Agenda 09/26/2023 Item #16B 1 (Receive and accept the Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)09/26/2023
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to receive and accept the Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study conducted by Florida
Department of Transportation.
OBJECTIVE: To receive the Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study (Study) conducted by the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT).
CONSIDERATION: In 2020, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) adopted the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Priorities which included a Feasibility Study on SR951 and CR92. The Study was then funded in the
FDOT work program. FDOT developed the scope and hired the consulting firm of Landis Evan Partners to conduct
the Study in March 2022.
The purpose and need of the Study was to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a Shared Use Path (SUP) along
one side of SR 951 (Collier Blvd.) from US41 to the Judge Jolley Bridge (approximately 6.7 miles) and along CR
92 (San Marco Rd.) from US41 to Goodland Rd. (approximately 6.4 miles). The Study identified and reviewed
several constraints to the project including environmental considerations, roadway characteristics, operational
conditions, safety concerns and physical constraints. The Study created several alternatives for a potential future
trail and analyzed each of those in relation to engineering, socioeconomic, environmental criteria, and various cost
factors. During the development of the Study, FDOT conducted surveys at two public outreach events on Marco
Island. The Study’s ultimate recommendation is to move all analysis and documentation forward for a comple te
Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) Study.
The Study developed six alternatives for CR 92 including the no build alternative. The Study recommends that due
to the expected impacts to the wetlands and mangroves within the right-of-way, that a PD&E Study will be required
during the next phase of the project. The Study recommends that three alternatives (Alternatives 4, 5, and 6) be
carried forward to the PD&E phase. The alternatives would be constructed on the West side of the roadway just in
front of the existing power poles. All alternatives are shown and described in the attachment. This study represents
the first step in identifying project constraints and other related information before any additional phase moves
forward.
Discussions have also preliminarily included the potential future maintenance obligations. FDOT staff has indicated
that FDOT would maintain a trail on the FDOT facility (SR951) but would not maintain any amenities on SR951 or
any facilities or amenities on local roads such as CR92. It is anticipated, as the project moves forward that FDOT
will require a fully executed maintenance agreement on any trail segments not currently owned by the state.
The draft Study has been presented to the MPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Marco Island City
Council. During the Marco Island City Council meeting on May 22, 2023, the council indicated they would send a
letter of support for the Study. The Study was presented to the MPO on June 9, 2023 and is expected to be
discussed again at their September 8, 2023 meeting. The MPO Board requested additional information regarding
the estimated costs for construction. FDOT provided a cost estimation for each corridor alternative which were
independently validated by Collier County and confirmed as appropriate planning level cost estimates. It is noted
that the FDOT cost estimates did not include design or construction engineering inspection (CEI), future
maintenance, water treatment, mitigation or guard rail costs.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact to this item, at this time. The Study was completed by FDOT
with funding allocated and prioritized by the MPO. The next phase is to complete a PD&E which would also be
prioritized and funded by the MPO. Subsequent projects or phases, if applicable, would be brought to the Board for
approval and for authorization of a future funding request. It is noted that a maintenance agreement for a future trail
or amenity would also have to be approved by the Board.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This project is consistent with the County’s Growth Management Plan
and the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan.
16.B.1
Packet Pg. 751
09/26/2023
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, raises no legal issues at this
time and requires majority vote for approval. -JAK
RECOMMENDATION: To receive and accept the Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study.
Prepared by: Lorraine Lantz, AICP, Transportation Planning Manager; Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and
Program Management
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study Alternative for CR92 (PDF)
2. Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (PDF)
3. Marco Island Loop Trail - Cost Summary (PDF)
16.B.1
Packet Pg. 752
09/26/2023
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.B.1
Doc ID: 25682
Item Summary: Recommendation to receive and accept the Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study conducted
by Florida Department of Transportation.
Meeting Date: 09/26/2023
Prepared by:
Title: Project Manager – Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management
Name: Lorraine Lantz
06/01/2023 11:27 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Capital Proj Plan, Impact Fees – Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program
Management
Name: Beth Johnssen
06/01/2023 11:27 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Transportation Engineering Michael Tisch Additional Reviewer Completed 06/01/2023 1:47 PM
Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Beth Johnssen Additional Reviewer Completed
06/01/2023 4:36 PM
Transportation Management Services Department Jeanne Marcella Transportation Management Services
Department Completed 06/02/2023 10:28 AM
Transportation Management Operations Support Tara Castillo Additional Reviewer Completed
06/02/2023 12:50 PM
Road Maintenance Ellen Sheffey Additional Reviewer Completed 06/02/2023 1:23 PM
Transportation Engineering Mark McCleary Additional Reviewer Completed 06/02/2023 1:44 PM
Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement Omar Deleon Additional Reviewer Completed
06/02/2023 2:54 PM
Road Maintenance Christopher Covert Additional Reviewer Completed 06/05/2023 10:09 AM
Transportation Management Services Department Trinity Scott Transportation Completed
09/12/2023 9:39 AM
Office of Management and Budget Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 09/12/2023 9:41 AM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 09/13/2023 10:38 AM
Community & Human Services Maggie Lopez Additional Reviewer Completed 09/18/2023 11:40 AM
County Manager's Office Amy Patterson Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 09/18/2023 2:34 PM
Board of County Commissioners Geoffrey Willig Meeting Pending 09/26/2023 9:00 AM
16.B.1
Packet Pg. 753
Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study Alternative for CR92
Alternative Description Rendering
1
No Build – Bicyclists utilize the existing travel lanes, and no
facilities are provided for pedestrians.
2
Paved Shoulder Bike Lanes – A 4’ paved shoulder would be
constructed abutting the travel lanes and no facilities are
provided for pedestrians.
3
7’ Buffered Bike Lane – Bicyclists are accommodated on a
newly constructed 7’ buffered bike lane and no facilities are
provided for pedestrians.
4
Paved Shoulder Bike Lanes and Sidewalk – A 4’ paved
shoulder would be constructed abutting the travel lanes and a
5’ sidewalk, offset 5’ from the edge of travel lane is provided
for pedestrians.
5
Adjacent Asphalt Path – A 10’ paved path would be
constructed abutting the westbound travel lane providing a 2’
buffer and 8’ path. A similar treatment was constructed by
Collier County in 2021 along Goodland Drive.
6
10’ SUP – Bicyclists utilize the existing travel lanes, and a
10’ SUP, offset 5’ from the edge of travel lane, is provided for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
16.B.1.a
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study Alternative for CR92 (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail
Feasibility Study and
Conceptual Design
Collier County, Florida
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report
May 2023
Prepared for:
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 2 of 39
Table of Contents
PROJECT CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Safety: .................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Improve safety conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 6
System linkage:...................................................................................................................................................... 7
Improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity ........................................................................................................ 7
Social and economic demand: ............................................................................................................................... 7
Enhance mobility choices and provide social benefits through outdoor recreation ............................................... 7
Planning Process ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Corridor Segments ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
S.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard) – Shared Use Path Design Alternatives .................................................................... 10
S.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard) – Bridge Alternatives ................................................................................................ 12
S.R. 951 Bridge over McIlvane Bay and S.R. 951 Bridge over McIlvane Creek ................................................ 12
NB and SB S.R. 951 over Henderson Creek ....................................................................................................... 13
C.R. 92 (San Marco Road) – Shared Use Path Design Alternatives ........................................................................ 13
C.R. 92 (San Marco Road) – Bridge Alternatives ................................................................................................... 15
C.R. 92 over Drainage Canal (Bridge No. 034128) ............................................................................................. 15
Goodland Bridge .................................................................................................................................................. 16
Public Engagement .................................................................................................................................................. 16
Survey Results – General background ................................................................................................................. 17
Survey Results – Desirable Multimodal Improvements ...................................................................................... 17
Survey Results – Qualitative Responses .............................................................................................................. 17
Speed Management .................................................................................................................................................. 18
Utilities .................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Utility Coordination ............................................................................................................................................. 18
Existing Utility Facilities Description ................................................................................................................. 19
Trail Amenities ........................................................................................................................................................ 22
Trailheads ............................................................................................................................................................ 22
Wayfinding .......................................................................................................................................................... 23
Transit Stops ........................................................................................................................................................ 23
Signal Enhancements ........................................................................................................................................... 23
Midblock Crossings ............................................................................................................................................. 23
Lighting ............................................................................................................................................................... 24
Mile Marker Symbols .......................................................................................................................................... 24
Shade ................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Call Boxes ........................................................................................................................................................... 24
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 3 of 39
Trash Receptacles ................................................................................................................................................ 24
Technology Considerations ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Trail Counts ......................................................................................................................................................... 24
Mile Marker Information ..................................................................................................................................... 25
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Corridor Segments ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Segment 1 – Judge Jolley Bridge to Capri Boulevard ......................................................................................... 26
Segment 2 – Capri Boulevard to Marco Shores/Mainsail Drive .......................................................................... 26
Segment 3 – Marco Shores/Mainsail Drive to Fiddlers Creek Parkway .............................................................. 27
Segment 4 – Fiddlers Creek Parkway to Henderson Creek Drive ....................................................................... 27
Sociocultural Resources........................................................................................................................................... 28
Utilities .................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Geotechnical and Contamination ............................................................................................................................. 28
Floodplains and Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................ 29
Drainage and Permitting .......................................................................................................................................... 29
S.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard) – Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 30
C.R. 92 (San Marco Road) – Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 31
Cost Estimates ......................................................................................................................................................... 32
Local Agency Coordination ..................................................................................................................................... 36
City of Marco Island ............................................................................................................................................ 36
Collier County ..................................................................................................................................................... 36
Collier MPO ........................................................................................................................................................ 36
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................... 36
S.R. 951 ............................................................................................................................................................... 37
C.R. 92 ................................................................................................................................................................. 38
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 4 of 39
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location Map ................................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2 - Proposed Typical Section for the Henderson Creek Bridge (FPID 435111-2) ........................................... 31
List of Tables
Table 1: Utility Contact Information ........................................................................................................................... 19
Table 2: Cost Estimate for S.R. 951 ............................................................................................................................ 34
Table 3: Cost Estimate for C.R. 92 .............................................................................................................................. 35
Table 4: Comparative Alternative Evaluation Matrix.................................................................................................. 39
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study – Existing Conditions Report
Appendix B – Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study – Summary of Public Engagement
Appendix C – Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study – Utility Coordination
Appendix D – Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study – Cost Estimate Back-up
Appendix E – Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study – Concept Plans
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 5 of 39
PROJECT CONTEXT
The purpose of this project is to support the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) District One, in partnership with the City of Marco Island, Collier County, and
Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), to evaluate the feasibility of a shared
use path (SUP) along State Road (S.R.) 951 (Collier Boulevard) and County Road (C.R.)
92 (San Marco Road) and determine design concepts that should be carried forward to
the Project Development and Environment (PD&E) phase that will complete the Marco
Island Loop. The terminology “trail” has been retained in certain instances as previous
studies and investigations utilized the term. The MPO’s 2019 Bike-Ped Master Plan
identifies the corridor as part of its Shared-Use Nonmotorized (SUN) Trail and Spine Trail
Network. It is also identified as a Land Trail Opportunity Trail/Corridor on the Florida
Greenways & Trails System and will connect the City of Marco Island Bike Path Master
Plan and the Naples Pathways Coalition Paradise Coast Trail Vision. This feasibility study
will determine the need for a subsequent PD&E Study based on the potential project
effects, right-of-way requirements, and in consideration of the potential use of federal
funds for future project phases.
The project includes two study corridors and will generally evaluate the feasibility
of a shared use path to be implemented on either side of the roadway. The first corridor
is along S.R. 951 from the Judge Jolley Bridge to United States (U.S.) 41. The second
corridor is along C.R. 92 from Goodland Road to U.S. 41. Together, these segments will
close the pedestrian and bicycle loop connecting the City of Marco Island with U.S. 41.
The project location is shown in Figure 1.
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 6 of 39
Figure 1: Location Map
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to enhance the regional bicycle and pedestrian
network connecting the City of Marco Island to the Shared-Use Nonmotorized (SUN) Trail
facility along U.S. 41. Additionally, the project will improve bicycle and pedestrian safety
in the study corridors.
The need for the project is based on the following criteria:
Safety:
Improve safety conditions
Safety plays an important role in deciding to utilize a facility. Along S.R. 951, the
majority of the study corridor has no sidewalks, so nonmotorized vehicular travel must
utilize the shoulder or share the travel lanes where the posted speed ranges from 35 MPH
to 55 MPH. Along C.R. 92, the roadway has no sidewalks or paved shoulders along a
roadway posted at 55 MPH.
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 7 of 39
System linkage:
Improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity
The proposed project aligns with the goals of the City of Marco Island and Collier
County to “provide a safe comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network that promotes
and encourages community use and enjoyment” (Collier MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Master
Plan’s Vision). The project would create a connected multimodal transportation system
that links the existing network in the City of Marco Island to the statewide SUN Trail
network along U.S. 41.
Social and economic demand:
Enhance mobility choices and provide social benefits through outdoor recreation
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Division of
Recreation and Parks oversees the Florida Greenways and Trails System (FGTS).
Studies demonstrate that outdoor recreation delivers personal and social benefits on
which healthy, happy communities thrive (FGTS Plan 2019-2023). These study corridors
have been identified as a Land Trail Opportunity Trail/Corridor in the plan. Shared use
path benefits identified in the plan include economic development, opportunities to
support active lifestyles and improve overall health, and increased transportation choices.
FDOT District One will continue to coordinate with the City of Marco Island and
Collier MPO to ensure that the project promotes consistency with local government
comprehensive and transportation plans.
Planning Process
This document represents the culmination of a twelve-month planning effort which
included research and analysis, field work, stakeholder input, and public outreach. The
project was organized into the following five tasks:
Task 1: Project Start Up
Task 2: Research and Analysis / Existing Conditions
Task 3: Alternative Assessment
Task 4: Development of Draft Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report
Task 5: Final Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 8 of 39
An Existing Conditions Report was developed for Task 2 and is provided in
Appendix A. As part of the planning process, the public engagement consisted of two
main components:
• Pop-up Events:
o Jerry Adams Chili Cook-Off - November 12, 2022
o Marco Island Farmers Market - December 7, 2022
• Online Questionnaire
These components are discussed in later sections.
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 9 of 39
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
Through the process of the Feasibility Study, the different alternatives and uses
took into consideration compatibility with planning efforts for the state, county, and local
levels while meeting current design standards. Throughout the existing conditions
assessment and stakeholder and public engagement, several alternatives were
evaluated for the multimodal improvements along S.R. 951 and C.R. 92. Feasible
alternatives were identified based on their consistency with the project purpose and need,
as well as the roadway characteristics, operational conditions, safety concerns, and
physical constraints documented in the Existing Conditions Report. These factors, as well
as input from project stakeholders, provide the baseline from which potential alternatives
were considered.
This section will briefly outline each of the evaluated alternatives that will move
forward for consideration, in addition to other considerations. A preferred alternative will
not be selected as part of this Feasibility Study. However, should the project move forward
into a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Phase, all alternatives should be
further assessed utilizing more refined data, and a preferred alternative should be
selected.
Corridor Segments
The two corridors within the study, S.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard) and C.R. 92 (San
Marco Road), are unique and differ in physical characteristics and right-of-way availability.
While S.R. 951 is a four-lane divided highway with a raised, curbed median and outside
flush shoulders, C.R. 92 is an undivided, two-lane roadway with no paved outside
shoulders. Current zoning and future land use designations within the study corridors are
primarily conservation lands and residential for S.R. 951 and conservation lands for C.R.
92.
Based on physical conditions, adjacent land use, and available right-of-way along
the length of S.R. 951, the corridor has been separated into four segments that are further
discussed in the Alternative Analysis section:
Segment 1 – Judge Jolley Bridge to Capri Boulevard
Segment 2 – Capri Boulevard to Marco Shores/Mainsail Drive
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 10 of 39
Segment 3 – Marco Shores/Mainsail Drive to Fiddlers Creek Parkway
Segment 4 – Fiddlers Creek Parkway to Henderson Creek Drive
C.R. 92 will be analyzed as a whole corridor.
S.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard) – Shared Use Path Design Alternatives
Multiple design concepts were developed and presented to the public through an
online survey. Each concept provided varying approaches to the different modes of
transportation that meet current design standards, providing facilities for pedestrians and
bicyclists while minimizing impacts to environmentally sensitive lands. The following
alternatives are graphically depicted in the following figures.
1) No Build – Bicyclists are accommodated on existing 5’-paved shoulders and no
facilities are provided for pedestrians.
2) 7’ Buffered Bike Lane – Bicyclists are accommodated on a widened shoulder
with a 7’ buffered bike lane, and no facilities are provided for pedestrians.
3) 5’ Sidewalk – Bicyclists are accommodated on existing 5’-paved shoulders and
a 5’ sidewalk, offset 5’ from the shoulder point (15’ from the edge of travel lane),
is provided for pedestrians.
4) 10’ SUP – Bicyclists are accommodated on existing paved shoulders and a 10’
SUP, offset 5’ from the shoulder point (15’ from the edge of travel lane), is
provided for pedestrians and bicyclists.
5) 10’ SUP and 7’ Buffered Bike Lane – Bicyclists are accommodated on a
widened shoulder with a 7’ buffered bike lane, and a 10’ SUP, offset 5’ from the
shoulder point (15’ from the edge of travel lane), is provided for pedestrians
and bicyclists.
6) 7’ Buffered Bike Lane (no widening) – Bicyclists are accommodated on a 7’
buffered bike lane created by reducing the travel lane widths to 11’. No facilities
are provided for pedestrians.
7) 10’ SUP and 7’ Buffered Bike Lane (no widening) – Bicyclists are
accommodated on a 7’ buffered bike lane created by reducing the travel lane
widths to 11’. A 10’ SUP, offset 5’ from the shoulder point (15’ from the edge of
travel lane), is provided for pedestrians and bicyclists.
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 11 of 39
Alternative 2 Alternative 1
Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Alternative 5 Alternative 6
Alternative 7 Note: Graphics were created utilizing Streetmix
(https://Streetmix.net)
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 12 of 39
S.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard) – Bridge Alternatives
S.R. 951 Bridge over McIlvane Bay and S.R. 951 Bridge over McIlvane Creek
Located between Capri Boulevard and Marco Shores/Mainsail Drive, these
bridges have a clear roadway width of 90’. Four alternatives were created for these
bridges:
1) No Build – Bicyclists are accommodated on existing 10’ bridge deck shoulders
and no facilities are provided for pedestrians.
2) Buffered Bike Lane – Bicyclists are accommodated on a designated 7’ buffered
bike lane and no facilities are provided for pedestrians.
3) Barrier Separated Sidewalk – Bicyclists are accommodated on a designated 7’
buffered bike lane and a barrier separated sidewalk is provided for pedestrians.
The median would be reconstructed on the bridge deck and reduced in width.
4) Barrier Separated SUP – Bicyclists are accommodated on a designated 7’
buffered bike lane and a barrier separated SUP is provided for pedestrians and
bicyclists. The median would be reconstructed on the bridge deck and reduced
in width.
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Alternative 4
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 13 of 39
NB and SB S.R. 951 over Henderson Creek
Located between Fiddlers Creek Parkway and Henderson Creek Drive, this
structure consists of twin bridges having a clear roadway width of 40’. Two alternatives
were created for these bridges.
1) No Build – Bicyclists are accommodated on existing 10’-bridge deck shoulders
and no facilities are provided for pedestrians.
2) Barrier Separated SUP – A barrier separated SUP is provided for pedestrians
and bicyclists. Access to and from the SUP would be provided prior to the
bridge.
C.R. 92 (San Marco Road) – Shared Use Path Design Alternatives
Six alternatives were developed for C.R. 92. These alternatives would be
constructed on the West side of the roadway just in front of the existing power poles.
1) No Build – Bicyclists utilize the existing travel lanes, and no facilities are
provided for pedestrians.
2) Paved Shoulder Bike Lanes – A 4’ paved shoulder would be constructed
abutting the travel lanes and no facilities are provided for pedestrians.
3) 7’ Buffered Bike Lane – Bicyclists are accommodated on a newly constructed
7’ buffered bike lane and no facilities are provided for pedestrians.
4) Paved Shoulder Bike Lanes and Sidewalk – A 4’ paved shoulder would be
constructed abutting the travel lanes and a 5’ sidewalk, offset 5’ from the edge
of travel lane is provided for pedestrians.
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 14 of 39
5) Adjacent Asphalt Path – A 10’ paved path would be constructed abutting the
westbound travel lane providing a 2’ buffer and 8’ path. A similar treatment was
constructed by Collier County in 2021 along Goodland Drive.
6) 10’ SUP – Bicyclists utilize the existing travel lanes, and a 10’ SUP, offset 5’
from the edge of travel lane, is provided for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Alternative 5 Alternative 6
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 15 of 39
C.R. 92 (San Marco Road) – Bridge Alternatives
C.R. 92 over Drainage Canal (Bridge No. 034128)
This bridge has a clear roadway width of 40’. Three alternatives were created for
this bridge:
1) No Build – Bicyclists utilize the existing travel lanes prior to the bridge where
they can be accommodated on existing 8’-bridge deck shoulders and no
facilities are provided for pedestrians.
2) Barrier Separated 10’ SUP – A barrier separated SUP is provided for
pedestrians and bicyclists. The remaining bridge deck width would
accommodate two 12’ lanes with 2’-outside shoulders.
3) Barrier Separated 8’ SUP – A barrier separated SUP is provided for pedestrians
and bicyclists. The remaining bridge deck width would accommodate two 11’
lanes with 4’ outside shoulders.
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alternative 3
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 16 of 39
Goodland Bridge
This bridge has a clear roadway width of 42’. The three previous alternatives were
utilized for this bridge with the additional width applied to the outside shoulders.
1) No Build – Bicyclists utilize the existing travel lanes prior to the bridge where
they can be accommodated on existing 10’-bridge deck shoulders and no
facilities are provided for pedestrians.
2) Barrier Separated 10’ SUP – A barrier separated SUP is provided for
pedestrians and bicyclists. The remaining bridge deck width would
accommodate two 12’ lanes with 4’-outside shoulders.
3) Barrier Separated 8’ SUP – A barrier separated SUP is provided for pedestrians
and bicyclists. The remaining bridge deck width would accommodate two 11’
lanes with 6’-outside shoulders.
Public Engagement
Since 1994, when the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
developed its first Comprehensive Pathways Plan, Collier County and the individual
jurisdictions in Collier County in conjunction with the MPO have strived to “develop a fist‐
class bicycle and pedestrian network throughout Collier County.” The MPO’s Plan was
updated in 2006, 2012, and 2019 and supplemented with a Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Study in 2013. Each of these updates included a public outreach component and was
used to help develop the public engagement and online survey for this project.
For this study, the public engagement consisted of two main components:
• Pop-up Events:
o Jerry Adams Chili Cook-Off - November 12, 2022
o Marco Island Farmers Market - December 7, 2022
• Online Questionnaire - November 11, 2022 to January 16, 2023
The online questionnaire received 230 responses through the website and an
additional 34 responses were completed at the Farmers Market. At the events, post card
handouts were distributed which provided a brief project description, project location map,
and project website. Following the first event at the Jerry Adams Chili Cook-Off, email
notifications were sent to the City of Marco Island Chambers of Commerce, City of Marco
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 17 of 39
Island, Collier Area Transit, adjacent Home Owner Associations within the study area,
and local schools providing project information and the survey link.
The survey questions were a combination of multiple choice and short answer
questions. Some of the multiple-choice questions allowed for a non-prescribed answer.
In general, most respondents answered all of the multiple-choice questions and about
half provided responses to the short answer questions.
Survey Results – General background
Almost 75% of the survey participants identified that they frequently (2-7 days per
week) walk and almost 2 out 3 participants frequently bike. Participants identified pleasure
and exercise as the top two reasons for walking and biking. The top three responses for
considerations impacting one’s decision to walk and bike were safety, volume of vehicular
traffic and speed of vehicular traffic.
Survey Results – Desirable Multimodal Improvements
When participants were asked about their preferred multimodal improvements for
the corridors, the following received the highest percentage of responses:
• S.R. 951 – 10’ SUP (Alternative 4) and 10’ SUP and 7’ Buffered Bike Lane
(Alternative 5)
• S.R. 951 Bridges – Barrier Separated Sidewalk (Alternative 3) and Barrier
Separated SUP (Alternative 4)
• C.R. 92 – Paved Shoulder Bike Lanes and Sidewalk (Alternative 4),
Adjacent Asphalt Path (Alternative 5), and 10’ SUP (Alternative 6)
• C.R. 92 Bridge – Barrier Separated 10’ SUP (Alternative 2) and Barrier
Separated 8’ SUP (Alternative 3)
Survey Results – Qualitative Responses
Survey participants were asked to identify any opportunities, challenges, and
desired features or trail elements. Below are the top responses for each:
• Opportunities – Safety and separated facilities
• Challenges – Right-of-way, land availability, and environmental constraints;
cost; safety; and separated vehicle facilities
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 18 of 39
• Trail elements and features – More space/wider path, separated vehicle
facilities, amenities such as shade, benches, water fountains, restrooms
etc.
A detailed summary of the public engagement can be found in Appendix B.
Speed Management
Speed management is a critical element of the Safe System Approach, which is a
guiding paradigm adopted by the U.S. DOT to address roadway safety. Studies clearly
show that higher speeds result in greater impact at the time of a crash, which leads to
more severe injuries and fatalities. This is especially concerning for more vulnerable road
users, such as motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. To support efforts in speed
management, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), through its Proven Safety
Countermeasure Initiatives program, promotes the implementation of several proven
speed management countermeasures including variable speed limit systems, speed
safety cameras, and setting appropriate speed limits for all road users. FDOT further
identifies speed management techniques in chapter 202 of the FDOT Design Manual
(FDM). From Table 202.3.1 Strategies to Achieve Desired Operating Speed, for context
classifications C3R and C3C, the following strategies are appropriate for a target speed
of 40-45 mph: Roundabout, Lane Narrowing, Horizontal Deflection, Speed Feedback
Signs, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons.
Utilities
Utility Coordination
The preliminary utility coordination and investigation effort was conducted through
written and verbal communications with the existing utility owners. A Sunshine State 811
of the Florida Design Ticket System listing of existing utility owners was acquired on
February 15, 2023. (Appendix A).
Initially, verbal and written communication was made to all utility’s owners outlining
the investigation effort along with the project limits. The list of Utility Agency Owners
(UAO) known to operate utilities within the project corridor is shown in Table 1.
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 19 of 39
Table 1: Utility Contact Information
UTILITY AGENCY
UTILITY CONTACT
NAME
UTILITY CONTACT
PHONE UTILITY CONTACT EMAIL
COLLIER COUNTY
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS PAM WILSON 239-252-8260 pamela.wilson@colliercountyfl.gov
COLLIER COUNTY BCC
ROAD MAINTENANCE JOHN FURLONG 239-252-8924 Ext:
2782 john.furlong@colliercountyfl.gov
MARCO ISLAND
UTILITIES MICHAEL EHLEN 239-389-5186 mehlen@cityofmarcoisland.com
CENTURYLINK BILL MCCLOUD 850-599-1444 william.mccloud@lumen.com
COLLIER COUNTY
STAKE & LOCATES STEPHEN SARABIA 239-252-5924 Stephen.Sarabia@colliercountyfl.gov
COMCAST CHAD EVENER 941-356-1564 chad_evener@cable.comcast.com
FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT JOEL BRAY 386-586-6403 joel.bray@fpl.com
HOTWIRE
COMMUNICATIONS WALTER DAVILA 954-699-0900 walter.sancho-
davila@hotwirecommunication.com
LEE COUNTY ELECTRIC
CO-OP TOM BAILEY 239-656-2414 tom.bailey@lcec.net
CROWN CASTLE NG FIBERDIG TEAM 888-632-0931 Ext: 2 fiber.dig@crowncastle.com
SUMMIT BROADBAND MICHELLE DANIEL 407-996-1183
TECO PEOPLES GAS- FT
MYERS JOAN DOMNING JOAN DOMNING joan.domning@tecoenergy.com
CENTURYLINK
(LUMENS)
NETWORK
RELATIONS 877-366-8344 Ext: 2 relocations@lumen.com
For the report’s preparation, utility owners were provided aerials depicting the
project limits along S.R. 951 and C.R. 92. Using these aerial plans as a base map, each
utility owner was asked to indicate their existing and proposed utilities as well as any
easements that may affect their reimbursement rights for potential relocations of their
facilities. In response, most utility owners replied via written communications. The utility
owners provided the requested information concerning their facilities using either the
utility plans or reference documentation (i.e., “As Built” or GIS maps). “Marked” Plans or
reference documentation received from the Utility Agency Owners is outlined below.
Existing Utility Facilities Description
Responses from the UAOs are provided in Appendix C.
Collier County Traffic Operations – No response.
Collier County BCC Road Maintenance – No response.
Marco Islands Utilities – No response.
Centurylink – No response.
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 20 of 39
Collier County Stakes and Locates (Water/Sewer)
For the S.R. 951 corridor, a 12” PVC water main on the north side of Capri
Boulevard intersects S.R. 951. The water main is located along the west side of
S.R. 951 for approximately 400’ before crossing to the median of S.R. 951. The
water main continues in the location until Marco Shores, where it shifts to the east
side of the corridor.
At Port Au Prince Road, a 10” PVC water main joins the 12” PVC water
main on the east side. Also, a 4” PVC sewer main on the north side of Port Au
Prince Road intersects an 8” DIP sewer main along the east side of the corridor.
The two water mains and sewer main continue north on the east side of the corridor
to Manatee Road.
At Manatee Road, a 10” AC water main, 20” PVC water main and 16” PVC
water main intersect the two water mains from the south. A 20” PVC water main
continues north on the east side of the corridor. A 10” PVC sewer main intersects
the 12” PVC sewer main. The 12” PVC sewer main continues north on the east
side of the corridor.
At the bridge, just north of Riverwood Road, the 20” PVC water main
switches to a 20” DP water main. The water main and sewer main continue north
to the intersection of U.S.41. Connections to the water mains are located at the
following side roads:
• Marco Shores
• Fiddlers Creek Parkway
• Port Au Prince Road
• Championship Drive
• Diamond Lake Circle
• Manatee Road
• Tower Road
• Henderson Creek Drive
• Eagle Creek Drive
Connections to the sewer main are located at the following side roads:
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 21 of 39
• Port Au Prince Road
• Championship Drive
• Diamond Lake Circle
• Manatee Road
• Tower Road
• Henderson Creek Drive
For the C.R. 92 corridor, a 6” PVC sewer main is located on the east side of C.R.
92 from the U.S. 41 intersection for approximately 1,000’ south, where it ties to a
private sewer main for the Collier-Seminole State Park. An 8” water main owned
by Collier-Seminole State Park is located on the west side of C.R. 92 from the U.S.
41 intersection for approximately 1,050’ south before crossing C.R. 92 and
entering Collier-Seminole State Park.
Comcast – No response.
Florida Power and Light – No response.
Hotwire Communications
No facilities email received February 17, 2023, from Walter Sancho-Davila.
Lee County Electric Co-op
Along S.R. 951, from Judge Jolly bridge to U.S. 41, there is a transmission
line on the west side of the corridor.
Along C.R. 92, south of Goodland Dr, there are primary and secondary
overhead facilities on the west side of C.R. 92. Along Goodland Drive, there is a
primary overhead facility along the south side, crossing C.R. 92 to connect the
facilities on the west side of C.R. 92.
Along C.R. 92, at the bridge, the primary facility is underground. After the
bridge, the primary underground facility crosses C.R. 92 to the east side of the
road. The facility then becomes a primary overhead facility. The overheard facility
crosses back to the west side of C.R. 92.
From north of the bridge to U.S. 41, the primary overhead facility is on the
west side of the corridor. Near the intersection of U.S. 41, primary and secondary
overhead facilities cross C.R. 92 to the east side to provide power to the Collier-
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 22 of 39
Seminole State Park campsites. At the intersection, a primary overhead facility
connects to the businesses in the southeast quadrant of the intersection.
Crown Castle NG
There are no facilities along S.R. 951 or C.R. 92. There are underground
conduits along U.S. 41 at the intersections with S.R. 951 and C.R. 92.
Summit Broadband – No response.
TECO Peoples Gas – Ft. Myers – No response.
Centurylink (Lumens)
Along S.R. 951, from Capri Boulevard to Championship Drive, there is an
underground fiber route along the west side of the corridor. Between
Championship Drive and U.S. 41, the underground fiber route is along the east
side of the corridor. There are crossings at side roads along the corridor.
Along C.R. 92, from Goodland Drive to north of the bridge, there are
underground local copper and fiber routes on the east side of the corridor. From
north of the bridge to U.S. 41, there is an underground fiber route along the west
side of the corridor. Between Curcie Road and U.S. 41, there is an underground
local copper route along the east side of the roadway. The copper route crosses
C.R. 92 and connects to Collier-Seminole State Park.
Trail Amenities
Essential for the success of the two trail segments, S.R. 951 and C.R. 92, both as
stand-alone facilities and as part of the overall Marco Island loop, will be providing a safe,
comfortable, and accessible environment. Both the segments would provide recreational
opportunities as well as access to parks and recreational facilities. The S.R. 951 segment
will also likely be used for access to jobs, shops, and services that encourages people to
use the trail for work commutes, recreation, and social interaction. Some of the trail design
elements that should be considered during evaluation of the design concepts include the
following:
Trailheads
The development of trails should include consideration for trailheads. Fortunately,
there are several opportunities along the trail alignments that have the potential to serve
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 23 of 39
as trailheads: The Isle of Capri Paddlecraft Park is adjacent to S.R. 951 on the northwest
corner of S.R. 951 and Capri Boulevard. This park includes parking, picnic pavilions, and
restrooms. It also has a 6’ concrete walkway leading to the northeast side of S.R. 951.
Margood Harbor Park is located about a mile south of C.R. 92, west of the Goodland
Bridge off Goodland Drive. Park amenities include parking, picnic areas, and restrooms.
Access to the park would be along Goodland Drive and Pear Tree Avenue.
If these parks are to serve as trailheads, consideration should be given to providing
trail-user specific enhancements. These would include bike parking, repair stations, trail
maps, and trail courtesy information. Information regarding hydration and protection from
sun/heat-related ailments should be included as well. Vending machines that provide trail
user-friendly items such as patch kits, bike lights, CO2 canisters, sunscreen and first aid
kits could be provided.
Wayfinding
Wayfinding should be included along the trail segments. Wayfinding should include
directions to trailheads or parks. From trailhead or parks, wayfinding provides directional
information to the City of Marco Island, the existing Marco Island Loop Trail on S.R. 951,
and the intersection of C.R. 92 and U.S. 41. Relative distances marked on the wayfinding
should be to the first commercial location providing access to snacks and beverages (e.g.,
S.R. 951 and Bald Eagle Drive, and C.R. 92 and Barfield Drive).
Transit Stops
The transit stops at S.R. 951 and Manatee Road already include covered benches
and bicycle parking. These could be enhanced with transit schedules, or real-time bus
arrival information.
Signal Enhancements
On S.R. 951, if the trail is located on the west side of S.R. 951, signalized
intersections should be enhanced to provide pedestrian/trail features to access the west
side of the roadway. This should include lighting the crosswalks to improve trail user
visibility in the crosswalks.
Midblock Crossings
At locations where potential destinations for trail users exist, midblock crossings
should be considered.
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 24 of 39
Lighting
In locations where lighting is not an environmental issue, trail lighting should be
considered. If overhead lighting is inappropriate, the potential for path level lighting should
be evaluated.
Mile Marker Symbols
Pavement markings, or more likely stickers, identifying trail mile points should be
included along the trail. These should have specific location information that can be used
to inform emergency services of the exact location of the marker.
Shade
Both of the trail segments are along roadways with very little shade. The potential
for providing pull-outs to access covered benches should be considered when installing
these trail segments. To enhance and keep with the natural surroundings along C.R. 92
it is advised that providing shade for trail users should be accomplished through
landscaping and natural tree canopies then through built structures.
Call Boxes
While cell phones have become ubiquitous, call boxes can provide immediate
notification of emergency situation and provide location data to first responders.
Trash Receptacles
Placing trash receptacles along the trail can help reduce litter along the trail and
roadway. There are existing opportunities to include trash receptacles at existing transit
stops, however trash receptacles should be located at trail heads and where vending
machines are located.
Technology Considerations
Trail Counts
Technology can be used to provide data on trail users and to enhance the trail
users’ experience. Count stations should be considered along both trail segments. These
count stations could include in-pavement sensors and eco-counters. Near traffic signals,
it may be possible to tie these count stations into the existing traffic signal monitoring
system and/or use video detection to count trail users.
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 25 of 39
Mile Marker Information
QR codes could be included on the mile markers to provide immediate access to
trail maps, park locations and hours of service, safety advice, transit information, etc.
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 26 of 39
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
This feasibility study is intended to reflect the general stakeholder desires to
continue the planning and future implementation of a shared use path network. Through
public engagement, a general understanding of the stakeholders’ goals and desires for
implementation were ascertained. Each of the design concepts was evaluated for their
consistency with the project purpose and need, stakeholders’ and public desires, adjacent
land use, physical constraints and available right-of-way.
Of the alternatives considered, some do not meet the purpose and need to provide
system linkage, improving both bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. These alternatives
are included in particular for the bridge structures, as limited options are available if no
bridge widening is taken into consideration. They are presented to help provide
comparisons for alternatives that do meet the system linkage criteria.
Corridor Segments
The purpose of the corridor segmentation for S.R. 951 was not to limit the
alternatives analyzed per segment, but to limit the overall environmental impacts. Our
alternatives which limit the construction of a sidewalk or SUP to one side of the roadway
was based on the adjacent land use, physical constraints and available right-of-way. With
a limited ability to expand development along the corridor, new pedestrian generators and
destinations are unlikely. So, future and current access to the roadway right-of-way is
limited to the existing side street connections. We have limited our design options to a
single pedestrian facility on one side of the roadway which should sufficiently
accommodate the expected demand generated by the current and future population.
Segment 1 – Judge Jolley Bridge to Capri Boulevard
Through this segment, the east side of the roadway is dominated by the Collier
Boulevard Boating Park. The Flotilla Passage connecting East Marco Bay to McIlvane
Bay limits the available real estate needed to construct pedestrian facilities. Through this
segment, pedestrian facilities were only considered for the west side of the corridor.
Segment 2 – Capri Boulevard to Marco Shores/Mainsail Drive
Through this segment, Capri Boulevard connects to S.R. 951 on the west side and
Marco Shores/Mainsail Drive connects on the east side. A short stretch of existing
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 27 of 39
sidewalk just north of Capri Boulevard and on the west side of the roadway connects to
the Isle of Capri Paddlecraft Park. This segment also contains two bridges (S.R. 951 over
McIlvane Bay and McIlvane Creek). Through the southern portions of the segment, the
Flotilla Passage abuts the roadway, but is further offset than the segment to the south.
There seems to be sufficient space to construct pedestrian features without impacting the
existing shoring. With the park on the west side of the corridor, expanding the pedestrian
facilities on the west side of the corridor provides some benefit as it eliminates the need
for residents of the Isle of Capri would not be required to cross S.R. 951 to access the
facilities. An additional benefit of this location would not require the additional costs
needed to adjust the existing guardrail that provides protection to the canal. These factors
suggest prioritizing an alternative with pedestrian facilities on the west side of the corridor.
However, there are no identified issues with locating pedestrian facilities on the east side
of the corridor. Both alternatives should move forward into the next phase of planning.
Segment 3 – Marco Shores/Mainsail Drive to Fiddlers Creek Parkway
Fiddlers Creek Parkway connects to S.R. 951 from the east side. This segment
has conservation lands adjacent to both sides of the corridor. Of note are the above
ground utilities i.e., electrical transmission and distribution lines running on the west side
of the roadway. Other than the utilities, both sides of the corridor seem equal and uniform.
Two factors would play into the determination of the placement of pedestrian facilities:
location of the utilities and location of the subdivisions. With the utilities on the west side,
existing access to the poles would limit the total impacts to environmentally sensitive
lands. Providing pedestrian facilities on the east side of the corridor would place the
facilities closer to users and reduce the exposure of these vulnerable users by eliminating
the need for crossing S.R. 951. Given the current data, both alternatives should move
forward into the next phase of planning.
Segment 4 – Fiddlers Creek Parkway to Henderson Creek Drive
As the project moves north, the majority of the residential and commercial
properties are located on the east side of the roadway. If the pedestrian facility were
placed on the west side of the roadway, mid-block crossings would likely be required to
access pedestrian facilities on the west side of the roadway, as the signals at Fiddlers
Creek Parkway, Manatee Road, and Walmart entrance are generally spaced about a mile
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 28 of 39
apart. Due to the location of the pedestrian generators, predominantly on the east side
of the corridor, pedestrian facilities were only considered for the east side of the corridor.
Sociocultural Resources
Trails are one of the most desired community amenities, they support current
residents and promote visitors. Based on the information gathered for the Existing
Conditions Report, there are minimal impacts to the sociocultural status within the
corridors. This project would support community resources and land uses by providing
multimodal mobility and accessibility. No relocations are anticipated for this project.
Utilities
Based on the agencies that commented and limited analysis of the preliminary
existing utility locations indicates the proposed improvements will not impact any of the
existing utility facilities. As there are no impacts to the utility facilities, there are no conflicts
to be addressed and therefore, there are no utility relocation costs or right-of-way impacts.
Additional analysis would be completed during future phases of the project.
Geotechnical and Contamination
Based on the information gathered for the Existing Conditions Report, there are
minimal impacts due to geotechnical or contamination considerations within the corridors.
From a soils perspective, both roadways appear to have been constructed by utilizing fill
that was placed over historic mangrove swamp. There may be soil concerns due to high
water and organic content as this could affect the construction and maintenance of slopes
for the pedestrian facility and/or roadway widening. There is no physical evidence of this
having any long term or maintenance issues with the roadway and this should be the
same with future pedestrian facilities.
From a contamination viewpoint, the Racetrac located at 6170 Collier Boulevard is
the only site located within the corridors. The site was redeveloped around 2013 and was
previously a gas station as well. With the fairly recent redevelopment of the site, the risk
of contamination impacting the project would be minimal. No accommodations for either
the geotechnical or contamination considerations are included in the analysis.
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 29 of 39
Floodplains and Wetlands
Based on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands
Inventory and the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Environmental
Screening Tool (EST), the Study Area is comprised of approximately 90% wetlands and
surface waters. The majority (~80%) of these wetlands are estuarine (mangrove island
and tidal flats), while the other ~10% are palustrine (freshwater, nontidal wetlands).
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the Study Area contains panels 12021C0612H,
12021C0615H, 12021C0827H, and 12021C0829H for S.R. 951 and panels
12021C0855H, 12021C0835H, and 12021C0842H for C.R. 92, all dated May 16, 2012.
With the exception of high pockets of elevation, the majority of the Study Area falls within
the 100-year floodplain, due to its proximity to the coast. Based on the Digital Flood
Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM), updated December 2022, the flood zone designations for
the Study Area are AE and VE. Zone AE corresponds to 1% annual chance floodplains
and zone VE are coastal high hazard areas.
If impacts occur to mangroves, mitigation will be required. Both Little Pine Island
Mitigation Bank and Corkscrew Regional Mitigation Bank provide credits within the Study
Area. Little Pine Island Mitigation Bank is the recommended mitigation bank because of
its proximity to the Study Area and is the only one of the two to provide mitigation credits
for Forested Freshwater, Forested Saltwater, Herbaceous Freshwater/Brackish, and
Herbaceous Saltwater systems. The cost per credit for forested estuarine wetlands is
$365,000 and $235,000 for herbaceous estuarine wetlands, in effect April 1, 2023. Credits
are sold per credit because the amount of credit needed will be determined by the quality
of the wetland impacted, rather than solely on acres impacted.
Drainage and Permitting
Construction of pedestrian facilities will impact tidal floodplains but no floodplain
mitigation will be required and, in this case, no permit is required. No attenuation would
be required. If wetlands are impacted, then a standard Environmental Resource Permit
(ERP) would be required. If swales and wetlands are impacted than a full ERP Individual
permit would be required
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 30 of 39
S.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard) – Alternatives
Uniform alternatives were applied throughout the corridor. The design concepts
were then evaluated for their consistency with the project purpose and need; support of
project objectives; engineering constraints and considerations; public input; and the order
of magnitude implementation costs, as described in greater detail below.
1) No Build – This alternative does not meet the desired purpose and need for the
project of providing system linkage for pedestrian connectivity.
2) 7’ Buffered Bike Lane – This alternative does not meet the desired purpose and
need for the project of providing system linkage for pedestrian connectivity. It
also had the second lowest positive response from the public survey, with the
no-build as the lowest response.
3) 5’ Sidewalk – The third S.R. 951 alternative provides system linkage for both
pedestrians and bicyclists. However, no separation is provided between
bicyclists and motor vehicles.
4) 10’ SUP – The next S.R. 951 alternative provides system linkage for both
pedestrians and bicyclists and provides two areas for bicyclists’ use with
separation provided between bicyclists and motor vehicles along the SUP.
5) 10’ SUP and 7’ Buffered Bike Lane – The next S.R. 951 alternative provides
system linkage for both pedestrians and bicyclists. The shoulder would be
widened by 2’ to provide the buffered bike lanes. The section provides two
areas for bicyclists’ use with separation provided between bicyclists and motor
vehicles along the SUP and improved buffered bike lanes. This alternative
received the highest amount of public support.
6) 7’ Buffered Bike Lane (no widening) – This alternative does not meet the
desired purpose and need for the project of providing system linkage for
pedestrian connectivity. This alternative was created after the online survey
was made available to the public and therefore did not receive public input.
7) 10’ SUP and 7’ Buffered Bike Lane (no widening) – This variation of Alternative
5 requires no roadway widening and allows the shoulder to be widened by
reducing the travel lane widths to 11’. With S.R. 951 considered a freight
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 31 of 39
corridor to the City of Marco Island, a minimum 12’ outside lane would be
required.
Depending on the alternatives above, a correlating bridge section would be utilized
to accommodate the approach facilities for the bridges over McIlvane Bay and Creek.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 would require no bridge work other than possible new pavement
markings. Alternative 3 correlates to a structure with a barrier separated sidewalk.
Alternatives 4, 5, and 7 match the bridge structure providing a 10’ SUP that is barrier
separated.
Only two alternatives were prepared for the Henderson Creek Bridge: no build and
barrier separated SUP. Dependent on timing and funding, the FDOT is currently in the
right-of-way phase for Financial Project Identification 435111-2 S.R. 951 from Manatee
Road to Tower Road. The project is funded for right-of-way acquisition but is currently not
funded for construction. If funds become available, then the planned letting date for this
project is July 22, 2027. When construction occurs, the bridge will be widened over
Henderson Creek to provide a sidewalk on the southbound bridge and a 10’ SUP on the
northbound bridge see Figure 2.
Figure 2 - Proposed Typical Section for the Henderson Creek Bridge (FPID 435111-2)
C.R. 92 (San Marco Road) – Alternatives
As discussed previously under Corridor Segments for S.R. 951, the alternatives
for C.R. 92 limits the construction of a sidewalk or SUP to one side of the roadway based
on the adjacent land use, physical constraints and available right-of-way. With no
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 32 of 39
possibility for development along the corridor, demand for the facilities would come from
the City of Marco Island and long-distance bike riders. We have limited our design options
to a single pedestrian facility on one side of the roadway which should sufficiently
accommodate the expected demand generated by the current and future population. The
design concepts were then evaluated for their consistency with the project purpose and
need; support of project objectives; engineering constraints and considerations; public
input; and the order of magnitude implementation costs, as described in greater detail
below.
1) No Build – This alternative does not meet the desired purpose and need for the
project of providing system linkage for bicycle or pedestrian connectivity.
2) Paved Shoulder Bike Lanes – This alternative does not meet the desired
purpose and need for the project of providing system linkage for pedestrian
connectivity.
3) 7’ Buffered Bike Lane – The next alternative does not meet the desired purpose
and need for the project of providing system linkage for pedestrian connectivity.
4) Paved Shoulder Bike Lanes and Sidewalk – The fourth C.R. 92 alternative
provides system linkage for both pedestrians and bicyclists. However, no
separation is provided between bicyclists and motor vehicles. This alternative
had the second highest response from the public.
5) Adjacent Asphalt Path – The next alternative does not meet the desired
purpose and need for the project of providing system linkage for pedestrian
connectivity. This alternative had the third highest response from the public but
was very similar to the second highest (23.3% vs. 25.3%).
6) 10’ SUP – The last C.R. 92 alternative provides system linkage for both
pedestrians and bicyclists with separation provided between bicyclists and
motor vehicles along the SUP. This alternative had the highest positive
responses from the public.
Cost Estimates
Conceptual construction cost estimates were prepared for both build alternatives.
The estimates were prepared using a similar approach to that of the FDOT Long Range
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 33 of 39
Estimating application and Cost per mile models and is presented only as a comparative
analysis and does not represent the actual present day construction costs. Cost estimates
are presented in Tables 2 and 3. The detailed cost estimation for the is provided in
Appendix D.
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 34 of 39
Table 2: Cost Estimate for S.R. 951
S.R. 951
Jolley
Bridge to
Capri
Capri to Mainsail Mainsail to
Fiddler's
Creek
Fiddler's
Creek to U.S.
41
Wetland and
Mangrove
Mitigation
Structures Total
No Build $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ 0.00
7' Buffered Bike Lane $130,580 $109,780 $166,403 $352,451 $0 $0 $ 759,214
5' Sidewalk $214,705 $180,504 $273,606 $579,512 $822,702 $108,361 $ 2,179,389
10' SUP $316,522 $266,103 $403,356 $854,331 $1,645,404 $129,349 $ 3,615,065
10' SUP + 7' Buffered Bike
Lane
$447,103 $375,883 $569,759 $1,206,782 $1,974,484 $129,349 $ 4,703,360
7' Buffered Bike Lane (No
widening)
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 0.00
10' SUP + 7' Buffered Bike
Lane (No widening)
$316,522 $532,206 $806,712 $854,331 $1,645,404 $129,349 $ 4,284,524
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 35 of 39
Table 3: Cost Estimate for C.R. 92
C.R. 92
Mileage 6.1 Structures Total
No Build $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Paved Shoulder Bike Lanes $ 1,292,518 $ 0 $ 1,292,518
7' Buffered Bike Lane $ 2,122,247 $ 0 $ 2,122,247
Paved Shoulder Bike Lanes + 5' Sidewalk $ 2,451,542 $ 363,413 $ 2,814,955
Adjacent Asphalt Path $ 1,476,027 $ 363,413 $ 1,839,439
10' SUP $ 1,708,661 $ 363,413 $ 2,072,074
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 36 of 39
Local Agency Coordination
Presentations were provided to the City of Marco Island, Collier County, and Collier
MPO. The purpose of the presentations was to provide an update to the agencies and
seek approval of the project documentation through a concurrence letter. Comments from
each of the agencies are provided below.
City of Marco Island
May 22
Collier County
June 27
Collier MPO
BPAC May
TAC May 22
CAC May 22
Board June 9
Recommendations
A qualitative analysis was conducted to determine the advantages and
disadvantages of the alternatives. Each alternative was evaluated in relation to
engineering, socioeconomic, environmental criteria, and various cost factors. A
Comparative Alternative Evaluation matrix is presented in Table 3. The matrix is provided
for comparisons only and does not represent a recommendation or a ranking of the
alternatives.
No right-of-way requirements were identified as part of the study, but due to the
expected impacts to the wetlands and mangroves within the right-of-way, it is anticipated
that a PD&E Study will be required during the next phase of the project. Based on the
available data and analysis, the following alternatives are recommended to be carried
forward to the PD&E phase and depicted on the Concept Plans – Appendix E:
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 37 of 39
S.R. 951
Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Alternative 5
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail – Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report Page 38 of 39
C.R. 92
Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Alternative 6
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
7' Buffered
Bike Lane 5' Sidewalk 10' Trail
10' Trail
+ 7' Buffered
Bike Lane
7' Buffered
Bike Lane
(No widening)
10' Trail
+ 7' Buffered
Bike Lane
(No widening)
Paved Shoulder
Bike Lanes
7' Buffered
Bike Lane
Paved Shoulder
Bike Lanes
+ 5' Sidewalk
Adjacent
Asphalt Path 10' Trail
Purpose and Need
Safe Multimodal Access to Destinations (N/L/M/H)N L M H H L H L L M L H
Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity (N/L/M/H)N L L M H L H L L M L M
Enhance Quality of Life and Support Economic Development (N/L/H)N L L H H L H L L H L H
Public Support Ranking (1 - high, 5-low)-4 3 2 1 4*1*5 4 2.5 2.5 1
Potential Natural/Cultural Environmental Effects
Archaeological Sites Potentially Affected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Historical Sites Potentially Affected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Floodplains (acres) Impacted 0 0 3.98 7.96 9.56 0 7.96 0 0 0 0 0
Wetlands (acres) Impacted 0 0 3.98 7.96 9.56 0 7.96 0 0 0 0 0
Potential Physical Effects
Utility Agency Owners impacted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Utility Relocations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Contamination Sites (M/H Levels Only)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Project Costs
(per October 2021 LRE)
Construction $0 $ 759,000 $ 1,357,000 $ 1,970,000 $ 2,729,000 $ - $ 2,639,000 $ 1,293,000 $ 2,122,000 $ 2,815,000 $ 1,839,000 $ 2,072,000
Design & Construction Engineering and Inspection (30% of Construction Cost)$0 $ 228,000 $ 407,000 $ 591,000 $ 819,000 $ - $ 792,000 $ 388,000 $ 637,000 $ 845,000 $ 552,000 $ 622,000
Wetland and Mangrove Mitigation $0 $ - $ 823,000 $ 1,645,000 $ 1,974,000 $ - $ 1,645,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Total Costs $0 $ 987,000 $ 2,587,000 $ 4,206,000 $ 5,522,000 $ - $ 5,076,000 $ 1,681,000 $ 2,759,000 $ 3,660,000 $ 2,391,000 $ 2,694,000
Table 4: Comparative Alternative Evaluation Matrix
Note:
1. The construction costs shown do not reflect project unknowns and are only calculated based on the features present in the typical sections.
2. For Public Support Ranking, a "*" means that this typical section was either developed after the public input and the ranking is based upon the most comparable typical section.
3. No construction costs are associated to alternatives that identify no roadway widening, as these improvements can be implemented during the next RRR project for the roadway.
4. Safe Multimodal Access to Destinations: L-provides bike facilites adjacent to roadway M-provides bike facilities adjacent to roadways and seprated pedestrian facilities H- provides seperated pedestrian and bicycle facilities
5. Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity: L-provides pedestrian or bicycle facilities M-provides both pedestrian and bicycle failities H-provides separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities and adjacent bicycle facilities
6. Enhance Quality of Life and Support Economic Development: L-provides pedestrian or bicycle facilities H-provides both pedestrian and bicycle failities
Evaluation Criteria No-Build
Alternative
Build Alternatives
S.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard)C.R. 92 (San Marco Road)
C:\Users\vvu.SPRINKLE\Desktop\TWO #2 Marco Loop Trail\Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report\Comparison Matrix\Marco Loop Trail Comp Matrix V2
16.B.1.b
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Marco Loop Trail Alternatives Evaluation Report (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail
S.R. 951 Roadway Alternatives
Typical Description
Estimated
Per Mile
Estimate
Estimated
Corridor Cost
6 ft Sidewalk & 5 ft Paved Shoulder
Bicyclists are
accommodated on existing
5 ft paved shoulders and a
6 ft sidewalk, offset 9 ft
from the exterior shoulder
point (14 ft from the edge
of drive lane), is provided
for pedestrians.
$265,700
$1,746,000 +
$823,000
(mitigation)
= $2,569,000
10 ft Shared-use Path & 5 ft Paved Shoulder
Bicyclists are
accommodated on existing
paved shoulders and a
10 ft shared-use path, offset
9 ft from the exterior
shoulder point (14 ft from
the edge of drive lane), is
provided for pedestrians
and bicyclists.
$382,700
$2,514,000 +
$1,645,000
(mitigation)
= $4,159,000
10 ft Shared-use Path and 7 ft Buffered Bike Lane
Bicyclists are
accommodated on a
widened shoulder with a
7 ft buffered bike lane, and
a 10 ft shared-use path,
offset 9 ft from the exterior
shoulder point (16 ft from
the edge of drive lane), is
provided for pedestrians
and bicyclists.
$518,100
$3,404,000 +
$1,974,000
(mitigation)
= $5,378,000
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Alternative 3
43 %
31 %
17 %
16.B.1.c
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Marco Island Loop Trail - Cost Summary (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail
C.R. 92 Roadway Alternatives
Typical Description
Estimated
Per Mile
Estimate
Estimated
Corridor Cost
6 ft Sidewalk & 4 ft Paved Shoulder
A 4 ft paved shoulder would
be constructed abutting the
drive lanes and a 6 ft sidewalk,
offset 9 ft from the edge of
drive lane is provided for
pedestrians.
$516,400 $3,150,000
10 ft Buffered Bicycle Track
A 10 ft buffered bicycle track
would be constructed abutting
the westbound drive lane
providing a 2’ buffer and 8’
bike path. A similar treatment
was constructed by Collier
County in 2021 along
Goodland Drive.
$288,000 $1,757,000
10 ft Shared-use Path
Bicyclists utilize the existing
drive lanes, and a 10 ft shared
use path, offset 5 ft from the
edge of drive lane, is provided
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
$382,700 $2,334,000
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
25 %
23 %
36 %
16.B.1.c
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Marco Island Loop Trail - Cost Summary (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail
S.R. 951 - Bridges
Typical
McIlvane Bay Bridge
(Bridge No. 030286)
McIlvane Creek Bridge
(Bridge No. 030287)
Description
Estimated
Per Mile
Estimate
Estimated
Corridor Cost
5 ½ ft Sidewalk & 10 ft Buffered Bike Lane
Bicyclists are accommodated
on a designated 10 ft buffered
bike lane and a barrier
separated 5 ½ ft sidewalk is
provided for pedestrians.
The median would be
reconstructed on the bridge
deck and reduced in width.
N/A $76,300
10 ft Shared-use Path & 10 ft Shoulder
Bicyclists are accommodated
on a designated 10 ft buffered
bike lane and a barrier
separated 10 ft share-use path
is provided for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
The median would be
reconstructed on the bridge
deck and reduced in width.
N/A $93,100
Typical
Henderson Creek Bridge
(Bridge No. 032088 & 032089)
Description
Estimated
Per Mile
Estimate
Estimated
Corridor Cost
10 ft Shared-use Path & 2 ft Interior and Exterior Shoulders
A barrier separated 10 ft
shared-use path is provided for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Access to and from the 10 ft
shared-use path would be
provided prior to the bridge.
N/A $36,200
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
42%
48%
Alternative 2
16.B.1.c
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Marco Island Loop Trail - Cost Summary (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)
Marco Island Loop Trail
CR 92 – Bridge over Drainage Canal (Bridge No. 034128)
Typical Description
Estimated
Per Mile
Estimate
Estimated
Corridor Cost
Barrier Separated 10 ft Shared-use Path & 2 ft Shoulder
A barrier separated 10 ft
shared-use path is provided
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The remaining bridge deck
width would accommodate
two 12 ft drive lanes with 2 ft
outside shoulders.
N/A $23,200
Barrier Separated 8 ft Shared-use Path & 4 ft Shoulder
A barrier separated 8 ft
shared-use path is provided
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The remaining bridge deck
width would accommodate
two 11 ft drive lanes with 4 ft
outside shoulders.
N/A $23,200
C.R. 92 – Goodland Bridge (Bridge No. 030184) – No costs included at this time.
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
44%
50%
16.B.1.c
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Marco Island Loop Trail - Cost Summary (25682 : Marco Island Loop Trail Feasibility Study)