Thanks! Detail by option.

Transcription

1 From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG To: Ziegler; Jennifer; Dye; Dave; Smith; Helena Kennedy Cc: Meredith; Julie; Larsen; Chad Subject: FW: Response to Christie Parker re 520 Finance Options - need your buyoff on interpretation Date: 12/5/2009 1:59:56 AM Attachments: I had an interesting afternoon of phone calls that all started with Christie Parker etal briefing Judy Clibborn about the 2211 work program. Next week lets discuss what is being prepared for the upcoming 2211 presentation material and our analysis of HOT lanes/full tolling of I-90. Consider this a reminder to make sure we follow-up...preferably Monday morning. Craig From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Friday, November 20, :21 PM To: Dye, Dave; Arnis, Amy; Ziegler, Jennifer; Meredith, Julie Cc: Stone, Craig; Catron, Heather (Consultant); Singer, Rick; Caldwell, Jeff; Yao, Yanming; 'Baker, T Brent'; 'Ladner, Scott'; Auyoung, Dillon; Vaughn, Doug Subject: Response to Christie Parker re 520 Finance Options - need your buyoff on interpretation Importance: High Somewhat separate from the 2211 work but in line with it, Christie Parker is asking WSDOT to do some additional work. She has asked for a reply by 1/11 but Amy and I want to get it to her before Christmas. In order to get things underway very quickly, I'd like you to read her request and then say if you concur with our approach. Can we get your reply if not by COB today, by 10 am Monday morning? Also note that there are some questions we need to track down in order to do the modeling. I've indicated who I'll look to for an answer, but if others care to weigh in, please do. Thanks! Christie asked WSDOT to run a number of options. She has directed us to focus on A+ and has specified whether other funding sources are in or out of each option. Her requests have been reviewed and we are proposing how to approach each request. (Note that for all options except Option 1, we are assuming O&M costs consistent with previous 3/1/11 work and revenue to start 4/1/11.) Detail by option. 1 - Floating bridge and landings only. We already have a response; proposal: we use scenario just tested by OST/SNW. The only difference was we assumed a March 1, 2010

2 start date. 2 - Floating bridge and landings + Eastside. We believe the goal is to have a funded project. Current work has shown a funding gap. Proposal: do this option in two pieces: 2A: undo TIGER/ pontoon acceleration. Scenario 7 tolls on 520. Identify gap. 2B: builds on 2A and adds in I-90 express lane tolling. I-90 reversible express toll lanes would be tolled in fiscal years 2013, 14, and 15, transitioning to outer roadway dual express toll lanes both directions (R8A) starting FY Identify gap, if any. (Q#1: how big is capital investment on I-90.) (Q#2: WHEN do we need to pay for capital investment for I-90.) Need answers from Patty asap. (Q#3: do we have the correctly "unaccelerated pontoon/ eastside cashflow.) Need answer from Rick. 3 - Floating bridge and landings + Westside. We believe the Westside option is as defined in A+ (i.e., not retrofit). Proposal: Scenario 7 tolls on SR 520. Identify gap that needs to be filled with state, federal and/or I-90 toll funding (Q#4: Does Westside definition change if we only do westside?) Need answer from Julie 4 Overall Program. Same toll scenario as 2B above. Note: we're assuming we keep tolling the reversible lanes for 3 yrs because it's not cost effective to only toll I-90 for two yrs. Proposal: Scenario 7 tolls on SR 520. Toll reversible lanes in fiscal years 2013, 14, and 15. Start full tolling of I-90 at Scenario 7 rates starting in FY Identify gap, if any. 5 - Overall Program, assuming some TIGER grant investment. Proposal: Scenario 7 toll rates on SR 520. Toll reversible lanes in fiscal years 2013, 14, and 15. Start full tolling of I-90 at Scenario 7 rates starting in FY Identify gap, if any. (Q#5: Is this what people think Christie means by phasing east side project?) Need answer from Dave & Julie. 6 - Overall Program. We think the remaining funding potential under Scenario 7 tollrates is approximately $500m. We need to test this. Proposal: Scenario 7 tolls on SR 520 against $4.65B cashflow. From: Arnis, Amy Sent: Thursday, November 19, :23 PM

3 To: Dye, Dave Cc: Smith, Helena Kennedy; Baker, T Brent; Vaughn, Doug; Caldwell, Jeff Subject: FW: 520 Finance Scenarios fyi...will be discussing and working with Helena and SR 520 team. I called Christie too and asked what assumptions she wanted for the Westside -- said A+. Asked what tolling assumptions she wanted -- said HOT lane center roadway, etc...i reminded her that the work group said..."give us a couple of years to get state and federal funds, then go to full tolling I-90 if we don't get the money". I imagine we will be providing more that just 5 financial plans... I'm also suspecting that she will be writing a follow-up . From: Parker, Christie [mailto:parker.christie@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 19, :44 PM To: Arnis, Amy Cc: Auyoung, Dillon; Redfield, Beth; Matteson, Mark; Gamble, Hayley; Ziegler, Jennifer Subject: 520 Finance Scenarios Hi, Amy. As you know, we will soon be in session. In order to prepare for discussions regarding 520 bridge financing, I am requesting that legislative staff be provided with five financial scenarios by the first day of session, i.e. January 11, These scenarios should be based on a tolling start date of March 19, (That said, if you believe a different date would be more reasonable, please let me know.) The scenarios should include capital and operating costs, state funding, federal funding (without TIGER grant), toll revenue and bond proceeds for the following scenarios: 1. Floating bridge and landings 2. Floating bridge and landings + Eastside 3. Floating bridge and landings + Westside 4. Floating bridge and landings + Westside + Eastside 5. Floating bridge and landings + Eastside as a phased approach (e.g. if some TIGER funds are available or if the state can partially fund the Eastside) -- Please include an explanation of what the phased approach would look like in addition to the financing information. If you have any questions, comments or concerns about this request, please let me know. We can modify this request if necessary. I know that this request will be time consuming, but the information is needed to provide us with options as we move through session. Your efforts to help the legislature prepare for session are truly very much appreciated! Thank you, Christie

4 NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain confidential information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your system and destroy any printed copies. NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain confidential information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your system and destroy any printed copies.

5 From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG To: Fellows; Rob Cc: Subject: FW: Response to Christie Parker re 520 Finance Options - need your buyoff on interpretation Date: 12/31/ :06:14 AM Attachments: From: Arnis, Amy Sent: Monday, December 07, :39 AM To: Ziegler, Jennifer; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Stone, Craig; Dye, Dave Subject: Re: Response to Christie Parker re 520 Finance Options - need your buyoff on interpretation This morning I am transmitting the "Christie" scenarios to the OST for analysis. They were due Friday, but more work was needed and they came in Saturday. Whatever this is all about, it would be helpful to get it resolved so we don't waste a lot of peoples time. From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Arnis, Amy Sent: Sun Dec 06 09:17: Subject: FW: Response to Christie Parker re 520 Finance Options - need your buyoff on interpretation FYI From: Stone, Craig Sent: Friday, December 04, :00 PM To: Ziegler, Jennifer; Dye, Dave; Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Meredith, Julie; Larsen, Chad Subject: FW: Response to Christie Parker re 520 Finance Options - need your buyoff on interpretation Importance: High I had an interesting afternoon of phone calls that all started with Christie Parker etal briefing Judy Clibborn about the 2211 work program. Next week lets discuss what is being prepared for the upcoming 2211 presentation material and our analysis of HOT lanes/full tolling of I-90. Consider this a reminder to make sure we follow-up...preferably Monday morning. Craig From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Friday, November 20, :21 PM To: Dye, Dave; Arnis, Amy; Ziegler, Jennifer; Meredith, Julie Cc: Stone, Craig; Catron, Heather (Consultant); Singer, Rick; Caldwell, Jeff; Yao, Yanming; 'Baker, T Brent'; 'Ladner, Scott'; Auyoung, Dillon; Vaughn, Doug

6 Subject: Response to Christie Parker re 520 Finance Options - need your buyoff on interpretation Importance: High Somewhat separate from the 2211 work but in line with it, Christie Parker is asking WSDOT to do some additional work. She has asked for a reply by 1/11 but Amy and I want to get it to her before Christmas. In order to get things underway very quickly, I'd like you to read her request and then say if you concur with our approach. Can we get your reply if not by COB today, by 10 am Monday morning? Also note that there are some questions we need to track down in order to do the modeling. I've indicated who I'll look to for an answer, but if others care to weigh in, please do. Thanks! Christie asked WSDOT to run a number of options. She has directed us to focus on A+ and has specified whether other funding sources are in or out of each option. Her requests have been reviewed and we are proposing how to approach each request. (Note that for all options except Option 1, we are assuming O&M costs consistent with previous 3/1/11 work and revenue to start 4/1/11.) Detail by option. 1 - Floating bridge and landings only. We already have a response; proposal: we use scenario just tested by OST/SNW. The only difference was we assumed a March 1, 2010 start date. 2 - Floating bridge and landings + Eastside. We believe the goal is to have a funded project. Current work has shown a funding gap. Proposal: do this option in two pieces: 2A: undo TIGER/ pontoon acceleration. Scenario 7 tolls on 520. Identify gap. 2B: builds on 2A and adds in I-90 express lane tolling. I-90 reversible express toll lanes would be tolled in fiscal years 2013, 14, and 15, transitioning to outer roadway dual express toll lanes both directions (R8A) starting FY Identify gap, if any. (Q#1: how big is capital investment on I-90.) (Q#2: WHEN do we need to pay for capital investment for I-90.) Need answers from Patty asap. (Q#3: do we have the correctly "unaccelerated pontoon/ eastside cashflow.) Need answer from Rick. 3 - Floating bridge and landings + Westside. We believe the Westside option is as defined in A+ (i.e., not retrofit). Proposal: Scenario 7 tolls on SR 520. Identify gap that needs to be filled with state, federal and/or I-90 toll funding

7 (Q#4: Does Westside definition change if we only do westside?) Need answer from Julie 4 Overall Program. Same toll scenario as 2B above. Note: we're assuming we keep tolling the reversible lanes for 3 yrs because it's not cost effective to only toll I-90 for two yrs. Proposal: Scenario 7 tolls on SR 520. Toll reversible lanes in fiscal years 2013, 14, and 15. Start full tolling of I-90 at Scenario 7 rates starting in FY Identify gap, if any. 5 - Overall Program, assuming some TIGER grant investment. Proposal: Scenario 7 toll rates on SR 520. Toll reversible lanes in fiscal years 2013, 14, and 15. Start full tolling of I-90 at Scenario 7 rates starting in FY Identify gap, if any. (Q#5: Is this what people think Christie means by phasing east side project?) Need answer from Dave & Julie. 6 - Overall Program. We think the remaining funding potential under Scenario 7 tollrates is approximately $500m. We need to test this. Proposal: Scenario 7 tolls on SR 520 against $4.65B cashflow. From: Arnis, Amy Sent: Thursday, November 19, :23 PM To: Dye, Dave Cc: Smith, Helena Kennedy; Baker, T Brent; Vaughn, Doug; Caldwell, Jeff Subject: FW: 520 Finance Scenarios fyi...will be discussing and working with Helena and SR 520 team. I called Christie too and asked what assumptions she wanted for the Westside -- said A+. Asked what tolling assumptions she wanted -- said HOT lane center roadway, etc...i reminded her that the work group said..."give us a couple of years to get state and federal funds, then go to full tolling I-90 if we don't get the money". I imagine we will be providing more that just 5 financial plans... I'm also suspecting that she will be writing a follow-up . From: Parker, Christie [mailto:parker.christie@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 19, :44 PM To: Arnis, Amy Cc: Auyoung, Dillon; Redfield, Beth; Matteson, Mark; Gamble, Hayley; Ziegler, Jennifer Subject: 520 Finance Scenarios Hi, Amy. As you know, we will soon be in session. In order to prepare for discussions regarding 520 bridge

8 financing, I am requesting that legislative staff be provided with five financial scenarios by the first day of session, i.e. January 11, These scenarios should be based on a tolling start date of March 19, (That said, if you believe a different date would be more reasonable, please let me know.) The scenarios should include capital and operating costs, state funding, federal funding (without TIGER grant), toll revenue and bond proceeds for the following scenarios: 1. Floating bridge and landings 2. Floating bridge and landings + Eastside 3. Floating bridge and landings + Westside 4. Floating bridge and landings + Westside + Eastside 5. Floating bridge and landings + Eastside as a phased approach (e.g. if some TIGER funds are available or if the state can partially fund the Eastside) -- Please include an explanation of what the phased approach would look like in addition to the financing information. If you have any questions, comments or concerns about this request, please let me know. We can modify this request if necessary. I know that this request will be time consuming, but the information is needed to provide us with options as we move through session. Your efforts to help the legislature prepare for session are truly very much appreciated! Thank you, Christie NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain confidential information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your system and destroy any printed copies. NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain confidential information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your system and destroy any printed copies.

9 From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG To: Hammond; Paula Cc: Ehl; Larry; Rubstello; Patty; Dye; Dave; Aldridge; Jo Subject: FW: UPA HOV 3+ Paper Date: 2/25/2010 9:36:59 PM Attachments: Mathis FHA UPA Letter Sent.pdf; SR 520 HOV 3 Decision Paper FINAL.pdf; SR520 Discount White Paper.pdf; WSDOT.Hammond.Response.JY.VMM pdf Paula - Key messages for your 30 minute meeting with Jeff Lindley and Bob Arnold. 1) We appreciate the working relationship with FHWA on the UPA and revising the implementation schedule to align with our 2009 Leg authorization for SR 520 tolling. We need to bring to closure our request to revise the conditions language to allow transit and agency vanpools free access and to remove the requirement for an HOV 3+ discount. 2) We have prepared an engineering analysis to evaluate if we could technically delineate a location on SR 520 to indentify carpools. We worked with FHWA staff on the outline of this engineering analysis, as a follow-on document to our August white paper. Major findings are: Enforcement is nearly impossible given that we have no physical location for WSP to identify and cite violators. Current HOV violation rate is 30%. Major reconstruction of the corridor will be occurring that will take the westbound HOV lane out of operations during off peak periods, plus there is no eastbound HOV lane in the corridor to delineate carpools. Creates inconsistencies to drivers. Decrease in safety is projected due to increasing weaving and merging densities approaching the bridge. Increased congestion due to increasing weaving and merging volumes is also projected which will dictate higher toll rates and less efficient operations. 3) FHWA's last letter indicated that the HOV discount was a contributing reason this project was selected. Review of our UPA application reads: Congestion pricing will initially be implemented on SR 520 and possibly on I-90 between I-405 and I-5. Toll rates will vary according to congestion levels to keep traffic flowing efficiently while also providing needed revenue for the SR 520 bridge replacement. WSDOT will not propose tolls for transit trips. As part of this work, WSDOT and its partners will determine the benefits and disadvantages of tolling HOV and vanpool trips. 4) No one has ever implemented all electronic and variable tolling on an existing operating facility. Credibility is important to making this UPA successful. A lesson learned from the road pricing scan tour is to keep the toll operations simple and understandable. Craig From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Wednesday, February 24, :45 PM To: Jeffrey.Lindley@dot.gov; Bob Arnold Cc: 'Yung, Jessie <FHWA>'; Stone, Craig Subject: FW: UPA HOV 3+ Paper Mr. Lindley and Mr. Arnold,

10 I'm forwarding to you, on behalf of Craig Stone WSDOT's Tolling Division Director, our letter and engineering analysis on HOV 3+ discounts as it relates to our UPA project on SR 520. It is my understanding through a discussion with our Secretary, Paula Hammond, that she will be meeting with both of you next week. Paula is prepared to discuss this topic next week if time allows. Please let me know if the attachments do not come through on your end. Patty Rubstello Patty Rubstello, PE WSDOT - Toll Division Director of Toll Systems Development & Engineering (206) From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Wednesday, February 24, :24 PM To: 'Mathis, Daniel' Cc: 'Colyar, James (FHWA)'; 'Yung, Jessie <FHWA>'; Gehrke, Linda (FTA) Subject: UPA HOV 3+ Paper Dan, On behalf of Craig Stone, I'm forwarding you WSDOT's letter and engineering analysis on HOV 3+ discounts as required in the UPA term sheet. Please let us know if you have questions. As an FYI: Paula Hammond will be in DC next week. She will be meeting with Bob Arnold and Jeff Lindley while there. We will have her briefed on this topic in case they have time to discuss. The hard copy of the letter and report will be in the mail today. Patty Patty Rubstello, PE WSDOT - Toll Division Director of Toll Systems Development & Engineering (206)

11

12

13 Engineering Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The task of this document is to review a feasible approach for implementing carpool discounts as part of the UPA tolling program for SR 520 in Seattle, Washington. As part of this review, WSDOT has developed a concept of operation and preliminary plans for a toll declaration point to provide a toll discount for high occupancy vehicles (HOV). There are many challenges that constrain the set of feasible solutions because existing geometrics do not meet current standards and impending construction activity that will further constrain the corridor throughout the UPA timeframe. This document finds that providing a tolling discount for HOVs will present challenges to the success of the project and the overall tolling program in Washington State in the following areas: Driver education will be more complex and difficult Weave densities will increase which may decrease roadway safety Increased volumes in the HOV lane may increase congestion on the corridor requiring higher toll rates for HOV 2+ and SOV to meet traffic performance goals Major reconstruction in the corridor will require closure of the existing HOV lane during toll operations, resulting in an inability to identify HOV traffic during these times Enforcement of the HOV toll discount will be limited, likely resulting in increased violation rates and decreased credibility of the tolling system Analysis shows that the impacts of implementing carpool discounts during early tolling on the SR 520 bridge as part of the FHWA UPA project will not be acceptable. WSDOT continues to recommend that transit buses and transit agency-owned vanpools cross the SR 520 bridge tollfree. 2/4/2010

14 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation INTRODUCTION The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will implement tolling on the SR 520 Evergreen Point Floating Bridge in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through the Lake Washington Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA). WSDOT will commence tolling on SR 520 in the spring of The UPA program goal is to reduce congestion on SR 520 across Lake Washington by means of tolling, technology, transit, and telecommuting. The objective of the Lake Washington UPA project is to demonstrate the success of methods and technologies in reducing congestion and improving reliability and performance of an existing roadway. One critical component of the UPA project is tolling the SR 520 bridge across Lake Washington. It is expected that tolling will both reduce congestion, by reducing or spreading travel demand, and also will help generate revenue to fund improvements along the corridor. Funded improvements on the SR 520 corridor will further improve safety and reliability of travel along this critical link. Improved roadway performance and public acceptance of UPA tolling on SR 520 will determine whether tolling will be available for WSDOT on other corridors as a traffic management tool. Additionally, simplicity of the SR 520 tolling system will help earn trust and support from the public and key decision makers and also lend itself to successful development and performance of the tolling system. The Urban Partnership Agreement for tolling on SR 520 includes discounts for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) toll customers to encourage ridesharing. In order to implement discounts for HOV toll customers, a method of uniquely identifying HOV and non-hov vehicles is necessary. This vehicle class identification could be achieved by means of an HOV registration program or by in-lane vehicle identification. Both approaches require law enforcement personnel to visually inspect passing vehicles for compliance with occupancy requirements. For this paper, WSDOT has developed a preliminary plan and performed an analysis of the feasibility of applying an in-lane toll discount for HOVs on the SR 520 Evergreen Point Floating Bridge through the period of early tolling. This analysis reflects a tolling operation that minimizes deviation from standard tolling practices, considering infrastructure and operational limitations as well as consistency with other current and planned tolling operations in the Central Puget Sound region. History and overview of the SR 520 corridor The SR 520 corridor extends from I-5 in Seattle, across Lake Washington past I-405, and to Redmond in the eastside of the Seattle metro area (see Figure 1). This corridor serves as a critical link between major residential and commercial areas, connecting homes, jobs and other activities. The existing SR 520 bridge and corridor opened to traffic in the summer of At that time, vehicles crossing the bridge were charged a toll. Toll collections continued until the summer of 1979 when construction for the bridge had been repaid. When the bridge first opened, it was anticipated that 65,000 vehicles would cross the bridge. Today, however, 115,000 vehicles cross the SR 520 bridge each day. 2/4/2010 Page 2 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

15 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation Figure 1: SR 520 corridor vicinity map Starting in the early 1970 s, the westbound outside shoulder of SR 520 between I-405 and the lake was converted to a bus bypass lane to allow buses to bypass the existing toll booths. In the late 1970 s, the outside shoulder was also opened to HOVs. Existing conditions Today, the SR 520 corridor is facing several challenges. Travel demand on SR 520 limits reliable and uncongested travel during many hours of the day. Additionally, the aging floating bridge spanning Lake Washington is susceptible to both earthquakes and wind storms. Further, the alignment of the existing corridor in many sections does not meet current roadway design standards. To address these challenges, several projects are underway to improve the SR 520 corridor. Between I-405 and I-5, SR 520 is generally two lanes in each direction. An HOV lane is currently operating in this section of the corridor, although only westbound between I-405 and the lake. Through this section of SR 520, general purpose lanes are 11 feet wide and the HOV lanes is 12 feet wide. The median width in this section is four feet in total (with a Jersey type barrier separating westbound and eastbound traffic) and there is no outside shoulder for much of this roadway section. The lack of shoulders provides significant challenges for HOV occupancy enforcement and general traffic operations. Substantial congestion on SR 520 and limited enforcement operations results in high HOV violation rates along this roadway section (measured as high at 30 percent); substantially higher than other HOV lanes in the Central Puget Sound region. This westbound HOV lane on SR 520 is the only HOV lane in the Central Puget Sound region that operates with a 3+ occupancy requirement; all other HOV lanes require just two or more occupants. This higher occupancy requirement is in place for several reasons: 2/4/2010 Page 3 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

16 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation The HOV lane terminates just east of the floating bridge, creating a traffic operations bottleneck Width of the HOV lane and adjacent shoulder does not safely accommodate substantial traffic volumes Pavement depth in this converted shoulder does not support high traffic volumes CUSTOMER GROUP The customer group that would receive an HOV discount is any vehicle conforming to Washington Administrative Code with a valid radio frequency identification (RFID) transponder traveling in the 3+ HOV lane at the toll discount declaration point. Vehicles included in this group are buses with capacity for 16 or more people, motorcycles, emergency vehicles and other private vehicles with three or more occupants which weigh less than 10,000 lb. G.V.W. (the weight limit is not applied to recreational vehicles). (WSDOT does recommend that municipal transit vehicles conforming to RCW and transit agency-owned vanpools travel toll-free across SR 520). The toll discount declaration point would be located in the proximity of the primary toll location. To be eligible for the toll discount, customers would be required to have a valid transponder and pass under both the declaration toll reader point and the primary toll location. INFRASTRUCTURE Ideal deployment The ideal tolling configuration is a single toll collection point both eastbound and westbound on the bridge with an HOV lane at the toll location to provide immediate toll discounts to HOVs. Enforcement areas at the toll location would be available for enforcement officers to visually verify the occupancy of passing vehicles. A full shoulder downstream of the enforcement area would be provided for possible violators to be safely pulled over by enforcement officers. Available footprint The current configuration of SR 520 is not conducive to meeting the ideal deployment identified above without extensive reconstruction. WSDOT does not currently have environmental clearance for roadway widening to install infrastructure for an HOV toll declaration point or enforcement areas. Additionally, there is no eastbound HOV lane between I-5 and I-405. There is a 3+ HOV lane on SR 520 westbound between I-405 and the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge. This HOV lane is located on the outside (right) lane. As a result, there is a traffic weave through the HOV lane at ramp locations because general purpose traffic entering or exiting the freeway must first merge into the HOV lane and merge again to the general purpose lanes or to exit the freeway. The right shoulder is two feet wide or less for most of the corridor from I-405 to the lake, making enforcement areas extremely limited. To maximize installation efficiency and to limit impacts during future corridor construction, the primary toll point for the UPA tolling system will be located on the East Highrise of the existing 2/4/2010 Page 4 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

17 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation floating bridge. This location takes advantage of existing infrastructure (highrise truss) and is located outside the construction phasing areas of future improvements to the SR 520 corridor. The SR 520/I-90 Active Traffic Management (ATM) project will build new sign bridges every half mile along SR 520 and I-90 for speed and lane management. The installation of the ATM gantries will be completed on SR 520 by August Tolling equipment for the toll declaration point would take advantage of these new ATM gantries for the installation of required toll equipment. HOV toll declaration point For an HOV declaration point, the RFID declaration equipment would be located at milepost 4.93 where an ATM gantry is located that could be used for mounting RFID equipment (see Figure 2). However, this one declaration point would not provide a toll discount for HOVs entering at 84 th Avenue NE. The following map (Figure 2) shows the locations of the proposed ATM gantries on this section of westbound SR 520 as well as the location of the primary toll point on the east end of the existing bridge and the potential HOV declaration point. Additional ATM gantry locations Gantries for the ATM system are located at several locations along this section of SR 520, including the proposed HOV toll declaration point at milepost The two additional ATM gantries on this section of SR 520 are in locations where an HOV toll declaration point will not be feasible. The furthest west ATM gantry (located just prior to the bridge) is at a location where there are only two general purpose lanes and no HOV lane. This location will not support an HOV toll declaration system. A second ATM gantry is located just west of the 84 th Avenue NE onramp. An HOV toll declaration point is not feasible at this location because the HOV lane at this point operates as an auxiliary lane as HOVs merge into the general purpose lanes and the HOV lane terminates. 2/4/2010 Page 5 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

18 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) 2/4/2010 Page 6 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

19 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation Figure 2: Tolling and Active Traffic Management locations on SR 520 westbound, 92 nd Ave to Evergreen Point Floating Bridge 2/4/2010 Page 7 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

20 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) 2/4/2010 Page 8 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

21 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation OPERATIONS CONCEPT Roadway and System Elements To identify HOV vehicles, an RFID reader would be placed at the HOV declaration point over the HOV lane. A supplemental shoulder-mounted static sign conveying HOV discount information and restrictions would be placed at the declaration point. In-pavement vehicle detection would also be installed at the declaration point to trigger to the RFID reader equipment. Vehicles with transponders read in the HOV lane at the declaration point would be given the toll discount. The central tolling software for the SR 520 electronic tolling system would match the Good To Go! transponder ID number for vehicles read in the HOV lane at the HOV declaration point to those transponder numbers read at the primary toll point (East Highrise). Those vehicles seen at both locations for a single trip would receive the HOV discount for their westbound trip. Technology limitations and risks A challenge with the HOV declaration point concept is the potential for cross-lane reads into the adjacent general purpose lane. Tests have concluded that a buffer width of at least two feet is required between lanes to prohibit cross-lane reads. Because of the existing geometrics of the corridor, there is not enough roadway width to provide a buffer at the available toll declaration equipment locations. The result is that some vehicles traveling in the right-hand general purpose lane may be read by the HOV declaration RFID equipment and those vehicles may be provided the toll discount enough though they are not an HOV. Also, given the automated transaction framing by the tolling system, it is possible that a cross-lane read would occur in which the transponder on an HOV is not detected while the transponder on an SOV in the adjacent lane is detected. This would result in the HOV not receiving the toll discount and the SOV incorrectly receiving the discount. A further challenge with a separate declaration point is the possibility of a false negative transaction for an HOV. This situation could occur if a transponder is not read at the HOV declaration point, even though they passed under the RFID equipment at the declaration point, and is then read at the primary toll location on the bridge. Because of the nature of RFID, a small percentage (perhaps 0.01 percent) of transponders passing under the HOV declaration RFID equipment may not be read. Vehicles in this situation would not receive the HOV toll discount. Such a situation would likely result in dissatisfied customers and presents numerous public relations and system credibility concerns. Customer Experience Providing an in-lane discount to vehicles in the HOV lane is simpler for drivers than registering a carpool and promotes carpooling even for non-commute trips. However, an HOV in-lane discount may be confusing for drivers and it may also be difficult to educate and message to drivers. Among other elements, drivers may not easily understand why vehicles can only receive an HOV discount westbound. It will also be difficult to educate drivers on how to properly traverse the corridor to receive the HOV toll discount. Additionally, because enforcement of the HOV lane is a challenge, it is likely that violation rates may increase resulting in negative perceptions by compliant drivers. Challenges would also include guide signing so drivers know what reader they need to pass under to get the discount. Further, it would be a challenge to 2/4/2010 Page 9 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

22 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation prevent non-hovs from swerving into and out of the HOV lane at the declaration point due to the lack of space to provide barrier separation. Enforcement The majority of the westbound corridor has shoulders less than two feet wide on both the right and left sides. The available location for an HOV declaration point occurs in an area that has no shoulders on either side; Figure 3, below, shows the location of the future ATM gantries from the driver s perspective. Due to constraints of the existing roadway configuration, it is not possible to provide enforcement areas within the vicinity of the available HOV declaration point. There are a few areas where law officers currently enforce occupancy requirements for the westbound SR 520 HOV lane, but these areas are not located near infrastructure that could support tolling equipment. With no enforcement shoulders at the HOV declaration point, there will be minimal enforcement of the HOV toll discount. It is then possible that SOVs will quickly merge into and back out of the HOV lane at the location of the declaration point to receive the HOV toll discount. This quick merging may decrease safety in this section of roadway. The limited enforcement of the HOV toll discount may result in high violation rates of the HOV toll discount. If high violation rates of the HOV toll discount occur, it may not be possible to influence driver behavior with toll rates as the UPA project is intending. Figure 3: SR 520 Westbound Milepost 4.93 IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION Implementing an HOV discount via in-lane HOV designation could affect HOV lane compliance, congestion, and safety. Also, cost, schedule, and revenue impacts are evaluated. Compliance Compliance with the SR 520 HOV 3+ carpool policy is less than other HOV lanes in the Central Puget Sound region which all require two or more occupants. Typically, the westbound general purpose lanes on SR 520 are congested during the peak periods, especially in the p.m. peak period, for several miles approaching the bridge. During the a.m. peak period, 25 percent of 2/4/2010 Page 10 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

23 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation vehicles in the westbound HOV lane are in violation of the 3+ occupancy restriction. The p.m. peak period sees a higher violation rate, with 30 percent of vehicles in the westbound HOV lane in violation of the 3+ restriction. These percents are based on manual vehicle occupancy counts performed by the Washington State Transportation Research Center (TRAC) at 92 nd Ave NE between March 2006 and May Corridor Operations During uncongested conditions, not all 3+ vehicles drive in the HOV lane on SR 520. However, providing a toll discount for vehicles in the HOV lane will likely encourage HOV eligible vehicles currently not using the lane to do so even during off-peak periods. Providing HOV drivers with a monetary incentive to drive in the HOV lane would likely increase the portion of carpools using the HOV lane relative to total traffic volumes in the corridor and may also attract new carpools from other regional routes. Because the HOV lane is currently on the outside of the SR 520 roadway, on and off ramp movements conflict with HOV lane traffic. Increasing volumes in the HOV lane because of the HOV toll discount would increase merging conflicts and weaving density and may impact safety. If higher volumes of vehicles travel in the HOV lane, operations at the terminus of the HOV lane may also be impacted. Higher volumes in the HOV lane would result in a higher risk of bottleneck-backups from merging traffic where the HOV lane ends. To maintain free flow traffic through the terminus of the HOV lane would require higher than planned toll rates to restrict traffic levels in the general purpose lanes. Toll rates set high enough to control traffic merging at the HOV terminus would likely result in inefficiently low volumes along the corridor as a whole and high levels of diversion to other regional routes. Transit considerations Transit agencies have developed specific guidelines for services operating along westbound SR 520 between I-405 and the lake. Transit drivers are instructed to drive buses in the standard right lane during periods of light traffic or off-peak hours and to leave the carpool lane as an emergency shoulder during these times. Further, bus drivers are instructed to limit speed to 50 miles per hour while driving a bus in the HOV lane to minimize the risk of collision from merging vehicles and because the existing lane has little to no shoulder. These established operations guidelines highlight the challenges of driving along this section of the SR 520. Increased traffic volumes in the HOV lane due to an HOV toll discount could further challenge driving for both the public at large and transit agencies. Merge area lane operations An increase in volume in the right HOV lane would increase lane density and make merges more difficult likely resulting in an increase in the number of collisions. In the westbound SR 520 corridor there are four onramps within 1.5 miles that create weave conflicts with the HOV lane: 108 th Ave NE Southbound Bellevue Way Northbound Bellevue Way 84 th Ave NE 2/4/2010 Page 11 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

24 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation General purpose traffic entering SR 520 must merge into the HOV lane and make a lane change to the general purpose lane within a short distance. This traffic movement is detrimental to HOV lane flow. For safety reasons, it is preferable that conflicting movement volumes (onramp general purpose traffic and HOV lane through traffic volumes) are minimized. Because the HOV lane is on the outside lane, the westbound ramps on SR 520 between I-405 and the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge function as a Type B weave, as described in Chapter 13 of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) The weaving and non-weaving traffic movements for a Type B weave are depicted in the diagram in Figure 4. v o1 : HOV on v w1 : GP on V w2 : HOV through v o2 : Right GP lane through Figure 4: Type B weave diagram for SR 520 westbound onramps, west of I-405 Providing a toll discount for HOV vehicles to travel in the outside HOV lane would increase the HOV lane volume, thereby increasing the weaving intensity. The weaving intensity at the westbound onramp merges from 108 th Ave NE, southbound Bellevue Way, northbound Bellevue Way and 84 th Ave NE was calculated per HCM Equation 24-4 for the existing condition (using September 2009, Tuesday-Thursday traffic volumes) and the HOV discount condition. For the HOV discount condition, it was assumed that all current HOV vehicles travel in the HOV lane to earn the toll discount. Based on TRAC HOV counts during peak periods between March 2006 and May 2009, 3+ HOV vehicles on SR 520 westbound at 92 nd Avenue NE represent an average of 13% of the total volume. For this analysis, this proportion of traffic determined by TRAC is assumed to remain constant throughout the day. It is further assumed for this analysis that the weaving segment is constrained throughout the day due to the short merge lengths of the onramps (per Exhibit 24-7, HCM 2000). Figure 5 shows the calculated weaving intensity at the 84 th Ave NE merge, the onramp location with the highest intensity weave on SR 520 between I- 405 and the lake. Weave intensity is shown for conditions with and without the toll discount. As seen in Figure 5, the greatest magnitude of increase in weaving intensity is during the midday period. At the 84 th Ave NE onramp, there would be a 17 percent increase in weaving intensity with an HOV toll discount (between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.). This analysis shows that weaving intensity would increase even during today s periods of free-flow traffic. During the p.m. peak period, the SR 520 westbound general purpose lanes are typically congested. During this time, all HOV 3+ vehicles, along with a high proportion of violating vehicles (30%), currently travel in the HOV lane. Because these calculations do not assume that an HOV lane discount would increase HOV violation rates, the weaving intensity during the p.m. peak is unchanged. 2/4/2010 Page 12 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

25 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation Figure 5: 84 th Ave NE Onramp Weekday Weaving Intensity (based on September 2009 Tuesday- Thursday data, HCM analysis, Type B weave) This analysis shows that increased volumes in the HOV lane would increase weaving intensities at several locations of westbound SR 520 between I-405 and the lake. With an increase in weaving intensity, there would be a risk of decreased safety and higher rates of collisions. Overall HOV lane operations In 2008, traffic simulation modeling of the SR 520 westbound HOV lane was completed to assess the potential traffic operation conditions of two different HOV lane operation scenarios. This modeling analyzed two scenarios: 2+ HOV in the PM peak period Open to GP after the peak period These two scenarios could be analogous to incentivizing travel in the HOV lane and thus resulting in higher volumes in the HOV lane. The results from these scenarios indicate that increased volumes in the HOV lane on SR 520 between I-405 and the lake will negatively impact operations of the corridor. Comparing the results to the existing conditions, the simulation indicated that opening up the HOV 3+ lane to HOV 2 in the peak period would degrade the operations compared to the existing condition by almost all measures. Traffic operations would be even worse if the HOV lane is opened to GP traffic from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., immediately following the traditional peak period. The simulation results are summarized in the following figures. 2/4/2010 Page 13 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

26 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation WB SR 520 Performance Measures (Bellevue Way to Evergreen Point Road) PM Peak Hour (5:00-6:00 PM) Existing Condition (HOV 3+) HOV 2+ % Change Average Number of Vehicles in Queue 2,100 2,400 14% Average Travel Time (I-405 to Floating Br in minutes) % Speed (mph) % Throughput at East of Evergreen Point Bridge (vph) 3,700 3,700 0% Total Person Delay (hr) % Total Transit Person Delay (hr) % Queue Dissipation Time 8:00 PM 8:30 PM - Figure 6: What if the 3+ HOV lane is open to 2+ HOV in the PM peak period? WB SR 520 Performance Measures (Bellevue Way to Evergreen Point Road) PM Peak Shoulder 6:00-7:00 PM Existing Condition (HOV 3+) Open HOV Lane to All Traffic % Change Average Number of Vehicles in Queue 1,700 2,200 30% Average Travel Time (I-405 to Floating Br in minutes) % Speed (mph) % Throughput at East of Evergreen Point Bridge (vph) 3,750 3,700-1% Total Person Delay (hr) % Total Transit Person Delay (hr) % Queue Dissipation Time 8:00 PM 9:00 PM - Figure 7: What if the 3+ HOV lane is open to GP after the peak period? 2/4/2010 Page 14 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

27 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation Safety On the SR 520 westbound mainline between I-405 and the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, there are several locations that have a higher frequency of collisions than the rest of the corridor. These locations are as follows: The HOV lane at the 108 th Ave NE merge (milepost 6.1) The HOV lane at the 84 th Ave NE merge (milepost 4.6) The GP lanes at the 92 nd Ave NE transit flyer stop (milepost 5.1, adjacent to available HOV declaration toll point) The GP lanes at the East Highrise (milepost 3.9, west of the HOV lane terminus) Figure 8 shows a collision contour that depicts the number of collisions by milepost and lane over the last five years. The majority of collisions in this corridor are congestion related. Figure 9 is a collision diagram portraying the type of collisions. The majority of collisions through this stretch are rear ends, with a higher proportion of sideswipes near the merge locations. Increased weaving intensity at ramp locations induced by an HOV toll discount could exacerbate collision intensity at ramp locations, as there would be more vehicles traveling through the HOV lane, further conflicting with ramp volumes. Additionally, with optimal tolling operations traffic will approach 45 miles per hour in the corridor. Given the potential for increased merge intensities resulting from an HOV discount, the corridor may need to operate at an even higher level to minimize merging and merging friction from impacting corridor operations. Operating at a higher level will require higher toll rates, resulting in higher diversion rates to other regional corridors and less then optimal lane operations on SR 520. Figure 8: SR 520 Westbound Collision Contour (July 2004 June 2009) 2/4/2010 Page 15 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

28 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation Figure 9: SR 520 Westbound Collision Diagram (July 2004 June 2009) Schedule Below is a proposed schedule to implement HOV discount tolling as part of the UPA project on SR 520. Implementing the HOV toll discount components will fit with the current project schedule (see Figure 10). Additional resources would be required to modify tolling systems and public information efforts within the timing of the schedule. No additional permitting would be required as existing infrastructure will be used with no additional pavement necessary. 2/4/2010 Page 16 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

29 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation Roadway Tolling System Approve preliminary design concept Design declaration point toll infrastructure Complete change order with TCS vendor TCS vendor completes design and build process Backoffice Tolling System Complete change order with CSC vendor CSC vendor completes design and build process Public Information Modify existing public outreach campaign Finalize public outreach campaign Deploy public outreach campaign SR 520 tolling system operational Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Figure 10: Proposed schedule for implementing HOV toll discount systems Costs An itemized cost estimate is included on the following page. 2/4/2010 Page 17 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

30 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation Capital cost estimate for EB HOV Declaration Point on SR 520 All ETC - Transponders Required DRAFT Item Line Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Total Notes A Equipment 1 RFID Reader (E6) 1 EACH $ 11,000 $ 11,000 1 for HOV lane 2 RFID Antenna & Mounting Hardware 1 EACH $ 1,000 $ 1,000 1 for HOV lane 3 RFID Trigger Loops 1 EACH $ 10,000 $ 10,000 1 for HOV lane 4 Lane Controller 2 EACH $ 20,000 $ 40,000 2 per tolling zone Cabinet 1 EACH $ 8,000 $ 8,000 1 per tolling zone 6 UPS 1 EACH $ 2,000 $ 2,000 1 per tolling cabinet 7 Power supply to EACH $ 400 $ - Included in ATM system 8 Communications (fiber, switches, router) 0 Lump Sum $ 56,000 $ - Included in ATM system 9 Overhead Sign Bridge Structure (assume 75') 0 EACH $ 200,000 $ - Included in ATM system 10 Informational Static Signing 2 EACH $ 1,250 $ 2,500 2 signs per zone Subtotal $ 74,500 B Construction 11 Traffic Control 1 Lump Sum $ 4,470 $ 4,470 6% of Equipment 12 Temp Erosion and Sediment Control 1 Lump Sum $ 4,470 $ 4,470 6% of Equipment 13 Project Management 1 Lump Sum $ 3,338 $ 3,338 4% of Construction and Equipment 14 Contingency 1 Lump Sum $ 25,032 $ 25,032 30% of Construction and Equipment Subtotal $ 37,310 C Miscellaneous 15 Sales Tax 1 Lump Sum $ 7,510 $ 7, % of equipment and construction services 16 Mobilization 1 Lump Sum $ 11,181 $ 11,181 10% of equipment and construction Subtotal $ 18,691 Total $ 130,500 TOTAL $ 130,000 2/4/2010 Page 18 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

31 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation Revenue considerations To date, no revenue modeling has been completed for tolling of the existing facility with an HOV discount. Revenue modeling has been completed with an HOV discount for the rebuilt SR 520 corridor. This modeling indicated that funding available for the SR 520 improvement program would be reduced by approximately three to five percent if both HOVs and transit vehicles were provided a toll discount. To consider the possible revenue implications of an HOV toll discount for UPA tolling and the existing SR 520 corridor, a quick exercise was completed. This exercise assumed current volumes crossing the SR 520 bridge and assumed that with an HOV toll discount the percentage of vehicles in the HOV lane would remain constant throughout the day (based on the 13 percent identified with current peak period traffic levels from TRAC). This HOV proportion was achieved by shifting volumes to the HOV lane until this volume equaled 13 percent of total vehicles, if the percentage was lower than 13 percent. If the percentage of vehicles in the HOV lanes was at or above 13 percent for a specific time period, that volume was kept. (It was assumed that any higher percentage represented either a peak period distribution or violators). The resulting traffic shift for this exercise was an increase in traffic volumes in the HOV lane, primarily during off-peak periods, of six percent for a day. This exercise also assumed a $3 toll for general purpose traffic and a $2 toll for HOVs. To simplify the exercise, leakage of collectable revenues was not accounted for. For this analysis, the following formula was used: Revenue loss = [HOV + violator] * [discount (dependent)] Figure 11 identifies the possible revenue implications. Results suggest that an HOV discount may minimally impact to toll revenue and are similar in magnitude to modeling revenue for the improved SR 520 corridor. Weekday Daily Volume Westbound: HOV GP Total Current 3,824 50,791 54,615 w/ incentive 7,279 47,336 54,615 Shift: 3,455 6% Toll Rate: HOV GP $2.00 $3.00 Revenue: HOV GP Total w/o incentive $7,648 $152,373 $160,021 w incentive $14,557 $142,009 $156,566 Loss: $3,455 2% Figure 11: Possible revenue implications with an HOV discount 2/4/2010 Page 19 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

32 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS Corridor construction There are several ongoing projects on the SR 520 corridor related to the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program. This program is designing and soon will construct improvements to SR 520 between I-5 and SR 202. The program will enhance safety by replacing the aging floating bridge across Lake Washington and keep the region moving with transit and roadway improvements throughout the corridor. Beyond the UPA project, two additional projects are currently underway on this stretch of SR 520: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project Eastside Transit and HOV Project The Bridge Replacement and HOV Project is planning and constructing a replacement SR 520 floating bridge between I-5 in the west and Medina on the east shore of Lake Washington. This project is scheduled to complete planning and permits by The new floating bridge is scheduled to be open for traffic in East of Lake Washington, the Eastside Transit and HOV Project is planning improvements between Medina and the terminus of SR 520 in Redmond. This project is planning to realign the HOV lanes throughout the corridor from the outside to the inside as well as add an extension to the eastbound HOV lane. Additional improvements such as lids and median transit stops are also planned. Construction on this project could begin in 2010, pending funding. Construction impacts As part of the UPA primary toll point decision, the future corridor construction was considered. For this reason, the existing truss on the East Highrise of the SR 520 bridge was selected for the UPA primary tolling point. This location utilized existing infrastructure for mounting tolling equipment and is in a location that will experience no affects from adjacent construction. The HOV declaration point, however, would be in a location that is disrupted by future construction on the SR 520 corridor. This disruption would require relocating the HOV declaration RFID equipment for any construction-related roadway realignment. Each realignment would require mounting RFID equipment to a new gantry or sign bridge. Additionally, each realignment would require RFID equipment and tolling system testing before the declaration point could be opened to traffic. As a further complication, each realignment would require public outreach efforts to re-educate drivers on the location of the new HOV toll declaration point. Construction-related lane closures will also present a challenge. If the HOV lane needs to be closed in the proximity of the HOV declaration point, it will not be possible to provide the HOV toll discount until the lane closure is completed. These complications resulting from construction impacts will affect construction schedules of these future projects and present challenges to the driving public to understand the changes. The contracting plans for construction-related road closures in the vicinity of the HOV toll declaration point have been developed. The Design-Builder for this construction project will be allowed to close the HOV lane from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. Sunday-Thursday nights and 8 p.m. to 10 a.m. Sunday nights. These times change slightly if the adjacent general-purpose lane is closed at 2/4/2010 Page 20 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

33 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation the same time to allow for lane closure phasing. Additionally, if one or both of the generalpurpose lanes are closed and the HOV is open, the HOV lane will be open to all traffic. Given construction lane closures, it will be a challenge to maintain operations of the HOV declaration point and may lead to significant confusion for customers and an ongoing public education concern for WSDOT. Other toll facilities Several other toll facilities are operating or under development in Washington State. These facilities address different tolling needs, such as revenue generation or traffic management, however it is in the public s interest for WSDOT to maintain simplicity and consistency between all toll facilities. Consistency will help maintain and build support for WSDOT s tolling program and facilitate ease of use for customers. The new SR 16 Narrows Bridge in Tacoma opened in 2007 supported by tolling revenues. Drivers pay a toll for traveling eastbound across the Narrows Bridge. At this time all vehicles except emergency vehicles responding to an emergency call are required to pay a toll. This toll requirement extends to transit vehicles and private HOV vehicles, even though an eastbound HOV lane is included in the current alignment. Tolls are collected at a single toll location just west of the Narrows Bridge. Tolls can be paid at either off-line toll booths or electronically in the mainline open road tolling lanes. All vehicles in the open road toll lanes are required to have a transponder. Tolling enforcement is completed with a license plate capture camera system. In 2008 the HOT lanes Pilot Project started operations on SR 167, south of Seattle. This project converted an existing HOV lane to a HOT (High Occupancy Toll) lane to test congestion pricing and HOT lanes in Central Puget Sound. Transit vehicles and carpools can continue to use this lane as an HOV lane; they are not required to install a transponder. Solo drivers who choose to drive in the HOT lane are required to install a valid transponder. There are no toll booths, tolling is exclusively electronic. Toll and HOV enforcement is completed visually by State Patrol. State Patrol can take advantage of shoulder areas for monitoring compliance at toll locations. In addition to operating tolling systems on SR 16 and SR 167, and the SR 520 tolling system currently in development, WSDOT is also considering tolling for the I-5 crossing over the Columbia River between Vancouver, WA, and Portland, OR and for express toll lanes on I-405 through Seattle s eastside. Current planning for the I-5 Columbia River Crossing project assumes that carpools would pay the same toll as solo drivers. For the I-405 express toll lane project, current assumptions include that carpools would be toll-free, however they may be required to have a transponder. For the I-405 express toll lanes, enforcement areas are being included in the design to allow for visual enforcement of vehicles receiving the HOV discount. Customer ease of use To maintain customer ease of use, it is important for WSDOT to provide consistency across tolling facilities. There are two current tolled facilities in Washington State. On the SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, all lanes are tolled and the primary purpose of tolling is to generate revenue. The SR 167 HOT lanes were designed to reduce congestion and provide reliability for drivers who choose to pay to travel in a designated lane. The purpose of tolling on SR 520 is both to manage congestion and to generate revenue to fund the replacement bridge. Because all 2/4/2010 Page 21 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

34 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation lanes will be tolled on the SR 520 Bridge, the tolling system on SR 520 more closely matches the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and should be operated similarly to provide consistency throughout the region for the traveling public. RECOMMENDATION By providing a tolling discount for HOVs, the following elements present challenges to the success of the SR 520 UPA project and the tolling program in Washington State: Driver education will be more complex and difficult Weave densities will increase which may decrease roadway safety Increased volumes in the HOV lane may increase congestion on the corridor requiring higher toll rates for HOV 2+ and SOV to meet traffic performance goals Major reconstruction in the corridor will require closure of the existing HOV lane during toll operations, resulting in an inability to identify HOV traffic during these times Enforcement of the HOV toll discount will be limited, likely resulting in increased violation rates and decreased credibility of the tolling system To capture the associated advantages and disadvantages of various elements of implementing an HOV declaration point, the following summary matrix was developed: 2/4/2010 Page 22 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

35 Evaluation of HOV 3+ Discount for SR 520 Early Tolling Washington State Department of Transportation Element Rating (-,, +) * Comment Available Footprint - Available footprint does not meet current standards Tolling System - Technology limitations and risks may impact system performance Customer Experience - Operations may be confusing for drivers Enforcement - Minimal enforcement possible Compliance - Lane Operations - Safety - Schedule Costs Toll Operations - Violation rates are already high, with minimal enforcement, compliance could become a bigger issue Weave intensities and corridor operations will degrade with higher volumes in the HOV lane With increased weave intensities and degraded corridor operations, safety may decrease Including the declaration point will not affect project delivery schedule Initial capital costs of including the declaration point are minimal Additional operations costs for ongoing education and services to address missed reads and other customer concerns Revenue Generation A declaration point may minimally impact revenue generation Future Construction - Any declaration point will impact construction and complicate customer understanding for future improvements Consistency with Declaration tolling is not consistent with existing or planned - other Toll Facilities tolling operations in Washington State Figure 12: Summary matrix of implementation elements for an HOV declaration point Based on the review within this paper, WSDOT recommends that early tolling on the SR 520 bridge as part of the FHWA UPA program not include a toll discount for HOVs. WSDOT does continue to recommend that transit buses and transit agency-owned vanpools cross the SR 520 bridge toll-free. * Ratings are applied as - = negative implications, = neutral implications, + = positive implications. 2/4/2010 Page 23 of 23 I:\Project - UPA SR 520 Tolling\Toll Collection System Project\PROJECT DESIGN\DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

36 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER WHITE PAPER AUGUST 13, 2009

37 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Purpose of the White Paper Project Description Existing Conditions Location of Facility Geometrics Traffic Volumes Traffic Operations Traffic Congestion Transit Operations Safety Toll Collection Technology Proposed Tolling Point Commute Trip Reduction Program WSDOT HOV System, HOT Lanes, and Tolling HOVs CARPOOL IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL CARPOOL DISCOUNT OPTIONS Carpools Discounted Solely in HOV Lane Carpools Discounted in All Lanes Construct Declaration Lane Carpool Registration Program EVALUATION Highway Geometrics Traffic Operations Safety Enforcement NO CARPOOL DISCOUNT...26 August 13, 2009 Page i.

38 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT D) DISCOUNT ONLY FOR HOV LANE DISCOUNT IN ALL LANES CONSTRUCT DECLARATION LANE CARPOOL REGISTRATION PROGRAM Technical and Operational Feasibility DISCOUNT ONLY FOR HOV LANE DISCOUNT IN ALL LANES CONSTRUCT DECLARATION LANE CARPOOL REGISTRATION PROGRAM NO CARPOOL DISCOUNT Relative Cost to Implement and Operate Programmatic Implications Summary RECOMMENDATIONS...32 August 13, 2009 Page ii.

39 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Program Background The Urban Partnership Program provided a federal grant for the implementation of Tolling, Technology, Transit and Telecommuting strategies to address congestion on the SR 520 corridor in King County, WA. On the Tolling side, the Urban Partnership will enable tolling on the existing SR 520 Bridge prior to the construction of the replacement bridge. Initial planning for the Urban Partnership program assumed 3-person carpools would receive a toll discount for travel on the existing SR 520 Bridge. Ultimately, the Washington State Transportation Commission will decide whether to offer toll discounts or exemptions, so at issue is whether the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will be prepared to implement discounts if they are authorized by the Commission. With implementation nearing, it is critical to define whether provisions should be made to enable carpool discounts, a decision that affects traffic levels, toll systems, revenues, enforcement costs and delivery schedules. Currently, the existing SR 520 corridor consists of two general purpose lanes in each direction, with substandard shoulders and lack of continuous HOV lanes. This is consistent through the entire Evergreen Point Floating Bridge. The existing bridge and its approaches do not have enough physical room to incorporate any additional lane capacity, which is among the reasons for replacing the bridge. The facility does not meet current WSDOT design standards, resulting in frequent congestion and safety concerns. The only existing HOV lane is an outside (right lane) HOV 3+ bypass lane (or queue jump) westbound, starting just west of I-405. The HOV 3+ traffic merges into the two general purpose lanes at a transit flyer stop just east of the bridge entrance. There is no HOV lane on the bridge itself, or on the eastbound approach. Tolls will be collected by a new SR 520 Toll Collection System (TCS), which will automatically identify and classify each vehicle traveling in both directions. No toll booths will be provided; therefore, motorists will not be required to stop to pay. Motorists can pay by: 1. Establishing a pre-paid, transponder-based Good To Go! customer account with WSDOT from which tolls can be debited; 2. Establishing a pre-paid, registered, license plate based customer account with WSDOT from which tolls can be debited; or 3. Paying (pre-pay or post-pay) for each toll transaction through a number of methods, including by mail, on the web, over the phone, or in person at one of three customer service storefronts. This approach will allow vehicles to travel through the corridor at highway speeds without stopping to pay a toll and causing additional congestion. The proposed location for the toll collection equipment is at the eastern high rise section of the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge. This location was selected because of the stability of the structure, and because it will be away from the upcoming planned construction. How can discount-eligible carpools be identified? In order to offer a discounted toll rate to carpools, there must be a means of automatically and uniquely identifying a vehicle as eligible for the carpool discount, as well as a means of verifying and enforcing discount eligibility in the lanes. Towards asserting eligibility, one option would be for a transponder-using customer to register their vehicle s transponder as a carpool. The vehicle would August 13, 2009 Page 1

40 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER automatically receive the discounted rate whenever the transponder was read at the tolling point. However, there would need to be an administrative function to support de-registering when a non- HOV trip was planned. Another option is a self-declaration transponder with a switch that allows the driver to indicate whether they are HOV and automatically be charged the correct rate. Both of these options require initiative on the part of the driver, as well as enforcement to maintain the integrity of the discount program. What are the options for a carpool discount? Five carpool discount options are identified for analysis. It is expected that all of the carpool discount options for carpools would result in an increase in HOV volumes, and no discount for carpools would keep the status quo for HOV volumes. The added congestion caused by the higher volume of vehicles using the existing westbound HOV lane increases the likelihood of collisions. Carpools discounted in HOV lane only: An additional tolling point would be constructed in the westbound HOV 3+ lane for charging discounted tolls to carpools. Carpools in the westbound general purpose lanes would not receive a discount. Eastbound carpools (no HOV lane) would not receive a discount. The bottleneck point where the westbound HOV lane ends creates a significant safety concern with this option. Offering a discount in this lane would lead to an increase in the number of vehicles merging into the general purpose lanes and increase the number of potential conflict points and exposure to possible collisions. Carpools discounted in all lanes: Additional tolling points would be installed in all lanes. Carpools would need to self-declare as such, by registering as such or using a switchable transponder. This option would be very difficult to enforce, as officers would need to monitor traffic in all lanes. Construct declaration lane: A declaration lane is a physically separated HOV tolling point requiring drivers to declare themselves an HOV by merging into a separate HOV tolling point, then merging back into general purpose traffic. This option also increases safety concerns due to weaving at the merge points and possible driver confusion. Carpool registration program: A registered carpool program would require carpools to register as such with the Customer Service Center in advance of their trip across the bridge. No discount: Offered as the baseline for evaluation. Evaluation and Recommendations Each of the above options was evaluated for impacts on highway geometrics, traffic operations, safety, enforcement, technical and operational feasibility, relative cost, and programmatic implications. In short, all of the discount options are technically feasible, but would have significant negative impacts on safety and congestion, while increasing the cost of the program and reducing the amount of revenue collected for the SR 520 bridge replacement project. The SR 520 HOV lane is Washington s only 3+ HOV lane in order to Additionally, there are significant programmatic and enforcement issues that would need to be worked through. While the declaration lane option would be somewhat easier to implement from an enforcement and operational perspective, there are safety concerns with driver weaving and confusion, and the geometrics of the existing facility make this option unfeasible. The proposed recommendation is for WSDOT s HOV and emerging express toll lane system to be the primary mechanism for increasing vehicle occupancy system-wide. Consistent with Tacoma Narrows Bridge, carpools are charged for using general purpose toll facilities, but continue to travel toll-free in HOV lanes that are later converted to express lanes (such as the SR 167 HOT Lanes). In the case of an express toll lane within a general purpose toll facility, HOV s would pay only the base toll rate to use the express toll lane. August 13, 2009 Page 2

41 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Purpose of the White Paper Early planning for the Urban Partnership program assumed 3-person carpools would receive a toll discount for travel on the SR 520 Bridge. Ultimately, the Washington State Transportation Commission will decide whether to offer toll discounts or exemptions, so at issue is whether Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will be prepared to implement discounts if they are authorized by the Commission. With implementation nearing, it is critical to define whether provisions should be made to enable carpool discounts, a decision that affects traffic levels, toll systems, revenues, enforcement costs and delivery schedules. The purpose of this White Paper is to consider implementation options and analyze feasibility and impacts of each and recommend a strategy forward. 2.2 Project Description The Lake Washington Congestion Management Program is a series of projects to help make the roadways smarter on I-405, SR 520 and I-90. The work is federally funded and part of the Lake Washington Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA), a cooperative agreement to employ innovative traffic management tools for improving traffic flow on the major corridors surrounding Lake Washington. The agreement also calls for a new variable tolling system that could improve traffic flow on the SR 520 corridor. See Figure 1. The Urban Partnership Agreement between the federal government, WSDOT, King County and the Puget Sound Regional Council includes four key strategies, known as the four T's: Tolling Technology Transit Telecommuting Connecting I-5 in Seattle to I-405 and the region's high-tech industry center on the Eastside, the SR Figure 1: Project Map 520 corridor is congested, and its bridges across Lake Washington must be replaced. Completed in 1963, the SR 520 bridges (Evergreen Point and Portage Bay bridges) carry about 110,000 vehicles each day, almost double the capacity for which they were designed. The bridges are vulnerable to windstorms and earthquakes and at risk of collapse if not replaced. The UPA will provide funding for new technology, such as electronic tolling Tolls will be variably priced by time of day, and drivers will pay with a Good To Go! accounts or be billed. License plate photo-recognition technology will detect vehicles without a transponder for billing. With no toll August 13, 2009 Page 3

42 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER booths to slow down traffic, commutes across Lake Washington will be safer, faster and more reliable. 2.3 Existing Conditions The existing conditions for the project area are described in the following sections to complete the background information LOCATION OF FACILITY The proposed SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program corridor is 12.8 miles long, starting from the west in Seattle at Interstate 5 and runs east to SR 202 Redmond Way in Redmond. The roadway crosses Lake Washington on what is called the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, and intersects with Interstate 405 before ending near the Redmond Town Center. The section of roadway of interest is the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge across Lake Washington, as it is the major bottleneck affecting the roadway network, and is the section of roadway to be tolled initially as part of the UPA Program (See Figure 1). The reconstruction of the facility will widen the roadway from two general purpose lanes in both directions to two general purpose lanes and one HOV lane in both directions. This will include the replacement of the floating bridge. Construction (pending funding) is scheduled to begin on the eastside as early as 2010 and bridge construction in Tolling of the bridge will begin late in 2010 during the reconstruction period GEOMETRICS The existing geometrics of SR 520 do not meet current WSDOT design guidelines and reduces the freeway s capacity to provide reliable and safe travel for buses and carpools (HOV) and generalpurpose traffic. Roadway capacity in the SR 520 corridor is constrained by: Narrow shoulders and lanes on the corridor and across the bridge Short acceleration lane lengths at the Montlake interchange and Lake Washington Boulevard on-ramps Poor sight distance at roadway curves resulting in slower speeds SR 520 consists of two general purpose lanes in each direction, with substandard shoulders and lack of continuous HOV lanes. This is consistent through the entire Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, which does not have enough physical room to incorporate any additional lanes which is among the reasons for replacing the bridge. Starting at the western end of SR 520, the I-5 interchange has one southbound lane entering SR 520 eastbound and two northbound lanes entering SR 520 eastbound. Westbound SR 520 ends at the I-5 interchange with one lane to northbound I-5 and two lanes to southbound I-5. The lane from I-5 southbound merges with the two lanes from I-5 northbound to form a total of two general purposes lanes which continue throughout the SR 520 eastbound travel way to I-405. August 13, 2009 Page 4

43 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER Continuing east to the interchange with Montlake Blvd. E., the on-ramp to eastbound SR 520 includes an HOV by-pass lane. However, this lane merges onto the two general purpose lanes along the eastbound SR 520. See Figures 2, 3, and 4. Figure 2 - Boxes A and B in the above picture are individually shown in greater detail in Figures 3 and 4. This overhead photograph shows the last two interchanges prior to the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge traveling in the eastbound direction. August 13, 2009 Page 5

44 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER Figure 3 - The Montlake Blvd. E. Crossing of SR 520. The loop ramp in the southwest quadrant of the photograph is an entrance to eastbound SR 520, and includes an HOV by-pass lane shown with the diamond symbols. August 13, 2009 Page 6

45 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER Figure 4 - This photograph from the next interchange east of Montlake Blvd. E. looking in the eastbound direction along SR 520 shows no HOV lane. This is the last entrance before approaching the east-bound Evergreen Point Floating Bridge. Approaching the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge in the eastbound direction, Figure 4 shows no physical capacity for an HOV lane in the eastbound direction. The roadway continues eastbound across the floating bridge with two lanes and two foot shoulders (at best). Figure 5 depicts the transit flyer stop just past the eastern end of the floating bridge. SR 520 continues eastbound as two general purpose lanes and a shoulder until I-405. Travelling westbound, SR 520 includes two general purpose lanes and an outside (right lane) HOV 3+ bypass lane starting just west of I-405. Vehicles entering the highway at entrance ramps that do not meet the HOV 3+ requirement must merge through the HOV lane to the general purpose lanes. Most sections of the westbound roadway in this section have no shoulders. The HOV 3+ traffic merges into the two general purpose lanes at the transit flyer stop as shown in Figure 5. The roadway continues westbound across the floating bridge with two lanes and two foot shoulders (at best). The interchange with Montlake and Lake Washington Boulevards is located after the western end of the floating bridge (See Figure 2.). Westbound SR 520 ends at the I-5 interchange with one lane to northbound I-5 and two lanes to southbound I-5. August 13, 2009 Page 7

46 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER Figure 5 - This photograph shows the transit flyer stop end just east of the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge. The upper portion of the photograph shows the merging of westbound HOV 3+ lane into the two general purposle lanes prior to the bridge TRAFFIC VOLUMES The 2003 traffic volumes for the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge east of Montlake Blvd. E. and 76 th Ave NE. are presented in Table 1 below. In addition to the high volumes, the approaches to the bridge in each direction experience significant recurring congestion during both AM and PM peak periods, and non-recurring congestion caused by collisions is a frequent occurrence. Table Daily Vehicle Volumes Roadway Eastbound General Purpose Lanes Westbound General Purpose Lanes Eastbound HOV Lanes Westbound HOV Lanes Montlake Blvd 37,000 39,800 N/A N/A 76 th Ave NE 53,100 55,400 N/A 3,000 August 13, 2009 Page 8

47 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 1 The high traffic volumes on SR 520 result in regular congestion at the following locations: 1) Westbound approaching the bridge (near the outside HOV lane termination in Medina as shown in Figure 5) 2) Westbound on the Portage Bay Bridge between I-5 and the Montlake interchange 3) Eastbound approaching the western high rise of the SR 520 Bridge (it would be helpful to have a diagram of the corridor, rather than just the photos. It s hard to visualize how this all fits together Figure 6 This map of the project area shows the three respective points of regular congestion described above. Traffic operations on SR 520 are affected by the outside HOV lanes, especially westbound between 108th Avenue NE and Evergreen Point Road. Throughout this section, the HOV lane is on the outside with no shoulder and many skip stripe sections. Near the 108th Avenue NE and Evergreen Point Road interchanges, skip stripe sections are where general-purpose drivers can travel in the HOV lane for short distances until they can merge in the general-purpose lanes. However, because the general-purpose lanes often operate under congested stop-and-go conditions, drivers are forced to stop in the HOV lane as they wait for a gap in the general-purpose lane traffic. This forces drivers in the HOV lane to travel at slower speeds and creates safety issues. For eastbound travelers, there is no eastbound HOV lane between Evergreen Point Road and NE 124th Avenue NE. HOV traffic must travel in general-purpose lanes. The outside HOV lane operates well on SR 520 east of NE 124th Avenue because this section of roadway has wider lanes and shoulders and experiences little to moderate congestion. During the evening peak period, HOV lane operations near the Northeast 51st Street interchange can be affected by congestion extending back from the termination of SR 520 at Avondale Road. Closely spaced on-ramps also affect SR 520 operations. Four interchanges (124th Avenue NE, SR 520/I-405, 108th Avenue NE, and Bellevue Way NE) all occur in a 1-1/2 mile stretch of roadway. 1 Preliminary Draft of Chapter 5 Freeway Volumes and Operations - Medina to SR 202: Eastside Transit and HOV Project Environmental Assessment, July August 13, 2009 Page 9

48 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER WSDOT s current guideline specifies that interchanges be spaced 1 mile apart. The proximity of these on- and off- ramps results in a high amount of weaving activity in a short distance (especially west of I-405) as vehicles enter and exit the highway. With the outside HOV lane, this weaving degrades HOV lane operations. Westbound, near the eastern shore of Lake Washington, traffic has difficulty merging onto SR 520 from 84th Avenue NE. The on-ramp at this interchange has a short acceleration distance to the SR 520 mainline. The stop bar for the ramp meter is only 150 feet away from the freeway, which does not allow vehicles enough time to reach freeway speeds before merging. Because of the short acceleration length, drivers enter the SR 520 mainline at speeds below 50 mph. During the peak periods, westbound general-purpose traffic on the mainline is generally moving at 30 mph, so general-purpose traffic merging from the 84th Avenue NE on-ramp may also travel at 30 mph through the skip stripe section, causing some congestion in the HOV lane. Just after the 84th Avenue NE merge onto SR 520, the westbound HOV lane terminates near the merge from the Evergreen Point Freeway Station, which also has a short (460-foot) merge into the mainline. With this short merge lane, westbound buses cannot get up to speed and typically merge into the general-purpose lanes at speeds of approximately 35 mph, which affects general-purpose lane speeds Traffic Congestion Speed-flow diagram show in Figure 6 (on the next page) was developed using existing data for 2003 to provide a graphic representation of the congestion that occurs on SR 520 throughout the day 2. As shown in Figure 6, the worst of the congestion on westbound SR 520 begins west of the 84th Avenue on-ramp, which is where the westbound HOV lane terminates and HOV traffic and general-purpose traffic must merge. Congestion extends back to the Bellevue Way interchange area and lasts for approximately 3 hours. As noted above, HOV operations are affected here as well. The westbound HOV lane is discontinuous, with skip stripe sections through the interchange on- and off-ramps. Generalpurpose vehicles travel through these skip stripe sections to access off-ramps and use the sections to merge across to the general-purpose lanes from on-ramps TRANSIT OPERATIONS Transit bus service is provided along the SR 520 corridor, with routes along SR 520 itself. There are two major transit stops for the Freeway Flyer on either side of the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (Figure 3 and Figure 5) and several others on the eastern portion of SR 520 before I-405. Transit use has been steadily increasing in recent years, with expectations of continued increased use. The Urban Partnership will add 45 new buses and other transit improvements along the SR 520 corridor. Existing transit passenger and buses information on the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge are presented in the Table 2 below. 2 Central Puget Sound Freeway Network Usage and Performance 2003 Update, prepared by Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC) for WSDOT, August 13, 2009 Page 10

49 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER Table 2 Transit Use Number of Passengers Number of Buses Westbound Direction Daily 5, AM Peak Period 3, PM Peak Period Eastbound Direction Daily 5, AM Peak Period 1, PM Peak Period 2, Buses are required to merge from these stops into the HOV 3+ lane going west and into the general purpose lane when travelling eastbound. The current deceleration and acceleration lanes do not meet current freeway design standards. The merging of buses into the mainline has a negative impact on traffic in both directions. August 13, 2009 Page 11

50 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER Figure 6: SR 520 Congestion Map (2003) August 13, 2009 Page 12

51 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER SAFETY Safety is a major concern through the SR 520 corridor due to high traffic volumes and resulting congestion. Collision statistics reflect the safety concerns for the western direction of travel approaching the floating bridge. Mileposts 4 through 7 along SR 520 are located on the east side of the floating bridge, with Milepost 4 very close to the eastern end of the bridge, and the milepost numbers increase moving to the eastern direction. Table 3 below shows the average mainline crash rate (collisions per million vehicle miles of travel) along SR 520 between Mileposts 4 and 7, covering the years of Table 3 - East Side SR 520 Crash Rates (Collisions per million vehicle miles of travel) Mileposts Eastern End of Bridge to Just West of Hunt Point Road Just West of Hunt Point Road to Bellevue Way Road Bellevue Way Road to I-405 Eastbound Direction Westbound Direction SR 520 Average Mileposts 4 is just after the point where the SR 520 Bridge reaches the eastside and includes the transit flyer stop and merge at the end of the HOV 3+ lane, as shown in Figure 5. The significantly higher westbound collision rate has been associated the inherent conflicts among the higher speed HOV 3+ lane, stop and go traffic on the mainline, and accelerating on-ramp traffic. The potential addition of more traffic to the HOV lane by providing toll discounts would cause greater safety concerns at the merge point TOLL COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY The SR 520 Toll Collection System (TCS) will automatically identify and classify each vehicle traveling in both directions at a single location on the highway as follows: Capture the transponder identification number (if vehicle has any) and license plate number image of each vehicle; Assemble an electronic toll transaction from the captured vehicle data; Send this information to WSDOT s Customer Service Center (CSC) back office for processing and collection. No toll booths will be provided; therefore, motorists will not be required to stop to pay. Motorists can pay by: August 13, 2009 Page 13

52 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER 4. Establishing a pre-paid, transponder-based Good To Go! customer account with WSDOT from which tolls can be debited; 5. Establishing a pre-paid, registered, license plate based customer account with WSDOT from which tolls can be debited; or 6. Paying (pre-pay or post-pay) for each toll transaction through a number of methods, including by mail, on the web, over the phone, or in person at one of three customer service storefronts. This approach will allow vehicles to travel through the corridor at highway speeds without stopping to pay a toll and causing additional congestion. Figure 7: SR 520 Tolling Point Location PROPOSED TOLLING POINT The initial proposed tolling point for the SR 520 project is at the eastern high rise section of the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge as shown in Error! Reference source not found.. This location was selected because of the stability of the structure, and because it will be away from the upcoming planned construction. As noted in the previous section, the bridge is only wide enough for the two general purpose lanes in each direction, and cannot be physically expanded to include any additional lanes in a time period prior to the construction COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM The goals of the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program are to reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and fuel consumption by working with local jurisdictions and major employers to reduce August 13, 2009 Page 14

53 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER drive-alone commuting. The CTR law, passed in 1991, applies to employers with 100 or more fulltime employees at a single worksite and requires employers to implement programs that encourage alternatives to drive-alone commuting to their worksites. Nearly 1,100 worksites in Washington State participate in the program. Employees commuting to all CTR worksites statewide made more than 26,000 fewer vehicle trips each weekday morning in 2007 than they did when those worksites entered the program. Since many of these trips would otherwise have passed through the state's major traffic chokepoints, their absence reduces our travel delay. For example, CTR employees in the Central Puget Sound made more than 19,200 fewer vehicle trips each weekday morning in 2007 than they did when their employers entered the program. The absence of these trips reduced travel delay by an estimated 18 percent on average during the peak morning commute in the region. Summary results are illustrated in Error! Reference source not found. below. Figure 8: Drive Alone Comparison under CTR Program August 13, 2009 Page 15

54 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER This successful program has resulted in a distributed, employer based, transportation demand management program that does not have centralized administration, eligibility verification, or a carpool matching service WSDOT HOV SYSTEM, HOT LANES, AND TOLLING HOVS WSDOT has established policies regarding the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) system. The goals of the system are: To maximize the people-carrying capacity of the freeway system by providing incentives to use buses, vanpools, and carpools. To provide capacity for future travel growth. To help reduce transportation-related pollution and dependency on fossil fuels. Through HOV programs and policies, strive to make the best use of existing facilities by increasing freeway efficiency and promoting programs to move more people in fewer vehicles. 3 Approximately 225 lane-miles of a planned 320 lane-mile HOV/HOT system are complete, including numerous direct access connections. The Department has established performance standards to ensure that the state's freeway HOV system helps provide reliable travel time and dependability for transit users, vanpoolers, and carpoolers. The speed and reliability of the HOV system are monitored throughout the year. The current performance standard states that a driver in an HOV lane should be able to maintain an average speed of 45 mph or greater at least 90% of the time during the morning and afternoon rush hour. The I-5 and I-405 HOV lanes are not meeting this performance standard, nor is SR 520 during the afternoon peak in the westbound direction. Note that the reconstruction of SR 520 will add an HOV lane in both directions. HOV policy is being updated to include High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes and other forms of congestion management. The first pilot project for HOT lanes was on SR 167. Under this pilot, single occupant vehicle drivers can use the SR 167 HOV lane by paying the dynamically adjusted displayed toll. Vehicles paying the toll must have a transponder and an established transponder account. Carpools, vanpools and transit do not have pay the toll and do not require a transponder. The recently opened second span of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge reintroduced tolling to Washington State. Tolls are paid in the eastbound direction. Drivers have two means to pay the toll: 1) stopping at the toll plaza and paying the toll collector or 2) using the three express toll lanes that allow vehicles equipped with transponders to pay the toll and not stop at the toll plaza. One of the three lanes is an HOV only lane. All vehicles must pay a toll with no discount given to HOVs. The HOV lane does provide HOVs the speed and reliability of a dedicated lane. Finally, WSDOT is actively considering the implementation of a system of express toll lanes throughout the Puget Sound Region. This effort would convert the existing HOV lanes and possibly 3 Accessed on July 29, August 13, 2009 Page 16

55 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER add new lanes to create an extensive system of express toll lanes that would operate similar to HOT lanes. The toll would be set dynamically in response to traffic conditions. August 13, 2009 Page 17

56 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER 3. CARPOOL IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS The development of any potential carpool discount options must incorporate how tolling will be implemented on SR 520. Because both transponders and license plates will be used to uniquely identify vehicles for payment, some means to uniquely identify carpools in the traffic stream is required. Unlike many High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane projects where only those paying to enter the HOV lane need a transponder, the tolling solution for SR 520 requires all vehicles to be identified. The direct implications are that: Each eligible HOV vehicle will require a means to uniquely identify it in order to receive a discount. The preferred options would be through a pre-registered transponder account. There is a requirement to verify that the vehicle is eligible for the discount at the time of passage of the SR 520 Bridge. There is a requirement to allow a pre-registered eligible carpool to indicate that the vehicle is not eligible for a discount for a specific passage of SR 520 Bridge Towards the last point, two potential methods are available. One is to require carpoolers to inform the tolling Customer Service Center that their next trip will not be eligible for a discount. This could be accomplished over the phone, , internet, or text message for example. The other approach is to equip carpool vehicles with transponders that allow a driver to push a button or set a switch to declare the number of persons in the vehicle. Figure 9 shows an example of one such transponder. The vehicle is then charged based upon the transponder setting. The Customer Service Center would need to stock, issue and track an additional tag model depending on implementation. Of course, both approaches require proactive actions by the driver as well as random visual checks by law Figure 9 HOV Declarable Transponder enforcement (much like HOV enforcement) to better ensure compliance. August 13, 2009 Page 18

57 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER 4. POTENTIAL CARPOOL DISCOUNT OPTIONS During the pre-design phase of this project, a concept of operations was developed. Through the development of the concept of operations, four potential options were identified for implementing carpool discounts during the UPA agreement period. Each of the options is described below. 4.1 Carpools Discounted Solely in HOV Lane Under this approach, only vehicles with three or more occupants that are traveling in the designated HOV lane would eligible for a toll discount. Any eligible carpool travelling in an adjacent general purpose lane would not receive a discount. Because of the SR 520 tolling scheme, all eligible carpools would need to have established a registered transponder toll account. The use of a HOV declaration transponder provides better and consistent accuracy in uniquely identifying a vehicle and provides an immediate electronic verification mechanism. Because there is no designed HOV lane for eastbound traffic, this option cannot be implemented for eastbound traffic on SR 520. For westbound traffic, toll transponder reader and license plate image capture camera could be placed above the existing right-hand side, westbound HOV lane approaching the bridge. Any transponder read that is associated with an eligible, preregistered carpool account read or license would receive the carpool discount. Additional infrastructure will be needed to support an additional tolling point with a transponder reader and license plate capture camera such as a roadside cabinet, overhead structure for antennas and camera, power and communications. The transponder readers over each lane use radio frequency (RF) technology to read the vehicle transponders. Cross-lane transponder reads could be an issue, because there is minimal separation between the HOV lane and the general purpose lanes. The RF reader waves spread and are difficult to isolate on just the targeted lane below, resulting in reads from vehicles in neighboring lanes. The structure for the antenna may need to extend into the general purpose lanes to prevent non-carpool vehicles from incorrectly receiving the discount. On the SR 167 HOT Lanes, a second reader was installed over the general purpose lane. The system deduces in which lane a transponder was read based on the signal strength reported by the two readers. Static signage may also be needed to alert carpoolers that they need to be in the HOV lane to receive the discount. Toll account back office processing would need to be modified to apply the discount to the appropriate account and adjust for the second vehicle identification at the main tolling point. Vehicles could violate by entering the HOV lane at some point and passing under the tag reader. If the reader is located where there is no separation between HOV lane and general purpose lanes, a vehicle may only need to weave into the HOV lane for a brief period. Enforcement would require a space for an officer to verify that vehicles passing under the HOV tolling point are valid carpools If they are not valid, a space for an officer to pull the vehicle over in a safe manner with minimal traffic obstruction. This space does not currently exist so the roadway would need to be widened. The observation point may also need to be a hut or some other concealed location otherwise noncarpoolers may notice that there is no observation occurring and enter the HOV lane. The HOV lane currently uses a gore area for enforcement and requires several officers. This enforcement effort slows traffic down in all lanes, further intensifying westbound congestion. 4.2 Carpools Discounted in All Lanes Additional tolling points would be installed next to suitable enforcement observation points. Carpools would be detected at the tolling points through the use of a HOV declaration transponder. August 13, 2009 Page 19

58 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER The switch on the transponder would be set to indicate carpool or non-carpool status. It would be possible to place enforcement indicator lights on the tolling point gantries to indicate that a valid transponder was read with different colors for carpool transponders, non-carpool transponders and no transponders. The solution could be implemented in both direction.. All vehicles would be required to have transponders because of the need for the ability to declare carpool status from within the vehicle. Carpool status cannot be discerned by license plate readers without a preregistration program. No backend processing changes are needed as the vehicle and toll charges are properly handled based on the setting on the HOV declarable transponder, non-hov transponder or license plate image. Enforcement is more difficult in that there are very limited locations to observe for potential violations. Also the identification of a valid carpool across two lanes of freeway traffic and correlating the passage with enforcement lights would be difficult. This solution will require some space for patrol vehicles to park while waiting for violators and additional space to safely pull vehicles over. Real time access to tolling point transponder reads would provide verification for officers of transponder reads, once they pull a potential violator over. 4.3 Construct Declaration Lane A variation on the first option of only providing discounts for vehicles in the HOV approach lane is to construct declaration lanes. The roadway is separated into general purpose and HOV only lanes. The driver selects a one of two general purpose lanes or the HOV lane based on the number of occupants in the vehicle. Figure 10 below shows the declaration lane on SR 91 in Orange County, California. August 13, 2009 Page 20

59 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER T h e Figure 10: SR 91 Declaration Lane Tolling point infrastructure and discount implementation would be the same as the first option. The risk of cross-lane reads may be lower due to the larger separation but they will still need to be screened out. Observation spots and enforcement areas will be needed although they can be located with more flexibility than in the first option. In the first option, the enforcement officer would need to be located at the tolling point, in order to catch weavers and other violators as they pass under the readers. With a declaration zone, the officer may be located within the zone (enforcement space included in the declaration zone design) or at a point upstream. The approach to the declaration lane tolling point will need to be modified as sufficient weaving space will be for vehicles to weave to the correct declaration lane. Signage will need to be posted in advance of the entrances so carpoolers know to move over. There is no room on the west side of the bridge to provide a declaration lane. On the east side, space for the weaving section before the declaration lane is limited and road widening would be required. Overall, this option will require construction or other significant traffic signage and markings control changes along a significant length of roadway. Violation detection and enforcement would be similar to the first option but since the vehicles are locked into the declaration lane after they enter, enforcement areas can be anywhere along the declaration lane allowing them to be placed where space allows rather adjacent or downstream August 13, 2009 Page 21

60 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER from the reader. Whereas potential violators may be able to see whether observation is occurring or not prior to entering the lanes in the first option, they may not have this ability if the entrances are well in advance of the observation point which should help reduce the violation rate. 4.4 Carpool Registration Program An option that would require significant back-end administration and operations support is to only provide discounts to registered carpools. No additional changes would be needed to the facility. When the tag is read, the data would be sent to the Customer Service Center like any other toll transaction read. Processing by the Customer Service Center would be modified to provide a discount. No additional equipment or infrastructure would be installed for violation enforcement. Comment [W1]:?? The additional requirement for this approach comes from managing the carpool registration program. This program would need to be restricted to those who carpool on a regular basis since the discount is applied every day with no means to verify whether there was an actual carpool or not. A rigorous registration process would be needed to validate that the person applying is an actual carpooler with some set of people who commute with the person on a regular basis. A process would also be needed to periodically check that the person is still carpooling. Random enforcement in the field would be required. Fraud prevention would have to be a key part of this program as well. This program could provide for a group registration that would provide flexibility to the carpool in allowing them to choose a vehicle or transponder to use each day. However, it does require additional processing to detect if more than one transponder in a group is detected and the development of business rules for handling these cases. A carpool registration program might discourage the occasional carpooler, although they would still presumably receive some time benefit from using the HOV lane on the westbound bridge approach and splitting the toll cost among more passengers. Policies and process would need to be defined well in advance of beginning toll collection so the program can be set up, potential carpoolers informed and their applications vetted and entered into the system correctly. A similar alternative involves shifting the administrative burden to employers through the use of existing commute trip reduction programs. Carpoolers would pay the full toll but receive compensation via their employer programs to offset some of the costs of the toll. These programs can be more supportive of the occasional commuter, but are typically only available at larger employers. Significant time would be needed to educate and recruit employers and allow them sufficient time to set up their individual programs. It would require employers to allocate additional budget for the program within their companies; establish policies; educate their employees; and assign staff to administer it. August 13, 2009 Page 22

61 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER 5. EVALUATION The evaluation of each option contrasts the four proposed options (presented in Section 4) against not offering a discount. Each of the options would be required to be implemented within the existing conditions and scheduled reconstruction of the corridor. Each option is discussed in terms of highway geometrics, traffic operations, safety, enforcement, technology, operations, relative cost, and programmatic implications. 5.1 Highway Geometrics Because of the scheduled reconstruction of the corridor over the next five years, any short term changes to roadway geometrics requiring any significant reconstruction presents problems in meeting the UPA schedule. Consideration must be given to required environmental clearances, design, construction and, conflicts with planned corridor reconstruction efforts. Details for each carpool option are provided next. Carpools Discounted Solely in HOV Lane: Because there is no eastbound HOV Lane, this option cannot be implemented in the eastbound direction. For westbound traffic, this option would place a tolling point with room for enforcement vehicle pull off somewhere along the outside westbound HOV lane prior to the floating bridge. Ideally, the location would be closer to the floating bridge to capture all HOVs that use the HOV lane. Because of the very restricted westbound roadway geometrics from I-405 to the floating bridge, there is one apparent location just west of Hunts Point Road as shown in Figure 11: Westbound SR 520 Potential HOV Tolling Point. However, this location would lie within the weaving section that allows non-hov traffic to weave through the outside HOV lane to the general purpose lane and not be in violation of the HOV restrictions. These geometric restrictions make this option problematic within the existing highway geometrics. Discount in All Lanes: This option would require the installation of a tolling point for one direction of traffic adjacent to a location from which an enforcement vehicle could safely park and observe two lanes of traffic for potential violators. When a potential violator was identified, the officer would then pursue the vehicle and safely pull it over downstream from the enforcement tolling point. For eastbound traffic, this might require following the vehicle across the entire bridge and pulling the potential violator off to the roadway at the transit flyer stop just east of the bridge (See Figure 5). For westbound traffic on the east side of the bridge, there are several locations that might be viable to place a tolling point. But safe places to pull over potential violators are limited to the eastbound transit flyer stop (just east of the bridge) or following the potential offender across the bridge to an exit or the west side transit flyer stop. Carpool Declaration Lanes: A declaration lane inherently creates additional weaving maneuvers in the traffic stream as drivers select the correct lane. Space for these weaving maneuvers would need to be accommodated in the design of the declaration lane. The lack of sufficient space, location, and time to construct declaration lanes in either direction make this option unviable. Carpool Registration Program: This option requires the establishment of enforcement observation location(s) and the determination of safe location(s) to pull over potential violators, similar to the carpools discounted in all lanes option. No Carpool Discount: The planned deployment of the toll collection system at the east high rise (see Error! Reference source not found. above) would enable toll collection and August 13, 2009 Page 23

62 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER would not required any significant construction. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) agreed that SR 520 electronic tolling would not have harmful effects on the environment, as acknowledged in the recently released finding of no significant impact ( F O N S I ). Figure 11: Westbound SR 520 Potential HOV Tolling Point 5.2 Traffic Operations Travel forecasting model sensitivity tests were run to better understand the sensitivity of HOV lane use along the SR 520 tolled corridor at various vehicle occupancy levels and toll discounts. The model indicated that discounts for carpools would result in additional HOV 3+ lane use. Thus, all of the carpool discount options should result in increased volumes. In the existing westbound HOV lane, this will result in a higher volume of vehicles merging back into the general purpose lanes where the existing HOV lane ends, approaching the floating bridge. This merging will cause more congestion at this critical bottleneck point. The inclusion of an HOV declaration lane would result in a weaving area (crossing of two or more traffic streams traveling in the same direction along a significant length of roadway), as HOVs would August 13, 2009 Page 24

63 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER change lanes to proceed through the declaration lane and non-hovs would avoid the declaration lane. The weaving movements would result in reduced capacity at the tolling point, and hence lead to greater amounts of congestion. Transit vehicle operations will most likely encounter greater travel times due to the increased volume of vehicles in the existing HOV lane, as well as added congestion at the bottleneck point. Increases in congestion will have an adverse impact on the achievement of the urban partnership congestion reduction. 5.3 Safety As described in the previous section, it is expected that all of the toll discount options for carpools would result in an increase in the volume of HOVs, and no discount for carpools would keep the status quo for HOV volumes. The increase in volumes on the westbound HOV lane would increase safety concerns at the merge point. The use of a declaration lane will also increase safety concerns due to weaving. The bottleneck point where the westbound HOV lane ends creates potential conflicts. Carpool toll discounts would lead to an increase in the number of vehicles merging into general purpose lanes and increase the number of potential conflict points and exposure to possible collisions. Increased exposure will result in higher collision frequency. The added congestion caused by the higher volume of vehicles using the HOV lane as described in the previous section would increase the frequency of collisions. An HOV declaration lane would result in a weaving of traffic, as described in the previous section. Weaving areas require intense lane-changing maneuvers as drivers must access lanes in keeping with their vehicle occupancy level. Thus, traffic in a weaving area is subject to turbulence in excess of that normally present on basic highway sections. This turbulence presents special operational problems and design requirements to mitigate such turbulence. Weaving areas lead to more potential conflicts and greater safety exposure and congestion. This will increase the collision frequency approaching the tolling point. Another safety concern is the potential confusion that will be caused by the signing which directs traffic to the appropriate lanes based on HOV requirements. Experience in other tolling facilities shows that such signing can be very challenging for motorists trying to determine which lane they should be using through the tolling point. Drivers will learn through experience, but inexperienced travelers will be more likely make late lane changes through the tolling point, thus increasing the potential of collisions. 5.4 Enforcement As noted in the FHWA HOT Lane Conversion Guidebook 4, For HOT lanes that offer toll-exemption for eligible HOVs, the task of enforcement remains a major operational challenge. Why? Because there is currently no technology available that allows a HOT lane operator to assess a differential toll or provide a toll exemption based on observed vehicle occupancy. As a result, determination of vehicle occupancy has to be performed manually through visual inspection either at a fixed post or in transit. 4 Considerations for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes Conversions Guidebook, Prepared for the HOV Pooled-Fund Study and the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Prepared by HNTB and Booz Allen Hamilton Inc, June 2007, page 4-6 August 13, 2009 Page 25

64 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER A survey conducted on WSDOT HOV lanes in 2007 found that 69% of respondents felt that HOV violations on SR 520 were common. This was the highest of any HOV corridor in the system. Maintaining a visible enforcement presence is required. Accordingly, an observation point is required either as a booth or as a pull off location for law enforcement vehicles. Moreover, the law enforcement officer needs a location to be able to safely pull over the potential offender NO CARPOOL DISCOUNT Enforcement is simple as there is nothing to additionally enforce. However, enforcement of the westbound HOV lane at current levels or better is assumed DISCOUNT ONLY FOR HOV LANE The visual confirmation that a vehicle has three or more occupants is difficult as vehicles may freely enter and exit the outside HOV lane. Vehicles not meeting the HOV 3+ requirement merge entering the highway from the entrance ramps and pass through the HOV lane, thus adding to the difficulty of visual enforcement. Drivers are also free to enter and exit the HOV lane right before and right after any HOV lane reader. This reduces the amount of time an officer can observe the vehicle to determine the number of occupants. This difficulty is reduced if the officer only needs to observe one lane and only be concerned with vehicles in the lane at the HOV lane reader. While detection and enforcement of an individual violation is not difficult, providing sufficient presence could be. There are very few potential observation areas due to the restricted geometrics of the corridor so motorists may learn where to watch for enforcement officers if they want to violate. There are limited locations to safely pull a driver over. Finally, the limited number of turnaround points requires an officer who has caught a violator, to drive across the bridge and back to return to the observation point DISCOUNT IN ALL LANES Violation detection is more difficult than the HOV Lane Only option, since two lanes need to be monitored. Since each lane has a mix of carpools and non-carpools, the toll collection system will need to indicate which vehicles are purported carpools. The enforcement observation points would be co-located with additional tolling points. The officer would be required to correlate the enforcement light reads with the passage of the vehicle to identify potential violators. The officer would then pursue the vehicle and safely pull it over downstream from the enforcement tolling point. As noted previously, for eastbound traffic, this might require following the vehicle across the entire bridge and pulling the potential violator off the roadway at the transit flyer stop just east of the bridge For westbound traffic on the east side of the bridge, there are several locations that might be viable to place a tolling point (or is this an observation point?). But safe places to pull potential violator are limited to the eastbound transit flyer stop (just east of the bridge) or following the potential offender across the bridge to an exit or the west side transit flyer stop. Assuming an HOV declarable transponder is used, many people may forget to have it set to the proper mode. From an enforcement perspective, this is an issue when the transponder is in HOV mode and the vehicle is not a valid carpool. If the HOV declarable transponder uses a switch, the driver may simply forget to switch the mode rather than purposely try to violate. Enforcement practices will have to accommodate these types of situations. It could also lead to increased disputes that would need to be handled by the Customer Service Center and/or the court system. August 13, 2009 Page 26

65 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER CONSTRUCT DECLARATION LANE Detection and enforcement is slightly easier than in the HOV Lane Only option. Since vehicles can only enter and exit at a designated point, patrols will have more time to detect and observe potential violators since they cannot leave the lane once they have entered it. In all respects, this option has the same issues as the HOV Lane Only option CARPOOL REGISTRATION PROGRAM A certain level of monitoring will be required similar to the carpool discount in all lanes option. The primary enforcement comes at the Customer Service Center where two processes may need to be created for detection and enforcement of violations: The CSC will need to periodically verify that registrants are people who carpool regularly and The CSC could develop a process to detect if a registered carpool may not actually be a carpool on a particular day. Carpool verification involves defining what an eligible carpool is, determining the information that must be gathered to register, verifying that information provided is not falsified and tracking that people are not members of multiple carpools. The difficulty depends on how rigorous WSDOT decides to make this process, particularly for the information verification step. Will WSDOT need to interface with other government agencies or employers to check the information? Should all vehicles in a member s household be registered with the program or just the vehicle a member claims to use? How often should the information be checked? Detecting instances of multiple members of a carpool using the bridge on the same day should be straightforward for the vehicles registered to the carpool. The policies to handle these instances could be problematic. Is the discount eliminated for both vehicles? Is there a fine attached? Under what conditions would a carpool be removed from the program? Overall, the complete process may be as difficult to set up as the other options while being less likely to prevent violators and other program fraud. 5.5 Technical and Operational Feasibility Technical and operational feasibility covers the ability to install, integrate and manage additional technical systems and their users. This feasibility will be evaluated in the following areas: Carpool Identification Can carpools be easily identified? Tolling Point Level Systems Is it complicated to add the additional systems needed in the lane or facility? Customer Service Center Systems How complex are the technical changes needed to be made to process carpool discounts? Customer Service Center - What operational changes will the Customer Service Center need to make? August 13, 2009 Page 27

66 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER DISCOUNT ONLY FOR HOV LANE The CSC will need to create a process to register carpool users and send them a special transponder. Since there are no special requirements to register or to stay in the registry, this part should be easy to implement. Adding another transponder type to the system should be straightforward with the larger issue being that the CSC has to ensure it can get enough transponders for the initial number of carpools when tolling begins and that they are priced at a level that is affordable for carpoolers. At the lane level, identification requires adding equipment for an additional tolling point with an overhead structure to support antennas and video cameras. Additionally, power and communications will need to be provided to the site. The CSC system will need to automatically process the HOV lane transponder reads and charge the correct toll to the correct account. These tasks are not technically complex but will require time to plan and implement. The CSC will have to add a process for handling registered customers who complain about not receiving a discount, staff to handle the disputes, and policies on when to make toll adjustments. The customer may have forgotten to get into the HOV lane, they may have gotten into the lane too late and missed the tolling point or there may be a missed read or incorrect license plate identification DISCOUNT IN ALL LANES The CSC will need to create carpool registration and transponder management processes like under the HOV Lane Only option, therefore the issues are consistent with that option. The CSC will still have customers who will contact them about not receiving the discount Unregistered carpools may also call for the discount but these should be fewer in number compared to the HOV lane. If an HOV Declarable transponder is used, the CSC faces a problem similar to enforcement where a transponder is in the incorrect position for the actual vehicle status. In this case, the issue will be when a carpool forgets to declare itself as a carpool. The CSC will need to define if the discount will be given after-the-fact and under what circumstances CONSTRUCT DECLARATION LANE The technical and operational feasibility is very similar to the HOV Lane Only option. The only significant change should be that fewer people call the CSC to claim that the system did not provide them a discount. Since the lanes are defined, there is a lower possibility that they will swerve into or out of the lane and miss the reader. Policies will still need to be defined CARPOOL REGISTRATION PROGRAM Carpool registration will be a much more rigorous process under this option since the CSC may have to make connections with other departments and employers to verify submitted information and to revalidate that information on a periodic basis. Providing the discount can range from easy- to moderate difficulty, depending on how much fraud detection is implemented at this level. The simple approach is to apply the discount to any registered account. The more difficult approach is to also check if there are any other transactions for a similar time period from other vehicles or transponders that are part of that carpool. August 13, 2009 Page 28

67 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER Incorrectly charged vehicles should be rare with this approach since the most likely reason for calls may be poorly maintained carpool registrations or the detection of potential fraud. The CSC will still need to define policies on how to handle this situation. The CSC may have to add processes to detect and handle fraud. This could be a difficult task as there are several potential sources of fraud with this approach. WSDOT will have to be careful about misidentifying potential violators, which may reduce the effectiveness of the processes NO CARPOOL DISCOUNT The technical and operational feasibility is high for this case as there are no additional changes necessary to the toll collection and customer service center systems. 5.6 Relative Cost to Implement and Operate All of the discount options will cost more to implement and operate over not providing discounts. Most of the options require installing additional tolling points and modifying enforcement observation areas to accommodate enforcement vehicles. Additional signage and markings will be required for the declaration lane option. Each discount option places an additional burden on law enforcement personnel by increasing the complexity of the enforcement task and potentially requiring additional staff. The operational cost at the CSC will increase due to more calls concerning the program and questions concerning discounts charged and not charged. The on-going cost of the carpool registration verification effort will require dedicated staff. This option would most likely be the most expensive to operate. Finally, providing a discount to carpools will result in a real revenue loss to WSDOT over the time period of almost six years before the corridor improvements are complete. With expected net revenues of $300 million over this time period, providing discounts to carpools could result in a loss of revenue approaching 5% or almost $15 million dollars that could help close the funding gap for the overall replacement project. 5.7 Programmatic Implications Choosing any of these carpool discount options could result in confusion or inconsistencies because policies on SR 520 would differ from other corridors within the state. The implementation of discounts could set a precedent constraint in other corridors and toll facilities. This is especially true for corridors for which there is an expectation that all vehicles will pay for the improvement. For example, if tolls are exempted for carpools on SR 520, there is certain to be pressure to also exempt carpools on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge HOV lane or potentially on other general purpose toll facilities such as the Columbia River Crossing and Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel. The potential evolution of the HOV system towards an express toll lane system complicates the analysis. Assuming that this potential evolution will occur, it is most likely that the SR 520 HOV lane would become an express toll lane as well, since forecasts project that the planned 3+ HOV lanes will be underutilized and space will be available for solo and 2+ drivers willing to pay an additional toll. On most corridors, non-hov customers would choose between a free trip in general purpose lanes or a paid trip in an express toll lane. An express toll lane within a tolled general purpose facility like SR 520 would offer customers the option to use the general purpose lanes at the base toll rate, or to receive a higher level of service in the express toll lanes for a higher toll rate. Express lane tolls would be adjusted dynamically to maintain higher speeds regardless of flow in the regular lanes. August 13, 2009 Page 29

68 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER HOV lanes were created to improve overall system efficiency and provide for fast and reliable transit services. One objective of the HOV system is to provide an incentive to use carpools and transit so as to carry more people in fewer vehicles. With this objective in mind, carpools would need to be discounted or exempted from express lane tolls to continue to enjoy an HOV incentive beyond the savings from splitting the toll between the driver and passengers; otherwise they are faced with the same choice of whether to pay the incremental toll like all other vehicles. From the point of view of HOV users, this could be viewed as a retreat from a historical policy of incentivizing HOV travel. That doesn t mean that HOV incentives must be provided for general purpose toll applications. One policy approach could be to treat general purpose and express toll applications differently, with HOV incentives tied specifically to express toll lanes. Using this approach, general purpose toll applications would maximize revenues to fund major projects and improved general traffic performance, while express toll lanes would continue to emphasize HOV incentives, making express toll lanes the focus of the state s commitment to increase vehicle occupancy. It is possible to maintain these two approaches to tolling while still providing a consistent policy and customer experience system wide. 5.8 Summary Table 4 below provides a summary of the four options against the topic discussed previously in this section. Table 4: Carpool Discount Options Evaluation Impact Summary Evaluation Factor HOV Lane Only All Lanes Declaration Lane Carpool Registration No Discount Geometrics Limited Impact Limited Impact Significant Impact Limited Impact No Change Traffic Operations Increases Congestion Increases Congestion Increases Congestion Increases Congestion No Change Safety Decreases Safety Decreases Safety Decreases Safety Decreases Safety No Change Enforcement Difficult Very Difficult Easier Very Difficult No Change Technical Feasibility Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible No Change Operational Feasibility Difficult Difficult Easier Most Difficult No Change Cost Incremental Cost Increase Higher Cost Higher Cost Highest Cost Base Case August 13, 2009 Page 30

69 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER Evaluation Factor HOV Lane Only All Lanes Declaration Lane Carpool Registration No Discount Revenue Reduction Higher Reduction Higher Reduction Highest Reduction Base Case Programmatic Less Consistent Less Consistent Less Consistent Least Consistent No Change August 13, 2009 Page 31

70 Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER 6. RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed recommendation is to identify the HOV and emerging express toll lane system as the primary mechanism for increasing vehicle occupancy. Under this approach, HOV s would pay the full toll rate to use general purpose toll facilities, but if uncharged HOV lanes are converted to express toll lanes, HOV users would not pay to use them. In the case of an express toll lane within a general purpose toll facility, HOV s would pay only the base toll rate to use the express toll lane. There is no clear way to quantify the comparative value of toll discounts as an incentive for improving occupancy vs. the alternative use of funds to complete the SR 520 bridge project. However, here are some potential justifications for this recommendation: For the Urban Partnership, an additional HOV incentive has the potential to worsen traffic congestion and decrease safety due to the added traffic merging from the westbound HOV lane approaching the bridge. The HOV lane system has been established as WSDOT s method of providing an incentive to use transit and high occupancy vehicles in exchange for improved travel times. It is not clear that providing an HOV financial incentive as well as a travel time incentive will provide an incrementally increased incentive that s worth the lost revenue it would cost. General tolling is applied primarily to fund major capital expenses, and every dollar is needed for construction, or to provide lower toll rates. In the near term on SR 520, there is no feasible and credible way to enforce compliance of an HOV discount. Document3\ \JW August 13, 2009 Page 32

71 WHITE PAPER Washington State Department of Transportation SR-520 CARPOOL DISCOUNT WHITE PAPER August 13, 2009

72

73

74 From: Caldwell, Jeff To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: FW: Federal consideration of tolling I-90 Date: 4/7/2010 7:12:57 AM Attachments: image001.gif; image002.gif; image003.gif See Ellen s questions below. Would you like to contact her directly? From: Arnis, Amy Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :31 AM To: Caldwell, Jeff Cc: Vaughn, Doug Subject: Fw: Federal consideration of tolling I-90 Please consult Craig. From : Evans, Ellen To : Caldwell, Jeff; Arnis, Amy Cc : Braseth, Svein Sent : Wed Apr 07 06:20: Subject : Federal consideration of tolling I-90 Amy and Jeff, Today s Bond Buyer notes that the FHWA just turned down PA s proposal to toll I-80 because of their requirement that toll revenues be dedicated to the facility being tolled. PA thought they were going to balance their budget with the $$. I have questions and no doubt will be asked questions as to how we think WA might be able to toll I-90. Can you explain the thinking on I-90, or direct me to something that lays it out? Thank you! Ellen Pennsylvania Governor Seeks Special Budget Session as FHWA Rejects Toll Wednesday, April 7, 2010 By Michelle Kaske \fldrslt\cf1\ul \fldrslt\cf1\ul \fldrslt\cf1\ul Rendell Serves Up $29B Budget - February 10, 2010 Pennsylvania s Rendell Signs Table-Games Bill; State Gets Balanced Budget - January 8, 2010 Pennsylvania Governor Hopes for Table-Games Bill by End of Week - January 6, 2010 Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell yesterday called for a special legislative session to find $472.5 million for fiscal 2011 transportation needs as the Federal Highway Administration denied, for the second time, the state s request to implement tolls on Interstate 80. The decision leaves a $472.5 million hole in Rendell s proposed fiscal 2011 budget, since his administration incorporated potential I-80 toll revenue and the bond proceeds that revenue stream

75 would produce in the spending plan. House members approved Rendell s budget proposal last month. The Senate has yet to act on that measure or release its own budget bill. Fiscal 2011 begins July 1. The governor said he is open to all options for additional revenue, including revisiting his earlier proposal of a gross-profits tax on oil companies along with public-private partnerships, fee or tax increases, and potential borrowing options through the state s own capital budget. The special session would happen very soon, Rendell said. We simply cannot wait to replace these funds, the governor said during a press conference. We ll look at every option on the table. We ll go back, hopefully, to look at the oil company grossprofits tax, something that I think the citizens of Pennsylvania will heartily approve. We ll look at P3s, public-private partnerships, maybe looking at a possible lease or a partial lease of the Pennsylvania Turnpike itself. We ll look at any fee or taxing options and I m not committed to either of those. And we ll look at using the state s capital budget authority to see how much of that we can use to meet the needs of our roads, bridges and highways. Rendell said not replacing the $472.5 million of revenue represents a loss of 12,000 construction and manufacturing jobs, 300 miles of roadway that will be left in need of repairs, 100 unfunded bridge upgrades, and cuts in mass transit operations and capital plans throughout the state. Since the state was expecting to leverage the anticipated revenues, Rendell said spending cuts are not an option in his opinion. You can t cut spending to produce capital dollars, the governor said. You have to have some revenue stream to bond off of to produce capital dollars and most of this is capital dollars. In a prepared statement, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the FHWA denied Pennsylvania s application because it did not meet the federal requirement that toll revenues be used exclusively for the facility being tolled. I care about the transportation needs of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and since I became secretary of transportation, I ve traveled there 10 times, LaHood said in a press release. In addition, we have provided $1.4 billion in Recovery Act funds to Pennsylvania over the last year to jump start the economy and put people back to work. We based today s decision on what is allowable under federal law. Overall, not tolling the 311-mile I-80 will result in $60 billion less in revenue for the state over 50 years. The PTC in late October re-filed its I-80 tolling application to the FHWA after the administration rejected the commission s initial request in September At that time, the FHWA said the commission s use of the toll revenue did not meet legal requirements and lacked objective market valuation. Under Act 44, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission makes annual payments to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, with those payments financed in part through bond sales backed by toll increases on the 530-mile Pennsylvania Turnpike. To date, the commission has made $2.2 billion of payments to PennDOT since the passage of Act 44 in July 2007, according to commission

76 spokesman Bill Capone. In addition to the increased Turnpike tolls, the plan was to begin tolling I-80 with PennDOT leasing that 311-mile roadway to the commission. In return, it would make yearly lease payments to PennDOT. Without the toll revenue from I-80, the commission s total fiscal 2011 payment to PennDOT will be $450 million, $472.5 million less than the anticipated $922.5 million payment, Capone said. The Turnpike runs east-west through southern Pennsylvania. I-80 is parallel to the Turnpike and extends through the middle of the state. More articles in Regional News Related Articles Ratings for U.S. States Proctor Junked by Moody s N.Y. City, State Skim 'Profits From Battery Park City Authority O Hare Expansion Gets a Tailwind Taxes See a Mild Milestone Advertisement Most Popular Viewed ed Ellen Evans Deputy Treasurer - Debt Management Office of the State Treasurer State of Washington *** esafe2 scanned this for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***

77

78 From: Rubstello, Patty To: Stone, Craig Cc: Pope, David Subject: I-80 Info Date: 4/7/2010 2:51:07 PM Attachments: Press Release Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80, mht; PA I-80 tolling docx; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf Craig, Here is what David has been able to gather on the topic of I-80: Attached is FHWA s news release on the topic. As mentioned Pennsylvania submitted their request to toll I-80 under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor as well as Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program. Pennsylvania was required by state law HB44 to provide approximately $950m/year of revenue for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 was approved, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The would seem like the more appropriate program to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. Unsubstantiated rumors indicate that Pennsylvania s third application continued to be flawed as were the first two. There have been concerns about the financial plans from the beginning from FHWA and Pennsylvania appeared to have not addressed them. I ve attached our response from FHWA on our expression of interest of tolling I-90. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as a part of the project. Attached is a document that David developed that pulls information from an article that Peter Samuel wrote on this topic. In yellow are the statements that David feels are unsubstantiated facts. Let me know if you need anything else. From: Pope, David Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :13 PM To: Rubstello, Patty Subject: FHWA press release about I-80 R. David Pope (206) (206) cell

79 FHWA Contact: FHWA Public Affairs Tuesday, April 06, 2010 Phone: Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80 WASHINGTON, DC - The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) today announced that it had declined to approve an application to place tolls on the Interstate 80 because the application did not meet the federal requirement that toll revenues be used exclusively for the facility being tolled. "I care about the transportation needs of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and since I became Secretary of Transportation, I've traveled there 10 times. In addition, we have provided $1.4 billion in Recovery Act funds to Pennsylvania over the last year to jump start the economy and put people back to work," said US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "We based today's decision on what is allowable under federal law," Secretary LaHood added. The Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program requires that revenue from tolls be used only to improve the tolled facility, in this case I-80, and not be directed toward other state funding needs or transportation projects elsewhere in the state, as is the case in the Pennsylvania application. Pennsylvania ranks sixth in the nation for receiving the most Recovery Act dollars compared to other states. In addition, it is expected to receive nearly $121 million in TIGER grant funds for two significant transportation projects and a large portion of the $1.2 billion provided for the Northeast Corridor under the High Speed Rail program. # # # FHWA Public Affairs FHWA Home Feedback United States D epartm ent of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration

80 USDOT Rejection of tolling I 80 in Pennsylvania 1. USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I 80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. 2. He is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. 3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). 4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I 81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I 70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. 5. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program 6. Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh 7. The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law HB44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I 80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. 8. Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. 9. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax." 10. Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. Highlight quoted from Toll Roads News and may be speculation. See website for additional information.

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89 From: Pope, David To: Rubstello, Patty Cc: Subject: RE: I-80 Info Date: 4/7/2010 3:06:13 PM Attachments: One minor correction to the second bullet. I think the Pennsylvanialegislature bill was HB 1590 from the session of I guess in PA after abill becomes law its referred to as an Act, thus A (Act) 44. R.David Pope (206) (206) cell From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :51 PM To: Stone, Craig Cc: Pope, David Subject: I-80 Info Craig, Here is what David has been able to gather on the topic of I-80: Attached is FHWA s news release on the topic. Asmentioned Pennsylvania submitted their request to toll I-80 under theinterstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to bespent on expenses outside of the corridor as well as Interstate maintenancefunds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collectedunder this program. Pennsylvania was required by state law HB44 to provideapproximately $950m/year of revenue for other state transportation projects iftolling I-80 was approved, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia andpittsburgh. The would seem like the more appropriate program to have appliedunder would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used fortransit if defined as a part of the project. However it isunknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal withcongestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. Unsubstantiated rumors indicate that Pennsylvania s thirdapplication continued to be flawed as were the first two. There have beenconcerns about the financial plans from the beginning from FHWA andpennsylvania appeared to have not addressed them. I ve attached our response from FHWA on our expression ofinterest of tolling I-90. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the rightavenue for the concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of anexisting interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as a part ofthe project. Attached is a document that David developed that pulls informationfrom an article that Peter Samuel wrote on this topic. In yellow are thestatements that David feels are unsubstantiated facts.

90 Let me know if you need anything else. From: Pope, David Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :13 PM To: Rubstello, Patty Subject: FHWA press release about I-80 R.David Pope (206) (206) cell

91 From: Rubstello, Patty To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: Re: I-80 Info Date: 4/7/2010 5:01:25 PM Attachments: Nice! Sent from my BlackBerry. From : Stone, Craig To : Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry C Cc : Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer; Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon Sent : Wed Apr 07 16:45: Subject : I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor.

92 Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. " Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states.

93 Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

94 From: Ford, Bill To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: Re: I-80 Info Date: 4/7/2010 5:17:17 PM Attachments: Wow! Thanks Bill From : Stone, Craig To : Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry C Cc : Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer; Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon Sent : Wed Apr 07 16:45: Subject : I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll

95 revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. " Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There

96 was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states. Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

97 From: Arnis, Amy To: Stone, Craig Cc: Caldwell, Jeff Vaughn, Doug Subject: Fw: I-80 Info Date: 4/7/2010 5:28:44 PM Attachments: Press Release Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80, mht; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf Jeff and I received /questions from the Treasurer's Office early today. Jeff may have been in contact with you today. Can this be forwarded to the OST? From : Stone, Craig To : Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry C Cc : Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer; Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon Sent : Wed Apr 07 16:45: Subject : I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll

98 revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. " Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There

99 was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states. Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

100 FHWA Contact: FHWA Public Affairs Tuesday, April 06, 2010 Phone: Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80 WASHINGTON, DC - The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) today announced that it had declined to approve an application to place tolls on the Interstate 80 because the application did not meet the federal requirement that toll revenues be used exclusively for the facility being tolled. "I care about the transportation needs of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and since I became Secretary of Transportation, I've traveled there 10 times. In addition, we have provided $1.4 billion in Recovery Act funds to Pennsylvania over the last year to jump start the economy and put people back to work," said US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "We based today's decision on what is allowable under federal law," Secretary LaHood added. The Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program requires that revenue from tolls be used only to improve the tolled facility, in this case I-80, and not be directed toward other state funding needs or transportation projects elsewhere in the state, as is the case in the Pennsylvania application. Pennsylvania ranks sixth in the nation for receiving the most Recovery Act dollars compared to other states. In addition, it is expected to receive nearly $121 million in TIGER grant funds for two significant transportation projects and a large portion of the $1.2 billion provided for the Northeast Corridor under the High Speed Rail program. # # # FHWA Public Affairs FHWA Home Feedback United States D epartm ent of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109 From: Reinmuth, Steve To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: Re: I-80 Info Date: 4/7/2010 6:58:50 PM Attachments: Thanks From : Stone, Craig To : Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry C Cc : Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer; Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon Sent : Wed Apr 07 16:45: Subject : I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor.

110 Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. " Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states.

111 Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

112 From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG To: Hammond; Paula; Dye; Dave; Reinmuth; Steve; Arnis; Amy; Ford; Bill; Brown; Lloyd; Trepanier; Ted; Smith; Brian; Lenzi; Jerry C Cc: Rubstello; Patty; Smith; Helena Kennedy; Meredith; Julie; Eng; Lorena; Pope; David; Ziegler; Jennifer; Broussard; Lucinda; Matkin; Janet; Ehl; Larry; Auyoung; Dillon Subject: I-80 Info Date: 4/7/ :45:15 PM Attachments: Press Release Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80, mht; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program

113 Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. " Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states. Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

114

115 FHWA Contact: FHWA Public Affairs Tuesday, April 06, 2010 Phone: Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80 WASHINGTON, DC - The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) today announced that it had declined to approve an application to place tolls on the Interstate 80 because the application did not meet the federal requirement that toll revenues be used exclusively for the facility being tolled. "I care about the transportation needs of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and since I became Secretary of Transportation, I've traveled there 10 times. In addition, we have provided $1.4 billion in Recovery Act funds to Pennsylvania over the last year to jump start the economy and put people back to work," said US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "We based today's decision on what is allowable under federal law," Secretary LaHood added. The Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program requires that revenue from tolls be used only to improve the tolled facility, in this case I-80, and not be directed toward other state funding needs or transportation projects elsewhere in the state, as is the case in the Pennsylvania application. Pennsylvania ranks sixth in the nation for receiving the most Recovery Act dollars compared to other states. In addition, it is expected to receive nearly $121 million in TIGER grant funds for two significant transportation projects and a large portion of the $1.2 billion provided for the Northeast Corridor under the High Speed Rail program. # # # FHWA Public Affairs FHWA Home Feedback United States D epartm ent of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124 From: Hammond, Paula To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: Re: I-80 Info Date: 4/8/2010 8:14:53 AM Attachments: Thanks Craig. What does the value pricing program allow for the spending I-90 toll revenue on the 520 corridor? Sent from my Blackberry. From : Stone, Craig To : Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry C Cc : Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer; Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon Sent : Wed Apr 07 16:45: Subject : I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor.

125 Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. " Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states.

126 Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

127 From: Ehl, Larry To: Stone, Craig Jennifer Ziegler Cc: Subject: RE: I-80 Info Date: 4/8/ :17:58 AM Attachments: Ok to share with congressional staff? From: Stone, Craig Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :45 PM To: Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry C Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer; Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: 1. USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. 2. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. 3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor. 4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. 5. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program 6. Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies

128 to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh 7. The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: 1. Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. 2. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. " 3. Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: 1. Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states. Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

129 From: Hammond, Paula To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: Re: I-80 Info Date: 4/8/2010 5:56:20 PM Attachments: Thanks. We'll talk more next week. Sent from my Blackberry. From : Stone, Craig To : Hammond, Paula Cc : Dye, Dave; Ziegler, Jennifer Sent : Thu Apr 08 14:54: Subject : RE: I-80 Info In FHWA s reply to our Expression of Interest to consider tolling on I-90 during the Toll Implementation Committee s work, they have stated that the Value Pricing Program would best suit our interests as it allows excess toll revenues from I-90 to be used for other Title 23 eligible projects (i.e. SR 520). An interesting aspect is the term excess for dollars above and beyond debt service, and operations and maintenance activities. We would need further discussion with FHWA if there were no improvements made to I-90 that was funded by the tolling, in order to create the excess situation. However, based on their letter, they also state that improvements are not needed on a facility to implement variable tolling under the Value Pricing Program. Related to this topic of I-90 tolling, one of the questions we want to discuss at next Wednesday s Toll Exec Committee is the department s strategy for HOT lanes under R8A, and whether we should be considering PE budget and/or agency request of toll authorization for next session to allow design and environmental work to begin that links to ST s Stage 3 R8A construction schedule. Craig From: Hammond, Paula Sent: Thursday, April 08, :15 AM To: Stone, Craig Subject: Re: I-80 Info Thanks Craig. What does the value pricing program allow for the spending I-90 toll revenue on the 520 corridor? Sent from my Blackberry. From : Stone, Craig To : Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry C Cc : Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer; Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon

130 Sent : Wed Apr 07 16:45: Subject : I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: 1. USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. 2. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. 3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor. 4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. 5. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program 6. Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh 7. The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: 1. Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. 2. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of

131 interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. " 3. Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: 1. Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states. Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

132 From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG To: Hammond; Paula Cc: Dye; Dave; Ziegler; Jennifer Subject: RE: I-80 Info Date: 4/8/2010 9:54:00 PM Attachments: In FHWA s reply to our Expression of Interest to consider tolling on I-90 during the Toll Implementation Committee s work, they have stated that the Value Pricing Program would best suit our interests as it allows excess toll revenues from I-90 to be used for other Title 23 eligible projects (i.e. SR 520). An interesting aspect is the term excess for dollars above and beyond debt service, and operations and maintenance activities. We would need further discussion with FHWA if there were no improvements made to I-90 that was funded by the tolling, in order to create the excess situation. However, based on their letter, they also state that improvements are not needed on a facility to implement variable tolling under the Value Pricing Program. Related to this topic of I-90 tolling, one of the questions we want to discuss at next Wednesday s Toll Exec Committee is the department s strategy for HOT lanes under R8A, and whether we should be considering PE budget and/or agency request of toll authorization for next session to allow design and environmental work to begin that links to ST s Stage 3 R8A construction schedule. Craig From: Hammond, Paula Sent: Thursday, April 08, :15 AM To: Stone, Craig Subject: Re: I-80 Info Thanks Craig. What does the value pricing program allow for the spending I-90 toll revenue on the 520 corridor? Sent from my Blackberry. From : Stone, Craig To : Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry C Cc : Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer; Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon Sent : Wed Apr 07 16:45: Subject : I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are

133 some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: 1. USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. 2. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. 3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor. 4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. 5. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program 6. Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh 7. The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: 1. Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. 2. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. " 3. Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway.

134 What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: 1. Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states. Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

135 From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG To: Ehl; Larry; Ziegler; Jennifer Cc: Subject: RE: I-80 Info Date: 4/8/2010 9:55:21 PM Attachments: I m good with sharing. If you want to forward to congressional staff, and Jennifer would forward to leg staff that would be fine. From: Ehl, Larry Sent: Thursday, April 08, :18 AM To: Stone, Craig; Ziegler, Jennifer Subject: RE: I-80 Info Ok to share with congressional staff? From: Stone, Craig Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :45 PM To: Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry C Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer; Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: 1. USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. 2. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. 3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor.

136 4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. 5. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program 6. Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh 7. The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: 1. Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. 2. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. " 3. Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: 1. Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states. Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

137

138 From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG To: Fellows; Rob; Rubstello; Patty Cc: Larsen; Chad Subject: FW: I-80 Info Date: 4/9/2010 4:21:15 AM Attachments: We should find a time to discuss what we know, and options to proceed with I-90 heading into Wednesday's toll exec mtg. I am thinking of using the pastel chart, a one-page summary or both. Chad - can you recommend a best time to meet. Craig From: Hammond, Paula Sent: Thu 4/8/2010 5:56 PM To: Stone, Craig Subject: Re: I-80 Info Thanks. We'll talk more next week. Sent from my Blackberry. From: Stone, Craig To: Hammond, Paula Cc: Dye, Dave; Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Thu Apr 08 14:54: Subject: RE: I-80 Info In FHWA s reply to our Expression of Interest to consider tolling on I-90 during the Toll Implementation Committee s work, they have stated that the Value Pricing Program would best suit our interests as it allows excess toll revenues from I-90 to be used for other Title 23 eligible projects (i.e. SR 520). An interesting aspect is the term excess for dollars above and beyond debt service, and operations and maintenance activities. We would need further discussion with FHWA if there were no improvements made to I-90 that was funded by the tolling, in order to create the excess situation. However, based on their letter, they also state that improvements are not needed on a facility to implement variable tolling under the Value Pricing Program. Related to this topic of I-90 tolling, one of the questions we want to discuss at next Wednesday s Toll Exec Committee is the department s strategy for HOT lanes under R8A, and whether we should be considering PE budget and/or agency request of toll authorization for next session to allow design and environmental work to begin that links to ST s Stage 3 R8A construction schedule. Craig

139 From: Hammond, Paula Sent: Thursday, April 08, :15 AM To: Stone, Craig Subject: Re: I-80 Info Thanks Craig. What does the value pricing program allow for the spending I-90 toll revenue on the 520 corridor? Sent from my Blackberry. From: Stone, Craig To: Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry C Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer; Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon Sent: Wed Apr 07 16:45: Subject: I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: 1. USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. 2. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. 3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor. 4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. 5. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program 6. Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh 7. The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around

140 $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: 1. Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. 2. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax." 3. Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: 1. Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states. Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

141 From: Rubstello, Patty To: Stone, Craig Fellows, Rob Cc: Larsen, Chad Subject: Re: I-80 Info Date: 4/9/2010 6:23:23 AM Attachments: We could hang around after the SOM mtg today. Sent from my BlackBerry. From: Stone, Craig To: Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty Cc: Larsen, Chad Sent: Thu Apr 08 21:21: Subject: FW: I-80 Info We should find a time to discuss what we know, and options to proceed with I-90 heading into Wednesday's toll exec mtg. I am thinking of using the pastel chart, a one-page summary or both. Chad - can you recommend a best time to meet. Craig From: Hammond, Paula Sent: Thu 4/8/2010 5:56 PM To: Stone, Craig Subject: Re: I-80 Info Thanks. We'll talk more next week. Sent from my Blackberry. From: Stone, Craig To: Hammond, Paula Cc: Dye, Dave; Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Thu Apr 08 14:54: Subject: RE: I-80 Info In FHWA s reply to our Expression of Interest to consider tolling on I-90 during the Toll Implementation Committee s work, they have stated that the Value Pricing Program would best suit our interests as it allows excess toll revenues from I-90 to be used for other Title 23 eligible projects (i.e. SR 520). An interesting aspect is the term excess for dollars above and beyond debt service, and operations and maintenance activities. We would need further discussion with FHWA if there were no improvements made to I-90 that was funded by the tolling, in order to create the excess situation. However, based on their letter, they also state that improvements are not needed on a facility to implement variable tolling under the Value Pricing Program.

142 Related to this topic of I-90 tolling, one of the questions we want to discuss at next Wednesday s Toll Exec Committee is the department s strategy for HOT lanes under R8A, and whether we should be considering PE budget and/or agency request of toll authorization for next session to allow design and environmental work to begin that links to ST s Stage 3 R8A construction schedule. Craig From: Hammond, Paula Sent: Thursday, April 08, :15 AM To: Stone, Craig Subject: Re: I-80 Info Thanks Craig. What does the value pricing program allow for the spending I-90 toll revenue on the 520 corridor? Sent from my Blackberry. From: Stone, Craig To: Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry C Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer; Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon Sent: Wed Apr 07 16:45: Subject: I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: 1. USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. 2. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. 3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor. 4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70

143 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. 5. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program 6. Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh 7. The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: 1. Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. 2. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax." 3. Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: 1. Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states. Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

144

145 From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Redfield, Beth Simpson, Kelly Munnecke, David Parker, Christie Gamble, Hayley Fleckenstein, Mary Cc: Stone, Craig Subject: FW: I-80 Info Date: 4/12/ :31:16 AM Attachments: Press Release Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80, mht; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf I just returned from vacation, so I apologize for the delay in sending this information. Below is some additional detail on the I-80 decision. Please let me know if you have other questions. Thanks. Jennifer. From: Stone, Craig Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :45 PM To: Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry C Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer; Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: 1. USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. 2. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. 3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor. 4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot.

146 5. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program 6. Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh 7. The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: 1. Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. 2. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. " 3. Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: 1. Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states. Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

147

148 FHWA Contact: FHWA Public Affairs Tuesday, April 06, 2010 Phone: Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80 WASHINGTON, DC - The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) today announced that it had declined to approve an application to place tolls on the Interstate 80 because the application did not meet the federal requirement that toll revenues be used exclusively for the facility being tolled. "I care about the transportation needs of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and since I became Secretary of Transportation, I've traveled there 10 times. In addition, we have provided $1.4 billion in Recovery Act funds to Pennsylvania over the last year to jump start the economy and put people back to work," said US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "We based today's decision on what is allowable under federal law," Secretary LaHood added. The Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program requires that revenue from tolls be used only to improve the tolled facility, in this case I-80, and not be directed toward other state funding needs or transportation projects elsewhere in the state, as is the case in the Pennsylvania application. Pennsylvania ranks sixth in the nation for receiving the most Recovery Act dollars compared to other states. In addition, it is expected to receive nearly $121 million in TIGER grant funds for two significant transportation projects and a large portion of the $1.2 billion provided for the Northeast Corridor under the High Speed Rail program. # # # FHWA Public Affairs FHWA Home Feedback United States D epartm ent of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157 From: Clibborn, Rep. Judy To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: RE: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected Date: 4/12/2010 2:24:07 PM Attachments: Thanks Craig, I had read about this just before we went tothe meeting so I knew a little about it. I am interested to see whatcomes of it. I agree we are in a different place but it does give me somepolitical cover for now. Judy From: Stone, Craig[mailto:StoneC@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Monday, April 12, :04 PM To: Clibborn, Rep. Judy; DyeD@wsdot.wa.gov. Subject: RE: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected Representative Clibborn, I want to take the opportunity to follow up from lastmonday s discussion with the Mercer Island Council regarding the nextday s USDOT decision to deny Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80and how it might relate to considerations by Washington State to tolli-90. Interesting timing indeed. Today we found the actual letter from Secretary LaHood to GovRendell that denies the request. It can be found It s a PDF on the right side under FHWA Response totolling Application Resubmission 4/6/10 I also have enclosed an that provides an overview of whatwe know about the Pennsylvania request, and what we know about Washington s options. Key points are that Pennsylvania applied under a pilot programcalled the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation PilotProgram. During the SR 520 Tolling Implementation Committee s workwe sent FHWA an Expression of Interest letter regarding the feasibility oftolling I-90. In their reply they recommended considering using adifferent pilot called the Value Pricing Program. Since both programs arepilots under TEA-21, it is unclear if they will continue with a federalreauthorization program. I hope this information is helpful. Craig Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division From: Clibborn, Rep. Judy[mailto:Clibborn.Judy@leg.wa.gov]

158 Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :49 AM To: 'Rich Conrad'; Stone, Craig; Subject: FW: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected This was what I had read about in a magazine a couple of weeksago. I guess it really happened. We will have to work carefully tonot have the same result. I think we need to find all the revenue we canfor 520 in as many ways as we can. It may be that we delay certain partsand fund them later ( lid on I-5?) From: Redfield, Beth Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :00 AM To: Clibborn, Rep. Judy Subject: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected Haveyou seen this? Not sure exactly what it means for tolling I-90 to pay for520, since PA really went whole hog spending the money on mass transit andprojects all around the state. WSDOT could argue that 520 and 90 are thesame corridor and maybe get a different answer.

159 From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG To: Hammond; Paula; Dye; Dave; Reinmuth; Steve; Arnis; Amy; Ford; Bill; Brown; Lloyd; Trepanier; Ted; Smith; Brian; Lenzi; Jerry C Cc: Rubstello; Patty; Smith; Helena Kennedy; Meredith; Julie; Eng; Lorena; Pope; David; Ziegler; Jennifer; Broussard; Lucinda; Matkin; Janet; Ehl; Larry; Auyoung; Dillon Subject: I-80 Info Date: 4/12/2010 7:04:15 PM Attachments: Press Release Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80, mht; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf Representative Clibborn, I want to take the opportunity to follow up from last Monday sdiscussion with the Mercer Island Council regarding the next day s USDOTdecision to deny Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 and how it mightrelate to considerations by Washington State to toll I-90. Interestingtiming indeed. Today we found the actual letter from Secretary LaHood to Gov Rendellthat denies the request. It can be found It s a PDF on the right side under FHWA Response totolling Application Resubmission 4/6/10 I also have enclosed an that provides an overview of whatwe know about the Pennsylvania request, and what we know about Washington soptions. Key points are that Pennsylvania applied under a pilot programcalled the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program. During the SR 520 Tolling Implementation Committee s work we sent FHWA anexpression of Interest letter regarding the feasibility of tolling I-90. In their reply they recommended considering using a different pilot called thevalue Pricing Program. Since both programs are pilots under TEA-21, it isunclear if they will continue with a federal reauthorization program. I hope this information is helpful. Craig Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division From: Clibborn, Rep. Judy[mailto:Clibborn.Judy@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :49 AM To: 'Rich Conrad'; Stone, Craig; 'DyeD@wsdot.wa.gov.' Subject: FW: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected This was what I had read about in a magazine a couple of weeksago. I guess it really happened. We will have to work carefully tonot have the same result. I think we need to find all the revenue we canfor 520 in as many ways as we can. It may be that we delay certain partsand fund them later ( lid on I-5?)

160 From: Redfield, Beth Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :00 AM To: Clibborn, Rep. Judy Subject: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected Haveyou seen this? Not sure exactly what it means for tolling I-90 to pay for520, since PA really went whole hog spending the money on mass transit andprojects all around the state. WSDOT could argue that 520 and 90 are thesame corridor and maybe get a different answer.

161 FHWA Contact: FHWA Public Affairs Tuesday, April 06, 2010 Phone: Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80 WASHINGTON, DC - The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) today announced that it had declined to approve an application to place tolls on the Interstate 80 because the application did not meet the federal requirement that toll revenues be used exclusively for the facility being tolled. "I care about the transportation needs of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and since I became Secretary of Transportation, I've traveled there 10 times. In addition, we have provided $1.4 billion in Recovery Act funds to Pennsylvania over the last year to jump start the economy and put people back to work," said US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "We based today's decision on what is allowable under federal law," Secretary LaHood added. The Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program requires that revenue from tolls be used only to improve the tolled facility, in this case I-80, and not be directed toward other state funding needs or transportation projects elsewhere in the state, as is the case in the Pennsylvania application. Pennsylvania ranks sixth in the nation for receiving the most Recovery Act dollars compared to other states. In addition, it is expected to receive nearly $121 million in TIGER grant funds for two significant transportation projects and a large portion of the $1.2 billion provided for the Northeast Corridor under the High Speed Rail program. # # # FHWA Public Affairs FHWA Home Feedback United States D epartm ent of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170 From: Rubstello, Patty To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: I-90 Plan Date: 4/13/2010 2:52:29 PM Attachments: _Initial Plan for I-90.docx Here is what I have so far for the on-page on I-90. Comments are welcomed.

171 I 90 Proposed Plan July 2010 thru January 2011 ($250k): Develop an environmental strategy including defining a Purpose and Need Statement. Initiate early scoping by conduct preliminary alternative analysis, including fatal flaw determination for these and other potential concepts o Single HOT lane o Express Toll Lanes Develop draft concept of operations plan for viable alternatives. Determine the federal opportunities for tolling under potential federal regulations Coordinate concept preliminary designs with Sound Transit Projects within the corridor January 2011 thru June 2011 ($75k): Support legislative requests Advance alternatives as requested by legislative inquiries July 2011 thru December 2011 ($2.5M): Start public environmental process with: o Formal Scoping Meeting o Public outreach to adjacent communities o Discipline Report development Continue coordination with Sound Transit January 2012 thru March 2012 ($1.0M) Support legislative requests Advance alternatives as requested by legislative inquiries Complete Discipline Reports Public Outreach Gain legislative authority for tolling April 2012 thru June 2012 ($500k) Select Preferred Alternative Finalize Environmental Process & publish FONSI Start contract development July 2012 thru December 2012 ($500k) Finalize contract development January 2013 thru April 2014 ($8.0M) Procure toll vendor Install toll system Start tolling Spring 2014

172 From: Leth, Mark To: Stone, Craig Trepanier, Ted Cc: Subject: FW: I-90 Deviations Meeting Date: 4/13/2010 3:38:11 PM Attachments: My point about deviations lastfriday From: Sims, Sent: Tuesday, April 13, :27 PM To: Leth, Mark; Roberts, Rick Subject: FW: I-90 Deviations Meeting Apparently Ed Barry isuncomfortable with our 11 lane recommendation for a restripe option fori-90 between Bellevue & Issaquah. Not sure he s up to speed onoperational and safety issues out there. I wanted to make sure you twowere on board w/ his suggestion.. From: Sims, Don Sent: Tuesday, April 13, :22 PM To: 'Hunter, Carol' Subject: RE: I-90 Deviations Meeting I d suggest Rick Robertsand Leth as well as the guy you mentioned from HQ. The goal is to come toconsensus on what reduced cross section we want to estimate. What is themakeup of lane widths and shoulders. Because ultimately FHWA has toapprove, you may want to bring them in the discussion. On the other hand,since there is no funding, that may be overkill. It will be hard to getleth to show up unless it is up at Dayton. The potential upside is thatthey may recommend we just stick w/ the deviated section we came up withbecause there may not be any measurable safety or operational benefit betweenwhat we are proposing and what Ed is asking for. For example, is therereally a benefit to 12 GP lanes vs. 11 GP lanes (all other things(shoulders) being equal) on an urban tangent section such as this. Somecould argue that 11 lanes may actually lower the 85 th percentile speeds out there which a few years ago were up around 70mphfor a posted 60mph zone. Let me know if you have anyquestions or want to discuss further. From: Hunter, Carol[mailto:HunterC@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, :03 PM To: Sims, Don; Sims, Don (Consultant) Subject: I-90 Deviations Meeting Don, Otherthen Ed Barry, who would you suggest attend our I-90 Deviations meeting?

173 CarolHunter WSDOT,Urban Planning Office 4012nd Ave South #300 Seattle,WA

174 From: Ehl, Larry To: Travis Lumpkin Michael Daum Livia Shmavonian Nelson, Beth Celina Cunningham Sheila Babb Tom Young Cc: Lovain, Tim Dillon Auyoung Craig Stone Jennifer Ziegler Willy Leiste Lloyd Brown Subject: USDOT tolling decision / possible impact to SR 520 / Publicola article Date: 4/14/2010 7:11:45 AM Attachments: Yesterday, Publicola ran an article with the provocative title Federal Ruling Could Erase $1 Billion in Funding for 520 (full article at bottom). The author speculates on the possible impact of a USDOT decision last week declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Here is some initial information we prepared last week. If we have a response to the article, and further analysis, I ll share that when it s available. Let me know if you have questions. Larry Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: 1. USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. 2. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to

175 legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. 3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor. 4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. 5. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program 6. Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh 7. The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: 1. Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. 2. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. " 3. Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: 1. Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to

176 vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states. Federal Ruling Could Erase $1 Billion in Funding for 520 Posted by Erica C. Barnett on April 13, 2010 at 4:30 PM 6 Comments and 0 Reactions Share retweet A ruling last week by US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood could put funding for the proposed $4.6 billion 520 bridge replacement in jeopardy, eliminating approximately $1 billion in potential revenue from tolls on I-90 across Lake Washington. City leaders have repeatedly expressed support for tolling the I-90 bridge across Lake Washington (in addition to tolling the 520 bridge) in part because tolling revenues from both bridges could help close the funding gap for a 520 bridge replacement. The state has been counting on tolling I-90 to pay for about $1 billion of the 520 bridge replacement. However, last week, LaHood rejected a petition by the state of Philadelphia to allow toll money from Interstate 80, which cuts across the center of the state, to be spent to help offset a transit funding shortfall. In his ruling, LaHood cited a little-known Bush-era federal law that prohibits the use of tolls collected on interstate freeways to pay for anything other than improvements to the freeway itself. The ruling presents a huge, perhaps insurmountable, impediment to transportation leaders plans here in Washington State, where I-90 tolls were supposed to help pay for 520, in addition to improvements to I-90 itself. The loss of that revenue would leave 520 with a funding shortfall of about $1 billion. If Washington State wanted to toll I-90 it would be unable to do so right now, unless [toll money] went right back into that road, Bill LaBorde, policy director at the pro-transit Transportation Choices Coalition, said at a forum last week. This is one place where the Obama Administration is less progressive than the Bush Administration. (It s conceivable, LaBorde says, that toll funds could be used to build light rail on I-90, but that remains a bit speculative. ) Contacted by phone today, LaBorde called the ruling a huge deal for the region. A lot of people are thinking the Obama Administration is out of options for financing transportation in the next sixyear [transportation] bill, which was supposed to have been adopted in Maybe they ll revisit that issue in crafting a new bill. However, LaBorde adds, the Administration may fear that drivers will revolt (and vote against Democrats in Congress) if their

177 toll money is used to pay for unrelated projects. City Council members Tom Rasmussen and Richard Conlin, who ve been active on the 520 issue, have not yet returned calls for comment; we ve also got calls in to WSDOT deputy director David Dye, house transportation committee chair Judy Clibborn, and the office of Sen. Patty Murray (D- WA), who reportedly supports the federal tolling policy.

178 From: Ehl, Larry To: Craig Stone Jennifer Ziegler Lloyd Brown Cc: Subject: FW: I-80 Info Date: 4/14/2010 7:12:40 AM Attachments: Thought you d be interested in Murray staff response - From: Lumpkin, Travis (Murray) [mailto:travis_lumpkin@murray.senate.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, :02 AM To: Ehl, Larry Subject: RE: I-80 Info Thank you. I agree that Barnes is blowing this out of proportion a bit. I don t see that the I-80 decision changes anything for us re 520 or CRC. From: Ehl, Larry [mailto:ehll@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, :58 AM To: Lumpkin, Travis (Murray) Subject: FW: I-80 Info Travis, here s our take. I ve been delinquent in getting this out to folks. I don t think the situation is as serious as Barnes makes it sound. From: Stone, Craig Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :45 PM To: Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry C Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer; Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified.

179 What we know: 1. USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. 2. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. 3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor. 4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot. 5. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program 6. Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh 7. The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: 1. Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. 2. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. " 3. Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: 1. Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for

180 transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states. Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

181 From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: FW: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected Date: 4/14/ :03:47 PM Attachments: Senator Haugen may talk with KUOW today. Kelly asked for theusdot letter I went ahead and sent that to him with this because Ithought it had a few good talking points he could use. Hopefully, that meanshaugen s info will be consistent with Paula s. Let me know if youhave questions. Lloyd I also sent some background info to Teresa andclint in case they get questions. I didn t send anything to Viet. From: Simpson, Kelly[mailto:Simpson.Kelly@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, :31 AM To: Ziegler, Jennifer Subject: RE: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected Thanks! From: Ziegler, Jennifer[mailto:zieglej@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, :21 AM To: Simpson, Kelly Subject: FW: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected Thiswill have a few things you can use. You can pull out some talking points fromthe e- mails and then the letter we received in 2009 is attached to the attached . Let me know if you need more. From: Stone, Craig Sent: Monday, April 12, :04 PM To: 'Clibborn, Rep. Judy'; 'DyeD@wsdot.wa.gov.' Subject: RE: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected Representative Clibborn, I want to take the opportunity to follow up from lastmonday s discussion with the Mercer Island Council regarding the nextday s USDOT decision to deny Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80and how it might relate to considerations by Washington State to toll I-90. Interesting timing indeed. Today we found the actual letter from Secretary LaHood to GovRendell that denies the request. It can be found It s a PDF on the right side under FHWA Response totolling Application Resubmission 4/6/10

182 I also have enclosed an that provides an overview of whatwe know about the Pennsylvania request, and what we know about Washington s options. Key points are that Pennsylvania applied under a pilot programcalled the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation PilotProgram. During the SR 520 Tolling Implementation Committee s workwe sent FHWA an Expression of Interest letter regarding the feasibility oftolling I-90. In their reply they recommended considering using adifferent pilot called the Value Pricing Program. Since both programs arepilots under TEA-21, it is unclear if they will continue with a federalreauthorization program. I hope this information is helpful. Craig Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division From: Clibborn, Rep. Judy[mailto:Clibborn.Judy@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :49 AM To: 'Rich Conrad'; Stone, Craig; 'DyeD@wsdot.wa.gov.' Subject: FW: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected This was what I had read about in a magazine a couple of weeksago. I guess it really happened. We will have to work carefully tonot have the same result. I think we need to find all the revenue we canfor 520 in as many ways as we can. It may be that we delay certain partsand fund them later ( lid on I-5?) From: Redfield, Beth Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :00 AM To: Clibborn, Rep. Judy Subject: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected Haveyou seen this? Not sure exactly what it means for tolling I-90 to pay for520, since PA really went whole hog spending the money on mass transit andprojects all around the state. WSDOT could argue that 520 and 90 are thesame corridor and maybe get a different answer.

183 From: Leth, Mark To: Stone, Craig Trepanier, Ted Cc: Subject: RE: I-90 Deviations Meeting Date: 4/15/2010 3:38:53 PM Attachments: I am interested in participatingin that discussion. Thanks From: Stone, Craig Sent: Thursday, April 15, :12 PM To: Leth, Mark; Trepanier, Ted Subject: RE: I-90 Deviations Meeting Point well taken. I am indiscussion with Pasco to assign a design engineer to Rob s Express TollSystem work, with the ability to think about a 300 mile system and that canembrace practical design. From: Leth, Mark Sent: Tuesday, April 13, :38 PM To: Stone, Craig; Trepanier, Ted Subject: FW: I-90 Deviations Meeting My point about deviations lastfriday From: Sims, Don[mailto:don.sims@hdrinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, :27 PM To: Leth, Mark; Roberts, Rick Subject: FW: I-90 Deviations Meeting Apparently Ed Barry isuncomfortable with our 11 lane recommendation for a restripe option fori-90 between Bellevue & Issaquah. Not sure he s up to speed onoperational and safety issues out there. I wanted to make sure you twowere on board w/ his suggestion.. From: Sims, Don Sent: Tuesday, April 13, :22 PM To: 'Hunter, Carol' Subject: RE: I-90 Deviations Meeting I d suggest Rick Roberts andleth as well as the guy you mentioned from HQ. The goal is to come toconsensus on what reduced cross section we want to estimate. What is themakeup of lane widths and shoulders. Because ultimately FHWA has toapprove, you may want to bring them in the discussion. On the other hand,since there is no funding, that may be overkill. It will be hard to getleth to show up unless it is up at Dayton. The potential upside is thatthey may recommend we just stick w/ the deviated section we came up with becausethere may not be any measurable safety or operational benefit between what weare proposing and what Ed is asking for. For example, is there really abenefit to 12 GP lanes vs. 11 GP lanes (all other things(shoulders) being equal) on an urban tangent section such as this. Somecould argue that 11 lanes may actually lower the 85 th percentile speeds out there which a few

184 years ago were up around 70mphfor a posted 60mph zone. Let me know if you have anyquestions or want to discuss further. From: Hunter, Carol[mailto:HunterC@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, :03 PM To: Sims, Don; Sims, Don (Consultant) Subject: I-90 Deviations Meeting Don, Otherthen Ed Barry, who would you suggest attend our I-90 Deviations meeting? CarolHunter WSDOT,Urban Planning Office 4012nd Ave South #300 Seattle,WA

185 From: Larsen, Chad To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: FW: I-90 Plan Date: 4/15/2010 4:33:42 PM Attachments: _Initial Plan for I-90.docx From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Wednesday, April 14, :11 PM To: Larsen, Chad Subject: I-90 Plan Here you go.

186 I 90 Proposed Approach July 2010 thru January 2011 ($250k): Develop an environmental strategy including defining a Purpose and Need Statement. Initiate early scoping by conduct preliminary alternative analysis, including fatal flaw determination for these and other potential concepts o Single HOT lane o Dual Express Toll Lanes o Full Roadway Tolling Develop draft concept of operations plan for viable alternatives. Determine the federal opportunities for tolling under potential federal regulations Coordinate concept preliminary designs with Sound Transit Projects within the corridor Tolling I 90 January 2011 thru June 2011 ($75k): Support legislative requests Advance alternatives as requested by legislative inquiries Continue coordination with Sound Transit July 2011 thru December 2011 ($50k): Perform tasks as directed by legislature Continue coordination with Sound Transit January 2012 thru March 2012 ($25k) Support legislative requests Advance alternatives as requested by legislative inquiries Gain legislative authority for tolling Continue coordination with Sound Transit April 2012 thru June 2012 ($250k) Start public environmental process with: o Formal Scoping Meeting o Public outreach to adjacent communities Start toll contract development Continue coordination with Sound Transit HOT Lanes as soon as Practicable January 2011 thru June 2011 ($75k): Support legislative requests Advance alternatives as requested by legislative inquiries Continue coordination with Sound Transit July 2011 thru December 2011 ($2.0M): Start public environmental process with: o Formal Scoping Meeting o Public outreach to adjacent communities o Discipline Report development Continue coordination with Sound Transit January 2012 thru March 2012 ($750K) Support legislative requests Advance alternatives as requested by legislative inquiries Complete Discipline Reports Public Outreach Gain legislative authority for tolling Continue coordination with Sound Transit April 2012 thru June 2012 ($750K) Select Preferred Alternative Finalize Environmental Process & publish FONSI Start toll contract development Start PS&E Continue coordination with Sound Transit

187 July 2012 thru December 2012 ($xxx) Discipline Report development Public Outreach Continue coordination with Sound Transit January 2013 thru April 2015 ($xxx) Complete Discipline Reports Public outreach Select Preferred Alternative Finalize Environmental Process Finalize toll contract development Procure toll vendor Install toll system Start tolling Early 2015 Continue coordination with Sound Transit July 2012 thru December 2012 ($xxx) Finalize toll contract PS&E Ad & Award Continue coordination with Sound Transit January 2013 thru April 2014 ($xxx) Procure toll vendor Install toll system Start tolling Spring 2014 Continue coordination with Sound Transit

188 From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG To: Leth; Mark; Trepanier; Ted Cc: Subject: RE: I-90 Deviations Meeting Date: 4/15/ :11:55 PM Attachments: Point well taken. I am indiscussion with Pasco to assign a design engineer to Rob s Express TollSystem work, with the ability to think about a 300 mile system and that canembrace practical design. From: Leth, Mark Sent: Tuesday, April 13, :38 PM To: Stone, Craig; Trepanier, Ted Subject: FW: I-90 Deviations Meeting My point about deviations lastfriday From: Sims, Don[mailto:don.sims@hdrinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, :27 PM To: Leth, Mark; Roberts, Rick Subject: FW: I-90 Deviations Meeting Apparently Ed Barry isuncomfortable with our 11 lane recommendation for a restripe option fori-90 between Bellevue & Issaquah. Not sure he s up to speed onoperational and safety issues out there. I wanted to make sure you twowere on board w/ his suggestion.. From: Sims, Don Sent: Tuesday, April 13, :22 PM To: 'Hunter, Carol' Subject: RE: I-90 Deviations Meeting I d suggest Rick Robertsand Leth as well as the guy you mentioned from HQ. The goal is to come toconsensus on what reduced cross section we want to estimate. What is themakeup of lane widths and shoulders. Because ultimately FHWA has toapprove, you may want to bring them in the discussion. On the other hand,since there is no funding, that may be overkill. It will be hard to getleth to show up unless it is up at Dayton. The potential upside is thatthey may recommend we just stick w/ the deviated section we came up withbecause there may not be any measurable safety or operational benefit betweenwhat we are proposing and what Ed is asking for. For example, is therereally a benefit to 12 GP lanes vs. 11 GP lanes (all other things(shoulders) being equal) on an urban tangent section such as this. Somecould argue that 11 lanes may actually lower the 85 th percentile speeds out there which a few years ago were up around 70mphfor a posted 60mph zone. Let me know if you have anyquestions or want to discuss further. From: Hunter, Carol[mailto:HunterC@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, :03 PM

189 To: Sims, Don; Sims, Don (Consultant) Subject: I-90 Deviations Meeting Don, Otherthen Ed Barry, who would you suggest attend our I-90 Deviations meeting? CarolHunter WSDOT,Urban Planning Office 4012nd Ave South #300 Seattle,WA

190 From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG To: Smith; Helena Kennedy; Fellows; Rob Cc: Subject: FW: I-90 Plan Date: 4/15/ :35:38 PM Attachments: _Initial Plan for I-90.docx Wanted to make sure you had thishandout that begins to frame up an approach to I-90 tolling. From: Larsen, Chad Sent: Thursday, April 15, :34 PM To: Stone, Craig Subject: FW: I-90 Plan From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Wednesday, April 14, :11 PM To: Larsen, Chad Subject: I-90 Plan Here you go.

191 I 90 Proposed Approach July 2010 thru January 2011 ($250k): Develop an environmental strategy including defining a Purpose and Need Statement. Initiate early scoping by conduct preliminary alternative analysis, including fatal flaw determination for these and other potential concepts o Single HOT lane o Dual Express Toll Lanes o Full Roadway Tolling Develop draft concept of operations plan for viable alternatives. Determine the federal opportunities for tolling under potential federal regulations Coordinate concept preliminary designs with Sound Transit Projects within the corridor Tolling I 90 January 2011 thru June 2011 ($75k): Support legislative requests Advance alternatives as requested by legislative inquiries Continue coordination with Sound Transit July 2011 thru December 2011 ($50k): Perform tasks as directed by legislature Continue coordination with Sound Transit January 2012 thru March 2012 ($25k) Support legislative requests Advance alternatives as requested by legislative inquiries Gain legislative authority for tolling Continue coordination with Sound Transit April 2012 thru June 2012 ($250k) Start public environmental process with: o Formal Scoping Meeting o Public outreach to adjacent communities Start toll contract development Continue coordination with Sound Transit HOT Lanes as soon as Practicable January 2011 thru June 2011 ($75k): Support legislative requests Advance alternatives as requested by legislative inquiries Continue coordination with Sound Transit July 2011 thru December 2011 ($2.0M): Start public environmental process with: o Formal Scoping Meeting o Public outreach to adjacent communities o Discipline Report development Continue coordination with Sound Transit January 2012 thru March 2012 ($750K) Support legislative requests Advance alternatives as requested by legislative inquiries Complete Discipline Reports Public Outreach Gain legislative authority for tolling Continue coordination with Sound Transit April 2012 thru June 2012 ($750K) Select Preferred Alternative Finalize Environmental Process & publish FONSI Start toll contract development Start PS&E Continue coordination with Sound Transit

192 July 2012 thru December 2012 ($xxx) Discipline Report development Public Outreach Continue coordination with Sound Transit January 2013 thru April 2015 ($xxx) Complete Discipline Reports Public outreach Select Preferred Alternative Finalize Environmental Process Finalize toll contract development Procure toll vendor Install toll system Start tolling Early 2015 Continue coordination with Sound Transit July 2012 thru December 2012 ($xxx) Finalize toll contract PS&E Ad & Award Continue coordination with Sound Transit January 2013 thru April 2014 ($xxx) Procure toll vendor Install toll system Start tolling Spring 2014 Continue coordination with Sound Transit

193 From: Fellows, Rob To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: RE: I-90 Plan Date: 4/16/ :52:07 AM Attachments: Thanks. We need to discuss whether thiswill be done in-house or as part of the express lanes project. I dsuggest coordinating either way. Bill James is on the express lanes teamand would be a good resource at least. -- Rob From: Stone, Craig Sent: Thursday, April 15, :36 PM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy; Fellows, Rob Subject: FW: I-90 Plan Wanted to make sure you had thishandout that begins to frame up an approach to I-90 tolling. From: Larsen, Chad Sent: Thursday, April 15, :34 PM To: Stone, Craig Subject: FW: I-90 Plan From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Wednesday, April 14, :11 PM To: Larsen, Chad Subject: I-90 Plan Here you go.

194 From: Rubstello, Patty To: Howard, Charlie Posthuma, Ron Heffernan, Peter Benjamin Brackett Cc: Stone, Craig Subject: FW: I-80 Info Date: 4/21/ :27:49 AM Attachments: Press Release Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80, mht; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf Here is the I mentioned that Craig developed with regards to Pennsylvania s request for tolling on I-80. Also attached is the response we got from FHWA on our questions on tolling I-90. Let me know if you have questions. From: Stone, Craig Sent: Wednesday, April 07, :45 PM To: Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry C Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer; Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will be significantly modified. What we know: 1. USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached. 2. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds. 3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor. 4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri s application to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot.

195 5. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program 6. Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh 7. The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What is speculated by the Toll Road News website: 1. Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications. 2. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. " 3. Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they were going to lift the restrictions anyway. What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs: 1. Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as part of the project. 2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied under would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the project. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states. Craig J Stone, PE Director, Washington State Toll Division

196

197 FHWA Contact: FHWA Public Affairs Tuesday, April 06, 2010 Phone: Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80 WASHINGTON, DC - The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) today announced that it had declined to approve an application to place tolls on the Interstate 80 because the application did not meet the federal requirement that toll revenues be used exclusively for the facility being tolled. "I care about the transportation needs of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and since I became Secretary of Transportation, I've traveled there 10 times. In addition, we have provided $1.4 billion in Recovery Act funds to Pennsylvania over the last year to jump start the economy and put people back to work," said US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "We based today's decision on what is allowable under federal law," Secretary LaHood added. The Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program requires that revenue from tolls be used only to improve the tolled facility, in this case I-80, and not be directed toward other state funding needs or transportation projects elsewhere in the state, as is the case in the Pennsylvania application. Pennsylvania ranks sixth in the nation for receiving the most Recovery Act dollars compared to other states. In addition, it is expected to receive nearly $121 million in TIGER grant funds for two significant transportation projects and a large portion of the $1.2 billion provided for the Northeast Corridor under the High Speed Rail program. # # # FHWA Public Affairs FHWA Home Feedback United States D epartm ent of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206 From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Redfield, Beth Cc: Munnecke, David Matteson, Mark Subject: RE: another question Date: 4/30/2010 9:34:04 AM Attachments: Response to WashingtonEoI Letter January 7_2009.pdf Lastyear s legislative workgroup had a discussion about FHWA and the I-90issue, but our direction to go ask was in the Tolling Implementation Committeework. I ve attached a copy of the letter that we received in response toour questions. It has a table attached that outlines the different programs andyou can see pretty clearly why Pennsylvania s did not qualify. We are closelywatching Reauthorization conversations on this topic and recognize that our2009 letter was from a previous administration. I m cc ing Craig incase he wants to add anything. From: Redfield, Beth[mailto:Redfield.Beth@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 29, :12 PM To: Ziegler, Jennifer Cc: Munnecke, David; Matteson, Mark Subject: another question HiJennifer, Judytalked quite a bit today about the USDOT decision against Pennsylvania sproposal to toll I-80 and expressed concern about any proposals WA will have totoll I-90. I reported largely what we had been told about how differentthe proposals are, and therefore that WSDOT believed that tolling I-90 wouldfare better. Shewasn t quite satisfied with that and wanted more specifics about theextent to which the Department has engaged the USDOT on the question of tollingi-90. In particular, she thought last year s 520 Legislative WorkGroup had directed DOT to ask FHWA about tolling I-90. Canyou give us more info about the extent of DOT s investigation andengagement on this question? Has any USDOT official been on the recordsaying that WA s proposal would be judged favorably? Idid not ask Judy whether her concern is about HOT lane tolling on I-90 orgeneral tolling on I-90. My guess is that feed back on both types wouldbe useful. Thanks. Beth

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215 From: Reinmuth, Steve To: Hammond, Paula Dye, Dave Arnis, Amy Vaughn, Doug Ziegler, Jennifer Cc: Berntsen, Teresa Auyoung, Dillon Pierce, Steve Stone, Craig Brown, Bryce Alexander, Jay Lenzi, Jerry C LenziJC@wsdot.wa.gov; Ford, Bill FordB@wsdot.wa.gov; Moseley, David MoseleD@wsdot.wa.gov Subject: Initiative Tolling Date: 10/6/ :06:05 AM Attachments: I-467.pdf; draft I-467.doc Thisis a new initiative. I-467seems to really tackle two things. First, it restates that tolls must beused for 18 th Amendment purposes. Second, it limits the use oftolls to capital expenses associated with a project and bans the use of tollsfor operations, maintenance, preservation, optimizing system capacity,etc. The text of the initiative also expressly mentions I-90 and requirestolls to be used for 18 th Amendment purposes. Craig,Jennifer or Amy, have we assessed what the passage of the initiative could doto current financial planning for the use of tolls? From: Brown, Bryce (ATG)[mailto:BryceB@ATG.WA.GOV] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, :32 AM To: Stone, Craig; Ziegler, Jennifer Cc: Auyoung, Dillon; Reinmuth, Steve; Brown, Bryce Subject: FW: draft ballot title for I-467 Has thetolling Division conducted a review of I-467? From: Waldron, Becky (ATG) Sent: Tuesday, October 05, :28 AM To: Hart, Marnie (ATG); Copsey, Alan (ATG); Egeler, Anne (ATG); Geck,Jay (ATG); Even, Jeff (ATG); Zipp, Allyson (ATG); Brown, Bryce (ATG); Amber,Delores (ATG) Cc: Pharris, James (ATG) Subject: draft ballot title for I-467 Please reviewand comment to Jim before noon, 10/11. Thanks. <<I-467.pdf>><<draft I-467.doc>> *** esafe1 scanned this for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***

216 Initiative to the Legislature No. 467 SAVE OUR HIGHWAYS HANDS OFF THE GAS TAX AN ACT Relating to protecting the 18 th Amendment to the Washington Constitution; amending RCW , , , , and ; and creating new sections. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: POLICIES AND PURPOSES NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The 18 th Amendment to the Washington Constitution protects gas taxes and other vehicle-related revenues, ensuring that they re spent exclusively for highway purposes. But politicians and special interest groups have been working for years to sidestep the 18 th Amendment s protections and divert those revenues to non-transportation purposes. This measure protects the 18 th Amendment to the Washington Constitution. This measure would: (1) Prohibit state government from diverting gas taxes and other vehicle-related revenues in the motor vehicle fund to the general fund or other funds and used for non-transportation purposes; (2) Prohibit state government from transferring or using gastax-funded lanes on state highways for non-highway purposes; and

217 (3) Require tolls to be dedicated to the project they re paying for, ending such tolls when the project is completed, and only allowing tolls to be used for purposes consistent with the 18th Amendment to the Washington Constitution. Tolls on a project must be spent on that project and may not be diverted and spent on other things (allowing tolls to be imposed on anyone and spent on anything stops them from being tolls and makes them into de facto taxes). GAS TAXES CANNOT BE DIVERTED TO THE GENERAL FUND OR OTHER FUNDS AND USED FOR NON-TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. State government, the department of transportation, and other agencies may not transfer revenues in the motor vehicle fund to the general fund or other funds and used for non-transportation purposes. GAS-TAX-FUNDED LANES ON STATE HIGHWAYS CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED OR USED FOR NON-HIGHWAY PURPOSES NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. State government, the department of transportation, and other agencies may not transfer or use gas-taxfunded lanes on state highways for non-highway purposes. TOLLS ON A PROJECT MUST BE DEDICATED TO THAT PROJECT, ENDED WHEN THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED, AND USED ONLY FOR PURPOSES CONSISTENT WITH THE 18 TH AMENDMENT TO THE WASHINGTON CONSTITUTION Sec. 4. RCW and 2008 c 122 s 8 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Except as permitted under chapter or RCW: (a) Unless otherwise delegated, and subject to RCW , the department of transportation shall have full charge of the planning, analysis, and construction of all toll bridges and other toll facilities including the Washington state ferries, and the operation and maintenance thereof. (b) The ((transportation commission)) legislature, subject to 2

218 the requirements of RCW , shall determine and establish the tolls and charges thereon. Except for Washington state ferries toll facilities, revenue from tolls or charges on a highway, freeway, road, bridge, or street may only be used for the cost of construction, operation, or maintenance of toll facilities and capital improvements to that particular highway, freeway, road, bridge, or street and all revenues from such tolls may only be used for purposes consistent with the eighteenth amendment to the Washington Constitution. (c) Unless otherwise delegated, and subject to RCW , the department shall have full charge of planning, analysis, and design of all toll facilities. The department may conduct the planning, analysis, and design of toll facilities as necessary to support the legislature's consideration of tolls ((authorization)). (d) The department shall utilize and administer toll collection systems that are simple, unified, and interoperable. To the extent practicable, the department shall avoid the use of toll booths. The department shall set the statewide standards and protocols for all toll facilities within the state, including those authorized by local authorities. (e) Except as provided in this section, the department shall proceed with the construction of such toll bridges and other facilities and the approaches thereto by contract in the manner of state highway construction immediately upon there being made available funds for such work and shall prosecute such work to completion as rapidly as practicable. The department is authorized to negotiate contracts for any amount without bid under (e)(i) and (ii) of this subsection: (i) Emergency contracts, in order to make repairs to ferries or ferry terminal facilities or removal of such facilities whenever continued use of ferries or ferry terminal facilities constitutes a real or immediate danger to the traveling public or precludes prudent use of such ferries or facilities; and (ii) Single source contracts for vessel dry dockings, when there is clearly and legitimately only one available bidder to 3

219 conduct dry dock-related work for a specific class or classes of vessels. The contracts may be entered into for a single vessel dry docking or for multiple vessel dry dockings for a period not to exceed two years. (2) The department shall proceed with the procurement of materials, supplies, services, and equipment needed for the support, maintenance, and use of a ferry, ferry terminal, or other facility operated by Washington state ferries, in accordance with chapter RCW except as follows: (a) When the secretary of the department of transportation determines in writing that the use of invitation for bid is either not practicable or not advantageous to the state and it may be necessary to make competitive evaluations, including technical or performance evaluations among acceptable proposals to complete the contract award, a contract may be entered into by use of a competitive sealed proposals method, and a formal request for proposals solicitation. Such formal request for proposals solicitation shall include a functional description of the needs and requirements of the state and the significant factors. (b) When purchases are made through a formal request for proposals solicitation the contract shall be awarded to the responsible proposer whose competitive sealed proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the state taking into consideration price and other evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals. No significant factors may be used in evaluating a proposal that are not specified in the request for proposals. Factors that may be considered in evaluating proposals include but are not limited to: Price; maintainability; reliability; commonality; performance levels; life cycle cost if applicable under this section; cost of transportation or delivery; delivery schedule offered; installation cost; cost of spare parts; availability of parts and service offered; and the following: (i) The ability, capacity, and skill of the proposer to perform the contract or provide the service required; (ii) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, 4

220 experience, and efficiency of the proposer; (iii) Whether the proposer can perform the contract within the time specified; (iv) The quality of performance of previous contracts or services; (v) The previous and existing compliance by the proposer with laws relating to the contract or services; (vi) Objective, measurable criteria defined in the request for proposal. These criteria may include but are not limited to items such as discounts, delivery costs, maintenance services costs, installation costs, and transportation costs; and (vii) Such other information as may be secured having a bearing on the decision to award the contract. (c) When purchases are made through a request for proposal process, proposals received shall be evaluated based on the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposal. When issuing a request for proposal for the procurement of propulsion equipment or systems that include an engine, the request for proposal must specify the use of a life cycle cost analysis that includes an evaluation of fuel efficiency. When a life cycle cost analysis is used, the life cycle cost of a proposal shall be given at least the same relative importance as the initial price element specified in the request of proposal documents. The department may reject any and all proposals received. If the proposals are not rejected, the award shall be made to the proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to the department, considering price and the other evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposal. Sec. 5. RCW and 2008 c 122 s 3 are each amended to read as follows: The definitions in this section apply throughout this subchapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (1) "Tolling authority" means the governing body that is legally empowered to review and adjust toll rates. ((Unless otherwise delegated, the transportation commission)) As required by 5

221 RCW , the legislature is the tolling authority for all state highways. (2) "Eligible toll facility" or "eligible toll facilities" means portions of the state highway system specifically identified by the legislature including, but not limited to, transportation corridors, bridges, crossings, interchanges, on-ramps, off-ramps, approaches, bistate facilities, and interconnections between highways. (3) "Toll revenue" or "revenue from an eligible toll facility" means toll receipts, all interest income derived from the investment of toll receipts, and any gifts, grants, or other funds received for the benefit of the eligible toll facility that may only be used for purposes consistent with the eighteenth amendment to the Washington Constitution.. Sec. 6. RCW and 2008 c 122 s 4 are each amended to read as follows: (1) ((Unless otherwise delegated)) As required by RCW , only the legislature may authorize the imposition of tolls on eligible toll facilities. (2) All revenue from an eligible toll facility must be used only to construct, improve, preserve, maintain, manage, or operate the eligible toll facility on or in which the revenue is collected subject to the limitations in RCW Expenditures of toll revenues are subject to appropriation and must be made only for the following purposes as long as the expenditure is consistent with the eighteenth amendment to the Washington Constitution: (a) To cover the operating costs of the eligible toll facility, including necessary maintenance, preservation, administration, and toll enforcement by public law enforcement within the boundaries of the facility; (b) To meet obligations for the repayment of debt and interest on the eligible toll facilities, and any other associated financing costs including, but not limited to, required reserves and insurance; 6

222 (c) To meet any other obligations to provide funding contributions for any projects or operations on the eligible toll facilities; (d) To provide for the operations of conveyances of people or goods; or (e) For any other improvements to the eligible toll facilities. Sec. 7. RCW and 2008 c 122 s 5 are each amended to read as follows: Any proposal for the establishment of eligible toll facilities shall consider the following policy guidelines: (1) Overall direction. Washington should use tolling to encourage effective use of the transportation system and provide a source of transportation funding. (2) When to use tolling. Tolling should be used when it can be demonstrated to contribute a significant portion of the cost of a project that cannot be funded solely with existing sources or optimize the performance of the transportation system. Such tolling should, in all cases, be fairly and equitably applied in the context of the statewide transportation system and not have significant adverse impacts through the diversion of traffic to other routes that cannot otherwise be reasonably mitigated. Such tolling should also consider relevant social equity, environmental, and economic issues, and should be directed at making progress toward the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals. (3) Use of toll revenue. All revenue from an eligible toll facility must be used only to improve, preserve, manage, or operate the eligible toll facility on or in which the revenue is collected. Additionally, toll revenue should provide for and encourage the inclusion of recycled and reclaimed construction materials. (4) Setting toll rates. Toll rates, which may include variable pricing, must be set to meet anticipated funding obligations. To the extent possible, the toll rates should be set to optimize system performance, recognizing necessary trade-offs to generate revenue. (5) Duration of toll collection. ((Because transportation 7

223 infrastructure projects have costs and benefits that extend well beyond those paid for by initial construction funding,)) Tolls on future toll facilities ((may remain in place to fund additional capacity, capital rehabilitation, maintenance, management, and operations, and to optimize performance of the system)) must end after the completion of the project. (6) Dedication of tolls. As referenced in RCW , tolls on a project must be spent on that project and may not be diverted elsewhere and all revenues from such tolls may only be used for purposes consistent with the eighteenth amendment to the Washington Constitution. Sec. 8. RCW and 2008 c 270 s 5 are each amended to read as follows: The department shall work with the federal highways administration to determine the necessary actions for receiving federal authorization to toll the Interstate 90 floating bridge. The department must periodically report the status of those discussions to the governor and the joint transportation committee. Toll revenue imposed and collected on the Interstate 90 floating bridge must be used exclusively for toll facilities and capital improvements to the Interstate 90 floating bridge and may only be used for purposes consistent with the eighteenth amendment to the Washington Constitution. MISCELLANEOUS NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act. NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. 8

224 NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. This act is called the Save Our Highways Hands Off the Gas Tax. --- END --- 9

225 Initiative to the Legislature No. 467 SAVE OUR HIGHWAYS HANDS OFF THE GAS TAX AN ACT Relating to protecting the 18 th Amendment to the Washington Constitution; amending RCW , , , , and ; and creating new sections. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: POLICIES AND PURPOSES NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The 18 th Amendment to the Washington Constitution protects gas taxes and other vehicle-related revenues, ensuring that they re spent exclusively for highway purposes. But politicians and special interest groups have been working for years to sidestep the 18 th Amendment s protections and divert those revenues to non-transportation purposes. This measure protects the 18 th Amendment to the Washington Constitution. This measure would: (1) Prohibit state government from diverting gas taxes and other vehicle-related revenues in the motor vehicle fund to the general fund or other funds and used for non-transportation purposes; (2) Prohibit state government from transferring or using gastax-funded lanes on state highways for non-highway purposes; and

226 (3) Require tolls to be dedicated to the project they re paying for, ending such tolls when the project is completed, and only allowing tolls to be used for purposes consistent with the 18th Amendment to the Washington Constitution. Tolls on a project must be spent on that project and may not be diverted and spent on other things (allowing tolls to be imposed on anyone and spent on anything stops them from being tolls and makes them into de facto taxes). GAS TAXES CANNOT BE DIVERTED TO THE GENERAL FUND OR OTHER FUNDS AND USED FOR NON-TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. State government, the department of transportation, and other agencies may not transfer revenues in the motor vehicle fund to the general fund or other funds and used for non-transportation purposes. GAS-TAX-FUNDED LANES ON STATE HIGHWAYS CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED OR USED FOR NON-HIGHWAY PURPOSES NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. State government, the department of transportation, and other agencies may not transfer or use gas-taxfunded lanes on state highways for non-highway purposes. TOLLS ON A PROJECT MUST BE DEDICATED TO THAT PROJECT, ENDED WHEN THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED, AND USED ONLY FOR PURPOSES CONSISTENT WITH THE 18 TH AMENDMENT TO THE WASHINGTON CONSTITUTION Sec. 4. RCW and 2008 c 122 s 8 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Except as permitted under chapter or RCW: (a) Unless otherwise delegated, and subject to RCW , the department of transportation shall have full charge of the planning, analysis, and construction of all toll bridges and other toll facilities including the Washington state ferries, and the operation and maintenance thereof. (b) The ((transportation commission)) legislature, subject to 2

227 the requirements of RCW , shall determine and establish the tolls and charges thereon. Except for Washington state ferries toll facilities, revenue from tolls or charges on a highway, freeway, road, bridge, or street may only be used for the cost of construction, operation, or maintenance of toll facilities and capital improvements to that particular highway, freeway, road, bridge, or street and all revenues from such tolls may only be used for purposes consistent with the eighteenth amendment to the Washington Constitution. (c) Unless otherwise delegated, and subject to RCW , the department shall have full charge of planning, analysis, and design of all toll facilities. The department may conduct the planning, analysis, and design of toll facilities as necessary to support the legislature's consideration of tolls ((authorization)). (d) The department shall utilize and administer toll collection systems that are simple, unified, and interoperable. To the extent practicable, the department shall avoid the use of toll booths. The department shall set the statewide standards and protocols for all toll facilities within the state, including those authorized by local authorities. (e) Except as provided in this section, the department shall proceed with the construction of such toll bridges and other facilities and the approaches thereto by contract in the manner of state highway construction immediately upon there being made available funds for such work and shall prosecute such work to completion as rapidly as practicable. The department is authorized to negotiate contracts for any amount without bid under (e)(i) and (ii) of this subsection: (i) Emergency contracts, in order to make repairs to ferries or ferry terminal facilities or removal of such facilities whenever continued use of ferries or ferry terminal facilities constitutes a real or immediate danger to the traveling public or precludes prudent use of such ferries or facilities; and (ii) Single source contracts for vessel dry dockings, when there is clearly and legitimately only one available bidder to 3

228 conduct dry dock-related work for a specific class or classes of vessels. The contracts may be entered into for a single vessel dry docking or for multiple vessel dry dockings for a period not to exceed two years. (2) The department shall proceed with the procurement of materials, supplies, services, and equipment needed for the support, maintenance, and use of a ferry, ferry terminal, or other facility operated by Washington state ferries, in accordance with chapter RCW except as follows: (a) When the secretary of the department of transportation determines in writing that the use of invitation for bid is either not practicable or not advantageous to the state and it may be necessary to make competitive evaluations, including technical or performance evaluations among acceptable proposals to complete the contract award, a contract may be entered into by use of a competitive sealed proposals method, and a formal request for proposals solicitation. Such formal request for proposals solicitation shall include a functional description of the needs and requirements of the state and the significant factors. (b) When purchases are made through a formal request for proposals solicitation the contract shall be awarded to the responsible proposer whose competitive sealed proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the state taking into consideration price and other evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals. No significant factors may be used in evaluating a proposal that are not specified in the request for proposals. Factors that may be considered in evaluating proposals include but are not limited to: Price; maintainability; reliability; commonality; performance levels; life cycle cost if applicable under this section; cost of transportation or delivery; delivery schedule offered; installation cost; cost of spare parts; availability of parts and service offered; and the following: (i) The ability, capacity, and skill of the proposer to perform the contract or provide the service required; (ii) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, 4

229 experience, and efficiency of the proposer; (iii) Whether the proposer can perform the contract within the time specified; (iv) The quality of performance of previous contracts or services; (v) The previous and existing compliance by the proposer with laws relating to the contract or services; (vi) Objective, measurable criteria defined in the request for proposal. These criteria may include but are not limited to items such as discounts, delivery costs, maintenance services costs, installation costs, and transportation costs; and (vii) Such other information as may be secured having a bearing on the decision to award the contract. (c) When purchases are made through a request for proposal process, proposals received shall be evaluated based on the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposal. When issuing a request for proposal for the procurement of propulsion equipment or systems that include an engine, the request for proposal must specify the use of a life cycle cost analysis that includes an evaluation of fuel efficiency. When a life cycle cost analysis is used, the life cycle cost of a proposal shall be given at least the same relative importance as the initial price element specified in the request of proposal documents. The department may reject any and all proposals received. If the proposals are not rejected, the award shall be made to the proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to the department, considering price and the other evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposal. Sec. 5. RCW and 2008 c 122 s 3 are each amended to read as follows: The definitions in this section apply throughout this subchapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (1) "Tolling authority" means the governing body that is legally empowered to review and adjust toll rates. ((Unless otherwise delegated, the transportation commission)) As required by 5

230 RCW , the legislature is the tolling authority for all state highways. (2) "Eligible toll facility" or "eligible toll facilities" means portions of the state highway system specifically identified by the legislature including, but not limited to, transportation corridors, bridges, crossings, interchanges, on-ramps, off-ramps, approaches, bistate facilities, and interconnections between highways. (3) "Toll revenue" or "revenue from an eligible toll facility" means toll receipts, all interest income derived from the investment of toll receipts, and any gifts, grants, or other funds received for the benefit of the eligible toll facility that may only be used for purposes consistent with the eighteenth amendment to the Washington Constitution.. Sec. 6. RCW and 2008 c 122 s 4 are each amended to read as follows: (1) ((Unless otherwise delegated)) As required by RCW , only the legislature may authorize the imposition of tolls on eligible toll facilities. (2) All revenue from an eligible toll facility must be used only to construct, improve, preserve, maintain, manage, or operate the eligible toll facility on or in which the revenue is collected subject to the limitations in RCW Expenditures of toll revenues are subject to appropriation and must be made only for the following purposes as long as the expenditure is consistent with the eighteenth amendment to the Washington Constitution: (a) To cover the operating costs of the eligible toll facility, including necessary maintenance, preservation, administration, and toll enforcement by public law enforcement within the boundaries of the facility; (b) To meet obligations for the repayment of debt and interest on the eligible toll facilities, and any other associated financing costs including, but not limited to, required reserves and insurance; 6

231 (c) To meet any other obligations to provide funding contributions for any projects or operations on the eligible toll facilities; (d) To provide for the operations of conveyances of people or goods; or (e) For any other improvements to the eligible toll facilities. Sec. 7. RCW and 2008 c 122 s 5 are each amended to read as follows: Any proposal for the establishment of eligible toll facilities shall consider the following policy guidelines: (1) Overall direction. Washington should use tolling to encourage effective use of the transportation system and provide a source of transportation funding. (2) When to use tolling. Tolling should be used when it can be demonstrated to contribute a significant portion of the cost of a project that cannot be funded solely with existing sources or optimize the performance of the transportation system. Such tolling should, in all cases, be fairly and equitably applied in the context of the statewide transportation system and not have significant adverse impacts through the diversion of traffic to other routes that cannot otherwise be reasonably mitigated. Such tolling should also consider relevant social equity, environmental, and economic issues, and should be directed at making progress toward the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals. (3) Use of toll revenue. All revenue from an eligible toll facility must be used only to improve, preserve, manage, or operate the eligible toll facility on or in which the revenue is collected. Additionally, toll revenue should provide for and encourage the inclusion of recycled and reclaimed construction materials. (4) Setting toll rates. Toll rates, which may include variable pricing, must be set to meet anticipated funding obligations. To the extent possible, the toll rates should be set to optimize system performance, recognizing necessary trade-offs to generate revenue. (5) Duration of toll collection. ((Because transportation 7

232 infrastructure projects have costs and benefits that extend well beyond those paid for by initial construction funding,)) Tolls on future toll facilities ((may remain in place to fund additional capacity, capital rehabilitation, maintenance, management, and operations, and to optimize performance of the system)) must end after the completion of the project. (6) Dedication of tolls. As referenced in RCW , tolls on a project must be spent on that project and may not be diverted elsewhere and all revenues from such tolls may only be used for purposes consistent with the eighteenth amendment to the Washington Constitution. Sec. 8. RCW and 2008 c 270 s 5 are each amended to read as follows: The department shall work with the federal highways administration to determine the necessary actions for receiving federal authorization to toll the Interstate 90 floating bridge. The department must periodically report the status of those discussions to the governor and the joint transportation committee. Toll revenue imposed and collected on the Interstate 90 floating bridge must be used exclusively for toll facilities and capital improvements to the Interstate 90 floating bridge and may only be used for purposes consistent with the eighteenth amendment to the Washington Constitution. MISCELLANEOUS NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act. NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. 8

233 NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. This act is called the Save Our Highways Hands Off the Gas Tax. --- END --- 9

234 From: Ehl, Larry To: Craig Stone Jennifer Ziegler Cc: Subject: tolling i-90 Date: 1/13/2011 9:53:47 AM Attachments: Question came up about tolling yesterday at WHUF. Does WSDOT have a contingency plan if, once 520 tolling begins, I90 and other roads become totally jammed. A related question was, would WSDOT try to toll I 90 right away, would we need USDOT approval, and if so do we think it would take forever to get approval. I answered the last question, saying that if the traffic conditions were truly that bad I imagine it would get LaHood s attention and things would move relatively quickly. We also discussed the fed s thinking about tolling these days. There wasn t really a request to get back to the group with answers. So this is just a heads up that the issue was raised. Dillon attended too and may wish to say more.

235 From: Fellows, Rob To: Ziegler, Jennifer Rubstello, Patty Stone, Craig Henry, Kim Cieri, Denise Taylor, Wendy Danberg, Amy Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Cc: Subject: RE: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley Date: 2/10/ :18:10 PM Attachments: I'll check tomorrow to be sure, but my memory is that it took about a month to get a response for I-90. The response is very straightforward; it includes a fact sheet showing how to evaluate which programs might be a good fit and a recommendation about which might be most appropriate to apply under. For I-90 it also included answers to specific questions we asked, such as whether tolls raised from I-90 could be used to fund improvements in a different corridor or a non-highway mode for each of the potential programs. This process doesn't in any way commit the feds to approving toll authority; it simply clarifies what programs toll authority could be requested under that could be successful. -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Thu 2/10/2011 9:36 PM To: Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley How long does it take to get a response after we submit our interest? Original Message From: Fellows, Rob To: Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Sent: Thu Feb 10 21:35: Subject: RE: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley I don't believe we have submitted a formal expression of interest, but that is the first step in gaining authorization. FHWA would then tell us which program(s) they recommend we apply under. I think Patty's right that any of three programs could fit in this case. I saw a draft express of interest floating around and I made a note earlier today to check on its status. We should probably get that out the door (it's just an submittal). -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Rubstello, Patty

236 Sent: Thu 2/10/2011 8:18 PM To: Stone, Craig; Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Cc: Fellows, Rob Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley I wanted to clarify that SR 167 didn't go thru the VPP for the tolling agreement. We ended up using the HOV to HOT program. I believe that with 405 we could apply under all three programs; VPP, HOV to HOT, and Express Toll Lanes Original Message From: Stone, Craig To: Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob Sent: Thu Feb 10 19:35: Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley My partial replies -- 1) Washington State is one of the states under the FHWA Value Pricing Program. We will need a tolling agreement prior to opening. This is the same program and agreements that were put in place for the SR 167 HOT Lanes and for SR 520. We just completed executing the SR 520 tolling agreement last month. We are waiting for legislative action prior to preparing the agreement. Federal reauthorization could change the program and the current administration is reviewing each tolling agreement at the office of the secretary level, however at this time we do not anticipate any changes. 2)Kim's team can address this question. 3)Express Toll Lanes were found to better describe the lanes and their functions from our public outreach efforts. We would prefer to eventually sunset the HOT lane brand. Express Toll Lanes also is a federal program that we may qualify for in lieu of using the value pricing program. 4) We are using 45 mph or better 90 percent of the time as our performance standard. This would apply to all hours of the day. Kim - can your team finalize and get back to Jennifer so she can reply. Thanks, Craig Original Message From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant); Stone, Craig Sent: Thu Feb 10 16:44: Subject: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley --What kind of federal permission do we need to do express toll lanes on I-405? Have we started that process?

237 --Are all of the activities listed in section 4 addressed in the fiscal note? Hayley remembers the QPR where you all talked about retaining staff to look at other projects in the corridor--she wants to know if that is reflected in this request. Also does this work reduce the benefits of going the design-build route for remaining segments? --Why can't we just call these HOT lanes? --What specific times do we use to define peak period for the 45 mph performance standard? Any chance we could get her some responses by the end of the day tomorrow? Jennifer Ziegler, WSDOT Seattle Office: Olympia Office: Cell:

238 From: Rubstello, Patty To: Fellows, Rob Ziegler, Jennifer Stone, Craig Henry, Kim Cieri, Denise Taylor, Wendy Danberg, Amy Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Cc: Subject: RE: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley Date: 2/11/2011 8:40:20 AM Attachments: It took 3 1/2 months to get an official response but we did get an early indication within a month Original Message----- From: Fellows, Rob Sent: Thursday, February 10, :18 PM To: Ziegler, Jennifer; Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Subject: RE: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley I'll check tomorrow to be sure, but my memory is that it took about a month to get a response for I-90. The response is very straightforward; it includes a fact sheet showing how to evaluate which programs might be a good fit and a recommendation about which might be most appropriate to apply under. For I-90 it also included answers to specific questions we asked, such as whether tolls raised from I-90 could be used to fund improvements in a different corridor or a non-highway mode for each of the potential programs. This process doesn't in any way commit the feds to approving toll authority; it simply clarifies what programs toll authority could be requested under that could be successful. -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Thu 2/10/2011 9:36 PM To: Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley How long does it take to get a response after we submit our interest? Original Message From: Fellows, Rob To: Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Sent: Thu Feb 10 21:35: Subject: RE: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley I don't believe we have submitted a formal expression of interest, but that is the first step in gaining authorization. FHWA would then tell us which program(s) they recommend we apply under. I think Patty's right that any of three programs could fit in this case.

239 I saw a draft express of interest floating around and I made a note earlier today to check on its status. We should probably get that out the door (it's just an submittal). -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Thu 2/10/2011 8:18 PM To: Stone, Craig; Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Cc: Fellows, Rob Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley I wanted to clarify that SR 167 didn't go thru the VPP for the tolling agreement. We ended up using the HOV to HOT program. I believe that with 405 we could apply under all three programs; VPP, HOV to HOT, and Express Toll Lanes Original Message From: Stone, Craig To: Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob Sent: Thu Feb 10 19:35: Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley My partial replies -- 1) Washington State is one of the states under the FHWA Value Pricing Program. We will need a tolling agreement prior to opening. This is the same program and agreements that were put in place for the SR 167 HOT Lanes and for SR 520. We just completed executing the SR 520 tolling agreement last month. We are waiting for legislative action prior to preparing the agreement. Federal reauthorization could change the program and the current administration is reviewing each tolling agreement at the office of the secretary level, however at this time we do not anticipate any changes. 2)Kim's team can address this question. 3)Express Toll Lanes were found to better describe the lanes and their functions from our public outreach efforts. We would prefer to eventually sunset the HOT lane brand. Express Toll Lanes also is a federal program that we may qualify for in lieu of using the value pricing program. 4) We are using 45 mph or better 90 percent of the time as our performance standard. This would apply to all hours of the day. Kim - can your team finalize and get back to Jennifer so she can reply. Thanks, Craig

240 ----- Original Message From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant); Stone, Craig Sent: Thu Feb 10 16:44: Subject: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley --What kind of federal permission do we need to do express toll lanes on I-405? Have we started that process? --Are all of the activities listed in section 4 addressed in the fiscal note? Hayley remembers the QPR where you all talked about retaining staff to look at other projects in the corridor--she wants to know if that is reflected in this request. Also does this work reduce the benefits of going the design-build route for remaining segments? --Why can't we just call these HOT lanes? --What specific times do we use to define peak period for the 45 mph performance standard? Any chance we could get her some responses by the end of the day tomorrow? Jennifer Ziegler, WSDOT Seattle Office: Olympia Office: Cell:

241 From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Rubstello, Patty Fellows, Rob Stone, Craig Henry, Kim Cieri, Denise Taylor, Wendy Danberg, Amy Cc: Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley Date: 2/11/2011 8:43:21 AM Attachments: That helps for a ballpark number--thanks Original Message From: Rubstello, Patty To: Fellows, Rob; Ziegler, Jennifer; Stone, Craig; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Sent: Fri Feb 11 07:40: Subject: RE: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley It took 3 1/2 months to get an official response but we did get an early indication within a month Original Message----- From: Fellows, Rob Sent: Thursday, February 10, :18 PM To: Ziegler, Jennifer; Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Subject: RE: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley I'll check tomorrow to be sure, but my memory is that it took about a month to get a response for I-90. The response is very straightforward; it includes a fact sheet showing how to evaluate which programs might be a good fit and a recommendation about which might be most appropriate to apply under. For I-90 it also included answers to specific questions we asked, such as whether tolls raised from I-90 could be used to fund improvements in a different corridor or a non-highway mode for each of the potential programs. This process doesn't in any way commit the feds to approving toll authority; it simply clarifies what programs toll authority could be requested under that could be successful. -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Thu 2/10/2011 9:36 PM To: Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley How long does it take to get a response after we submit our interest? Original Message From: Fellows, Rob To: Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri,

242 Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Sent: Thu Feb 10 21:35: Subject: RE: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley I don't believe we have submitted a formal expression of interest, but that is the first step in gaining authorization. FHWA would then tell us which program(s) they recommend we apply under. I think Patty's right that any of three programs could fit in this case. I saw a draft express of interest floating around and I made a note earlier today to check on its status. We should probably get that out the door (it's just an submittal). -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Thu 2/10/2011 8:18 PM To: Stone, Craig; Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Cc: Fellows, Rob Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley I wanted to clarify that SR 167 didn't go thru the VPP for the tolling agreement. We ended up using the HOV to HOT program. I believe that with 405 we could apply under all three programs; VPP, HOV to HOT, and Express Toll Lanes Original Message From: Stone, Craig To: Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob Sent: Thu Feb 10 19:35: Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley My partial replies -- 1) Washington State is one of the states under the FHWA Value Pricing Program. We will need a tolling agreement prior to opening. This is the same program and agreements that were put in place for the SR 167 HOT Lanes and for SR 520. We just completed executing the SR 520 tolling agreement last month. We are waiting for legislative action prior to preparing the agreement. Federal reauthorization could change the program and the current administration is reviewing each tolling agreement at the office of the secretary level, however at this time we do not anticipate any changes. 2)Kim's team can address this question. 3)Express Toll Lanes were found to better describe the lanes and their functions from our public outreach efforts. We would prefer to eventually sunset the HOT lane brand. Express Toll Lanes also is a federal program that we may qualify for in lieu of using the value pricing program.

243 4) We are using 45 mph or better 90 percent of the time as our performance standard. This would apply to all hours of the day. Kim - can your team finalize and get back to Jennifer so she can reply. Thanks, Craig Original Message From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant); Stone, Craig Sent: Thu Feb 10 16:44: Subject: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley --What kind of federal permission do we need to do express toll lanes on I-405? Have we started that process? --Are all of the activities listed in section 4 addressed in the fiscal note? Hayley remembers the QPR where you all talked about retaining staff to look at other projects in the corridor--she wants to know if that is reflected in this request. Also does this work reduce the benefits of going the design-build route for remaining segments? --Why can't we just call these HOT lanes? --What specific times do we use to define peak period for the 45 mph performance standard? Any chance we could get her some responses by the end of the day tomorrow? Jennifer Ziegler, WSDOT Seattle Office: Olympia Office: Cell:

244 From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Stone, Craig Rubstello, Patty Fellows, Rob Henry, Kim Cieri, Denise Taylor, Wendy Danberg, Amy Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Cc: Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley Date: 2/11/2011 9:49:04 AM Attachments: Ok, I'll pull these responses together and run the final answer by everyone before I send to Hayley Original Message From: Stone, Craig To: Ziegler, Jennifer; Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant); Dye, Dave Sent: Fri Feb 11 08:38: Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley FHwA is not responding to expression of interests now. The bay area has been waiting for about a year now. They have signed tolling agreements when they were required to take a federal action (e.g. SR 520). There is an absence of direction from the office of the secretary at USDOT on tolling. They are not denying any if pursued in a standing program. However FHWA must get the secretary's office permission. We are eligible for the VPP, and I feel they will still approve the ETL when we have leg approval and want an action for NEPA. I don't think they will give us an explicit letter on I-405 in response to an interest letter (or I-90 if we were going ask again). This is based on my discussions last night with their staff. This is the basis for my write up last night for our response to Hayley. Craig Original Message From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Sent: Fri Feb 11 07:43: Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley That helps for a ballpark number--thanks Original Message From: Rubstello, Patty To: Fellows, Rob; Ziegler, Jennifer; Stone, Craig; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Sent: Fri Feb 11 07:40: Subject: RE: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley

245 It took 3 1/2 months to get an official response but we did get an early indication within a month Original Message----- From: Fellows, Rob Sent: Thursday, February 10, :18 PM To: Ziegler, Jennifer; Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Subject: RE: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley I'll check tomorrow to be sure, but my memory is that it took about a month to get a response for I-90. The response is very straightforward; it includes a fact sheet showing how to evaluate which programs might be a good fit and a recommendation about which might be most appropriate to apply under. For I-90 it also included answers to specific questions we asked, such as whether tolls raised from I-90 could be used to fund improvements in a different corridor or a non-highway mode for each of the potential programs. This process doesn't in any way commit the feds to approving toll authority; it simply clarifies what programs toll authority could be requested under that could be successful. -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Thu 2/10/2011 9:36 PM To: Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley How long does it take to get a response after we submit our interest? Original Message From: Fellows, Rob To: Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Sent: Thu Feb 10 21:35: Subject: RE: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley I don't believe we have submitted a formal expression of interest, but that is the first step in gaining authorization. FHWA would then tell us which program(s) they recommend we apply under. I think Patty's right that any of three programs could fit in this case. I saw a draft express of interest floating around and I made a note earlier today to check on its status. We should probably get that out the door (it's just an submittal). -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Thu 2/10/2011 8:18 PM To: Stone, Craig; Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy;

246 Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Cc: Fellows, Rob Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley I wanted to clarify that SR 167 didn't go thru the VPP for the tolling agreement. We ended up using the HOV to HOT program. I believe that with 405 we could apply under all three programs; VPP, HOV to HOT, and Express Toll Lanes Original Message From: Stone, Craig To: Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob Sent: Thu Feb 10 19:35: Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley My partial replies -- 1) Washington State is one of the states under the FHWA Value Pricing Program. We will need a tolling agreement prior to opening. This is the same program and agreements that were put in place for the SR 167 HOT Lanes and for SR 520. We just completed executing the SR 520 tolling agreement last month. We are waiting for legislative action prior to preparing the agreement. Federal reauthorization could change the program and the current administration is reviewing each tolling agreement at the office of the secretary level, however at this time we do not anticipate any changes. 2)Kim's team can address this question. 3)Express Toll Lanes were found to better describe the lanes and their functions from our public outreach efforts. We would prefer to eventually sunset the HOT lane brand. Express Toll Lanes also is a federal program that we may qualify for in lieu of using the value pricing program. 4) We are using 45 mph or better 90 percent of the time as our performance standard. This would apply to all hours of the day. Kim - can your team finalize and get back to Jennifer so she can reply. Thanks, Craig Original Message From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant); Stone, Craig Sent: Thu Feb 10 16:44: Subject: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley --What kind of federal permission do we need to do express toll lanes on I-405? Have we started that process? --Are all of the activities listed in section 4 addressed in the fiscal note? Hayley remembers the QPR where you all talked about retaining staff to look at

247 other projects in the corridor--she wants to know if that is reflected in this request. Also does this work reduce the benefits of going the design-build route for remaining segments? --Why can't we just call these HOT lanes? --What specific times do we use to define peak period for the 45 mph performance standard? Any chance we could get her some responses by the end of the day tomorrow? Jennifer Ziegler, WSDOT Seattle Office: Olympia Office: Cell:

248 From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG To: Consultant Ziegler; Jennifer; Rubstello; Patty; Fellows; Rob; Henry; Kim; Cieri; Denise; Taylor; Wendy; Danberg; Amy; Gants; Colleen (Consultant); Dye; Dave Cc: Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley Date: 2/11/2011 4:38:59 PM Attachments: FHwA is not responding to expression of interests now. The bay area has been waiting for about a year now. They have signed tolling agreements when they were required to take a federal action (e.g. SR 520). There is an absence of direction from the office of the secretary at USDOT on tolling. They are not denying any if pursued in a standing program. However FHWA must get the secretary's office permission. We are eligible for the VPP, and I feel they will still approve the ETL when we have leg approval and want an action for NEPA. I don't think they will give us an explicit letter on I-405 in response to an interest letter (or I-90 if we were going ask again). This is based on my discussions last night with their staff. This is the basis for my write up last night for our response to Hayley. Craig Original Message From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Sent: Fri Feb 11 07:43: Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley That helps for a ballpark number--thanks Original Message From: Rubstello, Patty To: Fellows, Rob; Ziegler, Jennifer; Stone, Craig; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Sent: Fri Feb 11 07:40: Subject: RE: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley It took 3 1/2 months to get an official response but we did get an early indication within a month Original Message----- From: Fellows, Rob Sent: Thursday, February 10, :18 PM To: Ziegler, Jennifer; Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Subject: RE: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley I'll check tomorrow to be sure, but my memory is that it took about a month to get a response for I-90. The response is very straightforward; it includes a

249 fact sheet showing how to evaluate which programs might be a good fit and a recommendation about which might be most appropriate to apply under. For I-90 it also included answers to specific questions we asked, such as whether tolls raised from I-90 could be used to fund improvements in a different corridor or a non-highway mode for each of the potential programs. This process doesn't in any way commit the feds to approving toll authority; it simply clarifies what programs toll authority could be requested under that could be successful. -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Thu 2/10/2011 9:36 PM To: Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley How long does it take to get a response after we submit our interest? Original Message From: Fellows, Rob To: Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Sent: Thu Feb 10 21:35: Subject: RE: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley I don't believe we have submitted a formal expression of interest, but that is the first step in gaining authorization. FHWA would then tell us which program(s) they recommend we apply under. I think Patty's right that any of three programs could fit in this case. I saw a draft express of interest floating around and I made a note earlier today to check on its status. We should probably get that out the door (it's just an submittal). -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Thu 2/10/2011 8:18 PM To: Stone, Craig; Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Cc: Fellows, Rob Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley I wanted to clarify that SR 167 didn't go thru the VPP for the tolling agreement. We ended up using the HOV to HOT program. I believe that with 405 we could apply under all three programs; VPP, HOV to HOT, and Express Toll Lanes Original Message From: Stone, Craig To: Ziegler, Jennifer; Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy;

250 Gants, Colleen (Consultant) Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob Sent: Thu Feb 10 19:35: Subject: Re: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley My partial replies -- 1) Washington State is one of the states under the FHWA Value Pricing Program. We will need a tolling agreement prior to opening. This is the same program and agreements that were put in place for the SR 167 HOT Lanes and for SR 520. We just completed executing the SR 520 tolling agreement last month. We are waiting for legislative action prior to preparing the agreement. Federal reauthorization could change the program and the current administration is reviewing each tolling agreement at the office of the secretary level, however at this time we do not anticipate any changes. 2)Kim's team can address this question. 3)Express Toll Lanes were found to better describe the lanes and their functions from our public outreach efforts. We would prefer to eventually sunset the HOT lane brand. Express Toll Lanes also is a federal program that we may qualify for in lieu of using the value pricing program. 4) We are using 45 mph or better 90 percent of the time as our performance standard. This would apply to all hours of the day. Kim - can your team finalize and get back to Jennifer so she can reply. Thanks, Craig Original Message From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Henry, Kim; Cieri, Denise; Taylor, Wendy; Danberg, Amy; Gants, Colleen (Consultant); Stone, Craig Sent: Thu Feb 10 16:44: Subject: I-405 Bill questions from Hayley --What kind of federal permission do we need to do express toll lanes on I-405? Have we started that process? --Are all of the activities listed in section 4 addressed in the fiscal note? Hayley remembers the QPR where you all talked about retaining staff to look at other projects in the corridor--she wants to know if that is reflected in this request. Also does this work reduce the benefits of going the design-build route for remaining segments? --Why can't we just call these HOT lanes? --What specific times do we use to define peak period for the 45 mph performance standard? Any chance we could get her some responses by the end of the day tomorrow? Jennifer Ziegler, WSDOT Seattle Office: Olympia Office: Cell:

251

252 From: Eddy, Rep. Deborah To: Stone, Cc: Hunter, Rep. Ross Tom, Sen. Subject: RE: Constituent: Good to Go Date: 2/17/2011 5:00:59 PM Attachments: Apparently, you aren't the only one having problems. I'm forwarding your experience to Craig Stone, the director of tolling at WSDOT. I'll be anxious to hear more positive reports about the GoodToGo experience!! /deb/ -----Original Message----- From: Sent: Thursday, February 17, :13 PM To: Eddy, Rep. Deborah Cc: Hunter, Rep. Ross; Tom, Sen. Rodney Subject: Constituent: Good to Go HOUSE INTERNET DELIVERY SERVICE SENATE INTERNET DELIVERY SERVICE TO: Representative Deb Eddy CC: Representative Ross Hunter Senator Rodney Tom FROM: Patrick Hawkins(Constituent) STREET ADDRESS: th Ave NE Clyde Hill, WA PHONE: (425) SUBJECT: Good to Go MESSAGE: Hi Deb I hope everything is well with you. Dorothy and I are filling out the GOOD to GO account application form(dot form ) and we have concerns 1)The item #8 Authorization leaves something to be desired. We have selected under item #6 Replenishment Method Option 2 Manual Replenishment yet under item#8 there is no recognition of the manual replenishment. I have difficulty in signing such a poorly worded application.

253 2)There is no phrase " Product Name " except in item $ Vehicle Information. If WSDOT means one of the types of Pass selected in item #3 why not say so. It would be helpful if they mentioned the Product Name in item #3 if this was the intent. Two other items 1) We received a Clyde Hill news letter that said " GET YOUR GOOD TO GO pass on Fe 17th in the Clyde Hill Parking lot" It also said in the details that you would get a transponder No such luck. To me it appears t from this item and the two above that WSDOT is doing things in a rush or without thinking. 2)Also there appears to me a lack of information about the justification for the tolls. I would like to see some numbers for example the number of cars using the bridge during the various time segments of the tolls. The income from the tolls and a study based on the number of cars diverting to I-90 at which point the WSDOT can no longer pay make the bond payments. 3)What progress and correpondence has been in receiving from the Federal government permission tolls on I-90 Regards Pat NOTE: We are 99% sure that this constituent is in your district RESPONSE REQUESTED: Patrick has requested a response to this message.

254 From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG To: Ziegler; Jennifer; Matkin; Janet Cc: Larsen; Chad; Briglia; Pete; Broussard; Lucinda Subject: FW: Constituent: Good to Go Date: 2/18/ :06:20 AM Attachments: Can our communications team prepare a reply, that we can send to the constituent and to Rep Eddy Original Message----- From: Eddy, Rep. Deborah [mailto:deborah.eddy@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 17, :01 PM To: 'hawkfirst@comcast.net'; Stone, Craig Cc: Hunter, Rep. Ross; Tom, Sen. Rodney Subject: RE: Constituent: Good to Go Apparently, you aren't the only one having problems. I'm forwarding your experience to Craig Stone, the director of tolling at WSDOT. I'll be anxious to hear more positive reports about the GoodToGo experience!! /deb/ -----Original Message----- From: hawkfirst@comcast.net [mailto:hawkfirst@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 17, :13 PM To: Eddy, Rep. Deborah Cc: Hunter, Rep. Ross; Tom, Sen. Rodney Subject: Constituent: Good to Go HOUSE INTERNET DELIVERY SERVICE SENATE INTERNET DELIVERY SERVICE TO: Representative Deb Eddy CC: Representative Ross Hunter Senator Rodney Tom FROM: Patrick Hawkins(Constituent) STREET ADDRESS: th Ave NE Clyde Hill, WA hawkfirst@comcast.net PHONE: (425) SUBJECT: Good to Go MESSAGE: Hi Deb I hope everything is well with you.

255 Dorothy and I are filling out the GOOD to GO account application form(dot form ) and we have concerns 1)The item #8 Authorization leaves something to be desired. We have selected under item #6 Replenishment Method Option 2 Manual Replenishment yet under item#8 there is no recognition of the manual replenishment. I have difficulty in signing such a poorly worded application. 2)There is no phrase " Product Name " except in item $ Vehicle Information. If WSDOT means one of the types of Pass selected in item #3 why not say so. It would be helpful if they mentioned the Product Name in item #3 if this was the intent. Two other items 1) We received a Clyde Hill news letter that said " GET YOUR GOOD TO GO pass on Fe 17th in the Clyde Hill Parking lot" It also said in the details that you would get a transponder No such luck. To me it appears t from this item and the two above that WSDOT is doing things in a rush or without thinking. 2)Also there appears to me a lack of information about the justification for the tolls. I would like to see some numbers for example the number of cars using the bridge during the various time segments of the tolls. The income from the tolls and a study based on the number of cars diverting to I-90 at which point the WSDOT can no longer pay make the bond payments. 3)What progress and correpondence has been in receiving from the Federal government permission tolls on I-90 Regards Pat NOTE: We are 99% sure that this constituent is in your district RESPONSE REQUESTED: Patrick has requested a response to this message.

256 From: Hunter, Rep. Ross To: Eddy, Rep. Deborah Stone, Craig Cc: Tom, Sen. Rodney Subject: RE: Constituent: Good to Go Date: 2/18/2011 8:57:17 AM Attachments: Deb's working on the application issue, so I'll comment on the need for tolls and the reliability of the estimates of diversion. The transportation commission did extensive work modeling driver behavior in predicting what would happen at various levels. We know they won't have gotten it right and have some reserve capacity in case it doesn't work exactly as we expect. I'm answering s in my pathetic apartment in Olympia and am too cheap to pay for internet access here so I can't look the funding study up, but I'm sure you can find it on the WSDOT website. If not write back and I'll send it to you during the day. Rep. Ross Hunter Chair, Ways and Means ross.hunter@leg.wa.gov Read my blog at Mod C 105 Capitol Campus Olympia, WA Bellevue Office: (425) (until January) Olympia Office: (360) (January - May) -----Original Message----- From: Eddy, Rep. Deborah Sent: Thursday, February 17, :01 PM To: 'hawkfirst@comcast.net'; Stone, Craig Cc: Hunter, Rep. Ross; Tom, Sen. Rodney Subject: RE: Constituent: Good to Go Apparently, you aren't the only one having problems. I'm forwarding your experience to Craig Stone, the director of tolling at WSDOT. I'll be anxious to hear more positive reports about the GoodToGo experience!! /deb/ -----Original Message----- From: hawkfirst@comcast.net [mailto:hawkfirst@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 17, :13 PM To: Eddy, Rep. Deborah Cc: Hunter, Rep. Ross; Tom, Sen. Rodney Subject: Constituent: Good to Go HOUSE INTERNET DELIVERY SERVICE SENATE INTERNET DELIVERY SERVICE

257 TO: Representative Deb Eddy CC: Representative Ross Hunter Senator Rodney Tom FROM: Patrick Hawkins(Constituent) STREET ADDRESS: th Ave NE Clyde Hill, WA PHONE: (425) SUBJECT: Good to Go MESSAGE: Hi Deb I hope everything is well with you. Dorothy and I are filling out the GOOD to GO account application form(dot form ) and we have concerns 1)The item #8 Authorization leaves something to be desired. We have selected under item #6 Replenishment Method Option 2 Manual Replenishment yet under item#8 there is no recognition of the manual replenishment. I have difficulty in signing such a poorly worded application. 2)There is no phrase " Product Name " except in item $ Vehicle Information. If WSDOT means one of the types of Pass selected in item #3 why not say so. It would be helpful if they mentioned the Product Name in item #3 if this was the intent. Two other items 1) We received a Clyde Hill news letter that said " GET YOUR GOOD TO GO pass on Fe 17th in the Clyde Hill Parking lot" It also said in the details that you would get a transponder No such luck. To me it appears t from this item and the two above that WSDOT is doing things in a rush or without thinking. 2)Also there appears to me a lack of information about the justification for the tolls. I would like to see some numbers for example the number of cars using the bridge during the various time segments of the tolls. The income from the tolls and a study based on the number of cars diverting to I-90 at which point the WSDOT can no longer pay make the bond payments. 3)What progress and correpondence has been in receiving from the Federal government permission tolls on I-90 Regards

258 Pat NOTE: We are 99% sure that this constituent is in your district RESPONSE REQUESTED: Patrick has requested a response to this message.

259 From: Rehwaldt, Paula To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: RE: Good to Go Pass Problems Date: 2/22/2011 2:14:30 PM Attachments: She will try to call you while in Transportation from 1:30 5:30. If she can t get out to call, this is what she is hearing: Hank Myer with Redmond City Council said he has gone twice to get his pass. The first time there was some problem with the computers not working and he couldn t get it. The second time, he was told that it would be a long wait because it was taking 20 minutes per person due to some sort of computer issue. He is concerned about the negative message this is sending out. I ve pasted Pat Hawkins concerns below, (formerly of the Clyde Hill City Council), but I think Rep Eddy may have already forwarded that to you. He finds the form confusing and the flyer did not contain accurate information. Dorothy and I are filling out the GOOD to GO account application form(dot form ) and we have concerns 1)The item #8 Authorization leaves something to be desired. We have selected under item #6 Replenishment Method Option 2 Manual Replenishment yet under item#8 there is no recognition of the manual replenishment. I have difficulty in signing such a poorly worded application. 2)There is no phrase " Product Name " except in item $ Vehicle Information. If WSDOT means one of the types of Pass selected in item #3 why not say so. It would be helpful if they mentioned the Product Name in item #3 if this was the intent. Two other items 1) We received a Clyde Hill news letter that said " GET YOUR GOOD TO GO pass on Fe 17th in the Clyde Hill Parking lot" It also said in the details that you would get a transponder No such luck. To me it appears t from this item and the two above that WSDOT is doing things in a rush or without thinking. He also wanted to know: 2)Also there appears to me a lack of information about the justification for the tolls. I would like to see some numbers for example the number of cars using the bridge during the various time segments of the tolls. The income from the tolls and a study based on the number of cars diverting to I-90 at which point the WSDOT can no longer pay make the bond payments. 3)What progress and correpondence has been in receiving from the Federal government permission tolls on I-90

260 Thanks, Craig. Paula Rehwaldt Legislative Assistant to Representative Deborah Eddy / 48th Legislative District / From: Stone, Craig [mailto:stonec@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, :47 PM To: Rehwaldt, Paula Cc: Larsen, Chad Subject: RE: Good to Go Pass Problems I should be available all afternoon. My office number is From: Rehwaldt, Paula [mailto:paula.rehwaldt@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, :43 PM To: Stone, Craig Subject: RE: Good to Go Pass Problems She has transportation most of the afternoon, so she will have call you during a lull. What is the best number to get you at and is there a time you aren t available? From: Stone, Craig [mailto:stonec@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, :41 PM To: Rehwaldt, Paula; Ziegler, Jennifer Subject: RE: Good to Go Pass Problems I would be happy to discuss these concerns. When would be a good time to call the Representative? Craig From: Rehwaldt, Paula [mailto:paula.rehwaldt@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, :38 PM To: Ziegler, Jennifer Cc: Stone, Craig Subject: Good to Go Pass Problems Jennifer and Craig, Rep Eddy has heard from two elected officials and constituents in her district about problems getting Good to Go passes. One of elected officials said that he has gone twice and due to slow computers or something similar, has not been able to get his Good to Go pass. Deb said that she needs some answers as to what is going on. She was also wondering if it would be possible to call Craig this afternoon or tomorrow. Paula Rehwaldt

261 Legislative Assistant to Representative Deborah Eddy / 48th Legislative District /

262 From: Smith, Helena Kennedy /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HSMITH To: Stone; Craig Cc: Ziegler; Jennifer Subject: Departmental responses Date: 3/21/ :43:53 PM Attachments: From HQ regarding the I Program budget and project list: As Doug mentioned, the House Transportation Committee released their budget proposals earlier today. P technical or legal concerns to CPDM (Jay, Gary, Rich, and Mike) by the end of today. Policy concerns can wa tomorrow. We will consolidate the issues and concerns for all capital programs into a single document to be with the budget office and executives. The response so far: 1. I-5/Columbia River Crossing/Vancouver EIS (400506A) In the 2011 February Update, Department proposed programming an additional $50,000,000 in federal funding on the project. This amount was reduced by $39,701, Toll Analysis and Investment Strategy Development (100067T) Funding was proposed to develop a strategy for the delivery of Express Toll Lanes on the I-405 and SR 167 Corridors and to obtain the environmental clearance necessary to toll I-90. The HTC proposal provides funding ($500,000) to obtain the environmental clearance necessary to toll I-90 in order to address diversion on the SR 520 Floating Bridge. The estimated cost for this activity is $5,000,000: o Environmental Assessment ($2,500,000) Engineering support Document preparation and outreach o Discipline Report ($500,000) o Conceptual Design ($2,000,000) Gov. Proposed $147,766,000 Feb. Update $197,709,000 Gov. Proposed $0 Feb. Update $10,000,000 $ I requested that they referred to EHB 1382 that requires work on I-405 that would not be funded. Do you have additional comments you d like me to submit?

263 From: Lam, Sandy To: Ziegler, Jennifer Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: FW: More Tolling concerns Date: 3/22/2011 8:09:07 AM Attachments: Here is the information we ve gathered. I didn t draft this as a response since we don t know who the information is for or what their exact questions are. Could you please review before I send this back to Elissa? Information requested: Numbers of cars during various time segments: 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. Eastbound 2,880 Westbound 2,510 5 to 6 a.m. Eastbound 820 Westbound to 7 a.m. Eastbound 2,410 Westbound 2,280 7 to 9 a.m. Eastbound 7,800 Westbound 6,790 9 to 10 a.m. Eastbound 3,780 Westbound 3,150 10a.m. to 2 p.m. Eastbound 12,760 Westbound 12,160 2 to 3 p.m. Eastbound 3,220 Westbound 3,260 3 to 6 p.m. Eastbound 10,420 Westbound 10,430 6 to 7 p.m. Eastbound 2,990 Westbound 3,010 7 to 9 p.m. Eastbound 4,230 Westbound 5,350 9 to 11 p.m. Eastbound 4,490 Westbound 4,300 EB Total: WB Total: Income: - We expect $2 billion to be generated from SR 520 bridge tolls to help replace the vulnerable SR 520 bridge Toll Study: - The 2009 report issued by the SR 520 Toll Implementation Committee found: Transit ridership increases percent (three percent of all SR 520 users) Peak period traffic on SR 520 decreases Peak period traffic on I-90 increases less than five percent. We anticipate that during peak hours, travel speeds will decrease 5-10 mph. - We can manage traffic and keep drivers moving on SR 520 with a toll by offering variable toll rates depending on time of day. - When drivers shift their commute schedules or routes, we can help drivers to keep moving though the corridor and reduce congestion. Diversion from SR 520 to I-90: If diversion from SR 520 is too high or too low during construction, reserve accounts and financial plan can be restricted differently to maintain the ability to make bond payments. If toll traffic is too low or too high after the new bridge is built, the flexibility changes because of funds that have already been distributed and borrowed.

264 How much is too little traffic/too much diversion in this case? The financial plan assumes a minimum aggregate debt service coverage ratio of 1.25 times. This means that the bond payments were structured such that annual net toll revenues after deductions for O &M expenses and other business costs always provide at least 25% more net revenue than is needed for debt service. Net toll revenues will be pledged to first pay for the stand-alone toll revenue bonds. After those are paid, the remaining net toll revenues will be used to repay the triple-pledge bonds, which have additional backing by state motor vehicle fuel taxes and the full faith and credit of the state. If all goes as projected, 20% of the net toll revenues will still remain after paying annual debt service on the bonds (1.00 / ). This means that toll revenues could sustain a 20% drop (or be 80% of their long term projection) and still be sufficient to pay all O &M costs and debt service with 1.25 times debt service coverage. However, sustained toll revenues 20% lower than projected would provide only 1.0 times debt service coverage. Although, technically sufficient, this would not conform with bond covenants and trigger a toll increase or other action to alleviate default risk concerns in the financial market. A greater than 20% sustained drop in toll revenues would require motor vehicle fuel taxes to step in to help make payments on the triple-pledge bonds in addition to the above. Moreover, absent the excess toll revenues provided by 1.25 times coverage, an additional source of funding would likely be needed to pay the construction sales tax obligation that will be deferred until after construction and paid over fiscal years Tolling on I-90: - WSDOT has submitted an expression of interest in tolling on I-90 to open a discussion with the Federal Highway Administration on the topic of toll authority. Attached is the response to a statement of interest. FHWA s response stated there were a few options for applying tolls to I-90 and suggested the value pricing program. - There has been a change in administration, we are in the process of reviewing which steps to take next to request toll authority. - In addition to federal authority, WSDOT still needs authority from the State Legislature to toll I-90. Sandy Lam Toll Division - Communications Washington State Department of Transportation direct lamsa@wsdot.wa.gov 401 2nd Avenue S. Suite 200 Seattle, WA WSDOT on the Web: Newsroom, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, Blog From : Hicks, Elissa To : Ziegler, Jennifer Cc : Larsen, Chad; Leiste, Willy Sent : Fri Mar 11 16:24: Subject : FW: More Tolling concerns Jennifer, Do we have this information easily available in all the tolling studies we have done? Any information would help. If you know which study and want to direct me I would do the fact hunting if that would be easier.

265 Thanks. Elissa Hicks Legislative Analyst WSDOT Government Relations phone cell From: Auyoung, Dillon Sent: Friday, March 11, :38 PM To: Hicks, Elissa Cc: Leiste, Willy Subject: FW: More Tolling concerns Hi Elissa, can you look into the below inquiry from Sen. Tom s office (via Eli) and him our standard acknowledgement? Thanks. From: Jacobsen, Eli [mailto:eli.jacobsen@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, March 11, :52 PM To: Auyoung, Dillon Subject: More Tolling concerns Our office has received a request for more information on toll justification Such as some numbers for example the number of cars using the bridge during the various time segments of the tolls. The income from the tolls and a study based on the number of cars diverting to I-90 at which point the WSDOT can no longer pay make the bond payments, and What progress and correspondence has been in receiving from the Federal government permission tolls on I-90 If your office has any data on these concerns, or knows where I could find some it would be incredible helpful. Eli Jacobsen Office of Senator Rodney Tom

266 From: Gamble, Hayley To: Stone, Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer Struna, Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-90 tolling Date: 4/6/2011 2:16:51 PM Attachments: Brian/Craig, Can you advise if the I-90 tolling study was funded from Federal SPR funds in Program T, would that allow for most of the intended scope of work to be completed at the $1.5M level? Can you advise if any pieces would not be eligible, I m not sure if thefinancial plan work would be, the traffic modeling and other preparatory works seems to be OK. Hayley

267 From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Gamble, Hayley Smith, Brian Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich Auyoung, Dillon Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Date: 4/6/2011 2:33:40 PM Attachments: Funding to Prepare for I-90 tolling.docx Here is the I-90 write-up that Paula provided the Gov s office this morning. I suspect it is what Hayley is working from. From: Gamble, Hayley [mailto:hayley.gamble@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :17 PM To: Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-90 tolling Brian/Craig, Can you advise if the I-90 tolling study was funded from Federal SPR funds in Program T, would that allow for most of the intended scope of work to be completed at the $1.5M level? Can you advise if any pieces would not be eligible, I m not sure if the financial plan work would be, the traffic modeling and other preparatory works seems to be OK. Hayley

268 Funding to Prepare for I-90 Tolling Background In 2009, the SR 520 legislative work group determined that if other funding was not available, the Legislature should pursue tolling on I-90 by In the summer of 2010, WSDOT initiated agency request legislation that would include authorization to toll I-90. We made that request based on the notion that a new revenue conversation may need to include that authorization. When it appeared that new revenue for transportation was not likely, we did not continue to pursue the legislation. In December of 2010 and early January 2011, SR 520 and tolling staff provided a series of briefings to legislators on the project and the status of tolling. In each of those meetings legislators asked how we planned to address the funding gap for the SR 520 project and how we planned to address potential diversion to I-90. Senator Haugen and Representative Clibborn both asked for additional information on timing and the potential cost for starting the environmental process related to I-90 tolling. The 2011 February update provided $5 million for WSDOT to start both environmental and design work for I-90 tolling. The $5 million was for one fiscal year and would enable WSDOT to be ready to toll in late 2014/early 2015, if the Legislature made that policy choice. The House Transportation Budget provided $500,000 for traffic and revenue work related to I-90 tolling and the Senate did not provide funding for any work related to I-90 tolling. Alternate Funding Request $1.5 million enables WSDOT to start the development of scenarios, traffic modeling, and initial financial plan work to prepare for I-90 tolling. WSDOT would not actually start the environmental process with this funding, but it would provide a head-start on that process. Funding this request enables WSDOT to provide information that could assist in 2012 budget building conversations. It also allows for one-year of operating experience on SR 520 prior to starting an environmental process. The soonest that tolling on I-90 could start with this approach would be late in 2015 or early in 2016.

269 From: Smith, Brian To: Ziegler, Jennifer Gamble, Hayley Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich Auyoung, Dillon Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Date: 4/6/2011 3:43:34 PM Attachments: Untitled Attachment Helena, As I mentioned on the phone, the Highway Program s process for dealing with un-programmed work doesn t lend itself to activities that have this level of political interest. Also, it s difficult to determine whether there is capacity in the Improvement Program to fund the study. We not aware of all the additional projects or changes being considered by the Legislature in the development of the conference list. Regarding your concerns with having the funding reside in planning, it is my understanding from conversations here at headquarters that Program T would assess whether they have the staff that could perform the work. Those elements that can t be done by program T staff would be contracted out. Also, we ve confirmed with FHWA that development of scenarios, traffic modeling, and initial financial plan work to prepare for I-90 tolling would all be eligible under the federal SPR program. FHWA did have a caveat, while the activities continue to be eligible they wanted to make sure that the basic SPR program elements are being maintained and that this legislative action wouldn t impact the department s core planning and coordination efforts. I attached an from Brian summarizing his conversation with Hayley over the eligibility. Hope this helps. From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, April 07, :40 PM To: Struna, Rich Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Brian; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Hi, Rich. You were on Hayley s yesterday that asked whether T money could be used to fund $1.5 m towards work on I-90. Craig and Stacey and some others met this morning. We all want to see I-90 move forward so that we can stand ready to deal with diversion caused by tolling SR 520. We agree we will be working together. We have problems with Hayley s proposed funding source, however. The first reason: we want I-90 on the I project list so that if we have to move more quickly that the $1.5 million allow, we could do so if other funding were available without waiting for passage of the 2012 Supplemental Budget. If the project is on the LEAP list, there s a process for requesting a change, and funding could be transferred; if it s not, we lose an option. (Remember, we originally planned to spend $5m during fy 2012, so we could definitely accelerate our response if directed to do so.) The second reason is the impact on planning. If you look at the below, you ll see that a number

270 of staff from NWR design, environmental, planning, traffic and tolling would be required to do the work. If T program funds the work, planners would lose jobs in order to cover the needed engineering and environmental work. So while Hayley s question about whether the scope being eligible for fed funding would be yes unless you see something I don t we d like to not make it happen that way. Can you help me figure a way forward on this? I ve volunteered to call Amy later this afternoon, but I d like your assessment first. From: Charlebois, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, April 07, :44 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Rubstello, Patty Subject: I-90 Helena Here is the revised work description for the I-90 proposal. Let me know if you have questions This project will begin development of roadway improvement options for I-90, perform work needed for future environmental documentation, and further develop the concept of operations for tolling. The project study area is between I-5 and Issaquah. Components of the project will include I-90 tolling, extending Active Traffic Management on I-90, and would include operational improvements between I-405 and the Sunset Interchange. Below are assumptions for the $1.5M Conceptual Design effort: The work to support future environmental clearance will include preliminary analysis of several options. The main focus of the work will be the engineering and modeling effort to support the future the transportation discipline report, Air and Noise discipline reports, as well as develop a strategy for the Social and Environmental Justice discipline report. These efforts will be led by WSDOT staff, making use of Department subject matter experts wherever possible and with support from consultant staff where needed. (Estimated $1M effort ) It is anticipated that the engineering work to develop the transportation discipline report would provide the basis for a future financing plan for the project. Additional efforts to support a financial analysis of the alternatives would be included in this effort. (Estimated $.5M effort) This effort would be led by WSDOT staff from the Toll Division. Every effort will be made to draw on available WSDOT staff from the NWR region and UPO. For example, it is expected that staff from Doug Haight s design office would be used to perform the preliminary engineering, and NWR environmental staff would be utilized to ensure the work is well suited to feed into a future environment document. UPO and TD staff would direct the modeling and forecasting team, using NWR traffic and consultant support for forecasting. TD engineers would identify technical options and concepts for operation consistent with other statewide toll facilities. The schedule for this work has been designed to support possible discussions on authorization for I- 90 tolling in the 2012 legislative session. It is anticipated that starting this work in FY2012 would allow for toll-readiness no sooner than late 2015/early 2016.

271 From: Charlebois, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, February 10, :39 AM To: Wrenn, Pam (Consultant) Subject: FW: By 3pm today Importance: High From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, February 10, :14 AM To: Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Cc: Davis, Glenn A. (Mega Projects) Subject: By 3pm today Importance: High We have been asked to pull together a 5-6 paragraph description of the I-90 project to get down to HQ this afternoon. The model we are to use is the below from Azim. I can help, but you two have the profound knowledge. I m free until 1. Can we meet? From: Struna, Rich Sent: Thursday, February 10, :49 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: Fwd: T&R Helena, Here is what we received from Azim. Could we get something at the same level of detail for the I-90 work. Thanks Begin forwarded message: From: "Sheikh-Taheri, Azim" <SheikAz@wsdot.wa.gov> Date: February 9, :00:52 AM PST To: "Struna, Rich" <strunar@wsdot.wa.gov> Subject: FW: T&R This is the I mentioned to you this morning. See below for work description for the $5M Tolling study on I-405. From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :12 PM To: Alexander, Jay Cc: Saleh, Pani

272 Subject: FW: T&R Jay, Please see below for explanation on the deliverables and cost estimates for the I-405 tolling study. Please let me know if you have any questions. The $350K General HQ/NWR DPS is redistributed charges expected from IR work orders and is NOT UCO DPS (MS4700). Hope this answers all your questions. From: Lesly Chan Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :46 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Cc: Cieri, Denise; Henry, Kim; Wendy Taylor Subject: RE: T&R Hi Azim, Please understand that these numbers were developed based on the number of consultant staff and hours that they have put into the effort on the last Eastside Corridor Tolling Study. We have not yet negotiate and finalize the numbers with the consultants, and we cannot do that until we have further directions from the Legislatures after the Leg session. We are trying to establish a budget that we think we need to accomplish this effort in response to the Expert Review Panels (ERP) (as requested by Paula), EAG, and Legislatures recommendations for next steps. Below is our assumption for the $5M T&R effort: The T&R effort will require significant analysis on this 40 mile plus corridor to answer some of the outstanding policy questions of 2+/3+ operations, time of day operations, HOV to HOT interfaces, and how to build toward Option 4 in phases (i.e. Option3) if tolling and additional funding is not available immediately. This effort in itself will create a giant matrix, not to mention the many different financial bonding scenarios. All this work will be done by the GEC HNTB and subs (Fehr and Peers, Wilbur Smith, PTG, and HDR) along with Westby s oversight. They will collectively forecast the demand, run the data through an econometric traffic and revenue forecasting model, and determine the demand for available tolled and GP lane space for each study option and measure travel performance. (Estimated $1.5M effort) The Financial Plan is an effort that Toll Division will be involved with, but this is not the type of Financial Plan that Mia Waters produces. The $500K will primarily fund their consultant (PB) to run the financial feasibility analysis based on the above T&R analyses and produce the Financial Plan Report for each option comparing the different bonding mechanism to determine the capacity of toll revenues. We assume Toll Division (Helena s group) will be administering this effort as well as reviewing of the report. As part of this effort the O&M cost will be updated by the Toll division in coordination and input from the project office. (Estimated $0.5M effort) The Phasing Plan would provide the legislature a plan to move forward toward building Option 4 based on the outcome of the T&R, engineering refinement and financial plan. This effort would primarily be done by GEC HNTB. (Estimated $0.5M effort)

273 Traffic/Communication staff refers to Public Information effort as described in the legislative HB With this effort, we are expected to continue to educate the public as well as getting their input. We anticipate engaging in many public and civic outreaches including open houses and public meetings, conducting focus groups, managing public on-line and phone surveys, managing the WSDOT s listserve and websites, setting up booth at fairs and festivals, and responding to legislative inquiries. The last go-around, we have spent more than $500K on this effort done by our GEC sub, PRR. The additional budget is needed for Westby s major involvement in this effort and responding to all inquiries. (Estimated $1M effort) General HQ/NWR DPS will cost about $350K and the remaining $1.15K is for I-405 Team engineering/planning and refinement of the unanswered scope and cost for the SR 167 flyover and the Renton to Bellevue outlined to executives at the January EOC. I hope this answers Jay s questions. Please let us know if you or Jay needs additional information. Lesly Chan direct cell From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim [mailto:sheikaz@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Monday, February 07, :39 AM To: Lesly Chan Subject: RE: T&R Not enough! Jay is questioning the estimate. We need to show how the $5M request will breakdown and list assumptions. Per the page 20 of the hand out, the break down is: T & R $1.5M Need to identify the deliverables and assumptions. Financing Plan $0.5M Why does it cost $500K. This translates to 5 FTEs working full time for a year. Phasing Plan $0.5M Why $500K? What is the deliverable? Is it more than the phasing plan you already developed? 7 WSDOT staff $2.0M What are the core staff doing? 7 people cost $700,000 per year. How did you come up with $2M? What are the assumptions? Traffic & Comm Staff $1.0M What are the deliverables/assumptions? Again, this funds 10 FTEs for a year. From: Lesly Chan [mailto:lesly.chan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, February 04, :20 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim

274 Subject: T&R Sorry I missed your call yesterday. I will call you after lunch on Monday to discuss? Attached is the draft PAF for this new PIN. Let me know if this is sufficient or if you think I need to provide more details. Lesly Chan Eastside Corridor Program Manager NW Region, WSDOT Direct Cell Fax chanle@wsdot.wa.gov This and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this is strictly prohibited. *** esafe1 scanned this for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

275 From: Smith, Brian To: Ziegler, Jennifer Gamble, Hayley Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich Auyoung, Dillon Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Date: 4/6/2011 3:43:34 PM Attachments: Untitled Attachment Helena, As I mentioned on the phone, the Highway Program s process for dealing with un-programmed work doesn t lend itself to activities that have this level of political interest. Also, it s difficult to determine whether there is capacity in the Improvement Program to fund the study. We not aware of all the additional projects or changes being considered by the Legislature in the development of the conference list. Regarding your concerns with having the funding reside in planning, it is my understanding from conversations here at headquarters that Program T would assess whether they have the staff that could perform the work. Those elements that can t be done by program T staff would be contracted out. Also, we ve confirmed with FHWA that development of scenarios, traffic modeling, and initial financial plan work to prepare for I-90 tolling would all be eligible under the federal SPR program. FHWA did have a caveat, while the activities continue to be eligible they wanted to make sure that the basic SPR program elements are being maintained and that this legislative action wouldn t impact the department s core planning and coordination efforts. I attached an from Brian summarizing his conversation with Hayley over the eligibility. Hope this helps. From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, April 07, :40 PM To: Struna, Rich Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Brian; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Hi, Rich. You were on Hayley s yesterday that asked whether T money could be used to fund $1.5 m towards work on I-90. Craig and Stacey and some others met this morning. We all want to see I-90 move forward so that we can stand ready to deal with diversion caused by tolling SR 520. We agree we will be working together. We have problems with Hayley s proposed funding source, however. The first reason: we want I-90 on the I project list so that if we have to move more quickly that the $1.5 million allow, we could do so if other funding were available without waiting for passage of the 2012 Supplemental Budget. If the project is on the LEAP list, there s a process for requesting a change, and funding could be transferred; if it s not, we lose an option. (Remember, we originally planned to spend $5m during fy 2012, so we could definitely accelerate our response if directed to do so.) The second reason is the impact on planning. If you look at the below, you ll see that a number

276 of staff from NWR design, environmental, planning, traffic and tolling would be required to do the work. If T program funds the work, planners would lose jobs in order to cover the needed engineering and environmental work. So while Hayley s question about whether the scope being eligible for fed funding would be yes unless you see something I don t we d like to not make it happen that way. Can you help me figure a way forward on this? I ve volunteered to call Amy later this afternoon, but I d like your assessment first. From: Charlebois, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, April 07, :44 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Rubstello, Patty Subject: I-90 Helena Here is the revised work description for the I-90 proposal. Let me know if you have questions This project will begin development of roadway improvement options for I-90, perform work needed for future environmental documentation, and further develop the concept of operations for tolling. The project study area is between I-5 and Issaquah. Components of the project will include I-90 tolling, extending Active Traffic Management on I-90, and would include operational improvements between I-405 and the Sunset Interchange. Below are assumptions for the $1.5M Conceptual Design effort: The work to support future environmental clearance will include preliminary analysis of several options. The main focus of the work will be the engineering and modeling effort to support the future the transportation discipline report, Air and Noise discipline reports, as well as develop a strategy for the Social and Environmental Justice discipline report. These efforts will be led by WSDOT staff, making use of Department subject matter experts wherever possible and with support from consultant staff where needed. (Estimated $1M effort ) It is anticipated that the engineering work to develop the transportation discipline report would provide the basis for a future financing plan for the project. Additional efforts to support a financial analysis of the alternatives would be included in this effort. (Estimated $.5M effort) This effort would be led by WSDOT staff from the Toll Division. Every effort will be made to draw on available WSDOT staff from the NWR region and UPO. For example, it is expected that staff from Doug Haight s design office would be used to perform the preliminary engineering, and NWR environmental staff would be utilized to ensure the work is well suited to feed into a future environment document. UPO and TD staff would direct the modeling and forecasting team, using NWR traffic and consultant support for forecasting. TD engineers would identify technical options and concepts for operation consistent with other statewide toll facilities. The schedule for this work has been designed to support possible discussions on authorization for I- 90 tolling in the 2012 legislative session. It is anticipated that starting this work in FY2012 would allow for toll-readiness no sooner than late 2015/early 2016.

277 From: Charlebois, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, February 10, :39 AM To: Wrenn, Pam (Consultant) Subject: FW: By 3pm today Importance: High From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, February 10, :14 AM To: Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Cc: Davis, Glenn A. (Mega Projects) Subject: By 3pm today Importance: High We have been asked to pull together a 5-6 paragraph description of the I-90 project to get down to HQ this afternoon. The model we are to use is the below from Azim. I can help, but you two have the profound knowledge. I m free until 1. Can we meet? From: Struna, Rich Sent: Thursday, February 10, :49 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: Fwd: T&R Helena, Here is what we received from Azim. Could we get something at the same level of detail for the I-90 work. Thanks Begin forwarded message: From: "Sheikh-Taheri, Azim" <SheikAz@wsdot.wa.gov> Date: February 9, :00:52 AM PST To: "Struna, Rich" <strunar@wsdot.wa.gov> Subject: FW: T&R This is the I mentioned to you this morning. See below for work description for the $5M Tolling study on I-405. From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :12 PM To: Alexander, Jay Cc: Saleh, Pani

278 Subject: FW: T&R Jay, Please see below for explanation on the deliverables and cost estimates for the I-405 tolling study. Please let me know if you have any questions. The $350K General HQ/NWR DPS is redistributed charges expected from IR work orders and is NOT UCO DPS (MS4700). Hope this answers all your questions. From: Lesly Chan Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :46 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Cc: Cieri, Denise; Henry, Kim; Wendy Taylor Subject: RE: T&R Hi Azim, Please understand that these numbers were developed based on the number of consultant staff and hours that they have put into the effort on the last Eastside Corridor Tolling Study. We have not yet negotiate and finalize the numbers with the consultants, and we cannot do that until we have further directions from the Legislatures after the Leg session. We are trying to establish a budget that we think we need to accomplish this effort in response to the Expert Review Panels (ERP) (as requested by Paula), EAG, and Legislatures recommendations for next steps. Below is our assumption for the $5M T&R effort: The T&R effort will require significant analysis on this 40 mile plus corridor to answer some of the outstanding policy questions of 2+/3+ operations, time of day operations, HOV to HOT interfaces, and how to build toward Option 4 in phases (i.e. Option3) if tolling and additional funding is not available immediately. This effort in itself will create a giant matrix, not to mention the many different financial bonding scenarios. All this work will be done by the GEC HNTB and subs (Fehr and Peers, Wilbur Smith, PTG, and HDR) along with Westby s oversight. They will collectively forecast the demand, run the data through an econometric traffic and revenue forecasting model, and determine the demand for available tolled and GP lane space for each study option and measure travel performance. (Estimated $1.5M effort) The Financial Plan is an effort that Toll Division will be involved with, but this is not the type of Financial Plan that Mia Waters produces. The $500K will primarily fund their consultant (PB) to run the financial feasibility analysis based on the above T&R analyses and produce the Financial Plan Report for each option comparing the different bonding mechanism to determine the capacity of toll revenues. We assume Toll Division (Helena s group) will be administering this effort as well as reviewing of the report. As part of this effort the O&M cost will be updated by the Toll division in coordination and input from the project office. (Estimated $0.5M effort) The Phasing Plan would provide the legislature a plan to move forward toward building Option 4 based on the outcome of the T&R, engineering refinement and financial plan. This effort would primarily be done by GEC HNTB. (Estimated $0.5M effort)

279 Traffic/Communication staff refers to Public Information effort as described in the legislative HB With this effort, we are expected to continue to educate the public as well as getting their input. We anticipate engaging in many public and civic outreaches including open houses and public meetings, conducting focus groups, managing public on-line and phone surveys, managing the WSDOT s listserve and websites, setting up booth at fairs and festivals, and responding to legislative inquiries. The last go-around, we have spent more than $500K on this effort done by our GEC sub, PRR. The additional budget is needed for Westby s major involvement in this effort and responding to all inquiries. (Estimated $1M effort) General HQ/NWR DPS will cost about $350K and the remaining $1.15K is for I-405 Team engineering/planning and refinement of the unanswered scope and cost for the SR 167 flyover and the Renton to Bellevue outlined to executives at the January EOC. I hope this answers Jay s questions. Please let us know if you or Jay needs additional information. Lesly Chan direct cell From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim [mailto:sheikaz@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Monday, February 07, :39 AM To: Lesly Chan Subject: RE: T&R Not enough! Jay is questioning the estimate. We need to show how the $5M request will breakdown and list assumptions. Per the page 20 of the hand out, the break down is: T & R $1.5M Need to identify the deliverables and assumptions. Financing Plan $0.5M Why does it cost $500K. This translates to 5 FTEs working full time for a year. Phasing Plan $0.5M Why $500K? What is the deliverable? Is it more than the phasing plan you already developed? 7 WSDOT staff $2.0M What are the core staff doing? 7 people cost $700,000 per year. How did you come up with $2M? What are the assumptions? Traffic & Comm Staff $1.0M What are the deliverables/assumptions? Again, this funds 10 FTEs for a year. From: Lesly Chan [mailto:lesly.chan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, February 04, :20 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim

280 Subject: T&R Sorry I missed your call yesterday. I will call you after lunch on Monday to discuss? Attached is the draft PAF for this new PIN. Let me know if this is sufficient or if you think I need to provide more details. Lesly Chan Eastside Corridor Program Manager NW Region, WSDOT Direct Cell Fax chanle@wsdot.wa.gov This and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this is strictly prohibited. *** esafe1 scanned this for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

281 From: Smith, Brian To: Ziegler, Jennifer Gamble, Hayley Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich Auyoung, Dillon Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Date: 4/6/2011 3:43:34 PM Attachments: Hi all. Hayley and I discussed this topic briefly about 2PM. I have subsequently looked at the write up attached. As I already indicated to Hayley based on her verbal description, the activities up to initiation of environmental studies generally look eligible for SP&R funding. I also indicated that we have staff who could probably do much of this work. If a proviso requires the work up to the $1.5M, to the extent we could reprioritize staff work to perform the proviso related analyses it would lessen the long term impacts on Program T. Both the STC and HTC transportation budgets already reduce Program T state funds by $2M, $500K of said reduction in the STC version is attributed to SSB5128 passage. We are looking at the SP&R balances, and relationship to federal expenditure authority for Program T in both proposed transportation budgets. We might want to suggest some adjustments tomorrow to reduce further impacts on other Program T activities. Brian J. Smith, AICP Director, Strategic Planning Washington State Department of Transportation smithb@wsdot.wa.gov office cell fax From: Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :34 PM To: 'Gamble, Hayley'; Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Here is the I-90 write-up that Paula provided the Gov s office this morning. I suspect it is what Hayley is working from. From: Gamble, Hayley [mailto:hayley.gamble@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :17 PM To: Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-90 tolling Brian/Craig, Can you advise if the I-90 tolling study was funded from Federal SPR funds in Program T, would that allow for most of the intended scope of work to be completed at the $1.5M level? Can you advise if any pieces would not be eligible, I m not sure if the financial plan work would be, the traffic modeling and other preparatory works seems to be OK.

282 Hayley

283 From: Fellows, Rob To: Trussler, Stacy Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: FW: I-90 tolling Date: 4/6/2011 6:13:12 PM Attachments: Stacy and Craig, before I overreact to this, (Stacy, I don't know if Brian has discussed this with you, so if not, this is a heads up.) I'm not sure I completely follow what Brian has said below. If I'm understanding this correctly, Hayley wants to direct $1.5M of T program funds for the I-90 work. Brian suggests this could ease the pressure on the T program (which is what I don't understand - it doesn't add any new T money). My concern is that at least some portion of this work will need to be done by Toll Division staff or consultants, rather than by planners who currently rely on T funding for their salaries, leading to more planner layoffs rather than less. Am I reading this incorrectly, and should I be concerned? I do think UPO staff could contribute towards this effort (as I mentioned to you Stacy, when I thought it would be I funded), and that would have a neutral effect on other T program funded activity. But I'd think that any portion of the funding spent by others will make the prospect of planning layoffs more severe. -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 5:39 PM To: Charlebois, Jennifer; Fellows, Rob Subject: Fw: I-90 tolling From: Stone, Craig To: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Wed Apr 06 17:10: Subject: FW: I-90 tolling We will need to review the work program, based on where the legislature lands on I-90 funding, and determine what activities should be performed by state force and by consultants. From: Smith, Brian Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :44 PM To: Ziegler, Jennifer; 'Gamble, Hayley'; Stone, Craig

284 Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Hi all. Hayley and I discussed this topic briefly about 2PM. I have subsequently looked at the write up attached. As I already indicated to Hayley based on her verbal description, the activities up to initiation of environmental studies generally look eligible for SP&R funding. I also indicated that we have staff who could probably do much of this work. If a proviso requires the work up to the $1.5M, to the extent we could reprioritize staff work to perform the proviso related analyses it would lessen the long term impacts on Program T. Both the STC and HTC transportation budgets already reduce Program T state funds by $2M, $500K of said reduction in the STC version is attributed to SSB5128 passage. We are looking at the SP&R balances, and relationship to federal expenditure authority for Program T in both proposed transportation budgets. We might want to suggest some adjustments tomorrow to reduce further impacts on other Program T activities. Brian J. Smith, AICP Director, Strategic Planning Washington State Department of Transportation smithb@wsdot.wa.gov office cell fax From: Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :34 PM To: 'Gamble, Hayley'; Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Here is the I-90 write-up that Paula provided the Gov's office this morning. I suspect it is what Hayley is working from.

285 From: Gamble, Hayley Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :17 PM To: Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-90 tolling Brian/Craig, Can you advise if the I-90 tolling study was funded from Federal SPR funds in Program T, would that allow for most of the intended scope of work to be completed at the $1.5M level? Can you advise if any pieces would not be eligible, I'm not sure if the financial plan work would be, the traffic modeling and other preparatory works seems to be OK. Hayley

286 From: Trussler, Stacy To: Fellows, Rob Cc: Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Date: 4/6/2011 8:34:05 PM Attachments: Can we set up a call to discuss? Thanks, Stacy Original Message----- From: Fellows, Rob Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 6:13 PM To: Trussler, Stacy; Stone, Craig Subject: FW: I-90 tolling Stacy and Craig, before I overreact to this, (Stacy, I don't know if Brian has discussed this with you, so if not, this is a heads up.) I'm not sure I completely follow what Brian has said below. If I'm understanding this correctly, Hayley wants to direct $1.5M of T program funds for the I-90 work. Brian suggests this could ease the pressure on the T program (which is what I don't understand - it doesn't add any new T money). My concern is that at least some portion of this work will need to be done by Toll Division staff or consultants, rather than by planners who currently rely on T funding for their salaries, leading to more planner layoffs rather than less. Am I reading this incorrectly, and should I be concerned? I do think UPO staff could contribute towards this effort (as I mentioned to you Stacy, when I thought it would be I funded), and that would have a neutral effect on other T program funded activity. But I'd think that any portion of the funding spent by others will make the prospect of planning layoffs more severe. -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 5:39 PM To: Charlebois, Jennifer; Fellows, Rob Subject: Fw: I-90 tolling From: Stone, Craig To: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Wed Apr 06 17:10: Subject: FW: I-90 tolling We will need to review the work program, based on where the legislature lands on I-90 funding, and determine what activities should be performed by state

287 force and by consultants. From: Smith, Brian Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :44 PM To: Ziegler, Jennifer; 'Gamble, Hayley'; Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Hi all. Hayley and I discussed this topic briefly about 2PM. I have subsequently looked at the write up attached. As I already indicated to Hayley based on her verbal description, the activities up to initiation of environmental studies generally look eligible for SP&R funding. I also indicated that we have staff who could probably do much of this work. If a proviso requires the work up to the $1.5M, to the extent we could reprioritize staff work to perform the proviso related analyses it would lessen the long term impacts on Program T. Both the STC and HTC transportation budgets already reduce Program T state funds by $2M, $500K of said reduction in the STC version is attributed to SSB5128 passage. We are looking at the SP&R balances, and relationship to federal expenditure authority for Program T in both proposed transportation budgets. We might want to suggest some adjustments tomorrow to reduce further impacts on other Program T activities. Brian J. Smith, AICP Director, Strategic Planning Washington State Department of Transportation smithb@wsdot.wa.gov office cell fax From: Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :34 PM To: 'Gamble, Hayley'; Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy

288 Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Here is the I-90 write-up that Paula provided the Gov's office this morning. I suspect it is what Hayley is working from. From: Gamble, Hayley [mailto:hayley.gamble@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :17 PM To: Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-90 tolling Brian/Craig, Can you advise if the I-90 tolling study was funded from Federal SPR funds in Program T, would that allow for most of the intended scope of work to be completed at the $1.5M level? Can you advise if any pieces would not be eligible, I'm not sure if the financial plan work would be, the traffic modeling and other preparatory works seems to be OK. Hayley

289 From: Fellows, Rob To: Stone, Craig Trussler, Stacy Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Date: 4/6/2011 9:03:27 PM Attachments: I'm free from Can we shoot for 9? -----Original Message----- From: Stone, Craig Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 8:38 PM To: Trussler, Stacy; Fellows, Rob; Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling How about Thur AM, I have availability from 8-10 From: Trussler, Stacy Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 8:34 PM To: Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Can we set up a call to discuss? Thanks, Stacy Original Message----- From: Fellows, Rob Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 6:13 PM To: Trussler, Stacy; Stone, Craig Subject: FW: I-90 tolling Stacy and Craig, before I overreact to this, (Stacy, I don't know if Brian has discussed this with you, so if not, this is a heads up.) I'm not sure I completely follow what Brian has said below. If I'm understanding this correctly, Hayley wants to direct $1.5M of T program funds for the I-90 work. Brian suggests this could ease the pressure on the T program (which is what I don't understand - it doesn't add any new T money). My concern is that at least some portion of this work will need to be done by Toll Division staff or consultants, rather than by planners who currently rely on T funding for their salaries, leading to more planner layoffs rather than less. Am I reading this incorrectly, and should I be concerned? I do think UPO staff could contribute towards this effort (as I mentioned to you Stacy, when I thought it would be I funded), and that would have a neutral effect on other T program funded activity. But I'd think that any portion of the funding spent by others will make the prospect of planning layoffs more severe.

290 -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 5:39 PM To: Charlebois, Jennifer; Fellows, Rob Subject: Fw: I-90 tolling From: Stone, Craig To: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Wed Apr 06 17:10: Subject: FW: I-90 tolling We will need to review the work program, based on where the legislature lands on I-90 funding, and determine what activities should be performed by state force and by consultants. From: Smith, Brian Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :44 PM To: Ziegler, Jennifer; 'Gamble, Hayley'; Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Hi all. Hayley and I discussed this topic briefly about 2PM. I have subsequently looked at the write up attached. As I already indicated to Hayley based on her verbal description, the activities up to initiation of environmental studies generally look eligible for SP&R funding. I also indicated that we have staff who could probably do much of this work. If a proviso requires the work up to the $1.5M, to the extent we could reprioritize staff work to perform the proviso related analyses it would lessen the long term impacts on Program T. Both the STC and HTC transportation budgets already reduce Program T state funds by $2M, $500K of said reduction in the STC version is attributed to SSB5128 passage. We are looking at the SP&R balances, and relationship to federal expenditure authority for Program T in both proposed transportation budgets. We might want to suggest some adjustments tomorrow to reduce further impacts on other Program T activities. Brian J. Smith, AICP Director, Strategic Planning Washington State Department of Transportation smithb@wsdot.wa.gov office

291 cell fax From: Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :34 PM To: 'Gamble, Hayley'; Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Here is the I-90 write-up that Paula provided the Gov's office this morning. I suspect it is what Hayley is working from. From: Gamble, Hayley [mailto:hayley.gamble@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :17 PM To: Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-90 tolling Brian/Craig, Can you advise if the I-90 tolling study was funded from Federal SPR funds in Program T, would that allow for most of the intended scope of work to be completed at the $1.5M level? Can you advise if any pieces would not be eligible, I'm not sure if the financial plan work would be, the traffic modeling and other preparatory works seems to be OK. Hayley

292 From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG To: Rubstello; Patty; Smith; Helena Kennedy Cc: Subject: FW: I-90 tolling Date: 4/7/ :10:00 AM Attachments: We will need to review the work program, based on where the legislature lands on I-90 funding, and determine what activities should be performed by state force and by consultants. From: Smith, Brian Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :44 PM To: Ziegler, Jennifer; 'Gamble, Hayley'; Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Hi all. Hayley and I discussed this topic briefly about 2PM. I have subsequently looked at the write up attached. As I already indicated to Hayley based on her verbal description, the activities up to initiation of environmental studies generally look eligible for SP&R funding. I also indicated that we have staff who could probably do much of this work. If a proviso requires the work up to the $1.5M, to the extent we could reprioritize staff work to perform the proviso related analyses it would lessen the long term impacts on Program T. Both the STC and HTC transportation budgets already reduce Program T state funds by $2M, $500K of said reduction in the STC version is attributed to SSB5128 passage. We are looking at the SP&R balances, and relationship to federal expenditure authority for Program T in both proposed transportation budgets. We might want to suggest some adjustments tomorrow to reduce further impacts on other Program T activities. Brian J. Smith, AICP Director, Strategic Planning Washington State Department of Transportation smithb@wsdot.wa.gov office cell fax From: Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :34 PM To: 'Gamble, Hayley'; Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Here is the I-90 write-up that Paula provided the Gov s office this morning. I suspect it is what Hayley is working from. From: Gamble, Hayley [mailto:hayley.gamble@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :17 PM

293 To: Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-90 tolling Brian/Craig, Can you advise if the I-90 tolling study was funded from Federal SPR funds in Program T, would that allow for most of the intended scope of work to be completed at the $1.5M level? Can you advise if any pieces would not be eligible, I m not sure if the financial plan work would be, the traffic modeling and other preparatory works seems to be OK. Hayley

294 From: Trussler, Stacy To: Fellows, Rob Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: Re: I-90 tolling Date: 4/7/2011 7:03:39 AM Attachments: Yes, 9 am. I attempted a mtg invite from my bberry. Not sure if it went Original Message From: Fellows, Rob To: Stone, Craig; Trussler, Stacy; Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Wed Apr 06 21:03: Subject: RE: I-90 tolling I'm free from Can we shoot for 9? -----Original Message----- From: Stone, Craig Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 8:38 PM To: Trussler, Stacy; Fellows, Rob; Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling How about Thur AM, I have availability from 8-10 From: Trussler, Stacy Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 8:34 PM To: Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Can we set up a call to discuss? Thanks, Stacy Original Message----- From: Fellows, Rob Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 6:13 PM To: Trussler, Stacy; Stone, Craig Subject: FW: I-90 tolling Stacy and Craig, before I overreact to this, (Stacy, I don't know if Brian has discussed this with you, so if not, this is a heads up.) I'm not sure I completely follow what Brian has said below. If I'm understanding this correctly, Hayley wants to direct $1.5M of T program funds for the I-90 work. Brian suggests this could ease the pressure on the T program (which is what I don't understand - it doesn't add any new T money). My concern is that at least some portion of this work will need to be done by Toll Division staff or consultants, rather than by planners who currently rely on T funding for their salaries, leading to more planner layoffs rather than

295 less. Am I reading this incorrectly, and should I be concerned? I do think UPO staff could contribute towards this effort (as I mentioned to you Stacy, when I thought it would be I funded), and that would have a neutral effect on other T program funded activity. But I'd think that any portion of the funding spent by others will make the prospect of planning layoffs more severe. -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 5:39 PM To: Charlebois, Jennifer; Fellows, Rob Subject: Fw: I-90 tolling From: Stone, Craig To: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Wed Apr 06 17:10: Subject: FW: I-90 tolling We will need to review the work program, based on where the legislature lands on I-90 funding, and determine what activities should be performed by state force and by consultants. From: Smith, Brian Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :44 PM To: Ziegler, Jennifer; 'Gamble, Hayley'; Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Hi all. Hayley and I discussed this topic briefly about 2PM. I have subsequently looked at the write up attached. As I already indicated to Hayley based on her verbal description, the activities up to initiation of environmental studies generally look eligible for SP&R funding. I also indicated that we have staff who could probably do much of this work. If a proviso requires the work up to the $1.5M, to the extent we could reprioritize staff work to perform the proviso related analyses it would lessen the long term impacts on Program T. Both the STC and HTC transportation budgets already reduce Program T state funds by $2M, $500K of said reduction in the STC version is attributed to SSB5128 passage. We are looking at the SP&R balances, and relationship to federal expenditure authority for Program T in both proposed transportation budgets. We might want to suggest some adjustments tomorrow to reduce further impacts on other Program T activities. Brian J. Smith, AICP

296 Director, Strategic Planning Washington State Department of Transportation office cell fax From: Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :34 PM To: 'Gamble, Hayley'; Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Here is the I-90 write-up that Paula provided the Gov's office this morning. I suspect it is what Hayley is working from. From: Gamble, Hayley [mailto:hayley.gamble@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :17 PM To: Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-90 tolling Brian/Craig, Can you advise if the I-90 tolling study was funded from Federal SPR funds in Program T, would that allow for most of the intended scope of work to be completed at the $1.5M level? Can you advise if any pieces would not be eligible, I'm not sure if the financial plan work would be, the traffic modeling and other preparatory works seems to be OK. Hayley

297 From: Trussler, Stacy To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Fellows, Rob Cc: Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Date: 4/7/2011 8:25:36 AM Attachments: How about my office and we will call Craig's cell...or, if Craig is in Goldsmith we'll meet in his office. I'll work on setting up a call in number in case Brian wants to call in. Stacy Original Message----- From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, April 07, :09 AM To: Trussler, Stacy; Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Where's the meeting being held? -----Original Message----- From: Trussler, Stacy Sent: Thursday, April 07, :04 AM To: Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: Re: I-90 tolling Yes, 9 am. I attempted a mtg invite from my bberry. Not sure if it went Original Message From: Fellows, Rob To: Stone, Craig; Trussler, Stacy; Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Wed Apr 06 21:03: Subject: RE: I-90 tolling I'm free from Can we shoot for 9? -----Original Message----- From: Stone, Craig Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 8:38 PM To: Trussler, Stacy; Fellows, Rob; Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling How about Thur AM, I have availability from 8-10 From: Trussler, Stacy Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 8:34 PM To: Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig Subject: RE: I-90 tolling

298 Can we set up a call to discuss? Thanks, Stacy Original Message----- From: Fellows, Rob Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 6:13 PM To: Trussler, Stacy; Stone, Craig Subject: FW: I-90 tolling Stacy and Craig, before I overreact to this, (Stacy, I don't know if Brian has discussed this with you, so if not, this is a heads up.) I'm not sure I completely follow what Brian has said below. If I'm understanding this correctly, Hayley wants to direct $1.5M of T program funds for the I-90 work. Brian suggests this could ease the pressure on the T program (which is what I don't understand - it doesn't add any new T money). My concern is that at least some portion of this work will need to be done by Toll Division staff or consultants, rather than by planners who currently rely on T funding for their salaries, leading to more planner layoffs rather than less. Am I reading this incorrectly, and should I be concerned? I do think UPO staff could contribute towards this effort (as I mentioned to you Stacy, when I thought it would be I funded), and that would have a neutral effect on other T program funded activity. But I'd think that any portion of the funding spent by others will make the prospect of planning layoffs more severe. -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 5:39 PM To: Charlebois, Jennifer; Fellows, Rob Subject: Fw: I-90 tolling From: Stone, Craig To: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Wed Apr 06 17:10: Subject: FW: I-90 tolling We will need to review the work program, based on where the legislature lands on I-90 funding, and determine what activities should be performed by state force and by consultants. From: Smith, Brian Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :44 PM To: Ziegler, Jennifer; 'Gamble, Hayley'; Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling

299 Hi all. Hayley and I discussed this topic briefly about 2PM. I have subsequently looked at the write up attached. As I already indicated to Hayley based on her verbal description, the activities up to initiation of environmental studies generally look eligible for SP&R funding. I also indicated that we have staff who could probably do much of this work. If a proviso requires the work up to the $1.5M, to the extent we could reprioritize staff work to perform the proviso related analyses it would lessen the long term impacts on Program T. Both the STC and HTC transportation budgets already reduce Program T state funds by $2M, $500K of said reduction in the STC version is attributed to SSB5128 passage. We are looking at the SP&R balances, and relationship to federal expenditure authority for Program T in both proposed transportation budgets. We might want to suggest some adjustments tomorrow to reduce further impacts on other Program T activities. Brian J. Smith, AICP Director, Strategic Planning Washington State Department of Transportation smithb@wsdot.wa.gov office cell fax From: Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :34 PM To: 'Gamble, Hayley'; Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Here is the I-90 write-up that Paula provided the Gov's office this morning. I suspect it is what Hayley is working from. From: Gamble, Hayley [mailto:hayley.gamble@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :17 PM To: Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-90 tolling Brian/Craig, Can you advise if the I-90 tolling study was funded from Federal SPR funds in Program T, would that allow for most of the intended scope of work to be completed at the $1.5M level? Can you advise if any pieces would not be eligible, I'm not sure if the financial plan work would be, the traffic modeling and other preparatory works seems to be OK. Hayley

300

301 From: Trussler, Stacy To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: Re: I-90 tolling Date: 4/7/ :31:01 AM Attachments: I back briefed Brian...He was discussing same topic in Amy's office when we were in my office. From: Stone, Craig To: Smith, Helena Kennedy; Trussler, Stacy Sent: Thu Apr 07 09:46: Subject: Fw: I-90 tolling From: Gamble, Hayley <Hayley.Gamble@leg.wa.gov> To: Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon Sent: Wed Apr 06 14:16: Subject: I-90 tolling Brian/Craig, Can you advise if the I-90 tolling study was funded from Federal SPR funds in Program T, would that allow for most of the intended scope of work to be completed at the $1.5M level? Can you advise if any pieces would not be eligible, I m not sure if thefinancial plan work would be, the traffic modeling and other preparatory works seems to be OK. Hayley

302 From: Smith, Helena Kennedy /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HSMITH To: Trussler; Stacy; Fellows; Rob; Stone; Craig Cc: Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Date: 4/7/2011 3:09:13 PM Attachments: Where's the meeting being held? -----Original Message----- From: Trussler, Stacy Sent: Thursday, April 07, :04 AM To: Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: Re: I-90 tolling Yes, 9 am. I attempted a mtg invite from my bberry. Not sure if it went Original Message From: Fellows, Rob To: Stone, Craig; Trussler, Stacy; Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Wed Apr 06 21:03: Subject: RE: I-90 tolling I'm free from Can we shoot for 9? -----Original Message----- From: Stone, Craig Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 8:38 PM To: Trussler, Stacy; Fellows, Rob; Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling How about Thur AM, I have availability from 8-10 From: Trussler, Stacy Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 8:34 PM To: Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Can we set up a call to discuss? Thanks, Stacy Original Message----- From: Fellows, Rob Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 6:13 PM To: Trussler, Stacy; Stone, Craig Subject: FW: I-90 tolling Stacy and Craig, before I overreact to this, (Stacy, I don't know if Brian has discussed this with you, so if not, this is a heads up.)

303 I'm not sure I completely follow what Brian has said below. If I'm understanding this correctly, Hayley wants to direct $1.5M of T program funds for the I-90 work. Brian suggests this could ease the pressure on the T program (which is what I don't understand - it doesn't add any new T money). My concern is that at least some portion of this work will need to be done by Toll Division staff or consultants, rather than by planners who currently rely on T funding for their salaries, leading to more planner layoffs rather than less. Am I reading this incorrectly, and should I be concerned? I do think UPO staff could contribute towards this effort (as I mentioned to you Stacy, when I thought it would be I funded), and that would have a neutral effect on other T program funded activity. But I'd think that any portion of the funding spent by others will make the prospect of planning layoffs more severe. -- Rob -----Original Message----- From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 5:39 PM To: Charlebois, Jennifer; Fellows, Rob Subject: Fw: I-90 tolling From: Stone, Craig To: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Wed Apr 06 17:10: Subject: FW: I-90 tolling We will need to review the work program, based on where the legislature lands on I-90 funding, and determine what activities should be performed by state force and by consultants. From: Smith, Brian Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :44 PM To: Ziegler, Jennifer; 'Gamble, Hayley'; Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Hi all. Hayley and I discussed this topic briefly about 2PM. I have subsequently looked at the write up attached. As I already indicated to Hayley based on her verbal description, the activities up to initiation of environmental studies generally look eligible for SP&R funding. I also indicated that we have staff who could probably do much of this work. If a proviso requires the work up to the $1.5M, to the extent we could reprioritize staff work to perform the proviso related analyses it would lessen the long term impacts on Program T. Both the STC and HTC transportation budgets already reduce Program T state funds by $2M, $500K of

304 said reduction in the STC version is attributed to SSB5128 passage. We are looking at the SP&R balances, and relationship to federal expenditure authority for Program T in both proposed transportation budgets. We might want to suggest some adjustments tomorrow to reduce further impacts on other Program T activities. Brian J. Smith, AICP Director, Strategic Planning Washington State Department of Transportation smithb@wsdot.wa.gov office cell fax From: Ziegler, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :34 PM To: 'Gamble, Hayley'; Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon; Arnis, Amy Subject: RE: I-90 tolling Here is the I-90 write-up that Paula provided the Gov's office this morning. I suspect it is what Hayley is working from. From: Gamble, Hayley [mailto:hayley.gamble@leg.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, :17 PM To: Smith, Brian; Stone, Craig Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Struna, Rich; Auyoung, Dillon Subject: I-90 tolling Brian/Craig, Can you advise if the I-90 tolling study was funded from Federal SPR funds in Program T, would that allow for most of the intended scope of work to be completed at the $1.5M level? Can you advise if any pieces would not be eligible, I'm not sure if the financial plan work would be, the traffic modeling and other preparatory works seems to be OK. Hayley

305 From: Smith, Brian To: Struna, Rich Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Arnis, Amy Stone, Craig Trussler, Stacy Rubstello, Patty Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Date: 4/7/2011 4:16:51 PM Attachments: I agree with Rich, but also need to point out a) if we have staff who could do some of the work we are ready to talk about contributing because b) to the extent that SP&R money would be sent elsewhere, it would likely be Program T supported or specifically SPD staff out the door we have had four years of cuts. Brian J. Smith, AICP Director, Strategic Planning Washington State Department of Transportation smithb@wsdot.wa.gov office cell fax From: Struna, Rich Sent: Thursday, April 07, :06 PM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Arnis, Amy; Stone, Craig; Smith, Brian; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Helena, As I mentioned on the phone, the Highway Program s process for dealing with un-programmed work doesn t lend itself to activities that have this level of political interest. Also, it s difficult to determine whether there is capacity in the Improvement Program to fund the study. We not aware of all the additional projects or changes being considered by the Legislature in the development of the conference list. Regarding your concerns with having the funding reside in planning, it is my understanding from conversations here at headquarters that Program T would assess whether they have the staff that could perform the work. Those elements that can t be done by program T staff would be contracted out. Also, we ve confirmed with FHWA that development of scenarios, traffic modeling, and initial financial plan work to prepare for I-90 tolling would all be eligible under the federal SPR program. FHWA did have a caveat, while the activities continue to be eligible they wanted to make sure that the basic SPR program elements are being maintained and that this legislative action wouldn t impact the department s core planning and coordination efforts. I attached an from Brian summarizing his conversation with Hayley over the eligibility. Hope this helps.

306 From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, April 07, :40 PM To: Struna, Rich Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Brian; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Hi, Rich. You were on Hayley s yesterday that asked whether T money could be used to fund $1.5 m towards work on I-90. Craig and Stacey and some others met this morning. We all want to see I-90 move forward so that we can stand ready to deal with diversion caused by tolling SR 520. We agree we will be working together. We have problems with Hayley s proposed funding source, however. The first reason: we want I-90 on the I project list so that if we have to move more quickly that the $1.5 million allow, we could do so if other funding were available without waiting for passage of the 2012 Supplemental Budget. If the project is on the LEAP list, there s a process for requesting a change, and funding could be transferred; if it s not, we lose an option. (Remember, we originally planned to spend $5m during fy 2012, so we could definitely accelerate our response if directed to do so.) The second reason is the impact on planning. If you look at the below, you ll see that a number of staff from NWR design, environmental, planning, traffic and tolling would be required to do the work. If T program funds the work, planners would lose jobs in order to cover the needed engineering and environmental work. So while Hayley s question about whether the scope being eligible for fed funding would be yes unless you see something I don t we d like to not make it happen that way. Can you help me figure a way forward on this? I ve volunteered to call Amy later this afternoon, but I d like your assessment first. From: Charlebois, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, April 07, :44 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Rubstello, Patty Subject: I-90 Helena Here is the revised work description for the I-90 proposal. Let me know if you have questions This project will begin development of roadway improvement options for I-90, perform work needed for future environmental documentation, and further develop the concept of operations for tolling. The project study area is between I-5 and Issaquah. Components of the project will include I-90 tolling, extending Active Traffic Management on I-90, and would include operational improvements between I-405 and the Sunset Interchange. Below are assumptions for the $1.5M Conceptual Design effort: The work to support future environmental clearance will include preliminary analysis of several options. The main focus of the work will be the engineering and modeling effort to support the future the transportation discipline report, Air and Noise discipline reports, as well as develop a strategy for the Social and Environmental Justice discipline report. These efforts will be led by WSDOT staff, making use of Department subject matter experts wherever possible and with support from consultant staff where needed. (Estimated $1M effort ) It is anticipated that the engineering work to develop the transportation discipline report would

307 provide the basis for a future financing plan for the project. Additional efforts to support a financial analysis of the alternatives would be included in this effort. (Estimated $.5M effort) This effort would be led by WSDOT staff from the Toll Division. Every effort will be made to draw on available WSDOT staff from the NWR region and UPO. For example, it is expected that staff from Doug Haight s design office would be used to perform the preliminary engineering, and NWR environmental staff would be utilized to ensure the work is well suited to feed into a future environment document. UPO and TD staff would direct the modeling and forecasting team, using NWR traffic and consultant support for forecasting. TD engineers would identify technical options and concepts for operation consistent with other statewide toll facilities. The schedule for this work has been designed to support possible discussions on authorization for I- 90 tolling in the 2012 legislative session. It is anticipated that starting this work in FY2012 would allow for toll-readiness no sooner than late 2015/early From: Charlebois, Jennifer [mailto:charlej@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 10, :39 AM To: Wrenn, Pam (Consultant) Subject: FW: By 3pm today Importance: High From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, February 10, :14 AM To: Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Cc: Davis, Glenn A. (Mega Projects) Subject: By 3pm today Importance: High We have been asked to pull together a 5-6 paragraph description of the I-90 project to get down to HQ this afternoon. The model we are to use is the below from Azim. I can help, but you two have the profound knowledge. I m free until 1. Can we meet? From: Struna, Rich Sent: Thursday, February 10, :49 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: Fwd: T&R Helena, Here is what we received from Azim. Could we get something at the same level of detail for the I-90 work. Thanks

308 Begin forwarded message: From: "Sheikh-Taheri, Azim" Date: February 9, :00:52 AM PST To: "Struna, Rich" Subject: FW: T&R This is the I mentioned to you this morning. See below for work description for the $5M Tolling study on I-405. From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :12 PM To: Alexander, Jay Cc: Saleh, Pani Subject: FW: T&R Jay, Please see below for explanation on the deliverables and cost estimates for the I-405 tolling study. Please let me know if you have any questions. The $350K General HQ/NWR DPS is redistributed charges expected from IR work orders and is NOT UCO DPS (MS4700). Hope this answers all your questions. From: Lesly Chan [mailto:lesly.chan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :46 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Cc: Cieri, Denise; Henry, Kim; Wendy Taylor Subject: RE: T&R Hi Azim, Please understand that these numbers were developed based on the number of consultant staff and hours that they have put into the effort on the last Eastside Corridor Tolling Study. We have not yet negotiate and finalize the numbers with the consultants, and we cannot do that until we have further directions from the Legislatures after the Leg session. We are trying to establish a budget that we think we need to accomplish this effort in response to the Expert Review Panels (ERP) (as requested by Paula), EAG, and Legislatures recommendations for next steps. Below is our assumption for the $5M T&R effort: The T&R effort will require significant analysis on this 40 mile plus corridor to answer some of the outstanding policy questions of 2+/3+ operations, time of day operations, HOV to HOT interfaces, and how to build toward Option 4 in phases (i.e. Option3) if tolling and additional funding is not available immediately. This effort in itself will create a giant matrix, not to mention the many different financial bonding scenarios. All this work will be done by the GEC HNTB and subs (Fehr and Peers, Wilbur Smith, PTG, and HDR) along with Westby s

309 oversight. They will collectively forecast the demand, run the data through an econometric traffic and revenue forecasting model, and determine the demand for available tolled and GP lane space for each study option and measure travel performance. (Estimated $1.5M effort) The Financial Plan is an effort that Toll Division will be involved with, but this is not the type of Financial Plan that Mia Waters produces. The $500K will primarily fund their consultant (PB) to run the financial feasibility analysis based on the above T&R analyses and produce the Financial Plan Report for each option comparing the different bonding mechanism to determine the capacity of toll revenues. We assume Toll Division (Helena s group) will be administering this effort as well as reviewing of the report. As part of this effort the O&M cost will be updated by the Toll division in coordination and input from the project office. (Estimated $0.5M effort) The Phasing Plan would provide the legislature a plan to move forward toward building Option 4 based on the outcome of the T&R, engineering refinement and financial plan. This effort would primarily be done by GEC HNTB. (Estimated $0.5M effort) Traffic/Communication staff refers to Public Information effort as described in the legislative HB With this effort, we are expected to continue to educate the public as well as getting their input. We anticipate engaging in many public and civic outreaches including open houses and public meetings, conducting focus groups, managing public on-line and phone surveys, managing the WSDOT s listserve and websites, setting up booth at fairs and festivals, and responding to legislative inquiries. The last go-around, we have spent more than $500K on this effort done by our GEC sub, PRR. The additional budget is needed for Westby s major involvement in this effort and responding to all inquiries. (Estimated $1M effort) General HQ/NWR DPS will cost about $350K and the remaining $1.15K is for I-405 Team engineering/planning and refinement of the unanswered scope and cost for the SR 167 flyover and the Renton to Bellevue outlined to executives at the January EOC. I hope this answers Jay s questions. Please let us know if you or Jay needs additional information. Lesly Chan direct cell From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim [mailto:sheikaz@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Monday, February 07, :39 AM To: Lesly Chan Subject: RE: T&R Not enough! Jay is questioning the estimate. We need to show how the $5M request will breakdown and list assumptions.

310 Per the page 20 of the hand out, the break down is: T & R $1.5M Need to identify the deliverables and assumptions. Financing Plan $0.5M Why does it cost $500K. This translates to 5 FTEs working full time for a year. Phasing Plan $0.5M Why $500K? What is the deliverable? Is it more than the phasing plan you already developed? 7 WSDOT staff $2.0M What are the core staff doing? 7 people cost $700,000 per year. How did you come up with $2M? What are the assumptions? Traffic & Comm Staff $1.0M What are the deliverables/assumptions? Again, this funds 10 FTEs for a year. From: Lesly Chan [mailto:lesly.chan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, February 04, :20 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Subject: T&R Sorry I missed your call yesterday. I will call you after lunch on Monday to discuss? Attached is the draft PAF for this new PIN. Let me know if this is sufficient or if you think I need to provide more details. Lesly Chan Eastside Corridor Program Manager NW Region, WSDOT Direct Cell Fax chanle@wsdot.wa.gov This and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this is strictly prohibited. *** esafe1 scanned this for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***

311 NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

312 From: Smith, Brian To: Struna, Rich Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Arnis, Amy Stone, Craig Trussler, Stacy Rubstello, Patty Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Date: 4/7/2011 4:16:51 PM Attachments: I agree with Rich, but also need to point out a) if we have staff who could do some of the work we are ready to talk about contributing because b) to the extent that SP&R money would be sent elsewhere, it would likely be Program T supported or specifically SPD staff out the door we have had four years of cuts. Brian J. Smith, AICP Director, Strategic Planning Washington State Department of Transportation smithb@wsdot.wa.gov office cell fax From: Struna, Rich Sent: Thursday, April 07, :06 PM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Arnis, Amy; Stone, Craig; Smith, Brian; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Helena, As I mentioned on the phone, the Highway Program s process for dealing with un-programmed work doesn t lend itself to activities that have this level of political interest. Also, it s difficult to determine whether there is capacity in the Improvement Program to fund the study. We not aware of all the additional projects or changes being considered by the Legislature in the development of the conference list. Regarding your concerns with having the funding reside in planning, it is my understanding from conversations here at headquarters that Program T would assess whether they have the staff that could perform the work. Those elements that can t be done by program T staff would be contracted out. Also, we ve confirmed with FHWA that development of scenarios, traffic modeling, and initial financial plan work to prepare for I-90 tolling would all be eligible under the federal SPR program. FHWA did have a caveat, while the activities continue to be eligible they wanted to make sure that the basic SPR program elements are being maintained and that this legislative action wouldn t impact the department s core planning and coordination efforts. I attached an from Brian summarizing his conversation with Hayley over the eligibility. Hope this helps.

313 From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, April 07, :40 PM To: Struna, Rich Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Brian; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Hi, Rich. You were on Hayley s yesterday that asked whether T money could be used to fund $1.5 m towards work on I-90. Craig and Stacey and some others met this morning. We all want to see I-90 move forward so that we can stand ready to deal with diversion caused by tolling SR 520. We agree we will be working together. We have problems with Hayley s proposed funding source, however. The first reason: we want I-90 on the I project list so that if we have to move more quickly that the $1.5 million allow, we could do so if other funding were available without waiting for passage of the 2012 Supplemental Budget. If the project is on the LEAP list, there s a process for requesting a change, and funding could be transferred; if it s not, we lose an option. (Remember, we originally planned to spend $5m during fy 2012, so we could definitely accelerate our response if directed to do so.) The second reason is the impact on planning. If you look at the below, you ll see that a number of staff from NWR design, environmental, planning, traffic and tolling would be required to do the work. If T program funds the work, planners would lose jobs in order to cover the needed engineering and environmental work. So while Hayley s question about whether the scope being eligible for fed funding would be yes unless you see something I don t we d like to not make it happen that way. Can you help me figure a way forward on this? I ve volunteered to call Amy later this afternoon, but I d like your assessment first. From: Charlebois, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, April 07, :44 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Rubstello, Patty Subject: I-90 Helena Here is the revised work description for the I-90 proposal. Let me know if you have questions This project will begin development of roadway improvement options for I-90, perform work needed for future environmental documentation, and further develop the concept of operations for tolling. The project study area is between I-5 and Issaquah. Components of the project will include I-90 tolling, extending Active Traffic Management on I-90, and would include operational improvements between I-405 and the Sunset Interchange. Below are assumptions for the $1.5M Conceptual Design effort: The work to support future environmental clearance will include preliminary analysis of several options. The main focus of the work will be the engineering and modeling effort to support the future the transportation discipline report, Air and Noise discipline reports, as well as develop a strategy for the Social and Environmental Justice discipline report. These efforts will be led by WSDOT staff, making use of Department subject matter experts wherever possible and with support from consultant staff where needed. (Estimated $1M effort ) It is anticipated that the engineering work to develop the transportation discipline report would

314 provide the basis for a future financing plan for the project. Additional efforts to support a financial analysis of the alternatives would be included in this effort. (Estimated $.5M effort) This effort would be led by WSDOT staff from the Toll Division. Every effort will be made to draw on available WSDOT staff from the NWR region and UPO. For example, it is expected that staff from Doug Haight s design office would be used to perform the preliminary engineering, and NWR environmental staff would be utilized to ensure the work is well suited to feed into a future environment document. UPO and TD staff would direct the modeling and forecasting team, using NWR traffic and consultant support for forecasting. TD engineers would identify technical options and concepts for operation consistent with other statewide toll facilities. The schedule for this work has been designed to support possible discussions on authorization for I- 90 tolling in the 2012 legislative session. It is anticipated that starting this work in FY2012 would allow for toll-readiness no sooner than late 2015/early From: Charlebois, Jennifer [mailto:charlej@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 10, :39 AM To: Wrenn, Pam (Consultant) Subject: FW: By 3pm today Importance: High From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, February 10, :14 AM To: Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Cc: Davis, Glenn A. (Mega Projects) Subject: By 3pm today Importance: High We have been asked to pull together a 5-6 paragraph description of the I-90 project to get down to HQ this afternoon. The model we are to use is the below from Azim. I can help, but you two have the profound knowledge. I m free until 1. Can we meet? From: Struna, Rich Sent: Thursday, February 10, :49 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: Fwd: T&R Helena, Here is what we received from Azim. Could we get something at the same level of detail for the I-90 work. Thanks

315 Begin forwarded message: From: "Sheikh-Taheri, Azim" Date: February 9, :00:52 AM PST To: "Struna, Rich" Subject: FW: T&R This is the I mentioned to you this morning. See below for work description for the $5M Tolling study on I-405. From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :12 PM To: Alexander, Jay Cc: Saleh, Pani Subject: FW: T&R Jay, Please see below for explanation on the deliverables and cost estimates for the I-405 tolling study. Please let me know if you have any questions. The $350K General HQ/NWR DPS is redistributed charges expected from IR work orders and is NOT UCO DPS (MS4700). Hope this answers all your questions. From: Lesly Chan [mailto:lesly.chan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :46 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Cc: Cieri, Denise; Henry, Kim; Wendy Taylor Subject: RE: T&R Hi Azim, Please understand that these numbers were developed based on the number of consultant staff and hours that they have put into the effort on the last Eastside Corridor Tolling Study. We have not yet negotiate and finalize the numbers with the consultants, and we cannot do that until we have further directions from the Legislatures after the Leg session. We are trying to establish a budget that we think we need to accomplish this effort in response to the Expert Review Panels (ERP) (as requested by Paula), EAG, and Legislatures recommendations for next steps. Below is our assumption for the $5M T&R effort: The T&R effort will require significant analysis on this 40 mile plus corridor to answer some of the outstanding policy questions of 2+/3+ operations, time of day operations, HOV to HOT interfaces, and how to build toward Option 4 in phases (i.e. Option3) if tolling and additional funding is not available immediately. This effort in itself will create a giant matrix, not to mention the many different financial bonding scenarios. All this work will be done by the GEC HNTB and subs (Fehr and Peers, Wilbur Smith, PTG, and HDR) along with Westby s

316 oversight. They will collectively forecast the demand, run the data through an econometric traffic and revenue forecasting model, and determine the demand for available tolled and GP lane space for each study option and measure travel performance. (Estimated $1.5M effort) The Financial Plan is an effort that Toll Division will be involved with, but this is not the type of Financial Plan that Mia Waters produces. The $500K will primarily fund their consultant (PB) to run the financial feasibility analysis based on the above T&R analyses and produce the Financial Plan Report for each option comparing the different bonding mechanism to determine the capacity of toll revenues. We assume Toll Division (Helena s group) will be administering this effort as well as reviewing of the report. As part of this effort the O&M cost will be updated by the Toll division in coordination and input from the project office. (Estimated $0.5M effort) The Phasing Plan would provide the legislature a plan to move forward toward building Option 4 based on the outcome of the T&R, engineering refinement and financial plan. This effort would primarily be done by GEC HNTB. (Estimated $0.5M effort) Traffic/Communication staff refers to Public Information effort as described in the legislative HB With this effort, we are expected to continue to educate the public as well as getting their input. We anticipate engaging in many public and civic outreaches including open houses and public meetings, conducting focus groups, managing public on-line and phone surveys, managing the WSDOT s listserve and websites, setting up booth at fairs and festivals, and responding to legislative inquiries. The last go-around, we have spent more than $500K on this effort done by our GEC sub, PRR. The additional budget is needed for Westby s major involvement in this effort and responding to all inquiries. (Estimated $1M effort) General HQ/NWR DPS will cost about $350K and the remaining $1.15K is for I-405 Team engineering/planning and refinement of the unanswered scope and cost for the SR 167 flyover and the Renton to Bellevue outlined to executives at the January EOC. I hope this answers Jay s questions. Please let us know if you or Jay needs additional information. Lesly Chan direct cell From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim [mailto:sheikaz@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Monday, February 07, :39 AM To: Lesly Chan Subject: RE: T&R Not enough! Jay is questioning the estimate. We need to show how the $5M request will breakdown and list assumptions.

317 Per the page 20 of the hand out, the break down is: T & R $1.5M Need to identify the deliverables and assumptions. Financing Plan $0.5M Why does it cost $500K. This translates to 5 FTEs working full time for a year. Phasing Plan $0.5M Why $500K? What is the deliverable? Is it more than the phasing plan you already developed? 7 WSDOT staff $2.0M What are the core staff doing? 7 people cost $700,000 per year. How did you come up with $2M? What are the assumptions? Traffic & Comm Staff $1.0M What are the deliverables/assumptions? Again, this funds 10 FTEs for a year. From: Lesly Chan [mailto:lesly.chan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, February 04, :20 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Subject: T&R Sorry I missed your call yesterday. I will call you after lunch on Monday to discuss? Attached is the draft PAF for this new PIN. Let me know if this is sufficient or if you think I need to provide more details. Lesly Chan Eastside Corridor Program Manager NW Region, WSDOT Direct Cell Fax chanle@wsdot.wa.gov This and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this is strictly prohibited. *** esafe1 scanned this for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***

318 NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

319 From: Rubstello, Patty To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Date: 4/7/2011 4:54:44 PM Attachments: I m confused. Is this saying that if this is Program T money planning staff and/or consultants will do the work? From: Smith, Brian Sent: Thursday, April 07, :17 PM To: Struna, Rich; Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Arnis, Amy; Stone, Craig; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? I agree with Rich, but also need to point out a) if we have staff who could do some of the work we are ready to talk about contributing because b) to the extent that SP&R money would be sent elsewhere, it would likely be Program T supported or specifically SPD staff out the door we have had four years of cuts. Brian J. Smith, AICP Director, Strategic Planning Washington State Department of Transportation smithb@wsdot.wa.gov office cell fax From: Struna, Rich Sent: Thursday, April 07, :06 PM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Arnis, Amy; Stone, Craig; Smith, Brian; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Helena, As I mentioned on the phone, the Highway Program s process for dealing with un-programmed work doesn t lend itself to activities that have this level of political interest. Also, it s difficult to determine whether there is capacity in the Improvement Program to fund the study. We not aware of all the additional projects or changes being considered by the Legislature in the development of the conference list. Regarding your concerns with having the funding reside in planning, it is my understanding from conversations here at headquarters that Program T would assess whether they have the staff that could perform the work. Those elements that can t be done by program T staff would be contracted out. Also, we ve confirmed with FHWA that development of scenarios, traffic modeling, and initial financial plan work to prepare for I-90 tolling would all be eligible under the federal SPR program. FHWA did

320 have a caveat, while the activities continue to be eligible they wanted to make sure that the basic SPR program elements are being maintained and that this legislative action wouldn t impact the department s core planning and coordination efforts. I attached an from Brian summarizing his conversation with Hayley over the eligibility. Hope this helps. From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, April 07, :40 PM To: Struna, Rich Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Brian; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Hi, Rich. You were on Hayley s yesterday that asked whether T money could be used to fund $1.5 m towards work on I-90. Craig and Stacey and some others met this morning. We all want to see I-90 move forward so that we can stand ready to deal with diversion caused by tolling SR 520. We agree we will be working together. We have problems with Hayley s proposed funding source, however. The first reason: we want I-90 on the I project list so that if we have to move more quickly that the $1.5 million allow, we could do so if other funding were available without waiting for passage of the 2012 Supplemental Budget. If the project is on the LEAP list, there s a process for requesting a change, and funding could be transferred; if it s not, we lose an option. (Remember, we originally planned to spend $5m during fy 2012, so we could definitely accelerate our response if directed to do so.) The second reason is the impact on planning. If you look at the below, you ll see that a number of staff from NWR design, environmental, planning, traffic and tolling would be required to do the work. If T program funds the work, planners would lose jobs in order to cover the needed engineering and environmental work. So while Hayley s question about whether the scope being eligible for fed funding would be yes unless you see something I don t we d like to not make it happen that way. Can you help me figure a way forward on this? I ve volunteered to call Amy later this afternoon, but I d like your assessment first. From: Charlebois, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, April 07, :44 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Rubstello, Patty Subject: I-90 Helena Here is the revised work description for the I-90 proposal. Let me know if you have questions This project will begin development of roadway improvement options for I-90, perform work needed for future environmental documentation, and further develop the concept of operations for tolling. The project study area is between I-5 and Issaquah. Components of the project will include I-90 tolling, extending Active Traffic Management on I-90, and would include operational improvements between I-405 and the Sunset Interchange. Below are assumptions for the $1.5M Conceptual Design effort:

321 The work to support future environmental clearance will include preliminary analysis of several options. The main focus of the work will be the engineering and modeling effort to support the future the transportation discipline report, Air and Noise discipline reports, as well as develop a strategy for the Social and Environmental Justice discipline report. These efforts will be led by WSDOT staff, making use of Department subject matter experts wherever possible and with support from consultant staff where needed. (Estimated $1M effort ) It is anticipated that the engineering work to develop the transportation discipline report would provide the basis for a future financing plan for the project. Additional efforts to support a financial analysis of the alternatives would be included in this effort. (Estimated $.5M effort) This effort would be led by WSDOT staff from the Toll Division. Every effort will be made to draw on available WSDOT staff from the NWR region and UPO. For example, it is expected that staff from Doug Haight s design office would be used to perform the preliminary engineering, and NWR environmental staff would be utilized to ensure the work is well suited to feed into a future environment document. UPO and TD staff would direct the modeling and forecasting team, using NWR traffic and consultant support for forecasting. TD engineers would identify technical options and concepts for operation consistent with other statewide toll facilities. The schedule for this work has been designed to support possible discussions on authorization for I- 90 tolling in the 2012 legislative session. It is anticipated that starting this work in FY2012 would allow for toll-readiness no sooner than late 2015/early From: Charlebois, Jennifer [mailto:charlej@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 10, :39 AM To: Wrenn, Pam (Consultant) Subject: FW: By 3pm today Importance: High From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, February 10, :14 AM To: Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Cc: Davis, Glenn A. (Mega Projects) Subject: By 3pm today Importance: High We have been asked to pull together a 5-6 paragraph description of the I-90 project to get down to HQ this afternoon. The model we are to use is the below from Azim. I can help, but you two have the profound knowledge. I m free until 1. Can we meet? From: Struna, Rich Sent: Thursday, February 10, :49 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: Fwd: T&R

322 Helena, Here is what we received from Azim. Could we get something at the same level of detail for the I-90 work. Thanks Begin forwarded message: From: "Sheikh-Taheri, Azim" Date: February 9, :00:52 AM PST To: "Struna, Rich" Subject: FW: T&R This is the I mentioned to you this morning. See below for work description for the $5M Tolling study on I-405. From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :12 PM To: Alexander, Jay Cc: Saleh, Pani Subject: FW: T&R Jay, Please see below for explanation on the deliverables and cost estimates for the I-405 tolling study. Please let me know if you have any questions. The $350K General HQ/NWR DPS is redistributed charges expected from IR work orders and is NOT UCO DPS (MS4700). Hope this answers all your questions. From: Lesly Chan [mailto:lesly.chan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :46 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Cc: Cieri, Denise; Henry, Kim; Wendy Taylor Subject: RE: T&R Hi Azim, Please understand that these numbers were developed based on the number of consultant staff and hours that they have put into the effort on the last Eastside Corridor Tolling Study. We have not yet negotiate and finalize the numbers with the consultants, and we cannot do that until we have further directions from the Legislatures after the Leg session. We are trying to establish a budget that we think we need to accomplish this effort in response to the Expert Review Panels (ERP) (as requested by Paula), EAG, and Legislatures recommendations for next steps. Below is our assumption for the $5M T&R effort:

323 The T&R effort will require significant analysis on this 40 mile plus corridor to answer some of the outstanding policy questions of 2+/3+ operations, time of day operations, HOV to HOT interfaces, and how to build toward Option 4 in phases (i.e. Option3) if tolling and additional funding is not available immediately. This effort in itself will create a giant matrix, not to mention the many different financial bonding scenarios. All this work will be done by the GEC HNTB and subs (Fehr and Peers, Wilbur Smith, PTG, and HDR) along with Westby s oversight. They will collectively forecast the demand, run the data through an econometric traffic and revenue forecasting model, and determine the demand for available tolled and GP lane space for each study option and measure travel performance. (Estimated $1.5M effort) The Financial Plan is an effort that Toll Division will be involved with, but this is not the type of Financial Plan that Mia Waters produces. The $500K will primarily fund their consultant (PB) to run the financial feasibility analysis based on the above T&R analyses and produce the Financial Plan Report for each option comparing the different bonding mechanism to determine the capacity of toll revenues. We assume Toll Division (Helena s group) will be administering this effort as well as reviewing of the report. As part of this effort the O&M cost will be updated by the Toll division in coordination and input from the project office. (Estimated $0.5M effort) The Phasing Plan would provide the legislature a plan to move forward toward building Option 4 based on the outcome of the T&R, engineering refinement and financial plan. This effort would primarily be done by GEC HNTB. (Estimated $0.5M effort) Traffic/Communication staff refers to Public Information effort as described in the legislative HB With this effort, we are expected to continue to educate the public as well as getting their input. We anticipate engaging in many public and civic outreaches including open houses and public meetings, conducting focus groups, managing public on-line and phone surveys, managing the WSDOT s listserve and websites, setting up booth at fairs and festivals, and responding to legislative inquiries. The last go-around, we have spent more than $500K on this effort done by our GEC sub, PRR. The additional budget is needed for Westby s major involvement in this effort and responding to all inquiries. (Estimated $1M effort) General HQ/NWR DPS will cost about $350K and the remaining $1.15K is for I-405 Team engineering/planning and refinement of the unanswered scope and cost for the SR 167 flyover and the Renton to Bellevue outlined to executives at the January EOC. I hope this answers Jay s questions. Please let us know if you or Jay needs additional information. Lesly Chan direct cell

324 From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Sent: Monday, February 07, :39 AM To: Lesly Chan Subject: RE: T&R Not enough! Jay is questioning the estimate. We need to show how the $5M request will breakdown and list assumptions. Per the page 20 of the hand out, the break down is: T & R $1.5M Need to identify the deliverables and assumptions. Financing Plan $0.5M Why does it cost $500K. This translates to 5 FTEs working full time for a year. Phasing Plan $0.5M Why $500K? What is the deliverable? Is it more than the phasing plan you already developed? 7 WSDOT staff $2.0M What are the core staff doing? 7 people cost $700,000 per year. How did you come up with $2M? What are the assumptions? Traffic & Comm Staff $1.0M What are the deliverables/assumptions? Again, this funds 10 FTEs for a year. From: Lesly Chan [mailto:lesly.chan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, February 04, :20 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Subject: T&R Sorry I missed your call yesterday. I will call you after lunch on Monday to discuss? Attached is the draft PAF for this new PIN. Let me know if this is sufficient or if you think I need to provide more details. Lesly Chan Eastside Corridor Program Manager NW Region, WSDOT Direct Cell Fax chanle@wsdot.wa.gov This and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this in error and that

325 any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this is strictly prohibited. *** esafe1 scanned this for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

326 From: Rubstello, Patty To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Date: 4/7/2011 4:54:44 PM Attachments: I m confused. Is this saying that if this is Program T money planning staff and/or consultants will do the work? From: Smith, Brian Sent: Thursday, April 07, :17 PM To: Struna, Rich; Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Arnis, Amy; Stone, Craig; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? I agree with Rich, but also need to point out a) if we have staff who could do some of the work we are ready to talk about contributing because b) to the extent that SP&R money would be sent elsewhere, it would likely be Program T supported or specifically SPD staff out the door we have had four years of cuts. Brian J. Smith, AICP Director, Strategic Planning Washington State Department of Transportation smithb@wsdot.wa.gov office cell fax From: Struna, Rich Sent: Thursday, April 07, :06 PM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Arnis, Amy; Stone, Craig; Smith, Brian; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Helena, As I mentioned on the phone, the Highway Program s process for dealing with un-programmed work doesn t lend itself to activities that have this level of political interest. Also, it s difficult to determine whether there is capacity in the Improvement Program to fund the study. We not aware of all the additional projects or changes being considered by the Legislature in the development of the conference list. Regarding your concerns with having the funding reside in planning, it is my understanding from conversations here at headquarters that Program T would assess whether they have the staff that could perform the work. Those elements that can t be done by program T staff would be contracted out. Also, we ve confirmed with FHWA that development of scenarios, traffic modeling, and initial financial plan work to prepare for I-90 tolling would all be eligible under the federal SPR program. FHWA did

327 have a caveat, while the activities continue to be eligible they wanted to make sure that the basic SPR program elements are being maintained and that this legislative action wouldn t impact the department s core planning and coordination efforts. I attached an from Brian summarizing his conversation with Hayley over the eligibility. Hope this helps. From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, April 07, :40 PM To: Struna, Rich Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Brian; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Hi, Rich. You were on Hayley s yesterday that asked whether T money could be used to fund $1.5 m towards work on I-90. Craig and Stacey and some others met this morning. We all want to see I-90 move forward so that we can stand ready to deal with diversion caused by tolling SR 520. We agree we will be working together. We have problems with Hayley s proposed funding source, however. The first reason: we want I-90 on the I project list so that if we have to move more quickly that the $1.5 million allow, we could do so if other funding were available without waiting for passage of the 2012 Supplemental Budget. If the project is on the LEAP list, there s a process for requesting a change, and funding could be transferred; if it s not, we lose an option. (Remember, we originally planned to spend $5m during fy 2012, so we could definitely accelerate our response if directed to do so.) The second reason is the impact on planning. If you look at the below, you ll see that a number of staff from NWR design, environmental, planning, traffic and tolling would be required to do the work. If T program funds the work, planners would lose jobs in order to cover the needed engineering and environmental work. So while Hayley s question about whether the scope being eligible for fed funding would be yes unless you see something I don t we d like to not make it happen that way. Can you help me figure a way forward on this? I ve volunteered to call Amy later this afternoon, but I d like your assessment first. From: Charlebois, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, April 07, :44 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Rubstello, Patty Subject: I-90 Helena Here is the revised work description for the I-90 proposal. Let me know if you have questions This project will begin development of roadway improvement options for I-90, perform work needed for future environmental documentation, and further develop the concept of operations for tolling. The project study area is between I-5 and Issaquah. Components of the project will include I-90 tolling, extending Active Traffic Management on I-90, and would include operational improvements between I-405 and the Sunset Interchange. Below are assumptions for the $1.5M Conceptual Design effort:

328 The work to support future environmental clearance will include preliminary analysis of several options. The main focus of the work will be the engineering and modeling effort to support the future the transportation discipline report, Air and Noise discipline reports, as well as develop a strategy for the Social and Environmental Justice discipline report. These efforts will be led by WSDOT staff, making use of Department subject matter experts wherever possible and with support from consultant staff where needed. (Estimated $1M effort ) It is anticipated that the engineering work to develop the transportation discipline report would provide the basis for a future financing plan for the project. Additional efforts to support a financial analysis of the alternatives would be included in this effort. (Estimated $.5M effort) This effort would be led by WSDOT staff from the Toll Division. Every effort will be made to draw on available WSDOT staff from the NWR region and UPO. For example, it is expected that staff from Doug Haight s design office would be used to perform the preliminary engineering, and NWR environmental staff would be utilized to ensure the work is well suited to feed into a future environment document. UPO and TD staff would direct the modeling and forecasting team, using NWR traffic and consultant support for forecasting. TD engineers would identify technical options and concepts for operation consistent with other statewide toll facilities. The schedule for this work has been designed to support possible discussions on authorization for I- 90 tolling in the 2012 legislative session. It is anticipated that starting this work in FY2012 would allow for toll-readiness no sooner than late 2015/early From: Charlebois, Jennifer [mailto:charlej@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 10, :39 AM To: Wrenn, Pam (Consultant) Subject: FW: By 3pm today Importance: High From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, February 10, :14 AM To: Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Cc: Davis, Glenn A. (Mega Projects) Subject: By 3pm today Importance: High We have been asked to pull together a 5-6 paragraph description of the I-90 project to get down to HQ this afternoon. The model we are to use is the below from Azim. I can help, but you two have the profound knowledge. I m free until 1. Can we meet? From: Struna, Rich Sent: Thursday, February 10, :49 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: Fwd: T&R

329 Helena, Here is what we received from Azim. Could we get something at the same level of detail for the I-90 work. Thanks Begin forwarded message: From: "Sheikh-Taheri, Azim" Date: February 9, :00:52 AM PST To: "Struna, Rich" Subject: FW: T&R This is the I mentioned to you this morning. See below for work description for the $5M Tolling study on I-405. From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :12 PM To: Alexander, Jay Cc: Saleh, Pani Subject: FW: T&R Jay, Please see below for explanation on the deliverables and cost estimates for the I-405 tolling study. Please let me know if you have any questions. The $350K General HQ/NWR DPS is redistributed charges expected from IR work orders and is NOT UCO DPS (MS4700). Hope this answers all your questions. From: Lesly Chan [mailto:lesly.chan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :46 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Cc: Cieri, Denise; Henry, Kim; Wendy Taylor Subject: RE: T&R Hi Azim, Please understand that these numbers were developed based on the number of consultant staff and hours that they have put into the effort on the last Eastside Corridor Tolling Study. We have not yet negotiate and finalize the numbers with the consultants, and we cannot do that until we have further directions from the Legislatures after the Leg session. We are trying to establish a budget that we think we need to accomplish this effort in response to the Expert Review Panels (ERP) (as requested by Paula), EAG, and Legislatures recommendations for next steps. Below is our assumption for the $5M T&R effort:

330 The T&R effort will require significant analysis on this 40 mile plus corridor to answer some of the outstanding policy questions of 2+/3+ operations, time of day operations, HOV to HOT interfaces, and how to build toward Option 4 in phases (i.e. Option3) if tolling and additional funding is not available immediately. This effort in itself will create a giant matrix, not to mention the many different financial bonding scenarios. All this work will be done by the GEC HNTB and subs (Fehr and Peers, Wilbur Smith, PTG, and HDR) along with Westby s oversight. They will collectively forecast the demand, run the data through an econometric traffic and revenue forecasting model, and determine the demand for available tolled and GP lane space for each study option and measure travel performance. (Estimated $1.5M effort) The Financial Plan is an effort that Toll Division will be involved with, but this is not the type of Financial Plan that Mia Waters produces. The $500K will primarily fund their consultant (PB) to run the financial feasibility analysis based on the above T&R analyses and produce the Financial Plan Report for each option comparing the different bonding mechanism to determine the capacity of toll revenues. We assume Toll Division (Helena s group) will be administering this effort as well as reviewing of the report. As part of this effort the O&M cost will be updated by the Toll division in coordination and input from the project office. (Estimated $0.5M effort) The Phasing Plan would provide the legislature a plan to move forward toward building Option 4 based on the outcome of the T&R, engineering refinement and financial plan. This effort would primarily be done by GEC HNTB. (Estimated $0.5M effort) Traffic/Communication staff refers to Public Information effort as described in the legislative HB With this effort, we are expected to continue to educate the public as well as getting their input. We anticipate engaging in many public and civic outreaches including open houses and public meetings, conducting focus groups, managing public on-line and phone surveys, managing the WSDOT s listserve and websites, setting up booth at fairs and festivals, and responding to legislative inquiries. The last go-around, we have spent more than $500K on this effort done by our GEC sub, PRR. The additional budget is needed for Westby s major involvement in this effort and responding to all inquiries. (Estimated $1M effort) General HQ/NWR DPS will cost about $350K and the remaining $1.15K is for I-405 Team engineering/planning and refinement of the unanswered scope and cost for the SR 167 flyover and the Renton to Bellevue outlined to executives at the January EOC. I hope this answers Jay s questions. Please let us know if you or Jay needs additional information. Lesly Chan direct cell

331 From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Sent: Monday, February 07, :39 AM To: Lesly Chan Subject: RE: T&R Not enough! Jay is questioning the estimate. We need to show how the $5M request will breakdown and list assumptions. Per the page 20 of the hand out, the break down is: T & R $1.5M Need to identify the deliverables and assumptions. Financing Plan $0.5M Why does it cost $500K. This translates to 5 FTEs working full time for a year. Phasing Plan $0.5M Why $500K? What is the deliverable? Is it more than the phasing plan you already developed? 7 WSDOT staff $2.0M What are the core staff doing? 7 people cost $700,000 per year. How did you come up with $2M? What are the assumptions? Traffic & Comm Staff $1.0M What are the deliverables/assumptions? Again, this funds 10 FTEs for a year. From: Lesly Chan [mailto:lesly.chan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, February 04, :20 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Subject: T&R Sorry I missed your call yesterday. I will call you after lunch on Monday to discuss? Attached is the draft PAF for this new PIN. Let me know if this is sufficient or if you think I need to provide more details. Lesly Chan Eastside Corridor Program Manager NW Region, WSDOT Direct Cell Fax chanle@wsdot.wa.gov This and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this in error and that

332 any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this is strictly prohibited. *** esafe1 scanned this for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

333 From: Smith, Helena Kennedy /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HSMITH To: Rubstello; Patty Cc: Stone; Craig; Ziegler; Jennifer Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Date: 4/7/ :55:29 PM Attachments: I think that s what Brian is saying. That doesn t have to be the case, of course. From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Thursday, April 07, :55 PM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy; Stone, Craig Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? I m confused. Is this saying that if this is Program T money planning staff and/or consultants will do the work? From: Smith, Brian Sent: Thursday, April 07, :17 PM To: Struna, Rich; Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Arnis, Amy; Stone, Craig; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? I agree with Rich, but also need to point out a) if we have staff who could do some of the work we are ready to talk about contributing because b) to the extent that SP&R money would be sent elsewhere, it would likely be Program T supported or specifically SPD staff out the door we have had four years of cuts. Brian J. Smith, AICP Director, Strategic Planning Washington State Department of Transportation smithb@wsdot.wa.gov office cell fax From: Struna, Rich Sent: Thursday, April 07, :06 PM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Arnis, Amy; Stone, Craig; Smith, Brian; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Helena, As I mentioned on the phone, the Highway Program s process for dealing with un-programmed work doesn t lend itself to activities that have this level of political interest. Also, it s difficult to determine whether there is capacity in the Improvement Program to fund the study. We not aware of all the additional projects or changes being considered by the Legislature in the development of the conference list.

334 Regarding your concerns with having the funding reside in planning, it is my understanding from conversations here at headquarters that Program T would assess whether they have the staff that could perform the work. Those elements that can t be done by program T staff would be contracted out. Also, we ve confirmed with FHWA that development of scenarios, traffic modeling, and initial financial plan work to prepare for I-90 tolling would all be eligible under the federal SPR program. FHWA did have a caveat, while the activities continue to be eligible they wanted to make sure that the basic SPR program elements are being maintained and that this legislative action wouldn t impact the department s core planning and coordination efforts. I attached an from Brian summarizing his conversation with Hayley over the eligibility. Hope this helps. From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, April 07, :40 PM To: Struna, Rich Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Brian; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Hi, Rich. You were on Hayley s yesterday that asked whether T money could be used to fund $1.5 m towards work on I-90. Craig and Stacey and some others met this morning. We all want to see I-90 move forward so that we can stand ready to deal with diversion caused by tolling SR 520. We agree we will be working together. We have problems with Hayley s proposed funding source, however. The first reason: we want I-90 on the I project list so that if we have to move more quickly that the $1.5 million allow, we could do so if other funding were available without waiting for passage of the 2012 Supplemental Budget. If the project is on the LEAP list, there s a process for requesting a change, and funding could be transferred; if it s not, we lose an option. (Remember, we originally planned to spend $5m during fy 2012, so we could definitely accelerate our response if directed to do so.) The second reason is the impact on planning. If you look at the below, you ll see that a number of staff from NWR design, environmental, planning, traffic and tolling would be required to do the work. If T program funds the work, planners would lose jobs in order to cover the needed engineering and environmental work. So while Hayley s question about whether the scope being eligible for fed funding would be yes unless you see something I don t we d like to not make it happen that way. Can you help me figure a way forward on this? I ve volunteered to call Amy later this afternoon, but I d like your assessment first. From: Charlebois, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, April 07, :44 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Rubstello, Patty Subject: I-90 Helena Here is the revised work description for the I-90 proposal. Let me know if you have questions

335 This project will begin development of roadway improvement options for I-90, perform work needed for future environmental documentation, and further develop the concept of operations for tolling. The project study area is between I-5 and Issaquah. Components of the project will include I-90 tolling, extending Active Traffic Management on I-90, and would include operational improvements between I-405 and the Sunset Interchange. Below are assumptions for the $1.5M Conceptual Design effort: The work to support future environmental clearance will include preliminary analysis of several options. The main focus of the work will be the engineering and modeling effort to support the future the transportation discipline report, Air and Noise discipline reports, as well as develop a strategy for the Social and Environmental Justice discipline report. These efforts will be led by WSDOT staff, making use of Department subject matter experts wherever possible and with support from consultant staff where needed. (Estimated $1M effort ) It is anticipated that the engineering work to develop the transportation discipline report would provide the basis for a future financing plan for the project. Additional efforts to support a financial analysis of the alternatives would be included in this effort. (Estimated $.5M effort) This effort would be led by WSDOT staff from the Toll Division. Every effort will be made to draw on available WSDOT staff from the NWR region and UPO. For example, it is expected that staff from Doug Haight s design office would be used to perform the preliminary engineering, and NWR environmental staff would be utilized to ensure the work is well suited to feed into a future environment document. UPO and TD staff would direct the modeling and forecasting team, using NWR traffic and consultant support for forecasting. TD engineers would identify technical options and concepts for operation consistent with other statewide toll facilities. The schedule for this work has been designed to support possible discussions on authorization for I- 90 tolling in the 2012 legislative session. It is anticipated that starting this work in FY2012 would allow for toll-readiness no sooner than late 2015/early From: Charlebois, Jennifer [mailto:charlej@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 10, :39 AM To: Wrenn, Pam (Consultant) Subject: FW: By 3pm today Importance: High From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, February 10, :14 AM To: Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Cc: Davis, Glenn A. (Mega Projects) Subject: By 3pm today Importance: High We have been asked to pull together a 5-6 paragraph description of the I-90 project to get down to HQ this afternoon. The model we are to use is the below from Azim. I can help, but you two have the

336 profound knowledge. I m free until 1. Can we meet? From: Struna, Rich Sent: Thursday, February 10, :49 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: Fwd: T&R Helena, Here is what we received from Azim. Could we get something at the same level of detail for the I-90 work. Thanks Begin forwarded message: From: "Sheikh-Taheri, Azim" <SheikAz@wsdot.wa.gov> Date: February 9, :00:52 AM PST To: "Struna, Rich" <strunar@wsdot.wa.gov> Subject: FW: T&R This is the I mentioned to you this morning. See below for work description for the $5M Tolling study on I-405. From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :12 PM To: Alexander, Jay Cc: Saleh, Pani Subject: FW: T&R Jay, Please see below for explanation on the deliverables and cost estimates for the I-405 tolling study. Please let me know if you have any questions. The $350K General HQ/NWR DPS is redistributed charges expected from IR work orders and is NOT UCO DPS (MS4700). Hope this answers all your questions. From: Lesly Chan [mailto:lesly.chan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :46 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Cc: Cieri, Denise; Henry, Kim; Wendy Taylor Subject: RE: T&R Hi Azim, Please understand that these numbers were developed based on the number of consultant staff

337 and hours that they have put into the effort on the last Eastside Corridor Tolling Study. We have not yet negotiate and finalize the numbers with the consultants, and we cannot do that until we have further directions from the Legislatures after the Leg session. We are trying to establish a budget that we think we need to accomplish this effort in response to the Expert Review Panels (ERP) (as requested by Paula), EAG, and Legislatures recommendations for next steps. Below is our assumption for the $5M T&R effort: The T&R effort will require significant analysis on this 40 mile plus corridor to answer some of the outstanding policy questions of 2+/3+ operations, time of day operations, HOV to HOT interfaces, and how to build toward Option 4 in phases (i.e. Option3) if tolling and additional funding is not available immediately. This effort in itself will create a giant matrix, not to mention the many different financial bonding scenarios. All this work will be done by the GEC HNTB and subs (Fehr and Peers, Wilbur Smith, PTG, and HDR) along with Westby s oversight. They will collectively forecast the demand, run the data through an econometric traffic and revenue forecasting model, and determine the demand for available tolled and GP lane space for each study option and measure travel performance. (Estimated $1.5M effort) The Financial Plan is an effort that Toll Division will be involved with, but this is not the type of Financial Plan that Mia Waters produces. The $500K will primarily fund their consultant (PB) to run the financial feasibility analysis based on the above T&R analyses and produce the Financial Plan Report for each option comparing the different bonding mechanism to determine the capacity of toll revenues. We assume Toll Division (Helena s group) will be administering this effort as well as reviewing of the report. As part of this effort the O&M cost will be updated by the Toll division in coordination and input from the project office. (Estimated $0.5M effort) The Phasing Plan would provide the legislature a plan to move forward toward building Option 4 based on the outcome of the T&R, engineering refinement and financial plan. This effort would primarily be done by GEC HNTB. (Estimated $0.5M effort) Traffic/Communication staff refers to Public Information effort as described in the legislative HB With this effort, we are expected to continue to educate the public as well as getting their input. We anticipate engaging in many public and civic outreaches including open houses and public meetings, conducting focus groups, managing public on-line and phone surveys, managing the WSDOT s listserve and websites, setting up booth at fairs and festivals, and responding to legislative inquiries. The last go-around, we have spent more than $500K on this effort done by our GEC sub, PRR. The additional budget is needed for Westby s major involvement in this effort and responding to all inquiries. (Estimated $1M effort) General HQ/NWR DPS will cost about $350K and the remaining $1.15K is for I-405 Team engineering/planning and refinement of the unanswered scope and cost for the SR 167 flyover and the Renton to Bellevue outlined to executives at the January EOC. I hope this answers Jay s questions. Please let us know if you or Jay needs additional

338 information. Lesly Chan direct cell From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Sent: Monday, February 07, :39 AM To: Lesly Chan Subject: RE: T&R Not enough! Jay is questioning the estimate. We need to show how the $5M request will breakdown and list assumptions. Per the page 20 of the hand out, the break down is: T & R $1.5M Need to identify the deliverables and assumptions. Financing Plan $0.5M Why does it cost $500K. This translates to 5 FTEs working full time for a year. Phasing Plan $0.5M Why $500K? What is the deliverable? Is it more than the phasing plan you already developed? 7 WSDOT staff $2.0M What are the core staff doing? 7 people cost $700,000 per year. How did you come up with $2M? What are the assumptions? Traffic & Comm Staff $1.0M What are the deliverables/assumptions? Again, this funds 10 FTEs for a year. From: Lesly Chan [mailto:lesly.chan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, February 04, :20 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Subject: T&R Sorry I missed your call yesterday. I will call you after lunch on Monday to discuss? Attached is the draft PAF for this new PIN. Let me know if this is sufficient or if you think I need to provide more details. Lesly Chan Eastside Corridor Program Manager NW Region, WSDOT Direct Cell Fax chanle@wsdot.wa.gov This and any files transmitted with it are confidential

339 and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this is strictly prohibited. *** esafe1 scanned this for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

340 From: Smith, Helena Kennedy /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HSMITH To: Rubstello; Patty Cc: Stone; Craig; Ziegler; Jennifer Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Date: 4/7/ :55:29 PM Attachments: I think that s what Brian is saying. That doesn t have to be the case, of course. From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Thursday, April 07, :55 PM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy; Stone, Craig Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? I m confused. Is this saying that if this is Program T money planning staff and/or consultants will do the work? From: Smith, Brian Sent: Thursday, April 07, :17 PM To: Struna, Rich; Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Arnis, Amy; Stone, Craig; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? I agree with Rich, but also need to point out a) if we have staff who could do some of the work we are ready to talk about contributing because b) to the extent that SP&R money would be sent elsewhere, it would likely be Program T supported or specifically SPD staff out the door we have had four years of cuts. Brian J. Smith, AICP Director, Strategic Planning Washington State Department of Transportation smithb@wsdot.wa.gov office cell fax From: Struna, Rich Sent: Thursday, April 07, :06 PM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Arnis, Amy; Stone, Craig; Smith, Brian; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: RE: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Helena, As I mentioned on the phone, the Highway Program s process for dealing with un-programmed work doesn t lend itself to activities that have this level of political interest. Also, it s difficult to determine whether there is capacity in the Improvement Program to fund the study. We not aware of all the additional projects or changes being considered by the Legislature in the development of the conference list.

341 Regarding your concerns with having the funding reside in planning, it is my understanding from conversations here at headquarters that Program T would assess whether they have the staff that could perform the work. Those elements that can t be done by program T staff would be contracted out. Also, we ve confirmed with FHWA that development of scenarios, traffic modeling, and initial financial plan work to prepare for I-90 tolling would all be eligible under the federal SPR program. FHWA did have a caveat, while the activities continue to be eligible they wanted to make sure that the basic SPR program elements are being maintained and that this legislative action wouldn t impact the department s core planning and coordination efforts. I attached an from Brian summarizing his conversation with Hayley over the eligibility. Hope this helps. From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, April 07, :40 PM To: Struna, Rich Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Brian; Trussler, Stacy; Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Subject: I-90 - what's the right source of $1.5m in funding? Hi, Rich. You were on Hayley s yesterday that asked whether T money could be used to fund $1.5 m towards work on I-90. Craig and Stacey and some others met this morning. We all want to see I-90 move forward so that we can stand ready to deal with diversion caused by tolling SR 520. We agree we will be working together. We have problems with Hayley s proposed funding source, however. The first reason: we want I-90 on the I project list so that if we have to move more quickly that the $1.5 million allow, we could do so if other funding were available without waiting for passage of the 2012 Supplemental Budget. If the project is on the LEAP list, there s a process for requesting a change, and funding could be transferred; if it s not, we lose an option. (Remember, we originally planned to spend $5m during fy 2012, so we could definitely accelerate our response if directed to do so.) The second reason is the impact on planning. If you look at the below, you ll see that a number of staff from NWR design, environmental, planning, traffic and tolling would be required to do the work. If T program funds the work, planners would lose jobs in order to cover the needed engineering and environmental work. So while Hayley s question about whether the scope being eligible for fed funding would be yes unless you see something I don t we d like to not make it happen that way. Can you help me figure a way forward on this? I ve volunteered to call Amy later this afternoon, but I d like your assessment first. From: Charlebois, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, April 07, :44 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Cc: Rubstello, Patty Subject: I-90 Helena Here is the revised work description for the I-90 proposal. Let me know if you have questions

342 This project will begin development of roadway improvement options for I-90, perform work needed for future environmental documentation, and further develop the concept of operations for tolling. The project study area is between I-5 and Issaquah. Components of the project will include I-90 tolling, extending Active Traffic Management on I-90, and would include operational improvements between I-405 and the Sunset Interchange. Below are assumptions for the $1.5M Conceptual Design effort: The work to support future environmental clearance will include preliminary analysis of several options. The main focus of the work will be the engineering and modeling effort to support the future the transportation discipline report, Air and Noise discipline reports, as well as develop a strategy for the Social and Environmental Justice discipline report. These efforts will be led by WSDOT staff, making use of Department subject matter experts wherever possible and with support from consultant staff where needed. (Estimated $1M effort ) It is anticipated that the engineering work to develop the transportation discipline report would provide the basis for a future financing plan for the project. Additional efforts to support a financial analysis of the alternatives would be included in this effort. (Estimated $.5M effort) This effort would be led by WSDOT staff from the Toll Division. Every effort will be made to draw on available WSDOT staff from the NWR region and UPO. For example, it is expected that staff from Doug Haight s design office would be used to perform the preliminary engineering, and NWR environmental staff would be utilized to ensure the work is well suited to feed into a future environment document. UPO and TD staff would direct the modeling and forecasting team, using NWR traffic and consultant support for forecasting. TD engineers would identify technical options and concepts for operation consistent with other statewide toll facilities. The schedule for this work has been designed to support possible discussions on authorization for I- 90 tolling in the 2012 legislative session. It is anticipated that starting this work in FY2012 would allow for toll-readiness no sooner than late 2015/early From: Charlebois, Jennifer [mailto:charlej@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 10, :39 AM To: Wrenn, Pam (Consultant) Subject: FW: By 3pm today Importance: High From: Smith, Helena Kennedy Sent: Thursday, February 10, :14 AM To: Rubstello, Patty; Charlebois, Jennifer Cc: Davis, Glenn A. (Mega Projects) Subject: By 3pm today Importance: High We have been asked to pull together a 5-6 paragraph description of the I-90 project to get down to HQ this afternoon. The model we are to use is the below from Azim. I can help, but you two have the

343 profound knowledge. I m free until 1. Can we meet? From: Struna, Rich Sent: Thursday, February 10, :49 AM To: Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: Fwd: T&R Helena, Here is what we received from Azim. Could we get something at the same level of detail for the I-90 work. Thanks Begin forwarded message: From: "Sheikh-Taheri, Azim" <SheikAz@wsdot.wa.gov> Date: February 9, :00:52 AM PST To: "Struna, Rich" <strunar@wsdot.wa.gov> Subject: FW: T&R This is the I mentioned to you this morning. See below for work description for the $5M Tolling study on I-405. From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :12 PM To: Alexander, Jay Cc: Saleh, Pani Subject: FW: T&R Jay, Please see below for explanation on the deliverables and cost estimates for the I-405 tolling study. Please let me know if you have any questions. The $350K General HQ/NWR DPS is redistributed charges expected from IR work orders and is NOT UCO DPS (MS4700). Hope this answers all your questions. From: Lesly Chan [mailto:lesly.chan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, :46 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Cc: Cieri, Denise; Henry, Kim; Wendy Taylor Subject: RE: T&R Hi Azim, Please understand that these numbers were developed based on the number of consultant staff

344 and hours that they have put into the effort on the last Eastside Corridor Tolling Study. We have not yet negotiate and finalize the numbers with the consultants, and we cannot do that until we have further directions from the Legislatures after the Leg session. We are trying to establish a budget that we think we need to accomplish this effort in response to the Expert Review Panels (ERP) (as requested by Paula), EAG, and Legislatures recommendations for next steps. Below is our assumption for the $5M T&R effort: The T&R effort will require significant analysis on this 40 mile plus corridor to answer some of the outstanding policy questions of 2+/3+ operations, time of day operations, HOV to HOT interfaces, and how to build toward Option 4 in phases (i.e. Option3) if tolling and additional funding is not available immediately. This effort in itself will create a giant matrix, not to mention the many different financial bonding scenarios. All this work will be done by the GEC HNTB and subs (Fehr and Peers, Wilbur Smith, PTG, and HDR) along with Westby s oversight. They will collectively forecast the demand, run the data through an econometric traffic and revenue forecasting model, and determine the demand for available tolled and GP lane space for each study option and measure travel performance. (Estimated $1.5M effort) The Financial Plan is an effort that Toll Division will be involved with, but this is not the type of Financial Plan that Mia Waters produces. The $500K will primarily fund their consultant (PB) to run the financial feasibility analysis based on the above T&R analyses and produce the Financial Plan Report for each option comparing the different bonding mechanism to determine the capacity of toll revenues. We assume Toll Division (Helena s group) will be administering this effort as well as reviewing of the report. As part of this effort the O&M cost will be updated by the Toll division in coordination and input from the project office. (Estimated $0.5M effort) The Phasing Plan would provide the legislature a plan to move forward toward building Option 4 based on the outcome of the T&R, engineering refinement and financial plan. This effort would primarily be done by GEC HNTB. (Estimated $0.5M effort) Traffic/Communication staff refers to Public Information effort as described in the legislative HB With this effort, we are expected to continue to educate the public as well as getting their input. We anticipate engaging in many public and civic outreaches including open houses and public meetings, conducting focus groups, managing public on-line and phone surveys, managing the WSDOT s listserve and websites, setting up booth at fairs and festivals, and responding to legislative inquiries. The last go-around, we have spent more than $500K on this effort done by our GEC sub, PRR. The additional budget is needed for Westby s major involvement in this effort and responding to all inquiries. (Estimated $1M effort) General HQ/NWR DPS will cost about $350K and the remaining $1.15K is for I-405 Team engineering/planning and refinement of the unanswered scope and cost for the SR 167 flyover and the Renton to Bellevue outlined to executives at the January EOC. I hope this answers Jay s questions. Please let us know if you or Jay needs additional

345 information. Lesly Chan direct cell From: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Sent: Monday, February 07, :39 AM To: Lesly Chan Subject: RE: T&R Not enough! Jay is questioning the estimate. We need to show how the $5M request will breakdown and list assumptions. Per the page 20 of the hand out, the break down is: T & R $1.5M Need to identify the deliverables and assumptions. Financing Plan $0.5M Why does it cost $500K. This translates to 5 FTEs working full time for a year. Phasing Plan $0.5M Why $500K? What is the deliverable? Is it more than the phasing plan you already developed? 7 WSDOT staff $2.0M What are the core staff doing? 7 people cost $700,000 per year. How did you come up with $2M? What are the assumptions? Traffic & Comm Staff $1.0M What are the deliverables/assumptions? Again, this funds 10 FTEs for a year. From: Lesly Chan [mailto:lesly.chan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, February 04, :20 PM To: Sheikh-Taheri, Azim Subject: T&R Sorry I missed your call yesterday. I will call you after lunch on Monday to discuss? Attached is the draft PAF for this new PIN. Let me know if this is sufficient or if you think I need to provide more details. Lesly Chan Eastside Corridor Program Manager NW Region, WSDOT Direct Cell Fax chanle@wsdot.wa.gov This and any files transmitted with it are confidential

346 and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this is strictly prohibited. *** esafe1 scanned this for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

347 From: Rubstello, Patty To: Ziegler, Jennifer Stone, Craig Cc: Pope, David Subject: FW: T2Patty.xls Date: 5/10/2011 2:35:04 PM Attachments: T2Patty.xls FYI: Let David know if you would like to review before we send this to FHWA. From: Rubstello, Patty Sent: Tuesday, May 10, :34 PM To: Petersen, Don (FHWA); Pope, David Cc: Colyar, James (FHWA); Fellows, Rob Subject: FW: T2Patty.xls Don, I ll have David Pope pull this together for you. Columbia River does need to be included. I think we have a few more to add. One question I have is on I-90. We have been asked to look at tolling the bridge as well as HOT lanes. How should that get reflected on the spreadsheet; as one line or two? Patty From: don.petersen@dot.gov [mailto:don.petersen@dot.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, :51 PM To: Rubstello, Patty Cc: Colyar, James (FHWA) Subject: T2Patty.xls Patty, Periodically the Division offices are asked to update information for the FHWA Report entitled Toll Facilities in the United States. One of the tables I need help on is the Proposed Toll facilities in Washington. I have included a table that includes proposed toll facilities that I am aware of. The criteria to list a project is This table lists those toll facilities known to have been recommended for feasibility studies by State governors, highway departments, legislative committee. I have included the Columbia River project but I don t know whether it should be included. Are there more projects that I don t have listed? Could you or someone from your staff assist me by completing the missing information? Or could you point me to someone who could assist. I need the information by May 27 th. Thanks for your help Patty!! Don Don Petersen FHWA Safety/Geometric Design Engineer

348 711 S Capitol Way, Suite 501 Olympia, WA Phone: (360) FAX: (360) don.petersen@dot.gov *** esafe1 scanned this for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***

349 PROPOSED TOLL FACILITIES (UNDER CONSIDERATION, IN PLANNING PHASE, OR FINANCED AS OF JANUARY 1, 2011) Table T-2 Road/ State Bridge Name of Facility 1/ Authority From To Washington Road SR HOT Lanes WA Department of Transportation 8th Street S 277th Washington Bridge SR 520 WA Department of Transportation Washington Tunnel Alaska Way Tunnel WA Department of Transportation Washington Road SR 509 Extension WA Department of Transportation I-5 South Airport Access Road Washington Road I-405 HOT Lanes WA Department of Transportation I-5 (Renton, WA) I-5 (Lynnwood, WA) Washington Bridge I-90 Floating Bridge WA Department of Transportation Washington Bridge I-5 Columbia River Crossing???? WA Department of Transportation Vancouver, WA Portland, OR Washington WA Department of Transportation Washington WA Department of Transportation Washington WA Department of Transportation Washington WA Department of Transportation Washington WA Department of Transportation Washington WA Department of Transportation 1/ This table lists those toll facilities known to have been recommended for feasibility studies by State governors, highway departments, legislative committee. Those marked with an asterisk have been authorized for construction by the respective State legislatures or toll authorities. 2/ If facility is not entirely on the National Highway System, the length breakdown is in the remarks column. 3/ Excludes toll transactions that require stopping (i.e., cash, ticket, or token payment).

350 Toll Collection Electronic Toll Length Estimated NHS One-Way Both Collection System? 3/ Miles Kilometers Cost (millions) Estimated Cost Notes 2/ (N,S,E,W) Ways No Yes/Kind Authority Source 8.00 X S AVI X X X X X X X X X X X X X

351 Toll Type

352 From: Camden, Allison To: Stone, Craig Cc: Larsen, Chad Subject: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Date: 7/1/2011 4:34:02 PM Attachments: Hi Craig Rep. Inslee s office just called to ask for the latest information on the possibility of tolling I-90 for a Rotary event he s doing on Mercer Island this coming Tuesday at lunch time (he wants to be prepared for questions). Would it be possible to get an update on I-90 tolling by 9 AM on Tuesday? Or is there somewhere I can find the information? Thanks, Allison Allison Dane Camden Federal Relations Manager Washington State Department of Transportation Office: (360) Cell: (360) CamdenA@wsdot.wa.gov

353 From: Briglia, Pete To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: FW: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Date: 7/1/2011 9:32:22 PM Attachments: In case you are checking messages. From: Briglia, Pete Sent: Fri 7/1/2011 9:31 PM To: Camden, Allison; Rubstello, Patty; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Fellows, Rob; Matkin, Janet Cc: Reinmuth, Steve; Silins, Cathy Subject: RE: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Hi Allison Sorry but I don't know enough about I-90 tolling to provide information that an elected official could use for answering questions. I'm not sure what legislation was requested and what happened to it in the session. checked our website and there was nothing about our plans for I-90 as you probably discovered. I I am including Rob Fellows, our Planning and Policy Director, and Janet Matkin, who is filling in for Jennifer Ziegler, in the hope that they may be able to provide some information. It is, however, unlikely that people will be able to reply until the holiday weekend is over on Tuesday. If you don't get information before then, I will get together with Rob and Janet on Tuesday morning and get something to you by 9:00am. Pete From: Camden, Allison Sent: Fri 7/1/2011 4:56 PM To: Rubstello, Patty; Briglia, Pete; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: FW: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Hi Patty, Pete, Lucinda and Helena I believe Craig is out of the office (I m not sure on that), and I m in need of help trying to find information for Rep. Inslee on the possibility of tolling I-90. Can you help me pull together some information by Tuesday at 9 AM? It doesn t have to be super detailed, just the basics on I-90 and tolling. Thanks, Allison From: Camden, Allison Sent: Friday, July 01, :34 PM

354 To: Stone, Craig Cc: Larsen, Chad Subject: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Importance: High Hi Craig Rep. Inslee s office just called to ask for the latest information on the possibility of tolling I-90 for a Rotary event he s doing on Mercer Island this coming Tuesday at lunch time (he wants to be prepared for questions). Would it be possible to get an update on I-90 tolling by 9 AM on Tuesday? Or is there somewhere I can find the information? Thanks, Allison Allison Dane Camden Federal Relations Manager Washington State Department of Transportation Office: (360) Cell: (360) CamdenA@wsdot.wa.gov

355 From: Reinmuth, Steve To: Stone, Craig Cc: Subject: Fw: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Date: 7/1/ :46:40 PM Attachments: Sent from my Blackberry. Please excuse any spelling errors. From: Matkin, Janet To: Briglia, Pete; Camden, Allison; Rubstello, Patty; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Fellows, Rob Cc: Reinmuth, Steve; Silins, Cathy Sent: Fri Jul 01 22:06: Subject: RE: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Hello Allison, Consideration was given to tolling I-90 as part of an extensive outreach and analysis done in 2008 for the state legislature. The Tolling Implementation Committee looked at 10 different scenarios, some that included just tolling SR 520 and others that also included tolling I-90. As part of the process, we also conducted extensive public involvement activities, including public opinion surveys, open houses, public comments, and feedback from local jurisdictions. That final report, as well as all the supporting documention, can be found at Mercer Island residents were very vocal in their opposition to tolling I-90 and that's reflected in both public comments and submissions from the City Council. Let me know if you have specific questions once you've looked at that website. Janet Matkin Tolls Communication Manager From: Briglia, Pete Sent: Fri 7/1/2011 9:31 PM To: Camden, Allison; Rubstello, Patty; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Fellows, Rob; Matkin, Janet Cc: Reinmuth, Steve; Silins, Cathy Subject: RE: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Hi Allison Sorry but I don't know enough about I-90 tolling to provide information that an elected official could use for answering questions. I'm not sure what legislation was requested and what happened to it in the session. checked our website and there was nothing about our plans for I-90 as you probably discovered. I I am including Rob Fellows, our Planning and Policy Director, and Janet Matkin, who is filling in for Jennifer Ziegler, in the hope that they may be able to provide some information.

356 It is, however, unlikely that people will be able to reply until the holiday weekend is over on Tuesday. If you don't get information before then, I will get together with Rob and Janet on Tuesday morning and get something to you by 9:00am. Pete From: Camden, Allison Sent: Fri 7/1/2011 4:56 PM To: Rubstello, Patty; Briglia, Pete; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: FW: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Hi Patty, Pete, Lucinda and Helena I believe Craig is out of the office (I m not sure on that), and I m in need of help trying to find information for Rep. Inslee on the possibility of tolling I-90. Can you help me pull together some information by Tuesday at 9 AM? It doesn t have to be super detailed, just the basics on I-90 and tolling. Thanks, Allison From: Camden, Allison Sent: Friday, July 01, :34 PM To: Stone, Craig Cc: Larsen, Chad Subject: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Importance: High Hi Craig Rep. Inslee s office just called to ask for the latest information on the possibility of tolling I-90 for a Rotary event he s doing on Mercer Island this coming Tuesday at lunch time (he wants to be prepared for questions). Would it be possible to get an update on I-90 tolling by 9 AM on Tuesday? Or is there somewhere I can find the information? Thanks, Allison Allison Dane Camden Federal Relations Manager Washington State Department of Transportation Office: (360) Cell: (360) CamdenA@wsdot.wa.gov

357 From: Ziegler, Jennifer To: Camden, Allison Counts, Dylan Reinmuth, Steve Cc: Silins, Cathy Matkin, Janet Stone, Craig Fellows, Rob Briglia, Pete Subject: Re: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Date: 7/4/ :35:54 AM Attachments: Allison--I would only add two things. First, the State Legislature directed us to ask Federal Highways about tolling I-90. We received a letter under the previous administration that I-90 would be eligible under existing value pricing programs. Second, we had a State Legislative workgroup that concluded tolling I-90 could be an option for funding 520, but the Legislature needed to explore other funding options first. If other options did not materialize by 2014, then we should pursue I-90 tolling. Tolling on I-90 would require both state legislative authorization and some form of federal permission. From: Camden, Allison To: Counts, Dylan; Reinmuth, Steve Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Silins, Cathy Sent: Sat Jul 02 14:23: Subject: Re: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Thanks! From: Counts, Dylan To: Camden, Allison; Reinmuth, Steve Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Silins, Cathy Sent: Sat Jul 02 11:00: Subject: Re: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Traffic modeling for Sound Transit's East Link project assumes tolling on 520 and none on I-90 in the EIS. That provides the worst case scenario for impacts. The 1976 MOA and the 2004 Amendment prioritized the center roadway for high capacity transit, buses / HOV, and Mercer Island - Seattle traffic last. The Fitzsimmons letter (Sorry, I don't have a copy by blackberry) promised that once the Center Roadway is closed, SOV traffic traveling between Seattle and Mercer Island would have access to the HOV lanes on the outer roadway until tolling or another form of congestion management is implemented. How that would be implemented and enforced isn't clear. An important piece of this is that FHWA hasn't been a part of the agreements and aren't too keen on the idea. Implementing tolling on I-90 before the center roadway is closed in 2015 would eliminate that issue. Dylan From: Camden, Allison To: Reinmuth, Steve Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Counts, Dylan; Silins, Cathy

358 Sent: Sat Jul 02 10:14: Subject: Re: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Thanks. I think between this and Janet's response I have what I need on the tolling piece. Thank you! From: Reinmuth, Steve To: Camden, Allison Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Counts, Dylan; Silins, Cathy Sent: Sat Jul 02 09:43: Subject: Re: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee I'd defer to Jennifer, and see how Janet responds, but I would say that the Legislature needs to authorize tolling on I-90 (and any facility) before it could actually happen, and that we are currently directed by proviso to study diversion from 520 to I-90 and other impacts in the year ahead. I believe that we have viewed tolling of 520 and 90 as a corridor approach to funding improvements in the corridor, but our authority to-date is only 520, pending the impact analysis ahead on 90. Don't know about the Sound Transit Eastlink connection...dylan? Cathy? Sent from my Blackberry. Please excuse any spelling errors. From: Camden, Allison To: Matkin, Janet; Briglia, Pete; Rubstello, Patty; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Fellows, Rob Cc: Reinmuth, Steve; Silins, Cathy Sent: Sat Jul 02 09:07: Subject: Re: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Thanks, Janet. This was just what I needed. Can you tell me what our official message is on tolling 90 as part of the 520 project? Are we proceeding with no tolling on 90 unless the legislature decides it wants to toll 90? Is tolling 90 being considered as part of Sound Transit's east link project? I realize the politics are sensitive on this issue, but since I'm new I'm trying to anticipate any additional questions Inslee's office may have. Thanks, Allison From: Matkin, Janet To: Briglia, Pete; Camden, Allison; Rubstello, Patty; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Fellows, Rob Cc: Reinmuth, Steve; Silins, Cathy Sent: Fri Jul 01 22:06: Subject: RE: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Hello Allison, Consideration was given to tolling I-90 as part of an extensive outreach and analysis done in 2008 for the state legislature. The Tolling Implementation Committee looked at 10 different scenarios, some that included just tolling SR 520 and others that also included tolling I-90. As part of the process, we also conducted extensive public involvement activities, including public opinion surveys, open houses, public comments, and feedback from local jurisdictions. That final report, as well as all the supporting documention, can be found at

359 Mercer Island residents were very vocal in their opposition to tolling I-90 and that's reflected in both public comments and submissions from the City Council. Let me know if you have specific questions once you've looked at that website. Janet Matkin Tolls Communication Manager From: Briglia, Pete Sent: Fri 7/1/2011 9:31 PM To: Camden, Allison; Rubstello, Patty; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Fellows, Rob; Matkin, Janet Cc: Reinmuth, Steve; Silins, Cathy Subject: RE: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Hi Allison Sorry but I don't know enough about I-90 tolling to provide information that an elected official could use for answering questions. I'm not sure what legislation was requested and what happened to it in the session. checked our website and there was nothing about our plans for I-90 as you probably discovered. I I am including Rob Fellows, our Planning and Policy Director, and Janet Matkin, who is filling in for Jennifer Ziegler, in the hope that they may be able to provide some information. It is, however, unlikely that people will be able to reply until the holiday weekend is over on Tuesday. If you don't get information before then, I will get together with Rob and Janet on Tuesday morning and get something to you by 9:00am. Pete From: Camden, Allison Sent: Fri 7/1/2011 4:56 PM To: Rubstello, Patty; Briglia, Pete; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: FW: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Hi Patty, Pete, Lucinda and Helena I believe Craig is out of the office (I m not sure on that), and I m in need of help trying to find information for Rep. Inslee on the possibility of tolling I-90. Can you help me pull together some information by Tuesday at 9 AM? It doesn t have to be super detailed, just the basics on I-90 and tolling. Thanks, Allison From: Camden, Allison Sent: Friday, July 01, :34 PM To: Stone, Craig Cc: Larsen, Chad Subject: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Importance: High

360 Hi Craig Rep. Inslee s office just called to ask for the latest information on the possibility of tolling I-90 for a Rotary event he s doing on Mercer Island this coming Tuesday at lunch time (he wants to be prepared for questions). Would it be possible to get an update on I-90 tolling by 9 AM on Tuesday? Or is there somewhere I can find the information? Thanks, Allison Allison Dane Camden Federal Relations Manager Washington State Department of Transportation Office: (360) Cell: (360) CamdenA@wsdot.wa.gov

361 From: Rubstello, Patty To: Camden, Allison Matkin, Janet Briglia, Pete Broussard, Lucinda Smith, Helena Kennedy Fellows, Rob Cc: Reinmuth, Steve Silins, Cathy Stone, Craig Dye, Dave Subject: RE: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Date: 7/4/2011 7:31:41 PM Attachments: Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf Just to add on: The legislature this last session provided the Department with $1.5M to further study tolling I-90. The scenarios that we will look at are a single HOT lane (convert the existing HOV lanes on the outer roadway including Sound Transit s Stage 3 project), a dual express lane (converting the same HOV lanes and taking an existing general purpose lane between I-5 and I-405) and full road tolling. In addition, we ll continue to look at extending the Smarter Highway signs out to Issaquah. Most of the effort will be focused on modeling traffic. I should also add that we have discussed if tolling I-90 would be prohibited by FHWA. The answer had to do with which program we applied under. I ve attached their response for you information. From: Camden, Allison Sent: Saturday, July 02, :11 AM To: Matkin, Janet; Briglia, Pete; Rubstello, Patty; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Fellows, Rob Cc: Reinmuth, Steve; Silins, Cathy Subject: Re: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Thanks! From: Matkin, Janet To: Camden, Allison; Briglia, Pete; Rubstello, Patty; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Fellows, Rob Cc: Reinmuth, Steve; Silins, Cathy Sent: Sat Jul 02 09:40: Subject: Re: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee The legislature would need to authorize tolling I-90. We will be closely monitoring what happens on I-90 once tolling begins on 520. We also will be monitoring traffic diversion on I-405, I-5, and SR 520, as well as the surface streets that lead into 520. The legislature is expected to be very interested in those diversion numbers as they consider any future actions. Janet From: Camden, Allison To: Matkin, Janet; Briglia, Pete; Rubstello, Patty; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Fellows, Rob Cc: Reinmuth, Steve; Silins, Cathy Sent: Sat Jul 02 09:07: Subject: Re: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee

362 Thanks, Janet. This was just what I needed. Can you tell me what our official message is on tolling 90 as part of the 520 project? Are we proceeding with no tolling on 90 unless the legislature decides it wants to toll 90? Is tolling 90 being considered as part of Sound Transit's east link project? I realize the politics are sensitive on this issue, but since I'm new I'm trying to anticipate any additional questions Inslee's office may have. Thanks, Allison From: Matkin, Janet To: Briglia, Pete; Camden, Allison; Rubstello, Patty; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Fellows, Rob Cc: Reinmuth, Steve; Silins, Cathy Sent: Fri Jul 01 22:06: Subject: RE: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Hello Allison, Consideration was given to tolling I-90 as part of an extensive outreach and analysis done in 2008 for the state legislature. The Tolling Implementation Committee looked at 10 different scenarios, some that included just tolling SR 520 and others that also included tolling I-90. As part of the process, we also conducted extensive public involvement activities, including public opinion surveys, open houses, public comments, and feedback from local jurisdictions. That final report, as well as all the supporting documention, can be found at Mercer Island residents were very vocal in their opposition to tolling I-90 and that's reflected in both public comments and submissions from the City Council. Let me know if you have specific questions once you've looked at that website. Janet Matkin Tolls Communication Manager From: Briglia, Pete Sent: Fri 7/1/2011 9:31 PM To: Camden, Allison; Rubstello, Patty; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Fellows, Rob; Matkin, Janet Cc: Reinmuth, Steve; Silins, Cathy Subject: RE: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Hi Allison Sorry but I don't know enough about I-90 tolling to provide information that an elected official could use for answering questions. I'm not sure what legislation was requested and what happened to it in the session. checked our website and there was nothing about our plans for I-90 as you probably discovered. I I am including Rob Fellows, our Planning and Policy Director, and Janet Matkin, who is filling in for Jennifer Ziegler, in the hope that they may be able to provide some information. It is, however, unlikely that people will be able to reply until the holiday weekend is over on Tuesday. If you don't get information before then, I will get together with Rob and Janet on Tuesday morning and get something to you by 9:00am. Pete

363 From: Camden, Allison Sent: Fri 7/1/2011 4:56 PM To: Rubstello, Patty; Briglia, Pete; Broussard, Lucinda; Smith, Helena Kennedy Subject: FW: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Hi Patty, Pete, Lucinda and Helena I believe Craig is out of the office (I m not sure on that), and I m in need of help trying to find information for Rep. Inslee on the possibility of tolling I-90. Can you help me pull together some information by Tuesday at 9 AM? It doesn t have to be super detailed, just the basics on I-90 and tolling. Thanks, Allison From: Camden, Allison Sent: Friday, July 01, :34 PM To: Stone, Craig Cc: Larsen, Chad Subject: Tolling Information for Rep. Inslee Importance: High Hi Craig Rep. Inslee s office just called to ask for the latest information on the possibility of tolling I-90 for a Rotary event he s doing on Mercer Island this coming Tuesday at lunch time (he wants to be prepared for questions). Would it be possible to get an update on I-90 tolling by 9 AM on Tuesday? Or is there somewhere I can find the information? Thanks, Allison Allison Dane Camden Federal Relations Manager Washington State Department of Transportation Office: (360) Cell: (360) CamdenA@wsdot.wa.gov

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371