UPDATE... the Transportation and Transit Planning Department has made the recommendation to use a Non-Local company and one that is 142% more than our proposal. We have plan on attending the City Council meeting on Thursday and are reviewing our options and based on the outcome of that meeting we may appeal the decision/vote. To read the Recommendation that is being made, please CLICK HERE.

The following letter was sent via email to the following Park City City Council Members:

Jack Thomas, Mayor: jack.thomas@parkcity.org
Andy Beerman: andy@parkcity.org
Tim Henney: tim.henney@parkcity.org
Cindy Matsumoto: cindy.matsumoto@parkcity.org
Nann Worel: nann.worel@parkcity.org
Becca Gerber: becca.gerber@parkcity.org

Our email was sent to the council_mail@parkcity.org as that is the distribution list that forwards to all members. Whether you agree or disagree with our response or the recommendation of the Transportation and Planning Transit Department, we would encourage you to email City Council and let them know your thoughts.

In addition, we would ask for you to attend the City Council Meeting on Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 6:00PM in the City Council Chambers to show your support for your preferred vendor.

Park City City Council:

As you may be aware, around 6:45PM on Monday, September 18, 2017 the Agenda for this Thursday’s “City Council” meeting was posted online. It was at that time that my company, Mountain Transportation Network, one of three finalists for the Microtransit RFP, learned of the recommendations of the Transportation and Planning Transit Department.

We were shocked to learn that the recommendation was to…

  • To award the Bid to a Non-Local Company
    •  Despite Councilmember Beerman’s recommendation that there be “increasing scoring for local hiring” (June 29, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes, Page 10)
  • To spend $680,431 (Downtowner Bid) versus $281,041.44 (Mountain Transportation Network)
    • $399,389.56 or 142% more than the Mountain Transportation Network proposal
  • To use Non All-Wheel-Drive or 4X4 Vehicles
    • Despite Mark Harrington, City Attorney, stated a motion could include a less restrictive “vehicle could be used if it did not sacrifice safety.” (June 29, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes, Page 10)
    • Despite Councilmember Becca Gerber stating that she used a Downtowner in Aspen, Colorado, and indicated the Tesla was the most efficient car for this community. (June 29, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes, Page 10)
    • Non All-Wheel-Drive vehicles will not be able to access The Colony, Sun Peak, Aerie, Deep Park Meadows, Deer Crest, Solamere, Silver Lake, or Empire Pass areas due to incline.
  • Use a Company that wanted to consolidate the Service Zones from 6 to 3
    • The Mountain Transportation Network solution had proposed to include a much broader area, including but not limited to all of Solamere, Silver Lake, Empire Pass, The Colony, and even extend to the Black Rock Ridge / Hospital / Quinn’s Junction areas
  • Use a Company that wanted to just drop off Passengers at Electric Express Bus Stops
    • The Mountain Transportation Network solution would eliminate the need for a Passenger to wait at a Bus Stop as it would bring the passenger to the nearest Bus going in the correct direction (see next comment)
  • Use a Company that did not propose to integrate with the existing MyStop app (something that was desired in the RFP)
    • Page 6 of RFP stated: The vendor shall provide a mobile app for ride hailing with preference given to the ability to integrate into Park City Transit’s existing myStop app. The vendor shall describe their integration process and capability.
    • The Mountain Transportation Network solution fully integrated with the MyStop app as suggested. This would eliminate any wait times at a Bus Stop, something the Recommended Company has not proposed.
  • Use a Company that does not allow for any other Pick-Up/ Drop-Off locations
    • Page 5 of the RFP stated: This program will provide service for those users that request a ride between two street-accessible points within the same Service Area where both the origin and destination are greater than 0.25 miles from the nearest fixed route transit stop.
    • The Mountain Transportation Network application would calculate pick up and drop off locations and would easily determine if Microtransit was an option (based on definition). In the event that Microtransit did not qualify, it would show the Passenger a price and would then ask the Passenger if they would like a car to be sent. Should the Passenger agree to a paid ride (since the ride does not qualify for Microtransit) a fully licensed and permitted vehicle would be dispatched. This would help the existing “For Hire” community and continue to show value for the City’s “White Decal”.

Mountain Transportation Network previously filed GRAMA requests seeking all of the proposals from the other companies AFTER the bids were submitted. Even though these GRAMA requests were submitted over 45 days ago, we have not received completed requests. We did receive a redacted response from Summit County for the Kimball Junction Circular, but to date we have not been granted an un-redacted version (we were fine with personal information still being with-held but there is no reason to redact, as an example, how the Downtowner app would integrate with MyStop).

We also believe that there are several statements in the recommendation from the Department that simply are false and misleading.

As an example, the Recommendation states the following Concerns for our Solution:

  • No clear demonstrated experience providing on demand app based public transportation
    • This is 100% false. Mountain Transportation Network is a partnership with dashride, the leading “On Demand App” for the Livery business. dashride is installed in the Washington DC Metro Area through their “DC Taxi” (https://www.dctaxi.com) that has over 7,000 licensed taxis participating and has 5,000 – 10,000 installs on the Android platform (unfortunately Apple does not disclose the installs on their App Store). The RFP called for two references, and DC Taxi was one of the references provided. It is unclear if the Department contacted DC Taxi as a reference.
    • During the “Final Interview” a graphic was also displayed to the Department showing a sampling of the over 400 installs for the dashride app.
    • Four Seasons Concierge, the local company behind Mountain Transportation Network, also has their own local app which is utilized by many locals, so to state that there is no “experience” with “on demand” is 100% false.
  • Increased financial risk to City based on cost model.
    • We are confused how a solution that cost $281,000 is more of a risk than one that cost $680,000.
    • The Downtowner has no vested interest in the success of this program working. If the City cancels the program then they simple relocate the vehicles to another market; whereas, Mountain Transportation Network, being a local company would be “all in” and do everything possible to ensure the continued success of the program.
  • Potential conflicts of interest with promotion of select private providers using public resources
    • During the RFQ process we asked if the vehicles could be used for “paid” rides outside of the hours of Microtransit and were told they could not, so we are confused as to how there could be a conflict.
    • In fact, Mountain Transportation Network is the ONLY solution that attempts to work with the existing “For Hire” community and has an app in place that ensure that Microtransit Vehicles are ONLY used for Microtransit.
  • Ability to meet project implementation schedule
    • We are confused how this is a concern, as our app is currently available in the Google Play Store and is pending approval in the Apple Store. We have not actively promoted this app as we did not want to have people register for an app before knowing if we would win the Bid.
    • The Tesla vehicles could be on site by the end of October / mid-November, well before the “pilot period” begins.
  • Attention to the City’s needs and objectives as a Client
    • If you review our Proposal and the RFP it matches up almost point-for-point. We planned on integrating with the MyStop app, offered to be an alternative for “off seasons” bus routes (Orange/Purple Lines), work with the local “For Hire” community, work with the existing “Dial a Bus” platform, and extend the hours of operation and coverage area… so we are confused as to how we are not in line with the City’s needs.
    • dashride also stated they would be onsite during the implementation and would continue to travel to Park City to review all reporting and analytics on a monthly basis, as well as provide best practice suggestions based on the trends that their over 400 clients are exhibiting.
  • Insufficient marketing program
    • We proposed local print (Park Record, television (PCTV), radio (KPCW), as well as Facebook Ads, “free rides”, and Corporate Out Reach to local businesses, so we are confused as to what more could be done for marketing. We are also the ONLY one of the three finalists with a local Facebook Page that is working on building community engagement.
  • The Department recommendation states how Downtowner has a cost of $43 per vehicle service hours (as compared to $125 per vehicle for a full service bus), but if you look at the cost for the Mountain Transportation Network solution the cost her vehicle hour is 37% or $12 less… so this is more of an advantage for us versus that of the Downtowner.
  • The Department recommendation states how Downtowner had “attention to customer service”, but their previous submission to the initial RFP was only 1 paragraph, where the submission by Mountain Transportation Network was close to 2 pages, as it pertained to Customer Service.
  • The Department recommendation states that the Downtowner had real-time analytic capabilities, yet the Mountain Transportation Network solution provides, what we believe, to be even more in-depth.

In conclusion, we feel that the recommendation to award the Microtransit RFP bid to Downtowner is factually incorrect and at a cost of more than 142% more than that of our solution is an absurd amount of money to spend for a limited service that uses unsafe vehicles.

We would encourage you to visit our website www.mountaintransportationnetwork.com, where all of our data and proposals have been available for public viewing and download since August 4, 2017.

We kindly ask that you reconsider this recommendation and instead award the Bid to Mountain Transportation Network.

Mountain Transportation Network