Loading...
MPO Agenda 04/12/2024COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 April 12, 2024 9:30 AM Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., Chair Commissioner Dan Kowal, Vice-Chair Council Member Greg Folley Commissioner Chris Hall Commissioner Burt L. Saunders Commissioner Rick LoCastro Council Member Tony Pernas Council Member Linda Penniman Council Member Berne Barton This meeting of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is open to the public and citizen input is encouraged. Any person wishing to speak on any scheduled item may do so upon recognition of the Chairperson. Any person desiring to have an item placed on the agenda shall make a request in writing with a description and summary of the item, to the MPO Director or MPO Chairman 14 days prior to the date of the next scheduled meeting of the MPO. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting should contact 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 or race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, or familial status may file a complaint with the Collier MPO Title VI Coordinator Ms. Suzanne Miceli (239) 252-5814 or by email at: Suzanne.Miceli@colliercountyfl.gov, or in writing to the Collier MPO, attention: Ms. Miceli, at 2885 South Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, PREVIOUS MINUTES AND CONSENT ITEMS 4.A. February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492) 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 6. AGENCY UPDATES 6.A. FDOT 6.B. MPO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 7. COMMITTEE CHAIR REPORTS 7.A. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) 7.A.1. Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report (28493) 7.B. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) 7.B.1. Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report (28494) 7.C. BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC) 7.C.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report (28495) 7.D. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (CMC) 7.D.1. Congestion Management Committee Chair Report (28496) 7.E. LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD (LCB) 7.E.1. Local Coordinating Board Chair Report (28497) 8. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (ROLL CALL REQUIRED) 9. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (NO ROLL CALL) 9.A. Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program (28498) 9.B. Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement for Calendar Year 2023 (28499) 9.C. Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws (28500) 9.D. Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management Committee Bylaws (28501) 9.E. Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain Consistency with Amended CMC Bylaws (28502) 9.F. Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged (28503) 9.G. Approve a New Appointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee (28504) 9.H. Reaffirm or Modify Board Direction on Lee /Collier MPO Consolidation and Reorganizing MPOAC Meetings (28505) 9.I. Approve Addition of Expedited Safety Lighting Project at Intersection of SR 29 and Oil Well Rd (28506) 9.J. Support for Developing a Partial Interchange at Everglades Blvd and I-75 (28507) 10. PRESENTATIONS (MAY REQUIRE BOARD ACTION) 10.A. Trust for Public Land’s Seminole Gulf Railroad Right-of-Way Purchase Agreement and the Bonita-Estero Rail Trail in Lee and Collier Counties (28508) 10.B. Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering Group on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (28510) 11. MEMBER COMMENTS 12. DISTRIBUTION ITEMS 12.A. Communications from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue (Discretionary Grants & GHG Targets) (28511) 13. NEXT MEETING DATE 13.A. Next Meeting Date: May 10, 2024, 9:30 a.m. Board of County Commissioners Chambers, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL, 34112 (28512) 14. ADJOURN 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 4.A Doc ID: 28492 Item Summary: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 11:58 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 11:58 AM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 11:55 AM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:02 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 4.A Packet Pg. 4 1 Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 February 9, 2024 | 9:30 a.m. MEETING MINUTES **HYBRID REMOTE – IN-PERSON AND VIRTUALLY VIA ZOOM 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Folley called the meeting to order at approximately 9:30 a.m. 2. ROLL CALL Ms. Hansen called roll and confirmed a quorum was present in the room. Members Present (in BCC Chambers) Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., Collier County BCC District 5 (Chair as of item 9.A.) Commissioner Dan Kowal, Collier County BCC District 4 (Vice-Chair as of item 9.A.) Council Member Greg Folley, Chair, City of Marco Island (left during item 10.B.) Council Member Paul Perry, City of Naples Council Member Ted Blankenship, City of Naples Council Member Tony Pernas, Everglades City Members Absent Commissioner Burt Saunders, Collier County BCC District 3 Commissioner Chris Hall, Vice-Chair, Collier County BCC District 2 Commissioner Rick LoCastro, Collier County BCC District 1 MPO Staff Anne McLaughlin, Executive Director Sean Kingston, Principal Planner Dusty Hansen, Senior Planner Suzanne Miceli, Administrative Support Specialist II FDOT Wayne Gaither, Manager, District 1 Southwest Area Office Victoria Peters, Community Liaison (arrived during item 5) Pam Barr, Planning Specialist FDOT via Zoom Babuji Ambikapathy, Transportation Systems Chief Engineer 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 2 Others Present Scott Teach, Esq., Deputy County Attorney Trinity Scott, Department Head, Collier County Transportation Mgmt. Services Lorraine Lantz, Manager, Collier County Transportation Planning, TAC Chair Anthony Matonti, Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Riley Kempton, Quest Corporation Michelle Avola-Brown, Naples Pathways Coalition 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Folley led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, PREVIOUS MINUTES AND CONSENT ITEMS Ms. McLaughlin proposed to amend the agenda by moving item 9.A., Elect Chair and Vice-Chair, ahead of item 5, as Chair Folley needed to depart early. Commissioner McDaniel moved to approve the amended agenda and Commissioner Kowal seconded. Passed unanimously. 4.A. December 8, 2023 MPO Morning Meeting Minutes Council Member Perry moved to approve the Morning Special Meeting Minutes and Council Member Pernas seconded. Passed unanimously. 4.B. December 8, 2023 MPO Afternoon Meeting Minutes Council Member Perry moved to approve the Afternoon Regular Meeting Minutes and Commissioner McDaniel seconded. Passed unanimously. 4.C. Approve Change Order 1 for Jacobs Engineering Group for the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Council Member Perry moved to ratify the Consent Item, and Council Member Pernas seconded. Passed unanimously. *Item 9.A. was heard after Item 4.C., as per the amended Agenda. Commissioner McDaniel was elected MPO Chair and Commissioner Kowal was elected MPO Vice-Chair. They assumed their roles as of Item 5. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Ms. Avola-Brown mentioned that a sponsor had been obtained for House Bill 1469, which would 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 3 extend requirements for hands-free cell phone use to all roads from school and construction zone only. Senate Bill 1664 also gained a sponsor with progress in the House of Representatives. Ms. Avola-Brown testified in Tallahassee at various committees on behalf of the bills and received unanimous support. She explained that on average, 9 people die every day on Florida roads, and that 6 of those fatalities are attributed to distracted driving. Drivers who text behind the wheel are 23 times more likely to be in a crash or near miss and Florida has one of the highest road fatality rates in the country. In a study from 2020-2022, it was shown that there has been a 5 second per hour increase in phone interactions in Florida, resulting in 3500 additional crashes. Ohio recently passed hands-free legislature and saw a 25% percent drop in road fatalities. A 2023 study, where drivers opted in to have a phone app track their phone use while driving, showed that 34% of drivers were interacting with their phones when crashes occurred. Hands-free phone use requirements could stop one-third of yearly crashes in Florida, saving over a thousand lives per year and preventing 86,000 injuries. 29 other states have enforceable hands-free legislation. She asked that the Board support the message of distraction-free driving. Successor Chair McDaniel mentioned that he was a supporter of legislation that passed several years ago which enabled law enforcement to apprehend distracted drivers. He applauded Ms. Avola-Brown on her efforts. Council Member Perry asked about the statistics of the reduction of crashes in states which had passed enforceable hands-free legislation. Ms. Avola-Brown said that across the board, within a 3-to-6-month average, there was a 15-20% reduction of crashes and crash fatalities. Successor Vice-Chair Kowal mentioned that as a retired Law Enforcement Officer, when the texting and driving statute passed in Florida several years ago, it was positively received by Law Enforcement. They started with education and then moved on to citing drivers. Many drivers were able to find loopholes in the statute, so he applauded Ms. Avola-Brown for her efforts to update the legislation necessary to make phone use while driving citations more enforceable. Successor Vice-Chair Kowal continued by saying that the legislation would also improve traffic congestion. A group discussion followed regarding the improvements that enforceable hands-free legislation would make to traffic and safety. 6. AGENCY UPDATES 6.A. FDOT Mr. Gaither said FDOT was in session with state legislature and member projects were being addressed, noting a project in Collier County being among them. FDOT wanted to stress that the funding mechanism used for earmarked projects either comes from the state General Fund (GF) or Transportation Trust Fund (TTF), and when funding comes from the TTF, no funds can be added to complete projects. It has been anticipated that the TTF being adopted as part of FDOT’s Work Program will have to be amended to fiscally accommodate earmarked funds. The GF come from a different source and have no impact on the 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 4 Work Program or budget currently in place for the Five-Year Work Program. Mr. Gaither added that it is helpful if the state legislature knows that the General Fund is a benefit to our local communities and allows FDOT to continue forward with their transportation projects. Ms. Peters announced that FDOT was honoring Crossing Guard Appreciation Day on February 2, 2024, and thanked the “guardians of safety” for their service. Project updates were that S.R. 82 from Hendry County Line to Gator Slough Lane, which includes a shared-use path, was on track to begin the construction bidding process in May 2024. Successor Chair McDaniel commented that the project would greatly benefit the eastern portion of the County, along with the Moving Florida Forward (MFF) initiative. Ms. Peters also mentioned that the interchange improvement project at I-75 and 951 had begun and the noise wall was almost complete. Construction had started - driving piles for the northbound overpass on Collier Blvd over Beck Blvd, and the southbound overpass improvements were scheduled to begin next month. Ms. Peters said that FDOT was pursuing a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study for the Immokalee Road Interchange to see if funding would allow for a widening of the road. MFF project updates included the Golden Gate to Corkscrew PD&E design contract being executed and construction funding was planned for FY 2027, Pine Ridge was scheduled for construction bidding in October 2024, S.R. 29 from C.R. 846 East to New Market Road phase one plans had been reviewed and the next phase would be design and construction likely in FY 2027, and phase one plans for S.R. 29 from New Market Road to S.R. 82 had also been reviewed and the design and construction would likely be funded in FY 2027. Ms. Peters finished by saying that FDOT extended congratulations to Anne McLaughlin and the Collier MPO team on the successful outcome of their OIG audit. She asked if there were questions. Council Member Blankenship asked if FDOT and the state legislature had identified a replacement funding source for the decline of gas tax funds due to the electric vehicle and alternative fuel incentives. Mr. Gaither responded by saying there was no concrete funding replacement source in place at the time, but that there had been discussion regarding the subject, and that FDOT was preparing for those efforts. Council Member Blankenship remarked that it’s a fairness issue because people are being given incentives by the federal government to purchase electric vehicles, but without a gas tax funding source replacement, they are not contributing to the upkeep of the road facilities they use. Mr. Gaither said there was legislation being written with electric vehicles identified to incur a potential additional tax, including a sliding scale for hybrid vehicles, with those funds being funneled into the TTF. Council Member Blankenship asked if the money would go into the state trust fund or if counties and municipalities would get a share. 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 5 Mr. Gaither said he believed the funds would be utilized the same way the gas tax funds had been used, but that he would research the question and send a copy of the legislation to Ms. McLaughlin and the Board. Council Member Blankenship suggested that the other Board members also might want to follow up, as each would need money available to repair and build new roads. Chair Folley noted that electric vehicles are heavier and therefore cause more wear and tear to the roads. His perception was that electric vehicles are not being utilized by consumers, citing car dealerships in Marco Island with unpurchased electric vehicles. Mr. Gaither wanted to add to the previously mentioned OIG audit Collier MPO had recently completed by stating it was a routine audit that all MPOs would be asked to complete, but Ms. McLaughlin was the test pilot and first one to complete it. Successor Vice-Chair Kowal added to Chair Folley’s comment that electric vehicles are heavier and cause more wear and tear to the roads, by mentioning that large electric vehicles and trucks are so heavy they break though standard roadway safety rails and barriers during accidents, and that building stronger safety barriers along the roads will need to be addressed and added to budget costs. Mr. Gaither said he would bring Commissioner Kowal’s comment to the safety crew in Tallahassee to see if there was any action being taken regarding this issue, and report back at the next Board meeting. Successor Chair McDaniel requested that in the meantime, Ms. McLaughlin investigate the status of the legislation, as there had been much discussion regarding gas tax revenue replacement and ways those funds might be allocated to municipalities when he attended the last Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) meeting. Successor Chair McDaniel asked Ms. Peters for an update on S.R. 29 and Oil Well Rd. Ms. Peters said that as far as she understood, FDOT safety and traffic operations staff had been working with Collier County and started the process of implementing safety-focused, traffic-related signs and/or signals. Successor Chair McDaniel requested that lighting be improved at the location to improve safety. Ms. Peters said she would investigate the details of the project and provide an update later in the meeting. *During Item 11, Ms. Peters informed Successor Chair McDaniel that the project included adding oversized intersection signs, stop signs, beacons, rumble strips and other safety equipment on S.R. 29. Referring to the Commissioner’s request for lighting, Ms. Peters recommended that lighting be added to Collier MPO’s priority list. 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 6 6.B. MPO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Ms. McLaughlin mentioned that the 2024 MPOAC Weekend Institute announcement flyer had been placed at the seat of each Board member, and that there were a few different weekend dates being offered for anyone interested in taking the course. 7. COMMITTEE CHAIR REPORTS Successor Chair McDaniel suggested that since each Chair Report was included in writing in the MPO agenda packet, that unless a committee chair had something additional to add, the written reports would suffice for presentation. Ms. McLaughlin mentioned that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) citizen- volunteer chair, Mr. Matonti, was present with the intention of addressing the Board, and that she would like to give him the opportunity. 7.A. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) 7.A.1. Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report Report presented in writing. 7.B. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) 7.B.1. Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report Report presented in writing. 7.C. BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC) 7.C.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report Mr. Matonti said that the 2024 BPAC chair and vice-chair had been elected. He thanked outgoing BPAC Vice-Chair Patty Huff and extended his congratulations to newly elected BPAC Vice-Chair Michelle Sproviero. He informed the Board that he had been re-elected as BPAC Chair. Mr. Matonti also wanted to recognize BPAC members who have long served on the committee, including Andrea Halman, Alan Musico, Dayna Fendrick, Joe Bonness, and Patty Huff, and recognize newer BPAC members such as, Kim Jacob, Mark Komanecky and Robert Phelan. He thanked outgoing member, George Dondanville for his service, and said he looked forward to welcoming new members. He thanked the BPAC members for their time and effort and expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to serve as BPAC Chair. Mr. Matonti mentioned that he recently attended his Commissioner District meeting and learned that the County budget was approximately $2 billion, saying he felt excited imagining the bicycle and pedestrian projects that 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 7 could be built from just a half of a percent of the budget. He asked if there were any questions. Chair Folley mentioned that he has received many complaints regarding e-bikes on shared-use paths on Marco Island due to speed, and asked Mr. Matonti if BPAC had discussed the issue or was aware of such complaints. Mr. Matonti said BPAC had discussed the issue at meetings where Collier County Sherriff Department was in attendance, and said it is a topic which needs to be addressed. Successor Chair McDaniel suggested that Mr. Matonti discuss it thoroughly at a BPAC meeting with the Sherriff’s Department and return to the MPO Board with some possible solutions for discussion. 7.D. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (CMC) 7.D.1. Congestion Management Committee Chair Report Report presented in writing. 7.E. LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD (LCB) 7.E.1. Local Coordinating Board Chair Report None. Successor Chair McDaniel requested that the Advisory Committee Chair Reports include a list of all committee member names moving forward. Ms. McLaughlin confirmed that the request would be implemented beginning with the next published MPO Board agenda packet. Council Member Blankenship requested that Advisory Committee vacancies also be included in the report so that the Board members might assist in filling those vacancies with the relevant constituents. 8. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (ROLL CALL REQUIRED) 8.A. Approve an Amendment to the FY 2024-2028 Transportation Improvement Program and Authorizing Resolution to add five transit projects Mr. Kingston said the item being presented was for the Board to approve an Amendment to the FY 2024-2028 Collier MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Authorizing Resolution which would add five transit projects. FDOT requested Collier MPO to amend its FY 2024-2028 TIP to include a capital for fixed transit route project for the replacement of a fixed route bus, an urban corridor improvement project for operating funds to support bus routes on state roadways, and three capital for fixed transit route projects, which include the replacement of two fixed route buses and a new support vehicle. Collier MPO followed the TIP Amendment public involvement process outlined in Collier MPO’s Public 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 8 Participation Plan by presenting the Amendment for endorsement to Technical and the Citizens Advisory Committees (TAC/CAC) and announcing a public comment period on the MPO website as well as via e- mail to applicable list-serve(s). The comment period began on January 12, 2024, and ended with the MPO Board meeting on February 9, 2024. TAC and CAC voted to endorse the Amendment at their January 22, 2024, meetings. Successor Vice-Chair Kowal moved to approve an Amendment to the FY 2024-2028 Transportation Improvement Program and Authorizing Resolution to add five transit project and Council Member Blankenship seconded. Roll Call Vote. Council Member Blankenship – Yes Council Member Folley - Yes Commissioner Kowal – Yes Commissioner McDaniel – Yes Council Member Pernas - Yes Council Member Perry - Yes Passed unanimously. 8.B. Approve an Amendment to the FY 2024-2028 Transportation Improvement Program and Authorizing Resolution for South Golf Drive Mr. Kingston said the item was being presented for the MPO Board to approve an Amendment to the FY 2024-2028 Collier MPO TIP and Authorizing Resolution to revise a project and add a project on South Golf Drive regarding bicycle and pedestrian matters. FDOT has requested that Collier MPO amend its FY 2024-2028 TIP for the South Golf Drive bicycle/ pedestrian project to add a new project number for the construction phase and make a correction to the Transportation System and Roadway ID and beginning/ending mileposts. The original TIP project sheet for FPN 440437-1 has been revised and a new TIP project sheet for segment -2 has been added. The construction phase has been moved from segment -1 to -2, authorized with a different Federal Aid Number. Collier MPO followed the TIP Amendment public involvement process outlined in Collier MPO’s Public Participation Plan by presenting the Amendment for endorsement to the Technical and the Citizens Advisory Committees (TAC/CAC) and announcing a public comment period on the MPO website as well as via e-mail to applicable list-serve(s). The comment period began on January 16, 2024, and ended with the MPO Board meeting on February 9, 2024. TAC and CAC voted to endorse the Amendment at their January 22, 2024, meetings. Staff recommended approval. Council Member Blankenship moved to approve an Amendment to the FY 2024-2028 Transportation Improvement Program and Authorizing Resolution for South Golf Drive and Successor Vice-Chair Kowal seconded. Roll Call Vote. 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 9 Council Member Blankenship – Yes Council Member Folley - Yes Commissioner Kowal – Yes Commissioner McDaniel – Yes Council Member Pernas - Yes Council Member Perry - Yes Passed unanimously. 8.C. Approve an Amendment to the FY 2024-2028 Transportation Improvement Program and Authorizing Resolution for State Road 82 Mr. Kingston explained that this item was being presented for the MPO Board to approve an Amendment to the FY 2024-2028 Collier MPO TIP and Authorizing Resolution to include a project adding lanes and reconstructing State Road 82 from the Hendry County Line to Gator Slough Lane. FDOT requested that Collier MPO amend its FY 2024-2028 TIP to include this project previously from the FY 2023-2027 TIP. Toward the end of FY 23, the project’s construction phase was deferred to FY 24 and therefore not included in the TIP download files. The State Road 82 project is being added to the current TIP to receive federal funds for the final phase of the final segment of the road widening. FDOT’s amendment request was made after the Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees’ (TAC/CAC) January 22, 2024 meeting. Under Collier MPO’s Public Participation Plan, “Exceptions to Notification Commitments” allows staff to bring proposed actions to the Board on which TAC and CAC have not had the opportunity to review or comment when in response to a request by FDOT to act quickly. Otherwise, Collier MPO followed the TIP Amendment public involvement process outlined in Collier MPO’s Public Participation Plan by announcing a public comment period on the MPO website as well as via e-mail to applicable list-serve(s). The comment period began on January 30, 2024, and ended with the MPO Board meeting on February 9, 2024. Council Member Pernas moved to approve an Amendment to the FY 2024-2028 Transportation Improvement Program and Authorizing Resolution for State Road 82 and Council Member Perry seconded. Roll Call Vote. Council Member Blankenship – Yes Council Member Folley - Yes Commissioner Kowal – Yes Commissioner McDaniel – Yes Council Member Pernas - Yes Council Member Perry - Yes Passed unanimously. 9. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (NO ROLL CALL) 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 10 *Item 9.A. was heard after Item 4.C. as per the amended agenda. 9.A. Elect MPO Board Chair and Vice-Chair Chair Folley moved to Elect Commissioner McDaniel as MPO Board Chair and Council Member Blankenship seconded. Passed unanimously. Commissioner McDaniel moved to Elect Commissioner Kowal as MPO Board Vice-Chair and Council Member Pernas seconded. Passed unanimously. Commissioner McDaniel and Commissioner Kowal assumed their roles as MPO Board Chair and MPO Board Vice-Chair immediately following the vote. 9.B. Elect Representatives to Serve on the Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council Board for 2024 Ms. McLaughlin said prior to the meeting, she was able to check with Successor Chair McDaniel to see if he would like to continue serving as the Collier MPO representative on the Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) Board for Calendar Year 2024. Successor Chair McDaniel confirmed that he was interested in continuing his role on MPOAC unless another Board member also had interest. Council Member Blankenship moved to elect Successor Chair McDaniel as representative to serve on the Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council Board for 2024 and Successor Vice- Chair Kowal seconded. Passed unanimously. Ms. McLaughlin added that she had also reached out to Commissioner Saunders before the meeting to inquire about his interest in continuing as Collier MPO alternate representative on the MPOAC, and he said would be willing to continue to serve in that capacity pending any other Board member interest. Council Member Pernas moved to elect Commissioner Saunders to serve as alternate representative on the Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council Board for 2024 and Council Member Folley seconded. Passed unanimously. 9.C. Report to the MPO Board on the status of contract negotiations with the Board- selected candidate for the position of Executive Director at its December 2023 meeting, and a recommendation to approve a Fifth Amendment to the existing Executive Director’s Employment Agreement extending the term of employment and increasing her annual salary. Mr. Teach informed the Board that MPO Executive Director candidate, Lorraine Lantz, had withdrawn her application during contract negotiations, and with Ms. McLaughlin’s employment contract ending on Board meeting day, he had preemptively reached out to her to inquire if she was willing to 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 11 continue in her current role and extend her contract up to one year (with the opportunity to continue up to two additional years), raising her salary from the current $117,000 to the salary negotiated by the prior applicant of $140,000. Council Member Folley moved to approve a Fifth Amendment to the existing Executive Director’s Employment Agreement extending the term of employment and increasing her annual salary, and Successor Vice-Chair Kowal seconded. Successor Chair McDaniel asked if there was any more discussion on the matter. Council Member Blankenship queried if there was money already in the budget for the salary or if fund would need to be added. Ms. McLaughlin responded that money in the budget had been earmarked to cover the prior applicant’s requested salary. Chair Folley noted that with it being a time of so many questions surrounding current legislation, which perhaps might push for the merging of Collier and Lee MPOs, that he was thankful Ms. McLaughlin was willing to extend her contract and continue in her role, the with new salary being appropriate. Successor Chair McDaniel concurred. Passed unanimously. 9.D. Recommendation to award Agreement No. 22-8025, 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., for professional consulting services in the amount of $821,169 and authorize the Chair to execute the attached agreement Ms. McLaughlin said item 9.D. was a recommendation to award Agreement No. 22-8025 to procure professional consulting services to prepare the 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) on behalf of the Collier MPO. She continued by saying that the MPO is required to complete a LRTP to receive federal funds. The LRTP is updated every five years and must maintain a minimum time horizon of 20 years to be in federal compliance. The 2045 LRTP was adopted in December 2020; therefore the 2050 LRTP must be adopted by December 2025, noting that the previous LRTP update took two years to complete. Collier MPO completed the selection process for the 2050 LRTP, and on April 14, 2023, the MPO Board accepted the selection committee’s ranking and authorized staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked firm, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., for the 2050 LRTP. With assistance from Collier County and in accordance with Florida Statute §287.055, the Consultant’s Competitive Negotiation Act, staff negotiated and reached a proposed agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., in the total amount of $821,169. This is within the 10% increase allocated for inflation of the $610,000 2045 LRTP consulting contract. With $635,389 in funding identified in the FY 22-24 Unified Planning Work Program for the LRTP, FDOT has programmed SU funds for Collier MPO that can be used for the LRTP in future years, including $350,000 in FY 2025 and $350,000 in FY 2026. If necessary, PL funding will be reallocated to cover any shortfall in future fiscal years. 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 12 Staff received concurrence on the proposed agreement from FDOT and FHWA, and TAC and CAC previously approved the scope of services at their February 28, 2022, meetings. Contracting matters are not taken to the advisory committees. Ms. McLaughlin recommended that the Board approve the award of Agreement No. 22-8025 to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., for professional consulting services to complete the 2050 LRTP and authorize the Chair to sign the agreement. Successor Chair McDaniel expressed his concurrence that preparing the LRTP was an important task for the Collier MPO to complete. Successor Vice-Chair Kowal moved to approve to award Agreement No. 22-8025, 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan, to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., for professional consulting services in the amount of $821,169 and authorize the Chair to execute the attached agreement, and Chair Folley seconded. Passed unanimously. * Successor Chair McDaniel elected to hear item 10.B. immediately following Item 9.D. so that Chair Folley could participate in the discussion of the item, as Chair Folley needed to depart early. 9.E. Approve a Work Order for TY Lin International to complete the Safe Streets for All Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Ms. McLaughlin said that this item was being presented to request that the Board to approve a work order for TY Lin International to complete the Safe Streets for All Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. Collier County Procurement Services assigned the contract to TY Lin and the contract falls under the auspices of the General Planning Contract. Collier MPO concurs with TY Lin’s scope and the $248,900 cost to complete the work order, which is within budget. Council Member Blankenship moved to approve to Work Order for TY Lin International to complete the Safe Streets for All Comprehensive Safety Action Plan, and Council Member Perry seconded. Passed unanimously. * Successor Chair McDaniel elected to hear item 10.A. immediately following Item 9.E. Item 9.F. was heard after Item 10.A. 9.F. Approve the Collier to Polk Regional Trail PD&E as a Priority for SUN Trail Funding Ms. McLaughlin explained that this item was for the Board to approve the Collier to Polk Regional Trail Project Development and Environmental PD&E phase as a priority for SUN Trail funding. She reminded the Board that in September 2023, it voted to add the Collier to Polk Trail to the SUN Trail Network, and then on December 6, 2023, the Florida Greenways and Trails Council gave its approval, followed by the Board’s ratification of the addition of S.R. 29 to the trail. FDOT submitted an application for SUN Trail funding to conduct a Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) Study for the Collier 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 13 to Polk Trail to meet the December 20, 2023 deadline. However, the project still must be formally approved as an MPO Board priority in order to receive SUN Trail funding in the amount of approximately $6.3 million. Council Member Pernas moved to approve the Collier to Polk Regional Trail PD&E as a Priority for SUN Trail Funding, and Council Member Blankenship seconded. Successor Chair McDaniel expressed his hope that an incremental evolution of the project didn’t derail its completion as he had seen happen to other vision projects in the past and said he would be interested in seeing the total estimated cost. He expressed concern that care be taken to ensure that this vision does not turn controversial in terms of environmentally sensitive lands. Successor Vice-Chair Kowal had questions regarding whether there would be high costs for the County for the portions of the trail that were within Collier County’s environmentally sensitive areas. Ms. McLaughlin explained that the PD&E study is for the entire loop including the entire County portion and would clarify the expenses. Once the expenses are known from the study, it would be the County’s discretion whether they would move forward with their portion of the trail. A group discussion followed, and it agreed that total cost knowledge was imperative. Passed unanimously. 9.G. Adopt the Florida Department of Transportation Vision Zero Safety Performance Targets for Calendar Year 2024 Ms. McLaughlin explained that this item was for the Board to adopt FDOT’s Vision Zero Safety Performance Targets for Calendar Year 2024. She noted that when this item was heard in the previous year, the Board had requested that next time they be informed about the Collier region transportation safety status. She reported that via FDOT statistics for the area, rate of fatalities was trending down the last few years and the rate of serious injuries were going up. Pedestrian and bicycle trends are more challenging to track and find trends, but the Collier region shows a slight trend down of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities. She noted the challenge of predicting future statistics and measuring policies. Successor Chair McDaniel concurred that it is almost impossible to predict future statistics but that the statistics FDOT makes available are beneficial, and that supporting a zero fatality target is a step in the right direction. Council Member Blankenship moved to adopt the Florida Department of Transportation Vision Zero Safety Performance Targets for Calendar Year 2024, and Successor Vice-Chair Kowal seconded. Passed unanimously. 9.H. Approve Two New Appointments and Three Reappointments to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 14 Mr. Kingston explained that the item was for the Board to approve two new appointments and three reappointments to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). The MPO has received two applications to fill the two vacancies on the BPAC. All voting members are at-large per BPAC bylaws. Three members are applying for reappointment. Their terms expire on February 29, 2024. He went through the list candidates and noted topics of interest about them. He mentioned that with these appointments and reappointments, BPAC membership would be completely filled. Council Member Pernas moved to approve Two New Appointments and Three Reappointments to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and Council Member Perry seconded. Passed unanimously. 9.I. Approve Reappointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee Ms. Miceli explained that this item for the Board to approve the reappointment of a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) member, Karen Homiak, to represent District IV. She shared some of Ms. Homiak’s qualifying accomplishments and that District IV Commissioner, Vice-Chair Kowal, had given his approval of her reappointment. Successor Vice-Chair Kowal moved to approve Reappointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee, and Council Member Perry seconded. Passed unanimously. 9.J. Review and Comment on FDOT Proposed Functional Classification and Urban Boundary Updates Ms. McLaughlin explained that the item is for the Board to review and comment on FDOT Functional Classification and Urban Boundary Updates. She said that since the writing of the Executive Summary for this item, she learned that after revisions requested by the County were made by FDOT, Transportation Department Services Head, Trinity Scott, expressed that she was satisfied with the document. Ms. McLaughlin wanted to make mention FDOT’s forthcoming and cooperative response to the County’s request. Council Member Blankenship moved to accept the FDOT Proposed Functional Classification and Urban Boundary Updates, and Council Member Perry seconded. Passed unanimously. 10. PRESENTATIONS (MAY REQUIRE BOARD ACTION) 10.A. Federal Quadrennial Review of Collier MPO 2024 – Schedule Ms. McLaughlin said the item was being presented so that the Board would be aware of Collier MPO’s upcoming quadrennial review by the Federal Highway and Federal Transit Administrations. She said that during this review process, it is common for the federal team to request corrective actions be taken for some items. The site visit and public meeting element of the review is scheduled for July 23-24, 2024. It is beneficial to have the MPO Chair or Vice-Chair in attendance to say a few words about the process and answer questions. 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 15 Successor Chair McDaniel said he would be in attendance, and if the public meeting was to be recorded, Board Chambers could be a good location for the meeting. Item 10.A. was heard for comment and review only. 10.B. Report on Pending Legislation Affecting Collier MPO and Concerns Expressed by Representative Botana Ms. McLaughlin explained that Senate Bill 1032 and House Bill 7049 are companion bills that propose eliminating the MPOAC, adding new performance metrics for MPOs to meet, and granting FDOT greater authority over the MPOs. The bills call for Lee and Collier Counties to submit a feasibility report by February 28, 2025, exploring the benefits, costs, and process of consolidation into a single MPO. According to a Memorandum on HB-7049 prepared by Paul Gougelman, MPOAC General Counsel, the bill raises two areas of concern: 1) consistency with federal law and administrative regulations and 2) cost- efficient delivery of services to the public and MPOs. HB-7049 was unanimously approved by the House Transportation and Modals Committee on January 19, 2024, and by the Infrastructure and Tourism Appropriations Subcommittee on February 1, 2024. SB-1032 differs from HB-7049 in that it also abolishes the Florida Transportation Commission (FTC). Ms. McLaughlin said that recently two of the most concerning elements of the bills had been edited out due to issues with the Sunshine Law, one being FDOT having greater authority over MPOs and allowing FDOT to replace an Executive Director and even sit on an MPO Board as Chair if so decided, and the other being the proposed abolishment of the FTC. She said that one element that is still of concern in the bills is the proposal of eliminating the MPOAC, noting that this proposal was discussed at the most recent MPOAC meeting, because the MPOAC provides a very good forum for these vital conversations. She added that a separate proposed legislation to be cognizant of is known as House Bill 1301 adds a new subsection (6) to section 339.155 Florida Statutes governing transportation planning, which would prohibit FDOT and MPOs from considering nonpecuniary factors such as environmental or social justice, or initiatives to achieve net zero emissions of carbon dioxide, when developing plans. The full legal impact of the enactment of such a law, considering the apparent inconsistency with existing federal administrative regulations. Ms. McLaughlin noted the relationship between all three bills and a letter from Senator Botana that preceded the introduction of the bills asking what could be done to facilitate more regional coordination between the Collier and Lee MPOs. The letter spurred Collier MPO to begin working on ideas of how to implement more coordination opportunities with Lee MPO, with preliminary feedback provided by FDOT. There are some favorable possibilities to create more coordination with Lee MPO for the Board to consider. She mentioned that the Lee MPO Executive Committee met and were in favor of a regional consolidation feasibility study, but not in favor of funding it, and Ms. McLaughlin concurred that Collier MPO did not have the funds available and wondered if the state might fund the study. Questions that arose were what was the problem that was being addressed and what were the possible alternative solutions? Successor Chair McDaniel mentioned that he voiced his opinion at the recent MPOAC meeting for the council to take action in regard to the bills. He said that he sees the MPOAC as a mechanism for the 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 16 aggregate transportation leaders in the state to receive information, but rather than abolishment, maybe adopting a more efficient meeting structure, which would include remote participation, might be a better option fiscally. He said that he was in favor of the Collier-Lee MPO consolidation study through an equitable process, but that legislation to establish funding for the study needed to be in place. He believed more would be discovered as the process evolved that would allow for a more informed view of the best course of action. Successor Chair McDaniel suggested that Collier MPO send a letter to state legislators expressing support for the portion of the bill regarding the Collier-Lee feasibility study with consideration for the state to provide the necessary funding for the study. He also suggested recommending that a reorganization of the MPOAC meeting process be considered to include remote participation rather than total abolishment. Successor Chair McDaniel moved for Collier MPO to send a letter to state legislators expressing support and establishing funding for the Collier-Lee feasibility study and recommending a reorganization of the MPOAC meeting process and Chair Folley seconded. Council Member Pernas asked what other regions were consolidating within the state. Mr. Gaither stated that in FDOT District 1, current consolidations in place are Sarasota -Manatee MPO, Heartland TPO comprised of six rural counties. He mentioned that he was uncertain of all of the current consolidations throughout state, but referenced an aspect of the bill that said any new urbanized areas would be incorporated into the nearest adjacent MPO/TPO region. Council Member Blankenship said that the low attendance by the Lee MPO Board at the joint Collier-Lee MPO Board meeting in August 2023 would need to be addressed in the feasibility study. He wondered if in addition to a letter to the state legislatures, an arranged meeting with local legislators might also be helpful. Successor Chair McDaniel said that once the Board passed this motion, his intention was to suggest that each Board member reach out to legislators as well. Passed unanimously. *Following item 10.B., Item 9.E. was heard. 11. MEMBER COMMENTS Council Member Pernas thanked everyone for the sidewalks in Everglades City being completed in time for the Everglades Seafood Festival. He also thanked Ms. Miceli and Successor Chair McDaniel for attending the opening ceremony of the festival, saying it was appreciated by the community. Council Member Perry announced that since there was discussion regarding cancelling the March MPO Board meeting, that if that was the case, that this would be his last MPO Board meeting, as his term would expire April 3, 2024. He thanked Ms. McLaughlin and the Collier MPO staff, FDOT and the MPO 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 17 Board for a very pleasurable professional experience. Successor Vice-Chair Kowal wanted to inform everyone that the Board can hear conversations even from behind the wall of the dais. He also wanted to mention that he was pleased Ms. McLaughlin would be continuing in her role as Collier MPO Executive Director and appreciated working with her. Council Member Blankenship asked about the plan for U.S. 41 within the limits of the City of Naples. He said he was aware that it is in the LRTP, but there had been citizen inquiries regarding more distressed areas of the highway and so, he was curious to know if there might be any thoughts about any possible quick fixes for the most distressed areas. Mr. Gaither said he would investigate the matter and follow up with Council Member Blankenship when he had an answer. Successor Chair McDaniel requested Ms. Scott to approach the dais and asked her about topic of traffic light signalization timing that was presented at the proposed moratorium meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. Ms. Scott said that in the conversations that were had at the BCC meeting, the focus was on Immokalee Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension. There is a signal timing project that has been funded by FDOT and through the MPO process to retime the traffic signals in those areas. There is an in- season and out-of-season signal timing that will be implemented. Successor Chair McDaniel then asked Ms. Scott about the status of I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Ms. Scott said that the project was being funded within the County’s LRTP. She said she had conversations with Secretary L.K. Nandam regarding the points Successor Chair McDaniel had brought up at both the BCC and the MPO Board meetings, to see if there is a possibility to open the existing interchange, with modifications for safety to allow merging. She said she was working with County staff to put in a legislative request to allow for a study and perhaps the requested improvements. Successor Chair McDaniel wanted it to be known that he was looking to open the interchange for travel for southbound on Everglades Blvd to come into town on I-75 and east bound on I-75 to come into the Picayune Strand State Forest or back up into eastern Collier County. He also mentioned he was open to adding a toll there to assist with the expenses and felt it would be worth the expense. He said he would bring it up on the BCC’s trip to Washington DC and he requested that Ms. McLaughlin add the item to the next MPO Board agenda to approve the project. Ms. Scott wanted to mention that another item that came out of the discussion that was had at the BCC proposed moratorium meeting was the MFF project mentioned by Ms. Peters that FDOT was pursuing a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study for, the Immokalee Road Interchange to see if funding would allow for a widening of the road was key for Collier County as that interchange also needed improvements as well. She said that the BCC authorized her to work with FDOT to try to advance moving that project forward to occur along with the MFF initiative. 12. DISTRIBUTION ITEMS 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 18 There were no distribution items. 13. NEXT MEETING DATE 13.A. March 8, 2024 - 9:30 a.m. Board of County Commissioners Chambers, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112 14. ADJOURN There being no further business, Successor Chair McDaniel adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:34 a.m. 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes (28492 : February 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes) 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) related to recent committee actions and recommendations. CONSIDERATIONS: Staff prepared the attached written report. The CAC Chair may provide a verbal report providing additional information regarding recent committee activities. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommendations are reported in the Executive Summary for each action item and may be elaborated upon by the Chair in his/her report to the Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. Prepared by: Anne McLaughlin, Executive Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. CAC Chair Report 3-25-24 (PDF) 7.A.1 Packet Pg. 23 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 7.A.1 Doc ID: 28493 Item Summary: Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 12:03 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 12:03 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:01 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:03 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 7.A.1 Packet Pg. 24 CAC Members: Elaine Middelstaedt, Chair; Neal Gelfand, Vice-Chair; Dennis DiDonna; Karen Homiak; Josh Rincon; Fred Sasser; Dennis Stalzer; Michelle Arnold; Josephine Medina; Vacancy-City of Naples; Vacancy-City of Marco Island; Vacancy-District 1. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Chair Report The Collier MPO held its regularly scheduled, in-person, CAC meeting on March 25, 2024; a quorum was achieved. Agency Reports • Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) o FDOT’s Community Liaison, Ms. Victoria Peters, announced that 2024 Legislative earmarks approved by the Governor will come out of the transportation trust fund and FDOT will have to adjust funding for projects in the Draft FY 25-29 Work Program accordingly. FDOT is working with Collier County on addressing safety concerns at the intersection of Oil Well Rd and S.R. 29 by installing flashing “stop ahead” lights, rumble strips and other signage. Commissioner McDaniel has requested nighttime lighting at the intersection and FDOT recommends including that in the MPO’s annual List of Project Priorities this year. • MPO Director o Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director, had no announcements other than noting what is on the agenda. Committee Actions • Endorsed the addition of Golden Gate Pkwy/Livingston Rd Intersection Design to the Joint Lee/Collier Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) Project Priority List for 2024. • Reviewed and commented on Draft FY 25/26 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). Reports and Presentations • Draft Report on the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Regional Service and Regional Fare Study presented by Jacobs Engineering Group and the County Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement Division. Distribution Items • None. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on April 22, 2024, at 2:00 PM. 7.A.1.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: CAC Chair Report 3-25-24 (28493 : Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report) 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) related to recent committee actions and recommendations. CONSIDERATIONS: Staff prepared the attached written report. The TAC Chair may provide a verbal report providing additional information regarding recent committee activities. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommendations are reported in the Executive Summary for each action item and may be elaborated upon by the Chair in his/her report to the Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. Prepared by: Anne McLaughlin, Executive Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. TAC Chair Report 3-25-24 (PDF) 7.B.1 Packet Pg. 26 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 7.B.1 Doc ID: 28494 Item Summary: Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 12:07 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 12:07 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:06 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:04 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 7.B.1 Packet Pg. 27 TAC Members: Lorraine Lantz, Chair; Alison Bickett, Vice-Chair; Omar De Leon; Dan Hall; Ute Vandersluis; Justin Martin; Harry Henkel; Don Scott; Daniel Smith; Margaret Wuerstle; Dave Rivera; John Lambcke; Vacancy-Collier County Airport Authority; Non-voting Member Vacancy-Local Environmental Organization. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Chair Report The Collier MPO held its regularly scheduled, in-person, TAC meeting on March 25, 2024; a quorum was achieved. Agency Reports • Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) o FDOT’s Community Liaison, Ms. Victoria Peters, announced that 2024 Legislative earmarks approved by the Governor will come out of the transportation trust fund and FDOT will have to adjust funding for projects in the Draft FY25-29 Work Program accordingly. FDOT is working with Collier County on addressing safety concerns at the intersection of Oil Well Rd and SR 29 by installing flashing “stop ahead” lights, rumble strips and other signage. Commissioner McDaniel has requested nighttime lighting at the intersection and FDOT recommends including that in the MPO’s annual List of Project Priorities this year. Ms. Lantz noted that the County is reviewing several development proposals at or near the intersection and asked that the MPO coordinate with County Transportation Planning. • MPO Director o Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director, had no announcements other than noting what is on the agenda. Committee Actions • Endorsed the addition of Golden Gate Pkwy/Livingston Rd Intersection Design to the Joint Lee/Collier Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) Project Priority List for 2024. • Reviewed and commented on Draft FY 25/26 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). • Endorsed an amendment to the TAC bylaws including revisions proposed by the two City of Naples representatives to reflect the City’s current organizational structure. Reports and Presentations • Draft Report on the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Regional Service and Regional Fare Study presented by Jacobs Engineering Group and the County Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement Division. Distribution Items • None. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on April 22, 2024, at 9:30 AM. 7.B.1.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: TAC Chair Report 3-25-24 (28494 : Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report) 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) related to recent committee actions and recommendations. CONSIDERATIONS: Staff prepared the attached written report. The BPAC Chair may provide a verbal report providing additional information regarding recent committee activities. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommendations are reported in the Executive Summary for each action item and may be elaborated upon by the Chair in his/her report to the Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. Prepared by: Anne McLaughlin, Executive Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. BPAC Chair Report 3-19-24 (PDF) 7.C.1 Packet Pg. 29 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 7.C.1 Doc ID: 28495 Item Summary: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 12:10 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 12:10 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:09 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:04 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 7.C.1 Packet Pg. 30 Committee Members: Anthony Matonti, Chair; Michelle Sproviero, Vice-Chair; Joe Bonness, Alan Musico; Dayna Fendrick; Robert Phelan; Andrea Halman; Patty Huff; Kim Jacob; Mark Komanecky; Kevin Dohn; Robert Vigorito. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) held its regularly scheduled in-person meeting on March 19, 2024; a quorum was achieved. Agency Reports • Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT): None. • MPO: None. Committee Actions • Anthony Matonti reported that at the February MPO Board meeting, Councilor Folley, Marco Island, and the MPO Board Chair, Commissioner McDaniel, asked that BPAC address pedestrian safety concerns with regard to the increasing use of ebikes on sidewalks and shared use paths. After much discussion, committee members voted unanimously to endorse a motion recommending that local governments limit speeds to 10-15 mph for ebikes riding on sidewalks and shared use paths, and develop the infrastructure needed that safely accommodates pedestrians, cyclists, ebikes and other forms of micromobility. • Doug Hattaway, Trust for Public Lands (TPL), gave a presentation on the Bonita-Estero Rail Trail (BERT) project. The BERT corridor is nearly 15 miles long from Estero Blvd to Wiggins Pass Rd. The ROW is mostly 130’-wide. TPL has the property under contract for $82 million and has until March 2026 to purchase the property. TPL is seeking local support for the project to aid its fundraising activities and will present to the MPO Board in April, with a request to place it on the MPO project priority list. The committee voted unanimously to endorse adding the project to the MPO’s priority list. Reports and Presentations • Ms. McLaughlin provided a brief update on the 2024 Call for Projects, stating that Everglades City and Marco Island intended to submit projects this year. Ms. Trinity Scott, County Transportation Management Services Department Head, explained that, rather than submitting new projects this year, the County would focus on advancing projects already in the pipeline from design to construction and on covering cost overruns on projects currently programmed for construction. • Ms. McLaughlin gave a preview of a presentation on the Collier to Polk Regional Trail that she was to provide to the Florida Greenways and Trails Council on March 27 in Winter Haven. The Council is meeting to vote on the re-ranking of regional trail projects due to the recent expansion of the State’s SUN Trail system. Distribution Items • None. The next regular meeting is scheduled for April 16, 2024, at 9:00 AM. 7.C.1.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: BPAC Chair Report 3-19-24 (28495 : Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report) 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Congestion Management Committee Chair Report OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Congestion Management Committee (CMC) related to recent committee actions and recommendations. CONSIDERATIONS: Staff prepared the attached written report. The CMC Chair may provide a verbal report providing additional information regarding recent committee activities. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommendations are reported in the Executive Summary for each action item and may be elaborated upon by the Chair in his/her report to the Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. Prepared by: Anne McLaughlin, Executive Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. CMC Chair Report 3-20-24 (PDF) 7.D.1 Packet Pg. 32 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 7.D.1 Doc ID: 28496 Item Summary: Congestion Management Committee Chair Report Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 12:13 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 12:13 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:12 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:05 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 7.D.1 Packet Pg. 33 Committee Members: Lorraine Lantz, Chair; Leandro Goicoechea, Vice-Chair; Justin Martin; Karen Homiak; Dayna Fendrick; Don Scott; Omar De Leon; Alison Bickett; John Lambcke; Dave Rivera; Vacant- Collier County Emergency Management. Congestion Management Committee Chair Report The Collier MPO held its regularly scheduled in-person Congestion Management Committee (CMC) meeting on March 20, 2024; a quorum was achieved. Agency Reports • Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT): o None. • MPO: o None. Committee Actions • The committee endorsed an amendment to the bylaws proposed by the County Transportation Management Services Department, with the inclusion of a correction to change the number of voting members from eleven to ten. Reports and Presentations • County Public Transportation and Neighborhood Enhancement Division (PTNE) staff discussed the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Regional Transit Service and Regional Fare Study draft report by Jacobs Engineering Group. PTNE staff reported on next steps and responded to questions from committee members. • PTNE Staff provided an update on the Major Update to the Transit Development Plan. Stantec is the consultant. The TDP will include various public participation and input opportunities. The anticipated completion date for the draft TDP is June 2025, so the TDP can be incorporated into the MPO’s 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan. The TDP is jointly managed by the MPO and PTNE. Distribution Items • None. Next Meeting The next regular meeting will be held on May 15, 2024, at 2:00 P.M. 7.D.1.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: CMC Chair Report 3-20-24 (28496 : Congestion Management Committee Chair Report) 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Local Coordinating Board Chair Report OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Local Coordinating Board (LCB) related to recent LCB actions and recommendations. CONSIDERATIONS: Staff prepared the attached written report. The LCB Chair may provide additional information to the Board. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommendations are reported in the Executive Summary for each action item, and may be elaborated upon by the Chair in his/her report to the Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. Prepared by: Dusty May Hansen, Collier MPO Senior Planner ATTACHMENT(S) 1. LCB Chair Report 3-6-24 (PDF) 7.E.1 Packet Pg. 35 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 7.E.1 Doc ID: 28497 Item Summary: Local Coordinating Board Chair Report Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 12:17 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 12:17 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:16 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:05 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 7.E.1 Packet Pg. 36 LCB Members: Tony Pernas, Chair; Dylan Vogel; Oscar Gomez; Cheryl Burnham (Alternate: Pa Houa Lee- Yang); John Lambcke; Todd Engala, FDOT (Alternates: Candice Monroy, Dale Hanson, Michelle Peronto); Tabitha Larrauri; Lisa O’Leary; Sarah Gualco; Michael Stahler (Alternate: Signe Jacobson); Brett Nelson (Alternate: Emily Kafle); Gabrielle Galanti; Carmen Henry, Vice-Chair; and Leah Watson. Current Vacancies: A person over 60 representing the elderly in the County; Citizens Advocate/Non-User of the paratransit system; and Private Transportation Industry. Local Coordinating Board Chair Report The Local Coordinating Board (LCB) for the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) conducted its annual public workshop and its regular in-person meeting on March 6, 2024; a quorum was attained for both. Annual Public Workshop • MPO Staff announced that the major update to the Transit Development Plan is underway and advised that public involvement and review opportunities would be forthcoming. MPO Staff invited participation in the opportunities. • Annual Public Workshop On Local TD Program and Process o Public Comments on Local TD Program and Process – There were no public comments. o Member Comments on Local TD Program and Process – There were no member comments. o Annual TD Program LCB Training – Collier MPO Senior Planner, Dusty Hansen, provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the TD program and LCB’s duties and responsibilities. Regular Meeting Board Actions • LCB elected Carmen Henry, representative of the Southwest Florida Regional Workforce Development Board, as LCB Vice-Chair, passing unanimously. • LCB reviewed and approved the proposed Rate Model for FY 2024/2025 for submission to the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, passing unanimously. Reports and Presentations • CTC Quarterly Report was presented by Omar DeLeon, Public Transit Manager, CAT. • MPO Quarterly Progress Report was presented by Ms. Hansen. • FDOT Report. Todd Engala relayed the following information: o Regarding the grant awarded vehicles under FTA Section 5310, to CAT, things are starting to move along. Various Public Transit Grant Agreements are being prepared to go to the Collier BCC for approval. This will be followed by the appropriate purchase order requests and letters of intent to the manufacturer. CAT will then be in line to receive vehicles. It is unclear when CAT will start to receive vehicles. It is anticipated that there will be a staggered delivery of the vehicles. Distribution Items • None. The next LCB meeting is scheduled for May 1, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. at the Collier County Government Center, Administration Building F, IT Training Room, 5th Floor, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL, 34112. 7.E.1.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: LCB Chair Report 3-6-24 (28497 : Local Coordinating Board Chair Report) 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2024/25 - 2025/26 Unified Planning Work Program OBJECTIVE: For the Board to review and comment on the Draft State Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 - 2025/26 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). CONSIDERATIONS: The MPO is required to develop and submit to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), a two -year UPWP, which serves as the resource and budgeting document for the MPO for the coming fiscal years beginning July 1st, 2024, and ending June 30th, 2026. The UPWP also identifies the major planning tasks and activities anticipated to take place during the two-year period. As required by FDOT, a draft of the FY 25-26 UPWP was provided to FDOT/FHWA on March 15, 2024. The current draft FY 25-26 UPWP is included in Attachment 1. The current draft has been updated to address preliminary comments provided by FHWA on April 1, 2024, to clearly specify funding allocations for Complete Streets planning initiatives and to specify that the UPWP contains carry-forward funding from the FY 21-22 UPWP (see pgs. 9-10). The timeline for completion of the FY 25-26 UPWP is as follows: April 15, 2024 - FDOT/FHWA provide comments/revisions on the draft UPWP to Collier MPO, and a proposed MPO Agreement for the UPWP funding. April 22, 2024 - Collier MPO’s proposed final UPWP and MPO Agreement is presented to the Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees for endorsement. May 10, 2024 - Collier MPO’s proposed final UPWP and MPO Agreement is presented to the MPO Board for approval, along with execution of the required Resolution (UPWP App. E), MPO Agreement, and Statements and Assurances (UPWP App. C). May 15, 2024 - Deadline to provide final, Board-approved UPWP, MPO Agreement, Resolution and required Statements and Assurances to FDOT. May/June, 2024 - Budget approval request for UPWP FY 2025 funding is submitted by Collier MPO to Collier BCC for approval. MPO Staff will provide a brief presentation outlining FY 25-26 UPWP funding and major tasks and planning activities (Attachment 2) at the Board meeting. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees reviewed the initial draft UPWP and asked minor questions at their meeting on March 25, 2024. The proposed final UPWP will be presented to the Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees for endorsement at their April 22 meetings. Any additional comments received will be addressed in the final UPWP that will be presented to the MPO Board in May. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board receive an overview of the FY 25-26 UPWP funding and major tasks and planning initiatives, and review and comment on the draft UPWP. Prepared By: Dusty Hansen, Senior Planner ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (PDF) 2. Presentation on Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (PDF) 9.A Packet Pg. 38 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 9.A Doc ID: 28498 Item Summary: Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 12:22 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 12:22 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:20 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:07 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 9.A Packet Pg. 39 “EXHIBIT A” to MPO Agreement #G2V40 COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BONITA SPRINGS (NAPLES), FL UZA UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS (FY) 2024/25-2025/26 July 1, 2024-June 30, 2026 This document was approved and adopted by the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization on May 10, 2024 2885 Horseshoe Drive S. Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-5814 Collier.mpo@colliercountyfl.gov http://www.colliermpo.org Federal Planning Fund, CFDA No. 20.205 Federal Award ID No. (FAIN) - # 0313 062 Financial Management (FM) - #439314-5-14-01 & 439314-5-14-02 FDOT Contract # G2V40 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5305(d) Funds Financial Management (FM) - # 410113 1 14 Contract #G1V40 Contract #G2594 Section 24112 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Funds U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Contract Federal Award ID # 693JJ32440059 Prepared by the staff and the participating agencies of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization. The preparation of this document has been financed in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration (CFDA Number 20.205), the Federal Transit Administration (CFDA Number 20.505), the U.S. Department of Transportation, under the Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f) of title 23, U.S. Code, and from Local funding provided by Collier County, the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island, and the City of Everglades City. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The MPO does not discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability or family status. For more information on the MPO’s commitment to equity and nondiscrimination, or to express concerns visit https://www.colliermpo.org/get-involved/civil-rights/. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS COST ANALYSIS CERTIFICATION .............................................................................................. 4  INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5  DEFINITION OF THE UPWP ............................................................................................................................... 5  OVERVIEW AND STATUS OF CURRENT CORE PLANNING ACTIVITIES ............................................................... 5  LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING PRIORITIES ................................................................................................. 7  AIR QUALITY PLANNING ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 8  SOFT MATCH ..................................................................................................................................................... 8  CPG PARTICIPATION STATEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 9  CPG FUNDING AMOUNTS FOR THIS UPWP ...................................................................................................... 9  IIJA 2.5% PL SET ASIDE FOR COMPLETE STREETS PLANNING ......................................................................... 10  PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS .................................................................................................................... 10  FEDERAL PLANNING FACTORS ........................................................................................................................ 11  TABLE 1 – FEDERAL PLANNING FACTOR MATRIX ..................................................................................... 12  FEDERAL AND STATE PLANNING EMPHASIS AREAS ....................................................................................... 13  TABLE 2 – PLANNING EMPHASIS AREAS ................................................................................................... 15  MPO RESOLUTION .......................................................................................................................................... 15  ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................... 16  IDENTIFICATION OF MPO PARTICIPANTS ....................................................................................................... 16  OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES AND BYLAWS ................................................................................................... 17  EXECUTED AGREEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 18  CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES ............................................................................................................... 19  UPWP TASK OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 20  TASK 1 ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................................................... 22  TASK 2 DATA COLLECTION / DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 26  TASK 3 TIP MONITORING AND DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 30  TASK 4 LONG RANGE PLANNING .......................................................................................... 32  TASK 5 SPECIAL PROJECTS AND SYSTEMS PLANNING ................................................. 35  TASK 6 TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLANNING ............... 38  TASK 7 REGIONAL COORDINATION .................................................................................... 42  9.A.1 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 3 TASK 8 LOCALLY FUNDED ACTIVITIES .............................................................................. 45  SUMMARY TABLES ........................................................................................................................ 47      TABLE 3 – FY 2024/25 AGENCY PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................... 49  TABLE 4 – FY 2024/25 FUNDING SOURCE ...................................................................................................... 50  TABLE 5 – FY 2025/26 AGENCY PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................... 51  TABLE 6 – FY 2025/26 FUNDING SOURCE .................................................................................................. 52  APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... 53  APPENDIX A – COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS ............................................................................................... 54  APPENDIX B – PLANNING STUDIES IN THE MPO AREA ................................................................................... 57  APPENDIX C – STATEMENTS AND ASSURANCES............................................................................................. 59  APPENDIX D – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ..................................................................................................... 66  APPENDIX E – MPO RESOLUTION ................................................................................................................... 68  APPENDIX F – UPWP REVIEW CHECKLIST ....................................................................................................... 70  9.A.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 4 COST ANALYSIS CERTIFICATION [insert signed certificate for final UPWP] 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 5 INTRODUCTION DEFINITION OF THE UPWP The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization documents transportation planning and transportation planning related activities for the two-year period starting July 1, 2024 (FY 2024/25-2025/26). The UPWP is the basis for allocating federal, state, and local funds for transportation planning purposes in the Collier Metropolitan Planning area. At a minimum, a UPWP includes a description of the work and resulting products, indicates who will perform the work, provides timeframes and deadlines for completing the work, includes the cost of the work and the source(s) of funds. This Work Program is consistent with all federal and state requirements. All products and planning concepts and factors follow Federal and State guidelines. The Collier MPO complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, religion or sex. The objective of the Collier MPO is to provide for a Continuing, Comprehensive, and Cooperative approach to the planning process. The MPO performs a variety of tasks utilizing funds under Titles 23 and 49, and Title 49 Chapter 53, U.S.C. Those tasks include annual development of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); continually improving the Congestion Management Process; regular updates to the Transit Development Plan (TDP) and Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP); support of Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning activities; preparation of updates to the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP); periodically updating the Public Involvement Plan (PIP), expanding public outreach activities and implementing strategies to address environmental justice issues; and supporting FDOT District One and Collier County planning activities with emphasis on improving traffic modeling and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) capabilities. All eligible expenses will be reimbursed on an actual cost basis and therefore an indirect rate will not be utilized. OVERVIEW AND STATUS OF CURRENT CORE PLANNING ACTIVITIES Long Range Transportation Plan The LRTP is a critical tool in the MPO process. It is composed of a Needs Assessment, a Cost Feasible Plan, and several multi-modal transportation components. It is the primary document in which multi- modal components (such as pathways, transit, and other projects), land use data, and projected revenues are integrated in the long range planning process. The 2045 LRTP started in 2019 and was completed in December 2020. The development of the 2045 LRTP included coordination with member agencies and the FDOT. The 2050 LRTP will be the focus for this UPWP. The MPO’s consultant has begun development of the 2050 LRTP. Current activities include developing a Public Involvement Plan and public involvement materials, coordinating initiatives, goals, objectives, decision making framework, travel modeling and analysis, and coordinating with member agencies and FDOT. The document is required to be adopted by December 2025. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 6 INTRODUCTION (cont.) Congestion Management Process (CMP) An operational Congestion Management System (CMS) plan was originally adopted in 1997 and was updated in 2006. The CMS was developed to reduce congestion by not adding travel lanes to existing highways, but by initiatives such as improving traffic signal timing, improving intersections (adding/lengthening turn lanes, etc.), and modifying medians. In 2008, the MPO updated the CMS and renamed it the Congestion Management Process (CMP). The CMP was updated in 2017. The 2017 update brought the document current with the 2040 LRTP and new federal legislation requiring performance-based, data driven planning. The 2017 update also adopted transportation performance measures and required project sponsors to establish baseline measures and report the results to the Congestion Management Committee and the MPO Board. Updates to the CMP are completed every five years. The last update to the CMP occurred in April 2022. Beginning a new update to the CMP for anticipated completion in 2027 will be a focus for this UPWP. The update will bring the document current with the 2050 LRTP, which is currently underway. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 7 LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING PRIORITIES FY 2024/25 and FY 2025/26 UPWP Transportation Planning Priorities Completing many technical plans and studies that support the development of the LRTP will be a focus of this UPWP. Transit Planning A major Transit Development Plan (TDP) update was completed in September 2020 and a new update is now underway. The TDP update is scheduled to be completed by September 2025 and will coordinate with the 2050 LRTP. The Collier County Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Department, in coordination with the Collier MPO, completes Annual Progress Reports to the TDP in- house. A Zero Emission Fleet Transition Plan is being completed to evaluate the potential impacts, benefits, and feasibility of a deployment plan to incorporate battery electric vehicles into Collier Area Transit’s services and facilities. The last Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) major update was completed in 2023. The Collier MPO serves as the designated official planning agency and performs Transportation Disadvantaged Planning activities. A major TDSP update is required to be completed 120 days after reappointment of the Community Transportation Coordinator, which will occur in 2028. The next major update to the TDSP update must be completed and submitted to the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged by October 2028. Interim updates to the TDSP are completed annually and completed by MPO staff in-house. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Update The purpose of the BPMP is to develop a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network throughout Collier County and to unify planning efforts and influence facility improvement priorities. The last BPMP update was completed in 2019 and a new update is underway, and anticipated to be completed by May 2025 and will coordinate with the 2050 LRTP. Safe Streets for All Comprehensive Safety Action Plan The Safe Streets for All Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is a plan that supports FDOT’s Vision Zero goals, provides a framework to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on roadways, and improves the safety, health, and well-being of residents and visitors. Development of the Action Plan is currently underway and is expected to be completed by November 2025. Equity Analysis MPO staff prepared an updated Equity Analysis in 2023 to assess changes throughout the community since the previous 2017 analysis was last updated in 2019 for inclusion in the BPMP and the 2045 LRTP. The 2023 update identified Disadvantaged Census Tracts in Collier County using the Council on Environmental Quality – Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool released on 11/22/22. The analysis is consistent with the transportation disadvantaged definition and evaluation criteria established for use in submitting applications for USDOT 2022 Justice40 discretionary grant programs. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 8 Regional Transportation Planning Activities The Lee County and Collier MPOs meet annually to discuss regional issues and projects which may have a joint impact on the area. The Collier MPO participates in the Lee MPO’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Lee MPO participates in the Collier TAC. The MPOs will continue to work together to endorse and adopt regional priorities for enhancements, TRIP, highway, and transit projects. Collier MPO participates in meetings of the Coordinated Urban Transportation Systems (CUTS), the Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC), and in district and state-wide meetings with FDOT. Collier, Lee, Charlotte and Sarasota/Manatee MPOs have coordinated to submit an application for a Southwest Florida Rail Study under the MPO Advisory Council’s Pilot Passenger Rail Priorities Program (PRPP). The goal of the PRPP is to expand rail options across the State of Florida while creating a comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated multimodal network. AIR QUALITY PLANNING ACTIVITIES The Collier MPO is in an air quality attainment area and does not anticipate completing any non- attainment planning activities at this time; however, the MPO planning area’s air quality continues to be monitored and staff participates in training as needed. SOFT MATCH Section 120 of Title 23, U.S.C, permits a state to use certain toll revenue expenditures as a credit toward the non-federal matching share of all programs authorized by Title 23, (with the exception of Emergency Relief Programs) and for transit programs authorized by Chapter 53 of Title 49, U.S.C. This is in essence a “soft-match” provision that allows the federal share to be increased up to 100% to the extent credits are available. The “soft match” amount being utilized to match the FHWA funding in this UPWP is 18.07% of FHWA program funds for a total of $197,697 in FY 2024/25 and $149,635 in FY 2025/26, for a grand total of $347,332. The “soft match” amount being utilized to match carryover 5305(d) funding in this UPWP is 20% of FTA funds for a total of $23,317 in FY 2024/25. FDOT District One Planning Activities Florida Department of Transportation- District One District Wide Planning activities for FY24/25- FY25/26 include the following: • GIS Application Development and System Maintenance • Systems Planning and Reviews • Interchange Reviews • Travel Demand Model Development • ETDM/Community Impact Assessment • Statistics • Federal Functional Classification • Traffic Counts Program • Modal Development Technical Support • Transportation Alternatives Program Development 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 9 • Commuter Services • State Highway System Corridor Studies • Growth Management Technical Support • Complete Streets Technical Support • Freight Mobility Support • Promoting and coordinating Safety for all modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian As part of the 3 “C” (Continuing, Cooperative, and Comprehensive) planning process, District staff coordinate planning activities with the MPO. MPO Board and Advisory Committee members are notified of project meetings within the MPO area. FDOT staff present status reports to the MPO Board and Advisory Committees to solicit feedback on planning activities and to ensure that District planning studies and MPO planning activities are coordinated. CPG PARTICIPATION STATEMENT “The FDOT and the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization participate in the Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG). The CPG enables FDOT, in cooperation with the MPO, FHWA, and FTA, to annually consolidate Florida’s FHWA PL and FTA 5305(d) metropolitan planning fund allocations into a single grant that is administered by the FHWA’s Florida Division. These funds are annually apportioned to FDOT as the direct recipient and allocated to the MPO by FDOT utilizing formulas approved by the MPO, FDOT, FHWA, and FTA in accordance with 23 CFR 420.109 and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. The FDOT is fulfilling the CPG’s required 18.07% non-federal share (match) using Transportation Development Credits as permitted by 23 CFR 120(j) and FTA C 8100.1D.” CPG FUNDING AMOUNTS FOR THIS UPWP Collier MPO’s CPG Agreement (FDOT Contract # G2V40) identifies the following funding amounts for FY 2025 and FY 2026 planning, which are incorporated into this UPWP: FY 2025 UPWP PL/SU ALLOCATIONS   Award: PL  SU    General PL  $       659,858.00    $  350,000.00    PL 5305  $       158,656.00    Carryforward Balance of 3/2023  $       275,546.00    $     29,416.00    TOTAL AWARD  $   1,094,060.00    $  379,416.00    9.A.1 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 10 FY 2026 UPWP PL/SU ALLOCATIONS   Award: PL  SU    General PL  $         669,430.00    $        350,000.00    PL 5305  $         158,656.00    TOTAL AWARD  $         828,086.00    $        350,000.00    IIJA 2.5% PL SET ASIDE FOR COMPLETE STREETS PLANNING The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) requires each MPO to use at least 2.5% of its PL funds on specified planning activities to increase safe and accessible options for multiple travel modes for people of all ages and abilities. [§ 11206(b)] Activities may include adopting Complete Streets standards or policies, developing a Complete Streets prioritization plan, or developing transportation plans. [§ 11206(c)]. Many MPO tasks and projects encompass Complete Streets planning, especially those identified in Task 5, Special Projects and Systems Planning and Task 6, Transit and Transportation Disadvantaged Planning. A table showing the required allocation amount and examples of MPO tasks and projects that satisfy the Complete Streets requirement is set forth below: FY 24/25 PL allocation (with carryover PL) Complete Streets Required Allocation (2.5%) Complete Streets Planning $1,094,060 $27,351.50 Bike/Ped Master Plan Update (Task 5) $70,000 FY 25/26 PL allocation $828,086 $20,702.15 Multi-Modal Study (Task 6) $90,686 The above funds satisfy the requirements for the 2.5% PL set aside for Complete Streets planning. [§ 11206(b)] PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS The development of the UPWP has been subject to public review and comment and is consistent with the Collier MPO’s adopted Public Participation Plan (PPP). The draft is sent to the TAC and CAC for review, announced on the Collier MPO website and sent to interested parties via email to the MPO’s listserv on the date the TAC/CAC agenda packets are posted and distributed. MPO staff responds in writing to input received from the public and significant comments received from the public, advisory committee members and Board members are memorialized and addressed in this document. All comments received, including from FHWA, FTA, and FDOT have been addressed and incorporated into Appendix D of the final document. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 11 A draft of this UPWP was reviewed by the Citizens and Technical Advisory Committees on March 25, 2024, and reviewed by the MPO Board on April 12, 2024. The final document was endorsed by the Citizens and Technical Advisory Committees on April 22, 2024, and approved by the MPO Board on May 10, 2024. FEDERAL PLANNING FACTORS In December 2015, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was signed into law. The FAST act identified planning factors for the MPO planning process. 23 CFR 450.306 sets forth the scope of the metropolitan transportation planning process, and includes the following planning factors, which have been incorporated into the MPO Planning Process and this UPWP: 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; 2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; 4. Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight; 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; 7. Promote efficient system management and operation; 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system; 9. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation; and, 10. Enhance travel and tourism. In addition to the planning factors noted above, MAP-21 required that State DOTs and MPOs conduct performance-based planning by tracking performance measures and setting data-driven targets to improve those measures. Performance-based planning ensures the most efficient investment of federal transportation funds by increasing accountability, transparency, and providing for better investment decisions that focus on key outcomes related to seven national goals which include:  Improving Safety;  Maintaining Infrastructure Condition;  Reducing Traffic Congestion;  Improving the Efficiency of the System and Freight Movement;  Protecting the Environment; and,  Reducing Delays in Project Delivery. The FAST Act supplemented the MAP-21 legislation by establishing timelines for State DOTs and MPOs to comply with the requirements of MAP-21. State DOTs are required to establish statewide targets and MPOs have the option to support the statewide targets or adopt their own. The Collier MPO has chosen to support the statewide targets. The transition to performance-based planning is ongoing 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 12 and has been addressed within the tasks identified in this UPWP, specifically within the LRTP and TIP. The Collier MPO intends to coordinate with FDOT and member agencies to fully comply with the performance-based planning requirements. In November 2021 the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was signed into law. This legislation carries forward the policies, programs, and initiatives established by preceding legislation (FAST Act and MAP-21) to maintain and improve the nation’s surface transportation system. The IIJA carries forward and expands on these policies and introduces new policies and programs that address new and emerging issues that face the nation’s transportation system. These issues include mitigating impacts to existing infrastructure due to climate change, developing and maintaining system resiliency, ensuring equity, researching and deploying new technologies, and improving safety for all users. TABLE 1 – FEDERAL PLANNING FACTOR MATRIX Federal Planning Factors   Administration  Data  Collection  TIP  Maintenance  &  Development  Long Range  Planning  Special  Projects &  Systems  Planning  Transit &  Transportation  Disadvantaged  Planning  Regional  Coordination  Locally  Funded  Activities  1. Support the economic  vitality of the metropolitan  area, especially by enabling  global competitiveness,  productivity, and efficiency    ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦   2. Increase the safety of the  transportation system for  motorized and non‐ motorized users  ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦   3. Increase the security of  the transportation system  for motorized and non‐ motorized users   ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦  ♦   4. Increase accessibility and  mobility of people and  freight   ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦   5. Protect and enhance the  environment, promote  energy conservation,  improve the quality of life,  and promote consistency  between transportation  improvements and State and  local planned growth and  economic development  patterns  ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦  6. Enhance the integration  and connectivity of the  transportation system,  across and between modes,  for people and freight   ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦   7. Promote efficient system  management and operation  ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦   8. Emphasize the  preservation of the existing  transportation system   ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦  ♦   9. Improve the resiliency and  reliability of the  transportation system and  reduce or mitigate  stormwater impacts of  surface transportation   ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦  ♦   10. Enhance travel and  tourism ♦  ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦    9.A.1 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 13 FEDERAL AND STATE PLANNING EMPHASIS AREAS STATE PLANNING EMPHASIS AREAS – 2024 The Florida Department of Transportation Office of Policy Planning develops Planning Emphasis Areas. Emphasis areas set planning priorities, support the Florida Transportation Plan, and give importance to topic areas which MPOs are encouraged to address as they develop their planning programs. Implementation of the seven goals of the Florida Transportation Plan requires embracing innovation; extensive collaboration across jurisdictions, modes and disciplines; an emphasis on customer service; data and performance feedback; and strategic investments for the efficient and effective allocation of resources. The Collier MPO has considered the four topics shown below and included them in studies identified in this UPWP. Safety The Florida Transportation Plan and the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan place top priority on safety, with a state target of zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries. In addition to adopting safety targets, the MPOs must show how their Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and priority projects in their Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) support progress toward those targets. The UPWP should consider enhancements to data analyses and community involvement to better inform the identification and prioritization of safety projects. Equity Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, created the “Justice40 Initiative” that aims to deliver 40 percent of the overall benefits of relevant federal investments to disadvantaged communities. This initiative supports Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, outlines federal policy and defines equity as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of individuals. The Florida Transportation Plan seeks transportation choices that improve accessibility and equity by including a key strategy to enhance affordable transportation, service, and information access options for all ages and abilities and throughout underserved communities. The MPOs are key to identifying and implementing improvements based on data-driven project prioritization that considers not only impacts of transportation projects on a community, but also benefits of projects that can enhance opportunities for a community. The UPWP should address approaches to furthering transportation equity. Resilience With the passage of the FAST Act, resilience was introduced as a federal planning factor: “Improve the resilience and reliability of the transportation system and mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation.” Resilience is defined as the ability to adapt to changing conditions and prepare for, withstand, and recover from disruption. These conditions can encompass a wide variety of environmental, technological, economic, or social impacts. MPOs can address resilience within their planning processes by leveraging tools such as the FHWA Resilience and Transportation Planning guide and the FDOT Quick Guide: Incorporating Resilience in 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 14 the MPO LRTP. It should be noted that while these documents focus primarily on the development of MPO LRTPs and TIPs, addressing resilience should be a consideration within every planning document prepared by an MPO. MPOs should place a particular emphasis on coordination with agency partners responsible for natural disaster risk reduction, or who may be developing local resilience planning initiatives. Additionally, MPOs should consider the additional costs associated with reducing vulnerability of the existing transportation infrastructure. Proactive resiliency planning will help the MPO develop planning documents that are ultimately more realistic and cost-effective. Emerging Mobility Advances in communication and automation technology result in new mobility options, ranging from automated and connected transport, electric vehicles, ridesharing, and micro-mobility, to flying cars and space travel. These changes may be disruptive and transformational, with impacts to safety, vehicle ownership, travel capacity, vehicle miles traveled, land-use, transportation design, future investment demands, supply chain logistics, economy, and the workforce. Implementation of all seven goals of the Florida Transportation Plan can be furthered through both the transformation of major corridors and hubs and the expansion of transportation infrastructure to embrace and support the adoption of emerging mobility. The UPWP should recognize the important influence of emerging mobility on the multi-modal transportation system and include related planning studies, collaboration efforts, research, or other activities. FEDERAL PLANNING EMPHASIS AREAS – 2024 In 2021, FHWA and FTA jointly issued PEAs for UPWPs. The following items should be considered when developing tasks associated with the UPWP:  Tackling the Climate Crisis – Transition to a Clean Energy, Resilient Future  Equity and Justice40 in Transportation Planning  Complete Streets  Public Involvement  Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)/ US Department of Defense (DOD) Coordination  Federal Land Management Agency (FLMA) Coordination  Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL)  Data in Transportation Planning 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 15 TABLE 2 – PLANNING EMPHASIS AREAS MPO RESOLUTION The Resolution dated May 10, 2024, signed by the Collier MPO Chair, is available in Appendix E. Administration Data Collection TIP Maintenance & Development Long Range Planning Special Projects & Systems Planning Transit & Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Regional Coordination Locally Funded Activities 1. Safety  2. Equity      3. Resilience   4.Emerging Mobility  5. Tackling the climate crisis ‐ Transition to a clean energy, resilient future  6. Equity and Justice40 in Transportation Planning  7. Complete Streets  8. Public Involvement   9. Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)/ US Department of Defense (DOD) Coordination    10. Federal Land Management Agency (FLMA (Coordination) 11. Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL)  12. Data in Transportation Planning  FDOT Planning Emphasis Areas Federal Planning Emphasis Areas 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 16 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION IDENTIFICATION OF MPO PARTICIPANTS The Collier MPO is the primary agency responsible for transportation planning in Collier County. The MPO Board consists of nine voting members representing the county government and three local municipalities, and one non-voting representative from the FDOT. The MPO is a legislative body with the power to develop and adopt plans, and to set priorities for the programming of improvements to the transportation system. The MPO membership includes the following: COLLIER COUNTY Commissioner Rick LoCastro, District 1 Commissioner Chris Hall, District 2 Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3 Commissioner Dan Kowal, District 4 Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5 CITY OF NAPLES Council Member [replacement pending] Council Member [replacement pending] CITY OF MARCO ISLAND Council Member Greg Folley CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY Council Member Tony Pernas FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION L.K. Nandam, District Secretary, District One The MPO Board is served by five advisory committees. The advisory committees are summarized as follows: Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) The MPO’s TAC is composed of technically qualified representatives of agencies responsible for directing, developing, and improving the transportation system within the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Area. Committee duties include the coordination of transportation planning and programming activities arising from the review of all transportation technical studies and reports submitted to them. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 17 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) The MPO’s CAC is composed of thirteen (13) individuals representing a cross-section of the geographic community and special interests, such as minorities and persons with disabilities. They are recruited to represent the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island, the City of Everglades City and the County Commission Districts of the unincorporated areas of the county. The CAC provides the MPO Board and staff with the citizen’s perspective on the multimodal transportation planning process. The CAC is the focal point of the MPO’s public involvement process. Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) The MPO’s BPAC is composed of twelve (12) at-large voting members representing a wide cross- section of Collier County residents and neighborhoods, bicycle and pedestrian safety professionals, Safe Routes to Schools organizations, transit riders, local bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups, organizations that encourage active transportation from a community health perspective, and advocates for persons with disabilities and other transportation disadvantaged populations. The committee is responsible for providing citizen input into the deliberations of bicycle and pedestrian related issues within the community and to advise the MPO on developing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The BPAC is also involved in recommending priorities for bicycle and pedestrian projects and program implementation. Congestion Management Committee (CMC) The CMC serves the MPO in an advisory capacity on technical matters relating to the update of the MPO’s Congestion Management System and the coordination of the CMS with the regional ITS architecture. The committee is responsible for creating and amending the Congestion Management Process (CMP) and for prioritizing candidate CMS projects to be funded from the MPO’s CMS boxed funds. Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged (LCB) The LCB for the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) has been appointed by the MPO to carry out the duties described in Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative Code, as an integral part of the TD planning and delivery service program. The LCB is composed of representatives from various State and local agencies, as well as citizen representatives. A member of the MPO Board is appointed to serve as the LCB’s Chairman. OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES AND BYLAWS The MPO operates under an adopted set of Bylaws (last updated November 13, 2020). The MPO Executive Director reports directly to the MPO Board. The additional MPO staff members are Collier County employees pursuant to a staff services agreement. Administrative services are provided by Collier County under the rules and procedures of Collier County and the State of Florida. Annual audits of the MPO Program are performed as part of the single audit process under the direction of the Clerk of Courts Finance Department. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 18 The MPO has a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) which was most recently updated on 8/28/23. The COOP provides guidelines for the Board and staff of the Collier MPO to prepare for, respond during, and recover from a disruption in internal operations caused by natural or man-made events, including pandemics. The MPO’s COOP is consistent with the Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Continuity of Operations Guidance Document dated April 2004, and in accordance with the Board of County Commissioner’s Emergency Action Plan and County Practices and Procedures (CMA) #5900 Cessation of Government Activities. The MPO’s COOP is reviewed each calendar year before June 1st and a staff training exercise is conducted on a biannual basis by June 1st of alternating years. Official records of MPO business are maintained in the MPO Offices located in the Collier County Transportation Management Services Division, 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. All MPO records are available for public inspection during normal business hours. The Collier MPO’s operational procedures fully comply with the public records laws and the Sunshine Laws of the State of Florida. EXECUTED AGREEMENTS The MPO has various agreements in place with State and local governments and agencies that promote the “3-C” planning process. The following is a list of agreements currently in place:  Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement for the Creation of the Collier County MPO – FDOT, City of Naples, City of Marco Island, City of Everglades City, Collier County (2/26/15).  Metropolitan Planning Organization Agreement – FDOT/MPO (7/1/24) – Agreement for planning funding.  Staff Services Agreement – MPO/Collier County (5/24/22).  Lease Agreement – MPO/Collier County (5/24/22).  Interlocal Agreement – Lee and Collier MPO regional coordination (amended 3/20/09).  Intergovernmental Coordination and Review (ICAR) and Public Transportation Coordination Joint Participation Agreement – FDOT/MPO/Collier County Airport Authority, Naples Airport Authority/ Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (11/25/14) Requested updates to boilerplate. Will update when boilerplate agreement has been updated to new federal law.  Public Transit Grant Agreement (G1V40) – FDOT/MPO.  Public Transit Grant Agreement (G2594) – FDOT/MPO.  Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant Agreement – Fla. CTD/MPO.  Grant Agreement Under the FY 2022 Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Program (693JJ32440059) – USDOT/MPO (10/26/23). 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 19 These agreements are currently under review and will be updated as appropriate. Current executed agreements can be accessed by visiting the Collier MPO website at https://www.colliermpo.org/mpo- agreements-resolutions/. CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES All required certifications and assurances are included in this document in Appendix C. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 20 UPWP TASK OVERVIEW The FY 2024/25-2025/26 UPWP covers the fiscal years starting July 1, 2024, and ending June 30, 2026. The specific planning activities to be undertaken over the next two years by MPO staff are organized into eight tasks, each of which includes individual activities. A brief overview of each of these tasks is provided below: 1. Administration Administrative tasks provide for the primary management of MPO activities, including but not limited to, staff time to organize and conduct MPO Board and advisory committee meetings, public involvement efforts, and to participate in intergovernmental activities. In addition, this section includes all necessary expenditures to maintain operations, capital expenditures, Federal and State compliance documentation and all fiscally related tasks such as audits, progress reporting, maintenance of financial records, and the preparation of annual administrative reports, such as the UPWP, are also included. This task will include any necessary updates to agreements or documents related to the 2020 Census. 2. Data Collection / Development Task activities in this section includes those needed to monitor and analyze travel behavior and factors affecting travel, such as socio-economic, land use, environmental, air quality, safety, security and freight and transportation system data. Evaluation of the data collected in this section is used for both long and short range planning for the transportation system. 3. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Maintenance and Development This task annually provides for the development of the TIP, a five-year program of transportation improvements. The TIP will be developed in cooperation with FDOT and the local governments. Transportation projects will be drawn from the currently adopted MPO Long Range Transportation Plan to ensure the program’s consistency relative to priorities and financial constraints. The prioritization methodology for each State and Federal funding project category will be detailed in the introduction of each pertinent section of the TIP. Regionally significant projects, regardless of funding source, are also included in the Transportation Improvement Program. The TIP also includes a list of multi-modal unfunded State, county and municipal projects that have been prioritized by the MPO Board. Task activities in this section include establishing project priorities, annually updating the TIP and reviewing transportation plans and reports for use in many other UPWP sections and tasks, including short range planning, the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Transit Planning, and project planning. 4. Long Range Planning Updates and amendments to the LRTP include multi-modal aspects of transportation planning such as highway planning, transit planning, reviewing enhancement priorities, bicycle/pedestrian programming, and congestion monitoring of the Systems Planning area. This section is intended to 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 21 work with the other sections of the UPWP in the development, review, amending and updating of the Long Range Transportation Plan. 5. Special Projects and Systems Planning This task includes various recurring and non-recurring planning projects, including bicycle and pedestrian planning support, congestion management planning, and safety planning support. Complete Streets planning, and Bicycle and Pedestrian planning and support are conducted in order to provide a balanced transportation system to ensure that non-motorized travel options are safe, convenient and offer recreational opportunities. 6. Transit & Transportation Disadvantaged Planning The UPWP addresses the continuing efforts of the Transit Program and Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Program. Transit support is provided in order to develop the LRTP, TIP and other plans, programs and technical studies relating to public transportation. In addition, planning services are provided to ensure a coordinated Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Program in Collier County. 7. Regional Coordination This task provides for the creation of a region-wide multimodal transportation planning process in accordance with Federal and State guidelines to ensure the coordination of transportation planning and policy activities in FDOT District One. This includes travel expenditures, room rental, and any other necessary costs for regional planning. 8. Locally Funded Activities This task allows staff to complete requests to prepare resolutions and policy position statements which are not eligible for grant reimbursement. In addition, travel expenses that are not eligible for grant reimbursement will be funded from this task. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 22 TASK 1 ADMINISTRATION PURPOSE: To conduct activities (including staff travel and capital expenses) including the development and maintenance of administrative reports and grants contract administration. This task also includes all public involvement activities and administrative support for MPO planning and programs in general, including assistance to Federal, State, and local agency staff, as needed. It provides for the administration of the area-wide multimodal transportation planning process in accordance with Federal and State requirements, and for the technical management over each project included in the UPWP. PREVIOUS WORK:  Ongoing administrative activities.  Staff support for MPO Board and Committee meetings.  Develop and Update the UPWP.  Public Involvement activities in compliance with the Public Participation Plan.  Procurement Activities.  Quarterly invoicing request.  Monthly invoicing activities.  Maintained MPO website.  Strategic Plan and Annual Report.  Annual FDOT Certification.  FDOT OIG 2023 audit of Collier MPO. REQUIRED ACTIVITIES:  Administer MPO Governing Board meetings and all Advisory Committee meetings including meeting advertisements and the preparation of minutes and agenda packages.  Attend training at conferences, workshops, etc. (MPO staff and Governing Board members). Attend business meetings as required, including but not limited to FDOT meetings, Title VI, ADA and Environmental Justice training opportunities.  Perform grant and financial tasks including preparing grant agreements, grant compliance tasks, grant reimbursements, timekeeping, inventory, contract management, invoice payment.  Purchase of office supplies, computers, printers, software, and audio-visual equipment.  Rental lease payments for office space and MPO vehicle.  Monthly payments for phone system, cell phones, website hosting, postage (monthly and annual permit) and administrative functions to run the MPO.  Payment for MPO insurance.  Participate in joint FDOT/MPO annual certification reviews and in Federal TMA reviews.  Procure services, supplies, and equipment (including office supplies, printers, computers, iPads, software purchase and licensing, and audio-visual equipment. This includes preparation of Request for Proposals, Request for Professional Services, purchase orders, contracts, etc. Lease of necessary office equipment (printers, copiers, etc.).  Review and maintain existing agreements, by-laws, and COOP. Modify as necessary to stay in compliance with federal/state rules and laws. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 23  Prepare and adopt the two-year UPWP; process modifications and amendments; submit progress reports and invoices.  Monitor and update the annual Strategic Plan and Annual Report.  Maintain the Public Participation Plan (PPP) and update as necessary. Conduct all activities to maintain compliance with plan including to maintain and update website, legal ads, press releases, etc.  Prepare and distribute Collier MPO’s eNewsletters.  Monitor progress towards goals, including Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goals and ensure compliance with DBE policy.  Consultant services to provide general staff support as needed to accomplish required activities identified in task.  Staff participation in talent development and employee training opportunities.  Renewal/negotiation/update to MPO Staff Services Agreement and Lease Agreement.  Annual update to Collier MPO’s COOP. End Product/Deliverable(s) Target Date Administer MPO Governing Board and Advisory Committee meetings Ongoing Progress Reports and Invoices to FDOT Quarterly Amendments and Modifications to FY 25/26 UPWP As Needed Strategic Plan and Annual Report October - Annually MPO Staff Services Agreement and Lease Agreement May 2025 Joint FDOT/MPO annual certification reviews Spring 2025/Spring 2026 2024 Federal Certification review July 2024 Draft FY 27/28 UPWP March 2026 Final FY 27/28 UPWP May 2026 Public Participation Plan (PPP) - Update as necessary Ongoing Agenda packages and public notices for MPO Board and advisory committees Monthly Monitor progress towards goals, including Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goals and ensure compliance with DBE policy Annually Updated Bylaws, COOP, and MPO Agreements As needed (COOP annually) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Collier MPO, Consultant Services 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 24 Task 1 - Financial Tables Task 1 ‐ Administration Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2024/25 Budget Category Budget Category Description FHWA FHWA FTA Trans. Disad. Total (PL) (SU) 5305 A. Personnel Services MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits, and other deductions $310,860 $0 $0 $0 $310,860 Subtotal: $310,860 $0 $0 $0 $310,860 B. Consultant Services Website maintenance, hosting fees, etc. $9,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,000 General Support/Special Study $11,000 $0 $0 $0 $11,000 Subtotal: $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 C. Travel Travel and Professional Development $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 Subtotal: $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 D. Other Direct Expenses Building or room Rental/lease $17,000 $0 $0 $0 $17,000 Insurance $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 Cellular Telephone Access and expenses $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 General Copying/Printing Expenses, equipment lease and purchase, printing charges, computer purchase, software purchase, repairs and maintenance $14,000 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 General Office Supplies $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 Motor Pool Rental and Car Maintenance /expenses $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,000 Postage, business reply permit, freight expenses, etc. $2,400 $0 $0 $0 $2,400 Telephone Access, expenses and system maintenance $800 $0 $0 $0 $800 Subtotal: $53,200 $0 $0 $0 $53,200 Total: $389,060 $0 $0 $0 $389,060 Total De-Obligated Funds $0 $0 N/A N/A $0 Sub-Total (less the de-obligated funds) $389,060 $0 N/A N/A $389,060 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 25 Task 1 ‐ Administration Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2025/26 Budget Category Budget Category Description FHWA FHWA FTA Trans. Disad. Total (PL) (SU) 5305 A. Personnel Services MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits, and other deductions $330,000 $0 $0 $0 $330,000 Subtotal: $330,000 $0 $0 $0 $330,000 B. Consultant Services Website maintenance, hosting fees, etc. $9,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,000 General Support/Special Study $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 Subtotal: $29,000 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 C. Travel Travel and Professional Development $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,000 Subtotal: $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,000 D. Other Direct Expenses Building or room Rental/lease $19,000 $0 $0 $0 $19,000 Insurance $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 Cellular Telephone Access and expenses $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 General Copying/Printing Expenses, equipment lease, printing charges, repairs and maintenance $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 General Office Supplies $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 Motor Pool Rental and Car Maintenance /expenses $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $8,000 Postage, business reply permit, freight expenses, etc. $2,400 $0 $0 $0 $2,400 Telephone Access, expenses and system maintenance $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Subtotal: $58,400 $0 $0 $0 $58,400 Total: $424,400 $0 $0 $0 $424,400 Total De-Obligated Funds $0 $0 N/A N/A $0 Sub-Total (less the de-obligated funds) $424,400 $0 N/A N/A $424,400 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 26 TASK 2 DATA COLLECTION / DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE: Develop and monitor the multimodal transportation system to preserve capacity, maximize personal mobility and freight movement, ensure user safety and system security, and maintain the transportation system’s integrity. Acquire data to evaluate the system’s operating efficiency and conditions to assess current needs, validate the MPO’s and FDOT D-1 regional transportation planning model, project future travel demand, and identify future improvements. Coordination with local agencies, jurisdictions and municipalities when reviewing and updating the forecasts and plans is essential. Update GIS database to address current conditions that include, but are not limited to, functional classification; roadway network for District One Regional Transportation Demand Model; bicycle & pedestrian facilities inventory; and prepare various overlays for analytical purposes. Coordinate with Collier County staff on use of the County’s Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) in analyzing amendments and updates to the Long Range Transportation Plan. PREVIOUS WORK:  Developed GIS maps for bike/pedestrian planning activities.  Updated TAZs and socioeconomic data for 2050 LRTP.  Updated socio-economic data and TAZ structures for the 2050 LRTP Update.  Adoption of FY 2024 performance measures.  Analyzed bike/ped facilities and crash data.  Coordinate with federal, state, and local partners to prepare, analyze, and integrate 2020 U.S. Census data into MPO planning activities and efforts.  Review functional classifications, boundary information, and TAZ data based on 2020 census.  Completed equity analysis in preparation for 2050 LRTP. REQUIRED ACTIVITIES:  Coordinate with FDOT, local governments, and neighboring MPOs to collect and provide transportation data and information to support MPO, federal, and state planning activities, model development, and performance measures.  Acquire and analyze data to support performance-based planning efforts such as the Long Range Transportation Plan, MPO Model Development, Transportation Improvement Program, Public Transit Safety Plan, Planning and Corridor Studies, Freight Studies, Complete Streets, Resiliency Studies, Congestion Management Process, etc.  Participate in the Florida Transportation Forecasting Forum (FTFF) meetings, formerly the FDOT Statewide Model Task Force, and FDOT District 1 Regional Planning Model (RPM) training and activities to support the FDOT D-1 model development, calibration, validation, and maintenance.  Collaborate with Collier County to update the County Interactive Growth Model. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 27  Coordinate with the MPO Congestion Management Committee to evaluate data and data platforms used to analyze system conditions and needs.  Track and report on Transportation Performance Measures and Targets on annual basis for incorporation in the LRTP, TIP and Annual Report.  Review and provide travel demand model information such as Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and volume-to-capacity ratios for planning documents, other agency and citizen's requests.  Prepare and maintain GIS files, and prepare and maintain maps.  Coordinate with County staff on the County's Crash Data Management System (CDMS)  Use FDOT’s Signal 4 Analytics and other readily available crash data management platform to analyze and report on crash data, inclusive of vehicular and bicyclist/pedestrian crashes  Analyze existing and proposed bike/ped facilities in context with current design standards, opportunities for intermodal connectivity, disadvantaged census tracts and crash data.  Continue coordination with jurisdictions, agencies, and municipalities within Collier County and adjacent to Collier County on community master plans, transportation system plans, multi- modal mobility plans, local road safety plans, etc., and the data used to update and maintain such information. End Task/Deliverable(s) Target Date Updated GIS Files and maps As needed Coordinate with the County staff on updates to the County Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) so that both entities (County and MPO) are using the most current and accurate TAZ structure and socioeconomic data available As needed Crash Data Analysis As needed RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Collier MPO, Consultant Services (as needed) 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 28 Task 2 - Financial Tables Task 2 – DATA COLLECTION/DEVELOPMENT Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2024/25 Budget Category Budget Category Description FHWA FHWA FTA Trans. Disad. Total (PL) (SU) 5305 A. Personnel Services MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits, and other deductions $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 Subtotal: $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 B. Consultant Services Contract/Consultant Services/ General Support/GIS & Data $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 Subtotal $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 Total: $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 Total De-Obligated Funds $0 $0 N/A N/A $0 Sub-Total (less the de- obligated funds) $35,000 $0 N/A N/A $35,000 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 29 Task 2 – DATA COLLECTION/DEVELOPMENT Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2025/26 Budget Category Budget Category Description FHWA FHWA FTA Trans. Disad. Total (PL) (SU) 5305 A. Personnel Services MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits, and other deductions $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 Subtotal: $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 B. Consultant Services Contract/Consultant Services/General Support/GIS & Data $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 Subtotal $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 Total: $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 Total De-Obligated Funds $0 $0 N/A N/A $0 Sub-Total (less the de- obligated funds) $40,000 $0 N/A N/A $40,000 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 30 TASK 3 TIP MONITORING AND DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE: Develop Multimodal Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) for FY 25/26-29/30 and for FY 26/27 – 30/31 that identify all Federal, State, and locally funded transportation improvements consistent with the requirements of Federal and State laws. Coordinate with FDOT and member agencies to address integration of MAP-21 and FAST Performance Management Measures in the TIP as well as new requirements from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). This section also includes transportation system planning tasks related to contingency of operations and short-range transportation planning and programming. PREVIOUS WORK:  Coordinated with agencies and jurisdictions on transportation plans and programs.  Annual preparation of TIP and TIP amendments.  Annual list of project priorities for inclusion in the TIP.  Adoption of FY 23/24-27/28 TIP and of FY 24/25 – 28/29 TIP. REQUIRED ACTIVITIES  Develop annual project priorities identifying unfunded highway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian, planning, safety and congestion management projects that are prioritized by the MPO. This activity includes review of applications and associated activities.  Review FDOT Draft Tentative Work Program and Tentative Work Program for consistency with the LRTP and adopted priorities of the MPO Board.  Prepare and adopt the TIP. This includes coordinating all efforts with FDOT, local agencies, jurisdictions and the STIP.  Prepare and process amendments and modifications. This includes reviewing amendments for consistency with the TIP and LRTP.  Coordinate with FDOT and member agencies to address integration of FAST Act Performance Management Measures in performance-based planning.  Consultant services to provide general staff support as needed to accomplish required activities identified in task. RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Collier MPO, Consultant Services (as needed) End Task Target Date Annual Project Priority Lists June – Annually FY 25/26 - 29/30 TIP FY 26/27 – 30/31 TIP June - 2025 June - 2026 TIP Amendments and Modifications As needed Adopted Safety Targets and Related Performance Measures Annually 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 31 Task 3 - Financial Tables Task 3 ‐ TIP Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2024/25 Budget Category Budget Category Description FHWA FHWA FTA Trans. Disad. Total (PL) (SU) 5305 A. Personnel Services MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits, and other deductions $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 Subtotal: $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 B. Consultant Services General Support $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 Subtotal: $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 Total: $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 Total De-Obligated Funds $0 $0 N/A N/A $0 Sub-Total (less the de- obligated funds) $45,000 $0 N/A N/A $45,000 Task 3 ‐ TIP Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2025/26 Budget Category Budget Category Description FHWA FHWA FTA Trans. Disad. Total (PL) (SU) 5305 A. Personnel Services MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits, and other deductions $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 Subtotal: $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 B. Consultant Services General Support $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 Subtotal: $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 Total: $55,000 $0 $0 $0 $55,000 Total De-Obligated Funds $0 $0 N/A N/A $0 Sub-Total (less the de-obligated funds) $55,000 $0 N/A N/A $55,000 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 32 TASK 4 LONG RANGE PLANNING PURPOSE: To update to the 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan and to continue to evaluate plans and programs for consistency with the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) during development of the plan. FAST Act Performance measures will be integrated into the 2050 LRTP as required. This task will work in coordination with other tasks throughout the UPWP, including Administration, Data Collection/Development, TIP, and Transit and Transportation Disadvantaged. PREVIOUS WORK:  Amendment to the 2045 LRTP for MFF projects.  Competitive procurement and selection of consultant to develop the 2050 LRTP.  Kicked-off 2050 LRTP development.  Consultant began development of the Public Involvement Plan for the 2050 LRTP.  Coordinated with FDOT and consultant for Existing and Committed 2050 Model Development. REQUIRED TASKS:  Review projects and studies as needed for consistency with MPO plans.  Continue to incorporate the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Process into the Long Range Multimodal transportation planning process. Continue to work with FDOT to review projects for the ETDM process as they relate to LRTP projects and priorities and to provide project specific comments as part of the ETDM process. Review purpose and needs statements for projects and provide comments.  Incorporate FDOT D1 RPM analysis in the 2050 LRTP.  Incorporate FDOT D1 Freight Mobility & Trade Plan (2023) and Truck Parking White Paper recommendations in the 2050 LRTP.  Participate in on-going studies related to resiliency. Monitor regional and local studies currently underway.  Prepare any required amendments or updates to the 2045 LRTP as required.  Project Management and Consultant Services to develop the 2050 LRTP.  In coordination with Lee MPO, ensure that a regional roadway component is included in the 2050 LRTP, or that a regional roadway plan is completed shortly thereafter.  Utilize consultant assistance for modeling support, data development and evaluation, and other support necessary to complete any required tasks for the 2050 LRTP.  Coordinate with County and Municipalities to review and comment on Local policy issues, such as Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan regulations as it relates to the Long Range Transportation Plan. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 33 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Collier MPO, Consultant Services End Task/Deliverable(s) Target Date 2045 LRTP Amendments As needed Draft 2050 LRTP Fall 2025 2050 LRTP completion/adoption December 2025 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 34 Task 4 - Financial Tables Task 4 – Long Range Planning Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2025/26 Budget Category Budget Category Description FHWA FHWA FTA 5305 Trans. Disad. Total (PL) (SU) A. Personnel Services MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits, and other deductions $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 Subtotal: $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 B. Consultant Services LRTP $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 Subtotal: $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 Total: $45,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $295,000 Total De-Obligated Funds $0 $0 N/A N/A $0 Sub-Total (less the de-obligated funds) $45,000 $250,000 N/A N/A $295,000 Task 4 – Long Range Planning Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2024/25 Budget Category Budget Category Description FHWA FHWA FTA Trans. Disad. Total (PL) (SU) 5305 A. Personnel Services MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits, and other deductions $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Subtotal: $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 B. Consultant Services LRTP $200,000 $379,416 $0 $0 $579,416 Subtotal: $200,000 $379,416 $0 $0 $579,416 Total: $250,000 $379,416 $0 $0 $629,416 Total De-Obligated Funds $0 $0 N/A N/A $0 Sub-Total (less the de- obligated funds) $250,000 $379,416 N/A N/A $629,416 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 35 TASK 5 SPECIAL PROJECTS AND SYSTEMS PLANNING PURPOSE: To complete various recurring and non-recurring planning projects. These projects will assist in providing a balanced, multimodal transportation system. PREVIOUS WORK:  Annual Work Program priorities for construction of new sidewalks, shared use paths, and bike lanes.  Served as liaison to FDOT to communicate the need for bicycle and pedestrian facilities on State roads.  Completed Congestion Management Process (CMP) Update in April 2022.  Completed CMP Origin and Destination Report and Corridor Fact Sheets in December 2022.  Began the update to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.  Worked to get the Collier to Polk Regional Trail (including the Marco Island Loop Trail) on the Florida Greenways and Trails Council’s SUN Trail network; submitted the project as a SUN Trail Priority for funding for PD&E phase.  Secured funding for cost overruns on bike/ped projects.  Issued a congestion management call for projects for funding in FY 2030; Prioritized projects.  Issued a bike/ped call for projects for funding in FY 2031.  Began work on the SS4A Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. REQUIRED TASKS:  Attend and participate in workshops and seminars sponsored by FHWA, FDOT and other professional organizations as appropriate.  Coordinate with FDOT and member agencies to address continued integration of Performance Management measures into Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning and Congestion Management Planning.  Consultant services to provide general staff support as needed to accomplish required activities identified in task. Complete Streets/Safety Planning  Participate in special events that promote bicycle/pedestrian activities and safety education.  Participate in meetings/workshops related to bicycle/pedestrian and Complete Streets initiatives, including those hosted by FDOT, FHWA, CTST, Naples Pathway Coalition, Blue Zones, Healthy Community Coalition of Collier County, and other agencies.  Project Management and Consultant Services to complete the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan for incorporation in the LRTP update.  Prepare updates to SUNTrail maps as opportunities arise.  Project Management and Consultant Services to Complete a Safe Streets for All Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 36  Coordinate with FDOT and local governments to ensure that roadway expansion and retrofit projects work towards meeting the bicycle/pedestrian and Complete Streets planning and safety goals identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the Safe Streets and Roads for All Safety Action Plan and the LRTP.  Depending on new federal and state guidance, prepare documents to address one or more of the following programs: o Vision Zero Action Plan o Safe Streets for All (SS4A) o Complete Streets o Tackling the Climate Crisis – Transition to a Clean Energy, Resilient Future Congestion Management Planning  Begin the Congestion Management Process Update in coordination with Lee MPO.  Attend Lee TMOC and Collier/Lee/Charlotte TIM Team meetings to the extent feasible.  Attend and participate in technical meetings and workshops related to the CMC, CMP and congestion relief strategies.  Facilitate “best practices” approach for incorporating CMP measures into existing plans and programs, including preliminary engineering, traffic simulation modeling, and project prioritization. End Task/Deliverable Target Date Bike/Ped Master Plan Update July 2025 Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Comprehensive Safety Action Plan November 2025 Proposed revisions to SUNTrails Map As needed Safe Routes to School Program applications and prepare letters of support As needed Collier Bicycle/Pedestrian Facility Map Update As needed Congestion Management Process Update April 2027 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Collier MPO, Consultant Services. Lee MPO is included for CMP Update. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 37 Task 5 – Financial Tables Task 5 ‐ Special Projects & Systems Planning Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2024/25 Budget Category & Description FHWA FHWA FTA Trans. Disad. USDOT (SS4A) Local Funds (including Carryover) Total (PL) (SU) 5305 A. Personnel Services MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits, and other deductions $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 Subtotal: $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 B. Consultant Services Bike/Ped Master Plan $70,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 SS4A Safety Action Plan $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $50,000 $250,000 Subtotal: $70,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $50,000 $320,000 Total: $145,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $50,000 $395,000 Total De- Obligated Funds $0 $0 N/A N/A N/A N/A $0 Sub-Total (less the de-obligated funds) $145,000 $0 N/A N/A N/A N/A $395,000 Task 5 – Special Projects & Systems Planning Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2025/26 Budget Category Budget Category Description FHWA FHWA FTA 5305 Trans. Disad. Total (PL) (SU) A. Personnel Services MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits, and other deductions $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 Subtotal: $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 B. Consultant Services Bike/Ped Master Plan $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 Congestion Management Process Update $5,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $105,000 Subtotal: $10,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $110,000 Total: $90,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $190,000 Total De-Obligated Funds $0 $0 N/A N/A $0 Sub-Total (less the de-obligated funds) $90,000 $100,000 N/A N/A $190,000 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 38 TASK 6 TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLANNING PURPOSE: To provide the necessary resources to support a multimodal transportation system in the Collier MPO area. This task includes developing the Transit Development Plan (TDP), the 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan, a multimodal TIP and other plans, programs and technical studies relating to public transportation. This task includes coordination with the transit agency for the reporting of transit asset management target measures and target setting for the required Public Transit Safety Agency Plan. In addition, this task includes overseeing and providing planning services for a coordinated Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Program in Collier County, in accordance with Chapter 427 of the Florida Statutes (FS) and Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Rule 41-2. PREVIOUS WORK  TDSP Minor Update.  TDSP Major Update.  Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (coordinated with Lee County), which was identified as a part of the last TDP major update.  Coordinated with PTNE to review and adopt the Transit Asset Management Performance Measures for the Collier Metropolitan Area.  Ongoing transit and transportation disadvantaged coordination between the Collier MPO and PTNE.  Established scope of work for a Zero Emission Fleet Transition Plan feasibility study.  Staff support to the Local Coordinating Board as required by the TD Planning Grant.  Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) Evaluation.  Annual TD Planning Grant Requirements. REQUIRED TASKS:  Conduct and maintain the operations of the MPO including providing administrative support activities such as financial management, contract management, public outreach, personnel matters, procurement of equipment and supplies and general management of Transit Planning at the system level within the MPO.  Participate in special transit and multi-modal studies, as needed.  MPO staff, Board, and PTNE staff will participate in meetings, trainings, workshops, or seminars related to fixed route which may include fixed routes, ADA or paratransit service.  Prepare necessary progress reports and requests for reimbursement for Public Transit Grant Agreements.  Participate in quarterly coordination meetings with FDOT to discuss transit issues.  Attend Collier Area Transit’s Public Transit Advisory Committee meetings, as needed.  Project Management and Consultant Services to complete the Transit Development Plan Major Update. Provide comments on the annual reports of the Transit Development Plan prepared by PTNE. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 39  Coordinate with PTNE on compliance with all Federal requirements to address transit performance measures including, Transit Asset Management and Public Transit Agency Safety Plan.  Project Management and Consultant Services to complete a Zero-Emission Fleet Transition Plan for Collier Area Transit.  Coordinate with PTNE to identify Transit Priorities, review priorities for consistency with the TDP and LRTP.  Staff support to the LCB, including preparation of agendas, preparation of meeting materials including legal advertisements of meetings.  Complete TD activities as required by TD Planning Grant, including annual updates to TDSP and major TDSP update, CTC Evaluation, annual review of bylaws, completion of LCB training, public workshop, etc.  Prepare and submit grant application for TD Planning Grant. Execute grant agreement and prepare necessary progress reports and requests for reimbursement by the CTD. End Task/Deliverable(s) Target Date Participation in meetings, trainings, workshops, or seminars (TD and Transit) As needed Transit Development Plan (TDP) Major Update September 2025 TDP Annual Report (Prepared by PTNE)– Provide Comments Annually Coordinate with PTNE on compliance with all Federal requirements to address transit performance measures including, Transit Asset Management and Public Transit Agency Safety Plan As directed by FDOT Adopted Transit Priorities June - Annually Zero Emission Transition Plan June 2025 TD Grant Application and Agreement June - Annually LCB Meetings Quarterly Minor TDSP Updates May 2025 May 2026 CTC Evaluation May - Annually Multi-modal Study 2027 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Collier MPO, Collier County PTNE, Consultant Services 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 40 Task 6 - Financial Tables Task 6 – Transit & TD Planning Budget Detail for FY 2024/25 Budget Category & Description FHWA PL FTA 5305 (G1V40) FTA 5305 (G2594) FTA 5307 (FY 22) Trans. Disad. Total FTA 5305 Soft Match for G1V40, G2594 A. Personnel Services MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits, and other deductions $15,000 $21,000 $24,000 $0 $24,754 $84,754 $9,000 Subtotal: $15,000 $21,000 $24,000 $0 $24,754 $84,754 $9,000 B. Consultant Services TDP Major Update $165,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $165,000 $0 Zero Emission Transition Plan $6,000 $60,000 $0 $60,000 $0 $126,000 $12,000 Subtotal: $171,000 $60,000 $0 $60,000 $0 $291,000 $12,000 C. Travel MPO Staff and PTNE staff attendance at training and conferences $0 $345 $9,600 $0 $2,500 $12,445 $1,989 Subtotal: $0 $345 $9,600 $0 $2,500 $12,445 $1,989 D. Other Direct Expenses Website $0 $0 $240 $0 $0 $240 $48 Legal Ads $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $2,500 $0 Fed Ex/ Postage $0 $120 $80 $0 $0 $200 $40 Office Supplies $0 $400 $800 $0 $0 $1,200 $240 Subtotal: $0 $520 $1,120 $0 $2,500 $4,140 $328 Total: $186,000 $81,865 $34,720 $60,000 $29,754 $392,339 $23,317 Total De- Obligated Funds: $0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sub-Total (less the de-obligated funds): $186,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 41 Task 6 – Transit & TD Planning Budget Detail for FY 2025/26 Budget Category & Description FHWA PL Total Trans. Disad. A. Personnel Services MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits, and other deductions $25,000 $24,754 $49,754 Subtotal: $25,000 $24,754 $49,754 B. Consultant Services TDP Major Update $5,000 $0 $5,000 Zero Emission Transition Plan $1,000 $0 $1,000 Multi-Modal Study $90,686 $0 $90,686 Subtotal: $96,686 $0 $96,686 C. Travel MPO Staff and PTNE staff attendance at training and conferences $5,000 $2,500 $7,500 Subtotal: $5,000 $2,500 $7,500 D. Other Direct Expenses Website $0 $0 $0 Legal Ads $0 $2,500 $2,500 Fed Ex/ Postage $0 $0 $0 Office Supplies $0 $0 $0 Subtotal: $0 $2,500 $2,500 Total: $126,686 $29,754 $156,440 Total De-Obligated Funds: $0 N/A $0 Sub-Total (less the de-obligated funds): $126,686 N/A $156,440 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 42 TASK 7 REGIONAL COORDINATION PURPOSE: Provide for the continuation of a region-wide multimodal transportation planning process in accordance with Federal and State guidelines. To provide training to MPO staff, Board members and advisory committee members to support transportation planning and policy activities in the region. PREVIOUS WORK:  Represented the MPO at local, regional, State and Federal meetings, including quarterly Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) meetings and Coordinated Urban Transportation Studies (CUTS) meetings. Hosted CUTS meeting in October 2023.  Submitted freight projects to MPOAC for prioritization.  Submitted eligible projects to the National Highway Freight Program for funding.  Attendance at Lee MPO TAC and TMOC meetings.  Conducted Joint Lee/Collier BPAC, CAC, TAC and MPO meetings as needed.  Updated Joint TRIP priorities and regional priorities with Lee County and submitted to FDOT.  Frequent coordination with Lee MPO on various planning issues.  Coordinated MPO Board member attendance at annual MPOAC Weekend Institute. REQUIRED ACTIVITIES:  Conduct Joint Lee/Collier BPAC, CAC, TAC and MPO meetings as needed.  Staff and MPO Board attend MPOAC meetings and workshops, including freight meetings, noteworthy practices meetings, and MPOAC weekend institute for Governing Board members.  Staff participate in Florida Metropolitan Planning Partnership meetings (FMPP) hosted by FDOT, as needed.  Staff participate in CUTS meetings and host as required.  Participate in Lee MPO TAC, BPAC, and TMOC meetings.  Monitor and participate in statewide plans and programs, including but not limited to FTP, SIS, and Vision Zero.  Attendance at state and local conferences/meetings on Collier MPO related issues provided by FDOT, FHWA, NHI, USDOT, NTI, etc.  Monitor and update joint priorities (TRIP, SIS, enhancement, SUNTrail) as necessary. Rank and prioritize for funding.  Analysis of State and Federal laws and regulations for MPOs, committees and local government officials to aid them in the application of regional transportation policy strategies.  Coordinate with municipalities to review local plans for consistency with MPO plans.  Participate in freight planning, including updates to the FDOT District 1 Freight Mobility and Trade Plan, participation in various freight committees and coordination with freight stakeholders, participate in regional freight workshops and seminars. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 43  Prepare and submit freight priorities as requested by the MPOAC and FDOT or as opportunities arise.  Participate in regional transportation studies and planning, as needed. End Task/Deliverable(s) Target Date MPOAC Meeting Participation Quarterly Participation in FMPP meetings As needed CUTS Meeting Participation Quarterly Joint Priorities (TRIP, SIS, etc) Annually – As requested by FDOT Joint Lee/Collier MPO Meetings Annually – As needed Freight Priorities to MPOAC As requested RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Collier MPO 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 44 Task 7 - Financial Tables Task 7‐ Regional Coordination Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2024/25 Budget Category & Description FHWA FHWA FTA Trans. Disad. Total (PL) (SU) 5305 A. Personnel Services MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits, and other deductions $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 Subtotal: $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 B. Travel Travel to MPOAC and any other out of county activities as necessary $9,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,000 Subtotal: $9,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,000 Total: $44,000 $0 $0 $0 $44,000 Total De-Obligated Funds: $0 $0 N/A N/A $0 Sub-Total (less the de- obligated funds): $44,000 $0 N/A N/A $44,000 Task 7‐ Regional Coordination Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2025/26 Budget Category & Description FHWA FHWA FTA Trans. Disad. Total (PL) (SU) 5305 A. Personnel Services MPO staff salaries, fringe benefits, and other deductions $38,000 $0 $0 $0 $38,000 Subtotal: $38,000 $0 $0 $0 $38,000 B. Travel Travel to MPOAC and any other out of county activities as necessary $9,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,000 Subtotal: $9,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,000 Total: $47,000 $0 $0 $0 $47,000 Total De-Obligated Funds: $0 $0 N/A N/A $0 Sub-Total (less the de- obligated funds): $47,000 $0 N/A N/A $47,000 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 45 TASK 8 LOCALLY FUNDED ACTIVITIES PURPOSE: To cover any MPO expenses deemed not eligible or reimbursable by FHWA PL, TD or FTA Section 5305(d) funding. PREVIOUS WORK:  Reimbursement of travel and training expenses not eligible for reimbursement from the FHWA PL, TD or FTA Section 5305(d) Grants.  Payment for staff time to attend safety training and HR training required by Collier County. REQUIRED TASKS: End Task/ Deliverable(s) Target Date Prepare resolutions and policy positions As needed Participate in Collier County required Safety and HR training courses As needed Payment of any shortfall of consultant or personnel costs or any invoices not eligible for grant reimbursement. As needed RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Collier MPO 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 46 Task 8 - Financial Tables Task 8 ‐ Locally Funded Activities Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2024/25 Budget Category & Description FHWA FHWA FTA Trans. Disad. Local Total (PL) (SU) 5305 A. Miscellaneous Expenses Resolutions and policy positions, travel, membership dues, and any other expenses not eligible for grant reimbursement $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000 $8,000 Total: $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000 $8,000 Total De-Obligated Funds: $0 $0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Sub-Total (less the de- obligated funds): $0 $0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Task 8 ‐ Locally Funded Activities Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2025/26 Budget Category & Description FHWA FHWA FTA Trans. Disad. Local Total (PL) (SU) 5305 A. Miscellaneous Expenses Resolutions and policy positions, travel, membership dues, and any other expenses not eligible for grant reimbursement $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000 $8,000 Total: $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000 $8,000 Total De-Obligated Funds: $0 $0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Sub-Total (less the de- obligated funds) $0 $0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 47 SUMMARY TABLES 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 49 TABLE 3 – FY 2024/25 AGENCY PARTICIPATION USDOTLocal Match forFTA Section 5307 (FY 22)CPG CPG SS4A SS4A G1V40 G2594PL SU Soft Match Soft Match1389,060$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 70,303$ -$ -$ 459,363$ 20,000$ 235,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,325$ -$ -$ 41,325$ 15,000$ 345,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,132$ -$ -$ 53,132$ 15,000$ 4250,000$ 379,416$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 45,175$ -$ -$ 674,591$ 579,416$ 5145,000$ -$ 200,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ 26,202$ -$ -$ 421,202$ 320,000$ 6186,000$ -$ -$ -$ 81,865$ 34,720$ $60,000 56,927$ -$ 29,754$ 449,266$ 291,000$ 744,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,951$ -$ -$ 51,951$ -$ 8-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,000$ -$ 8,000$ -$ 1,094,060$ 379,416$ 200,000$ 50,000$ 81,865$ 34,720$ 60,000$ 221,014$ 8,000$ 29,754$ 2,158,829$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,094,060$ 379,416$ 200,000$ 50,000$ 81,865$ 34,720$ 60,000$ 221,014$ 8,000$ 29,754$ 2,158,829$ 1,240,416$ FHWA PL FHWA SU FTA 5307 USDOT FDOT TD Trust Collier Co. Naples Everglades Marco Is. Total-$ -$ -$ -$ 221,014$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 221,014$ 1,094,060$ 379,416$ 60,000$ 200,000$ -$ 29,754$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,763,230$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$           5,000$ 2,000$ -$ 1,000$ 8,000$ FY 2024/25 Collier County Match for SS4A -$ -$ -$ 40,000$ -$ ‐$           -$ -$ -$ -$ 40,000$ MPO Local Funding Carryover - SS4A Match-$ -$ -$ 10,000$ -$ ‐$           -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000$ -$ -$ 116,585$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 116,585$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,094,060$ 379,416$ 176,585$ 250,000$ 221,014$ 29,754$ 5,000$ 2,000$ -$ 1,000$ 2,158,829$ *Soft match includes $197,697 at 18.07% and $23,317 at 20% to match PTGAs.Total cost, including carryover, for all tasks(1) For FY 2024/2025, FDOT will "soft match" the MPP/PL Funds using toll revenue expenditures as a credit toward the non-Federal matching share. The amount identified on this line represent the amount of "soft match" required (both State and local) for the amount of Federal PL section 112 funds requested in this UPWP.De-Obligation from Prior Fiscal YearsRegional CoordinationLocally Funded ActivitiesTotal fiscal year 2024/25 funds for all tasksTotal De-obligation from prior fiscal yearsTotal cost, including carryover, for all tasksState Support/Match for MPO (1)FY 2024/25 FundingFY 2024/25 Local Funding5305 CarryoverAdministrationData Collection/ DevelopmentTransportation Improvement Program (TIP)Long Range Planning Special Projects and Systems PlanningTransit and Transportation DisadvantagedFDOT Soft Match* Local TD Trust Total Amount to ConsultantFTA Section 5305 FTA Section 5305Task # Task Description FHWA FHWA 9.A.1Packet Pg. 87Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning 50 TABLE 4 – FY 2024/25 FUNDING SOURCE Task Description FHWA PLUSDOTFDOT LocalTask # FederalFederal (SS4A)Soft Match* Funding1 Administration 389,060$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 70,303$ 389,060$ -$ -$ 459,363$ 2 Data Collection/Development 35,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,325$ 35,000$ -$ -$ 41,325$ 3 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 45,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,132$ 45,000$ -$ -$ 53,132$ 4 Long Range Planning 250,000$ 379,416$ -$ -$ -$ 45,175$ 629,416$ -$ -$ 674,591$ 5 Special Projects and Systems Planning 145,000$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ 26,202$ 345,000$ -$ 50,000$ 421,202$ 6 Transit and Transportation Disadvantaged 186,000$ -$ -$ 116,585$ 60,000$ 56,927$ 362,585$ 29,754$ 449,266$ 7 Regional Coordination 44,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,951$ 44,000$ -$ -$ 51,951$ 8 Locally Funded Activities for all tasks -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,000$ 8,000$ Total: 1,094,060$ 379,416$ 200,000$ 116,585$ 60,000$ 221,014$ 1,850,061$ 29,754$ 58,000$ 2,158,829$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 221,014$ -$ -$ -$ 221,014$ 1,094,060$ 379,416$ 200,000$ -$ ‐$       -$ -$ 29,754$ -$ 1,703,230$ -$ -$ 40,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,000$ 48,000$ -$ -$ 10,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000$ -$ -$ -$ 116,585$ 60,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 176,585$ 1,094,060$ 379,416$ 250,000$ 116,585$ 60,000$ 221,014$ 1,850,061$ 29,754$ 8,000$ 2,158,829$ *Soft match includes $197,697 at 18.07% and $23,317 at 20% to match PTGAs.TotalFHWA SU FederalFTA 5305 CarryforwardTotal Federal FundingState TD TrustFTA Section 5307 (FY 22)Roll Forward from Prior Fiscal YearState Support/Match for MPO (1)FY 2024/25 FundingFY 2024/25 Local FundingTotal cost, including carryover, for all tasks Carry over for SS4A Match-MPO Local Funds from prior FYs 9.A.1Packet Pg. 88Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning 51 TABLE 5 – FY 2025/26 AGENCY PARTICIPATION CPG CPGPL SU1 424,400$ -$ 76,689$ -$ -$ 501,089$ 29,000$ 2 40,000$ -$ 7,228$ -$ -$ 47,228$ 15,000$ 3 55,000$ -$ 9,939$ -$ -$ 64,939$ 15,000$ 4 45,000$ 250,000$ 8,132$ -$ -$ 303,132$ 250,000$ 5 90,000$ 100,000$ 16,263$ -$ -$ 206,263$ 110,000$ 6 126,686$ -$ 22,892$ -$ 29,754$ 179,332$ 96,686$ 7 47,000$ -$ 8,493$ -$ -$ 55,493$ -$ 8-$ -$ -$ 8,000$ -$ 8,000$ -$ 828,086$ 350,000$ 149,635$ 8,000$ 29,754$ 1,365,475$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 828,086$ 350,000$ 149,635$ 8,000$ 29,754$ 1,365,475$ 515,686$ FHWA PL FHWA SU FDOT TD Trust Collier County Naples Everglades CityMarco Island Total-$ -$ 149,635$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 149,635$ 828,086$ 350,000$ -$ 29,754$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,207,840$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,000$ 2,000$ -$ 1,000$ 8,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 828,086$ 350,000$ 149,635$ 29,754$ 5,000$ 2,000$ -$ 1,000$ 1,365,475$ (1) For FY 2025/2026, FDOT will "soft match" the MPP/PL Funds using toll revenue expenditures as a credit toward the non-Federal matching share. The amount identified on this line represent the amount of "soft match" required (both State and local) for the amount of Federal PL section 112 funds requested in this UPWP.FY 2025/26 FundingFY 2025/26 Local FundingDe-Obligation from Prior Fiscal YearsTotal cost, including carryover, for all tasksState Support/Match for MPO (1)Locally Funded ActivitiesTotal fiscal year 2025/26 funds for all tasksTotal De-obligation from prior fiscal yearsTotal cost, including carryover, for all tasksTD TrustData Collection/ DevelopmentTransportation Improvement Program (TIP)Long Range Planning Special Projects and Systems PlanningTransit and Transportation DisadvantagedRegional CoordinationAmount to ConsultantAdministrationFDOT Soft Match LocalTask # Task Description FHWA FHWA Total 9.A.1Packet Pg. 89Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning 52 TABLE 6 – FY 2025/26 FUNDING SOURCE FHWA PL FDOT LocalTask # Task Description Federal Soft Match Funding1 Administration 424,400$ -$ 76,689$ 424,400$ -$ -$ 501,089$ 2 Data Collection/Development 40,000$ -$ 7,228$ 40,000$ -$ -$ 47,228$ 3 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 55,000$ -$ 9,939$ 55,000$ -$ -$ 64,939$ 4 Long Range Planning 45,000$ 250,000$ 8,132$ 295,000$ -$ -$ 303,132$ 5 Special Projects and Systems Planning 90,000$ 100,000$ 16,263$ 190,000$ -$ -$ 206,263$ 6 Transit and Transportation Disadvantaged 126,686$ -$ 22,892$ 126,686$ 29,754$ -$ 179,332$ 7 Regional Coordination 47,000$ -$ 8,493$ 47,000$ -$ -$ 55,493$ 8 Locally Funded Activities -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,000$ 8,000$ Total fiscal year 2025/26 funds for all tasks 828,086$ 350,000$ 149,635$ 1,178,086$ 29,754$ 8,000$ 1,365,475$ State Support/Match for MPO (1) -$ -$ 149,635$ -$ -$ 149,635$ FY 2025/26 Funding 828,086$ 350,000$ -$ -$ 29,754$ 1,207,840$ FY 2025/26 Local Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,000$ 8,000$ Total cost, including carryover, for all tasks 828,086$ 350,000$ 149,635$ 1,178,086$ 29,754$ 8,000$ 1,365,475$ FHWA SU FederalTotal Federal FundingState TD Trust Total 9.A.1Packet Pg. 90Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning 53 APPENDICES 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 54 APPENDIX A – COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS Acronym Full Name AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic ADA Americans with Disability Act AMPO Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AUIR Annual Update and Inventory Report BCC Board of County Commissioners BIL Bipartisan Infrastructure Law BPAC Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee BPMP Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan CAC Citizens Advisory Committee CAT Collier Area Transit CEMP County Emergency Management Plan CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIA Community Impact Assessment CIE Capital Improvement Element CIGM Collier Inter-Active Growth Model CIP Capital Improvement Program CMC Congestion Management Committee CMP Congestion Management Process CMS Congestion Management System COA Comprehensive Operational Analysis COOP Continuity of Operations Plan CORSIM Corridor Simulation CR County Road CRA Community Redevelopment Agency CTC Community Transportation Coordinator CTD (Florida) Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged CTST Community Traffic Safety Team CUTR Center for Urban Transportation Research CUTS Coordinated Urban Transportation Studies DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise DOPA Designated Official Planning Agency DRI Development of Regional Impact EAR Evaluation and Appraisal Report EMS Emergency Medical Services ETAT Environmental Technical Advisory Team ETDM Efficient Transportation Decision Making F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code FAP Federal Aid Program FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FHREDI Florida’s Heartland Rural Economic Development Initiative 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 55 COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS Acronym Full Name FHWA Federal Highway Administration FM Financial Management FS Florida Statutes FSUTMS Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure FTA Florida Transit Administration FTP Florida Transportation Plan FY Fiscal Year GIS Geographical Information System ICAR Intergovernmental Coordination and Review ICE Intergovernmental Coordination Element IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act IJR Interchange Justification Report IT Information Technology ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems JARC Job Access Reverse Commute JPA Joint Participation Agreement LAP Local Agency Program LCB Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged LEP Limited English Proficiency LinC Lee in Collier Transit Service LOS Level of Service LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century MFF Moving Florida Forward Infrastructure Initiative MMP Master Mobility Plan MMTPP Metropolitan Multimodal Transportation Planning Process MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization (includes references to the organization, MPO Board, Staff and Committees) MPOAC Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council MPP Metropolitan Planning Program NTD National Transit Database OIG Office of Inspector General PD&E Project Development & Environment PEA Planning Emphasis Area PIP Public Involvement Plan PL Highway Planning Funds PTNE Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement PTOP Public Transportation Operation Plan QRC Quick Response Code RFP Request for Proposal ROW Right-of-Way 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 56 COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS Acronym Full Name SCE Sociocultural Effects SE Socioeconomic SHS State Highway System SIS Strategic Intermodal System SR State Road SSPP System Safety Program Plan SS4A Safe Streets for All SWFRPC Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council TAC Technical Advisory Committee TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TD Transportation Disadvantaged TDM Transportation Demand Management TDP Transit Development Plan TDSP Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan TIP Transportation Improvement Program TMA Transportation Management Area TSM Transportation Systems Management TRIP Transportation Regional Incentive Program ULAM Urban Land Allocation Model UPWP Unified Planning Work Program USC United States Code USDOT United States Department of Transportation UZA Urbanized Area VE Value Engineering ZDATA Zonal Data (land use and socio-economic) 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 57 APPENDIX B – PLANNING STUDIES IN THE MPO AREA This list is compiled and/or updated by the Collier MPO staff for the purposes of regional planning. It is included here for reference. Veteran's Memorial Blvd. Ext. Phase II This study is for the conceptual design and permitting of Veteran's Memorial Blvd. from west of the new Aubrey Rogers Hight School entrance to US 41, including bicycle/pedestrian facilities. The extension of Veteran's Memorial Blvd. has been an established need in previous LRTPs. Golden Gate Master Plan This study is to evaluate the conversion of the septic systems to central sewer and the private wells to municipal water as a priority for protecting and restoring local water resources within Golden Gate City. The project will develop a master plan that will detail water quality and flood protection issues and evaluate the feasibility of providing stormwater improvements, septic system conversions to central sewer, private well conversions to municipal water, and roadway improvements. Wilson Blvd. Extension Corridor Study This study is to evaluate alternative alignments and identity a preferred corridor alignment to connect Golden Gate Blvd. East and Collier Blvd. The continued evaluation and refinement of the alternative alignments will be based on many factors including environmental impacts, community impacts, land use and funding. I-75 Interchange at Immokalee Road An Immokalee Road Corridor Congestion Study was completed by Collier County in 2021. One of the recommendations from the Study was to pursue interchange improvements for a Diverging Diamond Interchange in coordination with FDOT. The Interchange is identified in the Cost Feasible Plan of the 2045 LRTP. Collier County is working with FDOT to complete a PD&E study for the Interchange. Moving Florida Forward Infrastructure Initiative (MFF) MFF prioritizes funding for the state’s transportation infrastructure to directly and immediately address congestion relief and perpetual safety on roadways, support resiliency in existing and future projects. The following improvements are being expedited under MFF: (i) Widen I-75 from six to eight lanes from Golden Gate to Corkscrew. This is a District-wide project involving Collier and Lee Counties; (ii) I-75 and Pine Ridge Rd Interchange Improvement - Reconstruct interchange to a diverging diamond and widen Pine Ridge Road at that location; (iii) Widen S.R. 29 from two to four lanes from New Market Road to S.R. 82; and (iv) Construct a new four-lane road as an extension of S.R. 29 for a loop around downtown Immokalee from C.R. 846 to New Market Road. FDOT is currently conducting pre-engineering planning for the projects. Collier to Polk Regional Trail Master Plan The Collier to Polk Regional Trail would provide a connected multi-use trail that traverses Collier, Hendry, Glades, Highlands, Hardee, and Polk counties. If completed, the project is expected to be approximately 200 miles. FDOT is currently working on a Master Plan to define high-level concepts and routing opportunities and to receive community input. The master Plan may be followed by PD&E studies that will collectively identify the location and conceptual design of feasible alternatives for the long-distance trail. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 58 Districtwide Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Feasibility Study FDOT is conducting a feasibility study as a potential strategy to respond to rapid population growth and rising traffic congestion on key commuter corridors in the District. The Study will evaluate and identify corridor(s) within the District that are best positioned for BRT and identify potential next steps for agency partners to pursue to strengthen BRT readiness. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 59 APPENDIX C – STATEMENTS AND ASSURANCES 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 60 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 61 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 62 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 63 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 64 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 65 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 66 APPENDIX D – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 67 Description of Comment Types:    Editorial – These comments may be addressed, but such corrections would not affect approval of the document.   Examples include grammatical, spelling, and other related errors.    Enhancement – These comments may be addressed, but the document already meets the minimum requirements  for approval.  Comments would significantly improve the document’s quality and the public’s understanding.   Examples include improving graphics, restructuring document format, using plain language, reformatting for clarity,  removing redundancies, and suggesting alterative approaches to meet minimum requirements.    Critical – These comments must be addressed to meet minimum federal and state requirements for approval.  The  reviewer must identify the applicable federal or state policies, regulations, guidance, procedures, or statutes with  which the document does not conform.    ________________________________________________________________________________________________    Agency Comment Type Comment Response Page                                                                                                     9.A.1 Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 68 APPENDIX E – MPO RESOLUTION 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 69 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 70 APPENDIX F – UPWP REVIEW CHECKLIST 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) 71 [INSERT UPWP REVIEW CHECKLIST PROVIDED BY FDOT] 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Unified Planning Work Program) Draft Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) SFY 2025 –2026 July 1, 2024 –June 30, 2026 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Presentation on Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year FY 2025 UPWP FUNDING ALLOCATIONS Award:PL SU Planning 818,514.00$ 350,000.00$ Carryforward Balance o 275,546.00$ 29,416.00$ TOTAL AWARD 1,094,060.00$ 379,416.00$ GRAND TOTAL:1,473,476.00$ FY 2026 UPWP FUNDING ALLOCATIONS Award:PL SU Planning 828,086.00$ 350,000.00$ TOTAL AWARD 828,086.00$ 350,000.00$ GRAND TOTAL:1,178,086.00$ 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Presentation on Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year UPWP Funding by Task FY 25-26 $813,460 , 31% $75,000 , 3% $100,000 , 4%$924,416 , 35% $335,000 , 12% $312,686 , 12% $91,000 , 3%Task 1-Administration Task 2-Data Collection/Development Task 3-Transportation Improvement Program Task 4-Long Range Planning Task 5-Special Projects/Systems Planning Task 6-Transit/Transportation Disadvantaged Task 7-Regional Coordination 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Presentation on Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year Administration Priorities1 2024 Federal Quadrennial Certification Review July 23 & 24, 2024 On-site review/desk audit & Public Hearing Report anticipated by end of CY 2024 New/Amended MPO Lease and Staff Services Agreement Current Agreements expire in May of 2025 Potentially getting a new MPO Executive Director up to speed Ms. McLaughlin’s current employment agreement expires in March of 2025 MPO General Planning Contracts Current planning contracts expire in March of 2026 Potential Feasibility Study on Consolidation with Lee MPO Draft UPWP contains a total allocation of $31,000 for potential consultant/professional assistance 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Presentation on Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year Long Range Transportation Plan Priorities4 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan Jacobs Engineering Group Total Contract Amount: $821,169 Funded with UPWP PL/SU Funds Data Analysis/Coordination with FDOT on 2050 D1RPM Development underway Draft 2050 LRTP anticipated in Fall of 2025 Final 2050 LRTP adoption in December of 2025 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Presentation on Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year Special Projects/Systems Planning Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Update Capital Consulting Solutions Total Contract Amount: $118,396 Funded with UPWP PL Funds Estimated completion in Summer of 2025 MPO Staff Manages Safe Streets for All Comprehensive Safety Action Plan TY Lin International Funded with USDOT SS4A Grant Funds/Local Match Kick -off meeting occurred on March 29, 2024 Estimated completion date of November of 2025 Congestion Management Process (CMP) Update FY 2026 will begin the next update, which is due in April of 2027 Draft UPWP contains total allocation of $105,000 in FY 2026 for the CMP Update 5 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Presentation on Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year Transit Planning Priorities6 Transit Development Plan, Major Update Stantec Consulting - Total Contract Amount: $184,978 Funded with UPWP PL Funds TDP Public Involvement Plan approved by FDOT in March, 2024 System Analysis underway Expected completion in September of 2025 MPO Staff Support for Zero Emission Fleet Transition Plan Funded by MPO/CAT with prior years’ 5305/5307 transit planning funding Feasibility study to evaluate power/infrastructure needs, maintenance and financial impacts of deploying battery electric vehicles in CAT’s fleet Estimated completion in Summer of 2025 Potential Multi-Modal Study FY 2026 Allocation in Draft UPWP: $90,686 - Funded with UPWP PL Funds This study may include evaluation of issues arising from electric bicycles, scooters, et cetera, possible solutions, and an education component 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Presentation on Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year Thank You Dusty Hansen Collier MPO Senior Planner Dusty.Hansen@CollierCountyfl.gov Anne McLaughlin Collier MPO Executive Director Anne.McLaughlin@CollierCountyfl.gov http://www.colliermpo.org 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Presentation on Draft FY 25-26 UPWP (28498 : Review Draft State Fiscal Year 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement for Calendar Year 2023 OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to approve the calendar year 2023 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement. CONSIDERATIONS: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducts an annual review of the metropolitan transportation planning process for Collier MPO with respect to Federal requirements. Each year, MPO staff and FDOT staff meet to discuss the annual review and jointly compile the required documentation. This year’s review is based on calendar year 2023. Highlights from this year’s Joint Certification Review include: • FDOT’s Risk Assessment Percentage is 100%; the MPO’s Level of Risk is Low (see Part 2, page 12). • There are no Recommendations or Corrective Actions to be addressed (see Part 2, page 21). Based on the joint review and evaluation and contingent upon MPO Board approval, FDOT and the Collier MPO Chair sign the MPO Joint Certification Statement, which recommends that the Metropolitan Planning Process for Collier MPO be certified for another year. (Attachment 1) The certification package and Statement must be submitted to FDOT’s Central Office by no later than June 1. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the MPO Board approve the 2023 FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement. Prepared by: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (PDF) 9.B Packet Pg. 118 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 9.B Doc ID: 28499 Item Summary: Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement for Calendar Year 2023 Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 12:25 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 12:25 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:24 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:07 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 9.B Packet Pg. 119 9.B.1Packet Pg. 120Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 121Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 122Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 123Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 124Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 125Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 126Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 127Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 128Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 129Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 130Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 131Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 132Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 133Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 134Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 135Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 136Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 137Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 138Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 139Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 140Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 141Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 142Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 143Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 144Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 145Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 146Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 147Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 148Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 149Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 150Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 151Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 152Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 153Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 154Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 155Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 156Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 157Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 158Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 159Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 160Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 161Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 162Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 163Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 164Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 165Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 166Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 167Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 9.B.1Packet Pg. 168Attachment: FDOT-MPO 2023 Joint Certification Statement & Review Documentation (28499 : Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws OBJECTIVE: To update the agency representation on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Transportation Management Services Department (TMSD) by amending the TAC bylaws. CONSIDERATIONS: The County TMSD has requested changes to the TAC bylaws to reflect the Department’s new organizational structure. The proposed amendment is shown in strikethrough/underline format in Attachment 1 and as a clean version in Attachment 2. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The TAC voted unanimously to endorse the amendment at their meeting on March 25, 2024. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the proposed amendment to the TAC bylaws. Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. TAC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (PDF) 2. TAC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (PDF) 9.C Packet Pg. 169 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 9.C Doc ID: 28500 Item Summary: Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 12:31 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 12:31 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:30 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:08 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 9.C Packet Pg. 170 1 BYLAWS for TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE of COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION _____________________ 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee 2 Section 1. Name The name of this Committee shall be the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Section 2. Purpose A. The TAC shall serve the MPO in an advisory capacity on technical matters regarding all modes of travel. B. The functions of this Committee shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. To review and make appropriate technical analyses on other transportation planning issues. 2. To promote coordination among agencies, members, and transportation planning and programming; 3. To review the technical sufficiency, accuracy and completeness of appropriate studies, plans, programs or public information documents and advise the MPO thereof; 4. To make priority recommendations to the MPO for transportation plans and program implementation based upon the needs as determined by technical studies; Section 3. Membership, Appointments, Qualifications and Terms: A. Membership of the TAC shall include, but not be limited to, representatives from departments and agencies with responsibilities for the planning, operating and/or development of transportation facilities and services within the Collier County 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee 3 area, as approved by the MPO. Each member agency representative shall be duly appointed by the member agency and shall serve at the pleasure of his or her member agency. The MPO Staff shall be notified in writing of the appointment, reappointment or replacement of a member agency’s representative. B. The TAC shall be composed of voting and non-voting members. C. An official alternate member can be designated by the affected voting member agency by providing such designation in writing to the MPO. The so designated alternate member has to be another employee of the member agency and has the capacity to act on behalf of the voting member. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the MPO staff shall be notified in writing (including email) of the attendance of the alternate member due to the absence of the official TAC member at least twenty-four hours in advance of any Committee meeting. The alternate member may vote only in the absence of the official voting member on a one-vote-per-member basis. The Voting and Non-Voting Member Agencies are as follows: VOTING MEMBER AGENCIES Collier County Growth Management Department Growth Management Department  – Community Planning & Resiliency Transportation Management Services Department  Transportation Engineering and Construction Management Division  Growth Management Department - Transportation Planning SectionDivision Collier Area Transit  Collier County Public Services Department – Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division– Collier Area Transit 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee 4 Collier County Airport Authority  Airport Authority City of Naples  Engineering  PlanningTraffic Operations City of Naples Airport Authority  Airport Authority-Engineering and Planning City of Marco Island  Community Development Department  Public Works Department City of Everglades City  Mayoral Appointment Collier County School District  Transportation or Planning Regional  Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organization  Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council NON-VOTING MEMBER AGENCIES A Representative from A Local Environmental Agency  Planning D. All TAC members (voting, non-voting, and alternates) must identify themselves on the attendance roster as to the member agency represented and type of membership. E. The MPO staff will be responsible for maintaining a current list of the names of voting, non-voting and alternate members. Section 4. Officers and Duties: 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee 5 A. A Chair and a Vice-Chair of the TAC shall be elected at the first regularly scheduled meeting of each calendar year and shall hold the offices until their successors are elected. B. Any voting member may nominate or be nominated as an officer. All elections shall be by a majority vote of voting members present. C. The Chair shall preside at all meetings and shall be responsible for the conduct of all meetings. The Chair shall also serve as a liaison between the TAC and the MPO and its other advisory committees whenever the need arises. In the absence of the Chair, his/her alternate may sit only as a voting member of the Committee. D. The Vice-Chair shall, during the absence of the Chair or his/her inability to serve, have and exercise all of the duties and powers of the Chair. The Vice-Chair shall also perform such duties as may be assigned him/her by the Chair. E. If both the Chair and Vice-Chair are absent from a meeting, the committee shall elect a voting member present to be the Chair for that meeting. Any vacancy in an office created by a resignation or replacement of an Officer shall be filled by a majority vote of voting members. The Officer so elected shall fill the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacant office. If, at any time, the TAC concludes that an Officer is not performing his/her duties in accordance with Section 4, Subsection C, it may recommend removal of that Officer to the MPO. Section 5. Meetings: A. The TAC shall meet monthly at a date, time and place acceptable to a majority of the voting membership. The date or time may be changed by a majority vote if seven (7) calendar days notice is given to the voting members. 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee 6 B. A seven (7) calendar day notice shall be given for regular meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chair with a minimum of three (3) calendar day’s notice, indicating the reason for the meeting and notifying all members. Agendas shall be prepared by the MPO staff prior to all meetings. Agendas should be sent with meeting notices and, whenever possible, minutes of the previous meeting, at least seven (7) calendar days prior to any regular meeting and at least three (3) calendar days prior to any special meeting. 1. Any item requiring immediate Committee attention may be brought before the committee by any TAC Member or MPO Staff member, even though it is not on the agenda by making a request any time prior to the approval of the agenda during a TAC Meeting, and upon receiving a majority vote in favor of adding the item to the agenda. The TAC shall decide if action is to be taken at that meeting or at a subsequent meeting. 2. Members of the public may request to place items on an agenda by notification to the MPO Staff fourteen (14) days before the scheduled meeting. The Chair shall decide if action is to be taken at that meeting or at a subsequent meeting. C. Each voting member shall have one vote. D. In order to conduct official business, a quorum shall consist of at least three (3) of the voting members, or their designated alternates, being physically present at each meeting. A vote of the majority of the participating voting TAC members, or their designated alternates, shall be required to take affirmative action on issues before the committee. 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee 7 E. All meetings will be open to the public. F. Except as otherwise provided in these Bylaws, Roberts Rules of Order shall govern unspecified procedural issues that may arise during meetings. Section 6: Amendments: These Bylaws may be amended by an affirmative vote of the majority of the participating voting TAC members or their designated alternates, provided a copy of the proposed amendment shall have been sent to every member at least seven (7) calendar days before it is to be voted on. All proposed amendments shall be voted on at regular meetings. Any and all amendments to the Bylaws will become effective upon endorsement by the Collier MPO. Section 7: Previously Adopted Bylaws: These Bylaws supersede and replace any and all Bylaws previously adopted by the Technical Advisory Committee. Section 8. Effective Date: These Bylaws for the Technical Advisory Committee of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization were hereby adopted in an open session with a quorum present and voting on ______________________ March 25, 2021 2024 by the Technical Advisory Committee and subsequently endorsed by the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization on April 12, 2024.March 12, 2021. 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee 8 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE By: ________________________ Lorraine Lantz, TAC Chair METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION By: ________________________ Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt, EsqCommissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., MPO Chair ATTESTED By: _________________________ Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director COUNTY ATTORNEY By: ___________________________________ Scott R. Teach, Deputy County Attorney 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee 9.C.2 Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws) 9.C.2 Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws) 9.C.2 Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws) 9.C.2 Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws) 9.C.2 Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws) 9.C.2 Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws) 9.C.2 Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws) 9.C.2 Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: TAC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28500 : Approve an Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws) 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management Committee Bylaws OBJECTIVE: To update the agency representation on the Congestion Management Committee (CMC) for the Transportation Management Services Department (TMSD) by amending the CMC bylaws. CONSIDERATIONS: The County TMSD has requested changes to the CMC bylaws to reflect the Department’s new organizational structure. When contacted regarding the longstanding vacant position on the CMC, the County Emergency Management Services Division preferred not to have representation on the committee with the understanding the Division’s input is welcome at any time. Eliminating the position reduces the total voting membership from eleven to ten. The proposed amendment is shown in strikethrough/underline format in Attachment 1 and as a clean version in Attachment 2. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The CMC voted unanimously to endorse the amendment at their meeting on March 20, 2024. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the proposed amendment to the CMC Bylaws. Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. CMC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (PDF) 2. CMC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (PDF) 9.D Packet Pg. 187 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 9.D Doc ID: 28501 Item Summary: Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management Committee Bylaws Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 12:34 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 12:34 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:32 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:09 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 9.D Packet Pg. 188 1                                   BYLAWS for Congestion Management Committee of COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 9.D.1 Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: CMC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28501 : Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management 2   The following Bylaws guide the proper functioning of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Congestion Management Committee (CMC). The intent is to provide procedures and policies to assist the CMC to accomplish its purpose. SECTION I NAME The name of this Committee shall be the Congestion Management Committee (CMC) of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). SECTION II PURPOSE A. The CMC shall serve the MPO in an advisory capacity on technical matters relating to the update of the MPO’s Congestion Management Process (CMP) and the coordination of the CMP with regional Congestion Management System and Intelligent Transportation System architecture. B. The functions of this CMC shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. To promote coordination among the MPO, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and CMC in the identification and resolution of common transportation problems; 2. To identify potential multimodal projects that will reduce congestion on the network and/or improve the intelligent transportation system; 3. To review studies, plans, programs, or public information documents for potential impacts to congestion on the network and/or impacts to the intelligent transportation system and advise the MPO thereof; 4. To make priority recommendations for Congestion Management System/Intelligent Transportation System (CMS/ITS) projects to the MPO; 5. To review and update the Congestion Management Process (CMP) as needed; 6. To help review and update the Congestion Management Process component of the Long Range Transportation Plan; 7. To assist in the development and evaluation of performance measures of potential priorities, 8. To monitor CMS/ITS projects’ performance after implementation. SECTION III MEMBERSHIP APPOINTMENT AND TERM OF APPOINTMENT A. Members: The CMC shall be composed of eleven ten (1110) voting members appointed by the division, department or agency that they represent. CMC voting and non-voting members may designate an alternate to replace them in their absence. 9.D.1 Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: CMC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28501 : Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management 3   B. Appointment and Term of Appointment: Each member agency representative shall be duly appointed by the member agency and shall serve at the pleasure of his or her member agency. The MPO Staff shall be notified by the Department Director/Administrator of the member agency in writing, including electronic communication of the appointment or replacement of a member agency’s representative. C. Alternate Member: An official alternate member can be designated by the affected voting- member agency by providing such designation in writing to the MPO. The so designated alternate member has the capacity to act on behalf of the voting member. The alternate member may vote only in the absence of the official voting member on a one-vote-per-member basis. D. The Voting Member Agencies are as follows: 1. VOTING MEMBER AGENCIES Collier County Transportation Management Services DepartmentGrowth Management Department Transportation Planning DivisionTraffic Operations - Safety Traffic Operations – Traffic Management CenterDivision Collier County Public Services Department Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division Collier County Administrative Services Department Emergency Management Division Collier County Public Schools Transportation Department City of Naples Engineering/Planning Representative Traffic Operations Representative City of Marco Island Public Works Department Collier MPO’s Citizen Advisory Committee Collier MPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Lee County MPO Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.58", Right: 0" Formatted: Right: 0" 9.D.1 Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: CMC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28501 : Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management 4   The MPO staff will be responsible for maintaining a current list of the names of voting members. SECTION IV OFFICERS, DUTIES AND TERMS OF OFFICE A. Officers and Terms of Office: 1. A Chair and a Vice-Chair of the CMC shall be elected at the first regularly scheduled meeting of each calendar year when a quorum is attained and shall hold the offices until their successors are elected. 2. Any voting member may nominate or be nominated as an officer. All elections shall be held by the majority vote of voting members present. B. Chair Duties: 1. The Chair and Vice-Chair shall be voting members of the CMC. 2. The Chair shall preside at all meetings and shall be responsible for the conduct of such meetings. In the absence of the Chair or Vice-Chair, the respective alternate may only act as a regular voting member of the Committee. C. Vice-Chair Duties: 1. The Vice-Chair shall, during the absence of the Chair, have and exercise all of the duties and powers of the Chair. 2. The Vice-Chair shall also perform such duties as may be assigned by the Chair. D. Absenteeism of an Officer: If both the Chair and Vice-Chair are absent from a meeting, the Committee shall elect a voting member present to be the Chair for that meeting. No Alternate member of the Chair or Vice-chair can assume the responsibilities of his/her official roles. 1. Any vacancy in an office created by a resignation or replacement of an Officer shall be filled by a majority vote of voting members. 2. The Officer so elected shall fill the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacant office. 3. If, at any time, the Committee believes that an Officer is not performing his/her duties in accordance with Section IV, Subsection B, it may recommend the removal of the Officer to the MPO. An officer may be removed from office by the MPO Board at a regular MPO meeting by a simple majority vote. 9.D.1 Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: CMC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28501 : Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management 5   SECTION V MEETINGS A. Regular Meetings: The CMC shall meet bimonthly at a date, time and place acceptable to a majority of the voting membership. The date or time may be changed by a majority vote if seven (7) calendar days notice is given to the voting members. B. Special Meetings: Special meetings may be called by the Chair with a minimum of three (3) calendar day’s notice, indicating the reason for the meeting and notifying all member agencies. C. Notice of Meetings: A minimum of seven (7) calendar days notice shall be given for regular meeting. Agendas should be sent with meeting notices and, whenever possible, minutes of the previous meeting, at least seven (7) calendar days prior to any regular meeting and at least three (3) calendar days prior to any special meeting. D. Agendas: MPO staff is responsible for preparing agendas for each CMC meeting. Members may request to place items on the tentative agenda by notification to the MPO staff. E. Quorum: 1. In order to conduct official business, a quorum shall consist of at least three (3) of the voting members being physically present at each meeting. 2. A vote of a majority of the participating voting CMC members shall be required to take affirmative action on issues before the committee. SECTION VI AMENDMENTS A. Amendments Recommended amendments to these Bylaws may be endorsed by an affirmative vote of the CMC, provided a copy of the proposed amendment(s) shall have been sent to every member at least seven (7) calendar days prior to a vote for endorsement by the CMC. All proposed amendments shall be voted on at regular meetings. Any and all amendments to the Bylaws will become effective upon adoption by the Collier MPO. 9.D.1 Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: CMC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28501 : Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management 6   B. Prior Agreement: These Bylaws supersede and replace any and all Bylaws previously adopted by the Congestion Management Committee. C. Effective Date: The Bylaws for the Congestion Management Committee of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization were hereby endorsed in an open session with a quorum present and voting on March 20, 2024___________________________, 2021 by the Congestion Management Committee and adopted by the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization on March 12, 2021.April 12, 2024. Formatted: Justified 9.D.1 Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: CMC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28501 : Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management 7   CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM/ INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM COMMITTEE By: _______________________________ Anthony KhawajaLorraine Lantz CMC Chair COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION By: __________________________________ Councilwoman Elaine Middelstaedt, Esq.William L. McDaniel, Jr., MPO Chair ATTESTED BY: _______________________________ Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director COUNTY ATTORNEY By: ______________________________ Scott R. Teach Deputy County Attorney 9.D.1 Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: CMC Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28501 : Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management 9.D.2 Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: CMC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28501 : Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management Committee Bylaws) 9.D.2 Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: CMC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28501 : Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management Committee Bylaws) 9.D.2 Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: CMC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28501 : Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management Committee Bylaws) 9.D.2 Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: CMC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28501 : Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management Committee Bylaws) 9.D.2 Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: CMC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28501 : Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management Committee Bylaws) 9.D.2 Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: CMC Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28501 : Approve an Amendment to the Congestion Management Committee Bylaws) 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain Consistency with Amended CMC Bylaws OBJECTIVE: To maintain consistency between the MPO bylaws and the newly amended CMC bylaws. CONSIDERATIONS: This is a companion amendment to the MPO bylaws to maintain consistency with the newly amended CMC bylaws. The amendment reduces the total number of voting members on the CMC from eleven to ten (see Section D on pg. 5). The proposed amendment is shown in strikethrough/underline format in Attachment 1 and as a clean version in Attachment 2. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the proposed amendment to the MPO bylaws. Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. MPO Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (PDF) 2. MPO Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (PDF) 9.E Packet Pg. 202 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 9.E Doc ID: 28502 Item Summary: Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain Consistency with Amended CMC Bylaws Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 1:59 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 1:59 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:36 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 2:13 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 9.E Packet Pg. 203 1 THE BYLAWS OF COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) Section 1 Description of Organization 1.01 The Agency 1.02 Composition and Operation of MPO 1.03 Committees 1.04 General Information on the MPO 1.05 Public Access to Agency Meetings and Workshops 1.06 Rights of Review Section 2 Agenda and Scheduling--Meeting and Workshops 2.01 Notice of Meetings and Workshops 2.02 Agenda 2.03 Emergency Meetings and Workshops Section 3 Amendments to Bylaws ________________________________________________ Section 1 DESCRIPTION OF ORGANIZATION 1.01 THE AGENCY The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization, hereinafter referred to as the MPO, is created pursuant to Florida Statute 339.175 and operates under an Interlocal Agreement, as amended and restated dated February 26, 2015, authorized under Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. The parties to the interlocal agreement are Collier County, the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island, the City of Everglades City and the Florida Department of Transportation. Creation of the MPO is for the purpose of implementing Title 23, United States Code, Section 134, and Title 49, United States Code, Sections 1602, 1603, and 1604, and Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 450, and Chapter 339.175, Florida Statutes. The MPO is created to work in cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. 1.02 COMPOSITION AND OPERATION OF THE MPO The composition and operation of the MPO shall be as provided in the aforesaid 9.E.1 Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain 2 Interlocal Agreement; the officers of the MPO and their duties, and these rules may be amended as provided by said Agreement. A. Officers – The MPO shall elect a Chairman and a Vice Chairman of the MPO at its first meeting of the calendar year. The Chairman and Vice Chairman shall serve for a period of one (1) year or until a successor is elected. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be voting members of the MPO. B. Chairman – The Chairman of the MPO shall call and preside at all meetings of the MPO. The Vice Chairman shall serve as Chairman in the absence of the Chairman. C. Agency Clerk – The staff of the MPO shall maintain the minutes and other records of the MPO. The minutes shall accurately reflect the proceedings of the MPO. D. Quorum – A majority of the voting members of the MPO must be present for the MPO to conduct business. E. Rules of Order – Except as otherwise provided in these Bylaws, Roberts Rules of Order, as revised, shall be followed as to any parliamentary procedures at all meetings. F. Reconsideration of Matters – Except for MPO approved contracts, any matter which has been voted upon by the MPO may be reconsidered as follows: (1) By a motion to reconsider made by a member who voted with the majority if such motion is made prior to the adjournment of the meeting at which the matter was voted upon. If there were no public speakers on the item, or if all of the public speakers for the item are still present in the boardroom following a successful motion to reconsider, the MPO may elect to rehear the matter during that meeting, or direct the MPO Executive Director to place the item on the agenda for a future meeting. In the event that there were public speakers for the item, and not all of the public speakers are still present in the boardroom following a successful motion to reconsider, the MPO Executive Director shall be directed to place the item on the agenda for a future meeting. (2) By a motion to reconsider made by a member who voted with the majority if such motion is made at a regular meeting following the meeting at which the matter was voted upon, but only in accordance with the following: 9.E.1 Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain 3 (i) Where a member who voted with the majority wishes the Board to reconsider a matter after the adjournment of the meeting at which it was voted on, the member shall deliver to the MPO Executive Director a written memorandum stating that the member intends to introduce a motion to reconsider. The memorandum shall state the date of the regular meeting at which the member intends to introduce such motion, and shall be delivered to the MPO Executive Director at least six days prior to such meeting. The purpose of this requirement is to allow staff to advise the Board of the legal or other ramifications of reconsideration. (ii) No motion to reconsider shall be made any later than the second regular MPO meeting following the MPO Board’s vote on the matter sought to be reconsidered; with the exception of where the basis for such request for reconsideration is found upon MPO’s staff’s presentation of newly discovered and previously unknown facts which would have been material to the MPO’s consideration at the time the item was originally considered but were not known earlier despite the due diligence of MPO staff. (iii) Upon adoption of a motion to reconsider, the MPO Executive Director shall place the item on an agenda not later than the second regular MPO meeting following the meeting at which the motion for reconsideration was adopted. (iv) All parties who participated by speaking, submitting registration forms or written materials at the original meeting the item was addressed by the MPO, shall be notified by the MPO Executive Director of the date of reconsideration. (v) MPO approved contracts may only be reconsidered by motion made prior to the adjournment of the meeting at which the matter was voted upon notwithstanding the discovery of subsequent newly discovered facts. For purposes of this subsection, a contract is defined as an agreement that is legally binding and enforceable in a court of law. 1.03 COMMITTEES There are hereby created five (5) standing committees, which shall be advisory committees to the governing board of the MPO. These advisory committees are the Technical Advisory Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee, the Bicycle 9.E.1 Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain 4 and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, the Congestion Management Committee and the Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged which shall have the following composition and duties: A. The Technical Advisory Committee – the responsibility of the Technical Advisory Committee, hereinafter referred to as the TAC, shall be to serve the MPO in an advisory capacity on technical matters regarding all modes of travel, including promoting coordination among agencies, members, and transportation planning and programming; reviewing technical sufficiency, accuracy and completeness of appropriate studies; making priority recommendations for the transportation plan and program implementation, and providing technical analyses on other transportation planning issues. The TAC shall be composed of thirteen (13) voting members and one (1) non-voting member appointed by the division, department or agency that they represent. TAC voting members may designate an alternate to replace them in their absence. B. Citizens Advisory Committee – the responsibility of the Citizen Advisory Committee, hereinafter referred to as the CAC, is to advise the MPO reviewing, reacting to, and providing comment on transportation planning issues and needs regarding all modes of travel from the citizens’ perspectives. The CAC shall consist of voting members appointed by the MPO. Membership shall be composed of thirteen (13) citizens residing or whose principal place of business is located in the following areas: City of Naples (2), Collier County Unincorporated Area (5), coinciding with the established Collier County Commission Districts, City of Marco Island (1), City of Everglades City (1), including the area encompassing Chokoloskee and Plantation Island, and; Four (4) citizens at large, including a minimum of one (1) citizen representing the disabled or an advocate for the disabled community, one (1) minority citizen, and two (2) appointed from Collier County to ensure adequate representation from all geographic areas of the county, and to include groups having civic, community and economic interests. C. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee – The responsibility of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, hereinafter referred to as the BPAC, is to provide citizen input into the deliberation of bicycle- and 9.E.1 Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain 5 pedestrian-related issues within the community, to advise the MPO on developing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) that is responsive to the needs of the community, to recommend policies and advise the MPO Board of opportunities that will improve the walking and bicycling environment, recommend priorities for bicycle and pedestrian projects and program implementation, and contribute to the BPMP’s vision and recommendations regarding the development of the bicycle and pedestrian network. Membership shall be composed of twelve (12) at-large voting members representing a wide cross-section of Collier County residents and neighborhoods, bicycle and pedestrian safety professionals, Safe Routes to Schools organizations, transit riders, local bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups, organizations that encourage active transportation from a community health perspective, and advocates for persons with disabilities, and other transportation disadvantaged populations. D. The Congestion Management Committee – the responsibility of the Congestion Management Committee, hereinafter referred to as the CMC, shall be to serve the MPO in an advisory capacity on technical matters relating to the update of the MPO’s Congestion Management Process (CMP) and the coordination of the CMP with regional Congestion Management System and Intelligent Transportation System architecture. The CMC shall be composed of eleven ten (1110) voting members appointed by the division, department or agency that they represent. CMC voting and non-voting members may designate an alternate to replace them in their absence. E. The Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged – the responsibility of the Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged, hereinafter referred to as the LCB, shall be to assist the MPO in identifying local service needs and providing information, advice and direction to the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) on the coordination of services to be provided to the transportation disadvantaged pursuant to Chapter 427.0157, Florida Statutes. In accordance with Rule 41-2.012, Florida Administration Code, all members of the LCB shall be appointed by the designated official planning agency. The designated official planning agency for Collier County is the MPO. The LCB shall be composed of sixteen (16) voting members appointed by the division, department, or agency that they represent. LCB voting members may designate an alternate to replace them in their absence. 9.E.1 Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain 6 1.04 GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE MPO All public records of the MPO, TAC, CAC, BPAC, LCB and CMC Committee are open for inspection and examination at the office of the MPO, 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. during regular business days. 1.05 PUBLIC ACCESS TO MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS All MPO, TAC, CAC, BPAC, LCB and CMC meetings, workshops and proceedings shall be open to the public. 1.06 RIGHTS OF REVIEW All parties to the Interlocal Agreement, as well as the FHWA and FTA shall have the rights of technical review and comment of MPO projects. Section 2 AGENDA, SCHEDULING and MEETINGS 2.01 NOTICE OF MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS A. Except in the case of emergency meetings or workshops, the MPO shall give at least seven (7) days public notice of any meeting or workshop through the issuance of a press release to local print and broadcast media in the Naples Area. B. The press release notice of such meeting or workshop shall provide: 1. The date, time, and place of the event. 2. A brief description of the purpose of the event. 3. The address where interested parties may write to obtain a copy of the agenda. A copy of the Agenda may be obtained by writing to the Collier MPO, 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Agendas may also be obtained by e-mail at colliermpo@colliergov.net collier.mpo@colliercountyfl.gov or by accessing the MPO’s Web site at www.colliermpo.org.colliermpo.net. 2.02 AGENDA A. At least seven (7) days prior to a meeting or workshop, the MPO staff shall prepare and make available an agenda for distribution on request by any interested person. The agenda shall list the items in the order they are 9.E.1 Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain 7 to be considered; provided, however, that for good cause stated in the record by the person who is designated to preside at the meeting, items may be considered out of their listed order. B. The agenda shall be specific as to the items to be considered. All matters shall be listed on the agenda. 1. Any person who desires to have an item placed on the agenda of the meeting of the MPO shall request in writing that the item be considered at the next scheduled meeting of the MPO, provided, however, that such a request must be received fourteen (14) days in advance of the scheduled meeting. Written requests for placing an item on the agenda must describe and summarize the item and shall be mailed or delivered to MPO, at the address in Section 2.01 (B) of these Bylaws. 2. Additional items not included on the meeting agenda may be considered at a meeting if the chairman or his designee feels that the item requires immediate action by the MPO. 2.03 EMERGENCY MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS A. The MPO may hold an emergency meeting or workshop notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 2.01 and 2.02 of these Bylaws, for the purpose of acting upon matters affecting the public health, safety and welfare. B. Whenever an emergency meeting or workshop is scheduled to be held, the MPO shall notify, as soon as possible prior to the meeting, at least one major newspaper of major circulation in the Naples Area stating time, date, place and purpose of the meeting or workshop. Section 3 AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS These Bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the voting members, provided a copy of the proposed amendment shall have been sent to all members at least seven (7) calendar days prior to it being voted on. The MPO Board has sole authority to adopt and amend the bylaws of any advisory committee. These Bylaws and any and all amendments to the Bylaws will become effective upon endorsement of the Collier MPO. These Bylaws for the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization were hereby adopted in an open session with a quorum present and voting on ____________________, 20244November 13, 2020. 9.E.1 Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain 8 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION By: _______________________________ Elaine MiddelstaedtWilliam L. McDaniel, Jr., MPO Chair Attested By: ___________________________________________ Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director Approved as to form and legality: COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY By: _____________________________ Scott R. Teach Deputy County Attorney 9.E.1 Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment in strikethrough/underline format (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain 9.E.2 Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain Consistency with 9.E.2 Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain Consistency with 9.E.2 Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain Consistency with 9.E.2 Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain Consistency with 9.E.2 Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain Consistency with 9.E.2 Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain Consistency with 9.E.2 Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain Consistency with 9.E.2 Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: MPO Bylaws Amendment - Clean Version (28502 : Approve an Amendment to the MPO Bylaws to Maintain Consistency with 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to approve a new member appointment to the Local Coordinating Board (LCB) for the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD). CONSIDERATIONS: The MPO has received an application to the LCB to fill the vacancy of a person with a disability representing persons with disabilities in Collier County. The membership term is three years. The new applicant, Charles Lascari, is visually impaired. He has over 50 years of work experience in major medical centers in New Jersey in health care administration and nursing. Mr. Lascari is a user of the paratransit (or TD) system. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the MPO Board approve the appointment of Mr. Lascari to LCB for a three-year term. Prepared by: Sean Kingston, AICP, PMP, Principal Planner ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Charles E. Lascari application for appointment to LCB (PDF) 2. LCB Membership Roster (3/6/24) (PDF) 9.F Packet Pg. 220 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 9.F Doc ID: 28503 Item Summary: Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 12:42 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 12:42 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:41 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:09 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 9.F Packet Pg. 221 Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization ADVISORY COMMITTEE/BOARD APPLICATION Please complete this fillable application form and return to: Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: (239) 252-5814 | Email: Collier.mpo@colliercountyfl.gov Name: Address: City/State Zip Code: Phone: Best hours to contact you: Date available: Email: Referred By: Board/Committee for which you are applying: Date: Commission District #/City Tribal Affiliation: Please list any Advisory Committees or Boards on which you currently serve: 1.3. 2.4. Have you previously served on an MPO advisory committee or board? Please specify committee/board and dates served (multi-line fillable text box): Occupation & Employer (if retired, please indicate) (multi-line fillable text box): PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY Please note: Year-round residents are eligible to apply. Your application will remain active in the MPO’s Office for one (1) year. The application must be complete in order to be considered. Read “Important Information” section on the second page of the application, then sign and date the application. (Use additional pages as needed.) If you are a member of, or officially represent a nonprofit or public agency, identify here, and provide link to website (multi-line fillable text box) 9.F.1 Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Charles E. Lascari application for appointment to LCB (28503 : Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for Professional Association: Please describe your background and experience which you feel provides a useful perspective for this Committee/Board. (multi-line fillable text box below): Please describe any public involvement or community service you’ve been involved in either locally or otherwise (in addition to Committees and Boards you currently serve on.) (multi-line fillable text box below): Chamber of Commerce: Visitors & Tourism Bureau Community Redevelopment Agency NAACP Historical Preservation Society: Homeowners’ Association: Are there MPO advisory committee(s) you would also be interested to serve ? (multi- line fillable text box below): Several of the MPO advisory committees/boards have specific membership requirements. To assist the Collier MPO in its selection process, please check as many of the following categories that apply. 1.Year-round resident of: Collier County (unincorporated area) City of Naples City of Marco Island Everglades City 2. Member of one of the following organizations or groups: AARP Adventure Cycling Bicycling/Walking Advocacy Group: 9.F.1 Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Charles E. Lascari application for appointment to LCB (28503 : Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for Environmental Group: Home Builders Association Collier County Public Schools Other NGO, Community Association Agricultural Industry Trucking Industry Other, please specify Persons with Disabilities Major Employer in the MPO Region Small Business Owner State, City or County Department of Children & Families State, City or County Department of Health State, City, or County Department of Education Educational Institution Elderly Health Care Provider Other Health Care Provider Transit Rider(s) Developmental Disability Service Provider Elderly – Advocate/Instructor - Mobility and Access to Services Veterans – Advocate/Instructor – Mobility & Access to Services Family Service Provider Police, Sheriff Department Community Transportation Safety Team Member Minorities & Disadvantaged Populations, Advocate/Service Provider Tribal Member, Officially Designated Representative Tribal Member, Acting in Individual Capacity Representing Other, please specify Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Instructor American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Registered Architect or Landscape Architect Licensed Attorney Licensed Engineer Licensed General Contractor Licensed First Responder or Health Care Professional Licensed Realtor Other professional credentials, please specify: 3.Representative of one of the following: 4.Professional/Career Credentials: 9.F.1 Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Charles E. Lascari application for appointment to LCB (28503 : Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for 5.Knowledge, training, background, interest or experience in: Natural Sciences, Environmental Conservation Mobility & Access for the workforce Public Finance, Grants, NGOs Sustainable Development, Sustainable Transportation Planning, Engineering, Architecture, Landscape Architecture Economic Development Land Development/Redevelopment Archaeological, Cultural & Historic Resources Mobility/Active Living (related to community health) Tourism Industry Parent, Advocate for Working Families Other knowledge & experience, please specify Female Male White Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaskan Native Other: Yes No The Collier MPO strives to ensure equal access and representation for minorities, women and those with disabilities to serve on advisory boards/committees. Questions 6 through 8 are OPTIONAL 6. Gender: 7. Race/Ethnicity: 8. Handicapped/Disabled: 9.F.1 Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Charles E. Lascari application for appointment to LCB (28503 : Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for IMPORTANT INFORMATION: •Be advised that membership on certain advisory committees/boards may involve financial disclosure or the submission of other information. •Florida State Statute 119.07 designates that this application as a public document be made available for anyone requesting to view it. Your application is not complete until you answer the following question, sign and date the form. Are you related to any member of the Collier MPO? YES NO Applicant’s Signature: Date Signed: Signed on behalf of Charles Lascari by Sean Kingston with verbal permission by Charles Lascari on 3/22/2024 9.F.1 Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Charles E. Lascari application for appointment to LCB (28503 : Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for Last Updated March 6, 2024 18 total Members, 4 Vacancies, 14 Current Members With a Quorum of 4 1 Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged MEMBERSHIP ROSTER Meeting Location: Collier County Government Center Information Technology Training Room, 5th Floor 3299 Tamiami Trail E (Bldg. F) Naples, FL 34112 A Representative of: Voting Member Alternate 1. CHAIRPERSON MPO Council Member Tony Pernas City of Everglades City 410 Storter Ave. Everglades City, FL 341392 Mobile: (305) 815-8849 tpernas@cityofeverglades.org No alternate pursuant to Chapter 427, Florida Statutes, and Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative Code. Appointed by MPO Board on 10/14/2022. 2. Elderly Vacant 3. Citizens Advocate/Non-User Vacant 4. Citizens Advocate/User Mr. Dylan Vogel 168 North Street Naples, FL 34108 Phone Number: 239-594-1759 Dylan.m.vogel@gmail.com Dylanvogel@me.com Re-Appt.: 10/14/22 Term Expires: 10/14/25 5. Veteran Services Oscar Gomez 3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 212 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252-8387 Oscar.gomez@colliercountyfl.gov veteranservices@colliercountyfl.gov 9.F.2 Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: LCB Membership Roster (3/6/24) (28503 : Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Last Updated March 6, 2024 18 total Members, 4 Vacancies, 14 Current Members With a Quorum of 4 2 A Representative of: Voting Member Alternate 6. Florida Association for Community Action Ms. Cheryl Burnham, Community Services Director The Agricultural and Labor Program, Inc. 300 Lynchburg Road Lake Alfred, FL 33850-2576 (863)956-3491 x 224 CBurnham@alpi.org Ms. Pa Houa Lee-Yang The Agricultural and Labor Program, Inc. 300 Lynchburg Road Lake Alfred, FL 33850-2576 PYang@alpi.org 7. Public Education John Lambcke Transportation Director Collier County School Board Naples, Florida 34109 (239) 377-0613 Fax (239) 377-0601 LambckJo@collierschools.com (As of 9/25/23) 8. FDOT Todd Engala, Interim Representative Transit Coordinator FDOT 801 North Broadway Avenue, MS 1-39 Bartow, FL 33830 (863) 519-2657 todd.engala@dot.state.fl.us Candice Monroy Transit Projects Coordinator FDOT SWIFT SunGuide Center 10041 Daniels Pkwy. Fort Myers, Florida 33913 (239) 225-1982 – Desk (239) 398-3007 – Cell Candice.Monroy@dot.state.fl.us Secondary Alternate : Dale Hanson 863.519.2321 Dale.Hanson@dot.state.fl.us Tertiary Alternate: Michelle S. Peronto 863-519-2551 Michelle.Peronto@dot.state.fl.us 9. Florida Department of Children and Family Services Tabitha Larrauri 2295 Victoria Avenue, #332 Ft. Myers, FL 33901 (239) 895-0161 Tabitha.Larrauri@myflfamilies.com 9.F.2 Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: LCB Membership Roster (3/6/24) (28503 : Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Last Updated March 6, 2024 18 total Members, 4 Vacancies, 14 Current Members With a Quorum of 4 3 A Representative of: Voting Member Alternate 10. Florida Department of Education Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services Lisa O’Leary Dept. of Education/Division of Vocational Rehab Services 10681 Airport Pulling Rd. N, Ste 19 Naples, FL 31409 (239) 260-6306 Fax (239) 593-2548 Lisa.Oleary@vr.fldoe.org 11. Area Agency on Aging SWFL – Florida Department of Elder Affairs Sarah Gualco Director of Programs & Planning Area Agency on Aging for SW FL 2830 Winkler Avenue, Ste. 112 Fort Myers, FL, 33916 (239) 652-6926 sarah.gualco@aaaswfl.org 12. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Michael Stahler AHCA 2295 Victoria Ave., Suite 319 For Myers FL 33901 (239) 335-1251 Cell: 239-223-9955 Michael.Stahler@ahca.myflorida.com Signe Jacobson Medical/Health Care Prog Analyst AHCA 2295 Victoria Ave., Suite 319 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (239) 335-1282 Signe.Jacobson@ahca.myflorida.com 13. Representative for Children at Risk Brett Nelson CCPS 5775 Osceola Trail Naples, FL 34109 (239) 377-0001 Nelsob2@collierschools.com Emily Kafle Director, Exceptional Student Education CCPS 5775 Osceola Trail Naples, FL 34109 (239) 377-0135 14. Private Transportation Industry Vacant 15. Disabled Vacant 9.F.2 Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: LCB Membership Roster (3/6/24) (28503 : Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Last Updated March 6, 2024 18 total Members, 4 Vacancies, 14 Current Members With a Quorum of 4 4 A Representative of: Voting Member Alternate 16. Local Medical Community Gabrielle Galanti 2806 Horseshoe Drive S Naples, FL 34104 gabbyg@dlcenters.org (239) 398-9647 17. Southwest Florida Regional Workforce Development Board Carmen Henry, Vice-Chair Disability Navigator CareerSource Southwest Florida 6800 Shoppes at Plantation Drive, Suite 170 Fort Myers, FL 33912 239-931-8200 ext. 1803 Cell: 239-994-2904 CHenry@careersourcesouthwestflorida.co m 18. Agency for Persons with Disabilities Leah Watson 2295 Victoria Ave. Fort Myers, FL 33901 Phone: 239-338-1378 Cell: 239-218-7217 Email:Leah.watson@apdcares.org Technical Assistance for the Collier County Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged Advisory Members None at present Community Transportation Coordinator Collier County Board of County Commissioners C/O Omar DeLeon, Public Transit Manager 239-252-4996 Collier Area Transit https://www.collierptne.com/collier-area-transit Mark Moujabber - MV General Manager (239) 252-4983 Medicaid Transportation Provider 9.F.2 Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: LCB Membership Roster (3/6/24) (28503 : Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Last Updated March 6, 2024 18 total Members, 4 Vacancies, 14 Current Members With a Quorum of 4 5 Medical Transportation Management (MTM) 759 S. Federal Highway, #301 Stuart, FL 34994 Office: 772-266-4971 Member Help Line/TTY: 1-844-239-5974 (TTY: 711) https://www.mtm-inc.net/floridaffs Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD): Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged 605 Suwannee Street, MS-49 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (850) 488-6036 sun/com 292-7279 https://ctd.fdot.gov Designated Official Planning Agency Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 (239) 252-5814 www.colliermpo.org 9.F.2 Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: LCB Membership Roster (3/6/24) (28503 : Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approve a New Appointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee OBJECTIVE: For the Board to approve the appointment of a new Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) member to represent Persons with Disabilities. CONSIDERATIONS: Misty Phillips has applied to fill a vacancy representing Persons with Disabilities on the CAC for a three-year term. Ms. Phillips is visually impaired and is the Assistive Technology Instructor at Lighthouse for Blindness & Vision Loss of Collier County, where she instructs clients on how to use assistive technology. She is certified in JAWS (Job Access With Speech) software and has her Magnification Endorsement from Florida Division of Blind Services. Ms. Phillips has expressed her enthusiasm to serve on the CAC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the appointment of Ms. Phillips to the CAC for a three- year term. Prepared By: Suzanne Miceli, Administrative Support Specialist II ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Misty Phillips - CAC Appointment Application (PDF) 2. Current CAC Roster (last update 4/14/2024) (PDF) 9.G Packet Pg. 232 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 9.G Doc ID: 28504 Item Summary: Approve a New Appointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 12:48 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 12:48 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:45 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:10 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 9.G Packet Pg. 233 Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization ADVISORY COMMITTEE/BOARD APPLICATION Please complete this fillable application form and return to: Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: (239) 252-5814 | Email: Collier.mpo@colliercountyfl.gov Name: Address: City/State Zip Code: Phone: Best hours to contact you: Date available: Email: Referred By: Board/Committee for which you are applying: Date: Commission District #/City Tribal Affiliation: Please list any Advisory Committees or Boards on which you currently serve: 1.3. 2.4. Have you previously served on an MPO advisory committee or board? Please specify committee/board and dates served (multi-line fillable text box): Occupation & Employer (if retired, please indicate) (multi-line fillable text box): PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY Please note: Year-round residents are eligible to apply. Your application will remain active in the MPO’s Office for one (1) year. The application must be complete in order to be considered. Read “Important Information” section on the second page of the application, then sign and date the application. (Use additional pages as needed.) If you are a member of, or officially represent a nonprofit or public agency, identify here, and provide link to website (multi-line fillable text box) 9.G.1 Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Misty Phillips - CAC Appointment Application (28504 : Approve a New Appointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee) Professional Association: Please describe your background and experience which you feel provides a useful perspective for this Committee/Board. (multi-line fillable text box below): Please describe any public involvement or community service you’ve been involved in either locally or otherwise (in addition to Committees and Boards you currently serve on.) (multi-line fillable text box below): Chamber of Commerce: Visitors & Tourism Bureau Community Redevelopment Agency NAACP Historical Preservation Society: Homeowners’ Association: Are there MPO advisory committee(s) you would also be interested to serve ? (multi- line fillable text box below): Several of the MPO advisory committees/boards have specific membership requirements. To assist the Collier MPO in its selection process, please check as many of the following categories that apply. 1. Year-round resident of: Collier County (unincorporated area) City of Naples City of Marco Island Everglades City 2. Member of one of the following organizations or groups: AARP Adventure Cycling Bicycling/Walking Advocacy Group: 9.G.1 Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Misty Phillips - CAC Appointment Application (28504 : Approve a New Appointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee) Environmental Group: Home Builders Association Collier County Public Schools Other NGO, Community Association Agricultural Industry Trucking Industry Other, please specify Persons with Disabilities Major Employer in the MPO Region Small Business Owner State, City or County Department of Children & Families State, City or County Department of Health State, City, or County Department of Education Educational Institution Elderly Health Care Provider Other Health Care Provider Transit Rider(s) Developmental Disability Service Provider Elderly – Advocate/Instructor - Mobility and Access to Services Veterans – Advocate/Instructor – Mobility & Access to Services Family Service Provider Police, Sheriff Department Community Transportation Safety Team Member Minorities & Disadvantaged Populations, Advocate/Service Provider Tribal Member, Officially Designated Representative Tribal Member, Acting in Individual Capacity Representing Other, please specify Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Instructor American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Registered Architect or Landscape Architect Licensed Attorney Licensed Engineer Licensed General Contractor Licensed First Responder or Health Care Professional Licensed Realtor Other professional credentials, please specify: 3.Representative of one of the following: 4.Professional/Career Credentials: 9.G.1 Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Misty Phillips - CAC Appointment Application (28504 : Approve a New Appointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee) 5.Knowledge, training, background, interest or experience in: Natural Sciences, Environmental Conservation Mobility & Access for the workforce Public Finance, Grants, NGOs Sustainable Development, Sustainable Transportation Planning, Engineering, Architecture, Landscape Architecture Economic Development Land Development/Redevelopment Archaeological, Cultural & Historic Resources Mobility/Active Living (related to community health) Tourism Industry Parent, Advocate for Working Families Other knowledge & experience, please specify Female Male White Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaskan Native Other: Yes No The Collier MPO strives to ensure equal access and representation for minorities, women and those with disabilities to serve on advisory boards/committees. Questions 6 through 8 are OPTIONAL 6. Gender: 7. Race/Ethnicity: 8. Handicapped/Disabled: 9.G.1 Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Misty Phillips - CAC Appointment Application (28504 : Approve a New Appointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee) IMPORTANT INFORMATION: •Be advised that membership on certain advisory committees/boards may involve financial disclosure or the submission of other information. •Florida State Statute 119.07 designates that this application as a public document be made available for anyone requesting to view it. Your application is not complete until you answer the following question, sign and date the form. Are you related to any member of the Collier MPO? YES NO Applicant’s Signature: Date Signed: Signed on behalf of Misty Phillips by Suzanne Miceli with verbal permission by Misty Phillips on 03/26/2024. 9.G.1 Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Misty Phillips - CAC Appointment Application (28504 : Approve a New Appointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee) Max CAC Members 13; Current CAC Members 9; In-Person Quorum 3; Last Update 2/14/2024 (*end of month) Member Phone #/Email District Member Until* Member Since Neal Gelfand, Vice Chair 295 Grande Way, Apt 604, Naples, FL 34110 Mobile: (914) 316-7733 nealand@me.com District II May 2024 May 2018 Elaine Middelstaedt, Chair PO Box 277, 410 Storter Ave S Everglades City FL 34139 ElaineECity@gmail.com Cell: 305-962-8136 Office: 239-695-2695 Everglades City Feb 2025 Feb 2022 Dennis DiDonna 420 Tarpon Cove Dr Apt 1502 Naples, FL 34110 Cell: 239-682-9534 DDidonna23@aol.com At-Large March 2026 March 2020 Karen Homiak 4613 Long Key Court Naples, FL 34112 Home: 239-572-0073 ARWKJH@aol.com District IV March 2027 May 2001 Josh Rincon 1216 Lee Street, Immokalee, FL 34142 Cell: 239-229-8972 joshrincon@hotmail.com Rep - Minorities March 2026 June 2013 Vacancy, Rep. for Persons with Disabilities Rep - Persons with Disabilities Fred Sasser 333 7th Avenue South, Naples, FL 34102 crdx@sprynet.com 847-226-1761 City of Naples Feb. 2026 Dec 2019 Dennis Stalzer 3710 29th Ave SW Naples, FL 34117 D03stalzer@gmail.com District III June 2025 June 2022 Vacancy, City of Naples City of Naples Vacancy, City of Marco Island City of Marco Island Vacancy, District I District I Michelle Arnold 435 Spring Line Drive, Naples, FL, 34102 meeshar05@comcast.net 239-207-2840 At Large May 2026 May 2023 Josephine Medina 5094 Monza Court Ave Maria, FL 34142 Jmedina@rviplanning.com O: 239.908.3421 M: 954.376.0378 District V Feb. 2026 Feb. 2023 9.G.2 Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Current CAC Roster (last update 4/14/2024) (28504 : Approve a New Appointment to the 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reaffirm or Modify Board Direction on Lee /Collier MPO Consolidation and Reorganizing MPOAC Meetings OBJECTIVE: To reaffirm or modify direction given by the Board prior to the end of the 2024 Legislative session regarding language in draft bills that did not pass. CONSIDERATIONS: During the February 9, 2024, Board meeting, in response to two bills then pending before the State Legislature (HB-7049/SB-1032), the MPO Board approved a motion to send a letter to state legislators expressing support and establishing funding for a Collier/Lee MPO Consolidation Feasibility Study and recommending a reorganization of the MPOAC meeting process rather than abolishing the MPOAC. Neither bill passed the legislative session. As Lee MPO and Collier MPO begin working on their respective 2050 LRTPs, there is an opportunity to address Legislators’ concerns and enhance regional coordination by producing a joint regional roadway and multimodal systems component, followed by developing a joint regional congestion management plan. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board determine whether to reaffirm the direction previously given and approve the Chair’s signing a letter similar to that shown in the attachment, or direct staff t o coordinate with Lee MPO on the joint regional components listed above, or another alternative. Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Draft Letter to Legislators re: Collier/Lee MPO Consolidation Feasibility Study and reorganization of the MPOAC meeting process (PDF) 9.H Packet Pg. 240 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 9.H Doc ID: 28505 Item Summary: Reaffirm or Modify Board Direction on Lee /Collier MPO Consolidation and Reorganizing MPOAC Meetings Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 12:51 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 12:51 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:50 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:11 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 9.H Packet Pg. 241 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 • (239) 252-5814 • collier.mpo@colliercountyfl.gov April 12, 2024 VIA email: . Senator Ben Albritton, Senate President Representative Danny Perez, Speaker of the House Senator Gruters Representative McFarland Representative Bob Rommel Senator Kathleen Passidomo Representative Adam Botana Representative Lauren Melo RE: MPOAC Restructuring, Feasibility Study on Lee County/Collier MPO Consolidation The Collier MPO would like to comment on language in the draft bills SB1032/HB7049 introduced in the Senate and the House during the 2024 Legislative session. The MPO Board supports restructuring the MPOAC meeting process so that meetings of the Governing Board and Staff Directors can take place virtually. This will significantly reduce costs associated with participation in the MPOAC. In addition, the Collier MPO supports the proposal to conduct a Feasibility Study exploring the benefits, costs, and process of consolidating Lee County and Collier into a single MPO serving the contiguous urbanized area, contingent upon the Legislature appropriating the necessary state funds. Regards, Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. MPO Chair Copy: L. K. Nandam, FDOT D1 Secretary Wayne Gaither, FDOT SWAO Director Don Scott, Executive Director, Lee County MPO Collier MPO Board 9.H.1 Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Draft Letter to Legislators re: Collier/Lee MPO Consolidation Feasibility Study and reorganization of the MPOAC meeting process 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approve Addition of Expedited Safety Lighting Project at Intersection of SR 29 and Oil Well Rd OBJECTIVE: To improve the safety at an intersection that has had two fatal crashes resulting in three deaths and one critical injury involving a child in recent days. CONSIDERATIONS: At the February 9th Board meeting, Commissioner McDaniel asked that overhead streetlights be added to improve safety at the intersection of SR 29 and Oil Well Rd, in addition to the safety improvements already underway by FDOT and the County. FDOT recommended the MPO Board add the overhead streetlights to the MPO’s List of Project Priorities. Since the February Board meeting, a fatality involving a cyclist killed in a hit and run crash occurred on March 25 th and second fatal crash occurred on April 3rd in which two adults were killed and a child critically injured. FDOT estimates that the acquisition and installation of overhead streetlights will cost approximately $1,000,000. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests Board approval to add the installation of overhead streetlights at the intersection of SR 29 and Oil Well Rd as an expedited, high priority safety project using the MPO’s Surface Transportation Block Grant - Urban (SU) funding and to request FDOT’s assistance in programming the project for construction in FY 2025. Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director 9.I Packet Pg. 243 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 9.I Doc ID: 28506 Item Summary: Approve Addition of Expedited Safety Lighting Project at Intersection of SR 29 and Oil Well Rd Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 12:53 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 12:53 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:53 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:12 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 9.I Packet Pg. 244 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Support for the County’s Request for an Interchange Justification Report and Project Development and Environmental Study to be completed by FDOT for Opening the Existing Interchange at Everglades Blvd and I-75 OBJECTIVE: To partially open and toll the Everglades Blvd/I-75 Interchange to promote the public’s health, safety and welfare. CONSIDERATIONS: At the February 9th Board meeting, Commissioner McDaniel requested an action item be placed on the next Board agenda to approve opening the Everglades Blvd/I-75 interchange for travel southbound on Everglades Blvd to head west on I-75, and traffic eastbound on I-75 to head north and south on Everglades Blvd. The interchange could be tolled to assist with expenses if a study indicates it would be cost effective. Ms. Trinity Scott, County Transportation Management Services Department Head, reports that Collier County submitted a Highway Request Form to Congressman Mario Diaz Balart, U.S. Representative for Florida’s 26 th Congressional District, requesting an Interchange Justification Report (IJA) and Project Development and Environmental Study (PD&E) to be completed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to study the feasibility of opening the existing Interchange at I-75 and Everglades Boulevard for traffic in Collier County. This study should include a toll feasibility component. The request is consistent with the 2045 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan which includes a new interchange on I -75 in the vicinity of Everglades Blvd funded in the outer years of the LRTP (2031-2045) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: for the Board to support the County’s request for an IJR and PD&E to be completed by FDOT for opening the existing interchange at I-75 and Everglades Blvd for traffic in Collier County. Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director 9.J Packet Pg. 245 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 9.J Doc ID: 28507 Item Summary: Support for Developing a Partial Interchange at Everglades Blvd and I-75 Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 12:55 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 12:55 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:55 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 2:31 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 9.J Packet Pg. 246 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Trust for Public Land’s Seminole Gulf Railroad Right-of-Way Purchase Agreement and the Bonita-Estero Rail Trail in Lee and Collier Counties OBJECTIVE: To inform the Board of the opportunity provided by the Trust for Public Land’s (TPL) intended acquisition of the Seminole Gulf Railroad right-of-way as a location for the Bonita-Estero Rail Trail (BERT), part of the MPO’s SUN Trail network. CONSIDERATIONS: The TPL has entered into a purchase agreement with the Seminole Gulf Railroad f or a 14.9-mile section of the rail corridor extending south from Alico Road in Lee County to Wiggins Pass Rd. and the Veteran’s Memorial Parkway extension in Collier County. (Attachment 1) The rail corridor is for the most part 130’-wide. The purchase agreement is in fee simple from Wiggins Pass Rd. to Constitution Cir. Rd. in Lee County, and as a trail easement from Constitution Cir. Rd. to Alico Rd. The purchase price is set at $82 million. The purchase agreement includes a two-year time frame to determine where the funding will come from. The proposed rail trail, referred to as the Bonita-Estero Rail Trail, extends roughly 1.5 miles south into Collier County where it is part of the Paradise Coast Trail. The Bonita -Estero Rail Trail and the Paradise Coast Trail are segments of the overall Gulf Coast Trail. (Attachment 2) The Gulf Coast Trail and the Collier to Polk Trail combine to form the SUN Trail network in Collier County. (Attachment 3) The Florida Greenways and Trails Council voted on March 27th to rank the Florida Gulf Coast Trail and the Collier to Polk Trail in fourth and fifth place in order of priority, respectively, out of 14 regional trails ranked statewide. Charles Hines, TPL Program Director, Florida Gulf Coast Trail, will give a presentation on the Bonita-Estero Rail Trail. The TPL is seeking the Board’s support and asking that the Trail be placed on the MPO’s Priority Project list. Staff is seeking Board direction and will compile a draft List of Project Priorities for Board review in May, approval in June 2024. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee voted unanimously to endorse adding the acquisition and development of the Bonita-Estero Rail Trail as a priority project at their March meeting. The Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees will review the draft List of Project Priorities, inclusive of this item, at their April 22nd meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board provide staff direction on placing this project on the List of Project Priorities for 2024. Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Bonita Estero Rail Trail Map, TPL (PDF) 2. Gulf Coast Trail Status Map, Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Greenways and Trails (PDF) 3. Collier MPO SUN Trail Network Map (PDF) 4. TPL Presentation (PDF) 10.A Packet Pg. 247 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 10.A Doc ID: 28508 Item Summary: Trust for Public Land’s Seminole Gulf Railroad Right-of-Way Purchase Agreement and the Bonita-Estero Rail Trail in Lee and Collier Counties Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 1:02 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 1:02 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 12:59 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:17 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 10.A Packet Pg. 248 10.A.1 Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Bonita Estero Rail Trail Map, TPL (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase Agreement and Bonita-Estero Rail Trail in Kismet Pkwy from Nelson Rd to Del Prado Blvd Construction 2025 John Yarborough Linear Park Construction 2027Cape Haze Pioneer Trail Preliminary Engineering 2024 Gateway Greenway Trail Corridor Construction 2025 San Martin Trail Design Build 2024 San Martin Blvd to Macoma Drive Preliminary Engineering 2025 Haines Bayshore to Ulmerton Rd Construction 2026 Ulmerton Rd to 126th Ave Construction 2026 126th Ave Planning 2023 O k e e c h o b e e H i l l s b o r o u g h M a n a t e e H a r d e e P i n e l l a s P o l k O s c e o l a H i g h l a n d s L e e C o l l i e r G l a d e sC h a r l o t t e S a r a s o t a D e s o t o H e n d r y P a s c o 0 10 20 Miles Gulf Coast Regional Trail Corridor Status Gulf Coast Trail Existing Programmed Florida Wildlife Corridor Conservation Lands 10.A.2 Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Gulf Coast Trail Status Map, Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Greenways and Trails (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf EVERGLADES BLVD NWILSON BLVD NTAMIAMI TRL NGOLDEN GATE BLVD WLOGAN BLVD NLOGAN BLVD EXTLOGAN BLVD SSR 29TAMIAMI TRL E OIL WELL RD IMMOKALEE RD CR 846 ESR 29 NSAN MARCO RDCOLLIER BLVDLIVINGSTON RD NG O L D E N G AT E P K W Y PINE RIDGE RD IMMOKALEE RD §¨¦75 §¨¦75 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master PlanFigure XX: Sun Trail Regional Network ¹0 21 Miles Naples Everglades City Immokalee Marco Island Lee County Hendry County Legend Environmental Lands Immokalee Urban Area Incorporated Municipalities !Points of Intrest Alignment Existing Programmed Greenway Gulf of Mexico Collier to Polk Trail Gulf Coast Trail 10.A.3 Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Collier MPO SUN Trail Network Map (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase Agreement and Bonita-Estero Rail Trail in About Us 10.A.4 Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: TPL Presentation (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase Communities that place a high value on OUTDOOR ACCESS FOR ALL ARE HEALTHIER MORE RESLIENT MORE EQUITABLE 2 10.A.4 Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: TPL Presentation (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase 5,000 projects 3 WE’VE COMPLETED OVER GENERATED OVER AND CREATED ACCESS TO OVER THROUGH THE GENEROSITY OF OUR SUPPORTERS: parks, trails, schoolyards, and iconic outdoor places $93B in public funding for parks and access to lands and waters 4.1 million acres of public land 10.A.4 Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: TPL Presentation (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase FLORIDA GULF COAST TRAIL •Total Length: 420 miles •Total Completed: 157 miles (about 40% complete) •Proposed: 263 miles •Traverses 7 Counties: Hillsborough, Pinellas, Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee, and Collier. 10.A.4 Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: TPL Presentation (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase 5 More than 4 MILLION PEOPLE live in this region. Our pedestrian infrastructure is not evolving in pace with our cities and towns. In fact, 3 of the 10 deadliest places for pedestrians in the U.S. are metropolitan areas within Southwest Florida FLORIDA GULF COAST TRAIL IMPACT SAFER COMMUNITIES A DESTINATION TRAILSTRENGTHENING CONNECTIONS IMPROVING HEALTH Mighty “destination trails” increase tourism. In Florida, outdoor recreation generates $58.6 BILLION in consumer spending, 485,000 JOBS, and $3.5 BILLION in state and local tax REVENUE annually The Florida Gulf Coast Trail will provide an opportunity for people of all abilities to get outdoors close to home. With nearby access to the trail, NEIGHBORS WILL BE CONNECTED. Proximity to the trail enhances property values and desirability of a community This trail will improve public HEALTH and offer residents an easy way to get active. Trails reduce auto use, alleviate congestion, and mitigate air pollution. Investment in trails IMPROVES quality of life and encourages behavioral changes that reduce chronic diseases and health care costs 10.A.4 Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: TPL Presentation (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase Bonita-Estero Rail-Trail (BERT) 10.A.4 Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: TPL Presentation (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase 7 THE BERT CORRIDOR • 14.9 Miles from Alico Road to Wiggins Pass Road (mostly 130’-wide. Fee simple from Wiggins to Constitution Cir. Trail easement from Constitution Cir. to Alico Rd. •TPL has the property under contract for $82M and until 3/2026 to purchase the property. The corridor will be railbanked to preserve opportunity for future rail use. •70,000 people live within a 10-minute bike ride to BERT, of which 37% are seniors (>64), 45% of low-income households, and 25% identify as people of color. •14,000 people live within a 10-minute walk to BERT, of which 37% are seniors (>64), 47% are of low-income households and 25% identify as people of color. •11 schools within 1 mile. 10.A.4 Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: TPL Presentation (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase 8 10.A.4 Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: TPL Presentation (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase 9 Map Courtesy Naples Pathways Map Courtesy Friends of BERT 10.A.4 Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: TPL Presentation (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase 10 •Safety: Lee County is In the top 50 counties with the highest fatalities in the country, The number of fatalities is 8.7x greater than the average county in the United States. Safe, dedicated routes for children to schools. •Health: A study on the health benefits from bike/pedestrian trails found that every $1 invested in trails resulted in $2.94 of savings on health care costs •Economic Development: A 2018 review of economic impact studies of trails across the country revealed that average user spending ranges from between $5 to over $67 or more per user per day. Business leader surveys show that quality of life amenities affect business siting and expansion decisions. •Alternative & Affordable Transportation: Transportation is the second highest expense after rent for lower income households. Reduces road congestion and pollution. •Increased Property Values: A number of studies have found that homes near trails generally have higher values, with premiums ranging from 5-10 percent. •Sense of Community: Intangible benefits of chance meetings and creating community. •Regional and Statewide Connections BERT Benefits 10.A.4 Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: TPL Presentation (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase 1111 Funding Strategy Florida Sources •Sun Trail •Local Funding Initiative •Florida Communities Trust Federal Sources •RAISE •Community Project Line Item •Safe Streets For ALL •Transportation Alternatives Local Sources •General Revenue •Lee 20/20 •Resilient Lee •Local Ballot Measure 10.A.4 Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: TPL Presentation (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase 12 •Placement on MPO Priority List •Support for Future Funding Requests Collier County MPO 10.A.4 Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: TPL Presentation (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase Doug.Hattaway@tpl.org (850) 212-6859 Charles.Hines@tpl.org(941) 223-1870 THANK YOU 10.A.4 Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: TPL Presentation (28508 : TPL Seminole Gulf Railroad ROW Purchase 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering Group on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study OBJECTIVE: For the Board to receive and be briefed on the draft report by Jacobs Engineering Group on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study. CONSIDERATION: In coordination with the Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement Division, Collier MPO contracted with Jacobs to conduct a Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study, which was identified within the County’s current Transit Development Plan, which is incorporated into the MPO’s 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. The Study evaluated existing travel patterns and identified areas that would benefit most from an addition al regional transit service. Based on the results of the regional travel patterns, market analysis and public outreach, the Study recommends the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres route for a new connection between CAT and LeeTran. The proposed route is illustrated below: The Study also contains the following recommendations: (i) The proposed route is recommended to follow a separate fare structure, where the route is owned and operated by CAT; (ii) CAT will charge its own fares for the regional bus route; and (iii) CAT will retain all revenues collected through the route. Staff from Jacobs will provide a presentation on the Study and answer any questions the Board may have. The next step is to present the Study to the BCC for approval, and to incorporate the p roposed route into the 2025 Transit Development Plan, Major Update, which is currently underway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board review the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study draft report and have the opportunity to ask questions about it. Prepared by: Dusty Hansen, MPO Senior Planner ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (PDF) 10.B Packet Pg. 265 04/12/2024 2. Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (PDF) 10.B Packet Pg. 266 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 10.B Doc ID: 28510 Item Summary: Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering Group on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 1:09 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 1:09 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 1:05 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:44 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 10.B Packet Pg. 267 4/1/2024 1 CAT Regional   Service and  Regional Fare   Study Agenda 1.Project Purpose 2.Study Methodology 3.Candidate Corridors and Ranking 4.Public Involvement 5.Recommended Regional Route 6.Route Development 7.Fare Policy Analysis 8.Conclusion 1 2 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 2 Project Purpose To  evaluate prospective additional regional bus routes to provide service between Collier  County and Lee County. CAT bus drops off in Lee County to connect to LeeTran. To  evaluate and provide a recommendation for a regional fare structure that would be  implemented with any future regional service.  Study Methodology 3 4 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 3 Existing Travel  Patterns Travel  patterns and cross‐county transit needs were  evaluated using 5 different data sets: 1.Collier MPO’s ‘Origin‐Destination Report’ Data 2.CAT and LeeTran Ridership 3.U.S. Census Data and Demographics 4.Key Activity Centers and Workforce  Commutes 5.Existing Transit  Development Plans for CAT and  LeeTran Candidate Corridor Evaluation  Methodology Identify top regional  travel patterns between  Collier and Lee County  (based on O‐D pairs,  U.S. Census Data by Zip  Code, Activity Centers)  Evaluate the patterns  against the existing roadway  network and CAT and  LeeTran routes Is the movement served by  an existing CAT or LeeTran  route? If Yes: No corridor needed If No: Advance to evaluate  corridor Is there an existing major  roadway (interstate, major  arterial, minor arterial) that  could serve the movement? If Yes: Advance to evaluate  corridor If No: No corridor needed 5 6 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 4 Origin‐Destination (O‐D) Data Top ‐four trips from Collier County to Lee County: 1.North Naples to Bonita Springs 2.Urban Estates to Bonita Springs 3.City of Naples to Bonita Springs 4.Immokalee to Lehigh Acres Top ‐four trips from Lee County to Collier County: 1.Bonita Springs to North Naples 2.Fort Myers to North Naples 3.Estero to North Naples 4.Lehigh Acres to Immokalee Use Public Transportation as Means of Transportation to Work ‐ Workers 16 Years  and Over (Top 10) U.S. Census Data  EstimateZip CodeCountyEstimateZip CodeCountyRank 31933901Lee71834142Collier1 30233905Lee12034112Collier2 22333907Lee9934114Collier3 13034135Lee4834110Collier4 9333909Lee2334119Collier5 9033936Lee1834145Collier6 8933916Lee1534105Collier7 8033917Lee934102Collier8 7833990Lee734103Collier9 6133971Lee734116Collier10 Use Public Transportation as Means of Transportation to Work (workers  16 years and over) ‐For whom poverty status is determined below 100%  of Poverty Level Estimate  (%)Zip CodeCounty Estimate  (%)Zip CodeCountyRank 83.833917Lee71.434116Collier1 34.833905Lee53.534114Collier2 27.433907Lee42.534142Collier3 25.833916Lee4034112Collier4 18.833901Lee39.634110Collier5 1.333990Lee6 7 8 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 5 Use Public Transportation as Means of Transportation to Work (workers 16  years and over) ‐Worked outside County of Residence U.S. Census Data  Estimate  (%)Zip CodeCounty Estimate  (%) Zip  CodeCountyRank 10033919Lee8.534142Collier1 43.134135Lee2 17.533907Lee3 15.933905Lee4 13.133971Lee5 1133901Lee6 8.633965Lee7 1.333917Lee8 Estimate  (%)Zip CodeCounty Estimate  (%)Zip CodeCountyRank 63.733907Lee68.134114Collier1 36.433901Lee39.234142Collier2 3133916Lee33.334112Collier3 21.233905Lee4 Use Public Transportation as Means of Transportation to Work  (workers 16 years and over) ‐No Vehicles  Available Existing CAT and LeeTran Routes There is no direct transit route  connecting Immokalee and Lehigh Acres. 9 10 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 6 Should this be  advanced as a  candidate corridor? Is there a transit need or priority to  serve the O‐D pair?b Was this identified as a  top O‐D pair from Lee  County to Collier  County?a Source of  O‐D pair Is this pair  served by an  existing CAT or  LeeTran route? O‐D Pair (Collier County  to Lee County) Yes, identified as a  need in the CAT and  LeeTran TDPs, and  transit needs identified  in U.S. Census data. All categories for both Collier and Lee counties:  Workers 16 years old and older who use public  transportation as main mode of transportation,  poverty status below 100% of poverty level, place of  work is outside county of residence, and no vehicles  available in household Yes, Immokalee is the top  Collier County destination  for trips beginning in Lehigh  Acres. CAT and  LeeTran TDPs No UF/IFAS to Lehigh Acres  Immokalee to Lehigh Acres Yes, identified as a  need in the CAT TDP,  and transit needs  identified in U.S.  Census data. Collier: Workers 16 years old and older who use  public transportation as their main mode of  transportation and have no vehicles available in  household Lee: None NoCAT TDPNo I‐75 Premium Express  Option 1: Collier County  Government Campus to Gulf  Coast Town  Center  East Naples to San Carlos Yes, identified as a  need in the LeeTran  TDP, and transit needs  identified in U.S.  Census data. Collier: None Lee: (for ZCTA 33905 –Fort Myers) Workers 16 years  old and older who use public transportation as main  mode of transportation, poverty status below 100%  of poverty level, work outside county of residence,  and no vehicles available in household  NoLeeTran TDPNo I‐75 Premium Express  Option 2: Pine Ridge Road to  RSW and Colonial Boulevard  Urban Estates to  Gateway/Airport and Fort  Myers Yes, identified as a  need in the CAT and  LeeTran TDPs, and  transit needs identified  in U.S. Census data. Collier: Workers 16 years old and older who use  public transportation as main mode of  transportation, poverty status below 100% of poverty  level, no vehicles available in household Lee: (for ZCTA 33905 –Fort Myers) Workers 16 years  old and older who use public transportation as main  mode of transportation, poverty status below 100%  of poverty level, work outside county of residence,  and no vehicles available in household NoCombination  form of CAT  and LeeTran  TDPs. No I‐75 Premium Express  Option 3: Collier County  Government Campus to  RSW and Colonial Boulevard  East Naples to  Gateway/Airport and Fort  Myers No, there is already an  existing route serving  this O‐D pair. Collier: None Lee: (Sections of Bonita Springs in ZCTA 34135)  Workers 16 years old and older who use public  transportation as main mode of transportation and  work outside county of residence  Yes, North Naples is the top  Collier County destination  for trips beginning in Bonita  Springs. O‐D Report  Data Yes –LinC RouteNorth Naples to Bonita  Springs Should this be  advanced as a  candidate corridor? Is there a transit need or priority to  serve the O‐D pair?b Was this identified as a  top O‐D pair from Lee  County to Collier  County?a Source of  O‐D pair Is this pair  served by an  existing CAT or  LeeTran route? O‐D Pair (Collier County  to Lee County) Yes, since the  proposed I‐75  Premium Express  covers the area, an  alternative corridor to  evaluate would be  Livingston Road to  Imperial Parkway. Collier: Small area identified as workers 16 years old  and older who use public transportation and live  below 100% of the poverty level Lee: (Sections of Bonita Springs in ZCTA 34135)  Workers 16 years old and older who use public  transportation as main mode of transportation and  work outside county of residence  NoO‐D Report  Data No Urban Estates to Bonita  Springs No, there is already an  existing route serving  this O‐D pair. Collier: None Lee: (Sections of Bonita Springs in ZCTA 34135)  Workers 16 years old and older who use public  transportation as main mode of transportation and  work outside county of residence  NoO‐D Report  Data Yes  –CAT network  and LinC City of Naples to Bonita  Springs This O‐D pair can be  serviced by the  proposed UF/IFAS and  Lehigh Acres Route as  identified in both CAT  and LeeTran TDPs. All categories for both Collier and Lee counties: Workers 16 years old and older who use public  transportation as main mode of transportation,  poverty status below 100% of poverty level, place of  work is outside county of residence, no vehicles  available in household Yes, Immokalee is the top  destination in Collier County  for trips beginning in Lehigh  Acres. O‐D Report  Data No Immokalee to Lehigh Acres No. Since most daily  trips from Golden  Gate are staying  within Collier County,  implementing a cross‐ county route is not a  priority for this O‐D  pair.  Collier: Transit  need for area below 100% of poverty  level; however, O‐D Report data are showing top  trips are not going to Lee County Lee: (Sections of Bonita Springs in ZCTA 34135)  Workers 16 years old and older who use public  transportation as main mode of transportation and  work outside county of residence  NoU.S. Census  Data No Golden Gate to Bonita  Springs a Based on the O‐D Report data. b Based on U.S. Census data. 11 12 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 7 Candidate Corridors Based on the evaluation matrix, we developed the following candidate corridors: 1.UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route 2.I‐75 Premium Express 3.Urban Estates and Bonita Springs Route 1. UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route Provides service between the  Immokalee Health Department  Transfer  Station and Lehigh Acres  Park‐and‐Ride Transfer  Station. 13 14 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 8 2. I‐75 Premium Express Option 1:Collier County Government Center to Gulf Coast  Town  Center Option 2:Pine Ridge Road to RSW and the Forum/Colonial  Blvd Option 3:Collier County Government Center to RSW and the Forum/Colonial Blvd – developed as hybrid version of  Options 1 and 2 following discussions with CAT and LeeTran.  3. Urban Estates and Bonita Springs Route Provides transit service between the  Urban Estates and Bonita Springs  subareas. 15 16 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 9 Candidate Corridor Rankings 17 18 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 10 Travel  time via public transit between  Immokalee and Lehigh Acres can approach  6 hours.  “…I have to transfer 5 times…” ‐Transit Rider Existing  Transit  Route Transfer  #5 Transfer  #4 Transfer  #3 Transfer  #2 Transfer  #1 Start End Corridor Ranking PercentageScoreCandidate CorridorRanking 81.48%220/270UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route (Immokalee to  Lehigh Acres) 1 65.93%178/270I‐75 Premium Express –Option 2 (Pine Ridge Road to  RSW and the Forum) 2 62.22%168/270I‐75 Premium Express –Option 3 (Collier County  Government Center to RSW and the Forum) 3 49.26%133/270Urban Estates and Bonita Springs Route (Livingston  Road/Imperial Parkway Route)  4 47.41%128/270I‐75 Premium Express –Option 1 (Collier County  Government Center to Gulf Coast Town  Center)  5 19 20 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 11 Public Involvement Public Outreach Public outreach was collected through: Paper and online survey Bus stop interviews Bus operator interviews Public involvement materials were available in: English Spanish Creole ‐contact 21 22 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 12 Public Input Survey The Regional Survey was distributed to: Current Riders Onboard CAT and LeeTran busses and at  stops (flier and paper survey) CAT Stakeholders (email) CAT webpages and social media Lee MPO boards and committees FDOT Transit  Office (app and social media) In the survey, participants were asked to rank  how often they would use each of the  proposed regional transit routes. Public Survey ‐Candidate Corridor  Ranking UF/IFAS and  Lehigh Acres 31% I‐75 Premium  Express ‐Option  1 I‐75 Premium  Express ‐Option 2 16% Livingston  Road/Imperial  Parkway Route 25% Other Route 8% Q12: If one of these proposed regional connections were  implemented, which one would you prefer? Please rank  from most preferred to least preferred.  All Participants: The I‐75 Premium Express –Option 2 received the most first place rankings. 140 out of 199 (70%) of these participants do not ride the bus. Bus Riders only: The UF/IFAS and Lehigh  Acres route received the most first place  rankings. 59 participants indicated that they ride the  bus. "Many of my coworkers would benefit from this‐ especially the Lehigh to Immokalee route. So many  of our employees live in Lee and work in Collier.“ ‐Survey Participant 23 24 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 13 Recommended Regional  Route Recommended Regional Route UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route Based on O‐D data, U.S. Census Data,  identified transit needs, and public  comments this recommended route was  determined. 25 26 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 14 Route  Development  Route  Development Collier County Bus Stops: Immokalee Health Department Transfer  Facility: This facility is  under construction and expected to be completed by late  2024.  Starting point for the proposed route. Turnaround point for the route’s inbound and outbound  service.  UF/IFAS Satellite Campus Bus Stop: This stop is proposed  along the existing southbound right‐turn lane to the campus.  Proposed for inbound service only. Lee County Bus Stop: Lehigh Acres Park‐and‐Ride Transfer Facility: This facility is  under construction and expected to be completed by early  2025 as a park‐and‐ride lot and a transfer station for the  Lehigh Acres area  Turnaround point for the route’s inbound and outbound  service.  Source: LeeTran Website Current ProjectsSource: SDPA Application Immokalee Facility Lehigh Acres Facility 27 28 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 15 Cost Estimate Capital Costs: Cost of bus and equipment Bus stop improvements Immokalee and Lehigh Acres are in  progress for upgraded transfer stations Annual Operating Cost: Approx. $605,000 per year  Using CAT’s current average operating cost  of $112/hour for a route. CostExpense $571,000.00 30‐foot Diesel Bus $7,700.00 Fare Collection Equipment $50,000.00 Bus Stop Improvements a (UF/IFAS  satellite campus bus stop only) $628,700.00 Total  Capital Cost (2024 Dollars) a Includes design and permitting Annual Operating Costs Annual Operating Cost is approximately $605,000 per year. This was determined using CAT’s current average  operating cost of $112/hour for a route. HoursTravel TypeMilesTravel Type 11.0Daily Revenue Hours333.3Daily Revenue Miles 3.8Deadhead Hours87.2Deadhead Miles 14.8Daily Platform Hours420.5Daily Platform Miles Annual Operating  Cost Annual Cost Type $450,000.00 Total  operating cost per revenue hour $155,000.00 Total  deadhead cost (hours) $605,000.00 Total  operating cost per platform hour 29 30 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 16 Proposed Route  Schedule InboundOutbound LayoverImmokalee  Health  Department  Anticipated  Drive Timea UF/IFAS  Satellite  Campus  Anticipated  Drive Timea Lehigh Acres  Park‐and‐Ride  Transfer Facility  Anticipated  Drive Timea Immokalee  Health  Department  10 minutes7:35 a.m.15 minutes7:20 a.m.40 minutes6:40 a.m.40 minutes6:00 a.m. 10 minutes9:15 a.m.10 minutes9:05 a.m.35 minutes8:30 a.m.45 minutes7:45 a.m. 130 minutes10:50 a.m.10 minutes10:40 a.m.35 minutes10:05 a.m.40 minutes9:25 a.m. Break 10 minutes2:25 p.m.10 minutes2:15 p.m.35 minutes1:40 p.m.40 minutes1:00 p.m. 10 minutes4:00 p.m.10 minutes3:50 p.m.35 minutes3:15 p.m.40 minutes2:35 p.m. 10 minutes5:40 p.m.10 minutes5:30 p.m.35 minutes4:55 p.m.45 minutes4:10 p.m. 7:10 p.m.10 minutes7:00 p.m.30 minutes6:30 p.m.40 minutes5:50 p.m. a Anticipated drive time is estimated based on Google Maps drive time at each departure time period, using the longest durationfrom the range identified. An  additional 5 minutes was added to the drive time for traffic delays. Public Input Recommendations Perform additional public survey to collect input on specific details for the new route including: Preferred times of service Service frequency Bus stops Have a bilingual speaker available to perform the surveys at Immokalee and Lehigh Acres bus stops. 31 32 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 17 Fare  Policy Analysis Advantages and Disadvantages of Separate and Joint Fare Structures  DisadvantagesAdvantages Fare Policy Type Requires riders to purchase multiple bus passes when traveling between  jurisdictions. May cost riders more money if frequently traveling between jurisdictions (for  example, must buy a monthly pass from each agency or the daily fare  capping). If both agencies operate the same route, inconvenience to riders to determine  the amount of funds to load on each bus pass. If both agencies operate the same route and fares vary, overcrowding may  occur on the less‐expensive bus. No additional fees caused by  analyzing/distributing revenue shares. No need to develop an interlocal  agreement for fare/revenue shares. No “lost fares” or disagreements over fares  due to changes in costs and payment  programs. Immediate revenue collection (no delay in  money distribution). Separate Fare  Structure Potential for “lost fares” if one jurisdiction decides to adopt a fare‐free policy  (for example, the case with the Manatee‐Sarasota agreement). Additional administrative fees (split proportionately based on responsibilities)  due to analyzing/ distributing revenue shares between transit agencies. Requires additional staff hours and responsibilities including: -Development and approval of an interlocal agreement -Assign personnel for host agency, project manager, and administrative  staff -Meetings and coordination -Consistency with hardware and software systems and updates -Establishment of a shared bank account Delay in money distribution/revenue collection. Seamless payment options that may be  used across jurisdictions. This is only  applicable if the regional pass is valid on all  routes in both counties, including local and  regional.  May encourage ridership. May provide cost savings for riders  frequently traveling between jurisdictions.  Joint Fare  Structure 33 34 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 18 Fare  Policy Recommendation Since the proposed additional regional route would be operated by a CAT bus and there is only one  existing regional route, which is operated by a LinC bus, it is recommended to maintain the existing  separate fare structure, where each agency charges their own fares and retains revenues collected  on their own respective vehicles. This was reviewed and agreed to by both LeeTran and CAT. Maintain a Separate Fare Structure. Conclusion Both Immokalee and Lehigh Acres demonstrate a significant transit need. Immokalee and Lehigh Acres are within the top‐four intercounty O‐D pairs  for travel between Collier County and Lee County. There is no existing transit route that connects Immokalee and Lehigh  Acres. The route has been previously identified in the CAT and LeeTran TDPs as a  future need. The route was ranked most preferred by survey participants that typically  ride the bus. The route provides a needed transit connection for workforce commutes  that is anticipated to support economic growth. Recommendation: •Implement the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route. •Maintain a Separate Fare Structure. 35 36 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare 4/1/2024 19 Thank you! 37 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Jacobs’ presentation on the draft report (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study DRAFT REPORT March 2024 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 ES-1 Executive Summary Introduction The Collier Area Transit (CAT) Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (hereinafter, the “Study”) was performed with the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and CAT to evaluate the prospect of implementing a new regional transit corridor for CAT to provide a new service between Collier County and Lee County, connecting to the Lee County Transit (LeeTran) system. Since there is only one existing regional transit connection operated by LeeTran, the LinC route, this Study will propose a new regional connection operated by CAT. Vision and Goals The vision and goals identified in the CAT Ten-Year Transit Development Plan (TDP) were used to develop the regional vision and goals for the Study. The Regional Transit Vision Framework developed included a regional transit vision, goals, and performance measures to be used for decision making and preparing strategic plans. The vision statement used the CAT TDP vision statement and modified it to a regional vision for CAT to expand and provide cross-county services. The regional goals developed include:  To improve and expand regional mobility services with a focus on commuter express routes, connecting workers to employment centers, and facilitating access to key activity centers.  To improve and enhance intergovernmental relationships and expand regional travel services. The performance measures developed included:  Decrease travel time for cross-county transit service.  Increase coverage to serve areas cross-county, connecting workers to employment centers and key activity centers.  Increase frequency of transit service.  Develop a plan for funding improved or expanded cross-county services.  Receive positive feedback and customer satisfaction.  Enhance the working relationship between CAT and LeeTran to address regional transit plans.  Develop a plan for integrating a compatible farebox system between CAT and LeeTran if joint fare structure is desired.  Implement new technologies for improving account-based payment systems.  Establish an interlocal agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for terms and conditions of any future regional service.  Implement new regional transit routes to facilitate travel between Lee and Collier Counties. Regional Transit Vision: To provide effective and efficient multimodal mobility services cross-county and connect the transit networks to facilitate the needs of workers, residents, and visitors to support economic, environmental, and community benefits. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 ES-2 Regional Travel Pattern and Market Analysis The approach of this Study was to evaluate existing travel patterns and identify areas that would benefit most from an additional regional transit service. These areas were identified through a complete analysis of various sources, including the Collier MPO Origin-Destination (O-D) Report (hereinafter, “O-D Report”) data, United States (U.S.) Census data, demographics, key activity centers and workforce commutes, existing plans, and existing ridership. This analysis led to the development of priority O-D pairs that were evaluated against existing transit needs. As a result, five candidate corridors were developed and included:  University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) and Lehigh Acres Route  Interstate 75 (I-75) Premium Express Option 1: Collier County Government Center to Gulf Coast Town Center Route  I-75 Premium Express Option 2: Pine Ridge Road to Southwest Florida International Airport (RSW) and the Forum Route  I-75 Premium Express Option 3: Collier County Government Center to RSW and the Forum  Urban Estates and Bonita Springs Route A quantitative and qualitative methodology was developed to evaluate and rank the candidate corridors. The ranking criteria was based on scoring factors, including but not limited to U.S. Census data, O-D Report data, proximity to key activity centers and transfer stations, and reduction in user travel time. Each of the candidate corridors were evaluated and ranked to determine which corridor would provide the greatest benefit based on cross-county transit needs. Table ES-1 summarizes the scores for each candidate corridor. Table ES-1. Candidate Corridor Ranking Ranking Candidate Corridor Score Percentage 1 UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route (Immokalee to Lehigh Acres) 220/270 81.48% 2 I-75 Premium Express – Option 2 (Pine Ridge Road to RSW and the Forum) 178/270 65.93% 3 I-75 Premium Express – Option 3 (Collier County Government Center to RSW and the Forum) 168/270 62.22% 4 Urban Estates and Bonita Springs Route (Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway Route) 133/270 49.26% 5 I-75 Premium Express – Option 1 (Collier County Government Center to Gulf Coast Town Center) 128/270 47.41% Public Input A public survey was performed to collect public input from residents and current transit riders in Collier and Lee counties regarding the proposed candidate corridors. Public outreach also included in-person surveys, as well as agency and CAT bus operator interviews. This feedback, coupled with the regional travel pattern and market analysis, was used to determine the recommended corridor to implement as the new cross-county transit route. There were 199 responses to the public survey. Overall, the most-preferred candidate corridor for implementation was the I-75 Premium Express – Option 2, ranked at 30%; whereas, among those who 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 ES-3 currently ride either CAT or LeeTran buses, the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route received the highest ranking, at 31%, indicating it was the most-preferred route by riders who currently use the bus. Fare Policy Analysis Existing agreements between other transit agencies within the State of Florida that provide regional connectivity with their neighboring counties were analyzed to evaluate their policies, best practices, and successful strategies. These neighboring policies were evaluated for terms and conditions between agencies, such as cost allocation, route agreements, fare agreements, revenue allocation, agency responsibilities, split revenue (if applicable), and the resulting financial and operational implications of separate and joint fare structures. This fare policy analysis summarized the pros and cons of separate and joint fare structures, as was used to help facilitate the decision-making process for the proposed recommended corridor. Table ES-2 summarizes the benefits and disadvantages of implementing a separate fare structure. Table ES-2. Advantages and Disadvantages of a Separate Fare Structure Fare Policy Type Advantages Disadvantages Separate Fare Structure  No additional fees caused by analyzing/distributing revenue shares.  No need to develop an interlocal agreement for fare/revenue shares.  No “lost fares” or disagreements over fares due to changes in costs and payment programs.  Immediate revenue collection (no delay in money distribution).  Requires riders to purchase multiple bus passes when traveling between jurisdictions.  May cost riders more money if frequently traveling between jurisdictions (for example, must buy a monthly pass from each agency or the daily fare capping).  If both agencies operate the same route, inconvenience to riders to determine the amount of funds to load on each bus pass.  If both agencies operate the same route and fares vary, overcrowding may occur on the less-expensive bus. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 ES-4 Table ES-3 summarizes the benefits and disadvantages of implementing a joint fare structure. Table ES-3. Advantages and Disadvantages of a Joint Fare Structure Fare Policy Type Advantages Disadvantages Joint Fare Structure  Seamless payment options that may be used across jurisdictions. This is only applicable if the regional pass is valid on all routes in both counties, including local and regional.  May encourage ridership.  May provide cost savings for riders frequently traveling between jurisdictions.  Potential for “lost fares” if one jurisdiction decides to adopt a fare-free policy (for example, the case with the Manatee- Sarasota agreement).  Additional administrative fees (split proportionately based on responsibilities) due to analyzing/distributing revenue shares between transit agencies.  Requires additional staff hours and responsibilities including: - Development and approval of an interlocal agreement - Assign personnel for host agency, project manager, and administrative staff - Meetings and coordination - Consistency with hardware and software systems and updates - Establishment of a shared bank account  Delay in money distribution/revenue collection. Since the proposed additional regional route would be operated by a CAT bus and there is only one existing regional route, which is operated by a LinC bus, it is recommended to maintain the existing separate fare structure, where each agency charges their own fares and retains revenues on their respective vehicles. Under the separate fare structure, CAT will operate the new route and charge CAT fares. CAT will be responsible for all capital and annual costs related to the operation of the route, except for the costs associated with the bus stop in Lee County. The separate fare structure provides the most cost-effective option, avoiding the need to develop an agreement for shared revenue collection and distribution and installing compatible fare collection systems on vehicles. A meeting was held between CAT and LeeTran staff, and they concluded that a separate fare structure is the best policy to use for the proposed route. CAT and LeeTran should reevaluate the pros and cons of a joint fare structure when implementing additional regional routes. However, only one additional regional route is proposed as part of this Study, and maintaining a separate fare structure is recommended at this time. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 ES-5 Recommendation Based on the results of the regional travel patterns, market analysis, and public outreach, the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres route is the recommended route for a new connection between CAT and LeeTran. This proposed route, as identified in Figure ES-1, received the highest overall ranking in the candidate corridor evaluation and demonstrated the most significant need for a new transit connection. It is recommended that CAT and LeeTran retain a separate fare structure for this route. It is recommended that the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route provide pickup and drop-off service at the following locations: Collier County Bus Stops:  Immokalee Health Department Transfer Facility: This is an existing CAT bus stop transfer station in Immokalee that connects Immokalee Circulators (Routes 22 and 23) and Route 19. The Immokalee Health Department has funding from a Tiger Grant awarded in 2018 to construct a bus transfer station with amenities that will provide parking and a bus turnaround within the site. This facility is under construction and expected to be completed by late 2024. This transfer station will serve as the starting point for the proposed route and will serve as a turnaround point for the route’s inbound and outbound service. This bus stop is located at 419 North 1st Street, Immokalee, Florida 34142.  UF/IFAS satellite campus bus stop: This stop is proposed along the existing southbound right-turn lane to the campus located at 2685 FL-29, Immokalee, Florida 34142. This stop is proposed for the inbound service between the Lehigh Acres bus stop to the Immokalee Health Department bus stop. Lee County Bus Stop:  Lehigh Acres Park-and-Ride Transfer Facility: This facility is under construction and expected to be completed by early 2025 as a park-and-ride lot and a transfer station for the Lehigh Acres area (Lee County 2023). This facility will serve as a turnaround point for the route’s inbound and outbound service. The park-and-ride will be located at 1121 Village Lakes Boulevard, Lehigh Acres, Florida 33972. Figure ES-1. Proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route with Bus Stops 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 ES-6 The recommended route schedule is provided in Table ES-4. At least one vehicle is recommended to be purchased to operate the new route. It is recommended to perform public outreach to collect input on specific details of the new route to obtain feedback from riders anticipated to use the proposed route. The public survey is recommended to obtain input on preferred times of service, service frequency, and stops and to provide insight into the anticipated demand for the proposed route. Adjustments to the proposed route schedule should be evaluated based on public comment. Table ES-4. Proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route Schedule Outbound Inbound Immokalee Health Department Anticipated Drive Timea Lehigh Acres Park-and- Ride Transfer Facility Anticipated Drive Timea UF/IFAS Satellite Campus Anticipated Drive Timea Immokalee Health Department Layover 6:00 a.m. 40 minutes 6:40 a.m. 40 minutes 7:20 a.m. 15 minutes 7:35 a.m. 10 minutes 7:45 a.m. 45 minutes 8:30 a.m. 35 minutes 9:05 a.m. 10 minutes 9:15 a.m. 10 minutes 9:25 a.m. 40 minutes 10:05 a.m. 35 minutes 10:40 a.m. 10 minutes 10:50 a.m. 130 minutes 1:00 p.m. 40 minutes 1:40 p.m. 35 minutes 2:15 p.m. 10 minutes 2:25 p.m. 10 minutes 2:35 p.m. 40 minutes 3:15 p.m. 35 minutes 3:50 p.m. 10 minutes 4:00 p.m. 10 minutes 4:10 p.m. 45 minutes 4:55 p.m. 35 minutes 5:30 p.m. 10 minutes 5:40 p.m. 10 minutes 5:50 p.m. 40 minutes 6:30 p.m. 30 minutes 7:00 p.m. 10 minutes 7:10 p.m. a Anticipated drive time is estimated based on Google Maps drive time at each departure time period, using the longest duration from the range identified. An additional 5 minutes was added to the drive time for traffic delays. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 i Contents Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................................ES-1 Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... iv 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 2. Vision and Goals................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 3. Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 4. Base Transit Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Existing Transit Services in Collier County and Lee County .................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Cross-County Transit Needs and Demand .................................................................................................. 4-2 4.3 Existing Conditions and Fare Policy Between CAT and LeeTran ........................................................ 4-5 4.4 Transit Planning Landscape .............................................................................................................................. 4-6 5. Transit Investment and Policy Assessment ................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Fare Policy Comparison and Lessons Learned .......................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Fare Policy Recommendation .......................................................................................................................... 5-3 6. Regional Travel Pattern and Market Analysis ............................................................................................. 6-1 7. Candidate Corridor Development .................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route .................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 I-75 Premium Express ......................................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.3 Urban Estates and Bonita Springs .................................................................................................................. 7-4 8. Public Involvement............................................................................................................................................ 8-1 8.1 Public Input Survey ............................................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.1 Survey Advertisements .......................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.2 Onboard Survey Results ........................................................................................................................ 8-2 8.1.3 Online Survey Results ............................................................................................................................. 8-2 8.2 Interviews ................................................................................................................................................................. 8-4 8.2.1 Bus Operator Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 8-4 8.2.2 Bus Stop Interviews ................................................................................................................................. 8-4 8.3 Agency Reviews...................................................................................................................................................... 8-4 9. Candidate Corridor Evaluation and Ranking ............................................................................................... 9-1 10. Scenario Development and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 Proposed Stops and Schedule ...................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.2 Layover and Rest Areas .................................................................................................................................... 10-4 10.3 Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................................. 10-4 10.4 Recommended Public Outreach .................................................................................................................. 10-4 11. Cost Estimate and Funding Needs .............................................................................................................. 11-1 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 ii 12. Funding Opportunities .................................................................................................................................. 12-1 12.1 Federal Funding .................................................................................................................................................. 12-2 12.2 State Funding ...................................................................................................................................................... 12-4 13. Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 13-1 14. References ........................................................................................................................................................ 14-1 Appendices Appendix A. Transportation Services Inventory Appendix B. Technical Memorandum: Transit Investment and Policy Assessment Appendix C. Technical Memorandum: Regional Travel Pattern and Market Analysis Appendix D. Public Involvement Materials Tables Table ES-1. Candidate Corridor Ranking.............................................................................................................................. ES-2 Table ES-2. Advantages and Disadvantages of a Separate Fare Structure ............................................................ ES-3 Table ES-3. Advantages and Disadvantages of a Joint Fare Structure .................................................................... ES-4 Table ES-4. Proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route Schedule ........................................................................... ES-6 Table 4-1. CAT and LeeTran Fares and Passes .................................................................................................................... 4-5 Table 5-1. Advantages and Disadvantages of a Separate Fare Structure ................................................................ 5-1 Table 5-2. Advantages and Disadvantages of a Joint Fare Structure ........................................................................ 5-2 Table 9-1. Candidate Corridor Ranking .................................................................................................................................. 9-1 Table 10-1. Proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route Schedule.......................................................................... 10-3 Table 11-1. Daily Revenue and Platform Miles and Hours for the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route ....... 11-1 Table 11-2. Capital Cost Estimate for the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route ....................................................... 11-1 Table 11-3. Annual Operating Cost Estimate by Revenue and Platform Hours for the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route ............................................................................................................................................................ 11-2 Table 12-1. Federal Funding Programs .............................................................................................................................. 12-2 Table 12-2. State Funding Programs ................................................................................................................................... 12-4 Figures Figure ES-1. Proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route with Bus Stops ......................................................................5 Figure 2-1. Regional Transit Vision Framework .................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 4-1. Existing CAT and LeeTran Routes ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 Figure 4-2. CAT and LeeTran Yearly Passenger Counts................................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4-3. CAT Ridership by Route ......................................................................................................................................... 4-3 Figure 4-4. LeeTran Ridership by Route ................................................................................................................................. 4-4 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 iii Figure 4-5. Daily Collier-Lee County Trips ............................................................................................................................ 4-4 Figure 7-1. Candidate Corridor Development Methodology ......................................................................................... 7-1 Figure 7-2. Proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route .................................................................................................. 7-2 Figure 7-3. Proposed I-75 Premium Express – Option 1 ................................................................................................. 7-3 Figure 7-4. Proposed I-75 Premium Express – Option 2 ................................................................................................. 7-4 Figure 7-5. Urban Estates and Bonita Springs ..................................................................................................................... 7-5 Figure 8-1. Question 12 Responses – All Participants...................................................................................................... 8-3 Figure 8-2. Question 12 Responses – Bus Riders Only..................................................................................................... 8-3 Figure 10-1. Proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route with Bus Stops ............................................................. 10-2 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ADA Americans With Disabilities Act B&A Boarding and Alighting Breeze Sarasota County Transit CAT CTD Collier Area Transit Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged FDOT Florida Department of Transportation F.S. Florida Statute FTA Federal Transit Administration FY Fiscal Year GIS Geographic Information System GoPasco Pasco County Transit HART Hillsborough Area Regional Transit I-75 Interstate 75 JTA Jacksonville Transit Authority LeeTran Lee County Transit LinC LeeTran Route 600 LRTP Long-Range Transportation Plan MCAT Manatee County Area Transit MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MOU Memorandum of Understanding O-D origin-destination PSTA Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority QR Quick response RSW Southwest Florida International Airport 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 v RWG Regional Working Group SHS State Highway System SIB State Infrastructure Bank SIS Strategic Intermodal System SR State Road STIP State Transportation Improvement Program TDP Transit Development Plan TIP Transportation Improvement Program TRIP Transportation Regional Incentive Program UF/IFAS University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences U.S. United States USC United States Code USDOT United States Department of Transportation ZCTA Zip Code Tabulation Area 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 1-1 1. Introduction Regional interconnectivity is a vital aspect for a balanced transportation system and contributes to the economic health and mobility of communities. As the population of Southwest Florida continues to grow, the demand for reliable and efficient transit service has increased. Regional connections have become more of a priority due to the increasing number of cross-county commuters each year. The number of residents traveling between Collier County and Lee County for work has grown in tandem with the population, thus creating increased demand for reliable, cross-county transit services. Currently, there is only one regional transit connection between Collier County and Lee County. The connection is facilitated by Lee County Transit (LeeTran), which connects to a bus stop in Collier County. As the demand for regional transit increases, additional regional connections are needed between Collier County and Lee County. The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Collier Area Transit (CAT) initiated the Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (hereinafter, the “Study”) to evaluate a new regional transit connection for CAT to provide service to Lee County, connecting to the LeeTran system. The Study included the development of a regional transit vision and goals statement and a regional decision-making framework. The Study evaluated existing regional travel patterns and performed a market analysis to develop potential regional corridors. A ranking methodology was developed, and the recommended corridor that would provide the greatest benefit based on cross-county transit needs was determined. The Study also included the evaluation of financial and operational impacts of implementing a joint fare structure for CAT and LeeTran to provide a “regional pass” for riders traveling between the counties. The Study concludes with a recommendation and plan for CAT and LeeTran to proceed with implementing the proposed regional route as well as a recommendation for the fare policy. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 2-1 2. Vision and Goals By evaluating a new cross-county transit connection between Collier and Lee counties, this Study aligns with CAT’s vision to meet the needs of riders and advances their goal to increase connectivity between the transit networks. CAT’s vision, identified in their Ten-Year Transit Development Plan (TDP), is to provide “effective and efficient multimodal mobility services to meet the mobility needs of workers, residents, and visitors, to support economic, environmental, and community benefits.” Additionally, their regional goal initiative (Initiative 3.2.1) with LeeTran is to “Continue to coordinate and partner with LeeTran to improve and expand cross-county mobility services to support workforce travel demand with a focus on commuter express routes, connecting workers to employment, and provide connections strategically to the transit networks in Lee and Collier counties to facilitate the access to key activity centers” (Tindale-Oliver 2020a). The Study also aligns with CAT’s goal for improving regional mobility services by evaluating the option of a regional pass for riders that frequently travel between both counties, without having to purchase separate bus passes in both Collier and Lee counties. The regional pass was evaluated to serve CAT and LeeTran local or regional routes and evaluated financial and operational implications of administering a joint fare structure to provide a regional pass to improve regional mobility. CAT’s vision and goals, as identified in the TDP, were used to develop the Regional Transit Vision Framework. The Regional Transit Vision Framework was developed with CAT and Collier MPO and includes a regional transit vision statement, goals, and performance measures that can be used for decision making and preparing strategic plans. Refer to Figure 2-1 for the Regional Transit Vision Framework. Regional Transit Vision: To provide effective and efficient multimodal mobility services cross-county and connect the transit networks to facilitate the needs of workers, residents, and visitors to support economic, environmental, and community benefits. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 2-2 Figure 2-1. Regional Transit Vision Framework To provide effective and efficient multimodal mobility services cross- county and connect the transit networks to facilitate the needs of workers, residents, and visitors, to support economic, environmental and community benefits. To improve and expand regional mobility services with a focus on commuter express routes, connecting workers to employment centers, and facilitating access to key activity centers. To improve and enhance intergovernmental relationships and expand regional travel services. Decrease travel time for cross-county transit i Receive positive feedback and customer satisfaction. Regional Transit Vision Regional Transit Goals Performance Measures Develop a plan for funding improved or expanded cross-county services. Increase coverage to serve areas cross-county, connecting workers to employment centers and key activity centers. Develop a plan for integrating a compatible farebox system between CAT and LeeTran if joint fare structure is desired. Implement new technologies for improving account-based payment systems. Establish an interlocal agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for terms and conditions of any future regional service. Enhance the working relationship between CAT and LeeTran to address regional transit plans. Implement new regional transit routes to facilitate travel between Lee and Collier Counties. Increase frequency of transit service. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 3-1 3. Methodology Data from CAT and LeeTran were collected to evaluate and plan for a new regional service and regional fare structure. Data included information such as:  Geographic information system (GIS) files of existing and future/planned transit networks  Ridership and fare data for the last five fiscal years (FYs)  Annual operating and capital cost data  Annual revenue hours and miles  Applicable reports, studies, and documents A transportation services inventory was developed to assist with the evaluation of existing conditions and available services. Existing travel patterns between Collier and Lee counties were analyzed for movements that would benefit most from an additional regional transit service. To evaluate the transit needs for a new connection between Collier and Lee counties, travel patterns and cross-county transit needs were evaluated using:  Origin-Destination (O-D) Data  CAT and LeeTran Ridership  Key Activity Centers and Workforce Commutes  United States (U.S.) Census Data and Demographics  Existing TDPs The ridership and fare data, annual operating and capital costs, and annual revenue were used to develop a proposed route for the recommended regional corridor as well as to develop cost estimates to implement the route and evaluate potential funding opportunities. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 4-1 4. Base Transit Conditions A base transit condition was established by evaluating existing conditions from current and latent demand. This includes the existing transit routes and stops as well as limited express routes and other transportation services in both Collier and Lee County. The existing transit routes for CAT and LeeTran are identified on Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1. Existing CAT and LeeTran Routes 4.1 Existing Transit Services in Collier County and Lee County CAT’s existing transit network serves Collier County, including connections to Immokalee, Ave Maria, and Marco Island. The LeeTran system serves the Lee County area, including Fort Myers, Cape Coral, Lehigh Acres, Estero, and Bonita Springs. According to 2022 U.S. Census data, Lee County has a population of approximately 822,453, and Collier County has a population of approximately 397,994 (United States 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 4-2 Census Bureau n.d.). With an overall higher population, LeeTran experiences higher ridership of transit services than CAT. Figure 4-2 displays the average yearly number of passengers from FYs 2018 to 2022 that rode CAT and LeeTran buses. Figure 4-2. CAT and LeeTran Yearly Passenger Counts LeeTran also provides a regional connection between Collier and Lee counties, known as “LinC,” that operates as Route 600. LinC currently serves as LeeTran’s only direct cross-county connection, beginning at Coconut Point Mall in Lee County, traveling along U.S. 41, and ending at the Creekside Transfer Station in Collier County on Immokalee Road. This regional connection is currently owned and operated by LeeTran and serves as a north-south connection for the western portions of both counties. To aid in establishing the base condition, available transportation providers serving Collier and Lee counties and their service areas were evaluated. These formal and informal transportation services are summarized in Appendix A, Transportation Services Inventory. 4.2 Cross-County Transit Needs and Demand The TDPs for Collier and Lee counties evaluated transit needs and demand for a 10-year projection (2021–2030) and included recommendations for regional interconnectivity-based public outreach, transit demand, and a situation appraisal. These TDP’s have identified proposed future networks and/or changes to existing routes to improve cross-county transit services. The recommendations identify corridors that 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022Number of PassengersFiscal Year (October through September) CAT LeeTran 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 4-3 would serve the most significant passenger needs and where adjustments to the existing network would be the most beneficial. Currently, LinC operates as the only cross-county bus route connecting Collier and Lee counties. The data collected by Collier County shows that the most-used CAT bus route is Route 11, which provides service along U.S. 41, from the Collier County Government Center to the Creekside/LinC Transfer Station. This bus route connects to the LinC bus route, providing the transit connection to Lee County. Figure 4-3 identifies total ridership by CAT route for FY 2022 and indicates Route 11, the connecting route with LinC, has the highest ridership. Figure 4-3. CAT Ridership by Route Additionally, Figure 4-4 identifies total LeeTran ridership by route for FY 2022. The most-used LeeTran route, Route 140, provides service from Merchants Crossing in Fort Myers to the Coconut Point Mall in Estero. This bus stop provides a transfer onto Route 600 (LinC), which connects to Collier County. Ridership for Route 600 is ranked 11th out of a total of 28 routes. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 121Number of PassengersCAT Route Number 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 4-4 Figure 4-4. LeeTran Ridership by Route Route 420 also has significant ridership and operates as a seasonal beach tram from November to April, providing service to Fort Myers Beach. The U.S. Census commute flow data from the American Community Survey show that, between 2011 and 2015, approximately 9,456 people commuted from Collier County into Lee County for work daily, while approximately 20,941 people commuted from Lee County to Collier County (United States Census Bureau 2015), as illustrated on Figure 4-5. Figure 4-5. Daily Collier-Lee County Trips - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 Number of PassengersLeeTran Route Number 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 4-5 4.3 Existing Conditions and Fare Policy Between CAT and LeeTran CAT uses Genfare fareboxes on all their transit vehicles. These fareboxes accept cash, reloadable smartcards, and paper transfer tickets. Mobile tickets for CAT buses may also be purchased on the RideCAT mobile application. CAT has a contract in place and is working to convert all Genfare fareboxes to new Masabi fareboxes. According to the LeeTran TDP (2021–2030), LeeTran uses newly installed Genfare Fast Fare Systems fareboxes, which offer flexible payment options to passengers on all fixed-route services in the LeeTran network. Fast Fare accepts cash, smartcards, and account-link tags, fobs, and stickers. Additionally, Fast Fare also offers mobile ticket options using Genfare’s Mobile Link program. The Mobile Link program has payment processing fees of $0.05 per transaction and 5% of the transaction amount. For the period between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023, LeeTran paid a total of $14,601.80 in fees. This averages $1,216.82 per month (Huff, pers. comm. 2023). Beginning March 1, 2011, Collier County and Lee County entered an interlocal agreement to provide a transit service connecting LeeTran to a CAT bus stop. This route, Route 600 (LinC) is operated by LeeTran and serves as the only existing regional public transit connection, providing service from Coconut Point Mall in Lee County to the Creekside Transfer Station in Collier County. The fare policy in this interlocal agreement stated that “all fares charged to passengers along the designated route will be based upon LeeTran’s current fare structure,” and LeeTran will retain all fares collected by their bus (Collier County Board of County Commissioners 2011). The agreement also states that no transfers or prepaid passes may be used between CAT and LeeTran systems when using this route, though each separate agency must honor their own valid prepaid passes, permits, tickets, and transfers. As part of this agreement, CAT was leasing a vehicle to LeeTran to use for the LinC route. However, the bus has been returned to CAT and LeeTran now operates the route with their own vehicle. Therefore, the interlocal agreement has since been dissolved; however, the separate fare structure is still intact as LeeTran now fully owns and operates this route (Showalter, pers. comm. 2023a). Table 4-1 summarizes the fare fees and pass types offered by CAT and LeeTran. Table 4-1. CAT and LeeTran Fares and Passes Transit Agency Regular Fare Prices Discounted Fare Prices CAT  One-way Fare: $2.00  Marco Express: $3.00  Day Pass: $3.00  15-day Pass: $20.00  30-day Pass: $40.00  Marco Express 30-day Pass: $70.00  One-way: $1.00  Marco Express: $1.50  Day Pass: $1.50  15-day Pass: $10.00  30-day Pass: $20.00  Marco Express 30-day Pass: $35.00  Student Summer Pass (valid June 1 through August 31 for students): $30.00  30-day Corporate Pass (300+ Employees): $29.75 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 4-6 Transit Agency Regular Fare Prices Discounted Fare Prices LeeTran  One-way Fare: $1.50  All-day Pass: $4.00  7-day Pass: $15.00  31-day Pass: $40.00  12-trip Pass: $13.50  One-way: $0.75  7-day Pass: Senior/Disabled $11.00; Student $12.00  31-day Pass: Senior/Disabled $23.00; Student $25.00  12-trip Pass: Senior/Disabled $6.50; Student $6.75 Source: (Collier Area Transit 2023; LeeTran 2023) The regular fare for the LinC route is $1.50 for a one-way adult fare. Passengers using the LinC route pay this fare when boarding at any stop along this route, as all stops along the LinC route are considered LeeTran bus stops, even if they are geographically located in Collier County. 4.4 Transit Planning Landscape The TDPs for Collier and Lee counties evaluated transit needs and demand for a 10-year projection (2021–2030). These TDPs included recommendations for regional interconnectivity and identified proposed future networks and/or changes to existing routes to improve cross-county transit services. The Collier Area Transit Ten-Year Transit Development Plan 2021–2030 (Tindale-Oliver 2020a) identifies two “regional corridors” to provide additional service between Collier and Lee counties, which include:  The University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) and Lehigh Acres Route to provide a new connection between Immokalee, the UF/IFAS Research and Education Center, and Lehigh Acres. Note, this route is also identified in the Collier MPO 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) as a Transit Need.  The I-75 Premium Express, which would provide a connection between Collier and Lee counties through a managed transit lane (restricted/controlled access) on Interstate 75 (I-75). The Lee County TDP for LeeTran also includes these corridors as the two proposed regional routes and identifies the Lee-Collier Commuter Express on I-75 as a midterm (3- to 10-year), cross-county need using existing lanes on I-75 or managed lanes if constructed. Note that these regional corridors are also evaluated further as part of this Study to determine their priority ranking as a potential cross-county transit route that may be incorporated into the existing CAT system. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 5-1 5. Transit Investment and Policy Assessment Agreements between other transit agencies within the State of Florida that provide regional connectivity with their neighboring counties were analyzed to evaluate their policies, best practices, and successful strategies. These neighboring cross-county transit policies, interlocal agreements, and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) were evaluated for terms and conditions between agencies such as cost allocation, route agreements, fare agreements, revenue allocation, agency responsibilities, split revenue (if applicable), and the resulting financial and operational implications of separate and joint fare structures. These counties’ policies and the analysis are summarized in Appendix B. 5.1 Fare Policy Comparison and Lessons Learned After analyzing the various types of interlocal agreements and policies of neighboring counties, the benefits and disadvantages of the different policies were evaluated. The evaluation included financial and operational implications of administering separate and joint fare structures, payment programs, and administrative costs. Lessons learned were developed based on research and coordination and interviews with the neighboring county agencies. To maintain the terms of the current fare policy between CAT and LeeTran, which is a separate fare structure, all fares for the new connection operated by the CAT bus would be separate from LeeTran. The new route would operate similarly to the LinC route, except the new route will be served by a CAT bus, and CAT may charge their own fares and retain all revenues earned by their vehicle. Alternatively, another way to operate a separate fare structure between CAT and LeeTran would be to retain all revenues collected by each agency’s respective vehicle, but the bus would charge the fare rate based on the county of pickup, similar to the interlocal agreement between Manatee County Area Transit (MCAT) and Sarasota County Transit (Breeze) (refer to Appendix B). One of the lessons learned from using a separate fare structure where the fare is determined by the location of pickup is that if fares vary (for example, one agency goes fare-free), overcrowding may occur on the less-expensive bus. Table 5-1 summarizes the benefits and disadvantages of implementing a separate fare structure. Table 5-1. Advantages and Disadvantages of a Separate Fare Structure Fare Policy Type Advantages Disadvantages Separate Fare Structure  No additional fees caused by analyzing/distributing revenue shares.  No need to develop an interlocal agreement for fare/revenue shares.  No “lost fares” or disagreements over fares due to changes in costs and payment programs.  Immediate revenue collection (no delay in money distribution).  Requires riders to purchase multiple bus passes when traveling between jurisdictions.  May cost riders more money if frequently traveling between jurisdictions (for example, must buy a monthly pass from each agency or the daily fare capping).  If both agencies operate the same route, inconvenience to riders to determine the amount of funds to load on each bus pass.  If both agencies operate the same route, and fares vary, overcrowding may occur on the less- expensive bus. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 5-2 To develop a joint fare structure between CAT and LeeTran, there are several financial and operational implications that would need to be considered. Table 5-2 summarizes the benefits and disadvantages of implementing a joint fare structure. An anticipated operational impact to administer a joint fare structure between CAT and LeeTran is the difference in farebox systems used. CAT is converting from Genfare to a Masabi farebox system by late 2024 or early 2025, meanwhile LeeTran is contracted to use Genfare for the next 7 years (Showalter, pers. comm. 2023). Therefore, they may face complications with incompatibilities between the two systems. This could result in either the inability to or increased costs for new hardware and programming to implement a seamless payment system between the two jurisdictions. Table 5-2. Advantages and Disadvantages of a Joint Fare Structure Fare Policy Type Advantages Disadvantages Joint Fare Structure  Seamless payment options that may be used across jurisdictions. This is only applicable if the regional pass is valid on all routes in both counties, including local and regional.  May encourage ridership.  May provide cost savings for riders frequently traveling between jurisdictions.  Potential for “lost fares” if one jurisdiction decides to adopt a fare-free policy (for example, the case with the Manatee-Sarasota agreement).  Additional administrative fees (split proportionately based on responsibilities) due to analyzing and distributing revenue shares between transit agencies.  Requires additional staff hours and responsibilities including: - Development and approval of an interlocal agreement - Assign personnel for host agency, project manager, and administrative staff - Meetings and coordination - Consistency with hardware and software systems and updates - Establish a shared bank account - Delay in money distribution/revenue collection  Each participating agency will have a loss in profit due to sharing revenues earned by regional pass with adjacent county. Analysis of the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project and discussions with Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) provided additional insight and lessons learned regarding terms and conditions that need to be evaluated when developing an MOU for a joint fare structure. Refer to Appendix B for a summary of terms and conditions. To administer a joint fare structure, these financial and operational terms and conditions will need to be negotiated, established, and documented in an MOU. Once all financial and operational terms are established, the MOU would require approval by each agency’s Board of County Commissioners prior to execution. HART indicated a lesson learned during their MOU process was to keep terms open to allow for adaptation and improvement to accommodate obstacles experienced during the implementation process. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 5-3 Another lesson learned from the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Project was that the project was costly in personnel hours during its initial implementation as there was a significant learning curve for the employees assigned. Initially, it took three to five people to set up and manage the project in its initial stages, and there was an initial revenue loss of approximately $300,000 during the transition. A lesson learned by HART was to establish a designated project manager and accountant rather than having several people take on different roles and responsibilities. HART identified that there were many nuances that took additional internal coordination by having different employees assigned to different roles and responsibilities, and the process would have been more efficient with one designated project manager. HART determined, after the initial learning-curve phase was completed, their program would require the support of a full-time, designated project manager and approximately 50% of an accountant full-time equivalent. It is recommended to perform a cost-benefit analysis when deciding to implement a joint fare structure. However, this could be challenging since there are benefits that are not quantifiable. Putting a value to qualitative benefits would be subjective and would be based on agency input and public opinion. A cost- benefit analysis would include factors such as:  Qualitative: ridership satisfaction, ease of use, and encouragement/increase of ridership  Quantitative: administrative fees, bank account fees, potential loss of revenue, and start-up costs (hardware, software, mobile application development, and so forth) Since the policy would result in an initial loss of revenue, it is not recommended to pursue a joint fare structure until both agencies value the qualitative benefits despite the costs. Pursuing a joint fare structure in the future may be based on factors such as number of and ridership of regional routes, demand for additional regional routes, and ridership survey feedback and requests. 5.2 Fare Policy Recommendation Since the proposed additional regional route would be operated by a CAT bus and there is only one existing regional route, which is operated by a LinC bus, it is recommended to maintain the existing separate fare structure, where each agency charges their own fares and retains revenues on their own respective vehicles. A meeting between CAT, LeeTran, and Collier MPO was held on November 21, 2023, to discuss the fare policy for the proposed route and advantages and disadvantages of a separate versus joint fare structure. As a result of the meeting and fare policy analysis, it was agreed to pursue a separate fare structure for the new regional route. The separate fare structure will follow the policy used with the existing LinC route operated by LeeTran. The separate fare structure provides the most cost-effective option, avoiding the need to develop an agreement for shared revenue collection and distribution and installing/replacing compatible fare collection systems on vehicles. Under the separate fare structure, CAT will operate the new route and charge CAT fares. CAT will be responsible for all capital and annual costs related to the operation of the route, except for the costs associated with the bus stop in Lee County. All fares collected by the new route will be retained by CAT, the existing LinC route will continue to be owned and operated by LeeTran, and each agency would now be responsible for one of the two cross-county transit services between Collier and Lee counties. After the new regional route is established, it is recommended to evaluate ridership on this route as a percentage of the overall regional ridership. It is also recommended that ridership feedback be obtained from both Collier County and Lee County residents to gauge their values related to seamless payment and/or regional pass options. CAT and LeeTran should reevaluate the pros and cons of a joint fare 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 5-4 structure when additional regional routes are proposed. However, since only one additional regional route is proposed as part of this Study a separate fare structure is recommended. For long-term goals, if a joint fare structure is desired by both agencies, it is recommended to begin discussions between CAT and LeeTran and document a plan and vision for revenue sharing in the future. Developing an agreement on the terms and conditions of a joint fare structure and revenue sharing will be a long and iterative process. Therefore, beginning conversations early will expedite the process when both agencies are ready to implement. When implementing a joint fare structure, it is recommended to develop a seamless payment option such as the Flamingo Fares application managed by HART. A similar payment program could help facilitate cross-county travel and provide an efficient process for CAT and LeeTran. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 6-1 6. Regional Travel Pattern and Market Analysis A comprehensive regional travel pattern and market analysis was performed to develop priority O-D pairs that could be developed into candidate corridors for the proposed cross-county transit route. Existing travel patterns between Collier and Lee counties were analyzed for movements that would benefit most from a new regional transit service. Travel patterns and cross-county transit needs were evaluated using:  O-D Data  CAT and LeeTran Ridership  Key Activity Centers and Workforce Commutes  U.S. Census Data and Demographics  Existing TDPs The Collier MPO Origin-Destination (O-D) Report (hereinafter, “O-D Report”) data were used and sorted to identify trips between Collier and Lee counties to identify regional travel patterns. The Collier County and Lee County planning communities were used in this analysis and are referred to as subareas. Highest- frequency trips between Collier and Lee counties were analyzed for the number of daily trips generated between subareas. These high-frequency O-D pairs were then evaluated to identify priority pairs that would benefit most from a new regional transit connection. Based on the O-D Report data, the top-four trips from Collier County to Lee County were:  North Naples to Bonita Springs  Urban Estates to Bonita Springs  City of Naples to Bonita Springs  Immokalee to Lehigh Acres The top-four trips from Lee County to Collier County were:  Bonita Springs to North Naples  Fort Myers to North Naples  Estero to North Naples  Lehigh Acres to Immokalee Each of these origins in Collier and Lee counties were evaluated for their top-three cross-county destinations. Bonita Springs was the most frequent destination for three of the top-four origins in Collier County, so Bonita Springs was evaluated as the destination in three separate O-D pairs. Additionally, North Naples was the most frequent destination for three of the top-four trips from Lee County and was evaluated similarly. This analysis is summarized in Appendix C. The goal of the analysis was to identify priority O-D pairs to be evaluated as potential regional transit corridors. The U.S Census and demographic data were used to evaluate O-D pairs for those who use public transit. U.S. Census data for the following characteristics were used:  For workers 16 years old and older - Who use public transportation as means to get to work - Who use public transportation as means to get to work and are below 100% of the poverty level - Who use public transportation as means to get to work and work outside their county of residence  Who live in a household with no vehicles available 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 6-2 In addition to the evaluation of O-D Report data and U.S. Census data, key activity and major employment centers were identified to determine workforce commutes. The existing TDPs and LRTPs for both Collier and Lee counties were also evaluated for existing commuter patterns and public transportation demand. Both the CAT and LeeTran TDPs identify two regional transit corridors as future needs. These regional corridors were evaluated to serve as potential regional connections between Collier County and Lee County and were evaluated as candidate corridors. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 7-1 7. Candidate Corridor Development The Collier MPO O-D Report data were used to identify existing cross-county travel patterns. According to the O-D Report, more than 90,000 trips per day begin in Collier County and end in Lee County, with an additional 38,000 daily trips passing through Collier County (Tindale-Oliver 2022). Since the data from the O-D Report were collected from all trip types (for example, car, truck, taxi, transit, and so forth) the travel patterns did not identify transit-related trips only. To evaluate transit needs, the O-D pairs were analyzed against U.S. Census and demographic data for those who reported using public transportation as their means to get to work. The O-D pairs were also evaluated against factors such as key activity and major employment centers and workforce commutes to identify routes to support regional and economic benefits. For the O-D pairs that were not already identified as a recommended route in the latest Collier County and Lee County TDPs and LRTPs, these O-D pairs were identified as potential candidate corridors. Figure 7-1 displays the methodology used to evaluate the top O-D pairs to identify potential candidate corridors. Figure 7-1. Candidate Corridor Development Methodology The candidate corridors were developed based on the O-D Report data for cross-county travel, then evaluated against key activity centers, workforce commutes, U.S. Census data, and existing ridership data. The two proposed regional corridors identified in the CAT and LeeTran TDPs were evaluated as candidate corridors, and the travel pattern and market analyses determined if any additional candidate corridors should be evaluated. Additional candidate corridors were developed using identified priority O-D pairs evaluated against the existing transit networks, the existing corridors identified in the TDPs, and the U.S. Census data. Additionally, feedback from public involvement and outreach was evaluated for additional potential candidate corridors that were not identified by the regional travel pattern and market analyses. However, no new regional candidate corridors were identified based on public comments. 7.1 UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route The proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route (refer to Figure 7-2) is a candidate corridor that would connect Immokalee in Collier County to Lehigh Acres in Lee County. This route was identified in both the CAT and LeeTran TDPs. According to the Collier MPO O-D Report data, 2,600 trips occur between this O-D pair daily. This proposed route would connect Immokalee to the UF/IFAS campus in Collier County and 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 7-2 Lehigh Acres in Lee County via County Road 846, State Road (SR) 29, and SR 82. The TDPs identified the endpoint in Lehigh Acres at the new Lehigh Acres Park-and-Ride Transfer Facility at the intersection of Williams Avenue and Village Lakes Boulevard. This park-and-ride is expected for completion in early 2025 (Lee County Government 2023). The TDP identified the other endpoint in Immokalee at the Immokalee Health Department. The County plans to improve the Immokalee Health Department Transfer Station to construct a bus bay with shelter and amenities, which received Tiger Grant funding. Based on the O-D Report data, 42% of all external travel from Immokalee to Lee County ends in the Lehigh Acres subarea, making it the largest proportion of external trips from Immokalee. Due to the current absence of regional transit connection between the two subareas, if commuters travel from Lehigh Acres to Immokalee via public transit, they must first travel to Fort Myers, then to Naples on the LinC bus, and finally transfer to another bus that would take them to Immokalee. The addition of a regional connection between these two isolated subareas would reduce travel time by 91.7% for commuters using public transit. Additionally, based on U.S. Census data, the Immokalee area (Zip Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) 34142) consistently ranks highest for populations that use public transit as their main mode of transportation, are below the poverty level, and work outside of their county of residence. Figure 7-2. Proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route 7.2 I-75 Premium Express The proposed I-75 Premium Express provides a direct route between Collier County and Lee County via I-75. According to the CAT and LeeTran TDPs and the LeeTran Evolve Network GIS data, the endpoints for this corridor in Collier County and Lee County vary.  The CAT TDP identifies the Lee County endpoint at Gulf Coast Town Center in the San Carlos subarea and the Collier County endpoint at the Collier County Government Center.  Section 9, page 9-8, of the LeeTran TDP identifies the Lee County endpoint at Southwest Florida International Airport (RSW) in the Airport/Gateway subarea, but also identifies the Lee County endpoint at Florida Gulf Coast University when referencing the CAT TDP. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 7-3  The LeeTran Evolve Network GIS data identify the endpoint in Collier County connecting to CAT Route 20 near I-75 on Pine Ridge Road. Due to the various endpoints identified for this corridor, three potential alignment options were evaluated. Options 1 and 2 were based on the TDPs and Evolve Network GIS data. Option 3 was developed as a result of an O-D data analysis discussion with CAT, LeeTran, Collier MPO, and Lee MPO. Option 1: This route would connect the Collier County Government Center in Collier County and the Gulf Coast Town Center in Lee County (Figure 7-3). Figure 7-3. Proposed I-75 Premium Express – Option 1 Option 2: This route would connect at Pine Ridge Road near the I-75 interchange in Collier County and provide two drop-off locations in Lee County, RSW and the Forum on Colonial Boulevard (Figure 7-4). 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 7-4 Figure 7-4. Proposed I-75 Premium Express – Option 2 Option 3: This route would connect the Collier County Government Center with two drop-off points in Lee County, at RSW and the Forum on Colonial Boulevard. 7.3 Urban Estates and Bonita Springs The Urban Estates subarea produces the second-greatest number of external trips from Collier County to Lee County, with Bonita Springs as the top destination, generating more than 6,000 trips daily. Currently, there is no existing regional transit route connecting these two planning communities. If travelers want to get to Bonita Springs via public transit, they will first need to travel west to the Creekside Transfer Station to board the LinC bus, which provides a drop-off point in Estero. A potential regional corridor from Urban Estates would be beneficial to populations in eastern Collier County that currently do not have a regional service connecting to Lee County. The proposed route from Urban Estates to Bonita Springs (as shown in Figure 7-5) would use Livingston Road (Collier County) and Imperial Parkway (Lee County) as its main thoroughfares and connect to the existing LinC bus in Bonita Springs. This would eliminate the need for travelers whose origins are east of Livingston Road to travel west to the Creekside Transfer Station first for the LinC bus. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 7-5 Figure 7-5. Urban Estates and Bonita Springs An alternative to this route would continue north into Estero, connecting with the existing LinC route at the Coconut Point Transfer Station. Final endpoints will be determined if this corridor is recommended to move forward as the recommended route. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 8-1 8.Public Involvement Public input was collected to obtain feedback, and public participation was encouraged throughout the planning process. The following public engagement methods were used: Public input surveys (online and paper format) Interviews of CAT bus riders Interviews of bus operators Agency input Public outreach methods for the Study included email notifications, printed advertisements, website links, news articles, and social media posts. All materials were provided in English and Spanish versions, and a contact email was provided for those who needed assistance in Creole, to ensure public engagement materials were accessible to all community members. This included published materials such as email blasts, printed advertisements, and webpages. 8.1 Public Input Survey A regional public input survey was developed for distribution in Collier and Lee counties. Survey questions were developed in coordination with CAT, LeeTran, and Collier MPO. Questions were developed to obtain public input on each of the proposed candidate corridors and provide participants with an opportunity to identify any additional routes to evaluate. Survey questions were developed to obtain feedback on transit- related origins and destinations, frequency of cross-county travel, purpose of travel, and frequency of use for existing routes and candidate corridors. The public involvement feedback was evaluated for potential candidate corridors that were not identified by the regional travel pattern and market analyses. However, no new regional candidate corridors were identified based on public comments. 8.1.1 Survey Advertisements A survey advertisement was prepared and included website links and quick response (QR) codes to the English and Spanish online surveys and included a contact for assistance in Creole. The survey advertisement was posted at various CAT and LeeTran bus stops as well as onboard their buses. Paper copies of the survey were also provided aboard CAT buses. The survey advertisement was also provided via email to CAT stakeholders and posted on various webpages and social media outlets including: Collier County and Lee County MPO Websites Collier County and Lee County MPO Newsletters CAT Webpage CAT Facebook Page Collier County Facebook Page (English and Spanish versions) Collier County X (formerly Twitter) Page Lee County MPO sent survey information to various boards and committees including their: Technical Advisory Committee Citizen Advisory Committee Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinating Committee Traffic Management and Operations Committee Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 8-2 In addition to local agency notifications, the regional survey was also posted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Transit Office on the following platforms:  FDOT Commute Connector App: A message was sent to app users in the Collier/Lee County range.  Social Media: Multiple posts were made to Instagram, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn up until the survey end date. Appendix D provides copies of all survey advertisement distributions. 8.1.2 Onboard Survey Results Paper copies of the onboard survey were provided on select CAT buses to collect feedback from bus riders in Collier County. These surveys were available from November 20, 2023, to January 3, 2024. There were no onboard paper surveys received, as all participants elected to take the online version. 8.1.3 Online Survey Results The online survey was available from November 20, 2023, to January 3, 2024. Copies of the online survey responses are provided in Appendix D, in the Online Survey Summary section. In total, there were 199 responses to the online survey, with 194 responses to the English version and 5 responses to the Spanish version. No requests for a Creole translation of the survey were received. Since the survey was distributed to both current transit riders and non-transit riders and a large majority of participants (approximately 70%) identified they do not typically ride the bus. Therefore, the survey results were sorted for:  Results from all participants (199 total)  Participants who currently ride CAT or LeeTran buses (59 of the 199 responses). Questions 12 and 13 asked participants to rank the proposed corridors or propose a different route to serve their needs. In Question 12, participants were asked to rank the proposed regional routes in order of most preferred to least preferred. A summary of first-place rankings for all participants is shown on Figure 8-1. The top choice was I-75 Premium Express – Option 2, with 30% of the first-place rankings. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 8-3 Figure 8-1. Question 12 Responses – All Participants Among bus riders only, the top choice was the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route, with 31% of the first- place rankings (refer to Figure 8-2). Figure 8-2. Question 12 Responses – Bus Riders Only In Question 13, participants were asked to propose any additional cross-county routes they would like to see implemented to satisfy their regional transit needs. They were asked to provide starting points, endpoints, and main roadways of travel. Of these responses, some of the suggested routes would align with one or more of the proposed candidate corridors. For instance, one participant suggested to connect Immokalee to Colonial Boulevard in Fort Myers. Therefore, the proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres route would serve that O-D pair by providing a UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres 23% I-75 Premium Express - Option 1 24% I-75 Premium Express - Option 2 30% Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway Route 14% Other Route 9% Q12: If one of these proposed regional connections were implemented, which one would you prefer? Please rank from most preferred to least preferred. UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres 31% I-75 Premium Express - Option 1 20% I-75 Premium Express - Option 2 16% Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway Route 25% Other Route 8% Q12: If one of these proposed regional connections were implemented, which one would you prefer? Please rank from most preferred to least preferred. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 8-4 connection from Immokalee to Lehigh Acres in Lee County, where riders may then connect to a LeeTran bus that will go to Colonial Boulevard. Reponses to this question did not result in a significant need to evaluate an additional route, as many of the suggested routes either already aligned with a proposed corridor or were outside the extent to which the new regional route will reach. 8.2 Interviews Interviews of bus operators and riders at select bus stops were performed by CAT staff to obtain input on the proposed candidate corridors and identify any additional transit needs and service gaps. Feedback obtained from these interviews were used to help determine regional transit needs between CAT and LeeTran. Copies of interview questions and responses are provided in Appendix D. 8.2.1 Bus Operator Interviews A LeeTran bus operator who operates the LinC route was interviewed. The operator was asked questions regarding ridership, anticipated traffic delays, and route logistics for each candidate corridor. They were also given an opportunity to provide their own suggestions for cross-county services. Key takeaways from this interview included:  The LinC bus is typically very crowded during peak morning hours.  The LinC bus becomes less crowded after 10:30 a.m.  Connections between LeeTran and CAT are sometimes difficult to manage because of communication issues. 8.2.2 Bus Stop Interviews Two interviews were conducted at the Creekside Transfer Station in Collier County to obtain input from existing riders about regional service needs. The key takeaway from the first interview is that the participant indicated that they began their trip in Lehigh Acres (Lee County) and their final destination was in Immokalee (Collier County). For this trip, the rider must complete a total of five transfers. This participant ranked the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route as most preferred. The second interviewee identified the Urban Estates and Bonita Springs Route as their preferred route since they were traveling from Old U.S. 41 in Bonita Springs to Immokalee Road in North Naples. No transfers were required to complete their trip using the LinC route. 8.3 Agency Reviews Agency input was received throughout the planning process from CAT, LeeTran, Collier MPO, and Lee MPO staff. Several meetings were held on the travel pattern and market analyses and the candidate corridor development process. Meetings between CAT and LeeTran were conducted to facilitate discussions regarding the fare policy for the proposed route and analysis of separate versus joint fare structures. In a meeting on November 22, 2023, the travel pattern and market analyses were discussed with CAT, LeeTran, Collier MPO, and Lee MPO. Key takeaways from this discussion included:  Both counties indicated that the identified O-D pairs based on the data analysis are consistent with observed traffic patterns in Collier and Lee counties. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 8-5  The proposed candidate corridors are viable options for a new regional route and should be evaluated further. Further coordination was performed regarding the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route as the recommended route. All team members agreed to move forward with developing the recommended corridor. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 9-1 9. Candidate Corridor Evaluation and Ranking A quantitative and qualitative methodology was developed to evaluate and rank the candidate corridors to determine the recommended corridor to implement as the new cross-county transit route. The candidate corridors evaluated included:  UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route  I-75 Premium Express – Option 1: Collier County Government Center to Gulf Coast Town Center  I-75 Premium Express – Option 2: Pine Ridge Road to RSW and the Forum  I-75 Premium Express – Option 3: Collier County Government Center to RSW and the Forum  Urban Estates and Bonita Springs Route The ranking criteria were developed with scoring factors including but not limited to U.S. Census data, O-D Report data, proximity to key activity centers and transfer stations, and reduction in user travel time. The ranking criteria helped identify the candidate corridor recommended for implementation. The evaluation criteria developed provide a numerical scoring for each candidate corridor evaluated. The evaluation used a weighted point system that was applied using a score of 0 to10 with a weight from 1 to 3. The score weighting assigned was based on the following criteria to serve cross-county transit needs: Basic benefit Moderate benefit Extreme benefit A total score was then generated based on the scores and weights for each question, with a maximum possible score of 270 points. A percentage was then calculated to give the candidate corridor an overall score. Attachment 2 of Appendix C includes the completed Corridor Evaluation Forms for each candidate corridor. Table 9-1 summarizes the scores for each candidate corridor. The UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route ranked first, indicating it would provide the greatest benefit based on cross-county transit needs. Table 9-1. Candidate Corridor Ranking Ranking Candidate Corridor Score Percentage 1 UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route (Immokalee to Lehigh Acres) 220/270 81.48% 2 I-75 Premium Express – Option 2 (Pine Ridge Road to RSW and the Forum) 178/270 65.93% 3 I-75 Premium Express – Option 3 (Collier County Government Center to RSW and the Forum) 168/270 62.22% 4 Urban Estates and Bonita Springs Route (Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway Route) 133/270 49.26% 5 I-75 Premium Express – Option 1 (Collier County Government Center to Gulf Coast Town Center) 128/270 47.41% 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 10-1 10. Scenario Development and Recommendations A proposed plan for the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route was developed, which included aspects such as bus stop locations, service frequency, span of service, turnaround, layovers, rest areas, and vehicles. The proposed route was developed as a new CAT-operated route. During the process of route development, it was determined the quickest route through Lehigh Acres to reach the park-and-ride transfer station is to take Homestead Road South, which decreases the travel distance by approximately 1.7 miles. 10.1 Proposed Stops and Schedule It is recommended that the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route, as identified in Figure 10-1, provides pickup and drop-off service at the following locations: Collier County Bus Stops:  Immokalee Health Department Transfer Facility: This is an existing CAT bus stop transfer location in Immokalee that connects Immokalee Circulators (Routes 22 and 23) and Route 19. The Immokalee Health Department has funding from a Tiger Grant awarded in 2018 to construct a bus transfer station with amenities that will provide parking and a bus turnaround within the site. This facility is under construction and expected to be completed by late 2024. This transfer station will serve as the starting point for the proposed route and will serve as a turnaround point for the route’s inbound and outbound service. This bus stop is located at 419 North 1st Street, Immokalee, Florida 34142.  UF/IFAS Satellite Campus bus stop: Based on public comment from the CAT TDP, a bus stop at the UF/IFAS satellite campus was identified for the proposed route between Immokalee and Lehigh Acres. However, it was noted that roadway constraints prevent buses from entering and exiting the campus (Tindale-Oliver 2020). - A bus stop is recommended along the existing southbound right-turn lane to the campus located at 2685 FL-29, Immokalee, Florida 34142. This stop is proposed for the inbound service between the Lehigh Acres bus stop to the Immokalee Health Department bus stop. It is recommended that the addition of bus stop amenities be evaluated once the service and stop are implemented and passenger count data are available. Lee County Bus Stop:  Lehigh Acres Park-and-Ride Transfer Facility: This facility is under construction and expected to be completed by early 2025. The new facility will operate as a park-and-ride lot and a transfer station for the Lehigh Acres area (Lee County 2023). This facility will serve as a turnaround point for the proposed route’s inbound and outbound service. The park-and-ride will be located at 1121 Village Lakes Boulevard, Lehigh Acres, Florida, 33972; it will be adjacent to the Lehigh Acres Park on Williams Avenue. The new facility will include four bus bays, parking, bicycle storage, a staff restroom, a covered waiting area, and technology-driven amenities (Lee County 2024). The LeeTran routes will be rerouted to connect to this park-and-ride once the facility is constructed. Passengers traveling from Immokalee to Fort Myers may transfer onto a LeeTran bus at this transfer station. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 10-2 Figure 10-1. Proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route with Bus Stops Maintenance of each bus stop will be the responsibility of the county agency in which it is located. Thus, the Immokalee Health Department transfer station will remain the responsibility of CAT, and the new Lehigh Acres Transfer Facility will be maintained by LeeTran. The proposed bus stop at the UF/IFAS Satellite Campus is in Collier County and, thus, would be maintained by CAT. It is recommended to provide, at the minimum, transit service during the peak AM hours and peak PM hours. Refer to Table 10-1 for a recommended route schedule. The proposed route offers 11 hours of daily service, 7 days per week, with 3 hours and 50 minutes of deadhead (includes driving to and from the CAT facility on Radio Road and a daily 2-hour and 10-minute break). The proposed route begins at 6:00 a.m. in Immokalee to provide workers traveling to Lehigh Acres time to travel to work. The last departure from Lehigh Acres is at 6:30 p.m. to provide workers who may be using transit traveling from other areas time to get to the bus stop after a typical workday finishing at 5:00 p.m. For individuals that live in Lehigh Acres and work in Immokalee, the earliest morning bus departs Lehigh Acres at 6:40 a.m., and the latest evening bus departs Immokalee at 5:50 p.m. to accommodate riders who may be traveling to and from other areas. These recommended times are based on a standard work schedule of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and were compared to existing CAT route schedules. These recommended start and end times align with the existing service hours for other bus routes servicing this area and other parts of Collier County. The number of service days was determined based on the assumption that the route would operate 7 days per week, except on major holidays when CAT does not offer any bus service. These holidays include New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day (CAT 2023). If CAT wishes to reduce the number of operating days for the new route, it is suggested to limit service on Sundays to not interfere with commuter needs during typical working days. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 10-3 Table 10-1. Proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route Schedule Outbound Inbound Immokalee Health Department Anticipated Drive Timea Lehigh Acres Park-and-Ride Transfer Facility Anticipated Drive Timea UF/IFAS Satellite Campus Anticipated Drive Timea Immokalee Health Department Layover 6:00 a.m. 40 minutes 6:40 a.m. 40 minutes 7:20 a.m. 15 minutes 7:35 a.m. 10 minutes 7:45 a.m. 45 minutes 8:30 a.m. 35 minutes 9:05 a.m. 10 minutes 9:15 a.m. 10 minutes 9:25 a.m. 40 minutes 10:05 a.m. 35 minutes 10:40 a.m. 10 minutes 10:50 a.m. 130 minutes 1:00 p.m. 40 minutes 1:40 p.m. 35 minutes 2:15 p.m. 10 minutes 2:25 p.m. 10 minutes 2:35 p.m. 40 minutes 3:15 p.m. 35 minutes 3:50 p.m. 10 minutes 4:00 p.m. 10 minutes 4:10 p.m. 45 minutes 4:55 p.m. 35 minutes 5:30 p.m. 10 minutes 5:40 p.m. 10 minutes 5:50 p.m. 40 minutes 6:30 p.m. 30 minutes 7:00 p.m. 10 minutes 7:10 p.m. a Anticipated drive time is estimated based on Google Maps drive time at each departure time period, using the longest duration from the range identified. An additional 5 minutes was added to the drive time to account for traffic delays. Note: Proposed schedule and number of trips are subject to change based on public input for service needs. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 10-4 10.2 Layover and Rest Areas It is recommended to hold the layover/rest area at the new Immokalee Health Department transfer station once it is constructed. Since the route is primarily intended to assist with workforce commutes, an additional layover is proposed between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. However, it is recommended to adjust the proposed schedule and number of trips based on public input for service needs, then reevaluate once the route is implemented based on passenger count data. 10.3 Vehicles At least one vehicle will need to be purchased to operate this new route. Based on CAT’s fleet size and the number of vehicles operating at the same time, a second bus may also be evaluated to ensure there are sufficient buses in adequate condition to serve all CAT routes, while keeping up with backup vehicle requirements and maintenance needs. CAT currently uses the Jacksonville Transit Authority (JTA) agreement for purchasing new buses. Since CAT stores all their buses at the CAT Operations Facility on Radio Road, the bus operating this proposed route will return to the CAT facility each evening after the last service, as the Immokalee Circulator (Route 23) does. If Collier County's Fleet location in Immokalee is improved to include a CAT storage facility in the future, it is recommended to store the bus at that location. 10.4 Recommended Public Outreach It is recommended to collect input on specific details of the route before a new bus route is introduced to obtain feedback from riders anticipated to use the proposed route. A public survey is recommended to obtain input on preferred times of service, service frequency, and stops and to provide insight into the anticipated demand for the proposed route and to evaluate adjustments to the proposed route based on public comment. Feedback should be solicited both online and in person. The online surveys are recommended to have English and Spanish versions available, along with an option for Creole translation. In-person surveys are recommended at select bus stops in Immokalee and Lehigh Acres. Since both areas have large Spanish- speaking populations, it is recommended in-person surveys be performed by a bilingual staff member. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 11-1 11. Cost Estimate and Funding Needs Table 11-1 provides the daily revenue and platform miles and hours per vehicle used to develop the cost estimate. Revenue and platform miles were determined using Google Maps, and hours were derived from the sample schedule shown in Table 10-1. Table 11-1. Daily Revenue and Platform Miles and Hours for the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route Travel Type Miles Travel Type Hours Daily Revenue Miles 333.3 Daily Revenue Hours 11.0 Deadhead Miles 87.2 Deadhead Hours 3.8 Daily Platform Miles 420.5 Daily Platform Hours 14.8 Tables 11-2 and 11-3 provide conceptual-level cost estimates for implementing the new regional route based on anticipated capital and annual operating expenses. The capital and annual operating costs were developed assuming only one new bus will be purchased to operate the route. If a second bus is purchased, the capital and operating costs will need to be updated to reflect an additional vehicle and its associated costs. Table 11-2. Capital Cost Estimate for the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route Expense Cost 30-foot Diesel Bus $571,000.00 Fare Collection Equipment $7,700.00 Bus Stop Improvementsa (UF/IFAS satellite campus bus stop only) $50,000.00 Total Capital Cost (2024 Dollars) $628,700.00 a Includes design and permitting The initial capital cost of implementing this new service is estimated at $628,700. The cost of a new bus was determined from CAT’s existing contract with JTA, in which CAT is contracted to purchase new buses for approximately $571,000 (Showalter, pers. comm. 2024). Cost of fare collection equipment was estimated using Collier County Contract No. 18-7266 pricing for Masabi hardware and software and accounted for inflation from 2018 to 2024 using an inflation factor from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The cost for farebox equipment includes onboard validators, software license fees, mobile routers, internal Wi-Fi antennas, and external cellular and global positioning system antennas and excluded the one-time implementation cost for deploying a new farebox collection system for CAT as identified in the contract. Since the planned improvements for the Immokalee Health Department Transfer Facility and the Lehigh Acres Park-and-Ride Transfer Facility will include amenities such as signage, shelter and benches, trash cans, and boarding and alighting (B&A) areas, bus stop improvements were not included as a capital cost at these two bus stops. The capital cost only includes costs associated with bus stop improvements at the proposed UF/IFAS Satellite Campus bus stop. Although it is recommended to evaluate passenger count data before installing additional amenities beyond signage, bus stop improvements including a shelter, trash can, bench, B&A area, and curb paint for the CAT logo design were included for estimating purposes. Costs for bus stop improvements were determined based on recent project cost data. Any right-of-way or easement requirements to construct bus stop amenities at the UF/IFAS Satellite Campus bus stop in 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 11-2 compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards will need to be evaluated based on existing right-of-way and survey data and were not included in the cost of bus stop improvements. Based on the Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans Report, the expected life of a 30-foot diesel bus is approximately 12 years but may vary based on factors such as mileage, and the expected life for a fare collection device is approximately 7 years (FTA 2007). Useful life for bus stop amenities varies based on the type of equipment. Recurring capital costs will need to be accounted for based on the useful life of the equipment or amenities. Table 11-3. Annual Operating Cost Estimate for the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route Annual Cost Type Annual Operating Cost Annual operating cost for revenue service $450,000.00 Annual deadhead operating cost $155,000.00 Total annual operating cost for platform service $605,000.00 The annual operating cost for the new route is estimated at $605,000 and was developed using data provided by CAT. CAT’s current operating cost for a route is approximately $112 per hour (Showalter, pers. comm. 2024). This operating cost was used to determine the yearly operating cost for the proposed route based on its daily hours of operation and number of service days per year. Annual operating costs include but are not limited to diesel fuel, materials and supplies, maintenance, and bus operator salaries. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 12-1 12. Funding Opportunities Tables 12-1 and 12-2 identify a list of potential federal and state funding opportunities for the new regional route. Potential federal and state grant funding opportunities were identified from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), FDOT, and the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD). Since the proposed route uses SR 29 and SR 82, both of which are identified within the FDOT’s State Highway System, additional funding options are available at the state level. Terms and conditions should be evaluated, which may include requirements such as matching federal and state funding with local funds. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 12-2 12.1 Federal Funding Funding opportunities are available at the federal level from the FTA. Potential grants to help fund the proposed regional corridor are summarized in Table 12-1. Table 12-1. Federal Funding Programs Federal Funding Program Agency Description Terms Potential Eligible Status Website Source Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program – 5339(b) FTA This program provides funding opportunities for capital projects associated with replacing, rehabilitating, and/or purchasing buses and other related equipment. Funds remain available for obligation for four fiscal years. The federal share of eligible capital costs is limited to 80%, or 85% of the cost of a low- or no-emission transit bus. Eligible Projects: Purchasing buses to operate the new regional route. Eligible Recipients: Local government entities that operate fixed-route bus service. https://www.transit.do t.gov/bus-program Low or No Emission Grant Program – 5339(c) FTA This program provides funding to state and local governments for the purchase or lease of zero- or low- emission transit buses and related supporting facilities. The federal share of the cost of leasing or purchasing a transit bus is not to exceed 85% of the total cost of the total transit bus. The federal share in the cost of leasing or acquiring low- or no-emission bus-related equipment and facilities is 90% of the net project cost. The bus purchased using these funds must be a zero- or low-emission vehicle. Eligible Projects: Purchasing zero- or low-emission transit buses to operate the new regional route. Note: CAT could use this grant to purchase a zero-emission bus to operate an existing route best served by zero emissions (with access to charging), then use another bus within the fleet for this proposed route. Eligible Recipients: Direct or designated recipients of FTA grants; local government authorities. https://www.transit.do t.gov/lowno 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 12-3 Federal Funding Program Agency Description Terms Potential Eligible Status Website Source Formula Grants for Rural Areas - 5311 FTA Aids states to support public transportation in rural areas with populations of less than 50,000, where many residents rely on public transit. Federal share is 80% for capital projects and 50% for operating assistance. States must spend at least 15% of their yearly apportionment on the development of intercity public transportation. Eligible Projects: Planning; Public transportation capital projects; operating costs of equipment and facilities for use in public transportation. Note: The population of Immokalee is less than 50,000. Eligible Recipients: States; subrecipients include state or local government authorities and public transit agencies. https://www.transit.do t.gov/rural-formula- grants-5311 https://www.transit.do t.gov/funding/grants/f act-sheet-formula- grants-rural-areas 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 12-4 12.2 State Funding Funding opportunities at the state level are offered through FDOT and the CTD. Potential funding opportunities are summarized in Table 12-2. Table 12-2. State Funding Programs State Funding Program Agency Description Terms Potential Eligible Status Website Source Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) FDOT Encourages regional planning by providing state matching funds for improvements to regionally significant transportation facilities. The FDOT will pay up to 50% of the non- federal share of project costs for public transportation facility projects. Eligible projects must:  Serve national, state, or regional functions as an integrated system.  Be identified in the local government’s comprehensive plan as a capital improvement (in compliance with Part II, Chapter 163, F.S.).  Be identified in the MPO’s LRTP, STIP, and TIP.  Align with the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) (Section 339.64, F.S.).  Comply with local policies regarding corridor management.  Have local, regional, or private matching funds. Requires participants to form an interlocal agreement and develop a transportation plan that prioritizes regionally significant facilities. Eligible Projects: Costs associated with forming an interlocal agreement between separate transportation jurisdictions for a regional transit route. Capital costs associated with the regional transit route (includes buses, equipment, and bus stop facilities). Eligible Recipients: Two or more contiguous MPOs; one or more MPOs and one or more contiguous counties that are not members of an MPO; two or more contiguous counties that are not members of an MPO. https://www.fdot.gov/pr ogrammanagement/LP/ TRIP/Default.shtm https://fdotwww.blob.cor e.windows.net/sitefinity/ docs/default- source/programmanage ment/lp/trip/tripfactshe et2019.pdf?sfvrsn=de1e b8_8 https://m.flsenate.gov/S tatutes/339.2819 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 12-5 State Funding Program Agency Description Terms Potential Eligible Status Website Source State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Loans FDOT Provides loans and credit enhancements for transportation improvement projects. Provides 50% of project cost or 50% of non-federal share. Includes flexible repayment plans. Projects must benefit mobility or be on the State Highway System (SHS). Projects from TRIP are also eligible. Projects must meet guidelines under Title 23, United States Code (USC) or be eligible capital projects defined under Section 5032 or Title 49 USC. Eligible Projects: Capital projects associated with purchasing equipment for public transit use (includes buses). Projects that seek to improve public transportation service (includes bus shelters). Eligible Recipients: Public transit agencies. https://www.fdot.gov/co mptroller/pfo/sib.shtm https://www.fdot.gov/co mptroller/pfo/sib- faqs.shtm https://www.law.cornell. edu/uscode/text/49/53 02 State Public Transit Block Grant Program FDOT FDOT awards funds eligible by FTA Sections 5311 and 5339. Must be incorporated into MPO plan and TIP. Design, construction, and land acquisition of public transit facility capital projects. Eligible Projects: Purchasing buses to operate the new regional route; Public transportation capital projects; operating costs of equipment and facilities for use in public transportation. Note: The population of Immokalee is less than 50,000. Eligible Recipients: Public transit agencies. http://www.leg.state.fl.us /Welcome/index.cfm (under 341.052 f.s.) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 12-6 State Funding Program Agency Description Terms Potential Eligible Status Website Source Innovative Service Development Grant CTD CTD awards funds for a portion of passenger trips provided to eligible transportation disadvantaged individuals. Funding from this program provides 90% of project costs, and the applicant must provide a 10% match from local sources. Projects must address at least one of the program objectives. • Increase transportation disadvantaged person’s access to daily activities that could include employment, education, medical and shopping, etc. • Enhance regional connectivity and cross-county mobility. • Reduce the difficulty in connecting transportation disadvantaged persons to a transportation hub and from the hub to their final destination. Eligible Projects: Funding a portion of passenger trips provided to eligible individuals who are transportation disadvantaged, as defined in s. 427.011(1), F.S. A trip funded under this grant is considered a one-way trip that is not paid for by any other federal, state, or local government program for an eligible individual who meets the definition of transportation disadvantaged. Note: Capital equipment is not eligible for reimbursement under this grant program. Eligible Recipients: A Community Transportation Coordinator who has executed a Memorandum of Agreement and Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan. https://www.fdot.gov/ct d/grants https://fdotwww.blob.cor e.windows.net/sitefinity/ docs/default- source/ctd/docs/grantdo cs/2024- 25_innovative_svc_dev_p rogram_manual_instructi ons.pdf?sfvrsn=fd48b11 5_1 F.S. = Florida Statute; STIP = State Transportation Improvement Program; TIP = Transportation Improvement Program 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 13-1 13. Conclusion and Recommendations With the growth in both Collier County and Lee County, the need for additional regional transit options has increased. The O-D pair that demonstrated the most significant need was Immokalee and Lehigh Acres. This route was identified as a transit need in both the CAT and LeeTran TDPs, and both Immokalee and Lehigh Acres demonstrate a significant transit need, with large portions of their populations reporting they rely on public transit as their main mode of transportation. Additionally, there is currently no public transit route that connects these two areas directly. It is recommended that CAT pursue implementing the proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route to provide this transit connection between Collier and Lee counties. The proposed route is recommended to follow a separate fare structure, where the route is owned and operated by CAT, and CAT will:  Charge CAT fares aboard the regional bus  Retain all revenue collected through the route It is recommended to collect public outreach on specific details of the proposed route to obtain feedback on preferred times of service, frequency, and stops and to obtain insight on anticipated demand. In addition, costs should be evaluated after public feedback is collected if additional stops are requested which may increase the routes travel distance and impact operating time. With the introduction of this proposed regional transit service, commuters will have access to a direct route connecting Immokalee and Lehigh Acres. As a result, the proposed route will support economic growth between these communities and provide needed connectivity for commuters who rely on public transit. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 14-1 14. References Broward County Transit. 2023. Fares and Passes. Accessed July 2023. https://www.broward.org/BCT/Pages/FaresPasses.aspx Collier Area Transit. 2023. Fare Information. Accessed August 2023. https://www.ridecat.com/fares- passes/fare-information/ Collier County Board of County Commissioners. 2011. Interlocal Agreement for Transit Service Between Collier County and Lee County. March 1. https://www.leegov.com/interlocals/Agreements1/2011%20Mar%201%20Collier%20Transit%200301 11R-c7a-interlocal-collierCnty.pdf Elkin, Janina, Director, GoPasco. 2023. Personal communication (email) with Sonal Dodia, Jacobs. June 8. Florida Department of Transportation. 2022. 95 Express Bus. Accessed July 2023. https://95express.com/express-bus/ Florida Department of Transportation. 2019. 595 Express Bus Overview. Accessed July 2023. https://www.595express.info/expressbus.shtm Hernando County, Florida. n.d. Fares and Passes. Accessed July 2023. https://www.hernandocounty.us/departments/departments-n-z/transit-thebus/fares-passes Hillsborough Area Regional Transit. n.d. HART Farecards. Accessed July 2023. https://www.gohart.org/Pages/fares-cards.aspx Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. 2016. Memorandum of Understanding for the Regional Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project. Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. 2017a. Interlocal Agreement Between Hillsborough Transit Authority and Hernando County for the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project. Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. 2017b. Interlocal Agreement Between Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority and Pasco County for the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter- Jurisdictional Mobility Project. Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. 2017c. Interlocal Agreement Between Hillsborough Transit Authority and Sarasota County for the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project. Hillsborough Transit Authority. 2016. Governance, Administration and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, January 25, 2016. January 25. https://www.gohart.org/Style%20Library/goHART/pdfs/board/GAO%20Committee%20Packet%201- 25-2016.pdf Hillsborough Transit Authority. 2017. Finance and Audit Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, April 17, 2017. April 17. https://www.gohart.org/Style%20Library/goHART/pdfs/board/4-17- 17%20Finance%20and%20Audit%20Committee%20Packet.pdf Huff, Dawn. Planning and Scheduling Manager, LeeTran. 2023. Personal communication (email) with Sonal Dodia, Jacobs. August 11. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 14-2 Lee County. 2024. LeeTran Current Projects. Accessed May 2023. https://www.leegov.com/leetran/about- leetran/current-projects. Lee County Government. 2023. Lee Commissioners approve contracts to build LeeTran Park and Ride in Lehigh Acres. December 5. LeeTran. 2023. Fares and Passes. Accessed June 2023. https://www.leegov.com/leetran/fares-passes Lewis, Brandon. 2023. The Future of Paying for Public Transit Will Bring Better Connection. Accessed August 2023. https://www.masstransitmag.com/technology/fare-collection/article/53060562/the- future-of-paying-for-public-transit-will-bring-better-connections Lui, Megan. Planning and Performance Manager, Sarasota County Breeze Transit. 2023. Personal communication (email) with Sonal Dodia, Jacobs. August 2. Manatee County Area Transit. 2022. MCAT Is Now Fare-Free. Accessed November 2023. https://manatee.hosted.civiclive.com/departments/mcat/announcements/mcat_is_now_fare-free Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. 2016. Second Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement for Inter-County Transit Service Between Manatee County and Sarasota County. Miami-Dade County. 2023. Metrobus Routes and Schedules. Accessed July 2023. https://www.miamidade.gov/transportation-publicworks/routes.asp Miami-Dade County. 2023. Plan Your Trip. Accessed July 2023. https://www.miamidade.gov/global/transportation/metrobus.page McCoy, Barney, Assistant General Manager, Broward County Transit. 2023. Personal communication (email) with Sonal Dodia, Jacobs. July 27. Monroe County. n.d. Monroe County Transit. Accessed July 2023. https://www.monroecounty- fl.gov/1295/Transit Montgomery, Susan, Transit Planner, Manatee County Area Transit. 2023. Personal communication (email) with Sonal Dodia, Jacobs. August 28. Nunez, Emmanuel, Manager of Revenue and Retail Sales, Hillsborough Area Regional Transit. 2023. Personal communication (meeting) with Felicia Kirby, Jacobs and Sonal Dodia, Jacobs. August 17. Pasco County Board of County Commissioners. 2022a. Agenda Memorandum: Termination Letter- Hillsborough Area Regional Transit-To Terminate the Interlocal Agreement for the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project-No Funding Required. January 11. https://civicclerk.blob.core.windows.net/stream/pascocofl/13181cd3-70a7-459c-b69e- 6306f9468381.pdf?sv=2015-12- 11&sr=b&sig=1C%2BiuXnbujL6gECcNi2Gp7CbPrUERT3gH1dx5u1e4Vw%3D&st=2022-11- 04T15%3A49%3A25Z&se=2023-11-04T15%3A54%3A25Z&sp=r&rscc=no- cache&rsct=application%2Fpdf Pasco County Board of County Commissioners. 2022b. Pasco County eFare Agreement Termination Letter. June 6. Pasco County Public Transit. n.d. GoPasco Fares and Passes. Accessed July 2023. https://pascocountyfl.net/1088/Fares-and-Passes 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 240223165322_9EE1B030 14-3 Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority. 2023. Tickets and Fares. Accessed July 2023. https://www.psta.net/riding-psta/tickets-and-fares/ Rea, Brian. 2023. “TBARTA votes to dissolve itself, cease operations by end of year.” Spectrum News. January 20. Accessed August 2023. https://baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2023/01/20/tbarta-votes-to- dissolve-itself--cease-operations-by-end-of-year Sarasota County. n.d. Breeze Routes. Accessed July 2023. https://www.scgov.net/government/breeze- transit/breeze-routes#16609_22186_88001 Showalter, Alexander, Senior Planner, Collier Area Transit. 2023a. Personal communication (email) with Felicia Kirby, Jacobs. October 24. Showalter, Alexander, Senior Planner, Collier Area Transit. 2023b. Personal communication (email) with Sonal Dodia, Jacobs. August 29. Tindale-Oliver. 2020a. Collier Area Transit Ten-Year Transit Development Plan 2021-2030. Prepared for Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization. October. https://www.ridecat.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/03/CAT-TDP-2021-2030_FINAL-REPORT.pdf Tindale-Oliver. 2020b. LeeTran-Lee County Transit Transit Development Plan. Prepared for Lee County Transit. November. https://www.leegov.com/leetran/PublishingImages/LeeTran%20TDP- %20Final%20Report%20(1).pdf Tindale-Oliver. 2020c. Envision 2030 Regional Transit Development Plan. Prepared for Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority. June. https://www.tbarta.com/media/1752/envision-2030-rtdp_final- adopted-062220-1.pdf Tindale-Oliver. 2022. Collier MPO Origin and Destination Report. Accessed June 2023. https://www.colliermpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Final-OD-Report_Approved-12-9-22.pdf United States Census Bureau. 2015. Table 1. Residence County to Workplace County Commuting Flows for the United States and Puerto Rico Sorted by Residence Geography: 5-Year ACS, 2011-2015. Accessed June 2023. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2015/demo/metro-micro/commuting-flows-2015.html. United States Census Bureau. 2022 Census Designated Places. Accessed August 2023. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/bas/information/cdp.html United States Census Bureau. n.d. Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics. Accessed August 2023. https://data.census.gov/map?g=860XX00US33901,33903,33904,33905,33907,33908,33909,33912,3 3913,33914,33916,33917,33919,33920,33921,33922,33924,33928,33930,33931,33936,33945,339 46,33956,33957,33965,33966,33967,33971,33972,33973,33974,33975,33976,33990,33991,33993, 339XX,34101,34102,34103,34104,34105,34108,34109,34110,34112,34113,34114,34116,34117,34 119,34120,34134,34135,34137,34138,34139,34140,34141,34142,34145&tid=ACSST5Y2021.S0802 &layer=VT_2021_860_Z2_PY_D1&mode=thematic&loc=26.2573,-81.8166,z8.4296 United States Census Bureau. n.d. QuickFacts: Collier County, Florida; Lee County, Florida. Accessed June 2023. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/colliercountyflorida,leecountyflorida/PST045222. University of Florida, Department of Occupational Therapy. 2023. Find a Ride Florida. Accessed July 2023. https://findarideflorida.org/ 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Appendix A. Transportation Services Inventory 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Provider Service Area (Counties)Trip Type Special Accommodation Days of Service Hours of Service Fee Vehicle Type Source A1 Royal Transportation INC Collier, Lee Any Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility Mon-Sun 24/7 varies Car, Van https://www.a1royallimousine.com/ Amtrack Collier, Lee Any Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility, service animals, oxygen/respiratory/medication assistance Mon-Sun 24/7 varies discounts applicable towards certain age groups and the military Metro-Rail https://www.amtrak.com/regions/south.html Apple Airport Transportation Collier, Lee Any Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility Mon-Sun 24/7 varies Sedan, Van https://appletransportation.com/about-us/ Blue Bird Taxi and Yellow Cab Company Collier, Lee Any Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility Mon-Sun 24/7 varies Taxi, Van https://www.bluebirdyellowtaxi.com/taxi-rates Blue Marlin Transportation Taxi Car Service Collier, Lee Any Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility Mon-Sun 24/7 $2.75 taxi pickup fee plus $2.25/mile; additional rate varies on location Limousine/Luxury Car https://findarideflorida.org Blue Ray Transport LLC Collier, Lee Any Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility Mon-Fri 9:00AM- 5:00PM $50.00-$75.00 for local round trip Taxi, Van https://findarideflorida.org Bonita Bee Collier, Lee Any Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility Mon-Sun 9:00AM- 5:00PM varies Car, SUV, Van https://bonitabee.com/ CATConnect (CAT Paratransit Service)Collier Any (requires application)Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility Mon-Sun 24/7 by request $3.00 one way fare for ADA Varies ($1.00, $3.00, or $4.00) per one-way trip for Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Paratransit Van https://www.ridecat.com/wp- content/uploads/2022/10/Paratransit-Riders- Guide-bookEnglish-Updated-2022-Final.pdf Fallon Transport LLC Collier, Lee Medical, Elderly Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility, stair chair service, medical/elderly services Mon-Sun 8:00AM- 4:30PM Base fare varies (includes first 10 miles), plus $1.50/additional mile; Additional $25 during after hours/weekend Ambulatory Van, Non- emergency Stretcher Van, Van, Wheelchair Van https://fallontransport.com/ First Florida Limo Collier, Lee Any No Mon-Sun 24/7 varies Luxury Car, SUV, Vans, Bus, Limousine https://firstfloridalimo.com/fleet/ Fort Myers Beach Trolley and Tram Lee Any Yes - ADA upon request Mon-Sun 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM $0.75 adult fare, children under 6 free, discounted fare applicable for seniors, with disabilities, the military, and student with documentation Bus https://www.fortmyersbeach.org/trolleyinfo/ Greyhound Collier, Lee Any Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility, service animals, oxygen/respiratory/medication assistance Mon-Sun 24/7 varies Bus http://www.greyhound.com/ A1 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Provider Service Area (Counties)Trip Type Special Accommodation Days of Service Hours of Service Fee Vehicle Type Source Joseph Transportation Collier, Lee Any Yes - ADA upon request Mon-Sun 5:00AM- 12:00PM varies Limousine, Luxury Car https://www.yelp.com/biz/joseph-transportation- sarasota Lyft Collier, Lee Any No Mon-Sun 24/7 varies Car https://www.lyft.com/rider/fare-estimate My Concierge Solution Collier, Lee Any Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility Mon-Sun 24/7 $25/hour Car, Limousine/Luxury Car https://justlikefamilyhomecare.wordpress.com/cat egory/concierge-transport-services/ Passport (LeeTran Paratransit Service)Lee Any (requires application)Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility Mon-Sun 24/7 $3.00 one way fare (two times the cost of regular one way fare for fixed bus routes) for ADA and Transportation Disadvantaged Paratransit Van https://www.leegov.com/leetran/passport-(ada- service) Red Coach Collier, Lee Any Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility, service animals, oxygen/respiratory/medication assistance Mon-Sun 24/7 varies Bus https://www.redcoachusa.com/ Royal Floridian Transportation Company Lee Any Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility Mon-Sun 24/7 varies Limousine, Luxury Car, Mini-Bus https://www.royal-floridian.com/ Sanibel Double D - Taxi & Shuttle Collier, Lee Any Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility Mon-Sun 4:30PM- 1:00 AM varies Car, Limousine, Luxury Car, Mini-Bus https://sanibeldoubled.com/ Tri-County Transportation Collier, Lee Medical Yes -ADA, wheeled mobilty Mon-Sun 6:00AM - 6:00PM ambulatory van: $2.25/mile wheelchair van: flat rate $125.00 plus $3.15/mile Van http://www.tcmtransportation.com/contact/ Uber Collier, Lee Any No Mon-Sun 24/7 varies Car http://www.uber.com/ Wheelchair Gateway of Ft. Myers Collier, Lee Any Yes - ADA, wheeled mobility Mon-Fri 9:00 AM- 5:00PM $129/day - includes 100 free miles/day and $0.40/mile for mileage > 100 Van https://www.wheelchairvanrentals.com A2 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Appendix B. Technical Memorandum: Transit Investment and Policy Assessment 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Technical Memorandum: Transit Investment and Policy Assessment September 2023 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 i Contents 1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 2.Vision and Goals ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 3.Current Fare Policy between CAT and LeeTran .............................................................................................. 2 4.Transit Planning Landscape ................................................................................................................................ 3 5.Existing Neighboring Regional Transit Plans and Policies .......................................................................... 4 5.1 Joint Fare Structure – Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project .. 5 5.1.1 Hillsborough County and Pinellas County Agreement ................................................................ 7 5.1.2 Hillsborough County and Hernando County Agreement ............................................................ 7 5.1.3 Changes to Participation in the RWG ................................................................................................. 8 5.1.4 Ridership Feedback .................................................................................................................................. 8 5.2 Separate Fare Structures ..................................................................................................................................... 9 5.2.1 Hillsborough County and Pasco County Regional Routes .......................................................... 9 5.2.2 Pasco County and Hernando County Regional Routes ................................................................ 9 5.2.3 Pasco County and Pinellas County Regional Routes .................................................................... 9 5.2.4 Manatee County and Sarasota County Regional Route and Interlocal Agreement ........ 10 5.2.5 Manatee County and Pinellas County Regional Route ............................................................. 10 5.2.6 Miami-Dade County and Broward County Regional Routes ................................................... 11 5.2.7 Miami-Dade County and Monroe County Regional Routes .................................................... 11 6.Implications of Separate and Joint Fare Structures and Lessons Learned ........................................... 12 6.1 Separate Fare Structure .................................................................................................................................... 12 6.2 Joint Fare Structure ........................................................................................................................................... 12 7.Recommendation ............................................................................................................................................... 15 8.References ............................................................................................................................................................ 16 Attachments Attachment 1 Regional Route Fare Cost and Payment Comparison ................................................................. 19 Tables Table 1. CAT and LeeTran Fares and Passes ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 2. Pros and Cons of a Separate Fare Structure ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 3. Pros and Cons of a Joint Fare Structure ................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Figures Figure 1. Counties Participating in the RWG ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 2 1.Background The purpose of the Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (hereinafter, the “Study”) is to evaluate a new regional public transit corridor for Collier Area Transit (CAT) to provide service from Collier County to Lee County, connecting to the Lee County Transit system (LeeTran). Since there is only one existing regional transit connection between Collier and Lee counties, which is operated by LeeTran, this Study will propose a new, additional regional connection that would be operated by CAT. The Study includes evaluating the financial and operational impacts of implementing a joint fare structure for CAT and LeeTran to provide a “regional pass” for riders travelling between the counties. The Study will include a recommendation and plan for CAT and LeeTran to proceed with implementing this additional route using either a joint or separate fare structure. 2.Vision and Goals As identified in the Collier Area Transit Ten-Year Transit Development Plan, CAT’s vision is to provide “effective and efficient multimodal mobility services to meet the mobility needs of workers, residents, visitors, to support economic, environmental, and community benefits,” and their regional goal initiative (Initiative 3.2.1) with LeeTran is to “Continue to coordinate and partner with LeeTran to improve and expand cross-county mobility services to support workforce travel demand with a focus on commuter express routes, connecting workers to employment, and provide connections strategically to the transit networks in Lee and Collier Counties to facilitate the access to key activity centers.” (Tindale-Oliver 2020a) By evaluating a new, intercounty transit connection between Collier and Lee counties, this Study aligns with CAT’s vision to meet the needs of riders and advances their goal to increase connectivity between the transit networks. The Study also aligns with CAT’s goal for improving regional mobility services by evaluating the option of a regional pass for riders that frequently travel between both counties, without having to purchase separate bus passes in both Collier and Lee counties. The regional pass will be evaluated to serve CAT and LeeTran local or regional routes. This Study will evaluate the financial and operational implications of administering a joint fare structure to provide this regional pass to improve regional mobility. A goal of this Study is to provide successful and effective recommendations to add an additional regional route, so other counties within the State of Florida that provide regional connectivity with their neighboring counties were analyzed to evaluate their policies, best practices, and successful strategies. These neighboring intercounty transit policies, interlocal agreements, and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) were evaluated for terms and conditions between agencies such as cost allocation, route agreements, fare agreements, revenue allocation, agency responsibilities, split revenue (if applicable), and the resulting financial and operational implications of separate- and joint fare structures. 3.Current Fare Policy between CAT and LeeTran As of March 1, 2011, Collier County and Lee County entered into an interlocal agreement to provide a transit service connecting LeeTran to a CAT bus stop. This route, Route 600, also known as LinC, is operated by LeeTran and serves as the only existing regional public transit connection, providing service from Coconut Point Mall in Lee County to the Creekside Transfer Station in Collier County. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 3 The fare policy in this interlocal agreement states that “all fares charged to passengers along the designated route will be based upon LeeTran’s current fare structure,” and LeeTran will retain all fares collected by their bus (Collier County Board of County Commissioners 2011). The agreement also states that no transfers or prepaid passes may be used between CAT and LeeTran systems when using this route, though each separate agency must honor their own valid prepaid passes, permits, tickets, and transfers. 4. Transit Planning Landscape The Transit Development Plans (TDPs) for Collier and Lee counties evaluated transit needs and demand for a 10-year projection (2021–2030). These TDPs included recommendations for regional interconnectivity and identified proposed future networks and/or changes to existing routes to improve intercounty transit services. The Collier Area Transit Ten-Year Transit Development Plan 2021–2030 (Tindale-Oliver 2020a) identifies two “regional corridors” to provide additional service between Collier and Lee counties, which include:  The University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) and Lehigh Acres Route to provide a new connection between Immokalee, the UF/IFAS Research and Education Center, and Lehigh Acres (this route is also identified in the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization [MPO] 2045 Long-Range transportation Plan as a Transit Need)  The I-75 Premium Express, which would provide a connection between Collier and Lee counties through a managed transit lane (restricted/controlled access) on Interstate 75 (I-75) The LeeTran-Lee County TDP also includes these corridors as the two proposed regional routes and identifies the Lee-Collier Commuter Express on I-75 as a midterm (3- to 10-year), cross-jurisdictional need using existing lanes on I-75 or managed lanes if constructed. Note that these regional corridors will be evaluated further as part of the Study to determine their priority ranking as a potential intercounty transit route that may be incorporated into the existing CAT system. CAT uses Genfare fareboxes on all of their transit vehicles. These fareboxes accept cash, reloadable smartcards, and paper transfer tickets. Mobile tickets for CAT buses may also be purchased on the RideCAT mobile application. CAT is planning to convert all Genfare fareboxes to new Masabi fareboxes (refer to Section 6.2) According to the LeeTran TDP (2021–2030), LeeTran uses newly installed Genfare Fast Fare Systems, which offer flexible payment options to passengers on all fixed-route services in the LeeTran network. Fast Fare accepts cash, smartcards, and account-link tags, fobs, and stickers. Additionally, Fast Fare also offers mobile ticket options using Genfare’s Mobile Link program. The Mobile Link program has payment processing fees of $0.05 per transaction and 5% of the transaction amount. For the period between July 1, 2022 and June 30, 2023, LeeTran paid a total of $14,601.80. This averages $1,216.82 per month (Huff 2023). Table 1 summarizes the fare fees and pass types offered by CAT and LeeTran. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 4 Table 1. CAT and LeeTran Fares and Passes Transit Agency Regular Fare Prices Discounted Fare Prices CAT  One-way fare: $2.00  Marco Express: $3.00  Day Pass: $3.00  15-Day Pass: $20.00  30-Day Pass: $40.00  Marco Express 30-Day Pass: $70.00  One-Way: $1.00  Marco Express: $1.50  Day Pass: $1.50  15-Day Pass: $10.00  30-Day Pass: $20.00  Marco Express 30-Day Pass: $35.00  Student Summer Pass (valid June 1 through August 31 for students): $30.00  30-Day Corporate Pass (300+ Employees): $29.75 LeeTran  One-Way Fare: $1.50  All-Day Pass: $4.00  7-Day Pass: $15.00  31-Day Pass: $40.00  12-Trip Pass: $13.50  One-Way: $0.75  7-Day Pass: Senior/Disabled $11.00; Student $12.00  31-Day Pass: Senior/Disabled $23.00; Student $25.00  12-Trip Pass: Senior/Disabled $6.50; Student $6.75 Source: (Collier Area Transit 2023; LeeTran 2023) The regular fare for the LinC route is $1.50 for a one-way adult fare. Passengers using the LinC route pay this fare when boarding at any stop along this route, as all stops along the LinC route are considered LeeTran bus stops, even if they are geographically located in Collier County. 5. Existing Neighboring Regional Transit Plans and Policies As part of the Study, existing regional transit policies were evaluated between the following counties:  Joint Fare Structure - Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Hernando counties  Separate Fare Structures - Hillsborough and Pasco counties - Pasco and Hernando counties - Pasco and Pinellas counties - Manatee and Sarasota counties - Manatee and Pinellas counties - Miami-Dade and Broward counties - Miami-Dade and Monroe counties Each of these policies were evaluated for aspects including fare structures, payment programs, revenue sharing, and agency responsibilities. This section identifies and compares these aspects of the joint and separate fare structures implemented by these counties. Terms, conditions, and operational aspects of these policies are summarized in Attachment 1. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 5 5.1 Joint Fare Structure – Regional Revenue Collection and Inter- Jurisdictional Mobility Project Hillsborough County and other neighboring agencies collectively became part of the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project, which created an MOU to provide a seamless payment option and regional bus pass for riders. In the agreement, the participating counties are referred to as the Regional Working Group (RWG), which consists of the following members:  Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART)  Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA)  Hernando County Transit (TheBus) Figure 1 provides a map identifying the RWG as of 2023 and the original RWG when HART initiated the project in 2012. Refer to Section 5.1.3 for additional information regarding changes in RWG participation. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 6 Figure 1. Counties Participating in the RWG This project provides a cross-jurisdictional transit payment program, known as Flamingo Fares, which allows riders to purchase bus passes from any of the RWG members on a single mobile application. The Flamingo Fares application allows riders to purchase and manage their bus pass while also accounting for daily and monthly fare capping. The application generates a quick-response (QR) code, which serves as the bus pass the rider scans when boarding a bus. Although the MOUs were established in 2016, the Flamingo Fares payment system did not become fully functional for the Tampa Bay area until 2020. There were many aspects of the agreement to 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 7 develop/negotiate, establish, procure (fare collection system solicitation), install, and test before the program could become fully operational. As detailed in the MOU, each RWG member is responsible for setting its own fare and related policies for routes not included in the regional pass. The project received Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) funds in the amount of $1,473,590 from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to support the Regional Inter- Jurisdictional Mobility Project for Fiscal Year 2018 (Hillsborough Transit Authority 2017). 5.1.1 Hillsborough County and Pinellas County Agreement There are two Limited Express routes that provide regional connections between Hillsborough County and Pinellas County, both operated by PSTA. These regional routes include: 1. Express Route 100X: Downtown Tampa to Britton Plaza to Downtown St. Petersburg 2. Express Route 300X: Downtown Tampa to Tampa Airport to Ulmerton Road Since PSTA operates both regional routes, riders pay PSTA fares when using them. The Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project developed the HART/PSTA Passport program, which provides a regional pass for intercounty service between Hillsborough County and Pinellas County. The Passport is a monthly pass provided through Flamingo Fares that provides unlimited service on any HART or PSTA local or express bus. For passes not under the Passport program, each agency separately collects and retains their own revenue. The agreement between HART and PSTA states that “fare revenue for this pass will be split according to tap allocations, with percentages of the total value of the pass distributed to each agency in accordance with the percentages of use” (Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners 2016). Taps refer to payment by the rider using the monthly pass under the Passport program when boarding a HART or PSTA bus. The revenue is calculated monthly using the percentage of taps that occurred on each agency’s respective vehicles. Therefore, the monthly revenue collected in the RWG bank account is distributed between HART and PSTA, split by the tap, or boarding, percentage. For example, out of 100 taps, if HART received 40 and PSTA received 60, the monthly revenue would be distributed by 40% to HART and 60% to PSTA. For any payments made in cash, HART is responsible for ensuring that fare revenue collected is accounted for prior to distributing the revenue on a monthly basis. In the MOU, HART was established as the host agency and was responsible for creating the shared bank account for revenue is collection. HART analyzes the farebox calculations from the previous month’s revenue, based on a percentage of boardings, or taps. HART then calculates revenue distribution based on the proportional split of revenue, while also factoring in cash payments received, and subtracting the proportional administrative monthly cost. The calculated shares of funds collected are then distributed to each respective agency on the 15th of each month. Administrative costs were paid fully by HART for the first year, and then split proportionately between the agencies for all following years. HART is also responsible for coordinating with all third-party vendors, including the farebox vendors. 5.1.2 Hillsborough County and Hernando County Agreement Hernando County’s TheBus joined the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project along with HART and PSTA and to use the Flamingo Fares payment system in 2017. Although there is no regional pass that may be used across Hernando and Hillsborough counties (they are not adjacent to each other), the agreement states that the Flamingo Fares payment system may be used on any local or regional route within these two jurisdictions, and each county agency is responsible for setting 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 8 their own fares for their respective vehicles. The agreement also states that each party is responsible for its own cash revenue collection; however, electronic fare payments will be included in the monthly revenue reconciliation. Note: Hernando County is in the process of terminating their participation in this agreement (Nunez, pers. comm. 2023). Refer to Section 5.1.3 for details. 5.1.3 Changes to Participation in the RWG In November 2012, the project assembled an RWG consisting of transit agencies within FDOT District 7, including Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Citrus and Hernando counties, and District 1, including Sarasota, Polk, and Manatee counties (Hillsborough Transit Authority 2016). Since the RWG was convened, some of the members have since dropped out of the agreement due to various reasons, which included:  Citrus and Polk Counties – According to the Hillsborough Transit Authority Board of Directors Meeting minutes dated July 18, 2016, Citrus and Polk counties dropped out of the program because "they could not commit to the amount of work required to implement the program; however, once the farecard program is executed, they intend to join” (Hillsborough Transit Authority 2016).  Manatee County (MCAT) – Manatee County opted out of participating in the Flamingo Fares agreement due to the costs associated with implementing new hardware. Instead, they opted to implement Token Transit, which was much easier to incorporate into their already installed hardware (Montgomery, pers. comm. 2023).  Sarasota County (Breeze, formerly known as SCAT) – After Manatee County dropped out of the agreement, there was a gap in the regional service area since Manatee County is located between Hillsborough and Sarasota counties, and not all passes for regional routes could be purchased through Flamingo Fares. Additionally, Sarasota and Manatee counties jointly operate a regional route (refer to Section 5.1.5). As a result, Sarasota County dropped out of the agreement in Spring 2021 (Lui 2023).  Pasco County – According to the Termination Letter dated January 11, 2022, Pasco County participated in the agreement since April 2013 and states, “Since that time, the project has seen a sharp increase in costs to the County and citizens with minimal operational success. The ability to provide the same or greater customer service with lower cost alternatives confirms Pasco County should procure a more cost-effective service for the citizens” (Pasco County Board of County Commissioners 2022a). As stated in Section 5.1.2, Hernando County is in the process of terminating their agreement to opt out of the program. Since Pasco County falls between Hernando County and Hillsborough County, it is likely Hernando County is terminating their agreement since Pasco County has opted out. 5.1.4 Ridership Feedback The Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority (TBARTA) is an organization established in 2007 to further regional transit needs in Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, and Pinellas counties. The TBARTA released Envision 2030 in June 2020, which was Tampa Bay’s first regional transit development plan and included public transit ridership surveys following the creation of the RWG. TBARTA conducted two public surveys in 2019. These surveys indicated that of the 1,784 participants, seamless regional travel was identified as a high long-term (5-year) priority, with a score of 4.28 out of 5, 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 9 the highest score of any surveyed topics. Additionally, 68% of respondents stated that “regional transit would be most beneficial if there is a single payment system for rides across all services in Tampa Bay” (Tindale-Oliver 2020c). However, as of January 2023, TBARTA voted to dissolve due to lack of funding, following repeated state funding shortfalls in the preceding years (Rea 2023). According to an article in Mass Transit Magazine, 98% of riders have expressed that they are satisfied with the new Flamingo Fares system. HART experienced an overall 5% increase in ridership. Coupled with this increase in ridership is an overall increase in revenue to the transit agency as PSTA experienced a $4,000 increase just between February and March 2023 (Lewis 2023). However, it is important to note that due to the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), there was a decrease in ridership, and recovery from COVID-19 may factor into this overall increase. HART staff indicated they have not performed any surveys or collected feedback to compare ridership and satisfaction before and after implementing the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project. Hernando County did not experience any significant increase in ridership since implementing the program; however, it is important to note that TheBus has significantly less ridership than PSTA and HART since it serves a more rural part of the Tampa Bay area (Lewis 2023). 5.2 Separate Fare Structures 5.2.1 Hillsborough County and Pasco County Regional Routes HART operates the Limited Express Route 275 from Downtown Tampa to the Wiregrass Park-and-Ride lot in Pasco County. This limited express route operates similarly to LinC by providing a connection to Pasco County Public Transit (GoPasco) Route 54. Pasco County used to operate under the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project agreement; however, Pasco County terminated their participation January 11, 2022 (Pasco County Board of County Commissioners 2022a). Now that there is no interlocal agreement for this route, passengers are simply dropped off at this location and may purchase an additional bus pass to a GoPasco bus if they wish to continue into Pasco County (Elkin, pers. comm. 2023). Hillsborough County retains all revenues earned by their buses along this route and charges based on their own fare structure. 5.2.2 Pasco County and Hernando County Regional Routes There are two existing intercounty routes that connect Hernando County and Pasco County. GoPasco Route 21 connects to TheBus’s Purple Route serving Hernando County. Additionally, GoPasco Route 20 connects to Hernando County’s Blue Route. Pasco County and Hernando County do not have an existing interlocal agreement nor do they share farebox revenue. These bus routes operate independently of each other and simply meet at a bus stop where passengers may purchase a pass for the other county’s bus to continue their travel within that county (Elkin, pers. comm. 2023). 5.2.3 Pasco County and Pinellas County Regional Routes Pasco County has existing connections with Pinellas County’s PSTA through bus routes 18 and 19. Route 18 serves as a regional connection with PSTA’s Jolley Trolley and Route 66L, while Route 19 has regional connections with PSTA Routes 19 and 66L. These regional connections operate in the same way as the regional connections with Hernando County. PSTA and GoPasco operate independently of each other by simply meeting at the bus stop and providing transfers to the other county’s bus (Elkin, pers. comm. 2023). 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 10 5.2.4 Manatee County and Sarasota County Regional Route and Interlocal Agreement There is an existing agreement between MCAT and Sarasota County Transit, or Breeze, for intercounty transit service routes between Manatee County and Sarasota County. MCAT and Breeze jointly operate fixed-route services through Route 99 (both counties’ buses serve the route) on US 41 between the Sarasota County Downtown Sarasota Transfer Station and the Manatee County Downtown Bradenton Transfer Station (Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 2016). According to email correspondence with MCAT, MCAT and Breeze are receiving an FDOT corridor grant to enhance service in peak hours and improve the daily service for Route 99. Beginning in December 2023, Manatee and Sarasota counties plan to have 20-minute service all day, with four Breeze vehicles and three MCAT vehicles in operation (Montgomery, pers. comm. 2023). Fare and Revenue Agreement Although this route is jointly operated, the fare and revenue policies for each agency remain separate. The fare charged by MCAT or Breeze is determined by the fare structure in place for the county in which the passenger boards the bus. The revenue is earned by the fares collected by each transit agency’s own respective vehicles. For instance, a passenger boarding in Sarasota County on an MCAT bus shall pay the fare imposed by Sarasota County, but MCAT will retain all revenues earned by that vehicle (Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 2016). Effective November 1, 2022, all MCAT buses are operating a fare-free policy that shall remain in effect until reevaluation in early 2024 (Manatee County Area Transit 2022). This policy has caused complications regarding “lost fares” between MCAT and Breeze along the shared Route 99 since only MCAT has adopted the fare-free structure. As a result, Breeze is charging their standard fare structure when riders are boarding the Breeze bus in Manatee County, contrary to what the agreement requires for fare charging policy (Montgomery, pers. comm. 2023). The fare-free policy has also caused a serious overcrowding issue, as riders boarding in Manatee County will purposely wait for the free MCAT bus, even if the Breeze bus is available first. Sarasota County and Manatee County officials are working to determine whether a fare-free structure should be adopted by both agencies for Route 99 and if there is a resolution for recovering lost fares (Montgomery, pers. comm. 2023). MCAT and Breeze Regional Pass Before MCAT’s fare-free structure was implemented, MCAT and Breeze also offered a regional pass to cover trips in both Sarasota and Manatee counties. This regional pass, also called the “R Card” cost $60 for 30 days of unlimited travel in Manatee and Sarasota counties. There was no agreement for revenue share for the R Card, so both MCAT and Breeze kept the money earned for each pass they sold. However, with MCAT’s current fare-free structure, sales for the regional pass have been discontinued by both MCAT and Breeze (Montgomery, pers. comm. 2023). 5.2.5 Manatee County and Pinellas County Regional Route The Skyway Connection (MCAT Route 203) is a regional route connecting Manatee County and Pinellas County and is only offered on MCAT buses. This service connects the Desoto Mall Transfer Station in Manatee County to Pinellas County, ending at the Bay Pines Veterans Administration Hospital. There is little coordination between MCAT and PSTA regarding fares on the Skyway buses. MCAT has been given 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 11 permission to include their real-time signing to the PSTA bus stop poles but do not access any transfer facilities in Pinellas County (Montgomery, pers. comm. 2023). Before the implementation of MCAT’s fare- free program, MCAT would retain all revenue earned on this route. Currently, passengers on the Skyway Connection are not charged a fee in either Manatee County or Pinellas County due MCAT’s fare-free structure. However, before MCAT went fare-free, passengers in both counties were charged fares based on MCAT’s fee structure, as summarized in Attachment 1. 5.2.6 Miami-Dade County and Broward County Regional Routes Policy Intercounty express routes between Miami-Dade County and Broward County are offered by both counties’ respective transit agencies, Miami-Dade Metrobus and Broward County Transit (BCT), respectively. These express routes include:  95 Express Routes  595 Express Routes  BCT Breeze Routes According to BCT representatives, there is no existing interlocal agreement between Miami-Dade and Broward counties regarding these express routes. 95 Express buses are operated by both transit agencies, though there is no formal agreement for fare/revenue shares. Each agency retains the fares that are earned through each of their respective payment programs and vehicles. 595 Express buses are operated exclusively by BCT, so passes may be purchased only from BCT. Additionally, Breeze Routes are offered only through BCT as the majority of these routes are located in Broward County, with designated connection points in Miami-Dade County. All revenue earned from Breeze Routes goes to BCT. Ridership Survey In the Broward County Transit Development Plan (2019–2028), BCT conducted ridership surveys that featured questions about regional travel. Through a telephone survey, 51.3% of 401 respondents identified connecting bus and rail service to facilitate seamless local and regional travel as a high priority, and 30.7% identified it as a medium priority. 5.2.7 Miami-Dade County and Monroe County Regional Routes The Miami-Dade Metrobus also operates the Dade-Monroe Express (Route 301), which provides service from the Miami-Dade Transit Park-and-Ride lot in Florida City (Southern Miami-Dade County) to Key Largo, Tavernier, Islamorada, and Marathon in Monroe County. If passengers wish to continue further into the Keys, they may transfer to the Lower Keys Shuttle, which is operated by Key West Transit. Additionally, the Card Sound Express (Route 302) provides service from the Florida City Park-and-Ride lot to the Ocean Reef Club in North Key Largo. This route is primarily a commuter route, as only employees may be admitted beyond the entrance of the club. Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties do not have a formal interlocal agreement regarding these routes, as they are operated exclusively by Miami-Dade Transit, which retains all revenue earned by fares. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 12 6. Implications of Separate and Joint Fare Structures and Lessons Learned After analyzing the various types of interlocal agreements and policies of neighboring counties, the benefits and disadvantages of the different policies were evaluated. The evaluation included financial and operational implications of administering separate and joint fare structures, payment programs, and administrative costs. Lessons learned were developed based on research and coordination and interviews with the neighboring county agencies. 6.1 Separate Fare Structure To maintain the terms of the current fare policy between CAT and LeeTran, which are separate fare structures, all fares for the new connection operated by the CAT bus would be separate from LeeTran. The new route would operate similarly to the LinC route, except the new route will be served by a CAT bus, and CAT may charge their own fares and retain all revenues earned by their vehicle. Alternatively, another way to operate a separate fare structure between CAT and LeeTran would be to retain all revenues collected by each agency’s respective vehicle, but the bus would charge the fare rate based on the county of pickup, similar to the interlocal agreement between MCAT and Breeze. One of the lessons learned from using a separate fare structure where the fare is determined by the location of pickup is, if fares vary (for example, one agency goes fare-free), overcrowding may occur on the less-expensive bus. Table 2 summarizes the benefits and disadvantages of implementing a separate fare structure. Table 2. Pros and Cons of a Separate Fare Structure Fare Policy Type Advantages Disadvantages Separate Fare Structure  No additional fees caused by analyzing/distributing revenue shares.  No need to develop an interlocal agreement for fare/revenue shares.  No “lost fares” or disagreements over fares due to changes in costs and payment programs.  Immediate revenue collection (no delay in money distribution).  Requires riders to purchase multiple bus passes when travelling between jurisdictions.  May cost riders more money if frequently travelling between jurisdictions (for example, must buy a monthly pass from each agency or the daily fare capping).  If both agencies operate the same route, inconvenience to riders to determine the amount of funds to load on each bus pass.  If both agencies operate the same route, and fares vary, overcrowding may occur on the less-expensive bus. 6.2 Joint Fare Structure To develop a joint fare structure between CAT and LeeTran, there are several financial and operational implications that would need to be considered. One anticipated obstacle to implement a joint fare structure is farebox collection compatibility. CAT is currently planning to switch out their fareboxes to be 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 13 “cash only" and move to a mobile ticketing and validation system. This may cause issues in the future if CAT and LeeTran decide to implement seamless payment options and are not operating the same type of farebox system as payment systems may not be compatible across different types of fareboxes. Table 3 summarizes the benefits and disadvantages of implementing a joint fare structure. Table 3. Pros and Cons of a Joint Fare Structure Fare Policy Type Advantages Disadvantages Joint Fare Structure  Seamless payment options that may be used across jurisdictions. This is only applicable if the regional pass is valid on all routes in both counties, including local and regional.  May encourage ridership.  May provide cost savings for riders frequently travelling between jurisdictions.  Potential for “lost fares” if one jurisdiction decides to adopt a fare-free policy (for example, the case with the Manatee-Sarasota agreement).  Additional administrative fees (split proportionately based on responsibilities) due to analyzing/ distributing revenue shares between transit agencies.  Requires additional staff hours and responsibilities including: - Development and approval of an interlocal agreement - Assign personnel for host agency, project manager, and administrative staff - Meetings and coordination - Consistency with hardware and software systems and updates - Establishment of a shared bank account  Delay in money distribution/revenue collection. Analysis of the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project and discussions with HART provided additional insight and lessons learned regarding terms and conditions that need to be evaluated when developing an MOU. Some of the terms and conditions that would need to be assessed would include but not be limited to:  Regional Pass: - What will be the terms of the regional pass (for example, unlimited monthly rides on any local or regional route)? - How can bus passes be purchased? Can passengers use cash, smartcards, and/or mobile applications? - Will the regional pass be offered for purchase at all the same locations as local passes? Alternatively, will the regional pass only be offered at select locations, only on certain reloadable smartcards, only on agency-specific mobile applications, and do forth?  Bus operation: - Which agency(s) operates which routes? What will be the bus frequency offered on each route? 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 14 - If the travel distance for one agency’s bus route into the other county is significantly different than the other agency’s bus route, the expenses (gas, maintenance, and wear and tear) will not be equal. Will this be factored into revenue distribution? If so, how?  Fare Structure and Fees: - What would be the fee for the regional pass? - If there is fare capping, how will the additional rides that are not charged get factored into the revenue distribution? If the CAT buses drove 20% more miles than LeeTran buses in a particular month, but the initial boardings before the fare cap occurred on the LeeTran bus, how will this factor into revenue distribution? - How will credit card fees be distributed? - Will the card allow a negative balance? If so, what will be the fixed allowable negative balance?  Fare Collection: - What hardware and software will be used for the farebox collection system? - If the agencies use different hardware and software, will the two systems be compatible and communicate with each other? - Where will the revenue from the regional pass be stored? Will there be a new, shared bank account? If so, who is responsible for opening the account, who will control the account, and with what level of oversight? What bank will the new account be established at?  Information Technology (IT) - What type of mobile and smartcard applications can be used to purchase the regional pass? - Will there be a new mobile application developed for the agreement rendering existing applications obsolete, or will the regional pass be offered within each agency’s existing mobile application? - Will the mobile application include route mapping services? Would the application be able to coordinate CAT and LeeTran scheduling systems, vehicle routes, carriers, routers/modems, and vehicle trackers? Since each agency has their own IT department, who will be responsible for coordinating and managing system interfaces?  Administration and Responsibilities: - How will staff responsibilities be assigned and distributed between agencies for tasks such as administration, project management, reporting, meetings, coordination, farebox updates and coordination, hardware and software updates and purchases, and so forth? - What would be the percentage split for administrative services based on each agency’s responsibilities? Since there will be a learning curve within each agency, will the fees be based on fixed personnel rates or fixed staff salaries? If so, what would be the hourly rate or staff salary used to calculate the split? - Which agency will be the lead agency responsible for revenue reconciliation and distribution? What will be the terms for calculating revenue reconciliation (for example, proportional revenue split, cash payment deductions, proportional split for administrative fees, and so forth)? - What will be the reoccurring revenue distribution duration and deadline to send to each agency (for example, calculated monthly and distributed on the 15th of each month)? 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 15 To administer a joint fare structure, financial and operational terms and conditions, such as those listed, will need to be negotiated and established and documented in an MOU. Once all financial and operational terms are established, the MOU would require approval by each agency’s Board of County Commissioners prior to execution. HART indicated a lesson learned during their MOU process was to keep terms open to allow for adaptation and improvement to accommodate obstacles experienced during the implementation process. An anticipated operational impact to administer a joint fare structure between CAT and LeeTran is the difference in farebox systems used. CAT is planning to convert from Genfare to a Masabi farebox system by late 2024 or early 2025, meanwhile LeeTran is contracted to use Genfare for the next 7 years (Showalter, pers. comm. 2023). Therefore, they may face complications with incompatibilities between the two systems. This could result in either the inability to or increased costs for programming to implement a seamless payment system between the two jurisdictions. Additionally, a lesson learned from the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Project was that the project was costly in personnel hours during its initial implementation as there was a significant learning curve for the employees assigned. Initially, it took three to five people to set up and manage the project in its initial stages, and there was an initial revenue loss of approximately $300,000 during the transition. A lesson learned by HART was to establish a designated project manager and accountant rather than having several people take on different roles and responsibilities. HART identified that there were many nuances that took additional internal coordination by having different employees assigned to different roles and responsibilities, and the process would have been more efficient with one designated project manager. HART determined, after the initial learning-curve phase was completed, their program would require the support of a full-time, designated project manager and about 50% of an accountant full-time equivalent. Based on discussions with HART, it is recommended to perform a cost-benefit analysis when deciding to implement a joint fare structure. However, this could be challenging since there are benefits that are not quantifiable. Putting a value to qualitative benefits would be subjective and based on agency input. A cost- benefit analysis would include factors such as:  Qualitative: ridership satisfaction, ease of use, encouragement/increase of ridership  Quantitative: administrative fees, bank account fees, potential loss of revenue, start-up costs (hardware, software, mobile application development, and so forth) Since the policy would result in a loss of revenue, it is not recommended to pursue a joint fare structure until both agencies value the qualitative benefits despite the costs. Pursuing a joint fare structure in the future may be based on factors such as number of and ridership of regional routes, demand for additional regional routes, and ridership survey feedback and requests. 7. Recommendation Since the proposed additional regional route would be operated by a CAT bus, and there is only one existing regional route, which is operated by a LinC bus, it is recommended to maintain the existing separate fare structure. It is recommended to add the new regional route to the existing interlocal agreement established between CAT and LeeTran and maintain the separate fare structure policy, where each agency charges their own fares and retains revenues on their respective vehicles. After the new regional route is established, it is recommended to evaluate the regional ridership on this route as a percentage of the overall ridership. It is also recommended that ridership feedback be obtained from both 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 16 Collier County and Lee County residents to gauge their respective values related to seamless payment and/or regional pass options. For long-term goals, if a joint fare structure is desired by both agencies, it is recommended to begin discussions between CAT and LeeTran promptly and document a plan and vision for revenue sharing in the future. Developing an agreement on the terms and conditions of a joint fare structure and revenue sharing will be a long and iterative process. Therefore, beginning conversations now will expedite the process when both agencies are ready to implement. When implementing a joint fare structure, it is recommended to develop a seamless payment option such as the Flamingo Fares application managed by HART. A similar payment program could help facilitate intercounty travel and provide an efficient process for CAT and LeeTran. 8. References Broward County Transit. 2023. Fares and Passes. Accessed July 2023. https://www.broward.org/BCT/Pages/FaresPasses.aspx Collier County Board of County Commissioners. 2011. Interlocal Agreement for Transit Service Between Collier County and Lee County. March 1. https://www.leegov.com/interlocals/Agreements1/2011%20Mar%201%20Collier%20Transit%200301 11R-c7a-interlocal-collierCnty.pdf Collier Area Transit. 2023. Fare Information. Accessed August 2023. https://www.ridecat.com/fares- passes/fare-information/ Elkin, Janina, Director, GoPasco. 2023. Personal communication (email) with Sonal Dodia, Jacobs. June 8. Florida Department of Transportation. 2022. 95 Express Bus. Accessed July 2023. https://95express.com/express-bus/ Florida Department of Transportation. 2019. 595 Express Bus Overview. Accessed July 2023. https://www.595express.info/expressbus.shtm Hernando County, Florida. n.d. Fares and Passes. Accessed July 2023. https://www.hernandocounty.us/departments/departments-n-z/transit-thebus/fares-passes Hillsborough Area Regional Transit. n.d. HART Farecards. Accessed July 2023. https://www.gohart.org/Pages/fares-cards.aspx Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. 2016. Memorandum of Understanding for the Regional Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project. Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. 2017a. Interlocal Agreement Between Hillsborough Transit Authority and Hernando County for the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project. Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. 2017b. Interlocal Agreement Between Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority and Pasco County for the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter- Jurisdictional Mobility Project. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 17 Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. 2017c. Interlocal Agreement Between Hillsborough Transit Authority and Sarasota County for the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project. Hillsborough Transit Authority. 2016. Governance, Administration and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, January 25, 2016. January 25. https://www.gohart.org/Style%20Library/goHART/pdfs/board/GAO%20Committee%20Packet%201- 25-2016.pdf Hillsborough Transit Authority. 2017. Finance and Audit Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, April 17, 2017. April 17. https://www.gohart.org/Style%20Library/goHART/pdfs/board/4-17- 17%20Finance%20and%20Audit%20Committee%20Packet.pdf Huff, Dawn. Planning and Scheduling Manager, LeeTran. 2023. Personal communication (email) with Sonal Dodia, Jacobs. August 11. LeeTran. 2023. Fares and Passes. Accessed June 2023. https://www.leegov.com/leetran/fares-passes Lewis, Brandon. 2023. The Future of Paying for Public Transit Will Bring Better Connection. Accessed August 2023. https://www.masstransitmag.com/technology/fare-collection/article/53060562/the- future-of-paying-for-public-transit-will-bring-better-connections Lui, Megan. Planning and Performance Manager, Sarasota County Breeze Transit. 2023. Personal communication (email) with Sonal Dodia, Jacobs. August 2. Manatee County Area Transit. 2022. MCAT Is Now Fare-Free. Accessed November 2023. https://manatee.hosted.civiclive.com/departments/mcat/announcements/mcat_is_now_fare-free Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. 2016. Second Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement for Inter-County Transit Service Between Manatee County and Sarasota County. Miami-Dade County. 2023. Metrobus Routes and Schedules. Accessed July 2023. https://www.miamidade.gov/transportation-publicworks/routes.asp Miami-Dade County. 2023. Plan Your Trip. Accessed July 2023. https://www.miamidade.gov/global/transportation/metrobus.page McCoy, Barney, Assistant General Manager, Broward County Transit. 2023. Personal communication (email) with Sonal Dodia, Jacobs. July 27. Monroe County. n.d. Monroe County Transit. Accessed July 2023. https://www.monroecounty- fl.gov/1295/Transit Montgomery, Susan, Transit Planner, Manatee County Area Transit. 2023. Personal communication (email) with Sonal Dodia, Jacobs. August 28. Nunez, Emmanuel, Manager of Revenue and Retail Sales, Hillsborough Area Regional Transit. 2023. Personal communication (meeting) with Felicia Kirby, Jacobs and Sonal Dodia, Jacobs. August 17. Pasco County Board of County Commissioners. 2022a. Agenda Memorandum: Termination Letter- Hillsborough Area Regional Transit-To Terminate the Interlocal Agreement for the Regional Revenue Collection and Inter-Jurisdictional Mobility Project-No Funding Required. January 11. https://civicclerk.blob.core.windows.net/stream/pascocofl/13181cd3-70a7-459c-b69e- 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 18 6306f9468381.pdf?sv=2015-12- 11&sr=b&sig=1C%2BiuXnbujL6gECcNi2Gp7CbPrUERT3gH1dx5u1e4Vw%3D&st=2022-11- 04T15%3A49%3A25Z&se=2023-11-04T15%3A54%3A25Z&sp=r&rscc=no- cache&rsct=application%2Fpdf Pasco County Board of County Commissioners. 2022b. Pasco County eFare Agreement Termination Letter. June 6. Pasco County Public Transit. n.d. GoPasco Fares and Passes. Accessed July 2023. https://pascocountyfl.net/1088/Fares-and-Passes Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority. 2023. Tickets and Fares. Accessed July 2023. https://www.psta.net/riding-psta/tickets-and-fares/ Rea, Brian. 2023. “TBARTA votes to dissolve itself, cease operations by end of year.” Spectrum News. January 20. Accessed August 2023. https://baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2023/01/20/tbarta-votes-to- dissolve-itself--cease-operations-by-end-of-year Sarasota County. n.d. Breeze Routes. Accessed July 2023. https://www.scgov.net/government/breeze- transit/breeze-routes#16609_22186_88001 Showalter, Alexander, Senior Planner, Collier Area Transit. 2023. Personal communication (email) with Sonal Dodia, Jacobs. August 29. Tindale-Oliver. 2020a. Collier Area Transit Ten-Year Transit Development Plan 2021-2030. Prepared for Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization. October. https://www.ridecat.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/03/CAT-TDP-2021-2030_FINAL-REPORT.pdf Tindale-Oliver. 2020b. LeeTran-Lee County Transit Transit Development Plan. Prepared for Lee County Transit. November. https://www.leegov.com/leetran/PublishingImages/LeeTran%20TDP- %20Final%20Report%20(1).pdf Tindale-Oliver. 2020c. Envision 2030 Regional Transit Development Plan. Prepared for Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority. June. https://www.tbarta.com/media/1752/envision-2030-rtdp_final- adopted-062220-1.pdf 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Attachment 1 Regional Route Fare Cost and Payment Comparison 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 A-1 Attachment 1. Regional Route Fare Cost and Payment Comparison Transit Agency Regional Route Fare Cost Farebox Type Fare Payment Program Agreement With Notes Joint Fare Structure Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) Regional Connections in Pinellas County will abide by PSTA bus fares. Flamingo Fares regular fare: $2.25 single ride, $5.00 daily cap / $70.00 monthly cap GFI Odyssey Fareboxes and Init Terminals for Flamingo Flamingo Fares Application, Flamingo Fares Smartcard, Contactless Debit and Credit Cards, Google and Apple Pay, or Cash (requires exact change) Hillsborough County Hernando County Administrative fees related to fare/ revenue distribution are split proportionately by percentage of boardings for each member of the Regional Working Group (RWG). Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) Regional connections in Hillsborough County will abide by HART bus fares. One-way local and limited express cash fare: $2.00 HART/PSTA Passport: $85.00 GFI Odyssey Fareboxes and Init Terminals for Flamingo Flamingo Fares Application, Flamingo Fares Smartcard, Contactless Debit and Credit Cards, Google and Apple Pay, or Cash (requires exact change) Pinellas County Hernando County Administrative fees related to fare/ revenue distribution are split proportionately by percentage of boardings for each member of the RWG. Hernando County Transit (TheBus) Regional connections in Hernando County will abide by TheBus fares. One-way regular cash fare: $1.25 GFI Odyssey Fareboxes and Init Terminals for Flamingo Flamingo Fares Application, Flamingo Fares Smartcard, Contactless Debit and Credit Cards, Google and Apple Pay, or Cash (requires exact change) Pinellas County Hillsborough County Hernando County is in the process of dropping out of Joint Fare Structure. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 A-2 Attachment 1. Regional Route Fare Cost and Payment Comparison Transit Agency Regional Route Fare Cost Farebox Type Fare Payment Program Agreement With Notes Separate Fare Structure Pasco County Transit (GoPasco) Regional connections in Pasco County will abide by GoPasco fares. One-way regular cash fare: $1.50 GFI Odyssey Fareboxes Cash and passes only, purchased at select locations Pinellas County Hernando County Hillsborough County Dropped out of Joint Fare Structure. Sarasota County Area Transit (Breeze) Regional connections in Sarasota County will abide by Sarasota County fares. One-way regular cash fare: $1.50 GFI Odyssey Fareboxes Cash (requires exact change) or prepaid pass Pinellas County Hillsborough County Hernando County Dropped out of Joint Fare Structure. No administrative fees charged to riders. Passengers on regional connections boarding in Manatee County shall abide by MCAT bus fares. One-way regular cash fare: $1.50 Regional Pass: $60 with discount for seniors 65+ GFI Odyssey Fareboxes Cash (requires exact change) or prepaid pass Manatee County No administrative fees charged to riders. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 A-3 Attachment 1. Regional Route Fare Cost and Payment Comparison Transit Agency Regional Route Fare Cost Farebox Type Fare Payment Program Agreement With Notes Manatee County Area Transit (MCAT) Passengers on regional connections boarding in Sarasota County shall abide by Breeze bus fares. Free Prior to Fare-Free Regional Pass: $60 with discount for seniors 60+ GFI Odyssey Fareboxes (Prior to fare- free program) Fare-free Sarasota County No administrative fees charged to riders Free Prior to Fare-Free: Cross Bay One-Way Fare (Intercounty): $5.00 Express fare within Manatee County: $3.00 Express fare within Pinellas County: $3.00 1-Day unlimited use pass: $10.00 GFI Odyssey Fareboxes (Prior to fare- free program) Fare-free Pinellas County Skyway Connection Route Broward County Transit (BCT) One-way regular cash fare: $2.00 Genfare Prepaid bus pass, smartcard, cash, mobile ticketing application Miami-Dade County $1.00 transfer fee to transfer from regular BCT route to Express route Miami-Dade Transit (Metrobus) Intercounty Express Bus regular one- way fare: $2.65 Genfare Credit card, digital wallets, mobile passes purchased on the GO Miami-Dade Transit Application, EASY Card, EASY ticket, cash Broward County Monroe County 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Technical Memorandum No.2 230906142844_37E3CD13 A-4 Attachment 1. Regional Route Fare Cost and Payment Comparison Transit Agency Regional Route Fare Cost Farebox Type Fare Payment Program Agreement With Notes Monroe County Transit (MCT) Intercounty Express Bus regular one- way fare: $2.65 All riders taking the Dade-Monroe Express (Route 301) must abide by Metrobus fares. If riders transfer to the Lower Keys Shuttle (Key West Transit) they must pay the one-way fare of $2.00. Genfare Credit card, digital wallets, mobile passes purchased on the GO Miami-Dade Transit Application, EASY Card, EASY ticket, cash Miami-Dade County Monroe County does not have its own county transit service. The current route going into Monroe County is owned fully by Miami-Dade Metrobus. Riders may transfer onto Key West Transit at the Marathon bus stop. Lee County Transit (LeeTran) One-way regular cash fare: $1.50 Genfare “Fast Fare” System Genfare Mobile Link, TropiCard (reloadable smartcard), cash, account- linked tags, key chains, fobs, and stickers Collier County 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Appendix C. Technical Memorandum: Regional Travel Pattern and Market Analysis 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs August 2023 Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study January 2024 Technical Memorandum: Regional Travel Pattern and Market Analysis 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 i Contents Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................ i Attachments ........................................................................................................................................................................ i Tables .................................................................................................................................................................................... i Figures .................................................................................................................................................................................. ii 1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Vision and Goals ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 3. Regional Travel Pattern and Market Analyses................................................................................................ 1 3.1 Origin-Destination Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 1 3.1.1 Top-four Trips from Collier County to Lee County ........................................................................ 5 3.1.2 Top-four Trips from Lee County to Collier County ........................................................................ 9 3.2 CAT and LeeTran Ridership ............................................................................................................................. 14 3.3 Existing Cross-jurisdictional Transportation Patterns ............................................................................ 17 3.3.1 Key Activity Centers and Workforce Commutes .......................................................................... 17 3.3.2 U.S. Census Data and Demographic Analysis ............................................................................... 19 3.3.3 Existing Plans .......................................................................................................................................... 21 4. Candidate Corridor Development ................................................................................................................... 22 4.1 UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route .................................................................................................................. 27 4.2 I-75 Premium Express ....................................................................................................................................... 28 4.3 Urban Estates to Bonita Springs .................................................................................................................... 29 5. Candidate Corridor Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 30 6. Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 31 7. References ............................................................................................................................................................ 31 Attachments Attachment 1. US Census Maps Attachment 2. Candidate Corridor Evaluation Forms Tables Table 1. Trips to Lee County by Collier County Subarea Origin ...................................................................................... 2 Table 2: Trips to Collier County by Lee County Subarea Origin ...................................................................................... 3 Table 3. Top-three Lee County Destinations from the North Naples Subarea .......................................................... 5 Table 4. Top-three Destinations in Lee County from the Urban Estates Subarea .................................................... 6 Table 5: Top-three Destinations in Lee County from the City of Naples Subarea .................................................... 7 Table 6. Top-three Destinations in Lee County from the Immokalee Subarea ......................................................... 8 Table 7. Top-three Destinations in Collier County from the Bonita Springs Subarea .......................................... 10 Table 8. Top-three Destinations in Collier County from Fort Myers ........................................................................... 11 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 ii Table 9. Top-three Destinations in Collier County from Estero ................................................................................... 12 Table 10. Top-three Destinations in Collier County from the Lehigh Acres Subarea ........................................... 13 Table 11. Boarding and Alighting Counts for the LinC Bus at Collier County Bus Stops ..................................... 16 Table 12: Creekside Boardings by Route Number ............................................................................................................ 16 Table 13. Estimate of Workers 16 Years Old and Older Who Use Public Transportation (Excluding Taxicab) as Main Mode of Transportation for Work ....................................................................................................... 20 Table 14. Percentage of Workers 16 Years and Older Who Use Public Transportation (Excluding Taxicab) as Main Mode of Transportation for Work, Whose Poverty Status is Determined to be Below 100% of the Poverty Level ................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 15. Percentage of Workers 16 Years Old and Older Who Use Public Transportation (Excluding Taxicab) as Main Mode of Transportation for Work, Whose Place of Work Is Within State of Residence but Worked Outside of County of Residence ............................................................................. 21 Table 16. Percentage of Workers 16 Years Old and Older Who Reported Having No Vehicles Available in the Household ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 17. Candidate Corridor Evaluation Matrix ............................................................................................................... 24 Table 18: Candidate Corridor Ranking .................................................................................................................................. 31 Figures Figure 1. Collier and Lee County Planning Communities .................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Top-four Trip Generating Subareas in Collier and Lee Counties .................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Top-three Lee County Destinations from North Naples .................................................................................. 6 Figure 4. Top Lee County Destinations from Urban Estates ............................................................................................. 7 Figure 5. Top-three Lee County Destinations from City of Naples ................................................................................ 8 Figure 6. Top-three Lee County Destinations from Immokalee ...................................................................................... 9 Figure 7. Top-three Collier County Destinations from Bonita Springs ...................................................................... 10 Figure 8. Top-three Collier County Destinations from Fort Myers .............................................................................. 11 Figure 9. Top-three Collier County Destinations from Estero....................................................................................... 12 Figure 10. Top-three Collier County Destinations from Lehigh Acres ....................................................................... 13 Figure 11. CAT and LeeTran Yearly Passenger Counts ................................................................................................... 14 Figure 12. FY 2022 CAT Ridership by Route ...................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 13. FY 2022 LeeTran Ridership by Route .............................................................................................................. 15 Figure 14. CDPs in Collier and Lee County .......................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 15. U.S. Census 2022 Zip Code Tabulation Areas ............................................................................................... 19 Figure 16. Candidate Corridor Development Methodology .......................................................................................... 22 Figure 17. Proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route .................................................................................................. 27 Figure 18. Proposed I-75 Premium Express – Option 1 ................................................................................................. 28 Figure 19. Proposed I-75 Premium Express – Option 2 ................................................................................................. 29 Figure 20. Urban Estates to Bonita Springs ......................................................................................................................... 30 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 1 1. Background The purpose of the Regional Service and Fare Study (hereinafter, “Study”) is to evaluate a new regional transit corridor for Collier Area Transit (CAT) to provide service to Lee County and connect to the Lee County Transit (LeeTran) system. Since there is already an existing regional connection operated by LeeTran, CAT has proposed implementing their own connection beginning in Collier County and ending in Lee County. This Study includes the development, evaluation, and ranking of proposed candidate corridors. These candidate corridors were developed based on regional travel pattern and market analyses, including data from existing travel patterns between jurisdictions, key activity centers, workforce commutes, origin-destination data, existing regional plans, and United States (U.S.) Census data. 2. Vision and Goals This Study aligns with the CAT vision, as identified in their Ten-Year Transit Development Plan (TDP), to provide “effective and efficient multimodal mobility services to meet the mobility needs of workers, residents, and visitors to support economic, environmental, and community benefits.” Additionally, CAT’s regional goal initiative (Initiative 3.2.1) with LeeTran is to “continue to coordinate and partner with LeeTran to improve and expand cross-county mobility services to support workforce travel demand with a focus on commuter express routes, connecting workers to employment, and provide connections strategically to the transit networks in Lee and Collier counties to facilitate the access to key activity centers” (Tindale-Oliver 2020a). The regional transit vision developed for this Study is to improve and expand regional mobility services with a focus on commuter express routes, connecting workers to employment centers, and facilitating access to key activity centers. Implementing a new intercounty transit connection between Collier and Lee counties will facilitate interconnectivity between the two jurisdictions. CAT’s goal is to improve the regional mobility options for residents of Collier and Lee counties by expanding CAT service to include an additional intercounty transit route. The goal of the Study is to evaluate transit options to serve and provide greater mobility to residents with cross-jurisdictional needs between Collier and Lee counties. 3. Regional Travel Pattern and Market Analyses Existing travel patterns between Collier and Lee counties were analyzed for movements that would benefit most from an additional regional transit service. To evaluate the transit needs for a new connection between Collier and Lee counties, travel patterns and cross-county transit needs were evaluated using:  Origin-Destination Data  CAT and LeeTran Ridership  Key Activity Centers and Workforce Commutes  U.S. Census Data and Demographics  Existing TDPs 3.1 Origin-Destination Data Analysis The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Origin-Destination (O-D) Report (hereinafter, “O-D Report”) data were used to identify existing regional travel patterns between Collier and Lee counties. The Collier County and Lee County planning communities used in this analysis are identified in Figure 1. Highest-frequency trips between Collier and Lee counties were analyzed for the number of daily trips generated between subareas. These high-frequency O-D pairs were then evaluated to identify priority pairs that would benefit most from a new regional transit connection. All subareas referred to in each O-D 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 2 pair are identified in Figure 1 and will be used as a basis for naming each priority pair identified in the regional travel analysis. Figure 1. Collier and Lee County Planning Communities Tables 1 and 2 show the daily number of cross-county trips taken to each Collier County or Lee County subarea. Table 1 indicates the number of trips that begin in each Collier County subarea and end in Lee County. Based on the data, North Naples generates the most trips to Lee County (over 30,000 daily trips) and accounts for approximately 37% of total trips from Collier County to Lee County. Additional subareas with a significant number of trips to Lee County include Urban Estates, City of Naples, and Immokalee. Table 1. Trips to Lee County by Collier County Subarea Origin Collier County Subarea: Origin Total Trips to Lee County Percent of Trips to Lee County North Naples 31,499 36.75% Urban Estates 10,676 12.46% City of Naples 7,436 8.68% Immokalee 6,263 7.31% Rural Estates 5,568 6.50% Central Naples 5,235 6.11% 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 3 Collier County Subarea: Origin Total Trips to Lee County Percent of Trips to Lee County South Naples 4,486 5.23% Golden Gate 4,477 5.22% East Naples 3,146 3.67% City of Marco Island 2,564 2.99% Heritage Bay 1,071 1.25% Ave Maria 946 1.10% Royal Fakapalm 929 1.08% Orange Tree 588 0.69% Corkscrew 409 0.48% Big Cypress 268 0.31% Everglades City 143 0.17% Table 2 shows the number of trips beginning in Lee County that travel to Collier County. The four subareas that generate the most trips to Collier County are Bonita Springs, Fort Myers, Estero, and Lehigh Acres. The Bonita Springs subarea generates the largest proportion of these trips, with more than 30,000 daily trips and 34% of total trips to Collier County from Lee County. Table 2. Trips to Collier County by Lee County Subarea Origin Lee County Subarea: Origin Total Trips to Collier County Percent of Trips to Collier County Bonita Springs 31,828 34.47% Fort Myers 9,552 10.34% Estero 9,211 9.97% Lehigh Acres 8,422 9.12% San Carlos 7,866 8.52% South Fort Myers 6,666 7.22% Gateway/Airport 5,101 5.52% Cape Coral 5,097 5.52% North Fort Myers 1,848 2.00% Fort Myers Shores 1,414 1.53% Iona/McGregor 1,371 1.48% Daniels Parkway 1,236 1.34% Southeast Lee County 1,045 1.13% Fort Myers Beach 951 1.03% 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 4 Lee County Subarea: Origin Total Trips to Collier County Percent of Trips to Collier County Sanibel 518 0.56% Bayshore 288 0.31% Buckingham 285 0.31% Northeast Lee County 267 0.29% Pine Island 249 0.27% Captiva 127 0.14% Burnt Store 34 0.04% Boca Grande 16 0.02% Figure 2 displays the top-four subareas in both Collier and Lee counties, which generate the most intercounty trips daily, as identified in Tables 1 and 2. Figure 2. Top-four Trip Generating Subareas in Collier and Lee Counties 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 5 Based on the O-D data, the top-four trips from Collier County to Lee County are:  North Naples to Bonita Springs  Urban Estates to Bonita Springs  City of Naples to Bonita Springs  Immokalee to Lehigh Acres The top-four trips from Lee County to Collier County are:  Bonita Springs to North Naples  Fort Myers to North Naples  Estero to North Naples  Lehigh Acres to Immokalee Bonita Springs was the most-frequent destination for three of the top-four origins in Collier County, so Bonita Springs was evaluated as the destination in three separate O-D pairs. Additionally, North Naples was the most-frequent destination for three of the top-four trips from Lee County and was evaluated similarly. 3.1.1 Top-four Trips from Collier County to Lee County The top-four trips from Collier County were evaluated based on Lee County subareas and the number of trips ending in these destinations daily. Each of these four origins were evaluated separately for their top- three destinations in Lee County. 3.1.1.1 North Naples North Naples generates the most trips from Collier County to Lee County, with more than 30,000 trips daily. The O-D pair producing the most intercounty trips is North Naples to Bonita Springs. Table 3 indicates the top-three Lee County destinations from North Naples, with Bonita Springs being the destination for more than 50% of these intercounty trips. Estero and San Carlos also generate a significant number of trips, accounting for 11% and 6% of trips, respectively. Subarea boundaries are shown on Figure 3. Table 3. Top-three Lee County Destinations from the North Naples Subarea Origin Total Trips from North Naples to Lee County Destination Total Trips Percent of Total Trips from North Naples to Lee County North Naples 31,499 Bonita Springs 18,387 58% Estero 3,392 11% San Carlos 1,950 6% 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 6 Figure 3. Top-three Lee County Destinations from North Naples Although North Naples and Bonita Springs generate a significant number of daily trips, a candidate corridor was not developed from this O-D pair since the existing LeeTran LinC Route serves the connection from North Naples to Bonita Springs and Estero. 3.1.1.2 Urban Estates The Collier County subarea with the second-greatest number of trips to Lee County is Urban Estates, with more than 10,000 daily trips. The top-three destinations for these trips are Bonita Springs, Fort Myers, and South Fort Myers. Of these three subareas, Bonita Springs occupies a significant portion, with more than 6,000 daily trips (approximately 64% of trips from Urban Estates to Lee County), as shown in Table 4 and on Figure 4. Table 4. Top-three Destinations in Lee County from the Urban Estates Subarea Origin Total Trips from Urban Estates to Lee County Destination Total Trips Percent of Total Trips from Urban Estates to Lee County Urban Estates 10,676 Bonita Springs 6,796 64% Fort Myers 772 7% South Fort Myers 726 7% 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 7 Figure 4. Top Lee County Destinations from Urban Estates The Urban Estates and Bonita Springs subareas are not serviced by an existing regional transit route. Although the LinC Route serves Bonita Springs, it does not pass through Urban Estates. This O-D pair was evaluated further with the development of a candidate corridor. 3.1.1.3 City of Naples The City of Naples subarea in Collier County generates more than 7,000 daily trips to Lee County, with Bonita Springs being the destination for approximately 41% of these trips, generating more than 3,000 total trips, followed by Estero (12%) and San Carlos (9%). Table 5 identifies the top-three destinations for the City of Naples subarea and the number of trips that occur daily. The subarea boundaries are shown on Figure 5. Table 5. Top-three Destinations in Lee County from the City of Naples Subarea Origin Total Trips from City of Naples to Lee County Destination Total Trips Percent of Total Trips from City of Naples to Lee County City of Naples 7,436 Bonita Springs 3,047 41% Estero 907 12% San Carlos 668 9% 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 8 Figure 5. Top-three Lee County Destinations from City of Naples The City of Naples to Bonita Springs O-D pair is served by the existing CAT network, which can connect to the LinC Route into Bonita Springs and Estero. Since there is an existing regional transit connection to serve this O-D pair, it was not evaluated further with a candidate corridor. 3.1.1.4 Immokalee According to the O-D Report, 72% of the 60,000 daily trips originating in Immokalee remain within the area, making it the highest internal trip rate among all subareas in Collier County. However, of the 6,263 external trips from Immokalee to Lee County subareas, the greatest number of trips to Lee County are to Lehigh Acres, at 42% of these trips. The next most-frequent destination is Fort Myers (15%), followed by San Carlos (7%). Table 6 summarizes the top-three destinations in Lee County for trips beginning in the Immokalee subarea. Subarea boundaries are shown on Figure 6. Table 6. Top-three Destinations in Lee County from the Immokalee Subarea Origin Total Trips from Immokalee to Lee County Destination Total Trips Percent of Total Trips from Immokalee to Lee County Immokalee 6,263 Lehigh Acres 2,639 42% Fort Myers 967 15% San Carlos 453 7% 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 9 Figure 6. Top-three Lee County Destinations from Immokalee There is no existing transit route servicing the Immokalee and Lehigh Acres O-D pair. Commuters traveling from Immokalee to Lee County must first travel to Naples and then transfer to the LinC bus. Implementing a regional route from Immokalee to Lehigh Acres would significantly reduce the overall trip length. This O-D pair was identified as a priority pair for identifying a candidate corridor. 3.1.2 Top-four Trips from Lee County to Collier County The top-four trips from Lee County were evaluated based on Collier County subareas and the number of trips ending in these destinations daily. The top-four trip generators to Collier County from Lee County are:  Bonita Springs  Fort Myers  Estero  Lehigh Acres Each of these four origins were evaluated separately for their top-three destinations in Collier County. 3.1.2.1 Bonita Springs Table 7 shows the top-three destinations in Collier County for trips originating in the Bonita Springs subarea. North Naples receives the greatest percentage of these trips, representing almost half of the total trips from Bonita Springs to Lee County destinations. The subarea boundaries are shown on Figure 7. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 10 Table 7. Top-three Destinations in Collier County from the Bonita Springs Subarea Origin Total Trips from Bonita Springs to Collier County Destination Total Trips Percent of Total Trips from Bonita Springs to Collier County Bonita Springs 31,828 North Naples 15,689 49% Urban Estates 5,748 18% City of Naples 2,377 7% Figure 7. Top-three Collier County Destinations from Bonita Springs As discussed in Section 3.1.1, the Bonita Springs to North Naples O-D pair is not identified as a priority pair since it is already served by the existing LinC Route operated by LeeTran. This route provides several pickup and drop-off points in North Naples and Bonita Springs. 3.1.2.2 Fort Myers Table 8 indicates the top-three trips from Fort Myers to Collier County subareas. The top-three destinations from Fort Myers are North Naples, Urban Estates, and Immokalee. The Fort Myers subarea produces the second-most trips from Lee to Collier County, with approximately 9,500 daily trips. The largest percentage of these trips end in North Naples, at approximately 21%, followed by Urban Estates (14%) and Immokalee (13%). The subarea boundaries are shown on Figure 8. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 11 Table 8. Top-three Destinations in Collier County from Fort Myers Origin Total Trips from Fort Myers to Collier County Destination Total Trips Percent of Total Trips from Fort Myers to Collier County Fort Myers 9,552 North Naples 2,051 21% Urban Estates 1,378 14% Immokalee 1,230 13% Figure 8. Top-three Collier County Destinations from Fort Myers The Fort Myers to North Naples O-D pair was not identified as a priority pair since the LinC Route already provides service between Estero and North Naples. Commuters beginning in Fort Myers may take Route 240 to the Coconut Point Mall, which then transfers to LinC as it travels further south to the North Naples subarea. 3.1.2.3 Estero Table 9 indicates the top-three Collier County destinations for trips originating in Estero, which include North Naples, Urban Estates, and City of Naples. Estero produces the third-most trips to Collier County, with more than 9,000 trips daily. Of these 9,000 trips, 37% of them end in North Naples, 15% in Urban Estates, and 10% in City of Naples. The subarea boundaries are shown on Figure 9. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 12 Table 9. Top-three Destinations in Collier County from Estero Origin Total Trips from Estero to Collier County Destination Total Trips Percent of Total Trips from East Naples to Collier County Estero 9,211 North Naples 3,437 37% Urban Estates 1,360 15% City of Naples 940 10% Figure 9. Top-three Collier County Destinations from Estero The Estero to North Naples O-D pair was not determined as a priority pair since it is already served by the LinC Route. Riders beginning in Estero may board at the Coconut Point bus stop and take the LinC Route into North Naples. 3.1.2.4 Lehigh Acres Table 10 indicates the top-three trips from Lehigh Acres to Collier County subareas. The top-three destinations for Lehigh Acres are Immokalee, North Naples, and City of Naples. The Immokalee subarea has the largest proportion of trips that begin in Lehigh Acres and end in Collier County. The subarea boundaries are shown on Figure 10. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 13 Table 10. Top-three Destinations in Collier County from the Lehigh Acres Subarea Origin Total Trips from Immokalee to Lee County Destination Total Trips Percent of Total Trips from Lehigh Acres to Collier County Lehigh Acres 8,422 Immokalee 2,542 30% North Naples 1,307 15% City of Naples 566 6% Figure 10. Top-three Collier County Destinations from Lehigh Acres Lehigh Acres to Immokalee is identified as a priority O-D pair, as discussed in Section 3.1.1.4. It is important to note that the Collier MPO O-D Report analyzed trip data from all trip types (for example, car, truck, taxi, transit, and so forth) between the subareas and did not separate the number of trips by method of travel. Therefore, the data does not provide travel patterns that are representative of transit- only trips and may not accurately depict the actual demand for public transportation. For instance, the North Naples subarea produces the largest number of intercounty trips to Lee County daily, with its top destination being Bonita Springs. However, the O-D data do not specify how many of these trips occurred through public transit versus other means of travel. Since the data are limited in their analysis for mode of transportation, they cannot provide a direct correlation for regional transit needs, and it is difficult to determine if this large number of trips between North Naples and Bonita Springs is occurring on public transit services. To develop regional transit candidate corridors for this Study, the O-D data were analyzed alongside existing CAT and LeeTran ridership, key activity centers and workforce commutes, U.S. Census data, and 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 14 existing plans, which have more-specific information regarding demand for public transportation, to target areas of regional transit demand. 3.2 CAT and LeeTran Ridership Ridership data from CAT and LeeTran were collected and evaluated for the last 5 fiscal years (FYs 2018 through 2022). Due to the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is an anomaly in the transit data between FYs 2019 and 2021 caused by an overall reduction in ridership during the pandemic. Therefore, the data between FYs 2020 and 2021 are considered irregular and not representative of typical ridership conditions for both jurisdictions. FY 2022 shows the beginning of recovery in ridership, and it is expected to increase in the next few years as conditions continue to return to normal. Figure 11 shows the average yearly number of passengers for FYs 2018 through 2022. Figure 11. CAT and LeeTran Yearly Passenger Counts Overall, LeeTran experiences a greater volume of yearly passengers. Additionally, ridership data for each jurisdiction were evaluated for individual routes, as indicated in Figures 12 and 13. CAT experiences the largest volume of passengers on Route 11, which is the bus route that connects to the Creekside/LinC Transfer Station. This indicates that there is a significantly high demand for this route. The second-largest passenger volume route is on Route 19, which provides service from the Collier County Government Center to the unincorporated community of Immokalee. 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022Number of PassengersFiscal Year (October to September) CAT LeeTran 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 15 Figure 12. FY 2022 CAT Ridership by Route Additionally, Figure 13 shows total LeeTran ridership by route for FY 2022. Route 140, which provides service from Merchants Crossing in Fort Myers to the Coconut Point Mall in Estero, had the highest ridership. This route connects to Route 600 (LinC), which provides a regional connection to the CAT system in Collier County. Ridership for Route 600 is ranked 11th out of a total of 28 routes. Route 420 also has significant ridership and operates as a seasonal beach tram from November to April, providing service to Fort Myers Beach. Figure 13. FY 2022 LeeTran Ridership by Route The Creekside Transfer Station is the bus stop that connects LeeTran Route 600 (LinC) with CAT routes 11, 12, and 27. This is the only regional bus stop that connects the two bus systems. Ridership at the 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 Number of PassengersCAT Route Number 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 Number of PassengersLeeTran Route Number 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 16 Creekside Transfer Station was also evaluated to assess the demand for this intercounty route at this bus stop. Boarding and alighting counts for the LinC bus were evaluated for FYs 2018 through 2022. Since CAT is transitioning to a new software, boarding and alighting data for CAT were evaluated for FYs 2019 through 2021. For consistency, boarding alighting data are shown for FYs 2019 through 2021. Table 11 summarizes the boarding and alighting data for the LinC bus at various stops in Collier County. Table 11. Boarding and Alighting Counts for the LinC Bus at Collier County Bus Stops Stop Number Boarding Alighting FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 12121 696 600 337 624 384 247 12122 503 295 303 430 385 298 12165 (Creekside Transfer Station) 9,678 2,646 1,954 15,422 9,598 3,944 12166 2,334 6,424 2,247 15 4 14 12167 991 558 257 2,029 1,591 762 Overall, the Creekside Transfer Station experiences some of the highest boarding and alighting counts for all LinC bus stops in Collier County. It is important to note the sharp decline in overall ridership (as depicted in Figure 11) between FYs 2019 and 2021 due to COVID-19. The boarding and alighting counts for these years are likely lower than the typical counts for these stops. Table 12 shows the total number of boardings at the Creekside Transfer Station by route number and the percentage of total boardings for each bus route serving this stop. Based on the data provided, boardings for the LinC Route have consistently occupied a significant portion of total boardings that occur at the Creekside Transfer Station. In 2019, boardings for the LinC bus were approximately 25% of total boardings at this stop, with more than 9,000 total boardings. The ridership at this stop indicates the demand for a cross-county transit service between Collier and Lee counties. This demand decreased overall in the following years; however, it is important to note that this decrease was likely caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 12. Creekside Boardings by Route Number Route Number (Jurisdiction) Total Boardings Percentage of Total Boardings FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 600 LinC (LeeTran) 9,678 2,646 1,954 25.43% 11.28% 10.90% 11 (CAT) 12,311 8,749 6,388 32.35% 37.29% 35.63% 12 (CAT) 8,922 6,995 5,629 23.44% 29.81% 31.40% 27 (CAT) 7,147 4,732 3,629 18.78% 20.17% 20.24% 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 17 3.3 Existing Cross-jurisdictional Transportation Patterns 3.3.1 Key Activity Centers and Workforce Commutes According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a Census-designated place (CDP) is a “statistical geography representing closely settled, unincorporated communities that are locally organized and identified by name” (U.S. Census Bureau 2022). Figure 14 identifies the existing CDPs in Collier County and Lee County. Figure 14. CDPs in Collier and Lee County 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 18 These CDPs represent key activity centers that contain work locations and commercial land uses. The CDPs in Collier County with the highest rates of internal trips include City of Marco Island and Immokalee, while Central Naples and Rural Estates have higher rates of external trips to other CDPs (U.S. Census Bureau 2022). Key activity and major employment centers include but are not limited to the following:  Commercial and mixed-use areas such as shopping centers and malls - Collier County: Coastland Mall, Waterside Shops, Downtown Naples, Mercato - Lee County: Coconut Point Mall, Miromar Outlets, Gulf Coast Town Center, Edison Mall, University Village Shops, The Forum, Downtown Fort Myers  Major employment centers such as business parks, hospitals, hotels, schools, government complexes, and industrial centers - The top work destinations outside of Collier County include Bonita Springs, Fort Myers, and Estero Village (Tindale-Oliver 2020a) - Based on Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data obtained from Lee County MPO’s 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the areas with the highest employment density in Lee County are in Fort Myers along US 41, downtown Fort Myers, Cape Coral along Pine Island Road, Fort Myers Beach, Lehigh Acres, and Bonita Springs along US 41 (Tindale-Oliver 2020b)  Universities - Collier County: Ave Maria University and Florida Southwestern State College (Collier County campus) - Lee County: Florida Southwestern State College (main campus), Hodges University, Florida Gulf Coast University, and Southern Technical College  Recreational areas such as beaches and parks  Public and private airports in Collier and Lee counties - The major airport serving both counties is the Southwest Florida International Airport (RSW) in Lee County The major roadway network that connects workforce commutes and activity centers between Collier and Lee counties include Interstate 75 (I-75) and State Road (SR) 45 (also known as US 41 or Tamiami Trail North), SR 82, and SR 29. According to the O-D Report, I-75 serves as the main corridor for this intercounty travel, along with SR 29 and SR 82 in eastern Collier County and US 41 in western Collier County (Tindale-Oliver 2022). Approximately 22,000 Lee County residents travel to Collier County for work, while 9,000 Collier County residents travel to Lee County for work. Additionally, 8.3% of Collier County residents work outside of the county, and 2.2% of residents use public transit to get to work. Of the 8.3% of external commuters living in Collier County, the majority live in northern areas, including Immokalee and North Naples (Tindale- Oliver 2020a). It is important to note that with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, percentages of residents working from home have fluctuated for the last few years. The O-D Report is based on data that was collected in Spring 2021 and, therefore, may not be representative of typical work-specific trips, as the number of residents working from home during this period was greater on average than it was in 2022 at the same time of year (Tindale-Oliver 2022). 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 19 3.3.2 U.S. Census Data and Demographic Analysis U.S. Census Data was evaluated to identify areas with populations most likely to use public transit, using the Zip Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) boundaries in Collier and Lee counties as identified in Figure 15. U.S. Census Data was evaluated from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Center for Economic Studies with data for years 2019 through 2021. Figure 15. U.S. Census 2022 Zip Code Tabulation Areas To avoid any anomalies in Census data due to COVID-19, maps for 2019 were also prepared for comparison. Although some ZCTA boundaries changed from 2019 to 2021 (for example, 34142), the boundaries were similar enough for the analysis. The U.S. Census maps for 2019 through 2021 are provided in Attachment 1, using data from 2017 through 2021 from the American Community Survey. The U.S Census data were used to evaluate O-D pairs for those who use public transit. U.S. Census data for the following characteristics were used:  For workers 16 years old and older - Who use public transportation as means to get to work - Who use public transportation as means to get to work and are below 100% of the poverty level - Who use public transportation as means to get to work and work outside their county of residence - Who live in a household with no vehicles available 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 20 Tables 13 through 16 provide U.S. Census data from 2021 for workers 16 years old and older by selected characteristics in both Collier County and Lee County. Table 13. Estimate of Workers 16 Years and Older Who Use Public Transportation (Excluding Taxicab) as Main Mode of Transportation for Work Rank County Zip Code Estimate County Zip Code Estimate 1 Collier 34142 718 Lee 33901 319 2 Collier 34112 120 Lee 33905 302 3 Collier 34114 99 Lee 33907 223 4 Collier 34110 48 Lee 34135 130 5 Collier 34119 23 Lee 33909 93 6 Collier 34145 18 Lee 33936 90 7 Collier 34105 15 Lee 33916 89 8 Collier 34102 9 Lee 33917 80 9 Collier 34103 7 Lee 33990 78 10 Collier 34116 7 Lee 33971 61 For workers 16 years old and older who use public transportation as their main mode of transportation, it was reported that the most demand occurs in ZCTAs 34142 and 33901, which overlaps with the Immokalee planning boundary in Collier County and Fort Myers in Lee County. The Immokalee planning area is also part of one of the identified priority O-D pairs. Table 14. Percentage of Workers 16 Years and Older Who Use Public Transportation (Excluding Taxicab) as Main Mode of Transportation for Work, Whose Poverty Status is Determined to be Below 100% of the Poverty Level Rank County Zip Code Estimate (%) County Zip Code Estimate (%) 1 Collier 34116 71.4 Lee 33917 83.8 2 Collier 34114 53.5 Lee 33905 34.8 3 Collier 34142 42.5 Lee 33907 27.4 4 Collier 34112 40 Lee 33916 25.8 5 Collier 34110 39.6 Lee 33901 18.8 6 No Data (ND) Lee 33990 1.3 Of these same workers that also live below 100% of the poverty level, it was reported that the most residents under this criteria reside in ZCTAs 34116 in Collier County and 33917 in Lee County. These ZCTAs overlap with the Golden Gate planning boundary in Collier County and the North Fort Myers planning boundary in Lee County. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 21 Table 15. Percentage of Workers 16 Years and Older Who Use Public Transportation (Excluding Taxicab) as Main Mode of Transportation for Work, Whose Place of Work Is Within State of Residence but Worked Outside of County of Residence Rank County Zip Code Estimate (%) County Zip Code Estimate (%) 1 Collier 34142 8.5 Lee 33919 100 2 ND Lee 34135 43.1 3 ND Lee 33907 17.5 4 ND Lee 33905 15.9 5 ND Lee 33971 13.1 6 ND Lee 33901 11 7 ND Lee 33965 8.6 8 ND Lee 33917 1.3 For workers that use public transportation and work outside of their county of residence, the top ZCTAs were 34142 in Collier County and 33919 in Lee County. These ZCTAs overlap with the Immokalee planning boundary in Collier County and the South Fort Myers planning boundary in Lee County. The Immokalee planning area is also part of one of the identified priority O-D pairs. Table 16. Percentage of Workers 16 Years and Older Who Reported Having No Vehicles Available in the Household Rank County Zip Code Estimate (%) County Zip Code Estimate (%) 1 Collier 34114 68.1 Lee 33907 63.7 2 Collier 34142 39.2 Lee 33901 36.4 3 Collier 34112 33.3 Lee 33916 31 4 ND Lee 33905 21.2 For workers who have no vehicles available in their household, it was reported that the top ZCTAs were 34114 in Collier County and 33919 in Lee County. These ZCTAs overlap with the South Naples and Royal Fakapalm planning boundaries in Collier County and the South Fort Myers planning boundary in Lee County. 3.3.3 Existing Plans The existing TDPs and LRTPs for both Collier and Lee counties were also evaluated for existing commuter patterns and public transportation demand. Overall, there is a significant number of cross-jurisdictional trips occurring between Collier County and Lee County, particularly in lower-income areas where public transit is the primary mode of transportation. Both the CAT and LeeTran TDPs identify regional corridors as future needs. These regional corridors were evaluated to serve as potential regional connections between Collier County and Lee County and were evaluated as candidate corridors.  University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) and Lehigh Acres Route: The UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route would provide a new connection between Immokalee, the 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 22 UF/IFAS Research and Education Center, and Lehigh Acres. The connection is recommended to connect to the Lehigh Acres Park-and-Ride Transfer Facility at the intersection of Williams Avenue and Village Lake Boulevard (expected completion of February 2024) (Lee County 2023). The CAT TDP states that “for persons using transit, it is important to note that Immokalee residents who travel to Lee County by transit must first travel to Naples to connect with one of the CAT routes (11, 12, or 27) that connect to the LinC. The time travel requirements present barriers for residents who make this trip by transit” (Tindale-Oliver 2020a).  I-75 Premium Express: The I-75 Premium Express would provide a connection between Collier and Lee counties. The proposed route would use existing lanes on I-75, or managed lanes if constructed. This route is also intended to serve CAT commuters traveling to RSW in Lee County. 4. Candidate Corridor Development The Collier MPO O-D Report was used to identify existing cross-jurisdictional travel patterns. According to the O-D Report, more than 90,000 trips per day begin in Collier County and end in Lee County, with an additional 38,000 daily trips passing through Collier County (Tindale-Oliver 2022). The top-four O-D pairs for travel between Collier and Lee counties were identified. Since the O-D Report data was from all trip types (for example, car, truck, taxi, transit, and so forth) the travel patterns did not narrow down to transit-related trips only. To evaluate transit needs, the O-D pairs were analyzed against U.S. Census and demographic data for those who reported using public transportation as their means to get to work. The O-D pairs were also evaluated against factors such as key activity and major employment centers and workforce commutes to identify routes to support regional and economic benefits. For the O-D pairs that were not already identified as a recommended route in the latest Collier County and Lee County TDPs and LRTPs, these O-D pairs were identified as potential candidate corridors. Figure 16 displays the methodology used to evaluate the top O-D pairs to identify potential candidate corridors. Figure 16. Candidate Corridor Development Methodology The candidate corridors were developed based on the O-D Report data for cross-county travel, then evaluated against key activity centers, workforce commutes, U.S. Census Data, and existing ridership data. The two proposed regional corridors identified in the CAT and LeeTran TDPs were evaluated as candidate corridors, and the travel pattern and market analyses determined if any additional candidate corridors should be evaluated. Table 17 summarizes the evaluation of additional candidate corridors using the 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 23 priority O-D pairs and the evaluation against the existing transit networks, the existing corridors identified in the TDPs, and the U.S. Census Data. Additionally, public involvement and outreach feedback was evaluated for additional potential candidate corridors that were not identified by the regional travel pattern and market analyses. However, no new regional candidate corridors were identified based on public comments. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 24 Table 17. Candidate Corridor Evaluation Matrix O-D Pair (Collier County to Lee County) Is this pair served by an existing CAT or LeeTran route? Source of O-D pair Was this identified as a top O-D pair from Lee County to Collier County?a Is there a transit need or priority to serve the O-D pair?b Should this be advanced as a candidate corridor? UF/IFAS to Lehigh Acres Immokalee to Lehigh Acres No CAT and LeeTran TDPs Yes, Immokalee is the top Collier County destination for trips beginning in Lehigh Acres. All categories for both Collier and Lee counties: Workers 16 years old and older who use public transportation as main mode of transportation, poverty status below 100% of poverty level, place of work is outside county of residence, and no vehicles available in household Yes, identified as a need in the CAT and LeeTran TDPs, and transit needs identified in U.S. Census data. I-75 Premium Express Option 1: Collier County Government Campus to Gulf Coast Town Center East Naples to San Carlos No CAT TDP No Collier: Workers 16 years old and older who use public transportation as their main mode of transportation and have no vehicles available in household Lee: None Yes, identified as a need in the CAT TDP, and transit needs identified in U.S. Census data. I-75 Premium Express Option 2: Pine Ridge Road to RSW and Colonial Boulevard Urban Estates to Gateway/Airport and Fort Myers No LeeTran TDP No Collier: None Lee: (for ZCTA 33905 – Fort Myers) Workers 16 years old and older who use public transportation as main mode of transportation, poverty status below 100% of poverty level, work outside county of residence, and no vehicles available in household Yes, identified as a need in the LeeTran TDP, and transit needs identified in U.S. Census data. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 25 Table 17. Candidate Corridor Evaluation Matrix O-D Pair (Collier County to Lee County) Is this pair served by an existing CAT or LeeTran route? Source of O-D pair Was this identified as a top O-D pair from Lee County to Collier County?a Is there a transit need or priority to serve the O-D pair?b Should this be advanced as a candidate corridor? I-75 Premium Express Option 3: Collier County Government Campus to RSW and Colonia Boulevard East Naples to Gateway/Airport and Fort Myers No Combination form of CAT and LeeTran TDPs. No Collier: Workers 16 years old and older who use public transportation as main mode of transportation, poverty status below 100% of poverty level, no vehicles available in household Lee: (for ZCTA 33905 – Fort Myers) Workers 16 years old and older who use public transportation as main mode of transportation, poverty status below 100% of poverty level, work outside county of residence, and no vehicles available in household Yes, identified as a need in the CAT and LeeTran TDPs, and transit needs identified in U.S. Census data. North Naples to Bonita Springs Yes – LinC Route O-D Report Data Yes, North Naples is the top Collier County destination for trips beginning in Bonita Springs. Collier: None Lee: (Sections of Bonita Springs in ZCTA 34135) Workers 16 years old and older who use public transportation as main mode of transportation and work outside county of residence No, there is already an existing route serving this O-D pair. Urban Estates to Bonita Springs No O-D Report Data No Collier: Small area identified as workers 16 years old and older who use public transportation and live below 100% of the poverty level Lee: (Sections of Bonita Springs in ZCTA 34135) Workers 16 years old and older who use public transportation as main mode of transportation and work outside county of residence Yes, since the proposed I-75 Premium Express covers the area, an alternative corridor to evaluate would be Livingston Road to Imperial Parkway. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 26 Table 17. Candidate Corridor Evaluation Matrix O-D Pair (Collier County to Lee County) Is this pair served by an existing CAT or LeeTran route? Source of O-D pair Was this identified as a top O-D pair from Lee County to Collier County?a Is there a transit need or priority to serve the O-D pair?b Should this be advanced as a candidate corridor? City of Naples to Bonita Springs Yes – CAT network and LinC O-D Report Data No Collier: None Lee: (Sections of Bonita Springs in ZCTA 34135) Workers 16 years old and older who use public transportation as main mode of transportation and work outside county of residence No, there is already an existing route serving this O-D pair. Immokalee to Lehigh Acres No O-D Report Data Yes, Immokalee is the top destination in Collier County for trips beginning in Lehigh Acres. All categories for both Collier and Lee counties: Workers 16 years old and older who use public transportation as main mode of transportation, poverty status below 100% of poverty level, place of work is outside county of residence, no vehicles available in household This O-D pair can be serviced by the proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route as identified in both CAT and LeeTran TDPs. Golden Gate to Bonita Springs No U.S. Census Data No Collier: Transit need for area below 100% of poverty level; however, O-D Report data are showing top trips are not going to Lee County Lee: (Sections of Bonita Springs in ZCTA 34135) Workers 16 years old and older who use public transportation as main mode of transportation and work outside county of residence No. Since most daily trips from Golden Gate are staying within Collier County, implementing a cross- county route is not a priority for this O-D pair. a Based on the O-D Report data. b Based on U.S. Census data. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 27 4.1 UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route The proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route (Figure 17) is a candidate corridor that would connect Immokalee in Collier County to Lehigh Acres in Lee County. This route was identified in both the CAT and LeeTran TDPs. According to the Collier MPO O-D Report data, 2,600 trips occur between this O-D pair daily. This proposed route would connect Immokalee to the UF/IFAS campus in Collier County and Lehigh Acres in Lee County via County Road 846, SR 29, and SR 82. The TDPs identified the endpoint in Lehigh Acres at the new Lehigh Acres Transfer Park-and-Ride Transfer Facility at the intersection of Williams Avenue and Village Lakes Boulevard. This park-and-ride is expected for completion in early 2024 (Lee County Government 2023). Based on the O-D Report data, 42% of all external travel from Immokalee to Lee County ends in the Lehigh Acres subarea, making it the largest proportion of external trips from Immokalee. Due to the current absence of regional transit connection between the two subareas, if commuters travel from Lehigh Acres to Immokalee via public transit, they must first travel to Fort Myers, then to Naples on the LinC bus, and finally transfer to another bus that would take them to Immokalee. The addition of a regional connection between these two isolated subareas would reduce travel time by 91.7% for commuters who rely on public transit as their main mode of transportation. Additionally, based on U.S. Census data, the Immokalee area (ZCTA 34142) consistently ranks highest for populations that use public transit as their main mode of transportation, are below the poverty level, and work outside of their county of residence. Figure 17. Proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 28 4.2 I-75 Premium Express The proposed I-75 Premium Express provides a direct route between Collier County and Lee County via I-75. According to the CAT and LeeTran TDPs and the LeeTran Evolve Network geographic information system (GIS) data, the endpoints for this corridor in Collier County and Lee County vary.  The CAT TDP identifies the Lee County endpoint at Gulf Coast Town Center in the San Carlos subarea and the Collier County endpoint at the Collier County Government Center.  The LeeTran TDP identifies the Lee County endpoint at RSW in the Airport/Gateway subarea in Section 9, page 9-8, but also identifies the Lee County endpoint at Florida Gulf Coast University when referencing the CAT TDP.  The LeeTran Evolve Network GIS data identifies the endpoint in Collier County connecting to CAT Route 20 near I-75 on Pine Ridge Road. Due to the various endpoints identified for this corridor, three potential alignment options were evaluated. Options 1 and 2 were based on the TDPs and Evolve Network GIS data. Option 3 was developed as a result of the O-D data analysis discussion with CAT, LeeTran, and Collier MPO. Option 1: This route would connect the Collier County Government Center in Collier County and the Gulf Coast Town Center in Lee County (Figure 18). Figure 18. Proposed I-75 Premium Express – Option 1 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 29 Option 2: This route would connect at Pine Ridge Road near the I-75 interchange in Collier County and provide two drop-off locations in Lee County, RSW and the Forum on Colonial Boulevard (Figure 19). Figure 19. Proposed I-75 Premium Express – Option 2 Option 3: This route would connect the Collier County Government Center with two drop-off points in Lee County, at RSW and the Forum on Colonial Boulevard. 4.3 Urban Estates to Bonita Springs The Urban Estates subarea produces the second-greatest number of external trips from Collier County to Lee County, with Bonita Springs as the top destination, generating more than 6,000 trips daily. Currently, there is no existing regional transit route connecting these two planning communities. If travelers want to get to Bonita Springs via public transit, they will first need to travel west to the Creekside Transfer Station to board the LinC bus, which provides a drop-off point in Estero. A potential regional corridor from Urban Estates would be beneficial to populations in eastern Collier County that currently do not have a regional service connecting to Lee County. The proposed route from Urban Estates to Bonita Springs (Figure 20) would use Livingston Road (Collier County) and Imperial Parkway (Lee County) as its main thoroughfares and connect to the existing LinC bus in Bonita Springs. This would eliminate the need for travelers whose origins are east of Livingston Road to travel west to the Creekside Transfer Station first for the LinC bus. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 30 Figure 20. Urban Estates to Bonita Springs An alternative to this route would continue north into Estero, connecting with the existing LinC Route at the Coconut Point Transfer Station. Final endpoints will be determined if this corridor is recommended to move forward as the recommended route. 5. Candidate Corridor Evaluation A quantitative and qualitative methodology was developed to evaluate and rank the candidate corridors to determine the recommended corridor to implement as the new cross-jurisdictional transit route. The candidate corridors evaluated included:  UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route  I-75 Premium Express Option 1: Collier County Government Center to Gulf Coast Town Center  I-75 Premium Express Option 2: Pine Ridge Road to RSW and the Forum  I-75 Premium Express Option 3: Collier County Government Center to RSW and the Forum  Urban Estates to Bonita Springs Route The ranking criteria was developed with scoring factors including but not limited to U.S. Census data, O-D Report data, proximity to key activity centers and transfer stations, and reduction in user travel time. The ranking criteria helped identify the candidate corridor recommended for implementation. The evaluation criteria developed provides a numerical scoring for each candidate corridor evaluated. The evaluation used a weighted point system that was applied using a score of 0 to10 with a weight from 1 to 3. The score weighting assigned was based on the following criteria to serve cross-county transit needs: 1. Basic benefit 2. Moderate benefit 3. Extreme benefit A total score was then generated based on the scores and weights for each question, with a maximum score of 270 points. A percentage was then calculated to give the candidate corridor an overall score. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 31 Attachment 2 includes the completed Corridor Evaluation Forms for each candidate corridor. Table 18 summarizes the scores for each candidate corridor. The UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route ranked first, indicating it would provide the greatest benefit based on cross-county transit needs. Table 18. Candidate Corridor Ranking Ranking Candidate Corridor Score Percentage 1 UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route (Immokalee to Lehigh Acres) 220/270 81.48% 2 I-75 Premium Express – Option 2 (Pine Ridge Road to RSW and the Forum) 178/270 65.93% 3 I-75 Premium Express – Option 3 (Collier County Government Center to RSW and the Forum) 168/270 62.22% 4 Urban Estates to Bonita Springs Route (Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway Route) 133/270 49.26% 5 I-75 Premium Express – Option 1 (Collier County Government Center to Gulf Coast Town Center) 128/270 47.41% 6. Conclusion and Recommendations The proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route received the highest ranking and demonstrates the most significant need for a transit connection. Both Immokalee and Lehigh Acres are CDPs. Within these subareas, there are areas in which workers reported they rely on public transit to get to work. These workers also reported working outside their county of residence, live at or below the poverty level, and/or have no vehicles available in their household. Additionally, the CAT and LeeTran bus systems do not have a direct connection for users traveling between Immokalee and Lehigh Acres. The approximate travel time using the bus system traveling between Immokalee and Lehigh Acres is estimated to be at least 6 hours one way. The addition of a direct regional transit route would greatly reduce the overall travel time between these areas. The public involvement and outreach efforts identified the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route to be the top route for participants that indicated they typically ride the bus. Based on the candidate corridor ranking and public input, it is recommended to proceed with the proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route and to move forward with scenario development for this route as the recommended regional transit connection between Collier County and Lee County. 7. References Lee County. 2023. LeeTran Current Projects. Accessed May 2023. https://www.leegov.com/leetran/about- leetran/current-projects. Lee County Government. 2023. Lee Commissioners approve contracts to build LeeTran Park and Ride in Lehigh Acres. December 5. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Technical Memorandum 240123142723_382EB036 32 Tindale-Oliver. 2020a. Collier Area Transit Ten-Year Transit Development Plan 2021-2030. Prepared for: Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization. Accessed April 2023. https://www.ridecat.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/03/CAT-TDP-2021-2030_FINAL-REPORT.pdf Tindale-Oliver. 2020b. LeeTran-Lee County Transit Transit Development Plan. Prepared for: Lee County Transit. Accessed April 2023. https://www.leegov.com/leetran/PublishingImages/LeeTran%20TDP- %20Final%20Report%20(1).pdf Tindale-Oliver. 2022. Collier MPO Origin and Destination Report. Accessed June 2023. https://www.colliermpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Final-OD-Report_Approved-12-9-22.pdf United States Census Bureau. 2015. Table 1. Residence County to Workplace County Commuting Flows for the United States and Puerto Rico Sorted by Residence Geography: 5-Year ACS, 2011-2015. Accessed June 2023. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2015/demo/metro-micro/commuting-flows-2015.html. United States Census Bureau. 2022 Census Designated Places. Accessed August 2023. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/bas/information/cdp.html United States Census Bureau. n.d. Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics. Accessed August 2023. https://data.census.gov/map?g=860XX00US33901,33903,33904,33905,33907,33908,33909,33912,3 3913,33914,33916,33917,33919,33920,33921,33922,33924,33928,33930,33931,33936,33945,339 46,33956,33957,33965,33966,33967,33971,33972,33973,33974,33975,33976,33990,33991,33993, 339XX,34101,34102,34103,34104,34105,34108,34109,34110,34112,34113,34114,34116,34117,34 119,34120,34134,34135,34137,34138,34139,34140,34141,34142,34145&tid=ACSST5Y2021.S0802 &layer=VT_2021_860_Z2_PY_D1&mode=thematic&loc=26.2573,-81.8166,z8.4296 United States Census Bureau. n.d. QuickFacts: Collier County, Florida; Lee County, Florida. Accessed June 2023. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/colliercountyflorida,leecountyflorida/PST045222. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Attachment 1 US Census Maps 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS Although the American Community Survey (ACS ) produces population , demographic and housing unit estimates , it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation , states , counties , cities , and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties . Supporting documentation on code lists , subject definitions , data accuracy , and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the https ://www .census .gov /programs - surveys /acs /technical -documentation /code -lists .html section . Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates , allocation rates , and response rates ) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the https ://www .census .gov /acs /www /methodology /sample_size_and_data_quality / section . Source : U .S. Census Bureau , 2017 -2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability . The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error . The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error . The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds ) contains the true value . In addition to sampling variability , the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability , see https ://www .census .gov /programs -surveys /acs /technical - documentation .html ). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables . Foreign born excludes people born outside the United States to a parent who is a U.S . citizen . Workers include members of the Armed Forces and civilians who were at work last week . Industry titles and their 4-digit codes are based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS ). The Census industry codes for 2018 and later years are based on the 2017 revision of the NAICS . To allow for the creation of multiyear tables , industry data in the multiyear files (prior to data year 2018 ) were recoded to the 2017 Census industry codes . We recommend using Survey /Program : American Community Survey Year : 2021 Estimates : 5-Year Table ID : S0802 1 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs caution when comparing data coded using 2017 Census industry codes with data coded using Census industry codes prior to data year 2018 . For more information on the Census industry code changes , please visit our website at https ://www .census .gov /topics /employment /industry - occupation /guidance /code -lists .html . When information is missing or inconsistent , the Census Bureau logically assigns an acceptable value using the response to a related question or questions . If a logical assignment is not possible , data are filled using a statistical process called allocation , which uses a similar individual or household to provide a donor value . The "Allocated " section is the number of respondents who received an allocated value for a particular subject . Several means of transportation to work categories were updated in 2019 . For more information , see : http ://www .census .gov /programs -surveys /acs /technical -documentation /user -notes /2020 -03 .html Occupation titles and their 4-digit codes are based on the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC ). The Census occupation codes for 2018 and later years are based on the 2018 revision of the SOC . To allow for the creation of the multiyear tables , occupation data in the multiyear files (prior to data year 2018 ) were recoded to the 2018 Census occupation codes . We recommend using caution when comparing data coded using 2018 Census occupation codes with data coded using Census occupation codes prior to data year 2018 . For more information on the Census occupation code changes , please visit our website at https ://www .census .gov /topics /employment /industry - occupation /guidance /code -lists .html . In 2019 , methodological changes were made to the class of worker question . These changes involved modifications to the question wording , the category wording , and the visual format of the categories on the questionnaire . The format for the class of worker categories are now listed under the headings "Private Sector Employee ," "Government Employee ," and "Self -Employed or Other ." Additionally , the category of Active Duty was added as one of the response categories under the "Government Employee " section for the mail questionnaire . For more detailed information about the 2019 changes , see the 2016 American Community Survey Content Test Report for Class of Worker located at https ://www .census .gov /library /working -papers /2017 /acs /2017_Martinez_01 .html . The 2017 -2021 American Community Survey (ACS ) data generally reflect the March 2020 Office of Management and Budget (OMB ) delineations of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas . In certain instances , the names , codes , and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB delineation lists due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities . Estimates of urban and rural populations , housing units , and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data . As a result , data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization . 2 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Explanation of Symbols : - The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations . For a ratio of medians estimate , one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open -ended distribution . For a 5 -year median estimate , the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself . N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area . (X )The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available . median - The median falls in the lowest interval of an open -ended distribution (for example "2,500 - ") median + The median falls in the highest interval of an open -ended distribution (for example "250,000 +"). ** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations . *** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open -ended distribution . ***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate . Effectively , the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero . Map Note 1 : The boundaries , roads , and hydrography shown on the map are from the Census Bureau's MAF /TIGER database . Boundaries in the vicinity of coastal areas (Atlantic Ocean , Pacific Ocean , and the Great Lakes ) are clipped to a representative coastline for data years 2020 and beyond and generally do not extend into the water . Map Note 2 : The detailed basemap includes national , state , and local parks and forests from the U.S . Geological Survey (USGS ) Gap Analysis Project (GAP ), 2020 , Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US ) 2.1 : U .S. Geological Survey data release , https ://doi .org /10.5066 /P92QM3NT 3 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Attachment 2 Candidate Corridor Evaluation Forms 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Corridor Evaluation Form Origin-Destination (O-D) Pair Planning Communities: Collier ZCTA(s): Immokalee and Lehigh Acres 34142 Proposed Regional Corridor (identify proposed main road and general endpoints): Evaluation Criteria Score Weight Total Based off US Census Data: 1. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers whose means of transportation to work was public transportation?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 81 8 2. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work who are at or below the poverty level?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 8324 3. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work and also work outside their county of residence?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 10 3 30 4. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work and also live in a household with no vehicles available?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 8324 5. Do either of the corridor endpoints fall within a Census-designated place? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts) 10 1 10 Based off O-D Report Data: 6. Does the Collier County subarea fall within the top 5 Collier County origins for trips from Collier to Lee County? (Collier subarea ranked first= 10 pts; ranked second= 8 pts; ranked third= 6 pts; ranked fourth= 4 pts; ranked fifth= 2 pts) 4312 7. Does the Lee County subarea fall within the top 5 Lee County origins for trips from Lee to Collier County? (Lee subarea ranked first= 10 pts; ranked second= 8 pts; ranked third= 6 pts; ranked fourth= 4 pts; ranked fifth= 2 pts) 4312 General Questions: 8. Is this corridor identified as regional transit need in a long range plan for CAT or LeeTran? (Within 1 mi= 10 pts; Within 2 mi= 8 pts; Within 5 mi= 4 pts; > 5mi= 0 pts) 10 3 30 Lee ZCTA(s): 33936, 33971, 33972, 33973, 33976, 33974 Immokalee (34142) is the top endpoint for Collier County in this category for 2019- 2021. Immokalee (34142) is the top endpoint for Collier County in this category for 2019- 2021. Immokalee (34142) is the top endpoint for Collier County in this category for 2019- 2021. Lehigh Acres (33971) is within the top 3 endpoints in this category for 2020. Immokalee (34142) is within the top 3 endpoints for Collier County in this category for 2019-2021. Immokalee and Lehigh Acres are both CDPs. Immokalee produces the fourth most external trips to Lee County. Lehigh Acres produces the fourth most external trips to Collier County. This route was identified as a future need in the CAT and LeeTran TDPs. UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route - from Immokalee Health Department to new Lehigh Acres Transfer Center, along SR 29 and SR 82 1 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Corridor Evaluation Form Score Weight Total 9. Do the proposed planning communities in the O-D pair have an existing or planned transfer station? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts; a planned transfer station in 2040 LRTP= 2 pts) 10 2 20 10. Do either of the corridor endpoints fall within an area of high employment density according to the CAT or LeeTran TDPs? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts) 10 3 30 11. Approximately how much longer does using the existing transit system take compared to driving a direct route on this corridor? (>1 hour= 10 pts; between 30 minutes and 1 hour= 8 pts; between 10 and 30 minutes= 4 pts; <10 minutes= 0 pts) 10 2 20 *Evaluated using US Census Data for years 2019-2021. Comments: of 270 pts Immokalee has an existing transfer station. There is a new transfer station for Lehigh Acres currently in construction (estimated completion in 2025). 220 Total Score: 81.48% According to Google Maps (see below), driving takes 30-45 mins at peak hour. Using CAT and LeeTran takes over 6 hours. These endpoints were chosen based on identified endpoints in the CAT and LeeTran TDPs. The Lehigh Acres endpoint is at the site of the new Lehigh Acres Park-and-Ride Transfer Station. Both Immokalee and Lehigh Acres are areas of high employment density. It is important to note how inconvenient it is for people traveling from Immokalee to Lehigh Acres via public transit. The shortest option is still over 6 hours and not at a convenient time. Bus riders have to first travel into Naples, then to Fort Myers, before finally ending in Lehigh Acres. 2 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Corridor Evaluation Form Origin-Destination (O-D) Pair Planning Communities: Collier ZCTA(s): East Naples and San Carlos 34112 Proposed Regional Corridor (identify proposed main road and general endpoints): I-75 Premium Express Option 1: from Collier County Government Center to Gulf Coast Town Center via I-75 Evaluation Criteria Score Weight Total Based off US Census Data: 1.Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers whose means of transportation to work was public transportation?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 818 2.Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work who are at or below the poverty level?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 030 3.Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work and also work outside their county of residence?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 030 4.Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work and also live in a household with no vehicles available?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 8324 5.Do either of the corridor endpoints fall within a Census-designated place? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts) 010 Based off O-D Report Data: 6.Does the Collier County subarea fall within the top 5 Collier County origins for trips from Collier to Lee County? (Collier subarea ranked first= 10 pts; ranked second= 8 pts; ranked third= 6 pts; ranked fourth= 4 pts; ranked fifth= 2 pts) 030 7.Does the Lee County subarea fall within the top 5 Lee County origins for trips from Lee to Collier County? (Lee subarea ranked first= 10 pts; ranked second= 8 pts; ranked third= 6 pts; ranked fourth= 4 pts; ranked fifth= 2 pts) 236 Lee ZCTA(s): 33913 East Naples (34112) is in the top 3 endpoints for Collier County in this category for 2019-2021. East Naples (34112) is in the top 3 endpoints for Collier County in this category for 2019 and 2021. No No No No San Carlos produces the fifth most trips to Collier County from Lee County. 1 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Corridor Evaluation Form General Questions: 8. Is this corridor identified as regional transit need in a long range plan for CAT or LeeTran? (Within 1 mi= 10 pts; Within 2 mi= 8 pts; Within 5 mi= 4 pts; > 5mi= 0 pts) 10 3 30 9. Do the proposed planning communities in the O-D pair have an existing or planned transfer station? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts; a planned transfer station in 2040 LRTP= 2 pts) 5210 10. Do either of the corridor endpoints fall within an area of high employment density according to the CAT or LeeTran TDPs? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts) 10 3 30 11. Approximately how much longer does using the existing transit system take compared to driving a direct route on this corridor? (>1 hour= 10 pts; between 30 minutes and 1 hour= 8 pts; between 10 and 30 minutes= 4 pts; <10 minutes= 0 pts) 10 2 20 *Evaluated using US Census Data for years 2019-2021. Comments: of 270 pts 47.41% According to Google Maps (see below), driving takes 35-65 minutes during peak hour. Using CAT and LeeTran takes approximately 3 hours 22 minutes. These endpoints were chosen based on idenitfied endpoints in the CAT and LeeTran TDPs. 128 Total Score: This route was identified as a need in the CAT TDP. The Collier County Government Center is located at a transfer station. Both endpoints are in areas of high employment density. 2 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Corridor Evaluation Form Origin-Destination (O-D) Pair Planning Communities: Collier ZCTA(s): Urban Estates and Gateway/Airport or Fort Myers 34109 Proposed Regional Corridor (identify proposed main road and general endpoints): I-75 Premium Express Option 2: from Pine Ridge Road/I-75 interchange to RSW and the Forum via I-75 Evaluation Criteria Score Weight Total Based off US Census Data: 1. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers whose means of transportation to work was public transportation?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 81 8 2. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work who are at or below the poverty level?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 8324 3. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work and also work outside their county of residence?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 03 0 4. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work and also live in a household with no vehicles available?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 8324 5. Do either of the corridor endpoints fall within a Census-designated place? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts) 51 5 Based off O-D Report Data: 6. Does the Collier County subarea fall within the top 5 Collier County origins for trips from Collier to Lee County? (Collier subarea ranked first= 10 pts; ranked second= 8 pts; ranked third= 6 pts; ranked fourth= 4 pts; ranked fifth= 2 pts) 8324 7. Does the Lee County subarea fall within the top 5 Lee County origins for trips from Lee to Collier County? (Lee subarea ranked first= 10 pts; ranked second= 8 pts; ranked third= 6 pts; ranked fourth= 4 pts; ranked fifth= 2 pts) 8324 General Questions: 8. Is this corridor identified as regional transit need in a long range plan for CAT or LeeTran? (Within 1 mi= 10 pts; Within 2 mi= 8 pts; Within 5 mi= 4 pts; > 5mi= 0 pts) 10 3 30 Lee ZCTA(s): 33913 and 33905 Fort Myers (33905) is in the top three for Collier County in this category for 2019-2021. Fort Myers (33905) is in the top three for Collier County in this category for 2020-2021. No Fort Myers (33905) is in the top three for Collier County in this category for 2019-2020. The Forum endpoint is within the Fort Myers City CDP. Urban Estates produces the second most trips to Lee County from Collier County. Fort Myers produces the second most trips to Collier County to Lee County. This corridor is identified as a need in the LeeTran TDP. 1 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Corridor Evaluation Form Score Weight Total 9. Do the proposed planning communities in the O-D pair have an existing or planned transfer station? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts; a planned transfer station in 2040 LRTP= 2 pts) 22 4 10. Do either of the corridor endpoints fall within an area of high employment density according to the CAT or LeeTran TDPs? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts) 5315 11. Approximately how much longer does using the existing transit system take compared to driving a direct route on this corridor? (>1 hour= 10 pts; between 30 minutes and 1 hour= 8 pts; between 10 and 30 minutes= 4 pts; <10 minutes= 0 pts) 10 2 20 *Evaluated using US Census Data for years 2019-2021. Comments: of 270 pts 178 Total Score: 65.93% According to Google Maps (see below), riding the bus takes at least 4 hours to get to the Forum using CAT and LeeTran at peak hour. Driving takes 35-55 minutes. The endpoint on Pine Ridge Rd was chosen based on proximity to the I-75 interchange. There is a planned transit super stop at the Forum in Fort Myers. The Pine Ridge Road endpoint is located in an area of high employment density. 2 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Corridor Evaluation Form Origin-Destination (O-D) Pair Planning Communities: Collier ZCTA(s): East Naples and Gateway/Airport or Fort Myers 34112 Proposed Regional Corridor (identify proposed main road and general endpoints): I-75 Premium Express Option 3: from Collier County Government Center to RSW and the Forum via I-75 Evaluation Criteria Score Weight Total Based off US Census Data: 1. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers whose means of transportation to work was public transportation?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 10 1 10 2. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work who are at or below the poverty level?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 8324 3. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work and also work outside their county of residence?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 03 0 4. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work and also live in a household with no vehicles available?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 10 3 30 5. Do either of the corridor endpoints fall within a Census-designated place? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts) 51 5 Based off O-D Report Data: 6. Does the Collier County subarea fall within the top 5 Collier County origins for trips from Collier to Lee County? (Collier subarea ranked first= 10 pts; ranked second= 8 pts; ranked third= 6 pts; ranked fourth= 4 pts; ranked fifth= 2 pts) 03 0 7. Does the Lee County subarea fall within the top 5 Lee County origins for trips from Lee to Collier County? (Lee subarea ranked first= 10 pts; ranked second= 8 pts; ranked third= 6 pts; ranked fourth= 4 pts; ranked fifth= 2 pts) 8324 East Naples (34112) is in the top 3 endpoints for Collier County in this category for 2019-2021. Fort Myers (33905) is in the top three for Collier County in this category for 2019-2021. Fort Myers (33905) is in the top three for Collier County in this category for 2020-2021. No East Naples (34112) is in the top 3 endpoints for Collier County in this category for 2019 and 2021. Fort Myers (33905) is in the top three for Collier County in this category for 2019-2020. The Forum endpoint is within the Fort Myers City CDP. No Fort Myers produces the second most trips to Collier County to Lee County. Lee ZCTA(s): 33913 and 33905 1 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Corridor Evaluation Form Score Weight Total General Questions: 8. Is this corridor identified as regional transit need in a long range plan for CAT or LeeTran? (Within 1 mi= 10 pts; Within 2 mi= 8 pts; Within 5 mi= 4 pts; > 5mi= 0 pts) 10 3 30 9. Do the proposed planning communities in the O-D pair have an existing or planned transfer station? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts; a planned transfer station in 2040 LRTP= 2 pts) 5210 10. Do either of the corridor endpoints fall within an area of high employment density according to the CAT or LeeTran TDPs? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts) 5315 11. Approximately how much longer does using the existing transit system take compared to driving a direct route on this corridor? (>1 hour= 10 pts; between 30 minutes and 1 hour= 8 pts; between 10 and 30 minutes= 4 pts; <10 minutes= 0 pts) 10 2 20 *Evaluated using US Census Data for years 2019-2021. Comments: of 270 pts According to Google Maps (see below), riding the bus takes at least 4 hours to get to the Forum using CAT and LeeTran at peak hour. Driving takes 50-90 minutes. This corridor is identified as a need in the the CAT and LeeTran TDPs (endpoints may differ). The Collier County Government Center is located at a transfer station. The Collier County Government Center is in an area of high employment density. 168 Total Score: 62.22% 2 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Corridor Evaluation Form Origin-Destination (O-D) Pair Planning Communities: Collier ZCTA(s): Urban Estates and Bonita Springs 34109 Proposed Regional Corridor (identify proposed main road and general endpoints): Livingston Rd/Imperial Pkwy Route: Pine Ridge Road to Bonita Springs via Livingston Rd/Imperial Pkwy Evaluation Criteria Score Weight Total Based off US Census Data: 1. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers whose means of transportation to work was public transportation?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 01 0 2. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work who are at or below the poverty level?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 03 0 3. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work and also work outside their county of residence?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 83 24 4. Are either of the corridor endpoints within the top ZCTA's within 2019, 2020, or 2021 for workers who take public transportation to work and also live in a household with no vehicles available?* (both endpoints in top 3= 10 pts; one endpoint in top 3= 8 pts; both endpoints in top 5= 6 pts; one endpoint in top 5= 4 pts) 03 0 5. Do either of the corridor endpoints fall within a Census-designated place? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts) 51 5 Based off O-D Report Data: 6. Does the Collier County subarea fall within the top 5 Collier County origins for trips from Collier to Lee County? (Collier subarea ranked first= 10 pts; ranked second= 8 pts; ranked third= 6 pts; ranked fourth= 4 pts; ranked fifth= 2 pts) 83 24 7. Does the Lee County subarea fall within the top 5 Lee County origins for trips from Lee to Collier County? (Lee subarea ranked first= 10 pts; ranked second= 8 pts; ranked third= 6 pts; ranked fourth= 4 pts; ranked fifth= 2 pts) 10 3 30 General Questions: 8. Is this corridor identified as regional transit need in a long range plan for CAT or LeeTran? (Within 1 mi= 10 pts; Within 2 mi= 8 pts; Within 5 mi= 4 pts; > 5mi= 0 pts) 03 0 Bonita Springs (34135) is in the top 3 endpoints for Collier County in this category for 2019-2021. Lee ZCTA(s): 34135 No No No The Bonita Springs endpoint is located in the Bonita Springs City CDP. Urban Estates produces the second most trips to Lee County. Bonita Springs produces the most trips to Collier County. No, although this is near the I-75 Express, the proposed endpoints are different than those identified in the CAT or LeeTran TDP's regional transit needs. 1 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Corridor Evaluation Form Score Weight Total 9. Do the proposed planning communities in the O-D pair have an existing or planned transfer station? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts; a planned transfer station in 2040 LRTP= 2 pts) 02 0 10. Do either of the corridor endpoints fall within an area of high employment density according to the CAT or LeeTran TDPs? (both endpoints= 10 pts; one endpoint= 5 pts) 10 3 30 11. Approximately how much longer does using the existing transit system take compared to driving a direct route on this corridor? (>1 hour= 10 pts; between 30 minutes and 1 hour= 8 pts; between 10 and 30 minutes= 4 pts; <10 minutes= 0 pts) 10 2 20 *Evaluated using US Census Data for years 2019-2021. Comments: of 270 pts 133 Total Score: 49.26% According to Google Maps (see below), riding the bus takes approximately 2.5 hours at peak hour. Driving takes approximately 12-24 minutes. The endpoint on Pine Ridge was chosen due to its location in the Urban Estates CDP. There are no existing or planned transfer stations. Both endpoints fall within areas of high employment density. 2 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Appendix D. Public Involvement Materials 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Public Outreach Materials 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs CAT Needs Your Input! Pou tradiksyon kreyòl, tanpri kontakte: sonal.dodia@jacobs.com Díganos qué nuevas rutas de autobús serían las más adecuadas para sus necesidades de conexión entre CAT y LeeTran. Let us know what new bus routes would best serve your connection needs between CAT and LeeTran. Or visit the website: https://forms.of�ice.com/r/Ck6b9HUdGh O visita el sitio web:https://forms.of�ice.com/r/TqUjmRRmgt For EnglishScan Me: Para EspañolEscanéame: Take the Regional Survey regarding a potential new transit connection between Collier County and Lee County. Survey will be available until December 20, 2023. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study Take the Regional Survey regarding a potential new transit connection between Collier County and Lee County. CAT Needs Your Input! Collier Area Transit (CAT) is evaluating the addition of a new cross-county bus route to provide a new service connection between Collier and Lee Counties, and we need your help! We have developed several potential cross-county routes and need your help to rank these routes and/or identify any additional cross-county routes you feel would be bene�icial to the overall transit system. Through this survey, you will be able to provide feedback about the proposed routes or provide your own suggestions. This survey will be available until December 20, 2023. Thank you for your participation! If you have any questions, please contact: Anne McLaughlin Executive Director Collier MPOAnne.McLaughlin@colliercounty�l.gov Alex Showalter Senior Planner PTNEAlexander.Showalter@colliercounty�l.gov To complete the survey in English, visit the website at: https://forms.of�ice.com/r/Ck6b9HUdGh Para rellenar la encuesta en español, visite el sitio web: https://forms.of�ice.com/r/TqUjmRRmgt Pou tradiksyon kreyòl tanpri kontakte: sonal.dodia@jacobs.com 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Your Input Needed: Regional Transit Survey for Collier County Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 3:34 PMGreater Naples Chamber <marketing@napleschamber.org> Reply-To: Greater Naples Chamber <reply-nk31pvo4@greaternapleschamberofcommerce.growthzoneapp.com> View as a webpage There has been a significant migration trend between Lee County and Collier County as of 2020. A total of 2,793 individuals migrated from Lee County to Collier County, while 4,021 people moved from Collier County to Lee County. So Collier Area Transit, with the assistance of Collier MPO, is evaluating the addition of a new cross-county bus route between Collier and Lee Counties, and they need our help! Their survey aims to gather community feedback on several potential cross- county bus routes that have been proposed. Your valuable insights will help them prioritize these routes and identify any additional connections that may benefit the overall transit system. The survey will remain open until January 3, 2024, and can be accessed through the following links: To complete the survey in English: https://forms.office.com/r/Ck6b9HUdGh Para rellenar la encuesta en español: https://forms.office.com/r/ TqUjmRRmgt Pou tradiksyon kreyòl tanpri kontakte: sonal.dodia@jacobs.com Feel free to share the survey with others who may be interested in contributing to the development of a more connected and efficient transit system in our region. Connect with Greater Naples Chamber This email was sent on behalf of Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce located at 2150 Goodlette-Frank Road N., Suite 101, Naples, FL 34102. To unsubscribe click here. If you have questions or comments concerning this email contact Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce at info@napleschamber.org. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare 11/27/23, 11:24 AM Regional Survey – Potential New Transit Connection Between Collier County and Lee County – Collier Metropolitan Planning Or… https://www.colliermpo.org/news/regional-survey-potential-new-transit-connection-between-collier-county-and-lee-county/1/2 (https://www.colliermpo.org) Select Language (https://www.colliermpo.org/contact-us) FeedbackPrintShare (https://www.colliermpo.org) (https://www.colliermpo.org/news/) Home (https://www.colliermpo.org/) / Regional Survey – Potential New Transit Connection Between Collier County and Lee County REGIONAL SURVEY – POTENTIAL NEW TRANSIT CONNECTION BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND LEE COUNTY (https://www.colliermpo.org/news/)  November 22, 2023 () COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONTACT US Search Search More News HOME (HTTPS://WWW.COLLIERMPO.ORG/) ABOUT MPO Who We Are (Https://Www.Colliermpo.Org/Who-We-Are/) MPO Board (Https://Www.Colliermpo.Org/Mpo-Board-With-Link-To-Bylaws-And-Mpo- Calendar/) Committees (Https://Www.Colliermpo.Org/Committees/) TAC (Https://Www.Colliermpo.Org/Tac/) CAC (Https://Www.Colliermpo.Org/Cac/) (HTTPS://WWW.COLLIERMPO.ORG/ABOUT-MPO/) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 11/27/23, 11:24 AM Regional Survey – Potential New Transit Connection Between Collier County and Lee County – Collier Metropolitan Planning Or… https://www.colliermpo.org/news/regional-survey-potential-new-transit-connection-between-collier-county-and-lee-county/2/2 PREVIOUS (https://www.colliermpo.org/news/public- comment-period-for-amendments-to-the-2045- long-range-transportation-plan-the-fy-24-28- transportation-improvement-program-and-the- fy-22-23-23-24-unied-planning-work- program/) Home (https://www.colliermpo.org) / About Us (https://www.colliermpo.org/about-mpo/) / What's New (https://www.colliermpo.org/news) / Upcoming Events (https://www.colliermpo.org/events) / Get Involved (https://www.colliermpo.org/get-involved) / MPO Calendar (https://www.colliermpo.org/mpo-calendar/) / Contact Us (https://www.colliermpo.org/contact-us/) / Site Map (https://www.colliermpo.org/site-map/) / Disclaimer & Privacy Statement (https://www.colliermpo.org/disclaimer-privacy-statement/) ©2023 Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization. All Rights Reserved. Collier Area Transit, with the assistance of Collier MPO, is evaluating the addition of a new cross- county bus route to provide a new service connection between Collier and Lee Counties, and we need your help! Several potential cross-county routes have been developed, and we need your help to rank these routes and/or identify any additional cross-county routes would be benecial to the overall transit system. Through this survey, you will be able to provide feedback about the proposed routes or provide your own suggestions. This survey will be available until December 20, 2023.  Thank you for your participation! To complete the survey in English, visit the website at https://forms.oce.com/r/Ck6b9HUdGh (https://forms.oce.com/r/Ck6b9HUdGh) Para rellenar la encuesta en español, visite el sitio web https://forms.oce.com/r/TqUjmRRmgt (https://forms.oce.com/r/TqUjmRRmgt) Pou tradiksyon kreyòl tanpri kontakte: sonal.dodia@jacobs.com (mailto:sonal.dodia@jacobs.com) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs December 2023 Collier MPO Newsletter IN MOTION REGIONAL SURVEY – POTENTIAL NEW TRANSIT CONNECTION BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND LEE COUNTY Collier Area Transit, with the assistance of Collier MPO is evaluating the addition of a new cross-county bus route to provide a new service connection between Collier and Lee Counties, and we need your help! Several potential cross-county routes have been developed, and we need your help to rank these routes and/or identify any additional cross-county routes that would be beneficial to the overall transit system. Through this survey, you will be able to provide feedback about the proposed routes or provide your own suggestions. This survey will be available until January 3, 2024. Thank you for your participation! To complete the survey in English, visit the website at https://forms.office.com/r/Ck6b9HUdGh Para rellenar la encuesta en español, visite el sitio web https://forms.office.com/r/TqUjmRRmgt Pou tradiksyon kreyòl tanpri kontakte: sonal.dodia@jacobs.com FDOT’S Holiday Season Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over For more information on FDOT Impaired Driving related programs and grants, visit the Safety Office Impaired Driving page. Impaired driving is defined as driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol and/or legal (prescription and over-the-counter) and/or illegal drugs. In Florida, impaired driving is involved in about one-quarter of all motor vehicle deaths. It is a complex social issue that involves all areas of the criminal justice, health care, and education systems. Driving under the influence (DUI) inhibits your ability to drive safely. Alcoholic beverages, controlled substances, prescriptions, and/or over-the-counter medications can cause impairment. Driving impaired puts you and everyone else on the road in danger. become an active part of your community in 2024! The Collier MPO Board is advised by five committees. Committee members are either citizen volunteers, jurisdictional staff, or agency representatives. Check out our Committees webpage to see if you might be eligible to become a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee, Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, or Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged! If you have questions, email: Collier.mpo@colliercountyfl.gov Upcoming MPO meetIngs Winter 2024 Meeting Schedule January 16 | BPAC January 17 | CMC January 22 | TAC/CAC February 9 | MPO Board View the 2024 Meeting Schedule from the Staff at Collier MPO Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 colliermpo.org 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and 11/27/23, 10:19 AM Collier Area Transit Survey Regarding Potential New Transit Connection Between Collier and Lee Counties https://leempo.com/news/collier-area-transit-survey-regarding-potential-new-transit-connection-between-collier-and-lee-counties/1/3 YOU ARE AT:Home »News »Collier Area Transit Survey Regarding Potential New Transit Connection Between Collier and Lee Counties Search... HOME ABOUT US BOARD & COMMITTEES BE INVOLVED PROGRAMS & PLANS WORK WITH US CONTACT US QUICK LINKS  Calendar, Agendas, Audio  Contact Us  Work With Us  Programs & Plans  Public Involvement  Lee County Community Characteristics Inventory (opens new window)  Permitting Info (opens new window)  Title VI/Civil Rights/ADA/DBE  MPO en Español  Archived Meeting Information Go to Calendar Events  0 NEWSBY CALANDRA BARRACO ON NOVEMBER 27, 2023 Collier Area Transit Survey Regarding Potential New Transit Connection Between Collier and Lee Counties CAT needs your input! Take the Regional Survey regarding a potential new transit connection between Collier County and Lee County. Collier Area Transit (CAT) is evaluating the addition of a new cross-county bus route to provide a new service connection between Collier and Lee Counties, and we need your help! We have developed several potential cross-county routes and need your help to rank these routes and/or identify any additional cross-county routes you feel would be benecial to the overall transit system. Through this survey, you will be able to provide feedback about the proposed routes or provide your own suggestions. This survey will be available until December 20, 2023.  Please feel free to pass the survey along to all you think might be interested in participating. Thank you for your participation! To complete the survey in English, visit the website at https://forms.oce.com/r/Ck6b9HUdGh Para rellenar la encuesta en español, visite el sitio web https://forms.oce.com/r/TqUjmRRmgt Pou tradiksyon kreyòl tanpri kontakte: sonal.dodia@jacobs.com If you have any questions, please contact: Alex Showalter Senior Planner English 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 11/27/23, 10:19 AM Collier Area Transit Survey Regarding Potential New Transit Connection Between Collier and Lee Counties https://leempo.com/news/collier-area-transit-survey-regarding-potential-new-transit-connection-between-collier-and-lee-counties/2/3 ABOUT The Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the County’s transportation partnership responsible for transportation planning in Bonita Springs, Cape Coral, Estero, Fort Myers, Fort Myers Beach, Sanibel, and Unincorporated Lee County. CONTACT Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organization 815 Nicholas Parkway E. P.O., Box 150045 Cape Coral, Florida 33915-0045 Phone: (239) 244-2220 RESOURCES ABOUT AUTHOR CALANDRA BARRACO RELATED POSTS Comments are closed. PTNE Alexander.Showalter@colliercounty.gov Anne McLaughlin Executive Director Collier MPO Anne.McLaughlin@colliercounty.gov SHARE. SAFETY is ALWAYS in SEASON!HAPPY NEW YEAR! The Approved MPO Meeting Schedule for 2024 Has Been Released! Long Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program Amendments Approved at Public Hearing on November 17, 2023 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 11/29/23, 10:13 AM CAT Needs Your Input! | Collier Area Transit https://www.ridecat.com/system_wide_alerts/cat-needs-your-input/#more-3191 1/2  Purchase a Bus Pass Service Alerts  Toggle Sidebar Menu CAT News Keyword...   CAT Needs Your Input! Collier Area Transit (CAT) is evaluating the addition of a new cross-county bus route to provide a new service connection between Collier and Lee Counties, and we need your help! We have developed several potential cross-county routes and need your help to rank these routes and/or identify any additional cross-county routes you feel would be benecial to the overall transit system. Through this survey, you will be able to provide feedback about the proposed routes or provide your own suggestions. This survey will be available until December 20, 2023. Thank you for your participation! Take Survey If you have any questions, please contact: Anne McLaughlin Executive Director Collier MPO Anne.McLaughlin@colliercounty.gov Alex Showalter Senior Planner PTNE Alexander.Showalter@colliercounty.gov Customer Care CAT Oce 239.252.7777 Collier Area Paratransit 239.252.7272 Hearing Impaired Assistance 1.800.955.1339 Customer Comment Form Title VI Complaint Form Complaint Resolution Policy Reasonable Modication Request Form Take Our Survey Contact Us Category Archives 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Engineering on CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare Study) Home » News » Survey: New bus route could be coming to Collier County Survey: New bus route could be coming to Collier County by NBC2 News — 9:22 PM EST, Mon December 18, 2023 A A Listen 17 60% COLLIER COUNTY, Fla. – The Collier Area Transit (CAT) is evaluating adding a new bus route. The new service connection would provide services between Collier and Lee Counties. CAT is asking for the public’s help to fill out a survey. Visit here or scan the QR code to take the survey. Travel Log in  to view score What is the purpose of the survey mentioned in the article? To evaluate the new bus route To provide services between Collier and Lee Counties Read More  HOME NEWS WEATHER NEWSLINKS TRAFFIC FEATURES JOBS & RECRUITING JOBS AT NBC2   10.B.2 Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Public Input Surveys 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 2. If you were going to take the bus to travel (work, school, shopping, etc.), what zip code (or general location) is your destination in? 1. What is your home zip code? 3. Which CAT buses do you typically ride? Select all that apply.  Route 11  Route 12  Route 13  Route 14  Route 15  Route 16  Route 17  Route 19  Route 20  Route 21  Route 22  Route 23  Route 24  Route 25  Route 27  Route 121 (Immokalee to Marco Island)  LinC (to Lee County)  I don’t typically ride the CAT bus 4. Which LeeTran buses do you typically ride? Select all that apply.  Route 5  Route 10  Route 15  Route 20  Route 30  Route 40  Route 50  Route 60  Route 70  Route 80  Route 100  Route 110  Route 120  Route 130  Route 140  Route 240  Route 410/490 (Lovers Key/Beach Park-and-Ride)  Route 515 (Lehigh Circulator)  Route 590  Route 595  Route 600 (LinC - to Collier County)  I don’t typically ride LeeTran 6. If you live in Collier County, how often do you travel by bus to Lee County for work or other activities?  Daily  Rarely  Weekly  I do not live in Collier County  Monthly 7. If you live in Lee County, how often do you travel by bus to Collier County for work or other activities?  Daily  Rarely  Weekly  I do not live in Lee County  Monthly 8. How often do you travel between Collier County and Lee County and transfer between the CAT and LeeTran bus systems?  Daily  Monthly  Weekly  Rarely  Never 9. The first proposed route is a connection between Immokalee and Lehigh Acres. How often would you use the proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route (see graphic)?  Daily  Rarely  Weekly  Never  Monthly 5. When you use the bus transit system, what is the purpose of your trip? Select all that apply.  Work  School  Shopping  Medical Appointment  Other: Regional Survey for a New Transit Connection Between Collier County and Lee County Collier Area Transit (CAT) is evaluating the addition of a new cross-county bus route for the CAT transit system (Collier County) to connect to the LeeTran system (Lee County). Please provide your input on your cross-county transit needs. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10. The second proposed route is the I-75 Premium Express - Option 1. How often would you use the proposed I-75 Premium Express - Option 1 (see graphic)?  Never  Never 13. Which one of the proposed regional connections would you like to be implemented? Please rank from 1-5 in order of most preferred (1) to least preferred (5). UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route I-75 Premium Express - Option 1 I-75 Premium Express - Option 2 Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway Route 15. Please provide any additional comments or concerns. If more space is needed, please use an additional sheet of paper. 14. Would the option of a regional bus pass (a daily or monthly bus pass that can be used for both CAT and LeeTran routes) increase your ridership?  No, a regional bus pass would not affect my ridership  Yes, I would be encouraged to ride the bus more often 11. The third proposed route is the I-75 Premium Express - Option 2. How often would you use the proposed I-75 Premium Express - Option 2 (see graphic)?  Never 12. The fourth proposed route is the Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway route. How often would you use the proposed Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway route (see graphic)? A different route - Please provide a starting point, endpoint, and main roadway(s) of travel to serve your needs. Please provide completed survey forms (scan or photo) to Sonal Dodia at sonal.dodia@jacobs.com by December 20, 2023.  Daily  Monthly  Weekly  Rarely  Daily  Monthly  Weekly  Rarely  Daily  Monthly  Weekly  Rarely 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 2. Si fueras a coger el autobús para viajar (trabajo, colegio, compras, etc.), ¿en qué código postal (o localidad general) se encuentra tu destino? 1. ¿Cuál es el código postal de su domicilio? 3. ¿En qué autobuses CAT suele viajar? Seleccione todo lo que corresponda.  Ruta 11  Ruta 12  Ruta 13  Ruta 14  Ruta 15  Ruta 16  Ruta 17  Ruta 19  Ruta 20  Ruta 21  Ruta 22  Ruta 23  Ruta 24  Ruta 25  Ruta 27  Ruta 121 (Immokalee a Marco Island)  LinC (a Condado de Lee)  No suelo viajar en el autobús CAT 4. ¿En qué autobuses LeeTran suele viajar? Seleccione todo lo que corresponda.  Ruta 5  Ruta 10  Ruta 15  Ruta 20  Ruta 30  Ruta 40  Ruta 50  Ruta 60  Ruta 70  Ruta 80  Ruta 100  Ruta 110  Ruta 120  Ruta 130  Ruta 140  Ruta 240  Ruta 410/490 (Lovers Key/Beach Park-y-Ride)  Ruta 515 (Lehigh Circulator)  Ruta 590  Ruta 595  Ruta 600 (LinC-a Condado de Collier)  No suelo viajar en el LeeTran 6. Si vive en el condado de Collier, ¿con qué frecuencia viaja en autobús al condado de Lee para trabajar o realizar otras actividades?  Diario  Raramente  Semanal  No vivo en el Condado de Collier  Mensualmente 7. Si vive en el condado de Lee, ¿con qué frecuencia viaja en autobús al condado de Collier para trabajar o realizar otras actividades? 8. ¿Con qué frecuencia viaja entre los condados de Collier y Lee y hace transbordo entre los sistemas de autobuses CAT y LeeTran?  Diario  Mensualmente  Semanal  Raramente  Nunca 5. Cuando utiliza el sistema de transporte en autobús, ¿cuál es el motivo de su viaje? Seleccione todo lo que corresponda.  Trabajo  Escuela  Ir de compras  Consultas médicas  Otro:  Diario  Raramente  Semanal  No vivo en el Condado de Lee  Mensualmente 9. La primera ruta propuesta es una conexión entre Immokalee y Lehigh Acres. ¿Con qué frecuencia utilizaría la ruta propuesta entre UF/IFAS y Lehigh Acres (ver gráfico)?  Diario  Mensualmente  Semanal  Raramente  Nunca Encuesta regional para una nueva conexión de tránsito entre los Condados de Collier y Lee Collier Area Transit (CAT) está evaluando la adición de una nueva ruta de autobús a través del condado para el sistema de tránsito CAT (Condado de Collier) para conectar con el sistema LeeTran (Condado de Lee). Proporcione su opinión sobre sus necesidades de transporte público entre condados. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10. La segunda ruta propuesta es la I-75 Premium Express-Opción 1. ¿Con qué frecuencia utilizaría la I-75 Premium Express - Opción 1 (ver gráfico)? 13. ¿Cuál de las conexiones regionales propuestas le gustaría que se implementara? Clasifique del 1 al 5 en orden de más preferido (5) a menos preferido (5). Ruta UF/IFAS y Lehigh Acres I-75 Premium Express - Opción 1 I-75 Premium Express - Opción 2 Ruta Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway 15. Por favor, facilite cualquier comentario o preocupación adicional. Si necesita más espacio, utilice una hoja de papel adicional. 14. ¿Aumentaría su número de usuarios la opción de un pase de autobús regional (un pase de autobús diario o mensual que puede utilizarse tanto para las rutas de CAT como para las de LeeTran)?  El abono regional de transporte en autobús no afectaría a mis desplazamientos.  Me animaría a coger el autobús más a menudo. 11. La tercera ruta propuesta es la I-75 Premium Express-Opción 2. ¿Con qué frecuencia utilizaría la I-75 Premium Express - Opción 2 (ver gráfico)? 12. La cuarta ruta propuesta es la ruta Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway. ¿Con qué frecuencia utilizaría la ruta propuesta Livingston Road/ Imperial Parkway (ver gráfico)? Una ruta diferente - por favor proporcione un punto de partida, un punto final y la(s) carretera(s) principal(es) de viaje para satisfacer sus necesidades. Proporcione los formularios de encuesta completos (escaneados o fotográficos) a Sonal Dodia en sonal.dodia@jacobs.com antes del 20 de diciembre de 2023.  Diario  Mensualmente  Semanal  Raramente  Nunca  Diario  Mensualmente  Semanal  Raramente  Nunca  Diario  Mensualmente  Semanal  Raramente  Nunca 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Interviews 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 1 CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare Study CAT Bus Operator Interview Questionnaire Interviewer: Date: Time: Collier Area Transit (CAT) is evaluating potential new transit routes to provide cross-county service from Collier County to Lee County. This interview will be used to obtain input and feedback from CAT bus operators on each of the proposed regional routes regarding ridership, traffic delays, and route logistics. 1. Which bus route(s) do you typically operate? 2. We have proposed four alternative routes for a new connection. We’d like to collect your feedback on any of the proposed routes or see if you have an alternative recommendation. If you have no comments on a route, you may skip that question. Questions are here to facilitate conversation on any of the proposed routes you may have input on. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 2 a. The first proposed route is the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route i. Based on your experience and conversations with riders, do you think this route would best serve the demand of riders traveling between Collier and Lee Counties? Or would you suggest an alternate route (for example, taking North 1st St instead of West Main St in Immokalee) to travel between Immokalee and Lehigh Acres based on factors such as safety, traffic, etc.? ii. Do you have any other comments, concerns, or suggestions related to this proposed route? 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 3 b. The second proposed route is the I-75 Premium Express Route – Option 1. i. Based on your experience and conversations with riders, do you think this route would best serve the demand of riders traveling between Collier and Lee Counties? Or would you recommend an alternative endpoint such as Pine Ridge Road or Immokalee Road? ii. Do you have any other comments, concerns, or suggestions related to this proposed route? 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 4 c. The third proposed route is the I-75 Premium Express Route – Option 2. i. Based on your experience and conversations with riders, do you think this route would best serve the demand of riders traveling between Collier and Lee Counties? Or would you recommend an alternative endpoint such as the Collier County Government Center/Transfer Station? ii. Do you have any other comments, concerns, or suggestions related to this proposed route? 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 5 d. The fourth proposed route is the Livingston Rd/Imperial Pkwy Route. i. Based on your experience and conversations with riders, do you think this route would best serve the demand of riders traveling between Collier and Lee Counties? Or would you recommend an alternative endpoint such as the Collier County Government Center/Transfer Station? ii. Do you have any other comments, concerns, or suggestions related to this proposed route? 3. For route 11/12 bus operator: Based on your experience running route 11/12, what is your experience with drop off/pickup and ridership at the Creekside Transfer Station at different times of day? How much of this demand do you anticipate would take the new proposed routes (either I-75 Premium Express or the Livingston Rd/Imperial Pkwy Route) instead of the LinC route? 4. Are there any additional regional routes or connections that CAT should consider based on your experience with operating in Collier County? 5. Have you heard riders the express the need/desire for a regional bus pass for Collier and Lee Counties? 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 6 6. Is there any additional feedback you’ve heard from riders regarding needs for traveling between Collier and Lee Counties? 7. Do you have any other concerns or comments related to regional transit travel that you’d like us to consider? 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 1 CAT Regional Service and Regional Fare Study LeeTran Bus Operator Interview Questionnaire Interviewer: Date: Time: Collier Area Transit (CAT) is evaluating potential new transit routes to provide cross-county service from Collier County to Lee County. This interview will be used to obtain input and feedback from LeeTran bus operators on the proposed regional routes regarding ridership, traffic delays, and route logistics. 1. Which bus route(s) do you typically operate? 2. We have proposed four alternative routes for a new connection. We’d like to collect your feedback on any of the proposed routes or see if you have an alternative recommendation. If you have no comments on a route, you may skip that question. Questions are here to facilitate conversation on any of the proposed routes you may have input on. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs a. The first proposed route is the UF/IFAS to Lehigh Acres Route. i. Based on your experience and conversations with riders, do you think this route would best serve the demand of riders traveling between Lee and Collier Counties? Or would you suggest an alternate route (for example, taking Homestead Rd South instead Alabama Rd South) to travel between Lehigh Acres and Immokalee based on factors such as traffic? ii. If this route was implemented, a connection with LeeTran (Route 110) in Lehigh Acres could be made to continue travel to Fort Myers. Do you think this connection would cause overcrowding (potential need for an additional bus working route 110) or any other impacts to LeeTran bus operators or the service? iii. Do you have any other comments, concerns, or suggestions related to this proposed route? 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs b. The second proposed route is the I-75 Premium Express Route – Option 1. i. Based on your experience and conversations with riders, do you think this route would best serve the demand of riders traveling between Lee and Collier Counties? Or would you recommend an alternate endpoint to travel between Lehigh Acres and Immokalee based on demand? ii. Do you have any other comments, concerns, or suggestions related to this proposed route? 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs c. The third proposed route is the I-75 Premium Express Route – Option 2. i. Based on your experience and conversations with riders, do you think this route would best serve the demand of riders traveling between Lee and Collier Counties? Do you think the endpoints at RSW and Colonial Blvd would serve the highest demand, or would you recommend an alternative endpoint? ii. Do you have any other comments, concerns, or suggestions related to this proposed route? 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs d. The fourth proposed route is the Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway Route. i. Based on your experience and conversations with riders, do you think this route would best serve the demand of riders traveling between Collier and Lee Counties? Do you think the endpoint in Bonita Springs would serve the highest demand or would you recommend an alternative endpoint (such as taking Imperial Pkwy to Coconut Rd and ending at the Coconut Point Mall Transfer Station)? ii. Do you have any other comments, concerns, or suggestions related to this proposed route? 3. For LinC bus operator: Based on your experience running the LinC route, what is the demand that you see regarding ridership at different times of day? How much of this demand do you anticipate would take the new proposed routes instead of the LinC route? 4. Are there any additional regional routes or connections that CAT should consider based on your experience with operating in Lee County? 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 5. Have you heard riders the express the need/desire for a regional bus pass for Lee and Collier Counties? 6. Is there any additional feedback you’ve heard from riders regarding needs for traveling between Lee and Collier Counties? 7. Do you have any other concerns or comments related to regional transit travel that you’d like us to consider? 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2Packet Pg. 513Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2Packet Pg. 514Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2Packet Pg. 515Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 10.B.2Packet Pg. 516Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Online Survey Summary 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 1 CAT Regional Online Survey Responses Question 1: What is your home zip code? Participants were asked to indicate their home zip code to determine the starting point of their daily commute. The results to this question (refer to Figure 1) indicate that of total participants, a large portion reside in Collier County, most notably in zip codes 34112, 34142, and 34109. These include the planning areas of City of Naples, Immokalee, and Urban Estates. Figure 1. Question 1 responses - all For participants that indicated they do typically ride the bus (refer to Figure 2), the most common home zip codes were 34142, 34116, and 34112. These include the planning areas of Immokalee, Golden Gate, and East Naples. Figure 2. Question 1 responses - bus riders only 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 3 4 1 4 1 3 8 11 8 3 15 6 17 11 8 13 2 12 8 2 9 1 16 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 3390133903339043390833916339283393633966339673397133972339763399034102341033410434105341083410934110341123411334114341163411734119341203413434135341393414234145Number of RespondentsZip Code Q1: What is your home Zip Code? (all) 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 5 1 2 6 2 2 2 3 11 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Number of RespondentsZip Code Q1: What is your home Zip Code? (riders only) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 2 Question 2: If you were going to take the bus to travel (work, school, shopping, etc.), what zip code (or general location) is your destination in? Participants were asked to provide the zip code or general location of their destination on their commute. The most common destinations indicated by all participants include 34112, 33913, and 34142 (refer to Figure 3). These include the planning areas of East Naples, Gateway/Airport, and Immokalee. Figure 3. Question 2 responses - all For bus riders only, the most frequent responses were 34112, 34142, and 34102 (refer to Figure 4). These include the planning areas of East Naples, Immokalee, and City of Naples. Figure 4. Question 2 responses - bus riders only 1 1 15 2 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 10 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 10 4 9 2 6 11 3 1 26 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 4 11 3 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3310533901339133392833965341023410434109341123411434116339013390533907339083391333916339183392833936339653396633971341013410234103341043410534108341093411034111341123411334114341163411734119341203413434135341423414534236Number of RespondentsZip Code Q2: If you were going to take the bus to travel (work, school shopping, etc.), what zip code (or general location) is your destination in? (all) 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 2 2 4 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Number of RespondentsZip Code Q2: If you were going to take the bus to travel (work, school shopping, etc.), what zip code (or general location) is your destination in? (riders only) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 3 Question 3: Which CAT buses do you typically ride? Participants were asked to indicate which CAT buses they typically ride in order to gauge the overall demand for local and regional travel. The results from this question (refer to Figure 5) indicate that a large majority of participants in the regional survey (approximately 70%) do not typically ride the bus. Refer to Figure 6 for responses from participants that indicate that they do typically ride the CAT bus. Figure 5. Question 3 responses - all According to the survey data, Routes 11, 12, and LinC (to Lee County) are the most used buses among participants that typically ride the bus (refer to Figure 6). This data indicates a demand for regional travel, as both routes 11 and 12 provide connections to the Creekside Transfer Station, where the LinC bus provides a pickup point. 17 16 9 10 10 9 5 12 6 5 8 8 6 6 9 9 14 139 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Number of RespondentsCAT Bus Route Q3: Which CAT buses do you typically ride? (all) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 4 Figure 6. Question 3 responses - bus riders only 18 16 9 10 10 9 5 13 7 5 8 8 6 6 9 9 14 7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Number of RespondentsCAT Bus Route *Respondents who answered "I don't typically ride the CAT bus" indicated that they ride at least one LeeTran bus. Q3: Which CAT buses do you typically ride? (riders only) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 5 Question 4: Which LeeTran buses do you typically ride? Participants were asked to indicate which LeeTran buses they typically ride in order to gauge an idea of the overall demand for regional transit travel. Based on the responses in Figure 7, approximately 78% of participants do not typically ride LeeTran. Figure 7. Question 4 responses - all 3 3 3 2 3 2 5 3 2 2 3 7 2 2 6 9 3 6 2 3 25 155 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Number of RespondentsLeeTran Bus Route Q4: Which LeeTran buses do you typically ride? (all) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 6 Of the participants that do typically ride the bus, the most used routes are Route 600 (LinC), Route 240 (provides connection to LinC), Route 110, and Route 515 (Lehigh Circulator) (refer to Figure 8). Similar to the CAT bus usage provided in the previous question, this data indicates a demand for regional travel. Figure 8. Question 4 responses - bus riders only 3 4 4 3 4 3 6 3 2 2 3 7 2 2 6 10 3 7 2 3 28 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of RespondentsLeeTran Bus Route *Respondents who answered "I don't typically ride LeeTran" indicated that they ride at least one CAT bus. Q4: Which LeeTran buses do you typically ride? (riders only) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 7 Question 5: When you use the bus transit system, what is the purpose of the trip? Participants were asked to indicate the main purpose of their trips when using public transit. As indicated in Figures 9 and 10, work and shopping were the most common trip purposes among all participants and bus riders only. Figure 9. Question 5 responses - all Figure 10. Question 5 responses - bus riders only Work 30% School 7% Shopping 24% Medical Appointments 16% Other 23% Q5: When you use the bus transit system, what is the purpose of the trip? (all) Work School 9%Shopping 31% Medical Appointments 22% Other 7% Q5: When you use the bus transit system, what is the purpose of the trip? (riders only) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 8 Question 6: If you live in Collier County, how often do you travel by bus to Lee County for work or other activities? Participants living in Collier County were asked to indicate how often they travel by bus to Lee County for work or other activities. Among all participants, the most common response was “Rarely” (refer to Figure 11). Figure 11. Question 6 responses - all For participants that indicated that they also typically ride the bus, a significant portion also responded “Weekly” (refer to Figure 12). It is important to note that although the percentages responding monthly, weekly, and daily appear to be low, they are impacted by the large portion of respondents that said they do not live in Collier County. Figure 12. Question 6 responses - bus riders only Daily 7% Weekly 6% Monthly 6% Rarely 59% I do not live in Collier County 22% Q6: If you live in Collier County, how often do you travel by bus to lee County for work or other activities? (all) Daily 17% Weekly 19% Monthly 12% Rarely 30% I do not live in Collier County 22% Q6: If you live in Collier County, how often do you travel by bus to Lee County for work or other activities? (riders only) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 9 Question 7: If you live in Lee County, how often do you travel by bus to Collier County for work or other activities? Participants living in Lee County were asked to indicate how often they travel to Collier County using public transit. Of total participants, the majority responded that they do not live in Collier County (refer to Figure 13). Figure 13. Question 7 responses - all The most frequent answer from Lee County residents was “Rarely,” and of those participants who indicated they typically ride the bus, 12% answered weekly (refer to Figure 14). Similar to the previous question, it is important to note that although the percentages responding monthly, weekly, and daily appear to be low, they are affected by the large portion of respondents that said they do not live in Lee County. Figure 14. Question 7 responses - bus riders only Daily 5%Weekly 3%Monthly 2% Rarely 25%I do not live in Lee County 65% Q7: If you live in Lee County, how often do you travel by bus to Collier County for work or other activities? (all) Daily 11% Weekly 12% Monthly 7% Rarely 13% I do not live in Lee County 57% Q7: If you live in Lee County, how often do you travel by bus to Collier County for work or other activities? (riders only) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 10 Question 8: The first proposed route is a connection between Immokalee and Lehigh Acres. How often would you use the proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route? Participants were asked to indicate how often they would use the proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route, which would provide direct service between Immokalee and Lehigh Acres. As indicated in Figure 15, the majority of total participants indicated they would never use this proposed route. Figure 15. Question 8 responses - all Figure 16 indicates the responses from bus riders only, where the most frequent responses was “Never.” However, the majority (68%) indicated they would use the new route in some capacity, with the most common response of these being “Rarely.” Figure 16. Question 8 responses - bus riders only Daily 9% Weekly 2% Monthly 7% Rarely 17% Never 65% Q8: The first proposed route is a connection between Immokalee and Lehigh Acres. How often would you use the proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route? (all) Daily 16% Weekly 7% Monthly 17% Rarely 28% Never 32% Q8: The first proposed route is a connection between Immokalee and Lehigh Acres. How often would you use the proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route? (riders only) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 11 Question 9: The second proposed route is the I-75 Premium Express - Option 1. How often would you use the proposed I-75 Premium Express-Option 1? Participants indicated how often they would use the proposed I-75 Premium Express – Option 1, which would provide service from the Collier County Government Center to Gulf Coast Town Center. Figure 17 shows responses to this question from all participants. The most frequent response was that they would never use this route. Figure 17. Question 9 responses - all Figure 18 shows responses only from participants that previously indicated that they are bus riders, with the most frequent response suggesting they would use the proposed route monthly. Figure 18. Question 9 responses - bus riders only Daily 10%Weekly 8% Monthly 17% Rarely 28% Never 37% Q9: The second proposed route is the I-75 Premium Express - Option 1. How often would you use the proposed I-75 Preium Express - Option 1? (all) Daily 14% Weekly 18% Monthly 33% Rarely 28% Never 7% Q9: The second proposed route is the I-75 Premium Express - Option 1. How often would you use the proposed I-75 Premium Express-Option 1? (riders only) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 12 Question 10: The third proposed route is the I-75 Premium Express-Option 2. How often would you use the proposed I-75 Premium Express-Option 2? In question 10, participants were asked to provide how often they would use the proposed I-75 Premium Express – Option 2. 29% of total participants indicated they would use this proposed route monthly (refer to Figure 19). Figure 19. Question 10 responses - all For bus riders only, approximately 41% of respondents stated they would use this route monthly (refer to Figure 20). Figure 20. Question 10 responses - bus riders only Daily 9%Weekly 7% Monthly 29% Rarely 28% Never 27% Q10: The third proposed route is the I-75 Premium Express- Option 2. How often would you use the proposed I-75 Premium Express-Option 2? (all) Daily 14% Weekly 13% Monthly 41% Rarely 25% Never 7% Q10: The third proposed route is the I-75 Premium Express- Option 2. How often would you use the proposed I-75 Premium Express-Option 2? (riders only) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 13 Question 11: The fourth proposed route is the Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway route. How often would you use the proposed Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway route? Participants were asked to indicate how often they would use the proposed Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway route, which would provide service from the Urban Estates area in Collier County to Bonita Springs in Lee County. Of total participants, 44% indicated they would never use this route, followed by 26% indicating they would rarely use it (refer to Figure 21). Figure 21. Question 11 responses - all Of bus riders only, 25% indicated they would use this route rarely, and 23% said they would use it on a weekly basis (refer to Figure 22). Figure 22. Question 11 responses - bus riders only Daily 7% Weekly 10% Monthly 13% Rarely 26% Never 44% Q11: The fourth proposed route is the Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway route. How often would you use the proposed Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway route? (all) Daily 13% Weekly 23% Monthly 18% Rarely 25% Never 21% Q11: The fourth proposed route is the Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway route. How often would you use the proposed Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway route? (riders only) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 14 Question 12: If one of these proposed regional connections were implemented, which one would you prefer? Please rank from most preferred to least preferred. Participants were asked to rank the proposed regional routes from questions 8-11 in order of most preferred to least preferred for implementation. A summary of first place rankings for all participants is shown in Figure 23. The top choice was I-75 Premium Express – Option 2, with 30% of the first-place rankings. Figure 23. Question 12 responses - all Among bus riders only, the top choice was the UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres Route, with 31% of the first- place rankings (refer to Figure 24). Figure 24. Question 12 responses - bus riders only UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres 23% I-75 Premium Express - Option 1 24% I-75 Premium Express - Option 2 30% Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway Route 14% Other Route 9% Q12: If one of these proposed regional connections were implemented, which one would you prefer? Please rank from most preferred to least preferred. (all) UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres 31% I-75 Premium Express - Option 1 20% I-75 Premium Express - Option 2 16% Livingston Road/Imperial Parkway Route 25% Other Route 8% Q12: If one of these proposed regional connections were implemented, which one would you prefer? Please rank from most preferred to least preferred. (riders only) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 15 Question 13: If you would like to propose a different route to be evaluated, please provide a starting point, endpoint, and main roadway(s) of travel to serve your needs. Participants were asked to propose any additional cross-county routes they would like to see implemented in order to satisfy their regional transit needs. They were asked to provide starting points, endpoints, and main roadways of travel. Of these responses, several of the suggested routes would align with one or more of the proposed candidate corridors. For instance, one participant suggested to connect Immokalee to Colonial Blvd in Fort Myers. The proposed UF/IFAS and Lehigh Acres route would provide a connection from Immokalee to Lehigh Acres in Lee County, where riders may connect to another LeeTran bus that will go to Colonial Blvd. Additionally, another participant responded, “Gulf Coast Town Center and Waterside Shops.” One of the alignments for the proposed I-75 Express routes provides an endpoint at Gulf Coast Town Center. Reponses to this question did not result in a significant need to evaluate an additional route, as many of the suggested routes either already aligned with a proposed corridor or was outside the extent to which the new regional route will reach. 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 16 Question 14: How often do you travel between Collier County and Lee County and transfer between the CAT and LeeTran bus systems? Participants were asked to indicate how often they have to transfer between the CAT and LeeTran bus systems when traveling cross-county via public transit. Of the total participants, 62% indicated that they never have to transfer between CAT and LeeTran systems (refer to Figure 25). This percentage is due to the large number of participants who do not typically ride the bus. Figure 25. Question 14 responses - all Of the participants that are also bus riders, 25% of responses indicate that they must transfer between systems on a monthly basis (refer to Figure 26). Figure 26. Question 14 responses - bus riders only Daily 9%Weekly 5% Monthly 8% Rarely 16% Never 62% Q14: How often do you travel between Collier County and Lee County and transfer between the CAT and LeeTran bus systems? (all) Daily 22% Weekly 14% Monthly 25% Rarely 23% Never 16% Q14: How often do you travel between Collier County and Lee County and transfer between the CAT and LeeTran bus systems? (riders only) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 17 Question 15: Would the option of a regional bus pass (a daily or monthly bus pass that can be used for both CAT and LeeTran routes) increase your ridership? As part of the study, CAT was considering the implementation of a regional pass that would be valid on both CAT and LeeTran buses, including regional routes operated by both entities. Participants were asked to answer if the implementation of one of these passes would affect their ridership. Of total participants, the majority (61%) indicated they would be encouraged to ride the bus more often if this pass were implemented (refer to Figure 27). Figure 27. Question 15 responses - all Of bus riders only, a large majority (86%) indicated they would be encouraged to ride the bus more often with a regional pass (refer to Figure 28). Figure 28. Question 15 responses - bus riders only No, a regional bus pass would not affect my ridership. 39% Yes, I would be encouraged to ride the bus more often. 61% Q15: Would the option of a regional bus pass (a daily or monthly bus pass that can be used for both CAT and LeeTran routes) increase your ridership? (all) No, a regional bus pass would not affect my ridership. 14% Yes, I would be encouraged to ride the bus more often. 86% Q15: Would the option of a regional bus pass (a daily or monthly bus pass that can be used for both CAT and LeeTran routes) increase your ridership? (riders only) 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 18 Question 16: Please provide any additional comments or concerns. Some participants elected to provide additional comments. The majority of these comments were general suggestions related to bus frequency and hours for CAT to improve their service, however some respondents provided comments related to regional travel. Some of these comments include: • “I do not typically ride the bus, but I do believe that Express routes from the Lehigh Park and Ride to Immokalee and to Naples would be great additions to the bus options available as many of the Lehigh Residents work in these collier county communities.” • “Immokalee to Fort Myers needs additional routes.” • “I commute by personal car daily to and from Lee County/ Collier County for work. I work at the Collier County Government Center and live in Fort Myers. I would definitely use this system to commute to work if there is schedule that allows me to be at work at 7:30 am and comes from Gulf Coast Center or even Bonita Springs, I would consider it.” • “I would ADORE a bus route between Gulf Coast Town Center and the Collier Government Center as I live right by GCTC and work at the government center. It would be a DREAM!!!” • “Many of my coworkers would benefit from this- especially the Lehigh to Immokalee route. So many of our employees live in Lee and work in Collier.” • “A bus service to FGCU from Collier County would be a great service to students and staff/faculty and would take many single occupancy vehicles off the road and/or remove barriers to students who cannot drive or do not have a car.” • “It's a good idea to provide mass transportation from Collier County to RSW airport.” • “I don't like to drive long distances, a bus from Cape Coral to Naples would help, I would like to see Naples more.” • “I would love bus service between Pine Ridge in Naples and RSW.” • “A bus option from downtown Naples to RSW would be great!” 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Jacobs’ draft report on the Collier Area Transit Regional Service and Regional Fare Study (3/2024) (28510 : Draft Report by Jacobs 04/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Communications from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue (Discretionary Grants & GHG Targets) OBJECTIVE: For the Board to be informed of recent communications from FDOT Secretary, Jared Perdue. CONSIDERATIONS: The following communications from Secretary Perdue are distributed for informational purposes: • Secretary Perdue’s testimony on the topic of Department of Transportation “Discretionary Grants: Stakeholder Perspectives” before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, on March 7, 2024 (Attachment 1). • Secretary Perdue’s April 3, 2024, letter to MPOs on the recent Greenhouse Gas Targets federal court rulings (Attachment 2). COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: N/A. Provided for informational purposes only. Prepared By: Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Secretary Perdue’s testimony on Discretionary Grants (3/7/24) (PDF) 2. Secretary Perdue’s Letter to MPOs on GHG Rulings (4/3/24) (PDF) 12.A Packet Pg. 536 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 12.A Doc ID: 28511 Item Summary: Communications from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue (Discretionary Grants & GHG Targets) Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 1:12 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 1:12 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 1:11 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:19 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 12.A Packet Pg. 537 TESTIMONY OF Jared W. Perdue, P.E. Secretary Florida Department of Transportation ON THE TOPIC OF Department of Transportation Discretionary Grants: Stakeholder Perspectives BEFORE THE Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure U.S. House of Representatives ON Thursday, March 7, 2024 12.A.1 Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Secretary Perdue’s testimony on Discretionary Grants (3/7/24) (28511 : Communications from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure U.S. House of Representatives March 7, 2024 pg. 2 Jared W. Perdue, P.E. Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation Introduction Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be a part of today’s hearing. My name is Jared Perdue and I serve as Secretary for the Florida Department of Transportation. I am a Florida Native, a professional engineer, and since graduating from the Citadel in 2003, have been serving my state as an employee of FDOT where we work to deliver the projects that are funded through the Surface Transportation Act. Prior to being appointed by Governor DeSantis as Secretary, I held various roles throughout the state, most notably as the District Secretary for Central Florida, where I was responsible for executing the I-4 Ultimate project—the largest transportation project in Florida history. However, my perspective is not limited to the high growth areas of central Florida, Orlando, and the Space Coast, as I began my career working near my hometown of Panama City, Florida as an engineer in FDOT’s rural panhandle area. I have also served in a wide range of technical expertise areas including as a geotechnical engineer, Traffic Operations Engineer, Design Engineer, and Director of Transportation Development. My team and I don’t just build roads and bridges, we construct and maintain transportation infrastructure that Florida’s 22 million residents and 135 million visitors can rely on. In Florida, we support every mode of transportation you can think of – from traditional roads and bridges, rural roadways, tolled facilities, massive interstate thoroughfares, freight and passenger rail, deepwater seaports, international airports, and multi-use trails and bike paths throughout our world -renowned outdoors. We are even engaged in space commerce and notably in the emerging advanced air mobility industry, just to name a few. Today, I look forward to sharing Florida’s perspective on the current flaws in the development, application, and award of discretionary grants included within the IIJA. I hope my comments provide a better pathway for how Congress can work to both fund and deliver transportation infrastructure throughout our country that saves time and tax dollars. Florida: A National Leader in Transportation Infrastructure It should come as no surprise that Florida is a leader throughout the transportation landscape. While some states rely heavily on federal support for maintaining their transportation infrastructure, Florida does not. In fact, thanks to the leadership of Governor DeSantis, FDOT is currently managing a $65 billion Five-Year Work Program, 76% of which is funded solely by the state and less than a quarter by the federal government. Aside from our geography and position in the worldwide supply chain, and a growing population that constantly allows for innovation, the Sunshine State has one of the most robust transportation portfolios in the country: • FDOT is responsible for more than 12,000 miles of roadway and maintains over 7,000 bridges and has nearly 7,500 miles of bicycle facilities; • Among the 19 commercial airports in the state, Florida is the only state with four large hub airports – Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa; 12.A.1 Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Secretary Perdue’s testimony on Discretionary Grants (3/7/24) (28511 : Communications from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure U.S. House of Representatives March 7, 2024 pg. 3 Jared W. Perdue, P.E. Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation • With 15 deepwater seaports in Florida, we are a significant contributor to America’s supply chain as evidenced by the 4.3 million total TEUs moved in 2023 equating to 10% of the nation’s total; • Almost 3,000 miles of rail keeps our goods and passengers on the go, along with the 48 transit systems across the state; and • Florida leads the nation as the fastest growing, most comprehensive, and forward-facing state for space-related development, manufacturing, and flight. In 2023, Florida’s Space Coast launched over 70 rockets. IIJA’s Deviation in Structure Federal Fiscal Years 2022 through 2026 provide an infusion of $550 billion nationwide towards new infrastructure investment whether by competitive grants or formula apportionment to improve roads, bridges, water infrastructure, resilience, and broadband. Under IIJA, there are essentially three types of funding: (1) traditional formula-based funding; (2) new, required formula-based programs; and (3) a-much-expanded discretionary grants program. Previous federal transportation authorizations placed an emphasis on formula-based funding, which provided flexibility by the state Departments of Transportation to advance their state-specific infrastructure goals. Now, with IIJA, the number of competitive grant programs has skyrocketed from 13 to 45, placing less emphasis on states’ needs with more decisions being made top-down. While the “competitive” label attached to these grants may be a good talking point, it is actually a mask to cover the disservice currently being done to the delivery of infrastructure nationwide. Rather than focusing on a state’s knowledge and experience to get the work done, U.S. DOT is administering discretionary grant programs with ideological considerations that are not focused on reducing congestion, supporting our supply chain, or maintaining the nation’s aging infrastructure. Picking Winners and Losers Now, halfway into the IIJA authorization, U.S. DOT has only awarded $47.9 billion (out of the $158 billion available) in surface transportation discretionary grants across the country. Two of the most populous states in the nation, Florida and Texas, have received some of the lowest funding amounts per capita from these discretionary programs, while Maryland has taken home the largest amount. Currently, Florida has the 2nd lowest per capita award rate in the country. To-date Florida has been awarded $500.5 million of grants which equates to $22.52 per capita. The national state average is awards totaling $740.1 million at $144.02 per capita. Maryland’s awards have totaled $7.2 billion at $1,173 per capita. • Out of the 36 discretionary grant applications that FDOT has submitted, only eight of those grants have been awarded to us totaling $246.6 million — $180 million of which come from a single grant award for Truck Parking expansion in Central Florida. • As of February 29, 2024, out of Florida’s 412 cities, 67 counties, and 27 MPOs only 87 applications have been selected by U.S. DOT, totaling $317.4 million. Under traditional formula funding, states rely on their calculated apportionment, to best plan for programming and delivering projects for their communities. Historically, states have received 90 12.A.1 Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Secretary Perdue’s testimony on Discretionary Grants (3/7/24) (28511 : Communications from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure U.S. House of Representatives March 7, 2024 pg. 4 Jared W. Perdue, P.E. Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation percent of total surface transportation apportionments in formula program. Under IIJA, approximately 15 percent of funding is now being directed to discretionary grant programs, leaving behind states who should be receiving more money based on population, lane miles, land mass and vehicle miles traveled. Florida's $500.5 million in discretionary grant awards equate to only 1.04% of the funding available for discretionary grants. Of the formula funding, Florida receives 4.78% of the apportionment total under IIJA. As a growing state facing dynamic population and economic growth, Florida would be better positioned to meet emerging transportation needs through long established formula programs. If the IIJA funding made 90 percent available in federal authorization, Florida would receive an additional $2 billion over the five years of the Act. Wasted Time is Wasted Money With the increase in discretionary programs, FDOT and local entities are required to compete for federal funding, which is timely, costly and an overall burden to states and our local partners who want to deliver infrastructure not wade through federal bureaucracy. Two years after being awarded the 2021 RAISE grant for the Tampa Heights Mobility Project, FDOT’s grant agreement has still not been executed by U.S. DOT. On average, the grant funds for FDOT projects have taken up to 18 to 24 months to be authorized. Currently, FDOT has received authorization for 13.68% of our awarded grants − leaving 86.32% waiting for a grant agreement and funds to be obligated by U.S. DOT. The additional time required to enter into a grant agreement with U.S. DOT makes many of Florida’s top projects untenable for grants, as delays could jeopardize critical investments into our communities. Aside from the waiting period, a quality grant application can cost nearly $150,000 in resource and staff hours to develop. FDOT has submitted 36 discretionary grant applications under IIJA making FDOT’s total approximate expenditure more than $5.5 million. Florida has 29 Fiscally Constrained Counties (mostly rural) – how are they supposed to prioritize projects when the resources and expertise for complex applications are limited? As an added business consideration, to meet the federal match requirements for application submissions, a 20% match of state funds must be committed. While applicants wait months for paperwork to be reviewed, a considerable amount of resources in FDOT’s Work Program are essentially sidelined in anticipation of a potential grant award. Since the inception of IIJA, FDOT has had to set aside resources totaling over $430 million in the pursuit of discretionary grant funding at one time or another. While waiting for an award announcement, this money was not building infrastructure, instead it was waiting to learn if we would be selected. In Florida, we are aware that some industry partners are opting to not apply for federal discretionary grants to ensure their funding cycles can remain active and reliable. By the time a grant award is realized for a community, the effects of federally-induced inflation, compounded by a 18-24 month delay in award, have immediately driven project finances into the red. DOTs, cities, counties, MPOs, and local agencies bear the responsibility of cost overruns due to the combination of inflation and slow agreements and authorizations. If FDOT struggles with this 12.A.1 Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Secretary Perdue’s testimony on Discretionary Grants (3/7/24) (28511 : Communications from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure U.S. House of Representatives March 7, 2024 pg. 5 Jared W. Perdue, P.E. Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation scenario, I must imagine rural and small communities heavily weigh whether they even apply for grants in the first place – making these discretionary funds even further out of reach for some who need them most. It should not be taken lightly that U.S. DOT is under a tremendous burden, albeit self-inflicted. The magnitude and scope of a discretionary grant program of this size is formidable, and the sheer staffing needs required to evaluate and process this program is overwhelming – and would be for any agency. That is why we must return to primarily traditional formula-based funding. Transportation infrastructure is planned 15-20 years in advance to begin with, we should be doing everything possible for our citizens to bring it to reality efficiently not prolong it further. Equity In Action vs. Equity Inaction IIJA deviated from a time-tested authorization structure for funding the country’s infrastructure. As one of those deviations, U.S. DOT has made it clear that non-pecuniary factors like DEI and ESG considerations, may take priority when selecting which transportation projects are most important for our communities. These “priorities” are clearly seen in the goals of discretionary grant programs. U.S. DOT has declared that there must be equity in transportation, but Florida, the nation’s 3rd largest state, only stands to receive 1% of competitive grants; rural and Justice 40 communities are actually disadvantaged and penalized the most by burdensome red tape; and NOFO requirements force one- sided ideologies to act as a carrot and a stick simultaneously. The mentions above are only within the discretionary grant space, not even venturing into IIJA’s new formula-based programs which are now required. NEVI is part of a vision to force individuals into only driving one type of vehicle. The Carbon Reduction Program is a program forcing states to acknowledge there’s a carbon emissions ‘problem’ while in Florida the U.S. EPA admitted we have the cleanest air quality on record. Some programs are even being promulgated outside of legal authority. These programs similarly don’t prioritize infrastructure, they prioritize ideologies. FDOT is very proud of the INFRA Grant we received for trucking parking last month. With this funding we will be able to add over 900 truck parking spaces to the network of truck parking FDOT has been building for years. It truly is a great win for our state. It is unfortunately overshadowed by the realization that our selection was most likely embedded in the Administration’s belief that reducing carbon emissions was a priority consideration for our application, not the fact that the backbone of our supply chain, our truck drivers, need a place to rest and that Florida was the most financially- and technically-qualified to deliver this complex project. These “priorities” are not to relieve congestion, increase safety, or promote innovation; they’re not about infrastructure at all. Conclusion & Where We Hope to Head Next In summary, the current discretionary grant process creates burdens for state DOTs and all applicants, unfairly picks winners and losers, and prioritizes non-transportation factors. Formula allocation of funds is more efficient and allows states to actually deliver infrastructure that is specific to their state and supported by their communities. FDOT encourages Congress to lay the groundwork for the next transportation authorization that revives stronger formula funding, encourages U.S. DOT to operate efficiently not bureaucratically, rejects the politization of our 12.A.1 Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Secretary Perdue’s testimony on Discretionary Grants (3/7/24) (28511 : Communications from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure U.S. House of Representatives March 7, 2024 pg. 6 Jared W. Perdue, P.E. Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation nation’s highways, and continues to appropriately increase overall funding for robust transportation infrastructure across the country. Our industry is the literal foundation for America’s continued growth and success. Thank you again for the tremendous opportunity to be part of this process. 12.A.1 Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Secretary Perdue’s testimony on Discretionary Grants (3/7/24) (28511 : Communications from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue Florida Department of Transportation RON DESANTIS GOVERNOR 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 JARED W. PERDUE, P.E. SECRETARY www.fdot.gov April 3, 2024 Dear Metropolitan Planning Organization Partners, As the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) continues our collaboration with and in support of Florida’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), we remain committed to providing updates on recent events to ensure clarity and transparency regarding FDOT’s actions. As you are aware, on December 7, 2023, USDOT issued a Final Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Rule requiring state DOTs and MPOs to establish and report on declining carbon dioxide targets biennially as part of the Transportation Performance Management (TPM) program. The Rule required state DOTs to submit declining GHG targets by February 1, 2024. However, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) did not explicitly authorize USDOT to assess environmental performance and FHWA exhibited broad overreach in the promulgation of the GHG Rule. Furthermore, the high level of efforts and costs associated with the GHG Rule compliance is burdensome and an economic hardship to our agency partners. This was especially important due to the language in the Rule that relates to MPOs, as Florida has the highest number of MPOs in the nation − 27 MPOs and 33 UZAs (urbanized areas with populations over 50,000). Florida has the best air quality on record and consistently commits to projects that protect our natural resources, including protecting our water quality and restoring the Everglades. Florida is the most populous state to meet or exceed the existing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) benchmarks for air quality. On December 21, 2023, Florida joined 20 other states and filed a complaint in Kentucky federal court requesting relief from the GHG Rule requiring states to submit declining GHG targets. Shortly after the filing, FHWA postponed the original target submission deadline to March 17, 2024, and ultimately to April 1, 2024. The state of Texas initiated a separate challenge in a Texas federal court and received an Order from the District Judge on March 27 determining that the 2023 GHG Rule was promulgated in excess of USDOT’s statutory authority. The judge vacated the Rule and provided relief to all impacted pending a 7-day administrative stay permitting USDOT to seek relief. 12.A.2 Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Secretary Perdue’s Letter to MPOs on GHG Rulings (4/3/24) (28511 : Communications from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue On April 1, the Kentucky federal court entered an Order finding that the GHG Rule exceeds FHWA’s statutory authority and is arbitrary and capricious. Currently, no appeals have been filed in either case. Thank you for your partnership throughout this very worthy process. As we move forward, we will continue to collaborate with our MPO partners and deliver a transportation system that will meet the needs of our growing state, support Florida’s economic growth, and ensure resiliency of our network into the future. Regards, Jared W. Perdue, P.E. Secretary 12.A.2 Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Secretary Perdue’s Letter to MPOs on GHG Rulings (4/3/24) (28511 : Communications from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue 04/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization Item Number: 13.A Doc ID: 28512 Item Summary: Next Meeting Date: May 10, 2024, 9:30 a.m. Board of County Commissioners Chambers, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL, 34112 Meeting Date: 04/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Suzanne Miceli 04/04/2024 1:19 PM Submitted by: Title: Executive Director - MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization Name: Anne McLaughlin 04/04/2024 1:19 PM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Operations Support Suzanne Miceli MPO Analyst Review Skipped 04/04/2024 1:19 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Review Completed 04/04/2024 1:20 PM Metropolitan Planning Organization Anne McLaughlin Meeting Pending 04/12/2024 9:30 AM 13.A Packet Pg. 546