(WALLY) Feasibility Study - Work Plan

Proposed Work Plan & Preliminary Budget Estimate
North-South Commuter Rail
(WALLY)
Feasibility and Conceptual Planning
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
In collaboration with FHWA and FTA, this is a revised scope of work outline for implementation of a
Transportation and Community System Preservation (TCSP) grant awarded in 2012 to study station
sites and operational feasibility of a proposed North-South Commuter Rail service between Howell
and Ann Arbor, commonly referenced as “WALLY” by its supporters.
This work was previously envisioned as Phase II of an RFP issued and awarded by the Ann Arbor
Area Transportation Authority (AAATA/TheRide), per a Brooks Act-compliant solicitation and
selection process initiated in 2011. The original project RFP was for a two-phase commuter rail
station site review, design and planning process that included an emphasis on addressing at least
some of the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in preparation for future
project development and implementation.
As a result of the original RFP process, the AAATA Board approved a contract award to Smith
Group/JJR to undertake Phases I and II of the North-South Rail Station Location and Design Study,
with authority and funding issued only for Phase I services that are presently ongoing and further
explained below. The award of the TCSP grant has enabled funding of Phase II, and per the request
of FHWA/FTA the revisions contained herein have been restated to assure compliance with the
scope and provisions of the original RFP and Contract documentation.
With overview and approval from AAATA and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT),
work outlined herein is to be offered as Phase II implementation for quotation and performance by
the consultant currently under contract to AAATA per the terms and conditions of the original RFP.
I.
Background and Introduction
2005-2009: The concept for a proposed North-South Commuter Rail service began almost 10 years
ago when communities affected by roadway and traffic conditions on I-96 and US-23 between
Howell and Ann Arbor learned of the prospective cost and impact of construction projects to
mitigate congestion within this corridor. With estimated highway construction costs nearing $500
million and predictions of multiple years of projects to improve capacity, a coalition of public and
private entities developed a preliminary vision for an alternative rail service on existing state-owned
track between Howell and the north side of Ann Arbor, which could assist in alleviating traffic
demands during highway construction. This idea gained significant grass-roots support from the
public, local government agencies and the host freight railroad, and a high-level feasibility study was
commissioned and performed in 2008 by RL Banks.
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
1
The Banks Study found that a North-South Commuter Rail service was viable, and early ridership
estimates, operational cost analysis, and community surveys supported that conclusion (please see
Appendices for Banks Study and supporting documentation). However, the Banks Study also pointed
out several issues that would need to be addressed in more detail if any such service were to be
developed. In particular, the Banks Study was limited to use of the service contained entirely on
state-owned tracks and pointed out significant questions regarding the need for train signaling
systems and coordination with other railroads that could be affected by commuter rail operations.
As the general concept for a commuter train between Washtenaw and Livingston Counties began to
take hold and local advocates became more enthusiastic about the potential for such service, the
need to coordinate planning efforts resulted in multiple government agencies coming together to
evaluate the situation. Representatives from Livingston County, the City of Howell, Washtenaw
County, the City of Ann Arbor, MDOT, AAATA, numerous Townships along the proposed route,
Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (formerly Urbanized Area Transportation Study), the Ann
Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and SEMCOG became involved in enhanced
discussions of the proposed service.
Consequently, AAATA volunteered to become the lead local agency, with MDOT serving as its liaison
for the purpose of pursuing federal and state grant and funding opportunities. For official planning
purposes, the “North-South Commuter Rail” (N-S Rail) became the official research and
development name of the concept, however it should be noted that the name “WALLY” (a loose
contraction for the “Washtenaw and Livingston Line”) has often been used by many project
advocates.
With the spread of grass-roots support, the concept for N-S Rail/WALLY soon began to expand
beyond the state-owned system, with particular focus on service to downtown Ann Arbor. However
as foreseen in the Banks Study, permission to extend the service beyond the state-owned system
would be required from the Ann Arbor Railroad. Original conversations between AAATA and the Ann
Arbor Railroad revealed that due to significant liability concerns, the railroad was not interested in
hosting any type of passenger service.
2009-Present: The involved parties proceeded with work toward some of the infrastructure
requirements that had been identified in the Banks Study, including significant MDOT investments
to upgrade state-owned tracks and most notably to obtain and rehabilitate a fleet of commuter rail
cars. In addition, The City of Howell, Washtenaw County and DDA all donated funds for further
studies of the proposed route and station sites. To assist in obtaining additional funds for studying
the proposed service, AAATA and MDOT also collaborated on applications for federal planning and
research grants such as FTA’s 5304 Program and FHWA’s TCSP Program.
In the interest of appropriate stewardship of these donated funds, and unsure of the outcome of
federal funding applications, the AAATA issued a multi-phase RFP in late 2011 for conditional studies
of the proposed corridor. With respect for the unresolved questions of permission regarding access
to the Ann Arbor Railroad and the total amount of available funding, separate parameters and
phases were developed for studying downtown Ann Arbor station locations and station sites north
of downtown Ann Arbor to Howell.
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
2
Then in mid-2012 a unique set of events began to unfold: 1) the AAATA RFP selection process was
about to wrap up with a contract award to use the 5304 grant and all of the local contributions for
studying as many station sites as possible between Ann Arbor and Howell, when the TCSP award
was announced by USDOT; 2) consequently, the AAATA contract award was then held pending
confirmation of the TCSP grant and its implementation requirements; and 3) it was learned that the
Ann Arbor Railroad was possibly up for sale.
These issues extended through the end of 2012, and in early 2013 at the same time AAATA and
MDOT were discussing TCSP implementation with FHWA and FTA, it was confirmed that the Ann
Arbor Railroad had been sold to Watco, a national short-line railroad holding conglomerate. MDOT
and AAATA immediately made contact with WATCO to gauge their interest in allowing commuter
rail operations and received a positive response. With FHWA and FTA still in discussions about which
federal agency would administer the TCSP grant, but to keep the Watco conversations and the
AAATA RFP/contract process moving forward, it was decided to advance only the downtown Ann
Arbor station element as Phase I, and authorize that portion of the contract using limited local funds
and a previously awarded 5304 grant for that purpose.
As AAATA, MDOT, FHWA and FTA continued their discussion regarding TCSP implementation, Phase
I work on the downtown Ann Arbor station site review progressed throughout 2013. In addition
during 2013, other noteworthy accomplishments were realized: the rehabilitation of the commuter
rail cars was completed, and cars were presented for public display at the Ann Arbor Green Fair in
June and in Hamburg Township in September. Information about N-S Rail efforts was also shared
and coordinated with staff working on the Ann Arbor Connector project, as well as MDOT staff
working on revitalized US-23 construction plans. The US-23 construction plans also afforded staff
the opportunity to assemble updated operational and cost calculations for the proposed commuter
rail service, including a possible “Minimum Operating Configuration” for a truncated shuttle service
specifically to address location-specific, construction-related congestion demands.
SUMMARY: While efforts to fully evaluate and pursue possible implementation of N-S Rail have
been under way for several years, significant progress and promise has been shown recently. The
ongoing Phase I study of prospective Downtown Ann Arbor N-S Rail station site locations has
renewed interest in the project and has addressed the issue of a preferred downtown Ann Arbor
station site. The pending obligation of TCSP funding for Phase II will allow for continued and
comprehensive review of most remaining prospective service issues and locations. At the urging of
FTA and FHWA, prior to the obligation of funding for the TCSP Grant, the scope of Phase II has been
revised with supplemental related tasks to reflect a broader focus, namely to establish in greater
detail the overall feasibility of the North-South Commuter Rail project, still including station location
analysis but now also adding long-term funding, operational plans, and to clarify the preliminary
environmental analysis relevant to the proposed commuter rail service.
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
3
II.
Study Purpose
To validate the overall feasibility of the N-S Rail commuter rail project concept and to prepare
documentation, including an Action Plan with planning and environmental linkage elements, to
ready the project for future federal funding.
III.
Consultant Proposal
In compliance with the provisions of the original RFP for related supplemental work tasks that may
be required in Phase I or Phase II, and in accordance with the contractual language governing such
efforts, the consultant is invited to submit a proposed work program and budget for the revised
scope of Phase II to TheRide for review and approval. If approved, the proposal will be made part of
an amendment to the existing contract with Smith Group / JJR. If not approved, Smith Group / JJR
may be asked to revise their proposal, or TheRide may decide to open the consultant selection
process to include other firms.
The following list of work tasks represents the client’s depiction of needed work, but the consultant
may re-name, re-order, and re-describe the work depicted below into a work program that most
accurately reflects the consultant’s approach to the work. Substantive additions or deletions to the
work tasks described below are welcome but must be highlighted.
IV.
Work Tasks
The following work tasks shall be undertaken by the consultant. The consultant may propose to
eliminate, add or combine work tasks based on specific rationale and any such changes shall be
explicitly noted in the proposed work program. All work must be undertaken in a manner consistent
with the requirements of FTA’s planning guidelines where applicable, particularly those related to
Small Starts [section 5309 of Title 49USC]. If previous work has been done on a particular
component, the new work shall make reference to the previous work and describe how the earlier
work is being updated or corrected.
1. Detail Purpose and Need for the Project
Based on existing data and documentation, develop a “Purpose and Need” statement for the
project. This shall describe the goals, history, and context of the project, with documentation of
the transportation and broader community problems the project is intended to address.
2. Alternative Identification, Costs & Feasibility
Identify Alternatives to Commuter Rail in the corridor and characterize each alternative
identified in terms of its predicted capital and operating costs. Comment on the general
feasibility of each alternative and identify major opportunities or constraints associated with
each alternative. Preliminary alternatives would include:
a) No build or do-nothing (as a baseline for comparison)
b) Capacity Increases to US 23
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
4
c) HOV Lanes, BRT in US 23
d) US-23 Active Lane Management
3. Planning & Environmental Linkage
Incorporate preliminary documentation and assessment of environmental and human factor
elements into route analysis, station sites, and service planning. This shall include coordination
with an internal environmental issues steering committee (MDOT), to assure that relevant
NEPA-related topics are addressed through early planning and public involvement processes.
The goal is to collect and compile data in the feasibility/planning process in such a way that
allows for a seamless transition to a streamlined NEPA compliance effort in future project
development.
4. Incorporate “Green” Concepts and Operating Principles
Identify, and incorporate as appropriate, service features that enhance the project’s
contribution to environmental sustainability goals. Identify those goals in consultation with
environmental experts and public interest groups. Both the development of the project and the
on-going operation of the service should be considered. Project “features”, as used here, should
be not only those directly part of the project itself, but changes in urban form and community
behaviors that are caused by, or could accompany, the project.
5. Public and Stakeholder Involvement
Develop and implement a program of public involvement aimed at informing stakeholder groups
about the project and issues being considered, and gathering feedback. Desired feedback
includes both information on stakeholder opinions of the work, as well as ideas for revising the
work or undertaking the investigation of new issues. The public involvement program must
recognize that there are multiple stakeholder groups, and that tools, materials and messages
will need to be customized to each group. An incomplete list of example stakeholder groups
are: general resident population, local elected officials, business associations, social service
agencies, real estate developers, large employers, merchant associations, government agencies,
environmental advocates, and so forth. One specific group, Friends of WALLY, must be
recognized and included in the process. The consultant will be responsible for all activities in
the public involvement program, to be approved by the client. The consultant will be
responsible for:
a) gathering the names of the appropriate organizations and individuals, and their contact
information, and maintaining the list of same
b) issuing invitations, publicity notices, reminders and meeting notes to each group
c) Procuring any needed meeting space and insuring its adequacy in terms of location,
facilities, size, audio-visual capabilities, etc. “Space” as used here can mean virtual space
such as conference calls, webinars, and social networks
d) Designing the agenda and materials for each meeting
e) making meeting materials available using a mail, email, web site or other appropriate
methods
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
5
f)
Recording all significant opinions and actionable comments, and creating meeting notes for
the stakeholder participants, and creating a list of action items for use by the consultant and
the client as the result of each and every meeting in the program.
Recognizing that public and stakeholder involvement efforts are highly scalable, it is requested
that the consultant clearly state their assumed number of, and format for, public and
stakeholder meetings, and base their cost estimate for the work on those assumptions. The
consultant must also provide unit costs for additional meetings, by type of meeting, so that the
client may judge how costs might increase or decrease, based on variations in the number and
types of meetings.
6. Estimate Demand for Service
Examine past demand estimates, assess the reasonableness of the estimates and techniques
used to produce them, and if necessary, develop new or revised estimates of demand for the
service. The consultant shall include in the work a review and evaluation of models and
techniques used by SEMCOG and WATS, as well as the ‘simplified national model’ referred to at
http://www.fta.dot.gov/grants/15682.html. The consultant shall recommend an approach or
mix of approaches to the client before actually undertaking the work. Demand estimates must
be provided at two levels as follows:
a) Overall corridor demand - for project feasibility and revenue calculations
b) Station specific for sizing parking lots and access facilities
7. Assess Prospective Station Locations
The commuter rail service as envisioned in the preliminary feasibility study contemplated
service between downtown Howell and downtown Ann Arbor, with proposed station locations
between these end points at or near the following general locations:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Barton/Plymouth in Ann Arbor
8 Mile/US-23 in Whitmore Lake
Hamburg/Zukey Lake
Genoa/Chilson
The consultant shall evaluate and provide recommendations for all prospective station sites
north of downtown Ann Arbor based on predicted station/platform configuration and train
length service capacities, site accessibility, site topography, environmental considerations,
parking capacity, utility access, anticipated ridership demand within station service area,
proximity to other station locations, impact to timetable and train operations with particular
emphasis on overall commuting time between station stops, general community support and
the potential for property owners to consider being involved in the project, and costs associated
with all of these factors.
If practical, the consultant should recommend a station site for each general location. However,
based on an overall assessment of the commuter rail service as a whole, the consultant may
recommend fewer or additional station sites, with inclusion of appropriate justification for such
recommendations.
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
6
8. Draft Service Plans for Evaluation
At least four service plans should be created for evaluation. For each service plan concept,
provide estimates of basic annual operating costs and revenues. If any phase of a service plan
would qualify as a “demonstration” project or “proof-of-concept” trial operation, that phase
should be identified accordingly. Preliminary Service Plan Options include:
a) “Minimum Operation Configuration” – this alternative represents a minimum level of
service for a single train shuttling between a northern terminal at 8 Mile/US-23 and a
southern terminal at Barton/Plymouth. The minimum operating configuration is more fully
described In Appendices
b) Howell – Ann Arbor (North): Service runs from Howell to Barton/Plymouth Road on the
north side of Ann Arbor
c) Howell - Ann Arbor (Downtown): Service runs from Howell to Barton/Plymouth Road and
then onward to downtown Ann Arbor and possible UM Athletic Campus (Stadium)
location(s).
(Options A, B and C would be limited service options, that is, weekday service only, with
trains operating during peak hours.)
d) “Full Service Option” – This service plan would provide all day service and include Saturday
and Sunday trains
Service plans for rail shall pay explicit and detailed attention to how passenger fares are to be
collected, with particular attention to methods that do not involve on-board personnel. The
assessment shall include commentary on the enforceability of ‘proof-of-payment’ systems using
citations and fines as an enforcement mechanism, paying particular attention to MI laws that
may or may not allow such mechanisms, and to the practices of similar operations elsewhere in
the US.
As needed, the consultant should perform capacity analyses of service plans. These analyses
must take into account existing and reasonably foreseeable freight operations. The capacity
analyses should be performed using string-line diagrams as opposed to computer simulations,
unless the use of simulations is approved in advance by the client.
9. Develop Draft Concepts for Connecting Bus Services
a) Outlying stations – outline connecting bus services consistent with the likely demand for
such service
b) Ann Arbor station(s) – Review specific route proposals that have already been developed,
and document that the costs and operating characteristics are reasonable
10. Estimate / Refine Capital Costs –
Review and refine project capital costs by and between proposed station locations. Cost
worksheets, originally prepared by R.L. Banks, have been maintained and updated by TheRide
staff, with help from MDOT. The consultant shall review the cost estimates for accuracy and
completeness and make any changes that are necessary. Cost estimates have been developed
for the following categories (details attached in Appendices)
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
7
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Stations and station sites
Track work and grade crossings
Signals / Positive Train Control (if required)
Grade crossing signals / protection
Interlockers / Connections
As part of this task, the consultant shall develop preliminary cost estimates for other specific
infrastructure elements, including:
o
o
o
o
o
Ann Pere – this is where the MDOT tracks cross over CSX tracks, just south of Howell.
The consultant shall evaluate the potential for conflicts at this crossing, and devise
procedures for minimizing delay of commuter rail traffic, in consultation with the
railroads. Costs associated with needed upgrades should be estimated. The consultant
shall draft an agreement between the two railroads that governs the use of the crossing.
Layover facilities – proposed locations for layover facilities have been identified.
Concept plans for the layover facilities have been developed and cost-estimated. The
consultant will review the proposed layover locations and will verify that they will
support the proposed operating plan. The consultant will confirm existing concepts and
cost estimates or create new concepts and cost estimates for layover facilities.
o Daytime
o Overnight / weekend
Bridges – no assessments of existing bridge conditions have been conducted by
TheRide/MDOT nor have any cost estimates have been made for any deficiencies
associated with bridges. The consultant shall examine existing bridge assessments and
develop costs to perform any upgrades needed to ensure safe reliable passenger
service.
Property acquisition – the consultant shall describe all property that would need to be
acquired for the project, either by purchase or by lease, and provide estimates of the
costs of such property
Rolling stock acquisition
o Railcars – a fleet of railcars, suitable for passenger service, is available from the
Michigan Department of Transportation. The feasibility study should assume
that these railcars will be made available at no cost to the service operator for
the first three years of service
o Locomotives – locomotives will need to be leased for this service and those
costs should be estimated.
o Buses for connecting service – TheRide has devised routes to serve the
Plymouth Road station, and has estimated the capital and operating expense for
those routes. The consultant shall evaluate and confirm those requirements
and costs
o Maintenance and inspection fleet – Any requirements to purchase right-of-way
maintenance equipment should be spelled out and estimated. However, if it is
assumed that maintenance will be purchased as a service, then those costs
should be included in the operating cost estimates
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
8
A construction timeline shall be developed as part of this task, indicating major project
milestones and indicating the cumulative construction costs at each milestone.
11. Estimate / Refine Detailed Long-Term Operating Costs
Costs to operate various levels of N-S Rail service have been estimated by AAATA and MDOT.
These estimates include:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Train operations based on an assumed operating plan and timetable
Passenger fare collection
Insurance requirements
Trackage rights payments (if required)
Station operations
Facility maintenance
Connecting bus services
The consultant shall evaluate all existing cost estimates, refining, correcting and detailing as
necessary. In particular need of work are the costs for insurance and trackage rights. Cost
estimates for operations shall be produced for five and twenty year time frames.
12. Develop Governance Concepts
Based on laws applicable to the State of Michigan, develop and recommend concepts for
creating an organization to fund, build and operate N-S Rail services. The organization may be a
transit authority organized under Act 196 of 1986, or any other type of organization allowed by
current law. That organization need not directly build or operate services, but may contract for
those activities.
Governance concepts shall account for involvement of at least Livingston and Washtenaw
Counties, and some or all of the local units of government (townships, cities, etc.) within those
counties. The approach should strive to be geographically and politically inclusive. Governance
concepts shall describe the proposed representation of any organization and each local unit of
government.
Governance concepts shall be developed with the advice of a representative group of local
elected officials and with input from the community in general. The consultant should expect
that discussion of governance concepts will be lengthy and involve many different stakeholders.
The process, milestones and outcomes of this task shall frequently be presented in open public
meetings.
It is desirable to conclude the study effort with a viable consensus among all stakeholders as to
the preferred governance structure, but it is recognized that such an outcome may not be
possible within budget constraints.
13. Develop Funding Concepts
Based on laws applicable to the State of Michigan, and based on known federal, state and local
funding programs, develop funding concepts for N-S Rail development and operations. The
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
9
funding concepts should also include a specific role for passenger fares, and identify concrete
opportunities for private sector involvement, including but not limited to direct funding, indirect
funding (such as tax increment financing), or promotional fare incentives. Innovative funding
techniques (e.g. naming rights) should be identified, but only to the extent such techniques have
been used elsewhere in the US in comparable situations.
Funding models shall explicitly address issues of the distribution of funding impacts among the
local units of government involved in the governance structure.
It is desirable to conclude the study effort with a viable consensus among all stakeholders as to
preferred funding model(s), but it is recognized that such an outcome may not be possible
within budget constraints.
Funding concepts must be consistent with the governance proposals, and shall be developed
with the advice of a representative group of local elected officials.
As with discussions of governance (above), the consultant should expect that discussion of
funding concepts will be lengthy and involve many different stakeholders. The process,
milestones and outcomes of this task shall frequently be presented in open public meetings.
14. Financial Analysis (Cost Effectiveness Analysis)
Develop a cost-effectiveness analysis of each service concept, using techniques consistent with
relevant FHWA and FTA guidelines. Include description of recommended approaches to
securing funding for the next level of project development, e.g. Environmental Assessment,
design development, engineering, land acquisition, preparation of FRA management plans, etc
15. Performance Monitoring System
Create a system for measuring the operating and financial performance of the N-S Rail service.
List important measures and the efforts needed to collect data. For each measure, create a goal
or standard indicating the desired performance thresholds.
17. Safety and Security Concepts
Capital and operating plans, including cost estimates, shall incorporate safety and security
elements and practices consistent with current best practices in the transit industry.
18. Consistency with Regional Plans and Planning Practices
All tasks must be undertaken in a manner consistent with the applicable practices and
assumptions used by the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), the Southeast MI
Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and Livingstone County and Washtenaw County planning
departments, unless there are compelling reasons not to use such information. For example,
WATS’ and SEMCOG’s target years for ridership forecasts and financial forecasts should be used
by N-S Rail-related analysis. As another example, accepted and /or formally-adopted data from
WATS, SEMCOG and the counties should be used as the basis for analysis of traffic or land-use
patterns. The intent of this requirement is not to endorse one agency’s plans, data or practices
over another’s. Rather the intent is to ensure consistency among plans and clarity for
stakeholders and the public.
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
10
19. Consistency with Federal Guidelines
All tasks must be undertaken in a manner consistent with the guidelines of the FTA and the
FHWA, and it is the consultant’s responsibility to learn and document those guidelines. If there
are conflicts between the guidelines, the consultant must inform the client and participate in
communications with the Federal Agencies to resolve the conflicts.
20. Optional Tasks:
a. Confirm / update national commuter rail comparison: TheRide has assembled a set of
information describing N-S Rail community and operating characteristics, which compares
this information to the 20 US commuter rail operations that have begun service since 1983.
The existing report is shown in the Appendices. The consultant shall review and update the
report based on conversations with, or surveys of, the peer organizations.
b. N-S Rail Conference – Design and convene a half- to one-day conference of project
stakeholders to discuss the N-S Rail concept and offer ideas for service, governance and
funding. This conference might be held early in the project to gather ideas about issues to
study, or near the end of the project to assess acceptance of findings and appetite for
additional development work.
V. Key Deliverables
The foregoing tasks will produce information that should be assembled into one or more deliverables.
Format, timing and version control of project deliverables and background materials shall be clearly
identified with dates, page numbers, and version number. Deliverables must be in recent versions of
MS Word, MS Excel or MS PowerPoint.
All graphic images must be supplied as jpeg’s in a size and resolution sufficient to be used for printed
materials. Graphics produced by programs other than those listed above (e.g. Adobe Illustrator) shall
also be delivered in editable formats native to that application, unless otherwise agreed upon. All
background files shall be submitted to the client upon request, and shall be clearly documented.
The following is a list of deliverables that are to be created, consistent with the task list above. The list is
intended to identify critical documents that seem to be required to describe the process and outcomes
of each task. The consultant however is free to restructure or add to the list, in order to create a set of
documents that makes sense for the project, and is consistent with the consultant’s proposed work
program.
FHWA/FTA/MDOT
Work Plan/Budget Review Purposes Only
(content deleted for cost solicitation)
ESTIMATED
TIMEFRAME
DELIVERABLE
ESTIMATED
COST
Summary of Project
Purpose & Need Statement
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
11
Alternatives Summary / Comparative Analysis of
Alternatives / Preferred Alternative
Planning & Environmental Linkage Analysis with NEPA
Recommendations
Description of Green Principles
Public and Stakeholder Involvement Reports


Meeting summaries for Public Information
Log of comments/questions and resolution for client
reference

Public involvement materials (fact sheets, maps,
brochures, posters, slide shows, announcements,
web sites, press releases)
Preliminary Project Description(s) for Review
Detailed Project Analysis
Detailed Project Description











Estimate Service Demand
Station Selection Summaries
Draft Service Plans for Evaluation
Outline Connecting Bus Services
Project Capital Investment and Costs (including
equipment procurement)
Project Operations and Costs
Project Management details
Description of near term and long term funding
strategy
Description of potential governance strategy
Description of stakeholder involvement, needs and
positions
Specific obstacles to implementation of the project
Detailed Action Plan with:
 Implementation Schedule, Budget, Performance
Monitoring Plan

Conformance to Federal Guidelines
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
12
Optional Tasks

Commuter Rail Comps

N-S Rail Conference
ESTIMATED TOTALS
VI. Project Management
On the client side, the project will be co-managed by MDOT and AAATA, with Kris Foondle and Michael
Benham, respectively, as project managers working cooperatively to ensure that consistent direction is
given to the consultant. The consultant shall designate a single individual as a project manager with
overall responsibility for directing the work and communicating progress, issues, etc. to the client.
The consultant’s project manager will maintain the task list and timeline for the project and regularly
update same whenever conditions require a deviation from the original task list and timeline. Changes
affecting the project timeline by more than one month shall be immediately reported to the MDOT and
AAATA project managers.
The consultant project manager will provide regular status reports as agreed to with the client. The
project will be managed on the basis of submission of key deliverables and key milestones. Invoicing
and payment will be made based on completion of key deliverables.
Project guidance will also be provided by a Project Steering Committee consisting of local government
officials. A tentative list of expected Steering Committee participants is below:















USDOT, Federal Highways Administration
USDOT, Federal Transit Administration
Livingston County
Washtenaw County
City of Howell
Genoa Township
Hamburg Township
Northfield Township
Washtenaw County
City of Ann Arbor
University of Michigan
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
Washtenaw Area Transportation Study
Michigan Department of Transportation
Ann Arbor Area Transportation Study
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
13
Additional assistance will be provided by a Project Advisory Committee consisting of community
organizations and businesses, including at least the following organizations:









Friends of WALLY
Great Lakes Central Railroad
Ann Arbor Railroad
Livingston Essential Transportation Services (L.E.T.S.),
Howell Chamber of Commerce
Howell Downtown Development Authority
Other Local Chambers of Commerce
Sierra Club
Any other organizations with an interest in the project but not having a management role
in the project.
VII. Timeframe
It is desired that the work begin on July 1, 2014 and be completed no later than December 30, 2015.
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
14
APPENDICES







Washtenaw Livingston Rail Line (Wally) Technical Review; Final Report and Revised Draft
Business Plan; RL Banks and Associates; 2008
Community survey data
Updated Cost & Revenue Worksheet
N-S Rail Ann Arbor Downtown Station Study Final Report
N-S Rail Minimum Operating Configuration work by TheRide and MDOT
Comparison of US Commuter Rail Projects; TheRide; 2011
(Layover design concepts –if separate from “Minimum Operating Configuration”)
N-S Rail Feasibility
5-5-14 FINAL w/o BUDGET
15

Download Report