HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 9208 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 9208
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council March 9, 2010
r Page 1 of 2
a
SUBJECT: LOCAL RAIL PLANNING AND DESIGN
--
The purpose of this report is to provide information requested by the City Council on the proposed
planning and design work for a local rail, or modern streetcar, system that would complement the
regional rail system.
In June 2002, the City Council and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) adopted
resolutions endorsing the recommendations of a joint transit alternatives analysis: a 2030 transit
system vision (various transit modes), a locally preferred alternative (commuter rail and modern
streetcar), and a starter project (modern streetcar). The City Council resolution and the first
chapter of the transit alternatives analysis are attached for reference. The City and The T later
decided to pursue the commuter rail portion of the locally preferred alternative in support of the
Regional Transportation Council's regional rail initiative and to delay the modern streetcar project.
In January 2008, the City Council received a report from the City's Central City Redevelopment
Committee, titled Modern Streetcars for Fort Worth. The report makes the case for considering
modern streetcars to complement the regional rail system and to stimulate economic
development in the central city. A copy of the report is attached for reference.
In August 2008, the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) allocated $1.6 million in Regional Toll
Revenue (RTR) funds to Fort Worth for the modern streetcar project. Due to a State Attorney
General ruling that RTR funds must be spent on projects within the generating Texas Department
of Transportation (TxDOT) district, the allocated RTR funds for Tarrant County were no longer
available. In July 2009, the RTC allocated $1.6 million in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Improvement Program federal funds to replace the RTR funds for the streetcar project.
The City and The T have each allocated $200,000 for the required local match. The City has
executed a funding agreement with TxDOT for the federal funds.
In September 2009, the City Council received an Informal Report describing the scope of work for
the use of the funds:
Phase One
Task 1: Design and operational assumptions
Task 2: Analysis of economic impacts
Task 3: Estimated ridership
Phase Two
Task 4: Business and financial plans
At the conclusion of Phase Two, the City Council and The T Board of Directors would
determine whether to proceed with Phase Three for a starter project.
( OFFICIAL RECORD
CITY SECRETARY
FORT WORTH, TX
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 9208
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council March 9, 2010
ex
Page 2 of 2
SUBJECT: LOCAL RAIL PLANNING AND DESIGN
18,11
Phase Three
Task 5: Preliminary engineering and environmental assessment
All Phases
Task 6: Public Involvement
Phases One and Two of the project should take approximately six months. Phase Three is
expected to begin immediately after completion of Phase Two and should take an additional six
months depending on the alignment selected. The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)
participation goal is 20 percent for the consultant services.
The consultant selection committee, comprised of members from the Modem Streetcar Task
Force, has recommended hiring HDR, Inc. to perform the planning and design work. HDR and
their subconsultants have the desired project management experience and fulfill the DBE goal. A
copy of the proposed contract is attached for review; the scope of services is in Exhibit A. While
HDR would review past transit studies, they would be asked to provide their own
recommendations regarding: 1) whether a modem streetcar system should be an element of Fort Worth's overall transportation plan at this time, 2) if so, the most feasible and successful starter
project that connects to the Intermodal Transportation Center and the regional rail system, and 3)
the appropriate timing and phasing of a modem streetcar system as part of the business plan.
The March 23 City Council agenda will contain an M&C authorizing the contract with HDR.
Should you have any questions, please contact Susan Alanis, Director of Planning and
Development, at 817-392-818
Dale A. Fiss' , P.E.
City Manager
Attachments (4)
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
i
A Resolution
NO. r K7�L
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE 2030 TRANSIT SYSTEM VISION, LOCALLY
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, STARTER PROJECT AND FINANCIAL PLAN
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TRANSIT STUDY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21) requires
that funding for all proposed transportation improvements of regional significance be
preceded by an alternatives analysis to ensure consistency with regional, state, and local
plans, compliance with environmental objectives, and proactive, inclusive, and continuous
public involvement; and
WHEREAS the City of Fort Worth and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the
T) have completed a transit alternatives analysis under the guidance of the Transit Study
Committee; and
WHEREAS the Transit Study Committee has conducted a series of public
involvement activities, which included public forums, meetings with community groups,
and regularly scheduled Committee meetings; and
i WHEREAS the Transit Study Committee has recommended endorsement of the
2030 Transit System Vision, Locally Preferred Alternative, Starter Project, and financial
plan as summarized in the attached exhibits A through D; and
WHEREAS the recommended Transit System Vision is consistent with the City's
j Comprehensive Plan and the central city revitalization strategy to connect mixed-use
growth centers and urban villages with transit; and
WHEREAS the recommended Locally Preferred Alternative includes 1) a light rail
streetcar system connecting the Intermodal Transportation Center in Downtown south to
the Medical District; east to Texas Wesleyan University and Handley; and west to the
Cultural District; and 2) an extension of the Trinity Railway Express commuter rail from
the T&P Station in Downtown southwest to the Medical District, Berry Street, and Hulen
Street; and
WHEREAS the recommended Starter Project includes a light rail streetcar system
connecting the Intermodal Transportation Center in Downtown south to the Medical
District; east to Texas Wesleyan University; and west to the Cultural District; and
i
exTy or Salk'! wonvu
i
WHEREAS the recommended financial plan contemplates funding the Starter
Project with 50 percent New Starts funds, and 50 percent in federal flexible funds, local
sales tax funds, and future City bond funds; and
WHEREAS the Executive Committee of the T endorsed said recommendations on
June 6, 2002; and
WHEREAS the Executive Committee of the T on June 6, 2002 requested that the
City Council "consider actual and projected impacts on public transportation when
creating or regulating other transportation-related projects and when planning for land use
and annexations."
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FORT WORTH,
1. That the City Council endorses the 2030 Transit System Vision as summarized in
the attached Exhibit A; and
2. That the City Council endorses the Locally Preferred Alternative as summarized
in the attached Exhibit B; and
3. That the City Council endorses the Starter Project as summarized in the attached
Exhibit C; and
4. That the City Council endorses the financial plan as summarized in the attached
Exhibit D; and
5. That the City Council directs City staff to review the Transportation and Land
Use elements of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan with respect to the T's request
regarding transportation and land use planning, and recommend appropriate
amendments to the City's policies as part of the annual update of the
Comprehensive Plan.
TP
Adopted this It day of , 2002 APPROVED
CITY COUNCIL
CitF s�rN�rF d tl»,
CUT of Fort worth,Tars
crm or rags vvown!
Fort Worth Transit Alternatives AnalysisSummary Report
"I 1.0 PURPOSE OF THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The primary purpose of the Fort Worth Transit Alternatives Analysis (AA) was to provide a
decision-making process for determining transportation investments appropriate to meet the
current and future needs of the study area. The Fort Worth Transit AA contains information
sufficient to measure and evaluate a range of investment options. The AA was used to facilitate
careful consideration of alternatives against a baseline and was guided by an open and
inclusive process founded upon community input for determining the preferred investment
strategy. Based on the existing and future travel needs, the purpose and objectives of major
investments developed and evaluated in the Fort Worth Transit AA included:
• To enhance mobility to and from the study area by providing more travel choices,
especially for radial travel from residential areas to growth centers in central Fort Worth
and beyond.
• To support and enhance the multiple growth center development pattern;
• To provide additional capacity in heavily-traveled corridors;
• To reduce congestion by reducing the existing dependence on the automobile for travel
to and from the major activity centers;
49 • To enhance the quality and reliability of transit service to existing and potential riders by
decreasing delay and improving transit facilities;
• To improve the safety and operating efficiency of the transportation system, including
major radial roadways, working in cooperation with other agency studies; and
• To strengthen economic conditions in the study area by enhancing transportation service
for travel to major entertainment and employment destinations, as well as creating new
opportunities for transit-oriented development.
The goals and objectives were used to establish Guiding Principles for the AA (see Figure 1.1).
The Guiding Principles aided in development and definition of alternatives considered in the AA,
i.e., alternatives that were not consistent with the Guiding Principles were not evaluated.
1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND
The City of Fort Worth has incorporated several transit strategies from a regional perspective
that are compatible and complementary to existing modes within the city. One of the transit
strategies for the city included the completion of the Intermodal Transportation Center(ITC) in
December 2001, which serves as a terminal for several transportation modes, including the
June 2002 1-1
Fort Worth Transit Alternatives AnalysisSummary Report
Figure 1.1 Guiding Principles
FORT WORTH TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Achieve Regional Consensus
1. In conducting the Alternatives Analysis,follow all federal,state,and local regulations,policies,guidelines,
and procedures to ensure an impartial study process.
2. Proactively solicit communication with city, regional,state and federal agencies and the public in general
throughout the transportation decision making process,using a variety of methods.
3. Coordinate with the City of Fort Worth,the Fort Worth Transportation Authority,the Texas Department of
Transportation and the North Central Texas Council of Governments on any appropriate completed or on-
going studies.
4. Coordinate with the City of Fort Worth,the Fort Worth Transportation Authority and the North Central
Council of Governments to assess the travel needs of the City of Fort Worth.
Enhance Mobility
5. Develop strategies that provide additional travel choices and increase capacity to serve the major travel
patterns throughout the City of Fort Worth and among the growth centers identified in the 2000
Comprehensive Plan.
6. Develop strategies that minimize transfers and duplicative services.
7. Develop strategies that consider origins and destinations for residents and employees among specific trip
generators and activity centers that:
a. Link residents of the corridors to employment centers both within the corridors and outside the
corridors.
b. Link activity and growth centers to a regional transit system.
c. Include transportation system management and travel demand management elements.
8. Develop strategies that recognize current and past planning efforts and commitments for transportation
improvements in the corridors and consider new altematives. Details of the current plans are in the City of
Fort Worth's Comprehensive Plan and Master Thoroughfare Plan,the Fort Worth Transportation Authoritys
Strategic Plan,and North Central Texas Council of Governments'Mobility 2025.
9. Examine ways to improve and enhance existing service as a part of strategies to meet mobility needs.
Be Fiscally Responsible
10. Ensure affordability based on accepted financial planning parameters and reasonable cost estimates.
Consider Appropriate Technologies
11. Focus on proven transportation solutions, but remain open to emerging technologies that can demonstrate
advantages,while being compatible and complementary to existing modes.
12. Develop strategies with the appropriate mix of technologies that match the demand and nature of the
mobility needs within the corridors and reinforces efficient system operation.
Consider Effects on the Corridors
13. Consider the effects of the strategies on environmentally sensitive areas,safety,quality of life,and the ability
to promote transit supportive land use and economic development.
14. Consider the equity of the impacts and benefits of the transportation solutions on Fort Worth's diverse areas
and populations.
Economic Development
15. Further define the opportunities for economic development at growth centers identified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
16. Select station locations for maximum opportunity for economic development.
17. Coordinate with the Fort Worth development community and provide them with opportunities for input into
the planning and station location processes.
June 2002 1-2 •
Fort Worth Transit Alternatives AnalysisSummary Report
Trinity Railway Express (TRE), commuter rail service between Dallas and Fort Worth. Another
project included the City of Fort Worth's existing Trinity Rail Express(TRE)extension project,
also completed in December 2001, which provides commuter rail service from Dallas to the ITC
and the Texas & Pacific(T&P) Building terminal on Lancaster Avenue. Transit services such as
these set the tone for meeting the local mobility and accessibility needs of expanding the
existing transit system to serve the major travel patterns throughout the city that currently lack
this service. The commuter rail service for the existing TRE extension project has been
successful for the City of Fort Worth and Tarrant County. The Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA)would provide transit connections within the Central Area of Fort Worth enhancing
accessibility and mobility from central city areas to two major employment centers, downtown
and the Medical District. The LPA, a street-running light rail service would support not only, the
City of Fort's Worth's Comprehensive Plan, the Commercial Corridors program and other
programs for central city revitalization, but also would provide connections to the existing,
successful TRE commuter rail service. Development of this system would link residential
neighborhoods to employment centers both in and outside of the proposed project corridor.
From a regional perspective, the proposed LPA would link activity and growth centers to the
existing regional transit system. The proposed Fort Worth Light Rail Streetcar project would
provide a fixed guideway service to portions of the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's(the
T's) service area that cannot be served by commuter rail.
The proposed LPA would actually consist of two projects, both in Tarrant County: a 7.6 mile
system of light rail streetcar"Starter Project"and a 3.5 extension of the TRE commuter rail
service from its existing terminus at the Texas and Pacific(T&P)station to the vicinity of
Seminary Drive in southwestern Fort Worth. The termini for the proposed Starter Project , the
Fort Worth Light Rail Streetcar stations, would begin at the intersection of Throckmorton and
Weatherford Streets in the northern portion of downtown Fort Worth and would end at the
intersection of Rosedale Street and Tierney in southeast Fort Worth (near Texas Wesleyan
University). Another component of the proposed project would go from the Cultural District, west
of downtown and terminate at the Intermodal Transportation Center at gth and Calhoun Streets.
For the purpose of this study, the proposed project will be referred to as the Fort Worth Light
Rail Streetcar.
Components of the proposed Fort Worth Light Rail Streetcar project were identified in earlier
studies and in the region's long-range planning documents: the Fort Worth Linkages Study
June 2002 1-3
Fort Worth Transit Alternatives AnalysisSummary Report
(1996), A Fixed Rail Trolley Line Feasibility Study(1998), Fort Worth 2002 Comprehensive Plan .
(2000), and the Mobility 2025: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (2000 and 2001 Update).
All four documents identify rail transit as an alternative for addressing transportation needs in
the City of Fort Worth.
In the mid 1990's, it was recognized that transportation improvements were needed for linkages
between three activity centers in Fort Worth (Cultural District, downtown, and the Historic
Stockyards.) Previous planning and engineering studies have been conducted in support of
developing effective transit linkages between these areas. These studies document an on-
going process for addressing the transportation needs of the study area and were used as a
basis for the Alternatives Analysis. These studies were prepared for the City of Fort Worth, the
Fort Worth Transit Authority, and the North Central Texas Council of Governments. The four
studies include the Fort Worth Linkages Final Working Paper, A Fixed-Rail Trolley Line
Feasibility Study, the Fort Worth 2002 Comprehensive Plan, and the Mobility 2025 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan.
The Fort Worth Linkages Study was completed in 1996. This study identified the need for
improved connections between the Central Business District (CBD), the Cultural District, and •
the Fort Worth Stockyards. The study recommended improved connections and accessibility
among these three district centers as a means of supporting tourism, convention activities, and
mobility for local residents.
The Fixed Rail Trolley Line Feasibility Study was completed in 1998. This study was conducted
as a follow-up to the Linkages Study. This study assessed the technical and financial viability of
implementing a state-of-the-art system of intermediate capacity vehicles operating on a fixed
guideway. The study concluded that a vintage trolley project was technically and financially
feasible and recommended the establishment of a Fixed Guideway Board to develop and
implement the project. The study also recommended that the City of Fort Worth seek federal
grants as the next step.
The Mobility 2025: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (2000 and 2001 Update recommended
the development of commuter rail lines, special event and "cooperatively funded" rail services in
Fort Worth and Tarrant County. The Mobility 2025 Plan specifically identifies a fixed guideway
system within the City of Fort Worth as a "Staged Rail Project." The plan specified that these
June 2002 1- •
Fort Worth Transit Alternatives AnalysisSummary Report
types of projects must meet two of the three following criteria for implementation: 1) refined rail
forecasts are needed to define the technology and alignment; 2) the institutional structure for
implementation must be determined; and/or 3) other funding sources must be pursued. The
North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), the regions metropolitan planning
organization (MPO), has determined that the LPA is consistent with the Mobility 2025 Update as
approved in October 2001.
The 2002 City of Fort Worth Comprehensive Plan was recently completed — part of the City of
Fort Worth's ongoing commitment to a broad-based planning process. The planning process for
Fort Worth's 2000 Comprehensive Plan began October 15, 1998, with a citywide forum. An
extensive public involvement program was conducted to inform citizens and solicit their
comments on the plan. After incorporating public comments, the plan was revised for official
public hearings held by the City Plan Commission and the City Council in early 2000. The plan
was officially adopted by the City Council on August 1, 2000, as a guide for the growth and
development of the City. This information will be incorporated into the plan annually so that it
continues to be a useful guide.
The Comprehensive Plan is the City's official guide for making decisions about growth and
development. It is a summary of the recommended policies and strategies, programs, and
projects that will enable the City to achieve its mission. The 2002 Comprehensive Plan is
organized according to elements of the City's mission statement: "Fort Worth, Texas is a city
focusing on its future. Together we are building strong neighborhoods, developing a
sound economy, and providing a safe community." The mission statement, broken down,
forms four major sections in the plan:
o Focusing on the Future
o Building Strong Neighborhoods
o Developing a Sound Economy
o Providing a Safe Community
The Texas Local Government Code establishes the legal basis for the comprehensive plan. If a
city adopts a comprehensive plan, it must be used for the basis of subsequent zoning
amendments. The comprehensive plan is described as a plan for the orderly growth and
development of the city and its environs. The plan should "facilitate the movement of people
June 2002 1-5
Fort Worth Transit Alternatives AnalysisSummary Report
and goods, and the health, safety, and general welfare for the citizens of the city" (emphasis •
added).
Over the next 20 years, the City's population is projected to grow at an annual rate of 1.3
percent, which means that the expected population will reach or exceed 701,000 by the year
2022. Fort Worth is developing into a major center for industry, technology, distribution, and
transportation. All sectors of the economy are expected to continue to add jobs, with services
capturing 35 percent of the jobs by 2022. Employment in Fort Worth grew at a rate of 1.6
percent per year between 1990 and 1998. This job growth is expected to continue at
approximately 1.9 percent annually through 2022. Fort Worth will likely reach a total
employment of approximately 589,508 by 2022.
The City of Fort Worth is committed to revitalizing its central city, the area consisting of low and
moderate income neighborhoods within Loop 820, through a comprehensive and coordinated
strategy that includes economic development, transit, housing, historic preservation,
infrastructure, parks, cultural programs, human services, and safety initiatives. The City's
principal strategies for central city revitalization are:
o Developing pedestrian-oriented mixed-use growth centers .
o Revitalize distressed commercial corridors by developing mixed-use villages along those
corridors
o Develop a light-rail transit system to connect the growth centers and villages along
commercial corridors.
A multiple-growth-center pattern of development will accommodate city-wide growth with
minimal environmental impacts, less land consumption, less traffic generation, and less
pollutant production than a dispersed development pattern. Providing a variety of transportation
modes within and between growth centers will lessen residents' current dependence on
automobiles, thus helping to improve the City's air quality by reducing automobile emissions.
1.2 SUMMARY OF LOCAL DECISION MAKING AND ANALYSIS
NCTCOG is a voluntary association of local governments within the 16 county North Central
Texas Region. The agency was established in 1966 to assist local governments in planning for
common needs, cooperating for mutual benefit, and coordinating for sound regional
development. North Central Texas is a 16 county region with a population of 4.6 million and an
June 2002 1-6 •
Fort Worth Transit Alternatives AnalysisSummary Report
It area of approximately 12,800 square miles. NCTCOG has 232 member governments, including
all 16 counties, 163 cities, 26 independent school districts, and 27 special districts.
The Regional Transportation Council (RTC) is the policy body for the MPO. The RTC consists
of 37 members, predominantly local elected officials, overseeing the regional transportation
planning process. NCTCOG's Department of Transportation is responsible for support and staff
assistance to the RTC and its technical committees, which comprise the MPO policy-making
structure.
Mobility 2025 Update is the product of the comprehensive, cooperative, and continuous
transportation planning efforts among local governments, the T, Dallas Area Rapid Transit
(DART), Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA),
Texas Natural Resource conservation commission (TNRCC), and the Dallas/Fort Worth
International Airport. The Plan Update was adopted in May 2001 by the RTC and the Executive
Board of the NCTCOG.
The development of Mobility 2025 Update was guided by the principles set forth in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century (TEA-21) and the requirements of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990. TEA-21 was passed by federal legislators in June 1998 and
continues the philosophy set out in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA), which strengthened the role of the planning process by making it a central decision-
making mechanism for development and funding of the Metropolitan Transportation System.
Because the DFW Metropolitan Area is a designated nonattainment area for the pollutant
ozone, the Mobility 2025 Update plan must be updated every three years and must demonstrate
that its plans, projects, programs, and policies are consistent with state and regional air quality
improvement goals. The plan recommendations must be constrained by available financial
resources, which ensures emphasis on multimodal solutions, congestion mitigation strategies,
and sustainable development initiatives aimed at greater transportation system efficiency.
In accordance with the Mobility 2025 Update Plan, several sources were used to identify
possible alternatives for the proposed project through the public involvement process. In
particularly, the Transit Study Committee, appointed jointly by the City of Fort Worth and the T,
sought the input of the public through a series of public forums regarding potential routes for a
OP June 2002 1-7
Fort Worth Transit Alternatives AnalysisSummary Report
proposed transit system, which included the commuter rail, light rail transit and bus rapid transit •
components. In addition, Downtown Fort Worth Inc., Fort Worth South and steering committees
and technical advisory committees for other City of Fort Worth projects provided input for the
evaluation of alternatives within the proposed corridor. Additionally, previous system planning
works were reviewed to include a linkage, feasibility studies, and other currently active studies
within the region. All of the rail alternatives identified for the Mobility 2025 Update reflected a
mature bus system throughout the transit authorities' service areas, which provided feeder
access to all of the potential rail lines thereby making the predominant focus of the evaluation
on rail alternatives with the bus system serving as a background feeder system.
Among the plan's transportation goals is the development of a balanced, efficient, and
dependable multimodal transportation system that reduces demand for single occupant vehicle
travel. The plan aims to maximize efficient use of the current transportation system and to
utilize transportation system management and travel demand management to increase
efficiency, reduce drive-alone travel, and increase bicycle and pedestrian opportunities.
Alternative rail transit systems were recommended to reduce automobile travel. High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) facilities and bus transit service enhancements were identified to
reduce automobile trips and increase auto occupancy.
The transit component of the Mobility 2025 Update includes local bus, express bus, commuter
rail, light rail, and rail technologies yet to be determined. Currently, each one of these
technologies exists in various parts of the region. The Fort Worth Transportation Authority
currently provides traditional fixed-route transit service within their service area. In additional,
DART and the T jointly operate 25 miles of commuter rail service on the TRE. Analysis of the
rail and bus transit systems for the Plan focused on the extension and expansion of each of
these modes as appropriate. Additionally, the baseline assumptions included the Trinity
Railway Express Commuter Rail line between Dallas and Fort Worth. A range of 10 different
rail forecasts was developed for evaluation and identification of recommendations. Rail equity
warrants were applied to establish the recommended Mobility 2025 rail system plan. The
recommended rail corridors and modes identified for the Fort Worth area are listed in Table 1.1
and illustrated in Figure 1.2.
June 2002 1-8 •
Fort Worth Transit Alternatives AnalysisSummary Report
Table 1.1 Mobility 2025 Rail Recommendations
MTP-TIP Segment ID From To Mode
Northeast
Tarrant/Cottonbelt
TR10315 Fort Worth CSB DFW North CRT'
South Orient
TR10324 Fort Worth CBD Seminary CRT
TR10325 Semina IH-20 CRT
Dorothy Spur
TR10326 Centre ort/TRE Union Pacific CRT
Texas Motor Speedway
TR10327 Fort Worth CBD Speedway Special Events
Fort Worth Trolley
TR10328 NW 23d Street Montgomery Cooperatively Funded
Trinity Railway Express
TR10322 Fort Worth CBD Dallas CBD I CRT
Source: Mobility 2025 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, North Central Texas Council of Governments,
January 2000 and May 2001 Update
'CRT: Commuter Rail Transit
The AA was consistent with FTA guidance and regulations. It was based on a two-tiered
evaluation process that used both qualitative and quantitative evaluation measures. The
analysis began with an assessment of regional (Tarrant County) travel patterns and analysis of
travel demand using demographic information and trip tables provided by NCTCOG.
Identification of appropriate transit modes for the study area was conducted through a
technology assessment. A link volume analysis was conducted by NCTCOG for definition of a
"starter corridor" and evaluation of conceptual alternatives. Detailed evaluation of alternatives
was supported by NCTCOG through use of its travel demand model.
Results of the various analyses and reports conducted for the AA were presented to the Transit
Study Committee (TSC) throughout the course of the project. The TSC was comprised of 18
members including four members of the T Executive Committee, four members of the Fort
Worth City Council. The remaining members represented various civic organizations and
chambers of commerce. Twenty meetings were held with the TSC over a period of 15 months.
Nine public meetings were convened at various locations throughout the City of Fort Worth and
over 20 presentations to civic groups, as well as presentations to the Fort Worth City Council
and the Executive Committee of the T.
June 2002 1-9
Fort Worth Transit Alternatives AnalyslsSummary Report
Figure 1.2 Mobility 2025 Update Rail Projects •
DRAFT ck.�
4p
L--
RA 3yam
LED"
RAW
Rd
' Reil cm+mr
r" /V"''iOo�""��'
............,-r-•- E1ori�Eaelsnli�+rhw
. d Awad✓Swft
. � _ ��raa�OalraaamnMrYw
f+ ' aaaa
•�� � i i t': .. aaapawarrtaapra���w�ab.
�Y
� S �- . d11N111Mr all
f 0
�+��au,p�,aaa„r.,
rNnwbwA
[' t •� rr.ir , •� �a��tti� �ro.rrsr.
A � •.rrr r w..rn..r
1.3 ENDORSEMENT OF THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The purpose of the AA process is to define and evaluate alternatives in order to select a transit
project that meets a region's transportation needs in a cost effective way and that has gained
regional support. As noted above, a two-tiered evaluation process was used. The process
began with a development of a broad range of alignment and technology alternatives. This
range of alternatives was reduced through a primarily qualitative evaluation and the remaining
alternatives were evaluated in more detail and using a more quantitative analysis as illustrated
in Figure 1.3. Evaluation criteria for the Fort Worth Transit AA were established based on the
FTA's New Starts evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria are presented in Appendix A. The
altematives evaluation process and matrices are presented in more detail in Chapter 5.
June 2002 1-10 •
Fort Worth Transit Alternatives AnalysisSummary Report
Figure 1.3 Alternatives Development and Evaluation Process
Phase 1 Phase 2
Concept Evaluation Detailed Evaluation "
S
Alternatives Conceptual Detailed Tradeoff
Selection Evaluations Evaluation Analysis
Oecrsawne Numbe�IfAftam�Mves
The TSC identified and endorsed a light rail streetcar system serving the Central Area of Fort
Worth. This system improves accessibility of transit dependent neighborhood to the two largest
employment center in the city of Fort Worth, downtown and the Medical District as well as
another major activity center, the Cultural District. This system is consistent with goals and
objectives of the City of Fort Worth's Comprehensive Plan and Commercial Corridors and Urban
Villages programs. The LPA has been endorsed by the Executive Committee of the T and the
Fort Worth City Council. NCTCOG, the region's metropolitan planning organization, has
determined that that the proposed project is consistent with the metropolitan transportation plan,
Mobility 2025 Update. The LPA is shown in Figure 1.4.
June 2002 1-11
Fort Worth Transit Alternatives AnalysisSummary Report
Figure 1.4 Locally Preferred Alternative •
J
A
i''. � r •, � t...i- t 1 � � LpMd
TM4 MMY E•0 (BMV
Rapo•d TM E•In•f•n
..... � ..._` .,.. ........r•eroma ca�•w wi
�t
} N
r
June 2002 1-12 •
Fort Worth Transit Alternatives AnalysisSummary Report
June 2002 13
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and
entered into by and between the CITY OF FORT WORTH (the "City"), a home rule
municipal corporation situated in portions of Tarrant, Denton, Parker and Wise Counties,
Texas, acting by and through Fernando Costa, its duly authorized Assistant City Manager, and
HDR Engineering, Inc. ("Consultant"), acting by and through Ramon F. Miguez, its duly
authorized Vice President.
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES.
1.1 Consultant hereby agrees to provide the City with professional consulting
services for the purpose of providing planning and engineering design consultant
services for the City's proposed Modern Streetcar System. Attached hereto and
incorporated for all purposes incident to this Agreement is Exhibit A, Scope of
Services,more specifically describing the services to be provided hereunder.
1.2 Additional services, if any, will be requested in writing by the City. City shall
not pay for any work performed by Consultant that has not been ordered in
writing. It is specifically agreed that Consultant shall not be compensated for
any additional work resulting from oral orders of any person.
2. TERM.
This Agreement shall commence upon ("Effective Date")
and shall expire on , unless terminated earlier in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement.
3. COMPENSATION.
The City shall pay Consultant an amount not to exceed $1,880,800.00 in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement and the Fee and Payment Schedule attached as Exhibit B, which is
incorporated for all purposes herein. Consultant shall not begin work on Phase 3 until a Notice
to Proceed is issued by the City. Consultant shall not perform any additional services for the City
not specified by this Agreement unless the City requests and approves in writing the additional
costs for such services. The City shall not be liable for any additional expenses of Consultant not
specified by this Agreement unless the City first approves such expenses in writing. The
Consultant shall provide monthly invoices to the City. Payment for services rendered shall be
due within thirty (30) days of the uncontested performance of the particular services so ordered
and receipt by the City of Consultant's invoice for payment of same.
Professional Services j
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
4. TERMINATION. •
4.1. Written Notice.
The City or Consultant may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any
reason by providing the other party with 30 days written notice of termination.
4.2 Non-aporopriation of Funds.
In the event no funds or insufficient funds are appropriated by the City in any
fiscal period for any payments due hereunder, City will notify Consultant of such
occurrence and this Agreement shall terminate on the last day of the fiscal period
for which appropriations were received without penalty or expense to the City of
any kind whatsoever, except as to the portions of the payments herein agreed
upon for which funds shall have been appropriated.
4.3 Duties and Oblip—ations of the Parties.
In the event that this Agreement is terminated prior to the Expiration Date, the
City shall pay Consultant for services actually rendered up to the effective date
of termination and Consultant shall continue to provide the City with services •
requested by the City and in accordance with this Agreement up to the effective
date of termination. All reports, whether partial or complete,prepared under this
Agreement, including any original drawings or documents, whether furnished by
the City, its officers, agents, employees, consultants, or contractors, or prepared
by Consultant, shall be or become the property of the City, and shall be
furnished to the City prior to or at the time such services are completed, or upon
termination or expiration of this Agreement.
5. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
Consultant hereby warrants to the City that Consultant has made full disclosure in
writing of any existing or potential conflicts of interest related to Consultant's services under
this Agreement. In the event that any conflicts of interest arise after the Effective Date of this
Agreement, Consultant hereby agrees immediately to make full disclosure to the City in
writing. Consultant, for itself and its officers, agents and employees, further agrees that it shall
treat all information provided to it by the City as confidential and shall not disclose any such
information to a third party without the prior written approval of the City. Consultant shall store
and maintain City information in a secure manner and shall not allow unauthorized users to
access, modify, delete or otherwise corrupt City information in any way. Consultant shall notify
the City immediately if the security or integrity of any City information has been compromised
or is believed to have been compromised. •
Professional services 2
Consultant Agroernent
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
6. RIGHT TO AUDIT.
Consultant agrees that the City shall, until the expiration of three (3) years after final
payment under this contract, have access to and the right to examine at reasonable times any
directly pertinent books, documents, papers and records of the consultant involving transactions
relating to this Contract at no additional cost to the City. Consultant agrees that the City shall
have access during normal working hours to all necessary Consultant facilities and shall be
provided adequate and appropriate work space in order to conduct audits in compliance with
the provisions of this section. The City shall give Consultant reasonable advance notice of
intended audits.
Consultant further agrees to include in all its subcontractor agreements hereunder a
provision to the effect that the subcontractor agrees that the City shall, until expiration of three
(3) years after final payment of the subcontract, have access to and the right to examine at
reasonable times any directly pertinent books, documents, papers and records of such
subcontractor involving transactions related to the subcontract, and further that City shall have
access during normal working hours to all subcontractor facilities and shall be provided
adequate and appropriate work space in order to conduct audits in compliance with the
provisions of this paragraph. City shall give subcontractor reasonable notice of intended audits.
7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
It is expressly understood and agreed that Consultant shall operate as an independent
contractor as to all rights and privileges granted herein, and not as agent, representative or
employee of the City. Subject to and in accordance with the conditions and provisions of this
Agreement, Consultant shall have the exclusive right to control the details of its operations and
activities and be solely responsible for the acts and omissions of its officers, agents, servants,
employees, contractors and subcontractors. Consultant acknowledges that the doctrine of
respondeat superior shall not apply as between the City, its officers, agents, servants and
employees, and Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, servants, contractors and
subcontractors. Consultant further agrees that nothing herein shall be construed as the creation
of a partnership or joint enterprise between City and Consultant.
8. LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION.
CONSULTANT SHALL BE LIABLE AND RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL
PROPERTY LOSS, PROPERTY DAMAGE AND/OR PERSONAL INJURY, INCLUDING
DEATH, TO ANY AND ALL PERSONS, OF ANY KIND OR CHARACTER, WHETHER
REAL OR ASSERTED, TO THE EXTENT CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENT ACT(S) OR
OMISSION(S), MALFEASANCE OR INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT OF CONSULTANT,
ITS OFFICERS,AGENTS, SERVANTS OR EMPLOYEES.
Professional Services 3
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
CONSULTANT COVENANTS AND AGREES TO, AND DOES HEREBY, •
INDEMNIFY, HOLD HARMLESS AND DEFEND THE CITY, ITS OFFICERS,
AGENTS, SERVANTS AND EMPLOYEES, FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL
CLAIMS OR LAWSUITS FOR EITHER PROPERTY DAMAGE OR LOSS (INCLUDING
ALLEGED DAMAGE OR LOSS TO CONSULTANT'S BUSINESS AND ANY
RESULTING LOST PROFITS) ANDIOR PERSONAL INJURY, INCLUDING DEATH,
TO ANY AND ALL PERSONS, OF ANY KIND OR CHARACTER, WHETHER REAL OR
ASSERTED, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT, TO
THE EXTENT CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENT ACTS OR OMISSIONS OR
MALFEASANCE OF CONSULTANT, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS OR
EMPLOYEES.
9. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING.
Consultant shall not assign or subcontract any of its duties, obligations or rights under
this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City. If the City grants consent to an
assignment, the assignee shall execute a written agreement with the City and the Consultant
under which the assignee agrees to be bound by the duties and obligations of Consultant under
this Agreement. The Consultant and Assignee shall be jointly liable for all obligations under
this Agreement prior to the assignment. If the City grants consent to a subcontract, the
subcontractor shall execute a written agreement with the Consultant referencing this Agreement
under which the subcontractor shall agree to be bound by the duties and obligations of the
Consultant under this Agreement as such duties and obligations may apply. The Consultant
shall provide the City with a fully executed copy of any such subcontract.
10. INSURANCE.
Consultant shall provide the City with certificate(s) of insurance documenting policies of
the following minimum coverage limits that are to be in effect prior to commencement of any
work pursuant to this Agreement:
10.1 Coverage and Limits
(a) Commercial General Liability
$1,000,000, Each Occurrence
$1,000,000, Aggregate
(b) Automobile Liability
$1,000,000, Each occurrence on a combined single limit basis
Coverage shall be on any vehicle used by the Consultant, its employees,
agents, representatives in the course of the providing services under this
Agreement. "Any vehicle" shall be any vehicle owned, hired and non- •
Professional Services 4
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
owned
(c) Worker's Compensation-Statutory limits
Employer's liability
$100,000, Each accident/occurrence
$100,000, Disease -per each employee
$500,000, Disease- policy limit
This coverage may be written as follows:
Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability coverage with limits consistent
with statutory benefits outlined in the Texas workers' Compensation Act (Art.
8308 — 1.01 et seq. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat.) and minimum policy limits for
Employers' Liability of $100,000 each accident/occurrence, $500,000 bodily
injury disease policy limit and $100,000 per disease per employee
(d) Professional Liability(Errors & Omissions)
$1,000,000 Each Claim Limit
$1,000,000 Aggregate Limit
If coverage is written on a claims-made basis, the retroactive date shall be
coincident with or prior to the date of the contractual agreement. The
insurance shall be maintained for the duration of the contractual agreement
and for five (5) years following the completion of the service provided
under the contractual agreement. The certificate of insurance shall state
that the coverage is claims-made, and include the retroactive date. An
annual certificate of insurance shall be submitted to the City to evidence
coverage.
10.2 General Requirements.
(a) The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies shall
name the City as an additional insured thereon, as its interests may appear.
The term City shall include its employees, officers, officials, agents, and
volunteers in respect to the contracted services.
(b) The workers' compensation policy shall include a Waiver of Subrogation
(Right of Recovery) in favor of the City of Fort Worth.
(c) A minimum of thirty(30) days notice of cancellation or reduction in limits
of coverage shall be provided to the City. Ten (10) days notice shall be
Professional Services 5
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
acceptable in the event of non-payment of premium. Notice shall be sent
to the Risk Manager, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton, Fort Worth,
Texas 76102, with copies to the City Attorney at the same address.
(d) The insurers for all policies must be licensed and/or approved to do
business in the State of Texas. All insurers must have a minimum rating
of A- VII in the current A.M. Best Key Rating Guide, or have reasonably
equivalent financial strength and solvency to the satisfaction of Risk
Management. If the rating is below that required, written approval of Risk
Management is required.
(e) Any failure on the part of the City to request required insurance
documentation shall not constitute a waiver of the insurance requirement.
(f) Certificates of Insurance evidencing that the Consultant has obtained all
required insurance shall be delivered to the City prior to Consultant
proceeding with any work pursuant to this Agreement.
11. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, ORDINANCES,RULES AND REGULATIONS
Consultant agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances,
rules and regulations. If the City notifies Consultant of any violation of such laws, ordinances, .
rules or regulations, Consultant shall immediately desist from and correct the violation.
12. NON-DISCRIMINATION COVENANT.
Consultant, for itself, its personal representatives, assigns, subcontractors and successors
in interest, as part of the consideration herein, agrees that in the performance of Consultant's
duties and obligations hereunder, it shall not discriminate in the treatment or employment of any
individual or group of individuals on any basis prohibited by law. If any claim arises from an
alleged violation of this non-discrimination covenant by Consultant, its personal representatives,
assigns, subcontractors or successors in interest, Consultant agrees to assume such liability and to
indemnify and defend the City and hold the City harmless from such claim.
13. NOTICES.
Notices required pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement shall be conclusively
determined to have been delivered when (1) hand-delivered to the other party, its agents,
employees, servants or representatives, or(2) received by the other party by United States Mail,
registered, return receipt requested, addressed as follows:
•
Professional Services 6
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
To The CITY: To CONSULTANT:
City of Fort Worth HDR Engineering, Inc.
Attn: Planning& Development Department 210 East 3'd Street
1000 Throckmorton Street Suite 300
Fort Worth TX 76102-6311 Fort Worth, TX 76102
14. SOLICITATION OF EMPLOYEES.
Neither the City nor Consultant shall, during the term of this agreement and additionally
for a period of one year after its termination, solicit for employment or employ, whether as
employee or independent contractor, any person who is or has been employed by the other
during the term of this agreement, without the prior written consent of the person's employer.
15. GOVERNMENTAL POWERS.
It is understood and agreed that by execution of this Agreement, the City does not waive
or surrender any of its governmental powers.
16. NO WAIVER.
The failure of the City or Consultant to insist upon the performance of any term or
provision of this Agreement or to exercise any right granted herein shall not constitute a waiver
of the City's or Consultant's respective right to insist upon appropriate performance or to assert
any such right on any future occasion.
17. GOVERNING LAW/VENUE.
This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the 1 laws of the State of Texas. If
any action, whether real or asserted, at law or in equity, is brought on the basis of this
Agreement, venue for such action shall lie in state courts located in Tarrant County, Texas or the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division.
18. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Agreement is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining
provisions of this Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired.
19. FORCE MAJEURE.
The City and Consultant shall exercise their best efforts to meet their respective duties
and obligations as set forth in this Agreement, but shall not be held liable for any delay or
Professional Services 7
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
omission in performance due to force majeure or other causes beyond their reasonable control
(force majeure), including, but not limited to, compliance with any government law, ordinance
or regulation, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, fires, strikes, lockouts, natural disasters,
wars, riots, material or labor restrictions by any governmental authority, transportation problems
and/or any other similar causes.
20. HEADINGS NOT CONTROLLING.
Headings and titles used in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not
be deemed a part of this Agreement.
21. REVIEW OF COUNSEL.
The parties acknowledge that each party and its counsel have reviewed and revised this
Agreement and that the normal rules of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be
resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement
or exhibits hereto.
22. AMENDMENTS/MODIFICATIONS/EXTENSTIONS.
No extension, modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding upon a
party hereto unless such extension, modification, or amendment is set forth in a written
instrument, which is executed by an authorized representative and delivered on behalf of such
ply.
23. ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT.
This Agreement, including the schedule of exhibits attached hereto and any documents
incorporated herein by reference, contains the entire understanding and agreement between the
City and Consultant, their assigns and successors in interest, as to the matters contained herein.
Any prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreement is hereby declared null and void to the
extent in conflict with any provision of this Agreement.
24. SIGNATURE AUTHORITY.
The person signing this agreement hereby warrants that he/she has the legal authority to
execute this agreement on behalf of the respective party, and that such binding authority has been
granted by proper order, resolution, ordinance or other authorization of the entity. The other party
is fully entitled to rely on this warranty and representation in entering into this Agreement.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
Professional Services 8
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement in multiples this
day of 1201_.
CITY OF FORT WORTH: HDR ENGINEERING, INC.:
By: By:
Assistant City Manager Name:
Title:
Date: Date:
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: By:
Marty Hendrix, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGALITY:
By:
Assistant City Attorney
CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION:
M&C:
Date Approved:
Professional Services q
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
EXHIBIT A
FORT WORTH MODERN STREETCAR
PLANNING AND DESIGN
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Project Workplan—Purpose and Content:
This Workplan is intended to guide the completion of Project Tasks as described below. The
Workplan articulates the Scope of Work into specific Tasks and Subtasks and details the
Deliverables for each. A Task Schedule is included and is keyed to the Date of Planned
Completion for each Deliverable. This plan may be revised as Phases 1 and 2 are completed, and
as work proceeds into Phase 3 based on project development decisions made during Phases 1 and
2.
The Consulting Team—Allocation of Tasks:
The Consultant team for the project has been assembled, consisting of Consultant and subconsultant
staff, as identified in the original proposal and as detailed in the task assignments below. The
description of tasks and responsibilities below clearly delineate lead responsibilities for tasks and
subtasks. In addition, a small amount of general on-call support is expected from each
subconsultant, as requested by the Consulting Team Project Manager.
Project Management Team—Description of Responsibilities:
City of Fort Worth Project Manager: Management responsibility for the project is vested in
City's Project Manager, David Gaspers. Mr. Gaspers will supervise the work of the consulting
team as it performs the tasks detailed in the project's Scope of Work. He will facilitate and
support the function of all aspects of the Project.
Fort Worth Transportation Authority Project Manager: Mr. Gaspers will be assisted by the
Fort Worth Transportation Authority's Project Manager, Carl Weckenmann, who will represent
the Fort Worth Transportation Authority in this project and coordinate the involvement of other
Fort Worth Transportation Authority staff in the project.
Consulting Team Project Manager: Overall consulting team management responsibility for
the project is assigned to Charles Hales of Consultant. Mr. Hales will be responsible for
coordinating all in-house and subconsultant activities, and will lead the completion of the
project's technical work. He will be the primary point of contact for the consulting team.
Pmfession Services 2
Consultm Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
( 1 Communications
`- It is the goal of the Consultant team to work as a specialized extension of City of Fort Worth and
Fort Worth Transportation Authority staff in advancing the Project, and to support both the "big
picture strategy" and the"small details"of the project's work in ways that reflect well on the City
and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority.
To ensure appropriate communication among the team members, the consulting team will direct
project communication primarily through the Consulting Team Project Manager and on
particular Tasks, the Task Leader assigned. For purposes of consistency and coordination, most
project communication will be through these key staff. Likewise, most project communication at
the City and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority will be directed through the City's and
Fort Worth Transportation Authority's Project Managers. The Consultant team will coordinate
its activities with the City Project Manager in order to ensure regular reporting of project
activities and progress through summary progress reports accompanying each invoice.
Project Plan and Phasing
The consulting team's effort is organized into three phases.
The first phase will focus on project definition, through completion of tasks to determine guiding
principles and design assumptions for the project. A review of bus options, including optimal
integration with the existing bus route structure, will be conducted. A utility review and a
yf w, determination about the type and schedule of an environmental document will be completed.
Economic impact analysis and ridership estimates will be completed. Key intended results of the
Phase 1 work are to set the parameters for subsequent phases and to inform a project phasing
recommendation at the completion of the next set of tasks.
Phase 2 will determine whether a modern streetcar system should be part of Fort Worth's overall
transportation plan at this or any other time. As applicable, this phase will recommend an initial
phase and future phases for implementation, including a business and financial plan for the
project.
The Modern Streetcar Task Force will review the deliverables associated with Phases 1 and 2 and
provide recommendations to the Fort Worth City Council and the Fort Worth Transportation
Authority Board. The Consultant will only begin tasks within Phase 3 upon Notice to Proceed
from the City. Phase 3 is a concentrated, larger-scale effort to prepare preliminary engineering
and environmental documentation for the project.
Project management and public outreach tasks will occur through the life of the Project.
Professional Services 3
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
PHASE 1 — ALIGNMENT EVALUATION AND DEFINITION, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
AND COST ESTIMATES
Task 0- Project Management,Administration and Coordination
Starting with a kickoff meeting following Notice to Proceed, the team will maintain close
communication with the City and Fort Worth Transportation Authority Project Managers, to
ensure measurable progress and timely completion of the project tasks. Project tracking will be
conducted either through onsite meetings or via conference calls, as directed by the Project
Managers. Some of these meetings will likely be scheduled to coincide with key project
workshops. Arrangements may be made to meet more or less frequently in special
circumstances, or as the project requires.
Project management tasks will include creating agendas for meetings, preparing minutes, and
establishing the Administrative Record for the Project, budget and scope control, and monthly
invoicing and project status reports.
The project will be initiated with a Kickoff Workshop, guided by a detailed agenda to be
prepared by the Consultant Project Manager, in consultation with the City and Fort Worth
Transportation Authority Project Managers. Portions of the workshop will be attended by
Consultant and Subconsultant Task Managers. This workshop will address the project's Guiding
Principles (Scope of Work Task 6), address data needs and establish lines of communication for
the technical work to be completed. •
Monthly written progress reports will accompany each invoice, designed as well for use in the
City's computerized project management system; combined with evidence of the work
accomplished since the previous report. The report will contain bar charts indicating the
percentage of work completion of each task.
Deliverables:
(1) A Project Workplan detailing task assignments, deliverables, dates, and responsibilities.
(2) A Project Kickoff Workshop that includes work sessions with key City and Fort Worth
Transportation Authority staff, and meeting(s) with the Modern Streetcar Task Force.
(3) Monthly Progress Reports completed no later than the tenth day of the succeeding month.
DATE OF PLANNED COMPLETION: At Notice-to-Proceed for (1); week of April 5, 2010
for(2); ongoing for(3).
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBILITIES: Consultant
Professional service 4
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
Task 1 -Alignment Selection and Development of Design and Operation Assumptions
The purpose of this task is to evaluate potential alignments and provide assumptions to be used
for developing the economic impact analysis, ridership projections, and construction and
operating cost estimates. The Consultant shall review previous studies, including: the Fixed-Rail
Trolley Line Feasibility Study (1998), Fort Worth Transit Alternatives Analysis (2002), The T's
Strategic Plan (2005), Central City Redevelopment Committee White Paper (2008), Modern
Streetcar Study (2008) and the Mobility and Air Quality Plan (2009). Potential alignments in
Downtown shall include a connection to the Intermodal Transportation Center. Outside
Downtown, the alignments to be evaluated shall include: South Main Street, Magnolia Avenue,
East Rosedale Street, North Main Street, and West 7th Street. The Consultant shall provide an
independent recommendation on potential alignments.
A. Provide design assumptions of potential alignments, including traction power system
standards, typical sections, guidelines for lane selection in streets, substation
requirements, station/stop locations and appropriate guidelines for utility relocation,
signal modifications, and roadway reconstruction. This task will include identification
of alternatives, development of evaluation criteria, evaluation of alternatives and
recommendations for:
• Alignment
• Station/stop locations
• Maintenance facility location and building requirements
B. Provide operational assumptions including headways, hours of service, fare system,
maintenance facility needs and potential maintenance facility locations.
C. Provide preferred technology options including vehicle specifications, propulsion
system, fare collection method, and information and communication requirements.
D. Assess vehicle procurement timelines and preferred vehicle selection process.
E. Identify the preferred connection to the Intermodal Transportation Center(ITC).
G. Identify potential benefits and issues associated with initially single-tracking routes.
H. Assess issues with any necessary railroad and bridge crossings and clearances.
I. Assess issues with operation of a streetcar network in relation to multiple routes and
termini.
J. Evaluate Bus-Rapid Transit as a mode for potential alignments and provide a
preferred scheme for the best utilization of existing or new bus routes to complement
the Bus-Rapid Transit and streetcar alignments. This task will include development
of evaluation criteria, including, but not limited to, cost (capital and operating),
development/economic impacts, consistency with City of Fort Worth Comprehensive
Plan and subarea/neighborhood plans, etc.
K. Conduct a basic utility review indicating those utilities that will likely need to be
relocated based on the utility relocation guidelines developed in the design
assumptions.
L. Determine the type and schedule for preparation of an environmental document for
the project.
Pmfessional Services 5
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
Task 1 Deliverables:
(1) A Design Assumptions Technical Memorandum that includes:
• Alignment geometrics (scale will be determined by that of the aerial
photography)
• Track type
• Turnouts
• Stray current protection
• Utility relocation guidelines
• Traction power system standards and typical sections
• Substation requirements (both footprint and capacity)
• Typical Station Stops and footprint requirements
• Vehicle dynamic envelope
• Traffic signal modification guidelines
• Maintenance facility location and building requirements
• A utility review that includes a tabulation of the utilities in the corridor
and provides an indication of those utilities that will likely need to be
relocated based on the utility relocation guidelines developed in the design
assumptions.
(2) An Alignment Refinement Technical Memorandum that includes:
• Operational assumptions (to be used further in the development of an
operating cost estimate—see Task 3 below)
• Alignment issues(Scope Subtasks E—n
• A Bus Rapid Transit Option review that evaluates the costs and benefits of
using a bus project to serve the same operating and alignment assumptions
(3) A Vehicle Options Review Technical Memorandum that includes:
• Operational assumptions (to be used further in the development of an
operating cost estimate— see Task 3 below)
• Vehicle type and technology options, recommended general specifications,
as well as likely vehicle procurement timelines and a recommended
approach to vehicle procurement and selection
Professional Services 6
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
DATE OF PLANNED COMPLETION: May 17, 2010 for(1) and (3), June 14, 2010 for (2)
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBILITIES: Consultant, with support from LTK, CAI, and
Gorrondona
Task 2—Economic Development Impact Analysis
The purpose of this task is to provide an analysis of economic development potential of
properties within a 1/4 mile buffer of selected alignments. Items to be considered will include:
• An analysis of vacant and under-developed sites and their development
potential,
• Projected property value appreciation and forecasted increase in property tax
revenues over a no-build scenario,
• Projected new residential units,
• Projected new commercial square feet
Consultant will prepare a summary of development potential along the alignments, the potential
revenue the development could generate, and the potential for public-private partnerships for real
estate development.
As a component of this task, the Consultant team will conduct a land use analysis to understand
the best and highest uses of adjacent land in order to provide expanded funding probability and
SIR
optimized ridership. This analysis will be conducted using a spreadsheet-based model to
calculate the anticipated benefits to ridership as land uses around the alignment(s) change. As
public-private partnerships are built to support this project, this analysis will be used to prioritize
alignment decisions and inform the development of public-private partnerships.
The outcome of this analysis will be a projected total economic impact of the alignment(s) which
will assist in the development of the financial package and a project phasing recommendation.
Consultant will also identify the effect on Fort Worth Convention Center scheduling and general
attendance and impacts to ridership and funding of the streetcar. Consultant will also conduct an
evaluation of the streetcar on parking demand in the corridor.
Task 2 Deliverables:
1. A Technical Memorandum describing the total potential economic impact of the streetcar
including the potential role of public-private partnerships and the analysis of the
components of the economic impact.
DATE OF PLANNED COMPLETION: July 31, 2010
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBILITIES: Consultant
Professional Services
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
Task 3—Ridership, Initial Capital and Operating Cost Estimates
The purpose of this task is to provide estimated ridership and operating costs of selected
alignments based on the findings and assumptions developed in Task 1 and the economic
development projected in Task 2.
A "market based" approach of streetcar ridership forecasting shall be used for this analysis. The
most recent Regional Travel Demand Model will be reviewed for the study area and used as an
input to the subarea model and refined.
The following steps outline the ridership analysis methodology–
• Identify the streetcar market area
• Create market area traffic analysis zones and estimating zonal land use
• Calculate the number of daily trips generated within the streetcar market areas
• Distribute the market-area trips
• Forecast trip market-share of the selected streetcar alignment segments, and thus
generating:
o Estimated ridership for opening year of service.
o Estimated ridership for the 5th year of service.
An initial planning level capital cost estimate segmented to the potential alignments will be
produced, using cost data from recent streetcar projects, engineering data produced thus far in the
technical work on this project, and agreed-upon contingency amounts. An operating cost forecast
will be developed using agreed-upon assumptions about headways, fares and hours of service,
and the best available local cost factors. Runtimes will be calculated and overall revenue vehicle
hours will be developed, as well as other operating cost factors, thus generating:
• Capital Cost Estimate for the starter alignment, and
• Estimated 5-year operating and maintenance cost forecast.
Task 3 Deliverables:
(1) A Technical Memorandum describing the methodology and results of the ridership
forecast.
(2) A Technical Memorandum and Spreadsheet describing the methodology and results of
the capital and operating and maintenance cost forecasts.
DATE OF PLANNED COMPLETION: August 9, 2010
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBILITIES: Dunbar for (1), Consultant, with support from LTK
for(2)
Professional Services g
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
PHASE 2—BUSINESS PLAN AND PHASING RECOMMENDATION
Task 4—Business Plan
The purpose of this task is to determine whether a modern streetcar system should be part of Fort
Worth's overall transportation plan at this or any other time, and to provide the framework for
the organizational and financial structures necessary for a streetcar system in Fort Worth. At the
completion of this task, the Fort Worth City Council and The T Board of Directors will vote on
whether to proceed with Phase 3. Approval by both the Fort Worth City Council and The T
Board of Directors is required to proceed with Phase 3.
This task's schedule and deliverables is anticipated to proceed as proposed and as outlined
below.
A. Organizational Plan
i. Identify the preferred organizational structure including defined roles for the City
of Fort Worth, The Fort Worth Transportation Authority, Tarrant County, and
others as necessary.
Consultant will identify potential organizational structures for both the
development and operating of the streetcar. Each structure will be evaluated and
include pros and cons for both the development and operating of the streetcar.
This evaluation will be reviewed with the key stakeholders, with the development
of a preferred scenario as the outcome of this task.
ii. Identify the preferred administrative structure including management roles,
staffing demands, training requirements, etc.
Once a preferred organization structure is determined, Consultant will develop an
implementation plan and timeline that delineates the overall structure for both the
development and operating of the streetcar. An estimate of the staffing needs for
both the construction and operating will be identified and will include a
recommendation of which functions should be provided by the organization and
which should be provided by a third party.
B. Financial Plan
i. Review and assess funding options.
Consultant will, working with the City of Fort Worth, the Fort Worth
Transportation Authority and the Modern Streetcar Task Force, compile a list of
potential funding options and financing mechanisms for consideration. Research
and analysis already completed for the Fort Worth Streetcar project will be
Professional Services 9
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
utilized and not duplicated. Effort will be focused on any financial mechanisms
unique to the study area and to the particular economic and financial
circumstances of the study area.
ii. Provide recommendation regarding the most viable and expedient financial
package.
The Project Team will discuss methods used successfully in other communities
with the Modern Streetcar Task Force to preliminarily assess their applicability
and feasibility in Fort Worth (legally, politically, economically, and otherwise).
Some of the initial options under consideration include, but are not limited to,
financing mechanisms such as surcharges or fees (parking, hotel, etc.), tax
increment financing (TIF), "transportation overlay district' or benefit assessment
district, and other options to leverage private partner funding commitments.
Consultant will also identify additional creative, non-traditional funding options
and mechanisms for consideration, and will solicit input from local stakeholders
and working committees.
Consultant will conduct a half day workshop with key stakeholders to review and
identify the potential funding sources to include the pros and cons of each source.
The outcome of this workshop will be to develop a list of sources with the most
opportunity for implementation.
Ranges of funding for the refined list of potential sources will be calculated and
compared to the estimated capital costs and annual operating costs to develop the
financial package. The financial package will be refined as the capital and
operating costs are refined during the process.
iii. Provide a timeline and step-by-step procedures to implement the recommended
financial package.
Consultant will develop a timeline and procedures to implement the financial
package. Included will be an identification of any legislative, legal, and political
issues that could impact the implementation of the various mechanisms.
iv. Assist in assessment of stakeholder willingness to participate in financing options.
Consultant, with Shiels, Obletz, Johnsen (subconsultant) will assist in meeting
with the stakeholders to discuss the potential financing options. Consultant will
assist in identifying potential key public and private sector partners, including
those currently participating in the planning process and others not yet engaged.
For each key potential partner, Consultant will identify and quantify anticipated
partner benefits from the proposed streetcar investment, preparing a list of
potential financing mechanisms and resources specifically related to that partner,
Professional Services 10
Consultant Apw nest
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
and financial participation rates commensurate with the benefits accrued to that
specific partner.
The result of this task will be a comprehensive review of potential funding options
and financing mechanisms addressing needs and resources within the corridor in
general, but also focused on the benefits and resources available from specific
institutional and private sector partners benefiting from the streetcar investment.
Consultant will coordinate with the City of Fort Worth, the Fort Worth
Transportation Authority and Modern Streetcar Task Force as appropriate
throughout this task.
V. Explore, evaluate and document opportunities for cooperative effort between this
and other planned streetcar projects, especially concerning the project under
development by the City of Dallas and Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART).
Possible cooperative efforts include, are not limited to joint specifications for
vehicles, joint procurement of vehicles and joint procurement of other project
components such as rail or substations.
Incorporating the results of all project work to date, Consultant will work with the
stakeholders to develop a project phasing recommendation. Key to the
development of this recommendation will be the availability of funding and
potential ridership and development. These recommendations will be considered
in workshops or meeting with the Modern Streetcar Task Force, the City Council
and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's Board of Directors, as appropriate.
Task 4 Deliverables:
(1) Business Plan: The plan will determine whether a modern streetcar system should be
part of Fort Worth's overall transportation plan at this or any other time. The plan will
describe revenue sources and revenue estimates and also detail scenarios for the financing
of capital and operations costs. The plan will also review and evaluate organizational
options, and options for coordinated effort with other streetcar projects.
(2) Phase 1 and 2 Summary Report, incorporating the contents of completed Technical
Memoranda and Business Plan, summarizing progress to date and, as applicable,
recommending an initial project phase and future phases.
(3) Presentation, to be used in Committee, Council or Board presentations, presenting the
key findings and results of Phase 1 and 2 Tasks, along with the rationale and
recommendations for an initial project phase.
DATE OF PLANNED COMPLETION: June 21, 2010 for(1); July 19, 2010 for(2)
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBILITIES: Consultant, with support from LTK and Shiels,
Obletz, Johnsen
Professional Services 11
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
PHASE 3–DESIGN AND DOCUMENTATION
The Consultant shall not begin work on Phase 3 until a Notice to Proceed is issued by the City.
Task 5—Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Assessment
Preliminary Engineering:
The purpose of this task is to provide schematic design and preliminary engineering for the
selected first phase as determined after consideration of the recommendation of the project team.
A. Drainage Report – Consultant to perform initial evaluation of existing drainage
system features along the proposed Phase 1 alignment and determine any
modifications that are required for construction. Consultant assumes that no new
drainage facilities are required.
B. Floodplain Study– Consultant will identify floodplains within the project limits and
determine need, if any, for more detailed floodplain studies.
C. Surveying and Mapping – Consultant assumes that the City will provide the most
recent ortho-rectified aerial imagery and topographic survey data that includes all of
the project limits. This data will be used to develop various exhibits and preliminary
engineering plans. Consultant will also collect additional topographic at other
selected critical locations, such as the UPRR Main St. underpass, and the 7' Street at-
grade railroad crossing.
D. Geotechnical survey and analysis – Consultant will review previously collected
geotechnical data provided by the City. Consultant will evaluate the usefulness of
this data as it relates to construction for track, stations, and catenary support system.
Consultant will identify locations where supplemental geotechnical data is required
for development of more detailed engineering plans.
E. Utility relocation – Using Quality Level "D", known utilities within the curb-to-curb
areas along the streets of the starter system alignment will be mapped. Utility
relocation requirements will be identified based on this mapping and coordination
meetings with affected utilities that includes cover requirements, relocation costs and
timelines, and determination of cost responsibility.
F. Track Alignment and Typical Sections – Consultant will develop preliminary track
alignment drawings, with typical track sections, to facilitate minimized construction
costs, avoid utility conflicts (where possible), minimize property acquisition, and
optimizes streetcar operations.
Professional Services 12
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
G. Grade Crossing Layout — Consultant will evaluate potential alignment options for the
7 at-grade railroad crossing with the FWWR along 7th Street, as well as supplemental
crossing safety measures to effectively protect vehicular, streetcar and train traffic.
Consultant will also identify special requirements for catenary system on selected
crossing option.
H. Stop locations and layouts — Consultant will identify preliminary stop locations based
on ridership expectations, existing and future employment centers and business
development areas, station spacing criteria, and potential traffic and infrastructure
impacts.
I. Traffic signalization plans — Consultant will evaluate existing traffic data available
from the City, prepare preliminary traffic models for existing and future traffic
volumes, and develop planning level signal design plans for critical intersections.
J. Site civil design — Consultant will utilize City standards in developing schematic
plans for various streetcar system components include catenary support system,
station stop layouts, stormwater drainage system modifications, at-grade crossings,
and traffic signal layouts.
K. Right-of-way engineering and plans — Consultant will research existing City right-of-
way plans, as well as Tarrant County plat maps, along the selected starter system
alignment and develop maps and exhibits that detail boundary and ownership
j information. Consultant will also determine and right-of-way or easements needs for
the project.
L. Maintenance facility specifications — Consultant will develop conceptual plans for the
selected potential location for the centralized yard and maintenance facilities.
Schematic layout will consider possible expansion to accommodate additional
equipment required for future streetcar system build-out.
M. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment for selected
first phase(see below)
N. Coordination with streetscape, street/bridge reconstruction, and adjacent private
construction projects — Consultant will coordinate with City planning and
infrastructure departments to receive information on public and private projects that
will or may directly influence the development of the streetcar starter system.
Consultant will also communicate with the North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG) on developments associated with the proposed grade
separation solutions at Tower 55
Task 5 Preliminary Engineering Deliverables:
(1) Preliminary Engineering Plans for proposed preliminary track alignment drawings along
proposed Phase 1 alignment, including station layouts, maintenance facility layout,
Professional Services 13
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
crossing layouts, traffic signal and signage improvements, known existing utility
locations, property boundary and ownership information, track typical sections and
standards.
DATE OF PLANNED COMPLETION: February 28, 2011
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBILITIES: Consultant, with support from LTK, AECOM,
Gorrondona, and CAI
(2) Geotechnical Report — Compilation of all available geotechnical data along proposed
streetcar alignment and identification of geotechnical program required in subsequent
design phase to supplement existing information.
DATE OF PLANNED COMPLETION: September 27, 2010
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBILITIES: Consultant, with support from CAI and Gorrondona
(3) Traffic Operations Study — Report presenting available traffic volume data and
identifying intersections for signal improvements, prioritization, preemption, and
warrants.
DATE OF PLANNED COMPLETION: December 31, 2010
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBILITIES: Consultant,with support from CAI
(4) Construction Cost Estimate — Revised Preliminary cost estimate for construction,
including track, catenary system, roadway modifications, utility relocations, vehicles,
maintenance facility, and signal improvements.
DATE OF PLANNED COMPLETION: February28, 2011
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBILITIES: Consultant, with support from LTK, AECOM,
Gorrondona, and CAI
(5) Maintenance Facility Site Selection Report — Presentation of site selection criteria, and
assumption for maintenance and operations philosophies, and up to two schematic
locations for potential development.
DATE OF PLANNED COMPLETION: November 20, 2010
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBILITIES: Consultant, with support from AECOM
Professional Services 14
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
Environmental Assessment:
Concurrent with PE, Consultant will conduct environmental analyses to support an anticipated
Environmental Assessment (EA) to advance potential receipt of FTA funds for project
development. Consultant will initiate consultation with FTA Region 6, and obtain the Agency's
guidance on the appropriate level of environmental documentation. The timing of this federal
consultation will be coordinated with the client Project Management Team. Should Fort Worth
elect to preserve funding flexibility, Consultant will complete environmental documentation,
(anticipated EA), and obtain environmental clearance in accordance with NEPA requirements.
Consultant will complete a Draft and Final EA, and consult with FTA Region 6 and
Headquarters throughout the process to ensure concurrence. Regular engagement of the FTA
will facilitate the required environmental clearance, in the form of a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
Concurrent with FTA consultation, the Consultant Engineering and Environmental team will
coordinate with state and local agencies to document level of involvement and/or anticipated
impacts that could result from project construction. Potential impacts relative to the following
technical areas will be addressed and documented: right-of-way; utilities; traffic engineering;
floodplain concerns; cultural and archaeological resources; natural and physical environment;
parklands; community; and neighborhoods. These will be appropriately documented in the EA,
which will be completed concurrent with the Preliminary Engineering, Ridership Forecasting,
Public Involvement and financial planning tasks.
The EA will be organized using the following outline, per NEPA requirements:
• Executive Summary
• Introduction
• Purpose, Need, and Description of Proposed Action
• Alternatives to the Proposed Action
• Environmental Impacts
• List of Agencies and Persons Consulted
Consultant will submit a Draft EA to the client Project Management Team for review and
comments. Following that, Consultant will incorporate review comments and prepare a revised
draft for submittal to FTA for review. Consultant will produce a Draft Final EA for public
circulation and the required 30-day public comment period. The Draft Final EA will include
necessary mitigation measures that would be incorporated into the design, operation, and/or
budget of the project. Comments received during the public comment period will be compiled
and incorporated into a Final EA. Finally, Consultant will work with Fort Worth to prepare the
FONSI, in anticipation of FTA's approval of the Final EA.
Task 5 Environmental Assessment Deliverables: Draft and Final Environmental Assessment,
Professional Services 15
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
Finding of No Significant Impact(FONSI)
DATE OF PLANNED COMPLETION: For Environmental Assessment: 1st Draft EA for Ft
Worth Review - November 15, 2010; Revised Draft EA for FTA Review - December 31, 2010;
Final EA for public distribution- January 31, 2011; FONSI–March 2011
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBILITIES: Consultant, with support from CAI
Task 6—Public Involvement
The purpose of this task is to ensure transparency in the planning process while receiving input
and building consensus among stakeholders throughout Phase 1, 2 and 3. The City's Community
Relations Department will take an active role in organizing and executing pertinent portions of
this task. A steering committee will be formed with representatives from key stakeholder groups
to provide guidance to the consultant throughout the process.
A. Conduct up to ten meetings with the steering committee and pertinent City and The Fort
Worth Transportation Authority staff.
B. Provide briefings at the conclusion of Phases One and Two to the City Council and The
Fort Worth Transportation Authority Board of Directors, and provide final briefings
to the City Council and The Fort Worth Transportation Authority Board of Directors.
C. Provide up to three briefings to pertinent TIF boards.
D. Conduct up to three community meetings to update and receive feedback from citizens.
E. Prepare meeting displays and conduct the technical presentation of these displays.
Document the community meeting by transcription summary of pertinent comments.
Prepare necessary written responses to questions received at the community meetings.
F. Communicate with the Project Managers (City and the Fort Worth Transportation
Authority)on a regular basis to report on the progress of the project.
G. Establish guiding principles for the project.
Task 6 Deliverables:
(1) Public Involvement Plan outlining guiding principles, key objectives, schedule of
milestones, methods and timing of informing the public and key stakeholders, required
materials (branding, communications/ marketing, public education, media) and
recommended system for tracking and responding to issues and public comments
(2) Stakeholder meeting coordination and implementation to include:
a. Logistical support (securing venue, coordinating invitations and attendance)
Professional Services 16
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
b. Development of meeting materials (agendas, handouts, exhibits/displays,
audio/visual equipment and support)
c. Documentation and distribution of meeting attendance, minutes and stakeholder
comments
(3) Community/public meeting coordination and implementation to include:
a. Logistical support (securing venue, announcing/promoting meetings, coordinating
invitations and attendance)
b. Development of meeting materials (agendas, handouts, exhibits/displays,
audio/visual equipment and support)
c. Development of media materials (displays, press releases, briefing packets)
d. Documentation of meeting attendance, minutes and public comments
e. Preparation of a video simulation of the planned streetcar project in operation on
portions of the selected Phase 1 alignment
(4) Web-based media support, to include:
a. Development and periodic updating of a microlite to be incorporated into the City
webpage devoted to this project
b. Distribution of key project information and event announcements through
Facebook and other social media in accordance with any applicable City social
media policy.
DATE OF PLANNED COMPLETION: May 15, 2010 for(1); ongoing, as scheduled, for(2),
(3) and(4)
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBILITIES: Open Channels Group, with support from
Consultant through Project Manager and Task Leaders
Professional Services 17
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
EXHIBIT B
FORT WORTH MODERN STREETCAR
PLANNING AND DESIGN
FEE AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE
Consultant shall be compensated a total lump sum fee of$ 1,880,800.00. Payment of the total
lump sum fee shall be considered full compensation for the services described in Exhibit A for
all labor materials, expenses, supplies, and equipment necessary to complete the project.
Consultant shall begin work on Phases 1 and 2 upon Notice to Proceed from the City. The
Modern Streetcar Task Force will review the deliverables associated with Phases 1 and 2 and
provide recommendations to the Fort Worth City Council and the Fort Worth Transportation
Authority Board. Phase 3 will only begin upon a subsequent Notice to Proceed issued by the
City.
The Consultant shall provide monthly invoices to the City. Payment for services rendered shall
be due within thirty (30) days of the uncontested performance of the particular services so
ordered and receipt by the City of Consultant's invoice for payment of same.
Each invoice is to be verified as to its accuracy and compliance with the terms of this contract by
an officer of the Consultant. .
The project schedule is designed to complete within twelve(12)calendar months. The schedule
shown below is representative of the expected project schedule based on issuance of Notice-to-
Proceed by early April 2010.
Payment shall be made to the Consultant monthly upon the City's approval of an invoice from
the Consultant outlining the estimated current percent complete of each task for the project. The
monthly payment shall include payment for planning and design services, as well-as
subconsultant fees for respective tasks. The estimated fees for the project phases and tasks are as
follows:
Phases 1 and 2 (to begin upon Notice-to-Proceed issued by the City)
Consultant
Task 0: Project Management=$26,951.00
Task 1: Recommended Alignment Evaluation and Development of Design and
Operation Assumptions= $119,728.00
Task 2: Economic Development Impact Analysis= $174,164.00
Task 3: Ridership, Initial Capital and Operating Cost Estimates= $64,497.00
Task 4: Business Plan= $194,615.00
Task 6: Public Involvement=$31,449.00
Consultant Subtotal Fees= $611,404.00 .
Professional Services 18
Consultant Agreement
March 4, 2010 DRAFT — For City Council Review
Subconsultants
*Open Channels Group, LLC = $61,000.00
*Gorrondona& Associates, Inc. _ $37,000.00
LTK= $22,000.00
*Dunbar Transportation Consulting=$74,000.00
SOJ = $16,000.00
(*Certified M/WBE Subconsultant)
Subconsultant Fees= $210,000.00
Phases 1 and 2 Subtotal= $821,404.00
Phase 3 (to begin only upon subsequent Notice to Proceed from the City)
Consultant
Task 0: Project Management= $49,684.00
Task 5: Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Assessment=$649,774.00
Task 6: Public Involvement= $30,938.00
Consultant Subtotal Fees= $730,396.00
Subconsultants
*Open Channels Group, LLC = $58,000.00
49, *Gorrondona&Associates, Inc. _ $72,000.00
LTK= $80,000.00
AECOM= $23,000.00
Civil Associates, Inc. _ $96,000.00
(*Certified DBE Subconsultant)
Subconsultant Fees= $329,000.00
Phase 3 Subtotal= $1,059,396.00
Total Project Fees = $1,880,800.00
Consultant shall submit to the City's designated representative monthly progress reports covering
all phases of the project by the 15th of every month in a format agreed upon by the City and
Consultant.
Professional Services 19
Consultant Agreement