HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 4556 - Contract - Bicycle Federation Of America - Comprehensive Bicycle Study - 07_28_1994Resolution No. 4556
Item #17
July 28, 1994
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK:
THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to
execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock a Contract by and between the City of Lubbock
and Bicycle Federation of America, attached herewith, which shall be spread upon the minutes of
the Council and as spread upon the minutes of this Council shall constitute and be a part of this
Resolution as if fully copied herein in detail.
Passed by the City Council this
ATTEST:
A rv-�,L
Betty A Johnson, fity Secretary
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
arty . He el, City Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
q�4u
Harold Willard, Assistant City Attorney
HW ja/BICYCLE.RES
ccdocs/July 18, 1994
Resolution No. 4556
Item #17
July 28, 1994
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THE STATE OF TEXAS S
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK S KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS
This contract is made, entered and executed between the City
of Lubbock, which is designated as the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) of the Lubbock Urbanized area,
hereinafter called the MPO, and the Bicycle Federation of
America, hereinafter called the Consultant.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, pursuant to provisions of 23 USC 134, the Governor
of the State of Texas has designated the MPO to the single -
focus planning organization for the Lubbock Urbanized area
and has executed an agreement to effectuate the designation;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Governor's designation and in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws,
regulations, and ordinances, the MPO has developed and
maintains a current Unified Planning Work Program which
outlines work tasks and estimated expenditures; and,
WHEREAS, the current Unified Planning Work Program has been
approved by the State of Texas, acting by and through the
Texas Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department
of Transportation, acting by and through the Federal Highway
Administration; and
WHEREAS, the current Unified Planning Work Program
authorizes the MPO to engage a consultant to complete a
Comprehensive Bicycle Study and the Consultant has proposed
a plan to complete the task, and the MPO has accepted the
proposal;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises of the
mutual covenants and agreements of the parties hereto, the
MPO and the Consultant do mutually agree as follows.
AGREEMENT
Article 1. Contract Period
This contract becomes effective when fully executed by all
parties and shall terminate upon the MPO's final approval of
work completed by the Consultant, unless otherwise
terminated or modified as hereinafter provided.
The time period for the completion of the project shall not
exceed the eight (8) months time frame submitted by the
Consultant unless prior written approval has been granted.
Article 2. Responsibilities of the Parties
The Consultant will undertake and complete the task as
described in Attachment A, Approved Project Description, and
in accordance with all terms and conditions included
hereinafter.
The MPO shall provide assistance as appropriate and as
specified in said Attachment A, including approval of all
work.
Article 3. Compensation
The maximum amount payable under this contract will not
exceed the amount of $50,000.00. The MPO may make partial
proportionate payments based on the amount of work completed
by the Consultant.
All payments made hereunder will be made on the basis of
reimbursement of actual costs incurred, not to exceed the
limits authorized in Attachment B, Approved Project Budget.
To be eligible for reimbursement, a cost must be incurred
within the contract period specified in Article 1 above and
be authorized or not prohibited in Attachment B, Approved
Project Budget. All costs must be supported by source
documents which comply with generally accepted accounting
practices.
Payment of costs incurred is further governed by cost
principles outlined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation,
Part 31, Subpart 31.2, Contracts with Commercial
Organizations.
Article 4. Contract Amendments
Significant changes in the terms and conditions of this
contract can be made only by written amendment executed by
the parties hereto prior to the changes being made. Any
2
such amendment must be approved by the City of Lubbock and
the U.S. Department of Transportation before changes are
made.
Article S. Additional Work
If the Consultant is of the opinion that any work it has
been directed to perform is beyond the scope of this
contract and constitutes additional work, the Consultant
shall promptly notify the MPO in writing. In the event that
the MPO finds that such work does constitute additional
work, the MPO shall so advise the Consultant and provide
compensation for doing the work on the same basis as the
original work or the MPO shall advise the Consultant not to
perform the work. If the compensation for the additional
work will cause the maximum amount payable to be exceeded, a
written amendment will be executed. Any amendment so
executed must be approved within the contract period
specified in Article 1.
Article 6. Changes in Work
When the approved budget description requires a completed
work product, the MPO will review the work as specified in
the approved project description. If the MPO finds it
necessary to request changes in previously satisfactorily
completed work or parts thereof, the Consultant will make
such revisions as requested and directed by the MPO. Such
work will be considered as additional work and subject to
the requirements established in Article 5.
If the MPO finds it necessary to require the Consultant to
revise completed work to correct errors appearing therein,
the Consultant will make such corrections, and no
compensation will be paid for the corrections.
Article 7. Indemnification
The Consultant shall save harmless the MPO from all claims
and liability due to the acts or omissions of the
Consultant, its agents or employees. The Consultant also
agrees to save harmless the MPO from any and all expenses,
including attorney fees, all court costs and awards for
damages, incurred by the MPO in litigation or otherwise
resisting such claims or liabilities as a result of any
activities of the Consultant, its agents or employees.
Further, the Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify, and
save harmless the MPO from and against all claims, demands
and causes of action of every kind and character brought by
any employee of the Consultant against the MPO due to
personal injuries and/or death to such employee resulting
from any alleged negligent act, by either commission or
omission on the part of the Consultant or the MPO.
Article S. Inspection of Work
The MPO, the State of Texas, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation, and any authorized representative thereof,
have the right at all reasonable times to inspect or
otherwise evaluate the work performed or being performed
hereunder and the premises on which it is being performed.
If any inspection or evaluation is made on the premises of a
subcontractor, the Consultant shall provide and require his
subcontractor to provide all reasonable facilities and
assistance for the safety and convenience of the inspectors
in the performance of their duties. All inspections and
evaluations shall be performed in such a manner as will not
unduly delay the work.
Article 9. Disputes
The Consultant shall be responsible for the settlement of
all contractual and administrative issues arising out of
procurements entered into in support of contract work.
The MPO shall act as referee in all disputes regarding non
procurement issues, and the MPO's decision shall be final
and binding.
Article 10. Noncollusion
The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained
any company or person, other that a bona fide employee
working for him, to solicit or secure this contract, and
that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person,
other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission,
percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration
contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of
this contract. If the Consultant breaches or violates this
warranty, the MPO shall have the right to annul this
contract without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct
from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise
recover the full amount of such fee, commission, brokerage
fee, gift, or contingent fee.
Article 11. Reporting
The Consultant shall submit bi-monthly performance reports
that provide as a minimum (1) a comparison of actual
accomplishments to the goals established for the period, (2)
reasons why established goals were not met, if appropriate,
and (3) other pertinent information including, when
appropriate, analysis and explanation of cost overruns or
high unit costs.
4
The Consultant shall submit a final report within 30 days
after completion of the contract.
The Consultant shall promptly advise the MPO in writing of
events which have a significant impact upon the contract,
including:
1. Problems, delays, or adverse conditions which will
materially affect the ability to attain program
objectives, prevent the meeting of time schedules and
goals, or preclude the attainment of project work units
by established time periods. This disclosure shall be
accompanied by a statement of the action taken, or
contemplated, and any assistance needed to resolve the
situation.
2. Favorable developments or events that enable meeting
time schedules and goals sooner than anticipated or
producing more work units than originally projected.
Article 12. Records
The Consultant agrees to maintain all books, documents,
papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to
costs incurred and work performed hereunder and shall make
such materials available at its office during the contract
period and for three years from the date of final payment
under the contract. Such materials shall be made available
during the specified period for inspection by the authorized
representatives of the MPO, the State of Texas, the U.S.
Department of Transportation and the Office of the Inspector
General, for the purpose of making audits, examinations,
excerpts, and transcriptions.
Article 13. Subcontracts
Any subcontract for professional services rendered by
individuals or organizations not a part of the Consultant's
organization shall not be executed without prior
authorization and approval of the subcontract by the MPO.
Subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain all required
provisions of this contract.
No subcontract will relieve the Consultant of his
responsibility under this contract.
Article 14. Termination
The MPO may terminate this contract in part or in whole at
any time before the date of completion whenever it is
determined that the Consultant has failed to comply with the
conditions of the contract. The MPO shall give written
notice to the Consultant at least seven days prior to the
effective date of termination and specify the effective date
of termination and the reason for termination.
If both parties to this contract agree that the continuation
of the contract in whole or in part would not produce
beneficial results commensurate with the further expenditure
of funds, the parties shall agree upon the termination
conditions, including the effective date and, in the case of
partial terminations, the portion to be terminated.
Upon termination of this contract, whether for cause or at
the convenience of the parties hereto, all finished or
unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, reports, maps,
drawings, models, photographs, etc., prepared by the
Consultant shall, at the option of the MPO, be delivered to
the MPO with no restriction on future use.
The MPO shall compensate the Consultant for those eligible
expenses incurred during the contract period which are
directly attributable to the completed portion of the work
covered by this contract, provided that the work has been
completed in a manner satisfactory, and acceptable to the
MPO. The Consultant shall not incur new obligations for the
terminated portion after the effective date of termination.
Except with respect to defaults of subcontractors, the
Consultant shall not be in default by reason of any failure
in performance of this contract in accordance with its terms
(including any failure by the Consultant to progress in the
performance of the work) if such failure arises out of
causes beyond the control and without the default or
negligence of the Consultant. Such causes may include, but
are not limited to, acts of God or of the public enemy, acts
of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual
capacity, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions,
strikes, freight embargoes, and unusually severe weather.
In every case, however, the failure to perform must be
beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of
the Consultant.
Article 15. Remedies
Violation or breach of contract terms by the Consultant
shall be grounds for termination of the contract, and any
increased cost arising from Consultant's default, breach of
contract, or violation of terms shall be paid by the
Consultant.
This agreement shall not be considered as specifying the
exclusive remedy for any default, but all remedies existing
at law and in equity may be availed of by either party and
shall be cumulative.
6
Article 16. Compliance with Laws
The Consultant shall comply with all Federal, State, and
local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, and
the orders and decrees of any courts or administrative
bodies or tribunals in any matter affecting the performance
of this contract, including, without limitation, worker's
compensation laws, minimum and maximum salary and wage
statutes and regulations, and licensing laws and
regulations. When required, the Consultant shall furnish
the MPO with satisfactory proof of its compliance therewith.
Article 17. Successors and Assigns
The MPO and the Consultant each binds itself, its
successors, executors, assigns, and administrators to the
other party to this agreement and to the successors,
executors, assigns, and administrators of such other party
in respect to all covenants of this agreement. Neither the
MPO nor the Consultant shall assign, sublet, or transfer his
interest in this agreement without written consent of the
other.
Article 18. Debarment/Suspension
The Consultant is prohibited from making any award or
permitting any award at any tier to any party which is
debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or
ineligible for participation in federal assistance programs
under Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension.
The Consultant shall require any party to a subcontract or
purchase order awarded under this contract as specified in
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 29
(Debarment and Suspension) to certify its eligibility to
receive federal funds and, when requested by the State, to
furnish a copy of the certification.
Article 19. Ownership of Documents
Upon completion or termination of this contract, all
documents prepared by the Consultant or furnished to the
Consultant by the MPO shall be delivered to and become the
property of the MPO. All sketches, photographs,
calculations, and other data prepared under this contract
will be made available, upon request, to the MPO without
restriction or limitation of further use.
Article 20. Consultant Resources
The Consultant warrants that it presently has adequate
qualified personnel in its employment for performance of
services required under this contract, or will be able to
obtain such personnel from sources other than the MPO.
Unless otherwise specified, the Consultant shall furnish all
equipment, materials, and supplies required to perform the
work authorized herein.
All employees of the Consultant shall have the knowledge and
experience as will enable them to perform the duties
assigned to them. Any employee of the Consultant who, in
the opinion of the MPO, is incompetent, or whose conduct
becomes detrimental to the work, shall immediately be
removed from association with the project.
Article 21. Equal Employment Opportunity
The Consultant agrees to comply with Executive Order 11246
entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity" as amended by
Executive Order 11375 and as supplemented in Department of
Labor Regulations (41 CFR 60).
Article 22. Nondiscrimination
During the performance of this contract, the Consultant its
assigns and successors in interest, agrees as follows:
1. Compliance with Regulations: The Consultant shall
comply with the regulations relative to
nondiscrimination in federally -assisted programs of the
U.S. Department of Transportation, Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 21 and Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 710.405(b), as they may be
amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as
the Regulations), which are herein incorporated by
reference and made a part of this contract.
2. Nondiscrimination: The Consultant, with regard to the
work performed by it during the contract, shall not
discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, or
national origin in the selection and retention of
subcontractors, including procurements of materials and
leases of equipment. The Consultant shall not
participate either directly or indirectly in the
discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 and Part
710.405(b) of the Regulations, including employment
practices when the contract covers a program set forth
in Appendix B of the Regulations.
3. Solicitations for Subcontracts, Including Procurements
of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations
either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by
the Consultant for work to be performed under a
subcontract, including procurements of materials or
leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or
supplier shall be notified by the Consultant of the
Consultant's obligations under this contract and the
Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the
grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin.
4. Information and Reports: The Consultant shall provide
all information and reports required by the
Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto, and
shall permit access to its books, records, accounts,
other sources of information, and its facilities as may
be determined by the Texas Department of Transportation
with such Regulations or directives. Where any
information required of the Consultant is in the
exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to
furnish this information, the Consultant shall so
certify to the Texas Department of Transportation or
the U.S. Department of Transportation as appropriate,
and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain
the information.
5. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the
Consultant's noncompliance with nondiscrimination with
the nondiscrimination provisions of this contract, the
Texas Department of Transportation shall impose such
contract sanctions as it or the U.S. Department of
Transportation may determine to be appropriate,
including but not limited to:
withholding of payments to the Consultant under
the contract until the Consultant complies, and/or
• cancellation, termination, or suspension of the
contract in whole or in part.
6. Incorporation of Provisions: The Consultant shall
include the provisions of paragraphs 1 through 6 in
every subcontract, including procurements of materials
and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the
Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto. The
Consultant shall take such action with respect to any
subcontract or procurement as the MPO may direct as a
means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions
for noncompliance; provided, however, that in the event
a Consultant becomes involved in, or is threatened with
litigation with a subcontractor or supplier as a result
of such direction, the Consultant may request the MPO
to enter into such litigation to protect the interests
of the MPO; in addition, the Consultant may request the
United States to enter into such litigation to protect
the interests of the United States.
Article 23.Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
It is the policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation
that Minority Business Enterprises as defined in 49 CFR 23,
Subpart A, shall have the maximum opportunity to participate
in the performance of contracts financed in whole or in part
with Federal funds. Consequently the Minority Business
Enterprise requirements of 49 CFR 23, exclusive of Subpart
D, apply to this contract as follows:
The Consultant agrees to insure that Minority Business
Enterprise as defined in 49 CFR 23, Subpart A, have the
maximum opportunity to participate in the performance
of contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in
part with Federal funds. In this regard, the
Consultant shall take all necessary and reasonable
steps in accordance with 49 CFR 23, exclusive of
Subpart D, to insure the Minority Business Enterprises
have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform
contracts.
The Consultant and any subcontractor shall not
discriminate on the basis of race, color, national
origin, or sex in the award and performance of
contracts funded in whole or in part with Federal
funds.
These requirements shall be physically included in any
subcontract.
Failure to carry out the requirements set forth above shall
constitute a breach of contract and, after the notification
of the State, may result in termination of the contract by
the State or other remedy as the State deems appropriate.
Article 24. Nondiscrimination of the Basis of Disability
The Consultant agrees that no otherwise qualified disabled
person shall, solely by reason of his disability, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of,
or otherwise be subject to discrimination under the project.
The Consultant shall insure that all fixed facility
construction or alteration and all new equipment included in
the project comply with applicable regulations regarding
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs and
Activities Receiving and Benefiting from Federal Financial
Assistance, set forth at 49 CFR Part 27, and any amendments
thereto.
Article 25. Delinquent Tag Certification
Pursuant to Article 2.45 of the Business Corporation Act,
Texas Civil Statutes, which prohibits the State from
awarding a contract to a corporation that is delinquent in
10
paying taxes under Chapter 171, Tax Code, the Consultant
hereby certifies that it is not delinquent in its Texas
franchise tax payments, or that it is exempt from or not
subject to such tax. A false statement concerning the
corporation's franchise tax status shall constitute grounds
for cancellation at the sole option of the State.
Article 26. Signature Warranty
The undersigned signatory for the Consultant hereby
represents and warrants that he is an officer of the
organization for which he has executed this contract and
that he has full and complete authority to enter into this
contract on behalf of his firm.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the MPO and the Consultant have caused
this contract to be executed, but the contract shall not be
valid until signed by a duly authorized representative of
each party.
11
BICYCLE FEDERATION OF AMERICA \ THE MPA//--
By: By
William C. Wilkinson, III id R. Lang
Executive Director Pity of Lubbock
Date: ����94 Date: July 28, 1994
ATTEST
By: i?o� k�c)�L
Betty A. Johnso
City Secretary
Date: July 28, 1994
APPROVED TO O
Lary Hert
City Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM
9ZA--�z k.
arold Willard
Asst. City Attorney
12
ATTACHMENT A - APPROVED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
13
ATTACHMENT A
SCOPE Of WORK
Task 1-- Refine Study Design
The purpose of this task is to confirm the project schedule, goals, and objectives as well
as to establish a working relationship with the City of Lubbock.
The project will begin with an informal work session with the MPO staff to ensure a
common understanding of overall project goals and objectives, general plan of work,
and to consider how best to meet ISTEA planning regulation requirements, especially as
they concern the public involvement process. The task will include reviewing the
requirements and desires of the MPO and any other agency involved in the project,
and the incorporation of these requirements and desires into the project within the
framework of ISTEA and the scope of the work.
Regular opportunities for exchange of information between the BFA/HDR Team and the
MPO staff will be established. Such opportunities will include meaningful meetings and
work sessions as well as monthly progress reports between face-to-face conferences.
The end product of this task will be a detailed Work Plan with critical milestones
identified.
Task 2--Needs Assessment
Two of the three stated objectives of this task are:
• Determine who rides, and
• Where they ride (origin and destination).
To answer these questions, as well as provide an opportunity for the public to help
define the goals, objectives, and performance criteria of their community's bicycle
plan, a series of public meetings that incorporate directed discussion techniques and
small focus groups are suggested. At these meetings, participants will also be given an
opportunity to learn more about bicycle facility planning and the ISTEA process. They
will also receive questionnaires that contain maps of the Lubbock Metropolitan
Boundary Area. The questionnaires and maps will solicit data about demographics;
levels of cycling experience, ability, and frequency; origins, destinations, and routes
traveled of frequent bicycle trips; and specific problems that hinder or limit cycling in
the Lubbock Metropolitan Boundary Area. An effort will be made to invite all cyclist
types representative of the Lubbock area as well as key representatives of the City of
Lubbock, Texas Tech University, the Lubbock City school system, and local bike clubs to
the meetings.
The BFA/HDR Team will then refine the data gleaned from completed questionnaires
and the public's vision for a bicycle -friendly Lubbock, and translate this information into
performance criteria that will be useful in answering the dual question posed by the
third objective of this task —"Where and what type of bicycle facility would be most
appropriate?" The 'Where" part of the question is addressed in Task 4—Plan
Development. The 'what type of part of the question is discussed below.
Developing a set of performance criteria is often helpful in determining what types of
bicycle facilities are most appropriate for a given set of users. For instance, the AASHTO
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1991) states that the following factors
should be considered to determine facility type, location, and priority:
1. Barriers
10.
Pavement surface quality
2. Accidents
11.
Truck and bus traffic
3. Directness
12.
On -street motor vehicle parking
4. Access
13.
Traffic volumes and speeds
5. Attractiveness
14.
Cost/funding
6. Security
15,
Local laws
7. Delays
16.
Bridges
8. Use conflicts
17.
Intersection conditions
9. Maintenance
This list is based on a Federally funded research report prepared by the Bicycle
Federation of America in 1986.
Another consideration to take into account when determining facility type is the
concept of the "design bicyclist." Once the type of bicyclist(s) in the various areas of
Lubbock is known and defined, appropriate types of facilities can be recommended.
Another publication, the FHWA manual, Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to
Accommodate Bicycles, also prepared by the BFA, is particularly useful in associating
types of bicycle facilities with types of bicyclists likely to use them. For planning
purposes, the FHWA guide states that we can distinguish between two types of
bicyclists:
• Type A —Advanced Bicyclists. Experienced riders who can operate under most
traffic conditions. They are best served by making every street "bicycle -friendly."
• Type B/C—Basic Adult Bicyclists and Children. They are best served by identifying
key travel corridors and by providing designated bicycle facilities on selected
routes through these corridors.
The same manual lists the following as important qualitative and quantitative variables
to be considered in determining the desirability and effectiveness of a bicycle facility
network:
1. Accessibility 5. Low conflict
2. Directness 6. Cost
3. Continuity 7. Ease of implementation
4. Route attractiveness
The BFA Team will use both documents as a basis for developing a set of performance
criteria and determining what types of facilities are most appropriate for a given set of
bicyclist types.
The end product of this task will be a document that summarizes the public's vision and
their idea of what would constitute a more bicycle -friendly Lubbock, identifies who is
riding, details where they are riding, recommends a set of performance criteria for
choosing bicycle facilities, and identifies what type of bicycle facilities (if any are
suggested) to consider during Task 4—Plan Development —which could prove best suited
for various types of Lubbock bicyclists.
Task 3--Analysis of Existing Streets
The purpose of this task is to:
• Review the existing transportation system,
• Examine typical accident data,
• Review major intersection design, and
• Review major street sections.
Please note that the objective to "Choose corridors best suited for bicycle routes" stated
in the RFP is proposed under Task 4 below.
The BFA/HDR Team will perform an inventory and evaluation of the roadway system
and of any existing bicycle facilities.
For key segments of the roadway system, elements such as annual average daily traffic
(AADT) counts, the network of collector and arterial streets, and the location and nature
of potential barriers and bottlenecks to bicycle travel, among other factors, will be
reviewed. The design of major intersections and typical street sections will also be
studied. To the extent possible, key roadway segments will be assessed by bicycle. This
information, along with routes recommended and specific problem areas identified by
bicyclists in Task 2—Needs Assessment —as described above, will be used in Task 4—Plan
Development —described below.
The condition, location, and level of use of existing bicycle facilities will be assessed to
determine if they can be incorporated into a proposed network of designated bicycle
routes. In order that existing bicycle facilities might be used as a part of a proposed
network, the assessment will note what improvements, if any, would be required to bring
the facilities up to uniform design and operations standards.
The BFA/HDR Team will perform a simple review of accident/user types occurring in the
Lubbock area and compare them to national accident/user types to determine
whether the subject area is like or unlike the national experience. In 1977. Dr. Ken Cross
produced the report, A Study of Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Accidents, that associated
specific accident types with types of bicyclists and developed countermeasures to help
reduce accident rates among bicyclists.
The end product of this task will be information that will be incorporated into a final
report as well as a preliminary map that details current roadway conditions and
problem locations, current bicycle corridors, and existing bicycle facilities.
Task 4--Plan Development
The purpose of this task is to:
0 Choose corridors best suited for bicycle routes,
Identify facilities most viable and safest for the community,
• Coordinate proposed routes for future arterials and collectors of metropolitan areas,
• Provide a map detailing existing and proposed facilities,
• Detail short and long range bicycle facility improvements, and
• Provide cost estimates, funding sources, and methods of implementation.
People basically want and need to go to and from the same origins and destinations,
regardless of mode. Also, most adults have a mental map of their community based on
their experience as motor vehicle operators. Thus, they tend to orient themselves by the
location of major streets and highways. Therefore, much can be predicted about the
travel desire lines of bicyclists by looking at the travel demand lines of motor vehicles,
with appropriate adjustments to take into consideration the impact of longer travel
times and the fact that many children will be primary operators.
Using the desire lines of bicyclists gathered from the survey conducted in Task 2, the
existing network of bicycle facilities identified in Task 3, the existing street system, and
the existing travel demand lines of motor vehicles, the BFA/HDR Team will develop a
preliminary corridor map of bicycle travel desire lines. Adjustments will be made to this
corridor map to take into consideration such things as:
• Schools —especially colleges and universities —including elementary and secondary
schools, and major employment centers, and
• Parks, libraries, and recreational facilities that tend to attract a proportionally higher
percentage of bicycle trips.
The next step is to select specific routes within these corridors that can be designed or
adapted to accommodate Type B/C bicyclists and provide these cyclists with access
to the locations mentioned above. The aim is to identify routes that best meet the
performance criteria established in Task 2.
To detail design treatments for specific routes, the BFA/HDR Team will use standards for
design treatments originally developed for the FHWA by the Bicycle Federation of
America. These are based on the type of bicyclists expected to use the route, and
traffic operational and design factors. For each corridor, information obtained
previously will be taken into account as potential alignments are identified. The in-
depth knowledge the BFA/HDR Team will have gained about the local roadway
network by this time will be of considerable benefit during this process.
For each corridor, a specific route and types of bicycle facility design treatments will be
specified.
At this point, and after an in-depth review by the MPO of the proposed routes has been
completed, the BFA/HDR team strongly recommends a second series of public meetings
to present its preliminary findings. Even though all persons are welcome to attend,
everyone who attended the first set of meetings —including representatives of the City of
Lubbock, Texas Tech, Lubbock schools, and bike clubs —will be mailed a specific
invitation to participate. Public input gathered at these meetings will be carefully
considered and incorporated into a final plan.
The product of this task will be a map detailing a comprehensive system of
recommended bike routes that are most viable and safest for the community,
recommendations for bicycle -friendly designs for all roadways, a list of proposed short
and long range facility improvements including spot improvements to correct specific
problem locations identified by local bicyclists, a complete inventory of work needed
to implement the recommendations, cost estimates of the work to be performed, a
review of potential funding sources, and proposed methods for implementing the
recommendations.
Task 5--Public Involvement
The purpose of this task is to:
• Produce two public meetings,
• Work with the City of Lubbock, Texas Tech, Lubbock schools, and bike clubs, and
• Provide monthly updates to Long Range Planning Committee.
To accomplish this task, the BFA/HDR Team will conduct a series of public meetings
during the initial phases of the project (see Task 2). This first set of meetings is intended
to gather input from bicyclists and the general public to help define what their vision of
a more bicycle -friendly Lubbock might be, to learn something about who is bicycling at
the present, and where bicycling is currently taking place. The meetings will
incorporate directed discussion techniques and small focus groups. Surveys will be
distributed.
A second series of public meetings will be held later in the project after a preliminary
map of bicycle corridors has been defined (see Task 4). The purpose of this second set
of meetings will be to seek input from bicyclists and the general public in the process of
defining where possible corridors will occur to confirm our findings and to determine
whether the type of facilities being considered will meet their needs. Input gathered at
this series of meetings will be considered and incorporated into the final
recommendations.
Participation by representatives of the City of Lubbock, Texas Tech, Lubbock schools,
and local bike clubs will be solicited for both meetings. Communication between these
groups and the BFA/HDR Team is encouraged outside the framework of these meetings
as well.
The BFA/HDR Team suggests that it involve the MPO Long Range Planning Committee
and keep the Committee informed as follows:
• Meet with Committee during Task 1 as study design is refined.
• Meet with Committee during first set of public meetings.
• Meet with Committee during second set of public meetings.
Meet with Committee during presentation of final products.
• Communicate with Committee via written monthly progress reports between
meetings.
Task 6--Products
The purpose of this task is to present the results of the analysis in a planning document
and a map.
The BFA/HDR Team will prepare a final planning document that will serve as an element
of the MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan.
One of the strengths of the Bicycle Federation of America is our ability to recommend
specific strategies designed to integrate bicycle considerations into regular ongoing
policies and programs as well as other initiatives to promote the greater use of bicycles
as a mode of transportation. This document will include such a discussion and review.
In addition, the document will contain performance criteria for bicycle facilities that
have been developed as a result of this investigation; an analysis of accident types
and suggested countermeasures; a review of major intersection design and typical
street sections; a discussion of recommended bicycle -friendly roadway design
treatments and bicycle facility types; a list of the specific bicycle facilities being
recommended, and cost estimates; potential funding sources; and methods of
implementation for the facilities. The document will also include a summary of the
public involvement activities undertaken as a part of this project.
The BFA/HDR Team will also prepare a map or maps that detail(s) current roadway
conditions and problem locations, key bicycle corridors, existing and proposed bicycle
facilities, and proposed routes for future arterials and collectors of the Lubbock
Metropolitan Boundary Area.
Key Personnel
The Bicycle Federation of America and HDR Engineering, Inc. have identified the
following key personnel as being available, eminently qualified, and ideally -suited for
the project
Bicycle Federation of America
R. Bruce Burgess, R.A., Director, Vermont office, Bicycle Federation of America
Andrew D. Clarke, Project Manager, Bicycle Federation of America
Charles Gandy, Project Manager, Bicycle federation of America
John E. Williams, Project Manager, Bicycle Federation of America
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Robert B. Lutz Jr., P.E., HDR Engineering, Inc.
David A. Cheeney, A.I.C.P., HDR Engineering, Inc.
C. David Feske, P.E., R.A., A.I.C.P., HDR Engineering, Inc.
Chi Co Dao, P.E., HDR Engineering, Inc.
William B. Hagood, P.E., HDR Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT B - APPROVED PROJECT BUDGET
.......
........... .... ...........
....... . . . . . .
.. ....
.... .....
... ... ......
.. . . .......... ..... . ......
..... .....
......
........
.............
..........
.............
Task 1
Refine Study Design
2.5%
2.5%
5.0%
Task 2
Needs Assessment
12.5%
2.5%
15.0%
Task 3
Analysis of Existing
12.5%
12.5%
25.0%
Streets
Task 4
Plan Development
20.0%
15.0%
35.0%
Task 5
Public Involvment
7.5%
2.5%
10.0%
Task 6
Products
5.0%
5.0%
10.0%
Total
60.0%
40.0%
100.0%
The Bicycle Federation of America proposes to allocate its
share of the estimated contract amount as follows:
Bill Wilkinson - Executive
Director
$92
22
$2,024
R. Bruce Burgess - Director,
Vermont office
$58
51
$2,958
Andrew Clarke Project Manager
$48
178
$8,544
Charles Gandy Project Manager
$48
42
$2,016
John Williams Project Manager
$38
298
$11,324
Travel
$3,134
Total BFA Fee
$30,000
Total HDR Fee
$20,000
Total Estimated Project Budget
$50,000
14
Hourly Rate Calculations include the following:
Direct Labor $ X
Fringe (33 percent of Direct Labor) $ .33X
Overhead (70 percent of the sum of Direct $.70(X+.33X)
Labor and Fringe)
Profit or Fee (0 Percent) $ 0
Fully Loaded Hourly Rate (X+.33X+.70(X+.33X))$ 2.26X
Note: This method of determining fully -loaded hourly rates
for the Bicycle Federation of America personnel has been
approved and is currently being used on FHWA projects.
HDR Engineering proposes to allocate its share of the
estimated contract amount as follows:
:.;:.
ltt
8taa0c�
8t3.�ne4ted
furs
+Coast
William Hagood, P.E. - Senior Vice
$46
8
$368
President
Pete Jacobs, P.E. - Project
$35
66
$2,310
Manager
David Feske, P.E. - Project
$26
6
$156
Engineer
Richard Cambern - Design
$21.11
56
$1,182
Technician
Dan Martin - Drafter
$17.75
56
$994
[Clerical Staff
$15.23
28
$426
Overhead Cost
$8,372
Printing and Reproduction
$1,712
Travel Costs
$869
Computer @$15.00 Hr.
$420
CARD @$20.00 Hr.
$1,120
Profit
$2,071
Total HDR Fee
$20,000
15
Detailed Estimate of
Distribution of
BFA Charges
by Task
and Personnel
i
Personnel
Wilkinson
Burgess
Clarke
Gandy
Williams
Rate
$92
$58
$48
$48
$38
Hours
22
51
178
42
298
Total Fee to Earn
$2,024
$2,958
$8,544
$2,016
$11,324
Task 1 - Refine Study Design
Labor(S776)
Hours
3
4
2
2
2
Fee
$276
$232
$96
$96
$76
Travel (S474)
Task 2 - Needs Assessment
Labor ($5,740)
Hours
Fee
5
12
40
8
60
Travel (S510)
$460
$696
$1,920
$384
$2,280
Task 3 - Anal. of Existing Streets
Labor($5,740)
Hours
Fee
5
12
40
8
60
Travel (S510)
$460
$696
$1,920
$384
$2,280
Task 4 - Plan Development
Labor ($9,476)
Hours
Fee
5
12
64
8
128
Travel(S524)
$460
$696
$3,072
$384
$4,864
Task 5 - Public Involvement
Labor (S2,884)
Hours
Fee
3
8
16
16
16
Travel ($1,116)
$276
$464
$768
$768
$608
Task 6 - Products
Labor ($2,250)
Hours
Fee
1
3
16
0
32
Travel(SO)
S92
S174
$768
$0
S1,216
Subtotals
Hours
Fee
22
51
178
42
298
$2,024
$2,958
$8,544
$2,016
$11,324
Grand Total
BFA Fee
$26,866
BFA Travel
3,134
Total
$30,000
16
Detailed Estimate
of Distribution of HDR Charges
by Task and
Personnel
Personnel
Hagood
Jacobs
Feske
Cambern
Martin
Clerical
Rate
$46
$35
$26
$21.11
$17.75
$15.23
Hours
4
66
6
56
56
28
Total Fee to Earn
$368
$2,310
$156
$1,182
$994
$426
Task 1 - Refine Study Design
Labor/overhead/Profit
Hours ($1,098)
4
4
2
0
0
0
Travel($152)
Task 2 - Needs Assessment
Labor/overhead/Profit
Hours ($1,022)
0
10
0
0
0
0
Travel($228)
Task 3 - Anal. of Existing
Streets
Labor/overhead/Profit
Hours ($4,715)
0
16
0
24
24
8
Travel($185)
Task 4 - Plan Development
Labor/overhead/Profit
Hours ($6,015)
0
24
4
24
24
12
Travel (SO)
Task 5 - Public Involvement
Labor/Overhead/Profit
Hours ($946)
4
4
0
0
0
0
Travel ($304)
Task 6 - Products
Labor/Overhead/Profit
Hours ($2,083)
0
8
0
8
8
8
Travel($0)
Subtotals
Hours
Fee (15,879)
8
66
6
56
56
28
Direct Cost Less Travel
($3,252 )
Grand Total
HDR Fee $20,000
17