The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 05/25/2021 Item #11G (East of CR951 Bridge Reevaluation Study)05/25/2021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the East of CR951 Bridge Reevaluation Study, direct staff to design and construct the five (5) recommended bridges and continue public engagement with the impacted residents through the design and construction process. OBJECTIVE: To confirm the importance of the missing bridge connections in the network of Golden Gate Estates roadways based on system -wide infrastructure needs and recommend the construction of five (5) priority locations. CONSIDERATIONS: In August 2008, Collier County completed the East of 951 Horizon Study for Bridges (2008 Study) in order to evaluate the opportunities to construct the missing bridge connections in the network of Golden Gate Estates roadways based on system -wide infrastructure needs. The study's stakeholders identified 12 preferred canal -crossing locations and ranked the bridges based on criteria related to emergency response, service efficiency and mobility (Table 1 & Figure 1). TABLE 1: 2008 Bridge Locations 2008 Study ridge Locations Bridge Ref. # 1 23rd St. SIV (south of Golden Gate Blvd.) 2 16th St- NE (north of Golden Gate Blvd.) 3 8th St_ NE (north of Gallen Gate Bled.) 47th Ave- NE (between Imrrmokalee Rd- & Everglades Blvd.) Wilson Blvd- N (south of 331d Ave- NE) 18th Ave- NE (between IVilson Ave. & 8th St. NE) 18th Ave- NE (between 8th St- NE &.16th St- NE) North End of 13th St- MY (north of Golden Gate Blvd_) 1 6th St. SE (south of Golden Gate Blvd.) Wilson Blvd- S (south of Golden Gate Blvd.) 10th Ave- SE (between Everglades Blvd- &. Desoto Blvd-) 62nd A� e- _]E (between Everglades Bh-d- and 40f St- NE) Packet Pg. 400 11.G 05/25/2021 FIGURE 1: 2008 Bridge Locations East of 951 Bridge Study IMMOKA LEE RD E LLJ a _.. - M Z J rp , M 4. ;RED , ola w �.......... . ........ ......... rat+. ....e... ... ' W } iL 1 Q .. ``g © :: r mivrar.. a ,� 2 Ca1!!r Gounry .T xa Transportation Services Division Miles ur u. aaoa Based on funding allocations in the County's work program at the time of the 2008 Study, Bridge #1 was to be constructed as part of the White Blvd. Bridge replacement project (ultimately, Bridge #1 was not included in the project and never constructed). Following Bridge #1, the 2008 Study prioritized Bridges #2 (16th St. NE) and #3 (8th St. NE) as the next highest unfunded priorities in the first tier. The next tier of priorities included Bridges #4, #5, #6 and #7. The last tier included bridges #8, #9, #10, #11 and #12, with a recommendation to consider constructing them as funding became available. Bridge # 3 (8t1i Street NE) was constructed in 2019 by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Packet Pg. 401 11.G 05/25/2021 In 2018, the Board, voted to place a one -cent infrastructure sales surtax referendum on the General Election ballot. The referendum was approved by voters and collection began January 1, 2019. The remaining 11 bridges were identified in the referendum to receive proceeds from the sales surtax. On December 2, 2020, Bridge # 2 (16th St. NE) was validated by the Infrastructure Sales Surtax committee for expenditure of Surtax proceeds. It is anticipated that Bridge # 2 (16th St. NE) will be constructed with a combination of FDOT funding and Surtax proceeds. The remaining 10 bridges are the subject of this follow-up 2020 Reevaluation Study (Table 2). TABLE 2: 10 Remaining Bridge Locations 0 1 23rd St_ S (south of Golden Gate Blvd_) FP 4 47th Ave_ NE (between Lmmokalee Rd_ & Everglades Blvd_) 5 Wilson Blvd_ N (south of 33rd Ave_ NE) 6 18th Ave_ NE (between Wilson Ave. & 8th St. NE) 7 18th Ave_ NE (between 8#h St_ NE &. 16th St NE) S North End of 13th St_ N%ELF (north of Golden Gate Blvd_) 9 16th St_ SE (south of Golden Gate.Blvd_) 10 Wilson Blv& S (south of Golden Gate Blvd.) 11 10th Ave_ SE (between Everghkdes Blvd_ &. Desoto Blvd_) 62nd Ave_ NE (between Everglades Blvd_ and 40th St_ NE) In 2019, Collier County's Transportation Planning Team began a review of the 2008 Study to confirm the validity of the remaining 10 recommended bridge locations. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. was hired to assist with the Reevaluation Study. They were directed to focus on the same criteria in the original study, e.g., reducing travel/response times, improving connectivity, and establishing more evacuation routes in the Golden Gate Estates Area. Recent interviews with the public service agencies reconfirm the continued validity of the specific bridge locations originally identified, studied, and vetted in 2008. To quantify the expected benefits, a geographic information system (GIS) application was used to identify and measure travel distances along typical travel routes with and without the new bridges. Additionally, the existing and proposed residential parcels within areas that could be reasonably expected to benefit from the new bridges for each trip purpose were identified and quantified. Following the GIS-based data and analysis, a public outreach effort was initiated to engage directly with the residents/landowners that would be directly affected by the new bridges. The study findings generally support the original expectations concerning savings related to emergency vehicle response time and residents route choice options. While the general benefits are easily understood, the Study did consider that there are negative impacts to existing/future residents. The Technical Memorandum attached describes the methodology and analysis used to evaluate each bridge location. In summary, the benefits in trip length reduction accruing in the "primary" category of trip purposes (i.e., fire, Emergency Medical Services, law enforcement) parcels that directly benefit from a new bridge were differentiated from the benefits that accrue in the "secondary" categories (e.g., access to the network, schools, parks, etc.) that are perceived as being less important based on feedback from those attending the neighborhood meetings. Comparing the relative positive and negative values resulted in either a recommended "build" or "defer - no build at this time" recommendation. Packet Pg. 402 11.G 05/25/2021 Following the public information meetings and subsequent analysis, the team discussed the merits of each bridge with the first responding agencies. In a letter dated November 12, 2020 Collier County EMS Chief Tabatha Butcher stated that she was in support of the bridges located at 10' Ave. SE; 13t'' St. NW; 47t'' Ave. NE; 62nd Ave. NE; and Wilson Blvd. S. In a memorandum dated December 7, 2020, the Greater Naples Fire and Rescue District indicated that the bridge located at 10 ' Ave. SE was an important bridge location; the bridge at Wilson Blvd. S. was a good location and so was the bridge at 13th Ave. NW, as long as there was no restricted access to VBR Ext. which could reduce response times. Correspondence from the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District indicated that the Bridges at 47t' Ave. NE and 62nd Ave. NE were important for response times. All agency comments related to support for each recommended bridge is also included in the report. Based on this evaluation of benefits and negative impacts, staff recommends the Board approve the East of CR 951 Bridge Re -Evaluation Study and direct staff to proceed with design and construction including public engagement with the impacted residents, of the following five bridges: 10' Ave. SE; 13t' St. NW; 47' Ave. NE; 62nd Ave. NE; and Wilson Blvd. S. This item was presented to the Board on February 9, 2021 and was continued to allow for additional data collection. The Board requested a traffic analysis be performed to estimate the amount of traffic that would likely use the streets improved with new bridge/canal crossings. A traffic analysis was performed for the five (5) recommended bridges. The analysis used existing traffic volumes and analyzed the geographic limits of the areas surrounding the proposed bridges. This analysis determined potential new bridge route usage. Then, an estimate of the potential new traffic impacts to existing and future residents along the corridors leading to the proposed bridges were developed. A complete analysis of the current traffic conditions at the five (5) recommended bridge locations as well as the impacts at build -out (B/O) are included in the Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum attached. A summary of the existing and estimated traffic volumes is included in the Table 3 below. The table summarizes the average daily trips (ADT) as well as the peak hour peak direction (PkHr PkDir) volume. Packet Pg. 403 11.G 05/25/2021 TABLE 3: Existing and Estimated Traffic Volume With and Without Bridges A B C D E Existing Conditions Build -out / No Bridge Existing Dwelling Units/ With Bridge Build -out / With Bridge First Responder Response Reductions Crossing # Crossing Location Existing ADT Existing PM PkHr PkDir ADT PM PkHr PkDir ADT PM PkHr PkDir ADT PM PkHr PkDir Trip % Minutes Purpose Reduced Saved 11 10th Ave. SE 294 20 483 33 840 58 2,254 156 Fire 16% 3.0 CCSO 64% 4.4 EMS 16% 2.5 8 13th St. NW 404 25 487 30 404 25 2,432 120 Fire 75% 7.1 CCSO 59% 4.8 EMS 75% 6.1 4 47th Ave. NE 2,397 157 4,508 246 4,105 283 8,400 533 Fire 4% 0.4 CCSO 41% 5.6 EMS 40% 3.0 12 62nd Ave. NE 140 10 434 32 756 56 2,800 206 Fire 54% 6.3 CCSO 20% 2.3 EMS 54% 5.4 10 Wilson Blvd. S 297 23 441 39 458 36 945 76 Fire 25% 2.4 CCSO 39% 1.6 EMS 25% 2.0 The Existing Conditions (column A) include the current traffic volumes on the corridor. The Build -Out (B/O)/No Bridge (column B) are estimates of what the traffic volumes would be if a residential unit were built on every vacant parcel and no bridge were constructed. Existing Dwelling Unit (DU) with Bridge (column C) looks at the existing traffic and anticipates what additional traffic will choose to redirect their trip to use the new bridge and improved streets. This is the anticipated traffic for the bridge locations after construction. The estimation is based on the current (existing) dwelling units likely to change travel routes and current traffic. The next set of columns includes the estimated B/O with the Bridge construction. Column (D) anticipates that increase in trips based on construction of a residential unit on every vacant parcel and taking into consideration the likely change to travel routes following the construction of the bridges. It should be noted the bridges do not increase total trips on the network, rather the bridges permit an expanded route choice and therefore while routes along the new bridge locations may see an increase in traffic, other routes currently traveled will see less traffic. This has been demonstrated for bridges locations on 10t1i Ave. SE, 47'1i Ave. NE, and 62nd Ave. NE where new "bridge routes" offer clear route choice advantages for motorists and first responders. The last column in the table above, includes a summary of the first responder response reductions. The original considerations of the study were to reduce response times for first responders, improve connectivity and improve evacuation routes. The primary consideration of this reevaluation study is the reduced response times as well as the overall health, safety and welfare of the residents. Based on the additional traffic analysis regarding the bridge locations, the East of CR 951 Bridge Reevaluation Study which included analysis of benefits and impacts to the bridge locations and the reduced response times, staff is continuing to recommend that the Board approve the study and proceed with the five (5) bridge locations for design and construction and continued public engagement. The five (5) bridges are listed in Table 4 below and are as follows: 10' Ave. SE; 13' St. NW; 47"' Ave. NE; 62nd Packet Pg. 404 05/25/2021 Ave. NE; and Wilson Blvd. S. TABLE 4: 5 Recommended Bridge Locations in Alpha/Numeric Order * = Bridge Locations �1 IOth Ave- SE (between Everglades Blvd- &. Desoto Blvd-) It North End of 13th St- N-W (north of Golden Gate Blvd.) 4 47th Ave- NE (between Immokalee Rd- & Everglades Bhp) L2 .62nd Ave- NE (behveen Everglades Shed- and 40th St- NE) hL Wilson Blvd. S (south of Golden Gate Bhp) The additional analysis of project timing and scheduling was reviewed with the understanding that as projects are completed in the Golden Gate Estates area, additional travel options are created. Table 5 below depicts the planned project timing of the 5 recommended bridge crossing locations. TABLE 5: Planned Project Timing of Bridge Crossing Locations Crossing # Crossing Location FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 #11 1Oth Ave. SE Design Construction #8 13th St. NW Design Construction #4 *47th Ave. NE Design ROW Construction #12 62nd Ave. NE Design I ROW Construction #10 Wilson Blvd. S Design I ROW Construction * 47th Ave. NE construction will not begin until VBR Ext. 16th to Everglades Blvd. construction is completed. Note - FY listed is the anticipated year for phase to begin. FISCAL IMPACT: Estimates for the project range from $21.7 Million to $37.8 Million depending on final project limits, intersection improvements and right-of-way acquisition costs. The Board will have the opportunity to approve funding allocations as the project progresses. The anticipated source of funding for these bridges is: Infrastructure Sales Surtax ($29.9 Million with validation from the Infrastructure Sales Surtax Oversight Committee), Florida Department of Transportation funding and/or gas tax. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: These transportation infrastructure improvements are consistent with Objective 5.2 of the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Growth Management Plan to increase linkages within the local road system for the purposes of limiting traffic on arterials and major collectors within Rural Golden Gate Estates, shortening vehicular trips, and increasing overall road system capacity. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for approval. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: To approve the East of CR 951 Bridge Re-evaluation Study and direct staff to proceed with design and construction including public engagement of the impacted residents of the following 5 bridges: 10t1i Ave. SE; 13t' St. NW; 47th Ave. NE; 62nd Ave. NE; and Wilson Boulevard S. Prepared by: Lorraine Lantz, Principal Planner; Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Packet Pg. 405 05/25/2021 ATTACHMENT(S) 1. [Linked] Bridge Study Final Report with Appendices (PDF) 2. [Linked] Bridge Study Public Information Report (PDF) 3. Recommended Bridge Locations Map (PDF) 4. 1 East of CR-951 Traffic Analysis Tech Memo (PDF) Packet Pg. 406 11.G 05/25/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: I LG Doe ID: 15243 Item Summary: Recommendation to approve the East of CR951 Bridge Reevaluation Study, direct staff to design and construct the five (5) recommended bridges and continue public engagement with the impacted residents through the design and construction process. (Lorraine Lantz, Principal Planner; Capital Project Planning) Meeting Date: 05/25/2021 Prepared by: Title: Project Manager — Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Name: Lorraine Lantz 03/09/2021 5:01 PM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - IF, CPP & PM — County Manager's Office Name: Amy Patterson 03/09/2021 5:01 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations Support Christopher Johnson Growth Management Department Gene Shue Additional Reviewer Growth Management Operations Support Raquel Ovares Growth Management Department Trinity Scott Additional Reviewer County Manager's Office Amy Patterson Additional Reviewer County Attorney's Office Colleen Greene Level 2 Attorney Review County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Office of Management and Budget Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Office of Management and Budget Susan Usher Additional Reviewer County Manager's Office Dan Rodriguez Level 4 County Manager Review Board of County Commissioners Geoffrey Willig Meeting Pending Additional Reviewer Completed Completed 03/15/2021 11:42 AM Additional Reviewer Completed Completed 03/16/2021 3:29 PM Completed 03/30/2021 5:19 PM Completed 03/31/2021 10:22 AM Completed 03/31/2021 12:27 PM Completed 03/31/2021 2:13 PM Completed 04/19/2021 8:45 AM Completed 04/20/2021 8:15 AM 05/25/2021 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 407 11.G.3 Recommended Bridge Locations Identified OMMOKALEE RD E w � 1 a F— t 0 No .00-" AAWMMA &A P1 on I&N. ■iA i •_ate � 1 _ _ Lug" L� Far r��ra.r 4 {m•4� wy.a � a• Nq F o.rf�c 175 Con* L�vt fF�lti�•S E�'4iiX•S Ohfild4 r Q Packet Pg. 408 . ........ 7- 4F- I Packet Pg. 409 1 11.G.4 Summary During the East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluation Study presentation to the Board of County Commissioners February 9, 2021, the Board requested a traffic analysis be performed to estimate the amount of traffic that would likely use the streets improved with new bridge/canal crossings. A traffic analysis was performed for the five recommended bridges. After measuring existing traffic volumes and analyzing the geographic limits of the areas surrounding the proposed bridges to determine who might use the new bridge routes, estimates of the potential new traffic impacts to existing and future residents along the corridors leading to the proposed bridges were developed. A summary of the impacts to residents at build -out (B/O) that would be directly impacted by any increase in traffic volumes is included below in Table 1 and Table 2. The complete analysis is included in the following report. TABLE 1: Traffic Analysis — Build -Out Conditions With and Without New Bridge Traffic DUs Impacting B/O Conditions New DUs/Land Uses Impacting via New Bridge Existing Plus New Bridge Number B/O DUs B/O ADT B/O AM PkHr 2-Way B/O PM PkHr 2-Way ADT AM PkHr 2-Way PM PkHr 2-Way ADT AM PkHr 2-Way PM PkHr 2-Way 11 10th Ave. SE 69 58 483 43 53 1,771 159 195 2,254 202 248 210 8 13th St. NW 487 41 53 1,945 568 157 2,432 609 4 47th Ave. NE 644 4,508 296 367 8,274 745 910 12,782 1,041 1,277 12 62nd Ave. NE 62 434 39 48 2,366 213 260 2,800 252 308 10 1 Wilson Blvd. S 1 63 1 441 45 58 504 45 55 945 90 113 TABLE 2: Number of Dwellings Directly Impacted at Build -Out Bridge Number Dwellings Directly Impacted 11 10th Ave. SE 117 DUs on 10th Ave. SE directly impacted on both sides of canal 8 13th St. NW 58 DUs directly impacted by traffc using 13th Ave NW to access schools and parks 4 47th Ave. NE 246 DUs on 47th Ave. NE directly impacted on both sides of canal 12 62nd Ave. NE 62 DUs on 62nd Ave NE directly impacted west of canal 10 Wilson Blvd. S 63 DUs directly impacted north of canal It is important to note when current traffic is being re-routed to new corridors, there will be corresponding decreases of traffic along existing routes. These reductions, specifically resulting from Bridges #4, #10, and #12, are described in more detailed for each bridge in the sections that follow. 1 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 410 11.G.4 Traffic Impact Analysis During the East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluation Study presentation to the Board of County Commissioners February 9, 2021, the Board requested a traffic analysis be performed to estimate the amount of traffic that would likely use the streets improved with new bridge/canal crossings. A traffic analysis was performed for the five recommended bridges. Traffic data had been previously collected on May 27, 2020 at three of the streets for which bridges are recommended. 24-hour and peak hour traffic volume data was collected on 13th St. NW just north of Golden Gate Blvd. (approach to Bridge #8), on 47th Ave. NE just east of Immokalee Rd. (approach to Bridge #4), and on Wilson Blvd. S. just south of Golden Gate Blvd. (approach to Bridge #10). These data represent the maximum volumes on the roadway, understanding that the volumes at the canal end of the roadway would essentially be zero (0) and would increase along the roadway reaching the maximum volumes at the main intersection. When the traffic volume data is correlated to the number of homes on each street, trips per Dwelling Unit (DU) factors were developed to facilitate generating estimated volumes for the other two recommended bridge/street locations (Bridge #11 on 10th Ave. SE, and Bridge #12 on 62nd Ave. NE). The analysis of the three traffic count stations revealed a 24-hr average daily trips (ADT) factor of 7.00 2-way trips per DU, an AM peak hour rate of 0.63 2-way trips per DU, and 0.77 PM peak hour 2-way trips per DU. Actual per DU values were used to calculate daily and peak hour trips for Bridges 4, 8 and 10, Existing (2019) and average estimates of trips per DU were used for all five bridges for Build -Out (B/O) conditions as shown in Table 3 and 4. TABLE 3: Existing (2019) Conditions DUs Impacting Existing Conditions Trips per DU 7.0 0.63 0.77 Bridge Number 2019 DUs Existing ADT Existing AM PkHr 2-Way Existing PM PkHr 2-Way 11 10th Ave. SE 42 45 412 294 404 1 2,397 1 26 34 1 188 1 32 44 1 235 1 8 13th St. NW 4 47th Ave. NE 12 62nd Ave. NE 20 53 140 297 1 13 31 1 15 35 1 10 Wilson Blvd. S ' Traffic Counts 5121120 TABLE 4: B/O Conditions DUs Impacting B/O Conditions Trips per DU 7.0 0.63 0.77 Bridge Number B/O DUs B/O ADT B/O AM PkHr 2-Way B/O PM PkHr 2-Way 11 30th Ave. SE 69 483 43 53 8 13th St. NW 58 487 41 53 4 47th Ave. NE 644 4,508 296 367 12 62nd Ave. NE 62 434 39 48 10 Wilson Blvd. S 63 441 45 58 To determine the number of DUs that would likely use the streets on which the new bridges were located, and thus calculate the number of new trips using the bridge streets, each bridge location was analyzed to isolate an estimate of the number of dwelling units in 2019 and at B/O that would find the new bridge route more expedient or convenient. GIS analysis was used to establish a selection set of residential parcels that would most likely benefit from the new bridge. In two instances (Bridge #4 and Bridge #11) where the likelihood of choice to use a route afforded by the new bridge was not 100%, an estimated percentage of use was assumed. The assumption of potential use for Bridge #4 (40%) and Bridge #11 (10%) was based on a review of FDOT's Preliminary Engineering Report a� s= c 0 tU as a� �L m LO a) 4- 0 r rn w Cl) v N LO r Packet Pg. 411 11.G.4 for Golden Gate Estates Bridges PD&E Study and the companion Golden Gate Estates Bridges- Traffic Evaluation technical memorandum and professional judgement and knowledge of traffic patterns in the area. For Bridges #10 and #12, 100% of the DUs in the selection set were assumed to use the new bridge route due to the overwhelming advantage the new route afforded the DUs. The expected DUs and related trips for each bridge location for 2019 are shown in Tables 5 and for B/O in Table 6. The selection set areas are detailed on a map accompanying the detailed discussion of each bridge that follows. TABLE 5: New Traffic Impacts (2019) New Traffic Impacting via New Bridge 100% Partial Impact Avg. Trips per DU 7.0 0.63 0.77 Bridge Number 2019 DUs at 100 % Use 2019 DUs at <100% Use % of DUs Likely to Use Bridge 2019 DUs at % Use Total DUs to Use Bridge ADT AM PkHr 2-Way PM PkHr 2-Way 11 10th Ave. SE 30 482 10% 887 40% 48 - 355 78 - 546 - 49 - 294 60 - 359 8 13th St. NW 4 47th Ave. NE 111 466 3,262 12 62nd Ave. NE 88 - 88 616 55 68 10 1 Wilson Blvd. S 1 23 1 1 - 23 1 161 1 14 18 1 Traffic Counts 5127120 TABLE 6: New Traffic Impacts (B/O) New DUs/Land Uses Impacting via New Bridge 100% Partial Impact Avg. Trips per DU 7.0 0.63 0.77 Bridge Number B/O DUs at 100 % Use B/O Dus at <100% Use % of DUs , Likely to Use Bridge B/O DUs at % Use Total DUs to Use Bridge ADT AM PkHr 2-Way PM PkHr 2-Way 11 10th Ave. SE 74 - 180 1,786 2,504 10% 40% 179 - 1,002 253 1,771 159 568 745 195 157 910 8 13th St. NW - 1,945 4 47thAve. NE 1,182 8,274 12 62nd Ave. NE 338 - 338 21366 213 260 10 Wilson Blvd. S 72 - 72 504 45 55 For Bridge #8 on 131h ST. NW, no new residential through traffic was expected to use the bridge route as the bridge was primarily intended to provide direct access to a future county park and two future schools. No new trips were assumed to use 13th St. NW under 2019 conditions. To estimate the future trips at build -out (B/O) associated with the future non-residential uses, the ITE Trip Generation Manual (101h Ed.) was used to quantify the potential ADT and peak hour traffic associated with the three uses. School 31P___ a� c 0 U a� a� �L m uO M 4- 0 r w M v N LO r Packet Pg. 412 11.G.4 enrollment was developed in consultation with Collier Count School District planners based on similar sites in Golden Gate Estates and estimated park acreage was provided by Staff. Since the school sites and the park site will both be accessed directly from the future Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext., assumptions were made as to what percent of school and park traffic would access via 13th Ave. NW. as shown in Table 7. TABLE 7: Schools and Park Trip Generation New Land Uses Impacting via New Bridge at B/O % Using AM PkHr PM PkHr 13th St AM PkHr PM PkHr ADT 2-Way 2-Way NW' ADT 2-Way 2-Way ITE LU 411 Public Park 91.2 Acres 147 2 28 2S% 37 1 7 ITE LU 530 High School 1931 Students 3678 1004 270 35% 1287 351 95 ITE LU 520 Elementary Schoi 919 Students 1773 616 156 35% 621 2161 55 Total Trips on 13th St NW 1945, %8 157 Source: ITE Trip Generoltion Manual, 10th Ed. 2 Estimated percentage of traffic that will access the school and park sites via 13th St. NW considering the major access afforded to the sites via the future VBR Ext Because no direct access to VBR Ext. is being encouraged through the future park site, no additional through traffic is included. Combining the existing and "new" traffic volumes yields an estimate of total traffic for each bridge location in 2019 and at B/O as shown in Tables 8 and 9. TABLE 8: Total Traffic in 2019 DUs Impacting Existing Conditions New Traffic Impacting via New Bridge Existing Plus New Bridge Number 2019 DUs Existing ADT Existing AM PkHr 2-Way Existing PM PkHr 2-Way ADT AM PkHr 2-Way PM PkHr 2-Way ADT AM PkHr 2-Way PM PkHr 2-Way 11 10th Ave. SE 42 45 412 294 404 ' 2,397 ' 140 1 297 1 26 34 1 188 ' 13 31 1 32 44 1 235 ' 15 35 1 546 - 3,262 616 161 49 - 294 55 1 14 60 - 359 68 1 18 840 404 5,659 756 1 458 75 34 482 68 1 45 92 44 594 83 1 53 8 13th St. NW 4 47th Ave. NE 12 62nd Ave. NE 20 10 Wilson Blvd. S 1 53 ' Traffic Counts 5127120 TABLE 9: Total Traffic at B/O 0 a� C O tU rn N :L m LO a) 4- 0 r to W M N LO r Packet Pg. 413 11.G.4 DUs Impacting B/O Conditions New DUs/Land Uses Impacting via New Bridge Existing Plus New Bridge Number B/O DUs B/O ADT B/O AM PkHr 2-Way B/O PM PkHr 2-Way ADT AM PkHr 2-Way PM PkHr 2-Way ADT AM PkHr 2-Way PM PkHr 2-Way 11 10th Ave. SE 69 483 43 53 1,771 159 195 2,254 202 248 8 13th St. NW 58 487 41 53 1,945 568 157 2,432 609 210 4 47th Ave. NE 644 62 4,508 296 367 8,274 745 910 12,782 1,041 1,277 308 12 62nd Ave. NE 434 39 48 2,366 213 260 2,800 252 10 1 Wilson Blvd. S 63 441 45 58 504 45 55 945 90 113 It should be noted the bridges do not increase total trips on the network, rather the bridges permit an expanded route choice and therefore when one route sees an increase in traffic, another route sees less traffic. This is especially the case for Bridge #4, where currently almost all the traffic from residents east of the canal and north of Oil Well Road, eventually travel along Everglades Rd. to Oil Well Road. Current volumes on Everglades Blvd at Oil Well Rd. (11,578 2-way daily volume in 2021) could see a 28% reduction in traffic, with a corresponding 20% reduction in volumes along Oil Well Rd. west of Everglades Blvd. because of the new bridge on 47th Ave. NE providing an alternate route to/from Immokalee Rd. Similarly, when Bridge #10 provides improved access to the Frangipani area via Wilson Blvd. S., traffic on 10th St. SE that currently serves the area south of the canal is likely to be reduced by 23%. The number of DUs directly impacted and benefiting from the new bridges is shown in Table 10. TABLE 10: Dwelling Units Impacted and Benefiting from New Bridges at B/O Bridge Number DUs Impacted DUs Benefiting 11 10th Ave. SE 13th St. NW 47th Ave. NE 117 58 246 253 - 2,SO4 1 8 4 12 62nd Ave. NE 62 338 i 10 Wilson Blvd. S 63 72 1 ' Does not include DUs benefiting from reductions in traffic volumes It is noted that this analysis looked at the roads joined by the bridges as whole corridors. It is acknowledged that traffic patterns within Golden Gate Estates will be redistributed and is anticipated to slightly increase or decrease the traffic volumes on different segments of the corridors. According to the Preliminary Engineering Report for Golden Gate Estates Bridge Crossings Traffic Evaluation the segment of 47th Ave. East of Immokalee Rd. is anticipated to experience a decrease of 560 vehicles per day while the segment West of Everglades Rd. is anticipated to experience an increase of 810 vehicles per day. The current analysis acknowledges the prior study, however looked at the overall impacts to the entire corridor and not segment by segment. A detailed discussion of each bridge location follows. 5 Packet Pg. 414 11.G.4 Bridge #11-1011 Ave. SE It was assumed that if a new bridge were constructed on loth Ave. SE between Everglades Blvd. and Desoto Blvd. the 19 homes (48 parcels) on loth Ave. SE between the canal and Desoto Blvd., and the 11 homes (26 parcels) east of Desoto Blvd. would be extremely likely (100%) to use the new bridge route along loth It was assumed that a small - $nd AVE H! jnA Av[ N{ number (10%) of the 482 current homes (1,786 '"'°""°e - parcels) east of the canal 2n0 AVE SE Ind AV! St and south of loth Ave. SE DUs Using at 100% DUs Directly Impacted AYe Existing: 30 a*, rk It would find it an advantage West of Bridge B/0:74 to 'jog over" between Existing:42 A"eu ■ikA ESE Desoto Blvd. and Everglades B/0:69 ` # Blvd. at loth Ave. SE. Ave u / A�! Two segments of loth Ave SE will be negatively impacted by any additional X� traffic generated because un. Are sE +ate Ave sE Vv of the new bridge. West of DUs Directly impacted ^ 16UM AVE SE East of Bridge the canal/bridge, there are Existing: 19 [ftAVE SE 42 existing homes on a B/O: 48 total of 69 parcels. Between the canal/bridge a " % DUs South of 10th Ave. SE TSnd AVE L! a and Desoto Blvd., there are Using at 10% 19 existing homes on a '10 Existing: 48 AvesE total of 48 parcels directly 11 B/U:179 un,AVE 0 fronting on loth Ave. SE. 3010, AVE sE 2M ArE tt A total of 61 existing homes on a total of 117 parcels wOh AV St 3M AVE SE fronting on loth Ave. SE. 3=hd AV] It 32ndAvg SE that would be impacted by any future traffic increase. 341hAVI SE 34MAve it dint AV[ S[ 3.0,n+ Avt 59 34m AV! SE 30h AVE S[ AM AVE SE 40M AVE S[ 0 41.d AVS S[ 0 6 1 P a g e a� _ 0 c.� as m LO M 4- 0 r Cl) N LO r Packet Pg. 415 11.G.4 Bridge #8 —131h St. NW The bridge at the north end of 13' St. NW is intended to provide direct access to a future county park and two future schools. It is assumed that there will be access through the proposed land uses for emergency vehicles to access the future Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension. Because the bridge does not provide a route for existing residential development, no calculation related to existing or future residential trips is necessary. A calculation of potential traffic generated by the school and park has been included in this analysis. Trips were generated for each future use using the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10t" Ed.). Park land acreage provided by County planners and student population estimates based on conversations with School District planners were used to quantify future daily and peak hour trips. An estimate of distribution to 131" St. NW was made considering the major access to the sites afforded by the future Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext. Since the Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext. and the schools and park are all "future" considerations, no "new" trips on 13t" St. NW were assigned for 2019. For the B/O condition, it was assumed that 25% of the future park traffic and 35% of future school traffic would use 131" St. NW. There are 45 existing homes on a total of 58 parcels fronting directly on 13t" St. NW that would be impacted by any future increase in traffic. ka 8��w f �Oh�ma riAI,R #w prOw AYI w4r LonbOM AVE mid Yand�•E1MI poach RO �w il4h,AV@WW 14M ~ mop IPh AVE 1Wf 12+h CPO", WAr ..__----ff-__ _ _ -- - - -Idh AVE ti14 C)Us Directly Impacted Existing; 45 B/O: 58 1 1 #8 I 1 1 _1 1 = i x I I 1 I I � I G1411an Caro uvo w J i _ 7 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 416 11.G.4 Bridge #4 - 47" Ave. NE Of the five recommended bridges, Bridge #4 on 471h Ave. NE between Immokalee Rd. and Everglades Blvd. has the potential to serve the largest selection set of existing and future homes. Unlike the other corridors in this evaluation, 47th Ave. NE is designated as an Urban Major Collector. The two -mile -long segment of 471h Ave. NE west of the proposed bridge serves as a collector to eight "side streets" between Immokalee Road and the canal, serving as access to 412 existing homes on 644 total parcels. 105 existing homes on 163 total parcels front directly on 47th Ave. NE. The one -mile -long segment of 47th Ave. NE between the canal and Everglades Blvd. has 47 homes on 83 total parcels. Residents on this segment will directly benefit from the new bridge route but will also be subject to the additional through traffic from residents to the north and east. On 47th Ave. NE east of Everglades Blvd. there are 111 existing homes on a total of 180 parcels. These residents are highly likely to choose the route that takes them directly west to/from Immokalee Rd. as opposed to traveling south to Oil Well Rd. The residents east and west of Everglades Blvd., that are north of 471h Ave. NE will have the option of choosing the new route along 47th Ave. NE to/from Immokalee Rd. as opposed to continuing to travel their existing route along Everglades Blvd. to Oil Well Rd. (or further south). Motorists that choose to use 471h Ave. NE as their new route will reduce the volumes on Everglades Blvd. (south of 47th Ave. NE) by 28% and on Oil Well Rd. by 20%, most importantly between Everglades Blvd. and Immokalee Rd. Residents south of 47th Ave. NE (east and west of Everglades Blvd.) will find back -tracking to 47th Ave. NE inconvenient and therefore are more likely to continue to travel south on Everglades Blvd. to Oil Well Rd. oan.na �� 6I"�iCi .aY..e IOM .YIN= Y ebN lP Mw Art N[ 1e IN I Mn AYI Ne DUs North of 43rd Ave NE Using at 4096 Mlle avE Nk Exi sting: 887 B/O: 2504 _ Irl Mel Ave NE DUs Directly Impacted iiwAYe NE Existing: 47 B/0:83 DUs Directly Impacted Vi s!w VIM Existing:105 ` 43.WAv1.M 13/0: 163 l g x MN .eIN AYl W! _____ — — — — — — — — — —.ZINC �— ____tI �111• MN .NNAY=M/ __y�+r__E_y� ��r�t+ F — — — — — — — — — — _1- r� f!m A allotlY Naha+ [EYP 1 � nrww Ne 70 ]Nh AY! p —... 3 fay =wn X aew Ave N! pv µY9 "so +P Void 9-- Y..N O [t 4, � � _ =a l san Ave Ne F i Y l ramn.! y g M Is. AYI N! Gale Ave Ne - ARit 44 r pa.. R- = IN 11 19 Traffic on Everglades Blvd. Reduced 28% and Reduced 20% on Oil Well Rd. S I.I.Yt NE t a� fn x Me AY! N! % Ta V fee..Y! NE L ya,.Ye Nl U O f0 _ w {=e. AY! N! . . .an Ave N! d _ I_ O V r Q DUs Using at 100% Existing: 111 3/0:180 — AA M ile AY! N! 8 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 417 11.G.4 Bridge #12 — 62111 Ave. NE The bridge on 62"d Ave. NE is located one mile east of Everglades Blvd. and will provide direct access to residents east of the canal/bridge location that today, must travel a circuitous route either north along 40th St. NE to Immokalee Rd or south via Desoto Blvd to reach 56th Ave. NE where an existing bridge allows access to/from Everglades Blvd. and points west or south. 20 existing homes on a total of 62 parcels front on 62"d Ave. NE west of the canal and will be directly affected by the increase in traffic by any of the existing 88 DU (338 total parcels) east of the canal that are expected to choose this new route to reach Everglades Blvd. The 88 current DU (338 at B/O) east of the canal that would find it more convenient to use the new canal crossing on 62"d Ave. NE are located between 70th Ave. NE and 62"d Ave. NE. Existing and future residents living north of 701h Ave. NE and south of 62"d Ave. NE would be less likely to find the new crossing more convenient than their existing routes. Fonw 2 LM DUs Using at 100% •afl 004000 Existing: 88 B/O: 338 a r i } y S 72n4 AY[ NZ 70m AY[ K DUs Directly Impacted AVEN& Existing: 20 B/O: 62 •im Vt NI '. �Jg51YE [ . tYI MI L — — — — — — — — — — 6M AVE MI so@; AVE MI SNh AYI MI Und AVE MI 54th AVE MI 77nd AVI NI V. 601h AYI HI sa,h AVE KI 14ik A VF HE z z x 91Page Packet Pg. 418 11.G.4 Bridge #10 — Wilson Blvd. S The bridge on Wilson Blvd. S is located one mile south of Golden Gate Blvd. and provides improved access (reduced travel length) to the non -Golden Gate Estates rural area south of the canal for residents and first responders. Landowners in the "Frangipani" area south of the canal that would otherwise use Wilson Blvd. S currently use a bridge at the southern end of 10t" Street SE. Along the segment of Wilson Blvd. between Golden Gate Blvd and the canal, there are 53 existing homes :5 on a total of 63 parcels that would be affected by any increase in traffic from the 23 existing homes (on a total of 72 parcels) south of the canal that would find the new bridge route more convenient than using c the existing 10t" St. SE route. It is important to understand any trip made along Wilson Blvd. S by a resident 0 south of the canal is being diverted from what would have been a trip on 10t" St. SE, reducing the existing traffic impact to residents fronting on 10t" Ave. SE. L It should also be noted that a future extension of Wilson Blvd. S to Blackburn Rd. (or some otherLO 00 intermediate E/W corridor) that would facilitate future connection to Landfill Rd./White Lake Blvd. and M points west has been previously studied and planned for in the Long -Range Transportation Plan. c r w y T � r O E � I � �C1 N ' � H 4 f Traffic on Q 10t" St SE U #10 Reduced by 23% H r r*w+ Ipo+dV! CD DUs Directly Impacted o Existing:53 X �" N 19 w �__ —4— — i i DUs Using at 100°% 4 Existing: 23IT j B/O: 72 1 I 1 101 Page Packet Pg. 419 11.G.4 Supplemental Information - First Responder Response Times Questions arose during the presentation regarding the potential reductions in response time with the new bridges in place. Table 11 quantifies the potential benefits in terms of travel miles reductions and minutes saved. TABLE 11: Emergency Response Benefits from New Bridges at B/O Bridge ID Roadway Trip Purpose Miles W/Out Bridge Miles With Bridge Miles Reduced % Reduced Minutes Saved 4 47th Ave. NE Fire 5.1 4.9 0.2 4% 0.4 CCSO 10.3 6.1 4.2 41 % 5.6 EMS 4.4 2.7 1.8 40% 3.0 8 13th St. NW Fire 4.8 1.2 3.6 75% 7.1 CCSO 6.0 2.5 3.6 59% 4.8 EMS 4.8 1.2 3.6 75% 6.1 10 Wilson Blvd. S Fire 4.8 CCSO 3.1 3.6 1.2 1.9 1.2 25% 2.4 1.6 39% EMS 4.7 3.5 1.2 25% 2.0 11 10th Ave. SE Fire 9.4 7.9 1.5 16% 3.0 CCSO 5.1 1.8 3.3 64% 4.4 EMS 9.4 7.9 1.5 16% 1 2.5 12 62nd Ave. NE Fire 5.8 2.7 3.1 6.8 1 1.7 54% 6.3 CCSO 8.5 20% 2.3 EMS 5.8 2.7 1 3.1 54% 5.4 Additionally, it was also pointed out that in some cases, an EMS (or Fire) response to a call for service would need to be handled by an out of zone station if the primary station's vehicle were busy. This situation is most pronounced in Bridge -Shed #4 where an EMS Station on Immokalee Road at the Fair Grounds would be dispatched to a location off Everglades Blvd., north of Oil Well Road that would normally be in the zone covered by the EMS Station on Everglades Blvd. at Immokalee Rd. In such a case, traveling north to use Bridge #4 on 471" Ave. NE (3.65 miles) instead of traveling south to Oil Well Road to reach Everglades Blvd. (5.93 miles) would reduce the travel distance by 2.28 miles, resulting in a reduction of the response time by 3.9 minutes when responding to any one of 2,504 dwelling units located off Everglades Blvd. north of 471" Ave. NE at B/O. 8/O DUs Distance (miles) W/O Bridge W/ Bridge Saved per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders from Different Station Yes 2504 5.9 3.7 2.3 38/0 o Reduction in ResponseTime Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 10.2 6.3 3.9 11 Packet Pg. 420 11.G.4 EYnpkln RO R 4` Do1EndE CT s } 72nd AYE ME 77nd AVE ME Rp61>R RVn RD I LN LM r nm AVE NE Y _ pion to V 40h AV! vivo EVekef OR Fo ►N H1hAVE NE .i * nv[ um AVE M[ DU North of 43rd Ave N E Existing: 887 B/O: 2504 4" AY[ ME 6M AVE M! 60m AYE ME . 'ApI oSolh AVE 111 5•ht AYE ME s4th AVE ME /\ V 3.65 miles SNh AY1 N! SiM AYE NE 112nd AVE NE 2 G x son, AVE NE � Y Y r E ME 41 ARv AY! "I�` 477h A VE NE s51h AN M! 45th AVE NE }lVO E 43kd Ave NE A V E NE � 410 ANWE 1TM AVE N (per*; 1TIh A�t1k r ENE�ti}o9b'pYD7! `s# �� Grp ` ye0►`'�~ dti\ $ ]71h AVE NE E NE � F Lo Y a �oynuM uV : 351N AYE M! 4 Ext '�► s y A"",--" 0 w � VIE ft er __ a'=�Y.t`id�i,VE NE ]id AVE HE # o p! s 5.93 miles 1111 AVE 71E i$,$ AVE ME �ti_p gg "Oh AVE ME 711h AVL NF C O U En m r Lf') 0 J.d W M v N III zi 121 Page Packet Pg. 421 Stantec IQ], OV EST CORPORATION OF AMERICA East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Final Report January,2020 Am vr ` 01, `,i•' j� 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study Contents ExecutiveSummary......................................................................................................................................2 Background/History..................................................................................................................................... 3 Reevaluation Process Overview.................................................................................................................. 6 StudyPurpose...............................................................................................................................................8 AnalysisMethodology..................................................................................................................................9 PublicEngagement.....................................................................................................................................15 Results/Findings.........................................................................................................................................18 Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................19 Appendices................................................................................................................................................. 21 1 1 P a g e 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study Executive Summary The following report documents a reevaluation of the recommendations included in the 2008 East of 951 Horizon Study for Bridges. The 2020 reevaluation examined 10 of the original 12 bridge locations (1 bridge has been constructed and 1 bridge is already programmed). In identifying the locations for potential bridges, the original 2008 study considered potential transportation circulation benefits including improved connectivity to collectors and arterials, improved evacuation routes, reduced emergency response times for first responders, reduced trip length and improved access to schools, libraries, and parks. The 2020 reevaluation study focused on establishing, to the extent possible, measurable metrics (e.g., shortened travel distances, reduced travel/response time, etc.) that demonstrated the potential benefits of the selected locations to public service agencies in responding to calls for service, and to the existing and future residents of Golden Gate Estates with respect to person travel to work, school, shopping etc. Additionally, the empirical analysis quantified the negative impacts to residents/parcels located along the approach roads leading to the new bridges. Following the completion of the empirical analysis of the potential benefits, the Planning Team conducted a series of public information "virtual" meetings with potentially adversely affected property owners. After follow-up discussions with the public agencies (Fire, EMS, Sheriff) serving the Golden Gate Estates area., a final evaluation of the "pros", "cons" and the project costs resulted in a recommendation to Collier County Board of County Commissioners to consider programming the following bridges using the earmarked proceeds from the 1-cent infrastructure surtax approved by Collier County voters in 2018: Bridge# Road Name Planning Cost Estimate 4 47th Ave. NE $7,051,529 8 13th St. NW $3,114,161 10 Wilson Blvd. S $3,601,521 11 10th Ave. SE $4,747,281 12 62nd Ave. NE $3,272,718 $21, 787, 209 The findings concluded that the programming of the remaining Bridges 1, 5, 6, 7, and 9 should be deferred at this time and reconsidered in the future following the completion of the recommended bridges and other arterial/collector improvements, e.g., the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, Randall Boulevard improvements, etc. 2 1 P a g e 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study Background/History In August 2008, Collier County completed the East of 951 Horizon Study for Bridges (2008 Study) in order to evaluate the opportunities to construct the missing bridge connections in the network of Golden Gate Estates roadways based on system -wide infrastructure needs. The study considered potential transportation circulation benefits including improved connectivity to collectors and arterials, reduced trip length, improved evacuation routes and reduced emergency response times for first responders (law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire) and improved access to schools, libraries, and parks. The study's stakeholders identified 12 preferred canal -crossing locations and ranked the bridges based on criteria related to emergency response, service efficiency and mobility (Table 1 & Figure 1). TABLE 1: 2008 Bridge Locations 2008 Study Bridge Ref. # Bridge Locations 1 23rd St. SW (south of Golden Gate Blvd.) 2 16th St. NE (north of Golden Gate Blvd.) 3 8th St. NE (north of Golden Gate Blvd.) 4 47th Ave. NE (between Immokalee Rd. & Everglades Blvd.) 5 Wilson Blvd. N (south of 33rd Ave. NE) 6 18th Ave. NE (between Wilson Ave. & 8th St. NE) 7 18th Ave. NE (between 8th St. NE & 16th St. NE) 8 North End of 13th St. NW (north of Golden Gate Blvd.) 9 16th St. SE (south of Golden Gate Blvd.) 10 Wilson Blvd. S (south of Golden Gate Blvd.) 11 1 Oth Ave. SE (between Everglades Blvd. & Desoto Blvd.) 12 62nd Ave. NE (between Everglades Blvd. and 40th St. NE) 3 1 P a g e 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study N x WIV E Cn Counfy x ., �.`�r� �I _--_ s 0 Collier County ` By,,.F,a,,,,,p�,�y, — r0°" Transportation Services Division Miles FIGURE 1: 2008 Study Bridge Location Map 4 1 P a g e 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study Based on funding allocations in the County's work program at the time of the 2008 Study, Bridge # 1 was to be constructed as part of the White Blvd. Bridge replacement project (ultimately, Bridge # 1 was not included in the project and never constructed). Following Bridge # 1, the 2008 Study prioritized Bridges #2 (16th St. NE) and #3 (8th St. NE) as the next highest unfunded priorities in the first tier. The next tier of priorities included Bridges #4, #5, #6 and #7. The last tier included bridges #8, #9, # 10, # 11 and # 12, with a recommendation to consider constructing them as funding became available. In 2018, the Collier Board of County Commissioners, voted to place a one -cent infrastructure sales surtax referendum on the General Election ballot. The referendum was approved by voters and collection began January 1, 2019. The additional one -cent sales tax is expected to generate, on average, $70 million a year, or $490 million over seven years. Having already constructed Bridge #3 (8t" St. NE) in 2019 with State grant funds, Collier County identified the remaining 11 bridges (Table 2) to receive proceeds from the one -cent infrastructure sales surtax. Bridge #2 (16t" St. NE), has already been programmed with surtax proceeds in TABLE 2: Bridges Included in the 10 Sales Tax Referendum the County's 2019- 2023 Schedule of 1¢ Sales Tax Bridge Locations Capital (Listed in No Particular Order) Improvements (CIE) Pb for construction in 16th St. NE (scheduled for construction in FY 2021) 2021. The remaining 10 bridges to be funded with the surtax proceeds are the subject of this follow-up 2019 Reevaluation Study. Bridge location maps and aerial photography of the bridge locations can be found in Appendix A. 47th Ave. NE (between Immokalee Rd. & Everglades Blvd.) 1 Oth Ave. SE (between Everglades Blvd. & Desoto Blvd.) 16th St. SE (south of Golden Gate Blvd.) Wilson Blvd. N (south of 33rd Ave. NE) 23rd St. SW (south of Golden Gate Blvd.) 62nd Ave. NE (between Everglades Blvd. and 40t" St. NE) North End of 13th St. NW (north of Golden Gate Blvd.) 18th Ave. NE (between Wilson Ave. & 8th St. NE) 18th Ave. NE (between 8th St. NE & 16th St. NE) Wilson Blvd. S (south of Golden Gate Blvd.) 5 1 P a g e 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study Reevaluation Process Overview In 2019, Collier County's Transportation Planning Team began a review of the 2008 Study to confirm the validity of the remaining 10 recommended bridge locations before having the Board of County Commissioners consider moving any of the remaining bridge projects into production. The 2019 Reevaluation Study was to focus on the same considerations recognized as important criteria in the original study, e.g., reducing travel/response times, improving connectivity, and establishing more evacuation routes in the Golden Gate Estates Area. To initiate the study, the Transportation Planning Team interviewed the first responders and agencies who were stakeholders in the 2008 Study including the Collier County Sheriff's Office Districts 2 and 4, Emergency Services Division, North Collier Fire Control & Rescue District, Greater Naples Fire & Rescue District and Collier County Public School District Administration. During the Team's stakeholder outreach, agencies were updated on the status of 2008 Study and the effects the one -cent sales tax would have on the transportation projects planned in the Estates Area. Based on the feedback and comments during the Team's initial interviews, all the agencies still considered the original locations important and emphasized no locations should be removed from consideration. The agencies took the opportunity to suggest additional bridges at various locations subject to additional funding being available. The additional bridge locations are not included in this reevaluation effort, but are included here for informational purposes: • Add 2 bridges on Jung Blvd. parallel to those existing/proposed on 18th Ave. NE • Add a bridge on 28th Ave. SE or 26th Ave. SE, between Everglades Blvd. and Desoto Blvd. • Add a bridge at the westernmost end of 14th Ave. SE to access the future school site All agencies interviewed remained in favor of the bridge locations recommended in the original 2008 Study. During the Transportation Planning Team's review, the Team understood the ownership of some of the properties along the roads leading to these new bridges would likely have changed since the 2008 Study's public engagement effort. A preliminary review of the Property Appraiser's website identified approximately 1,000 parcels along the bridge corridors where the ownership had changed since January 1, 2008. After having the original bridge locations reconfirmed/validated by the stakeholder agencies, the Transportation Planning Team enlisted the assistance of outside consulting firms to help quantify the benefits of the bridges to residents in 2019 and at build -out, and to engage with current property owners on the effected roads to provide information about the upcoming bridge projects. 6 1 P a g e 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study Stantec Consulting Services Incorporated, in conjunction with Quest Corporation of America were retained to evaluate the benefits the bridges would provide to Golden Gate Estates Area residents and to the public agencies providing services to the area. The final recommendations were to also consider the negative impacts the new bridges would have on the adjoining neighborhoods. Following the analyses of the benefits derived from the new bridges, public outreach efforts would engage directly with adjacent/impacted property owners by facilitating bridge -specific informational meetings designed to share the project history, bridge location information, associated infrastructure improvements, the design/construction process, and the project timelines for bridge construction. Following the public information phase, the public comments would be evaluated in conjunction with the analysis of each bridge's benefits and negative impacts. Draft recommendations would be vetted with County Staff and the affected agencies before final recommendations would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. The Board, after hearing any additional comments from the public, would then be able to make an informed decision regarding which bridges, if any, would be advanced into the programming and production phases, or provide additional direction to staff. 7 1 P a g e 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study Study Purpose The purpose of the East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluation Study is to quantify the benefits that the new bridges will provide to area residents (today and in the future) and to the public agencies that provide services to the Golden Gate Estates Area, evaluate the negative impacts to adjacent landowners, and present those findings to residents/landowners that would be most affected by the new bridges (i.e., those residential parcels directly along the bridge corridors), before presenting the results of the Study to the Board of County Commissioners. As stated earlier, recent interviews with the public service 2008 Study Criteria agencies reconfirmed the continued validity of the specific Improving connectivity to collectors and arterials bridge locations originally Reducing trip length for personal travel identified, studied, and vetted in Improving evacuation routes 2008. To quantify the expected Reducing response furies for first responders benefits, a geographic Improving access to schools, libraries, and parks information system (GIS) application was used to identify and measure travel distances along typical travel routes with and without the new bridges. Additionally, the existing and proposed residential parcels within areas that could be reasonably expected to benefit from the new bridges for each trip purpose were identified and quantified. Following the GIS-based data and analysis, a public outreach effort was initiated to engage directly with the residents/landowners that would be directly affected by the new bridges. Bridge specific informational meetings were designed to share the project history, bridge location information and study findings, associated infrastructure improvements, the design/construction process, and the project timelines for bridge construction. At the conclusion of the neighborhood outreach sessions, this study report was prepared to summarize the study findings and recommendations, and to document the neighborhood outreach efforts for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners before making any decisions regarding the programming of any of the 10 bridges. 8 1 P a g e 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study Analysis Methodology The study area identified as the East of CR-951 Golden Gate Estate Area was divided into 9 "bridge -shed" areas (Figure 2), each devoted to one or more proposed bridges. Each bridge shed was shaped/sized to capture those residential parcels that could reasonably be expected to benefit from one or more of the bridges. The GIS-based analysis of each bridge -shed involved establishing typical "trip purpose" travel routes for residents and public service providers, with and without the new bridges, using 2019 residential dwelling data and build -out parcel data. The difference between the "with bridge" and "without bridge" trip lengths established the metric for evaluating the benefit derived from a new bridge for each benefiting trip purpose. To establish a constant for measuring trip lengths for each trip purpose, within each bridge -shed, FIGURE 2: Bridge -Sheds Map one or more "centroids" were established to represent the average home within the shed (or part of a shed) to/from which travel distances would be measured. This technique of using the centroid as the trip origin (starting point) or destination (ending point), recognizes that some trips within the bridge -shed will be closer to the origin/destination (e.g., a fire station, school or park) and some will be farther from the origin/destination trip end; the centroid therefore serves as the average point to establish the distance(s) between the origins and destinations. To evaluate changes in public agency response (calls for service), the "station to centroid" distance (with and without bridge) works well for fixed station locations (fire and emergency medical services), however, because Sheriff's Office vehicles are routinely "on the road" when responding to a call for service, a worst case distance scenario was created to establish the maximum benefit that could be quantified. In most cases, the worst case is represented by a Sheriff's Office vehicle on one side of the bridge -shed having to respond to a call for service on the other side of the bridge -shed. The savings in travel distance/time is then measured by comparing the "with bridge" and 9 1 P a g e 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study the "without bridge" route distances in the same manner as with the other public service responders. Travel distance is converted to response time using an average travel speed, resulting in a metric that is therefore a maximum percent reduction in response time. As an example, in Bridge -Shed #4, a Sheriff's Office vehicle located on the west side of the shed, would reduce their travel distance by up to 4.2 miles and response time by up to 5.6 minutes (from 13.7 to 8.1 minutes) to a scene on the east side, a decrease of up to 41% if the new bridge on 47'h Ave NE was in place. In many cases, the "worst case" analysis illustrated a substantially improved response time for law enforcement vehicles to arrive on scene and to be in a position to render life-saving aid to victims if needed in advance of the arrival of EMS and fire department support. When evaluating the number of residents that might benefit from a new bridge, it was recognized in some bridge -sheds, the entire number of bridge -shed residents/parcels might benefit from the bridge for one or more trip purposes (e.g., increasing route choice, improved evacuation routes, etc.), but in other instances a smaller subset of parcels would be the only residents benefiting - BRIDGE -SHEDS 44 & 412 for a particular trip purpose In each Ex=^Home:seam-0.1P.—I. case, the GIS analysis was able to quantify the just number of existing and future residences that could expect to benefit for each individual trip purpose. As an example, Figure 3 illustrates the 2019 dwelling units and total "build - out" parcels within Bridge -Sheds #4 and # 12. In this example, the dwelling units and parcels within Bridge -Shed #12 are also considered part of Bridge - Shed #4 because they could be expected to benefit from a bridge located on 471h Ave. NE. A complete set of 2019 Dwellings & Build -Out Parcels maps is included in Appendix B. Additionally, in the case of distances to schools, since not every residence is home to one or more school -age children, the potential number of benefiting residences was factored further by the average student per household rate used by the School District for the specific schools as follows: 226i2 2011',47:00 AM 1:3].112 rmm Bridge -Shed 4 +' EW,en + Bridge -Shed 12 FIGURE 3: 2019 Dwellings & Build -Out Parcels 101 Page 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study • Elementary School a rate of 0.205 students per household • Middle School a rate of 0.109 students per household • High School a rate of 0.145 students per household After estimating the total number of students benefiting, the resulting number was then divided by 1.5 to account for households with more than one student. This last calculation yields the total number of households that would benefit from the bridge as opposed to the number of students. To quantify the benefits attributed to existing/future homes in each bridge -shed, residential dwelling travel routes were identified for the following trip purposes, as applicable: • Distance traveled to access to the Arterial/Collector Network • Distance traveled to access to Schools • Distance traveled to access to Parks • Distance traveled to access to Commercial/Retail When evaluating potential routes with and without the bridge, if no shorter route benefit could be identified, the trip purpose was considered not applicable and no benefit values were assumed. Likewise, to quantify the benefits attributed to public service agencies, response travel routes were identified for the following agencies: • Travel distance from existing & future Fire Stations (travel speed = 30 mph) • Travel distance from existing & future EMS stations (travel speed = 35 mph) • Travel distance between two points for Sheriff's Office vehicles (travel speed = 45 mph) The example of this methodology shown in Figure 4 illustrates the alternative route analysis (with and without a new bridge) performed for different trip purposes within Bridge -Shed #4. The different shading indicates smaller subsets of parcels illustrates the only residents benefiting for a particular trip purpose. Other residents within the shed (outside the subset) while benefiting from route choice, do not benefit from having a shorter trip length because the "new" route is essentially the same trip length. A complete set of Alternative Route Analysis maps for all bridge -sheds is included in Appendix C. Although no specific route benefit analysis was performed for school bus operations, it is believed that additional route choice options made available by the new bridges would likely lead to improved routing options and thus cost savings to the District. Equally important is the access provided to new/future schools and the ability to rebalance school attendance zones in the future. In two specific bridge -sheds (#6/7 and #11), it was determined because the benefiting parcels were outside the adjacent school zone, the benefit of a shortened travel distance to school(s) would only be applicable if the school zone boundaries were modified to include the affected residents. 111 Page 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study FIGURE 4: Alternate Route Analysis 121 Page In addition to analyzing the reductions in the fire district's average travel distance and response time, a separate analysis was performed to determine if there were any parcels currently not within the Insurance Services Office (ISO) 5-mile drive distance from a fire station (Public Protection Classification Score of 3), that would otherwise be included subject to a new bridge being constructed. Figure 5 illustrates the existing Score 3 coverage areas from all existing fire stations and several areas that would be included once the bridge(s) are constructed. For each bridge -shed, worksheets were prepared to illustrate the benefit metrics quantified in the GIS analysis. The example worksheet for Bridge -Shed #4, illustrated in Figure 6, identifies the number of existing (2019) and future (Build -Out) residents that can expect to benefit from the bridge with measured distances saved with and without the bridge for specific trip purposes. A complete set of Benefit Matrix Tables for all bridge -sheds is included in Appendix D. 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study FIGURE 5: ISO Map The travel distance saved by residents for each trip purpose was extrapolated into vehicles miles of travel (VMT) and fuel consumption variables. For each trip purpose, the initial savings from a reduction in trip length was then extrapolated based on the number of trips per day and the number of days per year that a resident might be expected to travel for that purpose. Based on average fuel consumption (30 mpg), the potential fuel savings was estimated for each trip purpose. Resulting values were quantified for the total number of residents that would benefit and for individual households. The worksheets also quantify the savings in public agency response times for each agency by converting reductions in response trip length to travel time saved using estimated average vehicle speeds for responding vehicles. 131Page 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study Bridge #4 - 47th Av 2019 Disanc. (milk) w/o w/ Sav Du. Bridge Bridge perl Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Arterial Network Yes 50 5,3 4.3 1. Rod.... Travel Dist ./Tim. to Reach Schools Yes 57 9.0 4.0 5. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Commercial/Retail Yea 5o fi.6 5.4 1. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks Yes 1369 7,4 5.7 1. Inare.-R.sident's Route Ch.m. Options: Improves Evacuation Access Yes 2142 Dur Duonrs w/o (melee) w/ sav Bridge Bridge parl Reduces Travel Distance/Response Tl me For Fire First Responders Yes 16 5.1 4.9 U. Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 10.2 9.8 0. Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders Yes 2142 10.3 b.l 4. Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 13.7 8A 5. Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders Yes 5D 44 2.7 1. Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 7.6 4.5 3. Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station A. Improves ISO Public Prot.ction Yes 16 5.2 5.0 Bddk Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus Improves School Bus Route Operations Yea reduce fuel eonaumptlon pad pssoNaret ' VMT-Vehfcle Miles Tmveled Build -Out Di:once (.ilea) w/o wl S... Dur Bridge Bridge part Reduces Travel D1stanc./Tim. to Roach Arterial Network Yes 90 5.3 4.3 1. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Schools (E) Yes cat 87 9.0 4.0 5. R.du... Travel Distance/Tim. to Commercial/Retail Yea 90 6.6 5.4 1. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks Yea 3436 7,4 5.7 1. Increases Resident's Route Choice Yes 5012 Options: Improves Evacuation Access Disam (ma.) DU. W/0 W/ S.v Bridge Bridge perl Reduces Travel Dist. nce/R as pa rise 71 ma Far Fire First Responders Yes 28 5.1 4.9 0. Rasp.... Tim. (minutes) at 30 MPH 1 10.2 9.8 0. Rod.... Travel Distanc./Rspans. Time For CCSO First Responders Yea 5012 10.3 6.1 4. Response Time (minutes) at4S MPH 13.7 8.1 5. R.duc.s Travel Distanc./R.spons. Time ForEMS First Responders Yes 90 4.4 2.7 1. Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 7.6 4.5 3. Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Improves ISO Public Protection Yes 28 5.2 5.0 Bridg Classification score May fmpruva circulation optronafar bus Improves School bus Routs Operations yes reduce fug! ePnsumptlon and ossociatec L' VMT= Vehicle Miles Tveled Figure 6: Bridge -Shed Benefit Matrix Table for Bridge #4 in 2019 & Build -Out 141 Page 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study Lastly, while there is no definitive metric to measure the value/benefits of "route choice" and "emergency evacuation", the benefits provided by increasing the additional choices residents, the Collier County School District and emergency response agencies will have with the additional bridges cannot be understated. Having the option of choosing another way to get from point A to point B can be, at times, of significant value. Residents can make choices regarding different routes at different times of the day (to avoid congestion), and the School District will have options for more efficient school bus routes. It is not uncommon in Golden Gate Estates for roadways, most of which are 2-lanes, to be blocked by a traffic accident or impeded by normal school bus or waste management operations (especially during morning "rush hour"). Likewise, during a major forest fire event, knowing that optional travel routes are available can be a substantial benefit to residents and first responders in the area. Public Engagement While the initial 2008 Bridge Study included a wide-ranging and robust public engagement process to identify and vet the potential bridge locations, the pubic engagement phase of this reevaluation study was designed to specifically target the neighborhoods that would be impacted by a new bridge, i.e., those parcels having direct access to the roadways approaching the bridge. During phase one of this study, Staff recognized that a substantial number of parcel sales had occurred since the 2008 Study concluded with the recommended list of bridge locations, and that it was entirely possible that the new owners had little or no understanding of the previous effort that proposed the locations of the bridges at the end of their street. As such, effort was made to notify every affected property owner to inform them of the proposed bridge construction project on their street and provide them with the understanding of why the bridge location was considered important in the 2008 Study. The original intent of the effort was to inform those affected landowners through individual neighborhood face-to-face meetings conducted for each bridge -shed or combination of related bridge -sheds. The meetings were to provide an opportunity for those property owners/residents most affected by the new bridge installations to learn about the project's history, the benefits to agencies and area residents now and in the future as a result of the new bridges, and to provide information regarding the typical project components to be considered, the decision -making and programming process moving forward. During the course of the study, the coronavirus pandemic forced a rethinking of the meeting format, and what was initially envisioned as a series of small neighborhood - targeted meetings to present the study's findings to those residents most affected, evolved info a series of "virtual" neighborhood webinar/meetings conducted on-line, with advance notice and participation instructions provided to all directly -affected land owners. This process provided an opportunity for all landowners to participate, ironically many of whom might not have been able to attend a face-to-face meeting. Seven (7) 151 Page 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study neighborhood webinar/meetings were conducted, with a recording of each meeting posted to a project website with all the project presentation/back-up materials. As a reevaluation study, this planning effort was not intended to address design issues related to specific bridges. What the study effort could do was provide general information about the proposed bridges, what they will look like, what components are envisioned, and how the design and construction phases will be carried out in the future, in the event any or all of the bridges were selected for production by the Board of County Commissioners. To that end, as shown in Figure 7, the recently constructed 81" St. NE bridge was used as the prototypical bridge project to represent the proposed bridge projects that would include resurfaced roadways approaching the bridge, a sidewalk on at least one side of the roadway, and appropriate intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes, traffic signal, etc.). Figure 7: 81" Street NW Bridge Graphic exhibits/renderings were prepared for each bridge location illustrating what the bridge would look like when completed at the end of each neighborhood street. Drone video of the 8'" St. NE Bridge was used to illustrate the individual project components. With respect to future phases and construction schedule information provided to the public, since most of the bridge locations do not require the acquisition of right-of-way, 161 Page 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study to help accelerate the process the County has an option to consider combining the engineering, permitting and construction phases into a single design -build procured phase for bridges selected for advancement. The County may also choose to combine multiple bridge projects into a single procurement solicitation, further acceleration the production process. A preliminary assessment indicates bridges #10 and #12, if selected for advancement, will require the acquisition of right-of-way, thus extra time to complete the project and will most likely dictate a conventional design -bid -build procurement process. It is essential that all of the projects selected for production be completed within the scope of funding provided by the time -limited infrastructure surtax, so the priority order of the selected bridge projects previously established is less important, but none the less will be a consideration during the procurement process. As stated previously, as a planning study intended to reconfirm the validity of the remaining bridges before the Board of County Commissioners makes any programming decisions, specific design elements were not available. The neighborhood property owners were advised that regardless of which of the bridges the County ultimately programs, additional public information components would be included in the ensuing programming to deal with bridge -specific design issues and ensure property owners understand the design and construction process. During the seven public virtual public meetings, questions asked were responded to, and any additional public comments received were documented for the public record. Additionally, throughout the study, written public comments received have been compiled and included in a companion Public Information Report document. Following the public information outreach effort, the Planning Team reached out to the president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association (GGEACA) to discuss the study findings and conclusions. Meeting notes that include a summary of the discussion with the GGEACA are included in the Public Information Report. 171 Page 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study Results/Findings Prior to the initiation of the public information webinars, a public agency webinar/meeting was conducted to provide an overview of the analysis process to those contributing agencies. Follow-up e-meetings were conducted with agency staff following the public information webinars to discuss the preliminary findings. While individual bridge -shed analysis results vary based largely on the number of residents that are seen as benefiting and/or negatively impacted by a new bridge and the location of various destinations and public facilities, in most bridge -sheds, the study findings generally support the original expectations concerning savings related to emergency vehicle response time and residents route choice options. In several instances, the residents along the affected roadways being connected by the new bridge (e.g., Bridge #4), stand to benefit the most with shorter distances accruing to their normal travel route while at the same time being the most impacted by the new bridge (due to increased traffic on their roadway). In other cases, an affected roadway is not located within the bridge -shed (e.g., Bridge # 10) and therefore the residents benefiting are not on the impacted street and the residents on the impacted street do not benefit from the new bridge. In most cases, trip purpose routes could be easily measured because origins (e.g., fire station, homes) and destinations (e.g., homes, schools, commercial, arterial, etc.) were static. In the case of Collier County Sheriff's Office vehicles, as an "origin" location they are in most cases on the move and randomly located, so the potential for reduced travel distances and associated response times saved were quantified as a maximum benefit. In many cases, the "worst case" analysis illustrated what could be a substantially improved response time for law enforcement vehicles, and since the Sheriff's Office vehicles are frequently first on the scene, they are often in a position to render life-saving aid to victims in advance of the arrival of EMS and fire department support. To minimize emergency response times, the two independent fire districts and the Emergency Services Division have done an excellent job of strategically locating their facilities. A review of the ISO 5-mile (from a fire station) travel distances with and without the new bridges yielded a small number of homes that would likely qualify for a better IOS rating because of the new bridge establishing a shorter driving distance from the closest fire station. The empirical evidence gathered by measuring what was sometimes substantially reduced travel distances for residents and/or first responders, support the generally accepted theory that more interconnections will support a greater number of route choices and may result in reduced travel distances for residents of the Golden Gate Estates Area and the Collier School District's school bus fleet, and result in shorter response times for the area's first responders. However, while the general benefits are easily understood, there are negative impacts to existing/future residents and cost factors that must also be considered. To that end, the following analysis compares the benefits, impacts and preliminary planning cost estimates of each bridge project. 181 Page 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study In the Evaluation Summary table that follows (Table 3), a recommendation based on the relative strength of the "PROs and CONs" is provided. The scores, based on the individual analyses of each bridge, on the positive (PROs) side reflect the variable trip length reduction for individual trip purposes (Primary and Secondary) and the number of parcels benefiting from the improvement, and on the negative (CONs) side reflect the perceived amount of negative impact affecting the adjacent parcels. The benefits in trip length reduction accruing in the "Primary" category of trip purposes (i.e., fire, EMS, law enforcement) parcels that directly benefit from a new bridge were differentiated from the benefits that accrue in the "Secondary" categories (e.g., personal travel and access to the network, schools, parks, etc.) that are perceived as being less important based on feedback from those attending the neighborhood meetings. Therefore, secondary criteria benefiting parcels were weighted by averaging the trip length reduction values and then normalizing the results to a weighting "factor" of less than 100% to represent the relative weighted value of the collection of secondary category values. The relative negative impact values were assigned based on professional judgement and direct and indirect weight factors were assumed to affect 100% of the impacted parcels. For informational purposes, the average number of parcels benefiting and negatively impacted is included for each bridge. Planning cost estimates were developed based on the costs recently associated with the 8'" Street NW bridge/road project. The detailed values considered are included for each criterion in the individual Bridge Evaluation Tables in Appendix E. Comparing the relative positive and negative values, as well as cost considerations resulted in a recommendation to build now or defer at this time and reconsider when additional funding is available. Following the public information meetings and subsequent analysis, the team discussed the merits of each bridge with the first responding agencies. The agency comments related to support for each bridge is included in the table. Agency letters/email of support are included in Appendix F. Recommendations After considering the public comments and public agency recommendations, and based on the evaluation of benefits, negative impacts and improvement costs described above, we are recommending the Board consider programming Bridges 4, 8, 10, 11, and 12, and that the Board defer action on the remaining bridges at this time and consider reevaluating the need for the remaining bridges in the future following the completion of the recommended bridges and other arterial/collector improvements, e.g., the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, Randall Boulevard improvements, etc. 191 Page 1/19/2021 2:01 PM East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study Table 3: Bridge Evaluation Summary Evaluation Summary Agencies Support PROS CONS GNFRD NCFCRD Criteria Numberof Criteria Weight Numberof Adjusted Impact Weight Parcels Adjusted Planning Cost EMS Support Support CCSO Support Support Bridge# Road Name Estimate Total Parcels to Total Score Factor Parcels to Score Score Factor Impacted Score Build? Notes Bridge# (11/03/201 (11/18/20) (11120/20) (11/20/20) Comments/Notes 1 23rd St. SW $3,364,911 3 451 2 25% 1041 4 -11 100% 116 -11 Reevaluatethis location or other Defer 1 No Significant No Significant No Significant No opinion Not in Agency, Provides only marginal reduction in travel time to only a small potential locations in thefuture Benefit Benefit Benefit numherofparrels District 4 47th Ave, NE $7,051,529 6 1710 11 75% 3108 14 -12 100% 892 -12 Significant enhancement to mobility and Yes g tY 4 Yes No Dpinion Not in Agency's Yes, lst Priority Yeresponss, would time in irig critical access�conne tiviTy midway overallcirculation response time betweenI mokaeeant khetweenlmmokaleeRd&OiIWeIIRd- Pd d- District No Opinion EMS would use C-M to reach homes N of ca nal, 5 Wilson Blvd. IN $6,531,020 3 957 7 50`.•°0 660 7 -10 100°'0 473 -10 Defer Reevaluatethis location in the future 5 NO Significant Not in Agency's Yes, BeneNcialm 1 Yes, would improve CCSOOficersW of Wilson orSuF C-845 would see ahenefit; Benefit District some respses on response time Support discussed during interview, not in letter Reevaluateth need for these bridges in g No Significant No opinion Yes, 3rd Priority; No Significant 6/7 18th Ave. NE $5,830,275 4 1104 5 25°0 1144 5 -° 100°'0 351 -9 Defer 6/7 Not in Agency's Benefioal to some ed Less Important when future VBR Ext adds improvE/W mobility the future after VBR Ext. is constructed Benefit District responses Benefit 9 -8 Essential to provide access to school and Yes S Yes, w/unrestricted Yesw�unrestricted Yes, 4th priority, w/unrestricted No Opinion, Not in Agency, Imprrnes response access to VBCC Area if unrestricted access to VBR a 13th St. NW $3,114,161 0 12 75% 2981 18 -8 100% 59 park sites& access to VBR Ext. access to VBR Ext- access to VB R Ext- Ext- 16th St. SE $3,204,152 135 3 25% 449 1 -4 100% 100 -4 Reevaluatethls location or other Defer 9 No Significant Benefit, No Signrrcarrt Benefit; access to VBR Ext ostrict No Opinion Not in Agency's 3 existing canal crossings provide sufficient access; condition of local 9 0 No Sign ifcant Benefit; potential locations in the future private "roads" is a bigger access problem P referfF]A Preferri]D Preferri10 District Improved emergency response access; No Opinion Provides a reduced response tim a fo r a l l agencies; improves ISO 10 Wilson Blvd. S $3,601,521 6 132 11 759'o 102 14 -9 100% 100 -9 Yes 10 Yes Yes Yesr Not in Agency's rating Enhanced mobility 10th Ave. SE 8 -6 100% 117 District Su pport d iscussed during interview, not in letter 11 $4,747,291 7 648 4 25°/u 1530 -6 School rezoningnecessary; rY: Yes 11 Yes Yes, GNFRD's Yes, 2nd Priority No Opinion Not in Agency's Improves ogistirs/response time when staging fire control/rescue Improved EMS & Fire response Highest Priority units at Palmetto Elem- During a crisis event District 8 248 10 759`❑ 335 -3 100% 152 -3 Improved emergency response access; Yes 12 Yes No Opinion Not in Agency's Yes, Sth Priority Yes, would improve Very important in providing critical E/VJ&N/Saoress/connectivity; 12 62nd Ave. N E $3,272,718 16 Enhanced mobility responsetime improves response time& ISO rating District Total of Recommended Bridges $21,787,209 Law Medium High Primary Criteria Total Score Scare is sum of 1, 2 or 3 for each first response agency based on (2) (ig (0 to 9) the reduction in mileage related to responders trip length 1.0 1.0 - 3.0 >3.0 = Miles Saved per Trip Law Medium High Secondary Criteria Total Score Scare is sum of 1, 2 or 3 for each personal travel criteria based on (1) (2) (3) (0 to 18) the reduction in personal travel or professional judgement c 1.0 1.0 - 3.0 >3.0 = Miles Saved per Trip Weighting factor Is appIled to secondary criteria to red ace the Less than 1.0 = 25% Weight Factor relative berefit of the scores. The weight factor is based on the 71.0to1.5=50% total average scare of the six criteria >1.5 = 75% Negative Impact Score Scares assigned to 6 negative impact categories using professional (0 to -18) judgement; no weighting applied. Parcel counts are for information Benefiting parcels are average number for all criteria Negative Impact Parcels are total parcels for all categories 201 Page 1/19/2021 2:01 PM Appendices East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study 211 Page East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study APPENDIX A Bridge Location Maps & Aerials 471H AVE JIII LLJ w w w w w w 45TH AVE NE ti ti ti ti ti N y SHADY HOLLOW BLVD W SHADY HOLLOW BLVD E o N vy v� h y � o N 41STAV 415 N w Bridge #5 is �THAVENW 39THANE _— located on Wilson v��< 37THAVENW 37THAVENE O�<,L, Blvd. N 1 mile 35TH AVE NW 35TH AVE NE' Fq� �L . , 33RD AVE NW ` 33RD AVE NE north of 3CGROJ- w Immokalee Rd. GROLFDR 25THAVENE !�0� 81R VI a, I t IT, ALEE R� � �fHAVENW p 24TH AVE_N_E 24THAVENE x A NO NAME L.N > < 22ND AVE NW 22ND VE NE — 22ND AVE NE ti z; A 20TH AVE NW yP18THA 20TH AVE_ NE 20TH AVE NE 18THAV 18THAVENWVENE JUNG BLVD E KERI 1SLAND RD 16THAVENW16 AV 16TH AVE NE_ eWADY LN 14TH AVE NW 14THAVENE A-t °3 �: ie�iiyrw�j -- Frangipani Ave. N J N a o i i i i i Star -P t P �r'h t rl� v�k�•�, p � /ot ilk �i... 4 .. 4 fir`. e , Ow l - I I��/wl►q. y�►' V�7�A►+.w�glw�lr�� v� Frangipani %ve. i i Stante ` ,�( r �Jw.•rf�'":�tl :i- iF a Ff', AL tom' � ' 4 /. y� .a.•.* W.WJ Y ° r wr i i i i iITIfl Stantec two 40 7 aA0001.0, ��"'' �� vi i i S t a n t e East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study APPENDIX B 2019 Dwellings & Build -Out Parcel Maps �1a IN ME -=� -- - -- - - r ■-W -i ' %L- m "'' III -0t . APIRRIPPRINTI, ISIM1111111111011111111 WA m Isp at ,46V L. BRIDGE -SHEDS #9 & #10 Existing Homes & Build -Out Parcels 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 pO O O ;_-- 0 o U U ° o o ° °o�w ° K_ d- o�7'- °0 0 8 o p: ° ,9 �6F- o p- 8 8-. O °�-°p O -8 8k-° O _.° O?r 0 8::0 Oei:8 Oa, O2. 6e ° Oy:p -r0 Off: O •z9 U 0 0 O O° o i O pa' ° T,O Oi0 O O O g e O O o=: o :• o Cr�R o �, o •= o o�'� °'- 0- 0 6 r�° 0 a:- p Q ° :. g%, p=; O p o po 0 00 o p o00 0 0 p O 0 o ;� d; o 8: o •. o 0 0 .F 8 2� o oq•;- .� U70 d? ,� ° o O O- O° O O .. B ..p O--O 0: 0 JC8 O"� O ° W, 0- p p -�O 00 0 0_70 o O o 0 o g O R O-- o c m o m o 0 o Ooo O O _ry hn 00 80- .0 O r o 0 i%q i-O O ' {a a; '"0 p O °O _ v0 O' CY O * 6 , 8 8'� � C�X�-, Q+O o o pd� 0 00 0 0 00 o " 8 8;, o -;p 0 .1-o o .{b - 0 S= cb °CM1 8 °: _ 11 ° O 8" p 0 O _ = TY O p a-'y O fi0 O •- O p e C 0 O :�� 0� O O O 0 O O O F:� 0 �Q 0 8 0 0 O °O 8° `° ° O O TO O O O O 0 O p O p o 8 0 0 0 0 80 o O v o o o po o po o ° g a ppO o 00dD o com QP° rr p �r O rw O'• p 8 O 8 O O O 8 � p ,, 8 ° Q ° 0 ° 8 � ° O °O 8 o o ° o O O ° 0 °OO ° o o° �p o O o 0 0 O0 0 00 0 0 0 0� ° O O a Cp A- u Yj n o �_0 0000 o6� o O" ~b�� p pCfl o q O 0 R O 0 g O o 8g O O O 8 0 0 0 0 0 O 08 O 0 O O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 �3 p0 0 o� R� 8 8 Q °o >� 0 0 0 O g p g p pR� Co, o Q 0 0 8 8 60 � o o° o o g o `�-° ° O O O O °O °O 8 O ° O° 8 CS p 0 0 O p p0 O e S 0 pO 0 00 0 0 p O 0 = p� ° Oo0 Cj0 O Cb 00 o O o 0 p° 0 p 0 ° o Qbo°o ° 0 ° o 00 o 0 00 ° <mOO'o '� cm o ,_o,.aS4° S?...f_ a �i..� o o m �o p 00OO O cnOO� 0 O O� O 00 00 o o 00 0 0 opO oo p o o° �p� a°� o o0 0 o crno 0 006,0� 0 0 00 O O O o0 00 O 07 0 00 QD 0° O 0 000- 10 ° O O 0 0 OCp Op 0 O O ° O 8 SO 0° O o 0 00 O o 0 8 0 O 0� o O° o o ° ° O 8 0 0 0 0 0' 0 8 0 0 ° e o °° og g 8° o o° ° o° p OO j o o o Q o 8 �p 8 0 o O O p ° o °o0 o o 8 8° o o ° 0 0 0 0 ° 49° a� 0ooa9m d2zm� :d Q_ •. c0 S O o o0 °o° o° o o°toSo o° o o°�o °o� 88 8 0 80° p°° 8�0 8°0° �O 800 ° o o °° o�� g� 88 80 °�8 oo°0 9)��bocp� Ooo�oO OcP ooe48o Mo o O O o OD 0- 0 8 �.00 ° _8 ° OO .O O O 8 ° 0 0 8 o 0 0 8 O O g° 00 ° 8 ° S ° O O p 0 000 o S o 0 o S?: o 0 0 �• c�.o .$ ,k o 8 o c o 0 0 0 8. o 0 8 8 00 O o O Cb oOO�� ,,, o o O o o cP = o g',g oono g_, 8' o $ 8`8 ° O of o ono° o o B° „-° �.o tiro u0 ti a� S 8 0_ o Y;°asoo db o p0 p o u- o�:,o°g S o ,. o 0 8-o w O o = 8 0 _ � '�o y+ o � 8 y �1 O A10 �O� OCOO o � O o 0 0 0 8 __ o o- o o �� o .O .� o p O .� p,-Q _ o - 0 . O O O ?- O O O_O Q.(1iy00 085 8:", 0 �::� p OUp O -' 8 u`.g a5 V O.z O O: Z O `- O O O.� $ O 0 O Cps, �Qj �Qj vY' {� OV �� p p 8 0,.00 °s y 0CnO 0 ° q 0 g ° T: O� ° .' =F8 OOg3' p p': o-'p °"Op ° �O +� 8 'ib8 °e ° p o pp 0 i� �- O i'. :- O O o o- 0 6 0 0-- o 0 0� o o{ v'� o A - o a: $ q { o 0 0 0. � cb o00 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 -• 0 8' 0 0$ 0 0 0° g `i� �� ° 8 -� o a �' moo ° ,:.� , �r 0 S 80 8 O o o O o 0 0 0 0 8 0 ° p ° �"8 o• o ° O 8 O 8 ° p 8 ° °O ° 8 8 O ° 00 p1. 0° 8 p O o O 0 S 80 O° 8 °° 000 p �O p ° p O� O op. �� °�pOC°°� Cb 0 O O O"� OCX� �Q� p0 0 o o O o 0 8. o 0 8 °O o 8 °o o+ S 0 8 o S o 0 0 0 S 0 00 0°0 0 °�80 d' $8 0 °;'° ° 0 00 8 Ooo p O, � O O O O O O �F 0 O O O p osr o 0 0 °o 0 0 0 0 0 o S o m o r8 0�0° oL7o 8 ° S p 8 0 0° o"'_ o 0 0 0 & ° 8 Q� 0 0 0 S°o ° °o o o o ° 8 0 __ P5 o °,R o ado o p o 0 p O o 0 0 0 ..� o o r p 8 p o 0 0 o g o o $ 8- o000 0 0 �Oc9 �O ,. a 0 o O o S o o =� ° o �p �po'U 6 '� 000 o p f. 0 o O O O O O o O O ° 8 °O 0 °O o 0 O 8 O O o p 8 0 0° 6 S 8 8 8 'fib O ° 0° � o =0 :: p 0 0 oop p ° OOO 0 0 0 O 8 8 O 8 O O g' g p OO'�:oOOOc�UO c, O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 o O 8 `O d o o�'000000 ' ooi-o � o o° CP 0 0 °o 8-� 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 Como coO029 coo ocopc'q'Ap 4gOo Opp 06p 0 �0`1 00 g c� o O o o p o ° 0 0 0 o gooO o�po `o c9 0 �bo°o 0 O o O O ° O 00 0 0 n 0 O 0 �" g o 0 0 •�; 0 0 o r� 0 0$ 0° q,S 9 °Qo 0 0 0 `ice 0 0 0 8 O O o o° o° o° o o ° o o R� o ;� O o 0 0 o po0 Oo o� o p °° .,� x° °°g O O 8 0 0 0 O 0 O g 0g ° Cb O 0 0 O OO 00 O e� O o 0 O p 0 0 00 0 ,Q o 8 Q�, 0 0 O J} ° O OO o0o O 0° Cb 00 D pp O8 0 0 0 ZOY'��{Qj{ ((q��' O O O° 0 0 ° ° 0 O 0° O O �ij 0% 0 0 0 ° O { O o 0 O O ° 0 p o 0 0° OOp�O o O ,,�(NCC�QQQjy%% o o ° Q �O o p O� o Q`� �m o o ; ,��;�jw'...� Y4 O °O O ° O # °� 0 00 p8 § a 00 O I�,.O 0 0 O ° OO co ° �O °O ® O ° U p0 8 0 (� q � 0° 0 ° 0 ° e0 'd O° t5 8 ° p o o0 O O 0 O 0 i! e) , -�.p _° 2 0 00 ° 0 0 0 ° 0 OOo Cab . i:�,. pO Y a O O S 0 00 00 0 O °p�Di''O m7 °5 o�2S� iA?� Oj°000 °� �0 0 0 o O o Oo° o° � p p opt O:'p Ow') O oob3OOop ux OO p, o p• "" O co o 0 0 0 ;b O o;R is p o O O O r i p po-jJ p- ° 0 OO 6p o O ° N B ° p�,° `� , 0 � - �-- O 0 O 8� 0 8 8 Q"5�OJ0 Q�?j0000 O 6� O 0 8 O W ° g 8 0 0 0 `o' 0 ° 8 0 0 o 0 00 08 0 0 L. .�. . o °o 0 0 0 O o o° p O 0 O O O O 000 CPOoy. 0, 0— 8 (9 ° o c0� CP q 8 0 0° p° 8 0 6 ° 8 8 �n 00 O 000 O 6 p 00 p ii% O go p 1: o o sl+ O 00�Ogp 8 0� O O � � O �'�tih °000 00 °Om°��.°° 8 8 q � �o P ;t t50 0000 � p OOO °� o 0 80 O ° 0s. i ° FE 0 0 °� o 0 0 00 0 00 O 0 0 - 0 10/5/2020 4.32.11 PM Bridges Emergency Services Future Schools Fire Middle School Existing LE Elementary School Medical Existing School Selection Future " High School Commercial Areas Elementary School Culvert L Bridge Sheds ° Study Area Address Points Study Area Parcels 1:36,112 0 0.38 0.75 1.5 mi 0 0.5 1 2 km Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Stantec CompassData Inc., State of Florida, Earthstar Geographics I University of South Florida, County of Collier, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study APPENDIX C Alternate Route Analysis Maps ►1 3rd AVE NW [Travel on Collier • i :i7Ti fT�: Z Z Z Z Z! Z Z ,j to 4n h N M N r i O w DUs w/ Improved A r N Access to 411111 3rd AVE SW Ln DUs wI Improved Access to sth AVE sw N Commercial & to Arterial 7th AVE SW H � M a i = i White BLVD ^ #1 i 11 �1+1-r++-.. n, 11 11111 111111111111111111111 111 111111111111111111 111111111111 1th AVE SW 13t AVE SW To Collier Blvd (off 15th AV the map) y 171h AVE SW h y �y fi/1 L L a I Dwelling units (DUs) within each bridge -shed that would benefit from a new bridge were identified and trip lengths for those applicable purposes were measured with and without the bridge. Solid lines illustrate the y existing routes, and H dashed lines illustrate the with a new bridge" trip routes. Arterial Fire N EMS L CCSO School Parks Commercial — Lxnar 171hAve. _=Aftft FIM m4R �Ccw SChDd _P&*5 modal jPkLUM E: 4 61 i fire fT_ Wt ........................... . . .......... . ......... Ih AwW A�ak 0 Mr'A Dwelling units (DUs) within each bridge -shed that would benefit from a new bridge were identified and trip lengths for those applicable purposes were measured with and without the bridge. Solid lines illustrate the existing routes, and dashed lines illustrate the "with a new bridge" trip routes. Distance to Arterial & Fire Station B.M.:Y $S A iTo Shady Hollow ELVD {1 4711i AVE NW 471h AVE N� JAVE NW 451h AVE HE q V Shady HoEow ELYG E z 0 y /ti V a 41st AVE NE 391h AVE N 34fh AVE NW n �� 37fh AVE NW /� _ 371h AVE NE V W� 35fh AVE NW ►VE 36fi AVE NE M.IddW Cl DUs w! Reduced Distance to Schools &Parks a en a x rr a 0 AVE NW df-°�N T'O 75tti 405 !r No Nome LN 241h AVE NW 22nd AVE NW z � L AVE NE A rh AVE NE 22nd AVE NE •toI== Arterial Fire EIS �CCSO School � Pa rks Commercial E Dwelling units (DUs) within E 471PL AVE PIE I -W i i i each bridge -shed that i i i F F would benefit from a new s - - bridge were identified yand trip lengths for those applicable purposes were 4� e measured with and without the bridge. y tl'saPydsBlvp Gran G �°ak4+A4'A [1 eel i s `" Solid lines illustrate the -J.� `-6 existing routes, and = Yem°n1 dashed lines illustrate the ' "with a new bridge" trip m a routes. c o& a°°a .o® y — A o 241h AVE ME 241h AVE ME 22nd AVE NE 22nd AVE NE Nnnivirsis of Bridges � 3"h AVE NW 39M AVE WE �4y........... F Y� 311h AVE NW O 37a, AVE NE oY5 Raplds BiVD. _ FaNgosl c 9 � V ptookE° o S e— tt s h Ya o " 35MAVE NW %h O 35th AVE HE jQ mMi 33.d AVE NW O 331d AVE HE = Ver 1 o L c �C AVE NWL 25th AV r& �'� 151h CS �� U' p 999 -- -- a Randall BlYD 24e1 AVE NW _ MAVE NE 241h 9'.4 WE Ih AVE NE _ No Name LN 22W W ' AVE NE ZZnd A,ij NI rid AVE NE Green Shaded cypres:oR Area is subject to - CCSD Rezoning W ENE 21Eh A'.3 HE 11, AVE NE 9ed R_un LN _ ° Only the resi=hm..... wn, ar nE� ,....� eL��RLVD�E t£e_r'rz N_ ... ........... �""„""„ vv ^��^��^�^r� R.,��LLLLL�r ..^M4nga �mg eLvo1RD segment of1+any the Bridge w16 AccesstoA ENE 161hAYE NE 141h AVE NE This With-Britlge Route only applies 8 '^ ShadVLN a 14thAVE NW 14N1AVE NE _ 14thAVENE 14thAVENE if CCSD Rezones o u i the area 121A AVE NW 211, AVE NE 121h AVE NE 12e1 AVE HE IWh AVENW DIh AVE NE 1Oth AVE HE L AV Only the residents on this segment of 18th Ave. East of the Bridge will benefit: Access to Arterial 0 � Fire EMS z i i z i #i z i r Perks Access to Commercial A bi A I Arterial -Fire -EMS �CCSO School Parks Commercial 31�AVE NE _ 310 AVE NE 29th AVE NE 29ih AVE WE 271h AYE NE 27e1 AVE NE I Dwelling units (DUs) within each bridge -shed that would benefit from a new bridge were identified and trip lengths for those applicable purposes were measured with and without the bridge. NE 241h AVE NE NE 22ndAVE ME Solid lines illustrate the HE 20N1 AVE NE existing routes, and dashed lines illustrate the •.•..1111.......... 242"with a new bridge" trip NF 161hAVENE routes. WE 14th AVE NE 6th AYE HE 4th AVE NE 2nd AVE N annivsis cat griciap e1ERme Roren.w y3wuYaw MOMn CI V R Onbv. AVE 3 Op WAY g�\ 141A AVE NOW �2-jh AVE NE r of vo ° c Y 3Ve W %v, �vn Sanborn AYE a - oR oWleach RoMAVENWxn AVF xwREAVE 10*1ENE NW 1,1 AVE Nw ..i ........................................N� SFa AVE SW k k to _ 3M AYE SW TI. AVE IM _ M WM1le BLYU .n .� F— E1w AVFsw = a tm AVE Sw .;i g k k £ F i 131A AYE SW `30 15M AVE - - - - - - - - - - - 1WRwvE sw Arterial `Fire 210 AVE SW EMS —CiCSO 9 gchOol ]]rd AVE EW Parks n,nnnevsFvo &� ,a o ReaneAVE -Commereial 231R AVE SW m cue Jenkins AVE a y ]Wh AVE SW WAY c E Rea. pV N i F ey KeaEy o AVf _AVE _IEM 6VF SW Mae AYE ]Ia AVE SW Dwelling units (DUs) within each bridge -shed that would benefit from a new bridge were identified and trip lengths for those applicable purposes were measured with and without the bridge. Solid lines illustrate the existing routes, and dashed lines illustrate the "with a new bridge" trip routes. a W AVE cknalvsis et Bridge 121Fi AVE NW 121h AVE NE 121h AVE NE 12M AVE N4 LJ m1. Avc uw 1nth AVE NE loth AVE NE 1O91 AVE NE 3 3 Z 3 3 3 3 z i i z z z z Iz Iz z Z z z z z y F N w Golden Gate Blvd.. © Proposed Bridge Improves Access and Increase Route Choice to Future t9 INSchool Sites .n in a w N h N y#j £T O L L Y Y L L L = � 10 Iran Fpant VE 'a a Y N N -S• Dwelling units (DUs) within each bridge -shed that would benefit from a new _ _ _ _ _ bridge were identified and trip lengths for those applicable purposes were measured with and without the bridge. _ Solid lines illustrate the existing routes, and GaTe BLVD dashed lines illustrate the _ "with a new bridge" trip routes. 61h AVE SE Sth AVE SE 1 Oth AVE SE 12th AV 14th AV 16th AV I Sth AV !IiU i � m°pax°�e cc ,°B F xw� Ia IqqI � •! FV�J G i = G 0 zaNAvr xw _ Oxome x Novo ? 8 avanvE nw evP�• oe n cx��r z'o l N — 4- ,9n AYF XW :l i:i7T: f•T-�:� 11 sn nvEnE - ` iiJ'.`^"No�il ' asm AwExs Arterial t� y3� # Ira nvExE cs1 I ,,,�_IiLLM— Flre EMS ` 3''� CCSO School � 1Y mr Pans Commercial gg an n xE c r" 3 3 0 _ vm.vExe mx AvexF [ x�n„pvr HE 2 AVF NF van av ELN AVFX�MAMHF _ mm 30n AVE HE —Avr xE , ;; �5�, 201h AYHE �— amAYExE AYF NF Dwelling units (DUs) within mi _°°°E jemAYFN� .NAYrxE each brie-4 e-shed that A.- HE lNA ivexe �leXI AYENE x� - - o g _ enA He g = EKis,ln9 routes for all dN AYE NE _ = Commercial. School, = i = F � = z � � � � i � i Parks Trips to reach G AnA�Ixe ryt G _ s; = s £ M _ = Wllsan BIYd atGGH EE € °a. HE GplEen Ga Prop—d Bridge 3GP aN }ns F .... .. .„........�., Ac TE ChoitFuture re F x_ xn A IvF F Scol511es ......... a m 9It AT ------------ -1. - __ EM AVfbF „ HAVE ,an AYEse J --ur 7�. s _chool,PEEKeTpata at I _------------ aEm nrE SE - g would benefit from a new im YE HE bridge were identified and trip lengths for those xAYFxr applicable purposes were .—HE ,h AYe NE measured with and nYEXr without the bridge. -AYE Solid lines illustrate the A"E existing routes, and —VE dashed lines illustrate the rAYE a A", with a new bridge" trip routes. 1FM AVF SE, AiU If Existing Route. for 2 = - RWEMS with Bridge » » » » W Existing Route. for w Flre/EM5 without _ _ - :• E _ _ R g _ � and„e - o. I I I I I i I I E RR Arterial Fire EMS CCSO School Parks Commercial BM 6VF NE FaWre Routes Tpr 6M AVE HF FirvJEMS without - Bridge Future R..tE -Av for FirefEMS IE „mE�E � Future F! reIEMS Benefits Accrue to Rridgee%d..nt. West o1 1� B Exleting FIre/EM5 Benerib Accrue to Residents East of Brdge ` m _ " { 8 g AVE SE Improv,I Access toSln Green,Sh,haded AIEEE Aree is subject t0 'e 3 B 9 bnbn ae ; CCB� Rezoning se -ES SBm AVa BE Born AVE u AV E Em am E]Ih AVE _ _ 1 svF X,. vF SE IBM AVF 2. AVEH I—AVE 8E o z.mA�E,E aAM AVE sE yam AVE sr wm AVE 11 ama AVE SE tein.vE SE 3&h 6VESE wm Ave se Dwelling units (DUs) within each bridge - shed that would benefit from a new bridge were identified and trip lengths for those applicable purposes were measured with and without the bridge. Solid lines illustrate the existing routes, and dashed lines illustrate the "with a new bridge" trip routes. FI AN&M 1 hm IM IX5r_ Edml �d 0161=M. ____.....____ .... N �--y Dwelling units (DUs) within �+ �•R• each bridge -shed that ,`. would benefit from a new bridge were identified and trip lengths for those applicable purposes were �+ * measured with and without the bridge. Solid lines illustrate the _ — existing routes, and dashed lines illustrate the "with a new bridge" trip routes. East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study APPENDIX D Bridge -Shed Benefit Matrix Tables Bridge #1- 23rd St. SW Bridge -Shed Metrics 2019 NOTES Distance(miles) Trips VMT' Gallons Gallons Days Gallons VMT' W/O W/ Saved DUs per Saved per Saved per Saved per per Saved per Saved per Bridge Bridge per Trip Day day day CD 30 Home per Year Home per Home per mpg Day Year day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach South 1/2 residents north of bridge; Arterial Network Yes 21 3.9 2.7 1.2 4 98 3 0.16 300 46.8 4.7 Measured route to Collier Blvd at Pine Ridge Rd. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Schools No 0.0 4 0 0 - 180 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to All residents north of bddge; Measured route Commercial/Retail Yes 41 3.9 2.7 1.2 2 96 3 0.08 90 7.0 2.3 to Collier Blvd at Pine Ridge Rd. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks No 0.0 2 0 0 - 24 - - Increases Resident's Route Choice Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 1002 Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For Fire First Responders No 47 3.0 2.4 0.6 20% Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 6.1 4.8 1.2 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders Yes 1002 1.6 1.1 0.5 Up to a Reduction of 30% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 2.2 1.5 0.7 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders No 47 2.9 2.4 0.5 Reduction in 17% Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 4.9 4.1 0.8 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Although the new bridge reduces the drive distance, all residents within the Improves ISO Public Protection No bridge -shed are currently within 5 miles of the nearest fire station Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus routes to existing and future school(s); may improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating costs. ' VMT=Vehicle Miles Traveled Build -Out W Notes Distance (miles) Gallons VMT' Trips VMT' Saved per Savings per Days Savings Saved per DUs W/O W/ Saved per Saved per day @ 30 Home per per per Home Home per Bridge Bridge per Trip By day mpg Day Year per Year day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach South 1/2 residents north of bridge; Arterial Network Yes 31 3.9 2.7 1.2 4 145 5 0.16 300 46.8 4.7 Measured route to Collier Blvd at Pine Ridge Rd. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Schools No 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0 - 180 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to All residents north of bddge; Measured route Commercial/Retail Yes 53 3.9 2.7 1.2 2 124 4 0.08 90 7.0 2.3 to Collier Blvd at Pine Ridge Rd. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks No 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 0 - 24 - - Increases Resident's Route Choice Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 1238 Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For Fire First Responders No 58 3.0 2.4 0.6 20% Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 6.1 4.8 1.2 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders Yes 1238 1.6 1.1 0.5 Up to a Reduction of 30% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 2.2 1.5 0.7 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders No 58 2.9 2.4 0.5 Reduction in 17% Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 4.9 4.1 0.8 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Although the new bridge reduces the drive distance, all residents within the Improves ISO Public Protection No 0.0 0.0 bridge -shed are currently within 5 miles of the nearest fire station Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus routes to existing and future schoolmay improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating costs. ' VMT= Vehicle Miles Traveled Resurfacing 23rd St. SW from Golden Gate Blvd. to White Blvd. (+/-1.12 miles); add paved shoulders from Golden Gate Blvd to the Bridge Sidewalk along one side of roadway Evaluate the need for intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes, traffic signal, etc.) at Golden Gate Blvd. and 23rd St. SW,* evaluate potential changes at 23rd St. SW and White Blvd. E of 951 Bridge Benefit Matrix 121620.1.xlsx 12/17/2020 Bridge #4 - 47th Avenue NE Bridge -Shed Metrics 2019 NOTES Distance (miles) Tries VMT' Gallons Gallons Days Gallons VMT' W/o W/ Saved DUs Per Saved per Saved per Saved per Per Saved per Saved per Day day day @ 30 Home per Year Home per Home per Bridge Bridge per Trip mpg Day Year day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Yes 50 5.3 4.3 1.0 4 200 7 0.13 300 40.0 4.0 Residents off 47th Ave. NE between bridge Arterial Network and Everglades Blvd. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Yes 434 57 9.0 4.0 5.0 4 1133 38 0.66 180 119.3 19.9 Only Residents with school -age children off Schools 47th west of bridge Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Yes 50 6.6 5.4 1.2 2 115 4 0.08 90 6.9 2.3 Residentsoff47th Ave. NEbetweenbridge Commercial/Retail and Everglades Blvd. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach All residents east of bridge and north of 43rd Parks Yes 1369 7.4 5.7 1.7 2 4655 155 0.11 24 2.7 3.4 Ave. NE Increases Resident's Route Choice Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 2142 Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip JL- Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For Fire First Responders Yes 16 5.1 4.9 0.2 4% Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 10.2 9.8 0.4 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders Yes 2142 30.3 6.1 4.2 Up to a Reduction of 41% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 13.7 8.1 5.6 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders Yes 50 4.4 2.7 1.8 Reduction in 40% Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 7.6 4.5 3.0 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Improves ISO Public Protection Yes 16 5.2 5.0 Bridge makes a different station closer Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus routes to existing and future school(s); may improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating costs. ' VMT= Vehicle Miles Traveled Build -Out Notes Distance (miles) Trips VMT' Gallons Savings per Days Savings VMT' W/o W/ Saved DUs Per Saved per P Saved per Home per p Per per Home Saved per Bridge Bridge per Trip Day day day @ 30 mPg Day Year per Year Home Per de Y Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Residents off 47th Ave. NE between bridge Arterial Network Yes 90 5.3 4.3 1.0 4 360 12 0.13 300 40.0 4.0 and Everglades Blvd. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Yes 636 87 9.0 4.0 5.0 4 1730 58 0.66 180 119.3 19.9 Only Residents with school -age children off Schools (E) 47th west of bridge Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Residtsenoff 47th Ave. NE between bridge Commercial/Retail Yes 90 6.6 5.4 1.2 2 207 7 0.08 90 6.9 23 a nd Everglades Blvd. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach All residents east of bridge and north of 43rd Parks Yes 3436 7.4 5.7 1.7 2 11682 389 0.11 24 2.7 34 Ave. NE Increases Resident's Route Choice Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 5012 Distance (miles) W/o W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For Fire First Responders Yes 28 5.1 4.9 0.2 4% Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 10.2 9.8 0.4 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CC50 First Responders Yes 5012 10.3 6.1 4.2 Up to a Reduction of 41% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 13.7 8.1 5.6 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders Yes 90 44 2.7 1.8 40% Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 7.6 4.5 3.0 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Improves ISO Public Protection Yes 28 5.2 5.0 Bridge makes a different fire station closer to homes west of canal/bridge. Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus routes to existing and future school(s); may improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating costs. ' VMT=Vehicle Miles Traveled Associated Improvements Include: Resurfacing of 47th Ave. NE from Immokalee Rd. to Everglades Blvd. (+/- 3.06 miles); add paved shoulders Sidewalk along one side of roadway Evaluate the need for intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes) at Immokalee Road and 47th Ave. NE, and Everglades Blvd. at 4th Ave. NE #4 E of 951 Bridge Benefit Matrix 121620.1.xlsx 12/17/2020 Bridge #5 - Wilson Blvd. N Bridge -Shed Metrics 2019 NOTES Distance (miles) Trips VMT' Gallons Gallons Days Gallons VMT' W/o W/ Saved DUs per Saved per Saved per Saved per per Saved per Saved per Bridge Bridge per Trip Day day day CD 30 Home per Year Home per Home per JE Mpg Day Year day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Arterial Network Yes 219 3.3 1.9 1.3 4 1,148 38 0.17 300 52.4 5.2 Residents north of bridge Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Yes 46 10 2.7 2.0 0.7 4 27 1 0.09 180 16.1 27 Only Residents with school -age chilldren Schools south of bridge Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Commercial/Retail No 0.0 2 0 0 - 90 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks Yes 46 3.7 2.8 0.9 2 80 3 0.06 24 1.4 1.7 Increases Resident's Route Choice Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 265 Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For Fire First Responders Yes 219 2.8 2.4 0.5 Reduction in 17% Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 5.7 4.7 1.0 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders Yes 265 3.8 1.4 2.5 Up to a Reduction of 64% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 5.1 1.8 3.3 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders No 0.0 No Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Although the new bridge reduces the drive distance, all residents within the Improves ISO Public Protection No bridge -shed are currently within 5 miles of the nearest fire station Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus routes to existing and future school(s); may improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating costs. ' VMT= Vehilce Miles Traveled Build -Out V Notes Distance (miles) Gallons VMT' Trips VMT' Saved per Savings per Days Savings Saved per DUs W/o W/ Saved per Saved per day @ 30 Home per per per Home Home per Bridge Bridge per Trip Day day mpg Day Year per Year day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Arterial Network yes 933 3.3 1.9 1.3 4 4,889 163 0.17 300 52.4 5.2 Residents north of bridge Yes n 15 2.7 2.0 0.7 4 40 1 0.09 180 16.1 2.7 Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Only Residentswithschool-agechilldren Schools (E&M) south of bridge Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Commercial/Retail No 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 0 - 90 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks Yes 71 3.7 2.8 0.9 2 124 4 0.06 24 1.4 1.7 Increases Resident's Route Choice Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 1004 Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For Fire First Responders Yes 933 2.8 2.4 0.5 Reduction in 17% Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 5.7 4.7 1.0 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders Yes 1004 3.8 1.4 2.5 Up to a Reduction of 64% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 5.1 1.8 3.3 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders No 0.0 0.0 0.0 Na Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Although the new bridge reduces the drive distance, all residents within the Improves ISO Public Protection No 0.0 0.0 bridge -shed are currently within 5 miles of the nearest fire station Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus routes to existing and future schoolls); may improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating costs. ' VMT= Vehilce Miles Traveled Resurfacing Wilson Blvd. N. from 47th Ave NW to Immokalee Road (+/-2.9 miles); add paved shoulders Sidewalk along one side of roadway Intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes) at Wilson Blvd. and Immokalee Rd. E of 951 Bridge Benefit Matrix 121620.1.xlsx 12/17/2020 Bridges #6-7 - 18th Avenue NE Bridge -Shed Metrics 2019 NOTES Distance (miles) Tries VMT' Gallons Gallons Days Gallons VMT' Saved per Saved per Saved per Saved per DUs W/o W/ Saved Per Saved per day @ 30 Home per Per Home per Home per Bridge Bridge per Trip Day day mpg Day Year Year day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Yes 34 3.4 2.6 0.8 4 113 4 0.11 300 33.2 3.3 Only re,ident,,n 18th Ave. e,,t,f the Arterial Network bridges to 8th St. and 16th St. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Residences vv/school-age children: W/O $CI70015 Yes2 563 118 3.8 3.5 0.3 4 137 5 0.04 180 7.0 1.2 Bridge travels toexsitingschoolsiE&MI;W/ Bridge [ravels [o rezoned schools Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Only residents on 18th Ave. east of the east Commercial/Retail Yes 7 2.9 2.1 0.8 2 11 0 0.05 90 4.5 1.5 bridge to 161h St. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Only Y residents on 18th Ave. east of the east Parks Yes 7 5.5 4.7 0.7 2 10 0 0.05 24 1.2 1.5 bridge to 16th 8[. Increases Resident's Route Choice Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 1907 a If E- & M-school Zone is expanded westward Distance (miles) W/O Waved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For Fire First Responders Yes 7 3.0 2.3 0.7 25% Reduction in Response Time Only residents on 18th Ave. east of the east bridge to 16th St. Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 6.0 4.6 1.5 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders Yes 1907 4.4 1.6 2.7 Up to a Reduction of 63% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 5.8 2.2 3.7 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For For EMS First Responders Yes 7 3.0 2.3 0.7 in 25% Response Time Only residents on lath Ave. east of the east bridge to 16th St. Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 5.2 3.9 1.3 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Although the new bridge reduces the drive distance, all residents within the Improves ISO Public Protection No bridge -shed are currently within 5 miles of the nearest fire station Classification Score May improve cfrculation options for bus routes to existing and future school(s); may improve bus utilization, �,educejuel Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes consumption and associated operating costs. ' VMT= Vehilce Miles Traveled Build -Out V Notes Distance (miles) Gallons VMT' Trips VMT' Saved per Savings per Days Savings Saved per DUs W/O W/ Saved Per Saved per Home per per per Home Bridge Bridge per Trip Day day day @ 30 Day Year per Year Home per mpg day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Yes 48 3.4 2.6 0.8 4 159 5 0.11 300 33.2 3.3 Only residents on 18th Ave. east of the Arterial Network bridges to 8th St. and 16th St. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Residences vv/school-age children: W/O 2 Yes 851 178 3.8 3.5 0.3 4 206 7 0.04 180 7.0 1.2 Bridgelravels toexsitingschoolsiE&MI;W/ Schools (E&M) Bridge [ravels [o rezoned schools Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Yes 11 2.9 2.1 0.8 2 17 1 0.05 90 4.5 1.5 Only residents on 18th Ave. east of the east Commercial/Retail bridge to 161h 51. Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Only residents on 18th Ave. east of the east Parks Yes 11 5.5 4.7 0.7 2 16 1 0.05 24 1.2 1.5 bridge to 16th St. Increases Resident's Route Choice Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 3289 ' If E- & M-school Zone is expanded westward Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For For Fire First Responders Yes 11 3.0 2.3 0.7 in 25% Response Time Only residents on lath Ave. east of the east bridge to 16th 5[. Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 6.0 4.6 1.5 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders Yes 3259 4.4 1.6 2.7 Up to a Reduction of 63% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 5.8 2.2 3.7 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For For EMS First Responders Yes 11 3.0 2.3 0.7 in 25% Response Time Only residents on lath Ave. east of the east bridge [016[h 51. Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 5.2 3.9 1.3 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Although the new bridge reduces the drive distance, all residents within the Improves ISO Public Protection No 0.0 0.0 bridge -shed are currently within 5 miles of the nearest fire station Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus routes to existing and future schoo/(s); may improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating casts. ' VMT= Vehilce Miles Traveled Resurfacing from Wilson Blvd. to 16th St. NE (+1- 2.1 miles); add paved shoulders Sidewalk along one side of roadway Evaluate the need for intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes) at 18th Ave. NE and Wilson Blvd., 8th St. NE, and 16th St. NE #6-7 E of 951 Bridge Benefit Matrix 121620.1.xlsx 12/17/2020 Bridge #8 - 13th St. NW Bridge -Shed Metrics 2019 NOTES Distance (miles) Tries VMT' Gallons Gallons Days Gallons VMT' W/o W/ Saved DUs Per Saved per Saved per Saved per Per Saved per Saved per Bridge Bridge per Trip Day day day @ 30 mpg Home per Day Year Home per Year Home per day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Arterial Network No 0.0 4 0 0 - 300 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Schools (H) Yes 2827 273 9.9 3.5 6.4 4 6978 233 0.85 180 153.4 25.6 Distance. cons Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Commercial/Retail No 0.0 2 0 0 - 90 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks Yes 2827 7.1 3.5 3.6 2 20524 684 0.24 24 5.8 7.3 Increases Resident's Route Choice yes 2827 Bridge will provide improved access to Vanderbilt Beach Road Extenison when built Options; Improves Evacuation Access Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time To For Fire First Responders Yes School & Park 4.8 1.2 3.6 75% Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 9.5 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time To For CCSO First Responders Yes School & Park 6.0 2.5 3.6 Up to a Reduction of 59% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 8.0 3.3 4.8 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time To For EMS First Responders Yes School & Park 4.8 1.2 3.6 Reduction in 75% Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 8.2 2.1 6.1 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Although the new bridge reduces the drive distance, all residents within the Improves ISO Public Protection No bridge -shed are currently within 5 miles of the nearest fire station Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus routes to existing and future school(s); may improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating costs. ' VMT= Vehilce Miles Traveled Build -Out W Notes Distance (miles) Gallons VMT' Trips VMT' Saved per Savings per Days Savings Saved per DUs W/o W/ Saved Per Saved per day @ 30 Home per per per Home Home per Bridge Bridge per Trip Day day mpg Day Year per Year day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Arterial Network No 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0 - 300 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Schools(H) Yes asos 339 9.9 3.5 6.4 4 8665 289 0.85 180 153.4 25.6 D;stance:cons Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Commercial/Retail No 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 0 - 90 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks Yes 3509 7.1 3.5 3.6 2 25475 849 0.24 24 5.8 7.3 Increases Resident's Route Choice Yes 3509 Bridge will provide improved access to Vanderbilt Beach Road Extenison when built Options; Improves Evacuation Access Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time To For Fire First Responders Yes School & Park 4.8 1.2 3.6 75% Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 9.5 2.4 7.1 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time To 6.0 2.5 3.6 For CCSO First Responders Yes School & Park Up to a Reduction of 59% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 8.0 3.3 4.8 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time To For EMS First Responders Yes School & Park 4.8 1.2 3.6 Reduction in 75% Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 8.2 2.1 6.1 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Although the new bridge reduces the drive distance, all residents within the Improves ISO Public Protection No 0.0 0.0 bridge -shed are currently within 5 miles of the nearest fire station Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus routes to existing and future school(s); may improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating casts. ' VMT= Vehilce Miles Traveled Resurfacing 13th St NW from Golden Gate Blvd. to the Bridge (+/-1.08 miles) Sidewalk along both sides of roadway Evaluate the need for intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes) at Golden Gate Blvd. And 13th St. NW Bike Lanes along 13th Ave. NW #8 E of 951 Bridge Benefit Matrix 121620.1.xlsx 12/17/2020 Bridge #9 - 16th St. SE Bridge -Shed Metrics 2019 NOTES Distance (miles) Tries VMT' Gallons Gallons Days Gallons VMT' W/O W/ Saved DUs Per Saved per Saved per Saved per Per Saved per Saved per Day day day @ 30 Home per Year Home per Home per Bridge Bridge per Trip mpg Day Year day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Arterial Network No 0.0 4 0 0 - 300 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Schools No 0.0 4 0 0 - 180 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Commercial/Retail No 0.0 2 0 0 - 90 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks No 0.0 2 0 0 - 24 - - Increases Resident's Route Choice Residents currently use one of several "private" canal crossing structures at the Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 18 southern ends of 10th St. SE, 18th St. SE, 20th St. SE, and 22nd St. SE Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For Fire First Responders No 0'0 No Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders No 0.0 0.0 0.0 Up to a Reduction of No in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders No 0.0 No Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Improves ISO Public Protection No Classification Score Existing residents south of the canal Ilkley to continue to use the existing bus stop location at Frangipani and 10th Improves School Bus Route Operations No St. SE (existing bus stop) ' VMT=Vehicle Miles Traveled Build -Out Notes Distance (miles) Gallons VMT' Trips VMT' Saved per Savings per Days Savings Saved per DUs W/O W/ Saved Per Saved per day @ 30 Home per per per Home Home per Bridge Bridge per Trip Day day mpg Day Year per Year day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Arterial Network No 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0 - 300 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach ES Capacity =919 Households in Golden Gates Estates (outside of Bridge -Shed) will Schools Yes 5429 1900 benefit by improved access to new HS and ES w/in the Bridge -Shed 180 0.0 0.0 0. Capacity = 1931 35 Students/HH & 1.5 Students/DU Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Commercial/Retail No 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 0 - 90 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks No 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 0 - 24 - - IncreasesResident'sRouteChoice Residents currently use one ofseveral'private" canal crossing structures at the southern ends of Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 135 10th St. SE, 18th St. SE, 20th St. SE, and 22nd St. SE Distance (miles) W/o W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For Fire First Responders No 0'0 No Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders No 0.0 0.0 0.0 No Reduction of in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders No 0.0 0.0 0.0 No Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Improves ISO Public Protection No 0.0 0.0 Classification Score Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes Bridge will provide direct access to two new schools (HS & ES) to be built in the future. ' VMT= Vehicle Miles Traveled Resurfacing 16th St SE from Golden Gate Blvd. to Frangipani Ave.; add paved shoulders Sidewalk along one side of 16th SG SE Evaluate the need for intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes) at 16th St. SE and Golden Gate Blvd. #9 E of 951 Bridge Benefit Matrix 121620.1.xlsx 12/17/2020 Bridge #10 - Wilson Blvd. S Bridge -Shed Metrics 2019 NOTES Distance (miles) Tries VMT' Gallons Gallons Days Gallons VMT' W/o W/ Saved DUs Per Saved per Saved per Saved per Per Saved per Saved per Day day day @ 30 Home per Year Home per Home per Bridge Bridge per Trip mpg Day Year day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Existing residents use loth St. SE; bridge Arterial Network Yes 40 6.3 5.1 1.2 4 189 6 0.16 300 47.2 4.7 reducesave,g, t,vel distance by+/-1.2 moss Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Only residents with High School students; Schools(H) Yes 40 4 9.1 7.9 1.2 4 19 1 0.16 180 28.8 4.8 distances measured to Palmetto Ridge HS Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Commercial/Retail Yes 40 3.1 1.9 1.2 2 95 3 0.08 90 7.1 2.4 Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks Yes 40 5.9 4.7 1.2 2 95 3 0.08 24 1.9 2.4 Increases Resident's Route Choice Residents currently use a "private" canal crossing structures at the southern end of Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 40 10th St. SE Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For Fire First Responders Yes 40 4.8 3.6 1.2 25% Reduction 11 Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 9.5 7.2 2.4 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders Yes 40 3.1 1.9 1.2 Up to a Reduction of 39% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 4.1 2.5 1.6 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders Yes 40 4.7 3.5 1.2 Reduction in 25% Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 8.1 6.1 2.0 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Improves ISO Public Protection Yes 15 6.3 5.0 New bridge reduces the drive distance to within 5 miles of the nearest fire station Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus routes to existing and future school(s); may improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating costs. ' VMT=Vehicle Miles Traveled Build -Out Notes Distance (miles) Gallons VMT' Trips VMT' Saved per Savings per Days Savings Saved per DUs W/o W/ Saved Per Saved per day @ 30 Home per per per Home Home per Bridge Bridge per Trip Day day mpg Day Year per Year day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Existing residents use loth St. SE; bridge Arterial Network Yes 132 6.3 5.1 1.2 4 623 21 0.16 300 47.2 4.7 reduces ave.ge t.vel distance by+/-1.2 moss Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Schools(H) Yes 132 13 9.1 7.9 1.2 4 62 2 0.16 180 28.8 4.8 Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Commercial/Retail Yes 132 3.1 1.9 1.2 2 314 10 0.08 90 7.1 2.4 Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks Yes 132 5.9 4.7 1.2 2 314 10 0.08 24 1.9 2.4 Increases Resident's Route Choice Yes 132 Residents currently use a "private" canal crossing structures at the southem end of SOth St. SE Options; Improves Evacuation Access Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For Fire First Responders Yes 132 4.8 3.6 1.2 25% Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 9.5 7.2 2.4 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders Yes 132 3.1 1.9 1.2 Up to a Reduction of 39% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 4.1 2.5 1.6 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders Yes 132 4.7 3.5 1.2 Reduction in 25% Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 8.1 1 6.1 1 2.0 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Improves ISO Public Protection Yes 61 6.3 5.0 New bridge reduces the drive distance to within 5 miles of the nearest fire station Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus routes to existing and future schoa/(s); may improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating casts. ' VMT= Vehicle Miles Traveled Construction of relocated southern end of Wilson Blvd. (+/- 725'including bridge); acquisition of ROW required to connect Wilson Blvd S. to Tobias St./Frangipani Ave. Resurfacing Wilson Blvd. S from Golden Gate Blvd. to Tobias St/Frangipani Ave. (+/-1.2 miles); add paved shoulders Sidewalk along one side of Wilson Blvd. #10 E of 951 Bridge Benefit Matrix 121620.1.xlsx 12/17/2020 Bridge #11- 10th Ave. SE Bridge -Shed Metrics 2019 NOTES Distance(miles) Trips VMT' Gallons Gallons Days Gallons VMT' W/o W/ Saved DUs Per Saved per Saved per Saved per per Saved per Saved per Day day day @ 30 Home per Year Home per Home per Bridge Bridge per Trip mpg Day Year day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Arterial Network No 0.0 4 0 0 - 300 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Residents with elementary school -age Schools(E) Yesz 487 67 5.6 3.5 2.1 4 574 19 0.29 180 51.4 8.6 hiildr,E,;,,Mh,ff Desoto and south of 101h A Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Commercial/Retail No 0.0 2 0 0 - 90 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks No 0.0 2 0 0 - 24 - - Increases Resident's Route Choice Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 487 ' Suhjel to COD School Rezoning Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For Fire First Responders Yes 20 9.4 7.9 1.5 16% Reduction in Response Time Residents on loth Ave. SE between bridge and Desoto Blvd. Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 18.8 15.9 3.0 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSD First Responders Yes 487 5.1 1.8 3.3 Up to a Reduction of 64% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 6.8 2.5 4.4 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders Yes 20 9.4 7.9 1.5 16% Reduction in Response Time Residents on loth Ave. SE between bridge and Desoto Blvd. Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 16.1 13.6 2.5 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Improves ISO Public Protection No Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus routes to existing and future school(s); may improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating costs. ' VMT=Vehicle Miles Traveled Build -Out Notes Distance (miles) Gallons VMT' Trips VMT' Saved per Savings per Days Savings Saved per DUs W/o W/ Saved Per Saved per day @ 30 Home per per per Home Home Bridge Bridge per Trip BY day Day Year per Year per mpg day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Arterial Network No 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0 - 300 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Residents with elementary school -age z Yes 244 5.6 3.5 2.1 4 2089 70 0.29 180 51.4 8.6 Desoto and south of 10th Schools(E) Ahd,rvr;s0uth,ff SE Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Commercial/Retail No 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 0 - 90 - - Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks No 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 0 - 24 - - Increases Resident's Route Choice Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 1787 a Suhjel to COD Schaal Rezoning Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time 9.4 7.9 1.5 Reduction in future st betw the benefit Due t0locatie. For Fire First Responders P Yes 78 16% Response Time is toE 10th Ave. SE residents between Everglades Blvd and bridge Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 18.8 15.9 3.0 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders Yes 1757 5.1 1.8 3.3 Up to a Reduction of 64% in Response Time Distances from loth Ave. sf at Everglades t0 loth Ave. SE a[ Desoto Blvd. Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 6.8 2.5 4•4 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time 9A 7.9 1.5 Reduction in fuid,rdsture betw the benefit Due t0thAve. For EMS First Responders P Yes 78 16% Response Time is toE 10th Ave. SE residents between Everglades Blvd and bridge Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 16.1 13.6 2.5 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Improves ISO Public Protection No 0.0 0.0 Classification Score May improve circulation options forbus routes to existing and future school(s); may improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating costs. ' VMT= Vehicle Miles Traveled Resurfacing 10th Ave. SE from Everglades Blvd. to Desoto Blvd. (+/-1.83 miles); add paved shoulders Sidewalk along one side of roadway Evaluate the need for intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes) at 10th Ave. SE and Everglades Blvd. if necessary #11 E of 951 Bridge Benefit Matrix 121620.1.xlsx 12/17/2020 Bridge #12 - 62nd Avenue NE Bridge -Shed Metrics 2019 NOTES Distance (miles) Tries VMT' Gallons Gallons Days Gallons VMT' W/O W/ Saved DUs Per Saved per Saved per Saved per Per Saved per Saved per Day day day @ 30 Home per Year Home per Home per Bridge Bridge per Trip mpg Day Year day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Arterial Network Yes 104 8.5 6.8 1.7 4 695 23 0.22 300 66.8 6.7 Access provided direRly [o Everglades Blvd, Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Schools (E) Yes 104 14 4.2 2.3 1.9 4 104 3 0.25 180 44.6 7.4 Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Commercial/Retail Yes 104 11.2 9.8 1.4 2 297 10 0.10 90 8.6 2.9 Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks Yes 104 9.9 8.3 1.7 2 347 12 0.11 24 2.7 3.3 Increases Resident's Route Choice Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 104 Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For Fire First Responders Yes 53 5.8 2.7 3.1 Reduction in 54% Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 11.6 5.3 6.3 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders Yes 304 8.5 6.8 1.7 Up to a Reduction of 20% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 11.3 9.0 2.3 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders No 53 5.8 2.7 3.1 Reduction in 54% Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 9.9 4.6 5.4 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Bridge reduces the travel distance to less than five miles. Distance measured is Improves ISO Public Protection Yes 43 5.9 2.6 the greatest reduction for new homes within 5 miles. Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus routes to existing and future school(s); may improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating costs. ' VMT=Vehicle Miles Traveled Build -Out Notes Distance (miles) Gallons VMT' Trips VMT' Saved per Savings per Days Savings Saved per DUs W/O W/ Saved Per Saved per day @ 30 Home per per per Home Home per Bridge Bridge per Trip BY day mpg Day Year per Year day Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Arterial Network yes 391 8.5 6.8 1.7 4 2,612 87 0.22 300 66.8 6.7 Access provided direRly to Everglades Blvd, Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Schools (E) Yes 691 53 4.2 2.3 1.9 4 394 13 0.25 180 44.6 7.4 Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Commercial/Retail Yes 391 11.2 9.8 1.4 2 1118 37 0.10 90 8.6 2.9 Reduces Travel Distance/Time to Reach Parks Yes 391 9.9 8.3 1.7 2 1306 44 0.11 24 2.7 3.3 Increases Resident's Route Choice Options; Improves Evacuation Access Yes 391 Distance (miles) W/O W/ Saved DUs Bridge Bridge per Trip Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For Fire First Responders Yes 177 5.8 2.7 3.1 54% Reduction in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 30 MPH 11.6 5.3 6.3 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For CCSO First Responders Yes 391 8.5 6.8 1.7 Up to a Reduction of 20% in Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 45 MPH 11.3 9.0 2.3 Reduces Travel Distance/Response Time For EMS First Responders No 177 5.8 2.7 3.1 Reduction in 54% Response Time Response Time (minutes) at 35 MPH 9.9 4.6 5.4 Reduces Travel Distance to Fire Station to Bridge reduces the travel distance to less than five miles. Distance measured is Improves ISO Public Protection Yes 139 5.9 2.6 the greatest reduction for new homes within 5 miles. Classification Score May improve circulation options for bus routes to existing and future schoolls); may improve bus utilization, Improves School Bus Route Operations Yes reduce fuel consumption and associated operating casts. ' VMT= Vehicle Miles Traveled Construction of southern extension of 40th Street NE (660') including acquisition of ROW to intersect with 62nd Ave. NE Resurfacing of 62nd Ave. NE from Everglades Blvd. to 40th St. NE (+/-1.1 miles) and 40th St. NE from Immokolee Rd. to 62nd Ave. NE Sidewalk along one side of 62nd Ave. NE from Everglades Blvd to 40th St. NE Evaluate the need for intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes) at 62nd Ave. NE and Everglades Blvd. #12 E of 951 Bridge Benefit Matrix 121620.1.xlsx 12/17/2020 East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study APPENDIX E Bridge Evaluation Tables Bridge #1 - 23rd St. SW <1.0 1.0-3.0 >3.0 = Miles Saved per Trip Benefits Evaluation NA (0) Low Medium h B/O Weighted Miles Saved Comments Total Primary Criteria (1) (2) Parcels Parce per Trip Score Emergency Services Category Fire Service Response 1 58 0.6 Up to 20% reduction in travel distance for some calls EMS Response 1 58 0.5 Up to 17% reduction in travel distance for some calls CCSO Service Response 1 1238 0.5 Up to 30% reduction in travel distance for some calls Totals - Primary Criteria 3 0 Avg. 3 Benefits Evaluation Secondary Criteria NA (0) Low (1) Medium (2) High (3) B/O Parcels Weighted Parcels Miles Saved per Trip Comments Total Score Personal Mobility Reduced Trip Length 2 53 106 1.2 Parcels north of canal to reach commercial Evacuation 0 1238 0 Improved Access to Public Facilities Schools 0 1238 0 No measurable improvement Parks 0 1238 0 No measurable improvement Traffic Patterns/Route Choice Reduce Existing Congestion 0 1238 0 Traffic patterns will change, potential benefit can not be determined Alternative Routes Created 0 1238 0 Additional White to GGB Interconnection of marginal benefit Totals - Secondary Criteria 0 2 0 Avg. 3041 Avg. 18 Ratio 0.02 > 1.0 = 25%; >1.0 to 1.5 = 50%; >1.5 =75% 25% 2 Negative Impacts Evaluation Criteria NA (0) Low Medium High (-1) (-2) (-3) B/O Parcels Comments Total Score Neighborhoods Directly Impacted 58 13th St. SW north of canal Increased Traffic (Automobile) -3 58 58 58 Directly Impacted Parcels North of Bridge Increased Traffic (Trucks) Directly Impacted Parcels North of Bridge Increased Cut-Thru Traffic Directly Impacted Parcels North of Bridge Surrounding Neighborhoods 58 13th St. SW south of canal Increased Traffic (Automobile) 58 Secondarily Impacted Parcels South of Bridge Increased Traffic (Trucks) 58 Secondarily Impacted Parcels South of Bridge Increased Cut-Thru Traffic 0 58 Secondarily Impacted Parcels South of Bridge Totals -2 0 116 Total Parcels Impacted -11 Planning Cost Estimates Design/Permitting' $305,901 10% Bridge $1,076,610 $6,333 170 Roadway/Sidewalk2 $1,982,400 $1,770,000 1.12 Right -of -Way $0 Total Project $3,364,911 1 Does not include mitigation Bridge #4-47thAvenue NE <1.0 1.0-3.0 >3.0= Miles Saved perTrip Benefits Evaluation NA (0) Low Medium High B/O Weighted Miles Saved Comments Total Primary Criteria (1) (2) Parcels Parce& per Trip Score Emergency Services Category Fire Service Response 1 28 0.2 Up to 4% reduction in travel distance for some calls EMS Response 2 90 1.8 Up to 40% reduction in travel distance for some calls CCSO Service Response 5012 4.2 Up to 41% reduction in travel distance for some calls Totals - Primary Criteria 1 2 6 1710 Benefits Evaluation Secondary Criteria NA (0) Low (1) Medium (2) High (3) B/O Parcels Weighted Parcels Miles Saved per Trip Comments Total Score Personal Mobility Reduced Trip Length 1 90 90 1.0 Route choice but little reduction in trip length Evacuation 5012 15036 1.0 Additional E/W connectivity created Improved Access to Public Facilities Schools 011 87 261 5.0 Improved access to school for parents and buses Parks 2 3436 6872 1.7 Traffic Patterns/Route Choice Reduce Existing Congestion 1 5012 5012 Traffic patterns will change Alternative Routes Created 1 5012 5012 Additional route to access Immokalee Road Totals - Secondary Criteria 3 2 6 Avg. 3108 Avg. 5381 Ratio 1.73 > 1.0 = 25%; >1.0 to 1.5 = 50%; >1.5 =75% 75% 11 Negative Impacts Evaluation Criteria NA (0) Low Medium High (-1) (-2) (-3) B/O Parcels Comments Total Score Neighborhoods Directly Impacted 248 Directly Impacted Parcels on 47th Ave. NE, East and West of Bridge Increased Traffic (Automobile) -3 248 248 248 New traffic using 47th rather than OWR Increased Traffic (Trucks) Increased Cut-Thru Traffic New traffic using 47th rather than OWR Surrounding Neighborhoods 644 Secondarily Impacted Parcels North and South of 47th Ave. NE (east of bridge) Increased Traffic (Automobile) 644 Increased congestion at 47th Ave. NE and Immokalee Rd. Increased Traffic (Trucks) 644 Increased Cut-Thru Traffic 644 New traffic using 47th rather than OWR Totals 892 Total Parcels Impacted -12 Planning Cost Estimates Design/Permitting' $641,048 10% Bridge $994,281 $6,333 157 Roadway/Sidewalk2 $5,416,200 $1,770,000 3.06 Right -of -Way $0 Total Project $7,051,529 1 Does not include mitigation Bridge #5 - Wilson Blvd. N <1.0 1.0-3.0 >3.0 = Miles Saved per Trip Benefits Evaluation NA (0) Low Medium h B/O Weighted Miles Saved Comments Total Primary Criteria (1) (2) Parcels ParceQ per Trip Score Emergency Services Category Fire Service Response 1 933 0.5 Up to 17% reduction in travel distance for some calls EMS Response 0 933 0 CCSO Service Response 2 1004 2.5 Up to 64% reduction in travel distance for some calls Totals - Primary Criteria 1 2 957' 3 Benefits Evaluation Secondary Criteria NA (0) Low (1) Medium (2) High (3) B/O Parcels Weighted Parcels Miles Saved per Trip Comments Total Score Personal Mobility Reduced Trip Length 1 933 933 1.3 Evacuation 2 1004 2008 1.3 Improved Access to Public Facilities Schools 1 15 15 0.7 Parks 1 71 71 0.9 Traffic Patterns/Route Choice Reduce Existing Congestion 0 933 0 Traffic patterns will change, likely increase congestion at Immokalee Rd. Alternative Routes Created 2 1004 2008 RIM Additional route to access Immokalee Road Totals -Secondary Criteria 3 4 0 Avg. 660 Avg. 839 Ratio 1.27 > 1.0 = 25%; >1.0 to 1.5 = 50%; >1.5 =75% 50% 7 Negative Impacts Evaluation Criteria NA (0) Low Medium High (-1) (-2) (-3) B/O Parcels IL Comments Total Score Neighborhoods Directly Impacted 71 On Wilson Blvd. N, South of canal Increased Traffic (Automobile) -3 71 71 71 Traffic from parcels N of canal traveling to Immokalee Rd Increased Traffic (Trucks) 0 Increased Cut-Thru Traffic Potential cut-thru traffic during CST at Randall Blvd Surrounding Neighborhoods 402 On 33rd Ave. NE, east of Wilson +All south of canal E & W of Wilson Blvd. Increased Traffic (Automobile) 402 Secondarily Impacted Parcels with increased congestion at Wilson/Immokalee Increased Traffic (Trucks) 402 Secondarily Impacted Parcels cut-thru potential from OWR Increased Cut-Thru Traffic 402 Secondarily Impacted Parcels cut-thru potential from OWR Totals 1 473 Total Parcels Impacted -10 Planning Cost Estimates Design/Permitting' $593, 729 10% Bridge $804,291 $6,333 127 Roadway/Sidewalk2 $5,133,000 $1,770,000 2.9 Right -of -Way $0 Total Project $6,531,020 1 Does not include mitigation Bridges #6-7 - 18th Avenue NE <1.0 1.0-3.0 >3.0 = Miles Saved per Trip Benefits Evaluation NA (0) Low Medium h B/O Weighted Miles Saved Comments Total Primary Criteria (1) (2) Parcels Parce per Trip Score Emergency Services Category Fire Service Response 1 11 0.7 Up to 25% reduction in travel distance for some calls EMS Response 1 11 0.7 Up to 25% reduction in travel distance for some calls CCSO Service Response 2 3289 2.7 Up to 63% reduction in travel distance for some calls Totals - Primary Criteria 2 2 4 104 Benefits Evaluation Secondary Criteria NA (0) Low (1) Medium (2) High (3) B/O Parcels Weighted Parcels Miles Saved per Trip Comments Total Score Personal Mobility Reduced Trip Length 1 48 48 0.8 Evacuation 1 48 48 0.8 Improved Access to Public Facilities Schools 1 178 178 0.3 Benefit only if CCSD rezones the school boundary to include these parcels Parks 1 11 11 0.7 Traffic Patterns/Route Choice Reduce Existing Congestion 0 3289 0 Alternative Routes Created 1 3289RIM 3289 Totals -Secondary Criteria 5 0 0 Avg. 1144 Avg. 596 Ratio 0.52 > 1.0 = 25%; >1.0 to 1.5 = 50%; >1.5 =75% 25% 5 Negative Impacts Evaluation Criteria NA (0) Low Medium High (4) (-2) (-3) B/O Par Comments Total Score Neighborhoods Directly Impacted 108 On 18th Ave. NE, between Wilson Blvd and 16th St. NE Increased Traffic (Automobile) -3 108 108 108 Increased traffic due to imporved E/W connectivity Increased Traffic (Trucks) 0 Increased Cut-Thru Traffic Increased traffic due to imporved E/W connectivity Surrounding Neighborhoods 243 On 18th Ave. NE, east of 16th St. NE, to 1-mile east of Everglades Blvd. Increased Traffic (Automobile) 243 Traffic on 18th to/from points east Increased Traffic (Trucks) 0 243 Increased Cut-Thru Traffic 41 243 Traffic on 18th to/from points east Totals 351 Total Parcels Impacted -9 Planning Cost Estimates Design/Permitting' $530,025 10% Bridges (2) $1,583,250 $6,333 250 Roadway/Sidewalk2 $3,717,000 $1,770,000 2.1 Right -of -Way $0 Total Project $5,830,275 1 Does not include mitigation Bridge #8 - 13th St. NW <1.0 1.0-3.0 >3.0 = Miles Saved per Trip Benefits Evaluation NA (0) Low Medium High B/O Weighted Miles Saved Comments Total Primary Criteria (1) (2) (3) Parcels Parce& per Trip Score Emergency Services Category Fire Service Response 0 3.6 Up to 75% reduction in response time to reach school/park EMS Response 0 3.6 Up to 59% reduction in response time to reach school/park CCSO Service Response 0 3.6 Up to 75% reduction in response time to reach school/park Totals - Primary Criteria 0 0 9 AVog' 9 Benefits Evaluation Secondary Criteria NA (0) Low (1) Medium (2) High (3) B/O Parcels Weighted Parcels Miles Saved per Trip Comments Total Score Personal Mobility Reduced Trip Length 0 3509 0 0 Evacuation 3509 10527 3.6 Improved Access to Public Facilities Schools 339 1017 6.4 Benefit only when new school is constructed Parks 3509 10527 3.6 Benefit only when new park is constructed Traffic Patterns/Route Choice Reduce Existing Congestion 0 3509 0 Increase in congestion at GGB intersection Alternative Routes Created 3509 10527 RIM When connected to VBR Ext. Totals -Secondary Criteria 0 0 2 Avg. 2981 Avg. 5433 Ratio 1.82 > 1.0 = 25%; >1.0 to 1.5 = 50%; >1.5 =75% 75% 12 Negative Impacts Evaluation Criteria NA (0) Low Medium High (-1) (-2) (-3) B/O Parcels Comments Total Score Neighborhoods Directly Impacted 59 On 13th St. NW, between the canal and GGB Increased Traffic (Automobile) -3 59 59 59 Increase due to school and park Increased Traffic (Trucks) 0 Truck activity increased to reach VBR Ext. Increased Cut-Thru Traffic Increase due to VBR Ext. Surrounding Neighborhoods 0 Increased Traffic (Automobile) 0 Increased Traffic (Trucks) 0 Increased Cut-Thru Traffic 0 Totals 59 Total Parcels Impacted -8 Planning Cost Estimates Design/Permitting' $283,106 10% Bridge $728,295 $6,333 115 Roadway/Sidewalk2 $2,102,760 $1,947,000 1.08 Right -of -Way $0 Total Project $3,114,161 1 Does not include mitigation Bridge #9 - 16th St. SE <1.0 1.0-3.0 >3.0 = Miles Saved per Trip Benefits Evaluation NA (0) Low Medium h B/O Weighted Miles Saved Comments Total Primary Criteria (1) (2) Parcels Parce& per Trip Score Emergency Services Category Fire Service Response 0 135 0 EMS Response 0 135 0 CCSO Service Response 0 135 0 Totals - Primary Criteria 0 0 Avg. 0 Benefits Evaluation Secondary Criteria NA (0) Low (1) Medium (2) High (3) B/O Parcels Weighted Parcels Miles Saved per Trip Comments L Total Score Personal Mobility Reduced Trip Length 0 135 0 0 Evacuation 0 135 0 0.0 Improved Access to Public Facilities Schools 1 1900 19DD 0 Homes outside of bridge -shed benefit only when new school is constructed; Schools not built yet; 3 other bridges serve the area Parks 0 135 0 0 Traffic Patterns/Route Choice Reduce Existing Congestion 1 252 252 Parcels/homes on 18th, 20th, and 22nd that could see reduced traffic Alternative Routes Created 1 135 135 Totals -Secondary Criteria 3 0 0 Avg. 449 Avg. 381 Ratio 0.85 > 1.0 = 25%; >1.0 to 1.5 = 50%; >1.5 =75% 25% 3 Negative Impacts Evaluation Criteria NA (0) Low Medium High (4) (-2) 0) B Par Comments Total Score Neighborhoods Directly Impacted 100 on 16th St. SE, south of GGB to the canal (outside bridge -shed) Increased Traffic (Automobile) -2 100 100 Increase due to future development and school Increased Traffic (Trucks) -2 Potential farm truck activity increased to reach GGB Increased Cut-Thru Traffic 0 100 Existing "bridges" on 18th, 20th and 22nd minimize potential cut-thru traffic Surrounding Neighborhoods 0 No parcels with secondary impacts Increased Traffic (Automobile) 0 1;7 Increased Traffic (Trucks) 0 Increased Cut-Thru Traffic 0 Totals 100 Total Parcels Impacted 4 Planning Cost Estimates Design/Permitting' $291, 287 Env 10% Bridge $664,965 $6,333 105 Roadway/Sidewalk2 $2,247,900 $1,770,000 1.27 Right -of -Way $0 Total Project $3,204,152 1 Does not include mitigation Bridge #10 - Wilson Blvd. S <1.0 1.0-3.0 >3.0 = Miles Saved per Trip Benefits Evaluation NA (0) Low Medium High B/O Weighted Miles Saved Comments Total Primary Criteria (1) (2) k (3) Parcels ParceQ per Trip Score Emergency Services Category Fire Service Response 2 132 1.2 Up to 25% reduction in response time to reach school/park EMS Response 2 132 1.2 Up to 2S% reduction in response time to reach school/park CCSO Service Response 2 132 1.2 Up to 39% reduction in response time to reach school/park Totals - Primary Criteria 0 6 132 6 Benefits Evaluation Secondary Criteria NA (0) Low (1) Medium (2) High (3) B/O Parcels Weighted Parcels Miles Saved per Trip Comments Total Score Personal Mobility Reduced Trip Length 2 132 264 1.2 Evacuation 2 132 264 1.2 Improved Access to Public Facilities Schools 2 13 26 1.2 Parks 2 132 264 1.2 Traffic Patterns/Route Choice Reduce Existing Congestion 1 70 70 Parcels/homes on 10th St. SE would see reduced traffic Alternative Routes Created 2 132 264 Totals -Secondary Criteria 1 10 0 Avg. 102 Avg. 192 Ratio 1.89 > 1.0 = 25%; >1.0 to 1.5 = 50%; >1.5 =75% 75% 11 Negative Impacts Evaluation Criteria NA (0) Low Medium High (4) (-2) (-3) B/O Parcels Comments Total Score Neighborhoods Directly Impacted 100 On Wilson Blvd. south of GGB to the canal (outside bridge -shed) Increased Traffic (Automobile) -3 100 100 100 Increase in traffic currently using loth St. SE Increased Traffic (Trucks) Potential farm truck activity increased to reach GGB Increased Cut-Thru Traffic Potential if/when Wilson Blvd Ext. is CST Surrounding Neighborhoods 0 No parcels with secondary impacts Increased Traffic (Automobile) 0 Increased Traffic (Trucks) 0 Increased Cut-Thru Traffic 0 Totals 100 Total Parcels Impacted -9 Planning Cost Estimates Design/Permitting' $320,061 10% Bridge $1,076,610 $6,333 170 Roadway/Sidewalk2 $2,124,000 $1,770,000 1.2 Right -of -Way $80,850 Total Project $3,601,521 1 Does not include mitigation Bridge #11 - loth Ave. SE <1.0 1.0-3.0 >3.0 = Miles Saved per Trip Benefits Evaluation NA (0) Low Medium High B/O Weighted Miles Saved Comments Total Primary Criteria (1) (2) k (3) Parcels Parce& per Trip Score Emergency Services Category Fire Service Response 2 78 1.5 Up to 16% reduction in response time to reach school/park EMS Response 2 78 1.5 Up to 16% reduction in response time to reach school/park CCSO Service Response 1787 3.3 Up to 64% reduction in response time to reach school/park Totals - Primary Criteria 0 4 7 648 Benefits Evaluation Secondary Criteria NA (0) Low (1) Medium (2) High 1 (3) B/O Parcels Weighted Parcels Miles Saved per Trip Comments Total Score Personal Mobility Reduced Trip Length 0 1787 0 Evacuation 0 1787 0 Improved Access to Public Facilities Schools 2 244 488 1.2 Benefit to these homes only if CCSD rezones the area Parks 0 1787 0 0 Traffic Patterns/Route Choice Reduce Existing Congestion 0 1787 0 A Reduced volumes at GGB/Desoto; increased volumes at GGB/Everglades Alternative Routes Created 2 1787 3574 Totals -Secondary Criteria 0 4 0 Avg. 1530 Avg. 677 Ratio 0.44 > 1.0 = 25%; >1.0 to 1.5 = 50%; >1.5 =75% 25% 4 Negative Impacts Evaluation Criteria NA (0) Low Medium High (4) (-2) (-3) B/O Parcels Comments Total Score Neighborhoods Directly Impacted 117 On loth Ave. SE between Everglades Blvd. and Desoto Blvd. Increased Traffic (Automobile) -3 117 117 117 Increase due to route choice Increased Traffic (Trucks) 0 Increased Cut-Thru Traffic Potential if school is rezoned Surrounding Neighborhoods 0 No parcels with secondary impacts Increased Traffic (Automobile) 0 Increased Traffic (Trucks) 0 Increased Cut-Thru Traffic 0 Totals 117 Total Parcels Impacted -6 Planning Cost Estimates Design/Permitting' $431,571 10% Bridge $1,076,610 $6,333 170 Roadway/Sidewalk2 $3,239,100 $1,770,000 1.83 Right -of -Way $0 Total Project $4,747,281 1 Does not include mitigation Bridge #12 - 62nd Avenue NE <1.0 1.0-3.0 >3.0 = Miles Saved per Trip Benefits Evaluation NA (0) Low Medium High B/O Weighted Miles Saved Comments Total Primary Criteria (1) (2) (3) Parcels ParceQ per Trip Score Emergency Services Category Fire Service Response 177 3.1 Up to 54% reduction in response time to reach school/park EMS Response 177 3.1 Up to 54% reduction in response time to reach school/park CCSO Service Response 391 1 1.7 Up to 20% reduction in response time to reach school/park Totals - Primary Criteria 0 2 Zv . 8 Benefits Evaluation Secondary Criteria NA (0) Low (1) Medium (2) High (3) B/O Parcels eig ted Parcels Miles Saved per Trip Comments Total Score Personal Mobility Reduced Trip Length 2 391 782 1.7 Evacuation 2 391 782 1.7 Improved Access to Public Facilities Schools 2 53 106 1.9 Parks 2 391 782 1.7 Traffic Patterns/Route Choice Reduce Existing Congestion 1 391 391 Reduction in traffic on 54th Ave. NE Alternative Routes Created 1 391 391 Totals -Secondary Criteria 2 8 0 Avg. 335 Avg. 539 Ratio 1.61 > 1.0 = 25%; >1.0 to 1.5 = 50%; >1.5 =75% 75% 10 Negative Impacts Evaluation Criteria NA (0) Low Medium High (4) (-2) (-3) B Parcels Comments Total Score Neighborhoods Directly Impacted 70 On 62nd Ave. between Everglades Blvd and 40th St. NE Ext. Increased Traffic (Automobile) 70 Increased traffic on 62nd Ave. NE E and W of bridge Increased Traffic (Trucks) 0 70 Increased Cut-Thru Traffic 0 70 Surrounding Neighborhoods 82 Parcels at south end of 40th St. NE and 62nd Ave NE east of 40th St. NE Increased Traffic (Automobile) 82 Increased Traffic (Trucks) 82 Increased Cut-Thru Traffic 82 Totals 152 Total Parcels Impacted -3 Planning Cost Estimates Design/Permitting' $295,988 10% Bridge $791,625 $6,333 125 Roadway/Sidewalk2 $2,168,250 $1,770,000 1.225 Right -of -Way $16,855 Total Project $3,272,718 1 Does not include mitigation East of CR-951 Bridges Reevaluations Study APPENDIX F Agency Support Letters & Email r County Administrative Services Department Emergency Medical Services division November 16, 2020 Lorraine Lantz, Principal Planner 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive, Suite #103 Naples, Florida 34104 Dear Lorraine: This letter is to inform you that I am in support of the following proposed bridges within the Golden Gate Estates area: • Bridge # 4-47t" Avenue NE • Bridge #8-13t" Street NW • Bridge #10-1St Street SW • Bridge #11-12t" Avenue SE • Bridge #12-62nd Avenue NE I have been involved in the study of this project, have attended public meetings and reviewed the proposed locations in detail. The above noted locations will assist EMS in gaining access to areas to improve response times. Thank you for allowing EMS to be part of this process. If you need any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Tabatha Butcher, Chief Collier County EMS 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway, Suite 267, Naples FL 34113 Phone: 239-252-3740 Fax: 239-252-3298 Email: ems.admin@colliercountyfl.gov GRg 11'k'.R \ �IPf E.9 / � GREATER NAPLES FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM Nr RESCVF' TM DATE: December 7, 2020 TO: Kingman Schuldt, Fire Chief FROM: J. Nolan Sapp, Asst. Fire Chief SUBJECT: Greater Naples Fire Rescue District Bridge Ranking As discussed, please find my notes from our Bridge discussion. The following bridges were discussed and ranked as a level of importance as they stand proposed today to the District. • Bridge #1 — 23rd St. SW — This bridge location has marginal benefit. It is not a priority. It helps some with connectivity but other streets could be just as, or even more beneficial. 19th St. SW was mentioned as a potential location that might be marginally better. • Bridge #10 —Wilson Blvd. S. —This bridge location would provide a connection to Tobias. This location is good. It provides better access and secondary escape routes for the area to the south which is crucial during Wild Fire season. Currently only one way into the area. • Bridge #9 — 16th St. SE — This bridge may be more helpful in the future, but not now. Frangipani and Woodland are not passable at this time therefore the bridge does not help with access and/or connectivity. • Bridge #I I — IOth Ave. SE — This is a key bridge for the District. The elementary school on 1 Oth serves as a staging area for fire services during wildfires and is where trucks fill - up with water. This location will help with access and evacuation between Everglades and Desoto. This is an important bridge location. • Bridge #8 — North End of 13th St. NW — There is a small bridge there now. The property to the north of this bridge is owned by Collier County Public School (intended for a High School) and Collier County Park and Recreation (intended for a park). It is likely that there will be an agreement and the adjacent property directly to the north will become a park. Design of that park has not been completed, but if the Fire District does not have direct access to VBR Ext. and they have to navigate through the park or park parking lot, their response times will decrease and the bridge has less benefit to them. Similarly, we would not like to see any gate or limitation on our access to VBR Ext. Professionalism — Integrity — Compassion Page 1 of 1 Collier County Government Attn: Ms. Lorraine M. Lantz, AICP Principal Planner 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive, Suite #103 Naples, FL.34104 RE: East of CR-951 Re-evaluation Bridge Study Based on the analyses and information provided by the County's study (virtual meeting conducted with us on Friday, November 20, 2020), it appears the District realizes response time/service improvements with the bridges located at: 1. 471h Avenue NE (Map reference #4 in the study), 2. Wilson Blvd. North (Map reference #5 in the study), and 3. 62"d Ave. NE (Map reference #12 in the study). As such, the District supports placing the aforementioned three bridges into a higher tier/priority listing for construction. Regarding the two (2) bridges located 18" Ave. NE (Wilson Ave. & 8th St. NE and 8th Street NE & 16th St. NE), and as detailed in the study, there is minimal, if any response time/service improvements for the District. As such, the District supports placing the aforementioned two bridges into a lower tier/priority listing for construction. If we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to email or call. Respectfully, Sal A. D'Angelo III, Ph.D. Executive Director/Emergency Management NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT 1885 Veterans Park Drive Naples, FL 34109 . (239) 597-3222 . northcollierfire.com BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS M. James Burke . James A. Calamari . Christopher L. Crossan . Norman E. Feder . J. Christopher Lombardo From: Thad Rhodes - 2304<Thad.Rhodes @colIiersheriff.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 9:25 AM To: LantzLorraine <Lorraine.Lantz@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Perry, Jeff <Jeff. Perry@sta ntec.com > Subject: RE: CCSO - District 4 Bridges I'm sorry, yes ma'am I was referring to Bridge #12. Thank you. Thad From: LantzLorraine <Lorraine.Lantz@col liercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:39 PM To: Thad Rhodes - 2304 <Thad.Rhodes@col liersheriff.org> Cc: Perry, Jeff <Jeff.Perry@stantec.com> Subject: RE: CCSO - District 4 Bridges Lt. Rhodes, I just wanted to clarify, you stated below that: Bridge number 2 rounded out our top 5. My notes indicate that you were referring to bridge #12 at 62"d Ave. NE. We did not discuss Bridge #2 (located at 16t" St. NE) because it will be constructed in FY2021 and is outside of this funding source. Thank you, Lorraine Lorraine M. Lantz, AICP Principal Planner Collier County Capital Projects, Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management From: Thad Rhodes - 2304<Thad.Rhodes @colIiersheriff.org> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 1:08 PM To: LantzLorraine <Lorraine.Lantz@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Perry, Jeff <Jeff. Perry@sta ntec.com > Subject: RE: CCSO - District 4 Bridges Good Afternoon Lorraine and Jeff, I hope this email finds you both well. Hoping you both had an amazing Thanksgiving. I wanted to reach out in regards to the Bridges we discussed in depth last week. I spoke with the Troops on Patrol and wanted to get their feedback in regards to the importance of the Bridges and what ones would provide better response times to our community members. All stated Bridge #4, 47th Ave, was needed the most. This would allow them to traverse easier to calls for service for calls on Everglades Blvd north of Oil Well Rd. Bridge number 11 was rated as the second most needed Bridge. The Troops felt this would be beneficial for them to get to Desoto off of Everglades. Bridge number 6&7 were next on the list. Again this would allow for quicker response times in that area. Bridge number 8 was one they feel needs to be done as well. Bridge number 2 rounded out our top 5. These 5 were the most consistent between all shifts. Troops further stated a Bridge on 34th Ave SE would be a great place for a bridge in the future. This would give additional Fire Route or re-route in case of accidents. All of the Bridges we discussed are needed and will be beneficial for not only Law Enforcement but for Fire and EMS as well. Please let me know if this email will work for you. Should you need me to do further I would be more than happy. Lt. Thad Rhodes Collier County Sheriffs Office District Commander Golden Gate Estates Office: 239-252-9252 (ext 4252) Cell:239-253-4958 Email: Thad.Rhodes@colliersheriff.org Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report January 2021 Prepared for: Collier County, Florida Prepared by: Stantec Quest Corporation of America (Quest) Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Table of Contents 1.0 PROJECT AND MEETING BACKGROUND 2.0 AGENCY STAKEHOLDER MEETING 3.0 PUBLIC BRIDGESHED MEETINGS 3.1 Notification process 3.2 Meeting details 3.3 Presentation slides 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 MEETING FOR BRIDGE #1 (23RD ST SW) Invitees and attendees Poll responses Analysis slides Questions and comments MEETING FOR BRIDGES #4 (47T" AVE NE) AND #12 (62ND AVE NE) Invitees and attendees Poll responses Analysis slides Questions and comments MEETING FOR BRIDGE #5 Invitees and attendees Poll responses Analysis slides Questions and comments ILSON BLVD N Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 7.0 MEETING FOR BRIDGE #8 (NORTH END OF 13T" ST NW) 7.1 Invitees and attendees 7.2 Poll responses 7.3 Analysis slides 7.4 Questions and comments 8.0 MEETING FOR BRIDGES #6 (8T" AVE NE) AND #7 (18T" AVE N 8.1 Invitees and attendees 8.2 Poll responses 8.3 Analysis slides 8.4 Questions and comments 9.0 MEETING FOR BRIDGE #11 (10T" AVE SE) 9.1 Invitees and attendees 9.2 Poll responses 9.3 Analysis slides 9.4 Questions and comments 10.0 MEETING FOR BRIDGES #9 (16T" ST SE) AND #10 (WILSON BLVD S) 10.1 Invitees and attendees 10.2 Poll responses 10.3 Analysis slides 10.4 Questions and comments 11.0 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT/LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM FIRST RESPONDERS Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 1.0 PROJECT AND MEETING BACKGROUND In 2008, Collier County conducted an East of CR 951 Bridges Study, which ultimately recommended 12 new bridge locations for canal crossings within the Golden Gate Estates Area. Although the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the bridges, funding was not immediately available for their completion. In 2018, a 1% infrastructure surtax was approved by voter referendum, creating a revenue source for the bridges. By 2020 Bridge No. 3 had been completed as part of an FDOT project and Bridge No. 2 was in progress with funds from the infrastructure surtax. Before proceeding with construction of the remaining 10 bridges, the BCC asked staff for a reevaluation of the bridge locations to determine if they remained priorities. A GIS analysis of each bridge location was conducted to evaluate the benefits and negative impacts a new bridge would have on the surrounding area. The project team conducted interviews with agency stakeholders and collected/analyzed transportation data. The team took the project one step beyond the 2008 study by hosting informational meetings with area property owners to solicit their feedback. A total of seven meetings were hosted to discuss the 10 remaining bridge locations. This report summarizes the outreach prior to, and basic information shared during those meetings. It then provides the notification area, data analysis, engagement statistics, and comments received for each meeting. At the conclusion of the study, the project team conducted a final briefing with each of the stakeholder agencies. Agency support correspondence is included at the end of this report. Additionally, the planning team reached out to the president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association (GGEACA) to discuss the study's findings and conclusions. Meeting notes that include a summary of the discussion with the GGEACA are also included at the end of this report. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 2.0 AGENCY STAKEHOLDER MEETING Prior to the bridgeshed meetings, agency stakeholders participated in a preliminary meeting. The project team presented the basic introduction for the public meetings and invited agency stakeholders to provide their comments in advance of the public meetings. The agency stakeholders were also invited to attend and participate in the public meetings. Meeting Organizer, Panelist, and Agency Stakeholder Invitation List Name Title/Job Description Department/Organization Tabatha Butcher Chief - EMS Bureau of Emergency Services Nick Casalanguida Deputy County Manager Collier County Government, County Manager's Office Wendy Chaffee Sherriff's Office Assistant Collier County Sheriff's Office Nicole Chesser Office of the Fire Chief Greater Naples Fire Rescue District Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Collier County Government, Growth Management Department Connie Deane Community Liaison/PIO Communication & Customer Relations Omar DeLeon Public Transit Manager Collier County Government, Collier Area Transit Tom Eastman Director of Interagency, Real Collier County Public Schools Property, etc... Michelle Edwards -Arnold Division Director - Public Collier County Government, Collier Transit and Neighborhood Area Transit Enhancement Lt. Joe Ellis District 4 - Commander Collier County Sheriff's Office Sue Filson Executive Aide Collier County Government Lori Freiburg Fire Chief's Assistant North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Desiree Hart Growth Management Communication & Customer Relations Dept.(GMD) John Kasten Director of Transportation Collier County Public Schools Lisa Koehler Big Cypress Basin South Florida Water Management Administrator District Miranda Lansdale Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Dan Lammers Transportation Administrative Collier County Public Schools Services Lorraine Lantz Principal Planner/Project Collier County Government, Manager Transportation Planning Lt. Gary Martin District 2 - Commander Collier County Sheriff's Office Yvonne McClellan Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Comm. Bill McDaniel Commissioner, District 5 Collier County Government Mike Ramsey President Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association Jeff Perry Project Consultant Stantec Chief Ricardo Fire Chief North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Michelle Scavone Operations Coordinator Collier County Government, Growth Management Department Chief Kingman Schuldt Fire Chief Greater Naples Fire Rescue District Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Collier County Government, Manager Transportation Planning Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 3.0 PUBLIC BRIDGESHED MEETINGS 3.1 Notification Process The meeting dates, times and bridge locations were posted to the project webpage (https://www.colliercounty.fl.gov/vour-government/divisions-s-z/transportation-planning/planning- studies). The technical consultant (Stantec) determined the properties within each bridgeshed. The public involvement consultant (Quest) pulled those properties from the Collier County Property Appraiser's records to create a database, which was used to mail meeting notifications that were customized for each meeting/bridge location. As a follow-up to the mailing, Quest hand -delivered secondary notifications to the same properties. Webpage meeting information Meeting Date and Time Presentation Material ZFrc_Vcu at -?.Ju P.M. 23rd 5t_ SW Presentation Link to Presentation Recording 9129120 at 5:30 p.m. 47thAve. NE and 62nd Ave. NE Presentation Link to Presentation Recording 9130120 at 5:30 p_m_ Wilson Blvd. N. Presentation Link to Presentation Recording 1011120 at 5:30 p.m. 13th St. NW Presentation Link to Presentation Recording 1016120 at 5:30 p_m_ 18thAve. NE Bridge Presentations Link to Presentation Recording 1OM20 at 5:30 p.m. 10th Ave. SE Presentation Link to Presentation Recording 1018120 at 5:30 p_m_ 16th St. SE and Wilson Blvd. S. Presentations Link to Presentation Recording Bridge # Bridge Location 1 23rd. St. SW (south of Golden Gate Blvd.) 4 47thAve. NE and and 12 62nd Ave. NE 5 Wilson Blvd. N. 8 North end of 13th St. NW 6 18thAve. NE (Wilson Ave. and 8th St NE) and and 7 16thAve. NE (8th St. NE and 16th St. NE) 11 10th Ave. SE 9 16th St SE and and 10 Wilson Blvd. S Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Sample notification flyer Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report :4' PROJECT: 9rldga Roevaluaelon Study, Ease of CR 951 You are irwited to attend a virtual public meeting to learn about the proposed bridge at 23rd St. S, south of Golden Gata Boulevard. This informational meeting is designed to tell you more about the project and the study reevaluating the benefits of and justification for ten (10) new bridges in Golden Gate Estates, originally approved in 2009 as part of the East of 951 Horizon Study for Bridges. Following these meetings, staff will present the findings to the County Commission for approval to move forward with engineering and design. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS This projectwill Improve traffic mobirity and access to services in thearea such as schools. parks. public libraries and businesses by shortening commute distances. New roadway connections will improve evacuation routes, decrease emergency response ti mes fo r f i re. emergency services and law enforcement so they may quickly respond to urgent situations, and will reduce overall travel times. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Invitees were instructed to register for the session. Confirmation emails provided the "join meeting" link to registrants, and reminder emails were sent to registrants one day prior to the meeting and one hour prior to the meeting. 3.2 Meeting details Each virtual public meeting was hosted at 5:30 p.m. on GoToWebinar and included a project background, overview, bridgeshed analysis, and question and answer session. Four polls were also activated during each meeting. A video recording of each public bridgeshed meeting was posted to the project webpage. 3.3 Presentation slides The following slides (with a modification to the title slide and Quest participants on the Introductions slide) were presented during each meeting, to provide and introduction to the presentation, the history and background of the previous 2008 study, and the purpose of the 2020 study. Bridge # 1 - 231d St. SW Neighborhood Information Meeting September 23, 2020 Cotbe-r County Presentation Agenda 1 Introductions 2 History & Background 3 Purpose of the Study 4 5tudy Process 5 Analysis of Bridge # 1 V Next Steps & Questions ® Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Ityou did not have the opportunity to ask a question Way, you can submit your questions/comments to 601T1Uine.Lantz®colllercountvTl.aav or call 239-252-577%y`� Included as part of the public participatlon process. 7 C*'c°"'P""""'° Switth MCI..hnns °puter and options here Thewebinarpr available in PDF format with other project materials at http://colliercountyfl.gov/K)Iant)lngstudles. You will remain muted during the Ming, GoToWebinar History & Background In August 2008, Collier County completed the East of 951 Horizon Study for Bridges (2008 Study). We would like to know if you are familiar with that study. ® Stantec 2 History & Background The 2008 Study was conducted to evaluate opportunities to construct missing bridge connections in the Golden Gate Estates Area roadway network. • Within the 85 square miles of eastern Golden Gate Estates there are more than 300 dead-end streets. ® Stantec 2 History & Background The 2008 Study considered potential transportation circulation benefits: • Improving connectivity to collectors and arterials • Reducing trip length for personal travel • Improving evacuation routes • Reducing response times for first responders • Improving access to schools, libraries, and parks ® Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 23rd St. SW (south of Golden Gate Blvd.} 16th St. ME (north of Golden Gate Blvd.) M St. ME [north of Golden Gate Blvd.) 471h Ave. ME (between lrrLrnoki3lee Rd. & Everglades Blvd.) Wilsan Blvd. N (south of 33rd Ave- NE) I 8th Ave- ME (between W-1son Ave- & 6th St. NEJ 18th Ave. ME (between 8th St. ME & 16th St. ME) North End of 13th St- N VV [north of Golden Go to Blvd.) 16th $t- SE [south of Golden Gore Blvd-] Wilson Blvd. S (south of Golden Gate Blvd.) I Oth Ave. SE (between Everglades Blvd. & Desoto Blvd.) 62nd Ave. NE (between Everglades Blvd. and 4011 St. ME) ED LI-d Et Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report . 3 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this 2020 Reevaluation Study is to reconfirm the validity of the remaining 10 recommended bridge locafions before moving the bridge projects into production (design, permitting & construction). ® Stantec 3 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this 2020 Reevaluation Study is to reconfirm the validity of the remaining 10 recommended bridge locations before moving the bridge projects into production (design, permitting & construction). ® Stantec 3 Purpose of the Study This 2020 Reevaluation Study focused on the same important criteria considered in the original 2008 Study. ® Stantec 3 Purpose of the Study The 2008 Study Criteria Included: • Improved connectivity to collectors and arterials (route choice) • Reduced trip length for personal travel • Improved evacuation routes • Reduced response times for first responders • Improved access to schools, libraries, and parks ® Stantec 3 Purpose of the Study The Transportation Planning Team interviewed the some agency stakeholders from the 2008 Study: • Collier County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) • Emergency Services Division (EMS) • North Collier Fire Control & Rescue District • Greater Naples Fire & Rescue District • Collier County Public School District ® Stantec 3 Purpose of the Study All the agencies interviewed reconfirmed the importance of the bridge locations that were recommended in the original 2008 Study. 5 Stantec . 3 Purpose of the Study The Transportation Planning Team also recognized that over time, the ownership of some of the properties along the dead-end roads leading to the new bridges would likely have changed since the 2008 Study. ® Stantec 3 Purpose of the Study A notice of this meeting was mailed to property owners along the affected roadways, supplemented by door-to- door visits. We would like to know how you heard about this meeting. ® Stantec 3 Purpose of the Study This neighborhood presentation is intended to provide the affected landowners with: • The history & background of the bridges • The Reevaluation Study findings • The latest information about the bridge projects • An opportunity to ask questions and provide comments ® Stantec 4 Study Process The study process established nine "Bridge -Sheds" with boundaries that recognized those parcels likely to benefit from a new bridge. ® Stantec 4 Study Process Analysts conducted a Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis of each Bridge -Shed to: • Quantify the number of affected parcels, and • Measure the benefits derived from a new bridge ® Stantec 4 Study Process The GIS analysis quantified the number of existing homes (2019) and the total number of parcels (Build -Out) in each Bridge -Shed. ® Stantec 4 Study Process Within each Bridge -Shed, the GIS analysis established and measured representative travel routes for different trip purposes (e.g., route to reach an arterial roadway), with and without a new bridge. ® Stantec 4 Study Process For each trip purpose, the GIS analysis quantified the number of homes in 2019 and at Build -Out in each Bridge - Shed that would benefit from the reduced trip length because of the new bridge. ® Stantec 4 Study Process The Residential Trip Purposes examined included: • Travel to reach the arterial network • Travel to school(s) • Travel to commercial/retail • Travel to parks ® Stantec 4 Study Process The Agency Trip Purposes examined included: • Fire Department Response • Sheriff's Office (CCSO) Response • Emergency Medical Service Response • Access to Future Schools ® Stantec 4 Study Process The study also included a supplemental Fire District analysis to determine if any parcels currently not within the Insurance Services Office (ISO) 5-mile drive distance from a fire station (Public Protection Classification Score of 3), would be included if a new bridge was constructed. ® Stantec 5 Bridge Project Prototype As mentioned previously, Bridge #3 on 8t" St. NE was recently constructed and will serve as the prototypical bridge project for the remaining 10 bridges. — - ® Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Slides presenting an analysis of the bridgeshed on which the meeting was focused appeared between the slides shown above and below. These analysis slides have been included for each meeting in their respective sections of this report. 6 Questions? ✓ Send Written Comments to Lorraine Lantz, AICP: - . . - • • `aiiLei. • Collier County Transports ion 71a`nning 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34104 • 239.252.5779 ® Stantec 6 Questions? ✓ Visit the Project Website described below and in the notice for this meeting to download project materials, back-up materials, meeting presentations, etc. ® Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 4.0 MEETING FOR BRIDGE #1 (23RD STREET SW) ON SEPTEMBER 23RD 4.1 Invitees and attendees Meeting notifications were mailed to 209 site addresses and property owner addresses within the highlighted areas. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Attendance Conversion Clicked Registration Link Registrants MENIqC Attendees -41 -- _- 75 100 Meeting Organizers, Panelists and Agency Stakeholders in Attendance Name Title/Job Description Department/Organization Lt. Joe Ellis District 4 - Commander Collier County Sheriff's Office Miranda Lansdale Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Lorraine Lantz Principal Planner/Project Manager Collier County Government, Transportation Planning Yvonne McClellan Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Comm. Bill McDaniel Commissioner, District 5 Collier County Government Jeff Perry Project Consultant Stantec Chief Kingman Schuldt Fire Chief Greater Naples Fire Rescue District Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Collier County Government, Transportation Planning Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Public Attendees Alejandro Arreguin, arreguin23@hotmail.com Charlotte Beneteau, hmpetset@hotmail.com Jack Bowers, innerspacelc@earthlink.net Sharon Brimmer, ks rimmer@vahoo.com Ernest Byrge, ibyrge@icloud.com Dottie Hazell, kdkhazell@embargmail.com Julie Hill, kenmarkfla@aol.com Barry Hoey, barrv@swflluxury.com Anton Jacobson, iakes68@embargmail.com Irina Kislyanka, email@reoteamfLcom Fred Landgraf, flandgraf@flandgraf.net Fritz Lemoine, miriamlem@hotmail.com TJ Meister, tmeister78@comcast.net Ron Mosher, ronmosher@mac.com 4.2 Poll responses M. R., littlmonstr@embargmail.com Cathleen Randolph,yahtzee200@aol.com Robert Randolph, ss327chevy@aol.com James Robinson, jimrinflorida@msn.com Donna Sadler, pschuck@centurylink.net Audrey Sanders, audsanders@gmail.com Judy Schwarzwaelder, naplesies@embargmail.com Doug Short, dshort631@gmail.com Samantha Spiliadis, samanthaspiliadis@gmail.com Aimee Trochessett, atrochessett@gmail.com Duane Trochessett, comichazi@gmail.com John Whetzal, smsgtilw53@gmail.com 1 of 4. Were you familiar with the previous East of CR 951 Horizon Study for Bridges? Multiple choice with single answer 36.36% 8 Responses 63.64% 14 Responses 2 of 4. Did you know about the county's 1-cent infrastructure surtax that was approved in 2018? Multiple choice with single answer 60% 15 Responses 40% 10 Responses Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 3 of 4. How did you hear about this meeting? Multiple choice with multiple answers 45.83% 11 Responses 54.17% r-to 13 Responses 12.5% `from a friend 3 Responses 12.5% other 3 Responses 4 of 4. Which of the following are most important to you? Multiple choice with multiple answers 60% Improved connectivity to collector an rial roads 9 Responses 66.67% reduced trip length for personal travel 10 Responses 66.67% wroved evacuation routes ' 10 Responses 73.33% w9d response times for firs 11 Responses 53.33% and parks 8 Responses 4.3 Analysis slides 5 Analysis of Bridge #1 23,1 St. SW, North of White Blvd. i Galacn Galc Eh•d. - - tr k 10 Location of Bridge # 1 ® Stantec Jr Analysis of Bridge #1 23rd St. SW, North of White Blvd. J, ,Whit Blvd. lr _ 611 Location of 6rid4eT and White Blvd. intersection ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #1 231d St. SW, Norjh•c�L:&Fif—B". 'L U I Location of Bridge #1: Existing Condition ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #1 231d St. SW, North of White Blvd. Location of Bridge #1 : Proposed Condition ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #1 231d St. SW, North of White Blvd. The Bridge # 1 Project Includes the Following Improvements: • Resurfacing 23rd St. SW from Golden Gate Blvd. to White Blvd. (+/- 1.12 miles) • Adding paved shoulders from Golden Gate Blvd. to White Blvd. • Adding a Sidewalk along one side of roadway from Golden Gate Blvd. to White Blvd. ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #1 23,d St. SW, North of White Blvd. The Design will Include: • Evaluating the need for intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes, traffic signal, etc.) at the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd. and 23rd St. SW • Evaluating potential improvements to the intersection of White Blvd. and 23rd St. SW 4 Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report ■ 5 Analysis of Bridge #1 23'11 St. SW, North of White Blvd. The trip length and housing unit data was put into a worksheet to quantify the benefits realized with a new bridge. Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #1 23rd St. SW, North of White Blvd. Jr Analysis of Bridge #1 23rd St. SW, North of White Blvd. The number W gallons of fuel saved with a new bridge ® Stantec Analysis of Bridge #1 231d St. SW, North of White Blvd. ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge 23,11 St. SW, North of White Blvd. 5 Analysis of Bridge #1 23rd St. SW. North of White Blvd. Potential Benefits Include: • Increase in route choice options for public agencies, and 1,002 current residences (1,238 at buildout) • Shorter trip lengths for some residents • Shorter trip lengths for some Fire, EMS & CCSO responses ® Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 4.4 Questions and comments Attendees had the opportunity to type in questions or comments throughout the session. After the presentation concluded, the project team read and answered questions aloud. First Name Last Name Email Address Question Asked Why was the bridge No. 1 removed Arreguin Alejandro arreguin23@hotmai.com in 2012? If this bridge is constructed, how Beneteau Charlotte hmpetset@hotmail.com will the drainage now be directed? If we as residents do not want this bridge, how do we go about Beneteau Charlotte hmpetset@hotmail.com obtaining a petition to present to the board? Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report What right do we have as property owners on 23rd St SW to have this Brimmer Sharon ks—brimmer@yahoo.com stopped? It will greatly reduce the quality and safety of our neighborhood. Do the commissioners have the Brimmer Sharon ks—brimmer@yahoo.com right to vote this down? Wouldn't changing White Blvd to 4 Brimmer Sharon ks—brimmer@yahoo.com lanes make a lot more sense than this bridge? What studies have been conducted as to what the effects of increased crime would be for effected Brimmer Sharon ks—brimmer@yahoo.com residence. We have lived on 23rd St SW for 30 years and never had any crime until the temporary bridge project was underway. Has there been a study conducted as to the effect on the property Brimmer Sharon ks—brimmer@yahoo.com values of the residents of 23rd St SW. Where do we get a copy of both Brimmer Sharon ks—brimmer@yahoo.com studies? Since the main choice of improvement was improved first responder times doesn't it make sense to start with bridges that Brimmer Sharon ks—brimmer@yahoo.com improved times by 10 minutes verses the 1/2 mile improvement that your study shows for the 23rd St project? Will all bridges be scrutinized before Brimmer Sharon ks—brimmer@yahoo.com any bridges move forward with construction? What was the traffic count when Brimmer Sharon ks—brimmer@yahoo.com the temporary bridge was in during the White Blvd bridge project? Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Hill Julie kenmarkfla@aol.com I know this would be figured out during the engineering, but how is this going to affect the new curve at White and 23rd? Also, would they need to install a signal at that same intersection? Hi there, we live on 23rd St SW, address 1525, currently if we need to go to town, we need to go north to White Blvd, then south and west to get to town. If we are going north west, we can use 25th St SW, 27th St SW, 29th St SW or 31st St SW to get from White to Golden Gate Blvd. If we are going north east, we can go across 161h St, then north on 13th St SW through Golden Gate Blvd, right by the Fire Dept and library. Looking at a map, does it not make more sense for the County to instead look at Hoey Barry Barry@SWFLLuxury.Com connecting 16th St with Greene? Not only does it make sense from looking on a map, it shortens the distance considerably for all of us going west, or southwest towards town, or south to Marco Island. on our street already we have many issues, where many use it as a speedway, and adding this bridge will only add to the speedway, unless restrictions similar to 13th St SW are added. As a lay person, mechanical engineer by trade now working as a Realtor, connecting 16th St West would make most sense. Barry Hoey White Blvd is already a bottleneck, especially in the mornings without Hoey Barry Barry@SWFLLuxury.Com adding additional traffic from the north. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Already on 23rd St SW speedway, we have many trucks using Jake Break / Exhaust break. Sorry, but there is no benefit for people on Hoey Barry Barry@SWFLLuxury.Com 23rd St SW, south of the proposed bridge. Not sure why we are not looking at the elephantin the room, a direct connection going west from 16th Ave. County Commissioners are not going to listen to us, been there Hoey Barry Barry@SWFLLuxury.Com done that with the mask mandate Why are we not asking about a Hoey Barry Barry@SWFLLuxury.Com connection between Green and 16th Ave? Thanks Which side of 23rd St SW is most likely to have a sidewalk? Can a sidewalk be considered on both Hoey Barry Barry@SWFLLuxury.Com sides if it were to improve 23rd St SW to help compensate for what will happen with traffic, etc.? I meant south of the bridge if a Hoey Barry Barry@SWFLLuxury.Com sidewalk on both sides can be considered for 23rd St SW? Also, is it possible to have Jake Brakes / Exhaust Brakes banned on 23rd St SW resulting from the Hoey Barry Barry@SWFLLuxury.Com additional traffic which will happen without having a street running east west from 16th Ave to Greene? Hoey Barry Barry@SWFLLuxury.Com White is congested. I have seen illegal use of roads by Hoey Barry Barry@SWFLLuxury.Com use of trucks to and from a quarry that is being accessed via 10th St SE Thanks for taking all the questions Hoey Barry Barry@SWFLLuxury.Com Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Thanks again for taking the time to do this, thanks also to the lady from the county who stopped by our home to give us a heads up about Hoey Barry Barry@SWFLLuxury.Com the meeting, and the proposed bridge. (my alternative is an East West connector between 16th Ave and Greene) There is access on 25t". We do not Jacobson Anton Jakes68@embarqmail.com need a bridge. IN 2012 THE TRAFFIFF WAS HORRIBLE. THERE IS NOT A SUBSTATIONAL Jacobson Anton Jakes68@embarqmail.com NEED. YOU SAID IT We purchased on a dead end for a Jacobson Anton Jakes68@embarqmail.com reason. traffic. No Bridge. What about traffic from Keane avenue. Farm, semis, multiple lawn maintenance and tree companies. I Jacobson Anton Jakes68@embarqmail.com have seen these come out of there in 2012. There are other ways for commercial vehicles to reach Golden Gate Blvd. Who is going to replace our property values? I wanted quiet Jacobson Anton Jakes68@embarqmail.com and peaceful and quiet on a dead- end street. Kislyanka Irina email@reoteamfl.com will it be recorded? Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com no Are you aware of the severe Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com congestion currently caused by the school? You said previously that the response time was not significant so you can't use that as an argument. Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com How would it be a benefit if the traffic congestion actually increased? Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Are you aware of which direction the majority of people travel who Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com go down White Blvd, and Golden Gate Blvd? If you take out of the equation that emergency and law enforcement (since you stated it was Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com insignificant) how would that change the equation for the utility of using 23rd St bridge? Is this just an FYI or do our Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com comments actually make a difference? Has a traffic count been done on Golden Gate? If so, when traffic Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com reaches 951, which direction does it go? It is 12 years since that study. If funding is an issue, isn't a new Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com study, not basing it on the old study seem more reasonable? Unless you have any NEW information and studies, it seems to me that all that is being done is wasting money reviewing old data and not looking at how traffic flow Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com now is significantly different than was done in 2008. Do you have any information supporting creating a bridge on 23rd St NOW rather than a different location that wasn't looked at in 2008? So, it seems to me unless you have data done now that you do not really know how traffic flows in the Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com Golden Gate area. Do you have any current data showing you are aware of traffic utilization in the area? To add to the last question most Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com traffic goes south, NOT north Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Thank you Commissioner for clarification on the stage we are in, but the committee stated it was Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com NOT a study to see what was needed, but rather was there any benefit to the old study concerning the bridges. So again, my question is, since EMS, First responders, etc. would NOT benefit significantly from a bridge across 23rd St, if that is taken out of the equation and instead add the burden of traffic currently on White Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com and Golden Gate Blvd and how improving the flow of traffic would help with evacuation is another location that would divert traffic down Vanderbilt actually improve those concerns? Sorry hard to type... in other words wouldn't it be better to divert traffic Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com to Vanderbilt rather than put increased traffic on Golden Gate? People don't go east Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com Yes, correct Will traffic count be utilized in the Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com upcoming studies? If so, what areas would be looked Lemoine Fritz miriamlem@hotmail.com at? tj meister from23rd wants to know what is the major factor for this bridge? fire and library are on 13. meister tj tmeister78@comcast.net schools are all east or south of 23rd for those homes south of canal for bridge 1. meister tj tmeister78@comcast.net you are wrong. No one north wants the bridge. please don't state that. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Why is there none or for us on 23rd meister tj tmeister78@comcast.net north of canal wanting a quiet road for our kids There is a pass through white to the meister tj tmeister78@comcast.net Blvd one street over. That is in accurate. That is why we meister tj tmeister78@comcast.net bought on 23rd and not on a thru street. A bridge on 23rd St SW will also increase the amount of vehicles meister tj tmeister78@comcast.net going by an elementary school which creates more chance a child could get injured. on that question, houses were not meister tj tmeister78@comcast.net set back for a road of that size How is the evacuation route for south of the canal better when the meister m tj tmeister78@comcast.net evacuation route is 175 which is on Pine Ridge/White? meister tj tmeister78@comcast.net not landfill, the quarry pit on 7th Everyone on 23rd wants a quiet street and there is a cut through on White and Blvd on 25th one street meister tj tmeister78@comcast.net over. We lived here during the temp bridge and my kids couldn't enjoy our lot and people sped excessively. You will literally cause more traffic meister tj tmeister78@comcast.net in front of Big Cypress and should include that in your study. The 2008 study did not include Mosher Ron ronmosher@mac.com bridge one in that study, what changed? Why does the road have to run from the area of the land fill all the Mosher Ron ronmosher@mac.com way north? Also, this will change the area, we will get a ton of commercial traffic. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report You will need to widen this part of Mosher Ron ronmosher@mac.com the road north of the canal This bridge is not seen as a benefit Mosher Ron ronmosher@mac.com to us. We don't want to live on an busy two-way thru street Why go south to a restricted two - Mosher Ron ronmosher@mac.com lane road when I have a four lane roadway to use? What would be the timeline for this Mosher Ron ronmosher@mac.com bridge to be built? The road only has 9-foot traffic Mosher Ron ronmosher@mac.com lanes; now it needs to be widened. The bridge was not included in the Mosher Ron ronmosher@mac.com 2008 bridge study. The original plan when you first promoted this bridge was to go Mosher Ron ronmosher@mac.com from the area of the landfill to Vanderbilt Beach Road. We needed to have a traffic signal before when we had the temporary Mosher Ron ronmosher@mac.com bridge and the extra commercial vehicles on the street How wide is a traffic lane required Mosher Ron ronmosher@mac.com by traffic engineering? I have been on Bch St NW and the Mosher Ron ronmosher@mac.com traffic lanes are wider than what we have now did I miss it, was 23rd St NW ever R M littlmonstr@embarqmail.com considered for getting a bridge? Is part of the plan with the 23rd SW Randolph Cathleen yahtzee200@aol.com bridge to include sidewalks and street lights? Is there a plan to install a traffic light at the intersection of 23rd St Randolph Cathleen yahtzee200@aol.com SW and Golden Gate? It is already difficult to get onto Golden Gate since there is no traffic light on Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Golden Gate from 23rd St. SW. If not, how is this going to improve the traffic flow? Is this going to improve my property Randolph Cathleen yahtzee200@aol.com value? How is this going to improve my Randolph Cathleen yahtzee200@aol.com property value, sorry. Someone needs to do a traffic study at peak work times in order to see how traffic is backed up on White Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd in order to Randolph Cathleen yahtzee200@aol.com convince me that adding a bridge is going to improve traffic flow for those traveling to and from work at peak times. What I think needs to be taken into consideration is that there is no break in the traffic flow from Wilson Blvd. onto Golden Gate, so when Randolph Cathleen yahtzee200@aol.com attempting to get onto Golden Gate now it's very difficult to get onto Golden Gate during peak times. Add a bridge and the problem will only increase. I second the comment about the Randolph Cathleen yahtzee200@aol.com speedway on 23rd St. SW. Was there ever a bridge on 23rd St. Randolph Cathleen yahtzee200@aol.com SW connecting to White Blvd? Will there be a weight restriction for Randolph Cathleen yahtzee200@aol.com the bridge? How many properties east of 23rd Randolph Cathleen yahtzee200@aol.com St. SW were taken into consideration for these bridges? Robinson James jimrinflorida@msn.com The audio is awful. Is 23rd ST SW going to widened to Robinson James jimrinflorida@msn.com Golden Gate Blvd? Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Will city water be run down 23rd St Robinson James jimrinflorida@msn.com SW if road is improved? If you are building the bridge for 23rd St SW residents, we don't want Robinson James jimrinflorida@msn.com it. 2 miles extra to get to Pine Ridge is nothing. There is not enough room between mailboxes for 2 trucks. We noticed Robinson James jimrinflorida@msn.com damage to mailboxes the last time the bridge was there. What can be done? Poll says no one on 23rd St SW wants bridge. It is completely not Robinson James jimrinflorida@msn.com needed and a waste of taxpayer money! Is there a way to stop it? I have put in many hours, there are more one to this bridge than pros. There are so many more bridges Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net needed. I fought it back then and will fight it again. I need to speak to someone about my personal studies. I know of so many problems with Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net this. Does Jeff realize the cost of the improvements that were made to Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net white and 23rd to make it an easier connection? First questions should say more Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net cons than pros. Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net I can answer that question It was cost and an unnecessary Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net bridge 25th street is already connected Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net with no cost and only 2/10's of a mile west. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Traffic light was determined to be Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net needed. very important! Does Jeff realize 23rd ST SW on the Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net north side has very deep ditches? Ron Mosher and I had done a lot of Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net study on this. this 23rd St bridge is an expensive Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net Band-Aid. Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net A traffic light would hold up traffic Ron Mosher and I had gone in front Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net of the BCC and proved it was an unnecessary and costly bridge. My son lives on the south side of the canal for many years and said Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net they do not need more traffic brought down from GG Blvd. Marlene Museum from the county had said it would be on the west side which would make children Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net have to cross the street twice because of where they would have to board and onboard the bus. Jeff needs to know about the deep Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net ditches. That was one of the cost factors because the county would have to Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net install underground drainage with the sidewalk on top. The north side of 23rd St SW is Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net narrow with deep ditches. Question: has Jeff been on 23rd St Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net SW on the north side of the canal? The transportation department back then thought this side of 23rd Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net was the same width of the south side because they had not bothered to check it out ahead of time. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report During the detour we had many big rig trucks from the farms, would Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net they be allowed to use 23rd St SW north of the canal? The people who were on the original bridge study had no idea that the county had the ditches dug when they widened GG Blvd. That Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net is the problem with the cost for this bridge verses having 25th St SW already a through street SW with no extra costs. Sorry, not true about width of road, we had many people speeding even Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net with the speed bumps, people trying to pass etc. The study and design of 23rd St SW Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net was already done during the White Blvd bridge replacement The cost to 23rd St SW was why they did a temporary bridge during Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net the construction of White Blvd. bridge Sadler Donna pschuck@centurylinl.net Thank you Thank you for the information Schuldt Kingman kschuldt@gnfire.org provided - Kingman Schuldt, Fire Chief - Greater Naples Fire Rescue Is there a possible light on White Schwarzwaelder Judy naplesjes@embarqmail.com Blvd? will this bridge pose a possibility of Schwarzwaelder Judy naplesjes@embarqmail.com opening up 23rd NW to VBR which was already voted on the be closed? Schwarzwaelder Judy naplesjes@embarqmail.com how much do these bridges cost Would speed bumps be considered Spiliadis Samantha samanthaspiliadis@gmail.com along with the sidewalk? Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Did you say that the sidewalk would Trochessett Aimee atrochessett@gmail.com run from Golden Gate Blvd. to White Blvd.? What will be the speed limit on this Trochessett Aimee atrochessett@gmail.com street? Will there be a traffic signal at Trochessett Aimee atrochessett@gmail.com Golden Gate Blvd. and 23rd Street SW intersection? If you could predict, which side of Trochessett Aimee atrochessett@gmail.com the street would be the sidewalk? How will the speed limit be Trochessett Aimee atrochessett@gmail.com enforced? Will mailboxes be relocated at the Trochessett Aimee atrochessett@gmail.com County's expense if a mailbox is too close to the road? What is your educated guess that Trochessett Aimee atrochessett@gmail.com construction will begin? Driving distance will not differ coming or going for those traveling Trochessett Duane comichazi@gmail.com from southeast of said bridge to any area west or north. Gas savings of $7 per year? I don't see it. Comment: we moved to our home on the dead end 23rd St SW in 2019, from South Dakota. The dead-end location was a positive buying point for us. We were told by folks that there would likely never be a bridge on our street. Whetzal John smsgtjlw53@gmail.com Needless to say, we are disappointed that a bridge will be going in. We don't welcome the traffic/noise that will come with the bridge. We already have the noise from those that use White Blvd as a place to gun their loud cars and motorcycles. Thanks. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Whetzal John Whetzal John smsgtjlw53@gmail.com smsgtjlw53@gmail.com If traffic lights were to be installed on White & 23rd Street SW I would foresee a lot of congestion, traffic backup and certainly not a decreased travel time for those traveling on White. Thanks for holding and inviting us to the meeting) 5.0 MEETING FOR BRIDGES #4 (47T" AVE NE) AND #12 (62ND AVE NE) ON SEPTEMBER 29T" 5.1 Invitees and attendees Meeting notifications were mailed to 487 site addresses and property owner addresses within the highlighted areas. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Attendance Conversion Clicked Registration Link Registrants Attendees Meetine Oreanizers. Panelists and Aeencv Stakeholders in Attendance Name Title/Job Description Department/Organization Lt. Joe Ellis District 4 - Commander Collier County Sheriff's Office Lorraine Lantz Principal Planner/Project Manager Collier County Government, Transportation Planning Yvonne McClellan Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Comm. Bill McDaniel Commissioner, District 5 Collier County Government Jeff Perry Project Consultant Stantec Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Collier County Government, Transportation Planning Olivia Smith Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Public Attendees Claudia Aquilotti, clo1217@yahoo.com Adam Benson, adamwadebenson@gmail.com Cynthia Cassidy, cindv@duf.net Debbie Chambers, 4applepies@att.net Alberto Chavarria, aichavarria@icloud.com Jarett Cotter, music.and.mayhem@earthlink.net Barry Dietter, dietterd@vahoo.com Glen Estes, glenestes36@gmail.com William Ferry, williamferry5@gmail.com George Fetzer, gf34110@comcast.net Raymond Friend, rayfriend@hotmail.com Kenneth Fry, kenandlia@aol.com Carlos Garcia, firemica96@gmail.com David Gimenez, davidgipe@gmail.com Maira Gimenez, designbVmaira@live.com Trish Hamilton, thamilton1178@vahoo.com Pedro Hernandez, pedrohernandez87@hotmail.com Howard Howell, destinvinc@hotmail.com 5.2 Poll responses Tomas Izdonavicius, randi davis@vahoo.com Maggie Kemp, mkemp@comcast.net Liliet Lopez, lilliet83@vahoo.com Mark Markut, markutone@aol.com Carlos Martinez, specialkitchen@vahoo.com Excel Nelson, eximanl@vahoo.com Debra Noble, Debbie.noble@gmx.com Stacie Noble, snoble72@gmx.com Johanna Pena, penal02O@aol.com Marseau Pierre, pierreshalom@gmail.com Jose Poli, ioe.poli@xceptionalsolutions.com Steve Ritter, mako191@embargmail.com Carol Ritter, critter101@embargmail.com Alain Therault, alain+Theriault r@hotmail.com Johanne Vincent, Johanne me vincent@hotmail.ca Heather Wallace, naplescomputergal@gmail.com Steve Wentzek, sewent@hotmail.com Forrest Wittig, forrest.wittig@gmail.com 1 of 4. Were you familiar with the previous East of CR 951 Horizon Study for Bridges? Multiple choice with single answer 16.67% 3 Responses 83.33% 15 Responses Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 2 of 4. Did you know about the county's 1-cent infrastructure surtax that was approved in 2018? Multiple choice with single answer 25% 5 Responses 75% 15 Responses 3 of 4_ How did you hear about this meeting? Multiple choice with multiple answers 84.21 % er in Me mail IS 18 Responses r 52.63% door-to-door or in -person notification 10 Responses 5.26% Mm a friend 1 Responses 5.26% .her 1 Responses 4 of 4. Which of the following are most important to you? rdultiple choice with multiple answers 57.14% terial roads 8 Responses 50% Okuced trip length for persouvel 7 Responses 71.43% F Improved evacuation routes 10 Responses 71.43% Reduced response times for first responders 10 Responses 57.14°,� Improved access to schools, libAmd parks 8 Responses 5 Analysis of Bridge #4 4Ph Ave. NE The next set of slides will provide an overview of the analysis of Bridge #4 on 47th Ave. NE, located approximately 2 miles east of Immokalee Road. 5 Analysis of Bridge #4 47�h Ave. NE ® Stantec ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #4 47", Ave. NE m v a m ocetion of Bridge #4 ® Stantec Analysis of Bridge 47t" Ave. NE Location of Bridge #4: Existing Condition ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #4 4711' Ave. NE Location of Bridge 44: Proposed Condition (.V Stantec Jr Analysis of Bridge #4 47t' Ave. NE The Bridge #4 Project Includes the Following Improvements: • Resurfacing 47th Ave. NE from Immokalee Rd. to Everglades Blvd. (+/- 3.06 miles) • Adding paved shoulders • Adding a Sidewalk along one side of roadway from Immokalee Rd. to Everglades Blvd. 5 Stantec Jr Analysis of Bridge #4 471h Ave. NE Design Considerations Include: • Intersection improvements (e.g- turn lanes, traffic signal, etc.) at the intersection of Immokalee Rd. & 47'h Ave. NE • Intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes, traffic signal, etc.) at the intersection of Everglades Blvd. & 47th Ave. NE ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #4 4711' Ave. NE 5 Analysis of Bridge #4 23'd St. SW, North of White Blvd. Importance of study criteria • Improved connectivity to collectors and arterials (route choice) • Reduced trip length for personal travel • Improved evacuation routes (route choice) • Reduced response times for first responders • Improved access to schools, libraries, and parks We would like to know which of the criteria are important to you. ® Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Analysis of Bridge #4 4711 Ave. NE Pofential Benefits Include: • Increase in route choice options for public agencies, and 2,142 current residences (5,012 at buildout) • Shorter trip lengths for some residents • Shorter trip lengths for some CCSO responses ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #4 47th Ave. NE Potential Benefits Include: • Reduction in travel distance to arterial network for 50 homes on 4711 Ave. NE east of the bridge (90 at build -out) • Reduction in travel distance to commercial area for 50 homes on 47th Ave. NE east of the bridge (90 at build -out) ® stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #4 4711 Ave. NE Potential Benefits Include: • Residents could benefit from up to a 41 % decrease in response time (up to 5.6 minutes) for CCSO vehicles. • Route choice is improved CCSO, Fire & EMS first responders. • 407. reduction in response time to area residences due to station locations. • 16 (28 at B/O) additional homes meet ISO 3 Rating ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #12 621d Ave. NE The next set of slides will provide an overview of the analysis of #12 on 62nd Ave. NE, located approximately 1 miles east Everglades Blvd. 5 Analysis of Bridge #12 62r,d Ave. NE ® Stantec ® Stantec J� Analysis of Bridge #12 621 Ave. NE y _ IlnmoKalee Rd. Mo u lu w � j 67^ Ave_ NC _ _ r \ x n n It ® Stantec Analysis of Bridge #12 62"u Ave. NE 1 - yyy/ -. Location of Bridge #12: Existing Condition ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #12 621J Ave. NE Location of Bridge #12: Proposed Condition ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #12 62111'iAve, NE The Bridge # 12 Project Includes the Following Improvements: • Extending 40th St. NE southward 660 feet • Resurfacing 62nd Ave. NE from Everglades Blvd. 40th St. NE (+/- 1.1 miles) • Adding paved shoulders • Adding a Sidewalk along one side of roadway from Everglades Blvd. to 40th St. NE ® Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 5 Analysis of Bridge #12 621d Ave. NE The trip length and housing unit data was put into a worksheet to quantify the benefits realized with a new bridge. ©�ca� ® Stantec E Analysis of 621d Ave. NE 5 Analysis of Bridge #12 621d Ave. NE me gollans of feel saved v M a new McIge ® Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 5.4 Questions and comments Attendees had the opportunity to type in questions or comments throughout the session. After the presentation concluded, the project team read and answered questions aloud. First Name Last Name Email Address Question/Comment Benson Adam adamwadebenson@gmail.com the #12 should be built on 60th Ave for the school access Benson Adam adamwadebenson@gmail.com how much of the property will be used as right of way? Chavarria Alberto ajchavarria@icloud.com Hello, would there be a sidewalk and lighting on 47th AVE NE? Thank you. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Dietter Barry dietterd@yahoo.com 47th Ave. will become a mini - superhighway. This will increase crime, traffic and lower home values for us west of the canal. We do not want or need the bridge. Dietter Barry dietterd@yahoo.com How will speeding be controlled? The area now is rife with ATV, motorcycle and cars racing around on the roads. We almost never see any police in the area. Dietter Barry dietterd@yahoo.com Will county traffic laws be enforced on regular basis??? Dietter Barry dietterd@yahoo.com How many homes will benefit vs. the homes that will not see any benefit and in fact their quality -of -life decrease? Dietter Barry dietterd@yahoo.com Since new high tension electrical lines have ruined 47th Ave, why won't streetlights be installed? Dietter Barry dietterd@yahoo.com The speed data for 47th Ave. cited by the CCSO is misleading. The speed trailer is right after cars turn on to 47th so of course the speed will be lower. This does nothing to measure speeds further east on 47th. where speeds are much higher and will only increase with the new bridge in place. Speed and traffic law enforcement on 47th Ave. is almost nonexistent. Dietter Barry dietterd@yahoo.com Not just people living along 47th Ave. will be impacted -- it is the entire neighborhood! There are more homes west of the canal that will see a Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report negative impact than the homes that will see a benefit. Dietter Barry dietterd@yahoo.com Good first step! Garcia Carlos firemica96@gmail.com For bridge shed 4 which side will the sidewalk be? any streetlights? Garcia Carlos firemica96@gmail.com 47th Ave is very narrow. will it be widened. Garcia Carlos firemica96@gmail.com Are there any plans for Street lights on 47t" Ave? Garcia Carlos firemica96@gmail.com How far would a sidewalk extend on bridge shed 4? Garcia Carlos firemica96@gmail.com Streetlights on 47 avenue NE? Bridge 4 Garcia Carlos firemica96@gmail.com Bridge 4 barrier was damaged today due to an CCSO pursuit. the safety barrier is down and severely damaged. Garcia Carlos firemica96@gmail.com Never a CCSO here Garcia Carlos firemica96@gmail.com 47 is Lawless Garcia Carlos firemica96@gmail.com its crazy out here with ATV Garcia Carlos firemica96@gmail.com How long will the sidewalk extend? Garcia Carlos firemica96@gmail.com thank you Garcia Carlos firemica96@gmail.com LOL 18 or 20 is too far Cassidy Cynthia cindy@duf.net Shoulders and a sidewalk are of great benefit to current residents Gimenez David davidgipe@gmail.com Can speed bumps be install for the bridge on 47th? Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Chambers Debbie 4applepies@att.net related to bridge #12, the portion of the neighborhood east of the canal is already served by 56th Ave NE. Wouldn't the section between 64th Ave NE and 72nd Ave NE benefit more from a bridge? Chambers Debbie 4applepies@att.net 47th Ave NE is also getting new regional power transmission lines. What other infrastructure (such as power lines) will also be added to 62nd Ave NE? Chambers Debbie 4applepies@att.net if bridge #12 were added on 64th Ave NE, the additional extension of 40th could be avoided... saving taxpayer expense. Also 62nd was just paved within a few years, what a waste. Chambers Debbie 4applepies@att.net I am on 62nd Ave NE. I feel that the bridge, shoulder, and sidewalk negatively impact the rural character of the street. If owners wanted an urban environment that would have sought an HOA type neighborhood instead. Chambers Debbie 4applepies@att.net do you know if new power lines will be added to 62nd Ave NE? Wallace Heather naplescomputergal@gmail.com How many feet of land will be needed from the landowners and will they be compensated? Wallace Heather naplescomputergal@gmail.com Our mailboxes would benefit from the widening as 47th Ave is very narrow. The Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report sidewalks are a plus. Thank you, Jeff, for your clear slides Wallace Heather naplescomputergal@gmail.com How can a homeowner measure where the right of way is? Wallace Heather naplescomputergal@gmail.com Will all of this construction effect our foundations, cracking, or our sewer systems, wells? Wallace Heather naplescomputergal@gmail.com Since my sewer is less than 75 feet from road center that is why I am concerned about the vibrations? Wallace Heather naplescomputergal@gmail.com septic tank Pena Johanna pena1020@aol.com will 47th avenue NE be widened? also what side of 47th Avenue NE would sidewalks be on? Pena Johanna pena1020@aol.com will property be taken away from people living on 47th avenue NE Pena Johanna penal02O@aol.com do you have a time frame as to when this would start Pena Johanna penal02O@aol.com 1 live on 47th Ave NE and have fence and landscape on the front of my property. Is there a possibility of that having to be moved? Poli Jose joe.poli@xceptionalsolutions.com Question: When is the expect year for Bridge 12 to be completed? Comment: Looking at bridge 12; currently slated for 62nd Ave NE; considering that there is one on 56th Ave; based on Google maps it would seem to make more Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report sense to open a bridge at the end of 64th Ave NE which would open access for 64th, 66th, 70th and 72nd on the east side of the canal (based on google maps over 70 current homes) allowing them to reach schools without having to access Immokalee as well as completing 40th between 62th and 64th would also be less expensive and provide quicker access to emergency vehicles. One bridge and a small paving resolves two issues at once. Fry Kenneth kenandlia@aol.com My wife and I own a piece of property on 62nd Avenue. It is undeveloped. We have owned this since 2003. What will be the effect of this for us? Will the property increase/decrease in value because of this? Kemp Maggie mkemp@comcast.net What are the calculations for increase of traffic on 47th. Our street just got trashed with the installation of high sped transmission poles so how will you widen it? Isn't that enough of a sacrifice for us? This has very little benefit for us, this is for new developments. Anyone who moves out here knows what they are getting into Kemp Maggie mkemp@comcast.net With all the new homes out there why don't you build emergency services out there? Kemp Maggie mkemp@comcast.net The more I listen the more it is clear that 47th will become Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report a main road. For very little benefit to those on our street. The value of my home will drop Kemp Maggie mkemp@comcast.net You are not going to get the road widened with these 4- foot round poles. This shows that your information is obsolete Kemp Maggie mkemp@comcast.net How long will the 47th project take? Timeline start to finish? Kemp Maggie mkemp@comcast.net How long will the 47th street project take to construct? Markut Mark markutone@aol.com What are expected effect to home values? Markut Mark markutone@aol.com How many resident webinar viewers this evening? Markut Mark markutone@aol.com Will our taxes go up? Friend Raymond Rayfriend@hotmail.com I have traveled on the new 8th street and the vehicle speeds are out of control. What is included in the plans for these roads to control traffic speeds. Noble Stacie snoble72@gmx.com 47th Ave NE already has multiple issues with racing and people not respecting the posted speed limits. What is going to be done to handle the obvious increase in heavy flow of speeding traffic that is now going to be going pushed upon our residential area? Noble Stacie snoble72@gmx.com If the recycling center, fairgrounds, & a new park are being built, why not construct a new road there instead of through a residential area Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report that was not constructed to handle the volumes of traffic that you are predicting? Dump trucks, and more than likely city busses will now be travelling our road. Noble Stacie snoble72@gmx.com In different residential areas throughout Naples 4-way stops are zoned to help with traffic flows & speed limits. Is there any possibility of adding 4 way stops at various intersections to help with traffic speeds? Having such a long stretch from Everglades to Immokalee is only encouraging people to speed through our residential area. Noble Stacie snoble72@gmx.com When is construction of the 47th Ave NE bridge to start? Noble Stacie snoble72@gmx.com If there's enough need to build connecting bridges to accommodate increased population, when IS the Estates going to be looked at as the rest of Naples in regards to using speed deterrents? Noble Stacie snoble72@gmx.com 16th Ave would be perfect and one for each way of traffic! Thank you! Noble Stacie snoble72@gmx.com We appreciated the mailings, & door to door visit, will those continue? Izdonavicius Tomas Randi Davis@Yahoo.Com I submitted a concern to the email listed yesterday. We live on 62nd. We only purchased 2 mo. ago and had NO idea. We have a small child and moved from a gated community and moved out Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report hereto AVOID traffic. Now after only 2 mo. here we have learned our street is starting a bridge? We understand that first responders need access, but the dead-end roadways are similar to gated neighborhood infrastructure. The first responders do know this. We take our kid to private school 1 hour both directions and have plenty of time to evacuate if needed. We moved out here and knew what we signed up for ... everyone out here does. Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com My kid is not going to be able to bike out her anymore.... she has asthma so now she is going to have more air pollution from the traffic. And I am sure we will hear the sirens, busses, and see the lights at all hours of the night. Due to her medical condition, we moved out here to be free from the air, light, and noise pollution. Why is our street so necessary? Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com 62nd would flood without the preexisting canals... how do propose not cutting into this necessary space? Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com none of these reasons Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com you should have had "other" as a choice" Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com This percentages don't add up to 100%? Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com Their signs said 32 students returning at estates ... we are Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report we accommodating 32 students. Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com So we are accommodating 32 students for estates elementary? 60th connects, why 62... Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com Or just know what you signed up for when you buy a house and recognize your school district Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com we didn't get these reasons for travel Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com so not sure what benefits you are mentioning Izdonavicius Tomas Randi Davis@Yahoo.Com hahahahahhahahahahah #fakenews Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com I asked questions two days ago Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com So then don't change the infrastructure Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com We have no drainage problems now Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com be we have ditches Izdonavicius Tomas Randi Davis@Yahoo.Com It does Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com because we have to widen roads Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com cutting into the drains Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com So, you have no plan for the roadway or sidewalks, but you propose to cut into the homeowners Izdonavicius Tomas Randi Davis@Yahoo.Com now one needs Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com That argument doesn't make sense Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com Our kids go to private school Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com you based it on "age" Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com there is no age for parents Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com So you are telling me the demographics based on age tell you were kids go to school ... no school choice Izdonavicius Tomas Randi Davis@Yahoo.Com all I hear is Ummmm Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com there are no sidewalks on62nd Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com and ditches are helping with flooding Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com all i hear is ummmm Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com good give it to the ems Izdonavicius Tomas Randi Davis@Yahoo.Com it DOES make a difference... Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com hopefully never Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com tell them 62nd street is last on the list Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com so little compassion Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com stop blaming homeowners and saying ummm Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com Of course you guys have no real answers for any of we stakeholders Izdonavicius Tomas Randi_Davis@Yahoo.Com Is this meeting almost over, the presidential debate is starting soon LOL. this guy Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report needs to run for president for all his deflection Hamilton Trish thamilton1178@yahoo.com how did you calculate the number of homes with school age children that would benefit by this? Looking at age demographics and assuming they would have children or looking at how many are already in schools out here? Hamilton Trish thamilton1178@yahoo.com Was it considered putting a bridge and road north of 47th where there are not nearly as many homes and no massive concrete poles installed? Hamilton Trish thamilton1178@yahoo.com I live on 47th and would like to know approx. how much of my front yard will be taken when you expand Hamilton Trish thamilton1178@yahoo.com On slide 5- analysis of bridge 4, you have 2142 homes but expected 5012 at buildout, where are these approx. 3000 homes supposed to be built?? Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com Were traffic increases on 47th Ave taken into consideration? Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com How much increase in traffic is forecasted on 47th Ave NE Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com Will adding a sidewalk on 47th Ave fit? will more property have to be taken from residents? the 8th street has much more right of way Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com When will it be determined if a turn lane from 47th Ave to Immokalee road and a light at 47th Ave NE and Immokalee road be needed. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com When is commencement planned? Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com If people specifically purchased their homes due to the dead-end street, and far out distance who are you to say it is a benefit to give more people access to their homes Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com Why does 47th Ave NE get crapped on? First a water treatment plant that does not serve the residents that live there, then giant concrete poles for power for Ave Maria (not 47th Ave) now a road that will increase traffic for us but benefit others. Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com Which commissioners are for these bridges? 5o we can know when we vote! Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com Can the bridge be arched so at least people must slow down when they cross and not have a straight shot at 70MPH Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com Will the sidewalk be on the north or south side of 47th AVE, let me guess it will be decided after they start construction so we don't get a say or can't know. Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com Will the sidewalk location questions be decided before the commissioners vote on the proposal? Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com the large power poles are now in the middle of the swale and a new road will not fit. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com So, if this was Cost/benefit analysis you just did half...? Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com So many non -answers, I did not think I was watching the debate. Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com Since 47th is so much narrower than 8th St NW, would the sidewalk be right next to the road? would there be a curb? Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com How do we stay updated on future informational meetings? Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com AND WHAT IS THAT WEBSITE? Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com they love the design/build at the same time, so no one knows what they are getting until it is too late Ferry William williamferry5@gmail.com He says this right before the election, lol... we will see Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Attendance Conversion Clicked Registration Link Registrants NNW9� Attendees Meeting Organizers, Panelists and Agency Stakeholders 11, 90 120 Name Title/Job Description Department/Organization Lori Buck Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Lt. Joe Ellis District 4 - Commander Collier County Sheriff's Office Miranda Lansdale Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Lorraine Lantz Principal Planner/Project Manager Collier County Government, Transportation Planning Comm. Bill McDaniel Commissioner, District S Collier County Government Jeff Perry Project Consultant Stantec Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Collier County Government, Transportation Planning Public Attendees Damir Akhoundov, damir@erai.com Tim Aten, timaten@gmail.com Jason Brinson, Jason.brinsonl@gmail.com Linda Brugger, controller@nhgcc.com Renee Buongiorno, renee51367@hotmail.com Becky Craig, bcraig@gatesinc.com James Dornan, i.dornan@me.com Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Christopher Dupuis, cdupuis88@gmail.com Kelsey Dupuis, k.ann1229#icloud.com Richard Hoffman, taxclinic@vahoo.com Ronald Hollander, nuthingl87@gmail.com Mike Johnson, sirrmi@icloud.com Barbara Johnson, barbliohnson2@gmail.com Jeff Lackner, jeffl.benchmark@gmail.com Lance Merchant, mahimahill@hotmail.com Diane Montstream, dmonstream@gmail.com Chris Nightingale, nighingaleregroup@gmail.com Katherine Patterson, katkatbiker@embargmail.com Kirenia Paz, kireniap@gmail.com 6.2 Poll responses Elaine Pearce, elainek72@live.com Victor Ramirez, vmrami2003@vahoo.com Michael Ramsey, Michael.r.ramsev@embargmail.com Mike REisig, mreisig628@gmail.com Isselle Robinson, imrobinson777@hotmail.com Timothy Ross, rossdesinc@aol.com Charles Scholten, charliescholten@gmail.com Luanne Skoglund, mspiggilu@gmail.com Donald Skogland, skogolfl@gmail.com William Szczepkowski, williams4746@comcast.net Karen Szczepkowski, karen.szczepkowski@gmail.com 1 of 4. Were you familiar with the previous East of CR 951 Horizon Study for Bridges? Multiple choice with single answer 33.33% 7 Responses 66.67% 14 Responses 2 of 4. ❑id you know about the county's 1-cent infrastructure surtax that was approved in 2018? Multiple choice with single answer 58.33% 14 Responses 41.67% 10 Responses Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 3 of 4. How did you hear about this meeting? Multiple choice with multiple answers 50% 30.77°/° lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllrson notification 26.92% 42.31 % 4 of 4. Which of the following are most important to you? Multiple choice with multiple answers 13 Responses 8 Responses 7 Responses 11 Responses 50% nd arterial roads 7 Responses 50% e 7 Responses 42.86% 6 Responses 92.86% 13 Responses 28.57% schools, libraries and parks 4 Responses 6.3 Analysis slides 5 Analysis of Bridge #5 Wilson Blvd. N. { z Immokalee kp. cation of Bridge #5 ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #5 Wilson Blvd. N. Lo Location of Bridge #5: Existing Condition 5 Analysis of Bridge #5 Wilson Blvd. N. �j ztantec Location of Bridge #5: Proposed Condition ® Stantec 15 Analysis of Bridge #5 Wilson Blvd. N. The Bridge #5 Project Includes the Following Improvements: • Resurfacing Wilson Blvd. N. from Immokalee Rd to 47th Ave. NW (+/- 2.9 miles) • Adding paved shoulders • Adding a Sidewalk along one side of roadway from Immokalee Rd to 33,d Ave. NW (+/- 1.2 miles) ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #5 Wilson Blvd. N. Additional Considerations Include: • Evaluating the need for intersection improvements at the intersection of Wilson Blvd. N. and Immokalee Rd. 5 Analysis of Bridge #5 Wilson Blvd. N. ® Stantec 5 Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #5 23,11 St, SW, North of White Blvd. Importance of study criteria • Improved connectivity to collectors and arterials (route choice) • Reduced trip length for personal travel • Improved evacuation routes (route choice) • Reduced response times for first responders • Improved access to schools, libraries, and parks We would like to know which of the criteria are important to you. ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #5 Wilson Blvd. N. Analysis of Bridge #5: Trip Length With & Without Bridge 4 Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #5 Wilson Blvd. N. The trip length and housing unit data was put into a worksheet to quantify the benefits realized with a new bridge. ® stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Ainalysis of Bridge #5 Wilson Blvd. N. 5 Analysis of Bridge #5 Wilson Blvd. N. Potential Benefits Include: • Increase in route choice options for public agencies, and 265 current residences (1,004 at buildout) • Shorter trip lengths for some residents • Shorter trip lengths for some CCSO responses ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #5 Wilson Blvd. N. Potential Benefits Include: • Reduction in travel distance to arterial network for 219 homes north of the bridge (933 at build -out) • Reduction in travel distance to parks for 46 homes south of the bridge (71 at build -out) 5 Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 6.4 Questions and comments Attendees had the opportunity to type in questions or comments throughout the session. After the presentation concluded, the project team read and answered questions aloud. Last Name First Name Email Address Question/comment Area north of the suggested bridge already has easy access to the Immokalee road as well as the schools and Publix etc. The new park they are building will Akhoundov Damir damir@erai.com be easier accessed that way too. First responders will not be doubling back to the Wilson Blvd when they can easier access it elsewhere. Very insignificant reduction in travel does not justify changing a Akhoundov Damir damir@erai.com quiet, dead-end street into the throughfare Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report I don't understand how a benefit of less than one mile on average saved for residents justifies a multimillion project while then adding further dangers to the residents including speeding vehicles, increase in traffic and Akhoundov Damir damir@erai.com the introduction of speeding emergency services which you listed at a 45 MPH average when the current residential speed limit is 30 mph. All of these "quantitative" measures are purely subjective! Especially given the amount of calls that likely go in, which was not mentioned. Yes, we are facilitating EMS services travel Akhoundov Damir damir@erai.com times; however, the amount of EMS calls needed in the "benefitting" area I would imagine are nominal! Question: What is the specific estimated cost for this project? Has there been an estimated Akhoundov Damir damir@erai.com savings value of 'increased' access for EMS services compared to the actual cost of the bridge? How can we get a copy of the Akhoundov Damir damir@erai.com study numbers that you presented today? There is NO benefit for residents Akhoundov Damir damir@erai.com south of the bridge! Estimates of cut -through traffic should be a part of the project Akhoundov Damir damir@erai.com estimation! As a resident, no one asked me about my drive times and usage! Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report they cannot go that way they Akhoundov Damir damir@erai.com have to go up and u turn!!! Akhoundov Damir damir@erai.com that is incorrect How often do they need to get Akhoundov Damir damir@erai.com there so fast???? A great number of residents would prefer to not have increased traffic and not have their children be endangered BY Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com the increased traffic. Will the residents be able to vote on this? And shouldn't their votes weigh in more heavily? The Collier County Board of Commissioners have proven repeatedly to NOT care about the wishes of the residents, and ONLY to care about their pocketbooks. The residential Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com neighborhood should be MORE heavily consulted in the decision, and the effect on their families. Is there any way to return the approval or rather the DISAPPROVAL to the voter/resident? WE DO NOT WANT THE Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com BRIDGE!!! #5 NO TRUE BENEFIT TO THIS Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com BRIDGE #5 WE PURPOSELY PURCHASE MORE THAN ONE LOT TO DECREASE DESITY AND INCREASE PRIVACY & SAFETY. CAN YOU Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com GUARANTEE THAT IF YOU SHOVE THIS DOWN OUR THROAT THAT WE WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUE FOR RESALE? Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report After Hurricane IRMA it took nearly 3 years to get our speed limit sign "30 MPH" back. Even with the sign finally returned, we often have people fly by our Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com home at OVER 50 MPH!!! How does the Sheriff's department intend to control the already excessive speeds and speeders on our street? You inquired as to what we viewed as the greatest benefit to bridge #5, but you did NOT offer Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com us the opportunity to state what we felt were the greatest detriments? Will you give us that opportunity? Is there a website where I can visit and see where all the bridges are proposed? I need to Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com figure out where to move to be less affected by the bad decisions of the CC Board of Commissioners... The residents on the North and Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com East of bridge #5 will be in danger!!! If you do not improve the bridge at Wilson and Immokalee road you will definitely have multiple accidents ON THAT BRIDGE... that bridge is VERY NARROWH! Come sit at the end of my Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com driveway to see what traffic already doing!!! Give me a cop 2- 3 times per week. Additionally, the drug dealer just down the street will have a better evacuation route. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report When is the next vote for the Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com commissioner for this ill affected area? Has anyone considered what this CUT THROUGH will do to traffic Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com flow at the time of the Collier County Fair? There are no sidewalks on 33rd, Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com so children are not permitted to walk to school. Many residents have purchased here to have peace and quiet. NOT Convenience. Why is there no mention of the fire station coming on Immokalee road near Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com the county extension office. Additionally, we often have an officer sitting in the median North of Oilwell. Always a cop close by. Where do you live? and would Brugger Linda Controller@nhgcc.com you like your street to become a cut-thru? Any data on traffic density Dornan James j.dornan@me.com increase? The Junction at Wilson N and Immokalee road is already dangerous due to blocking of vision by West travelling traffic wishing to turn left. There has Dornan James j.dornan@me.com been a high number of accidents - the Traffic lighting logistics needs improving - I'm concerned that these accidents will greatly increase, Opinion? Third question -Animal activity Dornan James j.dornan@me.com quite high - Deer, cougar and bear - the increase in traffic Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report could endanger the wildlife - Opinion? Traffic north of the bridge obviously effects south of the Dornan James j.dornan@me.com bridge - almost to the same degree - agree? Dornan James j.dornan@me.com Good to hear Opinion -the Dead -End Canal giving only one exit provides extra security - changing to a thoroughfare increase security threat. Recommend houseowners fence their Dornan James j.dornan@me.com properties. Average $14,000 per home. I can't see any benefit in time saving - but would be a temptation to increase speed - humps down Wilson would disincentivize the use of the roadway. Is Wilson planned to be Dornan James j.dornan@me.com connected to City water and sewage services? I'm just about to have a fence and pillar system installed - how Dornan James j.dornan@me.com do I know if the fence will need be removed? Is planning aware of the changes that may/will affect the road Dornan James j.dornan@me.com width and/or owner's properties? how are you going to control the speed on Wilson when people speed and blow through stop dupuis christopher cdupuis88@gmail.com signs already? we want a quiet community we bought out here to avoid lots of cars up and down the roads that's what Immokalee Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Rd is for and there is no trouble to continue doing so. The most important thing is a safe place for my family to grow, not a highway dupuis christopher cdupuis88@gmail.com The other parts of Wilson are already a raceway and please don't tell me speed bumps because there goes you dupuis christopher cdupuis88@gmail.com reduced drive times and the silly things you put in on 13th Ave SW are pointless waste of money dupuis christopher cdupuis88@gmail.com then we don't need the bridge is what I'm hearing dupuis christopher cdupuis88@gmail.com wrong we want a quiet street dupuis christopher cdupuis88@gmail.com great they already don't pay any attention to the signs the section of Wilson between Golden Gate Blvd and dupuis christopher cdupuis88@gmail.com Immokalee Rd is 45mph what's to stop you from changing the rest of the road to match dupuis christopher cdupuis88@gmail.com and which side of Wilson but you already said it was a bad dupuis christopher cdupuis88@gmail.com intersection at Immokalee and Wilson the bridge would only add to it over load have you taken into account that dupuis christopher cdupuis88@gmail.com we bought out here for quiet and no traffic this bridge takes that from us dupuis christopher cdupuis88@gmail.com please consider the negative parts as well Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report As a Mom who is homeschooling her children, I'm very concerned about this proposal. The safety of my son is number One. We originally moved to our home because of the dead end. Dupuis Kelsey k.ann1229@icloud.com Currently, there is a HUGE lack in monitoring traffic. Stop signs, speeding through the neighborhood, etc. How will this bridge on Wilson and 33rd improve this situation? I feel as though it will only worsen with the added traffic. Dupuis Kelsey k.ann1229@icloud.com Please don't build this bridge! Keep our community quiet! How will overflow traffic from the coming Immokalee Rd- Oil Lackner Jeff Jeffl.benchmark@gmail.com Well Rd backup be restricted from using Wilson Blvd as a Bi- pass route once the bridge is put in? The "cut through" question seems to have been purposely avoided. If Jeff possibly imagines this bridge won't inspire this, Lackner Jeff Jeffl.benchmark@gmail.com have they really done an objective analysis or is his objective to push this bridge construction regardless of public/local resident opinion? This route will be a "no traffic light" route verses the 5 lights to get through on Immokalee ... these speed humps Lackner Jeff Jeffl.benchmark@gmail.com he keeps referring to don't accomplish this. Does Jeff, and the review team, seriously imagine this won't become a bypass to Immokalee Rd? Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report How can we assure the "cut Lackner Jeff Jeffl.benchmark@gmail.com through" issue is considered or addressed? How will the existing "Wetlands" that abut Wilson be maintained, as the county hasn't seemed to Lackner Jeff Jeffl.benchmark@gmail.com consider them in the drainage ditch modifications in the past hammerhead construction that they have installed? How can we assure the Cut Lackner Jeff Jeffl.benchmark@gmail.com Through issue is considered? Who do we address that concern Lackner Jeff Jeffl.benchmark@gmail.com to? You are assuming that any of these choices are valid. I am not interested in having a bridge as Merchant Lance mahimahill@hotmail.com none of these represent improvements to our neighborhood. The ISO Fire rating is not only the distance to the fire department but also a source of water i.e. Montstream Diane dmontstream@gmail.com fire hydrant within 1,000 ft so how would the ISO fire rating be improved since we have no fire hydrants as we are on wells? it seems benefits are for those south of the bridge and residents north of the bridge may actually Montstream Diane dmontstream@gmail.com have decreased benefits due to additional traffic. Can you explain what the benefits for us are? did you say sidewalks will be added to Wilson and if so, what Montstream Diane dmontstream@gmail.com does that do to existing driveways, culverts, etc.? Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report what about all utility poles, will Montstream Diane dmontstream@gmail.com they be moved?? have you thought about a traffic Montstream Diane dmontstream@gmail.com light at the bridge so traffic doesn't back up? Would there be an opportunity to add speed bumps on Wilson Nightingale Chris nightingaleregroup@gmail.com going to the bridge to reduce speed and or speeding? Honestly speeding happens in Nightingale Chris nightingaleregroup@gmail.com Wilson consistently right now how wide would the sidewalk be Nightingale Chris nightingaleregroup@gmail.com and on what side of the road I have lived on Shady Hollow for the last 17 years and have seen the traffic increase exponentially over those years especially after the crow nature area opened, I see people constantly speeding and even drag racing up and Patterson Katherine katkatbiker@embargmail.com down my street. I cannot express how strongly opposed I am to this bridge! How are you going to keep people from using this as a cut through and keep them from speeding and drag racing even more than they do now? Is Oil Well be connected to Ramirez Victor vmrami2003@yahoo.com Wilson Blvd. Ramirez Victor vmrami2003@yahoo.com Thank you for the answer! Thank you very much for all of Ramirez Victor vmrami2003@yahoo.com you presenters! Miranda, how many registered Ramsey Michael Michael.R.Ramsey@embargmail.com for this Ramsey Michael Michael.R.Ramsey@embarqmail.com for this location -there should have been an option that none Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report of these are important at this location this bridge does not appear to be Ramsey Michael Michael.R.Ramsey@embarqmail.com as necessary as the other bridges Is traffic predicted to be heavier Robinson Isselle imrobinson777@hotmail.com for Wilson Blvd N? Thank you! How long will all of this Robinson Isselle imrobinson777@hotmail.com construction take (the road and sidewalks with the bridge)? Are there streetlights included Robinson Isselle imrobinson777@hotmail.com along Wilson Blvd N> Robinson Isselle imrobinson777@hotmail.com ? What is the ultimate future plan for Wilson boulevard through Ross Timothy rossdesinc@aol.com Collier county, both to the north and to the south. Sounds as though Wilson boulevard will become a heavily traveled north south thoroughfare, heavily impacting those north of Immokalee road, Ross Timothy rossdesinc@aol.com particularly the roads off 25th. This bridge does not positively impact those of us in this area enough to allow this traffic infusion. Why were the homes along 25th not included? The only way into Scholten Charles charliescholten@gmail.com or out of the area is the corner on Immokalee Rd. Isn't the right of way on the west Scholten Charles charliescholten@gmail.com side? All the power poles are on the east side. Thank You. Nice to have this Scholten Charles charliescholten@gmail.com information. We need the bridge as a second way out of the area. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report I would like to thank you for this amazing information. I live on 37thnw and am looking forward Skoglund Luanne mspiggilu@gmail.com to the bridge being built. All of us on this street are looking forward to another way in or out thank you LuanneSkoglund Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Attendance Conversion Clicked Registration Link Registrants Attendees Meeting Organizers, Panelists, and Agency Stakeholders in Attendance Name Title/Job Description Department/Organization Sgt. Christopher Bence Collier County Sheriff's Office Tabatha Butcher EMS Chief Bureau of Emergency Services Lorraine Lantz Project Planner Collier County Government, Transportation Planning Yvonne McClellan Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Comm. Bill McDaniel Commissioner, District S Collier County Government Jeff Perry Project Consultant Stantec Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Collier County Government, Transportation Planning Olivia Smith Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Public Attendees Rita Caskey, ritanaples619@gmail.com Gregg Caspio, gcaspio@vahoo.com Daryll Davis, brokenturtle@hotmail.com Mark Hall, mbha112004@comcast.net Brenna Marzucco, bmabbott@me.com Todd Neiert, todd.neiert@asg.com Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Lauren Pardee, laurenkpardee@gmail.com Skip Pardee, hpardee@me.com Melissa Taylor, taylor gnc@vahoo.com 7.2 Poll responses Connie Thomas, cthorn233@vahoo.com Teresa Tooley, tm2ley83@gmail.com Mike Zion, mikezion76@gmail.com 1 of 4. Were you familiar with the previous East of CR 951 Horizon Study for Bridges Multiple choice with single answer 44.44% 4 Responses 55.56% 5 Responses 2 of 4. Did you know about the county's 1-cent infrastructure surtax that was approved in 2018? Multiple choice with single answer 25% 2 Responses 75% 6 Responses 3 of 4. How did you hear about this meeting? Multiple choice with multiple answers 66.67% 6 Responses 88.89% door -to-do 8 Responses 16 Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 4 of 4. Which of the following are most important to you? Multiple choice with multiple answers 50% nd arterial roads 2 Responses 50% Vol 2 Responses 50% 2 Responses 75% 3 Responses 25% to schools, libraries and parks 1 Responses 7.3 Analysis slides Analysis of Bridge #8 131d St. NW North of Golden Gate Blvd. p •� Location of Bridge #8: Existing Condition ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #8 131d St. NW North of Golden Gate Blvd. Location of Bridge #8: Proposed Condition ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #8 1a J St. NW North of Golden Gate Blvd. The Bridge #8 Project Includes the Following Improvements: • Resurfacing 13th St. NW from Golden Gate Blvd. to the Bridge (+/- 1.08 miles) • Adding bike lanes from Golden Gate Blvd. to the Bridge • Adding a Sidewalk along both sides of roadway from Golden Gate Blvd. to the Bridge ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #8 131'� St. NW North of Golden Gate Blvd. Design Considerations Include: • Evaluating the need for intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes, etc.) at the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd. and 13th St. NW 5 Analysis of Bridge #8 13111 St_ NW North of Golden Gate Blvd. ® Stantec ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #8 23,1 St. SW, North of White Blvd. Importance of study criteria • Improved connectivity to collectors and arterials (route choice) • Reduced trip length for personal travel • Improved evacuation routes (route choice) • Reduced response times for first responders • Improved access to schools, libraries, and parks We would like to know which of the criteria are important to you. ® Stantec Analysis of Bridge #8 13,11 St NW North of Golden Gate Blvd. Analysis of Bridge #8: Trip Length With & Without Bridge 5 Analysis of Bridge #8 13,d St. NW North of Golden Gate Blvd. ® Stantec The trip length and housing unit data was put into a worksheet to quantify the benefits realized with a new bridge. 5 Analysis of Bridge # 131d St. NW North of Golden Gate Blvd. ® Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 15 Analysis of Bridge #8 13,11 St. NW North of Golden Gate Blvd. Potential Benefits Include: • Increase in route choice options for public agencies, and 2,827 current residences (3,509 at buildout) • Shorter trip lengths to parks & schools for some residents • Shorter trip lengths for some CCSO responses ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #8 131d St. NW North of Golden Gate Blvd. Potential Benefits Include: • Reduction in travel distance to parks for 2,827 homes (3,509 at build -out) • Reduction in travel distance to school for 273 homes (339 at build -out) ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #8 131,' St. NW North of Golden Gate Blvd. Potential Benefits Include: • School & Park could benefit from up to a 59% decrease in response time (up to 7.1 minutes) for CCSO vehicles. • School & Park could benefit from up to a 75% decrease in response time (up to 7.1 minutes) for EMS and Fire vehicles. • No additional homes meet ISO 3 Rating 4 Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 7.4 Questions and comments Attendees had the opportunity to type in questions or comments throughout the session. After the presentation concluded, the project team read and answered questions aloud. Last Name First Name Email Address Question/comment Caspio Gregg gcaspio@yahoo.com None of the choices Please tell us again how far from center of Caspio Gregg gcaspio@yahoo.com road will you come out into "our property"? Also does that include drainage ditch? Caspio Gregg gcaspio@yahoo.com And sidewalk Davis Daryll brokenturtle@hotmail.com Widening of 13th St included? Timeframe of lengthening of Vanderbilt Davis Daryll brokenturtle@hotmail.com Beach Rd which would accommodate bridge replacement? i would also like to add that none of the last Hall Mark mbha112004@comcast.net questions applied to me I'm sorry what parks and schools on the Hall Mark mbha112004@comcast.net north side are you referring to? who pays and is responsible for the widened Hall Mark mbha112004@comcast.net rode/sidewalk, loss of trees, landscape and mailboxes why is the bridge important before any road Hall Mark mbha112004@comcast.net to Vanderbilt Hall Mark mbha112004@comcast.net so a bridge to nowhere for at least S years does the county already own the land north Hall Mark mbha112004@comcast.net of the bridge? just to clarify the county has 60ft wide. I'm having a hard time imagining as I walk the street nightly and 2 cars can barely fit wide Hall Mark mbha112004@comcast.net and everyone's mailboxes, electrical poles, fences and landscape would be destroyed widening the road. Is it possible that 60 is wrong? Hall Mark mbha112004@comcast.net with sidewalks that is Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Will the bridge cause our road the need to be widened? Marzucco Brenna bmabbott@me.com Will there be deterrents put on the street to curtail speeding? Like the radar speed signs and/or physical police presence. Marzucco Brenna bmabbott@me.com Where is 13th's prototype? Because he was showing 8th street. Thank Marzucco Brenna bmabbott@me.com you for clarifying How does the construction affect how we get Marzucco Brenna bmabbott@me.com to and from our homes? What is the duration? Marzucco Brenna bmabbott@me.com Thank you Marzucco Brenna bmabbott@me.com Thank you for the information! What will happen to property lines, culvert Neiert Todd todd.neiert@asg.com locations and private fences and such? Neiert Todd todd.neiert@asg.com How far does Vandy extension go East? What is the plan to reduce speeding on 13th Street? At current, the excessive speeds on our road is extremely concerning. My fear is increased access to our street will only Pardee Lauren laurenkpardee@gmail.com exacerbate this problem. What was done on 13th street SW does not work as cars simply drive through the middle of the road as opposed to following the curves. The speed for drivers on 13th has always been an issue. What factors would be in Pardee Skip hpardee@me.com place to address driving speeds on the road with the widening project? Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 1. What roadways will the bridge connect with? 2. Will sidewalks be added along our street? 3.Will any of the homeowners be reimbursed for how this will negatively impact their quality of life in their homes? This will bring loud traffic noises at night and during the day along with other undesirable consequences Tooley Teresa tm2ley83@gmail.com like having to deal with road -side trash, smelling exhaust, increased driving / roadway hazards, decreased property values, etc. 4. What kind of traffic calming devices will be installed? Loud speed bumps? 5. When will the construction begin and end? 6. When will the school be built? Has this matter already been decided upon Tooley Teresa tm2ley83@gmail.com or are objections to this bridge construction being considered? What will be done for the property owners Tooley Teresa tm2ley83@gmail.com that are close to the road? Will their property be bought by the county. If so what happens when a property owner doesn't want to sell? Tooley Teresa tm2ley83@gmail.com none of the options were important enough because the travel time is fine now Can you please clarify for those of us that are Tooley Teresa tm2ley83@gmail.com housed very closely to the road if we will have property loss? Tooley Teresa tm2ley83@gmail.com What is the best place to get up dates on this project? Tooley Teresa tm2ley83@gmail.com Thank you, commissioner! Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Tooley Teresa tm2ley83@gmail.com when will the next update be available? I heard that a bridge might be added near Tooley Teresa tm2ley83@gmail.com 15th St NW with the Vanderbilt Bch RD extension. Is this true? Is there a potential that the entire ROW / easement would be made into paved/ Tooley Teresa tm21ey83@gmail.com sidewalk area? Meaning a sidewalk right against people's fences? what is the minimum distance that is allowed Tooley Teresa tm2ley83@gmail.com between someone's house and the widened road? Tooley Teresa tm2ley83@gmail.com how wide will the sidewalk be? The setback is 75 feet from the edge of the Tooley Teresa tm2ley83@gmail.com row? Is that correct? None of the last choices I am interested in. I Zion Mike Mikezion76@gmail.com want to know: Zion Mike Mikezion76@gmail.com How will speed of cares be addressed Zion Mike Mikezion76@gmail.com cars How will landscaping, speed mitigation, and Zion Mike Mikezion76@gmail.com property loss, swales be addressed. Will it look like 13th av SW? It has to look good and finished off like 13th Zion Mike Mikezion76@gmail.com St SW. Speed bumps and rotaries perhaps. Landscaped The project has to be similar or better as 13tn Zion Mike Mikezion76@gmail.com St SW Most important is to address the speed Zion Mike Mikezion76@gmail.com mitigation by speed bumps AND rotaries I AM AGAINST THIS PROJECT IF THERE IS NO Zion Mike Mikezion76@gmail.com SPEED MITIGATION AT THE BEGINNINGI111. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 8.0 MEETING FOR BRIDGES #6 AND #7 (18T" AVE NE LOCATIONS) ON OCTOBER 6T" 8.1 Invitees and attendees Meeting notifications were mailed to 487 site addresses and property owner addresses within the highlighted areas. A tendance Conversion Clicked Registration Link Registrants Attendees 10 20 30 40 Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Meeting Organizers, Panelists and Agency Stakeholders in Attendance Name Title/Job Description Department/Organization Tabatha Butcher EMS Chief Bureau of Emergency Services Lori Buck Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Lt. Joe Ellis District 4 - Commander Collier County Sheriff's Office Miranda Lansdale Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Lorraine Lantz Project Planner Collier County Government, Transportation Planning Comm. Bill McDaniel Commissioner, District S Collier County Government Jeff Perry Project Consultant Stantec Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Collier County Government, Transportation Planning Public Attendees Robert Clarke, rbrc200@gmail.com Chris Crossan, chriscrossan@northcollierfire.com Emron Cunningham, cunninghamins29@aol.com Daniel Davila, Daniel-davila@hotmail.com Joel Duggan, ioeldug@me.com Beth Freshwater, bwrzesinskv@vahoo.com Annette Kniola, annettekniola@aol.com Mark Mabee, mmabee@tmcfla.com Tim Mugavero, mugz189@gmail.com Christine Mugavero, cmugavero33@gmail.com Steve Napi, snappi@hardestvhanover.com Jill Schoellner, iillschoellner@vahoo.com Courtney Shrewsberry, Courtney.meanev@gmail.com Amber Stocker, ambermstocker@gmail.com Matthew Thomas, mthomas@hardestvhanover.com Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 8.2 Poll responses 1 of 4. Were you familiar with the previous East of CR 951 Horizon Study for Bridges? Multiple choice with single answer 33.33% 3 Responses 66.67% 6 Responses 2 of 4. aid you know about the county's 1-cent infrastructure surtax that was approved in 2018? Multiple choice with single answer 70% 7 Responses 30% 3 Responses 3 of 4. How did you hear about this meeting? Multiple choice with multiple answers 54.55% 6 Responses 27.27% 3 Responses r 18.18% other � 2 Responses 4 of 4. Which of the following are most important to you? Multiple choice with multiple answers 28.57% Improved conrMqity to collector and arterial roads 2 Responses 42.86% Reduced trip length far per al travel 3 Responses 57.14% Improved evacuation routes W 4 Responses 42.86% Reduced response times to#rst responders 3 Responses 14.29% 1Imp* access to schools, libraries and parks 1 Responses Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 8.3 Analysis slides Analysis of Bridge #G ■ 181" Ave. NE between Wilson Blvd and 8 % t • a%� sir IL -Or i. W 46 _5I `-2 1 I Location of Bridge #6: Proposed Condition ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #7 1811, Ave. NE between 811, St. NE and 1611 St. NE 5 Analysis of Bridge #7 1811, Ave. NE between 811i St. NE and 1611, St. NE Location of Bridge #7: Proposed Condition 5 Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridges #6 & #7 18h Ave. NE The Bridges #6-7 Project Includes the Following Improvements: • Resurfacing 18th Ave. NE from Wilson Blvd. to 16th St. NE (+/- 2.1 miles) • Adding paved shoulders • Adding a Sidewalk along one side of roadway from Wilson Blvd. to 16th St. NE. ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridges #6 & #7 181h Ave. NE Design Considerations Include: • Evaluating the need for intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes, traffic signal, etc.) at the intersection of 18th Ave. NE at Wilson Blvd., 8th St. NE and at l 6th St. NE. ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridges #6 & #7 lAIh Ava_ NF 5 Stantec Analysis of Bridge #6 & #7 23,d St. SW, North of White Blvd. Importance of study criteria • Improved connectivity to collectors and arterials (route choice) • Reduced trip length for personal travel • Improved evacuation routes (route choice) • Reduced response times for first responders • Improved access to schools, libraries, and parks We would like to know which of the criteria are important to you. ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridges #6 & #7 1811, Ave. NE Analysis of Bridges #6 & 7: Trip Length With & Without Bridge 4 Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridges #6 & #7 181h Ave. N E The trip length and housing unit data was put into a worksheet to quantify the benefits realized with a new bridge. 5 Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report .5 Analysis of Bridges #6 & #7 18th Ave. NE 5 Analysis of Bridges #6 & #7 18'h Ave. N E Potential Benefits Include: • Increase in route choice options for public agencies, and 1,907 current residences (3,289 at buildout) • Shorter trip lengths for some residents • Shorter trip lengths for a substantial number of CCSO responses ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridges #6 & #7 18Eh Ave. NE Potential Benefits Include: • Reduction in travel distance to arterial network for 34 homes on 18th Ave. NE east of the bridges (48 at build -out) • Potential reduction in travel distance to school for 118 homes west of the bridges (178 at build -out) subject to rezoning 4 Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 8.4 Questions and comments Attendees had the opportunity to type in questions or comments throughout the session. After the presentation concluded, the project team read and answered questions aloud. Last Name First Name Email Address Question/comment Clarke Robert rbrc200@gmail.com From the mailing I appreciate the information. What is the plan to control the speed on Clarke Robert rbrc200@gmail.com 18th St NE.? 8th St is still a high- speed area despite the police presence I disagree. it WILL increase speed Clarke Robert rbrc200@gmail.com on these roads, not just traffic. When will the decision be made on which side of 18th St the sidewalk will be? Why is a sidewalk necessary? It will take much more Clarke Robert rbrc200@gmail.com land. And how will property owners be reimbursed for not just land taken but also existing driveways, fences, etc. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report That is not acceptable just having law enforcement watch for Clarke Robert rbrc200@gmail.com speeding. There needs to be other ways to control speed -- speed bumps, stop signs etc. Why do the people who live on 18th Clarke Robert rbrc200@gmail.com St not get to vote on this? We are the ones being most effected. Can you define what you mean by Clarke Robert rbrc200@gmail.com the Right of Way Can someone look at putting a light Clarke Robert rbrc200@gmail.com at corner of 8th St and Randall. I've seen several near misses. Thank you for this. Much Clarke Robert rbrc200@gmail.com appreciated Crossan Chris chriscrossan@northcollierfire.com thanks Fire Commissioner Chris Crossan Crossan Chris chriscrossan@northcollierfire.com here: First of all let me thanks CCSO for patrolling 8th St so vigilantly. Appreciate the help but with Randal and 8th street being a nightmare Crossan Chris chriscrossan@northcollierfire.com why would we want to funnel any additional traffic to Randal and 8th st when I have already scene CCSO writing so many tickets on 8th Correct you would never bypass 8th Crossan Chris chriscrossan@northcollierfire.com and you would actually just as fast because of residential 10th and Wilson they would take Crossan Chris chriscrossan@northcollierfire.com the new Vanderbilt? Commercial instead of residential Crossan Chris chriscrossan@northcollierfire.com response area Crossan Chris chriscrossan@northcollierfire.com no way 25% on ems and fire Crossan Chris chriscrossan@northcollierfire.com not from their static location Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report what is the projected completion Crossan Chris chriscrossan@northcollierfire.com date for Vanderbilt oh, they are still out there almost Crossan Chris chriscrossan@northcollierfire.com every day and got passed at 60mph on 8th two day ago Crossan Chris chriscrossan@northcollierfire.com Thanks for Vanderbilt Info Crossan Chris chriscrossan@northcollierfire.com w00000000 Before they widened 8th there was very little water retention, now Crossan Chris chriscrossan@northcollierfire.com during rain there is significantly more water retention due you see this as an issue on 18th If. as stated in the presentation, the Duggan Joel joeldug@me.com benefit is to such a small number of homes (7) why go forward? Is there any data on how often the CCSO is called to this area that Duggan Joel joeldug@me.com would justify a 3-minute faster response as being needed? I thought tonight was focused on the bridges on 18th Ave NE. Why Duggan Joel joeldug@me.com are we answering questions about other bridges? M CCSO data seems an important factor in this. If we are trending up in calls then saving 3mins might be Duggan Joel joeldug@me.com justified. But if the trend isn't going up, then this seems to be an expense that is not needed at this time. I cannot hear. Tested, and shows Kniola Annette annettekniola@aol.com running smoothly. I cannot hear. Tested, and shows Kniola Annette annettekniola@aol.com running smoothly. Kniola Annette annettekniola@aol.com I got it, thank you! Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Kniola Annette annettekniola@aol.com Thank you! Mugavero Christine cmugavero33@gmail.com Is this 100% sure to happen? How do we stop it? We chose our forever home to be away from traffic. We liked the limited outlets. No bridge allows my children to play outside without me Mugavero Christine cmugavero33@gmail.com having to worry about them getting hit by cars! the proposed sidewalk goes through my driveway, taking away my oak trees and even more room for my kids to play. we moved to GGE because we are Mugavero Christine cmugavero33@gmail.com not a gated community. no sidewalks Schoellner Jill jillschoellner@yahoo.com Why aren't they starting expanding Randall? If your worried about timing, why Schoellner Jill jillschoellner@yahoo.com not zig zag to eliminate opportunities to speed? Shrewsberry Courtney courtney.meaney@gmail.com Have you considered other streets that are more densely populated? We have small children when we purchased. 8TH street is already an issue with speeding and now we will potentially have speeding down our Shrewsberry Courtney courtney.meaney@gmail.com road which puts my children in harm's way. When I look at our street, we only have 2 vacant lots. Why not Jung where our lots butt up to. if we don't see any benefit than why do we have to deal with the traffic? Shrewsberry Courtney courtney.meaney@gmail.com is the plan to add more bridges to alleviate us? Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report I understand that this helps response time but I am against this because when we purchased this lot and built in 2017 we were NEVER Shrewsberry Courtney courtney.meaney@gmail.com told this was going to happen. If we knew we had the opportunity to face our home either on 18th or Jung and we would have chosen differently. If you are putting in a sidewalk does Shrewsberry Courtney courtney.meaney@gmail.com that mean some residents would now lose part of their lot to this? Shrewsberry Courtney courtney.meaney@gmail.com How long would these bridges take to complete? Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 9.0 MEETING FOR BRIDGE #11 (10T" AVE SE) ON OCTOBER 7T" 9.1 Invitees and attendees Meeting notifications were mailed to 131 site addresses and property owner addresses within the highlighted areas. Attendance Conversion Clicked Registration Link Registrants Attendees 3 24 Meeting Organizers, Panelists and Agency Stakeholders in Attendance Name Title/Job Description Department/Organization Lt. Joe Ellis District 4 - Commander Collier County Sheriff's Office Lorraine Lantz Project Planner Collier County Government, Transportation Planning Yvonne McClellan Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Comm. Bill McDaniel Commissioner, District S Collier County Government Jeff Perry Project Consultant Stantec Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Collier County Government, Transportation Planning Olivia Smith Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Public Attendees Lori Davidson, sldavidson97@gmail.com Scott Davidson, sldavidson97@comcast.net Josue Espinosa, iosh.espinosa@me.com 9.2 Poll responses Steve Gafford, steve@setpointautomation.com Robin Gafford, rhgafford@gmail.com Christi Guerrero, cguerrero1982@gmail.com 1 of 4. Were you familiar with the previous East of CR 951 Horizon Study for Bridges? Multiple choice with single answer 100% 4 Responses 2 of 4. Did you know about the county's 1-cent infrastructure surtax that was approved in 2018? Multiple choice with single answer 100% 3 of 4_ How did you hear about this meeting? Multiple choice with multiple answers 75% 25% n-person notification 2 Responses 3 Responses 1 Responses 25% 1 Responses Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 4 of 4. Which of the following are most important to you? Multiple choice with multiple answers 50% nd arterial roads 1 Responses 50% Vol 1 Responses 100% FrProved evacuation routes 2 Responses 100% F educed response times for first responders 2 Responses 50% Improved access to schools, libraries and parks 1 Responses 9.3 Analysis slides Bridge # 1 1 is to be located on 1016 e x ' t ^ Ave. SE, east of i Everglades Blvd. r „, J A potential area & ^ was identified in the original Bridge Study, the exact location of Bridge # 11 was m; determined later $ 5 Analysis of Bridge #11 1011, Ave. SE *'": Location of Bridge #1 Star 5 Analysis of Bridge #11 1 Ot" Ave. SE R.a itec Location of Bridge #11: Proposed Condition ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #11 1011 Ave. SE The Bridge #1 1 Project Includes the Following Improvements: • Resurfacing IOth Ave. SE from Everglades Blvd. to Desoto Blvd. (+/- 1.83 miles) • Adding paved shoulders • Adding a Sidewalk along one side of roadway from Everglades Blvd. to Desoto Blvd. ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #11 1011 Ave. SE Design Considerations Include: • Evaluating the need for intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes, traffic signal, etc.) at the intersection of Everglades Blvd. and 1 Oth Ave. SE • Evaluating potential improvements to the intersection of 1 Oth Ave. SE and Desoto Blvd. 5 Analysis of Bridge #11 l Ofh Ave. SE ® Stantec Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #11 23r11 St. SW, North of White Blvd. Importance of study criteria • Improved connectivity to collectors and arterials (route choice) • Reduced trip length for personal travel • Improved evacuation routes (route choice) • Reduced response times for first responders • Improved access to schools, libraries, and parks We would like to know which of the criteria are important to you. ® Stantec Analysis of Bridge #11 1011' Ave. SE Analysis of Bridge #1 l: Trip Length With & Without Bridge CS Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #11 101" Ave. SE The trip length and housing unit data was put into a worksheet to quantify the benefits realized with a new bridge. 5 Analysis of Bridge #11 1011 Ave. SE 5 Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 5 Analysis of Bridge #11 10"' Ave. SE Potential Benefits Include: • Increase in route choice options for public agencies, and 487 current residences (1,787 at buildout) • Shorter trip lengths for some residents • Shorter trip lengths for some CCSO and EMS responses ® stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #11 10'" Ave. SE Potential Benefits Include: • Reduction in travel distance to school (subject to rezoning) for 67 homes east and south of the bridge (244 at build -out) ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #11 101h Ave. SE Potential Benefits Include: • Residents could benefit from up to a 64% decrease in response time (up to 4.4 minutes) for CCSO vehicles. • Route choice is improved CCSO, Fire & EMS first responders. • 16% reduction in response time to some residences due to station locations. • No additional homes meet ISO 3 Rating ® Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 9.4 Questions and comments Attendees had the opportunity to type in questions or comments throughout the session. After the presentation concluded, the project team read and answered questions aloud. Last Name First Name Email Address Question/comment Will you be answering the Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net questions that were submitted via email? Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net How is that logical versus 20t"? Hi, when was 10th Ave. SE option approved vs. the other 12tn _ 20tn options which was part of the Espinosa Josue Josh.espinosa@me.com original study and was actually left undetermined in that original study... per item #11 in map showing the options We've lived here for over 23 years Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net and you want to change our way of life for personal travel? Few questions together: how wide will the road including sidewalk be; Espinosa Josue Josh.espinosa@me.com 2 which side of the road will sidewalk be in; 3 will construction include having to take over portion of private property? 8th has turned into a freeway. It's Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net beautiful!! My friend lives on it and is going to move. Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net You stated it was logical. Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net Which side of the road you will take land from and how much Also, this will obviously disrupt the Espinosa Josue Josh.espinosa@me.com peaceful ambiance of our street, with that said... can residents Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report request that trucks (semi's construction, etc.) be forbidden from using as thru street? Also, can "do not throw trash signs" be posted since increased traffic will definitely increase possibility of more trash visible similar what you can already see in Desoto Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net So why put this bridge up? Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net Will it hold up in court? Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net School district is more likely to put up a school on Desoto I have to say, there is nothing positive for us and our 15 acres with regard to this project. Our wildlife will be greatly impacted, and our quiet peaceful life will Gafford Robin rhgafford@gmail.com change drastically. We are greatly opposed to this project. Please let us know which side of the road the additional land needed will be taken from, north or south side of tenth? Also, Per Map, looks like it would make more sense to put bridge on 12t" Ave or further down as per Espinosa Josue Josh.espinosa@me.com original study... if anything, 201n Ave is right smack in the middle which to me makes more sense for time savings Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Espinosa Josue Josh.espinosa@me.com What will the speed limit be Espinosa Josue Josh.espinosa@me.com What will the height of bridge be, meaning can a small boat go underneath McDaniel William Bill.mcdaniel@colliercountyfl.gov I'm back Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net Lack of police will allow our road to be used for crime. Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net Sounds like you do not even feel the bridge belongs here. Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net I see trucks on 18t" all the time. Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net If you do not widen GGB to Desoto all vehicles will be using our road. Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net We know residents on that street Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Our law enforcement should not have to be used for monitoring Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net speeders. They have so many other important things to do. Espinosa Josue Josh.espinosa@me.com More like a canoe or kayak Have you done a study on how Davidson Scott sldavidson@comcast.net much we will lose value on our homes? Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net 14tn Can owner of vacant lot work with construction company to designate/build entrance with Espinosa Josue Josh.espinosa@me.com culvert to a property that is currently vacant and currently has no entry point Could you repeat again about the Guerrero Christi Cguerrero1982@gmail.com effect(s) of property value? Why wouldn't you take property Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net values into this? Can you poll the community to see Davidson Scott sldavidson@comcast.net if they want this? Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Guerrero Christi Cguerrero1982@gmail.com Any idea who will bid on the bridge project? I can tell you nobody wants this Davidson Scott Sldavidson97@comcast.net and the voters will be making our voice heard. Guerrero Christi Cguerrero1982@gmail.com How long would they have to bid? The residents on my street do not Davidson Lori Sldavidson97@gmail.com want this bridge and feel it is totally unnecessary! Davidson Lori Sldavidson97@gmail.com How will we be notified for other meetings regarding this? ih Bridge 1:1 x� .. w -� � X• 1 y11IIII I 1 � f d 1 -Olt .77. JL _ • IL " �" ),:. a4 • x- -' of k - _ j �'� - r - ems+-. r I � ... _ -. • }� ^� IT e�•"4• Ism f^ a rn i W J` C-Aw a • 0. 1 _ C e1 -1\ ALL 1 �,__. .�•- �Fi per. --... .. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Attendance Conversion Clicked Registration Link Registrants Attendees 15 Meeting Organizers, Panelists, and Agency Stakeholders in Attendance 74 �2 Name Title/Job Description Department/Organization Sgt. Christopher Bence Collier County Sheriff's Office Miranda Lansdale Public Involvement Consultant Quest Corporation of America Lorraine Lantz Project Planner Collier County Government, Transportation Planning Comm. Bill McDaniel Commissioner, District 5 Collier County Government Jeff Perry Project Consultant Stantec Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Collier County Government, Transportation Planning Olivia Smith Public Involvement Coordinator Quest Corporation of America Public Attendees Margaret Bush, bushpegasus@gmaiI.com Jeff Close, lbacamaro@gmail.com Dilia Camacho, dilcam881@gmail.com James Cooper, elasmo99@gmail.com Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Rodney Foytik, foytik92@gmail.com Peter Hayden, petershayden@comcast.net David Palumbo, dvdpalumbol@gmail.com Mitchell Penner, mpenner@mitchellstark.com Mercedes Puente, ipmpkp@aol.com Michael Ramsey, Michael.r.ramsey@embargmail.com 10.2 Poll responses 1 of 4. Were you familiar with the previous East of CR 951 Horizon Study for Bridges? Multiple choice with single answer 55.56% 5 Responses 44.44% 4 Responses 2 of 4. Did you know about the county's 1-cent infrastructure surtax that was approved in 2018? Multiple choice with single answer 77.78% 7 Responses 22.22% 2 Responses 3 of 4. How did you hear about this meeting? Multiple choice with multiple answers 33.33% flyer in the mail 3 Responses 55.56% door-to-door or in -person notification 5 Responses 11.11% from a friend 1 Responses 22.22% 2 Responses Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 4 of 4. Which of the following are most important to you? MultPple choice with multiple answers 40% Ilector and arterial roads 20% — length for personal travel 20% rim proved 4cuation routes 10()% Reduced response times for first responders 2011:0 Improved it ass to schools, libraries and parks 10.3 Analysis slides 2 Responses 1 Responses 1 Responses 5 Responses 1 Responses Analysis of Bridge #9 10' al. JL Location of Bridge #9: bcisting Condition 5 Analysis of Bridge #9 16"' St. SE ® Stantec Location of Bridge #9: Proposed Condition ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #9 16",St. SE The Bridge #9 Project Includes the Following Improvements: • Resurfacing 16th Ave. SE from Golden Gate Blvd. to the bridge (+/- 1.27 miles) • Adding paved shoulders • Adding a Sidewalk along one side of roadway ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #9 16'h St. SE Design Considerations Include: • Intersection improvements (e.g., turn lanes, traffic signal, etc.) at the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd. & 16th Ave. NE/SE 5 Analysis of Bridge #9 1611, A SE ® Stantec Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #9& #10 23rd St. SW, North of White Blvd. Importance of study criteria • Improved connectivity to collectors and arterials (route choice) • Reduced trip length for personal travel • Improved evacuation routes (route choice) • Reduced response times for first responders • Improved access to schools, libraries, and parks We would like to know which of the criteria are important to you. 5 Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #9 Analysis of Bridge #9: Trip Length With & Without Bridge ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #9 1611, St. SE The trip length and housing unit data was put into a worksheet to quantify the benefits realized with a new bridge. ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #9 16"' St, SE Potential Benefits Include: • Increase in route choice options for public agencies, and 18 current residences (135 at buildout) • Shorter trip lengths for some residents • Shorter trip lengths for some CCSO responses ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #9 1 Vh St. SE Potential Benefits Include: • Access to future school sites south of bridge • Potential reduction in travel distance to school(s) for 1,900 homes outside of bridge -shed at build -out ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #10 Wilson Blvd. South The next set of slides will provide an overview of the analysis of Bridge # 10 on Wilson Blvd. S., located approximately 1 mile south of Golden Gate Blvd. ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #10 Wilson Blvd. South ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #10 1 6"' St. SF i Analysis of Bridge #10 Wilson Blvd. South i Nr � Location of Bridge #10: Existing Condition ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #10 Wilson Blvd, South Location of Bridge #10; Proposed Condition ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Bridge #10 Wilson Blvd. South The Bridge # 10 Project Includes the Following Improvements: • Realigning Wilson Blvd. S. to intersect with Tobias St. & Frangipani Ave. • Resurfacing Wilson Blvd S. from Golden Gate Blvd. Blvd. to Tobias St. (+/- 1.2 miles) • Adding paved shoulders • Adding a Sidewalk along one side of roadway ® Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 5 Analysis of Bridge #10 Wilson Blvd. South The trip length and housing unit data was put into a worksheet to quantify the benefits realized with a new bridge. ® Stantec Jr Analysis of Bridge #10 Wilson Blvd. South me nameer o+ gallons of fuel saved with a new bridge ® Stantec Analysis of Bridge #10 Wilson Blvd. South ® Stantec 5 Analysis of Wilson Blvd. South 5 Analysis of Bridge #10 Wilson Blvd. South Potential Benefits Include: • Improve access and increase in route choice options for public agencies, and 40 current residences (132 at buildout) • Shorter trip lengths for all residents • Shorter trip lengths for Fire and EMS response • Shorter trip lengths for some CCSO response ® Stantec Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 10.4 Questions and comments Attendees had the opportunity to type in questions or comments throughout the session. After the presentation concluded, the project team read and answered questions aloud. Last Name First Name Email Address Question/Comment Why do we need bridge south of Close Jeff lbacamaro@gmail.com 16th when there is a bridge at 10th My concern would be school Close Jeff lbacamaro@gmail.com traffic down 16th. Hayden Peter petershayden@comcast.net Quickpoll is still showing Hayden Peter petershayden@comcast.net Allset-Thanks Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Hayden Peter petershayden@comcast.net Where is the None option? Were additional shed areas reviewed for Bridge #10? Hayden Peter petershayden@comcast.net Speciffically to the South and for future expansion Thank you everyone for your time Hayden Peter petershayden@comcast.net this evening For bridge 10 area. Can you consider build out of RFMUD receiving lands. That would be 1 unit per acre without density Penner Mitchell mpenner@mitchellstark.com bonus and not in a village. 640 acres equals to 640 units. If a village is built there it can be up to 3 units per acre. Minimum size of a village is 300 acres. I'll clarify in an email. Thank you Penner Mitchell mpenner@mitchellstark.com for taking my question. Is there a time line for build out of Puente Mercedes jpmpkp@aol.com schools off bridge 9? Why was 16th choosen as a bridge Puente Mercedes jpmpkp@aol.com site instead of 18th or 20th? If the commisioners approve Puente Mercedes jpmpkp@aol.com bridge 9 what would be thw build out time line Puente Mercedes jpmpkp@aol.com Thank you all! Ramsey Michael Michael.R.Ramsey@embarqmail.com Miranda, how many participants? Ramsey Michael Michael.R.Ramsey@embarqmail.com don't like the choices .. no vote Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 11.0 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT In addition to submitting written comments/questions during the meetings, residents were encouraged to provide additional feedback via email. Communication Details Question/Comment 9/21 My name is Donna Sadler, I had fought the 23rd St. SW bridge connection back in approx. 2010/2012 when the county was replacing the White Blvd. Bridge. It was my understanding that this Donna Sadler pschuck@centurylink.net bridge had come off of the Growth Management Plan. It is unneeded as there are four other streets just west of 23rd that already connect and since they improved the corner of White Blvd. and 23rd St. SW on the south side of the canal it makes for a very easy turn. (25th St. SW is just approx. 2/10ths of a mile west of 23rd St. SW. 25th, 27th, 29th and 31st streets are already connected from White Blvd. to GGBIVD.) The cost of the improvements needed on the north end of 23rd St. SW was going to be very expensive as the county had deep ditches dug for rain water drainage when they four Ianed GGBIvd. I do not think that it was considered when the county did the bridge study. 23rd St. SW on the north side of the canal is very narrow so the county was going to have to put underground drainage on the one side of the street and put sidewalks in. Also a traffic light would have to be installed permanently at 23rd and GGBIvd. Our street was used as a detour while the White Blvd. Bridge was being replaced. We had a temporary light installed and many cars and trucks blew right threw it. We also had temporary speed bumps which people did not care and still drove very fast down the street one time causing a truck that pulled a trailer to almost go down into our ditch. As far as being needed for Fire and the Library the 13th St. SW bridge gives quick access to those south of the canal. I believe that was one of the reasons for the 13th St. SW bridge was because of the Fire Station being on 13th St. SW. Back when Tim Nance was commissioner the county was suppose to remove the chicanes that had been put on 13th St. SW because of the school buses not being allowed down that street. The connection of 13th St. SW and 25th St. SW gives quick access to the south side of the canal without any extra costs to the tax payers. I would be happy to come in and speak with you on this subject if needed. I cannot attend the meeting via virtually because of my internet connection. Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments regarding the 23rd St. SW Bridge. We will add them to the comments received as part of the project. There is an opportunity to attend the Virtual Meeting via phone by registering at the same link bit.ly/ggeabridgel If you are not able to access the internet by the link, I can register for you and send you the presentation when it is available. This would enable you to listen to and follow the presentation in real time. If that option is not viable, our team would be happy to meet with you or arrange a conference call at your convenience. In 2019 the Board of Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report County Commissioners (BCC) amended the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. At that time, references to specific bridges such as the 8th St. NE, 16th St. NE and 23rd St. SW were removed and the policy language was amended. The current Policy states: GOAL 5: GOLDEN GATE ESTATES TO PROVIDE FOR A SAFE AND EFFICIENT COUNTY AND LOCAL ROADWAY NETWORK, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SEEKING TO PRESERVE THE RURAL CHARACTER OF RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES IN FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE GOLDEN GATE AREA. OBJECTIVE 5.1: Increase the number of route alternatives for traffic moving through the Rural Golden Gate Area in both east- west and north- south directions, consistent with neighborhood traffic safety considerations, and consistent with the preservation of the area's rural character. Policy 5.1.1: In planning to increase the number of route alternatives through the Rural Golden Gate Estates, Collier County will prioritize the following routes over other alternatives: a. The extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road from its current terminus to DeSoto Boulevard. b. The development of a north -south connection from the eastern terminus of White Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard. c. The development of a new east -west roadway crossing the Estates Area south of Golden Gate Boulevard. Policy 5.1.2: The County shall coordinate with FDOT and the Metropolitan Planning Organization to submit a revised interchange justification report for an interchange at 1-75 in the vicinity of Everglades Blvd. (Section 31-34, Township 49, Range 28). Policy 5.1.3: Everglades Blvd., between Golden Gate Blvd and 1-75, shall not be expanded beyond 4 lanes. OBJECTIVE 5.2: Increase linkages within the local road system for the purposes of limiting traffic on arterials and major collectors within Rural Golden Gate Estates, shortening vehicular trips, and increasing overall road system capacity. Policy 5.2.1: The County shall continue to explore alternative financing methods to facilitate both east- west and north- south bridging of canals within Rural Golden Gate Estates. Policy 5.2.2: The County shall update the 2008 Bridge Study to prioritize bridge construction based on emergency response times, evacuation times, cost components, anticipated development patterns and other considerations and shall report its recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners within two years of adoption of this policy. This Bridge Reevaluation study is completing policy 5.2.2 by reconfirming the validity of the remaining 10 recommended bridge locations in the 2008 Bridge Study. The Reevaluation Study considered the same criteria as the original study and interviewed the same agency stakeholders. All the agencies interviewed reconfirmed the importance of the bridge locations. The meeting this week is to discuss the study process with the affected property owners, share the analysis we completed and receive comments. Once we complete all project meetings, we will present our recommendations to the BCC. We anticipate presenting to the BCC on December 8th. Please note, that date is tentative. Please let me know if you have any additional questions, or if you would like me to register you for the meeting on Wednesday. The project website is located at the following link: http://colliercountyfl.gov/planningstudies there are several studies in the accordion below the introduction. Current — East of CR-951 Bridge Re -Evaluation Study is the 2nd accordion. Once clicked it expands to contain information about the project. Communication Details Question/Comment 9/22 1 am a resident on 23rd Ave SW & I am unsure if I can make the Holly Tucker virtual meeting. Is this bridge a done deal? Is this being voted on by olhit@aol.com residence? From what I understand there was a bridge there at one time and was closed due to speeding and high traffic. I have children who ride their bikes to friends houses on the street. This bridge would not be in the interest of the families on the street. Response from Lorraine Lantz Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Thank you for your comments. We hope you can attend the virtual meeting tomorrow. If you are unable to attend, the presentation will be available on the project website after the meeting. The project website is located at the following link: http://colliercountyfl.gov/planningstudies there are several studies in the accordion below the introduction. Current - East of CR-951 Bridge Re - Evaluation Study is the 2nd accordion. Once clicked - it expands to contain information about this project. This Bridge Reevaluation study is being done to reconfirm the validity of the remaining 10 recommended bridge locations in the 2008 Bridge Study. The presentation and virtual meeting is to discuss the study process with the affected property owners, share the analysis we completed and receive comments. Once we complete all project meetings, we will present our recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for their direction. We anticipate presenting to the BCC on December 8th. Please note, that date is tentative. Communication Details Question/Comment 9/23 Will this virtual meeting be recorded? Irina Kislyanka email@reoteamfl.com Responses from Lorraine Lantz I reached out last week and returned your phone calls, however I wanted to make sure you were aware that your questions and comments will be added to the project record. The 2008 East of 951 Bridge Study evaluated potential new bridges based on improved connectivity, reduced trip length, improved evacuation routes, reduced response times for first responders and improved access to schools, libraries and parks. Those were the same criteria used in the reevaluation study analysis. It is understood that vehicular traffic will increase by varying amounts at the proposed bridge locations. How the traffic patterns will be redistributed within Golden Gate Estates area after all 10 bridges are constructed was not evaluated by this study. The project information as well as the presentation material and recording of the virtual public meeting are available on our website located at: http://colliercountvfl.gov/planningstudies there are several studies in the accordion below the introduction. Current — East of CR-951 Bridge Re - Evaluation Study is the 2nd accordion. Once clicked - it expands to contain information about this project. Communication Details Question/Comment 9/24 1 hope you are doing well with all this craziness in the world. I just wanted to send my thoughts on this prior to the meeting. My husband is going to watch virtually, but I will be doing Robert Randolph ss327chevy@aol.com dinner/bedtime routine for my little one. I was very disheartened to hear this news. We only bought here 2 months ago and the sellers didn't disclose this information. We moved from a gated HOA neighborhood and both my husband and I grew up in rural areas. We chose to live out here on our 2.5 acres on a dead end street to give our little one a proper childhood with plenty of places to run and explore. We ride bikes on our quiet street. She goes out to the street to check our mail daily. We don't need cars whizzing by if this is turned into a through street. And we aren't just talking about just regular traffic. Since the (alleged) "goal" is to benefit school busses and first responders, we are likely to hear sirens, see bright flashing lights, hear the rumble of the heavy school busses. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report And forget giving her the autonomy to check the mail. And forget taking a ride in the street or fishing. And forget having a cute little girl playing in her yard on a quaint street. We are RIGHT back to strangers in our yard.... I can't help but think this has something to do with all of the planned communities by the wealthy developers coming in to build.... In most of Naples we are used to there being some core streets and a bunch of different gated neighborhoods. Although we both grew up elsewhere we have lived in Naples 18 years so are very familiar with how things work. That's why we and so many people CHOSE to live out here and be away from it all. I don't understand why the infrastructure needs to be changed to have some "short cuts" simply to be more "convenient". We drive our daughter almost an hour to private school daily and an hour back after school and although a cut through might save some time to get there, we also signed up for this. As does anyone who lives out here. We did not sign up for people cutting through our dead end street or for them to most likely widen the road into our yards and send strangers down our road looking into our windows and at our kids. It's completely unnecessary. The police and first responders know their ways around here and can get there quick enough. Most of us also know cpr, first aid, and have our own forms of protection until first responders arrive. If a bridge needs to be created. Create it just for them. Just like the turnarounds on the interstate. Official use only. My daughter also has severe asthma and the increased exhaust from the increased traffic would negatively affect her. She has been doing SO much better after moving out here to fresh air and lots of trees. We thought we finally had it figured out and now we learn our whole world is about to be turned upside down - after only 2 months of bliss. I know in Naples the greedy developers always win so I won't write anymore because they always get what they want anyway. But this just really sucks on top of an already crappy 2020. This "plan" by the elite has been in place for decades and they are just waiting to leech off of us poor saps who took the bait. Follow up email on 9/24: This forum in merely a formality to state the committe "Listened" to public opinion. Government projects going forward is a forgone conclusion .... beaureucratic BS. Government is not the solution, Government is usually the problem. Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments. We will add them to the project record. Project information has been placed on our website at the following link: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your- government/divisions-s-z/transportation-planning/planning-studies Communication Details Question/Comment 9/28 Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Randi Izdonavicius I hope you are doing well with all this craziness in the world. I just randi davis@vahoo.com wanted to send my thoughts on this prior to the meeting. My husband is going to watch virtually, but I will be doing dinner/bedtime routine for my little one. I was very disheartened to hear this news. We only bought here 2 months ago and the sellers didn't disclose this information. We moved from a gated HOA neighborhood and both my husband and I grew up in rural areas. We chose to live out here on our 2.5 acres on a dead end street to give our little one a proper childhood with plenty of places to run and explore. We ride bikes on our quiet street. She goes out to the street to check our mail daily. We don't need cars whizzing by if this is turned into a through street. And we aren't just talking about just regular traffic. Since the (alleged) "goal" is to benefit school busses and first responders, we are likely to hear sirens, see bright flashing lights, hear the rumble of the heavy school busses. And forget giving her the autonomy to check the mail. And forget taking a ride in the street or fishing. And forget having a cute little girl playing in her yard on a quaint street. We are RIGHT back to strangers in our yard.... I can't help but think this has something to do with all of the planned communities by the wealthy developers coming in to build.... In most of Naples we are used to there being some core streets and a bunch of different gated neighborhoods. Although we both grew up elsewhere we have lived in Naples 18 years so are very familiar with how things work. That's why we and so many people CHOSE to live out here and be away from it all. I don't understand why the infrastructure needs to be changed to have some "short cuts" simply to be more "convenient". We drive our daughter almost an hour to private school daily and an hour back after school and although a cut through might save some time to get there, we also signed up for this. As does anyone who lives out here. We did not sign up for people cutting through our dead end street or for them to most likely widen the road into our yards and send strangers down our road looking into our windows and at our kids. It's completely unnecessary. The police and first responders know their ways around here and can get there quick enough. Most of us also know cpr, first aid, and have our own forms of protection until first responders arrive. If a bridge needs to be created. Create it just for them. Just like the turnarounds on the interstate. Official use only. My daughter also has severe asthma and the increased exhaust from the increased traffic would negatively affect her. She has been doing SO much better after moving out here to fresh air and lots of trees. We thought we finally had it figured out and now we learn our whole world is about to be turned upside down - after only 2 months of bliss. I know in Naples the greedy developers always win so I won't write anymore because they always get what they want anyway. But this just really sucks on top of an already crappy 2020. This "plan" by Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report the elite has been in place for decades and they are just waiting to leech off of us poor saps who took the bait. Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments. We will add them to the project record. Project information has been placed on our website at the following link: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your- government/divisions-s-z/transportation-planning/planning-studies Communication Details Question/Comment 9/28 Will stop signs be added north of the bright. Will signs be put up saying residential area. No through traffic. Will road be widened to handle more traffic? ATVs and horses use the road. Bears are common. Will warning signs be put for children playing in street. Tom Becker tomb@bridgesoflancaster.com How soon will it be built? Does this open up street for commercial zoning? Stormwater culverts on intersections are too small. Water collecting on road. Road safety issues need addressed North of bridge. Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the project record. In regards to your questions: • The need for traffic signals or devices and traffic calming features could be analyzed and evaluated during the design process to determine whether or not they are warranted. Often times, these features are added after the initial improvements are constructed to allow for traffic patterns to adjust to determine the best location of these features. • The Design Phase will look at the technical engineering issues very carefully for each individual bridge and location. The design will improve the roadway by resurfacing it, in its entirety. The project will also include adding paved shoulders and widening the travel lanes to the required width, which is typically 11 feet wide travel lanes. The current roadway widths vary between 9 feet and 11 feet for each direction of traffic. • This project does not include any zoning or land use changes. • The proposed bridge construction and road widening will not exacerbate the existing flooding conditions. Current drainage structures may be modified during construction and those will be reviewed and accommodated during the design phase. Drainage will be done to the County's engineering criteria and will follow all appropriate roadway and stormwater standards. • Staff will be providing the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with data, analysis and recommendations based on information we have gathered and from evaluating each bridge. The ultimate decision as to which bridge locations move forward and how the project proceeds is for the BCC. The construction of whichever bridges move forward will be completed by the year 2027. Thank you again for contributing to this project; please feel encouraged to share additional insights for the record. Communication Details Question/Comment 9/28 There is NO NEED for a bridge at the Wilson Blvd N location, #5, based on data. There is adequate access for EMS and other emergency services. Traffic isn't yet an issue. It is recommended to Susan Federmann Susan.federmann@philips.com take the money for that project and use it to remove the "chicanes" from 13th St SW (south of the GG Library) so that school buses, emergency vehicles, fire trucks can use the road safely. Communication Details Question/Comment 9/29 Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Timothy Ross Please let it be known that we are opposed to the bridge on Wilson blvd. Moving traffic off Immokalee road at that point is redundant, rossdesinc@aol.com and unnecessary to add more through traffic into a residential neighborhood. I am sure this money could be allocated to a much more necessary project. Thank you, Anne and Tim Ross 45 year residents of Golden gate Estates Ross Design Associates P.O. Box 990489 Naples, Florida. 34116 239.261.8951 office Communication Details Question/Comment 9/29 Move the money and remove the "chicanes" on 13th St SW. Pierre Bonne-Annee prbonneannee@gmail.com Communication Details Question/Comment 9/29 1 live on the street and feel that currently it is unsafe due to speed issues. Nell Hedstrom Nell Hedstrom hedstrom@maine.edu Communication Details Question/Comment 9/29 1 heard that they want to put the bridge back up on 23rd St! Please tell me they voted it down! My mailbox was knocked over and I didn't get any mail for a whole week even though we put the Laura Ridge Iridge@colliertax.com Mailbox back up the next day! Go figure on the mail service. Communication Details Question/Comment 9/29 Will Wilson N. be widened when the bridge is put in and will we have sidewalks? There will be more traffic when this happens. Charles Scholten charlescholten@gmail.com Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the project record. In regards to your questions: Yes, each bridge location is expected to be designed to have sidewalks on one side of the roadway, paved shoulders, and travel lanes widened to the required width, which is typically 11 ft wide travel lanes. The current roadway widths vary between 9 ft and 11 ft for each direction of traffic. Thank you again for contributing to this project; please feel encouraged to share additional insights for the record. Communication Details Question/Comment 9/30 Century Link internet has been out for hours so can't get to the meeting hardly anyone will . Want to voice our objection to 47th bridge it would impair traffic on 47th Immokalee. Rd to canal make a race track and dump truck haul route out of residential dead end Steve Ritter steve.ritter@colliercountyfl.gov street and open up to thieves with 2 ways out. Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments. We will add them to the project record. I am sorry to hear that there were internet issues and you were unable to participate in yesterday's meeting. Project information and yesterday's presentation materials have been placed on our website at the following link: Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report https://www.coIIiercountyfLgov/your-government/divisions-s-z/transportation-planning/planning- studies Please feel free to review them for the information that was discussed at the meeting. Communication Details Question/Comment 9/30 Thank you for getting back to me and confirming receipt. We don't feel like we learned much out of the presentation yesterday. Basically every question that was asked by anyone affected was in I Randi Izdonavicius randi davis@vahoo.com don't know the answer to that. I'm not sure why the speaker wasn't more prepared considering. I feel like I'm not sure what the point of the meeting was yesterday? Was it just to make us aware of this is happening? I was hoping to get more information then was provided. We are very stressed out over the situation I was hoping that after the meeting yesterday we would have at least known what we were dealing with in case we have to put our house on the market to avoid this. Looks like we are going to be in for a bumpy ride. Q Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments. We will add them to the project record. The goal of this study and these webinars is to provide a history and background of the Bridge Projects and share our updated analysis which validates the importance of the 10 bridges in the original study. Many of the questions asked related to the design and construction of the bridge. The Bridge Projects are simply not at those phases yet. The ultimate decision as to which bridge location moves forward to those phases is for the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to make. That decision is tentatively anticipated to occur at the December 8th BCC Meeting. Updated project information is continually being placed on our website at the following link: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your- government/divisions-s-z/transportation-planning/planning-studies Communication Details Question/Comment 9/30 We are really concerned about the traffic load to a local residential road that we walk on use our bikes and so on also the road has been an access to the canal for recreation - kayaks fishing etc. We Christopher Dupuis cdupuis88@gmail.com think these functions out weigh the concern to speed up access. Our address on the north side of the canal is very accessible as is. What traffic load is the study projecting over time? We prefer no bridge at this location. Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments. We will add them to the project record. We understood that vehicular traffic will increase by varying amounts at all the proposed bridge locations. How the traffic patterns will be redistributed within Golden Gate Estates area after the bridges are constructed was not evaluated by this study. Project information has been placed on our website at the following link: https://www.colliercountVfl.gov/your-government/divisions-s-z/transportation-planning/planning- studies Communication Details Question/Comment 9/30 Has there been any considerations how the "Randal l/Immokalee Curve" Project will impact the Wilson Bridge if/when that project begins? Is the bridge number indicating where in the process when they will be developed? William Szczepkowski, Jr. williams4746@comcast.net Response from Lorraine Lantz Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Thank you for your comments and questions. We will add them to the project record. We are coordinating with the projects in the vicinity of all the bridges. If any or all of the bridge projects move forward, the timing, maintenance of traffic, design, construction etc. will be considered for each individual bridge. The bridge numbers represent the ranking and importance from the 2008 East of CR951 Bridge Study. The timing of the construction will depend on which projects move forward and the method the contractor chosen for the project proceeds. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Communication Details Question/Comment 9/30 All your notifications emphase the potential benefits but seem to purposely avoid the detramental effects this bridge Wil have to the neighborhood. What plans or attention have been given to the fact that this bridge will draw excessivemoverflow,traffic into the Jeff Lackner ieff1.benchmark@gmail.com neighborhood in an attempt to bi-pass the coming traffic backup s at Oil Well and Randall? Response from Lorraine Lantz The purpose of the reevaluation study is to verify, through agency interviews and data analysis, that the benefits identified in 2008 remain valid in 2020. To that extent, you are correct that this limited project scope does not include an exploration of impacts (positive or negative) beyond the criteria that was utilized in the 2008 study. Although the agency interviews did confirm that the proposed bridge locations are important for response times and circulation, we understand that not all residents will feel the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. One disadvantage that has been identified by you and other residents is an anticipated increase in traffic on the roads connected by the new bridges. We are committed to including these resident concerns in the report to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). At this stage in the study, we have not predicted how traffic will be redistributed during construction, after the completion of an individual bridge, and once all of the new bridges have been installed throughout the community. Staff will be providing the BCC with data, analysis and recommendations based on what we have learned at these meetings and from evaluating each bridge. The ultimate decision as to which bridge locations move forward and how the project proceeds is for the BCC. Thank you for contributing your perspective to this project; please feel encouraged to share additional insights for the record. Communication Details Question/Comment 9/30 We are really concerned about the traffic load to a local residential road that we walk on use our bikes and so on also the road has been an access to the canal for recreation - kayaks fishing etc. We Mike Johnson sirrmi@icloud.com think these functions out weigh the concern to speed up access. Our address on the north side of the canal is very accessible as is. What traffic load is the study projecting over time? We prefer no bridge at this location. Thank you Response from Lorraine Lantz The purpose of the reevaluation study is to verify, through agency interviews and data analysis, that the benefits identified in 2008 remain valid in 2020. Although the agency interviews did confirm that the proposed bridge locations are important for response times and circulation, we understand that not all residents will feel the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. One disadvantage that has been identified by you and other residents is an anticipated increase in traffic on the roads connected by the new bridges. We are committed to including these resident concerns in the report to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). At this stage in the study, we have not predicted how traffic will be redistributed during construction, after the completion of an individual bridge, and once all of the Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report new bridges have been installed throughout the community. Staff will be providing the BCC with data, analysis and recommendations based on what we have learned at these meetings and from evaluating each bridge. The ultimate decision as to which bridge locations move forward and how the project proceeds is for the BCC. Thank you for contributing your perspective to this project; it will become part of the project record. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/1 Thank you for the clarification. We were under the impression there would be more information regarding the study. But I have put that date on my schedule. I followed that page yesterday but Randi Izdonavicius randi davis@yahoo.com only saw the 2008 study. I will reach out to the commissioners. Response from Lorraine Lantz (See previous responses to this resident) Communication Details Question/Comment 10/1 The residents on 10th Avenue se do not want to see an unnecessary bridge at the end of our peaceful dead end street!! I have lived here over 20 years and over 40 as a Naples resident. We Lori and Scott Davidson sldavidson97@gmail.com are 5 streets away from a major roadway.... Golden Gate Boulevard. This decision to impose a bridge on the residents and completely change our way of life is disheartening. Unhappy! Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments. We will add them to the project record. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/1 1 do have some questions about the new bridge. Will the bridge cause our road the need to be widened? Will their be deterrents put on the street to curtail speeding? Like the radar speed signs and/or physical police presence. Will a sidewalk be installed? Thank Brenna Abbott-Marzucco, CPA abbeaccounting@vahoo.com you for your time. Response from Lorraine Lantz The need for traffic signals or devices and traffic calming features could be analyzed and evaluated during the design process to determine whether or not they are warranted. Often times, these features are added after the initial improvements are constructed to allow for traffic patterns to adjust to determine the best location of these features. The Design Phase will look at the technical engineering issues very carefully for each individual bridge and location. The design will improve the roadway by resurfacing it, in its entirety. The project will also include adding paved shoulders, a sidewalk on one side of the roadway and widening the travel lanes to the required width, which is typically 11 feet wide travel lanes. The current roadway widths vary between 9 feet and 11 feet for each direction of traffic. Thank you for contributing to this project. Your comments and questions will be added to the project record. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/1 Will this meeting allow us to voice our concerns, or is this already a done deal and we just have to listen. Dr. Bob Clark rbc200@gmail.com Response from Lorraine Lantz The meeting for the 18th St. NE bridges will be held on Tuesday, October 6th at 5:30. That meeting will detail the Study process and the next steps. Please be assured that every comment offered during this process is important to the County and will be included in the public involvement section of the final report which is part of the package presented to the Board of County Commissioners Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report (BCC) for consideration. The final decision, as to which bridge locations move forward, will be in the hands of the BCC. Thank you and we look forward to your participation next week. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/2 1 noticed yesterday speed limit signs were added on Shady Hollow. Will the corner become a 4 way stop? It may help the racing and burnouts (you can see black tire marks all over our neighborhood). Becky Craig bcraig@gatesinc.com If the bridge is approved, will construction start before the Randal overpass? I live on Wilson North and not excited about more traffic but think the bridge is needed with the coming growth. Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the project record. In regards to your questions: • The need for traffic signals or devices will be analyzed and evaluated during the design process to determine whether or not they are warranted. • The construction of whichever bridges move forward will be completed by the year 2027. • The interim (at -grade) improvements to the intersection of Immokalee Road and Randall Blvd. are scheduled to begin construction in FY2022. The ultimate (overpass) intersection improvement is not currently planned to occur before the year 2040. Thank you again for contributing to this project; please feel encouraged to share additional insights for the record. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/2 The residents on 10 Ave SE don't want to see an unnecessary bridge at the end of our peaceful dead-end street. We have some children the play outside all the time. We don't need unnecessary traffic. We have lived here before over 10 years has a Naples Resident and Denia Cabezas Dmcabezas0926@hotmail.com a tax payer. We are a few streets away from a major roadway Golden Gate Blvd. This decision to impose a bridge on the residents and completely change our way of life is disheartening. Please help us. I would like to thank you in advance for all your help. Have an Amazing Day Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments. We will add them to the project record. The meeting for the 101h Ave. SE bridge will be held on Wednesday, October 71h at 5:30. You may provide additional comments and questions during that meeting. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/2 Thank you Lorraine. I understand the scope of the study now having attended the meeting. I can say what is now a quiet neighborhood street (which has the occasional speeder - who we Mike Johnson sirrmi@icloud.com will usually know and can give a pinpointed report to the sheriff) will be busier and more challenging to police. And we know for sure our access to the canal for recreation will be impeded to the point of being impossible just steps from the house. Since we who live here are true stakeholders the study planners should be instructed to re -frame the study to include us with questions like why did we choose this area for our family to live? Will the sanctity of the place be irreparably altered for what is a negligible benefit of a few minutes for a few people and public responders? There are more questions and we appreciate the opportunity to voice and have Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report included for the Commissioner's consideration. Over the many years of Golden Gate dead end streets traversed by canals is the life. We prefer it to shorter drive times. Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for contributing your additional comments to this project, they will become part of the project record. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/2 1 have a few questions on the GGE Bridge Projects, specifically on 18th Ave NE. What would be the loss of frontage for some of those close to the bridge? What side would the sidewalk be? Will this Jose Duran jose.@duranfamily.com project be a for sure thing? No way of routing elseware, joung blvd? Thank You in advance, Response from Lorraine Lantz The meeting for the 18th St. NE bridges will be held on Tuesday, October 6th at 5:30. That meeting will detail the study history, process and the next steps. Please be assured that every comment offered during this process is important to the County and will be included in the public involvement section of the final report which is part of the package presented to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for consideration. The final decision, as to which bridge locations move forward, will be in the hands of the BCC. As for some of your specific questions: Each bridge location is expected to be designed to have sidewalks on one side of the roadway, paved shoulders, and travel lanes widened to the required width, which is typically 11 ft wide travel lanes. The current roadway widths vary between 9 ft and 11 ft for each direction of traffic. The location of the sidewalk will be determined during the actual design of the bridge and roadway. It is expected that these projects will be completed within the existing road right or way easements and no additional right of way will be required, however a final determination will be made during the design phase. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/2 Thank you for answering my question. Now all we have to do is wait for the bridge. Charles Scholten charliescholten@gmail.com Response from Lorraine Lantz See earlier response from Lorraine Lantz Communication Details Question/Comment 10/2 First, thank you for being at the recent meeting about the bridge project for 13th ST NW. Second, I voted for you twice because I respect your perspectives. Third, I do NOT want a bridge at the end Teresa Tooley tm2ley@gmail.com of my street. My home is very close to the road. I hear every vehicle that drives past even when I am inside my home. Based on aerials, my home is about 30 ft from the edge of the easement. My home was built in 1969 and the setbacks were likely very different back then than what they are now. Roadways like Wilson BLVD are established as thoroughfares and have the wide easements to accommodate wider roads, but 13th ST NW does not. I am a Floridian and I have been living in the Golden Gate Estates since 1995. With an increase in our area's population, there will be a demand for more development. However, the demand for an ever more convenient lifestyle introduces urban sprawl and guarantees Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report the destruction of our area's natural beauty and wildlife habitats. I don't want more trash, traffic noise, light pollution, roadkill, crime, dangerously fast vehicles, and toxic exhaust fumes anywhere, never mind 30 ft from my front door. If this is the environment that I wanted, then I would move to a city. Please consider the people, the plants, and animals that don't have a loud and powerful political voice. America was founded on the principles of individual rights, not elitism or mob rule. I care very much about the needs of others, but just because a majority agrees it doesn't make their decisions de facto ethically or morally upright. Out of respect for your time, I will end this letter here. Thank you for taking the time to consider my perspective. Response from Lorraine Lantz The purpose of the reevaluation study is to verify, through agency interviews and data analysis, that the benefits identified in 2008 remain valid in 2020. Although the agency interviews did confirm that the proposed bridge locations are important for response times and circulation, we understand that not all residents will feel the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. One disadvantage that has been identified by you and other residents is an anticipated increase in traffic on the roads connected by the new bridges. We are committed to including these resident concerns in the report to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Staff will be providing the BCC with data, analysis and recommendations based on what we have learned at these meetings and from evaluating each bridge. The ultimate decision as to which bridge locations move forward and how the project proceeds is for the BCC. Thank you for contributing your perspective to this project; it will become part of the project record. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/3 Thank you for the virtual presentation. I was very worried that I would not know how to log on. I have never participated in a meeting like this. Your directions were very helpful. You may not be aware of this, but MY home will be the "closest" to Bridge #8. Rita Caskey ritanaples619@gmail.com My property is the last one one on 13th and connects to the current bridge. I was wondering if you can send the information regarding the following: 1. How wide did you say the paved road will be? 2. Do you have a tentative drawing of the existing roadway and the bridge you are proposing? 3. Did you mention a meeting in November? If so, was that date decided? I was trying to ask a few questions during the virtual meeting by writing to an email address that appeared, but did not have a response. Please let me know how to place a question during the virtual so I can receive the answer. As I mentioned, I am new with this type of meeting. Response from Lorraine Lantz Each bridge location is expected to be designed to have sidewalks on one side of the roadway, paved shoulders, and travel lanes widened to the required width, which is typically 11 ft wide travel lanes. The current roadway widths vary between 9 ft and 11 ft for each direction of traffic. The location of the sidewalk will be determined during the actual design of the bridge and roadway. It is expected that these projects will be completed within the existing road right of way easements and no additional right of way will be required, however a final determination will be made during the design phase. To help conceptually, we placed a photo of the 8th St. NE bridge as an example of what a Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report typical bridge for this project will look like on the project website. We are also in the process of posting all public meeting videos on the project website located at: http://colliercountyfl.gov/planningstudies there are several Planning Studies in the accordion below the introduction. Current - East of CR-951 Bridge Re -Evaluation Study is the 2nd accordion. Once clicked - it expands to contain information about this project. During the presentation we provided a conceptual rendering of the bridge at your location. Please be assured that every comment offered during this process is important to the County and will be included in the public involvement section of the final report which is part of the package presented to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for consideration. The final decision, as to which bridge locations move forward, will be in the hands of the BCC. The tentative date for this item to be heard by the BCC meeting is Tuesday, December 8th. Thank you for your comments, they will be added to the project record. Please contact me if you have any additional questions. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/3 1 am contacting you in opposition of the possible addition of a bridge being built on 10th Ave SE Naples, FI 34117 between Desoto Blvd and Everglades Blvd. We have resided on 10th Ave SE for 23 Scott Davidson sldavidson97@gmail.com years. The fact 10th Ave SE is a dead end street was the main reason for choosing this street to call home along with the very native forests and balanced environment in this specific area and is unique to all of Golden Gate Estates. The addition of a bridge on our street would not only disrupt the way of life and safety for all the families on 10th Ave SE but will dsirupt our environment as well. To build a bridge in such a setting that would have minimal to no positive effect on traffic but negatively impact the lives of many just does not make sense. Please take this into consideration while our street is willing to take this to the highest level for resolution. Thank you kindly. Response from Lorraine Lantz The meeting for the 10th Ave. SE bridge will be held on Wednesday, October 7th at 5:30. That meeting will detail the Study process and the next steps. Please be assured that every comment offered during this process is important to the County and will be included in the public involvement section of the final report which is part of the package presented to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for consideration. The final decision, as to which bridge locations move forward, will be in the hands of the BCC. Thank you for contributing your perspective to this project; it will become part of the project record. We look forward to your participation later this week. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/4 I'm john schoellner I live at 1421 18th NE And opposed to the bridges on 18th Avenue as all my neighbors are. We think the money would be better spent on upgrading Randell Blvd and extending Vanderbilt. One of the reasons for the bridges on 18th is John Schoellner flgolfmanager@vahoo.com to speed first responders time. This is not true. If Randell and. Vanderbilt were 4 or 6 lanes that would help If 18th becomes a speedway like 8th it will lower property value as well as taxes as well a hazard for the children, some with special needs Response from Lorraine Lantz The meeting for the 18th St. NE bridges will be held on Tuesday, October 6th at 5:30. That meeting will detail the Study process and the next steps. Please be assured that every comment offered Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report during this process is important to the County and will be included in the public involvement section of the final report which is part of the package presented to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for consideration. The final decision, as to which bridge locations move forward, will be in the hands of the BCC. Thank you and we look forward to your participation later this week. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/4 Lorraine , sorry to bother you, but I was informed about the Virtual Public Meeting a few days late. Mail arrived on saturday Oct 3rd.. My name is Daniel Bolagno. I own a property in 13 Street NW, and Daniel Bolagno dbolagno@gmail.com we are planning to move in the first quarter next year. Can you please send me a link or any information about this meeting? I can foresee traffic increase, are there any plans to widen the street? Thanks for your time Response from Lorraine Lantz It is unfortunate you received the notification late. We are in the process of posting all public meeting videos on the project website located at: http://colliercountyfl.gov/planningstudies there are several Planning Studies in the accordion below the introduction. Current — East of CR-951 Bridge Re -Evaluation Study is the 2nd accordion. Once clicked - it expands to contain information about this project. Each bridge location is expected to be designed to have sidewalks on one side of the roadway, paved shoulders, and travel lanes widened to the required width, which is typically 11 ft wide travel lanes. The current roadway widths vary between 9 ft and 11 ft for each direction of traffic. The location of the sidewalk will be determined during the actual design of the bridge and roadway. It is expected that these projects will be completed within the existing road right of way easements and no additional right of way will be required, however a final determination will be made during the design phase. Thank you for your comments, they will be added to the project record. Please contact me if you have any additional questions. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/5 How is this bridge going to, as you say, "improve traffic mobility and access to services in the area such as schools, parks, public libraries and businesses by shortening commute distances. New Lori Davidson sldavidson97@gmail.com roadway connections will improve evacuation routes, decrease emergency response times for fire, emergency services and law enforcement so they may quickly respond to urgent situations, and will reduce overall travel times"? Buses still need to pick up kids from GGB east and desoto 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th so it will not benefit the school. Furthermore, there will be school rezoning in those areas so a bridge should not be built for the school. Parks, libraries and business are not applicable. Evacuations and emergency services will not benefit. The evacuees will end up at the same bottleneck either way. In fact, we do not have the appropriate number of law enforcement in our area as it is. This will create more crime routes in which law enforcement will not be able to keep up with. How do you think our narrow road that does not adequately support 2 cars right now handle the addition of cars on it? Why not take care of the inadequate roadways and bridges that are already in place. Widen roads for growth, not play catch up. Response from Lorraine Lantz Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report The meeting for the 10th Ave. SE bridge will be held on Wednesday, October 7th at 5:30. We hope you will be able to attend the meeting, as it is intended to explain the study process, data collected from the agencies and the next steps. Although the agency interviews did confirm that the proposed bridge locations are important for response times and circulation, we understand that not all residents will feel the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Please be assured that every comment offered during this process is important to the County and will be included in the public involvement section of the final report which is part of the package presented to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for consideration. The ultimate decision as to which bridge locations move forward and how the project proceeds is for the BCC. Thank you for contributing your perspective to this project. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/5 My husband and I were unable to attend the recent virtual meeting concerning the bridge at Wilson Blvd North. We have owned our home on Wilson Blvd for 20 years this coming year. We are hoping Lukas and Jennifer Connerley Jennc98@aol.com that our voice will be heard in objecting this bridge for numerous reasons. The traffic that will flow on this dead end, quiet, family oriented stretch of Wilson Blvd will quickly change our quality of life here. From morning until evening, residents of this road walk, bike, walk dogs, children play, and observe the wildlife that is abound in our woods. Having a constant flow of traffic will greatly change all of that. Residents will no longer be able to enjoy the outdoor activities that they take advantage of daily, and wildlife will be pushed into even more backyards. Most of us who live on this road have long driveways that require us to back out onto the street to leave. This isn't something that will be able to occur with a steady flow of traffic, which will make leaving our own home a burden. As I sit and look out my window, I see that same peaceful, quiet scene that I see everyday for the last twenty years. A quiet road with a family walking past with their dog, as another biked past them going the other direction. It's difficult to believe that scene could soon be replaced with a constant flow of traffic. Please consider these things when making a final decision for this bridge. The benefits of no bridge far outweighs the benefits of a bridge. More accidents, more crime, and a lessened quality of living just aren't worth a little convenience. We hope you'll consider the request for no bridge at Wilson Blvd North. Thank You Response from Lorraine Lantz We are in the process of posting all public meeting videos on the project website located at: http://colliercountyfl.gov/planningstudies there are several Planning Studies in the accordion below the introduction. Current — East of CR-951 Bridge Re -Evaluation Study is the 2nd accordion. Once clicked - it expands to contain information about this project. Our communications department is currently working on formatting the video and we anticipate it being available later this week. Thank you for your comments, they will be added to the project record. Please contact me if you have any additional questions. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/6 Since Vanderbilt Beach Road will be ending at 16th Street NE by 2024 and a new bridge also placed in 2021 at the end, there will Annette Kniola Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report annettekniola@aol.com more than likely will be stoplights at Vanderbilt and 16th Street NE, and also at Randall and 16th Street NE. Correct? If so, will the 18th Street NE/16th Steet NE Bridge also need lights? Because we all know it will turn into another arterial road due to continuing eastbound traffic coming off Vanderbilt Beach Road, and schools to the east. Response from Lorraine Lantz Yes, there is an opportunity with these bridges to do a traffic analysis with the Design Phase. That evaluation will estimate the need for traffic signal improvements, turn lanes and other considerations at the intersections. Thank you for your comments and we look forward to your participation later today. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/6 1 am totally against these proposed plans. Building bridges along 18th is just ridiculous. First of all the speeding that's going to come past our homes here it's going to be ridiculous. No one does the Jill Schoellner-Nossen jillschoellner@yahoo.com speed limit in this area. I have a special needs daughter and it's going to be quite scary to see the traffic come by your home. I specifically moved here knowing that it was a dead end street. I asked my realtors I asked the people around me and no one said that there was proposed plans. I've also posted on next -door and was surprised to see all the people who were against us. I suggest you expand Randall put a light at the end of 16th and Randall and one at eighth and Randall and also a traffic light at Everglades and Randall. I've driven around and there seems to be a more than few streets that are more south of 18 they have very little homes on it. if you need it to put a street through to eighth and Wilson why wouldn't you choose a street that had less homes on it. I would create a zigzag pattern rather than a straight through pattern in any of the streets that these homes are on. Like I said before no one does the speed limit. You are creating faster excessive speeding opportunities which in turn will open up more speeding and reckless driving. Far as quicker commuting that's just laughable. And easier access for emergencies is just a plain stupid. Expand Randall and Vanderbilt before wasting our tax money on these bridges. Response from Lorraine Lantz Tonight's meeting will detail the study history, process and the next steps. We have also coordinated with the Collier County Sheriff's Office and they will be participating in the meeting tonight to address any current speeding concerns you have. Please be assured that every comment offered during this process is important to the County and will be included in the public involvement section of the final report which is part of the package presented to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for consideration. The final decision, as to which bridge locations move forward, will be in the hands of the BCC. Thank you and we look forward to your participation this evening. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/6 1 would like to let you know my wife Patricia and I are very much opposed to a bridge on our street. We are at 995 16th st SE, the last house on street along the canal where the bridge would be Dave and Pat Palumbo Dvdpalumbol@gmail.com Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report going. We have VERY LOUD atv traffic until 2 or 3 in the morning every weekend along Frangipani. If you put a bridge in here they will all be barreling down our street at all hours of day and night to get to the dirt roads across the canal. Please Please Please do not put a bridge in here. Do not make things worse. If it is for a school in the future, please wait until it is absolutely necessary. Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments, they will be added to the project record. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/7 The political motives to expand Wilson Blvd S. at this time are not in the best interest of Golden Gate Estates.A document from Roetzel & Andress clearly supports this statement. "James A. jdmef@aol.com Brown, Jr. trustee d/b/a East Naples Land Company recently sold a portion of its holdings (approximately 1400 acres comprised of approximately 1000 acres of receiving lands for mining and 400 acres of Sending NRPA Lands for Mitigation) in the north Beale Meade Overlay area of Collier County to Florida Rock Industries, inc. Brown financed the Wilson Blvd extension corridor study conducted with and under the oversight of Collier county transportation planning department. Although the study indicated, in the short term to advocate an extension of 16th Avenue either west or east or use of White Blvd. or the bridging of Wilson Blvd. as a primary haul route it does indicate it is a reasonable long term improvement to accommodate traffic from growth vs. a truck haul route." Has the extension of 16th ave. been completed? Has Kean Avenue to Garland Road for a truck haul route been considered? Currently our residential dead-end street has at most 50-75 residential (minimal commercial traffic) local car trips per day, with the bridge expansion to the south there will be an increase of traffic (commercial and pass -through) of a rate of 500 times that, this would be devastating to our quite neighborhood, not only to the local residents but the wild -life and the resources we all cherish. Recently, the county wanted to tax the estate residents with a stormwater tax. Clearly, the estates does not have an extraordinary need for stormwater improvements. It can be concluded that the county is looking to get any funding from development/growth for other more affluent locations in Collier county. Commissioner McDaniel please continue to represent the tax paying citizens of the Estates who moved to rural Collier County, work hard to keep the estates a family friendly, wildlife friendly, and environmental friendly area.The developers are NOT in our interest. We voted for you to look at OUR interest, we trusted you. Please remember that always. In closing I hope you, your staff, engineers, planners, commissioner's will listen to the public who not only live in the Estates but truly care about our environment and the future of Golden Gate Estates Response from Commissioner Bill McDaniel Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Thank you for your email regarding the proposed Wilson Bridge. I appreciate you contacting me to provide your input and express your thoughts. I carefully consider all information and comments when items are presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Again, thank you forgiving me the opportunity to be of assistance to you. I value and appreciate the support as well as your participation in the government of our community. I am always available should you have any questions or concerns you want to discuss. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/7 there is nothing at the end of 16th st. s.e. but open fields. it seems like the money could be better used elsewhere Rodney Foytik Foytik92@gmail.com Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments, they will be added to the project record. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/7 I, Jorge Escobar, in residence 3345 10th Avenue SE, Naples Florida 34117. We have been in our residence for almost 10 years and bought it for the tranquility with which we have lived with to this day. For this reason I would like to say that we do not agree on the Jenny Martinez Ipmartinezl013@hotmail.com construction of a bridge the streets of Everglades with Desoto. And we also think it's unnecessary there are better things they could invest the money in. Thanking for the attention to this letter. Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments, they will be added to the project record. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/7 1 AM IN FAVOR of proposed Bridge #10 at the dead-end of Wilson Blvd South. I realize others who live near this location are concerned. However, Collier County is badly landlocked, and more Kathy Raimondi kcadc@vahoo.com thoroughfares are needed for vehicles to get through the county. Formerly, I lived in Chicago and later the Chicagoland area suburbs. There was always an alternate way to drive around major road problems. Not here! In Collier County, it is awful. You are basically a sitting duck if there is any kind of problem on the road which you are travelling. When I first moved down here, I found myself lost somewhere south of the canal where Bridge #10 is proposed to be built. I drove up and down streets, yet I always ended up at a canal that was at a dead end. I ended up scared and nearly in tears. Finally, I waved down a truck driver, who was probably going home in that area, and he kindly told me to drive back down a street until I found a certain street that would allow me to go north and get out of that landlocked area. So please vote to approve Bridge #10 on Wilson Blvd. Collier County needs this addition. It will be helpful in so many ways. Response from Commissioner Bill McDaniel Thank you for your email regarding the proposed Wilson Boulevard Bridge #10. 1 appreciate you contacting me to provide your input and express your thoughts. I carefully consider all information and comments when items are presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to be of assistance to you. I value and appreciate the support as well as Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report your participation in the government of our community. I am always available should you have any questions or concerns you want to discuss. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/8 We wanted to go the record as being against the proposed Bridge #10 at the dead-end of Wilson Blvd South. As homeowners of over 20 years in Golden Gate Estates we've seen the tremendous growth and change to the area. For years we have had all types of wild -life Peter and Joan Hayden petershayden@comcast.net from bears to the Florida panther in our back yard, now we don't see them as often as we use to. We truly hope there is a better plan for growth in this area than there has been in the past, to -date there doesn't seem to be any all-inclusive plan on what is going on. We've experienced droughts in the past (1999-2000) where our well went dry, never proven but we are convinced it was due to the wells along Wilson Blvd being over -pumped beyond the water -use permit, this is only one example of how the resources are not being managed well in our County, Wilson Blvd. South homes are on a well systems. In addition to the county wells that are using all of the water resources from us to more lucrative locations, the rock quarry blasts on a regular basis which vibrates our property and could be detrimental to our property long term. While I do understand planning for the possible growth in the future, it seems very obvious to me there are other political motives to expand Wilson Blvd S. at this time. A document from Roetzel & Andress clearly supports this statement. "James A. Brown, Jr. trustee d/b/a East Naples Land Company recently sold a portion of its holdings (approximately 1400 acres comprised of approximately 1000 acres of receiving lands for mining and 400 acres of Sending NRPA Lands for Mitigation) in the north Beale Meade Overlay area of Collier County to Florida Rock Industries, inc. Brown financed the Wilson Blvd extension corridor study conducted with and under the oversight of Collier county transportation planning department. Although the study indicated, in the short term to advocate an extension of 16th Avenue either west or east or use of White Blvd. or the bridging of Wilson Blvd. as a primary haul route it does indicate it is a reasonable long term improvement to accommodate traffic from growth vs. a truck haul route." Has the extension of 16th ave. been completed? Has Kean Avenue to Garland Road for a truck haul route been considered? Currently our residential dead- end street has at most 50-75 residential (minimal commercial traffic) local car trips per day, with the bridge expansion to the south there will be an increase of traffic (commercial and pass - through) of a rate of 500 times that, this would be devastating to our quite neighborhood, not only to the local residents but the wild -life and the resources we all cherish. Recently, the county wanted to tax the estate residents with a stormwater tax. Clearly, the estates does not have an extraordinary need for stormwater improvements. It can be concluded that the county is looking to get any funding from development/growth for other more affluent Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report locations in Collier county. Commissioner McDaniel's continues to fail to represent the tax paying citizens of the Estates who moved to rural Collier County, work hard to keep the estates a family friendly, wildlife friendly, and environmental friendly area. In closing I hope you, your staff, engineers, planners, commissioner's will listen to the public who not only live in the Estates but truly care about our environment and the future of Golden Gate Estates. 10/8 Could you confirm that you have received my email from October 6, 2020? 1 want to make sure my email was received and made part of the public record against the proposed bridge #10 at the end of Wilson Blvd S. Peter and Joan Hayden petershayden@comcast.net Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments, they will be added to the project record. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/8 Requested a better copy of the bridge map and link to the project website Development Services Advisory Committee Response from Lorraine Lantz The DSAC committee requested a better copy of the Bridge Map (attached) and a link to the project website. The project website is located at the following link: http://colliercountyfl.gov/planningstudies there are several studies in the accordion below the introduction. Current — East of CR-951 Bridge Re -Evaluation Study is the 2nd accordion. Once clicked - it expands to contain information about this project. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/8 1 opposed BRIDGE 9 & 10. Monica Fish Fish34142@yahoo.com Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments, they will be added to the project record. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/9 my name in Thomas Kozlow and I'm a long time resident on Wilson Blvd. N. There have been a couple of times that it was proposed that there should be a bridge at this location(just south of 33rd Ave Tom Kozlow tkozlow@comcast.net NE. I am totally against a bridge going in here as it will cause an excess of road traffic AND it will be a danger to families around this area. There are small children, people walking pets, and bicyclists constantly on this roadway and Adding more traffic(which it will ABSOLUTELY do will be a huge mistake. There are already some drivers that drive in excess of the speed limit on Wilson Blvd just to take one of the side roads out to Immokalee Rd. This is a very quiet and peaceful neighborhood and we'd like to keep it that way. I wanted to come to the meeting last week and I even signed up for the virtual meeting also but unfortunately it coincided with my mother's funeral. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report I certainly hope you deeply consider not installing a bridge at this location as it is not an inconvenience to go a mile and a half out of my way to get to Immokalee and law enforcement and medical have easy access to all the homes on the furthest North Wilson Blvd(my location)and the Wilson Blvd North just south of 33rd Ave NE. Thank you for your time in reading this and I hope to hear good news from you soon. Thomas Kozlow 3575 Wilson Blvd N 2395649839 Response from Lorraine Lantz My deepest condolences for the loss of your mother. We are in the process of posting all public meeting videos on the project website located at: http://colliercountyfl.gov/planningstudies there are several Planning Studies in the accordion below the introduction. Current — East of CR-951 Bridge Re -Evaluation Study is the 2nd accordion. Once clicked - it expands to contain information about this project. We update the website regularly as the videos are formatted by our communications department. Several videos are on the website now and we anticipate all remaining videos to be available early next week. Thank you for your comments, they will be added to the project record. Please contact me if you have any additional questions. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/8 Appreciate your time tonight to talk about the planning for the proposed bridges. Is it possible to obtain a list of attendees for the meeting? Peter Hayden petershayden@comcast.net Response from Lorraine Lantz Per your request, here is the list of attendees for the bridge meeting on 10/8/20: Margaret Bush, Jeff Close, Mitchel Penner, Mercedes Puente, Dilia Camacho, Rodney Foytik, James Cooper, David Palumbo, Peter Hayden, Michael Ramsey Communication Details Question/Comment 10/9 1 just don't think they are needed yet. Lets save the money for more needed projects. The residents in the North Belle Meade area that they would benefit are quite content with the current arrangement John Holden foxgrovefl@yahoo.com and are planning on fighting them both for now. The idea of a new bridge at 8th street SE onto Frangipani to replace the "whatever" bridge at 10th Street SE is what is the favorable move at the moment. Your map presentation does not even show it exists. Limited access and keeping out growth is what is their ultimate desire. My spouse as an upper administrator with CCPS says they have no future plans any time soon to build schools on their property at the 16th Street SE bridge location. The only benefit of that particular bridge is to the trespassing ATV's, 4x4 dirt riders, teenager parties in the woods, rapes, homeless camps, illegal hunters, and illegal trash dumpers. One of the biggest problems with the "Main" bridge at 10th street SE is the septic tank pumping trucks that drive back to the private and expansive lands to dump their trucks instead of taking them in to their facilities to process Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report the "material". CCSO is too busy and do not have the time to sit and wait for them. Recently the Florida State Troopers and Wildlife Commission Officers had to post themselves at the two access areas to defend it from a statewide 4x4 party they learned about that was supposed to bring thousands into that area with the potential for uncontrollable events and fires. New bridges to "no where" will just add to the current problems and make it more accessible to those PRIVATE and last NATURAL lands so close to our community. We need them left as they are and build around them with limited access. The "doughnut hole" (North Belle Meade) in the middle of Naples/Collier County which is left intact and is a shining example to the rest of the country on how to preserve land within a community. Right in the center of it. That money is better put to use on other more needed issues. I believe that maybe we should analyze and study new places for bridges that were not considered before but would coincide with the growth patterns of Golden Gate Estates. It is growing rapidly elsewhere in the Estates and the potential for growth and needed bridges is very low in the North Belle Meade area. Do we help hundreds or even thousands or do we help fifty wanting to be left alone families? Thank you for your time .... John Holden (Golden Gate Estate (2nd Ave SE) resident AND North Belle Meade resident) Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments, they will be added to the project record. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/10 Where can I find the recording for the bridge meeting? Thank you Lori Davidson Sldavidson97@gmail.com Response from Lorraine Lantz We are in the process of posting all public meeting videos on the project website located at: http://colliercountvfl.gov/planningstudies there are several Planning Studies in the accordion below the introduction. Current — East of CR-951 Bridge Re -Evaluation Study is the 2nd accordion. Once clicked - it expands to contain information about this project. We update the website regularly, as the videos must be formatted by our communications department. Several videos are on the website now and we anticipate all remaining videos to be available by the end of this week. Please contact me if you have any additional questions. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/12 Thanks to the team for informative virtual meeting. I would like to say for the record as a resident on 16 th St SE I am not in favor of bridge on my street at this time.The meeting information suggested Margaret Bush bushpegasus@gmai1.com best use of bridge for future schools which are not even in the 10 year plan by board of education. Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments, they will be added to the project record. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/9 Could not get the sound to work Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Scott Cooper Elasmo99@gmail.com Response from Lorraine Lantz We are sorry to hear that the audio did not work on your computer. We are in the process of posting all public meeting videos on the project website located at: http://colliercountvfl.gov/planningstudies there are several Planning Studies in the accordion below the introduction. Current — East of CR-951 Bridge Re -Evaluation Study is the 2nd accordion. Once clicked - it expands to contain information about this project. We update the website regularly, as the videos must be formatted by our communications department. Several videos are on the website now and we anticipate all remaining videos to be available by the end of this week. Please contact me if you have any additional questions. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/20 Many of us were not informed until after project consultant Stantec's virtual public meeting of September 29, 2020. A glossy flyer came in the mail "YOU ARE INVITED!", for new bridges at 47th Ave. NE etc. Many of us have already been aware something was Pauline Blocker Jp282@canbav@icloud.com about to happen when fifty plus foot towers were constructed in drainage ditches and dangerous traffic situations occurred before and after parents attempted to safely reach their young children. The Collier County Sheriff's office has responded to many complaints regarding this particular project. What is the status? Please respond to this request so information can be decimated to the constituents in this and other areas! We already notified the Collier County Mosquito Patrol so they would not put themselves in harms way flying a night! Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments, we will add them to the project public involvement. We have posted all the public meeting videos on the project website located at: http://colliercountvfl.gov/planningstudies there are several Planning Studies in the accordion below the introduction. Current — East of CR-951 Bridge Re -Evaluation Study is the 2nd accordion. Once clicked - it expands to contain information about this project. Please contact me if you have any additional questions. I hope the videos answer your questions about this reevaluation study. Please share the link with your neighbors. The East of CR-951 Bridge Reevaluation Study is not related to the utility transmission project you are referring to. I do not have any information on the status of that project. To my knowledge, it was not a County project. In regards to the Bridge Reevaluation Study, •The study purpose is to confirm and validate the findings and recommendations of the 2008 Bridge Study. The Study is tentatively scheduled to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on December 8th. At that meeting, the BCC would likely authorize programming and production of some or all of the bridges to use the 1% sales tax revenues. The approved bridges which move forward, will use the sales tax earmark for the design, permitting and construction phases. Construction of those bridges is expected to be completed within the next seven years. •There will also be coordination with the Collier County Sheriff's Office to add additional traffic monitoring and enforcement as the bridges become operational. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report •There will be coordination with current and future utility projects, however there are no additional utilities (water, sewer, power) anticipated with this project. Communication Details Question/Comment 11/1 1 am writing on behalf of the home owners on the north side of the canal of 23rd ST SW. I would like to get the following please: 1. Cost of the proposed bridge for the 23rd ST SW Canal T.J. Meister Tmeister78@comcast.net 2. Cost to widen the road, add the sidewalk and purchase of all the land for this project 3. Cost to add the stop light at 23rd ST SW and Golden Gate Blvd 4. Previous cost for the temporary bridge during the construction of the new White Blvd bridge, the cost of the temporary stop light 5. Previous cost of putting the curve in the White Blvd/23rd ST SW intersection 6. The power point with the data showing the counties reasoning for putting a bridge over 23rd ST SW We plan on starting a petition to stop the bridge as the entire street north of the canal purchased their homes because of the dead end street. We will also be turning information over to the media outlets as they have enlightened of this story and find it very interesting for the use of the tax payer money with respect to a thru street one quarter of a mile away already. Response from Collier County Growth Management Department Staff Collier County Growth Management Department staff have researched your request and want to let you know that in 2008 the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the original bridges study, which recommended that all 12 of the proposed bridges be built. In 2018, Collier County voters approved a 1% sales tax referendum. The 10 bridges under re-evaluation are earmarked for funding within that revenue stream. In 2020, the current BCC requested a reevaluation to determine if the remaining 10 bridges (one of the original 12 has been constructed and one is in the current work program) are still important to agency and community stakeholders. Staff members have collected and analyzed data, conducted interviews with agency stakeholders and hosted meetings with community stakeholders. Staff will provide recommendations based on the information gathered. All the information will be provided to the BCC in a final report, originally scheduled for presentation at the BCC meeting on Dec. 8, 2020 — but likely to be moved to the Jan. 26, 2021 meeting. The BCC will ultimately decide which, if any, bridge locations move forward. In regard to your questions, staff have researched your questions and want to provide you with the following responses: 1. Cost of the proposed bridge for the 23rd ST SW Canal A: In 2011 the engineer's estimate for the construction costs associated with the project was approximately $2 million. The planning cost estimates for the concept in the reevaluation study have not been calculated but will consider prior estimates, the conceptual design and current contract pricing. Ultimately, if the bridge moves forward to design and construction, the project will be competitively let to bid so depending on costs at the time of the bid letting the actual cost may be different. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report 2. Cost to widen the road, add the sidewalk and purchase of all the land for this project. A: Construction for bridge, roadway, sidewalk and other needed construction items are included in the 2011 engineer's estimate for the project provided above. The rights -of -way (ROW) needed were previously purchased at the same time as the right-of-way acquisition for the White Blvd. Bridge Project (#66066). The ROW cost for just the 23rd Street SW Bridge Project was $117, 670. 3. Cost to add the stop light at 23rd ST SW and Golden Gate Blvd. A. The cost for the type of signalized intersection needed at this location is currently estimated to be approximately $400,000. 4. Previous cost for the temporary bridge during the construction of the new White Blvd bridge, the cost of the temporary stop light A. Staff checked the costs listed for the White Blvd. Bridge Project #66066 which was completed in September 2013 and found a line item for a temporary detour that is believed to be the cost of the temporary bridge on 23rd Street SW. That cost was $252,559.79. The cost of the temporary traffic signal was $17,453.12. 5. Previous cost of putting the curve in the White Blvd/23rd ST SW intersection A. The cost of that project was $633,508.31 6. The power point with the data showing the counties reasoning for putting a bridge over 23rd ST SW A: All the public meeting PowerPoints and videos are on the project website located at: http://colliercountvfl.gov/planningstudies Please be advised that there are several Current Planning Studies listed in the accordion below the introduction. "Current — East of CR-951 Bridge Re -Evaluation Study" is the 2nd accordion listed. Once selected (just click on it) - it expands to show information about this project. Communication Details Question/Comment 10/27 Just a question, did you happen to have someone out here on our street today taking photos? It looked like there was a lady taking pictures at the end of the road where the bridge would be but Jennifer Connerley Jennc98@aol.com then also she stopped and took photos of only our home. I don't mind at all, I just want to rule out anything suspicious as she took several photos of our home from the street, and left when I went down to ask if she needed anything. I checked with the obvious, mortgage and insurance, so I was just so seeding if perhaps this was someone to do with this? Also will there be any further meetings on this, or has a final decision been reached? Response from Lorraine Lantz To my knowledge, our team was not out doing site visits last week. If I find out otherwise, I will let you know. As of now, we are likely to postpone the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners to January 26th. It was tentatively scheduled for December 8th. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report When we confirm the date, we will post it on the project website. Communication Details Question/Comment 12/3 Thank you for the information on the public hearing. We all appreciate your expedited response. Ms. Dorn at LCEC has not expressed a desire to answer questions Pauline Blocker Jp282canebay@icloud.com regarding our concerns first about the monolithic power poles in our neighborhoods, that would never be approved in Naples, nor other questions regarding concerns about increased traffic, noise and speeding vehicles through our 47th Ave. NE neighborhood. We moved here to avoid the traffic noise and accidents associated with other streets closer in. We know that the Sheriff's office has recorded the increase of residents complaints because of such actions taken in areas similar to ours. The data we were given is so outdated and ambiguous questions we were given, only make us more determined to fight against a bridge on 47th Ave. NE being approved. We will drive for dining, etc., in order to maintain some tranquility for our family neighborhood. Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments, they will be added to the project record. You may find frequently asked questions (FAQ) on our project website located at: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-s-z/transportation-planning/planning- studies Please note the website is set-up in an accordion style and if you click on the title Current — East of CR-951 Bridge Re -Evaluation Study heading, the project information will be displayed. The FAQ are towards the bottom of the web page. Communication Details Question/Comment 12/7 1 have read all pdf's on the new bridges that are going up in the Estates. I have 2 questions on the bridges. 1. Will the residents on the side of the road where most Brandon Garcia bgarcia@colliertax.com construction will take place receive monetary gains from this? 2. Has bridge #11 been approved for 101" Ave SE? Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the project report. In regards to your questions: 1. Any temporary construction easements/agreements or right-of-way required by this project will be determined during the Design Phase. If the County needs to acquire property (not located within the roadway easement) to accommodate the project, it will be purchased through the right-of-way acquisition process. 2. In 2008 the BCC approved the original bridges study, which recommended that all 12 of the proposed bridges be built; however, in 2020 the current BCC requested a reevaluation to determine if the remaining 10 bridges (one of the original 12 has been constructed and one is underway) are still important to agency and community stakeholders. Staff has collected and analyzed data and conducted interviews with agency stakeholders & meetings with community stakeholders. Staff will provide recommendations based on the information gathered. All the information will be provided to the BCC in a final report, tentatively Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report scheduled for presentation on January 26, 2021. The BCC will ultimately decide which, if any, bridge locations move forward. Communication Details Question/Comment 12/10 1 am currently working with an investor looking to purchase a vacant canal lot on 10th Ave SE. Based on the October 71n reevaluation study meeting notes, do you foresee a scenario Angelo Sottosanti angsellsnaples@gmail.com where the bridge would not be approved? Also, what is the time frame of completion if the project is to move forward? Response from Lorraine Lantz Thank you for your inquiry into the Bridge Reevaluation Study. Your comments will be added to the project record. As you are aware, in 2008 the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the original bridges study, which recommended that all 12 of the proposed bridges be built; however, in 2020 the current BCC requested a reevaluation to determine if the remaining 10 bridges (one of the original 12 has been constructed and one is underway) are still important to agency and community stakeholders. Staff has collected and analyzed data and conducted interviews with agency stakeholders & meetings with community stakeholders. Staff will provide recommendations based on the information gathered. All the information will be provided to the BCC in a final report, tentatively scheduled for presentation on January 26, 2021. The BCC will ultimately decide which, if any, bridge locations move forward. The report is not complete yet, however at this time the bridge at 10th Ave. SE is likely to receive a staff recommendation to be constructed. I cannot speak for what the BCC will do at their meeting on January 26, 2021. At that meeting, the BCC may choose to authorize design and construction of none, some or all the bridges to be completed within the next seven years (by 2027). Communication from Lorraine Lantz to all stakeholders 12/14 We are reaching -out to you because you expressed an interest in the East of CR951 Bridge Reevaluation Study. As a project update, after the meetings with community stakeholders in October, Collier County Transportation Planning staff conducted additional interviews with agency stakeholders and is now developing project recommendations based on all of the information gathered. This process has taken longer than anticipated and all the information will be provided to the BCC in a final report. As of now, the report is tentatively scheduled for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on February 9, 2021. An additional email will be sent out when the presentation date is finalized. The BCC will ultimately decide which, if any, bridge locations move forward. Additional project information can be found on our website located at: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/vour- government/divisions-s-z/transportation-planning/planning- studies Please note the website is set-up in an accordion style and if you click on the title Current — East of CR-951 Bridge Re -Evaluation Study heading, the project information will be displayed. Please contact me at Lorraine.Lantz@CollierCountyFL.gov if you have any additional questions. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Please click on the PDF link/image below for comments from Michael Ramsey, representing the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association on 12/21/20: East of 951 Bridge Meeting on 11121120 between: Michael Ramses- - President of Golden Gate Estates Area Cbic Association, Lorraine Lantz - Principal Planner, and Leeann Chark-s - Operations Amhst Note: Dmdug the meeting a slightly diffmud map was used as reference on a projector. The bridge Embers and locatiaw correspond to the map below. Brief introductions were made and there was a general undery 9nding of the bridges and the locations, the: history of the project and the process as it mores farw d- Items discussed in detail are as follows: Mr. Ramser's Top 5 Bridges 1. Bridge #12 on 62°d Atie 2. Bridge # 11 on I& Ave 3. Bridge #4 on V6 Acre NE 4. Bridge #6 and #7 which wo&l be done together on 10L A.,�e. NE Mr. Ramser's :additional Recommendations • A new bridge at S. White and Beek • A new bridge at 86 St. SE and Frangipani Aw. • A new bridge somewhere between 34d Ave. SE and 38'" Ave. SE. Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Letters of Support from First Responders: Please click on the PDF link/image below for comments from Collier County's Sheriff's Office on 12/1/20: F— LartzL—kz {[: suhjwt Pn: tr`96-Ce I Ntig- Dat. 7ur»y, ha 19,=11:10:30 FM CAUTION: THIS EMAIL DRIG14ATED FROM OUTSIDE OF THE QUEST ORGANIZATION. 1. DO YOU KNOW THE SENDER? 2. WOULD THERE BE A VALID REASON FOR THIS SENDER TO SEMI] YOU THIS EMAIL? 3-VERIFY THE USER'S AD DRESS IS A VAU D ADE)RESSr (NOT SPOOFED)- Pleasesee email below. Lorraine M. Lantz, AICP Principal Planner Cotes Comity Catlg.r Cft-dy CnpRd Fxperh. hannir g. fmpncl Foos A Pogrom Manog-0 NOTE f[tlGW Add— Mar Chmrged 76a5 S- fiort.a`ae Orh�, 5u1te &103 Naplhs, FLM104 Ph— IM-j 252-5774 Lo im.Lo ntzQCef rCour*FLvor From: Thad Rhodes - 2304 <ihad.Rhodes@colliersheriff.org> Sent: Tuesday, Deoemher 1, 2020 9:25 AM To: La nWmrra ine 4mrraine.Lantz@cdliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Perry, Jeff Ueff-PerWstantec�mn Subject: RE: CCSO - District 4 Bridges Fi.'TFRh'AL EMAIL.: "This email is from an external solace. Confnm this is a trusted sender and use extreme +gym wllea op®ing attaehmenig clicl�g hales. I'm sorry, yes ma'am I was referring to Bridge tl12. Thank yau. Thad Frorn: LantKorraine rmuntvfizo+n Sent: Monday, November 30, 2D2D 3:39 PM To: Thad Rhodes - 23D4 [Thad_ Rhodes call iersheriff_arg> Cc: Perry, Jeff 4Jeff-Perry astantac-mm> Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Letters of Support from First Responders: Please click on the PDF link/image below for comments from North Collier Fire Rescue on 1/19/21: colliercounty G❑VP.Tment Attn. Ms. Lorraine M. LAntz, AlCP Principal Planner 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive, Suite #103 rbfts, FL 34104 3E: Eastof CR-951 Re-evaluatlon Bridge5tudy D35cd on the anatyses a nd inform atio n p rouided by the Wu nty's st udy {virtual meetinR COnd ucted %V ith u s on Friday. 1404em bur 2 0, 202M it appearsthe arstria rea lixes response [ inn ejservrce :m p rows meets wi th the bridges brated at, 1.471" AVP.RIne HC (Map referen4C P4 In [he studyl, 2. %VVSdr5 Blvd. North [Map refcrence #5 in the study}, and 1 62 O Ave. NE (Map reremrire f[12 in the study;. As such. the DistriC; supports pladng the aiarpmentioned three bridges intu a hi�hsrtler/priurity listing for constrUstian. Regarding the tyro (2� hridges Ioce[¢d 1T° Ave- NE (Wilson Ave_ & gm St. NE and Sn' Street rAE & 25"' St. NE), and ax detailed in the study, there is minimal, if any response tln1Elservire improvemuntsfor the olst*.I- As such, the DistNct supgvrt; pladrb the afurementioned two bridges Into a lower trer/priority listing far construction. If"can he of turther ASs istan❑e please du not hesitam to email ur E31.1_ RBspORFu Ily, . - Pmy Sal A. D'Angelo III, Ph.D. Rxecutive J)ire= rf k merge, ity Management rjo"I1 COLLAR RRE CONTRDL AND RMUE DLS7HIC7 I@2S Veterans Pdrk Driwe NaplPc, FI .34109 • '23�; S'l7-31Z2. north�oe7lerflre,r prtt an.4RU qF FIR[ COMMISSIONER$ M. JBrt,es Bu rke.Jamey q, Calamad . Chdsaopher L Rassan. Norman, F. Feder, J. Chnstaphor I ❑mhardo Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Letters of Support from First Responders Please click on the following PDF link/image to see support from First Responders in 2017: NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCU1 DISTRICT BURtiu u} F1RE CUM MISSIGNERS M. Jam's Burke • Ch rlStE pilEr L. Crmsar . Narmnn F. rRdF1 1. Ch I'IqL r.'her Lc mharaa F ohn 0. M1-6. "win Fehri-al'y �4. 7317 Len 0Cr15, Count, ManogLi Cr.11:ei County Vanager's O'fice :J299'1'arni»rmI Trail Fa51', SidtF- 70 Nanlcs, f'_S4112 rvl r.:]e:I: s: Please allow this iettcI to evioencc, the support of Lhe Ivor Lh LnlIi9r Fire C 11troI and LLuL Di.;hrir.- For th,� appr yr :.1 and COUt'RCtior of the to Iowing bridges cLrrt:ILly t:o i I F i r}ed. in the Golden Gnte Csa:c=_ Bridges prujL::t: 1(' Avenl•e .5-F. between Everglades and Oesuto • 81h Street N.E. troln Go dcrl Gam Blvd. Lu kar,dall Bi vd. • 16" SLrL'L`L N.L. rronl C,oh:een Cale My& to Randa!I Blvd. +l i', Al ..qI,P N.F. from Irnmakvlee Raid to Everglades Lilvd. The connect^rite that :hose bridges Nuald Increase puhliC safely with mliancod rnuNli:y all,wil-:g 'n: raster response timestor emergency!, -}vices (EMS, Fire, C[5(}) ar:d irwimved evaciDtiM !(:LWL during Jlur leaves, wildFimn nr n;hPr natural disasters. These bred gcs art .,uppnrte:l by bo-h the Forizon St:Icyane9 L h u (3:idKLSLudy fBXJ9). Vre a.s.c 1:hat CnII,-e• Cnr,nty Grovr:h Management ser'ouslyc=siLcr upp:-cvinR these bridges Wi11iIIi :he GalderI Gat;: LSIaIF.. BrH R% r:rnjeci which wrlI A5511reIly enhzrice Iifu safely "or IhP.-es:dents and Lolnn unitics in tl'c ab!ie_ Si r'cur H:y', r` r-ics Camingnam Fare C"r'Pf Collier County —2O21 East ofCRQ51 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Letters ofSupport from First Responders Please click on the following PDF link/image to see support from the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District un10/18/19: Collier County — 2021 East of CR 951 Bridges Reevaluation Study Public Information Report Letters of Support from First Responders Please click on the following PDF link/image to see support from Collier County Sheriff's Office from January 201S: January 21, 2U 1 callicaCountyGown wl ( vwlh Wpvgr mlDivi�imi TranApornTjon ringineering 7995 S limseshoe OR -Naples, FL 34104-6 110 Ref.PD&Ps Study ftrr the f nlelen C afe Rxullce lir dg: Dear Sirs, I am cwlwnrmal w lcam that the Project DciUopxmcnt and hrry owucntal SuLdy (Pi)&.F) hor Fnypiuml hridg� in laic Cinlden Crab 1"itil+11C'y is bCing dmitcd to orJy three b1'ldges. Addilinnnl hridp=,; frrE :sxential I'or wh:yarm wsperosc by First kcsponders_ 1 nsl: that your agEnv; please revww eJ164. currently un&Lm4y wish an cwc to ward fimdi ag mo bridges in addidon to Ehe Lhree bridges tieing pragramsned, Omit: being tat 23r'l St SW and G2 i Aar hE. PicRsc consider tha adWAsc impact to pttlaiiv safety in art arty of ac ive gruwlb i I-plam lu build on1V III Tr bridge 4TV Puraurd, Your anent on t0 this rrinttEr in bLATi wurran&ti;:TI;1 upprcu4,(Mj, Snnencly, Kcvin J. Rambosk, Shctiff Col] i Er Cuuuly, Florida KJR: G&Sfeeb .`Service m 01&rsBefvpe Self