MPO Congestion Management Management Committee Agenda 03/16/2022AGENDA
CMC
Congestion Management Committee
NOTE: THIS IS AN IN-PERSON MEETING
Collier County Growth Management Department
Construction and Maintenance Building
South Conference Room
2885 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
March 16, 2022
2:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of January 19, 2022 Meeting
Minutes
5. Open to Public for Comment on Items
Not on the Agenda
6. Agency Updates
A. FDOT
B. MPO
C. Other
7. Committee Action
A. 2022 Congestion Management Process
Update
8. Reports and Presentations (May Require
Committee Action)
A. FDOT – US 41 FRAME Project
9. Member Comments
10. Distribution Items (No presentation)
11. Next Meeting Date:
May 18, 2022
12. Adjournment
PLEASE NOTE:
The meetings of the advisory committees of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) are 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 should contact the MPO Director at
least 14 days prior to the meeting date. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the advisory committee will
need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. In
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in
this meeting should contact the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization 72 hours prior to the meeting by calling
(239) 252-5814. 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 Title VI Specialist Ms. Danielle Bates (239) 252-5814 or by email at:
Danielle.Bates@colliercountyfl.gov, or in writing to the Collier MPO, attention: Ms. Bates, at 2885 South Horseshoe
Dr., Naples, FL 34104.
1
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE of the
COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
January 19, 2022
2:00 p.m.
Meeting Minutes
1. Call to Order
Mr. Khawaja called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Ms. Bates called the roll and confirmed a quorum was present in the room.
CMC Members Present In-Person
Tony Khawaja, Chairman, Collier County Traffic Operations
Omar DeLeon, County Public Transportation & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE)
Karen Homiak, CAC Representative
Michael Tisch, County Transportation Planning
Don Scott, Lee MPO
Dave Rivera, City of Naples
CMC Members Absent
Dr. Mort Friedman, BPAC Representative
Allison Bickett, City of Naples
Dan Summers, County Emergency Management
John Kasten, Collier County Public Schools
Tim Pinter, City of Marco Island
MPO Staff
Brandy Otero, Principal Planner
Scott Philips, Principal Planner
Danielle Bates, Administrative Assistant
Others Present
Lorraine Lantz, County Transportation Planning
Ian Debnam, Benesch/Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc
Wally Blain, Benesch/Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc (virtually)
3. Approval of the Agenda
Mr. Rivera moved to approve the agenda. Ms. Homiak seconded. Carried unanimously.
4. Approval of the September 15, 2021 Meeting Minutes.
2
Mr. Khawaja: Don Scott was here but was listed as present and absent, Mort Friedman
was not listed and was absent.
Ms. Homiak moved to approve the September 15, 2021 minutes with revisions. Mr.
Rivera seconded. Carried unanimously.
5. Public Comments for Items not on the Agenda
None.
6. Agency Updates
A. FDOT
None.
B. MPO Executive Director
None.
C. Other Agencies
Mr. Rivera: For the City of Naples, the director has left, in his place is Andy Holland in
the interim, and Allison Bickett will be the Deputy Director.
Mr. Tisch: For Collier County, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) sent
funding information for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 projects to the county, including Pierre Beauvoir
in Traffic Ops, for one sidewalk and one school light flashers and one IT project. Currently
processing paperwork to begin projects.
Ms. Lantz: The Wilson Boulevard Widening from Immokalee Road to Golden Gate
Boulevard is going to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on January 25. The conceptual
study will transition into design quickly, and we will be handing it over after approval.
7. Committee Action
A. Elect Chair and Vice Chair
Mr. Rivera moved to keep Mr. Khawaja as Chair and Mr. Pinter as Vice-Chair. Ms.
Homiak seconded. Carried unanimously.
B. Endorse 2022 Congestion Management Process Update
Ms. Otero: The CMC adopted the Transportation System Performance Report last year
as part of the Congestion Management Process (CMP), this will incorporate that report into
3
CMP. Introduced Mr. Ian Debnam of Benesch, formally Tindale Oliver (recently merged with
Benesch).
Mr. Debnam: Presented the Congestion Management Process Update. The CMP Update
process started in December 2021 and will wrap up with Board Approval in September 2022. A
CMP is guided by an 8-step framework from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). There
are three main components: 1) update the CMP document, 2) evaluate congested corridors and
come back in March with a draft and in July with public friendly fact sheets, 3) county wide
origin and destination study further down the road. The methodology will be brought to the
committee in May with results in July, you will be able to comment in July. It was last updated
in 2017. This update will incorporate analysis for 2020, and include several items from the
TSPR: objectives, strategies, and evaluation criteria. The document will be reorganized to match
the 8 step process and will be more user friendly. The flowchart shows the process and will be in
the document. Steps 1 through 8 are meant to be a cycle, however the process doesn’t always
restart at 1 after 8. Asking for approval and feedback.
Mr. Khawaja: Mr. Scott, do you have something like this?
Mr. Scott: We had a lot of criteria and did a state of the system report. Last time we did a
Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) plan. SR 78 was identified and
we’re looking for improvements in that corridor. TSMO was similar.
Mr. Khawaja: You’re going to evaluate whole network, what and how?
Mr. Debnam: Evaluation was done in the Baseline Conditions Report, the analysis
looked at existing plus planned projects to 2023, to see how people experience congestions based
on criteria. It will be revisited periodically to readdress congestion and incorporate programmed
projects to address congestion and the use of performance measures to determine how it
addresses congestion concerns and whether they need to be revisited. The evaluation is similar to
LRTP modeling for future conditions and compared to baseline conditions.
Mr. Khawaja: What are you looking for from the committee?
Mr. Debnam: Looking for an endorsement of the draft, any changes. It’s new in the way
it’s packaged but it’s not new information. Data from the previous baseline conditions and
Transportation System Performance Report (TSPR) has been incorporated in revisions.
Mr. DeLeon: The next stage, when you’re looking at strategies, Table 6.2 is siloed based
on mode, but when you’re looking at evaluating strategies are you looking at different layers and
modes, looking at pedestrians, single occupancy vehicles, and transit?
Mr. Debnam: Everything is on the table; those can be revisited if new strategies become
popular or are recommended by federal or state governments. What’s in there is a little of both,
some is based on mode like transit, some spans multiple modes like safety. It’s organized to do it
in different ways, the key recommended strategies likely won’t change much like transit
4
vouchers or improved safety on sidewalks those might be put in a different category but looking
at them individually they’re well represented.
Mr. Blaine: We asked questions about how the MPO is doing it, they’re using TSMO
which uses those strategies, your process allows you to bring things forward during the funding
cycle. The framework here is saying we’ve looked at areas of congestion and identified many
potential strategies in different modes too. Gives you the opportunity to look at strategies for hot
spots as projects move through the CMC prioritization process.
Mr. Debnam: A good example is schools, there’s a segment of strategies for areas with
school traffic so if that applied to that corridor you could go to that section.
Mr. Khawaja: They can’t store the demand for schools, they use roads to do that.
Ms. Homiak moved to endorse 2022 Congestion Management Process Update. Mr.
DeLeon seconded. Carried unanimously.
C. Endorse Congested Corridors Evaluation Methodology
Mr. Debnam: Presented the Congested Corridors Evaluation Methodology. There are the
Tier 1 and Tier 2 Congested Corridors that came from the TSPR, these are the worst congested
corridors based on analysis. These are the corridors that we will use existing data and sources to
analyze conditions and congestion to see what’s going wrong or causing congestion. The result is
going to be 10 fact sheets that overview the top 10 congestion corridors. We had 15 corridors
from Tier 1 and Tier 2 from the last process, so we consolidated the corridors using segments
located on the same road. The best example is Immokalee Road, it had several segments but is
now corridor 6. As we’re doing analysis, we may need to look at the corridor segments
separately as there could be different issues creating congestion, however, we will explain the
issues in a single fact sheet for each corridor. They all touch end to end so it doesn’t make sense
to do one and not the other.
Mr. Khawaja: These 10 covered all 15?
Mr. Debnam: Yes
Mr. Rivera: Are they prioritized?
Mr. Debnam: They are not prioritized beyond Tiers 1, 2, and 3, they aren’t ranked.
Behind the scenes the main data source is Regional Integrated Transportation Information
System (RITIS) and Replica. FDOT is used for supplementary data for roadway characteristics.
The RITIS platform has been developed by the University of Maryland and works by feeding
speed data from private vendors to allow users to look and use as an analysis tool with different
outputs (graphs, tables, timelapse, etc.).
Mr. Khawaja: Does Benesch have license or FDOT?
5
Mr. Debnam: FDOT has RITIS and holds the license to provide access to each district
and MPO. Replica is private and requires a subscription, and Benesch has a Replica subscription.
Replica’s data is only available through a consulting contract.
Ms. Otero: Anne granted them [Benesch] access to RITIS as our consultant.
Mr. Debnam: It’s kind of confusing but basically the Project Manager at an agency
sends an email vouching for the consultant.
Mr. Rivera: FDOT showed City of Naples and it showed certain sections of road were
congestion but on the live cameras it wasn’t congested.
Mr. Debnam: There could be reasons why it isn’t accurate, it is transparent about that.
Replica gives you a percentage of accuracy based on data sources. Rural areas with fewer
signals may be less accurate, but a busy arterial in major area would have more activity to read
and is more accurate. There’s a learning curve to know when it’s reliable versus when to take a
second look. It’s near real time data, it’s not using three year old data, some is as recent as last
week. We can use historic information for patterns. There’s lots of flexible options, the proposed
option is to use 2021 data. We were struggling with pre-COVID versus during COVID. 2019
was the last normal year, but now things are returning to more normal than 2020 and recency is
more valuable.
Mr. Khawaja: Did you compare the two to see it?
Mr. Debnam: Some tools make it quick to snapshot, it’s hard to do a full look, but
preliminarily we can look at a couple indicators.
Mr. Khawaja: Do you look at speed?
Mr. Debnam: Yes. RITIS and Replica let us look at the time of day for peak travel times
and days of the week, and time of the year for season and visitors etc. We’re planning to do more
detail about data sources. RITIS has the average travel time, congestion percentage, and vehicle
speeds to see how the road is performing. We want to relay this in a way that’s easy to
understand for the public, vehicle speed is easy to understand. For example: at 5 pm the average
speed is 36 mph versus 46 mph at other times, that is easier to understand. We can look at
bottleneck data, traffic queues, length of queues, estimated number of cars, delay time, purpose
of trips, recreational mode information, bike ped info, etc.
Mr. Khawaja: How?
Mr. Debnam: Different sources, it’s not forthright but would they probably give it if
asked, A lot is from cell phone apps, Replica does economic factors, jobs, industry lots of census
information.
Mr. Khawaja: Do they track you going to Publix?
6
Mr. Scott: There are probably searches in Publix. If you’re going to place for 8 hours,
it’s probably work.
Mr. Debnam: I don’t know the algorithms.
Ms. Homiak: I got a report from my Google phone of where I went all last year and
miles and how long I spent there.
Mr. Khawaja: Google tracks everything, with data coming from phones and cars. The
only thing missing is volume.
Mr. Debnam: RITIS is not the best with volume, it does speed and performance, but not
the number of vehicles. We rely on an agency like FDOT or the planning department to feed
them volume data. They [RITIS] put an assumption factor but include a disclaimer that if an
agency has more accurate data to send it. If you do traffic counts send them our way so we may
load them into RITIS.
Mr. Khawaja: Mr. Blain has access to our traffic counts.
Mr. Scott: StreetLight does the same.
Mr. Khawaja: That’s expensive and they massage the data.
Mr. Debnam: Traffic volumes are great for predicting and making statements about
congestion, but we do not want to include a lot of volume information on the public factsheets,
but the information is helpful to us. We lean toward providing speed and travel time information
for members of the public.
Mr. Scott: It’s still acceptable levels of service, which people hate to hear.
Mr. Debnam: It’s typical for arterial roads.
Mr. Khawaja: Is this a corridor or a point? How do you do it?
Mr. Debnam: You can define the segment length, this is a segment, it’s usually divided
at major intersections.
Mr. Blain: I remember doing a System Performance Report with 6-month access to data,
one of those observations is similar: Immokalee Road east of 951 as traffic comes in from the
east but looking at that stretch to Wilson Boulevard or Oil Well Road the averages are high
because of conditions, intersection congestion, travel speed. This doesn’t dip below failing. The
bottleneck tool pinpoints point level congestion.
Mr. Khawaja: We will need a graph of the whole road, to see smoothness, delays, drops
etc to know what kind of delays or bottleneck spots.
7
Mr. Scott: RITIS is better now, but there could be an incident out there or wrong data.
Mr. Khawaja: That’s the same as google.
Mr. Debnam: Looking at an extended time period helps, one incident could skew the
data, and there are pitfalls if the roadway is under construction.
Mr. Khawaja: He’s talking about real time.
Mr. Debnam: RITIS is used by Traffic Operations.
Mr. Khawaja: Sometimes it’s not bad, you must understand data.
Mr. Debnam: You can display different metrics with different colors. A lot of times its
green (good) for the whole day, you can see what time the congestion starts and ends. Visuals
help with patterns. You can export the data into Excel, and it is color coded. Replica is not as
visual, it does provide data that can be transposed into a graph. We’re looking for the committee
to endorse this.
Mr. Khawaja: We need someone to explain RITIS
Ms. Otero: We talked about someone from FDOT to come in, but we didn’t have time,
we will follow up.
Mr. Khawaja: Give us examples, it could help everyone: operations, planning, transit.
Mr. Scott: If you asked me before this meeting about the average travel length on
Airport Road north of Pine Ridge Road, I don’t think I’d say 12 miles, it disproves our impact
fees, that’s a long trip.
Mr. Debnam: These slides are Frankensteined, this may not be the information for this
corridor.
Mr. Scott: It proved some of the things we have problems with.
Ms. Lantz: We recently did 2 studies, Pine Ridge Road from Livingston Road to I-75,
which I think is Corridor 8, and Immokalee Road from Livingston Road to Logan Boulevard.
We have—with those studies—made recommendations and are moving projects into the Work
Program. Now that you’re doing analysis, how will that work? We’re recommending an
overpass, but if you come back with strategies, hoping they don’t replicate studies we already
adopted.
Mr. Debnam: We will look at planned projects and we should know about the TIP and
LRTP and County and City projects, and we’ll try not to duplicate, that’s the goal.
Mr. Khawaja: There’s good data you may want, counts, data etc.
8
Mr. Scott: The evaluation criteria has higher scores for things in the pipeline, FDOT gets
crazy when you switch the order and cycle through.
Mr. Rivera: Vanderbilt Beach Road
Mr. Khawaja: Fighting it every year, finally lost or won, it’s good for the community.
Mr. DeLeon moved to endorse Congested Corridors Evaluation Methodology. Mr.
Rivera seconded. Carried unanimously.
8. Reports and Presentations (May Require Committee Action)
A. CAT – Transit Signal Priority & Automatic Vehicle Location System Update
Mr. DeLeon: We are finalizing the contract for our CAT Automatic Vehicle Location
(AVL) system and computer aided dispatch and location system. The system we have now is
about 10 years old, we had an assessment done for the technology and one of the
recommendations was to update the AVL system. We put together a solicitation to either
upgrade or replace the system. We made a recommendation and selection with a French
company ENGIE. The project includes the hardware in the buses and the software that schedules
and sees performance. This will give information on the number of riders, if there are delays or
detours to keep people up to date. We’re upgrading signage at the transfer stations; and we are
adding kiosk signs so people who need more information can get it on the display board. We are
also adding signage to show which route is pulling into the bay. The software will help with
scheduling the operators and business intelligence.
Mr. Khawaja: This is a total replacement?
Mr. DeLeon: Yes, and enhancements. In addition to AVL we are enhancing our fare
boxes and mobile ticketing and adding separate software on the paratransit side. These systems
will pull together the information so we have a better understanding of the data. We’re working
on Transit Signal Prioritization (TSP), tied into this new technology. We’re working with Mr.
Khawaja and Leandro Goicoechea and others in Traffic Ops. We coordinated with them to vet
the scope of work and assist with the language. We are defining items. It is hardware in the bus
and on the cabinets at intersections. There are different options for TSPs, infrared is the current
system the firetrucks and ambulances use. We’re looking at a GPS solution to see the location of
the bus, how late is it running, how many people are on it. The system will send a request to
lengthen or truncate the signal at a lower priority than emergency services. We’re looking at 50
intersections to see how it performs based on current reliability and on time performance. Our
hope is to share the data and how it’s working. We’re making sure that existing traffic signal and
other technology work together and that nothing gets interrupted with this new system. Our plan
is to finalize the contract in March and the project is 12 months.
Mr. Tisch: Is it part of a grant?
9
Mr. DeLeon: Yes, grants are being used for portions of the project.
Mr. Khawaja: The difference between preemption and low priority is that with
preemption for emergency services we would interrupt the flow to give a green light fastest, the
only signal that can’t be terminated immediately is when it’s in conflict with a walk signal just in
case there’s a wheelchair crossing. They will zigzag if needed. For low priority transit, the bus
analyzes itself first—am I late? How far from the intersection am I? —and the bus decides and
sends a request if needed. The buses don’t want to be ahead of schedule either. If signal is green
and knows bus is 10 seconds away it will stay green longer than usual. If it’s serving a side street
it will cut the side street sooner. It doesn’t interrupt or preempt a change.
Mr. Rivera: If it gives 10 additional seconds, will it shorten the cycle?
Mr. Khawaja: Yes, it will shorten it, depends on the time of day, how much time can I
give up? But it will go back to normal.
Mr. Rivera: How does the number of people matter?
Mr. DeLeon: If its empty it doesn’t matter if there’s more people you won’t want them
to be late.
Mr. Khawaja: They are weighted items, you can say if there’s 20 people on the bus and
it’s running a minute late it’s more critical to act, if there are only 5 people maybe it can be 3
minutes late. We are trying to code each firetruck using system and we’re almost there, but it’s
hard because you need the code of each truck, but a lot are coded 000, they can preempt but are
not identified. We’d would like to see report of trips and the time, are they emergencies, why is
this one doing it 20 times when most are doing it 3 times? If there are units purchased online, we
want to be able to shut them off.
Mr. Tisch: Is the technology being used in other places in Florida?
Mr. DeLeon: Orlando uses same technology combination. The technology is the same as
what’s already existing in the cabinets in Collier, and they’ve done some of these with other bus
systems. Next, we’ll look at different thresholds, in some places transit has priority over
everything. There are different opportunities here. For mobile ticketing the QR code is live so it
can’t have a picture taken. Tampa’s HART system is operating similarly. We’re looking at
working with Lee Tran for regional fares, LinC, Route 600 comes into Collier County.
Mr. Khawaja: They’ve done it for tolls, they can do it for transit. especially neighboring
counties.
B. FDOT – US 41 FRAME Presentation
Tabled to next meeting.
9. Member Comments
10
Mr. Khawaja: Double check if Lorraine or Mike is the voting member.
10. Distribution Items
11. Next Meeting Date
March 16, 2022 – 2:00 p.m.
12. Adjournment
There being no further comments or business to discuss, Mr. Khawaja adjourned the
meeting at 3:18 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COMMITTEE ACTION
ITEM 7A
2022 Congestion Management Process Update
OBJECTIVE: For the committee to receive an update on the consultant’s progress and provide comments
on the congested corridors evaluation and suggested data for the fact sheets.
CONSIDERATIONS: The Congestion Management Committee reviewed changes to the Congestion
Management Process (CMP) at the January meeting. The next step is to prepare the fact sheets for the ten
corridors identified based upon the methodology presented to the committee at the January meeting.
The consultant will provide an overview of the presentation (Attachment 1) which includes examples of
data that can be included in the fact sheets. An example fact sheet is included as Attachment 2 and a
summary of the preliminary corridor data as Attachment 3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the presentation and provide guidance to the consultant
regarding data to be included in the fact sheets.
Prepared By: Brandy Otero, Collier MPO Principal Planner
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Consultant Presentation
2. Example Fact Sheet
3. Preliminary Data Summary
Congestion Management
Process Update
Congestion Management Committee
March 16, 2022
Item 7A - Attachment 1
•Recap of CMP Update Process and
Project Schedule
•Congested Corridors Evaluation Results
•Summary of Available Data for Top 10
•Example of Preliminary Data Results
•Corridor Summary Fact Sheets
•Data and Visualization Preferences
•Layout Options
•Next Steps
•Requested Actions
Today’s Agenda
Congested Corridors Evaluation Results
Summary of Available Data and Visualization Options
Date/Metrics Available Visualization Options Intended Use(s)
Speed and Travel Time •Graph (time of day and direction)•Time of day traffic patterns
Congestion % and Speed •Map, Graphic Chart, or Colorized Matrix
(time of day, direction, and roadway segment)
•Time of day traffic patterns
•Problematic locations
Bottleneck Queue Length and Avg Daily Duration •Map
•Graphic Chart (location and time of day/year)
•Location of recurring bottlenecks
•Severity of recurring bottlenecks
•Trends in bottleneck occurrences
Delay Cost and Hours of Delay •Colorized Matrix (time of day/year)•Time of year patterns
•Time of day patterns
Trip Origin/Destination (Census Block Group)•Map
•Broad travel patterns
•Solution recommendations
Trip Purpose •Graph or Infographic
Trip Mode •Graph or Infographic
Trip Start Times •Graph or Infographic
Trip Length (in Miles and Minutes)•Graph or Infographic
Planned/Programmed Improvement Projects •Map •Solution recommendations
Corridor #5: Golden Gate Pkwy
(from Santa Barbara Blvd to Collier Blvd)
Congested Corridors Evaluation Results
Congested Corridors Evaluation Results
Corridor #5: Golden Gate Pkwy
(from Santa Barbara Blvd to Collier Blvd)
Initial Corridor Observations:
•Significant number of school zones
influence traffic patterns
•Weekend congestion does not seem
to be a problem
•4PM to 5PM is the most common
time period for recurring delays
•EB travel seems to be the most
problematic direction
•Most trips are to/from immediately
surrounding areas using I-75, Collier
Blvd, and western Golden Gate Pkwy
•Planned improvement projects:
1. Collier Blvd Widening (4 to 6 lanes)
2. Santa Barbara Canal Bridge
Surrounding Schools in Yellow:
2
1
Congested Corridors Evaluation Results
Corridor #5: Golden Gate Pkwy
(from Santa Barbara Blvd to Collier Blvd)
Data and Visualization
•Data/Metric Preferences?
•Speed, travel time, congestion %
•Bottleneck queue length,
duration, location
•Delay costs, hours of delay
•Trip O/D, purpose, length, mode
•Visualization Preferences?
•Maps (aerial vs. graphic)
•Bar graphs / Line charts
•Roadway congestion diagrams
•Colorized matrix
•Infographics with key stats
Congested Corridors Evaluation Results
Visualization Examples:
•Size and Layout:
•11x17 fold over for
maximum space
•All ten with consistent
layout, graphics, and
information provided
•Are there metrics or
graphic elements that
should be prioritized
or featured more
prominently for the
public audience?
Corridor Summary Fact Sheets
8.5x11 FRONT COVER 8.5x11 BACK COVER
11x17 INSIDE
Other Items:
•Improvement strategy
recommendations
•Challenges and opportunities
for each corridor
•Overview map showing all
ten corridors and all planned
improvement projects in the
County
•Other ideas or information
not mentioned yet?
Corridor Summary Fact Sheets
•Present 2022 CMP document to MPO
Board for adoption
•Progress update for MPO TAC/CAC
•Review planned projects and develop
solutions for Top 10 corridors
•Develop corridor fact sheet layouts
•Present draft fact sheets and
methodology for countywide O&D
analysis at next CMC meeting
Next Steps
Upcoming 2022 CMC Meeting Topics
May 18
•Draft Summaries with Potential
Strategies for Top 10 Corridors
•Methodology for Countywide
O&D Analysis
July 20
•Countywide O&D Analysis
Results
•Top 10 Corridor Summary Fact
Sheets
Other Upcoming 2022 Meetings
March 28 MPO TAC/CAC Updates
April 8 MPO Board Update
Today’s Requested Actions
For the Committee to:
•Endorse the preliminary congested corridor data results and approach
for developing summary fact sheets based on review and discussion.
Contact
Wally Blain, AICP
Benesch Project Manager
813-224-8862
wblain@benesch.com
OR
Ian Debnam, AICP
954-641-5680
idebnam@benesch.com
Brandy Otero
MPO Project Manager
239-252-5859
Brandy.otero@colliercountyfl.gov
Congestion Management
Process Update
Congestion Management Committee
March 16, 2022
ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Highways, arterials, and major roads are important connectors for both
goods and people making local and regional trips. Many of these roads
serve multiple users, including bicycles, pedestrians, cars, public transit,
trucks and emergency vehicles. They connect communities to
employment, activity centers, and other important destinations.
IMPORTANCE OF HIGHWAYS, ARTERIALS, AND MAJOR ROADS
Support all transportation modes: Alameda County’s roadway network
provides critical connectivity for cyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, trucks
and cars.
Provide direct access to housing, employment, and activity centers:
Arterials and major roads are the critical link between the regional and
local transportation networks. They provide connections to home, work
and almost every other destination.
Support growth of jobs and housing: Highways, arterials and major roads
support existing land uses, and can provide opportunities to support
planned land uses.
Continuous and connected network for all modes: Local governments,
limited by the existing right-of-way, cannot increase vehicle capacity to
keep pace with demand. Instead, cities are increasing overall person-
throughput by designing streets to be safe and convenient for all modes,
each of which should have a complete, continuous and connected
network available.
Alameda County Roadways: Critical Connectivity for Every Mode
Alameda County Transportation Commission | www.AlamedaCTC.org
FACT SHEET
3,978 total miles of roadways
in Alameda County include:
•70 miles on 11 highways
• 1,200 miles of arterials
and 2,700 miles of major
local roads
At-a-Glance:
January 2020
Alameda County Highways, Arterials, and Major Roads
Item 7A - Attachment 2
Highways State
Route Cities Direction Highway
Miles
Peak
Daily Volume
Average AM
Peak Period
Auto Speed*
Average PM
Peak Period
Auto Speed*
Ashby Ave SR-13 Berkeley E/W 3.8 30,500
at Domingo Ave 21.8 16.7
Doolittle Dr, Otis Dr,
Broadway, Encinal
Ave, Central Ave,
Webster St
SR-61 Alameda N/S 5.7 41,500
at Alameda-San
Leandro Bridge
22.3 22.6
42nd Ave SR-77 Oakland E/W 0.4 21,800
at I-880 19.2 22.3
Niles Canyon,
Thornton Ave,
Fremont Ave,
Peralta Ave,
Mowry Ave
SR-84
Fremont/Pleasanton
Livermore/
Unincorporated
County
E/W 21.9
71,000
at Thornton Ave/
Paseo Padre
Pkwy
34.2 33.9
Foothill Ave,
Jackson St SR-92 Hayward E/W 3.4 48,000
at Santa Clara St 23.4 18.5
Davis St SR-112 San Leandro E/W 1.8 55,000
at I-880 16.3 13.8
San Pablo Ave SR-123 Albany/Berkeley
Emeryville/Oakland N/S 5.2
27,500
at Alameda/
Contra Costa
Line
18.4 15.3
International Blvd/
East 14th SR-185 Oakland/San Leandro/
Hayward N/S 9.7 25,500
at 44th Ave 18.7 16.4
Mission Blvd SR-238 Hayward/Union City/
Fremont N/S 29.3 32,500
at SR-84 27.1 24.9
Webster/Posey
Tubes SR-260 Alameda/Oakland N/S 1.4 30,000
on entire route 25.3 26.2
Mission Blvd SR-262 Fremont E/W 1.6 78,000
at I-680 31.9 26.5
2 | Alameda CTC
Alameda County Highways, Arterials, and Roads Fact Sheet
Alameda County Highway Inventory
* Directional miles of LOS-F as defined in Alameda CTC 2018 LOS Monitoring Report page 18.
ARTERIALS AND MAJOR ROADS
Alameda CTC has a designated Congestion
Management Program network, which evaluates
roadway performance every two years. This
information is reported in charts and graphs
as part of this fact sheet.
LOCAL ROADS
Local jurisdictions manage a network of about
3,500 miles of roads and report their condition to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission annually,
which is captured in the Pavement Condition
Index (PCI).
Arterial and Road Performance
In 2018, even as congestion on freeways stabilized, congestion on arterial roads continued to build. This
may be the result of chronic congestion on freeways, as motorists seek out new routes using arterial roads.
Alameda County Highways, Arterials, and Roads Fact Sheet
www.AlamedaCTC.org | 3AVERAGE ARTERIAL SPEED (MPH)Auto travel speeds
are declining.
Morning and
afternoon peak travel speeds
on arterials both decreased about
15 percent in the last four years.
Travel speeds on arterial roads
continued to fall in 2018 even as
speeds on freeways and highways
remained stable.
Bus transit speeds
are falling.
Most bus
operator’ speeds
dropped for the third consecutive
year. Building congestion on
arterial roads has slowed buses
and trucks. This has contributed
to rising operating costs. In 2019,
commercial bus speeds improved
for AC Transit for the first time since
2007. However, average speeds
for AC Transit and LAVTA are down
around 10 percent since 2010.
Road conditions
are stable.
Countywide, PCI has
remained stable over
the last decade, matching the Bay
Area average. In 2018, some of
the worst performing jurisdictions,
Berkeley and Oakland, improved
the most.AVERAGE COMMERCIAL SPEED (MPH) 19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
26.0
27.0
2012 2014 2016 2018 Average Arterial Speed (mph) PM peak-period AM peak-period PERCENT OF LANE MILESAVERAGE PCI8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
AC Transit LAVTA Union City Transit
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008-9 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Poor or Failed At Risk, Fair, or Good
Very Good or Excellent Average PCI
Alameda County Highways, Arterials, and Roads Fact Sheet
ALAMEDA
County TransportationCommission
1111 Broadway
Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 208-7400
AlamedaCTC.org
Challenges and Opportunities for Major Roads
Highways, arterials, and major roads serve a unique role as a connector between the regional and local
transportation systems and directly link to local land uses (commercial and residential corridors). They must
facilitate throughput for all modes and support local land use.
CHALLENGES
Demand for roadway use is rising: Regional economic and population
growth have increased demand for goods and services, and a variety of
users, including cars, transit, bikes and trucks are competing to access
the same roads.
Trip Diversion: Widespread congestion on freeways diverts trips
onto adjacent arterials and local roads. The proliferation of wayfinding
apps has exacerbated this problem, opening more local roads to
cut-through traffic.
OPPORTUNITIES
Complete streets: Consistent with state legislation, every city in Alameda
County has adopted complete streets policies, which ensure that all
projects, including basic street repaving, will look for opportunities to
improve biking, walking and transit.
Multimodal Arterial Plan: The Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan
provides a roadmap for a future with improved mobility for all modes on
a continuous and connected network, which can increase the efficiency
and throughput of the entire transportation system.
Reducing conflict through design: Thoughtful facility design, operation,
and maintenance can increase efficiency by reducing auto and
transit delay and improve safety for all modes by reducing the
severity of collisions. This promotes public health and creates vibrant
local communities.
Advanced technologies: Emerging technologies can improve the
operational efficiency of roadways while also supporting alternative
4 | Alameda CTC
Data sources: 2016 Alameda Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan, Countywide Travel Demand Model, 2012-2018 LOS Monitoring Reports,
National Transit Database FY2007-08 through FY2015-16, Commercial Bus Speeds, Transit Operator Provided Provisional Data FY2016-17,
Commercial Bus Speeds, Alameda CTC; MTC Vital Signs 2016, Pavement Condition Index, Metropolitan Transportation Commission; California
Department of Transportation, 2016 Annual Average Daily Traffic Data Book.
Traffic Volume:
40 percent of daily trips on Alameda County roads
carried by 1,200 miles
of arterials
23 percent or almost 850 miles
rated “poor, or failing”
Pavement Conditions:
Almost half of locally-managed roadways
rated “excellent or very good”
Collier MPO – Congestion Management Process
Congested Corridors Evaluation
Preliminary Data Summary Sheets | Corridor #1
Corridor #1: Airport-Pulling Rd from Pine Ridge Rd to Orange Blossom Dr
CORRIDOR INFORMATION
Corridor Length (Miles) 1.4 MPO CMP Tier Classification Tier 2
Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH Estimated Corridor Travel Time 4-5 Min
AADT 40,500 LOS C
RITIS DATA REPLICA DATA
Avg Weekday Travel Speed NB- 33 MPH
SB- 32 MPH Total Trips 94,000
Avg Weekend Travel Speed NB- 36 MPH
SB- 36 MPH Avg Trip Length 12. miles
Lowest Avg Weekday Travel Speed 26 MPH
NB @ 2PM Avg Trip Duration 18 min
Lowest Avg Weekend Travel Speed 30 MPH
NB @ 12PM Private Automobile Mode Share 88.6%
Total Estimated Delay Costs $218,000 Most Common Trip Purpose
(Other Than Home/Work) Shopping
Total Vehicle-Hours of Delay 7,232 Most Common Start Trip Time 4PM
Most Severe Recurring Bottleneck Most Common Trip Origin/Destination
Direction & Location SB @ Pine
Ridge Rd
North of Pine Ridge Road between Goodlette Frank
Road and Airport Pulling Road.
Other Common Origins / Destinations: South of
Orange Blossom Dr. and east of Airport Pulling Rd.
Avg Queue Length (Miles) 2.21
Avg Daily Duration 27 Min
Trend(s) Primarily
PM Peak
Most Severe Recurring Congestion Area
Highest Avg Congestion 80% of free-
flow speed
Location Pine Ridge
Rd
Direction & Time SB @ 12 PM
Other Notable Areas of Congestion None N Item 7A - Attachment 3
Collier MPO – Congestion Management Process
Congested Corridors Evaluation
Preliminary Data Summary Sheets | Corridor #2
Corridor #2: Collier Blvd from Vanderbilt Beach Rd to Immokalee Rd
CORRIDOR INFORMATION
Corridor Length (Miles) 2.01 MPO CMP Tier Classification Tier 1
Posted Speed Limit 45 Estimated Corridor Travel Time 3-4 Min
AADT 34,000 LOS D
RITIS DATA REPLICA DATA
Avg Weekday Travel Speed NB- 38 MPH
SB- 37 MPH Total Trips 53,000
Avg Weekend Travel Speed NB- 41 MPH
SB- 40 MPH Avg Trip Length 19 miles
Lowest Avg Weekday Travel Speed 29 MPH
SB @ 8PM Avg Trip Duration 28 min
Lowest Avg Weekend Travel Speed 31 MPH
NB @ 12PM Private Automobile Mode Share 89.5%
Total Estimated Delay Costs $131,000 Most Common Trip Purpose
(Other Than Home/Work) Shopping
Total Vehicle-Hours of Delay 4,345 Most Common Start Trip Time 4PM
Most Severe Recurring Bottleneck Most Common Trip Origin/Destination
Direction & Location SB @
Immokalee Rd
West of Collier Blvd between Vanderbilt Beach
Rd and Immokalee Rd.
Other Common Origins / Destinations: North of
Vanderbilt Beach Rd and east of Collier Blvd.
Avg Queue Length (Miles) 0.03
Avg Daily Duration 3 Hr 11 Min
Trend(s) Primarily AM/PM
Peak
Most Severe Recurring Congestion Area
Highest Avg Congestion 82% of free-flow
speed
Location Vanderbilt
Beach Rd
Direction & Time SB @ 8AM
Other Notable Areas of Congestion None
Collier MPO – Congestion Management Process
Congested Corridors Evaluation
Preliminary Data Summary Sheets | Corridor #3
Corridor #3: Davis Blvd from US 41 / Tamiami Trail to Airport-Pulling Rd
CORRIDOR INFORMATION
Corridor Length (Miles) 1.01 MPO CMP Tier Classification Tier 2
Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH Estimated Corridor Travel Time 2-3 Min
AADT 21,000 LOS C
RITIS DATA REPLICA DATA
Avg Weekday Travel Speed EB- 28 MPH
WB- 31 MPH Total Trips 32,000
Avg Weekend Travel Speed EB- 30 MPH
WB- 32 MPH Avg Trip Length 15 miles
Lowest Avg Weekday Travel Speed 22 MPH
EB @ 3 PM Avg Trip Duration 21 min
Lowest Avg Weekend Travel Speed 26 MPH
EB @ 12 PM Private Automobile Mode Share 87.9%
Total Estimated Delay Costs $34,000 Most Common Trip Purpose
(Other Than Home/Work) Shopping
Total Vehicle-Hours of Delay 1,147 Most Common Start Trip Time 4PM
Most Severe Recurring Bottleneck Most Common Trip Origin/Destination
Direction & Location EB @ Airport Rd North of Davis Blvd. between Airport Pulling
Road and 5th Ave
Other Common Origins / Destinations: South of
Davis Blvd between US 41 and Airport Pulling
Road
Avg Queue Length (Miles) 0.97
Avg Daily Duration 5 min
Trend(s) Primarily PM
Peak
Most Severe Recurring Congestion Area
Highest Avg Congestion 82% of free-flow
speed
Location Airport Pulling
Rd
Direction & Time EB @ 3PM
Other Notable Areas of Congestion WB approaching
US-41 during AM
Collier MPO – Congestion Management Process
Congested Corridors Evaluation
Preliminary Data Summary Sheets | Corridor #4
Corridor #4: Golden Gate Pkwy from Livingston Rd to I-75
CORRIDOR INFORMATION
Corridor Length (Miles) 1.03 MPO CMP Tier Classification Tier 2
Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH Estimated Corridor Travel Time 2-3 min
AADT 49,000 LOS D
RITIS DATA REPLICA DATA
Avg Weekday Travel Speed EB- 36 MPH
WB- 35 MPH Total Trips 110,000
Avg Weekend Travel Speed EB- 40 MPH
WB- 38 MPH Avg Trip Length 27miles
Lowest Avg Weekday Travel Speed 27 MPH
EB @ 4 PM Avg Trip Duration 34 min
Lowest Avg Weekend Travel Speed 35 MPH
WB @ 12 PM Private Automobile Mode Share 91.8%
Total Estimated Delay Costs $180,000 Most Common Trip Purpose
(Other Than Home/Work) Shopping
Total Vehicle-Hours of Delay 5,963 Most Common Start Trip Time 4PM
Most Severe Recurring Bottleneck Most Common Trip Origin/Destination
Direction & Location WB @
Livingston Rd North of Radio Rd between Airport Pulling Road
and St. Clair Shores Rd
Other Common Origins / Destinations: South of
Whippoorwill Way and East of Livingston Rd
Avg Queue Length (Miles) 1.03
Avg Daily Duration 14 Min
Trend(s) Primarily AM
Peak
Most Severe Recurring Congestion Area
Highest Avg Congestion 76% of free-
flow speed
Location Livingston Rd
Direction & Time WB @ 8AM
Other Notable Areas of Congestion EB Approaching
I-75
Collier MPO – Congestion Management Process
Congested Corridors Evaluation
Preliminary Data Summary Sheets | Corridor #5
Corridor #5: Golden Gate Pkwy from Santa Barbara Blvd to Collier Blvd
CORRIDOR INFORMATION
Corridor Length (Miles) 2.19 MPO CMP Tier Classification Tier 1
Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH Estimated Corridor Travel Time 4-7 Min
AADT 33,400 LOS D
RITIS DATA REPLICA DATA
Avg Weekday Travel Speed EB- 28 MPH
WB- 27 MPH Total Trips 70k
Avg Weekend Travel Speed EB- 30 MPH
WB- 29 MPH Avg Trip Length 12.3 miles
Lowest Avg Weekday Travel Speed 21 MPH
EB @ 4 PM Avg Trip Duration 12 min
Lowest Avg Weekend Travel Speed 27 MPH
WB @ 12 PM Private Automobile Mode Share 88.8%
Total Estimated Delay Costs $70,000 Most Common Trip Purpose
(Other Than Home/Work) Shopping
Total Vehicle-Hours of Delay 2,328 Most Common Start Trip Time 4PM
Most Severe Recurring Bottleneck Most Common Trip Origin/Destination
Direction & Location EB @ Sunshine
Blvd
East of Santa Barbara Blvd between Golden Gate
Parkway and Coronado Pkwy
Other Common Origins / Destinations: South of
Golden Gate Pkwy West of Tropicana Blvd
Avg Queue Length (Miles) 1.27
Avg Daily Duration 5 Min
Trend(s) Primarily PM
Peak
Most Severe Recurring Congestion Area
Highest Avg Congestion 78% of free-
flow speed
Location Sunshine Blvd
Direction & Time EB @ 4PM
Other Notable Areas of Congestion None
Collier MPO – Congestion Management Process
Congested Corridors Evaluation
Preliminary Data Summary Sheets | Corridor #6
Corridor #6: Immokalee Rd from Goodlette Frank Rd to Collier Blvd
CORRIDOR INFORMATION
Corridor Length (Miles) 6.23 MPO CMP Tier Classification Tier 1 & 2
Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH Estimated Corridor Travel Time 12-13 min
AADT 54,500 LOS C/D/E
RITIS DATA REPLICA DATA
Avg Weekday Travel Speed EB- 33 MPH
WB- 34 MPH Total Trips 320,000
Avg Weekend Travel Speed EB- 36 MPH
WB- 37 MPH Avg Trip Length 21 miles
Lowest Avg Weekday Travel Speed 26 MPH
EB @ 5 PM Avg Trip Duration 29 min
Lowest Avg Weekend Travel Speed 32 MPH
EB @ 2 PM Private Automobile Mode Share 90.0%
Total Estimated Delay Costs $2.72M Most Common Trip Purpose
(Other Than Home/Work) Shopping
Total Vehicle-Hours of Delay 90,246 Most Common Start Trip Time 4PM
Most Severe Recurring Bottleneck Most Common Trip Origin/Destination
Direction & Location EB @ I-75 South of Immokalee Rd between Logan Blvd and
Collier Blvd
Other Common Origins / Destinations: North of
Immokalee Rd between I-75 and Collier Blvd
Avg Queue Length (Miles) 1.84
Avg Daily Duration 45 Min
Trend(s) Primarily PM
Peak
Most Severe Recurring Congestion Area
Highest Avg Congestion 62% of free-
flow speed
Location I-75
Direction & Time EB @ 5PM
Other Notable Areas of Congestion
EB
approaching
Airport Rd
Collier MPO – Congestion Management Process
Congested Corridors Evaluation
Preliminary Data Summary Sheets | Corridor #7
Corridor #7: US 41 / Tamiami Trail from Vanderbilt Beach Rd to Old US 41
CORRIDOR INFORMATION
Corridor Length (Miles) 3.25 MPO CMP Tier Classification Tier 2
Posted Speed Limit 50-55 MPH Estimated Corridor Travel Time 6-7 min
AADT 45,000 LOS C/E
RITIS DATA REPLICA DATA
Avg Weekday Travel Speed NB- 36 MPH
SB- 36 MPH Total Trips 140,000
Avg Weekend Travel Speed NB- 39 MPH
SB- 38 MPH Avg Trip Length 18 miles
Lowest Avg Weekday Travel Speed 26 MPH
NB @ 4 PM Avg Trip Duration 26 min
Lowest Avg Weekend Travel Speed 33 MPH
SB @ 12 PM Private Automobile Mode Share 88.1%
Total Estimated Delay Costs $2.62 M Most Common Trip Purpose
(Other Than Home/Work) Shopping
Total Vehicle-Hours of Delay 86,886 Most Common Start Trip Time 4PM
Most Severe Recurring Bottleneck Most Common Trip Origin/Destination
Direction & Location
NB @
Vanderbilt
Beach Rd
South of Immokalee Rd between US 41 and
Goodlette Frank Rd
Other Common Origins / Destinations: North of
Immokalee Rd between US 41 and Cypress Way
Avg Queue Length (Miles) 0.42
Avg Daily Duration 3 Hr 9 Min
Trend(s) Primarily PM
Peak
Most Severe Recurring Congestion Area
Highest Avg Congestion 44% of free-
flow speed
Location Vanderbilt
Beach Rd
Direction & Time NB @ 4PM
Other Notable Areas of Congestion
NB
approaching
Immokalee Rd
Collier MPO – Congestion Management Process
Congested Corridors Evaluation
Preliminary Data Summary Sheets | Corridor #8
Corridor #8: Pine Ridge Rd from Goodlette Frank Rd to I-75
CORRIDOR INFORMATION
Corridor Length (Miles) 2.43 MPO CMP Tier Classification Tier 1 & 2
Posted Speed Limit 40-45 MPH Estimated Corridor Travel Time 5-6 min
AADT 48,000 LOS C/D/F
RITIS DATA REPLICA DATA
Avg Weekday Travel Speed EB- 30 MPH
WB- 30 MPH Total Trips 160,000
Avg Weekend Travel Speed EB- 35 MPH
WB- 34 MPH Avg Trip Length 16 miles
Lowest Avg Weekday Travel Speed 21 MPH
EB @ 4 PM Avg Trip Duration 22 min
Lowest Avg Weekend Travel Speed 28 MPH
WB @ 12 PM Private Automobile Mode Share 87.8%
Total Estimated Delay Costs $1.43M Most Common Trip Purpose
(Other Than Home/Work) Shopping
Total Vehicle-Hours of Delay 47,584 Most Common Start Trip Time 4PM
Most Severe Recurring Bottleneck Most Common Trip Origin/Destination
Direction & Location EB @ Livingston
Rd
North of Pine Ridge Blvd between Goodlette Frank
Rd and Airport Pulling Rd.
Other Common Origins / Destinations: N and S of
Pine Ridge between Livingston Rd and I-75.
Avg Queue Length (Miles) 1.84
Avg Daily Duration 37 min
Trend(s) Primarily PM
Peak
Most Severe Recurring Congestion Area
Highest Avg Congestion 58% of free-flow
speed
Location Livingston Rd
Direction & Time EB @ 5PM
Other Notable Areas of Congestion EB Approaching
I-75
Collier MPO – Congestion Management Process
Congested Corridors Evaluation
Preliminary Data Summary Sheets | Corridor #9
Corridor #9: Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Airport-Pulling Rd to Livingston Rd
CORRIDOR INFORMATION
Corridor Length (Miles) 1.01 MPO CMP Tier Classification Tier 1
Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH Estimated Corridor Travel Time 1-2 min
AADT 25,550 LOS C
RITIS DATA REPLICA DATA
Avg Weekday Travel Speed EB- 37 MPH
WB- 37 MPH Total Trips 20,000
Avg Weekend Travel Speed EB- 39 MPH
WB- 39 MPH Avg Trip Length 11 miles
Lowest Avg Weekday Travel Speed 27 MPH
EB @ 5 PM Avg Trip Duration 17 min
Lowest Avg Weekend Travel Speed 29 MPH
WB @ 11 AM Private Automobile Mode Share 92.1%
Total Estimated Delay Costs $52,000 Most Common Trip Purpose
(Other Than Home/Work) Shopping
Total Vehicle-Hours of Delay 1,728 Most Common Start Trip Time 8AM
Most Severe Recurring Bottleneck Most Common Trip Origin/Destination
Direction & Location EB @ Livingston
Rd
South of Vanderbilt Beach Rd between Airport
Pulling Rd and Livingston Rd
Other Common Origins / Destinations: North of
Vanderbilt Beach Rd between Logan Blvd and
Collier Blvd
Avg Queue Length (Miles) 1.34
Avg Daily Duration 5 Min
Trend(s) Primarily PM
Peak
Most Severe Recurring Congestion Area
Highest Avg Congestion 82% of free-flow
speed
Location Airport Rd
Direction & Time EB @ 5PM
Other Notable Areas of Congestion None
Collier MPO – Congestion Management Process
Congested Corridors Evaluation
Preliminary Data Summary Sheets | Corridor #10
Corridor #10: Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Vanderbilt Dr to US 41 / Tamiami Trail
CORRIDOR INFORMATION
Corridor Length (Miles) 1.00 MPO CMP Tier Classification Tier 2
Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH Estimated Corridor Travel Time 3-4 min
AADT 11,100 LOS C
RITIS DATA REPLICA DATA
Avg Weekday Travel Speed EB- 26 MPH
WB- 28 MPH Total Trips 21,000
Avg Weekend Travel Speed EB- 26 MPH
WB- 28 MPH Avg Trip Length 12 miles
Lowest Avg Weekday Travel Speed 22 MPH
EB @ 12 PM Avg Trip Duration 18 min
Lowest Avg Weekend Travel Speed 23 MPH
WB @ 11 AM Private Automobile Mode Share 86.3%
Total Estimated Delay Costs $2,000k Most Common Trip Purpose
(Other Than Home/Work) Shopping
Total Vehicle-Hours of Delay 881 Most Common Start Trip Time 4PM
Most Severe Recurring Bottleneck Most Common Trip Origin/Destination
Direction & Location WB @ US 41 North of Vanderbilt Beach Rd between Vanderbilt
Drive and US 41
Other Common Origins / Destinations: Along the
Gulf of Mexico between Vanderbilt Beach Drive and
Clam Pass
Avg Queue Length (Miles) 0.9
Avg Daily Duration 1 Min
Trend(s) Primarily PM
Peak
Most Severe Recurring Congestion Area
Highest Avg Congestion 85% of free-
flow speed
Location US 41
Direction & Time WB @ 4PM
Other Notable Areas of Congestion None
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REPORTS & PRESENTATIONS
ITEM 8A
FDOT District 1 - US 41 FRAME Presentation
OBJECTIVE: For the committee to receive a presentation regarding the FDOT District 1 Florida’s
Regional Advanced Mobility Elements (FRAME) project on US 41 in Lee County.
CONSIDERATIONS: The Florida’s Regional Advanced Mobility Elements (FRAME) project is part of
FDOT’s larger initiative to deploy Connected Vehicle (CV) technology on Florida’s roadways to better
manage, operate, and maintain the multi-modal system, create integrated corridor management solutions,
and improve safety and mobility. Emerging technologies proposed in the FRAME program include
Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures and CV technologies such as Roadside Units and On-
Board Units; Transit Signal Priority and Freight Signal Priority to facilitate the operation of Signal Phase
and Timing; Traveler Information Messages; Emergency Vehicle Preemption; and other applications. The
goal of the project is to improve existing facilities and promote a more effective and efficient transportation
network.
The US 41 FRAME project will deploy emerging safety and mobility solutions such as Automated Traffic
Signal Performance Measures (ATSPM) and Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAV) solutions on US
41 in Lee County with the goal of improving safety and mobility along the corridor.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the committee receive a presentation from FDOT on the FRAME
project on US 41 in Lee County.
Prepared By: Scott Philips, Principal Planner
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. FDOT District 1 US 41 FRAME Presentation
US 41 FRAME PROJECT UPDATEFDOT District One
1
Item 8A- Attachment 1
US 41 FRAME Project Details
•Part of Florida’s Regional Advanced Mobility Elements (FRAME)
•Deployment of CV Technology (RSUs, OBUs, LiDAR, CV
Applications)
•Segment length: 6.44 miles in Lee County
•25 signals
•Interconnected & closely spaced, half-mile
•Lee County has mostly ASC 3 (TS2, 1) and Cobalt’s
(ATC/TS2, 1)
•US 41 is parallel to I-75
•Detour route for incident management
Project Details
Evaluation of CV
Procurement Analysis
System
Engineering
Conclusion
Next Steps
2
Project Approach
•Systems Manager uses the same consultant to:
•Create all Systems Engineering documentation
•Provide full design services
•Assist with procurement as needed
•Perform integration and testing
•The contractor installs all infrastructure
•This allows FDOT to have more flexibility in the choice of
technology
•Lee County will operate and maintain
GOAL: IMPROVE SAFETY AND MOBILITY
US 41 FRAME Project Details
Project Details
System
Engineering
3
Evaluation of CV
Procurement Analysis
Conclusion
Next Steps
Stakeholders
•FDOT District One
•Lee County
•Sherriff’s Department
•Engineering Department
•Department of Public Safety
•LeeTran
•Emergency Services Agencies
•Auto Dealers (15 within our project limits)
•City of Fort Myers
•Fire Department
•Police Department
•Engineering Division
US 41 FRAME Project Details
Project Details
System
Engineering
4
Evaluation of CV
Procurement Analysis
Conclusion
Next Steps
•US 98 at 540A
•Mid-Block
•US 98 at Autumnwood Grove Blvd
•US 98 at Clubhouse Rd
•Signal
•Signal
•Signal
•US 98 at Combee Rd
US 98 at Autumnwood Grove Blvd
US 98 at Clubhouse Rd
Mid-Block
Signal
Signal
Signal
US 98 at Combee Rd
US 98 at 540A
1.US 98 at CR 540A
2.US 98 at Clubhouse Rd
3.US 98 at Autumnwood Grove Blvd
4.US 98 at Combee Rd
CV APPLICATIONS
•Signal Phase &Timing (SPaT)
•Map Data Message (MAP)
•Traveler Information Message (TIM)
•Personal Safety Message (PSM)
•Transit Signal Priority (TSP)
•Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption (EVP)
FOUR TESTED CV PILOT LOCATIONS
US 41 FRAME Project Details
5
US 98 CV PILOT TESTING RESULTS REPORT
•Documented observations of testing relative to performance,
communication, vendor support –2 Reports:
•US 98 CV Pilot Test Report
•Supplemental Ouster Report
•Includes summary matrices/validation plans
•Includes device deployment recommendations
US 41 FRAME Project Details
6
US 98 CV PILOT TESTING RESULTS
•Recommendation:
•Kapsch Dual-Mode RSUs –Qty 25
•Kapsch C-V2X OBUs –Qty 11
•Commsignia C-V2X OBU for interoperability –Qty 1
•Connect:ITS In-cabinet processor –Qty 11
•Ouster LiDAR –Qty 22
US 41 FRAME Project Details
Plans Development
•Final S&S plans
Completed in July 2021
•Coordinating with
adjacent projects,
specifically with project
431313-1. This project
is installing
infrastructure that will
be used by our project
Project Details
System
Engineering
7
Evaluation of CV
Procurement Analysis
Conclusion
Next Steps
Service Package Analysis
•Analyzed the Service Packages currently in use
•FDOT District One
•Lee County Government
•Recommended additional Service Packages
•Increased safety benefits by CV technology
US 41 FRAME System Engineering
•AD1 -ITS Data Mart
•APTS07 -Multi-modal coordination
•APTS08 -Transit Traveler Information
•APTS11 -Multimodal Connection Protection
•ATIS02 -Interactive Traveler Information
•ATIS04 -Dynamic Route Guidance
•ATIS10 -Short Range Communications
Traveler Information
•ATMS19 -Speed Warning and Enforcement
•ATMS24 -Dynamic Roadway Warning
•ATMS26 -Mixed Use Warning Systems
•AVSS01 -Vehicle Safety Monitoring
•AVSS02 -Driver Safety Monitoring
•AVSS03 -Longitudinal Safety Warning
•AVSS04 -Lateral Safety Warning
•AVSS05 -Intersection Safety Warning
•AVSS06 -Pre-Crash Restraint Deployment
•AVSS07 -Driver Visibility Improvement
•CVO08 -On-board CVO Safety
8
Project Details
System
Engineering
Evaluation of CV
Procurement Analysis
Conclusion
Next Steps
Concept of Operations
•Touches on new technologies and concepts related to CV and
how these technologies can be used
•Improves the information obtained for incidents and
congestion along the roadway
•Provides information to motorists
•Provides safer and less congested route choices
•Discusses the current system situation
•Provides justification for changes to the existing system
•Provides concepts for the proposed system
•operational scenarios
•Lists a summary of impacts and an analysis of the
proposed system
US 41 FRAME System Engineering
Project Details
System
Engineering
9
Evaluation of CV
Procurement Analysis
Conclusion
Next Steps
System Validation Plan
•Essential to ensure that stakeholders’ needs are identified
•Scope/Overview of Project
•Conducting the Validation
•Event Identification
•Activities
•Test Results
•Results Report
US 41 FRAME System Engineering
Project Details
System
Engineering
10
Evaluation of CV
Procurement Analysis
Conclusion
Next Steps
PSEMP
•The PSEMP is a plan that helps manage and control the
project
•Utilizes Systems Engineering processes
•Section 1 –Overview of the PSEMP document
•Section 2 –Systems Engineering Processes
•Section 3 –Project Management and Control
US 41 FRAME System Engineering
Project Details
System
Engineering
11
Evaluation of CV
Procurement Analysis
Conclusion
Next Steps
CV Applications
•Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I)
•Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V)
•Vehicle-to-Pedestrians (V2P)
& Passive Pedestrian
Protection/Detection
USDOT Sponsored CV Applications ListingUS 41 FRAME Evaluation of CV Applications
Project Details
System
Engineering
12
Evaluation of CV
Procurement Analysis
Conclusion
Next Steps
US 41 FRAME Evaluation of CV –V2X
•Signal time to change and Red-Light
Violation warning applications:
•SPaT and MAP signal actuation by
lane
•Advanced vehicle detection by lane
•Priority and preemption applications:
•EVP
•TSP and mobility efficiency
•Safety Messaging:
•TIM creation and broadcast via RSU,
OBU and Personal Safety Device
(mobile application)
•Pedestrian & Bicycle mobility and
safety notifications via RSU, OBU
and Personal Safety Device (mobile
application)
•Intelligent Transportation Systems
Operational Data Environment (ITS ODE):
•SPaT, MAP, BSM and TIM data
collection, management, and
distribution/sharing cloud-based
system
13
US 41 FRAME Evaluation of CV
IVP Hubs
•Solution 1 –TrafficCast
•Solution 2 –Cisco (with Quanergy LiDAR)
•Solution 3 –MH Corbin (with Cepton LiDAR, subsequent Ouster LiDAR)
•Solution 4 –Applied Information
RSUs
•TrafficCast DSRC (with OBU)
•Commsignia Dual-Mode (with OBU)
•Kapsch Dual-Mode (with OBU)
•Siemens Dual-Mode
Key Objectives
•CV Technology capabilities/demonstrations
Project Details
System
Engineering
14
Procurement Analysis
Conclusion
Next Steps
Evaluation of CV
US 41 FRAME Evaluation of CV
Commsignia (DSRC,C-V2X)
TrafficCast (DSRC)
ROADSIDE UNITS (RSUs)
DSRC/Vehicle
Bluetooth
Kapsch (DSRC,C-V2X)
Siemens (DSRC,C-V2X)
15
US 41 FRAME Evaluation of CV
ONBOARD UNITS (OBUs )
Commsignia ITS OB-4 (DSRC,C-V2X)
Kapsch CBX 9360 (C-V2X)
TrafficCast DENSO (DSRC)
16
US 41 FRAME Evaluation of CV
Quanergy M8
Cepton Vista P60
Ouster OS1
Iteris RZ4
FLIR TrafiSense 2
SENSORS –LiDAR and Camera
17
US 41 FRAME Evaluation of CV
Applied Information (AI) AI-500-085
MH Corbin Connect:ITS
TrafficCast In-Cabinet Processor
Cisco IC3000
INTEGRATED V2I PROTOTYPE (IVP) HUB (Industrial Computer)
18
Pedestrian Detection Roadside Equipment and Communication
US 41 FRAME Evaluation of CV –V2P
MH Corbin Connect:ITS
MH Corbin’s Safety Message Broadcast Five-Step Methodology
US 41 FRAME Evaluation of CV
TrafficCast TravelSMART Applied Information TravelSAFELY
US 41 FRAME Evaluation of CV
SCMS
•Allows for the
management of security
certificates
•Ensures data is validated
and secure
•SCMS Vendor
•Integrity Security
Services (ISS) –a
Greenhill Company
SCMS Communication Architecture
Project Details
System
Engineering
21
Procurement Analysis
Conclusion
Next Steps
Evaluation of CV
US 41 FRAME Procurement Analysis
Procurement Analysis
•Procurement of Contractor Design-Bid-Build (D-B-B)
Recommendation:Use the existing ITS Maintenance
Contractor to install required infrastructure items
requiring above ground and overhead work
•Procurement of Devices (D-B-B)
Recommendation: ITS Maintenance Contractor
purchase equipment as recommended by the System
Manager and approved by the Department
•Procurement of Materials (D-B-B)
•ITS Maintenance Contractor purchases and is
reimbursed purchase price + 5%
Project Details
System
Engineering
22
Evaluation of CV
Procurement Analysis
Conclusion
Next Steps
US 41 FRAME Conclusion
Timeframes for Construction &Implementation
•(FPID 431313-1) Active Construction Project
-Expected Finish Late 2023
•US 41 FRAME Project Procurement of Some Devices in First
Quarter of 2022
•Installation of devices for 8 Intersections (not affected by
construction project) -First half of 2022
•Remaining Devices to be Installed once (FPID 431313-1) is
Completed
Project Details
System
Engineering
23
Evaluation of CV
Procurement Analysis
Conclusion
Next Steps
US 41 FRAME Next Steps
Next Steps
•Construction/Procurement of devices, software, and hardware
•Integration and Testing
•Near Miss Detection
•CV Deployment
•Coordinate with auto dealers along the corridor
•Bike/Ped -TSM&O / CV Applications
Project Details
System
Engineering
24
Evaluation of CV
Procurement Analysis
Conclusion
Next Steps
Safety Message
Questions?
26