RFQ - Northwest Transit Study

The Northwest Utah County Transit Study will identify potential transit projects that could serve the communities in the northwestern part of Utah County. The study will look at the potential for increased transit service while planning for future transit investments including potentially commuter rail, light rail, streetcar, as well as more bus service, shuttles, and Bus Rapid Transit. The study will quantify the market demand for these operations and identify potential corridors that could be used or preserved for future use. It will also consider the potential for future park and ride locations.

The study will identify any needed transit connections linking employers, significant destinations in the transportation network. The study shall address short-term travel demand and long-term growth and corridor preservation needs. Proposed short term improvements should represent a significant step toward good mobility in near future.

An essential component of the study will be to coordinate the various transportation plans of the two municipalities, MPO, UDOT, and UTA. The results of this study will become the basis for future Plan updates.

Questions may be directed to the project manager, Chad Eccles at ceccles@mountainland.org or by phone 801.229.3824

Download Full RFQ

Consultant questions and corresponding answers from interviews July 28 to 29th, 2020.

1. The RFQ mentions planning for Commuter Rail, streetcar, BRT, etc.. To what extent does the project entail planning for these different modes?

Answer: The MAG Regional Transportation Plan already has done planning for these modes in this area and the cities have preserved corridor for a capital transit project in the future. The hope of the project is simply that a discussion would be held with the cities to confirm the corridors preserved are still desired. MAG and the cities will address this as part of the next RTP update.

2. The study budget shows $25,000+, what does that mean?

Answer: The project only has a committed budget of $25,000 but depending on needs there is a possibility that more money could be added to the budget depending on the agreed upon need for more work.

3. The workscope talks about public involvement efforts and we all understand that this takes a lot of money to adequately perform this task. What are the expectations of the project sponsors?

Answer: We recognize that public involvement does require a lot of budget. If the need is demonstrated for a significant public involvement effort MAG, UTA, and the Cities will step up to facilitate this effort.

4. The workscope mentions committee meetings and with limited budget what are the expectations?

Answer: I think the meetings are just to keep the group informed of what is happening in the study. Perhaps an initial meeting with a mid-point meeting and then a final wrap up meeting would be enough. Potentially three meetings total. These meetings would likely be a zoom or online meeting and require minimal travel time for the consultant team.

5. The submittal is supposed to be 10 pages total, what is the minimum font size and are resumes, cover, and cover letter included in the count?

Answer: While the minimum font isn’t spelled out in this RFQ please don’t burden the review team with a micro font. It will reflect badly on you as a firm. As for the page count, a cover, cover letter, and resumes will be allowed and not count against the 10 pages. Please be mindful of not over doing it.

6. The RFQ mentions the potential of a DBE Goal, is there one for this project?

Answer: With the low budget and time frame there is not a DBE goal for this work, however, we always encourage DBE participation whenever possible and efficient.

7. The RFQ doesn’t mention and model runs but if the team wanted to put one together as part of the project would MAG help run it?

Answer: MAG would be willing to perhaps help run a simple model effort such as a near final transit route structure. This would need to be coordinated in advance.