craig hello, thanks - mercer island, washington prr 2012 emails.pdf · demand of the facility by...

From: Sulman, Kym [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: RE: Final Draft letter to LegislatureDate: 1/5/2012 7:53:51 PMAttachments:

I can only imagine. It sounds like everyone is going out of their way to avoid the tolling. You should toll I-90. Anyway, you came across as professional, sincere and most of all, clear (which is so refreshing). Justwanted you to know. Proud of you!

From: Stone, Craig [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 6:30 PMTo: Sulman, KymSubject: RE: Final Draft letter to Legislature

Thanks. It has been an interesting time.

From: Sulman, Kym [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 6:21 PMTo: Stone, CraigSubject: RE: Final Draft letter to Legislature

I’ve been watching you on TV for the last week and a half, and wanted to tell you that I thought you did afabulous job describing the 520 tolling. I was proud to know you!!

From: Stone, Craig [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 5:02 PMTo: Baillie, Geoff (Consultant); Gausepohl, Anita; Smith, Brian; Daly, Sharon (King County); Dave Kaplan;Upthegrove, Dave; Doug Levy; [email protected]; Dalglish, Flora; Geoff Baillie; Creighton, John;Julia Patterson (King County); Karen Spencer; Sulman, Kym; Larsen, Chad; [email protected]; Ellis, Lesa -City of SeaTac; Eng, Lorena; Hernandez, Marcela; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jilek,Pete (FHWA); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Rick Forschler;Suzette Cook; Anderson, Terry - City of SeaTac Council MemberCc: Biggs, Jason R.; [email protected]; Cary Roe (FW); [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Davad Ramesh;[email protected]; Delwar, Murshed; [email protected]; [email protected];Everett, Susan; Fellows, Rob; [email protected]; Hanson, Allison; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Colyar,James (FHWA); Janarthanan, Natarajan; Kukes, Cameron; [email protected]; Leavitt, Elizabeth; Hallenbeck,Mark; Cummings, Mike (PSRC); Mooney, Cathy; Noyes, Thomas; Paul Takamine (King County);[email protected]; Poor, Geraldine; Pope, David; [email protected]; Ridge,Cathal; Sallis, Michael; [email protected]; Trussler, Stacy; Gut, T - CI Seatac; Hooper, Thomas; Tim LaPorte(Kent); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Yan, ShumingSubject: RE: Final Draft letter to Legislature

I would ask that the letter be sent as soon as possible. I would also ask if consideration has been made toalso address to the Governor, or a second letter directly to her, or as a minimum a cc. Craig

From: Baillie, Geoff (Consultant)Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:49 PMTo: Gausepohl, Anita; Smith, Brian; Daly, Sharon (King County); Dave Kaplan; Upthegrove, Dave; Doug Levy;Emiko Atherton ([email protected]); Dalglish, Flora; Geoff Baillie; John Creighton([email protected]); Julia Patterson (King County); Karen Spencer; Kym Sulman (E-mail); Larsen,Chad; Les Thomas ([email protected]); Lisa Ellis; Eng, Lorena; Marcella Hernandez; Margarita Prentice([email protected]); Patrick Briggs ([email protected]); Jilek, Pete (FHWA); Rachel Smith([email protected]); Rep. Bob Hasegawa ([email protected]); Rep. Zack Hudgins([email protected]); Rick Forschler; Stone, Craig; Suzette Cook; Terry AndersonCc: Biggs, Jason R.; Brandon Carver ([email protected]); Cary Roe (FW); [email protected];[email protected]; Dan Gatchet ([email protected]); Daryl Tapio ([email protected]); DavadRamesh; David Beal ([email protected]); Delwar, Murshed; Don Petersen([email protected]); Elizabeth Stratton ([email protected]); Everett, Susan; Fellows, Rob;[email protected]; Hanson, Allison; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Colyar, James (FHWA); Janarthanan,Natarajan; Kukes, Cameron; Larry Blanchard ([email protected]); [email protected]; Hallenbeck,Mark; Cummings, Mike (PSRC); Mooney, Cathy; Noyes, Thomas; Paul Takamine (King County); Peter Landry([email protected]); [email protected]; Pope, David; Richard Perez([email protected]); Ridge, Cathal; Sallis, Michael; Sean Ardussi ([email protected]); Trussler,Stacy; [email protected]; Thomas Hooper ([email protected]); Tim LaPorte (Kent);[email protected]; Virginia Mercado ([email protected]); Wayne Snoey([email protected]); Yan, ShumingSubject: Final Draft letter to Legislature

Attached is the final draft letter from the SR 509 project Executive Committee the legislature. Thisincludes Port comments. Unless anyone has another revision that needs to be made, this letter is readyto be prepared for signatures.

From: Fellows, Rob [email protected]: Craig Stone [email protected]:Subject: RE: Motorcycles and HOV/HOT lanesDate: 2/2/2012 10:44:50 AMAttachments: Federal Toll Programs and Conditions Matrix.pdf

--- DRAFT RESPONSE --- Clint and Hayley, You’re correct that motorcycles are not charged on the SR 167 HOT lanes, and that our tolling contractwith FHWA stipulates that as a condition for granting toll authority under the HOV to HOT regulations. Motorcycles with transponders using the SR 167 HOT lane are recognized by the toll system and no toll isapplied. For I-405, financial planning has also assumed that motorcycles will be exempted from express toll lanes. However, as you noted, the Transportation Commission will need to establish whether to grant tollexemptions to motorcycles through their rate-setting authority. While the Commission prefers tomaintain an “everyone pays” approach, they have in the past honored federal-state tolling agreementsnegotiated to receive federal toll authority. There is one wrinkle to this story. There are several different sections of federal code under which astate can request authority to establish tolls on an interstate facility, and each has different guidelinesand restrictions. It’s not fully clear yet whether the HOV to HOT mechanism will be the most appropriatefor I-405 express toll lanes; it’s possible that a different program such as value pricing might be the betterfit. If so, that program is more flexible and allows greater latitude for states to choose their preferredtolling policies, including whether to grant toll exemptions for motorcycles. FYI, I’ve attached the matrix FHWA sent us in response to our I-90 express of interest for tolling. Itidentifies all the programs under which federal toll authority can be granted and the conditions thatapply to each. Craig

From: Gamble, Hayley [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:39 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Fellows, RobCc: McCarthy, ClintSubject: RE: Motorcycles and HOV/HOT lanes

Hello,We are hearing a bill that is related to this issue tomorrow, so if you could get back to us today thatwould be great. Thanks Hayley

_____________________________________________From: McCarthy, ClintSent: Friday, January 27, 2012 2:38 PMTo: [email protected]; Fellows, Rob ([email protected])Cc: Gamble, HayleySubject: FW: Motorcycles and HOV/HOT lanes

Craig & Rob, Please see Hayley’s questions below. If you could copy both of us on your response, we’d sincerelyappreciate it. Thanks, cjm _____________________________________________From: Gamble, HayleySent: Friday, January 27, 2012 2:36 PMTo: McCarthy, ClintSubject: Motorcycles and HOV/HOT lanes

Clint, can you forward to the appropriate folks. I would appreciate answers by COB Tuesday

at the latest.

Hayley

1. Can you confirm that motorcycles are not charged a fee on the 167 HOT lanes as these are

converted HOV lanes, and per federal law, motorcycles must be allowed to use HOV lanes for

free, unless there is a safety issue.

2. Given the above, and given that any HOT lanes on I-405 would be a mix of new lanes and

converted HOV lanes, is it fair to say that motorcycles will not be charged on I-405? I know

the Commission sets the state toll exemptions, but they would be bound by any federal

prohibitions, correct?

3. What happens today when a motorcycle with a transponder uses the 167 HOT/HOT lane? Do

they have to call and ask for reimbursement?

Federal regs:

High Occupancy Toll Vehicles - 23 U.S.C. 166(b)(4)

A HOT vehicle is any vehicle that is charged a toll to use an HOV facility when it does not meet the

posted minimum occupancy requirements for an HOV lane. If a State decides to allow HOT vehicles

to use an HOV lane, the State must also (1) establish programs addressing how operators of HOT

vehicles can enroll and participate in the toll program; (2) develop, manage, and maintain a system

that will automatically collect the toll; and (3) establish policies and procedures to manage the

demand of the facility by such vehicles by varying the toll amount and enforcing violations. Further,

operational performance must be consistent with Federal requirements. In addition, a toll agreement

must be executed between the FHWA, the State Department of Transportation, and operating

agencies. HOT lanes may be established on both Interstate and non-Interstate facilities.

Motorcycles and bicycles - 23 U.S.C. 166(b)(2)

Motorcycles and bicycles must be allowed to use HOV facilities. However, a State may elect to

restrict motorcycle or bicycle (or both) use of an HOV facility due to safety concerns. If a State does

decide to exclude motorcycles and/or bicycles, a certification stating that their presence creates a

safety hazard must be submitted to the FHWA for approval. Prior to acceptance, the FHWA will

publish the request in the Federal Register, providing an opportunity for public comment. After the

State has addressed the comments received (if any), FHWA will approve the request. States should

submit their certifications to the FHWA Division Office.

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Gamble; Hayley; McCarthy; ClintCc: Fellows; Rob; Smith; Helena KennedySubject: FW: Motorcycles and HOV/HOT lanesDate: 2/2/2012 6:00:49 PMAttachments: Federal Toll Programs and Conditions Matrix.pdf

Clint and Hayley, You’re correct that motorcycles are not charged on the SR 167 HOT lanes, and that our tolling contractwith FHWA stipulates that as a condition for granting toll authority under the HOV to HOT regulations. Motorcycles with transponders using the SR 167 HOT lane are recognized by the toll system and no toll isapplied. For I-405, financial planning has also assumed that motorcycles will be exempted from express toll lanes. However, as you noted, the Transportation Commission will need to establish whether to grant tollexemptions to motorcycles through their rate-setting authority. While the Commission prefers tomaintain an “everyone pays” approach, they have in the past honored federal-state tolling agreementsnegotiated to receive federal toll authority. There is one wrinkle to this story. There are several different sections of federal code under which astate can request authority to establish tolls on an interstate facility, and each has different guidelinesand restrictions. It’s not fully clear yet whether the HOV to HOT mechanism will be the most appropriatefor I-405 express toll lanes; it’s possible that a different program such as value pricing might be the betterfit. If so, that program is more flexible and allows greater latitude for states to choose their preferredtolling policies, including whether to grant toll exemptions for motorcycles. FYI, I’ve attached the matrix FHWA sent us in response to our I-90 express of interest for tolling. Itidentifies all the programs under which federal toll authority can be granted and the conditions thatapply to each. Craig _____________________________________________From: McCarthy, ClintSent: Friday, January 27, 2012 2:38 PMTo: [email protected]; Fellows, Rob ([email protected])Cc: Gamble, HayleySubject: FW: Motorcycles and HOV/HOT lanes

Craig & Rob, Please see Hayley’s questions below. If you could copy both of us on your response, we’d sincerelyappreciate it. Thanks,

cjm _____________________________________________From: Gamble, HayleySent: Friday, January 27, 2012 2:36 PMTo: McCarthy, ClintSubject: Motorcycles and HOV/HOT lanes

Clint, can you forward to the appropriate folks. I would appreciate answers by COB Tuesday

at the latest.

Hayley

1. Can you confirm that motorcycles are not charged a fee on the 167 HOT lanes as these are

converted HOV lanes, and per federal law, motorcycles must be allowed to use HOV lanes for

free, unless there is a safety issue.

2. Given the above, and given that any HOT lanes on I-405 would be a mix of new lanes and

converted HOV lanes, is it fair to say that motorcycles will not be charged on I-405? I know

the Commission sets the state toll exemptions, but they would be bound by any federal

prohibitions, correct?

3. What happens today when a motorcycle with a transponder uses the 167 HOT/HOT lane? Do

they have to call and ask for reimbursement?

Federal regs:

High Occupancy Toll Vehicles - 23 U.S.C. 166(b)(4)

A HOT vehicle is any vehicle that is charged a toll to use an HOV facility when it does not meet the

posted minimum occupancy requirements for an HOV lane. If a State decides to allow HOT vehicles

to use an HOV lane, the State must also (1) establish programs addressing how operators of HOT

vehicles can enroll and participate in the toll program; (2) develop, manage, and maintain a system

that will automatically collect the toll; and (3) establish policies and procedures to manage the

demand of the facility by such vehicles by varying the toll amount and enforcing violations. Further,

operational performance must be consistent with Federal requirements. In addition, a toll agreement

must be executed between the FHWA, the State Department of Transportation, and operating

agencies. HOT lanes may be established on both Interstate and non-Interstate facilities.

Motorcycles and bicycles - 23 U.S.C. 166(b)(2)

Motorcycles and bicycles must be allowed to use HOV facilities. However, a State may elect to

restrict motorcycle or bicycle (or both) use of an HOV facility due to safety concerns. If a State does

decide to exclude motorcycles and/or bicycles, a certification stating that their presence creates a

safety hazard must be submitted to the FHWA for approval. Prior to acceptance, the FHWA will

publish the request in the Federal Register, providing an opportunity for public comment. After the

State has addressed the comments received (if any), FHWA will approve the request. States should

submit their certifications to the FHWA Division Office.

From: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV) [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: RE: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?Date: 2/3/2012 1:08:25 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, I thought it was more like two years. You probably want to let Paula know. She was in the same meeting with me.

-----Original Message-----From: Stone, Craig [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 11:59 AMTo: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV)Subject: Re: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?

That due to potential controversy from Mercer Island and other locals an EIS could take upto 4 years. We did an EA for SR520 tolling, but had the backdrop of the larger SR520 process that dealt with many of the controversies.

It is not FHWA that would drive us to an EIS.

We also said if the legislature can be very clear what the goals and requirements are that would help.

----- Original Message -----From: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV) <[email protected]>To: Stone, CraigSent: Fri Feb 03 11:44:49 2012Subject: RE: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?

She heard that the schedule for an EIS is 4 years. What did you all tell Christie?

-----Original Message-----From: Stone, Craig [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 11:44 AMTo: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV); Dye, DaveSubject: Re: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?

Helena and I did have a discussion with Chrisite around 10:00 am about I-90.

----- Original Message -----From: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV) <[email protected]>To: Stone, Craig; Dye, DaveSent: Fri Feb 03 09:59:20 2012Subject: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?

Clibborn is asking in a meeting right now.

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Ziegler; JenniferCc:Subject: Re: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?Date: 2/3/2012 7:58:38 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

That due to potential controversy from Mercer Island and other locals an EIS could take upto 4 years. We did an EA for SR520 tolling, but had the backdrop of the larger SR520 process that dealt with many of the controversies.

It is not FHWA that would drive us to an EIS.

We also said if the legislature can be very clear what the goals and requirements are that would help.

----- Original Message -----From: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV) <[email protected]>To: Stone, CraigSent: Fri Feb 03 11:44:49 2012Subject: RE: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?

She heard that the schedule for an EIS is 4 years. What did you all tell Christie?

-----Original Message-----From: Stone, Craig [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 11:44 AMTo: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV); Dye, DaveSubject: Re: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?

Helena and I did have a discussion with Chrisite around 10:00 am about I-90.

----- Original Message -----From: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV) <[email protected]>To: Stone, Craig; Dye, DaveSent: Fri Feb 03 09:59:20 2012Subject: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?

Clibborn is asking in a meeting right now.

From: Hammond, Paula [email protected]: Jennifer Ziegler [email protected]; Robin (GOV) Rettew [email protected]; RonJudd [email protected]; Dave Dye [email protected]; Craig Stone [email protected]:Subject: Fwd: Potential I-90 ProvisoDate: 2/8/2012 5:42:01 AMAttachments:

FYI this is consistent with conversations with the chair in the last week. Getting the environmental

work started gives us a better chance to match up with Sound Transits work on the bridge. I gave

Joni a heads up that we needed to line up our schedules on both bridges.

Craig, we need to understand the federal approval process and timeline.

Paula

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Stone, Craig" <[email protected]>

Date: February 7, 2012 10:35:48 PM CST

To: "Hammond, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Dye, Dave" <[email protected]>

Subject: Potential I-90 Proviso

We are continuing to work with Christie Parker on possible I-90 funding from the House.

Helena has coordinated with Amy and Jay on this today.

Below is draft proviso language that we want to send to Christie by noon Wednesday. We will want toextend the limit in Issaquah from SR 900 to Sunset.

Please advise if you have direction ar changes before we reply.

Craig

From: Smith, Helena KennedyTo: Stone, Craig; Arnis, AmySent: Tue Feb 07 14:15:16 2012Subject: Request from Christie/ need your attention

Craig and Amy,

This is restricted. This afternoon, Christie Parker asked me to draft I-90 proviso language on

behalf of the Chair.

Proposed Proviso Language:

$------ of the transportation partnership account state or other are provided solely for

the I-90 Tolling Environmental Review (PIN xxxxx). The department shall

undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling I-90 between I-5 and I-405

for the purpose of both managing traffic and providing funding for construction of the

unfunded SR 520 I-5 to Medina project. The environmental review shall include

significant outreach to potentially affected communities. The department may consider

traffic management options that extend as far east as SR 900.

Please review the above. Do you agree with the text above? Note I was specifically requested

not to reference HOV or HOT.

I believe we need to touch base with folks inside WSDOT this afternoon about the Chair’s

initiative without letting the word out. I presume at a minimum that Paula, Dave, and Jay

should know about this request. I’ll defer to you if there are others you think should have a

heads up prior to the release of the budget next week.

While you are reviewing the proposed language and alerting those who need to know, I will

work with Patty and Jennifer Charlebois to provide budget information. We need to say how

much we need both this biennium and in total for the EIS. We should also disclose our

assumption for the cost and timeline for engineering and installing a toll system, but we

weren’t asked for a project budget for this item. I gather the biggest challenge is coming up

with this biennium’s budget, so it’s important we don’t over-estimate our needs for the

remainder of the biennium.

I promised to get text and budget to Christie no later than noon tomorrow. The chair may

make further edits, but I want to make sure we cover your interests.

Helena

Comments:

We can’t use the existing PIN that Patty currently uses. PIN 100067T is for an “I-90

Comprehensive Tolling Study.” The description: Analyze options for tolling the I-90

floating bridge.

From: Arnis, Amy [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: FW: I-90 language and budget requestDate: 2/8/2012 12:29:06 PMAttachments:

I am assuming that you are looping Dave and Paula into this request?

From: Smith, Helena KennedySent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:06 AMTo: Parker, ChristieCc: Stone, Craig; Arnis, Amy; Alexander, JaySubject: I-90 language and budget requestImportance: High

Christie, per your request, here is proposed proviso language. It has been blessed by Paula, Craig, andAmy. Jay is aware of it also.

Proposed Proviso Language: $------ of the transportation partnership account state or other are provided solely for the I-90Tolling Environmental Review (PIN xxxxx). The department shall undertake a comprehensiveenvironmental review of tolling I-90 between I-5 and I-405 for the purpose of both managingtraffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded SR 520 I-5 to Medina project. Theenvironmental review shall include significant outreach to potentially affected communities. Thedepartment may consider traffic management options that extend as far east as Issaquah.

Regarding budget:

· The estimate for the entire environmental process is $8 million. o This includes environmental clearance, public outreach, sufficient engineering to support

the environmental review, and financial analysis of alternatives. o During this time, we would also seek federal approval for tolling an interstate.

· We presume the $1.5 million currently in PIN 100067T for an “I-90 Comprehensive TollingStudy” can help pay for the EIS. (We will want to establish a new PIN for the environmentalreview since the current PIN description limits us: “Analyze options for tolling the I-90 floatingbridge.”

· How the funding should be aged over the remainder of this biennium and 13-15.o I’ve spoken with Patty Rubstello and we would need between $1.5 - $2.5 million in

addition to the current $1.5 m budget for the remainder of 11-13. Then I spoke withCraig and he’s willing to cut that request back to $1.5 million additional. Total requestfor 11-13 should be $3 million.

o The remaining $5 million should be programmed in 13-15. o It is possible the environmental process will take four years, but at this time, it is too early

to tell. Helena

From: Smith, Helena Kennedy /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HSMITHTo: Parker; ChristieCc: Stone; Craig; Arnis; Amy; Alexander; JaySubject: I-90 language and budget requestDate: 2/8/2012 7:06:06 PMAttachments:

Christie, per your request, here is proposed proviso language. It has been blessed by Paula, Craig, andAmy. Jay is aware of it also.

Proposed Proviso Language: $------ of the transportation partnership account state or other are provided solely for the I-90Tolling Environmental Review (PIN xxxxx). The department shall undertake a comprehensiveenvironmental review of tolling I-90 between I-5 and I-405 for the purpose of both managingtraffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded SR 520 I-5 to Medina project. Theenvironmental review shall include significant outreach to potentially affected communities. Thedepartment may consider traffic management options that extend as far east as Issaquah.

Regarding budget:

· The estimate for the entire environmental process is $8 million. o This includes environmental clearance, public outreach, sufficient engineering to support

the environmental review, and financial analysis of alternatives. o During this time, we would also seek federal approval for tolling an interstate.

· We presume the $1.5 million currently in PIN 100067T for an “I-90 Comprehensive TollingStudy” can help pay for the EIS. (We will want to establish a new PIN for the environmentalreview since the current PIN description limits us: “Analyze options for tolling the I-90 floatingbridge.”

· How the funding should be aged over the remainder of this biennium and 13-15.o I’ve spoken with Patty Rubstello and we would need between $1.5 - $2.5 million in

addition to the current $1.5 m budget for the remainder of 11-13. Then I spoke withCraig and he’s willing to cut that request back to $1.5 million additional. Total requestfor 11-13 should be $3 million.

o The remaining $5 million should be programmed in 13-15. o It is possible the environmental process will take four years, but at this time, it is too early

to tell. Helena

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]:Subject: Re: Time Sensitive Question-Tolling AmendmentDate: 2/14/2012 5:34:32 PMAttachments:

Is PSRC plugged in to this? Seems like they should be.

From: Stone, CraigTo: Camden, Allison; Hammond, Paula; Dye, DaveCc: Fellows, RobSent: Tue Feb 14 16:28:34 2012Subject: RE: Time Sensitive Question-Tolling Amendment

I have great concern with the tolling amendment. This amendment offered by Rep Canseco wouldprohibit any funds under the title to be used to approve or authorize any toll on any segment of thefederal-aid system that is complete, not tolled, constructed with fed funds, and is in operations. Thismeans I-90 across Lake Washington could not be considered for tolling. This could have a serious affecton financial plans for completing SR 520. As I read the prior language under Sec 1204 on tolling in HR 7, if the language under (a) Basic Program isleft in place then it looks like CRC and AWV will be covered as they include reconstruction, replacementand/or increased lanes that add capacity. It appears the amendment would not modify that language. I recommend that we express our opposition to the amendment asap. Craig

From: Camden, AllisonSent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:09 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Fellows, RobSubject: Time Sensitive Question-Tolling AmendmentImportance: High

Hi Craig and Rob – Tomorrow this tolling amendment will be debated on the House floor: http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/Canseco023213121015591559.pdf. It appears to ban tolling on “any segment of highway located on the Federal-aid system” that was builtwith federal funds before enactment and didn’t have tolls before enactment, with some exceptions forHOV to HOT lane conversions and for new capacity. Because it says “any segment of highway” I don’tknow if that would apply to a bridge. Do you have concerns with this language? Do you think this wouldimpact the CRC? Debate starts early tomorrow morning so I need to get our thoughts to the congressional delegationASAP. If possible please get back to me by the end of the day.

Thanks!-Allison Allison Dane CamdenFederal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of TransportationOffice: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) [email protected]

From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Hammond, Paula [email protected]; Dye, [email protected]: Fellows, Rob [email protected]: RE: Time Sensitive Question-Tolling AmendmentDate: 2/14/2012 5:39:39 PMAttachments:

Got it, thanks for the quick response. I’ll let the delegation know we strongly oppose the amendment. -Allison

From: Stone, CraigSent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 4:29 PMTo: Camden, Allison; Hammond, Paula; Dye, DaveCc: Fellows, RobSubject: RE: Time Sensitive Question-Tolling Amendment



Hi Craig and Rob – Tomorrow this tolling amendment will be debated on the House floor: http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/Canseco023213121015591559.pdf. It appears to ban tolling on “any segment of highway located on the Federal-aid system” that was builtwith federal funds before enactment and didn’t have tolls before enactment, with some exceptions forHOV to HOT lane conversions and for new capacity. Because it says “any segment of highway” I don’tknow if that would apply to a bridge. Do you have concerns with this language? Do you think this wouldimpact the CRC?

Debate starts early tomorrow morning so I need to get our thoughts to the congressional delegationASAP. If possible please get back to me by the end of the day. Thanks!-Allison Allison Dane CamdenFederal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of TransportationOffice: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) [email protected]

From: Dye, Dave [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]: Camden, Allison [email protected]; Hammond, Paula [email protected];Fellows, Rob [email protected]: Re: Time Sensitive Question-Tolling AmendmentDate: 2/14/2012 5:46:34 PMAttachments:

I concur we should reach out tomorrow Allison to as many members we can - and other supporters

like transit and seattle and king county - this action essentially takes the Feds out of the funding

equation and removes a key state strategy for managing congestion in the future - I assume both

senators will support us also

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 14, 2012, at 6:28 PM, "Stone, Craig" <[email protected]> wrote:

I have great concern with the tolling amendment. This amendment offered by Rep Canseco wouldprohibit any funds under the title to be used to approve or authorize any toll on any segment of thefederal-aid system that is complete, not tolled, constructed with fed funds, and is in operations. This means I-90 across Lake Washington could not be considered for tolling. This could have aserious affect on financial plans for completing SR 520. As I read the prior language under Sec 1204 on tolling in HR 7, if the language under (a) BasicProgram is left in place then it looks like CRC and AWV will be covered as they includereconstruction, replacement and/or increased lanes that add capacity. It appears the amendmentwould not modify that language. I recommend that we express our opposition to the amendment asap. Craig


Hi Craig and Rob – Tomorrow this tolling amendment will be debated on the House floor: http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/Canseco023213121015591559.pdf. It appears to ban tolling on “any segment of highway located on the Federal-aid system” that wasbuilt with federal funds before enactment and didn’t have tolls before enactment, with someexceptions for HOV to HOT lane conversions and for new capacity. Because it says “any segment ofhighway” I don’t know if that would apply to a bridge. Do you have concerns with this language?

Do you think this would impact the CRC? Debate starts early tomorrow morning so I need to get our thoughts to the congressionaldelegation ASAP. If possible please get back to me by the end of the day. Thanks!-Allison Allison Dane CamdenFederal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of TransportationOffice: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) [email protected]

From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Dye, Dave [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]: Hammond, Paula [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]: RE: Time Sensitive Question-Tolling AmendmentDate: 2/14/2012 6:50:55 PMAttachments:

Thanks. I’ll flag this for Seattle, King Country, Sound Transit and PSRC. The amendment is being offeredto a House bill so neither Murray or Cantwell will be able to vote against it, but I’ll also flag it for theirstaff in case this issue comes up on the Senate side or in conference.

From: Dye, DaveSent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 4:47 PMTo: Stone, CraigCc: Camden, Allison; Hammond, Paula; Fellows, RobSubject: Re: Time Sensitive Question-Tolling Amendment

I concur we should reach out tomorrow Allison to as many members we can - and other supporters liketransit and seattle and king county - this action essentially takes the Feds out of the funding equation andremoves a key state strategy for managing congestion in the future - I assume both senators will supportus also

Sent from my iPhone




Hi Craig and Rob –

Tomorrow this tolling amendment will be debated on the House floor: http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/Canseco023213121015591559.pdf. It appears to ban tolling on “any segment of highway located on the Federal-aid system” that wasbuilt with federal funds before enactment and didn’t have tolls before enactment, with someexceptions for HOV to HOT lane conversions and for new capacity. Because it says “any segment ofhighway” I don’t know if that would apply to a bridge. Do you have concerns with this language? Do you think this would impact the CRC? Debate starts early tomorrow morning so I need to get our thoughts to the congressionaldelegation ASAP. If possible please get back to me by the end of the day. Thanks!-Allison Allison Dane CamdenFederal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of TransportationOffice: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) [email protected]

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Camden; Allison; Hammond; Paula; Dye; DaveCc: Fellows; RobSubject: RE: Time Sensitive Question-Tolling AmendmentDate: 2/15/2012 12:28:34 AMAttachments:



Hi Craig and Rob – Tomorrow this tolling amendment will be debated on the House floor: http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/Canseco023213121015591559.pdf. It appears to ban tolling on “any segment of highway located on the Federal-aid system” that was builtwith federal funds before enactment and didn’t have tolls before enactment, with some exceptions forHOV to HOT lane conversions and for new capacity. Because it says “any segment of highway” I don’tknow if that would apply to a bridge. Do you have concerns with this language? Do you think this wouldimpact the CRC? Debate starts early tomorrow morning so I need to get our thoughts to the congressional delegationASAP. If possible please get back to me by the end of the day. Thanks!-Allison Allison Dane CamdenFederal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of TransportationOffice: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) 628-6223

[email protected]

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Camden; AllisonCc: Fellows; RobSubject: RE: Time Sensitive Question-Tolling AmendmentDate: 2/15/2012 12:56:26 AMAttachments:

The PSRC should also be concerned with the language and could support the position to oppose.

From: Dye, DaveSent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 4:47 PMTo: Stone, CraigCc: Camden, Allison; Hammond, Paula; Fellows, RobSubject: Re: Time Sensitive Question-Tolling Amendment

I concur we should reach out tomorrow Allison to as many members we can - and other supporters liketransit and seattle and king county - this action essentially takes the Feds out of the funding equation andremoves a key state strategy for managing congestion in the future - I assume both senators will supportus also

Sent from my iPhone




Hi Craig and Rob – Tomorrow this tolling amendment will be debated on the House floor:

http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/Canseco023213121015591559.pdf. It appears to ban tolling on “any segment of highway located on the Federal-aid system” that wasbuilt with federal funds before enactment and didn’t have tolls before enactment, with someexceptions for HOV to HOT lane conversions and for new capacity. Because it says “any segment ofhighway” I don’t know if that would apply to a bridge. Do you have concerns with this language? Do you think this would impact the CRC? Debate starts early tomorrow morning so I need to get our thoughts to the congressionaldelegation ASAP. If possible please get back to me by the end of the day. Thanks!-Allison Allison Dane CamdenFederal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of TransportationOffice: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) [email protected]

From: Smith, Helena Kennedy /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HSMITHTo: Charlebois; Jennifer; Rubstello; PattyCc: Stone; CraigSubject: Text of House Proviso (I Program)Date: 2/22/2012 10:58:24 PMAttachments:

(24) $1,500,000 of the motor vehicle account--federalappropriation is provided solely for the I-90 Comprehensive TollingStudy and Environmental Review project (100067T). The departmentshallundertake a comprehensive environmental review of tollingInterstate 90between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of bothmanaging traffic and providing funding for construction of theunfundedstate route number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina project. Theenvironmental review must include significant outreach topotentiallyaffected communities. The department may consider trafficmanagementoptions that extend as far east as Issaquah. Note that there is not an equivalent proviso in the Senate. Inorder to see whether it stays in, we’ll have to wait for theconference budget.

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Smith, Helena Kennedy [email protected]; Charlebois, Jennifer [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]: RE: Text of House Proviso (I Program)Date: 2/23/2012 8:49:03 AMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Any way to change the language to I-5 to Sunset I/C?

-----Original Message-----From: Smith, Helena KennedySent: Wed 2/22/2012 2:58 PMTo: Charlebois, Jennifer; Rubstello, PattyCc: Stone, CraigSubject: Text of House Proviso (I Program)

(24) $1,500,000 of the motor vehicle account--federal

appropriation is provided solely for the I-90 Comprehensive Tolling

Study and Environmental Review project (100067T). The department shall

undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling Interstate 90

between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both

managing traffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded

state route number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina project. The

environmental review must include significant outreach to potentially

affected communities. The department may consider traffic management

options that extend as far east as Issaquah.

Note that there is not an equivalent proviso in the Senate. In order to see whether it stays in, we'll have to wait for the conference budget.

From: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV) [email protected]: Dye, Dave [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Arnis, [email protected]:Subject: I-90 tollingDate: 2/23/2012 4:22:53 PMAttachments:

So, the viability of I-90 tolling from the federal perspective might come up in the House Transpo hearingtomorrow. Committee staff thinks that there may not be any pilot program slots left. Does anyone havethe most up-to-date info? Jennifer ZieglerTransportation Policy Advisory, Executive Policy OfficeGovernor Chris Gregoire360-902-0460

From: Dye, Dave [email protected]: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV) [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Arnis, Amy [email protected]: Re: I-90 tollingDate: 2/23/2012 4:39:25 PMAttachments:

I believe there is one open slot left based on my recent conversation with us dot - in addition we

could seek an added slot via patty murray if necessary - craig your thoughts?

-dave

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 23, 2012, at 3:23 PM, "Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV)" <[email protected]> wrote:

So, the viability of I-90 tolling from the federal perspective might come up in the House Transpohearing tomorrow. Committee staff thinks that there may not be any pilot program slots left. Doesanyone have the most up-to-date info? Jennifer ZieglerTransportation Policy Advisory, Executive Policy OfficeGovernor Chris Gregoire360-902-0460

From: Fellows, Rob [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]: David Pope [email protected]; Todd Merkens [email protected]: RE: I-90 tollingDate: 2/23/2012 5:33:09 PMAttachments:

My impression is the same as yours; that we’ve already got a “slot” under value pricing, and the slots arefor states, not for projects. The FHWA website says that “FHWA may enter into cooperative agreementswith up to 15 State or local governments to establish value pricing programs, which may be used tosupport an unlimited number of value pricing projects within each State.” Value Pricing was the onlyprogram FHWA recommended to us for general tolling, but it’s possible that a section 129 agreementcould also work from my quick read of the eligibility matrix as long as we’re just tolling the bridge. Reauthorization would eliminate value pricing, but the proposals I saw would broaden section 129 andmake it the only program available for general tolling other than HOT lanes. Already it appears thatsection 129 would allow tolling an interstate bridge, with excess revenues able to be used on other title23-eligible projects. But I’d want to confirm that with someone at FHWA since they didn’t address thatprogram in their response to our expression of interest. Are we now thinking the House legislation couldactually pass? I think Allison is trying to follow this issue – it might be worth checking in with her too. -- Rob

From: Stone, CraigSent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 4:02 PMTo: Fellows, Rob; Pope, DavidSubject: Re: I-90 tolling

Here is my view. Rob/David, what is our uptodate knowledge on programs that I-90 could fit under? Pleaseinvestigate. I want us to discuss and I will reply to Jennifer.

Under the current program we are one of the states alteady in the value pricing program, which has been themost probable program to use. This is consistent with what we told the leg workgroup and with the letter ofinterest we had with FHWA during the toll implementation committee. The concern has been whatreauthorization will do with the tolling pilot programs.

I am not sure what the reference is to pursuing another slot. The reconstruction program still had a slot, but itdoesn't fit our needs as well.

From: Dye, DaveTo: Ziegler, JenniferCc: Stone, Craig; Arnis, AmySent: Thu Feb 23 15:39:25 2012Subject: Re: I-90 tolling

I believe there is one open slot left based on my recent conversation with us dot - in addition we couldseek an added slot via patty murray if necessary - craig your thoughts?

-dave

Sent from my iPhone



From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Fellows; Rob; Pope; DavidCc:Subject: Re: I-90 tollingDate: 2/24/2012 12:01:55 AMAttachments:





I believe there is one open slot left based on my recent conversation with us dot - in addition we

could seek an added slot via patty murray if necessary - craig your thoughts?

-dave

Sent from my iPhone



From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Dye; Dave; Ziegler; JenniferCc: Arnis; Amy; Camden; AllisonSubject: FW: I-90 tollingDate: 2/24/2012 6:11:48 AMAttachments: Value Pricing Pilot Program Reauthorization 2-17-12.docx

This is what I know now. I will pursue my contacts in the morning to see what they are hearing.

Under the current program we are one of the states already in the value pricing program, whichhas been the most probable program to use for I-90. This is consistent with what we told the 2211leg workgroup, and with the expression of interest we had with FHWA during the tollimplementation committee. The value pricing program is limited to 15 states, but there is nofacility limitation once a state is eligible so I am not sure where committee staff is getting theirconcern from.

Our concern has always been what reauthorization will do with the tolling pilot programs. ValuePricing was the only program FHWA recommended to us for general tolling, but it’s possible that asection 129 agreement could also work from a quick read of the eligibility matrix as long as we’rejust tolling the bridge. Reconstruction or replacement of free bridges or tunnels and conversion totoll facilities is allowed, but the test will be 'reconstruction' of I-90. It may also not allow variabletolling. We would have to work this with FHWA and possibly ask for help from the delegation toget tolling similar to SR 520's operation.

From what we have seen reauthorization would eliminate value pricing, but the proposals wehave read would broaden section 129 and make it the only program available for general tollingother than HOT lanes. There is a movement to get value pricing states to contact theircongressional delegation to keep the program. I recommend we do the same. The attachedspeaks to this effort. However, based on what Allison is sending out, it looks like HR7 has stalledso the value pricing program may stay around a little longer.

Below is a summary of information we know from FHWA.

Craig

The Federal-aid Highway Program, Title 23 of the United States Code (23 U.S.C.), offers States

and/or other public entities a variety of opportunities to toll motor vehicles to finance Interstate

construction and reconstruction, promote efficiency in the use of highways, reduce traffic congestion

and/or improve air quality. In addition to providing States and/or other public entities the authority

to toll motor vehicles, the Value Pricing Pilot program is unique in providing grants for pre-

implementation and non-construction related implementation costs of tolling, and for non-highway

related pricing activities.

The tolling and pricing programs include:

Express Lanes Demonstration Program ( Not applicable to I-90. Must add capacity.)

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities (Not applicable to I-90, except for possible HOT

lane.)

Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program (Virgina and Missouri are

already in, one slot open. Can not use excess toll revenue for another route.)

Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program (South Carolina in, two slots open. Can not

be used for tolling an existing free interstate.)

Title 23 USC Section 129 Toll Agreements (Very general requirements, could use for interstate

bridge. No variable tolling permitted.)

Value Pricing Pilot Program (Washington State already part of program. Program could

sunset.)


I believe there is one open slot left based on my recent conversation with us dot - in addition we couldseek an added slot via patty murray if necessary - craig your thoughts? -dave

Sent from my iPhone



From: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV) [email protected]: [email protected]; Dye, Dave [email protected]: Arnis, Amy [email protected]; [email protected]: Re: I-90 tollingDate: 2/24/2012 8:28:40 AMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Perfect. Thank you.

----- Original Message -----From: Stone, Craig [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:11 PMTo: Dye, Dave; Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV)Cc: Arnis, Amy; Camden, Allison <[email protected]>Subject: FW: I-90 tolling

This is what I know now. I will pursue my contacts in the morning to see what they are hearing.

Under the current program we are one of the states already in the value pricing program, which has been the most probable program to use for I-90. This is consistent with what we told the 2211 leg workgroup, and with the expression of interest we had with FHWA during the toll implementation committee. The value pricing program is limited to 15 states, but there is no facility limitation once a state is eligible so I am not sure where committee staff is getting their concern from.

Our concern has always been what reauthorization will do with the tolling pilot programs. Value Pricing was the only program FHWA recommended to us for general tolling, but it's possible that a section 129 agreement could also work from a quick read of the eligibility matrix as long as we're just tolling the bridge. Reconstruction or replacement of free bridges or tunnels and conversion to toll facilities is allowed, but the test will be 'reconstruction' of I-90. It may also not allow variable tolling. We would have to work this with FHWA and possibly ask for help from the delegation to get tolling similar to SR 520's operation.

From what we have seen reauthorization would eliminate value pricing, but the proposals we have read would broaden section 129 and make it the only program available for general tolling other than HOT lanes. There is a movement to get value pricing states to contact their congressional delegation to keep the program. I recommend we do the same. The attached speaks to this effort. However, based on what Allison is sending out, it looks like HR7 has stalled so the value pricing program may stay around a little longer.

Below is a summary of information we know from FHWA.

Craig

The Federal-aid Highway Program, Title 23 of the United States Code (23 U.S.C.), offers States and/or other public entities a variety of opportunities

to toll motor vehicles to finance Interstate construction and reconstruction, promote efficiency in the use of highways, reduce traffic congestion and/or improve air quality. In addition to providing States and/or other public entities the authority to toll motor vehicles, the Value Pricing Pilot program is unique in providing grants for pre-implementation and non-construction related implementation costs of tolling, and for non-highway related pricing activities.

The tolling and pricing programs include:

* Express Lanes Demonstration Program <http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/express_lanes.htm> ( Not applicable to I-90. Must add capacity.)* High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities <http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/hov_facilities.htm> (Not applicable to I-90, except for possible HOT lane.)* Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program <http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.htm> (Virgina and Missouri are already in, one slot open. Can not use excess toll revenue for another route.)* Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program <http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_constr.htm> (South Carolina in, two slots open. Can not be used for tolling an existing free interstate.)* Title 23 USC Section 129 Toll Agreements <http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/toll_agreements.htm> (Very general requirements, could use for interstate bridge. No variable tolling permitted.)* Value Pricing Pilot Program <http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/> (Washington State already part of program. Program could sunset.)


I believe there is one open slot left based on my recent conversation with us dot - in addition we could seek an added slot via patty murray if necessary - craig your thoughts?

-dave

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 23, 2012, at 3:23 PM, "Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV)"

<[email protected]> wrote:

So, the viability of I-90 tolling from the federal perspective might come up in the House Transpo hearing tomorrow. Committee staff thinks that there may not be any pilot program slots left. Does anyone have the most up-to-date info?

Jennifer Ziegler

Transportation Policy Advisory, Executive Policy Office

Governor Chris Gregoire

360-902-0460

From: Pope, David [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]:Subject: RE: I-90 tollingDate: 2/24/2012 8:38:51 AMAttachments:

Craig, I think your summary from 10:12 PM last night is correct, however I think you meant, underSection 129 when you wrote, “Reconstruction or replacement of free bridges or tunnels andconversion to toll facilities is allowed, but the test will be 'reconstruction' of I-90. It may also notallow variable tolling.” I-90 could be authorized under the Value Pricing program. My research indicates that any newreauthorization is unlikely this year, so Value Pricing will most likely continue to be available. The “open slot” was under the interstate reconstruction section of 129 and press reports say thathas been given to North Carolina. See here: http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5766

R. David Pope

WSDOT Toll Division(206) 450-9938

From: Stone, CraigSent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 4:02 PMTo: Fellows, Rob; Pope, DavidSubject: Re: I-90 tolling





I believe there is one open slot left based on my recent conversation with us dot - in addition we could

seek an added slot via patty murray if necessary - craig your thoughts? -dave

Sent from my iPhone



From: Fellows, Rob [email protected]: Camden, Allison [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: RE: Senate Anti-Tolling AmendmentDate: 3/6/2012 1:19:21 AMAttachments:

If I read this correctly (and I haven’t had time to look at it in context) it would not allow tolling forinterstate tunnels or bridges as currently allowed under section 129, as well as any existing untolledhighway. If the overall bill also eliminates all of the other tolling pilot programs that would eliminate theoption of tolling to fund the CRC, or any use of tolling for preservation and reconstruction of interstates. I-90 tolling would clearly not be allowed. It looks like it would allow new lanes to be built and tolled, soit’s possible the I-405 project could be authorized and the SR 167 project seems to be explicitly included. I’d hope and expect that current toll authorization for SR 520 under value pricing would be grandfatheredin. I can look more closely if there’s still time tomorrow if you’d like.-- Rob

From: Camden, AllisonSent: Monday, March 05, 2012 5:20 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Fellows, RobSubject: Senate Anti-Tolling Amendment

Hi Craig and Rob – Senator Hutchison (R-TX) has introduced the tolling amendment below. I know we’ll oppose it, but canyou give me a couple of Washington-specific examples of negative repercussions? It would be helpful tohave some specificity to include in my e-mail to Murray and Cantwell staff (negative impacts on the CRC,520, 405, 167, 90, etc.?). Thanks,Allison

SA 1568. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the

bill S. 1813, to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs,

and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle E of title I, add the following:

SEC. 15__. FREEDOM FROM TOLLS.

(a) In General.--Section 129 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the

following:

``(d) Exception for Existing Highway Segments.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), none of the funds made available to

carry out this title shall be used to approve or otherwise authorize the imposition of any toll on any

segment of highway located on the Federal-aid system--

``(A) the construction of which has been completed as of the date of enactment of this subsection;

``(B) that, as of the date of enactment of this subsection, is not tolled;

``(C) that was constructed with Federal assistance provided under this title; and

``(D) that is in actual operation as of the date of enactment of this subsection.

``(2) EXCEPTIONS.--

``(A) NUMBER OF TOLL LANES.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any segment of highway on

the Federal-aid system described in that paragraph that, as of the date on which a toll is imposed on

the segment, will have the same number of nontoll lanes as were in existence prior to that date.

``(B) HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES.--A high-occupancy vehicle lane that is converted

to a toll lane shall not be subject to this subsection, and shall not be considered to be a nontoll lane

for purposes of determining whether a highway will have fewer nontoll lanes than prior to the date

of imposition of the toll, if--

``(i) high-occupancy vehicles occupied by the number of passengers specified by the entity operating

the toll lane may use the toll lane without paying a toll, unless otherwise specified by the appropriate

county, town, municipal or other local government entity, or public toll road or transit authority; or

``(ii) each high-occupancy vehicle lane that was converted to a toll lane was constructed as a

temporary lane to be replaced by a toll lane under a plan approved by the appropriate county, town,

municipal or other local government entity, or public toll road or transit authority.''.

(b) Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program.--Section 1216(b)(2) of the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 129 note; 112 Stat. 212) is amended by

striking ``3 facilities'' and inserting ``2 facilities''.

Allison Dane CamdenFederal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of TransportationOffice: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) [email protected]

From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: RE: Senate Anti-Tolling AmendmentDate: 3/6/2012 11:07:16 AMAttachments:

Thanks, that is what I thought. It looks like Republicans are insisting that the Senate vote on theHutchison amendment. I don’t expect it to pass, but I’ll flag it for Murray and Cantwell staff so they knowwe strongly oppose it. -Allison

From: Fellows, RobSent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 12:19 AMTo: Camden, Allison; Stone, CraigSubject: RE: Senate Anti-Tolling Amendment

If I read this correctly (and I haven’t had time to look at it in context) it would not allow tolling forinterstate tunnels or bridges as currently allowed under section 129, as well as any existing untolledhighway. If the overall bill also eliminates all of the other tolling pilot programs that would eliminate theoption of tolling to fund the CRC, or any use of tolling for preservation and reconstruction of interstates. I-90 tolling would clearly not be allowed. It looks like it would allow new lanes to be built and tolled, soit’s possible the I-405 project could be authorized and the SR 167 project seems to be explicitly included. I’d hope and expect that current toll authorization for SR 520 under value pricing would be grandfatheredin. I can look more closely if there’s still time tomorrow if you’d like.-- Rob

From: Camden, AllisonSent: Monday, March 05, 2012 5:20 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Fellows, RobSubject: Senate Anti-Tolling Amendment

Hi Craig and Rob – Senator Hutchison (R-TX) has introduced the tolling amendment below. I know we’ll oppose it, but canyou give me a couple of Washington-specific examples of negative repercussions? It would be helpful tohave some specificity to include in my e-mail to Murray and Cantwell staff (negative impacts on the CRC,520, 405, 167, 90, etc.?). Thanks,Allison

SA 1568. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the

bill S. 1813, to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs,

and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle E of title I, add the following:

SEC. 15__. FREEDOM FROM TOLLS.

(a) In General.--Section 129 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the

following:

``(d) Exception for Existing Highway Segments.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), none of the funds made available to

carry out this title shall be used to approve or otherwise authorize the imposition of any toll on any

segment of highway located on the Federal-aid system--

``(A) the construction of which has been completed as of the date of enactment of this subsection;

``(B) that, as of the date of enactment of this subsection, is not tolled;

``(C) that was constructed with Federal assistance provided under this title; and

``(D) that is in actual operation as of the date of enactment of this subsection.

``(2) EXCEPTIONS.--

``(A) NUMBER OF TOLL LANES.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any segment of highway on

the Federal-aid system described in that paragraph that, as of the date on which a toll is imposed on

the segment, will have the same number of nontoll lanes as were in existence prior to that date.

``(B) HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES.--A high-occupancy vehicle lane that is converted

to a toll lane shall not be subject to this subsection, and shall not be considered to be a nontoll lane

for purposes of determining whether a highway will have fewer nontoll lanes than prior to the date

of imposition of the toll, if--

``(i) high-occupancy vehicles occupied by the number of passengers specified by the entity operating

the toll lane may use the toll lane without paying a toll, unless otherwise specified by the appropriate

county, town, municipal or other local government entity, or public toll road or transit authority; or

``(ii) each high-occupancy vehicle lane that was converted to a toll lane was constructed as a

temporary lane to be replaced by a toll lane under a plan approved by the appropriate county, town,

municipal or other local government entity, or public toll road or transit authority.''.

(b) Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program.--Section 1216(b)(2) of the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 129 note; 112 Stat. 212) is amended by

striking ``3 facilities'' and inserting ``2 facilities''.


From: Dye, Dave [email protected]: Meredith, Julie [email protected]: Lenzi, Jerry C [email protected]; Judd, Ron [email protected]; Stone, [email protected]; Amy Arnis [email protected]; Linda Healy [email protected]: Re: I90 tolling studyDate: 3/14/2012 12:01:52 PMAttachments:

Jerry - Julie raises a great point about the need for close coordination and an even bigger question

about how we're going to deliver the EIS for the project - depending on my mood I could argue for

tolling, the 520 office and/or UPO to lead the effort - I'll suggest a gathering of email recipients to

discuss approach - Linda can you please set up soon? Thanks!

-Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:55 AM, "Meredith, Julie" <[email protected]> wrote:

We would like to discuss the plan to implement the I90 tolling analysis and environmental studiesthat are required as part of the supplemental budget. The 520 program will need to coordinatewith the appropriate staff with regards to the effort as it relates to the schedule of delivery for theremainder of the 520 program. Our team is being asked to provide design/cn schedules and financial aging for the west side work. In order for us to provide the best information possible, we need to have a clear understanding ofthe goals I90 effort. What can we do to help facilitate this discussion?Julie Meredith, PESR 520 Program DirectorSR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV ProgramWashington State Department of Transportation206-770-3568 direct | 206-770-3500 main600 Stewart Street, Suite 520 | Seattle, WA 98101 Visit us at our Web site: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr520bridge/

From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Suchan, [email protected]; Michaud, Patricia [email protected]:Subject: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90Date: 3/29/2012 2:25:51 PMAttachments:

Good afternoon – Senator Murray’s office called with some questions about future I-90 tolling. The Senator is meeting withthe Washington Roundtable on Monday and they expect I-90 tolling questions to come up. I’ve sharedwith them the 2009 FHWA letter that directed us to the VPPP and the authority to toll under 23 U.S.C.166 HOV Facilities, but can you please help me with the following questions?

· Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them they’ve directed us tostudy it. Is there any other direction they’ve given us? I thought I read somewhere that theyfunded environmental work?)

· Is any federal action necessary to allow us to toll I-90? (They have the FHWA letter that outlinesour options and that we’d have to work with FHWA for approval. Is there anything else theyshould know?)

· Do we have a plan for when tolling might happen? (When do we have to report back to thelegislature?)

· Would putting tolls on I-90 lower the tolls on SR 520?

· What are the latest diversion rates we’ve seen on SR 520? How do those line up with thediversion we planned for?

If at all possible I’d like to get them answers to these questions by COB today. I hope you’re enjoyingthis lovely weather. ;) Thank you!-Allison Allison Dane CamdenFederal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of TransportationOffice: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) [email protected]

From: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]: Camden, Allison [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Stone, [email protected]; Suchan, Stan [email protected]:Subject: RE: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90Date: 3/29/2012 2:46:47 PMAttachments:

Hi Allison, I am gathering the information and will get back to you as soon as possible. Thank you,Patty Patricia MichaudWSDOT Communications

206-716-1133 (w)

206-707-1448 (c)

From: Camden, AllisonSent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:26 PMTo: Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig; Suchan, Stan; Michaud, PatriciaSubject: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90Importance: High

Good afternoon – Senator Murray ’s office called with some questions about future I-90 tolling. The Senator is meetingwith the Washington Roundtable on Monday and they expect I-90 tolling questions to come up. I ’veshared with them the 2009 FHWA letter that directed us to the VPPP and the authority to toll under 23U.S.C. 166 HOV Facilities, but can you please help me with the following questions?

· Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them they ’ve directed us tostudy it. Is there any other direction they ’ve given us? I thought I read somewhere that theyfunded environmental work?)

· Is any federal action necessary to allow us to toll I-90? (They have the FHWA letter thatoutlines our options and that we ’d have to work with FHWA for approval. Is there anything elsethey should know?)



· What are the latest diversion rates we ’ve seen on SR 520? How do those line up with thediversion we planned for?

If at all possible I ’d like to get them answers to these questions by COB today. I hope you ’re enjoying

this lovely weather. ;) Thank you!-Allison Allison Dane CamdenFederal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of TransportationOffice: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) [email protected]

From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Stone, [email protected]; Suchan, Stan [email protected]:Subject: RE: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90Date: 3/29/2012 2:50:57 PMAttachments:

Thanks Patty! I did find the February traffic update you shared with me earlier this month that includedthe diversion rates we ’re seeing. I sent that to her staff, but if we have an updated document thatwould be good to send as well (though since March isn ’t quite over I would understand if it hasn ’t beenupdated yet J ). -Allison

From: Michaud, PatriciaSent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:47 PMTo: Camden, Allison; Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig; Suchan, StanSubject: RE: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90

Hi Allison, I am gathering the information and will get back to you as soon as possible. Thank you,Patty Patricia MichaudWSDOT Communications

206-716-1133 (w)

206-707-1448 (c)



· Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them they ’ve directed us to

study it. Is there any other direction they ’ve given us? I thought I read somewhere that theyfunded environmental work?)





If at all possible I ’d like to get them answers to these questions by COB today. I hope you ’re enjoyingthis lovely weather. ;) Thank you!-Allison Allison Dane CamdenFederal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of TransportationOffice: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) [email protected]

From: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Charlebois, [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: FW: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90Date: 3/29/2012 3:37:08 PMAttachments:

I have taken a hit at these but need your review (answers bolded). I suggest we include the one pagersummary to provide the detail to these answers.


The 2012 Legislature provided WSDOT $1.5 million to perform a comprehensive study of I-90 tolling,including environmental work and public outreach .


Do we mention that we ’d pursue toll approval under value pricing program?


We are currently reviewing four different toll options for I-90. Our current schedule assumes an EISprocess with the toll system ready mid to late 2016, depending on which option is chosen. Thisschedule could be shortened by 1.5 years if an EA is sufficient. The budget proviso does not specify adate to report back to the legislature, however, we will provide a status report for the 2013 legislature.

· Would putting tolls on I-90 lower the tolls on SR 520?We do not know as we have not yet conducted traffic modeling and analysis. This will be part of ourwork efforts for this biennium.


Volume on the SR 520 bridge is 30 to 40 percent below pre-tolling levels. The is less than our forecastwhich was 48 percent drop in SR 520 traffic for the first year of tolling. I-90 volumes have increased 5-10 percent and we ’re seeing an average of a 2 minute increase in peaktravel time. Traffic and revenues are meeting expectations

· February traffic was 19 percent higher than our original forecast

· February revenue was 7 percent higher than our original forecast Exceeding operational goals

· We exceeded our goal of setting up 100,000 new accounts by opening day and started SR 520tolling with 160,000 new Good To Go! accounts

· We are also exceeding expectations for the number of trips paid using Good To Go! accounts.Approximately 79 percent of all February toll trips were made by Good To Go! account holders.We forecasted 72 percent during the first year of tolling








If at all possible I ’d like to get them answers to these questions by COB today. I hope you ’re enjoyingthis lovely weather. ;) Thank you!-Allison Allison Dane CamdenFederal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of TransportationOffice: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) [email protected]

From: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Fellows, [email protected]:Subject: FW: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90Date: 3/29/2012 5:32:56 PMAttachments:

Updated version that includes comments from Rob. Again, am assuming we ’d send this with the I-90 onepager.

From: Michaud, PatriciaSent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 3:37 PMTo: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob; Charlebois, Jennifer; Stone, CraigSubject: FW: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90Importance: High

I have taken a hit at these but need your review (answers bolded). I suggest we include the one pagersummary to provide the detail to these answers.


The 201 1 Legislature provided WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling on I-90 . During the 2012 legislativesession, they expanded the scope to includ e environmental work and public outreach .


WSDOT has not yet applied for federal toll authority. FHWA has recommended that WSDOT would beeligible for toll authority on I-90 under the value pricing program.


We are currently reviewing four different toll options for I-90. Our current schedule assumes an EISprocess with the toll system ready mid to late 2016, depending on which option is chosen. Thisschedule could be shortened by 1.5 years if an EA is sufficient. The budget proviso does not specify adate to report back to the legislature, however, we will provide a status report for the 2013 legislature.

· Would putting tolls on I-90 lower the tolls on SR 520?We do not know the effects of I-90 tolling on SR 520 tolls as we have not yet conducted trafficmodeling and analysis. This will be part of our work efforts for this biennium. This is a future policydecision but it would likely result in a larger funding gap for the SR 520 program.


Volume on the SR 520 bridge is 30 to 40 percent below pre-tolling levels. The is less than our forecastwhich was 48 percent drop in SR 520 traffic for the first year of tolling.

I-90 volumes have increased 5-10 percent and we ’re seeing an average of a 2 minute increase in peaktravel time. Traffic and revenues are meeting expectations












If at all possible I ’d like to get them answers to these questions by COB today. I hope you ’re enjoyingthis lovely weather. ;) Thank you!-Allison Allison Dane CamdenFederal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of Transportation

Office: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) [email protected]

From: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Fellows, [email protected]:Subject: RE: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90Date: 3/29/2012 6:06:10 PMAttachments: 20130329MurrayBrief.docx

I need to say goodbye to Sandy so am headed out. This is the latest draft and I ’m also printing this up andtaping to Craig ’s door. If you review it tonight I can send to Allison when I get home later this evening.Thanks, Patty Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them they ’ve directed us to study it. Is there any other direction they ’ve given us? I thought I read somewhere that they fundedenvironmental work?) The 2011 Legislature provided WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling on I-90. During the 2012 legislativesession, they expanded the scope to include environmental work and public outreach. Is any federal action necessary to allow us to toll I-90? (They have the FHWA letter that outlines ouroptions and that we ’d have to work with FHWA for approval. Is there anything else they shouldknow?) WSDOT has not yet applied for federal toll authority. FHWA has recommended that WSDOT would beeligible for toll authority on I-90 under the Value Pricing Program. Do we have a plan for when tolling might happen? (When do we have to report back to thelegislature?) Our current schedule assumes an EIS process with the toll system ready mid to late 2016, depending onwhich option is chosen (four options listed below). This schedule could be shortened by 1.5 years if an EAis sufficient. The budget proviso does not specify a date to report back to the legislature, however, wewill provide a status report for the 2013 legislature. We are currently reviewing four different toll options for I-90:

· Single HOT lane to SR 900/Issaquah with ATM/Smarter Highways

· Dual HOT lane between I-5 and I-405, single HOT lane to Issaquah with ATM/SmarterHighways

· Full tolling on bridge with ATM/Smarter Highways

· Hybrid full tolling plus single HOT lane I-5 to SR 900/Issaquah with ATM/Smarter Highways Would putting tolls on I-90 lower the tolls on SR 520? We do not know the effects of I-90 tolling on SR 520 tolls as we have not yet conducted traffic modelingand analysis. This will be part of our work efforts for this biennium. This is a future policy decision but itwould likely result in a larger funding gap for the SR 520 program. What are the latest diversion rates we ’ve seen on SR 520? How do those line up with the diversion we

planned for? Our diversion and traffic volumes are on track with our expectations. Volume on the SR 520 bridge is 30to 40 percent below pre-tolling levels. This is less than our forecast which was 48 percent drop in SR 520traffic for the first year of tolling. I-90 volumes have increased 5-10 percent and we ’re seeing an average of a 2 minute increase in peaktravel time. Other items of note: Traffic and revenues are meeting expectations





From: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]: Camden, Allison [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Suchan, Stan [email protected]: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: RE: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90Date: 3/29/2012 6:20:35 PMAttachments: 20130329MurrayBrief_001.docx------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Allison,

Below are the answers to your questions - I also attached a word doc version. The traffic diversion numbers haven� t really changed but I included exciting new numbers for February traffic as compared to our forecast.

Thanks,Patty

<<20130329MurrayBrief.docx>>

Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them they� ve directed us to study it. Is there any other direction they� ve given us? I thought I read somewhere that they funded environmental work?)

The 2011 Legislature provided WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling on I-90. During the 2012 legislative session, they expanded the scope to include environmental work and public outreach.

Is any federal action necessary to allow us to toll I-90? (They have the FHWA letter that outlines our options and that we� d have to work with FHWA for approval. Is there anything else they should know?)

WSDOT has not yet applied for federal toll authority. FHWA has recommended that WSDOT would be eligible for toll authority on I-90 under the Value Pricing Program.

Do we have a plan for when tolling might happen? (When do we have to report back to the legislature?)

Our current schedule assumes an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) process with the toll system ready mid to late 2016, depending on which option is chosen (four options listed below). This schedule could be shortened by 1.5 years if an Environment Assessment (EA) is sufficient. The budget proviso does not specify a date to report back to the legislature, however, we will provide a status report for the 2013 legislature.

We are currently reviewing four different toll options for I-90:* Single HOT lane to SR 900/Issaquah with ATM/Smarter Highways* Dual HOT lane between I-5 and I-405, single HOT lane to Issaquah with ATM/Smarter Highways* Full tolling on bridge with ATM/Smarter Highways* Hybrid full tolling plus single HOT lane I-5 to SR 900/Issaquah with ATM/Smarter Highways

Would putting tolls on I-90 lower the tolls on SR 520?

We do not know the effects of I-90 tolling on SR 520 tolls as we have not yet conducted traffic modeling and analysis. This will be part of our work efforts for this biennium. This is a future policy decision but it would likely result in a larger funding gap for the SR 520 program.

What are the latest diversion rates we� ve seen on SR 520? How do those line up with the diversion we planned for?

Our diversion and traffic volumes are on track with our expectations. Volume on the SR 520 bridge is 30 to 40 percent below pre-tolling levels. This is better than our forecast. We planned a 48 percent drop in SR 520 traffic during the first year of tolling.

I-90 volumes have increased 5-10 percent and we� re seeing an average of a 2 minute increase in peak travel time. Other items of note:

Traffic and revenues are meeting expectations* February traffic was 19 percent higher than our original forecast* February revenue was 7 percent higher than our original forecast

Exceeding operational goals* We exceeded our goal of setting up 100,000 new accounts by opening day and started SR 520 tolling with 160,000 new Good To Go! accounts* We are also exceeding expectations for the number of trips paid using Good To Go! accounts. Approximately 79 percent of all February toll trips were made by Good To Go! account holders. We forecasted 72 percent during the first year of tolling

From: Camden, AllisonSent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:51 PMTo: Michaud, Patricia; Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig; Suchan, StanSubject: RE: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90

Thanks Patty! I did find the February traffic update you shared with me earlier this month that included the diversion rates we� re seeing. I sent that to her staff, but if we have an updated document that would be good to send as well (though since March isn� t quite over I would understand if it hasn� t been updated yet :-) ).

-Allison


Hi Allison,

I am gathering the information and will get back to you as soon as possible.

Thank you,Patty

Patricia MichaudWSDOT Communications206-716-1133 (w)206-707-1448 (c)


Good afternoon

Senator Murray� s office called with some questions about future I-90 tolling. The Senator is meeting with the Washington Roundtable on Monday and they expect I-90 tolling questions to come up. I� ve shared with them the 2009 FHWA letter that directed us to the VPPP and the authority to toll under 23 U.S.C. 166 HOV Facilities, but can you please help me with the following questions?

* Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them they� ve directed us to study it. Is there any other direction they� ve given us? I thought I read somewhere that they funded environmental work?)* Is any federal action necessary to allow us to toll I-90? (They have the FHWA letter that outlines our options and that we� d have to work with FHWA for approval. Is there anything else they should know?)* Do we have a plan for when tolling might happen? (When do we have to report back to the legislature?)* Would putting tolls on I-90 lower the tolls on SR 520?* What are the latest diversion rates we� ve seen on SR 520? How do those line up with the diversion we planned for?

If at all possible I� d like to get them answers to these questions by COB today. I hope you� re enjoying this lovely weather. ;)

Thank you!-Allison


From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Stone, [email protected]; Suchan, Stan [email protected]: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Re: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90Date: 3/29/2012 7:55:30 PMAttachments:

Wonderful, thank you!

-Allison

From: Michaud, PatriciaTo: Camden, Allison; Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig; Suchan, StanCc: Rubstello, PattySent: Thu Mar 29 18:20:35 2012Subject: RE: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90

Hi Allison,

Below are the answers to your questions - I also attached a word doc version. The traffic diversion

numbers haven’t really changed but I included exciting new numbers for February traffic ascompared to our forecast.

Thanks,

Patty

<<20130329MurrayBrief.docx>>

Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them they’ve directed us tostudy it. Is there any other direction they’ve given us? I thought I read somewhere that theyfunded environmental work?)

The 2011 Legislature provided WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling on I-90. During the 2012legislative session, they expanded the scope to include environmental work and public outreach.

Is any federal action necessary to allow us to toll I-90? (They have the FHWA letter that outlinesour options and that we’d have to work with FHWA for approval. Is there anything else theyshould know?)

WSDOT has not yet applied for federal toll authority. FHWA has recommended that WSDOT wouldbe eligible for toll authority on I-90 under the Value Pricing Program.

Do we have a plan for when tolling might happen? (When do we have to report back to the

legislature?)

Our current schedule assumes an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) process with the tollsystem ready mid to late 2016, depending on which option is chosen (four options listed below).This schedule could be shortened by 1.5 years if an Environment Assessment (EA) is sufficient. Thebudget proviso does not specify a date to report back to the legislature, however, we will providea status report for the 2013 legislature.

We are currently reviewing four different toll options for I-90:

· Single HOT lane to SR 900/Issaquah with ATM/Smarter Highways

· Dual HOT lane between I-5 and I-405, single HOT lane to Issaquah with ATM/SmarterHighways

· Full tolling on bridge with ATM/Smarter Highways

· Hybrid full tolling plus single HOT lane I-5 to SR 900/Issaquah with ATM/SmarterHighways

Would putting tolls on I-90 lower the tolls on SR 520?

We do not know the effects of I-90 tolling on SR 520 tolls as we have not yet conducted trafficmodeling and analysis. This will be part of our work efforts for this biennium. This is a futurepolicy decision but it would likely result in a larger funding gap for the SR 520 program.

What are the latest diversion rates we’ve seen on SR 520? How do those line up with thediversion we planned for?

Our diversion and traffic volumes are on track with our expectations. Volume on the SR 520 bridgeis 30 to 40 percent below pre-tolling levels. This is better than our forecast. We planned a 48percent drop in SR 520 traffic during the first year of tolling.

I-90 volumes have increased 5-10 percent and we’re seeing an average of a 2 minute increase inpeak travel time. Other items of note:

Traffic and revenues are meeting expectations


· February revenue was 7 percent higher than our original forecast

Exceeding operational goals

· We exceeded our goal of setting up 100,000 new accounts by opening day and started

SR 520 tolling with 160,000 new Good To Go! accounts

· We are also exceeding expectations for the number of trips paid using Good To Go!accounts. Approximately 79 percent of all February toll trips were made by Good To Go! accountholders. We forecasted 72 percent during the first year of tolling

From: Camden, AllisonSent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:51 PMTo: Michaud, Patricia; Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig; Suchan, StanSubject: RE: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90

Thanks Patty! I did find the February traffic update you shared with me earlier this month thatincluded the diversion rates we’re seeing. I sent that to her staff, but if we have an updateddocument that would be good to send as well (though since March isn’t quite over I would

understand if it hasn’t been updated yet J ).

-Allison


Hi Allison,

I am gathering the information and will get back to you as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Patty

Patricia Michaud

WSDOT Communications

206-716-1133 (w)

206-707-1448 (c)


Good afternoon –

Senator Murray’s office called with some questions about future I-90 tolling. The Senator ismeeting with the Washington Roundtable on Monday and they expect I-90 tolling questions tocome up. I’ve shared with them the 2009 FHWA letter that directed us to the VPPP and theauthority to toll under 23 U.S.C. 166 HOV Facilities, but can you please help me with the followingquestions?

· Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them they’ve directedus to study it. Is there any other direction they’ve given us? I thought I read somewhere that theyfunded environmental work?)

· Is any federal action necessary to allow us to toll I-90? (They have the FHWA letter thatoutlines our options and that we’d have to work with FHWA for approval. Is there anything elsethey should know?)

· Do we have a plan for when tolling might happen? (When do we have to report back tothe legislature?)


· What are the latest diversion rates we’ve seen on SR 520? How do those line up withthe diversion we planned for?

If at all possible I’d like to get them answers to these questions by COB today. I hope you’reenjoying this lovely weather. ;)

Thank you!

-Allison

Allison Dane Camden

Federal Relations Manager

Washington State Department of Transportation

Office: (360) 705-7507

Cell: (360) 628-6223

[email protected]

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Hammond; PaulaCc: Rubstello; Patty; Pierce; Steve; Dye; Dave; Camden; AllisonSubject: RE: Report to Congress Draft Follow UpDate: 4/14/2012 3:20:18 AMAttachments:

Paula – Would you be willing to approve a quote in support of the federal value pricing programs? Irecommend we stay very supportive and visible of the federal program as it gives us the most flexibilityunder our toll program as we incrementally improve our highway system, including our need for a federalprogram that we can consider I-90 tolling under. As Allison has been reporting there is a bit of pushingand pulling in the federal reauthorization debate. In FHWA’s report to congress, we can show oursupport. The question being asked is:

Has your agency benefitted from FHWA’s Tolling and Pricing Programs (i.e., the Value Pricing

Pilot Program, Express Lanes Demonstration Program, Urban Partnership Agreements, congestion

Reduction Demonstrations, etc.)? If so, please describe why and how.

A quote to be included could be:

“The federal tolling programs have enabled us invest in innovative projects that help us operate our

highways more efficiently – a critical objective for our Moving Washington strategy. Without it,

some of these projects would have been delayed – or might not have happened at all. Our state’s first

High Occupancy Toll lanes, funded by the Value Pricing Pilot Program, have reduced congestion on

the SR 167 every year since opening in 2008. Our newly tolled SR 520 bridge, funded by the Urban

Partnership Agreement, is free flow for the first time in decades. These are the kind of sustainable

benefits that bring value – even in tough economic times.”

- Paula Hammond, Secretary of

Transportation

Washington State Department of

Transportation

Craig

From: Rubstello, PattySent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:04 AMTo: Stone, Craig; Michaud, PatriciaSubject: FW: Report to Congress Draft Follow Up

Was is the likelihood we could get a quote from Paula on the Value Pricing Program? If not Paula, I wasthink Craig, you could offer one. FHWA is producing a document on the value of the various grant

programs they have for pricing. I need to know if we can do this ASAP and I’m assuming FHWA wants the quote ASAP as well. Patty Rubstello, PEToll Systems Development & EngineeringWSDOT(206)464-1299

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:01 AMTo: Rubstello, PattySubject: Report to Congress Draft Follow Up

Hi Patty, I thought I would follow up regarding a request made by one of our consultants at the TRB peerexchange. Myron asked for comments/lessons learned/success stories from pricing. Patty you hadmentioned that you intended to obtain a quote from Paula Hammond. We are in the process of finalizingour draft R to C document and were wondering If you would still be able to provide a quote from yourselfor Paula Hammond. Angela Fogle Jacobs, AICPValue Pricing Pilot Program ManagerFHWA-HOTM-1, Room E86-2041200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC 20590(202) 366-0076 (phone)(202) 366-3225 (fax)

From: Hanson, Allison [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Arnold, Paul [email protected]; Rubstello, [email protected]: Angove, Angela [email protected]: updated I-90 enviro doc strategy paperDate: 5/8/2012 9:57:02 AMAttachments: EOC3.docx

All-I updated the strategy paper based on our conversationyesterday afternoon. Let me know if you haveany edits/questions when youreview this latest draft. I talked to Megan this morning and so she is uptospeed on the approach. I will hold on making contact with FHWA until I hearback from Craig, I did giveDeborah a heads-up that we will be working onscheduling a FHWA staff/legal conversation possiblywithin the next couple ofweeks.Thanks, Allison

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]: Larsen, Chad [email protected]: Executive Toll Committee Draft AgendaDate: 6/12/2012 1:00:55 PMAttachments:

Here is what I heard today as the agenda with the ETC next Wednesday. Tolling Agreements

· I-405

· I-90

· CRCI-90 Status

· Work Program (Schedule & Budget)

· Environmental Strategy

· Committee Structures???Current Operations Numbers

· SR 520 (traffic, revenue, % paid by transaction type)

· TNB (traffic, revenue, % paid by transaction type)o Cashless Study?

Anything else? I ’ll put together everything for the first two items. Who will cover the operationsnumbers, Pete? Patty Rubstello, PEToll Systems Development & EngineeringWSDOT(206)464-1299

From: Fellows, Rob [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: RE: Executive Toll Committee Draft AgendaDate: 6/12/2012 2:49:45 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like a good agenda.-- Rob

-----Original Message-----From: Stone, CraigSent: Tue 6/12/2012 2:16 PMTo: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob; Briglia, Pete; Henry, KimCc: Larsen, ChadSubject: RE: Executive Toll Committee Draft Agenda

Here is the draft Exec Toll Comm agenda for June 20th. About 20 minutes per topic is what I expect (the last two are just quick info items). If you have additions or comments please advise. We will just have held the CRC Oversight committee meeting the day before, and we do not have toll policy team items yet to bring to them. There is an outside chance of touching on the AWV ACTT upcoming June 28th meeting but I do not think we will spend this time on it.

Craig

From: Rubstello, PattySent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:01 PMTo: Stone, CraigCc: Larsen, ChadSubject: Executive Toll Committee Draft Agenda

Here is what I heard today as the agenda with the ETC next Wednesday.

I-405 Traffic & Revenue [Craig & Kim]

· Leg leadership debrief

· Update on T&R work efforts

Federal Tolling Agreements [Craig & Patty]

· I-405

· I-90

· CRC

I-90 Status [Craig & Patty]



· Committee Structures

· Statewide T&R consultant procurement

Current Toll Operations Numbers [Craig & Pete]


· TNB (traffic, revenue, % paid by transaction type)

o Cashless Study

· Adjudication

Tribal Exemptions (tentative) [Steve R]

Roadway Collection System contract [Craig & Patty]

Anything else? I'll put together everything for the first two items. Who will cover the operations numbers, Pete?

Patty Rubstello, PE

Toll Systems Development & Engineering

WSDOT

(206)464-1299

From: Briglia, Pete [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: RE: Executive Toll Committee Draft AgendaDate: 6/12/2012 4:01:32 PMAttachments:

Sorry but my wife ’s surgery has been rescheduled for June 20 th . The insurance company is taking thefull amount of time that they are allowed for pre-approval. So I won ’t be able to participate in this.

Pete

From: Stone, CraigSent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:16 PMTo: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob; Briglia, Pete; Henry, KimCc: Larsen, ChadSubject: RE: Executive Toll Committee Draft Agenda

Here is the draft Exec Toll Comm agenda for June 20 th . About 20 minutes per topic is what I expect(the last two are just quick info items). If you have additions or comments please advise. We will justhave held the CRC Oversight committee meeting the day before, and we do not have toll policy teamitems yet to bring to them. There is an outside chance of touching on the AWV ACTT upcoming June 28th meeting but I do not think we will spend this time on it. Craig


Here is what I heard today as the agenda with the ETC next Wednesday. I-405 Traffic & Revenue [Craig & Kim]


· Update on T &R work efforts Federal Tolling Agreements [Craig & Patty]

· I-405

· I-90

· CRC I-90 Status [Craig & Patty]




· Statewide T &R consultant procurement Current Toll Operations Numbers [Craig & Pete]


· TNB (traffic, revenue, % paid by transaction type)o Cashless Study

· Adjudication Tribal Exemptions (tentative) [Steve R] Roadway Collection System contract [Craig & Patty] Anything else? I ’ll put together everything for the first two items. Who will cover the operationsnumbers, Pete? Patty Rubstello, PEToll Systems Development & EngineeringWSDOT(206)464-1299

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Rubstello; Patty; Fellows; Rob; Briglia; Pete; Henry; KimCc: Larsen; ChadSubject: RE: Executive Toll Committee Draft AgendaDate: 6/12/2012 9:16:13 PMAttachments:






· I-405

· I-90








· Adjudication Tribal Exemptions (tentative) [Steve R] Roadway Collection System contract [Craig & Patty]

Anything else? I ’ll put together everything for the first two items. Who will cover the operationsnumbers, Pete? Patty Rubstello, PEToll Systems Development & EngineeringWSDOT(206)464-1299

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Briglia; PeteCc:Subject: Re: Executive Toll Committee Draft AgendaDate: 6/13/2012 1:32:18 AMAttachments:

Understood.

From : Briglia, PeteTo : Stone, CraigSent : Tue Jun 12 16:01:32 2012Subject : RE: Executive Toll Committee Draft Agenda

Sorry but my wife ’s surgery has been rescheduled for June 20 th . The insurance company is taking thefull amount of time that they are allowed for pre-approval. So I won ’t be able to participate in this.

Pete






· Update on T &R work efforts

Federal Tolling Agreements [Craig & Patty]

· I-405

· I-90









From: Merkens, Todd [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Francis, Carley [email protected]; Boyd, Nancy [email protected]; Strickler, Kris [email protected]; [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]:Subject: RE: FW: CRC Federal Toll AgreementDate: 6/18/2012 9:45:30 AMAttachments: WSDOT Expression of Interest for I-90.pdf; I-90 Tolling Layout v5.pdf; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf; Final Signed.pdf------------------------------------------------------------

Good morning,

To follow up from this morning� s call on FHWA toll agreements, here are several documents.

The first two documents comprise the initial I-90 expression of interest. The third document is the FHWA reply to the I-90 expression of interest, it also contains a good summary of the available FHWA programs to authorize tolling (last 5 pages). The last document is the SR 99 toll agreement.

<<WSDOT Expression of Interest for I-90.pdf>> <<I-90 Tolling Layout v5.pdf>> <<Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf>><<Final Signed.pdf>>

Thanks,

Todd S. MerkensTolling EngineerWSDOTOffice: (206) 716-1151Cell: (206) 799-7030E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Appointment-----From: Rubstello, Patty On Behalf Of Stone, CraigSent: Monday, June 04, 2012 3:59 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Merkens, Todd; 'Francis, Carley'; Boyd, Nancy; 'Strickler, Kris'; '[email protected]'; Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, RobSubject: FW: CRC Federal Toll AgreementWhen: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:30 AM-10:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).Where: 206-440-4005/360-709-8068 pin 1088010

I� d like you to participate. Patty

-----Original Appointment-----From: Stone, CraigSent: Monday, June 04, 2012 3:36 PMTo: Stone, Craig; � Francis, Carley� ; Boyd, Nancy; � Strickler, Kris� ; � [email protected]� ; Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob

Subject: CRC Federal Toll AgreementWhen: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:30 AM-10:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).Where: 206-440-4005/360-709-8068 pin 1088010

When: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:30 AM-10:00 AM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).Where: 206-440-4005/360-709-8068 pin 1088010Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.

+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+

Agenda topics:* Toll Division experiences* CRC specific coordination* Tasks* Staffing

From: Briglia, Pete [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Hall, Jeff (Consultant) [email protected]: Slack, Terri (Consultant) [email protected]; Larsen, Chad [email protected]: RE: Executive Toll Committee Draft AgendaDate: 6/18/2012 3:13:59 PMAttachments:

Sure Jeff can do that – he ’s a consultant so there is nothing he can ’t or won ’t do.

Seriously, I think he has access to more of the numbers than I do. I will get with him. Pete

From: Stone, CraigSent: Monday, June 18, 2012 3:05 PMTo: Hall, Jeff (Consultant); Briglia, PeteCc: Slack, Terri (Consultant); Larsen, ChadSubject: FW: Executive Toll Committee Draft Agenda

Pete – Since you cannot make Wednesday ’s meeting, can Jeff provide the support by researching theinformation needed so we can present the operations performance numbers below, as well as attend onthe behalf of toll operations? Can you work together in prep for this session. I expect we will haveabout 20 minutes to go through the numbers, what we are doing to refine procedures as we look tooptimize performance. I will not be back in the office, but available by phone to discuss. A prep call would be good. I will haveplenty of car time traveling to and from Vancouver tomorrow with Terri. Chad – can you set up some time with all of us. Craig



From: Rubstello, PattySent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:01 PM

To: Stone, CraigCc: Larsen, ChadSubject: Executive Toll Committee Draft Agenda




· I-405

· I-90









From: Larsen, Chad [email protected]: Briglia, Pete [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Hall, Jeff (Consultant)[email protected]: Slack, Terri (Consultant) [email protected]: RE: Executive Toll Committee Draft AgendaDate: 6/18/2012 3:19:08 PMAttachments:

I ’ll set some time up for 8a. It ’s not ideal, but we need to get it to happen before you hit the dead zone.Could be that we ’ll need to touch base again once you finally land in Vancouver.

From: Briglia, PeteSent: Monday, June 18, 2012 3:14 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Hall, Jeff (Consultant)Cc: Slack, Terri (Consultant); Larsen, ChadSubject: RE: Executive Toll Committee Draft Agenda

Sure Jeff can do that – he ’s a consultant so there is nothing he can ’t or won ’t do.

Seriously, I think he has access to more of the numbers than I do. I will get with him. Pete

From: Stone, CraigSent: Monday, June 18, 2012 3:05 PMTo: Hall, Jeff (Consultant); Briglia, PeteCc: Slack, Terri (Consultant); Larsen, ChadSubject: FW: Executive Toll Committee Draft Agenda



Here is the draft Exec Toll Comm agenda for June 20 th . About 20 minutes per topic is what I expect

(the last two are just quick info items). If you have additions or comments please advise. We will justhave held the CRC Oversight committee meeting the day before, and we do not have toll policy teamitems yet to bring to them. There is an outside chance of touching on the AWV ACTT upcoming June 28th meeting but I do not think we will spend this time on it. Craig





· I-405

· I-90









From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Consultant Hall; Jeff (Consultant); Briglia; Pete ([email protected])Cc: Consultant Slack; Terri (Consultant) ([email protected]); Chad Larsen([email protected])Subject: FW: Executive Toll Committee Draft AgendaDate: 6/18/2012 10:05:00 PMAttachments:








· I-405

· I-90









From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: RE: Tolling Questions for Rep. Smith's OfficeDate: 6/21/2012 6:25:04 AMAttachments: CongressmanSmith_tolling_062112.docx

Hi Allison, Here’s our draft response – I’d like to get Craig and Patty’s final review before you use this tomorrow. We also have a map of the proposed regional toll system, which I will send along shortly. –Colleen

1) How do you see I-90 tolling being rolled out? What is the timeline? Next steps?As part of the overall efforts to fund the SR 520 bridge and ease congestion in the cross-lake corridor, the520 Toll Implementation Committee (Ford, Hammond, Drewel) engaged the public in a discussionfocused on financing SR 520 improvements through toll scenarios on both the 520 and I-90 bridges. The520 TIC reviewed the form that tolling may take, traffic diversion, tolling and traffic managementtechnology, and partnership opportunities. Legislation instructed the Tolling Implementation Committeeto survey citizens about the project, and to submit a final report to the Governor and Legislature byJanuary 2009.While WSDOT does not yet have approval to toll I-90, the 2011 Legislature provided WSDOT $1.5 millionto study tolling I-90. During the 2012 legislative session, the legislature expanded the scope to includeenvironmental work and public outreach to create the Comprehensive Tolling Study and EnvironmentalReview Project. Through ESSB 2190, the legislature directed WSDOT to “ $1,500,000 of the motor vehicle account--federalappropriation is provided solely for the I-90 Comprehensive Tolling Study and Environmental Reviewproject (100067T). The department shall undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tollingInterstate 90 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managing traffic andproviding funding for construction of the unfunded state route number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medinaproject. The environmental review must include significant outreach to potentially affected communities.The department may consider traffic management options that extend as far east as Issaquah. ” The NEPA environmental analysis (EA) is just getting started reviewing the environmental impacts oftolling I-90 and analyzing traffic and tolling scenarios. Informal outreach with area leaders is startingnow, with the formal public process beginning in January 2013, and the EA being conducted from August2012 to October of 2013.

2) What does the stakeholder process for I-90 tolling look like?

As part of the EA, WSDOT is drafting a public involvement plan (PIP), which will include a public commentperiod, and hosting public meetings focused on the project scoping, environmental analyses and results,as well as a public hearing. WSDOT will survey the public to gauge public awareness and acceptance fortolling I-90, and use these results to inform the public education and outreach efforts. WSDOT staff willmake presentations at community organizations and city council meetings, host a project website, andsend out regular newsletters to keep people informed of project status. We are still putting the PIP together but expect to create an executive advisory group, similar to what wehad in place for I-405 and SR 520, which would include a review of the issues by local legislators and cityand county leaders.

3) What are the future (10-20 year) prospects for tolling/tolling studies on I-5 in Seattle, I-405

and Hwy 167? (how wide do you see the tolling network growing?)

By statute, the rate and extent of new tolling is determined by the state Legislature. It's hard topredict how quickly new tolling will be adopted and where.

That said, WSDOT has been on record through its Moving Washington program favoring conversion ofHOV lanes to express toll lane facilities to remedy HOV lane speed and reliability performance that doesnot meet state or federal standards. The Puget Sound Regional Council has also adopted a regionaltransportation plan endorsing express toll lanes by 2030, which calls for full tolling of all limited accesshighways by 2040. Tolling is in place on the SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, planned for the SR 99 deepbore tunnel, and under consideration for the I-5 Columbia River Crossing, I-90 across Lake Washington,and for long-planned corridor extensions to SR 509 and SR 167. The Legislature has funded toll feasibilitystudies or project development funds for all of these efforts.Important elements of mega-projects that would originally have been funded through a regional taxmeasure (the Regional Transportation Improvement District, or RTID) remain unfunded, as are otherneeds such as pavement replacement for I-5. Tolls will likely be part of any significant improvementprograms, especially if federal transportation funding remains limited and new state taxes are notforthcoming.WSDOT is currently operating a HOT lane pilot project on SR 167 and is in active development of a dual-lane express toll facility on the north segment of I-405. WSDOT and I-405 stakeholders hope to expandexpress toll lanes to cover the entire corridor including widening between Renton and Bellevue and adirect ramp connection to the existing SR 167 HOT lanes to provide a continuous 40+ mile I-405/SR 167express toll lane corridor. This project has been given toll authority by the Legislature subject tolegislative acceptance of a new traffic and revenue analysis by the Washington State TransportationCommission. This approval is expected prior to Feb. 2013.

Colleen GantsWSDOT Toll DivisionCommunications & External Affairs206-465-2311 (cell) 206-716-1150 (desk)[email protected]

On Jun 15, 2012, at 5:35 PM, "Michaud, Patricia " < [email protected] > wrote:

Thanks Allison, Colleen Gants just joined our team. She’s leading external relations and I-90 communications(among other things) for the Toll Division. I’ve asked her to follow-up with you. -Patty

From: Camden, AllisonSent: Friday, June 15, 2012 2:33 PMTo: Michaud, PatriciaSubject: RE: Tolling Questions for Rep. Smith's Office

Hi Patty –

After I hit send on my e-mail to you I came across the attached Q &A document you guys puttogether for Murray’s office in March. The answers there seem to take care of question 1 fromSmith’s staff. Assuming all that info is still up-to-date, I just need info on what the stakeholderprocess for I-90 looks like and the general messaging for our future tolling plans for I-5, I-405 andSR 167. Thanks!-Allison

From: Camden, AllisonSent: Friday, June 15, 2012 2:18 PMTo: Michaud, PatriciaSubject: Tolling Questions for Rep. Smith's Office

Hi Patty – I’m meeting with Rep. Adam Smith’s district director next Friday and he has some questions abouttolling. Can you help me with the answers to the three questions below? (I’ve attempted to fill inthe first answer based on something I read in a media contact report.) I’ve been reading some ofour folios and documents on our website but I want to make sure I get the messaging right. Wouldit be easier for you to e-mail me something or to talk over the phone? Thanks,Allison

1. How do you see I-90 tolling being rolled out? What is the timeline? Nextsteps?

WSDOT does not have approval to toll I-90 but the 2011 Legislature providedWSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling on I-90. During the 2012 legislative session,they expanded the scope to include environmental work and public outreach. Weare still putting a plan in place but we expect to create an executive advisory group,similar to what we had in place for I-405 and SR 520.

2. What does the stakeholder process for I-90 tolling look like?

3. What are the future (10-20 year) prospects for tolling/tolling studies onI-5 in Seattle, I-405 and Hwy 167? (how wide do you see the tolling networkgrowing?)

Allison Dane Camden

Federal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of TransportationOffice: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) [email protected]

From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: RE: Tolling Questions for Rep. Smith's OfficeDate: 6/21/2012 6:25:04 AMAttachments: CongressmanSmith_tolling_062112.docx





3) What are the future (10-20 year) prospects for tolling/tolling studies on I-5 in Seattle, I-405

and Hwy 167? (how wide do you see the tolling network growing?)


That said, WSDOT has been on record through its Moving Washington program favoring conversion ofHOV lanes to express toll lane facilities to remedy HOV lane speed and reliability performance that doesnot meet state or federal standards. The Puget Sound Regional Council has also adopted a regionaltransportation plan endorsing express toll lanes by 2030, which calls for full tolling of all limited accesshighways by 2040. Tolling is in place on the SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, planned for the SR 99 deepbore tunnel, and under consideration for the I-5 Columbia River Crossing, I-90 across Lake Washington,and for long-planned corridor extensions to SR 509 and SR 167. The Legislature has funded toll feasibilitystudies or project development funds for all of these efforts.Important elements of mega-projects that would originally have been funded through a regional taxmeasure (the Regional Transportation Improvement District, or RTID) remain unfunded, as are otherneeds such as pavement replacement for I-5. Tolls will likely be part of any significant improvementprograms, especially if federal transportation funding remains limited and new state taxes are notforthcoming.WSDOT is currently operating a HOT lane pilot project on SR 167 and is in active development of a dual-lane express toll facility on the north segment of I-405. WSDOT and I-405 stakeholders hope to expandexpress toll lanes to cover the entire corridor including widening between Renton and Bellevue and adirect ramp connection to the existing SR 167 HOT lanes to provide a continuous 40+ mile I-405/SR 167express toll lane corridor. This project has been given toll authority by the Legislature subject tolegislative acceptance of a new traffic and revenue analysis by the Washington State TransportationCommission. This approval is expected prior to Feb. 2013.



Thanks Allison, Colleen Gants just joined our team. She’s leading external relations and I-90 communications(among other things) for the Toll Division. I’ve asked her to follow-up with you. -Patty


Hi Patty –

After I hit send on my e-mail to you I came across the attached Q &A document you guys puttogether for Murray’s office in March. The answers there seem to take care of question 1 fromSmith’s staff. Assuming all that info is still up-to-date, I just need info on what the stakeholderprocess for I-90 looks like and the general messaging for our future tolling plans for I-5, I-405 andSR 167. Thanks!-Allison







Allison Dane Camden

Federal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of TransportationOffice: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) [email protected]

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: RE: Tolling Questions for Rep. Smith's OfficeDate: 6/21/2012 7:49:20 AMAttachments:

I have several comments. Is there a time where we can chat together about this? Patty Rubstello, PEToll Systems Development & EngineeringWSDOT(206)464-1299

From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:25 AMTo: Camden, AllisonCc: Stone, Craig; Rubstello, PattySubject: RE: Tolling Questions for Rep. Smith's Office





3) What are the future (10-20 year) prospects for tolling/tolling studies on I-5 in Seattle, I-405and Hwy 167? (how wide do you see the tolling network growing?)


That said, WSDOT has been on record through its Moving Washington program favoring conversion ofHOV lanes to express toll lane facilities to remedy HOV lane speed and reliability performance that doesnot meet state or federal standards. The Puget Sound Regional Council has also adopted a regionaltransportation plan endorsing express toll lanes by 2030, which calls for full tolling of all limited accesshighways by 2040. Tolling is in place on the SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, planned for the SR 99 deepbore tunnel, and under consideration for the I-5 Columbia River Crossing, I-90 across Lake Washington,and for long-planned corridor extensions to SR 509 and SR 167. The Legislature has funded tollfeasibility studies or project development funds for all of these efforts.Important elements of mega-projects that would originally have been funded through a regional taxmeasure (the Regional Transportation Improvement District, or RTID) remain unfunded, as are otherneeds such as pavement replacement for I-5. Tolls will likely be part of any significant improvementprograms, especially if federal transportation funding remains limited and new state taxes are notforthcoming.WSDOT is currently operating a HOT lane pilot project on SR 167 and is in active development of a dual-lane express toll facility on the north segment of I-405. WSDOT and I-405 stakeholders hope to expandexpress toll lanes to cover the entire corridor including widening between Renton and Bellevue and adirect ramp connection to the existing SR 167 HOT lanes to provide a continuous 40+ mile I-405/SR 167express toll lane corridor. This project has been given toll authority by the Legislature subject tolegislative acceptance of a new traffic and revenue analysis by the Washington State TransportationCommission. This approval is expected prior to Feb. 2013.



Thanks Allison,

Colleen Gants just joined our team. She’s leading external relations and I-90 communications(among other things) for the Toll Division. I’ve asked her to follow-up with you. -Patty


Hi Patty – After I hit send on my e-mail to you I came across the attached Q &A document you guys puttogether for Murray’s office in March. The answers there seem to take care of question 1 fromSmith’s staff. Assuming all that info is still up-to-date, I just need info on what the stakeholderprocess for I-90 looks like and the general messaging for our future tolling plans for I-5, I-405 andSR 167. Thanks!-Allison






From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: RE: Tolling Questions for Rep. Smith's OfficeDate: 6/21/2012 7:49:20 AMAttachments:

I have several comments. Is there a time where we can chat together about this? Patty Rubstello, PEToll Systems Development & EngineeringWSDOT(206)464-1299

From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:25 AMTo: Camden, AllisonCc: Stone, Craig; Rubstello, PattySubject: RE: Tolling Questions for Rep. Smith's Office





3) What are the future (10-20 year) prospects for tolling/tolling studies on I-5 in Seattle, I-405and Hwy 167? (how wide do you see the tolling network growing?)


That said, WSDOT has been on record through its Moving Washington program favoring conversion ofHOV lanes to express toll lane facilities to remedy HOV lane speed and reliability performance that doesnot meet state or federal standards. The Puget Sound Regional Council has also adopted a regionaltransportation plan endorsing express toll lanes by 2030, which calls for full tolling of all limited accesshighways by 2040. Tolling is in place on the SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, planned for the SR 99 deepbore tunnel, and under consideration for the I-5 Columbia River Crossing, I-90 across Lake Washington,and for long-planned corridor extensions to SR 509 and SR 167. The Legislature has funded tollfeasibility studies or project development funds for all of these efforts.Important elements of mega-projects that would originally have been funded through a regional taxmeasure (the Regional Transportation Improvement District, or RTID) remain unfunded, as are otherneeds such as pavement replacement for I-5. Tolls will likely be part of any significant improvementprograms, especially if federal transportation funding remains limited and new state taxes are notforthcoming.WSDOT is currently operating a HOT lane pilot project on SR 167 and is in active development of a dual-lane express toll facility on the north segment of I-405. WSDOT and I-405 stakeholders hope to expandexpress toll lanes to cover the entire corridor including widening between Renton and Bellevue and adirect ramp connection to the existing SR 167 HOT lanes to provide a continuous 40+ mile I-405/SR 167express toll lane corridor. This project has been given toll authority by the Legislature subject tolegislative acceptance of a new traffic and revenue analysis by the Washington State TransportationCommission. This approval is expected prior to Feb. 2013.



Thanks Allison,

Colleen Gants just joined our team. She’s leading external relations and I-90 communications(among other things) for the Toll Division. I’ve asked her to follow-up with you. -Patty


Hi Patty – After I hit send on my e-mail to you I came across the attached Q &A document you guys puttogether for Murray’s office in March. The answers there seem to take care of question 1 fromSmith’s staff. Assuming all that info is still up-to-date, I just need info on what the stakeholderprocess for I-90 looks like and the general messaging for our future tolling plans for I-5, I-405 andSR 167. Thanks!-Allison






From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, [email protected]: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's OfficeDate: 6/21/2012 10:44:11 PMAttachments: CongressmanSmith_tolling_062112_001.docx

Hi Allison,

Here are the answers to Congressman Smith's questions. Will attach the Regional Toll Work Planmap in the morning for you, too. -Colleen

QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESSMAN ADAM SMITHTo be addressed by Allison Camden, WSDOT Federal Gov Relations Friday June 22, 2012

1) How do you see I-90 tolling being rolled out? What is the timeline? Next steps?

As part of the overall efforts to fund the SR 520 bridge and ease congestion in the cross-lakecorridor, the 2008 SR 520 Toll Implementation Committee (Dick Ford, Paula Hammond, BobDrewel) engaged the public in a discussion focused on financing SR 520 improvements through tollscenarios on both the 520 and I-90 bridges. The 520 Committee reviewed the form that tollingmay take, traffic diversion, tolling and traffic management technology, and partnershipopportunities. Legislation instructed the Tolling Implementation Committee to survey citizensabout the project, and to submit a final report to the Governor and Legislature by January 2009.

In 2010, the SR 520 Work Group (consisting of the Secretary of Transportation, the Chairs of theHouse and Senate Transportation Committees, the King County Representative on the WashingtonState Transportation Commission, and local legislators from the 520 corridor) evaluated andrecommended financing and design options for projects in the SR 520 corridor. The Workgroupunanimously recommended moving forward with the following financing strategy to fill the $2.36billion funding gap:

Use of previously authorized funding included in early tolling of SR 520 per scenario 7.Early HOT lane tolling on I-90 as soon as practicable.Pursue filling the gap through federal and state revenue to be identified over the next twoyears.If the gap is not filled within that time, then move forward with general tolling of I-90 nosooner than 2014.

While WSDOT does not yet have legislative or federal approval to toll I-90, the 2011 Legislatureprovided WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling I-90. During the 2012 legislative session, thelegislature expanded the scope to include environmental work and public outreach to create theComprehensive Tolling Study and Environmental Review Project. Through ESSB 2190, the legislature directed WSDOT to “$1,500,000 of the motor vehicle account--federal appropriation is provided solely for the I-90 Comprehensive Tolling Study and EnvironmentalReview project (100067T). The department shall undertake a comprehensive environmental reviewof tolling Interstate 90 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managingtraffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded state route number 520 from

Interstate 5 to Medina project. The environmental review must include significant outreach topotentially affected communities. The department may consider traffic management options thatextend as far east as Issaquah.”

The NEPA environmental analysis is just getting started reviewing the environmental impacts oftolling I-90 and analyzing traffic and tolling scenarios. Informal outreach with area leaders isstarting now, with the formal public process beginning in January 2013. The environmentalreview process, possibly through an environmental analysis (EA) will go from August 2012 toOctober of 2013.

What does the stakeholder process for I-90 tolling look like?

The stakeholder outreach plans are being prepared so that public input can inform the 2014legislative session as they consider authorizing tolling I-90 or not. WSDOT is drafting a publicinvolvement plan (PIP), which will include a public comment period, and hosting public meetingsfocused on the project scoping, environmental analyses and results, as well as a public hearing. WSDOT will survey the public to gauge public awareness and acceptance for tolling I-90, and usethese results to inform the public education and outreach efforts. WSDOT staff will makepresentations at community organizations and city council meetings, host a project website, andsend out regular newsletters to keep people informed of project status.

We are still putting the PIP together but expect to create an executive advisory group, similar towhat we had in place for I-405 and SR 520, which would include a review of the issues by locallegislators and city and county leaders.

2) What are the future (10-20 year) prospects for tolling/tolling studies on I-5 in Seattle, I-405 and Hwy 167? (how wide do you see the tolling network growing?)


That said, WSDOT developed the Moving Washington vision favoring conversion of HOV lanes toexpress toll lane facilities to remedy HOV lane speed and reliability performance that does notmeet state or federal standards. The Puget Sound Regional Council has also adopted a regionaltransportation plan endorsing express toll lanes by 2030, which calls for full tolling of all limitedaccess highways by 2040. Tolling is in place on the SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, authorized forthe SR 99 deep bore tunnel and the I-5 Columbia River Crossing. The legislature has directedstudies considering tolling from I-90 across Lake Washington, and for long-planned corridorextensions to SR 509 and SR 167. The Legislature has funded toll feasibility studies or projectdevelopment funds for all of these efforts.

Important elements of mega-projects that could be funded through a regional tax measure (theRegional Transportation Improvement District, or RTID) remain unfunded, as are other needs suchas pavement replacement for I-5. Tolls may be part of any significant improvement programs,especially if federal transportation funding remains limited and new state taxes are notforthcoming.

WSDOT is currently operating a HOT lane pilot project on SR 167 and is in active development of adual-lane express toll facility on the north segment of I-405, which the legislature has conditionallyauthorized. WSDOT and I-405 stakeholders hope to expand express toll lanes and invest the fundsto cover the entire corridor including widening between Renton and Bellevue and a direct rampconnection to the existing SR 167 HOT lanes to provide a continuous 40+ mile I-405/SR 167

express toll lane corridor from Auburn to Lynnwood. This project has been given toll authority bythe Legislature subject to legislative acceptance of a new traffic and revenue analysis by theWashington State Transportation Commission. This approval is expected prior to Feb. 2013.

From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, [email protected]: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's OfficeDate: 6/21/2012 10:44:11 PMAttachments: CongressmanSmith_tolling_062112_001.docx

Hi Allison,

Here are the answers to Congressman Smith's questions. Will attach the Regional Toll Work Planmap in the morning for you, too. -Colleen






While WSDOT does not yet have legislative or federal approval to toll I-90, the 2011 Legislatureprovided WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling I-90. During the 2012 legislative session, thelegislature expanded the scope to include environmental work and public outreach to create theComprehensive Tolling Study and Environmental Review Project. Through ESSB 2190, the legislature directed WSDOT to “$1,500,000 of the motor vehicle account--federal appropriation is provided solely for the I-90 Comprehensive Tolling Study and EnvironmentalReview project (100067T). The department shall undertake a comprehensive environmental reviewof tolling Interstate 90 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managingtraffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded state route number 520 from

Interstate 5 to Medina project. The environmental review must include significant outreach topotentially affected communities. The department may consider traffic management options thatextend as far east as Issaquah.”









WSDOT is currently operating a HOT lane pilot project on SR 167 and is in active development of adual-lane express toll facility on the north segment of I-405, which the legislature has conditionallyauthorized. WSDOT and I-405 stakeholders hope to expand express toll lanes and invest the fundsto cover the entire corridor including widening between Renton and Bellevue and a direct rampconnection to the existing SR 167 HOT lanes to provide a continuous 40+ mile I-405/SR 167

express toll lane corridor from Auburn to Lynnwood. This project has been given toll authority bythe Legislature subject to legislative acceptance of a new traffic and revenue analysis by theWashington State Transportation Commission. This approval is expected prior to Feb. 2013.

From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, [email protected]: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attachedDate: 6/22/2012 7:32:31 AMAttachments: CongressmanSmith_tolling_062112_001.docx; Future_Tolling_Projects_Map_060412.pdf

Hi Allison,

Here are the answers to Congressman Smith's questions. Will attach the Regional Toll Work Planmap in the morning for you, too. Good luck today and please call if you need anything! –Colleen(206-465-2311)






While WSDOT does not yet have legislative or federal approval to toll I-90, the 2011 Legislatureprovided WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling I-90. During the 2012 legislative session, thelegislature expanded the scope to include environmental work and public outreach to create theComprehensive Tolling Study and Environmental Review Project. Through ESSB 2190, the legislature directed WSDOT to “$1,500,000 of the motor vehicle account--federal appropriation is provided solely for the I-90 Comprehensive Tolling Study and Environmental

Review project (100067T). The department shall undertake a comprehensive environmental reviewof tolling Interstate 90 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managingtraffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded state route number 520 fromInterstate 5 to Medina project. The environmental review must include significant outreach topotentially affected communities. The department may consider traffic management options thatextend as far east as Issaquah.”

The NEPA environmental analysis is just getting started reviewing the environmental impacts oftolling I-90 and analyzing traffic and tolling scenarios. Informal outreach with area leaders isstarting now, with the formal public process beginning in January 2013. The environmental reviewprocess, possibly through an environmental analysis (EA) will go from August 2012 to October of2013.








WSDOT is currently operating a HOT lane pilot project on SR 167 and is in active development of adual-lane express toll facility on the north segment of I-405, which the legislature has conditionallyauthorized. WSDOT and I-405 stakeholders hope to expand express toll lanes and invest the fundsto cover the entire corridor including widening between Renton and Bellevue and a direct rampconnection to the existing SR 167 HOT lanes to provide a continuous 40+ mile I-405/SR 167express toll lane corridor from Auburn to Lynnwood. This project has been given toll authority bythe Legislature subject to legislative acceptance of a new traffic and revenue analysis by theWashington State Transportation Commission. This approval is expected prior to Feb. 2013.

From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, [email protected]: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attachedDate: 6/22/2012 7:32:31 AMAttachments: CongressmanSmith_tolling_062112_001.docx; Future_Tolling_Projects_Map_060412.pdf

Hi Allison,







While WSDOT does not yet have legislative or federal approval to toll I-90, the 2011 Legislatureprovided WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling I-90. During the 2012 legislative session, thelegislature expanded the scope to include environmental work and public outreach to create theComprehensive Tolling Study and Environmental Review Project. Through ESSB 2190, the legislature directed WSDOT to “$1,500,000 of the motor vehicle account--federal appropriation is provided solely for the I-90 Comprehensive Tolling Study and Environmental

Review project (100067T). The department shall undertake a comprehensive environmental reviewof tolling Interstate 90 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managingtraffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded state route number 520 fromInterstate 5 to Medina project. The environmental review must include significant outreach topotentially affected communities. The department may consider traffic management options thatextend as far east as Issaquah.”

The NEPA environmental analysis is just getting started reviewing the environmental impacts oftolling I-90 and analyzing traffic and tolling scenarios. Informal outreach with area leaders isstarting now, with the formal public process beginning in January 2013. The environmental reviewprocess, possibly through an environmental analysis (EA) will go from August 2012 to October of2013.








WSDOT is currently operating a HOT lane pilot project on SR 167 and is in active development of adual-lane express toll facility on the north segment of I-405, which the legislature has conditionallyauthorized. WSDOT and I-405 stakeholders hope to expand express toll lanes and invest the fundsto cover the entire corridor including widening between Renton and Bellevue and a direct rampconnection to the existing SR 167 HOT lanes to provide a continuous 40+ mile I-405/SR 167express toll lane corridor from Auburn to Lynnwood. This project has been given toll authority bythe Legislature subject to legislative acceptance of a new traffic and revenue analysis by theWashington State Transportation Commission. This approval is expected prior to Feb. 2013.

From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, [email protected]: RE: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attachedDate: 6/22/2012 10:00:31 AMAttachments:

This is perfect, thank you!!

From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 7:33 AMTo: Camden, AllisonCc: Michaud, Patricia; Stone, Craig; Rubstello, PattySubject: Tolling Q &A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attached

Hi Allison,







While WSDOT does not yet have legislative or federal approval to toll I-90, the 2011 Legislatureprovided WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling I-90. During the 2012 legislative session, thelegislature expanded the scope to include environmental work and public outreach to create theComprehensive Tolling Study and Environmental Review Project. Through ESSB 2190, the legislature directed WSDOT to “ $1,500,000 of the motor vehicle account--federal appropriation is provided solely for the I-90 Comprehensive Tolling Study and EnvironmentalReview project (100067T). The department shall undertake a comprehensive environmental reviewof tolling Interstate 90 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managingtraffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded state route number 520 fromInterstate 5 to Medina project. The environmental review must include significant outreach topotentially affected communities. The department may consider traffic management options thatextend as far east as Issaquah. ”







That said, WSDOT developed the Moving Washington vision favoring conversion of HOV lanes toexpress toll lane facilities to remedy HOV lane speed and reliability performance that does notmeet state or federal standards. The Puget Sound Regional Council has also adopted a regionaltransportation plan endorsing express toll lanes by 2030, which calls for full tolling of all limitedaccess highways by 2040. Tolling is in place on the SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, authorized forthe SR 99 deep bore tunnel and the I-5 Columbia River Crossing. The legislature has directedstudies considering tolling from I-90 across Lake Washington, and for long-planned corridorextensions to SR 509 and SR 167. The Legislature has funded toll feasibility studies or project

development funds for all of these efforts.


WSDOT is currently operating a HOT lane pilot project on SR 167 and is in active development of adual-lane express toll facility on the north segment of I-405, which the legislature has conditionallyauthorized. WSDOT and I-405 stakeholders hope to expand express toll lanes and invest thefunds to cover the entire corridor including widening between Renton and Bellevue and a directramp connection to the existing SR 167 HOT lanes to provide a continuous 40+ mile I-405/SR 167express toll lane corridor from Auburn to Lynnwood. This project has been given toll authority bythe Legislature subject to legislative acceptance of a new traffic and revenue analysis by theWashington State Transportation Commission. This approval is expected prior to Feb. 2013.

From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, [email protected]: RE: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attachedDate: 6/22/2012 10:00:31 AMAttachments:

This is perfect, thank you!!


Hi Allison,














That said, WSDOT developed the Moving Washington vision favoring conversion of HOV lanes toexpress toll lane facilities to remedy HOV lane speed and reliability performance that does notmeet state or federal standards. The Puget Sound Regional Council has also adopted a regionaltransportation plan endorsing express toll lanes by 2030, which calls for full tolling of all limitedaccess highways by 2040. Tolling is in place on the SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, authorized forthe SR 99 deep bore tunnel and the I-5 Columbia River Crossing. The legislature has directedstudies considering tolling from I-90 across Lake Washington, and for long-planned corridorextensions to SR 509 and SR 167. The Legislature has funded toll feasibility studies or project

development funds for all of these efforts.



From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, [email protected]: RE: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attachedDate: 6/22/2012 5:01:55 PMAttachments:

The meeting with Smith ’s district director went well. Thank you again for compiling all of thisinformation for me to use, it was very helpful. They may want the Congressman to meet with the tollingoffice early next year (assuming he wins reelection, starting in January he ’ll represent Mercer Island andBellevue). I ’ll keep you posted on that. -Allison


Hi Allison,






Use of previously authorized funding included in early tolling of SR 520 per scenario 7.Early HOT lane tolling on I-90 as soon as practicable.

Pursue filling the gap through federal and state revenue to be identified over the next twoyears.If the gap is not filled within that time, then move forward with general tolling of I-90 nosooner than 2014.








That said, WSDOT developed the Moving Washington vision favoring conversion of HOV lanes toexpress toll lane facilities to remedy HOV lane speed and reliability performance that does notmeet state or federal standards. The Puget Sound Regional Council has also adopted a regional

transportation plan endorsing express toll lanes by 2030, which calls for full tolling of all limitedaccess highways by 2040. Tolling is in place on the SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, authorized forthe SR 99 deep bore tunnel and the I-5 Columbia River Crossing. The legislature has directedstudies considering tolling from I-90 across Lake Washington, and for long-planned corridorextensions to SR 509 and SR 167. The Legislature has funded toll feasibility studies or projectdevelopment funds for all of these efforts.



From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, [email protected]: RE: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attachedDate: 6/22/2012 5:01:55 PMAttachments:



Hi Allison,






Use of previously authorized funding included in early tolling of SR 520 per scenario 7.Early HOT lane tolling on I-90 as soon as practicable.

Pursue filling the gap through federal and state revenue to be identified over the next twoyears.If the gap is not filled within that time, then move forward with general tolling of I-90 nosooner than 2014.








That said, WSDOT developed the Moving Washington vision favoring conversion of HOV lanes toexpress toll lane facilities to remedy HOV lane speed and reliability performance that does notmeet state or federal standards. The Puget Sound Regional Council has also adopted a regional

transportation plan endorsing express toll lanes by 2030, which calls for full tolling of all limitedaccess highways by 2040. Tolling is in place on the SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, authorized forthe SR 99 deep bore tunnel and the I-5 Columbia River Crossing. The legislature has directedstudies considering tolling from I-90 across Lake Washington, and for long-planned corridorextensions to SR 509 and SR 167. The Legislature has funded toll feasibility studies or projectdevelopment funds for all of these efforts.



From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Consultant Camden; Allison; Gants; Colleen (Consultant)Cc: Michaud; Patricia; Rubstello; PattySubject: RE: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attachedDate: 6/23/2012 1:06:24 AMAttachments:

Allison – I would be glad to meet with him in the future. Had one meeting with him in Federal Way yearsand years ago … Craig

From: Camden, AllisonSent: Friday, June 22, 2012 5:02 PMTo: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Cc: Michaud, Patricia; Stone, Craig; Rubstello, PattySubject: RE: Tolling Q &A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attached



Hi Allison,




As part of the overall efforts to fund the SR 520 bridge and ease congestion in the cross-lakecorridor, the 2008 SR 520 Toll Implementation Committee (Dick Ford, Paula Hammond, BobDrewel) engaged the public in a discussion focused on financing SR 520 improvements through tollscenarios on both the 520 and I-90 bridges. The 520 Committee reviewed the form that tollingmay take, traffic diversion, tolling and traffic management technology, and partnershipopportunities. Legislation instructed the Tolling Implementation Committee to survey citizens

about the project, and to submit a final report to the Governor and Legislature by January 2009.








From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Consultant Camden; Allison; Gants; Colleen (Consultant)Cc: Michaud; Patricia; Rubstello; PattySubject: RE: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attachedDate: 6/23/2012 1:06:24 AMAttachments:

Allison – I would be glad to meet with him in the future. Had one meeting with him in Federal Way yearsand years ago … Craig

From: Camden, AllisonSent: Friday, June 22, 2012 5:02 PMTo: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Cc: Michaud, Patricia; Stone, Craig; Rubstello, PattySubject: RE: Tolling Q &A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attached



Hi Allison,




As part of the overall efforts to fund the SR 520 bridge and ease congestion in the cross-lakecorridor, the 2008 SR 520 Toll Implementation Committee (Dick Ford, Paula Hammond, BobDrewel) engaged the public in a discussion focused on financing SR 520 improvements through tollscenarios on both the 520 and I-90 bridges. The 520 Committee reviewed the form that tollingmay take, traffic diversion, tolling and traffic management technology, and partnershipopportunities. Legislation instructed the Tolling Implementation Committee to survey citizens

about the project, and to submit a final report to the Governor and Legislature by January 2009.








From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Rubstello, [email protected]; Pope, David [email protected]: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Larsen, Chad [email protected]: RE: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tollingDate: 6/28/2012 7:40:29 PMAttachments:

The “federal participation” reference is similar to the current Sec. 129 and I believe it essentially meansthat states can toll the facilities listed thereafter. My take on the tolling changes in the conference reportis that tolling is still not allowed on I-90 unless we either reconstruct it or convert HOV to HOT lanes. Myunderstanding is that we plan to use our authority under the Value Pricing Pilot Program to toll I-90. TheVPP isn’t terminated in the bill (it just won’t receive any funding) so we should still be able to toll underthat authority. I will try to confirm with committee staff tomorrow that the VPP will indeed still exist. Letme know if you disagree with my interpretation.

From: Stone, CraigSent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:29 PMTo: Fellows, Rob; Camden, Allison; Rubstello, Patty; Pope, DavidCc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Larsen, ChadSubject: FW: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tollingImportance: High

We need to quickly assess from this whether the concept of tolling I-90 could be allowed or not. On myfirst read through section 1512 the key word appears to be ‘participation.’ Does this reflect use offederal-aid for tolled facilities, or does it include authorization/permission on interstate facilities? Pleasereview first thing and lets discuss how we think this could affect I-90 tolling. (Section 129 reconstructionappears good, as does adding lanes for express toll lanes and HOT lanes.) Craig

From: Rubstello, PattySent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:09 PMTo: Fellows, Rob; Stone, CraigSubject: Fwd: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tolling

Did we know this? I'm concerned.

Sent from my Samsung Epic™ 4G Touch

-------- Original message --------

Subject: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tolling

From: "Arnold, Paul" <[email protected]>

To: "Rubstello, Patty" <[email protected]>

CC:

Hi Patty -

I thought you might find this summary of the MAP-21 language useful. Our National Managed

Lanes Director provided a nice summary. He wanted me to mention that this is preliminary and he's

not a legal expert, but it does give a picture of where things are going at the federal level.

Thanks,

Paul

________________________________

From: Ungemah, David

Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 12:35 PM

To: Arnold, Paul

Subject: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tolling

Here is my review of the MAP-21 language as it specifically pertains to tolling / managed lanes. For

anyone interested in diving into the 700+ page bill, it’s attached. It’s gone through conference

committee now, but the House and Senate have yet to vote on the bill. That may occur tomorrow

(Senate) and Saturday (House). Stay tuned to for updates.

OK. Lots of changes in Federal law as a result of MAP-21 as it pertains to tolling and managed

lanes. I’ve looked through the changes to sections 1512 and 1514, which are the big ones for this

topic. There are also some interesting elements elsewhere, especially in the research program.

Some notes…

Section 1512

1) Authorization to toll. The general prohibition against tolling on the national highway system

has been relaxed.

a. States may now construct new toll lanes on existing highways, bridges, and tunnels provided

that the number of toll-free lanes on the corridor remains the same. This would seem to imply that

the use of shoulders for capacity expansion would potentially be permitted provided that the number

of “toll-free lanes” remains the same.

b. Reconstruction of toll-free bridges and tunnels may be converted to toll bridges / tunnels. This

has great application throughout the U.S., and could be a game-changer for many of our efforts to

rebuild the system. There is no limitation on type of facility in this application

c. Reconstruction of toll-free highways and conversion to toll facilities EXCEPT those on the

Interstate system. Again, there is great potential here.

d. HOV lanes may be converted, with limits (see below).

2) Use of revenue. The authorized uses for revenue generated on HOT lanes has been expanded

greatly. Eligible uses now include debt service, private return on investment, all O&M (including

rehab, restoration, resurfacing, and reconstruction), private obligations under P3 (presume

availability payments), and “any other purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated by a State”.

3) HOV conversions. In order to convert the HOV lane to a HOT lane (language still states that

“… may levy tolls on vehicles, excluding high occupancy vehicles…”), there are limitations:

a. The MPO for the region with the HOV facility must endorse the “placement and amount of

tolls on the converted facility”

b. The agency must “enforce sanctions for violations of use of the facility.”

c. Other requirements remain (automatic collection of tolls, variable pricing to manage demand)

4) State law permitting tolling. There’s an interesting new provision: “(9) STATE LAW

PERMITTING TOLLING.—If a State does not have a highway, bridge, or tunnel toll facility as of

the date of enactment of the MAP–21, before commencing any activity authorized under this

section, the State shall have in effect a law that permits tolling on a highway, bridge, or tunnel.” The

impact of this provision is limited to a few states, but there are ones out there as they affect managed

lanes. Hawaii and Oregon came to mind as potentially being affected.

5) Interoperability. Looks like we’re getting a national interoperability by 2016: “(b)

ELECTRONIC TOLL COLLECTION INTEROPERABILITY EQUIREMENTS.—Not later than 4

years after the date of enactment of this Act, all toll facilities on the Federal-aid highways shall

implement technologies or business practices that provide for the interoperability of electronic toll

collection programs.”

6) HOV definition. SAFETEA-LU was silent on the definition of an HOV. However, MAP-21

specifically states that an HOV “means a vehicle with not fewer than 2 occupants”. I am unsure

what the practical implication of this definition is, though, as this is the commonly accepted

language.

Section 1514 / Section 166 (HOV Facilities)

7) HOV performance requirements. MAP-21 states that in order to collect tolls on an HOV lane,

the agency “shall submit to the Secretary a report demonstrating that the facility is not

already degraded, and that the presence of the vehicles will not cause the facility to become

degraded, … and [submit] to the Secretary annual reports of those impact[s].” Additionally, if the

HOV facility is degraded, the agency must bring the facility into compliance by either increasing the

HOV occupancy requirement, varying tolls to reduce demand, discontinuing allowance for non-

HOV’s, or increase capacity. If the state fails to act, there are sanctions identified.

New Section: “America Fast Forward Financing Innovation Act of 2012”

8) Creates a new innovative financing chapter. This program seems (at first glance) similar to

TIFIA, in which case loans are repaid from a dedicated source of revenue to include tolls and user

fees.

Research

9) The ITS research code provides dedicated research to “demonstration programs, grant funding,

incentives to eligible entities, and other tools strategies or methods that will result in the deployment

of innovative ITS technologies.” Highest priority funding will be given to projects that enhance and

improve toll collection technologies

10) New research program for “Reducing Congestion, Improving Highway Operations, and

Enhancing Freight Productivity” to include research in active traffic and demand management (note

difference in terminology as defined below) and congestion pricing.

Other related elements

11) “Active Transportation and Demand Management” is now a defined term, as a subset of

“Transportation Systems Management and Operations”

12) “Congestion Pricing” is now a defined term, as a subset of “Transportation Systems

Management and Operations”

13) STP funding may be used for “Projects and strategies designed to support congestion pricing,

including electric toll collection and travel demand management strategies and programs.”

14) CMAQ funding may be used for an expanded list of projects, provided “if the project or

program shifts traffic demand to nonpeak hours or other transportation modes, increases vehicle

occupancy rates, or otherwise reduces demand for roads through such means as telecommuting,

ridesharing, carsharing, alternative work hours, and pricing.”

Still looking for information concerning mileage based user fees (as was announced by Jack Basso

on Tuesday), but I don’t see it.

David

David H. Ungemah

Senior Professional Associate

National Managed Lanes Director

Parsons Brinckerhoff

555 17th Street, Suite 500

Denver, CO 80202

720.837.1522 (direct)

303.803.2319 (mobile) - NOTE NEW NUMBER

[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

www.pbworld.com<http://www.pbworld.com/>

______________________________________________________________________

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 e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.

*** eSafe1 scanned this email for malicious content ***

*** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***

From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Rubstello, [email protected]; Pope, David [email protected]: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Larsen, Chad [email protected]: RE: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tollingDate: 6/28/2012 7:40:29 PMAttachments:











CC:

Hi Patty -




Thanks,

Paul

________________________________



To: Arnold, Paul









Some notes…

Section 1512


has been relaxed.



































language.












fees.

Research





















David

David H. Ungemah





Denver, CO 80202

720.837.1522 (direct)




______________________________________________________________________









From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Fellows; Rob; Camden; Allison; Rubstello; Patty; Pope; DavidCc: Consultant Arnold; Paul (Consultant); Larsen; ChadSubject: FW: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tollingDate: 6/29/2012 1:28:38 AMAttachments: CRPT-112hrpt-HR4348.pdf









CC:

Hi Patty -




Thanks,

Paul

________________________________



To: Arnold, Paul









Some notes…

Section 1512


has been relaxed.



































language.












fees.

Research





















David

David H. Ungemah





Denver, CO 80202

720.837.1522 (direct)




______________________________________________________________________

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Fellows; Rob; Camden; Allison; Rubstello; Patty; Pope; DavidCc: Consultant Arnold; Paul (Consultant); Larsen; ChadSubject: FW: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tollingDate: 6/29/2012 1:28:38 AMAttachments: CRPT-112hrpt-HR4348.pdf









CC:

Hi Patty -




Thanks,

Paul

________________________________



To: Arnold, Paul









Some notes…

Section 1512


has been relaxed.



































language.












fees.

Research





















David

David H. Ungemah





Denver, CO 80202

720.837.1522 (direct)




______________________________________________________________________

From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Rubstello, [email protected]; Pope, David [email protected]: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Larsen, Chad [email protected]: RE: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tollingDate: 6/29/2012 11:57:29 AMAttachments:

That IBTTA call seems to back up my assumption that the VPP is continued. That said, I will getconfirmation from committee staff (that might take a couple of days as I imagine they are all offcelebrating their victory right now).

From: Camden, AllisonSent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:40 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Pope, DavidCc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Larsen, ChadSubject: RE: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tolling











CC:

Hi Patty -




Thanks,

Paul

________________________________



To: Arnold, Paul









Some notes…

Section 1512


has been relaxed.



































language.












fees.

Research





















David

David H. Ungemah





Denver, CO 80202

720.837.1522 (direct)




______________________________________________________________________









From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Rubstello, [email protected]; Pope, David [email protected]: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Larsen, Chad [email protected]: RE: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tollingDate: 6/29/2012 11:57:29 AMAttachments:

That IBTTA call seems to back up my assumption that the VPP is continued. That said, I will getconfirmation from committee staff (that might take a couple of days as I imagine they are all offcelebrating their victory right now).

From: Camden, AllisonSent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:40 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Pope, DavidCc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Larsen, ChadSubject: RE: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tolling











CC:

Hi Patty -




Thanks,

Paul

________________________________



To: Arnold, Paul









Some notes…

Section 1512


has been relaxed.



































language.












fees.

Research





















David

David H. Ungemah





Denver, CO 80202

720.837.1522 (direct)




______________________________________________________________________









From: Fellows, Rob [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Merkens, Todd [email protected]; Pope, David [email protected]; Camden, Allison [email protected]:Subject: Value PricingDate: 7/3/2012 6:42:24 AMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent news - confirmation from FHWA that the Value Pricing toll authority remains intact as suspected.-- Rob

-----Original Message-----From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tue 7/3/2012 3:58 AMTo: Fellows, RobCc: [email protected]: RE: Pilot Programs

Rob,

While the grant program under the Value Pricing Pilot Program was not renewed in MAP-21, the tolling authority element of the program remains in place, so we will continue to have the ability to enter into new cooperative agreements for VPPP toll projects.

-Darren

From: Fellows, Rob [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 7:03 PMTo: Timothy, Darren (FHWA)Subject: RE: Pilot Programs

Darren, I probably should have mentioned that we sent in an expression of interest about I-90 back in 2009. We're hoping to update our secretary tomorrow on whether that option for tolling I-90 remains open to us at least in theory - if value pricing needed to be renewed to continue, we would need to reconsider our options.

Thanks,

-- Rob

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]>Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 1:32 PMTo: Fellows, RobCc: [email protected]: RE: Pilot Programs

Rob,

Each of the four toll pilot programs has its own timeframes and requirements-which ones do you have in mind?

-Darren

From: DeCorla-Souza, Patrick (FHWA)Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 4:01 PMTo: 'Fellows, RobCc: Timothy, Darren (FHWA)Subject: RE: Pilot Programs

Rob - I'm forwarding your question to Darren Timothy who now handles tolling authority issues.

From: Fellows, Rob [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 2:58 PMTo: DeCorla-Souza, Patrick (FHWA)Subject: Pilot Programs

Patrick, everyone we've spoken to about the reauthorization has assumed that the tolling pilot programs are not affected and will continue for the 10 year period they were established for. I'm just trying to get confirmation that staff there interprets this as we do - can you help me?

Thanks, and hope all is well for you.

-- Rob

_____________Rob FellowsToll Planning and Policy Manager || WSDOT Tolling Division401 Second Ave. S, Suite 300 || Seattle WA 98104

(206) 464-1257 || [email protected]

From: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ARNOLPLTo: HQ Design Rubstello; Patty; Singer; Rick; Barry; Ed (HQ Design); Angove; Angela; [email protected]:Subject: I-90 Tolling Project - Kickoff Meeting with FHWADate: 7/12/2012 9:49:00 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

When: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:30 PM-3:30 PM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).Where: 32nd Floor - Wells Fargo Building

Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Hello Everyone

I talked with Randy Everett from FHWA and he is available at this time. It seems to work for most of you on the invite list as well. It� s very difficult to find a time that works for everyone. We will use this time to introduce Randy to the I-90Tolling project and get his initial input on our proposed approach, project timeline, milestones and key FHWA requirements.

Rick and EdI� ve only been onboard as the Project Manager for the I-90 Tolling Project here at the Tolling Office for the past 6 weeks or so, but the team suggested that I include you on the invitation. I will amend this meeting invitation with a conference call dial-in number as soon as I can reserve one. I realize that some of you may not be able to attend in person.

Thanks,

Paul

From: Slack, Terri [email protected]: Todd Merkens [email protected]; Patty [email protected]: Craig Stone [email protected]: Fwd: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling agreementDate: 7/20/2012 5:21:11 PMAttachments:

FYI

Sent from my iPhone


From: "Boyd, Nancy" <[email protected]>

Date: July 20, 2012 5:13:49 PM PDT

To: "Slack, Terri (Consultant)" <[email protected]>, "Francis, Carley"

<[email protected]>

Cc: "Strickler, Kris" <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling

agreement

FYI – I was on a call today with Dan Mathis and Phil Ditzler (OR FHWA Division Administrator) andasked about this. Their response: MAP 21 doesn’t take effect until Oct 1st, and it will take at leastthat long for the administration to develop new rules. In the meantime, they request that wefollow the existing Safetea-lu process. Our letter can be addressed to John McAvoy.

From: Slack, Terri (Consultant) [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 5:57 PMTo: Francis, CarleyCc: Boyd, NancySubject: RE: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling agreement

Carley, I forwarded the EOI to Todd Merkens in the Toll Division who just spoke with FHWA/DC divisionregarding a toll agreement for the I-90 bridge. He was told they no longer know what the tollagreement is with MAP-21; that agreements may not be needed. Toll division will follow up in writing with FHWA to determine how MAP-21 influences tollagreements. Terri SlackGTC Program ManagerWork: 206-716-1163Cell: 404-889-7188

From: Francis, Carley [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 9:01 AMTo: Slack, Terri (Consultant)Cc: Boyd, NancySubject: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling agreement

Hi Terri, I drafted the attached as a first step for work with FHWA on the federal tolling agreement. I amhoping you can review and provide any feedback before it goes to Nancy and Kris for review. Thanks, Carley

Carley FrancisTolling and Financial Planning Specialist

Columbia River Crossing Project700 Washington Street, Suite 300 | Vancouver, WA 98660T 360.816.8869T 503.256.2726 x 8869 F 360.737.8869

*** eSafe1 scanned this email 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 theintended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients isstrictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to themessage and deleting it from your computer.

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]: [email protected]: Re: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling agreementDate: 7/20/2012 9:08:48 PMAttachments:

We have to sync up on this. We have an agreement with fhwa now that they won't sign. We can't

have different approaches taken with each project. Let chat on Monday. I think a call to Dan may be

in order.



Subject: Fwd: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling agreement

From: "Slack, Terri" <[email protected]>

To: "Merkens, Todd" <[email protected]>,"Rubstello, Patty" <[email protected]>

CC: "Stone, Craig" <[email protected]>

FYI

Sent from my iPhone


From: "Boyd, Nancy" <[email protected]>

Date: July 20, 2012 5:13:49 PM PDT

To: "Slack, Terri (Consultant)" <[email protected]>, "Francis, Carley"

<[email protected]>

Cc: "Strickler, Kris" <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling agreement

FYI – I was on a call today with Dan Mathis and Phil Ditzler (OR FHWA Division Administrator)

and asked about this. Their response: MAP 21 doesn’t take effect until Oct 1st, and it will take at

least that long for the administration to develop new rules. In the meantime, they request that we

follow the existing Safetea-lu process. Our letter can be addressed to John McAvoy.

From: Slack, Terri (Consultant) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 5:57 PM

To: Francis, Carley

Cc: Boyd, Nancy

Subject: RE: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling agreement

Carley,

I forwarded the EOI to Todd Merkens in the Toll Division who just spoke with FHWA/DC division

regarding a toll agreement for the I-90 bridge. He was told they no longer know what the toll

agreement is with MAP-21; that agreements may not be needed.

Toll division will follow up in writing with FHWA to determine how MAP-21 influences toll

agreements.

Terri Slack

GTC Program Manager

Work: 206-716-1163

Cell: 404-889-7188

From: Francis, Carley [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 9:01 AM

To: Slack, Terri (Consultant)

Cc: Boyd, Nancy

Subject: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling agreement

Hi Terri,

I drafted the attached as a first step for work with FHWA on the federal tolling agreement. I am

hoping you can review and provide any feedback before it goes to Nancy and Kris for review.

Thanks,

Carley

Carley Francis

Tolling and Financial Planning Specialist

Columbia River Crossing Project

700 Washington Street, Suite 300 | Vancouver, WA 98660

T 360.816.8869

T 503.256.2726 x 8869

F 360.737.8869



________________________________

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.

From: Fellows, Rob [email protected]: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Briglia, [email protected]: RE: Time Sensitive Rep. Larsen RequestDate: 7/30/2012 4:55:00 PMAttachments:

Allison, Craig is out this week, and Patty is out sick today. She might chime in, and Pete may have moreto add, but here are my immediate thoughts: Washington does not currently have any residential-based toll or fee discounts. The issue hasn’t come upto date, as far as I’m aware. That said, I could easily imagine that Mercer Island residents could seekresidential exemptions to paying HOT lane or general tolls on I-90, and both Vancouver and HaydenIsland residents may feel they are singled out and look for ways to shift the burden of tolls to thosemaking longer through-trips. Laws or precedence that supports special tolls based on residence havepotential to make rate-setting more challenging on both I-90 and the CRC project. The part of the bill I object to personally is section A(5), which declares (basically) that residential-basedtoll discounts are universally fair and appropriate regardless of the context or how they areimplemented. It seems obvious to me that even the strongest supporter of the concept could stillconceive of situations where residential discounts would *not* be fair or appropriate. To remove anycase that can be made against and residential discount seems unreasonably sweeping and doesn’tprovide useful guidance in my opinion. I know that FHWA is also very concerned about equity issuesregarding rate-setting which seeks to fund local improvements while putting the burden of tolls on out-of-state users who share little of the benefits. Hope this helps, and let me know if you have questions.-- Rob _____________Rob FellowsToll Planning and Policy Manager || WSDOT Tolling Division

401 Second Ave. S, Suite 300 || Seattle WA 98104


From: Camden, AllisonSent: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:29 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Briglia, PeteSubject: Time Sensitive Rep. Larsen Request

Hi Craig, Rob, Patty and Pete – On Wednesday the House of Representatives will vote on the attached bill, the Residential andCommuter Toll Fairness Act (I’ve also pasted the first three sections below). The bill basically reaffirmsthe ability of states or other public entities to provide residential toll discounts (the intent is to protect

the discount provided to Staten Island residents from constitutional challenges). It’s not expected to goanywhere past the vote in the House (it passed the House last Congress and never went anywhere), butRep. Rick Larsen is managing it for the Democrats and has asked if WSDOT has any concerns with the billor if there are any Washington issues of which he should be aware. I’m not aware of any toll discountsthat we provide but wanted to run this by you. Can you please take a look asap and let me know whatyou think? Thanks!-Allison

A BILLTo provide authority and sanction for the granting and issuance of programs forresidential and commuter toll, user fee and fare discounts by States,municipalities, other localities, and all related agencies and departments, and forother purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the UnitedStates of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.This Act may be cited as the `Residential and Commuter Toll Fairness Actof 2011'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) Residents of various localities and political subdivisionsthroughout the United States are subject to tolls, user fees, andfares to access certain roads, highways, bridges, railroads, busses,ferries, and other transportation systems.(2) Revenue generated from transportation tolls, user fees, andfares is used to support various infrastructure maintenance andcapital improvement projects that directly benefit commuters andindirectly benefit the regional and national economy.(3) Residents of certain municipalities, counties, and other localitiesendure significant or disproportionate toll, user fee, or fare burdenscompared to others who have a greater number of transportationoptions because such residents--

(A) live in geographic areas that are not conveniently locatedto the access points for roads, highways, bridges, rail,busses, ferries, and other transportation systems;(B) live on islands, peninsulas, or in other places that are onlyaccessible through a means that requires them to pay a toll,user fee, or fare; or(C) are required to pay much more for transportation accessthan residents of surrounding jurisdictions, or in otherjurisdictions across the country, for similar transportationoptions.

(4) To address this inequality, and to reduce the financial hardshipoften imposed on such residents, several State and municipalgovernments and multi-State transportation authorities haveestablished programs that authorize discounted transportation tolls,

user fees, and fares for such residents.(5) Transportation toll, user fee, and fare discount programs basedon residential status--

(A) address actual unequal and undue financial burdensplaced on residents who live in areas that are only accessiblethrough a means that requires them to pay a toll, user fee, orfare;(B) do not disadvantage or discriminate against thoseindividuals ineligible for residential toll, user fee, or farediscount programs;(C) are not designed to favor the interests or promote thedomestic industry or economic development of the Stateimplementing such programs;(D) do not interfere or impose undue burdens on commercewith foreign nations or interfere or impose any undue burdenson commerce among the several States, or commerce withinparticular States;(E) do not interfere or impose undue burdens on the ability ofindividuals to travel among, or within, the several States;(F) do not constitute inequitable treatment or deny anyperson within the jurisdiction of the United States the equalprotection of the laws; and(G) do not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens ofthe United States.

(b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are--(1) to clarify the existing authority of States, counties,municipalities, and multi-jurisdictional transportation authorities toestablish programs that offer discounted transportation tolls, userfees, and fares for residents in specific geographic areas; and(2) to authorize the establishment of such programs, as necessary.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF LOCAL RESIDENTIAL ORCOMMUTER TOLL, USER FEE OR FARE DISCOUNTPROGRAMS.

(a) Authority To Provide Residential or Commuter Toll, User Fee, or FareDiscount Programs- States, counties, municipalities, and multi-jurisdictional transportation authorities that operate or manage roads,highways, bridges, railroads, busses, ferries, or other transportationsystems are authorized to establish programs that offer discountedtransportation tolls, user fees, or other fares for residents of specificgeographic areas in order to reduce or alleviate toll burdens imposed uponsuch residents.(b) Rulemaking With Respect to the State, Local, or Agency Provision ofToll, User Fee or Fare Discount Programs to Local Residents orCommuters- States, counties, municipalities, and multi-jurisdictionaltransportation authorities that operate or manage roads, highways,bridges, railroads, busses, ferries, or other transportation systems areauthorized to enact such rules or regulations that may be necessary toestablish the programs authorized under subsection (a).(c) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this Act may be construed to limit or

otherwise interfere with the authority, as of the date of the enactment ofthis Act, of States, counties, municipalities, and multi-jurisdictionaltransportation authorities that operate or manage roads, highways,bridges, railroads, busses, ferries, or other transportation systems.


From: Briglia, Pete [email protected]: Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Camden, Allison [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: RE: Time Sensitive Rep. Larsen RequestDate: 7/30/2012 4:56:28 PMAttachments:

Hi Allison I agree with Rob’s response and don’t have anything to add.

Pete

From: Fellows, RobSent: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:55 PMTo: Camden, AllisonCc: Stone, Craig; Rubstello, Patty; Briglia, PeteSubject: RE: Time Sensitive Rep. Larsen Request

Allison, Craig is out this week, and Patty is out sick today. She might chime in, and Pete may have moreto add, but here are my immediate thoughts: Washington does not currently have any residential-based toll or fee discounts. The issue hasn’t come upto date, as far as I’m aware. That said, I could easily imagine that Mercer Island residents could seekresidential exemptions to paying HOT lane or general tolls on I-90, and both Vancouver and HaydenIsland residents may feel they are singled out and look for ways to shift the burden of tolls to thosemaking longer through-trips. Laws or precedence that supports special tolls based on residence havepotential to make rate-setting more challenging on both I-90 and the CRC project. The part of the bill I object to personally is section A(5), which declares (basically) that residential-basedtoll discounts are universally fair and appropriate regardless of the context or how they areimplemented. It seems obvious to me that even the strongest supporter of the concept could stillconceive of situations where residential discounts would *not* be fair or appropriate. To remove anycase that can be made against and residential discount seems unreasonably sweeping and doesn’tprovide useful guidance in my opinion. I know that FHWA is also very concerned about equity issuesregarding rate-setting which seeks to fund local improvements while putting the burden of tolls on out-of-state users who share little of the benefits. Hope this helps, and let me know if you have questions.-- Rob _____________Rob FellowsToll Planning and Policy Manager || WSDOT Tolling Division

401 Second Ave. S, Suite 300 || Seattle WA 98104


From: Camden, AllisonSent: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:29 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Briglia, PeteSubject: Time Sensitive Rep. Larsen Request

Hi Craig, Rob, Patty and Pete – On Wednesday the House of Representatives will vote on the attached bill, the Residential andCommuter Toll Fairness Act (I’ve also pasted the first three sections below). The bill basically reaffirmsthe ability of states or other public entities to provide residential toll discounts (the intent is to protectthe discount provided to Staten Island residents from constitutional challenges). It’s not expected to goanywhere past the vote in the House (it passed the House last Congress and never went anywhere), butRep. Rick Larsen is managing it for the Democrats and has asked if WSDOT has any concerns with the billor if there are any Washington issues of which he should be aware. I’m not aware of any toll discountsthat we provide but wanted to run this by you. Can you please take a look asap and let me know whatyou think? Thanks!-Allison

A BILLTo provide authority and sanction for the granting and issuance of programs forresidential and commuter toll, user fee and fare discounts by States,municipalities, other localities, and all related agencies and departments, and forother purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the UnitedStates of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.This Act may be cited as the `Residential and Commuter Toll Fairness Actof 2011'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) Residents of various localities and political subdivisionsthroughout the United States are subject to tolls, user fees, andfares to access certain roads, highways, bridges, railroads, busses,ferries, and other transportation systems.(2) Revenue generated from transportation tolls, user fees, andfares is used to support various infrastructure maintenance andcapital improvement projects that directly benefit commuters andindirectly benefit the regional and national economy.(3) Residents of certain municipalities, counties, and other localitiesendure significant or disproportionate toll, user fee, or fare burdenscompared to others who have a greater number of transportationoptions because such residents--

(A) live in geographic areas that are not conveniently locatedto the access points for roads, highways, bridges, rail,busses, ferries, and other transportation systems;(B) live on islands, peninsulas, or in other places that are only

accessible through a means that requires them to pay a toll,user fee, or fare; or(C) are required to pay much more for transportation accessthan residents of surrounding jurisdictions, or in otherjurisdictions across the country, for similar transportationoptions.

(4) To address this inequality, and to reduce the financial hardshipoften imposed on such residents, several State and municipalgovernments and multi-State transportation authorities haveestablished programs that authorize discounted transportation tolls,user fees, and fares for such residents.(5) Transportation toll, user fee, and fare discount programs basedon residential status--

(A) address actual unequal and undue financial burdensplaced on residents who live in areas that are only accessiblethrough a means that requires them to pay a toll, user fee, orfare;(B) do not disadvantage or discriminate against thoseindividuals ineligible for residential toll, user fee, or farediscount programs;(C) are not designed to favor the interests or promote thedomestic industry or economic development of the Stateimplementing such programs;(D) do not interfere or impose undue burdens on commercewith foreign nations or interfere or impose any undue burdenson commerce among the several States, or commerce withinparticular States;(E) do not interfere or impose undue burdens on the ability ofindividuals to travel among, or within, the several States;(F) do not constitute inequitable treatment or deny anyperson within the jurisdiction of the United States the equalprotection of the laws; and(G) do not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens ofthe United States.

(b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are--(1) to clarify the existing authority of States, counties,municipalities, and multi-jurisdictional transportation authorities toestablish programs that offer discounted transportation tolls, userfees, and fares for residents in specific geographic areas; and(2) to authorize the establishment of such programs, as necessary.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF LOCAL RESIDENTIAL ORCOMMUTER TOLL, USER FEE OR FARE DISCOUNTPROGRAMS.

(a) Authority To Provide Residential or Commuter Toll, User Fee, or FareDiscount Programs- States, counties, municipalities, and multi-jurisdictional transportation authorities that operate or manage roads,highways, bridges, railroads, busses, ferries, or other transportationsystems are authorized to establish programs that offer discountedtransportation tolls, user fees, or other fares for residents of specific

geographic areas in order to reduce or alleviate toll burdens imposed uponsuch residents.(b) Rulemaking With Respect to the State, Local, or Agency Provision ofToll, User Fee or Fare Discount Programs to Local Residents orCommuters- States, counties, municipalities, and multi-jurisdictionaltransportation authorities that operate or manage roads, highways,bridges, railroads, busses, ferries, or other transportation systems areauthorized to enact such rules or regulations that may be necessary toestablish the programs authorized under subsection (a).(c) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this Act may be construed to limit orotherwise interfere with the authority, as of the date of the enactment ofthis Act, of States, counties, municipalities, and multi-jurisdictionaltransportation authorities that operate or manage roads, highways,bridges, railroads, busses, ferries, or other transportation systems.


From: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]:Subject: Meeting to Discuss FHWA Role and Information related to I-90 TollingDate: 8/2/2012 12:19:56 PMAttachments:

Hi Angela and Paul, I have had the opportunity to meet with several people regarding FHWA roles, review times, legalrequirements, tolling requirements, etc. now and have a final initial kick-off meeting with the Division onMonday morning. Since I will be out of town from August 13-24, I thought it might be a good idea if wemet to discuss these things before I left so you have some good starting points from us. I also would liketo definitely include Patti (unsure on spelling or e-mail address for her) since I have some directinformation on the tolling process that I want to assure she and I are in step on. Would a meeting nextweek work for you? Thanks Randy EverettFHWA Major Projects Oversight ManagerPhone: 206-220-7538E-mail: [email protected]

From: Angove, Angela [email protected]: Everett, Randolph (FHWA) [email protected]; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)[email protected]; Arnold, Paul [email protected]:Subject: RE: Meeting to Discuss FHWA Role and Information related to I-90 TollingDate: 8/2/2012 12:56:08 PMAttachments:

Randy,Thanks for following up with us. I know that Paul is out next week. Any chance we can touch basestomorrow?Angela

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:20 PMTo: Angove, Angela; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)Subject: Meeting to Discuss FHWA Role and Information related to I-90 Tolling

Hi Angela and Paul, I have had the opportunity to meet with several people regarding FHWA roles, review times, legalrequirements, tolling requirements, etc. now and have a final initial kick-off meeting with the Division onMonday morning. Since I will be out of town from August 13-24, I thought it might be a good idea if wemet to discuss these things before I left so you have some good starting points from us. I also would liketo definitely include Patti (unsure on spelling or e-mail address for her) since I have some directinformation on the tolling process that I want to assure she and I are in step on. Would a meeting nextweek work for you? Thanks Randy EverettFHWA Major Projects Oversight ManagerPhone: 206-220-7538E-mail: [email protected]

From: Angove, Angela [email protected]: Everett, Randy (Consultant) [email protected]; Everett, Randolph (FHWA) [email protected]; Arnold, Paul [email protected]; Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; [email protected]:Subject: FHWA feedback on I-90 TollingDate: 8/2/2012 3:27:57 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

When: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).Where: Angela's office and Phone Conference 206-440-5007 PIN# 432109

Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Following Randy� s email, he just stopped by to confirm that he� s meeting with FHWA division staff next week. Following that meeting Randy would like to meet with us to go over a few items that we initially covered in our mini kick-off meeting with him and a few additional items that will be good to have as we move forward over the next couple of months. I know Paul is out but I was hoping that Patty and I could cover. Hope this works for everyone.Just in case folks arrive/call in late, I� ve set aside an hour knowing that we won� t need the entire time.

David,I have you as optional in case you� d like to hear early FHWA feedback on schedule, tolling, legal reviews, etc.Angela

From: Arnis, Amy [email protected]: [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Smith, Helena Kennedy [email protected]; Struna, Rich [email protected]: FW: Tolling I90Date: 8/28/2012 8:10:27 AMAttachments: Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf------------------------------------------------------------

Is this the most up to date information on this topic? Did anything change under MAP-21?

-----Original Message-----From: Ziegler, JenniferSent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 3:11 PMTo: Arnis, AmySubject: FW: Tolling I90

Here is the FHWA response regarding tolling I-90.

-----Original Message-----From: Fellows, RobSent: Thu 10/29/2009 1:44 PMTo: Arnis, Amy; Rubstello, PattyCc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena KennedySubject: RE: Tolling I90

We requested from FHWA guidance about the different approaches open to us to apply for tolling authority on I-90; there is a standard "expression of interest" form. The response is attached. Let me know if this is not what you were looking for or if there is something more I can provide.

-- Rob

-----Original Message-----From: Arnis, AmySent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:42 PMTo: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, RobCc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena KennedySubject: Tolling I90

Craig told me that one of you would have the paper/report regarding how we might attain federal approval to toll I90. Could you forward to me. Thank you.

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Arnis, Amy [email protected]; Ziegler, Jennifer [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Smith, Helena Kennedy [email protected]; Struna, Rich [email protected]: RE: Tolling I90Date: 8/28/2012 8:22:22 AMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, however I have a call with FHWA today to discuss next steps. So far the word on MAP-21 is that didn't affect the Value Pricing Pilot Program which is the only federal program that would allow tolling existing general purpose capacity. It� s the only program that will continue to require a tolling agreement with FHWA.

Patty Rubstello, PEToll Systems Development & EngineeringWSDOT(206)464-1299

-----Original Message-----From: Arnis, AmySent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:10 AMTo: Ziegler, Jennifer; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, PattyCc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Struna, RichSubject: FW: Tolling I90

Is this the most up to date information on this topic? Did anything change under MAP-21?

-----Original Message-----From: Ziegler, JenniferSent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 3:11 PMTo: Arnis, AmySubject: FW: Tolling I90

Here is the FHWA response regarding tolling I-90.

-----Original Message-----From: Fellows, RobSent: Thu 10/29/2009 1:44 PMTo: Arnis, Amy; Rubstello, PattyCc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena KennedySubject: RE: Tolling I90

We requested from FHWA guidance about the different approaches open to us to apply for tolling authority on I-90; there is a standard "expression of interest" form. The response is attached. Let me know if this is not what you were looking for or if there is something more I can provide.

-- Rob

-----Original Message-----

From: Arnis, AmySent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:42 PMTo: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, RobCc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena KennedySubject: Tolling I90

Craig told me that one of you would have the paper/report regarding how we might attain federal approval to toll I90. Could you forward to me. Thank you.

From: Fellows, Rob [email protected]: Arnis, Amy [email protected]: Ziegler, Jennifer [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Smith, Helena Kennedy [email protected]; Struna, Rich [email protected]: Re: Tolling I90Date: 8/28/2012 8:25:11 AMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

The new tolling provisions in MAP-21 don't help us with I-90, so our best bet remains with the Value Pricing program.

There was some concern about whether the value pricing program or other tolling pilot projects would continue since they were not referenced in MAP-21, but FHWA sent me an email stating that while there is no new funding attached to those programs toll authority can still be granted under value pricing.

There is an FHWA webinar on MAP-21 tolling provisions at noon today that I plan to listen in on for the first half. If I learn anything new I'll pass it along.

-- Rob

On Aug 28, 2012, at 8:10 AM, "Arnis, Amy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Is this the most up to date information on this topic? Did anything change under MAP-21?>> -----Original Message-----> From: Ziegler, Jennifer> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 3:11 PM> To: Arnis, Amy> Subject: FW: Tolling I90>> Here is the FHWA response regarding tolling I-90.>>>> -----Original Message-----> From: Fellows, Rob> Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 1:44 PM> To: Arnis, Amy; Rubstello, Patty> Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy> Subject: RE: Tolling I90>> We requested from FHWA guidance about the different approaches open to us to apply for tolling authority on I-90; there is a standard "expression of interest" form. The response is attached. Let me know if this is not what you were looking for or if there is something more I can provide.>> -- Rob>> -----Original Message-----> From: Arnis, Amy> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:42 PM> To: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob

> Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy> Subject: Tolling I90>> Craig told me that one of you would have the paper/report regarding how we might attain federal approval to toll I90. Could you forward to me. Thank you.>>>> <Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf>

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]; Colyar, James (FHWA) [email protected]; Arnold, Paul(Consultant) [email protected]: I-90 Tolling Agreement needDate: 8/28/2012 12:46:42 PMAttachments: Untitled Attachment; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009_001.pdf

Angel, Again, thank you for the phone conversation today. I’ve attached our previous expression of interestwith regards to tolling I-90 which was submitted back in 2008. Since the submission, our legislature hasfunded an effort to further study I-90 tolling with a key interest in generating significant revenue. Thestudy is just getting underway but with the passage of MAP 21, we would like to know how MAP 21would affect the need for a tolling agreement. With the presumption that to generate significantrevenue on I-90 general purpose lanes would need to be tolled, would a tolling agreement under valuepricing program be needed? Your feedback is very much appreciated. Let me know if there is moredetail you need on this topic. Have a great Labor Day weekend!Patty Patty Rubstello, PEToll Systems Development & EngineeringWSDOT(206)464-1299New cell (206)790-2217

From: Arnis, Amy [email protected]: Fellows, Rob [email protected]: Ziegler, Jennifer [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Smith, Helena Kennedy [email protected]; Struna, Rich [email protected]: RE: Tolling I90Date: 8/31/2012 8:28:06 AMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Will there be an updated "white paper", as opposed to an email string on this topic now that you have participated in the webinar?

-----Original Message-----From: Fellows, RobSent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:25 AMTo: Arnis, AmyCc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Struna, RichSubject: Re: Tolling I90




-- Rob


> Is this the most up to date information on this topic? Did anything change under MAP-21?>> -----Original Message-----> From: Ziegler, Jennifer> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 3:11 PM> To: Arnis, Amy> Subject: FW: Tolling I90>> Here is the FHWA response regarding tolling I-90.>>>> -----Original Message-----> From: Fellows, Rob> Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 1:44 PM> To: Arnis, Amy; Rubstello, Patty> Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy> Subject: RE: Tolling I90>

> We requested from FHWA guidance about the different approaches open to us to apply for tolling authority on I-90; there is a standard "expression of interest" form. The response is attached. Let me know if this is not what you were looking for or if there is something more I can provide.>> -- Rob>> -----Original Message-----> From: Arnis, Amy> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:42 PM> To: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob> Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy> Subject: Tolling I90>> Craig told me that one of you would have the paper/report regarding how we might attain federal approval to toll I90. Could you forward to me. Thank you.>>>> <Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf>

From: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: RE: I-90 Tolling Agreement needDate: 9/4/2012 12:42:52 PMAttachments:

Patty, Angela has been able to talk to Michael Harkins (in our Chief Counsel’s office) and asked that I follow upwith you on your question below. Under MAP-21, we believe a VPPP tolling agreement is still necessary. The statute establishing the VPPP(Section 1012(b)(1) of ISTEA, as amended) requires the execution of a cooperative agreement toestablish value pricing projects (we have been using the cooperative agreements as the toll agreements). Thus, we must continue executing cooperative agreements for any value pricing project we allow. For the I-90 project, we discussed a next step being that you notify us (email is fine with us) stating thatWSDOT is seeking authority to toll the existing lanes of the I-90 bridge. Please also provide any otherdetails or documents that describe the project further (e.g., discounts anticipated, tolling rate structureand objectives, toll point locations and methods, similarities to SR 520 tolling, etc.). One point to keep inmind is that under a VPPP agreement, it is required to vary the toll to manage demand (set schedule likeSR520 or something else). Let me know if you have any questions about this.Thanks,James

From: Rubstello, Patty [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:47 PMTo: Jacobs, Angela (FHWA)Cc: Everett, Randolph (FHWA); Colyar, James (FHWA); Arnold, Paul (Consultant)Subject: I-90 Tolling Agreement need

Angel, Again, thank you for the phone conversation today. I’ve attached our previous expression of interestwith regards to tolling I-90 which was submitted back in 2008. Since the submission, our legislature hasfunded an effort to further study I-90 tolling with a key interest in generating significant revenue. Thestudy is just getting underway but with the passage of MAP 21, we would like to know how MAP 21would affect the need for a tolling agreement. With the presumption that to generate significantrevenue on I-90 general purpose lanes would need to be tolled, would a tolling agreement under valuepricing program be needed? Your feedback is very much appreciated. Let me know if there is moredetail you need on this topic. Have a great Labor Day weekend!

Patty Patty Rubstello, PEToll Systems Development & EngineeringWSDOT(206)464-1299New cell (206)790-2217

From: Arnold, Paul [email protected]: [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]@wsdot.wa.gov; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]: [email protected] [email protected]: FW: I-90 Tolling Agreement needDate: 9/4/2012 1:39:34 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Colleen, Angela and David -

I thought you should all be in the loop on this.

Paul

________________________________From: [email protected] [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 12:42 PMTo: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: RE: I-90 Tolling Agreement need

Patty,

Angela has been able to talk to Michael Harkins (in our Chief Counsel� s office) and asked that I follow up with you on your question below.

Under MAP-21, we believe a VPPP tolling agreement is still necessary. The statute establishing the VPPP (Section 1012(b)(1) of ISTEA, as amended) requires the execution of a cooperative agreement to establish value pricing projects (we have been using the cooperative agreements as the toll agreements). Thus, we must continue executing cooperative agreements for any value pricing project we allow.

For the I-90 project, we discussed a next step being that you notify us (email is fine with us) stating that WSDOT is seeking authority to toll the existing lanes of the I-90 bridge. Please also provide any other details or documents that describe the project further (e.g., discounts anticipated, tolling rate structure and objectives, toll point locations and methods, similarities to SR 520 tolling, etc.). One point to keep in mind is that under a VPPP agreement, it is required to vary the toll to manage demand (set schedule like SR520 or something else).

Let me know if you have any questions about this.Thanks,James

From: Rubstello, Patty [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:47 PMTo: Jacobs, Angela (FHWA)Cc: Everett, Randolph (FHWA); Colyar, James (FHWA); Arnold, Paul (Consultant)Subject: I-90 Tolling Agreement need

Angel,

Again, thank you for the phone conversation today. I� ve attached our previous expression of interest with regards to tolling I-90 which was submitted back in 2008. Since the submission, our legislature has funded an effort to further study I-90 tolling with a key interest in generating significant revenue. The study is just getting underway but with the passage of MAP 21, we would like to know how MAP 21 would affect the need for a tolling agreement. With the presumption that to generate significant revenue on I-90 general purpose lanes would need to be tolled, would a tolling agreement under value pricing program be needed? Your feedback is very much appreciated. Let me know if there is more detail you need on this topic.

Have a great Labor Day weekend!Patty

Patty Rubstello, PEToll Systems Development & EngineeringWSDOT(206)464-1299New cell (206)790-2217

______________________________________________________________________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 e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.

From: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]: Fellows, Rob [email protected]; White, John [email protected]:Subject: FW: I-90 Tolling Agreement needDate: 9/5/2012 9:49:53 AMAttachments:

Hi Rob and John – I thought I’d keep you both in the loop on this conversation. John – We are using the Value Pricing Program as the administrative vehicle to allow tolling on an interstatehighway. Thanks, Paul

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 12:43 PMTo: Rubstello, PattyCc: Everett, Randolph (FHWA); Arnold, Paul (Consultant); [email protected]: RE: I-90 Tolling Agreement need

Patty, Angela has been able to talk to Michael Harkins (in our Chief Counsel’s office) and asked that I follow upwith you on your question below. Under MAP-21, we believe a VPPP tolling agreement is still necessary. The statute establishing the VPPP(Section 1012(b)(1) of ISTEA, as amended) requires the execution of a cooperative agreement toestablish value pricing projects (we have been using the cooperative agreements as the toll agreements). Thus, we must continue executing cooperative agreements for any value pricing project we allow. For the I-90 project, we discussed a next step being that you notify us (email is fine with us) stating thatWSDOT is seeking authority to toll the existing lanes of the I-90 bridge. Please also provide any otherdetails or documents that describe the project further (e.g., discounts anticipated, tolling rate structureand objectives, toll point locations and methods, similarities to SR 520 tolling, etc.). One point to keep inmind is that under a VPPP agreement, it is required to vary the toll to manage demand (set schedule likeSR520 or something else). Let me know if you have any questions about this.Thanks,James

From: Arnold, Paul [email protected]: White, John [email protected]; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)[email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]:Subject: RE: I-90 Tolling Agreement needDate: 9/5/2012 10:35:52 AMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Hi John -

I think that depends on the level of detail and certainty FHWA requires. In the e-mail below James mentioned discounts, tolling rate structure and objectives, toll point locations and methods. I'll address each one separately below:

- Discounts: It's likely that Mercer Island will seek some sort of discount. Also, we may still need to discuss discounts in the context of the 2+, 3+ HOV designation. There are likely some opinions within WSDOT, but I'm not aware of any firm decisions that address discounts. So if FHWA is looking for a definitive statement regarding discounts, I don't think we're there yet.

- Tolling rate structure: I think we can be comfortable assuming that the toll rate structure would vary by time of day similar to SR 520. The actual toll rates, have yet to be determined and won't be for some time. Helena has been doing a number of sensitivity analyses regarding the financial impact of different I-90 tolling rates (e.g. same as SR 520, 2/3rds of SR520 rates, etc.). I believe the preliminary analysis is indicating that there is still an unfunded gap for the SR 520 program even with an identical rate structure.

- Toll Points: The project currently assumes a single point tolling method with operations similar to SR 520. The location of the gantries is currently assumed to be on the west side of Mercer Island (providing free access and egress to Mercer Island from the east). We may need to look at a location on the east side of Mercer Island based on input from the public involvement process. If FHWA is comfortable with a location reference that identifies Mercer Island in general then we're fine. If they want to know which side of the island, then we would have to wait until we get more input from the public involvment process.

- Tolling Objectives: I believe this is clear. The object of tolling I-90 is to generate revenue for significant improvements in the Cross-Lake Washington corridor and to manage congestion.

We worked with James on the Alaskan Way Viaduct Transportation Discipline Report for the EIS. It will be worth our time to keep James in the loop on our progress and approach to resolving some of these questions as he will likely have an opinion on how some of these assumptions should be reflected in our technical analyses.

Rob - Any comments or additional thoughts?

Thanks,

Paul

________________________________From: White, John [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:52 AMTo: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Fellows, RobSubject: RE: I-90 Tolling Agreement need

Thanks Paul, I saw this yesterday. Is the feeling that there is enough system definition to make this request now?

From: Arnold, Paul (Consultant)Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:50 AMTo: Fellows, Rob; White, JohnSubject: FW: I-90 Tolling Agreement need

Hi Rob and John

I thought I� d keep you both in the loop on this conversation.

John

We are using the Value Pricing Program as the administrative vehicle to allow tolling on an interstate highway.

Thanks,

Paul

From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 12:43 PMTo: Rubstello, PattyCc: Everett, Randolph (FHWA); Arnold, Paul (Consultant); [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>Subject: RE: I-90 Tolling Agreement need

Patty,

Angela has been able to talk to Michael Harkins (in our Chief Counsel� s office) and asked that I follow up with you on your question below.

Under MAP-21, we believe a VPPP tolling agreement is still necessary. The statute establishing the VPPP (Section 1012(b)(1) of ISTEA, as amended) requires the execution of a cooperative agreement to establish value pricing projects (we have been using the cooperative agreements as the toll agreements). Thus, we must continue executing cooperative agreements for any value pricing project we allow.

For the I-90 project, we discussed a next step being that you notify us (email is fine with us) stating that WSDOT is seeking authority to toll the existing lanes of the I-90 bridge. Please also provide any other details or documents that describe the project further (e.g., discounts anticipated, tolling rate structure and objectives, toll point locations and methods, similarities to SR 520 tolling, etc.). One point to keep in mind is that under a VPPP agreement, it is required to vary the toll to manage demand (set schedule like SR520 or something else).

Let me know if you have any questions about this.Thanks,James


Angel,

Again, thank you for the phone conversation today. I� ve attached our previous expression of interest with regards to tolling I-90 which was submitted back in 2008. Since the submission, our legislature has funded an effort to further study I-90 tolling with a key interest in generating significant revenue. The study is just getting underway but with the passage of MAP 21, we would like to know how MAP 21 would affect the need for a tolling agreement. With the presumption that to generate significant revenue on I-90 general purpose lanes would need to be tolled, would a tolling agreement under value pricing program be needed? Your feedback is very much appreciated. Let me know if there is

more detail you need on this topic.

Have a great Labor Day weekend!Patty

Patty Rubstello, PEToll Systems Development & EngineeringWSDOT(206)464-1299New cell (206)790-2217


From: Fellows, Rob [email protected]: White, John [email protected]; Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]:Subject: RE: I-90 Tolling Agreement needDate: 9/5/2012 10:36:18 AMAttachments:

That was my question too – if they want to know what discounts and pricing structure we’ll have, thenthe email would be premature. But if we thought there was any danger in waiting to send the email untilwe’ve sorted all that out, then we’d want to do it sooner. If I was Patty I’d carry this email conversationon further to discuss the timing question.-- Rob

From: White, JohnSent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:53 AMTo: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Fellows, RobSubject: RE: I-90 Tolling Agreement need

Thanks Paul, I saw this yesterday. Is the feeling that there is enough system definition to make thisrequest now?




Patty, Angela has been able to talk to Michael Harkins (in our Chief Counsel’s office) and asked that I follow up

with you on your question below. Under MAP-21, we believe a VPPP tolling agreement is still necessary. The statute establishing the VPPP(Section 1012(b)(1) of ISTEA, as amended) requires the execution of a cooperative agreement toestablish value pricing projects (we have been using the cooperative agreements as the toll agreements). Thus, we must continue executing cooperative agreements for any value pricing project we allow. For the I-90 project, we discussed a next step being that you notify us (email is fine with us) stating thatWSDOT is seeking authority to toll the existing lanes of the I-90 bridge. Please also provide any otherdetails or documents that describe the project further (e.g., discounts anticipated, tolling rate structureand objectives, toll point locations and methods, similarities to SR 520 tolling, etc.). One point to keep inmind is that under a VPPP agreement, it is required to vary the toll to manage demand (set schedule likeSR520 or something else). Let me know if you have any questions about this.Thanks,James



From: White, John /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=WHITEJHTo: Consultant Arnold; Paul (Consultant); Fellows; RobCc:Subject: RE: I-90 Tolling Agreement needDate: 9/5/2012 4:52:00 PMAttachments:

Thanks Paul, I saw this yesterday. Is the feeling that there is enough system definition to make thisrequest now?




Patty, Angela has been able to talk to Michael Harkins (in our Chief Counsel’s office) and asked that I follow upwith you on your question below. Under MAP-21, we believe a VPPP tolling agreement is still necessary. The statute establishing the VPPP(Section 1012(b)(1) of ISTEA, as amended) requires the execution of a cooperative agreement toestablish value pricing projects (we have been using the cooperative agreements as the toll agreements). Thus, we must continue executing cooperative agreements for any value pricing project we allow. For the I-90 project, we discussed a next step being that you notify us (email is fine with us) stating thatWSDOT is seeking authority to toll the existing lanes of the I-90 bridge. Please also provide any otherdetails or documents that describe the project further (e.g., discounts anticipated, tolling rate structureand objectives, toll point locations and methods, similarities to SR 520 tolling, etc.). One point to keep in

mind is that under a VPPP agreement, it is required to vary the toll to manage demand (set schedule likeSR520 or something else). Let me know if you have any questions about this.Thanks,James



From: Baker, T Brent [email protected]: Evans, Ellen [email protected]: 160190S WSDOT On-Call Trans Studies Project Email [email protected]; OLooney, [email protected]; Braseth, [email protected]; Arnis, Amy [email protected]; Smith,HelenaKennedy [email protected]; John White ([email protected])[email protected];Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Arnold, Paul [email protected]: I-90 Pre-Enviro Toll Feasibility -- Draft T&R for Scenario ADate: 9/6/2012 12:48:15 PMAttachments: I-90 + SR 520 T&R Tables Scenario A 8-31-12 .xlsx; I-90 Prelim Results Summary for OST2012Sep5 Draft3.pdf

The good news is the $1.1B figure comes from the highly preliminary work Brent did in summer 2012 tohelp the I-90 project team with criteria for screening alternatives. That work did not assume increasingtolls or tolling beginning in 2014 and was shared with you and the Treasurer’s Office. The email abovegives the details. I agree with underlying the caution that this was highly preliminary work. John White will be continuing towork with Jana, me, and PB to update and refine estimates as we move towards the 2014 Session. I also am concerned about the assumption that “fed funds” will close the gap.

· I am concerned for the impact on the rest of the program;

· I am concerned because Julie says she needs design funds to begin work in fy 2014;

· And I am concerned because the arithmetic assumes that all of I-90 funding goes to SR 520 – andas said below, I’m hearing estimates in the range of $180 million being requested for I-90.

· I have also heard that Judy Clibborn made a comment that perhaps some I-90 funding should go tointerchange improvements at I-405 – this would be in addition to the $180 million in the bulletabove.

From: Arnis, AmySent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:31 AMTo: Smith, Helena Kennedy; Jen; Stone, Craig; Vaughn, DougCc: Alexander, JaySubject: RE: I-90 tolling

Who’s on point for making sure all have the same information on this? On the Orange list it shows that weneed about $425 aside from tolls. In yesterday’s press conference Rep C. indicated that the gap on completing SR 520 to the west side couldbe closed by tolling I-90 and federal funds – what federal funds?’ Jay will reach out to committee staff toattempt to understand. If one looks back to the December 2009, ESHB 2911 Legislative work group reportthere were indications that the gap could be closed by tolling I-90 if pre-completion tolling wasimplemented by 2014 on I-90 and I believe that analysis still assumed tolls would increase over time. Lotsof assumptions have changed since then…. Report attached here….http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/sr520legislativeworkgroup/files/finalreport/RecommendationsRpt.pdf

From: Smith, Helena KennedySent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:54 AMTo: Jen; Stone, CraigCc: Arnis, AmySubject: RE: I-90 tolling

Yes, the answer below needs the modifier that while tolling I-90 at the level of SR520 tolls could produce$1.1b in funding, any of that funding that is used on I-90 would reduce the amount available towards the$1.4B capital cost of the western SR 520. As of a couple weeks ago, the I-90 project team was talking about wanting $180 million roughly out of the$1.1B.

From: Jen [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:28 PMTo: Stone, CraigCc: Arnis, Amy; Smith, Helena KennedySubject: Re: I-90 tolling

Great. Thanks.


In the project needs list (orange list) we state that I-90 could provide $1.1 billion from tolls. If someof that is used for I-90 improvements as Rep Clibborn has talked about the amount available for SR520 would be lower.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 02:46 PMTo: Arnis, AmyCc: Smith, Helena Kennedy; Stone, CraigSubject: Re: I-90 tolling

Thanks. I think it's going to be a popular question.

From: "Amy Arnis" <[email protected]>

To: "jennifer ziegler" <[email protected]>

Cc: "Helena Kennedy Smith" <[email protected]>, "Craig Stone"

<[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:35:25 PM

Subject: RE: I-90 tolling

I don’t know the answer to that question. Helena and Craig, where are we in being able to answerthat question? My recollection is that with the cost reduction of the project, we may still have a 400-500m gap, but I

wasn’t sure if there were other conversations about addition possibilities of cost reduction. Finally, Ihave no idea what Rep C. meant about federal funds.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:33 PMTo: Arnis, AmySubject: I-90 tolling

So, is I-90 tolling sufficient to pay for the funding gap in SR 520?

From: Amy Grotefendt [email protected]: Shulman, Phyllis [email protected]; Coppersmith,[email protected]: Judd, Ron [email protected]; Meredith, [email protected]; Pihlstrom, [email protected]: RE: transit blogDate: 9/7/2012 5:57:52 PMAttachments: image001.jpg; image008.jpg; image009.jpg; image010.jpg; image011.jpg; image012.jpg;image013.jpg; image014.jpg; image015.jpg

Phyllis and Megan -- Sorry for the delay, but here are the talking points and FAQs that WSDOT will use inresponse to questions. Please let me know if you have any questions. My cell is 206-295-9846. Have awonderful weekend in the sunshine! Amy WSDOT Talking Points

· We appreciate the partnership with SDOT, Seattle City Council and King County to develop theSecond Montlake Bridge technical workgroup report, as called for in the Memorandum ofUnderstanding between the State and City. The report identifies levels of service to determinewhether a second Montlake bridge will be necessary. These levels of service relate to SR 520 mainlineoperations, transit, and bicycles/pedestrians.

· When funding to complete the west side of the SR 520 project is secured, we will work with ourpartners to monitor conditions and determine if the triggers for a second Montlake bridge are met. This will include taking into account future conditions, such as:

o The potential effect on SR 520 traffic volumes if I-90 is tolled.o Other potential investments made or planned to improve north-south pedestrian, bicycle,

and transit mobility along Montlake Bridge.o The needs and interests of jurisdictions, agencies (i.e., FHWA), and stakeholders that rely on

an efficient regional transportation system.

Commonly Asked Questions

Does WSDOT agree with the Seattle City Council ’s recommendation that a second Montlake Bridge isnot needed?WSDOT agrees with the identification of the triggers in the technical report and appreciates the Council ’sinterest in not constructing a second bridge before it is needed and other options are exhausted. A finaldecision will be made in partnership with the City, King County and stakeholders once the majortransportation investments in the SR 520 corridor are funded. When does a decision on whether a second Montlake bridge is constructed need to be made?A decision on whether to construct a second Montlake bridge does not need to be made until afterfunding is secured and we have had an opportunity to assess conditions on Montlake Bridge and SR 520. If the second Montlake bridge is not constructed, what will happen to the cost savings?There is still a need to secure approximately $2 billion in funding for the Westside improvements, so it ispremature to discuss potential cost savings. Will I-90 tolling be required to fund the remaining improvements on SR 520, and if so, what effect will ithave on traffic volumes on SR 520?The State Legislature has directed WSDOT to evaluate I-90 tolling as a potential revenue source to fundthe SR 520 westside improvements. If the Legislature authorizes I-90 tolling, we would expect to see areadjustment of traffic volumes between SR 520 and I-90.

From: Shulman, Phyllis [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 1:16 PMTo: Amy GrotefendtSubject: FW: transit blog

Bill LaBorde spoke with them and then they spoke with Tim this morning. He provided them thehandouts. Just a head ’s up, Phyllis

Phyllis ShulmanSenior Legislative Advisor to Councilmember Richard ConlinSeattle City Council206-684-8805

Follow Richard on his blog or visit his website for current issues.

cid:[email protected]

From: Coppersmith, MeganSent: Friday, September 07, 2012 12:49 PMTo: Shulman, PhyllisSubject:

http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/09/07/seattle-releases-montlake-bridge-report/#more-39788 Megan CoppersmithSeattle City Council [email protected]

Follow the Seattle City Council on: icon_podcast

communications_E-sign

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Rubstello; Patty; Merkens; Todd; White; JohnCc: Larsen; ChadSubject: I-90 Toll AgreementDate: 9/7/2012 8:24:38 PMAttachments:

With folks out today, for next week I want to follow up on the strategy with federal highways to get anunderstanding or clarity on I-90 tolling. Chad – would setting up a call at 9:00 PST/11:00 CDT on Monday work? Craig

From: Arnis, Amy [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Smith, Helena Kennedy [email protected]:Subject: FW: Tolling I90Date: 9/12/2012 10:37:50 AMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Craig and Helena: Is there any updated information on this topic? Was there additional information forthcoming from the webinar? I haven't heard back on this.

-----Original Message-----From: Arnis, AmySent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:28 AMTo: Fellows, RobCc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Struna, RichSubject: RE: Tolling I90

Will there be an updated "white paper", as opposed to an email string on this topic now that you have participated in the webinar?

-----Original Message-----From: Fellows, RobSent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:25 AMTo: Arnis, AmyCc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Struna, RichSubject: Re: Tolling I90




-- Rob


> Is this the most up to date information on this topic? Did anything change under MAP-21?>> -----Original Message-----> From: Ziegler, Jennifer> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 3:11 PM> To: Arnis, Amy> Subject: FW: Tolling I90>

> Here is the FHWA response regarding tolling I-90.>>>> -----Original Message-----> From: Fellows, Rob> Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 1:44 PM> To: Arnis, Amy; Rubstello, Patty> Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy> Subject: RE: Tolling I90>> We requested from FHWA guidance about the different approaches open to us to apply for tolling authority on I-90; there is a standard "expression of interest" form. The response is attached. Let me know if this is not what you were looking for or if there is something more I can provide.>> -- Rob>> -----Original Message-----> From: Arnis, Amy> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:42 PM> To: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob> Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy> Subject: Tolling I90>> Craig told me that one of you would have the paper/report regarding how we might attain federal approval to toll I90. Could you forward to me. Thank you.>>>> <Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf>

From: Colleen Gants [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; [email protected]@wsdot.wa.govCc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Mouton,[email protected]: PLAN/AGENDA for Rep. Clibborn's office (1611 - 116th Avenue NE in Bellevue)Date: 9/19/2012 6:42:05 PMAttachments: AGENDA for mtg wCLIBBORN 092012.doc

(I offered to bring treats and Judy would like a skinny latte – anyone else?) – I ’ll bring a graphic of “thebox ” and also the Mercer Island letter. -Colleen

AGENDA

1. I-90 Tolling Study Update

a. Review the Budget Proviso

b. Environmental Assessment Approach as it relates to “the Box ”

2. Timing – We need to meet with a few local cities to get started with technical issues relatedto the EA

a. Mercer Island

b. Issaquah

c. Sammamish

d. Bellevue

e. Seattle?

3. Discuss who we plan to meet with short term and long term over the next 6 months. Doesshe have any thoughts about the people and their "agendas "? Does she want to add or subtractfrom our list of contacts.

4. What are we going to be saying?

a. Talk about the legislative direction to study tolling on I-90

b. We are starting the environmental review (EA) – share schedule

c. Project scope/parameters

d. Timeline for the study

5. Other issues:

a. Executive Committee and who we could include?

i. Legislators

ii. City leaders

iii. Community leaders

iv. Regulatory leaders

b. Initiative 1185 and its affect on tolled projects

c. FHWA letter re: authorization to toll considering new MAP-21

6. Next Steps:

a. Reaching out to the cities – would she like to make calls ahead of time?

b. Setting up meetings

c. November 5 th Council Briefing with Mercer Island

Key Messages

· Why to toll I-90 as part of the Cross-Lake Corridor

o FHWA and WSDOT propose to introduce tolling (between I-5 and I-405) and maketransportation improvements (between I-405 and SR 900 in Issaquah) along the I-90corridor in the Seattle area.

o WSDOT will be studying tolling I-90 as directed by the legislative intent of ESHB2109, which is to “ . . . undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tollingInterstate 90 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of bothmanaging traffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded state routenumber 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina project. The environmental review mustinclude significant outreach to potentially affected communities. The department mayconsider traffic management options that extend as far east as Issaquah. ”

o Tolls on I-90 are needed to raise revenue for Cross-Lake Washington Corridorimprovements (520 & I-90); alleviate congestion; accommodate regional growth; andprovide reliable travel conditions on the I-90 corridor.

o Tolling I-90 is not a new idea. Tolling I-90 was a recommended strategy of the2008 SR 520 Toll Implementation Committee and the 2009 SR 520 Legislative WorkGroup - both directed by the legislature to review toll implementation strategies.

· How we will address the environmental review and other corridor improvements

o WSDOT plans to address the needs of the I-90 corridor by preparing a NEPAEnvironmental Assessment (EA) for I-90 Corridor Tolling Elements. This effort willfocus on completing the legislative directive to study the environmental impacts ofimplementing mainline tolling on the I-90 bridge.

o WSDOT is also conducting outreach to potentially affected communities along thecorridor and considering other traffic management options along I-90 as far east asIssaquah.

o The I-90 Tolling Study complements WSDOT's I-90 Bellevue to North BendCorridor Planning Study (2012).

· Engaging Stakeholders

o The I-90 Tolling Study and EA includes public outreach and coordination withcorridor stakeholders, cities and elected officials. This would include an executive-level advisory group of some kind.

· Timing

o The decision to toll I-90 is up to the legislature. For tolls to start 2015/2016, wewould need toll authorization during the 2014 legislative session.

COLLEEN GANTSPrincipal

206.462.6366 | [email protected]

C 206.465.2311

P R R1501 Fourth Avenue, Suite 550Seattle, Washington 98101 206.462.6366 | www.prrbiz.com Connect: Twitter | Facebook

This e-mail message and any included attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and

privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is STRICTLY prohibited. If you are not the

intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.

ne*** eSafe1 scanned this email for malicious content ***ne*** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***ne

From: White, John [email protected]: Colleen Gants [email protected]: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Mouton, [email protected]: RE: PLAN/AGENDA for Rep. Clibborn's office (1611 - 116th Avenue NE in Bellevue)Date: 9/20/2012 7:20:05 AMAttachments:

Colleen, Thanks for assembling everything and bringing treats, I ’ve already had coffee so don ’t worry about me. I ’ll be heading over from Goldsmith in a bit, waiting to determine if Craig is leaving from here or headedstraight to Bellevue from home. See you in a bit, John John H. White, P.E.WSDOT Toll Division

From: Colleen Gants [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:42 PMTo: Stone, Craig; White, JohnCc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Mouton, MichellSubject: PLAN/AGENDA for Rep. Clibborn's office (1611 - 116th Avenue NE in Bellevue)

(I offered to bring treats and Judy would like a skinny latte – anyone else?) – I ’ll bring a graphic of “thebox ” and also the Mercer Island letter. -Colleen

AGENDA

1. I-90 Tolling Study Updatea. Review the Budget Provisob. Environmental Assessment Approach as it relates to “the Box ”

2. Timing – We need to meet with a few local cities to get started with technical issues relatedto the EA

a. Mercer Islandb. Issaquahc. Sammamishd. Bellevuee. Seattle?

3. Discuss who we plan to meet with short term and long term over the next 6 months. Doesshe have any thoughts about the people and their "agendas "? Does she want to add or subtractfrom our list of contacts.

4. What are we going to be saying?a. Talk about the legislative direction to study tolling on I-90b. We are starting the environmental review (EA) – share schedulec. Project scope/parameters

d. Timeline for the study5. Other issues:

a. Executive Committee and who we could include? i. Legislators ii. City leaders iii. Community leaders iv. Regulatory leaders

b. Initiative 1185 and its affect on tolled projectsc. FHWA letter re: authorization to toll considering new MAP-21

6. Next Steps:a. Reaching out to the cities – would she like to make calls ahead of time?b. Setting up meetingsc. November 5 th Council Briefing with Mercer Island

Key Messages

· Why to toll I-90 as part of the Cross-Lake Corridoro FHWA and WSDOT propose to introduce tolling (between I-5 and I-405) and make

transportation improvements (between I-405 and SR 900 in Issaquah) along the I-90corridor in the Seattle area.

o WSDOT will be studying tolling I-90 as directed by the legislative intent of ESHB 2109,which is to “ . . . undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling Interstate 90between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managing traffic andproviding funding for construction of the unfunded state route number 520 from Interstate5 to Medina project. The environmental review must include significant outreach topotentially affected communities. The department may consider traffic managementoptions that extend as far east as Issaquah. ”

o Tolls on I-90 are needed to raise revenue for Cross-Lake Washington Corridorimprovements (520 & I-90); alleviate congestion; accommodate regional growth; andprovide reliable travel conditions on the I-90 corridor.

o Tolling I-90 is not a new idea. Tolling I-90 was a recommended strategy of the 2008 SR520 Toll Implementation Committee and the 2009 SR 520 Legislative Work Group - bothdirected by the legislature to review toll implementation strategies.


o WSDOT plans to address the needs of the I-90 corridor by preparing a NEPAEnvironmental Assessment (EA) for I-90 Corridor Tolling Elements. This effort will focuson completing the legislative directive to study the environmental impacts ofimplementing mainline tolling on the I-90 bridge.

o WSDOT is also conducting outreach to potentially affected communities along thecorridor and considering other traffic management options along I-90 as far east asIssaquah.

o The I-90 Tolling Study complements WSDOT's I-90 Bellevue to North Bend CorridorPlanning Study (2012).

· Engaging Stakeholderso The I-90 Tolling Study and EA includes public outreach and coordination with corridor

stakeholders, cities and elected officials. This would include an executive-level advisorygroup of some kind.

· Timingo The decision to toll I-90 is up to the legislature. For tolls to start 2015/2016, we would

need toll authorization during the 2014 legislative session.

COLLEEN GANTSPrincipal

206.462.6366 | [email protected]

C 206.465.2311

P R R1501 Fourth Avenue, Suite 550Seattle, Washington 98101 206.462.6366 | www.prrbiz.com Connect: Twitter | Facebook

This e-mail message and any included attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged

information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is STRICTLY prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please

contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.



From: Colleen Gants [email protected]: White, John [email protected]: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Mouton,Michell [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]: Re: PLAN/AGENDA for Rep. Clibborn's office (1611 - 116th Avenue NE in Bellevue)Date: 9/20/2012 7:27:03 AMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks!

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 20, 2012, at 7:20 AM, "White, John" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Colleen,

Thanks for assembling everything and bringing treats, I� ve already had coffee so don� t worry about me. I� ll be heading over from Goldsmith in a bit, waiting to determine if Craig is leaving from here or headed straight to Bellevue from home.

See you in a bit,

John

John H. White, P.E.WSDOT Toll Division

From: Colleen Gants [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:42 PMTo: Stone, Craig; White, JohnCc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Mouton, MichellSubject: PLAN/AGENDA for Rep. Clibborn's office (1611 - 116th Avenue NE in Bellevue)

(I offered to bring treats and Judy would like a skinny latte � anyone else?) � I� ll bring a graphic of � the box� and also the Mercer Island letter. -Colleen

AGENDA



b. Environmental Assessment Approach as it relates to � the Box

2. Timing � We need to meet with a few local cities to get started with technical issues related to the EA

a. Mercer Island

b. Issaquah

c. Sammamish

d. Bellevue

e. Seattle?

3. Discuss who we plan to meet with short term and long term over the next 6 months. Does she have any thoughts about the people and their "agendas"? Does she want to add or subtract from our list of contacts.



b. We are starting the environmental review (EA) � share schedule



5. Other issues:

a. Executive Committee and who we could include?

i. Legislators

ii. City leaders



b. Initiative 1185 and its affect on tolled projects

c. FHWA letter re: authorization to toll considering new MAP-21

6. Next Steps:

a. Reaching out to the cities � would she like to make calls ahead of time?

b. Setting up meetings

c. November 5th Council Briefing with Mercer Island

Key Messages


o FHWA and WSDOT propose to introduce tolling (between I-5 and I-405) and make transportation improvements (between I-405 and SR 900 in Issaquah) along the I-90 corridor in the Seattle area.

o WSDOT will be studying tolling I-90 as directed by the legislative intent of ESHB 2109, which is to � . . . undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling Interstate 90 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managing traffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded state route number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina project. The environmental review must include significant outreach to potentially affected communities. The department may consider traffic management options that extend as far east as Issaquah.

o Tolls on I-90 are needed to raise revenue for Cross-Lake Washington Corridor improvements (520 & I-90); alleviate congestion; accommodate regional growth; and provide reliable travel conditions on the I-90 corridor.

o Tolling I-90 is not a new idea. Tolling I-90 was a recommended strategy of the 2008 SR 520 Toll Implementation Committee and the 2009 SR 520 Legislative Work Group - both directed by the legislature to review toll implementation strategies.


o WSDOT plans to address the needs of the I-90 corridor by preparing a NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) for I-90 Corridor Tolling Elements. This effort will focus on completing the legislative directive to study the environmental impacts of implementing mainline tolling on the I-90 bridge.

o WSDOT is also conducting outreach to potentially affected communities along the corridor and considering other traffic management options along I-90 as far east as Issaquah.

o The I-90 Tolling Study complements WSDOT's I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor Planning Study (2012).


o The I-90 Tolling Study and EA includes public outreach and coordination with corridor stakeholders, cities and elected officials. This would include an executive-level advisory group of some kind.

· Timing

o The decision to toll I-90 is up to the legislature. For tolls to start 2015/2016, we would need toll authorization during the 2014 legislative session.

COLLEEN GANTSPrincipal206.462.6366 | [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

C 206.465.2311

PRR1501 Fourth Avenue, Suite 550

Seattle, Washington 98101

206.462.6366 | www.prrbiz.com<http://www.prrbiz.com/>

Connect: Twitter<http://twitter.com/#!/PRRSocial> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/prrbiz>

________________________________This e-mail message and any included attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is STRICTLY prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.



________________________________This e-mail message and any included attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is STRICTLY prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.

From: Pace, Emily [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Gants, Colleen (Consultant)[email protected]: Important info for KING 5/KONG interviewDate: 9/20/2012 2:05:39 PMAttachments: Stone KING 5 Morning News Interview Packet.docx

Craig, I’ve attached a final packet with I-90 messaging. I wanted to mention an important note: KING may alsoask about top toll offenders, but if we have not yet provided data to KOMO, I would not share it withKING since KOMO requested it first. I would stick to the average NOCP amount is $390 for a vehicleowner with registration hold. I’ve also included the I-90 points below. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Why toll I-90 as part of the Cross-Lake Corridor

· FHWA and WSDOT propose to introduce tolling (between I-5 and I-405) and maketransportation improvements (between I-405 and SR 900 in Issaquah) along the I-90 corridor inthe Seattle area.

· WSDOT will be studying tolling I-90 as directed by the legislative intent of ESHB 2109, which isto “…undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling Interstate 90 between Interstate5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managing traffic and providing funding forconstruction of the unfunded state route number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina project. Theenvironmental review must include significant outreach to potentially affected communities. Thedepartment may consider traffic management options that extend as far east as Issaquah.”

· Tolls on I-90 are needed to raise revenue for Cross-Lake Washington Corridor improvements(520 & I-90); alleviate congestion; accommodate regional growth; and provide reliable travelconditions on the I-90 corridor.

· Tolling I-90 is not a new idea. Tolling I-90 was a recommended strategy of the 2008 SR 520Toll Implementation Committee and the 2009 SR 520 Legislative Work Group - both directed bythe legislature to review toll implementation strategies.\u8195

How we will address the environmental review and other corridor improvements· WSDOT plans to address the needs of the I-90 corridor by preparing a NEPA Environmental

Assessment (EA) for I-90 Corridor Tolling Elements. This effort will focus on completing thelegislative directive to study the environmental impacts of implementing mainline tolling on the I-90 bridge.

· WSDOT is also conducting outreach to potentially affected communities along the corridorand considering other traffic management options along I-90 as far east as Issaquah.

· The I-90 Tolling Study complements WSDOT's I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor PlanningStudy (2012).

Engaging Stakeholders· The I-90 Tolling Study and EA includes public outreach and coordination with corridor

stakeholders, cities and elected officials. This would include an executive-level advisory group ofsome kind.

Timing· The decision to toll I-90 is up to the legislature. For tolls to start 2015/2016, we would need

toll authorization during the 2014 legislative session.

Emily Pace GladWSDOT [email protected]

From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]: Judd, Ron [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; White, John [email protected]; Grotefendt, Amy (Consultant) [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Mouton, Michell [email protected]:Subject: Action Items from mtg w/Rep. Clibborn re: I-90Date: 9/20/2012 2:49:46 PMAttachments: Clibborn Notes 092012.docx------------------------------------------------------------

ACTION ITEMS/NOTESI-90 Meeting with Rep. Judy ClibbornSeptember 20, 2012

Craig Stone, John White, and Colleen Gants met with Rep. Judy Clibborn today to review the I-90 Tolling Study to brief her on the next steps and get her approval to be out in her District talking with city staff. The following is a brief summary of items covered and action items:

1. I-90 Tolling Study Updatea. Review the Budget Provisob. Environmental Assessment Approach as it relates to � the Box� � Judy confirmed that it would be ok w/Feds for us to do an EA vs. an EIS.i. Discussed necessary budget to continue working on the study.ii. Judy asked about the project boundaries and a detailed project map.iii. EA Approach and questions:1. 2 documents � bridge is the core; then HOT lanes out east2. HOT lanes to Issaquah? Within the 2nd document?3. Tie in with 405 Express Toll Lanes?4. Braid to get to the inside lanes?5. HOT to Redmond is a challenge6. Need to get something from HOT lanesc. Complements Carol Hunter� s I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor Planning Study.i. Discussed some of the transportation improvements east of I-405.ii. Important to focus where people are noticing congestion and complaining.d. Bridging the gap between 520 funding needs and I-90 toll revenue potentiali. Judy looks forward to more finessing of the finance plan, which includes:1. Early tolling on the bridge2. Future tolling of the bridge3. Pursue Federal dollars and State dollars4. Remaining dollars stay in the Cross-Lake Corridor2. Timing � We need to meet with a few local cities to get started with technical issues related to the EAa. Mercer Island � fine to contact Rich Conrad, City Manager and meet w/staffb. Issaquah � fine to contactc. Sammamish � Judy will contact Sammamish ahead of usd. Bellevue � fine to contacte. Seattle � fine to contact

3. Discuss who we plan to meet with short term and long term over the next 6 months. Does she have any thoughts about the people and their "agendas"? Does she want to add or subtract from our list of contacts.a. Judy would like to be kept in the loop and understand the next

steps/milestones.b. Would be good to give Haugen, King and Armstrong a call.c. People are likely to call her when the project hits the ground and reports out.

4. What are we going to be saying?a. Talk about the legislative direction to study tolling on I-90b. We are starting the environmental review (EA) � share schedulec. Project scope/parametersd. Timeline for the study

5. Other issues:a. Judy understood the need for an Executive Advisory Group and who we could include. She sees the functionality as helpful to WSDOT and the State.i. Legislatorsii. City leadersiii. Community leadersiv. Regulatory leadersb. Following the EAG, a revived Toll Implementation Committee would be helpful to the cities and constituents. Judy talked about something similar with Paula Hammond, Bob Drewel and Dick Ford (or other executive leadership that make sense).c. Initiative 1185 and its affect on tolled projectsd. FHWA letter re: authorization to toll considering new MAP-21e. November 5th Council Briefing with Mercer Island

Action Items Person Responsible By When?

Colleen will coordinate the following:

Send a copy of I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor Planning Study Carol Hunter Tuesday 9/25Send the project boundaries and a detailed project map John White Tuesday 9/25Prepare a graphic of Next Steps/Milestones to include MAP-21 Paul/John/Colleen Tuesday 9/25Set up a mtg to discuss what the Toll Div. is doing for SR 167/SR 509/I-5 Craig & John to meet; invite Ron Judd;Colleen will set up mtg. By Monday 9/24Go over all tolled projects and their funding gaps w/Judy Craig/team In the meeting above& .

Key Messages* Why to toll I-90 as part of the Cross-Lake Corridoro FHWA and WSDOT propose to introduce tolling (between I-5 and I-405) and make transportation improvements (between I-405 and SR 900 in Issaquah) along the I-90 corridor in the Seattle area.o WSDOT will be studying tolling I-90 as directed by the legislative intent of ESHB 2109, which is to � . . . undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling Interstate 90 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managing traffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded state route number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina project. The environmental review must include significant outreach to potentially affected communities. The department may consider traffic management options that extend as far east as Issaquah.o Tolls on I-90 are needed to raise revenue for Cross-Lake Washington Corridor

improvements (520 & I-90); alleviate congestion; accommodate regional growth; and provide reliable travel conditions on the I-90 corridor.o Tolling I-90 is not a new idea. Tolling I-90 was a recommended strategy of the 2008 SR 520 Toll Implementation Committee and the 2009 SR 520 Legislative Work Group - both directed by the legislature to review toll implementation strategies.

* How we will address the environmental review and other corridor improvementso WSDOT plans to address the needs of the I-90 corridor by preparing a NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) for I-90 Corridor Tolling Elements. This effort will focus on completing the legislative directive to study the environmental impacts of implementing mainline tolling on the I-90 bridge.o WSDOT is also conducting outreach to potentially affected communities along the corridor and considering other traffic management options along I-90 as far east as Issaquah.o The I-90 Tolling Study complements WSDOT's I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor Planning Study (2012).

* Engaging Stakeholderso The I-90 Tolling Study and EA includes public outreach and coordination with corridor stakeholders, cities and elected officials. This would include an executive-level advisory group of some kind.

* Timingo The decision to toll I-90 is up to the legislature. For tolls to start 2015/2016, we would need toll authorization during the 2014 legislative session.

Colleen GantsWSDOT Toll DivisionCommunications & External Affairs206-465-2311 (cell)206-716-1150 (desk)[email protected]

<<Clibborn Notes 092012.docx>>

-----Original Appointment-----From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:17 AMTo: Judd, Ron; Stone, Craig; White, John; '[email protected]: Meet w/Rep. Clibborn re: I-90When: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:30 AM-9:30 AM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).Where: District Office: 1611 116th Ave NE, Bellevue WA 98004, ck in Suite 206

Bring treats

From: Judd, Ron [email protected]: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected];White, John [email protected]; Grotefendt, Amy (Consultant) [email protected];Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected];Mouton, Michell [email protected]: Hammond, Paula [email protected]: Re: Action Items from mtg w/Rep. Clibborn re: I-90Date: 9/20/2012 11:14:32 PMAttachments:

Craig/Colleen, thanks for your update on the meeting with Rep Clibborn. Sounds as if the discussion wasfruitful and met many of the outcomes we had hoped for. Thanks for the comprehensive nature of yourdiscussion. Very useful! Let me know what would be helpful, from your prospective, as we move the i-90tolling discussion forward. Again, very good update and much appreciation to all....rj

From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 02:49 PMTo: Judd, Ron; Stone, Craig; White, John; Grotefendt, Amy (Consultant); Rubstello, Patty; Arnold, Paul(Consultant); Mouton, MichellSubject: Action Items from mtg w/Rep. Clibborn re: I-90

ACTION ITEMS/NOTES

I-90 Meeting with Rep. Judy Clibborn

September 20, 2012

Craig Stone, John White, and Colleen Gants met with Rep. Judy Clibborn today to review the I-90Tolling Study to brief her on the next steps and get her approval to be out in her District talkingwith city staff. The following is a brief summary of items covered and action items:



b. Environmental Assessment Approach as it relates to “the Box” – Judy confirmed that itwould be ok w/Feds for us to do an EA vs. an EIS.

i. Discussed necessary budget to continue working on the study.

ii. Judy asked about the project boundaries and a detailed project map.

iii. EA Approach and questions:

1. 2 documents – bridge is the core; then HOT lanes out east

2. HOT lanes to Issaquah? Within the 2nd document?

3. Tie in with 405 Express Toll Lanes?

4. Braid to get to the inside lanes?

5. HOT to Redmond is a challenge

6. Need to get something from HOT lanes

c. Complements Carol Hunter’s I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor Planning Study.

i. Discussed some of the transportation improvements east of I-405.

ii. Important to focus where people are noticing congestion and complaining.

d. Bridging the gap between 520 funding needs and I-90 toll revenue potential

i. Judy looks forward to more finessing of the finance plan, which includes:

1. Early tolling on the bridge

2. Future tolling of the bridge

3. Pursue Federal dollars and State dollars

4. Remaining dollars stay in the Cross-Lake Corridor

2. Timing – We need to meet with a few local cities to get started with technical issuesrelated to the EA

a. Mercer Island – fine to contact Rich Conrad, City Manager and meet w/staff

b. Issaquah – fine to contact

c. Sammamish – Judy will contact Sammamish ahead of us

d. Bellevue – fine to contact

e. Seattle – fine to contact

3. Discuss who we plan to meet with short term and long term over the next 6 months. Does

she have any thoughts about the people and their "agendas"? Does she want to add or subtractfrom our list of contacts.

a. Judy would like to be kept in the loop and understand the next steps/milestones.

b. Would be good to give Haugen, King and Armstrong a call.

c. People are likely to call her when the project hits the ground and reports out.



b. We are starting the environmental review (EA) – share schedule



5. Other issues:

a. Judy understood the need for an Executive Advisory Group and who we could include. Shesees the functionality as helpful to WSDOT and the State.

i. Legislators

ii. City leaders



b. Following the EAG, a revived Toll Implementation Committee would be helpful to the citiesand constituents. Judy talked about something similar with Paula Hammond, Bob Drewel and DickFord (or other executive leadership that make sense).

c. Initiative 1185 and its affect on tolled projects

d. FHWA letter re: authorization to toll considering new MAP-21

e. November 5th Council Briefing with Mercer Island

Action Items Person Responsible By When?

Colleen will coordinate the following:

Send a copy of I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor Planning Study Carol Hunter Tuesday

9/25

Send the project boundaries and a detailed project map John White Tuesday 9/25

Prepare a graphic of Next Steps/Milestones to include MAP-21 Paul/John/Colleen Tuesday

9/25

Set up a mtg to discuss what the Toll Div. is doing for SR 167/SR 509/I-5 Craig & John to meet;invite Ron Judd;

Colleen will set up mtg. By Monday 9/24

Go over all tolled projects and their funding gaps w/Judy Craig/team In the meeting

above….

Key Messages


o FHWA and WSDOT propose to introduce tolling (between I-5 and I-405) and maketransportation improvements (between I-405 and SR 900 in Issaquah) along the I-90 corridor inthe Seattle area.

o WSDOT will be studying tolling I-90 as directed by the legislative intent of ESHB 2109,

which is to “ . . . undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling Interstate 90 betweenInterstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managing traffic and providing funding forconstruction of the unfunded state route number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina project. Theenvironmental review must include significant outreach to potentially affected communities. Thedepartment may consider traffic management options that extend as far east as Issaquah.”

o Tolls on I-90 are needed to raise revenue for Cross-Lake Washington Corridorimprovements (520 & I-90); alleviate congestion; accommodate regional growth; and providereliable travel conditions on the I-90 corridor.

o Tolling I-90 is not a new idea. Tolling I-90 was a recommended strategy of the 2008 SR520 Toll Implementation Committee and the 2009 SR 520 Legislative Work Group - both directedby the legislature to review toll implementation strategies.


o WSDOT plans to address the needs of the I-90 corridor by preparing a NEPAEnvironmental Assessment (EA) for I-90 Corridor Tolling Elements. This effort will focus oncompleting the legislative directive to study the environmental impacts of implementing mainlinetolling on the I-90 bridge.

o WSDOT is also conducting outreach to potentially affected communities along thecorridor and considering other traffic management options along I-90 as far east as Issaquah.

o The I-90 Tolling Study complements WSDOT's I-90 Bellevue to North Bend CorridorPlanning Study (2012).


o The I-90 Tolling Study and EA includes public outreach and coordination with corridorstakeholders, cities and elected officials. This would include an executive-level advisory group ofsome kind.

· Timing

o The decision to toll I-90 is up to the legislature. For tolls to start 2015/2016, we wouldneed toll authorization during the 2014 legislative session.

Colleen Gants

WSDOT Toll Division

Communications & External Affairs

206-465-2311 (cell)

206-716-1150 (desk)

[email protected]

<<Clibborn Notes 092012.docx>>

-----Original Appointment-----From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:17 AMTo: Judd, Ron; Stone, Craig; White, John; '[email protected]'Subject: Meet w/Rep. Clibborn re: I-90When: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:30 AM-9:30 AM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).Where: District Office: 1611 116th Ave NE, Bellevue WA 98004, ck in Suite 206

Bring treats

From: White, John [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]: Larsen, Chad [email protected]: Weekly report - 9/28Date: 9/27/2012 3:42:39 PMAttachments:

Craig, A little late on my timing again, that will not continue. Not a lot of new information that you don’talready know, but here goes: I-90

· Mercer Island senior staff meeting this Friday, signals the initiation of the stakeholder outreachprocess. Still working to schedule Bellevue, with Issaquah scheduled for Oct. 19th.

· Draft Purpose and Need finalized, will be shared with FHWA at the October WSDOT/FHWA kick-off meeting that has yet to be scheduled.

· Continued planning work to develop the Public Involvement Plan, refine the EA schedule, andfinalize task orders necessary to mobilize the full work effort.

SR 167

· Draft net revenue and financial analysis expected by Friday Sept. 28th.

· Continued planning for the public and business users focus groups (2 each). Current proposeddates are Oct. 29th and 30th (public) and Nov. 7th and 8th (business), all in Tacoma. The primaryunresolved question is who outside of WSDOT might be invited to participate as observers (localgovernment stakeholders, elected, etc)?

· Meeting next week with OR to discuss roles and responsibilities, plan for Oct 19th SAC meeting.

· Working with Program Mgt to verify availability of 2012-13 LEAP list supplemental funding, andwith the planning team to project potential surplus funding from the current T&R effort.

SR 509 (including SR 509/I-5/SR167 planning)

· Working with Program Mgt to determine ability to utilize existing TPA funds in order to get ajump start on the expected work effort, and to verify availability of the 2012-13 LEAP listsupplemental funds that are supposed to become available Nov. 1st.

· Developing a draft work plan, current thinking is to initiate a Tiger Team type initial approach bylate November to identify design and cost savings opportunities within the currently identifiedphasing approaches, as well as identify any additional scope adjustment opportunities that mayhave merit towards reducing initial implementation costs. Goal would be to have new thoughtsin support of executive and legislative discussions going into 2013.

· Working with Rob Fellows and UPO and NWR to frame SR 509/I-5/SR 167 packaging scenariosthat better equalize the ratio of revenue generation to cost.

· Scheduled meeting with PTG to discuss their independent assessment of SR 509/I-5/SR 167. John

John H. White, P.E.WSDOT Toll Division

From: White, JohnSent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 11:48 AMTo: Stone, CraigSubject: Weekly update

Craig, Still adjusting to the reporting expectations and timeline, but I believe that I owed you an update e-mailby COB yesterday. My understanding in talking to Chad and Patty is that there is not a set structure, andit is focused on what you need to know or support I may need from you. As you would expect, my inputwill be a bit limited initially until I have a better grasp on all the relevant details and a few things aboutmy role are clarified (i.e. I am empowered to do what it takes to help guide and deliver these corridorefforts). Assuming that is accurate, here goes: I-90 Don’t think there is much to offer that you don’t already know. There is a well-defined plan, solid coreresources, and the kick-off elected and stakeholder discussions are imminent. The team is still workingon getting all of the consultant resources under contract, but otherwise things seem to be comingtogether and the EA and modeling efforts will hopefully be ready to kick-off roughly in parallel with theinitial stakeholder outreach. Regarding the stakeholder outreach, the last aspect remaining is any finalrefinement to the messaging. I met with Randy Simonsen and Doug Haight and had a good conversationregarding R8 SR 167 I met with Shuming and Stacey and they (primarily Shuming) filled me in on the past couple years offeasibility studies and Stakeholder Committee engagement. Similar to SR 509, it seems like the name ofthe game is optimizing toll revenue generation while trying to pin down the shortlist of initial phasescope and required investment levels. As I mentioned in a previous e-mail, I’d like to get together withOR staff and get some background from their perspective as well as take a tour of the corridor to betterunderstand the options that have been laid out. It had sounded like you wanted to have a chat withKevin and myself before I fully jumped into this, so I have held off on discussions beyond UPO. SR 509 My discussion with Shuming and Stacey also covered SR 509 and the work UPO had been involved in. Myobservation thus far is that this effort has stalled and needs reviving. I am now familiar with the phasingplan endorsed earlier this year by the Exec and Steering Committees, which raises a number of questionsin my mind regarding the need for estimate updates that accurately reflect the plan that was endorsed. Given the revenue gap in the 2010 Feasibility Study (which had optimistic inputs), I have been wonderingwhether if there also needs to be some frank discussion of ways to further refine the phasing plan toassist in closing that gap. Similar to SR 167, until there is an understanding of what role NWR will play,including staff availability and roles, I am a bit hampered in my ability to make decision and progressthings. I also have some worries regarding the transfer of the knowledge and data/files necessary tomove forward, and the associated inefficiencies. Given the scope of what I perceive as the

environmental and engineering support effort, it raises questions as to what level of consultant supportmay be required for consistency and schedule dependability. I continue to make the rounds, meet with the Toll Division and support players, talk to Patty and Colleen,and try to better understand how all the pieces fit together for each of these corridors. John

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Colyar, James (FHWA) [email protected]: Merkens, Todd [email protected]; White, John [email protected]: I-90 Agreement LetterDate: 9/28/2012 9:56:47 AMAttachments:

James, Wanted you to know that we are sending the I-90 letter requesting to start the agreement process to ourSecretary today. My guess is it will go out in the next few days. Patty Patty Rubstello, PEToll Systems Development & EngineeringWSDOT(206)464-1299

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Hammond; Paula; Judd; Ron; Lenzi; Jerry C; Ziegler; JenniferCc: Aldridge; JoSubject: Friday Morning Tolling Check-In AgendaDate: 9/28/2012 5:13:05 PMAttachments: Tolling Context and Hot Topics.docx; 20120928_I-90_Toll Agreement Request.docx

This is a piece we put together this week for Steve Reinmuth as agencies compiled key issues inanticipation of the upcoming governor change. I thought it would provide a good outline for our tollingcheck-in today. I have also included a final draft of the I-90 letter to FHWA for seeking a toll agreement. Craig Craig J Stone, PE

Director, Washington State Toll Division206.464.1222

From: Camden, Allison [email protected]: Larsen, Chad [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Briglia, Pete [email protected]; Fellows, [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Michaud, [email protected]; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]; Johnson, [email protected]; Judd, Ron [email protected]: Re: Tolling Briefing for Rep. Smith StaffDate: 10/1/2012 2:43:12 PMAttachments:

Perfect, thank you!

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 1, 2012, at 2:39 PM, "Larsen, Chad" <[email protected]> wrote:

I’ve reserved a room at SWR for this and set aside a call in number. The afternoon’s JTC meetingwill also be at SWR, so the day will be consistent.

From: Camden, AllisonSent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:36 AMTo: Larsen, Chad; Stone, Craig; Briglia, Pete; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Michaud, Patricia; Gants,Colleen (Consultant); Johnson, AnnieCc: Judd, RonSubject: RE: Tolling Briefing for Rep. Smith Staff

Hi Chad – Tuesday, October 9th at 10 AM PT works best for Paul. Can we get the right materials pulledtogether? Who all should take part in the briefing? I will also be in Vancouver that day – should Iconnect with the CRC office about reserving a conference room and call-in number or do you wantto take care of that? Thanks!-Allison

From: Larsen, ChadSent: Friday, September 28, 2012 4:27 PMTo: Camden, Allison; Stone, Craig; Briglia, Pete; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Michaud, Patricia; Gants,Colleen (Consultant); Johnson, AnnieCc: Judd, RonSubject: RE: Tolling Briefing for Rep. Smith Staff

Allison, I’m going to put a few dates together that I hope will work out okay. For these following 2, both Craig would probably be able to call from the CRC offices in Vancouver:M 10/8 @ 4pTu 10/9 @ 10a

Some other choices are:W 10/10 @ 10aF 10/12 @ 1130a Let me know if you have questions. I’ll work with the communications team to make sure we have apresentation available to Rep. Smith to review as Craig walks through it.

- Chad

From: Camden, AllisonSent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:53 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Briglia, Pete; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Michaud, Patricia; Gants, Colleen(Consultant); Johnson, AnnieCc: Larsen, Chad; Judd, RonSubject: Tolling Briefing for Rep. Smith Staff

Hi Craig – Last week while I was in DC I met with Rep. Smith’s transportation staffer, Paul Hoover, who askedfor a tolling briefing. Beginning in January, Smith’s new district (assuming he wins reelection) willnow encompass Mercer Island and Bellevue. Paul would like a tolling 101 briefing, with a focus onI-90 and I-405. In particular, he asked me whether or not a certain percentage of any tolls on I-90would have to stay with I-90 and what we’re hearing from Bellevue regarding the impacts of tollingon the city (it sounds like he’s heard from the Bellevue Chamber that they are concerned tolling willdrive customers away from Bellevue businesses). Can we find some time in the next couple of weeks to do a phone briefing with Paul? Ideally youcould give me two or three dates/times the week of October 8th that would work for you andwhoever else might need to be part of the briefing. Thanks,Allison Allison Dane CamdenFederal Relations ManagerWashington State Department of TransportationOffice: (360) 705-7507Cell: (360) [email protected]

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Aldridge; JoCc: Larsen; ChadSubject: FW: Friday Morning Tolling Check-In AgendaDate: 10/4/2012 5:21:13 PMAttachments: Tolling Context and Hot Topics.docx; 20120928_I-90_Toll Agreement Request.docx------------------------------------------------------------

Jo - the attached letter from Paula to FHWA for the I-90 Toll Agreement is ready for her signature and to be sent to DC. Let me know when she has signed or if there are any changes she would like.

Craig

p.s. the date will need to be changed to when she signs.

-----Original Message-----From: Stone, CraigSent: Fri 9/28/2012 10:13 AMTo: Hammond, Paula; Judd, Ron; Lenzi, Jerry C; Ziegler, JenniferCc: Aldridge, JoSubject: Friday Morning Tolling Check-In Agenda

This is a piece we put together this week for Steve Reinmuth as agencies compiled key issues in anticipation of the upcoming governor change. I thought it would provide a good outline for our tolling check-in today.

I have also included a final draft of the I-90 letter to FHWA for seeking a toll agreement.

Craig

Craig J Stone, PE

Director, Washington State Toll Division

206.464.1222

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Aldridge; JoCc:Subject: RE: Friday Morning Tolling Check-In AgendaDate: 10/4/2012 5:49:24 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

yep, working it

-----Original Message-----From: Aldridge, JoSent: Thu 10/4/2012 10:41 AMTo: Stone, CraigCc: Larsen, ChadSubject: RE: Friday Morning Tolling Check-In Agenda

Changed the date, printed and on her desk for signing tomorrow.

Now did Paula ask you about the Pat McCarthy letter?

-----Original Message-----From: Stone, CraigSent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:21 AMTo: Aldridge, JoCc: Larsen, ChadSubject: FW: Friday Morning Tolling Check-In Agenda

Jo - the attached letter from Paula to FHWA for the I-90 Toll Agreement is ready for her signature and to be sent to DC. Let me know when she has signed or if there are any changes she would like.

Craig

p.s. the date will need to be changed to when she signs.

-----Original Message-----From: Stone, CraigSent: Fri 9/28/2012 10:13 AMTo: Hammond, Paula; Judd, Ron; Lenzi, Jerry C; Ziegler, JenniferCc: Aldridge, JoSubject: Friday Morning Tolling Check-In Agenda

This is a piece we put together this week for Steve Reinmuth as agencies compiled key issues in anticipation of the upcoming governor change. I thought it would provide a good outline for our tolling check-in today.

I have also included a final draft of the I-90 letter to FHWA for seeking a toll agreement.

Craig

Craig J Stone, PE

Director, Washington State Toll Division

206.464.1222

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Camden; AllisonCc:Subject: Fw: 520/I-90 Tolling - Bellevue Council directionDate: 10/9/2012 4:59:17 PMAttachments:

Fyi

From : Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Sent : Tuesday, October 09, 2012 09:53 AMTo : Stone, Craig; White, JohnSubject : FW: 520/I-90 Tolling - Bellevue Council direction


From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] ]Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 8:25 AMTo: [email protected]: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; Colleen GantsSubject: 520/I-90 Tolling - Bellevue Council direction

Good morning, Denise – Thank you for your call this morning regarding Council ’s positioning with regardto I-90 tolling and uses for other corridors, i.e., SR 520. The last time Council took action on this was in2009 as part of Council ’s adopted 2009 State Legislative Agenda. This could be revisited by Council toaccount for changing conditions, but this represents Bellevue ’s most current action. Excerpt from Bellevue ’s 2009 State Legislative Agenda: § Council ’s Position on 520 Tolling: Bellevue ’s position is that the purpose for tolling SR

520 should be to generate revenue to help fund construction of a new SR 520 bridge.Bellevue supports the following principles:

� Timing of tolls on SR 520 - Tolling on the existing SR 520 bridge may be acceptable in2010 if: (1) deployment of early tolls will result in earlier completion of the project; and (2)beginning earlier in 2010 allows for lower toll rates more acceptable to the public.

� Tolling approach: SR 520 only or both bridges - The toll should be applied only to SR520. If the scenarios tolling only SR 520 result in unreasonable toll rates, we would urgethe Legislature first to consider whether additional State or Federal resources should be

sought to allow the toll rate to be reduced. If it is determined that tolling I-90 is needed tohelp reduce the toll rate on SR 520 or to ease traffic diversion, then:

o The State should ensure that a toll is accompanied by improvements on the I-90corridor, such as completion of the R8-A or other projects and;

o The toll rate for I-90 should be set to minimize the diversion and to fill the fundinggap, rather than tolling it at the same level as SR 520.

� Segment tolling - The City of Bellevue does not support the use of segment tolls.

� Use of tolling revenues - Tolling revenue should be used for capital construction on thecorridor.

� Toll rates if both bridges are tolled - Should the state determine that there is a need totoll both SR 520 and I-90, the rate of the tolls on each should be established to bestaddress traffic diversion issues even if that requires differential rates over time. It will becritical that the relationship and purpose of the tolls be clearly linked to capitalimprovements on each corridor with distinct funding assignments between the twofacilities.

� Minimize and mitigate traffic diversion on corridors that are not tolled - SR 520tolling should be implemented in a manner that minimizes traffic diversion on alternatelocal and state routes to the greatest extent possible.

Kim BecklundTransportation Policy AdvisorCity of Bellevue, Transportation Dept.450 110th Avenue NEBellevue, WA 98004425-452-4491-w206-979-9265-m425-452-2874-f

This e-mail message and any included attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged

information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is STRICTLY prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please

contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.

From: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: FW: 121015-005 HAMMONDDate: 10/31/2012 3:42:49 PMAttachments: 10-26-12 HAMMOND SIGNED RESPONSE.pdf;

Hi Patty and Paul, You will most likely soon be receiving this letter (pdf) from Paula’s office. The direction within this letterappears to me to be counter to what we have researched and given you previous direction on. We mightwant to contact Darren together to assure that we have our process correct. Either way, this will mostlikely confuse Paula’s office (since she sent the WSDOT Toll Agreement request letter personally toVictor) and we should probably get to the bottom of why this response letter was sent. I have copiedAngela on this e-mail as well in hopes she might be able to shed any light. Thanks Randy EverettFHWA Major Projects Oversight ManagerPhone: 206-220-7538E-mail: [email protected]

From: Goodwillie, Teri (FHWA)On Behalf Of FHWA, Washington (FHWA)Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:24 AMTo: Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); Everett, Randolph (FHWA)Subject: FW: 121015-005 HAMMOND

For your information…please file as appropriate. No action is required. Teri GoodwillieAdministrative AssistantFederal Highway AdministrationWashington Division711 S. Capitol Way, Suite 501Olympia, WA [email protected]

From: Zaccagnino, Rosemary (FHWA)Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:29 AMTo: FHWA, Washington (FHWA); Pritchard, Edward A (FHWA)Cc: Peterson, Mary (FHWA)Subject: 121015-005 HAMMOND

From: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]: RE: 121015-005 HAMMONDDate: 11/1/2012 11:36:30 AMAttachments:

Hi Todd, Just a brief update…I have contacted Darren Timothy (referenced in the letter) and am attempting to setup a call with him shortly. It appears that all those in initial conversations concerning the subject (AngelaJacobs, James Colyar) continue to have the understanding we still require a Tolling Agreement. Therefore, I think we just need to get our Executives informed. I will let you know something soonhopefully. Randy EverettFHWA Major Projects Oversight ManagerPhone: 206-220-7538E-mail: [email protected]

From: Merkens, Todd [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:48 PMTo: Everett, Randolph (FHWA)Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)Subject: RE: 121015-005 HAMMOND

Randy, just to let you know we were able to talk with Paula’s office and give her a heads up. Let us know what you find out from Angela. Thanks, Todd S. MerkensTolling EngineerWSDOTOffice: (206) 716-1151Cell: (206) 799-7030E-mail: [email protected]

From: Merkens, ToddSent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:37 PMTo: Everett, Randolph (FHWA)Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)Subject: RE: 121015-005 HAMMOND

Hi Randy,

Nice to talk with you again. Here is my contact information, below: Thanks, Todd S. MerkensTolling EngineerWSDOTOffice: (206) 716-1151Cell: (206) 799-7030E-mail: [email protected]

From: Everett, Randolph (FHWA)Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:43 PMTo: Rubstello, Patty; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)Cc: Colyar, James (FHWA); Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); [email protected]: FW: 121015-005 HAMMOND


From: Goodwillie, Teri (FHWA)On Behalf Of FHWA, Washington (FHWA)Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:24 AMTo: Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); Everett, Randolph (FHWA)Subject: FW: 121015-005 HAMMOND


From: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: RE: 121015-005 HAMMONDDate: 11/1/2012 12:27:32 PMAttachments:

Hi Todd, Patty and Paul, James Colyar and I just got off the phone with Darren Timothy at our HQ office. No red flags here at all. The letter was simply meant to be a generic information letter responding to Paula’s letter asking you tocoordinate with Darren as you move forward with the Tolling Agreement process. Obviously, ourExecutives will most likely not be able to provide a definitive approval of a Tolling Agreement until thebitter end due to the politics of tolling, but they did want to respond to Paula since she had asked for aresponse by the end of October. Summary: Patty and Todd, you should work through Darren’s office as we move forward with developingthe Tolling Agreement. We know you will keep us involved as you move forward and we appreciate it. Thanks all Randy EverettFHWA Major Projects Oversight ManagerPhone: 206-220-7538E-mail: [email protected]

From: Everett, Randolph (FHWA)Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:43 PMTo: Rubstello, Patty ([email protected]); [email protected]: Colyar, James (FHWA); Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); Jacobs, Angela (FHWA)Subject: FW: 121015-005 HAMMOND


From: Goodwillie, Teri (FHWA)On Behalf Of FHWA, Washington (FHWA)Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:24 AMTo: Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); Everett, Randolph (FHWA)

Subject: FW: 121015-005 HAMMOND



From: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]: White, John [email protected]:Subject: FW: 121015-005 HAMMONDDate: 11/2/2012 9:11:48 AMAttachments:

Hi John I didn’t see you on the cc list. It looks like this was a non-issue, but I wanted you to be aware of theconversation. Paul

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 12:28 PMTo: Rubstello, Patty; Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Merkens, ToddCc: Colyar, James (FHWA); Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); [email protected]; Petersen, Don (FHWA)Subject: RE: 121015-005 HAMMOND



Hi Patty and Paul, You will most likely soon be receiving this letter (pdf) from Paula’s office. The direction within this letterappears to me to be counter to what we have researched and given you previous direction on. We might

want to contact Darren together to assure that we have our process correct. Either way, this will mostlikely confuse Paula’s office (since she sent the WSDOT Toll Agreement request letter personally toVictor) and we should probably get to the bottom of why this response letter was sent. I have copiedAngela on this e-mail as well in hopes she might be able to shed any light. Thanks Randy EverettFHWA Major Projects Oversight ManagerPhone: 206-220-7538E-mail: [email protected]

From: Goodwillie, Teri (FHWA) On Behalf Of FHWA, Washington (FHWA)Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:24 AMTo: Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); Everett, Randolph (FHWA)Subject: FW: 121015-005 HAMMOND



From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: [email protected]:Subject: Re: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90Date: 11/8/2012 2:57:29 AMAttachments:

Alison - Yes, I am the right person to follow up with. We'll be able to send you a copy of the letter toFHWA in the morning.

Craig

From: Hellberg, Alison [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 03:33 PMTo: Stone, CraigSubject: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90

Hi Craig, Hope you’re well. During the meeting last Wednesday in Bellevue, Secretary Hammond said that WSDOThad sent a letter to the FHWA about tolling I-90. Representative Clibborn wanted me to check aboutgetting a copy of the letter. Would you be the rightperson to contact about this? Thanks,Alison

Alison Reed Hellberg, CounselTransportation CommitteeOffice of Program ResearchWashington State House of Representatives360.786.7152

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Rubstello; PattyCc: Larsen; ChadSubject: Fw: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90Date: 11/8/2012 2:59:24 AMAttachments:

Patty-can you follow up with Alison and provide her our letter.

Perhaps you should include our prior letter of interest and their reply from the TIC work.

Craig

From: Stone, CraigSent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 06:57 PMTo: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>Subject: Re: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90


Craig


Hi Craig, Hope you’re well. During the meeting last Wednesday in Bellevue, Secretary Hammond said that WSDOThad sent a letter to the FHWA about tolling I-90. Representative Clibborn wanted me to check aboutgetting a copy of the letter. Would you be the rightperson to contact about this? Thanks,Alison


From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]: FW: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90Date: 11/8/2012 10:36:39 AMAttachments: WSDOT Expression of Interest for I-90 w Attachment.pdf; Response toWashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf; 20121005_I-90_Toll Agreement Letter to FHWA.pdf

Allison, Craig asked that I follow-up with you on your request. We have had previous discussions with FHWA onthe topic of tolling I-90. We thought it best to give you this background information in addition to thespecific letter you are requesting. Back in 2008, we had specific legislation (ESHB 3096) to initiate the conversation with FHWA todetermine if tolling I-90 was even an option with FHWA. At that time, FHWA’s process for gaining anunderstanding about what was possible as it relates to tolling was to submit an Expression of Interest. Ihave attached our expression of interest for your use. FHWA replied back with a letter, also attached,that indicated the various programs that were available at that time to support the various tollingscenarios we identified (full road tolling to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes). Now to the letter you were asking about. I have attached Paula’s letter that requests that both partiesengage in a tolling agreement. Please let me know if there is anything more you need on this topic. Patty Rubstello, PEToll Systems Development & EngineeringWSDOT(206)464-1299



Craig


Hi Craig,

Hope you’re well. During the meeting last Wednesday in Bellevue, Secretary Hammond said that WSDOThad sent a letter to the FHWA about tolling I-90. Representative Clibborn wanted me to check aboutgetting a copy of the letter. Would you be the right person to contact about this? Thanks,Alison


From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Rubstello; PattyCc:Subject: Re: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90Date: 11/8/2012 5:31:54 PMAttachments:

The response letter does not make much sense, so I was thinking we needed more info before we sentout the reply.

From: Rubstello, PattySent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 09:05 AMTo: Stone, CraigSubject: RE: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90

Do you want the response letter sent as well? I hate not sending it but it’s such a strange letter since itimplies we don’t need an agreement but we do. Patty Rubstello, PEToll Systems Development & EngineeringWSDOT(206)464-1299

From: Stone, CraigSent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 6:59 PMTo: Rubstello, PattyCc: Larsen, ChadSubject: Fw: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90

Patty-can you follow up with Alison and provide her our letter.

Perhaps you should include our prior letter of interest and their reply from the TIC work.

Craig



Craig

From: Hellberg, Alison [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 03:33 PM

To: Stone, CraigSubject: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90

Hi Craig, Hope you’re well. During the meeting last Wednesday in Bellevue, Secretary Hammond said that WSDOThad sent a letter to the FHWA about tolling I-90. Representative Clibborn wanted me to check aboutgetting a copy of the letter. Would you be the right person to contact about this? Thanks,Alison


From: Rubstello, Patty /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HOSLERPTo: [email protected]: Stone; CraigSubject: FW: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90Date: 11/8/2012 5:36:00 PMAttachments: WSDOT Expression of Interest for I-90 w Attachment.pdf; Response toWashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf; 20121005_I-90_Toll Agreement Letter to FHWA.pdf




Craig


Hi Craig,

From: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]: RE: I-90 Tolling Project Final Draft Purpose and NeedDate: 11/26/2012 2:29:22 PMAttachments:

I have reviewed the document and made a couple of edits/comments (see attached). As I mentioned in my comments on the EJ Outreach methodology document, somewhere we need tocommunicate what constitutes “HOV”. Currently, I-90 HOV refers to carpools with 2-plus occupants. Isthis going to change to 3+ or remain at 2+? In addition, it seems to me that there needs to be some discussion on potential impacts to Interstate-5 aspart of this document – considering SR 520, I-90 and AWV Bored Tunnel (and parts of I-405) are allproposed to be tolled. Would this be part of the cumulative/indirect effects discussion? Food forthought. Thank you,Jodi Jodi PetersenFHWA Division Civil Rights Program Manager711 S. Capitol Way, Suite 501Olympia, Washington 98501(360)[email protected]

From: Angove, Angela [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:04 PMTo: Everett, Randolph (FHWA); Everett, Randy (Consultant); Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); Love, Sharon (FHWA);Healy, Elizabeth (FHWA); Bridgers, Mystery (FHWA); Petersen, Jodi (FHWA)Cc: Angove, Angela; David Mattern; Cade, Deborah (ATG); Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Arnold, Paul; Hanson,AllisonSubject: I-90 Tolling Project Final Draft Purpose and Need

Good morning,I hope you all had a great holiday weekend. We have revised the purpose and need statement per FHWAcomments during our kickoff meeting October 29th. Please take another look and provide any additionalcomments or suggestions by COB Friday, December 7th. If you have no comments, we plan to use thisversion as the basis for our outreach and scoping materials knowing that it may change based on anycomments received during scoping. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you! Angela AngoveProject Environmental Manager999 Third Ave. Suite 2424

Seattle, WA 98104206-805-2832 office (Mon, Tues, Thurs, every other Fri)206-719-3619 cell (Wed)[email protected]

From: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]: RE: I-90 Tolling Project Final Draft Purpose and NeedDate: 11/26/2012 2:31:13 PMAttachments: Revised_Draft_Purpose_and_Need_for_FHWA(2).docx

I have reviewed the document and made a couple of edits/comments (see attached). As I mentioned in my comments on the EJ Outreach methodology document, somewhere we need tocommunicate what constitutes “HOV”. Currently, I-90 HOV refers to carpools with 2-plus occupants. Isthis going to change to 3+ or remain at 2+? In addition, it seems to me that there needs to be some discussion on potential impacts to Interstate-5 aspart of this document – considering SR 520, I-90 and AWV Bored Tunnel (and parts of I-405) are allproposed to be tolled. Would this be part of the cumulative/indirect effects discussion? Food forthought. Thank you,Jodi Jodi PetersenFHWA Division Civil Rights Program Manager711 S. Capitol Way, Suite 501Olympia, Washington 98501(360)[email protected]


Good morning,I hope you all had a great holiday weekend. We have revised the purpose and need statement per FHWAcomments during our kickoff meeting October 29th. Please take another look and provide any additionalcomments or suggestions by COB Friday, December 7th. If you have no comments, we plan to use thisversion as the basis for our outreach and scoping materials knowing that it may change based on anycomments received during scoping. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you! Angela AngoveProject Environmental Manager999 Third Ave. Suite 2424

Seattle, WA 98104206-805-2832 office (Mon, Tues, Thurs, every other Fri)206-719-3619 cell (Wed)[email protected]

From: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]: RE: I-90 Tolling Project Final Draft Purpose and NeedDate: 11/29/2012 10:28:11 AMAttachments: Revised_Draft_Purpose_and_Need_for_FHWA(with JLP and LLH comments).docx

Hi Angela, My comments on the I-90 Tolling Project Draft Purpose and Need are in the attachment. I included themwith Jodi Peterson’s review comments. Thanks,Lindsey Lindsey L. Handel, P.E.Urban Transportation EngineerFederal Highway Administration711 S. Capitol Way, Suite 501Olympia, WA [email protected]

From: Petersen, Jodi (FHWA)Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:31 PMTo: Angove, Angela; Everett, Randolph (FHWA); Everett, Randy (Consultant); Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); Love,Sharon (FHWA); Healy, Elizabeth (FHWA); Bridgers, Mystery (FHWA)Cc: David Mattern; Cade, Deborah (ATG); Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Arnold, Paul; Hanson, AllisonSubject: RE: I-90 Tolling Project Final Draft Purpose and Need

I have reviewed the document and made a couple of edits/comments (see attached). As I mentioned in my comments on the EJ Outreach methodology document, somewhere we need tocommunicate what constitutes “HOV”. Currently, I-90 HOV refers to carpools with 2-plus occupants. Isthis going to change to 3+ or remain at 2+? In addition, it seems to me that there needs to be some discussion on potential impacts to Interstate-5 aspart of this document – considering SR 520, I-90 and AWV Bored Tunnel (and parts of I-405) are allproposed to be tolled. Would this be part of the cumulative/indirect effects discussion? Food forthought. Thank you,Jodi Jodi PetersenFHWA Division Civil Rights Program Manager

711 S. Capitol Way, Suite 501Olympia, Washington 98501(360)[email protected]


Good morning,I hope you all had a great holiday weekend. We have revised the purpose and need statement per FHWAcomments during our kickoff meeting October 29th. Please take another look and provide any additionalcomments or suggestions by COB Friday, December 7th. If you have no comments, we plan to use thisversion as the basis for our outreach and scoping materials knowing that it may change based on anycomments received during scoping. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you! Angela AngoveProject Environmental Manager999 Third Ave. Suite 2424Seattle, WA 98104206-805-2832 office (Mon, Tues, Thurs, every other Fri)206-719-3619 cell (Wed)[email protected]

From: Merkens, Todd [email protected]: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; White, John [email protected]; Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]:Subject: RE: I-90 Tolling AgreementDate: 11/30/2012 11:01:19 AMAttachments: 20121130 I-90 Tolling Agreement DRAFT.docx------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an updated draft of the I-90 FHWA/WSDOT toll agreement:

<<20121130 I-90 Tolling Agreement DRAFT.docx>>Thanks,

Todd S. MerkensTolling EngineerWSDOTOffice: (206) 716-1151Cell: (206) 799-7030E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Appointment-----From: Rubstello, PattySent: Monday, November 26, 2012 2:46 PMTo: White, John; Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Merkens, Todd; Gants, Colleen (Consultant); Rubstello, PattySubject: I-90 Tolling AgreementWhen: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:00 AM-10:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).Where: Goldsmith - 4th Floor Medium

<<I-95 HOT Lanes - Project Brief.doc.doc>> Attached is an example of a briefing paper that I received from FHWA. They have asked that we develop a similar one for I-90. I wanted us to get together to discuss what we would put into the paper and who will be responsible for doing that. Also, define who needs to be a part of the review process as well.

From: White, John [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]: I-90 Leg BriefingDate: 12/4/2012 3:52:03 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Decided to do I-90 first due the enormous amount of 520 material. Thought it went well, there were only a few questions and a couple follow-ups. Both Amy Arnis and Ron Judd were there, along with the 520 crew.

Key points/follow-ups:

" Amy Arnis clarified that while WSDOT might need legislative toll authorization in 2014, there is also discussion of the possibility of 2013 authorization, which has some advantages related to the lead time required for future bond sales." There was a question regarding FHWA, and the potential for controversy regarding using toll revenue proceeds somewhere other than the tolled corridor (PA was referenced as the example). I referenced the integral nature of the 520/-I90 cross-lake corridor being different than the example, the MAP-21 allowance for such, and FHWA's history of support for the proposal. Outside of the meeting, Amy Arnis asked for a follow-up on the specific MAP-21 reference and any other FHWA guidance that clarifies the policy, I told her we would get back to her with something." Clint McCarthy wanted to clarify the agency request budget, said we would follow-up on that since I was fuzzy on the specific numbers.

John

From: Arnold, Paul [email protected]: White, John [email protected]; Stone, [email protected]; Gants, Colleen (Consultant)[email protected]: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Mouton,Michell [email protected]: RE: I-90 Leg BriefingDate: 12/4/2012 6:04:45 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

I will start pulling together a summary of the history of communications with FHWA tomorrow morning. Since we're using VPP, I'll pull together information related to that program and Map21 as well.

Paul

________________________________________From: White, John [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:52 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Cc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Mouton, MichellSubject: I-90 Leg Briefing




John


From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]: Arnold, Paul [email protected]; White, John [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Mouton, Michell [email protected]: RE: I-90 Leg BriefingDate: 12/4/2012 7:00:39 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Paul


-----Original Message-----From: Arnold, Paul [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 5:05 PMTo: White, John; Stone, Craig; Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Cc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Mouton, MichellSubject: RE: I-90 Leg Briefing

I will start pulling together a summary of the history of communications with FHWA tomorrow morning. Since we're using VPP, I'll pull together information related to that program and Map21 as well.

Paul

________________________________________From: White, John [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:52 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Cc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Mouton, MichellSubject: I-90 Leg Briefing




John

______________________________________________________________________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 e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: White; JohnCc:Subject: RE: I-90 Leg BriefingDate: 12/4/2012 11:44:48 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks. We should follow up at some point why I-80 in PA is different from I-90 in WA. I talked to Clibborn about this when PA was denied by FHWA.

-----Original Message-----From: White, JohnSent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:52 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Cc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Mouton, MichellSubject: I-90 Leg Briefing




John

From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; White, John [email protected]; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)[email protected]:Subject: Q&A's for the I-90 Bellevue Council presentation tonight - will bring you a copyDate: 12/10/2012 4:41:05 PMAttachments:

I-90 tolling: For tonight, be prepared to discuss:1. What is rationale for tolling I-90 but not I-5?

a) The 2211 Legislative Work Group recommended tolling I-90 if we could not find other means to fill theSR 520 funding gap. See arrow diagram for I-90 tolling discussions since 2006.

b) We are starting the visioning process for I-5 from Tumwater to Marysville now. Likely plans includeexpress toll lanes for I-5.

c) We are doing design work for I-5/SR 167/SR 509 Project now. Likely plans include express toll lanesfor I-5.

2. What is Seattle ’s experience with 99 route? What is anticipated impact of diversion? Has that beenconsidered for I-90 and SR 520 tolling?a) Yes, we are modeling diversion in a similar fashion to what is being modeled for SR 99.

3. What is anticipated impact to Mercer Island? Where would tolling sites be located to capture tolls

eastbound/westbound?a) We are studying the effects of tolling I-90 to Mercer Island.b) We are studying alternative tolling locations between I-5 and I-405.

4. How will membership on the Executive Advisory Committee be established?

a) We will send a letter to Mayor Conrad Lee with a request for participation by a Bellevue Councilmember.

5. Who are the important players in the decision making?a) The public will have input, as well as local jurisdictions.b) FHWA decides to sign a toll agreement authorizing tolls on I-90. The WA State Legislature will decide

I-90 toll authorization; and the Commission sets toll rates, exemptions and discounts.

6. What is timeline?a) Public Scoping & Comment – Jan. 22 to Feb. 22b) Public Scoping Mtgs. – Jan. 29, 30, 31c) Transportation Analysis – June 2013d) Public Hearing – November 2013e) Findings – Early 2014f) Toll Authorization Needed – 2014g) Toll Implementation – 2015/2016

7. Will some $ raised in the corridor stay in corridor or will all be diverted to SR 520?

a) The WA State Legislature will decide where toll revenue goes, taking into consideration the fundinggap on SR 520.

8. What are alternatives to tolling? If you live in Bellevue and want to go elsewhere, will need to pay toll. Bellevue has more skin in the game, with significantly greater impacts. Hope that ’s recognized andrewarded when gas tax is being sent out for projects. a) The alternative to tolling is raising the gas tax and acquiring federal loans. We have pursued and been

awarded several federal loans, we ’ve bonded, we ’ve tolled, we have 2003 & 2005 gas taxes, and there ’sstill a 520 funding gap.

b) As the 2211 Legislative Work Group recommended, we are looking at tolling I-90. See arrow diagramfor I-90 tolling discussions since 2006.

c) The 2012 WA State Legislature directed WSDOT to do an environmental review of tolling I-90. That ’swhere we are now.

d) As for preferences when a gas tax comes along, that is a legislative decision.

From: White, John [email protected]: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: RE: Q&A's for the I-90 Bellevue Council presentation tonight - will bring you a copyDate: 12/10/2012 5:17:56 PMAttachments:

The draft responses look good. A couple minor things:

· I ’ll look to Craig as to the messaging for I-5 ETL at this stage. It has been seeping out publicly throughrecent efforts, and as you reference, the I-5/SR 509/SR 167 project study underway right now is looking atspecific I-5 ETL scenarios. I am unclear as to the audience/visibility/timing of Rob ’s broader I-5 ETL study, butit feels like I-5 ETL will keep gaining more and more interest and visibility.

· Regarding SR 99 diversion, along with referencing the fact the transportation demand modeling effort forI-90/SR 520 will project diversion as the cross-lake corridor ‘re-balances ’ under full tolling, the diversionopportunities and characteristics for I-90/SR 520 are very different than SR 99 and the issues Seattle hasstruggled with.

John John H. White, P.E.WSDOT Toll Division

From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 3:41 PMTo: Stone, Craig; White, John; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)Subject: Q &A's for the I-90 Bellevue Council presentation tonight - will bring you a copy

I-90 tolling: For tonight, be prepared to discuss:

1. What is rationale for tolling I-90 but not I-5?a) The 2211 Legislative Work Group recommended tolling I-90 if we could not find other means to fill the

SR 520 funding gap. See arrow diagram for I-90 tolling discussions since 2006.b) We are starting the visioning process for I-5 from Tumwater to Marysville now. Likely plans include

express toll lanes for I-5.c) We are doing design work for I-5/SR 167/SR 509 Project now. Likely plans include express toll lanes

for I-5.

2. What is Seattle ’s experience with 99 route? What is anticipated impact of diversion? Has that beenconsidered for I-90 and SR 520 tolling?a) Yes, we are modeling diversion in a similar fashion to what is being modeled for SR 99.

3. What is anticipated impact to Mercer Island? Where would tolling sites be located to capture tolls

eastbound/westbound?a) We are studying the effects of tolling I-90 to Mercer Island.b) We are studying alternative tolling locations between I-5 and I-405.

4. How will membership on the Executive Advisory Committee be established?

a) We will send a letter to Mayor Conrad Lee with a request for participation by a Bellevue Councilmember.

5. Who are the important players in the decision making?a) The public will have input, as well as local jurisdictions.b) FHWA decides to sign a toll agreement authorizing tolls on I-90. The WA State Legislature will decide

I-90 toll authorization; and the Commission sets toll rates, exemptions and discounts.

6. What is timeline?a) Public Scoping & Comment – Jan. 22 to Feb. 22b) Public Scoping Mtgs. – Jan. 29, 30, 31c) Transportation Analysis – June 2013d) Public Hearing – November 2013e) Findings – Early 2014f) Toll Authorization Needed – 2014g) Toll Implementation – 2015/2016

7. Will some $ raised in the corridor stay in corridor or will all be diverted to SR 520?

a) The WA State Legislature will decide where toll revenue goes, taking into consideration the fundinggap on SR 520.

8. What are alternatives to tolling? If you live in Bellevue and want to go elsewhere, will need to pay toll. Bellevue has more skin in the game, with significantly greater impacts. Hope that ’s recognized andrewarded when gas tax is being sent out for projects. a) The alternative to tolling is raising the gas tax and acquiring federal loans. We have pursued and been

awarded several federal loans, we ’ve bonded, we ’ve tolled, we have 2003 & 2005 gas taxes, and there ’sstill a 520 funding gap.

b) As the 2211 Legislative Work Group recommended, we are looking at tolling I-90. See arrow diagramfor I-90 tolling discussions since 2006.

c) The 2012 WA State Legislature directed WSDOT to do an environmental review of tolling I-90. That ’swhere we are now.

d) As for preferences when a gas tax comes along, that is a legislative decision.

From: Arnold, Paul [email protected]: White, John [email protected]:Subject: RE: MAP-21 questionDate: 12/11/2012 4:09:29 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Hi John -

Yes - I left a packet with a flow chart showing the progression of communications with FHWA regarding I-90 tolling on your chair last week. Probably the best two documents I can share with respect to MAP-21 and the VPPP are attached below. I will send via separate e-mails to keep it short. I hope this helps.____________________________________________

Taken from FHWA Map-21 Questions and Answers on their website. I have highlighted the relevant text in Red.

www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21qandas/qatolling.cfm<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21qandas/qatolling.cfm>

Preliminary Tolling and Pricing Questions & AnswersPosted 9/25/2012

Question 4: What happens to the Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP) under MAP-21 (Section 1012(b) of ISTEA)?Answer 4: MAP-21 does not make any changes to this program. As a result, FHWA's ability to enter into cooperative agreements for projects that require tolling authority under this program for their implementation will continue. However, no additional funds are authorized after Fiscal Year 2012 for the discretionary grant component of this program.Question 5: May HOV lanes be converted to HOT lanes under MAP-21?Answer 5: Yes. Tolling authority for converting high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes remains available under the Section 166 HOV lanes program.Question 6: Are tolling agreements still required under MAP-21?Answer 6: Under MAP-21, tolling agreements are no longer required for the two mainstream tolling programs (Section 129 and Section 166). However, tolling agreements will continue to be required under the ISRRPP and VPPP.Question 7: Have any tolling authorities been mainstreamed under MAP-21?Answer 7: Yes. Tolling for the construction of new Interstate highways and the tolling of new lanes added to Interstate highways are now eligible under 23 U.S.C. 129. Prior to Section 1512 of MAP-21, these eligibilities were only available through pilot programs with limited participation.Question 8: Are there any new requirements associated with tolling authority under MAP-21?Answer 8: MAP-21 adds a new statutory requirement under 23 U.S.C. 129 and 166 for annual audits to verify adequate maintenance and compliance with the limitations on the use of revenues. If such audits reveal that an agency is not in compliance with these restrictions, MAP-21 also specifies that the Secretary of Transportation may order that toll collection be discontinued until an agreement to achieve compliance is reached.Question 9: Can toll revenues be used to fund transit investments?Answer 9: Yes. If the public authority certifies to the FHWA annually that the tolled facility is being adequately maintained, the public authority may use

toll revenues for any purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated by a State under title 23, United State Code. (Section 1512 of MAP-21; 23 U.S.C. 129(a)(3)(A)(iv)).Question 10: Will there be further guidance regarding tolling and pricing?Answer 10: Yes, further guidance is forthcoming.

________________________________________From: White, John [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:53 PMTo: Arnold, PaulSubject: MAP-21 question

Paul,

Had you had a chance to gather the specific reference to MAP-21 where the Value Pricing Program is carried forward, which would allow tolling of an existing Interstate highway without adding new capacity? I also thought there was a reference that allowed for using proceeds for needs outside of the highway being tolled?

I have a hard copy MAP-21 tolling reference in my office that I thought was pretty clear. Need something I can share by e-mail.

Thanks,

John


From: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]: White, John [email protected]:Subject: Map-21, VPPP and Tolling AgreementsDate: 12/11/2012 4:16:03 PMAttachments:

This e-mail is in response to a response from FHWA to a letter from Paula Hammond requesting to startthe process for an I-90 tolling agreement. Essentially, FHWA sent us a bit of a generic reply that got afew people confused. This e-mail chain confirms that we should move ahead with the process to createa tolling agreement through Darren Timothy. Not sure that this chain is worth forwarding on to others. Randy is somewhat informal in his language –see below. However, this gives you a pretty clear picture of where we stand. Paul

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 12:28 PMTo: Rubstello, Patty; Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Merkens, ToddCc: Colyar, James (FHWA); Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); [email protected]; Petersen, Don (FHWA)Subject: RE: 121015-005 HAMMOND



Hi Patty and Paul,

You will most likely soon be receiving this letter (pdf) from Paula’s office. The direction within this letterappears to me to be counter to what we have researched and given you previous direction on. We mightwant to contact Darren together to assure that we have our process correct. Either way, this will mostlikely confuse Paula’s office (since she sent the WSDOT Toll Agreement request letter personally toVictor) and we should probably get to the bottom of why this response letter was sent. I have copiedAngela on this e-mail as well in hopes she might be able to shed any light. Thanks Randy EverettFHWA Major Projects Oversight ManagerPhone: 206-220-7538E-mail: [email protected]

From: Goodwillie, Teri (FHWA) On Behalf Of FHWA, Washington (FHWA)Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:24 AMTo: Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); Everett, Randolph (FHWA)Subject: FW: 121015-005 HAMMOND




Sorry - I must have mis-typed the link. This one should work.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qatolling.cfm

________________________________________From: White, John [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:20 PMTo: Arnold, PaulSubject: Re: MAP-21 question

Thanks Paul, I have and appreciate the flow chart with the history. I must have missed the MAP-21 references, and the FHWA web link seems to have changed.

----- Original Message -----From: Arnold, Paul [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 03:09 PMTo: White, JohnSubject: RE: MAP-21 question

Hi John -





Question 4: What happens to the Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP) under MAP-21 (Section 1012(b) of ISTEA)?Answer 4: MAP-21 does not make any changes to this program. As a result, FHWA's ability to enter into cooperative agreements for projects that require tolling authority under this program for their implementation will continue. However, no additional funds are authorized after Fiscal Year 2012 for the discretionary grant component of this program.Question 5: May HOV lanes be converted to HOT lanes under MAP-21?

Answer 5: Yes. Tolling authority for converting high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes remains available under the Section 166 HOV lanes program.Question 6: Are tolling agreements still required under MAP-21?Answer 6: Under MAP-21, tolling agreements are no longer required for the two mainstream tolling programs (Section 129 and Section 166). However, tolling agreements will continue to be required under the ISRRPP and VPPP.Question 7: Have any tolling authorities been mainstreamed under MAP-21?Answer 7: Yes. Tolling for the construction of new Interstate highways and the tolling of new lanes added to Interstate highways are now eligible under 23 U.S.C. 129. Prior to Section 1512 of MAP-21, these eligibilities were only available through pilot programs with limited participation.Question 8: Are there any new requirements associated with tolling authority under MAP-21?Answer 8: MAP-21 adds a new statutory requirement under 23 U.S.C. 129 and 166 for annual audits to verify adequate maintenance and compliance with the limitations on the use of revenues. If such audits reveal that an agency is not in compliance with these restrictions, MAP-21 also specifies that the Secretary of Transportation may order that toll collection be discontinued until an agreement to achieve compliance is reached.Question 9: Can toll revenues be used to fund transit investments?Answer 9: Yes. If the public authority certifies to the FHWA annually that the tolled facility is being adequately maintained, the public authority may use toll revenues for any purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated by a State under title 23, United State Code. (Section 1512 of MAP-21; 23 U.S.C. 129(a)(3)(A)(iv)).Question 10: Will there be further guidance regarding tolling and pricing?Answer 10: Yes, further guidance is forthcoming.


Paul,



Thanks,

John




BTW - I wasn't being snippy - I'm always happy to help. But, I thought if you did bring the packet with you it had a handy table with the VPPP issues and federal requirements in the back to which you could refer. MAP-21 didn't explicitly deal with VPPP it just didn't cancel it so we had to ask FHWA if it stayed in effect. They said it does just without additional funding.

Thanks,

Paul

________________________________________From: White, John [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:20 PMTo: Arnold, PaulSubject: Re: MAP-21 question



Hi John -





Question 4: What happens to the Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP) under MAP-21 (Section 1012(b) of ISTEA)?Answer 4: MAP-21 does not make any changes to this program. As a result, FHWA's ability to enter into cooperative agreements for projects that require tolling

authority under this program for their implementation will continue. However, no additional funds are authorized after Fiscal Year 2012 for the discretionary grant component of this program.Question 5: May HOV lanes be converted to HOT lanes under MAP-21?Answer 5: Yes. Tolling authority for converting high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes remains available under the Section 166 HOV lanes program.Question 6: Are tolling agreements still required under MAP-21?Answer 6: Under MAP-21, tolling agreements are no longer required for the two mainstream tolling programs (Section 129 and Section 166). However, tolling agreements will continue to be required under the ISRRPP and VPPP.Question 7: Have any tolling authorities been mainstreamed under MAP-21?Answer 7: Yes. Tolling for the construction of new Interstate highways and the tolling of new lanes added to Interstate highways are now eligible under 23 U.S.C. 129. Prior to Section 1512 of MAP-21, these eligibilities were only available through pilot programs with limited participation.Question 8: Are there any new requirements associated with tolling authority under MAP-21?Answer 8: MAP-21 adds a new statutory requirement under 23 U.S.C. 129 and 166 for annual audits to verify adequate maintenance and compliance with the limitations on the use of revenues. If such audits reveal that an agency is not in compliance with these restrictions, MAP-21 also specifies that the Secretary of Transportation may order that toll collection be discontinued until an agreement to achieve compliance is reached.Question 9: Can toll revenues be used to fund transit investments?Answer 9: Yes. If the public authority certifies to the FHWA annually that the tolled facility is being adequately maintained, the public authority may use toll revenues for any purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated by a State under title 23, United State Code. (Section 1512 of MAP-21; 23 U.S.C. 129(a)(3)(A)(iv)).Question 10: Will there be further guidance regarding tolling and pricing?Answer 10: Yes, further guidance is forthcoming.


Paul,

Had you had a chance to gather the specific reference to MAP-21 where the Value Pricing Program is carried forward, which would allow tolling of an existing

Interstate highway without adding new capacity? I also thought there was a reference that allowed for using proceeds for needs outside of the highway being tolled?


Thanks,

John



From: White, John /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=WHITEJHTo: Arnold; PaulCc:Subject: Re: MAP-21 questionDate: 12/11/2012 11:20:50 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------



Hi John -





Question 4: What happens to the Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP) under MAP-21 (Section 1012(b) of ISTEA)?Answer 4: MAP-21 does not make any changes to this program. As a result, FHWA's ability to enter into cooperative agreements for projects that require tolling authority under this program for their implementation will continue. However, no additional funds are authorized after Fiscal Year 2012 for the discretionary grant component of this program.Question 5: May HOV lanes be converted to HOT lanes under MAP-21?Answer 5: Yes. Tolling authority for converting high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes remains available under the Section 166 HOV lanes program.Question 6: Are tolling agreements still required under MAP-21?Answer 6: Under MAP-21, tolling agreements are no longer required for the two mainstream tolling programs (Section 129 and Section 166). However, tolling agreements will continue to be required under the ISRRPP and VPPP.Question 7: Have any tolling authorities been mainstreamed under MAP-21?Answer 7: Yes. Tolling for the construction of new Interstate highways and the tolling of new lanes added to Interstate highways are now eligible under 23 U.S.C. 129. Prior to Section 1512 of MAP-21, these eligibilities were only available through pilot programs with limited participation.

Question 8: Are there any new requirements associated with tolling authority under MAP-21?Answer 8: MAP-21 adds a new statutory requirement under 23 U.S.C. 129 and 166 for annual audits to verify adequate maintenance and compliance with the limitations on the use of revenues. If such audits reveal that an agency is not in compliance with these restrictions, MAP-21 also specifies that the Secretary of Transportation may order that toll collection be discontinued until an agreement to achieve compliance is reached.Question 9: Can toll revenues be used to fund transit investments?Answer 9: Yes. If the public authority certifies to the FHWA annually that the tolled facility is being adequately maintained, the public authority may use toll revenues for any purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated by a State under title 23, United State Code. (Section 1512 of MAP-21; 23 U.S.C. 129(a)(3)(A)(iv)).Question 10: Will there be further guidance regarding tolling and pricing?Answer 10: Yes, further guidance is forthcoming.


Paul,



Thanks,

John

______________________________________________________________________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 e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.

From: White, John /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=WHITEJHTo: Rubstello; PattyCc:Subject: Re: MAP-21 questionDate: 12/12/2012 12:24:08 AMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

I have that, guess the question was 'is there anything else' relevant in the changes. We're fine for now, maybe we can catch up tomorrow or Thurs re: FHWA and the toll agreement discussions?

----- Original Message -----From: Rubstello, PattySent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 03:22 PMTo: White, JohnSubject: RE: MAP-21 question

I heard from Paul he sent you something on this. The challenge is MAP-21 was silent to VPP. Which means they didn't change anything about it.

Patty Rubstello, PEToll Policy and System Development, DirectorWSDOT(206)464-1299

-----Original Message-----From: White, JohnSent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:07 PMTo: Rubstello, PattySubject: Fw: MAP-21 question

Patty,

Forwarding this to you in case you have something readily available. Looking for the specific MAP-21 references that 'allow' for tolling of I-90 and using proceeds outside of the corridor.

If you don't have something readily available, I'll track it down tomorrow.

Thanks,

John

----- Original Message -----From: White, JohnSent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 02:53 PMTo: Arnold, PaulSubject: MAP-21 question

Paul,

Had you had a chance to gather the specific reference to MAP-21 where the Value Pricing Program is carried forward, which would allow tolling of an existing Interstate highway without adding new capacity? I also thought there was a

reference that allowed for using proceeds for needs outside of the highway being tolled?


Thanks,

John

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: White, John [email protected]; [email protected]:Subject: Re: MAP-21 questionDate: 12/12/2012 6:37:15 PMAttachments:

I'm not aware that anything else changed. All of the conversations we have had with the feds have

said the same thing. I nudged Colleen again yesterday about the brief paper we need to send in.

I'm out until next Wednesday. Feel free to chat with Todd if you need something more before I get

back.


"White, John" <[email protected]> wrote:

I have that, guess the question was 'is there anything else' relevant in the changes. We're fine for

now, maybe we can catch up tomorrow or Thurs re: FHWA and the toll agreement discussions?

----- Original Message -----

From: Rubstello, Patty

Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 03:22 PM

To: White, John

Subject: RE: MAP-21 question

I heard from Paul he sent you something on this. The challenge is MAP-21 was silent to VPP.

Which means they didn't change anything about it.

Patty Rubstello, PE

Toll Policy and System Development, Director

WSDOT

(206)464-1299

-----Original Message-----

From: White, John


To: Rubstello, Patty

Subject: Fw: MAP-21 question

Patty,

Forwarding this to you in case you have something readily available. Looking for the specific MAP-

21 references that 'allow' for tolling of I-90 and using proceeds outside of the corridor.

If you don't have something readily available, I'll track it down tomorrow.

Thanks,

John

----- Original Message -----

From: White, John


To: Arnold, Paul

Subject: MAP-21 question

Paul,

Had you had a chance to gather the specific reference to MAP-21 where the Value Pricing Program

is carried forward, which would allow tolling of an existing Interstate highway without adding new

capacity? I also thought there was a reference that allowed for using proceeds for needs outside of

the highway being tolled?

I have a hard copy MAP-21 tolling reference in my office that I thought was pretty clear. Need

something I can share by e-mail.

Thanks,

John

From: Farley, Kimberly [email protected]: Hammond, Paula [email protected]; Arnis, Amy [email protected]: Laird, Linea [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Judd, [email protected]; Grotefendt, Amy [email protected]; Turner, Amy (Consultant)[email protected]: ACTT progress reportDate: 12/17/2012 4:54:38 PMAttachments: ACTT_Progressreport_letter_draft_121212.pdf; ACTT_Progressreport_draft_121212.pdf

Paula and Amy,

Attached is the draft letter from ACTT co-chairs Maud Daudon and Claudia Balducci and thecommittee’s progress report. Late this week or next week, the report will be mailed to a variety ofrecipients including the Governor, State Treasurer, legislative transportation leadership, SeattleCity Councilmembers and the Mayor, FHWA and the viaduct program partner agencies. You willboth receive a copy as well. I thought you might also be interested to know that Ellen Evans, Deputy Treasure, met with Maud todiscuss their report. From Maud’s perspective, it was a very candid and positive conversation (I’m sureAmy you have heard more than I have about their meeting).

The committee chose to provide this report halfway through their analysis of potential tollscenarios for the SR 99 tunnel. Committee recommendations about tolling the tunnel andminimizing and mitigating the effects from traffic diversion are anticipated in mid-2013. I thought you would want a heads up on the policy questions that have been discussed in ACTTmeeting, which they have included in the letter and report. We have discussed these with youpreviously, but I thought I would summarized them here because they will likely be of interest toyou, the Commission, and legislators.

· Priority of state’s use of toll revenue: what types of costs should be covered by tollrevenue and in what relative order.

· Financing and toll rate adjustments: how capital costs could be financed and whether tollrates could be adjusted in future years to keep up with inflation.

· Allocation of toll collection costs: how statewide tolling system costs are allocated amongfacilities.

· Systems approach to tolling: as the region moves forward with studying and tollingadditional highways, the committee sees value in analyzing a systems approach to tolling –I-5, I-405, I-90, SR 99 - to reduce diversion across the regional roadway network.

· Freight rates: what freight rate structure makes sense for the tunnel.

· Mitigation funding: finding a funding source for potential mitigation measures.

· Transit funding: finding a sustainable funding source for King County Metro service. The co-chairs will discuss the progress report at the Jan. 23 Transportation Commission meetingand have offered briefings to other policymakers as well.

We have a tolling update on Friday where we can talk more about this if you would like. Talk with you Friday, Kimberly Farley, JDDirector of Operations, AWV Project999 3rd Ave., Suite 2424

Seattle, WA 98104

office: 206-805-2827

cell: 206-659-2557

From: Farley, Kimberly [email protected]: Griffith, Reema [email protected]; Parker, Paul [email protected]; Crocker, [email protected]: Turner, Amy (Consultant) [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected];Laird, Linea [email protected]; Judd, Ron [email protected]: Coming soon - ACTT Progress reportDate: 12/18/2012 1:55:08 PMAttachments:

Happy Holidays! I am following up with you about the letter that will be coming from the co-chairs of the AdvisoryCommittee on Tolling and Traffic Management (ACTT), Maud Daudon and Claudia Balducci, alongwith the committee’s progress report. Late this week or next week, the report will be mailed to avariety of recipients including the Governor, State Treasurer, legislative transportation leadership,the Transportation Commission, Seattle City Council members, the Mayor, FHWA and the viaductprogram partner agencies.

The committee chose to provide this report halfway through their analysis of potential tollscenarios for the SR 99 tunnel. Committee recommendations about tolling the tunnel andminimizing and mitigating the effects from traffic diversion are anticipated in mid-2013. I thought you would want a heads up on the policy questions that have been discussed in ACTTmeeting, which they have included in the letter and report. We have discussed these in previousbriefings, but I thought I would summarize them here because they will likely be of interest to you,the Governor, and legislators.







· Transit funding: finding a sustainable funding source for King County Metro service. The co-chairs will discuss the progress report at the Jan. 23 Transportation Commission meeting,and they have offered to provide briefings to other policymakers as well. Please feel free to call me if you have questions.

Kimberly Farley, JDDirector of Operations, AWV Project999 3rd Ave., Suite 2424

Seattle, WA 98104

office: 206-805-2827

cell: 206-659-2557

From: Griffith, Reema [email protected]: Farley, Kimberly [email protected]; Parker, Paul [email protected]; Crocker, [email protected]: Turner, Amy (Consultant) [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected];Laird, Linea [email protected]; Judd, Ron [email protected]: RE: Coming soon - ACTT Progress reportDate: 12/18/2012 2:49:05 PMAttachments:

Excellent update Kimberly. Thanks for sending along.Reema

From: Farley, KimberlySent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:55 PMTo: Griffith, Reema; Parker, Paul; Crocker, NoahCc: Turner, Amy (Consultant); Stone, Craig; Laird, Linea; Judd, RonSubject: Coming soon - ACTT Progress report

Happy Holidays! I am following up with you about the letter that will be coming from the co-chairs of the AdvisoryCommittee on Tolling and Traffic Management (ACTT), Maud Daudon and Claudia Balducci, alongwith the committee’s progress report. Late this week or next week, the report will be mailed to avariety of recipients including the Governor, State Treasurer, legislative transportation leadership,the Transportation Commission, Seattle City Council members, the Mayor, FHWA and the viaductprogram partner agencies.

The committee chose to provide this report halfway through their analysis of potential tollscenarios for the SR 99 tunnel. Committee recommendations about tolling the tunnel andminimizing and mitigating the effects from traffic diversion are anticipated in mid-2013. I thought you would want a heads up on the policy questions that have been discussed in ACTTmeeting, which they have included in the letter and report. We have discussed these in previousbriefings, but I thought I would summarize them here because they will likely be of interest to you,the Governor, and legislators.







· Transit funding: finding a sustainable funding source for King County Metro service. The co-chairs will discuss the progress report at the Jan. 23 Transportation Commission meeting,and they have offered to provide briefings to other policymakers as well. Please feel free to call me if you have questions. Kimberly Farley, JDDirector of Operations, AWV Project999 3rd Ave., Suite 2424

Seattle, WA 98104

office: 206-805-2827

cell: 206-659-2557

From: Rubstello, Patty /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HOSLERPTo: Consultant Gants; Colleen (Consultant); White; John; Merkens; ToddCc: Consultant Arnold; Paul (Consultant); Mouton; MichellSubject: RE: I-90 Tolling Fact Sheet for FHWA Toll AuthoriizationDate: 12/21/2012 10:03:00 PMAttachments: 20121221_I-90 Fact Sheet for Toll Authorization pr.docx

I took a look and made some edits. Clearly need some word-smithing but I think you will get what I wastrying to do. I inserted a few photos that I think help as well. If you have better ones, please feel free touse them instead. Patty Rubstello, PEToll Policy and System Development, DirectorWSDOT(206)464-1299

From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:43 AMTo: Rubstello, Patty; White, JohnCc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Mouton, MichellSubject: I-90 Tolling Fact Sheet for FHWA Toll Authoriization

Attached, along with latest Purpose and Need for the I-90 Tolling EA. Paul suggested providing you withboth the clean Purpose & Need and the version that has FHWA Q&A with it. Saved at: I:\\5 Communications & Government Relations\\1_I90\\FHWA Toll Authorization Thanks,Colleen Colleen GantsWSDOT Toll DivisionCommunications & External Affairs206-465-2311 (cell) 206-716-1150 (desk)[email protected]

From: Angove, Angela /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=FREUDATo: FHWA Handel; Lindsey (FHWA)Cc:Subject: Need FHWA signature and distribution of I-90 Tolling invitation lettersDate: 12/21/2012 11:16:35 PMAttachments: NEPA_tribal participating letter.doc; I-90 Final Draft Legal Notice_12-18-12(2).doc; I-90TribalConsultationPlan_DRAFT_1-13.doc

Lindsey,Per my voicemail, here is the letter that needs to be sent out to the tribes for the I-90 Tolling Project. Weplan to send out the other letters the first week of January. I will be out next week but tracking emailsand calls on my blackberry. Feel free to call if you need to before sending these out. There is somediscussion about changing the location of the third scoping meeting-if that happens I will make sure tosend you a revised scoping notice ASAP. Thank you! Happy Holidays! Angela AngoveProject Environmental Manager999 Third Ave. Suite 2424Seattle, WA 98104206-805-2832 office (Mon, Tues, Thurs, every other Fri)206-719-3619 cell (Wed)[email protected]

craig hello, thanks - mercer island, washington prr 2012 emails.pdf · demand of the facility by...

Documents