DOCSLIB.ORG

Request for Proposal for Transit Operations and Maintenance Services

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Request for Proposal for Transit Operations and Maintenance Services REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES Solano County Transit (SolTrans) Vallejo, California SOLICITATION NO. 2020-RFP-02 PROPOSALS DUE Tuesday, January 12, 2021 ISSUED FOR SOLICITATION Friday, October 16, 2020 2020-RFP-02 2 of 282 October 16, 2020 NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS ........................................................................................ 5 A. Obtaining Documents ........................................................................................ 5 B. Validity of Proposals .......................................................................................... 5 C. Required Pre-Proposal Conference ................................................................... 5 D. Proposal Inquiries and Contacts ........................................................................ 5 E. Equal Employment Opportunity and DBE/SBE Requirements .......................... 6 SECTION 1. GENERAL INFORMATION ........................................................................ 7 1.1 PROCURING AGENCY AND PROJECT MANAGER .......................................... 7 1.2 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW ...................................................................... 7 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE RFP ........................................................................... 8 1.4 SOLTRANS’ RIGHTS ......................................................................................... 8 1.5 PROPOSERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................................... 9 1.6 CONSEQUENCE OF SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL ....................................... 10 1.7 COST OF SUBMITTING PROPOSALS ............................................................ 11 SECTION 2. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................... 13 2.1 AGENCY DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 13 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 15 2.3 COMPENSATION AND MANNER OF PAYMENT ............................................ 16 SECTION 3. SCHEDULE AND SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS ................................... 19 3.1 SCHEDULE ...................................................................................................... 19 3.2 DUE DATE AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION .................................................... 19 3.3 PROPOSAL PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS ................................................... 19 3.4 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE AND REGISTRATION ................................. 20 3.5 PROPOSER COMMUNICATIONS AND REQUESTS ....................................... 20 3.6 ADDENDA TO RFP .......................................................................................... 21 3.7 CONDITIONS, EXCEPTIONS, RESERVATIONS OR UNDERSTANDINGS ....... 22 3.8 MODIFICATION OR WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS..................................... 22 3.9 CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE ............................................................................ 23 3.10 ACCURACY IN REPORTING REQUESTED INFORMATION ............................ 23 SECTION 4. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 25 4.1 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT .................................................................... 25 4.2 PROPOSAL FORMAT, PAGE LIMITATION, AND CONTENT ........................... 25 2020-RFP-02 3 of 282 October 16, 2020 4.3 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................... 25 4.4 PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT .................................................. 26 4.5 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM ....................................................................... 26 4.6 PRICE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS .............................................................. 32 4.7 INSURANCE .................................................................................................... 34 4.8 PERFORMANCE BOND ................................................................................... 34 4.9 WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT PROPOSED ARRANGEMENTS .......................... 34 SECTION 5. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION ........................................ 35 5.1 PROPOSAL EVALUATION, NEGOTIATION AND SELECTION ........................ 35 5.2 OPENING OF PROPOSALS ............................................................................. 36 5.3 EVALUATION COMMITTEE ............................................................................. 36 5.4 DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIVENESS ...................................................... 37 5.5 PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA .............................................................. 37 5.7 EVALUATION PROCEDURES .......................................................................... 41 5.8 BEST AND FINAL OFFERS (BAFO) .................................................................. 43 5.9 CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROPOSALS .............................................................. 44 5.10 RESPONSE TO PROPOSALS .......................................................................... 45 SECTION 6. PROTEST PROCEDURES....................................................................... 47 6.1 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 47 6.2 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................ 47 6.3 GENERAL ......................................................................................................... 47 6.4 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................... 47 6.5 PROTEST PROCEDURES ................................................................................ 48 2020-RFP-02 4 of 282 October 16, 2020 NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS NOTICE IS GIVEN that sealed proposals are requested by Solano County Transit, (SolTrans), a Joint Powers Authority, for Transit Operations and Maintenance Services. All proposals shall be submitted in response to the conditions of this REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS for Transit Operations and Maintenance Services (hereinafter referred to as RFP), dated Friday, October 16, 2020, said RFP being on file in the offices of SolTrans located at 311 Sacramento Street, Vallejo, California, 94590. Proposals must be contained in sealed envelopes and appropriately labeled as described in the Section entitled Schedule and Submittal Instructions. Proposals must be received at the offices of SolTrans, on or before Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. All times listed in this RFP are in the Pacific Standard Time zone unless otherwise indicated. Proposals received after the due date may be returned unopened. A. Obtaining Documents Proposal documents may be obtained electronically at: soltrans.org/more/resources/doing-business-with-SolTrans/procurements B. Validity of Proposals Proposals and subsequent offers shall be valid for a period of not less than one hundred twenty (120) days after proposal deadline. C. Required Pre-Proposal Conference A required pre-proposal conference will be held on Wednesday, October 28, 2020, via Zoom. Advance registration is required for participation in the teleconference. Please see 3.4 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE AND REGISTRATION for details. D. Proposal Inquiries and Contacts Inquiries may be submitted via email, personal delivery, or by mail (return receipt requested). Proposal inquiries submitted by personal delivery shall be deemed received at the date and time of delivery. SolTrans is under no obligation to consider any proposal inquiries that are not submitted as provided herein. More information, and all communications regarding this Request for Proposal, including those seeking clarification of the RFP documents, must be submitted in writing (email preferred), and directed to: John Sanderson Project Manager 311 Sacramento Street Vallejo, CA 94590 [email protected] 2020-RFP-02 5 of 282 October 16, 2020 (707) 736-6990 All emails sent to SolTrans and/or its Project Manager are the sole responsibility of the PROPOSER to confirm receipt. E. Equal Employment Opportunity and DBE/SBE Requirements It is SolTrans’ policy to ensure that Contractors shall not discriminate based on race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, physical disability or other protected class in the performance of SolTrans contracts. Although there is no specific goal or requirement to include Disadvantage Business Enterprises (DBE) for this project, SolTrans highly encourages the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). SolTrans encourages all prime Contractors to use qualified SBE (Small Business Enterprise) sub-Contractors on SolTrans projects, and promotes the direct purchase of goods from qualified SBEs by utilizing SBE vendors when such vendors are available and the price of the goods or services sought is reasonable. 2020-RFP-02 6 of 282 October 16, 2020 SECTION 1. GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 PROCURING AGENCY AND PROJECT MANAGER Solicitation No.: 2020-RFP-02 Procuring Agency: Solano County Transit (SolTrans) Address: 311 Sacramento Street Vallejo, CA 94590 Project Manager: John Sanderson Telephone No.: (707) 736-6990 E-mail: [email protected] 1.2 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW This Request for Proposals (RFP) is being issued by SolTrans pursuant to the Federal Transit Administration’s Best Value Procurement Guidelines to select an independent contractor for Transit Operations and Maintenance Services. Staff of the successful
Load more

Recommended publications
  • H. Parks, Recreation and Open Space
    IV. Environmental Setting and Impacts H. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Environmental Setting The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department maintains more than 200 parks, playgrounds, and open spaces throughout the City. The City’s park system also includes 15 recreation centers, nine swimming pools, five golf courses as well as tennis courts, ball diamonds, athletic fields and basketball courts. The Recreation and Park Department manages the Marina Yacht Harbor, Candlestick (Monster) Park, the San Francisco Zoo, and the Lake Merced Complex. In total, the Department currently owns and manages roughly 3,380 acres of parkland and open space. Together with other city agencies and state and federal open space properties within the city, about 6,360 acres of recreational resources (a variety of parks, walkways, landscaped areas, recreational facilities, playing fields and unmaintained open areas) serve San Francisco.172 San Franciscans also benefit from the Bay Area regional open spaces system. Regional resources include public open spaces managed by the East Bay Regional Park District in Alameda and Contra Costa counties; the National Park Service in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties as well as state park and recreation areas throughout. In addition, thousands of acres of watershed and agricultural lands are preserved as open spaces by water and utility districts or in private ownership. The Bay Trail is a planned recreational corridor that, when complete, will encircle San Francisco and San Pablo Bays with a continuous 400-mile network of bicycling and hiking trails. It will connect the shoreline of all nine Bay Area counties, link 47 cities, and cross the major toll bridges in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County Transit District Administrative Building Bacciocco Auditorium - Second Floor 1250 San Carlos Ave., San Carlos, CA
    BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2011 KARYL MATSUMOTO, CHAIR JERRY DEAL, VICE CHAIR JEFF GEE CAROLE GROOM ROSE GUILBAULT SHIRLEY HARRIS ZOE KERSTEEN-TUCKER ARTHUR L. LLOYD ADRIENNE TISSIER A G E N D A MICHAEL J. SCANLON GENERAL MANAGER/CEO COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (Accessibility, Senior Services, and Community Issues) San Mateo County Transit District Administrative Building Bacciocco Auditorium - Second Floor 1250 San Carlos Ave., San Carlos, CA WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011 – 2:00 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Community Relations Committee Meeting of November 9, 2011 INFORMATIONAL 3. Accessibility Update - Tina DuBost 4. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Update - Nancy Keegan 5. Citizens Advisory Committee Liaison Report - Peter Ratto 6. Mobility Management Report – Fixed-route Bus Service 7. Multimodal Ridership Report - October 2011 Committee Members: Rose Guilbault, Carole Groom, Shirley Harris NOTE: • This Committee meeting may be attended by Board Members who do not sit on this Committee. In the event that a quorum of the entire Board is present, this Committee shall act as a Committee of the Whole. In either case, any item acted upon by the Committee or the Committee of the Whole will require consideration and action by the full Board of Directors as a prerequisite to its legal enactment. • All items appearing on the agenda are subject to action by the Board. Staff recommendations are subject to change by the Board. SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 1250 SAN CARLOS AVENUE, SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE NOVEMBER 9, 2011 Committee Members Present: R.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: Environmental Setting and Consequences
    CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES This chapter presents information on the environmental setting in the project area as well as the environmental consequences of the No-Electrification and Electrification Program Alternatives. Environmental issue categories are organized in alphabetical order, consistent with the CEQA checklist presented in Appendix A. The project study area encompasses the geographic area potentially most affected by the project. For most issues involving physical effects this is the project “footprint,” or the area that would be disturbed for or replaced by the new project facilities. This area focuses on the Caltrain corridor from the San Francisco Fourth and King Station in the City and County of San Francisco to the Gilroy Station in downtown Gilroy in Santa Clara County and also includes the various locations proposed for traction power facilities and power connections. Air quality effects may be felt over a wider area. 3.1 AESTHETICS 3.1.1 VISUAL OR AESTHETIC SETTING The visual or aesthetic environment in the Caltrain corridor is described to establish the baseline against which to compare changes resulting from construction of project facilities and the demolition or alteration of existing structures. This discussion focuses on representative locations along the railroad corridor, including existing stations (both modern and historic), tunnel portals, railroad overpasses, locations of the proposed traction power facilities and other areas where the Electrification Program would physically change above-ground features, affecting the visual appearance of the area and views enjoyed by area residents and users. For purposes of this analysis, sensitive visual receptors are defined as corridor residents and business occupants, recreational users of parks and preserved natural areas, and students of schools in the vicinity of the proposed project.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Packet Is Available for Download at Sanfranciscobayferry.Com/Weta
    Members of the Board BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING Jody Breckenridge, Chair Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. Jeffrey DelBono San Francisco Bay Area Timothy Donovan Water Emergency Transportation Authority Anthony J. Intintoli, Jr 9 Pier, Suite 111; San Francisco The full agenda packet is available for download at sanfranciscobayferry.com/weta. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER – BOARD CHAIR 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL 3. REPORT OF BOARD CHAIR Information 4. REPORTS OF DIRECTORS Information 5. REPORTS OF STAFF Information a. Executive Director’s Report b. Monthly Review of Financial Statements c. Legislative Update 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Action a. Board Meeting Minutes - April 2, 2015 b. Authorize Filing Applications with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for FY 2015/16 Regional Measure 2 Operating Funds c. Authorize the Filing of an Application with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for $12,000,000 Regional Measure 2 Capital Funds d. Approve Amendment to Agreement with GHD for Engineering and Construction Support Services for the North Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED BALLPARK FARE CHANGES Timed Item 1:00 p.m. 8. APPROVE BALLPARK FERRY SERVICE FARE CHANGES Action 9. APPROVE FISCAL YEAR 2015/16 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET Action 10. AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE Action A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO FERRY TERMINAL EXPANSION PROJECT 11. APPROVE FY 2015-2018 TITLE VI PROGRAM Action 12. AUTHORIZE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A Action LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES NAVY FOR THE WATERSIDE PHASE OF THE NORTH BAY MAINTENANCE FACILITY Water Emergency Transportation Authority May 7, 2015 Meeting of the Board of Directors PROJECT 13.
    [Show full text]
  • Mission District
    CITY WITHIN A CITY: HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT FOR SAN FRANCISCO’S MISSION DISTRICT November 2007 Prepared by: City and County of San Francisco Planning Department ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Mayor Gavin Newsom Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Lily Chan Robert W. Cherny, Vice President Courtney Damkroger Ina Dearman Karl Hasz M. Bridget Maley, President Alan Martinez Johanna Street Planning Department Dean Macris, Director of Planning Neil Hart, Chief of Neighborhood Planning Mark Luellen, Preservation Coordinator Matt Weintraub, Citywide Survey Project Manager (Author) Thanks also to: N. Moses Corrette, Rachel Force, and Beth Skrondal of the Historic Resources Survey Team Survey Advisory Committee Charles Edwin Chase San Francisco Architectural Heritage (former Executive Director), Historic Preservation Fund Committee Courtney Damkroger Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Neil Hart Planning Department Tim Kelley Kelley & VerPlank Historical Resources Consulting M. Bridget Maley Architectural Resources Group, Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Mark Ryser San Francisco Beautiful Marie Nelson California Office of Historic Preservation Christopher VerPlank Kelley & VerPlank Historical Resources Consulting CITY WITHIN A CITY: HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT FOR SAN FRANCISCO’S MISSION DISTRICT The activity which is the subject of this Historic Context Statement has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation. Regulations of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • SRTP Cover V2
    Solano Transportation Authority Short Range Transit Plan Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) August 20, 2013 Solano Transportation Authority Short Range Transit Plan Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) Page intentionally left blank August 20, 2013 | Arup North America Ltd Solano Transportation Authority Short Range Transit Plan Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) Fairfield and Suisun Transit Short Range Transit Plan FINAL REPORT August 2013 Prepared for Solano Transportation Authority One Harbor Center, Suite 130 Suisun City, CA 94585 Fairfield and Suisun Transit 2000 Cadenasso Drive Fairfield, CA CA 94533 Prepared by Arup 560 Mission Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105 August 30, 2013 | Arup North America Ltd Solano Transportation Authority Short Range Transit Plan Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) Page intentionally left blank August 20, 2013 | Arup North America Ltd Solano Transportation Authority Short Range Transit Plan Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) Short Range Transit Plan FY2012-13 to FY2022-23 Date Approved by Governing Board: August 20, 2013 Date Approved by STA Board: September 11, 2013 Federal transportation statutes require that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), in partnership with state and local agencies, develop and periodically update a long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which implements the RTP by programming federal funds to transportation projects contained in the RTP. In order to effectively execute these planning and programming responsibilities, MTC requires that each transit operator in its region which receives federal funding through the TIP, prepare, adopt, and submit to MTC a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The Board adopted resolution follows this page.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.0 Affected Environment
    Chapter 3 3.0 Affected Environment 3.1 Traffic and Transportation Systems This section presents an overview of the traffic and transportation systems in the vicinity of the Hercules ITC in Hercules, California, as well as along the broader I-80 corridor between the Carquinez and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridges. The existing transportation modes include roadways, railways, and pedestrian/bicycle trails. The transportation portion of the proposed project includes development of a bus-to-train connection for an anticipated usage of up to 837 riders per day (Fehr & Peers 2009), extending John Muir Parkway, and providing a 220-space surface parking lot (on Block N) in the near- term. In the long-term, a transit area garage with approximately 450 spaces would be constructed. The proposed project would improve access to public mass transit and would be a benefit to the residents and workers in the vicinity of the Hercules ITC and the region. In fact, the majority of transit riders using the Hercules ITC are projected to come from the new residential units located within one-half mile of the transit center and the immediate surrounding cities and communities of Hercules, Pinole, and Rodeo-Crockett. Residents and commuters from the unincorporated communities of Contra Costa and Solano counties along I- 80 east of Hercules are also likely to utilize the Hercules ITC. The traffic related to the proposed project would result in minor net benefit to the area-wide transportation systems that serve the seven-million people who live in the Bay Area. Detailed traffic discussion, therefore, focuses on the cities of Hercules, Pinole, and Rodeo-Crockett (the area of western Contra Costa County).
    [Show full text]
  • Muni Map 2015.Pdf
    map 76X – Weekend service to Marin Headlands Golden Gate Bridge 0 0.25 mi ew San Francisco Transit Map vi te Pier 39 a Ave M G Fisherman’s 13th Ave H Wharf Muni Metro BART/Caltrain Ave D 10 minutes or less Ave B Marin PresidiGo Shuttle e Jefferson 9th 76X – Weekend service Beach Muni Rapid to Montgomery/Market 10 minutes or less Line Terminals Lin Marina Green co North Point Treasure ln Casa B Marina Island 4th l Rico v d One way d Fort Mason Bay 10 minutes or less JeffersonPrado Cervantes Blvd Francisco Beach Powell/Hyde Cable Car California Nonstop Coit The Embarcadero Davis & Pine Mason M Chestnut Tower a Powell North PointCapra llo rc L Avila a a Every 20-300-0 minutes Gorgas y r y o b Moscone Lombard kw n Bay m Underground P lha Rec. Center Exploratorium Presidio A o led d o Greenwich R Francisco T d Lincoln BlvdHalleck Girard n Accessible a Filbert l s I Every 30-600-0 minutes Chestnut Ferry Plaza d Columbus e Powell/Mason Metro/Rapid Stops v r l (Steuart & Market) Montgomery Union u B PresidiGo service Cable Car s a Yerba Buena L Lombard e n to downtown r e r l T tt Pixley Transbay Tube T o e Island Non-Accessible Funston r Ahlers Van Ness Green c ma n n Greenwich i Moraga Presidio Express Metro/Rapid Stops L S um r n Vallejo u e Roger h Filbert Drumm t r Ar Point of Interest ac Sherman Broadway M Davis rd Union a Ferry rn Presidio a M Simonds Loop Justin Building Embarcadero San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Historic Streetcar B ort Pacifc Hospital W on Green Rodriguez Portola W y MacArthur Herman r a r Plaza a a Jackson s u h s Liggett Library in h Arguello Q VallejoVallejo g in Clark to g Sibley to Washington Front n n Montgomery Battery Sansome Cable Car Broadway Kearny Grant Steuart School Bromley Clay Stockton Pacifc Powell Baker Taylor Embarcadero Mission & Main Market St.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Memorandum Balboa Park Station Area Plan Archeological Context I Final
    TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM BALBOA PARK STATION AREA PLAN ARCHEOLOGICAL CONTEXT I FINAL Date 3 November 2006 To File No 2004 1059E Balboa Park Station Area Plan From Randall Dean of resources Topic an evaluation of potential presence significance archeological within the Balboa Park Station Area Plan area OBJECTIVES for the of this memorandum is information environmental The purpose provide background evaluation of the proposed Balboa Park Station Area Plan BPSAP regarding potential effects resources resources as to legally-significant archeological C'significant archeological and To achieve this the memorandum defined by CEQA 15064 5b c1 objective the basis for a provides an historic context of the Plan Area to serve as preliminary of that be identification and significance evaluation archeological properties may present information in this is within the Plan Area The historical and archeological provided report related the Plan Area and on and based on secondary archeological literature to primary General Land Office secondary historical documentation including historic maps US plats Census US Coast Surveys Sanborn Fire Insurance maps etc US Bureau population the Western Project historical schedules city directories Municipal Reports Neighborhoods discussion of the reports etc This report provides a general program-level general types that be within the Plan Area and property types of archeological resources may present affected future under the General thus potentially by physical projects proposed regulatory identification of Plan and Planning
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX A. Agenda Item 7A Income-Based Transit Fare Discount Pilot
    APPENDIX A. Agenda Item 7a Income-Based Transit Fare Discount Pilot Program Fare Equity Analysis Board of Directors Meeting Wednesday December 16, 2020 TRI DELi.4 TRANSIT Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority 801 Wilbur Avenue• Antioch, California 94509 Phone 925.754.6622 Fax 925.757.2530 Income-Based Transit Fare Discount Pilot Program Fare Equity Analysis November 2020 Page 11 Table of Contents Agency Information .......................... .. ........................................................ ....................................................................... 2 Background and Purpose ............................................ ............................................................ ........... ................................ 2 ECCTA Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Policy .. ....................... ................................. ............................... 4 Existing Conditions ....... .......... ....................................................... ............ ......................................................................... 6 1. Clipper Fare Type Available on Fixed Route Buses ............................................................................... ...... ...... 6 2. Table 1: Adult Clipper Single-R ide General Public Fi xed Route Fare Cost.. ...................................................... 6 3. Table 2: Single- Ride General Public Fare Payment Methods by Fare Type on ECCTA Fixed Route Buses ... .... 6 Proposed Change to Fare Type and Fare with Pi lot Program .................
    [Show full text]
  • South Mission Historic Resources Survey Historic District Description
    San Francisco Planning Department – South Mission Historic Resources Survey Historic District Description Shotwell Street Victoriana East side of Shotwell Street between 21st and 22nd Streets. Boundaries: Shotwell Street between 20th and 25th Streets, as well as portions of South Van Ness Avenue and Folsom Street Period of Significance: 1865 – 1905 Eligibility: National Register of Historic Places Thematic Summary: This north‐south linear area in the central Mission District resembles an “ideal” Victorian‐era suburban neighborhood: a corridor of mostly high‐style architecture and detached, single‐family dwellings for the 19th‐century middle classes. Located between very early streetcar lines on Howard (South Van Ness Avenue) and Folsom Streets, the area developed as one of the Mission’s early, prototypical residential neighborhoods. This historic district, comprised of 134 contributors and 182 total properties, contains significant concentrations of some of the oldest extant properties in the Mission District, as well as some of the area’s finest architectural examples. Here may be found extraordinarily well‐preserved buildings that date to the mid‐ 1860s, including largely unaltered Greek Revival and “National” style folk Shotwell Street Victoriana Historic District Page 1 of 4 San Francisco Planning Department – South Mission Historic Resources Survey Historic District Description residences, as well as extremely early Italianate style dwellings. In addition, the district includes grand townhomes, flats and residences from the early 1870s through the turn of the century. Shotwell Street, one of San Francisco’s most representative and best‐preserved 19th‐century streetscapes, serves as the north‐ south spine of the district. The district also includes remnants of the famed “mansion row” along South Van Ness Avenue, formerly prestigious Howard Street, and portions of Folsom Street.
    [Show full text]
  • SAMTRANS CORRESPONDENCE As of 8-28-2020
    SAMTRANS CORRESPONDENCE as of 8-28-2020 From: Richard Marcantonio To: Hartnett, Jim Cc: Collins, Ron [[email protected]]; Groom, Carole [[email protected]]; Matsumoto, Karyl [[email protected]]; Pine, Dave [[email protected]]; Navarro, Miguel [[email protected]]; Eduardo Gonzalez; Ledezma, Paola; Board (@samtrans.com) Subject: SamTrans Board Resolution to Endorse and Implement MTC’s “Healthy Transit Plan” Date: Friday, August 28, 2020 2:39:53 PM Attachments: 2020-08-28-SamTrans Letter re Healthy Transit Plan.pdf 2a - 20-1297 BRTRTF Healthy Transit Plan Update.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the San Mateo County Transit District. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply. Dear Mr. Hartnett: Please find attached a letter requesting your response by September 9. Specifically, we ask that you provide the details and timeline for the public process SamTrans will conduct as it develops its implementation plan in connection with the Bay Area “Healthy Transit Plan” (also attached). If SamTrans has already adopted its implementation plan, we ask that you provide us with a copy of that plan. Thank you for your courtesy. Richard Marcantonio, Managing Attorney Public Advocates Inc. Board of Governors Fred W. Alvarez Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP Alina Ball UC Hastings College of the Law Lee McEnany Caraher Double Forte PR and Marketing Barbara J. Chisholm Altshuler Berzon LLP Carolyn Clarke Retired Finance Executive August 28, 2020 Kendra Fox-Davis UC Office of the President BY EMAIL: [email protected] Sergio Garcia Centro Legal de la Raza Jim Hartnett, General Manager/CEO San Mateo County Transit District Martin R.
    [Show full text]