrians •
Median Restrictions/Access Management • •
Right Turn Lanes ? •
Signal Coordination ? •
Rural Road Strategies including:
• Paved shoulder • •
• Safety edge •
• Curve geometry, delineation, and warning •
• Bridge/culvert widening/attenuation •
• Guardrail/ditch regrading/tree clearing •
• Isolated intersection conspicuity/geometry •
Shared Use Pathways, Sidewalk Improvements •
Mid-Block Crossings & Median Refuge •
Intersection Lighting Enhancements • • •
Autonomous Vehicles (Longer-Term) TBD • • •
( = Applicable Strategy ? = Possible Contra-indications
Table 1-3: Non-Infrastructure Strategies Matrix
Non-Infrastructure Strategies
Intersection
Lane
Departure
Non-
Motorized
Rear End/
Sideswipe
Traffic Enforcement
• Targeted Speed Enforcement X X X X
• Red Light Running Enforcement X X
• Automated Enforcement X ?
• Pedestrian Safety Enforcement X
Bike Light and Retroreflective Material
Give-Away
X
Young Driver Education X X X X
WalkWise/BikeSmart or Similar Campaign X
Continuing Education X X X X
Safety Issue Reporting X X X X
Vision Zero Policy X X X X
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 1-5
Plan Organization
The Collier LRSP is divided into three main sections as follows:
• Data and Analysis: This section includes an analysis of the County’s traffic crash history, a
comparison of Collier County traffic citation data with the State of Florida and with “peer”
counties, and a discussion of the four emphasis areas described above. The Data and Analysis
Section of the LRSP also includes “Key Conclusions” derived from the analysis of the County’s
traffic crash and citation data.
• Recommendations: This section begins with a problem statement that builds from the “Key
Conclusions” part of the Data and Analysis Section. Next Recommendations related to both
infrastructure and non-infrastructure strategies are presented where “infrastructure” refers to
public roadway design and operations and “non-infrastructure” refers to education/marketing,
law enforcement, and other strategies.
• Implementation Plan: The LRSP Implementation Plan shows potential processes for addressing
each of the infrastructure and non-infrastructure strategies identified in the Recommendations
Section of the Report. Implementation measures are categorized by timeframe (short-term,
longer-term) and by order of magnitude cost. The Implementation Plan also includes
recommendations for evaluating and updating the Plan.
In addition to the three main report section, the LRSP also includes the following appendices:
• Glossary of Technical Terms (Appendix 1): This is a glossary of technical terms used in the LRSP
and is provided to make the document more legible for audiences that are not familiar with
traffic engineering terms.
• Traffic Crash Data Quality Control Technical Memorandum (Appendix 2): As part of the LRSP, a
five year history of Collier County’s crash data was manually reviewed to ensure fatal and
incapacitating injury crashes and non-motorized crashes were located correctly and that key
data attributes were consistent with the crash report collision diagram and narrative. This
appendix summarizes the methodology and findings of that process.
• Community Survey Summary (Appendix 3): As part of the public outreach process for the LRSP,
a web-based community survey was distributed to better understand the perception and
attitudes of Collier County residents and workers with respect to traffic safety. The survey
questions and findings are provided in this appendix.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-1
SECTION 2: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Introduction and Methodology
Introduction
A critical input into the Collier MPO LRSP is analysis of traffic crash data and other relevant
quantitative data inputs. This section provides a description of the data analysis methodology and
findings used to inform the Collier MPO LRSP. Key elements of this memorandum include the
following:
• Analysis of countywide crash data distributions and comparison with statewide norms
• Analysis of traffic citation data for Collier County and comparisons with statewide citation
data and citation data from peer counties
• Establishment of Collier MPO-specific safety emphasis areas and identification of high-
crash locations based on Safety Emphasis Areas
• Key Conclusions
Methodology
The Collier MPO LRSP uses traffic crash data from the Collier County Crash Data Management
System (CDMS) for the years 2014 to 2018. As described in the LRSP Crash Data Quality Control
Memorandum (Appendix 2), fatal, incapacitating injury, and bicycle/pedestrian crash reports were
manually reviewed and key data fields were updated to ensure accuracy.
Next, crashes that occurred in parking lots and along private roads were removed from the data
sample, and those that occurred along the County’s major roadway network were assigned ID
numbers from the major roadway database. This was done using a spatial query in which crashes
within 100 ft of a major roadway segment were assigned to that segment. Data from Collier County’s
Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) were then used to understand crash data distributions in
the context of roadway system vehicle miles of travel (VMT), roadway characteristics, and other
factors.
To evaluate traffic citations, data were collected from Florida Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) crash and citation reports and statistics web page. Data from Collier
County, the State of Florida, and similar-size coastal counties were downloaded as Excel
spreadsheets and compared.
A Glossary of Terms used in this section is provided as Appendix 1. Appendix 3 provides an overview
of a public outreach survey that was disseminated by the Collier MPO to help understand public
perceptions of traffic safety in Collier County.
Crash Data Analysis
This section of the LRSP Statistical Analysis summarizes the following traffic crash data distributions:
• Comparison of State and County Crash Rates
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-2
•Roadway Functional Class
•Major Roadway Maintenance Authority
•Major Roadway Number of Lanes
•Area Type (Urban/Rural)
•Lighting Condition
•Crash Type
•(At Fault) Driver Age
•Temporal Trends (Annual and Monthly)
State of Florida Crash Rate Comparison
Using data from FLHSMV (for consistency) the average number of reported crashes, fatalities, and
injuries from the State of Florida and Collier County are shown in Table 2-1. These crash totals are
represented as crash rates as a function of millions of daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) and as a
function of 100,000 persons. The data shows that Collier County has fewer crashes and traffic
fatalities and injuries than the State of Florida in terms of both population and vehicle miles of travel.
Table 2-1: Comparison of Collier County to State Average
Florida Collier County Collier/State Average
Crashes 383,862 4,962 NA
Fatalities 2,972 38 NA
Injuries 242,709 2,829 NA
Daily VMT 582,491,060 9,939,709 2%
Crashes/m DVMT 659 499 24% lower
Fatalities/mDVMT 5.1 3.8 25% lower
Injuries/mDVMT 417 285 32% lower
Population 20,159,183 351,121 NA
Crashes/100k Pop. 1,904 1,413 26% lower
Fatalities/100k Pop. 15 11 27% lower Injuries/100k Pop. 1,204 806 33% lower
Crash Distribution by Roadway Functional Class
Using the location data for each traffic crash report and a GIS layer representing Collier County’s
major road network (arterial and collector roads), all Collier County crashes for 2014–2018 were
either assigned to a major roadway segment or classified as a local roadway crash. Figure 2-1 shows
the distribution of all crashes and severe crashes in Collier County. Approximately 3/4 of crashes
occurred along the County’s major signalized arterial and collector road network, with fewer than
10% occurring along I-75 and fewer than 20% occurring along local streets.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-3
Figure 2-1: Crashes by Roadway Functional Classification
To put this data into context, Table 2-2 show how automobile traffic is distributed across Collier
County’s roadway network as compared with roadways statewide. The table shows that
proportionally fewer vehicle miles of travel (VMT) in Collier County is handled by limited access
highways (interstate, turnpike, etc.) while a greater share of VMT is handled by arterial roads and
major collector roadways. These types of roadways tend have a higher number of reported crashes
per VMT than limited access highways or lower-speed minor collectors and local roads.
Table 2-2: VMT Distribution of Collier County and Florida by Functional Classification
Roadway Functional Classification Florida Collier Crash Characteristics
Interstate, Turnpike & Freeways 26% 21% Limited Access, Low Crashes/VMT
Other Principle Arterials 25%
50%
16%
59% Higher Speed, More Conflict Points Minor Arterials 15% 29%
Major Collectors 11% 14%
Minor Collectors 2% 23% 2% 20% Lower Speed, Less Severe Crashes Locals 21% 18%
Crash Distribution of Major Roadway Crashes by Maintenance Authority
To understand how Collier County, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and the cities
of Naples and Marco Island each contribute to managing safety along the County’s road network, it is
useful to look at how crashes are distributed based on roadway ownership/maintenance
responsibility. Figure 2-2 shows the distribution of all crashes, severe crashes, and vehicle miles of
travel along the county’s major roadway network excluding I-75.
The percentage of all crashes and severe crashes is more or less proportional to each maintenance
jurisdictions’ overall VMT, with a slightly higher proportion of severe crashes occurring along State
roads compared with County-maintained roads. In more metropolitan areas of Florida, there is a
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-4
denser grid of State-maintained arterial roads than in Collier County. Accordingly, up to half of VMT
and half of all crashes in those jurisdictions occur on the State Highway System (SHS). In Collier
County, County-maintained major roadways that look and function like State highways carry a
greater share of the load and therefore account for a more significant proportion of crashes.
Figure 2-2: Crash Distribution by Major Roadway Maintenance Authority
Crash Distribution of Major Roadway Number of Lanes
Another way to understand Collier County’s crash history, especially when comparing concentrations
of severe crashes, is to look at the distribution of crashes by the number of roadway lanes along the
major roadway network (excluding I-75). Referring to the inner ring of Figure 2-3, roadways with six
or more lanes account for half of arterial and collector roadway VMT and overall crashes but only
38% of severe crashes. Conversely, two-lane roadways account for 31% of VMT but 41% of severe
crashes.
Figure 2-3: Crash Distribution by Major Roadway Number of Lanes
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-5
Crash Distribution by Area Type
The proportion of all crashes, severe crashes, and VMT was also compared for the western, more
urban part of the county and the eastern, more rural part of the county using CR-951/Collier
Boulevard as an approximate meridian. Including travel on I-75, approximately 60% of all VMT occurs
on major roadways to the west of and including CR-951, and these roadways account for nearly 3/4
of all crashes and about 57% of severe crashes.
Roadways in the eastern, more rural part of the county account for proportionally fewer crashes
overall but a somewhat higher proportion of severe crashes compared with VMT. These data,
combined with the prior analysis of crash severity by number of lanes, indicate a potential issue with
rural highway safety, including a potential for single-vehicle (lane departure) crashes.
Figure 2-4: Major Roadway Crashes by Sub-Area
Crash Distribution by Lighting Condition
In addition to the roadway characteristics of the County’s crash history, it is also helpful to
understand key environmental conditions. One of the most useful of these is the lighting conditions
in which crashes occurred. Because crash report coding of lighting condition does not always reflect
whether nighttime lighting is functionally adequate (i.e., meets applicable AASHTO or FDOT
standards), it is better to focus on whether crashes occurred during daylight or non-daylight
conditions as a primary indicator while considering the specific non-daylight conditions as a
secondary measure.
The chart on the left of Figure 2-5 compares the observed lighting condition of all crashes and severe
crashes, and the chart on the right shows a comparison of all non-motorized crashes, severe non-
motorized crashes and all crashes. The overall percentage of non-daylight crashes (22%) is about
typical for Florida (25%). These data also show that severe crashes are more likely to occur outside of
daylight hours for both motorized and non-motorized crashes.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-6
The preponderance of severe non-motorized crashes during non-daylight hours is also a common
finding statewide and nationally and reflects the fact that driver ability to observe, react, and
respond to non-motorized users in the roadway is drastically diminished at night due to the frequent
lack of adequate running lights on bicycles or use of retroreflective clothing by cyclists and
pedestrians.
Figure 2-5: Lighting Conditions
Crash Type Distribution
A critical way of looking at Collier County’s crash history is to understand what types of crashes occur
most frequently and what types result in the most incapacitating injuries and fatalities. Figure 2-6
shows all crashes ranked by crash type and the percentage of severe crashes for each. These data
show that rear-end crashes are the most common overall crash type (nearly 50%) and result in the
highest overall number of severe crashes, but the relative severity of rear-end crashes is lower than
many other crash types.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-7
Figure 2-6: Crash Type Distribution
Table 2-3 shows crash type and severity data shown in Figure 2-7 presented as a two-by-two matrix.
The top left quadrant represents crash types that have a high severity ratio (account for a greater
percentage of severe crashes than overall crashes) and also a high absolute number of severe
crashes (account for more than 5% of all severe crashes). This quadrant is the most important
strategically since eliminating a relatively small percentage of overall crashes can have a relatively
large effect in reducing life-altering injuries and fatalities.
Table 2-3: Crash Type and Severity Matrix
High Severity Ratio Low Severity Ratio
Bike
High Severity Frequency
(> 5% of All Severe Crashes)
Pedestrian
Left-Turn
Angle
Rear-End
Unknown/Other
Hit Fixed Object
Low Severity Frequency
(<5% of All Severe Crashes)
Head-On
Single Vehicle
U-Turn
Run Off Road
Sideswipe
Right-Turn
Hit Non-Fixed Object
Driver Age
In addition to understanding where and how crashes occur in Collier County, it is also useful to
consider demographic information about the people involved in crashes. Figure 2-7 shows the
relative contribution of different age drivers to crashes countywide and also shows the extent to
which each age bracket contributes to the County’s overall population. These data indicate that
young drivers are more likely to be cited as “at fault” in crashes both in absolute terms and in
proportion to their representation in the County’s population.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-8
Although it is common to find that younger drivers are at a greater risk of being involved in a crash, it
is unusual to find that middle-age adult drivers are over-represented compared to older drivers. To
understand these data better, crash time-of-day data were compared to at-fault driver age for
drivers ages 54 and younger and 55 and up. Figure 2-7 confirms that some of the difference between
older and younger driver risk is related to time of day.
Across all time periods, drivers age 54 and younger account for 70% of all crashes, and drivers age 55
and older account for the remaining 30% of all crashes. Accordingly, the younger age group is over-
represented in late-night crashes and also during morning and afternoon rush hours and in the
evening. Conversely, older drivers very rarely are at fault in late-night crashes but are over-
represented during the midday period.
Although not definitive proof, these data imply that part of the lower risks attributed to older drivers
is that they are less likely to drive at night and may also avoid driving during the most congested
times of day.
Figure 2-7: At Fault Driver Age
Under 14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%14.0%16.0%
Percent of Population Percent of Crashes
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-9
Figure 2-8: Crash Distribution for Age 54 and Younger vs. Age 55 and Older
Temporal Trends
Figure 2-9 shows annual crash frequencies for crashes in Collier County for 2014–2018. Reported
crashes ranged from a low of approximately 7,600 crashes in 2014 to a high of nearly 9,000 crashes
in 2016. Nominally, the trend in crash frequency is increasing by about 130 crashes per year;
however, the year-over-year data are somewhat erratic, resulting in a low R2 value of about 0.20.
Figure 2-9: Crash Trend, 2014–2018
Figure 2-10 shows average monthly crash frequencies Collier County for 2014–2018. Over this period,
there was an average of approximately 700 reported crashes per month, with a monthly distribution
that generally reflects the overall seasonal traffic patterns exhibited in Collier County.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-10
Traffic Citation Analysis
Figure 2-10: Average Crashes per Month
Traffic citation data are another lens through which to analyze traffic safety in Collier County. For the
LRSP, citation data for 2014–2018 were obtained from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) for Collier County, the State of Florida, and several “peer” counties.
Figure 2-6 shows the most common moving violations recorded in Collier County. “Exceeding the
Posted Speed” (speeding) accounts for more than half of all moving violations, followed by
“Disregard Traffic Control Device” (e.g., ran stop sign or yield sign) and “Disregard Traffic Signal” (ran
red light).
Figure 2-6: Most Common Collier County Moving Violations
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-11
Figure 2-7 shows the distribution of traffic citations by issuing agency for Collier County. These data
indicate that the Collier County Sheriff’s Office accounts for about 45% of all traffic citations,
followed by the Florida Highway Patrol at 39%. Naples and Marco Island collectively issue about 15%
of the citations countywide.
Table 2-3 compares traffic citation activity in Collier County with similarly sized coastal Florida
counties and Florida overall. These data suggest that Collier County law enforcement agencies issue
fewer citations on average than the State of Florida and most peer counties in terms of both citations
per capita and citations per vehicle miles of travel.
Figure 2-7: Traffic Citation by Law Enforcement Agency (LEA)
Table 2-3: Traffic Citations per Capita and per VMT Comparison
State and
County
Violations
(2014–18)
Total VMT
(2014–18)
Citations per
100K VMT Population Citations per
100K Pop.
Florida 1,978,741 582,491,060 340 20,159,183 9,816
Collier 22,136 9,939,709 223 351,121 6,304
Brevard 29,592 17,784,554 166 568,367 5,206
Escambia 24,176 9,657,445 250 310,556 7,785
Lee 83,614 20,667,894 405 682,448 12,252
Manatee 23,208 10,038,803 231 358,616 6,472
Sarasota 33,880 12,052,890 281 400,694 8,455
Table 2-5 shows the types of criminal, non-criminal (moving), and non-moving traffic violations in
Collier County compared with Florida. Generally, high-frequency citation types in Collier County align
with those issued statewide; however, the following exceptions are noteworthy:
•Collier County issues a lower percentage of citations for driving with a suspended or revoked
driver’s license. This may be due, in part, to the relative affluence of Collier County compared
with Florida.
•Collier County does not have red-light running cameras. These account for approximately
15% of moving violations statewide.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-12
Table 2-4: Traffic Citations (State Totals vs. Collier County) Collier LRSP Emphasis Areas
COLLIER COUNTY STATE TOTALS
Infraction
Average
Annual
Citations
Percent of
Annual
Citations
Infraction
Average
Annual
Citations
Percent of
Annual
Citations
CRIMINAL
DR/DL/Sus/RV 1,287 25% DR/DL/SUS/RV 149,717 37%
No/Imp/Expired Driver’s
License 1,243 24%
No/Imp/Expired Driver’s
License 87,385 22%
DUI 1,173 23% DUI 45,791 11%
Other Crime 349 7%
NoNo/Impmp/Exp TAG
36,220 9%
No/Imp/Exp. Tag 240 5%
Other Crime
20,857 5%
All Other (< 5%) 400 9% All Other (<5%) 30,648 8%
NON-CRIMINAL (MOVING)
Exceeding Posted Speed 12,428 56% Exceeding Posted Speed 746,886 38%
Disregard Traffic Control
Device 2,182 10% Disregard Traffic Control
Device 302,601 15%
Disregard Traffic Signal 1,480 7% Disregard Traffic Signal 203,096 10%
Driving with Revoked or
Suspended License (w/o
knowledge) 1,154 5%
Driving with Revoked or
Suspended License (w/o
knowledge)116,733 6%
Failure to Yield ROW 1,053 5% Failure to Yield ROW 93,217 5%
All Other (< 5%) 3,850 17% All Other (<5%) 516,207 26%
NON-MOVING INFRACTIONS
Exp/Fail Display Tag 2,637 25% Exp/Fail/ Display Tag 253,969 28%
No Proof of Insurance 2,518 24% No Proof of Insurance 215,538 24%
Seat Belt Viol 2,215 21% Seat Belt Viol 159,253 18%
Other 1,185 11% Other 81,346 9%
Exp/Fail Display DL 1,097 10% Exp/Fail Disp DL 67,964 8%
Def/Unsafe Equip 536 5% Def/Unsafe Equip 63,465 7%
All Other (<5%) 199 2% All Other (<5%) 30,158 3%
Based on the data analysis described, four key Collier MPO LRSP emphasis areas were identified for
further analysis and identification of high-crash corridors. The following crash types were identified
as having a high severity ratio (constituting a greater percentage of severe crashes than all crashes)
and accounting for a high overall number of severe crashes (more than 5% of total severe crashes):
•Bicycle
•Pedestrian
•Left-turn
•Angle
•Hit fixed object
Additionally, rear-end, single vehicle, head-on, and run-off-road crash types either account for a high
frequency of severe crashes or have a high severity ratio. Based on similar characteristics and
countermeasure profiles, these crash types can be combined to form the following Emphasis Areas:
Other Crime
No/Imp/Exp. Tag
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-13
1.Non-Motorized (Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes)
2.Intersection (Left-Turn and Angle Crashes)
3.Lane Departure (Hit Fixed Object, Single Vehicle, Head-On, and Run-Off-Road Crashes)
4.Same Direction (Rear-End and Sideswipe Crashes)
Table 2-5 is a summary of Emphasis Area crash statistics excluding private roads and interstate
highways. Each emphasis area is discussed further in this section, including a summary of high-crash
corridors and a “heat map” showing crash concentrations for each emphasis areas. Because much of
Collier County is undeveloped, the maps focus on the western, urban part of the county and the area
around Immokalee and Marco Island.
Table 2-5: Emphasis Area Summary
All
Crashes
Non-
Motorized Intersection Lane
Departure
Same
Direction
Total Crashes 38,887 862 6,819 3,829 23,419
Injury Crashes 3,469 448 1,030 567 1,111
Total Injuries 4,719 470 1,621 747 1,492
Total Serious Injuries 928 136 326 201 187
Fatal Crashes 148 38 39 53 10
Total Fatalities 160 38 40 64 10
Severity Ratio 2.4% 15.8% 4.8% 5.2% 0.8%
Percent of All Crashes NA 2% 18% 10% 60%
Percent of Severe Injuries NA 15% 35% 22% 20%
Percent of Fatalities NA 24% 25% 40% 6%
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-14
Emphasis Area 1: Non-Motorized Crashes
Non-motorized crashes (crashes in which a pedestrian or bicyclist are involved) are a statewide
Emphasis Area and an important component of traffic safety challenges in Collier County. These
crashes account for only 2% of all reported crashes in Collier County but constitute 15% of the
county’s severe injury crashes and 24% of the county’s crash fatalities.
Table 2-6 shows a list of major roadway corridors with the most non-motorized crashes, and Figure
2-8 is a “heat map” of non-motorized user crashes. Consistent with prior Collier MPO
bicycle/pedestrian safety analyses, key focus areas include the area defined by US-41 (Tamiami Trail),
Airport Road, and Davis Boulevard and SR-29 through Immokalee. Other critical corridors are listed in
Table 2-7 and highlighted in Figure 2-9.
Table 2-6: Non-Motorized High Crash Corridors 2014-2018
On Street From Street To Street Crashes Fatal Crashes Incap. Injury Crashes
Airport Rd US-41 (Tamiami Trail) Davis Blvd 31 2 3
Tamiami Trail E Davis Blvd Airport Rd 24 2 2
Tamiami Trail N Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Rd 22 1 0
SR 29 1st St 9th St 21 1 4
Bayshore Dr Thomasson Dr US-41 (Tamiami Trail) 20 0 3
Radio Rd Livingston Rd Santa Barbara Blvd 20 0 2
SR 29 9th St Immokalee Dr 19 0 5
Tamiami Trail E Airport Rd Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 19 0 2
Collier Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Rd 16 0 1
Lake Trafford Rd Carson Rd SR-29 16 1 3
Immokalee Rd Stockade Rd SR-29 15 0 2
Davis Blvd Lakewood Blvd County Barn Rd 14 0 2
SR-29 Immokalee Dr CR-29A North 14 1 2
Airport Rd Davis Blvd North Rd 13 0 2
Airport Rd Radio Rd Golden Gate Pkwy 13 0 1
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Figure 2-8: Non-Motorized Crash Heat Map
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-15
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Emphasis Area 2: Intersection Crashes (Angle and Left-Turn)
Angle and left-turn crashes involve either two motor vehicles traveling at roughly perpendicular
directions or a motor vehicle making a left turn across the path of an oncoming vehicle. Because
these crashes are often extremely violent, high-energy events, they are more likely to result in
incapacitating or fatal injuries than crashes in which vehicles are traveling in the same direction.
These crashes account for only 18% of all crashes but 35% of severe injuries and 25% of fatalities.
Table 2-7 shows a list of major roadway corridors with the most angle and left turn crashes based
on the data mapped in Figure 2-9. Many of the high-crash corridors include one or more high-
volume arterial intersections; however, some corridors, including Golden Gate Parkway (Santa
Barbara Blvd. to Collier Blvd.) include crash concentrations associated with lower-volume
intersections. Table 2-7: Intersection (Angle and Left-Turn) High-Crash Corridors 2014-2018
On Street From Street To Street Crashes Fatal
Crashes
Incap. Injury
Crashes
Golden Gate Pkwy Santa Barbara Blvd Collier Blvd 190 0 4
Tamiami Trail N SR-84 (Davis Blvd) CR-851
(Goodlette Rd S) 136 0 1
Collier Blvd Golden Gate Pkwy Green Blvd 111 1 4
Tamiami Trail N 12th Ave Park Shore Dr/
Cypress Woods Dr 106 0 4
Goodlette-Frank Rd US-41 (Tamiami Trail) Golden Gate Pkwy 87 0 3
Tamiami Trail N Park Shore Dr/
Cypress Woods Dr
Pine Ridge Rd/
Seagate Dr 84 1 2
Santa Barbara Blvd Golden Gate Pkwy Green Blvd 82 0 1
Airport Rd Radio Rd Golden Gate Pkwy 81 1 1
Airport Rd Pine Ridge Rd Orange Blossom Dr 74 2 1
Goodlette-Frank Rd Golden Gate Pkwy Pine Ridge Rd 74 0 4
Pine Ridge Rd Airport Rd Livingston Rd 73 0 2
Collier Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Rd 67 0 4
SR-29 9th St Immokalee Dr 67 0 2
Tamiami Trail N Pine Ridge Rd/
Seagate Dr Gulf Park Dr 65 1 4
Tamiami Trail E Airport Rd Rattlesnake
Hammock Rd 63 1 2
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-16
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Figure 2-9: Angle and Left Turn Crash Heat Map
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-17
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Emphasis Area 3: Lane Departure
Lane departure crashes, referred to as “run-off-road” crashes, include crash types in which a single
vehicle leaves the roadway and either strikes a fixed object or otherwise crashes. Head-on crashes,
though rare events, are included in this Emphasis Area as they are precipitated by similar
circumstances. Because these types of crashes often involve vehicles traveling at high speeds, they
are more likely to have severe outcomes. In Collier County, roadway departure crashes account for
only 10% of overall crashes but are responsible for 22% of severe injuries and 40% of fatalities.
Table 2-8 shows a list of major roadway corridors with the most lane departure crashes and Figure
2-10 shows a “heat map” of non-motorized user crashes. While more lane departure crashes occur in
the along busier roadways west of and including Collier Boulevard, approximately 40% of these
crashes occur along rural highways and local roadways in the eastern part of Collier County.
Table 2-8: Lane Departure High Crash Corridors 2014-2018
On Street From Street To Street Crashes Fatal
Crashes
Incap. Injury
Crashes
Immokalee Rd Collier Blvd Wilson Blvd 51 1 3
Immokalee Rd Oil Well Rd Stockade Rd 45 0 4
Golden Gate Blvd Collier Blvd Wilson Blvd 43 0 2
Airport Rd Radio Rd Golden Gate Pkwy 39 0 1
Airport Rd Pine Ridge Rd Orange Blossom Drive 35 0 1
Goodlette-Frank Rd US-41 (Tamiami Trail) Golden Gate Pkwy 35 0 1
Collier Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Rd 33 0 2
Tamiami Trail N 12th Ave Park Shore Dr/
Cypress Woods Dr 33 0 0
Tamiami Trail N SR-84 (Davis Blvd) CR-851
(Goodlette Rd S) 33 0 0
Collier Blvd US-41 (Tamiami Trail) Rattlesnake
Hammock Rd 32 0 2
Collier Blvd Rattlesnake
Hammock Rd Davis Blvd 31 0 2
Collier Blvd Mainsail Drive Manatee Rd 29 0 0
Tamiami Trail E Rattlesnake
Hammock Rd Treetops Dr 29 0 2
Vanderbilt Beach Rd Logan Blvd Collier Blvd 28 0 1
Pine Ridge Rd Airport Rd Livingston Rd 28 0 1
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-18
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Figure 2-10: Lane Departure Crash Heat Map
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-19
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Emphasis Area 4: Same Direction (Rear-End and Sideswipe) Crashes
Rear-end and sideswipe crashes are much less likely to result in incapacitating or fatal injuries than crash
types included in the other three emphasis areas; however, these crashes are the most common type of
crash to occur and contribute to injuries and deaths as a function of their frequency.
Table 2-9 shows a list of major roadway corridors with the most non-motorized crashes and Figure 2-11
shows a “heat map” of non-motorized user crashes. Consistent with prior Collier MPO
Bicycle/Pedestrian safety analyses, key focus areas include the area defined by US 41 (Tamiami Trail),
Airport Road, and Davis Boulevard and SR 29 through the town of Immokalee.
Table 2-9: Same Direction High Crash Corridors 2014-2018
On Street
From Street
To Street
Crash
es
Fatal
Crashes
Incap. Injury
Crashes
Golden Gate
Parkway Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard 190 0 4
Tamiami Trail
North SR 84 (Davis Blvd) CR 851 (Goodlette Rd
South) 136 0 1
Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Pkwy Green Boulevard 111 1 4
Tamiami Trail
North 12th Ave Park Shore Dr / Cypress
Woods Dr 106 0 4
Goodlette-Frank
Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Golden Gate Parkway 87 0 3
Tamiami Trail
North
Park Shore Dr / Cypress
Woods Dr
Pine Ridge Rd / Seagate
Dr 84 1 2
Santa Barbara
Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway Green Boulevard 82 0 1
Airport Road Radio Road Golden Gate Parkway 81 1 1
Airport Road Pine Ridge Road Orange Blossom Drive 74 2 1
Goodlette-Frank
Road Golden Gate Parkway Pine Ridge Road 74 0 4
Pine Ridge Road Airport Road Livingston Road 73 0 2
Collier Boulevard Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road 67 0 4
SR 29 9th Street Immokalee Dr 67 0 2
Tamiami Trail
North
Pine Ridge Rd / Seagate
Dr Gulf Park Drive 65 1 4
Tamiami Trail
East Airport Road Rattlesnake Hammock
Road 63 1 2
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-20
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Figure 2-11: Same Direction Crash Heat Map
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-21
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-22
Key Conclusions
Based on the data analysis summarized above, the following key conclusions are evident:
• Collier County has fewer crashes, traffic injuries, and traffic fatalities than Florida as a whole
as a function of population and daily VMT.
• As is common in many urbanized Florida communities, a significant majority of public road
traffic crashes, including severe injury crashes, occurs along elements of the County’s
arterial and collector road network.
• Because Collier County has a relatively sparse network of State highways and many County-
maintained roadways that carry significant traffic volume, approximately 2/3 of crashes
occur along County-maintained roadways. This means Collier County has substantial agency
to self-manage safety outcomes on its roadway network.
• Driver age data show that older road users do not disproportionately contribute to crashes in
Collier County; however, inferential time-of-day data suggest that older drivers (age 55+) also
have less exposure to nighttime and rush-hour driving.
• Tindale Oliver noted that fewer traffic citations per capita and per vehicle mile of travel are issued in
Collier County than in Florida and within a group of similarly-sized coastal counties. The County
Sheriff’s Office responded that “This may be misleading in substance. Viewing Table 2-3 on P. 2-11,
the number of citations are not critically lower on a statistical level than Manatee, Brevard,
Escambia, and Sarasota Counties. Further, these numbers only count citations. They do not count
the overall number of traffic stops and warnings issued. As noted in a footnote below Table 2-3,
Collier County does not have red light cameras that cause number variations in other Florida
jurisdictions; red light cameras issuing a 100% citation rate for identified violators. Beyond that,
Conclusion #5 listed 2 paragraphs below this sentence articulates the significant impact
municipalities have on citation statistics and the small municipalities in Collier County.
Of note as well is that Manatee, Brevard, Escambia, Lee, and Sarasota Counties all have Florida
Highway Patrol (FHP) Troop stations located within their county boundaries. FHP can be relied upon
for issuing a notable number of citations from their Troopers. Collier County no longer has a Troop
Station located in its boundaries; it was removed years ago. Collier County relies upon the Lee
County Troop Station to supply Troopers to Collier County which can cause staffing anomalies in the
county as the local Troopers must travel to north of RSW for administrative functions.”
• Certain crash types contribute disproportionately to incapacitating injury and fatal crashes.
Collectively, non-motorized road user, angle, left-turn, and lane departure crashes account
for 30% of all crashes but result in 72% of severe injuries and 89% of fatalities.
• Though significantly less likely to result in severe injury than the crash types discussed above,
rear-end and sideswipe crashes result in a significant number of incapacitating injuries due to
their frequency.
• High crash corridors identified in the LRSP can be flagged for consideration of safety mitigation
measures in association with other roadway improvements.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-1
3: RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction and Problem Statement
Based on the data analysis documented in the preceding section on Data Analysis , the following key
conclusions help to formulate data-driven recommendations for reducing crashes, injuries, and
fatalities in Collier County:
1.Roadway Safety Relative to Florida: Collier County has fewer crashes, traffic injuries, and
traffic fatalities than Florida as a whole as a function of population and daily vehicle miles of
travel (VMT).
2.Major Roadway Focus: As is common in many urbanized Florida communities, a significant
majority of public road traffic crashes, including severe injury crashes, occur along elements
of the county’s arterial and collector road network.
3.Local Autonomy: Because Collier County has a relatively sparse network of State highways
and many County-maintained roadways that carry significant traffic volume, approximately
2/3 of crashes occur along County-maintained roadways. This means Collier County has
substantial agency to self-manage safety outcomes on its roadway network.
4.Driver Demographics: Driver age data show that older road users do not disproportionately
contribute to crashes in Collier County; however, inferential time-of-day data suggest that
older drivers (age 55+) also have less exposure to nighttime and rush-hour driving.
5.Moderate Enforcement: Fewer traffic citations per capita and per vehicle mile of travel are
issued in Collier County than in Florida as a whole and within a group of similarly-sized
coastal counties.
6.High Severity Emphasis Areas: Certain crash types contribute disproportionately to
incapacitating injury and fatal crashes. Collectively, non-motorized road user, angle, left-turn,
and lane departure crashes account for 30% of all crashes but result in 72% of severe injuries
and 89% of fatalities.
7.High Frequency Emphasis Area: Though significantly less likely to result in severe injury than
the crash types noted above, rear-end and sideswipe crashes result in a significant number
of incapacitating injuries due to their frequency.
8.High Crash Corridors and Intersections identified in the LRSP can be flagged for integration of
safety mitigation measures in association with other roadway improvements.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-2
Each of these conclusions is considered below to begin formulating recommended strategies.
Conclusions #1 and 4: Roadway Safety Relative to Florida and Driver Demographics
Data from 2014–2018 indicate that Collier County experiences approximately 25% fewer traffic
crashes and fatalities than Florida as a whole when normalized for both population and VMT.
Understanding factors that contribute to this can help to build on Collier County’s existing strengths.
Some potential explanations for Collier County’s relatively low rate of traffic crashes and fatalities
compared with Florida as a whole include the following:
Demographics: Collier County has a lower proportion of younger drivers than Florida as a whole. Statewide,
approximately 18.4% of the population is ages 15–29, whereas in Collier
County only 14.4% of the population falls within this age range. Less experienced drivers are
more likely to be involved in crashes than older drivers, so a community with proportionately
fewer younger drivers should exhibit fewer crashes per capita than average. When statewide
crash rates for each age bracket are applied to Collier County’s population, the expected
number of crashes in Collier County is approximately 90% of statewide figures. Accordingly,
driver demographics may explain part of the reason why Collier County has fewer crashes
per capita and per VMT than Florida overall.
•Roadway Characteristics: Compared with Florida as a whole, Collier County has a similar
proportion of VMT on relatively safe roadway types such as limited access highway, minor
collector streets, and local roads but carries substantially less VMT on signalized principal
arterials and, instead, handles more traffic with its minor arterial network. Although both
principal arterials and minor arterials are focused on longer-distance mobility, minor
arterials tend to be more compact and generally operate at somewhat lower ambient
speeds. Although difficult to quantify, this may, in part, contribute to Collier County’s
superior safety performance compared with Florida as a whole.
•Land Use and Network Characteristics: With some exceptions, commercial land uses in
Collier County tend to be organized around major intersection nodes rather than along
thoroughfare roadways. This means that between major intersections, access points are
limited, resulting in fewer potential conflicts.
As Collier County continues to grow, it is reasonable to expect its demographic profile will “regress to
the mean,” resulting in a more normal proportion of young drivers and associated increase in
crashes. Strategies to improve driver training and education for younger drivers and services to
provide mobility for older road users are discussed in Section 3. Strategies to further enhance safety
on the county’s major roadway network and maintain good access controls are discussed in Section
2.
Conclusions #2 and #3: Major Roadway Focus and Local Autonomy
Because a majority of crashes in Collier County occur along County-maintained minor arterial and
collector roadways, Collier County, in conjunction with the Collier MPO, has the ability to be
proactive in making roadway safety infrastructure investments while continuing to coordinate with
the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to enhance safety on I-75 and major state highways
such as US-41 and SR-29, Davis Boulevard, and State-maintained sections of Collier Boulevard.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-3
Specific strategies applicable to the county’s roadway network are discussed in Section 2.
Conclusion #5: Moderate Enforcement Efforts
Statewide, more than half of Floridians live in municipalities, and just over half of all traffic citations
are issued by City police departments, with the remainder split roughly 60/40 between County
Sheriffs and the Florida Highway Patrol. Because the municipalities in Collier County account for only
about 10% of the county’s population, the role of City police departments in traffic enforcement is
less prevalent in Collier County, with approximately 15% of citations being issued by municipal police.
Section 3 addresses strategies to target and enhance traffic enforcement where appropriate.
The Collier County Sheriff’s Office notes that “Statewide, more than half of Floridians live in
municipalities, and just over half of all traffic citations are issued by City police departments, with the
remainder split roughly 60/40 between County Sheriffs and the Florida Highway Patrol. Because the
municipalities in Collier County account for only about 10% of the county’s population, the role of
City police departments in traffic enforcement is less prevalent in Collier County, with approximately
15% of citations being issued by municipal police. Section 3 addresses strategies to target and
enhance traffic enforcement where appropriate.”
Conclusions #6 and 7: High Severity Ratio and High Frequency Crash Emphasis Areas
Because specific crash types are more likely to result in incapacitating injury or death, it is logical that
these should be the focus of both infrastructure and non-infrastructure strategies to enhance traffic
safety in Collier County. All types of crashes and crash severities may be reduced by speed
management strategies and strategies to combat distracted driving, whereas other crash types
respond to specific infrastructure and non-infrastructure interventions.
The remainder of this section offers infrastructure and non-infrastructure strategies that relate to
the conclusions from the LRSP’s data and analysis described above.
Conclusion #8: High Crash Corridors and Intersections
The LRSP identifies High Crash Corridors / Intersections and strategies to address the prevalent crash types.
These corridors can be flagged for integration of safety mitigation measures in association with other
roadway improvements.
Infrastructure Strategies
The term “substantive safety” refers to the measurable safety performance of a roadway or
roadway system, usually expressed in terms of crashes, injuries, and fatalities normalized for user
exposure, typically expressed in terms of VMT. The design and operating characteristics of a roadway
system affect the substantive safety performance of the system based on the interplay of two other
expressions of safety—nominal safety and perceived safety.
“Nominal safety” refers to the application of evidence-based design standards and best practices
intended to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. Examples include elements such as
minimum lane widths, speed limits, effective drainage, clear and level roadside shoulders, curve
super-elevation, guardrails, roadway lighting, and hundreds of other roadway design and operating
standards. Each of these elements is intended to reduce the likelihood of automobile crashes and/or
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-4
to reduce the severity of crashes if they occur.
“Perceived safety” refers to how roadway users gauge the relative safety of the roadway system,
including the crashworthiness of their automobiles. This is important because for most roadway
users, perceived safety impacts their level of focus and operating behavior. Roadway users who
perceive a particular roadway environment to be relatively safe are more likely to relax their
concentration and may engage in higher-risk driving behaviors such as speeding, multi-tasking, and
“jaywalking,” whereas roadway users who perceive a roadway environment to be less safe are more
likely to remain vigilant.
There are two primary challenges implicit in the interaction of these fundamental aspects of roadway
safety. The first is that many of the measures intended to make roadways nominally safer also result
in increased perception of safety by roadway users and corresponding increases in riskier user
behavior. This riskier behavior, in turn, diminishes the safety benefits of the roadway system design.
The second challenge is that typical roadway users are not well-equipped to accurately assess their
risk operating in a modern roadway system. The former challenge is intuitive but nonetheless
problematic to the extent that the very design decisions that are meant to make a roadway system
safer often contribute to the abuse of that system by its users. The latter challenge is a function of
both biological and cognitive limitations which, when combined, can contribute to unsafe user
behavior.
From a biological perspective, the speeds, distances, and complexities of modern roadway
environments are outside the normal parameters of what the “human animal” has encountered for
the vast majority of our recorded history. Multiple times per minute, a human roadway user will pass
within arm’s length of objects that are comparable in mass to some of the largest animals on earth,
traveling at speeds that are naturally achievable only by falling from a high place. Rationally,
human/automobile interactions should be terrifying, but most modern humans have been
conditioned since childhood to accept them as a normal, low-risk activity.
From a cognitive perspective, most people’s ability to accurately assess and process risk is more
limited when probabilities are very low and outcomes are extreme. For example, most people can
easily understand both the probabilities and the outcomes of a $1.00 bet against a coin toss but have
almost no capacity to logically process the risk/reward proposition of buying a lottery ticket. By the
same mechanism, most people cannot intuitively process the extent to which individual higher-risk,
but otherwise routine, behaviors alter their probability of being involved in an automobile crash.
Historically, the traffic safety industry has focused considerable attention on nominal safety, both in
terms of roadway system design and operations and motor vehicle design (bumpers, crush zones, air
bags, etc.). Generally, the assumption has been made that roadway users will behave as “rational
actors” using available information to make benefit/cost analyses that govern choices expected to
deliver preferred outcomes. Based on quantitative and qualitative assessment of crash histories,
there is ample evidence that road users do not consistently perform according to the rational actor
model. This includes incidences of wantonly irrational behavior (road racing, driving while
intoxicated, etc.) but more commonly occurs from a failure to accurately process risk.
The Collier LRSP considers infrastructure strategies from the perspective of nominal safety and from
the standpoint of how each strategy provides better information to roadway users to help them
make safer decisions about how they interact with each other and the roadway system.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-5
Table 3-1 provides a summary of infrastructure strategies and shows how each strategy is applicable
to the four emphasis areas defined through the analysis of Collier County’s crash history.
The remainder of this section provides more information about each strategy and discusses how the
strategies relate to one another. Non-infrastructure strategies are addressed in Section 3 of this
chapter.
Table 3-1: Infrastructure Strategies Matrix
Infrastructure Strategies Non-
Motorized Intersection Lane
Departure
Same
Direction
Speed Management • • • •
Alternative Intersections (ICE Process) • • •
Intersection Design Best Practices for
Pedestrians •
Median Restrictions/Access Management • •
Right Turn Lanes ? •
Signal Coordination ? •
Rural Road Strategies including:
•Paved shoulder • •
•Safety edge •
• Curve geometry, delineation, and warning •
• Bridge/culvert widening/attenuation •
• Guardrail/ditch regrading/tree clearing •
• Isolated intersection conspicuity/geometry •
Shared Use Pathways, Sidewalk Improvements •
Mid-Block Crossings & Median Refuge •
Intersection Lighting Enhancements • • •
Autonomous Vehicles (Longer-Term) TBD • • •
( = Applicable Strategy ? = Possible Contra-indications
Speed Management
Speed is a critical factor in both a driver’s ability to perceive, react, and effectively respond to
roadway conflicts and in determining crash outcomes/severity. “Speed management” refers to a
combination of infrastructure and non-infrastructure strategies to both curtail incidences of
speeding—traveling too fast for conditions or exceeding the posted speed limit—and designing
roadways to deliver operating speeds that match the land use and access contexts of the roadway.
From an infrastructure standpoint, key elements of speed management include:
•Context classification and establishment of target speeds
•Design interventions
•Proactive signal management
Each of these elements is discussed in greater detail below.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-6
Context Classification and Target Speeds
As part of FDOT’s implementation of “Complete Streets,” the Department has established a process for
classifying major roadways based on land use and roadway network connectivity to create a continuum of
context classifications ranging from rural preserve to urban core (Figure 3-1). The context classification
assignment of each segment of the State Highway System (SHS) is then used to define design specifications
including appropriate design speed ranges.
Figure 3-1: FDOT Context Classification System
In addition to design elements such as lane width and multimodal facilities requirements, a
roadway’s context classification establishes allowable design speed ranges and identifies speed
management strategies for each context class and design speed range. Context classifications also
provide guidance for establishing appropriate target speeds, the desired operating speed for any
given segment of roadway based on strategic safety and mobility objectives. When a roadway’s
target speed is not supported by the roadway’s design characteristics (e.g., design speed), the
roadway owner (City, County, FDOT) can establish short-, medium-, and longer-term strategies to
modify the subject roadway so that the target speed is achieved.
Design Interventions
There are many design techniques to modify roadway characteristics to achieve a desired target
speed, but generally they correspond with the concepts of Enclosure, Engagement, and Deflection.
Chapter 202 of FDOT’s 2020 Florida Design Manual (FDM) defines these concepts as follows:
•Enclosure is the sense that the roadway is contained in an “outside room” rather than in a
limitless expanse of space. A driver’s sense of speed is enhanced by providing a frame of
reference in this space. The same sense of enclosure that provides a comfortable pedestrian
experience also helps drivers remain aware of their travel speed. Street trees, buildings close
to the street, parked cars, and terminated vistas help to keep drivers aware of how fast they
are traveling. This feedback system is an important element of speed management.
•Engagement is the visual and audial input connecting a driver with the surrounding
environment. Low-speed facilities use engagement to help bring awareness to the driver,
resulting in lower operating speeds. As the cognitive load on a driver’s decision-making
increases, he/she needs more time for processing and will manage speed accordingly.
Uncertainty is one element of engagement; the potential of an opening car door, for
instance, alerts drivers to drive more cautiously. On-street parking and proximity of other
moving vehicles in a narrow-lane are important elements of engagement, as are architectural
detail, shop windows, and even the presence of pedestrians.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-7
Deflection is the horizontal or vertical movement of a driver from the intended path of travel. It is
used to command a driver’s attention and manage speeds. Being a physical
sensation, deflection is the most visceral and powerful of the speed management strategies.
Whereas enclosure and engagement rely, in part, on psychology, deflection relies primarily
on physics. Examples includes roundabouts, splitter medians (horizontal deflection), and
raised intersections (vertical deflection). Deflection may not be appropriate if it hinders truck
or emergency service vehicle access.
Chapter 202 of the FDM describes specific design strategies and provides a matrix of applicable
strategies to achieve various speed ranges for each roadway context classification.
Signalization
Traffic signalization is another method of providing actionable information to drivers to help achieve
desired operating speeds. When traffic signals are spaced at intervals of not more than 0.25 miles
and are timed in a coordinated pattern consistent with a desired operating speed, most road users
will learn to drive at the signal “progression speed” rather than race ahead to stop at a standing
queue. Alternative performance measures for signal timing are discussed further later in this section.
Current Practice
Collier County’s roadway network falls primarily within the C-1 to C-3 range in FDOT’s context
classification system. The wide spacing between intersections (2 to 6 miles) and low-density
development make it difficult to implement speed management strategies. There are exceptions,
however – locations that are more urban in character with a greater mix of uses, higher densities
and shorter blocks – where speed management could be a useful tool to apply, as noted in the
Implementation Section which follows.
Recommendation
MPO staff does not recommend further action at this time.
Alternative Intersections (ICE Process)
According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the term “alternative intersections” refers
to at-grade intersections that remove one or more conventional left-turn movements. By removing
one or more of the critical conflicting traffic maneuvers from the major intersection, fewer signal
phases are required for signal operation. This can result in shorter signal cycle lengths, shorter
delays, and higher capacities compared to conventional intersections.
Alternative intersections also offer substantial safety benefits, with expected crash reductions of at
least 15%, depending on the specific treatment. When deployed along an integrated corridor,
alternative intersections can also aid in speed management and other systemic safety improvements.
The key concepts, constraints, and safety benefits of common alternative intersections are described
below.
ICE Process - Current Practice
Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) is a data-driven process to objectively identify optimal
geometric and control solutions for roadway intersections. Factors considered in the ICE process
include capacity/operational analysis, safety, and feasibility/cost. ICE is required for new
intersections and for substantial changes to existing intersections on FDOT roadways. The MPO’s
member agencies apply the ICE process used by FDOT to County and City-maintained roadways as
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-8
well.
Recommendation
MPO staff does not recommend that additional action be taken at this time.
Roundabouts
FHWA’s informational guide on roundabouts (FHWA-DR-00-067) explains that “roundabouts are
circular intersections with specific design and traffic control features. These features include yield
control of all entering traffic, channelized approaches, and appropriate geometric curvature to
ensure that travel speeds on the circulatory roadway are typically less than 30 mph.” Modern
roundabouts may connect three or more roadway approaches and may have one or more circulating
lanes.
The key safety benefit of roundabouts is that they eliminate high-energy “crossing” conflicts and
have fewer overall conflicts than conventional intersections. Figure 3-25, from FHWA-DR-00-067,
shows and explains the difference in conflict points between roundabouts and conventional
intersections. Attention is directed to the fact that whereas traffic signals assign right-of-way to
crossing conflicts, these conflicts are not eliminated by signals in cases of red-light-running and
permissive left-turn movements. Merge conflicts also exist in the context of right-turn-on-red
movements.
Properly designed roundabouts also are generally easier/safer to navigate for pedestrians and
bicyclists, and pedestrian crossings at multi-lane roundabouts can be supplemented with various
mid-block crossing devices (see discussion on pedestrian mid-block crossing elsewhere in this
section). Because of these motorized and non-motorized user safety benefits, roundabouts have
been found to reduce crashes overall by about 37% and reduce injury crashes by 51%.
The principal constraint of roundabouts is that they often require a greater right-of-way footprint
than conventional intersections of equivalent capacity. This is especially challenging in retrofit
scenarios along commercial corridors where right-of-way costs may make roundabout retrofits cost
prohibitive. Because the safety benefits of roundabouts diminish as more circulating lanes are added,
most roundabouts are limited to two circulating lanes. Accordingly, they are most commonly used at
the intersections of either two 2-lane roadways or a 4-lane roadway and 2-lane roadway.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-9
Figure 3-2: Roundabout Safety Benefits
Restricted Crossing U-Turn and Median U-Turn Intersections
Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) and Median U-Turn (MUT) intersections are illustrated in Figure
3-3 and Figure 3-4 from FHWA Informational Guides #FHWA-SA-14-070 and #FHWA-SA-14-069,
respectively. Generally, RCUT intersections are more effective when the minor street thru volumes
are lower than the major street left-turn volumes, with the reverse true for MUT intersections. RCUT
intersections, when sequenced together in a corridor, also allow each direction of the major street to
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-10
thru movements to be coordinated separately which can have exceptional benefits for mainline
capacity.
Figure 3-3: Diagram of Signalized RCUT Intersection
Figure 3-4: Diagram of Median U-Turn Intersection
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-11
Common features of both these alternative intersection types include the following:
•Both RCUT and MUT intersections use adjacent “secondary” intersections to help process the
movements that are restricted at the main intersection. These are usually about 1/8-mile
from the main intersection and may be signalized, as shown in Figure 2-3, or stop/yield
controlled, similar to commonplace directional median openings. When signalized, these
secondary intersections provide an opportunity for mid-block pedestrian crossing locations.
•When either intersection type displaces truck movements, either an extra-wide median or
U-turn aprons, sometimes referred to as “loons,” are necessary to accommodate truck
movements. The U-turn diameter (referred to as the swept-path) for a typical tractor-trailer
is just under 90 ft, but the U-turn diameter of a typical 6-lane arterial with a standard 22 ft
median is a little over 60 ft.
•Except in cases where the displaced movements represent an unusually high proportion of
all intersection movements, RCUT and MUT intersections generally offer substantial
reductions to major roadway delay and more moderate reductions in overall intersection
delay. The distance traveled by displaced movements is naturally increased, but delay for
displaced movements may be slightly reduced or only moderately increased depending on a
range of operational factors.
•Both RCUT and MUT intersections allow for reduced signal cycle length, especially when
pedestrian crossings of the major roadway are handled as two-stage movements. This,
combined with greater signal density from the use of secondary intersections, can help with
speed management and platooning of vehicles along alternative intersection corridors.
Similar to roundabouts, RCUTs and MUTs convert some high-energy crossing conflicts to lower
energy merge-diverge conflicts, helping to reduce crash frequency and severity. According to FHWA-
HRT-17-073, RCUT intersections can have an overall crash reduction of 15% and reduce injury
crashes by 22% compared with conventional intersections. MUT intersections have similar benefits,
with a 16% overall crash reduction and 30% injury crash reduction compared to conventional
intersections.
As noted, the principal constraint on converting existing 4-phase conventional intersections to 2-
phase RCUT or MUT intersections is available right-of-way to accommodate truck U-turn movements,
about 140 ft for a 6-lane road and about 130 ft for a 4-lane road. Other constraints include the
suitability of the RCUT or MUT operations with respect to individual intersection turning volumes and
driver education about navigating the intersections.
Other Alternative Intersections
Besides RCUTs and MUTs, other alternatives at-grade intersections include displaced left turn
intersections (DLT), as shown in Figure 3-5 (FHWA-SA-14-068) and quadrant intersections, as shown
in Figure 3-6 (FHWA-SA-19-029). The safety outcomes of these intersection alternatives are less well
understood than for RCUT and MUT intersections and, for reasons discussed below, their limited
applicability makes them less integral to the LRSP than roundabout, RCUT, and MUT intersections.
Nonetheless, they are included in the County’s toolkit should specific circumstances warrant their
use.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-12
Figure 3-5: Displaced Left Turn Intersection
DLT intersections are very-high-capacity at-grade intersections that “displace” left-turn movements
at “cross-over” intersections in advance of the main intersection. This allows left-turn and thru
movements from the same roadway to occur concurrently. Given the high capacity, complexity, and
cost of DLT intersections, they are perhaps better thought of as alternatives to grade separation
(trading right-of-way costs for structure costs) rather than alternatives to conventional intersections.
Because of their substantial right-of-way footprints and potential for substantial business access
impacts to adjacent land uses, DLT intersections are challenging to implement as retrofit projects.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-13
Figure 3-6: Quadrant Intersection Diagram
Quadrant intersections distribute turning movements at the main intersection across multiple
smaller intersections, allowing left-turn movements at the main intersection to be eliminated or
limited to either roadway. Although all turning movements can be accommodated with a single-
quadrant roadway, quadrant intersections offer more benefits when diagonal opposing quadrants, or
all four quadrants can be fitted with perimeter roads. Unlike DLT intersections, quadrant
intersections allow the main intersection to be quite compact; however, existing land uses often
preclude the construction of the quadrant roadways except in greenfield or redevelopment
scenarios.
Recommendation
MPO staff does not recommend taking further action at this time. Collier MPO member
governments already apply FDOT’s ICE process to provide data-driven analysis of intersection
alternatives as part of new intersection construction and substantial modification of existing
intersections. Collier MPO established a funding mechanism for safety projects in the 2045 LRTP.
In response to a Call for Projects, member governments c may select candidate intersections and
corridors identified in the LRSP and the BPMP) to conduct feasibility studies (Stage 1 ICE/SPICE
analysis) for prioritizing and programming retrofit projects.
Intersection Design for Pedestrians
Many existing major roadway intersections in Collier County (as well as throughout Florida) were
designed with the primary intention of maximizing motor-vehicle throughput. In addition to arterial
intersections often having multiple thru traffic lanes and auxiliary left- and right-turn lanes, the radii
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-14
of an intersection’s curbs are also often very large. All of these features increase the exposure of
pedestrians to motor vehicle traffic and can contribute suboptimal placement of crosswalks and curb
ramps, which may make crosswalks longer than necessary and/or place pedestrians in positions
where they may be difficult for turning drivers to see.
When pedestrians are exposed to overly-large intersections with right-turning traffic and permissive
left turns, they may not see a value proposition in using signalized intersection pedestrian features.
This may result in pedestrians crossing away from intersections, relying on their own judgment rather
than trusting motorists to yield and reducing pedestrian compliance with traffic signals.
Curb Radii
Large curb radii are sometimes necessary to allow trucks to navigate turns without running over the
curb, damaging infrastructure, and posing a hazard to pedestrians waiting to cross. However, in many
cases, urban and suburban intersections are using highway design principles where large curb radii
are provided to reduce friction between right-turning vehicles and high-speed thru traffic. This makes
sense in a rural setting where pedestrians are rare, but when right-turning drivers can navigate a turn
at high speeds, their ability to perceive and react to pedestrians in a crosswalk is severely limited.
Whenever possible, urban intersection should be designed with the smallest possible radii that still
can accommodate the appropriate design vehicle. When there are multiple lanes, intersection should
be designed so that trucks turn into the interior lane(s) rather than the curb lane. When large radii
cannot be avoided due to heavy truck movements, channelization (discussed below) or use of truck
aprons is preferable to very large radii.
Figure 3-7: Truck Turning Into Interior Lane
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-15
Figure 3-8: Truck Apron Helps Slow Turning Cars
Channelization
Using channelizing islands to break pedestrian crossings into multiple smaller stages can make large,
high-capacity intersections safer and more accommodating for pedestrians. Figure 3-9 shows the
preferred design for right-turn islands in which approach traffic has a clear view of the crosswalk
between the curb and the island and also good views of approaching traffic. The graphic also shows
the crosswalk “engaged” with the median nose, which helps ensure that left-turning drivers cannot
cut the corner, thereby helping to moderate their speed.
Figure 3-9: Preferred Right-Turn Island Design Parameters and “Engaged” Median
Crosswalk Design & Operation
As shown in Figure 3-10, crosswalks should be marked using both lateral and transverse markings, be
placed with individual/directional curb ramps, where possible, and generally be aligned parallel to
the roadway they are along. Although crosswalks must be a minimum of 10 ft wide, they may be
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-16
wider where pedestrian volumes are high or intersection geometry is irregular. Textured or colored
pavement is acceptable to supplement the retroreflective pavement markings but should not be a
substitute for those markings.
At signalized intersections, crosswalks should be supplemented with countdown pedestrian signals
and the “Walk” phase should be provided automatically for crossing along the major roadway and
whenever the concurrent minor roadway thru-green signal interval is greater than or equal to the
minimum pedestrian crossing interval. Except in special circumstances where high pedestrian
volumes may effectively prohibit right-turning traffic to pass through an intersection, the “Walk”
interval should be timed so that the countdown reaches zero when the concurrent thru-green signal
changes from green to amber, thereby maximizing the available time for pedestrians to cross.
When heavy right-turn movements conflict with pedestrian crossings, a leading pedestrian interval
(LPI) should be considered. An LPI provides pedestrians with a “Walk” indication a few seconds
before parallel traffic gets a green signal, giving the pedestrian an opportunity to “take possession”
of the crosswalk before turning traffic commences.
Figure 3-10: Proper Crosswalk Placement and Markings
Figure 3-11: Countdown Pedestrian Signal
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-17
Current Practice
The summary presented above provides confirmation that the MPO’s BPMP’s design guidelines are
consistent with current Best Practices. The BPMP will be updated at least once every five years to
keep current and up-to-date. The BPMP’s evaluation criteria gives priority to projects to mitigate
high crash corridors and intersections.
Recommendation
MPO staff does not recommend taking further action at this time.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-18
Median Restrictions/Access Management
FDOT and Collier County both have sophisticated approaches to managing access along arterial
roadway corridors. Strategies include restricting median access to prohibit direct left turns from
unsignalized approaches, consolidation of driveways, provisions for interconnected parking lots,
reverse-frontage access, and avoiding driveways within major intersection influence areas.
Although the default approach to access management is to convert full-access medians to directional
medians, as shown in Figure 3-12 along Radio Road, maintaining cross-access and providing a new
traffic signal may help to address speed management and signal coordination issues as discussed
elsewhere in this section.
Figure 3-12: Conversion of Full Access Median to Dual Directional Median
Current Practice
Collier MPO member governments currently employ access management strategies to minimize
curb cuts and encourage right-turn-then-U-turn movements instead of direct left turns across
high-volume arterial streets. In more urban contexts, member governments give consideration to
signalizing problem intersections as an alternative to installing directional medians with the intent
of providing more controlled crossings for motorists and non-motorized road users and facilitating
greater signal density to help with corridor signal coordination.
Recommendation
MPO staff does not recommend taking further action at this time.
Right Turn Lanes
Right-turn lanes can help reduce rear-end and sideswipe crashes by allowing turning traffic to move
out of the way of thru traffic; however, in urban contexts, right -lanes can present the following
safety challenges:
•Right-turn lanes can make intersections larger than they need to be, posing challenges to
pedestrians.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-19
•Right-turns lane between signalized intersections (i.e., at commercial driveways) create
higher-speed conflict points for cyclists travelling in bike lanes.
•When right-turn lanes extend a substantial distance from an intersection, right-turning traffic
may be able to speed past standing queues waiting at the signal. If another vehicle or a
pedestrian is “nosing” thru the queues of stopped traffic to access a driveway, the resulting
crash can be very severe.
•Right-turn lanes facilitate right-turn-on-red movements because the lane will never be
blocked by a vehicle waiting to pass thru an intersection. Right-turn-on-red movements can
make crossing more challenging for pedestrians, especially if the failure of right-turning
traffic to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk results in inadequate time to safely cross the
intersection.
Current Practice
Right-turn lanes are used primarily along higher-speed, high-volume suburban roadways where the
mitigation of high-speed rear-end and sideswipe crashes outweighs the challenges presented by
the scenarios above.
Recommendation
MPO staff does not recommend taking further action at this time.
Signal Coordination
Signal coordination refers to the timing of traffic signals relative to one another to manage the flow
of traffic along a roadway corridor. Generally, the goal of signal coordination is to minimize delay
along major roadways while allowing for side-street approaches to process traffic with a reasonable
amount of delay. Although this approach is effective to maintain roadway level of service (LOS) along
major thoroughfares, it is not always the best approach for promoting safety.
When traffic signals along a corridor are optimized to process thru traffic, the cycle-length of signals
often becomes very long, taking 3, 3.5, or even 4 minutes to completely cycle through all the various
signal phases. Long cycle lengths combined with signals spaced a half-mile or more apart can result in
vehicles being randomly-spaced along a roadway with greater variation in speeds. Conversely, when
signal cycle lengths are short and traffic signals are more closely spaced, vehicles tend to group
together in “platoons”; this grouping, combined with visual cues from the next traffic signal, result in
drivers maintaining a more consistent speed.
The top section of Figure 3-13 shows traffic moving along a roadway with widely-spaced signals and
long cycle lengths. Because there is little driver feedback and a very wide “green band” in which
approaching traffic can clear the next signal, cars are spread out along the roadway with few
adequate gaps for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists to cross the road or turn across oncoming traffic.
The lower section shows the same number of cars in a platoon, with large gaps between the
beginning of one platoon and the end of the preceding one. These gaps allow cross-traffic maneuvers
can be made more safely.
Gaps between platoons also mean fewer vehicles will be caught in the “dilemma zone” when
approaching a changing traffic signal in which the driver must quickly decide whether to brake or try
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-20
and accelerate to clear the signal. Keeping traffic out of the dilemma zone can reduce both rear-end
crashes and left turn/angle crashes.
Figure 3-13: Graphic Depicting Random vs. Platooned Traffic
Current Practice
As discussed, converting roadway corridors to two-phase signal operation using alternative
intersection designs is an excellent method of reducing cycle length and increasing signal density to
allow for more effective platooning of traffic and achieving resulting safety outcomes. Independent
of alternative intersection implementation, In response to the MPO’s Call for Projects (Safety and/or
Congestion Management), Collier MPO member governments have the option to select high crash
corridors identified in the LRSP and BPMP where alternative signal coordination approaches may be
feasible. This may include reducing cycle lengths off-peak, operating minor intersections between
arterial intersections at half the cycle length of the adjacent major intersections and identifying
locations where a new traffic signal might help the coordinated signal system perform more
efficiently and more safely.
Recommendation
MPO staff does not recommend taking further action at this time.
Rural Road Strategies
Rural roadways tend to have lower traffic volumes and fewer crashes per mile than busy urban
roads; however, because of generally higher travel speeds and the potential for fixed objects and/or
deep ditches along the roadside, crash severity tends to be higher. The strategies discussed below
can be used to treat known problem locations but should also deployed in a systemic approach to
reduce severe crashes along rural highways and local streets.
Paved Shoulder, Safety Edge, and Audible-Vibratory Markings
Where possible, rural roadways should have 5-ft paved shoulders and adequate, level clear zones to
facilitate recovery of vehicles that leave the roadway. Audible-vibratory pavement markings or
ground-in rumble strips should be provided between the travel lanes and the shoulder to help alert
drivers before they leave the roadway, and retroreflective pavement markings should be used to
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-21
delineate both the roadway centerline and the outside edge of the travel lanes.
When drivers do leave the roadway, steering the tires back onto the pavement against a vertical
edge can make it difficult to safely re-enter the travel lane; drivers may oversteer and lose control of
the vehicle, leading to severe crashes. As shown in Figure 3-14, providing a 30-degree contoured
pavement “safety edge” can mitigate this issue, especially on roadways that lack adequate paved
shoulders and warning strips.
Figure 3-14: Photo Depicting "Safety Edge" Pavement Design
Curve Geometry, Warning, and Delineation
Because rural highways often have long, straight segments with few discerning features, drivers may
become complacent and not exercise due care when entering curves. Accordingly, curves should be
well-marked with pavement markings and chevrons, and attempts should be made to provide
adequate shoulders and recovery areas. Where necessary, the roadway should be super-elevated to
help drivers navigate high-speed curves, and guardrail should be used when roadside hazards within
the clear zone cannot be completely eliminated. Devices such as solar static or actuated flashing
beacons and speed feedback signs may also be used to alert drivers to curve advisory speeds.
Clear Zone Hazards
Common hazards adjacent to the roadway include trees and ditches as well as lateral and cross-drain
structures and concrete bridge barrier walls. Efforts should be made to inventory infrastructure
elements within roadway clear zones and implement measures to mitigate the hazards they pose.
This can include removing trees, re-grading ditches, providing attenuation in advance of bridge walls,
and converting projecting or square edge drains to mitered-end-section designs.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-22
Figure 3-15: Mitered-End-Section Drain Pipe
Intersection Conspicuity/Geometry
Much like curves along rural highways that may catch drivers by surprise, rural intersections can be
unexpected features, and drivers traveling along a rural highway may not be prepared to respond to
crossing traffic. Rural intersections may also exhibit irregular or skewed geometry and may have
foliage interrupting sight triangles or may exhibit other features that make it more challenging for
side-street traffic to maneuver safely. Mitigation strategies include correcting poor geometry,
consistently maintaining sight triangles, and posting advance warning signs with/or without flashing
beacons to raise awareness of approaching drivers.
Current Practice and Recommendation
Specific, known issues along rural highways should be mitigated, but a proactive, systemic approach
would improve the overall safety performance of rural road systems. Collier MPO member
governments have the option of selecting high crash corridors identified in the LRSP in response to
an MPO Call for Safety Projects to analyze potential systemic improvements to the county’s rural
and exurban roadways, including curve and isolated intersection treatments, improved shoulders
and edge treatment, and mitigation of roadside hazards.
Low-Stress, Separated Cycling Facilities
Since the 1970s, “vehicular cycling” has been the predominant approach to accommodating bicyclists
within the roadway network. This approach means that cyclists operate using the same rules as
motor vehicle traffic and share the roadway with motor vehicles either operating in marked bicycle
lanes or riding with traffic. Vehicular cycling can be an effective approach for faster, confident cyclists
to safely interact with traffic; however, a substantial majority of cyclists do not fall within this group
and are uncomfortable or unwilling to ride with traffic on higher-volume, higher-speed roadways.
Although vehicular cycling has been shown to help cyclists avoid certain crash risks, sideswipe and
rear-end crash types that would generally result in less severe outcomes between two motor
vehicles can have severe outcomes when one of the vehicles is a bicycle. This is especially true when
the speed differential between the cyclist and overtaking traffic is large. For example, a typical road
cyclist operates at speeds of 15–20 mph, so along 30–35 mph roadways, the closing speed of the
cyclist and overtaking traffic is not more than 20 mph. Whereas this can result in a serious crash, the
overtaking motorist has more time to observe and react to the cyclist, and if a crash does occur, it is
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-23
likely to be survivable. Conversely, along roadways with operating speeds of 45 mph or greater, a
faster closing speed means a motorist is less likely to react and respond to a cyclist, and if a crash
does occur, it is much more likely to be fatal.
For these reasons, many agencies, including FDOT, Collier MPO and its member governments, are
working to provide separated bicycle facilities, especially along roadways that operate at speeds
greater than 35 mph. Separated facilities include protected bike lanes, sometimes referred to as
cycle tracks, and shared-use pathways along the edge of roadways. Other low-stress bicycling
facilities form alternative networks to thoroughfare streets and include “bike boulevards” and off-
road trails.
Cycle tracks may be two-way or directional and feature some type of physical barrier between motor
vehicle lanes and the cycling facility. Figure 3-16 shows an example of a two-way cycle track in
downtown Tampa that uses a raised curb and on-street parking to separate bicycle and motor-
vehicle traffic. The cycle track features special signals and other design features at intersections to
help mitigate bicycle/turning motor vehicle conflicts.
Figure 3-16: Rendering of 2-way Cycle Track in Downtown Tampa along Jackson Street/SR-60
When separated facilities cannot be provided along thoroughfare streets, parallel “bike boulevards”
are an option to provide for bicycle mobility. Bike boulevards are streets that have been designed,
designated, and prioritized for bicycle travel and can provide a safe, inviting, low-stress option for
bicyclists of varying degrees of experience. Although there is no set design template for bike
boulevards, a few common principles apply:
•Logical, direct, and continuous bike route
•Safe and comfortable intersection crossings
•Reduced bicyclists delay
•Enhanced access to desired destinations
•Low motor vehicle speeds
•Low motor vehicle volumes
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-24
Current Practice
Consistent with emerging guidance from FDOT and FHWA and the Collier MPO’s BPMP, the MPO and
its member governments have prioritized major roadway corridors to provide separated bicycle
facilities and an interconnected network that meets current standards.
The BPMP design guidelines identify a range of potential solutions to apply to situations where ROW
is limited. The MPO is coordinating with the Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST) to promote
traffic safety education that targets drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.
Recommendation
There is growing support from a safety perspective to provide bike/pedestrian separation from the
roadways where possible. The MPO’s BPMP design guidelines (reference Table 17, page 61) support
this approach. The BPMP design guidelines do not appear to require updating at this time. The next
BPMP update will begin in 2023, at which time state and national facility design guidance may have
changed and can be incorporated.
Pedestrian Crossings and Median Refuge
Given the distances between traffic signals along most of Collier County’s suburban roadway
network, it is reasonable to expect that pedestrians will cross major roadways between signalized
intersections. Elements such as adequate lighting, traffic platooning, and speed management make it
safer to cross the street generally; however, specific infrastructure to facilitate pedestrian crossings is
also necessary. These include median refuge areas and mid-block crossings.
Median Refuge Areas
When pedestrian crossing patterns are not concentrated between obvious origins and destinations,
continuous raised medians or intermittent median islands allow pedestrians to break roadway
crossings into two discreet movements. Ensuring that medians are dry, level walking surfaces can
help encourage pedestrians to wait for an adequate gap before attempting the second leg of their
crossing.
Figure 3-17: Median Refuge Breaks Complex Crossing into Two Simple Crossings
When pedestrian crossing patterns are more tightly clustered, mid-block marked crosswalks should
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-25
be considered to provide a safer crossing option; however, along multilane roadways, a marked
crosswalk alone is insufficient to provide a safe crossing, and the crosswalk markings should be
supplemented with warning beacons or traffic control devices. Beacons such as a rectangular rapid-
flashing beacon (RRFB), shown in Figure 3-18, should be pedestrian-actuated and are best suited to
roadways with no more than four lanes and speeds of 35 mph or less.
If a midblock crosswalk is provided across a roadway with more than four lanes or speeds greater
than 35 mph, a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) is the preferred supplemental device. A PHB is like a
traffic signal but creates less motor vehicle delay by switching to a flashing red (stop sign) operation
after the first few seconds of the walk interval, as shown in Figure 3-19.
Figure 3-18: RRFB
Figure 3-19: Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Sequence
Current Practice
Median refuge islands and pedestrian mid-block crossings complement speed management and
signal coordination strategies to allow pedestrians to more safely cross major roadways. Medians
are typically used when there are not clear concentrations of pedestrian traffic, and crosswalks are
considered to connect origins and destinations such as transit stops and neighborhood serving
commercial lane uses. Marked crosswalks across major roadways generally require supplemental
devices and are selected based on the speed and characteristics of motor vehicle travel.
As with considerations related to restricting median access, traffic engineers also investigate
whether a midblock crossing need might be better served by signalizing a local street intersection to
provide for controlled crossings at that point while also helping to provide downstream gaps for
other crossing movements. Retrofit projects are eligible for funding when the MPO issues a Call for
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-26
Projects for Congestion Management, Bike-Ped or Safety.
Recommendation
MPO staff does not recommend taking further action at this time.
Lighting
Roadway lighting helps drivers see roadway features at night and, if properly designed, can help
drivers detect pedestrians and cyclists. Adequate lighting and well-maintained pavement markings
reduce lane departure crashes but also can reduce all types of nighttime crashes by reducing the
workload necessary for drivers to stay in their lane, thereby freeing up mental resources for other
defensive driving tasks.
Intersection lighting provides the same function for drivers, but if designed correctly, can also help
drivers see pedestrians at night. Figure 3-20 shows how intersection lighting should be in advance of
crosswalk approaches to that light reflects from pedestrians back towards approaching traffic.
Section 231.3.2–4 of the Florida Design Manual defines lighting criteria for intersections,
roundabouts, and mid-block crosswalks to help ensure pedestrians are visible to approaching drivers.
Figure 3-21 shows a roadway corridor with light-emitting diode (LED) street lights. Contemporary LED
lights offer energy cost savings compared to conventional street lights and the spectrum of light is
more effective to promote safety.
Figure 3-20: Simplified Intersection Lighting
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-27
Figure 3-21: LED Lighting
Current Practice
Collier MPO member governments are familiar with FDOT’s current intersection lighting standards
and balance that consideration with residents desire to maintain the integrity of views of the night
sky. The current practice is to keep nighttime skies dark, reduce glare, and put the right amount of
light in the right place and at the right time to ensure the safety of all.
Recommendation
Intersection lighting is a tool that will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Autonomous and Connected Vehicles
Because the majority of traffic crashes involve some element of human error, the promise of
automated vehicles offers tremendous crash reduction potential, especially when those vehicles are
not only able to sense the roadway environment but also capable of communicating with one
another.
Although this technology is generally thought of as futuristic, the reality is that vehicle automation
has been with us for some time. Figure 3-22 shows how elements such as cruise control, anti-lock
brakes, and various warning sensors have been part of our vehicle fleet for some time, and Figure 2-
23 shows the various levels of vehicle autonomy with level one and two being common today.
Some challenges with automated vehicles include delay between the time fully-automated
technologies are available and there is sufficient saturation in the motor vehicle fleet to result in
effective use of vehicle-to-vehicle communications and measurable safety benefits. Another
challenge is the limitations of automated/connected vehicles in detecting non-motorized road users.
Specifically, pedestrians and cyclists are relatively small, varied in appearance, hard to predict, most
exposed/fragile, and not “connected” to vehicle-to-vehicle communication systems.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-28
Figure 3-22: History and Future of Autonomous Vehicles
Figure 3-23: Vehicle Autonomy Levels and Features
Current Practice and Recommendation
Collier MPO staff does not recommend taking further action at this time. Within the 2045 LRTP
timeframe, FDOT District 1 projects that Connected and Automated Vehicles will comprise
approximately 35% of Collier County’s motor vehicle fleet; however, in the interim, proactive spot
and systemic safety measures are still necessary. Good design of roadways with a balance
between mobility and connectivity and good infrastructure for non-motorized road users will
provide benefits even once the majority of motorized vehicles drive themselves.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-29
Non-Infrastructure Strategies
Referring to the same four emphasis areas, Table 3-2 shows a list of non-infrastructure strategies and
the emphasis areas to which they correspond.
Non-Infrastructure Strategies Intersection
Lane
Departure
Non-
Motorized
Rear End/
Sideswipe
Traffic Enforcement
•Targeted Speed Enforcement X X X X
•Red Light Running Enforcement X X
•Automated Enforcement X ?
•Pedestrian Safety Enforcement X
Bike Light and Retroreflective Material
Give-Away
X
Young Driver Education X X X X
WalkWise/BikeSmart or Similar Campaign X
Continuing Education X X X X
Safety Issue Reporting X X X X
Vision Zero Policy X X X X
Table 3-2: Non-Infrastructure Strategies Matrix
Traffic Enforcement
The Statistical Analysis Technical Memorandum indicates that Collier County records fewer traffic
citations per capita and per vehicle mile of travel. This appears to be in part due to relatively small
municipal law enforcement agencies and therefore a greater reliance on the Collier County Sheriff’s
Office and the Florida Highway Patrol to handle traffic enforcement needs. Based on the Statistical
Analysis Technical Memorandum, the following enforcement areas could help to reduce severe
crashes in Collier County.
•Speed Enforcement
•Red Light Running Enforcement
•Non-Motorized User Safety Enforcement (focusing on driver yield behaviors)
Although automated enforcement (red light running cameras) was suspended in Collier County in
2013, a transparent use of red-light cameras with revenues directed to fund other traffic safety
programs should be considered as part of the County’s toolkit.
Current Practice
Traffic enforcement is one aspect of an effective speed management program and should be used to
target drivers who are significantly exceeding the Speed Limit. Collier County law enforcement
agencies regularly apply for FDOT High Visibility Enforcement Grants for bicycle and pedestrian
enforcement.
Recommendation
Collier MPO staff does not recommend taking further action at this time.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-30
Material Give-Aways
The LRSP Statistical Analysis (Section 2) notes that while Collier County does not have a
disproportionate ratio of nighttime crashes overall, non-motorized road user crashes are more likely
to occur at night. A common tactic to reduce nighttime non-motorized user crashes it to provide
retro-reflective materials to vulnerable populations including:
•School-age children
•Transit customers
•Homeless shelter clients
•Shift workers who may commute at night
Examples of retroreflective materials include low-cost backpacks with reflective strips, Velcro ankle
strips to keep pant cuffs from catching in bicycle gears, and simple safety vests. Low-cost bicycle light
kits can also be distributed and may be provided as part of a warning stop when police officers notice
cyclists riding at night without proper lights.
Current Practice and Recommendation
The Collier County Sheriff’s Office provided the following information:
“The Collier County Sheriff’s Office has a variety of community outreach events per year involving contact
with adults and juveniles for bicycle and pedestrian safety. These include our in-school Youth Relations
Bureau, Community Policing Units, and Crime Prevention Unit that provide bicycle, bicycle helmet, literature,
lights, and reflective material giveaways in addition to verbal education. These have occurred during general
school hours, targeted community events on the weekends, or random ‘pop-up’ events in the community at
targeted locations.
The Crime Prevention Unit and District Community Policing Units hold targeted ‘pop-up’ events in areas that
patrol units, citizen complaints, or statistical data show dangerous pedestrian and bicycle activity. One of
these areas, for example, is on East Tamiami Trail between Airport-Pulling Road South and Bayshore Drive;
see Figure 2-8 on P. 2-17. Bicycle helmet, bicycle light, reflective materials, and literature giveaways in
conjunction with dialogue take place several times per year with these events.
We believe that these events proactively have kept the number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes to not be
statistically significant. We are largely able to do this with safety product giveaways. Thus, we would
encourage the contribution of these products and literature to our agency for continued proactive safety
educational measures. Increasing local contributions would be beneficial in maintaining our efforts.
The Collier County Sheriff’s Office Safety and Traffic Enforcement Bureau receives funding through the
Florida Department of Transportation High Visibility Enforcement (H.V.E.) grant. Various methodologies are
used with this grant to reduce bicycle and pedestrian crashes and increase safety. The Safety and Traffic
Enforcement Bureau works in conjunction with District Community Policing Units, Patrol Units, Crime
Prevention Unit, Youth Relations Bureau, Media Relations Bureau, and other entities to promote the goals of
this program.”
Recommendation
MPO staff will look for free materials to give-away at MPO events.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-31
Figure 3-24: Example Retroreflective Promotional Materials
Young Driver Education
A key conclusion from the LRSP Statistical Analysis is that Collier County’s demographics likely play a
role in its better than average safety performance. Because Collier County does not have a high
proportion of younger drivers, the overall expected crash rates as a function of population age
demographics are better than Florida as a whole. In the future, as Collier County continues to grow,
it is likely that its demographic profile will become more “normal” and the introduction of more,
young drivers will begin to adversely impact Collier County crash statistics.
Although older drivers certainly have limitations in terms of vision, reflexes, and other age-related
deficits, these drivers are more likely to recognize their limitations than younger drivers and act
accordingly. This is born-out by data showing that older drivers are less likely to be involved in
nighttime crashes or crashes during rush hour because these drivers choose to avoid higher-risk
times of day.
To help reduce crashes among younger drivers, supplemental drivers’ education programs should be
considered. One such program, funded by FDOT District 7, provides high school seminars focused on
teen driver safety issues including bicycle and pedestrian safety, motorcycle safety, and impacts of
DUI. Statewide FDOT provides grants under the umbrella of the State Safety Office Teen Driver Safety
program to fund programs that help to educate teen drivers.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-32
Figure 3-25: Florida Teen Safe Driving Coalition Homepage
Current Practice
FDOT and the state MVD conduct training sessions for young drivers. The Collier County Sheriff’s Office
provided the following information:
“The Collier County Sheriff’s Office Youth Relations Bureau and Crime Prevention Unit provide direct and
indirect education programs to Young Drivers. The Youth Relations Bureau provides the “Teen Driver
Challenge” to young, high school aged drivers in order to provide them with a comprehensive view of safe
driving habits and legalities surrounding the challenge of driving as a youth. They also integrate with drivers’
education courses and other school functions in providing educational literature and dialogue with young
drivers (and future drivers) in order to prepare them for real life encounters on the roadway. One of the
significant focuses they have made is with respect to Texting and Driving; with state laws that make texting
and driving illegal under certain conditions and the significant focus that youth have on their cell phones.
They also speak with the students in Drivers Ed about the dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol
and drugs.
Youth Relations Bureau members and Crime Prevention Unit members also make hundreds of contacts with
young drivers every year in settings not specifically structured towards driving but that still allow specific
educational opportunities for young drivers to be educated on legalities and safe methods of driving.”
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-33
Recommendation
MPO staff does not recommend taking further action at this time. Adult Traffic Safety Education
From the public outreach survey responses, it is clear that many Collier County residents do not feel
safe biking or walking along major roadways and that driver behavior with respect to yielding/making
space for non-motorized users is inadequate. The Bike/Walk Tampa Bay program, administered by
the University of South Florida and funded by FDOT District 7, offers virtual and in-person pedestrian,
driver and bicyclist safety presentations to adult audiences. The presentation uses an Audience
Response System to quiz the audience and poll their opinions.
Nonmotorized Safety Education
Since 2015 over 30,000 individuals have participated in seminars with each participant taking a
“pledge” to WalkWise, BikeSmart, and Drive Safely and work to educate others about the importance
of safe behaviors.
Figure 3-26: Walk Wise Class Photo
Current Practice
The Collier MPO is following-up on the more detailed safety analysis contained in the BPMP and is
an active participant in the Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST), which includes FDOT District 1
and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, in promoting traffic safety education for drivers, pedestrians
and cyclists.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-34
The Collier County Sheriff’s Office added the following information:
“The Collier County Sheriff’s Office participates in sporadic speaking engagements with community
organizations specific to drivers, pedestrians, and cyclist safety laws, regulations, and safety tips. Further,
The Collier County Sheriff’s Office participates in hundreds of community events every year that involve
proactive community outreach. Literature, giveaways, and dialog about motorized and non-motorized
vehicle safety are often included in these events.
The Collier County Sheriff’s Office Media Relations Bureau provides safety tips and messages for drivers,
pedestrians, and cyclists through news releases and a variety of online publications. These messages
generate hundreds of thousands of views on CCSO’s various social media platforms. The MRB also works
closely with local news organizations to promote the agency’s safety message.
To address the growing problem of motorcycle crashes, fatalities, and injuries, Collier County Sheriff's Office
seeks to start the implementation of the Safe Motorcycle and Rider Techniques (SMART) training program, a
countermeasure addressed in chapter 5, section 3.2 "Motorcycle Rider Training" of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA's) Countermeasures That Work guide. It will be a six-hour course
supported by the University of South Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research.
The program will be design around skill sets taken from the Basic Police Motorcycle Operators Course. The
instructor ratio will be no less than 1:6 with one lead instructor. Each class will hold a maximum of 36
students in an effort to maximize saddle time and course repetition without creating undue fatigue. There
will be six stations that emphasize fundamental principles and that have real world applications. Each station
will be 45 minutes long with a 15-minute break in between stations. During each break, there will be an
additional five minutes of instruction on a relevant motorcycle operation topic. The breaks will be designed
as a working break in which questions and additional comments would be addressed.”
Recommendation:
MPO staff recommend, and will report on, taking a more proactive approach to bike-ped safety
education by working closely with the MPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, FDOT,
the CTST and the informal Naples Bike-Ped Safety Coalition to promote bike/ped safety
informational videos, brochures and special events.
Continuing Education
Continuing education programs for safety professionals can help ensure that as standards and
practices evolve, the professional community remains abreast with the state of the art. This is
especially important in Collier County where so much of the public roadway system is constructed by
private developers. The Collier MPO should encourage participation in FDOT’s Local Agency Traffic
Safety Academy (LATSA).
LATSA is a free webinar series focused on:
•Sharing knowledge about traffic safety
•Discussing new and ongoing safety programs
•Explaining available funding sources
•Presenting local best practices,
•Learning about new safety treatments and technologies
•Discussing project delivery processes
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-35
Current Practice and Recommendation
The Collier MPO will continue to promote and distribute safety education materials geared
towards professional engineers and planners, including LATSA webinars.
Safety Issue Reporting System
Non-emergency reporting systems can help identify potential safety issues before crash histories are
established. Applications such as Wikimaps allow agencies to collect “crowdsourced” tips which can
be categorized. These applications also allow users to click on and concur with previously reported
issues and/or upload photos so that monitoring agencies can gather more actionable intelligence
about potential issues. In the northeast Florida Area, FDOT District 2 maintains a Community Traffic
Safety Team engineering issues system which allows safety partners to submit engineering concerns
with pictures and follow-up contact information.
Figure 3-27: Example Wikimaps Issue Page
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-36
Recommendation
Collier County’s 311 Reporting System addresses the strategy. MPO staff does not recommend
taking further action at this time.
Vision Zero Performance Measures and Targets
The Collier MPO has adopted FDOT’s Vision Zero safety performance measures and targets. The
development of the LRSP expands the MPO’s awareness and understanding of traffic safety data.
The data analysis component of the LRSP has been factored into the project prioritization
methodology in the Traffic System Performance Report (TSPR) and the 2045 LRTP. The LRSP
recommendations for nonmotorized users safety are consistent with the design guidelines and
prioritization criteria in the MPO’s BPMP, adopted in 2019.
Recommendation
The Collier MPO has adopted FDOT’s Vision Zero performance measures and targets. As part of
the implementation process for the Collier LRSP, MPO member governments are encouraged to
explore the merits of adopting a Vision Zero approach to safety in Collier County.
SUMMARY
MPO staff interviewed technical staff of member agencies to identify current practices related to each of
the strategies identified by the consultant team, and in the process, refined the preliminary draft
recommendations to focus on enhanced practices addressing three key strategies:
1)Flag high crash locations identified in the LRSP to incorporate safety analysis in the project scoping
and design for road improvement projects and stand-alone bike/ped facility projects.
2)Flag high crash locations for Road Safety Audits using MPO SU safety set-aside and/or state, federal
funds. The BPMP already does this for stand-alone bike-ped projects.
3)Promote bike-ped safety videos, handouts and special events more proactively as part of the CTST /
Blue Zones Naples Bike-Ped Safety Coalition.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 4-1
SECTION 4: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
LOCAL BEST PRACTICES
Collier MPO staff interviewed member agency staff to determine the extent to which the Recommendations
described in the previous section have already been put into practice. The following is a brief summary of
current, local Best Practices.
City of Naples – Traffic Department, Police Department Activities
Engineering Analysis and Response to Serious Injury and Fatal Crashes - The City of Naples Traffic
Department reviews all serious injury and fatal crashes to determine if there is a need for engineering
modifications. If City staff identify any recommended actions Streets and Drainage Division and Planning
Division staff review police reports on fatal crashes to determine if there may be a need for an engineering
[design] solution. If staff has actions to recommend actions on State roads, they reach out to FDOT and
request consideration of any modifications.
Engineering Analysis of High Crash Corridors & Intersections - If there are a significant number of crashes at a
particular intersection, the Naples Police Department typically notifies the Traffic Department for an
assessment.
Enforcement - If Traffic Department staff notice areas of concern, they work with the Naples Police
Department to increase enforcement by placing speed trailers out or integrating police presence.
Education - The Traffic Department is researching ways to incorporate more safety education into their
programs, particularly for pedestrian/bike safety and understanding of the rules of the road by all users –
motorized and non-motorized.
Special Studies and Activities - Traffic Department staff often perform speed studies, review intersections
for line-of-sight issues, evaluate local needs for intersection improvements including stop signs or other
modifications to determine if they meet warrants, and incorporate bike/pedestrian markings and signage
where a need is identified.
Collier County – Growth Management Department -Traffic Operations Division and Transportation
Planning Division
Engineering Analysis and Response to Serious Injury and Fatal Crashes – The Traffic Operations Division has
a FTE for a PE to monitor and report on crash data. The staff member maintains the County’s Crash Data
Management System (CDMS), and regularly pulls crash reports to determine whether there is an indication
that roadway design could be an issue. The Division develops potential solutions and seeks funding to
implement them.
Engineering Analysis of High Crash Corridors & Intersections – The Traffic Operations Division
prepares an annual report on high crash intersections.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 4-2
Enforcement – The Traffic Operations Division has fixed and portable speed monitoring signs. The Division
places the portable signs in locations in response to public requests and keeps them in place for a two-week
period. The County Sheriff’s Office also deploys speed monitoring signs in problem areas. The Traffic
Operations Division and the Sheriff’s office have a cooperative working relationship and share information
regarding enforcement needs and capabilities.
The County’s five (5) fixed messaging signs are located on high crash locations along:
•Immokalee Road
•Collier Blvd
•Golden Gate Blvd
•Randall Blvd
•Oil Well Road
Special Studies and Activities
Traffic Operations produces an annual report identifying high crash intersections. Staff reviews all
crash data for three subsets of intersections:
•Energized (signalized)
•4-way unsignalized
•3-way unsignalized
Staff ranks intersections by comparing crash rates over 1, a crash rate over the “mean” of all
intersections, a statistical computation of any intersection with a crash rate over the critical crash
rate, a comparison of the expected value, and injury severity. Next, staff reviews each noted
intersection in depth and implements corrective actions where needed.
Collier County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO)
Education and Enforcement
The CCSO takes a proactive approach that combines traffic safety education and enforcement. The
Community Engagement Division focuses on public outreach and education and works closely with
the Traffic Enforcement group. The CCSO notes that in a community with a large number of tourists
and part-time residents, there are instances when educating a member of the public on local laws is
more effective than issuing a citation. The County Sheriff’s Office maintains multiple data bases on
crashes and deploys enforcement strategically to high crash locations. If engineering design
modifications appear to be needed, the CCSO contacts the local road agency.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 4-3
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the foregoing set of recommendations proposed by the MPO’s consultant, Tindale Oliver,
and MPO staff’s compilation of current practices, staff concludes that the following
recommendations have already been sufficiently implemented:
1.The high crash corridor and intersection locations identified in the LRSP have been incorporated
into project prioritization criteria in plans recently approved by the MPO Board:
•2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) approved December 11, 2020
•Transportation System Performance Report and Action Plan, approved September 11, 2020
2.The high crash corridor and intersection locations identified in the LRSP may be considered eligible
for expenditure of MPO TMA SU funds in addition to those locations identified by:
•Collier County Traffic Operations Section on an annual basis
•FDOT’s annual reporting system
•The MPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2019)
3.The 2045 LRTP establishes funding for safety projects using TMA SU funds; the MPO will
periodically issue a Call for Safety Projects
4.The LRSP provides confirmation of the following strategies already in use by member
governments:
Infrastructure
•Speed Management – limited to deploying speed monitoring signs in specific locations
•Alternative Intersections (FDOT’s ICE Process)
•Median Restrictions/Access Management
•Right Turn Lanes
•Signal Coordination
•Rural Road Strategies
•Design Best Practices for pedestrians and cyclists including:
o Intersection design
o Shared Use Pathways and Sidewalk Improvements
o Mid-Block Crossings & Median Refuge
o Intersection Lighting Enhancements
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 4-4
5. The LRSP pointed out the desirability of creating a Traffic Safety Coalition to raise awareness and
promote traffic safety education. While the LRSP was in development, the Blue Zones of
Southwest Florida began organizing and promoting an informal partnership referred to as the
Naples Bike-Ped Safety Coalition as an outgrowth of the Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST).
The CTST concept was initiated by FDOT, Membership is fluid and informal. Blue Zones currently
hosts the CTST, which welcomes participation by state agencies, health and emergency service
providers, local law enforcement, other Nongovernment Organizations (such as Naples Pathways
Coalition, and Naples Velo), local governments and the MPO. MPO staff has long been active in
the CTST and has joined forces with the Naples Bike-Ped Safety Coalition. As a further
implementation step, MPO staff is proactively promoting bike-ped safety videos, handouts and
special events sponsored by other entities.
Staff Recommended Enhanced Practice:
Monitor and report on progress made:
•Speed management – project specific in high crash locations identified by the LRSP.
•Bike-ped safety education – more proactive engagement by the MPO and member
governments; include safety material give-aways that can be acquired free of charge from
FDOT and NHTSA.
•Road Safety Audits – coordinate with FDOT on programming the MPO’s priority safety
projects in the Work Program.
•Safety Analysis - include in project scoping and design for road improvement projects and
stand-alone bike/ped facility projects in high crash locations identified in the LRSP and BPMP.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 4-5
Relationship to Collier MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan and Transportation
Improvement Program
The MPO’s 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) documents multimodal transportation
needs and cost-feasible project priorities over the 20-year period from 2026 – 2045. Committed
projects slated for construction prior to 2026 are incorporated in the MPO’s 5-year Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The Draft 2045 LRTP incorporates the LRSP by reference and also
incorporates the MPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Infrastructure Strategy Implementation Opportunities
Table 4-16 on the following page shows the relationship of the projects prioritized in the 2045 LRTP –
Cost Feasible Plan to corridors identified as having an overrepresentation of emphasis area crashes
in Section 2 of the LRSP. Each LRTP project shown in the table represents an opportunity to advance
the infrastructure strategies described in Section 3 of the LRSP. While there is significant overlap
between 2045 LRTP projects and LRSP high crash corridors, some corridors do not have planned
capital projects and are eligible for $3m in SU funding set-aside for Safety projects under the LRTP, in
addition to any State funds that may be available for stand-alone studies and enhancements
consistent with the LRSP.
In addition to the potential for substantive safety improvements to be incorporated in the LRTP Cost-
Feasible Plan projects, the LRTP sets aside over $41m of funding for implementation of the Collier
Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan. While not all bicycle and pedestrian mobility projects have an
inherent safety nexus, the prominence of non-motorized user safety as a planning factor in
developing the mobility project priorities for cyclists and pedestrians means that implementation of
this plan, as a component part of the LRTP, will generally advance non-motorized user safety. The
Transportation System Performance Report and Action Plan, also incorporated into the 2045 LRTP by
reference, includes traffic safety as a prioritization criterion. The 2045 LRTP allocates $41m in SU
funding for congestion management projects.
LRSP Update Cycle
Because the LRTP sets funding priorities for the Federal and State dollars within the MPO’s purview,
the most effective timeframe to update the Collier MPO LRSP is concurrent with or in advance of the
LRTP. The Final Draft of the 2045 LRTP identifies the LRSP as a core document to be updated and
incorporated by reference into future updates of the LRTP as a component part. The 5-year cycle of
the LRTP update process allows for adequate time to assess the recommended LRSP monitoring
measures (discussed below) and for the data-driven analysis of safety performance in Collier County
to influence capital project priorities.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 4-6
MPO
SEGMENT
ID
LRTP Project ID, Description, and Construction
Timeframe On Street From Street To Street
Total
Crashes
Total Fatal
Crashes
Total Severe
Injury
Crashes
Bike/
Pedestrian
Rank
Lane
Departure
Rank
Intersection
Rank
Rear End/
Sideswipe
Rank
40 Airport Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Davis Boulevard 263 2 4 1
41 Airport Road Davis Boulevard North Rd 306 1 4 14
43 Airport Road Radio Road Golden Gate Parkway 688 1 7 15 4 8 2
45 Airport Road Pine Ridge Road Orange Blossom Drive 668 2 3 5 9 3
70 Bayshore Drive Thomasson Drive US 41 (Tamiami Trail) 232 0 7 5
132 Collier Boulevard Mainsail Drive Manatee Road 296 0 5 12
136 Collier Boulevard US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Rattlesnake Hammock Road 217 0 3 10
137 Collier Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road Davis Boulevard 447 1 7 11
141 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Pkwy Green Boulevard 363 2 6 3
145 Collier Boulevard Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road 576 0 7 9 7 12 5
222 Davis Boulevard Lakewood Boulevard County Barn Road 331 1 8 12
250 Golden Gate Boulevard Collier Boulevard Wilson Boulevard 453 2 11 3
263 78 - Major Intersection @ Livingston;
23 - Interchange @ I-75
FY26 - 30 Golden Gate Parkway Livingston Road I-75 425 0 4 8
265 Golden Gate Parkway Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard 665 0 7 1 6
270 Goodlette-Frank Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Golden Gate Parkway 453 0 9 6 5
271 Goodlette-Frank Road Golden Gate Parkway Pine Ridge Road 499 1 9 10 14
343 66 - Major Intersection @ Livingston FY26 - 30 Immokalee Rd Livingston Road I-75 431 0 3 12
344 25 - Interchange Improvement @ I-75 FY26 -30 Immokalee Rd I-75 Logan Boulevard 569 4 3 4
345 97 - Major Intersection @ Logan FY36 - 45 Immokalee Rd Logan Boulevard Collier Boulevard 497 0 7 9
346 Immokalee Rd Collier Boulevard Wilson Boulevard 364 2 9 1
348 Immokalee Rd Oil Well Road Stockade Rd 258 2 6 2
349 Immokalee Rd Stockade Rd SR 29 182 0 5 11
361 Lake Trafford Rd Carson Rd SR 29 223 1 5 10
523 Pine Ridge Road Airport Road Livingston Road 808 0 8 15 11 1
524 Pine Ridge Road Livingston Road I-75 464 0 8 11
531 Radio Road Livingston Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 275 1 11 6
593 Santa Barbara Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway Green Boulevard 295 1 6 7
648 SR 29 1st St 9th Street 99 1 4 4
649 SR 29 9th Street Immokalee Dr 215 0 7 7 13
650 SR 29 Immokalee Dr CR 29A North 171 1 3 13
670 Tamiami Trail East Davis Boulevard Airport Road 302 3 8 2
671 Tamiami Trail East Airport Road Rattlesnake Hammock Road 501 3 10 8 15 10
672 Tamiami Trail East Rattlesnake Hammock Road Treetops Dr 307 2 8 13
690 57 - Major Intersection @ Goodlette-Frank FY31-35 Tamiami Trail North SR 84 (Davis Blvd) CR 851 (Goodlette Rd South) 398 0 4 9 2
692 Tamiami Trail North 12th Ave Park Shore Dr / Cypress Woods Dr 436 0 9 8 4
693 Tamiami Trail North Park Shore Dr / Cypress Woods Dr Pine Ridge Rd / Seagate Dr 361 2 7 6
694 Tamiami Trail North Pine Ridge Rd / Seagate Dr Gulf Park Drive 378 2 9 14
696 Tamiami Trail North Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road 462 2 4 3
697 111 - Intersection Improvement @ Immokalee FY26 -30 Tamiami Trail North Immokalee Road Wiggins Pass Road 502 1 8 7
712 Vanderbilt Beach Road Goodlette-Frank Road Airport Road 414 1 1 15
714 Vanderbilt Beach Road Livingston Road Logan Blvd 425 0 4 13
715 99 - Minor Intersection @ Logan FY36 - 45 Vanderbilt Beach Road Logan Blvd Collier Blvd 337 1 4 14
Table 4-16: Relationship of Emphasis Areas Corridors and DRAFT 2045 LRTP Cost Feasible Projects
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 4-7
Monitoring and Performance Measures
Safety Performance Measures
The Collier MPO has adopted FDOT’s Vision Zero safety performance measures and targets on an
annual basis. The MPO Director provides an annual report to the MPO Board in December which
tracks how well the MPO is performing in meeting its performance targets. In addition, the 2045
LRTP includes a Transportation System Performance Report using a template developed by FDOT and
the MPO Advisory Council (MPOAC). A similar report is incorporated in the MPO’s Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
Monitoring of Plan Implementation
The MPO Director will include information on progress made towards implementing the LRSP to the
Annual Report; most likely in combination with reporting on progress towards meeting safety
targets generally due to the linkages established between the LRSP, the TSPR, the BPMP and the
2045 LRTP.
Updating the Local Roads Safety Plan
The baseline data analysis captured in this first iteration of the LRSP will be updated every 5 years in
preparation for developing the next iteration of the LRTP. The traffic safety updates may not
necessitate a stand- alone document like the LRSP; rather, they could be incorporated in other
planning efforts, such as the Transportation System Performance Report. New strategies and
recommendations will be incorporated as needed, and the plan may shift focus overtime.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan Appendix 1 - 1
APPENDIX 1: GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
GLOSSARY
• AADT – Average Annualized Daily Traffic: Daily traffic volumes collected over multiple (usually
three) days and adjusted for seasonal variations in traffic volumes.
• Emphasis Area – Emphasis areas are usually divided into 22 categories based on extensive
research by the AASHTO and National Cooperative Highway Research Program in their Strategic
Highway Safety Plan (NCHRP). These include infrastructure (e.g., utility pole collisions), crash
types (e.g., head-on collisions, lane departures), behavior (e.g., alcohol, speeding, occupant
protection), vehicle types (e.g., bicycles, motorcycles, heavy trucks), and at risk populations
(e.g., young drivers, older drivers). Implementation guides have been developed for these
emphasis areas and are available as 22 volumes of the NCHRP Report 500. Emphasis Areas for
the Collier LRSP represent a combination of similar crash types related to non-motorized road
users, intersection crashes, lane departure crashes, and same direction (rear-end/side-swipe)
crashes.
• Functional Classification – System used to classify roadways based on a transect of mobility vs.
access.
o Freeway & Expressway - Roads in this classification have directional travel lanes usually
separated by some type of physical barrier, and their access and egress points are
limited to on- and off-ramp locations or a very limited number of at-grade intersections.
These roadways are designed and constructed to maximize their mobility function, and
abutting land uses are not directly served by them.
o Arterial Roadway (Major) - These roadways serve major centers of metropolitan areas,
provide a high degree of mobility and can also provide mobility through rural areas.
Forms of access include driveways to specific parcels and at-grade intersections with
other roadways.
o Arterial Roadway (Minor) - Minor Arterials provide service for trips of moderate length,
serve geographic areas that are smaller than their higher Arterial counterparts and offer
connectivity to the higher Arterial system. In an urban context, they interconnect and
augment the higher Arterial system, provide intra-community continuity and may carry
local bus routes. In rural settings, Minor Arterials should be identified and spaced at
intervals consistent with population density, so that all developed areas are within a
reasonable distance of a higher level Arterial. The spacing of Minor Arterial streets may
typically vary from 1/8- to 1/2-mile in the central business district (CBD) and 2 to 3 miles
in the suburban fringes. Normally, the spacing should not exceed 1 mile in fully
developed areas
o Collector Roadway - Collectors serve a critical role in the roadway network by gathering
traffic from Local Roads and funneling them to the Arterial network. Collectors are
broken down into two categories: Major Collectors and Minor Collectors. Major
Collector routes are longer in length; have lower connecting driveway densities; have
higher speed limits; are spaced at greater intervals; have higher annual average traffic
volumes; and may have more travel lanes than their Minor Collector counterparts. In
rural areas, AADT and spacing may be the most significant designation factors. Major
Collectors offer more mobility and Minor Collectors offer more access. Overall, the total
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
mileage of Major Collectors is typically lower than the total mileage of Minor Collectors,
while the total Collector mileage is typically one-third of the Local roadway network
o Local Street – Locally classified roads account for the largest percentage of all roadways
in terms of mileage. They are not intended for use in long distance travel, except at the
origin or destination end of the trip, due to their provision of direct access to abutting
land.
• ICE – Intersection Control Evaluation: A FHWA and FDOT process for evaluating appropriate
traffic control measures at major intersections.
• Signal Timing – Refers to a set of parameters for controlling traffic signals what include:
o Cycle Length – the time for a traffic signal to complete all phases
o Phase – a set of allowed concurrent movements
o Split – the amount of time allocated to each phase
o Offset – the time between common phases at adjacent traffic signals. This is used to
progress traffic along a roadway from upstream to downstream signals
o Platoon – a group of vehicles travelling between coordinated traffic signals
• VMT – Vehicle Miles Traveled: A measure of driver exposure based on miles of roadway travel.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
APPENDIX 2: CRASH DATA QUALITY CONTROL TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM
Collier County MPO | Local Road Safety Plan Appendix 2 - 1
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier County MPO
Local Road Safety Plan
Crash Data QC
Technical Memorandum
March 24, 2020
FINAL
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1-1
Section 2: Methodology and Data Review ........................................................................... 2-3
Event Relation to Intersection .............................................................................................. 2-4
Crash Type ............................................................................................................................ 2-2
Impact Type .......................................................................................................................... 2-2
Section 3: Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................... 3-2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Summary of Crashes (2014-2018) .............................................................................. 1-1
Table 2-1: Revised Data Input by Reporting Agency ................................................................... 2-3
Table 2-2: Frequently Revised Data Fields ................................................................................... 2-3
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Revised Motorized Vehicle Crashes
Appendix B: Revised Non-Motorized Crashes
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 1-1
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
A five-year crash history from 2014 to 2018 was queried using data from the Collier County Crash Data
Management (CDMS) for both motorized vehicles and crashes involving non-motorized road users.
Table 1-1 shows a five-year total of motorized vehicle and non-motorized road user crashes based on
the highest injury severity for each report.
Table 1-1: Summary of Crashes (2014-2018)
Severity Motor-Vehicle Non-Motorized Total Crashes Percent Crashes Percent
Fatal 130 74% 45 26% 175
Incapacitating Injury 669 80% 170 20% 839
Non-Incapacitating Injury 2,758 85% 501 15% 3,259
Possible Injury 5,290 92% 454 8% 5,744
Property Damage Only 45,175 99% 315 1% 45,490
TOTAL 54,022 97% 1485 3% 55,507
As part of the Collier County Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP), key attributes of the more severe crashes in
the data set were reviewed to verify that the coded crash data accurately corresponds to the narrative
information and collision diagrams included in each crash report. This was done to ensure that
reasonably accurate data is used for the purpose of developing the LRSP recommendations and to
identify potential data coding trends and issues to address with each of the reporting Law Enforcement
Agencies.
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the methodology used to review and re-code crash
reports, as well as summarize the findings from the review process. Consistent with the LRSP Scope of
Services, the following crash reports were reviewed:
• Motor Vehicle Crashes: Fatal, Incapacitating Injury, and Non-Incapacitating Injury (3,557
Crashes).
• Non-Motorized User Crashes: Fatal, Incapacitating Injury, Non-Incapacitating Injury, and
Possible Injury (1,170 Crashes).
For each of these crash reports, the following data items were checked:
• Crash Location: Verification and correction of crash node assignment and approximate XY
coordinates.
• Crash Type: Verification and correcting collision diagram crash type. (Note: this is a data
attribute that is calculated by the Collier CDMS from other crash data attributes including
vehicle direction, vehicle movement, manner of collision, and first harmful event.)
• Checking for completeness and compare key data fields with narrative and diagram as follows:
- Manner of collision
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 1-2
- First Harmful Event
- Event Impact
- First Harmful Event Relation to Junction
- Driver Action (First)
- Driver Restraint System (Vehicle 1 and 2)
- Non-Motorized User Data:
o Description
o Action Prior to Crash
o Location at Time of Crash
o Actions/Circumstances (First)
o Safety Equipment (First)
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-3
SECTION 2: METHODOLOGY AND DATA REVIEW
Attribute fields for motorized and non-motorized crash data were exported from the Collier WebCDMS
database and manually reviewed and checked for accuracy by an engineering technician. When
individual data elements were deemed inaccurate, a revised value was coded in a separate data field. An
input was deemed inaccurate if the crash report data input was inconsistent with the crash report’s
written narrative or illustrated collision diagram.
As shown in Table 2-1, Collier County Sheriff’s Office collects the highest number of crash reports,
followed by Florida Highway Patrol, Naples Police Department (PD), and Marco Island PD. Collier County
Sherriff’s Office has the highest number (60 percent) of reports that were revised during the clean-up
process, followed by Marco Island PD and Naples PD.
Table 2-1: Revised Data Input by Reporting Agency
Reporting Agency Reports Reviewed Reports Revised Percent Reports Revised
Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) 1,895 608 32%
Collier County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) 2,690 1,613 60%
Naples Police Department (PD) 327 155 47%
Marco Island PD 124 91 73%
Other 6 3 50%
TOTAL 5,042 2,470 49%
During the review process, the fields with the most inconsistent coding needing editing were Event
Relation to Intersection, Crash Type, and Impact Type. There were twelve (12) motorized and eight (8)
non-motorized crash entries that did not have XY coordinates. These crash entries were manually
reviewed, and a location was added.
Table 2-2 shows a summary of the total revisions to these attributes for Motor Vehicle (MV) crashes and
Non-Motorized User (NM) crashes for each reporting agency.
Table 2-2: Frequently Revised Data Fields
Reporting
Agency
Event Relation to
Intersection Crash Type Impact Type Location
MV
Crashes
NM
Crashes
MV
Crashes
NM
Crashes
MV
Crashes
NM
Crashes
MV
Crashes
NM
Crashes
FHP 96 34 310 12 90 168 0 0
CCSO 471 415 339 381 108 682 2 0
Naples PD 43 45 35 17 6 39 9 0
Marco Island PD 18 25 25 28 4 37 1 7
Other 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1
TOTAL 628 522 709 439 208 926 12 8
MV: Motor Vehicle NM: Non-Motorized
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-4
Example cases of each commonly miscoded crash type are described on the following pages of this
memorandum. Appendices A and B show cross tabulations for each of these crash data attributes for
motor vehicle and non-motorized user crashes respectively.
EVENT RELATION TO INTERSECTION
This field indicates where the crash event occurred on the roadway. There are 12 categories under this
field:
- Non-Junction
- Intersection
- Intersection-Related
- Driveway/Ally Access Related
- Railway Grade Crossing
- Entrance/Exit Ramp
- Crossover-Related
- Shared Use Path or Trail
- Acceleration/Deceleration Lane
- Through Roadway
- Unknown
- Other
The image above was initially coded as “Non-Junction” then revised to “Intersection”
The QC process showed that the top 3 revised categories under Event Relation to Intersection were:
Motorized Vehicles:
- Non-junction
- Intersection
- Intersection-related
Non-Motorized:
- Non-Junction
- Intersection
- Driveway/Alley Access Related
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-2
CRASH TYPE
This field defines the overall type of the crash and is used to generate collision diagrams. There are 14
crash types:
- Angle
- Head On
- Hit Fixed Object
- Hit Non-Fixed Object
- Left Turn
- Rear End
- Right Turn
- Run Off Road
- Sideswipe
- Single Vehicle
- U-Turn
- Unknown
- Bike
- Pedestrian
The crash in the image above was correctly recoded to the intersection rather than a non-junction, and
recategorized as a Left-Turn crash instead of the incorrect “Angle” crash.
The top 3 revised categories under Crash Type were:
Motorized Vehicles:
- Angle
- Sideswipe
- Rear End
- Hit Fixed Object
Non-Motorized:
- Hit Non-Fixed Object
- Rear End
- Bike
- Pedestrian
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-2
IMPACT TYPE
This field defines the manner and direction of the collision. There are 9 impact type categories:
- Front to Rear
- Front to Front
- Angle
- Sideswipe (Same Direction)
- Sideswipe (Opposite Direction)
- Rear to Side
- Rear to Rear
- Unknown
- Other
The image above shows an example of a crash report initially coded as “Front to Front” then revised to
“Angle”
The top 3 most revised categories under Impact Type:
Motorized Vehicles:
- Front to Rear
- Angle
- Sideswipe (same direction)
Non-Motorized:
- Angle
- Sideswipe (Same Direction)
- Rear to Rear
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-2
SECTION 3: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Coding errors and inconsistencies within crash reports impact the usefulness of crash data for both
strategic planning and traffic study purposes. Specifically, inaccurate location coding can contribute to
misidentified corridor and spot location priorities. Improper Relation to Intersection information can
create confusion as to whether there is a problem with an intersection or if there are issues with the
intersection approaches (e.g. adjacent commercial driveways or median openings). Incorrect or
internally inconsistent coding of crash attributes such as First Harmful Event, Vehicle Movement, and
Vehicle Direction can result in either incorrect Crash Type assignment or result in an inability to
determine the Crash Type. This data field is critical for understanding overall crash patterns and is also a
fundamental element in analyzing corridors or spot locations.
Differences in crash report edits between law enforcement agencies in Collier County suggest that data
entry methods and training may play a part in determining the accuracy of crash reporting. As the Local
Road Safety Plan progresses, the intent to discover what are the leading causes for crash report
inconsistency and inaccuracy. Follow up interview will be conducted with LEA officers from different
departments to gain additional insight on crash reporting and learn ways to improve accuracy and
consistency.
Based on the data analysis conducted thus far, key question areas include methods to capture crash
location and consistency of coding those data points that contribute to Crash Type assignment.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-3
Appendix A: Revised Motorized Vehicle Crashes
EVENT RELATION TO INTERSECTION
Reports Reviewed Reports Revised Percent Report Revised
Reporting
Agency
CCSO 1,689 471 28%
FHP 1,603 96 6%
Naples PD 202 43 21%
Marco Island PD 60 18 30%
Other 3 0 0%
TOTAL
REVISED VALUE
TOTAL
REVISED
PERCENT
REVISED Non-
Junction
Intersection Intersection-
Related
Driveway/Ally
Access Related
Railway
Grade
Crossing
Entrance/Exit
Ramp
Crossover-
Related
Shared Use
Path or Trail
Acceleration/
Deceleration
Lane
Through
Roadway
Unknown
Other
ORIGINAL
VALUE
Non-Junction 2229 - 298 172 57 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 532 24%
Intersection 838 5 - 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1%
Intersection-Related 253 3 9 - 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 5%
Driveway/Ally Access Related 51 3 2 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10%
Railway Grade Crossing 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Entrance/Exit Ramp 26 0 2 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8%
Crossover-Related 5 1 2 2 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 5 100%
Shared Use Path or Trail 7 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 5 71%
Acceleration/Deceleration Lan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0%
Through Roadway 89 1 13 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 25 28%
Unknown 6 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 6 100%
Other 53 5 8 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 28 53%
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-4
CRASH TYPE
Reports Reviewed Reports Revised Percent Report Revised
Reporting
Agency
CCSO 1,689 339 20%
FHP 1,603 310 19%
Naples PD 202 35 17%
Marco Island PD 60 25 42%
Other 3 0 0%
TOTAL
REVISED VALUE
TOTAL
REVISED
PERCENT
REVISED
Angle
Head On Hit Fixed
Object
Hit Non-
Fixed Object
Left
Turn
Rear End
Right Turn Run Off
Road
Sideswipe Single
Vehicle
U-Turn
Unknown
Bike
Pedestrian
ORIGINAL
VALUE
Angle 647 - 4 9 4 60 6 1 1 18 0 8 0 2 0 113 17%
Head On 83 9 - 9 1 7 1 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 34 41%
Hit Fixed Object 537 4 1 - 22 1 10 0 1 10 10 0 0 0 0 59 11%
Hit Non-Fixed Object 18 0 1 2 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 22%
Left Turn 439 61 4 4 0 - 9 0 0 8 7 3 0 0 0 96 22%
Rear End 1106 10 1 6 4 1 - 2 0 37 3 2 0 0 1 67 6%
Right Turn 69 1 2 6 0 0 10 - 0 4 6 0 0 1 0 30 43%
Run Off Road 84 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 - 0 9 0 0 0 0 25 30%
Sideswipe 173 1 0 4 0 0 35 1 1 - 0 0 0 0 0 42 24%
Single Vehicle 142 0 0 21 1 0 0 0 5 3 - 0 0 0 0 30 21%
U-Turn 55 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 4 0 - 0 0 0 9 16%
Unknown 204 10 0 66 7 0 7 0 14 6 84 1 - 2 3 200 98%
Bike 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0%
Pedestrian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0%
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-5
IMPACT TYPE
Reports Reviewed Reports Revised Percent Report Revised
Reporting
Agency
CCSO 1,689 107 6%
FHP 1,603 90 6%
Naples PD 202 6 3%
Marco Island PD 60 4 7%
Other 3 0 0%
TOTAL
REVISED VALUE
TOTAL
REVISED
PERCENT
REVISED Front to
Rear
Front to Front
Angle
Sideswipe
(Same
Direction)
Sideswipe
(Opposite
Direction)
Rear to Side
Rear to Rear
Unknown
Other
ORIGINAL
VALUE
Front to Rear 1,135 - 0 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 17 1%
Front to Front 160 0 - 20 2 3 0 0 0 0 25 16%
Angle 1,071 13 5 - 36 13 0 0 0 0 67 6%
Sideswipe (Same Direction) 126 5 1 3 - 0 0 0 0 0 9 7%
Sideswipe (Opposite Direction) 37 0 0 5 0 - 0 0 0 0 5 14%
Rear to Side 13 1 0 1 2 0 - 0 0 0 4 31%
Rear to Rear 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0%
Unknown 255 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 - 0 5 2%
Other 759 9 0 61 4 1 0 0 0 - 75 10%
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-6
Appendix B: Revised Non-Motorized Crashes
EVENT RELATION TO INTERSECTION
Reports Reviewed Reports Revised Percent Report Revised
Reporting
Agency
CCSO 1,001 414 41%
FHP 292 33 12%
Naples PD 125 45 36%
Marco Island PD 64 25 39%
Other 3 3 100%
TOTAL
REVISED VALUE
TOTAL
REVISED
PERCENT
REVISED Non-
Junction
Intersection Intersection-
Related
Driveway/Ally
Access
Related
Railway
Grade
Crossing
Entrance/Exit
Ramp
Crossover-
Related
Shared Use
Path or Trail
Acceleration/
Deceleration
Lane
Through
Roadway
Unknown
Other
ORIGINAL
VALUE
Non-Junction 986 - 254 36 137 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 430 44%
Intersection 239 0 - 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2%
Intersection-Related 82 1 3 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5%
Driveway/Ally Access Related 74 3 1 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5%
Railway Grade Crossing 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Entrance/Exit Ramp 4 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Crossover-Related 6 1 4 0 1 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 6 100%
Shared Use Path or Trail 8 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 6 75%
Acceleration/Deceleration Lane 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 1 100%
Through Roadway 26 1 6 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 13 50%
Unknown 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 2 100%
Other 57 18 18 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 50 88%
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-7
CRASH TYPE
Reports Reviewed Reports Revised Percent Report Revised
REPORTING
AGENCY
CCSO 1,001 380 38%
FHP 291 12 4%
Naples PD 125 17 14%
Marco Island PD 64 28 44%
Other 3 1 33%
TOTAL
REVISED VALUE
TOTAL
REVISED
PERCENT
REVISED
Angle
Head On Hit Fixed
Object
Hit Non-
Fixed Object
Left Turn
Rear End
Right Turn Run Off
Road
Sideswipe Single
Vehicle
U-Turn
Unknown
Bike
Pedestrian
ORIGINAL
VALUE
Angle 42 - 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 6 36 86%
Head On 12 0 - 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 11 92%
Hit Fixed Object 79 0 0 - 9 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 9 24 30%
Hit Non-Fixed Object 17 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 3 8 47%
Left Turn 22 0 0 2 4 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 21 95%
Rear End 36 0 0 1 1 0 - 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 9 19 53%
Right Turn 38 0 0 1 1 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 25 10 37 97%
Run Off Road 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Sideswipe 21 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 1 3 8 13 62%
Single Vehicle 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 3 2 5 83%
U-Turn 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0%
Unknown 158 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 50 98 157 99%
Bike 587 0 0 1 1 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 - 1 9 2%
Pedestrian 465 0 0 3 10 3 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 75 - 98 21%
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-8
IMPACT TYPE
Reports Reviewed Reports Revised Percent Report Revised
Reporting
Agency
CCSO 1,001 679 68%
FHP 291 168 58%
Naples PD 125 39 31%
Marco Island PD 64 37 58%
Other 3 0 0%
TOTAL
REVISED VALUE
TOTAL
REVISED
PERCENT
REVISED Front to Rear Front to Front Angle Sideswipe (Same
Direction)
Sideswipe (Opposite
Direction) Rear to Side Rear to Rear Unknown Other
ORIGINAL
VALUE
Front to Rear 87 - 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 7 8%
Front to Front 35 0 - 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 23%
Angle 313 0 3 - 8 0 3 0 1 0 15 5%
Sideswipe (Same Direction) 41 1 0 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 3 7%
Sideswipe (Opposite Direction) 13 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Rear to Side 13 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 1 0 1 8%
Rear to Rear 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 - 1 0 2 22%
Unknown 460 26 20 286 17 15 26 10 - 19 419 91%
Other 514 16 10 350 24 14 46 7 1 - 468 91%
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
APPENDIX 3: COMMUNITY SURVEY SUMMARY
Collier County MPO | Local Road Safety Plan Appendix 3 - 1
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO
Local Road Safety Plan
Community Survey
Summary
10/09/2020
Final
Prepared for
Prepared by
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan i
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1
Section 2: Key Takeaways ................................................................................................................ 2-2
Demographics and Travel Behavior ................................................................................................... 2-2
Safety Concerns and Improvements .................................................................................................. 2-2
Driving Habit Comparison between Aging and Younger Drivers ....................................................... 2-3
Bike and Pedestrian Safety ................................................................................................................ 2-4
Section 3: Traffic Safety Survey ........................................................................................................ 3-1
Survey Respondent Demographics ........................................................................................................ 3-1
General Traffic Safety ............................................................................................................................. 3-3
Bicyclists and Pedestrians ...................................................................................................................... 3-6
Section 4: Additional Observations .................................................................................................. 4-1
Summary of Concerns for Local Road Safety ......................................................................................... 4-1
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Website Survey Post ................................................................................................................ 1-1
Figure 3-1: Collier County Residence/Employment ................................................................................... 3-1
Figure 3-2: Age ........................................................................................................................................... 3-1
Figure 3-3: Home ZIP Code ........................................................................................................................ 3-2
Figure 3-4: Work ZIP Code ......................................................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-5: Travel Mode ............................................................................................................................. 3-3
Figure 3-6: Travel Destination .................................................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-7: Driving Frequency .................................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-8: Travel Time .............................................................................................................................. 3-4
Figure 3-9: Travel Safety Concerns ............................................................................................................ 3-5
Figure 3-10: Safety Improvement Support ................................................................................................ 3-5
Figure 3-11: Walk and Bike Frequency ....................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-12: Walking Frequency ................................................................................................................ 3-6
Figure 3-13: Bike Safety ............................................................................................................................. 3-7
Figure 3-14: Pedestrian Safety ................................................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3-15: Traffic Rules Adherence ......................................................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-16: Driver Behavior ...................................................................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-17: Bike Safety Improvement ...................................................................................................... 3-9
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan ii
Tables
Table 1-1: Travel Time ................................................................................................................................ 2-3
Table 1-2: Travel Frequency ....................................................................................................................... 2-3
Table 4-1: Intersections/Roadway Corridors in Need of Improvement ..................................................... 4-2
Table 4-2: Intersections/Roadway Corridors in Need of Bike and Ped Improvement ............................... 4-4
Appendix
Appendix A: Traffic Safety Survey............................................................................................................. A-1
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 1-1
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is developing a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) with
the goal of prioritizing opportunities to improve roadway safety, budget programs, and projects,
develop highway safety strategies, and reduce the loss of life, injuries, and property damage while
improving the performance and capacity of the county-wide street and highway network.
The purpose of the LRSP is to:
• Identify and define areas to improve the safety of Collier County’s streets and highways.
• Define strategies and projects, including improvements to infrastructure (Engineering); driver,
bicycle, and pedestrian behavior (Education); law enforcement programs (Enforcement); and
response of emergency medical services (Emergency Services).
• Identify federal, State, and local funding programs.
• Provide structure for evaluating the progress in reducing crashes and fatalities.
The plan development process includes data analysis, public outreach, and plan drafting. The data
analysis step looked at the county’s motorized and non-motorized crash data from 2014 to 2018, and
high-crash frequency locations, crash types, and roadway and weather conditions were reviewed. On
August 20, 2020, a survey was sent out to capture the public’s input on how to minimize roadway
fatalities and make Collier County road systems safer for residents and stakeholders. The survey was
posted on the Collier MPO website and Facebook page, sent out to the MPO’s advisory committees and
adviser network, and shared by WinkNews.
Figure 1-1: Website Survey Post
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-2
SECTION 2: KEY TAKEAWAYS
The survey was published in English and Spanish. Of 1,092 survey responses received, 1,060 were in
English and 32 were in Spanish. Following are key takeaways from the survey.
Demographics and Travel Behavior
• A large number of survey respondents indicated that they either worked or lived in Collier
County year-round, and a majority lived and worked in Naples and Immokalee. The top three
home and work ZIP codes were as follows:
− Home ZIP codes:
34120 (Naples) – 186 participants
34142 (Immokalee) – 146 participants
34119 (Immokalee) – 84 participants
− Work ZIP codes:
34116 (Naples) – 129 participants
34109 (Naples) – 93 participants
34142 (Immokalee) – 77 participants
• More than two thirds of survey respondents were between ages 35 and 64.
• Survey respondents ranked driving, walking, and riding a bike as the top three most used modes
of travel.
• Respondents ranked their top two destinations as “Retail Goods and Services” and “Work.” It is
important to note that this survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic during which
most people were working from home.
− In total, 75% of respondents drove a motor vehicle every day, with daily travel taking 30
minutes or more.
Safety Concerns and Improvements
• Of the 13 safety concerns indicated on the survey (see Appendix A, Question 5), respondents
chose the following as their top three:
− Drivers using cell phones or conducting other activities while driving
− Speeding and aggressive driving
− Aging drivers
• A large majority indicated support for “increased traffic enforcement” as a desired safety
improvement, corresponding with one of the top safety concerns of aggressive driving. Other
desired improvements were ranked as follows:
1 – Increased traffic enforcement
2 – Improved rural roads (e.g., wider shoulders, better signs, pavement markings)
3 – Increased safety on major roads for pedestrians (e.g., better intersection design, marked
crosswalks, better lighting)
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-2
4 – Better bicycle facilities, including wider bicycle lanes and separated bike paths
5 – Better roadway lighting
6 – Reduced speeds on major roads through design and traffic signalization strategies
Driving Habit Comparison between Aging and Younger Drivers
Further analysis of survey responses compared the driving habits of aging drivers (those age 55 and
above) and younger drivers’ habits (those age 54 and below). Survey respondents included 40% aging
drivers and 60% younger drivers. Following are some key takeaways:
• A large number of respondents in both age groups indicated that they drove a motor vehicle
every day, and aging drivers (21%) indicated that they drove more than 4 times per week but
not daily.
• A majority of drivers in both age groups spent at least 30 minutes traveling each day. A
significant number of aging drivers, however, indicated that they spent less time traveling (20–
30 minutes).
• Both age groups had opposite rankings for travel destinations. Aging drivers rated “Retail Goods
and Services” as their top travel destination and “Work” as their second choice. Younger drivers
ranked those two destinations the opposite, with “Work” as their top destination.
• Both groups indicated concern about different safety-related items. Younger drivers were
concerned about “people who do not know the rules of the road” and “aging drivers,” and aging
drivers were concerned about “speeding and aggressive driving” and “people using cell phones
or doing other activities while driving.”
The following survey results support the above findings. Travel Time and Frequency
Table 2-1: Travel Time
Question: How much time do you typically spend traveling each day?
Response Aging Drivers (Age 55+) Younger Drivers (< Age 54)
Count Percentage Count Percentage
0–10 minutes 33 8% 17 3%
10–20 minutes 96 23% 78 12%
20–30 minutes 124 30% 113 18%
30 minutes or more 163 39% 426 67%
Table 2-2: Travel Frequency
Question: How often do you drive a motor vehicle?
Response Aging Drivers (Age 55+) Younger Drivers (< Age 54
Count Percentage Count Percentage
Daily 246 59% 541 85%
2–4 times per week 69 17% 24 4%
More than 4 times per week 87 21% 64 10%
Once per week 14 3% 3 0%
Less than once per month 1 0% 1 0%
Mode of Travel
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 4-2
Question: How do you usually travel from place to place? (Rank from 1 to 6, with 1 being the most
frequently used mode of transportation and 6 being the least used.)
Both age groups ranked their preferred modes of travel as the following:
• 1 – Drive
• 2 – Walk
• 3 – Bicycle
• 4 – Rely on others for rides
• 5 – Rideshare (e.g., Uber/Lyft)
• 6 – Bus
Travel Destination
Question: What is your usual destination when using your #1 ranked mode of transportation? (Rank
from 1 to 5, with 1 being where you travel most often and 5 being where you travel least often.)
Younger drivers:
• 1 – Work
• 2 – Retail Goods and Services (e.g.,
shopping, dining out)
• 3 – Visiting friends/family
• 4 – School
• 5 – Medical Appointments
Aging drivers:
• 1 – Retail Goods and Services (e.g.,
shopping, dining out)
• 2 – Work
• 3 – Medical Appointments
• 4 – Visiting friends/family
• 5 – School
Top Three Safety Concerns
Question: Of the items below, which are your top three safety concerns about traveling in Collier
County? (Choose three. See Appendix A, Question 5 for a full list.)
Younger drivers:
• 1 – People who do not know the “rules
of the road”
• 2 – Aging drivers
• 3 – Speeding and aggressive driving
Bike and Pedestrian Safety
Aging drivers:
• 1 – Speeding and aggressive driving
• 2 – People using cell phones or doing
other activities while driving
• 3 – People who do not know the “rules
of the road”
• Almost half of respondents indicated that they walked and/or rode a bicycle less than once per
month.
• Nearly one third of respondents (32%) indicated walking less than once per month, and another
third (26%) walked daily.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 2-5
• When respondents were asked if they felt safe and comfortable while riding a bicycle in Collier
County, half either strongly or somewhat disagreed.
• More than half either strongly or somewhat agreed to feeling safe and comfortable while
walking in Collier County.
• Almost half of survey respondents agreed that Collier County pedestrians and bicyclists do a
good job of following the rules of the road.
• More than half of those surveyed expressed that Collier County drivers are not courteous about
sharing the road with pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Respondents indicated the following as the top three improvements they believed could be
done to make bicycling safer in Collier County:
− More bicycle lanes that are physically separated from vehicle traffic
− Reducing distracted driving
− Making it easier to cross highways and high-speed streets
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-1
SECTION 3: TRAFFIC SAFETY SURVEY
Survey Respondent Demographics
Figure 3-1: Collier County Residence/Employment
Question: Please describe yourself by checking all that apply.
Figure 3-2: Age
Question: What is your age?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
88% I live in Collier County year-round
7% I live in Collier County for part of the year
43% I work in Collier County
8% I live in the region and visit Collier County for
shopping and recreation
10% I own a business in Collier County
I am a visitor to Collier County 1%
25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
3% 18-24
13% 25-34
24% 35-44
20% 45-54
21% 55-64
18% 65+
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-2
Figure 3-3: Home ZIP Code
Question: What is your home ZIP code?
Figure 3-4: Work ZIP Code
Question: What is your work ZIP code?
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-3
General Traffic Safety
Figure 3-5: Travel Mode
Question: How do you usually travel from place to place? (Rank from 1 to 6, with 1 being the most
frequently used mode of transportation and 6 the least used.)
Figure 3-6: Travel Destination
Question: What is your usual destination when using your #1 ranked mode of transportation?
(Rank from 1 to 5 with 1 where you travel most often and 5 where you travel least often.)
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
-
Walk Bicycle Drive Bus Rideshare Rely on
(e.g. others for
Uber/Lyft) rides
and Services (e.g Appointments friends/family
Shopping, Dining
Out)
Visiting Medical Retail Goods School Work
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
-
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-4
Figure 3-7: Driving Frequency
Question: How often do you drive a motor vehicle? (Select one.)
Figure 3-8: Travel Time
Question: How much time do you typically spend traveling each day? (Select one.)
80% 75%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 14%
10% 9%
2% 0.2%
0%
Daily More than 4 2-4 times a week Once a week Less than once a
times a week month
20-30 minutes 30 minutes or more 10-20 minutes 0-10 minutes
0%
5% 10%
17% 20%
22%
30%
40%
50%
60% 57%
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-5
Figure 3-9: Travel Safety Concerns
Question: Of the items below, which are your top three safety concerns about traveling in
Collier County? (Choose three.)
Figure 3-10: Safety Improvement Support
Question: What is your level of support for the following safety improvements? (Rank each from 1 to 5,
with 1 being the most support and 5 being the least support.)
People who do not know the “rules of the road” 41%
Construction or utility work zones 7%
Inadequate roadway lighting or traffic signals 15%
People using cell phones or doing other activities while… 64%
Teen drivers 5%
Speeding and aggressive driving 59%
Commercial vehicles operating on local roads 14%
Motorcyclists 5%
Aging drivers 43%
People not wearing seatbelts 1%
Pedestrians and bicyclists sharing the roadway 27%
People driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs,… 23%
Roadway design 18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Increased traffic enforcement 1,031
Improving roadway lighting
Improving rural roads (e.g. wider shoulders, better signs
and pavement markings) 988
Making major roads safer for pedestrians (e.g. improving
intersection design, providing marked crosswalks, better… 982
Providing better bicycle facilities including wider bicycle
lanes and separated bike paths 980
Reducing speeds on major roads through design and
traffic signalization strategies 976
940 960 980 1,000 1,020 1,040
977
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-6
Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Figure 3-11: Walk and Bike Frequency
Question: How often do you walk and/or ride a bicycle? (Choose one.)
Figure 3-12: Walking Frequency
Question: How often do you walk? (Choose one.)
50% 47%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20% 17% 17%
15% 12%
10% 7%
5%
0%
Daily More than 4 times 2-4 times a week Once a week Less than once a
a week month
35%
32%
30%
26%
25%
20% 19%
15% 15%
10% 9%
5%
0%
Daily More than 4 times 2-4 times a week Once a week Less than once a
a week month
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-7
Figure 3-13: Bike Safety
Question: In general, I feel safe and comfortable while riding a bicycle in Collier County.
Figure 3-14: Pedestrian Safety
Question: In general, I feel safe and comfortable while walking in Collier County.
40%
35% 34%
30% 28%
25%
20% 18% 17%
15%
10%
5% 4%
0%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat
disagree
Strongly disagree No opinion
45%
40% 39%
35%
30%
25%
20% 18%
15% 14% 14% 15%
10%
5%
0%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat
disagree
Strongly disagree No opinion
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-8
40%
36%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat
disagree
Strongly disagree No opinion
Figure 3-15: Traffic Rules Adherence
Question: In general, Collier County pedestrians and bicyclists do a good job following the
rules of the road.
24% 24%
9%
7%
Figure 3-16: Driver Behavior
Question: In general, Collier County drivers are courteous about sharing the road
with pedestrians and bicyclists.
35% 32% 31%
30%
25% 25%
20%
15%
10%
6% 7%
5%
0%
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree No Opinion
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 3-9
Figure 3-17: Bike Safety Improvement
Question: What could be done to make bicycling safer in Collier County? (Choose three.)
Reducing distracted driving 45%
Better enforcement of speed limits 24%
More education for motorists and bicyclists about
sharing the roadway 25%
Start a bicycle sharing program 4%
More convenient and available bicycle parking 5%
Make it easier to cross highways and high-speed streets 32%
More low-speed neighborhood routes 12%
More multi-use paths 30%
More bicycle lanes that are physically separated from
vehicle traffic 70%
More bicycle lanes 20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 4-1
SECTION 4: ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Summary of Concerns for Local Road Safety
Aggressive/ Careless Driving/ Speeding – Concerns raised by Collier County residents and stakeholders
regarding aggressive driving include speeding and tailgating, high-speed lane changing, running red
lights and stop signs, drivers not using indicator lights before lane change, and drivers traveling
dangerously below the posted speed limit. Survey respondents noted that aggressive drivers make it
unsafe for drivers obeying traffic laws and gave US-41 as an example of a roadway segment with of
excessive speeding.
Distracted Drivers – Distracted driving behavior includes using a cell phone either for a call or texting,
loud music, and impaired driving under the influence of substances. Survey respondents suggested
increased law enforcement for drivers that use cell phones while driving.
Law Enforcement – Survey participants indicated that increased enforcement is needed to crack down
on high-speed drivers and cell phone users while driving.
Aging Drivers – Survey participants expressed that aging drivers have slower reaction times and drive
below the speed limit, even in fast lanes. Participants suggested more frequent licensing retesting and
better public transportation as options for aging drivers.
Traffic – Respondents indicated that there is traffic during AM and PM peak hours and during tourist
seasons, noting that tourist season leads to overcrowding of roads, which slows down traffic and leads
to accidents. Respondents provided examples of roadway systems that need immediate attention— Oil
Well Road and the intersection of I-75 and Everglades Boulevard.
Bicyclist and Pedestrians – Respondents felt that bicyclists and pedestrians do not follow the rules of
the road and that bike lanes are not fit for safe travel, indicating that bicyclists are ignored on the
roadway. Suggestions included providing additional sidewalks for safer pedestrian travel and adding bike
lanes to Vanderbilt Drive between 111th and Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Roadways/ Maintenance / Infrastructure – In general, survey participants were concerned about back
roads being too small and that some landscapes are dangerous in that they act as an obstruction. They
also pointed out that lack of traffic lights results in unsafe exiting and suggested adding more speed limit
signs and improved infrastructure to combat high traffic volume. Examples noted were Immokalee Road
being poorly lit and making it dangerous to drive at night and Oil Well Road needing maintenance and
additional shouldering and lighting.
Miscellaneous – Some respondents commented that there were too many one-way roads and that
additional education on driver safety is needed.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 4-2
Table 4-1: Intersections/Roadway Corridors in Need of Improvement
Question: Please tell us if there is a specific roadway or intersection that you would most like to see improved.
Street Times
Mentioned @ intersection of Comments
Immokalee Rd
133
Livingston Rd, Collier Blvd, Goodlette-Frank Rd, Golden
Gate Pkwy, US-41, I-75, Northbrooke Dr, Randall Blvd,
Tarpon Bay Blvd, Strand Blvd, Collier Blvd, Airport-Pulling
Rd, Oil Well Rd, Pine Ridge Rd, Vanderbilt Beach Rd
N/A
Oil Well Rd 95 Camp Keais Rd, SR-29, Everglades Blvd, Ave Maria, Desoto
Blvd, Immokalee Rd • Lack of overall knowledge by drivers using them.
Pine Ridge Rd 75 Livingston Rd, US-41, Airport-Pulling Rd, Taylor Rd,
Goodlette-Frank Rd, Santa Barbara Blvd N/A
Golden Gate Pkwy 56 Collier Blvd, Goodlette-Frank Rd, Livingston Rd, Santa
Barbara Blvd, Sunshine Blvd, Wilson Blvd, Pine Ridge Rd N/A
Airport-Pulling Rd 56 Pine Ridge Rd, Davis Blvd, Immokalee Rd, Horseshoe,
Naples Blvd, Orange Blossom, Golden Gate Pkwy N/A
Collier Blvd/ CR-951 51 US 41, I-75, Immokalee Rd, Davis Blvd, Championship
Drive, Golden Gate Pkwy, Pine Ridge Rd, Tamiami Trail • Aggressive driving.
US-41
35
Goodlette-Frank Rd, Bayshore, Immokalee Rd, Mooring
Line Dr, Vanderbilt Beach Rd, Immokalee Rd, 91st Ave,
Airport-Pulling Rd, Davis Blvd
• Too many red light runners.
• People drive too fast.
• Excessive bushes and other flora in median is huge
safety risk.
Randall Blvd 20 Everglades Blvd, Immokalee Rd, 8th Ave, 16th Ave,
Desoto Blvd
• Randall Blvd needs better flow; light is very long.
• Needs more speed enforcement.
Livingston Rd 18 Immokalee Rd, Bonita Beach Rd, Osceola Trail, Golden
Gate Pkwy, Osceola Trail, Learning Ln
• Accident zone.
• Need traffic lights.
SR-49 18 SR 82 and Oil Well Rd N/A
Davis Blvd
17
Airport, Corporate Cir, Brookside, Collier Blvd, Lakewood
Blvd, Shadowland Dr
• So many potholes and bumps.
• How people have to turn and maneuver is an accident
waiting to happen.
• Needs more traffic control.
I-75 12 Everglades Blvd, Immokalee Rd, Tamiami Trail, Golden
Gate Pkwy N/A
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 4-3
Street Times
Mentioned @ intersection of Comments
Everglades Blvd
11
Immokalee Rd, Randall Blvd, Pine Ridge Rd
• Aggressive driving, confusion, dangerous situations for
people driving in both directions, cyclists, and
pedestrians.
DeSoto Blvd
5
Golden Gate Pkwy, Oil Well Rd
• Reduce congestion by providing other options for
access to/from I-75.
• Unbearable traffic congestion during morning rush
hour and from 5:00–6:00 pm.
• Too many lights, traffic, speeding.
Goodlette-Frank Rd
4
Pine Ridge Rd, Golden Gate Pkwy, Frank Rd
• Traffic congestion, especially in season.
• Red light runners.
• Bad visibility.
• Reckless driving.
Downtown Area/ 5th
Ave 3 5th Ave • Needs more lanes, too much traffic, Desoto Blvd
needs left lane, more lighting, add medians.
10th St
2
US-41
• Additional lighting needed.
• Add flyover at Airport-Pulling Rd.
• Need additional enforcement.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 4-4
Table 4-2: Intersections/Roadway Corridors in Need of Bike and Ped Improvement
Are there specific intersections or roadway corridors that you think need safety improvements for bicyclists or pedestrians? (Indicate up to 3.)
Street Times
Mentioned @ intersection of Comments
Immokalee Rd
93
Camp Keais Rd, Corkscrew Sanctuary, Collier Blvd, Livingston Rd,
Strand Blvd, Valewood Dr, US-41, I-75, Airport Pulling Rd, Juliet,
Logan, Oil Well Rd, Pine Ridge Rd, Randall Blvd, Tamiami Trail, Gulf
Coast High School, Wilson Blvd, Goodlette-Frank Rd, 1st St
• Immokalee should have a pedestrian
bridge or tunnel. Entire road needs
improvement, as it hosts bike
tournaments.
• Immokalee Rd should not have bicyclists.
Pine Ridge Rd
92
Airport Pulling Rd, Livingston Rd, US-41, Collier Blvd, Logan, Vanderbilt
Beach Rd, Whipoorwill, I-75, Orange Blossom, Naples Blvd, Goodlette-
Frank Rd, SeaGate
• Pine Ridge Rd needs sidewalk
improvements, they are so close to road;
if someone were to get in accident and go
into sidewalk and someone was walking,
they would be dead.
US 41
90
Collier Blvd, Lakewood Blvd, Bayshore, 91st, Airport Pulling Rd,
Immokalee Rd, Ohio Rd, Pine Ridge Rd, Rattlesnake, Vanderbilt Beach
Rd, Golden Gate Parkway, Fleishmann/Orchid, Neapolitan, Grenada,
5th Ave, 92nd Ave N, Davis Blvd, Goodlette-Frank Rd, Thomasson,
Triangle Blvd, Fiddlers Creek, Courthouse, Wiggins Pass, 99th Ave
• Many sections of US-41.
• In front of St Mathews between Glades
Blvd & Great Blue Dr.
Airport-Pulling Rd
70
Immokalee Rd, US-41, Davis Blvd, Orange Blossom, Pine Ridge Rd,
Radio Rd, Vanderbilt Beach Rd, Golden Gate Parkway, Estey Ave, East
Trail
• Along Airport-Pulling Rd near The Beach
House; would be great to see bike trail go
through woods to take bikers off Airport
on their way to North Rd & Baker Park.
VERY scary biking and walking along
Airport Rd; jaywalking.
Collier Blvd/ CR-951
69
Bald Eagle, Green, Livingston Rd, Barfield, Golden Gate Pkwy, Airport,
US-41, 17th Ave SW, David, Immokalee Rd, Lely, Manatee Rd, Pine
Ridge Rd, Tamiami Tr, Vanderbilt Beach Rd, Oakridge Middle School,
Radio Rd
• Collier Blvd no place for bicyclists.
Oil Well Rd
63
Camp Keais Rd, SR-29, Desoto Blvd, Everglades Blvd, Immokalee Rd,
Ave Maria, Everglades Blvd
• Improve roads for drivers commuting
from Oil Well Rd to SR-29.
• Full bike lane on Oil Well Rd.
• Oil Well Rd should not have bicyclists.
• Two-lane section of Oil Well Rd
dangerous for bikes.
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan 4-5
Street Times
Mentioned @ intersection of Comments
Vanderbilt Beach Rd
52
Airport Pulling Rd, Hammock Oak, Goodlette-Frank Rd, Livingston Rd,
Tamiami, Gulf Shore, US 41
• Pedestrians competing with bicyclists on
Vanderbilt Rd for sidewalk space.
• Get bicyclists onto road and off sidewalks.
• No bike lane; they ride in middle of road.
• Vanderbilt and Livingston are great but
more signs would be better.
Davis Blvd 42 US 41, Airport Pulling Rd, Collier Blvd, Radio Rd, Brookeside, Kings
Lake Blvd, Rich King Memorial Greenway N/A
Golden Gate
Parkway
42
Livingston Rd, Airport Pulling Rd, Coronado, Goodlette-Frank Rd,
Everglades Blvd, 53rd St. SW, Collier Blvd, Desoto Blvd, Santa Barbara
Blvd, Max Hause Park, Wilson Blvd, I-75, Sunshine Blvd, US 41.
N/A
Livingston Rd 25 Bonita Beach Rd, Veterans, Airport Pulling Rd, Golden Gate Parkway,
Pine Ridge Rd, Ravina Way, Vanderbilt Beach Rd, Immokalee Rd.
• Vanderbilt and Livingston are great but
more signs would be better.
Randall Blvd 23 Wilson Blvd, 16th, Immokalee Rd, 8th St. NE, Everglades Blvd, Desoto
Blvd. N/A
Everglades Blvd 21 Oil Well Rd, Golden Gate Parkway, and Randall Blvd N/A
Gulf Shore Blvd
19
Blue Hill/Immokalee Rd, Vanderbilt Beach Rd, 5th Ave North, Central
Blvd, Gordon Drive
• People bike at night and without lights;
difficult to see them; if car coming on
opposite side. lights blind you.
• You are doing a great job with downtown
Naples, but Gulfshore Blvd is still a death
trap.
Goodlette-Frank Rd 15 Vanderbilt Beach Rd, Golden Gate Parkway, Orange Blossom, Pine
Ridge Rd, US 41 N/A
Tamiami Trail 12 Davis Blvd, 5th Ave, Collier Blvd, 7th Ave North, 111th, and Palm
Drive. N/A
Wilson Blvd 12 Golden Gate Parkway and Immokalee Rd. N/A
Radio Rd
11
San Marco Blvd, Countryside Drive, Livingston Rd, Santa Barbara Blvd.
• Have seen several severe accidents by
people making left off Radio to get into
Countryside—very dangerous, bad
visibility.
Brookside Drive 10 Davis Blvd, Estey Ave, Oakes Parking Lot, Harbor Lane, and Holiday N/A
Pelican Bay Blvd 10 Gulf Park Drive, US 41, and Vanderbilt Beach Rd N/A
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan
Appendix 3: Traffic Safety Survey
General Traffic Safety Survey
1. How much time do you typically spend traveling each day (Choose one)
• 0-10 minutes
• 10-20 minutes
• 20-30 minutes
• 30 minutes or more
2. How do you usually travel from place to place? (Rank from 1-5 with 1 being the most frequently
used mode of transportation and 5 is the least used)
• Walk
• Bicycle
• Drive
• Bus
• Rideshare (e.g. Uber/Lyft)
• Rely on others for rides
3. What is your usual destination when using your #1 ranked mode of transportation (Rank from 1-5
with 1 being where you travel most often and 5 being where you travel least often)
• Work
• School
• Retail Goods and Services (e.g shopping, dining out)
• Medical Appointments
• Visiting Friends/Family
4. How often do you drive a motor vehicle (Choose one)
• Daily
• More than 4 times a week
• 2-4 times a week
• Once a week
• Less than once a month
5. Of the items below, which are your top three safety concerns about traveling in Collier County
(Choose three)
• Roadway design
• People driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, medications or other substances
• Pedestrians and bicyclists sharing the roadway
• People not wearing seatbelts
• Aging drivers
• Motorcyclists
• Commercial vehicles operating on local roads
• Speeding and aggressive driving
• Teen drivers
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan
• People using cell phones or doing other activities while driving
• Inadequate roadway lighting or traffic signals
• Construction or utility work zones
• People who do not know the “rules of the road”
In your own words, what is your biggest concern for local road safety in Collier County?
6. What is your level of support for the following safety improvements? (Rank each from 1 to 5, with 1
being the most support and 5 being the least support)
• Reducing speeds on major roads through design and traffic signalization strategies
• Providing better bicycle facilities including wider bicycle lanes and separated bike paths
• Making major roads safer for pedestrians (e.g. improving intersection design, providing marked
crosswalks, better lighting
• Improving rural roads (e.g. wider shoulders, better signs and pavement markings)
• Improving roadway lighting
• Increased traffic enforcement
7. Please tell us if there is a specific roadway or intersection that you would most like to see improved.
Bicyclists and Pedestrians
8. How often do you walk and/or ride a bicycle? (Choose one)
• Daily
• More than 4 times a week
• 2-4 times a week
• Once a week
• Less than once a month
9. How often do you walk? (Choose one)
• Daily
• More than 4 times a week
• 2-4 times a week
• Once a week
• Less than once a month
10. In general, I feel safe and comfortable while riding a bicycle in Collier County. (Choose one)
• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree
• No opinion
11. In general, I feel safe and comfortable while walking in Collier County. (Choose one)
• Strongly agree
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan
• Somewhat agree
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree
• No opinion
12. In general, Collier County pedestrians and bicyclists do a good job following the rules of the road.
(Choose one)
• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree
• No opinion
13. In general, Collier County drivers are courteous about sharing the road with pedestrians and
bicyclists (Choose one)
• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree
• No opinion
14. Are there specific intersections or roadway corridors that you think need safety improvements for
bicyclists or pedestrians? (select up to three)
15. What could be done to make bicycling safer in Collier County. (Choose three)
• More bicycle lanes
• More bicycle lanes that are physically separated from vehicle traffic
• More multi-use paths
• More low-speed neighborhood routes
• Make it easier to cross highways and high-speed streets
• More convenient and available bicycle parking
• Start a bicycle sharing program
• More education for motorists and bicyclists about sharing the roadway
• Better enforcement of speed limits
• Reducing distracted driving
Demographic and Contact information
16. Please describe yourself by checking all that apply
• I live in Collier County year-round
• I live in Collier County for part of the year
• I work in Collier County
• I live in the region and visit Collier County for shopping and recreation
• I own a business in Collier County
• I am a visitor to Collier County
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan
17. What is your age range
• 18-24
• 25-34
• 45-54
• 55-64
• 65+
18. What is your home ZIP code?
19. What is your work ZIP code?
20. If you would like to be contacted to provide input on future Collier County roadway safety survey
programs and initiatives, please provide your preferred contact information below.
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
Collier MPO | Local Road Safety Plan
9.D.1
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Local Roads Safety Plan (15809 : Approve the Local Roads Safety Plan)
05/14/2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement
OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to approve the 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement.
CONSIDERATIONS: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducts an annual review of
the metropolitan transportation planning process for the Collier MPO with respect to Federal
requirements. Each year, MPO staff and FDOT staff meet to discuss the annual review and jointly
compile the required documentation. This year’s review is based on calendar year 2020. (Attachment 1)
Highlights from this year’s Joint Certification Review include:
• FDOT’s Risk Assessment Point Total is 0; the MPO’s Level of Risk is Low (see Part 1 page 13)
• Noteworthy Practices & Achievements (see Part 1 page 13) include completing the final major
plans and studies despite a worldwide pandemic:
o Prepared and adopted an update to the PPP at the June 2020 MPO Board meeting in response
to the Covid-19 pandemic.
o Completed and approved the first Biennial Transportation System Performance Report and
Action Plan. (September 2020)
o Completed and endorsed major Transit Development Plan update. (September 2020)
o Completed an update to the MPO’s Continuity of Operations Plan. (COOP) (September
2020)
o Completed and endorsed CAT’s Park and Ride Study. (November 2020)
o Solicited for a new General Planning Service Contract.
o Completed Transit Impact Analysis. (December 2020)
o Completed and distributed review Draft of the first Local Roads Safety Plan (November
2020); briefed the MPO Board (December 2020)
o Completed the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (December 2020)
Based on the joint review and evaluation and contingent upon MPO Board approval, FDOT and the
Collier MPO Chair sign the MPO Joint Certification Statement, which recommends that the Metropolitan
Planning Process for the Collier MPO be certified for another year. (Attachment 2) The certification
package and statement must be submitted to FDOT’s Central Office by no later than June 1.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: n/a.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the MPO Board approve the 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint
Certification Statement.
Prepared by: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (PDF)
2. FDOT- MPO Joint Certification Statement 2020 (PDF)
9.E
Packet Pg. 197
05/14/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 9.E
Doc ID: 15810
Item Summary: Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement
Meeting Date: 05/14/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/06/2021 10:49 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/06/2021 10:49 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/06/2021 10:49 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/06/2021 2:41 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/14/2021 9:00 AM
9.E
Packet Pg. 198
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MPO JOINT CERTIFICATION
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Collier MPO
Joint Certification – 2020
April 5, 2021
Part 1 – Metropolitan Planning Organization
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning
Contents
Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1
Certification Process .................................................................................................. 2
Part 1 Section 1: MPO Overview ............................................................................... 4
Part 1 Section 2: Finances and Invoicing ................................................................. 8
Part 1 Section 3: Title VI and ADA ........................................................................... 10
Part 1 Section 4: Disadvantaged Business Enterprises ....................................... 12
Part 1 Section 5: Noteworthy Practices & Achievements .................................... 13
Part 1 Section 6: MPO Comments ........................................................................... 14
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning 1
Purpose
Each year, the District and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) must jointly certify the
metropolitan transportation planning process as described in 23 C.F.R. §450.336. The joint
certification begins in January. This allows time to incorporate recommended changes into the
Draft Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The District and the MPO create a joint certification
package that includes a summary of noteworthy achievements by the MPO and, if applicable, a
list of any recommendations and/or corrective actions.
The certification package and statement must be submitted to Central Office, Office of Policy
Planning (OPP) no later than June 1.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning 2
Certification Process
Please read and answer each question using the checkboxes to provide a “yes” or “no.” Below
each set of checkboxes is a box where an explanation for each answer is to be inserted. The
explanation given must be in adequate detail to explain the question.
FDOT’s MPO Joint Certification Statement document must accompany the completed Certification
report.Please use the electronic form fields to fill out the document. Once all the appropriate
parties sign the MPO Joint Certification Statement, scan it and email it with this completed
Certification Document to your District MPO Liaison.
Please note that the District shall report the identification of, and provide status updates of any
corrective action or other issues identified during certification directly to the MPO Board. Once the
MPO has resolved the corrective action or issue to the satisfaction of the District, the District shall
report the resolution of the corrective action or issue to the MPO Board.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning 3
Part 1
Part 1 of the Joint Certification is to be completed by the MPO.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning 4
Part 1 Section 1:MPO Overview
1. Does the MPO have up-to-date agreements such as the interlocal agreement that creates the
MPO, the intergovernmental coordination and review (ICAR) agreement; and any other
applicable agreements? Please list all agreements and dates that they need to be readopted.
The ICAR Agreement should be reviewed every five years and updated as necessary. Please
note that the ICAR Agreement template was updated in 2020.
Please Check: Yes No
YES, with 2 that could use updating in calendar year 2021:
1) 2/26/15 Interlocal Agreement for Creation of Collier MPO: 5-year review occurred in
July 2020. Determined update not necessary given that FDOT template dated 3/2013.
2) Lease Agreement with Collier County: updated 5/29/2019 terminates 6/30/22
3) Staff Services Agreement with Collier County: updated 5/28/2019 terminates 5/30/22
4) Lee/Collier Interlocal Agreement amended 3/20/2009; in force until terminated;
prepared update in 2019 that Collier MPO adopted but Lee MPO never placed on
agenda. This should be updated in CY 2021 assuming Lee MPO concurs.
5) ICAR 11/25/2014: reviewed July 2020 in preparation for federal TMA review;
determined update not required until FDOT updates template. Depending on extent of
FDOT’s 2020 update, it may be timely to update the MPO’s ICAR in calendar year 2021
or 22.
2. Does the MPO coordinate the planning of projects that cross MPO boundaries with the other
MPO(s)?
Please Check: Yes No
YES. Primary need for coordination with other MPOs involves Lee MPO. We have an
Interlocal Agreement in place that assigns roles and responsibilities. Each MPO has
voting membership on other MPO’s TAC. Lee MPO has voting membership on Collier
MPO’s CMC. We have nonvoting membership on Lee’s equivalent committee, have not
sought voting membership. We coordinated on roadway network alternatives and on final
Cost Feasible roadway network in the development of both 2045 LRTPs where roads
cross County lines. We are coordinating on Rails-to-Trails project that crosses County
line and Collier MPO Director participated in Tri-County MPO Bike/Ped Virtual Workshop
convened by Lee County in January 2021.
3. How does the MPOs planning process consider the 10 Federal Planning Factors (23 CFR §
450.306)?
Please Check: Yes No N/A [this is not a yes-no question]
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning 5
FAST Act Planning Factors are listed on p1-8 of 2045 LRTP under Section 1-3 Federal
and State Planning Requirements and again in Chapter 3 Goals and Objectives (see p 3-
1). Reflected in 2045 LRTP goals in Section 3-2 (p 3-3); Evaluation Criteria (p3-4 to 3-
10). Project Prioritization (table 3-1) and Appendix E Roadway Needs Evaluation Matrix.
In addition, the UPWP identifies tasks to be addressed over a two-year period. The
UPWP identifies the 10 planning factors and illustrates which task addresses each factor.
This is done in table format in the UPWP to ensure all 10 factors are being considered.
4. How are the transportation plans and programs of the MPO based on a continuing,
comprehensive, and cooperative process?
Please Check: Yes No N/A [this is not a yes/no question]
The Continuous and Comprehensive aspects of the MPO’s planning process are best
exemplified by Figure 7-1 Collier MPO Plans and Programs Timeline in the 2045 LRTP
p7-5 Chapter on Implementation. Illustrates how Bike-Ped Master Plan, Congestion
Management Process, Local Roads Safety Plan, Transit Development Plan,
Transportation System Performance Report relate to and are incorporated into the 2045
LRTP, which leads into the TIP and the UPWP; all of which are updated on a regular
schedule. The Cooperative process is exemplified by the MPO’s Interlocal Agreement
with Lee MPO, active participation in CUTS, MPOAC, FMPP and other regional forums,
the MPO’s Public Participation Plan which lists planning partners including state and
federal agencies, nonprofits, advocacy groups and includes an innovative tribal outreach
and communication approach referred to as the MPO’s Government-to-Government
Policy, constant communication with the MPO’s 5 advisory committees and an adviser
network of over 400 members; participating in member entities’ City Council meetings
and in partner agencies’ public outreach.
5. When was the MPOs Congestion Management Process last updated?
Please Check: Yes No N/A [this is not a yes/no question]
The CMP was last updated in 2017. The approval of the Transportation System
Performance Report on September 11, 2020 provided an interim update; scheduled in
UPWP for a full update beginning calendar year 2021.
6. Has the MPO recently reviewed and/or updated its Public Participation Plan? If so, when?
Please Check: Yes No
The MPO completed a major overhaul of its PPP in February 2019; amended in June
2020 to address COVID-19 pandemic and shift to on-line forms of public outreach and
virtual meetings; expanded participation in MPO process through use of on-line
interactive maps, surveys, social media posts, videos and pre-recorded presentations;
virtual meetings embraced by advisory committees.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning 6
7. Was the Public Participation Plan made available for public review for at least 45 days before
adoption?
Please Check: Yes No
Each update and amendment met the 45-day public review period posting requirement.
Prior to the Board’s June 2020 vote on the amendment, the MPO canceled the March and
April committee meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and in their place, distributed
documents to committee members and the public to review via email and the MPO
website. The mandatory minimum 45-day public comment was met as of May 22,2020.
Comments from two members of the public were received, responded to, and noted in
Appendix H of the PPP.
8. Does the MPO utilize one of the methods of procurement identified in 2 C.F.R. 200.320 (a-f)?
Please Check: Yes No
For each purchase, a form must be completed documenting the method of procurement
being utilized and submitted to the Collier County Grants Management Office for review.
The Collier County Grants Management Office is highly trained on CFR 200, section
200.320 methods of procurement, which are rigorously followed by FDOT and results of
recent and current annual financial audits attest to compliance with CFR 200.
9. Does the MPO maintain sufficient records to detail the history of procurement? These records
will include, but are not limited to: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract
type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price.
Note: this documentation is required by 2 C.F.R. 200.324 (a) to be available upon request by the Federal awarding
agency, or pass-through entity when deemed necessary.
Please Check: Yes No
Documentation required and maintained by the Collier County Procurement Services
Divisions and Collier County Grants Management Office during procurement process
includes: rationale for method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor
selection or rejection and basis for the contract price. Forms maintained on each
procurement project include Method of Procurement (MPO) and Independent Cost
Estimate (ICE) and any applicable justification of cost, prepared by MPO staff. Prior to
issuance of a purchase order, the grants office ensures that all required forms are in
place.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning 7
10. Does the MPO have any intergovernmental or inter-agency agreements in place for
procurement or use of goods or services?
Please Check: Yes No
The interlocal Staff Services Agreement between the MPO and Collier County addresses
that the MPO procurement or use of goods or services will be in accordance with the
County’s Procurement practices as well as any applicable grant administrative
procedures related to procurement.
11. What methods or systems does the MPO have in place to maintain oversight to ensure that
consultants or contractors are performing work in accordance with the terms, conditions and
specifications of their contracts or work orders?
Please Check: Yes No N/A [this is not a yes/no question]
Each project manager is responsible for ensuring that consultants are performing work in
accordance with the terms, conditions and specifications of their contract or work orders.
In additions, invoices are routinely reviewed against contracts to ensure consistency.
The MPO Director’s review adds another checkpoint.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning 8
Part 1 Section 2: Finances and Invoicing
1. How does the MPO ensure that Federal-aid funds are expended in conformity with applicable
Federal and State laws, the regulations in 23 C.F.R. and 49 C.F.R., and policies and
procedures prescribed by FDOT and the Division Administrator of FHWA?
Collier County’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has a dedicated staff
under the Office of Grant Compliance (GCO) which oversees the administrative
compliance of the Federal and State grant funding to support the MPO. GCO works
with the MPO to ensure both County policies and procedures and grantors
administrative requirements are met. MPO personnel have an understanding of
federal rules per the OMB Circulars/UGG, Code of Federal Regulations and grant
contract. Division personnel are dedicated to attend grantor trainings, and follow
established County administrative and coordination procedures.
2. How often does the MPO submit invoices to the District for review and reimbursement?
In accordance with the contract with FDOT, the Collier MPO submits invoices on a
quarterly basis (for the three-month period).
3. Is the MPO, as a standalone entity, a direct recipient of federal funds and in turn, subject to
an annual single audit?
Yes. The MPO conducts its single audit through use of the same firm as the County.
4. How does the MPO ensure their financial management system complies with the
requirements set forth in 2 C.F.R. §200.302?
The MPO uses SAP financial software through a Staff Services Agreement with
Collier County. SAP has a grants management module which segregates grant
funding by a unique set of identifiers such as Fund, Fund Center and Project number.
A single project is used to track each agreement and is further broken down into
subsets to track the UPWP individual tasks.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning 9
5. How does the MPO ensure records of costs incurred under the terms of the MPO Agreement
maintained and readily available upon request by FDOT at all times during the period of the
MPO Agreement, and for five years after final payment is made?
All County staff and the Clerk of Courts have access to grant agreements,
amendments, support documentation, federal circulars, 2 CFR Part 200 and other
applicable regulations via Sharepoint, the grantor’s websites and the County’s
electronic financial system SAP.
6. Is supporting documentation submitted, when required, by the MPO to FDOT in detail
sufficient for proper monitoring?
Yes, supporting documentation is provided to FDOT in detail for each monitoring
request.
7. How does the MPO comply with, and require its consultants and contractors to comply with
applicable Federal law pertaining to the use of Federal-aid funds?
The County’s GCO reviews all solicitations and purchases to ensure the inclusion of
federal provisions and requirements within vendor (consultant and contractor)
contracts.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning 10
Part 1 Section 3: Title VI and ADA
1. Has the MPO signed an FDOT Title VI/Nondiscrimination Assurance, identified a person
responsible for the Title VI/ADA Program, and posted for public view a nondiscrimination policy
and complaint filing procedure?”
Please Check: Yes No
The MPO’s Title VI Nondiscrimination Program Policy and Complaint Procedure are
included as Appendix D in the MPO’s Public Participation Plan (PPP), amended in
2020. The PPP is posted on the MPO website for public view and Title VI and ADA
are referenced on all agendas posted for advisory committee meetings and MPO
Board meetings. The MPO Executive Director is responsible for the Title VI/ADA
Program.
2. Do the MPO’s contracts and bids include the appropriate language, as shown in the
appendices of the Nondiscrimination Agreement with the State?
Please Check: Yes No
The MPO’s contracts include the appropriate language as shown in the UPWP
statements and assurances, specifically the Nondiscrimination Agreement with
FDOT.
3. Does the MPO have a procedure in place for the prompt processing and disposition of Title VI
and Title VIII complaints, and does this procedure comply with FDOT’s procedure?
Please Check: Yes No
The MPO has a Discrimination Complaint Procedure in place which was approved by
the Board on 5/11/2007. MPO staff incorporated an updated, combined Policy and
Procedure and Complaint Form in the PPP, amended 2020.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning 11
4. Does the MPO collect demographic data to document nondiscrimination and equity in its plans,
programs, services, and activities?
Please Check: Yes No
The PPP includes Appendix E, the MPO’s current update of demographic data to
document nondiscrimination and equity in its plans, programs, services and activities.
Traditionally Underserved Communities were identified as part of the development of
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. This data was used in project scoring and
evaluation in the 2045 LRTP for all projects and when rating and ranking priority
projects for the use of the MPO’s TMA SU funds (bike/ped, transit, congestion
management and safety).
5. Has the MPO participated in any recent Title VI training, either offered by the State, organized
by the MPO, or some other form of training, in the past three years?
Please Check: X No
MPO staff attended Title VI Training Session held on Dec 5, 2019 at the
Florida Metropolitan Planning Partnership statewide meeting, and viewed a
video Overview of FHWA’s Civil Rights Program Requirements for Local
Public Agencies using a link provided by FDOT in August 2019.
6. Does the MPO keep on file for five years all complaints of ADA noncompliance received, and
for five years a record of all complaints in summary form?
Please Check: Yes No
No formal complaints have been received. The MPO has established a template for
recording and tracking actions on complaints and will maintain the detailed log of
communications for 5 years if a complaint is received.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning 12
Part 1 Section 4: Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
1. Does the MPO have a FDOT-approved Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) plan?
Please Check: Yes No
The MPO adopted a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Policy on May 12, 2006.
This policy is in accordance with FDOT’s DBE Plan.
2. Does the MPO use the Equal Opportunity Compliance (EOC) system or another FDOT
process to ensure that consultants are entering bidders opportunity list information, as well as
accurately and regularly entering DBE commitments and payments?”
Please Check: Yes No
The MPO was notified in 2019 that the EOC was not functional and the decision was
made to utilize the Grant Application Process (GAP) system to report DBE
commitments and payments. To date, the MPO has not been notified that the DBE
portion of the GAP system is functional. The MPO will continue to track all DBE
compliance information and will report to FDOT as requested until the new system is
operational.
3. Does the MPO include the DBE policy statement in its contract language for consultants and
subconsultants?
Please Check: Yes No
Each consultant is required to comply with the MPO’s DBE policy. The required DBE
language is included in each MPO contract.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning 13
Part 1 Section 5: Noteworthy Practices & Achievements
One purpose of the certification process is to identify improvements in the metropolitan
transportation planning process through recognition and sharing of noteworthy practices.
Please provide a list of the MPOs noteworthy practices and achievements below.
Over the past year, the MPO completed several major plans and studies despite a
worldwide pandemic. Even as many agencies delayed studies, our deadlines did not
move. Many of the plans/studies included public involvement which required finding a
new way to engage the public. The MPO switched from in person public involvement
meetings to virtual public meetings to ensure the public had ample opportunity to
participate in the planning process. A list of achievements completed in 2020 is shown
below:
Prepared and adopted an update to the PPP at the June 2020 MPO Board
meeting in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Completed and approved the first Biennial Transportation System
Performance Report and Action Plan. (September 2020)
Completed and endorsed major Transit Development Plan update.
(September 2020)
Completed an update to the MPO’s Continuity of Operations Plan. (COOP)
(September 2020)
Completed and endorsed CAT’s Park and Ride Study. (November 2020)
Solicited for a new General Planning Service Contract.
Completed Transit Impact Analysis. (December 2020)
Completed and distributed review Draft of the first Local Roads Safety Plan
(November 2020); briefed the MPO Board (December 2020)
Completed the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (December 2020)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification 525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning 14
Part 1 Section 6: MPO Comments
The MPO may use this space to make any additional comments or ask any questions, if
they desire. This section is not mandatory, and its use is at the discretion of the MPO.
No questions at this time.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MPO JOINT CERTIFICATION
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Collier MPO
Joint Certification – 2020
April 5, 2021
Part 2 – FDOT District
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
Office of Policy Planning
Contents
Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 2
Certification Process ......................................................................................................... 3
Risk Assessment Process ........................................................................................ 4
Part 2 Section 1: Risk Assessment .......................................................................... 8
Part 2 Section 2: Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) .................................. 12
Part 2 Section 3: Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) ............................. 13
Part 2 Section 4: Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) ................................... 14
Part 2 Section 5: Clean Air Act ................................................................................ 15
Part 2 Section 6: Technical Memorandum 19-03REV: Documentation of FHWA
PL and Non-PL Funding ........................................................................................... 16
Part 2 Section 7: District Questions ....................................................................... 17
Part 2 Section 8: Recommendations and Corrective Actions ............................. 18
Part 2 Section 9: Attachments ................................................................................ 19
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
2Office of Policy Planning
Purpose
Each year, the District and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) must jointly certify the
metropolitan transportation planning process as described in 23 C.F.R. §450.336. The joint
certification begins in January. This allows time to incorporate recommended changes into the
Draft Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The District and the MPO create a joint certification
package that includes a summary of noteworthy achievements by the MPO and, if applicable, a
list of any recommendations and/or corrective actions.
The Certification Package and statement must be submitted to Central Office, Office of Policy
Planning (OPP) no later than June 1.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
3Office of Policy Planning
Certification Process
Please read and answer each question within this document.
Since all of Florida’s MPOs adopt a new Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) annually,
many of the questions related to the TIP adoption process have been removed from this
certification, as these questions have been addressed during review of the draft TIP and after
adoption of the final TIP.
As with the TIP, many of the questions related to the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and
Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) have been removed from this certification document, as
these questions are included in the process of reviewing and adopting the UPWP and LRTP.
Note: This certification has been designed as an entirely electronic document and includes
interactive form fields. Part 2 Section 9: Attachments allows you to embed any attachments to the
certification, including the MPO Joint Certification Statement document that must accompany the
completed certification report. Once all the appropriate parties sign the MPO Joint Certification
Statement, scan it and attach it to the completed certification in Part 2 Section 9: Attachments.
Please note that the District shall report the identification of and provide status updates of any
corrective action or other issues identified during certification directly to the MPO Board. Once the
MPO has resolved the corrective action or issue to the satisfaction of the District, the District shall
report the resolution of the corrective action or issue to the MPO Board.
The final Certification Package should include Part 1, Part 2, and any required attachments and
be transmitted to Central Office no later than June 1 of each year.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
4Office of Policy Planning
Risk Assessment Process
Part 2 Section 1: Risk Assessment evaluates the requirements described in 2 CFR §200.331 (b)-
(e), also expressed below. It is important to note that FDOT is the recipient and the MPOs are the
subrecipient, meaning that FDOT, as the recipient of Federal-aid funds for the State, is responsible
for ensuring that Federal-aid funds are expended in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations.
(b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the
terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient
monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of
such factors as:
(1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards;
(2) The results of previous audits including whether the subrecipient receives a Single Audit
in accordance with Subpart F—Audit Requirements of this part, and the extent to which the
same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program;
(3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems;
and
(4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient
also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency).
(c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as
described in §200.207 Specific conditions.
(d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for
authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and
conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through
entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include:
(1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity.
(2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on
all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-
through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and other means.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
5Office of Policy Planning
(3) Issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the Federal award
provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by §200.521
Management decision.
(e) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient (as
described in paragraph (b) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the
pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements
and achievement of performance goals:
(1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related
matters; and
(2) Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient’s program operations;
(3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in §200.425 Audit
services.
If an MPO receives a Management Decision as a result of the Single Audit, the MPO may
be assigned the high-risk level.
After coordination with the Office of Policy Planning, any of the considerations in 2 CFR
§200.331 (b) may result in an MPO being assigned the high-risk level.
The questions in Part 2 Section 1: Risk Assessment are quantified and scored to assign a level of
risk for each MPO, which will be updated annually during the joint certification process. The results
of the Risk Assessment determine the minimum frequency by which the MPO’s supporting
documentation for their invoices is reviewed by FDOT MPO Liaisons for the upcoming year. The
frequency of review is based on the level of risk in Table 1.
Table 1. Risk Assessment Scoring
Score Risk Level Frequency of Monitoring
> 85 percent Low Annual
68 to < 84 percent Moderate Bi-annual
52 to < 68 percent Elevated Tri-annual
< 52 percent High Quarterly
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
6Office of Policy Planning
The Risk Assessment that is part of this joint certification has two main components – the
Certification phase and the Monitoring phase – and involves regular reviewing, checking, and
surveillance. The first step is to complete this Risk Assessment during the joint certification for the
current year (The red line in Figure 1).The current year runs for a 12-month period from January
1 to December 31 of the same year (Example: January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018).
There is a 6-month period when the joint certification for the current year is reviewed before the
Risk Assessment enters the Monitoring phase. The joint certification review runs from January 1
to June 30 (Example: January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019). After the review has been
completed, the Risk Assessment enters the Monitoring phase, where the MPO is monitored for a
12-month period (Example: July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020). The entire Risk Assessment runs for
a total of 30-months. However, there will always be an overlapping of previous year, current year,
and future year Risk Assessments. Figure 1 shows the timeline of Risk Assessment phases and
how Risk Assessments can overlap from year to year.
Figure 1. Risk Assessment: Certification Year vs. Monitoring
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
7Office of Policy Planning
Part 2
Part 2 of the Joint Certification is to be completed by the District MPO Liaison.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
8Office of Policy Planning
Part 2 Section 1: Risk Assessment
MPO Invoice Submittal: The Collier MPO submits 4 Invoices per calendar year (Quarterly)
List all invoices and the dates that the invoices were submitted for reimbursement during the
certification period in Table 2 below. Certification Period: January 1, 2020 – December 31, 2020
Table 2. MPO Invoice Submittal Summary: Submitted Quarterly
Invoice # Invoice Period
Date the Invoice was
Forwarded to FDOT for
Payment
Was the Invoice Submitted
More than 90 days After
the End of the Invoice
Period? (Yes or No)
G0Y70-7
01/01/20-
03/31/20 04/31/2020 No
G0Y70-8 4/01/20-6/30/20
09/08/2020 (Final Invoice of
Contract G0Y70) No
G1M49-1 07/01/20-9/30/20 10/30/2020 No
G1M49-2
10/01/20-
12/31/20 01/29/2021 No
MPO Invoice Submittal Total
Total Number of Invoices that were Submitted on Time 4
Total Number of Invoices Submitted 4
MPO Invoice Review Checklist
List all MPO Invoice Review Checklists that were completed in the certification period in Table 3
and attach the checklists to this risk assessment. Identify the total number of materially significant
finding questions that were correct on each MPO Invoice Review Checklist (i.e., checked yes).
The MPO Invoice Review Checklist identifies questions that are considered materially significant
with a red asterisk. Examples of materially significant findings include:
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
9Office of Policy Planning
Submitting unallowable, unreasonable or unnecessary expenses or corrections that
affect the total amounts for paying out.
Exceeding allocation or task budget.
Submitting an invoice that is not reflected in the UPWP.
Submitting an invoice that is out of the project scope.
Submitting an invoice that is outside of the agreement period.
Documenting budget status incorrectly.
Corrections or findings that are not considered materially significant do not warrant elevation of
MPO risk. Examples of corrections or findings that are not considered materially significant
include:
Typos.
Incorrect budgeted amount because an amendment was not recorded.
Incorrect invoice number.
Table 3. MPO Invoice Review Checklist Summary
MPO Invoice Review Checklist
Number of Correct
Materially Significant
Finding Questions
G0Y70-7 01/01/20-03/31/20 7
G0Y70-8 4/01/20-6/30/20 7
G1M49-1 07/01/20-9/30/20 7
G1M49-2 10/01/20-12/31/20 7
MPO Invoice Review Checklist Total 28 There are a potential of 7 per review checklist
and the Collier MPO succeeded in receiving a score of 7 for all listed checklists herein.
Total Number of Materially Significant Finding Questions that were
Correct 28 out of 28
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
10Office of Policy Planning
*Note: There are 7 materially significant questions per MPO Invoice Review Checklist.
MPO Supporting Documentation Review Checklist
List all MPO Supporting Documentation Review Checklists that were completed in the certification
period in Table 4 and attach the checklists and supporting documentation to this risk assessment.
Identify the total number of materially significant finding questions that were correct on each MPO
Supporting Documentation Review Checklist (i.e., checked yes). The MPO Supporting
Documentation Review Checklist identifies questions that are considered materially significant
with a red asterisk. Examples of materially significant findings include:
Submitting an invoice with charges that are not on the Itemized Expenditure Detail
Report.
Submitting an invoice with an expense that is not allowable.
Failing to submit supporting documentation, such as documentation that shows the
invoice was paid.
Submitting travel charges that do not comply with the MPO’s travel policy.
Table 4. MPO Supporting Documentation Review Checklist Summary
MPO Supporting Documentation Review Checklist
Number of Correct
Materially Significant
Finding Questions
Invoice: FHWA - G0Y70 # 4; Invoice Period: 04/01/19 – 06/30/19.
Date of Review: 05/14/2020 24 out of a possible 24
MPO Supporting Documentation Review Checklist Total 24
Total Number of Materially Significant Finding Questions that were
Correct 24
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
11Office of Policy Planning
*Note: There are 25 materially significant questions per MPO Supporting Documentation Review Checklist.
Technical Memorandum 19-04: Incurred Cost and Invoicing Practices
Were incurred costs billed appropriately at the end of the contract period?
Please Check: Yes No N/A
Risk Assessment Score
Please use the Risk Assessment worksheet to calculate the MPO’s risk score. Use Table 5 as a
guide for the selecting the MPO’s risk level.
Table 5. Risk Assessment Scoring
Score Risk Level Frequency of Monitoring
> 85 percent Low Annual
68 to < 84 percent Moderate Bi-annual
52 to < 68 percent Elevated Tri-annual
< 52 percent High Quarterly
Risk Assessment Percentage: 100% (>85%)
Level of Risk: Low
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
12Office of Policy Planning
Part 2 Section 2: Long-Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP)
Did the MPO adopt a new LRTP in the year that this certification is addressing?
Please Check: Yes No
If yes, please ensure any correspondence or comments related to the draft and final LRTP
and the LRTP checklist used by Central Office and the District are in the MPO Document
Portal or attach it to Part 2 Section 9: Attachments. List the titles and dates of attachments
uploaded to the MPO Document Portal below.
Title(s) and Date(s) of Attachment(s) in the MPO Document Portal
Final Adopted Collier LRTP was submitted into the MPO Portal by Collier MPO
Liaison in early 2021.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
13Office of Policy Planning
Part 2 Section 3: Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP)
Did the MPO update their TIP in the year that this certification is addressing?
Please Check: Yes No
If yes, please ensure any correspondence or comments related to the draft and final TIP
and the TIP checklist used by Central Office and the District are in the MPO Document
Portal or attach it to Part 2 Section 9: Attachments. List the titles and dates of attachments
uploaded to the MPO Document Portal below.
Title(s) and Date(s) of Attachment(s) in the MPO Document Portal
Victoria Peters (MPO Liaison) uploaded into MPO portal.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
14Office of Policy Planning
Part 2 Section 4: Unified Planning Work Program
(UPWP)
Did the MPO adopt a new UPWP in the year that this certification is addressing?
Please Check: Yes No
If yes, please ensure any correspondence or comments related to the draft and final UPWP
and the UPWP checklist used by Central Office and the District are in the MPO Document
Portal or attach it to Part 2 Section 9: Attachments. List the titles and dates of attachments
uploaded to the MPO Document Portal below.
Title(s) and Date(s) of Attachment(s) in the MPO Document Portal
A new UPWP was adopted in calendar year on July 1, 2020 which is FDOT’s
fiscal year 2021.
Additionally, the UPWP docs were entered into the old MPO Doc Portal by the
Liaison (VP) if anyone wishes to review.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
15Office of Policy Planning
Part 2 Section 5: Clean Air Act
The requirements of Sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act requirements affecting transportation only applies to areas designated
nonattainment and maintenance for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Florida currently is attaining all NAAQS. No certification questions are required at this time.
In the event the Environmental Protection Agency issues revised NAAQS, this section may
require revision.
Title(s) of Attachment(s)
N/A
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
16Office of Policy Planning
Part 2 Section 6: Technical Memorandum 19-03REV:
Documentation of FHWA PL and Non-PL Funding
Did the MPO identify all FHWA Planning Funds (PL and non-PL) in the TIP?
Please Check: Yes No N/A
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
17Office of Policy Planning
Part 2 Section 7: District Questions
The District may ask up to five questions at their own discretion based on experience
interacting with the MPO that were not included in the sections above. Please fill in the
question, and the response in the blanks below. This section is optional and may cover any
topic area of which the District would like more information.
1. Question
Are there any areas of interest or concern you would like to discuss with FDOT?
2. Question
N/A
3. Question
N/A
4. Question
N/A
5. Question
N/A
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
18Office of Policy Planning
Part 2 Section 8: Recommendations and Corrective
Actions
Please note that the District shall report the identification of and provide status updates of
any corrective action or other issues identified during certification directly to the MPO Board.
Once the MPO has resolved the corrective action or issue to the satisfaction of the District,
the District shall report the resolution of the corrective action or issue to the MPO Board.
The District may identify recommendations and corrective actions based on the information
in this review, any critical comments, or to ensure compliance with federal regulation. The
corrective action should include a date by which the problem must be corrected by the MPO.
Status of Recommendations and/or Corrective Actions from Prior Certifications
The Collier MPO underwent their quadrennial review in 2020, their “TMA Certification”.
The Federal team commended the Collier MPO on their adherence to the “3 C”
metropolitan planning process. They recognized 5 Noteworthy practices, 1 Corrective
Action (which was addressed prior to the publication of the Certification Report and no
further action is necessary) and 2 recommendations to further improve the planning
process.
Recommendations
N/A
Corrective Actions
N/A
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT Joint Certification
Part 2 –FDOT District
525-010-05
POLICY PLANNING
10/20
19Office of Policy Planning
Part 2 Section 9: Attachments
Please attach any documents required from the sections above or other certification
related documents here or through the MPO Document Portal. Please also sign and
attached the MPO Joint Certification Statement.
Title(s) and Date(s) of Attachment(s) in the MPO Document Portal
All attachments are in MPO Portal – original and new portal.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF POLICY PLANNING
10/17/2019 Page 1 of 5
MPO FHWA Funds
Invoice Supporting Documentation Review Checklist
The MPO’s Supporting Documentation Review is to be completed at the frequency required by the MPO’s Risk
Assessment, as a part of the Annual MPO Joint Certification Process. The checklist should be completed and saved
with invoice documentation, uploaded to the SharePoint Site for tracking by Central Office, and forwarded to MPO for their
records.
Please note: Below you will be required to identify any comments, recommendations, or findings. Comments and
recommendations are at the discretion of the District, but findings must be supported by documentation, and identify
corrections that must be made for the MPO to be reimbursed. Findings factor into the MPOs level of risk, determined by
the Risk Assessment in the Annual Joint Certification.
* Indicates a Materially Significant Finding
MPO:
Contract: G0Y70 Date of
Review: 05/14/2020 Review #: 1
Invoice
No.:
FHWA-G0Y70 -
4 Invoice Period: 04/01/19 – 06/30/19 Reviewed By: Victoria Peters
Personnel Service (MPO staff salary & fringe)
Review the payroll register and compare to expenses being reimbursed. Select one staff member and confirm details
below.
Were personnel service expenses incurred within the Invoice Period? Yes ☒ No ☐
Employee’s time sheet selected for
review? Executive Director Anne McLaughlin
Does the payroll register fall within the dates match Invoice Period? Yes ☒ No ☐
*Do the hours shown on the payroll register match hours match hours requested? Yes ☒ No ☐
*Does the employee’s timesheet match the expenses being requested for reimbursement? Yes ☒ No ☐
*Are amounts shown on payroll register and task charges accurately recorded on Itemized
Expenditure Detail Report? Yes ☒ No ☐
Are fringe charges equitably distributed to all grants? Yes ☒ No ☐
Is the timesheet signed by an authorized MPO official? Yes ☒ No ☐
Comments and Recommendations on Personnel Services Expenses
Great Job! All personnel and timesheet charges added up & good documentation!
Findings on Personnel Services Expenses
N/A
Consultant Services
Select one consultant invoice and confirm details below.
Were consultant service expenses incurred within the Invoice Period? Yes ☒ No ☐
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
MPO FHWA Funds
Invoice Supporting Documentation Review continued…
1/8/2020 Page 2 of 5
Consultant invoice selected for
review.
SGS Technologies LLC Invoice # P3157 Total: $1,290.00
*Are charges shown on invoice accurately recorded on Itemized Expenditure Detail Report? Yes ☒ No ☐
Are the consultant services invoice dates of service within the Invoice Period? 5/10/19 Yes ☒ No ☐
*Are the task services documented in the progress report? Yes – Page 3 Yes ☒ No ☐
*Is there documentation to show that invoice was paid? Yes – imm. after invoice-
documents shows check amount cleared with consultant/vendor in SAP system Yes ☒ No ☐
Comments and Recommendations on Consultant Services Expenses
Documentation for these consultant services is: Organized, clear and shows use of DBE
as well!
Findings on Consultant Services Expenses
N/A
Travel Reimbursement
If travel reimbursement was requested on this invoice, select one travel reimbursement. Refer to the MPO’s travel
policies and regulations to answer questions below.
Were travel expenses incurred within the Invoice Period? Yes ☒ No ☐
Employee’s travel reimbursement selected for
review? Councilman Hutchinson MPO Board member
*Are charges shown on the travel form accurately recorded on the task’s Itemized Expenditure
Detail Report? Yes ☒ No ☐
Has the MPO established its own travel policy? Also follows State Travel
Guidelines/Statute/Policy Yes ☒ No ☐
Does the travel reimbursement comply with MPO or State travel policies and regulations? Yes ☐ No ☐
Are charges recorded on FDOT Contractor Travel Form (300-000-06)? Yes ☒ No ☐
Is travel request signed by an MPO authorized official? Yes ☒ No ☐
*Are travel charges supported by documentation as required by travel policy? Yes ☒ No ☐
Comments and Recommendations on Travel Reimbursement Expenses
Correct Travel forms and excellent documentation provided !!
Findings on Travel Reimbursement Expenses
N/A
Direct Expenses
Select and review five direct expense line items.
Were direct expenses incurred within the Invoice Period? Yes ☒ No ☐
#1 Direct expense selected for
review Invoice # 65495 Collier County Building Space Lease
Was the cost incurred within the Invoice Period? Yes ☒ No ☐
Is the expense for purchase of equipment over $5,000? (indicate prior approval in
findings/recommendation below) Yes ☐ No ☒
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
MPO FHWA Funds
Invoice Supporting Documentation Review continued…
1/8/2020 Page 3 of 5
*Is the expense allowable? Yes ☒ No ☐
*Is there documentation to show that invoice was paid? Yes – payment cleared doc posted on
6/25/19 Yes ☒ No ☐
*Are charges shown on the invoice accurately recorded on the Itemized Expenditure Detail
Report? Yes ☒ No ☐
#2 Direct expense selected for
review Invoice #9826772809, #
9828753593, # 9830731354
Verizon Cell Bills for Anne McLaughlin; $38.06, $38.66, and $36.83 =
$113.55
Was the cost incurred within the Invoice Period? Yes ☒ No ☐
Is the expense for purchase of equipment over $5,000? (indicate prior proper approval in
findings/recommendation below) Yes ☐ No ☒
*Is the expense allowable? Yes ☒ No ☐
*Is there documentation to show that invoice was paid? Payments Received and Cleared doc. Yes ☒ No ☐
*Are charges shown on the invoice accurately recorded on the Itemized Expenditure Detail
Report? 33557.1.4.3 Yes ☒ No ☐
#3 Direct expense selected for
review Invoice # 675878 JM Todd (copier services)
Was the cost incurred within the Invoice Period? Yes Yes ☒ No ☐
Is the expense for purchase of equipment over $5,000? (indicate prior approval in
findings/recommendation below) Yes ☐ No ☒
*Is the expense allowable? Yes ☒ No ☐
*Is there documentation to show that invoice was paid? Proof of Payment of Memo Posted Yes ☒ No ☐
*Are charges shown on the invoice accurately recorded on the Itemized Expenditure Detail
Report? Yes ☒ No ☐
#4 Direct expense selected for
review Order # 300954725-001 Office Depot, 4/16/19
Was the cost incurred within the Invoice Period? Yes ☒ No ☐
Is the expense for purchase of equipment over $5,000? (indicate prior approval in
findings/recommendation below) Yes ☐ No ☐
*Is the expense allowable? Basic Office supplies Yes ☒ No ☐
*Is there documentation to show that invoice was paid? PCard processed/cleared Yes ☒ No ☐
*Are charges shown on the invoice accurately recorded on the Itemized Expenditure Detail
Report? Yes ☒ No ☐
#5 Direct expense selected for
review Invoice # 6-445-02255 Fed Ex
Was the cost incurred within the Invoice Period? Yes ☒ No ☐
Is the expense for purchase of equipment over $5,000? (indicate prior approval in
findings/recommendation below) Yes ☐ No ☒
*Is the expense allowable? Mailing Agendas to some TAC/CAC MPO Committee members Yes ☒ No ☐
*Is there documentation to show that invoice was paid? Yes ☒ No ☐
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
MPO FHWA Funds
Invoice Supporting Documentation Review continued…
1/8/2020 Page 4 of 5
*Are charges shown on the invoice accurately recorded on the Itemized Expenditure Detail
Report? Yes ☒ No ☐
Comments and Recommendations on Direct Expenses
Well organized and complete documentation
Findings on Direct Expenses
N/A
Indirect Rate
If applicable, review MPO’s APPROVED Indirect Rate.
Does the MPO have an FDOT APPROVED indirect rate? Yes ☐ No ☒
*If yes, does the indirect rate that is charged on the invoice agree with the approved indirect cost
allocation plan documented in the MPO’s UPWP? N/A NOTE: Collier MPO does not have
indirect rate, however, I do not feel their percentage should be reduced with less points on this
Review because of this so I checked “Yes” to allocate the point. I don’t feel they should be
“docked” because this item does not apply to their MPO and I believe this approach is fair and
neutral. The Liaisons are usually afforded some latitude and discretion to make these
determinations. Thank you. VGP
Yes ☒ No ☐
Comments and Recommendations on Indirect Rate Charges
NA
Findings on Indirect Rate Charges
NA
General Comments, Recommendations, and Findings
Was the invoice’s supporting documentation found to be in good order? Yes ☒ No ☐
Was there evidence that a quality control process or procedure is in place? Yes ☒ No ☐
General Comments and Recommendations
This is one of the most complete and well-organized Document Reviews I have completed
with the Collier MPO. It is clear how the Collier MPO and their Grants Office take pride in
being accurate, thorough, professional and strive for compliance at all levels. They
received the highest score for “Materially Significant Findings” because they met all
criteria. Excellent Job! Victoria Peters, FDOT Liaison for Collier MPO
* Point of Reference for the MPO: the term “Materially Significant Findings” also marked
by a read asterisk next to the question are evaluation areas of importan ce where a “Yes”
response is a positive and these are added up for your score in this Review. A higher
score indicates a possible lower Risk Assessment for this review. These red asterisks
and this term is relatively new in the risk assessment process
General Findings
None
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
MPO FHWA Funds
Invoice Supporting Documentation Review continued…
1/8/2020 Page 5 of 5
Invoice Supporting Documentation Review Checklist
Please provide the total number of *materially significant findings that were correct in Table 1. Table 1 will be used in the
Risk Assessment that is part of the annual Joint Certification to evaluate the MPO’s risk level.
Table 1. Invoice Supporting Documentation Review Checklist Summary
Description Yes Total
*Materially Significant Findings 24 24
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT UPWP Checklist
Florida Department of Transportation - Office of Policy Planning
UPWP Checklist
01/10/20
1
MPO Name: Collier MPO Draft / Final Enter Date
Received
UPWP Check List Yes No Comment
A.COVER AND TITLE PAGE
Includes CFDA Number? Yes 5/13/2020
Includes Federal Aid Project Number (FAP)? Yes
Includes FM Number (Work Program)? Yes
Name of MPO and Funding Agencies? Yes
The correct fiscal years for the proposed UPWP are listed? Yes
MPO physical, mailing, and website addresses; phone numbers Yes
The Final UPWP includes an approved signature or MPO
resolution and the date of MPO Board action? Yes
The Final UPWP includes the Cost Analysis Certification signed
and dated by the Grant Manager (MPO Liaison)? Yes
B.TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction Yes
Organization and Management Yes
Work Program Task Sheets – includes the following sections:
Administration Yes
Data Collection Yes
Transportation Improvement Program Yes
Long Range Transportation Plan Yes
Special Project Planning Yes
Public Involvement (in their Admin task) Yes
Summary Budget – Table 1
Agency Participation (broken out by year) Yes
Summary Budget – Table 2
Funding Source (broken out by year) Yes
District Planning Activities Yes
Statements and Assurances Yes
FTA Grant Application (if included in UPWP) Yes
Each Task is consistent in number, wording, and references
page numbers with each respective task sheet Yes
C.INTRODUCTION
Brief definition of the UPWP Yes
Current overview of the status of comprehensive
transportation planning activities Yes
Discussion of local and regional planning priorities Yes
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT UPWP Checklist
Florida Department of Transportation - Office of Policy Planning
UPWP Checklist
01/10/20
2
MPO Name: Collier MPO Draft / Final Enter Date
Received
UPWP Check List Yes No Comment
Planning tasks to be performed with funds under Title 23 and
Title 49 Chapter 53 (Public Transportation) Yes
A description of the metropolitan transportation and
transportation related air quality planning activities (if
applicable) anticipated in the non-attainment area regardless of
funding sources or agencies conducting air quality activities;
Yes
Discussion of soft match, including a definition and the amount
(both as a total and the percent) Yes
Indirect Cost Rate (if applicable) Yes
Description of Public Involvement process used in development
of UPWP Yes
Discussion of Planning Emphasis Areas Yes
D.ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Identification of participants and a brief description of their
respective roles in the UPWP metropolitan area planning
process
Yes
Discussion of appropriate agreements:
Standard Interlocal Agreement Yes
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Agreement Yes Yes 5/13/2020
Joint Participation Agreement – FTA 5303 funds Yes
ICAR Agreement Yes
Other agreements Yes
Identification and discussion of operational procedures and
bylaws Yes
E.WORK PROGRAM TASK SHEETS
Each sheet should describe individual tasks, be in the same format, and include:
Task number and title Yes
Purpose Yes
Previous work completed Yes
Required Activities – how task will be performed, who will
perform the task Yes
Responsible agency or agencies Yes
Proposed funding source(s) – tied into Table 2 Yes
Schedule that adequately describes activities that will take
place during the year, including:
Schedule of milestones or benchmarks
Product(s)
Yes
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT UPWP Checklist
Florida Department of Transportation - Office of Policy Planning
UPWP Checklist
01/10/20
3
MPO Name: Collier MPO Draft / Final Enter Date
Received
UPWP Check List Yes No Comment
Estimated completion date(s) Yes
Proposed funding source(s) with anticipated costs by fiscal year
and by budget line item (an Estimated Budget Detail) Yes
F.STATEMENTS AND ASSURANCES
DBE Yes
Debarment and Suspension Yes
Lobbying Yes
Title VI Nondiscrimination Agreement Yes
Appendix A Yes
Appendix E Yes
G.FTA SECTION 5305(D)APPLICATION (IF INCLUDED IN UPWP)
Certain FTA grants – Form 424 Yes
Certain FTA Grants: FTA Certification / Assurances Yes
Affirmation of Applicant Yes
Affirmation of Applicant’s Attorney Yes
Budget showing total funds by classifications Yes
Budget showing FTA funds only by classifications Yes
H.TABLE 1:AGENCY PARTICIPATION
Participating agencies identified with funding commitments Yes
Table includes only those District planning activities scheduled
to occur within the MPO Boundaries Yes
Table shows the amount of funds set aside for work by
consultants Yes
There is one table for Year 1 and one table for Year 2 Yes
I.TABLE 2:FUNDING SOURCE
Proposed funding sources and budgeted funds are identified by
task and subtask for each appropriate funding source, and are
consistent with applicable Task Sheet Yes
The Department’s PL and FTA matching funds are shown
separately Yes
Federal, state, and local contribution levels are provided by task
and subtask Yes
The total amounts shown in each task agree with the amounts
shown in Table 1: Agency Participation Yes
There is one table for Year 1 and one table for Year 2 Yes
J.GENERAL
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FDOT UPWP Checklist
Florida Department of Transportation - Office of Policy Planning
UPWP Checklist
01/10/20
4
MPO Name: Collier MPO Draft / Final Enter Date
Received
UPWP Check List Yes No Comment
The Final UPWP was reviewed and endorsed or approved by
the TAC, CAC, and the MPO prior to distribution Yes May 8, 2020
Documentation of the endorsement or approvals (e.g., a MPO
Resolution, meeting minutes, letter of authentication) are
included
Yes Resolution/5/8/20
Tasks or activities to correct or eliminate deficiencies noted in
the previous federal and/or state certification reviews are
identified in the UPWP
Yes
The annual audit is included as part of the Program
Administration Task, and as a separate line item Yes
Equipment purchases are identified as part of a task Yes
Equipment rentals and leases are included by tasks Yes
Matrix that identifies how each task relates to the Planning
Emphasis Areas and Planning Factors Yes
Victoria Peters, Completed Draft Review and Final Review by FDOT Liaison for Collier MPO
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Review Checklist
TIP Review Checklist
Updated: 3/3/2020 Page 1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
REVIEW CHECKLIST
The following TIP Review Checklist is provided to assist in the review of the TIP. This Review Checklist is to be completed and included in the
MPO’s final TIP Document.
Comments should be categorized as:
Editorial: Comments may be addressed by MPO, but would not affect approval of the document, i.e., grammatical, spelling and other
related errors.
Enhancement: Comments may be addressed by MPO, but would not affect approval of the document, i.e., improve the quality of the
document and the understanding for the public (improving graphics, re-packaging of the document, use of plain language, reformatting for
clarity, removing redundant language).
Critical: Comment MUST be addressed to meet minimum state and federal requirements to obtain approval. The reviewer must clearly
identify the applicable state or federal policies, regulations, guidance, procedures or statues that the document does not conform with.
MPO: Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Fiscal Years
included:FY21-FY25
Review #: 2 - Final Date of Review:June 23, 2020 Reviewed by:Victoria G Peters
TIP Format & Content
Does the cover include MPO name, correct fiscal years covered, MPO adoption date? Yes ☒No ☐
Choose an item. Click here to enter comments
Does the Table of Contents show the title of each section with correct page number? Yes ☒No ☐
Choose an item. Click here to enter comments
Does TIP include an endorsement that it was developed following state and federal requirements and include date
of official MPO approval? This would be an MPO resolution or signed signature block on cover. Yes ☒No ☐
Choose an item. Click here to enter comments
Does TIP include a list of definitions, abbreviations, funding and phase codes and acronyms? Yes ☒ No ☐
Choose an item. Click here to enter comments
TIP Narrative
Does the TIP begin with a statement of purpose (provide a prioritization of projects covering a five-year period
that is consistent with LRTP, contains all transportation projects MPA funded with FHWA & FTA funds and
regionally significant projects regardless of funding source)? [23 C.F.R. 450.326(a)]; [49 U.S.C. Chapter 53]
Yes ☒No ☐
Choose an item. Click here to enter comments
Was the TIP developed by MPO in cooperation with the state and public transit operator, who provided the MPO
with estimates of available Federal and State funds for the MPO to develop the financial plan?[s. 339.175(8) F.S.];
[23 C.F.R. 450.326(a)]
Yes ☒ No ☐
Choose an item. Click here to enter comments
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Review Checklist
TIP Review Checklist
Updated: 3/3/2020 Page 2 of 3
Does the TIP demonstrate that there are sufficient funds (federal, state, local and private) to implement proposed
transportation system improvements, identifies any innovative financing techniques through comparison of
revenues and costs for each year? It is recommended that the TIP include a table(s) that compares the funding
sources and amounts, by year to the total project costs. [23 C.F.R. 450.326(k)]; [23 C.F.R. 450.326(j)]; [s.
339.175(8)(c)(3) F.S].
Yes ☒No ☐
Choose an item. Click here to enter comments
Does the TIP describe project selection process and state that it is consistent with the federal requirements in
23 C.F.R 450.322(b) and for non-TMA MPOs 23 C.F.R. 450.322(c)? Yes ☒ No ☐
Choose an item. Click here to enter comments
Does the TIP identify the MPO’s criteria and process for prioritizing implementation of the transportation plan
elements (including multimodal tradeoffs) for inclusion in the TIP and explain any changes in priorities from the
previous TIP? The MPO’s TIP project priorities must be consistent with the LRTP. [23 C.F.R 450.326(n)(1)]
Yes ☒ No ☐
Choose an item. The Collier’s TIP projects are in correlation with the LRTP and the LRTP CFP
Does the TIP describe how projects are consistent with MPO’s LRTP and to the extent feasible, with port and
aviation masterplans, public transit development plans, and approved local government comprehensive plans for
those local governments located within the MPO area? [s. 339.175(8)(a) F.S.]
Yes ☒No ☐
Choose an item. Click here to enter comments
Does the TIP cross reference projects with corresponding LRTP projects, when appropriate? [s. 339.175(8)(c)(7)
F.S.] Yes ☒No ☐
Choose an item. Yes – TIP Project Pages list their LRTP counterpart in upper right hand coroner as “ LRTP REF”
Does the TIP include the FDOT Annual List of Obligated Projects or a link? The annual listing is located for
download HERE. [23 C.F.R. 450.334]; [s.339.175(8)(h), F.S.] Yes ☒ No ☐
Choose an item. Click here to enter comments
Was the TIP developed with input from the public? [23 C.F.R. 450.316]; [23 C.F.R. 450.326(b)]; The document
should outline techniques used to reach citizens (flyers, websites, meeting notices, billboards, etc.) Yes ☒No ☐
Choose an item. Yes on their website, meeting notices
Does the TIP discuss the MPO’s current FDOT annual certification and past FHWA/FTA quadrennial certification?
MPO should include anticipated date of next FHWA/FTA quadrennial certification. Yes to all Yes ☒No ☐
Choose an item. Click here to enter comments
Does the TIP discuss of the congestion management process? All MPOs are required to have a congestion
management process that provides for the effective management process that provides for the effective
management and operation of new and existing facilities using travel demand reduction and operational
management strategies. S 339.175(6)(c)(1), F.S.
Yes ☒No ☐
Choose an item. Click here to enter comments
Does the TIP discuss Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) services developed and a description of costs and
revenues from TD services, as well as a list of improvements funded with TD funds? [s.427.015(1) F.S. AND 41-
2.009(2) F.A.C.
Yes ☒ No ☐
Choose an item. Click here to enter comments
Does the TIP discuss how, once implemented, will make progress toward achieving the performance targets for:
Safety performance measures
System performance measures
Yes ☒No ☐
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Review Checklist
TIP Review Checklist
Updated: 3/3/2020 Page 3 of 3
Bridge performance measures
Pavement performance measures
State asset management plan
o Including risk to off-system facilities during emergency events (if applicable)
State freight plan
If the MPO used the Performance Measures Template, they will have met requirements.
[23.C.F.R 450.326(c)]
Choose an item. Collier MPO applied the Perf. Measures Template
Does the TIP discuss anticipated effect of achieving the performance targets identified in the LRTP, linking
investment priorities to those performance targets for:
Safety performance measures
System performance measures
Bridge performance measures
Pavement performance measures
State asset management plan
State freight plan
If the MPO used the Performance Measures Template, they will have met requirements.
[23.C.F.R 450.326(d)]
Yes ☒No ☐
Choose an item. Collier MPO applied the Perf. Measures Template
Detail Project Listing for Five Fiscal Years
Does each project in the TIP document shall include the following information?
Sufficient description of project (type of work, termini, and length)
Financial Project Number (FPN)
Estimated total project cost and year anticipated funding
Page number or identification number where project can be found in LRTP (spot check)
Category of Federal Funds and source(s) of non-Federal Funds
FTA section number included in project title or description
Yes ☒ No ☐
Choose an item. LRTP page number correlation listed on each project page.
Did the MPO make the draft TIP available to all review agencies and affected parties? Refer distribution list in
MPO Handbook, page 5-21 – 5-24 Yes ☒No ☐
Choose an item. The Collier MPO made the TIP available via the MPO Portal as directed.
TIP Review
Did the MPO upload the document into the MPO Document Portal for review by District staff, Office of Policy
Planning, Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, Bureau of Community Planning, FTA, &
FHWA?
Yes ☒No ☐
Choose an item. Via MPO Portal as directed
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Appendix A
Federal and State LRTP Requirements
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-1 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-1. Federal Requirements from January 2018 FHWA Expectations Letter
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements Are Addressed
in the LRTP
Stakeholder Coordination and Input
Specific Public Involvement Strategies: Develop a written plan to
document the procedures, strategies, and outcomes of stakeholder
involvement in the planning process for all MPO products and
processes, including but not limited to, public/stakeholder input on the
LRTP and its amendments.
- Chapter 2 – Plan Process, Section 2-4
- Public Information Summary Report
(prepared under separate cover)
- Public Involvement Plan (prepared
under separate cover)
- Social Media Outreach Strategy
Public Involvement/Tribal/Resource Agency Consultation:
Consultation on the MPO’s planning products (including the LRTP) with
the appropriate Indian Tribal governments and Federal land
management agencies (when the planning area includes such lands) is
required to be documented. State and local agencies (including Tribal
government resource agencies) responsible for land use management
are required to be consulted during the development of the LRTP. The
consultation process is required to be documented.
- Chapter 2 – Plan Process, Section 2-4
- Public Information Summary Report
(prepared under separate cover)
Measures of Effectiveness: MPOs are required to periodically review
the effectiveness of the procedures and strategies described within the
public participation plan (PPP). The PPP is also required to contain the
specific measures used, the timing of, and the process used to evaluate
the MPO’s outreach and PPP strategies. Ideally, once the LRTP is
developed, the outreach is evaluated, and then any needed changes to
the outreach process are incorporated and documented in the PPP
prior to the next LRTP update.
The Collier MPO Public Participation Plan
includes process for evaluating public
participation effectiveness.
Fiscal Constraint
Project Phases: Projects in LRTPs are required to be described in
enough detail to develop cost estimates in the LRTP financial plan that
show how the projects will be implemented. For a project in the cost
feasible plan, the phase(s) being funded and the cost must be
documented. Additionally, the source of funding for each phase must
be documented in the first 10 years of the LRTP. The phases to be
shown in LRTPs include Preliminary Engineering (PE), Right of Way
(ROW) and Construction. PE includes both the Project Development
and Environment (PD&E) and Design phases.
- Chapter 5 – Financial Resources
- Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan, Table 6-2
Full Time Span of LRTP (1st 5 Years): Plans are required to have at
least a 20-year horizon. As such, the MPO is required to have an LRTP
that includes projects from the date of adoption projected out at least
20 years from that date.
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan, Table 6-2
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-2 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-1. Federal Requirements from January 2018 FHWA Expectations Letter
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements Are Addressed
in the LRTP
Technical Topics
SHSP Consistency: The goals, objectives, performance measures and
targets of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which
includes the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), is required to be
integrated into the LRTPs either directly or by reference.
Chapter 3 – 2045 LRTP Goals and
Objectives
Freight: Changes to the planning requirements now also encourage the
consultation of agencies and officials planning for freight movements.
With the National Highway Freight Program a core funding category of
federal funds, having a solid basis for incorporating freight needs and
projecting the freight demands will be key to the LRTP’s success for
meeting its regional vision for the goods movement throughout the
area. Additionally, the planning regulations now require the goals,
objectives performance measures and targets of the State Freight Plan
to be integrated into the LRTPs either directly or by reference.
- Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs Plan, Section 4-
2
- Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan, Section
6-4
- Chapter 7 – Implementation, Section 7-2
Environmental Mitigation/Consultation: For highway projects, the
LRTP must include a discussion on the types of potential environmental
mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out these activities.
The environmental mitigation discussion in the LRTP must be
developed in consultation with Federal, State and Tribal wildlife, land
management and regulatory agencies.
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs Plan, Section 4-2
Congestion Management Process: The MPO must demonstrate that
the congestion management process is incorporated into the planning
process. The process the MPO uses can be documented separately or
in conjunction with the LRTP. The process is required to: 1) provide for
the safe and effective integrated management and operations of the
transportation network; 2) identify the acceptable level of
performance; 3) identify methods to monitor and evaluate
performance; 4) define objectives; 5) establish a coordinated data
collection program; 6) identify and evaluate strategy benefits; 7)
identity an implementation schedule; and 8) periodically assess the
effectiveness of the strategies. The congestion management process
should result in multimodal system measures and strategies that are
reflected in the LRTP and TIP. The new planning requirements provide
for the optional development of a Congestion Management Plan (CMP)
that includes projects and strategies that will be considered in the TIP.
The Congestion Management Process
was incorporated into the LRTP by
reference. Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan,
Section 6-1 (Funding of Other Roadway
Needs) includes projects identified as a
result of the CMP.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-3 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-1. Federal Requirements from January 2018 FHWA Expectations Letter
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements Are Addressed
in the LRTP
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plans: Government
agencies with 50 or more employees that have control over pedestrian
rights of way (PROW) must have transition plans for ADA. MPOs that
are a part of a public agency that has these responsibilities need to
have a heightened awareness for these responsibilities and plans.
MPOs that are a part of a public agency that has these responsibilities
need to have a heightened awareness for these responsibilities and
plans. All MPOs should at a minimum, serve as a resource for
information and technical assistance in local government compliance
with ADA.
It is the policy of the MPO to comply with
all federal and state authorities requiring
nondiscrimination, including but not
limited to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of
1987, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975 and Executive
Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) and
13166 (Limited English Proficiency). The
MPO does not and will not exclude from
participation in; deny the benefits of; or
subject anyone to discrimination on the
basis of race, color, national origin, sex,
age, disability or income. In addition, the
MPO complies with the Florida Civil
Rights Act, and does not permit
discrimination on the basis of religion or
family status in its programs, services or
activities.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-4 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-1. Federal Requirements from January 2018 FHWA Expectations Letter
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements Are
Addressed
in the LRTP
Administrative Topics
LRTP Documentation/Final Board Approval: The date the MPO Board
adopts the LRTP is the effective date of the plan. The contents of the
product that the MPO adopts on that date includes at a minimum: 1)
the current and projected demand of persons and goods; 2) existing
and proposed facilities that serve transportation functions; 3) a
description of performance measures and targets; 4) a system
performance report; 5) operational and management strategies; 6)
consideration of the results of the congestion management process; 7)
assessment of capital investment and other strategies to preserve
existing and future infrastructure; 8) transportation and transit
enhancement activities; 9) description of proposed improvements in
sufficient detail to develop cost estimates; 10) discussion of potential
environmental mitigation strategies and areas to carry out the
activities; 11) a cost feasible financial plan that demonstrates how the
proposed projects can be implemented and includes system level
operation and maintenance revenues and costs; and 12) pedestrian
walkway and bicycle transportation facilities which are required to be
considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new
construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities, except
where bicycle and pedestrian use are not permitted. The final
document(s) should be posted online and available through the MPO
office no later than 90 days after adoption date.
1. Chapter 2 – Plan Process, Section 2-3
2. Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs Plan, Table 4-1
and Figure 4-3
3. Chapter 3 – 2045 LRTP Goals and
Objectives, Table 3-1 and Chapter 7–
Implementation, Table 7-1
4. Chapter 7 – Implementation, Section 7-
1 and Appendix F
5. Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan, Section
6-1, Funding of Other Roadway Needs
6. Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan, Section
6-1, Funding of Other Roadway Needs,
Tables 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6
7. Chapter 5 – Financial Resources
8. Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan, Section
6-3
9. Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs Plan, Table 4-6
and Table 4-12
10. Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs Plan, Section
4-2
11. Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan
12. Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan,
Section 6-2
LRTP & STIP/TIP Consistency: The STIP and TIPs must be consistent
with the relevant LRTPs as they are developed. When STIP/TIP
amendments are received by FHWA and FTA, they will be reviewed for
consistency with the applicable LRTP. Projects with inconsistencies
between the STIP/TIP and the respective LRTP will not be approved for
use of federal funds or federal action until the issue is addressed.
The 2045 LRTP is consistent with the STIP
and Collier MPO FY2021-2025 TIP
(adopted June 2020), the current TIP at
the time of adoption.
New Requirements
New Planning Factors: The MPO is required to address several
planning factors as a part of its planning processes. There are two new
planning factors that need to be considered in the next LRTPs: 1)
improving the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system
and reducing or mitigating stormwater impacts of surface
transportation; and 2) enhancing travel and tourism. Florida has a
strong history of proactively addressing these transportation areas.
Chapter 3 – 2045 LRTP Goals and
Objectives
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-5 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-1. Federal Requirements from January 2018 FHWA Expectations Letter
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements Are
Addressed
in the LRTP
Transportation Performance Management: As funding for
transportation capacity projects becomes more limited, increasing
emphasis will be placed on maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness
of our current transportation system and the resources that build and
maintain the system. As such, a performance-based approach to
transportation decision making will be required for the FDOT and
MPOs. The next LRTPs (when updated or amended after May 27, 2018)
will be required to describe the performance measures and the targets
the MPO has selected for assessing the performance of the
transportation system.
A system performance report will also be required to be included in
the LRTPs. Depending on the timing of the LRTP, the date of the target
setting, and length of the evaluation cycle, the LRTPs initially
amended/updated after May 27, 2018 may not have a full cycle of
specific information to include. However, the LRTPs need to include
the data that is available and discuss how the MPO plans to use the full
information once it does become available. Depending on the timing
of the LRTP, the date of the target setting, and length of the evaluation
cycle, the LRTPs initially amended/updated after May 27, 2018 may
not have a full cycle of specific information to include. However, the
LRTPs need to include the data that is available and discuss how the
MPO plans to use the full information once it does become available.
Chapter 7 – Implementation and
Appendix F
Multimodal Feasibility: The transportation plan shall include both
long-range and short-range strategies/actions that provide for the
development of an integrated multimodal transportation system
(including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation
facilities) to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and
goods in addressing current and future transportation demand.
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan, Sections
6-2 and 6-3
Transit Asset Management: The MPO is required to set performance
targets for each performance measure, per 23 CFR 450.306(d). Those
performance targets must be established 180 days after the transit
agency established their performance targets. Transit agencies are
required to set their performance targets by January 1, 2017. If there
are multiple asset classes offered in the metropolitan planning area,
the MPO should set targets for each asset class.
Chapter 7 – Implementation and
Appendix F
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-6 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-1. Federal Requirements from January 2018 FHWA Expectations Letter
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements Are
Addressed
in the LRTP
Emerging Issues (Not Required)
Mobility on Demand (MOD): Rapid advances in Mobility on Demand
(MOD) technologies mean that these types of systems may be coming
on line during the horizon of the next LRTPs. While these technologies
when fully implemented will provide more opportunities to operate
the transportation system better, the infrastructure needed to do so
and the transition time for implementation is an area that the MPO
can start to address in this next round of LRTP updates.
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs Plan, Table 4-12
New Consultation: There are two new types of agencies that the MPO
should consult with when developing the LRTPs: agencies that are
responsible for tourism and those that are responsible for natural
disaster risk reduction.
The Collier MPO Adviser Network
includes the Tourist Development
Council Collier County and the South
Florida Water Management District
which plans for regional resilience to
natural disasters.
Summary of Public Involvement Strategies: The public involvement
summary should be supported by more detailed information, such as
the specific strategies used, feedback received and feedback
responses, findings, etc. The detailed information should then be
referenced and included in the form of a technical memorandum or
report that can be appended to the LRTP, or included in a separate,
standalone document that is also available for public review in support
of the LRTP.
- Chapter 2 – Plan Process, Section 2-4
- Public Information Summary Report
(prepared under separate cover)
Impact Analysis/Data Validation: In accordance with Title VI, MPOs
need to have and document a proactive, effective public involvement
process that includes outreach to low income, minorities and
traditionally underserved populations, as well as all other citizens of
the metropolitan area, throughout the transportation planning
process. Using this process, the LRTP needs to document the overall
transportation needs of the metropolitan area and be able to
demonstrate how public feedback and input helped shape the
resulting plan.
- Chapter 2 – Plan Process, Section 2-4
- Public Information Summary Report
(prepared under separate cover)
FDOT Revenue Forecast: To help stakeholders understand the
financial information and analysis that goes into identifying the
revenues for the MPO, we recommend the MPO include FDOT’s
Revenue Forecast in the appendices that support the LRTP.
The FDOT Revenue Forecast is included
as an attachment in the Project Cost
Development Methodology Technical
Memorandum (prepared under separate
cover).
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-7 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-1. Federal Requirements from January 2018 FHWA Expectations Letter
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements Are
Addressed
in the LRTP
Sustainability and Livability in Context: We encourage the MPO to
implement strategies that contribute to comprehensive livability
programs and advance projects with multimodal connectivity. The
MPOs are encouraged to identify and suggest contextual solutions for
appropriate transportation corridors within their area and utilize the
flexibilities provided in the federal funding programs to improve the
transportation network for all users.
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs Plan, Section 4-1
Scenario Planning: The new planning requirements describe using
multiple scenarios for consideration by the MPO in the development
of the LRTP. If the MPO chooses to develop these scenarios, they are
encouraged to consider a number of factors including potential
regional investment strategies, assumed distribution of population and
employment, a scenario that maintains baseline conditions for
identified performance measures, a scenario that improves the
baseline conditions, revenue constrained scenarios, and include
estimated costs and potential revenue available to support each
scenario.
The Scenario Network Modeling
Technical Memorandum (prepared under
separate cover) details the revenue
constrained scenarios.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-8 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-2. Federal Requirements from FHWA/FTA (November 2012)
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
Projects in the LRTP - Recently we have been responding to several questions
regarding types of projects that need to be included in the LRTP. As stated in 23
CFR 450.322(f), the LRTP is required to include the projected transportation
demand in the planning area, the existing and proposed transportation facilities
that function as an integrated system, operational and management strategies,
consideration of the results of the Congestion Management Plan, strategies to
preserve the existing and projected future transportation infrastructure,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transportation and transit enhancement
activities.
As noted in 23 CFR 450.104, a regionally significant project means a transportation
project (other than projects that may be grouped in the TIP and/or STIP or exempt
projects as defined in EPA’s transportation conformity regulation (40 CFR part
93.126, 127 and 128)) that is on a facility which serves regional transportation
needs (such as access to and from the area outside the region; major activity
centers in the region; major planned developments such as new retail malls,
sports complexes, or employment centers; or transportation terminals) and would
normally be included in the modeling of the metropolitan area’s transportation
network. At a minimum, this includes all principal arterial highways and all fixed
guideway transit facilities that offer a significant alternative to regional highway
travel.
If a project meets the definition of regionally significant, then the project must be
included in the Cost Feasible LRTP regardless of the project’s activities (i.e.
construction, facility widening, ITS installations, etc.).
Regionally significant
projects include those
listed in Chapter 6 – Cost
Feasible Plan, Table 6-1.
Additionally, projects
resulting from M-CORES
referenced in Chapter 7 –
Implementation will have
regional significance.
Grouped Projects in the LRTP - Federal regulations allow a specifically defined
type of project(s) to be grouped in the TIP. Similar groupings in the LRTP would be
permissible. However, the ability to group project(s) depends on the regional
significance of the project(s). Grouped projects in the TIP are typically ones that
are not of an appropriate scale to be individually identified and can be combined
with other projects which are similar in function, work type, and/or geographic
area. Classifications of these grouped project types are listed under 23 CFR
771.117(c) and (d) and/or 40 CFR part 93. Examples are: activities which do not
involve or lead directly to construction (such as planning and technical studies or
grants for training and research programs); construction of non-regionally
significant bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities; landscaping;
installation of fencing, signs, pavement markings, small passenger shelters, traffic
signals, and railroad warning devices where no substantial land acquisition or
traffic disruption will occur; rest areas and truck weigh stations; ridesharing
activities; and highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects.
Therefore, if grouping projects in the LRTP, the groups need to be specific enough
to determine consistency between the LRTP and the TIP.
Group projects in the LRTP
include the congestion
management projects
listed on Table 6-4 which
will be funded with TMA
Funds; and the
bicycle/pedestrian
projects listed on Table 6-
7 which will be funded
with TMA/TA Funds.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-9 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-2. Federal Requirements from FHWA/FTA (November 2012)
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
Fiscal Constraint
Operations & Maintenance - LRTP cost estimates need to be provided for the
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) activities for the entire timeframe of the
LRTP. System level estimates for O&M costs may be shown for each of the five-
year cost bands or may be provided as a total estimate for the full LRTP
timeframe. System level is interpreted to mean the system within the MPO
planning boundaries. Local agencies, working with the MPO, need to provide cost
estimates for locally-maintained facilities covered in the Plan. FDOT, working with
the MPO, needs to provide cost estimates for the state-maintained facilities
covered in the Plan. System level estimates at the FDOT District level are
acceptable for the state-maintained facilities. The LRTP will also need to identify
the general source of funding for the O&M activities. Since O&M costs and related
revenues are not available to balance the fiscal constraint of capital investment
projects, a clear separation of costs for operations and maintenance activities
from other grouped and/or regionally significant projects will need to be shown in
order to demonstrate fiscal constraint. (23 CFR 450.322(f)(10)(i)).
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan
Total Project Costs - For total project costs, all phases of a project must be
described in sufficient detail to estimate and provide an estimated total project
cost and explain how the project is expected to be implemented. Any project
which will go beyond the horizon year of the LRTP must include an explanation of
the project elements beyond the horizon year and what phases/work will be
performed beyond the horizon year of the plan. The costs of work and phases
beyond the horizon year of the plan must be estimated using Year of Expenditure
(YOE) methodologies and the estimated completion date may be described as a
band (i.e. Construction expected 2040-2050, $40M). If there is more than one
phase remaining to be funded, these may be shown as a combined line item for
the project (i.e. ROW/Construction expected 2040-2050, $50M). FHWA does not
expect that this paragraph will apply to routine system preservation or
maintenance activities. Total project costs will be shown for capacity expansion
projects and for regionally significant projects. (23 CFR 450.322(f)).
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan
Cost Feasible Plan - Revenues to support the costs associated with the
work/phase must be demonstrated. For a project to be included in the cost
feasible plan, an estimate of the cost and source of funding for each phase of the
project being funded (including the Project Development and Environment (PD&E)
phase) must be included. The phases to be shown in LRTPs include Preliminary
Engineering, ROW and Construction (FHWA and FTA support the option of
combining PD&E and Design phases into “Preliminary Engineering”). Boxed funds
can be utilized as appropriate to finance projects. However, the individual projects
utilizing the box need to be listed, or at a minimum, described in bulk in the LRTP
(i.e. PD&E for projects in Years 2016-2020). (23 CFR 450.322(f)(10)).
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-10 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-2. Federal Requirements from FHWA/FTA (November 2012)
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
New Revenue Sources - If the LRTP assumes a new revenue source as part of the
cost feasible plan, the source must be clearly explained, why it is considered to be
reasonably available, when it will be available, what actions would need to be
taken for the revenue to be available, and what would happen with projects if the
revenue source was not available. If, for example, the most recent action of a
governing body or a referendum of the public defeated a similar revenue source,
then the new revenue source may not be included in the Cost Feasible LRTP unless
the MPO can justify the revenue source and explain the difference between the
action that failed and the action being proposed (for further details, please see
FHWA Guidance Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans
and Programs issued by Gloria Shepherd, Associate Administrator for Planning,
Environment and Realty on April 17, 2009). This applies to all revenue sources in
the LRTP (i.e. federal, state, local, private, etc.)
Chapter 5 – Financial
Resources
Federal Revenue Sources - Federal and state participation on projects in the Cost
Feasible LRTP can be shown as a combined source for the cost feasible projects.
Projects within the first ten years of the Plan must be notated or flagged to
identify which projects are planned to be implemented with federal funds. Beyond
the first ten year period, the specific federal funding notation is not expected. The
project funding, however, must be clearly labeled as a combined Federal/State
source in the Cost Feasible LRTP. (23 CFR 450.322(10)f(iii))
For FTA funded projects, MAP-21 has repealed eight programs from SAFETEA-LU
and shifted many of the eligible activities to formula programs. Repealed programs
(or uses consolidated in other formula programs) include Clean Fuels (5308), Fixed
Guideway Modernization (5309), Bus and Bus Facilities (5309), JARC (5316), New
Freedom (5317), Paul Sarbanes Transit in the Parks (5320), Alternatives Analysis
(5339) and Over the Road Bus (3038). Formula programs now include
Metropolitan Planning and State Planning (5305); Urbanized Area Formula (5307);
Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Persons with Disability (5310); Rural Area
Formula (5311) and RTAP (5311); Formula Grants for Public Transportation on
Indian Reservations (5311); Research and Development, Demonstration and
Deployment (5312), State of Good Repair (5337), Bus and Bus Facilities Formula
Grants (5339). Eligible new uses which are notable include Safety Programs and
Transit Asset Management, Operations in areas with 200,000 or more population
with up to 100 buses; Transit Oriented Development Planning and Bus Rapid
Transit demonstration projects; Core Capacity Improvements and several others.
Discretionary awards that have been repealed under MAP-21 however, may have
unspent funds awarded under SAFETEA-LU in the repealed programs that still
must be shown in the LRTP, TIP and STIP to obligate the funds in FTA’s TEAM
system. Hence, project categories such as Bus Livability, Clean Fuels, Alternatives
Analysis, Transit in the Parks, etc.) may still need to be described and/or pursued
by the transit grantee within the LRTP for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 funds remaining.
However, MAP-21 greatly reduced the number and type of discretionary awards
through FTA. As such, the MPO and the transit grantee may no longer need to
consider how to account for the possibility of placing a discretionary transit
Chapter 5 – Financial
Resources
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-11 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-2. Federal Requirements from FHWA/FTA (November 2012)
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
project through a competitive award (as well as formula funds) as part of the cost
feasible LRTP except for New Starts, Small Starts, Core Capacity, Bus Rapid Transit
Demonstration or Transit Oriented Development Demonstration Planning
programs.
The purpose, need and perceived benefit of the transit project as well as
geographic distribution of funds may play a role in project selection. As such, a
transit needs plan with projects which may be unfunded when the LRTP is
prepared may need to be considered, especially for major New Start/Small Start
and other capital projects like the new Core Capacity program which must
eventually be placed within the cost feasible LRTP to have funds awarded.
Regardless, discretionary awards if any must also be eventually listed within the
cost feasible LRTP for FTA to obligate the awarded funds in a grant to a transit
grantee.
Full Timespan of the LRTP - The LRTP is a document that has a planning horizon of
at least 20 years. The LRTP is based upon the region’s visioning of the future within
the bounds of the financial resources that are available to the region during that
timeframe. The LRTP is not a programming document, but rather a planning
document that describes how the implementation of projects will help achieve the
vision. Therefore, the MPOs will need to show all the projects and project funding
for the entire time period covered by the LRTP, from the base year to the horizon
year. (23 CFR 450.322(a))
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan
Environmental Mitigation - For highway projects, the LRTP must include a
discussion on the types of potential environmental mitigation activities and
opportunities which are developed in consultation with Federal, State and Tribal
wildlife, land management and regulatory agencies. This discussion should occur
at more of a system-wide level to identify areas where mitigation may be
undertaken (perhaps illustrated on a map) and what kinds of mitigation strategies,
policies and/or programs may be used. This discussion in the LRTP would identify
broader environmental mitigation needs and opportunities that individual
transportation projects might later take advantage of. MPOs should be aware that
the use of ETDM alone is not environmental mitigation. That effort would be
considered project screening and is not a system-wide review. Documentation of
the consultation with the relevant agencies should be maintained by the MPO.(23
CFR 450.322(f)(7) and (g))
For transit capital projects, the environmental class of action is usually considered
by FTA regional offices in concert with transit grantees as the projects are analyzed
and developed. Transit maintenance and transfer facilities and major capacity
projects like light, heavy or commuter rail, BRT, etc. may require a separate
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document while acquisition of vehicles,
provision of repairs, planning studies, engineering, etc., would not require a
document. As such, environmental mitigation issues would tend to be developed
as part of the NEPA document for specific projects with a NEPA decision made
prior to the award of FTA funds. Likewise, transit environmental benefits like
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs
Plan, Section 4-2
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-12 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-2. Federal Requirements from FHWA/FTA (November 2012)
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
reduction in SOV trips and VMT, reduction in greenhouse gases, pedestrian and
bicycle linkages, transit oriented/compact development (which is more walkable)
may need to be stated within the broad parameters in the LRTP. Most FTA
planning studies are required to be listed in the Unified Planning Work Program
(UPWP) and not necessarily the TIP and STIP (although many MPO’s still list the
studies in the TIP and STIP). Preliminary engineering, final design, right of way,
utility relocation, construction, etc. for transit capital projects would need to be
listed in the LRTP, TIP and STIP.
Linking Planning and NEPA - Since 2008, prior to FHWA approving an
environmental document (Type-2 Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No Significant
Impact, or Record of Decision) and thereby granting location design concept
approval, the project must be determined to be consistent within the LRTP, the TIP
and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The project
consistency refers to the description (for example project name, termini and work
activity) between the LRTP, the TIP and the STIP (23 CFR 450.216(k), 450.324(g)
and 450.216(b)). The NEPA document must also describe how the project is going
to be implemented and funded. The project implementation description in the
NEPA document needs to be consistent with the implementation schedule in the
LRTP and TIP/STIP as well.
Future projects (design
and PD&E) listed with
FDOT District One in
Collier County are
included in either the Cost
Feasible Plan (Chapter 6)
or the Collier MPO FY2021
– 2025 TIP.
LRTP Documentation/Final Board Approval - FHWA and FTA expect that at the
time the MPO board adopts the LRTP, a substantial amount of LRTP analysis and
documentation will have been completed, and all final documentation will be
available for distribution no later than 90 days after the plan’s adoption. The
Board and its advisory committees, as well as the public should have periodically
reviewed and commented on products from interim tasks and reports that
culminate into the final Plan. Finalizing the LRTP and its supporting documentation
should be the last activity in a lengthy process. All final documents should be
posted online and available through the MPO office no later than 90 days after
adoption. The MPOs’ schedules for this round of LRTP development are expected
to allow for the Board to adopt the final LRTP no later than 5 years from the
MPOs’ adoption of the previous LRTP.
The MPO is committed to
make the LRTP
documentation available
for distribution within 90
days of the adoption of
the 2045 LRTP.
Documented LRTP Modification Procedures - If not already in place, MPOs need
established written and Board approved procedures that document how
modifications to the LRTP are addressed after Board adoption. The procedures
should specifically explain what qualifies as a modification as opposed to an
amendment as defined in 23 CFR 450.104. These procedures can be included as
part of the LRTP, the PPP, or provided elsewhere as appropriate. FHWA is
currently beginning work with FDOT and the MPOs on an LRTP amendment
process which will include statewide procedures and thresholds, similar to the
STIP amendment process. This effort will assist the MPOs in determining when
LRTP amendments are required.
LRTP amendment
procedures are addressed
in the FDOT MPO Program
Management Handbook
and in the Collier MPO’s
adopted PPP (adopted
June 2020).
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-13 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-2. Federal Requirements from FHWA/FTA (November 2012)
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
LRTP & STIP/TIP Amendment Consistency - The STIP and TIPs must be consistent
with the relevant LRTPs. When amendments to the STIP/TIP are made, the
projects must also be consistent with the LRTP from which they are derived. FHWA
and FTA staff will be checking for this consistency. Projects with inconsistencies
between the STIP/TIP and the respective LRTP will not be approved for use of
federal funds or federal action until the issue is addressed. (23 CFR 450.328 and 23
CFR 450.216(b))
FHWA and FTA understand that when developing project cost estimates in an
LRTP, the cost is an estimate which becomes more refined as a project advances.
Projects being refined between plans will not be required to update their costs in
the existing LRTP if new, more accurate information regarding project cost
becomes available. However, it is expected that upon the next scheduled adoption
of the LRTP, the latest project cost estimates shall be used.
The 2045 LRTP is
consistent with the STIP
and Collier MPO FY2021-
2025 TIP (adopted June
2020), the current TIP at
the time of adoption.
Transit Projects and Studies
Major Transit Capital Projects - For LRTP development purposes, federal funding
sources for major transit capital projects must be proposed and may not currently
be identifiable (or currently allocated) for use in the urbanized area. The Federal
Transit Administration funds projects such as New Start rail and BRT, as well as
major capital facilities such as administrative buildings or maintenance facilities
with formula and/or discretionary program dollars allocated on an annual basis. As
mentioned, MAP-21 made changes to and reductions in transit discretionary
programs. Therefore in order to plan for a transit “New Start” in the LRTP, the
MPO must assume they will be successful in competing for discretionary FTA New
Starts program dollars. A reasonable funding mix might be to assume 50%
FTA/25% Local/25% State funding, as is currently the norm in Florida. Also, MAP-
21 greatly expands the use of TIFIA loans. Grantees may be proposing use of a
TIFIA loan or other loan to help bridge the gap in capital financing for a New Start
which in some cases for large projects in multiple phases may take up to five years
to design and build (per phase).
With regard to the planning of a major capital transit facility other than a New
Start, the assumption must be made that FTA program funds such as “State of
Good Repair” or “Bus and Bus Facilities” will be awarded to the transit system
based on formula. As mentioned, large discretionary awards will be fewer under
MAP-21. In most cases, a likely funding mix for State of Good Repair or Bus and
Bus Facilities might be 80% FTA/20% local, or up to 100% FTA matched with toll
revenue credits.
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan, Section 6-3
Transit Facility - The transit grantee may propose a specific transit maintenance
facility, transfer facility, multi-modal station, park n ride lot with transit service or
other transit facility for rehabilitation, renovation or new construction. Generally,
such facility improvements remain eligible for FTA 5307, 5309, 5337 (new State of
Good Repair formula program), 5339 (new bus and bus facility formula program)
funds from FTA, or for FLEX funds from FHWA flexed to FTA for the transit use by
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan, Section 6-3
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-14 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-2. Federal Requirements from FHWA/FTA (November 2012)
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
the transit grantee. At a minimum, such facilities should be contained within the
TIP, STIP and be “consistent with” the LRTP. For example, consistent with the LRTP
might mean a general statement, paragraph, line item or section on the specific
facilities and their general location if known. Inclusion might also mention
feasibility studies, preliminary engineering, appraisals, final design, property
acquisition and relocation (if any) and NEPA documents and perhaps the intent to
seek local, state or federal funding for same. The award of such funds may require
an LRTP amendment to show such funds in the constrained LRTP.
Transit Service including Fixed Route Bus, Deviated Route, Para-transit,
Enhanced or Express Bus - The transit grantee may propose a specific new transit
service for a new area or corridor. Generally, such new service is eligible for 5307
or 5310 funds from FTA, or for L230 FLEX funds from FHWA to the transit grantee.
At a minimum, such new service should be “consistent with” the LRTP. For
example, consistent with the LRTP might mean a general statement, paragraph,
line item or section on the specific service improvements to be undertaken (and
the general location if known). Inclusion might also mention feasibility studies,
operational plans, strategic plans and perhaps the intent to seek local, state or
federal funding for same. The award of such funds may require an LRTP
amendment to show such funds.
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan, Section 6-3
Transit Service Including Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Light Rail Transit (LRT) Heavy
Rail Transit (HRT), Commuter Rail Transit (CRT), Streetcar through the New
Starts/Small Starts Program - The transit grantee may propose a specific new
fixed guideway transit service (like BRT, LRT, HRT, CRT or Streetcar) to serve a new
area or corridor as part of FTA’s New Starts/Small Starts or Core Capacity Program.
Generally, such new service is eligible for 5307 or 5309 funds from FTA, or for FLEX
funds from FHWA to the transit grantee. At a minimum, such new service should
be “consistent with” the LRTP. As such service may be a large capital expenditure,
the project, termini and cost would need to be specified in the constrained LRTP.
Inclusion might also mention feasibility studies, NEPA studies, preliminary
engineering and final design, right of way acquisition, operational plans, modeling
improvements, strategic plans and perhaps the intent to seek local, state or
federal funding for same. The award of such funds would require an LRTP
amendment to show such funds in the constrained LRTP.
There are no specific new
fixed guideway transit
service projects identified
in the CFP.
Emerging Issues (Not Required)
Safety and Transit Asset Management - MAP-21 also includes significant additions
to safety planning and transit asset management on the part of transit grantees
and the states. Federal Register guidance is expected on transit safety and transit
asset management within the near future.
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan, Tables 6-5 and 6-6
Performance Measurement - FHWA and FTA encourage the MPOs to consider
ways to incorporate performance measures/metrics for system-wide operation, as
well as more localized measures/metrics into their LRTPs. As funding for
Chapter 7 –
Implementation and
Appendix F
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-15 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-2. Federal Requirements from FHWA/FTA (November 2012)
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
transportation capacity projects becomes more limited, increasing emphasis will
be placed on maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of our current
transportation system. Consequently, measures to assess the LRTP’s effectiveness
in increasing system performance will be needed. Per the recent passage of MAP-
21, USDOT will establish performance measures in consultation with State DOTs,
MPOs and other stakeholders within 18 months of MAP-21’s enactment. Once
performance measures are identified, the States will have up to one year to set
state level targets. Once state level targets have been set, MPOs will have up to
six-month to set local level targets that support the state targets. The process and
schedule for performance measure implementation and LRTP documentation is
expected to evolve over the next two years.
Freight - The planning process is required to address the eight planning factors as
described in 23 CFR 450.306(a). The degree to which each factor is addressed will
vary depending upon the unique conditions of the MPO areas, but efforts should
be made to think through and carefully consider how to address each factor. The
importance of freight to the nation’s economic wellbeing and global
competitiveness, as well as its support and promotion of job creation and
retention has heightened its status at the national and regional level. MPOs should
be aware that discussions in MAP-21 have largely included a reference to the
increasing importance of freight, including the development of Statewide Freight
Plans. While this is part of one of the eight planning factors, special emphasis
should be given to the freight factor, as it is anticipated to play a more prominent
role in future planning requirements.
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs
Plan, Section 4-2
Sustainable Transportation and Context Sensitive Solutions - The MPOs are
encouraged to identify and suggest contextual solutions for appropriate
transportation corridors. For example, Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) may be
appropriate for historic parkways, historic districts, town centers, dense
“walkable” neighborhood areas, arterial “gateways”, greenway trails and
pedestrian ways, environmentally sensitive areas or simply where right of way is
not readily available. Under MAP-21, Transportation Alternatives like bicycle and
pedestrian improvements and trails remain eligible under the formula programs
while transportation enhancement set-asides have been removed and some uses
like historic building renovation and scenic easements may be more restrictive.
The value of the resources present may suggest the need for alternative or special
treatments (or even accepting a level of congestion and lower speeds that
respects the resources). In these instances, specific livability principles adopted by
the MPO might be employed for improved pedestrian and transit access –
especially to schools and even traffic calming.
Also, spatial relationships that support public transit like transit oriented
development and the “trip not taken” while reducing greenhouse gases might be
recognized as characteristics of a town center or mixed use area with public transit
access. Other livability planning goals might also need to be recognized like
preserving affordable housing, improving/preserving special resources like parks,
monuments and tourism areas, increasing floor area ratios and reducing parking
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs
Plan, Section 4-1
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-16 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-2. Federal Requirements from FHWA/FTA (November 2012)
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
minimums in select corridors to encourage walking trips and public transit,
transportation demand management, etc.
Proactive Improvements (Not Required)
Linking Planning and NEPA - For highway projects, we are continually looking for
strategies that improve the linkage between planning and environmental
processes. For the inclusion of regionally significant projects in the Cost Feasible
Plan of the LRTP, MPOs should strongly consider including a purpose and need
statement for the project in the LRTP. This purpose and need statement will be
carried into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and will be one
way to enhance the linkage between planning and NEPA. For example, this
purpose and need statement could briefly provide the rationale as to why the
project warranted inclusion in the LRTP. (450.324 (d); 450 Appendix A to Part 450,
Section II Substantive Issues, 8)
Future projects (design
and PD&E) listed with
FDOT District One in
Collier County are
included in either the Cost
Feasible Plan (Chapter 6)
or the Collier MPO FY2021
– 2025 TIP.
Climate Change - MPOs may also wish to give consideration to climate change and
strategies which minimize impacts from the transportation system. FHWA
supports and recognizes the importance of exploring the effects of climate change
on transportation, as well as the limited environmental resources and fuel
alternatives. State legislation now encourages each MPO to consider strategies
that integrate transportation and land use planning in their LRTP to provide for
sustainable development and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as include
energy considerations in all state, regional and local planning. As a result, MPO
LRTP Updates are encouraged to include discussions and strategies aimed at
addressing this issue.
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs
Plan, Section 4-2, Climate
Change Vulnerability and
Risks
Scenario Planning - Pursuant to MAP-21, MPOs may elect to develop multiple
scenarios for consideration in the development of the LRTP. If the MPO chooses to
develop these scenarios, it is encouraged to consider a number of factors including
potential regional investment strategies, assumed distribution of population and
employment, a scenario that maintains baseline conditions for identified
performance measures, revenue constrained scenarios, and estimated costs and
potential revenue available to support each scenario.
Collier MPO 2045 LRTP
Scenario Network
Modeling Technical
Memorandum (prepared
under separate cover)
explains the revenue
constrained scenarios
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-17 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-3. Federal Requirements from FHWA/FTA (December 2008)
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
Plan Horizon - Plans are required to have at least a 20 year horizon. FHWA and
FTA support Florida’s efforts to standardize the horizon year and establish a
uniform format to report the transportation needs of each MPO in their next LRTP
updates that can also be used to compile and identify the regional and statewide
transportation needs of Florida’s metropolitan areas. FDOT and Florida’s MPOs
(via the MPOAC) have agreed to use 2035 as the horizon year. The base year for
the next LRTP updates will be 2009. These efforts to standardize the MPOs’ plans
will provide consistency among plans and allow for better analysis and apples to
apples comparisons, so unmet needs can be more accurately quantified and
demonstrated. More information on this issue is provided in the “Financial
Guidelines for MPO Long Range Plans” paper adopted by the MPOAC.
Plan is through 2045,
reference Chapter 4 –
2045 Needs Plan and
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan
Planning Factors - The planning process is required to address the eight planning
factors as described in 23 CFR 450.306(a). The degree to which each factor is
addressed will vary depending on the unique conditions of the area, but efforts
should be made to think through and carefully consider how to address each
factor. The Safety factor seems to create challenges for some MPOs as to how
safety should be addressed. The LRTP should contain a safety element, as
described in 23 CFR 450.322 (h). The planning process needs to be consistent with
the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Consequently, the MPO must be
familiar with the Plan in order to identify MPO goals and strategies that would
address safety, and integrate SHSP goals and strategies into the activities and
planning efforts of the MPO. Suggestions for how this consistency can be
accomplished can be obtained through discussions with, and examples provided
by, FHWA, FDOT and other MPOs. A safety guide providing a menu of
recommendations for MPO actions is being developed by FHWA Florida Division as
a result of meetings with FDOT planning and safety personnel and MPO staff
members from throughout the state over the past year. A draft document will be
circulated for review by December 2008.
Chapter 3 – 2045 LRTP
Goals and Objectives
Year of Expenditure - All LRTP Update financial plans shall be in Year of
Expenditure (YOE) dollars and shall include estimates of all revenue sources that
can reasonably be anticipated over the lifetime of the plan. Revenue and cost
estimates for capacity and non-capacity projects and programs, including
operations and maintenance costs (state and local) are to be included, consistent
with the methodology presented in the financial guidance developed by FDOT in
coordination with FHWA and the MPOs. The financial guidance should be included
in the appendices of the LRTP. Note: The December 2007 interim YOE Compliance
Process guidance previously developed by FDOT/FHWA/FTA to address LRTP
amendments and modifications prior to LRTP Updates being completed is no
longer applicable once the MPOs have adopted their LRTP Updates.
Chapter 5 – Financial
Resources
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-18 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-3. Federal Requirements from FHWA/FTA (December 2008)
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
Fiscal Constraint - Projects in Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) are
required to be described in enough detail to develop cost estimates in the LRTP
financial plan that show how the projects will be implemented. These estimates
could reflect known costs of mitigation. The LRTP documentation of project costs
will enable FHWA/FTA and FDOT to determine fiscal constraint of the document.
For a project to be included in the cost feasible plan, the cost of and source of
funding for each phase being funded (including the PD&E phase) must be
documented. The source of funds for the PD&E phase can be shown as “boxed
funds” reserved for “PD&E” in a state or local revenue forecast (e.g., a percentage
of state/federal “Product Support” funds estimated to be available during a 5-year
planning period) or be individually assigned to each project. Boxed funds should
also be reserved for the Final Design phase as well or be individually assigned to
each project. A third option is to use boxed funds entitled “PD&E and Final
Design”. Regardless of how the boxed funds are titled, the individual projects
utilizing the box need to be listed, or at a minimum, described in bulk in the LRTP
(i.e. PD&E for projects in Years 2016-2020).
Please note that the FHWA guidance refers to Preliminary Engineering (PE). In
most states this would include two of Florida phases: PD&E and Final Design.
PD&E could also be referred to as “PE for NEPA”.
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan
NEPA Approvals - Prior to FHWA approving an environmental document (Type-2
CE, EA-FONSI, or FEIS) and thereby granting location design concept approval, the
project must be consistent with the LRTP and described in the STIP/TIP. The NEPA
document must describe how the project is going to be implemented and funded.
That description also needs to be reflected in the LRTP and STIP/TIP. For guidance
related to NEPA approvals, see the “Guidance on Consistency Among Metropolitan
Long Range Transportation Plans, the State Transportation Improvement Program,
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs and NEPA Approvals”.
Future projects (design
and PD&E) listed with
FDOT District One in
Collier County are
included in either the Cost
Feasible Plan (Chapter 6)
or the Collier MPO FY2021
– 2025 TIP.
Environmental Mitigation - The LRTP must include a discussion on environmental
mitigation that is developed in consultation with Federal, State and Tribal wildlife,
land management and regulatory agencies. This discussion should occur at more
of a system-wide level to identify areas where mitigation may be undertaken
(perhaps illustrated on a map) and what kinds of mitigation strategies, policies
and/or programs may be used. This discussion in the LRTP would identify broader
environmental mitigation needs and opportunities that individual transportation
projects might later take advantage of. For example, as a result of consultation
with resource agencies, the plan might identify an expanse of degraded wetlands
associated with a troubled body of water that represents a good candidate for
establishing a wetlands bank or habitat bank for wildlife and waterfowl. The plan
might identify locations where the purchase of Development rights would assist in
preserving a historic battlefield or historic farmstead.
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs
Plan, Section 4-2
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-19 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-3. Federal Requirements from FHWA/FTA (December 2008)
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
Congestion Management Process - Since the passage of SAFETEA-LU in 2005, the
emphasis on congestion management has been on the process, and how that
process results in strategies that can be reflected in the LRTP and TIP. The CMP
shall be developed, established and implemented as part of the metropolitan
transportation planning process and should be integrated into project
prioritization and performance evaluation of the multi-modal transportation
system.
- Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs
Plan, Section 4-2
- Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan, Section 6-1
Chapter 7 –
Implementation, Section
7-2
Environmental/Tribal Consultation - Consultation involving the appropriate Tribal
governments, federal and state wildlife, land management and regulatory
agencies should be documented in the public participation plan. This consultation
shall involve comparisons of state conservation plans/maps, and inventories of
natural or historical resources with transportation plans, as appropriate and
available. Tribal governments and resource agencies should also be involved in the
actual development of the Plan, as well as in the discussions of how their plans
may affect the proposed transportation plan. The process for how tribal
governments and resource agencies are involved in the planning process needs to
be developed in collaboration with those agencies.
Public Participation processes should also include the Tribal governments, federal
and state wildlife, land management and regulatory agencies and should be
documented, along with public participation activities and efforts with the other
transportation partners and interested parties as required, in the public
participation plan.
- Chapter 2 – Plan Process,
Section 2-4
- Public Information
Summary Report
(prepared under separate
cover)
LRTP Impact Analysis - In accordance with Title VI, MPOs need to have and
document a proactive, effective public involvement process that includes outreach
to low income, minorities and traditionally underserved populations, as well as all
other citizens of the metropolitan area, throughout the transportation planning
process. Using this process, the LRTP needs to document the overall
transportation needs of the metropolitan area and be able to demonstrate how
public feedback and input helped shape the resulting plan.
MPOs may use a variety of strategies to demonstrate that their planning process is
consistent with Title VI and other federal anti-discrimination provisions in the
development of the LRTP. MPOs need to include this information in summary form
in the LRTP. This information should be derived from the MPO’s public
involvement program elements. The summary of public involvement should be
supported by more detailed information, such as the specific strategies used,
feedback received and feedback responses, findings, etc. The detailed information
should then be referenced and included in the form of a technical memorandum
or report that can be appended to the LRTP, or included in a separate, stand-alone
document that is also available for public review in support of the LRTP.
- Chapter 2 – Plan Process,
Section 2-4
Public Information
Summary Report
(prepared under separate
cover)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-20 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-3. Federal Requirements from FHWA/FTA (December 2008)
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
Emerging Issues (Not Required)
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts - A discussion of indirect and cumulative effects
and an evaluation of the level of effect would be appropriate at the overall plan
level, rather than just at the project level. This information could be expanded
upon during the project development project phase, but the initial groundwork
could be laid during LRTP development.
Multimodal Feasibility - The analysis for utilizing other modes, particularly
evaluating transit on a plan and system wide level, as opposed to project level,
could and should be explored to provide more efficient and effective mobility and
connectivity of the entire multimodal transportation system. This process is
especially relevant given the current situation with limited resources for
transportation being a major issue.
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan, Sections 6-2 and 6-3
Performance Measurement - As funding for transportation capacity projects
becomes more limited, increasing emphasis will be placed on maximizing the
efficiency and effectiveness of our current transportation system. As congestion
management processes and operations strategies are evaluated to determine
their effectiveness in improving system performance, it is likely to follow that
LRTPs will also need to be evaluated on their ability to improve system
performance. As MPOs begin the LRTP update process, performance measures to
assess the LRTP’s effectiveness in increasing system performance should be
developed.
Chapter 7 –
Implementation and
Appendix F
Air Quality - Although Florida is currently in attainment for all pollutants, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently proposed changes to lower
the threshold for ground level ozone which will affect the attainment status of a
number of MPO areas within Florida. Although the effects and the exact areas
affected are not certain at this time, it is prudent to begin looking at what would
be required to meet the new standards if/when they are implemented, which
could be in the next few years. This is particularly important for those MPOs in
areas that have been identified as potential areas that may not meet new
standards. Discussions will be initiated with EPA, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), FHWA and FDOT to decide how best address this
issue. Training has been requested by FHWA for FDOT and the MPOs on Air
Quality and Conformity for the coming year.
The Collier MPO
geographic area is a
designated attainment
area for all of the National
Ambient Air Quality
Standards under the
criteria provided in the
Clean Air Act.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-21 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-3. Federal Requirements from FHWA/FTA (December 2008)
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
Climate Change - Much attention has been given by all levels of government to
the issue of climate change and how it affects all aspects of life, including the
transportation system.
Legislation was recently passed in Florida that encourages each MPO to consider
strategies that integrate transportation and land use planning in their LRTP to
provide for sustainable development and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as
well as include energy considerations in all state, regional and local planning. As a
result, it is anticipated that the MPO LRTP Updates will include discussions and
strategies aimed addressing this issue. FHWA also supports and recognizes the
importance of exploring the effects of climate change on transportation, as well as
the limited environmental resources and fuel alternatives. FHWA’s recently
released report, “Integrating Climate Change Considerations into the
Transportation Planning Process” (www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/index.htm) serves as a
good resource on this topic.
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs
Plan, Section 4-2, Climate
Change Vulnerability and
Risks
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-22 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-4. Other Federal Law and Requirements the LRTP Shall Include
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
The current and projected transportation demand of persons and goods in the
metropolitan planning area over the period of the transportation plan. [23 C.F.R.
450.324(f)(1)]
Chapter 2 – Plan Process,
Section 2-3
Emphasis should be given to those existing or proposed transportation facilities
that serve important national and regional transportation functions over the
period of the transportation plan, including major roadways, public transportation
facilities, intercity bus facilities, multimodal and intermodal facilities, non-
motorized transportation facilities, and intermodal connectors. Additionally, the
locally preferred alternative selected from an Alternative Analysis under the FTA
Capital Investment Grant Program needs to be adopted as a part of the plan. [23
C.F.R. 450.324(f)(2)]
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan
A description of the performance measures and performance targets used in
assessing the performance of the transportation system in accordance with the
required performance management approach. [23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(3)]
Chapter 7 –
Implementation, Section
7-1
A system performance report and subsequent updates evaluating the condition
and performance of the transportation system with respect to the required
performance targets, including progress achieved by the MPO in meeting the
performance targets in comparison with system performance recorded in previous
reports, including baseline data; and, for MPOs that voluntarily elect to develop
multiple scenarios, an analysis of how the preferred scenario has improved the
conditions and performance of the transportation system, and how changes in
local policies and investments have impacted the costs necessary to achieve the
identified performance targets. [23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(4)]
Chapter 7 –
Implementation and
Appendix F
Operational and management strategies to improve the performance of existing
transportation facilities in order to relieve vehicular congestion and maximize the
safety and mobility of people and goods. [23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(5)
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan, Section 6-1
Consideration of the results of the congestion management process in
Transportation Management Areas (TMA), including the identification of single
occupancy vehicle (SOV) projects that result from a congestion management
process in TMAs that are nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide. [23 C.F.R.
450.324(f)(6)]
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan, Section 6-1
Assessment of capital investment and other strategies to preserve the existing and
projected future metropolitan transportation infrastructure, provide for
multimodal capacity increases based on regional priorities and needs, and reduce
the vulnerability of the existing transportation infrastructure to natural disasters.
May consider projects and strategies that address corridors or areas where
congestion threatens the efficient functioning of the MPO’s transportation system.
[23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(7)]
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-23 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-4. Other Federal Law and Requirements the LRTP Shall Include
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
Include transportation and transit enhancement activities, including consideration
of the role that intercity buses may play in reducing congestion, pollution, and
energy consumption in a cost-effective manner and strategies and investments
that preserve and enhance intercity bus systems. Activities would also include
systems that are privately owned and operated. [23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(8)]
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan, Section 6-3
Descriptions of proposed improvements in sufficient detail to develop cost
estimates (e.g., design concept and design scope descriptions). [23 C.F.R.
450.324(f)(9)]
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs
Plan, Table 4-6 and Table
4-12
A discussion of types of potential environmental mitigation activities and potential
areas to carry out these activities, including activities that may have the greatest
potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the
LRTP. The discussion may focus on policies, programs, or strategies, rather than at
the project level. The MPO shall develop the discussion in consultation with
applicable Federal, State, and Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory
agencies. The MPO may establish reasonable timeframes for performing this
consultation. [23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(10)]
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs
Plan, Section 4-2
A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be
implemented. Revenue and cost estimates must use an inflation rate(s) to reflect
“year of expenditure dollars,” based on reasonable financial principles and
information, developed cooperatively by the MPO, State(s), and public
transportation operator(s). For illustrative purposes, the financial plan may include
additional projects that would be included in the adopted transportation plan if
additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were to become
available. [23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(11)]
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan
Pedestrian walkway and bicycle transportation facilities in accordance with 23
U.S.C. 217(g). [23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(12)]
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan, Section 6-2
The plan shall include both long and short-range strategies/actions that provide
for the development of an integrated multimodal transportation system (including
accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) to facilitate
the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in addressing current and
future transportation demand. [23 C.F.R. 450.324(b)]
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan
The MPO, the State(s), and the public transportation operator(s) shall validate
data used in preparing other existing modal plans for providing input to the
transportation plan. In updating the transportation plan, the MPO shall base the
update on the latest available estimates and assumptions for population, land use,
travel, employment, congestion, and economic activity. The MPO shall approve
transportation plan contents and supporting analyses produced by a
transportation plan update. [23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)]
Chapter 2 – Plan Process,
Section 2-3
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-24 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-4. Other Federal Law and Requirements the LRTP Shall Include
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
The MPO shall integrate priorities, goals, countermeasures, strategies, or projects
for the metropolitan planning area contained in the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP), including the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), or an Interim
Agency Safety Plan, as in effect until completion of the Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan; and may incorporate or reference applicable emergency relief
and disaster preparedness plans and strategies and policies that support
homeland security, as appropriate, to safeguard the personal security of all
motorized and non-motorized users. [23 C.F.R. 450.324(h)]
Chapter 3 – 2045 LRTP
Goals and Objectives
Source: FDOT – MPO Handbook, Chapter 4: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-
source/planning/policy/metrosupport/resources/fdot-mpo-
handbook99c4d55af487435394909e5f80818235.pdf?sfvrsn=861c81ff_27
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-25 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-5. Other State Requirements for the LRTP
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
LRTPs are to identify transportation facilities that should function as an integrated
metropolitan transportation system, giving emphasis to facilities that serve
important national, state, and regional transportation functions, including facilities
on the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) and facilities for which projects have been
identified pursuant to Transportation Regional Incentive Program. [Section
339.175(1), F.S.]
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan, Section 6-1
The LRTP must address at least a 20-year planning horizon, include both long-
range and short-range strategies, and comply with all other State and Federal
requirements. The LRTP must also consider these prevailing principles: preserving
the existing transportation infrastructure, enhancing Florida’s economic
competitiveness, and improving travel choices to ensure mobility. [Section
339.175(7), F.S.]
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan
The LRTP must be consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, with future land
use elements and the goals, objectives, and policies of the approved local
government comprehensive plans of the units of local government located within
the jurisdiction of the MPO. [ Section 339.175(7), F.S.]
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs
Plan, Section 4-1
Each MPO is encouraged to consider strategies that integrate transportation and
land use planning in order to provide for sustainable development and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. [Section 339.175(7), F.S
Chapter 2 – Plan Process,
Section 2-2
The approved LRTP must be considered by local governments in the development
of the transportation elements in local government comprehensive plans and any
amendments thereto. [Section 339.175(7), F.S.]
The 2045 LRTP will be
provided to all local
governments for
development of their
comprehensive plans.
The LRTP must identify transportation facilities, including, but not limited to, major
roadways, airports, seaports, spaceports, commuter rail systems, transit systems,
and intermodal or multimodal terminals that will function as an integrated
metropolitan transportation system. [Section 339.175(7)(a), F.S.]
- Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs
Plan
- Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan
- Chapter 7 -
Implementation
The LRTP must give emphasis to those transportation facilities that serve national,
statewide, or regional functions; and must consider the goals and objectives
identified in the Florida Transportation Plan. If a project is located within the
boundaries of more than one MPO, the MPOs must coordinate plans regarding the
project in their LRTPs. [Section 339.175(7)(a), F.S.]
Table 6-1 in Chapter 6
presents projects that are
considered regionally or
nationally significant. The
Florida Transportation
Plan is listed as a
referenced document for
the LRTP update, in
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range A-26 Appendix A Federal and
Transportation Plan State LRTP Requirements
Table A-5. Other State Requirements for the LRTP
Regulatory Requirement Summary
Where Requirements
Are Addressed in the
LRTP
Plan, Section 4-1. The
goals and objectives in the
FTP were considered and
are similar to the goals
and objectives identified
for the 2045 LRTP update.
Coordination with Lee
County MPO took place
several times throughout
the LRTP update.
The LRTP must assess capital investment and other measures necessary to ensure
the preservation of the existing metropolitan transportation system, including
requirements for the operation, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of
major roadways and requirements for the operation, maintenance, modernization,
and rehabilitation of public transportation facilities. [Section 339.175(7)(c)(1), F.S.]
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan
The LRTP must assess capital investment and other measures necessary to make
the most efficient use of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular
congestion, improve safety, and maximize the mobility of people and goods. Such
efforts must include, but are not limited to, consideration of infrastructure and
technological improvements necessary to accommodate advances in vehicle
technology, such as autonomous technology and other developments. [Section
339.175(7)(c)(2), F.S.]
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible
Plan
The LRTP must indicate, as appropriate, proposed transportation enhancement
activities, including, but not limited to, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, scenic
easements, landscaping, historic preservation, mitigation of water pollution due to
highway runoff, and control of outdoor advertising. [Section 339.175(7)(d), F.S.]
At this time, the 2045
LRTP does not specifically
address proposed
transportation
enhancement activities
with the exception of
pedestrian and bicycle
facilities.
The LRTP must be approved by each MPO on a recorded roll-call vote or hand-
counted vote of the majority of the MPO membership present. [Section
339.175(13), F.S.]
The Collier MPO is
committed to the
adoption of the LRTP
during a recorded roll call
vote or hand-counted vote
of the majority of the
MPO Board members.
Source: FDOT – MPO Handbook, Chapter 4: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-
source/planning/policy/metrosupport/resources/fdot-mpo-
handbook99c4d55af487435394909e5f80818235.pdf?sfvrsn=861c81ff_27
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Florida Department of Transportation
LRTP Review Checklist 1
Updated- 9/17/2019
FDOT LRTP Review Checklist
Collier MP0 2045 LRTP
Section A- Federal Requirements Where and How Addressed
23 C.F.R. Part 450 – Planning Assistance and Standards
A-1 Does the plan cover a 20-year horizon from the date of
adoption?
Please see the “Administrative Topics” section of the
2018 FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(a)
Yes. The plan covers 2025 through 2045.
A-2 Does the plan address the planning factors described in
23 C.F.R. 450.306(b)?
Please see the “Fiscal Constraint” section of the 2018
FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
Please see the “New Requirements” section of the 2018
FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
Risk and Resiliency
Does the plan improve the resiliency and reliability of
the transportation system and reduce or mitigate
stormwater impacts of surface transportation?
Travel and Tourism
Does that plan enhance travel and tourism?
Please see the “Proactive Improvements” section of the
2018 FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(a)
Yes. Reference Chapter 3 – 2045 LRTP Goals and
Objectives.
Yes. Chapter 3 – LRTP Goals and Objectives, Table 3-1
presents how projects identified in the Needs Plan
were scored based on Goal #10.
Yes. Chapter 3 – LRTP Goals and Objectives, Table 3-1
presents how projects identified in the Needs Plan
were scored based on Goal #3.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Florida Department of Transportation
LRTP Review Checklist 2
Updated- 9/17/2019
Section A- Federal Requirements Where and How Addressed
A-3 Does the plan include both long-range and short-range
strategies/actions that provide for the development of
an integrated multimodal transportation system
(including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle
transportation facilities) to facilitate the safe and
efficient movement of people and goods in addressing
current and future transportation demand?
Please see the “Technical Topics” section of the 2018
FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(b)
Yes. Reference Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan.
A-4 Was the requirement to update the plan at least every
five years met?
Please see the “Administrative Topics” section of the
2018 FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(c)
Yes. The last approved LRTP was the 2040 LRTP
adopted in December 2015.
A-5 Did the MPO coordinate the development of the
metropolitan transportation plan with the process for
developing transportation control measures (TCMs) in a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)?
23 C.F.R. 450.324(d)
The Collier MPO geographic area is a designated
attainment area for all of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards under the criteria provided in the
Clean Air Act.
A-6 Was the plan updated based on the latest available
estimates and assumptions for population, land use,
travel, employment, congestion, and economic activity?
Please see the “Proactive Improvements” section of the
2018 FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(e)
Yes. Reference Chapter 2 – Plan Process, Section 2-3.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Florida Department of Transportation
LRTP Review Checklist 3
Updated- 9/17/2019
Section A- Federal Requirements Where and How Addressed
A-7 Does the plan include the current and projected
transportation demand of persons and goods in the
metropolitan planning area over the period of the plan?
Please see the “Technical Topics” section of the 2018
FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
Please see the “Administrative Topics” section of the
2018 FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(1)
Yes. Reference Chapter 2 – Plan Process, Section 2-3.
A-8 Does the plan include existing and proposed
transportation facilities (including major roadways,
public transportation facilities, intercity bus facilities,
multimodal and intermodal facilities, nonmotorized
transportation facilities, and intermodal connectors that
should function as an integrated metropolitan
transportation system, giving emphasis to those
facilities that serve important national and regional
transportation functions over the period of the
transportation plan?
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(2)
Yes. Reference Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan.
A-9 Does the plan include a description of the performance
measures and performance targets used in assessing
the performance of the transportation system in
accordance with §450.306(d)?
Please see the “New Requirements” section of the 2018
FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(3)
Yes. Reference Chapter 7 – Implementation and
Appendix F (System Performance Report).
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Florida Department of Transportation
LRTP Review Checklist 4
Updated- 9/17/2019
Section A- Federal Requirements Where and How Addressed
A-10 Does the plan include a system performance report and
subsequent updates evaluating the condition and
performance of the transportation system with respect
to the performance targets described in §450.306(d),
including progress achieved by the metropolitan
planning organization in meeting the performance
targets in comparison with system performance
recorded in previous reports, including baseline data?
Please see the “New Requirements” section of the 2018
FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(4)(i)
Yes. Reference Chapter 7 – Implementation and
Appendix F (System Performance Report).
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Florida Department of Transportation
LRTP Review Checklist 5
Updated- 9/17/2019
Section A- Federal Requirements Where and How Addressed
A-11 Did the MPO integrate in the metropolitan
transportation planning process, directly or by
reference, the goals, objectives, performance measures,
and targets described in other State transportation
plans and transportation processes, as well as any plans
developed under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 by providers of
public transportation, required as part of a
performance-based program including:
(i) The State asset management plan for the NHS, as
defined in 23 U.S.C. 119(e) and the Transit Asset
Management Plan, as discussed in 49 U.S.C. 5326;
(ii) Applicable portions of the HSIP, including the SHSP,
as specified in 23 U.S.C. 148;
(iii) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan in 49
U.S.C. 5329(d);
(iv) Other safety and security planning and review
processes, plans, and programs, as appropriate;
(v) The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program performance plan in 23 U.S.C.
149(l), as applicable;
(vi) Appropriate (metropolitan) portions of the State
Freight Plan (MAP-21 section 1118);
(vii) The congestion management process, as defined in
23 CFR 450.322, if applicable; and
(viii) Other State transportation plans and transportation
processes required as part of a performance-based
program.
Please see the “New Requirements” section of the 2018
FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.306 (d)(4)
Yes. Reference Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs Plan, Section
4-2, referenced plans.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Florida Department of Transportation
LRTP Review Checklist 6
Updated- 9/17/2019
Section A- Federal Requirements Where and How Addressed
A-12 Does the plan include operational and management
strategies to improve the performance of existing
transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion
and maximize the safety and mobility of people and
goods?
Please see the “Technical Topics” section of the 2018
FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(5)
Yes. Reference the following:
-Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs Plan, Section 4-2
-Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan, Section 6-1
-Chapter 7 – Implementation, Section 7-2
A-13 Does the plan include consideration of the results of the
congestion management process in TMAs, including the
identification of SOV projects that result from a
congestion management process in TMAs that are
nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide?
Please see the “Technical Topics” section of the 2018
FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(6)
Yes. Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan, Section 6-1. No
single occupancy vehicle projects were identified as
the Collier MPO geographic area is a designated
attainment area for all of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards under the criteria provided in the
Clean Air Act.
A-14 Does the plan include assessment of capital investment
and other strategies to preserve the existing and
projected future metropolitan transportation
infrastructure, provide for multimodal capacity increases
based on regional priorities and needs, and reduce the
vulnerability of the existing transportation infrastructure
to natural disasters?
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(7)
Yes. Reference Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan and
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs Plan (Ranking the Needs).
A-15 Does the plan include transportation and transit
enhancement activities, including consideration of the
role that intercity buses may play in reducing
congestion, pollution, and energy consumption in a
cost-effective manner and strategies and investments
that preserve and enhance intercity bus systems,
including systems that are privately owned and
operated, and including transportation alternatives, as
defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a), and associated transit
improvements, as described in 49 U.S.C. 5302(a)?
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(8)
Yes. Reference Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan, Section
6-3.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Florida Department of Transportation
LRTP Review Checklist 7
Updated- 9/17/2019
Section A- Federal Requirements Where and How Addressed
A-16 Does the plan describe all proposed improvements in
sufficient detail to develop cost estimates?
Please see the “Fiscal Constraint” section of the 2018
FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(9)
Yes. Reference Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs Plan, Table 4-
6 and Table 4-12.
A-17 Does the plan include a discussion of types of potential
environmental mitigation activities and potential areas
to carry out these activities, including activities that may
have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the
environmental functions affected by the metropolitan
transportation plan?
Please see the “Technical Topics” section of the 2018
FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(10)
Yes. Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs Plan, Section 4-2
A-18 Does the plan include a financial plan that demonstrates
how the adopted transportation plan can be
implemented?
Please see the “Fiscal Constraint” section of the 2018
FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(11)
Yes. Reference Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan.
A-19 Does the plan include system-level estimates of costs
and revenue sources to adequately operate and
maintain Federal-aid highways and public
transportation?
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(11)(i)
Yes. Reference Chapter 5 – Financial Resources and
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan.
A-20 Did the MPO, public transportation operator(s), and
State cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will
be available to support metropolitan transportation
plan implementation, as required under §450.314(a)?
Please see the “Proactive Improvements” section of the
2018 FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(11)(ii)
Yes. Reference Chapter 5 – Financial Resources.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Florida Department of Transportation
LRTP Review Checklist 8
Updated- 9/17/2019
Section A- Federal Requirements Where and How Addressed
A-21 Does the financial plan include recommendations on
additional financing strategies to fund projects and
programs included in the plan, and, in the case of new
funding sources, identify strategies for ensuring their
availability?
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(11)(iii)
Yes. Reference Chapter 5 – Financial Resources
A-22 Does the plan's revenue and cost estimates use inflation
rates that reflect year of expenditure dollars, based on
reasonable financial principles and information,
developed cooperatively by the MPO, State(s), and
public transportation operator(s)?
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(11)(iv)
Yes. Reference Chapter 5 – Financial Resources and
Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan.
A-23 Does the financial plan address the specific financial
strategies required to ensure the implementation of
TCMs in the applicable SIP?
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(11)(vi)
The Collier MPO geographic area is a designated
attainment area for all of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards under the criteria provided in the
Clean Air Act. Therefore no specific financial strategies
were required to ensure implementation of TCMs.
A-24 Does the plan include pedestrian walkway and bicycle
transportation facilities in accordance with 23
U.S.C.17(g)?
23 C.F.R. 450.324(f)(12)
Yes. Reference Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan, Section
6-2.
A-25 Does the plan integrate the priorities, goals,
countermeasures, strategies, or projects for the
metropolitan planning area contained in the HSIP,
including the SHSP, the Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan, or an Interim Agency Safety Plan?
Please see the “Technical Topics” section of the 2018
FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(h)
Yes. Reference Chapter 3 – 2045 LRTP Goals and
Objectives.
A-26 Does the plan identify the current and projected
transportation demand of persons and goods in the
metropolitan planning area over the period of the plan?
23 C.F.R. 450.324(g)(1)
Yes. Reference Chapter 2 – Plan Process, Section 2‐3.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Florida Department of Transportation
LRTP Review Checklist 9
Updated- 9/17/2019
Section A- Federal Requirements Where and How Addressed
A-27 Did the MPO provide individuals, affected public
agencies, representatives of public transportation
employees, public ports, freight shippers, providers of
freight transportation services, private providers of
transportation (including intercity bus operators,
employer-based commuting programs, such as carpool
program, vanpool program, transit benefit program,
parking cashout program, shuttle program, or telework
program), representatives of users of public
transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian
walkways and bicycle transportation facilities,
representatives of the disabled, and other interested
parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on
the transportation plan using the participation plan
developed under §450.316(a)?
23 C.F.R. 450.324(j)
Yes. Through coordination with the Collier MPO’s
committees, plan updates provided to the Collier
MPO Advisor Network, and public outreach
documented in Chapter 2 and the Public Involvement
Summary Report (prepared under separate cover), the
MPO provided individuals, affected public agencies,
and all other agencies noted (with the exception of
public ports), reasonable opportunity to comment on
the 2045 LRTP.
A-28 Did the MPO publish or otherwise make readily
available the metropolitan transportation plan for public
review, including (to the maximum extent practicable) in
electronically accessible formats and means, such as the
World Wide Web?
Please see the “Stakeholder and Coordination Input”
section of the 2018 FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for
guidance.
Please see the “Administrative Topics” section of the
2018 FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.324(k), 23 C.F.R. 450.316(a)(1)(iv)
Yes. The MPO posted the Draft LRTP and the Final
LRTP on their website for public comments.
A-29 Did the MPO provide adequate public notice of public
participation activities and time for public review and
comment at key decision points, including a reasonable
opportunity to comment on the proposed metropolitan
transportation plan?
Please see the “Stakeholder and Coordination Input”
section of the 2018 FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for
guidance.
23 C.F.R 450.316(a)(1)(i)
Yes. Reference the Public Involvement Summary
Report (prepared under separate cover).
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Florida Department of Transportation
LRTP Review Checklist 10
Updated- 9/17/2019
Section A- Federal Requirements Where and How Addressed
A-30 In developing the plan, did the MPO seek out and
consider the needs of those traditionally underserved by
existing transportation systems such as low-income and
minority households?
Please see the “Stakeholder and Coordination Input”
section of the 2018 FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for
guidance.
Please see the “Proactive Improvements” section of the
2018 FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R 450.316(a)(1)(vii)
Yes. Reference the Public Involvement Summary
Report (prepared under separate cover).
A-31 Has the MPO demonstrated explicit consideration of
and response to public input received during
development of the plan? If significant written and oral
comments were received on the draft plan, is a
summary, analysis, and report on the disposition of the
comments part of the final plan?
Please see the “Stakeholder and Coordination Input”
section of the 2018 FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for
guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.316(a)(1)(vi) & 23 C.F.R. 450.316(a)(2)
Yes. Reference the Public Involvement Summary
Report (prepared under separate cover), where a
summary of comments is presented. No significant
comments were received on the draft plan.
A-32 Did the MPO provide an additional opportunity for
public comment if the final plan differs significantly
from the version that was made available for public
comment and raises new material issues which
interested parties could not reasonably have foreseen
from the public involvement efforts?
Please see the “Stakeholder and Coordination Input”
section of the 2018 FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for
guidance.
23 C.F.R 450.316(a)(1)(viii)
The final plan and draft plan were not significantly
different.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Florida Department of Transportation
LRTP Review Checklist 11
Updated- 9/17/2019
Section A- Federal Requirements Where and How Addressed
A-33 Did the MPO consult with agencies and officials
responsible for other planning activities within the MPO
planning area that are affected by transportation, or
coordinate its planning process (to the maximum extent
practicable) with such planning activities?
Please see the “Proactive Improvements” section of the
2018 FHWA LRTP Expectations Letter for guidance.
23 C.F.R. 450.316(b)
Yes. Reference Chapter 2 – Plan Process, Table 2-2.
A-34 If the MPO planning area includes Indian Tribal lands,
did the MPO appropriately involve the Indian Tribal
government(s) in the development of the plan?
23 C.F.R 450.316(c)
Yes. Reference Chapter 2 – Plan Process, Table 2-2.
A-35 If the MPO planning area includes Federal public lands,
did the MPO appropriately involve Federal land
management agencies in the development of the plan?
23 C.F.R 450.316(d)
Yes. The MPO Advisor Network includes the National
Park Service (Everglades National Park and Big
Cypress National Preserve), US Fish and Wildlife
Service (Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and
Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge). The
MPO also coordinates with State and non-profit land
management agencies.
A-36 In urbanized areas that are served by more than one
MPO, is there written agreement among the MPOs, the
State, and public transportation operator(s) describing
how the metropolitan transportation planning
processes will be coordinated to assure the
development of consistent plans across the planning
area boundaries, particularly in cases in which a
proposed transportation investment extends across
those boundaries?
23 C.F.R. 450.314(e)
Yes. Reference the Interlocal Agreement for Joint
Regional Transportation Planning and Coordination
Between the Collier and Lee County MPOs.
https://www.colliermpo.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/Interlocal-Agreement-for-
Joint-Regional-Transportation-Planning-and-
Coordination-Between-the-Collier-and-Lee-County-
MPOs-1.pdf
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Florida Department of Transportation
LRTP Review Checklist 12
Updated- 9/17/2019
Section B- State Requirements Where and How Addressed
Florida Statutes: Title XXVI – Public Transportation, Chapter 339, Section 175
B-1 Are the prevailing principles in s. 334.046(1), F.S. –
preserving the existing transportation infrastructure,
enhancing Florida’s economic competitiveness, and
improving travel choices to ensure mobility – reflected in
the plan?
ss.339.175(1), (5) and (7), F.S.
Yes. Reference Chapter 3 – Goals and Objectives.
B-2 Does the plan give emphasis to facilities that serve
important national, state, and regional transportation
functions, including SIS and TRIP facilities?
ss.339.175(1) and (7)(a), F.S.
Yes. Reference Chapter 2 – Plan Process and Chapter
3 – Goals and Objectives. The Collier 2045 LRTP is
consistent with the local government comprehensive
plans.
B-3 Is the plan consistent, to the maximum extent feasible,
with future land use elements and the goals, objectives,
and policies of the approved comprehensive plans for
local governments in the MPO’s metropolitan planning
area?
ss.339.175(5) and (7), F.S.
Yes. Reference the plan list in Chapter 4.
B-4 Did the MPO consider strategies that integrate
transportation and land use planning to provide for
sustainable development and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions?
ss.339.175(1) and (7) F.S.
Yes. Reference Chapter 3 - Goals and Objectives.
B-5 Were the goals and objectives identified in the Florida
Transportation Plan considered?
s.339.175(7)(a), F.S.
Yes. Reference plans listed in Chapter 4 – 2045
Needs Plan and the goals and objectives identified in
Chapter 3 – Goals and Objectives.
B-6 Does the plan assess capital investment and other
measures necessary to 1) ensure the preservation of the
existing metropolitan transportation system, including
requirements for the operation, resurfacing, restoration,
and rehabilitation of major roadways and requirements
for the operation, maintenance, modernization, and
rehabilitation of public transportation facilities; and
2) make the most efficient use of existing transportation
facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and maximize
the mobility of people and goods?
s.339.175(7)(c), F.S.
Yes. Reference Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Florida Department of Transportation
LRTP Review Checklist 13
Updated- 9/17/2019
Section B- State Requirements Where and How Addressed
B-7 Does the plan indicate, as appropriate, proposed
transportation enhancement activities, including, but not
limited to, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, scenic
easements, landscaping, historic preservation, mitigation
of water pollution due to highway runoff, and control of
outdoor advertising?
s.339.175(7)(d), F.S.
At this time, the 2045 LRTP does not specifically
address proposed transportation enhancement
activities with the exception of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities.
B-8 Was the plan approved on a recorded roll call vote or
hand-counted vote of the majority of the membership
present?
s.339.175(13) F.S.
Yes. The MPO is committed to the adoption of the
LRTP during a recorded roll call vote or hand-
counted vote of the majority of the MPO Board
members.
Section C- Proactive Recommendations Where and How Addressed
C-1 Does the plan attempt to improve the resilience and
reliability of the transportation system or mitigate the
impacts of stormwater on surface transportation?
23 C.F.R 450.306(b)(9)
Yes. Reference Chapter 3 – Goals and Objectives and
Chapter 4 – 2045 Needs Plan.
C-2 Does the plan proactively identify climate adaptation
strategies including—but not limited to—assessing
specific areas of vulnerability, identifying strategies to
reduce emissions by promoting alternative modes of
transportation, or devising specific climate adaptation
policies to reduce vulnerability?
Yes. Reference the ranking of the needs in Chapter 4
– 2045 Needs Plan.
C-3 Do the plan consider the transportation system’s
accessibility, mobility, and availability to better serve an
aging population?
Yes. Reference the ranking of the needs in Chapter 4
– 2045 Needs Plan.
C-4 Does the plan consider strategies to promote inter-
regional connectivity to accommodate both current and
future mobility needs?
Yes. Reference Chapter 6 – Cost Feasible Plan.
C-5 Is the MPO considering the short- and long-term effects
of population growth and or shifts on the transportation
network?
Yes. Reference Chapter 2 – Plan Process, Section 2-3,
Forecasting Growth.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration
Florida Division Office Region 4 Office
3500 Financial Plaza, Suite 400 230 Peachtree St, NW, Ste 1400
Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
(850) 553-2201 (404) 865-5600
www.fhwa.dot.gov/fldiv
January 31, 2021
Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt, Chair
Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization
2885 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Subject: Federal Certification of the Bonita Springs Urbanized Area Transportation Management Area
(TMA) Planning Process – Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (TPO)
Dear Councilwoman Middelstaedt:
Federal law requires the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) to jointly review and certify the metropolitan transportation planning
process for each Transportation Management Area (TMA) every four years. A Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) with an urbanized area of 200,000 or more in population is
referred to, in federal legislation, as a TMA. We recently conducted a review of the Bonita
Springs TMA, more commonly referred to as the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO).
As a part of the TMA certification review process, FHWA and FTA utilized a risk-based
approach containing various factors to determine which topic areas required additional
evaluation during the certification review. The certification review process is one of several
methods used to assess the quality of a regional metropolitan transportation planning process,
compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, as well as the degree of technical assistance
needed to enhance the effectiveness of the planning process. This certification review was
conducted to highlight best practices, identify opportunities for improvements, and ensure
compliance with regulatory requirements.
The review of the Collier MPO’s planning process included a site visit conducted by
representatives from the FHWA and the FTA on August 11-13, 2020. During the site visit, time
was spent with the MPO staff, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and the transit
agency to discuss the status of the MPO’s “3-C” planning process. Throughout the site visit,
opportunities were afforded to local elected/appointed officials and the general public to provide
their insights on the Collier MPO’s planning process. In addition to assessing the MPO’s
progress in addressing the findings from the previous certification review, the MPO’s current
and/or future implementation of the metropolitan transportation planning requirements was also
considered.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
2
Enclosed for your consideration is the final TMA Certification Review Report for the Bonita
Springs TMA, which includes documentation of the various components of the FHWA/FTA
certification review of the Collier MPO. The report provides an overview of the TMA
certification review process, summarizes the various discussions from the recent site visit,
provides a series of review findings, and issues the FHWA/FTA certification action. In general,
the review determined the existence of a “3-C” metropolitan transportation planning process that
satisfies the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303/5305, and associated Federal
requirements. The Federal Review Team identified five (5) noteworthy practices, one (1)
corrective action, and two (2) recommendations to improve the current planning process of the
Collier MPO. The MPO proactively addressed the corrective action before this report was
published, and no further action is required.
Based on the overall findings, the FHWA and the FTA jointly certify that the transportation
planning process of the Bonita Springs TMA, which is comprised entirely by the Collier MPO,
substantially meets the federal planning requirements in 23 CFR 450 Subpart C. This
certification will remain in effect until December 2024.
If you have any questions regarding the certification review process and/or the TMA
Certification Review Report, please contact Ms. Stacie Blizzard by phone at (850) 553-2223 or
by email at Stacie.Blizzard@dot.gov.
Sincerely,
FOR: Jamie Christian, P.E. Yvette G. Taylor, PhD
Division Administrator Regional Administrator
Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration
cc: Anne McLaughlin, Collier MPO
Cathy Kendall, FHWA
Karen Brunelle, FHWA
Stacie Blizzard, FHWA
Keith Melton, FTA (Region 4)
John Crocker, FTA (Region 4)
Victoria Peters, FDOT District 4
Wayne Gaither, FDOT District 4
Mark Reichert, FDOT
Erika Thompson, FDOT
Carl Mikyska, MPOAC
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: 2020 Joint Certfication Review Document (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MPO JOINT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT 525-010-05c
POLICY PLANNING
02/18
Office of Policy Planning 1
Pursuant to the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(5) and 23 CFR 450.334(a), the Department
and the MPO have performed a review of the certification status of the metropolitan
transportation planning process for the Collier MPO with respect to the requirements of:
1. 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303;
2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1) and 49 C.F.R. Part 21
3. 49 U.S.C. 5332 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex,
or age in employment or business opportunity;
4. Section 1101(b) of the FAST Act and 49 C.F.R. Part 26 regarding the involvement of
disadvantaged business enterprises in USDOT funded projects;
5. 23 C.F.R. Part 230 regarding the implementation of an equal employment opportunity program
on Federal and Federal-aid highway construction contracts;
6. The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and the
regulations found in 49 C.F.R. Parts 27, 37, and 38;
7. The Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101) prohibiting discrimination on the basis
of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance;
8. Section 324 of 23 U.S.C. regarding the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender; and
9. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and 49 C.F.R. Part 27 regarding
discrimination against individuals with disabilities.
Included in this certification package is a summary of noteworthy achievements by the MPO,
attachments associated with these achievements, and (if applicable) a list of any
recommendations and/or corrective actions. The contents of this Joint Certification Package
have been reviewed by the MPO and accurately reflect the results of the joint certification review
meeting held on May 14, 2021.
Based on a joint review and evaluation, the Florida Department of Transportation and the
Collier MPO recommend that the Metropolitan Planning Process for the Collier MPO be
certified.
Name: Date
Title: Secretary LK Nandam (or designee)
Name: Date
Title: MPO Chairman (or designee)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: FDOT- MPO Joint Certification Statement 2020 (15810 : Approval of 2020 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement)
05/14/2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
OBJECTIVE: For the Board to receive a presentation on the Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
CONSIDERATIONS: The TIP is a 5-year, fiscally constrained, multimodal program of transportation
projects within the Collier Metropolitan Planning area. The TIP is developed by the MPO in cooperation
with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Projects funded in the TIP originated in the
MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) - Cost Feasible Plan. Projects make their way from the
LRTP to the TIP through the MPO’s annual process of selecting and updating Project Priorities for
submission to FDOT each June for potential inclusion in the next update to the FDOT 5-year Work
Program.
Part One of the TIP (Attachment 1) includes the narrative and project sheets. Part Two of the TIP
(Attachment 2) contains the required supporting documentation. Based on the FDOT Tentative Work
Program released in January 2021, FDOT Maintenance projects account for the highest percentage of
funding in the TIP at 51%, followed by Transit at 15%, Highway Capacity Enhancement at 12%, and
Aviation at 7%. (see Draft TIP Part One p 6). It should be noted that the project sheets in the Draft TIP
have been updated to reflect the most recent version of FDOT’s 5-yr Work Program released on 4/5/21.
The Draft TIP has been posted on the MPO website for public review and comment since 3/25/21. There
are no public comments to report at this time. The Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees reviewed
earlier versions of the Draft TIP in March and April and provided comments. The next step in the process
is committee endorsement in May followed by MPO Board approval in June.
MPO staff will provide a brief overview of the Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP at the May 2021 Board meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board receive a presentation on the Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP.
Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (PDF)
2. Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (PDF)
10.A
Packet Pg. 290
05/14/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 10.A
Doc ID: 15811
Item Summary: Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Meeting Date: 05/14/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/06/2021 11:01 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/06/2021 11:01 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/06/2021 11:01 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/06/2021 2:39 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/14/2021 9:00 AM
10.A
Packet Pg. 291
COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DRAFT #3 FY2022 - FY2026
Pending Adoption: June 11, 2021
The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit
Administration, 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.
PART ONE ONLY 10.A.1
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt Esq., MPO Chair
City of Everglades City
Councilman Paul Perry, MPO Vice-Chair
City of Naples
Commissioner Rick LoCastro Commissioner William L. McDaniel Jr.
Collier County (District 1) Collier County (District 5)
Commissioner Burt L. Saunders Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq.
Collier County (District 3) Collier County (District 2)
Councilman Mike McCabe Commissioner Penny Taylor
City of Naples Collier County (District 4)
Councilman Greg Folley
City of Marco Island
Anne McLaughlin Scott R. Teach, Esq.
MPO Executive Director Collier County Deputy Attorney
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
PART I BACKGROUND PAGE
MPO Resolution…………………………………………...……………………………………………………………………………1
Collier Metropolitan Planning Area Map..……….…………………………………………………………….……………2
Bonita Springs - Naples Urbanized Area Map………………………………………………………………………………3
Narrative……………………....….………………………..………….………………………………………...….……………………4
Purpose…………………......…………..….…………………..……..……...………….………………………….……..…4
Funding Sources………………………………………………………………………………………...…….....….………6
Highway Funding Sources.........……………...…..………….………….…….……………………...……8
Transit Funding Sources………………….…....……….…………..…………………….……………………12
Project Priority & Selection Processes….….…....………………..……………….…...…………………..……40
Highway Related Priorities………………….......……………….……………….……………….…………42
Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Priorities..…….…...……………….….…………………………44
Bridge Priorities………………..……..………………………………………...…………………………………47
Transit Priorities…………………………….……………………......…….…………………………..….…..48
Congestion Management Priorities……….....……..……………………….....………………………49
Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities……………………….......………………………………………..……51
Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP)…………………......……………….………53
Major Projects ………………………………………………………………..........…………………………………………55
Public Involvement……………………………………………………...…….…..…………………………………………57
TIP Amendments…………………..………………………...………………….………...…………….…………………57
Certification……………….……………………...…………………………………..………………………..……..………57
Project Organization…….……………………...…………………………………..………………………..……..……58
Explanation of Project Costs……………….……………………...…………………………………………..……..…59
Project Sheet Example……………….……………………...…………………………………………..……..…………60
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
PART 1 PROJECTS PAGE
Project Sheets from FDOT's Five-Year Work Program FY2022 - FY2026.....…………………………….……37
Section A: Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects..…...…..………………………………………………39
41
Section C: Bridge Projects……………...………………………………………...……………….………………………43
Section D: Congestion Management Projects……………………….……………………….………….………45
Section E: Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects………………………………………………………………..………47
Section F: FDOT Maintenance & Operations...………………………………..………………………….……49
Section G: Transportation Planning Projects………………………………………………..…………...………51
Section H: Transit Projects………………………........…...…………………………….……..………………...….53
Section I: Transportation Disadvantaged Projects………………………………...………………...........…55
Section J: Aviation Projects…………………………………………………………………………….……....…….…57
PART II
Section A: Collier County Projects………………………….….……..…….…………………………………………59
Section B: City of Naples Projects………………………………...…………………….…….…….…………………61
Section C: City of Marco Island Projects……...………...…………………..……………………………………63
Section D: City of Everglades City Projects……………………………………………...…………………………65
Section E: Federal Funding Obligations………..…………………………………...………………………………67
Section F: FTA Obligated Projects for 2018………………………………………………………………………69
Section G: Collier County Funding Summary………………………………………….…………………….……71
APPENDICES 73
Appendix A: FDOT's Strategic Intermodal System Funding Strategy………...………………………75
Appendix B: Collier-Lee Regional Highway Map………..…………………...……………………………….…77
Appendix C: Airport Capital Improvement Programs (JACIP)……………...……….….…………….…79
Appendix D: Acronyms and Funding and Phase Codes.……………………….……………………………81
Appendix E: Collier MPO's LRTP Cost Feasible Plan (Highway & Transit)…………………....………83
Appendix F: Federal Lands Appropriations……………………………………….………………………………85
Appendix G: Summary of Public Comments……………………………………...……………………...………87
Appendix H: Fiscal Constraint…………………………………………………..………………….…………….………89
Appendix I: Criteria Used for Project Prioritization…………………….………….…………………...……91
Appendix J: Additional Plans and Studies ……………………….………………….…………….………...…..93
Appendix K: Addressing Performance Management Requirements in the TIP……………………95
Appendix L: Amendments and Administrative Modifications…............................................97
Section B: Safety Projects….................................................................................
REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
1
MPO RESOLUTION #2021-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION ENDORSING
THE FY 2021/22 – 2025/26 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
WHEREAS, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization is required to develop an annually updated Transportation Improvement
Program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134(j), 23 C.F.R. 450.104, 23 C.F.R. 450.324(a), and F.S. 339.175(8)(c)(1); and
WHEREAS, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization has reviewed the proposed Transportation Improvement Program and
determined that is consistent with its adopted Plans and Program; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation’s MPO Administrative Manual, the Transportation
Improvement Program must be accompanied by an endorsement indicating official MPO approval;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization that:
1.The FY 2021/22 – 2025/26 Transportation Improvement Program and the projects programmed therein are hereby adopted.
2.The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Chairman is hereby authorized to execute this Resolution certifying the MPO
Board’s endorsement of the FY 2021/22 – 2025/26 Transportation Improvement Program and the projects programmed therein.
This Resolution PASSED and duly adopted by the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Board after majority vote on this 11th
day of June 2021.
Attest: COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNNING ORGANIZATION
By: _________________________ By: _____________________________________________
Anne McLaughlin Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt
MPO Executive Director Collier MPO Chairman
Approved as to form and legality:
______________________________
Scott R. Teach, Deputy County Attorney
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
2
Figure 1 – Collier Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA)
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
3
Figure 2 – Bonita Springs – Naples Urbanized Area Map
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
4
NARRATIVE
PURPOSE
The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is required by Federal and State Statutes 1; and Federal
Transportation Legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the Twenty-First Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America’s
Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) signed into law in December 2015, to develop a Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) that is approved by both the MPO and the Governor of Florida (or the Governor’s delegate). The FAST Act
(23 U.S.C. 133(h) §1109) carries forward policies initiated by MAP-21, which created a streamlined and performance-
based surface transportation program that builds on many of the highway, transit, bike, and pedestrian programs and
policies established in previous transportation legislation. These programs address the many challenges facing the U.S.
transportation system including: improving safety, maintaining infrastructure condition, reducing traffic congestion,
improving efficiency of the system and of freight movement, protecting the environment, and reducing delays in project
delivery. The FAST Act added reducing or mitigating storm water impacts of surface transportation, and enhancing travel
and tourism to the nationwide transportation goals identified in MAP-21.The FAST Act establishes the Nationally Significant
Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) program to provide competitive grants – Fostering Advancement in Shipping and
Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies (FASTLANE) – to nationally and regionally
significant freight and highway projects that align with national transportation goals.
The TIP is developed by the MPO in cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), state and local
governments, and public transit operators who are each responsible for providing the MPO with estimates of available
federal and state funds. This collaborative effort ensures that projects programmed in the FDOT Work Program address
the MPO’s highest transportation project priorities and are consistent with the overall transportation goals of the
surrounding metropolitan area. Following approval by the MPO Board and the Governor of Florida, the TIP is included in
the FDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The TIP is a five-year, fiscally constrained, multi-modal
program of transportation projects within the Collier Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). The MPA is the geographic
planning region for the MPO (see Figure 1 above). The projects in the TIP are presented in Year of Expenditure (YOE)
dollars which takes inflation into account. TIP projects include highway, transit, sidewalk/bicycle paths and/or facilities,
congestion management, road and bridge maintenance, transportation planning, and transportation alternative program
activities to be funded by 23 C.F.R. 450.324(c). The TIP also includes aviation projects; and all regionally significant
1 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 134(j) and (k)(3) and (4); 23 U.S.C. 204; 49 U.S.C. 5303; 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 450 Sections
326, 328, 330, 332 and 334; and Florida Statutes (F.S.) s.339.175, s339.135(4)(c) and 4(d), and 427.051(1)
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
5
transportation projects for which Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approval
is required. For informational purposes, this TIP also identifies other transportation projects, as defined in 40 CFR 450.324
(c)(d), that are not funded with federal funds.
The TIP for the Collier MPO is fiscally constrained by year so that financial resources can be directed towards high priority
transportation needs in the area. Consequently, the level of authorized funding (both current and projected) available to
the state and the MPO is used as the basis for financial restraint and scheduling of federally funded projects within the
MPO’s jurisdiction. FDOT uses the latest project cost estimates, and the latest projected revenues based on a district-wide
statutory formula to implement projects within the Collier MPO in the Work Program, and this is reflected in the TIP as well.
This TIP is also constrained due to local funds from local governments’ Capital Improvement Programs committed to
certain projects in the TIP. This TIP has been developed in cooperation with the FDOT. FDOT provided the MPO with
estimates of available federal and state funds, as shown in the Table on the following page. The TIP is updated annually
by adding a “new fifth year” which maintains a five-year rolling timeframe for the TIP. In addition to carrying forward existing
projects, the MPO annually approves a set of new Transportation Project Priorities and submits these to FDOT prior to July
1st. This new set of priorities, which may be eligible for funding in the following year, is drawn from the Collier 2040 Long
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Projects are selected based on their potential to improve transportation safety and/or
performance; increase capacity or relieve congestion; and preserve existing infrastructure. FDOT uses, in part, the MPO’s
priorities in developing the new fifth year of the FDOT Five-Year Work Program which is also a rolling five-year program.
The TIP is developed with consideration of the ten planning factors from MAP-21 and the FAST Act which are listed below.
1.Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global
competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.
2.Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.
3.Increase the security of the transportation system for the motorized and non-motorized users.
4.Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight.
5.Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and
promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and
economic development patterns.
6.Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes,
for people and freight.
7.Promote efficient system management and operation.
8.Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
9.Reduce or mitigate storm water impacts of surface transportation
10.Enhance travel and tourism.
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
6
PROJECT TYPE
Amount
Programmed in
$millions Percent
Highways - Capacity Enhancement 36.843 12%
Safety 1.321 1%
Bridge 11.734 4%
Congestion Management 14.118 4%
Bicycle and Pedestrian 17.235 5%
Maintenance - FDOT 161.888 51%
Transportation Planning - PL 2.739 1%
Transit - FTA & State 49.082 15%
Aviation 21.88 7%
TOTAL 316.84 100%
FUNDING SOURCES
The projects identified in this TIP are funded with Federal, State, and local revenues. Although the Project Sheets have
been updated to reflect the FDOT Fiscal Year (FY) 2022- 2026 Work Program, April 5, 2021 Snapshot, the
Tables and Charts below are based on the Tentative Work Program released in January 2021. Figures 3 - 6
show total funding by project type. (Amounts are rounded up to the nearest whole number.) The
total funding fluctuates from one fiscal year to another based on the phases that projects are in and the
size and number of projects programmed in that year.
Total funding for this TIP, based on the Tentative Work Program produced in January 2021, is $316 million, a
decrease of $171 million (35%) when compared to the FY2021 - FY2025 TIP. The total includes $162 million in
resurfacing on I-75, US 41 and SR 90. Appendix H details the TIP’s fiscal constraint.
Figure 3 - Total Funding by Project Type
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
7
Percent
Highways - Capacity Enhancement Safety
Bridge Congestion Management
Bicycle and Pedestrian Maintenance - FDOT
Transportation Planning - PL Transit - FTA & State
Aviation
Figure 4 - Percent Distribution of Funding by Project Type
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
8
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Amount Programmed in $millions
Figure 5 - Total Funding by Project Type
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
9
Amount Programmed in $millions
Highways - Capacity Enhancement MPO - TMA SU Box
Safety Bridge
Congestion Management Bicycle and Pedestrian
Planning (LRTP)Transit (Asset Mgt, Other SU)
Maintenance - FDOT Transportation Planning - PL
Transit - FTA & State Aviation
Figure 6 - Total Funding by Project Type
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
10
HIGHWAY FUNDING SOURCES
Surface Transportation Block Group Program (STBGP): The STBGP provides legislatively specified flexible funding that
may be used by states and localities for projects on any Federal-aid eligible highway including the National Highway
System (NHS), bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intra-city and inter-city bus terminals and
facilities. These flexible funds are not based on a restrictive definition of program eligibility and allow local areas to choose
local planning priorities. There are also flexible FTA Urban Formula Funds. STBGP funds can be used to
increase capacity, improve safety, relieve congestion and enhance transportation systems. The level of STBGP funding is
determined by a formula.
Strategic Intermodal System (SIS): Created in 2003, the SIS is a high priority network of transportation facilities critical to Florida’s
economic competitiveness and quality of life. The SIS includes the State's largest and most significant highways, commercial
service airports, spaceports, waterways and deep-water seaports, rail corridors, freight rail terminals, and passenger rail and
intercity bus terminals.
I-75, State Route 29 and State Route 82 are identified as SIS facilities. The Collier and Lee County MPOs jointly adopt regional
priority lists to access SIS funds.
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
11
Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP): The TRIP was created pursuant to § 339.2819 and §339.155 Florida Statutes
to provide an incentive for regional cooperation to leverage investments in regionally significant transportation facilities including
both roads and public transportation. TRIP funds provide state matching funds for improvements identified and prioritized by
regional partners which meet certain criteria. TRIP funds are used to match local or regional funds by providing up to 50% of the
total project cost for public transportation projects. In-kind matches such as right-of-way donations and private funds made
available to the regional partners are also allowed. The Collier MPO and Lee County MPO Boards jointly adopt regional priorities
to access TRIP funds.
Regional Projects: Regionally significant projects are projects that are located on the regional network (see Appendix B). FDOT
may program State dedicated revenues to fund prioritized regionally significant projects.
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
12
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP): The TAP was established by MAP-21 as a new funding program pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
213(b). Eligible activities under TAP include:
1.Transportation Alternatives as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(29) and MAP-21 §1103:
A. Construction, planning, and design of on-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non- motorized
forms of transportation including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques,
lighting and other safety-related infrastructure, and transportation projects to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 [42 USC 12101 et seq.].
B. Construction, planning, and design of infrastructure-related projects and systems that will provide safe routes for
non-drivers including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access transportation needs.
C. Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors to trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other non- motorized
transportation users.
D. Construction of turnouts, overlooks and viewing areas.
E.Community improvement activities which include but are not limited to:
Rich King Memorial Greenway
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
13
•inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising;
•historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities;
•vegetation management practices in transportation rights-of- way to improve roadway safety, prevent against invasive
species, and provide erosion control; and
•archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementing a transportation project eligible under 23 USC.
F.Any environmental mitigation activity including pollution prevention and pollution abatement activities to:
•address stormwater management and control; water pollution prevention or abatement related to highway
construction or due to highway runoff including activities described in 23 USC 133(b)(11), 328(a) and 329;
•reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic
habitats.
2.The recreational trails program under 23 USC 206.
3.Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS) eligible projects and activities listed in the FAST Act including:
A. Infrastructure-related projects.
B. Non-infrastructure related activities.
C. Safe Routes to School coordinator.
4.Planning, designing or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate
System routes or other divided highways.
TAP funds cannot be used for:
•State or MPO administrative purposes, except for SRTS administration and administrative costs of the State
permitted Recreational Trails Program (RTP) set-aside funds.
•Promotional activities, except as permitted under the SRTS.
•General recreation and park facilities, playground equipment, sports fields, campgrounds, picnic areas etc.
•Routine maintenance and operations.
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
14
TRANSIT FUNDING SOURCES
FDOT and the FTA both provide funding opportunities for transit and transportation disadvantaged projects through specialized
programs. In addition, FHWA transfers funds to FTA which provide substantial additional funding for transit and transportation
disadvantaged projects. When FHWA funds are transferred to FTA, they are transferred to FTA Urbanized Area Formula Program
(§5307). According to FTA Circular 9070.1G, at a State’s discretion Surface Transportation funds may be “flexed” for transit capital
projects through the Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program (§5311), and according to FTA Circular 9040.1G with certain FHWA
funds to Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program (§5310). In urbanized areas over 200,000 in population, the decision on
the transfer of flexible funds is made by the MPO. In areas under 200,000 in population, the decision is made by the MPO in
cooperation with FDOT. In rural areas, the transfer decision is made by FDOT. The decision to transfer funds flows from the
transportation planning process and established priorities.
§5305: Metropolitan Transportation Planning Program Funds: State Departments of Transportation sub-allocate § 5 3 0 5 formula-
based program funding to MPOs including the Collier MPO. The program provides funding to support cooperative, continuous, and
comprehensive planning for making transportation investment decisions in metropolitan areas as well as statewide. Funds are
available for planning activities that (a) support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global
competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; (b) increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
15
non-motorized users; (c) increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight; (d) protect and enhance the environment,
promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State
and local planned growth and economic development patterns; (e) enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation
system for people and freight across and between modes; (f) promote efficient system management and operation; and (g)
emphasize preservation of the existing transportation system.
§ 5307 - Urbanized Area (UZA) Formula Program Funds: The Bonita Springs (Naples) FL UZA receives an annual allocation of §
5307 funding which may be used for: (a) transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas; (b) transportation related
planning; (c) planning, engineering, design and evaluation of transit projects; and (d) other technical transportation-related studies.
Eligible capital investments include: (a) replacement, overhaul and rebuilding of buses; (b) crime prevention and security equipment;
(c) construction of maintenance and passenger facilities; (d) new and existing fixed guide-way systems including rolling stock and
rail stations; and (e) overhaul and rebuilding of vehicles, track, signals, communications, and computer hardware and software. All
preventive maintenance and some Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit service costs are considered
eligible capital costs. MAP-21 amended this program to include expanded eligibility for operating expenses for systems with 100 or
fewer buses. Collier County receives at least $2 million dollars each year to assist in transit capital expenses. Local/State matches
for §5307 consist of toll revenue credits issued by FDOT and local funds which follow FTA match guidelines. For urbanized areas
with populations g r e a t e r t h a n 200,000, including Collier County, funds are apportioned and flow directly to a locally selected
designated recipient. Collier County is the designated recipient for the urbanized area § 5307 funding.
§5310 – Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities: The Federal goal of the §5310 program is to provide
assistance in meeting the needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities where public transit services are unavailable,
insufficient or inappropriate. Funds are apportioned based on each state’s population share of these groups of people. Eligible
activities for §5310 funding include: (a) services developed that are beyond what is required by the American’s with Disabilities Act;
(b) projects that will improve access to fixed route service and/or decrease reliance by individuals with disabilities on complementary
paratransit; and (c) projects that provide an alternative to public transportation that assists seniors and individuals with disabilities.
MAP-21 apportions these funds to designated recipients based on a formula. In Florida, the §5310 Program is administered by
FDOT on behalf of FTA with funding allocated to the Bonita Springs (Naples) Urbanized Area. Projects selected must be included
in a locally developed, coordinated public transit human services transportation plan. FDOT calls for § 5310 applications annually
and awards funds through a competitive process.
§ 5311 - Rural Area Formula Grant: This program (49 U.S.C. 5311) provides formula funding to states to support public
transportation in areas with populations less than 50,000. Program funds are apportioned to each state based on a formula that
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
16
uses land area, population and transit service. According to Federal program rules, program funds may be used for capital
operating, state administration, and project administration expenses; however, Florida allows eligible capital and operating
expenses.
In Florida, the §5311 Program is administered by FDOT. Program funds are distributed to each FDOT district office based on its
percentage of the state’s rural population. Each district office allocates program funds to designated eligible recipients through an
annual grant application process. §5311 funds in Collier County are used to provide fixed route service to rural areas such as
Immokalee and Golden Gate Estates.
§5339 – Bus and Bus Facilities Funds: This program makes federal resources available to state and direct recipients to replace,
rehabilitate and purchase buses and related equipment, and to construct bus-related facilities including technological changes
or innovations to modify low or no emission vehicles or facilities. Funding is provided through formula allocations and competitive
grants. A sub-program provides competitive grants for bus and bus facility projects that support low and zero-emission vehicles.
Eligible recipients include direct recipients that operate fixed route bus service or that allocate funding to fixed route bus operators;
state or local governmental entities; and federally recognized Native American tribes that operate fixed route bus service that are
eligible to receive direct grants under§5307 and §5311 - Transportation Disadvantaged Program Funds: Chapter 427, Florida
Statutes, established the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) with the responsibility to coordinate
transportation services provided to the transportation disadvantaged through the Florida Coordinated Transportation System. The
CTD also administers the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund. Transportation disadvantaged individuals are those who
cannot obtain their own transportation due to disability, age, or income.
The Collier MPO, through the Local Coordinating Board (LCB), identifies local service needs and provides information, advice and
direction to the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) on the coordination of services to be provided to the transportation
disadvantaged [Chapter 427, Florida Statutes]. The Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is designated as the
CTC for Collier County and is responsible for ensuring that coordinated transportation services are provided to the transportation
disadvantaged population of Collier County.
Public Transit Block Grant Program: The Public Transit Block Grant Program was established by the Florida Legislature to provide
a stable source of funding for public transit [341.052 Florida Statutes]. Specific program guidelines are provided in FDOT Procedure
Topic Number 725-030-030. Funds are awarded by FDOT to those public transit providers eligible to receive funding from FTA’s
§5307 and §5311 programs and to Community Transportation Coordinators. Public Transit Block Grant funds may be used for
eligible capital and operating costs of providing public transit service. Program funds may also be used for transit service
development and transit corridor projects. Public Transit Block Grant projects must be consistent with applicable approved local
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
17
government comprehensive plans.
Public Transit Service Development Program: The Public Transit Service Development Program was enacted by the Florida
Legislature to provide initial funding for special projects [341Florida Statutes]. Specific program guidelines are provided in FDOT
Procedure Topic Number 725-030-005. The program is selectively applied to determine whether new or innovative techniques or
measures could be used to improve or expand public transit services. Service Development Projects specifically include projects
involving the use of new technologies for services, routes or vehicle frequencies; the purchase of special transportation services;
and other such techniques for increasing service to the riding public. Projects involving the application of new technologies or
methods for improving operations, maintenance, and marketing in public transit systems are also eligible for Service Development
Program funding. Service Development projects are subject to specified times of duration with a maximum of three years. If
determined to be successful, Service Development Projects must be continued by the public transit provider without additional
Public Transit Service Development Program Funds.
2020 MPO PROJECT PRIORITY AND PROJECT SELECTION PROCESSES
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
18
The method to select projects for inclusion in the TIP depends on whether the metropolitan area has a population of 200,000 or
greater. Metropolitan areas with populations greater than 200,000 are called Transportation Management Areas (TMA). The Collier
MPO is a TMA. In a TMA, the MPO selects many of the Title 23 and FTA funded projects for implementation in consultation with
FDOT and local transit operators. Projects on the National Highway System (NHS) and projects funded under the bridge
maintenance and interstate maintenance programs are selected by FDOT in cooperation with the MPO. Federal Lands Highway
Program projects are selected by the respective federal agency in cooperation with FDOT and the MPO [23 C.F.R. 450.330(c)].
FDOT coordinates with the MPO to ensure that projects are also consistent with MPO priorities.
Federal and State transportation programs help the Collier MPO complete transportation projects which are divided into several
categories including: highway (including maintenance), transit, sidewalk/bicycle paths and/or facilities, congestion management,
bridges, planning, and aviation. Many of these projects require multiple phases which must be completed in order. Project phases
may include: Project Development & Environment studies (PD&E), Preliminary Engineering (PE), Right-of-Way acquisition (ROW),
Railroads and Utilities (RRU) and Construction (CST). Some phases may require multi- year efforts to complete, therefore it is often
necessary to prioritize only one or two phases of a project within a TIP with the next phase(s) being included in subsequent TIPs.
All projects in this TIP must be consistent with the Collier MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) approved on
December 11, 2020. Projects were included in the LRTP based on their potential to improve the safety and/or performance of a
facility; increase capacity or relieve congestion; and preserve existing transportation investments. TIP projects are also consistent,
to the extent feasible, with the Capital Improvement Programs and Comprehensive Plans of Collier County, the City of Naples, the
City of Marco Island, and the City of Everglades as well as the Master Plans of the Collier County Airport Authority and the Naples
Airport Authority. With minor exceptions, projects in the TIP must also be included in the FDOT Five-Year Work Program (WP)
and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
The MPO’s 2020 Transportation Project Priorities, for inclusion in the FY2022 – FY2026 TIP, were adopted by the MPO Board on
June 12, 2020. The MPO and FDOT annually update the TIP, FDOT Work Program (WP) and STIP by adding a “new fifth year”
which maintains the programs as rolling five-year programs. FDOT coordinates this process with the MPO to ensure that projects
are consistent with MPO priorities. During each spring/summer, the MPO prioritizes projects derived from its adopted LRTP and
based on the MPO’s annual allocation of Federal Surface Transportation Block Group Program (STBGP) funds, State
Transportation Trust Funds and other funding programs. The MPO’s list of prioritized projects is formally reviewed by the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC), Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), and
Congestion Management Committee (CMC), and is approved by the MPO Board before being transmitted to FDOT for funding
consideration. (See Appendix I for a description of the criteria used for project prioritization.) The list of prioritized projects includes
highway, sidewalk/bicycle paths and/or facilities, congestion management, bridge and transit projects which are illustrated on the
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
19
following pages. All projects funded through the FDOT Work Program are included in Part I of this TIP. Table 1 shows the general
timeframe for the MPO’s establishment of project priorities and the development of the FY2021 – FY2025 TIP.
Safety has always been an important part of the MPO’s project prioritization process. Safety criteria are included in the prioritization
process for bicycle and pedestrian, congestion management and bridge priorities. Highway and SIS priorities are generated by the
Long Range Transportation Plan which emphasizes safety. As the MPO develops new lists of project priorities, the new federal
performance measures will be incorporated into the criteria.
Table 1 – General Timeframe for FY2022-2026 TIP Process
Mar 2019 - March
2020 MPO solicits candidate projects for potential funding in FY2022 - FY2026 TIP.
June 2020 MPO adopts prioritized list of projects for funding in the MPO FY2022- 26 TIP
Jan 2021 – April 2021 FDOT releases Tentative Five-year Work Program for FY2022-FY2026
March – June 2021 MPO produces draft FY2022 - 2026 TIP; MPO Board and committees review draft TIP; MPO advisory
committees endorse TIP
June 2021
MPO adopts FY2022 – FY2026 TIP which is derived from FDOT’s Tentative Five-year Work
Program.
MPO adopts prioritized list of projects for funding in the FY2023-FY2027 TIP
July 2021 FDOT’s Five-Year Work Program FY2022- FY2026 (which includes the MPO TIP) is adopted and
goes into effect.
September 2021 MPO adopts TIP Amendment for inclusion of Roll Forward Report
2020 HIGHWAY PRIORITIES
Highway priorities submitted in 2020 are consistent with the 2040 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan.. The MPO Board approved the highway
priorities list, shown on Table 2, on June 12, 2020. MPO staff forwarded the list to FDOT for consideration of future funding.
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
20
TABLE 2 – 2020 HIGHWAY PRIORITIES
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
21
SIS PRIORITIES (for Collier and Lee County MPOs)
In addition to the highway priorities listed above, the MPO forwards two lists of priority projects on the Strategic Intermodal
System (SIS) network to FDOT for consideration of future funding. The SIS network includes highways, airports,
spaceports, deep water seaports, freight rail terminals, passenger rail, intercity bus terminals, rail corridors and waterways
that are considered the largest and most significant commercial transportation facilities in the state. There are three SIS
highway corridors in Collier County: I-75, SR29 and SR82 are the three SIS highway corridors in Collier County. Table 3A
and Table 3B illustrate the 2018 SIS Priorities for both the Collier MPO (adopted by the MPO Board on June 8, 2018) and
the Lee County MPO Board. The Collier MPO SIS Priorities are consistent with the Collier 2040 LRTP.
Table 3A Joint Collier/Lee County MPO Mainline SIS Priorities
Adopted by Collier MPO June 8, 2018, Lee County MPO June 22,
2018
2012
Priority
2017
Priority
Project
From
To
Improvement
Type
Next
Phase
Volume
Capacity
V/C
20 1 1 SR 82 Hendry County Line Gator Slough 2 - 4L CST 12,000 16,400 0.73
10 2 2 SR 29 Loop
Rd SR 29 (South) SR 29 (North) New 4L ROW New 41,700
23 3 SR 29 New Market Road North SR 82 2-4L ROW 16,450 16,400 1.00
NA 4 I-75 Pine Ridge Road SR 82 6L - 8 Aux Lns PD&E 100,500 111,800 0.90
7 5 SR 80 SR 31 Buckingham Rd 4-6L PD&E 35,000 41,700 0.84
24 6 SR 29 9th St North Immokalee Dr 2-4L PE 16,000 19,514 0.82
12 7 SR 29 Immokalee Dr New Market Rd North 2-4L ROW 15,900 19,514 0.81
NA 8 3 SR 31 SR 80 SR 78 2 - 4L PD&E 11,100 17,700 0.63
26 9 SR 29 Oil Well Rd South of Agricultural Way 2-4L PE 5,000 8,400 0.59
25 10 SR 29 South of Agricultural Way CR 846 East 2-4L ROW 7,100 19,514 0.43
26 11 SR 29 I 75 Oil Well Rd 2-4L PE 3,200 8,400 0.38
13 12 I 75 Pine Ridge Rd SR 80 6-10L PD&E 100,500 111,800 0.90
Notes
1. Joint Board #1 Priority
2. Will improve other SR29 needs
3. Includes bridge
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
22
Table 3B Joint Collier/Lee County MPO Interchange SIS Priorities
Adopted by Collier MPO June 8, 2018, Lee County MPO June 22,
2018
Project
Interchange
Improvement Type
Next
Unprogrammed
Phase
Notes
I 75 @ Everglades Blvd New Interchange IJR
I 75 @ Golden Gate Pkwy Minor Interchange Improvements Study Short Term
I 75 @ Pine Ridge Rd Minor interchange improvements Study Short Term
I 75 @ Immokalee Rd Major interchange improvements PD&E Short Term
I 75 @ Bonita Beach Rd Major interchange improvements PE Mid Term
I 75 @ Corkscrew Rd Major interchange improvements PE Short Term
I 75 @ Daniels Pkwy Minor Interchange Improvements Study Short Term
I 75 @ SR 82 Major interchange improvements PE Long Term
I 75 @Luckett Rd Major interchange improvements PE Long Term
I 75 @ SR 78 Minor interchange improvements PE Short Term
I 75 @ Del Prado Ext. New Interchange IJR
Notes to Table 3B
Short Term - Current to 2025
Mid Term - 2025-2035
Long Term - 2035-2045
Minor Interchange Improvement - Add additional turn lanes, operational improvements
Major Interchange Improvement - Rebuild to accommodate future 10-lane cross section
Phase Abbreviations: IJR Interchange Justification Report; PE Preliminary Engineering
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
23
2019 BRIDGE PRIORITIES
Bridge related priorities are consistent with the 2040 LRTP. The 2019 Bridge Related Priorities (Table 4) were approved by
the MPO Board on June 12, 2020 and forwarded to FDOT for consideration of future funding.
Table 4 – 2020 Bridge Priorities
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
24
2020 TRANSIT PRIORITIES
Florida State Statutes require each transit provider in Florida that receives State Transit Block Grant funding to prepare an
annual Transit Development Plan (TDP). The TDP is a ten-year plan for Collier Area Transit (CAT) that provides a review
of existing transportation services and a trend analysis of these services. Table 5 shows the 2019 Transit Priorities which
were approved by the MPO Board on June 12, 2020 and submitted to FDOT for consideration of future funding.
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
25
Table 5 - Transit Priorities 2020
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
26
2020 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
Transportation Management Areas (urbanized areas with
populations over 200,000) are required by 23 C.F.R. 450.322
to have a Congestion Management Process (CMP) that
provides for the effective and systematic management and
operation of new and existing facilities by using travel
demand reductions and operational management strategies.
The Collier MPO CMP may be viewed by clicking 2017
Collier CMP. CMP projects that are eligible for Federal
and state funding include sidewalk/bicycle paths and/or
facilities and congestion management projects that alleviate
congestion, do not require the acquisition of right-of-way and
demonstrate quantifiable performance measures.
The MPO allocates its SU funds 2 on a five-year rotating
basis. In 2019, congestion management received 100% of
the SU funds, approximately $4.1 million. The 2019
congestion management priorities are all new projects as
prior priority projects have been completed or removed from
the priority list. Table 6 (next page) lists the 2019 congestion
management priorities which were adopted by the MPO
Board in June 2019 and subsequently modified and re-
adopted by the Board on October 11, 2019. The Congestion
Management Process (2017 update) was used by the
committee as a guide to prioritize the 2019 projects.
2 Surface Transportation Funds for Urbanized Area – with population greater than 200,000. Allocation of funds is determined by a formula.
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
27
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
28
BICYCLE and PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIES
The priorities were derived from the 2019 Collier MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP). The BPMP continues
the MPO’s vision of providing a safe, connected and convenient on- road and off-road network throughout the Collier MPA
to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians as well as a similar goal of improving transportation efficiency and enhancing
the health and fitness of the community while allowing for more transportation choices.
Table 7 – 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
29
REGIONAL PRIORITIES – TRANSPORTATION REGIONAL INCENTIVE PROGRAM (TRIP)
In addition to local MPO priorities, the
Collier MPO coordinates with the Lee
County MPO to set regional priorities.
The Lee County and Collier MPOs
entered into an Interlocal Agreement
by which they set policies to prioritize
regional projects.
The Transportation Regional Incentive
Program (TRIP). TRIP is a
discretionary program that funds
regional projects prioritized by the two
MPOs. The TRIP priorities approved
by the MPO Board on June 12, 2020,
are shown in Table 8.
.
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
30
Table 8 - 2020 Joint Collier/Lee County MPO TRIP Priorities
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
31
Major Projects Implemented or Delayed from the Previous TIP (FY2021 – FY2025)
23 CFR §450.324(2) requires MPOs to list major projects from the previous TIP that were implemented and to identify any
significant delays in the planned implementation of major projects. The Collier MPO TIP identifies major projects as a multi-
laning or a new facility type capacity improvement. The following list provides the status of the major projects that were
identified as such in the FY2020 – FY20241 TIP.
Major Projects Implemented/Completed
No applicable projects to report this year.
Major Projects Significantly Delayed, Reason for Delay and Revised Schedule
No applicable projects to report this year.
Major Projects in the FY2022 – FY2026TIP
The Collier MPO TIP identifies major projects as a multi-laning or a new facility type capacity improvement.
The following list provides the status of the major projects in the FY2022 – FY2026 TIP.
Multi-Laning or New Facility Capacity Improvement Projects
• I-75 @ SR951; FPN 4258432; Major interchange improvement; programmed for construction in FY2025, total
project cost estimated at $111.6 million..
• I-75 @ Pine Ridge Interchange Improvement; FPN 4452962; programmed for construction in 2023; total
project cost estimated at $6.5 million.
• SR 951 from Manatee Rd to N of Tower Rd; FPN 4351112, programmed for construction in 2025; estimated
total project cost at $18.2 million
• SR 82, FPN 4308481 – Add lanes and reconstruction from Hendry County Line to Gator Slough Lane;
estimated total project cost at $41.9 million, programmed for construction in 2024
• Airport Pulling Road – FPN 4404411 Add thru lanes from Vanderbilt (Beach) Road to Immokalee Road;
$13 million PE and CST with CST programmed in FY2023 for $10 million
• 16th St Bridge NE from Golden Gate Boulevard to Randall Boulevard – FPN 4318953 New bridge
construction programmed in FY22 for $5 million
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
32
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The MPO amended the Public Participation Plan (PPP) in June 2020 to address the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to
hold virtual public meetings and more on-line opportunities for public input. The PPP follows Federal regulations for TIP
related public involvement [23 C.F.R. 450.326(b)] and [23 U.S.C. 134 (i)(6) and (7) providing adequate public notice of
public participation activities and time for public review and comment at key decision points. During the time period that
the FDOT Work Program and MPO TIP for FY 2022-2026 were out for public comment, the MPO was able to conduct
hybrid virtual/in-person meetings. Members of the public chose for the most part to take advantage of the virtual meeting
component.
Typically, the TIP and all amendments to the TIP, are presented at multiple meetings of the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC), Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and MPO Board; the public may attend and comment at all MPO meetings.
However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the MPO is using email and website outreach to interested parties instead of
holding advisory committee meetings; and investigating holding a virtual or call-in meeting for the MPO Board to adopt the
TIP. Public comments for the FY2022– FY2026 TIP may be found in Appendix G.
TIP AMENDMENTS
Occasionally amendments need to be made to the TIP. There are three types of amendments. The first type,
Administrative Modification, is used for minor cost changes in a project/project phase, minor changes to funding
sources, minor changes to the initiation of any project phase, and correction of scrivener errors. Administrative
Modifications do not need MPO Board approval and may be authorized by the MPO’s Executive Director.
The second type of amendment – a Roll Forward Amendment – is used to add projects to the TIP that were not added
prior to June 30th but were added to the FDOT Work Program between July 1st and September 30th. Roll Forward
Amendments are regularly needed largely due to the different state and federal fiscal years. Many of the projects
that get rolled
forward are FTA projects because these projects do not automatically roll forward in the TIP. Roll Forward Amendments
do not have any fiscal impact on the TIP.
A TIP Amendment is the third and most substantive type of amendment. These amendments are required when a project
is added or deleted (excluding those projects added between July 1 and September 30), a project impacts the fiscal
constraint of the TIP, project phase initiation dates, or if there is a substantive change in the scope of a project. TIP
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
33
Amendments require MPO Board approval, are posted on the MPO website along with comments forms and distributed to
listserv(s) via email. The Collier MPO’s PPP defines the process to be followed for TIP amendments.
CERTIFICATION
The entire MPO process, including the TIP, must be certified by FDOT on an annual basis. The 2020 MPO process was
certified by FDOT on date TBD.
In addition, every four years the MPO must also be certified by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The MPO’s transportation planning process was jointly certified by FHWA and FTA
on January 14, 2021. The next FHWA / FTA joint certification will occur in late summer, early fall of 2024. .
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
Projects are listed in ten different categories. Within each category projects are listed in numerical order using the FPN
(Financial Project Number) which is in the upper left corner of each project page. Several of the roads are listed by their
county or state road designation. The table below lists these designations along with the commonly used name.
Common Name Name in TIP
Vanderbilt Drive CR 901
Vanderbilt Beach Road CR 862
San Marco Road CR 92
US 41/Tamiami Trail SR 90 SR 45
Collier Boulevard SR 951
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
34
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT COSTS
Part I of the TIP contains all projects that are listed in the FY2020 – FY2024 TIP. The projects are divided into five
categories: highways (including bridges, congestion management, bicycle and pedestrian, and maintenance), transportation
planning, transit, transportation disadvantaged and aviation. Each project is illustrated on a separate project page. Future
costs are presented in Year of Expenditure Dollars (YOE), which takes inflation into account. The inflation factors were
developed by the State. Current and prior year costs are reflected in nominal dollars.
Projects often require multiple phases which may include any or all of the following: Project Development and Environment
(PD&E), Design (PE), Environment (ENV), Right of Way acquisition (ROW), Railroad and Utilities (RRU), Construction
(CST), Operations (OPS), Capital (CAP). Large projects are sometimes constructed in smaller segments and may be shown
in multiple TIPs. When this happens, the project description (Letter D) will indicate that the current project is a segment/
phase of a larger project. An example project sheet is shown on the next page as Figure 5.
A – Federal Project Number
(FPN) B – Location of project
C – Denotes is project is on the SIS
system D – Project description
E – Prior, Future, and Total Project Cost; LRTP and TIP References (if
needed) F – FDOT Work Summary
G – Lead agency for project
H – Project length, if applicable
I – Project Phase, Fund Code Source and Funding Amounts by Year, by Phase, by Fund
Source J – Map of project area
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
35
Figure 5 – Project Sheet Example
PROJECT COST DISCLAIMER:
The “Total Project Cost”
amount displayed for of the
federal and state funded
projects in the TIP
represents data provided
by FDOT in the Tentative
Work Program FY 2022-
2026. For a more
comprehensive view of a
specific project’s estimated
total budget cost for all
phases; refer to the LRTP.
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
36
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
37
PART I: PROJECT SHEETS FROM FDOT’S FIVE-YEAR WORK PROGRAM FY 2022-2026
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
38
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
39
SECTION A: HIGHWAY CAPACITY ENHANCEMENTS
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
40
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264175402 SR 29 FROM OIL WELL ROAD TO SUNNILAND NURSERY ROAD SISProject Description:Widen from 2 lanes to 4, segment of larger project Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 7,440,000Work Summary:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:4.762Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalPEACNP 0 0 1,300,000 0 01,300,000PEDI 0 0 6,140,000 0 06,140,0000000000Total0 0 7,440,000 0 0 7,440,000p6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 1 Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 336Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264175405 SR 29 FROM CR 846 TO N OF NEW MARKET ROAD WSISProject Description:Immokalee Bypass; Freight Priority Prior Years Cost: 6,050,576Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost: 13,037,192Work Summary:NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:3.484Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalENV DDR 0 0 0 60,000 060,000ENV DS 0 0 250,000 0 0250,000ROW ACNP 0 0 968,467 5,708,149 06,676,616000000Total0 0 1,218,467 5,768,149 0 6,986,616p6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 2Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 337Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264175406SR 29 FROM N OF NEW MARKET RD TO SR 82SISProject Description:Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (one segment of larger project)Prior Years Cost:Freight priorityFuture Years Cost:Total Project Cost:Work Summary:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:3.037Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST ACNP000000CSTDI 000000ENV TALT0 380,000 0 0 0 380,000ROW ACNP0 0 1,061,703 0 0 1,061,703RRU ACNP0000000000Total0 380,000 1,061,703 0 0 1,441,70340,396,829 26,198,121 68,036,653 p6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 3Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 338Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264178784 SR 29 FROM SR 82 TO HENDRY C/LSISProject Description:Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (segment of larger project) Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 50,000Work Summary:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:1.869Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalENV ACNP0 50,000 0 0 050,00000000000Total0 50,000 0 0 0 50,000p6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 4 Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 339Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264258432I‐75 (SR 93) AT SR 951SISProject Description:Prior Years Cost:35,011,255Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost:Work Summary:INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:0.651Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST ACNP0 0 0 68,789,977 068,789,977CST DI0 0 0 22,300,000 022,300,000CST DIH0 0 0 5,575 05,575CST DSB20 00045,150CST LF0 0135,354 0135,354ENV DDR0 0100,000 0100,000ENV TALT0 00 0100,000PE DDR0 045,150 00 100,000 0870,392 0870,392RRU DI0 0 0 3,851,000 03,851,000RRU LF0 0 0 1,250,322 01,250,322Total0 0145,150 97,302,6200 97,447,770132,459,025 P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 5Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 340Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264308481SR 82 FROM HENDRY COUNTY LINE TO GATOR SLOUGH LANESISProject Description:Widen from 2‐4 lanes (segment of larger project)Prior Years Cost:Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost:Work Summary:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:4.022Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST DI0 0 35,934,726 0 035,934,726CST DIH0 0 5,415 0 05,415ENV DDR0 400,000 400,000 0 0800,000INC DDR0 0 0 1,400,000 01,400,000RRU DDR0 0 500,000 0 0 500,000000Total0 400,000 36,840,141 1,400,000 0 38,640,1415,843,9530 44,484,094 P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 6Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 341Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264351112SR 951 FROM MANATEE RD TO N OF TOWER RDProject Description:Prior Years Cost:Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost:Work Summary:ADD LANES & REHABILITATE PVMNT2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:0.769Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST DDR0 0 0 12,204,166 012,204,166CST DIH0 0 0 11,150 011,150CST LF0 0 0 167,250 0167,250RRU LF0 0 0 1,550,000 01,550,000RRU DDR0 0 0 1,000,000 01,000,0000000Total0 0 0 14,932,566 0 14,932,5667,040,2420 21,972,808 P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 7Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 342Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264404411 AIRPORT PULLING RD FROM VANDERBILT RD TO IMMOKALEE RDProject Description:Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 12,856,200Work Summary:ADD THRU LANE(S) 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:1.97Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST LF 04,928,100 0004,928,100CST CIGP 04,928,100 0004,928,100PE CIGP 1,500,00000001,500,000PE LF 1,500,00000001,500,00000000Total3,000,000 9,856,200 0 0 0 12,856,200P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 8 Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 343Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264419751SR 90 (US 41) AT OASIS VISITOR CENTERSISProject Description:Federal Lands Highways projectPrior Years Cost:Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost:Work Summary:ADD LEFT TURN LANE(S)2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:0.276Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST DDR1,268,05700001,268,057CST DIH15,390000015,390ENV DDR30,000000030,000000000Total1,313,44700001,313,447431,86401,745,311 P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 9Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 344Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264452962 I‐75 AT PINE RIDGE RDSISProject Description:Prior Years Cost: 1,014,749Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 6,464,749Work Summary:INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:0.046Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST DI0 5,450,000 0 0 05,450,00000000000Total0 5,450,000 0 0 0 5,450,000P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 10 Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 345Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264463381 VANDERBILT BEACH RD FROM US 41 TO E OF GOODLETTE FRANKProject Description:Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 8,428,876Work Summary:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:0.995Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST LF 0 0 0 4,214,438 04,214,438CST TRIP 0 0 0 3,173,552 03,173,552CST TRWR 0 0 0 1,040,886 01,040,886000000Total0 0 0 8,428,876 0 8,428,876P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 11 Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 346Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264463411 GOODLETTE FRANK RD FROM VANDERBILT RD TO IMMOKALEE RDProject Description:Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 5,500,000Work Summary:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:2.140Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST LF 0 0 2,750,000 0 02,750,000CST TRIP 0 0 2,714,534 0 02,714,534CST TRWR 0 0 35,466 0 035,466000000Total0 0 5,500,000 0 0 5,500,000P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 12 Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 347Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264464121 CR 951 (COLLIER BLVD) FROM GOLDEN GATE CANAL TO GREEN BLVDProject Description:Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 3,200,000Work Summary:WIDEN/RESURFACE EXIST LANES 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:2.091Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalPE CIGP0 0 1,600,000 0 01,600,000PE LF0 0 1,600,000 0 01,600,0000000000Total0 0 3,200,000 0 0 3,200,000P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 13 Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 348Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 10.A.1Packet Pg. 349Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
41
SECTION B: SAFETY PROJECTS
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
42
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264463232CORKSCREW RD SOUTH FROM LEE COUNTY CURVE TO COLLIER COUNTY CURVEProject Description:MPO Safety Priority 2019; cross reference phase one #4453231 FY21‐25 TIP Prior Years Cost:Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost:Work Summary:WIDEN/RESURFACE EXIST LANES2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:1.005Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU0 0 1,321,000 0 0 1,321,00000000000Total0 0 1,321,000 0 0 1,321,0001,478,58602,799,586 P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 1Highway Safety Project10.A.1Packet Pg. 352Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
10.A.1Packet Pg. 353Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
43
SECTION C: BRIDGE PROJECTS
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
44
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264318953 16TH ST BRIDGE FROM GOLDEN GATE BLVD TO RANDALL BLVDProject Description:bridge and roadwayPrior Years Cost:Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost:Work Summary:NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:3.212Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST ACCM 1,546,46700001,546,467CST ACSU 1,700,00000001,700,000CST CM475,8770000475,877CST SU1,211,59900001,211,59900000Total4,933,94300004,933,9437,099,9550 12,033,898 P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 1Bridge Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 356Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264350431 COLLIER COUNTY SCOUR COUNTERMEASURE AT VARIOUS LOCATIONSProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:BRIDGE‐REPAIR/REHABILITATION 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST DIH 0 0 0 5,575 05,575CST BRRP 0 0 0 1,675,719 01,675,719PE BRRP 0 200,000 0 0 0200,00000000Total0 200,000 0 1,681,294 0 1,881,294P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 2Bridge Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 357Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264441851 CR 846 OVER DRAINAGE CANALProject Description:(LAR) Local Advance ReimbursePrior Years Cost:Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost:Work Summary:BRIDGE REPLACEMENT2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCSTLFR2,459,29600002,459,296CSTACBR0002,459,2962,459,296000000Total2,459,296 0 02,459,29604,918,592004,918,592 P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 3Bridge Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 358Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
10.A.1Packet Pg. 359Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
45
Section D: CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROJECTS
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
46
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264051061 COLLIER MPO IDENTIFIED OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDINGProject Description:MPO SU funds held for cost over‐runs, future programmiingPrior Years Cost:N/AFuture Years Cost:N/ATotal Project Cost:N/AWork Summary:TRAFFIC OPS IMPROVEMENT2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU2,075,588131,2250 266,993 2,190,8914,664,697CST TALU000 376,0610376,0610000000Total2,075,588131,225 0 643,054 2,190,891 5,040,758P6‐15Adopted June 11, 2021Page 1Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 362Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264126661 COLLIERCOUNTY TRAFFIC SIGNALS REIMBURSEMENTProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:TRAFFIC SIGNALS 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalOPS DDR334,373 349,712 360,203 371,009 389,5591,804,85600000000Total334,373 349,712 360,203 371,009 389,559 1,804,856P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 2Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 363Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264136271 NAPLES TRAFFIC SIGNALS REIMBURSEMENTProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:TRAFFIC SIGNALS 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:NAPLESLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalOPS DDR129,650 138,848 143,013 147,303 154,668713,48200000000Total129,650 138,848 143,013 147,303 154,668 713,482P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 3Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 364Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264371031 COLLIER TMC OPS FUND COUNTY WIDEProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:OTHER ITS 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalOPS DDR0 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000324,000OPS DS81,000 0 0 0 081,0000000000Total81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 405,000P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 4Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 365Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264371041 NAPLES TMC OPERATIONS FUNDING CITY WIDEProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:OTHER ITS 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:NAPLESLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalOPS DDR0 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000120,000OPS DS30,000000030,0000000000Total30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 150,000P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 5 Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 366Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264379241 TRAVEL TIME DATA COLLECTION COLLIER COUNTY ITS ARCH ATMSProject Description:CMC Priority 2012‐10 Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 441,450Work Summary:OTHER ITS 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCSTACCM 42,615 0 0 0 042,615CSTCM 397,835 0 0 0 0397,835CSTDIH 1,00000001,000000000Total441,4500000441,450P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 6Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 367Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264379251 SIGNAL TIMING COUNTY ROADS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONSProject Description:CMC Priority 2015‐03 Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 452,561Work Summary:TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalACCM 1,001 0 0 0 01,001CM 451,560 0 0 0 0451,5600000000Total452,5610000452,561P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 7Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 368Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264404351 COLLIER COUNTY TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING OPTIMIZATION AT VARIOUS LOCATIONSProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU0 50,000 0 0 050,000PE SU351,0000000351,0000000000Total351,000 50,000 0 0 0 401,000P6‐2Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 8 Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 369Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264462501 FIBER OPTIC & FPLProject Description:CMC 2019 Priority No. 2Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 273,725Work Summary:ITS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU0 0 0 273,725 0273,72500000000Total0 0 0 273,725 0 273,725P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 9Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 370Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264462511 TRAVEL TIME DATA COLLIER COUNTY ITSProject Description:CMC 2019 Priority No. 3Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 701,000Work Summary:ITS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU0 0 0 701,000 0701,00000000000Total0 0 0 701,000 0 701,000P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 10 Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 371Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264462521 SCHOOL FLASHER COLLIER COUNTY ITSProject Description:CMC 2019 Priority No. 6Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 354,250Work Summary:ITS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU0 354,250 0 0 0354,25000000000Total0 354,250000354,250P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 11 Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 372Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264462531 BICYCLE DETECTION CITY OF NAPLES ITSProject Description:Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost: 67,429Work Summary:ITS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:NAPLESLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU0 0 67,429 0 067,42900000000Total0 0 67,429 0 0 67,429P6‐12, Table 6‐4Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 12 Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 373Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264462541 VEHICLE COUNT STATION COLLIER COUNTY ITSProject Description:CMC 2019 Priority No. 7Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 312,562Work Summary:TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES/SYSTEM 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU0 0 0 312,562 0312,56200000000Total0 0 0 312,562 0 312,562P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 13 Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 374Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264463171 HARBOUR ROUNDABOUT FROM CRAYTON RD TO HARBOUR DRProject Description:CMC 2019 Priority No. 1 Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 892,211Work Summary:ROUNDABOUT 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:NAPLESLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU0 0 892,211 0 0892,21100000000Total0 0 892,211 0 0 892,211P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 14 Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 375Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264463172 MOORING ROUNDABOUT FROM CRATON RD TO MOORING LINE DRProject Description:CMC 2019 Priority No. 4 Prior Years Cost:Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost: 126,000Work Summary:ROUNDABOUT 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:NAPLESLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalPE SU0 0 0 126,000 0126,00000000000Total0 0 0 126,000 0 126,000P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 15 Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 376Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264463421 TRAFFIC CONTROL COLLIER COUNTY ITSProject Description:CMC 2019 Priority No. 9 Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 894,000Work Summary:TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES/SYSTEM 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU0 0 0 778,000 0778,000PE SU0 0 116,000 0 0116,0000000000Total0 0 116,000 778,000 0 894,000P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 16 Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 377Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264464511 US 41 AND GOLDEN GATE AT US 41 AND GOLDEN GATE PKWYProject Description:CMC 2019 Priority No. 5 Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 492,757Work Summary:INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalPE DIH 0 5,000 0 0 05,000PE SU 0 265,000 0 0 0265,000ROW SU 0 0 0 222,757 0222,757000000Total0 270,000 0 222,757 0 492,757P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 17 Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 378Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264486931 SR 29 WILDLIFE DETECTION N OF PANTHER REFUGE S OF OIL WELL RDProject Description:(DSB) Design Build Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost:771,642Work Summary:OTHER ITS 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:0.960Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalDSBDIH 67,827000067,827DSBDITS 600,0000000600,000DSB DS 103,815 103,815000000Total771,6420000771,642P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 18 Congestion Management System and ITS Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 379Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
47
SECTION E: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
48
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4370961COPELAND AVE SIDEWALK FROM SOUTHERN LIMITS ON COPELAND AVE TO NE BROADWAY AND COPELAND AVEProject Description:BPAC PRIORITY 2017‐10, 16‐10, 15‐10, 14‐05Prior Years Cost:Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost:Work Summary:SIDEWALK2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:0.975Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST TALU377,4600000377,460CST SU176,8890000176,889ENV TALT40,000000040,0000000Total594,3490000594,349664,05601,258,405 P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 1Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 382Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4380911COUNTY BARN ROAD FROM RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK TO SR 84(DAVIS BLVD)Project Description:BPAC Priority 2017‐01,16‐01, 15‐01, 14‐01, 13‐05Prior Years Cost:Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost:Work Summary:BIKE PATH/TRAIL2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:2.045Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU0 1,506,048 0 0 01,506,048CST TALU0 373,328 0 0 0373,3280000000Total0 1,879,376 0 0 0 1,879,376176,00002,055,376 P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 2Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 383Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4380921 CR 901/VANDERBILT DR FROM VANDERBILT BEACH RD TO 109TH AVENUE NProject Description:Prior Years Cost:151,000Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost:860,075Work Summary:SIDEWALK 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:1.214Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalPhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCSTSU0 706,568 0 0 0706,568CSTTALU0 2,507 0 0 02,50700000Total0 709,075 0 0 0 709,075P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 384Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4380931GREEN BLVD FROM SANTA BARBARA BLVD TO SUNSHINE BLVDProject Description:BPAC PRIORITY 2017‐03, 16‐03, 15‐03, 14‐06Prior Years Cost:Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost:Work Summary:BIKE LANE/SIDEWALK2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:1.040Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU0 1,084,6700001,084,67000000000Total0 1,084,670 0 0 0 1,084,670226,00001,310,670 P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 4Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 385Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4404361MANDARIN GREENWAY SIDEWALKS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONSProject Description:BPAC PRIORITY 2015 & 2016‐08; SW LOOP ON 4 STREETS ‐ Prior Years Cost:ORCHARD DR, MANDARIN RD, PINE CT & BANYAN RDFuture Years Cost:Total Project Cost:Work Summary:BIKE LANE/SIDEWALK2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:BIKE LANE/SIDEWALKLength:Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST DDR17,478 000017,478CST SU331,929 0000331,9290000000Total349,4070000349,40745,3130394,720P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 5Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 386Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4404371SOUTH GOLF DR FROM GULF SHORE BLVD TO W US 41Project Description:BPAC PRIORITY 2017‐05, 16‐05, 15‐05, 14‐09Prior Years Cost:Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost:Work Summary:BIKE LANE/SIDEWALK2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:NAPLESLength:2.537Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST CM0 0 993,19300 993,193CST SU0 0 63,265 0 0 63,265CST TALT0 0 549,759 0 0 549,759CST TALU0 0 374,532 0 0 374,53200000Total0 0 1,980,749 0 0 1,980,749300,56102,281,310 P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 6Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 387Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4414801EDEN PARK ELEMENTARYProject Description:South side of Carson Rd from Westclox to Carson Lakes Cir 6' SWPrior Years Cost:Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost:Work Summary:SIDEWALK2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:0.75Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCSTSR2T663,3330000663,33300000000Total663,3330000663,33355,7380719,071P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 7Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 388Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4465501 SHADOWLAWN ELEMENTARY ‐ SRTSProject Description:Linwood Ave: Airport Road to Commercial Drive Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 862,459Work Summary:SIDEWALK 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:5.1Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SR2T 00 0 0 771,516 771,516PE SR2T 0 0 90,943 0 0 90,9430000000Total0 0 90,943 0 771,516 862,459P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 8 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 389Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4475141 LIVINGSTON FPL TRAIL EXT FROM RADIO RD TO COLLIER COUNTY LINEProject Description:Joint Collier County/MPO SUNTrail Application 2019 Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 1,100,000Work Summary:BIKE/PATH TRAIL2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalPD&E TLWR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,100,000 1,100,00000000000Total00001,100,000 1,100,000P4‐45Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 9 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 390Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4480281 MARCO LOOP TRAIL STUDYProject Description:BPAC 2020 Priority Rank 3 Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 300,000Work Summary:BIKE/PED 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalPD&E SU300,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00300,00000000000Total300,0000000300,000P4‐45Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 10 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 391Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4480691 WIGGINS PASS SIDEWALK FROM VANDERBILT DR TO US 41Project Description:BPAC 2020 Priority Rank 2 Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 1,429,213Work Summary:SIDEWALK 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:1.02Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU 0 0 0 1,108,804 0 1,108,804PE SU 0 320,409 0 0 0 320,4090000000Total0 320,409 0 1,108,804 0 1,429,213P6‐15, Table 6‐7Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 392Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4481251IMMOKALEE CITY SIDEWALKS ‐ VARIOUS LOCATIONSProject Description:BPAC 2020 Priority Rank 1 Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost: 880,143Work Summary:SIDEWALK 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COUNTYLength:0.501Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU 0 0 719,046 0 0 719,046PE SU 161,0970000161,0970000000Total161,097 0 719,046 0 0 880,143P6‐15, Table 6‐7Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 12 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 393Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4481261 GOODLETTE‐FRANK RD SIDEWALKS ‐ VARIOUS LOCATIONSProject Description:BPAC 2020 Priority Rank 2 Prior Years Cost:Future Years Cost:Total Project Cost: 652,006Work Summary:SIDEWALK 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COUNTYLength:Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU 0 0 0 535,656 0 535,656PE SU 0 116,350 0 0 0 116,3500000000Total0 116,350 0 535,656 0 652,006P6‐15, Table 6‐7Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 13 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 394Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4481271 COLLIER BLVD ‐ MULTIPLE SEGMENTSProject Description:BPAC 2020 Priority Rank 2, Alternate Bike Lanes Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 1,173,099Work Summary:SIDEWALK 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:MARCO ISLANDLength:1.667Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU 0 0 1,043,099 0 0 1,043,099PE SU 5,00000005,000PE LF 125,0000000125,000000000Total130,000 0 1,043,099 0 0 1,173,099P6‐15, Table 6‐7Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 14 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 395Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4481281 PINE ST SIDEWALKS FROM BECCA AVE TO US41Project Description:BPAC 2020 Priority Rank 2 Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 329,230Work Summary:SIDEWALK 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST SU 0 0 0 270,511 0 270,511PE SU 0 58,719 0 0 0 58,7190000000Total0 58,719 0 270,511 0 329,230P6‐15, Table 6‐7Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 15 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 396Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4481291 NAPLES MANOR SIDEWALK ‐ VARIOUS LOCATION 4 SEGMENTSProject Description:BPAC 2020 Priority Rank 2 (Caldwell, Holland and Shultz) Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 1,663,478Work Summary:SIDEWALK 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCSTSU 00001,363,214 1,363,214PE SU 0 0 300,264 0 0 300,2640000000Total0 0 300,264 0 1,363,214 1,663,478P6‐15, Table 6‐7Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 16 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 397Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4481301 GOLDEN GATE SIDEWALKS ‐ VARIOUS LOCATIONS 4 SEGMENTSProject Description:BPAC 2020 Priority Rank 2 Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 267,511Work Summary:SIDEWALK 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalPESU 0000267,511 267,51100000000Total0000267,511 267,511P6‐15, Table 6‐7Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 17 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 398Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4481311 NAPLES SIDEWALKS ON 26TH AVEProject Description:BPAC 2020 Priority Rank 5 Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 733,588Work Summary:SIDEWALK 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:NAPLESLength:Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCSTSU 0000678,588 678,588PE SU 0 0 55,000 0 0 55,0000000000Total0 0 55,000 0 678,588 733,588P6‐15, Table 6‐7Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 18 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 399Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO FY 2022‐2026 TIP4482651 PHASE 3 EVERGLADES CITY BIKE/PED MASTERPLANProject Description:BPAC 2020 Priority Rank 3 (Hibiscus, Broadway) Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 430,000Work Summary:SIDEWALK 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalPESU 000057,105 57,105PE TALU0000372,895 372,8950000000Total0000430,000 430,000P6‐15, Table 6‐7Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 19 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects10.A.1Packet Pg. 400Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
10.A.1Packet Pg. 401Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
49
SECTION F: FDOT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
50
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐2026N/AN/AN/ASISPrior Years Cost: Future Years Cost: Total Project Cost: 2045 LRTP:1511Project Description:Work Summary: Lead Agency:TOLL OPERATIONS EVERGLADES PARKWAY ALLIGATOR ALLEYEverglades ParkwayTOLL PLAZAFDOT Length:PhaseFund2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26TotalOPSTO025,375,0005,385,0005,385,0005,325,0004,385,00025,855,00000000000Total5,375,0005,385,0005,385,0005,325,0004,385,00025,855,000P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021Page 1FDOT Maintenance Operations 10.A.1Packet Pg. 404Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐2026COLLIER CO ROADWAY & BRIDGE MAINT INTERSTATE SYSTEM0105,000SISPrior Years Cost: Future Years Cost: Total Project Cost: 2045 LRTP:4082611Project Description:Work Summary: Lead Agency:ROUTINE MAINTENANCE FDOTLength:PhaseFundTotalMNTD2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 35,000 35,000 35,000 0 0105,00000000000Total35,00035,00035,00000105,000P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021Page 2FDOT Maintenance Operations 10.A.1Packet Pg. 405Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐2026COLLIER CO(PRIMARY) ROADWAY & BRIDGE MAINT PRIMARY SYSTEMN/AN/AN/APrior Years Cost: Future Years Cost: Total Project Cost: 2045 LRTP:4082621Project Description:Work Summary: Lead Agency:ROUTINE MAINTENANCE FDOTLength:PhaseFundTotalOPSD2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 0150,0000000Total50,00050,00050,00000150,000P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021Page 3FDOT Maintenance Operations 10.A.1Packet Pg. 406Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐2026COLLIER COUNTY HIGHWAY LIGHTINGN/AN/AN/APrior Years Cost: Future Years Cost: Total Project Cost: 2045 LRTP:4125741Project Description:Work Summary: Lead Agency:ROUTINE MAINTENANCE FDOTLength:PhaseFundTotalMNTD2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 440,268 375,645 386,913 0 01,202,82600000Total440,268375,645386,913001,202,826P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021Page 4FDOT Maintenance Operations 10.A.1Packet Pg. 407Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐2026COLLIER COUNTY ASSET MAINTENANCEN/AN/AN/APrior Years Cost: Future Years Cost: Total Project Cost: 2045 LRTP:4129182Project Description:Work Summary: Lead Agency:ROUTINE MAINTENANCEFDOT Length:PhaseFund2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26TotalMNTD2,128,8982,128,8982,128,8982,113,8982,283,01010,783,60200000000Total2,128,8982,128,8982,128,8982,113,8982,283,01010,783,602P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021Page 5FDOT Maintenance Operations 10.A.1Packet Pg. 408Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐2026NAPLES HIGHWAY LIGHTING DDR FUNDINGN/AN/AN/APrior Years Cost: Future Years Cost: Total Project Cost: 2045 LRTP:4135371Project Description:Work Summary: Lead Agency:ROUTINE MAINTENANCE CITY OF NAPLESLength:23.895PhaseFundTotalMNTD2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 164,735 160,746 165,567 0 0491,04800000000Total164,735160,746165,56700491,048P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021Page 6FDOT Maintenance Operations 10.A.1Packet Pg. 409Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐2026N/AN/AN/ASISPrior Years Cost: Future Years Cost: Total Project Cost: 2045 LRTP:4353891Project Description:Work Summary: Lead Agency:ALLIGATOR ALLEY FIRE STATION @ MM63Emergency Services, Fire StationMISCELLANEOUS STRUCTUREFDOT Length:4.735PhaseFund2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26TotalCAPDSB21,400,0001,400,0001,400,0001,400,0001,400,0007,000,00000000000Total1,400,0001,400,0001,400,0001,400,0001,400,0007,000,000P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021Page 7FDOT Maintenance Operations 10.A.1Packet Pg. 410Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264379081 SR 45 (US 41) FROM GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO5TH AVENUE SOUTHProject Description:ROW Survey for drainage project Prior Years Cost:Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 110,000Work Summary:FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCT 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:2.107Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalPE DDR 0 110,000 0 0 0110,00000000000Total0 110,000 0 0 0 110,000P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 8FDOT Maintenance Operations 10.A.1Packet Pg. 411Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022-2026SR 45 (US 41) FROM S OF DUNRUSS CREEK TO S OF GULF PARK DR2,657,110017,769,125RESURFACINGPrior Years Cost: Future Years Cost: Total Project Cost: 2045 LRTP:4415121Project Description:Work Summary: Lead Agency:FDOTLength:4.735PhaseFund2021/222022/232023/242024/252025/26TotalCSTDDR005,117,877005,117,877CSTDIH001,083001,083CSTDS006,656,909006,656,909CSTSA003,336,146003,336,1460Total00 15,112,0150015,112,015P6-16Adopted June 11, 2021Page 9FDOT Maintenance Operations 10.A.1Packet Pg. 412Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐2026SR 90 FROM WHISTLER'S COVE TO COLLIER BLVD58,30803,467,165RESURFACINGPrior Years Cost: Future Years Cost: Total Project Cost: 2045 LRTP:4415611Project Description:Work Summary: Lead Agency:FDOTLength:1.38PhaseFund2021/222022/232023/242024/252025/26TotalCSTDIH042,16000042,160CSTDS02,939,0150002,939,015CSTDDR0352,682000352,682ENVDDR75,000000075,00000000Total75,0003,333,8570003,408,857P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021Page 10FDOT Maintenance Operations 10.A.1Packet Pg. 413Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐2026I‐75 (SR 93) FROM BROWARD COUNTY LINE TO W OF BRIDGE NOS.030243/0302440044,430,519RESURFACINGSISPrior Years Cost: Future Years Cost: Total Project Cost: 2045 LRTP:4440082Project Description:Work Summary: Lead Agency:FDOTLength:25.144PhaseFund2021/222022/232023/242024/252025/26TotalCSTDS12,657000012,657CSTDSB244,417,862000044,417,8620000000Total44,430,519000044,430,519P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021Page 11FDOT Maintenance Operations 10.A.1Packet Pg. 414Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐2026I‐75 (SR 93) FROM WEST OF BRIDGE NOS. 030243/030244 TO TOLL BOOTH0045,676,928RESURFACINGSISPrior Years Cost: Future Years Cost: Total Project Cost: 2045 LRTP:4440083Project Description:Work Summary: Lead Agency:FDOTLength:23.895PhaseFund2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26TotalCSTDSB2045,676,92800045,676,92800000000Total0 45,676,92800045,676,928P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021Page 12FDOT Maintenance Operations 10.A.1Packet Pg. 415Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264475561 I‐75 (SR 93) FROM SR 951 TO LEE COUNTY LINESISProject Description:Prior Years Cost: 0Future Years Cost: 0Total Project Cost: 37,828,620Work Summary:RESURFACING 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:FDOTLength:13.035Phase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCST ACNP 0 037,828,6200 0 37,828,62000000000Total0 0 37,828,620 0 0 37,828,620P6‐16Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 13FDOT Maintenance Operations 10.A.1Packet Pg. 416Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
10.A.1Packet Pg. 417Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
51
SECTION G: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROJECTS
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
52
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264393143 COLLIER COUNTY MPO FY 2020/2021‐2021/2022 UPWPProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:MPOLength:NAPhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalPLN PL 548,4850000548,48500000000Total548,4850000548,485P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 1 Transportation Planning10.A.1Packet Pg. 420Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264393144 COLLIER COUNTY MPO FY 2022/2023‐2023/2024 UPWPProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:MPOLength:NAPhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalPLN PL 0 547,684 547,684 0 0 1,095,36800000000Total0 547,684 547,684 0 0 1,095,368P6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 2 Transportation Planning10.A.1Packet Pg. 421Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐2026COLLIER COUNTY MPO FY 2024/2025‐2025/2026 UPWPPrior Years Cost: Future Years Cost: Total Project Cost: 2045 LRTP:4393145Project Description:Work Summary: Lead Agency:TRANSPORTATION PLANNING MPOLength:NAPhaseFund2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26TotalPLNPL000547,684547,6841,095,36800000000Total000547,684547,6841,095,368N/AN/AN/AP6‐2, Table 6‐1Adopted June 11, 2021Page 3Transportation Planning10.A.1Packet Pg. 422Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
10.A.1Packet Pg. 423Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
53
SECTION H: TRANSIT PROJECTS
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
54
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264101131 COLLIER COUNTY MPO TRANSIT PLANNING FTA SECTION 5305 (D)Project Description:FTA Section 5305 Metropolitan Planning Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:MODAL SYSTEMS PLANNING 2045 LRTP ReLead Agency:MPOLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalPLNDPTO9,877 9,877 9,877 11,410 16,003 57,044PLNDU79,010 79,010 79,010 91,283 128,028 456,341PLNLF9,877 9,877 9,877 11,410 16,004 57,045000000Total98,764 98,764 98,764 114,103 160,035 570,430p5‐3, Table 5‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 1Transit10.A.1Packet Pg. 426Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264101201 COLLIER COUNTY FTA SECTION 5311 OPERATING ASSISTANCEProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:OPERATING/ADMIN. ASSISTANCE 2045 LRTP ReLead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalOPS DU 364,222 404,525 379,787 484,276 581,826 2,214,636OPS LF 364,222 404,525 379,787 484,276 581,826 2,214,6360000000Total728,444 809,050 759,574 968,552 1,163,652 4,429,272p5‐3, Table 5‐1Section 5311 Rural and Small Areas Paratransit Operating and Administrative ServiceAdopted June 11, 2021 Page 2Transit10.A.1Packet Pg. 427Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264101391 COLLIER COUNTY STATE TRANSIT BLOCK GRANT OPERATING ASSISTANCEProject Description:State Transit Fixed‐Route Operating Assistance Block Grant Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:OPERATING FOR FIXED ROUTE 2045 LRTP ReLead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalOPS DDR0 890,028 0 0 1,256,532 2,146,560OPS DPTO1,116,412 259,876 1,184,401 1,219,934 0 3,780,623OPS LF1,116,412 1,149,904 1,184,401 1,219,934 1,256,532 5,927,183000000Total2,232,824 2,299,808 2,368,802 2,439,868 2,513,064 11,854,366p5‐3, Table 5‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 3Transit10.A.1Packet Pg. 428Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264101461 COLLIER COUNTY FTA SECTION 5307 CAPITAL ASSISTANCEProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:CAPITAL FOR FIXED ROUTE 2045 LRTP ReLead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCAPFTA3,107,786 3,418,565 3,760,421 4,136,463 4,550,109 18,973,344CAPLF776,947 854,641 940,105 1,034,116 1,137,527 4,743,3360000000Total3,884,733 4,273,206 4,700,526 5,170,579 5,687,636 23,716,680p5‐3, Table 5‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 4Transit10.A.1Packet Pg. 429Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264101462 COLLIER COUNTY FTA SECTION 5307 OPERATING ASSISTANCEProject Description:Fixed Route Operating Assistance Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:OPERATING FOR FIXED ROUTE 2045 LRTP ReLead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalOPS FTA 100,000 442,610 807,700 798,900 500,000 2,649,210OPS LF 100,000 442,610 807,700 798,900 500,000 2,649,2100000000Total200,000 885,220 1,615,400 1,597,800 1,000,000 5,298,420p5‐3, Table 5‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 5Transit10.A.1Packet Pg. 430Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264340301 COLLIER CO./BONITA SPRINGS UZA FTA SECTION 5339 CAPITAL ASSISTANCEProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:CAPITAL FOR FIXED ROUTE 2045 LRTP ReLead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCAP FTA 420,937 463,031 509,334 560,267 616,294 2,569,863CAP LF 105,234 115,758 127,333 140,067 154,073 642,4650000000Total526,171 578,789 636,667 700,334 770,367 3,212,328p5‐3, Table 5‐1Adopted June 11, 2021 Page 6Transit10.A.1Packet Pg. 431Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
55
SECTION I: TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PROJECTS
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
This section includes the Transportation Disadvantaged program projects in FY2022 – FY2026. The Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for the Transportation Disadvantaged program in Collier County is the Collier County Board of County Commissioners which provide services under a memorandum of agreement with the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. The Collier MPO, as the designated official planning agency for the program (DOPA) confirms that projects programmed through FY 2026 are all consistent with the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) major update which was adopted by the Collier Local Coordinating Board (LCB) on October 24, 2018. The two Transportation Disadvantaged program projects are listed below.The amount of the MPO’s LCB assistance and the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund (TDTF) for FY2022 was not yetavailable when this TIP was adopted. The amounts listed below are from FY2021 and will be adjusted accordingly via anAdministrative Modification to the TIP once they become available.Collier MPO LCB AssistanceThe FY 2021 Planning Grant Allocations for the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund was $27,016. This grant allocation is used by the Collier MPO to support the LCB.Collier County FY 2022 TDTF / Trip and Equipment GrantThe TDTF and Trip and Equipment Grant are funded by the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. The estimated amount of the grant is $1,011,603. These funds are used to cover a portion of the operating expenses for the Collier Area Paratransit Program.10.A.1Packet Pg. 433Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
57
SECTION J: AVIATION PROJECTS
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
58
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.1
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264480601 EVERGLADES ARPT RUNWAY 15/33 CONSTRUCTIONProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:AVIATION PRESERVATION PROJECT2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCAP DPTO 111,2500000111,250CAP FAA 2,002,50000002,002,500CAP LF 111,2500000111,250000000Total2,225,00000002,225,000p5‐7, Table 5‐3Adopted June 11, 2021Aviation 110.A.1Packet Pg. 436Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264389771IMMOKALEE REGIONAL ARPT REHABILITATE RUNWAY 18/26Project Description:Prior Years Cost:N/AFuture Years Cost:N/ATotal Project Cost:N/AWork Summary:AVIATION PRESERVATION PROJECT2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCAP DDR 400,0000000400,000CAP LF 100,0000000100,0000000000Total500,0000000500,000p5‐7, Table 5‐3Adopted June 11, 2021Aviation 210.A.1Packet Pg. 437Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264417841IMMOKALEE ARPT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR RUNWAY 9/27 EXTENSIONProject Description:Prior Years Cost:N/AFuture Years Cost:N/ATotal Project Cost:N/AWork Summary:AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:Collier CountyLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCAP DDR 000010,000 10,000CAPFAA 0000180,000 180,000CAPLF 000010,000 10,000000000Total0000200,000 200,000p5‐7, Table 5‐3Adopted June 11, 2021Aviation 310.A.1Packet Pg. 438Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264463581 IMMOKALEE REGIONAL ARPT AIRPARK BLVD EXTENSIONProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:AVIATION CAPACITY PROJECT 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCAP DPTO0000400,000 400,000CAP LF 0000100,000 100,0000000000Total0000500,000 500,000p5‐7, Table 5‐3Adopted June 11, 2021Aviation 410.A.1Packet Pg. 439Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264463591 IMMOKALEE REGIONAL ARPT PERIMETER ROAD / TAXIWAY A MODIFICATIONProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:AVIATION PRESERVATION PROJECT 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency: COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCAP DDR 0 50,000 0 0 0 50,000CAP DPTO 13,185000013,185CAP FAA 237,330 900,000 0 0 0 1,137,330CAP LF 13,185 50,000 0 0 0 63,18500000Total263,700 1,000,000 0 0 0 1,263,700p5‐7, Table 5‐3Adopted June 11, 2021Aviation 510.A.1Packet Pg. 440Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264487171 IMMOKALEE REGIONAL ARPT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMNT AIRPARK EXTENSIONProject Description: Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCAP DDR 0 0 8,335 0 0 8,335CAP FAA 0 0 150,030 0 0 150,030CAP LF 0 0 8,335 0 0 8,335000000Total0 0 166,700 0 0 166,700p5‐7, Table 5‐3Adopted June 11, 2021Aviation 610.A.1Packet Pg. 441Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264463601 MARCO ISLAND EXED ARPT MAINTENANCE FACILITYProject Description: Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:AVIATION REVENUE/OPERATIONAL2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCAP DPTO0000600,000 600,000CAP LF 0000150,000 150,0000000000Total0000750,000 750,000p5‐7, Table 5‐3Adopted June 11, 2021Aviation 710.A.1Packet Pg. 442Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264463621 MARCO ISLAND EXEC ARPT FUEL FARM EXPANSIONProject Description:Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:AVIATION REVENUE/OPERATIONAL 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:COLLIER COUNTYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCAP DPTO 0 0 300,000 0 0 300,000CAP LF 0 0 75,000 0 0 75,0000000000Total0 0 375,000 0 0 375,000p5‐7, Table 5‐3Adopted June 11, 2021Aviation 810.A.1Packet Pg. 443Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264463531 NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SOUTH QUADRANT BOX AND T‐HANGARSProject Description:Prior Years Cost: NAFuture Years Cost: NATotal Project Cost: NAWork Summary:AVIATION REVENUE/OPERATIONAL 2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITYLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCAP DDR 0 0 800,000 2,500,000 0 3,300,000CAP DPTO00002,500,000 2,500,000CAP LF 0 0 800,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 5,800,000000000Total0 0 1,600,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 11,600,000p5‐7, Table 5‐3Adopted June 11, 2021Aviation 910.A.1Packet Pg. 444Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
Collier MPO TIP FY2022‐20264463851 NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT EAST QUADRANT APRON CONSTRUCTIONProject Description: Prior Years Cost: N/AFuture Years Cost: N/ATotal Project Cost: N/AWork Summary:AVIATION CAPACITY PROJECT2045 LRTP:Lead Agency:Naples Airport AuthorityLength:N/APhase Fund 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TotalCAPDDR 0000184,051 184,051CAP DPTO00001,965,949 1,965,949CAPLF 00002,150,000 2,150,000000000Total00004,300,000 4,300,000p5‐7, Table 5‐3Adopted June 11, 2021Aviation 1010.A.1Packet Pg. 445Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP – Part One (Narrative and Project Sheets Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY
COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DRAFT #3 FY2022 - FY2026
Pending Adoption: June 11, 2021
The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit
Administration, 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.
PART TWO ONLY 10.A.2
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt Esq., MPO Chair
City of Everglades City
Councilman Paul Perry, MPO Vice-Chair
City of Naples
Commissioner Rick LoCastro Commissioner William L. McDaniel Jr.
Collier County (District 1) Collier County (District 5)
Commissioner Burt L. Saunders Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq.
Collier County (District 3) Collier County (District 2)
Councilman Mike McCabe Commissioner Penny Taylor
City of Naples Collier County (District 4)
Councilman Greg Folley
City of Marco Island
Anne McLaughlin Scott R. Teach, Esq.
MPO Executive Director Collier County Deputy Attorney
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PART I BACKGROUND PAGE
MPO Resolution…………………………………………...……………………………………………………………………………1
Collier Metropolitan Planning Area Map..……….…………………………………………………………….……………2
Bonita Springs - Naples Urbanized Area Map………………………………………………………………………………3
Narrative……………………....….………………………..………….………………………………………...….……………………4
Purpose…………………......…………..….…………………..……..……...………….………………………….……..…4
Funding Sources………………………………………………………………………………………...…….....….………6
Highway Funding Sources.........……………...…..………….………….…….……………………...……8
Transit Funding Sources………………….…....……….…………..…………………….……………………12
Project Priority & Selection Processes….….…....………………..……………….…...…………………..……40
Highway Related Priorities………………….......……………….……………….……………….…………42
Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Priorities..…….…...……………….….…………………………44
Bridge Priorities………………..……..………………………………………...…………………………………47
Transit Priorities…………………………….……………………......…….…………………………..….…..48
Congestion Management Priorities……….....……..……………………….....………………………49
Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities……………………….......………………………………………..……51
Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP)…………………......……………….………53
Major Projects ………………………………………………………………..........…………………………………………55
Public Involvement……………………………………………………...…….…..…………………………………………57
TIP Amendments…………………..………………………...………………….………...…………….…………………57
Certification……………….……………………...…………………………………..………………………..……..………57
Project Organization…….……………………...…………………………………..………………………..……..……58
Explanation of Project Costs……………….……………………...…………………………………………..……..…59
Project Sheet Example……………….……………………...…………………………………………..……..…………60
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PART 1 PROJECTS PAGE
Project Sheets from FDOT's Five-Year Work Program FY2022 - FY2026.....…………………………….……37
Section A: Highway Capacity Enhancement Projects..…...…..………………………………………………39
41
Section C: Bridge Projects……………...………………………………………...……………….………………………43
Section D: Congestion Management Projects……………………….……………………….………….………45
Section E: Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects………………………………………………………………..………47
Section F: FDOT Maintenance & Operations...………………………………..………………………….……49
Section G: Transportation Planning Projects………………………………………………..…………...………51
Section H: Transit Projects………………………........…...…………………………….……..………………...….53
Section I: Transportation Disadvantaged Projects………………………………...………………...........…55
Section J: Aviation Projects…………………………………………………………………………….……....…….…57
PART II
Section A: Collier County Projects………………………….….……..…….…………………………………………59
Section B: City of Naples Projects………………………………...…………………….…….…….…………………61
Section C: City of Marco Island Projects……...………...…………………..……………………………………63
Section D: City of Everglades City Projects……………………………………………...…………………………65
Section E: Federal Funding Obligations………..…………………………………...………………………………67
Section F: FTA Obligated Projects for 2018………………………………………………………………………69
Section G: Collier County Funding Summary………………………………………….…………………….……71
APPENDICES 73
Appendix A: FDOT's Strategic Intermodal System Funding Strategy………...………………………75
Appendix B: Collier-Lee Regional Highway Map………..…………………...……………………………….…77
Appendix C: Airport Capital Improvement Programs (JACIP)……………...……….….…………….…79
Appendix D: Acronyms and Funding and Phase Codes.……………………….……………………………81
Appendix E: Collier MPO's LRTP Cost Feasible Plan (Highway & Transit)…………………....………83
Appendix F: Federal Lands Appropriations……………………………………….………………………………85
Appendix G: Summary of Public Comments……………………………………...……………………...………87
Appendix H: Fiscal Constraint…………………………………………………..………………….…………….………89
Appendix I: Criteria Used for Project Prioritization…………………….………….…………………...……91
Appendix J: Additional Plans and Studies ……………………….………………….…………….………...…..93
Appendix K: Addressing Performance Management Requirements in the TIP……………………95
Appendix L: Amendments and Administrative Modifications…............................................97
Section B: Safety Projects….................................................................................
REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
59
PART II: REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION
Section A: COLLIER COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS – TRANSPORTATION
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
60
The projects included in this section of the TIP are generally located outside of the Cities of Marco Island and Naples. The projects are
funded through a variety of funding sources including local gas taxes, road impact fees, state and federal grants, and developer
commitments.
Priorities are established by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners based upon an analysis of existing conditions and
project needs. Some reconstruction and resurfacing projects may have been initially requested by citizens. Other projects are part of
the overall maintenance and improvement program, utilizing various funds, with priorities established through careful and continuous
monitoring of conditions.
The five-year schedule of Capital Improvement Projects approved by the Board of County Commissioners is shown of the next two
pages. All improvements are consistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan and Collier County Growth Management Plan.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
ProjectNameProject FY 21-25# SUMMARY OF PROJECTS Amount60168Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd-16th 600 R 94,700 C 95,300 60201 Pine Ridge Rd (Livingston to I75) 1,500 D 42,500 D/C/M 44,000 66066 11 Bridge Replacements 33,100 D/C/M PR 33,100 60147 Randall/Immokalee Road Intersection 2,500 R 12,600 C/M 15,100 60190 Airport Rd Vanderbilt Bch Rd to Immokalee Rd 3,100 D/R 14,800 C/M 17,900 60215 Triangle Blvd/Price St 6,800 R/C 6,800 60212 New Golden Gate Bridges (10) 15,500 D/C 6,100 D/C 27,000 D/C 8,600 D/C 57,200 60241 16th Street NE Bridge 11,800 D/C/M 11,800 60228 Sidewalks 1,416 D/C 2,281 D/C 1,251 C 4,895 C 9,843 60198 Veterans Memorial PH I and PH 2 7,000 D/A/C 7,000 60198 Veterans Memorial PH II HS to US41 1,000 R 2,700 R/D 13,400 C/M 17,100 60199 Vanderbilt Beach Rd (US41 to E of Goodlette)13,500 D/C 13,500 60219 Whippoorwill 700 C 700 60129 Wilson Benfield Ext (Lord's Way to City Gate N) 5,000 R/A 1,000 R/A 1,000 R/A 1,000 R/A 1,000 R/A 9,000 TBD Santa Barbara/Logan Turnlanes 879 D 7,879 C 8,758 60144 Oil Well (Everglades to Oil Well Grade) 2,000 A 300 A300 A 300 A 300 A 3,200 33563 Tiger Grant 13,000 C 13,000
70167 Business Center (City Gate)10,250 A 7,400 C 9,500 C 27,150
68056 Collier Blvd (Green to GG Main Canal)38,200 R/D/C 38,200
60065 Randall Blvd/Immk to Oil Well 8th to Everglades 250 R3,000 D 3,250
TBD Goodlette Rd (VBR to Immokalee Rd)2,309 D 634 A 9,366 A 12,309
TBD Green Blvd (Santa Barbara Blvd to Sunshine)500 S 500
60229 Wilson Blvd (GG Blvd to Immokalee)7,100 D/R 20,500 C 27,600
TBD Vanderbilt Bch Rd (16th to Everglades)2,800 D/R/M 11,250 R/A 5,000 R/A 19,050
TBD Poinciana Professional Park 300 C 300
TBD Immokalee Rd (Livingston to Logan)1,000 S/A 1,000
60016 Intersections Improvements Shoulder Widening 217 300 300 550 400 1,767
60226 16th Ave (13th St SW to 23rd St SW) Shoulders 1,350 C 1,350
60227 Corkscrew Rd (Lee County Line) Shoulders 1,200 C 1,200
TBD Randall Blvd (Immk Rd to Desoto Blvd)Shoulder 100 DC 1,450 C 1,550
60233 Corkscrew Rd (Lee Cnty Line to SR82 Curve)1,400 C 1,400
60242 Randall Blvd at Everglades Blvd 625 DC 350 C 975
TBD Immk Rd at Northbrooke Dr/Tarpon Bay Blvd DC 1,000 DC 1,000
60237 Everglades Blvd (Oil Well to Immk Rd)Shoulder 1,600 D/C 1,600
'DYLV0\VWLF'&$5HLPE
Contingency -
Total 109,858 144,481 131,310 75,708 42,645 504,002
Operations Improvements/Programs FY 21-25
66066 Bridge Repairs/Improvements 2,500 6,000 6,500 6,500 2,500 24,000
60130 Wall/Barrier Replacement 456 250 250 250 250 1,456
60131 Road Resurfacing 111/101 10,000 6,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 40,000
60128 Limerock Road Conversion 111 -
60077 Striping and Marking 800 800 800 800 800 4,000
60172 Traffic Ops Upgrades/Enhancements 732 725 725 725 25 2,932
60189 LED Replacement Program -
60118 Countywide Pathways/Sidewalks Non PIL /LAP 565 300 750 750 750 3,115
69081 Pathways/Sidewalks Bike Lanes Maint/Enhan -
60037 Asset Mgmt 251 100 100 100 100 651
60146 TMC Relocation Fund 310 -
60197 RM Facility Fund 310 500 500 500 500 500 2,500
69331-339 District 1,2,3,4,5,6 Sidewalk PIL -
60191 Lap Design Phase -
Subtotal Operations Improvements/Programs 15,804 14,675 17,625 17,625 12,925 78,654
60066 Congestion Mgmt Fare -
60240 Traffic Calming 50 D/C 50 D/C 50 D/C 50 D/C 50 D/C 250
60085 TIS Review 250 S250 S250 S 250 S 250 S 1,250
60088 PUD Monitoring -
60109 Planning Consulting 500 S500 S 500 S 500 S 500 S 2,500
60163 Traffic Studies 300 S300 S300 S 300 S 300 S 1,500
60171 Multi Project -
Transfer to Fund 325 STO -
Advance/Repay to 325 STW 11,318 11,318
Impact Fee Refunds 250 250 250 250 1,000
Debt Service Payments 13,317 13,131 13,136 13,576 53,160
Total Funding Request All Funds 151,397 173,637 163,421 108,259 56,920 653,634
REVENUES FY 21-25
Sales Tax 48,782 95,781 32,385 13,895 -190,843
Impact Fees Revenue 15,460 15,500 15,500 15,500 15,500 77,460
COA Revenue -
Gas Tax Revenue 23,052 23,500 23,750 24,000 24,250 118,552
DCA 534 534
Grants/Reimbursements*19,434 4,928 9,800 -6,806 40,968
Grant from 711 60200 -
Transfer 001 to 310 9,067 9,389 9,389 9,389 9,389 46,623
Transfer 111 to 310 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000
Interest Gas Tax-Impact Fees 2,245 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,245
Carry Forward 313-310-Impact Fees 59,834 59,834
Potential Debt Funding/Unfunded Needs 56,637 43,500 -100,137
Expected FEMA Reimbursement 8,500 8,500
Revenue Reserve 5%(1,962) (2,025) (2,025) (2,025) (2,025) (10,062)
Total Revenues 179,446 159,573 149,436 108,259 56,920 653,634
Gross Surplus/Shortfall 28,049 (14,064) (13,985) - --
Cummulative Surplus/Shortfall 28,049 13,985 - - -
Project
16th St Bridge 4,934
11 Bridge Immk-CR846 2,592
Tiger Grant 13,000
VBR US41 to Goodlette 4,214
Collier Blvd GG to Green 1,600
Goodlette VBR to Imm 2,750
Pine Ridge Livingston 5,450
Airport VBR to Immk 1,500 4,928
Total 19,434 4,928 9,800 -6,806
Key:
A = Adv Construction / S = Study / D = Design
M = Mitigation / C = Construction / R = ROW
60168 LS = Landscape / L = Litigation / I = Inspection
60201 AM = Access Mgmt / LP = SIB Loan Repayment
66066 @ = See separate supplemental maps
60147 **The 5-cent Local Option Fuel Tax is earmarked towards debt service, bridges, and intersection improvements.
60190
60215 Sales Tax Projects:FY 21-25
60212 Vanderbilt Beach Ext 74,000 74,000
60212.1 Pine Ridge Rd (Livingston Intersection Imp) 1,500 21,500 23,000
TBD 11 Bridge Replacements 33,000 33,000
60228 Immk/Randall Rd Intersection 7,000 7,000
Airport Rd VBR to Immk Rd 4,000 4,000
Triangle Blvd/Price St 6,000 6,000
New Golden Gate Bridges (11) 15,500 2,634 18,134
47th Street Bridge 9,000 9,000
16th Street Bridge 6,866 6,866
Sidewalks 1,416 2,281 1,251 4,895 9,843
Total 48,782 95,781 32,385 13,895 -190,843
Attachment D
FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25
FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25
FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25
FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25
FY22AmountFY21AmountRoads & Bridges2021 5 Year Work Program(Dollars shown in Thousands)FY25AmountFY24AmountFY23Amount
Page 9 of 12810.A.2Packet Pg. 452Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
10.A.2Packet Pg. 453Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
61
Section B: CITY OF NAPLES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS – TRANSPORTATION
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
62
The projects included in this section of the TIP are located inside the City of Naples. The projects are funded through a variety of funding
sources including local gas taxes, road impact fees, state and federal grants, and developer commitments. Priorities are established by
the Naples City Council based upon an analysis of existing conditions and project needs. Some reconstruction and resurfacing projects
may have been initially requested by citizens. Other projects are part of the overall maintenance and improvement program, utilizing
various funds, with priorities established through careful and continuous monitoring of conditions.
The following two pages are from Naples’s Adopted FY2021 Budget and show the FY2021-FY2025 Capital Improvement Program for
Streets (Fund 190). Note that the amount for FY2022 is a requested amount; the City will adopt its FY2022-FY2026 budget after the
adoption of this TIP.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CRA (Fund 180)
21C02 1st Ave S Improvements 0 800,000 7,200,000 0 0 0
21C14 Neighborhood Plan Project Funding 0 1,050,000 0 0 0 0
21C15 Parking Garage Partnership 0 1,000,000 9,000,000 0 0 0
Sugden Plaza Improvements 0 0 0 0 1,500,000 0
6th Avenue South Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 800,000
5th Avenue South Streetscape 0 0 0 0 0 4,000,000
Sidewalk Sweeper 14,247 0 0 0 0 0
River Park Fitness Equipment 27,994 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CRA FUND 42,241 2,850,000 16,200,000 0 1,500,000 4,800,000
STREETS & TRAFFIC FUND (Fund 190) 650,000 650,000
Annual Pavement Resurfacing Program (1) 650,000 700,000 700,000 750,000
21U31 Alley Maintenance & Improvements 85,000 200,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000
21U29 Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan Projects (2) 65,000 150,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
21U21 Citywide ADA Accessibility Improvements (3) 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
21U07 Bridge Improvements 150,000 200,000 0 0 100,000 0
21U08 Traffic Operations & Signal System Improvements 50,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
21U15 Anchor Rode Traffic Calming Project 0 100,000 0 0 0 0
21U04 Streets & Traffic Pool Vehicle 0 30,000 0 0 0 0
Lantern Lane Drainage & Street Resurfacing Project (4) 0 0 15,000 60,000 0 0
12th Avenue South Improvements 170,000 0 0 0 0 0
Intersection/Signal System Improvements (5) 0 0 400,000 295,000 0 0
Lift Truck Replacement 0 0 180,000 0 0 0
TOTAL STREETS AND TRAFFIC FUND 1,185,000 1,370,000 1,435,000 1,270,000 1,015,000 965,000
_______________________________________________________________________________
CITY OF NAPLES
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
63
Section C: CITY OF MARCO ISLAND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS – TRANSPORTATION
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
64
The projects included in this section of the TIP are located inside the City of Marco Island. The projects are funded through a variety of
funding sources including local gas taxes, road impact fees, state and federal grants, and developer commitments. Priorities are established by
the Marco Island City Council based upon an analysis of existing conditions and project needs. Some reconstruction and resurfacing projects
may have been initially requested by citizens. Other projects are part of the overall maintenance and improvement program, utilizing
various funds, with priorities established through careful and continuous monitoring of conditions. Marco Island’s Five-Year Capital
Improvements Program Summary is shown on the following page.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
MARCO ISLAND10.A.2Packet Pg. 460Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
65
Section D: CITY OF EVERGLADES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS – TRANSPORTATION
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
66
The City of Everglades City continues to focus attention on coastal vulnerability, drainage, sewage treatment center, transit and roadway
improvements. Through collaboration with FDOT and the MPO, the current TIP includes a bicycle/pedestrian project in Everglades City,
and the City continues to submit other bike/ped projects for consideration of funding in a future TIP. The projects are part of the City's
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan which the City Council adopted on October 6, 2020.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
67
Section E: FEDERAL FUNDING OBLIGATIONS
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
68
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) produces an annual list of projects for which federal funds have been obligated in the preceding year. The list is shown on the next page.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PAGE 1FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE RUN: 10/01/2020OFFICE OF WORK PROGRAM TIME RUN: 09.29.25COLLIER MPO ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS REPORT MBROBLTP================HIGHWAYS================ITEM NUMBER:417540 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:SR 29 FROM OIL WELL ROAD TO SR 82*SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:PD&E/EMO STUDYROADWAY ID:03080000PROJECT LENGTH: 16.961MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 2/ 2/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSU13,000TOTAL 417540 113,000TOTAL 417540 113,000ITEM NUMBER:417540 3PROJECT DESCRIPTION:SR 29 FROM SUNNILAND NURSERY ROAD TO S OF AGRICULTURE WAY*SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCTROADWAY ID:03080000PROJECT LENGTH: 2.548MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 2/ 2/ 2FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSU179,981TOTAL 417540 3179,981TOTAL 417540 3179,981ITEM NUMBER:417540 4PROJECT DESCRIPTION:SR 29 FROM S OF AGRICULTURE WAY TO CR 846 E*SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCTROADWAY ID:03080000PROJECT LENGTH: 2.251MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 4/ 2/ 2FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSA1,012,261TOTAL 417540 41,012,261TOTAL 417540 41,012,261ITEM NUMBER:430878 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:CR 953/BARFIELD DR FROM CR 92 (SAN MARCO RD) TO INLET DRIVE*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:SIDEWALKROADWAY ID:03000601PROJECT LENGTH: 1.100MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 4/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY CITY OF MARCO ISLANDTALU169,413TOTAL 430878 1169,413TOTAL 430878 1169,41310.A.2Packet Pg. 465Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PAGE 2FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE RUN: 10/01/2020OFFICE OF WORK PROGRAM TIME RUN: 09.29.25COLLIER MPO ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS REPORT MBROBLTP================HIGHWAYS================ITEM NUMBER:431895 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:8TH STREET NE BRIDGE FROM GOLDEN GATE BLVD TO RANDALL BLVD*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTIONROADWAY ID:03000000PROJECT LENGTH: 3.212MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 2FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSA-37,925TOTAL 431895 1-37,925TOTAL 431895 1-37,925ITEM NUMBER:433173 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:SR 84 (DAVIS BLVD) FROM COUNTY BARN RD TO SANTA BARBARA BLVD*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:WIDEN/RESURFACE EXIST LANESROADWAY ID:03001000PROJECT LENGTH: 1.009MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 3/ 3/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSU-6,159TOTAL 433173 1-6,159TOTAL 433173 1-6,159ITEM NUMBER:433176 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:PINE RIDGE RD AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:ADD TURN LANE(S)ROADWAY ID:03504000PROJECT LENGTH: .191MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 5/ 5/ 1FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY COLLIER COUNTYSU1,204,083TOTAL 433176 11,204,083TOTAL 433176 11,204,083ITEM NUMBER:433185 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:HARBOUR DR FROM CRAYTON RD TO BINNACLE DR*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:SIDEWALKROADWAY ID:03516000PROJECT LENGTH: .315MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 1/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSA-10,740TOTAL 433185 1-10,740TOTAL 433185 1-10,74010.A.2Packet Pg. 466Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PAGE 3FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE RUN: 10/01/2020OFFICE OF WORK PROGRAM TIME RUN: 09.29.25COLLIER MPO ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS REPORT MBROBLTP================HIGHWAYS================ITEM NUMBER:433188 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:3RD STREET NORTH FROM CENTRAL AVENUE TO 7TH AVE NORTH*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:SIDEWALKROADWAY ID:PROJECT LENGTH: .000LANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSU-370TOTAL 433188 1 -370TOTAL 433188 1 -370ITEM NUMBER:433540 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:WINTERBERRY DRIVE FROM PEACOCK TER TO BARFIELD DR*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:SIDEWALKROADWAY ID:03000039PROJECT LENGTH: .777MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 2/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSU-561TOTAL 433540 1 -561TOTAL 433540 1 -561ITEM NUMBER:434990 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:GOLDEN GATE VARIOUS LOCATIONS*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:SIDEWALKROADWAY ID:03000000PROJECT LENGTH: .001MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSU-717PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY COLLIER COUNTYTALT-10,003TOTAL 434990 1 -10,720TOTAL 434990 1 -10,720ITEM NUMBER:435029 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:US 41 FROM CR 846 (111TH AVE) TO N OF 91ST AVE*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:SIDEWALKROADWAY ID:03010000PROJECT LENGTH: 1.174MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 6/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSU-2,724TOTAL 435029 1 -2,724TOTAL 435029 1 -2,72410.A.2Packet Pg. 467Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PAGE 4FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE RUN: 10/01/2020OFFICE OF WORK PROGRAM TIME RUN: 09.29.25COLLIER MPO ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS REPORT MBROBLTP================HIGHWAYS================ITEM NUMBER:435030 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:SUNSHINE BLVD FROM 17TH AVE SW TO GREEN BLVD*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:SIDEWALKROADWAY ID:03000000PROJECT LENGTH: .001MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY COLLIER COUNTYSU37,746PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSU40TOTAL 435030 137,786TOTAL 435030 137,786ITEM NUMBER:435042 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:YELLOWBIRD ST FROM JAMAICA RD TO COLLIER BLVD*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:SIDEWALKROADWAY ID:03000000PROJECT LENGTH: .001MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY CITY OF MARCO ISLANDTALU-6,469PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTTALU-951TOTAL 435042 1-7,420TOTAL 435042 1-7,420ITEM NUMBER:435110 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:CR 887 (OLD US 41) FROM US 41 TO LEE COUNTY LINE*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:PD&E/EMO STUDYROADWAY ID:03514000PROJECT LENGTH: 1.550MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 2/ 2/ 2FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSU9,342TOTAL 435110 19,342TOTAL 435110 19,342ITEM NUMBER:435116 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:GOLDEN GATE COLLECTOR SIDEWALKS VARIOUS LOCATIONS*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:SIDEWALKROADWAY ID:03513000PROJECT LENGTH: 1.213MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 4/ 4/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY COLLIER COUNTYSA1,000PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSA185TOTAL 435116 11,185TOTAL 435116 11,18510.A.2Packet Pg. 468Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PAGE 5FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE RUN: 10/01/2020OFFICE OF WORK PROGRAM TIME RUN: 09.29.25COLLIER MPO ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS REPORT MBROBLTP================HIGHWAYS================ITEM NUMBER:435117 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:NORTH NAPLES SIDEWALKS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:SIDEWALKROADWAY ID:03631000PROJECT LENGTH: 1.248MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 6/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY COLLIER COUNTYSU96,683TOTAL 435117 1 96,683TOTAL 435117 1 96,683ITEM NUMBER:435118 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:CR 862 (VANDERBILT) FROM CR 901 TO GULF PAVILLION DR*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:BIKE LANE/SIDEWALKROADWAY ID:03550000PROJECT LENGTH: .674MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 2/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY COLLIER COUNTYSA100TOTAL 435118 1 100TOTAL 435118 1 100ITEM NUMBER:435119 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:49TH TERRACE SW FROM 20TH PLACE SW TO 19TH PLACE SW*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:SIDEWALKROADWAY ID:03000000PROJECT LENGTH: .001MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY COLLIER COUNTYTALT-8,340PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTTALT-670TOTAL 435119 1 -9,010TOTAL 435119 1 -9,010ITEM NUMBER:435368 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:CR 846/IMMOKALEE RD AT RANDALL BLVD*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:PD&E/EMO STUDYROADWAY ID:03590000PROJECT LENGTH: .200MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 6/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSU27,111TOTAL 435368 1 27,111TOTAL 435368 1 27,11110.A.2Packet Pg. 469Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PAGE 6FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE RUN: 10/01/2020OFFICE OF WORK PROGRAM TIME RUN: 09.29.25COLLIER MPO ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS REPORT MBROBLTP================HIGHWAYS================ITEM NUMBER:436585 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:SR 84 (DAVIS BLVD) FROM SR 90 (US 41) TO AIRPORT PULLING RD*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:RESURFACINGROADWAY ID:03001000PROJECT LENGTH: .952MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 6/ 6/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSA-58,860TOTAL 436585 1-58,860TOTAL 436585 1-58,860ITEM NUMBER:436971 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:TRAFFIC COUNT STATIONS UPDATES COLLIER COUNTY*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:TRAFFIC OPS IMPROVEMENTROADWAY ID:03000000PROJECT LENGTH: .001MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: GRANTS AND MISCELLANEOUS / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY COLLIER COUNTYSU325,820TOTAL 436971 1325,820TOTAL 436971 1325,820ITEM NUMBER:437096 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:COPELAND AVE SIDEWALK FROM S CITY LIMIT TO NE CORNER BROADWAY/COPELAND*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:SIDEWALKROADWAY ID:03600000PROJECT LENGTH: .953MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 2/ 2/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSU308,455TALU185,000TOTAL 437096 1493,455TOTAL 437096 1493,455ITEM NUMBER:437185 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:NAPLES BEACH ACCESS SIDEWALKS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:SIDEWALKROADWAY ID:PROJECT LENGTH: .000LANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSU-44,101TOTAL 437185 1-44,101TOTAL 437185 1-44,10110.A.2Packet Pg. 470Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PAGE 7FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE RUN: 10/01/2020OFFICE OF WORK PROGRAM TIME RUN: 09.29.25COLLIER MPO ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS REPORT MBROBLTP================HIGHWAYS================ITEM NUMBER:439002 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:SR 29 FROM NORTH 1ST STREET TO NORTH 9TH STREET*SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTROADWAY ID:03080000PROJECT LENGTH: .524MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 2/ 2/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSU69,223TOTAL 439002 1 69,223TOTAL 439002 1 69,223ITEM NUMBER:439555 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:SR 951 FROM JUDGE JOLLEY BRIDGE TO FIDDLERS CREEK PARKWAY*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:RESURFACINGROADWAY ID:03030000PROJECT LENGTH: 3.031MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 4/ 4/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSA1,152,678TOTAL 439555 1 1,152,678TOTAL 439555 1 1,152,678ITEM NUMBER:440128 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:N 15TH ST (SR 29) INTERSECTION LIGHTING RETROFIT*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:LIGHTINGROADWAY ID:03080000PROJECT LENGTH: .200MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 2/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTHSP-11,904TOTAL 440128 1 -11,904TOTAL 440128 1 -11,904TOTAL DIST: 01 4,591,627TOTAL HIGHWAYS 4,591,62710.A.2Packet Pg. 471Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PAGE 8FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE RUN: 10/01/2020OFFICE OF WORK PROGRAM TIME RUN: 09.29.25COLLIER MPO ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS REPORT MBROBLTP================PLANNING================ITEM NUMBER:439314 2PROJECT DESCRIPTION:COLLIER COUNTY MPO FY 2018/2019-2019/2020 UPWP*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:TRANSPORTATION PLANNINGROADWAY ID:PROJECT LENGTH: .000LANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: RESPONSIBLE AGENCY NOT AVAILABLEPL575,214SU15,000TOTAL 439314 2590,214TOTAL 439314 2590,214ITEM NUMBER:439314 3PROJECT DESCRIPTION:COLLIER COUNTY MPO FY 2020/2021-2021/2022 UPWP*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:TRANSPORTATION PLANNINGROADWAY ID:PROJECT LENGTH: .000LANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: RESPONSIBLE AGENCY NOT AVAILABLEPL137,121SU185,000TOTAL 439314 3322,121TOTAL 439314 3322,121TOTAL DIST: 01912,335TOTAL PLANNING912,33510.A.2Packet Pg. 472Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PAGE 9FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE RUN: 10/01/2020OFFICE OF WORK PROGRAM TIME RUN: 09.29.25COLLIER MPO ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS REPORT MBROBLTP================TRANSIT================ITEM NUMBER:435029 2PROJECT DESCRIPTION:US 41 FROM CR 846 (111TH AVE) TO NORTH OF 91ST AVE*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SHELTERROADWAY ID:PROJECT LENGTH: .000LANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: GRANTS AND MISCELLANEOUS / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: RESPONSIBLE AGENCY NOT AVAILABLESU51,600TOTAL 435029 2 51,600TOTAL 435029 2 51,600ITEM NUMBER:447008 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:COLLIER COUNTY AREA TRANSIT ADA IMPROVEMENTS*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:CAPITAL FOR FIXED ROUTEROADWAY ID:PROJECT LENGTH: .000LANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: GRANTS AND MISCELLANEOUS / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: RESPONSIBLE AGENCY NOT AVAILABLESU250,000TOTAL 447008 1 250,000TOTAL 447008 1 250,000ITEM NUMBER:447009 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:COLLIER COUNTY AREA TRANSIT BUS REPLACEMENT*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:PURCHASE VEHICLES/EQUIPMENTROADWAY ID:PROJECT LENGTH: .000LANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: GRANTS AND MISCELLANEOUS / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: RESPONSIBLE AGENCY NOT AVAILABLESU500,000TOTAL 447009 1 500,000TOTAL 447009 1 500,000TOTAL DIST: 01 801,600TOTAL TRANSIT 801,60010.A.2Packet Pg. 473Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PAGE 10FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE RUN: 10/01/2020OFFICE OF WORK PROGRAM TIME RUN: 09.29.25COLLIER MPO ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS REPORT MBROBLTP================MISCELLANEOUS================ITEM NUMBER:433002 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:HURRICANE IRMA COUNTY WIDE (03) DISASTER RECOVERY*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:EMERGENCY OPERATIONSROADWAY ID:PROJECT LENGTH: .000LANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTER1715,690PHASE: GRANTS AND MISCELLANEOUS / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTER1742,554TOTAL 433002 158,244TOTAL 433002 158,244ITEM NUMBER:438094 1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:SIGNAL PRE-EMPTION FOR THE CITY OF NAPLES*NON-SIS*DISTRICT:01COUNTY:COLLIERTYPE OF WORK:TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES/SYSTEMROADWAY ID:03000000PROJECT LENGTH: .001MILANES EXIST/IMPROVED/ADDED: 0/ 0/ 0FUNDCODE 2020____ _______________PHASE: CONSTRUCTION / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY FDOTSU-959PHASE: GRANTS AND MISCELLANEOUS / RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MANAGED BY CITY OF NAPLESSU-5,400TOTAL 438094 1-6,359TOTAL 438094 1-6,359TOTAL DIST: 0151,885TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS51,885GRAND TOTAL 6,357,44710.A.2Packet Pg. 474Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
10.A.2Packet Pg. 475Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
69
Section F: FTA OBLIGATED PROJECTS FOR 2020
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
70
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) produces an annual list of projects for which federal funds have been obligated in the preceding year. The list is shown below.
PENDING as of 5/5/21
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
71
Section G: COLLIER COUNTY FUNDING SUMMARY (FDOT)
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
72
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
73
APPENDICES
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
74
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
75
APPENDIX A: FDOT’S STRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEM FUNDING STRATEGY
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
76
The following pages illustrate the FDOT Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Plans for District 1. The plans may be downloaded at: https://www.fdot.gov/planning/systems/programs/mspi/plans/default.shtm
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
FY
FY
2024/20252020/2021
Multi-Modal
F F Y P
Strategic Intermodal System Funding Strategy
Capacity Projects on
2020/2021 through FY 2024/2025
the Strategic Intermodal System
State of Florida Department of Transportation
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
This Page is intentionally left blank
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
First Five Year Plan*
The First Five Plan illustrates projects on the SIS that are
funded by the legislature in the Work Program (Year 1)
and projects that are programmed for proposed funding in
the next 2 to 5 years.
Update Cycle: Adopted annually by the
Legislature, effective July 1st each year
with the start of the new fiscal year.
*SIS Capacity Projects included in the
Adopted Five-Year Work Program
Cost Feasible Plan
The Cost Feasible Plan illustrates projects on the SIS that are considered financially feasible
during the last fifteen years (years 11 to 25) of the State’s Long Range Plan, based on current revenue
forecasts. Projects in this plan could move forward into the Second Five as funds become available or
backwards into the Needs Plan if revenues fall short of projections.
Update Cycle: Typically updated every 2 to 3 years as new revenue forecasts become available.
Second Five Year Plan
Typically updated
annually, usually in late summer
following the First Five Plan update.
The FDOT Systems Planning Office produces a document set known as the SIS Funding Strategy, which includes three inter-
related sequential documents that identify potential Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Capacity Improvement projects in vari-
ous stages of development. All of the projects identified within the SIS Funding Strategy are considered financially feasible for
implementation within the next 25 year period. The Florida Legislature established the SIS in 2003 to enhance Florida’s
economic prosperity and competitiveness. The system encompasses transportation facilities of statewide and interregional
significance, and is focused on the efficient movement of passengers and freight. The combined document set, as illustrated
below, illustrates projects that are funded (Year 1), programmed for proposed funding (Years 2 through 5), planned to be
funded (Years 6 through 10), and considered financially feasible based on projected State revenues (Years 11 through 25).
The Second Five Year Plan illustrates projects that are
planned to be funded in the five years (Years 6 through
beyond the Adopted Work ProgramH[FOXGLQJ 7XUQSLNH
3URMHFWVLQWKLVplan could move IRUZDUG LQWRWKH
)LUVW)LYH<HDUPlan as funds become available.
Update Cycle:
1
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PD&E – Project Development & Environment Study
PE –Preliminary Engineering Study
ROW – Right-of-Way
CON – Construction and Support and May Include Grants
All Values in Thousands of "As Programmed" Dollars
Projects are listed in the table and the
associated map by Map ID numbers that
correspond to the Work Program Item
Segment.
Table Key:
“As Programmed” dollars refers to the
amount of dollars committed to a
project, adjusted to the year of planned
expenditure for inflation.
Columns on the far right give information
related to project phase. A dot indicates
the phase included within the five year
timed period.
The Grant phase refers to a funding
strategy where contributions are
exchanged between Federal, State,
and/or Local entities.
A summary row is provided for a
District-wide review for both interstate and
non-interstate project totals. Costs within
a year could include multiple phases.
Project facility name and limits, or in the case of an interchange project, the interchange location is identified; and the work improvement description are identified in these columns.
Project funding distribution is shown in
these columns and is summarized by
District, Statewide, and Local allocated
funds.
Some projects may not display on the map
due to undetermined project location at
this time. Most of these projects are in the
early planning and engineering phases.
District 4 SIS Non-Interstate Plan
MAP ID DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
DISTRICT
MANAGED
TOTAL
STATE
MANAGED20142015201620172018 PD&EPE ROWCONFACILITY
TOTAL
LOCAL
FUNDS
4332631 DISTRICTWIDE SIS NHS CONNECTORS PALM BEACH & BROWARD Project Development & Environme $755 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $750
4258822 PORT EVERGLADES SPANGLER BLVD BYPASS ROAD TO SR-5/US-1 New Road $0 $27,600 $0 $0 $0 $13,800 $0 $13,800
4193481 SR-710 FROM PBC/MARTIN CO /LINE TO CONGRESS AVE Project Development & Environme $4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 $0
2298961 SR-710/BEELINE HWY FROM W OF AUSTRALIAN AVE TO OLD DIXIE HWY Add 2 Lanes to build 4 Lanes $9,556 $700 $23,777 $0 $0 $8,714 $25,319
4192511 SR-710/BEELINE HWY FROM PGA BLVD TO BLUE HERON BLVD Add 2 Lanes to build 4 Lanes $0 $0 $2,421 $0 $0 $2,421 $0
4327041 SR-710/BEELINE HWY FROM W. OF INDIANTOWN RD TO W. OF PRATT WHITNEY Add 2 Lanes to build 4 Lanes $35,438 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,438 $0
4327051 SR-710/BEELINE HWY FROM E. OF SR-76 TO PALM BEACH/MARTIN CL Add 2 Lanes to build 4 Lanes $2,520 $3,960 $0 $60,216 $0 $66,696 $0
4327061 SR-710/BEELINE HWY FROM PALM BEACH/MARTIN CL TO W. OF INDIANTOWN R Add 2 Lanes to build 4 Lanes $9,764 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,764 $0
4327071 SR-710/BEELINE HWY FROM MP 2.0 TO W. OF SW FOX BROWN RD Add 2 Lanes to build 4 Lanes $13,509 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,509 $0
4192522 SR-710/WARFIELD BLVD FR MARTIN POWER PLANT TO CR609/SW ALLAPATTAH Add 2 Lanes to build 4 Lanes $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $0
4193441 SR-710/WARFIELD BLVD FROM MARTIN/OKEE CO/LINE TO CR-609/ALLAPATTAH Project Development & Environme $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $0
4193482 SR-710/WARFIELD BLVD FROM EAST OF SR-76 TO PBC/MARTIN CO LINE Project Development & Environme $3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 $0
ANNUAL TOTALS $72,425 $32,260 $26,198 $60,216 $34,525 $185,755 $26,069 $13,800
2
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
"
" "
£¤441
£¤27 §¨¦595
OP70
OP60
§¨¦95
ST710
£¤27
£¤98
§¨¦95
§¨¦75 4039841
4184291
4138411
420 3561
419 3451
2286281
410 7171
23026212302622
230 2623
419 3441
4192502
22975514110731
2298952
2298961
2298972
4170622
4192511
4193481
229 7101
4192481
4192501
4193483
4193482
§¨¦95Palm Beach
Broward
Martin
St. Lucie
Indian River
Map date:November 5, 2008 (Location)
DRAFT
10
Miles
LEGEND
Projects color coded by year of highest project
phase.
NOTES
Project Phase
(FY 2008/2009 thru 2012/2013)
as of July 1, 2008
Adopted Work Program
Project Development
Preliminary Engineering
Right-Of-Way
Construction
DISTRICT 4
First Five Years
Non-Interstate Plan
®10 0 105
Miles
LEGEND
Project Phase
(FY 2008/2009 thru 2012/2013)
as of July 1, 2008
Adopted Work Program
Project Development & Environment
Preliminary Engineering
Right-Of-Way
Construction
NOTES
Capacity Improvement Projects
STRATEGIC SYSTEMINTERMODAL
Facility
CountyName
CountyBoundary
ProjectLimits
SISRoadway
Map ID number which corresponds to more detailedproject information in thefacing table above.
Project
Phases
Map Key:
Projects color coded by highest project phase.
Some projects may overlap on map.
Project costs are subject to change.
highway
Some projects are fundedin other phase sequences
Project Phases
Work Program Phase consists of Phase Group (major areas of work performed) and Phase Type (who is being paid to perform the work). Phases include all Phase Types other than Phase Type 1
(In-House) and Phase Type 9 (Indirect Support). See the Work Program Instructions at http://www.dot.state.fl.us/programdevelopmentoffice/ for additional information.
Project Development and Environment - Study that satisfies the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process resulting in a location design concept for an engineering and environmentally
feasible alternative to meet the need determined in the planning phase. Defined by Phase Group 2 (PD&E).
Preliminary Engineering - Program to further develop and analyze location and design engineering phases of highway and bridge construction projects. Defined by Phase Group 3 (PE) and
Phase Group C (Environmental).
Right of Way - The phase of acquiring land to support the construction projects. Defined by Phase Group 4 (ROW).
Construction - Phase consists of the physical work performed to build or assemble the infrastructure. Defined by Phase Group 5 (Construction) and Phase Group 6 (Construction Support).
In terms of typical project phase
sequence as listed in the legend
above (e.g. construction is the
highest phase)
3
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
MAP IDDESCRIPTIONTOTALDISTRICTMANAGED20212022202320242025FACILITYTOTALLOCALFUNDSTOTALSTATEMANAGEDSIS Adopted 1st 5 Year ProgramDistrict 1 Interstate Plan ENV PD&E PE ROW CON4301853I-4 (SR 400) AT SR 33 INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONM-INCH: Modify Interchange$7,545$0$2,904$0$50$1,743$0$8,7574301855I-4 (SR 400) AT SR 33 INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION - FGTM-INCH: Modify Interchange$10,007$0$0$0$0$5,007$0$5,0002012153I-4 (SR 400) AT SR 557M-INCH: Modify Interchange$1,058$0$0$0$0$13$0$1,0454425122I-4 (SR 400) FROM W OF SR 570 (POLK PARKWAY) TO W OF US 27 INTERCHANPDE: Project Dev. & Env.$39$0$0$0$0$39$0$02012103I-4 (SR 400) FROM W OF US 27 (SR 25) TO E OF CR 532A4-10: Add 4 To Build 10 Lanes$5,571$0$0$0$0$5,571$0$02012775I-75 (SR 93) AT BEE RIDGE ROADM-INCH: Modify Interchange$15,001$0$8,600$0$0$234$0$23,3674062253I-75 (SR 93) AT CORKSCREW INTERCHANGEM-INCH: Modify Interchange$49$0$0$0$0$0$0$494462961I-75 (SR 93) AT CR 876/DANIELS PARKWAYPDE: Project Dev. & Env.$1$2,828$0$0$0$2,829$0$04206132I-75 (SR 93) AT FRUITVILLE ROAD/CR 780M-INCH: Modify Interchange$1,225$0$0$6,929$500$805$2,200$5,6492012773I-75 (SR 93) AT SR 72 (CLARK ROAD) INTERCHANGEM-INCH: Modify Interchange$58,644$0$0$2,000$0$2,113$1,375$57,1554130651I-75 (SR 93) AT SR 884 (COLONIAL BLVD) INTERCHANGEM-INCH: Modify Interchange$10,649$2,000$0$0$0$3,058$3,849$5,7424258432I-75 (SR 93) AT SR 951M-INCH: Modify Interchange$6,914$0$920$145$96,222$1,085$1,239$101,8782010325I-75 (SR 93) AT US 301 INTERCHANGEM-INCH: Modify Interchange$171,680$0$4,000$0$0$8,692$1,580$165,4084425193I-75 (SR 93) FROM COLLIER/LEE COUNTY LINE TO SR 78 (BAYSHORE DR)PDE: Project Dev. & Env.$39$0$0$0$0$39$0$04425192I-75 (SR 93) FROM E OF SR 951 TO COLLIER/LEE COUNTY LINEPDE: Project Dev. & Env.$21$0$0$0$0$21$0$04425183I-75 (SR 93) FROM N RIVER RD TO N OF UNIVERSITY PARKWAYPDE: Project Dev. & Env.$20$0$0$0$0$20$0$04425182I-75 (SR 93) FROM N UNIVERSITY PKWY TO MOCCASIN WALLOWPDE: Project Dev. & Env.$12$0$0$0$0$12$0$04062254I-75 (SR 93) FROM S OF CORKSCREW ROAD TO S OF DANIELS PARKWAYA2-6: Add 2 To Build 6 Lanes$1,186$0$0$0$0$1$0$1,1852010326I-75 AT SR 64M-INCH: Modify Interchange$603$0$0$0$0$462$0$1424425211INTERSTATE PROGRAM MANAGER - GECPDE: Project Dev. & Env.$2,000$2,000$2,000$1,800$2,000$7,800$0$2,000ANNUAL TOTALS $292,264$6,828$18,424$10,874$98,772$39,544$10,243$377,377All Values in Thousands of "As Programmed" DollarsPE - Preliminary Engineering;ROW - Right-of-Way;PD&E - Project Development & Environmental;TOTAL LOCAL FUNDS include all funds that start with LF fund code;CON - Construction & Support (may Include Grants);ENV - Environmental Mitigation;Project highlighted with gray background is no longer designated as SIS.10.A.2Packet Pg. 489Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
"
""
""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
£¤27
§¨¦4
£¤27
£¤27
§¨¦75
§¨¦75
§¨¦75
§¨¦275
£¤441
£¤17
4301853
4301855
4206132
2012775
2012773
4130651
AB80
AB80
AB70 AB70
AB82
AB29
AB60
AB60
AB64
AB70
AB29
AB710
£¤17
2012153
4425192
4258432
2010326
2010325
4425211
4425122
2012103
4425182
4425183
4462961 4425193
4062254 4062253
Polk
Collier
Lee Hendry
Glades
HighlandsHardee
Manatee
De Soto
Okeechobee
Sarasota
Charlotte
First Five Years
Interstate Plan
DISTRICT 1
®
LEGEND
Projects color coded by highest project phase.
Some projects may overlap on map.
Project costs are subject to change.
NOTES
HIGHWAY
Capacity Improvement Projects
STRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEM
FY 2020/2021 through FY 2024/2025(as of July 1, 2020)
Adopted Work Program
0 20 4010
Miles
Project Phase
Project Development & Environment
Preliminary Engineering
Right-Of-Way
Construction
Environmental Mitigation
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
State of Florida Department of Transportation
Intermodal Systems Development
Systems Implementation Office
http://www.fdot.gov/planning/systems/
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
FY 2029/20302025/2026
Multi-Modal
Strategic Intermodal System Funding Strategy
Capacity Projects on FY 2025/2026 through FY 2029/2030the Strategic Intermodal System
State of Florida Department of Transportation
Second Five Year Plan
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
This Page is intentionally left blank
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
First Five Year Plan*
The First Five Year Plan illustrates projects on the SIS that
are funded by the Legislature in the Work Program
(Year 1) and projects that are programmed for proposed
funding in the next 2 to 5 years.
Update Cycle: Adopted annually by the
FDOT Secretary, effective July 1st each
year with the start of the new fiscal year.
*SIS Capacity Projects included in the
Adopted Five-Year Work Program
Cost Feasible Plan
The Cost Feasible Plan illustrates projects on the SIS that are considered financially feasible
during the last fifteen years (years 11 to 25) of the SIS Funding Strategy, based on current revenue
forecasts. Projects in this plan could move forward into the Second Five as funds become available or
backwards into the Unfunded Needs Plan if revenues fall short of projections.
Update Cycle: Typically updated every 2 to 3 years as new revenue forecasts become available.
Second Five Year Plan
The FDOT Systems Planning Office produces a document set known as the SIS Funding Strategy, which includes three
inter-related sequential documents that identify potential Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Capacity Improvement projects in
various stages of development. All of the projects identified within the SIS Funding Strategy are considered financially feasible
for implementation within the next 25 year period. The Florida Legislature established the SIS in 2003 to enhance Florida’s
economic prosperity and competitiveness. The system encompasses transportation facilities of statewide and interregional
significance, and is focused on the efficient movement of passengers and freight. The combined document set, as illustrated
below, illustrates projects that are funded (Year 1), programmed for proposed funding (Years 2 through 5), planned to be
funded (Years 6 through 10), and considered financially feasible based on projected State revenues (Years 11 through 25).
Typically updated
annually, usually in late summer
following the First Five Plan update.
The Second Five Year Plan illustrates projects that are
planned to be funded in the five years (Years 6 through
beyond the Adopted Work ProgramH[FOXGLQJ 7XUQSLNH
3URMHFWVLQWKLVplan could move IRUZDUG LQWRWKH
)LUVW)LYH<HDUPlan as funds become available.
Update Cycle:
1
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
DISTRICT 5 SIS PLAN
PD&E –Project Development & Environmental
PE –Preliminary Engineering
ROW –Right-of-Way
CON –Constructionand Support and May Include Grants
All Values in Thousands of "As Programmed" Dollars
Projects are listed in the table by unique
Map ID numbers that correspond to the
map on the facing page below.
Costs are shown in thousands by year of
programmed expenditure. Costs within
a year could include multiple phases.
Columns on the far right give information
related to project phase. A dot indicates
the phase included within the five year
timed period.
The Grant phase refers to a funding
strategy where contributions are
exchanged between Federal, State,
and/or Local entities.
A summary row is provided for a
District-wide review of project totals.
Project facility name and limits, or in the case of an interchange project, the interchange location is identified; and the work improvement description are identified in these columns.
Project funding distribution is shown in
these columns and is summarized by
District, Statewide, and Locally allocated
funds.
Some projects may not display on the map
due to undetermined project location at
this time. Most of these projects are in the
early planning and engineering phases.
MAP ID DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
DISTRICT
MANAGED
TOTAL
STATE
MANAGED20192020202120222023 PD&EPE ROWCONFACILITY
TOTAL
LOCAL
FUNDS
4321931 Managed Lanes $213,006 $227,392 $114,895 $104,653 $105,413 $285,830 $324,529 I-4 MANAGED LANES FROM KIRKMAN TO SR 434 $155,000
4068696 Add 2 Lanes to build 6 Lanes $0 $500 $0 $0 $0 $500 $0 I-95 FROM 0.5 MILE N OF SR 44 SOUTH OF I-4
2427152 Modify Interchange $0 $200,162 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,162 I-95 FROM 1.508 MILES S OF I-4 TO 1.6 MILES N US 92
2402004 New Road $248,933 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,957 $97,976 SR 429 (WEKIVA PKWY) FROM ORANGE BOULEVARD TO W OF I-4 (SR 400)
2402003 Add 2 Lanes to build 8 Lanes $22,467 $0 $0 $0 $0 $268 $22,199 SR 46 (WEKIVA PKWY) FROM W OF CENTER RD TO INTERSTATE 4
4183211 Add Turn Lane $30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30 $0 SR 500 (US 17-92) 2 INTERSECTIONS VINE ST AND DONEGAN AVE
ANNUAL TOTALS $484,436 $428,054 $114,895 $104,653 $105,413 $437,585 $644,866 $155,000
Table Key:
2
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
"
" "
£¤441
£¤27 595
OP70
OP60
95
ST710
£¤27
£¤98
95
75 4039841
4184291
4138411
420 3561
4193451
2286281
410 7171
23026212302622
230 2623
419 3441
4192502
22975514110731
2298952
2298961
2298972
4170622
4192511
4193481
229 7101
4192481
4192501
419 3483
4193482
95Palm Beach
Broward
Martin
St. Lucie
Indian River
Project Development and Environment - study that satisfies the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process resulting in a location design
concept for an engineering and environmentally feasible alternative to meet the need determined in the planning phase.
Preliminary Engineering - program to further develop and analyze location and design engineering phases of highway and bridge construction projects.
Right of Way - the phase of acquiring land to support the construction projects.
Construction - phase consists of the physical work performed to build or assemble the infrastructure
DRAFT
10
Miles
LEGEND
Projects color coded by year of highest project
phase.
NOTES
Project Phase
(FY 2008/2009 thru 2012/2013)
as of July 1, 2008
Adopted Work Program
Project Development
Preliminary Engineering
Right-Of-Way
Construction
DISTRICT 4
Second Five Years
10 0 105
Miles
LEGEND
Project Phase
(FY 2008/2009 thru 2012/2013)
as of July 1, 2008
Approved Plan
Project Development & Environment
Preliminary Engineering
Right-Of-Way
Construction
NOTES
Capacity Improvement Projects
STRATEGIC SYSTEMINTERMODAL
Facility
CountyName
CountyBoundary
ProjectLimits
SISRoadway
Map ID number which corresponds to more detailedproject information in thefacing table above.
Project
Phases
In terms of typical project phasesequence as listed in the legend above (e.g. constructionis the highest phase)
Map Key:
Projects color coded by highest project phase.
Some projects may overlap on map.
Project costs are subject to change.
highway
Some projects are fundedin other phase sequences
3
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
MAP IDDESCRIPTIONTOTALDISTRICTMANAGED20262027202820292030FACILITYTOTALLOCALFUNDSTOTALSTATEMANAGEDSIS Approved 2nd 5 Year ProgramDistrict 1 Highway Plan ENV PD&E PE ROW CON4301853I-4 (SR 400) AT SR 33 INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONM-INCH: Modify Interchange$0$0$86,707$0$0$238$500$85,9692012105I-4 AT US 27 (SR 25)M-INCH: Modify Interchange$0$214,107$0$0$0$25$0$214,0822012775I-75 (SR 93) AT BEE RIDGE ROADM-INCH: Modify Interchange$0$0$0$0$179,177$0$0$179,1774206132I-75 (SR 93) AT FRUITVILLE ROAD/CR 780M-INCH: Modify Interchange$110,069$0$0$0$0$6$0$110,0634425211INTERSTATE PROGRAM MANAGER - GECPDE: Project Dev. & Env.$2,000$2,000$2,000$0$0$6,000$0$04449581SR 15 (US 441) AT CR 68 (NE 160TH ST)TURN: Add Turn Lane$750$0$0$0$0$750$0$04448861SR 15 (US 441) AT POTTER RD (NE 144TH ST)TURN: Add Turn Lane$452$0$0$0$0$452$0$04192433SR 25 (US 27) FROM CR 630A TO PRESIDENTS DRIVEA2-6: Add 2 To Build 6 Lanes$0$0$0$75,347$0$0$0$75,3474178785SR 29 FROM COLLIER C/L TO CR 832 (KERI RD)A2-4: Add 2 To Build 4 Lanes$6,647$1,945$0$0$0$0$0$8,5924175406SR 29 FROM N OF NEW MARKET RD TO SR 82A2-4: Add 2 To Build 4 Lanes$30,356$0$0$0$0$0$0$30,356ANNUAL TOTALS$150,274$218,052$88,707$75,347$179,177$7,471$500$703,586All Values in Thousands of "As Programmed" DollarsPE - Preliminary Engineering;ROW - Right-of-Way;PD&E - Project Development & Environmental;TOTAL LOCAL FUNDS include all funds that start with LF fund code;CON - Construction & Support (may Include Grants);ENV - Environmental Mitigation;Project highlighted with gray background is no longer designated as SIS.10.A.2Packet Pg. 497Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
"""
"
"
"
£¤27
£¤17
§¨¦4
£¤27
£¤27
§¨¦75
§¨¦75
§¨¦75
§¨¦275
£¤441
£¤17
AB80 AB80
AB70 AB70
AB82
AB29
AB60
AB64
AB70
AB29
AB710
§¨¦75
§¨¦75
4175406
2012775
4178785
4206132 4448861
4449581
2012105
4301853
4192433
4425211
Polk
Collier
Lee Hendry
Glades
Highlands
Hardee
Manatee
De Soto
Okeechobee
Sarasota
Charlotte
®
LEGEND
Projects color coded by highest project phase.
Some projects may overlap on map.
Project costs are subject to change.
NOTES
Capacity Improvement Projects
STRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEM
FY 2025/2026 through FY 2029/2030(as of July 1, 2020)
Approved Plan
0 20 4010
Miles
DISTRICT 1
Second Five Years
HIGHWAY
Project Phase
Project Development & Environment
Preliminary Engineering
Right-Of-Way
Construction
Environmental Mitigation
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
State of Florida Department of Transportation
Intermodal Systems Development
Systems Planning Office
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
Strategic Intermodal System
Long Range Cost Feasible Plan FY 2029•2045
2018 EDITION
PRESENT DAY COSTS
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Cost Feasible Plan 2045 Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. Purpose of SIS Cost Feasible Plan
The 2045 Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Cost Feasible Plan (CFP) evaluates SIS
needs in light of available future revenues and represents a phased plan for capacity
improvements to the SIS, utilizing forecasted revenues while being guided by objectives
set forth in the Florida Transportation Plan (FTP). The main purpose of the 2045 SIS CFP
is to efficiently plan for and fund future capacity improvements. This document represents
an update of the 2040 SIS CFP completed in December 2013, and complies with the
Section 339.64, Florida Statutes, (F.S.) requirement for a SIS long range cost feasible plan.
The 16-year planning timeframe (FY 2029-2045) of the SIS CFP is divided into
three (3), 5 to 6 year funding bands. Project phases are assigned to these particular
funding bands, with no exact year specified for the projects. The Systems
Implementation Office (SIO) is responsible for updating the SIS CFP every
3 to 5 years, to adjust the planning horizon consistent with the long-range
planning needs of FDOT and Metropolitan Planning Organizations throughout
the state. This version of the SIS CFP also sets aside funds for modal projects.
II. Florida Transportation Plan (FTP)
The FTP defines Florida’s future transportation vision and identifies goals, objectives, and
strategies to guide transportation decisions over the next 50 years. Completed in 2015, the
implementation of the 2065 FTP will be achieved through specific actions by government,
private, and civic partners at the state, regional, and local levels. The latest plan identifies
long-range goals that are anticipated to guide transportation policy decisions for both SIS
and non-SIS facilities.
The Systems Implementation Office (SIO) utilizes FTP Goals and the SIS Policy Plan to set
appropriate SIS policies, select projects, measure performance, and implement project
development in accordance with short and long-range plans.
FTP Goals and Objectives
As mentioned previously, the FTP contains the goals and objectives the
Department works to meet. The SIS CFP plays a direct role in achieving the
following goals and objectives:
•Invest in transportation systems to support a globally
competitive economy
Florida’s economic competitiveness is closely related to the state’s ability to
provide connectivity and mobility for both people and freight. Transportation
investments are a key contributor to statewide economic growth and
diversification over the next 50 years;
•Make transportation decisions to support and enhance
livable communities
Vibrant cities, suburbs, small towns and villages, rural areas, and open
space all appeal to different groups of Floridians. Although transportation
alone cannot make a community livable, effective transportation planning
and investment can support the viability of these desired community types;
•Make transportation decisions to promote responsible
environmental stewardship
As Florida grows and develops an important priority must be to ensure
Florida’s environment is sustainable for future generations. Transportation
planning must be integrated with land use, water, and natural resource
planning and management to support statewide goals for protecting critical
habitats, lands, and waters;
•Provide a safe and secure transportation system for all users
Safety is a top priority for the Department and factors into all planning and
operational improvements undertaken by FDOT. The fatality rate in Florida
has declined for four consecutive years; and
•Improve mobility and connectivity for people and freight
The most fundamental purpose of transportation is mobility and connectivity
linking people to jobs and services, businesses to suppliers and customers,
visitors to destinations, and students to schools. Florida should provide residents,
visitors, and businesses with more choices among transportation modes. All
modes must function together as an integrated transportation system.
Page 3Florida Department of Transportation • Systems Implementation Office2018 Edition
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
IV. Strategic Intermodal System (SIS)
2016 Strategic Intermodal System Policy Plan
The FDOT is required by statute to
create a SIS Plan consistent with the
FTP at least once every five years. While
the FTP addresses the state’s entire
transportation system, regardless of
ownership, the 2016 SIS Strategic Plan
addresses only SIS designated facilities.
Although the SIS represents a small
percentage of the overall transportation
facilities within the state, the SIS network
is responsible for the movement of the
majority of people and goods. The SIS
Plan takes into account the goals of the
FTP and applies them to the SIS. It also
sets policies to guide decisions about
which facilities are designated as part of
the SIS, where future SIS investments
should occur, and how to set priorities
among these investments given the
limited amount of available funding.
SIS Designation
Section 339.63, Florida Statutes, (F.S.)
provides a list of the facility types to
be designated as SIS facilities. Upon
its creation, the SIS was intended to
include only the transportation facilities
that meet a strategic and essential state
interest. By limiting the system to only
those facilities that are most critical,
improvement projects are anticipated
to have a greater impact statewide. The
initial SIS included all facilities that met
the criteria recommended by the SIS
Steering Committee, with the subject
criteria being reviewed annually. Two
SIS system-wide data and designation
reviews have been conducted and
published since the SIS was created.
The most recent review was completed
in 2015, which analyzed SIS data and
facility designations.
SIS Eligibility
Section 339.1, F.S. requires that
revenue from the State Transportation
Trust Fund be set aside for SIS projects.
Only certain types of projects are eligible
for SIS funding. After preservation,
maintenance, and safety are addressed,
a portion of the remaining funds are
used for SIS capacity improvement
projects.
Many of the restrictions on SIS
funding are guided by the definition of
a “capacity project” for each mode.
The Capacity Funding Eligibility Matrix
for Strategic Intermodal System (SIS)
Facilities (Eligibility Matrix) lists the
types of projects that can and cannot
use SIS funding.
The Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), established in 2003, is a statewide network of
high priority transportation facilities most critical for statewide and interregional travel.
The SIS includes the state’s largest and most significant commercial service airports,
spaceports, deep-water seaports, freight rail terminals, passenger rail, intercity bus
terminals, rail corridors, waterways, and highways.
As of 2018, designated SIS facilities included 18 commercial service airports and two
general aviation reliever airports, 11 deep-water seaports, 2,297 miles of rail corridors,
1,986 miles of waterways, 19 passenger terminals, eight rail freight terminals, two
spaceports, and nearly 4,400 miles of highways, corridors, connectors, and Military
Access Facilities. These hubs, corridors, and connectors are the fundamental structure
which satisfies the transportation needs of the public, supports the movement of
freight, and provides transportation links to external markets.
Page 4Florida Department of Transportation • Systems Implementation Office2018 Edition
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
V. SIS Planning Process
The SIS planning process is based on policy guidance that was developed for the
Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) during the 1990’s. This process provides
the framework for planning, programming, and implementing transportation projects.
It shows the progression of a project from policy and planning to implementation.
The process also ensures that the limited transportation funds are invested in the
most effective manner.
The SIS planning process is based on an approach of rational planning and systematic
decision-making. Development of the SIS Policy Plan leads to the preparation of the
SIS Multimodal Unfunded Needs Plan, which includes a wide variety of capacity
projects. From this plan, the SIS CFP is developed, and the further components of
the SIS Funding Strategy.
Page 5Florida Department of Transportation • Systems Implementation Office2018 Edition
SIS Funding Strategy
The SIS Funding Strategy, includes three inter-related sequential documents that
identify potential SIS capacity improvement projects in various stages of development.
All the projects identified within the SIS Funding Strategy are considered financially
feasible for implementation within the next 25 years. It is a combined set of plans
composed of the Adopted and Tentative SIS Work Program, the 2nd Five-Year Plan,
and SIS CFP. A discussion of each of the FDOT SIS plans follows below.
Adopted and Tentative SIS Work Program
The Adopted Work Program (1st Five-Year Plan) is the
focus of the entire FDOT planning process. By statute
the Department cannot undertake any project prior to
its inclusion in the Adopted Work Program. The program
represents a financially feasible planning document
which consists of all FDOT projects for the current fiscal
year and the following four years. Approximately 75% of
the discretionary funding in the Adopted Work Program
is targeted towards SIS capacity projects, which include
a wide range of transportation projects impacting all
transportation modes throughout the state.
SIS 2nd Five-Year Plan
Projects that are scheduled to be funded in the five
years following the Tentative SIS Work Program (year
6 through year 10) is considered part of the SIS 2nd
Five-Year Plan. The plan is developed during the
FDOT project development cycle, following the
approval of the tentative SIS Work Program (1st Five).
Upon the commencement of the annual FDOT project
development cycle, the first year of the previous SIS
2nd Five-Year Plan becomes the new fifth year of the
Tentative SIS Work Program, and the new 10th year is
developed from projects in the SIS CFP.
SIS Cost Feasible Plan
As previously stated, the SIS CFP illustrates
projects on the SIS that are considered financially
feasible during years 11 through 25 of the
SIS Funding Strategy, based on current revenue
forecasts. Projects in this plan could potentially move
forward into the SIS 2nd Five-Year Plan as funds
become available or back out into the SIS 2045
Multimodal Unfunded Needs Plan given changes in
priorities or shortfalls in projected revenue. The SIS
CFP is typically updated every three to five years as
new revenue forecasts become available.
SIS 2045 Multimodal Unfunded Needs Plan
The FDOT SIS Multimodal Unfunded Needs Plan identifies transportation projects
on the SIS which help meet mobility needs, but where funding is not expected to
be available during the 25-year time period of the SIS Funding Strategy. This plan
is typically updated every five years. Needs are identified by the Department and its
partners, and it includes projects from long-range master plans, corridor plans, and
PD&E studies. Projects in the SIS Multimodal Unfunded Needs Plan could potentially
move forward into the SIS CFP as funds become available. The plan satisfies Section
339.64, Florida Statutes, (F.S.) requirement that calls for a needs assessment for the
Strategic Intermodal System.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
VI. Cost Feasible Plan Development
Methodology and Process
The SIS CFP is a key element of the SIS funding strategy and answers
two fundamental questions:
1.What are the projected revenues?
2.What projects can be funded with the projected revenues?
The development of the SIS CFP is completed in the following steps:
1.Development of revenue forecast
2.Identification of district project priorities. The following strategies are used to
identify and evaluate proposed projects:
•Does the project improve SIS mobility?
•Does the project result in the widening of major trade and tourism corridors?
•Does the project result in the widening of “missing links” to
complete important regional networks?
•Does the project investment fund cost-effective interim construction in
major urbanized areas where the ultimate construction is too costly to
build at one time?
3.Development of draft SIS CFP by Central Office Systems Implementation Office
4.Review and comment by district and local partners
5.Update based on district and partner comments
6.Review of final draft by Executive Management
7.Approval of SIS CFP by FDOT Executive Board
8.Publishing of SIS CFP
Page 6Florida Department of Transportation • Systems Implementation Office2018 Edition
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
SIS CFP Project Selection
As part of this effort the Districts provided regional priority information that was
supplemented by additional statewide analysis. These projects then served as
the base pool of potential SIS CFP projects along with any previously unidentified
projects. When considering each project for inclusion in the SIS CFP the following
questions are asked:
•Is the project of statewide importance?
Does the project support statewide SIS goals?
•Does the project contribute to the expansion of major roadway
trade and tourism corridors?
Florida’s continued long-term economic viability depends on reliable
freight and passenger mobility through its major gateways.
•Does the project contribute to the completion of a corridor?
SIS routes should provide a continuous corridor with similar capacity
and operational characteristics.
•Does the project contribute to the overall connectivity of the SIS?
SIS routes are interconnected to form a statewide system that
enhances mobility.
The costs of selected projects are balanced against available district and state
managed revenues/funds to ensure that each project is “cost feasible.” Priorities
assigned by the districts and statewide priorities are also considered as part of
the project selection process. As part of the process, several iterations of the
plan have been developed for district review and approval by FDOT leadership.
This update of the SIS CFP does not provide specific projects for modes other
than highways (aviation, spaceports, seaport, rail, and transit). Funding for
these modes, however, is listed in the SIS CFP under the designation of “modal
reserves”. Modal reserves are identified funding amounts assigned to the modes
during the SIS CFP planning period. The reserves are available for each mode
for specific projects that will be identified and selected in the future.
Page 7Florida Department of Transportation • Systems Implementation Office2018 Edition
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
VII. Current and Future Transportation Initiatives
Bottlenecks
Increased traffic congestion and bottlenecks on Florida’s streets and highways is a
major concern to travelers, transportation officials, merchants, developers and to
the community at large. Their detrimental impacts in longer journey times, higher
fuel consumption, increased emissions of air pollutants, greater transport and other
affected costs are increasingly recognized. Congestion and bottlenecks reduce
accessibility to residents, activities, and jobs and result in lost opportunities for both
the public and businesses. Eliminating bottlenecks by better managing traffic, travel
demands, and/or by modifying land use requires gathering basic information on why,
where, and to what extent congestion occurs. The FDOT SIO has completed a study
identifying bottlenecks on SIS facilities.
Managed Lanes
Managed Lanes are a transportation systems management and operations (TSM&O)
approach defined as highway facilities or a set of lanes within an existing highway
facility where operational strategies are proactively implemented and managed in
response to changing conditions with a combination of tools. These tools may include
accessibility, vehicle eligibility, pricing, or a combination thereof. Some examples of
managed lanes are high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, high-occupancy/toll (HOT)
lanes, truck only lanes, bus rapid transit lanes, reversible lanes, and express lanes.
Tolling is not a requirement for a managed lane; however, in situations where facilities
experience extreme congestion, tolling is a tool used to provide individuals with a
choice of paying a toll to move through a congested area and experience a more
reliable trip, with less travel time.
In Florida, express lanes are a type of managed lane located in a separate tolled
corridor inside an existing facility where congestion is managed with pricing, access,
and eligibility. When the express lanes begin to reach their capacity, the price is
increased to discourage drivers from entering the lanes. This allows the express
lanes to maintain a certain level of trip reliability. The higher prices deter more drivers
from using the express lanes and to opt for the general purposes lanes instead,
ensuring traffic continues to flow in the express lanes.
Future Corridors
The Future Corridors initiative is a statewide effort led by the FDOT to plan for the future
of major transportation corridors critical to the state’s economic competitiveness
and quality of life over the next 50 years. With an anticipated increase in population
and visitors by 2045, the need exists for the state to:
• Better coordinate long-range transportation and development plans and
visions to identify and meet a growing demand for moving people and
freight;
• Identify long-range solutions that support statewide and regional goals for
economic development, quality of life, and environmental stewardship;
• Provide solutions or alternatives to major highways that already are
congested; and
• Improve connectivity between Florida and other states and nations to better
support economic development opportunities consistent with regional
visions and the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity’s Strategic
Plan for Economic Development.
A statewide transportation corridor is one that connects Florida to other states, broad
regions within Florida, generally by high-speed, high-capacity transportation facilities
such as interstate highways or other limited-access roadways, major rail lines, and
major waterways. These corridors may also involve multiple modes of transportation
as well as other linear infrastructure such as pipelines, telecommunications, or utility
transmission lines.
Future Corridor projects included as part of the SIS CFP may include the
transformation of existing facilities to serve a new function, such as adding tolled
express lanes, truck only lanes, fixed guideway systems to an existing highway or
adding passenger service to an existing freight rail line. New inter-regional corridors
may be identified and included in future SIS CFPs.
Page 8Florida Department of Transportation • Systems Implementation Office2018 Edition
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
FDOT DISTRICT OFFICE SIS CONTACTS
District 1
Sarah Catala
SIS/Growth Management Coordinator
239-225-1981
sarah.catala@dot.state.fl.us
District 2
Stephen L. Browning, PE (interim)
Planning & Environmental Management Office
386-961-7455
stephen.browning@dot.state.fl.us
District 3
Ray Kirkland
SIS Coordinator
850-415-9590
ray.kirkland@dot.state.fl.us
District 4
Christine Fasiska
SIS Coordinator
954-777-4480
christine.fasiska@dot.state.fl.us
District 5
John Zielinski
SIS/DIRC Chairman
407-482-7868
john.zielinski@dot.state.fl.us
District 6
Shereen Yee Fong
SIS Coordinator
305-470-5393
shereen.yeefong@dot.state.fl.us
District 7
Lori Marable
SIS Coordinator
813-975-6450
lori.marable@dot.state.fl.us
Turnpike
David Cooke
SIS Coordinator/Govt. Affairs Officer
407-264-3023
david.cooke@dot.state.fl.us
Central Office
Chris Edmonston
SIS Planning Manager
850-414-4813
chris.edmonston@dot.state.fl.us
Page 9Florida Department of Transportation • Systems Implementation Office2018 Edition
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Design
PEPDE
Right of Way / ConstructionIDFACILITYFROMTO IMPRV
TYPEROWCONTOTAL
Other Funds
TOTAL
P3 Funds
#YrsBegin YrCOSTTOTAL
DISTRICT 1
2,500 18,0003379US 27 Palm Beach / Hendry County Line SR 80 0 0 FRTCAP30,48016,99920,500
3,000 18,0003380US 27 Glades / Highlands County Line SR 70 0 0 A2-630,2445,44421,000
1,250 1,5003381US 27 South of Skipper Rd.US 98 0 0 A2-65,2979542,750
1,500 2,5003383US 98 / US 441 18th Terrace 38th Ave.0 0 A2-46,2042,5004,000
4,245,139Funded CFP Totals 814,080 Total CFP Funds=5,059,219
State of Florida Department of Transportation
LEGEND NOTES
FY 2035/2036 - 2039/2040
FY 2040/2041 - 2044/2045
(1)All values in thousands of Present Day Dollars (2017).
(2) All phase costs shown as supplied by each District.
(3) CON includes both Construction (CON52) and Construction Support (CEI).
(4) ROW includes both Right-of-Way Acquisition/Mitigation (ROW43/45) and Right-of-Way Support.
(5) "P3 Funds" - Used to fund Public-Private Partnership projects over a specified number of years.
(6) Revenue forecast provides separate values for PDE and PE than for ROW and CON.
(7) Other Funds - assumed to be toll revenue or partner funded.
A1-3: Add 1 Lane to Build 3
A2-4: Add 2 Lanes to Build 4
A2-6: Add 2 Lanes to Build 6
A2-8: Add 2 Lanes to Build 8
A4-12: Add 4 Lanes to Build 12
A1-AUX: Add 1 Auxilliary Lane
A4-SUL: Add 4 Special Use Lanes
ACCESS: Access
BRIDGE: Bridge
FRTCAP: Freight Capacity
GRASEP: Grade Separation
HWYCAP: Highway Capacity
PTERM: Passenger Terminal
ITS: Intelligent Transp. Sys
MGLANE: Managed Lanes
IMPROVEMENT TYPES
FY 2028/2029 - 2034/2035
Page 2
Mega Projects Phased Over Time
M-INCH: Modify Interchange
N-INCH: New Interchange
NR: New Road
PDE: Project Dev. Env.
SERVE: Add Svc/Front/CD
System
STUDY: Study
UP: Ultimate Plan
2018 Edition
STRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEM • Long Range Cost Feasible Plan • FY 2029•2045DISTRICT 1
Design
PEPDE
Right of Way / ConstructionIDFACILITYFROMTO IMPRV
TYPEROWCONTOTAL
Other Funds
TOTAL
P3 Funds
#YrsBegin YrCOSTTOTAL
0 03331I-4 West of US 27 / SR 25 Polk / Osceola County Line 398,766 0 MGLANE347,08051,6860
0 99,3603330I-4 West of SR 570 / Polk Parkway (West)West of US 27 / SR 25 1,905,680 0 MGLANE1,656,000249,68099,360
0 136,8003333I-75 Collier/Lee County Line SR 78 271,300 0 MGLANE1,710,000271,300136,800
0 6,5003334I-75 at North Jones Loop Rd 0 0 M-INCH39,8097,1666,500
0 7,5003335I-75 at US 17/SR 35 0 0 M-INCH85,73215,4327,500
0 6,5003336I-75 at CR 776/Harbor View 0 0 M-INCH39,8097,1666,500
0 6,5003337I-75 at CR 769/Kings Highway 0 0 M-INCH39,8097,1666,500
0 60,4803339I-75 North of University Parkway CR 6 / Moccasin Wallow Rd.996,584 0 MGLANE821,344175,24060,480
0 34,2003338I-75 South of River Road SR 681 64,538 0 MGLANE570,00064,53834,200
0 49,0143463I-75 SR 681 North of University Parkway 152,341 0 MGLANE491,761152,34149,014
0 63,2453332I-75 East of SR 951 Collier / Lee County Line 145,427 0 MGLANE1,250,398145,42763,245
0 4,3331379SR 29 I-75 Oil Well Rd 0 0 A2-428,8895,2004,333
0 03341SR 29 Oil Well Rd. / CR 658 Sunniland Nursery Rd.4,548 0 A2-426,6274,5480
0 03342SR 29 Sunniland Nursery Rd.South of Agriculture Way 2,378 0 A2-414,2062,3780
0 03343SR 29 S.of Agriculture Way CR 846 E 28,946 0 A2-420,5435,6280
0 03347SR 29 CR 846 E N. of New Market Road N.
Lorem ipsum
0 NR00
0 9,3503348SR 31 SR 80 SR 78 0 0 A2-47,1138,9149,350
0 9563349SR 31 SR 78 CR 78/River Rd 10,567 0 A2-46,3764,191956
0 3,0493350SR 31 CR 78/River Rd Cook Brown Rd 30,934 0 A2-420,32410,6103,049
0 03354SR 60 East of CR 630 Polk / Osceola County Line 7,830 0 A2-435,0417,8300
2,500 19,5003352SR 60 Hillsborough / Polk County Line CR 555 / Agricola Rd.0 0 A2-659,14610,64622,000
3,000 21,0003353SR 60 SR 60A / Van Fleet Dr.SR 25 / US 27 0 0 A2-664,26511,56824,000
1,600 4,5003359SR 64 Hardee / Highlands County Line US 27 0 0 A2-415,5702,8036,100
2,000 10,2503357SR 64 US 17 SR 636 0 0 A2-420,6773,72212,250
1,750 5,0003358SR 64 Old Town Creek Rd. / CR 671 / Parnell Rd.Hardee / Highlands County Line 0 0 A2-410,7971,9436,750
1,200 1,7003367SR 70 NW 38th Terrace US 98 0 0 A2-48,7133,0612,900
0 2,8793363SR 70 Jefferson Avenue US 27 0 0 A2-419,1903,1162,879
0 2,4563364SR 70 US 27 CR 29 0 0 A2-416,3713,0702,456
0 1,0833365SR 70 CR 29 Lonesome Island Road 0 0 A2-47,2171,2991,083
3,500 39,0003362SR 70 East of SR 31 Jefferson Avenue 0 0 A2-4196,86816,33642,500
2,500 18,5003361SR 70 Manatee County Line West of Peace River (American Legion Rd)0 0 A2-492,89314,60321,000
3,000 26,0003360SR 70 CR 675 DeSoto County Line 0 0 A2-4130,87637,80629,000
4,000 35,0003366SR 70 Lonesome Island Road NW 38th Terrace 0 0 A2-467,05012,06939,000
0 03369SR 710 Sherman Woods Ranch Okeechobee / Martin County Line 7,399 0 A2-435,8767,3990
1,500 4,5003370SR 80 SR 31 / Arcadia Rd.Buckingham Rd.0 0 A2-611,4292,0576,000
2,500 4,5003371SR 82 SR 739 / Fowler Ave.Michigan Link Ave.0 0 HWYCAP12,22412,0957,000
0 2,1893373SR 82 Alabama Road Homestead Blvd.0 0 A2-614,5942,6272,189
3,000 9,0003372SR 82 Michigan Link Ave.Gateway Blvd 0 0 HWYCAP26,0994,69812,000
750 6743374US 17 Palmetto St.SR 70 / Hickory St.0 0 HWYCAP1,6342941,424
750 1,9653375US 17 SR 70 / Hickory St.SR 35 / DeSoto Ave.0 0 HWYCAP4,7688582,715
1,045 2,000969US 17 Copley Drive N of CR 74 (Bermont Rd)0 0 A2-68,6031,5413,045
1,250 2,5003376US 17 Mann Rd.Main St.0 0 A2-66,8751,2383,750
1,000 3,0003377US 17 Main St.SR 60A / Auto Zone Ln 0 0 A2-62,3164174,000
3,500 4,1823378US 19 I-275 Ramp Skyway Br. Hillsborough County Line 0 0 A2-612,7872,3027,682
0 16,3203382US 27 North of Kokomo Rd.Polk / Lake County Line 6,664 0 HWYCAP108,7986,66416,320
0 03346SR 29 F Rd North of Cowbay Way 47,899 0 A2-447,89900
49,90549,905
01383SR 29 CR80A CR 731 (Whidden Road)0 0 A2-428,8895,200 113,434 113,434
23,318
Design
PEPDE
Right of Way / ConstructionIDFACILITYFROMTO IMPRV
TYPEROWCONTOTAL
Other Funds
TOTAL
P3 Funds
#YrsBegin YrCOSTTOTAL
2,500 18,0003379US 27 Palm Beach / Hendry County Line SR 80 0 0 FRTCAP30,48016,99920,500
3,000 18,0003380US 27 Glades / Highlands County Line SR 70 0 0 A2-630,2445,44421,000
1,250 1,5003381US 27 South of Skipper Rd.US 98 0 0 A2-65,2979542,750
1,500 2,5003383US 98 / US 441 18th Terrace 38th Ave.0 0 A2-46,2042,5004,000
4,245,139Funded CFP Totals 814,080 Total CFP Funds=5,059,219
Page 10Florida Department of Transportation • Systems Implementation Office2018 Edition
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Strategic Intermodal System
District 1
Long Range
Cost Feasible Plan
FY 2029•2045
LEGEND
Page 11Florida Department of Transportation • Systems Implementation Office2018 Edition
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
State of Florida Department of Transportation
Systems Implementation Office
605 Suwannee Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399
www.dot.state.fl.us
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
77
APPENDIX B: COLLIER-LEE REGIONAL HIGHWAY MAP
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
78
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
XYXYSWFIASanibel-Captiva RdStringfell
o
w
R
dSR 78Burnt Store RdCape Coral PkwyChiquita BlvdDiplomat PkwySR 78Santa Barbara BlvdDel Prado BlvdUS 41
Bus. 4
1
Hancock PkwySR 80US 41Metro PkwySR 82Ortiz AveI-75
Daniels PkwySR 82SR 867Corkscrew RdAlico RdSummerlin RdBonita Bch RdUS 41Three Oaks PkwyThree Oaks Pkwy
Vanderbilt DrOld 41I-75Immokalee RdOil Well RdSR 29 Immokalee RdUS 41Airport - Pulling RdLivingston RdI-75Davis BlvdSanta Barbara BlvdI-75US 41San Marco DrSR 29
ProposedAlico-Green MeadowsConnectorProposedThree OaksExtProposedLogan BlvdExtRosaParksIntermodal CenterFGCUAveMariaCamp Keais Rd
Everglades BlvdCamp Keais Rd & Everglades BlvdAre Not in the Federal Aid SystemCAT Creekside Transfer CenterCAT OperationsFacilityCATTransfer CenterGolden Gate PkwyPine Ridge RdCollier Blvd
SR 951CR 864 Proposed VeteransMemorial BlvdHanson ExtLegendXYSIS HubsProposed Interstate InterchangeExisting Regional FacilityProgrammed Regional FacilityPlanned Regional FacilityMajor RoadsCOLLIER-LEEREGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORKCreated: Brian Raimondo 2.9.2018C:\Regional Networks\(GIS) Regional Network 2011\Reg_HighwaySource: Collier-Lee MPOs405102.5MilesAMENDED: COLLIER MPO MAY 12, 2017 -- LEE COUNTY MPO MAY 19, 201720110.A.2Packet Pg. 514Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
10.A.2Packet Pg. 515Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
79
APPENDIX C: AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS (JACIP)
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
80
INCLUDES:
EVERGLADES AIRPARK
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT
MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT
NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
The Naples and Collier County Airport Authorities develop annual aviation project priorities. These project priorities are listed in their
Joint Airport Capital Improvement Programs. (JACIP) and capital improvement plans for each of the airports within the Collier MPO
planning area. These programs and plans have been coordinated with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
AIRPORT SPONSOR REQUESTED FUNDING -
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUMMARY Page 1 of 23/19/2021
Local ID:Everglades Airpark
Collier County Airport Authority
12-0021
03182.*A
Airport:
Sponsor:Sponsor ID:
NPIAS No.:
Site No.:
X01
MKY
Sponsor Sponsor YearProject Description:
Sponsor Requested Funding Breakdown
Federal State Local
Fed
Priority
PFL0010198 4 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$180,000
Airport Master Plan Update
$180,000 $0 $03
PFL0013246 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$25,000
Wildlife Hazard Site Study
$0 $20,000 $5,000
PFL0003358 448060 1 2 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$2,700,000
Reconstruct and widen Runway 15/33
$2,700,000 $0 $02
PFL0008819 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$150,000
Install VASI System
$150,000 $0 $04
2021Yearly Total $3,055,000$3,030,000 $20,000 $5,000
PFL0008818 5 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$1,125,000
Land Acquisition
$1,125,000 $0 $05
PFL0010198 4 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$20,000
Airport Master Plan Update
$0 $10,000 $10,0003
PFL0003358 448060 1 2 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$300,000
Reconstruct and widen Runway 15/33
$0 $150,000 $150,0002
PFL0008819 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$16,500
Install VASI System
$0 $8,250 $8,2504
2022Yearly Total $1,461,500$1,125,000 $168,250 $168,250
PFL0008820 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$150,000
Design, Permit, Bid and Construct Apron
$150,000 $0 $0
PFL0008818 5 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$112,500
Land Acquisition
$0 $56,250 $56,2505
2023Yearly Total $262,500$150,000 $56,250 $56,250
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PFL0008820 2024UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$250,000
Design, Permit, Bid and Construct Apron
$0 $192,500 $57,500
PFL0008311 2024UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$750,000
Design, Permit, Construct T-Hangar
$0 $600,000 $150,000
2024Yearly Total $1,000,000$0 $792,500 $207,500
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
AIRPORT SPONSOR REQUESTED FUNDING -
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUMMARY Page 1 of 211/30/2020
Local ID:Immokalee Regional Airport
Collier County Airport Authority
12-0031
03245.*A
Airport:
Sponsor:Sponsor ID:
NPIAS No.:
Site No.:
IMM
MKY
Sponsor Sponsor YearProject Description:
Sponsor Requested Funding Breakdown
Federal State Local
Fed
Priority
PFL0003510 441783 1 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$223,700
Construct Extension of Taxiway C
$0 $111,850 $111,8503
PFL0009405 438977 1 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$6,600,000
Rehabilitate Runway 18/36
$0 $5,280,000 $1,320,000
PFL0012380 446359 1 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$237,330
Design, Permit & Bid Perimeter Road & Taxiway A Modifications
$237,330 $0 $0
PFL0013247 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$25,000
Wildlife Hazard Site Study
$0 $20,000 $5,000
2021Yearly Total $7,086,030$237,330 $5,411,850 $1,436,850
PFL0008323 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$1,500,000
Design, Permit, Construct Aircraft Storage Hangars
$0 $1,200,000 $300,000
PFL0012380 446359 1 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$26,370
Design, Permit & Bid Perimeter Road & Taxiway A Modifications
$0 $13,185 $13,185
PFL0012381 446359 1 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$900,000
Construct Perimeter Road & Taxiway A Modifications
$900,000 $0 $0
2022Yearly Total $2,426,370$900,000 $1,213,185 $313,185
PFL0008318 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$50,000
Design Airport Maintenance and Operations Building
$0 $40,000 $10,000
PFL0012381 446359 1 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$100,000
Construct Perimeter Road & Taxiway A Modifications
$0 $50,000 $50,000
PFL0013386 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$150,000
Environmental Assessment for Airpark Boulevard Extension
$150,000 $0 $0
2023Yearly Total $300,000$150,000 $90,000 $60,000
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PFL0008320 2024UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$2,500,000
Construct Airport Maintenance and Operations Building
$0 $2,000,000 $500,000
PFL0013386 2024UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$16,700
Environmental Assessment for Airpark Boulevard Extension
$0 $8,350 $8,350
2024Yearly Total $2,516,700$0 $2,008,350 $508,350
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
AIRPORT SPONSOR REQUESTED FUNDING -
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUMMARY Page 1 of 111/30/2020
Local ID:Marco Island Executive Airport
Collier County Airport Authority
12-0142
03315.44*A
Airport:
Sponsor:Sponsor ID:
NPIAS No.:
Site No.:
MKY
MKY
Sponsor Sponsor YearProject Description:
Sponsor Requested Funding Breakdown
Federal State Local
Fed
Priority
PFL0005820 437063 1 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$2,500,000
Construct New Terminal, Auto Parking, Airport Entrance and Aircraft Apron
$0 $2,000,000 $500,0002
PFL0010945 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$150,000
Design, permit, and Construct Aircraft Hangar
$150,000 $0 $0
PFL0012373 446360 1 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$750,000
Construct Aircraft Operations/Maintenance/GSE Facility
$0 $600,000 $150,000
PFL0012649 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$120,000
Acquire and Install Emergency Generator
$0 $96,000 $24,000
PFL0013258 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$25,000
Wildlife Hazard Site Study
$0 $20,000 $5,000
2021Yearly Total $3,545,000$150,000 $2,716,000 $679,000
PFL0010945 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$466,700
Design, permit, and Construct Aircraft Hangar
$450,000 $8,350 $8,350
2022Yearly Total $466,700$450,000 $8,350 $8,350
PFL0010945 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$650,000
Design, permit, and Construct Aircraft Hangar
$0 $505,000 $145,000
2023Yearly Total $650,000$0 $505,000 $145,000
PFL0012374 446362 1 2024UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$375,000
Expand Fuel Farm Capacity
$0 $300,000 $75,000
2024Yearly Total $375,000$0 $300,000 $75,000
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
AIRPORT SPONSOR REQUESTED FUNDING -
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUMMARY Page 1 of 43/3/2021
Local ID:Naples Municipal Airport
City of Naples Airport Authority
12-0053
03379.*A
Airport:
Sponsor:Sponsor ID:
NPIAS No.:
Site No.:
APF
APF
Sponsor Sponsor YearProject Description:
Sponsor Requested Funding Breakdown
Federal State Local
Fed
Priority
PFL0012918 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$2,400,000
North GA Apron Rehabilitation Phase 2
$0 $0 $2,400,000
PFL0013287 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$340,000
Expand Airport Maintenance Facility Design and Construction
$0 $0 $340,000
PFL0011685 446353 1 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$770,000
Box and T-Hangar Design/Construct - South Quadrant
$0 $0 $770,000
PFL0013319 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$1,200,000
Class 4 ARFF Vehicle
$0 $0 $1,200,000
PFL0011715 441675 1 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$1,000,000
Airport Security Upgrade
$0 $0 $1,000,000
PFL0012398 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$2,000,000
GA Terminal Traffic,Parking and Airport Entrance Road Improvements
$0 $0 $2,000,000
PFL0013288 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$660,000
North Quadrant Site Preparation (regrade site and stormwater pond)
$0 $0 $660,000
PFL0012915 446899 1 2021UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$338,000
14 CFR Part 150 Study Update
$150,000 $7,500 $180,500
2021Yearly Total $8,708,000$150,000 $7,500 $8,550,500
PFL0013287 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$3,500,000
Expand Airport Maintenance Facility Design and Construction
$0 $0 $3,500,000
PFL0011685 446353 1 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$6,730,000
Box and T-Hangar Design/Construct - South Quadrant
$0 $0 $6,730,000
PFL0013284 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$221,824
East Quadrant Clearspan Hangars Phase I Design and Phase II Construction
$0 $0 $221,824
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PFL0013320 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$400,000
Class 3 ARFF Vehicle
$0 $0 $400,000
PFL0013285 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$1,000,000
Airport Perimeter Fencing Improvements Design/Build
$0 $500,000 $500,0001
PFL0013286 1 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$177,000
Construct RW 5 Service Road, Relocate RW 23 Service Road, Relocate RW 32 Service Road
$159,300 $8,850 $8,8502
PFL0013290 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$82,000
Rehabilitate East Quad Fuel Tank to 100LL Self-Serve Facility
$0 $0 $82,000
PFL0013288 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$3,100,000
North Quadrant Site Preparation (regrade site and stormwater pond)
$0 $0 $3,100,000
PFL0013033 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$400,000
EA of Short Term Improvements
$360,000 $20,000 $20,000
PFL0012915 446899 1 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$338,000
14 CFR Part 150 Study Update
$150,000 $7,500 $180,500
PFL0011418 3 2022UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$308,000
Taxiway B Extension and North Apron - Design and Construction
$0 $154,000 $154,0004
2022Yearly Total $16,256,824$669,300 $690,350 $14,897,174
PFL0009409 446385 1 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$174,600
East Quadrant Apron Reconstruction
$157,000 $8,800 $8,8005
PFL0013429 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$565,000
Aircraft Storage Hangars Aviation Dr S - Design/Construct
$0 $282,500 $282,500
PFL0013284 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$3,309,446
East Quadrant Clearspan Hangars Phase I Design and Phase II Construction
$0 $0 $3,309,446
PFL0013286 1 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$1,432,000
Construct RW 5 Service Road, Relocate RW 23 Service Road, Relocate RW 32 Service Road
$1,288,800 $71,600 $71,6002
PFL0013298 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$216,000
New General Aviation Terminal Landside Improvements - Design
$0 $0 $216,000
PFL0013297 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$282,000
Expand Airport Observation Deck
$0 $0 $282,000
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
PFL0013032 2 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$360,000
Taxiways A and B Safety Improvements Design and Construction
$324,000 $18,000 $18,0003
PFL0013291 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$393,000
Master Drainage Plan Update
$0 $0 $393,000
PFL0011418 3 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$4,236,000
Taxiway B Extension and North Apron - Design and Construction
$0 $2,118,000 $2,118,0004
PFL0013296 2023UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$1,224,000
New General Aviation Terminal - Design
$0 $0 $1,224,000
2023Yearly Total $12,192,046$1,769,800 $2,498,900 $7,923,346
PFL0009409 446385 1 2024UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$2,408,000
East Quadrant Apron Reconstruction
$2,167,500 $120,250 $120,2505
PFL0013429 2024UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$8,350,000
Aircraft Storage Hangars Aviation Dr S - Design/Construct
$0 $4,175,000 $4,175,000
PFL0013293 2024UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$835,000
Construct North Quad 100LL Self-Serve Fuel Tank Facility
$0 $0 $835,000
PFL0013294 2024UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$577,000
Construct South Quadrant 100LL Self-Serve Fuel Tank Facility
$0 $0 $577,000
PFL0013032 2 2024UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$1,440,000
Taxiways A and B Safety Improvements Design and Construction
$1,296,000 $72,000 $72,0003
PFL0013499 2024UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$75,000
Taxiway A-3 Relocation - Design and Construction
$67,500 $3,750 $3,750
PFL0008813 4 2024UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$1,600,000
New General Aviation Terminal Construction
$0 $800,000 $800,000
2024Yearly Total $15,285,000$3,531,000 $5,171,000 $6,583,000
PFL0012395 5 2025UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$320,000
Commercial Terminal Apron Rehabilitation and Expansion- Design and Construction
$0 $160,000 $160,000
PFL0013499 2025UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$500,000
Taxiway A-3 Relocation - Design and Construction
$450,000 $25,000 $25,000
PFL0008813 4 2025UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$13,900,000
New General Aviation Terminal Construction
$0 $2,500,000 $11,400,000
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
2025Yearly Total $14,720,000$450,000 $2,685,000 $11,585,000
PFL0012395 5 2026UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$5,595,000
Commercial Terminal Apron Rehabilitation and Expansion- Design and Construction
$0 $2,797,500 $2,797,500
PFL0013295 2026UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$160,000
Expand Commercial Airline Terminal Apron Phase 2
$0 $80,000 $80,000
PFL0013299 2026UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$5,193,000
Rehabilitate Primary Runway 5-23 with LED MILs and Blastpads - Design/Build
$0 $2,596,500 $2,596,500
PFL0008813 4 2026UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$2,500,000
New General Aviation Terminal Construction
$0 $2,500,000 $0
2026Yearly Total $13,448,000$0 $7,974,000 $5,474,000
PFL0013295 2027UPIN:FDOT Item No.:$2,479,400
Expand Commercial Airline Terminal Apron Phase 2
$0 $1,239,700 $1,239,700
2027Yearly Total $2,479,400$0 $1,239,700 $1,239,700
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
81
APPENDIX D: ACRONYMS AND FUNDING AND PHASE CODES
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
82
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
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acket Pg. 530Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
Phase Codes that are used in this Transportation Improvement Program CAP Capital CST Construction DSB Design Build ENV Environmental INC Contract Incentives MNT Maintenance OPS Operations PDE Project Development & Environment (PD&E) PE Preliminary Engineering PLN Planning ROW Right-of-Way RRU Railroad & Utilities 21310.A.2Packet Pg. 531Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
Work Program Instructions Appendix D Funds CodesAs Of: 1/27/2020 https://fdotewp1.dot.state.fl.us/fmsupportapps/WorkProgram/support/appendixd.aspx?CT=FC CodeDescriptionFund GroupFund Group DescriptionACANADVANCE CONSTRUCTION ANY AREAF32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACBRADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (BRT)F22NH - AC FUNDINGACBZADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (BRTZ)F32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACCMADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (CM)F32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACEMEARMARKS ACF43100% FEDERAL DEMO/EARMARKACERADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (ER)F32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACFPAC FREIGHT PROG (NFP)F32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACIDADV CONSTRUCTION SAFETY (HSID)F32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACLDADV CONSTRUCTION SAFETY (HSLD)F32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACNHADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (NH)F22NH - AC FUNDINGACNPADVANCE CONSTRUCTION NHPPF22NH - AC FUNDINGACSAADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (SA)F32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACSBADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (SABR)F32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACSLADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (SL)F32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACSNADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (SN)F32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACSSADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (SS,HSP)F32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACSUADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (SU)F32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACTAADVANCE CONSTRUCTION TALTF32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACTLADVANCE CONSTRUCTION TALLF32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACTNADVANCE CONSTRUCTION TALNF32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGACTUADVANCE CONSTRUCTION TALUF32O.F.A. - AC FUNDINGBNBRAMENDMENT 4 BONDS (BRIDGES)N31BONDSBNDSBOND - STATEN31BONDS21410.A.2Packet Pg. 532Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
BNIRINTRASTATE R/W & BRIDGE BONDSN31BONDSBRACBRT (AC/REGULAR)F34O.F.A. - AC/REGULARBRPSTATE BRIDGE REPLACEMENTN11100% STATEBRRPSTATE BRIDGE REPAIR & REHABN11100% STATEBRTFED BRIDGE REPL - ON SYSTEMF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSBRTDFED BRIDGE REPL--DISCRETIONARYF33O.F.A. - DEMO/EARMARK FUNDSBRTZFED BRIDGE REPL - OFF SYSTEMF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSCFACONTRACTOR FUNDS ADVANCEN49OTHER NON-FEDERAL FUNDSCIGPCOUNTY INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAMN12100% STATE - SINGLE AUDIT ACTCMCONGESTION MITIGATION - AQF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSCOECORP OF ENGINEERS (NON-BUDGET)F49100% FEDERAL NON-FHWACOOPCOOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS - FHWAF49100% FEDERAL NON-FHWADUNRESTRICTED STATE PRIMARYN11100% STATEDCSTATE PRIMARY PE CONSULTANTSN11100% STATEDDRDISTRICT DEDICATED REVENUEN11100% STATEDEMENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATIONN11100% STATEDEREMERGENCY RELIEF - STATE FUNDSN11100% STATEDFTAFED PASS-THROUGH $ FROM FTAF49100% FEDERAL NON-FHWADIST. - S/W INTER/INTRASTATE HWYN11100% STATEDIHSTATE IN-HOUSE PRODUCT SUPPORTN11100% STATEDIOHSTATE 100% - OVERHEADN11100% STATEDISSTRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEMN11100% STATEDITSSTATEWIDE ITS - STATE 100%.N11100% STATEDLLOCAL FUNDS - PTO - BUDGETEDN44LOCALDPTOSTATE - PTON11100% STATEDRAREST AREAS - STATE 100%N11100% STATEDSSTATE PRIMARY HIGHWAYS & PTON11100% STATEDSB0UNALLOCATED TO FACILITYN41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSB1SKYWAYN41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT21510.A.2Packet Pg. 533Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
DSB2EVERGLADES PKY/ALLIGATOR ALLEYN41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSB3PINELLAS BAYWAYN41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSB6TAMPA-HILLSBOROUGH EXPR. AUTH.N41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSB7MID-BAY BRIDGE AUTHORITYN41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSBCGARCON POINT BRIDGEN41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSBDI-95 EXPRESS LANESN41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSBFI-595N41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSBGI-75 ML TOLL CAP IMPROVEMENTN41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSBHI-4 ML TOLL CAP IMPROVEMENTN41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSBIPALMETTO ML TOLL CAP IMPROVEN41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSBJI-295 EXPRESS LANES - CAPITALN41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSBKTAMPA BAY EXPRESS LANESN41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSBTTURNPIKE/REIMBURSED BY TOLLN41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSBWWEKIVA PARKWAYN41TOLL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTDSPCSERVICE PATROL CONTRACTN11100% STATEDUSTATE PRIMARY/FEDERAL REIMBF49100% FEDERAL NON-FHWADWSWEIGH STATIONS - STATE 100%N11100% STATEEBEQUITY BONUSF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSEBBPEQUITY BONUS SUPPLEMENTING BDGF34O.F.A. - AC/REGULAREBNHEQUITY BONUS SUPPLEMENTING NHF34O.F.A. - AC/REGULAREBOHEQUITY BONUS - OVERHEADF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSEM18GAA EARMARKS FY 2018N11100% STATEEM19GAA EARMARKS FY 2019N11100% STATEEM20GAA EARMARKS FY 2020N11100% STATEER122012 EMERGENCY RELIEF EVENTSF42100% FEDERAL EMERGENCY FUNDSER132013 EMERGENCY RELIEF EVENTSF42100% FEDERAL EMERGENCY FUNDSER14SPRING FLOODING 2014F42100% FEDERAL EMERGENCY FUNDSER162016 EMERGENCY RELIEF EVENTSF42100% FEDERAL EMERGENCY FUNDSER172017 EMERGENCY RELIEF EVENTSF42100% FEDERAL EMERGENCY FUNDS21610.A.2Packet Pg. 534Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
ER182018 EMERGENCY RELIEF EVENTSF42100% FEDERAL EMERGENCY FUNDSER192019 EMERGENCY RELIEF EVENTSF42100% FEDERAL EMERGENCY FUNDSF001FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY - US19F33O.F.A. - DEMO/EARMARK FUNDSF330SEC 330 STP EARMARKS 2003F43100% FEDERAL DEMO/EARMARKFAAFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINF49100% FEDERAL NON-FHWAFBDFERRYBOAT DISCRETIONARYF33O.F.A. - DEMO/EARMARK FUNDSFCOPRIMARY/FIXED CAPITAL OUTLAYN11100% STATEFD21FDM-DODGE ISLAND TUNNELF33O.F.A. - DEMO/EARMARK FUNDSFEDRFEDERAL RESEARCH ACTIVITIESF43100% FEDERAL DEMO/EARMARKFEMAFED EMERGENCY MGT AGENCYF49100% FEDERAL NON-FHWAFHPPFEDERAL HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTSF33O.F.A. - DEMO/EARMARK FUNDSFINCFINANCING CORPN51FINC - FINANCING CORP.FLAPFEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAMF41100% FEDERAL FUNDSFLEMFL DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTN49OTHER NON-FEDERAL FUNDSFRAFEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATNF49100% FEDERAL NON-FHWAFSF1FED STIMULUS, S/W MANAGEDF45100% FEDERAL STIMULUS PROGRAMFTAFEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATIONF49100% FEDERAL NON-FHWAFTATFHWA TRANSFER TO FTA (NON-BUD)F43100% FEDERAL DEMO/EARMARKGFSAGF STPBG ANY AREAF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSGFSLGF STPBG <200K<5K (SMALL URB)F31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSGFSNGF STPBG <5K (RURAL)F31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSGFSUGF STPBG >200 (URBAN)F31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSGMRGROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR SISN11100% STATEGR17GENERAL REVENUE FOR FY2017 GAAN11100% STATEGREMGENERAL REVENUE EMERGENCY MGMTN11100% STATEGRSCGROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR SCOPN11100% STATEHPFEDERAL HIGHWAY PLANNINGF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSHPPHIGH PRIORITY PROJECTSF43100% FEDERAL DEMO/EARMARKHRFEDERAL HIGHWAY RESEARCHF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDS21710.A.2Packet Pg. 535Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
HRRRHIGH RISK RURAL ROADF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSHSIDINTERSECTION CRASHESF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSHSLDLANE DEPARTURE CRASHESF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSHSPSAFETY (HIWAY SAFETY PROGRAM)F31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSHSPTSAFETY EDUCATIONAL-TRANSFERREDF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSIBRCINNOVATIVE BRIDGE RES & CONSTF43100% FEDERAL DEMO/EARMARKIMINTERSTATE MAINTENANCEF11I, IM - REGULAR FUNDINGIMACIM (AC/REGULAR)F13IM - AC/REGULARIMDINTERSTATE MAINTENANCE DISCRETF14I, IM - DISCRETIONARYIVHINTELLIGENT VEHICLE HIWAY SYSTF33O.F.A. - DEMO/EARMARK FUNDSLFLOCAL FUNDSN44LOCALLFBLOCAL FUNDS BUDGETN44LOCALLFBNLOCAL TO RESERVE BNDS BUDGETN31BONDSLFD"LF" FOR STTF UTILITY WORKN11100% STATELFFLOCAL FUND - FOR MATCHING F/AN44LOCALLFILOCAL FUNDS INTEREST EARNEDN44LOCALLFNELOCAL FUNDS NOT IN ESCROWN44LOCALLFPLOCAL FUNDS FOR PARTICIPATINGN44LOCALLFRLOCAL FUNDS/REIMBURSIBLEN44LOCALLFRFLOCAL FUND REIMBURSABLE-FUTUREN44LOCALLFULOCAL FUNDS_FOR UNFORSEEN WORKN11100% STATEMCORMULTI-USE COR S.338.2278,F.S.N11100% STATEMCSGMOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTF49100% FEDERAL NON-FHWANFPNATIONAL FREIGHT PROGRAMF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSNFPDNAT FREIGHT PGM-DISCRETIONARYF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSNHPRINCIPAL ARTERIALSF21NH - REGULAR FUNDINGNHACNH (AC/REGULAR)F23NH - AC/REGULARNHBRNATIONAL HIGWAYS BRIDGESF21NH - REGULAR FUNDINGNHEXNATIONAL PERFORM PROG. EXEMPTF21NH - REGULAR FUNDING21810.A.2Packet Pg. 536Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
NHPPIM, BRDG REPL, NATNL HWY-MAP21F21NH - REGULAR FUNDINGNHRENAT HWY PERFORM - RESURFACINGF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSNHTSNATIONAL HWY TRAFFIC SAFETYF49100% FEDERAL NON-FHWANSTPNEW STARTS TRANSIT PROGRAMN11100% STATENSWR2015 SB2514A-NEW STARTS TRANSTN11100% STATEPKBDTURNPIKE MASTER BOND FUNDN21TURNPIKE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTPKED2012 SB1998-TURNPIKE FEEDER RDN11100% STATEPKERTPK MAINTENANCE RESERVE-ERN24TURNPIKE EMERGENCYPKLFLOCAL SUPPORT FOR TURNPIKEN45LOCAL - TURNPIKEPKM1TURNPIKE TOLL MAINTENANCEN21TURNPIKE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTPKOHTURNPIKE INDIRECT COSTSN21TURNPIKE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTPKYITURNPIKE IMPROVEMENTN21TURNPIKE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTPKYOTURNPIKE TOLL COLLECTION/OPER.N22TURNPIKE OPERATIONSPKYRTURNPIKE RENEWAL & REPLACEMENTN21TURNPIKE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTPLMETRO PLAN (85% FA; 15% OTHER)F41100% FEDERAL FUNDSPLHPUBLIC LANDS HIGHWAYF41100% FEDERAL FUNDSPLHDPUBLIC LANDS HIGHWAY DISCRF43100% FEDERAL DEMO/EARMARKPOED2012 SB1998-SEAPORT INVESTMENTN11100% STATEPORBPORT FUNDS RETURNED FROM BONDSN11100% STATEPORTSEAPORTSN11100% STATERBRPREIMBURSABLE BRP FUNDSN11100% STATERECTRECREATIONAL TRAILSF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSREDREDISTR. OF FA (SEC 1102F)F31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSREPEREPURPOSED FEDERAL EARMARKSF43100% FEDERAL DEMO/EARMARKRHHRAIL HIGHWAY X-INGS - HAZARDF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSRHPRAIL HIGHWAY X-INGS - PROT DEVF31O.F.A. - REGULAR FUNDSS112STP EARMARKS - 2006F43100% FEDERAL DEMO/EARMARKS115STP EARMARKS - 2004F43100% FEDERAL DEMO/EARMARKS117STP EARMARKS - 2005F43100% FEDERAL DEMO/EARMARK21910.A.2Packet Pg. 537Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
83
APPENDIX E: COLLIER MPO’S 2045 LRTP COST FEASIBLE PLAN
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
84
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan 6-2 Chapter 6 Cost Feasible Plan
Table 6-1. Collier MPO 2045 LRTP SIS Cost Feasible Plan Projects
(in millions $)
PRE-ENG ROW CST PRE-ENG ROW CST PRE-ENG ROW CST PRE-ENG ROW CST
29 I-75 (SR-93) Managed (Toll)
Lanes [4425192]
E of Collier Blvd (SR 951)Collier/Lee County
Line
New 4-Lane Express (Toll)
Lanes (10-lanes)
$0.03 0.02 63.25 145.43 $208.67
46 SR 29 [4178784]SR 82 Hendry County Line Widen from 2-Lanes to 4-
Lanes
$1.37 0.05 1.32 $0.00
48 SR 29 [4344901]I-75 (SR 93)Oil Well Rd Widen from 2-Lane to 4
Lanes
$0.02 0.02 4.33 $4.33
50 SR 29 [4175406]New Market Rd North North of SR 82 Widen from 2-Lanes to 4-
Lanes (with center turn
lane)
$1.52 0.43 1.09 30.36 $30.36
51 SR 29/New Market Rd W
(New) [4175405]
Immokalee Rd (CR 846)New Market Rd N New 4-Lane Road $6.82 1.05 5.77 49.91 $49.91
52 SR 29 [4175404]Agriculture Way CR 846 E Widen from 2-Lanes to 4-
Lanes
$0.30 0.30 5.63 23.32 $28.95
53 SR 29 (SEGMENT D) [4175403]Sunniland Nursery Rd Agriculture Way Widen from 2-Lanes to 4-
Lanes
$0.50 0.50 2.38 $2.38
54 SR 29 (SEGMENT E) [4175402]Oil Well Rd Sunniland Nursery Rd Widen from 2-Lanes to 4-
Lanes
$8.33 8.33 4.55 $4.55
Totals $17.47 $10.70 $8.18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30.36 $67.58 $12.55 $0.00 $0.00 $145.43 $73.22 $329.14
PRE-ENG
PDC Present Day Cost
ROW Right-of-Way
CST Construction
Limits To Description
TIP Funding
2021–25
(YOE)
PRE-ENG includes PD&E and Design
Map ID Facility (FPID No.)Limits From
$18.88 30.36 80.13 218.65
Plan Period 1 (TIP):
2021–2025
Plan Period 2:
2026–2030
Plan Period 3:
2031–2035
Plan Period 4:
2036–2045
Total Cost
2026–2045
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan 6-4 Chapter 6 Cost Feasible Plan
Table 6-2. Collier MPO 2045 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan Projects – FDOT Other Roads Projects and Local Roadway Projects
(in millions $)
County OA PRE-ENG
OA ROW and
CST
PRE-ENG ROW CST PRE-ENG ROW CST PRE-ENG ROW CST PRE-ENG ROW CST
PLAN PERIOD 2 CONSTRUCTION FUNDED PROJECTS
12 Everglades Blvd Vanderbilt Bch Rd
Ext.
Randall Blvd Widen from 2-Lanes
to 4-Lanes
$32.80 $5.59 $2.38 $35.31 $43.27 $43.27 County
23 I-75 (SR-93) Interchange
(new)
Golden Gate Pkwy Interchange
Improvement
$9.59 $0.58 $12.24 $12.81 $0.58 $12.24 OA
25 I-75 (SR-93)Immokalee Rd Interchange
Improvement (DDI
proposed)
$9.59 $0.58 $12.24 $12.81 $0.58 $12.24 OA
37 Oil Well Road / CR 858
[60144]
Everglades Blvd Oil Well Grade Rd Widen from 2-Lanes
to 6-Lanes
$36.78 $1.81 $0.91 $0.90 $6.73 $42.11 $48.83 $48.83 County
57 US 41 (SR 90) (Tamiami
Trail E)
Goodlette-Frank
Rd
Major Intersection
Improvement
$13.00 $0.63 $2.97 $13.41 $17.01 $0.63 $16.38 OA
58 US 41 (SR 90) (Tamiami
Trail E)
Greenway Rd 6 L Farm Rd Widen from 2-Lane to
4 Lanes
$31.88 $3.91 $4.46 $33.53 $41.90 $3.91 $37.98 OA
66 Immokalee Rd Livingston Rd Major Intersection
Improvement
$24.50 $26.82 $26.82 $26.82 County
78 Golden Gate Pkwy
(Intersection)
Livingston Rd Major Intersection
Improvement
$24.50 $5.63 $26.82 $32.45 $32.45 County
111 US 41 Immokalee Rd Intersection
Innovation
/Improvements
$17.50 $3.13 $20.12 $23.24 $3.13 $20.12 OA
PLAN PERIOD 3 CONSTRUCTION FUNDED PROJECTS
39 Old US 41 US 41 Lee/Collier County Line Widen from 2-Lanes
to 4-Lanes
$22.59 $3.85 $1.70 $30.06 $35.61 $3.85 $31.76 OA
42 Randall Blvd 8th St NE Everglades Blvd Widen from 2-Lanes
to 6-Lanes
$51.57 $7.29 $5.35 $65.04 $77.67 $77.67 County
59 US 41 Collier Blvd Major Intersection
Improvement
$17.25 $2.81 $23.66 $26.47 $2.81 $23.66 OA
60 US 41 (SR 90) (Tamiami
Trail E)
Immokalee Rd Old US 41 Further Study
Required (Complete
Streets Study for
TSM&O
Improvements
$17.25 $0.46 $2.00 $23.66 $26.12 $2.46 $23.66 OA
90 Pine Ridge Rd Logan Blvd Collier Blvd Widen from 4-Lanes
to 6-Lanes
$21.72 $1.99 $4.52 $25.00 $31.51 $31.51 County
Total Cost
2026–2045
(YOE $
without SIS)
Total SIS
Costs
Funding
Source
Total Project
Cost
(PDC 2019 $)
TIP Funding
2021–25
(YOE)
Plan Period 1 (TIP):
2021–2025
Plan Period 2:
2026–2030
Plan Period 3:
2031–2035
Plan Period 4:
2036–2045
Map
ID Facility Limits from Limits to Description
PRE-ENG includes PD&E and Design Present Day Cost Right-of-Way Construction YOE Year of Expenditure
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan 6-5 Chapter 6 Cost Feasible Plan
Table 6-2. Collier MPO 2045 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan Projects – FDOT Other Roads Projects and Local Roadway Projects (continued)
(in millions $)
County OA PRE-ENG
OA ROW and
CST
PRE-ENG ROW CST PRE-ENG ROW CST PRE-ENG ROW CST PRE-ENG ROW CST
PLAN PERIOD 4 CONSTRUCTION FUNDED PROJECTS
11 Everglades Blvd Randall Blvd South of Oil Well Rd Widen from 2-Lanes
to 4-Lanes
$16.42 $3.00 $1.53 $24.65 $29.18 $29.18 County
22 I-75 (SR-93) Interchange
(new)
Vicinity of
Everglades Blvd
New Interchange $42.26 $3.76 $5.30 $8.32 $55.65 $73.03 $9.07 $63.97 OA
31 Immokalee Rd (CR 846)SR 29 Airpark Blvd Widen from 2-Lanes
to 4 Lanes
$3.90 $0.77 $0.55 $5.88 $7.20 $7.20 County
36 Logan Blvd Pine Ridge Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Widen from 2-Lanes
to 4-Lanes
$22.23 $3.40 $3.16 $32.31 $38.87 $38.87 County
63 Westclox Street Ext.Little League Rd West of Carson Rd New 2-Lane Road $3.01 $0.51 $0.55 $4.45 $5.51 $5.51 County
65 Wilson Blvd Keane Ave. Golden Gate Blvd New 2-Lane Road
(Expandable to 4-
Lanes)
$36.15 $8.82 $4.23 $50.29 $63.35 $63.35 County
97 Immokalee Rd
(Intersection)
Logan Blvd Major Intersection
Improvement
$11.50 $2.12 $18.55 $20.67 $20.67 County
99 Vanderbilt Beach Rd
(Intersection)
Logan Blvd Minor Intersection
Improvement
$11.50 $2.12 $18.55 $20.67 $20.67 County
101 Pine Ridge Rd Goodlette-Frank
Rd
Minor Intersection
Improvement
$5.75 $1.20 $9.28 $10.48 $10.48 County
C1 Connector Roadway from
I-75 Interchange (New)
Golden Gate Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Rd 4-Lane Connector
Roadway from New
Interchange (Specific
Location TBD During
Interchange PD&E
$17.57 $0.44 $2.80 $1.62 $26.29 $31.14 $3.24 $27.90 OA
C2 Connector Roadway from
I-75 Interchange (New)
I-75 (SR-93)Golden Gate Blvd 4-Lane Connector
Roadway from New
Interchange (Specific
Location TBD During
Interchange PD&E
Study)
$80.59 $2.00 $13.28 $7.41 $120.02 $142.70 $15.28 $127.43 OA
Total Cost
2026–2045
(YOE $
without SIS)
Total SIS
Costs
Funding
Source
Total Project
Cost
(PDC 2019 $)
TIP Funding
2021–25
(YOE)
Plan Period 1 (TIP):
2021–2025
Plan Period 2:
2026–2030
Plan Period 3:
2031–2035
Plan Period 4:
2036–2045
Map
ID Facility Limits from Limits to Description
PRE-ENG includes PD&E and Design Present Day Cost Right-of-Way Construction YOE Year of Expenditure
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
Collier MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan 6-9 Chapter 6 Cost Feasible Plan
Table 6-3. Collier MPO 2045 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan Projects – Partially Funded Projects (FY2026–FY2045)
(in millions $)
County OA PRE-ENG
OA ROW and
CST
PRE-ENG ROW CST PRE-ENG ROW CST PRE-ENG ROW CST PRE-ENG ROW CST
PARTIALLY FUNDED PROJECTS
1 Benfield Rd (New)
[60129]
The Lords Way City Gate Blvd N New 2-Lane Road
(Expandable to 4-
L)
$37.31 $11.00 $0.00 $4.00 $7.00 $4.00 $5.00 $9.00 $9.00 County
5 Big Cypress Pkwy Vanderbilt Beach
Rd Ext.
Oil Well Rd New 2-Lane Road
(Expandable to 4-
L)
$37.31 $7.70 $4.04 $11.74 $11.74 County
30 Immokalee Rd (CR 846)Camp Keiss Rd Eustis Ave Further Study
Required (Immokalee
Rd Planning Study)
$2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 County
33 Little League Rd Ext.SR 82 Westclox St.New 2-Lane Road $40.99 $8.48 $7.33 $15.81 $15.81 County
41A Randall Blvd (flyover)
[60147]
Immokalee Rd Ultimate Intersection
Improvement:
Overpass
$35.66 $9.75 $0.95 $8.80 $9.46 $9.46 $9.46 $0.00 OA
55 SR 84 (Davis Blvd)Airport Pulling Rd Santa Barbara Blvd Widen from 4-Lanes
to 6-Lanes
$40.26 $0.94 $9.01 $45.88 $55.83 $9.95 $45.88 OA
62B Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext.Everglades Blvd Big Cypress Pkwy New 2-Lane Road
(Expandable to 4
L)
$41.17 $8.38 $16.07 $24.46 $24.46 County
69 Everglades Blvd Oil Well Rd / CR
858
Immokalee Rd Widen 2 to 4 Lanes $72.75 $3.12 $5.00 $8.12 $8.12 County
74 Immokalee Rd (CR 846)
intersection
Wilson Blvd Major Intersection
Improvement
$17.25 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $0.00 OA
93 Immokalee Rd 43rd Ave/Shady
Hollow Blvd E
North of 47the Ave. NE Widen from 2-Lanes
to 4-Lanes
$9.79 $2.26 $0.48 $2.74 $2.74 County
94 Rural Village Blvd Immokalee Rd Immokalee Rd New 4-Lane Road $23.41 $5.84 $2.96 $8.80 $8.80 County
98 Vanderbilt Beach Rd Livingston Rd Minor Intersection
Improvement
$21.50 $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 County
102 US 41 (SR 90) (Tamiami
Trail E)
Vanderbilt Beach
Rd
Major Intersection
Improvement
$2.50 $4.90 $4.90 $4.90 $0.00 OA
103 US 41 (SR 90) (Tamiami
Trail E)
Pine Ridge Rd Major Intersection
Improvement
$2.50 $4.90 $4.90 $4.90 $0.00 OA
104 US 41 (SR 90) (Tamiami
Trail E) [4464511]
Golden Gate Pkwy Major Intersection
Improvement
$3.50 $0.50 $0.27 $0.23 $4.40 $4.40 $4.40 $0.00 OA
Map
ID Facility Limits from Limits to Description
Funding
Source
Total Project
Cost
(PDC 2019 $)
TIP Funding
2021–25
(YOE)
Plan Period 1 (TIP):
2021–2025
Plan Period 2:
2026–2030
Plan Period 3:
2031–2035
Plan Period 4:
2036–2045
Total Cost
2026–2045
(YOE $
without SIS)
Total SIS
Costs
Notes:
Partially funded for construction PRE-ENG includes PD&E and Design Present Day Cost Right-of-Way Construction YOE Year of Expenditure
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
Table ES-9. SU Box Funds by Plannine Year and Project Phase
Allocation Type
MPO Supplemental Planning Funds
Bicycle Pedestrian Box Funds
Congestion Management/Intelligent
Transportation Box Funds
Bridge Box Funds
Safety
Pion Period 2:
2026-2030
PRE-ENG ROW CST
Plan Period 3:
2031-2035
PRE-ENG ROW CST
Pion Period 4:
2036-2045
PRE-ENG ROW CST
Total Cost
2026·
2045
$3.40
$40.45
$40.45
$19.70
$3.10
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
85
APPENDIX F: FEDERAL LANDS APPROPRIATIONS
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
86
(Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division of the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA))
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
FY2021-FY2024 Transportation Improvement ProgramFederal Highway AdministrationEastern Federal Lands Highway DivisionLast Printed: 12/22/2020Page 9 of 54Approval signature is shown on first page packet only. The listing reflects all newlyidentified and programmed and/or modified projects as of December 21, 2020.PROJECTPROGRAM FISCAL YEAR STATE COUNTYPARK, REFUGE, FOREST OR OTHER PARTNER/AGENCY DESCRIPTIONTYPE OF WORKPRIMARY FUND SOURCE TOTAL PROGRAMMED AMOUNT FUNDS FROM TITLEDELIVERED BYSTATUSCONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTFLMA REGIONFL FLAP JKSVL STDY(1) 2021 FLDuvalNational Park Service/Timucuan Ecological and Historical PreserveBike and ped feasibility study to connect 3 areas within Timucuan Ecological and Historical PreserveMISC FLAP $ 1,020,000.00 Title 23 LOCALPlannedFL-04 NPSFL FLAP STPRK TRL(2) 2021 FLMartinFWS, Hobe Sound National Wildlife RefugeConstruction of a 1900 foot long multi-modal path and an overpass across the FEC railway.MISC FLAP $ 3,135,000.00 Title 23 STATEIn DesignFL-18 NPSFL FLTP FW CRLA (1) 2021 FL Monroe Crocodile Lake NWRRemove Banyan Asphalt, Car Dump Asphalt, and Nike Missile Asphalt Roads CN 3RH FLTP $ 150,000.00 Tile 23 FWS Planned FL-20 FWSFL FLTP FW HOSO (1) 2021 FL Martin Hobe Sound NWRVisitor Center Entrance Road and Parking Lot3RH FLTP $ 62,312.00 Title 23 FWS Planned FL-16 FWSFL FLTP FW LOXA (2) 2021 FL Palm BeachArthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWRReplace wooden decking at the Admin Observation Deck3RH FLTP $ 114,782.00 Title 23 FWS Planned FL-19 FWSFL FLTP STMA (1) 2021 FL Wakulla St Marks NWRRepair/Rehab Rte#010, Lighthouse Road3RH FLTP $ 1,057,388.00 Title 23 FWS Planned FL-02 FWSFL_FLAP_JKSVL_STDY(1) 2021 FL DuvalNational Park Service/Timucuan Ecological and Historical PreserveBike and ped feasibility study to connect 3 areas within Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve MISC FLAP $ 1,020,000.00 Title 23 LOCAL Planned FL-04 NPSFL_FLAP_STPRK_TRL(2) 2021 FL MartinFWS, Hobe Sound National Wildlife RefugeConstruction of a 1900 foot long multi-modal path and an overpass across the FEC railway.MISC FLAP $ 3,135,000.00 Title 23 STATE In Design FL-18 NPSFW FLPA 419(1) 2021 FLCollierFlorida Panther National Wildlife Refuge Rehab Fritz Rd (RT 419)3RL FLTP $ 750,000.00 Title 23 EFLHDIn DesignFL-25 FWSNFSR 120 MP 2.095 Bridge Replacement 2021 FL Liberty Apalachicola National Forest Replace Load limited bridge BRRP FLTP $ 960,000.00 Title 23 USFS PlannedFL-02 USFSNP EVER 219(1) 222(1) 2021 FLMonroe Everglades National ParkOverlay Flamingo T Loop & Walk in Campground ½” mill and 1 ½”.3RL REIMB $ 1,758,539.60 OtherEFLHDIn Design FL-26NPSNP BISC 10(2) 2022 FLMiami-Dade Biscayne National ParkResurface Entrance Road and Parking Lot at Convoy Point3RH FLTP $ 1,099,382.00 Title 23 EFLHDIn DesignFL-11 NPSFL FLTP FW CRRI (1) 2023 FL Citrus Crystal River NWR Replace storm damaged dock 3RH FLTP $ 309,857.00 Title 23 FWS Planned FL-05 FWSFL FLTP FW LOXA (3) 2024 FL Palm BeachArthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWRRehabilitate L-40 Observation tower 3RH FLTP $ 150,000.00 Title 23 FWS Planned FL-19 FWSFlorida Panther NationalFW FLPA 419(1)2021FLCollierWildlife RefugeRehab Fritz Rd (RT 419)3RLFLTP $ 750,000.00 Title 23EFLHDIn DesignFL-25FWS10.A.2Packet Pg. 552Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
10.A.2Packet Pg. 553Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
87
APPENDIX G: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
88
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
89
APPENDIX H: FISCAL CONSTRAINT
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
90
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
FY 2022-2026 TIP FISCAL CONSTRAINT February 17, 2021 download provided by FDOTFundFund Name 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026ACBRADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (BRT) - - - 2,459,296 - ACCM ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (CM) 1,590,083 - - - - ACNP ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION NHPP 4,447,625 50,000 41,158,790 74,498,126 - ACSA ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (SA) - - - - - ACSU ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (SU) 1,700,000 - - - - BNDS BOND - STATE - - - - - BNIR INTRASTATE R/W & BRIDGE BONDS - - - - - BRRP STATE BRIDGE REPAIR & REHAB - 200,000 - 1,675,719 -
CIGP
COUNTY INCENTIVE
GRANT PROGRAM 1,500,000 4,928,100 1,600,000 - -
CM
CONGESTION MITIGATION
- AQ 1,325,272 - 993,193 - -
D
UNRESTRICTED STATE
PRIMARY 2,818,901 2,750,289 2,766,378 2,113,898 2,283,010
DDR
DISTRICT DEDICATED
REVENUE 2,869,733 2,402,270 7,440,428 18,763,870 2,105,810
DI
ST. - S/W
INTER/INTRASTATE HWY - 5,450,000 42,074,726 26,151,000 -
DIH
STATE IN-HOUSE
PRODUCT SUPPORT 84,217 47,160 6,498 22,300 -
DITS
STATEWIDE ITS - STATE
100%. 600,000 - - - -
DPTO STATE - PTO 1,250,724 269,753 1,494,278 1,231,344 5,481,952
DS
STATE PRIMARY
HIGHWAYS & PTO 123,657 2,939,015 6,906,909 - -
DSB2
EVERGLADES
PKY/ALLIGATOR ALLEY 49,551,731 47,076,928 1,445,150 1,400,000 1,400,000
DU
STATE PRIMARY/FEDERAL
REIMB 443,232 483,535 458,797 575,559 709,854
FAA
FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMIN 2,239,830 900,000 150,030 - 180,000
FTA
FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION 3,628,723 4,324,206 5,077,455 5,495,630 5,666,403
GMR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
FOR SIS - - - - -
IMD
INTERSTATE
MAINTENANCE DISCRET - - - - -
LF LOCAL FUNDS 4,322,127 7,955,415 8,682,538 13,506,067 8,555,962
LFR
LOCAL
FUNDS/REIMBURSABLE 2,459,296 - - - -
PL
METRO PLAN (85% FA;
15% OTHER) 548,485 547,684 547,684 547,684 547,684
REPE
REPURPOSED FEDERAL
EARMARKS - - - - -
SA STP, ANY AREA - - 3,336,146 - -
SR2T SAFE ROUTES - TRANSFER 663,333 90,943 - 771,516 -
STED
2012 SB1998-STRATEGIC
ECON COR - - - - -
SU STP, URBAN AREAS > 200K 4,613,102 4,593,239 4,577,314 4,596,008 4,557,309
TALT
TRANSPORTATION ALTS-
ANY AREA 120,383 380,000 649,759 - -
TALU
TRANSPORTATION ALTS-
>200K 377,460 375,835 374,532 376,061 372,895
TCSP
TRANS, COMMUNITY &
SYSTEM PRES - - - - -
TLWR
2015 SB2514A-TRAIL
NETWORK - - - - 1,100,000
TO02 EVERGLADES PARKWAY 5,375,000 5,385,000 5,385,000 5,325,000 4,385,000
TRIP
TRANS REGIONAL
INCENTIVE PROGM - - 2,714,534 3,173,552 -
TRWR
2015 SB2514A-TRAN REG
INCT PRG - - 35,466 1,040,886 -
92,652,914 91,149,372 137,875,605 163,723,516 37,345,879
92,652,914 91,149,372 137,875,605 163,723,516 37,345,879
TOTAL REVENUES BY FUND SOURCE
TOTAL EXPENDITURES BY FUND
SOURCE10.A.2Packet Pg. 558Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
10.A.2Packet Pg. 559Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
91
APPENDIX I: CRITERIA USED FOR PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
92
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
MPO Board Allocation of its Transportation Management Area (TMA) Funds
The 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) approved in December 2020 establishes a new methodology for
allocating the MPO’s TMA funds, as shown in Table ES-9 below. The 2045 LRTP - Cost Feasible Plan contains a
budget line item for these project categories but does not list individual projects within these categories.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
The MPO approved the following plans which are incorporated by reference into the 2045 LRTP:
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
• Congestion Management Process (2017) and Transportation System Performance Report (2020)
• Local Roads Safety Plan (2021)
These plans identify the project prioritization processes and evaluation criteria summarized below.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
On March 8, 2019, the MPO Board adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan which contains the criteria and point
system that will be used to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian projects. Project evaluation occurs in a two-step process.
First, MPO staff conducts a preliminary assessment for eligibility according to the following criteria: a) timeliness, b)
constructability and c) funding availability. Next, MPO staff and advisory committees evaluate, score and rank the
projects according to the following criteria:
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
Safety
• Implements a recommended action in a Bicycle/Pedestrian Road Safety Audit – 5 points
• 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
• Addresses a safety concern involving crashes of less severity, absent a Safety Audit to verify the
proposed mitigation measure – 2 points
• Addresses a safety concern expressed by members of the public in the absence of crash records –
1 point
Equity
• Fills a need associated with an Environmental Justice community or use identified in this Plan – 5
points
• 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
• 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 – 1
point
Connectivity
• Fills a prioritized infrastructure gap identified in this Plan – 5 points
• Fills a need for improved connectivity based upon public input received in the development of
this Plan – 2 points
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
Congestion Management Projects
Eligibility Criteria LRTP Goal
Maintains concurrency w/FDOT Regional ITS
and/or Technical advances
• reduce roadway congestion
Increases number of connected signalized
intersections
• reduce roadway congestion
• increase the safety of the transportation
system
Improves Travel Time Reliability • reduce roadway congestion
Capacity Enhancement • improve system continuity and
connectivity
Increases ridership on existing route and
increases number of riders at specific transit
stops before/after installation
• promote multi-modal solutions
Improves bike/ped connections to bus shelters,
inclusive of meeting ADA requirements
• promote multi-modal solutions
• improve system continuity and
connectivity
Reduces the miles of gaps in cycling network
per 2016 Inventory
• promote multi-modal solutions
• improve system continuity and
connectivity
• increase the safety of the transportation
system
Addresses a problem area identified in B/P
safety study, Walkability Study or B/P Safety
Audit
• increase the safety of the transportation
system
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
Congestion management projects were evaluated based on the Congestion Management Process
(CMP) 2017 Update. Project eligibility was first determined based on the 11 criteria below, which
reflect the Performance Measures adopted as part of the CMP 2017 Update. Each of the criteria
addresses one or more goals of the LRTP which are also listed below. The Congestion Management
Committee (CMC) then prioritized the eligible projects using a Delphi method.
Bridge Project Application Criteria
Bridge projects were drawn from the County’s East of CR 951 Bridge Report, which the County is in the process of updating. The
LRTP and therefore Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) recommendations for bridge projects come directly from this report.
The criteria used to evaluate bridge projects and the associated LRTP goal are listed in the table below.
Question/Criteria LRTP Goal
Emergency response times and proximity to responding
agency.
Increase the safety of the
transportation system for users.
Impact of bridge on increasing mobility and ease of
evacuation.
Improve system continuity and
connectivity.
Gains in service efficiency, particularly for schools. Improve system continuity and
connectivity.
Public sentiment.
Study that is Travel Demand Management (TDM) related
Study that is related to New Network Connections
Study that is related to an Intermodal Hub(s)
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
Transit Project Selection
Collier Area Transit (CAT) provides the MPO with transit priorities. These priorities are based on the Transit Development Plan
which is the strategic guide for public transportation in Collier County. The plan is updated annually, and a major update is completed
every five years. The development of proposed transit projects is based on:
1. Situational Appraisal which is an assessment of CAT’s operating environment to identify community needs.
2. Transit Demand Assessment which is a technical analysis of transit demand and needs used to identify areas with characteristics
supportive of transit.
3. Discussion with public agency staffs, visioning surveys, workshops, and stakeholder discussions.
4. Coordination with the MPO in the long-range transportation planning process
Long Range Transportation Plan Goals associated with the selection of transit projects include:
• Reduce roadway congestion.
• Promote multi-modal solutions.
• Promote the integrated planning of transportation and land use.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
5. Transit Asset Management (TAM) Performance Measures – The MPO adopted the Board of County
Commissioners’ TAM Targets on November 9, 2018:
Measure Target Existing Conditions Meets Responsible Agency
Transit Rolling Stock
≤10% have met or
exceeded ULB 0% Yes Collier County - CAT
Transit Equipment
≤25% have met or
exceeded ULB 50% No Collier County - CAT
Transit Facilities ≥25% < 3 TERM 0% Yes Collier County - CAT
Although the 2019 Transit Priorities submitted by County staff did not include State of Good Repair related
projects, the MPO Board gave staff direction in December 2019 to use available SU funds to purchase a
replacement bus for $500,000 and to fund a project to enhance accessibility at 10 bus stops to meet ADA
requirements for $250,000 in FY 2020. The MPO requested the inclusion of State of Good Repair related projects
when soliciting Transit Priorities in calendar years 2020 and 2021.
The LRTP and the TIP
The 2045 LRTP is also the source of other projects contained in the TIP. Proposed projects in an LRTP’s Cost Feasible Plan
were evaluated, in part, on their merits to improve traffic flow, capacity and congestion as analyzed using FDOT’s
District One Travel Demand Model (D1RPM). The LRTP used additional criteria in project evaluation including:
• Freight system improvement
• Wetland and species impacts
• Evacuation route
• Cost per lane mile
• Reduction in congestion
• Traffic safety
• Multimodalism
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
• Equity
• Climate Change Vulnerability
• Connected and Autonomous Vehicles Technology
Projects identified in an LRTP needs analysis are selected for inclusion in the Cost Feasible Plan based on their needs
analysis ranking and on a financial analysis of funds that can reasonably be expected to be available for transportation
investments during the timeframe of the plan. Each year, the MPO selects a subset of the projects in the Cost Feasible
Plan for inclusion in the upcoming TIP.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
93
APPENDIX J: ADDITIONAL PLANS AND STUDIES
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
94
Plans and studies that are in the UPWP and that are using SU funds, but that are not included in the TIP.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
95
APPENDIX K: ADDRESSING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN THE TIP
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
APPENDIX K
ADDRESSING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN
THE TIP
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Florida Department of Transportation – Office of Policy Planning
Template to Address Performance Management Requirements in Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement
Programs
2 of X January 2014
Template to Address Performance Management
Requirements in Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Improvement Programs
Office of Policy Planning
Florida Department of Transportation
March 2021 updates
COLLIER MPO
FY 2022-2026 TIP
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
March 2021 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 - PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2 - BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 3
3 - HIGHWAY SAFETY MEASURES (PM1) ..................................................................................... 4
3.1 Language for MPO that Supports Statewide Targets ...................................................................................... 4
3.2 Alternate Language for MPO that Establishes its Own Targets ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4 - PAVEMENT & BRIDGE CONDITION MEASURES (PM2) .................................................... 9
4.1 Language for MPOs that Support Statewide Targets ................................................................................... 10
4.2 Alternate Language for MPO that Establishes its Own Targets ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5 - SYSTEM PERFORMANCE, FREIGHT, & CONGESTION MITIGATION & AIR QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM MEASURES (PM3) ......................................................................... 13
5.1 Language for MPOs that Supports Statewide Targets ................................................................................. 14
5.2 Alternate Language for MPO that Establishes its Own Targets ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
6 - TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT MEASURES ...................................................................... 16
6.1 Language for MPO that Supports Public Transportation Provider Targets ............................................. 18
6.2 Alternate Language for MPO that Establishes its Own Targets ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
7 - TRANSIT SAFETY PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................ 22
7.1 Language for MPO that Supports Public Transportation Provider Safety TargetsError! Bookmark
not defined.
7.2 Alternate Language for MPO that Establishes its Own Transit Safety TargetsError! Bookmark not
defined.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Florida Department of Transportation – Office of Policy Planning
Template to Address Performance Management Requirements in Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Programs
2 March 2021
1 - PURPOSE
This document provides language that Florida’s metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) may incorporate
in Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) to meet the federal transportation performance management
rules. Updates or amendments to the TIP must incorporate these measures and related information no later
than:
• May 27, 2018 for Highway Safety measures (PM1);
• October 1, 2018 for Transit Asset Management (TAM) measures;
• May 20, 2019 for Pavement and Bridge Condition measures (PM2);
• May 20, 2019 for System Performance measures (PM3); and
• July 20, 2021 for Transit Safety measures.
MPOs may incorporate this template language and adapt it as needed as they update their TIPs. In most
sections, there are two options for the text, to be used by MPOs supporting statewide targets or MPOs
establishing their own targets. Areas that require MPO input are shown in bolded text. This can range
from simply adding the MPO name and adoption dates to providing MPO-specific background information
and relevant strategies and prioritization processes.
The document is consistent with the Transportation Performance Measures (TPM) Consensus Planning
Document developed jointly by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Metropolitan
Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC). This document outlines the minimum roles of FDOT,
the MPOs, and the public transportation providers in the MPO planning areas to ensure consistency to the
maximum extent practicable in satisfying the transportation performance management requirements
promulgated by the United States Department of Transportation in Title 23 Parts 450, 490, 625, and 673 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR).
The document is organized as follows:
• Section 2 provides a brief background on transportation performance management;
• Section 3 covers the Highway Safety measures (PM1);
• Section 4 covers the Pavement and Bridge Condition measures (PM2);
• Section 5 covers System Performance measures (PM3);
• Section 6 covers Transit Asset Management (TAM) measures; and
• Section 7 covers Transit Safety measures.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
March 2021 3
2 - BACKGROUND
Performance management is a strategic approach to connect investment and policy decisions to help achieve
performance goals. Performance measures are quantitative criteria used to evaluate progress. Performance
measure targets are the benchmarks against which progress is assessed using available data. The Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) requires state departments of transportation (DOT) and
MPOs to conduct performance-based planning by tracking performance measures and establishing data-
driven targets to improve those measures. Performance-based planning ensures the most efficient investment
of transportation funds by increasing accountability, providing transparency, and linking investment decisions
to key outcomes related to seven national goals:
• Improving safety;
• Maintaining infrastructure condition;
• Reducing traffic congestion;
• Improving the efficiency of the system and freight movement;
• Protecting the environment; and
• Reducing delays in project delivery.
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act supplements MAP-21 by establishing timelines for
state DOTs and MPOs to comply with the requirements of MAP-21. FDOT and MPOs must coordinate
when selecting PM1, PM2, and PM3 performance targets, and public transportation providers must
coordinate with states and MPOs in the selection of state and MPO transit asset management and transit
safety performance targets. FDOT and the MPOAC developed the TPM Consensus Planning Document to
describe the processes through which FDOT, the MPOs, and the providers of public transportation in MPO
planning areas will cooperatively develop and share information related to transportation performance
management and target setting.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Florida Department of Transportation – Office of Policy Planning
Template to Address Performance Management Requirements in Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Programs
4 March 2021
3 - HIGHWAY SAFETY MEASURES (PM1)
Safety is the first national goal identified in the FAST Act. In March 2016, the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) and Safety Performance Management Measures Rule (Safety PM Rule) was finalized and
published in the Federal Register. The rule requires MPOs to establish targets for the following safety-related
performance measures and report progress to the state DOT:
1. Number of Fatalities;
2. Rate of Fatalities per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT);
3. Number of Serious Injuries;
4. Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT; and
5. Number of Nonmotorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries.
3.1 Language for MPO that Supports Statewide Targets
On August 31, 2020, FDOT established statewide performance targets for the safety measures for calendar
year 2021. On November 13, 2020, the Collier MPO agreed to support FDOT’s statewide safety
performance targets, thus agreeing to plan and program projects in the TIP that once implemented, are
anticipated to make progress toward achieving the statewide targets. Table 3.1 presents the statewide and
MPO safety targets.
Table 3.1. Statewide and MPO Safety Performance Targets
Statewide Safety Performance Targets Statewide
Target
(2021)
MPO
Target
(2021)
Number of fatalities 0 0
Rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 0 0
Number of serious Injuries 0 0
Rate of serious injures per 100 million vehicle miles traveled
(VMT)
0 0
Number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries 0 0
FDOT adopted Vision Zero in 2012. This, in effect, became FDOT’s target for zero traffic fatalities and
quantified the policy set by Florida’s Legislature more than 35 years ago (Section 334.046(2), Florida Statutes,
emphasis added):
“The mission of the Department of Transportation shall be to provide a safe statewide transportation system…”
FDOT and Florida’s traffic safety partners are committed to eliminating fatalities and serious injuries
with the understanding that the death or serious injury of any person is unacceptable. Therefore, FDOT
has established 0 as the only acceptable target for all five of the federal safety performance measures.
FDOT reaffirms this commitment each year in setting annual safety targets. The Florida Transportation
Plan (FTP), the state’s long-range transportation plan, identifies eliminating transportation related fatalities
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
March 2021 5
and serious injuries as the state’s highest transportation priority. Florida’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP), which will be updated in early 2021, specifically embraces Vision Zero/Target Zero and identifies
strategies to achieve zero traffic deaths and serious injuries. The SHSP was updated in coordination with
Florida’s 27 MPOs through the MPOAC. The SHSP development process included review of safety-related
goals, objectives, and strategies in MPO plans. The SHSP guides FDOT, MPOs, and other safety partners in
addressing safety and defines a framework for implementation activities to be carried out throughout the state.
Florida’s transportation safety partners have focused on reducing fatalities and serious injuries through the
4Es of engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency response. To achieve zero, FDOT and other
safety partners will expand beyond addressing specific hazards and influencing individual behavior to
reshaping transportation systems and communities to create a safer environment for all travel. The updated
SHSP calls on Florida to think more broadly and inclusively by addressing four additional topics, which could
be referred to as the 4Is: information intelligence, innovation, insight into communities, and investments and
policies.
The Florida Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) annual report documents the statewide
performance toward the zero deaths vision. For the 2020 HSIP annual report, FDOT established 2021
statewide safety performance targets at “0” for each safety performance measure to reflect the Department’s
vision of zero deaths.
Last year FHWA determined that Florida did not meet or make significant progress towards
achieving its safety performance targets. FDOT was therefore required to develop and follow a
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Implementation Plan that describes the actions the
State will take to meet or make significant progress toward meeting its subsequent targets. During
Florida Metropolitan Planning Partnership (FMPP) virtual meeting held in February 2021, FHWA
discussed expectations for TIPs specific to safety targets. For this year, MPOs are required to
reference the HSIP Implementation Plan in their TIPs. For next year’s TIP, MPOs are required to
connect projects funded by HSIP to projects in their TIPs. FDOT’s Safety office plans to share more
details on the HSIP and how projects are selected at a future MPOAC meeting.
The Collier MPO, along with FDOT and other traffic safety partners, shares a high concern about the upward
trending of traffic fatalities, both statewide and nationally. As such, the Collier MPO supports FDOT’s
statewide 2021 safety targets. The safety initiatives within this TIP are intended to contribute toward achieving
these targets.
Safety performance measure targets are required to be adopted on an annual basis. In August of each calendar
year, FDOT reports the following year’s targets in the HSIP Annual Report. Each MPO is required to
either adopt FDOT’s targets or establish its own targets by the following February.
In early 2020, FHWA completed an assessment of target achievement for FDOT’s 2018 safety targets, based
on actual five-year averages for each measure for 2014-2018. Per FHWA’s PM1 rule, a state has met or made
significant progress toward its safety targets when at least four of the targets have been met or the actual
outcome is better than the baseline performance. Based on FHWA’s review, Florida did not make significant
progress toward achieving its safety targets. Both the total number of fatalities and the fatality rate increased.
The total number of serious injuries has begun to decline on a five-year rolling average basis, while the serious
injury rate has declined steadily over this timeframe. Based on these trends, Florida is making progress towards
achieving the targets established for serious injuries but not yet for fatalities or non-motorized users. As
requested by FHWA, FDOT has developed an HSIP Implementation Plan to highlight additional strategies
it will undertake in support of these targets. The HSIP Implementation Plan documents Florida’s HSIP
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Florida Department of Transportation – Office of Policy Planning
Template to Address Performance Management Requirements in Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Programs
6 March 2021
funding and project decisions for the upcoming fiscal year to meet or make significant progress toward
meeting its safety performance targets in subsequent years.
As documented in the HSIP Implementation Plan, Florida received an allocation of approximately $155
million in HSIP funds during the 2018 state fiscal year from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019, and fully
allocated those funds to safety projects. FDOT used these HSIP funds to complete 391 projects, which
address the safety categories of intersections, lane departure mitigation, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and
other programs representing SHSP emphasis areas.
FDOT’s State Safety Office works closely with FDOT districts and regional and local traffic safety partners
to update the HSIP annually. Historic, risk-based, and predictive safety analyses are conducted to identify
appropriate proven countermeasures to reduce fatalities and serious injuries associated with Florida’s SHSP
emphasis areas, resulting in a list of projects that reflect the greatest needs and are anticipated to achieve the
highest benefit. While these projects and the associated policies and standards may take years to be
implemented, they are built on proven countermeasures for improving safety and addressing serious crash
risks or safety problems identified through a data-driven process. Florida continues to allocate all available
HSIP funding to safety projects. FDOT’s HSIP Guidelines provide detailed information on this data-driven
process and funding eligibility.
Baseline Conditions
After FDOT set its Safety Performance Measures targets in 2018, both FDOT and the Collier MPO
established 2017 Baseline Safety Performance Measures. To evaluate baseline Safety Performance Measures,
the most recent five-year rolling average (2013-2017) of crash data and VMT were utilized. Table 3-2 presents
the Baseline Safety Performance Measures for Florida and Collier MPO.
Table 3.2 – Baseline Safety Performance Measures – 2013-2017 Rolling Five-Year Average
Performance Measure Florida Collier MPO
Number of Fatalities 2,979.0 36.2
Number of Serious Injuries 20,653.6 186.2
Fatality Rate per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 1.398 1.038
Serious Injury Rate per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 9.732 5.263
Total number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries 3,267.0 39.2
Trends Analysis
The TIP development process, consistent with the process used to develop the Collier MPO’s Long-Range
Transportation Plan, includes analysis of safety data trends, including the location and factors associated with
crashes with emphasis on fatalities and serious injuries. These data are used to help identify regional safety
issues and potential safety strategies for the LRTP and TIP.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
March 2021 7
The MPO uses crash data tracking fatalities and serious injuries in Collier County to analyze past trends
and identify regional safety issues. Tracking these measures will help to estimate the effectiveness of future
MPO transportation investment, as reflected in the TIP. Table 3-3 shows the changes in Safety Performance
Measures for Collier MPO from 2009 through 2017. The measures shown in Table 3-3- were derived by
following the same methodology as that used to calculate the baseline conditions.
Table 3-3 Safety Performance Measure Trends in Collier County
Performance Measure 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
Number of Fatalities 37.2 37.2 38.8 38.0 36.2
Number of Serious Injuries 184.0 174.0 175.2 177.2 186.2
Fatality Rate per 100 million Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)
1.169 1.160 1.184 1.125 1.038
Serious Injury Rate per 100 million Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT)
5.790 5.445 5.388 5.252 5.263
Total number of non-motorized fatalities and
serious injuries
37.2 38.6 37.6 40.0 39.2
Coordination with Statewide Safety Plans and Processes
The Collier MPO recognizes the importance of linking goals, objectives, and investment priorities to
established performance objectives, and that this link is critical to the achievement of national transportation
goals and statewide and regional performance targets. As such, the Collier MPO 2045 LRTP reflects the
goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets as they are available and described in other state and
public transportation plans and processes; specifically, the Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP),
Florida Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), and the Florida Transportation Plan (FTP).
Safety Programs and Projects in the FY 2022 – 2026 TIP
The Collier MPO considered safety as a project evaluation factor in prioritizing projects for inclusion in the
2045 LRTP’s Cost Feasible Plan (CFP) and in these specific plans that are incorporated into the LRTP CFP
by reference: The Transportation System Performance Report and Action Plan (2020), the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan (2019) and the Draft Local Roads Safety Plan. The MPO’s annual project prioritization
process includes safety as an evaluation factor in rating and ranking projects for programming the MPO’s
Transportation Management Area (TMA) Surface Transportation Grant Program – Urban (SU) funds.
The TIP includes programs and projects that fall into specific investment priorities established by the MPO
in the 2045 LRTP, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the Transportation System Performance Report
and Action Plan and the Draft Local Roads Safety Plan. This includes safety programs and projects such
as:
• Infrastructure examples: Installation of new sidewalks, bike lanes and shared use paths; school flashing
signals, roadway lighting, traffic calming, traffic signals, bike lanes, sidewalks (see Section E:
Bike/Ped Project Sheets), installing roundabouts (example currently under construction at SR
82/ SR 29 intersection), innovative intersection improvements, constructing a truck bypass on a
state road to limit heavy commercial through traffic on an historic Main Street in an community with
a large minority and immigrant population and high number of crashes involving pedestrian and
cyclists (FPN 4175405 SR 29 from CR 846 to N of New Market Road W), lane repurposing projects
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Florida Department of Transportation – Office of Policy Planning
Template to Address Performance Management Requirements in Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Programs
8 March 2021
(County has approved lane repurposing on CR 29 in Everglades City to add bike lanes in both
directions as part of repaving project) , new and improved pedestrian crosswalks; improved curve
radii and lane width on Corkscrew Road (FPN 4463231 and 4463232); installation of bicycle
detection equipment at intersections (FPN 4462531)
• Behavioral safety examples: Safe Routes to Schools education/enforcement activities,
pedestrian/bicycle safety education (Funded with PL funds in MPO’s UPWP: Local Roads Safety
Plan scheduled for approval by MPO Board in May 2021)
• Emergency services – FPN 4353891 funds operations at fire station 3 on I-75 which enhances
emergency response time.
None of these projects use HSIP funds.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
March 2021 9
4 - PAVEMENT & BRIDGE CONDITION MEASURES (PM2)
In January 2017, USDOT published the Pavement and Bridge Condition Performance Measures Final Rule,
which is also referred to as the PM2 rule.
This rule establishes the following six performance measures:
1. Percent of Interstate pavements in good condition;
2. Percent of Interstate pavements in poor condition;
3. Percent of non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) pavements in good condition;
4. Percent of non-Interstate NHS pavements in poor condition;
5. Percent of NHS bridges (by deck area) classified as in good condition; and
6. Percent of NHS bridges (by deck area) classified as in poor condition.
For the pavement measures, five pavement metrics are used to assess condition:
• International Roughness Index (IRI) - an indicator of roughness; applicable to asphalt, jointed
concrete, and continuous concrete pavements;
• Cracking percent - percentage of pavement surface exhibiting cracking; applicable to asphalt, jointed
concrete, and continuous concrete pavements;
• Rutting - extent of surface depressions; applicable to asphalt pavements only;
• Faulting - vertical misalignment of pavement joints; applicable to jointed concrete pavements only;
and
• Present Serviceability Rating (PSR) – a quality rating applicable only to NHS roads with posted
speed limits of less than 40 miles per hour (e.g., toll plazas, border crossings). States may choose to
collect and report PSR for applicable segments as an alternative to the other four metrics.
For each pavement metric, a threshold is used to establish good, fair, or poor condition. Using these metrics
and thresholds, pavement condition is assessed for each 0.1 mile section of the through travel lanes of mainline
highways on the Interstate or the non-Interstate NHS. Asphalt pavement is assessed using the IRI, cracking,
and rutting metrics, while jointed concrete is assessed using IRI, cracking, and faulting. For these two
pavement types, a pavement section is rated good if the ratings for all three metrics are good, and poor if the
ratings for two or more metrics are poor.
Continuous concrete pavement is assessed using the IRI and cracking metrics. For this pavement type, a
pavement section is rated good if both metrics are rated good, and poor if both metrics are rated poor.
If a state collects and reports PSR for any applicable segments, those segments are rated according to the PSR
scale. For all three pavement types, sections that are not good or poor are rated fair.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Florida Department of Transportation – Office of Policy Planning
Template to Address Performance Management Requirements in Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Programs
10 March 2021
The good/poor measures are expressed as a percentage and are determined by summing the total lane-miles
of good or poor highway segments and dividing by the total lane-miles of all highway segments on the
applicable system. Pavement in good condition suggests that no major investment is needed and should be
considered for preservation treatment. Pavement in poor condition suggests major reconstruction investment
is needed due to either ride quality or a structural deficiency.
The bridge condition measures refer to the percentage of bridges by deck area on the NHS that are in good
condition or poor condition. The measures assess the condition of four bridge components: deck,
superstructure, substructure, and culverts. Each component has a metric rating threshold to establish good,
fair, or poor condition. Each bridge on the NHS is evaluated using these ratings. If the lowest rating of the
four metrics is greater than or equal to seven, the structure is classified as good. If the lowest rating is less
than or equal to four, the structure is classified as poor. If the lowest rating is five or six, it is classified as fair.
The bridge measures are expressed as the percent of NHS bridges in good or poor condition. The percent is
determined by summing the total deck area of good or poor NHS bridges and dividing by the total deck area
of the bridges carrying the NHS. Deck area is computed using structure length and either deck width or
approach roadway width.
A bridge in good condition suggests that no major investment is needed. A bridge in poor condition is safe
to drive on; however, it is nearing a point where substantial reconstruction or replacement is needed.
Federal rules require state DOTs and MPOs to coordinate when setting pavement and bridge condition
performance targets and monitor progress towards achieving the targets. States must establish:
• Four-year targets for the percent of Interstate pavements in good and poor condition;
• Two-year and four-year targets for the percent of non-Interstate NHS pavements in good and poor
condition; and
• Two-year and four-year targets for the percent of NHS bridges (by deck area) in good and poor
condition.
MPOs must set four-year targets for all six measures. MPOs can either agree to program projects that will
support the statewide targets or establish their own quantifiable targets for the MPO’s planning area.
The two-year and four-year targets represent pavement and bridge condition at the end of calendar years 2019
and 2021, respectively.
4.1 Language for MPOs that Support Statewide Targets
On May 18, 2018, FDOT established statewide performance targets for the pavement and bridge measures.
On November 9, 2018, the Collier MPO agreed to support FDOT’s statewide pavement and bridge
performance targets, thus agreeing to plan and program projects in the TIP that once implemented, are
anticipated to make progress toward achieving the statewide targets. Table 4.1 shows the statewide targets:
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
March 2021 11
Table 4.1. Statewide Pavement and Bridge Condition Performance Targets
Performance Measure
2-year
Statewide
Target
(2019)
4-year
Statewide
Target
(2021)
Percent of Interstate pavements in good condition Not required ≥60%
Percent of Interstate pavements in poor condition Not required ≤5%
Percent of non-Interstate NHS pavements in good condition ≥40% ≥40%
Percent of non-Interstate NHS pavements in poor condition ≤5% ≤5%
Percent of NHS bridges (by deck area) in good condition ≥50% ≥50%
Percent of NHS bridges (by deck area) in poor condition ≤10% ≤10%
For comparative purposes, the baseline (2017) conditions are as follows:
• 66.1 percent of the Interstate pavement is in good condition and 0.0 percent is in poor condition;
• 44.0 percent of the non-Interstate NHS pavement is in good condition and 0.4 percent is in poor
condition; and
• 67.7 percent of NHS bridges (by deck area) is in good condition and 1.2 percent is in poor
condition.
In determining its approach to establishing performance targets for the federal pavement and bridge condition
performance measures, FDOT considered many factors. FDOT is mandated by Florida Statute 334.046 to
preserve the state’s pavement and bridges to specific standards. To adhere to the statutory guidelines, FDOT
prioritizes funding allocations to ensure the current transportation system is adequately preserved and
maintained before funding is allocated for capacity improvements. These statutory guidelines envelope the
statewide federal targets that have been established for pavements and bridges.
In addition, MAP-21 requires FDOT to develop a Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) for all
NHS pavements and bridges within the state. The TAMP must include investment strategies leading to a
program of projects that would make progress toward achievement of the state DOT targets for asset
condition and performance of the NHS. FDOT’s TAMP was updated to reflect initial MAP-21 requirements
in 2018 and the final TAMP was approved on June 28, 2019.
Further, the federal pavement condition measures require a new methodology that is a departure from the
methods currently used by FDOT and uses different ratings and pavement segment lengths. For bridge
condition, the performance is measured in deck area under the federal measure, while the FDOT programs
its bridge repair or replacement work on a bridge by bridge basis. As such, the federal measures are not
directly comparable to the methods that are most familiar to FDOT.
In consideration of these differences, as well as other unknowns and unfamiliarity associated with the new
required processes, FDOT took a conservative approach when establishing its initial pavement and bridge
condition targets. It is the intent of FDOT to meet or exceed the established performance targets.
FDOT collects and reports bridge and pavement data to FHWA each year to track performance and progress
toward the targets. Reported pavement and bridge data for 2018 and 2019 show relatively stable conditions
compared to the 2017 baseline and exceeded the established two-year targets. In early 2021, FHWA
determined that FDOT made significant progress toward the two-year targets.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Florida Department of Transportation – Office of Policy Planning
Template to Address Performance Management Requirements in Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Programs
12 March 2021
Collier MPO’s NHS roadways are:
• I-75 (SR 93)
• US41 (SR 45, Tamiami Trail)
• CR951 between US41 and I-75.
The Collier MPO’s TIP reflects investment priorities established by FDOT for I-75 and US 41 and are
consistent with priorities identified in the 2045 LRTP. The focus of Collier MPO’s investments in bridge and
pavement condition on the NHS include:
• Pavement replacement or reconstruction (on the NHS)
• New lanes or widenings of NHS facilities, including resurfacing existing NHS lanes associated with
new capacity
• Bridge replacement or reconstruction
• New bridge capacity on the NHS
• System resiliency projects that improve NHS bridge components (e.g., upgrading culverts)
The Collier MPO tracks and reports on performance targets in the Director’s Annual Report to the MPO
Board, presented in December. The TIP devotes a significant amount of resources to projects that will
maintain pavement and bridge condition performance on the NHS. Investments in pavement and bridge
condition include pavement replacement and reconstruction, bridge replacement and reconstruction, and new
bridge and pavement capacity. According to a spreadsheet provided by FDOT in February 2021, the
Tentative Work Program the TIP is based on will fund $200.9 million for resurfacing, and $36.8 million
for new capacity. The TIP will fund $11.7 million for non-NHS bridges.
The projects included in the TIP are consistent with FDOT's Five Year Work Program, and therefore to
FDOT’s approach to prioritize funding to ensure the transportation system is adequately preserved and
maintained. Per federal planning requirements, the state selects projects on the NHS in cooperation with the
MPO from the approved TIP. Given the significant resources devoted in the TIP to pavement and bridge
projects, the MPO anticipates that once implemented, the TIP will contribute to progress towards achieving
the statewide pavement and bridge condition performance targets.
The projects included in the TIP are consistent with FDOT's Five Year Work Program, and therefore to
FDOT’s approach to prioritize funding to ensure the transportation system is adequately preserved and
maintained. Per federal planning requirements, the state selects projects on the NHS in cooperation with the
MPO from the approved TIP. Given the significant resources devoted in the TIP to pavement and bridge
projects, the MPO anticipates that once implemented, the TIP will contribute to progress towards achieving
the statewide pavement and bridge condition performance targets.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
March 2021 13
5 - SYSTEM PERFORMANCE, FREIGHT, & CONGESTION
MITIGATION & AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
MEASURES (PM3)
In January 2017, USDOT published the System Performance/Freight/CMAQ Performance Measures Final
Rule to establish measures to assess passenger and freight performance on the Interstate and non-Interstate
National Highway System (NHS), and traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions in areas that
do not meet federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The rule, which is referred to as the
PM3 rule, requires state DOTs and MPOs to establish targets for the following six performance measures:
National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)
1. Percent of person-miles on the Interstate system that are reliable, also referred to as Level of Travel
Time Reliability (LOTTR);
2. Percent of person-miles on the non-Interstate NHS that are reliable (LOTTR);
National Highway Freight Program (NHFP)
3. Truck Travel Time Reliability index (TTTR);
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
4. Annual hours of peak hour excessive delay per capita (PHED);
5. Percent of non-single occupant vehicle travel (Non-SOV); and
6. Cumulative 2-year and 4-year reduction of on-road mobile source emissions (NOx, VOC, CO,
PM10, and PM2.5) for CMAQ funded projects.
In Florida, only the two LOTTR performance measures and the TTTR performance measure apply. Because
all areas in Florida meet current NAAQS, the last three listed measures above pertaining to the CMAQ
Program do not currently apply in Florida. A description of the applicable measures follows.
LOTTR Measures
The LOTTR performance measures assess the percent of person-miles traveled on the Interstate or the non-
Interstate NHS that are reliable. LOTTR is defined as the ratio of longer travel times (80th percentile) to a
normal travel time (50th percentile) over of all applicable roads, across four time periods between the hours of
6 a.m. and 8 p.m. each day. The measure is expressed as the percent of person-miles traveled on the Interstate
or Non-Interstate NHS system that are reliable. Person-miles consider the number of people traveling in
buses, cars, and trucks over these roadway segments.
TTTR Measure
The TTTR performance measure assesses the reliability index for trucks traveling on the interstate. A TTTR
ratio is generated by dividing the 95th percentile truck travel time by a normal travel time (50th percentile) for
each segment of the Interstate system over specific time periods throughout weekdays and weekends. This is
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Florida Department of Transportation – Office of Policy Planning
Template to Address Performance Management Requirements in Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Programs
14 March 2021
averaged across the length of all Interstate segments in the state or metropolitan planning area to determine
the TTTR index.
Federal rules require state DOTs and MPOs to coordinate when setting LOTTR and TTTR performance
targets and monitor progress towards achieving the targets. States must establish:
• Two-year and four-year statewide targets for percent of person-miles on the Interstate system that
are reliable;
• Four-year targets for the percent of person-miles on the non-Interstate NHS that are reliable 1; and
• Two-year and four-year targets for truck travel time reliability.
MPOs must establish four-year targets for all three measures. MPOs can either agree to program projects
that will support the statewide targets or establish their own quantifiable targets for the MPO’s planning area.
The two-year and four-year targets represent system performance at the end of calendar years 2019 and 2021,
respectively.
5.1 Language for MPOs that Supports Statewide Targets
On May 18, 2018, FDOT established statewide performance targets for the system performance measures.
In November 2019, the Collier MPO agreed to support FDOT’s statewide system performance targets, thus
agreeing to plan and program projects in the TIP that once implemented, are anticipated to make progress
toward achieving the statewide targets. Table 5.1 presents the statewide and MPO targets.
Table 5.1. Statewide System Performance and Freight Targets
Performance Measure
2-year Statewide
Target
(2019)
4-year Statewide
Target
(2021)
Percent of person-miles on the Interstate system
that are reliable (Interstate LOTTR) ≥75% ≥70%
Percent of person-miles on the non-Interstate
NHS that are reliable (Non-Interstate NHS
LOTTR
Not Required7 ≥50%
Truck travel time reliability (TTTR) ≤1.75 ≤2.00
For comparative purposes, baseline (2017) statewide conditions are as follows:
• 82.2 percent of person-miles traveled on the Interstate are reliable;
• 84.0 percent of person-miles traveled on the non-Interstate are reliable; and
• 1.43 truck travel time reliability index.
1 Beginning with the second performance period covering January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2025, two-year targets will be required
in addition to four-year targets for the percent of person-miles on the non-Interstate NHS that are reliable measure.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
March 2021 15
In establishing these targets, FDOT reviewed external and internal factors that may affect reliability; analyzed
travel time data from the National Performance Management Research Dataset (NPMRDS) for the years 2014
to 2017; and developed a sensitivity analysis indicating the level of risk for road segments to become unreliable.
The federal travel time reliability measures follow a new methodology that differ from prior Florida efforts.
In addition, beginning in 2017, the NPMRDS expanded its coverage of travel segments, and a new vendor
began to supply the dataset, creating a difference in reliability performance results on non-Interstate NHS
segments between pre-2017 trends and later trends. These factors create challenges for establishing a
confident trend line to inform target setting for the next two to four years.
In consideration of these differences, as well as other unknowns and unfamiliarity associated with the new
required processes, FDOT took a conservative approach when establishing its initial statewide system
performance and freight targets.
FDOT collects and reports reliability data to FHWA each year to track performance and progress toward the
reliability targets. The percentage of person-miles that are reliable improved since 2017 on both the Interstate
and non-Interstate NHS. The truck travel time reliability index improved slightly from the 2017 baseline to
2018 but declined slightly in 2019. The data all indicate performance that exceeded the applicable two-year
targets. In early 2021, FHWA determined that FDOT made significant progress toward the two-year targets.
System performance and freight are addressed through several statewide initiatives:
• Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) is composed of transportation facilities of statewide and
interregional significance. The SIS is a primary focus of FDOT’s capacity investments and is
Florida’s primary network for ensuring a strong link between transportation and economic
competitiveness. These facilities, which span all modes and includes highways, are the workhorses
of Florida’s transportation system and account for a dominant share of the people and freight
movement to, from and within Florida. The SIS includes 92 percent of NHS lane miles in the state.
Thus, FDOT’s focus on improving performance of the SIS goes hand-in-hand with improving the
NHS, which is the focus of the FHWA’s TPM program. The SIS Policy Plan will be updated in
2021 consistent with the updated FTP. The SIS Policy Plan defines the policy framework for
designating which facilities are part of the SIS, as well as how SIS investments needs are identified
and prioritized. The development of the SIS Five-Year Plan by FDOT considers scores on a range
of measures including mobility, safety, preservation, and economic competitiveness as part of
FDOT’s Strategic Investment Tool (SIT).
• In addition, FDOT’s Freight Mobility and Trade Plan (FMTP) defines policies and investments that
will enhance Florida’s economic development efforts into the future. The FMTP identifies truck
bottlenecks and other freight investment needs and defines the process for setting priorities among
these needs to receive funding from the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP). Project
evaluation criteria tie back to the FMTP objectives to ensure high priority projects support the
statewide freight vision. In February 2018, FHWA approved the FMTP as FDOT’s State Freight
Plan.
• FDOT also developed and refined a methodology to identify freight bottlenecks on Florida’s SIS on
an annual basis using vehicle probe data and travel time reliability measures. Identification of
bottlenecks and estimation of their delay impact aids FDOT in focusing on relief efforts and ranking
them by priority. In turn, this information is incorporated into FDOT’s SIT to help identify the
most important SIS capacity projects to relieve congestion.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Florida Department of Transportation – Office of Policy Planning
Template to Address Performance Management Requirements in Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Programs
16 March 2021
The Collier MPO TIP reflects investment priorities established in the 2045 LRTP. The focus of Collier
MPO’s investments that address system performance and freight:
• Corridor improvements
• Intersection improvements (on NHS roads)
• Projects evaluated in the CMP and selected for the TIP
• Investments in transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems that promote mode shift
• Managed lanes on I-75
• Freight improvements that increase reliability and safety.
• TSMO/ITS projects or programs
• Travel demand management programs [studies in process, no projects programmed at this time
Collier MPO uses project selection criteria related to congestion-relief, reliability, mode shift, freight, TDM,
etc. in the LRTP and in the project prioritization process for the use of the MPO’s SU “box” funds.
The Collier MPO TIP devotes a significant amount of resources to programs and projects that will improve
system performance and freight reliability on the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS. Investments include
$80.7 million for corridor improvements on the non-Interstate NHS, which also support the MPO’s
regional priority freight corridors. The TIP will fund $14.1 million for congestion management projects;
and $17.2 million for bike/ped projects.
The projects included in the TIP are consistent with FDOT's Five Year Work Program, and therefore to
FDOT’s approach to prioritize funding to address performance goals and targets. Per federal planning
requirements, the state selects projects on the NHS in cooperation with the MPO from the approved TIP.
Given the significant resources devoted in the TIP to programs that address system performance and freight,
the MPO anticipates that once implemented, the TIP will contribute to progress towards achieving the
statewide reliability performance targets.
6 - TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT MEASURES
Transit Asset Performance Measures
On July 26, 2016, FTA published the final Transit Asset Management (TAM) rule. This rule applies to all
recipients and subrecipients of Federal transit funding that own, operate, or manage public transportation
capital assets. The rule defines the term “state of good repair,” requires that public transportation providers
develop and implement TAM plans, and establishes state of good repair standards and performance measures
for four asset categories: equipment, rolling stock, transit infrastructure, and facilities. The rule became
effective on October 1, 2018.
Table 6.1 identifies performance measures outlined in the final rule for transit asset management.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
March 2021 17
Table 6.1. FTA TAM Performance Measures
Asset Category Performance Measure
1. Equipment Percentage of non-revenue, support-service and maintenance vehicles that have
met or exceeded their Useful Life Benchmark
2. Rolling Stock Percentage of revenue vehicles within a particular asset class that have either
met or exceeded their Useful Life Benchmark
3. Infrastructure Percentage of track segments with performance restrictions
4. Facilities Percentage of facilities within an asset class rated below condition 3 on the
TERM scale
For equipment and rolling stock classes, useful life benchmark (ULB) is defined as the expected lifecycle of a
capital asset, or the acceptable period of use in service, for a particular transit provider’s operating
environment. ULB considers a provider’s unique operating environment such as geography, service
frequency, etc.
Public transportation agencies are required to establish and report transit asset management targets annually
for the following fiscal year. Each public transit provider or its sponsors must share its targets with each
MPO in which the transit provider’s projects and services are programmed in the MPO’s TIP. MPOs are
required to establish initial transit asset management targets within 180 days of the date that public
transportation providers establish initial targets. However, MPOs are not required to establish transit asset
management targets annually each time the transit provider establishes targets. Instead, subsequent MPO
targets must be established when the MPO updates the LRTP. When establishing transit asset management
targets, the MPO can either agree to program projects that will support the transit provider targets or establish
its own separate regional transit asset management targets for the MPO planning area. MPO targets may
differ from agency targets, especially if there are multiple transit agencies in the MPO planning area.
The TAM rule defines two tiers of public transportation providers based on size parameters. Tier I providers
are those that operate rail service or more than 100 vehicles in all fixed route modes, or more than 100 vehicles
in one non-fixed route mode. Tier II providers are those that are a subrecipient of FTA 5311 funds, or an
American Indian Tribe, or have 100 or less vehicles across all fixed route modes, or have 100 vehicles or less
in one non-fixed route mode. A Tier I provider must establish its own transit asset management targets, as
well as report performance and other data to FTA. A Tier II provider has the option to establish its own
targets or to participate in a group plan with other Tier II providers whereby targets are established by a plan
sponsor, typically a state DOT, for the entire group.
A total of 19 transit providers participated in the FDOT Group TAM Plan and continue to coordinate with
FDOT on establishing and reporting group targets to FTA through the National Transit Database (NTD)
(Table 6.2). These are FDOT’s Section 5311 Rural Program subrecipients. The Group TAM Plan was adopted
in October 2018 and covers fiscal years 2018-2019 through 2021-2022. Updated targets were submitted to
NTD in 2019.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Florida Department of Transportation – Office of Policy Planning
Template to Address Performance Management Requirements in Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Programs
18 March 2021
Table 6.2. Florida Group TAM Plan Participants
District Participating Transit Providers
1 Central Florida Regional Planning Council
DeSoto-Arcadia Regional Transit
Good Wheels, Inc1
2 Baker County Transit
Big Bend Transit2
Levy County Transit
Nassau County Transit
Ride Solution
Suwannee River Economic Council
Suwannee Valley Transit Authority
3 Big Bend Transit2
Calhoun Transit
Gulf County ARC
JTRANS
Liberty County Transit
Tri-County Community Council
Wakulla Transit
4 No participating providers
5 Marion Transit
Sumter Transit
6 Key West Transit
7 No participating providers
1no longer in service
2 provider service area covers portions of Districts 1 and 2
The Collier MPO has a single Tier II transit provider operating in the region – the Board of County
Commissioners oversees the Collier Area Transit. CAT does not participate in the FDOT Group TAM
Plan because it has too few busses to meet the criteria.
6.1 Language for MPO that Supports Public Transportation Provider Targets
On November 9, 2018, the Collier MPO agreed to support Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) /CAT’s transit asset management targets, thus agreeing to plan and program
projects in the TIP that once implemented, are anticipated to make progress toward achieving the transit
provider targets. See Table 6.3 below.
The transit asset management targets are based on the condition of existing transit assets and planned
investments in equipment, rolling stock, infrastructure, and facilities. The targets reflect the most recent data
available on the number, age, and condition of transit assets, and expectations and capital investment plans
for improving these assets. The table summarizes both existing conditions for the most recent year available,
and the targets.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
March 2021 19
Table 6.3. Transit Asset Management Targets for Collier Area Transit
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Florida Department of Transportation – Office of Policy Planning
Template to Address Performance Management Requirements in Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Programs
20 March 2021
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
March 2021 21
Transit Asset Management in the TIP
The Collier MPO TIP was developed and is managed in cooperation with CAT. It reflects the investment
priorities established in the 2045 LRTP. CAT submits a list of Transit Priority Projects to the MPO
Board for approval on an annual basis. The priority projects reflect the investment priorities
established in the 2045 LRTP which incorporates the Transit Development Plan as its transit
element. FTA funding, as programmed by the region’s transit providers and FDOT, is used for
programs and products to improve the condition of the region’s transit assets. See Appendix I
– Criteria Used for Project Prioritization
The focus of Collier MPO’s investments that address transit state of good repair include:
• Bus and other vehicle purchases and replacements
• Equipment purchases and replacements
• Retrofits
• Repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of transit facilities
• Repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of transit infrastructure]
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
Florida Department of Transportation – Office of Policy Planning
Template to Address Performance Management Requirements in Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Programs
22 March 2021
7 - TRANSIT SAFETY PERFORMANCE
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) established transit safety performance management requirements
in the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP) final rule, which was published on July 19, 2018.
This rule requires providers of public transportation systems that receive federal financial assistance under 49
U.S.C. Chapter 53 to develop and implement a PTASP based on a Safety Management Systems approach.
The rule applies to all operators of public transportation that are a recipient or sub-recipient of FTA Urbanized
Area Formula Grant Program funds under 49 U.S.C. Section 5307, or that operate a rail transit system that is
subject to FTA’s State Safety Oversight Program. The rule does not apply to certain modes of transit service
that are subject to the safety jurisdiction of another Federal agency, including passenger ferry operations that
are regulated by the United States Coast Guard, and commuter rail operations that are regulated by the Federal
Railroad Administration.
The PTASP must include performance targets for the performance measures established by FTA in the
National Public Transportation Safety Plan, which was published on January 28, 2017. The transit safety
performance measures are:
• Total number of reportable fatalities and rate per total vehicle revenue miles by mode.
• Total number of reportable injuries and rate per total vehicle revenue miles by mode.
• Total number of reportable safety events and rate per total vehicle revenue miles by mode.
• System reliability – mean distance between major mechanical failures by mode.
In Florida, each Section 5307 or 5311 transit provider must develop a System Safety Program Plan (SSPP)
under Chapter 14-90, Florida Administrative Code. FDOT technical guidance recommends that Florida’s
transit agencies revise their existing SSPPs to be compliant with the new FTA PTASP requirements.2
Each provider of public transportation that is subject to the federal rule must certify that its SSPP meets the
requirements for a PTASP, including transit safety targets for the federally required measures. Providers
initially were required to certify a PTASP and targets by July 20, 2020. However, on April 22, 2020, FTA
extended the deadline to December 31, 2020 to provide regulatory flexibility due to the extraordinary
operational challenges presented by the COVID-19 public health emergency. On December 11, 2020, FTA
extended the PTASP deadline for a second time to July 20, 2021.Once the public transportation provider
establishes targets, it must make the targets available to MPOs to aid in the planning process. MPOs have 180
days after receipt of the PTASP targets to establish transit safety targets for the MPO planning area. In
addition, the Collier MPO must reflect those targets in any LRTP and TIP updated on or after July 20, 2021.
7.1 Local Safety Targets
Collier Area Transit is responsible for developing a PTASP and establishing transit safety performance
targets annually. The Collier MPO adopted CAT’s PTA Safety Targets, shown in Table 7-1 below,
on September 14, 2020.
2 FDOT Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan Guidance Document for Transit Agencies. Available at
https://www.fdot.gov/transit/default.shtm
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
March 2021 23
Table 7-1 – Collier Area Transit Safety Targets 2020
FTA funding, as programmed by the region’s transit providers and FDOT, is used for programs and products
to improve the safety of the region’s transit systems. As CAT develops a methodology for identifying
transit safety-related projects, the Collier MPO will amend or modify the 2045 LRTP and adjust its
project prioritization criteria accordingly.
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement
96
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
10.A.2Packet Pg. 599Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
97
APPENDIX L: AMENDMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATIONS
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
98
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
10.A.2
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Draft FY 2022-2026 TIP - Part Two (Support Documentation Draft 3) (15811 : Draft FY 2022-
05/14/2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Draft 2021 Project Priorities
OBJECTIVE: For the Board to receive a presentation on the draft 2021 Project Priorities.
CONSIDERATIONS: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) requests submittal of
transportation project priorities by July 1st of each year in order to coordinate with MPOs on the
development of the next Tentative Five-Year Work Program (FY 2023-2027).
The Board’s long-standing policy on allocating its Transportation Management Area (TMA) Surface
Transportation Block Grant - Urban (SU) funds was incorporated in the 2045 Long Range Transportation
Plan (LRTP) and expanded to include Planning and Safety projects.
The Draft 2021 Project Priorities, shown in Attachment 1, include:
• Congestion Management Priorities - are scheduled to receive the majority of the MPO’s
allocation of SU funds - roughly $5 million - in the new 5th year of the new FDOT Work
Program. The MPO issued a Call for Projects in calendar year 2020. The Congestion
Management Committee (CMC) vetted the project applications.
• Planning Priorities - SU funds set aside to hire a consultant team to develop the next LRTP
update.
• Highway Priorities - roadway capacity enhancement projects identified in the 2045 LRTP Cost
Feasible Plan (Table 6-2, p6-4) for programming with Other Arterial (OA) funds set aside for
capacity improvements (construction, ROW) on State Highway System (SHS) roadways that are
not designated as part of the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS). OA includes local assistance
programs such as Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) and the County Incentive
Grant Program (CIGP).
• TRIP Priorities - developed jointly with Lee County MPO, submitted by technical staff, vetted by
Lee/Collier CAC and TAC.
• Transit Priorities - submitted by Collier County - Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement
Division consistent with the 2045 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan/Transit Development Plan
(incorporated by reference).
The MPO has received one public comment to-date - a Letter of Support from the Naples Park Area
Association for the Congestion Management Project #1 Sidewalk on 91st Ave N., requesting that the
project be expedited. (Attachment 2) County Transportation Planning Section staff is investigating that
possibility at this time.
The Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees received a briefing on the Draft Project Priorities at
their March meetings. MPO staff distributed updates to committee members in April and will request
endorsement when they meet again on May 24th. The Board will be asked to approve the 2021 Project
Priorities at the June 11th meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board receive a presentation on the draft 2021 Project
Priorities.
Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director
10.B
Packet Pg. 603
05/14/2021
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Draft 2021 Project Priorities (PDF)
2. Naples Park Area Association Letter of Support for Sidewalk on 91st Ave N (PDF)
10.B
Packet Pg. 604
05/14/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 10.B
Doc ID: 15812
Item Summary: Draft 2021 Project Priorities
Meeting Date: 05/14/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/06/2021 11:06 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/06/2021 11:06 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/06/2021 11:06 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/06/2021 2:34 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/14/2021 9:00 AM
10.B
Packet Pg. 605
Project ID #Project Name
Submitting
Agency/
Jurisdiction
Total Estimated
Project Cost
(rounded to
nearest $100)Phases
Target FY for
Programming Notes
1
91st Ave N (Construction of a
5' wide sidewalk along the
south side of the road )
Collier County
TransPlan $ 640,500 PE, CST, CEI 2027
County TransPlan is investigating possibility of
expediting project in response to public
comment (NPAA Letter of Support)
2
Vanderbilt Beach Road
Corridor Study (Airport Rd to
Livingston Rd)
Collier County
TransPlan $ 300,000 PLN STUDY 2027 Study to begin after Vanderbilt Beach RD Extension
in-place to assess traffic iimpact
3 ITS Fiber Optic and FPL Power
Infrastructure - 18 locations
Collier County
Traffic Ops $ 830,000 PE, CST 2023-2027 Phased approach by Traffic Ops to bore in County
ROW, run conduits and fiber cables, 18 corridors
4
ITS Vehicle Detection
Update/Installation at 73
Signalized Intersections in
Collier County
Collier County
Traffic Ops $ 991,000 CST 2023-2027
Equipment purchase, in-house installation; phased
approach includes QA/QC and fine tuning functionality
and stability of systems
5 ITS ATMS Retiming of
Arterials
Collier County
Traffic Ops $ 881,900 PE 2023-2027 RFP for Professional Services; phased approach by
Traffic Ops
TOTAL $ 3,643,400
2021 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES Endorsed by CMC 1/20/21
10.B.1
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Draft 2021 Project Priorities (15812 : Draft 2021 Project Priorities)
Priority Fiscal Year Project Cost Plan or Study
2022 300,000$
2023 300,000$
2024 300,000$
TOTAL 900,000$
2021 Planning Study Priorities - SU BOX FUNDS
1 2050 LRTP
10.B.1
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Draft 2021 Project Priorities (15812 : Draft 2021 Project Priorities)
2021 Highway & Freight Priorities
Phase Source YOE Cost FPN Phase Source FY Amount
CST SIS $30,360,000 ENV SIS 2023 $380,000
ROW SIS 2024 $1,061,703
PE OA $580,000
CST OA $12,240,000
PE OA $580,000
CST OA $12,240,000
PE OA $630,000
ROW OA $2,970,000
CST OA $13,410,000
PE OA $ 3,910,000
ROW OA $ 4,460,000
CST OA $ 33,530,000
PE OA $ 3,130,000
CST OA $ 20,120,000
$113,361,703 Subtotal $1,441,703
MAP
ID Facility Limit From Limit To Project Description Total Project
Cost (PDC)
CST Time
Frame Phase Source Funding
Request FPN Phase Source FY Amount
PE OA $3,850,000
ROW OA $170,000
59 US 41 (SR90)
(Tamiami Trail)Collier Blvd Major Intersection Improvement $17,250,000 2031-2035 PE OA $2,810,000
60 US41
(SR90)(Tamiami Trail)Immokalee Rd Old US 41 Complete Streets Study for TSM&O
Improvements $17,250,000 2031-2035 PE OA $460,000
22 I-75 (SR93) New
Interchange
Vicinity of
Everglades Blvd New Interchange $42,260,000 2036-2045 PE OA $3,760,000
C1
Connector Roadway
from New I-75
Interchange
Golden Gate Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Rd
4-lane Connector Roadway from New
Interchange (Specific Location TBD
during Interchange PD&E
$17,570,000 2036-2045 PE OA $440,000
C2
Connector Roadway
from New I-75
Interchange
I-75 (SR93)Golden Gate Blvd
4-lane Connector Roadway from New
Interchange (Specific Location TBD
during Interchange PD&E
$80,590,000 2036-2045 PE OA $2,000,000
Subtotal $197,510,000 $13,490,000
MAP
ID Facility Limit From Limit To Project Description Total Project
Cost (PDC)
CST Time
Frame Phase Source Funding
Request FPN Phase Source FY Amount
ENV SIS 2023 $380,000
ROW SIS 2024 $1,061,703
ENV SIS 2024 & 25 $310,000
ROW SIS 2024 & 25 $6,676,616
Subtotal $64,904,793 $63,153,090 $1,751,703
Plan Period 3 & 4 Construction Funded Projects - Initiated in Plan Period 2
$4,020,00039Lee/Collier County LineOld US41 US41 Widen from 2 lanes to 4-lanes $22,590,000 2031-2035
Project Status in Draft FY2022-26 TIP
2026-2030 CFP Project Status in Draft FY2022-26 TIP
2026-2030 CFP
$2,810,000
$460,000
57
US41
(SR90)(Tamiami Trail
E)
Goodlette-Frank Rd Major Intersection Improvement $13,000,000 2026-30
58
111 US41 (SR90)
(Tamiami Trail)Immokalee Rd Intersection Innovation /
Improvements $17,500,000 2026-30
$3,760,000
HIGHWAYS - Freight Priorities Submitted to MPOAC
$17,010,000
$440,000
$2,000,000
2026-2030 TOTAL
N of SR 82 Widen from 2 lanes to 4-lanes (with
center turn lane)$31,801,703 2026-30 $30,360,000
YOE
SR 29 New Market Rd N
$23,250,000
US41
(SR90)(Tamiami Trail
E)
Greenway Rd 6 L Farm Rd Widen from 2-lane to 4-lanes
$9,590,000 2026-30 $12,820,000
$31,880,000 2026-30 $41,900,000
I-75 (SR93)
Interchange Immokalee Rd Interchange Improvement (DDI
Proposed)$9,590,000 2026-30 $12,820,000
I-75 (SR93)
Interchange Golden Gate Pkwy Interchange Improvement
2026-2030 PLAN PERIOD 2
HIGHWAY PRIORITIES - 2045 LRTP- Cost Feasible Plan
2026-30
Limit From Limit To
SR 29
Total Project
Cost (PDC)
Construction
Time Frame
New Market Rd N N of SR 82
Projects Funded
in CFP
YOE
5-Year Window in which CST is Funded by Source
$30,360,000 4175406LRTP MAP ID50
23
25
PROJECT STATUS Including Projects Funded in Draft FY2022-26 TIP
Widen from 2 lanes to 4-lanes (with
center turn lane)$31,801,703
Final Proposed Improvement -
2045 LRTPFacility
$32,793,090 TBD 4175405
CST SIS $30,360,000
51 SR 29 Immokalee Rd (CR
846)New Market Rd N New 4-lane Rd (aka The Immokalee
Bypass)$33,103,090
unfunded in
2045 LRTP;
would require
amendment
CST SIS
417540650
10.B.1
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Draft 2021 Project Priorities (15812 : Draft 2021 Project Priorities)
Joint TRIP Priorities for Lee and Collier for 2021
Sponsor Route From To Proposed
Improvement
Requested
Phase Total Cost Requested
TRIP Funds
Staff
Priority
Order
State Funding
Level Fiscal Year
(1)
Utilizing or
relieveing
an SIS
Facility
(2)
SIS
Connectiv
ity
(3)
County
Enterprise
Zones, Rural
Area
(4)
Corridor
Managemen
t
Techniques
(5)
Production
Readiness
(6)
TRIP
Funding
Not
Receive
(7)
Job
Access
and
Economic
(8)
Peformance
on Previous
TRIP Projects
(9)
Overmatc
h
(10)
Public Private-
Partnerships Total
Points
Lee County Corkscrew Road E.of Ben Hill Griffin Bella Terra 2L to 4L CST $23,590,800 $6,975,000 Funded $ 2,651,966 FY 21/22 3 3 0 3 5 0 4 2 3 0 23
Lee County Ortiz Colonial Blvd SR 82 2L to 4L CST $20,025,000 $5,000,000 3 0 2 3 5 0 4 2 3 0 22
Collier County Collier Blvd Golden Gate Main
Canal Golden Gate Pkwy 4L to 6L Des/Build $38,664,000 $5,000,000 3 3 0 3 5 0 4 2 3 0 23
Lee County Corkscrew Road Bella Terra Alico Road 2L to 4L CST $17,795,300 $4,500,000 3 3 0 3 5 0 4 2 1 0 21
Lee County Three Oaks Ext.Fiddlesticks Canal Crossing Pony Drive New 4L CST $41,830,000 $5,000,000 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 2 3 0 20
Collier County Veterans Memorial Boulevard High School Entrance US 41 New 4L/6L CST $14,800,000 $6,000,000 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 2 1 0 18
Lee County Three Oaks Ext.Pony Drive Daniels Parkway New 4L CST $31,720,000 $7,500,000 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 2 3 0 20
Collier County Goodlette Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road 2L to 4L CST $5,500,000 $2,750,000 Funded $ 2,750,000 FY 23/24 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 2 1 0 18
Lee County Burnt Store Rd Van Buren Pkwy Charlotte Co/L 2L to 4L PE $8,320,000 $4,100,000 3 3 0 3 1 0 4 2 1 0 17
Collier County Vanderbilt Beach Rd 16th Street Everglades Blvd New 2L CST $19,050,000 $4,125,000 3 0 3 3 5 0 4 2 3 0 23
Lee County Ortiz Avenue SR 82 Luckett Road 2L to 4L CST $28,500,000 $5,000,000 3 0 2 3 5 0 4 2 3 0 22
Collier County Santa Barbara/Logan Blvd.Painted Leaf Lane Pine Ridge Road Operational Imp.CST $8,000,000 $4,000,000 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 2 1 0 18
Collier County Vanderbilt Beach Rd US 41 E. of Goodlette 4L to 6L CST $8,428,875 $4,214,438 Funded $ 4,214,438 FY 24/25 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 2 1 0 18
Lee County Alico Extension Alico Road SR 82 New 4L CST $105,000,000 $8,000,000 3 3 0 5 5 0 4 2 5 0 27
Collier County Oil Well Road Everglades Oil Well Grade Rd. 2L to 6L CST $54,000,000 $6,000,000 3 3 3 3 5 0 4 2 3 0 26
Lee County Ortiz Avenue Luckett Road SR 80 2L to 4L CST $20,800,000 $3,750,000 3 0 2 3 5 0 4 2 3 0 22
Collier County Immokalee Road At Livingston Road Major Intersect.PE $4,500,000 $1,000,000 3 3 0 3 1 0 4 2 3 0 19
2025/2026
2024/2025
2022/2023
2021/2022
2023/2024
10.B.1
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Draft 2021 Project Priorities (15812 : Draft 2021 Project Priorities)
Improvement Category Ranking Implementation
Year Annual Cost 3-Year
Operating Cost
10-Year
Operating Cost Capital Cost
Route 15 from 90 to 45 minutes Increase Frequency 1 2022 $163,238 $489,715 $1,632,384 $503,771
Route 11 from 30 to 20 minutes Increase Frequency 2 2022 $652,954 $1,958,861 $6,529,536 $503,771
Route 12 from 90 to 45 minutes Increase Frequency 3 2022 $282,947 $848,840 $2,829,466 $503,771
Administration/Passenger Station Roof Replacement Transit Asset Management (TAM)4 2022 -$ -$ -$ $357,000
Route 16 from 90 to 45 minutes Increase Frequency 5 2023 $156,105 $468,316 $1,561,054 $503,771
Route 14 from 60 to 30 minutes Increase Frequency 6 2023 $243,915 $731,744 $2,439,146 $512,698
Site SL-15 Creekside Park and Ride 7 2023 -$ -$ -$ $564,940
Beach Lot Vanderbilt Beach Rd Park and Ride 8 2023 -$ -$ -$ $2,318,200
Route 17/18 from 90 to 45 minutes Increase Frequency 9 2023 $258,550 $775,649 $2,585,495 $503,771
Route 13 from 40 to 30 minutes Increase Frequency 10 2023 $83,712 $251,135 $837,115 $512,698
New Island Trolley New Service 11 2024 $551,082 $1,653,246 $5,510,821 $864,368
Study: Mobility on Demand Other Improvements 12 2024 -$ -$ -$ $50,000
Study: Fares Other Improvements 13 2024 -$ -$ -$ $50,000
Support Vehicle - Truck Transit Asset Management (TAM)14 2024 -$ -$ -$ $30,000
New Bayshore Shuttle New Service 15 2025 $201,000 $602,999 $2,009,995 $531,029
Fixed Route Bus - Replacement Transit Asset Management (TAM)16 2025 -$ -$ -$ $500,000
Fixed Route Bus - Replacement Transit Asset Management (TAM)17 2025 -$ -$ -$ $500,000
Support Vehicle - Replacement Transit Asset Management (TAM)18 2025 -$ -$ -$ $30,000
Support Vehicle - Replacement Transit Asset Management (TAM)19 2025 -$ -$ -$ $30,000
Radio Rd Transfer Station Lot Park and Ride 20 2026 -$ -$ -$ $479,961
Beach Lot Pine Ridge Rd Park and Ride 21 2026 -$ -$ -$ $2,587,310
Immokalee Rd - Split Route 27 creating EW Route Route Network Modifications 22 2027 $189,885 $569,654 $1,898,846 $550,016
Collier Blvd - Split Route 27 creating NS Route Route Network Modifications 23 2027 $189,885 $569,654 $1,898,846 $550,016
New Route 19/28 - Extend Hours to 10:00 PM Service Expansion 24 2027 $29,288 $87,863 $292,876 $0
Route 24 - Extend Hours to 10:00 PM Service Expansion 25 2027 $30,298 $90,893 $302,976 $0
Goodlette Frank Rd - Split Route 25 creating NS Route Route Network Modifications 26 2027 $183,805 $551,416 $1,838,052 $550,016
MOD – North Naples New Service 27 2029 $81,723 $245,169 $817,230 $81,961
New Autonomous Circulator New Service 28 2029 $52,411 $157,232 $524,105 $569,681
MOD – Marco Island New Service 29 2029 $108,912 $326,736 $1,089,119 $81,961
MOD – Golden Gate Estates New Service 30 2029 $163,446 $490,338 $1,634,460 $81,961
New Naples Pier Electric Shuttle New Service 31 2029 $82,213 $246,638 $822,125 $569,681
MOD – Naples New Service 32 2029 $193,889 $581,666 $1,938,887 $81,961
2021 Transit Priorities
10.B.1
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Draft 2021 Project Priorities (15812 : Draft 2021 Project Priorities)
10.B.2
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Naples Park Area Association Letter of Support for Sidewalk on 91st Ave N (15812 : Draft 2021 Project Priorities)
05/14/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Item Number: 13.A
Item Summary: Next Meeting Date - June 11, 2021 - 9:00 a.m. Board of County Commissioners
Chambers, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112
Meeting Date: 05/14/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Brandy Otero
05/06/2021 11:13 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
Name: Anne McLaughlin
05/06/2021 11:13 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Metropolitan Planning Organization Brandy Otero MPO Analyst Review Completed 05/06/2021 11:13 AM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 05/06/2021 2:35 PM
Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 05/14/2021 9:00 AM
13.A
Packet Pg. 612