City of Philadelphia



City of Philadelphia

Philadelphia City Planning Commission

Center City Parking Policy Evaluation

Request for Proposals

Due 4:00 PM, Thursday December 18, 2003

Philadelphia City Planning Commission

Maxine Griffith, AICP, Executive Director

Richard L. Lombardo, Deputy Executive Director

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

The Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) is soliciting proposals from consultants to assist in an evaluation of parking policies and regulations for Center City.

2. STUDY AREA

For the purpose of this study, the boundaries of Center City are defined as: Spring Garden Street to South Street, from the Delaware River to the Schuylkill River.

Center City has historically functioned as the transportation, commercial, institutional, and cultural hub of the City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Region. The Region’s highway and transit networks were designed to converge on Center City. Large investments have been made in stores, offices, and hotels to take advantage of business opportunities created by Center City’s accessible location. Major hospitals, foundations, government offices, museums, and schools occupy a significant presence within the study area. Center City’s theaters, concert halls, clubs, and public spaces provide regionally significant venues for performance, celebration, and civic dialogue.

Consistent with its mixed-use, colonial-era origins, Center City supports a diverse housing market comprised of single-family homes, condominiums, apartments, extended-stay hotels, and dormitories. Predominantly residential neighborhoods such as Fitler Square, Washington Square West, and Logan Square sit adjacent to the commercial core. Located in the commercial core are numerous former commercial and industrial properties that have been converted to residential use.

While Center City exhibits continued strengths in housing and hospitality, there are also nagging weaknesses in commercial activity. The mode of travel to Center City, as reported by the Census Bureau, also continues to shift decidedly toward automobiles. The list below illustrates the broad mix of land use and transportation features and activities that compete for space in, and influence the character of, Philadelphia’s Center City:

Land Use

55,000,000 sq. ft. office space

7,000,000 sq. ft. retail space

32,000 housing units

27,000 students enrolled in higher education

12,000 seats in performing arts venues

10,000 hotel rooms

35 places of worship

4 teaching hospitals

A National Park site covering more than six blocks

Numerous museums and other cultural institutions

Transportation

300,000 vehicles per day on Interstate highways through Center City

260,000 daily transit riders on bus and rail lines into Center City

67,000 off-street parking spaces

3. PROJECT BACKGROUND

Center City is a metropolitan center at risk of losing the critical scale of pedestrian amenity, transportation options, and land use diversity that both defines its past and differentiates it from its competition. This risk rises in large degree from the increasing role that the automobile and parking play in Center City development.

Parking in Center City is a recurrent issue, one not likely to be resolved as long as Center City retains the intimate scale that is so important to its attractiveness. Center City was laid out and largely developed before the era of the automobile. It is a welcoming and walkable place, especially compared to other cities whose downtowns are dominated by wide streets necessary to handle large volumes of traffic. However, Americans are accustomed to the convenience and comfort of auto travel, and many of the locations with which Center City must compete for economic activity are places that offer much cheaper and often more convenient parking. People who choose to drive, rather than taking transit or walking, very often have good reasons. But as more and more people make the choice to drive, the competition and conflicts for limited space in Center City increase.

The Philadelphia City Planning Commission has advocated for transportation policy that balances the needs of autos, transit, and pedestrians. Efforts to properly balance the desire of drivers for convenient parking with the need to protect Center City’s transit and pedestrian-friendly characteristics have consistently confronted several issues:

Urban Form/Quality of Life. Recent years have seen significant public opposition to the demolition of still-useful and attractive structures for the construction of parking garages or surface parking lots. In the past, individual parking facilities tended to attract opposition from near neighbors, but criticism is now more widespread and seems motivated by a broader awareness of the threats that additional parking poses to the quality of life in Center City. Such threats include: disruption of engaging streetscapes by parking lots or by over-scaled and unattractive garages; additional vehicular-pedestrian conflicts at parking entrances and exits; and increased traffic congestion. Changes made to the City’s Zoning Code twelve years ago have reduced, but not eliminated, the adverse impacts of parking facilities on the street environment (See “Recent Efforts to Address the Problem” on page 5).

Although it has often been argued that more garages and lots would decrease the number of cars circling the streets in search of parking, this effect is minimal compared to the generation of additional traffic. Additional auto traffic to Center City adds to congestion in the downtown and on the highway approaches. Given the fact that most city streets are only twenty-six feet wide – three narrow lanes, one or two of which are typically occupied with parked or stopped cars – a new parking facility can exceed the capacity of adjoining streets and blocks to comfortably handle additional noise, air pollution, and inconvenience. Valet parking operations often impede efficient traffic flow when conducted on-street.

Cost of Parking. PCPC inventories of Center City parking supply, utilization, and cost document that the cost of parking has increased much faster than the consumer price index over the past 20 years. In 2000, the inflation-adjusted cost of all-day parking was two-and-a-half times what it was in 1980, and the cost to park for one hour was more than three times its 1980 level. The rising cost of parking downtown, especially when suburban parking is still mostly free to the user, is the main reason why some people feel there is a parking crisis in Center City.

The cost of short-term parking is the most serious aspect of this issue. Currently, it costs nearly as much to park for two hours as to park all day in Center City. Another way of looking at this is that the cost per hour for short-term parking is $6.75, while the cost per hour for all-day, commuter parking is only $1.50. Costly short-term parking particularly hurts Center City retail and service establishments. Short-term parkers include tourists, shoppers, medical patients, and financial and legal clients. Unlike commuters, short-term parkers usually travel during off-peak hours when transit alternatives are less convenient. The combination of high-priced parking and poor transit choices may cause many-short-term parkers to choose a destination elsewhere in the City or Region.

Diminished Support for Transit. Even though costs have increased for all-day commuter parking, many people still find that long-term parking fees in Center City remain competitive with transit fares. If relatively low long-term parking rates prompt enough commuters to abandon transit, support for the transit system is weakened, and it becomes difficult for transit providers to maintain high levels of service. The increased traffic congestion associated with more parking also negatively affects the efficiency of surface transit. Buses, shuttles, and trolleys can carry more people with much less impact on the urban environment than automobiles, but these benefits can be negated when surface transit vehicles are delayed by traffic congestion.

Responsibility of Public Entities. The City Planning Commission’s parking inventories do not attempt to measure parking demand. “Demand” is a theoretical concept, and the term “parking demand” is too often used in a way that confuses “wants” with “needs.” When more people are parking in Center City, and willingly paying a parking price that has risen faster than inflation, it is reasonable to conclude that the demand for parking has increased. The issue is what responsibility the public sector should assume for meeting this demand. In recent years, it has been rare for freestanding parking to be built without some sort of public subsidy being sought, such as Tax Increment Financing or Parking Authority participation.

Recent Efforts to Address the Problem

In 1991, Zoning Code changes were made to implement the 1988 Plan for Center City. Several of these changes affected the parking requirements in the commercial core. The changes encouraged developers to place their parking underground, except along Interstate highways at the fringe of Center City. New design controls were introduced to reduce the negative impacts of parking facilities. For example, driveways were prohibited from some of the most important pedestrian streets; the size of garages south of Chestnut Street was limited; and new surface parking lots were significantly restricted.

For some time after 1991, few new parking facilities were built, and the few exceptions mostly did abide by the newer, more stringent, standards. But in the late 1990s, pressure started to grow for more parking, and several large garages were proposed that would violate the 1991 standards. In some instances, negotiations with developers resulted in garage proposals that met most, though not all, the design standards. But by 2002, a garage proposal was approved that required seven variances, and violated most of the key provisions of the 1991 zoning changes. Currently, two garages that were approved several years ago, but never built, are moving towards construction.

1.4 STUDY PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to evaluate current parking regulations and recommend parking policies that can be sustained over time and that fully complement the City’s and Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission’s development visions to reinforce Center City as the metropolitan center of the Greater Philadelphia Region. In addition, this study seeks to build public support for a balanced approach to parking policies and associated regulations that promote Center City as a unique urban place in the Region. The Center City Parking Policy Evaluation will retain a consultant to take a fresh look at the many intertwined issues of parking in Center City. The study will involve reaching out to a wide spectrum of stakeholders, and will bring to Philadelphia a knowledge of strategies employed by other cities in addressing the issues of downtown parking. The study should clarify the subject of parking “demand” and put it into an appropriate context.

5. AMOUNT AND SOURCES OF FUNDING

The maximum amount available for this consultant work is $76,000, funded by the Federal Transit Administration through a grant from the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC).

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES

Task 1 – Review of Existing Parking Conditions and Access to Center City

The consultant shall review existing inventories of parking supply, occupancy, and pricing. An inventory of weekday parking activity is conducted by the Philadelphia City Planning Commission every five years, most recently in 2000-2001. The Central Philadelphia Transportation Management Association (CPTMA) collected information in 2003 from a sample of larger parking facilities. In addition, CPTMA has limited data on evening and weekend occupancy.

The consultant shall also review existing levels of transit service, particularly off-peak service.

Task 2 – Stakeholder Interviews, Current Parking Issues, and Assessment of Parking Demand

The consultant shall interview stakeholders identified by the Steering Committee to gain an overview of the specific problems related to Center City parking. These stakeholder contacts are expected to include elected officials, special services districts, parking industry representatives, leaders of neighborhood and civic associations, and major institutions.

The City Planning Commission shall provide the consultant with the most recent inventory of major development proposals. The consultant shall assess the demand for parking in Center City. This demand “assessment” need not be quantitative, but must take into account the various concerns expressed by the Steering Committee and the stakeholders.

Task 3 – Review of Current and Emerging Practices in Other Cities

The consultant shall contact other cities to identify current practices and emerging innovative approaches towards dealing with downtown parking. The Steering Committee will identify cities that are comparable or relevant to Philadelphia for this task, but the consultant may add any other cities of special interest. Practices to be reviewed will include:

• requirements for and incentives to encourage underground parking

• parking garage and surface lot design standards

• driveway locations

• minimum and maximum parking requirements

• parking caps – for individual facilities, or a wider geographic area

• valet parking for hospitals, restaurants, hotels, etc.

• public subsidies for parking development

• public control over parking rate structures

Task 4 – Remote Parking

The consultant will identify criteria or parameters with which to examine the feasibility of using remote parking as a strategy to deal with Center City parking demand. Remote parking may include parking on the outskirts of Center City, with or without special shuttle service; and/or improved Park-and-Ride arrangements at locations outside Center City.

Task 5 – Development of Alternative Parking Strategies

With the assistance of the Steering Committee, the consultant will propose alternative approaches to Center City parking. Each strategy will include an overall statement of parking policy and appropriate measures consistent with the policy. Measures that may be covered include: revisions to zoning regulations, guidelines for public development and subsidy of parking, valet parking, remote parking, tax changes or controls on parking rates, improved information systems, and other approaches identified by the Steering Committee.

Task 6 – Analysis of Alternative Strategies

The consultant will analyze the probable impacts of each parking strategy on: commuters’ mode of access to Center City, the walkability of Center City, traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, development trends, financial impact on the City, residential vehicle ownership, and other issues that may arise during the course of the study.

Task 7 – Design of Public Outreach

Once the alternative strategies have been developed and the consultant is starting to evaluate their impacts, a mechanism for wider public involvement will be needed. Possibilities include an op-ed piece in the Inquirer, PowerPoint presentations suitable for community group meetings, and/or a Parking Page on the City Planning Commission’s website. The consultant will work with the Steering Committee on the design and implementation of a format for facilitating public discussion of the issues. Proposals should include a discussion of the consultant team’s preferred strategies for public outreach, and a delineation of the role that the proposer would be prepared to take on within the limits of the study budget.

Project Results and Deliverables

• Memos will be submitted summarizing the findings of each task (10 printed copies, plus copies of individual graphics and reports in digital format, to allow for printing and web placement by PCPC)

• Final Report (10 printed copies, plus copies of individual graphics and reports in digital format, to allow for printing and web placement by PCPC)

• Materials for use by City staff in continuing public involvement efforts

3. PHILADELPHIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TASKS

In addition to the consultant effort, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission will be a significant partner in the overall study effort.

Major in-kind contributions of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission may include but not be limited to: project management; provision of digital information on parking supply and rates; writing and distribution of meeting summaries; coordination of community outreach; report copying and distribution.

4. STEERING COMMITTEE

A Steering Committee comprised of interested agencies will be established to provide oversight of the study. These agencies will include the City Planning Commission and the Office of Strategic Planning, and may also include the Managing Director’s Office, the Commerce Department, the Streets Department, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, the Philadelphia Parking Authority, and the Central Philadelphia Transportation Management Association. The consultant will be expected to meet with the Steering Committee a maximum of five times.

5. CONSULTANT SELECTION

5.1 PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING

A pre-proposal meeting will take place at 9:00 a.m. EST, on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 in the Boardroom of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission (Room 18029), 18th Floor, 1515 Arch Street. Attendance is strongly urged. Any clarifications or changes to this Request for Proposals will be circulated via e-mail to all attendees and others who express an interest and supply an e-mail address.

5.2 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

All responses to this Request for Proposals must demonstrate that the proposer has the full range of experience and skills necessary to perform the work outlined under the scope of services.

1. Economically Disadvantaged Minority-Owned, Female Owned, Disabled-Owned Businesses

In accordance with 49 CFR Part 26, it is an objective of the United States Department of Transportation (“U.S. DOT”) and the City of Philadelphia to assure to the fullest extent possible that five to ten percent (5-10%) of the project amount (the “DBE goal”) is awarded to disadvantaged business enterprises (“DBEs”) through prime or subconsulting arrangements. Therefore, proposers are required to make good faith efforts to achieve the DBE goal and assure that certified DBEs are used in this project to the fullest extent practicable.

Good faith efforts are those efforts that demonstrate that the proposers took all necessary and reasonable steps to achieve the DBE goal; these are efforts, which by their scope, intensity and appropriateness to the objective could reasonably be expected to obtain sufficient DBE participation even if the proposer is not fully successful in achieving the goal.

Proposers shall identify and submit with their proposal all contract commitments made with DBEs that are certified by the City of Philadelphia’s Minority Business Enterprise Council (“MBEC”) or through a U.S. DOT approved DBE program. Proposers shall list, on a form entitled “Solicitation for Participation and Commitment Form (“S&C Form”), any certified DBEs that will be utilized for the project, describing the type of work and dollar/percentage amount that their work represents. This information should be submitted with the proposal, although the MBEC reserves the right to request it as well as any additional or clarifying information at any time prior to contract award. In the event the proposer is unable to achieve the DBE goal, the proposer shall submit a narrative with its proposal, documenting any good faith efforts it employed in response to this DBE requirement. These efforts will be evaluated by the MBEC in accordance with the guidelines contained in 49 CFR Part 26 Appendix A. The submission of an S&C Form and a narrative, if required, is an element of responsiveness to this RFP and the failure to submit an S&C Form and/or narrative may result in the rejection of the proposal.

The proposer must verify that all forms, information and documentation submitted to the MBEC are true and correct and is hereby notified that the submission of false information by the proposer is subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Should you have any questions related to DBE-related contract provisions, please call Mr. James A Roundtree, Director of MBEC at 215-686-6372.

5.2.2 Proposal Contents

All proposals submitted must include the following information:

• Proposed project team organization:

Indicate who will participate in the study, including all relevant information on the individual or firm, and detail the specific responsibilities of key project personnel.

• Scope of Services, including schedule:

The proposer shall prepare a proposed scope of services, detailing the work tasks, indicating how the consultant team will approach the work, and including a project schedule. The scope of services in this Request for Proposals shall serve as a guide to the level of detail and technical work to be performed and may be improved upon by the proposer. While the submitted scope of services will form the basis for the contract, all items in the RFP’s scope of services shall, unless specifically excluded, be deemed part of the contract scope.

Note: The study must be completed by June 30th 2005.

• Compensation:

Cost will be a factor in the selection of consultants. The consultant shall present a detailed cost estimate by work task, which shall include the number of hours, salary rate and labor cost for each individual whose resume is included in the proposal. If a sub-contractor is to be employed, a description of the sub-contractor's work to be performed, along with the same information as required of the prime consultant, shall be provided.

• Qualifications and experience:

Any additional information, related to the above scope of services, regarding relevant qualifications and experience of the firms and key people who will be working on the study should be provided.

• Capacity to perform on time:

The consultant should supply evidence of their recent on-time performance record.

5.3 DELIVERY DETAILS

Proposers shall submit seven copies of a proposal containing the information specified above to:

Deborah Schaaf, Project Manager

Strategic Planning and Policy Division

Philadelphia City Planning Commission

One Parkway, 13th Floor

1515 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pa. 19102-1501

Proposals must be submitted no later than 4:00 p.m. EST, Thursday, December 18, 2003.

5.4 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

5.4.1 Oral Presentations

Following an initial review of all proposals submitted, a short-list of firms may be asked to make an oral presentation to the selection committee.

12 Decision Process

The staff of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission will coordinate the evaluation and selection process, which may include other city entities and stakeholders.

The City has the right to reject all proposals.

Factors, among others, that will be considered in the evaluation of proposals include:

• Qualifications and experience of firm(s)

• Qualifications and experience of project staff

• Understanding of study objectives and scope

• Soundness of study organization, method, and work plan

• Ability to communicate, in writing and orally

• Value received

5.5 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Type of Contract

The contract will be on a cost-reimbursable (subject to prior approval) plus fixed fee basis. The fixed fee will be limited to ten percent of labor costs, inclusive of labor overhead, but exclusive of the principals’ time. No overhead or administrative costs may be charged for direct expenses or for sub-consultant costs. Ten percent will be withheld from each invoice pending successful completion of all work.

Auditing and Accounting

The consultant may be post-audited, at the City’s option. Financial records must be kept for three years after completion of the study.

Payment Schedule

A payment schedule mutually agreeable to the City Planning Commission and the consultant will be included in the contract.

Invoicing

Invoices shall be submitted on the consultant’s forms, and will be subject to approval of the City Planning Commission’s Project Manager.

Release of Information and Ownership of Documents

Unless authorized by the City Planning Commission, the consultant will not be allowed to release, or use for its own purposes, any information developed through this study. All materials developed through this study will be the property of the City of Philadelphia.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download