REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FAIRFAX – SAN RAFAEL TRANSIT CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) requests proposals from qualified consultants for the FAIRFAX – SAN RAFAEL TRANSIT CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY. The feasibility study will identify the potential for additional transit service, together with opportunities to improve or expand existing service, along the Fairfax – San Anselmo – San Rafael corridor to meet new demands resulting with the start of SMART commuter rail service in 2016 in downtown San Rafael.
Submittals shall be dispatched in order to be received no later than 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 21, 2014. Late proposals will not be accepted.
All questions pertaining to this RFP should be directed in writing to Scott McDonald at firstname.lastname@example.org. Questions will be accepted through Friday, August 1 and responses will be posted online.
View the RFP and attachments:
Other Related Documents/Links
Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan (2012) Fairfax-San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study (2010) City of San Rafael General Plan Page Town of San Anselmo General Plan Page Town of Fairfax General Plan Page
Sign In Sheet for RFP Pre-Proposal Meeting
RFP questions and answers in the order received:
Q1: Attachment G Exhibit 1 “Corridor Area Map” only shows a portion of the map. The TAM logo blocks off the top of it. Could you kindly email me a map that shows the full route?
A: The exhibit is as intended, and shows the entire corridor east to west, from Fairfax to the Downtown San Rafael SMART station
Q2: I opened several of the RFP documents and found blanks with the DBE requirement not filled in. Does this mean there is no DBE requirement, or just that you haven’t filled in the blanks yet? Please advise.
A: TAM has determined that the DBE requirement is 0%?
Q3: I see zero percent requirement for DBEs in the RFP so just wondering why all of the DBE explanation and reporting requirements attachments are included?
A: Correct, the DBE requirement is 0%. TAM’s funding sources required the inclusion of the relevant documentation.
Q4: There is no mention of a public outreach process beyond attendance at TAC meetings. Are you hoping for a robust public outreach process, or is that being conducted outside of this study?
A: The TAC represents all of these jurisdictions on the Corridor, as well as the transit operators. TAC members intend reporting on progress and receiving input from their jurisdictions over the course of study.
Q5: Who are the members of the TAC if they have already been identified? Are there other key stakeholders that are not on the TAC that need to be included in some way?
A: TAC members include TAM, Marin Transit, Golden Gate Transit, Marin Trolley, City of San Rafael, Town of San Anselmo, Town of Fairfax, SMART and Marin County. Other local stakeholders will also be contacted during the course of the study.
Q6: Will the Countywide Travel Demand model be run as part of this project - and will that be run in house or do you expect the consultant to run it? My recollection is that the model is not very useful in estimating transit travel demand in a single corridor, especially looking at the difference in demand between modes. We are presuming off model methods for estimating ridership...is that acceptable to TAM?
A: It is not a requirement that the County model be used. Yes, off-model methods can be proposed by the consultant.
Q7: What is the extent of public involvement in this project?
A: Given the limited nature of the budget and the focus of this preliminary study on technical analysis, the TAC has indicated that its members will report back regularly to their constituent public jurisdiction / agency boards.
Q8: Is there an assumed operator for the future services developed in the study?
The intention is that any future service considered in the study– either bus or trolley – would be analyzed in an operator-neutral fashion. However the TAC recognizes that there is substantial existing service already in the Corridor by the major operators; both of them are involved in the TAC oversight of the study.
Q9: How will public involvement be sought in the study process?
See answer to question 7.
Q10: As the work scope was being developed, can you describe any specific concerns that the local jurisdictions voiced regarding the Corridor?
A: One clear desire expressed was that an alternative should consider transit in existing mixed flow lanes, with no signal priority or dedicated lanes, as described in the RFP.
A: The corridor and its three major transit hubs in downtown San Rafael, Fairfax and San Anselmo are complicated operations and there are projects planned or underway (for example, Fairfax is developing plans for their Parkade), which the consultant will incorporate in Task 1 of the study scope. Consultants are encouraged to travel the Corridor to look at existing conditions as they develop their proposals.
Q11: Can you provide data on the existing level of transit ridership on the corridor?
A: Marin Transit has solid, recent data available for its routes – although consultant should be aware that not all routes extend the entire length of the study corridor. The three hubs are significant generators of ridership in the county–certainly in the top 10 transit stops by volume. Marin Transit will make current data available.
Q12: The Town of San Anselmo has current roadway bridge rebuilding underway – is the town seeking TAM’s input to these projects, as part of the study?
A: Since these are projects already underway, the expectation is that the selected consultant will incorporate these as existing conditions in the study.
Q13: How should a consultant assess the role of bikes in the corridor?
A: Consultant should refer to the Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study, which included this corridor. TAC members had extensive involvement in reviewing bike needs and potential options for route development in that study. It is one of the reference documents that consultants will consider in Task 1 and a link to it is posted on the TAM RFP page.
Q14: Does TAM have a set format for the cost proposal?
A: No. Consultants are free to use their own template, provided that key staff, rates, hours and allocations by work scope task are identified.
Q15: Will the Transit Advisory Committee (TAC) referenced in Section 2 – Scope of Services be convened solely for the discussion/evaluation of this Study and its deliverables?
A: The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has already been established with a schedule of regular monthly meetings solely for the duration of the study (see page 4 of the RFP). For the TAC composition, see also answer to Question 5.
Q16: Task 7: Shall consultant prepare conceptual business plans for up to two alternatives and a no-project baseline scenario?
A: Correct, the conceptual business plans will include the no-project baseline, based on the operating plans defined in Task 6 (see page 8 of the RFP).
Q.17: Will all evaluation criteria listed in Section 4 – Method/Criteria For Selection be weighted equally?
A: Yes, all criteria will be weighted equally.
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS & PROPOSALS
Transportation System Monitoring In Marin County
The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) requests qualifications and proposals from qualified consultants to provide transportation system performance monitoring within Marin County. The selected consultant will be responsible for collecting data and reporting on the current status of the Marin County-wide transportation network. This work will be done in support of the 2015 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Update; so the desired scope of work shall be consistent with this future CMP Update.
Submittals shall be dispatched in order to be received no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, August 11, 2014. Late proposals will not be accepted.
Questions pertaining to this RFQ/RFP, the Scope of Services, or the proposal should be directed in writing via email to:Nicholas Nguyen: email@example.com
View the RFQ/RFP and attachments:
RFP questions and answers in the order received:
1. Are weekend Pedestrian and Bicycle counts to occur on Saturday & Sunday or only one day?
>> Saturday is desirable. However, if the effort and technology to be used for counts will provide for a minimal incremental cost increase for both days, then please provide an option within the proposal.2. Is there a time frame and day for the Weekend Peak Counts for vehicles?
>> Yes, 12-2 PM on Saturday is sufficient.3. Travel times are required to report speeds at ¼ mile increments. Is the ¼ mile increment requirement waived for other sources of travel time as long as they are positioned to capture the CMP segment as a whole?
>> Please provide data collection as requested, as well as providing an option that may be more cost-efficient and of potentially more use which may capture a segment as a whole.
4. Previous monitoring reports have a transit services section. Is this to be included in the new monitoring study? If so, who is responsible for the data collection for this part of the monitoring report?
>> The top of Page 3 in the RFQ/RFP list transit evaluation as a component of the monitoring report, and the prior 2012 report included this component which this new effort should strive to be consistent with. The consultant should account for this.
5. There is no location 5 for the pedestrian and bicycle counts. Was this intentional or is there a location 5 that needs to be collected? Additionally, the 2012 monitoring report differentiated by whether bicyclists were wearing a helmet, gender, and adult/child. The RFP only calls for adult/child differentiation. Can TAM verify that helmet use and gender are no longer required.
>> There is no Location 5. It is a typographical error. Capturing helmet use and gender are no longer required.
6. Is the consultant supposed to evaluate person throughput, and housing and job balance?
>> Please review the 2012 monitoring report as a basis for this current effort. Person throughput will be required. However, housing and job balance are not factors in this report.
7. Is the consultant supposed to count bike and pedestrians for 24 hours? Is this a newly added item?
>> Please provide an option for 24 hour count of bike and pedestrians, which will be evaluated during the selection process.
8. Location 25 (SR 1 from US 101 to Tennessee Valley Road) shows counts are only to be collected in the northwest bound direction. This is a little different than the other locations where vehicle counts are collected in both directions except where the street is only one-way.
>> Please consider this is a typographical error and include both directions of travel.
9. Do forms, cost proposal and the cover count towards the page limit?
>> No, they are to be listed within the appendices.
10. Does TAM have a GIS file of Transportation Network/ CMP segments? Can TAM make this available as a part of the project?
>> No, TAM does not have a GIS file of the CMP segments.
11. What does the count information get used for? Previous reports do not show the results of counts, except for person throughput counts (i.e. occupancy). If count results are reported separately, is there a separate report that we can review?
>> Volume counts are to be used for LOS calculations. All raw count data should be compiled in an organized manner and included as an appendix.
12. Table 2 refers to vehicle occupancy and weekend counts. Location 19 and 25 call for both survey types. Do you require occupancy counts on weekends? (Previous reports provide occupancy counts during the peak only).
>> Yes, we require occupancy counts for weekend period during peak only for consistency with previous reports.
13. There are places in the freeway network (on US101 and I-580) where there are no PeMS detectors between the locations mentioned. Is it permissible to use nearby detectors to minimize the need for in-field counts?
>> Please use the most appropriate and efficient methodology to provide the most accurate data as reasonably possible for each segment.
14. In paragraph 1 on page 7, it is estimated that 6-10 counts are required for each location in Table 2 during each peak period and weekends where necessary. Where electronic data is not available, do these 6-10 counts need to be conducted for the entire peak period? Are we correctly interpreting the need to do 6-10 separate instances of counts for each peak period or is one day of counts suitable?
>> The estimation of 6 to 10 counts for each location is to achieve an appropriate statistical average as requested in the RFQ/RFP. Please apply the appropriate industry practice to achieve these measurements.
15. Is vehicle occupancy data collection required for more than one day?
>> One day of data collection for vehicle occupancy is acceptable. However, the intent is to determine the average vehicle occupancy, and the proposers should address how they plan to achieve this as a task.
16. Are vehicle occupancy counts required for the entire peak period?
>> Yes, insofar as to obtain an average vehicle occupancy.
17. Previous reports count transit passengers as a part of vehicle occupancy count? Is this a requirement for 2014?
>> No, transit passengers should not be factored into the vehicle occupancy count, and should be clearly stated in the final report.
Free viewers are required for some of the attached documents.
They can be downloaded by clicking on the icons below.