INNER LOOP NORTH TRANSFORMATION PLANNING STUDY

Inner Loop North Transformation Planning Study Issued: June 24, 2019 Page | 1

City of Rochester Department of Environmental Services Bureau of Architecture and Engineering

Holly Barrett, P.E. City Engineer

Department of Environmental Services 30 Church Street, Room 300B Rochester, New York 14604

INNER LOOP NORTH TRANSFORMATION PLANNING STUDY

City Project No. 19402

Issued: June 24, 2019

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR:


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 3

1.1 Planning Study Title and Information .............................................................................. 3 1.2 RFP Schedule and Delivery Information ........................................................................... 7 1.3 Interviews ......................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 General ............................................................................................................................. 9

2.0 HISTORY, BACKGROUND STUDIES, AND PROJECT SITE ............................................... 10 2.1 History ............................................................................................................................ 10 2.2 Background Studies ........................................................................................................ 11 2.3 Historical and Current Maps of the Corridor ................................................................. 12 2.4 Historic Images ............................................................................................................... 18

3.0 DRAFT SCOPE OF SERVICES ........................................................................................ 22 3.1 General Administration .................................................................................................. 22 3.2 Public Engagement ......................................................................................................... 23 3.3 Inventory and Assessment ............................................................................................. 26 3.4 Transportation Analysis .................................................................................................. 27 3.5 FHWA and NYSDOT Involvement ................................................................................... 30 3.6 Concept Level Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................... 31 3.7 Selection of Preferred Alternative ................................................................................. 32 3.8 Implementation Plan ...................................................................................................... 33 3.9 Market Study, Value Capture, and Benefit-Cost Analysis .............................................. 33 3.10 Study Products ............................................................................................................... 34

4.0 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................... 35 4.1 Proposal Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................... 36 4.2 Basic Services Fee/Hours ................................................................................................ 38 4.3 Direct Reimbursable Expenses ....................................................................................... 39 4.4 Eligibility Qualifications and Requirements ................................................................... 39 4.5 Project Timetable ........................................................................................................... 40 4.6 Miscellaneous ................................................................................................................. 41

5.0 CITY PROVISIONS ...................................................................................................... 42 5.1 Living Wage Requirements ............................................................................................ 42 5.2 MWBE Goals ................................................................................................................... 42 5.3 Minority Workforce Goals .............................................................................................. 42 5.4 MWBE and Workforce Reporting ................................................................................... 43 5.5 Other Criteria ................................................................................................................. 43

Appendices: Appendix A: Draft PSA Appendix B: MWBE Form A, MWBE Utilization Plan – Professional Services Appendix C: NYSDOT Capital Project Guidelines (November 2018) Appendix D: Inner Loop Improvement Study (2001) Appendix E: Inner Loop over Genesee River Tunnel Feasibility Study (2003)


1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Planning Study Title and Information Title: Inner Loop North Transformation Planning Study Project Location: This planning study location is defined as the expressway, frontage roads, and adjacent lands between I-490/Plymouth Avenue and the recently completed Inner Loop Expressway terminus at North Union Street. The approximate limits are shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Approximate Project Limits


Project Goals and Objectives: With the successful completion of the Inner Loop East project, Mayor Warren is now moving forward with evaluation and planning to convert some or all of the northern section of the Inner Loop, from Charlotte Street north and west to the Genesee River, to another complete street with significant acreage for redevelopment. The transformation of the Inner Loop North could reconnect Downtown Rochester with several Rochester neighborhoods, the Public Market, and High Falls. This Request for Proposals (RFP) is being issued by the City for transportation planning, public outreach, engineering, and design services for an Inner Loop North Transformation Planning Study. The purpose of the planning study is to evaluate alternatives and advance recommendations for redesign of this outdated urban corridor. The Inner Loop Expressway is a Principal Arterial Expressway on the National Highway System. The facility is owned and maintained by New York State and its frontage roads are primarily owned and maintained by the City of Rochester. The purpose of the planning study is to evaluate alternatives and advance recommendations for redesign of the corridor, which may including highway removal, similar to the recently completed and highly successful Inner Loop East Transformation project. The outcome of this planning study may present a need for multiple projects with phased funding and implementation plans. Long-term goals for the future Inner Loop North Transformation include:

1. Reconnect neighborhoods with Downtown, the riverfront, and the Genesee Riverway Trail.

2. Restore the as much of the original street grid and parks as possible, including:

University Avenue, Cumberland Street, Central Avenue, and Allen Street; Anderson Park, and Franklin Square/Schiller Park. Adhere to the City’s Complete Streets Policy.

3. Promote multimodal connectivity and accessibility through safer and greatly enhanced

conditions for pedestrians of all ages and abilities, bicyclists, and transit users.

4. Create opportunities for economic and community development, including new land for infill development.

5. Create new active and passive green spaces, including potential athletic fields and play

spaces for World of Inquiry School.

6. Integrate with the ROC the Riverway vision of enhancing the riverfront and providing a direct trail connection to High Falls along the river.

The planning study is being advanced under the direction of the Department of Environmental Services, Bureau of Architecture and Engineering. A Technical Advisory Committee, consisting of various City departments, State, County, and regional agencies, and local stakeholder groups, will guide the study development. Public engagement efforts will require regular and consistent outreach.


Services to be provided will include:

• study coordination • public engagement • inventory and assessment of current conditions • multimodal traffic engineering, forecasting, and analysis • street design • land use planning/urban design • parks/open space planning • urban design/placemaking • civil/structural engineering • market analysis • benefit-cost analysis • financial and fiscal impact analysis • value capture analysis • development potential/feasibility analysis • and other services or topics as identified/needed as scope allows (e.g., development

scenarios, renderings, etc.)

The following deliverables are required parts of the planning study. More information on each part can be found in section 3.

1. All agendas, minutes, materials, renderings, schematics, estimates, engagement materials, and other documents and visual aids required for presentation, engagement and/or meetings with the City, TAC, CAC, agencies, other advisory groups, and the public (3.1)

2. A Public Engagement Plan (3.2) 3. An Existing Conditions Report (3.3) 4. Multimodal Accessibility Report (3.4) 5. Up to five (5) feasible alternatives with high level analysis for discussion (3.6) 6. Preferred Alternative Report (3.7) 7. An Implementation Plan (3.8) 8. A Market Study and a Benefit-Cost Analysis with Value Capture component (3.9) 9. Project Planning Report - all findings, public engagement results, and previous reports

shall be combined into a report that meets all federal and state requirements


Project Budget: The maximum project budget is $1,000,000. Funding for this study is provided through New York State. It is anticipated that any design and construction projects resulting from this study will incorporate federal aid funding. Therefore, this project is to be developed in accordance with all aspects of the New York State Department of Transportation's Procedures for Locally Administered Federal Aid Projects (PLAFAP) Manual.


1.2 RFP Schedule and Delivery Information In order to provide the City with an opportunity to discuss the RFP, and to provide Respondents with an opportunity to ask questions and clarify the RFP, a pre-proposal meeting will be held as follows: Date: July 9, 2019 Time: 9:00 AM Location: City Hall, 30 Church Street, Room 300B There is no requirement to attend the pre-proposal conference and no obligation by the City to provide information from the conference to parties who fail to attend. One (1) electronic proposal and five (5) proposal hard-copies are to be submitted no later than 4:00 PM on August 16, 2019 to: Holly E. Barrett, P.E. City Engineer Department of Environmental Services City Hall, 30 Church Street, Room 300B Rochester, New York 14614 All communications by parties who have indicated an intent to submit or have submitted a proposal in response to this RFP (“Respondents”), including any questions or requests for clarifications, submission of the proposal, requests for status updates about the proposal selection process and any other inquiries whatsoever concerning this RFP shall be sent, in writing, to the following City staff persons: Primary Contact: Erik Frisch, Manager of Special Projects [email protected] (585) 428-6709 Secondary Contact: Darin Ramsay, Assistant Transportation Specialist [email protected] (585) 428-6695 For an electronic version of this proposal, please go to the following web site: http://www.cityofrochester.gov/bidandrfp/ No contact is permitted with any other City staff member with regard to this RFP during the RFP process unless specifically authorized in writing. Prohibited contact may be grounds for disqualification.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/bidandrfp/


To ensure that all Respondents have a clear understanding of the scope and requirements of this RFP, the City will respond to all timely questions submitted via e-mail to the City Contacts by the question deadline stated above. Questions and the responding answers will be sent via e-mail to all Respondents who have provided an e-mail address to the City contacts. The City’s failure to make a timely respond or provide responses to any questions shall not delay or invalidate the City’s right to make a decision to award an agreement pursuant to this RFP. The City will make every reasonable effort to keep Respondents informed about the RFP process. Notifications about timeline date changes, amendments to the RFP and other information about the RFP will be sent by e-mail to Respondents who have provided an e-mail address to the City contact and will be posted on the City’s website for this RFP. The City’s failure to provide such information shall not delay or invalidate the City’s right to make a decision to award an agreement pursuant to this RFP. 1.3 Interviews Short listed firms will be asked to give a presentation related to the depth and experience of their team, understanding of the project, creativity, and knowledge of the issues. Additional information on interview requirements will be provided to short listed firms.


1.4 General

1. The City reserves the right to amend or withdraw this RFP in the City’s sole discretion, including any timeframes herein, upon notification of all Respondents as set forth above, and in such case, the City shall have no liability for any costs incurred by any Respondent.

2. The City may request additional information from any Respondent to assist the City in

making its evaluation.

3. The proposal and all materials submitted with the proposal shall become property of the City and will be subject to NYS Freedom of Information Law. If any proprietary information is submitted with the proposal, it must be clearly identified and a request to keep such information confidential must be submitted.

4. The selection of a Consultant is within the City’s sole discretion and no reasons for

rejection or acceptance of a proposal are required to be given. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or to accept a proposal that does not conform to the terms set forth herein. The City further reserves the right to waive or modify minor irregularities in the proposals and negotiate with Consultants to serve the City’s best interest.

5. Questions must be submitted in writing (preferably by e-mail) to the planning study contact, listed in section 1.2. All questions and City responses will be shared with all who have indicated intent to submit a proposal and have provided an e-mail address.


2.0 HISTORY, BACKGROUND STUDIES, AND PROJECT SITE 2.1 History The Inner Loop was built in five phases between 1952 and 1965. Significant amounts of historic buildings and neighborhoods were demolished to build the highway. This severed neighbors from each other and their activities of daily living. A number of churches were also destroyed and their congregations moved to other parts of the city. The Rochester Public Library did a five part history of the Inner Loop construction. That history can be found at the following links: Part 1: https://rochistory.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/out-of-the-loop-a-before-and-after-look-at-the-neighborhoods-of-the-inner-loop-part-1/ Part 2: https://rochistory.wordpress.com/2018/08/15/out-of-the-loop-a-before-and-after-look-at-the-neighborhoods-of-the-inner-loop-part-2/ Part 3: https://rochistory.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/out-of-the-loop-pt-3-a-before-and-after-look-at-the-neighborhoods-of-the-inner-loop/ Part 4: https://rochistory.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/out-of-the-loop-pt-4-a-look-at-the-neighborhoods-of-the-inner-loop/ Part 5: https://rochistory.wordpress.com/2018/08/15/out-of-the-loop-a-before-and-after-look-at-the-neighborhoods-of-the-inner-loop-part-2/

https://rochistory.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/out-of-the-loop-a-before-and-after-look-at-the-neighborhoods-of-the-inner-loop-part-1/




https://rochistory.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/out-of-the-loop-pt-3-a-before-and-after-look-at-the-neighborhoods-of-the-inner-loop/

https://rochistory.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/out-of-the-loop-pt-3-a-before-and-after-look-at-the-neighborhoods-of-the-inner-loop/

https://rochistory.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/out-of-the-loop-pt-4-a-look-at-the-neighborhoods-of-the-inner-loop/

https://rochistory.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/out-of-the-loop-pt-4-a-look-at-the-neighborhoods-of-the-inner-loop/




2.2 Background Studies The City will provide the following documents and information as appendices or linked below:

1. Inner Loop Improvement Study (2001) – Appendix C 2. Inner Loop over Genesee River Tunnel Feasibility Study (2003) – Appendix D

3. Downtown Charrette Report (2007)

https://archive.org/details/2007DowntownCharretteReport/page/n3

4. Inner Loop East Scoping Report (2011) https://www.cityofrochester.gov/innerloopdocs/

5. Center City Master Plan (2014)

https://www.cityofrochester.gov/CenterCity/

6. ROC the Riverway Vision Plan (May 2018) https://www.cityofrochester.gov/roctheriverway/

7. Transit Supportive Corridors Study (September 2018)

https://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589970725

8. Rochester Citywide Housing Market Study (September 2018) https://www.cityofrochester.gov/HousingMarketStudy2018/

9. NYSDOT Capital Project Guidelines (November 2018) – Appendix E

10. Draft Comprehensive Access and Mobility Plan (to be adopted in 2019)

https://www.cityofrochester.gov/camp/

11. Draft Rochester 2034 Comprehensive Plan (to be adopted in 2019) https://www.cityofrochester.gov/Rochester2034/

https://archive.org/details/2007DowntownCharretteReport/page/n3

https://www.cityofrochester.gov/innerloopdocs/

https://www.cityofrochester.gov/CenterCity/

https://www.cityofrochester.gov/roctheriverway/

https://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589970725

https://www.cityofrochester.gov/HousingMarketStudy2018/

https://www.cityofrochester.gov/camp/

https://www.cityofrochester.gov/Rochester2034/


2.3 Historical and Current Maps of the Corridor You can explore the historic Rochester plat maps in more detail here: https://maps.cityofrochester.gov/historic/.

Figure 2: 1935 Plat Map – West Side

https://maps.cityofrochester.gov/historic/


Figure 3: Current Street Map – West Side


Figure 4: 1935 Plat Map – Middle Section


Figure 5: Current Street Map – Middle Section


Figure 6: 1935 Plat Map – East Side


Figure 7: Current Street Map – East Side


2.4 Historic Images

Figure 8: Central Avenue Bridge


Figure 9: Anderson Park


Figure 10: Central Train Station (1882)


Figure 11: Franklin Square/Schiller Park


3.0 DRAFT SCOPE OF SERVICES The Consultant will enter into an agreement with the City of Rochester for the professional services that may include, at a minimum, all tasks listed here in this section. 3.1 General Administration The Consultant shall hold a kick-off meeting and regular progress review meetings with the City's Project Manager and other City staff. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Community Advisory Committee (CAC) will help guide the overall project. The Consultant shall facilitate a minimum of one TAC and one CAC meeting per month, for the duration of the planning study. Additional TAC and CAC meetings will be arranged at the discretion of the City. Ultimate authority in all aspects of this project will remain with the City and New York State. The TAC will consist of staff from the City, Monroe County DOT, Regional Transit Service (RTS), and NYSDOT, as well as two elected members from the CAC. The CAC will consist of representatives of the community and stakeholder groups that are active in the area surrounding the planning study corridor. Some members of the TAC will also participate on the CAC. Membership on the CAC will be determined early on in the planning study with input from the TAC and City. The Consultant may propose a TAC/CAC structuring different from that described here, if that alternate structure better meets the general project goals and objectives. The Consultant shall maintain a project website in order to share information and updates with the public. The Consultant shall also maintain a social media presence to keep the public informed and attract people to the website and engagement events. It is expected that the website will be updated a minimum of twice per month for the duration of the planning study. Updates shall include information on the current status of the planning study, notes, engagement opportunities, results/outcomes of previous engagements/meetings, and further information needed to keep the public informed of the planning study. At the conclusion of this project, the consultant will transfer control and ownership of all data, website(s), and social media accounts to the City. The Consultant shall prepare and distribute all required project reports, including project meeting minutes, status reports, cost control reports, draft/final traffic studies and reports, alternatives proposals, detailed alternatives, and other documents as appropriate. The Consultant shall conduct engagement events for the duration of the planning study. In addition, the Consultant shall notify and meet with all businesses, schools, utilities, agencies, and City departments that may be impacted by this project on an as-needed basis to assure full coordination with all aspects of project planning and design. This is described in greater detail in section 3.2. 3.1 Deliverables: All agendas, minutes, materials, renderings, schematics, estimates, engagement materials, and other documents and visual aids required for presentation, engagement and/or meetings with the City, TAC, CAC, agencies, other advisory groups, and the public.


3.2 Public Engagement Public engagement is a key aspect of this project. Special attention will be paid when reviewing proposals to ensure that a meaningful engagement strategy is woven through the planning study. It is expected that Consultants will go above and beyond the minimum requirements set out within this RFP. Responses to this RFP must include a detailed description of how the public engagement will be conducted. Consultants are encouraged to propose innovative ways of engaging, and keeping engaged, a broad spectrum of the public. A Public Engagement Plan (PEP) will be required within 2 months of starting this project. The PEP will need to describe in detail all the types of engagement activities, tools, timelines, deliverables, and people who will be involved. This document, after approval by the City and TAC, will guide all public engagement activities over the course of the planning study. Goals and objectives should be clearly laid out along with specific achievable steps. The PEP must show how the goals articulated in this section of the RFP will be achieved. Public engagement will be used to:

• Build trust with the communities that will be most impacted by the planning study, especially communities harmed by past highway building projects.

• Provide meaningful opportunities for the public to provide feedback and direction to inform the overall project and the alternatives that are identified.

• Generate excitement for this transformative project. • Build support for the recommended alternatives.

There are five main public engagement goals: • Build Trust • Educate and Inform • Receive Input • Engage People • Build Partnerships.

These goals inform the Actions listed below. This RFP should only be used as a starting point for designing a meaningful engagement process. Consultants are expected to improve and strengthen beyond the requirements for the public engagement portion of this project. The public engagement process will require partnering with Rochester residents and stakeholders. The following actions are the minimum requirements of the public engagement process:

Action 1: Build Trust

Significant intergenerational trauma exists in communities that were torn apart by past highway construction. Many people living in the communities this project will impact lived there before the Inner Loop was built and remember the harmful impact its construction has had. It is imperative that public engagement be used to build trust with these members of the community to ensure that their vision for their community is recognized and respected.


Action 2: Identify Stakeholders

The Consultant, along with the City and TAC, will create a database of residents, stakeholders, interest groups, businesses, associations, and other pertinent parties to be communicated with throughout the planning study. It is expected that this database will be maintained by the City and will be added to throughout the planning study. People and organizations on this list will be considered for roles on the CAC. Ownership of this list will remain with the City.

Action 3: Educate and Inform

This task requires that the consultant build and maintain for the life of the planning study, a significant educational resource for stakeholders and the public. This resource will be made available online, in public forums, at open houses, and in other places that will enable easy access for all. This educational resource must contain information on:

• The reasons and history of this project. • The required processes that must be followed for the planning study to reach fruition. • The role and function of the Inner Loop North. • The existing conditions of the corridor: bridges, roadways, and other infrastructure. • The existing conditions of areas adjacent to the corridor. • The impacts of the existing corridor on property values, livability, traffic, and other quality

of life issues.

Upon conclusion of the planning study, the online and offline resources will become property of the City.

Action 4: Provide Meaningful Engagement Opportunities

The consultant must provide meaningful ways for the public to provide input on issues, desires, and concerns with the Inner Loop North corridor. Engagement must include a wide diversity of voices from across the impacted communities. While engagement activities should focus most heavily on the residents residing near the corridor and living within the City, all residents and visitors from throughout the greater Rochester area should be provided with meaningful opportunities to directly inform the outcomes of the planning study.

Action 5: Build Partnerships

The Consultant must build partnerships with residents and stakeholders to help guide the planning study. These partnerships should include opportunities to participate in the CAC and provide meaningful contributions at major decision points during the planning study.

Public Engagement Results

The ultimate goal of the public engagement is to ensure that residents and stakeholders take ownership of the outcomes. This will require significant education on the purposes of the corridor, an in-depth understanding of trade-offs, and knowledge of the planning process. Public engagement must be described and outcomes detailed in every section of the planning study report(s).


3.2 Deliverables: A Public Engagement Plan and all public engagement activities.


3.3 Inventory and Assessment The Consultant shall become familiar with the planning study area before starting any work. This includes a thorough review of all supplied project information, and a site visit to become familiar with field conditions at a cursory level. The City, or its project partners, shall provide the Consultant with Project Objectives, available traffic data, available crash records, and previous studies and reports. The Consultant shall assemble and evaluate existing planimetric, topographic and utility maps and surveys, and reports and studies as available from the City, County of Monroe, State of New York, and/or private utility corporations. The Consultant shall perform site reconnaissance to collect all physical and anecdotal information required to accurately inform the planning study scoping process. This shall include an understanding of qualitative conditions, such as the impact of the built environment on livability and placemaking, analyzing multimodal conditions that may not be captured in data form as extensively as auto-oriented conditions, and the impression of Rochester that visitors get when arriving via the nearby bus and rail stations. Reconnaissance should include collection of data related to existing conditions, which should include the review of previous reports, studies, record drawings, operational issues and needs, code requirements, utility capacity, etc. The Consultant shall use all available existing data regarding subsurface conditions as required for the planning study scoping process. If necessary, the Consultant shall, with the City's approval, perform cores, borings, and/or test pits as necessary to determine subsurface conditions. The Consultant shall conduct air quality measurements along the corridor to set a baseline for future comparison. The Consultant shall conduct multimodal traffic counts along the corridor as well as all streets crossing it. Traffic on the Inner Loop, frontage roads and the surface street network should be broken down by the following classifications: pedestrians, bicyclists, personal vehicles, light goods vehicles, heavy goods vehicles, and buses. AADT counts should be conducted at all major points along the Inner Loop North Corridor and adjacent parallel routes. The purpose is to accurately and closely gauge current traffic flows for planning purposes. Baseline traffic information will also be used for future comparison and planning purposes. Adjacent parallel routes should include Central Avenue, Andrews Street, University Avenue, Cumberland Street, East Main Street, and Upper Falls Boulevard. Turning movement counts should be conducted at all of the Inner Loop North interchanges as well as adjacent signalized intersections. Turning movement counts must count, at a minimum, the peak periods between 7-9am and 4-6pm. Longer counts are acceptable if the consultant feels they would be helpful. The Consultant shall conduct a crash analysis along the corridor as well as frontage roads and streets crossing the corridor. The City and State will provide crash data from the past 5 years. The Consultant will compile crash history and summary sheets (NYSDOT form TE-213), collision diagrams, and accident rate calculations for all intersections and road sections. More information found here: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway/accident-analysis-toolbox.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway/accident-analysis-toolbox

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway/accident-analysis-toolbox


The Consultant shall provide a detailed listing of any special covenants, easements, or restrictions along the corridor. The City and TAC can help provide this information. The Consultant shall evaluate each affected bridge. The Consultant shall assess the following: deck type, year constructed, wearing surface, length, number of spans, out-to-out widths, skew angle, utilities carried, FHWA sufficiency rating, NYSDOT condition rating, NYSDOT general condition rating, Inspection report, BIN number, BMS ratings, date of recent inspection, posted weight limits, and vertical clearances. The Consultant shall review and assess the remaining life for all primary and secondary members. The Consultant shall determine potential structural involvement for each structure identified within the planning study limits. This task shall culminate in an Existing Conditions Report. The report will include a summary of findings from the Inventory and Assessment task. This should include safety, traffic, structural, and environmental factors that will influence development of project alternatives. The Existing Conditions Report will also need to include information on:

• Maintenance and jurisdiction • Safety of all users • Multimodal traffic flow • Existing land uses • Structural conditions of pavement, bridges, walls, railings, overhead signage, drainage,

and lighting • A general description of livability, connectivity, and other qualitative considerations

3.3 Deliverables: Existing Conditions Report. 3.4 Transportation Analysis The Consultant shall complete a detailed choice-based, multimodal accessibility report for the corridor and surrounding areas (see Figure 12 on page 29 for boundaries). This will involve the collection of significant traffic data that is non-automotive. The previous task included significant collection requirements of traffic flows on, across, and surrounding the Inner Loop North. This data will need to be combined with various tools and strategies that determine:

• Number of people walking and biking in the area • Latent demand for more walking and biking in the area • Transit use in the area • Walkability of the area • Bikeability of the area • Ease of transit access • Commute times via various modes

Proposals should include detailed information on how this will be achieved. The Multimodal Accessibility Report should include the following components or similar types of analyses that will provide equivalent or better information:


• In-Depth SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, & Threats) Analysis conducted with the help of the TAC and CAC

• Person Throughput • Bicycle Environmental Quality Index • Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index • Transit operations and impacts analysis

While it is important to understand the current amount of non-auto modes in the area, the City will also be looking to the consultant to demonstrate why the current design of the corridor inhibits the potential for greater multimodal activity for people of all ages and abilities. The Multimodal Accessibility Report will include isochrone maps, by mode of transportation, for various major destinations across Rochester at the 10/15/30/45/60 minute time scales. The isochrones time factors and locations for analysis will be decided in conjunction with the TAC and CAC. A maximum of 20 locations will be chosen for detailed isochrone maps based on the existing multimodal transportation network. The intent of all this data collection is to conduct a broad and deep transportation system performance evaluation of the existing transportation network. This choice based evaluation should determine the number of trips, origin and destination, mode of travel, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), fuel consumption, trip costs, trip times, network connectivity, and geographic proximity. Analyses should consider trip making from the point of view of an individual traveler, rather than as spatial aggregations of households in traffic analysis zones (TAZs). The main objective of this analysis should be to determine the accessibility of activities of daily living available to the traveler by mode choice. In a choice based analytic framework, mode choices are to be evaluated in relation to the utility that they provide to the traveler. Multimodal accessibility is the chosen manner of analysis, as it will provide the City with clearly defined differences between the existing transportation network and proposed alternatives. By building a model around accessibility, the City will be able to better guide choice behavior through land use and transportation facility decisions. 3.4 Deliverables: Multimodal Accessibility Report.


Figure 12: Boundaries of the Transportation System Performance Evaluation


3.5 FHWA and NYSDOT Involvement The Consultant shall meet with representatives of the FHWA to discuss coordination and approval process/documentation required for inclusion of substandard features, system improvements, benefit-cost aspects, land use, Interstate Highway break-in access points. The Consultant shall summarize issues and provide recommendations for advancing system-wide improvements within FHWA requirements. As this corridor is a NYSDOT owned and operated roadway, coordination and approval will need to include NYSDOT. This project will need to adhere to the latest NYSDOT Capital Project Guidelines. 3.5 Deliverables: Meet with FHWA and NYSDOT representatives to ensure final plan compliance with guidelines and federal/state requirements.


3.6 Concept Level Alternatives Analysis In cooperation with the City, TAC and CAC, the Consultant will produce up to 5 concept level corridor alternatives for discussion and study. Each alternative will propose a feasible redesign of the corridor and roads crossing and paralleling the corridor. Each alternative will illustrate a particular balance between land allocated for development and land allocated for greenspace. Renderings should be created for each alternative to allow people to see the development/park potential created by each alternative. Each alternative should be presented as an individual report, unless multiple alternatives are substantially similar. High level multimodal accessibility analyses should be undertaken on each alternative. This will allow the City, TAC, CAC, and residents to easily compare alternatives against other alternatives and the existing network. An isochrone analysis will need to be conducted on each alternative for comparison purposes. The Consultant shall provide high level descriptions of the effect of each proposed design alternative (up to 5) and the existing conditions/no build (1) regarding:

1. How safety and multimodal accessibility are improved, including river trail access 2. Infrastructure and public space build and maintenance cost estimates, including the

repair, rehabilitation, replacement and/or modification of any existing infrastructure 3. 30 year operating and maintenance cost estimates 4. Development opportunities created and how the standards outlined in The Placemaking

Plan of Rochester 2034 apply 5. Impacts on viability and accessibility of existing commercial buildings 6. Public health improvements, including access to greenspace/public spaces 7. Impacts on non-drivers 8. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 9. Impacts on adjacent property values 10. Impacts on adjacent neighborhoods, including possible displacement of existing

residents 11. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis 12. Value capture options and analysis

The Consultant will use these concepts to engage with the City, TAC, CAC, and members of the community as extensively as possible. From these engagement activities, a preferred alternative will be selected for further in-depth study.

3.6 Deliverables: Up to 5 concept level corridor reports for discussion with the City, TAC, CAC, and public.


3.7 Selection of Preferred Alternative Based on the recommendations of the City, TAC, CAC, and public engagement, the consultant shall complete an in-depth report on the preferred concept level alternative selected in section 3.6 for consideration by the City, TAC, and CAC. The selected alternative is intended to evolve into a design approval document during the subsequent design phase(s). The Alternative shall be presented in a manner that is easily transferable to a Project Scoping Report, in accordance with the NYSDOT Scoping Procedures Manual. The Consultant shall assemble the Alternative in such a manner as to reflect an implementation strategy with existing conditions, needs, alternatives, costs, and benefits fully documented. The Consultant shall determine the required lane configurations, bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, geometric improvements and traffic control for the selected alternative. The preferred alternative should also include a program for greenspace allocation, including trails, athletic fields, passive/active parks, and playgrounds. In addition to greatly expanding on the 12 factors completed in section 3.6, the Consultant shall also describe, in depth, the effects of the alternative against the existing conditions, at minimum, regarding:

1. Green infrastructure techniques and initiatives 2. Fiscal impact on municipal revenues and expenditures 3. Safety impacts by mode 4. Public health improvements, including access to greenspace/public spaces 5. Energy consumption 6. Ecological assessment 7. Noise pollution 8. Resilience to weather and natural events 9. Changes in travel patterns 10. Impacts on freight movement 11. Impacts on schools, recreation, churches and businesses 12. Impacts on police, fire protection and ambulance access 13. Social groups specifically benefitted or harmed

The Consultant shall review NEPA, SEQR and all local environmental regulations. The Consultant shall review the chosen alternative for compliance with environmental regulations and develop a list of potential issues and mitigation strategies. The Consultant shall prepare environmental assessment forms and NEPA check lists. Discussion and documentation should be sufficient such that the impacts are clearly understood. The detailed assessment and documentation shall include preliminary social consequences, economic consequences, environmental consequences, noise assessment, air quality assessment, wetlands, cultural resources, historic preservation (section 106), parkland (section 4f & 6f), hazardous waste/contaminated materials screening and site assessment, endangered species, ground water, and regional/local land use plans. As part of the report, the Consultant shall complete a cursory scope of work for either rehabilitation or removal of all bridges in the corridor based on the selected alternative. This report should be set up in such a way as to be transferable to an environmental review process. 3.7 Deliverables: Preferred Alternative Report.


3.8 Implementation Plan The Consultant will need to develop an implementation plan for the preferred alternative. It is expected that the cost of implementing the preferred alternative may result in a multi-phased project implementation timeline. Therefore, a detailed phased approach may be required. The implementation plan must provide detail on:

1. How, if necessary, the corridor and potential development parcels should be split up for phased implementation

2. Order of phases to be completed 3. Project partners and roles 4. Funding streams 5. Resources required 6. Performance monitoring strategy

3.8 Deliverable: Implementation Plan. 3.9 Market Study, Value Capture, and Benefit-Cost Analysis Upon selection of the preferred alternative, the Consultant shall conduct an in-depth market study to determine the type and amount of development that could be built on lands created by the planning study. This information will then be translated into a land use plan, with recommended massing and density. The market study should go beyond conventional analysis of development potential in the area and should carefully consider trends and potential within specific areas of downtown. The market study should include information on how the planning study could transform existing streets, including Central Avenue, Andrews Street, and University Avenue. The Consultant should include multiple renderings of various potential development on land created and on those nearby development corridors, including buildings, greenspace, and streetscapes. The Consultant shall then conduct a Benefit-Cost Analysis, consistent with the latest USDOT requirements of the INFRA program or its successor. A Benefit-Cost Analysis is a systematic process for identifying, quantifying, and comparing expected benefits and costs of a potential investment. Part of this Benefit-Cost Analysis should include an in-depth assessment of value capture mechanisms and their potential for use by the City on the Corridor. More information on conducting a USDOT compliant Benefit-Cost Analysis can be found on their website: https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/benefit-cost-analysis-guidance More information on Value Capture can be found on the FHWA’s website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc_5/value_capture.cfm 3.9 Deliverables: A Market Study and a Benefit-Cost Analysis with Value Capture component. These can be combined into one report.

https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/benefit-cost-analysis-guidance

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc_5/value_capture.cfm


3.10 Study Products The consultant shall prepare:

1. All agendas, minutes, materials, renderings, schematics, estimates, engagement materials, and other documents and visual aids required for presentation, engagement and/or meetings with the City, TAC, CAC, agencies, other advisory groups, and the public (3.1)

2. A Public Engagement Plan (3.2) 3. An Existing Conditions Report (3.3) 4. Multimodal Accessibility Report (3.4) 5. Up to five (5) feasible alternatives with high level analysis for discussion (3.6) 6. Preferred Alternative Report (3.7) 7. An Implementation Plan (3.8) 8. A Market Study and a Benefit-Cost Analysis with Value Capture component (3.9) 9. Project Planning Report - all findings, public engagement results, and previous reports

shall be combined into a report that meets all federal and state requirements Consultant shall submit digital copies of all draft reports and five printed copies and one digital copy of each final report.


4.0 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS This RFP is designed to facilitate the evaluation and selection of a Consultant that is best able to achieve the City’s objectives. The proposal shall contain a table of contents. All pages shall be numbered and major sections and all attachments shall be referenced in the table of contents. In order to enable the City to effectively review the information contained in the proposals, proposals shall reference the numbered and lettered sections of the RFP. The response to each section shall be clearly indicated and addressed or an explanation provided for why the Respondent is not submitting a proposal for a specific section or requirement of the RFP. Each proposal shall be signed by an individual authorized to enter into and execute contracts on the Respondent’s behalf. Unless otherwise specified in its proposal, Respondent represents that it is capable of meeting or exceeding all requirements specified in this RFP. Submission of a proposal shall be deemed authorization for the City to contact Respondent’s references. Evaluation of proposals will be conducted by the City based on information provided in the Respondent’s proposals and on such other available information that the City determines to be relevant. The evaluation of proposals may include an on-site assessment, meetings with authorized personnel, and may involve the use of a third-party consultant. The Respondent selected by the City will be required to enter into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with the City (see Attachment A, the City’s standard PSA form). The establishment of a PSA is contingent upon approval by City Council for all Agreements in excess of $10,000 or for a period of more than one year and upon the availability of funds for such an agreement. Unless otherwise stated in the proposal, the Respondent’s response to this RFP shall be deemed its acceptance of the terms of this PSA. (Note: Attention is directed to the City’s Living Wage requirements). Respondents shall provide sufficient information in their written proposals to enable the City review team to make a recommendation to the Mayor. The City reserves the right to invite any or all Respondents to an interview to discuss their proposal. Any expenses resulting from such an interview will be the sole responsibility of the Respondent. The City is under no obligation to select any of the Respondents or to conduct the planning study described by any proposal. The City may amend or withdraw the RFP at any time, within its sole discretion. The City shall have no liability for any costs incurred in preparing a proposal or responding to the City’s requests with respect to the proposal.


4.1 Proposal Evaluation Criteria Proposals must be succinct and all pages must be numbered. In no case shall specified page maximums in any section be exceeded. Boilerplate and glossy promotional materials are discouraged. Any promotional materials deemed necessary should be included as a separate appendix and may or may not be considered as part of the evaluation. Consultant selection will be based on a rating of consultant proposals. The criteria will be as follows: Firm Qualifications (10% Score), Technical Proposal (40% score), and Project Team Qualifications (50% score). The Technical Proposal (with Transmittal letter) shall address the following at a minimum:

Firm Qualifications (10% Score – 5 pages max)

1. Firm and Sub-Consultant Identification & Qualifications: A description of the firm and sub-consultants, including the number of employees and their disciplines, their philosophy on serving clients, location, and the number of years the firm has been in business of conducting the described services.

2. MWBE: Statement as to whether respondent and/or specified sub-consultants are on the New York State Certified MWBE list.

3. Relevant Firm and Sub-Consultant Experience, Recent Clients, & Relevant Projects for this type of work: Include three (3) recent clients for whom the consultant has provided services relevant to those required herein. The list should include name, address, and contact information of the client contact person. Include a list of relevant projects including client name and contact information, specific dates when work was performed and the type of services performed. The proposal should showcase relevant firm experience for each area of expertise the City is requesting within this RFP.

Technical Proposal (40% score – 15 pages max)

1. Project Understanding and Approach: A demonstration that the Consultant understands the proposed project and its various tasks shall be included as part of the proposal. This portion of the proposal should communicate a complete in-depth understanding and approach for all services to be provided, including all multi-disciplinary engineering, multimodal transportation, landscape architectural, and site planning services. The Consultant should showcase creative and innovative ideas for the transformation of the Inner Loop North corridor. Emphasis should be placed on solutions that will best achieve the project goals.

2. Technical Approach, Scope of Work, and Schedule: Provide a summary of scope of services for the completion of the tasks identified in this RFP. Provide a proposed MWBE Utilization Plan. The consultant may propose alternate tasks that will meet the planning study goals. A detailed Gantt chart schedule for completing the tasks outlined in the RFP along with key study tasks should be included. Proposals will be reviewed on a basis of knowledge, creativity, experience, and understanding of the following aspects of the project:

• Public consultation and engagement • Land use planning


• Multimodal transportation planning • Economic and market analyses • Experience with state and federal requirements • Knowledge of the local context • Visualization • Traffic Engineering • Structural Engineering • Street design • Active transportation design • Placemaking • Health impact analyses • Environmental analyses

Project Team Qualifications (50% score)

1. Team Organization (3 pages max): Makeup of the planning study team, including sub-consultants, with a detailed organizational chart. Include a description of how the planning study will be organized. Identify the key project team members by name, field of expertise, specific responsibilities on the planning study and the estimated number of hours each specific individual will work on the planning study. The estimated hours should be presented in a chart form with the individual listed by name, their estimated hours, and their percentage of total project hours. This section and the resumes below should showcase, as applicable, the team’s expertise in:

• Highway, traffic and multimodal engineering • Public consultation and engagement • Landscape design • Land use and transportation planning • Market, value capture, benefit-cost analysis, and economic analysis • Familiarity with the City’s general project policies and procedures

2. Team Resumes (max 1 page per team member): Include resumes for all key project

team members that are shown on organizational chart, including a list of relevant projects only, with summaries of the work they specifically performed and approximate dates when work was performed. Team resumes should showcase relevant experience as it relates to this project. Resumes must list that person’s approximate number of hours they will work on the planning study. Anyone with 5% or more of total project hours must be included in this section.


4.2 Basic Services Fee/Hours A Project Budget is required with this proposal. The planning study budget must be included in a separate, sealed envelope. The City conducts a qualifications based process, it will only consider the budget after it has shortlisted Consultants. The budget must be itemized by task, including staff hours and billing rates which addresses each of the tasks identified in the Draft Scope of Services. An itemized breakdown of projected FTE (full time equivalent) estimated staff hours for the prime consultant and all sub-consultants must be clearly defined. All sub-consultants that are on the New York State Certified MWBE list should be clearly showcased. The Consultant must provide direct technical and professional personnel hour subtotals for each of the following tasks as identified in the draft scope of services for this project: 3.1. General Administration 3.2. Public Engagement 3.3. Inventory and Assessment 3.4. Transportation Analysis 3.5. FHWA and NYSDOT Involvement 3.6. Concept Level Alternatives Analysis 3.7. Selection of Preferred Alternative 3.8. Implementation Plan 3.9. Market Study, Value Capture, and Benefit-Cost Analysis 3.10. Study Products The City requires that the proposal include the proposed staff, specific staff assignments and MWBE utilization plan. The table/summary should be detailed such that a reviewer can get a good feel for the tasks involved and the individuals who will be performing each specific work item. The budget must also include salary schedules, staffing tables, non-direct costs, subcontractor costs, and total project cost summaries.


4.3 Direct Reimbursable Expenses The draft list of expenses shall be identified for the following items:

1. Sub-consultants 2. Environmental/Laboratory testing 3. Supplies 4. Travel 5. Rental equipment (if required) 6. Printing/Duplication

4.4 Eligibility Qualifications and Requirements The City of Rochester requires that all bidders and sub-contractors present evidence of experience, ability, and financial standing. Designated firm(s) must be able to submit proof of authority to practice engineering/surveying in New York State immediately upon designation. The City requires that all bidders and sub-consultants, at the time of entrance into agreements with the City, present information that includes insurance certificate(s) that prove both professional and general liability, and Worker’s Compensation coverage. The certificates must list the City of Rochester as an additional insured.


4.5 Project Timetable It is anticipated that the design will commence in November 2019. Based on this projection, the planning study schedule is as follows: • RFP Release June 24, 2019 • Pre-Proposal Meeting 9:00 AM on July 9, 2019 • Deadline for questions July 12, 2019 • Response to questions submitted July 19, 2019 • Proposals due 4:00 PM on August 16, 2019 • Consultant Interviews September 2019 • Consultant Selection & Award Notification To Be Determined • City Council Approval of Agreement with Consultant To Be Determined • Agreement Start Date To Be Determined

Potential Draft Timetable: • Public Engagement Plan January 2020 • Existing Conditions Report April 2020 • Multimodal Accessibility Report June 2020 • Feasible Alternatives Analysis August 2020 • Preferred Alternative Report November 2020 • Implementation Plan January 2021 • Market Study, Value Capture & Benefit-Cost Analysis March 2021 • Final Project Planning Report April 2021

The dates shown above may be subject to change within the City of Rochester’s sole discretion and upon written notification as set forth herein. A Professional Services Agreement resulting from this RFP shall commence on the agreement start date and the term of the agreement shall extend through the completion and the Department of Environmental Services acceptance of the Planning Study Report.


4.6 Miscellaneous The City reserves the right to amend or withdraw this RFP in the City’s sole discretion, including any timeframes herein, upon notification of all Respondents as set forth above, and in such case, the City shall have no liability for any costs incurred by any Respondent. The City may request additional information from any Respondent to assist the City in making its evaluation. The proposal and all materials submitted with the proposal shall become property of the City and will be subject to NYS Freedom of Information Law. If any proprietary information is submitted with the proposal, it must be clearly identified and a request to keep such information confidential must be submitted. Submission of a proposal shall constitute a binding offer by Respondent to provide the services at the prices described therein until such time as the parties enter into a PSA.


5.0 CITY PROVISIONS

5.1 Living Wage Requirements Rochester City Council adopted the Rochester Living Wage Ordinance (8A-18), effective July 1, 2001, which requires covered employers who are awarded City service contracts of $50,000 or more to pay a Living Wage, as defined in the Ordinance, to their employees who perform work under the contract. As set forth in 8A-18D (1) of the Ordinance, if the total amount of the proposal is $50,000 or more during the period of one year, a written commitment to pay all covered employees a Living Wage and a list of the job titles and wages levels of all covered employees in each of the years for which this agreement is sought shall be submitted with the proposal. A copy of the ordinance can be found through the web link at: http://www.cityofrochester.gov/index.cfm?id=571 5.2 MWBE Goals The MWBE utilization goal for this contract is 30% in aggregate, with sub goals of 24% M (Minority) and 6% W (Woman owned), based on the total dollar amount of the Professional Services fees paid for this agreement. During the course of completing work under this agreement, the consultant is expected to attempt to achieve these goals through use of state certified MWBE subcontractors, if the consultant itself is not a state certified MWBE. In your proposal, be sure to indicate if your firm is an MWBE, and/or if your firm will be utilizing any MWBE sub-consultants. List the name and category (M) or (W) of your firm and each proposed sub-consultant, and the amount or percent the total proposal fee that will be subcontracted to each sub-consultant. If your firm is not a state certified MWBE, you are encouraged to employ sub-consultants who are state certified MWBE’s to the greatest extent possible. MWBE forms for Public Works and Professional Services Consulting Contracts shown on the City’s web site referenced above shall be required and incorporated into the agreement by reference. For informational purposes, Appendix B provides the MWBE Form A, MWBE Utilization Plan – Professional Services. This form shall be required to be completed by the selected consultant as part of the contract review and approval process and shall be incorporated into the Agreement. 5.3 Minority Workforce Goals Consultant and Engineering Agreements: There are no specific EEO goals assigned to consultant engineering agreements, however, firms must provide equal opportunity in all aspects of employment.

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/index.cfm?id=571


5.4 MWBE and Workforce Reporting The selected consultant will be required to submit a workforce utilization staffing plan for meeting the workforce goals, and an MWBE utilization plan, on forms designated by the City. The plan documents will be incorporated into the agreement. The consultant shall also file City provided reporting forms quarterly, or as otherwise required by the City, to verify that MWBE goals and minority workforce goals incorporated into the agreement are achieved during the term of the agreement. The City will monitor all M/WBE utilization through NYSDOT’s standard civil rights reporting software, Equitable Business Opportunities (EBO) as the planning study progresses. The City will ensure the consultant enters all data into EBO prior to NYSDOT’s final payment of the planning study. Examples of all required forms are on the City’s web site at: http://www.cityofrochester.gov/mwbe/ 5.5 Other Criteria Other criteria may be considered and evaluated by the City if it is determined to be in the best interest of the City and the success of the planning study to do so.

\\cor.local\DES\ArchEng\Department\PROJ\Special Projects\Inner Loop North\RFP - final.docx

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/mwbe/

INNER LOOP NORTH TRANSFORMATION PLANNING STUDY

Documents

Transcript of INNER LOOP NORTH TRANSFORMATION PLANNING STUDY