2017 travel wa intercity bus plan packet a state dot icb plan update packet a packet a rfq: state of...

Washington State DOT ICB Plan Update

Packet A

PACKET A

RFQ: State of Washington Department of Transportation

Travel Washington InterCity Bus Plan Update

Submitted by: KFH Group, Inc.

Scoring Criteria 1: Qualifications and Expertise of

Firms on Team

Scoring Criteria 2: Qualifications of Proposed

Project Manager

Scoring Criteria 3: Key Team Members

Qualifications

Scoring Criteria 4: Firm’s Project Management

System

Scoring Criteria 5: Project Delivery Approach

Washington State DOT 1 ICB Plan Update

Packet A

SCORING CRITERIA 1: QUALIFICATIONS/EXPERTISE OF FIRM(S) ON TEAM

A. Proposed Project Team

List of Firms

KFH Group, Incorporated

Plangineering, LLC

Expertise of Each Team Member

KFH Group, Inc.

The KFH Group, Inc. brings nationally-recognized expertise in rural intercity bus policy and planning to the team. The firm specializes in public transportation planning, policy analysis, and management consulting for local transit operators, regional entities, private carriers, state departments of transportation, the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), and the federal government. A key focus of the KFH Group has been rural intercity bus service, including the economics of the service, route and service planning, intermodal connectivity facility needs, and the development of policies to maintain and improve intercity connections in rural areas, including implementation of the federal Section 5311(f) program. However, the firm’s expertise is not limited to intercity bus issues. Rural public transportation and human service transportation coordination have also been a major focus of the KFH Group, including local service plans and feasibility studies, statewide coordination efforts, and assistance to state departments of transportation in the development of rural transit policies and in program implementation under the federal programs, including Section 5311, Section 5307 and Section 5310. The firm has extensive experience working with states in developing and conducting federal and state program compliance monitoring, and has particular expertise in Title VI policies and analysis for states and urban transit systems. To perform these types of analysis, the firm has developed and maintains capabilities in surveying, data collection and analysis, performance measurement, federal and state program compliance, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping and analysis, stakeholder involvement and consultation, and program design. Plangineering, LLC

For this project, KFH is joined by Plangineering, LLC of Spokane, Washington. Plangineering combines professional planning and engineering strategies to improve community vitality. Plangineering specializes in multi-modal transportation planning, founded on professionally facilitated stakeholder engagement, and supported by accurate, reliable technical work.


Packet A

Recent projects cover statewide transit planning, local and regional coordinated public transit-human resources transportation plans, and strategic planning for rural transit providers. Based in the Inland Northwest, Plangineering has led communities across the Pacific Northwest through successful transportation decision-making processes. The firm’s capabilities include the design of rural transit and regional services, corridor studies, public outreach and stakeholder involvement, organizational support, GIS and other analytical tools.

Length of Time Providing Expertise

KFH Group, Inc.

KFH Group has been in existence for 22 years, and has been providing rural public transit planning services from day one, including intercity bus plan. One of the firm’s initial projects was being on the team for the Minnesota Intercity Bus Plan. In addition, it should be noted that the principals of KFH, Sue Knapp, Fred Fravel, and Ken Hosen each have nearly 35 years of experience in this field. Mr. Fravel’s intercity bus planning experience begins with his thesis research on intercity bus deregulation in 1976-1980, and the North Carolina Intercity Bus Plan of 1978.

Plangineering, LLC

Carole Richardson, Principal of Plangineering, has 29 years of professional transportation planning experience, including work for two cities, two state transportation departments and a metropolitan planning organization. She founded Plangineering, LLC in 2013 and the firm has been providing transportation planning and engineering services since that time.

Organization Chart with Respective Roles

Figure 1-1 presents a team organization chart showing respective roles.


Packet A

Figure 1-1: Team Organization Chart


Packet A

B. Offices in Washington State

KFH Group, Inc.

Since 2008, the KFH Group has had a Seattle office, which is located at: KFH Group, Inc. c/o Paladino 1932 1st Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98101 206-274-5996 Our Seattle office currently has a staff of one, though it has had as many as ten; four KFH Group staff members and six contracted staff employees in the recent past.

KFH Group is certified as a WBE with Washington State Department of Transportation, and is certified to do business Washington State by the Secretary of State. Both registrations are current and copies are included in Packet B. Plangineering, LLC

The Plangineering office has a Spokane office which is located at: Plangineering, LLC 2403 E. Pacific Avenue Spokane, WA 99202 509-279-2875 (office) 208-277-4600 (mobile)

The Plangineering mailing address is:

P.O. Box 3771 Spokane, WA 99220

This office currently has two staff members.

C. Prime and Sub-consultants Previous Joint Work Experience

The prime and sub-consultants have not worked together on the same project under a contractual arrangement. One other fact that should be considered is that all the team members have been professional transportation consultants for many years, and as small or single-person firms, most of that work has involved teaming with other firms or individuals.


Packet A

D. Availability of Key Staff and Resources

Table 1-1 presents the availability of key staff over the anticipated project period, presented in terms of hours per month. Table 1-1: Availability of Key Staff over Anticipated Project Period (in Hours)

E. Projects Demonstrating the Required Expertise - Prime and Sub-consultants

Listed below are three projects for each team member firm that demonstrate the required firm expertise that have been completed within the past three years. KFH Group, Inc.

Project: NCHRP PROJECT 20-65 (Task 56): BEST PRACTICES IN RURAL

REGIONAL MOBILITY Client: National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Transportation

Research Board, Washington, D.C. (under subcontract for Cambridge Systematics,

Inc.)

Cost: $93,041

The objective of this research project was to identify and evaluate practices being used by state departments of transportation, rural regional planning agencies and transit agencies to plan, fund and provide rural regional services. Targeted practices included regional public transportation, intercity bus, and more specialized services that were designed to address rural regional transportation needs. The study included a definition of rural regional services, a literature review, and a national process to identify potential case studies. Differences in state programs, target markets and funding sources were identified and used to identify case studies that demonstrated a variety of approaches. Twelve case studies were conducted, and lessons learned formed the basis for a toolkit and checklist for planning regional transit services. The report is now in final editorial review for publication.

Team Member November December January February March April May June July August September October

Fred Fravel 40 40 80 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

Jill Stober 80 80 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

Jason Quan 50 50 50 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

Beth Hamby 100 100 100 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

Jamaal Schoby 100 100 100 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

Carole Richardson 40 40 60 80 80 80 80 60 60 40 60 80

2017 2018


Packet A

Project: MINNESOTA INTERCITY BUS STUDY

Client: Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Transit

Cost: $150,214

In 2014, KFH Group provided consulting services to the Office of Transit to update its statewide intercity bus network study. The study team worked closely with a Steering Committee and state staff, with market research provided by sub-consultant WBA Research. KFH Group had previously worked on Minnesota’s 2010 and 1997 intercity bus plans. The 2014 update built on those documents and involved a review of the state’s implementation of the Section 5311(f) program, evaluation of current routes and services, a review of population characteristics related to the need for intercity bus transportation, an on-board user survey, a review of the state’s intercity bus program and an evaluation of the funded services, and recommendations regarding the program and potential growth of the network. A prioritization of future investments was included. The analysis also addressed the state’s use of the in-kind match program in combination with limited state match for operating assistance. The project provided support for and documented Minnesota’s Section 5311(f) Consultation Process.

Project: REGIONAL BUS NETWORK ASSESSMENT FOR MASSCHUSETTS

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Client: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Rail and Transit Division

Cost: $185,152 (initial contract), $8,175 (add-on to develop RFP and assist in procurement

process)

KFH Group assisted the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s (MassDOT) Rail and Transit Division in developing a Regional Bus Network Assessment to evaluate efforts under the BusPlus program to expand regional bus service in underserved corridors. Major tasks in the study included:

Development of evaluation criteria that reflected MassDOT’s goals and objectives

Development and evaluation of a comprehensive list of potential improvements to the regional bus system

Implementation plans for the recommended projects, including estimates of ridership, revenue, costs, and capital requirements

As part of the project KFH Group conducted outreach to a variety of stakeholders, including private bus carriers, regional transit authorities, metropolitan planning organizations, and regional coordinating councils, and the general public to identify MassDOT’s goals and priorities for its regional bus program, known as the BusPlus Program. The study evaluated these services and recommended continuation of the capital program with monitoring of the service commitments as well as oversight of the capital assets. Several of the operating projects did not reach the desired performance thresholds, and a new operating program was recommended to replace the BusPlus operating contracts. The new


Packet A

program is funded under the FTA Section 5311(f) rural intercity program, allowing the use of the in-kind match provisions. KFH assisted MassDOT in developing a new RFP for the program, and in conducting the solicitation for new services based on the priorities identified in the study.

Plangineering, LLC Project: NORTH BY NORTHWEST CONNECTOR: CONNECTOR BUSINESS PLAN

AND NORTHWEST OREGON TRANSIT SYSTEM CONSOLIDATION

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Client: Northwest Oregon Transit Alliance, Columbia, Clatsop, Tillamook, Lincoln and

Benton Counties, Oregon (Multiple Projects)

Cost: $62,000 Connector Business Plan and $30,000 Northwest Oregon Transit System Consolidation Feasibility Study

Plangineering’s Principal, Carole Richardson, secured $3.5 million in U.S. Department of Energy grant funding, and managed a project to enhance transit system operations in northwestern Oregon. The original pilot program of work for the Connector was performed by Ms. Richardson prior to starting Plangineering. She initiated interagency partnerships, and led a multi-disciplinary team in the development and implementation of regional transit strategies. The pilot program involved removing barriers to transit access; branding and marketing five separate transit services as a single seamless service; regional route and service coordination; and system performance monitoring. The original program included planning, design, permitting and construction administration for transit stop improvements at seventy locations across northwestern Oregon. Following its official launch in 2013, Plangineering has continued to assist the Connector Alliance with additional projects. In 2016, Plangineering completed a strategic business plan, addressing remaining organizational and policy barriers to coordination and expansion. Plangineering, as a sub-consultant, is on the preliminary design team for a second phase of bus stop improvements, providing design review and quality assurance work. Currently, Plangineering is performing a feasibility study to examine potential consolidation of two of the five Connector agencies. The Connector Program has received multiple awards and is recognized as a national model for regional transit coordination.

Project: IDAHO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN Client: State of Idaho, Department of Transportation Cost: $39,276

Idaho’s public transportation planning process involved preparing six separate regionally-coordinated human services transportation plans in concert with an overarching statewide policy-level plan. As a sub-consultant, Plangineering led coordinated planning efforts and stakeholder engagement activities for the region covering Idaho’s five northernmost counties.


Packet A

Plangineering performed peer review analyses for transit providers statewide, assisted with future statewide demand estimates, and led the development of templates for locally coordinated plans in other regions of the state.

Project: TRI-COUNTY COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES

TRANSPORTATION PLAN Client: Northeast Washington Regional Transportation Planning Organization, Ferry,

Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties Cost: $50,000

Plangineering developed a regionally-coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan for three rural counties in northeastern Washington State. The process involved facilitating a large group of stakeholders including public and private transportation providers, intercity carriers, regional employers, social service agencies, three tribal nations, and the Washington Department of Transportation, as well as a significant public engagement program. The plan identified unmet needs across the spectrum of service coverage and frequency, fleet and facilities, transit technology, multi-modal access, needs of aging and disabled individuals, veterans’ medical access, and transit staffing. The resulting coordinated service plan provided both near and long-term operational strategies and coordination recommendations. The Northeast Washington Regional Transportation Planning Organization has leveraged this plan to secure funding for a regional mobility management program, trip planning tools and marketing efforts, as well vehicles, equipment and service across all three counties.

SCORING CRITERIA 2: QUALIFICATIONS OF PROPOSED PROJECT

MANAGER

A. Prior Experience of the Proposed Project Manager

KFH is proposing Mr. Fred Fravel as Project Manager for the Travel Washington Intercity Bus Plan Update. Mr. Fravel has extensive experience in the performing transit planning projects that address the particular focus of the proposed Washington study, as he has performed statewide and regional intercity bus plans in many places over the past 35 years (including his role as the Project Manager on the original Washington State Intercity and Rural-to-Urban Public Transportation Network Plan) as well as performing research and policy studies on this and related topics for the Transportation Research Board’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), the U.S. Department of Transportation, Congressional agencies, and industry associations. In addition, he has extensive experience in projects addressing rural public transportation, including management of more than 50 local rural and small urban short-range public transportation plans, and a number of studies addressing state policies and programs addressing rural transportation issues.


Packet A

Four projects that are examples of his experience include:

1) Project: TCRP PROJECT B-37: TOOLKIT FOR ESTIMATING DEMAND FOR

RURAL INTERCITY BUS SERVICES Client: Transportation Research Board, Transit Cooperative Research Program,

Washington, D.C.

Dates: 2010-2011

Mr. Fravel was Principal Investigator on this project for TCRP to develop a sketch-planning guide and supporting CD-ROM based tools for estimating the potential ridership on rural intercity bus services similar to those typically funded under the Federal Transit Administration’s Section 5311(f) rural intercity bus assistance program. The research involved the collection of data on the ridership and service characteristics of rural intercity bus services from many states, the development of a regression model and a trip rate model to estimate ridership based on significant characteristics, and the creation of a user-friendly tool for planners and other stakeholders to estimate ridership on rural intercity bus services. Mr Fravel developed the project scope, oversaw the collection and assessment of calibration data, developed the conceptual framework of the models, wrote the guidebook and manual, and supervised development of the CD-ROM toolkit.

2) Project: REGIONAL BUS NETWORK ASSESSMENT

Client: Massachusetts Department of Transportation Rail and Transit Division

Dates: 6/2015-7/2016

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation initiated a study to identify potential improvements in the regional bus system supported by the state in its BusPlus program. MassDOT defined regional bus to include both intercity and privately-provided commuter bus services. The BusPlus program included vehicle capital for new buses (provided in exchange for new or improved services), operating assistance for new routes, and improved information and ticketing. KFH initiated the project by developing service standards for use in evaluating existing and proposed service, and planning guidelines for use in determining where expanded services should be provided. An extensive stakeholder and public input process was conducted, and existing plans and studies reviewed to identify potential expansion candidates. A policy change by the state in mid-project eliminated continuing or future state-funded operating subsidies, and so potential new services were grouped based on potential funding options, including Section 5311(f) for rural intercity services. KFH developed and worked with the advisory group and the state to develop a priority list of rural intercity and commuter bus routes. Subsequently KFH assisted MassDOT in the development of an RFP and a procurement process for new routes. Mr. Fravel was the overall Project Manager, developing the approach and structure of the study, overseeing development of standards and guidelines; estimating potential demand, costs and revenues; and developing recommendations—including policy guidance for the revised BusPlus program.

.


Packet A

3) Project: INTERCITY AND REGIONAL BUS NETWORK PLAN

Client: Colorado Department of Transportation, Division of Transit and Rail

Dates: 12/2012- Present

This 2014 update to the 2008 statewide intercity and regional bus network study included an inventory of providers and services, a review of populations with a higher need for transit services, development of service standards to evaluate existing and proposed services, and development of a proposed network including intercity, inter-regional express, regional, and essential (human service) transportation services. It recommended creation of a statewide network, along with changes in programs and policies to support the development of the network. The study also included an inventory of facility needs in the state, and a financing plan for operating and capital to support the network. The plan categorized proposed routes as intercity, regional, interregional express, and essential service, differentiating among a variety of services based on market orientation and operating characteristics. It addressed regional rural mobility by highlighting the essential service component of the larger network: routes intended to connect rural communities to medical, shopping, and governmental destinations, and to connections with other travel modes. Additional studies included a much more detailed plan for the development of inter-regional express services, focused on commuter needs into Denver. Subsequently the Colorado DOT contracted for operation of commuter services on three routes, using buses owned by CDOT, branded as the “Bustang” service. Ridership has exceeded expectations, and KFH is part of the team evaluating expansion options, and development of a statewide rural regional network to be branded as “Bustang Connect”, which will include the the non-Greyhound Section 5311(f) rural intercity routes. Mr. Fravel was KFH’s Project Manager, directing the overview of existing services, developing routes for the statewide network, estimating demand and costs, developing statewide timetables, and directing peer studies for the commuter bus network plan.

4) Project: 2014 MINNESOTA INTERCITY BUS STUDY

Client: Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Transit

Dates: 7/2013-1/2014

In 2014, KFH Group, assisted by WBA Research, Inc., provided consulting services to the Office of Transit to update its statewide intercity bus network study. KFH Group, had previously developed Minnesota’s 2010 and 1997 intercity bus plans. The 2014 update built on those documents and involved a review of the state’s implementation of the S. 5311(f) program, evaluation of current routes and services, an on-board user survey, and recommendations regarding the potential growth of the network. The analysis also addressed the state’s use of the in-kind match program in combination with limited state match for operating assistance. The study also examined the impact of recent industry developments including the advent of “curbside” bus carriers such as Megabus. It concluded with program options and a prioritization of existing and potential intercity services. Mr. Fravel was the Project Manager, directing the overall data collection and analysis.


Packet A

B. Project Manager’s Familiarity with State and Federal Regulations

With regard to federal transit and other transportation programs, Mr. Fravel is very familiar with their policies, procedures and regulations. He has conducted FTA Triennial Reviews of Section 5307 transit systems in California and S. 5311 federal program compliance reviews in Georgia and North Carolina, which requires knowing the FTA compliance requirements in great detail. He re-wrote the Section 5311 State Management Plan for the GDOT, and earlier directed the revision of the State of Maryland’s Section 5310 State Management Plan. As the Principal Investigator for the TCRP 79 study Effective Approaches to Meeting Rural Intercity Bus Transportation Needs he had to be completely familiar with the Section 5311(f) rural intercity bus transportation program, and with other FTA policies addressing intermodal facilities and private sector participation. Subsequently he was the Principal Investigator of the National Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP) Research Results Digest 356: Analysis of State Rural Intercity Bus Strategies: Requirements for Utilization of Section 5311(f) Funding. The impact of various state transit policies on rural regional transit was a major focus of NCHRP Project 20-65(Task 56) Best Practices in Rural Regional Mobility. He was the Principal Investigator on that project as well. He worked with the Washington State DOT to present the concept of in-kind match for rural intercity bus operations to the FTA, and has since directed projects in Colorado, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Virginia revising state intercity programs to utilize in-kind match. This work included development of Request for Proposal documents using in-kind match in a number of states. These different state studies have all involved detailed knowledge of federal program requirements for subrecipients, grantees, and contractors—and knowledge of federal funding levels, state management policies, and likely future trends. The many short range local transit planning studies he has conducted have also required detailed knowledge of FTA and state requirements to develop budgets, make capital plans, and develop organizational options. From his work in many states, Mr. Fravel understands that state policies, programs and regulations differ considerably, even with regard to the implementation of the same federal programs. As part of his work on the NCHRP study of best practices for rural regional transit he directed case studies of projects in twelve states. As the Project Manager on the 2007 Washington State Intercity and Rural-to-Urban Public Transportation Network Plan Mr. Fravel interviewed WSDOT staff, and collected program data on the Washington state transit programs, including grant applications, funding, planning requirements, and the work of the Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation (ACCT). This included development of an appreciation for important role of local sales taxes in funding the operations of transit in Washington, the role of the Public Transportation Benefit Areas, the importance of the Formula Grant Program in funding rural transit generally, including some of the regional services. Mr. Fravel has recently been involved with the development of the USDOT’s National Intercity Bus Atlas, part of the National Transit Map. He is working with representatives of a number of carriers and agencies to get the intercity bus industry to provide GTFS data to that effort and to Google Transit and other platforms to allow potential riders to perform detailed,


Packet A

multi-modal trip-planning—a goal long held by Washington and Oregon DOT’s, who were jointly trying to develop such a tool at the state level over a decade ago. While this provides a needed background, additional knowledge for the team is provided by the sub-consultants, who have additional direct experience working in Washington.

C. Project Manager’s Ability to Manage Schedule, Scope Creep, Budget, and Changes in the Project

The project manager, in addition to providing substantive input to the content of a project, must also manage the schedule, make sure the project is following its intended scope, monitor the budget, and react to changes in the project (whatever the source). Mr. Fravel’s approach to schedule management involves the development of a realistic schedule together with the client at the outset, which is then communicated to all team members. He prefers to develop a list of key meetings and develop tentative dates for those, because it means that intermediate products will be developed to meet those dates, and an audience is expecting them. Schedule slippage is identified as an issue in the monthly progress reports, and if assistance is needed from the client to get back on track, it will be identified (for example if feedback is needed on an intermediate product, or data, etc.). If work originally anticipated for a certain period is taking longer, or is greater than anticipated, we notify clients of these issues and suggest alternatives. Mr. Fravel works with clients to meet their critical schedule needs (a meeting of policy-makers, or a grant application deadline, etc.). The use of weekly or bi-weekly team calls with the client to review progress and obtain feedback is also recommended as a means of keeping the project on schedule. The presence of the phrase scope creep in the RFQ is significant, as it means that WSDOT recognizes it exists. Scope creep is the tendency to expand the work effort beyond that originally agreed upon, often unintentional or done with the best of intentions, but sometimes it is forced by clients who take advantage of a project manager’s desire to meet expectations and please the client. Again, a clear scope of work and work plan, developed and jointly reviewed and agreed upon, is a key tool in preventing scope creep. If it occurs, the project manager will recognize cases where work is more than anticipated, or broadening of scope. Mr. Fravel, as project manager, will make the client aware of the potential issue, and then if it is clear that this is beyond the anticipated scope, suggest options: 1) stick to scope, or 2) a revised scope, making clear the resource implications, and suggesting trade-offs (reduced work in another area), or 3) propose addressing the expanded scope, requesting additional resources. With regard to the project budget, Mr. Fravel will utilize the firm’s reporting systems which provide weekly tracking of hours by staff by project to monitor staff activity. The monthly invoicing process then assigns costs to hours, adds overhead, adds direct costs, and includes subcontractor costs, resulting in a monthly invoice with project detail, showing amount spent


Packet A

to date, and remainder. This is checked against the project scope, and the anticipated expenditure to that point. Mr. Fravel prefers to have an estimate of cost by task, to assess percent complete on task against expenditures. Again, if costs are greater than expected, time sheets are reviewed to make sure the charges are valid, and if so, then reasons for higher-than anticipated costs are determined. Options are then to revise methods to reduce costs, find ways to reduce costs on remaining tasks, have less expensive persons do the work, reduce direct costs (travel, for example)—or work uncompensated. Mr. Fravel has done all of these. The monthly invoice is provided to the client accompanied by a progress report describing activities during the month, projected activity next month, and any issues requiring resolution. Changes in a project can arise from developments in the environment, changes in client needs, or changes that are needed because anticipated methods or data sources are not working as planned. We identify the change, attempt to quantify its impact on cost and schedule, develop alternative strategies, and work with the client to meet their needs. Mr. Fravel has addressed requested changes in client needs, and problems arising from lack of data, or poor survey returns. It requires flexibility, and a willingness on both the consultant’s and the client’s part to achieve the most value from the effort, even if the original path needed to be changed. All projects require management of these various issues—and often change or scope creep requires flexibility in schedule or budget. Three examples:

1. A key example is the 2007 Washington State intercity bus plan. When the study began,

WSDOT was able to provide local match for Section 5311(f) projects. As route and service alternatives were being developed, state funding cutbacks meant that state funding would be unavailable. Mr. Fravel worked with the state and FTA to develop and obtain policy approval to utilize the in-kind value of connecting unsubsidized intercity service as match for Section 5311(f) operating projects. This was combined with an approach that regarded the combined subsidized and unsubsidized intercity services as one network both requiring and offering connectivity. The intercity projects were pulled out of the Consolidated Grant Program, and the state designated as the grantee, issuing competitive RFPs for contractors to operate particular services that it identified as meeting unmet needs or gaps in the network. Although not in the scope, the KFH team worked with the state to develop a new federal funding option and revise the basic state approach. Although it required more time (but no additional costs), this example demonstrates Mr. Fravel’s ability to respond to major changes in the scope to deliver the needed product.

2. Similarly, in Massachusetts, the original scope of the Regional Bus Network Assessment

Study called for the development of a plan for expansion of a state-funded operating assistance program, and the scope called for the development and prioritization of additional new routes. Partway into the study the state eliminated operating funding for the program, and the state’s project manager left. Mr. Fravel redirected the project


Packet A

to focus on development of planning and service standards, application of the standards to previously funded projects, and a shift in the program to use Section 5311(f) funds in a contracted program to focus on rural needs, and application of new policies to the existing vehicle capital program. The revamped BusPlus program was continued. Again this demonstrates the ability of Mr. Fravel, as project manager, to react to changed circumstances and develop appropriate solutions for the project and for the state going forward.

3. A third project illustrating Mr. Fravel’s ability to manage change within a project

involved a recent project addressing Denver’s downtown intercity bus terminal, its development potential, and the need for a new location for the services using the terminal. One option involved potentially moving the intercity services to the new bus terminal at the Denver Union Station. Issues identified in the assessment of this option included the future capacity of the station in relation to intercity needs. Although not included in the scope, Mr. Fravel directed and performed a detailed analysis by time-of-day of passenger accumulation and bus bay utilization of the Denver Union Station bus terminal for a summer peak, demonstrating the available capacity. This was needed to keep the option of using the station on the table as an element in negotiations between Greyhound, RTD and the City. Again, Mr. Fravel responded to an unanticipated need with a new task, while maintaining the schedule and cost.

D. Professional Licenses/Accreditations for the Proposed Project Manager

Mr. Fravel does not have any professional licenses or accreditations, as none are required for his particular areas of planning practice. He is a current member of the TRB Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation Committee, and its Conference Planning Subcommittee,, a member of the American Planning Association, and a member of the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

SCORING CRITERIA 3: QUALIFICATIONS OF KEY MEMBERS

For this project, the KFH Group is proposing to use many of its key professional staff, along with the Principal of the sub-consultant, Plangineering. In this section we will present the key team members that will work with the Project Manager (qualifications described in Scoring Criteria 2), their anticipated role on the project, brief descriptions of three prior relevant projects, and the source of that person’s understanding of public agency regulations and procedures.


Packet A

Jill Stober

Role

Ms. Stober will serve as Assistant Project Manager. In addition to helping manage daily communications and the project schedule, she will complete analyses to identify unmet needs and service gaps. She will develop service alternatives including ridership and performance projections, guide prioritization, and develop recommendations.

Projects

Regional Bus Network Buildout Plan for Massachusetts Department of Transportation: Ms. Stober served as Assistant Project Manager and developed implementation plans for intercity and commuter bus projects that serve Massachusetts and New England (2015).

Minnesota Intercity Bus Studies for Minnesota Department of Transportation: Ms. Stober identified candidates for new intercity bus service and potential routes, and developed an exercise for the advisory committee to prioritize alternatives (2014 and 2010).

Statewide Performance Evaluation for Vermont Agency of Transportation: Ms. Stober worked on the 2012 update of the Vermont Public Transit Policy Plan, including a performance review of all transit services in the state. She has conducted several of VTrans’ annual transit route performance reviews (2011-2013, 2015-2016).

Understanding of Public Agency Rules and Regulations

Ms. Stober has completed intercity and regional bus studies in several states. These projects required understanding and sometimes developing state policies, program structures and goals regarding their Section 5311(f) programs. Ms. Stober has assisted states in developing policy plans, standard operating procedures, and grants management manuals to promote good stewardship of public funds and complying with federal requirements. She has also assisted states in monitoring sub-recipients and complying with Title VI requirements.

Jason Quan

Role

Mr. Quan will be involved in several phases of the project, but the particular focus of his work will be on updating and implementation of the TCRP-147 rural intercity bus demand model. He will obtain updated Census information for use in the model and be able to develop and implement any adjustments needed to apply it to current and proposed services. He will also help direct the collection and analysis of demographic data, identify key destinations, and develop application of service and planning guidelines.


Packet A

Projects

TCRP Report 147, Toolkit for Estimating Demand for Rural Intercity Bus Services: Mr. Quan was a Primary Contributor and assembled the Census data used to calibrate the model (including data on many variables that were tested but ultimately not included), and was the primary developer of the CD based toolkit that allows users to input their own proposed routes and estimate demand.

Compliance, Capacity and Proficiency Review (CCAP review) for Public Transportation Division of North Carolina Department of Transportation: These reviews are performed to evaluate the federal program compliance of grantees receiving funds under Sections 5307, 5311, 5310, 5316, and 5317. Mr. Quan was a Primary Contributor and assisted in the development of evaluation tools, developed the database systems to collect and tabulate findings and produce reports. He also has performed a large number of the reviews on-site.

Central Maryland Transit Development Plan (covering Anne Arundel, Howard, and Prince George’s Counties) for Maryland Transit Administration (MTA): Mr. Quan is Assistant Project Manager and is playing a key role in the development this short-range transit plan for a regional transit system. A complete restructuring of existing routes and a major expansion to provide new coverage are major elements of the study. Mr. Quan is closely involved in the service planning, and also has a major role in the significant public outreach effort, including user and community surveys.

Understanding of Public Agency Rules and Regulations Mr. Quan’ experience in developing compliance review systems and conducting compliance reviews of transit systems demonstrates his comprehensive knowledge of federal transit programs. He has worked on compliance issues for Non-Emergency Medicaid transportation, and federal transit compliance in several states, so he is cognizant of the different ways that states may administer these same programs. He has led or been a team member on many local transit development plans, and therefore is aware of the various funding programs and their relationship to different services. He leads the firm’s efforts in using Census and other data to determine transit needs, and is familiar with ADA requirements through his work leading the firm’s practice in pedestrian access, curb ramps, bus stops and accessible pathways (including his experience as Project Manager for the inventory and assessment of all curb ramps in the City of Seattle).

Elizabeth (Beth) Hamby

Role Ms. Hamby will assist in the evaluation of unmet rural intercity needs, engagement of the community and stakeholders, and working with the Washington State DOT program staff


Packet A

and Steering Committee. She will have a significant role in the development of reports and presentation materials.

Projects

Locally Operated Transit Systems (LOTS) Program Manual Update: Office of Local Transit Systems, Maryland Transit Administration: Ms. Hamby recently completed the revision and update of the comprehensive program administration manual for all Maryland rural and small urban transit systems. The manual addresses all federal and state requirements for statewide public transportation grant programs administered by the MTA. Ms. Hamby added new sections and updated others to reflect new federal requirements and changes in state polices. (2017)

NCHRP Project 20-65 Task 44: Curriculum for New State DOT Transit Grant Managers in Administering Federal and State Transit Grants (published as Web Document 203): Ms. Hamby had a significant role in developing this curriculum designed to train new grant managers in state transit programs. It provides comprehensive information about federal transit programs, their requirements, and the role of the state in administering them.

NCHRP Project 20-65 (Task 56): Best Practices in Rural Regional Mobility, (report forthcoming): Ms. Hamby was part of the team that reviewed state transit program responses to the need for regional transit, performed twelve case studies, identified lessons learned, developed a checklist/toolkit for identifying regional needs and developed services that respond to those needs. She had a key role in the case studies and the development of the toolkit.

Understanding of Public Agency Rules and Regulations:

Ms. Hamby’s extensive background in the development of guidance materials for state transit programs covering all aspects of transit program rules and regulations is demonstrated by her role in developing the national curriculum for transit grant managers, and in her work developing program manuals for state transit programs in several states. She is familiar with ADA requirements from her role as deputy project manager for the Seattle self-evaluation of curb ramps and her previous work at Pierce Transit, and with rural transit needs from numerous human service planning and coordination studies.

Jamaal Schoby

Role

Mr. Schoby will have a key role in the application of demographic data and mapping tools to assess alternative policy models by using data to identify areas of high potential need, apply travel sheds, layer in existing transit networks, and identify unserved or underserved areas. He will also be involved in the inventory of existing services.


Packet A

Projects

Ohio Intercity Bus Study for Ohio Department of Transportation: Mr. Schoby developed a report on the coverage and level of existing subsidized (Section 5311(f)) and unsubsidized service. This included GIS mapping of routes and stops, by carrier and funding source.

Statewide Mobility Management and Coordinating Human Service Transportation for Nebraska Department of Transportation: KFH is performing the intercity bus planning tasks as part of the team. Mr. Schoby developed the inventory of existing services and the assessment of those routes and services currently funded by the state under the Section 5311(f) program. He also assisted in the development of service and program recommendations.

Central Maryland Transit Development Plan (covering Anne Arundel, Howard, and Prince George’s Counties) for the MTA: Mr. Schoby prepared the analysis of existing services in the region, including ridership by stop, route level performance and cost-effectiveness. He also had a significant role in the analysis of user surveys which were collected through an extensive process, and in the development of service alternatives using Remix route planning software. He collected data on innovative first-mile/last-mile transit solutions for consideration in the plan.


Mr. Schoby has performed many analyses for short-range local, regional, and state transit plans being developed to meet federal and state program requirements. He is quite familiar with public program requirements and regulations regarding transit services from his recent work on transit development plans, his work on two statewide intercity bus plans, and from his previous work on the staff of Boston MBTA.

Carole Richardson, Plangineering LLC

Role

Ms. Richardson will have a key role in the development and implementation of a stakeholder input process identification of regional rural transit needs and opportunities for coordination with rural transit providers. She will join in the development of priorities and recommendations for the Travel Washington program.

Projects

North by Northwest Connector, for Northwest Oregon Transit Alliance,

Columbia, Clatsop, Tillamook, Lincoln and Benton Counties, Oregon (Multiple Projects): Ms. Richardson was Project Manager and Principal Planner for an initial feasibility study, business plan and consolidation study to enhance transit system


Packet A

operations in northwestern Oregon. She initiated interagency partnerships, and led a multi-disciplinary team in the development and implementation of regional transit strategies. The pilot program involved removing barriers to transit access, branding and marketing five separate transit services as a single seamless service, regional route and service coordination, and system performance monitoring. The original program included planning, design, permitting and construction administration for transit stop improvements at seventy locations across northwestern Oregon.

Idaho Public Transportation Plan for Idaho Department of Transportation: Ms. Richardson led the Local Coordinated Planning process and stakeholder engagement process for the six northern counties in Idaho as part of this statewide planning effort. She also performed peer review analyses for transit providers statewide, assisted with future statewide demand estimates, and led the development of templates for locally coordinated plans in other regions of the state.

Tri-County Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan for Northeast Washington Regional Transportation Planning Organization (Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties, WA): Ms. Richardson was Project Manager and Principal Planner on this project to develop a regionally-coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan for three rural counties in northeastern Washington State. The process involved facilitating a large group of stakeholders including public and private transportation providers, intercity carriers, regional employers, social service agencies, three tribal nations, and Washington DOT, as well as a significant public engagement program. The plan identified unmet needs across the spectrum of service coverage and frequency, fleet and facilities, transit technology, multi-modal access, needs of aging and disabled individuals, veterans’ medical access, and transit staffing. The resulting coordinated service plan provided both near and long-term operational strategies and coordination recommendations.


Ms. Richardson has completed regional plans for Washington state counties that have served as the basis for successful funding applications to WSDOT transit programs, including the funding needs, and so is quite familiar with Washington policies and programs. In addition, she has 29 years of experience working for two cities, two state transportation departments and an MPO.

SCORING CRITERIA 4: FIRM’S PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

A. Firm’s Quality Acceptance/Quality Control

In order to provide a high level of quality in the products produced for any project, we have evolved an informal but effective process. In order to maintain an adequate amount of control over the project, we propose that there be a single point of contact between WSDOT and the


Packet A

KFH Group team regarding scope, schedule and deliverables. That point of contact is the KFH Group’s designated Project Manager, Fred Fravel. The process for controlling the quality of documents that are produced for various tasks includes the development of internal preliminary draft materials by technical staff, production of draft materials by office production staff, editing by the Project Manager (and other key team members), revisions, and then provision of a “final” draft document to the client. This gives the client the chance to respond before public or “outside the agency” distribution. The editing process on every technical memorandum and draft report requires each product to be read by the task manager, the office manager, and the contract Project Manager.

B. Budget Monitoring

At KFH Group each employee is required to submit weekly time sheets showing work time spend by project. These time sheets separate direct and indirect hours, and are signed by the company President. On large projects these hours are tracked by task within project. The Project Manager reviews the weekly time sheet summary for comparison with tasks assigned and anticipated level of effort. In this way adjustments can be made during the course of the month. Every month the hours by person are converted to the direct labor cost by multiplying the contract rates times the hours spent. Overhead and fee are applied, direct costs (travel, printing, postage) are added, and invoices from subcontractors are included to develop a monthly project cost invoice. Generally we prefer to bill actual monthly costs. This invoice is prepared by the Company President, reviewed with Project Manager, and a final invoice developed. The Project Manager writes the accompanying Monthly Progress report. The review of the invoice is a key budget progress check for the Project Manager. The firm uses Sage 50 accounting software to maintain a General Ledger, Cash Disbursement Journal, Cash Receipts Journal, Payroll, Project Cost Register, and Employee Earnings statement. There are separate direct and indirect accounts for labor and other expenses in the cash disbursement journal and the general ledger—every expenditure is tracked to a project or to the relevant indirect cost source. Source documents (time sheets, invoices) are entered into the appropriate accounting system module (payroll, accounts payable, accounts receivable), which are then linked to job cost and general ledger modules and posted to the appropriate account. Source documents are coded with project numbers and general ledger account numbers. As they are entered into the system, they are automatically distributed to their respective projects and associated general ledger accounts. The cost system labor summary is reconciled with the payroll register and the general register. The firm has internal policies regarding accounting, billing, direct and indirect costs. The Employee Policy and Procedure Manual includes instructions on Time Keeping, Leave, Fringe Benefits, Overtime, Travel/Meals.


Packet A

The firm has an annual audit performed by an independent C.P.A., which includes calculation of overhead. A copy is included in Packet B.

C. Scheduling Program

As a small firm with frequent direct communication between team members and with the client and stakeholders we do not typically use a software based scheduling program. We have Microsoft Project and have used it to track projects, and could do so if WSDOT requires it.

D. Interacting with the Internal Team

The transit planning firms on the team have comparable and complementary skills and experience. Particular areas of expertise include federal funding and regulations, intercity and regional service planning, community consensus building, the Travel Washington program context, and rural regional transportation issues generally. The KFH Group staff in Bethesda, Maryland is all located in the same office, and the Seattle office is easily reachable by telephone and e-mail, with the participation in meetings with other company staff in Bethesda and Austin through regular use of Skype for meetings. Plangineering LLC has two staff members in their Spokane office. Internal communication between the Project Manager, staff members and the sub-consultant will be accomplished through internal team task meetings, verbal presentations at weekly company staff meetings, face-to-face/in-the-hall consultation, e-mail, telephone, text and Skype. Typically we work with sub-consultants in one of two ways—either integrating them into the overall project, or defining separate tasks that they perform more or less independently, and then integrating their products. For the type of project anticipated in Washington, we anticipate integrating Plangineering staff into the team, communicating via e-mail, telephone, and in team meetings via conference call.

E. Interacting with the Client and Stakeholders

Once a project begins, the Project Manager is responsible for day-to-day technical contact and liaison with designated technical staff at WSDOT. The Project Manager is also responsible for ensuring that the work is conducted according to the scope of services and that all deliverables are completed in accordance with the specified project schedule. Ongoing project management and administrative responsibilities rest with the Project Manager. This includes liaison with the WSDOT Project Manager and involves the preparation of monthly progress reports, timely attention to any administrative matters, and working with WSDOT to identify and respond to any problems that may arise during the conduct of the various work elements. Preparation of the monthly progress reports will involve a report from the task team staff to the KFH Group Project Manager, who will then prepare the monthly progress reports. These will include project status, work performed, resources expended,


Packet A

projected activities, and documentation of any problems or difficulties encountered. We anticipate that contact will involve frequent e-mail and telephone exchanges, and not be limited by any means to monthly reports. Depending on schedule and budget, we will institute weekly or bi-weekly teleconferences between the Project Manager, the project team and WSDOT’s project manager in order to keep all parties appraised of developments. Contact with stakeholders can take a number of forms. We anticipate that this project will have an advisory committee that includes transit operators, intercity bus operators, rural regional planning organizations, advocates, rail passenger staff, and perhaps others. We have found it useful to set up an e-mail list, and provide draft materials, meeting announcements, minutes, etc. electronically. Typically we provide draft versions of these to the client, make any needed changes, and then send them to all. For this project, we are also anticipating that we will survey all rural transit operators and intercity providers, and that can be set up to allow written, fax or e-mail replies to encourage response. We also survey regional planning agencies and mobility managers. We would like to consult with WDOT on the best way to have a discussion with stakeholders—sessions at the state transit conference, a single dedicated state-wide conference, or regional meetings of providers and advocates. We have participated in all these types of meetings, and found all to be potentially useful. Intercity issues are somewhat difficult to address in that the trips are infrequent and the users at any particular time are few in number—and it can be difficult to get extensive participation from the private carriers on more than a single advisory committee or a single regional/statewide meeting. We have also worked with operators of rural intercity services to survey users through a combination of paper surveys and links to on-line surveys. Questions include travel behavior, access modes, information sources, quality of service, desired improvements, alternatives, and demographics. We also can have a community on-line survey to solicit input from non-users. We can set up a project website with a link from the Travel Washington section of the WSDOT site and from the four individual route sites. It would include access to the user and community surveys, technical memoranda and other information, including options as those are developed.

SCORING CRITERIA 5: PROJECT DELIVERY

A. Work Plan

How a Work Plan Is Developed

Work plans are usually developed in response to a Request for Proposal that includes a fairly detailed specification of the client’s intended project and desired process. The proposed Project Manager generally writes the work plan, which includes details on the tasks and sub-tasks, estimated hours of effort by task by person, meetings or events, and deliverables. The


Packet A

estimates of effort are based on some level of knowledge about the scope of the effort (number of routes, number of operators, number of meetings) and firm experience regarding the amount of time required to perform that task. This is typically submitted with the proposal. If the work plan is going to be attached to the contract as the scope of services, the client may request changes before a final version is developed. Often, our first task is to review the work plan in detail with the client, and often with an advisory committee. In this case, WSDOT is requesting a qualifications-based selection, and the actual work plan would appear to be the subject of a joint effort of client and consultant team.

Who Is Involved In the Decision-Making Process for Development of the Work Plan

As indicated above, typically the Project Manager and the client have major involvement in the development of the work plan. In the process anticipated for WSDOT, it is most likely that the Project Manager will develop a draft work plan, based on input from the project team members. It would include alternative strategies or options that would address the project goals. This would be provided to WSDOT for their input and comment. Revisions would be made in response, circulated to the team, and a final work plan provided to the client to serve as a basis for the project. KFH Group is open to alternatives that involve additional input—for example, finalizing the scope after an initial meeting with the advisory committee.

Elements of Proposed Work Plan Project Background/Context

Initially, the project team would meet with the WSDOT study team and the Steering Committee for final agreement on the work plan, and to review their perspective on the history and context of intercity and rural-to-urban services in Washington. The following tasks show our approach to the Scope of Work included in the RFQ.

Task 1: Study Initiation and Public Engagement Plan

At an initial meeting of the study team and WSDOT, KFH Group will develop a project plan that will include project requirements, milestones and deliverables. It will include the schedule and establish communications procedures. The project schedule should identify key deliverables and dates. KFH has found that a weekly or bi-weekly study team conference call is a good way to keep the project on schedule and identify issues at an early stage. Sometimes a Technical Advisory Committee (which is a subset of the overall Steering Committee) is on the call each time. The study team will work with WSDOT staff to identify a Steering Committee for the study, likely including intercity providers (particularly those providing in-kind match), rural transit agency representatives, rural regional planning agency representation, other state agencies (for example, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission) and WSDOT staff (particularly the Intercity Bus Program Lead). At the same time, the KFH team will work with


Packet A

WSDOT to develop a plan for soliciting public and stakeholder input, including the WSDOT Community Engagement Team. The public engagement plan will be determined together with WSDOT staff. We see this effort as potentially including written surveys (with choice of paper, fax, or email reply) to all transit operators, local/regional coalitions, MPO’s and rural regional planning organizations; interviews with intercity carriers, state rail program staff, state ferry program staff, the ACCT council, and operator organizations (Washington State Transit Association, Community Transportation Association of the Northwest, Northwest Motorcoach Association); and (potentially) interviews with advocacy group leaders. Because intercity trips are relatively infrequent, non-user surveys require very large samples if one is to identify persons that have taken an intercity trip recently, and such surveys tend to be very expensive and not all that useful. KFH has implemented “community” internet surveys that are made available to the general public as one option. However, our experience is that data from on-board surveys of intercity services is the most useful in determining user desires, demonstrating need, and building support for an active program. To our knowledge there have not been any surveys of Travel Washington riders that have been included in reports or studies. Because of cost considerations, such a data collection effort would require carriers to cooperate by distributing and collecting the surveys (typically the agent hands them to passengers as they buy tickets, or the bus driver hands them out if there is no agent—and they are collected by the bus driver and turned in with the tickets).

Task 2: Context of Intercity Transportation System

The KFH study team will generate an up-to-date inventory of services (routes), schedules, connectivity, and service attributes (i.e., accessibility, facilities, vehicle types, through-ticketing). This would be developed using industry guides (such as Russell’s, carrier websites, Google Transit, Amtrak timetables, ferry schedules, WSDOT data, and transit operator schedules) and direct carrier contact. The data would be displayed in summary tables, and mapped to depict the overall system, along with text descriptions. The role of the Travel Washington routes in this overall network will be identified.

Task 3: System Performance Review of Current Travel Washington Routes

KFH will collect data from WSDOT and the operators of the four routes (as necessary) to enable development of a full assessment of the existing routes. We suggest interviews with the contract operators for each route as part of the data collection. The data to be collected includes documentation of existing routes, schedules, stop locations, fares, connectivity (with the national intercity bus network and other modes/services), and documentation of the ridership history of these services (if possible at the stop level). KFH developed the TCRP Report 147 demand toolkit, and has already updated it with 2010 Census data, so is ready to assess ridership based on the potential demand identified by the model.


Packet A

Other performance measures we typically calculate and use for rural intercity services include farebox recovery, subsidy per passenger trip, riders per trip and load factor. To the extent that we can obtain data we will calculate and present this information as part of the assessment. Often we work with a state to use this data to develop cost-effectiveness thresholds for the program, which can then be applied to determine if a particular service needs revision or should be discontinued. Having a policy is useful in evaluating potential service expansions, thus allowing the state to focus on those alternatives that meet the guidelines. Finally, another evaluation factor is the ownership, age and condition of the fleet used to provide these services, and the likelihood that WSDOT will need to provide capital in the near-term future (and how that could impact program funding). Task 4: Review, Prioritize and Recommend Alternatives from FY2014 Plan

The FY2014 Plan Update included potential alternative expansions:

Extended Apple Line to Osoyoos, British Columbia, Canada

Extended Grape Line to Milton-Freewater

New Columbia Gorge route from White Salmon to Vancouver, Washington

New Centralia-Yakima route

New Aberdeen-Olympia route

New Aberdeen-Forks route

Extended Dungeness Line to Forks The study developed routes, frequencies and service days for each alternative, allowing an estimate of operating costs. Routes were mapped along with total population by Census Block to evaluate population served. Ridership estimates using the TCRP-147 models were combined with data for those services currently being operated by local/regional transit operators to assess ridership potential. WSDOT prioritized these routes based on connectivity to Greyhound, availability of in-kind match, availability of other existing service, estimated cost and annual ridership. KFH Group will revisit these proposals using updated information, including the ridership estimated with the recalibrated TCRP-147 model with the 2010 Census, current operating costs, and review of connectivity and alternative services. In other plans, KFH Group has developed and used a more detailed demographic analysis focusing on the density of persons with high potential transit needs (low income, autoless households, persons with disabilities, senior population, young adult population) which can be used to help prioritize among route options, and this could be done with American Community Survey data for these routes to see if perhaps one of them serves a more dependent set of communities. Another issue that could have a significant effect on the choices is the availability of in-kind match. The Travel Washington program has been lauded for not requiring any state operating funds, instead relying on federal funds and in-kind match to pay the operating deficits. The


Packet A

availability of in-kind match for an alternative may be the key factor in prioritizing services. KFH will review the availability of in-kind match miles for each alternative, also checking with Greyhound to make sure that adequate miles exist to provide the match. KFH can apply cost-effectiveness standards such as subsidy per trip, farebox recovery, and performance standards such as boardings per trip and load factor to aid in prioritization. In previous studies in Vermont, Minnesota, and Colorado, KFH has used surveys of stakeholders or Steering Committee input to weight prioritization factors as part of a scoring process, and that could well be applicable in Washington State. KFH will work with WSDOT and the Steering Committee, and use results of the public engagement process to prioritize and recommend expansion alternatives from among those included in the 2014 draft plan.

Task 5: Identifying and Prioritizing Other Alternatives

As mentioned in Task 4, KFH typically develops a needs assessment model based on demographic and auto availability data to show the relative level of potential need for intercity transit statewide. This is a task that the study team has performed in many states, using a relative ranking process that includes seniors, young adults, households with no vehicle available, and persons with low income as factors to establish areas of relative need. The intercity and rural-to-urban route map is then added as a layer in this map, using an appropriate travel shed around each stop—to identify areas that may have needs but are outside the service area of the network. Local transit service areas can be added to address feeder connectivity, along with rail and other modes (commercial air). A separate analysis is the simple comparison of population densities with the network. KFH Group would look at overall populations and relative rankings of areas needing service to determine thresholds for potential future service. An overall network assessment will then be developed to show corridors potentially needing connections. In addition to the needs/population density analysis, we have in the past identified likely destinations (higher education institutions over a certain size, military bases, prisons, hub airports, major medical facilities), and applied them to the analysis - identifying the places needing service, the places they need to go, and then the logical connections (which could include mapping of intermodal terminals - including air and rail stations). This effort would define the type of services needed to provide regional and intercity access, and facility needs for connections. This analysis would help provide information for developing new route alternatives, as well as in prioritizing alternatives. In our previous work, we have used this analysis, combined with input from the stakeholder and public engagement process, to develop new route and service alternatives. Typically we then estimate costs, ridership (using the TCRP 147 demand model), revenue and net operating deficits. These factors are used to calculate cost-effectiveness and performance measures, and are combined with other factors such as location in a high needs area, connectivity, etc. in an overall prioritization, which is then used to make recommendations.


Packet A

Task 6: Findings and Recommendations

At this stage, KFH will provide a detailed proposed outline of the final report to WSDOT and the Steering Committee. We anticipate that this would include findings of the previous tasks, goals and objectives, prioritized projects, estimated capital and operating costs, and recommendations. The proposed recommendations are essentially developed at this point, and this task is significant in coming to agreement on the overall recommendations. The findings and recommendations will need to be developed in light of the availability of funding for the Travel Washington program. The Section 5311(f) program is a 15% (minimum) set-aside of the state’s overall Section 5311 allocation, and that sets a general budget target for the program. Utilization of in-kind match sets a program limit in that the available federal dollars are not matched by any local cash match. Under the current policy the entire net operating deficit of the subsidized routes is federally-funded, and that together with the 15% cap sets a limit on the size of the program. These circumstances, combined with any capital needs, may affect the final recommendations for the program, if, for example, the top-ranked option is unaffordable but a lower ranked option can be funded with anticipated funding. Task 7: Draft and Final Reports

Based on WSDOT and Committee input regarding the proposed outline, a draft final report documenting the findings, analysis, goals, policies, objectives, projects of the entire project will be prepared. We suggest actually three documents—a three page Executive Summary (almost a brochure), a 25-30 page Final Report focusing on the key analyses, policy implications, and proposed projects; and a longer technical report with limited potential distribution. These draft reports will be provided for review and comment. Final Reports incorporating revisions and comments will be produced. Electronic versions will be provided, number of printed copies to be negotiated.

B. Approach to Resolving Issues

In general, our approach to issues involves an effort to conduct the process so that “issues” can be addressed openly and resolved. It depends on the type of issue, of course, but we endeavor to let all parties have a chance to present their point of view (both in group settings and in private settings); attempt to develop information, data and alternatives that will provide a credible basis to all parties for considering different points of view; present alternatives where possible; understand motives and perspectives; and develop answers that address multiple points of view. We have generally been successful; although resolution involves a higher level of communication (more meetings), more information (more data, alternative analysis) and therefore more time.


Packet A

C. Work Breakdown Structure Assumptions

KFH Group assumes that WSDOT would assist in this project by helping to identify relevant stakeholders and communities; assisting in setting up the advisory committee and meetings; attending and participating in committee and stakeholder meetings; providing feedback when requested on methods, products, and approaches; providing access to state plans and documents; and assisting in communication with stakeholder groups (by providing distribution lists or distributing information). KFH Group would conduct all meetings as required, perform all analyses, draft reports, send and collect survey data, and write reports.

Key Issues - Critical Milestones

A. Agreement on a finalized Work Plan and Schedule - within the first weeks of the project.

B. Identify and create an advisory group – within the first month.

C. Develop and schedule public engagement.

D. Obtain available WSDOT data on Travel Washington routes, and contact intercity and Travel Washington carriers for additional data needed for the assessment of current services, and if they have would be willing, to distribute and collect surveys – within the second month.

2017 travel wa intercity bus plan packet a state dot icb plan update packet a packet a rfq: state of...

Documents