Responses to the request for expressions of interest
1 / 6

Responses to the Request for Expressions of Interest - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Updated On :

Responses to the Request for Expressions of Interest. Congestion Mitigation Commission. November 20, 2007. WHY DO AN RFEI?. Provide insights to the Commission on any technical or implementation challenges related to the mayor’s plan and alternatives/adjustments

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Responses to the Request for Expressions of Interest' - saul

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Responses to the request for expressions of interest l.jpg

Responses to the Request for Expressions of Interest

Congestion Mitigation Commission

November 20, 2007

Why do an rfei l.jpg

  • Provide insights to the Commission on any technical or implementation challenges related to the mayor’s plan and alternatives/adjustments

  • Gain formal comments on the implementation of pricing- and technology-based congestion mitigation systems from the firms with the deepest knowledge on the subject

  • Gain input that can help shape an RFP to be issued after legislative determination of what plan will be adopted

  • Begin work towards implementation in order to preserve the option for any plan to be implemented in time for the UPA-imposed deadline of March 31, 2009

Questions asked in rfei l.jpg

  • Discuss ideas related to:

    • Technology Choices

      • E-ZPass

      • License Plate Recognition

      • Automatic Vehicle Identification

    • Communications

    • Interoperability with E-ZPass

    • Operations

    • Enforcement

    • Maintenance

    • Privacy

    • Urban Design

    • Traffic Data Monitoring

Questions used Mayor’s plan as a base, but explicitly included consideration of some variations the Commission might endorse

Responses received l.jpg

  • MacroVision

  • Majesco-Mastek

  • Mark IV

  • Northrup Grumman/Congestion Solutions Group

  • PA Consult

  • PBS&J

  • Raytheon

  • Remington ELSAG Law Enforcement Systems, LLC

  • Siemens

  • Skymeter

  • SpeedInfo

  • Steer Davies Gleave

  • TransCore

  • Wilbur Smith Associates

  • 30 responses received from 30 firms or consortia

  • Several were complete end-to-end consortia, but many responded to only one component or question

  • Responses now available (excluding business-sensitive information) on EDC’s website (

  • 3M with CSE Global Ltd and MSI Global

  • Accenture

  • Alcatel-Lucent

  • Autostrade

  • Booz Allen

  • Boston Consulting Group

  • Capita/CmaT

  • Consulting Stream

  • ConSysTec

  • Diamond Consultants

  • FlexToll

  • HopStop

  • IBM Global Business Services

  • Kapsch TrafficCom AG

  • KPMG

  • Liberty Imaging

Issues raised findings from rfei l.jpg

Basic approach validated

  • Wide response from firms with direct experience confirmed feasibility of the concept

  • EZ-Pass, with license plate identification for non-EZ-Pass users, clearly the best approach

  • Multiple concepts were suggested for providing uncharged travel on peripheral roadways

  • Implementation schedule of March 31, 2009, was identified as ambitious, although several firms expressed confidence in achieving it. Key risks identified include communications system, urban design/approvals, field testing, and EZ-Pass IAG agreements

  • Several firms proposed actions to reduce the risk of implementation delay:

    • Flexibility in terms of authorizing legislation to allow the City to make decisions during implementation

    • Fewer charging points to reduce extent of the system

    • Phased implementation

  • Several respondents proposed approaches to ensure privacy of data, including

    • Timely elimination of unneeded records

    • Encryption of any data transmitted wirelessly

    • Protocols for use of data by employees

  • Public education, outreach to specific impacted user groups, and signage will be necessary to ensure smooth start and ongoing operation, as was the case in London

  • Question remains whether the project should have its own customer service center or be integrated into the existing NY E-ZPass Customer Service Center

  • Separate back office may be necessary

  • Incentives for increased EZ-Pass adoption are needed to streamline system and reduce operating costs

Implementation timeline ambitious

Privacy concerns can be addressed

Issues noted for focus in RFP

Next steps l.jpg

  • City/EDC team will continue to analyze responses and may request meetings with some respondents

  • Findings will inform technical input to Commission staff and development of framework for RFP

  • RFP framework will serve as model for City to use if a congestion mitigation plan is adopted legislatively; if one is, the framework will be refined to suit the plan approved and issued

  • Responses available from link on home page at