9.C.
City Council Meeting - FINAL
- Meeting Date:
- 02/17/2015
- Co-Submitter:
- Rick Compau, Purchasing Director
- From:
- David Wessel, Metro Planning Org Manager
Information
TITLE:
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Consultant Agreement: Transit Spine Route Study, RFP 2015-04 (Grant Funded)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1) Approve the Consultant Services Agreement with Nelson-Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. (Nelson Nygaard) in the amount of $297,673.
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents
Executive Summary:
Transit is a central strategy in the region's long range transportation strategy. A strong transit system provides mobility alternatives, ensures that the transit-dependent can participate fully in the community, and can be used strategically to address economic development and congestion. This study advances the cross-town Bus Rapid Transit or spine route which is the foundation for a future re-organization of the Mountain Link system.
Policy Support:
Primary policy reasons for making this award and proceeding with this study include:
Policy Support:
Primary policy reasons for making this award and proceeding with this study include:
- Advancement of Transportation Policy: The recently adopted Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 calls for increasing alternate modes of travel (T1.4), transportation systems consistent with place type including high levels of transit service in urban and suburban activity centers (T1.3 and following table), a high-quality, safe, convenient, accessible system including transit system design with frequent and convenient access points (T7.3), and implementation of five (5) year transit master plan goals (T7.1)
- Cooperation and coordination with Regional Partners: The City participates on the FMPO and NAIPTA policy boards. This study is contained in the FMPO Work Program and NAIPTA identifies its completion as a part of their 18-month strategic plan.
- A committee comprised of ADOT, NAIPTA and FMPO staff with oversight from City purchasing reviewed two (2) proposals. Nelson-Nygaard was unanimously selected as the highest ranking firm.
Financial Impact:
This project is funded with a $300,000 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5304 Transit Planning Fund grant awarded to FMPO by the Arizona Department of Transportation. NAIPTA is providing for a 20% match equivalent to $75,000, bringing the total project budget amount to $375,000. Out of the $75,000 NAIPTA match, $50,000 will be utilized for NAIPTA's project management. The City will charge an indirect cost (7.86%) against the total $375,000 to administer the procurement process, legal review, grant management and financing, equivalent to $27,327. NAIPTA will handle day-to-day management of the consultant and scope of work. The award is for $297,673 and will be charged to account 022-05-110-6131-4206.
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan:
COUNCIL GOALS:
3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics - The study will determine appropriate routing of the transit system used by a wide array of citizens. Implementation of the study recommendations may influence the number of lanes needed to support transit and general traffic, sidewalk and other items.
4) Explore ad adopt policies to lower the costs associated with housing to the end use - If implemented, a cross-tow BRT will make transit a more viable travel option potentially reducing the combined cost of housing and transportation.
6) Relieve traffic congestion throughout Flagstaff - BRT routes in key corridors pose potential solutions to reducing congestion.
9) Foster relationships and maintain economic development commitments to partners- a strong transit system is attractive to some employers, needed by many employees to access their jobs, and can make development in compact areas more feasible as it can reduce demand for parking. The cooperation between the City, FMPO and NAIPTA is a show of commitment to resolve transportation issues.
REGIONAL PLAN:
Energy E1.5 Promote and encourage the expansion and use of energy-efficient modes of transportation.
Community Character CC.4.1 Design streetscapes to be context sensitive and transportation systems to reflect the desired land use while balancing the needs of all modes for traffic safety and construction and maintenance costs.
Land Use LU1.5 Maintain and upgrade existing infrastructure and invest in infrastructure to make redevelopment and infill an attractive and more financially viable development alternative.
Land Use LU5.5 Plan for and promote compact commercial development at activity centers and mixed uses, allowing for efficient multi-modal transit options and infrastructure.
Land Use LU7.1 Concentrate urban development in locations...that support transit.
Land Use LU 10.3 Value traditional neighborhoods...around downtown...by...improving ...transit accessibility...
Land Use LU12 Accommodate ...transit riders...to supplement downtown's status ...as the most accessible location...
Land Use LU13.2 Consider public transit connections in suburban development.
Land Use LU18.3 Plan for and support multimodal activity centers and corridors with an emphasis on pedestrian and transit friendly design.
Transportation T1.1 Integrate a balanced, multimodal, regional transportation system.
Transportation T1.3 Transportation systems are consistent with the place type and needs of people (see tables on page X-7)..
Transportation T.2 Improve transportation safety and efficiency for all modes.
Transportation T3.2 Promote transportation systems that reduce the use of fossil fuels...
Transportation T3.8 Promote transportation options such as increase public transit...to reduce congestion, fuel consumption.
Transportation T.7 (and supporting policies) Provide a high quality, safe, convenient, accessible public transportation system, where feasible, to serve as an attractive alternative to single-occupant vehicles.
3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics - The study will determine appropriate routing of the transit system used by a wide array of citizens. Implementation of the study recommendations may influence the number of lanes needed to support transit and general traffic, sidewalk and other items.
4) Explore ad adopt policies to lower the costs associated with housing to the end use - If implemented, a cross-tow BRT will make transit a more viable travel option potentially reducing the combined cost of housing and transportation.
6) Relieve traffic congestion throughout Flagstaff - BRT routes in key corridors pose potential solutions to reducing congestion.
9) Foster relationships and maintain economic development commitments to partners- a strong transit system is attractive to some employers, needed by many employees to access their jobs, and can make development in compact areas more feasible as it can reduce demand for parking. The cooperation between the City, FMPO and NAIPTA is a show of commitment to resolve transportation issues.
REGIONAL PLAN:
Energy E1.5 Promote and encourage the expansion and use of energy-efficient modes of transportation.
Community Character CC.4.1 Design streetscapes to be context sensitive and transportation systems to reflect the desired land use while balancing the needs of all modes for traffic safety and construction and maintenance costs.
Land Use LU1.5 Maintain and upgrade existing infrastructure and invest in infrastructure to make redevelopment and infill an attractive and more financially viable development alternative.
Land Use LU5.5 Plan for and promote compact commercial development at activity centers and mixed uses, allowing for efficient multi-modal transit options and infrastructure.
Land Use LU7.1 Concentrate urban development in locations...that support transit.
Land Use LU 10.3 Value traditional neighborhoods...around downtown...by...improving ...transit accessibility...
Land Use LU12 Accommodate ...transit riders...to supplement downtown's status ...as the most accessible location...
Land Use LU13.2 Consider public transit connections in suburban development.
Land Use LU18.3 Plan for and support multimodal activity centers and corridors with an emphasis on pedestrian and transit friendly design.
Transportation T1.1 Integrate a balanced, multimodal, regional transportation system.
Transportation T1.3 Transportation systems are consistent with the place type and needs of people (see tables on page X-7)..
Transportation T.2 Improve transportation safety and efficiency for all modes.
Transportation T3.2 Promote transportation systems that reduce the use of fossil fuels...
Transportation T3.8 Promote transportation options such as increase public transit...to reduce congestion, fuel consumption.
Transportation T.7 (and supporting policies) Provide a high quality, safe, convenient, accessible public transportation system, where feasible, to serve as an attractive alternative to single-occupant vehicles.
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This:
The City Council adopted the Flagstaff Regional Plan which supports by policy and map the recommendations of NAIPTA's long range transit plan. The transit spine route or cross-town bus rapid transit route is part of that plan. Similarly, in awarding the Milton Road Operations Analysis micro-simulation study the Council supported the study of Milton Road into downtown to evaluate operational impacts of a variety of treatments, including transit.
Options and Alternatives:
1. Award the Services Agreement to Nelson Nygaard as recommended. This advances the project, obligates the grant funds, and respects the work programs for partner organizations.
2. Reject all proposals as submitted. This delays the project and may place grant funds at risk.
3. Further Negotiations. This moderately delays the project, could lower the price, but most likely will place the scope of work at risk. A weaker scope could lower chances of success for Federal Transit Administration grant applications to implement the study recommendations.
2. Reject all proposals as submitted. This delays the project and may place grant funds at risk.
3. Further Negotiations. This moderately delays the project, could lower the price, but most likely will place the scope of work at risk. A weaker scope could lower chances of success for Federal Transit Administration grant applications to implement the study recommendations.
Background/History:
This study will provide the basis for major advancements in transit service to the region. As indicated by the regional plan policy statements listed earlier, transit is a central part of the region's long-range transportation strategy. A cross-town spine route, also known as a bus rapid transit route, is featured prominently in NAIPTA's long range transit plan. More importantly, it is the basis for a reorganization of route structures and service provision to achieve importantly higher levels of service efficiently. The route as planned extends from Airport north on Milton, north on San Francisco (return on Beaver), east on Forest/Cedar, south on Fourth and then east on Route 66 to the Mall. It is envisioned as a high frequency route (10-15 minutes) with stretches of dedicated lanes and/or priority treatment. The plan will develop and evaluate alternative route structures within the basic corridor as described. The scope of work calls for development of a Small Starts Grant Application to the Federal Transit Administration supported by the evaluation and selection of a locally-preferred alternative, a funding analysis and a capacity analysis of NAIPTA to manage the new system. The work should be complete approximately 12-months after the award.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued with two (2) responses received. The evaluation committee consisted of three (3) members. The proposals were evaluated with the following criterion: experience and qualifications, presented approach and schedule, and proposed fee.
The proposal from Nelson Nygaard was ranked the highest and determined to the most advantageous to the City.
The rankings were as follows, per category:
A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued with two (2) responses received. The evaluation committee consisted of three (3) members. The proposals were evaluated with the following criterion: experience and qualifications, presented approach and schedule, and proposed fee.
The proposal from Nelson Nygaard was ranked the highest and determined to the most advantageous to the City.
The rankings were as follows, per category:
| Rank | Nelson Nygaard | Civtech |
| Experience & Qualifications | 1 | 2 |
| Presented Approach & Schedule | 1 | 2 |
| Proposed Fee | 2 | 1 |
| Total Ranking | 1 | 2 |
Key Considerations:
- Two (2) proposals were received and reviewed by a team of NAIPTA, FMPO and ADOT staff.
- Nelson-Nygaard was selected as having a superior team and better approach, thus the highest ranking firm
- FMPO and NAIPTA staff negotiated with the Nelson-Nygaard team on price to meet the expected budget.
- The renegotiated scope and fee was deemed satisfactory with the team and approach intact.
Expanded Financial Considerations:
The product of this study could result in additional federal grant funds coming to the region at an 80% federal share. The Nelson-Nygaard team has a strong knowledge of the area and an excellent track record in helping their clients secure federal funding. They were a key part of the team that delivered Mountain Links and that produced NAIPTA's long range transit plan.
Community Benefits and Considerations:
NAIPTA has grown substantially in the past 15 years and in addition to providing excellent service to the transit-dependent now offers superior service to the NAU community with Mountain Link. More than 2,000,000 trips per year are made on Mountain Line and Mountain Link. The cross-town BRT route has the potential to offer that same superior service to significant section of the broader community and provide the basis to re-organize existing service to make transfers more effective and convenient for passengers.
Community Involvement:
Inform-Consult-Involve-Collaborate: The alternatives development and selection process will engage stakeholders and the public in a range of efforts from basic information to collaboration on the design and effectiveness of the alternatives. Nelson-Nygaard has budgeted funds public outreach and proposes and inter-disciplinary/multi-agency committee to promote cooperation and collaboration.