Introduction

The La Crosse Area Planning Committee (LAPC) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the La Crosse, WI-La Crescent, MN Urbanized Area. MPOs are designated for urbanized areas of 50,000 or more in population to carry out the metropolitan transportation planning process as established in 23 CFR 450 and to provide a forum for local decision-making on transportation issues of a regional nature. The designation must be agreed upon by the governor (in our case, the governors of Wisconsin and Minnesota) and the local units of government that together represent at least 75 percent of the affected population (including the largest incorporated city, based on population, as named by the Bureau of the Census).

History

The La Crosse Area Planning Committee (LAPC) was formed in 1966 by intermunicipal agreement as a regional planning committee to develop an areawide transportation study. Its duties were expanded in 1967 to include comprehensive plans.

The 1970 Decennial Census established the La Crosse (Wis.-Minn.) Urbanized Area--population 63,373--which consisted of the cities of La Crosse (population 51,153) and Onalaska and parts of the towns of Campbell and Shelby in La Crosse County, WI; and the then-village of La Crescent and part of the township of La Crescent in Houston County, MN. As a result of the urbanized area (UA) delineation, the LAPC was then designated by the governors of Wisconsin and Minnesota as the metropolitan planning organization for the UA.

The planning area for the MPO must include the UA and additional land anticipated to urbanize over the next 20 years. The current urbanized and planning area boundaries were adjusted and approved in 2023-2025.

Scope and Responsibilities

As required by 23 CFR 450.300, the purpose of metropolitan transportation planning and programming is to:

• Carry out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive performance-based multimodal transportation planning process, including the development of a Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), that:
  • Encourages and promotes the safe and efficient development, management, and operation of surface transportation systems to serve the mobility needs of people and freight;
  • Fosters economic growth and development; and,
  • Takes into consideration resiliency needs, while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution.
• Encourage continued development and improvement of metropolitan transportation planning processes guided by the planning factors (23 CFR 450.306).

Additional LAPC activities that inform and support the planning process include but are not limited to:

• Coordinating with the Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Transportation and public transportation agencies in the development of performance targets.
• Integrating State and transit agency goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets into LAPC planning documents.
• Coordinating with the Mississippi River Regional Planning Commission (MRRPC) in the development of a Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan.
• Developing annually a Unified Planning Work Program that:
  • Documents LAPC activities performed with federal and state planning funds.
  • Discusses planning priorities facing the planning area.
• Providing technical assistance to local governments in the planning area.

To learn more about what we do and about metropolitan planning organizations in general, please view this presentation we gave for the Community Transportation Academy sponsored by 1000 Friends of Wisconsin.

Cooperative Agreements

To assist in carrying out the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive performance-based multimodal transportation planning process required of MPOs, the LAPC has agreements with its member communities, the Wisconsin and Minnesota DOTs, and public transportation operators.

Intermunicipal Agreement for Metropolitan Planning Organization (2021)

Cooperative Agreement for Continuing Transportation Planning (WisDOT/LAPC/MTU, 2017)

MOU between MnDOT/LAPC/MTU (2022)

LAPC Staff: 

Have any questions or something to share? Let us know!

Bob Gollnik, Executive Director
Phone: 608-785-5977
Email: [email protected]

Erin Duffer, AICP, Transportation Planner 
Phone: 608-785-5597
Email: [email protected]

Travis Key, Transportation Planner
Phone: 608-789-8548
Email: [email protected] 

RFP Questions and Answers - SS4A Comprehensive Safety Action Plan

Below is a list of questions and answers LAPC has received for consultant information. Please visit the Public Notices page of our website for more information regarding the RFP. 

Q: Below the table on page 6, there is a statement that indicates that the MPO may not have their grant agreement executed with FHWA yet, but it is anticipated. Given the recent changes with federal funding programs, have you received the go-ahead from FHWA to proceed with the RFP?
A: Our FHWA Division has advised us to proceed as normal with our work unless we hear otherwise, but did not offer any specific guidance on Federal grants. The last update was that they had submitted the grant agreement draft to HQ for review in December. They aren’t able to offer any official guidance on this, and our contingency if it is not finalized by May would be to move forward with the selected consultant when it is finalized (assuming it isn’t defunded). 

Q: The RFP specifies 8.5”x11” page size. Is it okay if it is landscape orientation? 
A: Yes, that's okay. 

Q: The proposal requirements also says "we recommend double siding". Since this is a digital email/submittal, wouldn't it be single sided?
A: You're correct, the language was from a previous RFP in which we anticipated physical copies. 

Q: The second bullet in Task 2 states “Collect and analyze data…” Does the study include collection of new data? 
A: New data isn't required. We included that language to accommodate for 'unique' or complementary data sources that you might find useful. 

Q: The last bullet under Task 6 mentions the presentations to local boards/committees. Would you anticipate those presentations be in-person, virtual, or a combination?
A: Our preference for the majority of those to be in-person, but we could discuss that further in the project scoping.  

Q: The Evaluation Criteria shows that “Innovation & Best Practices” is 15%. Can you elaborate on what that means? Is that innovation in the proposed approach/scope or work? Innovation in past work?
A: Yes, we included that for firms to showcase techniques, approaches, data application, implementation strategies, etc., that they have experience with and/or propose to apply that in our Action Plan. 

Q: Would the interviews be held in-person of the week of 4/14?
A: We'll have virtual or in-person options for those. 

Q: The Guidelines section asks for "Project costs, summarized by task." The Standard Terms and Conditions in Attachment A suggest the contractor would be invoicing on an hourly basis. Can La Crosse provide clarification regarding level of detail it would like to see? For example, should the cost proposal contain only a total cost per task, or should it also include fully loaded hourly rates and number of hours per staff?
A: For the purposes of the proposal, a summary of estimated costs by tasks is sufficient (not fully loaded rates or detailed staffing). As noted in the Statement of Qualifications and Experience description, it would be beneficial for the selection panel to understand which staff and level of involvement in those tasks as well. 

Q: Please confirm whether exceptions to the Standard Terms and Conditions may be included in the proposal.
A: A vendor may propose exceptions, but the County (MPO) and City of La Crosse reserve the rights to determine if those exceptions are acceptable within the context of the project. 

Q: Would it be acceptable to use a font smaller than 12 pts in tables and figures?
A: Yes.

Q: Would the inclusion of a cover letter or outside cover count against the page limit?
A: A cover letter or outside cover will not count against the page limit.

Q: The RFP references the opportunity to include Other Information in the proposal that proposers think would be beneficial to the LAPC. If proposers include an Other Information section, would that count against the page limit?
A: The intent of "Other Information" line item is to provide consultants with the opportunity to provide qualifications and information above and beyond any requirements listed in the RFP, but this information should be included in the existing page limit guidance. 

Q: Will section dividers count towards the page limit?
A: Section dividers will not count towards the page limit.